|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jun 10, 2019 21:45:25 GMT
studio interference? Obviously, it's usually not a good thing, but I feel like Superman Returns for one may have been better if the filmmakers hadn't been allowed so far up their own ass.
|
|
|
|
Post by northern on Jun 10, 2019 21:51:10 GMT
Heaven's Gate comes to mind.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 10, 2019 21:53:36 GMT
The Star Wars prequels.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jun 10, 2019 21:54:40 GMT
How so? Not saying I disagree, but could you elaborate?
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 10, 2019 23:28:15 GMT
Yeah that's a good one. Less lovey-dovey, more punching. Also enough with the real estate shenanigans.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jun 10, 2019 23:31:09 GMT
Terminator Salvation? This isn't my lane because I can't tell if a movie had too much or too little studio hand holding.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jun 10, 2019 23:36:26 GMT
"ROGUE ONE" benefited when The Studio stepped in and told Gareth Edwards to make the ending more Action Packed.
"SCREAM 4" benefited when The Studio stepped in and had Ehren Kruger write the Entire Hospital Ending to give that Movie a Conclusion instead of just having it end with pretty much a "To Be Continued" which is what Kevin Williamson wanted.
The 1 Movie that I think was Totally Killed by Studio Inference was the 2011 Prequel of "THE THING".
I actually like that Movie (I even own it on DVD) but the Studio stepped in and had almost all of the Practical Effects from the Movie covered over with Bad CGI which clearly needed a whole lot more work on it. Both the Director and the Guys from ADI (They did the Practical Effects on the Movie) were Disappointed and Upset when they saw that that had happened (I heard that the ADI Guys actually didn't even know about it until they saw the Movie at it's Premiere).
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 10, 2019 23:38:41 GMT
Spider-man 3? They could have at least gotten rid of emo Spider-man.
|
|
|
|
Post by anthonyrocks on Jun 10, 2019 23:46:55 GMT
Spider-man 3? They could have at least gotten rid of emo Spider-man. After he had finished the 3rd Movie, Sam Raimi actually had a GREAT Idea for a "SPIDER-MAN 4".
His Idea would basically be Spider-Man (Played by Tobey Maguire) go up against The Vulture (He would have been Played by John Malkovich) and then at some point halfway through the Movie, Spider-Man would defeat The Vulture and then for the rest of the Movie, Spider-Man would go up against his daughter who would be called The Vulturess (She would have been Played by Anne Hathaway).
However, The Studio interfered while casting was still going on and insisted to Sam Raimi that the Main Villain in the 4th Movie really be The Lizard, Raimi refused, The Studio asked him again, Again Raimi refused, The Studio stood it's ground, Raimi stood his ground, and The Studio then canceled the whole project and we then got "THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN" instead.
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jun 11, 2019 0:46:54 GMT
Spider-man 3? They could have at least gotten rid of emo Spider-man. After he had finished the 3rd Movie, Sam Raimi actually had a GREAT Idea for a "SPIDER-MAN 4".
His Idea would basically be Spider-Man (Played by Tobey Maguire) go up against The Vulture (He would have been Played by John Malkovich) and then at some point halfway through the Movie, Spider-Man would defeat The Vulture and then for the rest of the Movie, Spider-Man would go up against his daughter who would be called The Vulturess (She would have been Played by Anne Hathaway).
However, The Studio interfered while casting was still going on and insisted to Sam Raimi that the Main Villain in the 4th Movie really be The Lizard, Raimi refused, The Studio asked him again, Again Raimi refused, The Studio stood it's ground, Raimi stood his ground, and The Studio then canceled the whole project and we then got "THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN" instead.
Well that certainly would have been an interesting way to go with it. I'm sure it would have been better than Amazing Spider-Man though.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 11, 2019 0:55:09 GMT
Spider-man 3? They could have at least gotten rid of emo Spider-man. I thought interference was the reason we got the movie we did.
|
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 11, 2019 1:00:13 GMT
John Carter - Stanton was a PIXAR golden boy and while I think the movie is good (The score is sublime), it should have been way better given the director creds. Granted the marketing was truly the worst thing I've ever seen, but stil, like Aladdin, it could have been overcome with a movie people wanted to see.
Same thing with
Tomorrowland & Brad Bird
|
|
|
|
Post by Archelaus on Jun 11, 2019 1:18:25 GMT
Godzilla (1998) The Last Airbender Sucker Punch The Mummy (2017): It is a bad decision to let Tom Cruise have creative control over the film. The Lone Ranger Spider-man 3? They could have at least gotten rid of emo Spider-man. is what it is because of studio interference, particularly Avi Arad wanted Venom and the rest of them wanted Gwen Stacy in the film.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Jun 11, 2019 1:29:50 GMT
How so? Not saying I disagree, but could you elaborate? Lucas didn't have anyone to tell him no on the prequels like he did on A New Hope, and there were certainly a lot of things to say no to in the prequels. Likely not a coincidence ANH is a great film while the prequels are mostly very bad ones. |
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 11, 2019 1:35:14 GMT
Spider-man 3? They could have at least gotten rid of emo Spider-man. Spider-Man 3 is the way it is BECAUSE of studio interference. Sam Raimi had zero interest in using Venom, but he was forced to. My theory is that he stopped giving a shit at that point and might have even sabotaged the film intentionally. Emo Peter Parker wouldn't even be in it if he was allowed to make the movie he wanted to make.
|
|
|
|
Post by ck100 on Jun 11, 2019 1:58:15 GMT
King Kong for Peter Jackson. I'm glad he had as much creative freedom as he did, but I think he needed a tighter leash on him when it came to length and some of the casting choices (Adrian Brody and Jack Black).
|
|
|
|
Post by vegalyra on Jun 11, 2019 17:43:04 GMT
The Hobbit. The studio should have (but I know it never would have since it was an easy cash grab) told Jackson we only need 1 longish film (around 3 hours) or maybe 2 films at the max. It's ridiculous that the Hobbit was split up into 3 films. In retrospect the studio could have green lit 6 Lord of the Rings film since Fellowship especially was missing Tom Bombadil and the Barrow Wights. It would have made more sense.
Ishtar is another one that comes to mind. Although I personally find the film pretty funny and goofy, it was a major bust financially. The studio was dealing with some massive egos.
|
|
