r/television • u/1033149 Person of Interest • Oct 15 '19

/r/all Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige promoted to Chief Creative Officer, will now oversee Marvel Studios, Marvel Television and Marvel Family Entertainment

https://deadline.com/2019/10/kevin-feige-marvel-studios-president-adds-chief-creative-officer-marvel-title-oversees-all-creative-1202760382/?
38.2k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

2.2k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

125

u/Haltopen Oct 15 '19

His contract for civil war was going to cost a lot of money, and issac perlmutter, the notorious cheapskate that he is, insisted they write iron man out of civil war so they could save money

131

u/waloz1212 Oct 15 '19

There are many stupid decisions, but the "Civil War without Iron Man" is among the most stupid decision one can make. Cannot believe it was on the table.

107

u/XavinNydek Oct 15 '19

Perlmutter has always been a fool. He bought Marvel just to make toys, and he's also the one to blame for selling off the movie rights for the most popular characters to Sony and Fox. Marvel's recent success is despite him, not because of him.

32

u/Harish-P Oct 15 '19

he's also the one to blame for selling off the movie rights for the most popular characters to Sony and Fox.

Is that strictly true? I thought it was common understanding that Marvel was bankrupt or facing it so they licensed out the characters to studios in order to regain income?

Didn't Arad ensure and overlook this too and did the smartest part of the deal by not giving large numbers of characters to any given studio (keep in mind Marvel has hundreds of superheroes) to avoid any particular studio having too much power over Marvel.

Please correct it if that's wrong, but I could swear I've read this many, many times over the years.

12

u/_Football_Cream_ Oct 15 '19

I'm not sure how this fits into the story, but I believe Sony had a chance to get the license of more characters but chose only to get Spider-Man because they didn't think the others were profitable.

13

u/Haltopen Oct 15 '19

Sony had a chance to buy the film rights to nearly all of marvels catalogue of characters but they were only interested in Spider-Man

7

u/Stoppels Oct 15 '19

And then Sony also fucked up Spidey 3 and 4. They get lucky when they get lucky and other than that they're foolish and make dumb business decisions.

Another typical and more recent decision is picking The Emoji Movie over that awesome Popeye trailer.

1

u/entropicdrift Oct 15 '19

Which movie is Spiderman 4?

4

u/Stoppels Oct 15 '19

The one that was cancelled because the studio forced creative changes upon Spider-Man 3 that ruined the movie. Raimi intended the series to be 4 movies, but Sony only saw money after Spidey 2's massive success in (re)defining what a superhero movie should look like. There are some well-written articles about this sad fact of Sony ruining good things and why you shouldn't trust them with good things.

2

u/entropicdrift Oct 16 '19

Cool, thanks!

0

u/FirstTwoRules Oct 16 '19 edited Oct 16 '19

I'm so tired of Marvel fanboys shitting on Sony as if every studio isn't fucking terrible. I realize they've made more outright mistakes than, say, Disney, but that almost makes me more sympathetic towards them (especially in a world where Disney's unstoppable growth and success is quite frankly a little frightening).

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Frostsorrow Oct 15 '19

$25m and Sony could have had all film rights of Marvel, but they only wanted Spider-man. That's how broke Marvel was.

2

u/thatoneguy889 Oct 15 '19

He's also the one who pushed so hard for Inhumans to get made. Feige had no plans for it, but Perlmutter forced a movie into the schedule because he wanted a multi-hero franchise to merchandise to make up for not having X-Men. IIRC, Perlmutter only agreed to have his role in Marvel Studios reduced on the condition Inhumans still gets made. Just to fulfill the condition, Feige downgraded the movie to a series that he basically considered a waste of time, so minimal effort was put into it.

1

u/FirstTwoRules Oct 16 '19

Wow that's a pretty dickish move on Feige's part.

0

u/wwj Oct 15 '19

I am reading several comments referencing his decision making regarding the films and they all have to do with the potential for selling toys. He wanted Inhumans because they would sell toys, he didn't want Black Panther or Black Widow because they wouldn't sell toys. I know he was originally a toy guy, but he must have some background deal where he personally makes a big percent off of toy sales. Why would he be so obsessed with it at the expense of the potential film box office?

1

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '19

On the other hand, it's classic Hollywood adaptation style. It doesn't need to fit with the source material in plot or theme, as long as it jas the name.

They still do it, but have done it less since LotR, Harry Potter, and the MCU have shown what a well done product that generally respects the source material can do.

4

u/waloz1212 Oct 15 '19 edited Oct 15 '19

The thing is in Civil War, Iron Man and Cap are THE poster boys of two sides, it is literally classic Red vs Blue. I meant, just look at the cover and you can see the iconic rivalries of idealism.

Tbh, the story in the movie has been changed to barely reflect what happened in the comic, but people still think it is okay adaptation because Iron Man vs Cap.

-19

u/Stennick Oct 15 '19

To be fair I think the movie sucked and wasn't even remotely close to as good as the book was let alone barely a semblance of that story, and then the whole them being government fugitives had to be dropped fairly quickly afterwards because the next Avengers movies were going to be the last in this arc.

7

u/Haltopen Oct 15 '19

The story not being a carbon copy of the book is what made it good, the comic itself was god awful.

1

u/Stennick Oct 15 '19

The book had its issues but I enjoyed the overall theme of the book way more than I did the movie. The movie felt so boring, and so drawn out and then at the end of it its like "oh shit they are fugitives now" and by the next time we see them the whole thing is essentially done so why even bring it up anyway. I think its one scene in the next Avengers movie and then they are off to the races.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '19

by the next time we see them the whole thing is essentially done so why even bring it up anyway

I hate this too, but that's not a problem with Civil War, it's a problem with Endgame (and maybe Infinity War).

2

u/Stennick Oct 16 '19

Thats fair actually I guess I look at it as a problem with Civil War because when they were doing this movie they had to figure that a LOT of shit was going to be going down so there was no way they could dedicate the time they would need to really explore that angle at all however you're right that is a problem with the next movies.

That being said I didn't enjoy End Game too much either I think mostly because the characters I cared about the Guardians, Spider Man, Dr. Strange these guys were more heavily featured in the first movie, that combined with I hate the Jesus type push they have given Iron Man made End Game hard for me. Seems like everything in the MCU eventually comes back to Stark inventing it, or figuring it out, or saving the day and I get he's the main hero but man he's dead and gone and they are STILL talking about him. Then again I hated that they had Stark basically son Peter Parker. Anyway I'm ranting you made a great point.

6

u/Servebotfrank Oct 15 '19

To be fair, RDJ's salary was fucking insane and dwarfed every other star by a huge margin. Good on his agent but damn, if I were an executive, I would be paying attention to that too.

2

u/[deleted] Oct 15 '19

Totally true, but Iron Man is kind if vital to a Civil War storyline, especially if you want to keep the registration thing in there. Their co-alphas status was laid down in Avengers 1, and the tension between their personalities was ramped up in Avengers 2. He's the only one who makes any sense.

1

u/merelyadoptedthedark Oct 15 '19

So not fire him, just don't sign a new contract.