$120 million is after extensive re-shoots. Originally, FOX didn't intend to spend more than $90 million, which accounting for inflation, is about the same amount they spent on the 2005 movie.

Maybe Irons can bring his gynecological instruments for operating on mutant women over to the X-Men franchise.

Yeah—-"I don't want to make the movie you want to make". No harm, no foul.

They came cheap when FOX got their hands on them in the '90s. Like, pocket change cheap. This is one of the things that pisses Marvel off so much.

It is at the moment tied with Catwoman as the worst-reviewed superhero movie ever made, at 9%.

This movie wasn't that expensive. That's one of it's main issues.

I think dismemberment should be one of everybody's greatest fears. I'll take rejection or public speaking over getting my arms chopped off any day.

Instead of a burn victim we get a giant pile of dried shit. Is that an improvement?

It didn't get made for the same reason every other interesting take on the Fantastic Four hasn't made it to the screen——it would have cost more than $100 million. FOX simply doesn't think the FF is a property that's worth more than that.

Yep.
http://screenrant.com/batma…

Actually, Feige said they could have used The Skrulls in the first Avengers if they wanted to (FOX owns the Super-Skrull, but not The Skrulls, ironically), but opted not to because their shape-shifting powers would have complicated the story too much. Which makes sense to me.

Warners is actually working on an animated film based on the Adam West Batman series, with West and Burt ward returning to do the voices.

Which aren't really that bad. It's over-stuffed, but what sequel to The Avengers wouldn't be? Bottom line, it delivers what it's promises, and the audience isn't sent home feeling ripped off. Someone may not enjoy it, or feel it accomplishes everything it sets out to do, but that's still very different from what FOX…

Original directors can make all the original work they want. Directing for Marvel isn't jury duty. They can say no if they're not into it.

He already directed the first X-Men movie, only he called it Scanners.

People liked Ant-Man. Did you miss the memo that was sent out?

Bradley Cooper is hilarious giving his impression of a guy fresh out of college happy to be working on his first movie and not knowing that he's going to be in a documentary with a bunch of other people riffing and joking around.

I love that it makes him the hero while not softening him the slightest bit.

I think the reason it was reviewed so poorly when it came out is that most movie critics are simply behind the curve on what's going on with contemporary comedy. When your job is reviewing movies, you're probably not going to be watching much TV or going to improv shows, and that's where fresh comedy styles are born.

Yeah. I think the booing the cross thing is more literal than the type of comedy this movie generally goes for.