FOX, the Evil Empire?

[Purple Archer]

Consider FOX News

Consider FOX Studio with

Mark Steven Johnson on Daredevil

Paul WS Anderson on Aliens vs Predators

Rob Bowman on Elektra

(Barber Shop Director) Tim Story on Fantastic Four

Bret Ratner on X-Men 3

You almost get the feeling the studio is anti-fans or something. Once upon a time Warner Bros. would have gotten a similar response but they turned their act together and put people that cared about their characters, filmakers with talents than fans respected such as

Christopher Nolan(a true auteur with crime noir psychological bends) on Batman
Bryan Singer(coming off the celebrated X2) on Superman
Joss Whedon(respected writer who made action chicks cool) on Wonder Woman

It`s almost a perfect score when you look at these three selections.

FOX on the other hand, it`s almost like they took all the wrong tendencies from what Warner Bros. used to do and did it ten times worst. What`s the point? Is the man in charge of the studio so stubborn to do things his way just to make money as if films were nothing more than disposable junks? Have they learned nothing from the LOTR films to respect the fans first and foremost to have a build-in audience who can spread the good word about your possibly money-making franchises?

I`m at a loss here. How would you guys view this.

[Atticus]

I'd say you were a democrat listing FOX News as a problem with their movies.

[nox501]

Don't forget


Star Wars

Fight Club incident

It seems former boss Rothman (sp?) is the problem. according to aintitcool.com.

[fabfunk]

I hear FOX company letterheads are made out of the body fat of live babies.

[Suttytx]

Rupert Murdoch: Like an alligator, he can fully digest a turtle shell.

[Geoff Foster]

I shall withhold judgment until someone obtains the number 666 after inserting the ASCII codes for F, O and X into an unfathomable formula.

Good and Evil can always be determined by ASCII.

[Purple Archer]

I hear FOX company letterheads are made out of the body fat of live babies.

My idea was the "Mediocre Empire" but then I thought about FOX News....

[Moltisanti]

Some bad calls to be sure but FOX did bring "Family Guy" back and they have F/X beating the hell out of every other cable channel in terms of original programming. But there film studio is looking mighty shaky. If they did this with X3 I can only imagine they might scout Albert Pyun for DIE HARD 4.

[Ben Grimm]

Yeah, they brought Family Guy back. But they cancelled Futurama, Firefly, the Tick, Greg the Bunny, Andy Richter Controls the Universe, and Action, so the scales still need a bit of balancing.

But Rupert Murdoch as the Emperor? I totally buy that.

[Moltisanti]

Actually "Harsh Realm" and "Stan Hooper" are the ones that tick me off the most.

[The Alexor]

They brought Family Guy back and so far, it hasn't been very good.

[Moltisanti]

Last night was one of the best "Family Guy" episodes ever. I really can't show too much hatred towards a company that puts out "The Shield," "24," "Nip/Tuck," and "Rescue Me." Not to mention "Over There" which looks quite promising.

I could have used another season of "Get a Life" though.

[myPandaNY]

...

[Johnny Daywalker]

For the record. Fox News, Fox TV, 20th Century Fox they are all independent of one another.

They aren't all run by Murdoch but Murdoch does get a big hunk of the change.

I think judging by the last few comic book movies and the ones upcoming 20th Fox is in trouble.

When the bombs start coming heads will roll.

[Moltisanti]

Daredevil wasn't that bad, wasn't that good but it wasn't Dolph Lundgren(sp) Punisher bad.



Personal Foul! Roughing the Lundgren, Automatic First Down!

It would be better to say it wasn't that bad because at least it was a live action DAREDEVIL that wasn't wearing all black.

Another reason to not like FOX is that they sold the LA Dodgers, and now they don't suck as much.

[Shane]

"They brought Family Guy back", yes, and they also cancelled it in the first place, only to realize later that they had missed out on a good (read: profitable) thing. Not really a plus. Arrested Development probably will be cancelled earlier than it should be, not to mention all of the other shows that it has killed in their prime. Overall, I don't hate the company, but they certainly aren't great. I do hate FOX News though. A lot.

Oh, and Day After Tomorrow should never be mentioned as a success, or as anything helpful to anyone. Ever.

[Brendan]

what about their successes?

They have Serenity, Battle Angel on the slate James Cameron's project. Wolverine in the works, Magneto... I am sure these films will succeed.
.

Serenity is coming from Universal not FOX.

[Nabster]

What about Fox News? they're the #1 news channel. I fail to see why this is there unless you are against their programming which is fair AND balanced :)

You're Funny.

[Charlie Brigden]

They're not anti-fan. They're just a bit less willing to take a risk anymore, it seems. Especially after doling out money for stuff like FIGHT CLUB and KINGDOM OF HEAVEN only to see it flop. People like Ratner and Story, while being average-at-best filmmakers, are decent at making money, which is the main objective.

Also, bringing back Family Guy while cancelling Futurama is bad form.

[S Nabors]

I could have used another season of "Get a Life" though.

So, besides myself and two of my friends, there was actually a fourth person that watched that show. You must be that rumored fourth person that actually liked Cabin Boy, as well.

[tommy five-tone]

It's a bit of a balancing act: Fox is responsible for winners like FIGHT CLUB, and Fox Searchlight is one of the better arthouse/speciality divisions out there (they distributed both 28 DAYS LATER and SIDEWAYS! And they're going to distribute the HAUTE TENSION guys' remake of THE HILLS HAVE EYES), but they also make boneheaded decisions like Story directing FF and now Ratner helming X3.

Likewise, the Fox network has kept ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT on the air. But it mistreated and then shitcanned FIREFLY.

It would be easy if they maintained a singularly cynical, mercenary approach - churning out high-concept crap with a boffo opening weekend and no shelf life - but they manage to get it right (or have their hearts and minds in the right place) as often as they screw up or screw audiences over.

[Johnny Daywalker]

They made Kingdom of Heaven with Ridley that counts for something. Of course they were complete dumbasses for releasing it first in the summer (August would have been better) and possibly pressuring Ridley to cut it more.

[Geoff Foster]

As a man from Sicily once said, “Don’t this personally, it's just business”.

[Dan Whitehead]

Bankrolling a historical epic from the director of Gladiator is not a particularly bold move for a studio. It may not have worked out the way they hoped, but from a risk/reward point of view it was hardly a visionary decision.

Even ignoring the fact that Fox TV and Fox theatrical are run as seperate entities, you can pick through the output of any studio and make the same arguments that are being levelled at Fox.

[Litmus Configuration]

They're not anti-fan. They're just a bit less willing to take a risk anymore, it seems. Especially after doling out money for stuff like FIGHT CLUB and KINGDOM OF HEAVEN only to see it flop.

Both of which could have been huge successes if Fox handled them better. You don't hire directors like Fincher and Scott and then interfere with their creative vision, both in making the film and selling it. I guess that's why Fox wants easily-manipulated hacks like Ratner and Story, so that there is no vision to interfere with.

Also, bringing back Family Guy while cancelling Futurama is bad form.

Agreed 100%.

[Moltisanti]

So, besides myself and two of my friends, there was actually a fourth person that watched that show. You must be that rumored fourth person that actually liked Cabin Boy, as well.

CABIN BOY I can sit through for Letterman and Andy Richter, but "Get a Life" ruled. One of the best lineups in TV history was "The Simpsons," "Get a Life," "Married with Children," and "In Living Color." Let's also take a moment to thank FOX for pairing Johnny Depp with Richard Grieco for at least one amazing season of television, can't wait for that DVD in August.

So "Family Guy" was at a time the biggest selling TV DVD but "Futurama" was the show that should be brought back. I always tried to get into "Futurama" but those Ram/Vikings' games just always seemed to go into overtime.

[Geoff Foster]

Both of which could have been huge successes if Fox handled them better. You don't hire directors like Fincher and Scott and then interfere with their creative vision, both in making the film and selling it.

And you don't hire a first-timer like Fincher or a one-film rookie like Scott and give him free reign to do whatever takes his fancy (as both were in earlier years). FOX, like all publicly owned companies, has a responsibility to its employees and shareholders. One of those responsibilities is making sure people who may or may not be up to the job (even directing greats can be a gamble) don’t flush tens of millions of dollars down the toilet.

It’s a balancing act that involves compromises on both sides. Compromises that must occasionally involve interference with a director’s “creative vision”, for everyone’s sake.

[Carl Cunningham]

FOX is just in a slump right now. It's cyclical and almost all studios suffer it now (from an admitted lack of cinema smarts within the braintrust). Remember, just a couple of years ago Warners couldn't do ANYTHING right. Some would say that's still the case.

But this is what happens when the studios are run by huge mega corporations and the bottom line is pleasing stockholders instead of audiences.

The problem here isn't FOX, per se. It's the system itself... and that's not going to get better anytime soon.

[myPandaNY]

...

[chans]

It's a bit of a balancing act: Fox is responsible for winners like FIGHT CLUB, and Fox Searchlight is one of the better arthouse/speciality divisions out there (they distributed both 28 DAYS LATER and SIDEWAYS! And they're going to distribute the HAUTE TENSION guys' remake of THE HILLS HAVE EYES), but they also make boneheaded decisions like Story directing FF and now Ratner helming X3.

Likewise, the Fox network has kept ARRESTED DEVELOPMENT on the air. But it mistreated and then shitcanned FIREFLY.

It would be easy if they maintained a singularly cynical, mercenary approach - churning out high-concept crap with a boffo opening weekend and no shelf life - but they manage to get it right (or have their hearts and minds in the right place) as often as they screw up or screw audiences over.


Rupert Murdoch hates FIGHT CLUB. The people who greenlit this movie were fired.

FOX isn't a evil empire. At least, they are the studio which accept Fox Searchlight to release NC-17 movie.

One good article about FOX
http://www.variety.com/index.asp?layout=print_story&articleid=VR1117904541&categoryid=13

Posted: Sun., May 9, 2004, 6:00am PT

Fox focus is filmmaker-friendly

Beefy director deals encourage edgy projects

By CLAUDE BRODESSER


Taking a lesson from Hollywood's past, the majors are realizing that it's good to be different.
In their heyday in the 1930s and '40s, each studio had a distinctive personality: MGM boasted musicals, Warner Bros. was identified with social-realist dramas.

But for the past few decades, studios' output has been interchangeable: An Adam Sandler comedy or a Marvel-inspired adventure could have come from Sony, Universal, Paramount or anyone else. This made life difficult for them -- and for suppliers, who had little idea where to bring their particular projects.

Nowadays studio chiefs are once again asserting their individuality.

WB is focusing on tentpoles and star vehicles; MGM is doing urban comedies and teen pics. (Paramount is charging into $100 million films at a time when other studios are getting to the $200 million threshold.)

Meanwhile, Twentieth Century Fox is learning to zig where other studios zag.

The studio kicks off the summer season with Memorial Day opener "The Day After Tomorrow." Like most studios, Fox is putting its energy and marketing bucks into its summer tentpoles -- but in its own way: "Tomorrow," with a $125 million pricetag, has no A-list stars.

Fox's gameplan, in a nutshell:


Fewer star vehicles. Most of this year's crop of Fox movies -- from summer pics "Dodgeball," "Garfield" and "Alien vs. Predator" to holiday fare like "Flight of the Phoenix" and "Fat Albert" -- avoid pricey gross players.

More director deals. Fox has more helmers based on its lot than any other studio -- and they actually make their pictures at the studio, which is rarer than it sounds. (Paramount chief Sherry Lansing used to joke that the best way to get rid of an unpleasant director is to give him a first-look deal: It guarantees he'll make his movies elsewhere.)

In an era when tentpoles are edging past pricetags of $200 million, Fox sticks to its mantra that "You have to be risky creatively, but prudent financially," says co-chairman Tom Rothman of his risk-sharing strategy.

It's fostering family films. Rothman says that means pics with "a little attitude: You can go with your kids, but you can enjoy it as an adult." Examples include the "Dr. Dolittle" duo, "Big Momma's House," "Cheaper by the Dozen," and "Ice Age" -- all of which were relatively inexpensive and which each earned $100 million plus.
The net result: Fox is savoring "two back-to-back historic years in earnings," says co-chairman Jim Gianopulos, and this year is likely to do so again.

This is not to say deal-making at Fox has become easier.

Privately, agents grouse that Fox is the hardest place in town to make a deal, and give its business affairs execs low marks for civility.

"They act like they're doing you a favor," says one top agent who recently made a deal for a helmer client there -- even as he concedes that, in a way, they are.

Fox is remarkably loyal to its adopted director family. For example, helmer Ed Burns, who first scored with the Fox Searchlight pic "The Brothers McMullen" was hired to rewrite both "Flight of the Phoenix" and another upcoming Fox tentpole, WWII epic "Escape of the Pacific Clipper."

While acknowledging that the studio has had some money-losers, like "Mooseport" "we've had no expensive misses," Rothman says.

Part of the reason is that on big films like "Master and Commander," the studio will share the risk. Even though "Master" (shared with Miramax and Universal) and the less-pricey "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" didn't live up to their blockbuster-franchise potential, Fox ended up making modest profits on both films.

Fox has had a tougher time at the box office recently. At a cost of $30 million, "Welcome to Mooseport" generated barely $14 million domestically; "Girl Next Door," even though a disappointment at $14 million domestically, was wholly financed by Regency Enterprises.

Still, DVD sales this quarter have been strong for "Cheaper by the Dozen" and "Master and Commander."

While there have been no big losers, there have been occasional big winners.

In all, Fox will release 13 pics this year. The summer slate of five movies reps the studio's plan to "either make movies for broad audiences or defined audiences. We always ask 'Who are the movies for?'?

The other summer tentpole, aside from "Day After Tomorrow," is the Alex Proyas-helmed "I, Robot," starring Will Smith (the rare star vehicle on the sked; Fox 2000 has two of its own. Denzel Washington-starrer "Man on Fire" and Cameron Diaz pic "In Her Shoes").

The summer's other three films are for divergent auds.

"?Garfield' won't lure the 19-year-old boys; that's OK, we didn't make it for them. But they'll have 'Dodgeball,'? says Rothman.

And then there's horror pic "Alien vs. Predator," a followup to the videogame that's sold 700,000 units in the last three years.

Gianopulos and Rothman are proud of the studio's consistency in the last few years. But they admit they have an advantage over many of their counterparts: Both execs say Rupert Murdoch has been very supportive, and it's a big relief for the exec team -- and on-lot filmmakers -- that they don't have to worry about a sale of the studio or an exec shuffle.

"We have tremendous stability above us, and great stability among the ranks, so we're able to concentrate on our work," says Rothman.

Fox leaves riskier adult fare like "The Dreamers" to Peter Rice's specialized division Fox Searchlight, or splits them with other studios, as it did with "Master and Commander," a three way co-production with Miramax and Universal.

Like most studio execs, Rothman talks dollars, but he also uses words like "creative" and "aesthetics" a lot.

Compared to other studios, "We take a different approach," he says. "We're pretty director-centric: We invest in them."

Consider: Peter & Bobby Farrelly are producing "The Ringer" at Fox Searchlight, and just made "Stuck on You" last winter. Mel Gibson's Icon shingle will release "Paparazzi" in the fall; Ridley Scott is shooting "Kingdom of Heaven." Bryan Singer will likely do a third "X-Men" pic, while John Moore and Forest Whitaker have pictures coming out in the next 12 months. And all of them hang their production shingles on the Fox lot.

Only Jay Roach has yet to make a movie there; most Fox-based helmers are on their second or third pics.

Why?

"All our director deals have a defined picture component to them," explains Rothman.

That means that instead of making a first-look deal and then attempting to find a movie for that helmer, when Fox makes a picture with a directors it often simultaneously gets commitments from them to make more.

The resulting movies might seem like arranged marriages, but at least they are marriages between attractive and trusting families.

Says Rothman, "When I had lunch with John Moore last week, who directed 'Flight of the Phoenix' for us, we didn't even talk about that movie. We talked about his next one."

It also means the Fox doesn't spend as much time developing projects that won't get made.

"Our directors are all very selective in what they want to do next," says Hutch Parker, prexy of production at Fox. "And so we carry significantly fewer projects in development," close to 90. "When you make 15 movies a year, that's a very tight ratio."

How do filmmakers like it?

"They're very hands-off," says Peter Farrelly, who is making his first movie outside Fox this year: "The Three Stooges" at Warner Bros. "Quite honestly, it scares the shit out of me to go someplace else."

But Farrelly admits that the Fox credo of frugality creeps into his pictures as well.

"They're very conservative with casting," Farrelly says of Fox's brass, "They have very strong opinions on it. They cut deals with you: 'You can have Joe Schmoe, but then we want John Smith in the other part.'?

Forgoing major stars to sell most of your films means maximizing marketing and merchandising -- things that were until recently a foreign territory to director Joel Zwick, who last helmed surprise indie smash "My Big Fat Greek Wedding."

For his second picture, Zwick is directing Fox's "Fat Albert," which started lensing April 20 for a Christmas release.

"We're not dealing with high-end salary stars," says Zwick of his $35 million comedy, "and yet we still have to compete with the big boys at Christmas. I was surprised at how many bright young people are involved in my movie, focusing on results. Soundtracks. Merchandise. And their agenda isn't my agenda. There's a struggle between 'results' and 'process,' and I am fighting to hold on to process."

[Geoff Foster]

FOX is just in a slump right now. It's cyclical and almost all studios suffer it now (from an admitted lack of cinema smarts within the braintrust). Remember, just a couple of years ago Warners couldn't do ANYTHING right. Some would say that's still the case.

But this is what happens when the studios are run by huge mega corporations and the bottom line is pleasing stockholders instead of audiences.

You are right, Carl. Pleasing the stockbrokers is the bottom line. But there are other considerations too. FOX employs a lot of people. Fail to make enough money and a hefty chunk of those people lose their jobs. It's the popular thing to think of those inhabiting luxuriant, exquisitely furnished boardrooms as nothing more than hardened bean counters, totally devoid of empathy - but that's a facile appraisal. I don't know any Hollywood types, but I do know rich men. Some are every bit as heartless as people might expect whilst others fight tooth-and-nail to prevent termination notices landing on their employees.

Granted FOX isn’t known for its philanthropic approach to business, but I do think it’s worth pointing out that a profitable FOX is cheered by not just its shareholders.

[AshInVegas]

But they cancelled...the Tick.

Kill them.

-AiV

[Purple Archer]

It`s important to make money and generating profit but if something like the LOTR movies have shown us is that you don`t have to play safe to be successful. The game has changed and you just have to play your cards like you`re not an an intellectual toddler. Warner Bros. realised that, but it seems like FOX has not matured to meet today`s standards yet. Also I think the bomb of Solaris and success of Days of Tomorrow may have played a huge part in that. Then again for something like Marvel movies, I have my doubts that FOX made all the decisions. They wouldn`t want to make their Marvel partner "mad" in the risk of damaging the relationship, so is Marvel to blame too in this case?

[Andrew O.]

I like Fox Searchlight, though.

[Martianman]

Once upon a time Warner Bros. would have gotten a similar response but they turned their act together and put people that cared about their characters, filmakers with talents than fans respected such as

Christopher Nolan(a true auteur with crime noir psychological bends) on Batman
Bryan Singer(coming off the celebrated X2) on Superman
Joss Whedon(respected writer who made action chicks cool) on Wonder Woman

It`s almost a perfect score when you look at these three selections.

Wow, almost a perfect score for 3 movies that haven't even been released yet. Granted, Batman Begins is getting initial good buzz, but the other two won't even be out for the next year or two. You can applaud the choices of director and their love for the material, but the movies could still be crap.

[Dan Whitehead]

The game has changed and you just have to play your cards like you`re not an an intellectual toddler. Warner Bros. realised that, but it seems like FOX has not matured to meet today`s standards yet.

That would be the same Warner Bros that brought us Starsky & Hutch, two Scooby Doo movies, Catwoman, Dreamcatcher, Kangaroo Jack and Miss Congeniality 2.

Let's not fall into the trap of believing that any studio has a monopoly on smart risk-taking or dumb pandering.

All studios are is a battlefield of warring producers each hoping to keep their jobs. Some are brave defenders of creativity and invention, some are just about the money. Therefore every studio churns out a big steaming heap of "product" - some of which is lowest common denominator crap, some of which is well-intentioned failure and some of which turn out to be genuinely worthwhile films.

To try and paint a corporation as monolithic and fluid as a movie studio as "good" or "evil" is an exercise in redundancy.

Also I think the bomb of Solaris and success of Days of Tomorrow may have played a huge part in that.

And all the other movies they released. Some hit, some don't. I doubt either of those examples caused the studio heads to suddenly realise that hollow spectacle from workman directors is a safer commercial bet.

Then again for something like Marvel movies, I have my doubts that FOX made all the decisions. They wouldn`t want to make their Marvel partner "mad" in the risk of damaging the relationship, so is Marvel to blame too in this case?

While it's true that Marvel are notoriously difficult to work with in a licensing capacity, Fox and Marvel have already slugged it out in the courts over the Mutant X TV show so it's not like the relationship is one of bosom buddies. Marvel also sued Sony over Spidey merchandise, but that franchise keeps on truckin'.

[Litmus Configuration]

And you don't hire a first-timer like Fincher or a one-film rookie like Scott and give him free reign to do whatever takes his fancy (as both were in earlier years).

Both Fincher and Scott, even in their early years as feature film directors, already had an enormous amount of experience directing very successful commercials, so I don't see their hirings as significant gambles for the studio. But you know very well I wasn't talking about that. I was talking about Fox's disrespectful handling of Fincher and Scott long after they had established themselves as A List directors with proven track records. If this is how Fox treats you after you've busted your ass to achieve top tier status, it makes me wonder why any director would want to work with them...unless they're a total hack.

Like Ratner.

[Smilin' Jack Ruby]

Fox is an odd duck. I've heard Nicole Kidman and Baz Luhrman swear up and down that Tom Rothman is the only reason "Moulin Rouge" got made as he blocked it all the way to the goal line, but then you have "Alien Vs. Predator" - a wrong-headed directing choice that had ten different scripts behind it and they picked the wrong one - or "Fantastic Four" that's trailers are missing every kind of "wow" factor. Hell, I've heard it's hard even for Scott Free to get Fox to buy for them, but then they lose the mint on "Kingdom of Heaven" - a movie that I thought had some fucking amazing moments, but didn't connect with audiences - and maybe Fox is right in not thinking every Ridley Scott movie is a $100 million guarantee.

But it's like that at every studio. People damned Lorenzo Di Bonaventura over at Warner Brothers for awhile and then he left - and suddenly he's being spoken highly of again. There's a reason that the stress killed Thalberg. There's a reason, more than likely, than when Bill Mechanic fell on his sword over "Fight Club" and left Fox, well, he bought tons of stuff and threw them into development, but then there was a massive cooling off period before - five years later - he's back with "Dark Water" and "The New World." Hopefully, it'll be better than most post-studio head shingles a'la Casey Silver and his "Gigli," "Ladder 49" and "Hidalgo" (which I like) trifecta that cost him his deal or Sid Sheinberg with his "McHale's Navy," "The Pest," and "Slappy and the Stinkers" legacy.

It wasn't long ago that people were crucifying New Line over "Thirteen Days," "Town & Country," "Little Nicky" and a handful of others. Following "LOTR," they're the guys who are doing "Domino," "The New World," and "Meg" - ambitious, non-New Line-sounding projects - and today, picked up one of the best, yet least intuitive-to-a-studio comics around - Grant Morrison's "We3."

[Geoff Foster]

Both Fincher and Scott, even in their early years as feature film directors, already had an enormous amount of experience directing very successful commercials, so I don't see their hirings as significant gambles for the studio. But you know very well I wasn't talking about that.

Actually I did and I didn't. I started off writing one thing, then the phone rang (some poor, deluded customer who believes I exist to "help" him) and I lost complete track of what I was writing. Hence the whole thing reads like gibberish. I would have edited it but tea-time was fast approaching and retrospective editing comes a poor second to steak and fries. My apologies.

I was talking about Fox's disrespectful handling of Fincher and Scott long after they had established themselves as A List directors with proven track records. If this is how Fox treats you after you've busted your ass to achieve top tier status, it makes me wonder why any director would want to work with them...unless they're a total hack.

I hear what you are saying, but we all know there's no loyalty in business. We’ve seen this blueprint followed a million times and things aren't going to change soon. There’s no sense in getting upset about it, really.

[Litmus Configuration]

Actually I did and I didn't. I started off writing one thing, then the phone rang (some poor, deluded customer who believes I exist to "help" him) and I lost complete track of what I was writing. Hence the whole thing reads like gibberish. I would have edited it but tea-time was fast approaching and retrospective editing comes a poor second to steak and fries. My apologies.

No worries. Same thing happens to me. Except for tea-time. And deluded customers. And steak and fries. But other than those three things...yeah.

I hear what you are saying, but we all know there's no loyalty in business. We’ve seen this blueprint followed a million times and things aren't going to change soon. There’s no sense in getting upset about it, really.

Well, one could argue that if you don't get upset about it, and if you don't air that frustration, then you're insuring that nothing will change soon. I agree that Fox's mishandling of directors and projects isn't something new in Hollywood or exclusive to Fox. But that doesn't make it right.

[Geoff Foster]

Well, one could argue that if you don't get upset about it, and if you don't air that frustration, then you're insuring that nothing will change soon. I agree that Fox's mishandling of directors and projects isn't something new in Hollywood or exclusive to Fox. But that doesn't make it right.

If you picket the entrance to FOX Plaza in protest, I'll buy you lunch.

How's that for compromise?