Look it up brosky, its not privileged information. I don't think you realize how funny that statement is when applied to the X-Men franchise. Last Stand made the most money of any X-Men movie cept for the last two yet it didn't triple its budget and it almost killed the franchise. But, if it was the highest grossing X-Men movie for 11 years does that make Ratner a great director? Do we argue that Fox needs to pick any director that says yes since Ratner delivered them its biggest money maker for a decade? But it only doubled its budget, so then what happens? First Class, its terms of its gross to budget ratio was more profitable than Last Stand, it was loved by critics but made the least money by a couple million. How do we judge that? Lets look at Wolverine Origins. It tripled its budget easily, but Gavin Hood delivered the worst movie of the franchise and arguably killed it. So was Hood a good-great director? I guess my point is that what you're saying falls apart rather easily when you actually break it down. The X-men movies have never been much for Box Office gross, I mean if an Avenger movie ever made 736 million I think the MCU would be scrapped. The bar in terms of profit is very low for Fox my friend. See bro, if you don't understand what I'm saying then just ask, "what do you mean". Don't misinterpret my statement because that's how these arguments begin. In terms of their core X-men franchise, not including Deadpool or whatever future plans they have with the new mutants, there in pretty bad shape.