Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
What is the point? seriously
Either cancel the project or just let the director make his movie at this point in the game.
I agree. The damage had already been done. Nothing done in the re-shoots was gonna save it.
More wandering around blue-lit featureless corridors?
The first 2/3s of it is mostly Trank's film and it's just as shit, albeit for different reasons, as the last third.
This isn't a story of the Genius Director whose Masterpiece is ruined by the Evil Studio.
I never called him a genius. But some semblance of continuity in the narrative helps a great deal. Also, having 3 major set pieces yanked at the beginning of production will have a profound impact on what you're able to do story telling wise. More importantly, movies are made in the editing room. A good editor can make a film be brilliant, and comparatively, a bad editor can make that same film utter garbage. And if you have an editing team brought in last minute to subvert the original vision, then you will absolutely get a train wreck.
And to be perfectly frank, film is subjective. I think nutrek is garbage. Many here love it. Some people think The Holy Mountain is a masterpiece. I think it's self indulgent gaudy trash. We're all right, and we're all wrong., because it's a matter of perspective.
I'm no Trank fanboy. And the movie is forgettable for me. But it's really not as black and white as people make it out to be when we're talking about film.
And to be perfectly frank, film is subjective. I think nutrek is garbage. Many here love it. Some people think The Holy Mountain is a masterpiece. I think it's self indulgent gaudy trash. We're all right, and we're all wrong., because it's a matter of perspective.
I'm no Trank fanboy. And the movie is forgettable for me. But it's really not as black and white as people make it out to be when we're talking about film.
Here's a review I found.
http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/movies/article/fanastic-four-review-2015-8
Wow. I didn't really care one way or the other, but wow, this is something really remarkable. I wonder how many announcements of "the comic book movie fad" ending are going to crop up this week?
http://www.maxim.com/entertainment/movies/article/fanastic-four-review-2015-8
Wow. I didn't really care one way or the other, but wow, this is something really remarkable. I wonder how many announcements of "the comic book movie fad" ending are going to crop up this week?
While I wouldn't put it past the usual suspects to take any opportunity to wishfully predict the end of the superhero movie trend, I don't think this failure gives them as much ammo as Green Lantern. That was a flop because it had a huge budget and didn't deliver the box office to match. This one was smaller in every way, and smelt like an impending failure for months.
I think that reviewer is overindulging in hyperbole referring to the 2005 film as a "flop" and "disastrous"...as I recall, it did decent middle-of-the-road box office for a superhero flick in general, and was hailed its opening week for leading the first week of that year that box office intake exceeded that of the same week the previous year. Describing the pre-2008 years of the modern superhero movie era as "campy" is also unjustified, short-sighted hyperbole.
I think that reviewer is overindulging in hyperbole referring to the 2005 film as a "flop" and "disastrous"...as I recall, it did decent middle-of-the-road box office for a superhero flick in general, and was hailed its opening week for leading the first week of that year that box office intake exceeded that of the same week the previous year. Describing the pre-2008 years of the modern superhero movie era as "campy" is also unjustified, short-sighted hyperbole.
Last edited:
I thought it was Silver Surfer that disappointed, not the first one.
I mean, it makes sense considering the first got a big budget sequel. Critically they didn't do well, but they're no where near the bottom rungs of the 'super hero' genre.
I was trying to explain to somone last night why I found it so unfulfilling. The best I could come up with was that it reminded me of some weird mishmash between the Fantastic Four and 90's film versions of Steel and Spawn. Not so much the plot content, but just the way the movie seemed to be made. The erratic pacing, a visible (seeming) lack of budget, lots and lots of non-developed characters, mishmashed tone, even the seeming environmental theme. Doom, the Torch and Ben actually looking like rejects from Spawn doesn't help.
I mean, it makes sense considering the first got a big budget sequel. Critically they didn't do well, but they're no where near the bottom rungs of the 'super hero' genre.
I was trying to explain to somone last night why I found it so unfulfilling. The best I could come up with was that it reminded me of some weird mishmash between the Fantastic Four and 90's film versions of Steel and Spawn. Not so much the plot content, but just the way the movie seemed to be made. The erratic pacing, a visible (seeming) lack of budget, lots and lots of non-developed characters, mishmashed tone, even the seeming environmental theme. Doom, the Torch and Ben actually looking like rejects from Spawn doesn't help.
Last edited:
A studio doesn't normally spend huge amounts of money to try and save a movie that is already great. They don't OK massive re-shoots for a film that shines.
We are the peanut gallery, not the studio.
1. How much money was extracted from the movie budget by cutting those three action scenes.
2a. Spending the 3d conversion money on reshoots would have sped up production? What takes longer, converting the movie to 3D, or reshooting 20 minutes?
2b. Spending the 3d conversion money on reshoots might have saved them money if they're opening on less screens, and not filling up 2D theatres loses them less money, than not fulling up 3d theatres.
2a. Spending the 3d conversion money on reshoots would have sped up production? What takes longer, converting the movie to 3D, or reshooting 20 minutes?
2b. Spending the 3d conversion money on reshoots might have saved them money if they're opening on less screens, and not filling up 2D theatres loses them less money, than not fulling up 3d theatres.
that's your point of view.
Some of those scenes are in the movie - they're on the monitors when the army is showing off Ben and Johnny as weapons.
Considering the studio spent good money on those scenes only to discard them (and then spent even more money to do reshoots), something must have been seen as going very, very wrong. We know that the included finale scenes were always part of the original product at least, because they were in the initially released images before Tranks sacking. So was Doom the living action figure, Ben 'Sir not appearing in the first third of this film' and Sue 'the token female who literally gets left at home when the boys go out to play.'
The movie is the studios product, it's their money and possible livlihoods on the line, and Trank was just another in the long line of talented employees they have working for them. In any other industry, we'd say that an employer would be stupid not to sack or at least reassign a project leader that is looking set to lose the company millions. In big budget movies like this, studios are always making alot of creative decisions - including who directs. Sometimes it goes right, sometimes it goes wrong.
And rest assured - Tranks stuff in the movie does blow chunks. Thanks to Mara's wig, you can easily tell who did what.
Considering the studio spent good money on those scenes only to discard them (and then spent even more money to do reshoots), something must have been seen as going very, very wrong. We know that the included finale scenes were always part of the original product at least, because they were in the initially released images before Tranks sacking. So was Doom the living action figure, Ben 'Sir not appearing in the first third of this film' and Sue 'the token female who literally gets left at home when the boys go out to play.'
The movie is the studios product, it's their money and possible livlihoods on the line, and Trank was just another in the long line of talented employees they have working for them. In any other industry, we'd say that an employer would be stupid not to sack or at least reassign a project leader that is looking set to lose the company millions. In big budget movies like this, studios are always making alot of creative decisions - including who directs. Sometimes it goes right, sometimes it goes wrong.
And rest assured - Tranks stuff in the movie does blow chunks. Thanks to Mara's wig, you can easily tell who did what.
