Why isn't Kate wearing blue contacts?
People might think that she's Mexican.
People might think that she's Mexican.
Last edited:
Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
What happened is that a director just killed his career. It remains to be seen if forever or just for a long time.. i guess the former since he's not a big name who can get away with this.
Unfortunately it also seems that the studio just wanted to keep the rights so they pushed this movie through while never having full confidence in it.. at best they hoped it will break even because the audience will watch anything superhero related with big SFX nowadays, right?
Gamble will apparently not pay off.. the movie is lucky if it breaks even (and that's consisdered a big flop in the movie business).
At least they get to keep the rights.. for whatever reason because they clearly fail at doing it and have no idea how to make an engaging superhero movie. Worst of all they have tanked the price of their rights so even if Marvel decided to buy them back they will probably have to pay less than if the FF was a mediocre to small success (if Marvel even wants them back at this point.. they are set well into 2020 with their movies and plans, no room for the FF i think).
What if Sony wants the rights? (They don't, and they've almost given Spider-Man back, but what if?)
Does Marvel still own the rights to the Fantastic 5, or does that come under the Fantastic Four Umbrella when you buy the Fantastic Four?
Does Marvel still own the rights to the Fantastic 5, or does that come under the Fantastic Four Umbrella when you buy the Fantastic Four?
It's not like Marvel haven't got a reputation for micromanaging their projects - just ask Edger Wright, Patty Jenkins and Jon Favreau. If they had this film and had also attached Trank to it, he'd probably still have ended up out on his ass. Marvel might have handled the reshoots better or picked up on the problems earlier, but there'd probably still be shanigans.
Nearly every professional product is the result of more than one person, and you've got to earn your protection from editors. Nearly everyone has a boss, and everyone has to deal with feedback. If Trank can't deal with that, then maybe it's for the best he goes back to being small time or independent.
Nearly every professional product is the result of more than one person, and you've got to earn your protection from editors. Nearly everyone has a boss, and everyone has to deal with feedback. If Trank can't deal with that, then maybe it's for the best he goes back to being small time or independent.
Last edited:
Months ago, it was let slip that Trank carelessly but accidentally let his dogs cause $100,000 worth of damage to a rental property where he was living during the shoot.
Last night I read that it is now believed that, or they are no longer covering up the fact that, Trank forced his dogs to attack his rental property which he was living in, until $100,000 damage was caused as some sort of half assed effort at revenge towards FOX for trying to take away his movie from him.
If FOX is lying, they are awesome.
If FOX is telling the truth, Trank is mega fucked up.
Win/Win for FOX?
Last night I read that it is now believed that, or they are no longer covering up the fact that, Trank forced his dogs to attack his rental property which he was living in, until $100,000 damage was caused as some sort of half assed effort at revenge towards FOX for trying to take away his movie from him.
If FOX is lying, they are awesome.
If FOX is telling the truth, Trank is mega fucked up.
Win/Win for FOX?
I feel for the cast and crew but personally, I'm celebrating this failure. From the beginning, Fox has treated FF like some kind of shallow cash cow rather than putting any true thought and care into it.
For the first movie, instead of getting some kind of Sam Raimi-type visionary with a passion for the source material, they hired Tim Story, the director of Taxi. Likewise, there was no A-list talent to be found among the actors - the only shining spot was the rise of Chris Evans. And instead of giving the movie some gravitas with perhaps a humorous edge, they treat it more like a sitcom with superpowers.
And years later, many would say that the only real reason they decided to relaunch the whole franchise is because they had to, to retain the rights. Not because they respected the source material and they had a great story to tell. So once again, they put a "B-team" on producing it. Let's face it, if they really wanted a greater shot at success they would've hired somebody who had more movies under his belt than just a small found footage flick. And once again, we don't get any A-list actors, either. Then they seemed to rush it into production while hemming and hawing over the budget even as they did so. I heard they cut three major action scenes out of the movie right off the bat.
And then there's things like adhering to the source material. They knew that the portrayal of Doom was a sore point in the first movie. But once again, he gets weird powers that don't appear anywhere in the comic book. Once again, the Thing looks "off". This time, he probably looks even worse. They didn't do the adult FF right the first time, so to fix that they decide to make them teenagers. The FF weren't teenagers, and this movie isn't called Ultimate Fantastic Four. It's Fantastic Four. And the ultimate thing was a blip on the radar screen compared to the main comic book that'd been going on for 50+ years.
For the first movie, instead of getting some kind of Sam Raimi-type visionary with a passion for the source material, they hired Tim Story, the director of Taxi. Likewise, there was no A-list talent to be found among the actors - the only shining spot was the rise of Chris Evans. And instead of giving the movie some gravitas with perhaps a humorous edge, they treat it more like a sitcom with superpowers.
And years later, many would say that the only real reason they decided to relaunch the whole franchise is because they had to, to retain the rights. Not because they respected the source material and they had a great story to tell. So once again, they put a "B-team" on producing it. Let's face it, if they really wanted a greater shot at success they would've hired somebody who had more movies under his belt than just a small found footage flick. And once again, we don't get any A-list actors, either. Then they seemed to rush it into production while hemming and hawing over the budget even as they did so. I heard they cut three major action scenes out of the movie right off the bat.
And then there's things like adhering to the source material. They knew that the portrayal of Doom was a sore point in the first movie. But once again, he gets weird powers that don't appear anywhere in the comic book. Once again, the Thing looks "off". This time, he probably looks even worse. They didn't do the adult FF right the first time, so to fix that they decide to make them teenagers. The FF weren't teenagers, and this movie isn't called Ultimate Fantastic Four. It's Fantastic Four. And the ultimate thing was a blip on the radar screen compared to the main comic book that'd been going on for 50+ years.
This must not be overlooked.
I liked Silver Surfer much better than the first, because at least the FF actually got to be the heroes that time. They didn't just protect themselves or save people from problems they personally caused.
But I guess you're talking about box office and general critical reaction. I don't recall the sequel doing much worse than the original in that respect; my impression is that they were judged about equally mediocre.
No, it's the objectively correct definition of the phrase.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/peanut gallery?s=t
"Peanut gallery" can only refer to a portion of the audience, not to the people putting on the show.
Odd, though, considering that it's from the same studio that's been handling the X-Men pretty well for the past few years. They had their misfires with that franchise in the past, but they seem to have their act together now where the mutants are concerned. So it's odd that this property was handled so much worse.
Well, I suppose it makes sense if you disregard that they're both Marvel properties and just look at them as two of Fox's many holdings. The X-Men property is an enduring success, while the FF property has not benefited Fox that much. But then, why even bother spending so much money to hold onto the rights?
But in those cases, the director changes were above board and announced. Do we even know who took over FF for the reshoots?
Speaking as a writer, I have to say that editors aren't something you need protection from. Editors are there to make your work better, and you're a fool if you don't listen to them. Creators who get powerful enough that nobody dares to edit their work tend to get self-indulgent and lose perspective, and the quality of their work suffers for it. (Cf. the Star Wars prequels and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, which show what happened when George Lucas got so powerful that nobody was able to tell him "George, that's a really dumb idea.")
We've gotten terrific movies from directors with little prior relevant experience. Like, didn't the Russo brothers mainly do sitcom episodes before they wowed us with The Winter Soldier?
I thought that Miles Teller had a lot of buzz in the industry lately, though I'm hardly an expert on industry buzz. Jordan seems to be fairly big too. And Toby Kebbell was arguably the breakout star of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, even though it was a performance-capture role.
Didn't need to be. Most of the modern superhero movies draw freely on the Ultimate universe -- e.g. Nick Fury and his role in the Avengers' creation, the Avengers' costumes, the Hulk's origin tying into Captain America's supersoldier formula, Spidey's origin being tied to Oscorp genetic experiments, etc. Which is only natural, since both the Ultimate comics and the movies shared the goal of updating and streamlining the concepts for a modern audience, shedding some of the dated or silly elements of the original comics.
And in general, comics adaptations tend to draw on elements from a wide range of different comics and eras rather than focusing on just one. E.g. Batman: The Animated Series distilled elements from comics ranging from the '70s to the '90s and mixed them together freely. Most other adaptations have done the same. The original and Ultimate Marvel universes are both potential sources for ideas, so there's no reason not to draw on them both at once.
Don't quote me on this but I am sure I read somewhere that Fox got the rights for a pitiful amount and that is why they hold on them.
Also in context, Fox have had two films that made money and one that (likely) didn't - so from that perspective, too early to think about giving them up.
@Christopher - Oh no, I personally think editors are a necessity for most people (*cough*ELJames*cough*) 'Protection from editors' is just a term I'd seen applied to (or quiet possibly used by) Anne Rice.
You know - someone whose quality work took a very steep dive when she figured she was powerful enough to cash that particular cheque?
I know I've sounded really hard on Trank, but I actually do hope this is a Daredevil situation where we might get a good directors cut - its not like I want there to be a bad movie in the world. It's just I don't think that situation is likely. Mark Johnson was never sacked, and even the Theatrical cut of Daredevil was just mediocre and a bit 'emo' at worst.
You know - someone whose quality work took a very steep dive when she figured she was powerful enough to cash that particular cheque?
I know I've sounded really hard on Trank, but I actually do hope this is a Daredevil situation where we might get a good directors cut - its not like I want there to be a bad movie in the world. It's just I don't think that situation is likely. Mark Johnson was never sacked, and even the Theatrical cut of Daredevil was just mediocre and a bit 'emo' at worst.
Last edited:
^In that case, I'd prefer a different word from "protection," because it implies that editors are a harmful thing, which they aren't. "Insulation," perhaps?
I'm more interested in the directors commentary audio track.
If I was an ordinary man, with ordinary needs, that might be enough.
Last edited:
You're a bad man...
Great excerpt that serves to illustrate one of the major flaws in the movie that I find difficult to identify--nobody acts human or real.
They've done a good job with the X-Men for the most part.
Last edited:
Maybe it's the fear of being left out in the cold since the Marvel movies are one of the few franchises that just produce one hit movie after the next with no signs of slowing down.
It's still amazing that they spent 120 million+ on a movie that they apparently didn't believe in.. i'd like to be the CEO of a major movie studio and be able to piss away that kind of money and just shrug shoulders.
The relaunch X-Men, i.e. First Class and DoFP, had an entirely different crew and mindset.. they respected the characters, they kept as close as possible to the roots and the audience rewarded it.
FF (all movies) inexplicably went the exact opposite way.. a marketing driven, focus tested and overdesigned product specifically designed to appeal to the teenager demographic (with Alba for tits/ass and Evans/Chiklis for fun, the current one some apparently hot young actors currently in favor with the kids) while taking a big dump on the source material and only using the cornerstones.
It's inexplicable when every successful superhero movie shows them how it's done and it's not that big of a secret yet they keep fucking it up.
It boggles my mind.
The first Fox FF film made as much as Captain America - so are you saying Marvel got that film wrong?
Well the first Captain America movie wasn't very good either.