Fantastic Four from Fox Studios (8/7/15)

1 1

Where's his manhood? Floating around detached in the negative zone?

I wonder if it will reappear as a villain in a future movie?

The Fantastic Four VS the Things thing.

 

Fantastic Four: Rise of the Thing's Thing

 

This thread has taken quite a homoerotic turn.

 

Hey now! I didn't say that above. Someone needs to learn how to quote.

 

 

To make it less cumbersome I suggest the title of the upcoming film be: Fantastic Four: Rise of the Things.

They don't have the stones to call it something like that. Get it? No stones?

Rise of the things.

That's just classic.

I was talked into an early pre-screening on Wednesday... I'll report back, and really hope we are all surprised to the upside.

This movie actually might be really good and serve a purpose in a sense- kind of like the phantom menace.

 

Some nights if I absolutely need to go to sleep and can't doze off, I'll put in phantom menace and I pass out pretty quick as its so boring.

So...seriously which movie is going to be worse the first Fox Fantastic Four or this reboot? And will Fox reboot this again after it fails at the box office?

So...seriously which movie is going to be worse the first Fox Fantastic Four or this reboot? And will Fox reboot this again after it fails at the box office?

So...seriously which movie is going to be worse the first Fox Fantastic Four or this reboot? And will Fox reboot this again after it fails at the box office?

Naw, fox will just push through with their sad F4 vs X-Men publicity stunt.

Possibly.... but...

Remember all the big plans Sony had for the Garfield Spider-man that was announced just before ASM2 came out?

All of those went away real fast when the movie didn't perform well...

And then they made that deal with Marvel....

So...seriously which movie is going to be worse the first Fox Fantastic Four or this reboot? And will Fox reboot this again after it fails at the box office?

Naw, fox will just push through with their sad F4 vs X-Men publicity stunt.

 

Possibly.... but...

Remember all the big plans Sony had for the Garfield Spider-man that was announced just before ASM2 came out?

 

All of those went away real fast when the movie didn't perform well...

 

And then they made that deal with Marvel....

 

So...seriously which movie is going to be worse the first Fox Fantastic Four or this reboot? And will Fox reboot this again after it fails at the box office?

Naw, fox will just push through with their sad F4 vs X-Men publicity stunt.

 

Possibly.... but...

Remember all the big plans Sony had for the Garfield Spider-man that was announced just before ASM2 came out?

 

All of those went away real fast when the movie didn't perform well...

 

And then they made that deal with Marvel....

 

I don't know, I feel the Fox execs are more stubborn then the SONY ones, plus Fox isn't in dire financial straits like Sony is.

Good point....but they did let Daredevil go, which made $179MIL worldwide on a $78MIL budget.... so there IS hope!

Well, good movie or not, recall that FF 1 did as well at the box office as X-Men 1 did in terms of hard numbers (not inflation-adjusted):

Fantastic Four:

Cost: $100 million.

Domestic take: $155 million

Total Worldwide: $330 million

X-Men:

Cost: $75 million

Domestic take: $157 million

Total Worldwide: $296 million

No way Fox doesn't make another FF movie after this, because it's not like it had ASM 2's $300 (!!) million budget.

If anything, they could go the route that Sony took with Ghost Rider -- where they made the sequel for literally half as much as the first one, thus retaining the rights and (barely) eeking profitability out of a little-seen & universally reviled sequel.

I was talked into an early pre-screening on Wednesday... I'll report back, and really hope we are all surprised to the upside.

Updates?

Well, good movie or not, recall that FF 1 did as well at the box office as X-Men 1 did in terms of hard numbers (not inflation-adjusted):

 

Fantastic Four:

 

Cost: $100 million.

Domestic take: $155 million

Total Worldwide: $330 million

 

X-Men:

 

Cost: $75 million

Domestic take: $157 million

Total Worldwide: $296 million

 

No way Fox doesn't make another FF movie after this, because it's not like it had ASM 2's $300 (!!) million budget.

They DID make another FF movie. Rise of the Silver Surfer.

Cost: $130MIL

Domestic take: $131MIL

Total Wordwide: $257MIL

They consider that a failure. It's not about the size of the budget, it's about the return on investment.

That's why ANT-MAN will be a WINNER. It will eclipse it's budget easily and be a profitable movie for the studio.

If this FF movie fails to meet expectations, that will be 2 out the last 3 they've made that failed to meet expectations. TWO IN A ROW.

It doesn't matter what they did in 2005, and it doesn't matter if they've rebooted it, at this point they'll have made 2 FF movies that DIDN'T produce.

Who would even think of green lighting another movie?

Not any time soon. Not in 2017.

If this one fails to live up to expectations, they will choose one of two options:

A) Sell to Marvel and unload it.

B) Wait another 8 years and try again

If anything, they could go the route that Sony took with Ghost Rider -- where they made the sequel for literally half as much as the first one, thus retaining the rights and (barely) eeking profitability out of a little-seen & universally reviled sequel.

That worked out horribly for Sony and was one of the things that cost Amy Pascal her job and helped Marvel get Ghost Rider back.

Umm...they have greenlit another Green Lantern movie. It's on Warner Bros.' docket for 2020.

And all three of those movies (FF, FF2 & X-Men) would have far large international takes today simply because the international market is far far larger than it was 10 years ago.

I just hope the news footage comes out soon of Trank running around putting kitty treats in everyone's cereal that got them so stirred up. I haven't seen a hatefest like this in a long while.

It's a comic book movie. Enjoy it - or don't. But let the reviews come rolling in first for real about the actual movie. We'll see those soon enough.

Umm...they have greenlit another Green Lantern movie. It's on Warner Bros.' docket for 2020.

A) NINE years after the last one

B) They OWN it. It has nowhere else to go.

And all three of those movies (FF, FF2 & X-Men) would have far large international takes today simply because the international market is far far larger than it was 10 years ago.

ASM2 did $500MIL in foreign sales on a $300MIL budget.... they still bailed.

Bottom line is, if it fails to meet expectations, you will not get a sequel in 2017.

Huh?

Yes -- _of course_ Warner Bros. owns Green Lantern.

But they wouldn't list it among the 10 announced films they have green lit unless they thought it (as opposed to other, cheaper options, a la Suicide Squad) could make money.

If anything, Cyborg looks like the weak link among DC's announced movies, not Green Lantern.

And no -- GL doesn't "have nowhere else to go" -- as proven by the Marvel situation, DC could just as easily license out their own properties to other studios for production or distribution.

As many here have argued, Punisher War Zone should be disavowed & not be considered a true Marvel Studios film (which it is) simply because it was distributed by Lionsgate.

That logic fails because many early Marvel Studios films were distributed by Paramount (incl. Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, & Captain America), Incredible Hulk was distributed by Universal.

Huh?

 

 

Yes -- _of course_ Warner Bros. owns Green Lantern.

 

But they wouldn't list it among the 10 announced films they have green lit unless they thought it (as opposed to other, cheaper options, a la Suicide Squad) could make money.

 

If anything, Cyborg looks like the weak link among DC's announced movies, not Green Lantern.

 

And no -- GL doesn't "have nowhere else to go" -- as proven by the Marvel situation, DC could just as easily license out their own properties to other studios for production or distribution.

 

As many here have argued, Punisher War Zone should be disavowed & not be considered a true Marvel Studios film (which it is) simply because it was distributed by Lionsgate.

 

That logic fails because many early Marvel Studios films were distributed by Paramount (incl. Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, & Captain America), Incredible Hulk was distributed by Universal.

good call. Who MAKES it is what counts these days, not who DISTRIBUTES it. But I don't think it was a Marvel Studios film (at least not in the same way as Hulk, Iron Man, etc), although I assume they had some input. I think it was more Lionsgate who made it. Feel free to correct me.

Check the 2008 listing on this Wikipedia page on "Movies based on Marvel characters."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_Marvel_Comics

It notes that three Marvel Studios were produced that year (Iron Man, Incredible Hulk & Punisher: War Zone), although all were distributed by different studios.

Notably, both Punisher: War Zone and (later) Ghost Rider: Spirits of Vengeance, while both Marvel Studio films -- were released under the "Marvel Knights" banner, thus are not considered part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

Ghost Rider: Spirits of Vengeance is interesting in that it was co-produced by Disney/Marvel, whereas the first Ghost Rider film was strictly Columbia Pictures.

This indicates there was at least a partial rights reversion in the interim & bodes well for Ghost Rider appearing in future Netflix productions like Daredevil.

Also notable is that Disney/Marvel has since bought the continued distribution rights for its early phase 1 films, including Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Captain America, etc.

So it's simply taken time for Disney's Marvel Studios to grow to the point where they could both produce & distribute their own IP, whereas for much of Phase 1 they needed to co-finance with other studios (via distribution deals).