The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > Fantastic Four > Fantastic Four

View Poll Results: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to be seen as a successful movie series?
yes 25 65.79%
no 13 34.21%
Voters: 38. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 08-03-2013, 04:22 PM   #51
Willie Lumpkin
Side-Kick
 
Willie Lumpkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southern New Jersey
Posts: 4,213
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eros View Post
How were they not faithful, save for the galactus crap? I mean 60s FF comics were cheesy as hell, and treated sue storm like an idiot.
Reed wasn't Reed, Doom wasn't Doom, the Thing didn't look like the Thing, the Baxter Building wasn't the Baxter Building, the relationship between Reed and Sue was childish and awful and I could go on and on and on and on.

But those details weren't the biggest problem. The biggest problem was the directing that didn't come close to capturing the feel of the stories that made the characters among the most classic and enduring in comic book history.

It can and needs to be updated some, but that update needs to be done with an understanding of what made the FF something that was very fresh and new when it arrived. It's not a matter of making it 'darker' which has become a cliché with comic-based films.

__________________
Check out my best-selling Science Fiction novel: Land of Nod, The Artifact

Last edited by Willie Lumpkin; 08-03-2013 at 04:33 PM.
Willie Lumpkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 11:12 PM   #52
Comics N' Toons
Let the Adventure Begin!
 
Comics N' Toons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,908
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

The question is... is Josh Trank the man to update the FF with the understanding of what made the FF something that was very fresh and new when it arrived?

__________________
Quote:
The reason why some fans come down on Batman 89 so hard since the Nolan films have been released is 2 fold: the Nolan films are newer and fans of the actual books don't read the 70's and 80's source material that the 89 film was based upon to understand how much more pure the 89 film is compared to the modern crime-drama trilogy that Nolan created.
Comics N' Toons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2013, 11:38 PM   #53
NinjaTurtleFan
Turtle Power!
 
NinjaTurtleFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,635
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

I think Josh Trank has it in himself to make a good "Fantastic Four" movie but I ideally want to see the Four done right for a change. Less camp. Darker; more realistic take. And what has me worried is all this nonsensical talk of changing characters' races or making them younger.

Stick to the source and don't muck this up a second time.

__________________
Cowabunga says it all! Cowabunga!!!!
NinjaTurtleFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 08:38 AM   #54
Comics N' Toons
Let the Adventure Begin!
 
Comics N' Toons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,908
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by NinjaTurtleFan View Post
I think Josh Trank has it in himself to make a good "Fantastic Four" movie but I ideally want to see the Four done right for a change. Less camp. Darker; more realistic take. And what has me worried is all this nonsensical talk of changing characters' races or making them younger.

Stick to the source and don't muck this up a second time.
Well that's it then.... keep the races as they should be, go back to the Lee/Kirby stories (throw in some John Byrne influence maybe?) and have some killer production design and we get a good movie!

__________________
Quote:
The reason why some fans come down on Batman 89 so hard since the Nolan films have been released is 2 fold: the Nolan films are newer and fans of the actual books don't read the 70's and 80's source material that the 89 film was based upon to understand how much more pure the 89 film is compared to the modern crime-drama trilogy that Nolan created.
Comics N' Toons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 09:21 AM   #55
NinjaTurtleFan
Turtle Power!
 
NinjaTurtleFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,635
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comics N' Toons View Post
Well that's it then.... keep the races as they should be, go back to the Lee/Kirby stories (throw in some John Byrne influence maybe?) and have some killer production design and we get a good movie!


I just feel if Tim Story would've made the first two movies less campy and cared less about appealing to youngsters and gotten a better Dr. Doom too, those movies could've been very good but nope.

__________________
Cowabunga says it all! Cowabunga!!!!
NinjaTurtleFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2013, 10:03 AM   #56
Comics N' Toons
Let the Adventure Begin!
 
Comics N' Toons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,908
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

oh i was being sincere, sorry!

__________________
Quote:
The reason why some fans come down on Batman 89 so hard since the Nolan films have been released is 2 fold: the Nolan films are newer and fans of the actual books don't read the 70's and 80's source material that the 89 film was based upon to understand how much more pure the 89 film is compared to the modern crime-drama trilogy that Nolan created.
Comics N' Toons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 08:31 AM   #57
NinjaTurtleFan
Turtle Power!
 
NinjaTurtleFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,635
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Lol it's cool. The Internet is funny like that. You never know.

__________________
Cowabunga says it all! Cowabunga!!!!
NinjaTurtleFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 02:24 PM   #58
Comics N' Toons
Let the Adventure Begin!
 
Comics N' Toons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,908
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

but i think the bottom line is... if Trank is as faithful to The Four as Raimi was with Spiderman 2, Whedon was with Avengers and Nolan was with Batman then everything will be fine!

__________________
Quote:
The reason why some fans come down on Batman 89 so hard since the Nolan films have been released is 2 fold: the Nolan films are newer and fans of the actual books don't read the 70's and 80's source material that the 89 film was based upon to understand how much more pure the 89 film is compared to the modern crime-drama trilogy that Nolan created.
Comics N' Toons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-05-2013, 04:40 PM   #59
NinjaTurtleFan
Turtle Power!
 
NinjaTurtleFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 3,635
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comics N' Toons View Post
but i think the bottom line is... if Trank is as faithful to The Four as Raimi was with Spiderman 2, Whedon was with Avengers and Nolan was with Batman then everything will be fine!
Here! Here!


__________________
Cowabunga says it all! Cowabunga!!!!
NinjaTurtleFan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2013, 10:52 AM   #60
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
 
DrCosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In the Moment
Posts: 5,058
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comics N' Toons View Post
but i think the bottom line is... if Trank is as faithful to The Four as Raimi was with Spiderman 2, Whedon was with Avengers and Nolan was with Batman then everything will be fine!

__________________
WW TV Show Ideas - Cyborg TV Show Ideas - X-Men TV Show Ideas - How I'd Have Done the DCCU - FYI: Stark creates Ultron in AoU
With a Ph.D in Metascience
"Sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from science."
DrCosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2013, 12:47 PM   #61
Willie Lumpkin
Side-Kick
 
Willie Lumpkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southern New Jersey
Posts: 4,213
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Comics N' Toons View Post
but i think the bottom line is... if Trank is as faithful to The Four as Raimi was with Spiderman 2, Whedon was with Avengers and Nolan was with Batman then everything will be fine!
No matter how good Trank is and no matter how faithful his vision is, Fox will not give him the money, manpower and general support that any of those 3 projects had.

All of those directors were swimming downstream with studios that fully supported them. Trank will be swimming upstream the whole way.

__________________
Check out my best-selling Science Fiction novel: Land of Nod, The Artifact
Willie Lumpkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2013, 01:00 PM   #62
Lord
All Mighty
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 11,087
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
They were all very true to the characters and stories actually.

__________________
STAR WARS
Returns 2015


Quote:
Originally Posted by childeroland View Post
Plenty of male-led action films fail, yet the actors' gender is not blamed. Why should it be different for women? Especially since far more male-led action films are made than female-led action films?
Lord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2013, 05:06 PM   #63
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
 
DrCosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In the Moment
Posts: 5,058
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord View Post
They were all very true to the characters and stories actually.
Very true by what standard? You can take your average IQ retiree Batman, your Pym-less SHIELD-driven Avengers, and your organic webshooters and make some great movies... but the number of changes is simply staggering. I would be a jerk to list them all. They kept, for the most part, the core of the characters, but everything except gender of characters was up for changing, sometimes dramatically. If Trank is as faithful to FF as those creators were, that leaves a LOT of leeway as far as skills, age, race, abilities, lineup, nature of abilities and villains' backstories and motivations go... so long as the core of who the characters are remains intact.

__________________
WW TV Show Ideas - Cyborg TV Show Ideas - X-Men TV Show Ideas - How I'd Have Done the DCCU - FYI: Stark creates Ultron in AoU
With a Ph.D in Metascience
"Sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from science."

Last edited by DrCosmic; 08-06-2013 at 05:09 PM.
DrCosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2013, 05:06 PM   #64
Snikt
Side-Kick
 
Snikt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,163
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Lumpkin View Post
No matter how good Trank is and no matter how faithful his vision is, Fox will not give him the money, manpower and general support that any of those 3 projects had.
Why do you think that? Have you not noticed the number of quality Fox movies coming out the past couple years? They're trusting their directors more?

X-Men: First Class, Chronicle, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Prometheus, The Wolverine.

Obviously there are crap movies in there too...every studio has crap movies. But I feel like I'm starting to see more quality movies from them.

Snikt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2013, 05:19 PM   #65
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
 
DrCosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In the Moment
Posts: 5,058
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snikt View Post
Why do you think that? Have you not noticed the number of quality Fox movies coming out the past couple years? They're trusting their directors more?

X-Men: First Class, Chronicle, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Prometheus, The Wolverine.

Obviously there are crap movies in there too...every studio has crap movies. But I feel like I'm starting to see more quality movies from them.
There are crap movies, but not superhero or Sci Fi ones (since X-Men Wolverine Origins). Fox has been on an upswing that started, imho, in 2009 with Taken, up through Avatar and into all the movies you just named and will continue on into FF and X-Men DOFP. They still made retartedly stupid comedies, but all their sci-fi and superhero films since then have been awesome, because they hire great people and trust them. This is no more evident than with Red Tails and In Time, movies with weak responses which did not receive executive meddling.

Fox is a company, not a person. Holding a grudge against Fox is a bit silly.

The Fantastic Four series has a great chance of success, provided they don't put it up against an established film franchise, especially if they clearly differentiate it from the previous incarnation.

__________________
WW TV Show Ideas - Cyborg TV Show Ideas - X-Men TV Show Ideas - How I'd Have Done the DCCU - FYI: Stark creates Ultron in AoU
With a Ph.D in Metascience
"Sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from science."
DrCosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2013, 06:18 PM   #66
Zarex
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,201
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
The Fantastic Four series has a great chance of success, provided they don't put it up against an established film franchise, especially if they clearly differentiate it from the previous incarnation.
Looking at the numbers, I strongly disagree. The last FF film did (per Box Office Mojo) $289 million worldwide. Though I can see the FF film treading water with the reboot like the Hulk films, the box office ceiling is probably close to FOX's highly regarded X-Men sorta-reboot XM:FC, or $350 million.

The last FF film (again, per BOM) cost $130 million and looked terrible. XM: FC cost $160 million, and if you look at rising costs along with the more extensive CGI required to put all four members onscreen doing more than just sitting around, and the cost floor is around $175 million.

So if we assume FOX gets 50% of the worldwide box office (a high estimate) and a director with one film under his belt keeps the costs under control, the film doesn't get swallowed up in the 2015 hype, and overcomes the challenging release date (56 days before A:AOU), than FOX may be able to break even on an FF reboot. If that's FOX's best case scenario, and I believe it is, then their best play is to give up the FF and put their money into expanding the X Universe.

Zarex is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2013, 07:57 PM   #67
Willie Lumpkin
Side-Kick
 
Willie Lumpkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southern New Jersey
Posts: 4,213
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snikt View Post
Why do you think that? Have you not noticed the number of quality Fox movies coming out the past couple years? They're trusting their directors more?

X-Men: First Class, Chronicle, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, Prometheus, The Wolverine.

Obviously there are crap movies in there too...every studio has crap movies. But I feel like I'm starting to see more quality movies from them.
I have no doubt that Fox could make a great film if they chose to, but they haven't shown the slightest indication that they've gained respect for the FF franchise since they treated it like a red-headed stepchild with the last two films they made.

When Warner Bros. was talking up the Superman/Batman film at Comic-Con, what was Fox saying about FF?

When Marvel was talking up Avengers 2 - Age of Ultron, what was Fox saying about FF?

Both of those films are scheduled to come out after FF, but they got posters, announcements, hype, excitement . . . while Fox doesn't care enough about FF to even mention it.

If Fox is going to make this film, I certainly hope they'll treat it with more respect than they did the previous 2 films, but I have absolutely nothing from Fox to indicate such.

Will FF have a higher budget than the three films we're talking about - Spider-man, Batman and Avengers? Not likely. Anyone want to bet?

__________________
Check out my best-selling Science Fiction novel: Land of Nod, The Artifact
Willie Lumpkin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2013, 09:32 PM   #68
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
 
DrCosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In the Moment
Posts: 5,058
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarex View Post
Looking at the numbers, I strongly disagree. The last FF film did (per Box Office Mojo) $289 million worldwide. Though I can see the FF film treading water with the reboot like the Hulk films, the box office ceiling is probably close to FOX's highly regarded X-Men sorta-reboot XM:FC, or $350 million.

The last FF film (again, per BOM) cost $130 million and looked terrible. XM: FC cost $160 million, and if you look at rising costs along with the more extensive CGI required to put all four members onscreen doing more than just sitting around, and the cost floor is around $175 million.
Have you addressed how I discredited the notion that the last FF film's cost is worth mentioning. The first FF film cost 100 Million and did not look terrible, so what sense does it make to use the last one as your standard of money to quality? Prometheus cost 130M and looked great. Chronicle, Skylnie, Paul, and Ted cost less than 50M and all looked great - and none of these were just sitting around, either.

So what justification do you have for bringing up the budget to quality ratio of the last FF film? How could that possibly relate to today's CGI under Trank, which has LOWER cost, or else movies like Chronicle, Paul, Ted and Skyline could not exist.

Your example is irrelevant, in regards to the time, in regards to the director. The fact that you think that CGI costs are rising despite clear proof of the opposite shows the credibility of your research. All my numbers are from BOM as well, I just looked into more movies than you did.

Quote:
So if we assume FOX gets 50% of the worldwide box office (a high estimate) and a director with one film under his belt keeps the costs under control, the film doesn't get swallowed up in the 2015 hype, and overcomes the challenging release date (56 days before A:AOU), than FOX may be able to break even on an FF reboot. If that's FOX's best case scenario, and I believe it is, then their best play is to give up the FF and put their money into expanding the X Universe.
Just FYI: Release dates two months away don't affect box office. Box office is affected when a big movie comes out and causes a large 2nd or 3rd week drop in a movie's sales. By the time A:AOU comes out, the drop effect will be long gone. No one is going to say "I can't see FF, I need to save my 12 dollars for May!" A:AOU doesn't challenge FF at all. If anything, the fact that the final trailer may be out when FF hits theaters may actually cause more people to go see FF.

So, you haven't explained why the last FF film is relevant, you haven't explained why A:AOU is relevant (other than potentially helping FF). The last thing you haven't explained is how Josh Trank only having one film out hurts him - especially in the department of keeping costs down. That's what he's famous for. "He's only had one film, he's only had one film." So!? If a director knocks it out of the park on their first film... just imagine what they'll do with their second one! Name another great director who's first film did so well. Even Chris Nolan did Following before he did Momento.

I've also explained why putting these characters on screen is not more expensive. Like other superheroes, they generally show their powers when learning to use them and in action scenes. They are not CGI intensive heroes, with the possible exception of Thing. Further, there's only four of them, and most importantly, they don't do a lot of smashing and working in urban areas. The expensive work of shooting on closed city streets and simulating lots of urban destruction is pretty much moot with the FF, aside from that trademark fight with that giant mole monster. So a soaring budget with a huge setpiece in downtown Cleveland or simulating a destroyed Metropolis just aren't necessities. Hiring big name actors isn't a big thing either. Plus, while Thing and Mr. Fantastic could potentially be more expensive, Invisible Woman and Human Torch are much less so, balancing out the cost, really. Again, doing Human Torch and Invisible Woman can be done effectively by an youtuber for $100 bucks, this implies that by spending $1M bucks it could be done on a professional "done right" level for ten times longer. Suuuuper cheap. Depending on how this new checkerboard mo-cap technology is going, even Thing might not be nearly as expensive as one might think... especially if one is good with keeping costs down, like Trank.

__________________
WW TV Show Ideas - Cyborg TV Show Ideas - X-Men TV Show Ideas - How I'd Have Done the DCCU - FYI: Stark creates Ultron in AoU
With a Ph.D in Metascience
"Sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from science."

Last edited by DrCosmic; 08-06-2013 at 09:46 PM.
DrCosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 07:48 AM   #69
Zarex
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,201
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
Have you addressed how I discredited the notion that the last FF film's cost is worth mentioning. The first FF film cost 100 Million and did not look terrible, so what sense does it make to use the last one as your standard of money to quality?
I haven't mentioned it, because I completely disagree with your premise that the first FF film did not look terrible. Moving on......


Quote:
Prometheus cost 130M and looked great. Chronicle, Skylnie, Paul, and Ted cost less than 50M and all looked great - and none of these were just sitting around, either.

So what justification do you have for bringing up the budget to quality ratio of the last FF film? How could that possibly relate to today's CGI under Trank, which has LOWER cost, or else movies like Chronicle, Paul, Ted and Skyline could not exist.

Your example is irrelevant, in regards to the time, in regards to the director. The fact that you think that CGI costs are rising despite clear proof of the opposite shows the credibility of your research. All my numbers are from BOM as well, I just looked into more movies than you did.
Using a gritty found footage film, raunchy comedies with one CGI character and sci-fi films as "comps" only makes sense if no other superhero team-up films have been made. But there have been - in fact, the studio proposing the FF reboot has made a bunch of them. FF:ROTSS, XM:FC, DOFP, A:AOU, BvS and GOTG are comparable films - "Ted" is not. It's nice that you looked at more movies, but you actually have to look at the right ones.

Film costs are rising, including high-quality CGI, and the problem with rising costs in a flat market are summarized in a cracked.com article titled "4 Reasons 2015 Could Be the Movie Industry's Worst Year Ever". The FF reboot is mentioned (not positively).


Quote:
Just FYI: Release dates two months away don't affect box office. Box office is affected when a big movie comes out and causes a large 2nd or 3rd week drop in a movie's sales. By the time A:AOU comes out, the drop effect will be long gone. No one is going to say "I can't see FF, I need to save my 12 dollars for May!" A:AOU doesn't challenge FF at all. If anything, the fact that the final trailer may be out when FF hits theaters may actually cause more people to go see FF.
The FF may get swept up in the push for A:AOU and be overlooked, but you could be right.

Quote:
So, you haven't explained why the last FF film is relevant, you haven't explained why A:AOU is relevant (other than potentially helping FF). The last thing you haven't explained is how Josh Trank only having one film out hurts him - especially in the department of keeping costs down. That's what he's famous for. "He's only had one film, he's only had one film." So!? If a director knocks it out of the park on their first film... just imagine what they'll do with their second one! Name another great director who's first film did so well. Even Chris Nolan did Following before he did Momento.
Trank may do fine - but "less experienced" equals "greater risk".

Quote:
I've also explained why putting these characters on screen is not more expensive. Like other superheroes, they generally show their powers when learning to use them and in action scenes. They are not CGI intensive heroes, with the possible exception of Thing. Further, there's only four of them, and most importantly, they don't do a lot of smashing and working in urban areas. The expensive work of shooting on closed city streets and simulating lots of urban destruction is pretty much moot with the FF, aside from that trademark fight with that giant mole monster. So a soaring budget with a huge setpiece in downtown Cleveland or simulating a destroyed Metropolis just aren't necessities. Hiring big name actors isn't a big thing either. Plus, while Thing and Mr. Fantastic could potentially be more expensive, Invisible Woman and Human Torch are much less so, balancing out the cost, really. Again, doing Human Torch and Invisible Woman can be done effectively by an youtuber for $100 bucks, this implies that by spending $1M bucks it could be done on a professional "done right" level for ten times longer. Suuuuper cheap. Depending on how this new checkerboard mo-cap technology is going, even Thing might not be nearly as expensive as one might think... especially if one is good with keeping costs down, like Trank.
I disagree wholeheartedly that putting the FF film onscreen in a manner that's competitive with the big budget superhero films that are coming out directly before and directly after is "Suuuuper cheap".


Last edited by Zarex; 08-07-2013 at 07:52 AM.
Zarex is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 12:54 PM   #70
Lord
All Mighty
 
Lord's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 11,087
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
Very true by what standard? You can take your average IQ retiree Batman, your Pym-less SHIELD-driven Avengers, and your organic webshooters and make some great movies... but the number of changes is simply staggering. I would be a jerk to list them all. They kept, for the most part, the core of the characters, but everything except gender of characters was up for changing, sometimes dramatically. If Trank is as faithful to FF as those creators were, that leaves a LOT of leeway as far as skills, age, race, abilities, lineup, nature of abilities and villains' backstories and motivations go... so long as the core of who the characters are remains intact.
Well, for The Dark Knight for example i allways felt like i was watching Batman, it reminded me a lot of classic Batman vs Joker, and it was very true to their first encounter from Batman #1. They may change the looks and sometimes even the personality (Bane and Talia in a way) but i don't ever feel like i'm watching something that isn't Batman.

The comics themselves do this all the time in fact, retcon things, change personalities, etc. DC does this every 25 years.

__________________
STAR WARS
Returns 2015


Quote:
Originally Posted by childeroland View Post
Plenty of male-led action films fail, yet the actors' gender is not blamed. Why should it be different for women? Especially since far more male-led action films are made than female-led action films?
Lord is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2013, 02:42 PM   #71
fantastic fifth
...just in case...
 
fantastic fifth's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 343
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

From **************.com;

Recently, X-Men: Days of Future Past director Bryan Singer was in attendance at The Fantasia International Film Festival where he disclosed some information on Quicksilver, Scarlet Witch and Cyclops. We previously covered that info but there was one peculiar item of note that slipped through the cracks. Reportedly, Singer told the crowd that he has plans for another Marvel movie after X-Men: Days of Future Past, one that sounds like it's going to combine a number of Marvel properties. He called the film a "Marvel Universe mash-up." It's probably a safe bet that Singer is sticking with 20th Century Fox and not helming a project for Marvel (although that is a possibility) so the obvious assumption is that he's possibly planning a team-up with the X-Men and Fantastic Four. Within those two film properties are rights to Silver Surfer, Deadpool and various spinoff X-Men teams, like X-Force, which was recently revealed to be in development with Kick-Ass 2 director Jeff Wadlow working on the script. Would you be interested in seeing a "mash-up" of these characters? It's entirely possible that some of the Fantastic Four characters and locations could show up in Days of Future Past as the FF played a key supporting role in Chris Claremont's original comic book story.


Read more at http://www.**************.com/fansit...YsgZC3qxO5c.99

fantastic fifth is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 01:49 PM   #72
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
 
DrCosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In the Moment
Posts: 5,058
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarex View Post
I haven't mentioned it, because I completely disagree with your premise that the first FF film did not look terrible. Moving on......
Ah... well, we'll agree to disagree on that then.

Quote:
Using a gritty found footage film, raunchy comedies with one CGI character and sci-fi films as "comps" only makes sense if no other superhero team-up films have been made. But there have been - in fact, the studio proposing the FF reboot has made a bunch of them. FF:ROTSS, XM:FC, DOFP, A:AOU, BvS and GOTG are comparable films - "Ted" is not. It's nice that you looked at more movies, but you actually have to look at the right ones.
I don't think you're looking at the right ones either. You're comparing films with big name actors, big name directors, world-spanning locales and hordes of CGI goons to Fantastic Four... which has none of that. The reason why using these raunch comedies as comps work is it gives you a baseline for what the CGI is actually costing. A typical Mark Wahlberg comedy perhaps costs $30M, 20 for Mark, 10 for various filming bits. Therefore we can infer that a 90 minutes of CGI character - if they go that route with Thing, only costs $20M using today's tech. We can compare that then to ROTSS and see what poor CGI happens with a larger budget and then logically conclude that either the money was mis-spent or CGI is now cheaper. It doesn't make any sense to conclude that raunchy comedies get some magical CGI discount, just because they aren't superhero movies.

Having the same type of subject matter doesn't control the budget. No matter how many times Reed Richads and Tony Stark appear together, there is no magical rule that forces FF to have a $180M budget. That's rational, I suppose, but it's not logical, or analytical, it's just a guess, and it only makes sense if there's no other CGI movies in existence, but there are. And so we compare the differences to see what the difference in cost might be, and how they can be controlled - especially by someone proven in controlling those costs.

Quote:
Film costs are rising, including high-quality CGI, and the problem with rising costs in a flat market are summarized in a cracked.com article titled "4 Reasons 2015 Could Be the Movie Industry's Worst Year Ever". The FF reboot is mentioned (not positively).
Except the cost of CGI is not actually rising, it's falling and the amount of CGI being used is rising. Avoiding this problem, dramatically decreasing the cost of FF in comparison to other similar films while still making a high quality film is exactly why they needed to hire Trank. The results should also help educate whoever used a sample size of two to prove a trend. What you seem to suggest: that in order to have a blockbuster, you need a bloated budget - that is exactly what the article is pointing out as wrong. Being 'competitive' with A:AOU if that means having a similar budget and expecting similar returns is actually a *bad* thing. Really bad.

Quote:
The FF may get swept up in the push for A:AOU and be overlooked, but you could be right.
'swept up in the push' doesn't even make sense.

Quote:
Trank may do fine - but "less experienced" equals "greater risk".
Yes, there is a definite risk: that he will not make a movie better than Chronicle. That is a risk well worth taking, from a critical and commercial standpoint.

Quote:
I disagree wholeheartedly that putting the FF film onscreen in a manner that's competitive with the big budget superhero films that are coming out directly before and directly after is "Suuuuper cheap".
Regardless of what you disagree with, Invisible Woman and Human Torch are super cheap, by Hollywood standards. That's been demonstrated. It shows that FF is positioned to be the most inexpensive superhero film out there while still having the same quality of action, and perhaps even scale, as any other. The budget we're probably looking at for a competitive (as far as commercial and critical success go) Fantastic Four film is probably just south of $100M, and that's not counting any tricks that Trank has up his sleeve. Shooting in Louisiana is a big hint in this direction. Going young talented but not yet name actors is another. In fact, the whole Ultimate FF scenario lends a lot more to pure practical effects and pure CGI effects than the expensive mixing of the two.

What is it that you mean by 'competitive' exactly? Because it all seems very vague at this point.

__________________
WW TV Show Ideas - Cyborg TV Show Ideas - X-Men TV Show Ideas - How I'd Have Done the DCCU - FYI: Stark creates Ultron in AoU
With a Ph.D in Metascience
"Sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from science."

Last edited by DrCosmic; 08-08-2013 at 02:27 PM.
DrCosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 01:57 PM   #73
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
 
DrCosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In the Moment
Posts: 5,058
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lord View Post
Well, for The Dark Knight for example i allways felt like i was watching Batman, it reminded me a lot of classic Batman vs Joker, and it was very true to their first encounter from Batman #1. They may change the looks and sometimes even the personality (Bane and Talia in a way) but i don't ever feel like i'm watching something that isn't Batman.

The comics themselves do this all the time in fact, retcon things, change personalities, etc. DC does this every 25 years.
I agree. I just find it funny how fans flip out about all these changes and then go about enjoying them, and even singing their praises later. So to reference those films as the standard of faithfulness is crazy funny to me.

__________________
WW TV Show Ideas - Cyborg TV Show Ideas - X-Men TV Show Ideas - How I'd Have Done the DCCU - FYI: Stark creates Ultron in AoU
With a Ph.D in Metascience
"Sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from science."
DrCosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 03:19 PM   #74
Zarex
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 1,201
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrCosmic View Post
I don't think you're looking at the right ones either. You're comparing films with big name actors, big name directors, world-spanning locales and hordes of CGI goons to Fantastic Four... which has none of that.
I agree that the cost of the FF reboot will be significantly cheaper if FOX strips away virtually everything movie goers have have found attractive about the superhero team-up genre.

Quote:
The reason why using these raunch comedies as comps work is it gives you a baseline for what the CGI is actually costing. A typical Mark Wahlberg comedy perhaps costs $30M, 20 for Mark, 10 for various filming bits. Therefore we can infer that a 90 minutes of CGI character - if they go that route with Thing, only costs $20M using today's tech. We can compare that then to ROTSS and see what poor CGI happens with a larger budget and then logically conclude that either the money was mis-spent or CGI is now cheaper. It doesn't make any sense to conclude that raunchy comedies get some magical CGI discount, just because they aren't superhero movies.
Honestly, I don't have sufficient understanding of CGI costs to debate you on the subject.

Quote:
Having the same type of subject matter doesn't control the budget. No matter how many times Reed Richads and Tony Stark appear together, there is no magical rule that forces FF to have a $180M budget. That's rational, I suppose, but it's not logical, or analytical, it's just a guess, and it only makes sense if there's no other CGI movies in existence, but there are. And so we compare the differences to see what the difference in cost might be, and how they can be controlled - especially by someone proven in controlling those costs.
It's a guess based on real life "comps". And I don't know if a filmmaker with one low budget film under his belt can be said to be "proven" at anything.

Quote:
Except the cost of CGI is not actually rising, it's falling and the amount of CGI being used is rising. Avoiding this problem, dramatically decreasing the cost of FF in comparison to other similar films while still making a high quality film is exactly why they needed to hire Trank. The results should also help educate whoever used a sample size of two to prove a trend. What you seem to suggest: that in order to have a blockbuster, you need a bloated budget - that is exactly what the article is pointing out as wrong. Being 'competitive' with A:AOU if that means having a similar budget and expecting similar returns is actually a *bad* thing. Really bad.
Again, I defer to your clear expertise in regards to CGI costs.

Quote:
'swept up in the push' doesn't even make sense.
I apologize for my awkward wording, but I suspect you understand what I was trying to say. Disney/Marvel marketing for A:AOU will be in full swing when the FF comes into theaters. Better?

Quote:
Yes, there is a definite risk: that he will not make a movie better than Chronicle. That is a risk well worth taking, from a critical and commercial standpoint.
Trank! Trank! Trank! Trank!

Quote:
Regardless of what you disagree with, Invisible Woman and Human Torch are super cheap, by Hollywood standards. That's been demonstrated. It shows that FF is positioned to be the most inexpensive superhero film out there while still having the same quality of action, and perhaps even scale, as any other. The budget we're probably looking at for a competitive (as far as commercial and critical success go) Fantastic Four film is probably just south of $100M, and that's not counting any tricks that Trank has up his sleeve. Shooting in Louisiana is a big hint in this direction. Going young talented but not yet name actors is another. In fact, the whole Ultimate FF scenario lends a lot more to pure practical effects and pure CGI effects than the expensive mixing of the two.

What is it that you mean by 'competitive' exactly? Because it all seems very vague at this point.
Competitive means putting a comparable spectacle on screen to the superhero team up films coming into theaters directly before and after the FF reboot. Mark Millar mentioned that the proposed film contains things we've never seen before on film. That doesn't sound like it will be cheap. But you would know better than me.

Zarex is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2013, 04:37 PM   #75
DrCosmic
Professor of Power
 
DrCosmic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In the Moment
Posts: 5,058
Default Re: Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zarex View Post
I agree that the cost of the FF reboot will be significantly cheaper if FOX strips away virtually everything movie goers have have found attractive about the superhero team-up genre.
I don't think superhero team-up is a genre, per se. Regardless, what is it that you believe audiences find attractive about superhero team up movies?

Do audiences get these same things from inexpensive successful superhero movies like Chronicle and Kick Ass?

Quote:
Honestly, I don't have sufficient understanding of CGI costs to debate you on the subject.
Neither do I, I'm just doing the math. If the math is wrong, you should correct me. If the math and the logic is sound then the conclusion is sound, barring some hitherto unknown information.

Quote:
It's a guess based on real life "comps". And I don't know if a filmmaker with one low budget film under his belt can be said to be "proven" at anything.
1 piece of proof is still proof, perhaps not enough for some, but proof it is. You're comparing to films you believe are similar. I've suggested they need not be very similar at all outside of being based on a comic book, like Kick Ass, like Constantine. I don't see any reason for you to continue to maintain that they are similar in terms of budgetary needs.

Quote:
I apologize for my awkward wording, but I suspect you understand what I was trying to say. Disney/Marvel marketing for A:AOU will be in full swing when the FF comes into theaters. Better?
It's not the wording, but the thought you seem to be implying, that A:AOU's promotion could possibly have any negative effect on FF, that's what doesn't make sense to me.

Quote:
Competitive means putting a comparable spectacle on screen to the superhero team up films coming into theaters directly before and after the FF reboot. Mark Millar mentioned that the proposed film contains things we've never seen before on film. That doesn't sound like it will be cheap. But you would know better than me.
Well, Man of Steel had superior spectacle, but inferior numbers. Iron Man 3 had far inferior spectacle compared to Avengers, but nearly equal numbers. Comparing by spectacle level leads to the problem you mentioned in the Cracked article. Unless these blockbuster movies get away from that mindset, they'll pretty much all fail.

The Millar quote you're referring to is this:

http://collider.com/fantastic-four-r...s-mark-millar/
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Millar
“What I wasn’t expecting actually was just how funny and likeable he could make this as well as getting the more awesome moments on screen – I use awesome in the traditional British sense and not the California sense awesome, you know? The Ridley Scott moments, and the Fantastic Four really are jaw-dropping in the same way you feel when you saw Alien for the first time. There’s some moments in this – not to be specific – that are actually gonna be phenomenal on screen and stuff you haven’t seen in a superhero movie before.”
Emphasis added by me. That's the word you left out, and, especially in this context, it changes the emphasis from a superhero spectacle movie to a groundbreaking sci fi movie. Not unlike Chronicle. Not unlike Alien. Incredibly inexpensive films that were awesome in the British sense of the word. Trank, as overrated as I'm making him sound, is doing just what he did before and figured out a way to make something that's just as good as everything else out there without having to spend a bunch of money on CGI. Great characters, fresh take on an old concept. High impact, low cost. Money and critical acclaim follow without trying to out-Avengers Avengers and become another casualty of the bloated budget. It's not only smart, but it's the only way FF could be successful, and indeed, it's what the FF was meant to be at it's core from the beginning anyway. People exploring cool concepts, not bashing the bad guy's head in.

__________________
WW TV Show Ideas - Cyborg TV Show Ideas - X-Men TV Show Ideas - How I'd Have Done the DCCU - FYI: Stark creates Ultron in AoU
With a Ph.D in Metascience
"Sufficiently understood magic is indistinguishable from science."

Last edited by DrCosmic; 08-08-2013 at 04:46 PM.
DrCosmic is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 PM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. ©2014 All Rights Reserved.