Do you think Fantastic Four has a chance to can be seen a successful movie series?

[Zarex]

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?

The onscreen version of the FF should not resemble those films in any way.

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.

What you presented was more "wild guess" than "math"

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.

Moviegoers may not want to see Trank's small-scale, low-budget, star-free superhero team up with Avengers right around the corner.

Iron Man 3 had far inferior spectacle compared to Avengers, but nearly equal numbers.

You may want to recheck your math.

 

[DrCosmic]

The onscreen version of the FF should not resemble those films in any way.

In any way? So, no compelling characters, no characters linked by real feeling friendships and familial relationships? No deciding to become public costumed superheroes, no struggling with what to do with powers, no dead parents, no betrayals by friends, no smart aleck teenagers, no badass females, no malevolent evolutionists, none of that in the onscreen FF. Cool.

Like I said, what is it you think audiences find attractive about superhero movies?

What you presented was more "wild guess" than "math"

...

You may want to recheck your math.

You're right! Wahlberg gets paid $28M per movie, not $20M.

Avengers's 1.5 billion and Iron Man 3's 1.2 billion seems relatively close. This is a film who's major set pieces are a jet, a couple mansions (mostly sans powers) and a big battle at the docks, A-Team style. Grossed over a billion. Spectacle is not the answer.

Moviegoers may not want to see Trank's small-scale, low-budget, star-free superhero team up with Avengers right around the corner.

Why not? Do they not have money? Are they only interested in films as epic as Avengers? If so, when does this effect start? March? January? The Previous summer?

 

[Zarex]

In any way? So, no compelling characters, no characters linked by real feeling friendships and familial relationships? No deciding to become public costumed superheroes, no struggling with what to do with powers, no dead parents, no betrayals by friends, no smart aleck teenagers, no badass females, no malevolent evolutionists, none of that in the onscreen FF. Cool.

Like I said, what is it you think audiences find attractive about superhero movies?

I don't think there is one thing or list of things that audiences find attractive - though team chemistry, snappy dialogue, teamwork, high stakes and an attractive, talented cast are probably on most everyone's list. But should the FF reboot resemble a hyper-violent post-modern film or a film that's not about superheroes (per Max Landis)? I don't think so.

Avengers's 1.5 billion and Iron Man 3's 1.2 billion seems relatively close. This is a film who's major set pieces are a jet, a couple mansions (mostly sans powers) and a big battle at the docks, A-Team style. Grossed over a billion. Spectacle is not the answer.

A 20% variance is substantial. And Iron Man had a $200 million budget.

Why not? Do they not have money? Are they only interested in films as epic as Avengers? If so, when does this effect start? March? January? The Previous summer?

You and I have very different ideas about what an an FF film should be. Growing up the First Family's adventures were featured monthly in the World's Greatest Comic Magazine, back when that meant something. The FF deserve to be showed in their full glory, not relegated to a low-budget, small-scale, star-free film, squeezed into an overcrowded 2015, and pushed into production four years after the film was announced in order to play keep away with the rights. You may feel that treatment is appropriate. I think it's a damn shame.

 

[DrCosmic]

I don't think there is one thing or list of things that audiences find attractive - though team chemistry, snappy dialogue, teamwork, high stakes and an attractive, talented cast are probably on most everyone's list. But should the FF reboot resemble a hyper-violent post-modern film or a film that's not about superheroes (per Max Landis)? I don't think so.

Audiences don't find compelling characters attractive? Fine. Everything you named is in that hyperviolent post modern film AND in the film not about Superheroes. So what's the problem, exactly?

A 20% variance is substantial. And Iron Man had a $200 million budget.

It is, but not as substatial as the lack of spectacle in Iron Man 3. That's my point, bringing the spectacle way down does not bring the box office returns or critical reception way down.

You and I have very different ideas about what an an FF film should be. Growing up the First Family's adventures were featured monthly in the World's Greatest Comic Magazine, back when that meant something. The FF deserve to be showed in their full glory, not relegated to a low-budget, small-scale, star-free film, squeezed into an overcrowded 2015, and pushed into production four years after the film was announced in order to play keep away with the rights. You may feel that treatment is appropriate. I think it's a damn shame.

We actually don't have very different ideas of what the film should be. You haven't said anything except for a bloated franchise-destroying budget that I haven't pointed out how to do cheaply. We have different ideas on how to get there, that's all. None of what you said here prevents the FF from being shown in all their glory. It just makes some fans vindictive and judgmental (ie Fox is "playing keep away"). Don't confuse low budget with low stakes or even low scale. Alien was a low-low budget movie with incredible stakes, most sci fi things are. That's the advantage of sci-fi, you can introduce a planet-destroying concept without having to spend $30M blowing up a city.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Yes it can.

It's no different than any other franchise. Put time into it and make solid movies and it can become a profitable franchise.

No matter which studio makes it!!!!!!!

We actually don't have very different ideas of what the film should be. You haven't said anything except for a bloated franchise-destroying budget that I haven't pointed out how to do cheaply. We have different ideas on how to get there, that's all. None of what you said here prevents the FF from being shown in all their glory. It just makes some fans vindictive and judgmental (ie Fox is "playing keep away"). Don't confuse low budget with low stakes or even low scale. Alien was a low-low budget movie with incredible stakes, most sci fi things are. That's the advantage of sci-fi, you can introduce a planet-destroying concept without having to spend $30M blowing up a city.

Good post. Some People stupidly think a movie needs to be big, expensive with lots of 'splosions to be interesting.

 

[VICTORVONDOOMX]

Definitly not if they do Ultimate.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

I'm not sure how to vote here. If produced by Marvel Studios as part of the MCU yes definitely it could be another smash hit. If produced by Fox - no way, no how.

I have a hard time accepting that any real fan of the FF would be behind Fox going through with this reboot. It's bad enough we will have two Quicksilvers. FF overlaps too much with the rest of the Marvel Universe. Without the MCU they will never reach their potential no matter how good Trank is and let's face it - he's still unproven and no way Fox gives this the $200 million dollar budget it deserves especially after the underperformance of The Wolverine. Audiences for The Wolverine were turned off by Borigins and FF2 made less money than the first. This movie will get demolished in 2015 by Avengers:AOU and Superman vs. Batman. No way this works out for Fox or the fans.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

If they don't want to lose the rights, the only way I could possibly see this working out for Fox is if they file for an extension by agreeing to develop the FF in conjunction with the MCU and not the X-Men (but a joint venture could leave the door open for a possible crossover with the X-Men down the road). That way the MCU is not tainted by the continuity mess that is the X-Men (with the hopes that DOFP will actually salvage that franchise) and Fox makes money. Marvel Studios produces and Fox distributes. Just like Hulk and Universal, Iron Man and Paramount etc. It can be done people.

 

[Tymminator]

Is it possible? Sure.

Do I believe it will (as it stands now w/FoX)? Nope.