Fant4stic: Reborn! - - Part 21

[spideyboy_1111]

20th Century Fox hit a gold mine with Fantastic Four! If the film turns out to be great, this could be their next X-Men or Planet of the Apes! t:

Yeah... because they sure struck gold the first time....

 

[Paradox1]

You mean all entertainment news? Thats the industry... they all clickbate. even this very website

No, not every website stoops to clickbait with insiders that have no verifiable proof. Entertaintment Weekly or the Hollywood Reporter never ran with stories about trouble on the FF set. They never had a story about Trank crumbling under the pressure.

Studios only do that as a faux show of confidence, to convince audiences the movie is going to be great (usually better than it actually is), and dredge up cheap hype.

And sometimes, its legit confidence. Like Sony, who greenlit Sinister Six, Venom, AND The Amazing Spider-Man 3.

Can't wait to see those........ oh wait.

First off I think every studio that has a franchise type property wants to make sequels. However when a property doesn't do as well financially and critically plans are scrapped, then you start over.

20th Century Fox hit a gold mine with Fantastic Four! If the film turns out to be great, this could be their next X-Men or Planet of the Apes! t:

I really hope so, the trailer just looked like one of those movies you just know is good.

 

[Gusto]

Lol.

Have to get by on the Marvel logo and DOFP.

 

[coolmovies]

http://m.hollywoodreporter.com/entry/view/id/906699


According to them, FF got 24 million views. Before anyone starts saying "OH! Looks fox ****ing lied and manipulated"... these are just YouTube views.

Then again it could be that Entertainment weekly made a mistake and instead of 24 typed it 42. It happens.

BTW they compared the first week views of FF trailer with comic book movies that came out last year. It really did beat them at least for first week and shows that movie has potential to do at least decently at box office.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

So now that it's broken some record, none of you really care for prior. The new theory is that it's somehow been manipulated. Just face it, the little low-fi, film with garbage bag doom, that was being shot in found footage, is getting more buzz than you ever imagined.

I don't really care about twisting information one way or another. I just want to know what's going on. When I first read the comment from Fox I thought: "Wow! That's pretty cool!" Then I started looking at the numbers and things weren't adding up, and I felt annoyed that Fox is trying to feed us BS.

Here are some real numbers we can look at.

Star Wars Episode VII - 55.7 million official views

Avengers AOU Teaser - 66.6 million official views

DOFP - 31.4 million official views

Captain America Winter Soldier - 27.3 million official views

Ant Man - 8.9 million official views

FF - 14.0 million official views

So FF is doing better than Ant Man. That's cool. I would expect there are more fans of FF than Ant Man and people weren't thrilled with the Ant Man trailer, so I would hope FF would do better.

But the FF views, while being in a good range, certainly don't seem amazing.

I seem to remember Marvel bragging about Ant Man views also, and that seems like BS in hindsight, so they're both full of crap. Both films have some moderate interest from comic book fans but neither is a sensation.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

http://www.fantasticfourmovie.com/

I get nothing here. It just locks up on me and tells me I need to resize my browser.

I'm an old-man. I don't know how to resize my browser.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

When Disney bought Marvel, the reaction from fans was to pile as much hate on Fox for daring to reboot Daredevil and Fantastic Four. Except before we even knew a single detail about either, far more people were hating Fox for rebooting FF and there was nothing but apathy for Daredevil. That's why Fox decided to let go of Daredevil instead of Silver Surfer. They realized that by that point, the potential audience didn't care about Daredevil but they did about the FF.

you and I remember things quite differently

 

[Zarex]

I don't really care about twisting information one way or another. I just want to know what's going on. When I first read the comment from Fox I thought: "Wow! That's pretty cool!" Then I started looking at the numbers and things weren't adding up, and I felt annoyed that Fox is trying to feed us BS.

Here are some real numbers we can look at.

Star Wars Episode VII - 55.7 million official views

Avengers AOU Teaser - 66.6 million official views

DOFP - 31.4 million official views

Captain America Winter Soldier - 27.3 million official views

Ant Man - 8.9 million official views

FF - 14.0 million official views

So FF is doing better than Ant Man. That's cool. I would expect there are more fans of FF than Ant Man and people weren't thrilled with the Ant Man trailer, so I would hope FF would do better.

But the FF views, while being in a good range, certainly don't seem amazing.

I seem to remember Marvel bragging about Ant Man views also, and that seems like BS in hindsight, so they're both full of crap. Both films have some moderate interest from comic book fans but neither is a sensation.

The views reflect that there was a lot of interest in the trailer, which makes perfect sense. I hate-watched it myself three times.

 

[Mike Murdock]

This sums up a lot. [YT]BFnTn6V99eU[/YT]

Yeah, that sums up my thoughts too. At this point, I just don't really care. Hell, it'll probably meet my expectations because I have no expectations. I'm just not going to bother seeing it. I'll acknowledge when it doesn't look terrible, but that's really about it. All the production choices that I don't like are already set and are known. The movie isn't going to use CGI to age the characters and the tone certainly isn't the Jack Kirby Fantastic Four. It might do what it sets out to do fairly well, but I just don't really care and probably won't go see it either way.

 

[psylockolussus]

This is pretty cool!

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Yeah, that sums up my thoughts too. At this point, I just don't really care. Hell, it'll probably meet my expectations because I have no expectations. I'm just not going to bother seeing it. I'll acknowledge when it doesn't look terrible, but that's really about it. All the production choices that I don't like are already set and are known. The movie isn't going to use CGI to age the characters and the tone certainly isn't the Jack Kirby Fantastic Four. It might do what it sets out to do fairly well, but I just don't really care and probably won't go see it either way.

Yeah. A lot of people are comparing it to Interstellar, but I saw the Interstellar trailer, it didn't do anything for me and I didn't go.

My feelings on this one are a little different because I have a disincentive to go. I'm afraid that sitting through this one will annoy me because I'll just be pissed off the whole time at how badly they're screwing things up, but if I weren't an FF fan, I think I just wouldn't be interested because it looks sort of boring - like Interstellar.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

No, not every website stoops to clickbait with insiders that have no verifiable proof. Entertaintment Weekly or the Hollywood Reporter never ran with stories about trouble on the FF set. They never had a story about Trank crumbling under the pressure.



First off I think every studio that has a franchise type property wants to make sequels. However when a property doesn't do as well financially and critically plans are scrapped, then you start over.



I really hope so, the trailer just looked like one of those movies you just know is good.

I dont read that insiders crap. But clickbait refers to things like 'guardians of the galaxy almost didnt have this guy in it... here's why!" Stupid headlines to drawl you in.

I dont typically read the whole "scooping" sites. It bores me.

But all entertainment sites, clickbait

 

[wobbly]

Yeah. A lot of people are comparing it to Interstellar, but I saw the Interstellar trailer, it didn't do anything for me and I didn't go.

My feelings on this one are a little different because I have a disincentive to go. I'm afraid that sitting through this one will annoy me because I'll just be pissed off the whole time at how badly they're screwing things up, but if I weren't an FF fan, I think I just wouldn't be interested because it looks sort of boring - like Interstellar.

Same here. Left me cold, fan or not.

 

[Dark Raven]

Yeah. A lot of people are comparing it to Interstellar, but I saw the Interstellar trailer, it didn't do anything for me and I didn't go.

My feelings on this one are a little different because I have a disincentive to go. I'm afraid that sitting through this one will annoy me because I'll just be pissed off the whole time at how badly they're screwing things up, but if I weren't an FF fan, I think I just wouldn't be interested because it looks sort of boring - like Interstellar.

It's very difficult to sit through a film when something really annoys you. This would be my feeling with this FF movie, which is why it would be unwatchable. I certainly wouldn't want to think I've wasted my money to pay to see this in a theatre. That would also be gnawing at me.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

It's very difficult to sit through a film when something really annoys you. This would be my feeling with this FF movie, which is why it would be unwatchable. I certainly wouldn't want to think I've wasted my money to pay to see this in a theatre. That would also be gnawing at me.

A great example someone gave here a long time ago was the Matthew Broderick "Godzilla".

I've been a Godzilla fan since I was a little kid, so I was really looking forward to the movie, but when I actually saw it I HATED it - not because it was an awful film but because it called itself 'Godzilla' when it was nothing like the real Godzilla. If they had simply called it: "The Lizard Creature" or something, I probably would have found it generally enjoyable.

Which leads to the obvious point that we seem to need to restate over and over again.

If studios want to make money off of fans of established properties, they should ensure their product gives those fans what they want. They can't make something that simply uses the name while taking broad liberties and assume 'they'll see it anyway'.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

A great example someone gave here a long time ago was the Matthew Broderick "Godzilla".

I've been a Godzilla fan since I was a little kid, so I was really looking forward to the movie, but when I actually saw it I HATED it - not because it was an awful film but because it called itself 'Godzilla' when it was nothing like the real Godzilla. If they had simply called it: "The Lizard Creature" or something, I probably would have found it generally enjoyable.

Which leads to the obvious point that we seem to need to restate over and over again.

If studios want to make money off of fans of established properties, they should ensure their product gives those fans what they want. They can't make something that simply uses the name while taking broad liberties and assume 'they'll see it anyway'.

I gotta agree. I have to believe studios buy properties because of the name and the built in fanbase. what's the point of buying a property only to twist it inside out and make it virtually unrecognizable? The best comic films (and most successful (not talking just money, but reviews and regard as well) have always been those that please the fans and attract the general audience as well. No fans don't make or break a film (Transformers proved that one) but with properties that rely so heavily on a built in fan-base (like the fantastic four) it can potentially hurt the film if you lose that demographic. unlike Transformers this film isn't about robots, aliens or full of explosions (which always sell), and unlike tmnt... it's not been over a decade since we got a live action version, and nostalgia is still very strong.

those are just really bizarre moves by fox.

 

[Flint Marko]

I gotta agree. I have to believe studios buy properties because of the name and the built in fanbase. what's the point of buying a property only to twist it inside out and make it virtually unrecognizable? The best comic films (and most successful (not talking just money, but reviews and regard as well) have always been those that please the fans and attract the general audience as well. No fans don't make or break a film (Transformers proved that one) but with properties that rely so heavily on a built in fan-base (like the fantastic four) it can potentially hurt the film if you lose that demographic. unlike Transformers this film isn't about robots, aliens or full of explosions (which always sell), and unlike tmnt... it's not been over a decade since we got a live action version, and nostalgia is still very strong.

those are just really bizarre moves by fox.

It's especially bizarre when you look at the current climate of comic book movies and realize that sticking to the spirit of the source material and doing right by the fans can make your franchise hugely successful all across the board. Marvel just made an unknown property with a raccoon and a talking tree one of the biggest films of 2014, and they didn't do it by going "dark and gritty". You'd think that in a post-Avengers world studios would realize that isn't the default way to go about doing things, especially when the films producer himself said that people were sick of that approach.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

It's especially bizarre when you look at the current climate of comic book movies and realize that sticking to the spirit of the source material and doing right by the fans can make your franchise hugely successful all across the board. Marvel just made an unknown property with a raccoon and a talking tree one of the biggest films of 2014, and they didn't do it by going "dark and gritty". You'd think that in a post-Avengers world studios would realize that isn't the default way to go about doing things, especially when the films producer himself said that people were sick of that approach.

agrees, it's a very antiquated way of thinking.. and it just seems silly and ignorant for a studio to try that approach. The fantastic four are not limited (too much) by no MCU sandbox to play with... they have a decent amount of characters to do a nice trilogy

 

[Whiskey Tango]

It's especially bizarre when you look at the current climate of comic book movies and realize that sticking to the spirit of the source material and doing right by the fans can make your franchise hugely successful all across the board. Marvel just made an unknown property with a raccoon and a talking tree one of the biggest films of 2014, and they didn't do it by going "dark and gritty". You'd think that in a post-Avengers world studios would realize that isn't the default way to go about doing things, especially when the films producer himself said that people were sick of that approach.

 

[Dark Raven]

It's especially bizarre when you look at the current climate of comic book movies and realize that sticking to the spirit of the source material and doing right by the fans can make your franchise hugely successful all across the board. Marvel just made an unknown property with a raccoon and a talking tree one of the biggest films of 2014, and they didn't do it by going "dark and gritty". You'd think that in a post-Avengers world studios would realize that isn't the default way to go about doing things, especially when the films producer himself said that people were sick of that approach.

It's because FFINO don't have a large budget so they probably have to make it a very lo-fi, grounded and gritty film because that's all they can afford. Then they try to make statements that they were doing this deliberately in the first place. That's probably why the Human Torch isn't even properly flamed on but looks like a guy in a stuntman suit with fire just dancing around him in various places, and then they put these vents on to say that he's just trying to control the flames so he doesn't go full supernova.

I remember once in school how another kid just traced over the front cover of a Marvel UK Captain America-titled comic which had in fact an Iron Man picture on the front (because they sometimes featured other stories) and tried to pass it off as his own work. He traced it exactly and then when I asked him why it said "Captain America" over an Iron Man picture when that's clearly not Cap, he simply said that he just wanted to do it that way, as if it were a deliberate artistic choice. Yeah, right. I knew what he did because I had that same comic too and knew it was just a direct trace.

Otherwise what idiot would draw an Iron Man picture and just slap the name Captain America over it when it's nothing related? Oh wait, that's what Trank has done here with this movie with the Fantastic Four logo just slapped over the top.

 

[VenomsMom]

I can't wait to see this movie flop hard and then the next day we read the headlines "Fox pays Marvel to take FF back". The Floptastic four.

 

[Paradox1]

I don't really care about twisting information one way or another. I just want to know what's going on. When I first read the comment from Fox I thought: "Wow! That's pretty cool!" Then I started looking at the numbers and things weren't adding up, and I felt annoyed that Fox is trying to feed us BS.

Here are some real numbers we can look at.

Star Wars Episode VII - 55.7 million official views

Avengers AOU Teaser - 66.6 million official views

DOFP - 31.4 million official views

Captain America Winter Soldier - 27.3 million official views

Ant Man - 8.9 million official views

FF - 14.0 million official views

So FF is doing better than Ant Man. That's cool. I would expect there are more fans of FF than Ant Man and people weren't thrilled with the Ant Man trailer, so I would hope FF would do better.

But the FF views, while being in a good range, certainly don't seem amazing.

I seem to remember Marvel bragging about Ant Man views also, and that seems like BS in hindsight, so they're both full of crap. Both films have some moderate interest from comic book fans but neither is a sensation.

Did you also calculate all the views from Youtube, Facebook,Google and Twitter? If you did not, then quit this bs argument of them fudging the numbers. You have no idea how they calculate the numbers they do. On Facebook alone the trailer has another 9million views and over 1million likes.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Did you also calculate all the views from Youtube, Facebook,Google and Twitter? If you did not, then quit this bs argument of them fudging the numbers. You have no idea how they calculate the numbers they do. On Facebook alone the trailer has another 9million views and over 1million likes.

My numbers are a better comparison than anything you can show me. Views on other sites should be roughly proportional.

If you want to believe this trailer was a huge internet sensation, believe what you want. I was just curious what the real situation was and I feel I have a better understanding of the real situation than I did when I read 42 million views (when I knew the Avengers had a little over 30 million on their youtube version) and thought it was bigger than it really was.

 

[Paradox1]

My numbers are a better comparison than anything you can show me. Views on other sites should be roughly proportional.

If you want to believe this trailer was a huge internet sensation, believe what you want. I was just curious what the real situation was and I feel I have a better understanding of the real situation than I did when I read 42 million views (when I knew the Avengers had a little over 30 million on their youtube version) and thought it was bigger than it really was.

Why would they be a better comparison when social media is bigger than just Youtube? I'm sure that site brings a lot of traffic but I doubt it's bigger for social media than say Twitter or Facebook.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Why would they be a better comparison when social media is bigger than just Youtube? I'm sure that site brings a lot of traffic but I doubt it's bigger for social media than say Twitter or Facebook.

Because if film A has 10 million views on youtube and 30 million views on alternate sources and we know film B has 20 million views on youtube, it's logical and reasonable to assume film B will have roughly 60 million views on alternate sources.

It's a simple concept. I don't know if you're being obtuse because you really don't understand or you just want to try twist every bit of data to what you want to believe.