Fantastic Four reborn! - - - - - - - Part 16

[batdude]

Yup, Gunn was right about that for sure. just don't get the same feeling from this FF that Guardians has. everything about the new FF has the feel of let's make a quick buck before the rights expire, and that's a crying shame.

 

[guitarsingerguy]

Yup, Gunn was right about that for sure. just don't get the same feeling from this FF that Guardians has. everything about the new FF has the feel of let's make a quick buck before the rights expire, and that's a crying shame.

No, they almost seem embarrassed about FF where as they were shouting GOTG from the rooftops. The lack of excitement is catching it seems.

 

[batdude]

Yup, either way, the FF don't deserve this.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

James Gunn responding on Facebook to Guardians becoming the highest grossing movie of the year. This. And this. And this.

If only they'd get a Director who cared so much for the Thor mythos, sick of them being about the Science lot instead of Thor characters

I'm not too bothered by the change of skin color with Torch. I personally don't feel it changes the spirit, iconography or dynamic of it all too much – even in relation to his status as a character. It's main purpose of bringing more racial diversity is nice in itself, though not necessarily enough for one to have to like the change.

But I'm still skeptical towards this project (even if I'm a big fan of Chronicle) as I'm not at all convinced that a more grounded, gritty take is anywhere near the right approach for Fantastic Four. Feels like a too drastic reaction towards the overly kiddie Tim Story movies.

Kinberg did say it'd have a similar tone and feel as the Raimi Spider-Man movies, that's a good mix of light and dark

I'm anxious for a trailer

Same.

A lot of fans including myself despise the UFF to begin with. The change of Johnny to black was change for the sake of change.

So was changing Heimdall and Korath, people got over that when the movies came out.

It's also a change that does't actually change anything and should not be offensive to anyone.

Exactly

 

[Whiskey Tango]

So was changing Heimdall and Korath, people got over that when the movies came out.

Because obscure supporting cast and minor villains are the same as a well known character who has been one of the stars of the property for over 60 years.

Exactly

Not really.

 

[starscream22]

James Gunn responding on Facebook to Guardians becoming the highest grossing movie of the year. This. And this. And this.

Spot on and well deserved to.

A lot of people took the opportunity to attack Marvel for that Antman issue, while ignoring the fact that Marvel has boosted the careers of more director's than ruined any.

And as disappointing as the Thor films have been or that IM3 twist I still can't in good conscience put those directors in the same in the same lineup as Ratner, Story or the guy who did Elektra.

Marvel has either boosted or made household names of people like Whedon, Gunn, Favreau and the Russo's.

Yup, Gunn was right about that for sure. just don't get the same feeling from this FF that Guardians has. everything about the new FF has the feel of let's make a quick buck before the rights expire, and that's a crying shame.

Exactly, nothing about this reboot spells out a potential win beyond Fox maintaining the rights to b*stardize the franchise farther.

And SMH at people using Heimdall and Korath's "racelifts" to support MBJ, they are not on the same level as Human Torch and never will be. There's a fine line on what you can do with big named characters and Fox has crossed it for me and many others. At this point when people bring it up I just ignore and continue voicing my opinion.

At the end of the day my Johnny Storm will always be white and that's who I'll support. (provided the rest is good)

 

[Orba]

Marvel has either boosted or made household names of people like Whedon, Gunn, Favreau and the Russo's.

Its not just directors where Marvel have shown to have a skill at talent spotting, their choices of actors have been impressive.

 

[bubbadoom]

Its not just directors where Marvel have shown to have a skill at talent spotting, their choices of actors have been impressive.

Fox had Chris Evans under contract for one more FF movie and let him slip through their fingers. This is one reason I wish Marvel would cast Ioan Gruffudd as Dr. Strange - it would be fantastic if they took another Fox cast off and turned him into a box office star.

 

[Kelly]

Fox had Chris Evans under contract for one more FF movie and let him slip through their fingers. This is one reason I wish Marvel would cast Ioan Gruffudd as Dr. Strange - it would be fantastic if they took another Fox cast off and turned him into a box office star.

I think Chris Evans wanted to get as far away from that franchise as he could get.

Hell, they couldn't even get the cast together to do the commentary on the second movie...they all wanted to get lost I think.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

If only they'd get a Director who cared so much for the Thor mythos, sick of them being about the Science lot instead of Thor characters

Gunn was only referring to his movie Guardians, not the MCU.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think Chris Evans wanted to get as far away from that franchise as he could get.

Hell, they couldn't even get the cast together to do the commentary on the second movie...they all wanted to get lost I think.

Rothman Era Fox had a reputation of not being a pleasant place to work, so it certainly wouldn't surprise me.

 

[starscream22]

The Transformers films are an exception. I'm sure people are well aware of what they're getting when they walk in to see these films. The TF and TMNT have been more popular and successful properties, hence why they make money despite of critical reception. They're very self aware of what they are.

Exactly! To be clear Bayformers are the exception and not the rule. Paramount tried the same formula with that Battleship film and fell flat on their faces, forcing Paramount to push that G.I.Joe sequel back. A film that barely got by simply for being less crappy than the first film. That and The Rock's star power.

Its not just directors where Marvel have shown to have a skill at talent spotting, their choices of actors have been impressive.

True, but RDJ and Evan's seem to always get their due. I put this out there specifically because many tried to label Marvel the bad guys in Wright choosing to leave. Marvel's chooses for all we know are more beneficial. Gunn and Feige didn't always agree on things difference is that Gunn didn't decide to take his ball and go home. Which was a good thing for all who enjoyed the movie.

I just had a problem with people trying compare that to what's going on with this reboot to Antman. Despite that I still have more faith in Ant-man even though I know little about the character.

 

[starscream22]

Gunn was only referring to his movie, Guardians, not the MCU.

Well you've gotta understand the desperation of people trying to defend this FF reboot.

Why not throw Thor under the bus to stall momentum of the MCU's success and growing wish for certain films to revert back to Marvel when you can't touch Gunn himself for making the quote?

Thor's franchise is for the most part the weakest link. But despite that I'd still support a 3rd film before I would buy a ticket to another Fox or Sony Marvel film since I don't feel that Dark World was as bad as some people make it out to be. But I wont be buying TDW's Blu-ray of it anytime soon.

2013 was a dismal year for CBMs in general for me. But it wasn't enough to lose my faith in Marvel Studios the way I have with Fox and Sony. So I still look forward to DCCU and MCU films as a result.

 

[Orba]

My feeling on Antman is that most of the problem was due to the fact that Wright was connected to it long before the MCU, long before Marvel got the rights back, and ultimately Wright's vision for the film just did not fit in the MCU.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I don't see why they couldn't have just done Wrights movie and left the MCU connection out of the first movie and had a bigger connection in later movies, like GOTG.

Fox had Chris Evans under contract for one more FF movie and let him slip through their fingers. This is one reason I wish Marvel would cast Ioan Gruffudd as Dr. Strange - it would be fantastic if they took another Fox cast off and turned him into a box office star.

I like Evans but don't consider him a box office star. Has any of his non Captain America movies been hugely popular or big grossing? He doesn't seem to have as huge a fanbase as Tom Hiddleston, RDJ, Fassbender, Jackman ect...

Gunn was only referring to his movie Guardians, not the MCU.

I know. I'd like them to get a Director for the Thor franchise who cares as much as he does for Guardians

 

[wobbly]

I like Evans but don't consider him a box office star. Has any of his non Captain America movies been hugely popular or big grossing? He doesn't seem to have as huge a fanbase as Tom Hiddleston, RDJ, Fassbender, Jackman ect...

Have any of those mentioned achieved huge box office success beyond their respective CBM roles? Critical acclaim, sure, and they all have their fan bases, but so does Evans.

Chris was damned good (as was Jamie Bell) in 'Snowpiercer' too btw.

For the record, according to Boxoffice mojo, here are the respective mentioned actors collective box office gross (domestic) to date (from high to low):

Robert Downey Jr: $3,032.0
Hugh Jackman: $2.201.1
Chris Evans: $1,590.6
Tom Hiddleston: $1,150.5
Michael Fassbender: $962.1

Chris aint doing bad imo, lol

Both RDJ and Jackman (higher earners) have been around a bit longer than Evans, Hiddleston or Fassbender as well. With nearly all of them most of that cash has come from their CBM roles. RDJ is the exception with his Sherlock Holmes doing very well too.

 

[starscream22]

LOL now they're throwing Evans under the bus as if he wasn't the only positive thing about those first 2 FF films.

His performance there is what helped him get the role to Capt A in the first place.

I think Chris Evans wanted to get as far away from that franchise as he could get.

Hell, they couldn't even get the cast together to do the commentary on the second movie...they all wanted to get lost I think.

I to think he was relieved that Fox decided to reboot the franchise instead of dragging him in to do another sequel.

To me it feels less about Evan's "passing the torch" and more like Evans saying "Thanks chump, I mean Mike!" While giving him a pat on the back that feels more like a shove then doing 0 to 60 in 3 seconds on foot before MBJ blinks and realises he's gone.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

First off I really love the Thor franchise and resent the bashing it gets.

Secondly, I'm obviously not alone in enjoying those films as Thor (with a worldwide box office cume of $1,094,109,758) has actually outgrossed the much lauded Captain America franchise (which stands at $1,084,653,346). Iron Man obviously takes the cake for box office draw but it's noteworthy that both Cap and Thor have both become billion dollar franchises as well.

Captain America's rep took a big boost as of late because of an extremely strong second entry at the hands of the very capable Russos.

Branagh's first film was also very well received. He was not able to return for the second installment because he wanted to pursue other projects and Marvel wanted a sequel sooner than he could return to do it. I'm sure some mistakes were made along the way but I have every confidence Marvel will rebound on Thor 3.

Even so let's take a look at overall RT score averages for the big three. They are all strong:

CA: 84%
IM: 81%
Thor: 71%

Compared to the averages of other contenders:

Spider-Man: 74%
X-Men (pre-DOFP): 68%
X-Men (post-DOFP): 72%
Fantastic Four: 32%

It's not like Thor isn't holding its own here. X-Men street cred only just improved recently. Thor 2's production troubles were well documented and Marvel still delivered a film that a lot of people like even better than the first (myself included). I realize it's in vogue to attack Thor because its praise is less unanimous but let's not pretend that they are bad films. Marvel Studios has maintained a very consistent level of quality for all of their characters. You guys are being intellectually dishonest to state otherwise.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

I'd like them to get a Director for the Thor franchise who cares as much as he does for Guardians

I won't argue with this. And I believe that Marvel is working on it which is why Thor 3 is getting a later release date. As much as I loved his contributions, I'd bet real money that Alan Taylor will not be back.

 

[starscream22]

First off I really love the Thor franchise and resent the bashing it gets.

Secondly, I'm obviously not alone in enjoying those films as Thor (with a worldwide box office cume of $1,094,109,758) has actually outgrossed the much lauded Captain America franchise (which stands at $1,084,653,346). Iron Man obviously takes the cake for box office draw but it's noteworthy that both Cap and Thor have both become billion dollar franchises as well.

Captain America's rep took a big boost as of late because of an extremely strong second entry at the hands of the very capable Russos.

Branagh's first film was also very well received. He was not able to return for the second installment because he wanted to pursue other projects and Marvel wanted a sequel sooner than he could return to do it. I'm sure some mistakes were made along the way but I have every confidence Marvel will rebound on Thor 3.

Even so let's take a look at overall RT score averages for the big three. They are all strong:

CA: 84%
IM: 81%
Thor: 71%

Compared to the averages of other contenders:

Spider-Man: 74%
X-Men (pre-DOFP): 68%
X-Men (post-DOFP): 72%
Fantastic Four: 32%

It's not like Thor isn't holding its own here. X-Men street cred only just improved recently. Thor 2's production troubles were well documented and Marvel still delivered a film that a lot of people like even better than the first (myself included). I realize it's in vogue to attack Thor because its praise is less unanimous but let's not pretend that they are bad films. Marvel Studios has maintained a very consistent level of quality for all of their characters. You guys are being intellectually dishonest to state otherwise.

Well to be fair there was only one person in here putting Thor out there and that's only because Gunns words stung related to the reboot in question, and he couldn't say anything negative about the other MCU films and hold a straight face.

I agree with most of what you're saying but I think we all can agree that Marvel can do a heck of a lot better in future Thor films. They're both certainly better than the last 3 Spidey films IMO.

Now if they drop the forced comedy(bye Darcy, you won't be missed!), Give Thor more strength (75 ton level instead of barely reaching 25) and add more of a LOTR's element to it and this could easily sneak up in my top 5 CBM's. Since saying it's better than the last 3 Spidey films isn't really saying much.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Chris was damned good (as was Jamie Bell) in 'Snowpiercer' too btw..

Heard a lot of good things about that movie

I realize it's in vogue to attack Thor because its praise is less unanimous but let's not pretend that they are bad films.

Wasn't bashing it I just am sick of the human characters. I thought it was good in the first movie but by the second it really held back the franchise. I wanna see Thor spend the whole of the movie off Earth with the warriors three instead of another Thor meets the science squad.

First off I really love the Thor franchise and resent the bashing it gets.

It's interesting that you love the first Thor movie considering it's probably the most grounded Marvel movie. After all he spends the bulk of the movie off Asgard in a small town in a T-Shirt and Jeans with no powers with mostly non-Thor characters and there's even a race-change and a complete removal of a sibling dynamic in there too

LOL now they're throwing Evans under the bus as if he wasn't the only positive thing about those first 2 FF films. .

Nobody did any such thing.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

We should get back on topic. The reasoning behind my post of Gunn's quote, is I think he said something that several movies lack these days, taking risks, being confident and passionate about what they are, embracing itself. Maybe it is all of Fox's plan, but I just feel like Fantastic Four doesn't have "that."

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

It's hard to know if Trank is passionate about it as he seems to be a private kinda guy

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Well I don't want to derail the thread further but just a few other thoughts that I feel are actually related...

It's interesting that you love the first Thor movie considering it's probably the most grounded Marvel movie. After all he spends the bulk of the movie off Asgard in a small town in a T-Shirt and Jeans with no powers with a bunch of non-Thor characters and there's even a race-change and a complete removal of a sibling dynamic in there too

I love both of the Thor films and can compartmentalize my enjoyment of them for different reasons. I liked the grounded take on Thor but I don't want to see him de-powered/grounded in every film. In fact part of the reason I prefer the sequel is because Thor is actually "Thor" for the entire film. However, I love that Marvel can go grounded one minute and full blown "comic-book" flavor the next. My mind is able to make these leaps and enjoy the ride.

Similarly, we are three (four if you count Corman) films into the Fantastic Four movie run and we are still exploring them being grounded, figuring out their powers, coming of age yada yada? That doesn't interest me in the least. I'm ready for something Fantastic. Let's get to the good stuff already.

The Iron Man and Thor franchises have gotten progressively worse IMO. Iron Man was awesome. iron Man 2 poor and Iron Man 3 slightly better. Thor was great but The Dark World disappointing and not as good

Emphasis on opinion - which you are of course entitled to just as much as I'm entitled to mine. But where personal tastes diverge, box office and audience and critical reception come into play and Marvel has succeeded at all 3 levels. I guess that is my point. Marvel has also done all this while remaining faithful to the visual aesthetic that comic readers appreciate. When people say it doesn't matter what so and so looks like in a film based on a comic book I take issue with that.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

It's hard to know if Trank is passionate about it as he seems to be a private kinda guy

Private or not, you can show some enthusiasm.