Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 17

[Willie Lumpkin]

Baton Rouge actually has quite a booming film industry here. The studio that was put up is supposed to be fantastic, and LA in General now had a laundry list of tax breaks to draw the film industry here. There's a lot more movies filmed here than I think people realize.

Sure, nothing against Baton Rouge, but this is a film set in NYC. Filming it in Baton Rouge is the much less expensive option.

 

[Kelly]

Sure, nothing against Baton Rouge, but this is a film set in NYC. Filming it in Baton Rouge is the much less expensive option.

I'm shocked they didn't go with Toronto as far as filming...

 

[Farren]

The fact that there were no set pictures on location is particularly telling for me. I didn't expect this to generate the attention of the Nolan Bat films or AoU, as far as the paps and public go, but absolutely nothing??? That tells me that they did little if any on location shooting, and that it involved no action sequences. That to me kind of screams cheap and unambitious.

 

[RAE072]

I hope the movie actually takes place in Baton Rouge.

Just to see all the hoop jumping that'll likely take place to justify it.

 

[Dark Raven]

Maybe the whole movie takes place in a warehouse.

 

[Dasher10]

FOX is not going to just keep making cheap low budget FF films just to keep the rights in perpetuity. Unless somehow this film becomes a moderate success and makes some money for them would they make another one. I believe they were using this film as leverage to entice Disney to make them a better offer. If GOTG were to bomb this would have made Disney possibly rethink their strategy. It would give FOX a few more years to hold it. GOTG was a mega hit. Thats the end of that.

Disney still wants some of the supporting characters tied up in the property but its not necessary because there are substitutes they can use now. I would imagine we will see how this film does before we can determine what FOX does. Expectations are probably very low. Disney isn't dealing and if they do it will be lopsided in their favor. Disney has enough on the slate for the next 5 years taking them through phase 3 and the beginning of phase 4. By that time new and exciting properties will take shape. FF can wait and so will FOX.

At the same time, the success of GOTG means that Marvel may want to pay Fox more to build their cosmic properties. If this film bombs, Disney will pay up big time and probably with the condition that Fox trade back the Brood and Shi'Ar so Ms. Marvel can fight Deathbird and the Brood.

And Fox would be smart to demand that Marvel trade them the live-action TV rights to the X-Men.

If this movie succeeds, then Fox should still trade the live action TV rights for the Shi'Ar and Brood but without also getting Marvel to pay them. I doubt that Fox will want to bring the X-Men into space and I also doubt that Marvel will be willing to co-produce an X-Factor or New Mutants show with Fox.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Umm huh?

Fox didn't get the rights without spending their own money. Its not like the film rights for FF were stolen from them. Just saying.

I dislike usage of words like hostage and ransom too. It implies they took them by force when that is not the case

1. The director has only directed one other film and that one film had a budget of $12 million dollars.

3. Not one single cast-member has had a starring role in a major motion-picture.

4. It was shot over a couple months.

5. It was filmed in Baton Rouge.

That's a different film, not an indication of this movies budget.

They all have a sizable filmography with plenty of main roles.

So were many other movies.

What's wrong with a Baton Rouge?

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

Some of these counter arguments for those in favor are pretty hilarious

 

[justanotherguy]

I dislike usage of words like hostage and ransom too. It implies they took them by force when that is not the case



That's a different film, not an indication of this movies budget.

They all have a sizable filmography with plenty of main roles.

So were many other movies.

What's wrong with a Baton Rouge?

As a resident, there are very few "city blocks" to shoot in. LSU obviously is a great location to shoot a university scene. If you ever scene any movies that use the downtown here as a backdrop, and this one most certainly will, it's not a stunning place. In addition to that, there's the whole Mississippi River in the background.

There's no film industry union down here, studios save even more money shooting here, besides the huge tax breaks. Fox won't even have to break even at the combined box office/dvd sales to make a profitable movie because of said reasons.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

That's a different film, not an indication of this movies budget.

They all have a sizable filmography with plenty of main roles.

So were many other movies.

What's wrong with a Baton Rouge?

Actors - not expensive. Baton Rouge - not expensive. Those were my points. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with he actors or Baton Rouge, but I'm looking at everything related to this film and not seeing anything to indicate they're spending anything beyond the absolute minimum.

Let's keep it simple. Point to one, just one, solid, convincing piece of evidence to indicate this isn't the cheapest Marvel film since the Corman effort and therefore this isn't, for all practical purposes, potentially a fulfillment of what was reported 4 years ago:

"We've also been told that if it ever came to the point where they were going to lose any property they own because of failing to have a movie in production, they would simply produce a low budget, straight-to-DVD feature and stick it in any theater to fulfill their theatrical release clause."

And I'll feel better about this whole thing.

The ONLY thing I can think of to counter the idea that this is an extremely cheap film is the suggestion that it had a $100 million budget (still very low by today's standards), but even that small nugget is contradicted by everything else we've seen. So just give me something beyond that I can cling to as a beacon of hope.

What if the above scenario from 4 years ago is actually happening? Isn't that disappointing and frustrating as hell to you, me and anybody else who wants a good film (including a cast and crew who very well may have gotten roped into a project that doesn't have a great film as its primary objective)? Isn't it highly disconcerting that we can't see any evidence that the above scenario from 4 years ago isn't happening?

Until you or Fox can show me something to convince me they aren't just going through the motions with this, I'm going to be frustrated and highly disappointed that they seem to be squandering the potential of this franchise.

 

[craigdbfan]

This is being handled in the exact same way Dragonball: Evolution was. I remember following that movie closely. Hell, I think Fox may have put more "effort" into that than this to be honest and the level of effort on that movie was nonexistent.

 

[Dark Raven]

Actors - not expensive. Baton Rouge - not expensive. Those were my points. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with he actors or Baton Rouge, but I'm looking at everything related to this film and not seeing anything to indicate they're spending anything beyond the absolute minimum.

Let's keep it simple. Point to one, just one, solid, convincing piece of evidence to indicate this isn't the cheapest Marvel film since the Corman effort and therefore this isn't, for all practical purposes, potentially a fulfillment of what was reported 4 years ago:

"We've also been told that if it ever came to the point where they were going to lose any property they own because of failing to have a movie in production, they would simply produce a low budget, straight-to-DVD feature and stick it in any theater to fulfill their theatrical release clause."

And I'll feel better about this whole thing.

The ONLY thing I can think of to counter the idea that this is an extremely cheap film is the suggestion that it had a $100 million budget (still very low by today's standards), but even that small nugget is contradicted by everything else we've seen. So just give me something beyond that I can cling to as a beacon of hope.

What if the above scenario from 4 years ago is actually happening? Isn't that disappointing and frustrating as hell to you, me and anybody else who wants a good film (including a cast and crew who very well may have gotten roped into a project that doesn't have a great film as its primary objective)? Isn't it highly disconcerting that we can't see any evidence that the above scenario from 4 years ago isn't happening?

Until you or Fox can show me something to convince me they aren't just going through the motions with this, I'm going to be frustrated and highly disappointed that they seem to be squandering the potential of this franchise.

You'd have to wonder how come the cast haven't read anything about what that Fox executive said 4 years ago. If they had, they might wonder about this themselves. Or don't they know about the Roger Corman effort? Don't they think that this production here is out-Cormaning Corman?

And any fan who has seen all of this before isn't likely to trust Fox at all that this will be a fantastic production in the end.

There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, "Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

 

[wobbly]

You'd have to wonder how come the cast haven't read anything about what that Fox executive said 4 years ago. If they had, they might wonder about this themselves. Or don't they know about the Roger Corman effort? Don't they think that this production here is out-Cormaning Corman?

And any fan who has seen all of this before isn't likely to trust Fox at all that this will be a fantastic production in the end.

There's an old saying in Tennessee—I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee—that says, "Fool me once, shame on...shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again."

The one we use here is: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Lesson being, having been suckered once you have yourself to blame if you do fall for the same stunts again.I rather intend not to be blaming myself next summer. They had 2 chances at the FF, blew them, so I am not inclined to support any effort from the same studio that is even further from the books with any of my cash.

 

[Dark Raven]

The one we use here is: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Lesson being, having been suckered once you have yourself to blame if you do fall for the same stunts again.I rather intend not to be blaming myself next summer. They had 2 chances at the FF, blew them, so I am not inclined to support any effort from the same studio that is even further from the books with any of my cash.

 

[starscream22]

I dislike usage of words like hostage and ransom too. It implies they took them by force when that is not the case

Considering that Fox..

1) Saw an advantage to screw Marvel while they were on their backs.
2) Have a catalog of Marvel films to which more than 50% of it is crap.
3) Are holding on to this film for a payoff and/or spite.
4) And are not displaying even half the effort that they have with Fox-men.

Viewing the whole matter with words like Hostage and Ransom are actually putting it lightly IMO.

Fox may not have stolen this franchise per say but what they've been doing to it ever since they got it has been nothing short of Rape and Kidnap.

And who would argue that Cloud Gallactus wasn't FRAUD?

 

[starscream22]

Actors - not expensive. Baton Rouge - not expensive. Those were my points. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with he actors or Baton Rouge, but I'm looking at everything related to this film and not seeing anything to indicate they're spending anything beyond the absolute minimum.

Let's keep it simple. Point to one, just one, solid, convincing piece of evidence to indicate this isn't the cheapest Marvel film since the Corman effort and therefore this isn't, for all practical purposes, potentially a fulfillment of what was reported 4 years ago:

"We've also been told that if it ever came to the point where they were going to lose any property they own because of failing to have a movie in production, they would simply produce a low budget, straight-to-DVD feature and stick it in any theater to fulfill their theatrical release clause."

And I'll feel better about this whole thing.

The ONLY thing I can think of to counter the idea that this is an extremely cheap film is the suggestion that it had a $100 million budget (still very low by today's standards), but even that small nugget is contradicted by everything else we've seen. So just give me something beyond that I can cling to as a beacon of hope.

What if the above scenario from 4 years ago is actually happening? Isn't that disappointing and frustrating as hell to you, me and anybody else who wants a good film (including a cast and crew who very well may have gotten roped into a project that doesn't have a great film as its primary objective)? Isn't it highly disconcerting that we can't see any evidence that the above scenario from 4 years ago isn't happening?

Until you or Fox can show me something to convince me they aren't just going through the motions with this, I'm going to be frustrated and highly disappointed that they seem to be squandering the potential of this franchise.

Excellent counter, but honestly its a waste on most people who defend this reboot.

Now rooting for up and coming actors and Directors to pull a miracle is not unheard of. But when you stop turning a blind eye to everything else surrounding this reboot, you can forget it!

Except they grudgingly can't. So they sit there attacking the little fringes of our post when they can as if that discredits the bigger picture or problems with this project.

So don't expect a logical or even rational response in most cases.

 

[starscream22]

The one we use here is: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Lesson being, having been suckered once you have yourself to blame if you do fall for the same stunts again.I rather intend not to be blaming myself next summer. They had 2 chances at the FF, blew them, so I am not inclined to support any effort from the same studio that is even further from the books with any of my cash.

Good point.

Now I would be a liar if said that the first Trailer to FF2 didn't look good. But what we actually got was a different story. So.....

NEVER AGAIN FOX!

NEVER AGAIN!

 

[Paradox1]

Considering that Fox..

1) Saw an advantage to screw Marvel while they were on their backs.
2) Have a catalog of Marvel films to which more than 50% of it is crap.
3) Are holding on to this film for a payoff and/or spite.
4) And are not displaying even half the effort that they have with Fox-men.

Viewing the whole matter with words like Hostage antd Ransom are actually putting it lightly IMO.

Fox may not have stolen this franchise per say but what they've been doing to it ever since they got it has been nothing short of Rape and Kidnap.

And who would argue that Cloud Gallactus wasn't FRAUD?

This is laughable, there may never have been a marvel studios without fox and all those other studios. Let's forget in early 2000's the success of X-Men and Spider-man paved the way. But let's remember due to some over saturation of comic books in the 1990's Marvel almost went belly up. Selling those rights was their lifeline. If they might of been forced to accept Michael Jackson's offer. Which came with the condition that he play Spider-Man that eventually went to Toby.http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/10497/Michael-Jackson-tried-to-buy-Marvel-Comics-because-he-wanted-to-play-Spider-Man?%2Fl%2F10497=

 

[Shikamaru]

X-Men is a different story, but their FF films sure never paved the way for anything.

Their success with X-Men doesn't excuse their treatment of the FF at the moment.

 

[Zant]

Considering that Fox..

1) Saw an advantage to screw Marvel while they were on their backs.
2) Have a catalog of Marvel films to which more than 50% of it is crap.
3) Are holding on to this film for a payoff and/or spite.
4) And are not displaying even half the effort that they have with Fox-men.

Viewing the whole matter with words like Hostage and Ransom are actually putting it lightly IMO.

Fox may not have stolen this franchise per say but what they've been doing to it ever since they got it has been nothing short of Rape and Kidnap.

And who would argue that Cloud Gallactus wasn't FRAUD?

So now its rape and kidnap.Wow. I'm guessing terrorists, antichrist, Hitler and molesters are the next words that will be used.

 

[Mr.M]

Let the fanboys rant on their own time. Why get into these arguments? When we get some actual news to discuss, then we can move on, but seriously, don't get worked up by semantics. Just my two cents.

 

[Dark Raven]

X-Men is a different story, but their FF films sure never paved the way for anything.

Their success with X-Men doesn't excuse their treatment of the FF at the moment.

Yes they did! They paved the way for the quickly-filmed, budget film simply to retain the movie rights - aka "The Cormanite Maneuver".

 

[Paradox1]

X-Men is a different story, but their FF films sure never paved the way for anything.

Their success with X-Men doesn't excuse their treatment of the FF at the moment.

I agree the first FF did not do much postive but introduce the world to Chris Evans. Nobody has seen an ounce of footage outside of insiders in Fox at the moment. So the treatment of the FF is really just speculation based on individual opinion. One person sees trash,another sees treasure, and everyone is entitled to that.

 

[starscream22]

This is laughable, there may never have been a marvel studios without fox and all those other studios. Let's forget in early 2000's the success of X-Men and Spider-man paved the way. But let's remember due to some over saturation of comic books in the 1990's Marvel almost went belly up. Selling those rights was their lifeline. If they might of been forced to accept Michael Jackson's offer. Which came with the condition that he play Spider-Man that eventually went to Toby.http://www.omgfacts.com/lists/10497/Michael-Jackson-tried-to-buy-Marvel-Comics-because-he-wanted-to-play-Spider-Man?%2Fl%2F10497=

So what..You act like those studios weren't paid handsomely for their "contributions" back then. The MCU marks a new golden age of CBM's. So I'm not going to let yesterdays patterns hold tomorrow hostage.

Sorry but holding on to what Sony and Fox did over 13-15 years ago does NOT serve Marvel CMB's best interest IMO. And right now Sony and Fox's only goal seems to be making films that aren't as crappy as the last film of said franchise was.

By those poor standards anything can be a success.

 

[Dark Raven]

So what..You act like those studios weren't paid handsomely for their "contributions" back then. The MCU marks a new golden age of CBM's. So I'm not going to let yesterdays patterns hold tomorrow hostage.

Sorry but holding on to what Sony and Fox did over 13-15 years ago does NOT serve Marvel CMB's best interest IMO. And right now Sony and Fox's only goal seems to be making films that aren't as crappy as the last film of said franchise was.

By those poor standards anything can be a success.

I don't know if that is true. This FFINO seems to be worse than the Tim Story version. At least that was still relatively faithful.