Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

[spideyboy_1111]

And FF is coming off a much less successful predecessor. I don't see how that pitch draws the general public back in the game. Unless we are bringing in Clooney for Reed, Kidman for Sue, Daniel Day Lewis for Doom, and Spielberg/Jackson to direct. It just looks like more of the same from a story/structure standpoint if nothing else. My point being I think any reboots from now on have to be part of something bigger. Avengers changed the game in that sense. People want a more immersible world, not retreads.

Problem is DOOM has more fans than most of the F4 do themselves...

 

[AvengeME]

Yeah well not to the general public he is. See, had you delivered Doom in the fashion Ras Al Ghul was delivered, or Willem Dafoe/Goblin, then Doom would be considered an A-list villain. Now he is just the guy that tangles with FF all the time. Same old. Nobody cares and that's after two movies.

See above

Spidey will barely break even after its WW theatrical run when you factor in all other costs. There was a report on it in the Box office thread for ASM. Not sure if you looked at it.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Yeah well not to the general public he is. See, had you delivered Doom in the fashion Ras Al Ghul was delivered, or Willem Dafoe/Goblin, then Doom would be considered an A-list villain. Now he is just the guy that tangles with FF all the time. Same old. Nobody cares and that's after two movies.



Spidey will barely break even after its WW theatrical run when you factor in all other costs. There was a report on it in the Box office thread for ASM. Not sure if you looked at it.

Except all it'd take is one great movie with doom to change that

 

[marcvader]

I think the prudent thing for studios to do is scale back and not try to shoot for the event of the year.

 

[AvengeME]

I think the prudent thing for studios to do is scale back and not try to shoot for the event of the year.

Then don't make the film. Note how every film this year basically underperformed outside of TDKR and Avengers. These were the event movies that people look for in the summer. They see them again and again.

If you want to scale back and take low risks, that's fine. Just don't apply that treatment to your tentpole movies that are geared for the masses. Unless you are a fledgling studio who can only afford low budget pics.

 

[TheVileOne]

Sorry spideyboy, that ain't actual $447 million of profit.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Sorry spideyboy, that ain't actual $447 million of profit.

Even with advertising cost... It still made more profit so far than batman begins. and sorry but when is 600mil ever considered a flop? I swear.... Its not like a film has to break records to be successful

 

[TheVileOne]

I never said flop. Find me somewhere I said flop.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I never said flop. Find me somewhere I said flop.

You didn't say it. But you sure did insinuate a bit.

 

[marcvader]

Then don't make the film. Note how every film this year basically underperformed outside of TDKR and Avengers. These were the event movies that people look for in the summer. They see them again and again.

If you want to scale back and take low risks, that's fine. Just don't apply that treatment to your tentpole movies that are geared for the masses. Unless you are a fledgling studio who can only afford low budget pics.

I'm not saying studios have to go low budget. What I am saying is not every movie has to aim for the moon and blow $250 mil + in production alone. There are way too few winners these days when it comes to those types of movies. The winners are usually tried and true productions that build up to it.

 

[bubbadoom]

I think the prudent thing for studios to do is scale back and not try to shoot for the event of the year.

Wasn't that the problem with the first Fox FF movie...?

 

[marcvader]

No the movie just sucked, from writing to casting to direction.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Disappointed with the "clarification" from FOX. And here I thought we had a glimmer of hope. Dashed!!!

 

[bubbadoom]

No the movie just sucked, from writing to casting to direction.

true, but to a large degree all of these things sucked due to a lack of budget ~ do you think the Avengers would have been as good as it was with only $80 million to work with? The FF was handicapped by Fox from the start.

 

[marcvader]

80 mil? That's a bit extreme but if you ask me if Avengers could have been just as good if it were done 180 to 200, I'd say yes. All I'm saying is movie's don't have to go all out to do well.

 

[Shifty]

Even with advertising cost... It still made more profit so far than batman begins. and sorry but when is 600mil ever considered a flop? I swear.... Its not like a film has to break records to be successful

What does Batman Begins have to do with this? Okay it also had a disappointing haul but it also vastly improved on Batman & Robin.

When your revenue is split with theater chains and even less money is collected in international markets and you have a large production and marketing budget then yes $600 mil could be considered a flop.

TASM isn't but when a studio makes a $230 million film you expect to make a profit and gross over a billion.

With most films, executives know it will lost money in theaters but make a profit with DVD and cable TV sales but for the few tentpole films they're expecting it to make money to help cover the loses from about a half dozen films and also help keep their jobs. MIB3, TASM and Total Recall were very large bets and the Return On Investment for Sony isn't great. So it underperformed what the studio expected.

 

[bubbadoom]

80 mil? That's a bit extreme but if you ask me if Avengers could have been just as good if it were done 180 to 200, I'd say yes. All I'm saying is movie's don't have to go all out to do well.

When Fox started production on their first FF movie, it had a budget of $80 million ~ this limited the story they could tell, the director they could hire, the actors they could cast, the effects they could afford, the action they could stage, etc. Some time during production the budget was bumped up another $20 million, but by then they were locked in to the movie we got.

So again, what sort of an Avengers movie [or Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, etc.] do you think we would have gotten with the limitations that kind of a budget imposes?

 

[cherokeesam]

When Fox started production on their first FF movie, it had a budget of $80 million ~ this limited the story they could tell, the director they could hire, the actors they could cast, the effects they could afford, the action they could stage, etc. Some time during production the budget was bumped up another $20 million, but by then they were locked in to the movie we got.

So again, what sort of an Avengers movie [or Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, etc.] do you think we would have gotten with the limitations that kind of a budget imposes?

As long as you still had RDJ, Evans, Ruffalo, Hems, Renner, Scarjo and Samjack in the leads, and Hiddie as the villain, and Joss as the director, you'd still get a *great* Avengers.

Budget wasn't what hurt FF. What hurt FF was a ****ty writer, a ****ty director, a terrible cast (Chiklis and Evans notwithstanding), and the worst goddamn possible portrayal of the best goddamn villain in the Marvel Universe.

I don't care if you had half a billion dollars to throw at FF's budget; that wouldn't have salvaged that piece of crap.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

When Fox started production on their first FF movie, it had a budget of $80 million ~ this limited the story they could tell, the director they could hire, the actors they could cast, the effects they could afford, the action they could stage, etc. Some time during production the budget was bumped up another $20 million, but by then they were locked in to the movie we got.

So again, what sort of an Avengers movie [or Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, etc.] do you think we would have gotten with the limitations that kind of a budget imposes?

As long as you still had RDJ, Evans, Ruffalo, Hems, Renner, Scarjo and Samjack in the leads, and Hiddie as the villain, and Joss as the director, you'd still get a *great* Avengers.

Budget wasn't what hurt FF. What hurt FF was a ****ty writer, a ****ty director, a terrible cast (Chiklis and Evans notwithstanding), and the worst goddamn possible portrayal of the best goddamn villain in the Marvel Universe.

I don't care if you had half a billion dollars to throw at FF's budget; that wouldn't have salvaged that piece of crap.

was that 80 mil just the filming budget or does that include the casting?

cuase I am pretty sure you couldn't get RDJ, Evans, Ruffalo, Hemsworth , Renner, Scarjo, Sam Jackson, and Hiddleston all in the same movie for 80 mil with much left over to actually make the movie

 

[bubbadoom]

was that 80 mil just the filming budget or does that include the casting?

cuase I am pretty sure you couldn't get RDJ, Evans, Ruffalo, Hemsworth , Renner, Scarjo, Sam Jackson, and Hiddleston all in the same movie for 80 mil with much left over to actually make the movie

That's my point!

YES, the $80 million was the entire budget at the start of production on FF1. This limited the scope of the story they could tell, the director to tell it, the actors they could hire - on down the line - so you are not going to be able to hire any of the talent mentioned for the Avengers on a budget like that.

Sure, you can still make a crap movie for that kind of money, look at Green Lantern, but Marvel would never have attempted a movie on the scale of Avengers if they only had $80 million to begin with.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Disappointed with the "clarification" from FOX. And here I thought we had a glimmer of hope. Dashed!!!

Take heart. I think the fact that they're talking is a very good sign and don't forget that you can't trust a thing you hear from Fox. Everything they say could be designed to get a bigger check out of Marvel. Even if, hypothetically, they're thrilled with an offer Marvel put on the table, they'll be telling us and Marvel that they're not really interested to see if they'll go higher.

The fact that talks are happening at all is a big deal to me. There's still some possibility that Marvel could end up with some or all of the FF characters, and if Fox really does hang on to them, we at least know they're serious about the property. If they're willing to not deal with Marvel, they should also be willing to invest in the property.

 

[spideymouse]

Take heart. I think the fact that they're talking is a very good sign and don't forget that you can't trust a thing you hear from Fox. Everything they say could be designed to get a bigger check out of Marvel. Even if, hypothetically, they're thrilled with an offer Marvel put on the table, they'll be telling us and Marvel that they're not really interested to see if they'll go higher.

The fact that talks are happening at all is a big deal to me. There's still some possibility that Marvel could end up with some or all of the FF characters, and if Fox really does hang on to them, we at least know they're serious about the property. If they're willing to not deal with Marvel, they should also be willing to invest in the property.

I think it's a win/win for Marvel, and a win/win for fans. I just hope something (FF characters or Daredevil) does get reverted to MS in the end.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Id like for Disney to just swoop in and buy the Fab 4

 

[spideymouse]

Id like for Disney to just swoop in and buy the Fab 4

It seems that they're doing what they can legally. They have the best lawyers around. The fact that trading rights is even being rumored sounds like they're playing hardball with Fox.

 

[marcvader]

Most likely the information we have so far is not the entire picture. What I would do to listen in on a Disney/FOX negotiation.