Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 7

[DrCosmic]

It's going to take about $200 million to do it right, and there's zero chance the film is going to generate sufficient ticket sales to justify that budget. The last film cost $130 million and it looked absolutely terrible, especially in how it depicted Reed's powers. The FF is a very expensive team to put onscreen, even more than The Avengers, due to the heavy CGI required to show all four characters. Add an all CGI Thing, the Negative Zone and Annihilus and a green though talented director, and the budget could explode.

In terms of the box office - in a best case scenario the reboot of a much maligned series could be competitive with the last two FOX X-Men films, both of which disappointed at the box office. With the high cost, the lack of tie-in merchandise sales (Disney isn't going to move Avengers product off he shelves to make room for stretchable Mr. Fantastics) and the tough release date, this thing is a money loser as soon as they start filming.

I'd like to challenge some of these assumptions, see if there's any basis for them.

1) "It's going to take about $200 million to do it right."

This is based on the assumption that ROTSS had the ideal use of budget. That is, any FF film would have to spend at LEAST what ROTSS spent or look lower budget. All we need to do to remove that conclusion is observe that Fantastic Four (2005) had a significantly lower budget (100Million) and looked better than ROTSS. On the flip side, we can look at Green Lantern (2011) which had a higher budget and looked worse, or Chronicle (2012) which had a much lower budget and looked better.

So not all money spends the same, and if the question about the director's skill is that we're not sure if he can do anything other than make great CGI at low cost, then that suggests the cost will be high.

2) "The FF is a very expensive team to put on screen, even more than The Avengers"

Budget for Fantastic Four (2005) - 100M
Budget for Avengers (2012) - 220M

The reason for this is that for the Fantastic Four, the cost (and number) of the actors is lower (RDJ took home 50M on his own), and while stretchiness is hard to to get right, an all CGI thing who is not making large amounts of property damage (not Thing's thing) is more analogous to 2011's Paul (40M budget for a film with 1 hour and thirty minutes of onscreen CGI character in social situations). The other two members, Invisible Woman and Human Torch have incredibly cheap effects which have been done half decent by youtubers for a few dozen dollars, as opposed to a tens of million.

3) "Disney isn't going to move Avengers product off he shelves to make room for stretchable Mr. Fantastics"

They moved it aside for Spider-Man. Why they wouldn't want to make money on FF merchandizing as well, I have no idea why anyone would feel this way.

 

[RemixNinja]

I say let's get Freddie Prince Jr and Sarah Michelle Geller as Richard and Sue

 

[jaymes_e06]

^FPJ in any role is a miscast. Sarah would be great though.

I'd like to challenge some of these assumptions, see if there's any basis for them.

1) "It's going to take about $200 million to do it right."

This is based on the assumption that ROTSS had the ideal use of budget. That is, any FF film would have to spend at LEAST what ROTSS spent or look lower budget. All we need to do to remove that conclusion is observe that Fantastic Four (2005) had a significantly lower budget (100Million) and looked better than ROTSS. On the flip side, we can look at Green Lantern (2011) which had a higher budget and looked worse, or Chronicle (2012) which had a much lower budget and looked better.

So not all money spends the same, and if the question about the director's skill is that we're not sure if he can do anything other than make great CGI at low cost, then that suggests the cost will be high.

2) "The FF is a very expensive team to put on screen, even more than The Avengers"

Budget for Fantastic Four (2005) - 100M
Budget for Avengers (2012) - 220M

The reason for this is that for the Fantastic Four, the cost (and number) of the actors is lower (RDJ took home 50M on his own), and while stretchiness is hard to to get right, an all CGI thing who is not making large amounts of property damage (not Thing's thing) is more analogous to 2011's Paul (40M budget for a film with 1 hour and thirty minutes of onscreen CGI character in social situations). The other two members, Invisible Woman and Human Torch have incredibly cheap effects which have been done half decent by youtubers for a few dozen dollars, as opposed to a tens of million.

3) "Disney isn't going to move Avengers product off he shelves to make room for stretchable Mr. Fantastics"

They moved it aside for Spider-Man. Why they wouldn't want to make money on FF merchandizing as well, I have no idea why anyone would feel this way.

This!

 

[Zarex]

So not all money spends the same, and if the question about the director's skill is that we're not sure if he can do anything other than make great CGI at low cost, then that suggests the cost will be high.

The FF has to be competitive with the comicbook films directly before it (DOFP, GOTG) and after (A:AOU). All three are rumored to have budgets over $200 million. Trank may be able to put out a quality version on the cheap, but I don't believe he has special skills that Singer, Gunn and Whedon lack.

Budget for Fantastic Four (2005) - 100M
Budget for Avengers (2012) - 220M

The reason for this is that for the Fantastic Four, the cost (and number) of the actors is lower (RDJ took home 50M on his own), and while stretchiness is hard to to get right, an all CGI thing who is not making large amounts of property damage (not Thing's thing) is more analogous to 2011's Paul (40M budget for a film with 1 hour and thirty minutes of onscreen CGI character in social situations). The other two members, Invisible Woman and Human Torch have incredibly cheap effects which have been done half decent by youtubers for a few dozen dollars, as opposed to a tens of million.

Having seen the spectacle of TA, MOS and IM3, I can't see viewers being satisfied with a You Tube version of the FF. Quality CGI is expensive.

3) "Disney isn't going to move Avengers product off he shelves to make room for stretchable Mr. Fantastics"

They moved it aside for Spider-Man. Why they wouldn't want to make money on FF merchandizing as well, I have no idea why anyone would feel this way.

Marvel paid Sony $278 million to buy out their share of tie in merchandise. Disney/Marvel hasn't reached an an agreement with FOX, so they would have to share with FOX the licensing fees from tie-in merchandise. That's very unlikely to happen, especially with the film expected to come out less than two months before the Avengers sequel.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

So they're still working on the script and they haven't hired a casting director yet, and they're supposed to start production in September? That's really inspiring some faith.

 

[DrCosmic]

The FF has to be competitive with the comicbook films directly before it (DOFP, GOTG) and after (A:AOU). All three are rumored to have budgets over $200 million. Trank may be able to put out a quality version on the cheap, but I don't believe he has special skills that Singer, Gunn and Whedon lack.

So... you agree Trank can put out a quality version on the cheap (you believe Singer Gunn and Whedon can too, okay, sure, whatev). Seeing as how Trank can put out a quality version on the cheap, what's the problem. Are people going to say "The movie was good, but it was cheaper than GOTG, so I don't like it."

I don't understand your sense of competitive, even if all comic book movies are in competition, cheap comic book movies, like Kick Ass still do well commercially and critically. Kick Ass not being as big as Avengers didn't hurt it one tiny bit.

Having seen the spectacle of TA, MOS and IM3, I can't see viewers being satisfied with a You Tube version of the FF. Quality CGI is expensive.

It depends on what you're CGI-ing. Destroying cities in CGI *is* expensive. Turning invisible, lighting on fire and flying a ship through space is incredibly cheap, if a kid with $50 bucks can do okay, a professional with 100K can do a spectacular job. Now it's true that having TA/MOS-level spectacle is expensive, but we have no reason to think that's what the FF film will do. That's not really what the FF is about, city destruction and dozens of cgi-character flying around. That's what's expensive, and the FF is not that.

Marvel paid Sony $278 million to buy out their share of tie in merchandise. Disney/Marvel hasn't reached an an agreement with FOX, so they would have to share with FOX the licensing fees from tie-in merchandise. That's very unlikely to happen, especially with the film expected to come out less than two months before the Avengers sequel.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Well, I guess FOX will have to do their own merchandizing like they did with the other FF films and X-Men films. I don't see the problem.

 

[mclay18]

Outside of Alice, none of those clear $600m WW. Only the Croods also cleared $500m worldwide.

So basically you have a bunch of family (mostly animated) films and 300. None of which meet the profile of a FF film. If we are talking GI Joe numbers, the budget for the FF would have to be under $150m for even a chance at profit at the back end.

Looking at F4:ROTSS, the whole movie looked extremely well-budgeted for the most part. Fox splashed out on getting WETA to animate Silver Surfer, and everything else still looks reasonably good (and I would prefer a Thing suit than an expensive mo-cap one). Factoring in inflation and such, I think the F4 reboot can be made for around $150M-$165M.

And Fox is almost as fiscally conservative as Paramount is when it comes to big-budget films. (Without reshoot costs, Rise of the Apes cost around $93M in production costs, and they got WETA to do all the visual effects!) Plus Trank knows a thing or two about stretching his dollars, as evidenced in Chronicle.

I think people are grossly overestimating the costs of the F4 reboot. I think it's going to be a reasonably-budgeted film. I doubt Fox is going to spend $180M-$200M just to make the film.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'd like to challenge some of these assumptions, see if there's any basis for them.

1) "It's going to take about $200 million to do it right."

This is based on the assumption that ROTSS had the ideal use of budget. That is, any FF film would have to spend at LEAST what ROTSS spent or look lower budget. All we need to do to remove that conclusion is observe that Fantastic Four (2005) had a significantly lower budget (100Million) and looked better than ROTSS. On the flip side, we can look at Green Lantern (2011) which had a higher budget and looked worse, or Chronicle (2012) which had a much lower budget and looked better.

So not all money spends the same, and if the question about the director's skill is that we're not sure if he can do anything other than make great CGI at low cost, then that suggests the cost will be high.

2) "The FF is a very expensive team to put on screen, even more than The Avengers"

Budget for Fantastic Four (2005) - 100M
Budget for Avengers (2012) - 220M

The reason for this is that for the Fantastic Four, the cost (and number) of the actors is lower (RDJ took home 50M on his own), and while stretchiness is hard to to get right, an all CGI thing who is not making large amounts of property damage (not Thing's thing) is more analogous to 2011's Paul (40M budget for a film with 1 hour and thirty minutes of onscreen CGI character in social situations). The other two members, Invisible Woman and Human Torch have incredibly cheap effects which have been done half decent by youtubers for a few dozen dollars, as opposed to a tens of million.

3) "Disney isn't going to move Avengers product off he shelves to make room for stretchable Mr. Fantastics"

They moved it aside for Spider-Man. Why they wouldn't want to make money on FF merchandizing as well, I have no idea why anyone would feel this way.

Your theory's methodology is completely wrong here. RDJ made the vast majority of his money on the back end. It wasn't in the budget. Everyone else was basically paid peanuts except for Joss, who I believe also made his money on the back end. They film just cost $225 million because they had real high quality special effect work.

Now if you are expecting a genuine visual feast out of the FF, and why shouldn't you, it is going to cost real money. You aren't doing it for $150m without it looking like it is cutting corners. You just aren't.

Now if you are willing to have subpar CGI, short action sequences and basically end up attempting to make another early 00's superhero film, good luck getting people into the theater to see it in mass. No one wants to watch the first X-Men film again. It is a good movie, but it is so small compared to what audiences expect now.

Also the reason why the Silver Surfer film looked bad in comparison to the first film, was because they actually attempting something visually ambitious, with a budget that didn't match that ambition. The fact that the first FF film cost as much as it did still kinda boggles the mind. They did nothing.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Looking at F4:ROTSS, the whole movie looked extremely well-budgeted for the most part. Fox splashed out on getting WETA to animate Silver Surfer, and everything else still looks reasonably good (and I would prefer a Thing suit than an expensive mo-cap one). Factoring in inflation and such, I think the F4 reboot can be made for around $150M-$165M.

And Fox is almost as fiscally conservative as Paramount is when it comes to big-budget films. (Without reshoot costs, Rise of the Apes cost around $93M in production costs, and they got WETA to do all the visual effects!) Plus Trank knows a thing or two about stretching his dollars, as evidenced in Chronicle.

I think people are grossly overestimating the costs of the F4 reboot. I think it's going to be a reasonably-budgeted film. I doubt Fox is going to spend $180M-$200M just to make the film.

No you can make it for whatever you want. But how much you are willing to invest determines how big it is going to be. How unique it is going to look. The first two Fantastic Four films are not pretty. The Silver Surfer was, but that is literally it.

You can do Ben right, or you can do him cheap. Same with the entire crew.

To think you can just say "well Sue goes invisible, that's cheap" is completely missing the point of film imo. Her invisibility, her shields, they need visual flair, something unique to them. Or you can be bland and have no one show up.

 

[Eros]

its not about cost, its about will people care? the first 2 movies did good, but were critically destroyed

 

[Zarex]

So... you agree Trank can put out a quality version on the cheap (you believe Singer Gunn and Whedon can too, okay, sure, whatev). Seeing as how Trank can put out a quality version on the cheap, what's the problem. Are people going to say "The movie was good, but it was cheaper than GOTG, so I don't like it."

I wrote "may be able to to put out a quality version" on the cheap. I doubt it, but I suppose it is possible.

I don't understand your sense of competitive, even if all comic book movies are in competition, cheap comic book movies, like Kick Ass still do well commercially and critically. Kick Ass not being as big as Avengers didn't hurt it one tiny bit.

Kick Ass and the FF are in no way, shape or form comparable.

Ah, I see what you're saying. Well, I guess FOX will have to do their own merchandizing like they did with the other FF films and X-Men films. I don't see the problem.

The problem is that, according to the 2008 Marvel Entertainment Annual Report (online at sec.gov), Marvel has control over merchandise for licensed films. FOX has never been able to do their own merchandising with their Marvel films.

 

[mclay18]

No you can make it for whatever you want. But how much you are willing to invest determines how big it is going to be. How unique it is going to look. The first two Fantastic Four films are not pretty. The Silver Surfer was, but that is literally it.

You can do Ben right, or you can do him cheap. Same with the entire crew.

To think you can just say "well Sue goes invisible, that's cheap" is completely missing the point of film imo. Her invisibility, her shields, they need visual flair, something unique to them. Or you can be bland and have no one show up.

First film looked pretty chintzy in spots, but the sequel still looks good. Considering how much they spent on ROTSS, the scope was bigger than the first one. I think you guys really underestimate how much they were able to do with $130M.

Keep in mind Fox is trying to make this for a reasonable price. That 30% rebate from filming in Louisiana is usually allotted for post-production, which equals more money for better CGI. They don't have a pricey director or A-list actors cast.

I'd rather have Trank and Fox make a good, character-centered movie with a solid story. Draw people in with the dynamic between the Four and have good chemistry. Action scenes should be complementary. If people love these characters, they'll turn out in droves for a bigger sequel.

 

[Kelly]

First film looked pretty chintzy in spots, but the sequel still looks good. Considering how much they spent on ROTSS, the scope was bigger than the first one. I think you guys really underestimate how much they were able to do with $130M.

Keep in mind Fox is trying to make this for a reasonable price. That 30% rebate from filming in Louisiana is usually allotted for post-production, which equals more money for better CGI. They don't have a pricey director or A-list actors cast.

I'd rather have Trank and Fox make a good, character-centered movie with a solid story. Draw people in with the dynamic between the Four and have good chemistry. Action scenes should be complementary. If people love these characters, they'll turn out in droves for a bigger sequel.

The Silver Surfer looked good because the majority of that money was put into him. We really saw very little from Sue, she can freaking fly on invisible disks, we haven't seen ANYTHING like that from her. Really the only scenes that showed anything of what they can really do was the wedding and London scenes, and both only showed a fraction of what they can actually do. As far as the invention that Reed made, it looked like a kids science project, and we won't even go into Galactus. So, no....130 million will not do it. AND YOU SPEND MONEY ON REED DANCING?????? REALLY?????? waste of money.

 

[SpideyFan866]

So they're still working on the script and they haven't hired a casting director yet, and they're supposed to start production in September? That's really inspiring some faith.

They do have a casting director.

The casting process began months ago.

 

[Incrediblejeff]

The Silver Surfer looked good because the majority of that money was put into him. We really saw very little from Sue, she can freaking fly on invisible disks, we haven't seen ANYTHING like that from her. Really the only scenes that showed anything of what they can really do was the wedding and London scenes, and both only showed a fraction of what they can actually do. As far as the invention that Reed made, it looked like a kids science project, and we won't even go into Galactus. So, no....130 million will not do it. AND YOU SPEND MONEY ON REED DANCING?????? REALLY?????? waste of money.

I remember watching that scene in theaters shaking my head.My god that scene was awful.

 

[mclay18]

The Silver Surfer looked good because the majority of that money was put into him. We really saw very little from Sue, she can freaking fly on invisible disks, we haven't seen ANYTHING like that from her. Really the only scenes that showed anything of what they can really do was the wedding and London scenes, and both only showed a fraction of what they can actually do. As far as the invention that Reed made, it looked like a kids science project, and we won't even go into Galactus. So, no....130 million will not do it. AND YOU SPEND MONEY ON REED DANCING?????? REALLY?????? waste of money.

I agree that scene should've hit the cutting room floor, if not removed from shooting altogether. Even with the budget limitations, ROTSS felt bigger than Marvel's first Thor film. Now that was a scaled-down film.

And I honestly don't think Fox is willing to spend up to $200M on an semi-unknown property. I can see them spending up to $175M, tops on this. If the movie performs as well as Fox hopes, then they can splash out on the sequel. But they need to make a good movie first. The problem with the first two F4 films is the scripts and casting, not necessarily the budgets.

If I had to choose between a slicker and more visually polished F4 film but with terrible acting versus a scaled-down but enjoyable film where the actors clicked.... I'd take the latter.

 

[Incrediblejeff]

Random question:I don't know where to post this,but who owns the rights to The Watcher?

 

[Saitou Hajime]

They do have a casting director.

The casting process began months ago.

It's from the Wrap article:

Insiders caution that there is still a lot of work to be done on the "Fantastic Four" script and that Fox hasn't even brought on a casting director yet.

 

[jaymes_e06]

Random question:I don't know where to post this,but who owns the rights to The Watcher?

Marvel/Disney most likely.

 

[SpideyFan866]

It's from the Wrap article:

Implying that is true.

You clearly have no idea how unreliable "The Wrap" is.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

Implying that is true.

You clearly have no idea how unreliable "The Wrap" is.

Apparently not so unreliable that people haven't not bought into their latest scoop several hours ago. They also broke the switch to Louisiana and the Jordan bit, something people had no problem believing.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I agree that scene should've hit the cutting room floor, if not removed from shooting altogether. Even with the budget limitations, ROTSS felt bigger than Marvel's first Thor film. Now that was a scaled-down film.

And I honestly don't think Fox is willing to spend up to $200M on an semi-unknown property. I can see them spending up to $175M, tops on this. If the movie performs as well as Fox hopes, then they can splash out on the sequel. But they need to make a good movie first. The problem with the first two F4 films is the scripts and casting, not necessarily the budgets.

If I had to choose between a slicker and more visually polished F4 film but with terrible acting versus a scaled-down but enjoyable film where the actors clicked.... I'd take the latter.

RotSS has no scenes that match the best in Thor visually. Nor was it half the film.

And why is that a choice? Why can't they make a well acted, slick and visually polished FF film? Why does it have to be an either or situation? Batman Begins, Iron Man, Man of Steel, The First Avenger, Thor, the Avengers. You can start a series well.

 

[Crimz]

In the previous F4 films did anyone only Ben and Johnny do any fighting? Johnny did the Nova flame at the end of the first one, but that was it. In the second one he did the fighting by himself at the end by becoming some fusion (Super Skrull). Sue put up some (weak) shields and did no fighting at all if I remember correctly and Reed only stretched for comedic effect.

So the money spent on visual effects were wasted in the previous films, and in the next F4 film whether it will be in 2015 by Fox, or at a later date by Marvel. Should put better effort in the script and the effects because besides the Silver Surfer they were terrible.

 

[Project862006]

all backlash aside i hope olsen thing is true she would make a great sue

 

[marvelrobbins]

Marvel/Disney most likely.

Fox may.The watcher was Introduced IN FF and has been more a FF character.

marvel/Disney share the skrulls similar to quicksilver and the Scarlet witch
situation.And fox may own the Kree while the Inhumans are at Marvel/DIsney.