Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 7

[Willie Lumpkin]

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.

Very true. While many things were wrong with the film, the look of the special effects generally worked. . . but that's mostly because they didn't do or show much.

We didn't see the kind of spectacular visuals that Kirby gave us but rather saw a number of simple, safe, non-thrilling visuals.

 

[Mr. Dent]

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.

Does that report have any other "interesting" tidbits in it?

 

[Project862006]

Does that report have any other "interesting" tidbits in it?

 

[mclay18]

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.

True. But then you guys go around and insist that it would cost in the $200M range. With the exception of MOS and Avengers (both around $220M), each origin film cost roughly the same to make -- $135M to $150M.

I also think the major studios like using the more costly CGI houses like Weta, ILM, Digital Domain, and SPI (as well as UK-based MPC and Double Negative) too often. There are dozens of smaller visual effects houses that can provide quality shots for less money -- like Image Engine, Atomic Fiction, Hydraulx and so forth.

I think a decent F4 film can be done for a lot less than $200M. And if Fox likes how the movie is shaping up, I won't be surprised if they pour more money into it (like Marvel Studios did with Iron Man 3). But you guys have to consider the economics of a studio system and how much they're willing to pay to make the movie. It's just not a top-tier property like Spider-Man is at Sony.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

With the right director and the right script, great films can be made with relatively low budgets.

. . . but the problem is, that just puts more pressure on the director and it makes it less likely the film will work.

For example, a great director can make a great film with a low budget, but a mediocre director may make an OK film with a medium budget, a good film with a bigger budget but a bad film with a lower budget.

Budget is just one of many variables, but if the budget is low, we have to hope everything else is better than average or the film could be in trouble.

. . . And I don't personally have faith that Fox will give it low budget but give it all the talent and other variables it will need for it to work.

 

[marcvader]

Correct. The lower the budget the greater the room for error with a property like this.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Any who saw CHRONICLE can assume that Trank can get a whole lot of bang for his bucks. I think if he were given a comparable budget to what FF:ROTSS he could knock it out of the park visually. What is much more of a question mark is the caliber of the cast and story. The Story FF's push the term "light hearted family friendly" into a realm where the audience should have be given an insulin shot with the purchase of a ticket. I don't think the FF needs to be THE DARK KNIGHT by any means, but tone that the Indian Jones films had, more or less, would be a good starting point. One thing that would go a long way towards that would be to cut the goofy, squishy nerd routine with Reed. He should be presented as a respected and trusted man to not only all the other members of the FF, but the world at large. He should have a kind of gravitas and cool factor combined. Take those steps and make Doom and Reeds conflict central and you've already repaired most of the damage done by Story's films.

 

[bapi]

With the right director and the right script, great films can be made with relatively low budgets.

. . . but the problem is, that just puts more pressure on the director and it makes it less likely the film will work.

For example, a great director can make a great film with a low budget, but a mediocre director may make an OK film with a medium budget, a good film with a bigger budget but a bad film with a lower budget.

Budget is just one of many variables, but if the budget is low, we have to hope everything else is better than average or the film could be in trouble.

. . . And I don't personally have faith that Fox will give it low budget but give it all the talent and other variables it will need for it to work.

However with more money you dont need to be creative. You'll make just some big and empty dumb movie like Pirates of the Caribbean.
Prometheus with 130M budget didn't look cheap. Are Rise of the Planet of the Apes with 93M.

 

[DrCosmic]

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

Fair enough.

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

Then neither is FF and Avengers. Either films that are not as epic as Avengers can be successful or they can't.

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.

So Disney does the merchandizing, as they've done in the past. Either way, merchandising gets done, even when MCU films are out. They idea that Disney will sabotage their own income is meritless.

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.

And locations, and sets and numerous high quality actors and, and, and... This idea that the vast majority of the bill is for CGI doesn't seem to be based in anything.

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.

I think expecting FF to have a bunch of expensive city-destruction scenes would be ill-advised at best. Expecting them to explore the negative zone and subterranea - relatively cheap 'visual feasts' makes more sense. The idea that this can't be done for 150M flies in the face of what we've seen films do for less than that. There was nothing cutting corners about Rise of The Planet of The Apes, or even District 9. Your inflated sense of what is needed for a great looking movie is outdated. The money in the previous FF franchise was mis-spent. Using it as any kind of gauge is ill advised.

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.

To clarify my point: making dynamic flair-laden versions of Sue and Johnny are extremely cheap by any standard. The vast majority of the work with Sue is making the practical effects right so it seems like her forcefield has weight. The vast majority of the work with Johnny is the lighting effects for the area he's in. Lighting a guy (and other stuff) on fire, turning a girl invisible, making a forcefield effect... they're just plain easy. There's no way to make it a significant cost unless you spend CGI money badly, something that's not going to happen under Trank.

Doing a CGI Thing, that could be expensive theoretically, but nowadays... I'm not so sure. I look at films with CGI characters that have been done remarkably cheap ie Paul/Ted, then at the new Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles film which stars four entirely CGI characters without blowing up the budget... it seems the cost is largely low, either due to new tech or new techniques. The only real CGI challenge is Mr. Fantastic's stretchiness not looking cartoony, now that IS hard, and that is not cheap.

Unless the FF stops acting like the FF and starts acting like Avengers, it's in good shape, budgetwise, at 100M. Throwing more money at the problem is rarely the best answer. You can do it right *and* cheap in the FF's case.

 

[psylockolussus]

However with more money you dont need to be creative. You'll make just some big and empty dumb movie like Pirates of the Caribbean.
Prometheus with 130M budget didn't look cheap. Are Rise of the Planet of the Apes with 93M.

I liked how visually appealing Prometheus/Rise of the Planet of the Apes are! t:

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Prometheus with 130M budget didn't look cheap.

I liked how visually appealing Prometheus/Rise of the Planet of the Apes are! t:

Give this film $130 million budget and Ridley Scott as director and I would be beyond ecstatic right now.

 

[DrCosmic]

But what we do have is a director with similar experience and budget to Planet of the Apes, and *no one* is excited. Worse, they're like, it'll look cheap and it's this major risk, like unless a director makes five movies, it's a fluke. Talent is talent, whether it's one movie or ten.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

But what we do have is a director with similar experience and budget to Planet of the Apes, and *no one* is excited. Worse, they're like, it'll look cheap and it's this major risk, like unless a director makes five movies, it's a fluke. Talent is talent, whether it's one movie or ten.

Ridley Scott is a great director. Josh Trank has the potential to be a great director. There's a huge difference. I can't get excited about the idea of rolling a die that might come up as 6. With Ridley Scott, every side of the die would be a 6.

Chronicle was good but not amazing, and we have to make a leap of faith from there.

I was excited about both previous FF films and was hugely let down in both cases. With that in mind I'd be a fool to be excited at this point - when we know next to nothing about where this is going.

At this moment I can be neither excited nor certain it will suck. I'm currently in a holding pattern awaiting some actual information.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Chronicle was good but not amazing, and we have to make a leap of faith from there.

Yeah. Everybody was talking about how acclaimed Gavin Hood was too and then oops! X-Men Origins.

 

[DrCosmic]

Yeah. Everybody was talking about how acclaimed Gavin Hood was too and then oops! X-Men Origins.

No, they were not. Not only that, but he had not done anything with similar themes and SFX work to X-Men origins, nor was he given any autonomy by Fox. That's how Fox learned to let stuff ride, I think. So when people were talking about how Rupert Wyatt was this big roll of the dice for this big reboot of a beloved franchise... he knocked it out of the park.

Ridley Scott is a great director. Josh Trank has the potential to be a great director. There's a huge difference. I can't get excited about the idea of rolling a die that might come up as 6. With Ridley Scott, every side of the die would be a 6.

Chronicle was good but not amazing, and we have to make a leap of faith from there.

I was excited about both previous FF films and was hugely let down in both cases. With that in mind I'd be a fool to be excited at this point - when we know next to nothing about where this is going.

At this moment I can be neither excited nor certain it will suck. I'm currently in a holding pattern awaiting some actual information.

I understand where you're coming from better now, but I don't see any 'chance' and 'dice rolling'. Chronicle was good for a $50M movie... for a $12M movie it was absolutely amazing. I don't see how giving the guy 5+ times the cash would create a better film is a leap of faith? Isn't that pretty simple logic? How is it rational to guess that he would not come up with an equally good film with a budget 7 times that size?

And my understanding is that we were working from the idea that the film would have a low budget, under $100M. I believe this is the only way the film could be successful with it's release date in the current day of big movie making, especially in the year it will be released in. Prometheus looked good, so if it had that situation, you'd be excited. What I was saying is that Planet of the Apes also looked good, with less money and a lesser director. So why is no one (you or anyone else) excited. If the news came out the budget was $93 Million, why would you, or anyone compare it to the old FF films where the situation was completely different. It doesn't seem like a leap of faith I'm taking so much as not holding onto old disappointments. Nothing wrong with playing it safe emotionally, but it doesn't require any 'faith' not to.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

No, they were not.

Yes, they were. Just because you weren't around at the time doesn't mean it didn't happen. There was plenty of upbeat talk about Tsotsi, and oh look how many awards it's won! and how Fox were such forward thinking visionaries for hiring Hood instead of another director for hire like Ratner. And then they pissed it all away, as usual.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I understand where you're coming from better now, but I don't see any 'chance' and 'dice rolling'. Chronicle was good for a $50M movie... for a $12M movie it was absolutely amazing. I don't see how giving the guy 5+ times the cash would create a better film is a leap of faith? Isn't that pretty simple logic? How is it rational to guess that he would not come up with an equally good film with a budget 7 times that size?

And my understanding is that we were working from the idea that the film would have a low budget, under $100M. I believe this is the only way the film could be successful with it's release date in the current day of big movie making, especially in the year it will be released in. Prometheus looked good, so if it had that situation, you'd be excited. What I was saying is that Planet of the Apes also looked good, with less money and a lesser director. So why is no one (you or anyone else) excited. If the news came out the budget was $93 Million, why would you, or anyone compare it to the old FF films where the situation was completely different. It doesn't seem like a leap of faith I'm taking so much as not holding onto old disappointments. Nothing wrong with playing it safe emotionally, but it doesn't require any 'faith' not to.

I think my biggest problem with this idea is that this isn't Daredevil or Power-Man - those films take place on the streets of New York city and could be done with modest budgets.

But this is the Fantastic Four. The thing that made them unique as comics was the spectacular visuals. The characters themselves are very visual and will require extensive effects to do them justice, but beyond that, the settings, gadgets etc. are all things like we've never seen before.

I thought the CGI in Planet of the Apes was amazing, and I'm somewhat encouraged by that, but the story itself was relatively simple and didn't need the kind of spectacular sets, costumes etc. that the FF will need to bring the comics to life.

Chronicle and Planet of the Apes were good and well-done films, but they're very different than the FF. I just can't see how an FF film - that captures the elements that made them unique in the comic-book world - can be done simply or cheaply. If 30 years ago you opened a Spider-Man or Batman comic-book, you could imagine how something like that could be made into a film. But when you open an FF, you see things that are bigger and grander than the things you saw in those other comic-books. That's the difficulty of this particular property.

Maybe it's just my lack of imagination, but I don't think we're going to get the kind of FF that I fell in love with as a kid on the budget Fox is going to be willing to devote.

 

[Zarex]

Maybe it's just my lack of imagination, but I don't think we're going to get the kind of FF that I fell in love with as a kid on the budget Fox is going to be willing to devote.

I don't think it is a lack of imagination - it's simply common sense. Sony, FOX, Warner Brothers and Marvel are giving Whedon, Webb, Singer, Snyder and Gunn $200 million dollar plus budgets for a reason - they believe that the Avengers, Spider-man, the X-Men, Batman, Superman and the Guardians(!) are deserving of a lavish big screen treatment with all of the spectacle contained within the comics lovingly translated to the big screen. Trank may be a talented up-and-comer, but we have no reason to believe he can work miracles on a limited budget when the previously mentioned fellows cannot. If FOX decides to reduce the budget to that of their first brutal attempt at putting the First Family onscreen, the compromised budget will be glaringly obvious to the moviegoer and will likely kill the franchise for another decade or so. FOX need to give the FF the budget it deserves or do the right thing and release the rights.

 

[marvelrobbins]

I think my biggest problem with this idea is that this isn't Daredevil or Power-Man - those films take place on the streets of New York city and could be done with modest budgets.

But this is the Fantastic Four. The thing that made them unique as comics was the spectacular visuals. The characters themselves are very visual and will require extensive effects to do them justice, but beyond that, the settings, gadgets etc. are all things like we've never seen before.

I thought the CGI in Planet of the Apes was amazing, and I'm somewhat encouraged by that, but the story itself was relatively simple and didn't need the kind of spectacular sets, costumes etc. that the FF will need to bring the comics to life.

Chronicle and Planet of the Apes were good and well-done films, but they're very different than the FF. I just can't see how an FF film - that captures the elements that made them unique in the comic-book world - can be done simply or cheaply. If 30 years ago you opened a Spider-Man or Batman comic-book, you could imagine how something like that could be made into a film. But when you open an FF, you see things that are bigger and grander than the things you saw in those other comic-books. That's the difficulty of this particular property.

Maybe it's just my lack of imagination, but I don't think we're going to get the kind of FF that I fell in love with as a kid on the budget Fox is going to be willing to devote.

You do realize of course no matter who makes the reboot It will likely be based On Ultimate FF not classic FF.

The only deal Fox should consider Is getting all merchandize rights to X-Men In return for FF film rights.

Even If DIsney were to do that with Fox It would likely be years till a FF film would be made.Feige Is more intrested In SIlver surfer and galactus than the FF themselves.I wouldn't put it past them to do silver surfer and Galactus coming to earth In an avengers sequel with no FF.

 

[Loki882]

Considering that MM has mentioned possible FF/X-Men crossovers, I would imagine that Fox will try not to screw this up. Trank made a really good movie and I will give him the benefit of the doubt for now. Also, I want to see Franklin and Valeria eventually, really badly.

 

[MadVillainy]

Am I the only one who thinks that a FF/X-Men crossover is kinda meh. I mean if it's a good film then fine, but when I think of superhero team up movies, Avenger's/X-Men sure, Fantastic Four/Avengers sure, but FF/X-Men doesnt really appeal much to me. I know they obviously crossed over in the comics but idk I just dont really see a point in a cross over between the FOX franchises

 

[marcvader]

Am I the only one who thinks that a FF/X-Men crossover is kinda meh. I mean if it's a good film then fine, but when I think of superhero team up movies, Avenger's/X-Men sure, Fantastic Four/Avengers sure, but FF/X-Men doesnt really appeal much to me. I know they obviously crossed over in the comics but idk I just dont really see a point in a cross over between the FOX franchises

I agree. It feels like crossing over just because they can.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

You do realize of course no matter who makes the reboot It will likely be based On Ultimate FF not classic FF.

No, I don't realize that. What supporting evidence do you have for that statement?

I believe that Marvel wants the rights to Dr. Doom and Galactus, not Victor Van Damme and a swarm of bugs. ( In fact, if Marvel wanted to use variations of those Ultimate characters, they probably have the legal right as long as they Don't call them Dr. Doom and Galactus. Would Fox really argue if Marvel (for some inexplicable reason) wanted to include a goat legged-freak in a film?)

Why would anybody in their right mind base a film on that crap instead of 50 years of classic stories and characters?

Even Millar himself (and, no, I don't trust him) has said it will be based on Lee/Kirby.

I wish I could be as sure that they wouldn't do Ultimate as you're sure they will, but I don't see how we have enough real information to make either statement. I don't think any of us could say it won't feature H.E.R.B.I.E. in place of Johnny at this point.

 

[NanaT]

I agree. It feels like crossing over just because they can.

Well they are the only property that they can cross over with. I doubt the Avengers and X-Men or Avengers and Fantastic Four will be crossing over any time soon.

 

[marcvader]

Well they are the only property that they can cross over with. I doubt the Avengers and X-Men or Avengers and Fantastic Four will be crossing over any time soon.

There's all sorts of cool mutant teams they own, cross them over. It makes sense.