Fant4stic I think this deserves its own thread...Josh Trank denounces Fantastic Four

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's the thing, if he'd said that 6 months from now, no one would care. Alan Taylor just said the same thing when he was being interviewed for Terminator Genisys. Although the egg is on his face because if it wasn't clear before Taylor pretty much proved he's a ****ty director with that debacle, but I remember his comments on Thor TDW and he played the company line up until the end like a freaking professional. That's the difference. If Taylor doesn't get another job, it's because he directed one mediocre film and one outright piece of crap film, not because he's been blacklisted.

Josh Trank will likely be blacklisted.

He's gonna make indie movies for the rest of his career. He somehow messed up his Star Wars gig and then he goes and bombs on the movie before its even out. I'll be amazed if he isn't blacklisted but he has friends so it could swing either way.
 
Let's be fair, now. I could totally see Disney hiring Josh Trank.

Those Disneyland pretzels don't sell themselves.
 
Well, I am happy all three were made. :yay:
And you should be. I am always happy that films that I liked and loved were made regardless of what the popular opinion or box office is. I'd be disappointed if you weren't happy all three were made because you enjoyed them.:yay:
 
Yeah right... Next you'll be telling me Ben Affleck is gonna be Batman after the fiasco that was Daredevil.
This isn't the same situation as Ben Affleck playing in Daredevil. This guy got fired from Star Wars and bad mouthed his blockbuster movie on it's opening day. Disney and WB and now Fox will not be handing him anymore blockbusters.
 
Shots fired!

UPDATE: Since this article was published, several high level sources close to Fantastic Four – spoken to independently of each other – have told EW the rift on set was not about creative differences but rather combative behavior Trank demonstrated toward the crew, producers, studio and even the stars. It’s partly linked to Trank’s personal disputes – involving accusations of deliberate damage done to the house he was renting – which sources say eventually manifested on set as hostility and frustration from Trank.

Not all these new sources agree, however. Some who worked on the film say Trank was driven to the breaking point by the studio, which delayed casting and script approvals, slashed the budget by tens of millions from what was originally promised, and tried to force last-minute changes to the film just as principal photography was beginning, creating confusion and stress from the get-go that often boiled over among department heads trying to put together pieces of a movie that was still in flux.

There’s a reason Trank’s tweet has caused such an uproar and raised so many questions. Until now, everyone involved in Fantastic Four has been so busy denying there was any disruption or chaos on set or between the filmmaking team that Trank’s burst of truth and despair is difficult to interpret – even by those who have been trying to follow the developments on the film closely. Is this merely more evidence of the erratic behavior those who worked on the movie have discussed anonymously in the press?

Or… let’s give Trank the benefit of the doubt, just for a moment. Might Trank actually be the injured party here? That’s what was suggested by Max Landis, the screenwriter of Chronicle, who has previously directed sarcasm and scorn Trank’s way when the Star Wars film fell through. Although Landis wasn’t involved in Fantastic Four, he seemed to side with his former director on Thursday night.

[YT]xZO2vcIb2Yc[/YT]
 
I like that Fox are going with the old "we kept it quiet because we were trying to protect him" approach. A classic.
 
1r9fKyg.gif
 
I like that Fox are going with the old "we kept it quiet because we were trying to protect him" approach. A classic.

Haha, oh Fox.

It's more like "We have to get this movie out before we lose the property, but we're stuck with this drama-filled director. Oh well, we don't have much time left so f*** it ... We need this movie finished as quickly as possible."

Like I've said before, I think Trank is a spoiled rotten brat who's throwing a temper tantrum, but Fox deserves a huge chunk of the blame as well. This was a group failure all around.
 
This erroneous narrative that Whedon complained about Marvel interfering in AOU came from sound bites from a lengthy audio interview with EMPIRE. Listen to the entirety and he does not say that AOU isn't his vision or his movie or that he felt interfered with by the studio. Quite the opposite. He was given an immense amount of freedom in terms of script and production and an enormous budget and a brilliant cast to bring it to life.

He says certain things (Thor and the cave to be specific) weren't working for anyone including him in post production during editing. Whedon discussed how they went back and forth on how to edit it and still keep the storyline of where is Thor and what's he doing semi coherent while not cutting the farm scene. In the end Whedon stated there are about TWO MINUTES more he'd have liked in the final cut - that's it. Hes stated time and time again that AOU is more his movie than Avengers was.

Taylor? He's shown with Genesis that Marvel should have stepped in even sooner. It may be lower tier Marvel but it's not a cringe worthy embarrassment. The studio has an in house cadre of talented producers, writers, stunt & effects people that I believe keep the Marvel films at a certain base level of quality. The Russos have said that Marvel resources and their knowledge of how to make these big films was infinitely valuable.

Marvel is a producer run studio like the old Hollywood days and the as said choose directors they can work with and a share a vision with. There's nothing wrong or less artistic about that unless one believes only directors are artists or that someone like Taylor knows how to make a better comic book movie than Feige does.

Whedon also said at comic-con that AoU was one of the most personal work he has ever done,like it or not. I think it totally shows in the movie,while the first movie was more about connecting the dots from the previous movies.

Taylor is definately crap. Yet TDW is still a good movie IMO,it's fun and enjoyable while TG was really bad.
 
Last edited:
So all the rumors were true, it seems. Where are all the naysayers who were around here claiming that the rumors were without merit? They seem to have disappeared.
 
They are defending the movie on the x-boards while talking **** of the MCU. Ordinary stuff.
 
I get the sense that with Marvel they vet directors heavily and only hire someone whose vision matches their own, so that they don't need to worry about clashing ideas or major issues. IIRC James Gunn said he had a lot of freedom on his project, but you can still tell that it has an MCU tone to it.

Yeah, I agree. Marvel has a very lengthy vetting process and no one's going to deny that they aren't a very hands-on studio. Feige essentially acts as a secondary director and we should be thankful for that. Marvel's impressive track record is thanks to Feige and his team. They clean up possible messes and enhance good films.

They saved the Dark World from being a train wreck. Just look at Genisys: A perfect example of Alan Taylor's directorial weakness.

Edgar Wright left before production began, so did Petty Jenkins. When Marvel find the right director, they let them go free. James Gunn, Peyton Reed, the Russos are all examples of this.
 
I don't think Taylor is a ****** director. I don't know if he's a good one either. It's not like he's been working with good scripts in his last two movies.

Thor was a weird mess, but at least the Terminator sequel had some fun with itself. Genisys was already going to be a bad movie, but at least they didn't take the Salvation route.

He needs to do 1-2 passion projects so that I could get a hold of his talents. A couple of smaller movies.
 
Taylor's not an awful director, but he's not a blockbuster director. I'm not even sure he's a movie director. Just a TV director.
 
If Fox releases a statement officially declaring this stuff is true then Trank is done.

No major studio would hire him after these types of antics.


While ignoring the other rumors and basically depicting Trank as the bad guy, of course. That would be real easy.

A young director with 1 movie, so easy to push around, Trank may have messed up, but so did Fox, bad if we are to believe (and there are several sources corroborating the story) John Campea, Jon Schnepps on the Collider Movie Talk and other people. The story will hopefully blow up while more people come out and talk about it. Fox has done it several times before and has had history with this type of thing, not on this degree though.
 
Watch Marvel hire him for Inhumans, and it's awesome.

Ironically the whole "body horror/powers as a curse" idea works far better for the Inhumans than FF. They actually used it with Raina on AoS last season.

As for Trank, obviously he behaved badly during production, but if the stories about the bait-and-switch Fox pulled are true, I can see how that happened.
 
For a young director, if he was pushed around, had three goddam set pieces gutted from the movie barely days before production began and then having to piece together a puzzle, it's easy to see how he would melt down, not that it's okay but people who don't make movies just don't realize the process behind it, how hard it is, and for Trank to go from Chronicle, a 12 million bucks studio movie with total creative control (Landis confirmed) to something of this size is daunting. A lot of people (not all of them, I say a lot) on the internet mostly are quick to assign blame to the director because hey, he's the director, as we've seen, it is so much more complicated then that, it reminds me of those who deride this or that screenwriter because his script was bad when there were several writers on the project and there's no way of knowing who wrote what, when, who gets credit, who gets a WGA credit even though he only contributed like 20 % to the movie, etc, etc.

I don't think we can use examples of Gareth Edwards or Colin Trevorrow because those guys had a really good circle of producers, and creatives surrounding them and seemed to have been fairly free with the movie they wanted to make when Josh Trank seems to have been micromanaged on every single aspect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
202,392
Messages
22,096,724
Members
45,894
Latest member
DooskiPack
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"