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

[AndrewGilkison]

It was perfectly fair for Trank to say "this movie doesn't reflect my vision" but that "my version would've gotten great reviews" statement just made me roll my eyes. I bet if he got to make his movie unfiltered and it still got **** reviews he would've had the same meltdown that Rob Liefield did.

 

[MydnightPhoenix]

Yes, no one should ever dare criticize giant corporations because reasons.

Criticize a damn corporation all you want but stop trying to throw them under the bus for everything that goes wrong and give the director a pass. For Raime and Spiderman 3 criticizing the studio is justified; but with F4 there were rumored problems with the director while it was being created and this particular director has only made one good film. Then to put a cherry on top he goes postal on twitter throwing a tantrum akin to a 2yr old.

 

[Jason Kane]

Criticize a damn corporation all you want but stop trying to throw them under the bus for everything that goes wrong and give the director a pass. For Raime and Spiderman 3 criticizing the studio is justified; but with F4 there were rumored problems with the director while it was being created and this particular director has only made one good film. Then to put a cherry on top he goes postal on twitter throwing a tantrum akin to a 2yr old.

THANK YOU!! The studio didn't make him act a right ass during the original shooting. He made his own choices. Blake Edwards and Sam Raimi, he ain't

 

[The Infernal]

I find it hard to beleive this movie was ever in a good shape. Fox may have even made it worse, but I'd be surprised if this was salvageable before that.

 

[Farren]

I find it hard to beleive this movie was ever in a good shape. Fox may have even made it worse, but I'd be surprised if this was salvageable before that.

I agree. The final product is so awful that there's no way it wasn't a disaster beforehand.

 

[Dark Victory]

I never subsribed to the idea you somehow have to have done something yourself or accomplished more to criticise something. It's a nonsensical argument designed to handwave away something you don't wish to hear.

It's a ******** arguement.

You misinterpreted my post, Infernal, and I agree with both your sentiments 99.9% of the time. But I think some of the criticisms made against this movie have been undue or misattributed, particularly from people who seem to think they know everything that's happened behind the scenes based on news articles from movie websites that hardly attain any sense of journalistic integrity, or social media where intentions can get misconstrued really fast.

No one on this site knows exactly what went down and it's reactionary to start pointing fingers just as the movie rolls out for its first weekend.

 

[I Am The Knight]

It was perfectly fair for Trank to say "this movie doesn't reflect my vision" but that "my version would've gotten great reviews" statement just made me roll my eyes. I bet if he got to make his movie unfiltered and it still got **** reviews he would've had the same meltdown that Rob Liefield did.

What did Liefeld say?

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

I'm really starting to hate Trank.

 

[metaphysician]

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.

*points up* This. I agree with every word.

 

[Eddie]

I'm really starting to hate Trank.

We tried to warn you. You wouldn't listen...

Glad you've seen the light.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I don't have any respect for Trank because of his unprofessional childish nature. Yes I ultimately believe that Fox is to blame but Trank played his part, no matter what his people try to say. He was fired from Star Wars for a reason.

Is there any other comicbook director out there whining like a little ***** the way he is? No, that is the answer. He should have waited to respond and not responded on ****ing twitter.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Trank had the right idea voicing his displeasure via Twitter considering how active me is on it regarding the movie but his utter lack of tact shows his immaturity. Making a bad movie is forgivable. Disrespecting the studio isn't. All he had to say was something like 'I did my best to craft a good movie. It appears our vision didn't meet expectations of fans, if given the chance I will do better next time.'

 

[Flint Marko]

The new info just reported by various websites about Fox delaying production, forcing changes, and cutting the budget proves what I've been saying ever since we saw the finalized film: at the end of the day, the blame falls squarely on Fox's shoulders. Trank certainly hasn't handled this situation well at all, but again, I've seen the movie and my gut tells me that Fox is almost entirely at fault for the abomination I sat through for two hours. No matter who the director was, it would not have turned out well. Maybe not as bad as it did, but Fox's negligence and disrespect for the property is what sunk this ship before production even started.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

This erroneous narrative that Whedon complained about Marvel interfering in AOU came from sound bites from a lengthy audio interview with EMPIRE.

Spoiler

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.

Great ****ing post.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The new info just reported by various websites about Fox delaying production, forcing changes, and cutting the budget proves what I've been saying ever since we saw the finalized film: at the end of the day, the blame falls squarely on Fox's shoulders. Trank certainly hasn't handled this situation well at all, but again, I've seen the movie and my gut tells me that Fox is almost entirely at fault for the abomination I sat through for two hours. No matter who the director was, it would not have turned out well. Maybe not as bad as it did, but Fox's negligence and disrespect for the property is what sunk this ship before production even started.

Why do you think Disney fired Trank? Do you think it's because he whined a little because Fox gave him a hard time? I have hard time believing that he would be fired for something so petty.

 

[NotSoLongAgo]

I'm gonna guess that his *****ing and whining over the project had already manifested itself into his erratic behavior by that time and Kinberg went and blew the whistle. Why would Disney want an unstable guy who can't be a team player?

 

[Anita18]

Except Fincher acted much in the same way during the fallout over Alien 3; particularly, he insensitively said to major media outlets that he'd rather have colon cancer than direct another movie after his experience with Fox around the time of Alien 3's release. Social media didn't exist in the early '90s either and Fincher's infamous for making facetious, scolding comments at the ire of other industry folk beyond studio heads.

Also, please. You're making a lot of judgements toward a man you've never met firsthand based off of a public fiasco with no reputable, objective perspectives yet -- and there might never be any. Not to mention Trank has accomplished much more than you likely ever will in an industry you clearly know little about since you're making wide accusations from public media and loose-fitting contexts. Stop condescending.

But David Fincher, AFAIK, didn't go out of his way to defend himself on Alien 3 on his own time. The media outlets asked, he answered, in his own distinctive style.

Trank is going out of his way to defend himself, on Twitter and if you believe that the posts on 4chan are from him. Nobody asked him for his opinion, he's just saying it of his own volition. And that's why he's likely going to have trouble getting hired by a big studio in the future. That's nobody's fault but his own.

Many a celebrity would be better served if they weren't on social media, period. If you ARE on social media, you need to watch what you say.

And you say that Trank is better accomplished than me, as if I wanted to be in the movie business in the first place. I did cancer research, and changed industries because I wanted to help people faster. Just try me about "accomplishments" and "making the world a better place."

And yes, the cancer research card is what I'm going to play anytime anyone tries to make THAT argument against me.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

But David Fincher, AFAIK, didn't go out of his way to defend himself on Alien 3 on his own time. The media outlets asked, he answered, in his own distinctive style.

Trank is going out of his way to defend himself, on Twitter and if you believe that the posts on 4chan are from him. Nobody asked him for his opinion, he's just saying it of his own volition. And that's why he's likely going to have trouble getting hired by a big studio in the future. That's nobody's fault but his own.

Many a celebrity would be better served if they weren't on social media, period. If you ARE on social media, you need to watch what you say.

And you say that Trank is better accomplished than me, as if I wanted to be in the movie business in the first place. I did cancer research, and changed industries because I wanted to help people faster. Just try me about "accomplishments" and "making the world a better place."

And yes, the cancer research card is what I'm going to play anytime anyone tries to make THAT argument against me.

Dropping that mic.

 

[Flint Marko]

Why do you think Disney fired Trank? Do you think it's because he whined a little because Fox gave him a hard time? I have hard time believing tht he would be fired for something so petty.

I should clarify, I think Trank clearly didn't act professionally at all and I won't defend his actions. He can't handle a studio breathing down his neck and can't roll with the punches; I don't mean to sound like I'm taking up for him.
However, they hired him to make his movie and micro-managed it in a way that would've ruined the final product no matter the director. This project was doomed from the start, it was a cheap rights grab meant to satisfy nobody. But Tranks meltdown just made the whole thing a disaster as opposed to a modest failure. I could be wrong, but having sat through the movie, the film was kind of okay until the parts covered in the studio executives finger prints. I'm not inclined to think that Tranks version would have been drastically better, but it would've felt like a natural, cohesive, singular film which would have been an improvement.
And again, at the end of the day it was Fox that hired him and let him run production into the ground. I again go back to my previous analogy; if a parent leaves a child unattended and the kid burns the house to the ground, who is more at fault? The kid is clearly no angel, but maybe the parents should have known better.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I should clarify, I think Trank clearly didn't act professionally at all and I won't defend his actions. He can't handle a studio breathing down his neck and can't roll with the punches; I don't mean to sound like I'm taking up for him.
However, they hired him to make his movie and micro-managed it in a way that would've ruined the final product no matter the director. This project was doomed from the start, it was a cheap rights grab meant to satisfy nobody. But Tranks meltdown just made the whole thing a disaster as opposed to a modest failure. I could be wrong, but having sat through the movie, the film was kind of okay until the parts covered in the studio executives finger prints. I'm not inclined to think that Tranks version would have been drastically better, but it would've felt like a natural, cohesive, singular film which would have been an improvement.
And again, at the end of the day it was Fox that hired him and let him run production into the ground. I again go back to my previous analogy; if a parent leaves a child unattended and the kid burns the house to the ground, who is more at fault? The kid is clearly no angel, but maybe the parents should have known better.

I can't comment on the film because I'm not interested in seeing it in theaters so I can't say I agree or disagree with your opinion of it's quality. I do agree that Fox are more at fault than anyone, I just don't want the wrong idea floating out there, that idea that Trank bares no responsibility for the film and the tattered state of his career right now.

 

[Flint Marko]

I can't comment on the film because I'm not interested in seeing it in theaters so I can't say I agree or disagree with your opinion of it's quality. I do agree that Fox are more at fault than anyone, I just don't want the wrong idea floating out there, that idea that Trank bares no responsibility for the film and the tattered state of his career right now.

Trank has certainly dug his own grave, he handled himself and the studio breathing down his neck in a deplorable manner. His career being in shambles is his own doing, and it says something solid about Fox that they had his back until his tweet a few days ago. At the end of the day I think you and I are saying similar things, just in different ways.

 

[metaphysician]

Yeah right... Next you'll be telling me Ben Affleck is gonna be Batman after the fiasco that was Daredevil.

If Inhumans were coming out in 2028, you might have a point.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Trank has certainly dug his own grave, he handled himself and the studio breathing down his neck in a deplorable manner. His career being in shambles is his own doing, and it says something solid about Fox that they had his back until his tweet a few days ago. At the end of the day I think you and I are saying similar things, just in different ways.

Yeah we are.

I just don't get why he wanted to harm his career even more? All he would have had to do was bitterly take his lumps and then do an in depth interview about the situation in the future. Some I see around the interwebs talk about this like he was in a super special situation that has never happened to any director in the history of hollywood and that's just not true. How could he not know that studios sometimes don't make it easy for directors? I know that and I'm not in the industry.

 

[Flint Marko]

Yeah we are.

I just don't get why he wanted to harm his career even more? All he would have had to do was bitterly take his lumps and then do an in depth interview about the situation in the future. Some I see around the interwebs talk about this like he was in a super special situation that has never happened to any director in the history of hollywood and that's just not true. How could he not know that studios sometimes don't make it easy for directors? I know that and I'm not in the industry.

It's definitely interesting why he didn't just roll with the punches, do the best he could, and then move on to Star Wars. I think the answer lies in his ego and sense of entitlement.

 

[Lobster Charlie]

Why would he "harm his career?" Probably because HE DOESN'T CARE about making franchise films with big corporate film studios. He'll most likely continue to create smaller, more personal projects and distribute them whichever way he feels is best. Not every director is salivating to work on a comic book film or a Star Wars movie. Not every director is ready to lay prostrate in front of some corporate studio, begging for their "big break" and doing whatever it takes to achieve it. Different strokes for different folks. As a fellow creator myself, I wish Trank the best. I admire a person who doesn't hold back and says what they feel, circumstances be damned.

Fox is a big company, they can take a couple of lumps here and there and not lose their status. When the day is done, regardless of whatever goofy rumors circulated on 4chan or who-the-f-cares-where-else, Fox is responsible for how this films does. They made the decision to hire him, they funded the project, and they had final say on the outcome of the film.

I bet in about a year from now, nobody is going to even care about this film, the silly rumors that floated around, or whether or not Josh Trank has a "career' anymore.