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

[Quasar]

On the DVD cover will be the statement "DELETED SCENES!"

On the DVD itself will be just the trailers with the caption "These scenes were all deleted from the movie"

 

[The Infernal]

The impression I got from some articles is that possibly much of what Trank had shot was arguably unusable before they sent people in to salvege the film. There may not be much of anything that's of good enough quality to add into any fantasy Directors Cut'.

 

[Dark Raven]

Well, the difference here is since the movie is losing FOX money do they have any real incentive to do a special cut of the movie? I mean, as critically panned as Daredevil was, it still made money so FOX had incentive to let the director do a director's cut. Would they even bother in this case?

Blade Runner: The Final Cut - A special edition Director's Cut.

Fan4stic: The Final Cut - The theatrical edition released by Fox.

 

[Tony Stark]

Josh better lawyer up. Things are going to hell in a handbasket:

http://****************.com/movies/josh-trank-cost-fantastic-10-million-box-office/

http://****************.com/movies/shocking-news-emerges-josh-tranks-behaviour-fantastic-set/

 

[TheVileOne]

None of this is new stuff, it's all just regurgitating previous reports.

There is no discernible proof that tweet cost the BO gross $10 million. Did it help? No. But to say that's the reason it fell below projections is IMHO a joke.

 

[ThePhantasm]

the second link had a lot of new stuff I'd never read before

 

[TheVileOne]

All literally just cut and pasted from the latest THR report.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Businesses divest assets all of the time. Holding on to a loss generating franchise because someone might be able to turn it around isn't business savvy. And given that they could potentially trade the property for something that can expand and strengthen a much more successful property, keeping the rights could bring calls for some "reorganization."

Unfortunately I think TV and studios don't really matter to each other in terns of profit. The movie studio Is losing money even if the TV xmen works.

 

[Mike Murdock]

Trank claimed (and he could very well have been lying) a two hour ten minute first cut. But now reports are saying it had no ending?

Keep in mind it's possible the film had an ending at some point that was cut and then went into filming without one. That's terrible film-making (although one a good director could pull through) that could only happen with a deadline coming up.

It only took 26 years to get the Donner Cut of SUPERMAN II.....so there may be an extended or alternate cut of FF.

I don't think there's enough usable footage to make another cut. Certainly not a better one. If they could have done that, they probably would have done it.

 

[Eddie]

The word on the street is that it was indeed Teller that gave the snarky response to Trank's email.

 

[Lencho01]

None of this is new stuff, it's all just regurgitating previous reports.

There is no discernible proof that tweet cost the BO gross $10 million. Did it help? No. But to say that's the reason it fell below projections is IMHO a joke.

Yeah, and it's not like Trank is some household name or famous person with any type of influence on younger audiences. The reviews are what really killed this thing and then more mainstream spotlight on the making of the film.

 

[Tony Stark]

It's certainly speculation on how much potential money this lost as a result of Trank. The main point is that Fox can and probably will sue him for breach of contract, especially if he was due any incentive pay. Like or hate Trank, he's a member of the directors guild and if Fox just decided not to pay him incentive money in his contract, they would sue on his behalf. Not that the directors guild cares about trank, but they would be worried it would be a precedent that other studios might try to fail to pay directors, if they are dissatisfied with the product.

 

[TheVileOne]

It's certainly speculation on how much potential money this lost as a result of Trank. The main point is that Fox can and probably will sue him for breach of contract, especially if he was due any incentive pay. Like or hate Trank, he's a member of the directors guild and if Fox just decided not to pay him incentive money in his contract, they would sue on his behalf. Not that the directors guild cares about trank, but they would be worried it would be a precedent that other studios might try to fail to pay directors, if they are dissatisfied with the product.

But let's say this actually goes to court. Not sure how a judge can buy that a tweet from a young fairly non-celebrity director caused a movie to lose $10 million off the top of its box office gross. How do you even prove it with analysts and projections? You'd need actual evidence showing millions of people opting out to pay for a ticket because of that tweet directly.

 

[Tony Stark]

I dont' think they have to prove how much money they lost, that's speculative. They only have to prove it was breach of contract, which should be pretty easy with that tweet, and if the other stuff he allegedly did on and off set, turns out to be true, he could be in trouble.

In civil court there's no "beyond a reasonable doubt", the burden of proof is much lower. This is why people tack on punitive damages in court.

 

[Orba]

I dont' think they have to prove how much money they lost, that's speculative. They only have to prove it was breach of contract, which should be pretty easy with that tweet, and if the other stuff he allegedly did on and off set, turns out to be true, he could be in trouble.

In civil court there's no "beyond a reasonable doubt", the burden of proof is much lower. This is why people tack on punitive damages in court.

A breach of contract might be possible, I certainly don't see Fox going for loss of money. If they were to do that they would first have to try to prove how much money the film should have expected to have earned which can be very tricky. Also it might require them to have to open up their financial books which no big company would ever allow to happen unless there was absolutely no alternative. But a simple breach of contract would be a lot simpler for them.

 

[Dark Raven]

A breach of contract might be possible, I certainly don't see Fox going for loss of money. If they were to do that they would first have to try to prove how much money the film should have expected to have earned which can be very tricky. Also it might require them to have to open up their financial books which no big company would ever allow to happen unless there was absolutely no alternative. But a simple breach of contract would be a lot simpler for them.

Expected to earn: $10

Lost: $10 dollars on a ticket.

Suing Trank for 1000 times that.

 

[Mike Murdock]

I dont' think they have to prove how much money they lost, that's speculative. They only have to prove it was breach of contract, which should be pretty easy with that tweet, and if the other stuff he allegedly did on and off set, turns out to be true, he could be in trouble.

In civil court there's no "beyond a reasonable doubt", the burden of proof is much lower. This is why people tack on punitive damages in court.

Contract law is very strict when it comes to both speculative damages and punitive damages. Essentially, you never get the former and you only get the latter if there's a tort as well. So they would have to prove that Trank's tweet not only breached the contract, but that harm actually arose due to the tweet and not everything else. I just don't see them being able to do that.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

The tweet might have been damaging, but it was also an opinion.

I think the Director's Guild and quite a few people would have a problem if a studio tried to take ownership of opinions. Actors, directors, professional athletes etc. say what they're supposed to say because it's good for their career and that's the punishment Trank will get for his Tweet - no major studios will hire him now.

Fox probably has a much stronger legal case related to Trank's alleged behavior during filming (if the rumors are true, he probably violated some of the 'morals' language), but they apparently kept him on in some capacity rather than flat our firing him for 'breach of contract' then.

If Trank had said something blatantly false in his Tweet, there might be a stronger legal case, but just because it may have cost Fox money doesn't mean it's actionable.

 

[marcvader]

I will be shocked if there ends up being any litigation involved with this fiasco.

 

[Orba]

A big problem for Trank if he tried to use the Director's Guild or anything like that is that he has personally denied the stories that he was replaced. When that story came out it was him personally that contacted the site that cannot be named to say it wasn't true, it wasn't done through a representative, it wasn't a denial that came from the studio, it was Trank himself. Another problem is that email he sent out to the cast and crew the week before release, by sending that email he claimed ownership of the film.

So while Fox might have legal claims against Trank I'm not sure how much he can make against them.

 

[BatsDC]

Wow...

Trank initially fought hard to get Teller cast in the film, winning out over Fox’s objections. But the director and actor’s relationship later turned sour. According to a story in this week's Entertainment Weekly, Trank and Teller did not get along on the set of the film; Trank was allegedly withdrawn during production, and Teller is frequently sarcastic, making for a bad combination. Things got so bad at one point, in fact, that Trank and Teller’s disagreement brought them chest-to-chest, daring one another to throw the first punch (Teller didn’t have the benefit of Mr. Fantastic’s super-stretchy arms in real life).

Yahoo

 

[MahvelBaby!]

I hope Fox sues Trank...then Trank sues fox...then Marvel sues both.

 

[Tony Stark]

Contract law is very strict when it comes to both speculative damages and punitive damages. Essentially, you never get the former and you only get the latter if there's a tort as well. So they would have to prove that Trank's tweet not only breached the contract, but that harm actually arose due to the tweet and not everything else. I just don't see them being able to do that.

It's civil court. The burden of proof is pretty low, only required a "preponderance of the evidence". I'd say they have more than enough of that. Almost every contract will contain language for personal conduct, which from the tweet alone Trank is almost certainly guilty in violation of.

As I said this is a situation where Fox will probably be forced to sue him, because if he is due any monies and they simply refuse to pay on the basis of violating his contract, the directors guild will step in an sue on his behalf.

 

[Tony Stark]

A big problem for Trank if he tried to use the Director's Guild or anything like that is that he has personally denied the stories that he was replaced. When that story came out it was him personally that contacted the site that cannot be named to say it wasn't true, it wasn't done through a representative, it wasn't a denial that came from the studio, it was Trank himself. Another problem is that email he sent out to the cast and crew the week before release, by sending that email he claimed ownership of the film.

So while Fox might have legal claims against Trank I'm not sure how much he can make against them.

I agree with that, what I am saying is that the directors guild gets persnickety if they see anything as violating the collective bargaining agreement.

I have no idea what's in the current DG's bargaining agreement, but there is almost assuredly language about payment scales, especially for a young director like Trank.

For example he might have been paid a flat salary for the film, or he may have been paid a base salary with incentive bonuses. Let's say one of those incentive bonuses was based on completing production by a certain date and he met that date, but there was other language in the contract about personal conduct. If Fox just didn't pay him, and cited the personal conduct clause, that's when the DG gets involved.

Again the DG could probably give a rat's rear end about Trank. They are worried about collective bargaining violations and what it would mean for other young directors.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Wow...



Yahoo

That specific detail actually doesn't bother me too much. I can imagine a great director and a great actor getting into a confrontation like that.

If some of that passion had actually made it to the screen, maybe the film wouldn't have been so lifeless.