"It's a prequel" is now the newest bit of backpedaling/damage control...

[The Guard]

How is that spin, exactly?

What is positive or negative about that idea in general?

Other than some people's assumptions about what he apparently absolutely must mean by a vague statement, I'm not even sure where we disagree on his statements.

 

[Miken Ayers]

How is that spin, exactly?

What is positive or negative about that idea in general?

I posted proof to everything I said, and you just go. "Nah, you're reading too much into what was actually said."

The people making this film have changed what was said as far as what these movies are going to be as well as how the current one is being marketed.

 

[The Guard]

Proof to what, exactly?

Josh Trank has said, in different statements, from pretty much Day One, that this is a story BEFORE the Four became iconic heroes.

 

[lordofthenerds]

Pretty sure that he's talking about the kind of story he wanted to tell about the Four in relation to and as opposed to their role as global superheroes, IE the "iconic" version. He's not making any reference to an iconic version he himself will create, or any other film version of the characters.

He's making no insinuation or inherent promise of an iconic version in a sequel. He's likely talking about the Four as they are generally culturally known when he says "iconic", the basic idea of them, not about a specific version from the comics.

He's basically said since early days that he wanted to focus more on the story between the known stories.

I'm not reading into anything, and since when did iconic mean "the basic idea" of something?

What Josh Trank said was this:
''It's an origin [film] but it almost works as a prequel of the characters before they become the iconic version of those characters. It's a group of friends who become a family.''

These days, nearly every superhero movie is expected to get a sequel. If it doesn't get a sequel, we can assume it underperformed at the box office. As a matter of fact, Fantastic Four 2 is already set for June 2, 2017 (it doesn't mean it's going to happen, but Fox wants it to). So when Trank says "...they become the iconic version of the characters", one can reasonably assume he's referring to them becoming the iconic version of the characters in the tent-poled sequel.

Thanks for breaking it down. I was pretty much done with him at that point.

Yeah, I'm pretty much done too.

 

[Miken Ayers]

Proof to what, exactly?

Josh Trank has said, in different statements, from pretty much Day One, that this is a story BEFORE the Four became iconic heroes.

Proof? It's gotta be from day one too. I provided mine.

 

[superboy13]

EDIT: Wrong thread.

 

[marvelmadness13]

Proof to what, exactly?

Josh Trank has said, in different statements, from pretty much Day One, that this is a story BEFORE the Four became iconic heroes.

Josh Trank said orange juice comes from celery. Tell us why he's not wrong.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Josh Trank said orange juice comes from celery. Tell us why he's not wrong.

Nice

 

[Tony Stark]

Pretty sure that he's talking about the kind of story he wanted to tell about the Four in relation to and as opposed to their role as global superheroes, IE the "iconic" version. He's not making any reference to an iconic version he himself will create, or any other film version of the characters.

He's making no insinuation or inherent promise of an iconic version in a sequel. He's likely talking about the Four as they are generally culturally known when he says "iconic", the basic idea of them, not about a specific version from the comics.

He's basically said since early days that he wanted to focus more on the story between the known stories.

Then he misspoke, which I said is a possibility. But he either used the word incorrectly, or he's spinning it because of bad press. You can't go and redefine the word based on his misuse of it.

Get it?

 

[Spidey's Curse]

I'd like to nominate this thread for the 2015 SHH thread of the year.

 

[starscream22]

Josh Trank said orange juice comes from celery. Tell us why he's not wrong.

Why don't you just give the celery a try before you judge it?
Come on guys, go out and waste your time and money on things that don't make any d@mn sense in order to satisfy strangers whose opinion you care little about!

 

[Spiderine]

Its bad when the supposed director doesn't even know what to identify his film as. I guess its a prequel to June 2017 sequel that FOX etched in stone.

 

[Immortalfire]

Someone needs to remind him what "prequel" means. You can't make a prequel for something that doesn't exist.

 

[Taarna]

At least that's what Trank is claiming. And no, he doesn't mean it'll be a prequel to anything pre-existing. He's saying this will be the road to them becoming the Fantastic Four we're all familiar with. So it's a prequel to something that doesn't exist.

This is after months of the cast and crew saying, "Don't expect the comics, gritty, realistic, gritty, we were told not to read the comics, gritty, no silly costumes, and gritty."

This is also the same eleventh hour marketing strategy that Dragonball Evolution tried by saying, "The sequel will be closer to the source material. So please pay and endure the crappy movie we made despite nobody wanting to see it and we'll make it up to you next film."

Gritty.

Oh, now I See. I hope Stan Lee refuses his cameo for this don't " expect the comics, we are going to make stuff up and turn the team into something new for fun crap."

 

[Dark Raven]

So was Independence Day a prequel, even back in 1996, despite the fact that its sequel is only coming out 20 years later?

The idea of a prequel is that it goes chronologically back in time to a point set BEFORE the events of a pre-existing work, but is made AFTER the original work. So Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom is a prequel to Raiders of the Lost Ark. It was made AFTER but set before. Same with The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith.

The Good, The Bad and the Ugly is also a prequel to A Fistful of Dollars and For A Few Dollars More because it was made after those movies but set chronologically before, where he hasn't become the Man With No Name yet, until the end of the film.

A film or book cannot be a prequel if it is made BEFORE an existing work. It is merely the first work in the series.