Josh Trank Thread

[MadVillainy]

I mean that's silly. Why sign up for an established property and eliminate anything he felt has already been done.

And Chronicle, as much as I liked it wasnt wildly original.

 

[Kelly]

Just came across this article from the print edition of Rolling Stone Magazine. It's from 2012 (i think) and offers a little insight into who Trank is and why he wants to be original.


SOURCE (pdf file)

This might explain why FF's plot "won't be based on any history of anything already published".

Retro my man....I've been wondering where our resident scoopster has been.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Just came across this article from the print edition of Rolling Stone Magazine. It's from 2012 (i think) and offers a little insight into who Trank is and why he wants to be original.


SOURCE (pdf file)

This might explain why FF's plot "won't be based on any history of anything already published".

Yeah, but it doesn't explain why Trank didn't say: "Sorry, I don't want to do FF. I want to do this cool, fresh, new story I've created.

This thread is interesting because it predates the cast and all the other bad information we've seen and transports us to a time when there was still hope.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Yeah, but it doesn't explain why Trank didn't say: "Sorry, I don't want to do FF. I want to do this cool, fresh, new story I've created.

This thread is interesting because it predates the cast and all the other bad information we've seen and transports us to a time when there was still hope.

This is what I think. Fox hired Trank to make his version of Fantastic Four. And that's exactly what he did. His version. And now that the Fox execs have seen it, they realize it isn't quite what they expected. Hence no promotion or news about this film at all other than whatever tidbits actors may drop in interviews when pressed on the topic while discussing other projects unrelated to this one.

 

[BatsDC]

I wonder if Fox are happy with the movie or not? I mean obviously they'll defend and promote it, but one has to wonder with all this negative press and the superhero scene exploding whether they're happy with the way this one is going

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

I wonder if Fox are happy with the movie or not? I mean obviously they'll defend and promote it, but one has to wonder with all this negative press and the superhero scene exploding whether they're happy with the way this one is going

I think if you are happy about what you've created and you believe in the final product then you promote the hell out of it. Especially if you are up against a tsunami of negativity. Whereas if you think it is a lost cause then you let it go quietly into the night.

Don't rock the boat. Don't release anything that might invoke further negative reaction. Release the film when you release it and hope that the strength of brand and general curiosity will bring in enough box office receipts to cover more than your budget - a budget made that much smaller by lack of marketing. Maybe people will actually like your quirky version enough to make another one. Maybe you'll get really lucky and get some of that Guardians moulah by releasing it on the exact same weekend the following year.

But ultimately, no skin off your back. You walk away sufficiently in the green while depriving a box office rival of a key property for at least another seven years.

 

[Nokio]

I think if you are happy about what you've created and you believe in the final product then you promote the hell out of it. Especially if you are up against a tsunami of negativity. Whereas if you think it is a lost cause then you let it go quietly into the night.

Don't rock the boat. Don't release anything that might invoke further negative reaction. Release the film when you release it and hope that the strength of brand and general curiosity will bring in enough box office receipts to cover more than your budget - a budget made that much smaller by lack of marketing. Maybe people will actually like your quirky version enough to make another one. Maybe you'll get really lucky and get some of that Guardians moulah by releasing it on the exact same weekend the following year.

But ultimately, no skin off your back. You walk away sufficiently in the green while depriving a box office rival of a key property for at least another seven years.

Agreed. I also thought this. Why release more info when it's a strong risk that negativity will surrounded it. The best way is to keep it quiet and keep the fans guessing and speculating and not let the bad buzz of released info tank the film's profitability. They may know they have a turkey or at the least a production that is going to roasted by fans so the best way to go is to put out the trailer as the release date nears, no early screenings and critic reviews and hope for the big opening weekend and recoup your budget and a small profit.

I personally think the film will make it's budget back and a small enough profit, especially if it's budget is as rumored to be 50 million. I can't see how they lose. This is why comedies horror films are low risks for studios. The budgets are often times low and they have a decent opening weekend and the studio is happy.

I think FOX moved it to August after seeing GOTG's success and they are going to promote the Marvel logo in from of F4 as much as they can. They may even say from the Comic company that brought you GOTG and this summer's Avengers. They won't say studio but just linking the Marvel comics connection with Marvel studios successful films will be enough to achieve a big enough opening weekend. The general Audience won't know the difference. They'll be like "Oh another Marvel film". It'll be sad too to see FOX use this connection to help aid in ticket sales. It also don't help when you ask cast members like MBJ about a possible crossover with Avengers or Iron man they respond "we'll love to see that". Marvel i'm positive is exploring every option to not let FOX flash their logo across their films. I'm sure it's probably moot and they can't stop them. FOX I fear is going to have the last laugh. I just don't think the movie will tank. It'll make enough where it's profitable or at the least make it's budget back and thus hold up the rites from Marvel.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I thought it would be a good idea to have a thread about the man who will direct the next FF film, Josh Trank.

Good idea!

Do you think he will do a good job?

No.

Is he the right man to direct an FF film?

No.

Surly he will do a better job then Tim Story.

No. And don't call me Shirley.

 

[Dark Raven]

Just came across this article from the print edition of Rolling Stone Magazine. It's from 2012 (i think) and offers a little insight into who Trank is and why he wants to be original.


SOURCE (pdf file)

This might explain why FF's plot "won't be based on any history of anything already published".

And yet, Trank, in his effort to be "original" and not do anything that has been done before, is just ripping off his earlier movie "Chronicle" and slapping the name Fantastic Four over it.

 

[justanotherguy]

My gut feeling is that Trank is about to become a victim of studio warfare.

If F4 bombs critically and commercially he'll likely be off of Star Wars side project. Fox won't likely welcome him back into the fold, so his career might be off the tracks a little bit.

 

[Dark Raven]

Maybe the reason blogger Doom isn't a goat in this movie is because Fox already have their goat: their scapegoat Josh Trank, on whom they'll pin everything when the movie Tranks.

 

[Orba]

I personally think the film will make it's budget back and a small enough profit, especially if it's budget is as rumored to be 50 million. I can't see how they lose. This is why comedies horror films are low risks for studios. The budgets are often times low and they have a decent opening weekend and the studio is happy.

Probably, but there is no guarantee. Jonah Hex made only $10million worldwide on a production budget of $47million.

 

[HAMMER]

Unfortunately if the budget is as low as rumored, I have a hard time seeing this not at least breaking even, which is good enough for Fox in their greedy, rights holding mentality. They aren't looking to make this into a big, budgeted tentpole franchise.

My gut feeling is that Trank is about to become a victim of studio warfare.

If F4 bombs critically and commercially he'll likely be off of Star Wars side project. Fox won't likely welcome him back into the fold, so his career might be off the tracks a little bit.

I hardly believe he ever was really going to be given Star Wars to begin with. I wouldn't be surprised if they were just trying to get him off the FF project to leverage Fox. I hope he isn't given a Star Wars film. I don't like it when pretentious, *****ebag, art-house goon filmmakers get to handle comic book properties. They're too interested in making 'their vision' and usually have little interest in being faithful to the source material.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

I hardly believe he ever was really going to be given Star Wars to begin with. I wouldn't be surprised if they were just trying to get him off the FF project to leverage Fox. I hope he isn't given a Star Wars film. I don't like it when pretentious, *****ebag, art-house goon filmmakers get to handle comic book properties. They're too interested in making 'their vision' and usually have little interest in being faithful to the source material.

I think either two things will happen here if the FF reboot utterly flops. Disney will drop Trank like a hot potato. Or give him a promotion.

Maybe Trank is actually a sleeper agent secretly sabotaging the FF into being as bad as it can be so Fox will finally relinquish the rights.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

His greatest asset may be his encyclopedic knowledge of movies, which he applied in Chronicle, eliminating anything he felt had already been done. “I still had a couple dozen things I hadn’t quite seen before,” he says. “I didn’t know if they’d work or not, but the whole point of film-making is figuring it out.”

I guess that would explain the last half hour of Chronicle and how it looked like it was ripped off right out of Akira, huh?

 

[Dark Raven]

I guess that would explain the last half hour of Chronicle and how it looked like it was ripped off right out of Akira, huh?

And why this entire FFINO movie looks like it's ripped off Chronicle completely.

 

[Flint Marko]

I pray this movie never gets released and Marvel just outright buys the franchise back from FOX.

 

[Farren]

I mean that's silly. Why sign up for an established property and eliminate anything he felt has already been done.

And Chronicle, as much as I liked it wasnt wildly original.

The paycheck? To get is foot in the door in the big leagues?

I mean, I get your point, but let's be fair: the man has to pay his bills and build a career.

 

[RAE072]

I mean that's silly. Why sign up for an established property and eliminate anything he felt has already been done.

Because you think your "vision" is better and cooler than what those silly for-kids comic rags can come up with.

Also money.

 

[Kelly]

Because you think your "vision" is better and cooler than what those silly for-kids comic rags can come up with.

Also money.

I don't believe money has anything to do with this, I think it is all PURE EGO on his part. If it were money, he would realize that bringing on the fans of the comic as your strong base for the moviegoers is your smartest move to make the most money. He has gone totally opposite of that...

 

[RAE072]

I don't believe money has anything to do with this, I think it is all PURE EGO on his part. If it were money, he would realize that bringing on the fans of the comic as your strong base for the moviegoers is your smartest move to make the most money. He has gone totally opposite of that...

He gets paid either way.

It also somehow landed him a Star Wars gig.

Dolla dolla bills y'all.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Trank's just a yes man, like Brett Ratner before him. He's got one film under his belt, no way is he calling the creative shots on this project by himself. He's nothing more than a lackey.

 

[The Guard]

Most directors don't exactly "call the shots" over say, a studio.

That's hardly something to condemn a director over.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Most directors don't exactly "call the shots" over say, a studio.

That's hardly something to condemn a director over.

I'm saying I believe there's more than Tranks ego at work here and I'm not going to hold him and him alone personally responsible for this mess.

Maybe if you took the time to read what people were saying before blindly jumping to this project's defense you would have realized that.

 

[The Guard]

1. Then if that was the point you were making, maybe you should have said that instead of insulting Trank as a director.

2. I can't make an independent point?

You made two separate, fairly negative statements about Josh Trank's position/role as director on this project. I responded with a point that came to mind. My response entails that I understand that relatively few directors have pure creative control.

And how is anything I said in my previous post defending the film itself, let alone "blindly"?