Marvel Canceling the Fantastic Four Comic Book?

[CyclopsWasRight]

Saying it's not TDK but it's more Raimi's Spider-Man kinda contradicts Gritty

 

[DrCosmic]

The way Nolan filmed the Dark Knight series (with the exception of the last film) you could almost believe like this could really happen. There is no way a super stretchy guy and orange rock guy will ever ever happen. You ground it somewhat to lend verisimilitude but then you allow the audience to suspend their disbelief. It is folly to try and make the Fantastic Four realistic.

Actually, the more suspension of belief is required, the more grounding, the more verisimilitude you have to do to get the same net connection with the audience. That's balance, not folly. This can be done in a number of ways, not just toning down the setting, though that is often part of the equation, as it was with every CBM ever, with the possible exception of Superman. The folly is actually to expect the general audience to bring more suspension of disbelief to some films than others.

Dark Knight had some very grounded science for instance, but the characters, the way they were, the way they acted and spoke, was completely fantastical, almost Shakesperean at times. The net suspension of disbelief was about the same. We can believe a company can invent a really great car sure, but we don't believe that people walk around hotels spitting platitudes like "It's what you do, not who you are underneath that defines you."

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this because no one is ever going to sell me on the idea that Batman and Fantastic Four are the same. If you change the FF to be like Batman you've created something else entirely. It is no longer the Fantastic Four.

I said changing Batman has the same effect as changing the Fantastic Four. I said you can compare them. Nothing more, nothing less. I'm not sure what you're responding to here, but it's not what I said.

 

[wobbly]

*cough* Are we sure Ultimate Fantastic Four isn't getting cancelled simply because it sucks and doesn't sell much, and Marvel is generally winding down the Ultimate line?

Slight correction, it's not 'Ultimate Fantastic Four" anymore, its "Ultimate Future Foundation" (Only sue from the original lot is in it), and yeah, Marvel could just be cancelling that because I understand its sales have been terrible.

Atm I think the promotional material pull is for real, but I'd be surprised if they did shelve the 616 book. Given the differences between what this film will present and what the book is, I think that would be a self defeating move.

 

[Orba]

"Yeah, the way we went about casting Fantastic Four was, “Who is the best actor for the part?” We didn’t go into it saying we wanted to cast a particular race for any part.

The problem I've always had with this excuse is that they say they wanted the best person for the part but then only tested one person for Johnny. Then the say they didn't care about the race of the actor yet as far as I can remember all the people tested for all the other lead part were white, if they really didn't care you would think that a few non whites would be in the mix. Why don't they just say that the director wanted his friend on the film rather than make excuses.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I'll let Kinberg's own words address this issue and people can make up their own minds (I've bolded the comments that seem most relevant as to addressing the films tone):

“It’s a much more grounded, gritty, realistic movie than the last couple movies. If I had to say, the tone of it would be somewhere on the spectrum between ‘Spider-Man’ and ‘Chronicle.’ The other movies were even further on the spectrum of being goofy and fun than ‘Spider-Man.’ “

“Josh Trank’s instincts are to be as realistic and grounded and real with this stuff as possible. In many ways I would say it’s definitely more of a drama than comedy.”

It’s still in the direction of ‘Spider-Man.’ It’s not like ‘Dark Knight.’ And even ‘Chronicle’ has a lot of fun in it. We’re treating this as the origin of the Fantastic Four so in future movies you’d have them on sort of splashier adventures to some extent but in this one we tried to ground the science as much as possible and make it feel like it could take place in our world before it cantilevers into other worlds."

And from another interview:

"It’s a double-edged sword because you don’t have people saying, “Why are you rebooting something good?” and you also have people saying, “Why bother?” The core fans were not wild about the original movies, and nor was I. Last summer, Emma Watts at Fox called me on the set of Days of Future Past and said, “We really want to do a new Fantastic Four.” I said to her, “I’m interested but it depends how you want to do it.” She said, “Talk to Josh Trank.” We were shooting the Washington D.C. finale sequence in Days of Future Past and I talked to Josh, and he had such a clear vision of what he wanted to do with the film that was so different from the other movies—it was grounded, real, gritty, and what it would really be like if you went through a transformation and lost control of your body. That, coupled with him wanting it to be a coming-of-age movie, felt fresh to me."​

"The tone of this movie will feel as unique as when you saw Iron Man, X-Men, or Batman Begins for the first time. It’s not as goofy as the first movies; it has humor in it, but the humor is much more real and comes from character, not pratfall jokes. It’s a much more dramatic film than it is a comedy. I would say it falls somewhere between Raimi’s first couple of Spider-Man movies and Chronicle."

And on the Torch casting:
"Yeah, the way we went about casting Fantastic Four was, “Who is the best actor for the part?” We didn’t go into it saying we wanted to cast a particular race for any part. Josh had worked with Michael on Chronicle and I’m a big fan of Michael’s, so we knew he was the best actor for that part. We knew casting an African-American Human Torch would be news, but I can tell you it’s something that Stan Lee loves, and I can also tell you that having been on set and seeing Michael bring him to life, he’s really spectacular. He’s doing something really cool with the character that I think will become the iconic Johnny Storm."

I'm sure he has said more on it all, but I would guess it will be more of the same (more usage of the term 'gritty' no doubt).

In a bit of a contrast, Mark Millar, whose role as creative consultant seems to have somewhat disappeared and been taken over by Kinberg, had earlier said this:
“I don’t think you could do Fantastic Four and try and make it grim and gritty.”

And on the Torch:
"I think it would be tricky to have one member of the Storm family black and one white. Is he adopted? I don't know how you would play that."

Doesn't take the Scooby gang to solve why Millar's no longer the spokesman for this puppy.

Like I said, its there for anyone interested enough to read it, and you can all make up your own minds as to what is being said there and what that means for this film, if anything.

Highlighted some of the interesting parts, imo

These interviews can be interpreted in different ways. As much as they say gritty they also mention humour and fun

I believe they going grittier than the Story movies, but not as gritty as TDK, as evidenced above.

In the end these are just snippets of conversations. We won't know until footage comes, that is when it's reasonable to make pre-emptive judgements on tone, not before.

 

[DrCosmic]

Saying it's not TDK but it's more Raimi's Spider-Man kinda contradicts Gritty

Well, if they said "it will be gritty" yeah, but they said "It'll be more gritty than the Story FF." which Raimi's Spider-Man already is, lol.

I'll let Kinberg's own words address this issue and people can make up their own minds (I've bolded the comments that seem most relevant as to addressing the films tone):

“It’s a much more grounded, gritty, realistic movie than the last couple movies. If I had to say, the tone of it would be somewhere on the spectrum between ‘Spider-Man’ and ‘Chronicle.’ The other movies were even further on the spectrum of being goofy and fun than ‘Spider-Man.’ “

“Josh Trank’s instincts are to be as realistic and grounded and real with this stuff as possible. In many ways I would say it’s definitely more of a drama than comedy.”

It’s still in the direction of ‘Spider-Man.’ It’s not like ‘Dark Knight.’ And even ‘Chronicle’ has a lot of fun in it. We’re treating this as the origin of the Fantastic Four so in future movies you’d have them on sort of splashier adventures to some extent but in this one we tried to ground the science as much as possible and make it feel like it could take place in our world before it cantilevers into other worlds."

And from another interview:

"It’s a double-edged sword because you don’t have people saying, “Why are you rebooting something good?” and you also have people saying, “Why bother?” The core fans were not wild about the original movies, and nor was I. Last summer, Emma Watts at Fox called me on the set of Days of Future Past and said, “We really want to do a new Fantastic Four.” I said to her, “I’m interested but it depends how you want to do it.” She said, “Talk to Josh Trank.” We were shooting the Washington D.C. finale sequence in Days of Future Past and I talked to Josh, and he had such a clear vision of what he wanted to do with the film that was so different from the other movies—it was grounded, real, gritty, and what it would really be like if you went through a transformation and lost control of your body. That, coupled with him wanting it to be a coming-of-age movie, felt fresh to me."​

"The tone of this movie will feel as unique as when you saw Iron Man, X-Men, or Batman Begins for the first time. It’s not as goofy as the first movies; it has humor in it, but the humor is much more real and comes from character, not pratfall jokes. It’s a much more dramatic film than it is a comedy. I would say it falls somewhere between Raimi’s first couple of Spider-Man movies and Chronicle."

And on the Torch casting:
"Yeah, the way we went about casting Fantastic Four was, “Who is the best actor for the part?” We didn’t go into it saying we wanted to cast a particular race for any part. Josh had worked with Michael on Chronicle and I’m a big fan of Michael’s, so we knew he was the best actor for that part. We knew casting an African-American Human Torch would be news, but I can tell you it’s something that Stan Lee loves, and I can also tell you that having been on set and seeing Michael bring him to life, he’s really spectacular. He’s doing something really cool with the character that I think will become the iconic Johnny Storm."

I'm sure he has said more on it all, but I would guess it will be more of the same (more usage of the term 'gritty' no doubt).

In a bit of a contrast, Mark Millar, whose role as creative consultant seems to have somewhat disappeared and been taken over by Kinberg, had earlier said this:
“I don’t think you could do Fantastic Four and try and make it grim and gritty.”

And on the Torch:
"I think it would be tricky to have one member of the Storm family black and one white. Is he adopted? I don't know how you would play that."

Doesn't take the Scooby gang to solve why Millar's no longer the spokesman for this puppy.

Like I said, its there for anyone interested enough to read it, and you can all make up your own minds as to what is being said there and what that means for this film, if anything.

AWESOME compilation!

There is no making sense with the positive people for this one. They are like their own race or something. Definitely not human

Let me tell you some of the things I saw there:

• Grounded Science
• Coming of Age
• Josh Trank
• Michael B. Jordan
• Simon Kinberg
• what it would really be like if you went through a transformation and lost control of your body
• somewhere between Raimi’s first couple of Spider-Man movies and Chronicle
• having been on set and seeing Michael bring him to life, he’s really spectacular. He’s doing something really cool with the character that I think will become the iconic Johnny Storm.
• it has humor in it, but the humor is much more real and comes from character, not pratfall jokes
• All remarks about "Gritty" are in reference to the Story films... and I, personally, want films grittier than the utterly goofy Story films.

I think if you take the word gritty out of context, and think "Oh, grittier than the MCU, or grittier than the X-Men films," then it sounds really bad. Certainly if they were saying it'd be grittier than the X-Men films, that doesn't sound like much fun at all, and that'd be just plain gritty. Grittier than Mr. Fantastic with a dance number on his wedding night? I dunno... that sounds like a completely good thing every way I look at it.

One of a dozen reasons I'm positive.

 

[Dr Tactics]

I am still not seeing how this hurts Fox in any way.
Marvel cancels FF comic. Marvel does not get that potential revenue that they would have had with the FF comic. Fox is not harmed by this because they were never getting a piece of the comics.
Marvel cancels FF comic to not advertise a movie they don't believe in. Marvel still does not see that profit. Fox will still promote the FF movie as they see fit.
Marvel doesn't make FF or X-men toys. Marvel still hurts from not having a wider toy offering. Fox which was still not receiving action figure money...still not affected.

Even as a symbolic "FU" to Fox I don't see why this could make anyone at Fox be concerned on any level.

When I think a little more, maybe this isn't a move to hurt Fox as it is a public display of non-confidence in the film which if done really poorly may hurt the FF brand being most GA if they were to be interested in picking up a actual FF comicbook not do so. In the past Marvel has tried to skew the changes of the movies into the comic books e.g Giving Spider-Man Organic Webshooters.

Maybe they feel the first two failings of the FF Films hurt the overall comics sales going forward and thats not a off perspective as after the Billion Dollars Avengers Films we saw sales on those associated books rise.

They probably know more about whats in this film then we do and for whatever reason they feel alarmed and possibly threaten about the direction this film is going and making this move to distance and promote more of their in house properties..

Being as the X-Men (FC and DOFP) regardless of all the changes has not damaged the brand and are not on as much on thin ice as the FF brand is currently.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Let me tell you some of the things I saw there:

• Grounded Science
• Coming of Age
• Josh Trank
• Michael B. Jordan
• Simon Kinberg
• what it would really be like if you went through a transformation and lost control of your body
• somewhere between Raimi’s first couple of Spider-Man movies and Chronicle
• having been on set and seeing Michael bring him to life, he’s really spectacular. He’s doing something really cool with the character that I think will become the iconic Johnny Storm.
• it has humor in it, but the humor is much more real and comes from character, not pratfall jokes
• All remarks about "Gritty" are in reference to the Story films... and I, personally, want films grittier than the utterly goofy Story films.

I think if you take the word gritty out of context, and think "Oh, grittier than the MCU, or grittier than the X-Men films," then it sounds really bad. Certainly if they were saying it'd be grittier than the X-Men films, that doesn't sound like much fun at all, and that'd be just plain gritty. Grittier than Mr. Fantastic with a dance number on his wedding night? I dunno... that sounds like a completely good thing every way I look at it.

Gritty in comparison to the previous movies.

It's like saying Beverly Hills Cop is gritty when compared to Schindlers list, it doesn't mean Becerly Hills Cop movie is dark and dreary.

 

[roach]

When I think a little more, maybe this isn't a move to hurt Fox as it is a public display of non-confidence in the film which if done really poorly may hurt the FF brand being most GA if they were to be interested in picking up a actual FF comicbook not do so. In the past Marvel has tried to skew the changes of the movies into the comic books e.g Giving Spider-Man Organic Webshooters.

Has bad comic book movies been shown to negatively affect comic sales?

Maybe they feel the first two failings of the FF Films hurt the overall comics sales going forward and thats not a off perspective as after the Billion Dollars Avengers Films we saw sales on those associated books rise.

They probably know more about whats in this film then we do and for whatever reason they feel alarmed and possibly threaten about the direction this film is going and making this move to distance and promote more of their in house properties..

Being as the X-Men (FC and DOFP) regardless of all the changes has not damaged the brand and are not on as much on thin ice as the FF brand is currently.

Marvel not making FF comic books does not hurt Fox in any way.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I don't think cancelling or not cancelling the comics will make much difference at least short-term, but could 5 years without FF comics reduce the general interest by 5%? Sure, I think that's realistic, and while not a large number, that's 5% that Fox would like to have.

I think the merchandising is the big issue. I didn't realize until I read Liefeld's comments that Marvel wasn't doing any merchandising for X-Men, but I checked Amazon and saw, sure enough, no DOFP toys, T-Shirts or anything. Just comic book based merchandise and old holdovers from the first two or three movies it looked like.

That's got to hurt. Not from the direct revenue (which is a big deal in itself) but without kids buying the toys and people wearing the shirts and people seeing the merchandise in stores, Fox loses that whole marketing element.

 

[Orba]

Slight correction, it's not 'Ultimate Fantastic Four" anymore, its "Ultimate Future Foundation" (Only sue from the original lot is in it), and yeah, Marvel could just be cancelling that because I understand its sales have been terrible.

Atm I think the promotional material pull is for real, but I'd be surprised if they did shelve the 616 book. Given the differences between what this film will present and what the book is, I think that would be a self defeating move.

It will also probably be worth keeping an eye on the reprints of the Ultimate Fantastic Four comics. With the film looking to take heavily from the UFF then Marvel could let it disappear from the shelves in order to seperate the film from the comics. So when people go looking for the comic the only origin they will find will be the 616, to the GA they Ultimate origin used by the film will be something made up by Fox rather than having any basis in the comics.

 

[Dr Tactics]

Marvel not making FF comic books does not hurt Fox in any way.

You've missed the point... Its not about Marvel hurting Fox its about Fox hurting the IP which in turns Hurts Marvel on the stands..

For example..

I borrow your bike
I break Your Bike (Edit Again The third time)
I give it back to you broken as its no longer any use to me

 

[Joe Rockhead]

Sigh. If you don't want to seem unfair, then be fair. Be equally skeptical of all casting where a screening process is not indicated, including Bale, Jackman, and RDJ in the past, and currently the cast of GotG, the new cast Avengers 2, Transformers AOE, Ninja Turtles, etc. Lack faith in all of that casting too. Don't just sit on this particular casting and say "Oh, THIS one didn't indicate a screening process or try out different groups, so THIS one I lack faith in."

Sigh

I am being fair. I'm commenting on a production that I'm interested in and seeing something that doesn't seem quite right. Meanwhile, I'm not commenting on other films that are less important to me in my mind. Where comic books are concerned, I am first and foremost a Fantastic Four fan. That's why I'm following this production.

But to cite your examples:
Bale - I had seen him in other films dating back to his performance as a kid in Empire of the Sun. Batman is a bad example though, what with the past performances of Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney. Keaton would be the best example - I remember thinking "Mr. Mom can't be Batman". But that was well before the internet so there were no real outlets beyond just cooler talk.

Jackman - can't say I knew enough about him before his turn as Wolverine, but his appearance in the trailers showed he had the look of the character even without the height issue. I don't think there was any concern about him as the first X-Men movie was the proving ground for Marvel comics based movies in the theaters.

RDJ - He appeared in plenty of movies prior to his casting as Tony Stark, starting from the mid-80's. He played romantic and dramatic leads in films, the highlight in Chaplin. I remember people not being sold on him due to his personal issues, so there was that concern, but his issues with addiction were something that related to his character.

For this film, Josh Trank came right out and targeted Michael B Jordan for the role. To this point, I've only seen him in one film, though he has been in more that I'd like to check out to get a better feel for him as an actor.

I really don't blame him for the 'they'll see it anyway' attitude in that one interview clip - as the biggest complaint about his casting was the fact he did not have the same race as the Johnny Storm from the comics. It's a stupid argument but one that many people focus on. It's as stupid as those people who complained about Jessica Alba's casting in the first films because she didn't look like Sue Storm.

The problem this raised though is that Trank is clearly okay with departing from what's been depicted in the comics, and FOX has already established a history of these departures (Galactus cloud comes to mind). So how much further do you think they'll go? Will Dr. Doom have powers derived from the same accident as the FF once again? (departure from the MU comics, present in the Ultimate version). Will Victor be a rival businessman again? (departure from all the comics)

Now admittedly, Marvel Comics opened themselves up for these alternate interpretations by publishing the Ultimate Fantastic Four - but that series failed to find and keep an audience. Falling back on that seems to be a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

[Orba]

I think the merchandising is the big issue. I didn't realize until I read Liefeld's comments that Marvel wasn't doing any merchandising for X-Men, but I checked Amazon and saw, sure enough, no DOFP toys, T-Shirts or anything. Just comic book based merchandise and old holdovers from the first two or three movies it looked like.

I think the last time there was any film based merchandising was for X-Men Origins: Wolverine, it had a video game and toys (even one for Barakapool).

There is a mobile DoFP game out but it is based on the original comicbook story, not the film so Fox won't get anything from it.

 

[roach]

I don't think cancelling or not cancelling the comics will make much difference at least short-term, but could 5 years without FF comics reduce the general interest by 5%? Sure, I think that's realistic, and while not a large number, that's 5% that Fox would like to have.

I think the merchandising is the big issue. I didn't realize until I read Liefeld's comments that Marvel wasn't doing any merchandising for X-Men, but I checked Amazon and saw, sure enough, no DOFP toys, T-Shirts or anything. Just comic book based merchandise and old holdovers from the first two or three movies it looked like.

That's got to hurt. Not from the direct revenue (which is a big deal in itself) but without kids buying the toys and people wearing the shirts and people seeing the merchandise in stores, Fox loses that whole marketing element.

The GA, nine times out of ten, does not read comic books. We are a small portion of the BO take...and news flash...of the many comic book fans who say they aren't going to see this movie 98% would change their minds if we got a kick ass trailer.

And yes there are no X-toys...and again who does that hurt? I could be wrong but Fox doesn't get a cut of the merchandizing.

 

[roach]

You've missed the point... Its not about Marvel hurting Fox its about Fox hurting the IP which in turns Hurts Marvel on the stands..

For example..

I borrow your bike
I break Your Bike (Edit Again The third time)
I give it back to you broken as its no longer any use to me

Here's a better example...

You have two bikes.
I borrow one.
You don't like how I am using it.
So you break your other bike.

again is there proof that a bad comic book movie affects comic book sales?

 

[wobbly]

The GA, nine times out of ten, does not read comic books. We are a small portion of the BO take...and news flash...of the many comic book fans who say they aren't going to see this movie 98% would change their minds if we got a kick ass trailer.

And yes there are no X-toys...and again who does that hurt? I could be wrong but Fox doesn't get a cut of the merchandizing.

I think they do, but Marvel are not obliged to make any.

Reason for believing that is part of the new deal they made for Spider-Man with Sony is Marvel have sole rights now for movie merchandising, so they get all the profits from it. Stands to reason Sony must have been getting a cut before, so the other deals with Fox are likely to have a similar arrangement.

 

[Dr Tactics]

Here's a better example...

You have two bikes.
I borrow one.
You don't like how I am using it.
So you break your other bike.

again is there proof that a bad comic book movie affects comic book sales?

The IP in general is the Bike (so there aren't really two bikes They, Fox, just borrow it at night for their usage). Comics books are the main usage for that IP for Marvel (Who rides it in the daytime and it rides wobbly.. See what i did there!!) and Movies for Fox. Fox screws (And have already screwed) The IP and says "This Bike is no good to me anymore" and just leave Marvel to fix the bike in the Comics as well as films after Fox abandons it..

 

[roach]

I think they do, but Marvel are not obliged to make any.

Reason for believing that is part of the new deal they made for Spider-Man with Sony is Marvel have sole rights now for movie merchandising, so they get all the profits from it. Stands to reason Sony must have been getting a cut before, so the other deals with Fox are likely to have a similar arrangement.

if they agreed to the same deal.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

and yes there are no x-toys...and again who does that hurt? I could be wrong but fox doesn't get a cut of the merchandizing.

that's got to hurt. Not from the direct revenue (which is a big deal in itself) but without kids buying the toys and people wearing the shirts and people seeing the merchandise in stores, fox loses that whole marketing element.

. . .

 

[roach]

The IP in general is the Bike (so there aren't really two bikes They, Fox, just borrow it at night for their usage). Comics books are the main usage for that IP for Marvel and Movies for Fox. Fox screws (And have already screwed) The IP and says "This Bike is no sue to me anymore" and just leave Marvel to fix the bike in the Comics as well as films after Fox abandons it..

What Marvel does in the comics has no bearing on the movies.
What Fox does has no bearing on the comics.

Did anyone stop reading X-men after X3?
Spider-man after Spider-man 3?
Wolverine after XMO-Wolverine?

I get that there is hate towards this project. I want people to take their hate or love of the project and explain this logically how it affects Fox.

 

[roach]

. . .

I was not sure if they got a cut or not.

 

[DrCosmic]

Sigh

I am being fair. I'm commenting on a production that I'm interested in and seeing something that doesn't seem quite right. Meanwhile, I'm not commenting on other films that are less important to me in my mind. Where comic books are concerned, I am first and foremost a Fantastic Four fan. That's why I'm following this production.

But to cite your examples:
Bale - I had seen him in other films dating back to his performance as a kid in Empire of the Sun. Batman is a bad example though, what with the past performances of Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney. Keaton would be the best example - I remember thinking "Mr. Mom can't be Batman". But that was well before the internet so there were no real outlets beyond just cooler talk.

Jackman - can't say I knew enough about him before his turn as Wolverine, but his appearance in the trailers showed he had the look of the character even without the height issue. I don't think there was any concern about him as the first X-Men movie was the proving ground for Marvel comics based movies in the theaters.

RDJ - He appeared in plenty of movies prior to his casting as Tony Stark, starting from the mid-80's. He played romantic and dramatic leads in films, the highlight in Chaplin. I remember people not being sold on him due to his personal issues, so there was that concern, but his issues with addiction were something that related to his character.

For this film, Josh Trank came right out and targeted Michael B Jordan for the role. To this point, I've only seen him in one film, though he has been in more that I'd like to check out to get a better feel for him as an actor.

You're holding him to a higher standard. You're saying you don't have faith that he can be correctly selected without extra scrutiny, even though other people can. and have. But you care about FF, so those selected actors being great doesn't matter? Or your faith is based on you seeing their previous films, so instead of seeing his previous films, you suggest he be given extra scrutiny. Still a higher standard. It's tough times out here.

I really don't blame him for the 'they'll see it anyway' attitude in that one interview clip - as the biggest complaint about his casting was the fact he did not have the same race as the Johnny Storm from the comics. It's a stupid argument but one that many people focus on. It's as stupid as those people who complained about Jessica Alba's casting in the first films because she didn't look like Sue Storm.

The problem this raised though is that Trank is clearly okay with departing from what's been depicted in the comics, and FOX has already established a history of these departures (Galactus cloud comes to mind). So how much further do you think they'll go? Will Dr. Doom have powers derived from the same accident as the FF once again? (departure from the MU comics, present in the Ultimate version). Will Victor be a rival businessman again? (departure from all the comics)

Now admittedly, Marvel Comics opened themselves up for these alternate interpretations by publishing the Ultimate Fantastic Four - but that series failed to find and keep an audience. Falling back on that seems to be a self fulfilling prophecy.

I think the fans opened themselves up when they vivaciously supported the Fox X-Men which depart from the comics much more than the Story FF movies do even from 616. That history of departures is established to be supported by fans and GA alike, and has pretty much ensured Fox will never do a comics-accurate anything.

 

[wobbly]

if they agreed to the same deal.

Well, it seems the deals cut back then were all similar, so I'd think it more likely than not they had similar terms, especially as the X-Men was the one that Arid knows he got hosed on the most.

 

[Dr Tactics]

What Marvel does in the comics has no bearing on the movies.
What Fox does has no bearing on the comics.

Did anyone stop reading X-men after X3?
Spider-man after Spider-man 3?
Wolverine after XMO-Wolverine?

I get that there is hate towards this project. I want people to take their hate or love of the project and explain this logically how it affects Fox.

Keep in mind that though those movies were panned they followed established successful franchises in SM1-2 and XM1-2

The FF has NEVER established any type of success wit their two films so the FF comics could not capitalize on the Movies success like the SM and XM did for them

So, now what is this third film gonna do. Keep those sales low without any future of a even slight uptick in relation with FFINO film.. So why keep publishing and killing additional trees??