• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Thursday Aug 14, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST. This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

The "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) thread - Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is what I've used as a basis for the budget: http://www.nola.com/entertainment/baton-rouge/index.ssf/2013/11/fantastic_four_baton_rouge_may.html

Now one could argue: "A budget of more than $100 million? That could be $200 million."

But when a studio is trying to get a city excited about a film production, they're not going to undercut the real budget. $101 million is "More than $100 million." A budget of $135 million is: "Nearly $150 million."

So I think we're looking at right around $100 million plus a little over-run.

Would that include marketing costs well? sometimes that is noted separately, sometimes not.

$100mil (or thereabouts) for an FF film? Ok, Johnny's powers are one effect that isn't cheap. A fully CGI thing as well?...I dunno :hmm

Guess it depends on how well its used. Del Toro made Hellboy 2 look more expensive than either FF film (imo), and he got that in at $85 mil.
 
Would that include marketing costs well? sometimes that is noted separately, sometimes not.

$100mil (or thereabouts) for an FF film? Ok, Johnny's powers are one effect that isn't cheap. A fully CGI thing as well?...I dunno :hmm

Guess it depends on how well its used. Del Toro made Hellboy 2 look more expensive than either FF film (imo), and he got that in at $85 mil.

Del Toro is a special case. If he was doing this film with a $100 million budget, I think I'd be pretty excited right now.

Wolverine had a $120 million budget and looked like a cheap kung-fu flick.
 
Would that include marketing costs well? sometimes that is noted separately, sometimes not.

$100mil (or thereabouts) for an FF film? Ok, Johnny's powers are one effect that isn't cheap. A fully CGI thing as well?...I dunno :hmm

Guess it depends on how well its used. Del Toro made Hellboy 2 look more expensive than either FF film (imo), and he got that in at $85 mil.

Don't forget Mr. Fantastic's power set. He looked pretty cheesy in the last two films.
 
To be fair, the article says the $100 mil is for a Spring 2014 Fox filming "which sounds an awful lot like 'Fantastic Four.'" That's just the writer guessing, not official word. Fox has several films coming out in 2015, it could be any one of them. Also, that article is from last year; they might have lobbied for a bigger budget since then.

And even if that is their budget, it doesn't necessarily mean they'll be holding back. The original Total Recall had a $65 Mil budget, with practical effects and some early CGI, and it looks amazing; the remake had $125 mil and still looks like the cheapie. It all depends where you invest.

Also, Johnny and the Thing will probably be mo-capped rather than fully CGI, so that might shave a little off the effects budget. The Two Towers prominently featured Gollum and only cost $94 mil overall.
 
To be fair, the article says the $100 mil is for a Spring 2014 Fox filming "which sounds an awful lot like 'Fantastic Four.'" That's just the writer guessing, not official word. Fox has several films coming out in 2015, it could be any one of them. Also, that article is from last year; they might have lobbied for a bigger budget since then.

At the time the article came out, it wasn't confirmed as FF, but subsequent news and casting calls (including the one with the infamous synopsis) came out in the weeks following that made it clear the project referenced initially was FF.

And, sure they could have a great looking film at that budget, but you're getting toward the far end of the bell-curve. If you make 10 superhero films at that budget, 8 will look sort of cheap, but 2 might look pretty good.

I'd much rather Fox said: "We recognize the value of this property and we're going to invest whatever it takes to make it into the franchise it can and deserves to be." Rather than: "We're going to give this film as little as possible and, who knows, maybe Trank will pull something out of his a$$ and it won't look too bad."
 
At the time the article came out, it wasn't confirmed as FF, but subsequent news and casting calls (including the one with the infamous synopsis) came out in the weeks following that made it clear the project referenced initially was FF.

And, sure they could have a great looking film at that budget, but you're getting toward the far end of the bell-curve. If you make 10 superhero films at that budget, 8 will look sort of cheap, but 2 might look pretty good.

I'd much rather Fox said: "We recognize the value of this property and we're going to invest whatever it takes to make it into the franchise it can and deserves to be." Rather than: "We're going to give this film as little as possible and, who knows, maybe Trank will pull something out of his a$$ and it won't look too bad."

All three LOTR films, with their epic battles and fantasy worlds, came in at about $95 mil each. If you want to get a little more recent, Hunger Games had a $78 mil budget, and the upcoming Divergent has an $80 mil budget.

Another thing to remember: This is the first movie. The FF haven't really been a box-office bonanza, and Fox is probably worried about spending too much money before they know for sure that this will sell. If the first movie is a hit, they'll probably increase the budget for each subsequent film, but right now they want to keep the risk low. That's not a lack of faith, that's just good business sense.
 
Good business sense doesn't involve walking directly into a massive flop.
 
All three LOTR films, with their epic battles and fantasy worlds, came in at about $95 mil each. If you want to get a little more recent, Hunger Games had a $78 mil budget, and the upcoming Divergent has an $80 mil budget.

Another thing to remember: This is the first movie. The FF haven't really been a box-office bonanza, and Fox is probably worried about spending too much money before they know for sure that this will sell. If the first movie is a hit, they'll probably increase the budget for each subsequent film, but right now they want to keep the risk low. That's not a lack of faith, that's just good business sense.


The LOTR trilogy isn't the best comparison as that was all shot simultaneously (that alone helps keep costs down), plus Peter Jackson is a co-owner of Weta, so there was an element of 'in house' helping out there too. If you think of it as being one very very long movie (even more so with the extended cuts...), which it was shot as, overall it cost $280 mil.

And Hunger games cost $78 mil? That surprises me. I wouldn't have thought it cost half that tbh (half of it is them just running around a forest!!)
 
The LOTR trilogy isn't the best comparison as that was all shot simultaneously (that alone helps keep costs down), plus Peter Jackson is a co-owner of Weta, so there was an element of 'in house' helping out there too. If you think of it as being one very very long movie (even more so with the extended cuts...), which it was shot as, overall it cost $280 mil.

And Hunger games cost $78 mil? That surprises me. I wouldn't have thought it cost half that tbh (half of it is them just running around a forest!!)

Okay, fair enough. Still, it does depend more on how you use what you have. As a counter example, CINO also cost $100 mil, but look at all the times they use CGI for stuff that is incredibly easy to do practical, or the elaborate Catwoman stripper costume they used instead of a simple vinyl jumpsuit. If you replaced every CG cat in that movie with a real one, or took away the stupid "cat powers" so you don't have to animate her running up across walls, you could easily have a few million left to get a better screenwriter and director. B89 was at least $20 mil cheaper (depending on whether you account for inflation), and that movie had an elaborate climax and and an insane amount of promotional tie-ins for the advertising budget, and it still managed to afford a decent script.

And of course, Trank made Chronicle work on $12 mil (though maybe that doesn't count since it was a found-footage movie). My point is, even if the budget is kind of low, that doesn't have to mean the script will be terrible, or even that it has to look cheap, as long as you have people who know how to invest.
 
So weren't they supposed to start principle photography on March 17th, I have that date stuck in my head for some reason and it has nothing to do with the orgy of drinking I subjected myself to on the weekend preceding it.
 
So weren't they supposed to start principle photography on March 17th, I have that date stuck in my head for some reason and it has nothing to do with the orgy of drinking I subjected myself to on the weekend preceding it.

Close. According to ScreenRant two months ago, it's supposed to start on March 31st.
 
Close. According to ScreenRant two months ago, it's supposed to start on March 31st.

Ah alright so all these reignited hope could just be a letdown and everything is actually moving forward according to plan.
 
The plan at FOX is to lose millions of dollars that could be used towards X-Men. I am okay with that if that is what FOX wants
 
At the time the article came out, it wasn't confirmed as FF, but subsequent news and casting calls (including the one with the infamous synopsis) came out in the weeks following that made it clear the project referenced initially was FF.

And, sure they could have a great looking film at that budget, but you're getting toward the far end of the bell-curve. If you make 10 superhero films at that budget, 8 will look sort of cheap, but 2 might look pretty good.

I'd much rather Fox said: "We recognize the value of this property and we're going to invest whatever it takes to make it into the franchise it can and deserves to be." Rather than: "We're going to give this film as little as possible and, who knows, maybe Trank will pull something out of his a$$ and it won't look too bad."

There are not many things that can come out of one's backside. The fact that they can even gaze into the toilet bowl and consider that a turd doesn't look too bad means that they've lost all objectivity on what is good or not. Whether it's a steaming pile, just a few poo pellets or a hard long log, it's still a turd.
 
Ah alright so all these reignited hope could just be a letdown and everything is actually moving forward according to plan.

Its already been delayed again since that article came out. What makes you think they're not going to do it again? They've done it 7 times already.
 
Have they really?
This is the Hope thread and I'm holding onto it for dear life but it just seems crazy to think that Fox would release all these names for casting and still not have any forward plans.

Then again even Daredevil even had a faux trailer going for it and it never came out.
 
Its not unheard of. I believe Justice League had multiple members cast including Armie Hammer as Batman but it was in development hell for the longest time, like this movie. Difference is, WB don't have a time limit on their DC properties.

I seriously doubt Fox are stupid enough to go through with this. If they are, I'll be genuinely surprised.
 
I don't seem to recall that Justice League was in development hell as long as this FF movie has been.
 
Justice League had costumes designed & a full cast & the actors even went as far as costume fitting. They were ready to shoot
 
Justice League had costumes designed & a full cast & the actors even went as far as costume fitting. They were ready to shoot

Again, I say I'd give my entire two years at Virginia College to see what the costumes looked like especially Armie Hammer's intended Bat Suit.

Maybe they'll give it and the WW costume to Affleck and Gadot
 
Close. According to ScreenRant two months ago, it's supposed to start on March 31st.

And the last word when fox denied the Bleeding Cool rumours is shooting will now start April 21st.

As ever with this one, wait & see.
 
Watch it become June 15th next. And then July 25th. And then hopefully by August they announce that its cancelled.
 
Watch it become June 15th next. And then July 25th. And then hopefully by August they announce that its cancelled.

They will film in April 2015, do post production in May and then release in June. :oldrazz:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"