The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - Part 4

[Willie Lumpkin]

Maybe he knows there's been some talk and he's not been party to it, because he's slowly finding himself demoted to the Trank scapegoat role, but he can't be sure of it.

I just have this image now of all these Fox executives standing around talking and then Kinberg walks in and they suddenly stop and say something like "So how about this weather we've been having?"t:

 

[Darth_Spock]

"Two words, Mr. President: Plausible deniability".

If anything has/will happen with the FF that contradicts Simple Simon's verbal diahrea, the hack can just point back to that disclaimer and say he didn't know.

Fascinating!

"It's Not A Disaster........as far as I know!" ~Simon Kinberg

Guess that could've worked.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Fascinating!

"It's Not A Disaster........as far as I know!" ~Simon Kinberg

Guess that could've worked.

You know, this raises an important point. A few days before the film opened, Kinberg said: "I am proud of it, It’s not a disaster. It’s a good movie."

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/03/fantastic-four-simon-kinberg-defends

Now he says: "We didn't make a great movie last time out. I think we learned a lot of lessons from that experience."

So just before release, after he had seen the completed cut of the film, he made statement 1: 'I am proud of it. . . It's a good movie.' and now he makes statement 2: 'We didn't make a great movie last time out. I think we learned a lot of lessons from that experience.'

What happened between Statement 1 and Statement 2? The movie didn't change. The only thing that changed is the movie that Simon Kinberg thought was good bombed at the box office.

Why would anyone believe he truly learned anything meaningful between Statement 1 and Statement 2? He's still the same dumb guy who thought that piece of crap he gave us was good. He's just changing his story now because popular opinion is against him.

 

[wobbly]

Fascinating!

"It's Not A Disaster........as far as I know!" ~Simon Kinberg

Guess that could've worked.

He said 'its a good film' too, lol.

Later amended by the hack to acknowledge it wasn't a good film after all.

And he must think we have forgotten him talking about crossovers and backtracking soon after.

Still, I guess he is learning to hedge his bets a bit now when spouting his drivel. Still hasn't learned to refrain from including it in his scripts though...

 

[SAUspartan]

I wiah Marvel would go to court or something with this. Honestly, no judge in their right mind would let Fox keep the rights.

You can't be serious. Making a bad movie isn't a crime. They would lose and be laughed at for trying to get the rights from Fox.

 

[Raiden]

You know, this raises an important point. A few days before the film opened, Kinberg said: "I am proud of it, It’s not a disaster. It’s a good movie."

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/03/fantastic-four-simon-kinberg-defends

Now he says: "We didn't make a great movie last time out. I think we learned a lot of lessons from that experience."

So just before release, after he had seen the completed cut of the film, he made statement 1: 'I am proud of it. . . It's a good movie.' and now he makes statement 2: 'We didn't make a great movie last time out. I think we learned a lot of lessons from that experience.'

What happened between Statement 1 and Statement 2? The movie didn't change. The only thing that changed is the movie that Simon Kinberg thought was good bombed at the box office.

Why would anyone believe he truly learned anything meaningful between Statement 1 and Statement 2? He's still the same dumb guy who thought that piece of crap he gave us was good. He's just changing his story now because popular opinion is against him.

And this idiot now thinks they can bring back the Fan4tastic cast and make another movie but this time it will be "brighter" and more "upbeat ".

He should never touch another CBM again.

 

[Joe Rockhead]

And this idiot now thinks they can bring back the Fan4tastic cast and make another movie but this time it will be "brighter" and more "upbeat ".

He should never touch another CBM again.

I think someone at Marvel Studios needs to discuss things with the Star Wars Rebels producers and maybe exert some of their influence to get Kinberg off the 'we can fix F4 the next time around' bandwagon.

 

[Darth_Spock]

You can't be serious. Making a bad movie isn't a crime. They would lose and be laughed at for trying to get the rights from Fox.

Unfortunately this may be correct. In all indications it was Marvel who were the gullible lot while dishing out these movie rights to various studios so it's not likely that Fox would've contractually agreed to a clause that allowed a stinker like Fan4stic to forfeit the F4 rights.

Elektra would've set that ball rolling years ago if that were the case so my guess is only stone hard proof of neglect or sabotage of the IP would be admissible in this case. Whereas the verbiage specified in the contracts with Marvel and Universal Studios were to protect Marvel's Brand if people were being flung from the Hulk ride.

 

[Endeavor]

You can't be serious. Making a bad movie isn't a crime. They would lose and be laughed at for trying to get the rights from Fox.

?
He wasn't talking about criminal court. Why are you?

There are lawsuits filed for all sorts of frivolous reasons. I think an argument that one company is hurting the image of another due to their half-assed and incompetent efforts is a valid enough reason for a civil trial.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

You can't be serious. Making a bad movie isn't a crime. They would lose and be laughed at for trying to get the rights from Fox.

Oh good lord. Who said anything about criminal charges?

We're talking about breach of contract. A film that got 9% on RT almost certainly violated the intent of the quality clause. Whether it violated the letter would have to be determined, but unless the contract was written by monkeys, Marvel would likely have a very strong case if they chose to go that route.

 

[wobbly]

Oh good lord. Who said anything about criminal charges?

We're talking about breach of contract. A film that got 9% on RT almost certainly violated the intent of the quality clause. Whether it violated the letter would have to be determined, but unless the contract was written by monkeys, Marvel would likely have a very strong case if they chose to go that route.

Tbh, I doubt there is a 'quality clause' as such. but more a presumption of quality given the studio has to invest sufficient funds to give the movie a wide theatrical release to satisfy rights retention.

I mean, if they did go to court Fox can say they got a solid cast, a director fresh from a impressive debut, and splashed $120mil plus marketing on FFINO. They didn't know going in the film was gonna bomb (though the obvious wiggy reshoots suggests they realised they had a stinker when Trank's rough cut was handed in, beyond salvage as it turned out), they just buggered up (it happens to the best), lost a lot of money even Murdock took issue with, and have made them trying again for future retention a seemingly impossible task.

Disney's lawyers are hungry sharks too I would add. I kinda think if such a case were possible they'd have been on it by now and we'd have probably heard rumblings from the impending feeding frenzy.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Tbh, I doubt there is a 'quality clause' as such. but more a presumption of quality given the studio has to invest sufficient funds to give the movie a wide theatrical release to satisfy rights retention.

I mean, if they did go to court Fox can say they got a solid cast, a director fresh from a impressive debut, and splashed $120mil plus marketing on FFINO. They didn't know going in the film was gonna bomb (though the obvious wiggy reshoots suggests they realised they had a stinker when Trank's rough cut was handed in, beyond salvage as it turned out), they just buggered up (it happens to the best), lost a lot of money even Murdock took issue with, and have made them trying again for future retention a seemingly impossible task.

Disney's lawyers are hungry sharks too I would add. I kinda think if such a case were possible they'd have been on it by now and we'd have probably heard rumblings from the impending feeding frenzy.

Up until I read the wording in the theme-park contract, I would have assumed the language was very specific and quantifiable. I was surprised to see how generally worded the theme-park contract was. But upon reflection, it made sense.

The problem with setting certain defined requirements is that Fox would know they could simply do the bare-bones minimum and know they would be safe. It makes sense from Marvel's perspective to keep things more open. That way they can prevent Fox from simply checking off the appropriate boxes while still making lousy films.

But even though I strongly suspect at this point the wording is to Marvel's advantage, I still think legal action would be the last resort. I think it's much more likely they'd simply use that as leverage to negotiate a deal acceptable to both sides.

 

[InternetPeople]

Considering how Marvel is able to elevate its obscure properties into prominence through the movies, I can come up with a pretty good case that Fantastic Four is now damaged goods because of Fox's mismanagement and are in breach of contract. However, that may be the point of the seven year movie production cycle. If you can't make a movie in seven years then the property is damaged. Maybe Marvel can sue to get the expiration moved up. Maybe that's why Kinsberg keeps talking about a sequel, for legal protection to play out the seven years and keep leverage in trade. Whatever, I'm more excited to see other Marvel properties and I don't really care to see the Fantastic Four in a reboot and if that doesn't say "damaged goods" I don't know what does.

 

[Dark Raven]

You know, this raises an important point. A few days before the film opened, Kinberg said: "I am proud of it, It’s not a disaster. It’s a good movie."

http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/03/fantastic-four-simon-kinberg-defends

Now he says: "We didn't make a great movie last time out. I think we learned a lot of lessons from that experience."

So just before release, after he had seen the completed cut of the film, he made statement 1: 'I am proud of it. . . It's a good movie.' and now he makes statement 2: 'We didn't make a great movie last time out. I think we learned a lot of lessons from that experience.'

What happened between Statement 1 and Statement 2? The movie didn't change. The only thing that changed is the movie that Simon Kinberg thought was good bombed at the box office.

Why would anyone believe he truly learned anything meaningful between Statement 1 and Statement 2? He's still the same dumb guy who thought that piece of crap he gave us was good. He's just changing his story now because popular opinion is against him.

Kinberg: We learned a lot of lessons from that experience. .. as far as I know. We now have the chance to make a really good movie. .. as far as I know. It's good to still have a job at Fox and the opportunity to write it again. ..as far as I know. Fans will see it anyway. .. as far as i know. I'm not a completely pretentious idiot. .. as far as I know.

 

[kguillou]

I know I sound crazy for saying this but man, I REALLY would like to see the original director's cut for F4. Thanks to Trank's big mouth this will not ever happen but I gotta believe Trank's original version was way more fleshed out than the truncated, neutered cut we got.

 

[Random490]

I know I sound crazy for saying this but man, I REALLY would like to see the original director's cut for F4. Thanks to Trank's big mouth this will not ever happen but I gotta believe Trank's original version was way more fleshed out than the truncated, neutered cut we got.

Well unfortunately it seems a lot of his vision wasn't even filmed. So will never know if it would be worth watching or not

 

[Val_Zod]

I think we should put things in perspective. Apocalypse which came off a string of well recieved X films, is now underperforming. FF only has a string of badly recieved films, the last having outright bombed. I think its pretty clear FF ain't doing anything with this Franchise, unlike what some stragglers think.

 

[Dasher10]

I think we should put things in perspective. Apocalypse which came off a string of well recieved X films, is now underperforming. FF only has a string of badly recieved films, the last having outright bombed. I think its pretty clear FF ain't doing anything with this Franchise, unlike what some stragglers think.

It's actually the last two having bombed. The Story films at least got the casting right so I'll give ROTSS that at least.

Apocalypse mostly suffered from being a transitional film and transferring to a new cast. The Fantastic Four films were just bad on every level.

 

[FVD]

Apocalypse also had Kinberg's writing making the film as boring as it already is. Dude needs to shut up over what he wants the next films to be about - really needs to kept on a leash. If I haven't mentioned this already, he's like the David S. Goyer of Fox. Don't know how much involvement be has on Star Wars Rebels, but it can't be much.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Apocalypse also had Kinberg's writing making the film as boring as it already is. Dude needs to shut up over what he wants the next films to be about - really needs to kept on a leash. If I haven't mentioned this already, he's like the David S. Goyer of Fox. Don't know how much involvement be has on Star Wars Rebels, but it can't be much.

Kinberg's an unbelievable hack. He has to have photos of Rupert Murdoch and a goat or something. Here are the films on which he has writing credit along with their RT scores:

XXX State of The Union - 16 %
Mr. & Mrs. Smith - 59 %
X-Men The Last Stand - 58 %
Jumper - 16 %
Sherlock Holmes - 70 %
Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter - 35 %
This Means War - 26 %
X - Men DOFP - 91 %
Ouija - 7 %
Fantastic Four - 9 %
X-Men Apocalypse - 48 %

That's an average score of 39 %, and there are only two films out of eleven higher than 60 %.

And if you look at his producing credits, they're just as bad. Chappie - 32%, lets be cops - 19 %.

How does this idiot still have a job?!?! And not only does he have a job, he's Fox's Kevin Feige by some accounts.

If Fox wants to get their Marvel films back on track, here are the first two things they need to do:

1. Fire Simon Kinberg.
2. Never hire anyone as incompetent as Simon Kinberg again.

 

[Comic Book Guy]

Rarely do guys in Kinberg's position get there on actual merit. Feige is one of the few.

 

[Spiderine]

Apocalypse underperforming comes as no surprise to me. I said the third film of the big budget blockbuster trio was going to suffer. I haven't seen it yet but it looked like a remake of the first Xfilm with Apocalypse playing the role of Magneto and his evil mutants being the horsemen.

 

[Docker2.0]

It's crazy how bad Fox fanatics are in denial. First they were saying F4 would be a hit and now they are saying that XM: A is doing great numbers. No it isn't! At the rate it's going, it will finish at around $170M DOM and $450M WW. Fox really needs MS more than they realize when it comes to this genre.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Fox really needs MS more than they realize when it comes to this genre.

From the start, Fox has made FAR more bad Marvel films than good.

Fox doesn't know how to make Marvel films. That's not opinion. That's quantifiable fact. More Fox/Marvel films have been below 60% RT than above, and their average RT score on their Marvel based films is 55%. ( http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=33630069&postcount=462) That's inexcusable.

X-Men fans haven't gotten screwed as badly as FF fans, but they've still been screwed by Fox's inability to make truly good Marvel films.

 

[Dark Raven]

Maybe Fox could release a new movie called "Kinberg: The Secret Disservice"