Why did Daredevil 03 and FF 05 fail?

[Herofan]

I submit that their styles were pretty bland (Daredevil feeling a lot like a Batman movie, FF a lot like an X-Men movie with a lot less angst and drama and Dr. Doom very much the movie Green Goblin) and yet they may have also been hurt by being too much like the comics-Daredevil maybe having too many characters, FF the kind of bickering the characters did that made them kind of unlikeable.

 

[2kt09]

Elektra (DD 03)
really dumb move to spinoff that character

very tacky family dynamic (FF 05)
the sequel was an improvement, but Galactus Cloud certainly killed it

 

[Drizzle]

Since it was successful enough to spawn a sequel, I wouldn't exactly call FF '05 a failure. That one and its sequel have some good things going for them (Michael Chiklis as Ben, Ioan Gruffudd as Reed, Chris Evans as Johnny, the Surfer) but the not so good things stood out a lot more (Jessica Alba, Doom, Galactus cloud).

 

[psylockolussus]

They should have hired a director and writer with a better track record. Though box office wise, they did okay better than Hulk 2003 and the Punisher movies. The first one had a spin off and the second one got a sequel.

 

[Spiderine]

FF felt nothing like xmen it felt more like they were trying to copy Spiderman. Even Dr Doom was trying to be Norman Osborn lite.

 

[kguillou]

I don't think FF '05 is a BAD movie. I kind of compare it to Superman Returns which I also don't think is a bad movie. I think both are victims are just being so painfully "MEH whatever" and having nothing really exciting or notable about it that would stay in your mind.

DD '03 is just a badly executed film althogether. It's got the completely wrong vibe to it and is trying too hard to be the Matrix.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

The primary problem with FF was the tone and directing. It felt awkward and poorly paced. It felt like a children's action/comedy - like Spy Kids.

The characters were shallow, immature and didn't act like real people. Reed and Sue had no chemistry and their relationship was like a couple grade-schoolers. Reed was a geeky loser that was nothing like his comic-book counter-part. Sue was sort of a cold ***** who treated Reed like someone who was unworthy of her.

Doom was terrible and had no clearly defined motivation. His dialog after the transformation was cheesy and took away the feeling of any real threat.

The Thing was clearly a guy in a rubber suit and the rocks wrinkled often - destroying any illusion that he was a powerful, rocky monster. And Chiklis moved slowly and awkwardly in the suit so he couldn't project the lunging powerful movements that Kirby drew. His personality was also too mopey and didn't capture the unique and intriguing character that had become iconic in the comics.

There were no spectacular visuals such as those that defined the FF and made them unique when they they arrived in the sixties. There were no giant monsters or a real sense of spectacle, grandeur, exploration and awe that the FF need to truly be the FF.

... to name a few of the most obvious things.

 

[Dark Raven]

How come no-one is asking why Fant4stic failed?

 

[TheVileOne]

I think another problem with FF was the casting as well. No offense to Jessica Alba, but she was miscast as Sue Storm. I get why they cast her. She was a hot IT-girl at the moment and a sex symbol for a lot of young men.

Also no offense to Tim Story but he was not the right director. Bad script and bad executives in charge.

Daredevil, it seems the drive was there to make a comic book movie that was a little darker and more serious. Sort of almost like an anti-Spider-Man. It didn't work out. They still spent $80 million and wanted it to get as big of an audience as possible. Remember Fox didn't like longer movies at the time. We saw it with the first X-Men and X-Men 3.

I also think Mark Steven Johnson, while good intentioned, is not all that great of a writer-director.

 

[Dark Raven]

Ioan Gruffudd has been more Reed like in other things he's played in than in FF. He is also now probably more suited the role, age-wise. When he was in the TV series "Forever", he seemed more like Reed Richards than in either of these two movies. It's a shame he had been in these, because he would definitely be one to consider for the part now if he were completely fresh to the role.

Of course, the Story FF movies look like masterpieces next to Trank's effort. And people (including many entertainment news sites) were mocking the Story movies and saying how Trank's movie was going to be a proper adaptation that would make everyone forget about the other ones. So much for that. Now I bet those same news sites (who probably jumped on the bandwagon then because it was good to hate on the Story movies) are probably mocking the Trank movie, as if they always thought it was a bad idea.

 

[TheVileOne]

Some of the Chronicle fans and even some of the Collider guys got on the Trank bandwagon probably in the event that it did turn out to be a hit they got to be an early adopter or ahead of the curve.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Since it was successful enough to spawn a sequel, I wouldn't exactly call FF '05 a failure. That one and its sequel have some good things going for them (Michael Chiklis as Ben, Ioan Gruffudd as Reed, Chris Evans as Johnny, the Surfer) but the not so good things stood out a lot more (Jessica Alba, Doom, Galactus cloud).

This. I don't mind it - and I own the extended edition which I like.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

Daredevil suffered from cuts being forced from on-high. The Director's Cut is IMHO a very good superhero film.

 

[Drizzle]

If they had cast, say, Rachel McAdams as Sue and someone more competent as Doom, FF '05 would have been received a lot better.

 

[TheVileOne]

Still not sure how much better with someone like Tim Story at the helm. McAdams definitely would've been a better fit for Sue Storm. I agree with that.

 

[Milk Tray Guy]

If they had cast, say, Rachel McAdams as Sue and someone more competent as Doom, FF '05 would have been received a lot better.

Alba wasn't perfect casting but I didn't really have a problem with her. McMahon's Doom on the other hand...

 

[NealKenneth]

They just weren't good enough.

Someone earlier said that FF felt like Spy Kids. That's a perfect analysis. The Fantastic Four weren't exploring the cosmos like they should have been. Daredevil wasn't nearly gritty enough.

They wanted the money but they didn't understand what the characters needed.

 

[Spiderine]

If they had cast, say, Rachel McAdams as Sue and someone more competent as Doom, FF '05 would have been received a lot better.

They hired a guy featured on a Fox show from the Fox network to play in a Fox film about the FF. They spent more time wanting to show us his pretty face in both films.

Even with that said I blame the script more than anything. I actually gave the first film a pass thinking we would get a closer version of Doom in the second. Second biggest disappointment behind Eddie Brock Venom in a comic film.

 

[Lantern Venom]

I wouldn't call either one a failure. FF had a decent BO and spawned a sequel. DD had a decent BO as well and many of the really scathing critical reviews came later. "Underachievers" is a more fitting title than "failures."

 

[TheVileOne]

Daredevil arguably did well enough to potentially get a sequel, Affleck then borderline committed career suicide and Fox opted to make Elektra instead.

 

[Random490]

You also have to remember that at the time, great Superhero films were rare. Really, within that time period, there was just Blade, X-men 1 and 2, and Spider-man 1 and 2. F4 and DD were created to capitalize on the craze started by those films. DD was directed by Mark Steven Johnson, who also directed the ghost rider which both had the same problem. While the content of the story was (mostly)accurate he did not have the ability to tell it in a compelling way.

Also remember not only was cgi relatively new, but studios weren't willing to take chances on something high concept sci-fi exploration. That's why the F4 weren't exploring the cosmos. Instead they opted to do the superhero celebrity route which is also a big part of the F4 and something they handled really well.

Fox already had X-men doing well, they want to replicate Spider-man with a family friendly version with F4, and a dark brooding version for emo teens with DD.

But nowadays it's complete different, The Dark Knight and Iron Man showed that superhero films can not only be good, but phenomenal. And the MCU showed that can be accomplished with every film. Back then we were just happy to have superheroes on the big screen

If they had cast, say, Rachel McAdams as Sue and someone more competent as Doom, FF '05 would have been received a lot better.

That's true, but imagine how awful it would have been had they not casted Evans or Chiklis?

Ioan Gruffudd has been more Reed like in other things he's played in than in FF. He is also now probably more suited the role, age-wise. When he was in the TV series "Forever", he seemed more like Reed Richards than in either of these two movies. It's a shame he had been in these, because he would definitely be one to consider for the part now if he were completely fresh to the role.

Of course, the Story FF movies look like masterpieces next to Trank's effort. And people (including many entertainment news sites) were mocking the Story movies and saying how Trank's movie was going to be a proper adaptation that would make everyone forget about the other ones. So much for that. Now I bet those same news sites (who probably jumped on the bandwagon then because it was good to hate on the Story movies) are probably mocking the Trank movie, as if they always thought it was a bad idea.

I had the same exact thought, "where the hell was this during F4?" Would have drastically changed the movie for the better.

Daredevil suffered from cuts being forced from on-high. The Director's Cut is IMHO a very good superhero film.

I wouldn't say it was good. It did show more of DD being a lawyer (barely) and helped down play Elektra. But the underlining problems are still there.

I don't think FF '05 is a BAD movie. I kind of compare it to Superman Returns which I also don't think is a bad movie. I think both are victims are just being so painfully "MEH whatever" and having nothing really exciting or notable about it that would stay in your mind.

DD '03 is just a badly executed film althogether. It's got the completely wrong vibe to it and is trying too hard to be the Matrix.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[Spiderine]

I don't think Elektra should have been killed in that film. It should have been strictly a DD/Kingpin centric film focusing more on Matt's origin and his turn as DD. They stuffed Elektra's death by the hands of Bullseye from a classic story in the first film. To early for that. Could have been setup much better but its rushed. I would have had another villain serving Kingpin's interests.

 

[2kt09]

I don't think Elektra should have been killed in that film. It should have been strictly a DD/Kingpin centric film focusing more on Matt's origin and his turn as DD. They stuffed Elektra's death by the hands of Bullseye from a classic story in the first film. To early for that. Could have been setup much better but its rushed. I would have had another villain serving Kingpin's interests.

Garner's Elektra was groan-worthy even in the director's cut.
Everything else was fine with what the director was going for.

 

[The Overlord]

2005 Doom was such a throw away villain, they should replaced him someone like the Wizard and saved Doom for another film.

 

[GREEN =w= DAY]

Fantastic Four did fairly well as it spawned a sequel

The cast, aside from Jessica Alba, was great! I thought Charlize Theron would have been better for Sue at the time