Why hate FOX?

[Zarex]

If that's true neither would Disney.

Not necessarily. Disney can put the film in the MCU, which is a much more lucrative film environment than FOX's declining X-series. And Disney has opportunities to monetize the FF reboot through video games, tie-in merchandise and publishing that FOX simply doesn't have.

As long as they don't go crazy with the budget they'll break even at the very least.

If we assume that a film has to double its budget in worldwide box office in order to break even, that's the best case scenario for the FF reboot. A quality FF release will cost a minimum of $175 million (and don't we deserve a well made version?), and FOX would be hard pressed to double that number given the returns from recent FOX Marvel films FF:ROTSS, XM:FC and TW.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

General audiences don't care about universe cohesion or all that. They'll see a superhero movie if they like the look of it.

Since it's the same franchise, whether Disney or Fox do it, the profits won't be much different.

Fox isn't making big money, mostly because they're using an existing franchise thats has being going for 13 years and general audiences have become fatigued with it. The Wolverine did quite well considering the last movie (Origins) is universally hated, the character has been going for 13 years and it wasn't a kid-friendly movie.

Fantastic Four is a "fresh" franchise for them to build upon over time

Either way the box office gross is irellevant to movies quality.



Bottom line is Fox obviously sees it a franchise to hold onto. Not for any vindictive reasons but because they feel they can make money from it. It may or may not work out for them who knows, but it'd be no different at Paramount, Disney or Universal

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Not necessarily. Disney can put the film in the MCU, which is a much more lucrative film environment than FOX's declining X-series. And Disney has opportunities to monetize the FF reboot through video games, tie-in merchandise and publishing that FOX simply doesn't have.



If we assume that a film has to double its budget in worldwide box office in order to break even, that's the best case scenario for the FF reboot. A quality FF release will cost a minimum of $175 million (and don't we deserve a well made version?), and FOX would be hard pressed to double that number given the returns from recent FOX Marvel films FF:ROTSS, XM:FC and TW.

What?

I think that earning double the budget is, by definition, not "breaking even". Breaking even is getting the same amount back that you invested in. No profit. No loss.

Doubling your budget is a profit.

 

[Dr Tactics]

You over-estimate the MCU fan controbution to box office.

General audiences don't care about universe cohesion or all that. They'll see a superhero movie if they like the look of it.

Disagree. Cohesion is a main contributing factor on why 4 of the top 10 comic book movies are owned by Marvel Studios. And contributes to the positive environment for the FF to succeed with in the MCU

Since it's the same franchise, whether Disney or Fox do it, the profits won't be much different.

Fox isn't making big money, mostly because they're using an existing franchise thats has being going for 13 years and general audiences have become acustomed to and grown tiresome of the same characters.

Fantastic Four is a "fresh" franchise for them to build upon over time.

Either way the box office gross is irellevant to movies quality.



Bottom line is Fox obviusly sees it a franchise to hold onto. Not for any vindictive reasons but because they feel they can make money from it. It may or may not work out for them.

Well money is the reason to make movies. To turn a profit. Not to just make a quality film. You make a quality film so you reap a profit from the box office take. simple business economics. It's not gonna work out for them. So being all Fox has is box office minus 10% they owe to marvel off the top (regardless whether they lose money vs their production budget )and no licensing, merchandising etc. to reap from, what's the point?

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

A crappy movie can make billions. A great movie can bomb.

Thats what i mean by box office being irrelavant to quality

 

[Lord]

Hmmm... I would agree with Lord. The only MCU films that qualify as great, imho are Avengers and Iron Man. The others are good. Some are very good, but then so was XMFC, so was X2. And when we're talking about sci-fi so were Chronicle and Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Has Fox given us a genre redefining film like Avengers? No, but Fox did almost create the modern superhero genre with X-Men. They're the ones that paved the way for Marvel Studios, for whatever that is worth.

But people don't just look at Fox as 'they haven't/can't do an Avengers-level epic' but rather, they can't even do X2 or XMFC (or XMFC wasn't good because it underperformed... even though it's getting a huge sequel) or their success with all their recent sci fi properties doesn't bode well for their superhero ones. I could understand people not liking Fox as much as Marvel Studios... but hating Fox?

Well, you're talking about films besides superhero movies right? Because then Fox does have a lot of good contenders, like Alien, or Avatar, and they release the Star Wars films

 

[Dr Tactics]

A crappy movie can make billions. A great movie can bomb.

Thats what i mean by box office being irrelavant to quality

I see you on that point. But quality or crap the FF in any universe that is not the MCU is a bad bet if profit is the goal. X-Universe? Fox do your thing. It makes business sense to put the budget on DOFP in spite of the financial issues mentioned above. The FF reboot? Not so much.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Since when do movies need a universe of other character movies to be successful?

Sequels to a franchise? Sure they bring in more because they are sequels.

But GOTG won't be any significant amount more financially succesful because of other non-GOTG movies that are also made by the same studio and take place in the same universe.

 

[Zarex]

What?

I think that earning double the budget is, by definition, not "breaking even". Breaking even is getting the same amount back that you invested in. No profit. No loss.

Doubling your budget is a profit.

Studios don't get 100% of box office receipts. It's closer to 50% when you include lower takes from foreign markets.

 

[Zarex]

Since when do movies need a universe of other character movies to be successful?

Sequels to a franchise? Sure they bring in more because they are sequels.

But GOTG won't be any significant amount more financially succesful because of other non-GOTG movies that are also made by the same studio and take place in the same universe.

You may not think its important, but both FOX and WB disagree. Both studios are attempting to link their superhero films after watching Marvel rake in billions with what had been previously thought to be B-list characters.

 

[DrCosmic]

A crappy movie can make billions. A great movie can bomb.

Thats what i mean by box office being irrelavant to quality

Irrelevant means no effect, not sometimes-doesn't-totally-control. If quality was irrelevant to box office, we'd see just as many sucky movies making a lot of money, and just as many great films bombing. Generally, it's notable when one of those happens because the two are at least loosely connected.

Well, you're talking about films besides superhero movies right? Because then Fox does have a lot of good contenders, like Alien, or Avatar, and they release the Star Wars films

That's a very good point. I think Avatar was the film that started their turnaround really.

Once you have earned a bad reputation, it takes ages to repair the damage. Fox is learning that right now. And while they have gotten better, there are still times they lapse into their old ways. A Good Day to Die Hard just came out this year and it was like a checklist of the things Fox did to ruin films during the peak of the Rothman years.

And again, I feel I need to drive this point home because some people still don't seem to get it, between 2003 when X2 was released and 2011 when First Class was released, a period of EIGHT YEARS, Fox released FIVE Marvel films and EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM was wretched filth. I can't emphasize that enough. That's not counting the other countless number of films they ruined in that time period (ex. Kingdom of Heaven, LXG, Alien vs. Predator, etc.). Their reputation was rightfully earned and it will take more than a couple of films to change that. It will take years of good will for Fox to dig themselves out of the hole they've dug. If DOFP, X-Force, and the Fantastic Four reboot are all great films, then maybe.

I agree with that, I get it, all I'm saying is that holding onto that is emotional. Reputation is not always reality. Their recent history of making very good films, and specifically of not interfering shows that the current condition of the company and the reputation are not the same. I have no need for Fox to "prove themselves," as though they were some person who has betrayed me, because there are different people involved and they've set out in a clear consistent direction not like the other people who were also called Fox. Now, if this trend doesn't continue, that's one thing, but there's no rational reason to see it stopping. The fan-o-sphere or the public at large may feel any number of ways, but that's not necessarily a relevant critique of what's going on at Fox or what they are likely to do currently.

As true as that is they, Fox, can't really make money off of them either if they choose to go forward in releasing it either. So I could understand more if they had a financial reason to keep the rights for a quality reboot. That's not the case though. But to keep just so either A) We don't want Marvel to profit so we'll lose money in the meantime by making a cheap film with little to no return or B) just make Marvel wait until the 11th hour to say like Daredevil request they need more time and it reverts anyway. Fox has no real leverage with the FF so they need to cut the BS and concentrate on the Marvel property that's gonna reap dividends. The X-movie. This just highlights they're stupidity and we've experienced the stupidity many times before in the Rothmsn era.

I think it might be fans being judgmental and shortsighted rather than Fox being stupid and "mean" to Marvel Studios - which is also not a person. Fox can certainly make money off of the FF. If they make a great action-packed SFX-heavy film for $100M or less, something they've shown they can do, and will do again, and appear to be positioned to here again for FF... if they pull in the same numbers as the suckiest FF, they will make a notable profit. If they actually improve upon the original's Box Office, as other higher quality reboots have done, they stand to make $400M+ and start up a new hit franchise, and build up their shared universe with a big cosmic /Onslaught crossover thing or whatever. It's a solid plan.

 

[Zarex]

I think it might be fans being judgmental and shortsighted rather than Fox being stupid and "mean" to Marvel Studios - which is also not a person. Fox can certainly make money off of the FF. If they make a great action-packed SFX-heavy film for $100M or less, something they've shown they can do, and will do again, and appear to be positioned to here again for FF... if they pull in the same numbers as the suckiest FF, they will make a notable profit. If they actually improve upon the original's Box Office, as other higher quality reboots have done, they stand to make $400M+ and start up a new hit franchise, and build up their shared universe with a big cosmic /Onslaught crossover thing or whatever. It's a solid plan.

Again, why aren't you comparing the FF reboot to Marvel and DC superhero films put out recently by WB, FOX, Sony and Marvel? There's a whole bunch of movies out there that have much more in common with the proposed film than Percy Jackson, Chronicle and Planet of the Apes. With Marvel Studios reputation for cheapness, I am surprised that you would think that they are willingly throwing their money away when, according to you, they could be putting out great versions of Thor, Cap, Iron Man and the Avengers for half of what they are budgeting. We already have three cheap looking FF films - isn't that enough?

And the $400M+ box office potential is wildly unrealistic for a reboot of a poorly received franchise released in a slow box office period, especially considering the last two FOX Marvel movies did significantly worse. If XM:FC and The Wolverine couldn't reach than number, two films which had higher budgets than you are proposing, big name stars and were installments of a much more popular franchise, you are kidding yourself if you think an FF reboot can come anywhere close to that $400 million.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Also depands on what Fox are projecting in regards to box office. XMFC did must better than they anticipated for example.

As for FF while they weren't good movies they never looked cheap, to me atleast.

It's blind to think that Fox won't try to make Fantastic Four into an ongoing franchise.

They considered how much they can earn from it with movies vs selling it back to marvel. They obviously chose the former.

Again, why aren't you comparing the FF reboot to Marvel and DC superhero films put out recently by WB, FOX, Sony and Marvel?

Because all studios have different plans and ideas and forecasting for their movies.

A movie with a small budget that only makes a 100 million is a success while a movie that has a huge budget and a huge box office can be deemed the same success proportionally.

 

[Xeno]

Sounds like someone is still 'emotionally hurt'

Holy non sequitur, Batman!

 

[metaphysician]

What?

I think that earning double the budget is, by definition, not "breaking even". Breaking even is getting the same amount back that you invested in. No profit. No loss.

Doubling your budget is a profit.

The studio doesn't receive 100% of the gross. They receive about half of it, on average. Hence needing to "double the budget"; it means that, after everyone else has gotten their cut, the studio has paid back its investment, too.

 

[metaphysician]

Since when do movies need a universe of other character movies to be successful?

Sequels to a franchise? Sure they bring in more because they are sequels.

But GOTG won't be any significant amount more financially succesful because of other non-GOTG movies that are also made by the same studio and take place in the same universe.

*citation needed*

I'm actually not kidding. There really is zero precedent for what Marvel is doing, so its literally up in the air what will happen. This means GotG is not a sure thing. . . but it also means your assertion is baseless.

 

[Teelie]

The studio doesn't receive 100% of the gross. They receive about half of it, on average. Hence needing to "double the budget"; it means that, after everyone else has gotten their cut, the studio has paid back its investment, too.

I'd say it's probably more than that given how studios will intentionally write off a movie as "under performing" to gain more profit via creative paperwork and shell companies. The Empire Strikes Back Return of the Jedi is still a money loss after all this time according to the paperwork for instance.

According to Lucasfilm, Return of the Jedi despite having earned $475 million at the box-office against a budget of $32.5 million, "has never gone into profit".

Expenditures can be inflated to reduce or eliminate the reported profit of the project, thereby reducing the amount which the corporation must pay in royalties or other profit-sharing agreements, as these are based on the net profit.

Due to Hollywood accounting, it has been estimated that only about 5% of movies officially show a net profit, and the "losers" include such blockbuster films as Rain Man, Forrest Gump, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, and Batman, which all took in huge amounts in box office and video sales.

Hollywood accounting

 

[Lord]

I'd say it's probably more than that given how studios will intentionally write off a movie as "under performing" to gain more profit via creative paperwork and shell companies. The Empire Strikes Back Return of the Jedi is still a money loss after all this time according to the paperwork for instance.


Hollywood accounting

Huh? What? Why would they do more movies if that was the case?

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

*citation needed*

I'm actually not kidding. There really is zero precedent for what Marvel is doing, so its literally up in the air what will happen. This means GotG is not a sure thing. . . but it also means your assertion is baseless.

There is.

Tarantinos written movies exist in the same universe. Planet Terror didn't benefit from being set in the same universe, neither did the Dusk til Dawn sequels or Machete.

Pixars movies exist in the same universe.

Roger Rabbit combined Looney Tunes and Disney. Fast 6 combined the tokyo drift characters and the OT.

 

[Teelie]

Huh? What? Why would they do more movies if that was the case?

Because unofficially they make most of that money back. It's all legal smoke and mirrors to earn as much profit as possible while paying out as little as they can to those who are owed money.

Makes their war on piracy a tad bit hypocritical when they talk about how it denies those whose hard work went into making those movies, doesn't it?

 

[Lord]

Tarrantinos written movies exist in the same universe. Planet Terror didn't benefit from being set in the same universe,neither did the Dusk til Dawn sequels..

Completelly different thing, they're not advertised as being part of the same universe, and most don't even know they are.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I don't recall any advertising for Thor and The First Avenger that said "this is part of Iron Mans movie timeline".

There are shared things in the movies that people who watch each of them will put together, but i don't think any advertising stating it to connected.

 

[Lord]

I don't recall any advertising for Thor and The First Avenger that said "this is part of Iron Mans movie timeline".

There are shared things in the movies that people who watch each of them will put together, but i don't think any advertising stating it to connected.

Post-Credit scenes, cameos, and The Avengers do the part. As well as the "Marvel Studios" logo. Most that go watch Tarantino's movies don't think it's part of any major crossover universe beacause it's quite minimal, while with Marvel Studio almost everybody who goes what those movies knows by now.

 

[Incrediblejeff]

I would say the closest to Marvel's Cinematic Universe are The Universal Monsters or The Godzilla films.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Post-Credit scenes, cameos, and The Avengers do the part. As well as the "Marvel Studios" logo. Most that go watch Tarantino's movies don't think it's part of any major crossover universe beacause it's quite minimal, while with Marvel Studio almost everybody who goes what those movies knows by now.

That's all in the movies though. You said advertising.

Plus all other Marvel character movies have the Marvel logo