Why hate FOX?

[DrCosmic]

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?

Do any of the films I mentioned look cheap? Y'know I had written this big long explanation. Let me keep it to the point.

The Fantastic Four doesn't do what others superheroes do. They don't blow up cities, they don't travel the world, they don't get by on the gravitas of any one member (necessitating big name cast). Thus, the things that make other superhero movies cost a lot don't apply to the FF. The FF actually does have more in common with films like Percy Jackson, Chronicle and Planet of the Apes... they just have costumes. They are scientists, people exploring unreal places (surprisingly cheaper than exploring real places), they are a family that gets by on the chemistry of the leads, not any particular star power. They use their powers for utility more than battling supervillains.

Marvel Studios doesn't have the need or motivation to do a high quality lower cost superhero movie. For they characters they want to do, they need to hire big stars, blow up cities and travel the country, and perhaps the world, because that's what all those characters are about. Characters they could make for less expense: Daredevil, Blade, they don't even bother mentioning, much less hiring directors who are known for keeping the budget down. They're aiming for 600M to a Billion for their films. FF is not, shouldn't and can't. Here's why:

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.

It's actually pretty much guaranteed to break $300M, that's about what the last FF did, and it was sucky. Reboots get numbers in the same range as the previous iteration. Case in point: Hulk. Marvel got Hulk back, made a decent-good film it did slightly better than the panned version. So a highly acclaimed FF movie will ideally make $400M. One worse than the old ones might make $250M. A good one will probably be in the $350M range, like the rest of Fox's superhero films (which it will likely break with DOFP). And again, that's not just Fox, that's anywhere. Remember, the FF aren't part of the Avengers to get that push. But, at Marvel Studios, they would get a $150M budget and make very little money if any, thus getting sidelined, like the Hulk franchise. It's also likely to fail badly as a big budget blockbuster, as the Cracked article you gave me illustrated, so you're basically asking it to fail. A good $100M FF movie is a success. A good $200M FF film is a failure.

Same question: What is it that you think would cause a great Fantastic Four film to cost $175M+?

Edit: Here's another way to look at it. Iron Man was $140M... with Robert Downey Junior, Gweneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges and Terrence Howard. That's easily $40M+ right there.

 

[Lord]

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

Plus all other Marvel character movies have the Marvel logo

Avertised by the way they're released, all those factos have lead to people asking which films are part of the crossover and multiple questions have been answered. Films that are not part of it only get the Marvel symbol, not the Marvel Studios symbol

 

[def28]

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

I don't know what exactly your looking for but...

But Cap was called The First Avenger for a reason. With the tagline "Discover The Worlds First Avenger". Meaning you know that big ass movie coming out called The Avengers that we are also advertising at the end of this flick and been hyping up since the end of Iron Man 1. This guy was the first.

I believe The Iron Man 2 DVD/Blu rays were also hyping up their Universe. Which sold quite alot of copies.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Films that are not part of it only get the Marvel symbol, not the Marvel Studios symbol

I never noticed a difference

I don't know what exactly your looking for but..

In regards to advertising... Mentions of it being connected to the others on posters, in trailers, in tv spots, in taglines.

Back to the original point. Tararantinos movies and Pixars movies are each connected like the MCU and just like the MCU they don't advertise it in the marketing, they just have common things in the movies themselves

 

[def28]

In regards to advertising... Mentions of it being connected to the others on posters, in trailers, in tv spots, in taglines.

I don't remember anything with Thor . But they were def advertising Cap like that. Anyone who saw Iron Man 2 (which is at least 90% of Captain Americas audience), heard about The Avengers. And that word was everywhere on Captain America trailers, taglines and posters.

 

[DrCosmic]

It was actually called "The First Avenger" lol!

 

[def28]

Yeah, I don't know how else they could have spelled it out that it's connected, without putting Iron Man all over it.

Marvel studios + Avengers= connected. That's all the audience needs.

How they handle Guardians advertising should be interesting. But with Shield, Cap and Thor sequels leading before it I gather it will be pretty easy to connect as well. If Shield has a role in GOTG, then people will know just by that. Not to mention Thanos.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

It was actually called "The First Avenger" lol!

Meaningless. It's not like they later came out with a movie called Avenge- oh wait.

 

[DrCosmic]

^Dude! Some people went to the theatre *just* for the Avengers preview.

Yeah, I don't know how else they could have spelled it out that it's connected, without putting Iron Man all over it.

Or putting a stand in Tony Stark character in the... hmmm...

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Captain America the first of...

 

[def28]

Or putting a stand in Tony Stark character in the... hmmm...

Hahaha

 

[Zarex]

The Fantastic Four doesn't do what others superheroes do. They don't blow up cities, they don't travel the world, they don't get by on the gravitas of any one member (necessitating big name cast). Thus, the things that make other superhero movies cost a lot don't apply to the FF. The FF actually does have more in common with films like Percy Jackson, Chronicle and Planet of the Apes... they just have costumes. They are scientists, people exploring unreal places (surprisingly cheaper than exploring real places), they are a family that gets by on the chemistry of the leads, not any particular star power. They use their powers for utility more than battling supervillains.

The FF are a different type of group, no question. But I don't see how that translates into cost savings, unless you cut corners. Though they do not blow up cities - neither do the X-Men or Avengers - they do travel the world (with an emphasis on Eastern Europe and the mid-Atlantic) and Reed is dripping with "gravitas". And when the FF reappear on the big screen, I want to see a coordinated display of their awesome powers to match what we saw in the Avengers. I have my doubts that FOX will come through.

Same question: What is it that you think would cause a great Fantastic Four film to cost $175M+?

Because with very few exceptions, that's what major studio Marvel and DC movies cost. I simply don't see why a display of the First Family's powers would be cheaper to film than that of the Avengers or the X-Men.

Edit: Here's another way to look at it. Iron Man was $140M... with Robert Downey Junior, Gweneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges and Terrence Howard. That's easily $40M+ right there.

That's closer to $20 million. Terrence Howard was rumored to make $8 million (a major reason why he was fired before the sequel) and Downey made $1 million.

 

[DACrowe]

People hate what Fox is doing because they mistake brand loyalty for quality. Don't get me wrong I like MCU too. It is just that I am fine with a competing universe; competition is good. And besides, I think Days of Future Past looks better than anything Phase 2 has cooking right now.

 

[Raiden]

People hate what Fox is doing because they mistake brand loyalty for quality. Don't get me wrong I like MCU too. It is just that I am fine with a competing universe; competition is good. And besides, I think Days of Future Past looks better than anything Phase 2 has cooking right now.

I beg to differ. Yes, DOFP looks to be going back to the X-Men movies like X2 and not TLS, but better than Thor 2, Cap 2, and GOTG? And Avengers 2? Sorry, but I don't think it will be that good.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

because they mistake brand loyalty for quality

yeah no.

 

[DrCosmic]

The FF are a different type of group, no question. But I don't see how that translates into cost savings, unless you cut corners. Though they do not blow up cities - neither do the X-Men or Avengers - they do travel the world (with an emphasis on Eastern Europe and the mid-Atlantic) and Reed is dripping with "gravitas". And when the FF reappear on the big screen, I want to see a coordinated display of their awesome powers to match what we saw in the Avengers. I have my doubts that FOX will come through.

Because with very few exceptions, that's what major studio Marvel and DC movies cost. I simply don't see why a display of the First Family's powers would be cheaper to film than that of the Avengers or the X-Men.

You don't see. You don't see. Okay. You don't see.

Fantastic Four don't travel the world in such a way that they should shoot on location in Eastern Europe and the Mid Atlantic, especially in their origin story. Neither does Reed have gravitas as such that his brilliance, introversion and eccentricity are not best played by a character actor. He's just a good character, he's not dripping with anything but intelligence.

And you want Fantastic Four to be Avengers. Yeah, Man of Steel tried that... I'd rather have the Fantastic Four be... the Fantastic Four.

That's closer to $20 million. Terrence Howard was rumored to make $8 million (a major reason why he was fired before the sequel) and Downey made $1 million.

Bridges was also around $8M and Paltrow's standard bill was $16M... so, $33M instead of $40M... so... a budget of $107-$110 then for an Iron Man quality film? Sounds good. Also, all my previous points about anything else leading to failure still stand. Your idea of what is and what is not cutting corners just doesn't fit with reality, whether you choose to see it or not.

 

[flickchick85]

Frankly, I just don't have as much faith in Bryan Singer as most seem to. His X-Men movies were never all that special to me, and his other offerings have been...all over the place. I also feel like any project that Matthew Vaughn abandons (I can't believe that phrase can be applied to multiple franchise movies now, haha) will inevitably end up somewhere on the spectrum of squandered potential thanks to the many consequences (time/budget/replacements/etc) of that abandonment. I'm crossing my fingers for the best on DoFP, but I'm far from convinced of its eventual greatness as of yet.

 

[metaphysician]

Captain America the first of...

Okay, seriously, at this point your just being obtuse. If you can't distinguish between an actual deliberate and important common setting, with a presence in marketing, and films that have easter egg connections that are literally irrelevant to the movies and only noticeable if you scan through them in retrospect. . .

 

[DACrowe]

yeah no.

Really? Then why hate Fox for doing their own thing? Sure, they can make crap. But XFC was great and, IMHO, better in some respects than The Avengers (though in other ways not). The Wolverine was pretty uneven, but so was Iron Man 3. Either way, it appears the success of The Avengers has forced Fox to step up their game and make DOFP the first "event" X-Men movie in over ten years, or at least since TLS failed miserably and Fox quit trying. Conversely, the idea that Fox is trying to play in their sandbox is going to help push Marvel/Disney to make sure they can't.

We get better movies because of this. Why hate it?

I beg to differ. Yes, DOFP looks to be going back to the X-Men movies like X2 and not TLS, but better than Thor 2, Cap 2, and GOTG? And Avengers 2? Sorry, but I don't think it will be that good.

Definitely more exciting for me than Thor 2, Cap 2 or GOTG. I didn't like Cap 1 and am unsure about the directors for the sequel (though I loved Community back when it was good). And while I liked Thor just fine, nothing about the sequel is knocking my socks off. I found XFC to be a far better film than most of the MCU. So the idea that they are combining the best aspects of FC (period piece, Fassbender, McAvoy, Lawrence) with Singer's X-world and they're throwing Sentinels and Peter Dinklage into the mix?

Far more tantalizing than seeing Loki trick Thor. Again.

Avengers 2 is just too far away for me to get excited about at all.

Just my opinion.

 

[Zarex]

You don't see. You don't see. Okay. You don't see.

Fantastic Four don't travel the world in such a way that they should shoot on location in Eastern Europe and the Mid Atlantic, especially in their origin story. Neither does Reed have gravitas as such that his brilliance, introversion and eccentricity are not best played by a character actor. He's just a good character, he's not dripping with anything but intelligence.

And you want Fantastic Four to be Avengers. Yeah, Man of Steel tried that... I'd rather have the Fantastic Four be... the Fantastic Four.

What I see is that you are looking forward to FOX's limited budget version of an FF reboot, with a severly limited scope and on-screen action that falls well short of every other superhero film being made over the next few years. I am not

Bridges was also around $8M and Paltrow's standard bill was $16M... so, $33M instead of $40M... so... a budget of $107-$110 then for an Iron Man quality film? Sounds good. Also, all my previous points about anything else leading to failure still stand. Your idea of what is and what is not cutting corners just doesn't fit with reality, whether you choose to see it or not.

At $8 million, Howard was rumored to be the highest paid member of the original cast. Again, you appear to be struggling with numbers. And yes, I am choosing not to see your very unique version of "reality".

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Really? Then why hate Fox for doing their own thing?

Because more often than not 'their own thing' blows. At least insofar as Marvel properties are concerned.

Sure, they can make crap.

They sure can.

But XFC was great

It wasn't bad but I don't think it's the Shining Beacon of Hope™ that some people try to paint it as. While I enjoyed it I also feel it's one of the more overrated supers films out there. I believe a fair share of it's praise derives from it simply being a much better film than X3.

Regardless, it's going to take more than one non-sucky film to redeem a studio that has half-assed as many licensed projects as Fox has just to turn a quick buck. In my eyes, anyway, and it appears I'm far from alone.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Because more often than not 'their own thing' blows. At least insofar as Marvel properties are concerned.



They sure can.



It wasn't bad but I don't think it's the Shining Beacon of Hope™ that some people try to paint it as. While I enjoyed it I also feel it's one of the more overrated supers films out there. I believe a fair share of it's praise derives from it simply being a much better film than X3.

Regardless, it's going to take more than one non-sucky film to redeem a studio that has half-assed as many licensed projects as Fox has just to turn a quick buck. In my eyes, anyway, and it appears I'm far from alone.

I loved X-Men: The Last Stand and I still think X-Men: First Class deserves every ounce of praise it receives, so it's certainly not a residual effect from a prior "bad" movie...

 

[SunJockey]

The Fantastic Four doesn't do what others superheroes do. They don't blow up cities, they don't travel the world, they don't get by on the gravitas of any one member (necessitating big name cast). Thus, the things that make other superhero movies cost a lot don't apply to the FF. The FF actually does have more in common with films like Percy Jackson, Chronicle and Planet of the Apes... they just have costumes. They are scientists, people exploring unreal places (surprisingly cheaper than exploring real places), they are a family that gets by on the chemistry of the leads, not any particular star power. They use their powers for utility more than battling supervillains.

Marvel Studios doesn't have the need or motivation to do a high quality lower cost superhero movie. For they characters they want to do, they need to hire big stars, blow up cities and travel the country, and perhaps the world, because that's what all those characters are about. Characters they could make for less expense: Daredevil, Blade, they don't even bother mentioning, much less hiring directors who are known for keeping the budget down. They're aiming for 600M to a Billion for their films. FF is not, shouldn't and can't. Here's why:



It's actually pretty much guaranteed to break $300M, that's about what the last FF did, and it was sucky. Reboots get numbers in the same range as the previous iteration. Case in point: Hulk. Marvel got Hulk back, made a decent-good film it did slightly better than the panned version. So a highly acclaimed FF movie will ideally make $400M. One worse than the old ones might make $250M. A good one will probably be in the $350M range, like the rest of Fox's superhero films (which it will likely break with DOFP). And again, that's not just Fox, that's anywhere. Remember, the FF aren't part of the Avengers to get that push. But, at Marvel Studios, they would get a $150M budget and make very little money if any, thus getting sidelined, like the Hulk franchise. It's also likely to fail badly as a big budget blockbuster, as the Cracked article you gave me illustrated, so you're basically asking it to fail. A good $100M FF movie is a success. A good $200M FF film is a failure.

Same question: What is it that you think would cause a great Fantastic Four film to cost $175M+?

Edit: Here's another way to look at it. Iron Man was $140M... with Robert Downey Junior, Gweneth Paltrow, Jeff Bridges and Terrence Howard. That's easily $40M+ right there.

I think you're totally wrong about the FF. You're pointing out all of the things that specifically make the FF work so well in the comics. The FF are totally about all the things you list there at the beginning of your post. They have some of the biggest stories with some of the craziest stuff happening in them (Galactus, The Negative Zone). Also, they do more than just travel the world, they travel through dimensions. Not to mention that their main nemesis lives halfway around the world. And speaking of Dr. Doom, how can you say none of the characters have gravitas or star power when you're talking about two of the most iconic characters in all of Marvel?? Hell, I'd argue that Dr. Doom is by far one of the most important villains in all of Marvel, and Reed is dripping with the potential to be twice as iconic as RDJ's Tony Stark. I seriously think it could be a huge franchise if done right. FOX should take a cue from The Incredibles if they want to do Fantastic Four the right way.

The FF, at its core, is a big, fun scifi adventure series with big moments and crazy ideas. There is no way to turn that into a small, grounded film without changing what it is at its core.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I loved X-Men: The Last Stand and I still think X-Men: First Class deserves every ounce of praise it receives, so it's certainly not a residual effect from a prior "bad" movie...

Big deal. Where did I say it applied to everyone? Your own personal anecdote counts for you and you alone.

 

[DACrowe]

Because more often than not 'their own thing' blows. At least insofar as Marvel properties are concerned.



They sure can.



It wasn't bad but I don't think it's the Shining Beacon of Hope™ that some people try to paint it as. While I enjoyed it I also feel it's one of the more overrated supers films out there. I believe a fair share of it's praise derives from it simply being a much better film than X3.

Regardless, it's going to take more than one non-sucky film to redeem a studio that has half-assed as many licensed projects as Fox has just to turn a quick buck. In my eyes, anyway, and it appears I'm far from alone.

Rothman is gone and Fox is responding to MCU. This why competition is a good thing. And for the record, I prefer XFC to all of the MCU save for perhaps IM1. It is flawed, but at least it has rewatch value. Just my opinion.