Gatsby77

Review from Variety! http://variety.com/2015/film/reviews/fantastic-four-review-reboots-marvel-comic-1201555905/ Cliff notes: Better than the last two films (a low bar), but still a missed opportunity. Conclusion: "Ultimately, Fox’s stab at reviving one of its inherited Marvel properties feels less like a blockbuster for this age of comics-oriented tentpoles than it does another also-ran — not an embarrassment, but an experiment that didn’t gel. And having seemingly missed twice in trying to get “Fantastic Four” right, the studio, unlike Reed, might want to think seriously before making any more trips back to the drawing board."

Nope. Disagree here, Rocky. When one (or two) people's posts constitute a disproportionate percentage (here, 10-20%) of _all_ of the posts for the last 20 pages, personal attacks (or even advice, such as the aforementioned "Take it to PM") are warranted. I myself have come close to such "over-posting" in the last few days, but when one person feels the need to rebut every single positive post of a movie that he hasn't even seen, it's time to ease off a bit. Yes, that's arguing against the person, not on the issue. It's also spot on.

What Directors Cut of AoU? Where could I find it? Is Whedon not on record saying he won't be releasing one?

Just a reminder -- FF 2. Galactus is a _cloud_. I threw up in my mouth a little just thinking about it. This film supposedly respects the source material, in that the source material is Ultimate FF. FF 2 was just stupid beyond words.

I'm pro this movie for the following reasons: 1) The trailers make it look fun, & well worth my $12 & 2 hours of my time 2) The last two movies sucked, so there's nowhere to go but up. FF 2 was X-Men: Last Stand bad. 3) I like all four of the principal actors -- they've all proven they have legit chops in prior projects. I'd love to see anyone try to defend Jessica Alba's acting over Kate Mara's. 4) I liked the first 30 issues of Ultimate FF, and trust Mark Millar's film track record so far. (By the way, his Kingsmen: The Secret Service is another surprise hit. $128 million domestic, $407 million worldwide -- y'all really think FF will do worse?) 5) Mostly, though -- and why I'm being so vocal in this thread is I _seriously_ don't get the irrational hate on this movie, which _nobody_ has seen yet. No, it's not Disney -- but (as stated above) if Marvel had managed their affairs properly, they wouldn't have had to sell off the rights to their three biggest properties in the first place. And Fox gave us the first two X-Men films, which proved comic book movies could be viable long before Disney's master plan. They also gave us the last two X-Men movies, which were great. 6) So Jonny Storm's black? So's Nick Fury. Get over it. Heck -- I even thought Michael Clarke Duncan was inspired as The Kingpin back in the Daredevil. Sure -- I may be proven wrong in a week, and it could turn out to be a turd worse than even FF 2 (Galatcus as a m---- f---- cloud). But until then, haters, go ahead: FLAME ON!

We're arguing two separate things, it seems. I (and Bosco) are pointing to $350+ million worldwide (which is domestic + foreign), whereas you're saying $350+ million in foreign alone. Which would equate to at least $450 worldwide (a huge stretch). My contention is there's no way FF doesn't do at least $110 million domestic + $250 million foreign = $360 million worldwide. That wouldn't be a great performance, let alone summer tentpole worthy, but neither would it be a) a disaster or b) bad enough for Fox to let the rights reverts back to Disney. Put another way, Ant-Man will cross $300 million worldwide within one week. There's _zero_ chance FF doesn't do significantly better than that (ie. $350+ million worldwide) given the far greater popularity (and name recognition) of the brand, as well as the fairly popular talent involved.

Yeah. I'm predicting this new FF will perform about the same as FF 2 -- the difference being that the foreign box office numbers won't be comparable, because there are _many_ more foreign screens tuned to U.S. movies today than there were in 2007. i.e., if FF 2 were released today, it easily would have hit $350-$380 million worldwide based on the increased foreign numbers. So I'm applying that same rubric to this film. Even if it struggles to hit its reported $155 million production budget domestically, it will have to work _exceedingly_ hard not to do at least $250+ million foreign. Edge of Tomorrow's a perfect example of this. Barely cracked $100 million domestic on a $180 million budget. Did +$269 million foreign for a total of $369 million worldwide. That's how FF does $350 million+.

Again -- it's not like the two most recent films were good, and yet they still made gobs of money. So why should this be any different? FF 1 did about the same as another Fox production called X-Men 1. And I'm actually saying the opposite -- that a handful of FF nerds _can't_ take down the domestic box office. Which is why I think a lot of naysayers here will be genuinely surprised when the film does reasonably well. While I think domestic numbers are the ones that should matter most, FF is virtually guaranteed to stomp Ant-Man on the worldwide stage. I'd put ASM 2 up there as one of the 10 worst major release of the last 5 years, and it made $750 million+

But what's failure? This could tank domestically Terminator 5-style at $90 million & still pull a solid $350-$400 million worldwide. Because it looks like a decent sci-fi flick even without the comic book connection, and should play well as such overseas. That's my argument about the disconnect in this thread. It looks like a fun summer flick & should play as such to Joe Q. Public. It's only the hardcore FF nerds who seem pissed that it's based on Ultimate FF rather than the original Kirby run. Oh, and whining that it's not Disney. And that Johnny Storm's not white. Again -- the first two FF films weren't any good, but they did very well at the box office despite that.

Why not? They haven't announced an Ant-Man 2 one way or the other. They can easily plop it in among the already-announced flicks. I'm also wondering, though, whether the Netflix Marvel might intersect with future films. I know network TV is separate from the shared movie universe, but I'm not sure that's true for Netflix, as I believe Charlie Cox & Vincent Donofrio have film clauses in their contracts. I'd love to see Paul Rudd guest star on Daredevil and/or The Defenders, just as I'd love to see Cox and Donofrio on the big screen at some point.

I read recently that the studio's projecting ~$44 million for the first weekend, down from $50 million projected ~six weeks ago. Both of the previous FF films did an inflation-adjusted $69 million their first weekends, respectively.

Yup -- see Adam Sandler's career. Even before Pixels' flop, he'd contracted to have his next 4 movies (including the much-criticized "Ridiculous Six") to be Direct-to-Netflix. Wesley Snipes had his Direct-to-Video period, but that was directly due to his tax evasion troubles. Stallone's the more interesting one, with three direct-to-video flicks in a row between "Driven" and "Spy Kids 3." Both of these actors would have likely gone Direct-to-Netflix today, and we'll see such moves resuscitate the careers of more than a few flailing stars going forward.

Thank you -- that was brilliant. However, it missed Big Hero Six, which also had the Marvel banner (& was a Marvel/Disney production).

1) Days of Future Past had the Marvel banner too. 2) The general public doesn't care whether it's Disney/MCU. It's still a Marvel Comics film. As long as it washes the bad taste of FF1 & FF2 out of my mouth, I'm good. Still weird to think that FF1 did as well as the first X-Men film given the marked difference in quality.

I don't think any of the three released FF films has been good. Sure -- let's take away Roger Corman's debacle, but I didn't particularly like FF 1 & I _hated_ FF 2 -- thought the only good parts were some scenes with Chris Evans & the first intro / chase with the Silver Surfer. Given that, and my profound belief that FF just won't translate well to film no matter who produces it, I'm ready to give this totally new take a shot. After the last two, I think they've got nowhere to go but up. Predict opening weekend of $48-$50 million.

Yeah -- Hard to see how it's not a disappointment for Marvel. Here's the box office mojo rankings for "Marvel, Phase 2" movies in terms of total (all-time domestic) 7-day gross: Iron Man 3 -- # 9 Thor 2 -- # 66 Cap 2 -- # 60 Guardians -- # 48 Ant-Man -- # 148 The reality is, we minority of intense comic book fanboys don't count. Example -- folks hated on Iron Man 3 for the Mandarin twist (which I, for one, _loved_) and yet it still made $175 million domestic on its opening weekend & went on to more than $400 million domestic. That Ant-Man started with comparisons to Thor 2 and now has been downgraded to box office comparisons to the Incredible Hulk (sans 3-D) & The Wolverine is not good. Yes, it's doing better than Green Lantern, having already passed GL's total gross, but my takeaway is these lesser-known hero flicks (i.e., Black Panther, Ms. Marvel) need to cost more like $90-110 million to do well.

I wonder if folks would hate on it less if it were actually called "Ultimate Fantastic Four?"

But so far it _is_ Incredible Hulk bad in terms of numbers. The films are precisely tied for inflation-adjusted domestic grosses after 15 days of release. Hulk had a harsher drop its second weekend but it also started higher, opening to $70 million in 2015 dollars vs. Ant-Man's $57 million.

Absolutely! My point was rather that (as I predicted), MI:5 is going to far outstrip the $40 million opening expectations. And by that rubric, a reminder that Ant-Man's doing far worse than The Incredible Hulk. Both movies are now tied at $109 domestic after 15 days (in equivalent 2008 dollars), but Hulk didn't have the 3-D ticket price bump. So many fewer folks have gone to see it. If anything, you can't compare the international grosses of those two films (or frankly, any 2015 films to ones produced prior to 2010) because the number of international screens has increased a ton as new territories (particularly in Asia) have opened up to the US market.

The previous installments didn't do significantly better than $40 million, so it's a safe conservative call, the type you've got to make with so much money on the line. Part 1 made $45 million, 2 made $58 million, 3 made $48 million, and 4 made $13 million. Part 4 had a very limited release and probably would have made 55 to 60 million if released widely. Here's the Box Office Mojo list of Impossible Mission films that shows opening weekend performance: http://www.boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=mission%20impossible Looks like MI: 5 did $20 million on Friday alone (counting $4 million from Thursday night). That + the rave reviews = it's gonna' do a lot better than $40 million this weekend.

I like both Miles Teller & Michael B. Jordan. That Awkward Moment showed they had good chemistry together. Teller's an arrogant in interviews, but it's deserved, as he was phenomenal in Whiplash last year. And I liked Jordan in The Wire, Friday Night Lights and Fruitvale Station. Don't get the hate about him, really. He's paid his dues with consistent good work over more than a decade, which is more than I can say for most new Hollywood it kids. Anthony Mackie did too. Folks remember that he got hot after The Hurt Locker, not that he got his start years earlier as the nemesis in Eminem's movie 8 Mile.

I think it's interesting that so much of this is perception colored by expectations. For instance, MI:5 is getting rave reviews & yet the studio is only "expecting" it to do $40 million this weekend, which it will almost certainly surpass by a wide margin. Meanwhile, Ant-Man was seen, at best, as a sobering reality check for Marvel Studios after it fell short of its $60-$65 million expectation. I think Paramount's playing it very safe by calling for MI:5 to have such a modest opening for what could be a decent action blockbuster. But calling for it to do fully 30% less than Ant-Man strikes me as odd.

Regardless of the official spin, I believe the Deadline article that says Trank was fired from the new Star Wars film due to his "erratic" behavior on FF. It claimed that FF writer/producer Simon Kinberg basically had to step in to save the FF film during editing, and then warned Kathleen Kennedy at Disney not to rely on this guy for a Star Wars anthology film (which Kinberg is also writing & producing). It's bad news when the screenwriter (who has a proven record of success & thus, clout) revolts against the director. Either way, I won't blame Trank for the writing or "changes" to the FF, as Kinberg is a solid writer, as is Mark Millar -- if anything, it was their decision to go the Ultimate FF route, not Trank's.

Check the 2008 listing on this Wikipedia page on "Movies based on Marvel characters." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_based_on_Marvel_Comics It notes that three Marvel Studios were produced that year (Iron Man, Incredible Hulk & Punisher: War Zone), although all were distributed by different studios. Notably, both Punisher: War Zone and (later) Ghost Rider: Spirits of Vengeance, while both Marvel Studio films -- were released under the "Marvel Knights" banner, thus are not considered part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Ghost Rider: Spirits of Vengeance is interesting in that it was co-produced by Disney/Marvel, whereas the first Ghost Rider film was strictly Columbia Pictures. This indicates there was at least a partial rights reversion in the interim & bodes well for Ghost Rider appearing in future Netflix productions like Daredevil. Also notable is that Disney/Marvel has since bought the continued distribution rights for its early phase 1 films, including Iron Man, Incredible Hulk, Captain America, etc. So it's simply taken time for Disney's Marvel Studios to grow to the point where they could both produce & distribute their own IP, whereas for much of Phase 1 they needed to co-finance with other studios (via distribution deals).

Huh? Yes -- _of course_ Warner Bros. owns Green Lantern. But they wouldn't list it among the 10 announced films they have green lit unless they thought it (as opposed to other, cheaper options, a la Suicide Squad) could make money. If anything, Cyborg looks like the weak link among DC's announced movies, not Green Lantern. And no -- GL doesn't "have nowhere else to go" -- as proven by the Marvel situation, DC could just as easily license out their own properties to other studios for production or distribution. As many here have argued, Punisher War Zone should be disavowed & not be considered a true Marvel Studios film (which it is) simply because it was distributed by Lionsgate. That logic fails because many early Marvel Studios films were distributed by Paramount (incl. Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor, & Captain America), Incredible Hulk was distributed by Universal.