Fantastic Four from Fox Studios (8/7/15) 1 1

[Mr 9.8]

Has this been posted yet?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/07/02/fantastic-four-gets-light-tv-spots-to-balance-dark-trailers/

 

'"Fantastic Four' Gets Light TV Spots To Balance Dark Trailers"

[Bosco685]

Has this been posted yet?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/07/02/fantastic-four-gets-light-tv-spots-to-balance-dark-trailers/

 

'"Fantastic Four' Gets Light TV Spots To Balance Dark Trailers"

 

I don't think this was posted yet.

 

The television spots for The Dark Knight somewhat emphasized thrilling adventure and periodic amusement while The Dark Knight Rises TV spots put an emphasis on humor over grim class warfare. Same goes with the Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 campaign and a number of the other Marvel movies (as recently as Avengers: Age of Ultron), where the trailers promised emotional pathos and darkness while the TV spots sold gee-wiz adventure and high comedy.

 

It looks like what the Fortune.com author was going after was what has become a common pattern across Marvel Studios, Warner/DC and other studios when it comes to superhero, adventure and action films. He was saving up all his frustration with their marketing common pattern, and wanted to point this out as part of reviewing the Fantastic Four TV spots and trailers.

 

So while it’s unfortunate that the last four Fantastic Four spots are almost aggressively “this will be fun and hip and cool” in their sell, they do fit into a specific and established sub-genre of TV spot in the realm of big budget fantasy adventure movies. Anyway, that is something that has been on my mind for a while, and this gave me a chance to talk about it. It will be interesting to see what tone the majority of the commercials take from here-on-out, as if history is any indication we’ve probably got another 15 or so of these to go.

 

So not something unique to just this movie. Glad you posted this as a general statement as the marketing approach that can impact our hobby as a whole.

 

[Prince Namor]

Has this been posted yet?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2015/07/02/fantastic-four-gets-light-tv-spots-to-balance-dark-trailers/

 

'"Fantastic Four' Gets Light TV Spots To Balance Dark Trailers"

 

I don't think this was posted yet.

 

The television spots for The Dark Knight somewhat emphasized thrilling adventure and periodic amusement while The Dark Knight Rises TV spots put an emphasis on humor over grim class warfare. Same goes with the Iron Man 2 and Iron Man 3 campaign and a number of the other Marvel movies (as recently as Avengers: Age of Ultron), where the trailers promised emotional pathos and darkness while the TV spots sold gee-wiz adventure and high comedy.

 

It looks like what the Fortune.com author was going after was what has become a common pattern across Marvel Studios, Warner/DC and other studios when it comes to superhero, adventure and action films. He was saving up all his frustration with their marketing common pattern, and wanted to point this out as part of reviewing the Fantastic Four TV spots and trailers.

 

So while it’s unfortunate that the last four Fantastic Four spots are almost aggressively “this will be fun and hip and cool” in their sell, they do fit into a specific and established sub-genre of TV spot in the realm of big budget fantasy adventure movies. Anyway, that is something that has been on my mind for a while, and this gave me a chance to talk about it. It will be interesting to see what tone the majority of the commercials take from here-on-out, as if history is any indication we’ve probably got another 15 or so of these to go.

 

So not something unique to just this movie. Glad you posted this as a general statement as the marketing approach that can impact our hobby as a whole.

 

 

BUT, in the case The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Avengers Age of Ultron, Iron Man 2, and Iron man 3, they all featured characters that were coming off a successful movie from the same star powered cast.

 

The marketing campaign for all of those movies was for a franchise that had already proven itself at the box office with a previous winner.

 

They're using that advertising campaign for an unknown franchise with very little star power. Big difference.

 

And, The TV spots for many intense action movies will have at the very least a bit of comic relief thrown in, this isn't anything new... These are seen in the family home in a more relaxed setting, so a light touch is seen as more welcoming.

 

Example.. Here's the first TV spot for Batman Begins

 

 

Sure, it has a sense of humor, but the action still ramped up and intense.

 

Now, Iron Man has a little more humor to it, but the action is still intense.

 

 

When the Fantastic Four can make a trailer that looks this much fun, this much action packed and this much cool, I'll consider going to see it.

 

To me, it has yet to do that.

[Bosco685]

BUT, in the case The Dark Knight, The Dark Knight Rises, Avengers Age of Ultron, Iron Man 2, and Iron man 3, they all featured characters that were coming off a successful movie from the same star powered cast.

 

The marketing campaign for all of those movies was for a franchise that had already proven itself at the box office with a previous winner.

 

They're using that advertising campaign for an unknown franchise with very little star power. Big difference.

 

And, The TV spots for many intense action movies will have at the very least a bit of comic relief thrown in, this isn't anything new... These are seen in the family home in a more relaxed setting, so a light touch is seen as more welcoming.

 

Example.. Here's the first TV spot for Batman Begins

 

 

Sure, it has a sense of humor, but the action still ramped up and intense.

 

Now, Iron Man has a little more humor to it, but the action is still intense.

 

 

When the Fantastic Four can make a trailer that looks this much fun, this much action packed and this much cool, I'll consider going to see it.

 

To me, it has yet to do that.

 

In the case of Batman Begins, this was taking a key character and rebuilding a franchise that had been tossed to the wind. The first two trailers which came out before TV Spot #1 start off dark, foreboding and full of fights and action. But to the studio's credit, it played upon known actors in key roles.

 

 

 

Fantastic Four (2005) was a financial success, which we both realize why this led to a sequel. On a $100 MM budget it did $330.6 MM worldwide (3.3X revenue ratio). That exceeds the results of Captain America: The First Avenger, Iron Man 2 and Thor (2011) when it comes to budget-to-results. That's where Fox dropped the ball with a weak, confusing -script and misuse of a major villain such as Galactus. Shame on them for giving up the game like that.

 

So now Fox has to relaunch the franchise. But the approach taken involves up-and-coming actors and creative team. But they are not total unknowns. They have shown promise in other movies.

 

Will this movie tank? I don't know yet. We shall see. But it seems to attract more angst over the deviation from the original material. And I can understand on some of the changes why this would be the case (e.g. Doctor Doom as an internet blogger). I'm just not assuming the entire film is a bust yet.

 

 

[NewEnglandGothic]

Will this movie tank? I don't know yet. We shall see.

You have to admit the Associate Press, Variety and Box-Office Mojo have already written the headline "Trank Tanks" for it's opening weekend and critics have their "Not So Fantastic Four" tile ready for their reviews as well.

[Bosco685]

Will this movie tank? I don't know yet. We shall see.

You have to admit the Associate Press, Variety and Box-Office Mojo have already written the headline "Trank Tanks" for it's opening weekend and critics have their "Not So Fantastic Four" tile ready for their reviews as well.

 

I know there are definitely some Marvel-centric sites like comicbookmovie.com that regularly bash this production before it has even gone live. Here's an image from one of their regulars.

 

 

So it will not be surprising when it comes out that any misstep leads to a 'SEE - I TOLD YOU' post or two or one hundred. It's coming. Count on it.

Edited July 4, 2015 by Bosco685

[zosocane]

So it will not be surprising when it comes out that any misstep leads to a 'SEE - I TOLD YOU' post or two or one hundred. It's coming. Count on it.

 

+1.

[gaz2810i]

So it will not be surprising when it comes out that any misstep leads to a 'SEE - I TOLD YOU' post or two or one hundred. It's coming. Count on it.

 

+1.

 

At this stage, it would take the movie being the best superhero movie ever for some critics, sites, bloggers, keyboard warriors and CGC boardies to give it a break

[Prince Namor]

So it will not be surprising when it comes out that any misstep leads to a 'SEE - I TOLD YOU' post or two or one hundred. It's coming. Count on it.

 

+1.

 

At this stage, it would take the movie being the best superhero movie ever for some critics, sites, bloggers, keyboard warriors and CGC boardies to give it a break

 

Not really. It's financial success is tied to some pretty standard numbers.

 

If it does $30+MIL over it's budget, which after the reshoots and extra advertising has to be closer to $200MIL, and it gets a decent $350-$400MIL from the foreign box office, it would be considered a success. That'd be almost $600MIL worldwide, and would be seen as a financial success.

 

How people might feel about the story in the movie itself is a completely different thing. Some aren't going to like it because it's a re-creation of one of the two greatest 100 issue runs in comics history. Some might not like it because it turns out bad, or formulaic or 'insurgent-like' or whatever. There'll always be mixed feelings there.

 

But the financial success is pretty easy to tell.

[gaz2810i]

So it will not be surprising when it comes out that any misstep leads to a 'SEE - I TOLD YOU' post or two or one hundred. It's coming. Count on it.

 

+1.

 

At this stage, it would take the movie being the best superhero movie ever for some critics, sites, bloggers, keyboard warriors and CGC boardies to give it a break

 

Not really. It's financial success is tied to some pretty standard numbers.

 

If it does $30+MIL over it's budget, which after the reshoots and extra advertising has to be closer to $200MIL, and it gets a decent $350-$400MIL from the foreign box office, it would be considered a success. That'd be almost $600MIL worldwide, and would be seen as a financial success.

 

How people might feel about the story in the movie itself is a completely different thing. Some aren't going to like it because it's a re-creation of one of the two greatest 100 issue runs in comics history. Some might not like it because it turns out bad, or formulaic or 'insurgent-like' or whatever. There'll always be mixed feelings there.

 

But the financial success is pretty easy to tell.

 

You obviously didn't read the post that I responded too.

 

You seem to have an agenda, just like everyone else regards this movie, hence why you were so quick to point out the maths in its possibly financial failure (once again) even though that had nothing to do with Boscos and my posts.

[Chip Cataldo]

The 'agenda' is that this is the Fantastic Four that is being represented here. The bedrock that the Marvel Universe was built on. The house that Stan and Jack built.

 

I want it treated with MORE respect and attention to detail than all the other Marvel movies, because that's what it deserves. That's what its fans deserve.

 

Fox is using it like tweener toilet paper...that's obvious from what's been seen & is known so far. You don't have to have seen the finished film to see that.

Edited July 5, 2015 by Epic Peach

[NewEnglandGothic]

This is why I never watch trailers anymore.

[gaz2810i]

This is why I never watch trailers anymore.

 

YUP (thumbs u

[Prince Namor]

So it will not be surprising when it comes out that any misstep leads to a 'SEE - I TOLD YOU' post or two or one hundred. It's coming. Count on it.

 

+1.

 

At this stage, it would take the movie being the best superhero movie ever for some critics, sites, bloggers, keyboard warriors and CGC boardies to give it a break

 

Not really. It's financial success is tied to some pretty standard numbers.

 

If it does $30+MIL over it's budget, which after the reshoots and extra advertising has to be closer to $200MIL, and it gets a decent $350-$400MIL from the foreign box office, it would be considered a success. That'd be almost $600MIL worldwide, and would be seen as a financial success.

 

How people might feel about the story in the movie itself is a completely different thing. Some aren't going to like it because it's a re-creation of one of the two greatest 100 issue runs in comics history. Some might not like it because it turns out bad, or formulaic or 'insurgent-like' or whatever. There'll always be mixed feelings there.

 

But the financial success is pretty easy to tell.

 

You obviously didn't read the post that I responded too.

 

No, I very much read it, and I stand by what I said. Unless you believe there's some other way to gauge 'best superhero movie ever' other than by it's financial success. Anything else is just subjective.

 

You seem to have an agenda, just like everyone else regards this movie, hence why you were so quick to point out the maths in its possibly financial failure (once again) even though that had nothing to do with Boscos and my posts.

 

Agenda? What does that mean? I'm puzzled that you think my strong opinion's could bring down a juggernaut of a film production company like Fox Pictures, but I can assure you that regardless of what happens with this movie, it has nothing to do with what myself or anyone here thinks.

 

It'll succeed or fail based upon what hundreds of thousands of people decide in the period of time it's playing at the local theater, not what some knuckleheads are wasting their time cussing and discussing on the CGC forum.

 

I'm just pointing out what I think is a failure to produce a movie correctly based upon the way Superhero movies have been done correctly as of late. How many people are actually going to read this? Less than 100? I hardly think it'll make any difference in any way.

 

And what, Bosco doesn't point out financial numbers? Half this thread is about what makes a movie financially successful.

 

It may make you angry that people aren't happy about what is being done with this movie, but that isn't the fault of the people sharing those opinion's. They feel how they feel. You feel how you feel.

 

Fox has made their decision's and now they're going to have to live with it.

The only way to fairly judge if they were right is by the financial showing at the box office.

It doesn't mean it's a 'good' movie or not.

It just means the things we've been discussing up to this point "rewriting the concept - the type of trailers - the rumors" etc. turned people off to going or DIDN'T turn people off to going.

 

The people who hate it just because it's NOT the classic FF are never going to UN-hate it. No sense in even debating that.

 

Personally, I don't hate it for that, I just have less of a reason for wanting to see it. And everything they've done since then has made me want to see it even less. If it ever gets to a point that it DOES impress me, I'll take a chance and check it out. I prefer the classic FF, but I'm not 100% against the idea of doing a re-creation.

 

 

[NewEnglandGothic]

not what some knuckleheads are wasting their time cussing and discussing on the CGC forum.

money MonEy Money money MONEY Money

money money MONEY mONey

box-office mojo

money MONEY moNey money

MonEy Moola

box-office mojo

cheddar casherooni

mega-moola

Money money mOney moneY

 

[Bosco685]

[gaz2810i]

So it will not be surprising when it comes out that any misstep leads to a 'SEE - I TOLD YOU' post or two or one hundred. It's coming. Count on it.

 

+1.

 

At this stage, it would take the movie being the best superhero movie ever for some critics, sites, bloggers, keyboard warriors and CGC boardies to give it a break

 

Not really. It's financial success is tied to some pretty standard numbers.

 

If it does $30+MIL over it's budget, which after the reshoots and extra advertising has to be closer to $200MIL, and it gets a decent $350-$400MIL from the foreign box office, it would be considered a success. That'd be almost $600MIL worldwide, and would be seen as a financial success.

 

How people might feel about the story in the movie itself is a completely different thing. Some aren't going to like it because it's a re-creation of one of the two greatest 100 issue runs in comics history. Some might not like it because it turns out bad, or formulaic or 'insurgent-like' or whatever. There'll always be mixed feelings there.

 

But the financial success is pretty easy to tell.

 

You obviously didn't read the post that I responded too.

 

No, I very much read it, and I stand by what I said. Unless you believe there's some other way to gauge 'best superhero movie ever' other than by it's financial success. Anything else is just subjective.

 

You seem to have an agenda, just like everyone else regards this movie, hence why you were so quick to point out the maths in its possibly financial failure (once again) even though that had nothing to do with Boscos and my posts.

 

Agenda? What does that mean? I'm puzzled that you think my strong opinion's could bring down a juggernaut of a film production company like Fox Pictures, but I can assure you that regardless of what happens with this movie, it has nothing to do with what myself or anyone here thinks.

 

It'll succeed or fail based upon what hundreds of thousands of people decide in the period of time it's playing at the local theater, not what some knuckleheads are wasting their time cussing and discussing on the CGC forum.

 

I'm just pointing out what I think is a failure to produce a movie correctly based upon the way Superhero movies have been done correctly as of late. How many people are actually going to read this? Less than 100? I hardly think it'll make any difference in any way.

 

And what, Bosco doesn't point out financial numbers? Half this thread is about what makes a movie financially successful.

 

It may make you angry that people aren't happy about what is being done with this movie, but that isn't the fault of the people sharing those opinion's. They feel how they feel. You feel how you feel.

 

Fox has made their decision's and now they're going to have to live with it.

The only way to fairly judge if they were right is by the financial showing at the box office.

It doesn't mean it's a 'good' movie or not.

It just means the things we've been discussing up to this point "rewriting the concept - the type of trailers - the rumors" etc. turned people off to going or DIDN'T turn people off to going.

 

The people who hate it just because it's NOT the classic FF are never going to UN-hate it. No sense in even debating that.

 

Personally, I don't hate it for that, I just have less of a reason for wanting to see it. And everything they've done since then has made me want to see it even less. If it ever gets to a point that it DOES impress me, I'll take a chance and check it out. I prefer the classic FF, but I'm not 100% against the idea of doing a re-creation.

 

 

OK

[gaz2810i]

 

[Comicopolis]

[Comicopolis]