Mr. Hog Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 That's the point right... They keep making money despite reviews, so why change their 'creative' process. It grossed $331 WW in 2005 and only got a 27% approval rating. It made $231M WW!!! Why would they care... It made enough that they created another horrible movie with the same actors in 2007 - only breaking even domestically, but grossed nearly $280M WW, netting what? $158M? Come on, the studio didn't make anywhere near those amounts, and when theater take, currency adjustment, film and distribution expenses, promotion, advertising, etc. are taken into account, I seriously doubt they make more than $100 total, on both movies, in net profit. If you see a WW box office total, take approximately 55% of it as take-home by the studio, then subtract production budget, advertising budget and distro/film copies, etc. Probably about $70 million on FF1 and maybe $20 million on FF2 in net take-home profit. And then that $90 million in real money gets put through the HW accounting machine and it comes out as a massive loss. At the end of the day, they did well enough in 2005, to spin the wheel in 2007 with the same cast. It was either insanity, or money. I'll give you the redactions for expenses... That said, I guess, why wouldn't they actually attempt to leverage the license to its fullest? That 27% approval number is horrible... And yet they still trudged forward with a 30% higher budget for the second one. Wait five years, rinse / repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sckao Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Did some prankster change the Wikipedia entry from Von Doom to Van Damme? (or is that his real name in the Ultimate Universe? ) Shades of Jean Claude Van Damme! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_collector Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Because the first movie made them $80 million in pure profit, but the second one made almost nothing, which is why they're retooling it for the Twilight crowd. And this is a really stupid plan, because virtually all the glut of Twilight clones have tanked at the box office. There was a great article about this recently and I couldn't believe the sheer number of YA movies and novel adaptions that absolutely died at the box office - some were gone so fast (although they had big budgets and stars) that I didn't even know they were released. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sckao Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Turns out to be his name... Brian Michael Bendis and Mark Millar (#1–6) are bad men... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miraclemet Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 ITellar had strong reviews from his role in The Spectacular Now, and combined with Mara and Jordan we may see some decent/good acting in the movie IF the -script is decent enough. The point is, that by casting these young adults (not Mara) as the FF, it's clear they're going to the Twilight/teen-angst angle, and are not remotely interested in making a quality movie. There will be a lot of soulful stares, angry love triangles, I'm-in-lust-confrontations, and the obligatory "Why can't I get the girl!!" whining by Ben Grimm. You keep citing Twilight/teen-angst angle... but a young cast doesnt mean a bad movie. The X-men First Class movie had plenty of younger faces, were they going for the Twilight/teen-angst dreck? No they made a good movie, had a good -script and cast good actors. Smallville the TV show went with a teen cast, and it went for a decade (it had its highs and lows as most TV shows do, but I think you could call it overall a success), same for Arrow. so unless you have some specifics.... (oh and Josh Trank the director had success with a younger cast in Chronicle, a decent first outing for a movie director, and he's young too, wouldnt it make sense to have a cast and director that can be successful together?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wally's Comics Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I'm so tired of this Ultimate BS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
miraclemet Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Also here are the "young" cast Kate Mara... 30 (next week) Miles Teller...27 Michael B. Jordan...27 Jamie Bell...27 not exactly teenagers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Namor Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 If they made a true to origin movie with a cast that was age correct, it would not be that successful and we would still complain (which already happened!) The Incredibles was a family friendly super hero movie roughly based on those 1960's super hero stories and more closely resembling the FF in structure. Big success. THE FF would be better as a Pixar movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Namor Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Have you guys read Ultimate FF? This sounds more like that... From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Fantastic_Four Millar completely rewrote the origin for the protagonists because he was not satisfied with the original 1961 story...[cut for length] In their version, Millar and Bendis wrote a story in which Reed Richards is a child prodigy, protected by his burly friend Ben Grimm from bullies, and a genius who had invented a method of teleportation in his youth. He is discovered by government official Willie Lumpkin, and subsequently recruited into a child prodigy think tank/school located in the upper floors of the Baxter building. There he meets Professor Storm, who leads the project, and his children, bioengineer Susan Storm and her younger brother Johnny. Reed also becomes the rival of Victor Van Damme, a fellow student. When Reed becomes 21, he plans to teleport an apple into a parallel universe (the "N-Zone"), but Van Damme claims Reed's calculations are wrong and changes the setup at the last minute. The five students get teleported through the N-Zone, and when they rematerialize, they return heavily mutated. After the Fantastic Four return to the Baxter building, they must soon face their first opponent, Mole Man. SPOILER ALERT, JEEZ! I have the first 30 issues sitting in a stack waiting to be read, guess I can skip 1-6 now... :: -slym ( ) He did you a favor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carguy8022 Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Well at least it looks like us Fantastic Four collectors won't have to worry about movie hype putting some books even more out of range... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComicConnoisseur Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Did some prankster change the Wikipedia entry from Von Doom to Van Damme? (or is that his real name in the Ultimate Universe? ) Shades of Jean Claude Van Damme! Did he get a face job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crimebuster Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 I certainly hope it is not based on Ultimate Fantastic Four. Bendis and Millar together? The two worst writers of the modern age? My god. Just... I can't even. On the plus side, this would be a case where the movie would have to be better than the source material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComicConnoisseur Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 The PCification of our beloved comic book heroes has commenced. and it sucks. Enough is enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComicConnoisseur Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 When are we going to realize that these movies are not being made for us? Come on, you fanboys were ( and still are) angry over X-Men 3 (a pretty good action movie) because of some changes (Juggernaut being a mutant, Dark Phoenix, etc.) that make these look like a drop in the bucket. I've tried not to harp on this kind of stuff too much, and just take the movies as-is, but this is purely a Twilight/young adult retcon that will end badly. Like really, really badly, as adults will stay home and the tweens/kids will smell this scam a mile away. Agreed. This movie will bomb big time. It will do worst box office then the last two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Namor Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 ITellar had strong reviews from his role in The Spectacular Now, and combined with Mara and Jordan we may see some decent/good acting in the movie IF the -script is decent enough. The point is, that by casting these young adults (not Mara) as the FF, it's clear they're going to the Twilight/teen-angst angle, and are not remotely interested in making a quality movie. There will be a lot of soulful stares, angry love triangles, I'm-in-lust-confrontations, and the obligatory "Why can't I get the girl!!" whining by Ben Grimm. You keep citing Twilight/teen-angst angle... but a young cast doesnt mean a bad movie. Unless they add some quality talent, it might.... The X-men First Class movie had plenty of younger faces, were they going for the Twilight/teen-angst dreck? No they made a good movie, had a good -script and cast good actors. Without Fassbender that's a very average movie. Jennifer Lawrence is a breakout young star, but she was still surrounded by pros in that movie. Smallville the TV show went with a teen cast, and it went for a decade (it had its highs and lows as most TV shows do, but I think you could call it overall a success), same for Arrow. Free TV and getting people to go to the movies is two different things. Personally, I think there's a reason Vampire Diaries (primarily young Twilighty type cast) is on free TV and True Blood (with a more experienced cast) can thrive on a pay channel. People are willing to pay for a higher quality performance. (oh and Josh Trank the director had success with a younger cast in Chronicle, a decent first outing for a movie director, and he's young too, wouldnt it make sense to have a cast and director that can be successful together?) $12 million budget for Chronicle... The movie did $64 million here and another $60 million in overseas. It's only a success because it cost next to nothing to make in Hollywood terms. This movie is going to have a $200 million + budget... Personally I liked that movie. Thought it was great. But if this FF movie does $64 million, it'll be the greatest superhero bomb of all time. Realistically, at this point, after the first two FF debacles, they'd be better off calling this a NEW TEAM of super heroes and coming up with a new name and having a comic, etc. Calling it Fantastic Four and thinking we're all dumb enough to go see a Twilight type cast might be a big mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ComicConnoisseur Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 (edited) Have you guys read Ultimate FF? This sounds more like that... From Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_Fantastic_Four Millar completely rewrote the origin for the protagonists because he was not satisfied with the original 1961 story...[cut for length] In their version, Millar and Bendis wrote a story in which Reed Richards is a child prodigy, protected by his burly friend Ben Grimm from bullies, and a genius who had invented a method of teleportation in his youth. He is discovered by government official Willie Lumpkin, and subsequently recruited into a child prodigy think tank/school located in the upper floors of the Baxter building. There he meets Professor Storm, who leads the project, and his children, bioengineer Susan Storm and her younger brother Johnny. Reed also becomes the rival of Victor Van Damme, a fellow student. When Reed becomes 21, he plans to teleport an apple into a parallel universe (the "N-Zone"), but Van Damme claims Reed's calculations are wrong and changes the setup at the last minute. The five students get teleported through the N-Zone, and when they rematerialize, they return heavily mutated. After the Fantastic Four return to the Baxter building, they must soon face their first opponent, Mole Man. I think the reason why they are going the Ultimate way is because they don`t want to pay any of the Kirby heirs. Think this is not the Kirby origin. Kind of like how the Batman and Superman movies are now called Dark Knight and The Man of Steel now. Pure genius thought up by lawyers to protect Marvel and DC from getting sued by future heirs. Edited February 20, 2014 by ComicConnoisseur Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wally's Comics Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 well I guess I can look at the bright side, I see deals on an nice FF 1 in the future and I need one for my set. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_collector Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 The X-men First Class movie had plenty of younger faces, were they going for the Twilight/teen-angst dreck? No they made a good movie, had a good -script and cast good actors. Wow, did you even see the movie? Main Stars/Roles: Michael Fassbender - Magneto - age 37 Kevin Bacon - Sebastian Shaw - age 56 James McAvoy - Prof. X - age 35 These three actors had the primary roles, and along with (January Jones - White Queen - age 36) provided the basic plotline - Magneto was the clear star of the movie and Shaw was the main villain, while the producers smartly allowed the younger actors to play co-starring roles as neophyte X-Men. The FF casting is totally different, and it's the younger actors with 3 of the 4 main roles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe_collector Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Without Fassbender that's a very average movie. Jennifer Lawrence is a breakout young star, but she was still surrounded by pros in that movie. Exactly, I don't know what movie he watched, but Fassbender and Bacon comprised the majority of the X-men First Class, and then you add in McAvoy and Jones for another 1/4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GACollectibles Posted February 20, 2014 Share Posted February 20, 2014 Free TV and getting people to go to the movies is two different things. Personally, I think there's a reason Vampire Diaries (primarily young Twilighty type cast) is on free TV and True Blood (with a more experienced cast) can thrive on a pay channel. People are willing to pay for a higher quality performance. Huh, I thought we were paying for the nakeditity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
