Prince Namor Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I'm always fascinated how non marvel/Disney movies are picked apart for any detail that isn't exactly as the comic but is understood/accepted when Marvel does it in their own movies Ant-man movie - focusing on Scott Lang and not Hank Pym age of ultron - ultron created by Tony Stark The exception is probably the Mandarin cause there was no way to defend that +1 Agreed, very insulting to fans. However, I'm not entirely convinced we won't be thrown a curveball with a surprise appearance from the real Mandarin in any of the upcoming films, if not a truly surprising Iron Man 4 reveal. Unpopular Random opinion alert. I haven't read a lot of Iron Man, don't know much about the Mandarin. But I did enjoy the Mandarin in the young Iron Man cartoon tv show (can't remember what its called). BUT in Iron Man 3, I surprisingly LOVED the Mandarin twist. I thought it was funny and smart, a very lighthearted tongue-in-cheek 'suck it fanboys!' moment (which for this purpose wasn't me!). Yeah it didn't bother me either. And I liked IM3 as much as the first IM and certainly more than IM2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Comicopolis Posted July 16, 2015 Share Posted July 16, 2015 I'm always fascinated how non marvel/Disney movies are picked apart for any detail that isn't exactly as the comic but is understood/accepted when Marvel does it in their own movies Ant-man movie - focusing on Scott Lang and not Hank Pym age of ultron - ultron created by Tony Stark The exception is probably the Mandarin cause there was no way to defend that +1 Agreed, very insulting to fans. However, I'm not entirely convinced we won't be thrown a curveball with a surprise appearance from the real Mandarin in any of the upcoming films, if not a truly surprising Iron Man 4 reveal. Unpopular Random opinion alert. I haven't read a lot of Iron Man, don't know much about the Mandarin. But I did enjoy the Mandarin in the young Iron Man cartoon tv show (can't remember what its called). BUT in Iron Man 3, I surprisingly LOVED the Mandarin twist. I thought it was funny and smart, a very lighthearted tongue-in-cheek 'suck it fanboys!' moment (which for this purpose wasn't me!). Yeah it didn't bother me either. And I liked IM3 as much as the first IM and certainly more than IM2. (thumbs u Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted July 16, 2015 Author Share Posted July 16, 2015 A new featurette has been released for Josh Trank's upcoming Fantastic Four reboot which includes some cool new snippets of footage from the movie along with interviews with the cast as they discuss their respective character's reactions to becoming superheroes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VintageComics Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Exactly! It seems that people have already made their judgements, rightly or wrongly, about this movie before they have even seen it. Some people (like me) have a knack for picking 'em before they get out of the gate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WernerVonDoom Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 I'm always fascinated how non marvel/Disney movies are picked apart for any detail that isn't exactly as the comic but is understood/accepted when Marvel does it in their own movies Ant-man movie - focusing on Scott Lang and not Hank Pym age of ultron - ultron created by Tony Stark The exception is probably the Mandarin cause there was no way to defend that People are picking those apart, but those facts seem to not be dwelled on for too long, and I think it's because there's enough other stuff going on for those movies to defend such changes. And both changes were made for very specific reasons. 1) Hank Pym wasn't introduced because Marvel Studios had no reason to believe Ant-Man would do well for movie audiences until after seeing the combination of Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America (at a minimum) do well. BUT, Hank Pym is undeniably important in the formation of the Avengers, so they are forced to retroactively include him in the backstory (and us common folk will find out exactly how in the next two days!) 2) See above; Hank Pym isn't a major player yet, but Ultron needs to be, so it's natural to turn to the next top scientific minds as creators: Banner and Stark. PLUS, Stark's motivations developed since Iron Man 1 make logical sense when considering the leadup to Ultron's creation. Those are minor compared to how the Avengers were formed in the first place. SHIELD didn't form the Avengers via some initiative, the Avengers got together without SHIELD's involvement. Tony Stark footed the bill for the Avengers. Jarvis was Tony Stark's butler, not a computer. The Avengers found Captain America's frozen body, not SHIELD. My biggest problem with the MCU has to do with SHIELD being the driver behind all of it. Apparently, the Marvel cinematic superheroes wouldn't be able to function without handlers. And Marvel has gone to great lengths to align the current comics with the movies. We have people complaining about using UFF as the source for the FF movie, look what Marvel did to the Avengers. Read the first 200+ issues of Avengers and show me how what we are seeing in the movies has anything to do with the comics. Everyone has different tolerances what they'll put up with in a movie, but I think what has many people upset with Trank's FF is that the core personalities/concepts of the characters are changed. In Avengers, Thor is still Thor, Hulk is Hulk, etc. Most people can put up with background detail changes to make the movie better or make more sense. I'd have preferred to have seen Banner get hit with a gamma bomb saving Rick Jones, but zapping him in a lab is ok, as long as he turns into the Hulk we all know. The FF is not the FF in any way shape or form - they went the Ultimate route and it was a big mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvelfangirl Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Hey Bosco. How much money does the FF reboot needs make on opening weekend to classify as a hit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted July 17, 2015 Author Share Posted July 17, 2015 Page 73 Here is what this version of Fantastic Four needs to do in order to achieve or exceed the 2.5X revenue ratio. Not even $400 MM, assuming from Fox's common budget trend with these superhero movies ($100 MM to $200 MM). If Fox invested more than $160 MM in this movie, it only makes the final box office target that much higher. If the budget was $160 MM, all this movie has to achieve worldwide is $395 MM. I think it will do $450 MM or better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marvelfangirl Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Thanks Bosco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Artboy99 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Don't let that last trailer sucker you in. Just remember this one when you are deciding on whether to go: "Your parents, teachers, all told you one way to be, you ignored them." The FF are parents! And started a school! ARRGH!! It really doesn't matter what the final product is like, it's a slap in the face to FF fans. Please don't reward Fox and Trank with your money. That is the absolute worst trailer and doesn't make me want to see the film at all. I am not sure what the target demographic of that trailer is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Namor Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Page 73 Here is what this version of Fantastic Four needs to do in order to achieve or exceed the 2.5X revenue ratio. Not even $400 MM, assuming from Fox's common budget trend with these superhero movies ($100 MM to $200 MM). If Fox invested more than $160 MM in this movie, it only makes the final box office target that much higher. If the budget was $160 MM, all this movie has to achieve worldwide is $395 MM. I think it will do $450 MM or better. That budget estimate was originally posted on Wikipedia and was listed before all of the reshoots and the ramped up advertising campaign. There's no way this movie is still a $160MIL budget. In fact, NOW Wkikpedia is saying the budget is $122MIL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted July 17, 2015 Author Share Posted July 17, 2015 Page 73 Here is what this version of Fantastic Four needs to do in order to achieve or exceed the 2.5X revenue ratio. Not even $400 MM, assuming from Fox's common budget trend with these superhero movies ($100 MM to $200 MM). If Fox invested more than $160 MM in this movie, it only makes the final box office target that much higher. If the budget was $160 MM, all this movie has to achieve worldwide is $395 MM. I think it will do $450 MM or better. That budget estimate was originally posted on Wikipedia and was listed before all of the reshoots and the ramped up advertising campaign. There's no way this movie is still a $160MIL budget. In fact, NOW Wkikpedia is saying the budget is $122MIL! That budget estimate was actually my assessment based on the run of Fox movies produced over the years. So if someone else used the same number, sounds like they were putting some research into their numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted July 17, 2015 Author Share Posted July 17, 2015 Page 73 I would be absolutely shocked if this movie, even in an expanded Foreign market - could do 600M worldwide..... Fantastic Four is not the X-Men, and the X-Men: Days of Future Past is the only real breakthrough foreign money comic book movie for Fox Studios... My guess is this movie is, based on what I've seen so far, a $150M domestic at best if it's lucky based upon the name alone. If they're lucky. So far, this has bust written all over it. That means it'd have to do 450M foreign, putting it in the X-Men DOFP (the only comic book Fox movie to break that total). No way I'd make that bet. We shall see. The safer bet is probably $400 MM worldwide, depending on how Fox attempts to market this in the international market. You are correct in that only X-Men: DoFP has exceeded $400 MM in the international market. But even if they can pull off The Wolverine numbers on the same production budget, it would be a success. Even the 2005 FF movie was a financial success, breaking the 2.5X barrier and leading to a sequel. But it was the lower budget that helped it get there. What is the 2015 FF's budget? Here is what this version of Fantastic Four needs to do in order to achieve or exceed the 2.5X revenue ratio. Not even $400 MM, assuming from Fox's common budget trend with these superhero movies ($100 MM to $200 MM). If Fox invested more than $160 MM in this movie, it only makes the final box office target that much higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Namor Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 If that movie does $150MIL domestic and $300MIL foreign (reaching your $450MIL guesstimate), Fox won't make a sequel. That formula is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr 9.8 Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 If that movie does $150MIL domestic and $300MIL foreign (reaching your $450MIL guesstimate), Fox won't make a sequel. That formula is flawed. I think $150mil domestic is optimistic at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted July 17, 2015 Author Share Posted July 17, 2015 If that movie does $150MIL domestic and $300MIL foreign (reaching your $450MIL guesstimate), Fox won't make a sequel. That formula is flawed. Uh-huh. Meanwhile, it will all come down to how much did it cost the studio to make, market and distribute this movie, and how much did it make above those expenses. Since the studio has already committed to a Fantastic Four 2, it would appear they realize this already it may not take much to make the first move profitable. Especially if Fox followed its recent expense path of $100-$200 MM superhero movie budgets. Time will tell what reality is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Namor Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 If that movie does $150MIL domestic and $300MIL foreign (reaching your $450MIL guesstimate), Fox won't make a sequel. That formula is flawed. Uh-huh. Meanwhile, it will all come down to how much did it cost the studio to make, market and distribute this movie, and how much did it make above those expenses. Since the studio has already committed to a Fantastic Four 2, it would appear they realize this already it may not take much to make the first move profitable. Especially if Fox followed its recent expense path of $100-$200 MM superhero movie budgets. Time will tell what reality is. If you remember, Sony had big plans for their Amazing Spider-man franchise going into the 2nd movie. Next would be Sinister Six and then Venom, and yadda yadda yadda... all of that was laid out BEFORE ASM2 came out, as a way to say, "See! We're 100% committed to this movie and we think it'll do well!" Didn't work out that way. Even though based on your statistical formula, that movie came out a winner. Don't take that personal. The work you've done on those charts it is much appreciated by everyone here, myself included. I just think you need to factor in some kind of difference between the studio profitability of domestic vs foreign box office, so we can get a clear indicator of if a movie is successful or not on THEIR terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prince Namor Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 If that movie does $150MIL domestic and $300MIL foreign (reaching your $450MIL guesstimate), Fox won't make a sequel. That formula is flawed. I think $150mil domestic is optimistic at this point. I do too, though it'll probably have it's best showing of all the FF movies in foreign box office because of how much that market has grown since FF2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted July 17, 2015 Author Share Posted July 17, 2015 Even though based on your statistical formula, that movie came out a winner. Don't take that personal. The work you've done on those charts it is much appreciated by everyone here, myself included. I just think you need to factor in some kind of difference between the studio profitability of domestic vs foreign box office, so we can get a clear indicator of if a movie is successful or not on THEIR terms. No offense taken at all. Hollywood economics is such there are hidden expenses or claimed salaries that makes it a nightmare to realize reality. I'd hate to regulate that industry. But on the ASM2 showing up as a winner in my analytics, that wasn't the case. You may have looked at something else posted. DC and Marvel movie results: 1978-2014 It is turning out to be a fantastic Marvel year, even though ASM 2 performed so horribly. ASM2 didn't even break the 2.5X target to safely claim it covered all production, marketing and profit-sharing expenses. And the analysis had to be done on an estimated budget number because Sony never revealed what the true cost was. Even the hackers never revealed this. I'd love to know what that real number is, as it would be very telling how poorly this movie really performed. Though Sony cutting a deal with Marvel to jointly produce a movie is most probably all that needs to be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjrjr Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 (edited) I'm always fascinated how non marvel/Disney movies are picked apart for any detail that isn't exactly as the comic but is understood/accepted when Marvel does it in their own movies Ant-man movie - focusing on Scott Lang and not Hank Pym age of ultron - ultron created by Tony Stark The exception is probably the Mandarin cause there was no way to defend that People are picking those apart, but those facts seem to not be dwelled on for too long, and I think it's because there's enough other stuff going on for those movies to defend such changes. And both changes were made for very specific reasons. 1) Hank Pym wasn't introduced because Marvel Studios had no reason to believe Ant-Man would do well for movie audiences until after seeing the combination of Iron Man, Thor, and Captain America (at a minimum) do well. BUT, Hank Pym is undeniably important in the formation of the Avengers, so they are forced to retroactively include him in the backstory (and us common folk will find out exactly how in the next two days!) 2) See above; Hank Pym isn't a major player yet, but Ultron needs to be, so it's natural to turn to the next top scientific minds as creators: Banner and Stark. PLUS, Stark's motivations developed since Iron Man 1 make logical sense when considering the leadup to Ultron's creation. Those are minor compared to how the Avengers were formed in the first place. SHIELD didn't form the Avengers via some initiative, the Avengers got together without SHIELD's involvement. Tony Stark footed the bill for the Avengers. Jarvis was Tony Stark's butler, not a computer. The Avengers found Captain America's frozen body, not SHIELD. My biggest problem with the MCU has to do with SHIELD being the driver behind all of it. Apparently, the Marvel cinematic superheroes wouldn't be able to function without handlers. And Marvel has gone to great lengths to align the current comics with the movies. We have people complaining about using UFF as the source for the FF movie, look what Marvel did to the Avengers. Read the first 200+ issues of Avengers and show me how what we are seeing in the movies has anything to do with the comics. Everyone has different tolerances what they'll put up with in a movie, but I think what has many people upset with Trank's FF is that the core personalities/concepts of the characters are changed. In Avengers, Thor is still Thor, Hulk is Hulk, etc. Most people can put up with background detail changes to make the movie better or make more sense. I'd have preferred to have seen Banner get hit with a gamma bomb saving Rick Jones, but zapping him in a lab is ok, as long as he turns into the Hulk we all know. The FF is not the FF in any way shape or form - they went the Ultimate route and it was a big mistake. I have to disagree: * Thor is Donald Blake. That is a huge part of Thor's character. * The personality of Tony Stark has more in common with the way Tony Stark acts today in the Marvel Universe and very little in common with the Tony Stark that existed in the 1960s, 70s, and 80s. * Hulk was not a "team" player until the Defenders comics in the 70s. Can anyone really see the Hulk of the 60s sticking around permanently on any team? Fans are giving Marvel a pass on these big changes, but holding Fox to a completely different standard. Edited July 17, 2015 by rjrjr Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VintageComics Posted July 17, 2015 Share Posted July 17, 2015 Fans are giving Marvel a pass on these big changes, but holding Fox to a completely different standard. There's a reason for that. Marvel has been knocking it out of the park. In the beginning people were up in arms about the changes Marvel made. Fans were 'tearing their garments' in protest. Marvel has won people's trust but putting together a cohesive universe with a strong vision. Fox is hit and miss and people are overly critical of characters they have an emotional attachment with when they don't trust the owners of the franchise. Fox has had a few hits and a few misses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
