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

[Gatsby77]

 

But this one, Josh Trank's Fantastic Four... has been disrespectful of the source material and comics in general. So I won't support it.

 

Has nothing to do with CHANGE being made.

 

So then you have read Ultimate Fantastic Four?

 

The cast didn't have to read it, so neither should I.

 

Ultimate FF is the source material... You can't say it's disrespectful of the source material if you haven't read it.

 

 

The overall source, is of course, the original Fantastic Four. The Ultimate FF wouldn't exist without the Original. The Ultimate FF is based on the original FF.

 

It is a perverted version of the FF. Trank made a perverted version of a perverted version. Which makes him a insufficiently_thoughtful_person.

 

If somebody reads two chapters from some dingleberries interpretation of Lord of the Rings, and That's ALL, then decides to make a movie about it, tells the cast not to bother reading any of it, including the original source material, adds a bunch of characters not originally in it and the director's OWN interpretation of what little he had read - people would go ASB. The 'B' stands for Ballistic.

There'd be a mutiny.

 

Because literature is respected.

 

Comics aren't.

 

At least not by Trank.

 

And you could argue 'but it wasn't from the SOURCE material', but the way I see it: If Bilbo Baggins is in a story, I know what it should be based upon.

 

I feel the same way about Reed Richards.

 

 

First, it will have to work really hard to be worse than FF 2.

 

Second, what's wrong with using Ultimate FF as source material? The books were really good, and arguably the best thing to happen to FF since the Byrne run 20 years earlier.

 

Besides, we've already gotten Ultimate Nick Fury in the movies and that's worked out fine.

 

As others have said, I'll withhold judgment until seeing the actual movie, which looks like a fun popcorn flick -- and far better than the latest Terminator or Mission Impossible sequels.

[Bosco685]

A promotional billboard for Josh Trank's upcoming Fantastic Four reboot was spotted somewhere in downtown LA, and features Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm/the Human Torch doing his fiery thing.

 

[Bosco685]

Stan Lee Gives His Thoughts On Michael B. Jordan As The 'Human Torch' In FANTASTIC FOUR

 

“It was more than okay, I thought it was a great idea! They’re outraged not because of any personal prejudice. They’re outraged because they hate to see any change made on a series and characters they had gotten familiar with. In Spider-Man, when they got a new actor, that bothered them, even though it was a white actor. I don’t think it had to do with racial prejudice as much as they don’t like things changed.”

 

“But I think they’re gonna get to love this character. So I’m not the least bit worried about it. I always tried to pepper these groups with as much racial diversity as possible because that’s the way the world is.”

 

[TheLiamSturgess]

If Stan is being as honest as he appears to be, then I have huge respect for the man given the time period he did most of his work in.

[fantastic_four]

Stan Lee Gives His Thoughts On Michael B. Jordan As The 'Human Torch' In FANTASTIC FOUR

 

“It was more than okay, I thought it was a great idea! They’re outraged not because of any personal prejudice. They’re outraged because they hate to see any change made on a series and characters they had gotten familiar with. In Spider-Man, when they got a new actor, that bothered them, even though it was a white actor. I don’t think it had to do with racial prejudice as much as they don’t like things changed.”

 

“But I think they’re gonna get to love this character. So I’m not the least bit worried about it. I always tried to pepper these groups with as much racial diversity as possible because that’s the way the world is.”

 

Stan has always been like that, so his point of view on this was predictable. He said all the same things about Marvel's Ultimate universe changes as well. I'm not saying the movie won't stink, but if it does it won't be because of minor story changes like Johnny Storm being black, it'll mostly be because Fox hasn't figured out how to make superhero films yet.

[Gatsby77]

But that's not true, as shown by X-Men, X2, and First Class.

 

Fox hasn't figured out how to make _FF_ films yet, but as far as we know, neither has Disney.

 

It's a team that's inherently hard to do well in live action.

[Bosco685]

But that's not true, as shown by X-Men, X2, and First Class.

 

Fox hasn't figured out how to make _FF_ films yet, but as far as we know, neither has Disney.

 

It's a team that's inherently hard to do well in live action.

 

The first Fantastic Four movie was a financial success, making over three times budget which is why a sequel was approved.

 

 

And even with any 'low result' Fox movie, they did better than The Incredible Hulk's 1.8X results. Origins did just as well as Captain America: The First Avenger, and that movie was a missed opportunity throughout.

 

Fox have a $3.1 billion franchise that only cost it $1 billion to create is most probably why they won't let go of the X-Universe Franchise.

[WernerVonDoom]

 

But this one, Josh Trank's Fantastic Four... has been disrespectful of the source material and comics in general. So I won't support it.

 

Has nothing to do with CHANGE being made.

 

So then you have read Ultimate Fantastic Four?

 

The cast didn't have to read it, so neither should I.

 

Ultimate FF is the source material... You can't say it's disrespectful of the source material if you haven't read it.

 

 

The overall source, is of course, the original Fantastic Four. The Ultimate FF wouldn't exist without the Original. The Ultimate FF is based on the original FF.

 

It is a perverted version of the FF. Trank made a perverted version of a perverted version. Which makes him a insufficiently_thoughtful_person.

 

If somebody reads two chapters from some dingleberries interpretation of Lord of the Rings, and That's ALL, then decides to make a movie about it, tells the cast not to bother reading any of it, including the original source material, adds a bunch of characters not originally in it and the director's OWN interpretation of what little he had read - people would go ASB. The 'B' stands for Ballistic.

There'd be a mutiny.

 

Because literature is respected.

 

Comics aren't.

 

At least not by Trank.

 

And you could argue 'but it wasn't from the SOURCE material', but the way I see it: If Bilbo Baggins is in a story, I know what it should be based upon.

 

I feel the same way about Reed Richards.

 

 

First, it will have to work really hard to be worse than FF 2.

 

Second, what's wrong with using Ultimate FF as source material? The books were really good, and arguably the best thing to happen to FF since the Byrne run 20 years earlier.

 

Besides, we've already gotten Ultimate Nick Fury in the movies and that's worked out fine.

 

As others have said, I'll withhold judgment until seeing the actual movie, which looks like a fun popcorn flick -- and far better than the latest Terminator or Mission Impossible sequels.

 

Comparing Ultimate FF to Byrne FF is like comparing the 1978 Star Wars Holiday Special to Empire Strikes Back.

[Gatsby77]

I appreciate the box office numbers -- particularly because people around here have such an irrational anti-Fox bias -- but the financial success (or lack thereof) of some of those movies is in no way indicative of their quality.

 

Fact:

 

New Line (with the Blade franchise),

Fox (with X-Men & X2, as well as First Class & DOFP) and

Sony (with Spider-Man 1-2)

 

all made high-quality Marvel movies that paved the way for Disney's acquisition of Marvel and its subsequent universe building.

 

So this irrational "it will all be fixed if Disney just gets the rights back" nonsense is ridiculous. We wouldn't _have_ Disney Phase 1-3 if not for the high quality (and financially successful) Marvel films trailblazed by the other studios.

[revat]

But that's not true, as shown by X-Men, X2, and First Class.

 

Fox hasn't figured out how to make _FF_ films yet, but as far as we know, neither has Disney.

 

It's a team that's inherently hard to do well in live action.

 

The first Fantastic Four movie was a financial success, making over three times budget which is why a sequel was approved.

 

 

And even with any 'low result' Fox movie, they did better than The Incredible Hulk's 1.8X results. Origins did just as well as Captain America: The First Avenger, and that movie was a missed opportunity throughout.

 

Fox have a $3.1 billion franchise that only cost it $1 billion to create is most probably why they won't let go of the X-Universe Franchise.

 

I don't understand, you're saying this is all about money? That people make these movies to make money and not to cater to old fanboys preferred interpretations which retell stories from the 1960's? And that they keep doing it in order to make money, even though in some/many cases they're not putting out the best possible product?

 

But what about the 300 white dudes who are 60 years old who have been collecting Fantastic Four since the beginning? What if they don't come to see the movie??

 

 

 

I have no idea if the movie will be good, the trailers honestly haven't appealed to me that much. BUT I do think that Michael B Jordan takes his roles seriously, and probably wouldn't be in it just to be in it if he didn't like the -script.

[Bosco685]

I don't understand, you're saying this is all about money? That people make these movies to make money and not to cater to old fanboys preferred interpretations which retell stories from the 1960's? And that they keep doing it in order to make money, even though in some/many cases they're not putting out the best possible product?

 

But what about the 300 white dudes who are 60 years old who have been collecting Fantastic Four since the beginning? What if they don't come to see the movie??

 

I have no idea if the movie will be good, the trailers honestly haven't appealed to me that much. BUT I do think that Michael B Jordan takes his roles seriously, and probably wouldn't be in it just to be in it if he didn't like the -script.

 

 

You had me worried for a moment.

 

 

But I do agree with you. I think Michael B. Jordan really is trying to treat this role with respect.

[Bosco685]

Although in German, this has new footage I had not seen before.

 

 

There is a Doctor Doom piece where he drops down the hood, and you see him in mask. It actually doesn't look like a plastic mask now.

[zosocane]

Although in German, this has new footage I had not seen before.

 

 

There is a Doctor Doom piece where he drops down the hood, and you see him in mask. It actually doesn't look like a plastic mask now.

 

Maybe the best trailer I've seen for this Ultimate FF film with good music. Das ist gut.

[zosocane]

So this irrational "it will all be fixed if Disney just gets the rights back" nonsense is ridiculous. We wouldn't _have_ Disney Phase 1-3 if not for the high quality (and financially successful) Marvel films trailblazed by the other studios.

 

[revat]

Stan Lee Gives His Thoughts On Michael B. Jordan As The 'Human Torch' In FANTASTIC FOUR

 

It was more than okay, I thought it was a great idea! Theyre outraged not because of any personal prejudice. Theyre outraged because they hate to see any change made on a series and characters they had gotten familiar with. In Spider-Man, when they got a new actor, that bothered them, even though it was a white actor. I dont think it had to do with racial prejudice as much as they dont like things changed.

 

But I think theyre gonna get to love this character. So Im not the least bit worried about it. I always tried to pepper these groups with as much racial diversity as possible because thats the way the world is.

 

Stan has always been like that, so his point of view on this was predictable. He said all the same things about Marvel's Ultimate universe changes as well. I'm not saying the movie won't stink, but if it does it won't be because of minor story changes like Johnny Storm being black, it'll mostly be because Fox hasn't figured out how to make superhero films yet.

 

minor story change. the whole dynamic of the family has been changed. and thats more than totally changing the appearance of some of the characters

 

A major story change to the 305 people who know the actual history of the Fantastic Four AND are in the target demographic for who the movie is targeted towards. But to the rest of the world....they don't know or care. But there's a lot more people who think 'oh that kid from the wire and/or Friday night lights is in it? Maybe I'll give it a chance'. And a lot more black people who probably wouldn't have seen it but now will because Human Torch is a black guy.

[jimjum12]

Stan Lee Gives His Thoughts On Michael B. Jordan As The 'Human Torch' In FANTASTIC FOUR

 

It was more than okay, I thought it was a great idea! Theyre outraged not because of any personal prejudice. Theyre outraged because they hate to see any change made on a series and characters they had gotten familiar with. In Spider-Man, when they got a new actor, that bothered them, even though it was a white actor. I dont think it had to do with racial prejudice as much as they dont like things changed.

 

But I think theyre gonna get to love this character. So Im not the least bit worried about it. I always tried to pepper these groups with as much racial diversity as possible because thats the way the world is.

 

Stan has always been like that, so his point of view on this was predictable. He said all the same things about Marvel's Ultimate universe changes as well. I'm not saying the movie won't stink, but if it does it won't be because of minor story changes like Johnny Storm being black, it'll mostly be because Fox hasn't figured out how to make superhero films yet.

 

minor story change. the whole dynamic of the family has been changed. and thats more than totally changing the appearance of some of the characters

 

A major story change to the 305 people who know the actual history of the Fantastic Four AND are in the target demographic for who the movie is targeted towards. But to the rest of the world....they don't know or care. But there's a lot more people who think 'oh that kid from the wire and/or Friday night lights is in it? Maybe I'll give it a chance'. And a lot more black people who probably wouldn't have seen it but now will because Human Torch is a black guy.

 

.... I am one of those 300 ...... and you forgot to mention the pale legs in desperate need of sunlight. As for this movie...... I'm going to see it with an open mind, and will likely enjoy it for whatever it is. I've been reading the FF since the mid 60's...... and I don't care if they get turned into radioactive Smurfs.... my favorite super group of all time will get the benefit of the doubt from me. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[NewEnglandGothic]

[TheLiamSturgess]

Stan Lee Gives His Thoughts On Michael B. Jordan As The 'Human Torch' In FANTASTIC FOUR

 

It was more than okay, I thought it was a great idea! Theyre outraged not because of any personal prejudice. Theyre outraged because they hate to see any change made on a series and characters they had gotten familiar with. In Spider-Man, when they got a new actor, that bothered them, even though it was a white actor. I dont think it had to do with racial prejudice as much as they dont like things changed.

 

But I think theyre gonna get to love this character. So Im not the least bit worried about it. I always tried to pepper these groups with as much racial diversity as possible because thats the way the world is.

 

Stan has always been like that, so his point of view on this was predictable. He said all the same things about Marvel's Ultimate universe changes as well. I'm not saying the movie won't stink, but if it does it won't be because of minor story changes like Johnny Storm being black, it'll mostly be because Fox hasn't figured out how to make superhero films yet.

 

minor story change. the whole dynamic of the family has been changed. and thats more than totally changing the appearance of some of the characters

 

A major story change to the 305 people who know the actual history of the Fantastic Four AND are in the target demographic for who the movie is targeted towards. But to the rest of the world....they don't know or care. But there's a lot more people who think 'oh that kid from the wire and/or Friday night lights is in it? Maybe I'll give it a chance'. And a lot more black people who probably wouldn't have seen it but now will because Human Torch is a black guy.

 

.... I am one of those 300 ...... and you forgot to mention the pale legs in desperate need of sunlight. As for this movie...... I'm going to see it with an open mind, and will likely enjoy it for whatever it is. I've been reading the FF since the mid 60's...... and I don't care if they get turned into radioactive Smurfs.... my favorite super group of all time will get the benefit of the doubt from me. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

I'm in the 300 as well, but I don't think it's fair to say that the change in the Storm family is enough to sink the movie, as most people are condemning it to. It will be something else, such as poor writing, that does it. (thumbs u

[jaybuck43]

But that's not true, as shown by X-Men, X2, and First Class.

 

Fox hasn't figured out how to make _FF_ films yet, but as far as we know, neither has Disney.

 

It's a team that's inherently hard to do well in live action.

 

The first Fantastic Four movie was a financial success, making over three times budget which is why a sequel was approved.

 

 

And even with any 'low result' Fox movie, they did better than The Incredible Hulk's 1.8X results. Origins did just as well as Captain America: The First Avenger, and that movie was a missed opportunity throughout.

 

Fox have a $3.1 billion franchise that only cost it $1 billion to create is most probably why they won't let go of the X-Universe Franchise.

 

Bosco I've got an issue with your numbers. You're only using Fox's production budget, not their marketing budget as well and you're using Box office numbers, not total received. If you factor in 55% split on domestic theaters and 45% split on international theaters that means Fox saw $157,639,799.90 on Domestic and $162,730,665 on international. Thus Fox made $320,370,464.90 from Box office with a production budget of $230,000,000. My industry friends tell me the rule of thumb with a summer blockbuster is that the studio will set their marketing budget at about 60% of the production budget (so in the case of FF (2005) that would be 60,000,000 and 78,000,000 for FF2. Fox almost assuredly broke even or lost money on the FF movies when all was said and done, part of the reason they are taking 8 years to churn out a new FF movie (even though the Super Hero "Explosion" started 5+ years ago. Fox only is making the movie to keep the rights.

 

 

[Bosco685]

Bosco I've got an issue with your numbers. You're only using Fox's production budget, not their marketing budget as well and you're using Box office numbers, not total received. If you factor in 55% split on domestic theaters and 45% split on international theaters that means Fox saw $157,639,799.90 on Domestic and $162,730,665 on international. Thus Fox made $320,370,464.90 from Box office with a production budget of $230,000,000. My industry friends tell me the rule of thumb with a summer blockbuster is that the studio will set their marketing budget at about 60% of the production budget (so in the case of FF (2005) that would be 60,000,000 and 78,000,000 for FF2. Fox almost assuredly broke even or lost money on the FF movies when all was said and done, part of the reason they are taking 8 years to churn out a new FF movie (even though the Super Hero "Explosion" started 5+ years ago. Fox only is making the movie to keep the rights.

 

 

It's revenue ratio over profit ratio because there are many hidden factors in Hollywood economics.

 

- What was the real marketing dollars associated with a given movie? Not all studios reveal those accurate details.

 

- What about actors or directors that had a large profit share deal with a studio? Robert Downey Jr. had a $50 MM payout with one movie. So that would come right off the top. How many others do as well?

 

- Your 'industry friends' probably told you about publicized vs. real salaries. Certain stars will announce they were paid an extreme fee when behind the scenes they actually took the role for less. It's common if they truly wanted a role as a stepping stone to something else later on, but they wanted to maintain bargaining power for future films by having that high rate publicized.

 

- Your industry friends probably also broke the news to you not all studios have to pay the same revenue-sharing rate. Either a country wants such studios targeting their country to bring new jobs, new long-term commitments on multiple picture revenue sharing, or even promises of local picture development which also can attract tourism. Or, in the case of a wide-spread powerhouse like Disney, it can make up for certain revenue-sharing concessions through merchandising distribution agreements. How to factor that into an overall profit model to compare?

 

So rather than trying to guess at all those details - or assuming profit formulas are consistent across the industry (my industry contacts guarantee me they are not) - I just stick with the straight revenue.