Why did the Fantastic Four new movie bomb,while new Star Wars movie was a hit?

[whitelanthawkeye]

Fantastic Four put Marvel on the map,so I think there can be a argument.

Also how quickly people forget that the previous 3 Star Wars movies were critically failures.

So I think it is quite reasonable to use the FF reboot and new Star Wars as the new benchmarks as to a hit and failure for re-establishing franchises.

Star Wars hit a homerun,while Fantastic Four struck out.

I want to know why?

 

Because you're looking at it from the inside. If I went to my father or mother, neither of who have ever read a comic book in their life, there's a good chance they know nothing about the fantastic four. The same applies for many of my friends, who have a passing memory of the last set of movies. While you claim, which I don't agree with remotely, that Fantastic Four put marvel on the map, that's still within the significantly smaller community of people who read, which has been increasing lately, but is still relatively small.

 

Compare that to Star Wars. I would argue that Star Wars is the single biggest franchise on the planet, maybe bigger even than Disney as a whole in its affect and importance to people.

 

Don't get me wrong, I love the Fantastic Four but comparing a reboot in the movie world of movies that nobody, even comic book fans have much interest in to the single biggest movie release in history is a logical fallacy. They don't relate.

 

And back to the critical failure. They still stoked something. I HATE the prequels. I watched all three of them at once before the new movie came out but you know what that did. It made me hungrier for the new movies. When the prequels came out and people started to realize how bad they were, it only made us want the better movies that we were promised. It relit a fire in some people of their love for Star Wars, and allowed people, albeit begrudgingly to pass Star Wars onto their kids, many of whom loved those movies.

 

I would imagine that many people who watched Silver Surfer, and almost everyone who watched Fantastic Four (2015) that wasn't a comic book fan came out of that movie with no interest in ever seeing a Fantastic Four (edited to fix) movie again. There is no Star Wars movie so bad that people aren't going to go see it just in case, even if the reviews are bad. And I would bet that even a bad Star Wars movie would outperform at the box office a GREAT Fantastic Four movie, because there is nothing that compares to Star Wars. It stands alone.

[whitelanthawkeye]

Also how quickly people forget that the previous 3 Star Wars movies were critically failures.

 

That made a Titanic-load of money each because Star Wars fanatics couldn't stop going back repeatedly to see the films.

 

 

No matter what the critics stated...nor other fans that may have had negative feelings towards that set of movies.

 

Also there is an entire generation of fans who LOVED the prequel trilogies. Those of us fortunate enough to see the originals in theater or close to theater will always (nostalgically) prefer the originals, but the kids who grew up seeing Phantom Menace etc. feel the same about those movies. And this is backed up by the money that those films made. There was PLENTY of repeat viewing. Not to mention, they didn't have today's inflated ticket prices (for 3d/IMAX/etc viewing), which I'm sure if that was factored in would send the numbers even higher.

 

I was 11 when Episode 1 came out, and I hate it. I think most of the kids who love it, were born after it came out.

[Doktor]

Could it be that the FF are a cheesy product of the 1960s that (gasp!) just wouldn't translate well to film?

 

Granted, I get the argument that if Superman / X-Men / Guardians of the Galaxy / Ant-Man could be made into decent films, that anything can translate well to that medium but I don't really buy it.

 

The first Blade & second Punisher movies worked because they were small in scale, & character-driven, despite their being minor characters in the comics.

 

I think the FF are great, but their largely a product of the 60s, and even fandom's moved on.

 

When's the last time folks were reading FF en masse? I'd argue the '80s, with the Byrne run (pre # 300), and the mid-2000s, with Ultimate FF.

 

Purists may not like Ult. FF, but # 1 was the # 1 book of the month & one of the highest print-run books of the prior 3 years. And the later zombie storyline in the 20s introduced Marvel Zombies, which folks loved.

 

We've now had 4 FF movies, none of which resonated well with fans or the public at large.

 

To even try to compare them with the cultural phenomenon of Star Wars (7 blockbuster movies & a line of comics that puts the rest of Marvel & the industry, to shame) is misguided.

 

I'm not even a big FF fan at all, but even I still like the characters. And I think that there's absolutely a way to do them that can resonate with a modern audience. Yes, they're a product of the 60's & the space race & all that. But they can still be a product of the 21st century space race as well. Mars. The first attempt at a trans-solar expeditionary ship. SOMETHING like that. Something goes weird & they're transformed.

 

They could even make it a 60's period piece & do it well. They could have it be a 60's period piece at the start & then when they get zonked with cosmic rays, they don't crash-land until the 21st century. They simply vanish for 50 years. It might even create an even stronger bond between them adding a bit of "out of time" aspect to them.

 

There's a lot of ways you can do it without going for stunt-casting that you then need to bend your story to fit (like they did with FF. Michael B Jordan was a great Human Torch but by casting white & black siblings, they had to distract from the narrative of the story to explain the sibling relationship) or making the villain paper-thin & throwing out almost all of the visuals that people love about him (what was his motivation again? And why did he need to look like a silver Mr Hanky?) or just making the movie plain boring. Or maybe just don't make a bad movie. We simply haven't had a GOOD FF movie yet.

[ComicConnoisseur]

Also how quickly people forget that the previous 3 Star Wars movies were critically failures.

 

That made a Titanic-load of money each because Star Wars fanatics couldn't stop going back repeatedly to see the films.

 

 

No matter what the critics stated...nor other fans that may have had negative feelings towards that set of movies.

One of the reasons why the latest Star Wars did good this time was the Rotten Tomatoes reviews. A lot of us were on the fence to go see this. We didn't want to get burnt like last time. Once we saw the great reviews we went.

[whitelanthawkeye]

I also thinks it comes down to audience. There are many people I know under no circumstance could I drag them to Captain America: Civil War or Doctor Strange, or any Marvel movie regardless of the acclaim they may receive. If you compare that to Star Wars, the audience expands tremendously. There's just no comparison from an audience perspective. Even the marvel cinematic universe will never dwarf Star Wars, they may make more money from having more movies, but Star Wars is a force of nature.

[whitelanthawkeye]

Also how quickly people forget that the previous 3 Star Wars movies were critically failures.

 

That made a Titanic-load of money each because Star Wars fanatics couldn't stop going back repeatedly to see the films.

 

 

 

No matter what the critics stated...nor other fans that may have had negative feelings towards that set of movies.

One of the reasons why the latest Star Wars did good this time was the Rotten Tomatoes reviews. A lot of us were on the fence to go see this. We didn't want to get burnt like last time. Once we saw the great reviews we went.

 

That's not even remotely true. Maybe you were. But look at the pre-sales to Star Wars. People were gonna go see that movie no matter what. Maybe it's the reason they saw it multiple times, but the first weekend box office is not based on reviews, it's based on what Star Wars is.

[Prince Namor]

For Stretchy Guy and Crew to be relevant they need to go galactic. A rich Universe full of Galactus, Surfer, Scree, Srulls, and all of it. Lots of ships and space tech. Give it that 'Heavy Metal' flavor Kirby put in to it, wild, surreal, mind-blowing weirdness.

Erich von Däniken on acid.

 

Otherwise it's just a mutant quartet.

 

Yep.

 

Guardians of the Galaxy with nowhere near the history of FF, rocked it Galactic.

[Prince Namor]

I can actually answer the questions very easily:

 

JJ Abrahms

[whitelanthawkeye]

For Stretchy Guy and Crew to be relevant they need to go galactic. A rich Universe full of Galactus, Surfer, Scree, Srulls, and all of it. Lots of ships and space tech. Give it that 'Heavy Metal' flavor Kirby put in to it, wild, surreal, mind-blowing weirdness.

Erich von Däniken on acid.

 

Otherwise it's just a mutant quartet.

 

Yep.

 

Guardians of the Galaxy with nowhere near the history of FF, rocked it Galactic.

 

I think they should go back to Marvel and do Skrulls personally. With Guardians having Kree, that could give them a strong base to interact and make people actually interested in Fantastic Four.

[darkstar]

Because the characters are lame and the casting is terrible.

[jsilverjanet]

"A lot of us were on the fence to go see this"

 

 

[Gatsby77]

Guardians did indeed "rock it galactic" but Green Lantern also went galactic & failed miserably.

 

I get that Ryan Reynolds' characterization of a wise-cracking Hal wasn't the character I remember from the comics, but the space scenes (particularly the off-planet training sequence w/ Kilowog, Sinestro, etc.) was that film's best.

[whitelanthawkeye]

"A lot of us were on the fence to go see this"

 

 

 

This is the first person I've heard who was on the fence. The only people I know who haven't seen it are people who just don't care about Star Wars at all, oddly enough, one of them is the only person I know who owns Fantastic Four 2.

[ComicConnoisseur]

"A lot of us were on the fence to go see this"

 

 

It wasn't a slam dunk. Once we heard 90 percent plus on Rotten Tomatoes we went.

[Prince Namor]

Guardians did indeed "rock it galactic" but Green Lantern also went galactic & failed miserably.

 

I get that Ryan Reynolds' characterization of a wise-cracking Hal wasn't the character I remember from the comics, but the space scenes (particularly the off-planet training sequence w/ Kilowog, Sinestro, etc.) was that film's best.

 

Sort of. The majority of the movie was on earth, including the finale.

The best part of the movie was in space, especially with Sinestro, and if they would've gone that route for the rest of it, it might have performed better at the box office.

[Prince Namor]

I'll never understand where the idea that films are "critical failures" comes from sometimes. I can only assume the person saying it didn't like the films, so they either forget or never look up what the reviews were actually like.

 

There are very few real 'film' critics, but plenty of movie fans who write reviews even for major media... so lower than 70% critical review of a movie is actually not very good....

 

I've heard it about "Superman Returns" and "Hulk" for years, but both had decent critical reviews, or at very worst, mixed reviews. Neither were failures, and none of the Star Wars prequels were. Revenge of the Sith in particular had very good critical reviews.

 

Superman Returns

76% Critics

61% Audience

$270 Million Budget

$200 Million Domestic

$391 Million Worldwide

Verdict: Not a blockbuster, but certainly not a failure, and a decent movie. It just wasn't a repeat view for most....

 

Hulk

61% Critics

29% Audience

$150 Million Budget

$134 Million Domestic

$245 Million Worldwide

Verdict: Not liked, but... well, not liked.

 

Star Wars Revenge of the Sith

79% Critics

65% Audience

$113 Million Budget

$380 Million Domestic

$848 Million Worldwide

Verdict: Adjusted for Inflation, the worst showing of any Star Wars movie other than Attack of the Clones, which is also the only movie to get a worse audience rating.

Personally, I thought Hayden Christensen's acting is even worse in ROTS, and I have even laughed out loud at the delivery of some of his lines.

[jsilverjanet]

"A lot of us were on the fence to go see this"

 

 

It wasn't a slam dunk. Once we heard 90 percent plus on Rotten Tomatoes we went.

 

I rarely listen to reviews. I go based on the content, trailer, director, actors etc

 

I think most people, especially here were going to go see Star Wars no matter what the reviews said.

 

You need to get out of this bubble that is this movie forum.

 

I swear half of the things that are said are

 

"Rotten Tomatoes Review" and "Box Office Numbers"

 

I could give a about both

[Prince Namor]

Also how quickly people forget that the previous 3 Star Wars movies were critically failures.

 

That made a Titanic-load of money each because Star Wars fanatics couldn't stop going back repeatedly to see the films.

 

 

No matter what the critics stated...nor other fans that may have had negative feelings towards that set of movies.

One of the reasons why the latest Star Wars did good this time was the Rotten Tomatoes reviews. A lot of us were on the fence to go see this. We didn't want to get burnt like last time. Once we saw the great reviews we went.

 

I think this movie may have been the least review read movie prior to release EVER, as fans were worried they'd accidentally read a spoiler.

[whitelanthawkeye]

"A lot of us were on the fence to go see this"

 

 

It wasn't a slam dunk. Once we heard 90 percent plus on Rotten Tomatoes we went.

 

I rarely listen to reviews. I go based on the content, trailer, director, actors etc

 

I think most people, especially here were going to go see Star Wars no matter what the reviews said.

 

You need to get out of this bubble that is this movie thread.

 

I swear half of the things that are said are

 

"Rotten Tomatoes Review" and "Box Office Numbers"

 

I could give a about both

 

Exactly. I'm completely snowed in right now, and if Star Wars was coming out tonight, I'd have walked the 15 miles to the theater to go see it.

[JAM_NYC]

Guardians did indeed "rock it galactic" but Green Lantern also went galactic & failed miserably.

 

I get that Ryan Reynolds' characterization of a wise-cracking Hal wasn't the character I remember from the comics, but the space scenes (particularly the off-planet training sequence w/ Kilowog, Sinestro, etc.) was that film's best.

 

Sort of. The majority of the movie was on earth, including the finale.

The best part of the movie was in space, especially with Sinestro, and if they would've gone that route for the rest of it, it might have performed better at the box office.

This + one foofillion!

 

The biggest reason why GL mess the bed was because its a movie about a space cop who can visit crazy alien planets, soar through the cosmos, and engage in intergalactic pewpew space battles. Yet 80% of the movie takes place on earth.

 

The saddest thing about that film was how great Mark Strong was as Sinestro, and how such a spot-on portrayal went to waste.