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

[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.

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.

 

Yep... easily the best part of the movie!

[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.

 

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

That's you. I know a lot of people were waiting for the Rotten Tomatoes verdict. The last 3 Star Wars were mediocre at best. If the new Star Wars got a 64 percent like James Bond Spectre or god forbid a 9 percent like the FF reboot we can bet the new Star Wars wouldn't be as big.

Never underestimate the power of word of mouth on social media. It can make or break a movie.

[burntboy]

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.

 

This is a fascinating chart that puts Star Wars (1977) incredible success into perspective.

 

It grossed over 70 times it's cost!!! Nothing else is even 30 times.

 

It grossed (adjusted to 2015) over 1.2 Billion dollars World Wide more than the latest edition. In essence it put about 60% more azzes in the Theaters up to this point. And maybe more when todays over inflated ticket prices are considered.

 

Still, I did get to see the new one and really enjoyed it. (Although I kinda felt like I was watching the original with So many similarities...

[Prince Namor]

"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

That's you. I know a lot of people were waiting for the Rotten Tomatoes verdict. The last 3 Star Wars were mediocre at best. If the new Star Wars got a 64 percent like James Bond Spectre or god forbid a 9 percent like the FF reboot we can bet the new Star Wars wouldn't be as big.

Never underestimate the power of word of mouth on social media. It can make or break a movie.

 

 

Greatest ticket PRE-sale in the history of film....

[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 forum.

 

I swear half of the things that are said are

 

"Rotten Tomatoes Review" and "Box Office Numbers"

 

I could give a about both

That's you. I know a lot of people were waiting for the Rotten Tomatoes verdict. The last 3 Star Wars were mediocre at best. If the new Star Wars got a 64 percent like James Bond Spectre or god forbid a 9 percent like the FF reboot we can bet the new Star Wars wouldn't be as big.

Never underestimate the power of word of mouth on social media. It can make or break a movie.

 

 

Greatest ticket PRE-sale in the history of film....

 

Not just that. First weekend box office alone, which was made up of people almost entirely that either bought tickets prior or would have seen the movie regardless was larger than the total gross of Fantastic Four. Comparing any movie to Star Wars is absurd. Yes if Star Wars got a 9 percent i wouldn't be 'as big' but it would have still been ENORMOUS.

[Gatsby77]

Keep in mind that a lot of the original Star Wars' gross came from the 1990s re-release as well. These aren't totally comparable numbers.

[Bosco685]

Keep in mind that a lot of the original Star Wars' gross came from the 1990s re-release as well. These aren't totally comparable numbers.

 

Box Office Mojo actually breaks out the different releases.

 

Star Wars Movie Franchise box office

 

So the re-release of the original Star Wars movie has its own box office category.

 

Star Wars (Special Edition) - 1997

[mschmidt]

"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

That's you. I know a lot of people were waiting for the Rotten Tomatoes verdict. The last 3 Star Wars were mediocre at best. If the new Star Wars got a 64 percent like James Bond Spectre or god forbid a 9 percent like the FF reboot we can bet the new Star Wars wouldn't be as big.

Never underestimate the power of word of mouth on social media. It can make or break a movie.

 

To a point - and not if the movie is Star Wars.

 

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the fact that SW had the largest ticket pre-sale numbers in history - based on zero reviews. They could have resurrected Jar Jar Binks and it would still have had the largest opening weekend ever.

[paperheart]

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 Star Wars 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.

 

+1 billion. IF Star Wars TFA had been criticized as possibly the worst sci-fi movie of all time and FF had been called a fabulous rejuvenation of the franchise, SW still would have crushed FF at the box office.

[zosocane]

So we have two blueprints now on resurrection of franchises.

Star Wars The Force Awakens on how to do it right.

The Fantastic Four reboot on how not to do it.

Thoughts?

 

The director in Fantastic Four (2015) was a novice who was in over his head and the studio exercised terrible judgment in turning the keys over to him. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

[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 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.

 

+1 billion. IF Star Wars TFA had been criticized as possibly the worst sci-fi movie of all time and FF had been called a fabulous rejuvenation of the franchise, SW still would have crushed FF at the box office.

 

I'm honestly having trouble thinking of any movie or movie franchise that people would ignore the bad reviews of. The only other movie franchise (if you want to call it that) is Pixar. But then again The Good Dinosaur flopped. Maybe people would go see another Indiana Jones movie no matter what? But even then, none of it will even compare to Star Wars. I would bet even if this movie had been the worst Star Wars movie ever, Episode VIII would still have high box office numbers. That's because Star Wars is a force of nature, that represents way more than just a movie.

[Jaylam]

The Fantastic Four just hasn't been done right yet. The original back story of Reed Richards' and Victor Von Doom's connection as told by Lee/Kirby has never been presented on the screen. It's brilliant, visceral and tragic. It sets up and defines the characters and the whole premise of the FF/Doctor Doom antagonism. Doctor Doom was never a corporate executive and Reed was never a poor scientist. What we've been presented with in the movies is just a hollowed out husk of what it could be: a poor screen play goes too far from the source material.

Just my thoughts.

[Gatsby77]

So we have two blueprints now on resurrection of franchises.

Star Wars The Force Awakens on how to do it right.

The Fantastic Four reboot on how not to do it.

Thoughts?

 

The director in Fantastic Four (2015) was a novice who was in over his head and the studio exercised terrible judgment in turning the keys over to him. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.

 

While sure - he was over his head, this is a bit too simplistic. There are plenty of near-novices or small indie film directors who've made the leap to blockbusters with success.

 

JJ Abrams with Mission Impossible III (underperformed due to Cruise's couch-jumping, but still one of the best of the series -- and you can discount because he'd directed tons of TV). Still - he was given a $150 million budget for his _first_ movie, & it grossed $400 million worldwide

 

Gareth Edwards is a perfect example -- Monsters, directly to Godzilla

 

Colin Trevorrow another -- Safety Not Guaranteed, directly to Jurassic World

 

Marc Webb -- 500 Days of Summer, directly to The Amazing Spider-Man

 

Even Michael Bay -- music videos to Bad Boys ($19 mill.) & The Rock ($75 million -- equiv. to well over $100 million budget today)

 

 

The problem wasn't "novice director given franchise movie" -- the problem was Trank specifically, compounded by incredible amounts of interference by the studio such that it looked like the directors changed midway through (which they probably did).

 

[RockMyAmadeus]

FF is nowhere near the "grey area". That $120M budget (like all the other budgets listed) does NOT include marketing or advertising budgets. Hollywood generally spends between 50% and 150% of the production budget on advertising & marketing. Hence the 3X rule that Hollywood generally has for where something is "definitely" getting a sequel. You get to 2X and you're in the "grey area". You're only at 1.3X (like FF was), and regardless of the advertising & marketing budget, you're not getting a sequel. And considering how much of a massive marketing & advertising blitz that Fox did for FF in the 1-2 months prior to it's release (and the subsequent axe that was taken to it during week 3 of release when it was obviously a flop), Fox was likely at the 100%+ of production budget for advertising.

 

So basically, it cost $120M to make. It cost another ~$120M to market & advertise. It made $168M. It ended with a net loss of ~72M.

 

No.

 

Box office gross is BOX OFFICE gross. That means the amount of money in ticket sales that the theaters sell at the box office.

 

Depending on how the studios negotiate with the theaters, it's roughly 50% of the box office that goes to the theaters. That means that FF didn't have a net loss of ~$72M. It had a net loss of at least $160M.

[rjrjr]

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.

 

Right. Because you represent every 11 year old at the time.

[rjrjr]

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.

 

I couldn't agree with this more. That movie made bank weeks before it even came out.

[Bosco685]

Keep in mind that a lot of the original Star Wars' gross came from the 1990s re-release as well. These aren't totally comparable numbers.

 

Box Office Mojo actually breaks out the different releases.

 

Star Wars Movie Franchise box office

 

So the re-release of the original Star Wars movie has its own box office category.

 

Star Wars (Special Edition) - 1997

 

By the way, that is just incredible that re-releases of a classic trilogy ends up making so much money. And the only expense on the part of the studio was touching up the original film, soundtrack and marketing. Partnership splits on the revenue would be well worth it.

 

Star Wars (Special Edition) - 1997

Domestic: $460,998,007 (79.5%)

Foreign: $118,648,008 (20.5%)

Worldwide: $579,646,015

 

The Empire Strikes Back (Special Edition) - 1997

Domestic: $290,475,067 (83.5%)

Foreign: $57,214,766 (16.5%)

Worldwide: $347,689,833

 

Return of the Jedi (Special Edition) - 1997

Domestic: $309,306,177 (87.6%)

Foreign: $43,790,543 (12.4%)

Worldwide: $353,096,720

 

The Star Wars Trilogy Special Edition

 

The Star Wars Trilogy Special Edition was a theatrical anniversary edition of the original trilogy, in order to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the release of Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope.

 

The three movies were shown in USA from January through March with a monthly interval between each. A New Hope was released on January 31, 1997, followed by The Empire Strikes Back on February 21, 1997, and Return of the Jedi on March 7, 1997, but due to the box office success of the first two (mostly A New Hope which grossed the most of the three re-releases) it was pushed to a week later on March 14. Special coverage on CNN in 1997 notes that Lucas spent $10 million to rework his original 1977 film, which was roughly what it cost to film it originally. $3 million of that was spent on the audio track for the special edition. Lucas also spent $2.5 million each on Episodes V and VI.

 

The Trilogy aimed to renew the movies in the minds of both the older and the younger audience, and to prepare the way for the upcoming release of Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace.

 

So the original Star Wars box office total is separate from the re-releases.

[Ken Aldred]

The Fantastic Four just hasn't been done right yet. The original back story of Reed Richards' and Victor Von Doom's connection as told by Lee/Kirby has never been presented on the screen. It's brilliant, visceral and tragic. It sets up and defines the characters and the whole premise of the FF/Doctor Doom antagonism. Doctor Doom was never a corporate executive and Reed was never a poor scientist. What we've been presented with in the movies is just a hollowed out husk of what it could be: a poor screen play goes too far from the source material.

Just my thoughts.

 

 

It would be nice to see that dynamic recreated well, but it would also be refreshing to see another character as the main super-villain, not Doom again, for the fourth time. And not a big cloud again, either.

[Doktor]

FF is nowhere near the "grey area". That $120M budget (like all the other budgets listed) does NOT include marketing or advertising budgets. Hollywood generally spends between 50% and 150% of the production budget on advertising & marketing. Hence the 3X rule that Hollywood generally has for where something is "definitely" getting a sequel. You get to 2X and you're in the "grey area". You're only at 1.3X (like FF was), and regardless of the advertising & marketing budget, you're not getting a sequel. And considering how much of a massive marketing & advertising blitz that Fox did for FF in the 1-2 months prior to it's release (and the subsequent axe that was taken to it during week 3 of release when it was obviously a flop), Fox was likely at the 100%+ of production budget for advertising.

 

So basically, it cost $120M to make. It cost another ~$120M to market & advertise. It made $168M. It ended with a net loss of ~72M.

 

No.

 

Box office gross is BOX OFFICE gross. That means the amount of money in ticket sales that the theaters sell at the box office.

 

Depending on how the studios negotiate with the theaters, it's roughly 50% of the box office that goes to the theaters. That means that FF didn't have a net loss of ~$72M. It had a net loss of at least $160M.

 

No, you're right. I neglected to factor in the theater take on it. Still, my point remains (even if my math was bad) that it's well outside of the "grey area" for potential sequel. It's not even close to "might get a sequel" territory based on the usual Hollywood metrics for figuring that out based on box office return.

 

And while I don't mean to quibble, it's normally significantly higher than 50% on the domestic side that goes to the studio. 50% returns are normally for foreign markets. Domestic box office that goes to the studio, at least to my recollection, tends to be much closer to the 75-90% range. It's why most US theaters always push their concessions to hard & why they've expanded into the "VIP seating" or alcohol-sales & combined theater/restaurant things in the past decade. Because they get so little on the ticket end, that they are really making the biggest chunk of their money on the popcorn/snacks/drinks/food/beer that moviegoers like to have during the movie.

[ComicConnoisseur]

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?

 

Pretty simple, actually

 

The people in charge of kickstarting the Star Wars return were fans of the original stuff. They grew up on it & ate it up & loved it. There was reverence, without feeling a need to be tied down with just turning it into borderline fanfic with a budget.

 

The people making the same decisions on FF weren't fans of the original stuff. They didn't understand what made it great. They didn't have a love for the source material. And they played the "we know what fans of this want more than the fans do" game with it by throwing out all the things that people really love about FF & then the little bit that they did use, ended up on the cutting room floor (most likely).

I think you nailed it.