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

[Jeffro.]

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.

 

That may be true but comparing the Star Wars franchise to the FF franchise and wondering why one did great and the other flopped is like comparing apples and avocados. Star Wars has a pop culture footprint that FF never will have. More appropriate to compare Star Wars to Star Trek. Compare FF to X-Men or Spider-man, or even Guardians of the Galaxy.

[kdoginohio]

Star Wars was more believable than the FF storyline.

[Jeffro.]

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.

 

Pretty much. Star Wars has fans that will go see regardless of reviews. Can't say the same thing about FF.

[sagii]

Just a few musings:

 

1) Dr. Doom has never been done right in any of the films. He is arguably the greatest comic book villiain of all time. His portrayal would be crucial for a hit FF movie. Many comic/ sci fi historians site Darth Vader as having been Dr. Doom inspired. Maybe the studios are afraid of anything that may draw comparisons and feel the uninformed may see the original as the imposter and write him off as a knock off?

 

2)I would suggest NOT starting with Doom next go around. The FF have one of the best rouges galleries in all comicdom. They have plenty of options to open with. Save The big gun for the sequel ( ala Batman Begins). Will make audiences anticipate Doom more. "Tease" him in back story bits in Reeds backstory in the first installment.

 

3)Play up the "family aspect". That's a part of what makes the FF unique in comic books.

 

4)Lots if space and interdemension travel. That's what they do.

 

5) This point maybe moot because it made a ****load of money.......but I know a few people and have read comments of a sizable amount of the fan base that didn't like TFA. I personally would give it a B.

[Prince Namor]

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.

 

That may be true but comparing the Star Wars franchise to the FF franchise and wondering why one did great and the other flopped is like comparing apples and avocados. Star Wars has a pop culture footprint that FF never will have. More appropriate to compare Star Wars to Star Trek. Compare FF to X-Men or Spider-man, or even Guardians of the Galaxy.

 

+1

[Gatsby77]

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.

 

1) RMA's correct here.

 

2) Specifically, my numbers are old but I think the 50% ratio for a theater's take still holds (in general) but it might be on the high side.

 

As of 5 years ago, the average was the studio took about 70% of the first two weeks' sales, and then 30% of sales thereafter (and most theater bookings were about 6 weeks).

 

3) Where are y'all getting $120 million for marketing? The New York Times reported combined production ($122 million) and marketing/distribution costs totaled $200 million, not $240.

[Buzzetta]

Star Wars is a much greater, relevant and more developed franchise across more media than the Fantastic Four.

 

 

By far.

[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.

 

1) RMA's correct here.

 

2) Specifically, my numbers are old but I think the 50% ratio for a theater's take still holds (in general) but it might be on the high side.

 

As of 5 years ago, the average was the studio took about 70% of the first two weeks' sales, and then 30% of sales thereafter (and most theater bookings were about 6 weeks).

 

3) Where are y'all getting $120 million for marketing? The New York Times reported combined production ($122 million) and marketing/distribution costs totaled $200 million, not $240.

 

Maybe you're right about the % split. I don't know. But my completely unchecked & relying entirely on memory that is occasionally spotty recollection of the split was significantly higher than that. I know there was a drop-off for the studio's portion after week 3 or 4, but I'm pretty certain that the studio take is much higher than 70% in weeks 1-3 & then closer to 50/50 after that with a progressive increase for the theater & decrease for the studio. Maybe I'm wrong? I'll take you guys word for it, but something about those numbers still seem off. But it doesn't really matter either way. The studio could have gotten all of the money from it & it still wouldn't have even broke even after marketing & advertising budgets are factored in.

 

The marketing budgets for these movies are virtually never released. So whatever the NYT reported wholly speculative. However, that might be how much it ended at (once FOX pulled the plug on advertising in mid-week 2 after how much of a flop the 2nd weekend was), but a lot of other similar sized/budget movies end up with 100% of their production budget spent in advertising. So the $240 was a safe estimate. They might have only ended up spending 66% of their production budget on advertising because they pulled the plug on it early. A "stop throwing good money after bad" thing, really. But had it had even reasonable numbers or even "not awful" numbers in the first 2 weekends, the studio probably would have gone with the normal 100% of production budget for its advertising budget.

[JayT]

edit: I just realized some of what I said was stated previously, so some of this is repetitive.

 

 

There is no Fantastic Four base that's relevant to movie going audiences while Star Wars is arguably THE property when it comes to multimedia penetration into pop culture. It's arguable that there isn't even a FF base that's relevant in just comics.

 

The previous 2 FF movies actually made money, they just didn't create a big enough stir and demand outside of it and there was no shared universe plan in hand or to copy to create it.

 

 

Okay, some numbers are way off, even to those arguing the point of FF's failure.

 

 

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.

 

It doesn't really work that way exactly though the number might match anyway (on accident). Depending on the specific film and studio, the percentage of the box office that goes to the theaters are different. I'd suspect FF was probably around 30-35% which is a very rough average.

 

People use 50% a lot but that's not anywhere near the truth because most releases are adjusted per week (Phantom Menace famously took home 100% of the box office to the studio it's first week, unprecedented).

 

So if FF made 170 million, you might as well say the studio got, before marketing and advertising (which is often over inflated - I seriously doubt they spent anywhere near 100 million marketing it), $110 million, the 60 went to the various theater chains.

 

So before marketing is even accounted for they lost roughly 50 million. They took a huge loss.

 

To be clear the recorded box office numbers DO NOT include what the vendors (the theaters) keep.

 

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.

 

His incompetence also cost him a Star Wars anthology film he was tapped for.

 

Is the film historically bad in performance? Even recently? No, some have used other examples (John Carter, which was actually pretty good I thought), but when you combine the almost universal critical hate and the climate we are in, the super hero era in movies, and FOX having the incredibly successful X-Men franchise, AND the narrative of the director and studio fighting, it's pretty bad.

 

Also, this movie has a decent cast, what they did with this movie, which is a disaster, is pretty epic.

[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.

 

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

 

Hah, I don't think I represent every 11 year old at the time. But I don't know a single person in their mid to late 20's now, all of whom were between 6 and 10 at the time, who even remotely likes those movies. I was more just saying that the generalization that kids that grew up seeing Phantom Menace feel the same way that people who were older feel about seeing the originals in theaters. I never saw the originals in theaters, but I can tell you who I saw them with and in what format we watched them (crappy VHS taped off of TV copy!).

[whitelanthawkeye]

Star Wars is a much greater, relevant and more developed franchise across more media than the Fantastic Four.

 

 

By far.

 

Agreed. I've said it before on here, i'm not sure there is any franchise with that much power.

[paperheart]

Star Wars is a much greater, relevant and more developed franchise across more media than the Fantastic Four.

 

 

By far.

 

Agreed. I've said it before on here, i'm not sure there is any franchise with that much power.

 

not remotely approaching SW but Transformers has averaged $950MM WW BO over 4 movies (and they were all critically reviled)

[jsilverjanet]

I think I'd enjoy more the avocados vs apples convo to be honest

 

 

[Jeffro.]

Star Wars is a much greater, relevant and more developed franchise across more media than the Fantastic Four.

 

 

By far.

 

Agreed. I've said it before on here, i'm not sure there is any franchise with that much power.

 

not remotely approaching SW but Transformers has averaged $950MM WW BO over 4 movies (and they were all critically reviled)

 

Horrible movies can still make bucket loads of money, that's for sure.

 

And when it comes to whether I will see a movie or not, I never let reviews make the decision for me.

 

 

[Jeffro.]

I think I'd enjoy more the avocados vs apples convo to be honest

 

 

Water cooler thread?

[Gatsby77]

Another key is multi-generational appeal.

 

I'm Gen X, & there's a whole generation of SW fans below me who grew up on the prequel trilogy. You've got 2 (if not 3) generations of SW fans.

 

In contrast, I'd wager the average FF fan is over 40 years old.

 

Seriously - it hasn't been a hot comic book since at least 2005, more than 10 years ago. And that was for Ult. FF.

 

The youngest folks who grew up on classic FF were likely reading it as kids fully 30 years ago, during the mid-80s Byrne run.

 

Either way, I don't see a current or future source for an FF fan base among Millennials, who are now on average 29-30 years old, let alone current teens - who don't even read comics.

 

So saying that FF started the Marvel Age, while true, holds about as much relevance today as noting how popular westerns were in the '50s.

[Buzzetta]

Star Wars is a much greater, relevant and more developed franchise across more media than the Fantastic Four.

 

 

By far.

 

Agreed. I've said it before on here, i'm not sure there is any franchise with that much power.

 

not remotely approaching SW but Transformers has averaged $950MM WW BO over 4 movies (and they were all critically reviled)

 

Horrible movies can still make bucket loads of money, that's for sure.

 

And when it comes to whether I will see a movie or not, I never let reviews make the decision for me.

 

 

I do not think that the average American realizes that those transformable robots are bigger outside the United States than within.

[chrisco37]

Replace these guys with the FF and count the $$$$$

 

 

 

So frikkin' simple. Don't aim it at fanboy nerds and teens. Aim it at kids, and put some nostalgic easter eggs in that the fanboy nerds will appreciate.

 

The fact is, the FF don't lend themselves to a great live action model (for whatever reason that may be). The "great" SA stories were always a bit goofy and aimed strictly at kids (at the least the SA stuff was). That's not going to play to modern, older audiences. But it will to kids.

[whitelanthawkeye]

I think I'd enjoy more the avocados vs apples convo to be honest

 

 

Wait, avocados aren't apples? That's why my guacamole never tastes right...

[whitelanthawkeye]

Star Wars is a much greater, relevant and more developed franchise across more media than the Fantastic Four.

 

 

By far.

 

Agreed. I've said it before on here, i'm not sure there is any franchise with that much power.

 

not remotely approaching SW but Transformers has averaged $950MM WW BO over 4 movies (and they were all critically reviled)

 

Horrible movies can still make bucket loads of money, that's for sure.

 

And when it comes to whether I will see a movie or not, I never let reviews make the decision for me.

 

 

I do not think that the average American realizes that those transformable robots are bigger outside the United States than within.

 

Yeah, it's one of those weird things that translates better to people that aren't in the US for some reason. I think Fast and Furious in some ways is the same.