Why Is Fox Hiding The Fantastic Four?
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
But even Guardians of the Galaxy, as someone very familiar with the comic, very much is in the spirit and authenticity of the original comics and series. They took a few liberties (they did so with all their movies, of course), but Rocket, Drax, Groot, and Star-Lord are the same interesting and amazing characters I was reading about years ago, especially in the more recent and epic Annihilation and Conquest cosmic stories (Bob, if you haven't read those, immediately go track them down... and then join us is asking in one voice for Richard Rider's Nova to show up).
The Fantastic Four reboot is being made, not out of passion, but out of reaction to losing the rights, just like Sony with ASM. They did this one already before (Roger Corman's unreleased movie) and it sounds like they have very little interest in making it a "success".
It's less about the Fantastic Four themselves as it is the world they inhabit. Losing the Fantastic Four means losing Galactus, Dr. Doom, Silver Surfer, the Skrulls, Annihilus, and lots of other characters best associated with the original family of superheroes. Heck, even the Marvel "golden age" is credited to Fantastic Four #1 making Marvel the powerhouse it eventually became...
So they'll make a movie, even a terrible one, to keep those rights. Unless the film absolutely tanks and costs them money, they'll keep remaking and rebooting it to keep it out of Marvel's hands. Which is a shame, because Dr. Doom deserves so much better than being stuck with such inept movies.
There's no way this movie can be worse than the Tim Story versions, can it?
Whatever the case, I think Fox is trying to play it safe and keep it on the downlow. That's a shame: I think Josh Trank deserves better than that treatment.
Whatever the case, I think Fox is trying to play it safe and keep it on the downlow. That's a shame: I think Josh Trank deserves better than that treatment.
I am with you on not judgeing the movie until it is released. My main problem is that I simply did not like Chronical and so I was less then thrilled when I found out that Trask was involved.
I don't care that Jonny Storm is black but I really don't like the idea of a 12 year old playing Reed Richards.
And most of all I don't like Fox. I know that Marvel are all about making money but at least they seem to give a shit if their movie is good. Fox simply gives offt he impression that they don't give a fuck as long as they get to ensure that Marvel can't make money off it either.
I don't care that Jonny Storm is black but I really don't like the idea of a 12 year old playing Reed Richards.
And most of all I don't like Fox. I know that Marvel are all about making money but at least they seem to give a shit if their movie is good. Fox simply gives offt he impression that they don't give a fuck as long as they get to ensure that Marvel can't make money off it either.
If so, it's an unfortunate turn of events. But to my mind it's the most likely scenario: Fox is facing a fandom/press-management landscape that has become almost wholly binary in the way it processes reactions: "OMG it's like they jumped right out of Issue #183 perfect!!!" (Marvel) or "F***! That's NOT what his hat looks like they've ruined it!!!" (everyone else -- with only DoFP excepted by virtue of "Wow! All the old people came back!" carrying a nostalgia thrill for a sizable substrata of fans.
This always get me, page after page of bitching about Spider-man's costume eyes being black in ASM yet not a word about Thor not once wearing his helmet in either the Avengers or Thor: TDW and barely more bitching with Hawkeye's non costume.
Costume's being comic accurate seems to only matter to non Disney Marvel films now with Disney Marvel being able to do want they want with minimal if any complaints.
Also the way that Sony and Fox are the enemy now because they basically saved Marvel from going under altogether with there licensing deals because when they showed you could make money with comic films Disney decided to swoop in and then became the 'saviour' pisses me off.
This always get me, page after page of bitching about Spider-man's costume eyes being black in ASM yet not a word about Thor not once wearing his helmet in either the Avengers or Thor: TDW and barely more bitching with Hawkeye's non costume.
Costume's being comic accurate seems to only matter to non Disney Marvel films now with Disney Marvel being able to do want they want with minimal if any complaints.
Also the way that Sony and Fox are the enemy now because they basically saved Marvel from going under altogether with there licensing deals because when they showed you could make money with comic films Disney decided to swoop in and then became the 'saviour' pisses me off.
Man, I really wish Marvel would stop riding the superhero train and inciting others to do the same. I'm fucking tired of being flooded with news about a bunch of overhyped films that don't even have the decency to try hard and simply aim slightly left of the Michael Bay Crowd. It also doesn't help that superhero stories are almost all ruined for me now because I subconsciously compare them to Worm [parahumans.wordpress.com] and find them lacking.
Someone please tell me I'm not the only one who finds the general Nolan hate ironic? Specifically how everyone says the MCU are "real" superhero films yet the Nolan Trilogy is the only one with an actual superhero in it. You know, someone who creates a larger-than-life persona that they use to actively make the world a better place. The Avengers are just government agents (and one billionare) with gimmicks who only respond to bigass, world-ending threats.
deathbydeath said:
LOL yeah great point especially as the reason Earth is in danger in both the Thor films and the Avengers is directly because of Odin first banishing Thor there and subsequently directing Loki's attention to us and in DW by hiding the Aether here.
I want a Silver Age version I know and love...
Not even NAMING them the FF... what the *EFF* is that about?
This is purely for keeping the property from defaulting to Marvel, and come on... that's just too sad.
Not even NAMING them the FF... what the *EFF* is that about?
This is purely for keeping the property from defaulting to Marvel, and come on... that's just too sad.
And plus, when you get down to it, the Nolan films captured the essence of the Batman character better than nearly anything else, including even the comics themselves. The genius was that despite having this character who is by all means ridiculous, it made you feel like it COULD happen. One man becoming a symbol of heroism and justice, giving everything to make the world a better place. So it doesn't have the campier elements, whoop-dee-doo, the best parts of Batman's mythos and character are very NOT campy. And in fact it's no coincidence that Batman works best when he's more serious and less colorful as well as when his rogues gallery took on interpretations that mimicked seedy, underworld, hard-boiled detective, and film-noir archetypes.deathbydeath said:
I guess I can be grouped into "the movie is bad because its not faithful", but at the same time I think that deals mostly with the characters themselves and not the setting or even costumes. Just after I saw Guardians of the Galaxy my friends and I were talking about our favorite and disliked movies based on comic books. It really seems that what people want is for them to get the characters themselves right, for you are telling us we are going to see a movie based on a specific character people want to see what they are being advertised.
I enjoyed most of Man of Steel and Batman Rises there were minor things that irked me, but what caused me to disliked them as much as I did was because the climatic conclusion of both movies end with both characters acting out of place for what I would expect of them. I would expect at the end of a movie for Superman to act like Superman and not have a destructive battle in the middle of Metropolis or Bruce Wayne to stop being Batman. Its also why I think the X-Men movies work as well as they do because Hugh Jackman portrays Wolverine in a way I would fully expect and the movies revolve around him. This reminds me a lot of The Hulk as well, for I remember a lot of the comments about The Avengers is that "they finally got the Hulk right".
Captcha: Learn from mistakes
I enjoyed most of Man of Steel and Batman Rises there were minor things that irked me, but what caused me to disliked them as much as I did was because the climatic conclusion of both movies end with both characters acting out of place for what I would expect of them. I would expect at the end of a movie for Superman to act like Superman and not have a destructive battle in the middle of Metropolis or Bruce Wayne to stop being Batman. Its also why I think the X-Men movies work as well as they do because Hugh Jackman portrays Wolverine in a way I would fully expect and the movies revolve around him. This reminds me a lot of The Hulk as well, for I remember a lot of the comments about The Avengers is that "they finally got the Hulk right".
Captcha: Learn from mistakes
I think the main reason that the "diverging from the comics" version tends to work less well is that they always go in the same direction.
They try to make it more "realistic" and "mature" by taking out all the fun stuff in a way that makes them seem embarrassed of their own source material and make them less distinct.
I hate the fact that we have so many superhero films coming out that are rated as being too old for 10 year old kids to see when they should be the main audience for so much of this stuff. I say this as someone who has read virtually no comic books but can recognise when the soul of a particular work has been extracted.
The opposite stuff about people going insane because character X is wearing the wrong hat is just as irritating but to be honest that's what you get for being too cowardly to make any original stories.
They try to make it more "realistic" and "mature" by taking out all the fun stuff in a way that makes them seem embarrassed of their own source material and make them less distinct.
I hate the fact that we have so many superhero films coming out that are rated as being too old for 10 year old kids to see when they should be the main audience for so much of this stuff. I say this as someone who has read virtually no comic books but can recognise when the soul of a particular work has been extracted.
The opposite stuff about people going insane because character X is wearing the wrong hat is just as irritating but to be honest that's what you get for being too cowardly to make any original stories.
Haha, you liked it just fine when you saw it. You didn't decide it was a "bad, bad, bad, bad, bad movie" until about a week later.MovieBob said:
There hasn't been a single main DC or Marvel comic released in 35 years that I would let an under 12 read. So I think your a bit wrong on the current target audience of comics when South Park has less swearing and violence.K12 said:
I don't care they made Jonny Storm black, I just wish they'd done the same with Sue. How many films can you think of with a black woman where she's just kicking ass, no moral about how awful it is being black and a woman in a culture that generally favour being white and a man?
Also, that would have made the relationship between her and Reed mixed race, and personally I can't really think of any of those in films (disclaimer: I am not a film buff and don't actually see too many films for reasons of money).
Just would have liked to see a bit more representation is all, even in a movie many seem to be writing off before there's even a trailer
Also, that would have made the relationship between her and Reed mixed race, and personally I can't really think of any of those in films (disclaimer: I am not a film buff and don't actually see too many films for reasons of money).
Just would have liked to see a bit more representation is all, even in a movie many seem to be writing off before there's even a trailer
I do not agree that it's the same backstory. Gunn has significantly more experience than Trank but never had the opportunity or budget for his vision until Marvel. Now that experience never translated into a major surprise hit in the way Chronicle did (Chronicle having made in its first week 67 times more than Super's total domestic gross) so Gunn still existed largely in an "underdog" independent filmmaker status for a long time. And I'm not forgetting Slither, but its over all box office returns, while around 7 million, are still 9 times less than Chronicle's.MovieBob said:
Chronicle is ALL anyone has to look back at for Trank making him effectively a "one-hit-wonder" thus far... literally having done one film and it succeed.
Gunn had NO hit, but someone recognized his vision. I remember seeing Joss Whedon say something at one point that surprised Gunn because Whedon recognized him for his talent in some way and Gunn had not even known he was on his radar.
But as far as Fox not releasing any info on the film... if they aren't ready to, fine. Far better that they restrain themselves than invent a reason to be in the press. They already make that mistake with regards to the X-franchise anyway (not that their box-office result reflect that as "a mistake.")
Both Marvel AND DC run titles outside of continuity with main characters very specifically for kids. Marvel had them under the "Adventures" imprint but now has two books mirroring their current TV animation and Figment. They have also done SuperHero Squad.youji itami said:
DC currently has Tiny Titans and a Batman '66 book that I think is age appropriate for kids. They also previously had titles relevant to their TV animation as far back as the DCAU run... possibly further. Batman: Brave and the Bold is another example.
But both have consistently provided something for the younger demo, even if the selection of it is a little less right now than it has been. In 35 years, I'm surprised you could miss them if you looked into it. Any comic shop would know enough to point you to them if you asked.
That's more of a problem with the comics themselves than the movies.youji itami said:
Bob and I disagree about Man of Steel, but agree about the Ultimate Universe, which I call "the world where every superhero who isn't Spider-Man is a huge JerkAss."Pyrian said:
As for this new FF movie, I'd prefer that if its IS a cash-in to keep the rights away from Marvel Studios, they put in the most effort and respect to the source material they can. And for God's sake, make it FUN to watch!
It's all this hoopla surrounding this new movie that has a friend of mine convinced that this will cause Marvel to cancel the Fantastic 4 comic book. Then again, he often gets his own fan theories/wishes confused with actual news.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and contest two premises.
One: I'm not at all sure "fidelity to the comic books" is the "sine qua non" of Marvel's success. That it helps to have a coherent backbone to build on, I won't argue, but if the writing was as hack-handed and permanently of-its-time as some of Marvel's work, especially in the "Silver Age", it never would have made it this far.
Clever and coherent writing, spot-on casting, and an attention to detail have paid dividends. But if it was all solely in service of comic book fidelity without any appreciation for the needs of a different medium and a different audience, it could all have been for nothing.
Marvel didn't get here by making an Iron Man that appealed to Aint It Cool News fans with copies of twenty-year-old comics in poly bags; Marvel got here by making an Iron Man that appealed to people who never picked up a comic in their life.
Two: About that "permanently of its time" thing...? That's kind of Fantastic Four in a nutshell. Of all the characters and teams, F4 have always seemed mired in a 60s aesthetic, from the logo-ed costumes to the nuclear family dynamic, complete with wise father, pretty but flighty mother, rebellious son and... Thing. (Okay, so maybe not entirely a generic 60s nuclear family.) The numbers I've read don't suggest the comic has exactly been a star performer for some time. If ever there was a strong case to depart from the source material and try to go one's own way for the movie, this would be the time.
Which is not to say that they might not completely screw it up in the attempt, just that it might not be the best case for "failing to do things the 'Marvel Way'" as the cause of that failure. The Fantastic Four may just be a bit of a non-starter right now.
One: I'm not at all sure "fidelity to the comic books" is the "sine qua non" of Marvel's success. That it helps to have a coherent backbone to build on, I won't argue, but if the writing was as hack-handed and permanently of-its-time as some of Marvel's work, especially in the "Silver Age", it never would have made it this far.
Clever and coherent writing, spot-on casting, and an attention to detail have paid dividends. But if it was all solely in service of comic book fidelity without any appreciation for the needs of a different medium and a different audience, it could all have been for nothing.
Marvel didn't get here by making an Iron Man that appealed to Aint It Cool News fans with copies of twenty-year-old comics in poly bags; Marvel got here by making an Iron Man that appealed to people who never picked up a comic in their life.
Two: About that "permanently of its time" thing...? That's kind of Fantastic Four in a nutshell. Of all the characters and teams, F4 have always seemed mired in a 60s aesthetic, from the logo-ed costumes to the nuclear family dynamic, complete with wise father, pretty but flighty mother, rebellious son and... Thing. (Okay, so maybe not entirely a generic 60s nuclear family.) The numbers I've read don't suggest the comic has exactly been a star performer for some time. If ever there was a strong case to depart from the source material and try to go one's own way for the movie, this would be the time.
Which is not to say that they might not completely screw it up in the attempt, just that it might not be the best case for "failing to do things the 'Marvel Way'" as the cause of that failure. The Fantastic Four may just be a bit of a non-starter right now.
I thought people only started disliking Nolan AFTER he stopped working on Batman and worked on Superman?Aiddon said:
I know the Dark Knight trilogy has it's haters but, last i checked, everyone fucking loved the first two and the third just happened to be a bit mixed in reception.
I will definitely be the first one to step up and defend Nolans batman flicks, but I admit that he did drop the ball on Man of Steel.
Thats debateable. Last i heard the new F4 movie was esentially a new IP wearing the name of a franchise it shares close to no common elements with.Burnouts3s3 said:
Speaking of which, i wonder if Disney's Lawmongers had any contact with Fox over a seemingly obvious abuse of lisencing rights...