Why Is Fox Hiding The Fantastic Four?

[Something Amyss]

Obviously, Sue is handling all the promotion.

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.

I don't see why. In their origin, Reed is mid twenties or so, and Miles Teller is more than old enough to portray that. The guy was supposed to be a whiz kid.

There's no way this movie can be worse than the Tim Story versions, can it?

That's a gauntlet you never want to throw down.

So it doesn't have the campier elements, whoop-dee-doo, the best parts of Batman's mythos and character are very NOT campy.

Dude dresses like a flying mouse and uses military hardware that would make the Transformers do a double take. Taking the camp out of Batman is impossible. Well, it's possible, but it'd be like havin g the Fantastic Four not be the Fantastic Four. Nolan didn't really go that route.

I thought people only started disliking Nolan AFTER he stopped working on Batman and worked on Superman?

Most of the hate started with Rises.

But some did hate him beforehand, for various reasons.

 

[TKretts3]

...even if it is impossible to conceive of a universe where Miles Teller is good casting for any role apart from Miles Teller.

Gee, Bob, what do you have against Miles Teller?

 

[Diddy_Mao]

Fantastic Four is not my favorite comic franchise by a wide margin.
I like it just fine, but it gets lumped in with Moon Knight, Elektra and Ghost Rider as characters I know about but just don't really care about.

That being said, I still have a base line expectation for how an adaptation should be handled and trying for a more realistic and toned down feel is so far into the opposite direction from what I would want to see that the very idea of it makes me critical of the film sight unseen.

To me, a pitch perfect Fantastic Four would rest comfortably in between Iron Man and Guardians of the Galaxy in terms of overall tone. I'm okay with messing with their origins, you don't have to make them into space explorers, a terrestrial lab experiment would be fine. (Richards & Co. working on a dimensional rift, Viktor sabotages the device and exposes them to the raw energies of some heretofore unknown dimension...boom.... Fantastic Four origin)

Just don't get bogged down in dour melodrama. This is a series where a man named Victor Von Doom can go to college and effectively major in Mad Science, and nobody bats an eye.
A world where said Arch-villain proceeds to don head to toe power armor and a green tunic before invading other countries with an army of "Doom-Bots"

What it needs is a healthy dose of self indulgent Kirby-esque techno-babble. I expect at least one scene where Dr. Doom threatens to use his Inverse Keplar Rift Generator to alter Reed Richard's Temporal Bio-Flux Matrix or I'm just not going to be happy.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Ahh the Ultimates, there are a few gems hidden in that quagmire of a universe, but Fantastic Four isn't one of them. I will conditionally admit I had a problem with Johnny being black, but it was (largely) resolved by them saying he was adopted (Rule 34 just got less creepy, ironic somewhat isn't it?). Idris Elba, Samuel Jackson and Michael Clark Duncan (Jamie Foxx sucked as Electro) all played the characters so well, I can't imagine them as not being black. Maybe the new kid will have the chops for the role, maybe not. Won't know for a while. But to me, it feels like they made the character black purely for Racial Diversity's sake.

I would have to say that Fox is not confident in their production enough to allow spoilers to leak out. I would wager there won't be any reviewer screenings either.

 

[dragonswarrior]

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.

Nolan-esque (and thus very anti-comic-bookish)

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.

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.

Because without the campier elements Batman is a terrible superhero.

Seriously, a rich dude who spends billions to beat up underprivileged youth and the occasional crazy?

That's not a superhero, that's a fucking problem.

(Please note, I actually really love some of the better written Batman comics. But it definitely requires a hardcore suspension of disbelief. That Nolan's films One and Three just couldn't do for me. Two was really good though, but that was mostly Heath and the Joker.)

 

[Piorn]

We all know how it's going to go.
They go to space, get powers and fight a guy in a Metal Mask. How many times has this movie been done before? 3 times? 4 times?
Maybe it'll be fun to watch, but it won't change anyone's life and be forgotten in a week.

 

[ExtraDebit]

They never should have let Nolan work on Superman because apparently he's a one trick pony.

Batman worked because Nolan did the dark and realistic thing on it, which is what the spirit of the character is. His parents got killed and he gone crazy, putting on a costume and fight crimes on the streets.

Superman on the other hand is the complete opposite of batman, he wears a bright costume and represent justice and hope. Dark doesn't work with this character.

Putting Nolan to work with superman is like putting a clown to work in a funeral. The theme conflicts and Nolan doesn't know how to different themes.

 

[ironfist86]

Ahh, I had forgotten why I stopped watching your reviews about two years ago.
You speak as if your opinion is fact, some universally regarded truth when the reality is I, and many others, thoroughly enjoyed Man of Steel as an interesting take on a character that most everyone has their own vision of what he should be/stand for/is (seeing as this character has been in the social conscious for close to 100 years). It is not a problem that you disliked, hell, even hated the film - you are entitled to your opinion and are more than welcome to share it (and bless your heart, you even get paid for it) but when you abuse the language with proclamations like "Let's be clear: Man of Steel was a bad, bad, bad, bad, bad movie." you can imagine how you come off sounding to anyone who holds a differing opinion.
But thanks for the reminder on why I don't waste my time on your work, carry on.

 

[Seracen]

That moment when even the corporate execs realize they are about to put out crap...

This just brings to mind that story posted last week about how Whedon vetoed the original script for Avengers. Firstly, it boggles me how paid professionals can allow such garbage to pass muster. Secondly, I am appalled at how producers and directors cannot simply see the crap for what it is.

I realize that politics and budgeting constrains many from speaking their mind, but you'd figure SOMEBODY with power/money would be concerned that crap product would equal poor sales...

Unless they are making a B-movie, or going for a "Producers" style tax write-off...there seems little excuse. They are trying to make a blockbuster here, after all! But this always happens...George Lucas didn't have anyone telling him "that's a bad idea" on the prequel trilogy (but he did on the originals)...which speaks volumes in the final product.

 

[Evonisia]

That's breaking MovieBob continuity. Man of Steel was not referred to in a negative manner (as in bad, bad, bad) until around the time of Batfleck, months after the movie was called "notably imperfect" and "good but not that good".

As for the Fantastic Four, well all you need is the stuff mentioned in this article (for the most part) and the fact that the previous two films were so awful to know to not be hopeful. That way if it is mediocre you feel good, and if it's good your brain explodes.

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

And now that fandom has a studio in Marvel that so frequently delivers on its most common immediate desire -- "Just make it like the comics, because that's what we've based most of our hopes around!"

But at the same time, Marvel is fully willing to make radical changes from the comics.

Mandarin... just, Mandarin. Ok, so they kinda brought it back to comics with the "All Hail the King" short, but Iron Man 3 played completely fast and loose with the Mandarin's origin story. And it worked.

Same with Thor. There was no Donald Blake (except the name tag gag). Thor was never trapped in a weak mortal shell. Sure he got demoted from god-hood until he learned to play nice, but he was still quite able to whoop serious ass.

Hawkeye bears almost no resemblance to his comic counterpart, other than being a guy with a bow (though really, that kinda is his defining trait)

Nick Fury being basically Samuel L Jackson in the comics was a recent change, made intentionally to get Samuel L Jackson on board for the movies (for those who don't remember, Nick Fury used to be a crusty old white guy before he became a smooth talking Bad Mother-Shut Yo Mouth)


But it all works. Not because they're tirelessly faithful to the comics. The fucking comics aren't faithful to the comics. No, they work simply because they're good. Period. Guardians is a good damned movie. It's fun and silly and serious and well done all around. Both Captain America flicks were damned good movies. Thor, Iron Man, etc ... Even Iron Man 2, which wasn't quite as awesome as the rest, but was still a fun watch. They've all been fun to watch, and that's because Marvel isn't afraid to rip out huge chunks of backstory or merge characters together if it serves the final product.

As for the Fantastic Four. People won't care that Torch is black, or that they're all younger, or if The Thing isn't the exactly right shade of orange (as played by Billy Elliot), or anything else... Hell, Marvel made a black viking and it worked. There was a little kerfuffle when it was first announced, but then people saw it and for the most part were OK with it. Because he was well written and well cast. They didn't hire some no-name actor to just sit there and fill some affirmative action quota. They got Idris freaking Elba, let him ooze charm and charisma all over the screen (http://i.imgur.com/u85vSG9.gif *congrats you're pregnant*) because that's what Idris Elba does... When he's not dive-tackling invisible space ships and stabbing them to death.

If Fox or Sony want to emulate the success of Marvel with their own Super Hero franchises, they just need to stop making shitty movies. Full stop. Don't worry about keeping exactly faithful to the comics, don't worry about wedging in little easter egg nods to the comics. Just make a good movie. Hire dedicated people who genuinely want to do good work (not just finish and move on to the next paycheck). The rest will fall into line.

Back to the FF reboot: I'll agree with your more cynical guess. The movie just plain sucks. The acting is bad, the story is a mess, there's no chemistry between the actors ... take your pick. The studio knows it, and doesn't want to start teasing early, for fear that people might get a whiff of the stank. I mean, come on: the eponymous Four are led by Low-Budget-Paul-Dano from That Awkward Moment, and ... wait, I just realized that HALF of the Four are from That Awkward Moment. So yeah, my bet: it sucks.

 

[KazeAizen]

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.

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.

I think the idea is that these guys SHOULD be playing to that demo. Most of the blame is put on Watchmen and The Dark Knight Returns however I'd put more of it on Frank Miller than Alan Moore because Alan, as crazy as he is, was actually trying to make a point. Namely when this stuff actually enters our world its not going to end well for anyone involved. The Dark Knight Returns was gritty and grim for the sake of being gritty and grim.

Until the mythical year that is 1986 those books played more towards kids than they did adults. While still not G rated pretty much the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe I'd let my kids watch if I had them. Going back in time in my mind there would be a lot of innuendo or language that would go over my head and I wouldn't care for but I'd remember the action scenes plane as day. Hell that Hulk movie would've probably scared me as a kid but I would've at some point reached the conclusion that the climax is freaking awesome. And until Pacific Rim came out Cap 1 really was a glorified Saturday morning cartoon in the absolute best way possible. The MCU strikes the perfect balance of kid friendly action and adventure with adult themes and consequences that doesn't talk down to kids either.

 

[GloatingSwine]

What Marvel have been good at is identifying the iconic elements of their characters and presenting those in a new format.

Which, really, is old hat to them at this point given that they do so in comics with some regularity in various alternate universes, what ifs, and side stories.

It doesn't seem like anyone else has really grasped what the iconic elements of the Fantastic Four should be and thus how to represent them well in a movie*, hence the previous two movies were a bit poo and everything that gets released about the upcoming one makes it sound less and less like a Fantastic Four movie.

*Well, except Brad Bird.

 

[Jeroenr]

"Again: I get where fandom is coming from. We've seen plenty of projects go bad because a filmmaker decided they knew better (or were better) than the material. But we'd do well to remember that it wasn't too long ago that Drax, Groot and Rocket Raccoon would never have made it to theaters for fear of being too outside the narrow standards of a mainstream audience. We would do well not to become just as narrow ourselves."

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.

Although i think you are right about that, i don't really see the point.
They are spending money (sometimes a lot) to make a competitor make a bit less money.

I don't think that this tacktick really works.
It's not like that the money Marvel doesn't get will be given to FOX.
And we pay for it by having crappy movie's.

The marvel universe is so big they can work around it most of the time.
For instance, in the Avengers they wanted to use the Skrull, FOX said no and they used the Chitauri.
And didn't earn a penny less for it.

Galactus is a no go, but there is Thanos.
Even The Celestials are an option now.

If this F4 bombs they should realize there's no money to be made and let the licence fall back to marvel.

 

[ZZoMBiE13]

Just don't get bogged down in dour melodrama. This is a series where a man named Victor Von Doom can go to college and effectively major in Mad Science, and nobody bats an eye.
A world where said Arch-villain proceeds to don head to toe power armor and a green tunic before invading other countries with an army of "Doom-Bots"

What it needs is a healthy dose of self indulgent Kirby-esque techno-babble. I expect at least one scene where Dr. Doom threatens to use his Inverse Keplar Rift Generator to alter Reed Richard's Temporal Bio-Flux Matrix or I'm just not going to be happy.

Not sure if you'd care or not, but reading all that (especially the last line) made me smile. And I agree wholeheartedly.

As for the FF film, I know it's wrong to pre-judge something. But if it truly ends up using the found-footage gimmick, I'm just not going to like this movie no matter what. There are times when that style works, no one can deny that. But I have never particularly cared for it. I find it distracts from the story more often than it adds to it. That being said, if anyone could make it work then this is the guy. Chronicle was pretty good all told. I just have a hard time seeing how it's going to improve the story of Reed and the gang.

Worst case scenario: The reason it would be found-footage style is that H.E.R.B.I.E. the robot is hovering around filming everything. Yikes.

 

[Ihateregistering1]

Why is Fox hiding the movie? I'm surprised this is even a question.

It's a reboot no one was really asking for, using an IP that most people agree weren't particularly good movies in their first go around, starring basically no big names (Kate Mara is pretty much the biggest star in it), and they've already admitted they're going to completely change the characters and the tone of the source material. Why would anyone be excited?

Now who knows, maybe it'll be the movie of the decade, but I wouldn't bet on it.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

I actually enjoyed the first two FF movies. The characters was fun and the tone wasnt dark and serious. Granted they had Galactus as a cloud which caused a lot of hate on the internet. An understandably so. But the director said he was saving the reveal of Galactus for the 3rd movie - which makes sense as FF2 was about Silver Surfer. Then again who knows if that is really true.

But this new one, maybe they saw the hate BvS got when they showed the new Batman and Wonder Woman photos? Guessing they dont want to risk any negativity. But they have already slated a sequel to be released in 2017. So they must be fairly confident it will succeed. But a lot of the choices that are being made for this movie has me confused. I know you can tweak the source material, but they are changing everything that made Fantastic Four the Fantastic Four. I read that the movie wont even be called Fantastic Four? Which is just strange to me.

 

[vid87]

The thing that has me worried about this is how much the producers seem to want to distance themselves from the very concept of this being FF, down to the "not named" and "not based on anything established." I imagine it's in part because, though I don't have the numbers, the original films were seen as pretty bad, especially #2 (which also begs the question - would Purple Suit Galactus really have gone over well? It's really hard to tell, though the Ultimate Alliance game has a nice design that makes him look more techy but still humanoid with the same shape and design). Maybe it's not so much they think this one's bad, but that they don't want to draw comparisons to the old, critically hated ones, which means the marketing might get interesting when they finally get around to it.

Also, Josh Trank's approach - young cast, possibly Found Footage styled - makes me think he's just making Chronicle again, the same distinct impression I got with Gareth Edwards for Monsters + Godzilla - lame leads, oddly sympathetic creatures, hidden or cutaway action. It makes think how sometimes Auteur Theory and director's vision can actually make things messy - they have a limited style or approach and just slap it onto absolutely everything whether it works or not (ie Tim Burton).

 

[KikReask]

Me personally, I don't really care for The Fantastic Four at all. I love the Avengers and X-Men sure but I always thought the Fantastic Four was a bland team. When it comes to this new movie being hidden away from audiences it's probably because no one really liked the last two movies so Fox needs to figure out the proper way on how to market it, even though somehow we're waiting on our 8th X-Men movie despite the franchise having two critical duds early on. That being said while I believe Fox has earned the right to keep X-Men for a bit longer after the excellent Days of Future Past I've not sure why they're holding on so dearly to the Fantastic Four. Then again I also have no idea why Sony was so quick to reboot Spider-Man for themselves other than money, but Fantastic Four isn't as profitable as Spider-Man or the X-Men.

And can Fox get that Deadpool movie greenlit already?!

Ah well, I'm at least hoping Fox does a better job with this movie than Warner Bros. did with Man of Steel. Seen as everyone is chatting about it, I'd thought I mention how much I hated it too. To put it simply, it outdid Michael Bay in terms of pointless explosions.

Anyway, why is there no more news on Marvel's Daredevil TV series? That at least has to be better than the last adaptation.