First reviews for Trank's Fantastic Four hit.
- Thread starter SCULLIBUNDO
- Start date
- Status
Brianimaniac
Banned
FUCK NO. That was the worst thing he could have said, and only served to prove he has no clue what the Fantastic Four is about.
As I said in the earlier thread, Cronenberg and Fantastic Four go together like peanut butter and vomit.
If he wanted to make a Cronenberg movie, he should have signed on to a comic book property that fits that style. FF ain't it.
Why does it need to be so binary? It feels like many believe that they either blindly do everything he says and merely write cheques or they ignore him completely?
Fiege will have a voice for sure, but with Sony fully financing the film if this film utterly bombs it won't be Fiege who will be for the high jump.
It's politics, all politics.
ScreenSplitter
Member
... feels weird you saying that when you said it was "100% Sony Pictures", which by Kevin's Feige involvement isn't true.
I honestly have no idea what you are talking about.
Big ten?
Seriously, what are you talking about?!
He's a sub contractor working for Sony.
Sony are literally employing him.
Again, what are we discussing here?
Funky Papa
FUNK-Y-PPA-4
Your opinion.
FF is old as dirt and has had plenty of storylines very much in line with Cronenberg's phatos. It's all about having a good script and a competent director.
The Fantastic Four in Fox's hands would pretty much taint the X-Men franchise, plus nobody's gonna trust Fox with the F4 after this movie.
darkhunger
Member
https://simple.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_movie_studio
Semantics of course. Call them whatever you want. But feel free to continue to ignore primary sources that contradict your argument.
DICKS AHOY
Banned
Tying the Thing's catchphrase into a childhood abuse backstory is one of the more desperate attempts to make an inherently goofy, upbeat franchise 'mature' for no particular reason.
I didn't love it, but Ant-Man at least sticks out this year as the only movie that knows superheroes can be goofy and self-aware while still attracting an audience and fitting into an overall continuity that's still 'serious'. Even Age of Ultron after loving the first Avengers felt too full-on at times.
I didn't love it, but Ant-Man at least sticks out this year as the only movie that knows superheroes can be goofy and self-aware while still attracting an audience and fitting into an overall continuity that's still 'serious'. Even Age of Ultron after loving the first Avengers felt too full-on at times.
This is nonsense. Don't quote this article again. It simply isn't accurate. Where would you even get something like this from?!
For a start MGM and New Line don't even have a theatrical distribution operations anymore and Miramax is just a shell company that licences out catalogue titles to other vendors. They don't even produce their own projects anymore.
I don't want to patronise you but you don't have anything like the working knowledge of 'showbiz' or the studio system that you think you do.
The thing is, he has evidence that directly contradicts your claim. While you aren't wrong about the way things work in the movie industry, there isn't much evidence to support your statement. And be logical, Kevin Feige wouldn't bring Spider-Man into the MCU if Sony wasn't gonna give him & the rest of Marvel Studios a considerable amount of say. Plus all of the press releases said "Sony & Marvel" or "Sony & Marvel Studios", not just "Sony" or "Marvel Studios". If they just contracted Kevin Feige, they wouldn't have to say Marvel at all beyond Spidey being a Marvel property & in the MCU now. And as for any potential reboots, since Spider-Man is now bound to the MCU (which won't reboot at this rate), they'd just go the James Bond approach if they need to recast him or anyone else. It's like the analogy I've made since Day 1. Spider-Man is a car owned by Sony. Sony's too drunk to drive, so they call Marvel Studios to be their designated driver. Could Sony override some of Marvel's creative decisions, certainly. But given the mess that Sony's in, it's best that they let Marvel mostly do their own thing (of course, they can't let Marvel go crazy, but that's obvious).
Back on-topic, I'm just waiting for the ComicBookCast review. Can't wait for Armin to grill the shit out of this movie.
My opinion, and the opinion of anyone who wants to see a successful adaptation of FF. He should have signed on to Swamp Thing or something like that instead of trying to jam a square peg into a round hole.
DICKS AHOY
Banned
Lower than Green Lantern or Batman & Robin? Yikes.
Discotheque
Banned
there are some low rated gems out there (imo) like blackhat and lone ranger.
i don't think i will consider this among them though. i didn't even care for chronicle and that's supposed to be josh trank's good movie.
i don't think i will consider this among them though. i didn't even care for chronicle and that's supposed to be josh trank's good movie.
Just double-checked. It's equal to Ghost Rider 2 (14%), but not as bad as Jonah Hex (12%), Catwoman (10%), or Elektra (also 10%).
*sigh*
Sony Pictures are 100% financing, producing and distributing the next stand alone Spider Man which Kevin Fiege will co-produce with former studio head Amy Pascal.
The 2017 Spider Man film is 100% a Sony Pictures film. I don't have anything else to say on the matter.
ScreenSplitter
Member
This led me to find Spider-Man 3 has a rating of 63%... what?
Then it isn't 100%, christ. Also, FEIGE. F-E-I-G-E-. Just a sidebar, but wow.
TheSlySoul
Member
Probably the best review you are going to get.
Fantastic Four is an IP that will not make a good movie, sorry.
FTFY
The Incredibles proves that a good F4 movie can be made. Fox is just not capable of making that movie. I think it's time to give the rights back to Marvel.
Triggerhappytel
Member
I can't imagine Sony have agreed to co-produce the film with Marvel if they're not going to let Marvel play a significant role. And considering Marvel's success with their films, it makes a lot of sense for Sony to hand over some of the ownership if it means that it will result in a far better film, and they'll be able to cross-promote with other characters from the MCU in future films.
Do you mean like Teeth? Was he going to make FF like Teeth?!
Discotheque
Banned
they were just hip buzz words sadly. god damn i would really be down for a comic book movie that invoked that tone. the genre's been stale.
Which means he had a terrible idea and couldn't execute on it.
It's still a terrible idea.
illmatic22
Banned
Fixed.
Broken Joystick
At least you can talk. Who are you?
Fox: I was thinking about a story from the Bible.
Sony: Did I tell you to open your mouth?
Marvel: Let him talk. Don't mean nothin'.
Fox: I'm not a religious man... but I've read bits and pieces over the years. Curiosity more than faith. But this one story...
There was a man. He was traveling from comics to cinema... when he was set upon by men of ill intent. They stripped the traveler of his fantastical nature, they beat him, and they left his RT score in the dirt.
And a movie company happened by... saw the traveler. But he moved to the other side of the road and continued on.
And then a Levite, a religious functionary, he... came to the place, saw the dying traveler. But he too moved to the other side of the road, passed him by.
But then came a man from Marvel, a Marvelite, a good man. He saw the traveler bleeding in the road and he stopped to aid him without thinking of the circumstance or the difficulty it might bring him. The Marvelite tended to the traveler's wounds, applying oil and wine. And he carried him to an inn, gave him all the money he had for the owner to take care of the traveler, as the Marvelite, he... continued on his journey. He did this simply because the traveler was his neighbor. He loved his franchise and all the people in it.
I always thought that I was the Samaritan in that story. It's funny, isn't it? How even the best of men can be... deceived by their true nature. What the hell does that mean? It means that I'm not the Samaritan. That I'm not the priest, or the Levite. That I am the ill intent who set upon the traveler on a road that he should not have been on.
Sony: Did I tell you to open your mouth?
Marvel: Let him talk. Don't mean nothin'.
Fox: I'm not a religious man... but I've read bits and pieces over the years. Curiosity more than faith. But this one story...
There was a man. He was traveling from comics to cinema... when he was set upon by men of ill intent. They stripped the traveler of his fantastical nature, they beat him, and they left his RT score in the dirt.
And a movie company happened by... saw the traveler. But he moved to the other side of the road and continued on.
And then a Levite, a religious functionary, he... came to the place, saw the dying traveler. But he too moved to the other side of the road, passed him by.
But then came a man from Marvel, a Marvelite, a good man. He saw the traveler bleeding in the road and he stopped to aid him without thinking of the circumstance or the difficulty it might bring him. The Marvelite tended to the traveler's wounds, applying oil and wine. And he carried him to an inn, gave him all the money he had for the owner to take care of the traveler, as the Marvelite, he... continued on his journey. He did this simply because the traveler was his neighbor. He loved his franchise and all the people in it.
I always thought that I was the Samaritan in that story. It's funny, isn't it? How even the best of men can be... deceived by their true nature. What the hell does that mean? It means that I'm not the Samaritan. That I'm not the priest, or the Levite. That I am the ill intent who set upon the traveler on a road that he should not have been on.
I'm seeing this next week, I no longer have high hopes.
ScreenSplitter
Member
birthday-suit
Banned
I was hoping this was going to be a good movie.
Fans don't want comic book movies that aren't faithful to the source material.
Fox comic movies suck for that tho.
Fans don't want comic book movies that aren't faithful to the source material.
Fox comic movies suck for that tho.
Beautiful
Joel Was Right
Member
It cant be as bad as some are suggesting it to be. GAF told me Skyfall was awesome, that MoS was amazing.
I'm going to see this for myself and report back.
I'm going to see this for myself and report back.
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
So is there any chance of Marvel getting rights to FF films back if this tanks?
ScreenSplitter
Member
If anything I think they'll wait to see if Marvel's involvement (which absolutely does exist despite the protestations in this thread) with the 2017 Spider-Man garners a significant increase in profit over ASM2.
I recently read the first eight issues of Ultimate Fantastic Four and the body horror stuff was really effective. I haven't read any other FF stories but I really enjoyed that aspect. I'd jump at a movie with the same vibes.
Maybe after a couple of sequels.
Exactly how I feel. I'll pass on this one. You want FOX to stop rebooting FF? Don't watch the movie!
Mr. Pointy
Member
If F4 is as good as Ghost Rider 2, I'll watch it twice.
It'd be best if you guys don't. That is, if you want the Fantastic Four to not be done by Fox, anymore. I say this as someone who was hoping that this movie would pull through.
……forgetit
Member
This isn't Gaf telling you, almost none of us have seen it either, this is the reviews telling you.
Even a few of our own saw & hated the movie.
BertramCooper
Banned
The one who's going to get hit the hardest when this tanks is Josh Trank. The ongoing rumors about him being awful on set, and a pain in the ass to work with, and the studio taking the movie away from him, and then him losing the Star Wars gig. All of that could have be swept under the carpet if the film ended up beating expectations. Instead whether they were true or not, this is just going to make it all sound more credible.
The cast will be fine, it's just a silly superhero movie. Simon Kinberg will be fine, he has a gazillion other gigs lined up. Fox will be fine, they have Apocalypse and Deadpool next year. The losers other than Trank are all the fans who wanted a decent Fantastic Four movie. I don't even care if it's radically different at this point, I just hoped that it was good and unique on its own merits. Doesn't sound like that's the case.
Hey, Josh Trank totally didn't lose the Star Wars gig. He totally left on his own accord, totally. Because he wanted to do something original instead.
What a chucklefuck. What director in their right mind would VOLUNTARILY leave a Star Wars movie?
Pai Pai Master
Banned
Please don't support this movie.
I like this idea reed unlocks going through dimensions all the F4 movie people in one bad movie.
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
This. I certainly am not.
Discotheque
Banned
Maybe one who doesn't want film execs looming over him?
forreal. i don't care for trank but a freaking boba fett spinoff from disney does not sound like something worth working on for anybody but the most desperate imo.
- Status