re: Official Fantastic Four Review/RT 9%(SPOILERS!!!)-(by Fox)

Of course this movie is about preserving IP. The rights were gonna revert to Marvel, so Fox had to put out a movie. It's not the first time this has happened with the FF, and that's even what happened with the Spidey reboot. Now, it doesn't mean the movie has to suck, but it's certainly why the company bigwigs signed off: to hold on to the IP.

quote:

---

This is about Marvel having to live with their mistakes. They rented out their top properties with the knowledge that leasing them to others had always resulted in a sub-par product. Now that Marvel is Disney and has their own studio, the idiocy of those past deals are coming to light.

---

They sold the rights in 1986. That was at least 10 owners ago... hell, Marvel Entertainment Group didn't even exists yet (that was post-bankruptcy). The idiocy of those deals haven't JUST come to light, it's been known for awhile, but it's mainly a relic of a previous era.

True, no one forced Marvel to license the FF. Of course, not a single person involved in that decision is still at Marvel, or has been for probably 20 years.

quote:

---

I seriously doubt that Fox is intentionally sabotaging the Fantastic Four film franchise in an effort to "stick it" to Marvel. Fox is still working hard to keep the X-Men franchise strong and growing, I doubt that they're budgeting hundreds of thousands of dollars in a Marvel Revenge fund.

---

I don't think they wanted the movie to tank, but I think it is clear Priority #1 of this film is to hold on to the FF IP. They want to hold on to a valuable property. Of course, Marvel is sticking it to Fox by trying to devalue the property and cancelling the comic. Yes, I know it was a poor seller, but it's also the flagship title. They could have kept it going or even tried to revive the sales, but there was no real incentive to do so.

It's just a shame to see both companies do their best to destroy the legacy of one of the most influential comic books of all time.

quote:

---

And I refuse to feel sorry for Marvel, a company that screwed over its creators when it was family owned, and then passed from disinterested owner to owner until it ended up as a part of Disney. There's no grand artistic or historic design behind their quest to regain the rights to all of their characters. It's all financial. The comic book audience is secondary and that audience will be fed only those characters that benefit the Marvel film divisions bottom line.

---

Well, there clearly WAS an artistic and historic design. Marvel was the first comic book company to stress continuity and the idea of a shared universe. DC Comics essentially always reset, and just used the Superman character to tell new stories, with little regard for continuity (until Marvel came along, and they came up with the idea of the multiverse). So it was essential that characters stayed with the company, so an artist leaving didn't destroy the "Marvel universe."

Now, I do believe Jack Kirby was treated like crap by Marvel, as was Steve Ditko. That said, there were never going to own these characters, as that's not how comic book IP had ever worked previously. It wasn't until Dave Sim that the concept of artist controlled characters really took root and had any force. And that was in the 80s, and you controlled your characters by being independent and not working for the Big Two.

Besides, Jim Shooter was named Editor-in-Chief in 1978, and he instituted an art-return policy as well as royalty sharing once comics hit a certain benchmarks, which included toys, merchandise, and later film. Marvel has been compensating its artists and writers since the early 80s on IP. While the company retains ownership, artists do get a share of the royalties on their creations. (BTW - the response to Shooter's reforms has been largely to villify Shooter as an evil control freak for also instituting such draconian policies as "turn your work in on time" and "keep the story and art consistent").

I do agree that a lot of comics largely exist to create IP and stories for the TV/movie side of the business. Comics don't need to turn a profit, they need to create future licensing. This has, ironically, led to an incredibly creative period for the comic division because there's been some corporate neglect. Creators have a much freer hand now than they did than 20-30 years ago, because the company isn't relying on the books for all of its revenue, or even a large percentage anymore.

quote:

---

Of course this movie is about preserving IP. The rights were gonna revert to Marvel, so Fox had to put out a movie. It's not the first time this has happened with the FF, and that's even what happened with the Spidey reboot. Now, it doesn't mean the movie has to suck, but it's certainly why the company bigwigs signed off: to hold on to the IP.

---

I've never said that they weren't making the film to retain the rights. I just don't think that they're the bad guys for wanting to retain the rights that they legally hold.

quote:

---

How bad is the latest effort to establish a cinematic franchise out of Marvel Comics’ iconic super-group the Fantastic Four? Well, it’s the worst to date—which is a substantial achievement, given the low quality of the (unreleased) 1994 Roger Corman adaptation

---

This is the ridiculous hyperbole I keep seeing. No one who's seen the 1994 abomination can say this with a straight face.

quote:

---

Do what now?

---

There's a difference between grabbing rights and retaining rights.

If you wait for a property to go out of print and then print your own to obtain the rights, that might be called a rights grab.

If you own the rights to a property and keep it in print so that you do not lose those rights, that's retaining your rights. Not "grabbing" them.

anyway... back on subject.

the people have spoken and even the unwashed masses be like "Fant4stic? Nah man."

quote:

---

'Fantastic Four' Gets Worst CinemaScore Ever for Studio Superhero Movie

Not only were reviews scathing — resulting in a 9 percent fresh rating on Rotten Tomatoes — audiences on Friday night gave the $120 million Fox tentpole a C- CinemaScore, the worst grade that anyone can remember for a marquee superhero title made by a major Hollywood studio. (CinemaScore, based in Las Vegas, was founded in 1979.)

In 2008, The Spirit, based on the comic strip and directed by Frank Miller, likewise received a C- CinemaScore, but that film was produced and financed independently by OddLot Entertainment, and cost far less to make, roughly $60 million.

Audiences have rarely given superhero movies variations of a C grade, even those that have failed at the box office. The Green Hornet, flopping in 2011 with a $33.5 million debut, received a B+ CinemaScore, while duds Elektra, Catwoman and Daredevil earned a B. Exceptions include Ghost Rider: The Spirit of Vengeance (C+), Batman and Robin (C+) and Superman IV: The Quest for Peace (C).

---

LINK

It's just polling someone who just saw the movie.
Eta: daredevil was campy, but at least there was a mostly cohesive story.

Trank and Kinberg (who mostly called the shots after trank was fired) made an imcomplete mess of a film that was boring for adults and kids....the general audience clearly knew what this movie was.

It might not even be in theaters by the fourth week of August.

Yeah the defenders of this film can talk about "trank's part" and "kinberg's part" but the reality is that even if the film was 2 hours long the origin was way too long.


Reboots shouldn't do origin stories.
All set up and no pay off equals one of the worst comic movies ever.
There is a B reel out there showing some cut scenes of the four in the fantasticar. I get a Ironman 3 vibe from it, where genius solves problem in old garage instead of ye old science lab.

quote:

---

WHAT?

---

Topping the last bad review with more hyperbole wasn't nearly as important back then.

quote:

---

I think they backlash they received from the new Doom backstory (Doom pissed off internet mod) is when the studio really started to step in

---

Maybe, but I've heard this thing was doomed from the beginning.

Fox apparently cut 3 big action set pieces days before shooting began on Fantastic Four

quote:

---

"I've got a source, fairly close to the production of this film, who had told me that the movie that Josh Trank and Fox had agreed on making — included 3 really big action set pieces. That was all agreed upon, it was part of the flow of the movie. And a movie is like a puzzle, you have all the pieces in place. You start messing with pieces and suddenly the whole puzzle can look out of whack. And they had agreed upon this vision for a film. And days before production began, Fox came in and made him pull 3 main action sequences out of the film. I was also told, the ending of the film was not even Josh Trank's. At some point they hijacked the editing bay from him. To the point that the editing of the film was done without him."

---

It sounds like Fox didn't want to put in the money for this one like they promised Trank in the beginning. That probably put a big strain in the relationship between Trank and Fox from the get go. It may be the reason why Trank started acting like a dip shite during production. I'm sure the Dr Doom origin backlash didn't help things either. Maybe one day somebody will make a cool documentary on this like The Death of Superman Lives. I just wish they would have decided to kill this one in the beginning like WB did that one. Fox would rather finish a piece of shite in order to keep the rights.