Fantastic Four (2015)

[coolkev1701]

[Show spoiler]

Originally Posted by Tony208

That awful wig

Oh, God, that wig is HORRIBLE. Doesn't look anything like her real hair.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by coolkev1701

Oh, God, that wig is HORRIBLE. Doesn't look anything like her real hair.

it was pretty bad. it kept coming and going throughout the film.

[thunderforce]

Any FF poll should have a 0 rating for the people that will not see it because they are boycotting all Fox films until the FF go back where they belong , in the MCU .

[SethRex]

Huh...weird. I hardly even noticed, except for one moment.

[unsung122212]

I only noticed the wig after the "one year later" point. If it was used prior to that, I didn't notice it. Perhaps at the science fair thing in the beginning she may have had a wig on then. Too be honest I only noticed the inconsisitant looks and style in the last half of the film. Not too sure if any of the reshots that were done included anything prior the "one year later" point in the film.

[warrian]

Originally Posted by Foggy

If the last Spiderman film had been profitable, they wouldn't have struck a deal. Production budget may have broke even, but add marketing and the films price inflated to unprofitable heights.

The studios need to find a way to make 7 hundred million in world-wide box office profitable though.

The Amazing Spider-Man was surprisingly good for a movie no-one one wanted. It made the same 700+ mil a couple years earlier and and everyone patted themselves on the back. Then Sony brings in Kurtzman and Orci to Transformer up the the sequel, needlessly throws way more money at it, and when it's not as good but still somehow makes the same the same 7 hundred mil as the first one, they go crawling back to Marvel? The whole thing's ridiculous if you ask me.

Fox would kill for that kind of box-office forgiveness right now.

[coolkev1701]

Originally Posted by wormraper

it was pretty bad. it kept coming and going throughout the film.

It was like: Real hair, wig, wig, real hair, wig... You thought it was gone, then... Nope, there it is again.

[wormraper]

Originally Posted by coolkev1701

It was like: Real hair, wig, wig, real hair, wig... You thought it was gone, then... Nope, there it is again.

Lol. Yup

[SilentNight]

I'm going to watch this movie tonight but I'm already feeling that this was mainly Fox's doing having listened to the first three Kevin Smith pods. The Josh Trank seems like a legit dude.

With how much this movie is failing I wonder if Fox would suck it up and actually give him back the movie for a directors cut for Blu-Ray and VOD. I have a feeling it would sell way more than if they just dump it bare bones to Blu.

Anyways, I'll report back tonight on my thoughts.

[Blu Myers]

I was shocked by how bad this movie was. Even knowing the super low ratings beforehand, I still didn't think it could be "that" bad, but it was.

The script was so bad...like a first draft. Also, it's like they didn't know what to do with Dr. Doom's character. He was just really shallow.

Also, all four main actors seemed like they just weren't into it. Knowing now what went on behind the scenes, it all makes sense.

1.5/5

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by warrian

The studios need to find a way to make 7 hundred million in world-wide box office profitable though.

The Amazing Spider-Man was surprisingly good for a movie no-one one wanted. It made the same 700+ mil a couple years earlier and and everyone patted themselves on the back. Then Sony brings in Kurtzman and Orci to Transformer up the the sequel, needlessly throws way more money at it, and when it's not as good but still somehow makes the same the same 7 hundred mil as the first one, they go crawling back to Marvel? The whole thing's ridiculous if you ask me.

Fox would kill for that kind of box-office forgiveness right now.

It's because the movie cost $250M to make, and had $100M in marketing. $700M for that is just barely turning a profit. Everything has to do with how much they spend on the movie. So $700M may be great, but when compared to what they spent? It's barely profitable. I think their final profit range was only around $40M. For something like Spider-Man, that's horrible. It's all relative.

[warrian]

Originally Posted by Walts Ghost

It's because the movie cost $250M to make, and had $100M in marketing. $700M for that is just barely turning a profit. Everything has to do with how much they spend on the movie. So $700M may be great, but when compared to what they spent? It's barely profitable. I think their final profit range was only around $40M. For something like Spider-Man, that's horrible. It's all relative.

First, this is a nice breakdown. Thanks!

Second, I get it. My point was entirely that they should have set out to have been happy with $700M in the first place. It was a precedent they themselves set.

In fact, all studios should have a policy. $700M = win. If not, they're doing something... lots of things (eveything?) wrong.

[Agent Bond]

Josh Trank should play Galactus, Destroyer Of Marvel Properties, in the sequel!

[GP Legend]

Originally Posted by NoFro

The one thing I can't quite believe is that it has worse reviews than the other two recent FF films which were absolutely horrible. I call bullshit on that.

I mean, I can understand that people might think this is a bad film and honestly I've not yet seen it but I really struggle to believe it is worse than the previous two.

Because the previous two were at least fun. I'd still take them over Fant4stic.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

That's exactly what I like about it. It's totally bonkers and out-there and Burton wasn't afraid to make it his own.

Well, it drove lots of fans away, and made the WB execs very nervous, too. That's why they hired Joel Schumacher to restore the light/dark balance with "Batman Forever", and it was a huge hit. Unfortunately, WB then swung completely the opposite way, which resulted in the ultra-campy "Batman & Robin", stalling the franchise for 7 years.

Man of Steel is the only Superman film I've seen in its entirety. A co-worker happens to be a massive Superman fan and lent the Blu-ray to me. I thought it was extremely boring, and it's rare that I find a film boring. I usually have a decent attention span and try to see the good in anything I watch, but aside from thinking Henry Cavill was decent, I don't have anything else positive about it.

Well, I'd definitely recommend you at least watch the 1978 original all the way through. Be warned, however; it is fairly campy by today's standards, since most of the books were at that time. Not to the same extent as "Batman & Robin", but Lex's goons are the main source for it, once Clark reaches Metropolis.

[Chaotic]

I liked it. *praying for an extended cut* Also *puts flame suit on*

[sandman slim]

Originally Posted by Chaotic

Hey, look! Truth in advertising.

[kemcha]

Josh Trank seems to have fallen into the same trap as M.Night did. Producing a good movie and then seeing his future films crash and tumble.

[Chaotic]

http://screencrush.com/fantastic-fou...ut-from-movie/

Ugh, I really want to see the Thing action scene in an extended cut.

[Thomas Guycott]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Well, it drove lots of fans away, and made the WB execs very nervous, too.

It wasn't the reaction from fans, but parents (and advertising partners like McDonalds) objecting to the film's dark imagery and violence which got WB's attention. The movie still made a lot of money and is liked by many comic fans specifically for its uniquely darh, gothic tone.

In my opinion, I think Burton's ability to go hog wild on Batman Returns compared to the first is what improves it: if there's any superhero property which can work with a dark, whimsical, gothic fairytale interpretation, it's Batman.