Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Doubt that. It's always about the money, FF has no worth to Fox anymore, they won't be making a movie with these characters, not ever IMO. There's nothing for them in spin off merchandising either. Fox are in a much worse position with FF than Sony were with Spiderman. If Marvel came with a sharing deal they'd be dumb not to bite their hands off. The relationship between Fox and Marvel has always been much more contentious than the relationship between Sony and Marvel. Not sure why this is, but it's pretty clear that Fox and Marvel will not be working on any movies jointly. At this point, I don't see how Fox has anything to lose by allowing Marvel to use the property for a share of the profits. They have proven themselves to be utterly incapable of turning a profit on this property. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 They have proven themselves to be utterly incapable of turning a profit on this property. The first two films did make a profit, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 If I remember correctly, Marvel attempted to get Fox to share Galactus amd SS in exchange for extending Fox's hold on the rights to Daredevil. Fox basically said "Fuck you, we don't even want DD!" And of course Marvel turned that franchise around with a successful and critically acclaimed series (another instance of Fox not realizing the potential of what they had) so I don't think FF is forever tainted. If they got the property in time to introduce them in Avengers 3 or something, they could probably revitalize them easily enough. And as everyone has said, Doom, Galactus, etc. could really help Marvel out, the Skrulls may be tied up with FF too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 The first two films did make a profit, though? Yeah, you're right. The first two were relative hits. The third bombed, and it looks like this reboot is following suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King in Black Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Daredevil the director's cut was amazing, so maybe one day we'll get to see what Trank's version really was, if it ever existed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morpheus Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 The Director's Cut is the only version I have seen and I thought it was crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Yeah, you're right. The first two were relative hits. The third bombed, and it looks like this reboot is following suit. There never was a third one. They just rebooted it because of the critical mauling the first two got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King in Black Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 The Director's Cut is the only version I have seen and I thought it was crap. Compared to Marvel's Daredevil, of course it was. But had this been released instead of the theatrical version, the feedback might have been more positive. At least for me, ymmv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 There never was a third one. They just rebooted it because of the critical mauling the first two got. Oh geez, I thought Rise of the Silver Surfer was the third. If that's the case, then I'm pretty sure that one bombed as well. It barely made back its' production costs. So Fox is 1 for 3 with FF flicks if the new one ends up tanking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howdyphillip Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Oh geez, I thought Rise of the Silver Surfer was the third. If that's the case, then I'm pretty sure that one bombed as well. It barely made back its' production costs. So Fox is 1 for 3 with FF flicks if the new one ends up tanking. FF II made its production costs back in the US, and almost $300 million world wide. It also was released on DVD at the height of that mediums popularity. It was a bomb by no stretch of the imagination from a financial standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 You know an awful lot about what Marvel and Sony executives were thinking and feeling... however, I get the impression that most of it is in your head, rather than being, y'know, facts. No Mormont, I'm talking about a business deal who's details we know of (or at least the major details) and just general facts about how the business works. None of this is that complicated. We even have the Sony hacks for some interesting inside information along with just general leaks. Like, there's nothing complicated about "Marvel wants their properties back to make money off them and the companies that own them don't want to give them back if they think they can be profitable". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Specially considering it's keeping many comics that sell lower numbers, but to whom they have the movie rights to. Comics are just a way to build recognition for their movie business these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King in Black Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Comics are just a way to build recognition for their movie business these days. Hey ,come on! Its not like they're making laughably bad attempts at replacing the X men with Inhumans or something..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 FF II made its production costs back in the US, and almost $300 million world wide. It also was released on DVD at the height of that mediums popularity. It was a bomb by no stretch of the imagination from a financial standpoint. On a $130 million budget that can easily be a bomb. A quick search says it made just under $300 million, so about twice it's production budget back. Which is usually considered a breakeven point for a film. (ie - after marketing and such, the film probably just didn't lose money) And remember there's lower returns on non-domestic takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manhole Eunuchsbane Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 FF II made its production costs back in the US, and almost $300 million world wide. It also was released on DVD at the height of that mediums popularity. It was a bomb by no stretch of the imagination from a financial standpoint. All I saw was that it made 131 million domestically, and that it cost 130 million to make. I guess I might be injecting a bit of personal feelings here, as I saw the film, but I can barely even remember it. For me, that is the surest barometer of a bad film. Beyond the direct financials, I tend to think that moving to a reboot is also a sign of failure. If you are deadset on making another film based on these characters, yet you feel the need to completely recast it, the last film failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mormont Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 Marvel doesn't want to promote the Fantastic Four. Not having a comic out with their name and appearance on the cover makes that a lot easier. Um... not really? Seriously, the comics are the next thing to irrelevant to the merchandising these days, let alone to the films. If Marvel don't want to promote the FF on merchandise, hey, they can not do that: they don't have to worry about the comic when taking that decision. Just don't do it. Nothing could be easier. The only thing that cancelling the comic makes a difference to is whether there's a comic on the shelves of specialist comic shops that has the FF name on it. These days, that means whether a relatively tiny number of people, who almost certainly would already be aware of any potential FF film already, see a comic about a property they were already aware of. (And heck, you can buy a Marvel comic with the Human Torch or the Thing on the cover right now, if you want.) In promotional terms, having an FF comic can have only an infinitesimal impact on the promotion of a FF film. I know lots of people are saying that Marvel really is that petty, and again, I'd be willing to believe it if I saw any firm evidence (I'm no Marvel fanboy, they do make some very bad decisions for terrible reasons), but... so far, there's none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
williamjm Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 On a $130 million budget that can easily be a bomb. A quick search says it made just under $300 million, so about twice it's production budget back. Which is usually considered a breakeven point for a film. (ie - after marketing and such, the film probably just didn't lose money) And remember there's lower returns on non-domestic takes. It's probably also significant that it made significantly less money ($131 Million vs $154 Million) as well as having a higher budget. It would have been reasonable to conclude that the trend would continue if they made a third film so even if FF2 scraped into profitability FF3 probably wouldn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red snow Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 (And heck, you can buy a Marvel comic with the Human Torch or the Thing on the cover right now, if you want.) In promotional terms, having an FF comic can have only an infinitesimal impact on the promotion of a FF film. I know lots of people are saying that Marvel really is that petty, and again, I'd be willing to believe it if I saw any firm evidence (I'm no Marvel fanboy, they do make some very bad decisions for terrible reasons), but... so far, there's none. Technically those books aren't out until after the FF cinema cycle. But fair enough, Marvel have not outright stated they are not publishing a FF comic just because the film is out. I doubt they ever will. So we'll put it down as an incredibly idiotic missed opportunity to sell Fantastic Four comics - unless they knew the film was going to be as unpopular as it appear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedEyedGhost Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 The studio only gets back about half of the box office. And the budget does not include marketing. $132M domestically (studio take $65M), $157M foreign (at 33% the studio would take $52M - it could be hire or lower, I don't know, but I do know Shryke is correct below). So with that estimate it took in $112 on a budget of $130M, not counting the several million the spent on marketing (this says Transformers also released in 2007 spent $150M on marketing :stunned: ). I don't see any possible way that Rise of the Silver Surfer could have made money; there's a reason Fox waited as long as they possibly could yet still retain the rights before making this one. And remember there's lower returns on non-domestic takes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trebla Posted August 9, 2015 Share Posted August 9, 2015 You guys need to factor in marketing costs when talking about grosses. Variety talks about that here: http://variety.com/2015/film/news/fantastic-four-box-office-bomb-1201566230/ Fox’s hopes of rejuvenating the comicbook characters and turning the super-team into a cinematic juggernaut to rival “X-Men” have flamed out given that the film debuted to a dreadful $26.2 million across 3,995 theaters. With a production budget of $120 million, plus millions more in marketing costs, the film will need to get a substantial boost from foreign crowds to avoid being a writeoff . A perfect example of this is The Lone Ranger. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lone_Ranger_(2013_film) It was a box office bomb, grossing $260 million worldwide against an estimated $225 million production budget, and an additional $150 million marketing budget. It's doubtful Fox spent that much in marketing but they probably did spend tens of millions. eta: LOL, walked away from the pc for awhile so RedEyedGhost beat me to the punch. p Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.