RUMOR: Is Marvel Canceling Fantastic Four Comics to Hurt Fox's New Movie?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

RUMOR: Is Marvel Canceling Fantastic Four Comics to Hurt Fox's New Movie?

FF

Sometimes the business really is this bizarre

The movie business? Strange. The comics business? Insane. Putting them together? Predictable.

Comic book news and rumor site Bleeding Cool has been running a series of increasingly incendiary (as funnybook gossip goes) reports about artists involved with the merchandising and promotion of Marvel Comics properties being told not to make use of characters associated with the Fantastic Four franchise, particularly in regard to Marvel's upcoming 75th Anniversary-branded promotions. That sounds strange, given that FF is the company's (symbolic) foundation, but not as strange as the reason Bleeding Cool claims to have sniffed out for the absence: That Marvel is planning to cancel all Fantastic Four books so they won't help promote the series upcoming movie reboot from Fox.

It's a pretty incredible proposition, but not devoid of plausibility - and now it's being backed up by the usually reliable Comic Book Resources. More anonymous sources being quoted elsewhere are heavily implying that, if true, the edict is likely coming from the very top: Marvel CEO Ike Perlmutter, infamous in business circles for his eccentric (and often highly-personal) decision making.

Fox and Marvel are famously unfriendly, stemming from unhappy dealings surrounding the X-Men and Fantastic Four movie rights, which both Marvel Studios' creative and business departments would like to recclaim but Fox can hold onto for as long as they keep making movies owing to lopsided contracts signed back when Marvel was in bankruptcy. In the past, it's been heavily whispered that Marvel ordered writers to stop inventing new Mutants in order to keep potential new X-Men characters away from Fox who, in turn, are believed by some to have replaced the character Juggernaut with Quicksilver in X-Men: Days of Future Past specifically to make things difficult for Marvel/Disney when a different version of the character appears in Avengers: Age of Ultron.

Complicating matters further, Marvel is currently building toward a (supposedly) major crossover event called "Time Runs Out" in 2015 that some are speculating will lead to a "reboot" of the entire Marvel Universe (and/or a merger with the "Ultimate" Universe) similar to DC's "New 52" initiative. If so, an early ending for series like Fantastic Four (which doesn't sell especially well as a comic, while X-Men does) could also be part of the lead-in for that.

Marvel has not issued an official denial.

Sources: Bleeding Cool, CBR

Permalink

It's a bit of a clusterfuck, but i will admit that i prefer what Fox is doing with X-Men right now, than what Marvel is doing with their movies. Days of Future Past reminded me how much fun superhero movies can be so obviously i wouldn't want Marvel to reclaim X-Men (Would probably also be a mess if it was included in the Marvel canon thingy), but i can see why they are angry. I don't know much about comics, but i do know that Fantastic Four and Xmen (and Spiderman) are a pretty big part of Marvels image (From a mainstream perspective).

I honestly can't see it happening quite like this as Stan Lee still seems to be kicking around and having some say, and "Fantastic Four" is one of his babies, and arguably the comic that really put Marvel super heroes on the map originally, even if it's popularity waned. I believe Stan has talked numerous times about having a soft spot for the characters and has himself mentioned that he sort of saw the shared Marvel Universe starting with "Fantastic Four #1" back in the 1960s. The Fantastic Four, and guys like Doctor Doom have remained around despite some lapses, and despite not selling well, and even after Stan stepped down they seem to have remained a "protected property" and it's been theorized that there might even be contracts that ensures that property's continuation in perpetuity as a sort of monument, though that's never been proven. Those rumors starting a long time ago when there were a lot of people observing that any comic flagging like "Fantastic Four" has would be cancelled, and despite being cut a few times it always comes back for one reason or another despite all business sense.

Strictly speaking "Fantastic Four" right now still apparently makes money, albeit not a lot. While the movies are currently the big cash cow, I can't see a movie slap fight destroying IPs like this, Cutting off the nose to spite the face so to speak. After all even if this costs Sony money, and/or kills the property it's not like it puts a successful property back in Disney's hands once that damage has been done. That said, this doesn't mean that a lot of the more mercenary voices at "The House Of Mouse" aren't discussing some of the ideas we're hearing, or even that some minor products haven't been affected, along with circulating memos. For example one connected rumor seems to be that in guys working on a Marvel trading card set have been forbidden from using/doing art for Fantastic Four characters and their rogues gallery (including Doctor Doom, one of the more popular and longer running super villains). While I might buy something minor like that being affected by company dickering, I don't think it will affect the IP as a whole. If "Fantatic Four" is cancelled, I'd imagine it will return in a few months or a year tops (it always does), and what's more I wouldn't put it past Marvel to be spreading these rumors as a marketing gimmick themselves, convince people "Fantastic Four" might be going away, especially when there is some interest with the new movies being made, it gets people talking, boosts sales, and while they aren't getting movie bucks, they are profiting off Sony's work.

if this is true i will assume that all the stupid shit happening in spider-man is an attempt to hurt sony and not just simple stupidity.

teebeeohh:
if this is true i will assume that all the stupid shit happening in spider-man is an attempt to hurt sony and not just simple stupidity.

What stupid shit? I follow Spider-Man comics since 2013 Superior Spider-Man run and it was awesome.

Therumancer:
I honestly can't see it happening quite like this as Stan Lee still seems to be kicking around and having some say, and "Fantastic Four" is one of his babies, and arguably the comic that really put Marvel super heroes on the map originally, even if it's popularity waned. I believe Stan has talked numerous times about having a soft spot for the characters and has himself mentioned that he sort of saw the shared Marvel Universe starting with "Fantastic Four #1" back in the 1960s. The Fantastic Four, and guys like Doctor Doom have remained around despite some lapses, and despite not selling well, and even after Stan stepped down they seem to have remained a "protected property" and it's been theorized that there might even be contracts that ensures that property's continuation in perpetuity as a sort of monument, though that's never been proven. Those rumors starting a long time ago when there were a lot of people observing that any comic flagging like "Fantastic Four" has would be cancelled, and despite being cut a few times it always comes back for one reason or another despite all business sense.

Strictly speaking "Fantastic Four" right now still apparently makes money, albeit not a lot. While the movies are currently the big cash cow, I can't see a movie slap fight destroying IPs like this, Cutting off the nose to spite the face so to speak. After all even if this costs Sony money, and/or kills the property it's not like it puts a successful property back in Disney's hands once that damage has been done. That said, this doesn't mean that a lot of the more mercenary voices at "The House Of Mouse" aren't discussing some of the ideas we're hearing, or even that some minor products haven't been affected, along with circulating memos. For example one connected rumor seems to be that in guys working on a Marvel trading card set have been forbidden from using/doing art for Fantastic Four characters and their rogues gallery (including Doctor Doom, one of the more popular and longer running super villains). While I might buy something minor like that being affected by company dickering, I don't think it will affect the IP as a whole. If "Fantatic Four" is cancelled, I'd imagine it will return in a few months or a year tops (it always does), and what's more I wouldn't put it past Marvel to be spreading these rumors as a marketing gimmick themselves, convince people "Fantastic Four" might be going away, especially when there is some interest with the new movies being made, it gets people talking, boosts sales, and while they aren't getting movie bucks, they are profiting off Sony's work.

1. Fox, not Sony.
2. If the property doesn't make money, Fox will be more willing to sell the rights to it back to Marvel.

I was going to dismiss this as sensationalism but then I realised MovieBob was the author and I don't think he'd post something like this if it was completely ludicrous.

I guess if the films make Marvel the big money nowadays (which is a pretty reasonable supposition), then it makes sense for them to focus on the IPs that can be filmable and marketable (that'd definitely be a Disney kind of decision). So maybe it is happening? Every good mutant they create is more money in the pocket of their competitors and not money they get themselves.

I like the X-Men films though, I don't want Disney making all of them, and I don't want every single superhero franchise to be under the umbrella of one corporation. If something doesn't fit Marvel's worldview then it doesn't get made and we lose the variety and competition. If DC/Warner Bros were competent atm, it might be different, but they're not so I don't want Disney to get these kind of film rights back.

I don't read many comics and don't follow the industry so I'm an outsider looking in when it comes to stuff like this. That being said, I wonder: what is up with this Quicksilver character? So, Marvel isn't allowed to use characters in their movies that Fox still has the rights to? Yet both Marvel and Fox have a Quicksilver, but the MCU's isn't a mutant so it's okay or something?*

"COMICS ARE WEIRD" indeed....

*That "He's no mutant" explanation is something I saw on another forum so I don't know if it's accurate.

What's more likely, Fantastic Four comics boosting ticket sales for the movie or, if the movie is good, it boosting comic sales? Because I think Marvel's logic is a bit backwards here.

I agree Spot, the movies boost ticket sales, of course comic book readers will be interested in the films but no one relies on the Xmen or Spiderman comics to stay interested in those. The film is advertised, the character name is known and people see it.

But honestly I don't care if Marvel gets the rights back to the FF or they do not. Marvel or Fox can make a Fantastic Four film and I would not care, the premise itself is just boring, four guys with powers, two are in a romance, one is a hotshot and one is the tragic monster character. Nothing wrong with it but I just don't understand why it is held up as such a big thing. I know it is as old as Superman so it gets cred and maybe it was just the movies not being that good but the original Fantastic Four films never really sold me on why I should care about these guys. Doom is alright but again he is made out to be as amazing as Magneto which he is just not to me.

This would be a petty little bitch move even by the usual standards of the film and comics industries. I hope it's not the case, since Marvel arguably wouldn't exist if it weren't for the Fantastic Four, even if I don't find them particularly interesting. Besides, the film is likely to give the comics a boost, and they could probably do with one.

Uriel_Hayabusa:
I don't read many comics and don't follow the industry so I'm an outsider looking in when it comes to stuff like this. That being said, I wonder: what is up with this Quicksilver character? So, Marvel isn't allowed to use characters in their movies that Fox still has the rights to? Yet both Marvel and Fox have a Quicksilver, but the MCU's isn't a mutant so it's okay or something?*

Briefly: Quicksilver and the Scarlet Witch are both mutants, but both of them are also key members of the Avengers - the Scarlet Witch in particular is usually defined as an Avenger, not an X-(Wo)man. Because of this, both Marvel Studios, who own the Avengers, and Fox, who own the X-Men, have a claim on the characters. The whole business of them both putting Quicksilver in a movie essentially amounts to them staking their claim.

Personally, I find the whole thing a bit weird. Quicksilver was awesome in Days of Future Past, but he's basically just a rip-off of the Flash, and the Scarlet Witch is less a character than a walking retcon machine. I'm not entirely sure why Fox and Marvel are both so keen to have them in their movies.

This is nuts, but let's be honest: Fantastic Four has never been the most successful of the comics under Marvel's brand. So while I'm willing to believe this is just a move to try and kneecap Fox's movies, I'm also completely willing to believe this is just cutting off a shriveled limb before it recedes into the body.

Blimey that's a weird image.....

That will be a sad day for comics. Fantastic Four is, in my opinion, one of their golden properties. It's literally the only comic where just about anything can happen in MU right now. You need a cool new villain, start with the FF. Villains from all over the cosmos and every dimension make entry in that book.

Also, not such a fan of a company wide reboot. I have said it before and I'll say it again: The only reason Marvel may be flailing about is because the price of their books have become outrageously high. They should look at that before trying to fool people into buying a few new issues while throwing away a fantastic (no pun intended) history.

Marvel should just ignore the movies they don't own the rights to and wait for them to flop, the studios to loose interest in the IPs, and the rights to be sold or revert back to Marvel. Sony might be able able to hold onto Spidey for a few more years, but that's up to whether or not they can keep the already lackluster quality up when they plan to milk him for all he's worth[1]. X-Men is still Fox's baby and their dong a decent job on most films. Blade has already reverted back to Marvel. (Here's to the first good Daywalker movie in a decade.) I think Punisher is back in their hands.

It's all up to whether or not Fox drops the ball a third time on an FF movie, and the public looses interest in the IP long enough for Fox to give it up. If Marvel wants to accelerate that with a FF comic drought, they can. It might bite them in the ass if this new Fantastic Four movie actually does good critically and commercially, though. They better have a backlog of issues ready to print if they try this stunt and the movie turns out to be a hit.

[1] I can't believe they still want to make 4 more Spidey films when TAMS and TAMS 2 made less than the original trilogy's third film. But hey, Sony's doesn't have many cards left to play.

MrBaskerville:
It's a bit of a clusterfuck, but i will admit that i prefer what Fox is doing with X-Men right now, than what Marvel is doing with their movies. Days of Future Past reminded me how much fun superhero movies can be so obviously i wouldn't want Marvel to reclaim X-Men (Would probably also be a mess if it was included in the Marvel canon thingy), but i can see why they are angry. I don't know much about comics, but i do know that Fantastic Four and Xmen (and Spiderman) are a pretty big part of Marvels image (From a mainstream perspective).

Really? I just got finished watching Days of Future Past with my friends, and the one thing we pretty much all agreed on was that the movie was horrendously boring. Other than the Quicksilver scene and the scene where


it was pretty much a big snooze fest. It pretty much cemented in my head the notion that I would rather never see another X-Men movie made again than let Fox have another go at one.

Brilliant strategy on Marvel's part if this is true: Sabotage one medium using another.

You know, with Quick Silver and Scarlet Witch being in Avengers 2, I'm curious if they'll just lift the backstory of the Strucker twins, Andreas and Andrea, who's father is Baron Wolfgang Von Strucker. While not actual mutants, they were experimented on in-utero to have abilities by Arnim Zola, and I could see Marvel using it to make composite characters who fit in with the movie universe, while keeping away from the X-Men stuff.

Andreas is also known as Swordsman. And Andrea never had a codename as far as I know, aside from the shared codename of 'Fenris' with her brother.

http://marvel.wikia.com/Andrea_von_Strucker_(Earth-616)
http://marvel.wikia.com/Andreas_Strucker_(Earth-616)

Spot1990:
What's more likely, Fantastic Four comics boosting ticket sales for the movie or, if the movie is good, it boosting comic sales? Because I think Marvel's logic is a bit backwards here.

I have looked up this information in the past and monthly comic sales see no change when films come out and data is available right back to 1998's Blade showing this.

Graphic novels do see huge sales increases but only on the DC comics side through book store sales were Marvel sucks, Marvel does not treat there GN's coherently while DC advertisers stand alone GN's stories and sees the sales boosts.

Dead Century:
You know, with Quick Silver and Scarlet Witch being in Avengers 2, I'm curious if they'll just lift the backstory of the Strucker twins, Andreas and Andrea, who's father is Baron Wolfgang Von Strucker. While not the actual Quick Silver and Scarlet Witch, they are mutants experimented on by Arnim Zola, and I could see Marvel using it to make composite characters who fit in with the movie universe, while keeping away from the X-Men stuff.

Andreas is also known as Swordsman. And Andrea never had a codename as far as I know.

http://marvel.wikia.com/Andrea_von_Strucker_(Earth-616)
http://marvel.wikia.com/Andreas_Strucker_(Earth-616)

The problem is that might be too close to the X-Men franchise to work, for they aren't allowed to call them mutants or mention Magento is their father, so if they use pre-existing characters that are already mutants and they aren't Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver it might be in violation of the contract with Fox.

Sanunes:

Dead Century:
You know, with Quick Silver and Scarlet Witch being in Avengers 2, I'm curious if they'll just lift the backstory of the Strucker twins, Andreas and Andrea, who's father is Baron Wolfgang Von Strucker. While not the actual Quick Silver and Scarlet Witch, they are mutants experimented on by Arnim Zola, and I could see Marvel using it to make composite characters who fit in with the movie universe, while keeping away from the X-Men stuff.

Andreas is also known as Swordsman. And Andrea never had a codename as far as I know.

http://marvel.wikia.com/Andrea_von_Strucker_(Earth-616)
http://marvel.wikia.com/Andreas_Strucker_(Earth-616)

The problem is that might be too close to the X-Men franchise to work, for they aren't allowed to call them mutants or mention Magento is their father, so if they use pre-existing characters that are already mutants and they aren't Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver it might be in violation of the contract with Fox.

Uh. Okay? Did you read what I wrote? I'm talking about using the Strucker twins, who are different characters from Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Baron Von Strucker is their father. Which would easily avoid the Magneto issue. Plus, you don't even have to call Swordsman or Andrea, mutants(because they aren't really, Arnim Zola simply experimented on them) just say they're 'genetically enhanced' or 'bio-engineered'.

Spite: The most powerful force in the universe...

I have noticed a distinct lack of X-men toys lately... While Captain America and Iron Man still have their own aisle.

If it helps get Fantastic Four back to Marvel faster, I'm all for it. Dr. Doom is a villain worthy of the Avengers.

well, that sounds incredibly stupid. It's not going to stop the movie from getting attention; the movies actually help the comics, not the other way around. Seems Marvel is making itself out to be a lot more influential than it really is.

Dead Century:

Sanunes:
snip

Uh. Okay? Did you read what I wrote? I'm talking about using the Strucker twins, who are different characters from Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Baron Von Strucker is their father. Which would easily avoid the Magneto issue. Plus, you don't even have to call Swordsman or Andrea, mutants(because they aren't really, Arnim Zola simply experimented on them) just say they're 'genetically enhanced' or 'bio-engineered'.

Swordsman and Andrea are currently owned by Fox as they are mutants and it doesn't matter if you don't call them mutants if they have the same backstory. Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are owned by Marvel as they are avengers but they can't be named as Magneto's children as he is still owned by Fox.

The Strucker twins are owned by Fox as are their backstories and it doesn't matter if you call them mutants or not.

Trishbot:
I have noticed a distinct lack of X-men toys lately... While Captain America and Iron Man still have their own aisle.

If it helps get Fantastic Four back to Marvel faster, I'm all for it. Dr. Doom is a villain worthy of the Avengers.

Not only Dr.Doom, alot of the characters in FF are awesome in avengers and other marvel movies, silver surfer, galactus, Namor....just to name a few.

However, Magneto will remain my all time favorite villain, I hope the xmen franchise can return to marvel in my life time.

Zorg Machine:

Dead Century:

Sanunes:
snip

Uh. Okay? Did you read what I wrote? I'm talking about using the Strucker twins, who are different characters from Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Baron Von Strucker is their father. Which would easily avoid the Magneto issue. Plus, you don't even have to call Swordsman or Andrea, mutants(because they aren't really, Arnim Zola simply experimented on them) just say they're 'genetically enhanced' or 'bio-engineered'.

Swordsman and Andrea are currently owned by Fox as they are mutants and it doesn't matter if you don't call them mutants if they have the same backstory. Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are owned by Marvel as they are avengers but they can't be named as Magneto's children as he is still owned by Fox.

The Strucker twins are owned by Fox as are their backstories and it doesn't matter if you call them mutants or not.

Oh. I'm sorry. Wasn't aware of that. Damn. Well, that really does make it a bit difficult. Maybe Marvel and Joss Whedon should have just gone with Black Panther or whomever for new Avengers members in Age of Ultron. Would probably be easier than having write around character licensing issues.

Zorg Machine:

Dead Century:

Sanunes:
snip

Uh. Okay? Did you read what I wrote? I'm talking about using the Strucker twins, who are different characters from Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver. Baron Von Strucker is their father. Which would easily avoid the Magneto issue. Plus, you don't even have to call Swordsman or Andrea, mutants(because they aren't really, Arnim Zola simply experimented on them) just say they're 'genetically enhanced' or 'bio-engineered'.

Swordsman and Andrea are currently owned by Fox as they are mutants and it doesn't matter if you don't call them mutants if they have the same backstory. Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are owned by Marvel as they are avengers but they can't be named as Magneto's children as he is still owned by Fox.

The Strucker twins are owned by Fox as are their backstories and it doesn't matter if you call them mutants or not.

You can always CHANGE backstories. I mean, Thor's background in the movies is entirely different from the comics.

Also, is Quicksilver called Magneto's son in Days of Future Past either? I hear it's sort of implied, but not directly stated.

Frankly, they'd do better to pump up Polaris as Magneto's daughter. She's an actual X-men character...

Scars Unseen:

Really? I just got finished watching Days of Future Past with my friends, and the one thing we pretty much all agreed on was that the movie was horrendously boring. Other than the Quicksilver scene and the scene where


it was pretty much a big snooze fest. It pretty much cemented in my head the notion that I would rather never see another X-Men movie made again than let Fox have another go at one.

Honestly I feel like what really killed it for me was that regardless of how cool some of the scenes were the simple fact that

Marvel: Seriously, your FF movies suck. Really, really suck. Give us back the rights before you completely crash the IP
Fox: Yah, what are you going to do about it?
Marvel: Challenge accepted

Aiddon:
well, that sounds incredibly stupid. It's not going to stop the movie from getting attention; the movies actually help the comics, not the other way around. Seems Marvel is making itself out to be a lot more influential than it really is.

Tell that to Hellblazer fans. Do they flock to Darth Keanu's doorstep or do they prefer the smarmy blonde badass? That much goes without saying. See, how good a movie is from a comic book is based upon rule of cool and accuracy to the content. If it's cool enough, it goes through. If it's accurate enough, it goes though. If it does both of these, it's super-win. If ir fails in one of theses, it's mediocre. If it fails in both of these, it's an absolute flop. Do any or all of the Avenger movies have the right stuff? Absolutely. Maybe not the Hulk, so much, but they made up for it later. What about Fantastic Four? Well, I didn't go see them, but I understand that 'not received well' was an understatement. So really, who has the better grasp of the material here? And on that basis, who REALLY will rabid comic book fans flock to?

Uriel_Hayabusa:
I don't read many comics and don't follow the industry so I'm an outsider looking in when it comes to stuff like this. That being said, I wonder: what is up with this Quicksilver character? So, Marvel isn't allowed to use characters in their movies that Fox still has the rights to? Yet both Marvel and Fox have a Quicksilver, but the MCU's isn't a mutant so it's okay or something?*

"COMICS ARE WEIRD" indeed....

*That "He's no mutant" explanation is something I saw on another forum so I don't know if it's accurate.

It's because Quick Silver and Scarlet which were so deeply tied to events in the Avengers that Marvel can use it. BUT from what I understand they can not use the fact they are mutants as a back ground. So you can't say Magnito was their father or how they worked for the Brotherhood of Mutants.

MrBaskerville:
It's a bit of a clusterfuck, but i will admit that i prefer what Fox is doing with X-Men right now, than what Marvel is doing with their movies. Days of Future Past reminded me how much fun superhero movies can be so obviously i wouldn't want Marvel to reclaim X-Men (Would probably also be a mess if it was included in the Marvel canon thingy), but i can see why they are angry. I don't know much about comics, but i do know that Fantastic Four and Xmen (and Spiderman) are a pretty big part of Marvels image (From a mainstream perspective).

Really? I thought Captain America 2 was way more entertaining and fun. Actually, all the Marvel films try to have fun and levity in their movies to a good degree. I mean, Thor 2 might have been a bore but I remember a lot of the joke moments.

Spot1990:
What's more likely, Fantastic Four comics boosting ticket sales for the movie or, if the movie is good, it boosting comic sales? Because I think Marvel's logic is a bit backwards here.

Backward logic is often the go-to logic for a lot of people unfortunately. It's very possible that Marvel is so ticked at Fox that they are willing to shoot themselves in the foot if they think it will hurt Fox.

Trishbot:

Also, is Quicksilver called Magneto's son in Days of Future Past either? I hear it's sort of implied, but not directly stated.

Frankly, they'd do better to pump up Polaris as Magneto's daughter. She's an actual X-men character...

It is heavily implied, but it happens so fast and if you don't already know that Quicksilver is Magneto's son there's a very good chance you'll miss it. It's literally one line and then Magneto makes a face for half a second and then it's gone. I caught it and thought it was amusing, but I think a good deal of people in my theater missed it because it was dead silent.

Chaos Isaac:

MrBaskerville:
It's a bit of a clusterfuck, but i will admit that i prefer what Fox is doing with X-Men right now, than what Marvel is doing with their movies. Days of Future Past reminded me how much fun superhero movies can be so obviously i wouldn't want Marvel to reclaim X-Men (Would probably also be a mess if it was included in the Marvel canon thingy), but i can see why they are angry. I don't know much about comics, but i do know that Fantastic Four and Xmen (and Spiderman) are a pretty big part of Marvels image (From a mainstream perspective).

Really? I thought Captain America 2 was way more entertaining and fun. Actually, all the Marvel films try to have fun and levity in their movies to a good degree. I mean, Thor 2 might have been a bore but I remember a lot of the joke moments.

Captain America 2 is one of the ones i haven't seen that i really want to see. It's not that they don't have their fun moments, it's just that i think most of them have been a bit messy storywise, especially Thor 2 and Iron Man 2, while The Avengers imo tries so hard to be fun that it forgets to have an engaging story. Future Past is the first in a while where i felt it had a good balance of story, characters and entertainment. Haven't seen any superhero movie as fun since X-Men 2, Spiderman 2 or maybe Iron Man 1. Just my personal opinion obviously.

It didn't feel like a mashup of 7 different scripts like First Class, Thor 2 and Iron Man 2 did, and that was kinda refreshing.

The other question would be "Why keep them around? Whats the draw? Age? The family dynamic? Marvel has a better outlet for unusual ideas in Guardians, better scientists in Peter and Tony, and the perfect family dynamic makes the series feel like a sixties sitcom The Fantastic four is good as part of a whole. Reed is amazing as an (evil) supporting character, but the series just doesn't stand up well on its own.

And this doesn't have anything to do with the fact that Fantastic Four sales have been really low the last couple of years why?

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here