Fantastic Four Reboot Movie Won't Be Based on Any Comics

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Fantastic Four Reboot Movie Won't Be Based on Any Comics

F4

Fox's next superhero reboot throws out the book. Literally.

It's been known for awhile now that Chronicle director Josh Trank's Fantastic Four reboot movie was going to be taking the Marvel heroes in a new direction: Younger versions of the characters, a new origin story, possibly no costumes (though, to be fair, it took them a few issues of the original comics to stop wearing just regular street clothes) and won't even be called The Fantastic Four in the actual film.

Now, according to an interview in Esquire Latin America, Kate Mara (who portrays Invisible Woman aka Sue Storm in the film) is suggesting that essentially nothing from the comics has survived into this adaptation. Said the actress: "I've never been a fan of comics, I've never actually read one. I was going to for this movie but the director said it wasn't necessary. Well, actually he told us that we shouldn't do it because the plot won't be based on any history of anything already published."

While it's not unheard of for movie adaptations to diverge in all but name from source material, this is the first anyone has heard of such (supposedly) complete disconnection for this particular project. It had been reported at one point (but not confirmed) elsewhere that the film would be drawing primary inspiration from Ultimate Fantastic Four as opposed to the mainstream Marvel Universe.

Fantastic Four (or whatever they end up calling it) has been described by producer Simon Kinberg as "a much more grounded, gritty, realistic movie than the last couple," is currently targeting a June 19, 2015 release date. Along with Mara, the film stars Miles Teller as Mr. Fantastic, Michael B. Jordan as The Human Torch, Jamie Bell as The Thing.

Source: Indiewire

Permalink

huh....this reads like it was ment to incur fan rage EDIT: not specifically hwat she said but everything else pretty much

"I've never been a fan of comics, I've never actually read one. I was going to for this movie but the director said it wasn't necessary. Well, actually he told us that we shouldn't do it because the plot won't be based on any history of anything already published."

*sigh*....she's gonna get a lot of disproportionate hate for this....

Fantastic Four "grounded and realistic"? Somehow I believe this is a contradiction of terms. I mean, maybe a woman who turns invisible, a guy who stretches like rubber, a kid who bursts into flames without dying and a guy who's body is made of rock can totally be realistic, but . . .

No. No it can not. If you're going to try to lie to me, Hollywood, at least put some effort into making the lie believable.

Personally, I don't think this should matter so long as the movie itself is good. Besides, even the guys at Marvel themselves have diverged from the comics on more than one occasion.

lol how disconnected does it have to be before it can be argued that they aren't even really using the IP anymore?

Also I'm gonna go out on a limb and say I never much cared for the Fantastic 4 comics. With the exception of the Human Torch which super power would you want? Individually and in separate books the characters are alright but it really takes a lot of them being well "not them" for the Fantastic 4 to even really have any traction at all for me. With this in mind, I actually kinda liked the 1st movie. Pretty much cause I never really expected to like it.

Are there really so many "hardcore" Fantastic 4 fans? I mean not just their apprearences in other medium, but the actual Fantastic 4 Series? Sure the Thing had a kinda cool run on his own, and I liked the role they played in Civil War, but they are like a whole supporting cast of characters to me.

All this considered I really would kind of welcome a completely separated re-imagining of the characters and the story. It's maybe just my opinion and I fully realize that but it can't be worse then the original right?

Also if I am wrong I'll gladly admit to it. It might just be from my point of view.

Isn't comicbook films are more successful today then they were in the past (e.g. Blade or Hulk vs Thor) cos they are baed from the comicbook? Well that and better technology but still!

Every time I read about what they are doing with the Fantastic Four movie franchise I just get this sinking pit feeling in my stomach. It's like they looked at how successful Marvel is with their concepts and say to themselves, lets just do the exact opposite.

The director of Chronicle sounded good, but this is beginning to sound like a trainwreck. If you literally want no connections with the source material, what is the point of the licensing at all?

Vault101:

"I've never been a fan of comics, I've never actually read one. I was going to for this movie but the director said it wasn't necessary. Well, actually he told us that we shouldn't do it because the plot won't be based on any history of anything already published."

*sigh*....she's gonna get a lot of disproportionate hate for this....

The sad thing is, what she actually said was totally reasonable. She doesn't say she hates comic books, she says shes just never read them. That's probably true for like 99% of the actors in Hollywood and it's not like she's ever been the comic book publishers #1 target demographic or anything.

And she knew she was going to do a comic book film so she figured she should read some comic books so she can be true to the role w/e. Which is nice right? She's not so stuck up that she's refusing to read the things, she's not so dismissive of the source material that she's not willing to put in the work.

But then she was strictly instructed not to do any of that by the director. And she's probably going to end up taking a lot of stick for it

"Grounded, gritty, and realistic". Because everything needs to be Batman to be successful, right? Oh joy.

what we need...is a couple big superhero movie bombs so they stop doing shit like this just because superhero movies are supposedly a licence to print money...

and this could well be a candidate...

...and that's called "a silver lining" folks...

I find it a bit annoying that Hollywood wants to make "comic book movie cash" but apparently doesn't want to make a "comic book movie". They know that these movies make money nowadays but instead of taking someones work and respectfully adapt it into a movie they just cherry-pick one or two aspects and dismiss the rest. To me this all reads as if they are embarrassed of the source material so they cut everything out except the parts that you need in order to market it as a "comic book movie, just like Avengers. And you liked Avengers, right? So come on in and see this one".

But then again, the movie isn't out and there is always the chance that it's actually really good. I doubt it though.

*Snerk* Good luck! I don't read Fantastic Four comics either, but I still know alot from word of mouth alone. Somehow, it will still look like the comics and someone will get mad.

BrotherRool:

The sad thing is, what she actually said was totally reasonable. She doesn't say she hates comic books, she says shes just never read them. That's probably true for like 99% of the actors in Hollywood and it's not like she's ever been the comic book publishers #1 target demographic or anything.

yeah, I meant most of the rest of the article...not specifically what she said since (as you said) she's not really the prime target for comics

to be fair with a movie you only need the charachters and the general gist, ...since comics themselves are in constant flux...but here its like they want to ditch everything but the name

I don't mind a creator adapting a property to fit a new medium. Comic Book stories, by design, are difficult to fit into a 2 hour movie. They tend to go on and on to keep the reader coming back month after month. It's natural to make some changes when they move the prospective IP to a new venue, I'd even say it's expected to a degree. Obviously there is a desire to see the cool things the Four can do in the comics come to life on the big screen.

But if you're going to completely distance yourself from the source material, why not just make something new instead of half-assing a beloved property?

Normally I think it's better that some of MARVEL's properties are under the care of other studios. In the comics world the publishers have a bad habit of leaning too heavily on the most popular characters. Sony having the rights to Spidey, Fox having the rights to Logan, these ended up making AVENGERS feel stronger because they had to rely on properties like IRON MAN which historically haven't had Spider-Man numbers (even though he was popular, he's no Spidey). But I really wish MARVEL could get the rights to the Fantastic Four back. For one reason and one reason only; I would love to see AVENGERS 4 where they have to take on Doctor Doom who is my favorite MARVEL villain.

Not a good sign. I understand that a lot of comic movies do there own thing, but you need a base story. Also, why the hell does the actress not read the comics? Granted, I imagine she would have read for the sake of the character, but really Kingberg? Way to drop the ball.

I know it's early, but I'm seeing this movie being this decades Silver Surfer.

i dont get why they are even bothering to call it a fantastic four film then, i mean if noting is going to survive from the original source other than the powers why not just make a totally different film that does not have to pay lip service to something else and maybe has a slightly different lineup of powers give them the freedom.

i mean you will only piss off the established fanbase if you change everything and any new people to it the name wont mean anything so the name does not matter.

rodneyy:
i dont get why they are even bothering to call it a fantastic four film then, i mean if noting is going to survive from the original source other than the powers why not just make a totally different film that does not have to pay lip service to something else and maybe has a slightly different lineup of powers give them the freedom.

i mean you will only piss off the established fanbase if you change everything and any new people to it the name wont mean anything so the name does not matter.

I'll reserve judgement until it's actually out, but from what I've seen so far this looks like what I would call a lazy half assed cash-in that exists solely to retain the rights and make some quick cash off of the name.

Then why bother calling it Fantastic Four? They want to do there own thing with it but don't have the balls to not ride on the coat tails of the IP name. I hope this fails so hard. And this is coming from someone who really enjoyed Chronicle.

Kameburger:
lol how disconnected does it have to be before it can be argued that they aren't even really using the IP anymore?

That's an interesting point. If it's not called "Fantastic Four", doesn't call the characters that at any point, and isn't based on anything published about the Fantastic Four, surely Marvel can just point out that it's clearly not the Fantastic Four and claim back the film rights?

BrotherRool:
And she knew she was going to do a comic book film so she figured she should read some comic books so she can be true to the role w/e. Which is nice right? She's not so stuck up that she's refusing to read the things, she's not so dismissive of the source material that she's not willing to put in the work.

But then she was strictly instructed not to do any of that by the director. And she's probably going to end up taking a lot of stick for it

Yes, the real problem here appears to be the director. What kind of idiot would specifically tell an actress not to do any research on the character they're portraying? Even if you're not basing the story on a previously published one, surely you at least want them to have some idea of who the characters are and why people might be interested in them? And of course, that raises the more fundamental question of why would you want to slap the name of some entirely unrelated IP on your film if you're going out of your way to make sure it has nothing to do with that IP?

I am honestly not that much of a fun of the Fantastic Four. They just stick out in a bad way compared to the rest of the Marvel universe to me. Most likely this is a giant PR mistake and they will either pretend it never happened or apologize saying it was a misunderstanding. I mean I believe what they are saying but they probably just mean they wont name themselves and be given the title at the end by the press or something like how most heroes get named in modern super hero films. Also considering the different cast to what they usually are it would make sense to not rely on characterization that does not match the characterization in the script.
Finally, I am surprised anyone is surprised that they are not using the source material, the plot is just going to be Dr Doom fighting the newly formed Fantastic Four again. It is like Superman they are only known for like one villain.

I hope the films works out because I really like the Xmen films and the Spider-man movies so I would prefer competition to stay strong and Marvel/Disney not to own every superhero movie minus DC.

I feel like we're not getting the whole story here and that I would be a fool to hop on any band wagon by getting upset about this.

Vault101:
huh....this reads like it was ment to incur fan rage EDIT: not specifically hwat she said but everything else pretty much

"I've never been a fan of comics, I've never actually read one. I was going to for this movie but the director said it wasn't necessary. Well, actually he told us that we shouldn't do it because the plot won't be based on any history of anything already published."

*sigh*....she's gonna get a lot of disproportionate hate for this....

I don't see any reason to throw hate at her, all she said was that she had never really read any comics. If anything, it's the writer and director who might/should possibly get hate tossed at them. Mara said that she actually planned on reading some comics to help prepare for this role, that's admirable research for any actress undertaking such a role......then the director said "Nope, in fact I'd prefer if you didn't." No reason to beat up on the actress for this "betrayal" of the source material.

RJ 17:

*sigh*....she's gonna get a lot of disproportionate hate for this....

I don't see any reason to throw hate at her, all she said was that she had never really read any comics. If anything, it's the writer and director who might/should possibly get hate tossed at them. Mara said that she actually planned on reading some comics to help prepare for this role, that's admirable research for any actress undertaking such a role......then the director said "Nope, in fact I'd prefer if you didn't." No reason to beat up on the actress for this "betrayal" of the source material.
[/quote]

I did say "disproportionate"

cause you know what people can be like

or mabye it wont be notable enough for people to care...

A comic book movie with almost zero connection to the actual comic? How did that work out last time...

image

Yeah... this is sounding more and more like a "just make something to keep the rights out of Marvel's hands... we don't care, just call it 'Fantastic Four' and give them the same names. It doesn't have to be faithful for us to hold on to the movie rights..."

Which reminds me of the last time they tried to do that as well...
image

I'm almost eager to see how badly this blows up.

MovieBob:

Fantastic Four (or whatever they end up calling it) has been described by producer Simon Kinberg as "a much more grounded, gritty, realistic movie than the last couple,"

Please forgive this movie. We purposefully made it wrong, as a joke.

I have no problems with them writing a new story featuring the Fantastic Four characters - A lot of good comic book adaptations feature new stories featuring existing characters - but it seems really odd to specifically suggest the actress not read any comics just because they weren't basing it off an existing story.

As for her having never read a comic book: That puts her in with 99% of the population. For all Marvel & DC stuff is huge, neither has done a great job of effectively selling the actual comic books to anybody who wasn't already buying them.

Gritty and realistic huh? I already hate the sound of it. One of the hallmarks of the series is how "Fantastic" it is. Fantastic in their context means imaginative or fanciful, remote from reality. I was fine with the cast choice and this makes it look even more fine since it will be nothing like Marvels first family in anything but name.

So its a FF movie with nothing to do with FF comics and wont be called FF? So just a movie with four heroes with minor links to the Ultimate FF? That sounds terrible. Also the grounded, gritty and realistic comment is even worst. I actually liked the original 2 FF movies - ok they had their problems but it was light hearted and fun. Why is it directors are going for gritty instead of being like the source material?

Actually if they arnt even calling it Fantastic Four, how are they going to advertise this as a Fantastic Four movie?

Vault101:

*sigh*....she's gonna get a lot of disproportionate hate for this....

BrotherRool:

The sad thing is, what she actually said was totally reasonable.

I think I know the solution. This is only really going to become a huge thing because she's a woman who doesn't read comics, right?

We recast Sue Storm. She will now be played by a man.

Now, don't get me wrong. Sue will still be a woman. And we'll still do all the things that are typically done to women in comics. She'll develop from virtually useless sometimes damsel into the mama bear archetype, possibly pose in some skimpy outfits (or with Sue, end up "tastefully" naked) and still marry Reed Richards. For all intents and purposes, she will still be a woman. We'll just have a man playing her. My choice? Patrick Stewart. Because he's so damn manly, no nerd can object! And even if he never even thought about reading a comic, who would question him?

RJ 17:
I don't see any reason to throw hate at her, all she said was that she had never really read any comics.

Then you're more reasonable than 97% of the fandom.

ZZoMBiE13:
I don't mind a creator adapting a property to fit a new medium. Comic Book stories, by design, are difficult to fit into a 2 hour movie. They tend to go on and on to keep the reader coming back month after month. It's natural to make some changes when they move the prospective IP to a new venue, I'd even say it's expected to a degree. Obviously there is a desire to see the cool things the Four can do in the comics come to life on the big screen.

It really can be of great benefit. Iron Man took some fairly large liberties. I think all the good ones did. OF course, they key here is they took "liberties."

But if you're going to completely distance yourself from the source material, why not just make something new instead of half-assing a beloved property?

Licensing. Though I wouldn't say that this will be completely distanced from the source material just because they don't use the name in the movie or wear costumes. Or base it specifically upon any comics. Not that I'm particlarly convinced this will be good, or there will be any merit, just saying. Babies and bathwater.

Normally I think it's better that some of MARVEL's properties are under the care of other studios. In the comics world the publishers have a bad habit of leaning too heavily on the most popular characters.

I'm not sure this wouldn't have happened anyway. They're making a Guardians of the Galaxy movie. There's about 3,000 comics they could have adapted first which are better known to the general public (if only relatively).

RJ Dalton:
Fantastic Four "grounded and realistic"? Somehow I believe this is a contradiction of terms. I mean, maybe a woman who turns invisible, a guy who stretches like rubber, a kid who bursts into flames without dying and a guy who's body is made of rock can totally be realistic, but . . .

No. No it can not. If you're going to try to lie to me, Hollywood, at least put some effort into making the lie believable.

You need to think metaphorically.
Invisible woman == symbol of the marginalization of women in society
Flaming teenager == symbol for youthful rebellion
Stretching man == symbol of male ego torn in different directions by traditional gender roles and new societal expectations
Ugly rock man == symbol of repressed rage and body shaming

keideki:
Every time I read about what they are doing with the Fantastic Four movie franchise I just get this sinking pit feeling in my stomach. It's like they looked at how successful Marvel is with their concepts and say to themselves, lets just do the exact opposite.

Actually...it's moe like Marvel Keeps reminding them : You don't make a movie..we get the IP back and make money with it.

So they'll happily put out crap FF movies just to keep that frpom happening. Saying your not going by any comic arc is basically a way to have a clean slate without having any expectations to meet and brutha does this ever lower expectations of the next FF movie. I mean seriously... I'd actually be surprised if thios movie came out as anything but a Direct to DVD or Cable release. I half expect it to premiere on the Syfy channel.

And yes there is a point where you diverge from the roots of a franchise so much that you might as well take the extra step to create a new IP. But that's not how Producers and Marketers think. So what if it has nothing to do with the brand name.. the brand name will sell it.

It's official this movie will suck. Not because it isn't based on a comic story, those by definition can be good otherwise the comics couldn't have been good the first time, or The Incredible Hulk TV show or most of the DCAU ext. but because the director told the cast not to read the comics. That means the characters on screen will be new characters going by the names of the comic book heroes we know. It might still be good but it will only be as good as an exact copy of the movie without the FF4 names.

And as for where the hate goes, it belongs squarely on the shoulders of the director who believes that the movie would be better if the script was so different that it won't help to actually know what has kept the comics going for over 50 years.

My opinion of Kate Mara has risen greatly for saying this, although the fact other people don't know to not shoot the messenger means it probably was a mistake for her to do the right thing.

Kameburger:
lol how disconnected does it have to be before it can be argued that they aren't even really using the IP anymore?

w.

I'm thinking Marvel's lawyers will be asking and researching that specific question. Probably this reveals a huge part of the reason behind Marvel's feud with Fox, and why Marvel is literally bury'ing these characters until the movie is well past.

I mean think about it. If Fox uses the movie title Fantastic Four, but uses none of the IP's iconography, the characters are not recognizable (race / sex swaps, etc) they are not named as their traditional characters or group, at what point does it not fulfill the needs of the IP licensing contract? In other words if they release an FF movie, without any recognizable FF content can't Marvel make the claim that it does not fulfill the contract, and therefore the license has expired?

I'd like to point out 2 things about the Marvel movies, including this one, that occurred to me:

-What, exactly, is Susan Storm's character at this point? The closest I can figure is "over-protective" of her idiot brother, but considering she's had to evolve out of her "token helpless female" role over the years it could really be anything, which I think may make it reasonable for Mara to not need much background info.

-Many of the Marvel movies, even the "in-house" Avengers canon ones, contain ridiculously dark themes and scenarios, even if they often appear light-hearted on the surface: the post-9/11 undertones of a ravaged and frightened New York; Tony, billionaire tech wizard, blasts away deranged war veterans turned suicide-bombers at the end of IM3; Winter Soldier biting down on a mouth bit before being electrocuted and mind-wiped; Banner talking about trying to blow his brains out but the Hulk wouldn't let him; a female scientist gets incinerated by Scorch in Agents of Shield. Yes it's not constant gloom and angst the way other "mature" hero movies strive for and I'm not looking forward to something intentionally tagged as "grim n gritty," but I think Marvel tends to get away with a lot of disturbing material that not many people point out.

An adaption that doesn't stick to the source material? Oh Em Gee what a total shocker. I'll bet you that's never happened before...

Oh. Wait.

 Pages 1 2 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