Simon Kinberg thinks there will be a Fantastic Four sequel

@RamboOnRedBull lol, I derped. I meant to say there is a difference between losing hope and not believing that a good Fantastic Four movie can be done. But whatever. Anyway, what does that have to do with anything? You guys are the ones arguing with me, even though I never said a good Fantastic Four movie can't be done.

Mecha wrote:

@RamboOnRedBull lol, I derped. I meant to say there is a difference between losing hope and not believing that a good Fantastic Four movie can be done. But whatever. Anyway, what does that have to do with anything? You guys are the ones arguing with me, even though I never said a good Fantastic Four movie can't be done.

You started the argument, Mecha. Go back and check to see how much of a double-derp you've been today.

Oh well, I'll pray that you'll lose your derpness by tomorrow morning. That way, I can be extra sweet for Santa. 

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 1. Doesn't matter. You can't compare a property that is owned by someone to a property that is basically being rented out. Because WB isn't limited with their properties like Fox is with Fantastic Four. WB can take their sweet ass time to get their properties right. Where as Fox has to rush out Fantastic Four, which could compress the quality of their film. So no, it's still a silly and unfair comparison. And you think releasing a bad Fantastic Four movie okay as long as they keep the rights how?

Again, the comparison was for your stupid logic of how they should throw in the towel because they haven't found success with the property even though there IS a market there. A recurring problem with WB's non-Batman/Superman films. It has nothing to do with who owns what. They have SEVEN years to develop another one. That's enough time to make a sequel, reboot, or a spin off. Who the said it was okay for them to release a bad film to keep the rights?

Quote :

2. I was thinking about the first comment I made for some reason? Derp. Anyway, what I meant by that comment was that how much money will Fox lose until they make a good Fantastic Four movie? I'm not saying they should give up the rights, but at the same time it isn't a hot enough property for them right now to rush things over for. It's like Fox can't just let go of the rights, but they can't just rush out another one either. So they are stuck like Sony was with Spider-Man. Only worse because Fantastic Four flopped, while The Amazing Spider-Man movies still made money at the box-office. So it just doesn't make sense to desperately hold on to a property this much that not a lot of people care about.

Yeah, uh huh, sure "derp". You're not outright saying, but damn has every sentence about it implied it. Then do a film using the F4 rights without using the F4. If they aren't "hot", as if they ever were, then use someone audiences don't know of or have little knowledge. No, they aren't stuck like Sony. Sony was stuck because they are a falling company and lost money on TASM2, along with the million more they're bleeding. Fox isn't a falling company, they aren't bleeding money, they could afford the loss even though they don't like it.

Quote :

3. No. It took 6 years for WB to finally develop Batman Begins. Then it was released 2 years later. Once again, you keep comparing properties that are owned to properties that are being rented out. HERP DERP, DA SAM CAN BEE SAED 4 DC CARECTRZ AS WEL HURRRR. Are you obtuse or something? I clearly said "any time soon". How long did it take for Superman to recover after Superman IV: The Quest For Peace? 19 YEARS. Oh but by your logic, it's no different, correct? It's a silly and unfair comparison that only simpleminded people make.

6 years! That further proves my point that they can do a F4, or F4 related, film in 7. Once again you don't seem to grasp the fact that Batman and Superman were once in the same toxic position. That's all I'm comparing. Did you see me respond to that part of your post? Can you read, Grayback? Yes, and your point is? If 19 years is your point then the only one making simpleminded comparison is you.

@yonn616 1. And if the next Fantastic Four film fails from Fox, are you still going to continue saying the same crap? Like really, where do you draw the line? By your logic, Fox should continue losing money until they get Fantastic Four right.
 
2. Where are you basing the fact that The Amazing Spider-Man 2 lost money? Fox may not be a failing company, but they are losing money with these Fantastic Four movies I can tell you that much.

3. Never said they couldn't. The question is, will it be a good film? Once again with your dense logic. Yes, the Batman and Superman franchises were toxic once, but those characters had enough time to recover and are way more popular than Fantastic Four. Why is it that so hard for you to comprehend? Are you really that obtuse?

Mecha wrote:

@yonn616 1. And if the next Fantastic Four film fails from Fox, are you still going to continue saying the same crap? Like really, where do you draw the line? By your logic, Fox should continue losing money until they get Fantastic Four right.

Yes, Because I'm not a pessimist. If Fox doesn't try to get it right and make money off of it, then their biggest competitor will.

Quote :

2. Where are you basing the fact that The Amazing Spider-Man 2 lost money? Fox may not be a failing company, but they are losing money with these Fantastic Four movies I can tell you that much.

Okay, lost money was an exaggeration, but it was still one of the least profitable films of the year with only a $70mil profit for a $250mil budget film. Yes, but they still are a successful company who can afford to lose money. It's not even like the budget of F4 was huge, it's even lower than any Marvel film and according to you Marvel's cheap.

Quote :

3. Never said they couldn't. The question is, will it be a good film? Once again with your dense logic. Yes, the Batman and Superman franchises were toxic once, but those characters had enough time to recover and are way more popular than Fantastic Four. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? Are you really that obtuse?

Your comments don't imply that, but you have a nice way of choosing words and changing your meaning. You'd make a good politician. Superman had 19 years and his return film didn't make it past $500mil, Batman had 8 and his didn't make it above $400mil, so much for "popularity". So what makes you think that just because right now F4 is considered "toxic" that one good film couldn't make something similar. Are you that obtuse?

@yonny616 1. So they rather lose money than to let the rights go back to Marvel? Makes perfect sense.

2. Fox can make a few risk here or there. But continuing to just throw away money until they get this franchise right, isn't the right attitude. That isn't good for business. That's like saying I'm going to spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars until I get it right, and I ended up spending $1,500 in total and made a profit of $200. Oh but because I have a lot of money, it's okay to lose that much money. That's the kinda logic you're using. And you say you understand the business? lol, GTFO.

3. Superman Returns made more money than the last Fantastic Four movies I can tell you that much. So what if Batman Begins didn't make over $400 at the box-office? Still make more than Fantastic Four. Don't be dense, I never said you can't turn things around with Fantastic Four. But you keep ignoring the fact the Fox ONLY has 7 years. Not even Batman Begins and Superman Returns were released that fast, and Batman and Superman are more popular characters. But like the genius that you are, you think you're being so smart by comparing the two, but you're not. A better comparison would be with Hulk. Hulk was rebooted 5 years later with The Incredible Hulk, and that movie underperformed despite positive reviews. So what makes you think the same can not happen to Fantastic Four? Again, WB owns Batman and Superman forever, so they got all the time in the world. While Fox doesn't with Fantastic Four, so it's a stupid comparison. Get that through your thick head, genius.

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 1. So they rather lose money than to let the rights go back to Marvel? Makes perfect sense.

1. I don't care. I have no stake in the company.

Quote :

2. Fox can make a few risk here or there. But continuing to just throw away money until they get this franchise right, isn't the right attitude. That isn't good for business. That's like saying I'm going to spend hundreds and hundreds of dollars until I get it right, and I ended up spending $1,500 in total and made a profit of $200. Oh but because I have a lot of money, it's okay to lose that much money. That's the kinda logic you're using. And you say you understand the business? lol, GTFO.

And they have made them here and there. Neither is giving up potential billions that are there just because you failed a few times. Did I say it's okay to lose money. That's why I said "they can afford it, even if they don't like it." No business likes losses.

Quote :

3. Superman Returns made more money than the last Fantastic Four movies I can tell you that much. So what if Batman Begins didn't make over $400 at the box-office? Still make more than Fantastic Four. Don't be dense, I never said you can't turn things around with Fantastic Four. But you keep ignoring the fact the Fox ONLY has 7 years. Not even Batman Begins and Superman Returns were released that fast, and Batman and Superman are more popular characters. But like the genius that you are, you think you're being so smart by comparing the two, but you're not. A better comparison would be with Hulk. Hulk was rebooted 5 years later with The Incredible Hulk, and that movie underperformed despite positive reviews. So what makes you think the same can not happen to Fantastic Four? Again, WB owns Batman and Superman forever, so they got all the time in the world. While Fox doesn't with Fantastic Four, so it's a stupid comparison. Get that through your thick head, genius.

But they're more popular and had time to recover. Batman Begins from development to production was a total of 7 years, technically it was 3 but you said 8 which likely included release year. So guess how many in total it was for the last F4? I'll give you a hint: What was the number 6 was afraid?

@yonny616 1. You may not care, but the company sure does. Just because you think they should continue losing money until they get it right, doesn't mean they will. It's a bad business strategy.

2. Doesn't matter. You just don't go straight into making another movie right away after three or four bad films. Especially, when each new film seems to be getting worse both critically and financially. Then you guys bring up, well as long as it's a good movie who cares blah blah blah. Well, no. A good movie doesn't guarantee anything. There is a thing called fatigue. Just look at Hulk for example. Got rebooted 5 years later with The Incredible Hulk, and still under-performed at the box-office despite positive reviews. Now I'm not saying Fox should just let go of the rights. But they are in a situation where they need to put out another Fantastic Four movie out soon, yet they can't just move forward right away either. Yes, they got Silver Surfer, but come on. Fox knows that the true potential money maker here is Fantastic Four. I highly doubt Fox even knows what to do with a Silver Surfer anyway.

3. Oh, so now you are agreeing with me that they are more popular and had time to recover? I remember when the Fantastic Four reboot was first announced. It was 2 years after Rise of the Silver Surfer. But things are different now. Because it already has been rebooted, and you're going to announced ANOTHER reboot 2 or 3 years later? First of all, that's too soon. Second, that's just going to create a lot of negative buzz since the first reboot will still be fresh in people's minds, and Fox can't afford any backlash again. Now before you bring up Batman and Spider-Man as examples of characters being rebooted very quickly, just remember those characters will be appearing in other movies before they get their own solo movies. Which will help give the characters a big boost. You can't really do that with Fantastic Four, unless Fox decides to have a crossover with the X-Men. But they might have to ask Marvel's permission to do that.

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 1. You may not care, but the company sure does. Just because you think they should continue losing money until they get it right, doesn't mean they will. It's a bad business strategy.

Then go cry to Fox. It's also bad business strategy to let potential billions slip away on purpose.

Quote :

2. Doesn't matter. You just don't go straight into making another movie right away after three or four bad films. Especially, when each new film seems to be getting worse both critically and financially. Then you guys bring up, well as long as it's a good movie who cares blah blah blah. Well, no. A good movie doesn't guarantee anything. There is a thing called fatigue. Just look at Hulk for example. Got rebooted 5 years later with The Incredible Hulk, and still under-performed at the box-office despite positive reviews. Now I'm not saying Fox should just let go of the rights. But they are in a situation where they need to put out another Fantastic Four movie out soon, yet they can't just move forward right away either. Yes, they got Silver Surfer, but come on. Fox knows that the true potential money maker here is Fantastic Four. I highly doubt Fox even knows what to do with a Silver Surfer anyway.

Potential billions don't matter? Who said they would? They made the new F4 in the final 3 years of their 7 years. Sure it wasn't good, but that doesn't mean it will happen again. Because Rambo and I only see the film, not the cash. That's why we put more eggs into the "as long as it's good basket". A good F4 film with good marketing does. Hulk didn't suffer from fatigue. Fatigue happens when there's one bad film after the next. You can apply that to the F4 though so I guess there might be F4 fatigue, but then there's Spidey fatigue as well since it follows your same less critical and financial point. That's why Fox tells a number of directors/writers to pitch them something about Surfer.

Quote :

3. Oh, so now you are agreeing with me that they are more popular and had time to recover? I remember when the Fantastic Four reboot was first announced. It was 2 years after Rise of the Silver Surfer. But things are different now. Because it already has been rebooted, and you're going to announced ANOTHER reboot 2 or 3 years later? First of all, that's too soon. Second, that's just going to create a lot of negative buzz since the first reboot will still be fresh in people's minds, and Fox can't afford any backlash again. Now before you bring up Batman and Spider-Man as examples of characters being rebooted very quickly, just remember those characters will be appearing in other movies before they get their own solo movies. Which will help give the characters a big boost. You can't really do that with Fantastic Four, unless Fox decides to have a crossover with the X-Men. But they might have to ask Marvel's permission to do that.

No, I was mocking it. The rest of your essay: What are you on about?

@yonny616 1. It is bad to just let go of a property that has money making potential. However, they will have no choice if they keep putting out flops and release nothing in 7 years.

2. So you're suggesting that Fox should rush out the next Fantastic Four reboot? Even though that is more likely to result in another failure. If Fox is going to reboot Fantastic Four, AGAIN, then it needs to be much earlier than that. You can't just make a new big budget blockbuster in the span of three years. It takes much longer than that. It's not as simple as you make it sound. Unless you want another flop just so that they can keep the rights that is. Yeah, that's a genius way to make money. It doesn't matter what you and Rambo think. The studios want a profit, and in order to keep the rights they need to make profit. So don't give me that crap that it's all about quality and quantity crap. That's not the point of this discussion. Yeah, there is a bit of Spider-Man fatigue as well. But you know what? It still makes a shit load of money at the box-office. WAY more than Fantastic Four does. Fox doesn't know what they want. Trank pitched a more realistic and body-horror take on the Fantastic Four to Fox. At first Fox agreed, only until later they decided they wanted a more comic booky Fantastic Four. Which resulted into box-office failure.


3. What are YOU on about?

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 1. It is bad to just let go of a property that has money making potential. However, they will have no choice if they keep putting out flops and release nothing in 7 years.

You keep regurgitating that last sentence as if you're saying anything new.

Quote :

2. So you're suggesting that Fox should rush out the next Fantastic Four reboot? Even though that is more likely to result in another failure. If Fox is going to reboot Fantastic Four, AGAIN, then it needs to be much earlier than that. You can't just make a new big budget blockbuster in the span of three years. It takes much longer than that. It's not as simple as you make it sound. Unless you want another flop just so that they can keep the rights that is. Yeah, that's a genius way to make money. It doesn't matter what you and Rambo think. The studios want a profit, and in order to keep the rights they need to make profit. So don't give me that crap that it's all about quality and quantity crap. That's not the point of this discussion. Yeah, there is a bit of Spider-Man fatigue as well. But you know what? It still makes a shit load of money at the box-office. WAY more than Fantastic Four does. Fox doesn't know what they want. Trank pitched a more realistic and body-horror take on the Fantastic Four to Fox. At first Fox agreed, only until later they decided they wanted a more comic booky Fantastic Four. Which resulted into box-office failure.

That's why you don't need to make it a F4 reboot to keep 'em. You don't know that. Considering most superhero blockbusters have been developed, produced, and released in the span of 3-4 years, it doesn't much longer. Again, you don't know if it'll flop. Well, Rambo and I don't work for the studio so we don't care about their profits. No in order to keep the rights they need to keep using the rights. What are you talking about? Then why not just ignore it then? Oh really? I hadn't noticed it made more. And now after all the trouble they know what they want, and what they want is a more comic booky F4 film.

Quote :

What are YOU on about?

You're the one who went on rambling on about remember and things that have nothing to do with what I had previously said... So again, what were you on about?

Guis... 































Boobs.

@yonny616 Rushing things out is always a huge factor on why the quality of films suffer. Just like this reboot. Where they rushed things out just so that they can keep the rights. They are more worried about losing the rights than they are with how the quality of the film turns out. Once again, that thick headed head of yours can't seem to stop comparing Fantastic Four to other superhero movies. HURRRR BUTT OTHA SUPAHERO MOVIEZ DOO DIS & DAT AZWEL BLAH BLAH BLAH. Other superhero properties aren't as toxic as the Fantastic Four are at this moment. Don't bring up Batman and Superman as one of your stupid examples about how toxic they once were as well. I'm talking about right now. Even if you did, it still wouldn't make sense. Since Batman and Superman took many years to recover. But you're saying Fantastic Four can recover within 3 or 4 years, which not even the two most iconic superheroes took that fast to recover. The only toxic superhero franchise to have ever get a quick reboot was Hulk, and The Incredible Hulk sill under-performed despite positive reviews. So now your whole argument being isn't very consistent with your silly comparisons. I may not know whether the next reboot will flop or not. But are you willing to put money in that it will be successful even after rebooting AGAIN with people still having a bad taste in their mouths from this franchise? Also no. In order for they to keep the rights, the franchise needs to make MONEY. You may not care about that, but the studio surely do. If you know The Amazing Spider-Man 2 made more money, than why are you comparing it with Fantastic Four? By you're idiotic logic, you might as well compare Fantastic Four to The Avengers: Age of Ultron. Since The Avengers: Age of Ultron made less both critically and financially as well. So there is a little bit fatigue there as well. Fox already did a more comic booky Fantastic Four movie with the Jessica Alba ones. It is clear that Fox doesn't know what they want to do with the property.

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 Rushing things out is always a huge factor on why the quality of films suffer. Just like this reboot. Where they rushed things out just so that they can keep the rights. They are more worried about losing the rights than they are with how the quality of the film turns out. Once again, that thick headed head of yours can't seem to stop comparing Fantastic Four to other superhero movies. HURRRR BUTT OTHA SUPAHERO MOVIEZ DOO DIS & DAT AZWEL BLAH BLAH BLAH. Other superhero properties aren't as toxic as the Fantastic Four are at this moment. Don't bring up Batman and Superman as one of your stupid examples about how toxic they once were as well. I'm talking about right now. Even if you did, it still wouldn't make sense. Since Batman and Superman took many years to recover. But you're saying Fantastic Four can recover within 3 or 4 years, which not even the two most iconic superheroes took that fast to recover. The only toxic superhero franchise to have ever get a quick reboot was Hulk, and The Incredible Hulk sill under-performed despite positive reviews. So now your whole argument being isn't very consistent with your silly comparisons. I may not know whether the next reboot will flop or not. But are you willing to put money in that it will be successful even after rebooting AGAIN with people still having a bad taste in their mouths from this franchise? Also no. In order for they to keep the rights, the franchise needs to make MONEY. You may not care about that, but the studio surely do. If you know The Amazing Spider-Man 2 made more money, than why are you comparing it with Fantastic Four? By you're idiotic logic, you might as well compare Fantastic Four to The Avengers: Age of Ultron. Since The Avengers: Age of Ultron made less both critically and financially as well. So there is a little bit fatigue there as well. Fox already did a more comic booky Fantastic Four movie with the Jessica Alba ones. It is clear that Fox doesn't know what they want to do with the property.

Hey Josh. I'm Rambo. Wanna hook up with some...

















Wait for it....











Boobs.

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 Rushing things out is always a huge factor on why the quality of films suffer. Just like this reboot. Where they rushed things out just so that they can keep the rights. They are more worried about losing the rights than they are with how the quality of the film turns out. Once again, that thick headed head of yours can't seem to stop comparing Fantastic Four to other superhero movies. HURRRR BUTT OTHA SUPAHERO MOVIEZ DOO DIS & DAT AZWEL BLAH BLAH BLAH. Other superhero properties aren't as toxic as the Fantastic Four are at this moment. Don't bring up Batman and Superman as one of your stupid examples about how toxic they once were as well. I'm talking about right now. Even if you did, it still wouldn't make sense. Since Batman and Superman took many years to recover. But you're saying Fantastic Four can recover within 3 or 4 years, which not even the two most iconic superheroes took that fast to recover. The only toxic superhero franchise to have ever get a quick reboot was Hulk, and The Incredible Hulk sill under-performed despite positive reviews. So now your whole argument being isn't very consistent with your silly comparisons. I may not know whether the next reboot will flop or not. But are you willing to put money in that it will be successful even after rebooting AGAIN with people still having a bad taste in their mouths from this franchise? Also no. In order for they to keep the rights, the franchise needs to make MONEY. You may not care about that, but the studio surely do. If you know The Amazing Spider-Man 2 made more money, than why are you comparing it with Fantastic Four? By you're idiotic logic, you might as well compare Fantastic Four to The Avengers: Age of Ultron. Since The Avengers: Age of Ultron made less both critically and financially as well. So there is a little bit fatigue there as well. Fox already did a more comic booky Fantastic Four movie with the Jessica Alba ones. It is clear that Fox doesn't know what they want to do with the property.

That's quite the essay you made there. Yup, this reboot was rushed out because they had to pick one and Trank's pitch was the "best" one. Unless the franchise makes bank, studios are always worried about a films quality. Oh now I can't use example because? One good film in 7-8 years recovered Batman's toxic-ness. Hulk was never a toxic franchise. You seem to think a reboot is the only option when they can do a spin off with Surfer and not mention the toxic four at all. Whether it's successful or not is up in the air, but that's for any film. It needs to make money? Then why haven't they lost the rights already? Then go talk to the studio. You're bringing up fatigue. Comic book films all didn't do much this year so you can say there might indeed be CBM fatigue. Doesn't mean they can't try it again. Well now they have 4 years to figure it out, 7 technically, but blockbuster usually take 3 years make.

@yonny616 Yeah, so what makes you think the next time will be any different if they are just rushing things again? Sure you can use examples, just not stupid ones though. First you implied that a Fantastic Four reboot can be done in the span of 3 or 4 years, and now you admit that Batman took 7 or 8 years to recover. See how you contradicting yourself? Why do you think I said your whole argument isn't very consistent with your silly comparisons? Hulk is a toxic franchise. The first Hulk movie didn't do well both critically and financially. Silver Surfer isn't exactly a big money maker, so there is no guarantee that Fox will rush out his own spin-off in less than 7 years. If they do decided to make one, it's because they believe they can make a good Silver Surfer movie. They aren't going to make it just for the sake of of keeping the rights. That would be dumb. They'll be losing millions and millions of dollars on this franchise again. Eventually they'll lose the rights if they keep losing money. As for the whole fatigue thing, people aren't as tired with other comic book movies as they are with Fantastic Four. Yes, they can try again, but Fantastic Four is in a weird position where no one wants a sequel to this, and nobody wants it to get rebooted right away.

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 Yeah, so what makes you think the next time will be any different if they are just rushing things again? Sure you can use examples, just not stupid ones though. First you implied that a Fantastic Four reboot can be done in the span of 3 or 4 years, and now you admit that Batman took 7 or 8 years to recover. See how you contradicting yourself? Why do you think I said your whole argument isn't very consistent with your silly comparisons? Hulk is a toxic franchise. The first Hulk movie didn't do well both critically and financially. Silver Surfer isn't exactly a big money maker, so there is no guarantee that Fox will rush out his own spin-off in less than 7 years. If they do decided to make one, it's because they believe they can make a good Silver Surfer movie. They aren't going to make it just for the sake of of keeping the rights. That would be dumb. They'll be losing millions and millions of dollars on this franchise again. Eventually they'll lose the rights if they keep losing money. As for the whole fatigue, thing, people aren't as tired with other comic book movies as they are with Fantastic Four. Yes, they can try again, but Fantastic Four is in a weird position because no one wants a sequel to this, and nobody wants it to get rebooted right away.

That's why they have 4, 7 technically, years to get pitches on either reboots, sequels, or spin offs. "4 years" was about it's entire production (development - release) and I don't remember denying that. So how did I contradict with my silly comparisons? I guess then? I still don't think Hulk is "toxic franchise" I just think the character doesn't work well on its own. And we all though of GotG the same way. Studios don't green light films unless they think it can be good or know money will come either way (E.G. Transformers). I don't know... according to some that's why Trank's F4 was made. Yes, they would... if they decide not to do another one. That's how it works. No on cares for F4 is more like it.

@yonny616 4 years isn't enough time to recover from a toxic franchise. If you're talking the amount of years it takes to develop a film, then there is no guarantee on that either. Films can take up a lot longer to make. The only reason why some movies, like sequels for example, take only 2 or 3 years to make is because either they already got the same cast and crew ready to go or it has a low budget. So Fox would probably need the extra time to find the right pieces of the puzzle for their next Fantastic Four reboot. But knowing them, they'll likely rush things out again. Can't say I blame them though. Also you're contradicting yourself because you said they can release the next reboot within the span of 3 or 4 years, then later you basically admitted that it takes 7 or 8 years to reboot a toxic franchise. Hulk is a toxic franchise. I mean, when was the last time there was a successful Hulk movie? Oh that's right, there never was. lol, again with the comparisons. Here's the difference between Marvel and Fox: Marvel has proven that they can take more obscure characters and turn them into successful movies like Guardians of the Galaxy. Where as Fox can't even get Marvel's first family right, let alone a Silver Surfer. So you agree with me that Fox won't rush out Silver Surfer unless they believe they can make a good movie out of him? Truth is, no one will care about Fantastic Four until the rights go back to Marvel.

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 4 years isn't enough time to recover from a toxic franchise. If you're talking the amount of years it takes to develop a film, then there is no guarantee on that either. Films can take up a lot longer to make. The only reason why some movies, like sequels for example, take only 2 or 3 years to make is because either they already got the same cast and crew ready to go or it has a low budget. So Fox would probably need the extra time to find the right pieces of the puzzle for their next Fantastic Four reboot. But knowing them, they'll likely rush things out again. Can't say I blame them though. Also you're contradicting yourself because you said they can release the next reboot within the span of 3 or 4 years, then later you basically admitted that it takes 7 or 8 years to reboot a toxic franchise. Hulk is a toxic franchise. I mean, when was the last time there was a successful Hulk movie? Oh that's right, there never was. lol, again with the comparisons. Here's the difference between Marvel and Fox: Marvel has proven that they can take more obscure characters and turn them into successful movies like Guardians of the Galaxy. Where as Fox can't even get Marvel's first family right, let alone a Silver Surfer. So you agree with me that Fox won't rush out Silver Surfer unless they believe they can make a good movie out of him? Truth is, no one will care about Fantastic Four until the rights go back to Marvel.

I never said it was, nor implied it. Yes, they can, but the usual blockbuster that gets the green light is a 3-4 year total production. Man of Steel took 3-4 years, and so did Batman Begins, Iron Man, etc. Those weren't sequels nor low budget films. Fox has 4 years to listen to pitches and 3 to produce the film. No, I didn't. I said 7 or 8 because you started mentioning them, when you said Batman Begins took 8 years when it's actually 3, so I just went by your rules. Except Hulk is pretty much beloved by fans and is currently the second, if not the, most popular avenger. Did I ever disagree? Funny thing is Marvel doesn't care either way. They wanted Galactus and Surfer, not the F4.

@yonny616 You seem to be forgetting the fact that studios were scrambling ideas around for many years before they decided to green-lit Batman Begins, Iron Man, and Man of Steel. Batman Begins and Man of Steel just barley came out 7 years later before the previous movies, and it's funny that you bring up Iron Man as well. Because New Line Cinema had the rights to Iron Man at first, and lost it for not putting out a film in time. So that was bad example. You goof'd right there, lol! It doesn't matter if it takes 3 or 4 years to develop a movie, because Fox can take FOURever just scrambling ideas like they did with Daredevil. Unless they just want to rush it out AGAIN just to keep the rights that is. It actually took 6 years for Batman Begins to be green-lit. So? More people went to go see 2005's Fantastic than they did with the last two Hulk movies. I pretty sure Marvel cares about Fantastic Four as they do with Galactus and Silver Surfer. It's just that Galactus and Silver Surfer are more important to the Infinity War storyline right now. Where as I don't think Marvel will reboot Fantastic Four until Phase FOUR. That is if they get the rights anyway.

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 You seem to be forgetting the fact that studios were scrambling ideas around for many years before they decided to green-lit Batman Begins, Iron Man, and Man of Steel. Batman Begins and Man of Steel just barley came out 7 years later before the previous movies, and it's funny that you bring up Iron Man as well. Because New Line Cinema had the rights to Iron Man at first, and lost it for not putting out a film in time. So that was bad example. You goof'd right there, lol! It doesn't matter if it takes 3 or 4 years to develop a movie, because Fox can take FOURever just scrambling ideas like they did with Daredevil. Unless they just want to rush it out AGAIN just to keep the rights that is. It actually took 6 years for Batman Begins to be green-lit. So? More people went to go see 2005's Fantastic than they did with the last two Hulk movies. I pretty sure Marvel cares about Fantastic Four as they do with Galactus and Silver Surfer. It's just that Galactus and Silver Surfer are more important to the Infinity War storyline right now. Where as I don't think Marvel will reboot Fantastic Four until Phase FOUR. That is if they get the rights anyway.

That's what usually happens when studios are developing franchises. It should go without saying. Fantastic Four (2015) just barely came out 7 years later before the previous movie, it's funny that your bring up Iron Man's rights reverting, because that had nothing to do with my point. You goof'd right there, lol! Yeah and they'd lose 'em... So your point was? Oh was that your point? And it took 6 years for Fantastic Four (2015) to be green-lit. Yeah, they did sadly. Not really, no.

@yonny616 Other studios aren't limited with their properties as Fox is with Fantastic Four. Iron Man reverting back to Marvel has a lot to do with your point. It proves how irrelevant you point actually is, because it doesn't matter if developing a film takes 3 or 4 years. They can take forever scrambling ideas around. Also yes, really.

Mecha wrote:

@yonny616 Other studios aren't limited with their properties as Fox is with Fantastic Four. Iron Man reverting back to Marvel has a lot to do with your point. It proves how irrelevant you point actually is, because it doesn't matter if developing a film takes 3 or 4 years. They can take forever scrambling ideas around. Also yes, really.

Well they all seemed to reboot a film/start a franchise within the same time frame Fox has for the Fox Four. No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with why I mentioned it at all Did I ever say they couldn't scramble for ideas?