Marvel is rebooting Fantastic Four, also starting to eat itself

Not content with merely continuing stories, Marvel has announced another reboot of a movie they made not that long ago. Josh Trank, director of Chronicle, will bring Fantastic Four back to the screen March 6, 2015. The 2005 version, which spawned a 2007 sequel, featured the current Captain America/Steve Rogers Chris Evans as the Human Torch, and I say he should just pull a "Marvel Universe Patty Duke Show" and reprise his role at one more time for the sheer heck of it. Even if he's going to be making The Avengers 2 the same year. Keep shooting for the title of Greatest Cinematic Uroboros, Marvel. You can do it! (via The Daily Blam)


  1. Marvel diden’t make the Fantastic Four movies, Fox did. And they are also responsible for this reboot.

    Now an actual Marvel made Fantastic Four reboot would be awsome, as they tend to be verry good at turning thier own stuff into films.

    X-men, Spiderman, Fantastic Four al licenses in the hands of other companies.

    1. That is true. It would be more accurate to say “Not content with merely continuing stories, Marvel has announced another reboot of a Marvel-superhero movie made not that long ago.”

      [EDIT: Actually that’s not accurate either, looks like Fox still has the movie rights. I took this post to mean that Marvel had regained them, which hasn’t happened. Pretty misleading post all around.]

  2. Pretty uninformed for Boing Boing. Fox has the movie rights to Fantastic Four and X-men, Marvel unfortunately has no say in this. Specifically the reason there have been so many quick and unneeded reboots of Marvel properties is due to the film rights, if Fox doesn’t make an FF or X-men picture after a certain number of years the rights revert to Marvel/Disney.

    1. Specifically the reason there have been so many quick and unneeded reboots of Marvel properties is due to the film rights, if Fox doesn’t make an FF or X-men picture after a certain number of years the rights revert to Marvel/Disney.

      I find this oft-repeated explanation to be rather unsatistfying, as there’s no reason why, if they are obliged to make another picture, they still can’t continue the story rather than rebooting.

      Of course, reboots are probably much easier to market and much easier to write.  I just don’t understand any reason why they would be strictly necessary.

      1. …there’s no reason why, if they are obliged to make another picture, they still can’t continue the story rather than rebooting.

        Because audiences weren’t exactly clamoring for more of the same after “Spider-Man 3” or “Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.” Or that movie where George Clooney wore bat-nipples, for that matter.

    2. I understand how, in this case as in the recent case of the Spider-Man films, the “use it or lose it” provision in the movie rights provides an incentive for Something To Be Done. I’m less convinced about the logic that decides the “Something” in question is “reboot a franchise that was last rebooted less than a decade ago, and had a sequel or two even more recently”. You’d think they could negotiate an extension to the movie rights, on the (quite possibly accurate) assumption that they will make a more successful movie (more successful both financially and cinematically) if they space the reboots out a bit more, and so both sides could benefit from negotiating an extension.

      1.  Marvel isnt interested in extending those, they want their movie rights back. Fox is interested in rebooting them because people like the article writer wont be able to tell the difference between a hulk movie by marvel and a hulk movie by fox.

        1. I’m sure Marvel does want the rights back. But the choice isn’t between extending the option and getting the rights back; it’s between Fox prematurely rebooting the film franchise under the existing contract (which we can assume gives a lesser share to Marvel than they’d like, on top of the expected lesser revenue because the reboot is coming too soon), or Fox and Marvel negotiating an extension of the option. Unless Marvel envisions vastly disproportionate gains from regaining the film rights (synergies with its other film rights, for example, perhaps from crossovers), the incentives could in theory work out where it would be in everyone’s interest to negotiate an extension: Fox pays more, or gives a bigger share to Marvel, but in return gets more time to do the reboot right, and to get more from the resulting bigger success.

          1.  You are over estimating Fox ethics. Any spider-man movie made by them, even if its really bad, will make them a ton of money, and any spider-man movie made by marvel, will likely make marvel a TON of money and compete with the movies Fox is releasing. Marvel has nothing to gain from Fox exploring their characters, they were in near bankruptcy when they had to sell out.

            That recent spider-man was recut into a new version even before it hit the cinemas because the executives thought it was extremely bad. ( the trailer shows several plotlines that are then completely excised from the movie ) , but they still made a ton of money from an admitedly bad movie.

          2. If you put it in the context of Fox vs Disney it makes a lot more sense. Fox would rather only hand over stuff like DareDevil that has been run into the ground before they let Disney make any money off of it. Marvel will get FF, X-Men and Spider-Man back just after the execs at Fox and Sony decide that Disney would have to wait a decade before they could make a competing product with them. They can also over saturate the market, and destroy the Super-Hero Genre so that  comic heroes make little to nothing for anyone, and they’d do it just to hurt Disney(Marvel) and Warner Brothers(DC). This is why Disney and Marvel have publicly limited themselves to 2 Comic based hero movies a year.

          3. Yes, Marvel wants it’s stuff back. For example, The Avengers movie was supposed to have The Skrull in it, a fan favorite alien race. But that was tied up with the Fantastic Four license so had to be replaced. 

            They love to do cross over stuff, but some of their franchises are now locked away in other peoples hands.
            Not to mention that all The Fantastic Four movies have been crap, X-men and Spiderman have been verry hit or miss. Marvel would probably do a better job.

          4. You need to take in account avengers, and how much money it made.
            A movie like avengers is a nightmare to Fox or Sony, so if they can avoid giving them material they can use to create major movies that will steal profit from Fox and Sony other movies, they will do it. While Marvel survives based on the characters it has, Fox and Sony survive based on whatever they are peddling at the moment.  Avoiding Disney/marvel from geting another hit like Avengers would be more important than selling back the rights.

    1. I’m sure a Spiderman-FF-Avengers Origins pic would be fab. We’re all eager to finally learn how Spidey met John Steed and Emma Peel and where they found the lashings of ginger beer to lure Julian, Dick, Anne and George (and the then puppy Timothy of course) into a life of crime-detection.

      1. With Disney accumulating so many creative continents, we’ll be seeing a Harry Potter/Star Wars/X-Men/Monsters, Inc. mashup starring Robin Williams and Eddie Murphy by the end of the decade.

    1. Agreed.  I don’t know what unholy feat or demonic bargain made the  writing so poor that Jessica Alba was actually miscast as Sue, but somehow they managed it.

      (Hey, anyone remember when Hollywood had ideas?


      Guess not.)

      1. Let’s not kid ourselves, there never really was an era when most big Hollywood productions were based on original ideas. Ask almost anyone for a list of what they’d consider “classic films from the golden age of Hollywood” and you’ll see a list that’s made up almost entirely of adaptations, historical dramas, remakes and rip-offs.

        1. And that for every “classic” there were several dozen “dogs” that you never hear from again.

          See also, “How come all that music from the Classical period was so good?”

          1. Thank you – ever since one of my friends asked me “why is the music on the classic rock station always so good” this has been one of my pet peeves.  I like to call it “Institutional Nostalgia” or “Cultural Nostalgia”, we only remember or replay the things from the past that we want to keep.  Remember kids – not every piece of furniture made in the 18th century was a Hepplewhite or Chippendale, most people sat on boxes. 

      2. They had a pretty clear idea, which was to costume Jessica Alba in a spandex jumpsuit and then add some explosions and CGI. It wasn’t the biggest idea ever, but I believe they made money on it.

      3. Fantastic 4 was always going to be a tough sell for live action. I think the idea was to pick up a cheap (but recognizable) comic property, hire a pretty girl, make the monster (Thing) look cool and throw some CGI at it. As long as the budget stays low enough, it’s pretty much guaranteed to turn a profit. 

        Even trying to make a good FF movie would make it financially risky. Even if the movie was great, it’s still the Fantastic Four – there’s no guarantee it would find an audience.

        1. Budget wasn’t really the issue. The biggest complaints about those films weren’t about the special effects or even the casting, they were about the terrible writing.

    2. I’m one of the more frequent posters to the FF message board. When we heard that Mark Millar was the creative consultant we all pretty much gave up hope. The silver lining is that it might be so bad that the rights revert to Marvel (which may be Marvel’s plan).

      While some liked Millar’s run on the FF, the consensus among long time fans is that it was the worst run ever, or at least the worst in recent memory.

    3.  >The recent Fantastic Four movies were pretty awful, so let’s hope the new one is better.

      Actually, I liked them. They were rompy and fun in a way that other hero movies have turned their back on.

      Not everything has to be super serious.

      And I also thought the Raimi Spiderman movies were better than the so-called reboot. Yeah … even the awful Spiderman 3.

  3. Who cares. the old one was bad. This one could potentially be good. I loved the new spider-man movie, so if the new FF movie got that kind of treatment I’d be over the moon. It’d be great if they made it a family friendly movie too, with the kids and everything. Excited!!

  4. “I say he should just pull a ‘Marvel Universe Patty Duke Show’…”

    Oh, great, now I’ve got “But they’re superheroes! Identical superheroes, and you’ll find, they laugh alike, they walk alike, at times they even talk alike!” causing me to lose my mind.

  5. This article is bull. Fox has been remaking those movies in order to not lose the rights back to Marvel.  By rebooting them they hope that oblivious fans ( like the person that posted this article ) will believe they belong to the movie continuity of Avengers.Sony did the same with Spider-man.  This post is really misleading and ignores the reality of what has been going on with the Marvel movie situation for years.  Ironman wouldnt probably be famous now if marvel had been able to do their own spider-man movies

  6. Why are you picking on Marvel? The upcoming Superman movie is the second reboot (even though the Bryan Singer movie is supposed to be in original movie continuity, ignoring the last two Reeve movies means that it really isn’t), and the two Schumacher Batman movies are arguably not in the same continuity as the Burton movies, even though they’ve got the same Alfred (and the same Gordon, IIRC). Plus, of course, DC has been trying to get some Wonder Woman project off the ground for a while, the bust of the Green Lantern movie means that they probably won’t be bringing Ryan Reynolds back and may even go with a non-Hal Jordan GL, and that’s even without going into the numerous live-action TV series of varying durations (since the Reeve movies, there have been three Superman TV series that I’m aware of: Superboy, Lois & Clark, and Smallville.

    Maybe the takeaway here is how difficult it is to get a decent live-action superhero series off the ground, let alone sustain it. Even back in the late eighties, Michael Keaton was joking about how he’d have more and more difficulty squeezing into the Batsuit as he got older, a la latter-day Elvis, and end up doing shopping mall appearances. (Nothing that he’s done since Batman has been nearly as big, but at least he was spared that.) Frankly, even though Chris Evans was fine as Johnny Storm, he’s much better as Steve Rogers, and the only one I’d really want back would be Michael Chiklis as Ben Grimm, and I’d really want them to do a better Thing suit–the old one looked like it had a zipper up the back. No point in throwing good money after bad. Oh, yeah, and Victor Von Doom is the dictator of his own country, damnit.

    1. The last one i really liked was the first “superman” and burton’s “batman” was ok… jeez… but those were parodies, you know the post-modernist spoofs! I can’t feel but pity for folks who actually “engage” with the serious dramatic dilemmas of those characters in 2012.(and no, youth has nothing to do with it, I found the whole thing as cheesy (and thus charming) at 10 as now at 35.) Currently, I find the whole phenomena profoundly depressing.

      1. You should probably not watch superhero movies then.  I think you’ll be able to manage.

        Being older than you I can remember when every big summer blockbuster was a cloned ultra-sadistic revenge fantasy with a musclebound, presumably extremely virile thug of limited intelligence beating up, torturing and then killing either ethnic minorities or intellectuals.  I’ll take the superhero movies.

        And don’t get me started on this childish nonesense.

    2. I actually was thrilled when Spider-Man (the original Sam Raimi one) came out, but could care less about any of the crap that’s being pumped out now. It’s all like a massive: “Video Game Cut-Scene: The Movie”

  7. marvel, the walking dead of the ips…
    didn’t it begin to rot in the 70’s?
    it never ceases to amaze me how some of those “things” just keep soldiering on on the sheer weight of filthy lucre they managed to amass during their heyday.
    wtf, disney, btw?

    1.  Someone did not read any of the comments before posting. Fox owns the rights and will crank out any piece of drek to retain the rights, make money, and prevent Marvel/Disney from competing with better movies of their own.

  8. So their goal is what?  To make this movie worse than the other FF movies they already made?  Like how much worse could they possibly be?  From here they only have two options…have Sylvester Stallone write the script or turn it into a low-budget soft-porn. Stallone-scripting it would probably be worse than the previous movies put together and the soft-porn version would probably be better.

    1. The goal is to keep the rights to make more Fantastic Four movies in Fox’s hands. Nothing more & nothing less.  And if the viewing public accepts that a “reboot” is a normal part of a cycle, then Hollywood has a new way of squeezing money out of a film concept.

      Anyone pretending these superhero films are nothing but assembly line cash cows needs to get some perspective.

  9. All these cheesy reboots made just to keep the rights still can’t compete with Roger Corman’s 1994 masterpiece.

Comments are closed.