FOX to reboot Fantastic 4 and Daredevil

[Deberg_1990]

Meh...


http://www.deadline.com/2012/07/comi...aredevil-redo/



While 20th Century Fox isn’t banging the gong at Comic-Con this year, the studio has big developments on several geek-worthy projects.

* Fox has officially set Chronicle helmer Josh Trank to direct the reboot of Fantastic Four, and the film will be the next Marvel property to be slated for production and dated for release by the studio. Fantastic Four, which will include a new cast, falls into line after The Wolverine sequel that starts production shortly, and the Matthew Vaughn-directed X-Men: First Class, which is also on a fast track. After Trank’s breakthrough with the Fox sleeper hit Chronicle he has been offered everything and attached himself to several projects. But I’m told that Fox expects Fantastic Four to be the next film he directs.



Fox is looking for a director on its other major Marvel reboot, after David Slade just dropped out of Daredevil. The studio has a script it likes, but has to get the film into production by fall or contractually risk having the the property revert to Marvel Studios and Disney. Slade could not make the timing work as he is directing the pilot of the series Hannibal.

[Kyle DeLexus]

Originally Posted by tk13

Totally agree... but that's part of it. They still have to market things like Spiderman obviously but it's got a built in fan base. They needed to really sell people on why John Carter was the forebearer to a lot of modern science fiction and they didn't do it.

I guess Magic Mike did well. So not all hope is lost for original cinema!

That was just a Showgirls reboot

[Discuss Thrower]

I wonder if the reboot of Gatsby will fuel classic novel movie adaptations?

[Aries Walker]

Originally Posted by the Talking Can

two truly shitty movies

Oh, come on. Don't sell them short. They each had a sequel, so it was really four shitty movies.

The best - in fact, only good - thing about Daredevil was Michael Clark Duncan as Kingpin. Other than his perfect casting, every aspect of that movie was crap. If nothing else, I will never figure out why they cast dark and tortured Daredevil as Ben Affleck, who is perhaps the least dark and tortured actor in Hollywood.

Fantastic Four likewise had one good casting - Chris Evans - and the rest of everything about it was awful. (Not as awful as Daredevil, but awful.) I actually liked the sequel better, solely because of Doug Jones and Laurence Fishburne as the Silver Surfer, but it was pretty bad too. Both movies completely took a dirty shit on Dr. Doom, who is one of the deepest and most iconic characters in comic book history, if not in literary history in general.

Fantastic Four is a stronger story with more potential than Daredevil, but I have no problem with either and both being remade. They can't do much worse.

[Kyle DeLexus]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

Oh, come on. Don't sell them short. They each had a sequel, so it was really four shitty movies.

The best - in fact, only good - thing about Daredevil was Michael Clark Duncan as Kingpin. Other than his perfect casting, every aspect of that movie was crap. If nothing else, I will never figure out why they cast dark and tortured Daredevil as Ben Affleck, who is perhaps the least dark and tortured actor in Hollywood.

Fantastic Four likewise had one good casting - Chris Evans - and the rest of everything about it was awful. (Not as awful as Daredevil, but awful.) I actually liked the sequel better, solely because of Doug Jones and Laurence Fishburne as the Silver Surfer, but it was pretty bad too. Both movies completely took a dirty shit on Dr. Doom, who is one of the deepest and most iconic characters in comic book history, if not in literary history in general.

Fantastic Four is a stronger story with more potential than Daredevil, but I have no problem with either and both being remade. They can't do much worse.

Alba was good

[Aries Walker]

She was good to look at. That's about it.

[007]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

She was good to look at. That's about it.

Well, in that movie, it was about all you needed.

[Pushead2]

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

I wonder if the reboot of Gatsby will fuel classic novel movie adaptations?

All depends on how much $$$$$$$. It makes

[Valiant]

Originally Posted by SuperChief

It's "smart" fiscally for these studios to do reboots in a rough economy, mainly because these franchises are proven commodities with fanbases already in place.

I for one don't agree with the practice, but I'm not the one in charge.

I don't think that is the reason.

If they do not make the movies they lose the rights to them and they go back to the comic companies.

With those movies flopping so hard, they have no choice but to reboot, they cannot keep the story going as no one would see ff3 or dd2.

[Aries Walker]

I think it's both - they're a proven fiscal commodity (Marvel properties are gold right now), and it keeps them from losing the rights.

[Bowser]

The doing it for the Avengers storyline that eventually gets to Thanos and (maybe) The Secret Wars.

And for the love of all things holy in comics, they should reboot the FF for no other reason than to do The Silver Surfer and Galctus stories properly. They royally ****ed up both of those characters in that abortion of a movie.

[Aries Walker]

Originally Posted by Bowser

The doing it for the Avengers storyline that eventually gets to Thanos and (maybe) The Secret Wars.

I was thinking Civil War. People were starting to rant against superheroes at the end of Avengers.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by Aries Walker

I was thinking Civil War. People were starting to rant against superheroes at the end of Avengers.

Possibly. But that teaser shot of Thanos at the end of Avengers makes me think they're taking the story to galactic heights, and rebooting DD and FF would seem to fit the theory (and the need of those characters in such a story). But who knows.