What Went Wrong With 2015’s ‘Fantastic Four’?

In our series, Cinemautopsy, we delve into a recent blockbuster flop and ponder a straightforward query: What on earth transpired? For this episode, let’s revisit the comic book that kick-started Marvel Comics, boasting an ensemble of rising stars, one of Tinseltown’s most promising directors, and a daring endeavor to revolutionize superhero storytelling. But with such potential, what could potentially backfire?

Many things. Many things could go wrong. And did.

Movie Fantastic Four

Director: Josh Trank

Screenplay Writers: Jeremy Slater, Simon Kinberg, and Josh Trank

Release Date: 7th August, 2015

Global Box Office Collection: $167.9 million

Production Budget: Approximately $120 million

Rotten Tomatoes Rating: 9/10

Metacritic Score: 27/100

Audience Score: C-

This is the fourth Fantastic Four film and the beginning of a rebooted series.

What Went Right:

In theory, the upcoming “Fantastic Four” film seems captivating due to its director, Josh Trank, who previously made the critically acclaimed superhero movie “Chronicle.” This film, focusing on a group of high school students gaining superpowers from an enigmatic underground fissure, resonated with teenagers’ feelings and challenges. Given that these themes are central to this reboot of the Fantastic Four, it was expected to benefit from Trank’s expertise. The four principal actors were all promising talents: Miles Teller, known for “Whiplash,” Kate Mara from “House of Cards,” Michael B. Jordan from “Friday Night Lights” and Trank’s “Chronicle,” and Jamie Bell, who starred in “Billy Elliot,” “The Adventures of Tintin,” and more recently, “Snowpiercer” and “Nymphomaniac.

Similar to how Chronicle delves deeper into the human aspects of superheroes rather than focusing on surface elements like costumes and special effects, Trank’s Fantastic Four explores the psychological and emotional impacts of their life-changing transformations. Trank’s interpretation diverged from traditional FF norms in various ways. Unlike the typical bright blue outfits, his team did not wear costumes, and they acquired their powers during a failed mission to another dimension instead of an encounter with cosmic rays. Additionally, he cast Jordan as the Human Torch, a bold and fitting choice for the fiery Johnny Storm, despite reservations from some traditional comic book fans.

Indeed, the entire ensemble was exceptional. They’re all gifted individuals who truly shine on screen. It would be a pleasure to watch them collaborate in a film project again. However, it might not be this specific film that captivates us.

What Went Wrong:

In the movie, Teller’s character Reed Richards, Jordan’s Johnny Storm, Mara’s Sue Storm, and Toby Kebbell’s Victor Von Doom construct a machine to travel to an alternate dimension they call “Planet Zero.” Fearing that authorities would seize their project for their own gain, Reed, Johnny, and Victor, accompanied by Reed’s friend Ben (played by Bell), secretly enter the device after dark and journey to this foreign world. Unfortunately, the expedition goes awry, leaving Victor in a precarious state, while the remaining trio (including Sue, who observes their adventure from Earth) undergo permanent changes.

Essentially, the storyline follows a similar pattern as the initial Fantastic Four comic by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby from 1961. This tale serves as an intriguing allegory for Trank’s movie production experience: A group of ambitious filmmakers with noble intentions transformed familiar characters in an innovative way, but their creativity was undermined by greedy forces focused on financial success. The powers that be wanted control over the project, and when our heroes attempted to regain authority, it led to chaos for everyone involved.

The final outcome of Trank’s Fantastic Four is undeniably split into two distinct halves. The initial portion delves into scientific research and innovation, tracing young Reed as he creates his first teleporter and gets accepted into the Baxter Foundation, a hub for gifted youth. Reed, Sue, Victor, and Johnny join forces to develop the “Quantum Gate,” which ultimately results in their mishap on Planet Zero. Upon returning home, the authorities conduct experiments on the survivors, and Ben agrees to aid the U.S. Military in exchange for a remedy for his stone-like affliction. However, the second half seems to have deviated significantly from its original vision during filming, leading to a rather uneventful and uninteresting conclusion.

Transition to a “One Year Later” title, and all of a sudden, we find ourselves in a whole new film, where characters display starkly different behaviors (shy Reed, who used to wear glasses, is now spectacle-free and exhibits an air of arrogance that surpasses Johnny’s). Noticeably, some actors sport drastically altered appearances too (Kate Mara dons a conspicuous wig in numerous scenes; Michael B. Jordan appears clean-shaven in one moment and sports a goatee and mustache the next).

In the second half of the story, none of it seems logical for the Fantastic Four. The Thing is said to be involved in clandestine missions, yet a large, rocky man without pants hardly fits the definition of covert. Moreover, he accuses Reed of his transformation, but the truth is, no one compelled him to embark on that risky and unsupervised journey into the unknown alternative dimension.

Reed claims to be working towards Ben’s cure, but his actions contradict this intention. He leaves for Latin America where he can’t possibly help Ben, and then upon returning to the base, he abandons his research on Ben in favor of another expedition to Planet Zero.

After a second, post-hype watch, it appears that Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four has potential in its first half. The interactions between Teller and Mara are commendable, and Jordan effectively portrays Johnny Storm’s blend of arrogance and goodness within the limited screen time provided. However, some parts of the overly lengthy initial act are baffling (such as the true nature of the Baxter Foundation; while Reed describes it as a school, he never attends a single class, and most of the “students” appear to be in their mid-20s). Nevertheless, there are glimpses of a heartwarming narrative about ambitious young individuals who must unite to prevent manipulation by an older generation that seems more jaded.

The latter half of the Fantastic Four disappointingly leans towards cynicism and profiteering. Initially portrayed as less villainous, Doom is absent from most of the movie until the final act, when it becomes apparent that no other antagonists were introduced for the team to battle. Stranded on Planet Zero for a year, he returns to Earth displaying divinity-like abilities such as deflecting bullets with telekinesis and crushing enemies like overripe grapes. However, in the climactic fight, Reed and Ben manage to defeat him through simple physical attacks (“Stretchy and rocky punches! My one weakness!”).

The film is incredibly disorganized, jumping erratically between deep explorations of moral dilemmas arising from superpowers to unreasonable worldwide escapades within the same scene title. Structurally, it appears to lack significant portions of its middle and end sequences; it’s essentially an hour and 15 minutes of introduction followed by less than half an hour of resolution. Many scenes and shots showcased in the film’s promotions, including some stunning visual effects, are nowhere to be found in the actual movie.

Is this movie a significant reimagining of superhero lore, or is it simply a familiar tale with slight modifications? As the story unfolds and transitions between scenes, you get a sense of multiple creative forces trying to mold it into diverse directions. And much like the narrative itself, innovation seems to bring about its own setbacks or misfortunes.

Postmortem:

Looking back, Trank’s “Fantastic Four” appears to be one of the early instances of a now frequent trend in blockbuster movies. Production companies approve a daring interpretation of the source material, lose confidence during production, and subsequently try to shift towards a more conventional and familiar approach after it’s no longer feasible to restart from the beginning.

It’s understandable that executives would be keen on safeguarding their financial stake (and consequently their positions) given the significant amount at risk. However, it’s puzzling to me why they don’t opt for a more conservative approach initially. One might wonder how the Fantastic Four, starting with an unusual and serious premise, could evolve into the Thing battling Doctor Doom against a colossal sky laser. I reached out to Jeremy Slater, one of the three screenwriters credited for the film, who shared some insights about early drafts of the script and the reasoning behind such grand blockbusters.

Slater approximates that he drafted approximately ten to fifteen versions of the script for Trank’s movie over a six-month span. Despite being acknowledged as one of the film’s writers alongside Trank and Kinberg, only one line penned by him appeared in the final production (the line “Don’t blow up,” uttered when young Reed tests his homemade teleporter for the first time). He also emphasized that such an outcome is typical for big-budget films, which often undergo multiple script revisions from numerous writers before reaching the screen.

Despite Trank’s Fantastic Four eventually taking a darker, more serious turn, Slater’s narrative seems brighter and closer to the comics. His script began, like the movie, by depicting Reed and Ben as kids. Reed then entered the Baxter Foundation, initially conceived as a kind of nerd-friendly Hogwarts, where young prodigies would whiz around on prototype hoverboards, conduct experiments with anti-gravity, teleportation, and artificial lifeforms. In this version, Reed was meant to forge a friendship with a troubled Latverian scientist named Victor, who gradually manipulated Reed into breaking the rules, straining his bond with Ben.

Initially, a device called the portal was instrumental in transforming the Fantastic Four. This device originally transported children to a realm known as the “Negative Zone,” a comic book world created by Lee and Kirby. In this zone, they would have confronted Annihilus, who Slater described as an irate cybernetic T-Rex. It was Annihilus who apparently killed one of them, Victor, while the others were exposed to radiation upon their return home, which granted them their powers. Later on, Victor resurfaced from the Negative Zone, claiming to have slain Annihilus and fashioned his Control Rod into a kind of living body armor.

Essentially, the storyline remains similar to the finished film, but with Annihilus and Planet Zero being known as the Negative Zone instead. As explained by Slater, the key distinctions lie in tone and structure. He favored a script filled with “a lot of humor, heart, and spectacle,” while Trank preferred a more “realistic, gritty, and grounded” approach. Interestingly, all events mentioned occurred within the first 45 pages of an early draft that was around 130 pages long. However, in the final movie, these events span nearly the entire runtime. Slater noted that there were many additional elements planned beyond this point in their initial screenplay, which ultimately did not make it to the screen.

Apart from Annihilus and the Negative Zone, we had Doctor Doom declaring war on the civilized world, the Mole Man releasing a 60-foot genetically-modified monster in downtown Manhattan, a raid by commandos on the Baxter Foundation, a climactic battle reminiscent of Saving Private Ryan featuring our heroes battling an army of Doombots in war-torn Latveria, and a post-credit scene showing Galactus and the Silver Surfer destroying an entire planet. We had monstrous creatures, extraterrestrial beings, Fantasticars, and a lovable spherical H.E.R.B.I.E. robot, similar to BB-8 two years before BB-8 was even created. If you find all of that exciting…well, we did too! However, the challenge was that it would have also been incredibly, incredibly costly.

Despite not having any communication with Trank or the studio following his six-month stint on the screenplay, Slater believes the high production cost likely hindered this daring interpretation of the material. He doesn’t fault Fox for that either. “Would you invest $300 million in a Fantastic Four movie?” he questioned. “Given the less than favorable reception of the previous films, it’s reasonable to expect caution. Unfortunately, such caution may have significantly impacted the film negatively.

As a devoted cinephile, I’ve got some intriguing insights about the making of a particular film that sparked quite a buzz. During production itself, whispers circulated about potential problems undermining the final product. Just as the curtains were drawing back on its grand premiere in cinemas, director Trank posted (and later erased) a tweet stating, “A year ago, I crafted a phenomenal version of this film that sadly, the world may never get to see.” This claim was subsequently validated by actor Toby Kebbell, who declared that the original film, which never saw the light of day, was “remarkable” and “much darker” than the one eventually screened in theatres.

However, The Hollywood Reporter painted a different picture; their sources claimed Trank was unusually reserved on set, and that his work was poorly conceived. Anonymous crew members were quoted saying that the film was “made for all the wrong reasons,” with the primary intention being to secure the rights to the characters before they reverted back to Marvel.

It’s plausible that some of the issues with the Fantastic Four can be attributed to that explanation. However, in the end, the causes don’t really matter. What truly counts is the film itself, and Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four turned out to be a significant letdown.

As for Slater, he shares that he doesn’t hold any grudges over the situation and feels fortunate to have worked with characters he admired since his childhood days. Being a self-proclaimed “superfan” or “ubernerd,” Slater was brought on board to offset Trank’s more realistic approach in the project.

Similar to Marvel Comics’ long-running series, What If?, which explores alternate versions of classic comic book stories, Trank and Slater effectively crafted a cinematic equivalent by developing such an extraordinary idea for Fantastic Four and ultimately choosing a more tame approach instead.

12 Movie Performances So Bad They Became Iconic

Keanu Reeves in Bram Stoker’s Dracula

In a manner you might not forget, Keanu Reeves’ unique pronunciation of Budapest as “Beeuu-dapest” remains etched in our memories. Over time, I believe we’ve come to appreciate and admire Reeves for his charismatic and dedicated acting style, which often sees him immersing himself in roles with a flair reminiscent of Nicolas Cage. However, in Francis Ford Coppola’s gothic vampire adaptation, “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, Reeves seemed to be struggling, particularly in the role of Jonathan Harker. While his portrayal as an awkward, bumbling character overshadowed by the sophisticated undead count vying for his wife’s affections could align with the film’s themes, Reeves’ quirky performance leaves us questioning whether it was intentional or a mistake.

Arnold Schwarzenegger in Batman & Robin

In a notorious sequence of events, Arnold Schwarzenegger delivered one of many icy quips as the villainous Mr. Freeze in “Batman & Robin.” Despite being cringe-worthy (“Let’s kick some ICE!!”), these ice-themed one-liners grew increasingly amusing as the movie progressed. Schwarzenegger delivered each line with his signature larger-than-life flair, and the more contrived his metaphors became, the more appealing they seemed to us. While it’s fair to label his performance as subpar—and let’s be honest, every performance in that movie was—somehow, once we got past how awful it all was, it managed to work: “Alright everyone, relax… relax… RELAX!”

In the movie “Batman & Robin,” Arnold Schwarzenegger played Mr. Freeze and delivered many icy one-liners that were initially cringe-worthy but became funnier as the film progressed. Despite being overly dramatic, these lines were enjoyable due to Schwarzenegger’s delivery. Although his performance was criticized, it managed to work in spite of its poor quality: “Everyone, just calm down… calm down… CALM DOWN!

John Travolta in Battlefield Earth

It would be disheartening to live under the rule of John Travolta and his bureaucratic alien companions from “Battlefield Earth,” primarily due to Travolta’s overly giggly portrayal of Terl, the chief Psychlo security officer who oversees the oppression of the local humanoids. To call Travolta’s performance in this movie as merely “hamming it up” would be an understatement. In fact, “Battlefield Earth,” a film adaptation of L. Ron Hubbard’s novel that Travolta had been developing for years, is not the place where we find Travolta embodying the menacing evil of Darth Vader or the brutal violence of the Xenomorphs. Instead, he adopts an effeminate, smirking tone in every line delivery, and when he isn’t shouting lines like “DO YOU WANT LUNCH???” with laughter in between, he titteringly laughs himself.

Hayden Christensen in Star Wars: Attack of the Clones

In numerous discussions, it’s been pointed out that Hayden Christensen’s performance as the Jedi trainee Anakin Skywalker, although not deserving of an Oscar, contributes positively to Attack of the Clones. The character of Anakin is far from the heroic figure audiences anticipate, with his social awkwardness often hindering him from becoming genuinely appealing, as seen in the infamous sand speech. Some might argue that Christensen’s acting comes across as stiff and peculiar. However, one could also suggest that Anakin was meant to be awkward and strange, and if this was George Lucas’ intention – to portray Anakin as an accidentally charming semi-hero struggling with his extraordinary abilities and the complexities of his new environment – then Christensen’s interpretation hit the mark perfectly.

Tommy Wiseau in The Room

In any compilation of poor acting performances, the enigmatic Tommy Wiseau deserves a spotlight. As the heartbroken banker Johnny in the movie “The Room“, he captivates the screen with his portrayal of a hopeless romantic whose fiancée betrays him with his best friend. This quadruple-threat talent, who wrote, directed, produced, and starred in the film, delivers lines as if an extraterrestrial newly arrived on Earth might, shifting between shouting and flailing limbs one moment, and murmuring softly the next. The fact that many of his lines were re-recorded only adds to their strange, otherworldly quality. It’s a performance that lingers in your memory. Who among us hasn’t found ourselves dramatically exclaiming, “YOU’RE TEARING ME APART, LISA!!”, even at the most minor of inconveniences?

Kristen Stewart in Twilight

Kristen Stewart’s unique, stutter-prone portrayal of Bella Swan in the Twilight series became an instant pop culture icon. So much so, that Taylor Swift hilariously mimicked it during her hosting stint on Saturday Night Live. Similar to Hayden Christensen, Stewart’s acting abilities were not fully appreciated until after the fact – during the release of the Twilight films, she was often criticized for her peculiar line delivery, such as “What a stupid lamb” and “I don’t want to know what the square root of pi is.” Her habit of biting her lip frequently and tucking her hair behind her ear were quirks that were easily imitated. However, these traits only serve to emphasize the fact that if we remember Bella Swan so vividly, Stewart must have been doing something right in her portrayal.

Eddie Redmayne in Jupiter Ascending

Absolutely, Eddie Redmayne’s portrayal of the antagonist Balem Abrasax in the Wachowskis’ space opera “Jupiter Ascending” is undeniably unconventional and somewhat off-putting. After all, he’s an alien! This character is an extraterrestrial who derives eternal youth from draining the vitality of colossal farms like Earth, with its inhabitants being essentially oblivious livestock for a clandestine intergalactic empire to exploit. It’s hard to imagine someone who carries out such actions delivering lines like “I CREATE LIFE” in a casual manner. The fact that we don’t often find ourselves imitating Balem at social gatherings is probably due to the limited audience for “Jupiter Ascending.” However, it’s worth watching the movie just to appreciate Redmayne’s distinctive acting style.

Jennifer Lawrence in mother!

It’s possible that I’m among those few who believe Darren Aronofsky’s film “mother!” is decent, despite its flaws. In a similar vein, Jennifer Lawrence, the movie’s lead actress, portrays a woman married to a man who seems to never stop inviting people over to their house that’s still undergoing renovation. I must admit, even the sink isn’t properly secured! It’s tough enough for one person to manage a horde of impolite guests under these conditions, let alone a single woman. Granted, Lawrence’s character doesn’t have a lot of lines or actions in the movie other than running around anxiously and questioning everyone’s rudeness, but isn’t it human nature to react similarly in such a situation?

Jared Leto in House of Gucci

Criticizing Jared Leto’s portrayal of Paolo Gucci in “House of Gucci” as offensive to Italians might itself be seen as disrespectful by Italians. You almost anticipate him to declare he cooks pasta every other line. His exaggerated facial prosthetics and whiny voice make you yearn for any other character to appear instead, even Adam Driver with his allegedly poor Italian accent. Despite this, Leto manages to deliver some excellent one-liners, such as the quip about not confusing “shit” for “chocolate.” In fact, he does.

Tom Hanks in Elvis

In a daring move reminiscent of Baz Luhrmann’s style, the character of Colonel Tom Parker, portrayed by Tom Hanks, was as wickedly sinister as depicted. This man, who reportedly exploited Elvis Presley both financially and emotionally, is shown slipping around backstage in a bulky suit and tweed jacket, his eyes gleaming with glee whenever Elvis sways his hips. The close-up shot of Hanks’ malevolent face upon realizing that the new voice belongs to a white singer is an astonishing example of cinematic artistry. While Austin Butler’s portrayal of Elvis was commendable, Hanks’ Colonel Tom Parker was undeniably unique and unparalleled in its depth and complexity.

2025-02-04 17:26