Trank Distances Himself From "Fantastic Four," Insists His Version Was "Fantastic"

[Tracer Bullet]

And everyone is trying to blame him, and not the crappy film for the problem. Making a movie to throw a bone to a group of activists was never going to work. They HAD a good, if not blockbuster F4 going and they ignored it in favor of PC reimaginings...now they've likely killed the franchise.

GOOD JOB Fox!

Not only was Michael B. Jordan not the problem with this movie, his casting was not done to please any Pc activist, so the frothing at the mouth about it is more than unnecessary.

[rotton]

Here is some good background history on the movie if anyone is interested. It gives some good detailed info on the 4chan incident for those wondering as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OZY_Eno8GE

[Zero Hunter]

That is just the price of being the director. If a movie is great you get all the praise. If a movie sucks you get the brunt of the blame. It has been clear from the start Trank just wanted to make Chronicle 2 and that was not what the studio wanted. If he is now saying this is not his movie and doesn't want to take any of the blame for this turkey how about seeing him put his money where his mouth is and return that fat check Fox gave him. That would prove how much of an "artist" he is.

[Rene Narciso]

I loved Chronicle. I'm a sucker for "superhumans in the real world". But I don't think this approach is fitting with the FF.

What strikes me is that FF and Amazing Spider-Man both made the characters super-young. Same thing DC did with the New 52. And in all cases the result was pretty unspectacular. The approach only worked in X-Men: First Class, and I think that is the case because the X-Men do have a lot of "before they were famous" history sort of built-in in the franchise, it sort of fits.

But a complicated backstory doesn't add a lot to Spidey and FF. Stories about Peter Parker's parents or the FF when they were younger never really did have much of a spark, IMO.

[tg1982]

Pretty bad form. If this movie ended up being a critical darling and a huge blockbuster. I can almost guarantee he wouldn't have said it wasn't his version, he would've kept his mouth shut, and took all the praise that would've come to him.

[peckinpah]

Remember how Fox kept ordering changes to Wolverine right up until the last minute? Remember when Jackman finally stopped shilling and admitted the final version of Wolverine was not the movie he and Gavin Hood set out to make? Remember how Fox had two replacements for Hood lined up before Richard Donner stepped in and made peace? I'm thinking Trank isn't the one to blame here.

[Robotman]

sadly i no choice but to believe the sincerity behind the tweet. i for one am getting sick of all this studio interference with creativity. it is killing our comic book movies before they get out of the gate.

it happened with wright, with whedon, and with alan taylor, saying that studio interference with these movies is a living hell. when newsarama does an article on this sad pattern, there is a MAJOR problem.

I recall Jimmy Palmiotti saying a huge problem with working on a big budget Hollywood flick is that there are a lot of execs at every studio who need to justify their existence/career. Many feel they need to chime in and make suggestions to show their bosses that they're involved in the process. a lot of times these suggestions are terrible.

Martin Campbell the director of Green Lantern said he had a horrible time while filming as the movie was "directed by committee".

[AJBopp]

Studios hire producers and directors to make the films they want to have made. Sometimes the idea for the movie comes from the director, sometimes the writer, sometimes from the studio. And sometimes the studio changes the rules.

I'm not trying to suggest that micro-managing a project is OK, or that some executives aren't overly-aggressive in trying to justify their existence, but the studio has an obligation to make sure that a project that they a providing substantial funding for, and which will represent the quality of the studio, and for which they expect a certain ROI, is going to fulfill its expectations at least minimally.

Any director better understand that ultimately the source of the money calls the shots, and can choose to change course if they think its necessary. Some directors may get more leeway than others based on their track record. Some directors may negotiate for the movie they want to make (Clint Eastwood agreed to star in the last Dirty Harry movie - which would make a lot of money - in exchange for being able to make The Bird - which might not have made a profit at all, for example) But in the end the source of funding always gets to make the rules.

This whole movie history sounds to me like it went down something like this:

1. FOX decided they better hurry up with FF movie to not lose the rights.
2. This Trank guy did pretty good with Chronicle.
3. Trank ended up over his head, possibly high, often absent, and full of arrogance about it.
4. Producers and studio began seeing footage that showing a movie that could not be rehabilitated.
5. Studio tried to correct some of the most obvious problems, such as Doom's name, with reshoots and edits, hoping to at least dissuade some of the fan criticism and make the best of a no-win situation.
6. They released a bad movie because there wasn't enough quality material available to draw from, and they are hedging their bets that they can make back more money than it costs to distribute it, to at least minimize losses to some degree.
7. No one is happy about any of it.

No proof of any of that, of course, but reading between the lines of stories from January to now this seems like it is probably pretty close to the mark.

[MaxMatrix]

QFT. I'm sure Orson Welles, James Whale and many others could testify to that. There have been movies that were edited after their release like the Judy Garland "A Star is Born" because they wanted more showings per day so they cut the running time.

It's why we have a term like "Director's Cut. Also, any director that doesn't want his credit for a movie has used the name "Alan Smithee" as approved by the Director's Guild.

I think if you could ask Tim Story, you'd get a similar complaint. I know when he used to post on Superherohype he said it took a lot of persuasion just to get Fox to agree to the costume that Julian McMahon is in at the finale of the first movie. And notice that they used that overcoat look instead of a cape, which was the trend.

At least Marvel has no qualms about giving Loki a look very much like in the comics, even done to that crazy horned Kirby headgear.

I'm glad someone else is into movie history. Studio interference isn't new or only in big comic films. It always exists. Unless a director does everything themselves, there will be influence from other people.

The funny thing is that this is similar to comics. When a book is good, writers and artist get all the praise. But when it's bad that's when you throw insults at editors and the faceless company too.

[Joker]

If he is now saying this is not his movie and doesn't want to take any of the blame for this turkey how about seeing him put his money where his mouth is and return that fat check Fox gave him. That would prove how much of an "artist" he is.

Taking the blame for the end result has nothing to do with being paid for the work you did.

[Joker]

I have to say, it is really sad to see everyone siding with the corporation over the artist.

[RobinFan4880]

This is horrible. Who bails on a project the day it comes out? Even if it is a gigantic turd, you still want it to be successful. Distancing yourself right now just means even fewer people will go see the movie. It is a bad move for his career, Fox and the film.

[GoingPostal]

I have to say, it is really sad to see everyone siding with the corporation over the artist.

Well, he knew for who he was going to work before taking the job, didn't he now? It's like signing for a job at Mc Donalds and then complain that they don't let you express your artistic views as a chef.

[MrHashasheen]

I have to say, it is really sad to see everyone siding with the corporation over the artist.

He's not an artist, he's an employee. He was hired to do a job, and regardless of whether or not he was fucked over by management, he shuts up and shills the film. What studio wants a young, defensive director who immediately backtracks the moment he gets any serious flack and buries his employers? Regardless of how much merit he has regarding Fox doing him over, that's the studio perspective.

[the_tide]

I have to say, it is really sad to see everyone siding with the corporation over the artist.

It's fucking sad. That's how fandom is though, people care more about Easter eggs and which company had the rights to which characters than anything else. Speak against the studios and you're done sort of weirdo.