Jump to content

Talk:Fantastic Four (2015 film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Proposed title move: "Untitled Fantastic Four reboot" → "The Fantastic Four (2015 film)"

Both IMDb and ComingSoon.net have listed this as the film's official title, and even its listing on the 2015 in film article calls it that. It may be just a working title, but I think it would be fair to use that as the article title for the time being.--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

  • Oppose: IMDb is not a reliable source, other wikipages can not be used to verify something, and the big one, no official title has been announced. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

'Doombots' is ONLY a rumor in the film..

Those Doombot references/information need to be cut because it's only a rumor, not actually confirmed to be featured in the film. Also, I'd like to point out that Tim Blake's (as it has been rumored / said) role will be a minor one, and will actually be expanded upon in the film's sequel. 71.188.21.140 (talk) 01:59, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Sources?

Umm.. I think this whole section needs sources:

"The reboot was announced in August 2009. In July 2012, Trank was hired to direct and Slater to write the screenplay. Kinberg was hired as a co-writer in October 2013. By January 2014, Kinberg finished rewriting the script and casting began. Principal photography began in May 2014 and concluded in August the same year. The film was shot in Baton Rouge, Louisiana." 2601:C:780:234:20BA:8D1A:769F:4039 (talk) 05:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Or more sources in general. Thanks! (A contributor)

 Not done per WP:LEAD. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Page Clean up??

Can an experienced Wikipedia contributor come in and clean up this page? Thanks! 2601:C:780:234:20BA:8D1A:769F:4039 (talk) 05:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 Not done please use the "Change 'X' to 'Y'" format when requesting a change. This is too vague, and frankly, the page is in good order and not really any need of clean up that I can see. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible source to confirm title?

Is this Hollywood Reporter direct quoting Watts, or them just using their own formatting for the title? I want to lean as it being Watts explicitly saying "The Fantastic Four" meaning it to be the title. [1] - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I think we can call it confirmation.. Watts said 'The Fantastic Four'. Seems legit. 2601:C:780:234:20BA:8D1A:769F:4039 (talk) 05:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
No one else has mentioned it. Best still hold off. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
...and then we have this. Hotwiki what are your thoughts, as you've made a vast majority of the contributions here? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Seems legit. Do it up. 2601:C:780:234:7438:8E25:F1B5:DCA4 (talk) 23:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
I like the move to "The Fantastic Four", it already crossed my mind that it was the title for the film when I saw Jaylen Moore's tweet.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 03:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
If you have not seen, I sourced that tweet on the page too, just so we have it. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Collider interview

This interview has a lot of good stuff in it, including new composer, casting reasons, marketing reasons, influences, etc. - adamstom97 (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Marketing

There might be some more direct quotes from this source I have already added to the page. Also, some recent Trank interview (Collider one maybe?) has him saying the marketing was very deliberate for the film, in terms of them holding off releasing info. That would be great to add. I don't have the time/ability over the next few days, so if some one can find what I'm thinking of and do that, that'd be great. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 08:19, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I linked that Collider interview above, it had some other stuff that potentially could be added, if someone is interested in doing so. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 13:39, 8 February 2015 (UTC)


The Fantastic Four (2015 film) → Fantastic Four (2015 film) – The word "The" is to be removed immediately. AdamDeanHall (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Post this here instead, since it's the official title. Sock (tock talk) 14:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Victor Domashev is actually Victor von Doom, and a computer technician.

Here is the source. Bell debunked the rumor that he is a computer hacker and the name that was rumored. Npamusic (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 Category

The category Category:2015 films should be used on this article. For all upcoming films with verifiable release dates, the category is included. This has been standard for upcoming films. BOVINEBOY2008 11:48, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't have a whole lot of opinion on or stake in this, but what is this "standard" according to? You seem to just be saying it's the standard because it is, but aren't linking to anything to prove it, which is rather confusing to me. Sock (tock talk) 11:52, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
This was raised at WT:FILM some time ago (I'll try and find the discussion in the archives). As there is a WP:RS stating it is scheduled to be released in 2015, then I see no problem in having the 2015 category in the article too. Even the page title has "(2015 film)" in the name. As it stands right now with all the info we have, it's a 2015 film. Worst case is that the release date is pushed back to 2016 and we update the name/category if/when that happens. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:03, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Additional - these are the discussions I could find: Archive 36 and Archive 54. I think they both echo what I've already said. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:06, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks Lugnuts. With that information, I'd have to agree that we should include 2015 films. Sock (tock talk) 12:09, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
No problem. I've been bold and updated WP:FILMCAT. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
But the problem is it isn't a 2015 film yet. It will be a 2015 film once it has released and is currently an Upcoming film. If we wanted to get even more specific, then maybe new categories should be added to state what year they are upcoming until they have released (so Category:Upcoming 2015 films, etc.) While not likely at this point in the film's life, it still could not release in August of this year as intended. Additionally, I feel the template {{Film date}} is using the categories correctly, adding the category "Upcoming films" to articles of films not yet released, and then changing it to the appropriate year in film cat once it's first release date has hit, given what users put as its release date. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
It is a 2015 film. All the sources confirm that. I suggest you raise a requested move on ANY film that hasn't yet been released by today's date that has (2015 film) or (2016 film) as the disambig to (upcoming film) and see how far you get. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:29, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes, again, it will be a 2015 film. I'm not suggesting disambiguations change. But for the purpose of categorizing the film, it has not released yet, so it is still an "Upcoming film". And as I suggested above, you could claim it is an "Upcoming 2015 film" and that would be correct. But placing it in a category with other films that have already released is not the way to go. That's common sense. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Also support categorizing it as a 2015 film. We need to follow WP:V here, and we can be dynamic about it. To only categorize it as a 2015 film on the very release date is pedantic when sources can verify the release-year category for us. Even if that changes for some reason, we can update the category accordingly, and closer to the release date, the category can become permanent. This is reflected where WP:CAT#Articles says, "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree mostly with this. The reason we don't have an "Upcoming 2015 films" category is that it would be a very ephemeral category, but if we did it would still be a sub-category of Cat:Upcoming films and Cat:2015 films, meaning the article would still belong to those two categories through inheritance. We are just cutting out the middle man in this instance. Betty Logan (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks both. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
If this is the decision, then {{Film date}} should be updated so it includes both "Upcoming" and "X film" categories when the date is added (and still removes upcoming once the date has arrived). - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:24, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Plot

That's the plot of the original Movie. Could someone remove that? 24.41.170.133 (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

"Fant4stic"

Is there any reason the movie is referred to as "Fant4stic" throughout the article? It seems like something someone would do to vandalize the page the mock the movie. 71.220.183.142 (talk) 00:11, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Because that is what it is called. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, look at the movie poster. It is stylized as "Fant4stic". SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Stylized, yes. But a previous version of the article treated Fant4stic as the official title. It's not. Reach Out to the Truth 15:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Reed Richards also called himself Capt N3mo in the movie, its all hacker nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.66.183.51 (talk) 18:48, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Reversion of FF 2 sequel

(From Kailash29792's talk page:)

You reverted (twice) the addition of the below-expectation performance of the Fantastic Four movie leading to 20th Century Fox reconsidering its sequel. The second time, you noted, "As per http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/box-office-fantastic-four-flops-814123, the sequel is still happening"

That's not at all what that link suggests -- in fact, it supports my addition that Fox is re-considering its options, vis-a-vis its other Marvel properties in development:

"No one's sure what the film's start means for the sequel, which is already dated for June 2017.
"While we're disappointed, we remain committed to these characters and we have a lot to look forward to in our Marvel universe," said Fox domestic distribution chief Chris Aronson, declining to comment specifically on Fantastic Four 2.
There's been speculation that Fox could incorporate the Fantastic Four characters into the X-Men series."

--HidariMigi (talk) 14:53, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Add what you want, but no speculation or rumours please. Kailash29792 (talk) 15:16, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
No speculation, like:
  • "...The Hollywood Reporter gave the trailer a positive review, stating that it's a "surprisingly strong step in the right direction for a faithful adaptation of an often-problematic property."[59]
  • "Abraham Riesman of New York‍ '​s Vulture also responded to the trailer positively, saying that the film "could be the most innovative and tonally unique marquee superhero movie."[60]
  • "TheWrap believed that the tweet may have cost the film $5 to $10 million during its opening weekend.[91]"
Those were all speculation, based on subjective analysis of available information. It's generally acknowledged that in pop-cultural articles, the bar is set much lower. Here's some more additional sourcing:
  • "Given this disaster, any plans for a sequel seem more like a threat than a promise."(NY Post)
  • "Whether Fox plans to keep the June 9, 2017 release date for FF 2 or replace it with something else, the studio needs to make decisions soon so expect more news on this in the near future." (Screenrant.com)
  • "Fox had pencilled in a June 9 2017 release date for Fantastic Four 2 but that now seem highly doubtful." (If.com.au)
  • "Either way it’s looking to be a good bet that Fantastic Four won’t need that 2017 release date." (CinemaBlend.com)
-- HidariMigi (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm not interested in participating in this argument wholesale, but to call a response to or review of a trailer "speculation" is absolutely ridiculous. It is validating the trailer's relevance to include how notable publications responded to them, similarly to how we include reviews in the response to the film itself. Sock (tock talk) 14:40, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The speculative part was to suggest the film would be a "right direction for a faithful adaptation"; or that it could be an "innovative and tonally unique marquee superhero movie". They weren't reviews, per se, of a finished film; they were predictive of the final product, and were clearly inaccurate assumptions-- because apparently virtually none of the scenes used in the trailers even made it into the movie, which might be worth a mention. [3] --HidariMigi (talk) 17:47, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Hollywood Reporter article behind the scenes of making the film

The Hollywood Reporter just released an article about the behind the scenes of the making of the film that could be incorporated into the Filming section of this article. Richiekim (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"Accolades" is a stretch; CinemaCon isn't about awards-- it's marketing

Let's not be providing promotional puffery by including a trade show "award" as though it were some legitimate commendation for outstanding achievement or quality. The "CinemaCon Awards" are given to any celebrity willing to show up at the National Association of Theater Owners convention in Las Vegas.

The particular one cited is called the "Ensemble Award" - supposedly in recognition of the cast, not the movie. But here's the kicker: it was announced before anyone had even seen the performance of the cast, based upon their making an appearance earlier in the day for the "20th Century Fox Special Presentation."

Sock reverted the removal of the section with a quote from the NATO Press Release. Here's the full section:

"It’s not very often that we have the opportunity to award an entire cast for their stellar performances," noted Neuhauser. "CinemaCon is privileged to have Miles Teller, Michael B. Jordan, Kate Mara and Jamie Bell joining us this year at the Big Screen Achievement Awards. This group of young actors is sure to continue stunning audiences when they hit the big screen for their upcoming film 'Fantastic Four.'"[4]

Stellar performance at stunning audiences indeed. This is just marketing back-patting. Guess who received the "Ensemble Award" last year? No one. Nor has anyone ever received this "award" before, because it was made up for the event.

How prestigious are CinemaCon Awards? For 2014, the "Male Star of the Year" was... Adam Sandler.[5] -- perhaps because he's also "won" the Razzie Award for Worst Actor of the Year three times, and nominated ten times since 1996. --HidariMigi (talk) 20:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

This recognition was mentioned in Variety, which is a reliable source independent of the awards organization. However, because of the low likelihood that the film will garner additional accolades, I think it is excessive to have an "Accolades" subsection with just this one recognition. I think it can be merged elsewhere as a side detail. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
It's a marketing ploy - the point is to get the "award" mentioned. Here's an honest appraisal of it:
"CinemaCon wrapped up its fifth year with their version of the Hollywood Film Awards, a fake awards show where the winners were predetermined and picked by studio lobbying and, um, who was available.(HitFix)
--HidariMigi (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
That's a fair point. Los Angeles Times quotes the CinemaCon managing director, "Yeah, the honorees have upcoming films, and CinemaCon is all about showcasing upcoming films. So it's a collaborative effort with the studios." Maybe it could just be put in the "Marketing" section? Sock, your thoughts? Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:29, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
I take back my support for inclusion. Those two sources are pretty damning arguments against it being a legitimate award. I would agree that placing it in "Marketing" would be appropriate, as it's still notable, but it definitely doesn't deserve to be considered any form of legitimate award. Good eye, Hidari. I apologize for doubting you. Sock (tock talk) 20:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
No worries; thanks for the responsiveness. Just found it amusing and a bit of a stretch to consider it an "award"; it reminded me of the fake reviews Sony marketing used to sneak onto movie posters to pump up critically panned movies. And good find, Erik -- was also looking for an article that explained the process by which awards are selected. "The lineup of those being honored by the National Assn. of Theatre Owners reads a lot like the lineup for the studio presentations." --HidariMigi (talk) 20:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Critical and audience response

This section, which would generally be called "critical response," doesn't really have a reason to feature "audience" in it, since it mostly analyzes the film's reception from critics. The section is almost always called "critical response" or "critical reception." The only part that mentions audience reception is the CinemaScore phrase, but I still think it's not really a reason to change the name of a section that is conventionally titled for critics only. I'm not there. Message me! 01:35, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. But, as some of us know, Hotwiki keeps changing the section heading back to "Critical and audience response." Hotwik, per MOS:FILM, the audience's response can either go in the Critical response section or the Box office section, depending on which section it fits best in. The Critical response section is not always exclusively for professional film critics; a person does not have to be a professional film critic to be critical of a film, which is why other media commentators are commonly included in the Critical response section. If needed, the audience's response can be its own subsection. In this case, there is not yet enough material in the article for the audience response to be its own section. See what MOS:Paragraphs states about creating subsections for a little bit of material; doing that is usually not good form. Flyer22 (talk) 01:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The CinemaScore rating is based on the rating of your average movie-goers not film critics. It doesn't matter if there's no big reasoning to it but its written in the section which makes the section not limited to critics or "critical" reception. So you're gonna classify the CinemaScore as part of the "critical" response of the film just because its under 1-sentence? I don't think so. And MOS:FILM clearly didn't classify CinemaScore rating to be included in the "critical response" section. Since we don't have enough material for a separate section, it will just have to be in the same section with "critical" response, hence the name of the section - "critical and audience response"
--SuperHotWiki (talk) 10:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The other approach I've taken with CinemaScore is to rename "Box office" to "Theatrical run" so it is about more than just the box office; it is about the distribution, the box office, and the audience response. I do find "Critical and audience response" rather awkward. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I've made that heading name change and moved the CinemaScore into the new Theatrical run section. Thank you for your suggestions as always, Erik! Sock (tock talk) 11:41, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Hotwiki (last time WP:Pinging you to this discussion because I assume that you will check back here if you want to read replies or will look at this discussion from your WP:Watchlist), including CinemaScore in the Critical response section is standard practice on Wikipedia; it's so standard that Erik II took the matter to the MOS:FILM talk page, and we agreed to have the Audience response section of MOS:FILM state, "Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore, may be used and placed in the appropriate release or reception-based section, depending on the available context." That means that the CinemaScore material can go in the Box office section or in the Critical response section, depending on which section it fits best in. I reiterate, "The Critical response section is not always exclusively for professional film critics; a person does not have to be a professional film critic to be critical of a film, which is why other media commentators are commonly included in the Critical response section." Most editors (including me) generally prefer to have the CinemaScore material in the Critical response section, but other editors (like Erik II) prefer it to be in the Box office section. So, per that aforementioned MOS:FILM discussion, we came up with the compromise of making it clear that this material can go in either section. In the case of this film, I don't mind having the CinemaScore material placed in the Box office section. But, as noted in the #Critical response section: Original research discussion above, Josephlalrinhlua786 keeps moving it back to the Critical response section. Flyer22 (talk) 11:57, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

No speculation please

Some IP editors keep posting in the sequel section something along the lines of "with the failure of this film, Fox may not produce a sequel" or "since this film is a critical failure, a sequel is unlikely to happen". This is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, and is also original research. Fox has never said to this date that they plan on cancelling the sequel, they've said just the opposite, that they're planning on going through with it, as such we shouldn't be speculating that they won't just because this film was chastised by critics. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 21:16, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Poorly-sourced sequel discussion in lede not discussed in article body

[6]

@Hotwiki: Do you have any more up-to-date sources that state that the sequel is still happening now that the film has been a flop? I have already cited a source (an opinion piece, but from an author who is rarely wrong in these matters) that says that the film is highly unlikely to get sequels.

Per WP:BURDEN, I don't need a source that explicitly says there won't be a sequel to remove a probably-bogus claim that there will be a sequel. Sure, what if no such source ever surfaced? Will the claim that the sequel is scheduled for 2017 until that date comes and goes with no sequel? Or will it remain indefinitely? Per WP:CRYSTAL, you can't claim that all cancelled films will be officially announced as having been cancelled; if the sequel is cancelled (pro tip: IT IS -- why on earth would anyone want to sink any more money into this disaster franchise!?) then your version of the article contains misleading information and you are demanding that it remain in the article indefinitely.

Furthermore, the cited source explicitly states

But honestly, this date is more of a placeholder for Fantastic Four 2 at this point in time. The first film hasn’t opened in theaters yet, so Fox doesn’t know how this new iteration of the franchise will be received. ... We’re getting ahead of ourselves, though. We’ve got Fox’s first film to attend to first. Fantastic Four opens in theaters on August 7th.

How on earth can this be taken as a reliable source for the claim that the film will get a sequel months later when the first film has already bombed at the box office.

The same magazine has, since the film's release, called the sequel "highly in doubt"; Slash has called the sequel a "rumor". (To be fair, the same article says Fox is almost certain to sequel/reboot again within a few years to screw Marvel; CNBC seem to take basically the opposite view, although that article calls the film's 8% RT rating "fresh", so it should probably be taken with a grain of salt.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

HitFix says that a sequel is in the works, "Everything I've heard would indicate that the studio will move forward with a 'Fantastic Four' sequel. It may not make that original 2017 date, but they're definitely planning to make it. The next filmmaker in is going to start from a difficult position, and they're going to have to work hard to create their own movie while starting with some of Trank's choices intact." Take that as you will. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
One of the two problems with that source (and it's shared by all the ones I linked above) is that, even though it technically appeared after the film failed in its opening weekend, the dust hadn't settled. The idea that it only two days for the film to flop at the box office, Drew McWeeny to contact insiders at Fox, verify that the sequel was still going ahead (after the film had already flopped, remember), and write up the piece, is frankly quite unbelievable. And McWeeny doesn't even say that's how it went down: he clearly marks it as his own opinion, based on information he had acquired (mostly before the film's release, no doubt): Everything I've heard would indicate...
The other major problem with the source is that it's a polemic against Josh Trank's side of the dispute between him and Fox. Even the discussion of the "sequel" is clearly more focused on "Fox clearly gave Trank near-complete control of the film" than on any real evidence that a sequel will still move forward. If our article is not going to cite McWeeny's opinion of the Trank-Fox dispute (it doesn't at present), then it probably shouldn't be citing his (peripheral to his article) opinion on whether the film will receive a sequel, as opposed to a reboot or a Spider-Man style back-handed deal between Fox and Marvel where Marvel allows Fox to produce an X-Men TV series in exchange for returning all FF rights to them.
I admit that all these sources existing means that, maybe, a discussion of the rumoured sequel might belong in the article, but not in the lead; maybe a footnote, or in the context of the "reception" section, with one of these sources cited for a sentence like, maybe,

The film's poor box office performance has left the planned sequel (still slated for release in 2017) uncertain of being produced.

But the lead stating blankly "A sequel will be produced and released on June 9, 2017." is entirely inappropriate. (Don't try to say those aren't the exact words. I know they aren't. They are how normal human beings are likely to interpret the exact words as currently written.)
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
We could have a "Sequel" section that talks about how the studio planned to follow up with a sequel and add the subsequent commentary about whether or not the sequel will happen (referencing HitFix and others). I find that the ambiguity of the situation means that information about the sequel is not worth mentioning in the lead section at this point. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
To be clear, at the time the only information we had was the sequel's release date, which was hardly necessary for an entire section. Having discussion about the sequel's status, as Erik points out creates a reason to have a section again (it didn't exist then).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 16:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
There have been some sources that say the June 9, 2017 date for the sequel will be pushed back, but so far none have said that the sequel will be outright cancelled. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Just to be clear, two weeks ago when I last edited this article there was a sequel section. I changed it to say what the source actually said, and another user thanked me (I don't want to go back and look for historical "thank"s to find out who it was). At some point between then and now, the section was removed so that the only reference to a sequel was in the lead, explicitly implying that, even in light of the box office failure, a sequel will go ahead. Also, this is as far as I can see the most recent source available discussing the prospects of a sequel, reboot or handover to Marvel in light of how the film had underperformed two weeks in a row (not just "day after" articles), and it speculates that a likely result will be a return to Marvel (the same author was . It's an opinion piece, but let's be clear that all of these sources are opinion pieces. At this point, since Fox has not announced that the sequel is cancelled, they are all just speculating as to what the current status of the sequel might be, based exclusively on the fact that Fox hasn't cancelled the previously announced release date. Wikipedia joining in in that speculation by citing the release date with no elaboration that the source for that release date predates this film by months is against Wikipedia PAG. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
The sequel is not yet canceled as of September 5, 2015. If you have a problem with the source... well I'm telling you there are more reliable sites which back-ups this 2017 release date. You are assuming that this sequel would be canceled eventually because of its poor reception, which I also assume. However, just because you assume something, doesn't make it official. If the sequel gets canceled, its release date will remain in this article, with an additional information about its cancellation.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
I've recreated the "Sequel" section with one paragraph talking about the scheduled release dates and the second talking about continuing despite the first film's poor box office performance. Like I said earlier, due to the ambiguity of the situation, I do not think it is ideal to mention a planned sequel in the lead section at this point. If something becomes concrete, like a cancellation or a green-lighting, we can update the "Sequel" section and add a sentence back to the lead. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
There's no need to mention if HitFix has an inside source which could be right or wrong, who knows really. Wait for the official cancellation or an official announcement.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
WP:SPECULATION says, "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." There has been plenty of coverage about the planned sequel since this film's performance. It would be amiss for Wikipedia not to summarize such discussion. Wikipedia does not deal with "official" sources, it deals with reliable sources. We can discuss whether or not HitFix is a reliable source for summarizing such discussion, but it's definitely not the only source. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
This is all speculation. As far as 20th Century Fox is concerned... they haven't said a single word about the sequel's cancellation. Why make this a complicated reading by including "speculative" information and turning the sequel section into a might happen/might not section?--SuperHotWiki (talk) 16:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
At this point it's quite clear (and verifiable in numerous reliable sources) that the only reason 20th Century Fox made the film was to keep Marvel from getting the rights back, and that this is also the only reason they would produce a sequel. Two quite likely outcomes at this point are them not making a sequel but not being open about it to keep the property out of Marvel's hands for as long as possible, and them making a deal with Marvel where they get the rights to produce an X-Men TV series and Marvel gets all rights to the FF back; in the latter case Fox would of course not reveal this information to the public until after the deal was finalized. Both of these options assume that there will be no sequel but that no reliable sources will show up verifying this for quite some time. I'm a strong believer in WP:NOTTRUTH, and indeed both the claims that "as of March 2015, a sequel was scheduled for 2017" and "as of September 2015, a sequel is still scheduled for 2017" are both easily verifiable and quite true: but they lead our readers in the wrong direction of assuming the film will get a sequel and it will be released in 2017. There has already been a lot of discussion in reliable sources as to what the status of this sequel is following the failure of the first film, so we should be citing it in the article, not merely saying "a sequel is planned for 2017 release" (something that is not technically either verifiable or true -- the date is scheduled, but it doesn't mean a sequel is planned). I agree with Erik II's edits. Maybe the lead should state "Prior to the film's release, a sequel was scheduled for 2017, but its status following the critical and commercial failure of the first film remains uncertain."? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:09, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Talk page is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hotwiki, read this closely from WP:SPECULATION: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. We are not inserting our own opinions or analyses. We are properly referencing the discussion and arguments from reliable sources. Please do not remove sourced content on false premises. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
Hotwiki, you are not showing any indication that you understand that the policy says this. You cannot just vaguely state policy, especially when it has language that clearly contradicts your claim in removing sourced content. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 10:46, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
And per WP:Crystal: "Wikipedia is not a collection of product announcements and rumors. Although Wikipedia includes up-to-date knowledge about newly revealed products, short articles that consist only of product announcement information are not appropriate. Until such time that more encyclopedic knowledge about the product can be verified, product announcements should be merged to a larger topic (such as an article about the creator(s), a series of products, or a previous product) if applicable. Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content." Calling a sequel's chances of "interesting" is trivial, speculative territory and has no bearing to the importance of the sequel being made.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 11:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
That paragraph is not being read correctly. The sentence you bold, on its own, would contradict what I quoted from the main paragraph. It has to be read properly in two ways: processing product announcements, and processing rumors. That paragraph says that there should not be an article based on either. It says announcements can be merged to larger topics. It then says speculation and rumor have no merit on their own and should not warrant articles or merging. It makes no sense to say that no speculation is allowed, especially when WP:SPECULATION starts with, "Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation," and follows with saying that it is appropriate to report discussion. We know that there have been plans for a sequel, and we can report discussion about it. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:08, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
We don't need to include "critical commentary" to a sequel that may happen or not. Calling a sequel being made "interesting" is not even "critical commentary" to begin with. And this isn't the type of article that needs speculation.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:12, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
We don't have to state "interesting" here. I directly quoted The Guardian here because I was not sure what to paraphrase that to. Do you know of a similar word we can use? The gist of that statement was that the studio will have to seriously consider various factors in going ahead with the sequel that it planned for. Also, I asked about WP:SPECULATION on the policy page's talk page since I think the paragraph #5 sentence is misconstrued on its own. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:19, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
No, the article you posted contained the possibility of Fox making a sequel or if Marvel Studios are gonna get the film rights back - which is 100% speculative material. The sequel section should be based on facts alone. The sequel section is not a place for critical commentary or thoughts about the chances of future films being made.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Then please tell me, what is the point of this sentence? " It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:27, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
As of now, Fox only has set/move the date, nothing more and thats why those are the only information included in the section so far. The rest are speculation, rumors. If something "official" comes up, it would be added here right away.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Why is commentary from The Guardian not seen as part of "discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur"? Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 12:36, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Because its all speculation and has no bearing in the grand scheme of things. Whatever is written in the article has no impact in the sequel, they are just speculating after-all. As of now we got a date, nothing else. The sequel section is not similar to "critical response/box-office forecasting" where writers/expert chime in their thoughts about the film. So please save us from these speculation, they are not encyclopedic content--SuperHotWiki (talk) 12:40, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Okay, now we're onto something here. You're saying that verifiable speculation is generally appropriate but can be disqualified if it is not the right kind of content to keep in the long run. Box office forecasts, for you (and me as well), would be the right kind of verifiable speculation. Unfortunately, WP:SPECULATION by itself provides no guidance on the kind of content to keep and what to do with that content once projects have been successfully developed, so that policy cannot be applied here. We include box office forecasts because we want to compare numbers, right? Expectations vs. reality? Why is it not the same for sequel planning? There are expectations that a sequel will be produced anyway despite the first film's performance. Wouldn't the reality of the sequel being made or cancelled not be appropriately compared to these expectations? Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

SuperCarnivore591, what is your opinion about adding commentary about plans for a sequel? Hijiri88 and I want to add commentary per WP:SPECULATION. Hotwiki has opposed adding commentary, incorrectly interpreting the last sentence of WP:SPECULATION (in a way that contradicts the main paragraph that supports verifiable speculation). This misinterpretation has been confirmed by an independent editor at WT:NOT#Speculation and rumor. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:47, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

I am in favor of adding reliably-sourced commentary about Fox's current sequel plans, as it in no way violates WP:SPECULATION, as it's not a rumor if it's being reported in reliable sources that Fox is considering delaying the sequel. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
This article isn't about "what Fox is planning". It is about the film. We cite external sources for things like critical opinions of the film, as well as opinions of pundits on whether the sequel will actually move ahead. WP:SPECULATION bans speculation by Wikipedians, not speculation that has appeared in external reliable sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Actual reason for the film getting made according to most of the reliable sources?

I just glanced over this article again and couldn't see any mention of the fact that virtually everyone except the people directly involved in the film have indicated that they believe one of the main reasons for this film's being produced was to maintain the IP and keep it from reverting to its original owners at Disney/Marvel. Am I missing something, or does this seem like a massive oversight? We already have a "controversy" section which focuses exclusively on the relatively minor/obscure issue of the director tweeting that he didn't like the released film. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:22, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think those directly involved with the film would "admit" striving to do that. "We only care about making another film so we don't lose rights" is not something that will be uttered. I thought that sources said that was why each subsequent Fantastic Four film (Rise of the Silver Surfer, this reboot, and now its sequel) have been produced? If that's the case, we can contextualize the current claims. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 13:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
Sorry for the vague wording: I agree with you. No one involved with the film is going to openly admit it was an ashcan copy. But that very clearly was the case, and we have a large number of third-party reliable sources that agree. This was also the case with the masterpiece X-Men: First Class and the underwhelming The Amazing Spider-Man -- basically every down-budgeted reboot of a film franchise based on a Marvel comic book that has been released since the birth of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. When external reliable sources discuss this fact, then people involved with the film not necessarily wanting to talk about it doesn't mean Wikipedia shouldn't. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:53, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Critical response section: Original research

SuperCarnivore591, the summary-level commentary can be seen as synthesis if it is only backed by three individual reviews. We cannot engage in synthesis, which means a "soft" combination of reviews to come up with the general trends across them. Even if the combination is agreeable to you, others may disagree with it, and there is no reliable source directly supporting that conclusion. To use something like Los Angeles Times (which I shared on your user talk page) makes the summary explicit, nobody can question the Times saying that about critics' perspective of the film. I'm not trying to attack you, just that I know that WP:SYN applies here, and we can take a better approach to the start of that section. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:42, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I've added an LA Times source, and I have given a short summary. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Great, I've added a little more. We can search for other reliable sources to use, but some that I came across didn't provide an explicit summary of reviews. Will keep looking. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:55, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
The Wall Street Journal has useful commentary that we can work in: "Marvel’s original superhero team has never been particularly well served on the big screen, and critics say that trend continues with 'Fantastic Four,' a jumbled attempt to reboot the franchise that boasts talented actors stranded in an oddly morose, badly paced misfire." Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:57, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Regarding this edit that SuperCarnivore591 and Erik II are disputing, and this edit by 70Jack90, I agree that we need a lead-in summary for the Critical response section that is like SuperCarnivore591's lead-in summary (but without any WP:Original research) and that "panned" is fine in this case. Simply stating "negative reviews" in this case seems too soft. For this film, using "overwhelmingly negative" would be better than simply using "negative." I also don't like us attributing these overwhelmingly negative reviews to simply one source with WP:In-text attribution. That is not a good way to use WP:In-text attribution since such a setup makes it seem like it's just an "According to [that source]" matter. Read what WP:In-text attribution states about inappropriate in-text attribution. We should simply state it as fact that this film received overwhelmingly negative reviews, not attribute that wording to a source via in-text attribution.
On a side note: I altered the heading of this section with "Critical response section:" so that it is clearer as to what this section is about and will be easier to locate once archived. Flyer22 (talk) 23:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I would disagree on the "too soft" aspect, because we're not here to be soft, hard, or anything other than objective. "met with negative reviews" is more about being objective than trying to tell a reader how much people hated the film. The rest of the information does that just fine. A 10% RT rating and poor box office performance says it all.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
I think SuperCarnivore591 understands the need to use summary-level commentary from reliable sources to report the overall impression. I don't find that 70Jack90 is utilizing sources in his edits. I've incorporated the Wall Street Journal commentary into the article. As for CinemaScore, I know we disagree, but I don't care to push the matter. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 23:52, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
For this case, I changed my mind about the placement of CinemaScore. But I still disagree with the initial setup for the Critical response section, per my statements above. I absolutely hate in-text attribution used that way; I again refer editors to what WP:In-text attribution states (its examples are crystal clear). Flyer22 (talk) 00:07, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I only identify the source because we are still quoting. If we fully paraphrase the summaries, then we do not have to (if the sources are not conflicting in opinion). Do you want to try to do that to drop the Los Angeles Times mention? (Now that I look at it, Wall Street Journal should be mentioned if we're quoting from it as well.) Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 01:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
I understand using WP:In-text attribution for quoting; that aspect is appropriate. Yes, drop "The Los Angeles Times said" part, summarize the text more so, and support the line with two or three WP:Reliable sources. You did good with the The Wall Street Journal material. As seen with this edit, TropicAces changed your Rotten Tomatoes/Metacritic setup, though. He usually does, as you know.
And as seen here and here, Josephlalrinhlua786 reverted us on your CinemaScore placement. Considering that I previously reverted him on moving the material (would have also told him to discus this matter here at the talk page if the WP:Edit summary space hadn't ran up), and that he commonly WP:Edit wars, with warnings often having no effect on stopping his WP:Edit warring, I'm not going to encourage him to discuss this. He knows the drill. Plus, you stated above that you won't "push the matter" regarding placement of that material. Flyer22 (talk) 01:56, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

I hate debating wording like "negative" or "highly negative", but I think "highly negative" is inappropriate because it implies that it could not do any worse. RT mentions an average score of 3.4 (remember that the 9% is based on a binary positive-negative approach), and MC mentions 17 mixed reviews right after 19 negative reviews. There is no requirement that we need to use simplistic labels like these or "mixed" or whatever else, anyway. The point is to convey what critics thought of the film, not to serve as a way for readers to determine whether or not to see it. We are leveraging aggregator information for historical reporting. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:21, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

"Negative reviews" gets the point across. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 11:22, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I was fine with "negative", but these kinds of summary sentences are tricky because it becomes too interpretative. (I recognize that my comment above can be interpretative, too.) Reviewing the sources, they're all using slang to describe the reception (e.g., getting "torched"), which makes it hard to paraphrase that into a formal tone that is not going to be edited further. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I don't understand your reasoning that "'highly negative' is inappropriate because it implies that it could not do any worse." For Rotten Tomatoes, it certainly did worse than films usually do. And it clearly didn't do even close to well on Metacritic either. The point, in my opinion, when it comes to reporting on the negative reception to this film is that it's not the run-of-the-mill negative; it's the "stumped well below six feet into the ground" negative, which is why I feel that "overwhelmingly negative" or "panned" is fine in this case. And I usually find "panned" lacking an encyclopedic tone. Using "highly negative" simply means that it received very negative reviews; I don't see how it implies that the aggregator scores could not be any worse. But I don't like the way "highly negative" sounds for reporting on a film's reception here at Wikipedia. So I prefer "negative" over that. Flyer22 (talk) 13:50, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Metacritic's bottom labeling is "overwhelming dislike". I find that more synonymous with "highly negative". This film has "generally unfavorable" reviews, which is the standard "negative" label, in my opinion. Rotten Tomatoes is trickier because it is thumbs up or down with nothing in between. Negative and mixed reviews are grouped under thumbs-down. A review that hated the film and a review that found it tolerable but not worth recommending are the same for that overall percentage, which is why it's worth reporting the details behind it. If "negative" is not agreeable for us, we can continue to trawl for other sources that can help us lock down the wording. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:00, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Erik, what I am stating on this matter is that the reviews for this film are quite clear: the film was undoubtedly panned. It has the worst reception for a Marvel film, and one of the worst receptions for a film in general. That is very clear when looking at the aggregator scores and at what film critics and other media commentators are stating. There is nothing that is run-of-the-mill negative about this film's reception. And, of course, we never agree that Rotten Tomatoes only does positive or negative; yes, it has "fresh or rotten" terminology, but a 50% score on that site is "mixed," as indicated by its summary statements for films rated 50% or those rated in a similarly split fashion, and by WP:Reliable sources describing such Rotten Tomatoes scores as "mixed." Flyer22 (talk) 15:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
"It has the worst reception for a Marvel film, and one of the worst receptions for a film in general... There is nothing that is run-of-the-mill negative about this film's reception." I agree about it being the worst Marvel film, having seen commentary to that extent. (And we should include that!) But I don't think I've seen commentary that calls the film extraordinarily bad in the context of all film. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 15:35, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
I was not stating that we need a WP:Reliable source calling "the film extraordinarily bad in the context of all film" or similar. I was stating that in addition to having the worst reception for a Marvel film, it has one of the worst receptions outside of being a Marvel film. In other words, it is one of the worst received films. I find no validity in any argument that would attempt to debate that. And I can certainly cite various WP:Reliable sources proving my point that this film is one of the worst received films. Flyer22 (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
The statement "it has one of the worst receptions outside of being a Marvel film" needs to be verifiable. I don't see any commentary that talks about it like that. Maybe at the end of 2015, it will be recognized as one of the worst films of the year, and we can include that. But I don't think there's any comparison being made outside of the family of superhero films, at this point anyway. What are you looking to have in the article body that is not already mentioned, though? Do you want to say that it got one of the worst film receptions of all time, generally speaking? Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:15, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Erik, where have I argued that stating "[This film] has one of the worst receptions outside of being a Marvel film" or similar should be included in this article? To be clear, I am not arguing that. So it doesn't need to be verifiable. I was making an argument on this talk page with regard to you seemingly believing that this film has a run-of-the-mill negative reception, when it so clearly does not have a run-of-the-mill negative reception. If it did, various WP:Reliable sources would not be making such a big deal about its Rotten Tomatoes score, its CinemaScore rating, and similar. Various WP:Reliable sources use words to describe this film's reception in ways that prove my point about it not having a run-of-the-mill negative reception. And that is what I mean about this film having one of the worst receptions for a film (critically-speaking, fan-speaking, and box office-wise). That's my common sense talking. Flyer22 (talk) 16:29, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough, I see what you mean now. :) I was thinking in terms of article content. If we're just talking here, it definitely stinks for what is expected of a superhero film. It is expectations versus reality, in other words. It would be interesting to compare this to other blockbuster films, since a lot of money is thrown at such films to at least ensure some minimal quality. (Here apparently the start of this film showed some promise but failed.) Films of lesser caliber are more likely to be very panned, IMO, since there is not as strong interest in ensuring a commercially feasible product. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:46, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Apologies for being sloppy today. I edited an old version when I didn't mean to. I will step away from editing further today anyway. :) Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:14, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
"Negative" is now "very negative" with this... Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

This is the "Critics Consensus" column at Rotten Tomatoes that gives a more detailed summary-level commentary of the film (compared to the nutshell report on the film's page). The last sentence, "The pundits say that Fantastic Four has a few interesting ideas that are quickly pushed aside in favor of overripe dialogue, endless exposition, and so-so special effects," could be leveraged if desired. Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

This says the film "garnered almost universally negative reviews". Erik II (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Further discussion

Kronix1986, regarding this and this, you and Hotwiki (SuperHotWiki) can discuss the matter here; it would be better than discussing (rather arguing) it in the edit summaries and edit warring. Kronix1986, above in this section, you can see that there is agreement with your line of thinking (though I prefer "overwhelmingly negative" instead of "panned" or "universally panned"; using "panned" is commonly seen as unencyclopedic, and "universally panned" is completely unnecessary). Above, you can also see that editors agree with Hotwiki's line of thinking. We might be able to come up with a compromise on this matter, since editors are not in full agreement on how to word the critical consensus summary (in the lead or in the initial line of the Critical reception section). I definitely think that the lead is lacking in how it portrays the reception for this film. For example, the lead states, "At the box office, it underperformed, earning $56 million in North America and $166 million worldwide." Um, plenty of films underperform. This film, on the other hand, significantly underperformed; it was a major disappointment on different levels. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fantastic_Four_(2015_film)/Archive_1&oldid=1076355222"