Talk:The Fantastic Four (unreleased film)

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
	This article is supported by the Comic book films task force.
	This article is supported by the German cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Comics: Films Low‑importance

	Comics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Comics, a collaborative effort to build an encyclopedic guide to comics on Wikipedia. Get involved! If you would like to participate, you can help with the current tasks, visit the notice board, edit the attached article or discuss it at the project's talk page.ComicsWikipedia:WikiProject ComicsTemplate:WikiProject ComicsComics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Comic book films work group.

Footage online

Is there any footage online anywhere? Trailers? 72.67.35.214 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it on Youtube. Worst movie ever! I'm not at all surprised that it wasn't released. 72.67.35.214 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Fantastic Four (film)

It just occurred to me, the 1994 The Fantastic Four (film) by Roger Corman was never released, yet it has an article (and I have a bootleg copy.... don't bother to get one yourself... it sucks). Maybe somebody should put a delete request in for that article because the film was never released and thus "never happened".--Dr who1975 (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The film did happen, but was never released. It's quite a shocking story - the making of it, not the film (although I'll take your word for it about it being awful). Did you mean to post this here, or over on the appropriate talk page? --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 13:45, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Drwho1975's point was that in reference to the deletion nominations for this article, just because something doesn't yet exist (i.e. hasn't been published) doesn't mean it can't have an article. However, this doesn't matter now anyway, as the result of the vote was to keep it. Blueblade0 (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Budget

The budget is listed as an estimated $1.5 million. Another article Ashcan copy says the buget was $2 million and provides a source.

Rhoades, Shirrel (2008). A complete history of American comic books. Peter Lang. p. 264. ISBN 9780820488929.

This wouldn't be the first time a film budget has been rounded to the nearest million so I'm wondering what credibility the $1.5 million figure has and if it should be changed to $2 million, although I don't have the book and cannot WP:VERIFY that source either? -- Horkana (talk) 22:35, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

explain

some explanation of why this was done should be added. background on copyright and their lapsing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.34.130.22 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews?

How can there possibly be any reviews of a movie that no critic has ever seen? -- ♬ Jack of Oz ♬ ^{[your turn]} 22:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Plans at the time for release

According to one of the sources already cited here, the film was indeed planned for release. Corman, in Terrence J. Brady's interview, says directy, "We were going to distribute it but he [Bernd Eichinger, the German producer] had a clause in his contract that he could buy me out at a rather substantial profit for me anytime up to ninety days after the picture was completed. During that time he raised his $40 million. He bought the picture out from me and he's making it for Fox. I was reasonably happy because I made a profit, but I didn't get a chance to distribute the film because I wanted to see how that type of comic book movie fared."

And Eichinger as well, in this Los Angeles magazine story, says, "[W]e wanted to release it." I'm going to work on appropriately updating this article, which is not well-researched — there are only two footnotes, and one of them is to a long audio interview without timestamps. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Trailer For Doomed!, The Documentary About The Roger Corman Fantastic Four Movie

Here is the Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.188.18.94 (talk) 01:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (February 2014)

The following discussion is an archived 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: not moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 11:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Fantastic Four (film) → The Fantastic Four (1994 film) – Upcoming reeboot has the same title. Unreal7 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment has the upcoming film started filming? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 20:12, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now since filming has not started on the reboot, which means there is no guaranteed film. The hatnote should be updated not to imply an existing article but rather the current "Reboot" section at Fantastic Four in film. Besides, it does not seem like the reboot has an official title at this point. It's just being called "The Fantastic Four" or "Fantastic Four" as a simple general title. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 20:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Lugnuts and Erik. The reboot does not have an official title, and they have not started production, and there is not enough info to even consider an article yet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. There should be a separate article on the reboot first. Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.

One source?

I'm not sure that's accurate. Two sources, Los Angeles magazine and Film Threat magazine, supply some but not all of the production information, and there are six other cites for this short article. Unless a specific rationale can be given in the next few days for what seems to be a questionable tag, it should be removed. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

7 cites for Gore article, 6 for Ito article, and 6 other cites. "One source" is an inaccurate tag. No comments on this post for two months. Deleting tag. --Tenebrae (talk) 13:59, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 13 August 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: not moved per WP:SNOW. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 18:25, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It was proposed in this section that The Fantastic Four (unreleased film) be renamed and moved to The Fantastic Four (film).

The discussion has been closed, and the result will be found in the closer's comment.

Links: current log • target log

The Fantastic Four (unreleased film) → The Fantastic Four (film) – No other film called The Fantastic Four. Lunchmeets (talk) 01:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I do not find the use of "The" to be major enough to naturally disambiguate this film from the other topics. I prefer to keep this article title as it is now. Erik II (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As the person who moved the article in the first place, Erik described my reasoning perfectly. "The" is not a big enough disambiguation to warrant separate titles, especially since the other two FF films are frequently referred to with "The" in front of them. Sock (~~tock~~ talk) 15:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:34, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - too small of a detail for disambiguation. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 17:55, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:SMALLDETAILS. O N R (talk) 18:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Use of The is not adequate disambiguation. The presence of (unreleased film) clearly differentiates it from Fantastic Four (2005 film) and Fantastic Four (2015 film). Zarcadia (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Readers searching for one or the other of the Fantastic Four films cannot be expected to know Wikipedia's arcane rules regarding the presence or absence of "The" in article titles. I would support moving to The Fantastic Four (1994 film), but I will acknowledge that there are good arguments against it. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 22:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Though none of the other F4 films are named with the definite article, not everybody realizes this. They're more likely to be looking for the 2005 or 2015 film than the lesser-known unreleased 1994 film. Reach Out to the Truth 00:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose That move would just create confusion. The article title as is could not be clearer. --Tenebrae (talk) 02:48, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose exactly as everyone above. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Time for this to be WP:SNOW closed. Zarcadia (talk) 16:45, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Corman

Intersting quote:

“It’s the strangest deal I ever made in my life,” Corman said, “the most profitable film I ever made that did not get released.”
— http://web.archive.org/web/20090209183559/http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jul/06/entertainment/et-fantasticfour6

Might be worth including it and expanding the explanation about Eichinger buying him out. -- 109.76.155.87 (talk) 12:00, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magazine cover

Film Threat magazine Issue 12 October 1993 had the main cast on the cover. An edited version of this image was previously included in the article but removed for copyright reasons. The image was included in a podcast about the film. content/uploads/2014/08/FILM-THREAT-12-COVER1.jpg Archived copy. I thought of maybe using Template:External image to included it in the article but it didn't look good at all. Maybe someone who better understands the copyright requirements of wikipedia can find a suitable way to include it in the article because a picture was worth a thousand words, particularly an image that showed the cast and creature makeup for the Thing.

It was a shame to lose the image, and the poster in the infobox is doesn't give a good impression at all. -- 109.76.135.145 (talk) 14:28, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Release soon

This movie is gonna be officially released on Disney+. Thing is, will we change the title to "(2019 film)" or something? Enjoyer of World (talk) 10:35, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Or "(1994 film)" Enjoyer of World (talk) 10:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]