Talk:Fantastic Four in film

message: :GA review (see here for criteria)
#It is reasonably well written.
#:a (prose):  b (MoS): 
#:: 
#It is factually accurate and verifiable.
#:a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
#:: 
#It is broad in its coverage.
#:a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
#:: 
#It follows the neutral point of view policy.
#:Fair representation without bias: 
#:: 
#It is stable.
#:No edit wars etc.: 
#:: 
#It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
#:a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 
#:: 
#Overall: 
#:Pass/Fail: 
#:: 
Zenlax T C S 19:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Linked characters, and UGO Networks and Rob Worley's Comics2Films are reliable sources: the latter is a news aggregate citing trade journals and magazines with old interviews. Alientraveller (talk) 20:05, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Gave the article a thorough copyedit, better now. Limetolime talk to me • look what I did! 23:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article review 

message: Thanks for being quick with the problems. I have passed it as a Good article. Zenlax T C S 19:22, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Kind of ironic, given the movies were complete ass, but hey... HalfShadow 18:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good article pass 

message: This article is not about one Fantastic Four film series; it is about one unreleased low-budget film and a film series of two films. a more appropriate article name would be "Fantastic Four in film". WesleyDodds (talk) 03:55, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why IS the old one here in any way greater than a sentence or two making the distinction? Why not remove that and focus on teh new franchise? On rereading (it had been a while), I don't see the problem. This article pretty much says 'hey, the old one was abusinessthing, not a real film, here's the stroy about the franchise'. It's not in any way focused on the old film beyond the dismissive paragraph, leaving hte meat of that subject to that article. Sorry, don't see a problem with the article in its current form. ThuranX (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not "Fantastic Four film franchise" then? "Film series" implies that there is a serial nature to the films, which is not true for all of them. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:36, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But taht one which is NOT in the series is dismissed. This article DOES focus on the franchise, which IS the series. 'franchise' does NOT mean 'all instances'. This article currently notes that an early film was produced for business purposes, but not released, and ONLY notes that as that set of facts relates to the production of the current series. I really do not see where all this 1994 corman film coverage is that you see. I think that the 94 film's article explains it well, this article links to that in the context of the new series, and that's that. ThuranX (talk) 04:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why make an article devoted only to the two filoms in continuity with one another, then? That's not looking at the films objectively. Either the article needs to cover all Fantastic Four films, or just leave that to individual articles. Regardless of that, this article's title does not suit the article. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We have that article, and it is this one. this idea that we 'must cover all three or none' is absurd. There is a fantastic four franchise, based on two films and a possible spin-off third. there is also an earlier, unreleased film. This article, as it is now, refers to the two films in continuity with each other. That's all this article is about. that it mentions, in one paragraph, the history that led up to the current series, and the one business decision film involved in that, does not in any way make this an article ABOUT all three. The Empire State Building article mentions New York City, but is not a history of the trinkets to indians and Peter Stuyvesant; it simply provides relevant context. As does the single paragraph about the first film. It provides context to the development. What this article needs is more information about the current franchise, about the transition between the first and second, and the goals of the corporation and production teams. Context should not be stripped out, and I can see no good reason to change the title to something misleading, like 'fantastic four film franchise', which would be a misnomer. The current word, 'Series', is perfectly suited to this article's focus on the current movies. 'Franchise', likewise, would actually describe the current movies. I can see no value in either stripping out context, which will immediately be reinserted over and over and over and over and over by fanboys and good faith editors alike, and the inclusion will find consensus fast, or in retitling this and expanding the coverage to all fantastic four films, which will be more likely to imply that all three are equally valid and related. leave it alone and work instead on improving and expanding the content. The development section is jerky and short, and could use more about Tim Story's intentions and vision for the franchise, Marvel's goals about the movie's ratings and kid-friendly nature, and so on. buidl it better, don't rip it apart or make it a mess. ThuranX (talk) 04:54, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

text: The problem with using series in the title of the article is that it implies some (non-existent) connection between the '94 "film" and the more recent films, which are meant to be a continuing series. There's nothing wrong with mentioning the '94 film in this article, but the article really should be renamed to the suggested Fantastic Four in film.oknazevad (talk) 15:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rename article 

message: The table of characters showed characters from the Spiderman movies.  When I removed them it made the tables all jacked up.  If anyone can fix them without reverting the changes that would be awesome. Lorddragyn (talk) 18:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tables

message: Fantastic Four started its production in August 2005 in Vancouver,[7] and original filming ended in December, until Fox ordered for additional scenes. The reshooting carried on until May 2005. The film was released in July 8, 2005. These dates MUST be wrong.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.58.53 (talk) 20:24, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Production Dates

message: Couldn't this page be moved to Fantastic Four in film and be altered to include the 1994 film? As it is, it doesn't seem to serve much purpose. --121.216.246.100 (talk) 10:38, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Move 

message: I've just finished removing a great deal of inaccurate information in the section of the article regarding the reboot of the FF franchise by Fox.  The information about Fox and Marvel negotiating to exchange the Silver Surfer and Galactus for an extension on the movie rights to Daredevil was long out of date.  That proposal was made by Marvel in 2012, and was reportedly rejected immediately by Fox.  As of now, the movie rights to Daredevil have expired and the franchise has reverted back to Marvel.  There was also a sentence stating that the movie rights to the Fantastic Four expire in 2015, however the reference provided made no mention of 2015 being a deadline.  The year 2015 seems to have been pure speculation by the author.  I've done extensive searches for an expiration date on the FF movie license, and have never found any solid information on the subject.  Just lots of speculation based on the deadlines of other properties which have been made public, which vary widely from one to the next.Wyldstaar (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reboot 

message: This is merely a rumor on Bleeding Cool's part. The rumor itself has been debunked by HuffPo and ScreenCrush but it's unclear what is true at the moment. Does anyone have anything to add to the discussion? 71.188.30.224 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: and Bleeding Cool debunks their own rumor. 71.188.30.224 (talk) 00:42, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Director, writer, and cast replaced

message: Confirmed writer and director, six major roles cast with notable actors, filming set to begin any day now ("early May 2014", according to this article), and notable publications such as Variety and The Hollywood Reporter have written multiple articles on the film's development...it does stretch WP:NFF a bit, but it seems to me that there is enough progress on the film to at least make a beginning article. What does everyone else think?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 18:59, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I don't think there would be much else to add beyond what is in the section, so I would not be in favor of making an article just yet. Once we do have confirmation that production does actually start (not just assuming because of what previous sources have said), we can maybe make some cases then. I just feel it is still a bit too soon. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 19:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should the 2015 film have its own article by now? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Fantastic Four in film. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071105195549/http://fantasticfour.ugo.com:80/movies/fantasticfour_1994/ to http://fantasticfour.ugo.com/movies/fantasticfour_1994/
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/hr/content_display/film/news/e3if727c623f03c782b8ad564866c828796
*Added  tag to http://www.foxconnect.com/catalogsearch/result/?dir=desc&order=relevance&q=Fantastic+Four&x=0&y=0
*Added  tag to http://ae.miami.com/entertainment/ui/miami/movie.html?id=895597&reviewId=22501
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This is not documented anywhere.   The chain of rights documented in this article go from marvel, to Constantin, sub-license to Fox, then suddenly back to DisnryMarvel. There is a link missing, which denotes the fact the Constantin gave the rights back to Marvel.  does DisneyMarvel actually own the rights now, or are they still with Constantin? Anthony (talk) 19:58, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  if Constantin owned the rights, and sub-license to them to Fox, how does Disney acquire the rights from Fox?  

message: Can we please make a separate page dedicated to the future MCU film? Logan100702 (talk) 20:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In progress at Draft:Fantastic Four (2024 film). Thanks, Indagate (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Which will remain in draftspace until filming begins, per WP:NFF. InfiniteNexus (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  MCU Film page 

message: The article currently has an Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania section with a single sentence: "Elements from Fantastic Four volume 1 #16 and volume 2 #19 were adapted in Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania (2023)."
First of all, the source which is linked does not even mention a single comic so I'm not sure where those specific books came from. Second, even if it this is true I don't think this section should be included in this article. No Fantastic Four characters are in the movie, no explicit references are made to any uniquely Fantastic Four concept, and the fact that the director took inspiration from the Fantastic Four for the Ant-Man movies do not warrant inclusion here. Yeoutie (talk) 20:55, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ant-Man 3