Talk:Fantastic Four in film

Good article review

GA review (see here for criteria)

---

This is a nice piece of work, but it still has some shortcomings with respect to the good article criteria.

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

   As seeing an example from Spider-Man (film series) which classifies as a Good article, maybe adding links to the characters name in the second paragraph of the lead, wouldn't it hurt much.

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

   The sources are not sufficient to cover the material in the Development paragraph.

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. 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):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

   The article reads well, the only thing holding the article is if these comments can be met. Once they are completed, the article would be turned into a Good article. Good luck and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Zenlax ^{T C S} 19:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

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)

Gave the article a thorough copyedit, better now. Limetolime ^{talk to me • look what I did!} 23:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Good article pass

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)

Kind of ironic, given the movies were complete ass, but hey... HalfShadow 18:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Rename article

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Tables

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)

Production Dates

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)

Suggested Move

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)

Requested move

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved Alpha Quadrant ^talk 01:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

---

Fantastic Four (film series) → Fantastic Four in film – Article should be altered to include the 1994 film per discussion here 121.216.246.100 (talk) 07:53, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose this is a GA. Create a new article instead. 184.144.163.181 (talk) 08:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support per similar articles like Spider-Man in film, Batman in film, and Superman in film. The re-titling allows for the scope to be broader, especially when superhero films can be feature films or DTV (animated) films or when they are rebooted with a new continuity. Erik (talk | contribs) 16:47, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

• Suppoort per nom.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support It's really lucky that this film is a GA for two films don't normally justify being a film series article and those two films seem to be the main topic. That being said since we have a unreleased film in 1994 and there's a possible planned reboot in the future I think that is the proper name for the title and that really doesn't infringe it from being a GA. For all those that Erik just mentioned or either FAs or GAs even with name changing. Jhenderson ⁷⁷⁷ 22:44, 20 May 2011 (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. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reboot

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)