Talk:Fantastic Four (2015 film)

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)

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)

Where do we mention the controversies?

I realize that we can't fill the article with every fanboy rage somebody reports on a blog or whatever, but some of the controversies surrounding this movie, particularly regarding Jordan's casting and Mara's comments about the comics, have received enough media attention to merit some sort of mention (the latter was covered by Indiewire and Entertainment Weekly, while the complaints about Jordan were covered by /Film, The Wrap, and even a Cracked.com humor article). So my question is, how do we incorporate this info into the article? Should it have its own Controversy section, or should it just be incorporated into one of the existing sections (Cast, Development, etc.)?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2014 (U

I think it should have it's section in this article names "Controversies". --Wikieditor14 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Any major controversies with enough reliable coverage should probably go in the (as yet uncreated) Reception section in a subsection. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I just learned about the reboot and the casting on imdb ,came here to read about any controversies (especially Jordan's casting) and followed the links provided above. The impressions I received from reading the articles--and others searched for--were that (a) only 'geek fanboys' and racists have any objections to changing the race of one of the Storm siblings; (b) just because they've always been blond and white in the comic-books didn't mean casting directors were obliged to conform; (c) any so-called problems with a 'white' Sue Storm and a 'black' Johnny Storm can easily be explained (away) by a mixed-race marriage, adoption or some similar premise. In short, there really are no 'controversies' except for those whose minds are too narrow.

JWMcCalvin (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there is "no controversy except for those whose minds are too narrow", actually I think that's a quite ignorant comment since you're openly looking down at people - you are therefore the biggest racist. Anyway, if you look at Pan (2015 film) there is a section dedicated to the controversy regarding the casting of Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily who is traditionally depicted as a Native American. She's still a fictional character though, just like Johnny Storm. There's no difference, you are just being ignorant. It's no secret that the pop magazines who report on these news such as Cracked and TheWrap are leftist/hipster - so of course they will call the controversy regarding Tiger Lily as a controversy, while they will call the controversy regarding Johnny Storm as simple racism. Still, they're both controversies and I think this should be included in this article. Wikipedia is supposed to be NEUTRAL so we shouldn't look at races differently. The casting controversy regarding Tiger Lily shouldnt be treated differently than the casting controversy regarding Johnny Storm. --Jonipoon (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Controversy may be too strong a word but at some point the article will need to address the fact a caucasian actress and a black actor have been cast as brother and sister. Aside from the fact Jordan becomes the first non-caucasian to play Johnny Storm, which is significant in itself, the story going to need to address this. If one was adopted, they're step-siblings, or were born to biracial parents which has been known to result in this, any three options are significant changes from the original source material (as is the fourth option that would see one of the characters given a last name other than Storm). If it has already been explained in media reports, then we can use this; otherwise it's a topic that might need to be addressed once the film comes out and its plot and script are known. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

It's not narrow minds it's purists getting upset over Hollyweird yet again switching things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.80.104.205 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (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)

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)

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)

• Oppose - IMDB includes "The".[2] Do you have evidence that it is not commonly named with the article?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - 1. IMDB is not a reliable source. 2. The teaser trailer and poster list "Fantastic Four" as the title. Richiekim (talk) 16:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - 20th Century Fox site plus the official website list it as "Fantastic Four". The only reason we had "The" in the title before, was based on the thank you gifts the actors received at filming conclusion, seen in a tweet. Since then, the title very well could have changed, and media outlets never really knew what to call it because Fox never definitively stated anything. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. If it's unclear, the best approach is to leave the article title alone and wait for the title to become clear, rather than moving it back and forth and waiting for it to become clear. 209.211.131.181 (talk) 04:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. The official trailer, the official website and the official social media accounts of this film simply called it as Fantastic Four. So please drop "The" from the title.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Per above reasons. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support as it's the official title. Sock (tock talk) 11:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  See WP:OFFICIALNAME. We do not necessarily follow the "official" title, we use that which is most common in reliable sources. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

  • How is IMDB more reliable than the official websites/materials for this film? Seriously. Its called Fantastic Four. Just moved it this article now!--SuperHotWiki (talk) 06:11, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

  And reliable source are referring to it as "Fantastic Four". You caught me on OFFICIALNAME, but my support still stands. Sock (tock talk) 01:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: A) Hotwiki, ve have to let the comment/concensus process play out so it probably will still be a few more days (maybe a week or two) before it is moved. B) I think in this case, using the trailer, 20th Century Fox site and official site are the best way to figure this out, because reliable sources are still going both ways for "The" or not. Darn Fox for not giving better info! If a press release can be found announcing the trailer, that would be the best bet. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Fox's official website lists it as just "Fantastic Four", both on the homepage and the film's subpage. Sock (tock talk) 17:34, 4 February 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.

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)

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)