Official: Josh Trank Directing ‘Fantastic Four,’ David Slade Not Directing ‘Daredevil’

Published 3 years ago by , Updated July 12th, 2012 at 4:48 pm,

Fantastic Four Reboot Director Official: Josh Trank Directing Fantastic Four, David Slade Not Directing Daredevil

Comic-Con 2012 has begun and while Twentieth Century Fox isn’t here and has nothing to show yet for their upcoming comic book movie projects in development, they do have very relevant news conveniently timed for the big event.

Chronicle writer/director Josh Trank’s next film will again see the 27 year-old Californian again dealing with a group of super-powered individuals in Fantastic Four while 30 Days of Night and The Twilight Saga: Eclipse director David Slade loses his chance to revitalize the Daredevil franchise.

Since hitting it big at the box office and among critics with the low budget found footage film Chronicle, the young, up and coming Josh Trank immediately hit the top of the most-desired list among studios. Just a month and a half ago Trank signed with Sony Pictures to helm the incredibly ambitious adaptation of Shadow of the Colossus, based on artful PlayStation exclusive video game title of the same name. But before that project gets moving, Trank will working on another major project.

Deadline reports that Trank has officially signed with Twentieth Century Fox to direct the Fantastic Four reboot, confirming rumors dating back to January which pointed towards he and Fox – the same studio behind Chronicle - being in chats about the Marvel foursome. Those rumors were later confirmed by Fox CEO Tom Rothman who excitedly revealed that Trank would help develop the project, hinting that he could direct the reboot and its new cast as well.

fantastic four reboot josh trank Official: Josh Trank Directing Fantastic Four, David Slade Not Directing Daredevil

The cast of the last two Fantastic Four films

Their report continues to explain that Fox is aiming to get the movie in production fast, much like their other Marvel flicks. The Wolverine - which just added six new cast members – begins shooting next month with Hugh Jackman and X-Men: First Class will follow with Matthew Vaughn back in the director’s chair. Fantastic Four will come immediately after that.

As for the other key Marvel property Fox owns the film rights to, Daredevil, things are taking a step in the opposite direction. David Slade has been attached to the project for nearly a year and a half, teasing announcements that often didn’t come to fruition since that time. Due to scheduling conflicts with his work on the Hannibal TV series pilot and Fox’s need to get Daredevil into production by this fall in order to prevent the film license from reverting back to Disney, they’ll have to find a replacement director soon. This is a similar situation to Fantastic Four and the reason Fox has been trying to get both projects off the ground for years.

While some fans love the idea of characters like Daredevil returning to the creative control of Marvel Studios, the contract in place may result in a rushed production on the part of Fox in order to simply maintain the rights to it rather than deliver a quality production. Hopefully Trank isn’t put into a bad position where the film isn’t given the time it needs. X-Men: First Class was infamously rushed as well.

Daredevil reboot official announcement Official: Josh Trank Directing Fantastic Four, David Slade Not Directing Daredevil

As for Fantastic Four, the reboot almost happened around the same time X-Men: First Class was in its early stages, with rumors for each cast member and directors, but it was put on the back burner. With Trank at the helm, there’s a strong possibility for a grounded (read: less corny) take on everyone’s favorite Marvel family.

With Marvel Studios hosting an Iron Man 3 panel on Saturday where it’s expected they could announce one or more new upcoming film projects, the addition of multiple Fox Marvel movies and the return of Spider-Man make this an exciting time for Marvel fans.

Who should direct Daredevil? Let the speculation begin!


Follow Rob on Twitter @rob_keyes.

Source: Deadline

Header image edited by cover art by Bryan Hitch from Fantastic Four #569.

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Hopefully, Daredevil doesn’t get moving any time soon and Marvel gets the rights back. Seeing as how Fantastic Four needs to be in production by Fall of 2014 at the latest, I’m sure that it’ll work out for them, unfortunately. But if Dardevil goes back to Marvel, then I could actually see a Marvel Knights type of movie, although it would probably be without Spider-Man and possibly Ghost Rider (I’m not quite sure how that franchise is going since the last film didn’t do too good).

    Please Fox, continue to fail on Daredevil, and if you could somehow fail on Fantastic Four and even X-Men, that would be REALLY nice.

  2. I’m not a huge Fantastic Four fan, but I want a really good movie for this. I couldn’t care less about Daredevil.

  3. Please, everyone, GIVE MARVEL CHARACTERS BACK TO MARVEL. You don’t know what you’re doing. They need to do them RIGHT. Rushing is stupid. Let Marvel have them back and do em right.

    • not entirely true. Spiderman 1 and Amazing Spiderman are brilliant films. First Class and Spiderman 2 are two of the best comic movie ever.

      • I wouldn’t say First Class is one of the greatest comic book movies ever. It was the best X-Men film and a great film in general, but I think people are overrating it a little. For me, at least, I felt like the action wasn’t that exciting (The Beast vs Azazel fight was probably the best fight and it wasn’t that long or anything), and there were plenty of continuity flaws.

        I will agree with you on Spider-Man 2, though. In my opinion, that film, The Dark Knight, Watchmen, The Avengers, and Hellboy 2: The Golden Army are the top 5 comic book films. Just my opinion though.

        • I thought XMFC was a good “superhero” movie, but it was a very poor X-Men movie. They twisted, contorted and perferted the canon in just about every way possible to shoehorn their plot in there.

          • perVerted :P

            • Agreed

            • I like preferted better – sounds like they farted all over the canon.

    • Do them right? Marvel has had their fair share of bumps in the road as well. Iron Man 2, Thor, Captain America and the Incredible Hulk were nothing special at all, just cookie cutter action movies with zero substance. If Fox can keep producing comic book movies at the quality level of First Class then Fantastic Four and Daredevil are in fine hands.

      • I liked all of those movies, with the exception of Incredible Hulk, better than XMFC. Thor was one of my favorites to date and Cap was pretty close.

        Obviously, everyone has different opinions of what makes a good Superhero movie. Obviously putting them all together was what the world liked. So, Marvel should have their creative property back. If they still owned all of it, we wouldn’t have to all whine about seeing Spidey or Wolverine on various teams. They could be on every team like in the comics.

        • Rocket Raccoon as Bucky Barnes….now THAT would have been an epic team-up for Caps first movie!

          • You have got to be kidding me. Rocket Raccoon deserves to be a leading role and not in Someones shadow. Especially some fruit loop wearing tights. Tights are just ridiculous. :)

            PS, I’ve never put a smiley face on any comment before so for me that’s calling a Raccoon truce.

            • haha, sorry. That image flashed into my head for some reason and seemed awesome in a completely bent and twisted sort of way. So truce accepted.

              Maybe that one can be filed under one of The Watchers, “What If” comics ;)

              • Haha, it sounds better than some of the ideas they’ve had in the “What If” series. Although, I would like to see RR as some sort of evil dictator type, like a Dr. Doom. Possibly a Dr. Evil type character with a hairless gerbil or some smaller rodent as his pet. Now that I would spend some money to see.

  4. I’d love these properties back at Marvel Studios (especially FF because that team would fit in perfectly with Marvel “going cosmic” with their movies), but like Corey and Jakob have said, not all non-Marvel-made movies have been horrible. I loved XMFC and TASM, so it doesn seem like Sony and Fox are starting to get an idea of what they have to do.

    It’ll be interesting to see how (or even IF) these projects will develop…

    • *Edit: “so it does seem like Sony and Fox…”

      • @ The Avenger

        Thanks for name dropping me man :p

        On a serious note, I do think that while First Class and TAS were both good, they still had their issues. As I mentioned before, First Class didn’t have enough action and had TONS of continuity errors, while TAS had a few lazy choices and Dr. Connors was way too similar to Osborn.

        What I’m getting at is, even though these were good films, I’m not ready to get all giddy just yet. If you remember, X-Men and Spider-Man were pretty decent, X2 and Spider-Man 2 were great, and then we got X-Men 3, Wolverine, and Spider-Man 3. So while I hope these new series do good, in the end, they’d always be better off in the ends of Marvel.

        • Actually, the next X-Men movie will be Days of the Future Past so all these “errors” will be fixed.

          • ALL of them? Not a chance in hell. They might be able to explain a few of the more grievous issues but there are lots of things that will never make sense with the X-Men canon.

  5. I have been a Fantastic Four fan since I opened my first comic back when I was 11 years old. When I beheld the first Fantastic Four film I was massively disappointed and actually kind of miffed that a major motion picture studio could have such a lack of understanding about a product. The casting was, in my opinion, probably the worst issue but the general characterization and direction was painful as well.
    I enjoyed Chronicle and hope that Fox somehow manages to a memorable film even with the time pressures they are under.
    However I echo what has been posted before…by all means fail, Fox.
    Marvel/Disney is waiting with open arms to catch the F.F. when they slip through your fingers and after seeing what they were capable of with Avengers I would be thrilled to see a true Marvel Fantastic Four film.

    • I thought Chris Evans did great as HT, and even Stan Lee said he thought Micheal Chiklis nailed the Thing. Yes, Mister Fantastic could have been better and Jessica Alba was atrocious as Invisible Woman, but Julian McMahon wasn’t a bad choice for Doom, he was just written badly.

  6. This is good news in a way Fox was never going to just let the rights go back without trying to make money of it at least one more time, Josh Trank made a pretty good movie(visually speaking) movie with a very low budget, so its got a shot at being something more than the other two movies…

    Daredevil losing it’s director means that maybe the rights will revert back to Marvel so in a way maybe thats good news but the thing is Marvel Studios is only going to make 2 movies(maybe 3) a year really, if Fox can get their stuff together maybe this is how you can see more CBM’s each year…

  7. Hmmmmm. I don’t think the old FF are that bad, Human Torch and The Thing were spot on, but overall I can totally understand the need for a reboot. I remember hearing ages ago that Bruce Willis might be voicing the Thing, and while I love that, he shouldn’t be CGI. The prothetics worked really well and CGI just won’t measure up onscreen.

    Daredevil. I was a huge fan of Affleck’s version. I actually thought a Showtime/HBO tv version of DD would work really well, keep it gritty and violent but also lend well to the Matt Murdock side of the character as a lawyer.

    • I disagree.
      The Thing isn’t a short guy made out of rubber/plastic. He’s a big, rocky beast.
      Motion capture is the way to go IMO.

      • But it won’t look real. It’ll look fake and silly. Unless silly is what they’re going for.

        • The problem with these movies were the story wasn’t very good &you just said half of the cast was spot on but that means the other half was not and you add Dr. Doom in there who is the main villain in both movies, with all that you have a flawed cast and a not so great story, that’s most people’s point of view…

          The Thing to me in the movies wasn’t ridiculous, but it could be done well in CGI maybe even some half CGI/half prosthetic, I know it took 10 years but the Hulk looked good in Avengers & they can try and do something similar with that…

          • Half CGI, half prosthetics is the ebst way to go.

            • At least prosthetics and trick photography that makes him look 8 feet tall.

            • I agree, that would be a good way to go as well.

        • The Hulk looked real in Avengers….. He was CGI.

          • I agree that the Hulk looked great but he didn’t have to be on screen for a large amount of time, interacting with normal situations like The Thing would.

            • Ever heard of Transformers or Avatar? There were lots of CGI creations that were constantly on-screen and they never looked fake. And instead of creating a bunch of CGI robots or aliens, they just got to make ONE guy look real.

        • I agree with DrSamBeckett. I thought everyone except for Sue Storm was spot on. I mean, why not just get a hot blond instead of Jessica Alba, who is hot as hell but can’t act.

          Of course Thing is supposed to be a rock but he often look ridiculous in the comics too.

      • How big are you talking? Thing was pretty normal sized for at least twenty years, and never really giant. He was drawn broader but not taller than Reed.

        I think it’s pretty crucial to keep the Thing at a human scale in order for him to interact with the rest of the team. That’s what’s most important. They can make him as strong as they want. Keep in mind that this is also a self-contained universe. Someone like the Thing is already out of place.

        I’d go with practical, although I wouldn’t dismiss CGI. But good CGI would be more difficult, and frankly, not likely.

        • Agree with everything you just said. Was about to raise those points myself.

          • I was just reading between the lines of what you said and articulating it, Dr.;)

            Originally comics were sold on newstands and made to appeal to a wider audience. Once specialty shops arose, the creators focused on a niche audience, mostly a young boys “clubhouse.” For better, and often worse IMO, storys and art would get a lot more “unbound.”

            Movies, I think, have to wind it back a bit. Even the “toned down” stuff is going to play crazy to a general audience.

            But look at the Thing and what made him popular (and I think you have, Dr.). He’s relatable. He’s funny, always translating Reedtalk into a really dumb version, or misinterpreting “big” words. In a Lee Kirby story Sue told him he was being obdurant, and he said, “my religions got nothing to do with it.” That kind of stuff.

            He’s not an eight foot tall mean looking monster. You have to make him close-to-human to emphasize the “tragedy” of his condition.

            Hate to say it, but “Hellboy” is a great movie “Thing” as far as size and attitude go, and his isolating state of being. The difference with the Thing is that there’s always the hope of a cure, and also that he was once human.

            They should get a handsome guy to be Ben Grimm. Nothing wrong with Chiklas, but having Ben Grimm be a former lady-killer would amp up the drama.

            • “He’s relatable. He’s funny, always translating Reedtalk into a really dumb version, or misinterpreting “big” words.”

              To me that is very much the character.

            • I like you idea of making Ben Grimm a pretty boy, that’s now ho w it is in the comics but what the point in having a plain looking guy play Grimm when you can have a handsome looking guy who took for granted his look and now has to deal with looking like a rock monster and they used prosthetic’s for Hellboy & Thing is only like 6 feet so prosthetic’s can work but the problem is Hellboy wasn’t a rock monster with cracks on his face & that’s why I say half & half with CGI & prosthetics…

              • Maybe you’re right but for my money CGI just doesn’t work for that sort of a role. Think back to the old FF films, if Ben had been CGI, it wouldn’t have worked at all.

                • @DrSamBeckett
                  I agree with your point on how out of place Thing would have looked in those movie but CGI has come a long way just look at how far they’ve come with the Hulk sing Ang Lee’s version & it all depends on how much & who’s doing the CGI, with the right melding of the two it could really look good…

                  Gillermo Del Toro would be interesting as a consulting producer idk if Peter Jackson schedule would allow him to anything other than Hobbitt & I feel like when directors do a bad job is either they get bad advice from studios & special effects coordinators or they don’t have enough experience to do the job right & believe me we’ve all been hurt before…

                  • Both of them are too busy. I’m just using them as examples. Neither of them actually make the special effects but they seem to understand them enough to communicate what they want, and they know how to get things edited and tweaked to fine tune them. Too many directors won’t or can’t put their fingers in that “pie.”

                    I appreciate what CGI can do, but there is a difference between mediocre and excellent. Great CGI (I’m guessing) involves design, acting, lighting, etc. Talented people can’t do everything. Directors oversee it and combine these things. I’ve watched extras for LOTR and Hellboy, and those guys are knee deep in the whole process, they don’t simply “put in an order” and wait for it to arrive. In LOTR they had the make-up guys teaching methods that the CGI people then used to make more realistic skin, etc. In the end, there are always imperfections, but the CGI is more integrated into the production.

                    That’s the impression I get anyway.

              • I can easily see a mix of both. Really, the Thing would be perfect for a costume and some CGI. Gillermo Del Toro and Peter Jackson could oversee this done perfectly. It kills me how few directors have a handle on special effects, and even fewer know how to mix practical with CGI. There’s plenty of talent but there has to be a singular vision in the lead.

                That’s what makes me skeptical. I feel like I have to pick one or the other. Of the two, I’d stick with practical. But I’m completely in line with your idea. It just may be too “perfect world.” Sorry, I’ve been hurt before.

                • We’ve been over this before Nostelg-O but I don’t know what you all mean by a “mix”. Would you mind explaining what parts would be practical and what would be CG? Because I’m not seeing it personally and any time I’ve seen a mix it’s looked hokey to me.

                  And while The Thing was originally done similar to the size of the last incarnation, there was a reason why he was changed…. so he looked as impressive as his abilities were.

                  I just don’t know how you are going to do a Thing that’s 6′ tall and 4′ wide without it all being CGI.

            • Agree with everything except Stan Lee said Chiklas was dead on with what he was going for with the Thing.

              • Stan Lee is Mr. enthusiastic and positive. And he’s a terrible actor and has bad ideas for casting. He thought he should be cast as JJ Jameson at least in the 70′s TV show. Great Comic writer.

                Anyway, it’s only my opinion. I don’t need to agree with Stan.

          • You make a fair point about Hulk not having to interact like Thing would but that’s why I said half & half so you could have someone in prosthetic’s but at the same time augment them with cgi to streamline it…

        • Just an fyi about it being “unlikely” the Thing would be all CGI. The rumor when we first heard about this project was that indeed they would be doing him 100% CGI. I’m inclined to believe that’s what will happen so we can have a Thing that more closely matches the later and more standard incarnation

          • I said, “good CGI would be more difficult, and frankly, not likely.”

            I didn’t say they weren’t going to make a CGI, huge Thing. I just don’t think they should. And if they do, I think it’s more likely it’ll look pretty bad.

            I’ve only got opinions. I don’t have any control over what they do.

            As for the “mix.” Look at Iron Man. Parts of the costume are CGI’d in later, but allow RDJ to move around while they shoot. Hellboy movies use elaborate costumes that people assume are CGI, even during production (film tests and such). But they are heavy and cumbersome, so for fast movement, they can use CGI. They could make puppets with crews manipulating them, then take them out of the film with CGI. The advantage with practical is that it is cheaper and can be lit to match the scene on the spot.

            • So when you say mix you mean for close-ups it will be all prosthetics like the Chiklis version? I thought they did an admirable job with the last version (probably as good as it can possibly be done) but it will not work again. They need to step up their game this time and have the Thing be all CGI so he can be four feet wide and look like he’s made of rock with that iconic uni-brow.

              I think it will look fine if they do it correctly plus CGI tech is advancing in leaps and bounds so don’t expect the same level of CGI we got even in the Avengers with Hulk. The flip side of that is of course they hire a CG studio who can’t do the job and we end up with an unbelievable GL Kilowog.

        • I kinda used the wrong word when I said “short”, sorry. (Still, he was pretty short in those movies. I stand by that.)
          A better word to describe what I mean is “lean”.
          In the first FF movies the Thing wasn’t nearly as bulky as he’s drawn in most of the comics – i.e. he should be “bigger”. Not necessarily taller (although, he’s definitely taller than 6 foot in the comics IMO), but bigger.

          Still think motion capture is the way to go, or as Ignur mentioned, a combination of prosthetic and CGI (that would work really well for close up scenes).

          • Iron Man was also done using a combination of CGI and a real IM suit for the close ups and full CGI for the action scenes.
            That worked perfectly IMO.

            • Actually, I’ve thought about it and good Mo-cap would be best, but I’m not confidant we’ll get good mo-cap.

              I think they Things face needs to be “scrunched” with a smaller nose. But the biggest things would be that the eyes need to be farther apart and he should have a really big mouth. He needs to be expressive.

              Mo-cap would be good for two reasons in this scenario. One, it simply allows more movement of an unusual face structure. But also, further-apart eyes COULD be motorized, but using mo-cap would allow the actor to contribute. And that should be the case.

              One problem with Mo-cap is that any good actor could do it, but he should probably also be the same actor who plays Ben Grimm as a human. So you couldn’t have Andy Serkis, as a for-instance. I think getting a good actor would sort of require that he gets the whole package, playing human at times and capturing expressions on Mo-cap.

              They could still do a lot of practical. Unlike Gollum, they don’t have to make him smaller and skinnier.

          • Really either can work. What’s most important is the concept and design. Like Incredible Hulk to Avenger’s Hulk. Remember those arguments? Is anyone still arguing for IH?

            But yeah. I was thinking about Gollum. Everyone was waiting for that, and they nailed it beyond anybody’s expectations. That could have been terrible, but they did it perfect.

            I think there has to be a lot of proposals, designs, and ruthless criticism and revision. But the director has to really think about what he wants to do, and how the size and look of the Thing will fit that. If that is the case even the Thing I don’t want now will be the perfect Thing. But he can’t passively leave it to the art department.

            • I’m now a bit concerned because I am hearing words like “cheap” attached to this reboot. If they do Thing as cheap CGI then it is going to look horrible.

              • I saw that too. But before that I was still ruminating about it and I thought, “why can’t it be done with practical and puppetry?” They can design the face however they want and use motorization and manipulation for expression. And forget getting a “great actor.” Get some good looking foot-ball player type guy to play Ben Grimm and then let the creative department come up with a fantastic Thing. Frank Oz voiced Yoda, and Seth Mcfarlane voiced that German “air-guy” in Hellboy 2. Doug Jones is always providing performances with others doing the voice. My point is, great things have been done before. Darth Vader with David Prowes and James Earl Jones.

  8. What is the deal with movie rights? How far could a character be alluded to in a film by a studio who doesn’t own the rights.

    For example, if the Avengers stumbled upon a huge web with some bad guys caught in it, would that alone be enough to cause trouble? I doubt it, but would like to know what others think.

    • I’m sure the other movie studio would love the free publicity, quite frankly. But I have no idea how far they are allowed to go.

  9. i hope fantastic 4 will join the avengers not 20centry fox!

  10. Saw Chronicle last week. It’s good. Not perfect, but it had interesting characters and writing. It did fun things with the powers. I’m more than Okay with this. Good luck to Trank.

  11. Everyone talking about wanting these movies with Marvel, remember Marvel is only doing 1-2 movies a year. How long will we have to wait to see a Daredevil movie made with Marvel since they are busy with the A-listers.

  12. Who will the villain be?

    It won’t be Doom. It will follow the likely trend of using a less well known villain for the first film (Ra’s Al Ghul/The Lizard/Sebastian Shaw) and have Doom and Glalactus for the sequels.

    Thoughts on who it should be?

    • I just looked at the list…It’s from wiki, don’t judge…

      I don’t know many of them. Doom is really the only option which is sad.

    • no idea only one i can think of is doom :o

    • Nihil for a creepy N-Zone adventure.

      • Yes, that might work.

    • Wow, I cant believe no one has mentioned Annihulus yet. He would be perfect in the since his negative zone creatures could cause an Avengers sized showdown for the four. If Annihulus is too big, than revamp mole man and have them fight giant bio Monsters which would be equally epic in scale.

    • Mole Man. No question. Underground wacky worlds and monsters.

      I wish Pixar could do a series of movies, one leading into the other. Mole Man, end up on an Island leading to Sub-marinar and Atlantis, Inhumans, Dr. Doom, and finally Galactus. Four movies.

      • I like people’s “negative zone” annihilus ideas. Someone once suggested to me that Reed’s N-zone experiments could be the thing that draws the attention of Silver Surfer (disruption of time and space sort of thing), leading to Galactus.

        But build up to the big cosmic stuff. I like their big cosmic stories but not a steady diet of them.

        • That could lead to an excellent series of films. Doom should still be involved in some way though.

          • Doom (any villain really) could be great or stupid. He was somewhere in-between in the Story FF. They really have to be mindful of that imobile mask. A strong clear voice and some miming.

            Did you like the FF movies. I thought they were stupid but I won’t lie. They made me laugh at the shear goofiness and they were watchable (at least the first one).

            I notice kids like them, which is a huge plus for building the “love” that will support a “less campy” version.

            But FF is one of those franchises that really needs to walk a line between “fun” and serious. Avengers had the right tone. Not every director can do it though.

            I’m glad Avengers came along. There’s more than “darker and grittier.”

            • Just get Hickman to write the story and it will be fine.

          • And maybe the Impossible Man but I don’t think anyone would want to see him as the villain because he’s way too comedic (not to mention the CG required to do him correctly would be expensive)

            • arg, I replied to the wrong post. This should be below my other post.

        • But you are all assuming that Fox has the rights to all of these characters. The only ones we know of for sure are Doom and the Silver Surfer (but even he might have been a one picture deal or may be jointly controlled). And one reason why we never actually saw Galactus in FF:RotSS might be because Marvel wouldn’t sell them the rights to the character or much of his backstory, just the name and some generalities.

          Annihilus while originally a FF villain does also have ties to other Marvel franchises (like the Avengers) so Fox may have access to it.

          I would think Mole-Man is a fair bet for Fox ownership and we also know that both Fox and Marvel are allowed to use the Skrulls. I am a bit surprised no one has mentioned the Skrulls yet considering they are one of the groups longest standing foes.

          Just keep in mind that Fox’s hands are tied it respect to who they can and can’t use in their movies. We unfortunately don’t know who they have access to.

          • I’m not assuming any such thing. I know Fox doesn’t have Sub-Mariner or Inhumans. But a man can dream, can’t he? CAN’T HE?

            But they have to have Mole Man. Frankly I’m surprised they don’t have the above mentioned one’s either.

            • No, dreams are not allowed! (it’s part of the site rules but that part is coincidenty colored the same as the background ;) )

              I think Annihilus is possible but would bet they have Mole-man, Impossible Man (and or course the Skrulls)

              I wish Marvel would just give us an exact break down of their contracts so we didn’t have to speculate.

              • Impossible Man wouldn’t work in a movie. In a comic, TV show, cartoon, maybe. He’s too goofey, which I don’t mind completely, but mostly he’s just too powerful. He can’t be defeated. He can just decide not to fight, or be tricked. And if he’s on their side, they have to come up with a reason that he wouldn’t step in and solve every problem. Like in the comics he gets bored, or hooked on television. But once he’s introduced, even if he’s “set aside,” he becomes a huge distraction.

                • I agree with you and made the same comment somewhere above (I posted it in the wrong place)

                  Imppy is a great character and fun for say an issue of a comic or for an episode of a TV show but for a big budget movie? Please no.

                  (although I do have a dark desire for WB/DC to find a way to work Ambush Bug into one of their movies…..somehow :) )

    • Maybe the Frightful Four? I really hope not, Doom is a beast and possibly the best Villain there is.

    • I’d say Annihilus and his minions, but I can’t work out/think of how that villain and the negative zone would fit into the FF’s origin story without drastically changing their origin (assuming the reboot will be a re-telling of the origin story…)
      Same goes for the Skrulls: they are a great choice (although, the “aliens invade and team of superheroes have to stop them” angle has been used… quite recently ;)), but I can’t picture how the writers would successfully use those characters in an origin story.
      Maybe my creative skills aren’t working properly lately, but honestly, Doom has always been the big gun IMO (Galactus excluded). They HAVE to use him. Even if he isn’t the main bad guy, he should still play an important role in the movie.

  13. Damn you fox!

  14. Hoping they move away from the typical superhero plot, and do something more sci-fi heavy. An N-Zone adventure with Nihil etyled after the film Event Horizon (with all its creepiness) would be interesting. Im just hoping this turns out to be more a sci-fi adventure then superhero team-up.

    Also no origin story. Start the story in mdeia res

    • Nihil/Annihilus

    • Nihil is the ultimate version of Annihilus FYI. i like both.

  15. Great news that Josh Trank is directing Fanastic Four.

    Chronicle was a great movie because it wasn’t about saving the world but about three teenagers doing wild things and trying to cope with the new found power.

    I have to be honset that I think Chronicle is a teenager movie because it was funny, amazing and compares to the young audience and questions what anyone would do if they had superpowers.

    And about Daredevil? I think Fox should give it back to Marvel.

    I think Marvel would do a better job in my opinon.

  16. I would personally like to see Fox give Stephen Norrington another crack at a superhero property, especially with Daredevil.
    Whether it goes back to Marvel or not, Norrington should be the one directing this.
    Look, he directed Blade the precursor to all this “dark” and “gritty” tones superhero films now adopt.
    He made LXG, not the best BUT if you did give at chance and had no relation to the Moore books it’s not a bad film. Great steampunk style.
    Yes, it will be rushed but with Norrington I doubt it will be half assed.

    If ol’ Horn Head is sent back to Marvel, HELL TO THE MUTHA F’N NO he should be involved with Avengers. Keep him seperate. Even in an alternate universe.

  17. I believe Daredevil can potentially be a good film. No film needs a reboot more than fantastic four.

  18. Daredevil desperately needs to be redone. I am always baffled when some says that was even a good movie. Everyone was miscast. I’ve come to the conclusion, I enjoy Affleck as a director better.

    • People like different things, I prefer DD to TDK.

    • I’m going to have to disagree because Michael Clark Duncan did one of the most amazing jobs transferring a comic book character to film with his portrayal of the Kingpin. Collin Farrell had the humor and intensity to play Bullseye. Ben Affleck was okay. It’s just that the costumes(or lack of) didn’t fit into the movie.

      If they reboot the movie, there absolutely must be a retelling of the origin. Daredevil is one of the lesser known heroes to audiences (similar to Iron Man before 2008). Daredevil is a dark and gritty character and should be similar to the Dark Knight. What makes a character interesting is their backstory, if the film takes place when Matt Murdock is already Daredevil (like the first one), it would just be another typical comic book movie.


  20. I would like to see Sony get the rights to Daredevil and have him introduced in a Spiderman sequel, I think they did a great job with Spiderman and since Daredevil shares similar traits and a universe it would work nicely…would love to see them team up to take out King Pin.

    Marvel seems to have too much going on right now and are limited to how many movies they could put out so it might be best that they don’t get FF or DD because then we may never see those movies for at least another five years.

    However, Marvel is the best choice for these two, maybe they should consider dropping GOTG or Ant-man and replace it with Daredevil(if they get him)

    • Now that is an interesting question……Do the other studios have the right to sell their rights to someone else? If I was a guessing man I would say no.

  21. That Trank or whoever has been hired to direct is only the beginning of the story, and to me the least important. We need to know the general plot, the tone, the approach. Is it going to be another complete origin story? Because I think that is getting a bit tired to me. I don’t need to be told yet again how the FF came to be. I would much rather see a story about them after they are already established. I don’t really want to see the Reed-Sue romance thing played out again. We know they are going to get married for God’s sakes. Besides the origin story is always obligatory. We just want to get it out of the way and get to the good stuff. Unfortunately, Doctor Doom is a much better Iron Man villain than FF. But the rights issue prevents that.
    With regard to Daredevil, if they want to do it, it has to be much more realistically grounded. To me, Daredevil and Punisher are kind of in their own universe, being more realistic despite the fact that in the comics they are all part of the overall Marvel universe. But seeing as how both heroes have Kingpin as a common enemy, a Daredevil movie has to have more of a gritty crime thriller feel to it. Daredevil has superpowers but nothing ridiculous. All of his senses aside from sight, are merely enhanced to a great degree. None of them are implausible from a physiological standpoint. Daredevil may end up imitating Batman a tad, so that is a bit of a drawback, as Batman is probably the only other superhero character who is somewhat comparable. A straight-up crime fighter who moves from the street level up to the crime lord.

    • imo, they absolutely need to do a retelling of the FF origin story. If they want a movie trilogy, the first film should have a lesser known villain (i.e. Mole Man) with the main focus of the film to establish the characters. The target audience should be younger kids (similar to Avengers), as opposed to darker super hero films (like TDK). With that being said, most kids won’t know much about FF due to their lack of popularity on television, with the last FF cartoon being FF: World’s Greatest Heroes. This makes it an absolute necessity to have the first film to introduce the audiences to each member, similar to The Amazing Spider-Man

  22. Seen as though people on here are saying how great Amazing spiderman was i would just like to say that last night i went to see it and it is a mess, they have changed the origin story, Uncle Ben dies without saying the infamous with great power speech, the Lizard is treated like the Hulk with him transforming maybe once or twice, it takes almost an hour for him to put on the suit and then he uses it on screen for a lot less time and he reveals his face to about half the cast if not all, i mean that is the worst thing about the film.
    the whole point of the mask is to hide who he is from everyone to protect them. the worst still is that while it tries to do its best to be based in the real world ala batman begins, it comes across as the superhero version of Twilight. i mean really, its a poor film, its called SPIDERMAN not PETER PARKER, the film spent too much time with Peter and not Spiderman. look at Spiderman 1 SR, version, it was a great film, dealt with the origins then got to the whole film and we saw more of spiderman. sorry but i would like to give it a thumbs down, i hope that Marvel gets it back soon enough.
    oh and why dont Marvel and other companies have comic writers come up plots for their comic book films? that’s just a question though.

  23. Please…put together a better cast this time and don’t give us another retelling of how the FF came to be…unless its a small bit in a flashback or something similar. It’s not necessary to devote half the film to a recycling of their origin. Do Doctor Doom proud this time, too! Or as a unique idea use a different villain whom we have never seen in a celluloid version before…utilizing the rich history of one of Marvel’s most beloved franchises. As far as DD is concerned, my vote is for Marc Webb. I thought he did a pretty god job on the Amazing Spider-man reboot…lots of action, drama and even romance (but an unfortunately long origin segment). As long as DD is gritty and as realistic as a superhero film can be it should be a successful venture. MAKE MINE MARVEL!! Or…er…uh…I mean SONY!

  24. All the people saying Fox should just give the rights back to Marvel are tragically misinformed. Would it make sense if iSaid you should just give me your car because I’ll look better driving it, even though you paid for it fair and square? I’m sure Fox paid handsomely for the film rights to these characters and will do whatever it takes to start a successful film franchise.

  25. As for the Daredevil Reboot. I hopethey look at John Grisham for imspiratiom. Combine the suspense of a John Grisham novel with the action of a vigilante and you have a tremendous film.

  26. While I love superheroes and am very much enjoying the movies coming out…I’m getting a little sick of seeing them everywhere. Give out some new films without heroes. But like I said I do love superheroes I just think the studios need to give it a break for a while.

  27. Twentieth Century Fox isn’t here and has nothing to show yet for their upcoming comic book movie projects in development, they do have very relevant news conveniently timed for the big event.

  28. Doom deserves to be done right.

  29. I want Marvel to have their film rights back to all their properties too but even if they got the rights back to them, doesnt movies would be made anytime soon. Especially Daredevil, i wouldnt think Marvel would have a place for him anytime soon.

    For the moment, Marvel has plenty of other characters to use. The only thing that makes me said is not having Dr. Doom as a possible villian in an Avengers movie

    • Couldn’t have said it better myself.