Talk:The Fantastic Four: First Steps

Box office discussions

Devasting 2nd weekend box office

Variety is now saying F4fs had an unexpected 80% Friday drop, with others source as well saying the film won’t crack the international top ten (a first for a Marvel film in 10+ years), and is failing to have domestic legs, etc. etc.

I listed two prominent sources saying as much.

https://variety.com/2025/film/box-office/box-office-fantastic-four-naked-gun-together-bad-guys-1236475008/

https://deadline.com/2025/08/box-office-fantastic-four-bad-guys-2-naked-gun-1236476381/

Putting aside the fanboi effect here, and certainly the studio shills that come here to water down these articles, it seems like this is a WP:NOTABLE development and should be in the article, and probably in the lead somewhere too. 2601:282:8901:40F0:789A:BE81:707:3A8A (talk) 09:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The film's second weekend will be discussed with sources, though we have to wait until next week to know the actual numbers as the current sources are just estimating. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 Yeah, there’s no rush, sure, but I wasn’t speaking about “estimates”, I was pointing out analysis across several prominent sources. And be in denial about it or not, but the consensus emerging in the press according to the “sources” is that the movie is essentially in trouble, reflecting and continuing a troublesome trend with Marvel in recent months. 2601:282:8901:40F0:B0A8:F08E:DA26:9CD (talk) 09:53, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not in denial about anything, all I pointed out is that the current sources are using estimates. We won't know the actual numbers until after the weekend. That is just a fact. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:54, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 Again, I acknowledged “no rush” but the numbers are irrelevant here, as the analysis IS based on multiple factors (not just estimates) and that’s the subject of the aforementioned articles. Nothing will change that when the numbers are finalized in a few days. 2601:282:8901:40F0:B0A8:F08E:DA26:9CD (talk) 10:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

The numbers are not irrelevant, if they end up being better than expected then the analysis could change drastically. Or if they end up being even worse than expected then that could put the film in a whole other category. If they end up being exactly as expected and nothing changes in the analysis then we can use it, but that is not guaranteed (unless you can see the future). - adamstom97 (talk) 10:16, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 The reason we trust and defer to the sources is that we are not allowed our own original research hence WP:OR. In good faith, I will assume you were unaware of that policy here. The numbers are indeed irrelevant as you are personally choosing to analyze them in your personal “original” research, as the articles I presented have certainly taken into account the uncertainty you mentioned, and gave their analysis anyways, because they are the experts and we are not. Again, as I said there are many factors here that go beyond estimates, a point you conveniently ignored.

P.S.Based on your fallacious logic then any source is suspect and unreliable because of “the future”, and what could happen. This film didn’t exactly have a stellar box office to begin with, and the downward trends (ie.headwinds against Marvel) included in said analysis seem to be bearing out. I also mentioned (and concurred) that there is “no rush”, meaning that we can certainly wait at least until the weekend is over, and those estimates become official numbers, another point you conveniently ignored, so yes “denial”, so have the last word if you like, I’m done. 2601:282:8901:40F0:B0A8:F08E:DA26:9CD (talk) 12:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in waiting for the exact figures to be made available before including the full second weekend drop in the article. This is typically not an issue and there is no original research going on here. The sources have provided estimates as to what the drop is, though the weekend is not even over yet, so the full figures have yet to be allocated. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Lo and behold. Because the weekend is not even over yet, we now have articles from Variety and TheWrap saying the drop is only around 66%, though that does not factor in Sunday earnings. This is why we never rush in to adding any of these sensationalist headline pieces, because things do change as more information is made available. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 17:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 Well, your take has already aged badly in a few hours, the emerging consensus now is that this movie is “cratering”, https://variety.com/2025/film/box-office/fantastic-four-box-office-craters-naked-gun-opening-weekend-1236477352/ and this is as the numbers are coming in. Sorry but not sorry, this isn’t going to be changed by some magic last minute influx of movie goers on Sunday, and there hasn’t been a situation like this where high quality sources like the one I provided above simply got the numbers wrong, or that this is a case of the figures somehow being off. But, yes, we wait to report this until tomorrow. But make no mistake, this movie is experiencing a disappointing box office, consistent of a documented trend for Marvel, and it’s being reported by many sources now, this one calls it “devasting”, for instance https://www.cbr.com/the-fantastic-four-first-steps-box-office-drop/ More telling, is that there isn’t sources with an alternative take saying that this movie is doing well. 2601:282:8901:40F0:B0A8:F08E:DA26:9CD (talk) 17:52, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

This loaded language jargon being used is just sensationalist. I am just stating the total weekend drop is still not yet known, but not as bad as you were making it seem with the Friday-to-Friday drop. I am not denying the drop, just stating it is not known what the full second weekend drop is. That is literally the same Variety source I just linked above. It only came out last week, so we by no means can judge the overall box office performance solely by the second weekend drop. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 P.S. I noticed you use led the same Variety source I used, as you are trying to use that source to make it look like the diminishing box office is not a big deal, even though the source literally says in its headline that the movie is “cratering.” So, sorry not sorry, but I can’t take you seriously. It’s not even about the “sensationalist” language there, the analysis is cogent by the press on this and consistent with this movie on track with being a disappointment. I just found 5 new sources from the last hour alone that echo that take after a simple 20 second google search.

Not interested in your “original research” or personal take at this point. See WP:OR. Yes, we probably wait until tomorrow to include the bad news but this isn’t about judging the whole box office, which is again a form of WP:OR on your part. We can mention the disappointing second weekend box office, and given the film’s high profile and the news around “Avengers:Doomday” then you know as well as I do that it’s only matter of time, maybe a week at best, before the consensus in the press will be devastating on this, reporting on the movie’s disappointing box office. This was the movie meant to save Marvel, and no one expected this downturn.

Again, as I said earlier, there’s no rush to report any of this. It is inevitable, and will be obvious enough in time by way of the press consensus. All the best. 2601:282:8901:40F0:B0A8:F08E:DA26:9CD (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

That Variety source literally says "The final tally for “Fantastic Four” won’t be disastrous". - adamstom97 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 Oh, so now we can make rush judgements? lol Again, with you trying to have it both ways. I can’t take you seriously.

Basically what I said above is from multiple sources coming in, as in, the emerging consensus in the press. The Variety article also says, by the way, “ is quickly losing steam in its second weekend, signaling the comic book adventure isn’t connecting at the box office beyond the film’s core demographic of superhero fans.” I never said anything about needing to report this as “ disastrous.” My point is this certainly is disappointing, unexpected, and for all those reasons WP:NOTABLE.

P.S.You are basically engaging in WP:OR, and feels like you coming at this with an agenda, as it’s based on your own personal research and opinions at this point that doesn’t match with the emerging consensus of the press here, so I’m not interested further in what you have to say. 2601:282:8901:40F0:B0A8:F08E:DA26:9CD (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

I am just reiterating what the sources say, which is that the 66% drop is not as disastrous as was expected by some, but is still not great when compared to other Marvel titles' drops. That is not OR. We do not yet have the full second weekend figures, so we still should not rush to labeling the film's overall box office performance as disappointing when it is still playing in theaters. It is not my opinion, just how financial box office reports work. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:55, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

As for the comparisons to Superman, this article literally states that the film's Thursday previews were higher than those for Superman. That is not saying that FF's entire box office is higher than Superman. We are not insinuating anything in the accuracy of the box office reports, rather, you are presuming we have ulterior motivations when that is furthest from the truth. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:57, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 It's more that I'm saying you're missing the WP:POINT, and I made it clear that I'm simply reflecting the press here in saying that the movie is on track for a disappointing box office, taking in account not only the lousy numbers, but also expectations and (lack of) cultural impact.

P.S. You and me both know, this isn't going to magically turn around, or suddenly become an unexpected hit here. The analysts and the press make that much clear, and this wiki-article already "rushed" its takes making FF4FS sound like a hit when it's proving to be anything but. I personally already made it clear there's not need to rush anything, but you already know that.

Again, between that misrepresentation by you, and your defense now of WP:OR, I stand by my assertions, and still have no interest in what you are saying other than clearing up what was your misrepresentations of my words here. Please move on. We are both talking in circles here. Or have the last word if it makes you feel better, I don't care. 2601:282:8901:40F0:94BA:63DC:A05:4AC8 (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You don't need to link policies and guidelines, such as WP:NOTABLE and WP:OR, every time you reference them. One time for each is plenty. You might also want to read WP:NOTPOINTy. Your link to WP:POINT doesn't mean what you think it means, or at least, not in the context you've used it here.

In addition, if your goal is to get something accomplished, you may want to take a less confrontational approach. After all, Wikipedia is a collaborative community, where editors are generally expected to engage in a calm, polite manner and provide constructive input. Insults, accusations of OWN and shill behavior, etc., is unconstructive and can lead to concerns of battleground behavior. If you have legitimate user conduct concerns, take those to an appropriate venue. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:16, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry, this thread was taken to ANI and the IP is currently blocked. Nil🥝 02:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed after posting, thanks... But even so, they were only blocked for a week. The advice above is still applicable should they decide to return at some point. -- GoneIn60 (talk) 02:26, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Article needs improvement, too much of it reads like spin

For instance, the emerging consensus in the press is that the movie is having a lousy second weekend, doesn’t have legs, and by some accounts is even “cratering” https://variety.com/2025/film/box-office/fantastic-four-box-office-craters-naked-gun-opening-weekend-1236477352/ and “devasting” https://www.cbr.com/the-fantastic-four-first-steps-box-office-drop/

Plus,if you only read this Wikipedia page then you’d think this movie beat “Superman” at the opening box office. That’s untrue. Superman made more money it’s it opening weekend overall, and there was no mention of that. 2601:282:8901:40F0:B0A8:F08E:DA26:9CD (talk) 18:01, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

That is just trivial as there is no need to compare the box office performance of these two films by their week-to-week performance. It is not our job to try to spin the perception of a film's performance one way or another. The articles should just report on what the financial facts are. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 18:03, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 What you said, it has nothing to do with my point, as that doesn’t mean we should include misinformation. As I pointed out, the article makes it sound like this movie made more money than Superman in it’s open opening weekend. That’s untrue. If that’s how you feel, then we likely should remove the line about Fantastic Four making more money on a preview day since the overall weekend fell short of that take when compared to Superman. Can’t have it both ways. 2601:282:8901:40F0:B0A8:F08E:DA26:9CD (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You are already discussing the box office above, please don't start multiple discussions about the same thing. Stick to the existing thread. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 I created this thread because there’s more problems with this article beyond the box office. Like the misinformation about Superman’s opening weekend. The overall tone of the article reeks of corporate spin & fan service by zealous Marvel fans IMHO. Need to be more objective and neutral. 2601:282:8901:40F0:B0A8:F08E:DA26:9CD (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

You have yet to explain what non-box office issues there are with the article. Unless you can provide specifics about how it is biased, there is nothing to discuss here. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Adamstom.97 You and the other editor are basically engaging in WP:OR, so I don’t really care at this point, so at least we both agree that there’s nothing to discuss here, even if it’s for different reasons. I don’t think we should come out this with an agenda. To quote Stan Lee, as ironic as that sounds , Nuff said. 2601:282:8901:40F0:B0A8:F08E:DA26:9CD (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Specifics, suggestions for improving the article (as requested)

Okay, some specifics, in hopes the will deter further vandalism of the thread:

• The plot section reads too dramatically. Needs to be distilled, sounds too much like a pitch for the movie IMHO.
• The front loaded lead is already mentioned in the body, and can be distilled by a 1/3. The mentions of Kaplan and Springer are not necessary, for instance. Too verbose.
• The cast section reads like bios from the corporate websites themselves. All of them can be reduced. The section on Pascal alone is WAY too long. A lot of that can be folded into the production section.

All of this is, of course, IMO (so take it with a grain of salt) but notable feedback (as there's always room for improvement for an article), and what I'm suggesting here now is more than simply about "numbers" and "box office." 2601:282:8901:40F0:94BA:63DC:A05:4AC8 (talk) 19:30, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

First off, Kaplan and Springer are two credited writers, so they should be mentioned along with the others. I think the plot summary works as is and that was already discussed above. The details on Pascal's character are acceptable and it is not unusual for some characters to have longer descriptions than others. We are not going to remove or change content just because you don't like it. — Trailblazer¹⁰¹🔥 ^{(discuss · contribs)} 19:34, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Trailblazer101 No one said anything about changing content based upon my whims, and you don't get to decide the tone or content for the page, which is why I warned you on your talk page about trying to WP:OWN the article, let alone this talk page.

There is a reason why I am logged out, and simply debating changes here rather than making edits on the article itself. Stop trying to misrepresent my position here, I'm entitled to my opinion, as are you.

Again, I'm only interested in debating changes at this point, and not ready to take a dive and make these changes, not until I can think them through. Your opinion alone, or that of another editor, certainly don't resemble a consensus on behalf of all editors contributing to the article.

We simply disagree on these points as I have mentioned them, and given our dust up in the cousin thread above, you likely shouldn't be engaging me further at all, as obviously you are triggered, and trying to make this personal. Let's move on. I certainly understand your position, lol, so duly noted. 2601:282:8901:40F0:94BA:63DC:A05:4AC8 (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

there's a reason that I'm logged out – you have an account but arent using it?

Also only one here making it personal is you – remarks like obviously you are triggered are inappropriate and non-constructive. Stick to talking about the content, not the editors. Nil🥝^Talk 19:58, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

@Nil NZ I've been sticking to the content, thank you very much. lol

Look, this is what talk pages are for. Yes, with limits of course. But better this than an edit war on the article itself, given how zealotry over these movies often will result in wikipedia battlegrounds. And I was attacked before I became a bit snarky myself, attacked by a user with a long history of being blocked for editwwarring and disruptive behavior. It was his attempt to close my thread without my consent or the authority to do so that triggered most of this.

Me making some fly-by remarks about a surprising box office downturn, at a public coffee shop computer no less whilst I drink my coffee, is perfectly fine. And, no, I don't want to give a coffee shop computer my information or my account logins, privacy and all that.

In any case, I shared my opinion, which mostly was just sharing some wild takes from Variety and a couple other news outlets. No more, no less. The row is over, and now moot if you pay close attention, so I'm not even sure what is accomplished here with this conversation. Hope I addressed your concerns. Have a good one.2601:282:8901:40F0:94BA:63DC:A05:4AC8 (talk) 20:45, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Cast List

Just wondering if there’s any reason Malkovich isn’t mentioned in the cast section (similar thing happened with Salazar and Rollins in Brave New World), but cut characters are listed in multiple previous films, most notably Love and Thunder ?

It’s probably even more relevant here since we actually had footage and he was initially on the poster. NickH (talk) 09:31, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

If he isn't part of the cast, he shouldn't be in the cast list. He is discussed in the production section appropriately. - adamstom97 (talk) 08:58, 26 August 2025 (UTC)