Josh Trank’s FANTASTIC FOUR Will Also Ruin Doctor Doom


It’s been a while since we’ve been reminded how much Josh Trank’s Fantastic Four reboot will suck, so some of us might have been lulled into a false sense of hope that it might be halfway decent. So, thank you Toby Kebbell for letting us know that the film will suck more than we ever imagined.

The actor spoke with Collider to promote the home video release of Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and they asked him what it was to play Doctor Doom. Well, apparently Kebbell is quite chatty, and this innocuous question opened up the flood gates with him, allowing some spoilers to come spilling out. Unfortunately, one of the spoilers has to do with how the character of Doom will be played in the film. Here’s the quote. Warning! Do not read immediately after eating!

I’m excited to see it too, and my nerves really…The only thing I can tease you about is what I worked on most was the voice because nobody—even in the cartoons, when I was watching them I was like, “So where’s he from?”  There’s a mild change and I’ll tell you because of our history. He’s Victor Domashev, not Victor Von Doom in our story.  And I’m sure I’ll be sent to jail for telling you that.  The Doom in ours—I’m a programmer.  Very anti-social programmer.  And on blogging sites I’m “Doom”.

Kinda makes you nostalgic for the Julian McMahon version, doesn’t it?

Yes, McMahon’s euro-trash version of Doom was one of the most criticized aspects of the original franchise, as many believe the performance did not have the weight and gravitas that made character from the comics great. Fox and Trank decide to take of this criticism in, examine it closely, and make their Doom even LESS like the comic book version. Just changing his name was bad enough, but making him a cut rate version of “Anonymous?” It seems like they are actively trying to drive fans away.

Doctor Doom is one of the classic Marvel villains. And what make him classic is that he operates from a position of power. He is the king of a small European country. He has immeasurable financial assets at his disposal to fund whatever his genius-level intellect can create. He can attack the Fantastic Four with impunity, hiding behind the veil of diplomatic immunity. He is the opposite of the subversive the film is making him out to be, a simple “anti-social programmer” who is active in the blogging community. Doom does not blog.

I have a hard time figuring out what Fox and Trank are doing with this property. The first set of films were disappointing, but not because original concept was flawed, but rather the interpretation of that concept was lacking. The Fantastic Four did not need a ground-up destruction and rebuild. But Fox and Trank thinks that is just what the concept needs, and is willing to do that. Who cares of long time fans of the concept are alienated, as long as new fans are added on. Hopefully, those new fans won’t add on and the franchise dies a quick death at the box office.

Avatar für William Gatevackes
About William Gatevackes 1982 Articles
William is cursed with the shared love of comic books and of films. Luckily, this is a great time for him to be alive. His writing has been featured on Broken, and in Comics Foundry magazine.
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Richard Zeszotarski
November 11, 2014 6:11 pm

“Doom does not blog.” But, oh, if he did! ( it would probably be a l.ot of entries that are nothing but “RICHARDS!”)

Richard Zeszotarski
November 11, 2014 6:13 pm

“Tried to get mom out of hell. Mephisto still won’t give the ol gal up. What’s up wit dat?”

Richard Zeszotarski
November 11, 2014 6:14 pm

“Jeez, pick up the Infinity Gauntlet for one lousy minute during the fight with Thanos and everybody gives me the skunk-eye, especially that d-bag Stark. Whatevers!”

Rebecca Laincz
November 11, 2014 10:21 pm

Ah, another opportunity to use the word “fantasti-suck”.

Richard Zeszotarski
November 12, 2014 9:12 pm

Richard Zeszotarski liked this on Facebook.

Brandon ZK Olmstead
November 12, 2014 9:12 pm

Brandon ZK Olmstead liked this on Facebook.

Sean Klus
November 11, 2014 12:46 pm

I think this may actually damage Marvel and make the FF an incredibly toxic brand.

Greg Korin
November 11, 2014 8:06 pm

Why even bother with this one……….

James Merolla
November 11, 2014 10:20 pm

How can a movie no one has even seen yet be bad?

William Gatevackes
November 11, 2014 10:29 pm

I think one of the reasons why a movie is bad is because it fails to deliver on what it promises. This reboot promises to be an adaptation of the Fantastic Four comic book, yet from what we know, not just speculation but from the creative team’s mouths, the film will change enough vital concepts from the source material so as to be a poor representation of that source. And anytime an adaptation fails to capture the essence of the work it adapts it is a failure on at least that level.

James Merolla
November 11, 2014 10:37 pm

The movie promises to be a movie, the viewer heaps the expectations on it. When we start judging films that aren’t even finished, we crush the creative license of expression. The character of Philip Marlowe has been torn down and rewritten by several different film makers, but do we criticize The Long Goodbye because it deviates so much from the character in the books? This film could very well be terrible, but I’ll wait to judge it as an expression in film, and not my idea of what it should be based on the source material.

Tonya Crawford
November 12, 2014 8:09 am

The 1998 American Godzilla film. One of my friends once stated that, as a giant monster movie, it isn’t that bad. And I suppose that’s true. The problem is that the movie put the name “Godzilla” on it and purported to BE a Godzilla movie. Yet there really wasn’t anything THERE that even remotely resembled what fans of the character of Godzilla knew. When you change something so much that it actually ceases to be that thing then yes, there IS always a problem. You might be able to watch 1998 Godzilla and go ‘It’s not a half-bad giant monster… Read more »

Tonya Crawford
November 12, 2014 8:15 am

And yes, that DOES still apply to “The Long Goodbye”. No matter what, yes it DOES stick in my craw a bit that it’s ‘Marlowe in Name Only’. It takes a little slice of something away from the work. And often because when you get to THAT point — to the point where you have changed something SO MUCH from the source material that it renders it really something else entirely then it makes you wonder: A) How much respect the writers REALLY had for that source material and B) Why they even bothered sticking the name on it all.… Read more »

Tonya Crawford
November 12, 2014 8:16 am

Shorthand for all of that: It’s like promising someone Oreo cookies but then serving them those chocolate sugar wafers. You might find the chocolate sugar wafers are okay BUT you’re always going to be a bit angry and disappointed that you were PROMISED Oreos and they didn’t deliver.

William Gatevackes
November 12, 2014 2:40 pm

I doubt that my judging films before they are finished would ever crush the creative license of expression. I doubt Josh Trank is bugging Fox for reshoots because I published something poo-pooing his changes to the source material. And even if my judging did have this kind effect, it pales in comparison to working in a studio system. I’m sure that if Trank wanted to use creative license to turn the FF into incestuous cannibals to express his thoughts on man’s inhumanity to man, Fox, who are looking for a PG-13 tentpole, would ever let that fly. The creative license… Read more »

James Merolla
November 12, 2014 3:06 pm

If someone said your book was trash without reading it, how would that make you feel?

Tonya Crawford
November 12, 2014 3:15 pm

Well, personally, I feel quite safe in saying something like Glen Beck’s books are trash without reading them based on what I know about Glen Beck and the fact that I don’t like his radio/TV/internet work. So why wouldn’t the same be true of filmmakers whose previous work you are familiar with?

William Gatevackes
November 12, 2014 3:27 pm

If I was writing a biography if John Adams, presenting as definitive and authoritative and it was all about him fighting zombies, I’d expect it. Now a question for you. Uwe Boll is directing “The Jean Seberg Story.” He cast Milla Jovovich and Nicolas Cage. On the first day of production, in an exclusive interview with FilmBuffOnLine, he says he’s given his actors two words of direction for their roles. For Milla: “Less.” For Cage: “More.” Would you seriously be willing to think that film had any chance of being good? Would you really be able to reserve judgement until… Read more »

James Merolla
November 12, 2014 3:30 pm

I find it narrow minded to pan a work before I’ve experienced it based solely on expectations of my own making. Just because I have prejudgements of an artist doesn’t give me a leg to stand on in judging their work without seeing it. Just because I have an affection for a source material doesn’t make it okay to trash an adaptation of it before I’ve seen it. He’s not rewriting the books, or changing the stories and characters you love, he’s making a film, and before I judge that film I prefer to see it first.

William Gatevackes
November 12, 2014 5:00 pm

That’s your opinion. But just because you have excellent taste in films doesn’t make your opinion law. Everyone has their own opinion on what makes films good, which filmmakers are the best, which genre is the favorite. And I know enough about my likes and dislikes to make have an opinion about a film before it even goes into production. I have a right to that opinion, and to express it, as much as you have a right to yours.

Rick Polney
November 12, 2014 9:12 pm

Rick Polney liked this on Facebook.