Talk:The Fantastic Four: First Steps

  1. Home
  2. Wiki

Downey as Doom

[edit]

@Trailblazer101: We do not see Doom’s face in the post credit scene. CBR also is just speculating and SYNTHing that it’s RDJ there. Decider actually does say we can’t see his face, that part is true. But we can’t say it is RDJ unless the Russos or RDJ say it themselves, so the previous format was correct. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 04:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, WP:SYNTHESIS applies to Wikipedia editors, not sources. CBR states "Doctor Doom (Robert Downey Jr.) has arrived in the MCU." It does not cast doubt on this assertion and states it as a fact, so we can do the same. Decider is speculating by saying "So, Doctor Doom does show up in one of The Fantastic Four‘s end credits scenes, but since we don’t see Robert Downey Jr.’s face, the role is likely being played by a stand-in." That is not a confirmation. Shakman has already said the scene was shot by the Russos during production of Doomsday, so I highly doubt they would use a stand-in when Downey was clearly available. All of these mental gymnastics just to say this year-old report is wrong is tiresome. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 04:14, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These articles are definitely speculating. For all we know that Doctor Doom cameo could be a stand-in since we don't see the actor's face. RDJ is only billed for Avengers: Doomsday and Avengers: Secret Wars. If his face is shown then yes he should get a mention as an uncredited cameo. But no face means that it can't automatically be assumed to be the actor casted for the role. It could easily be a stand-in. Thus the article should state that the character of Doctor Doom makes a cameo appearance in the mid-credits scene played by an unknown actor, presumed to be RDJ. ChallengingAnthropocentrism (talk) 04:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the MCU though, it's not uncommon for post-credit cameos to go uncredited, and we know that their contracts with actors allows for x amount of footage to be used in other projects without credit.
RDJ is cast as Doom in Doomsday, and this was filmed on the set of Doomsday. It's speculation to say that it's not him because we can't see his face, when it's the appearance of the character he is cast as, from the film he is credited for. Nil🥝Talk 04:47, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with everything said here - I propose this:
"An uncredited actor appears as Victor Von Doom / Doctor Doom in a post-credits scene, ahead of Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal of the character in Avengers: Doomsday."
This leaves both possibilities (Downey or a stand-in) open, while still mentioning Downey. CyberAlexMM (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The edit that I had "The character of Victor Von Doom / Doctor Doom played by an unknown actor makes a faceless appearance in a mid-credits scene. He is presumed to be played by Robert Downy Jr. in an uncredited cameo." is ideal as it acknowledges RDJ's casting while clarifying that until a source can confirm the faceless actor is indeed RDJ it cannot be fully attributed to RDJ at this time. ChallengingAnthropocentrism (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sneider (2024)'s wording was that the character of Doc Doom would show up, not explicitly saying RDJ would play him in the post credits scene, just that Doom would show up (but who knows if that's nitpicky), but hey. CBR is a Valnet site, so I would caution their input on this. I could see the doubt, but all sources agree that this is Doc Doom, and we know that RDJ plays him in the MCU. If Marvel sees fit to clarify otherwise, then we can throw the logical context about RDJ out the window. But for now? They don't wanna talk about it, so we can wait until[if] they do. BarntToust 04:35, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
ref name "DowneySneider" quotes as follows:

Sure enough, on Saturday night, Marvel announced that Robert Downey Jr. would be coming back to the MCU as Doctor Doom in Avengers: Doomsday and Avengers: Secret Wars.

Of course, they left out the part about the character being first introduced in a mid/post-credits sequence at the end of The Fantastic Four: First Steps, but that's beside the point.

— Jeff Sneider (2024)

So no, technically Sneider did not confirm RDJ was gonna be playing Doc Doom in this film. He confirmed acurately that the character would show up. BarntToust 04:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I edited the article to reflect current public knowledge. Since it cannot be confirmed to be RDJ or a stand-in at this time, it's best to state that the known character to be Doctor Doom in a faceless appearance played by an unknown actor, but presumed to be RDJ. If more information becomes public knowledge on this topic then we can confirm the identity of said actor. ChallengingAnthropocentrism (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
CBR is an iffy source that confirms him, great. Popverse looks like they have covered our dilemna as well (WP:POPVERSE pulls up nothing, no clue if a RELX site is reliable or not) and their staff writer says:
Chin Greene, Julian (July 24, 2025). "Is Robert Downey Jr.'s Doctor Doom in the Fantastic Four: First Steps? Explaining what the director said AND what happened in the MCU movie". Popverse. Now, we also don't know if Robert Downey, Jr. played Doom in the post-credits. Because we don't see Doom's face when he's talking to young Franklin Richards. We know it is Doom because he's wearing his hood and is holding his mask, which is directly facing the viewer. At the same time, we also can't hear what he's saying to Franklin either, so it was impossible for me to glean if they used RDJ's voice for the scene or not.
So I say we ignore the input of the source that is the shitty content farm, and caution the input of one that no merit has been shown for, and just use reasoning until Marvel grows out of their "Issue DMCAs to the iPhone fan footage posted all over Twitter"-phase and gives clarification. BarntToust 05:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Like, "This is confirmedly Doc Doom. We have confirmation that Doom is played by RDJ in this franchise". Inductive reasoning, WP:BRAIN, we should say it is RDJ until Marvel says otherwise. BarntToust 05:10, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with BarntToust here. Worth noting, we have a perennial source headlining it as a "Robert Downey Jr tease" [1]. Meanwhile the ones speculating it's not him are not particularly well rated over at WP:RSPSS... Nil🥝Talk 05:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
These are all awful sources. I am sorry but this has to be reverted to the edit I had it at to a "presumed" RDJ. RDJ is still mentioned. These sources ARE NOT CREDIBLE in this context. ChallengingAnthropocentrism (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Polygon (recently gobbled up by Valnet sadly) writes nonetheless "Marvel has yet to confirm whether that’s Robert Downey Jr., star of 2026’s Avengers: Doomsday, under the mask." so there's that. BarntToust 06:07, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It would be improper indeed to assume this is à la "Superman's faceless, voiceless, stood-in cameos in the non-mainline films of the DCEU", but until we get clear confirmation from an exceptional source(s) that the character who appears in this film, who is confirmed to be played by one particular actor in the franchise, is actually not being really played by that particular actor. BarntToust 05:28, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Choosing not to show the actors face is a deliberate choice. This should be the default of every film where a faceless appearance has yet to confirm the actor playing the role. Yes RDJ was cast as Doom, but that does not preclude the use of a stand-in for uncredited appearances of his character where his face is not shown. ChallengingAnthropocentrism (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We would need explicit confirmation that this was a stuntman first. You are editorialising. Sure, you are right that this is a possibility, but until confirmation, it's just speculation. We know RDJ plays the character elsewhere in this franchise, here is the character in this other part of the franchise. BarntToust 05:43, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We can go even further than that - we know the RDJ plays the character on the set of the film this was filmed on, during production of that film. He's credited for that film, from which this cameo was recorded. Saying it's not him, therefore, its speculative. Nil🥝Talk 05:49, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@ChallengingAnthropocentrism - I had reverted your edit per WP:statusquo. You should not be reinstating it while this discussion is taking place. Please wait for consensus to be reached here before you make further edits to that section. Nil🥝Talk 05:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus really doesn't matter when this could be spreading misinformation. It should be presumed until a proper source can confirm the identity of the faceless actor. It's not like I removed RDJ. I was clarifying the lack of confirmation. This is exactly why people don't trust Wikipedia. ChallengingAnthropocentrism (talk) 05:31, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anything we do on our trustworthily-compromised encyclopedia actually matters and everything that this encyclopedia will become is irrelevant in the face of the heat death of the universe pending 7 billion years' time. I do honestly not care about Wikipedia's perception in whoever's eyes right now, we have a policy to stick to. However, what is noted on a paragraph in some cast section will not be the record for this film. All that needs to happen will be Joe or Anthony putting out something in Variety that says something like "yeah no RDJ was on the same set we filmed this scene at but he didn't let us get a back-shot of him for whatever reason, so we got his stand-in Timmy to put on the cloak instead", and people will know from them definitively, and we will change that to match. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth BarntToust 05:39, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How are we liking:


"The character Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom appears in a mid-credits scene, a tease of the character ahead of Robert Downey Jr.'s portrayal in Avengers: Doomsday and Secret Wars."

That as the factual conclusion of the information provided? BarntToust 05:48, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit wordy, how about: "Robert Downey Jr.'s Avengers: Doomsday and Secret Wars character, Victor von Doom, makes a mid-credits scene cameo appearance" Nil🥝Talk 05:54, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
oh yeah, that works. BarntToust 05:55, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@BarntToust and Nil NZ: Sorry, late to this discussion. RDJ should be noted in an {{efn}} note. Otherwise, it looks and reads quickly that he's in the film which we don't know yet. Also the Polygon source linked above should be used as the reference.

While I am not sold on the present wording, I will note that Variety does not confirm if it is Downey behind the mask, while Shakman was asked about this by Entertainment Weekly and refused to give a definitive answer, saying that was "For others to talk about" while noting "The Russos did end up directing that [Thunderbolts*] post-credits scene, and they also did the one for this movie as well. Just because they were done during the production of Avengers: Doomsday. You've got all those actors there, you've got those sets there, it just makes sense." — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 01:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The wording above said his character, not him, appeared in the scene.
The speculation that it may have been a stand in could be added in a footnote, but I don't think we should be repeating this speculation in the main body when it's from Valnet. Nil🥝Talk 02:46, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have replaced the sources with the EW article which covers what the scene is, that it is unclear who is behind the mask and cloak, and Shakman's comments, without using a Valnet source or Sneider's report for the prose. I am not quite satisfied with using a note to explain the Downey ambiguity, but I think how I have reworded it suffices for now until we get more clarity. The present wording is as follows in prose: "The character Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom makes a cameo appearance in the mid-credits scene." with the note saying "Robert Downey Jr. portrays Doctor Doom in the subsequent films Avengers: Doomsday (2026) and Avengers: Secret Wars (2027), but it is unclear if he physically portrayed the character in this scene." — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 02:52, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the one that was there was actually Popverse, which is owned by RELX (unclear if that is RS), and they were just stating the obvious. Not to be confused with CBR, that one is the bad Valnet source. I would give it a week or two in theaters before Russos and/or Downey talk about it inevitably to the media. Maybe they'll mention something clarifying. BarntToust 04:41, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
True. Adding onto this, speculation, even from sources, should not typically be included as there are no verifiable claims to back-up this notion of a stand-in being used (which I still find doubtful and think this is Marvel just being cagey again), but I digress. We should stick to the facts as we can verify them without veering into any speculation. I am sure this will all be cleared up in due time, but I think the current wording and sourcing accurately covers what we know at this time. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 06:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

When Entertainment Weekly asked Fantastic Four: First Steps director Matt Shakman if Downey Jr. filmed that post-credits scene, the filmmaker pleaded the fifth. "For others to talk about," he teased.

— Entertainment Weekly (July 25, 2025)


👍 BarntToust 17:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to add this interview (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Umsyc7SWdVE) with Shakman he sort of slips up when asked if RDJ is doom in the post credits, he says yes.Vince193 (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Also came to add. It's a bit awkward of a response (time stamp is 15:17) but it does appear to be confirmation. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've made a change here with this wording: Robert Downey Jr. makes a cameo appearance in the mid-credits scene as Victor von Doom / Doctor Doom, with Shakman confirming Downey in the role despite the character's face not being seen in the scene. I think the second half is important to note that we don't physically see any confirmation of Downey on screen. Adjust as needed, but something to that affect should be kept. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adding that the Russos have used scenes from their movies as mid credit scenes before (see Civil War where they used the Bucky interrogation scene w Sam and Steve as a tag in Ant-Man) and it’s just cut down from the actual thing to save time or build suspense. The Doom scene as such could be part of a scene from Doomsday that has him turn his head to face Sue (after it cuts to black in this scene). Shakman probably didn’t mean to confirm it but the cat's out of the bag now. MarioProtIV (talk/contribs) 23:23, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like this may be another "Reed will lead the Avengers" situation. Elsewhere he was unwilling to say if it was actually Downey, which makes sense if he didn't film the scene and wasn't there on set. I think it is plausible from the video that he misheard and was just confirming that Downey will be Doom in Doomsday. - adamstom97 (talk) 23:57, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Total Film interpreted Shakman's response as confirmation, albeit a mild one. He could have been a bit confused or he could have only been recently informed that it was in fact Downey on set for the scene. I don't think there is a whole lot to look into here and we all may just be grasping at straws when the simplest solution may just clearly be the answer. Logically, I find it hard to believe that if the Russos were filming this scene during Doomsday, regardless of if it is for that film or not, that Downey somehow would not film a brief scene. I don't understand why this has to be such a fuss, honestly. We have a source saying such, and unless we somehow get a reaffirmation or a denial, I don't think we should be so quick to jumping to conclusions based on speculation or other interpretations. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 00:06, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's think. How long was it after the domestic premiere of Thunderbolts* that the curtain of mystery was drawn back and Marvel starting saying stuff about that Fantastic post-credits scene? Maybe as a good idea for how to go forward, we just wait that amount of time for things to come out about this? BarntToust 00:35, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Kirby confirmed that she filmed the scene with Downey, so that settles that. - adamstom97 (talk) 16:21, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sweet! Glad to have some definitive clarity on this matter. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 16:32, 27 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good, finally this got settled. So weird why they didn't show his face though. ChallengingAnthropocentrism (talk) 03:24, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Plot summary

[edit]

The beginning of the plot summary, in my opinion should begin as follows:

"In 1960, on Earth-828, astronauts Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Ben Grimm, and Johnny Storm embark on a mission into outer space, during which they gain superhuman abilities from exposure to cosmic rays. Upon returning to Earth, they become the superhero team known as the Fantastic Four.

Four years later, the Fantastic Four have become celebrities and are regarded as the world's protectors. During a family dinner, Reed and Sue reveal…"

Some plot summaries (eg. Sonic the Hedgehog 3, Man of Steel) put the flashbacks first for the sake of better summary flow. The way it starts in previous revisions (On Earth-828, four years have passed since…) does not flow well and feels too hasty. The origin is *technically* a flashback, but it happens within the first five minutes of the film and is the first major scene worth noting, as Sue discovering her pregnancy is covered when they tell Ben and Johnny after the telecast celebrating the team's fourth anniversary. The opening paragraph I wrote keeps it brief, but doesn't feel like we're rushing in. Also, mentioning the way the world views the FF adds context to later parts of the summary where the public turns on them, then views them positively again. CyberAlexMM (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My main issue with this is that it implies there's a time jump as part of the film's plot, and that the origin is a main part of the plot rather than a flashback. But I think this could work if it was rewritten to be past tense (as presented in the film?):
In 1960, on Earth-828, astronauts Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Ben Grimm, and Johnny Storm embarked on a mission into outer space, during which they gained superhuman abilities from exposure to cosmic rays. Upon returning to Earth, they became the superhero team known as the Fantastic Four.
- and then the rest of the plot switches to present tense. Nil🥝Talk 05:41, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As an onlooker, may I comment? I thought we use present tense in relevant plot sections. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:11, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Your input is definitely welcome! You're correct, we use historical present tense in plot summaries, however fictional history (such as this flashback) may be presented in past tense per WP:FICTENSE. Nil🥝Talk 06:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I'm good with this CyberAlexMM (talk) 16:13, 25 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Approved, please change the article accordingly. 2001:9E8:461C:7900:F1A1:995A:33FD:1F2 (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@CyberAlexMM: you should not have reverted to the old version of the plot summary, it is too short and does not adequately explain the events of the film. Per MOS:FILMPLOT, plot summaries can be between 400 and 700 words, and are often closer to the high end of that range for big feature films. The current version is under the 700 word limit, so it is not too long. If you have specific concerns about parts of the summary that you think go into too much detail then can you state those here so we can discuss them? - adamstom97 (talk) 08:44, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think a fusion of the two is the best way forward - I wrote one that's up now, lmk what you think CyberAlexMM (talk) 03:57, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy to discuss specific changes, but we should do that here rather than editing back-and-forth in the article. The current version has been stabilising over the last few days and should not have been blanket reverted like that. You deciding that "a fusion" is the best way forward is not ideal, especially because your version has a lot of inaccuracies and wording that is usually avoided.
Can you please explain what parts of the current wording you have issues with and why, with your proposed alternatives, and then we can discuss specifics? - adamstom97 (talk) 14:40, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm generally ok with the summary overall, but my main issue is the flow. The version I submitted last night is much more natural - the current version has paragraph breaks in weird spots that don't really separate the sequence of the movie they're supposed to represent well.
The opening had already been decided to be a short summary of the flashback in this very talk section. For that reason, I am changing only the opening paragraph right now and holding off on anything else until we're done talking.
Also, what do you mean by "inaccuracies and wording that generally isn't used"? The version from last night hits every beat of the film in a less convoluted but still detailed way CyberAlexMM (talk) 17:38, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There was not enough discussion about the opening to override the improvements that have been made since. You suggested the approach of treating the backstory like it is shown in the film, which I would have strongly disagreed with if I saw this discussion then. Nil had the same issue that I had, but felt it would be okay with past tense wording. Lord Sjones23 disputed the use of past tense, and that is where the discussion stopped. While it is okay to use past tense to discuss the backstory, by putting all the backstory first it still appears like the film starts with the backstory, which is not the case. The change from past tense to present tense is not going to make that clear to the average reader. The updated version makes it clear that the film starts four years later and there is no time jump.
I think the specific paragraph breaks are somewhat up to interpretation, as personally feel that the updated summary has more natural flow and breaks: all of the movie's set-up; the Silver Surfer's arrival and the team's response; the team and the world responding to the threat of Galactus; and the final showdowns with Silver Surfer and Galactus.
As far as inaccuracies and unideal wording, here are some examples:
  • 1) "engaging in philanthropic and diplomatic efforts through the Future Foundation" -- this really undersells what Sue did with the Future Foundation, no reason to not spell out "global demilitarization and peace"
  • 2) "During a family dinner, Reed and Sue reveal to Ben and Johnny that they are expecting a child" -- this is true of that one scene, but skips over the fact that this is revealed to the world and there is a whole montage about the world preparing for the baby; both scenes can be covered
  • 3) I don't believe it is clearly stated in the film that the Silver Surfer arrives "a few months later"
  • 4) "numerous anomalies" -- "numerous" means "great in number", which is not the case
  • 5) "possesses immense cosmic power that could free him of this hunger" -- it is unclear what is meant by this, we should make it clear to new readers that he intends for Franklin to take on that hunger
  • 6) "escapes through a black hole, delaying their pursuers" -- this is just not true, they do not go through a black hole
  • 7) "Sue gives birth to her son, Franklin" -- not just her son
  • 8) "The Fantastic Four return to Earth one month after their departure" I don't believe this is specifically stated, they say the Silver Surfer will be delayed by around a month and she doesn't show up until well after they return
  • "One month" is accurate – Lynne Nichols says something along the lines of "it's been a month" to Reed when they land (as it wasn't meant to take that long, but they lost their FTL capacity). Nil🥝Talk 00:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 9) "Sue confronts the demonstrators" -- not really a confrontation
  • 10) "As the bridges are nearly ready" -- they are ready and are being turned on when she returns.
  • 11) "This new plan fails" -- while their exact plan of using a decoy fails, the plan that is explained in the plot summary does not fail so this is misleading
  • I introduced this line, as it wasn't clear (when I added it) why they went from using Franklin as bait, to pushing Galactus into the portal. Happy for it to reworded. Nil🥝Talk 00:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 12) "Having a change of heart" -- this is a bit interpretive
  • 13) "Galactus is consumed by the portal and cast into the void" -- this is completely made up
  • 14) "Reed, Ben, and Johnny recover Sue, who has seemingly died after exhausting her powers. However, when Reed places Franklin on her chest, his newly awakened abilities resuscitate her" -- there is a lot wrong here. "recover" her from what? "seemingly died" is inaccurate as she literally dies. "his newly awakened abilities" there is nothing in the film to base this on, in fact Galactus states that Franklin is already using his abilities in the womb so they are not "newly awakened" here
  • Not a fan of "seemingly" here either – it was pretty well established that she was dead. I assume "recover" was meant to mean "recover her body", which again reinforces the idea she is dead. Nil🥝Talk 00:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • 15) "A year later, the team and Franklin prepare to appear on a talk show before departing for a new mission." -- I don't know how necessary it is to spell out this scene
  • 16) "Sue reads to Franklin in the Baxter Building" -- it doesn't really matter where they are reading, and introducing the Baxter Building here makes it seem like an important piece of information in the mid-credits scene when really it is one of the main settings for the entire film
  • 17) The rest of the mid-credits scene summary is just awkwardly written, and no explanation has been given for changing the note which should not have been done
So there are some of the reasons that I took issue with your version. Feel free to respond to individual points if you wish. - adamstom97 (talk) 18:21, 29 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Have just added some of my thoughts beneath each point above. Nil🥝Talk 00:24, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also just want to highlight this line:
  • 18) "some deep space transmissions Reed received from her planet as well as planets that Galactus has destroyed"
From what I remember, Reed didn't "receive transmissions from her planet", he discovered them up using scanners? Nil🥝Talk 00:45, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The plot summary doesn't always need to begin at the very start of the movie (see the aforementioned Sonic 3 and Man of Steel). On top of this, it quite literally is the beginning of the movie. There's only one scene before it, which is Sue taking a pregnancy test - the broadcast is just a framing device for the lore dump. I think mentioning the celebration could work, but still start with the origin. You are correct in some inaccuracies, which were done by other editors and that's on me for not noticing them. For your points (In order):
1) - Philanthropic and diplomatic efforts explains it just fine, as they cover both their global demilitarization (philanthropy) and negotiations with Mole Man (diplomacy). Both can work here tho - "engaging in philanthropic and diplomatic efforts through the Future Foundation, which has achieved global demilitarization."
2)- Again, both can work - "During a family dinner, Reed and Sue reveal to Ben and Johnny that they are expecting a child, and the news is publicized shortly after."
3)- Sue is not visibly pregnant in the dinner scene, and the subsequent scenes show her further along - thus, a few months have passed.
4)- Fair enough, but the current version is a bit vague too. Should be "Reed studies the disappearance of other planets, which he concludes verify the Surfer's claims..."
5)- Sure, we can include that and keep the current version of this sentence.
6)- This is true as well - keep as is
7)- That's implied - Reed is not the one giving birth 💀
8)- This is straight up mentioned - newscaster says their return trip was a month long. You're right as well though, Silver Surfer comes back well after they do.
9)- How is it not? The protestors are asking her to sacrifice her own child, they're yelling and want answers, so she confronts them.
10)- True
11)- Fair enough
12)- How? Why else would she be doing that?
13) or 14)?- Fair enough
15)- That wasn't me - agree it doesnt need to be there
16)- It sort of is important to the mid credits scene. Ending the sentence at just "Sue is reading to Franklin" seems premature. Like if I heard that, my immediate thought would be "Ok, where are they?" Plus including the fact that Doom is literally invading their home adds to the weight of the scene. CyberAlexMM (talk) 01:40, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@adamstom97 & @CyberAlexMM – I've reformatted both your comments by changing your bullets/dashes into numbers, otherwise the discussion becomes too hard to follow. It doesn't technically meet WP:TPFIXFORMAT, but meets the spirit of it. Either of you are welcome to revert my change. Nil🥝Talk 02:11, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This article makes a big deal about the fact that the film is not an origin story and starts with the Fantastic Four as an established team. Having the plot summary suggest the opposite is a big problem. Other than the opening pregnancy test scene, the film starts with the four year celebrations and I strongly feel that the plot summary should do the same. Yes, there are some cases where we do not need to strictly follow the order events are shown in the film and can put all the backstory at the start, for example, to clarify for readers. In this case I think that is both wrong and unnecessary.
  • 1) I feel strongly about the original wording here, the fact that they have achieved "global demilitarization and peace" is a significant part of the worldbuilding and set-up for later parts of the story.
  • 2) We don't need such awkward wording when we can just say that they revealed the news to the whole world. No need to do a scene-by-scene breakdown, per MOS:FILMPLOT.
  • 3) If we are going to say anything, I think we should just say "months later" as "a few" is not clear from the film.
  • 4) "to verify this claim" can be changed to "and verifies this claim"
  • 7) It doesn't need to be implied, we can just avoid saying "her son"
  • 8) I didn't remember this line, no problem with including
  • 9) I don't see an issue with the current wording, "Sue takes Franklin to meet with protesters"
  • 10) "As the bridges are being activated" should clarify this
  • 11) I'm happy to keep "avoiding the trap"
  • 12) I think her feelings are more complex than a "change of heart" can cover, and this is best left to the cast list or maybe the production section rather than trying to explain it in the plot summary. For the sake of the plot, she flees when Johnny plays the transmissions and then returns to help push Galactus through the portal.
  • 15) I do see the argument that someone made in an edit summary about the fact that the four years later of the mid-credits scene is after a one year time jump at the end of the film, so in that case I think it should be mentioned but I'm not sure about spelling out the whole talk show scene. Perhaps, "A year later, the world celebrates the team as they go on a new mission"?
  • 16) The current wording is "Sue takes her eyes off Franklin to find a book that he wants her to read. She comes back to see him interacting with a man in a green cloak who is holding a metal mask." If we need to mention that they are at home, we could rework it a bit: "Sue is reading to Franklin at home and goes to get a different book. She comes back to see him interacting with a man in a green cloak who is holding a metal mask."
  • 18) I think the new "intercepted" wording is fine
- adamstom97 (talk) 09:14, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, about 15) I added the one-year jump at the end on the summary. I agree with what you wrote "A year later, the world celebrates the team as they go on a new mission". The talk show thing is not necessary, but the year-jump should be mentioned before the four-year jump from the mid credits scene. AxGRvS (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies I removed, completely missing the fact that it was the one year jump that was key (and not the talk show).
I'm happy with adding the proposed wording above, but maybe we remove/reword the preceding line, so we don't have an awkward double up of "The world celebrates their victory. A year later, the world celebrates the team[...]" Nil🥝Talk 11:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Feels like things are stablising in a good place, just need to deal with the order of the opening paragraph. - adamstom97 (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'm satisfied with everything else so far (maybe very minor copy edits here and there, but nothing substantive).
I'm still not totally satisfied with the opening either – I had suggested the past tense as a compromise above – but I still feel that it should be established with "On Earth-838 in 1964, four years after astronauts..." or similar. I don't think it's 100% necessary to include the talk show as a framing, but it definitely should be written to be clear it's backstory. Nil🥝Talk 00:39, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, an actual proposal for the opening:
In 1964, on Earth-828, it's been four years since astronauts Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Ben Grimm, and Johnny Storm embarked on an outer-space mission and gained superhuman abilities from exposure to cosmic rays; upon returning to Earth, they became the superhero team known as the Fantastic Four. In the time since, they have become celebrities and fought supervillains [...]
–Nil🥝Talk 04:09, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is closer to what we had previously, which I think works well: On Earth-828 in 1964, the world celebrates the fourth anniversary of astronauts Reed Richards, Sue Storm, Ben Grimm, and Johnny Storm becoming the superhero team known as the Fantastic Four after they gained superhuman abilities from exposure to cosmic rays during a space mission. Since then, they... - adamstom97 (talk) 08:54, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yeah, this is better than what I put! Nil🥝Talk 08:57, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have just made a few adjustments based on a re-watch of the film. The ending scene isn't actually one year after the Galactus fight, there is a sign celebrating the team's fifth anniversary so when they refer to the past year's events they mean everything that has happened since the start of the film. I also wanted to clarify that there is a scene where Shalla-Bal expresses remorse but refuses to help stop Galactus after she hears the transmissions, and it is the neutron star that destroys the FTL system rather than her. - adamstom97 (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some small copy edits, including reincorporating some of Ssilver's edits that didn't err away from the existing outline but introduced some conciseness where needed. Nil🥝 02:18, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

David Tennant

[edit]

Back in May, at MCM London Comic-Con, David Tennant revealed that he ‘had his eye’ on the role of Mister Fantastic. Is this not something that could be added to the ‘casting’ section of Production? Link: https://variety.com/2025/film/news/david-tennant-reed-richards-fantastic-four-pedro-pascal-1236409467/ AlwaysBi (talk) 01:51, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

All he said was "In terms of superheroes, I did slightly have my eye on Reed Richards and unfortunately, it looks like they’ve gone in a different direction." That does not mean he actually talked with anyone involved in the film about the role, just that he was interested in it, and without any clarification, that is just a trivial addition and not something worth noting. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 02:36, 1 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Box office discussions

[edit]

Devasting 2nd weekend box office

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
That Variety source literally says "The final tally for “Fantastic Four” won’t be disastrous". - adamstom97 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Don't worry, this thread was taken to ANI and the IP is currently blocked. Nil🥝 02:21, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]


Article needs improvement, too much of it reads like spin

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

Specifics, suggestions for improving the article (as requested)

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

The other type of references.

[edit]

I saw a lot of nods to classic marvel comics (Blurry Spider-Man, the literal office of Marvel). I was wondering if these things get little subcategories anymore 2600:4040:2DB2:F000:3CC0:8CAB:A70C:99F9 (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

These appear to be trivial, but cannot be verified without any sources being provided. — Trailblazer101🔥 (discuss · contribs) 17:26, 3 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]