I wish a movie would be made using Warren Ellis' "Planetary" story. Not spoiling anything but its a great deconstruction on comic heros in general and specifically at the fantasic 4 character archetypes.
Fantastic?
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
That is pretty much the opposite of the truth, if you see every piece of media in a context-vacuum you cannot even begin to critisize it.piscian said:
How would you even start with a critic were you are not in any way allowed to draw parralels to other works?
Damn you beat me to it.DanielG said:
He's the 7th smartest person in the world ( or 8th depending who you ask). He can basically... see math.
I have already come to accept that Hollywood cant do Doom. I think they are scared off by the very concept of magic, thinking that it will scare and confuse people. At least when it isn't contained in a move solely about magic (e.g. Harry Potter). Hollywood thinks if we see magic and science in the same movie, that our little monkey brains wont be able to make sense of it, and we will end up hating the movie.
It's sad how true this is. But, really, I've been seeing magic and science mixed together in great works for a long time. Hell, I write tons of stuff that mixes the two. It leads to all sorts of interesting dilemmas.cthulhuspawn82 said:
But Hollywood has always lagged behind on everything, so it's no surprise they haven't picked up on this possibility.
I don't know anyone who thought they were "awesome". Who the hell could, who's ever looked at a few selections of X-Men era designs?Windknight said:
...but - and it's a big but: timeframes are everything, i.e. the comicbook film landscape was a very different thing in the early 2000's than it is now. Back then, Singer's dour, drab colour palette seemed refreshingly moody, which suited the [slightly more] mature tone.
Now? For some years, that spandex line has just smacked of a snarky insecurity about the source material and the timid way Fox approached the X-Men license. Pre- and post-MCU makes a big difference, and I don't believe we'd have Singer's drab aesthetic had Marvel Studios decided to adapt X-Men now.
So, grudgingly... I'll concede my criticism's fairly irrelevant, given how comicbook film's have evolved (arf.. ) in pop-culture over the last fifteen years. I still can't stand Fox's X-Men films, though.
My comments were about the MCU films in particular, btw (in response to that guy's criticism of Bob's observations), I wasn't picking at Fant-4-stic's designs. I mean, I could... but I didn't in that first post (what I did say, however, is that the Fantastic Four deserve a proper Silver Age treatment).ArcaneGamer said:
I do think the overall aesthetic can be very important, though. I look at the kinds of designs the X-Men films have had, and mostly I just see how much the studio wanted to distance themselves from anything overly--- well, comic book-y. Having the X-Men in so much black leather feels like they're ashamed of the source material. It looked like First Class was nudging towards a more colourful vibe, but then the clusterfuck of plotholes and contrivances that is Days Of Future Past happened (with its even more grim, and even more gritty future), and so who knows what Fox actually want, visually, from the franchise.
Hasn't Bob been harping on this movie for months already? His analysis, to me, reads the same as what he thought of the behind-the-scenes shenanigans of Amazing Spider-Man: like a slow-motion car wreck that you can't look away from.
I wonder if there's room in the MCU for Hercules. If nothing else, there's the potential to be funny there.
What's weird is that U.S.Agent in that picture has Cap's shield, instead of his own. This was from the era when Bucky was Cap, too.
I last heard he's 8th, and Hank Pam (that's him in his Wasp outfit) is 7th, and Cho is OK with that.coheedswicked said:Damn you beat me to it.DanielG said:
He's the 7th smartest person in the world ( or 8th depending who you ask). He can basically... see math.
I wonder if there's room in the MCU for Hercules. If nothing else, there's the potential to be funny there.
What's weird is that U.S.Agent in that picture has Cap's shield, instead of his own. This was from the era when Bucky was Cap, too.
Stories have fans because something about them connects with those audience members in some way. A good adaptation of a work will find that connective element and build with it. This tends to be easier with more popular material because that element either has broad appeal or a good expression in the original work.Falterfire said:
Choosing the less popular form for one's adaptation is gutsy, to say the least. Here's hoping it works out!
Phwoah, Adi Granov's iteration of Wanda is one of the best I've seen since Adam Hughes:coheedswicked said:
OT: Well that teaser sure was fucking dreary and lifeless. And I swear that end shot looks like it was from the Halo 3 cinematic; just with the FF instead of Master Chief.
To break Respectable Critic Decorum and stoop to a food metaphor; if you take away the cheese, the crust and the sauce, then serve the remaining pepperoni atop a bowl of ramen... can you really still call it "pizza?"
Culinary school interns like to call it "deconstruction" mostly because they don't understand what that word means.
Lord help me. Chef Life.
Culinary school interns like to call it "deconstruction" mostly because they don't understand what that word means.
Lord help me. Chef Life.
that's a bit harsh.Darth Rosenberg said:
I always hope a movie will be good, and if it is who cares who made it.
X-men is quite good, and isn't really bothering Marvel with character licenses at the time.
So good job FOX.
But if this bombs, FOX should consider that this IP is a dead end.
Like Sony is with Spiderman.(they don't release the license completely, but are open to marvel)
But i fear FOX just will shelf out cheap movie's just to keep the IP.
I do think F4 is holding a lot of characters hostage(villains mostly)this way.
But the trailer did look promising, but ok that's what they are suppose to do.
So if it's good, Yeay. If it sucks, just give it a rest FOX.
The question of adaptation fidelity had already been answered with shit like Dukes of Hazzard. I remember one guy on a forum said he laughed the whole way through and then at the end said "Ok, that's not the Dukes of Hazzard."
Comic book adaptions seem to be in serious jeopardy here because there are still people in the world who think super heroes are gay or something. In the 90's there was a rumored script for Spider-Man where the main character became a monstrous half man-half spider horror movie creature.
With changes like that, I have to ask, if they didn't want to make a movie about the character, why did they bother to get the rights?
Yeah, yeah, branding. Well, that's a recipe for a bite on the ass.
If I asked if you want to buy a nice piece of chocolate and you agree (because you don't know me very well) but if when I pop it into your mouth it turns out to not be chocolate but a piece of breakfast sausage, you are going to spit it out. Now, it may be a very nice piece of sausage, but you will spit it out anyway because it is not what you were expecting. It is not what I told you it was. The way I sold it to you ruined the experience. This kind of shit is happening all over Hollywood, like J.J. Abrams's "Mystery Box" [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/7295-Mystery-Bonks] concept where he sells you a movie he doesn't actually have.
This will lead to viewer dissatisfaction and reduced theater attendance, the problem they are doing these things to try and solve. This can't last. But then, it will only really hurt theatrical movies which are on their way out, anyway. Why go to a theater and drop a small fortune on tickets and snacks when you've already dropped a small fortune on a home theater system and have a fridge full of beer? Theatrical releases will dwindle in importance financially until the rest of the industry follows suit and then we'll still have this same adaptation problem on TV and Netflix.
Comic book adaptions seem to be in serious jeopardy here because there are still people in the world who think super heroes are gay or something. In the 90's there was a rumored script for Spider-Man where the main character became a monstrous half man-half spider horror movie creature.
With changes like that, I have to ask, if they didn't want to make a movie about the character, why did they bother to get the rights?
Yeah, yeah, branding. Well, that's a recipe for a bite on the ass.
If I asked if you want to buy a nice piece of chocolate and you agree (because you don't know me very well) but if when I pop it into your mouth it turns out to not be chocolate but a piece of breakfast sausage, you are going to spit it out. Now, it may be a very nice piece of sausage, but you will spit it out anyway because it is not what you were expecting. It is not what I told you it was. The way I sold it to you ruined the experience. This kind of shit is happening all over Hollywood, like J.J. Abrams's "Mystery Box" [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/the-big-picture/7295-Mystery-Bonks] concept where he sells you a movie he doesn't actually have.
This will lead to viewer dissatisfaction and reduced theater attendance, the problem they are doing these things to try and solve. This can't last. But then, it will only really hurt theatrical movies which are on their way out, anyway. Why go to a theater and drop a small fortune on tickets and snacks when you've already dropped a small fortune on a home theater system and have a fridge full of beer? Theatrical releases will dwindle in importance financially until the rest of the industry follows suit and then we'll still have this same adaptation problem on TV and Netflix.
To make money, likely. They ARE ba business, I get it, but they must remember who their target audience for these movies are. I want a movie like that too, and maybe that's why while I WANT to give Trank a chance, and see if the movie's any good (After I hear some reviews first, of course), I also have this lingering desire in the deeper part of my mind that this bombs, and Marvel takes it back, and makes their version. Because they have shown via their films, that they can not only pull it off, but do so in a way that's mostly satisfying, looks modern (somewhat believable), we can get invested in the story, yet still has that comedic side to it, to let us know that they're not taking themselves too seriously, and embracing their goofier side. I get that superhero movies with a darker tone can work, but it doesn't work with ALL of them. It's the main reason I haven't (and refuse to) see "Man Of Steel". Superman isn't Batman. He's pretty much a god that thinks he's a man. He is, as Zack Snyder put it rather bluntly, Space Jesus. But from what I've seen/heard in reviews, he doesn't ACT like it. The characters build him up as such, (with a performance I'm surprised to say I liked Russel Crowe in as the father) yet he causes so much damage to the city he's SUPPOSED to protect, and when he could have led Zod somewhere away from the city, he doesn't. And need I bring up the whole "Zod neck-snap" thing? I felt worse for Zod! But I'm getting off track. From what Max did with the character of Doom in his web-series (which is mostly about how to play with the characters of Ultimate Marvel Vs Capcom 3), what I had heard from Linkara about the character from his show "Atop The Fourth Wall" (A comic book review show with it's own story to it, that I'd recommend seeing), and from what I saw of him while reading "The Runaways" comics, I came to like the character. (And yes, I know, comparing how the comic portrays Doom to a web-series is kind of dumb, but that's the interpretation that got me to like the character more; especially after I learned more about him via Linkara's review of "Doom 2099 #1".) So, I was irritated to see what Trank's planning on doing with Doom. I don't think that Doom is supposed to be played this way. (And remember I haven't read the comics) I want the Doom that comes across a villain from the Silver Age, (and kind of acts like a ham at points, reminding me of Tim Curry) yet is a kind and caring ruler of his country to his people. Wow, this response was long, wasn't it? Sorry for the large wall of text, sir or madam.Darth Rosenberg said:
Solve media: "On the ball" What I'd like from the Fox/Sony movies.
Superman isn't Space Jesus! He's Space Moses! Read your Space Bible!ArcaneGamer said:
Seriously, though, this is one of the things so many Superman adaptations get wrong, and the shoehorning of Jesus imagery onto Superman's story is part of the reason they feel inconsistent.
There's a Space Bible?! Does it make any more sense than ours?theNater said:
But seriously, I agree. I hear that's the main problem with the comics, as well. Meaning, the writers usually having no idea what to do with him. How weird is it that while I haven't seen the movie, yet from what I have,I A. do NOT want to watch "Man Of Steel" in the immediate future, and B. That I felt more for Zod. Although, I wonder why he doesn't just say, terra-form Mars? He HAS the tech, or does he need the codex for that? Gah! But I don't want to bring up the Bruce Timm comparison to this again. I'd be comparing this to something I like, and I'd get more irritated because of how DC apparently can't have a good live-action superhero film that doesn't have Batman in it. I've seen some of the animated DC movies, Gotham Knight, First Flight, The New Frontier, I've heard good things about Batman: Under The Red Hood and Son Of Batman. The Good DC movies CAN be made, especially good origin movies. (If you haven't seen the live action Green Lantern movie, I'd check out First Flight. That is a better origin movie for Green Lantern.)
You've written on the subject of science and magic mixed together? Do tell. I find the ideas of Functional Magic, and/or MagiTech fascinating. The knowledge and technology of science, combined with the raw power and potential of magic...wonderful, yet potentially devastating. I say that, because when people get a new resource, tool, or invention...we eventually find SOME way of either hurting people with it, or using it in a way it wasn't originally meant to be used. Like say, the atom bomb or the creation of dynamite. But that isn't to say all innovations are bad. After all, what are most inventors? Dreamers, creators. Dream lead to divine discoveries, wouldn't you say? An idea for story I'm trying to come with is one wherein Magic either shows up, or "comes back" into modern society. After a celestial event in which the signs of the zodiac appear in the night sky [or something, I'm thinking of it returning due to an experiment the government does shortly after, and be it intentionally or not, it creates a channel to the realm of the supernatural, or spiritual. Basically, it's an energy that can be used to defy the laws of the universe. I'm...probably either over-thinking it or under-thinking it.]RJ Dalton said:
To be fair, the Ultimate comic end was announced after Fox (or whoever was working on the film) said that they were working mainly on the Ultimate side of the Fantastic Four. That was nothing but a very smart business decision by Marvel/Disney as it shows that the original creators have no want of that version of the characters. From a strictly impersonal side, it's very smart. Give the movie as little hope as possible in hope that you can reclaim and re-market a different version a few years later. But personally I find it a little douchey. I don't want films to fail, I would love the film to be great and see everyone say, "They did a good job". Marvel have already done extremely well with their movies so far, and they've got enough content to last them for a long time.SonOfVoorhees said:
I would rather see a company work around obstacles and produce great films rather than them just having everything at their feet and being able to pick and choose too easily.