So apparently the new Fant4stic is the Green Lantern of 2015

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Casual Shinji said:
While Marvel's mass production of super hero movies is kinda wearing me down, this new Fantastic Four does put in stark perspective how well Marvel actually has its affairs in order. Even when most of their movies sorta feel like assembly line productions, they're still very solid movies. It also goes to show how much super hero movies have improved, since we used to get shit like this all the time.
Their production of movies isn't so much an issue for me, because I'll only watch the ones I care about anyway. Then again, I also watch a few months delayed,so it's not a big event for me. I still haven't seen Avengers 2, RoUSes.

I have heard people complain that the mandatory world building is getting in the way of the movies, though.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,947
118
So, could it simply be that it's impossible to make a good F4 movie, because it's source material isn't really that good? That it's inherently pretty damn cheesy, and thus any movie made from it is going to stink like a ghouda cheese?
 

WOPR

New member
Aug 18, 2010
1,912
0
0
And this is what happens when you take a well established medium, and start changing peoples colors, genders, and backstories because "we need to be politically correct."
I can't wait to see black transgendered superman with headmates.
 

Hoplon

Jabbering Fool
Mar 31, 2010
1,840
0
0
Happyninja42 said:
So, could it simply be that it's impossible to make a good F4 movie, because it's source material isn't really that good? That it's inherently pretty damn cheesy, and thus any movie made from it is going to stink like a ghouda cheese?
unfortunately Gardians proves it possible to at least make it watchable.

WOPR said:
And this is what happens when you take a well established medium, and start changing peoples colors, genders, and backstories because "we need to be politically correct."
I can't wait to see black transgendered superman with headmates.
Blimey that's some bile for something that isn't wrong with the film at all.
 

JustAnotherAardvark

New member
Feb 19, 2015
126
0
0
Happyninja42 said:
So, could it simply be that it's impossible to make a good F4 movie, because it's source material isn't really that good?
I don't think that excuse applies to this movie, as they apparently dumped all the source material in the interest of making it "Younger. Darker. Edgier."

I don't get why directors and producers do that: "We're going to take this IP, which has an established fan base for some reason. We won't look at why it has a fan base, why it's considered good, we'll just make whatever based on a few covers we may or may not have seen."
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,947
118
Hoplon said:
Happyninja42 said:
So, could it simply be that it's impossible to make a good F4 movie, because it's source material isn't really that good? That it's inherently pretty damn cheesy, and thus any movie made from it is going to stink like a ghouda cheese?
unfortunately Gardians proves it possible to at least make it watchable.
Fair enough.
JustAnotherAardvark said:
I don't think that excuse applies to this movie, as they apparently dumped all the source material in the interest of making it "Younger. Darker. Edgier."
Good point, I forgot about that bit of information, that they were tossing out the source material.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
So...Fantastic Flop, then. This is, by the way, the opposite of my thread topic. This is what you get when an idea is crushed by everything wrong around it.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Zontar said:
I have to disagree, just look at the Guardians of the Galaxy, they went full camp with it and it worked out great. A Fantastic Four movie done in the silver age style could work, and hell if anything the market shows that would probably be the best it could do since superhero movies as of late seem to have their honesty to the source material directly correlate with their success.
Guardians of the Galaxy had an advantage, in a way, in that no one outside of a relatively small number of comic book readers knew who they were. That allowed a certain amount of leeway in redefining and re-addressing the characters for a new audience- and I agree, they came through in high style.

But I've expressed before that I'm not really convinced that fidelity to the comics, per se, is the major secret of Marvel's recent success. God knows there's plenty in the Silver Age that's well best left there. I think it has more to do with an ability to focus on what makes the characters stand out and be relatable to an audience that isn't necessarily familiar with the comic incarnations. For every "wink" that tells long-time Marvel fans that so-and-so is going to show up or such-and-such is going to be relevant later (much of that leading up to the Infinity Gems arc, naturally) there's a moment that allows the audience to work out for themselves something of relevance that the comics of the 50s and 60s would have spelled out with bald exposition, especially as far as "character" moments.

My understanding (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) is that GotG as a property was way, way on the back burner for Marvel until the movie again brought them to prominence. By contrast, F4 have continued as a comic series pretty much up to the present day, but increasingly limped and under-performed, probably in part because it hasn't had the same chance to retreat and re-evaluate.

I don't know that Guardians was "campy" (that is, self-acknowledgingly theatrical) so much as that it didn't take itself all that seriously. By contrast, it seems like F4 would fall apart if the elements of "family dynamics" that make up so much of its identity were treated similarly.

But, y'know, I could definitely be wrong. I didn't think Marvel was going to pull Ant-Man off, at all. And that was certainly a case where there was a knife-edge to be walked between humor and self-mockery. I think it's entirely fair to say that Marvel could do it if anyone can. I guess I just don't know if the F4 are all that worth saving.
 

FPLOON

Your #1 Source for the Dino Porn
Jul 10, 2013
12,531
0
0
MarsAtlas said:
FPLOON said:
Then again, I really stopped giving two shits about any of the licensing property bullshit between Marvel and Sony/Fox outside of who owns the movie version of Galactus at this point...
Pretty sure he appeared in Silver Surfer, meaning that he belongs to Fox.
You mean that cloud of "ominous" smoke? That shit wasn't Galactus; that was an evil maguffin who just so happened to have the name Galactus[footnote]Which all sounds like a decent comparison for this FF movie right about now...[/footnote]...
 

WolfThomas

Man must have a code.
Dec 21, 2007
5,294
0
0
OrijinalDreamin said:
Too right. However comics Doom is a multi-faceted character with a large amount of depth, and not just a mustache-twirling caricature of evil; there's no way he could fit into the Hollywood morals of black-and-white/good-vs-evil .
I always thought the metaphor of a "pie personality" (outerlayer, inner layer and the same outerlayer beneath like a pie) from Dr Horrible summed up Dr Doom well. On the surface he's another evil villain. But underneath there's huge amount of honor, nobility and beneficence. But go even deeper to the depths that are rarely reached except by his conflict with Reed Richards, it's evil again. His hatred and insecurity in regards to Reed may lead to him damning the world instead of saving it.

Xsjadoblayde said:
Now, I am bright eyed and bushy tailed when it comes to comic book knowledge, so I know nothing of why everyone loves doom. But you did not explain what makes Dr doom so awesome, Instead saying the same as the movie allegedly does. So what can he do, other than be Dr Doom? I am honestly intrigued.
Others have already answered but basically me's a master of science and magic.

He has an armoured suit that can rival Iron-man. This is further enchanced with enchantments (he had a piece of the true cross to defend against Dracula in one suit).
He's nearly as smart or even smarter than Reed Richards in most sciences. I mean both men have working time machines.
He can rival Dr Strange, the Sorcerer Supreme in magic at times.
He has an army of thousands of Robots to rival Ultron, who look like him and frequently are mistaken for the real him.
He's King of a small but prosperous nation and deals with all the politics that entails, coming to conflict with figures like Black Panter and Namor.

He's basically an Avengers level threat and the movies should treat him like that.
 

MatParker116

New member
Feb 4, 2009
2,430
0
0
Went to see it out of curiosity, it's not a film. Literally nothing happens and Josh trank owes me two hours of his life to waste the fucking asshole.
 

gact

New member
May 26, 2014
74
0
0
Xsjadoblayde said:
gact said:
By the reviews it seems they messed up dr Doom once again, it seems studios only see dr Doom as a evil guy with metal covering his body and some unexplained superpower, as if the character is only the super power, but the thing that makes dr Doom powerful and intimidating and probably the best comic book character ever is being dr Doom. Why I think this is because when I think what makes dr Doom OP is because he is dr Doom, not because he has a suit, or anything like that.
Now, I am bright eyed and bushy tailed when it comes to comic book knowledge, so I know nothing of why everyone loves doom. But you did not explain what makes Dr doom so awesome, Instead saying the same as the movie allegedly does. So what can he do, other than be Dr Doom? I am honestly intrigued.
Well he is intimidating the center of attention of every scene that he is in, always full of himself and rightly so, he has worked since the beginning of his life to make himself better in order to achieve his goals, like he is proficient in magic and all kinds of science because he studied and mastered both, and his power comes from that attitude. He is also not the bad guy, he doesnt try to conquer the world because he wants to rule it and thats it, but because the world would be a better place with him as the ruler, as an example is the country that he already conquered latveria where the people are happy of having doom as a leader because he made the country way better than it was before his rule. There is a lot more to his character but if you want to know go watch some good representations of him, one easy to find is in Avengers earth mightiest heroes.
 

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
Well, like Bob said; the fucking thing was made to fill a quota. I'm not surprised it was lacking in any artistic impetus.

Side Note: I've heard lots of buzz about this and other comic book movies with a dark, serious tone trying and failing to be The Dark Knight, and I'd like to throw in my two cents on why that is (Full disclosure; The Dark Knight is one of my favorite movies; I love it to pieces).

If what I'm hearing about this film is correct, it strikes a similar tone to Man of Steel. I'm not in the hater camp for Man of Steel; I didn't love it, but I appreciated the parts of it that worked.

But I would by no means compare that slow burn, contemplative tone to that of The Dark Knight. A lot of people seem to forget that The Dark Knight is not a somber, intimate, or dour film; oh, it's thematically dark, for sure, but it's also very energetic and fast paced.

The Dark Knight is almost 3 hours long, but you never feel it's length because, unlike these films, it's extremely eventful. The Dark Knight is not an art house film; it's a proper action epic, that just so happens to also be an incredibly deep, insightful (And justifiably unfavorable) commentary on human nature.

The action beats are frequent, the story moves quickly, and lots of the dialogue is really snappy and sometimes even funny. Tonally, it has more in common with Winter Soldier than it does with Man of Steel.

I think lots of people just remember The Dark Knight as being dour and grim because those are the stereotypical traits the general public associates with depth. Because these are the traits people often mistake with equating depth, those who lack the context, desire, or insight to recognize genuine depth just see a movie with a really dark tone and think "Oh, this is probably one of those deep movies that I don't pay attention to".

(Kind of interesting that a large portion of our population associates boredom and sadness with material that forces them to be critically thoughtful.)

So, if future films want to recapture the essence of The Dark Knight, maybe bother to go back and actually watch the fucking thing; it's reputation for being grim and joyless is, in reality, totally unfounded.
 

sumanoskae

New member
Dec 7, 2007
1,526
0
0
WolfThomas said:
Others have already answered but basically me's a master of science and magic.

He has an armoured suit that can rival Iron-man. This is further enchanced with enchantments (he had a piece of the true cross to defend against Dracula in one suit).
He's nearly as smart or even smarter than Reed Richards in most sciences. I mean both men have working time machines.
He can rival Dr Strange, the Sorcerer Supreme in magic at times.
He has an army of thousands of Robots to rival Ultron, who look like him and frequently are mistaken for the real him.
He's King of a small but prosperous nation and deals with all the politics that entails, coming to conflict with figures like Black Panter and Namor.

He's basically an Avengers level threat and the movies should treat him like that.
Agreed. I think the mistake that Fox made with Doom is that they treat him like Joker or Venom; a villain who's character revolves around a specific hero, when Dr. Doom is really a figure for the Marvel universe as a whole. As you say, he's in the same league as Thanos and Ultron; he needs to be the final boss, the One Winged Angel, not the Asylum Demon.
 

someonehairy-ish

New member
Mar 15, 2009
1,949
0
0
Eh, I'm somewhat inclined to give Josh Trank the benefit of the doubt on this seeing as Chronicle was pretty good. I was hopeful for this movie, the alternate dimension powers seeing like it could potentially be an interesting take on the origin story, and the trailes were fun... ah well...
 

MeatMachine

Dr. Stan Gray
May 31, 2011
597
0
0
Vausch said:
Ok, trend I'm noticing and probably a good rule to follow:

If the movie version of a superhero movie changes the characters' costume, especially if they make it black, and it wasn't something done in the comics, it's probably going to be a bad movie.
It's like a perfect visual metaphor for a studio completely bleaching EVERYTHING that makes the comicbook-iterations charming, fun, and enjoyable.
 

Mister K

This is our story.
Apr 25, 2011
1,703
0
0
sumanoskae said:
And even if Batman movie IS dark and joyless, it actually fits with the character. The dark avenger. The terror of the night. By the way, did he ever work during day time? I am not that much of a Batman fan.

MEANWHILE, Fantastic Four comicbook and cartoon were basically light-hearted stories about a family that got superpowers and decided that helping the world would be nice. Being grimdark just doesn't fit the idea.
 

Vausch

New member
Dec 7, 2009
1,476
0
0
MeatMachine said:
Vausch said:
Ok, trend I'm noticing and probably a good rule to follow:

If the movie version of a superhero movie changes the characters' costume, especially if they make it black, and it wasn't something done in the comics, it's probably going to be a bad movie.
It's like a perfect visual metaphor for a studio completely bleaching EVERYTHING that makes the comicbook-iterations charming, fun, and enjoyable.
Bleaching by darkening...huh, how philosophical.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
McMarbles said:
Let's not insult Green Lantern here.
Yeah, Ryan Reynolds isn't useless! Reed Richards is!

*Goes off to hire Stretch Armstrong for a gig*