Fantastic Four

Re: The Fantastic Four

Well, that really brings a different tone to the phrase "It's clobberin' time."

Re: The Fantastic Four

firesprite said:

Okay, I've been really working at organizing my thoughts on this, so forgive me a little if this is a little disjointed.

I get what you're saying, Vivek, about wanting to keep an open mind. I would love to be able to do that. Unfortunately, I just can't at this point. There are just so many things that are detracting from my ability to get excited about this movie in any way, shape or form.

* Found footage. Can we just stop with found footage? I get that Chronicle was a big deal for Trank and it's natural for him to want to go with what he knows. However, found footage is not a format that encompasses the kind of scale that FF should have.
* Cronenburg. It seems like by invoking the name Cronenburg, these two are trying to establish their "geek cred" by letting us know they've watched some classic sci-fi films and want to bring elements into it. However, Cronenburg does not fit with FF. It's the Fantastic Four, not the Fly. Not Naked Lunch. Even in the Ultimate universe where things get pretty frakking grim, there's still humor and playfulness.
* Changing the background. Okay, here's where we get into the real nitty gritty of why Marvel Studios is succeeding and most of the outside Marvel properties are floundering. The bottom line is, Marvel Studios has made a real, concerted effort to update the classic characters, character who were, frankly, second or third string characters in terms of the comics' popularity, and make some of the most beloved films in recent years. The reason they've done this is that they really looked for the core, essential pieces of who and what these characters are and made minimal changes so that they would fit in the modern world.

By all rights, Captain America should NOT have worked for modern audiences... but it did because it wasn't afraid to stay true to its roots. It's an unabashed love letter to the "Greatest Generation" and to the ideals that America is supposed to have been founded upon. Captain America, himself, is, in many ways, a relic, one that should not be so beloved in an era where most of our popular heroes are, at best, swathed in shades of grey.

The problem that I see Sony and Fox as having with making these characters work for more than just the teenybopper crowd (which is pretty much the group that seems enamored of the Amazing Spider-Man movies), is that I think they're genuinely embarrassed by them. However, superhero movies are making money, so they feel compelled to cling to these properties, wondering how Marvel Studios can make it all look so ********* effortless. What they forget is that while there is a committee at Marvel Studios, if not all of them, then at least a LOT of them, genuinely love these characters and want to do right by them in film.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY.

The core issue is that Warner Brothers, Fox, and Sony don't seem to "get" the characters they're dealing with, and aren't able to adapt them effectively. They don't seem to love them, either, nor be willing to let them stand on their own. I think that what the Marvel films understand is that these characters resonate with people for a reason, and that reason goes beyond merely the "They're so cool/badass!" thing.

Why do audiences look to heroes? Why do they want to embrace them and watch their actions? That is the core question to which Marvel has, so far, had the best answers, and where the other studios have largely fallen short for whatever reason.

If you look at a lot of the non-Marvel superhero films, their appeal is mainly their "cool" factor, which basically ends up translating into 31 flavors of wish fulfillment and power fantasy. In some cases you get what seems like an attempt at humanizing these characters, but ultimately, they often end up being more like roadblocks to awesomeness.

Compare, for example, the difference between Spider-Man and, say, Thor. Both involve a character who is held back by their own internal dilemmas, but only one is truly compelling, in my opinion. With Spider-Man, it's basically assumed that he's awesome. The thing that holds him back from being awesome is his own self-doubt, which he ultimately has to learn to overcome. Basically, he has to learn that he's already awesome. By contrast, Thor starts off as a powerful braggart who actually has to learn that he isn't as awesome as he thinks.

Meanwhile, the Thor movies actually work the best because of the antagonists in the film, especially Loki, who presents an incredibly interesting character. One who is clearly a villain, but a villain we actually want to like. Sympathy for the devil, indeed. Thor's relationship with Loki ultimately is the audience's relationship. You see the redeeming aspects of his character, but you also see how his own demons make him turn from them. And yet, he can be a powerful, if reluctant, ally when absolutely needed. It's great stuff.

By contrast, Spider-Man is just...whiny and conflicted, until he can learn to be his awesome self. Yawn.


Anyway, I just think that the other studios don't really...get what makes their characters popular, or focus on the purely superficial aspects of them. They don't understand what heroes are for people, what they represent, the role they serve, and so you get these kinds of mish-mash films.

dascoyne said:

My FF sensibility is rooted in Kirby, Buscema and Byrne as well. I think Kirby's is unquestionably the most comprehensive and defining influence.

I respect your cautious optimism, but I remain skeptical. I won't try to convince you otherwise but there's nothing about this production that feels promising to me.

That being said, if FF turns out to be a film that faithfully conjures Kirby in celluloid for me, I will gladly devour a humble pie baked in your own kitchen.

Click to expand...

I would not have thought that Thor could be brought to screen, given Kirby's fantastical design and feel. But by the Odin's beard, Marvel delivered and how. I'm less sanguine on whether FF can be brought to screen by this studio, but I've been pleasantly surprised by the First Class and Days of Future Past films, so who knows. Likewise, when the first X-Men film came out, I thought it'd be garbage, and ended up loving it. I'm not above admitting I'm wrong, but I think everyone can agree that the non-Marvel films have...a spotty record at best.

Re: The Fantastic Four

http://screencrush.com/fantastic-four-teaser/
Screencrush talks about one of the easter eggs.

"In an interview with Collider, producer Simon Kinberg said fans could expect a hidden easter egg in the new trailer, and we do believe we’ve found it. At the :46 second mark, as Sue Storm looks at a bank of computer screens, the numbers 23.21.190.125 appear briefly on the bottom left.

Enter those numbers into your internet address bar and you’re directed to this Wikia entry on Latveria, the fictional Marvel nation ruled by Doctor Doom (who’s supposedly a hacker in this version)."

Re: The Fantastic Four

firesprite said:

* Changing the background. Okay, here's where we get into the real nitty gritty of why Marvel Studios is succeeding and most of the outside Marvel properties are floundering. The bottom line is, Marvel Studios has made a real, concerted effort to update the classic characters, character who were, frankly, second or third string characters in terms of the comics' popularity, and make some of the most beloved films in recent years. The reason they've done this is that they really looked for the core, essential pieces of who and what these characters are and made minimal changes so that they would fit in the modern world.

Click to expand...

It makes you wonder, if they had control of Spidey, X-men, and F4 would we have ended up where we are with the MCU.


Personally I don't have strong feelings for F4 but I would be glad if it ended up back at Disney/Marvel so they could have Silver Surfer. MCU probably could have found better use for him in the whole Thanos/space drama than how F4 used him.

Re: The Fantastic Four

I want to hate it... but, they sure managed a decent trailer even if it doesn't show us a whole lot... yet.

Re: The Fantastic Four

JD said:

I want to hate it... but, they sure managed a decent trailer even if it doesn't show us a whole lot... yet.

Click to expand...

Yeah, IMO, it was a decent trailer.. for a nondescript, dark, brooding film, not at all related to the FF. This really had the tone and feel to something like Dark World. Heck, this could have been a trailer for a new Crow movie. With the exception of the Thing, NOTHING about this trailer said Fantastic Four to me. Nothing.

While I'm glad that the found footage rumor appears to be false, it looks like the Nolan-verse version of FF. I liked the Nolan Batman films, but I don't know how well this will work for FF.

My jaw really hurts after watching that trailer. I've never yawned so hard in my life.

Watch this movie about generic science fiction machinery with a bit of fighting, and a rock monster! soon in your Cinema "insert Title here"

this looks more like the sequel to interstellar than a super hero movie

So I guess we will see the thing's thing, unless it disappeared like his ears.

Trailer was meh for me.

It seemed so embarrassed to be the fantastic four that they hid that is what the film was till the last few seconds.

The four brass bars for a chest symbol is pretty unique. I do hope they get to a more standard suit eventually.

The trailer did not really do much to excite me. That said, it did not do anything to make me dread it further either. (I still think the cast is too young.)

The lack of pants on Ben Grimm is a poor decision, given that this will undoubtedly be rated PG-13 and that means there will simply be nothing down below. We'll likely be subjected to a minor comic-relief scene centered around, "Where's my ****?!"

For now, I'm reserving judgment until I see a full trailer that shows a bit more.

Yawn......

The trailer was not so fantastic 4 me. ...... I know...... I'll shut up with the puns...

Regarding the trailer, I thought I was watching the scenes leading up to the apocalyptic future in DOFP, with a generous portion of Interstellar in the mixing bowl. This doesn't look god awful but doesn't look good either, and certainly doesn't strike me as a FF film. This is an easy rental for me at the moment, unless Fox just wows me with the next trailer (doubtful).

In 88 seconds the Force Awakens built more excitement then almost 2min of that nothing much.

Well since you brought up Star Wars, I will say that I can easily see Trank's visual style meshing well with the SW universe, with him directing one of the standalones.

Trank's "visual style"? He's directed one movie that we've seen.

niennumb1 said:

The trailer was not so fantastic 4 me. ...... I know...... I'll shut up with the puns...

Click to expand...

You could have said, using the various characters abilities, "I was burning for a good teaser, but this didn't rock me. They took very little and stretched it out to make this. The characters felt almost invisible to me. I feel a sense of doom for this movie."

[video]https://thedaily400.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/applause2.gif[/video]

Betamin said:

You could have said, using the various characters abilities, "I was burning for a good teaser, but this didn't rock me. They took very little and stretched it out to make this. The characters felt almost invisible to me. I feel a sense doom for this movie."

Click to expand...

Awesome! Standing O!