Alicia Vs. Susan: Which Character Should Influence Norrin?

[Kelly]

Honestly, it would not matter to me which direction they went.....if we were hearing of the Alicia/Ben/Silver Surfer plotline....I would be fine with that.....

In fact I was opposed to the "Love Triangle" theory in the beginning and until I saw it as no more of a "Love Triangle" than the first movie....people at Fox wouldn't know a love triangle if it bit them in the ass.....I was upset with that scenario...

I DO NOT KNOW what is in store for any of the characters, EXCEPT the little bit of speculation we have on this one scenario.....MAYBE if I had more to go on, I could make a quantified guess as to how much characterization each person is getting....but I can't....so from what I have to go on at this moment....I'm OK with it.....if it doesn't play out like I thought....so be it.....

I'm not saying you are not right in your argument.....nor am I downplaying in ANY sense of the word......

I have my opinion.....you have yours.......thats all it is.....

I'll see how it plays out in the end.....if I don't like it.......AS I DID FOR THE FIRST FILM.......I will let it be known.....if I like it......then I'll be happy....woo hoo for me.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I would be more open-minded about this if this production was facing a situation similar to X3, where principal actors are not available to shoot because of prior engagements (James Marsden/ Superman Returns, etc.,) and therefore the script's storyline has to be manipulated to fit everyone's schedule.


But this is not the reality. We have all the actors available to make a faithful Silver Surfer + Fantastic Four CBM. All of the resources are in place naturally.

So to change the roles around in THIS particular way can only mean that "We want Jessica Alba at the fore no matter what." My problem with that? She's already at the fore. If this is an ensemble cast, why can't the most slept-on actress (Kerry) step to the plate for a role she was designed to play in the first place?

To me it's about more than an "opinion." There's already a precedent set for this. And the precedent works wonders because of the metaphorical angles it contains. To deliberately deviate from it for no real reason other than $$$ and stardom is just silly...and I have a feeling it will reap the whirlwind later.

EDIT: And believe me when I say: I sincerely hope I'm wrong with all of this. But I'm seeing certain parallel patterns in certain studio productions and I'm just bracing myself for the inevitable impact...AGAIN.

 

[halfapple]

I'd like to see Alicia influence Norrins

Alba is already upfront in the limelight, which is perfectly fine with me

Seeing Alba is more then worth a ticket right there

With Alicia's character, I think alot of good insight could be made there and influenced to the audience in many positive ways.

 

[Inhuman63]

I can see them having Susan be the focal point for the Silver Surfer lesson in humanity due to movie reasons but for artistic purposes it really should be Alicia. As a poster so eloquently stated previously having Alicia, as a blind person, helping the Surfer to really see humanity is exquisitely beautiful. The big problem with doing it in the movies, I think, is the way that Alicia was treated in the first movie. I mean with her introduction, there should have been a nod to Philip Masters (which I know they cut out of the film), and there should have been much more in the development between Ben and Alicia (I know they cut it out). But since they butchered her character so badly in the first movie, it may have been too much of a leap for them to have her be such an integral part of the SS story now. I see them expanding her character with all the little things that they should have kept in the first one. I mean to take on this particular story arc in FF lore is one mean feat. Also this appears to be more studio driven then anything else. I know that when a movie is made, they tend to blend characters so that they can either eliminate one character entirely or give another character more to do. I think this is common in book to film translations and if I remember correctly I think they did it in LOTR. So I do see this as more studio driven to increase Susan's character and maybe they will do it in a way that is utterly profound. Only time will tell if it was a wise choice.

 

[gambitfire]

^ I agree that Studio's are known to lean one way when it comes to the importance and focus of a character (especially when an A-list is attached to the role), but for the sake of the story i never saw it as a good thing. I love miss Alba, but they are giving her way too much to do.

It's practically the same as Hugh in the X-men movies. He took on roles that were not his, and frankly that made him tiring as a character IMO and those of many others that i know.

What bothers me even more is that it's repeating itself with the same studio. Yes X3 had it's success unfortunatley and so it could be the reason they see it fit to make this deviation. FOX takes these greater liberties as if they don't affect the story in any way. One can go ahead and blame the writers but the big finger is pointed by FOX. Some around here think this deviation is not a big deal, that's fine they are entitled to, but it's taking away from the greater picture this movie has the potential to be.

Like it's been said Alicia's disability is utlimately the beauty of her relationship with Norrin. You can't compare that too whatever will possibly happen with Sue. Not to mention having Sue running all over the place (and if Alba doesn't step up) it could make the movie look kinda bad in some areas.

 

[Kelly]

Well, I've given my thoughts on the matter.....all I can say at this point is....I'm going to wait until we know more specific, documented, official, information.....

 

[gambitfire]

^ Like what?

I think it's pretty clear by now what's going on.

Alicia will do more hopefully but it'll all be Ben related, and having heard Ben's confidence is much higher this time around - well it would seem like her part is not doing much.

 

[Valerie_f4]

When I first even heard about the whole Alicia confronting the S.S I was surprized and thought it fit in comics. I am not sure why they want Sue to do it, this time around. It would make a big difference, not sure a good one. But I'll see the results. I would like to see her reaction as well.

 

[highguard]

Well I think LS has a good point about this, ultimately I think that Scott's death was driven by his Superman connection and a little spite by the studio.

On this point though I have to put the onus on Tim not the studio. Tim has to be the one who would understand the delicate significance of Alba over washington and whether it would raise a firestorm with the fans.

Therefore it is on him to convince the studios that this might not be a good idea. Studios will always have their input unless its SR and Singer.

look at what is going on right now with the Flash and Wonderwoman anouncement.

Whedon said that with the money invloved the WB is taking a long hard look at everything especially after SR.

Fox must be thinking that this is a gamble. If FF2 hits a home run and all indications are pointing to that I think they are willing to infuriate a few fan boys.

However its a calculated risk. There is a lot of interest in an X4 and I can only think that they want to resurrect Scott as a bone to the fans.

Likewise its obvious from what Chicklis says that Alicia gets her due in FF3.

JMFAN made a point about them paying through the nose for the reshoots but I know that they added that one scene because they felt it was needed.

The question for Tim Story is this does he think that its needed.

I for one think that he should have taken up Mcmahon's offer to reshoot some of the doom lines.

However this usually is affected by the time frame involved in getting the visual effects ready.

None of the reshoots are going to involve VFX as there probably is not enough time.

Given that, scenes with Alicia would involve the SS and so that is not going to happen.

The only hope we have is that they shot alternate scenes with Alicia and SS while principle photography was ongoing and it seems like Tim did not take time to do that.

He would have had to get permission to film that scene anyway as Ratner sought and got permission to film the Xavier in a new body scene which was not previously approved.

So unless Chicklis is snowing us, we are not getting the Alicia/SS situation.

 

[Kelly]

Well I think LS has a good point about this, ultimately I think that Scott's death was driven by his Superman connection and a little spite by the studio.

On this point though I have to put the onus on Tim not the studio. Tim has to be the one who would understand the delicate significance of Alba over washington and whether it would raise a firestorm with the fans.

Therefore it is on him to convince the studios that this might not be a good idea. Studios will always have their input unless its SR and Singer.

look at what is going on right now with the Flash and Wonderwoman anouncement.

Whedon said that with the money invloved the WB is taking a long hard look at everything especially after SR.

Fox must be thinking that this is a gamble. If FF2 hits a home run and all indications are pointing to that I think they are willing to infuriate a few fan boys.

However its a calculated risk. There is a lot of interest in an X4 and I can only think that they want to resurrect Scott as a bone to the fans.

Likewise its obvious from what Chicklis says that Alicia gets her due in FF3.

JMFAN made a point about them paying through the nose for the reshoots but I know that they added that one scene because they felt it was needed.

The question for Tim Story is this does he think that its needed.

I for one think that he should have taken up Mcmahon's offer to reshoot some of the doom lines.

However this usually is affected by the time frame involved in getting the visual effects ready.

None of the reshoots are going to involve VFX as there probably is not enough time.

Given that, scenes with Alicia would involve the SS and so that is not going to happen.

The only hope we have is that they shot alternate scenes with Alicia and SS while principle photography was ongoing and it seems like Tim did not take time to do that.

He would have had to get permission to film that scene anyway as Ratner sought and got permission to film the Xavier in a new body scene which was not previously approved.

So unless Chicklis is snowing us, we are not getting the Alicia/SS situation.

You are correct they even brought up that point in the commentary on the DVD....but that scene cost them very little.....

BUT THE reshoot of the finale action scene bus/car scene cost them a mint....along with the 20 million added to Reed's CGI at the last minute....I don't see them doing that again....

 

[highguard]

^^ Surely they did not spend the whole 20 million on effects for Reed, if that is so then I would have to say I think that they got robbed.

Reed's effects were ok but certainly that money must have gone to reshooting a lot of the torch effects and stuff.

i think fire is the hardest thing to do.

i just watched an extended blog video on the Ghost Rider and MSJ said that they have to go frame by frame to get the flame to look and move as it should in response to the movement by Nic Cage.

I think it must have been twice as difficult with the Human Torch as they would have to do it for his entire body.

They said putting Ghost Rider in a scene was like 1/2 million each time.

Torch must be a million.

 

[Kelly]

^^ Surely they did not spend the whole 20 million on effects for Reed, if that is so then I would have to say I think that they got robbed.

Reed's effects were ok but certainly that money must have gone to reshooting a lot of the torch effects and stuff.

i think fire is the hardest thing to do.

i just watched an extended blog video on the Ghost Rider and MSJ said that they have to go frame by frame to get the flame to look and move as it should in response to the movement by Nic Cage.

I think it must have been twice as difficult with the Human Torch as they would have to do it for his entire body.

They said putting Ghost Rider in a scene was like 1/2 million each time.

Torch must be a million.

That is what was said....thats all I can go on....

I don't see that the torch was all that difficult....but then again....I have no idea what I'm talking about.....the fact that Chris was able to see the effects on a lap top soon after they were shot.....doesn't seem all that hard....also....that was the first thing we saw in the trailers.....and then we saw more added....

Where we saw the difference in Reed's was in the final scene.....the final scene was a black hole it looks like for money.....

 

[gambitfire]

^^ Surely they did not spend the whole 20 million on effects for Reed, if that is so then I would have to say I think that they got robbed.

Reed's effects were ok but certainly that money must have gone to reshooting a lot of the torch effects and stuff.

i think fire is the hardest thing to do.

i just watched an extended blog video on the Ghost Rider and MSJ said that they have to go frame by frame to get the flame to look and move as it should in response to the movement by Nic Cage.

I think it must have been twice as difficult with the Human Torch as they would have to do it for his entire body.

They said putting Ghost Rider in a scene was like 1/2 million each time.

Torch must be a million.

Don't mean to sound like CG geek, but i saw them do the Fire for HT in Maya. In which case it isn't a frame by frame scenario. It's a dynamic you set it up and add the right fields to affect it and that's it.

Sure it's not that simple; I mean you have to troubleshoot like crazy, but surely it isn't 2d to the point where you have to go frame by frame or render by render.

Fire i think is actually the 3rd hardest thing to do. Reed's is the hardest since you're dealing with an actual human and making it look realistic in that sense is a B*tch. So tear apart Reeds effects all you want they where considered really well for the 2 seconds he used them . Sues power i think should come in second, seeing as how you also need to incorporate the enviroment with reflection and all (it just seems like tedious work). Torch on the other hand seems alot easier compared to at least Reeds power (Well once you have the fluid dynamics down to the core).




Just IMO.


Edit- If anything the real cost value here is Render time and quality.

 

[highguard]

Well I still think the fire would have been incredibly hard to do based on what I have heard. A decade ago they could not even do CG fire of the type they have now.

one of the reasons fire is so hard to do is that it has to move in response to the actors movements but has to incorporate a drag component. There is math involved at this point that takes care of some of that, but the reason GR had to go in frame by frame and edit stuff is because the math does not model the movement accurately.

And to explain this lets go CG geek. Flame is similar to water. There is as of today, as far as I am aware no math that acurately and realisticaly models the behaviour of fluids and fluid like movements, so when animating it often looks well like animation. Flame falls into the fluidic realm and so is subject to this reality as well.

i think this is why GR animators did what they did to get around the less than realistic stuff.

however things might have changed a lot, I just got upgrading my computer and added maya and 3d max so I am going to go experiment in a few days after i go through the tutorials to see how hard or easy it might be.

If indeed they spent 20 million mainly on Reed's effects I say that they still got robbed.

That gets me to thinking though, is it me or did the DVD seriously lack information on what was involved in the making of the fantastic four.

Is all that was involved coming out on a director's cut DVD.

When you compare the detail they went into in describing the creation and evolution of the hulk by ILM on the hulk DVD, the FF dvd is sorely lacking.

these are questions that should be addressed.

 

[Iron Maiden]

I am sure it's in the interviews somewhere, or perhaps in the "Making of" book, but I do recall reading producer Ralph Winter saying the Human Torch sequence with the heat seeker chasing him took the longest to put together, both coordinating the flaming figure and tracking it's fight path so that it matched the flight scenes they shot in NYC. And in film, time means money, paying all the tech people to put it all together.

 

[Kelly]

These questions were addressed, and explained from development to the movie in great detail by the experts that created the SFX. It was on the 50 minute extra DVD that was with the Wal-mart exclusive.

From what I saw, IMO, from their explanations it seemed that the difficulty was in the order of difficulty: Sue, Reed, Johnny....and of course most of the difficulty of Ben was shouldered by Michael. (All of those problems with his physical strain have been taken care of, thank goodness)....

But to your statement on lack of information on what was involved....that was explained in "Robert Rodriguez" detail.....if you have seen any of his DVD's you know what I mean.....

 

[AdWolF16]

i'd just like to interject for a minute and remind you all that Sue already assumed Alicia's role in a very early incarnation of the Coming of Galactus storyline -- particularly, in an episode of the 1967 Hanna-Barbera cartoon. so this change wouldn't be totally without precedent. we should be glad we're getting any interaction between the Surfer and anyone, considering the Ultimate F4 storyline they could have adapted.

 

[highguard]

These questions were addressed, and explained from development to the movie in great detail by the experts that created the SFX. It was on the 50 minute extra DVD that was with the Wal-mart exclusive.

Oh the walmart exclusive that I did not get, gotta get that I guess.

 

[Kelly]

Oh the walmart exclusive that I did not get, gotta get that I guess.

Yikes....I don't think they make those anymore.....my Wal-mart got in 3 shipments of them and that was it...I bought one...then I saw the last one there a couple of weeks later and bought that.....I'll keep it unopened....

I also just checked on Walmart.com and they don't show the 2 disc exclusive anymore....

 

[highguard]

you have an extra one, well they say giving is good for the soul, lol

 

[Malus]

you have an extra one, well they say giving is good for the soul, lol

You can usually find that 2-disc set on eBay at the original price.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the "bonus" disc by itself going for fairly cheap.

I found this set right off. It's only at $3 at the moment:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Fantastic-Four-...goryZ617QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

 

[gambitfire]

one of the reasons fire is so hard to do is that it has to move in response to the actors movements but has to incorporate a drag component. There is math involved at this point that takes care of some of that, but the reason GR had to go in frame by frame and edit stuff is because the math does not model the movement accurately.

And to explain this lets go CG geek. Flame is similar to water. There is as of today, as far as I am aware no math that acurately and realisticaly models the behaviour of fluids and fluid like movements, so when animating it often looks well like animation. Flame falls into the fluidic realm and so is subject to this reality as well.

I do CG so where do i begin.

Flame is not similiar to water as far as CG goes.

Ok well seeing as how i know there exists a torch model and it seemed like it had a fire emitter added too it, as far as movement goes you can pretty much parent or emit from the torch CG model. I mean there is still tweaking invovled but i wouldn't over complicate it.

There are CG artists and companies who will tell an employer like FOX that something is more complicated than it really is when it isn't. Why? simple. Time and $$$.

i think this is why GR animators did what they did to get around the less than realistic stuff.

The thing that made GR harder is that there was more coordination and objects to emit fire from. Once more i believe the bigger issue was render time and quality.

I like GRs look but the quality of the skull looks kinda bad. Hopefully by the time the movie comes out it'll look like an actual skull with a good bump map.

however things might have changed a lot, I just got upgrading my computer and added maya and 3d max so I am going to go experiment in a few days after i go through the tutorials to see how hard or easy it might be.

If indeed they spent 20 million mainly on Reed's effects I say that they still got robbed.

Well good luck before you can do Reed's effect you need a model with a pretty high poly count (hopefully your comp can take it) then you need to Rig it (Good luck learning that from a tutorial, i still have rigging class nightmares) Finally once it's rigged you need a real good texture, Something that looks hyper realistic. Not too mention a Skin shader, and Render out in Mental ray (which i doubt will take you a couple of minutes) Oh and i forgot the animation process.

Reed's effect has more steps than Johnny's. Johnny's effect has 25% of the work done for you in the visors.

oh and 3d max sucks.

lol j/k. I'm just not a fan of the program.

That gets me to thinking though, is it me or did the DVD seriously lack information on what was involved in the making of the fantastic four.

I don't have any special edition but mine didn't have much info on any SFX making.

Is all that was involved coming out on a director's cut DVD.

When you compare the detail they went into in describing the creation and evolution of the hulk by ILM on the hulk DVD, the FF dvd is sorely lacking.

these are questions that should be addressed.

Well i actually got my info from online backstage footage.

I agree FF sorely lacked in detail of the making process.

 

[highguard]

You can usually find that 2-disc set on eBay at the original price.
I wouldn't be surprised to see the "bonus" disc by itself going for fairly cheap.

I found this set right off. It's only at $3 at the moment:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Fantastic-Four-...goryZ617QQssPageNameZWDVWQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem

Thanks Malus. I will try to get it this month.

[Edit] wait....$3.00 wow that is kind of cheap, I better go and get it now.

 

[highguard]

^^ Oh and thanks for the info gambitfire.

hmm seems like a time consuming endeavour to learn this stuff. I had thought that Fire had been modeled after water but apparently I was wrong.

My graphics background generally extends to OpenGL and C programming with a little assembly as a tool for speed.

Could you quickly list out what a hardware platform and software systems should have for developing the animations we are seeing from these large studios.

I owe you for the enlightenment and thanks for educating us all on what is involved.

 

[gambitfire]

Glad i was of service.

Well as far as hardware goes i don't go far I'm unfortunatley not a hardware person.

But what i do know is that you'r going to need a real good graphic card.

Software: Well if you have Maya and 3d max i'd say you got yourself a good headstart. Maya's an industry standard.

Other programs used - Pixar has there own Render system I think it's called Render Man.

Most places use all the Adobes (for compositing and such.).

For good water effects i hear real good thing from Real Flow. Wait i think that's also for cloth (or is it siflex?). Dam i'm confused.

For CG modeling some companies are now using Zbrush or Mudbox.

Editing i know of Avid and Final Cut. Both industry standard i think.

There are many other things in the industry that are used which i have never heard of or havn't used.

That's just what i know and learned or am learning now.

Hopefully i'll learn more as i progress.

Glad i could be of some insight into the process of the CG world.

I only wish I knew more to better inform you. t:

Edit- there are also some animation dynamic and mocap programs i know off but can't remember the names.