Along with these changes will it include making Thing look right?

[Mr Sensitive]

I think the fact that Tim is a lifelong FF fan and is involved in FF2 from the get-go this time is something to be optimistic about, in spite of the many failings of the first film. Story was brought in at the last minute with FF1, and had to fight the suits for a lot of what we did like about the first film. Thanks to Tim, at least the awful version of Doom we suffered through had an iron mask, a hood and cape.

And these films should be appropriate for kiddies.
Personally, I really wish they'd left out Ben's "Gimme that G.D. mirror!" line. My kid loves the movie and loves to repeat the lines sometimes. It took me several hours and a cattle prod to get him to say "Dadgum mirror" instead.

My rule of thumb (for any genre film) is this: If you're gonna be using these characters to sell all manner of kids items (action figures, coloring books, easy reader books, paajamas, dress-up kits, etc.) then you'd better be marketing all that junk around a film that is appropriate for those ages.

And besides, Ben Grimm would never use such a severe expletive. It was out of character. A simple "damn" would have sufficed.
Yea, Hollywood.

I don't agree.

If children (say, till 12 years old) are to go to this kind of movie, it will always suffer for mature audiences, and will be played like fairy tales.

Comics are no more children-oriented, and I hope the movies go that way.

Now, if teens can't hear some coarse words, some level of violence and blood, some psychological drama, then, they're not prepared for life.

All those things, lived in fiction, act like catharsis for violent feelings and nurture experience in a non-dangerous level (the dangerous level would be to live it actually).

 

[Kelly]

i definitely think there is a balance that can be set...the first movie did not strike that balance...hopefully the 2nd will....

 

[Malus]

I don't agree.

If children (say, till 12 years old) are to go to this kind of movie, it will always suffer for mature audiences, and will be played like fairy tales.

Comics are no more children-oriented, and I hope the movies go that way.

Now, if teens can't hear some coarse words, some level of violence and blood, some psychological drama, then, they're not prepared for life.

All those things, lived in fiction, act like catharsis for violent feelings and nurture experience in a non-dangerous level (the dangerous level would be to live it actually).

Interesting perspective. I think your view is certainly applicable to the Star Wars and LOTR films. Those stories really couldn't be told properly without the level of violence. I wouldn't change a thing about them, and would just hope every parent would take responsibility in determining what their child is ready for.

And while nobody's said it yet, for the record, the last thing I advocate is censorship. But when it comes to iconic characters that are essentially children's characters, I advocate personal responsibility and thoughtfulness from the producers & creators of these films. If Spidey wouldn't say it or do it in say, the first 200 issues of Spiderman, then he shouldn't say it or do it in the movies. (And that includes shacking up with Mary Jane, by the way, which I hope they're avoiding.)
And really, I don't care what the current tone of the comics product out there is; these characters were created (by their creators) for an all-ages audience, period. As a matter of principle, they should be presented on screen with their essential morality and dignity intact.
Crude language (I'd say anything stronger than "hell", "damn" and "ass", and "ass" is pushing it) should be left out, in my opinion, because putting it in is altering the spirit of the source material in the first place.

Even in the tensest moments, most of our favorite heroes (the true icons like Batman, Spidey, Superman, etc.) do not use profanity. Warner's publishing arm (That's DC, right? ) had the bad judgment to allow Miller's Batman boast to a shaken Dick Grayson: "You don't know who I am, kid? I'm the G.D. Batman!" in a general audience Batman title a few months ago, but I'll eat one of those Fear Factor bugs (make it two) if we ever hear Batman use that expletive onscreen. That is so not going to happen.
I'm not saying that Warner necessarily respects their characters' histories more, or puts more thought into how younger fans could be affected, but I think it's safe to say we're gonna see a fairly squeaky-clean Kal-El in Superman Returns, in terms of language, and we'll see violence that is nowhere near the brutality of Spiderman 1's ending.
There's nothing wrong with portraying these characters and stories the way they were originally intended. Spicing up the language (FF1) shoe-horning in disturbing psychological crap (talkin' 'bout Hulk there) or taking the violence over-the-top (Spidey 1) is not necessary to keep the attention of a general audience.
"Lost" manages that balance every week, for the most part, and lots more people watch that show than go to see any of these movies.
Yeah, that's a tv show, so how about Raiders of the Lost Ark? One of the most entertaining adbventure films of all time...I don't recall any particularly bad language or over-the-top violence. Some melting Nazis at the end, yeah, but that's about it. And Dude's head getting propellered was entirely offscreen.

 

[Malus]

..and of course it was the completely inappropriate heart-ripping scene in Temple of Doom that brought about the creation of the PG-13 rating in the first place. It was a pretty big deal at the time. A lot of parents were rightfully upset.They had every reason to believe the tone of the PG-rated Temple would be similar to that of the PG-rated Raiders. They had been given no reason to expect otherwise.
Was the heart-ripping thing necessary? I can't say, really, I haven't really seen the film since probably 1986..I just wonder if Spielberg spent any time contemplating how the sizable number of children in the audience was going to respond to such a disturbing sequence. I'm sure he did after the fact.

 

[Kelly]

As i gripe about the dumbing down of the first movie...i remember how much the adults in my life loved it....they aren't dumb people...actually extremely educated in most instances.....but they totally enjoyed it.....who knows how much i would have enjoyed it had i not known what was cut....

 

[Mr. Socko]

Now whats all this talk got to do with Da Thang

 

[Malus]

Now whats all this talk got to do with Da Thang

Well over the last dozen posts or so we digressed into discussion of the dialogue spoken by the Thing in FF1, and whether his language was appropriate, and other related topics.
Still very much talkin' 'bout the Thing.

Jeez, should we start totally new threads every time we digress?

To bring it back to the original topic, I reitterate my hope that they will at least be augmenting the Thing design from FF1 with a few "evolutions," specifically the beginnings of the brow and a somewhat less prominant nose.

 

[Mr Sensitive]

Interesting perspective. I think your view is certainly applicable to the Star Wars and LOTR films. Those stories really couldn't be told properly without the level of violence. I wouldn't change a thing about them, and would just hope every parent would take responsibility in determining what their child is ready for.

And while nobody's said it yet, for the record, the last thing I advocate is censorship. But when it comes to iconic characters that are essentially children's characters, I advocate personal responsibility and thoughtfulness from the producers & creators of these films. If Spidey wouldn't say it or do it in say, the first 200 issues of Spiderman, then he shouldn't say it or do it in the movies. (And that includes shacking up with Mary Jane, by the way, which I hope they're avoiding.)
And really, I don't care what the current tone of the comics product out there is; these characters were created (by their creators) for an all-ages audience, period. As a matter of principle, they should be presented on screen with their essential morality and dignity intact.
Crude language (I'd say anything stronger than "hell", "damn" and "ass", and "ass" is pushing it) should be left out, in my opinion, because putting it in is altering the spirit of the source material in the first place.

Even in the tensest moments, most of our favorite heroes (the true icons like Batman, Spidey, Superman, etc.) do not use profanity. Warner's publishing arm (That's DC, right? ) had the bad judgment to allow Miller's Batman boast to a shaken Dick Grayson: "You don't know who I am, kid? I'm the G.D. Batman!" in a general audience Batman title a few months ago, but I'll eat one of those Fear Factor bugs (make it two) if we ever hear Batman use that expletive onscreen. That is so not going to happen.
I'm not saying that Warner necessarily respects their characters' histories more, or puts more thought into how younger fans could be affected, but I think it's safe to say we're gonna see a fairly squeaky-clean Kal-El in Superman Returns, in terms of language, and we'll see violence that is nowhere near the brutality of Spiderman 1's ending.
There's nothing wrong with portraying these characters and stories the way they were originally intended. Spicing up the language (FF1) shoe-horning in disturbing psychological crap (talkin' 'bout Hulk there) or taking the violence over-the-top (Spidey 1) is not necessary to keep the attention of a general audience.
"Lost" manages that balance every week, for the most part, and lots more people watch that show than go to see any of these movies.
Yeah, that's a tv show, so how about Raiders of the Lost Ark? One of the most entertaining adbventure films of all time...I don't recall any particularly bad language or over-the-top violence. Some melting Nazis at the end, yeah, but that's about it. And Dude's head getting propellered was entirely offscreen.

Malus,

I really think you are overly worried with children. It is too much protection. Orson Welles and Jorge Luís Borges thought it was very good for them to begin reading the original plays of Shakespeare back in their childhood days. And most of them are really bloody.

If we only give children a nice smiling world, without harsh fictional experiences, they won't be able to deal with the harsh world we live in, nor temperate their ideas with maturity. The danger is to extend a supposed "innocence" too far in life.

Maybe you despise how the comics are written today, or ten or twenty years ago, but it was in my early teens when I first read Miller's Ronin and Dark Knight, Moore's Killing Joke and V for Vendetta and Watchmen. These are great controversial stories. And they are full of deep psychological stress, and full of über-violence.

It might astonish you, but I'm no criminal, no deranged, and, as far as I know, no traumas. I just happen to still like comics (which can be a very strange psychological feature).

It gave me a love for elaborated representations of our vile world (as Lawrence Sterne once wrote). And there is no such thing as "bad language": all features of expression are meant to be what they are, and apply to some situations.

I think the world is a complex place to live in, full of beauty and horror. We must know how to understand both, and to know their place, to avoid naiveté; or even to know that we, ourselves, have a dark side that should not be denied: it must be dealt with.

 

[Kelly]

Malus,

I really think you are overly worried with children. It is too much protection. Orson Welles and Jorge Luís Borges thought it was very good for them to begin reading the original plays of Shakespeare back in their childhood days. And most of them are really bloody.

If we only give children a nice smiling world, without harsh fictional experiences, they won't be able to deal with the harsh world we live in, nor temperate their ideas with maturity. The danger is to extend a supposed "innocence" too far in life.

Maybe you despise how the comics are written today, or ten or twenty years ago, but was in my early teens when I first read Miller's Ronin and Dark Knight, Moore's Killing Joke and V for Vendetta and Watchmen. These are great controversial stories. And they are full of deep psychological stress, and full of über-violence.

It might astonish you, but I'm no criminal, no deranged, and, as far as I know, no traumas. I just happen to still like comics (which can be a very strange psychological feature).

It gave me a love for elaborated representations of our vile world (as Lawrence Sterne once wrote). And there is no such thing as "bad language": all features of expression are meant to be what they are, and apply to some situations.

I think the world is a complex place to live, full of beauty and horror. We must know how to understand both, and to know their place, to avoid naiveté; or even to know that we, ourselves, have a dark side that should not be denied: it must be dealt with.

As there are different children there are as many different ways in which they are raised....if Malus chooses to raise his children in that way....well thats his choice.....the thing i take from his post is the thinking of a teacher, and i wish that parent's i deal w/ thought about the upbringing of their children as much as Malus has shown.....*applauds* kudos....kids get enough of the violence, disrespect, so called real world living etc in a regular school day....kids have told me on a regular basis, that they enjoy my room because it seems safe....i teach geography and therefore it ain't just about plate tectonics....we are about to approach the subject of genocide in Rwanda, Apartheid in South Africa....but its approached in a way that they learn but they don't necessarily have to see the pure killing to get the point.....i think parents can do this as well.....and the choosing of movies and tv programs that their child watches to me is not a type of censorship...but simply a parent raising their child....

BUT back to the semi-topic....i saw nothing wrong as far as the movie for kiddos....imo....i thought it was rather funny to do a family version on demand...but if parents saw a problem w/ some of the scenes then i'm glad they have a choice of what to show their children......as far as the kids i saw at the theatre...the kids as well as their parents enjoyed the movie....and enjoyed seeing it together....and that is the most important thing for me.....

 

[Mr Sensitive]

As there are different children there are as many different ways in which they are raised....if Malus chooses to raise his children in that way....well thats his choice.....the thing i take from his post is the thinking of a teacher, and i wish that parent's i deal w/ thought about the upbringing of their children as much as Malus has shown.....*applauds* kudos....kids get enough of the violence, disrespect, so called real world living etc in a regular school day....kids have told me on a regular basis, that they enjoy my room because it seems safe....i teach geography and therefore it ain't just about plate tectonics....we are about to approach the subject of genocide in Rwanda, Apartheid in South Africa....but its approached in a way that they learn but they don't necessarily have to see the pure killing to get the point.....i think parents can do this as well.....and the choosing of movies and tv programs that their child watches to me is not a type of censorship...but simply a parent raising their child....

BUT back to the semi-topic....i saw nothing wrong as far as the movie for kiddos....imo....i thought it was rather funny to do a family version on demand...but if parents saw a problem w/ some of the scenes then i'm glad they have a choice of what to show their children......as far as the kids i saw at the theatre...the kids as well as their parents enjoyed the movie....and enjoyed seeing it together....and that is the most important thing for me.....

I wouldn’t have written anything, obviously, if Malus had said it just like you suggest: “It’s just my personal way to deal with my kids” and “I simply choose from what is shown”.

But he implied a general view on the subject and defended the kind of production he hopes the movies to be, with good arguments and a very decent explanation of them.

It is not necessarily the thinking of a teacher. I’m a teacher, too, and I don’t think like that.

The disagreement was on that basis. I said I hope the movies to tell the stories without worrying with violence or the kind of language. Wolverine or Batman, for instance, are supposed to be really violent, as they are in the comics (they are meant to be like that, it has a meaning); a character, pressed by some stress or emotion, should be able to say nasty coarse words. That’s just verisimilitude.

Fiction should not be sanitarized to fill more or less educational purposes. Fiction has a place of its own.

And, by the way, I don’t remember the word “censorship” being mentioned before in this conversation.

PS: Rwanda had one of the worst killings in recent History. If people are of age enough to hear about that, they have to hear in all words. It is the only way to make people aware of what happened in fact, and to build the hope that it stops happening.

 

[Orko Is King]

And besides, Ben Grimm would never use such a severe expletive. It was out of character. A simple "damn" would have sufficed.
Yea, Hollywood.

Oooohhh, you shoulda seen how pissed he was when the pie hit his face in Mark Waid's FF run.

 

[Kelly]

I wouldn’t have written anything, obviously, if Malus had said it just like you suggest: “It’s just my personal way to deal with my kids” and “I simply choose from what is shown”.

But he implied a general view on the subject and defended the kind of production he hopes the movies to be, with good arguments and a very decent explanation of them.

It is not necessarily the thinking of a teacher. I’m a teacher, too, and I don’t think like that.

The disagreement was on that basis. I said I hope the movies to tell the stories without worrying with violence or the kind of language. Wolverine or Batman, for instance, are supposed to be really violent, as they are in the comics (they are meant to be like that, it has a meaning); a character, pressed by some stress or emotion, should be able to say nasty coarse words. That’s just verisimilitude.

Fiction should not be sanitarized to fill more or less educational purposes. Fiction has a place of its own.

And, by the way, I don’t remember the word “censorship” being mentioned before in this conversation.

PS: Rwanda had one of the worst killings in recent History. If people are of age enough to hear about that, they have to hear in all words. It is the only way to make people aware of what happened in fact, and to build the hope that it stops happening.

I will teach the genocide in Rwanda in a way that my students will understand completely of the death and destruction...but I have to keep in mind that some of my parents have boundaries on what their kids watch and read....thats a part of my responsibility as a teacher of their kids. I respect those boundaries....they are the parent...I'm not, even though I feel as if I am sometimes....Heres the thing...I use age appropriate material to teach these subjects....example: Hotel Rwanda PG13....my students are all above the age of 13...I have permission from all parents to show the movie....does the movie show EXACTLY what has happened in Rwanda....NO...if it did it would be an NC17 rating....BUT it will give them a glimpse into what has happened there....as well the articles from the Upfront Magazine, written by the New York Times for my age group....

Very simple....parents need to watch the ratings yes...and talk to people that have seen the movie......if they don't want to have their kids see somethings....then they need to do what my family does.....I go and see the films first, or my sister does....and we report back....again its all really in the eye of the beholder when it comes right down to it.....EX....my family loves diving...so they were excited about the movie "Into The Blue" coming out....my niece read a critique from a moviegoer that called it "soft porn" she freaked out....I went and saw the movie....said that was totally ridiculous we all went to see the movie, and enjoyed the hell out of it....ALL AGES....from 10 -- 52. BUT parents have to do what they think is right....and I have to applaud all parents that at least take time to think about this stuff....

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Fiction should not be sanitarized to fill more or less educational purposes. Fiction has a place of its own.

I've read a lot of Fantastic Four comics, and I can't remember Ben Grimm ever saying "God damn". I agree fiction shouldn't be sanitized, but isn't it just as wrong to "dirty" it?

 

[Kelly]

I've read a lot of Fantastic Four comics, and I can't remember Ben Grimm ever saying "God damn". I agree fiction shouldn't be sanitized, but isn't it just as wrong to "dirty" it?

True, i think a "damn" would have been sufficient.....but they were trying for the PG 13 rating so i guess w/ that and the killing of the executive guy...they got it....

 

[Malus]

True, i think a "damn" would have been sufficient.....but they were trying for the PG 13 rating so i guess w/ that and the killing of the executive guy...they got it....

Bingo. I'd bet that's exactly why both things were done. In the case of the executive's killing, McMahon has said that he was surprised to see his bolt blow a hole through the guy, 'cause that's not what was scripted.

And Willie Lumpkin is completely right; Ben Grimm has never in over 500 issues used the phrase "Goddamn."
And considering the spiritual aspect given to the character recently by a current day writer, I seriously doubt he'll be saying it in the future.

And yes, Orko, I remember the pie thing. And if I'm not mistaken, Ben's expletives were all presented in "cuss-speak" (nonsense symbols & such) so that his words were obscured. That's like "Beetle Bailey" profanity; not quite the same...

More to say about all this, but I got a couple of kids waitin' on me...

 

[Kelly]

Bingo. I'd bet that's exactly why both things were done. In the case of the executive's killing, McMahon has said that he was surprised to see his bolt blow a hole through the guy, 'cause that's not what was scripted.

And Willie Lumpkin is completely right; Ben Grimm has never in over 500 issues used the phrase "Goddamn."
And considering the spiritual aspect given to the character recently by a current day writer, I really don't think you will.

And yes, Orko, I remember the pie thing. And if I'm not mistaken, Ben's expletives were all presented in "cuss-speak" (nonsense symbols & such) so that his words were obscured. That's like "Beetle Bailey" profanity; not quite the same...

More to say about all this, but I got a couple of kids waitin' on me...

i believe on the commentary Jessica mentions that the scene where Doom kills the exec, was changed for the PG 13 rating...

 

[eXperiment]

I like the movie version of the thing.

 

[Agent 194]

I liked it too. Chiklis was great. I still give him many props for his performance in the movie and how he was on the talk shows promoting it. He was/is a pro.

The Thing itself could still be better. Look better, feel better, be better. Nothing says that can't happen.

 

[Mr Sensitive]

I've read a lot of Fantastic Four comics, and I can't remember Ben Grimm ever saying "God damn". I agree fiction shouldn't be sanitized, but isn't it just as wrong to "dirty" it?

I wasn't aiming that precise quote when talking about dirty language, but in that case you are really right.

And yes, to "dirty" it is equally bad.

 

[Agent 194]

Also,...are we going to get to see all the crazy gadgetry in the lab and all the FF acting and behaving like it's just another day? Reed making something and Ben having to pick up a ridiculosuly big piece of machinery in order to help him. Id love to see that.

 

[TheSaintofKillers]

Big brow ? Small nose ? Unless you're making The Thing cg, isn't happening. Chilkis will be in that thing again. The head should look the same. They can work on the hands, and the body, but you can't take away from the emotions of the face. And if you gave him a big brow you'd take away from that. As far as a button nose, I don't think Chilkisis nose is that small. So the head stays as is.

I'm guessing the Teenage mutant ninja turtles had human noise, and a human head shape in the first TMNT movie ?

They are COSTUMES. There is no reasons why they can't make it right. They lack talent and imagination. CGI is NOT the only way to go, heck, it's the easy way.

If Jim Henson's company could pull the 4 giant turtles costumes in such a magnificent way in the first TMNT movie 15 years ago, Fox sure as hell shouldn't be excuse for not being able to make ONE single The Thing costume right.

They suck, end of story.

 

[w@llcrawler]

..and of course it was the completely inappropriate heart-ripping scene in Temple of Doom that brought about the creation of the PG-13 rating in the first place. It was a pretty big deal at the time. A lot of parents were rightfully upset.They had every reason to believe the tone of the PG-rated Temple would be similar to that of the PG-rated Raiders. They had been given no reason to expect otherwise.
Was the heart-ripping thing necessary? I can't say, really, I haven't really seen the film since probably 1986..I just wonder if Spielberg spent any time contemplating how the sizable number of children in the audience was going to respond to such a disturbing sequence. I'm sure he did after the fact.

I have to side with you on this issue. Although I really appreciate the mature tone of this discussion (I've been hanging out on the SM3 board lately - they need a nanny over there!), and I respect the idea of creative license, I just don't think that having Ben say GD served ANY purpose. I have a 12 year old son and we love to watch these movies together. And yes, he will be exposed to that sort of language in real life. But he shouldn't be hearing it from a fictional hero he looks up to who, as has been stated, never uttered such a phrase in the comic books that spawned him. These films can be made with a mature tone without having to resort to inserting the obligatory curse word.

 

[Agent 194]

I'm guessing the Teenage mutant ninja turtles had human noise, and a human head shape in the first TMNT movie ?

They are COSTUMES. There is no reasons why they can't make it right. They lack talent and imagination. CGI is NOT the only way to go, heck, it's the easy way.

If Jim Henson's company could pull the 4 giant turtles costumes in such a magnificent way in the first TMNT movie 15 years ago, Fox sure as hell shouldn't be excuse for not being able to make ONE single The Thing costume right.

They suck, end of story.

The teenage mutant ninja turtles discussion is something I brought up a year ago. . .I'm glad to hear you say it. I thought what they did with it was brilliant for the time. I can only imagine they could do much more.

I've proposed, many times in the past, a combination of puppetry, CGI, and good old fashioned imagination. I cite the bird horse from Harry Potter 3. That was a combination of all those things and was done very well.

I think it can be done right. Chiklis cann still be the heart underneath. . .Stan Lee, Avi Arad. . .somebody needs to step forward and say..."LOOK", "Let's do it right!"

 

[Agent 194]

I have to side with you on this issue. Although I really appreciate the mature tone of this discussion (I've been hanging out on the SM3 board lately - they need a nanny over there!), and I respect the idea of creative license, I just don't think that having Ben say GD served ANY purpose. I have a 12 year old son and we love to watch these movies together. And yes, he will be exposed to that sort of language in real life. But he shouldn't be hearing it from a fictional hero he looks up to who, as has been stated, never uttered such a phrase in the comic books that spawned him. These films can be made with a mature tone without having to resort to inserting the obligatory curse word.

And while I was not in on genesis of this discussion. . .I agree with you. Thing should be gruff but clean mouthed. I teach middle school and observe a lessening of standards with every passing year. Fantastic Four is classic and timeless and shouldn't participate in that process.

 

[Kelly]

And while I was not in on genesis of this discussion. . .I agree with you. Thing should be gruff but clean mouthed. I teach middle school and observe a lessening of standards with every passing year. Fantastic Four is classic and timeless and shouldn't participate in that process.

i agree, and i don't think it has a thing to do w/...."thats how the real world is..." no thats parents, teachers, etc...lessening the standards as you said....unfortunately its not art imitating life....we now live in a world where life is imitating art, and calling it real....and Hollywood is the main player....very unfortunate in my opinion....

i have the worst mouth in the world....just terrible....mostly because thats what i'm around most of the time....BUT not in my classroom....so it can be done....if its not in the comic, theres no need for it to be in the movie....