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

JMAfan said:
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....

Just because it's not in the comics doesn't always mean it shouldn't or can't be in the movie version. Often, the movies sort of flesh-out the characters. Ben, a gruff, weathered character might have some foul language from time to time but you CAN'T do that in the comics. I mean really...look at Wolverine. He's never uttered a "curse word" in any X-Men issue...But you mean to tell me that a dude that's been running around slicing throats (and worse) for decades never says anything worse than "cripes!"? I'm not saying that Wolvie or any other "superhero" should be going crazy or anything...I'm just saying that a big reason why the Thing wouldn't say G.D. in a comic is beause he can't.
 
Stikmann said:
Just because it's not in the comics doesn't always mean it shouldn't or can't be in the movie version. Often, the movies sort of flesh-out the characters. Ben, a gruff, weathered character might have some foul language from time to time but you CAN'T do that in the comics. I mean really...look at Wolverine. He's never uttered a "curse word" in any X-Men issue...But you mean to tell me that a dude that's been running around slicing throats (and worse) for decades never says anything worse than "cripes!"? I'm not saying that Wolvie or any other "superhero" should be going crazy or anything...I'm just saying that a big reason why the Thing wouldn't say G.D. in a comic is beause he can't.

ok...
 
Stikmann said:
Just because it's not in the comics doesn't always mean it shouldn't or can't be in the movie version. Often, the movies sort of flesh-out the characters.

The characters have been "fleshed out" in the comics for 45 years. If anything, more often than not, the movies screw up the characters.

Stikmann said:
Ben, a gruff, weathered character might have some foul language from time to time but you CAN'T do that in the comics.

Yes, they can do that in the comics. They just don't.
They could just slap a "Marvel Knights" mature imprint on an FF comic and...oh, wait they already did that, with Marvel Knights' "4."
And yet he still hasn't uttered G.D or any other expletive.

Yes, Ben Grimm is gruff and weathered, but it's obvious that he still considers himself a gentleman and he is also a fairly devout Jew.
He doesn't say "God damn."

Stikmann said:
I mean really...look at Wolverine. He's never uttered a "curse word" in any X-Men issue...But you mean to tell me that a dude that's been running around slicing throats (and worse) for decades never says anything worse than "cripes!"? I'm not saying that Wolvie or any other "superhero" should be going crazy or anything...I'm just saying that a big reason why the Thing wouldn't say G.D. in a comic is beause he can't.

Wolvie and Punisher are the only two characters that came to mind as possible exceptions. I'd actually be surprised if they've never cursed in any of the mature-labeled comics. But looking at Wolverine in the previews for the new film, he's in more of a role model position than before, and I hope they've considered that when it comes to his dialogue.
If any rough language is used, I hope it's in a dramatic situation, not a humorous one. Ben's "G.D. mirror" line was in the latter category, which is what made it extra inappropriate and jarring.

There's plenty of rough language to be heard in the media and in the world around us every day. We don't need to hear it coming out of the mouths of our children's heroes. And like it or not, that's what these characters are.
That's what they were created to be.
 
Malus said:
Wolvie and Punisher are the only two characters that came to mind as possible exceptions. I'd actually be surprised if they've never cursed in any of the mature-labeled comics. But looking at Wolverine in the previews for the new film, he's in more of a role model position than before, and I hope they've considered that when it comes to his dialogue.
If any rough language is used, I hope it's in a dramatic situation, not a humorous one. Ben's "G.D. mirror" line was in the latter category, which is what made it extra inappropriate and jarring.

There's plenty of rough language to be heard in the media and in the world around us every day. We don't need to hear it coming out of the mouths of our children's heroes. And like it or not, that's what these characters are.
That's what they were created to be.

Maybe in the sixties, yes, but not anymore.

Ambiguity teaches the children better than role models. Wolverine, in the movies, gets a bit of his counterpart in X-Men Evolution, which is no good. Why?

It takes out one of his most important features: he is a loner, and has to fight against his extreme animal nature. On the other hand, and still in the comics, Logan has this very delicate relationship with women, children and animals.

I think that to where he directs his violence teaches a good deal about what the world is, and the difficult decisions one has to make in order to calm down his inner fury.

Batman: the same thing. He struggles against his tendency of becoming the same madman as his enemies. It's more difficult to diferentiate his methods from the criminals' (if you compare him with, let's say, Captain America, or Superman), he is many times cynical, or sardonic, etc.

Take one of the best superhero stories, the Born Again series in Daredevil issues, by Miller and Mazzuchelli: Daredevil crosses the line more than once. But it is very substantial. One has to face what it takes to stand for his principles.

Political correctness doesn't give good lessons, it just avoids artificially any possible danger.
 
Lightning Strikez! said:
*comes in, takes a seat, munches popcorn*

Scoot over...*pops the top of my TAB Energy* *steals LS popcorn*
 
So in essence, we want the Thing to look a little more monstrous.
 
Mr Sensitive said:
Maybe in the sixties, yes, but not anymore.

Only to the extent that the publishers try to have it both ways.
(Which will one day blow up in their faces, probably when a third-grader picks up an Ed Brubaker Daredevil from beside the coloring books in the grocery store magazine section. One gander from a lawsuit-seeking parent and it's settlement time for the store, the distributor and Marvel. ;))

Mr Sensitive said:
Ambiguity teaches the children better than role models.

Well that's news to me and a lot of other parents.
I think my own kids learn more (and learn better) by witnessing what I hope is my dignified and civil interraction with the people and situations we encounter together every day. And they are decidedly disserved and diminished when they witness me lean on the horn at some idiot and mutter "goddamnnidiotmotherfrazzer!"
Of course, I always make sure to follow that up with, "That's not the way you should act, kids!"
There's ambiguity for you.

Mr Sensitive said:
Wolverine, in the movies, gets a bit of his counterpart in X-Men Evolution, which is no good. Why?
I honestly don't know quite what you're referring to here. And I didn't bring a blue book with me today. Tell you what, make it multiple choice and I'll guess "C."

Mr Sensitive said:
It takes out one of his most important features: he is a loner, and has to fight against his extreme animal nature. On the other hand, and still in the comics, Logan has this very delicate relationship with women, children and animals....I think that to where he directs his violence teaches a good deal about what the world is, and the difficult decisions one has to make in order to calm down his inner fury.
Batman: the same thing. He struggles against his tendency of becoming the same madman as his enemies. It's more difficult to diferentiate his methods from the criminals' (if you compare him with, let's say, Captain America, or Superman), he is many times cynical, or sardonic, etc.

Take one of the best superhero stories, the Born Again series in Daredevil issues, by Miller and Mazzuchelli: Daredevil crosses the line more than once. But it is very substantial. One has to face what it takes to stand for his principles.

I don't disagree with any of this, really. I have no problem with any of these characterizations; in the case of Daredevil, the grittier approach was what saved the character from becoming a self-parody. And "Born Again" is an outstanding achievement.
Could it work in a movie? With a PG-13 or R rating, sure.
Of course they'd still screw it entirely and strip out every subtle nuance of character that Miller and Mazuchelli infused it with...and probably add some profanity and titillation that wasn't in the comics. ;)


Mr Sensitive said:
Political correctness doesn't give good lessons, it just avoids artificially any possible danger.

Except that we're not talking about "political correctness," at least not by any definition I'm familiar with.
I'm just saying that these characters (the FF, Spidey, Superman- your iconic characters) were created for children and that they should be allowed to keep the morality and dignity they were created with.

I think the studios want that, too. (They just don't always exercise the best judgment.) And you can bet the licensees want the characters to be age-appropriate as much as possible.

It can be a slipperly slope, though. Where should the publishers draw the line? I enjoyed the hell out of Dark Knight Returns but it didn't belong in an 8-year old's hands, at least not without parental consent. Same thing definitely goes for The Killing Joke. And Ronin. And Watchmen.
And I love 'em all. I will let my future 12-year old read Dark Knight, sure. But my 7 year old? Give me a break.

Where should the line be drawn? It shouldn't. I don't think there is a line. And if there is, it definitely keeps moving.
I don't want any type of media banned or even economically boycotted, but I would like to see publishers, studios and networks show just a bit more civic responsibility, at least in rating and/or identifying content.
I realized a long time ago that I can't stop the dumbass next door from allowing his 5-year old to watch "The Grudge," but I'd be damned if I didn't raise the freakin' roof when I walked into my 3-year old son's preschool a few years back and found them showing the "Hulk" movie. :eek:

Of course they assumed that the Hulk movie would be okay, since their own knowledge of the character came from kids' coloring books, underoos, action figures, the 70's tv show and story books.
I mean even if someone there had read the first 200+ issues of Hulk comics, they'd have no reason to think otherwise.

At least the Hulk's essential character wasn't violated. It was more like the film around him was the violation.

Again, it's not about political correctness.
It's about civility.
 
terry78 said:
So in essence, we want the Thing to look a little more monstrous.

On the contrary. . .I think he had more humanity later on than his early days in the first 40 or so issues. The brow and blip of the nose. . .rounded out eyes are as much a part of him as that one hair Charlie Brown has on his head. It's who we've grown to know and love all these years. Why not give the public what they love? He's not monstrous. He's the Thing. That's who I want to see. They can fix it this time rouond.
 
Agent 194 said:
On the contrary. . .I think he had more humanity later on than his early days in the first 40 or so issues. The brow and blip of the nose. . .rounded out eyes are as much a part of him as that one hair Charlie Brown has on his head. It's who we've grown to know and love all these years. Why not give the public what they love? He's not monstrous. He's the Thing. That's who I want to see. They can fix it this time rouond.

What percentage of the public do you think knows all of that?....I agree I want more of the brow, etc...and I have a feeling we will get that....but, be honest, truly how much of the general movie going audience knows the above???
 
JMAfan said:
What percentage of the public do you think knows all of that?....I agree I want more of the brow, etc...and I have a feeling we will get that....but, be honest, truly how much of the general movie going audience knows the above???

Ok,...I'll grant you that. Let's say not a soul knows except us fans (and my wife because I hipped her to it) Let's say no one knows. . .but still why can't they continue his evolution into the Thing that made us fans to begin with? That's the cool look we all liked. Why couldn't whatever that special formula that enchanted us as kids do the same thing for the civlian, common mortal, uninitiated population who just goes to the movies? Afte all it's we fans who went to that movie and dragged our wives and girlfriends there who made it successful. We're the ones who count so why not make it right if just for us? They're making it for us! Like Paul McCartney said, "what's wrong with that? Who says that can't or shouldn't be done, and why?
 
Agent 194 said:
On the contrary. . .I think he had more humanity later on than his early days in the first 40 or so issues. The brow and blip of the nose. . .rounded out eyes are as much a part of him as that one hair Charlie Brown has on his head. It's who we've grown to know and love all these years. Why not give the public what they love? He's not monstrous. He's the Thing. That's who I want to see. They can fix it this time rouond.


Very true, and this is part of what sold me on the film look as possibly being best for the first film.

Let me explain:

In the early comics, he was monstrous. Neither Jack Kirby or Stan Lee seemed to really know where they wanted to take him in those initial issues. Eventually his look and personality developed into what we are familiar with. It's fun to read some of those early issues because the characters all seem a little edgier before Stan and Jack developed them into the more heroic and more familiar characters that we know today.

When I was looking at the maquette for the Thing in the first movie, I began to see the sadness in that design. By making him almost human, he seems more tragic - like a disfigured person (many people referred to him as looking like a burn victim) - rather than the more fun-loving thing that we know and love from the comics.

Now that the origin story has been told and Ben's tragedy has been explored, they can begin to make the character more fun both in personality and appearance.

Ben is a great, tragic character. Someone who is a hero at the expense of his humanity, but the thing that makes him lovable is that he doesn't beat us over the head with it and spend his whole life moping about it. It's there, and we know it's there, but he deals with it by laughing.

That's an area that I think could be greatly improved in the second film. There really wasn't enough time to make him sad, but funny and self effacing in the first film. I think his comment at the end that he was alright as is (that made me and other long time fans cringe) was an effort to show his optimism and end on an up-point.

If I was a consultant on the second film, one thing I would push would be to lighten his character both physically and mentally, and I really don't think that the filmakers are as "dumb" as many would argue, so I think there's a chance we will see him move more in that direction.
 
Willie, your words and wisdom belie the years of a man who looks the age of the Stan Lee character in you avatar.

Preach on.
 
Fix it Fox. We'll love you for it and bring more wifes and girlfriends this time around. Some might become polygimists for the cause.
 
Agent 194 said:
Willie, your words and wisdom belie the years of a man who looks the age of the Stan Lee character in you avatar.

Preach on.

I've seen a picture of Willie Boy....he's a youngster for his age....:)
 
Agent 194 said:
Ok,...I'll grant you that. Let's say not a soul knows except us fans (and my wife because I hipped her to it) Let's say no one knows. . .but still why can't they continue his evolution into the Thing that made us fans to begin with? That's the cool look we all liked. Why couldn't whatever that special formula that enchanted us as kids do the same thing for the civlian, common mortal, uninitiated population who just goes to the movies? Afte all it's we fans who went to that movie and dragged our wives and girlfriends there who made it successful. We're the ones who count so why not make it right if just for us? They're making it for us! Like Paul McCartney said, "what's wrong with that? Who says that can't or shouldn't be done, and why?

Theres absolutely "nothing wrong with that"....:) I will throw that in every once in awhile, pretty much to bring us back to the reality (maybe not the reality we want) but the reality of the studio and their thinking....
 
Malus, first of all: I understand and respect your views and concerns on the subject. I even agree with the most part of them. I’ll try to make my small disagreements a bit clearer this time.

Only to the extent that the publishers try to have it both ways.
(Which will one day blow up in their faces, probably when a third-grader picks up an Ed Brubaker Daredevil from beside the coloring books in the grocery store magazine section. One gander from a lawsuit-seeking parent and it's settlement time for the store, the distributor and Marvel. )

In the past, this kind of lawsuit only happened with people like Baudelaire (Fleurs du Mal) and Flaubert (Mme. Bovary); nowadays, look at what we’ve become.

Well that's news to me and a lot of other parents.
I think my own kids learn more (and learn better) by witnessing what I hope is my dignified and civil interraction with the people and situations we encounter together every day. And they are decidedly disserved and diminished when they witness me lean on the horn at some idiot and mutter "goddamnnidiotmotherfrazzer!"
Of course, I always make sure to follow that up with, "That's not the way you should act, kids!"
There's ambiguity for you.

Look, Malus, it’s not the same thing. Coarse words happen in normal life, and it doesn’t take an ass to say it. Of course I’m not suggesting ambiguity in the Vertigo way, but even in Marvel regular comicbook series you can find it: Dr. Doom, for instance. He is definitely a villain, he is a dictator, but in a certain episode, back in John Byrne’s days, the FF found out that he was the better option for Latveria, when Zorba (that they helped in his path to the power) reveals himself to be worse than Doom.

Doom has his code of honor, etc.

That’s the kind of thing I was trying to say. And it is very educative, one just has to take a look at the news.


I honestly don't know quite what you're referring to here. And I didn't bring a blue book with me today. Tell you what, make it multiple choice and I'll guess "C."

I was referring the X-Men animated seres, in which Wolvie is the Professor’s right hand and sometimes a father-figure, without any comportamental ambiguity.

I don't disagree with any of this, really. I have no problem with any of these characterizations; in the case of Daredevil, the grittier approach was what saved the character from becoming a self-parody. And "Born Again" is an outstanding achievement.
Could it work in a movie? With a PG-13 or R rating, sure.
Of course they'd still screw it entirely and strip out every subtle nuance of character that Miller and Mazuchelli infused it with...and probably add some profanity and titillation that wasn't in the comics.

And, maybe, that’s the whole point: I’m not suggesting that we take our children to watch Evil Dead, too; I just think the movies are damaged (like Fantastic Four was) when greedy execs want to cover all the goddamm (sorry, lapsus linguae) demographics, resulting in just a passing “summer flick for all the family”, you know?

Except that we're not talking about "political correctness," at least not by any definition I'm familiar with.
I'm just saying that these characters (the FF, Spidey, Superman- your iconic characters) were created for children and that they should be allowed to keep the morality and dignity they were created with.

Stan Lee, for instance, started that “failed hero” trend, which developed till the present day. Spidey started with a very bad behaviour (he was punished for it, of course, how could we forget if he reminds us every time?); Hulk is a hero, or a misunderstood (and unpredictable) monster?; and so forth.

I think the studios want that, too. (They just don't always exercise the best judgment.) And you can bet the licensees want the characters to be age-appropriate as much as possible.

Of course the studios want that. They want everybody watching the movies. And that’s the problem: all these aspects have nothing to do with telling a good story, but with keeping it sufficiently broad to catch all moviegoers.

It can be a slipperly slope, though. Where should the publishers draw the line? I enjoyed the hell out of Dark Knight Returns but it didn't belong in an 8-year old's hands, at least not without parental consent. Same thing definitely goes for The Killing Joke. And Ronin. And Watchmen.
And I love 'em all. I will let my future 121year old read Dark Knight, sure. But my 7 year old? Give me a break.

Again, Malus, you need not to worry, cause I’m not suggesting you show to a 7 year-old a picture of Batman squeezing a batarang into the Joker’s eyes.
It’s more in the way I said when talking about ambiguity and Doom back there.


Where should the line be drawn? It shouldn't. I don't think there is a line. And if there is, it definitely keeps moving.

Yep.

I don't want any type of media banned or even economically boycotted, but I would like to see publishers, studios and networks show just a bit more civic responsibility, at least in rating and/or identifying content.
I realized a long time ago that I can't stop the dumbass next door from allowing his 5-year old to watch "The Grudge," but I'd be damned if I didn't raise the freakin' roof when I walked into my 3-year old son's preschool a few years back and found them showing the "Hulk" movie.

Of course they assumed that the Hulk movie would be okay, since their own knowledge of the character came from kids' coloring books, underoos, action figures, the 70's tv show and story books.
I mean even if someone there had read the first 200+ issues of Hulk comics, they'd have no reason to think otherwise.

Buenas: but it was not Ang Lee’s fault either, was it? They should’ve known better. Maybe watched the movie before playing it to the kids.

At least the Hulk's essential character wasn't violated. It was more like the film around him was the violation.

Again, it's not about political correctness.
It's about civility.

I agree, but in fiction not all the behaviour is civil. If it was, Spidey wouldn’t need to fight Doc Ock, nor FF x Doc Doom, Good mutants vs bad mutants, etc.
 
<sighs>. . .whatever we want to call it....I just want him to look like Thing.
 
I guess if you can't make the movie look like the comic...

the cover to the upcoming FANTASTIC FOUR #539

ff539.jpg
 
Okay, that's interesting. . .but I don't want him to look like that (in either medium)
 
Agent 194 said:
Okay, that's interesting. . .but I don't want him to look like that (in either medium)

Yeah...he has a turtle face in it.
 
The Thing looked decent enough...and it was definitely better than CGI. Perhaps if they could lose the shiney look to the suit...give it a real rock-like appearance. But overall, he looked very good in my opinion. ~Sean
 
LondonSpitfire said:
The Thing looked decent enough...and it was definitely better than CGI. Perhaps if they could lose the shiney look to the suit...give it a real rock-like appearance. But overall, he looked very good in my opinion. ~Sean

Ray Bolger looked good as the ScareCrow in the Wizard of Oz but that was almost 70 years ago. . .come to think of it he looked better than Thing - even given the time difference.

Not to sound like Johnny One Note....but I think they can do better.
 
Agent 194 said:
Not to sound like Johnny One Note....but I think they can do better.

Yes, they can.

They were lazy in the first movie, and had the very good luck of having Chiklis in the role. Otherwise...
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"