Dear God. Stick To The Source Material

[HoratioRome]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to come on strong or rude. and I know that it's too late to do anything about the FF now.
But I just came from 300 last night, and I'm now learning that it will most likely set a new BO record, and all I have to say to all those who accept and support when hollywood changes things, is we as fans have to DEMAND that they stick to the source material.
Because when they do, it duplicates the magic that inspired the movie to be made in the first place.
Frank Miller recognizes that the closer they stick to the source material the more successful the movies are, and it's time WE the fans did the same.
TRUST IT.
purple outfitted, skirt wearing, planet devouring, antena helmet wearing GIANT.
Rocky, speedo wearing (yes I SAID SPEEDO), big brow having creature.
LET DOOM BE DOOM!
duplicating Stan lee's story (meaning no Doom in a Galactus/SS story)
anything short of that TAKES AWAY from what it could be
oh this is killing me.

 

[Hunter Rider]

300 may bring about some change of thought but i think it also depends on what the source is,300 isn't that far removed from the epic like Gladiator or Troy existing in a more fantasy based world like LOTR.

 

[Antrax255]

spell source right

 

[50yroldfffan]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to come on strong or rude. and I know that it's too late to do anything about the FF now.
But I just came from 300 last night, and I'm now learning that it will most likely set a new BO record, and all I have to say to all those who accept and support when hollywood changes things, is we as fans have to DEMAND that they stick to the source material.
Because when they do, it duplicates the magic that inspired the movie to be made in the first place.
Frank Miller recognizes that the closer they stick to the source material the more successful the movies are, and it's time WE the fans did the same.
TRUST IT.
purple outfitted, skirt wearing, planet devouring, antena helmet wearing GIANT.
Rocky, speedo wearing (yes I SAID SPEEDO), big brow having creature.
LET DOOM BE DOOM!
duplicating Stan lee's story (meaning no Doom in a Galactus/SS story)
anything short of that TAKES AWAY from what it could be
oh this is killing me.

You are so right!!
I was going to do the same post after also watching "300". It was a kick ass awsome movie.
I thought how lucky Frank Miller is now they have made at least two movies sticking to his source material and they have kicked ASS!!! That was my complaint and sandness over the first FF movie. I had hoped the first movie would stick to the great Jack Kirby source material, set the movie in the 60's, fill it with all the crazy Kirby machines and designs. Use a 60's soundtrack and give us a Thing with a large rocky brow (see the cover of FF issue 51 "This Man this Monster" thats the template they needed to use when desinging the Thing ha ha) but no they felt they needed to make it comtemporary and in doing so they lost the soul of the Fantastic Four. We can only hope the find it in the next movie.

 

[Hellmistress]

'Tis a shame that they didn't stick to the REAL source material in 300, which is the historical FACT behind the Battle of Thermopylae. Frank Miller played about with it, which I suppose I can deal with because I'm a Miller fan, but the crap that has finally made its way onto the screen is annoying the hell out of me. They even changed the phalanx because it wasn't 'cinematically interesting enough.' Jeez. And WAR RHINOS???? Gimmee a break. It's even worse than the llamas in that other piece of tosh called Troy.

And yes, I know you guys are going to yell 'It isn't a documentary!!!' at me, but what is the difference between MY view of original material and yours? Is 'graphic novel' reality more pertinent than actual historical accuracy? I think not.

HM

 

[Kelly]

Well......a 16 year old, 21 year old actress, 32 year old scientist, and pilot going up in space on a spaceship.....isn't exactly historically correct either......but hey if thats what they wanted.......ok.

 

[HoratioRome]

spell source right

Ooops that wasn a typo.

 

[Advanced Dark]

More complaining Horatio? My God? Should the FF be flying around in a Bathtub like in the source? Have you ever even read the source? Go back and read the first dozen or so issues of the FF and try to imagine word for word that being translated into a film in this day and time. Yeah right...it'd do worse than Bloodrayne. Might be nostalgic to look at but the movies are not the same as 4 color comics. Everything I've seen from FF2 so far is very positive and it looks amazing. If the studios ever listened to fanboys demands all of these Superhero movies would flop. Nobody seemed to complain to Bryan Singer about his X-Men and that source material which was completely messed with. Look at Batman Begins another film where the souce material was not stuck with. Those films were great to alot of people. Look at Spider-Man putting Gwen in the 3rd film after MJ, organic shooters, etc...

Hellmistress makes a great point too. So while all the angry fanboys get riled up making demands and threatening boycotts the world still turns and these movies are making alot of money because most people could care less about staying exactly true to the source...because they don't even know the source in that much detail.

 

[HoratioRome]

'Tis a shame that they didn't stick to the REAL source material in 300, which is the historical FACT behind the Battle of Thermopylae. Frank Miller played about with it, which I suppose I can deal with because I'm a Miller fan, but the crap that has finally made its way onto the screen is annoying the hell out of me. They even changed the phalanx because it wasn't 'cinematically interesting enough.' Jeez. And WAR RHINOS???? Gimmee a break. It's even worse than the llamas in that other piece of tosh called Troy.

And yes, I know you guys are going to yell 'It isn't a documentary!!!' at me, but what is the difference between MY view of original material and yours? Is 'graphic novel' reality more pertinent than actual historical accuracy? I think not.

HM

you make a good point, but I think it's a different topic. you have every right to want a movie which is as historilcaly accurate as possible. That is you "source material" and that is fine.
However the source material for THIS movie was the comic and neither pretended to be factual.
they are more like a worked of fiction inspired by historical events.
That makes it 2 different genre, 2 different subjects.
IOW, I would totally agree with you if a "documentary" about the Spartan war took such liberties with the facts. or if the movie pretended to be historically accurate and took those liberties. That would be innapropriate.
But this isn't claiming to be that.
It is a work of fiction first and a history lesson second.

relating that to superheroes, is to say it is perfectly fine to make a movie that is inspired by comic book characters but doesn't claim to be the those characters. When doing so a director can do whatever he/she wishes, because in effect he/she is creating something new. There is no obligation to stick to the source material. The perfect example of this would be the incredibles. One of the best superhero movies ever made.

That movie is more like the FF than the actual FF movie. Yet is also very different from the FF. The liberties and changes they made from the FF comics is prefectly is fine because it doesn't pretend to be the FF.
Whereas the changes made the FF movie are wrong because it IS supposed to be the FF from the comics.

 

[Carp Man]

You are so right. FF was started during the 60's. It was written with that time in mind. We we're in a race with the Russians to be the 1st in space, therefore FF #1, beating the Commies into space. You had Vietnam. You had the drug craze, the hippie movement, free love, ect, ect. It was a different mind set, and time frame, and the comics we're written with that in mind. Would look, verry, very dated, to the people of today if you put it up there, word for word, line for line, image by image. Can you imagine the flying hot tub on the big screen ? So while I must agree with Horatio, stick to the source when possible, but realize that changes have to be made, to bring it up to date. Can't wait to see Doom on the Surfers surfboard.

 

[Kelly]

I'm sorry, I respect your opinion Horatio....but I'm very glad we didn't get a 60's retro movie.....did I want a better movie????? definitely, but did I want F4 going into space to fight the commies......no.

 

[Advanced Dark]

^ Wrong to you and the FF purists but not wrong for the rest of the World who couldn't care less, the studios, and the producers. Not only for FF but for almost every superhero film out there. Also how do you know how close to the source this new movie is...since you have not seen it. Apparently your buddy didn't either based on everything we've heard from Tim Story, Tom Rothman, Julian McMahon, etc...

 

[Moviefan2k4]

I think Brandon Lee said it best in his final interview, describing the differences between comics and film:

"They're different mediums. In comics, you can do a lot with images, and leave a lot to the imagination of the reader. But we had the responsibility (with "The Crow") to fill in some gaps that aren't necessarily there in the comic book, because they are different mediums."

He was right. In the end, because they are inherently separate from each other, comics and films work very differently. True, a spot-on replica of a comic-book could probably be made into a film, but while the diehard fans would eat it up, I personally doubt it'd be enough to warrant that approach in the future. Studios, producers, directors, and some actors understand these differences. A story in a comic book can be very loose, leaving more than a fair share of room for personal interpretation. Comic-based films, for the most part, don't have that luxury. The story has to be nailed down in a very strict sense, for it to be acceptable to a wider audience (which in the end, illustrates the goal of drawing more people toward the books as a result). Filmmakers can replicate the "feel" or "spirit" of the comic's original intentions, but making a film based solely on one particular story tends to isolate a lot of people.

Take Spider-Man as an example, since that story is often more complex than the Fantastic 4. In "Spidey", several stories cross over and intersect at multiple points over years (even decades!) of books. In a film, the story has to undergo a lot of streamlining, so folks in general will understand and accept the basic form of the character. The extreme mythologies (Venom being a result of alien wartime technology, Harry's soul being tortured by demonic forces, etc.) are best suited for a medium that is not restricted by the boundaries of time or believability. That's why those issues are largely avoided in the films, because their extreme nature, while great when spread out over 52 issues a year, can become very ridiculous when presented in a 2-hour time frame. Rare exceptions are done, like in the case of "Ghost Rider", where the supernatural themes define the character. But in most cases, the extremity of each story (be it fantasy, horror, scifi, etc.) is radically toned down, so more people will enjoy and embrace it.

 

[Kelly]

^ Wrong to you and the FF purists but not wrong for the rest of the World who couldn't care less, the studios, and the producers. Not only for FF but for almost every superhero film out there. Also how do you know how close to the source this new movie is...since you have not seen it. Apparently your buddy didn't either based on everything we've heard from Tim Story, Tom Rothman, Julian McMahon, etc...

What?????....damn AD....would you quote please instead of using the ^^....its very confusing sometimes..... half the time you aren't posting under the person you are pointing to......

 

[Advanced Dark]

You are so right. FF was started during the 60's. It was written with that time in mind. We we're in a race with the Russians to be the 1st in space, therefore FF #1, beating the Commies into space. You had Vietnam. You had the drug craze, the hippie movement, free love, ect, ect. It was a different mind set, and time frame, and the comics we're written with that in mind. Would look, verry, very dated, to the people of today if you put it up there, word for word, line for line, image by image. Can you imagine the flying hot tub on the big screen ? So while I must agree with Horatio, stick to the source when possible, but realize that changes have to be made, to bring it up to date. Can't wait to see Doom on the Surfers surfboard.

The first Fantastic Four film was close enough at it's core to the soucre material. They changed Doom...but they had to. Honestly think about Doom and how the hell he'd fit into today's time as far as his origin. Read his origin stories again. Honeslty they're laugable as written. The character itself is awesome and inspired even Darth Vader but he couldn't be translated "as is" to the big screen and expect it to be any better. Doom really wasn't even in the first film till the last fight scene anyways and they set it up to fix any issues the fans had and apparently they did. As far as Galactus is concerned...the character would look corny as hell as is in a live action film. None of the pictures people post can translate into a live action film without looking really bad...at least with the budget they have. Also Galactus isn't really needed to have a "major" visual presence. We'll see what they do...and again NOBODY here or on those Statue forums has seen how Galactus is gonna look in his final form on film. Nobody.

 

[HoratioRome]

More complaining Horatio? My God? Should the FF be flying around in a Bathtub like in the source? Have you ever even read the source? Go back and read the first dozen or so issues of the FF and try to imagine word for word that being translated into a film in this day and time. Yeah right...it'd do worse than Bloodrayne. Might be nostalgic to look at but the movies are not the same as 4 color comics. Everything I've seen from FF2 so far is very positive and it looks amazing. If the studios ever listened to fanboys demands all of these Superhero movies would flop. Nobody seemed to complain to Bryan Singer about his X-Men and that source material which was completely messed with. Look at Batman Begins another film where the souce material was not stuck with. Those films were great to alot of people. Look at Spider-Man putting Gwen in the 3rd film after MJ, organic shooters, etc...

Hellmistress makes a great point too. So while all the angry fanboys get riled up making demands and threatening boycotts the world still turns and these movies are making alot of money because most people could care less about staying exactly true to the source...because they don't even know the source in that much detail.

you're clearly just not intelligent enough for me to bother with a response.
tell you what. You once tried to say I shouldn't come on the Hype forum if I "hated the movies so much".
That was clearly a stupid statement as the Hype is a forum where people can discuss their views both pro and con about the Fantastic Four (be it movies, comics, cartoons, or whatever).
But dude, if YOU don't like MY posts so much perhaps you can stay away for MY threads instead of coming on here and complaining about me complaining.

I promise I'll stay away from your threads. So why don't you make one about how perfect the FF movie was, how it made tons at the BO, how everyone loved it, how fans where pleased with every aspect of it, how the general public loved it, and how great a director Tim story is, ,.....
I promise i won't come on there and "complain"
oh but you can't can you?

 

[Advanced Dark]

What?????....damn AD....would you quote please instead of using the ^^....its very confusing sometimes..... half the time you aren't posting under the person you are pointing to......

Sorry. This thread wasn't too active and I thought my post would have been under it. LOL

^^^

 

[Kelly]

The first Fantastic Four film was close enough at it's core to the soucre material. They changed Doom...but they had to. Honestly think about Doom and how the hell he'd fit into today's time as far as his origin. Read his origin stories again. Honeslty they're laugable as written. The character itself is awesome and inspired even Darth Vader but he couldn't be translated "as is" to the big screen and expect it to be any better. Doom really wasn't even in the first film till the last fight scene anyways and they set it up to fix any issues the fans had and apparently they did. As far as Galactus is concerned...the character would look corny as hell as is in a live action film. None of the pictures people post can translate into a live action film without looking really bad...at least with the budget they have. Also Galactus isn't really needed to have a "major" visual presence. We'll see what they do...and again NOBODY here or on those Statue forums has seen how Galactus is gonna look in his final form on film. Nobody.

Why would you write, direct and shoot a movie with the intent "so that you can fix the character later"????

I'm with you as far as the strong speculation going on as far as the sequel....but that could go both ways.....those saying "they've changed things for the better"....and those saying they haven't....WE JUST DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT.....


Ooooooh and thank you for quoting......

 

[HoratioRome]

I'm sorry, I respect your opinion Horatio....but I'm very glad we didn't get a 60's retro movie.....did I want a better movie????? definitely, but did I want F4 going into space to fight the commies......no.

Alba, for the record I'm not the person who said it should stick to the 60's era.
My personal view is that the stories could and should be contemporized but stay the same.
Much the same way SM did.
so instead of getting into space before the commies goes, you can change that to something more relevant (like the chinese or something), but keep the story the same and send them to space and have the rays (the kind of rays could be changed too) hit them while they are in the ship.

contemporize but keep it the same.

 

[Advanced Dark]

you're clearly just not intelligent enough for me to bother with a response.
tell you what. You once tried to say I shouldn't come on the Hype forum if I "hated the movies so much".
That was clearly a stupid statement as the Hype is a forum where people can discuss their views both pro and con about the Fantastic Four (be it movies, comics, cartoons, or whatever).
But dude, if YOU don't like MY posts so much perhaps you can stay away for MY threads instead of coming on here and complaining about me complaining.

I promise I'll stay away from your threads. So why don't you make one about how perfect the FF movie was, how it made tons at the BO, how everyone loved it, how fans where pleased with every aspect of it, how the general public loved it, and how great a director Tim story is, ,.....
I promise i won't come on there and "complain"
oh but you can't can you?

Horatio,

There are plenty of threads where your first post could have fit into here. What inspired you to just post this thread which seems to be filled with anger about a film YOU have not seen. Are you complaining about the first film? What the hell are you complaining about? What in the new footage that we've seen suggests they're not sticking to the source as much as possible. Please tell us what you've seen that nobody else has. We know Dr. Doom is in Latveria, we know the Silver Surfer is coming and is a Herald of Galactus, we know that he wants the SS's powers, Reed stretches, Johnny catches on fire, Sue can turn invisible, The Thing is...still the thing. WTF are you complaining about specifically in this thread that made you post it at the time you did? I'm just trying to figure that one out. Also I'll put my intelligence against yours any day. I don't have a problem with you questioning my opinion or complaining about my posts but you can stop with the name calling or personal attacks.

Edit/Add: Lastly Horatio, everyone has an opinion. If I'm anticipating a movie and watched it and didn't like it...then I'll go back to the thread and post my thoughts. However I'm not going to continue to post every day and create new threads about how it sucked. Why would anyone want to spend time in forums about things they don't like every day?

 

[Advanced Dark]

I think Brandon Lee said it best in his final interview, describing the differences between comics and film:

"They're different mediums. In comics, you can do a lot with images, and leave a lot to the imagination of the reader. But we had the responsibility (with "The Crow") to fill in some gaps that aren't necessarily there in the comic book, because they are different mediums."

He was right. In the end, because they are inherently separate from each other, comics and films work very differently. True, a spot-on replica of a comic-book could probably be made into a film, but while the diehard fans would eat it up, I personally doubt it'd be enough to warrant that approach in the future. Studios, producers, directors, and some actors understand these differences. A story in a comic book can be very loose, leaving more than a fair share of room for personal interpretation. Comic-based films, for the most part, don't have that luxury. The story has to be nailed down in a very strict sense, for it to be acceptable to a wider audience (which in the end, illustrates the goal of drawing more people toward the books as a result). Filmmakers can replicate the "feel" or "spirit" of the comic's original intentions, but making a film based solely on one particular story tends to isolate a lot of people.

Take Spider-Man as an example, since that story is often more complex than the Fantastic 4. In "Spidey", several stories cross over and intersect at multiple points over years (even decades!) of books. In a film, the story has to undergo a lot of streamlining, so folks in general will understand and accept the basic form of the character. The extreme mythologies (Venom being a result of alien wartime technology, Harry's soul being tortured by demonic forces, etc.) are best suited for a medium that is not restricted by the boundaries of time or believability. That's why those issues are largely avoided in the films, because their extreme nature, while great when spread out over 52 issues a year, can become very ridiculous when presented in a 2-hour time frame. Rare exceptions are done, like in the case of "Ghost Rider", where the supernatural themes define the character. But in most cases, the extremity of each story (be it fantasy, horror, scifi, etc.) is radically toned down, so more people will enjoy and embrace it.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Kelly]

Alba, for the record I'm not the person who said it should stick to the 60's era.
My personal view is that the stories could and should be contemporized but stay the same.
Much the same way SM did.
so instead of getting into space before the commies goes, you can change that to something more relevant (like the chinese or something), but keep the story the same and send them to space and have the rays (the kind of rays could be changed too) hit them while they are in the ship.

contemporize but keep it the same.

I can go with that.....I wanted the characterization more to the Marvel Knights issues....I got alittle of that with Johnny and Ben, but got nothing of that for Sue and Reed......I also had no problem with Doom being extremely close to the source material.....so I understand where you are coming from....

Everyone but Sue could have been much closer to their characters of the originals....but I DID NOT want a Sue, "save me" Storm.....AT ALL....

BTW, you can call me Kel, Horatio.....

 

[Advanced Dark]

Why would you write, direct and shoot a movie with the intent "so that you can fix the character later"????

I'm with you as far as the strong speculation going on as far as the sequel....but that could go both ways.....those saying "they've changed things for the better"....and those saying they haven't....WE JUST DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT.....


Ooooooh and thank you for quoting......

I don't think they did it with the intent to fix it. I think the studio made the first film (which I thought was mediocre but fun) as a very safe play. They didn't want to go out there with a "take over the world villain" in a castle from the start. That origin would just not fit in with the movie world as it does in comics. It'd be stupid. The characters are better tied together now. I liked Doom's origin in the film. I think it was done fine and I like how the film ended. What I didn't like was how corny his lines were in the end and how little of Doom we saw. The less the better because it leaves room for changes and improvements, etc...

I thought Johnny was perfect and could care less about his hair color. The Thing was pretty damn good but looks much better in the first film, Sue was ok to me but not great, and Ioan was like watching paint dry. I think he was uncomfortable in the role but from what I've seen so far he seems much more colorful and comfortable this time around.

 

[HoratioRome]

I think Brandon Lee said it best in his final interview, describing the differences between comics and film:

"They're different mediums. In comics, you can do a lot with images, and leave a lot to the imagination of the reader. But we had the responsibility (with "The Crow") to fill in some gaps that aren't necessarily there in the comic book, because they are different mediums."

He was right. In the end, because they are inherently separate from each other, comics and films work very differently. True, a spot-on replica of a comic-book could probably be made into a film, but while the diehard fans would eat it up, I personally doubt it'd be enough to warrant that approach in the future. Studios, producers, directors, and some actors understand these differences. A story in a comic book can be very loose, leaving more than a fair share of room for personal interpretation. Comic-based films, for the most part, don't have that luxury. The story has to be nailed down in a very strict sense, for it to be acceptable to a wider audience (which in the end, illustrates the goal of drawing more people toward the books as a result). Filmmakers can replicate the "feel" or "spirit" of the comic's original intentions, but making a film based solely on one particular story tends to isolate a lot of people.

Take Spider-Man as an example, since that story is often more complex than the Fantastic 4. In "Spidey", several stories cross over and intersect at multiple points over years (even decades!) of books. In a film, the story has to undergo a lot of streamlining, so folks in general will understand and accept the basic form of the character. The extreme mythologies (Venom being a result of alien wartime technology, Harry's soul being tortured by demonic forces, etc.) are best suited for a medium that is not restricted by the boundaries of time or believability. That's why those issues are largely avoided in the films, because their extreme nature, while great when spread out over 52 issues a year, can become very ridiculous when presented in a 2-hour time frame. Rare exceptions are done, like in the case of "Ghost Rider", where the supernatural themes define the character. But in most cases, the extremity of each story (be it fantasy, horror, scifi, etc.) is radically toned down, so more people will enjoy and embrace it.

everything you said is right. Keep in mind that I fully understand that one cannot translate a serial comic book into a 2 hour movie without making some changes. It is also often necessary to fill in gaps or to omit stuff as well.
The crow is one of the movies that actually stuck to the source material very well.
The point is that there are changes and there are "changes".
changes are innevitable but "changes" which substantialy turn a story or a character into something else, should not be made.
FF1's Doom is about as far from Doom as one could possibly get without changing the name. and that is why it failed so miserably.
Overall the FF movie did not fail completely. not every change was devastating and they kept many things from the comics. but some were. and contrary to what some people may think those same kinds of changes may be repeated in FF2.
from what we know we can conclude that Kirby and Lee's epic story of the coming of Galactus is NOT being told. It may be an inspiration to what's told, but IT, that story, which has impacted so many for decades is not being told.
If it was, there would be no question as to Galactus's presence (he would be in half the movie), The movie would revolve around the coming of Galactus and not SS, there would be no involvement from Doom (not for THAT story), Surfer's transformation and growth would play a major role (which you need him to fight Galactus for that to be faithfull), and so on.

Think about the difference between the dramatic entrance of the SS in the comics as opposed to what we've seen so far in the movies. Those are the kinds of changes which should never be made.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Hunter Rider]

There is no excuse for the horrible version of Doom we got onscreen IMO,even if they altered the Latverian part a bit he could have been memorable,terrible wiring made him as bland as any villain ive seen.