Dear God. Stick To The Source Material

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 guess we'll just have to disagree in this area....
*I didn't see an origin really.....I did think that even if they didn't go directly with the origin of the comics they could have pulled a cool villain from it.....don't think that happened....
*I would have liked the improvements to have been "improvement on a really good movie..." ala Spiderman to Spiderman 2 IMO....but that can't happen......What I'm hoping for is a very medicore movie to a FANTASTIC movie......I have a sinking feeling (because of my trust in Fox) that we will get a mediocre movie to a slightly better movie.....
*Could I be wrong......YES.......and you know I will be the first to admit it......:yay:
 
I would have liked the improvements to have been "improvement on a really good movie..."

Everyone would have liked that but we can't do anything about that. The studio played it safe with a very difficult franchise. Difficult in translating to the big screen, and it was a franchise that had zero mass media exposure so the studio had no clue how the public would take it.

I liked who Doom was in the film and his motives, and I also like how he became Doom. I thought it was very creative and made the rivalry even more tense between Doom and Reed. That base was important to set up the next film. Doom really wasn't even in the first film. He was just "born" in a way and clearly didn't have time to create Doombots, build an empire, etc...

To me a 60's version of the FF on film in today's time would make only FF fans/purists happy and the box office would fail and we'd have no chance of seeing the characters in any form for a long time. Things look like they have greatly improved in this second film.
 
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.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Well, I'll side with you on Doom for the most part. I liked Julian McMahon's portrayal a lot, but to me that version of Doom just wasn't insane or crazy enough. I understand Fox's intention to describe a birth of insanity from present-day greed, and to that extent it works rather well. But on the other hand, with a character like Doom, the guy is almost always on "revenge mode". From what I recall (having read quite a few of the 80s comics as a kid), Victor was less of a businessman and more of a disgruntled oppritunist. He wanted vengeance against anything and everything that stood for justice, truth, morality, society, and honor. Reed, his wife, and his friends embodied those principles in great measures, so Doom was like the antithesis of all that. I'm just glad they left out Johnny's temporary replacement, a little droid named Herbie; he came in when Johnny briefly assisted Spidey (or was it the X-Men?) in one storyline.

As for "The Crow", the first film stuck to James O'Barr's book by about 70% (the intensity was damn-near overhauled, it was so extreme). The sequels vary in their quality. In my opinion, part 2 sould never have been done, part 3 was watchable, and from all I've heard, part 4 is a total disgrace to the original vision.
 
Everyone would have liked that but we can't do anything about that. The studio played it safe with a very difficult franchise. Difficult in translating to the big screen, and it was a franchise that had zero mass media exposure so the studio had no clue how the public would take it.

I liked who Doom was in the film and his motives, and I also like how he became Doom. I thought it was very creative and made the rivalry even more tense between Doom and Reed. That base was important to set up the next film. Doom really wasn't even in the first film. He was just "born" in a way and clearly didn't have time to create Doombots, build an empire, etc...

To me a 60's version of the FF on film in today's time would make only FF fans/purists happy and the box office would fail and we'd have no chance of seeing the characters in any form for a long time. Things look like they have greatly improved in this second film.


Well....again, I guess we will have to disagree....and thats ok....

I thought the Doom/Reed rivalry was "null and void" as in not there.....mostly because Reed was so weak as a character.....

I don't know what Fox's motives were for making a mediocre movie....they h aven't told us.....I don't know that they went into it to make a mediocre movie, I just think they did a bad job....if they're motive was to go into a movie to make it bad, well then they did it....did I enjoy seeing the 4 on screen....yes and I enjoyed the actors they chose as well.....I did not enjoy what they gave to actors to perform.....AND THEREIN lies my serious qualms about the sequel.......at this point....FOR ME.....there are not enough TV spots, interviews, trailers, BTS footage, one sheets....etc.....to make me trust Fox and this franchise.....ONLY the movie will do that.......so if I sound negative until that point....well thats how it is.....thats probably why I don't give a whole lot of speculation/opinion on what we've seen.......
 
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.....:cwink:


Exaclty Kel, they got johnny and Ben right, and guess what, it was one of the best things about the movie, for fans and non fans alike.
They butchered Reed richards and completely ruined Doom, and those were the most hated things in the movie for fans in non fans alike.
it's like when are they gonna learn?
as for Sue, I agree she should not have been the "save me" sue, but she would not have had to be to be faithful to the comics.
Comics sue transformed a long time ago into a strong intelligent woman.
she didn't have to be a scientist though.
 
Exaclty Kel, they got johnny and Ben right, and guess what, it was one of the best things about the movie, for fans and non fans alike.
They butchered Reed richards and completely ruined Doom, and those were the most hated things in the movie for fans in non fans alike.
it's like when are they gonna learn?
as for Sue, I agree she should not have been the "save me" sue, but she would not have had to be to be faithful to the comics.
Comics sue transformed a long time ago into a strong intelligent woman.
she didn't have to be a scientist though.

No, I don't think they got Ben and Johnny right....

I think they got ONE dimension of Johnny right....and Ben was not fully Ben IMO, without Alicia.....

Lack of exposition was the problem with the Scientist aspect IMO....same could be said for Reed as well....
 
Exaclty Kel, they got johnny and Ben right, and guess what, it was one of the best things about the movie, for fans and non fans alike.
They butchered Reed richards and completely ruined Doom, and those were the most hated things in the movie for fans in non fans alike.
it's like when are they gonna learn?
as for Sue, I agree she should not have been the "save me" sue, but she would not have had to be to be faithful to the comics.
Comics sue transformed a long time ago into a strong intelligent woman.
she didn't have to be a scientist though.

Wow we agree. Reed had some good moments but overall he was just...boring and the stretch effects in the 1st half sucked. I disagree on Doom because I think they created a better origin for the film as far as how he become Doom but the writing wasn't very good which ruined it. I think that origin though did create a solid foundation for their rivalry in the upcoming sequel. Sue wasn't anything special but she wasn't bad in the first film either. Honestly Horatio everything we've seen in the footage released so far has been very impressive and there is nothing to suggested they're not respecting the source material. They can build on Doom's origin and make it close enough. Galactus will still be a planet devouring entity with the silver Surfer doing his bidding. Your friend does not know anything about Galactus. If he did indeed see rough footage he comments have gone against everything we've heard so far. We heard about Victor being on set for 45 days for a big battle scene dangling 60ft in the air, we've heard he has 3 different looks, and he's trying to get the Surfer's power etc...How is Doom just a Business man again? LOL That makes no sense. He's wakes up in Latveria not in an office. I can understand your complaints about the first film...but that's behind us.
 
Well, I'll side with you on Doom for the most part. I liked Julian McMahon's portrayal a lot, but to me that version of Doom just wasn't insane or crazy enough. I understand Fox's intention to describe a birth of insanity from present-day greed, and to that extent it works rather well. But on the other hand, with a character like Doom, the guy is almost always on "revenge mode". From what I recall (having read quite a few of the 80s comics as a kid), Victor was less of a businessman and more of a disgruntled oppritunist. He wanted vengeance against anything and everything that stood for justice, truth, morality, society, and honor. Reed, his wife, and his friends embodied those principles in great measures, so Doom was like the antithesis of all that. I'm just glad they left out Johnny's temporary replacement, a little droid named Herbie; he came in when Johnny briefly assisted Spidey (or was it the X-Men?) in one storyline.


actually moviefan this perfectly illustrates one of the problems. This isn't to attack you, but people often judge the comics badly without really knowing the comics at all.
They often assume the worst.
Your discription of Doom is not accurate. The character created by Lee/Kirby was much more complex and much deeper than that. Certainly a thousand times more interesting that what the movies came up with.
to understand Doom you must start from his childhood.
I won't rewrite Doom's origin here as it would take too long, but I promise you that the comics Doom isn't nearly as simple as what you think of him.
 
No, I don't think they got Ben and Johnny right....

I think they got ONE dimension of Johnny right....and Ben was not fully Ben IMO, without Alicia.....

Lack of exposition was the problem with the Scientist aspect IMO....same could be said for Reed as well....

Johnny was done good enough. He made the film fun. Ben did too but the costume was kind of weak the first time around and it was so obvious Chiklis could barely move in the action scenes...but the character was right. They had to work on Ben's origin and dealing with his disfigurement first. Alicia plays a bigger role in the next film let things develop. There's 40 years of history and we've only seen 1.4 hours of film. I still thing though that The Thing should have been CGI and bigger w/Chiklis' voice. I know he said he would only do it in the costume but it really limits what a person can do in an action scene. It's too late to change that now but the new costume looks waaaaaaaaaaaay better.
 
No, I don't think they got Ben and Johnny right....

I think they got ONE dimension of Johnny right....and Ben was not fully Ben IMO, without Alicia.....

Lack of exposition was the problem with the Scientist aspect IMO....same could be said for Reed as well....


I stand corrected, they got one dimension of the Ben and johnny relationship right. that's what I thought you meant.
 
actually moviefan this perfectly illustrates one of the problems. This isn't to attack you, but people often judge the comics badly without really knowing the comics at all.
They often assume the worst.
Your discription of Doom is not accurate. The character created by Lee/Kirby was much more complex and much deeper than that. Certainly a thousand times more interesting that what the movies came up with.
to understand Doom you must start from his childhood.
I won't rewrite Doom's origin here as it would take too long, but I promise you that the comics Doom isn't nearly as simple as what you think of him.

The studio had the origins of 5 characters to deal with and the way they scripted Doom made the most sense to keep the story going. There's too much history to go over in one film. The movie would have to be 5 hours long or longer to tell the whole history of Doom and tackle the Fantastic Four and their story too. X-Men could have had the same problem except they did NOT start out with an origin film at all. Would you have preferred the FF started off with them already having their powers and Doom was a Latverian Dictator with his empire in hand? That would be nice for long time FF fans but the FF is not known to the general public like Batman, Superman, etc...It has a long history and most people have heard of them but today's younger generation didn't grow up with Fantastic Four films like we did with Superman, Batman, etc...and FF never had the appeal of Spiderman to cross all boundries.
 
I don't think there's any excuse for what they did to Doom in the first film. Modifying his origins I have no problem with...I didn't feel cheated that there was no Latveria, no castle, etc. But what we got in the film's final reel was not Dr. Doom. Hell, Fox didn't even want him to have the iron mask! :cmad:

Horatio, you're obviously a passionate fan and I respect that. I both agree and disagree with you on a lot of these issues.
But one thing we completely agree on is that '300' kicked ass.
Perhaps its enormous success (and that of Sin City) will help persuade the talentless suits ruining, er, running Hollywood to -yes- trust the source material.

Shot for shot, 300 is one of the most amazing films I've ever seen.
This new process would make a Negative Zone sequence entirely convincing. Will we ever see that? I kinda doubt it. :csad:
 
I'm tired of excuses for Fox's screwups.......

We DO NOT know Fox's motives behind the first film....

I just know it could have been a hell of alot better....
 
I haven't seen 300 yet but I will soon. That however wasn't a film that took place in the time the author wrote it. So it could be translated scene by scene from comic to film and wouldn't need much if any updating or adjusting to today's time. And Malus I think you said it better than me. Doom's origin was fine...but there just wasn't enough. Again a safe play by the studio. They could have done alot more if the film would have been 2hrs 15 min long and spent a bit more time with Doom. I did like the fight scene at the end.
 
I'm tired of excuses for Fox's screwups.......

Ok listen up guys. We're in the Rise of the Silver Surfer Thread. I have seen no screw-ups in this film so far, the tv spot and the trailer have both been awesome, we got a glimpse of Ben's new costume, the Silver Surfer, the Fantasticar, we know Doom is gonna play a major role in this film and most of the issues the fans had with him have been addresed as best as they can be given the origin already laid out.

There is NOTHING that we can complain about with the sequel yet? Everything looks great so far.

Wouldn't this thread be better off in the General Movies forum because if you're a purist it wouldn't just relate to this franchise and we've seen nothing yet to complain about in this film.
 
I haven't seen 300 yet but I will soon. That however wasn't a film that took place in the time the author wrote it. So it could be translated scene by scene from comic to film and wouldn't need much if any updating or adjusting to today's time. And Malus I think you said it better than me. Doom's origin was fine...but there just wasn't enough. Again a safe play by the studio. They could have done alot more if the film would have been 2hrs 15 min long and spent a bit more time with Doom. I did like the fight scene at the end.


Ok.....sooooo.....why did they cut....

The Alicia/Ben scenes....
The Victor/Sue restaurant scene....
The Reed/Sue (they want us to save the world, we can't even help ourselves) scene....
The Johnny bar scene.....

??????????????????????

all of which would have taken no more than 15 minutes.......
all were character building scenes........

there is no excuse for that........as far as I'm concerned.....and it had nothing to do with playing it safe.....

If it was a film to build an origin....to build who these characters are....then those scenes would have done that.....and they DID THAT....beautifully....but we DIDN'T see that....on the big screen....
 
I'm tired of excuses for Fox's screwups.......

We DO NOT know Fox's motives behind the first film....

I just know it could have been a hell of alot better....

It was a safe play because they didn't know how the public would react at the box office. And for all the reasons I explained before especially the lack of exposure of the franchise. One of the producers said that and I wish I knew who. I wanna say Ralph Winter but I'm not sure.
 
I'm tired of excuses for Fox's screwups.......

We DO NOT know Fox's motives behind the first film....

I just know it could have been a hell of alot better....

What's weird is they handle their TV show so much better,must be the lack of Rothman.

Ok listen up guys. We're in the Rise of the Silver Surfer Thread. I have seen no screw-ups in this film so far, the tv spot and the trailer have both been awesome, we got a glimpse of Ben's new costume, the Silver Surfer, the Fantasticar, we know Doom is gonna play a major role in this film and most of the issues the fans had with him have been addresed as best as they can be given the origin already laid out.

There is NOTHING that we can complain about with the sequel yet? Everything looks great so far.

Wouldn't this thread be better off in the General Movies forum because if you're a purist it wouldn't just relate to this franchise and we've seen nothing yet to complain about in this film.

If it is moved it will be to misc comics films but that will be up to Cal and Cap,personally since there isn't much going on right now i have no objection to it staying here for a few days.In fact it could become the purist thread for future issues as we know there will be some.
 
Ok.....sooooo.....why did they cut....

The Alicia/Ben scenes....
The Victor/Sue restaurant scene....
The Reed/Sue (they want us to save the world, we can't even help ourselves) scene....
The Johnny bar scene.....

??????????????????????

all of which would have taken no more than 15 minutes.......
all were character building scenes........

there is no excuse for that........as far as I'm concerned.....and it had nothing to do with playing it safe.....

If it was a film to build an origin....to build who these characters are....then those scenes would have done that.....and they DID THAT....beautifully....

That was explained too. They did not know what they had and the studio was playing it safe. They wanted to keep in under 2 hours and keep the story moving at a good pace. This is such an old topic that I can't find the quotes without hours to search for them.
 
Wow we agree. Reed had some good moments but overall he was just...boring and the stretch effects in the 1st half sucked. I disagree on Doom because I think they created a better origin for the film as far as how he become Doom but the writing wasn't very good which ruined it. I think that origin though did create a solid foundation for their rivalry in the upcoming sequel. Sue wasn't anything special but she wasn't bad in the first film either. Honestly Horatio everything we've seen in the footage released so far has been very impressive and there is nothing to suggested they're not respecting the source material. They can build on Doom's origin and make it close enough. Galactus will still be a planet devouring entity with the silver Surfer doing his bidding. Your friend does not know anything about Galactus. If he did indeed see rough footage he comments have gone against everything we've heard so far. We heard about Victor being on set for 45 days for a big battle scene dangling 60ft in the air, we've heard he has 3 different looks, and he's trying to get the Surfer's power etc...How is Doom just a Business man again? LOL That makes no sense. He's wakes up in Latveria not in an office. I can understand your complaints about the first film...but that's behind us.


AD I'm trying hard to avoid you and ignore your posts but you make that hard. Look I don't like your thought process. I'm sorry to say that but that's how I feel. and I find it ridiculous that you attack me on my thread, but then complain that I attack you back with name calling.
having said that, I'm not looking to fight either. so let me try this.

first let's agree to disagree that Movie Doom was better than Comic Doom. I hope however that inspite of your feelings you can still recognize that movie Doom did NOT work, for either the public or the fans. Movie Doom was a flop.

second, I disagree that "everything we've seen so far is impressive". I will say that some things are impressive while some things are worry some. And kel made a great point that based on the track record he is skeptical.


Impressive: The silver Surfer no doubt looks, acts, and feels GREAT.
Reed seems to be more like the Leader he was supposed to be.
the last trailer looks good and solid and not campy.

the worrysome:
  • they look to be making the same mistake they made in the first film by taking liberties with a classic and epic story which has held up well for decades.
  • same mistake in changing Galactus from what he is to something else. same thing they did with Doom
  • Not giving fans little tid bits that would blow their minds, like the brow.
  • mistake of putting Doom into a story which is in and of itself epic and powerful (the addition of Doom IMO dilutes both the threat of Galactus, the power of SS, and Dr. DOOM since he won't be the only major threat)
  • mistake of "giving Doom 3 looks" what is that about? There is ONE Doom, and That Doom doesn't walk around as Victor.
  • sticking mcmahon in as victor, dliutes DOOM.
  • replacing key moments from the comics for much weaker and less effective choices (the arrival of SS)
and so on..

must cut short,...gotta run will answer later.
 
Ok listen up guys. We're in the Rise of the Silver Surfer Thread. I have seen no screw-ups in this film so far, the tv spot and the trailer have both been awesome, we got a glimpse of Ben's new costume, the Silver Surfer, the Fantasticar, we know Doom is gonna play a major role in this film and most of the issues the fans had with him have been addresed as best as they can be given the origin already laid out.

There is NOTHING that we can complain about with the sequel yet? Everything looks great so far.

Wouldn't this thread be better off in the General Movies forum because if you're a purist it wouldn't just relate to this franchise and we've seen nothing yet to complain about in this film.

I saw ALOT in the TV spots that were really good in the first movie......DIDN'T see those on the big screen....THAT is what I don't trust about Fox........They CANNOT tell us of the quality of the sequel....THAT is what I don't trust about Fox...

If all that is good/quality about the 2nd movie is the SS, then the movie will not be a success in my opinion......THE LOOK of the SS is all that I can positively say is on the mark so far.....

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.....I bet I don't get a goody bag this year......:oldrazz:

Actually.....one of the things they got right in the first movie was Sue's look IMO, and I'll be damned if Fox didn't screw that up.....*sighs* oh well.....maybe that means they will change the "all I do is *****" dialogue of the first movie.....maybe they can only get one thing right per character, per movie.....hmmmm....thats a thought...
 
That was explained too. They did not know what they had and the studio was playing it safe. They wanted to keep in under 2 hours and keep the story moving at a good pace. This is such an old topic that I can't find the quotes without hours to search for them.

That is a lame studio excuse,Spidey and Batman didn't make short ADD run times just to pack em and still made good BO,the pace wasn't good it was so fast you never had time to get any characterization and character moments hence the corny montage replacing proper scenes.
 
That is a lame studio excuse,Spidey and Batman didn't make short ADD run times just to pack em and still made good BO,the pace wasn't good it was so fast you never had time to get any characterization and character moments hence the corny montage replacing proper scenes.

:up: :up:

It is obvious Fox is giving these movies the short running time purely because of business reasons...not quality sorry. You can debate all you ****ing want "Oh well the movie needs to move along!" No...bull****. I do think the sequel will be better though since we don't have to deal with all of the origin ****. But Alicia will end up on the editing room floor again just watch.
 
AD I'm trying hard to avoid you and ignore your posts but you make that hard. Look I don't like your thought process. I'm sorry to say that but that's how I feel. and I find it ridiculous that you attack me on my thread, but then complain that I attack you back with name calling.
having said that, I'm not looking to fight either. so let me try this.

first let's agree to disagree that Movie Doom was better than Comic Doom. I hope however that inspite of your feelings you can still recognize that movie Doom did NOT work, for either the public or the fans. Movie Doom was a flop.

second, I disagree that "everything we've seen so far is impressive". I will say that some things are impressive while some things are worry some. And kel made a great point that based on the track record he is skeptical.


Impressive: The silver Surfer no doubt looks, acts, and feels GREAT.
Reed seems to be more like the Leader he was supposed to be.
the last trailer looks good and solid and not campy.

the worrysome:
  • they look to be making the same mistake they made in the first film by taking liberties with a classic and epic story which has held up well for decades.
  • same mistake in changing Galactus from what he is to something else. same thing they did with Doom
  • Not giving fans little tid bits that would blow their minds, like the brow.
  • mistake of putting Doom into a story which is in and of itself epic and powerful (the addition of Doom IMO dilutes both the threat of Galactus, the power of SS, and Dr. DOOM since he won't be the only major threat)
  • mistake of "giving Doom 3 looks" what is that about? There is ONE Doom, and That Doom doesn't walk around as Victor.
  • sticking mcmahon in as victor, dliutes DOOM.
  • replacing key moments from the comics for much weaker and less effective choices (the arrival of SS)
and so on..

must cut short,...gotta run will answer later.

I am curious about something though Horatio, Julian's and Tim's statements on Doom seem very different from what your friend posted in the stutue's forum.

On the changes in FF, the FF is a property that is over several volumes and years. The funny thing about the complaining about the source material is that the Thing in the first movie is the original Jack Kirby Thing.

So when we talk about the source material there is a lot of complexity. So in essence we really are talking about the definitive Thing.

So now we have a problem. The definitive Thing is different, but then you also have the new Ultimate Universe. And the question in the minds of the movie studios is this do you pay any attention to those fans.

The 616 fans would say no, but those books are very popular.

So it comes down to who do you please and the truth is you will never be able to please all the people, fans all of the time.

The reality is that FF is much more difficult to do. The special effects were harder to do. I wanted the 616 definitive FF too, but I can see where changes were made due to the uncertainty. The studio, Fox has not had the success with these movies that Sony has had and it suggests that they are more cash strapped or less of a risktaker.

However as Advanced Dark said you can see how much effort has been put into FF2, they know now they can make the money. And it is being reflected in the production values, many of us see that.

However AD, purple eater Galactus would work, believe it. However to be safe I say use the UA version, it is already out there and it has already gotten huge approval.

Now this is a nobrainer, you have a CGI template to work off of so just go with something similar, I think that design belongs to Marvel so just use it.

How difficult can that be.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"