Umm, blue and black are colors.
How do colors themselves inherently set a tone?
Filter, yes. Tone, no.
Is it possible that both "visits" to the N-Zone are from the same event? That perhaps the black suits they wear into the Negative Zone APPEAR white in the zone itself?
You know, as in they become NEGATIVE?
Eh, probably not. Still, something to think about.
Heavens, all this “I’ve seen something sort of like that before in another movie”. Well, yeah. Similar things happen in similar ways. Is that the BEST people can do to tear down this trailer?
(shakes head)
Anyway, I get wanting this movie to be more in the spirit of the characters you know and love. I get that we haven’t really seen that spirit yet. Heck, I get that we haven’t seen a lot of the “source material” yet.
But I don’t think we can assume these things are not in the film based on this TEASER, which is clearly designed mostly to highlight the difference’s between Story’s films and this one.
I mean, do you all seriously think there will be no major action or adventure in this film? Look at the third act of CHRONICLE. Trank, on a relatively minimal budget, delivered the type of superhero action and spectacle that many had been craving for a long time. Speaking of CHRONICLE, I really don’t think this trailer looks like it visually. Not much at all.
Nor do I think this is going to be a movie about people walking down hallways.
Nor do I think it’s going to be “dark and brooding”. No one from this production has ever said it would be dark and brooding. They said it would be grittier and more serious than the previous films. Not that it would ONLY be those things.
And I absolutely get wanting some Lee/Kirby influences, and some Byrne influences, etc. However, I don’t like this attitude that “This doesn’t look like Lee/Kirby so I hate it". Expecting the film to visually and tonally and structurally to adhere to just one era of comic stories is really limiting the potential of the Four, I think. I’d like to see a film with influences from many eras and storylines, and Kinberg has suggested pretty clearly that this is along the lines of what they have done.
Sue Storm at the root of it all, is a care taker and a mothering figure regardless of her profession
Reed is the Science wiz who has all the answers, yet is often consumed by his work and at times obsessed with problem solving
Johnny is the immature hot shot, great looking playboy who on the surface is the dumb irrational jock, but on the inside a heart of gold (perfect example is Jason Stackhouse on True Blood (though not as dumb). He's the first to rush into battle, and the first to really enjoy the super-hero schtick
Thing, he's the protector. Best friend of Reed, adores Suzie, and is like oil and water with Johnny (though they both have their share of love and respect on top of annoyance..) Thing also just wants to be human again, and the family helps him feel that way.
Finally there's Doom... the inspiration of Darth Vader... the Villain of all villains... Regal Dictator, pompous , arogant, selfish. always hungry for more power.. and major mommy issues. This causes a friction between he and reed.. because Doom simply can't stand to be 2nd to anyone in intellect. this is a man who will stop at nothing.. from murder to magic, to raging a war to get what he wants.
I feel like this is all really obvious, “surface” stuff, and I hope Trank and Kinberg and the actors have a deeper reading of these characters than their most generic and obvious qualities.
Spending a lot of time getting bogged down with an origin and people struggling with powers isn't what FF was all about.
Except for, you know, their first story arc.
I don't buy the "we need to do something different" excuse, because FF done right would not be like anything anybody has ever seen before.
Not exactly alike perhaps, but I disagree with the spirit of this statement. FANTASTIC FOUR done entirely faithfully, within reason, even with a Lee/Kirby bent, would be very similar to a lot of the things we’ve seen before on film and in other superhero/action/adventure stories. Partially because The Fantastic Four has, since its inception, through no small part because of Jack Kirby's visual style, inspired and influenced a lot of the things we’ve seen in superhero/sci-fi stories and films. They're going to have to dig a little deeper to really show us something new regarding the Four.
you can't take a well know document iconic property and completely reinvent it and twist it into something completely unfamiliar to those who know what they're "suppose to be" it's the same reason why Tim Burton's Superman didn't end up going anywhere.. and why people are thankful that never happened.
Sure you can. Speaking of Burton, see Tim Burton’s BATMAN. Changed an entire generation’s perception of a character, and introduced them to a version they largely weren’t aware of. And it was the version that many of the die-hard fans felt was more in line with the "correct" vision of the character, a darker, more intense and serious one.
I get how its showing the science aspect. But i fail to see how it shows anything remotely "adventurous" or "explorative" and truth be told, the fact trank is using the fly as inspiration... means they will likely treat their abilities as a curse or side effect ala many xmen characters in films do.
Yup, nothing adventurous about going to other dimensions, climbing around a harsh landscape above volcanoes and hanging around plane-suspending columns of light.
Treat their abilities as a curse…sort of like they’ve done in many versions of the comics? Before they realize they’re worth struggling to master and embracing as gifts? You know, the classic superhero journey and all that? I feel like maybe there's some kind of classic literary term for initially rejecting one's abilities or duty...