Fant4stic Fant4stic: Reborn! - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 32

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]500065[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]499617[/split]

 

[spideyboy_1111]

well... your comment sounded off-putting as well if i'm being honest. "they are both donut shaped" its kinda more than the fact it's round (which is obvious)... similar doo-hickeys and color schemes and tech appearance. It could have easily been an inspiration, and it'd be a logical one to be inspired by. That aspect is pretty great actually from a design perspective.

 

[Sleiek]

Regardless, no one took it as an insult.

well... your comment sounded off-putting as well if i'm being honest. "they are both donut shaped" its kinda more than the fact it's round (which is obvious)... similar doo-hickeys and color schemes and tech appearance.

It is also too obvious to mention color schemes, tech appearance and what not because one could argue both are in the same league of machines. I merely mentioned the overall shape and could have gone into more detail but I though it would be obvious anyway.

 

[Paradox1]

It's too bad Godzilla just used it. "I am become death, the destroyer of worlds" would have made a cool tag line.

But, presumably, we wont see Annihilus until a later film. If there's no Annihilus, it wouldn't seem that the negative zone, on its own, would be perceived as any terrible thing any more than space became a terrible thing when the FF were originally bombarded by cosmic rays.

I can only assume the military regardless of how Reed feels about it is going to take that machine. Whether the machine is dangerous or not the scientific ramifications can't be ignored and they will continue to tinker with it. Allowing the machine to be this huge plot thread they could use in future installments.

Also I have heard someone say that in a earlier draft of this film.

Spoiler

Annihilus did show up and resembled the huge beast coming from the ground in FF#1.

I hope its actually not true but who's to say.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Or perhaps reed leaves with the machine damaged and they get a lesser scientist to fix it and that brings Annihilus in

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I can only assume the military regardless of how Reed feels about it is going to take that machine. Whether the machine is dangerous or not the scientific ramifications can't be ignored and they will continue to tinker with it. Allowing the machine to be this huge plot thread they could use in future installments.

Also I have heard someone say that in a earlier draft of this film.

Spoiler

Annihilus did show up and resembled the huge beast coming from the ground in FF#1.

I hope its actually not true but who's to say.

I'll tell you what -

Spoiler

I agree that I hope they don't turn Annihilus into a huge beast, but if they have the FF battling monsters like that in the Negative Zone, I'll be 100% on-board. That's the kind of thing I've been hoping for from a Fantastic Four film.

But after all the times I've heard "grounded and gritty", I'm not overly optimistic we'll actually get that.

 

[Paradox1]

Or perhaps reed leaves with the machine damaged and they get a lesser scientist to fix it and that brings Annihilus in

I don't think Reed would stay on the project after the events of the film. A lesser group could bring him fourth.

I'll tell you what -

Spoiler

I agree that I hope they don't turn Annihilus into a huge beast, but if they have the FF battling monsters like that in the Negative Zone, I'll be 100% on-board. That's the kind of thing I've been hoping for from a Fantastic Four film.

But after all the times I've heard "grounded and gritty", I'm not overly optimistic we'll actually get that.

Grounded and gritty is just jargon made up by some marketing firm to get people talking about a film. The words together mean grounded in our reality and brave take on the mythology. Grounded in our reality tells you absolutely nothing but that it closely resembles our own with varying changes. While brave take on the mythology just implies that it's different than what you know. If you look at in it's totality you could apply grounded and gritty to every retelling since the beginning of time.

 

[RAE072]

Grounded and gritty is just jargon made up by some marketing firm to get people talking about a film.

And Michael B Jordan.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I don't think Reed would stay on the project after the events of the film. A lesser group could bring him fourth.



Grounded and gritty is just jargon made up by some marketing firm to get people talking about a film. The words together mean grounded in our reality and brave take on the mythology. Grounded in our reality tells you absolutely nothing but that it closely resembles our own with varying changes. While brave take on the mythology just implies that it's different than what you know. If you look at in it's totality you could apply grounded and gritty to every retelling since the beginning of time.

but nearly everything labled "grounded and gritty"

turns out

"dark, more grounded in our reality, and the gritty.. usually means it's stripped raw of some of it's elements and it's possibly more brutal as well"

I mean... when you think of "grounded and gritty" you think of Daredevil, Blade, The Nolan Trilogy and Punisher as the extremes... and then X-men, The Amazing Spider-Man and the Man of Steel as the slightly more fantastical "grounded and gritty" films....

me personally? I don't think that fits my idea of the fantastic four very well at least not how i want them represented.

 

[RAE072]

but nearly everything labled "grounded and gritty"

turns out

"dark, more grounded in our reality, and the gritty.. usually means it's stripped raw of some of it's elements and it's possibly more brutal as well"

I mean... when you think of "grounded and gritty" you think of Daredevil, Blade, The Nolan Trilogy and Punisher as the extremes... and then X-men, The Amazing Spider-Man and the Man of Steel as the slightly more fantastical "grounded and gritty" films....

me personally? I don't think that fits my idea of the fantastic four very well at least not how i want them represented.

Me neither. You can be "realistic" and still include FANTASTIC elements without resorting to colorless boring drab costumes and locales.

Like this movie has.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Grounded and gritty is just jargon made up by some marketing firm to get people talking about a film. The words together mean grounded in our reality and brave take on the mythology. Grounded in our reality tells you absolutely nothing but that it closely resembles our own with varying changes. While brave take on the mythology just implies that it's different than what you know. If you look at in it's totality you could apply grounded and gritty to every retelling since the beginning of time.

I would generally agree with the idea that it could just be trendy BS, but the words must have some meaning.

If I were a marketing person . . . or Simon Kinberg, or Josh Trank trying to explain a film that included super-powered heroes battling giant monsters in an alien dimension, I would describe it as something like:

"Epic sci-fi fantasy adventure" (which is what Fantastic Four is) as opposed to "grounded and gritty" which the Fantastic Four, generally, is not.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I would generally agree with the idea that it could just be trendy BS, but the words must have some meaning.

If I were a marketing person . . . or Simon Kinberg, or Josh Trank trying to explain a film that included super-powered heroes battling giant monsters in an alien dimension, I would describe it as something like:

"Epic sci-fi fantasy adventure" (which is what Fantastic Four is) as opposed to "grounded and gritty" which the Fantastic Four, generally, is not.

yes, but to be fair, i could call Pacific Rim and "Gritty Sci-fi film" you may be able to attach "grounded" to it... i guess it's about as "grounded" as Man of Steel or Amazing Spider-Man was in that case...

also... Godzilla i'd classify as "grounded and gritty" as well... but again, it's still not a tone i want to see the F4 riding around it... it's a bit too "serious" and "gloomy" of a take for me

all those films have one very common trait too.. "gloomy and brooding" something i just don't think works well with the first family. I wont wonder, creativity, togetherness,.. it really needs to be like Dr. Who imo

 

[Spiderine]

I'll tell you what -

Spoiler

I agree that I hope they don't turn Annihilus into a huge beast, but if they have the FF battling monsters like that in the Negative Zone, I'll be 100% on-board. That's the kind of thing I've been hoping for from a Fantastic Four film.

But after all the times I've heard "grounded and gritty", I'm not overly optimistic we'll actually get that.

hell......if they actually showed a scene or two of that instead of the ole same stuff they may actually gain some support. They want to distance this from the Doom driven Story films thats the way to go.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

hell......if they actually showed a scene or two of that instead of the ole same stuff they may actually gain some support. They want to distance this from the Doom driven Story films thats the way to go.

Yeah, but that's probably why it's just wishful thinking. If they really have something that cool, it would be stupid not to give us at least a little taste instead of all the boring images we've seen so far.

Sure, they could be saving some surprises, but empty theater seats are sort of hard to surprise.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

I don't think Reed would stay on the project after the events of the film. A lesser group could bring him fourth.

Really hope he's the villain for the sequel at any rate

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Yeah, but that's probably why it's just wishful thinking. If they really have something that cool, it would be stupid not to give us at least a little taste instead of all the boring images we've seen so far.

Sure, they could be saving some surprises, but empty theater seats are sort of hard to surprise.

yeah, i find it odd they arn't trying to show trailers that shows MAJOR distancing from the past films... right now they don't look all that different.. one is just darker and more brooding, and more "serious"

 

[Paradox1]

but nearly everything labled "grounded and gritty"

turns out

"dark, more grounded in our reality, and the gritty.. usually means it's stripped raw of some of it's elements and it's possibly more brutal as well"

I mean... when you think of "grounded and gritty" you think of Daredevil, Blade, The Nolan Trilogy and Punisher as the extremes... and then X-men, The Amazing Spider-Man and the Man of Steel as the slightly more fantastical "grounded and gritty" films....

me personally? I don't think that fits my idea of the fantastic four very well at least not how i want them represented.

Those properties are what people associate it will but grounded and gritty could be applied to every comic or any adaption ever made. They are all grounded somewhat in this reality with various liberties taken which can be consider bold or brave takes on the existing mythology. When you add the modifier of dark it just means there is going be some dramatic moments. It doesn't mean dark clothes or nobody ever cracking a joke because even in your example of TASM there were a lot of jokes. Yet it's considered a more dark,grounded and gritty take on the character. Even though his clothes aren't dark and Andrew Garfield as Peter is probably has better comedic timing than his predecessor.

I would generally agree with the idea that it could just be trendy BS, but the words must have some meaning.

If I were a marketing person . . . or Simon Kinberg, or Josh Trank trying to explain a film that included super-powered heroes battling giant monsters in an alien dimension, I would describe it as something like:

"Epic sci-fi fantasy adventure" (which is what Fantastic Four is) as opposed to "grounded and gritty" which the Fantastic Four, generally, is not.

Epic sci-fi fantasy isn't used as selling point when describing this film is because of the genre that it is currently classified in. Epic Sci-fi Fantasy is kind of a genre all to itself with movies like Star Wars, Blade Runner, 2001:A space odyssey, Interstellar among others. The people involved want to say it's like this film but different in the fewest words possible. In the situation of an adaption such as a comic, gritty and grounded take, says it's like the adaption but different.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Those properties are what people associate it will but grounded and gritty could be applied to every comic or any adaption ever made. They are all grounded somewhat in this reality with various liberties taken which can be consider bold or brave takes on the existing mythology. When you add the modifier of dark it just means there is going be some dramatic moments. It doesn't mean dark clothes or nobody ever cracking a joke because even in your example of TASM there were a lot of jokes. Yet it's considered a more dark,grounded and gritty take on the character. Even though his clothes aren't dark and Andrew Garfield as Peter is probably has better comedic timing than his predecessor.

can't say most people would agree with you on this.. seems very much like you're stretching the meaning of how it could be used..when people say "grounded and gritty" they think of what i said.. they don't think of Avengers, Raimi's spider-man films, X-men First Class, DOFP, etc... because those arn't films that are considered "grounded and gritty"

 

[Marvin]

can't say most people would agree with you on this.. seems very much like you're stretching the meaning of how it could be used..when people say "grounded and gritty" they think of what i said.. they don't think of Avengers, Raimi's spider-man films, X-men First Class, DOFP, etc... because those arn't films that are considered "grounded and gritty"

Do people, that is, do you believe TWS is 'Grounded' and(or) 'Gritty'
?

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Do people, that is, do you believe TWS is 'Grounded' and(or) 'Gritty'
?

actually yeah, that's the only MCU film i'd consider as such.. maybe a little bit of IM3 has elements of being that as well.. they just arn't dark really.. but very gritty and more grounded than the rest of the films.

 

[Kane52630]

 

[Dasher10]

If Annihilus is showing up in this film, I feel like, "grounded" isn't the word to use. Annihilus is something out of Alien or Event Horizon. He's more of a surreal horror villain than what I'd expect out of something with the word, "grounded" describing it.

Then again Mole Man is appearing and may very well be the villain in the sequel. I feel like Mole Man fits a tone similar to The Descent or Godzilla.

And if Galactus is done again (and done right this time around), he'd be the best Lovecraftian villain we've ever seen.

Don't get your hopes up. This film isn't going to suddenly embrace the fantastic. It's an origin story that isn't going to really hit its potential until the sequel. We're getting Doom as the villain and an introduction to the Negative Zone and Mole Man to tease where the franchise is headed next. Don't expect this film to totally blow you away. It could be a good film that stands on its own merits but it won't really explore the Fantastic Four mythos to its fullest extent. I've made my peace with that.

Now as for what I want out of a sequel... I want epic sci-fi adventure mixed with psychedelic horror where we get a sense of wonder mixed with nightmarish creatures and Johnny's playful banter.

 

[Drz]

Annihilus for sequel or Gah Lak Tus.

Build up for Reed's descent into the Maker too!

 

[Mike Murdock]

If they announce Annihilus is in the film, it'll probably redeem it somewhat for me (unless, it's just some unknown monster of little resemblance).