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

[C. Lee]

They're supposed to be a couple? Married right? Amazing how this segment shown of the film fails to drive home a preconceived notion that seemingly exists outside of it's own story. Long story short, maybe they're not what you think...yet. Maybe as stated by the production, this is a precursor.
Next we'll be looking at stills of young summers and grey and asking why they aren't holding hands and and making plans in a singled out image.

As many of us have said repeatedly....we object to the movie not following the BASIC mythos of the 50+ years of the comic....and that is that Sue and Reed were a couple when it started.

I really don't get this Thing issue. I mean I get it for the people that have admitted to their intentions as it pertains to this movie. I however see a fantasy creature that looks no less convincing than that walking tree in most finished shots. The comparison to Grood someone made earlier....moving rock creature vs ceaser.

I raise the same comparison questions as to why people can get on board with all sorts of creatures(including that tree again) not wearing underwear yet the buck stops here on something looking 'ridiculous'. Outside of preconceptions of course.

Like I just posted....Ben is a human who doesn't look human but wants to be considered human....putting a pair of pants on helps with that.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

To be fair, when Benji Grimm rocked up with his Thing Ring in the cartoon, and all the rocks fly at him to create the Thing skin, it's actually kind of stupid that he's suddenly wearing his shorts, as if they rode in with the rocks. So if they're going the Benji Grimm route (sans the Thing Ring), then it makes sense that he wouldn't be wearing any pants. But of course, that doesn't stop him from looking weird with no pants. Or from people making fun of Nekkid Thing.

But that's one scene, and there's no need to show his crotch during that scene. After the transformation, he gets some pants.

Johnny would also burn his clothes off, but he wouldn't just walk around naked after that (and I suspect they'll find some way to avoid showing MBJ's crotch on screen after he has burned his clothes off).

And it's not just that it looks ridiculous and will lead to giggles and jokes during the film - it's counter to the character.

We all know that, beneath his tough surface, Ben is actually sort of sensitive, shy and wants more than anything to fit in. He wouldn't just say: "Oh, look, I've got no d***. Hey world! Look at me, I've got no d***!"

He'd be embarrassed and he'd put some pants on.

 

[Marvin]

Ben hated to be thought of as a monster and not a human.....so lets strip him of his last vestige of humanity and make him walk around without any clothes like an animal.

There are other ways to convey this, more substantive ways even than 'underwear'. Hardly the last vestige.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Ben hated to be thought of as a monster and not a human.....so lets strip him of his last vestige of humanity and make him walk around without any clothes like an animal.

Yep. I didn't read this until after I posted the above, but it's the exact same idea.

 

[Marvin]

What story? This is a huge problem with the marketing of this film.

What is the primary conflict and why should I care?

Every good trailer or book blurb should answer those questions for the potential viewer/reader and neither trailer for this film has done that. The only people who will be interested in this are people who want to see a Fantastic Four movie because the marketing people haven't given any compelling reasons for anyone else to see it.

The marketing for this has the exact same problem Tomorrowland had. Tomorrowland showed us that a girl discovers an amazing new world but it didn't tell us anything about the story. Then what happens? Why should we care?

FF is showing us that four people will get powers. Then what happens? Why should we care?

Tomorrowland had a lot more going for it than FF, but if the marketing people can't even hint at an intriguing story, very few 'general audience' members will be interested.

First problem with this, you stating another rule. One hardly consistent in necessity.

Second problem, you chose a 'bad' movie. Try again with a good/successful one. Let's say, inception for example. The first matrix movie...
Carry on.

 

[Marvin]

As many of us have said repeatedly....we object to the movie not following the BASIC mythos of the 50+ years of the comic....and that is that Sue and Reed were a couple when it started.

Yes I remember, I just happened to see something that looked like a legit criticism of the film in front of you. Further emphasized by that persons follow up post about (lined up by height). My mistake.

Like I just posted....Ben is a human who doesn't look human but wants to be considered human....putting a pair of pants on helps with that.

Adding a pair of glasses and running shoes and a bow tie will help with that as well. None are needed for the same reason 'underwear' isn't. There are other ways to achieve such a thing. If that same thing is even trying to be achieved in the first place. I for one would be interested in the idea of him embracing himself as he now is. I've seen this theme give characters power in other fiction.

 

[C. Lee]

Adding a pair of glasses and running shoes and a bow tie will help with that as well. None are needed for the same reason 'underwear' isn't. There are other ways to achieve such a thing. If that same thing is even trying to be achieved in the first place. I for one would be interested in the idea of him embracing himself as he now is. I've seen this theme give characters power in other fiction.

Too bad this isn't the interpretation of "some other fiction"....it is supposed to be the interpretation of MARVEL COMICS the FANTASTIC FOUR....where the character of Ben Grimm wears pants. Where he would be embarrassed to be walking around naked. Where he would be absolutely completely devastated to have his masculinity totally removed and not even have a pair of shorts to cover the fact.

But then....as many of us say....too bad the producers didn't decide to make a FANTASTIC FOUR movie instead of a OUR VERSION OF A SUPERHERO MOVIE THAT ONLY VAGUELY RESEMBLES AN ACTUAL EXISTING COMIC BOOK.

 

[The Infernal]

Not sure why any other option than Ben wanting to wear clothes is somehow more substantial. You can easily convey deeper meanings and themes with concepts with simple actions. Arguably it's more subtle and narural than an overwrought scene where Ben cries about wanting to be able to still feel human.

 

[Dasher10]

Too bad this isn't the interpretation of "some other fiction"....it is supposed to be the interpretation of MARVEL COMICS the FANTASTIC FOUR....where the character of Ben Grimm wears pants. Where he would be embarrassed to be walking around naked. Where he would be absolutely completely devastated to have his masculinity totally removed and not even have a pair of shorts to cover the fact.

But then....as many of us say....too bad the producers didn't decide to make a FANTASTIC FOUR movie instead of a OUR VERSION OF A SUPERHERO MOVIE THAT ONLY VAGUELY RESEMBLES AN ACTUAL EXISTING COMIC BOOK.

So true. I'm cool with taking liberties but I've never seen costume design this atrocious before. Even outside of CBMs, it's hard to find costume design this bad outside of Z-grade space operas.

 

[Marvin]

Too bad this isn't the interpretation of "some other fiction"....it is supposed to be the interpretation of MARVEL COMICS the FANTASTIC FOUR....where the character of Ben Grimm wears pants. Where he would be embarrassed to be walking around naked. Where he would be absolutely completely devastated to have his masculinity totally removed and not even have a pair of shorts to cover the fact.

But then....as many of us say....too bad the producers didn't decide to make a FANTASTIC FOUR movie instead of a OUR VERSION OF A SUPERHERO MOVIE THAT ONLY VAGUELY RESEMBLES AN ACTUAL EXISTING COMIC BOOK.

Yea, too bad for some.

Verdict is out on if it's too bad for people interested in a good movie that pulls from an existing comic book that has already been made into failed features that arguable did what you say better. As I've stated many times, something conceived in source 50plus years ago doesn't make it the best possible interp/execution of said material there is. Comicbooks having a proven history of diversifying/re-imagining their mythos over the years is an argument for this.

The basic difference between wanting something to be good, and simply wanting something to be like something else. The former is more pertinent when appreciating that not everyone in the GA measures quality in preconceptions, especially given half of the GA isn't even aware of them.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Too bad this isn't the interpretation of "some other fiction"....it is supposed to be the interpretation of MARVEL COMICS the FANTASTIC FOUR....where the character of Ben Grimm wears pants. Where he would be embarrassed to be walking around naked. Where he would be absolutely completely devastated to have his masculinity totally removed and not even have a pair of shorts to cover the fact.

But then....as many of us say....too bad the producers didn't decide to make a FANTASTIC FOUR movie instead of a OUR VERSION OF A SUPERHERO MOVIE THAT ONLY VAGUELY RESEMBLES AN ACTUAL EXISTING COMIC BOOK.

 

[Marvin]

Not sure why any other option than Ben wanting to wear clothes is somehow more substantial. You can easily convey deeper meanings and themes with concepts with simple actions. Arguably it's more subtle and narural than an overwrought scene where Ben cries about wanting to be able to still feel human.

In any other discussion(material), this sort of rhetoric would be obvious. But when it comes to source first circles, it's some impossible concept.

First they argue why the said premise is important, 'wanting to still be human'(sure let's go with that).
Then they argue because such a goal isn't achieved in the one and only way they have seen, then surely premise A. fails.
Is it the end point which is important or is it every single detail and the color grading to boot. No one usually admits the latter but claiming it's all about the former gains alot of traction in my experience.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

First problem with this, you stating another rule. One hardly consistent in necessity.

Second problem, you chose a 'bad' movie. Try again with a good/successful one. Let's say, inception for example. The first matrix movie...
Carry on.

I can't remember the Matrix trailer but I clearly remember the Inception trailer:

What is the primary conflict? The world is dying.

Why do I care? Mathew M's character is sympathetic and he has a family and I want to see if he can succeed in his attempt to find a solution.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

But that's one scene, and there's no need to show his crotch during that scene. After the transformation, he gets some pants.

Johnny would also burn his clothes off, but he wouldn't just walk around naked after that (and I suspect they'll find some way to avoid showing MBJ's crotch on screen after he has burned his clothes off).

And it's not just that it looks ridiculous and will lead to giggles and jokes during the film - it's counter to the character.

We all know that, beneath his tough surface, Ben is actually sort of sensitive, shy and wants more than anything to fit in. He wouldn't just say: "Oh, look, I've got no d***. Hey world! Look at me, I've got no d***!"

He'd be embarrassed and he'd put some pants on.

Yes thank you - someone who actually understands the character of Ben Grimm. But screw that right? This is a contemporary reimagining!

I honestly cannot believe people are defending this nonsense.

 

[Marvin]

I can't remember the Matrix trailer but I clearly remember the Inception trailer:

What is the primary conflict? The world is dying.

Why do I care? Mathew M's character is sympathetic and he has a family and I want to see if he can succeed in his attempt to find a solution.

You and I remember Inception alot differently...
Let's just put it that way.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Does THIS look like a guy who would go parading around stark naked advertising to the world he's got no junk??

 

[Marvin]

Does THIS look like a guy who would go parading around stark naked advertising to the world he's got no junk??

Does this?

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

You and I remember Inception alot differently...
Let's just put it that way.

Oh, I was thinking of Intersteller. I've never seen Inception and I certainly don't remember any trailers I saw over 5 years ago, but I will be willing to bet it was way better than anything we've seen from FF.

 

[Dr Tactics]

I still don't understand how those defending this movie seem to just be good with a Movie called the Fantastic Four and not a Fantastic Four Movie.. They're defending he movie but not defending the Fantastic Four art of it...

I Don't get it...

But, I can't wait to test that the GA "Will see t anyway"

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Does this?

That's not Ben Grimm.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Okay, I found the inception trailer.

What is the primary conflict? The protagonist wants to go 'home' he is tied up in some sort of intrigue that involves dreams and the subconscious and battling others (who presumably are standing in the way of his going 'home') in a surreal dream world.

Why do I care? It looks imaginative and action packed with mysteries to be unraveled.

There's absolutely no comparison to the Inception trailer and the FF trailer.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Too bad this isn't the interpretation of "some other fiction"....it is supposed to be the interpretation of MARVEL COMICS the FANTASTIC FOUR...

And It is that.

 

[Flint Marko]

What's so hard to understand about FF fans not being pleased with this new movie looking nothing like the F4? It's been explained dozens upon dozens of times.

It is.

Not really. I've read hundreds of F4 comics, this looks like nothing I've ever seen.
FFINO indeed.

 

[The Infernal]

It is.

Could just be you both have different opinions on what makes FF the FF. Just a thought.

 

[Dr Tactics]

And It is that.

Its just a really bad interpretation