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

[C. Lee]

Does this?

Rag showed a picture of the character Ben Grimm covering himself up in an overcoat and large hat while out in public because that character was embarrassed by his looks. He thought himself a monster and didn't like for people to look at him because he thought they would either tease him or scream in horror. He felt he was losing his humanity and hid from people.

You showed a picture of a Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle covering himself in an overcoat and large hat while out in public because he knew his looks would scare some people an cause a stir among them. He didn't care about not having any visible genitalia, he didn't worry about losing his humanity, he wasn't worried about being embarrassed.

Not the same situation at all.

 

[Marvin]

^Never said it was the same situation. I simply asked if that 'looked' like a character that would.
But again simply pointing out how this character is different from source is one thing, arguing why this character doesn't work is another. It happens with these cbms more than most like to admit.

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"

You answered your own question. Easy to defend a movie or idea for what it is. Movies are 'elsewords' by definition imo. Elseworlds comic novels don't have to be anything but good in my experience.

That's not Ben Grimm.

The argument was never about if something is ben grimm or not. It seemed to be a grander question of if, or why a human hybrid creature would be able to go nude. Especially if they were scene to be fully dressed(disguised) in another instance.
Alas, these discussions do always seem to boil down to the "well that comparison ain't ff". Yea no kidding, it was question of valid story telling or character motivation in and of itself.

 

[marvelmadness13]

And It is that.

And Braveheart is an adaptation of Superman, they just changed the setting and character names. England takes the place of Doomsday but other than they there are no major changes.

 

[Orba]

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 remember the trailer to the original Matrix trailer and even now it is damn cool (just wish I could find a better version)

[YT]tGgCqGm_6Hs[/YT]

It was full of holy **** moments and things people had never seen in films.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

The argument was never about if something is ben grimm or not. It seemed to be a grander question of if, or why a human hybrid creature would be able to go nude. Especially if they were scene to be fully dressed(disguised) in another instance.
Alas, these discussions do always seem to boil down to the "well that comparison ain't ff". Yea no kidding, it was question of valid story telling or character motivation in and of itself.

And the argument falls flat I'm sorry to say. First off, I don't care about mutant turtles. I'm not a fan of mutant turtles. I'm a fan of the FF. So what is done in one franchise has little to no bearing on what is done in another.

But secondly you are using an example of turtles (animals) that have been mutated into sentient humanoids. They have no loss of humanity to struggle with. On the other hand Ben Grimm is a man (a very handsome and athletic man mind you) who has been horribly disfigured into something he's ashamed of. They are polar opposites. One has nothing to do with the other.

 

[Marvin]

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

Perhaps but they both have the same understanding of what the world 'interpretation' means.

 

[C. Lee]

And It is that.

No, it isn't. It is an interpretation of the ULTIMATE FANTASTIC FOUR comic.

As I have said in the past....I read the UFF and did not like it. I have read decades of the original FF and loved it. I and many others are upset that the producers have taken a comic with over 50 years of publishing (that the majority of comic readers loved) and decided to make a movie that interprets an "other worlds/dimension" or "what if?" not part of main continuity comic (that the majority of comic readers did not like) into a movie.

There are hundreds of WHAT IF? stories out there that MARVEL and DC have put out over the years. People like some and hate some. There are some I would like to see made into movies. I do not want to see UFF made into a movie. And in the case of he WHAT IF? stories I would like to be made into movies.....I would like for them to acknowledge that they are not regular continuity but some non regular story based upon the regular characters.

 

[marvelmadness13]

No, it isn't. It is an interpretation of the ULTIMATE FANTASTIC FOUR comic.

As I have said in the past....I read the UFF and did not like it. I have read decades of the original FF and loved it. I and many others are upset that the producers have taken a comic with over 50 years of publishing (that the majority of comic readers loved) and decided to make a movie that interprets an "other worlds/dimension" or "what if?" not part of main continuity comic (that the majority of comic readers did not like) into a movie.

There are hundreds of WHAT IF? stories out there that MARVEL and DC have put out over the years. People like some and hate some. There are some I would like to see made into movies. I do not want to see UFF made into a movie. And in the case of he WHAT IF? stories I would like to be made into movies.....I would like for them to acknowledge that they are not regular continuity but some non regular story based upon the regular characters.

And even then it isn't really an adaptation of the Ultimate F4, which had Ben wearing pants for goodness sake.


The Ultimate talk is nothing more than Kinberg and Trank trying to calm the hatred this film built up over the past year or so, but when you look at everything we know it isn't a faithful UF4 adaptation either.

Heck Mara even said last year that Trank specifically told her the movie wasn't going to be be based on any published material. Trank went in to this not wanting to adapt any version and after seeing all the negative attention they're trying to back peddle. "Don't worry, it's totally UF4 not just something Trank shat out."

 

[C. Lee]

The argument was never about if something is ben grimm or not. It seemed to be a grander question of if, or why a human hybrid creature would be able to go nude. Especially if they were scene to be fully dressed(disguised) in another instance.
Alas, these discussions do always seem to boil down to the "well that comparison ain't ff". Yea no kidding, it was question of valid story telling or character motivation in and of itself.

That seems to be the difference between you and me and a lot of other people....you see the rock guy as just another human hybrid creature....we know he is supposed to be Ben Grimm aka the Thing....a human turned into a living breathing man made of rock....he isn't just another human hybrid creature to us....he is a character we love.

 

[Marvin]

And the argument falls flat I'm sorry to say. First off, I don't care about mutant turtles. I'm not a fan of mutant turtles. I'm a fan of the FF. So what is done in one franchise has little to no bearing on what is done in another.

Unfortunately, I'm not inquiring as to why you aren't going and on about TMNT, that's great that you aren't invested in one. Just because you are a fan of one and not the other doesn't then mean the only things than can be compared in an argument about artistic justification or character motivation is moot. Rather one can only call into debate things Rag is a fan of...

Secondly, the turtles identify as human. But I'd rather not argue that point any further in this thread. How's about Victor Stone or Norrin Radd or Iceman even. The list goes on, but the point remains the same. The former very much in the struggled metamorphosis vain.

 

[Paradox1]

I desperately want to like this movie, but then I see things like this and realize my favorite character of all time is poorly designed, poorly rendered and unintentionally humorous.

What pops out to me about the Thing is how human he's moving. He's definitely in that uncanny valley and that always creeps me out. Great job by the animators and Bell for his mo-cap work it's excellent.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Unfortunately, I'm not inquiring as to why you aren't going and on about TMNT, that's great that you aren't invested in one. Just because you are a fan of one and not the other doesn't then mean the only things than can be compared in an argument about artistic justification or character motivation is moot. Rather one can only call into debate things Rag is a fan of...

Secondly, the turtles identify as human. But I'd rather not argue that point any further in this thread. How's about Victor Stone or Norrin Radd or Iceman even. The list goes on, but the point remains the same. The former very much in the struggled metamorphosis vain.

My fandom is not relevant other than my investment in the argument but what is relevant is the context and how you are stretching the analogy by saying one thing is like the other when it in fact is not.

Your other analogies of Cyborg and Surfer are also not the same. Norrid Radd chose his transformation willingly. Grimm did not. Cyborg's genitalia or lack thereof are not exposed. Lastly, it doesn't matter because Ben is Ben. We are discussing how Ben would feel in this situation. (Something that's been quite well documented for over 50 years.) We are discussing what is true to his character. No one else's.

 

[Zarex]

No, it isn't. It is an interpretation of the ULTIMATE FANTASTIC FOUR comic.

As I have said in the past....I read the UFF and did not like it. I have read decades of the original FF and loved it. I and many others are upset that the producers have taken a comic with over 50 years of publishing (that the majority of comic readers loved) and decided to make a movie that interprets an "other worlds/dimension" or "what if?" not part of main continuity comic (that the majority of comic readers did not like) into a movie.

There are hundreds of WHAT IF? stories out there that MARVEL and DC have put out over the years. People like some and hate some. There are some I would like to see made into movies. I do not want to see UFF made into a movie. And in the case of he WHAT IF? stories I would like to be made into movies.....I would like for them to acknowledge that they are not regular continuity but some non regular story based upon the regular characters.

If FOX is determined to give us an alternative version of the FF, at least give us a good version:



Dragonfly! Mandroid! Big Brain! Ultra-Woman! It's canon, people!

 

[Marvin]

That seems to be the difference between you and me and a lot of other people....you see the rock guy as just another human hybrid creature....we know he is supposed to be Ben Grimm aka the Thing....a human turned into a living breathing man made of rock....he isn't just another human hybrid creature to us....he is a character we love.

No, the difference between us is that I see this as an interpretation of that character. Just as I see RDJ interpreting something different from what I grew up reading, Bale, Sam Jackson and for forth.
When I argue as to how what they are doing is different it's one thing.

When I argue as to why what they are going is bad, I do a whole heck of a lot more than simply point out how it's different. If all these people that felt as you do simply made the distinction, it would go along way imo.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

No, it isn't. It is an interpretation of the ULTIMATE FANTASTIC FOUR comic.

But even in this case, it's a very unfaithful adaptation. Ben wore pants in UFF. There weren't any 'containment suits' in UFF.

The worst parts of this film are all Trank/Kinberg/Fox and don't appear in any comic books anywhere.

 

[Marvin]

My fandom is not relevant other than my investment in the argument but what is relevant is the context and how you are stretching the analogy by saying one thing is like the other when it in fact is not.

Why did you mention that you were not a TMNT fan exactly?
I mean read the part of your post I bolded..

 

[Paradox1]

Whoa, I think this film has made a decided turn in the eyes of the general audience.
Date# TweetsPos:Neg Ratio
Jul 01, 2015 1089 29:1
Jun 30, 2015 2838 4:1
Jun 29, 2015 3418 7:1

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

Why did you mention that you were not a TMNT fan exactly?
I mean read the part of your post I bolded..

Because this is a forum for opinions. Why are you using this statement as a strawman to distract from my actual counter argument that none of these things are like Ben Grimm?

 

[C. Lee]

No, the difference between us is that I see this as an interpretation of that character.

I see it as an interpretation too....a bad one, an unneeded one, an unwanted one.

When I argue as to why what they are going is bad, I do a whole heck of a lot more than simply point out how it's different. If all these people that felt as you do simply made the distinction, it would go along way imo.

Maybe the fact that it is "different" is enough for some people. They don't need a hundred reasons to dislike something, maybe one is enough.

 

[Marvin]

Because this is a forum for opinions. Why are you using this statement as a strawman to distract from my actual counter argument that none of these things are like Ben Grimm?

No you said, and I quote: "So what is done in one franchise has little to no bearing on what is done in another"
I bold the 'so' because it signifies your lead in sentence is what this statement is predicated on. What was your lead in?
"I'm not a fan of mutant turtles. I'm a fan of the FF."

I simply asked what you being a fan of either or none has to do with their ability to be compared. There is little strawman here.
Again, I don't care what you are or aren't a fan of. When it comes to some artistic liberty being analyzed and it having bearing on another, what does that specific point have to do with anything? Your fandom that is.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

No you said, and I quote: "]So[/B] what is done in one franchise has little to no bearing on what is done in another"
I bold the 'so' because it signifies your lead in sentence is what this statement is predicated on. What was your lead in?
"I'm not a fan of mutant turtles. I'm a fan of the FF."

I simply asked what you being a fan of either or none has to do with their ability to be compared. There is little strawman here.

This is becoming tedious. We can argue semantics and sentence structure all day but you continue to ignore the fact that none of your examples are relevant analogies to Ben Grimm's character. So yes - what is done in one franchise has little to no bearing on what is done in another - unless that other franchise happens to have a character named Ben Grimm. You are basically saying that the filmmakers don't need to make their version of Ben Grimm resemble the actual character because other random fictional characters do not resemble Ben Grimm's character.

 

[Marvin]

I see it as an interpretation too....a bad one, an unneeded one, an unwanted one.

I'm glad we can finally agree on the first part. As for the latter, unwanted by whom?

Maybe the fact that it is "different" is enough for some people. They don't need a hundred reasons to dislike something, maybe one is enough.

Never said it wasn't.
Ignoring the type of people that typically don't need alot of reasons to hate something, ignoring the type of people that usually don't even need a single reason. I wasn't questioning if you had enough reason to feel however you feel. I was questioning(as always) if you had enough to call something bad/poor/unjustified/unvalid as art...'bad'.
Not much more.

 

[TeeKay]

This is becoming tedious. We can argue semantics and sentence structure all day but you continue to ignore the fact that none of your examples are relevant analogies to Ben Grimm's character. So yes - what is done in one franchise has little to no bearing on what is done in another - unless that other franchise happens to have a character named Ben Grimm. You are basically saying that the filmmakers don't need to make their version of Ben Grimm resemble the actual character because other random fictional characters do not resemble Ben Grimm's character.

Which is nonsensical IMO.

 

[C. Lee]

No you said, and I quote: "So what is done in one franchise has little to no bearing on what is done in another"
I bold the 'so' because it signifies your lead in sentence is what this statement is predicated on. What was your lead in?
"I'm not a fan of mutant turtles. I'm a fan of the FF."

I simply asked what you being a fan of either or none has to do with their ability to be compared. There is little strawman here.
Again, I don't care what you are or aren't a fan of. When it comes to some artistic liberty being analyzed and it having bearing on another, what does that specific point have to do with anything? Your fandom that is.

This to me sounds like you just want to argue about something. You are over blowing one little part of a statement that doesn't matter. I've seen you do this many times. You obscure the basic discussion with nitpicking of things that don't mean anything in the long run to continue an argument. I won't bother with anymore discussions with you. Good day.

 

[TeeKay]

I'm glad we can finally agree on the first part. As for the latter, unwanted by whom?

Now I'm convinced you're just arguing for the sake of it.