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

[Docker2.0]

I can't comment on Abomination or the psychology behind it, but the Thing already is a laughing stock based on this photo:

http://www.theouthousers.com/index....e-a-eunuch-in-foxs-fantastic-four-reboot.html

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=168709579

http://filmjunkee.com/tag/fantastic-four-2015/

http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?p=10946361

Man some of those jokes are brutal! Fox opened a pandora's box by making him not have any pants.

 

[regnak]

i never really read fantastic four comics so my question is did he ever use the bathroom in the source material? was he ever drawn to have a bulge? did he even have junk in the source material?

i feel like i find this subject way more fascinating than i should

He ate like mad (10 pancakes in one mouthful) it had to go somewhere.

 

[Sleiek]

Yeah, where though? I doubt he goes and relieves himself by sitting on a toilet seat.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Trailer for this and Ant Man got decent reactions in my JW screening last night.

 

[The Guard]

I kind of can't believe people care this much about The Thing not having pants.

I don't really care either way, but The Thing not wearing pants, among other things, sends a pretty clear message about his connection to humanity, society, etc, and his own mindset.

As far as not being able to ignore it, it's silly to think every shot he's in will be a full frontal full body shot. I'm sure the majority of the film will be waist up kind of stuff.

Maybe he learns to give a damn again, gains some hope for his future, and puts pants on at the end of the film or something.

 

[Paradox1]

If Mystique had been missing her boobs, you can bet there would have been discussion of it.

The second worst part of this pants-less, penis-less Thing (the first being that it's patently absurd and will make a laughing stock out of the character and film) is that it's completely unrealistic - in contradiction to the claimed goals of the film-makers.

If anyone really turned into a rock creature with the anatomy of a Ken Doll, the last thing they would do is walk around naked and show everyone they've got the anatomy of a Ken Doll.

Simple human nature would be to put some pants on and cover things up a bit.

Mystique is missing some female parts in her natural skin or that part doesn't count anymore?

You know whats really unrealisitc? .....A rock man lmao. There has to be suspension of disbelief for these movies.

Lastly if I was turned into a rock monster trying to fit into society would go out the window fairly quick. Putting on clothes to be around humans is not natural, it's a social norm that becomes ingrained in our psyche.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Mystique is obviously different because of sex appeal... which Thing is quite obviously lacking.

if mystique looked like the poo demon from Dogma... we'd have the same discussion.

 

[Sleiek]

I kind of can't believe people care this much about The Thing not having pants.

I don't really care either way, but The Thing not wearing pants, among other things, sends a pretty clear message about his connection to humanity, society, etc, and his own mindset.

As far as not being able to ignore it, it's silly to think every shot he's in will be a full frontal full body shot. I'm sure the majority of the film will be waist up kind of stuff.

Maybe he learns to give a damn again, gains some hope for his future, and puts pants on at the end of the film or something.

I like your theory at the end.

 

[Dasher10]

Mystique is missing some female parts in her natural skin or that part doesn't count anymore?

You know whats really unrealisitc? .....A rock man lmao. There has to be suspension of disbelief for these movies.

Lastly if I was turned into a rock monster trying to fit into society would go out the window fairly quick. Putting on clothes to be around humans is not natural, it's a social norm that becomes ingrained in our psyche.

Mystique is a shapeshifter so that's why her lady bits are missing. There is no excuse for Thing and no excuse for why nobody thought about kidney failure being an issue.

 

[Sleiek]

Thing is a comic book character so kidney failure issue isn't much of a deal. We don't know the way his body works or more specifically his digestive system.

 

[kevork89]

Mystique is a shapeshifter so that's why her lady bits are missing. There is no excuse for Thing and no excuse for why nobody thought about kidney failure being an issue.

That makes no sense. She still is a female. She has breasts. Men have breasts too but they aren't like women's. She has a female figure. Everything about her is female. She can change it all but she is a woman. Being a shapeshifter makes no difference.

Honestly the comic book genitalia discussion is so weird lol

 

[Dark Raven]

Mystique still has breasts obviously, and you can clearly see the shape of them, but she's obscuring her nipples and her genitals with the scales, which maybe she's used deliberately to act as a cover to preserve her modesty.

With Ben Grimm, he doesn't have shape-shifting abilities. The rock has just formed in such a way that either it's covering his penis completely and it's still there underneath (in which case, why is there no opening to allow himself to urinate), or his penis simply fell off or mutated so that it no longer exists. Whichever route they've gone for, it still is dumb. They should've just given him pants and left it to viewers' imagination instead of showing it so blatantly that you can see how ridiculous it looks.

 

[C. Lee]

I'm sorry. I had to.

I'm ready for your wrath. t:

And you got it....take some time off.

 

[Marvin]

I don't think Abomination became a laughing stock. To top that off, Abomination is more organic than the Thing.

Also, I don't know if Abomination had pants in his comics.

May be they will in a sequel if that ever comes out.

The ninja turtle fans made a huge deal out of all the clothes the main characters were given last year. Even with mention of anatomy however implied being an issue for the studio or audience going forward.

Now it's the reverse from these fans. Rest assured this boils down to what it always does. Change.

 

[Sleiek]

Rest assured this boils down to what it always does. Change.

 

[Marvin]

i am speaking on peoples general perception... which is why so many have said the exact same thing.

and ugh... again with the "art form" card.. look i'm an artist... but your artistic creativity is pretty limited when you're hired for a project that is not something you created... especially the bigger franchised properties. You're certainly able to put your thumbprint and mark on it.. but the more you distance the source material... the larger the problems arise. This way of thinking use to work in the early 00s when superhero films were all but a dream... so they took this approach... changed alot about the characters. and their looks, and yes.. it was successful at the time. But was it honestly because of the approach? or was it because of the properties and the fact they began to take these films a little more seriously?

X-men is a prime example... X1 in many ways, while still a great film is a hollow shell of what the comics are like... even X2 distanced themselves quite a bit. All great films though... but are they good portrayals of the X-men? are they really good "X-men" films? that's pretty debatable. I also don't think it's any secret that Post Spider-Man and Avengers... we now have movies that tend to mirror the comics pretty well... and I think it's no wonder as to why the X-men movies have begun to "adjust" themselves slowly, more in line with the comics... they're a bit brighter, there's more color, more costuming, more personality traits begining to pop up... gone are the days of "lets give them black costumes and make it ground and gritty" I don't think majority of people want to go back to that way of interpreting comic films... it was great for the time. but now, now it's pretty dated. And this film will likely suffer for it.

and the new TMNT movie is not something i'd ever compare as a "good thing"

Again you lost me when you presumed to speak for others. I get that you are claiming to speak for those that share your opinion, but just who is that in the grand scheme? Out of the entire population that may see this movie. You can't possibly think these folks you are citing, represent everyone can you? Your evidence being you've heard them voice their opinion? Curious if you've heard people voice the opposite and if you've tallied which one outnumbers which.
You also have to ask yourself just who would spend the time voicing an opinion on the net about something they haven't seen yet. Surely not the people that are indifferent towards changes or open minded. My point being when you say 'so many' I'd appreciate some context. "So many" voiced their dismay about TDKT, "So many" have about the mcu movies...people do that.

I hardly pulled the art form card. I just provided evidence as to how much success has been found in this 'art form' and by doing this very thing you suggest isn't 'good'. Ever put any thought into what happens if you "distance" yourself from poor source material, dated source material. And why you might want to. Just a thought.

As for your evidence of what happened in the 00's and why it failed again I find selective. I'd rather not get into it though. I do find your description of Xmen to be a textbook example of this. Xmen, especially under Singer has always been what it is. But of course, in the face of it's consistent success we will attribute what we will I suppose.

Not sure where I mentioned tmnt as a 'good thing' perhaps if you give the post another read.

At the end of the day, Tim Story was supposedly more 'source accurate' than this next one and I suppose we'll see how that goes.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Again you lost me when you presumed to speak for others. I get that you are claiming to speak for those that share your opinion, but just who is that in the grand scheme? Out of the entire population that may see this movie. You can't possibly think these folks you are citing, represent everyone can you? Your evidence being you've heard them voice their opinion? Curious if you've heard people voice the opposite and if you've tallied which one outnumbers which.
You also have to ask yourself just who would spend the time voicing an opinion on the net about something they haven't seen yet. Surely not the people that are indifferent towards changes or open minded. My point being when you say 'so many' I'd appreciate some context. "So many" voiced their dismay about TDKT, "So many" have about the mcu movies...people do that.

I hardly pulled the art form card. I just provided evidence as to how much success has been found in this 'art form' and by doing this very thing you suggest isn't 'good'. Ever put any thought into what happens if you "distance" yourself from poor source material, dated source material. And why you might want to. Just a thought.

As for your evidence of what happened in the 00's and why it failed again I find selective. I'd rather not get into it though. I do find your description of Xmen to be a textbook example of this. Xmen, especially under Singer has always been what it is. But of course, in the face of it's consistent success we will attribute what we will I suppose.


At the end of the day, Tim Story was supposedly more 'source accurate' than this next one and I suppose we'll see how that goes.

i guess you haven't seen majority of the posts in here perfectly match the conception of "dark/grounded/gritty" ......

glad you have a different one.. but ok you're a minority.. so what?

and seriously? you're now trying to say that i'm saying that type doesn't work for all superhero films? No i never said that.. infact.. if you actually read my past post... you'd clearly state that characters LIKE BATMAN, DD, Punisher, etc.. it works for... street level characters who's comics .... are.. "gasp" DARK, GROUNDED, AND GRITTY... your TDKT proved you haven't read squat on my opinion, because ive mentioned batman several times in the past... he's a gritty character. The Fantastic Four ARE NOT gritty characters. And for like the 12th time... making the F4 grounded and gritty is like making the punisher fantastical and lighthearted...

I don't really know who you're trying to fool. maybe yourself? idk...


you do also realize it takes more than "accuracy" it takes good writting, good casting.. there's alot of factors that go into play... no one is simply stating "the more comic like the film is bound to be better" so don't put words in anyones mouths. Another major factor is to not mess up the villian.. which story screwed all of those on all accounts.. and from the looks of the new film... they've hit repeat once again on Doom. Villains more often than not... make the heroes.

 

[justanotherguy]

how many more revelations about this film,the script, the characterizations,the direction and production have to happen before even the most positive fan at least acknowledges what a mess this appears to be?


At every turn, it's "nothing to see here" "no big deal"....and in the end, the film could still be good. That doesn't mean that the filmmakers gave this IP the proper respect.

This IP is the birth of the Marvel universe and it seems, seems to be disrespected by Fox.

 

[Marvin]

i guess you haven't seen majority of the posts in here perfectly match the conception of "dark/grounded/gritty" ......

I have seen them. This is your problem right here. You somehow think this represents the world, the internet... even the hype. It's a thread on the hype about a property not many people have been interested in, in over a decade. Comics, TV or film. Not sure what kinda data you are going to find in here.

and seriously? you're now trying to say that i'm saying that type doesn't work for all superhero films? No i never said that.. infact.. if you actually read my past post... you'd clearly state that characters LIKE BATMAN, DD, Punisher, etc.. it works for... street level characters who's comics .... are.. "gasp" DARK, GROUNDED, AND GRITTY... your TDKT proved you haven't read squat on my opinion, because ive mentioned batman several times in the past... he's a gritty character. The Fantastic Four ARE NOT gritty characters. And for like the 12th time... making the F4 grounded and gritty is like making the punisher fantastical and lighthearted...

I don't really know who you're trying to fool. maybe yourself? idk...

Never said two words about you saying it never works, sorry that must have been you reading my fake posts again. I know perfectly well when you deemed it justified: On supposedly dark and gritty characters because fantastical can't be 'dark and gritty'. Thus, a fantastical property like thor, can't even attempt a 'dark and gritty' story by definition. Sorry but I think that's an incredibly narrow view but to each his own. I see a fantastical story about dragons and princesses having a disney tone or a game of thrones tone. Just because I want light harted doesn't mean I then come up with selective rules about fantasy, but that's me.
Interesting parameters you are suggesting there. Even more interesting that characters like batman weren't always "gasp..DARK, GROUNDED, AND GRITTY" or even street level, the mythology has room for variation and that, if anything, is the point. It just needs people to get out of the way and convey this.

What did I say about TDKT?
I recall mentioning it once and clearly not in the fashion you think I did. Again so we are clear: who cares if "so many people don't like something. "So many people" don't like TDKT, I'm asking what that actually means, and when did this contingent of detractors for anything, start amounting to something.

you do also realize it takes more than "accuracy" it takes good writting, good casting.. there's alot of factors that go into play... no one is simply stating "the more comic like the film is bound to be better" so don't put words in anyones mouths. Another major factor is to not mess up the villian.. which story screwed all of those on all accounts.. and from the looks of the new film... they've hit repeat once again on Doom. Villains more often than not... make the heroes.

I'm glad we can agree on the bolded. The next time I see a post suggesting anything to the contrary, I'll know where you stand. At least on this Thursday. As for the last part, I suppose that explains why the mcu isn't starved for success; phenomenal villains. Regardless of what "so many people" say about their antagonists thus far.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

I don't think Abomination became a laughing stock. To top that off, Abomination is more organic than the Thing.

Also, I don't know if Abomination had pants in his comics.

The Abomination only appeared in his film's climax, and the final battle providing an appropriate distraction combined with the framing of the shots made it so that audiences didn't have to dwell on such things long enough to care.

 

[Spidey's Curse]

I don't think Abomination became a laughing stock. To top that off, Abomination is more organic than the Thing.

Also, I don't know if Abomination had pants in his comics.

May be they will in a sequel if that ever comes out.

The abomination did wear shorts in the comics, just like ben and superman.

 

[Sleiek]

The Abomination only appeared in his film's climax, and the final battle providing an appropriate distraction combined with the framing of the shots made it so that audiences didn't have to dwell on such things long enough to care.

Similarly I don't see Thing's crotch area in any of the footage and I doubt we will get a clear view of it in the movie.

 

[fantasticfan]

how many more revelations about this film,the script, the characterizations,the direction and production have to happen before even the most positive fan at least acknowledges what a mess this appears to be?


At every turn, it's "nothing to see here" "no big deal"....and in the end, the film could still be good. That doesn't mean that the filmmakers gave this IP the proper respect.

This IP is the birth of the Marvel universe and it seems, seems to be disrespected by Fox.

The actual RELEASE in a few weeks is fine with me. "Revelations" about the script, etc? Why do you feel any rumours must be "acknowledged" (or do you really mean accepted as fact) at this point. We are so close to seeing the actual film.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Similarly I don't see Thing's crotch area in any of the footage and I doubt we will get a clear view of it in the movie.

Then why do it?

This isn't real complicated. It's Bat Nipples. It's a dumb, unnecessary change that the director made for no good reason that ultimately will become a big joke and distraction.

C Lee has forbade dick jokes here, but you can't censor the internet. Go to any free and open discussion and you'll find this is nothing but one big, running joke.

 

[Sleiek]

Yeah that's not a surprise, that's the sort of thing people always do on the Internet.