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

[Dasher10]

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

I was referring to between her legs.

 

[Dark Raven]

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

I doubt it will just be on the internet. I'm sure audiences will walk out of the movie making jokes about that, and almost certainly film critics will mention it.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I doubt it will just be on the internet. I'm sure audiences will walk out of the movie making jokes about that, and almost certainly film critics will mention it.

Yeah, I think it's a questionable strategy to keep it so hidden during promotion. As it is, it will be a surprise to most theatergoers who aren't paying attention like we are.

That means most of the laughs and 'how does he pee?' will happen during the film and that won't be a good thing.

I think they should be doing one of two things:

1. Get it out there so people can yuck it up before rather than during the movie.

or, more preferably:

2. Get some CGI guys working overtime to get some pants on him before this is released.

In a long list of dumb, dumb, nonsensical moves, I think this stands out as one of the dumbest and most nonsensical.

 

[wobbly]

As Stan once said when asked the question of the Thing's member "it's a superhero secret". Best left that way.

On some of the questions asked about the matter...

Does comic Ben use the toilet? Yes. He eats and drinks and has to goes through all that comes with that too, be it standing up or sitting down.

Does he have a visible 'bulge'? No more than any other male heroes in tight costumes manage to avoid having their junk showing through their respective budgie smugglers.

Comparisons to naked Apes? Please....Like werewolves they are covered in hair. Caesar and his other males are not emasculated

Comparisons to Abomination? Well Abomination was in that film for the end only, and Blonsky was bonkers enough by then to want the power that came from being mutated, and didn't care about anything else.

Ben however is an unwilling victim of the mutation. Being turned a physical rock monster is enough tragedy. Deliberately drawing attention to his evident castration too is just utterly stupid (imo).

 

[spideyboy_1111]

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.


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.

you are aware that what can and can't be "grounded and gritty" is a case by casesituation right? just because the Fantastic Four shouldn't be ... doesn't mean something like Thor... can't either... Thor is full of gritty stories Are they grounded though? no. They're full of war and vikings.. of course Thor can be gritty...

if you want to know who's narrow minded and generalizing... look no further than yourself.

As for where i stand.. I'll never ever believe it's one factor. I think the best films have always been those who pay close respect to source material, costuming, detail, yet also have a stellar cast, director, crew, and writing. I've never had a different opinion on that.

I often push harder for the source material.. because i see so many times where it CAN be done.. and for some odd reason they don't do it. It's like in most superhero movies... the hero can name themselves.. but the villain never does, they're often not even called their code-name in the film. Why? I have no idea.. if the heroes can, i don't see why it's illogical for the villains to do the same.

It's like the thing pants issue.. would anyone be complaining that he had elastic shorts on? probably not. Those are just 2 very small factors.. but even my favorite marvel films.. i'm like.. "why couldn't they of just said that line instead? changed this a little to include that... etc..

 

[spideyboy_1111]

As Stan once said when asked the question of the Thing's member "it's a superhero secret". Best left that way.

On some of the questions asked about the matter...

Does comic Ben use the toilet? Yes. He eats and drinks and has to goes through all that comes with that too, be it standing up or sitting down.

Does he have a visible 'bulge'? No more than any other male heroes in tight costumes manage to avoid having their junk showing through their respective budgie smugglers.

Comparisons to naked Apes? Please....Like werewolves they are covered in hair. Caesar and his other males are not emasculated

Comparisons to Abomination? Well Abomination was in that film for the end only, and Blonsky was bonkers enough by then to want the power that came from being mutated, and didn't care about anything else.

Ben however is an unwilling victim of the mutation. Being turned a physical rock monster is enough tragedy. Deliberately drawing attention to his evident castration too is just utterly stupid (imo).

actually Stan recently just confirmed both Thing and Reeds um... appendages.

but anywho.. i think The "Rocks" might actually end up being his "fur" in this scenario... I think people may be right that the rocks form around him as an armor.. and he may be able to switch back and forth from Ben and Thing... didn't one of the old cartoons do that?

 

[Quasar]

Benjy Grimm had a Thing Ring. He would shout THING RING DO YOUR THING!, and rocks would fly out of nowhere to cover him up in the Thing skin, and awwwayyyy he'd go!

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Benjy Grimm had a Thing Ring. He would shout THING RING DO YOUR THING!, and rocks would fly out of nowhere to cover him up in the Thing skin, and awwwayyyy he'd go!

ugh don't remind me!

 

[Tony Stark]

Benjy Grimm had a Thing Ring. He would shout THING RING DO YOUR THING!, and rocks would fly out of nowhere to cover him up in the Thing skin, and awwwayyyy he'd go!

LOL! I remember that show. Even as a kid I remember thinking, WTF does this have to do with the Thing?

Hanna Barbara had the FF rights when Marvel spun them off when they did the second animated series, with no Torch as his TV rights were held with another studio, so they used HERBIE in his stead. So then HB decided to do the solo Thing cartoon that was so incredibly stupid.

 

[terry78]

What the ****.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

LOL! I remember that show. Even as a kid I remember thinking, WTF does this have to do with the Thing?

Hanna Barbara had the FF rights when Marvel spun them off when they did the second animated series, with no Torch as his TV rights were held with another studio, so they used HERBIE in his stead. So then HB decided to do the solo Thing cartoon that was so incredibly stupid.

actually that's not completely right...

HERBIE was used not because of separate rights, but because the network thought the Human Torch was inappropriate for children, and feared they'd try to light themselves on fire.

 

[The Guard]

People still don't seem to understand what "grounded" and "gritty" mean (the actual definitions of the words or their intersection with film, tone and story) and fail to understand that literally any concept, no matter how fantastic, no matter how imaginative can have these elements applied to them successfully in one sense or another.

And people still think this movie is going to be devoid of humor and fun. It boggles the mind. Do people really think they hired Michael Jordan and Miles Teller to stand there quietly and be serious all the time?

 

[Kelly]

People still don't seem to understand what "grounded" and "gritty" mean (the actual definitions of the words or their intersection with film, tone and story) and fail to understand that literally any concept, no matter how fantastic, no matter how imaginative can have these elements applied to them successfully in one sense or another.

And people still think this movie is going to be devoid of humor and fun. It boggles the mind. Do people really think they hired Michael Jordan and Miles Teller to stand there quietly and be serious all the time?

You may very well be right...but with as little as people have to go on, it's also pretty naive at this point to think that it may be something totally different.

No one knows at this point, which is kind of the problem.

 

[Eddie]

actually that's not completely right...

HERBIE was used not because of separate rights, but because the network thought the Human Torch was inappropriate for children, and feared they'd try to light themselves on fire.

That is an urban legend. A popular one, but a myth nevertheless. That dumb robot was used because Johnny had a film in development separate from the team.

 

[Kelly]

Benjy Grimm had a Thing Ring. He would shout THING RING DO YOUR THING!, and rocks would fly out of nowhere to cover him up in the Thing skin, and awwwayyyy he'd go!

Which sounds soooooooooooooooooooooooooo stupid.

 

[starscream22]

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

Fox Exec: "We talkin about pants?!! Pants....???! Not the cast, not the director... Not that we're just trying to keep this franchise from reverting back to Disney we talkin about pants! Not the budget that we're trying our best to keep as low as possible we're talking about Pants here....

Not the rights, not the budget, not the marketing, we're talking about pants!!! How the h3ll we going to have a successful film worried about pants!"


LOL!!!!

 

[Marvin]

you are aware that what can and can't be "grounded and gritty" is a case by casesituation right? just because the Fantastic Four shouldn't be ... doesn't mean something like Thor... can't either... Thor is full of gritty stories Are they grounded though? no. They're full of war and vikings.. of course Thor can be gritty...

if you want to know who's narrow minded and generalizing... look no further than yourself.

As for where i stand.. I'll never ever believe it's one factor. I think the best films have always been those who pay close respect to source material, costuming, detail, yet also have a stellar cast, director, crew, and writing. I've never had a different opinion on that.

I often push harder for the source material.. because i see so many times where it CAN be done.. and for some odd reason they don't do it. It's like in most superhero movies... the hero can name themselves.. but the villain never does, they're often not even called their code-name in the film. Why? I have no idea.. if the heroes can, i don't see why it's illogical for the villains to do the same.

It's like the thing pants issue.. would anyone be complaining that he had elastic shorts on? probably not. Those are just 2 very small factors.. but even my favorite marvel films.. i'm like.. "why couldn't they of just said that line instead? changed this a little to include that... etc..

I'm the one between the two of us talking about what can work or what's possible and your the one doing the opposite and I'm being narrow minded. See Guards post above.

Your point about thor argues my issue. Imagine thor never had any 'gritty' stories in his source material. Someone like me would be right here arguing that a gritty thor movie holds alot of potential and you, being consistent with your argument would be talking about "well if it's not in source then..."

I'm opting to avoid the shorts discussion. Superficial stuff in fan forums is beyond me.

 

[Dasher10]

Hey guys, did you hear about the leaked Sony terms for how Spider-Man must be depicted? That's good news since it means that the FF probably have a similar clause so Red and Doom might actually be closer to the source material than we think in terms of personality.

 

[starscream22]

Hey guys, did you hear about the leaked Sony terms for how Spider-Man must be depicted? That's good news since it means that the FF probably have a similar clause so Red and Doom might actually be closer to the source material than we think in terms of personality.

Or they named him Domashev so they wouldn't have to.

Who's Red?

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I'm the one between the two of us talking about what can work or what's possible and your the one doing the opposite and I'm being narrow minded. See Guards post above.

Your point about thor argues my issue. Imagine thor never had any 'gritty' stories in his source material. Someone like me would be right here arguing that a gritty thor movie holds alot of potential and you, being consistent with your argument would be talking about "well if it's not in source then..."

I'm opting to avoid the shorts discussion. Superficial stuff in fan forums is beyond me.

Then opt out of it..

By your logic, we should be open to a family friendly punisher movie too

 

[Eddie]

Hey guys, did you hear about the leaked Sony terms for how Spider-Man must be depicted? That's good news since it means that the FF probably have a similar clause so Red and Doom might actually be closer to the source material than we think in terms of personality.

Umm... given those leaked stipulations on what Peter Parker must be (including his race, his family, and the costume rules) it's very obvious that the Fantastic Four agreement was very different. Not to open a can of worms here, but if FF followed the same rules as the Spidey licensing agreement Michael B. Jordan couldn't have been cast, the Storm family would have to resemble the traditional comic version, and the costumes would violate the agreement. The agreement isn't the same. If it was, Fox would get sued for a substantial sum of money and likely lose the film rights.

 

[Marvin]

Then opt out of it..

By your logic, we should be open to a family friendly punisher movie too

I did.
I only mentioned it because it was in the post I was actively replying to. Didn't want you to think I actually agreed with that sort of thing.

As for punisher.
Blade was on a family oriented Spiderman show in the 90's. Didn't seem to bother anyone. If punisher shows up on that current disney spiderman show tmr I can see it having an audience. If he showed up in spiderman 2...that by definition would be him existing in a tone you just now are suggesting would be 'bad'.

I wouldn't opt for that sort of film personally, but I'm not about to claim such a thing wouldn't possibly work. I've seen the opposite fail.
Of course this is the part where you blame any such failure on the writing and such...

 

[spideyboy_1111]

That is an urban legend. A popular one, but a myth nevertheless. That dumb robot was used because Johnny had a film in development separate from the team.

Cartoon and movie rights are completely seperate. And just pray tell how he'd ever have a film? Was it to be animated?

 

[spideyboy_1111]

I did.
I only mentioned it because it was in the post I was actively replying to. Didn't want you to think I actually agreed with that sort of thing.

As for punisher.
Blade was on a family oriented Spiderman show in the 90's. Didn't seem to bother anyone. If punisher shows up on that current disney spiderman show tmr I can see it having an audience. If he showed up in spiderman 2...that by definition would be him existing in a tone you just now are suggesting would be 'bad'.

I wouldn't opt for that sort of film personally, but I'm not about to claim such a thing wouldn't possibly work. I've seen the opposite fail.
Of course this is the part where you blame any such failure on the writing and such...

I didnt just mention blade in this context... i mentioned punisher. Dd can also be family oriented... just like batman can.

Blade kills vampires... punisher kills people. Family films also tend to be void of guns...

 

[Dasher10]

Umm... given those leaked stipulations on what Peter Parker must be (including his race, his family, and the costume rules) it's very obvious that the Fantastic Four agreement was very different. Not to open a can of worms here, but if FF followed the same rules as the Spidey licensing agreement Michael B. Jordan couldn't have been cast, the Storm family would have to resemble the traditional comic version, and the costumes would violate the agreement. The agreement isn't the same. If it was, Fox would get sued for a substantial sum of money and likely lose the film rights.

My guess is that Fox pushed their contract to it's limit of what's able to be allowed in terms of liberties they're trying to take. For instance, Doom's first name must still be victor and Ben must still be made of rocks.