Fant4stic Fant4stic: Reborn! - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 34

[Jason Kane]

Interesting article on IO9 titled "The Real Reason Studios Want Die Hard Fans Steering Movie Adaptations". The article addresses the "Studio Production Chiefs Speak". Panel at ComicCon, which featured Drew Crevello (WB), Jim Miller (Lionsgate) and Daria Cerek (FOX).

Mr Miller: "Loyalty to the source material is the most important thing. There's a reason these things are popular, and to diverge from what made them popular (in the first place) would be a huge mistake."

It seems so simple, doesnt it?

For Marvel, yes. For everyone else not so much as history has shown

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Interesting article on IO9 titled "The Real Reason Studios Want Die Hard Fans Steering Movie Adaptations". The article addresses the "Studio Production Chiefs Speak". Panel at ComicCon, which featured Drew Crevello (WB), Jim Miller (Lionsgate) and Daria Cerek (FOX).

Mr Miller: "Loyalty to the source material is the most important thing. There's a reason these things are popular, and to diverge from what made them popular (in the first place) would be a huge mistake."

It seems so simple, doesnt it?

Just basic common sense. We often don't understand exactly why classics stand the test of time, but they have certain intangibles that connect with people.

The hubris of people like Trank and Kinberg to think they can do better is just pure foolishness, arrogance and ignorance of just how rare and precious something able to resonate with audiences for over 50 years is.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

For Marvel, yes. For everyone else not so much as history has shown

The most succsessful films however tend to be 1) very respectful to the fans and 2) all around great films that appeal to everyone.

there's a reason fan bases exist.. if you can recreate that magic that created a fanbase... and spread it out to a mass-audience and make them fans too... that's when you create something magical.

 

[RAE072]

Interesting article on IO9 titled "The Real Reason Studios Want Die Hard Fans Steering Movie Adaptations". The article addresses the "Studio Production Chiefs Speak". Panel at ComicCon, which featured Drew Crevello (WB), Jim Miller (Lionsgate) and Daria Cerek (FOX).

Mr Miller: "Loyalty to the source material is the most important thing. There's a reason these things are popular, and to diverge from what made them popular (in the first place) would be a huge mistake."

It seems so simple, doesnt it?

Heh. Yeah pretty much.

Your work is half done for you. If you've got a 60, 70, 80 year old property, it's all right there.

Making **** up or changing everything because your ego won't allow you to work with something pre-existing just means you're a child.

 

[Paradox1]

Everyone veers from the source material sometimes drastically and as long as it's good everyone shuts up about it. If you can't add anything new to an existing mythology you shouldn't tell it.

 

[sleekstereo]

Everyone veers from the source material sometimes drastically and as long as it's good everyone shuts up about it. If you can't add anything new to an existing mythology you shouldn't tell it.

Exactly. The job of the producers, directors, and writers is to make a good film above anything else. The source material is second.

 

[Paradox1]

Exactly. The job of the producers, directors, and writers is to make a good film above anything else. The source material is second.

For example I liked Guardians of the Galaxy quite a bit but they butchered the Nova Corps. I would of rather they have made up a new group than to have used them. They and the comics they spawn from are a like almost in name only, like the planet was right. Everything else ripped away, space cops with the super powers who can fly through space without ships, they are not. Richard Rider (the most famous member) I became a huge fan of after Annihilation so that aspect of the movie was extremely disappointing
but it's a movie and I still have my Nova comics so it's all good.

 

[Zarex]

Everyone veers from the source material sometimes drastically and as long as it's good everyone shuts up about it. If you can't add anything new to an existing mythology you shouldn't tell it.

Everyone veers and/or adds something new. But no one else hires a director who is openly contemptuous of the classic source material and labels their attempt a "contemporary reimagining". And I'm not shutting up about it.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Yes, Guardians of the Galaxy made a lot of changes. But at the end of the day, characters like Quill, Rocket, Groot, Thanos, etc. still looked and acted like those characters should. Even cameos like Howard the Duck and Cosmo were done well. And this is with a group that was nowhere near as well-known or popular as the Fantastic Four and Doctor Doom.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

Just basic common sense. We often don't understand exactly why classics stand the test of time, but they have certain intangibles that connect with people.

The hubris of people like Trank and Kinberg to think they can do better is just pure foolishness, arrogance and ignorance of just how rare and precious something able to resonate with audiences for over 50 years is.

And yet all the ones that "stand the test of time" are the ones that can be manipulated and reinterpreted. Why Batman still rides high and all those other 1930 heroes are stuck in pulp comics tied to the era they came out of collecting dust like Doc Savage.

It's not deviating. it's understanding the core of the story. The same reason anyone can read Marvel FF: 1602 or Red Son, or BBC Sherlock/Elementary and still see the characters they know.

 

[Zarex]

Exactly. The job of the producers, directors, and writers is to make a good film above anything else. The source material is second.

Jim Miller, Executive VP of Production and Development at Lionsgate (and my new hero) strongly disagrees.

 

[Paradox1]

Yes, Guardians of the Galaxy made a lot of changes. But at the end of the day, characters like Quill, Rocket, Groot, Thanos, etc. still looked and acted like those characters should. Even cameos like Howard the Duck and Cosmo were done well. And this is with a group that was nowhere near as well-known or popular as the Fantastic Four and Doctor Doom.

Because the movie was good all is forgiven.

 

[Paradox1]

Everyone veers and/or adds something new. But no one else hires a director who is openly contemptuous of the classic source material and labels their attempt a "contemporary reimagining". And I'm not shutting up about it.

If the movie is good and you still continue to speak about it you'll have plenty of people be like "but the movie was good, what are you complaining about". That is what happened to the purist Batman fans during Nolan's run.

 

[starscream22]

Interesting article on IO9 titled "The Real Reason Studios Want Die Hard Fans Steering Movie Adaptations". The article addresses the "Studio Production Chiefs Speak". Panel at ComicCon, which featured Drew Crevello (WB), Jim Miller (Lionsgate) and Daria Cerek (FOX).

Mr Miller: "Loyalty to the source material is the most important thing. There's a reason these things are popular, and to diverge from what made them popular (in the first place) would be a huge mistake."

It seems so simple, doesnt it?

Good post! The only people rejecting this notion has always been those of opposing views desperate to either discredit or dismiss those who support source material of said novel, comic, video game or previous show/movie.

No one is saying it has to follow source to a 'T' as long as the heart and soul is still in it.

Everyone veers from the source material sometimes drastically and as long as it's good everyone shuts up about it. If you can't add anything new to an existing mythology you shouldn't tell it.

Agreed. But considering the feedback of the project in question question due to its drastic changes. I doubt anyone disputing this film will be shutting up about it any time soon.

 

[starscream22]

If the movie is good and you still continue to speak about it you'll have plenty of people be like "but the movie was good, what are you complaining about". That is what happened to the purist Batman fans during Nolan's run.

There you go again trying your hardest to use films like GOTG and Dark Knight as examples to support nonsense, as if this reboot is on the level of those films in any way or if those films had a 3rd of the red flags going on that has people reluctant in the first.

Batman still looks like Batman and Guardians still looks like Guardians.

4stic is anything but F4!

 

[spideyboy_1111]

For example I liked Guardians of the Galaxy quite a bit but they butchered the Nova Corps. I would of rather they have made up a new group than to have used them. They and the comics they spawn from are a like almost in name only, like the planet was right. Everything else ripped away, space cops with the super powers who can fly through space without ships, they are not. Richard Rider (the most famous member) I became a huge fan of after Annihilation so that aspect of the movie was extremely disappointing
but it's a movie and I still have my Nova comics so it's all good.

See this is the major difference... the main charaters and stories arnt "drastic changes" the nova corps are very minor tirtiary characters in the film... because of that, you can change things with less friction. Youre comparing apples to oranges... people arnt throwing a fit over mole man... they're throwing a fit over doom...

The guardians team did not have drastic changes... minor changes? Yes. Drastic? No.

The fantastic four team and doom (easily the most iconic comic villain next to joker) are drastically different .... complaints are justified

 

[Sithborg]

Just basic common sense. We often don't understand exactly why classics stand the test of time, but they have certain intangibles that connect with people.

The hubris of people like Trank and Kinberg to think they can do better is just pure foolishness, arrogance and ignorance of just how rare and precious something able to resonate with audiences for over 50 years is.

See, I don't necessarily see it as hubrus. I think some creators are inspired by the source material to tell a different type of story. The changes generally are only accepted if the movie is good. These long lasting franchises have to be able to change, to draw in new blood. I know the arguement about fans not getting a good movie for them yet. But, can you honestly blame Fox for trying something different?

I can think of two Godzilla movies that were drastic deviations from the source material. One is my favorite. The other I don't really think of as a Godzilla movie, but still enjoy it as a fun monster movie.

Nothing I've seen has really turned me off since the first trailer got my interest. I can sympathize with FF fans, since this doesn't exactly cater to their desires.

 

[Quasar]

Well in the case of Godzilla, the source material is a movie, so no matter how many bad or changed versions come out afterward, you still have the original movie you can watch over and over again. For the FF, we're still waiting for a quality movie we can enjoy. And every crappy version that comes along, we're less and less likely to get a good one ever.

 

[Sithborg]

I do believe the FF source material still exists. Does it really matter if it is a different medium?

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

See this is the major difference... the main charaters and stories arnt "drastic changes" the nova corps are very minor tirtiary characters in the film... because of that, you can change things with less friction. Youre comparing apples to oranges... people arnt throwing a fit over mole man... they're throwing a fit over doom...

The guardians team did not have drastic changes... minor changes? Yes. Drastic? No.

The fantastic four team and doom (easily the most iconic comic villain next to joker) are drastically different .... complaints are justified

Exactly.

Or let's use Man of Steel as another example. A lot of changes there, many of which fans still complain about. But at the end of the day it is still the story of a baby who was sent to Earth by his scientist father to escape the destruction of his planet, who landed in Kansas to be raised by the Kents, has super-abilities like flight and superstrength because of his alien biology, discovers his true heritage as a young man, and vows to protect humanity while wearing red and blue tights and a cape, while working undercover as a reporter in the big city of Metropolis. The core of the character is still there.

I just simply don't see it from this film. Ben Grimm isn't a young athlete. He's a crusty war vet. Reed Richards is an accomplished world famous scientist. Not a guy who looks like he could still be in college. They couldn't even get the costumes looking similar.

The issue isn't that Fantastic Four has made changes, even major changes from the comics. The issue is that they don't resemble the comics AT ALL. That's a major distinction. If you showed me a photo of the main four individually, in their costumes, and told me they were from a comic book and asked me to guess who they were, the only one I'd probably get right is Thing. That's a big problem, and it is why the backlash has been so strong against this film.

 

[2094]

Just saw those character promos and I enjoyed them actually, but what the hell is that green stuff on Doom??

 

[Sleiek]

I just simply don't see it from this film. Ben Grimm isn't a young athlete. He's a crusty war vet. Reed Richards is an accomplished world famous scientist. Not a guy who looks like he could still be in college. They couldn't even get the costumes looking similar.

I thought this movie has taken inspiration from the Ultimates. Can someone who read the Ultimates CB confirm? Ultimates is a comic book right?

Just saw those character promos and I enjoyed them actually, but what the hell is that green stuff on Doom??

Kryptonite. Duh.

 

[Mad Ones]

Wow. Those character vids really highlight the horror tone. I know that's insanely unpopular here but I really hope they embrace it since it sets the movie apart from the generic superhero formula.

 

[YourFewcha]

I thought this movie has taken inspiration from the Ultimates. Can someone who read the Ultimates CB confirm? Ultimates is a comic book right?

yeah its the ultimate FF is just not as popular or as well received. i will say that i had never read a comic book in my life until i started following the production of this film. there was so much backlash because they were using ultimate FF as the basis. i read the first few issues out of curiousity and i actually enjoyed it. i guess thats why im looking forward to the film.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Everyone veers from the source material sometimes drastically and as long as it's good everyone shuts up about it.

Well you may well be right that I'll shut up about it, but that's likely to be because I won't go.

As 45 year fan who loves everything FF, I find the product I'm seeing so unrecognizable that, unless the final trailer shows us somthing drastically different than we've seen so far, I've lost interest.

What a difference a year makes. Last year I was anxiously awaiting Comic-Con and even though Kinberg had said FF wouldn't be the surprise, I had hoped that was just to downplay expectations and they would show something. I watched the live-streaming commentary from the Fox presentation hoping for tge tiniest tidbit.

Now, a month before release, I simply don't care. I didn't bother listening to the Trank podcast (which I would have gobbled up a year ago), and now I'm just waiting for the final trailer - which I expect to be underwhelming - so that I can make the 'go, no-go' decision that now looks like it will be 'no-go'.

A year ago, I never could have believed that possible, but I had no way to anticipate how uninteresting the film would look to me once I had seen two trailers and several TV spots.