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

[Eddie]

The problem is that the little things like costumes, hairstyles, and whatnot tend to have a shocking correlation with effort on the project as a whole. That's not always the case, but it certainly happens more often than not. There's a new live action (television) version of Death Note. The first episode dropped, and it was terrible. There were a few red flags (they didn't get L's costume right, for example, and it's literally the easiest costume of any comic character ever created), and surprise surprise, it was bad. Damn near every character was handled wrong. They turned a character into a damn ventriloquist dummy. Now compare it to the previous version. It took some major liberties, but L looked and acted like he stepped out of the page and the actor got a Japanese Academy Award nomination.The films were a huge hit, and they marketed to the fans first and foremost.

Also, this film isn't even particularly close to Ultimate, so stop hiding behind that. Look at all the information we have (including the soundtrack listing that lays out the whole thing). If anything, this is to Ultimate what Tim Story's films were to traditional, and that may be generous.

 

[Retroman]

From Business Insider Australia:

People don't seem to care about the Fantastic Four -- and they're making an unfortunate mistake

Joshua Rivera

Superhero movies live and die according to hype. In the current box-office climate, movies with the names “Marvel” or “DC” attached to them aren’t interested in building audiences based on post-release word-of-mouth. But instead in guaranteeing attendance months and years in advance via sprawling interconnected universes that always have one eye firmly fixed on the next film in the sequence. Hence, the hype. Hence, Comic-Con.

So what about “Fantastic Four?”

In a recent LA Times feature, director Josh Trank was interviewed about the way his film is being received by fans so far, which has ranged from apathy to downright hostility. In that same piece, producer Simon Kinberg goes as far as to say some of those fans have “a chip on their shoulder.”

Of course, no one has seen the film yet. Even just one month out, the promotional machine for “Fantastic Four” has been much quieter than those touting films from other studios like “Batman v. Superman” or “Suicide Squad,” both of which are roughly a year away. In fact, superhero films from the same studio as “Fantastic Four” — namely, the upcoming slate of X-Men films such as “Apocalypse” and “Deadpool” — are getting plenty more attention.

To his credit, Josh Trank sounds like he expected this.

“I made every single choice knowing that people would question it,” the director told the LA Times. “And what better reaction than to have people then go see the movie and understand it and feel like maybe they have learned something about the world, to not question the next thing they think is going to be stupid or weird.”

That’s the sort of quote that makes you think Trank is the perfect guy to adapt the “Fantastic Four”, a team all about learning and discovery. But no matter how thoughtful Trank sounds, it seems like he just can’t shake the ghost of movies past.

As ScreenCrush notes, the previous “Fantastic Four” movies, while blockbusters, are not fondly remembered. Even though the last film, “Rise of the Silver Surfer,” came out in 2007, it feels like the product of another era with its kitschy family-friendly approach that you wouldn’t see today.

Still, there’s that chip on fan’s shoulders. While the second “Fantastic Four” film was legitimately terrible, the first one wasn’t awful. Sure, it got some characters wrong (Dr. Doom), but mostly it was a case of a film attempting to appeal to everyone and really appealing to no one. But the strange thing about the failure of that first film franchise is that it seems to be projected onto the property as a whole — as if the Fantastic Four just aren’t inherently interesting.

That couldn’t be more wrong.

As Vulture’s Abraham Riesman explains at length, if there’s anything you love about Marvel comics or modern superheroes, they wouldn’t exist without the Fantastic Four. They’re also still relevant. “It has a core idea that never gets old,” writes Riesman, “the struggles, compromises, joys, and agonies of being in a family.”

That, right there, is what makes the Fantastic Four special. It’s something that, frankly, the marketing behind the forthcoming film is pretty lousy at conveying: They’re a family. Susan and Johnny Storm (played by Kate Mara and Michael B. Jordan) are siblings, while Sue and Reed (Miles Tellar) get married and have children.

This all happens extremely early in Fantastic Four history, by the way. The team debuted in 1961, and the marriage of Reed and Sue occurs in the fall of 1965. Franklin Richards, their first son, then shows up in 1968. So, for almost the entirety of their existence, the Fantastic Four has had a married couple at its core, with Sue’s brother Johnny serving as a source of youthful energy and Reed’s best friend Ben Grimm, aka The Thing, fulfilling the role of clear-eyed, blue-collared heart of the team.

Panels from the mainstream ‘Fantastic Four’ drawn by Dale Eaglesham and written by Jonathan Hickman.

Granted, Trank’s film seems to be adapting “Ultimate Fantastic Four,” a newer take on the characters that significantly changes their origin, makes them all younger, and never has Reed and Sue marry. Still, family was important to that run too, albeit a more dysfunctional, Joss Whedon-style “found” family rather than one centered around matrimony.

The idea of family is so timeless and versatile that it gave us a hit Pixar film and transformed the “Fast and Furious” movies into one of the best crowd-pleasing franchises in existence. It’s also something that the current crop of superhero movies refuses to come anywhere near — meaning that a good “Fantastic Four” movie has room to be truly unique, and not just a remix of things we’ve all seen before.

This works on a visual level as well as a thematic one. The Fantastic Four go to impossible places and see incredible things. They’re the relatable center of stories that take us to mind-bending places. They showed just how far superhero comics could take us, how much heart was hidden away in the comic books that were so often ignored by mainstream media.

The Fantastic Four matter. Let’s hope they get a movie that treats them that way.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/is-anyone-excited-for-fantastic-four-2015-7

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

However, this idea in our fanboy culture that almost boils down to "Get the costumes, colors and hair sort of right and we'll be fine with whatever other changes are made"?

I find that a little sad. And I've seen it a lot in fanboy communities of late. They're willing to excuse all kinds of flaws if the costume/design is right off the pages of the comics or anything resembling it, but will sometimes dismiss a clever new idea or approach because a costume isn't close enough to the comics. I dunno, I just think you're limiting your experience somewhat with that attitude.

It isn't necessarily just the costumes. It is also things like origins, other details, and that the character has the proper personality. Bruce Wayne is a rich guy who lives with his older butler who witnessed his parents murder as a kid. Captain America is a skinny kid in World War II who becomes a peak human during an experiment in order to fight the Germans. These are key elements of who these characters are.

Now obviously the film needs to be good besides those things. But if fans are going to be given a Spider-Man movie that doesn't have Spider-Man in it, they are rightfully going to be upset. Casablanca is a great movie, but it isn't a great Guardians of the Galaxy movie and Rick Blaine isn't Peter Quill.

This isn't just an issue with comic book fans either. It is true of any adaptation. If you make a movie that claims to be a biopic on George Washington in which it portrays him as a gladiator in 1st Century Rome, it isn't going to go over well either.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Yeah, no, I just asked if it was a comic book. It seems this movie has some inspirations from a comic book that isn't well received. My question was whether it was completely reinvented or not. I am not trying to explore what its receptions is, because I already know as people here like to repeat things.

I think how serious the reinvention was might depend on who you ask. For me, most of the elements I liked from the original were absent and cliche' elements that I didn't like were added, so it was enough of a reinvention that I didn't get any enjoyment out of it.

And from what we know about this film, it is a reinvention of a reinvention. Most of the elements of this were neither in FF nor UFF (Harvey Elder as a government agent, Ben Grimm as a small baseball player who was abused by his brothers, containment suits and naked, d***less Thing) are 4 quick examples of things that were never in any version of FF.

I think some of the worst elements of UFF were already used in the original FF films (Reed as a shy, awkward geek instead of strong, confident leader, Organic Armor Doom, and cloud Galactus where all from UFF).

If this was actually 100% based on UFF I would actually feel much better than I do now. UFF was a reinvention of FF, but it still stayed closer to FF (in my opinion) than this film seems to be doing.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

From Business Insider Australia:


http://www.businessinsider.com.au/is-anyone-excited-for-fantastic-four-2015-7

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Yeah. Because of that I am even more curious.



Yeah, no, I just asked if it was a comic book. It seems this movie has some inspirations from a comic book that isn't well received. My question was whether it was completely reinvented or not. I am not trying to explore what its receptions is, because I already know as people here like to repeat things.



Thanks I assumed the universe of Ultimate FF is linked with Ultimate Avengers. Guess not.

they do exist together in the same "ultimate universe"

 

[The Guard]

The problem is that the little things like costumes, hairstyles, and whatnot tend to have a shocking correlation with effort on the project as a whole. That's not always the case, but it certainly happens more often than not. There's a new live action (television) version of Death Note. The first episode dropped, and it was terrible. There were a few red flags (they didn't get L's costume right, for example, and it's literally the easiest costume of any comic character ever created), and surprise surprise, it was bad.

I don't know that I agree with this. SMALLVILLE had a few spot-on costumes for classic characters and the effort/quality behind it was subpar. I think sometimes there's a correlation, but certainly not all the time.

Also, this film isn't even particularly close to Ultimate, so stop hiding behind that. Look at all the information we have (including the soundtrack listing that lays out the whole thing). If anything, this is to Ultimate what Tim Story's films were to traditional, and that may be generous.

I don't think anyone is hiding behind anything. The filmmakers have come right and said there are some influences from many versions of the Four's mythology.

There are quite a few Ultimate elements here. Of course the story of the film isn't going to be drawn directly from the comics, what adaption of any superhero (other than WATCHMEN) has been? But the basic elements? There are clear influences.

-A slightly darker, somewhat more grounded tone and focus on dealing with their powers.
-A younger version of the Four.
-The Baxter Institute.
-Dr. Storm overseeing his children there.
-The nature of the Four's journey that grants them powers.

That stuff is more or less right out of ULTIMATE FOUR.

 

[The Guard]

It isn't necessarily just the costumes. It is also things like origins, other details, and that the character has the proper personality. Bruce Wayne is a rich guy who lives with his older butler who witnessed his parents murder as a kid. Captain America is a skinny kid in World War II who becomes a peak human during an experiment in order to fight the Germans. These are key elements of who these characters are.

Right. Which is why I didn't buy "we're easy".

Fans seem to pick and choose which changes to core elements they'll accept, or at least that's how it would appear. Its usually determined by how good a film the changes are found in. Changes in bad films tend to get slaughtered, regardless if they have some artistic merit, and changes in good films get embraced and accepted. That just seems to be the way of things.

For instance, Chris Nolan made some pretty sizeable changes to batman's origins, and the nature of the character/s and mythology in his trilogy, but he made well-crafted movies, so fans eventually accepted them, and even embraced many of them. The X-Men films have enjoyed a similar type of support because by and large, the Singer ones have been well made movies. A lot of the Marvel movies have been given a pass on changes they've made as well because they're generally accepted as good, or at least well made, adaptions of the mythos.

That's my reading of it anyway. Obviously it's not true across the board, you have some die-hards who...die hard.

I expect a similar sort of thing for this movie. If the movie is good, the changes made to the mythology will eventually be embraced, even if its not what fans would ultimately prefer. If it's bad, we'll hear choruses of "That was always a bad idea! I hated it right from the start!" Even about creative decisions that have merit.

 

[Eddie]

Like I said, it's the Tim Story-fication of Ultimate at best. It just doesn't resemble much of anything that came before it. Kinberg even acknowledge that they intentionally made Ben a scrawny guy that was bullied because it was, according to Kinberg, more interesting. It's a shoddy adaptation.

 

[The Guard]

How can you say that when you haven't seen its ideas executed yet?

Conceptually, in terms of the basics of the mythology, it absolutely does resemble the ULTIMATE stories, and that's an argument you can make for a LOT of comic book adaptions. Very rarely will all the specifics be slavishly adhered to.

And the idea of a scrawny, scrappy guy going from that to a big bruiser is kind of more interesting than a big bruiser/scrappy guy going to an even bigger, bruisier guy. In terms of thematic development, at least. In terms of a cinematic adaption, where you're somewhat limited with how much you can explore a character and their growth, VS comics where you have story after story after story to flesh things out.

Look, I'm all for former football-hero/Yancy Street Ben Grimm...but what does that ultimately mean? How is that utilized in the development and evolution of a character? That's what matters. If the movie isn't going to focus on his football past...why does that element neccessarily matter so much?

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

^ people enjoyed Ben in the previous movies yet they didn't mention Yancy street or a footbal past once.

Right. Which is why I didn't buy "we're easy".

Fans seem to pick and choose which changes to core elements they'll accept, or at least that's how it would appear. Its usually determined by how good a film the changes are found in. Changes in bad films tend to get slaughtered, regardless if they have some artistic merit, and changes in good films get embraced and accepted. That just seems to be the way of things.

For instance, Chris Nolan made some pretty sizeable changes to batman's origins, and the nature of the character/s and mythology in his trilogy, but he made well-crafted movies, so fans eventually accepted them, and even embraced many of them. The X-Men films have enjoyed a similar type of support because by and large, the Singer ones have been well made movies. A lot of the Marvel movies have been given a pass on changes they've made as well because they're generally accepted as good, or at least well made, adaptions of the mythos.

That's my reading of it anyway. Obviously it's not true across the board, you have some die-hards who...die hard.

I expect a similar sort of thing for this movie. If the movie is good, the changes made to the mythology will eventually be embraced, even if its not what fans would ultimately prefer. If it's bad, we'll hear choruses of "That was always a bad idea! I hated it right from the start!" Even about creative decisions that have merit.

Think you're onto something with this. Changes can be accepted if they're in a good movie and not if they're not

I read a couple of Ultimate FF issues, nothing in those issues say one of Sue or Johnny is adopted from what I remember, and Reed can fully stretch.

I like the thought of them setting this movie apart tonally and in formula, and agree that I want to see more of it.

Inspired by. Not a cut and paste. Every adaption changes things l. The vast majority is true to UFF but there are some differences

Some of that is well said.

However, this idea in our fanboy culture that almost boils down to "Get the costumes, colors and hair sort of right and we'll be fine with whatever other changes are made"?

I find that a little sad. And I've seen it a lot in fanboy communities of late. They're willing to excuse all kinds of flaws if the costume/design is right off the pages of the comics or anything resembling it, but will sometimes dismiss a clever new idea or approach because a costume isn't close enough to the comics. I dunno, I just think you're limiting your experience somewhat with that attitude..

Bingo.

Marvel villains are prime example of this most of them have different characterisation and origins but they look 'right'

Red Skull wasn't trained by Hitler, he was a super soldier reject. But he looked right so it was cool.
Crimson Dynamo wasn't a mercenary he was a scientist with a grudge against the Starks but he looked 'right' in the armour
Mandarin doesn't even need explaining
Ronan was a terrorist powermonger instead of judiciary of the Kree but he looked 'right'
Ultron looked 'right' but had a completely different origin
I've heard Malekith was quite different but his look adapted well

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

Drax was not a Human taken by a Kronos and changed, he was an Alien. Quill was quite different. He wasn't taken in the comics he left Earth himself and didn't become an outlaw but a space cop, he isn't such a joker in the comics either. Their costumes were also quite different in the d it didn't matter as the movie was great

 

[Hellion]

Yep, we had seen a lot more images from a lot more angles and he was featured in the trailers more extensively.

I enjoyed the previous FF films quite a bit. Are the the best of the best? Nope. Are they the worst of the bunch? To me, nope. But, I've always disliked that poster...

 

[Zarex]

How can you say that when you haven't seen its ideas executed yet?

Conceptually, in terms of the basics of the mythology, it absolutely does resemble the ULTIMATE stories, and that's an argument you can make for a LOT of comic book adaptions. Very rarely will all the specifics be slavishly adhered to.

And the idea of a scrawny, scrappy guy going from that to a big bruiser is kind of more interesting than a big bruiser/scrappy guy going to an even bigger, bruisier guy. In terms of thematic development, at least. In terms of a cinematic adaption, where you're somewhat limited with how much you can explore a character and their growth, VS comics where you have story after story after story to flesh things out.

Look, I'm all for former football-hero/Yancy Street Ben Grimm...but what does that ultimately mean? How is that utilized in the development and evolution of a character? That's what matters. If the movie isn't going to focus on his football past...why does that element neccessarily matter so much?

I feel like we've been through this before - "Why can't Ben be an aroma? Or an abstract thought? Why does that element necessarily matter so much"

People want Ben to be recognizable as Ben because he's a great character. Those of us who have affection for the classic source material want to get all nostalgic when we see something we hold dear represented in live action.

 

[Wheels]

Batman Returns is a good movie but I wouldn't accept Burton's version of Catwoman or Penguin beyond saying the actors did well. I certainly wouldn't want Catwoman's apparent supernatural elements or sewer dwelling birdman Penguinn to be the public perception of the characters.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

To me, nope. But, I've always disliked that poster...

Yeah, that was a really odd choice for a poster. If you're going to do a Doom poster, you could at least make him look more threatening than that.

I remember the first glimpse we had of Doom was this:

And that actually looked pretty good. Something like that done a little darker could have potentially made a better poster.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

So are we getting a new trailer today?

 

[Sleiek]

And the idea of a scrawny, scrappy guy going from that to a big bruiser is kind of more interesting than a big bruiser/scrappy guy going to an even bigger, bruisier guy. In terms of thematic development, at least. In terms of a cinematic adaption, where you're somewhat limited with how much you can explore a character and their growth, VS comics where you have story after story after story to flesh things out.

Yup this works for me.

This is also why I have immense respect for Captain America.

So are we getting a new trailer today?

Why today? Fox's panel is today?

 

[spideyboy_1111]

^ people enjoyed Ben in the previous movies yet they didn't mention Yancy street or a footbal past once.



Think you're onto something with this. Changes can be accepted if they're in a good movie and not if they're not



Inspired by. Not a cut and paste. Every adaption changes things l. The vast majority is true to UFF but there are some differences



Bingo.

Marvel villains are prime example of this most of them have different characterisation and origins but they look 'right'

Red Skull wasn't trained by Hitler, he was a super soldier reject. But he looked right so it was cool.
Crimson Dynamo wasn't a mercenary he was a scientist with a grudge against the Starks but he looked 'right' in the armour
Mandarin doesn't even need explaining
Ronan was a terrorist powermonger instead of judiciary of the Kree but he looked 'right'
Ultron looked 'right' but had a completely different origin
I've heard Malekith was quite different but his look adapted well



Drax was not a Human taken by a Kronos and changed, he was an Alien. Quill was quite different. He wasn't taken in the comics he left Earth himself and didn't become an outlaw but a space cop, he isn't such a joker in the comics either. Their costumes were also quite different in the d it didn't matter as the movie was great

except yet again ... NOT DRASTIC CHANGES.. Drax still looked like Drax, had his family murdered... and acted like Drax... Starlord was still Starlord with similar background...

you might consider them drastic.. but the rest of the world no even most comic fans didn't find it drastic.. the same can't be said about the Fantastic four... especially because they're VERY well known properties

 

[Destructus86]

How can you say that when you haven't seen its ideas executed yet?

Conceptually, in terms of the basics of the mythology, it absolutely does resemble the ULTIMATE stories, and that's an argument you can make for a LOT of comic book adaptions. Very rarely will all the specifics be slavishly adhered to.

And the idea of a scrawny, scrappy guy going from that to a big bruiser is kind of more interesting than a big bruiser/scrappy guy going to an even bigger, bruisier guy. In terms of thematic development, at least. In terms of a cinematic adaption, where you're somewhat limited with how much you can explore a character and their growth, VS comics where you have story after story after story to flesh things out.

Look, I'm all for former football-hero/Yancy Street Ben Grimm...but what does that ultimately mean? How is that utilized in the development and evolution of a character? That's what matters. If the movie isn't going to focus on his football past...why does that element neccessarily matter so much?

For me...Marvel Studios has the best formula. They combine the 616 and the Ultimate universe together and mix and match things to make great films that have strong connection to the source material. Have their been mistakes? Sure....have the villains not been as compelling as they could be? Sure...(though I argue that is somewhat their goal...they want the focus more on the heroes.)

Despite changes to the source material you never once question that Thor is the Thor of the comic, or Cap is the Cap of the comic.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Is the FF panel today or tomorrow?

 

[Wheels]

DC and Fox panels are tomorrow. Star Wars is tonight.

 

[The Guard]

except yet again ... NOT DRASTIC CHANGES.. Drax still looked like Drax, had his family murdered... and acted like Drax... Starlord was still Starlord with similar background...

you might consider them drastic.. but the rest of the world no even most comic fans didn't find it drastic.. the same can't be said about the Fantastic four... especially because they're VERY well known properties

Its all relative. To some, the changes made to Drax would appear to be drastic changes.

It shouldn't matter how well known a property is. I hate that argument when it comes to making changes to things. A change made to a character is a change made to a character.

Keep in mind, Fantastic Four isn't as well known a property to many in the general public these days as some others. Should that alone be license to make drastic changes?

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

So are we getting a new trailer today?

Is the FF panel today or tomorrow?

Tomorrow. I'd expect the trailer online no sooner than Sunday, but it might not be out until next week (but we should almost certainly have it before the 17th when Ant-man opens).

They'll want to reward the Comic-Con attendees with something special and if everyone has access to it at or near the same time, it sort of takes away the feeling that they're getting something special.

 

[spideyboy_1111]

Its all relative. To some, the changes made to Drax would appear to be drastic changes.

It shouldn't matter how well known a property is. I hate that argument when it comes to making changes to things. A change made to a character is a change made to a character.

Keep in mind, Fantastic Four isn't as well known a property to many in the general public these days as some others. Should that alone be license to make drastic changes?

well lesser known properties and minor characters tend to be easier to change... if Drax was blue people would have flipped out... GOTG is a minor property turned into a giant one... its like blade.. he was changed quite a bit.. but the main point of blade remained.. they just made him more suitable for a wide audience..

and i disagree strongly.. the Fantastic Four have litterally had an incarnation for every generation... the past movies for kids today, the 90s cartoon for us millennials, they were prominent in the 80s, 70s, and 60s with cartoons as well... so many many people are actually quite familiar and know what to expect out of the fantastic four.. and many are not happy because we arn't getting that.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

This is the third Fantastic Four film in a decade. The only people who don't know about them at this point have no interest in superhero movies whatsoever or are kids under 10. Not exactly the target demographic for this film.