Fant4stic: Reborn! - - Part 36

Status
Not open for further replies.
We need at least one person from the negative club to go as well. Who's going to take one for the team????

Oh, I'm not negative. I ADORE the Fantastic Four. I am one of their all-time biggest fans of 30-plus years of my life. But this is not a movie about them...I don't recognize Reed, Susan, Johnny, Ben or Victor anywhere from what I've seen. Basically, this is some Else-Worlds/What If? s***.

Therefore, I simply have zero interest in watching this science fiction parody film. See the difference? :funny:
 
I am probably going to see this, but it depends on how many times I see "The Man from U.N.C.L.E."
 
I have to mention that I probably won't see it if it gets less than 30% on Rotten Tomatoes. Except for Transformers I don't tend to enjoy other films below that number. I only have one expectation for Transformers, giant robots kicking a**.

Last time I went to see a movie that got less than 30% was The Last Airbender. Wasn't a pleasant experience.
 
Regarding the box office; If Ant-Man opens below 65mil I think FF is guaranteed an under 50mil opening weekend.

The reviews will be weaker, the marketing has been weaker and it isn't easy making people excited for too soon reboots.
 
Regarding the box office; If Ant-Man opens below 65mil I think FF is guaranteed an under 50mil opening weekend.

The reviews will be weaker, the marketing has been weaker and it isn't easy making people excited for too soon reboots.
FF is only too soon because they probably didn't do it right again. I agree about the comparison to Ant-Man.
 
Last edited:
Well, I highly doubt we have seen the best because they never showed any shots of them battling together. That was one of those things I was expecting from the trailer.

Also, I have to admit there were some great FX shots in the trailer. It's not like every single CG shot is bad. I only thought a couple of CG scenes were bad.
I remain confident we've seen the best the film has to offer. Fox, not much different from Paramount with Genisys, are desperate to try and sell this thing. Genisys went and spoiled the major twist of the film, just to try and attract people. F4, I doubt will have that kind of twist to it, so they need to try and show us stuff that look the coolest.
 
Based on the soundtrack listing, all of those Doom scenes are from the climax. He doesn't seem to actually be in much of the film, so yeah, we've already seen a good chunk of the "big stuff".
 
I saw the 1st trailer in front of Ant-Man (which is great, btw). No real reaction except for the kids sitting behind me, but they seemed to know everything about all the trailers they played. I still don't think that trailer was that bad and thought Fant4astic looked pretty interesting when they were selling it as grounded w/ fantastical events and horror tinge. But all my interest since the Trank stories, the worst wig, and CG ever in summer blockbuster have dwindled to nothing.

It just made me sad after watching how great Ant-Man is. Peyton Reed just gets it. It's a damn shame Fox didn't see that back in 2003 when Reed and Doug Petrie (Daredevil!) were attached. Fools. But hey, at least Marvel gets it and sees who does. Fox's loss.



Here's a new interview with Peyton Reed about his version:

This weekend a small group of people will come out of Ant-Man, thinking, “What would’ve Edgar Wright’s version been like?” What they should really be asking is, “What would’ve Peyton Reed’s Fantastic Four looked like?” Over a decade ago the director behind Ant-Man, Down with Love, and Bring it On was attached to helm the superhero movie at Fox, before Tim Story (Ride Along) stepped in to helm the forgettable 2005 film.

In the 10 years since that Fantastic Four film the superhero genre has come a long way. Story’s picture is incredibly dated, both as a movie and a comic book adaptation. It’s a goofy and as light as a gum wrapper. With Josh Trank‘s dour reboot coming up, hopefully Fox finally gets these characters right. As much as new interpretations are welcomed, it’s still a little disappointing we’re getting a dark Fantastic Four movie, when the stories themselves are often so much fun. Maybe Trank’s film will be fun its own way, but it doesn’t appear to have the appeal of the comics, which Reed clearly understands.

Ant-Man, tonally, hits the sweet spot — taking its drama and conflicts seriously enough, but also knowing audiences want to see a dude flying around on an Ant. “I think there are a lot of tonal similarities,” Reed says, comparing Ant-Man and the vision he had for Fantastic Four. “Visually, one of the things we always talked about — and this was 2003 — was The Fantastic Four as daytime superheroes. They don’t have secret identities. They’re very much a part of the fabric of Manhattan. In that universe, if you go to New York to the Empire State Building or the Statue of Liberty or the Baxter Building, it was all a part of that. We talked about it being a ’60s period movie, but Fox at the time was not into it.”

“Audiences don’t want to see period pieces” is one of those studio notes that never ceases to die, so it’s not surprising Fox wasn’t into a Fantastic Four movie set in the 1960s. Reed, however, did have an idea for how to modernize the characters — by make them super stars. “We wanted to do a structure that was like A Hard Day’s Night,” he explains. “At the beginning of a working day in Manhattan, you’re in line at Starbucks and someone runs in, ‘Hey, the Fantastic Four is fighting right around the corner!’ People run out of Starbucks and the camera flies around the corner to this splash page imagery, where the Human Torch is flying, The Thing is fighting, and it’s just chaos. Really, Joss’ first Avengers movie had that feel — it’s broad daylight. There was a time when you just didn’t have the technology, so a lot of those fights took place at night. We thought having it take place in the city during the day would’ve been a lot of fun. They were kind of modern celebrities. There were a lot of different versions of it, but that was a movie I really wanted to make.”

Luckily for Reed, though, if he did make Fantastic Four, he probably never would’ve directed Ant-Man. As Reed calls it, this was a “long con” to get to where he is today. Some of the ideas Reed mentions hadn’t been done around 2005, so it sounds like we would’ve seen a truly original superhero movie. As for the upcoming reboot, Reed is hopeful. “I’m psyched to see Josh Trank’s movie,” he says. “I’m a huge fan of Chronicle. I know nothing about the new Fantastic Four, except for the ads everybody has seen. I hope it’s good. I want all of these movies to be good.”
http://filmschoolrejects.com/features/peyton-reeds-fantastic-four.php
 
That Trank was touting the cost cutting virtues of OTOY and his intent to use it for this flick is a matter of public record. He even appeared at a Nvidia expo for thing for them: http://venturebeat.com/2013/03/19/o...-in-indie-games-and-the-fantastic-four-movie/

Weta, ILM or MPC etc do not use OTOY. They have their own high end hardware, customised software, patented rendering engines, experienced digital artists, etc. That's why they cost a lot.

That Fox did go to more expensive options suggests Trank's on the cheap OTOY experiment was simply not working out at all (we saw nothing of any fx until the first trailer over 5 months after they finished principle filming), and the Fox suits simply pulled rank on him.

From the 4Chan leak it sounds like the OTOY team are used to working in support, normally being 3rd or 4th in line to get stuff, doing things like motion capture, but that Trank thought he could use them as a primary team. So he was wanting them to do far more work than they were used to, then he was constantly changing his mind on what he wanted, making characters like the Thing vary in size based purely on his personal preference, and just generally being a nightmare to work for.


The official line from Kinberg & Trank is they wanted to wait until they what to had to show would blow us away. I've felt stronger gusts from silent farts.

Wasn't the exact line they gave us that they didn't want to show us anything until it was "perfect".
 
Anyone know if movie studios have a deadline to be 100% finished with a film? Is there any movies that literally were finished just days before release? I use to work at a movie theatre and I remember we had gotten the USB stick containing Man Of Steel just a day before the premier. It was really crazy times..
 
What is OTOY?

Here's the home page:
http://home.otoy.com/

Basically it's looks geared more towards users who don't have the hardware to do FX themselves (least not hardware that takes impractical ages to render). The user signs up with them for a fee, can use their own (if compatible) software or the OTOYs provided programs, and they do all the rendering via the 'cloud'.

As far as I can tell they are not an FX house themselves, ie: they don't appear to have a dedicated team of designers and digital artists who do FX for flicks and such, but they provide any given paying user the means to make their own.

Trank presumably had his own plan on how to use it. I would guess he went to a lower end FX house who are known to or were willing to use it for example. That guy on 4chan could have been from them if they were for real. If that guy wasn't for real Trank may have intended to do it himself for all we know.

Bottom line is Trank is on record touting OTOY and his intent to use it for this film. How he intended to use it and just what for is anyone's guess.
Weta and MPC (who do not use OTOY, they already have top of the line rigs in house) were brought in after. Just what they have done is anyone's guess as well.
 
Anyone know if movie studios have a deadline to be 100% finished with a film? Is there any movies that literally were finished just days before release? I use to work at a movie theatre and I remember we had gotten the USB stick containing Man Of Steel just a day before the premier. It was really crazy times..

They can still be tweaking until very shortly before the premier. After that though they have to get the prints done and shifted to the theatres asap.

I think this might explain why I've seen 2 versions of the final battle with Doom is FF1: In the one I saw in the theatre (UK) when Ben steps on the fire hydrant to direct the water spray it hits Doom directly. When I've seen it since Reed forms a loop to funnel it at Doom. Presumably my Theatre back then got a print that didn't have all the last minute edits put in.
 
Here's the home page:
http://home.otoy.com/

Basically it's looks geared more towards users who don't have the hardware to do FX themselves (least not hardware that takes impractical ages to render). The user signs up with them for a fee, can use their own (if compatible) software or the OTOYs provided programs, and they do all the rendering via the 'cloud'.

As far as I can tell they are not an FX house themselves, ie: they don't appear to have a dedicated team of designers and digital artists who do FX for flicks and such, but they provide any given paying user the means to make their own.

Trank presumably had his own plan on how to use it. I would guess he went to a lower end FX house who are known to or were willing to use it for example. That guy on 4chan could have been from them if they were for real. If that guy wasn't for real Trank may have intended to do it himself for all we know.

Bottom line is Trank is on record touting OTOY and his intent to use it for this film. How he intended to use it and just what for is anyone's guess.
Weta and MPC (who do not use OTOY, they already have top of the line rigs in house) were brought in after. Just what they have done is anyone's guess as well.

As I understand it its not just for people without hardware, the advantage of the technology is that it allows for realtime HD quality rendering. Normally with CG they have to work with lower quality versions of the CG when creating effects but with OTOY you don't have to wait, you can see it pretty much fully rendered and can then play around with it realtime. This saves a lot of time. And I do think they have a small team but they mostly work on video games, adverts, their work with films tends to be more supporting.
 
Anyone know if movie studios have a deadline to be 100% finished with a film? Is there any movies that literally were finished just days before release? I use to work at a movie theatre and I remember we had gotten the USB stick containing Man Of Steel just a day before the premier. It was really crazy times..

It can happen but I don't think its as common these days due to 3D being more common, the 3D conversion process takes time so editing until the very last minute is a lot harder.
 
I think the big problem is that Trank got unrealistic expectations of what the OTOY software was capable of. He thought it was some sort of wonder program that made CGI super easy and that he thought it was something he could use to save money. Going back to the end of last year the rumour was that Trank wasted months trying to do some of the effects himself, hiding the fact it was taking far longer than he had planned and he was way behind schedule. Something that the studio was very unhappy about when they eventually found out as they had to bring in another effects studio to do the work Trank thought that he could do himself.
 
Regarding the box office; If Ant-Man opens below 65mil I think FF is guaranteed an under 50mil opening weekend.

The reviews will be weaker, the marketing has been weaker and it isn't easy making people excited for too soon reboots.

How is it too soon? It's been eight years since the last Fantastic Four movie. That's the same length of time that passed between Batman & Robin and Batman Begins. Was that too soon?
 
How is it too soon? It's been eight years since the last Fantastic Four movie. That's the same length of time that passed between Batman & Robin and Batman Begins. Was that too soon?
Batman Begins underperformed. It got a sequel because it was well liked and it had excellent DVD sells.

I seriously doubt FF will be another Batman Begins. Anything is possible I suppose.
 
I don't know the technical details or who's to blame, but after getting used to CGI that blends amazing images seamlessly into films so that make you feel like you're watching real, amazing things, it's jarring to see effects that look like something from 15 years ago.

Scenes of the Thing and Johnny moving are distracting because they're so clearly CGI.

I don't know if they look better or worse when you're watching a lengthy scene, but I have a feeling it's going to be hard to watch without being acutely aware that you're watching CGI instead of something that tricks your brain into believing you're watching something real.
 
I still can't get a handle on whether the Thing's CGI looks like **** or not.
 
I still can't get a handle on whether the Thing's CGI looks like **** or not.

I think he looks okay when he's not moving much or moving fast (or in dim light), but when he's walking and easily visible, his "rocks" and limbs wiggle around in a way that I find very unnatural and distracting.

We've only seen a few, quick scenes like that so far, but from what I've seen, I'm concerned how he will look when he's on screen doing normal things.
 
Are you serious SPIDEY? He looks horrible. :funny:
I do think he looks kinda bad and then in certain shots not so much, that's where the confusion comes in. Funny thing is I never contemplated whether Groot or Rocket looked bad so yeah that tells you something.
 
I think that a lot depends on the lighting, in the darker shots he tends to look not too bad, its in more normal lighting that the effects struggle more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,398
Messages
22,097,325
Members
45,893
Latest member
DooskiPack
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"