Fant4stic: Reborn! - - - - - - - Part 41

[Eddie]

Sad fact is that if the military found out someone like the Fantastic Four existed they would round them up and give them two choices: work with us, or be locked away or possibly killed. Sue would have to stay in hiding on the run if she is totally adverse to killing.

Well if anyone can hide it's Sue...

 

[DawnWarrior]

It might not be that simple: in the original comics it was the height of the space race and the FF were already in the public eye before they got powers. The government trying to cover up and exploit a group of celebrities like that might actually be more trouble than it's worth (not that that's ever stopped the government in these stories). Sure, we all know how Thunderbolt Ross went after the Hulk, but he does that whether the government supported him or not (usually not).

TBH, a story about the FF on the run from the a war-hungry government that wants to exploit them might not be a bad story, but it feels more like one of those cracked-mirror tales like the Squadron Supreme are to the Justice League. The FF I grew up on are celebrities who go on crazy science adventures, not fugitives.

 

[Marvolo]

Well if anyone can hide it's Sue...

Sure she can, but who wants to watch a movie of Sue on the run, and what sort of life could she have on the run?

 

[Eddie]

I think we've seen that very few people want to see these characters in a dark, gritty movie in the first place. The Story films weren't even good and people still seem to greatly prefer them to this garbage take. A Fantastic Four film is inherently the wrong outlet for that sort of story.

 

[Syncer]

Yeah, I did not like having the Thing as a killer because it doesn't exactly seem like part of his character. And the Thing in this movie, was overly sad the majority of the time, which hey, is completly understandable, but I really wished I saw some spark and brawn that Ben Grimm usually has. Gotta say though, I did like the voice. Never quite dug Chilkis's tough Brooklyn accent.

If anything, this movie showed that a dark and gritty tone does not apply to the Fantastic Four. Before the movie came out, I taught it COULD work somewhat, but that was not the case

 

[Mad Ones]

That is not what people are talking about here, they are talking about the innate characteristics of these 4 characters. They aren't killers, they were never killers, and to think that Sue would at anytime be considered a military weapon and she would be ok with that....well that person needs to read the Marvel Knights issue where Sue helps one of her employees who has an abusive husband, she almost kills him....and it absolutely makes her sick to her stomach to the point of vomiting once she leaves their apartment. It totally goes against who she is, and who they are, to their very core. To not care about that aspect, or to not think it is important is to not truly know who these characters are, and that was very obvious in this movie.

I don't really care if they take story arcs straight from the comics or not, or if they drastically change them, but to change the core elements of these characters is to simply not care who they are, and what they stand for in the realm of comics.

Yeah, I get that. But there really isn't anything fundamental or innate about fictional comic book characters. They change from writer to writer, decade to decade. And they change depending on the writer. One person might say Reed is fundamentally a superhero genius and another might say he's fundamentally elitistist and amoral. If the story is good then people accept changes, for the most part. This movie told a story a lot of fans didn't want to see, and told it poorly which soured it for the rest.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Yeah, I get that. But there really isn't anything fundamental or innate about fictional comic book characters. They change from writer to writer, decade to decade. And they change depending on the writer.

Not true.

Even fictitious characters have fundamental characteristics--a range of behavior and personalities that every comic writer and artist tries to honor and be consistent with. The problem with this film is Trank/Kinberg/FOX tried to create a new range of character that neither the fan base, general audiences or critics could recognize. People reject that which they are not familiar with. It happened with Catwoman. Some feel it happened with the reckless, neck-snapping Superman in Man Of Steel.

The new historic example of such abuse of creative latitude is Fant4stic. That's why this film has failed.

 

[Mad Ones]

Not true.

Even fictitious characters have fundamental characteristics--a range of behavior and personalities that every comic writer and artist tries to honor and be consistent with. The problem with this film is Trank/Kinberg/FOX tried to create a new range of character that neither the fan base, general audiences or critics could recognize. People reject that which they are not familiar with. It happened with Catwoman. Some feel it happened with the reckless, neck-snapping Superman in Man Of Steel.

The new historic example of such abuse of creative latitude is Fant4stic. That's why this film has failed.

I respectfully disagree. The range and combinations of different behaviours and personality traits that "fundamentally" make up the character is arbitrary, changing from fan to fan, writer to writer, medium to medium. I accept movie-Mystique as Mystique, for example, despite how different she is from the comics.

I would have accepted a Ben Grimm who killed people in war. He was vulnerable and abandoned and manipulated by the government. That might not be the character some fans wanted, but it's a Ben Grimm that I might have liked if the story was told well (and it wasn't).

If a character has fundamental qualities, how can we tell the superficial changes from the fundamental ones outside of personal opinion? What if I thought that it was fundamental that Hank Pym create Ultron / is a young man? That character in the Ant-Man movie is still Hank Pym.

 

[Kelly]

I respectfully disagree. The range and combinations of different behaviours and personality traits that "fundamentally" make up the character is arbitrary, changing from fan to fan, writer to writer, medium to medium. I accept movie-Mystique as Mystique, for example, despite how different she is from the comics.

I would have accepted a Ben Grimm who killed people in war. He was vulnerable and abandoned and manipulated by the government. That might not be the character some fans wanted, but it's a Ben Grimm that I might have liked if the story was told well (and it wasn't).

If a character has fundamental qualities, how can we tell the superficial changes from the fundamental ones outside of personal opinion? What if I thought that it was fundamental that Hank Pym create Ultron / is a young man? That character in the Ant-Man movie is still Hank Pym.

I normally agree that people perceive things differently. But, in this case, that is just wrong.

Their are innate characteristics to this family of adventurers, and one of those is that they are not "for hire killers" that is JUST NOT the Fantastic Four, never has been, ever....and never should be. To think differently in that respect, is to NOT respect the history of Marvel's first family. THEY ARE the family friendly comic, THEY ARE the hope, THEY ARE the quirky, THEY ARE the flawed, THEY ARE...who they are because they have built that on decades of a multitude of writers works that kept THOSE THINGS intact. Change the story arc, as far as I'm concerned, you can change the origin of their powers if you want, but DO NOT change the family friendly, hopeful, quirky, fun, flawed group that they are....if you want to do that...THEN CREATE YOUR OWN SUPERHERO MOVIE and leave this family out of it.

 

[Mad Ones]

I normally agree that people perceive things differently. But, in this case, that is just wrong.

Their are innate characteristics to this family of adventurers, and one of those is that they are not "for hire killers" that is JUST NOT the Fantastic Four, never has been, ever....and never should be. To think differently in that respect, is to NOT respect the history of Marvel's first family. THEY ARE the family friendly comic, THEY ARE the hope, THEY ARE the quirky, THEY ARE the flawed, THEY ARE...who they are because they have built that on decades of a multitude of writers works that kept THOSE THINGS intact. Change the story arc, as far as I'm concerned, you can change the origin of their powers if you want, but DO NOT change the family friendly, hopeful, quirky, fun, flawed group that they are....if you want to do that...THEN CREATE YOUR OWN SUPERHERO MOVIE and leave this family out of it.

Again, I respectfully disagree. There is nothing innate about the Fantastic Four. Even things that seem so fundamental, like there being four members, those members being Reed, Sue, Johnny, and Ben, actually aren't. Just look to the comics to see that flexibility and fluidity.

Reed built a robot clone version of his dead friend, was willing to kill other worlds (and billions of people), mind wiped his son, etc. Sue was vain and domestic until writers decided to write her differently. There are just versions of characters that we like more than other versions. I didn't like the movie version of these characters because the movie poorly told a story.

The movie with the qualities you described would be a better story. Not because those qualities are innate to the fictional characters, but because... it's a better story.

 

[Sardaukar]

Again, I respectfully disagree. There is nothing innate about the Fantastic Four. Even things that seem so fundamental, like there being four members, those members being Reed, Sue, Johnny, and Ben, actually aren't. Just look to the comics to see that flexibility and fluidity.

Reed built a robot clone version of his dead friend, was willing to kill other worlds (and billions of people), mind wiped his son, etc. Sue was vain and domestic until writers decided to write her differently. There are just versions of characters that we like more than other versions. I didn't like the movie version of these characters because the movie poorly told a story.

The movie with the qualities you described would be a better story. Not because those qualities are innate to the fictional characters, but because... it's a better story.

By that logic you could have any superhero act anyway you want in any movie just because it happened once or a few times in 50+ years of comics. Say a popular hero kills one guy one time out of 200 issues. So let's use that to justify him intentionally killing a guy in a movie even though there's only like 5 movies in all of existence. Killing one time every 200 issues is an outlier. Maybe it's a stupid, out-of-character moment that shouldn't have happened. Killing one time in only 5 multi-million dollar, high profile movies is pretty major. One doesn't justify the other.

 

[Mad Ones]

By that logic you could have any superhero act anyway you want in any movie just because it appeared once or a few times in 50+ years of comics. Say a popular hero kills one guy one time out of 200 issues. So let's use that to justify him intentionally killing a guy in a movie even though there's only like 5 movies in all of existence. Killing one time every 200 issues is an outlier. Maybe it's a stupid, out-of-character moment that shouldn't have happened. Killing one time in only 5 multi-million dollar movies is pretty major. One doesn't justify the other.

Actually, I think any superhero could act any way a writer wanted, even if it never appeared in a comic once. Usually movies adapt stories told in comics, and that's why the characters act similar to how they act in the comics - in order to tell that story. That's not always the case, and you often see characters swapped or combined in the movie versions. This movie decided to tell a story that never happened in the comics, and they act in ways to tell that story. If the story was good the characters would have been good, even if they weren't comic accurate.

 

[Sardaukar]

Actually, I think any superhero could act any way a writer wanted, even if it never appeared in a comic once. Usually movies adapt stories told in comics, and that's why the characters act similar to how they act in the comics - in order to tell that story. That's not always the case, and you often see characters swapped or combined in the movie versions. This movie decided to tell a story that never happened in the comics, and they act in ways to tell that story. If the story was good the characters would have been good, even if they weren't comic accurate.

The main reason hollywood does so many movie adaptations of books and comic books is because these properties have a built-in fanbase who will see the movie. But that fanbase are fans for a reason. They like the characters in those properties because they act a certain way that they identify with.

What's the point then in dramatically altering the character for the movie? Harry Potter fans like him because he's a mild mannered, noble hero. They'll enjoy seeing the movie if that's what he's like. They won't enjoy it if the filmmakers turn him into a lecherous scumbag.

 

[Mad Ones]

The main reason hollywood does so many movie adaptations of books and comic books is because these properties have a built-in fanbase who will see the movie. But that fanbase are fans for a reason. They like the characters in those properties because they act a certain way that they identify with.

What's the point then in dramatically altering the character for the movie? Harry Potter fans like him because he's a mild mannered, noble hero. They'll enjoy seeing the movie if that's what he's like. They won't enjoy it if the filmmakers turn him into a lecherous scumbag.

We're not really disagreeing. What I'm saying is that the story always comes first, and characters will act in service to the story. The stories that the Harry Potter movies were telling would not have happened if Harry wasn't mild mannered, etc. He's not inherently noble; he's noble because that's basically the story. A huge problem with Fantastic Four is that they told a story that isn't even an adaptation of anything in the comics, but then made the characters say/do certain things "fundamental" to their comic book version. And that made the movie really dumb. Why would this Ben say "it's clobbering time" right before he punches Doom? He's a hurt victim. Why would Johnny call him a Thing? It's cruel. This movie would tell it's story better if it didn't try to be anything like the comics.

As a fan, yes, that's really frustrating. But the movie would be better.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I respectfully disagree. The range and combinations of different behaviours and personality traits that "fundamentally" make up the character is arbitrary, changing from fan to fan, writer to writer, medium to medium. I accept movie-Mystique as Mystique, for example, despite how different she is from the comics.

I would have accepted a Ben Grimm who killed people in war. He was vulnerable and abandoned and manipulated by the government. That might not be the character some fans wanted, but it's a Ben Grimm that I might have liked if the story was told well (and it wasn't).

If a character has fundamental qualities, how can we tell the superficial changes from the fundamental ones outside of personal opinion? What if I thought that it was fundamental that Hank Pym create Ultron / is a young man? That character in the Ant-Man movie is still Hank Pym.

Really?

No. Just...no.

 

[Mad Ones]

Really?

No. Just...no.

Why do people have to be rude when they disagree?

What exactly is wrong with my post?

 

[Drz]

What exactly is wrong with my post?

Absolutely nothing.

 

[jaymes_e06]

Though LS was very crude to say the least I must agree. It is unnecessary to adapt a character if they are just going to be arbitrary actions dictated by the writing God enlisted to interpret them. There must be a way to pay tribute to at least the majority of the interpretations.

 

[Mad Ones]

Though LS was very crude to say the least I must agree. It is unnecessary to adapt a character if they are just going to be arbitrary actions dictated by the writing God enlisted to interpret them. There must be a way to pay tribute to at least the majority of the interpretations.

The stories are popular and the characters have to act a certain way to tell the story. Would the first X-men movie be better if Rogue had her "innate" qualities like her strong accent, sass, southern idioms, or confidence? No, it probably wouldn't; but maybe those aren't her "fundamental characteristics?

Edit: your post seems to imply that these characters exist outside of the writers, and, therefore, outside of the text (whatever given medium). I'm genuinely curious, where else do they exist? In some kind of intangible cultural zone where fans have started claiming ownership? It's interesting.

 

[Drz]

GOTG completely changed the characters of Starlord, Drax and a few others but noone here minds that.

 

[Dasher10]

GOTG completely changed the characters of Starlord, Drax and a few others but noone here minds that.

Except Guardians and Ant-Man were well made. I was actually on board with most of what Fox admitted to changing prior to release (including changing Victor's last name) but the film wound up being a disjointed mess.

We aren't whining for no reason and trying to nitpick, these are legitimate concerns and Fox managed to make me not want a sequel under any circumstances, particularly after killing off Doom.

 

[TeeKay]

With all these changes, Trank failed to even make a good movie which makes it a lot worse.bleh

 

[Zarex]

GOTG completely changed the characters of Starlord, Drax and a few others but noone here minds that.

This isn't the Guardians of the Galaxy thread. If you're looking for fan outrage about Drax no longer being the spirit of a dead earth man encased within an artificially constructed alien husk, that may be the best place to go find it. But those fans are just happy that a very good film was made about their favorite team, one that captured the spirit of the characters and the tone of the well regarded comic book run from which it was derived.

 

[starscream22]

GOTG completely changed the characters of Starlord, Drax and a few others but noone here minds that.

Perhaps because it was actually a good movie....?

Absolutely nothing.

And yet the film in question bombed critically, commercially...and if you were actually rooting for it then it bombed therapeutically as well.

This isn't the Guardians of the Galaxy thread. If you're looking for fan outrage about Drax no longer being the spirit of a dead earth man encased within an artificially constructed alien husk, that may be the best place to go find it. But those fans are just happy that a very good film was made about their favorite team, one that captured the spirit of the characters and the tone of the well regarded comic book run from which it was derived.

Ultimately 4stic was a complete mess (Surprise!) and now those hoping/claiming it would make $400M-$600M WW are tasked with the job of explaining............................ how they wouldn't mind if say.... traffic lights turned purple instead of red.

You know because "What's the big deal, police sirens have changed and no one complained about that?"

Yeah, we're all such big hippocrates.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

The idea that these characters are a blank sheet is clearly something Fox believes, and we saw the results of that thinking.

Key characteristics of characters like these should be retained for two key reasons:

1. Fans want to see the characters they know. A 'Fantastic Four' film will automatically make more money than a 'Quarrelsome Quartet' film because people want to see the Fantastic Four they know. And if they're paying money to see the Fantastic Four, they expect to see the Fantastic Four. PART of the reason this film failed so miserably is it didn't look or feel like the Fantastic Four so people stayed home.

2. The Fantastic Four has existed for over 50 years for reasons people like Josh Trank and Simon Kinberg can never understand. From an artistic point of view, one could argue that an abused, beaten, depressed personality-less Ben Grimm who uses his incredible power to kill people who are much weaker than him is 'better' than the Ben Grimm that we know, but that version of Ben Grimm hasn't stood the test of time. From an artistic point of view, any character could be argued to be 'better' than any other character. There is no way to define art. But we can say that a character that has worked for over 50 years connects with people in a way we may not be able to fully define or understand (though I could start if you gave me a few hours). If that character works, put that character on screen. Don't allow people with no vision or track record to completely redefine them. Another part of the reason that this failed so miserably is the new characters these dummies invented didn't offer anything audiences wanted to see.