Fant4stic vs Inhumans vs Ghost Rider 2?

[psylockolussus]

Is it fair to compare Inhumans to actual movies?

Nope. Different structure and medium.

 

[superhero]

my vote be for Elektra!! i enjoy the fantastic four reboot!! sure it had is problem's but it wasn't the worst movie i ever seen!! i still enjoy the orignal Fantastic four movies better!! only part i didn;t like as micheal b jordan as johnny storm! i still enjoy chris even's johnny storm better!! the actor jamie bell who played ben grimm was ok i still liked Michael Chiklis as the thing!! i enjoy ghost rider 2 better then the first one!! i can't say nothing for inhumans tv series i only just watched the permerim of the show last week!! i have to watch couple more epsidoes before i decided if i really like it!!

 

[superhero]

MARVEL WORKING ON GETTING X-MEN RIGHTS BACK SAYS STAN LEE
https://www.cosmicbooknews.com/marvel-working-getting-x-men-rights-back-says-stan-lee

STAN LEE SAYS MARVEL "WORKING ON" X-MEN MOVIE RIGHTS

http://www.thegeektwins.com/2017/09/stan-lee-says-marvel-working-on-x-men.html

 

[psylockolussus]

I hope they will succeed!

 

[NotNickFury]

Of course Stan Lee's gonna say that. Doesn't mean it's going to happen anytime soon, especially when the MCU has more than enough characters and villains at it's disposal. Plus, unless he's privy to the details, it's not like he's going to just say it won't happen.

 

[MarvelFan]

still has not see Inhumans (I will watch it when it comes to the local rental here )

for the rest...between Ghost Rider 2 and Fantastic Four 2015, I'd pick Fantastic Four as the most worse film.

 

[eon001]

I've got to give it to Fan4stic.

Inhumans is still in play, and it's actually turning into half decent car crash entertainment.
Ghost Rider 2 was trash, but had some excellent action scenes.

Can't think of a single redeeming thing a bout Fan4crap.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

The hatred of Fantastic Four 2015 is weird. It's a solid film with a good cast of young actors, and avoids all the corn and broad humour of the previous two FF movies. If anything, it's too 'realistic' for its own good, sticking to a sober, non-flashy tone throughout, much like The Amazing Spider-Man or the Nolan Batman movies. Once you realise it's a science fiction movie with a tinge of horror, rather than an action adventure, it makes more sense.

It's not a classic, but it's a decent movie.

 

[LaughterLives]

I didn't get the hate for it either. Then I realized its just cuz alot of people out there just wanna start a race war.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

it was just a bad film that's purpose was ill conceived from the start (throwing anything out there just so they didn't lose the rights)

 

[LaughterLives]

That's a good description for Singer's-men: Apocalypse.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

that wasn't a good movie, I agree. But Singer gave us a lot more good than any Fox produced F4 movie property ever did.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

If Fant4stic is a Science Fiction film, where's the science fiction? Real science fiction considers man's relationship to technology and speculates/imagines what things could happen and what it might mean for the future of humanity. Fant4stic is a lousy science fiction film if it's a science fiction film.

If Fant4stic is a horror film, where's the horror? Where's the fear and suspense? What moments have us on the edge of our seat? If Fant4stic is a horror film, it's a lousy horror film.

The simple fact is Fant4stic is a terribly conceived, terribly executed film in every way. It randomly assembles elements of other films creating an end product that feels as if the components have been assembled by a computer that randomly put scenes together.

Nothing makes sense. The characters aren't well defined, intriguing or likable and there's no chemistry between any of them. The story doesn't go anywhere. There is no sense of anticipation, no building tension, no motivation for the actions of characters and no logical resolution to anything.

But you don't have to take my word for it. Nearly every respectable critic agrees.

People have every right to like it, but anyone who likes it is in an extreme minority.

 

[LaughterLives]

hahaha! Minority for life!

 

[Kevin Roegele]

If Fant4stic is a Science Fiction film, where's the science fiction? Real science fiction considers man's relationship to technology and speculates/imagines what things could happen and what it might mean for the future of humanity. Fant4stic is a lousy science fiction film if it's a science fiction film.

Oh come on, F4 obviously uses the oldest sci-fi staple in the book; don't mess with things you don't understand. Just because humanity can do something, doesn't mean we should. Reed and co, after drinking, use technology to explore something they don't understand, foolishly press ahead when they are warned to turn back, and suffer the consequences mankind is not equip to deal with.

If you say it's not a sci-fi film, then neither is Cronenberg's The Fly, because they both have the same basic premise.

If Fant4stic is a horror film, where's the horror? Where's the fear and suspense? What moments have us on the edge of our seat? If Fant4stic is a horror film, it's a lousy horror film.

I said it had a tinge of horror, which is body horror; what happened to Ben, what Victor is turned into, scenes of Johnny's flaming body lying unconscious in the lab. There's none of the triumphant 'yay' of puny Steve Rogers becoming an adonis, or the comedy of the 2005 FF discovering their powers.

If you go back and read the original FF #1, when they discover their powers it's horrible, not heroic. The 2015 movie captures that.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Oh come on, F4 obviously uses the oldest sci-fi staple in the book; don't mess with things you don't understand. Just because humanity can do something, doesn't mean we should. Reed and co, after drinking, use technology to explore something they don't understand, foolishly press ahead when they are warned to turn back, and suffer the consequences mankind is not equip to deal with.

If you say it's not a sci-fi film, then neither is Cronenberg's The Fly, because they both have the same basic premise.

There's absolutely no comparison between The Fly (or any decent Sci-Fi film) and Fant4stic. The Fly actually explores and delves into the details of what is happening and why and what it means.

Fant4stic just throws a bunch of random crap together that has no sense, logic or reason.

As I said, "Fant4stic is a lousy science fiction film if it's a science fiction film." and I stand fully behind that statement.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

it was just a bad film that's purpose was ill conceived from the start (throwing anything out there just so they didn't lose the rights)

That's just a common internet fanboy criticism with no logic behind it, based on the belief that all Marvel characters should be handed back to Marvel.

If Fox didn't actually want to make any more FF movies, why would they need to hang onto the rights anyway?

Why would Fox not want to make an FF movie during the height of the superhero movie craze?

Here's the truth; Fox went to the promising director of a successful indie superhero movie to get a new take on the genre. They also got a great cast of young actors. That's hardly 'throwing anything out there' as you say. Regardless of whether you like the movie or not, it's inaccurate and illogical to say it was half-assed exercise to retain the rights.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

There's absolutely no comparison between The Fly (or any decent Sci-Fi film) and Fant4stic. The Fly actually explores and delves into the details of what is happening and why and what it means.

Cronenberg films like The Fly and Scanners are clear influences on the film. Josh Trank has said so himself. Sure you might not think it's a good SF film, but it's absolutely an SF film.

Fant4stic just throws a bunch of random crap together that has no sense, logic or reason.

That's really poor, unreasoned criticism. You could say that about any film you don't like.

Have a look at at this video which explains what the movie was trying to do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEX7PQo48sI

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Have a look at at this video which explains what the movie was trying to do:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEX7PQo48sI

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I read all through production that Trank was a big fan of Cronenberg and trying to make a Cronenbergesque body horror film. So what?

Do you like Cronenberg? Did you see any Cronenberg in that film? We got a few seconds of Ben whining and a few seconds of Reed stretched out on a table. Those scenes didn't make it a Cronenberg film any more than a bunch of idiots getting drunk (on one flask ) and going to another dimension made it a science-fiction film.

 

[2kt09]

Yeah, yeah, yeah, I read all through production that Trank was a big fan of Cronenberg and trying to make a Cronenbergesque body horror film. So what?

So, he was aware of the UF4 series and the bts was bad enough for anything else he had shot to be left out. It is what it is.

Do you like Cronenberg? Did you see any Cronenberg in that film?

Yes.
It started when they went to the Negative Zone and ended after Doom's hallway scene.

Not sure why that's hard to see.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Yes.
It started when they went to the Negative Zone and ended after Doom's hallway scene.

Not sure why that's hard to see.

It's hard to see because it's not there.

The Fly got 91% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Fant4stic got 9%.

There's no objective, reasonable rational grounds for comparison.

 

[2kt09]

It's hard to see because it's not there.

The Fly got 91% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Fant4stic got 9%.

There's no objective, reasonable rational grounds for comparison.

I'm not taking the bait.

The "objective", reasonable rational grounds for comparison is in the plot, it's on the screen for you to see with your eyes.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

It's hard to see because it's not there.

The Fly got 91% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Fant4stic got 9%.

There's no objective, reasonable rational grounds for comparison.

Rotten Tomatoes? Seriously-?

 

[UltimatePyro9]

Difference is that The Fly was interesting and genuinely creepy with a disturbing performance by Jeff Goldblum.

Fant4stic was an utterly dull, lifeless experience of a movie that I felt I wasted time watching when I could’ve done something better with my time.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Difference is that The Fly was interesting and genuinely creepy with a disturbing performance by Jeff Goldblum.

Fant4stic was an utterly dull, lifeless experience of a movie that I felt I wasted time watching when I could’ve done something better with my time.

Exactly.

It's like comparing the Howard the Duck film to Guardians of the Galaxy. Do they share some superficial similarities? Yes. Are they trying to do some vaguely similar things? Yes. Does that mean they're comparable in any meaningful way? Of course not.

The idea that Fant4stic is comparable in any real way to Scanners or The Fly is ludicrous.