Fantastic Four reborn! - - - - Part 13

[Willie Lumpkin]

Maybe Watchmen.

That's a good example, but it also wasn't a huge property prior to the film.

I think I'd question if a Watchman film should have ever been made rather than if it, once they decided to make it, they should have made some revisions.

That's also a unique one in that it it was one story done directly from beginning to end. I wouldn't advocate doing the Galactus story, for example, as literally as Watchman was done, but I do think a great FF film could be done by taking bits and pieces from the comics over the years strung together by a talented screen-writer and director. With the spirit and visuals (if not the actual story) done as close to those of the comics as reasonable.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

so i'm not following this reboot but i'm now hearing that people have been sacked and this is now basically in limbo, any truth in that

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

so i'm not following this reboot but i'm now hearing that people have been sacked and this is now basically in limbo, any truth in that

Probably not unless you've got a very recent source.

There were rumors that Trank might be fired and the film re-cast with a new director, but it seems they couldn't find one interested.

The studio is now claiming they are on schedule to start filming in Baton Rouge next week and the main actors are in Baton Rouge.

 

[the_ultimate_evil]

alright it was mostly youtube vids and news sites i had read the usual net chat thats why i had a spoon of salt at the ready.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

alright it was mostly youtube vids and news sites i had read the usual net chat thats why i had a spoon of salt at the ready.

I think most fans hope it will get scrapped, so wishful thinking likely feeds the idea that it could collapse at any moment despite the ugly reality that is seems they are moving forward.

 

[Brian Braddock]

I don't see it as playing safe to adapt source material. If anything, it's more courageous than modernizing a story beyond recognition just because you don't feel like tackling the more fantastic elements.

x2

 

[jaymes_e06]

And TDK and Blade.

Why just pick on one?

 

[Donut]

I am pretty sure that he meant that he was agreeing with him twice

 

[Incrediblejeff]

Yeah, that pesky source material beloved by so many just gets in the way doesnt it? Following it so far hasnt really helped Marvel Studios make any good movies and its actually more of a handicap [when you think about it] to have such a wealth of absolutely amazing storylines to adapt.

I'm definately all for switching it all up to a point were you cannot recognise who is who and what is what. I mean, it's not like people have waited years for these characters and storylines to be realised in live action or anything..........

Yeah I'm in the minority with this opinion,but I really think the Marvel Studios movies tend to be pretty lifeless for the most part.Good Movies (most of the time) just lifeless.I don't know If you can blame them for being too faithful or too safe.I just wan't more from them.If Iron Man was more Science Fiction,I think it would be so much more awesome.

I just don't think that you need to be a slave to source Material.Frankenstein changed a lot from the original source material,and became a classic film.Same can be said for Planet Of The Apes and numerous other film adaptations.

I just want to see someone do something completely nuts with a Comic Book films.I want a Superhero to lose at the end of a trilogy.The Hero could turn evil at the end.I just like weird deviations personally,but not everyone is going to agree with that.After you've seen so many of these Movies it just becomes so boring and predictable.With the same formula for every movie.

 

[marcvader]

Yeah I'm in the minority with this opinion,but I really think the Marvel Studios movies tend to be pretty lifeless for the most part.Good Movies (most of the time) just lifeless.I don't know If you can blame them for being too faithful or too safe.I just wan't more from them.If Iron Man was more Science Fiction,I think it would be so much more awesome.

I just don't think that you need to be a slave to source Material.Frankenstein changed a lot from the original source material,and became a classic film.Same can be said for Planet Of The Apes and numerous other film adaptations.

I just want to see someone do something completely nuts with a Comic Book films.I want a Superhero to lose at the end of a trilogy.The Hero could turn evil at the end.I just like weird deviations personally,but not everyone is going to agree with that.After you've seen so many of these Movies it just becomes so boring and predictable.With the same formula for every movie.

Those are interesting takes but why not make more Hancocks instead of taking beloved characters and stories and totally changing them to where they are no longer recognizable?

 

[jaymes_e06]

I am pretty sure that he meant that he was agreeing with him twice

Oh I thought it was something snide at X2. oops.

 

[Dark Raven]

Yeah I'm in the minority with this opinion,but I really think the Marvel Studios movies tend to be pretty lifeless for the most part.Good Movies (most of the time) just lifeless.I don't know If you can blame them for being too faithful or too safe.I just wan't more from them.If Iron Man was more Science Fiction,I think it would be so much more awesome.

I just don't think that you need to be a slave to source Material.Frankenstein changed a lot from the original source material,and became a classic film.Same can be said for Planet Of The Apes and numerous other film adaptations.

I just want to see someone do something completely nuts with a Comic Book films.I want a Superhero to lose at the end of a trilogy.The Hero could turn evil at the end.I just like weird deviations personally,but not everyone is going to agree with that.After you've seen so many of these Movies it just becomes so boring and predictable.With the same formula for every movie.

There's a reason it follows a certain formula. What you've described above would just be bad storytelling. Audiences are going in expecting to see a hero's journey where they overcome obstacles and make certain moral choices. That's why they're a hero. If you wanted something that is more of a tragedy, the thing to do is to have films about villains instead - like a Dr Doom movie. If Disney/Marvel owned him, they could easily make a movie where it shows his descent into evil, similar to Disney's Maleficent starring Angelina Jolie. But audiences are not wanting to see tragedies with heroes. They will leave the theatres feeling very unsatisfied and hence the film would bomb.

 

[Sawyer]

Tim Blake Nelson in talks:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/tim-blake-nelson-final-talks-700318

 

[Whiskey Tango]

Those are interesting takes but why not make more Hancocks instead of taking beloved characters and stories and totally changing them to where they are no longer recognizable?

It's too much work. Why put in the effort to create a new property when you can just bastardize one of the old ones?

 

[marvelrobbins]

Tim Blake Nelson in talks:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/tim-blake-nelson-final-talks-700318

Very intresting setting up mole man for sequel. Hopefully this works out better
than setting up the Leader In Incredable Hulk.

 

[Dark Raven]

So the Leader is definitely out? Or at least TBN is no longer in the MCU?

Rick Hoffman would've been ideal for the Moleman.

 

[Lencho01]

I thought it was safe that everyone from TIH was probably not going to play those roles again.

 

[marvelrobbins]

Who knows if there will ever be a solo hulk film again. And if there is there will likely be whole new cast to join Ruffalo.

 

[Incrediblejeff]

Those are interesting takes but why not make more Hancocks instead of taking beloved characters and stories and totally changing them to where they are no longer recognizable?

Good Question,I guess that would make more sense.

There's a reason it follows a certain formula. What you've described above would just be bad storytelling. Audiences are going in expecting to see a hero's journey where they overcome obstacles and make certain moral choices. That's why they're a hero. If you wanted something that is more of a tragedy, the thing to do is to have films about villains instead - like a Dr Doom movie. If Disney/Marvel owned him, they could easily make a movie where it shows his descent into evil, similar to Disney's Maleficent starring Angelina Jolie. But audiences are not wanting to see tragedies with heroes. They will leave the theatres feeling very unsatisfied and hence the film would bomb.

I've been thinking a Dr. Doom movie where the Fantastic Four are the villians through his perspective ( Or any villian) would be a nice spin on things and could shake things up.A Superhero movie through another perspective other than the hero's own would be brilliant.Like what they did with Megamind,but executed better.

Sorry I'm derailing this thread.I'll show myself out.

 

[bubbadoom]

Who knows if there will ever be a solo hulk film again. And if there is there will likely be whole new cast to join Ruffalo.

I suspect as long as Universal has the distribution rights to the Hulk Marvel/Disney is not too interested in making a solo film that they can not release. When the contract expires I suspect we will seen a solo Hulk.

 

[Eddie]

I suspect as long as Universal has the distribution rights to the Hulk Marvel/Disney is not too interested in making a solo film that they can not release. When the contract expires I suspect we will seen a solo Hulk.

I don't think Universal has Hulk's distribution rights anymore. Solo film rights and team film rights usually aren't separate, and Hulk/Banner has been in two Disney films and a TV show (the brief footage in AoS counts as a Hulk appearance), plus he has another film appearance on the way. Supporting Hulk characters have also popped up in a Disney production (AoS).

 

[Shikamaru]

Universal most likely doesn't have the distribution rights anymore.

The problem with doing another Hulk solo is where Bruce Banner is currently at in the Marvel universe. Ever since the events of TA, he seems to be in the protective custody of SHIELD and later Tony. He's also seen as part of the Avengers, who are celebrities superheroes to the public. Ross cannot touch Bruce at the moment since Bruce is no longer on the run.

 

[Zarex]

I suspect as long as Universal has the distribution rights to the Hulk Marvel/Disney is not too interested in making a solo film that they can not release. When the contract expires I suspect we will seen a solo Hulk.

Universal may hold distribution rights for both Hulk and Namor solo features as a condition of allowing the Hulk rights to revert to Marvel ahead of schedule. That would partially explain why we haven't heard anything yet about another Hulk solo and why the Namor rights remain, in the words of Kevin Feige, "a little complicated".

 

[Donut]

Hmmmmmmmmm

 

[guitarsingerguy]

Who knows if there will ever be a solo hulk film again. And if there is there will likely be whole new cast to join Ruffalo.

I think the Hulk works better in a team scenario anyway, but TNB is basically playing the same character with a different name.