Fantastic Four reborn!

[Incrediblejeff]

i've yet to figure out why some of these guys can't figure that out.

The only comic characters that can really be shown totally faithfull to thier comic book is the ones that are only a couple of years old. When you have characters that have 40 - 60 years of comic history behind them...there is absolutely no way to stay perfectly faithful in a movie adaption. Many characters were created so long ago (before the industry really was serious about making semi believable characters) that the origins of many will need to be updated for the movies....so saying they can't or shouldn't be made because thier original origins were stupid doesn't hold up.

People need to remember...iron man was created in vietnam in the comics...the update for the movie didn't hurt it a bit.

c/s 100%

 

[bubbadoom]

once again I point to Whiplash, very silly in the comic, worked fine in the film. If they can make that work they can make anyone work!

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I've yet to figure out why some of these guys can't figure that out.

The only comic characters that can really be shown totally faithfull to thier comic book is the ones that are only a couple of years old. When you have characters that have 40 - 60 years of comic history behind them...there is absolutely no way to stay perfectly faithful in a movie adaption. Many characters were created so long ago (before the industry really was serious about making semi believable characters) that the origins of many will need to be updated for the movies....so saying they can't or shouldn't be made because thier original origins were stupid doesn't hold up.

People need to remember...Iron Man was created in Vietnam in the comics...the update for the movie didn't hurt it a bit.

That's a really great point. If you're completely faithful to the 1960's Lee/Kirby Doom, not only will it be a little cheesy, but younger readers and fans of the Byrne Doom, for example, might feel it doesn't match their vision.

I think we see one example quite often on this particular topic. Many of us want a 6 foot tall Thing, consistent with the original, but others would like to see a 7-8 foot tall version - more consistent with more recent renderings.

. . .but I do think that film-makers overdo it and are sometimes afraid to portray characters in more traditional ways that would work if they gave it a try (and did it right).

 

[Franklin Richards]

I just wish everyone wasn't married to the present timeframe. It would be alot easier to stick to the material if you made them period pieces. When I heard X-Men First Class was going to be in the 60's it really surprised me. The FF are RIPE for a period piece.


Make it look like a Cary Grant / Doris Day movie ala Down With Love. Throw in a little commie junk for the red scare portion of the programming.

Admittedly the FF come across alot better in that portrayal than Doom does. He would be superiorly corny.


But whatta ya gonna do? He's Doom.

 

[Matt Mortem]

yeah a FF period peace would be really cool. I don't see whats stopping them, its not like the FF are ever gonna hook up with the current Marvel movie-verse

 

[SPIDERFIST]

As far as the Wizard and the Trapster go, I believe they were motivated by pride and greed.

IMO: the Moleman would be a lame villain for a reboot. I say bring on Annihilus and his minions from the Negative Zone.

I wish they would present Doom's true origin of trying to marry science with the Occult.

I think it would be cool if they did the Frightful Four with Medusa as a member and set everything up for the Inhumans in a 2nd film.

 

[The Overlord]

Well, the Mole Man was originally ugly and reacted against it (as people reacted against his ugliness).

To change that wouldn't only be to get politically correct over that story, but also cut out a good deal of his particular psychology.

Wouldn't it?

Who cares? The psychology of Mole Man is lame, it should be replaced with something better. The problem isn't that is politically incorrect, the problem is that motive is silly and uninteresting, it makes Mole Man into a very one note character and not compelling at all. Compare Mole Man's psychology with Two-Face's motive or post BTAS Mr. Freeze, there is pathos with those two characters, Mole Man's problems could have been solved with a make over or meeting girls with lower standards, it doesn't hold up.

And having Mole Man being evil just because he is ugly in order to bring up some forced parallels between Mole Man and Thing is pretty lame, because it doesn't make up for the fact that Mole Man is one dimensional villain, his case to Grimm wouldn't be compelling because it has no real basis.

There should be a specific incident that explains why he is mad at the world. If Mole Man fell in love with a beautiful woman who was a gold digger, took his money and broke his heart, then you would have a compelling motive, its pretty some vague BS about him being evil just because he is ugly.

I think at this point Mole Man's psychology is very uninteresting, so it should be developed and expanded or completely done away, because right now its vague and uninteresting.

As far as the Wizard and the Trapster go, I believe they were motivated by pride and greed.

That's pretty vague and pretty lame, that doesn't answer a million questions. Why does Trapster think crime is the best way to make money when he invent something that could make millions legitimately. Wizard being evil just because he is prideful is pretty lame, there are no other aspects to his personality besides that?

I've yet to figure out why some of these guys can't figure that out.

The only comic characters that can really be shown totally faithfull to thier comic book is the ones that are only a couple of years old. When you have characters that have 40 - 60 years of comic history behind them...there is absolutely no way to stay perfectly faithful in a movie adaption. Many characters were created so long ago (before the industry really was serious about making semi believable characters) that the origins of many will need to be updated for the movies....so saying they can't or shouldn't be made because thier original origins were stupid doesn't hold up.

People need to remember...Iron Man was created in Vietnam in the comics...the update for the movie didn't hurt it a bit.

Fair enough I'm just when people mention fairly one dimensional villains the main villain for an entire movie, you also have to consider how you can develop them so they would be interesting enough to carry a movie. Just saying they should be the main villain just because they were villains in the comics doesn't quite cut it sometimes.

Because a lot of these villains haven't worked very well in the comics, there isn't a whole lot of classic stories (or any) that were a character spotlight on Trapster, Wizard or Red Ghost and those characters quickly decayed as time went on. Frankly I don't blame Stan Lee for creating one dimensional villains, back in Silver Age comics most villains were one dimensional. I blame modern writers for continuing to use these characters in the same type of stories from the Silver age and not bothering to expand them.

 

[bubbadoom]

One of THE most classic FF stories was the Frightful Four arc where they brain wash Ben and turn him against the FF [#41-43], so there IS that one - and the Frightful Four would make a perfect intro to the Inhumans in a future film.

I think professional jealously could be a strong motivator for the Wizard, but maybe he felt Reed discredited him in the scientific community [maybe the Wizard was fudging the facts about Global Warming, just to be topical, and Reed pointed that out]. What was Hammer's motivation in IM2 - business rival - and that worked out fine. It may not all be in the comics, but it would not take much effort to flesh these guys out.

There needs to be some variety in the villains, do you think Bond would have lasted all this time if he fought Dr. No in every movie?

 

[The Overlord]

One of THE most classic FF stories was the Frightful Four arc where they brain wash Ben and turn him against the FF [#41-43], so there IS that one - and the Frightful Four would make a perfect intro to the Inhumans in a future film.

That may be good blue print for a plot, but that's all it is, it doesn't address the weak characterization of many members of the frightful Four and frankly I don't buy Trapster as a threat to the FF in the comics, I don't see why the audience would buy him as one. I don't think he works in the comics, so I certainly don't think he works in the film.

Plus Thing shouldn't be brain washed in the first reboot film, his self loathing should be built up over time, so using the ID machine in the first film would be a mistake.

I think professional jealously could be a strong motivator for the Wizard, but maybe he felt Reed discredited him in the scientific community [maybe the Wizard was fudging the facts about Global Warming, just to be topical, and Reed pointed that out]. What was Hammer's motivation in IM2 - business rival - and that worked out fine. It may not all be in the comics, but it would not take much effort to flesh these guys out.

Hammer was comic relief in that film, Whiplash was the real villain and he had a far stronger personal motive against Stark then Hammer did. Comparing the Wizard to a villain who was supposed to be comic relief doesn't paint Wizard as the type of villain who should carry the movie.

Is Wizard supposed to be comic relief or a serious villain? If he is supposed to be a serious villain, he should have a way stronger motive than what you suggested, because it still makes him come off as childish, silly and one dimensional. People lose scientific debates all the time, I never heard of someone planning to murder someone else over that. You haven't fleshed the Wizard, because he retains the same one dimensional personality from the comics, where arrogance is the only real personality facet he has. You need to dig deeper then that.

There needs to be some variety in the villains, do you think Bond would have lasted all this time if he fought Dr. No in every movie?

True, but Ernst Blofeld showed up in several different James Bond movies, because he was a compelling a villain.

Wizard and Trapster come as across as the villains from a bad James Bond movie (like these guys: http://listverse.com/2008/04/17/9-lamest-james-bond-villains/) who drag down the whole film with their shallow presence.

Just because they shouldn't use Dr. Doom all the time, doesn't mean every D-list villain can carry a movie on their own, not without an extensive revamp to fix these problem characters.

 

[Arbiter]

Can't they use mole mans environmental reasons for the movie?

I'd be for a period piece FF film as long as Fox has the rights but if Marvel gets em back then I want a modern setting

 

[C. Lee]

That's a really great point. If you're completely faithful to the 1960's Lee/Kirby Doom, not only will it be a little cheesy, but younger readers and fans of the Byrne Doom, for example, might feel it doesn't match their vision.

I talked about this scenerio in another forum....basicly the filmamakers have to make a decision...make a movie based strickly on the comics continuity (and confuse the hell out of all young readers who don't know the full history)...or make a movie based upon recent storylines (and upset the old fans)....they basicly are in a no win situation.

One guy in the Superman forums was complaining about the Reeve Superman movies...he said the producers were idiots because they made Lex a petty criminal hiding from the cops when everyone knows he is a billionaire businessman. We had to explain to him the true history of Lex in the comics.

I just wish everyone wasn't married to the present timeframe. It would be alot easier to stick to the material if you made them period pieces. When I heard X-Men First Class was going to be in the 60's it really surprised me. The FF are RIPE for a period piece.


Make it look like a Cary Grant / Doris Day movie ala Down With Love. Throw in a little commie junk for the red scare portion of the programming.

Admittedly the FF come across alot better in that portrayal than Doom does. He would be superiorly corny.


But whatta ya gonna do? He's Doom.

I also think the FF would be great set back in the 60's (do I think they will actually do it....no)....I think it would be a fun romp to do it that way.

 

[terry78]

A period piece would be cool, but Hollywood has that unwritten rule about comic continuity and having them all take place in present day, maybe for future possible crossovers. First Class is somewhat of a prequel, which is why it gets a pass, but it looks like an interesting take that Vaughn is doing.

 

[bubbadoom]

That is all that I am suggesting is that they use these classic [i.e. KIRBY] comics as a blue print for the movies, not to do a word for word translation.

Sure, all these villains need to be fleshed out, but I do not need to dig deeper, the writers do. But there is clearly enough there to work with - the Whiplash connection with Stark was invented for the movie, the same can be done with the Wizard and co. The above motive was just something off the top of my head, but it easily could be developed into a situation where it cost the Wizard billions of dollars as well as his creditability - his motivation is not my point - ANYTHING can be used as an excuse for them to be going at each other - the three Spider-Man movies have shown that. The evil FF offer an interesting array of visual powers that would translate well onto screen; as do any number of the FF's villains; so let's use them!

All I am saying is mix it up a little. Don't give us the same bad guy every time. When Doom is brought back, bring him back right. Ignore any reference to the other films, do the whole European dictator, science/sorcery thing. Just don't do it in the next movie!

 

[The Overlord]

That is all that I am suggesting is that they use these classic [i.e. KIRBY] comics as a blue print for the movies, not to do a word for word translation.

Sure, all these villains need to be fleshed out, but I do not need to dig deeper, the writers do. But there is clearly enough there to work with - the Whiplash connection with Stark was invented for the movie, the same can be done with the Wizard and co. The above motive was just something off the top of my head, but it easily could be developed into a situation where it cost the Wizard billions of dollars as well as his creditability - his motivation is not my point - ANYTHING can be used as an excuse for them to be going at each other - the three Spider-Man movies have shown that. The evil FF offer an interesting array of visual powers that would translate well onto screen; as do any number of the FF's villains; so let's use them!

I don't see how an man with a glue gun trying to defeat people who are far powerful then him an is interesting visual, that seems like a laughable visual. I think someone like Trapster doesn't work well screen and revamping him would be hard, in the comics he has lame gimmick, no motive and no real intestinal personality. So that leaves you with nothing. I don't find Trapster a believable threat in the comics, I don't see why the audience would find him compelling. I think Traster would only work if was a comic relief villain defeated at the beginning of the movie and never seen again.

It doesn't mean all the FF villains are instantly ready to carry a movie, not all villains are created equal, some make better choices then others. I think Annihilus is a way better villain then Wizard or Red Ghost, considering Annihilation. I never heard of Wizard or Red Ghost being the main villains in their own well received crossover. Heck the Ultimate frightful four are way better then the 616 Frightful Four, considering that they were zombie versions of the real FF, instead of team that includes a guy with a glue gun. The FF are supposed to be cosmic explorers, so stories where they fought what amounted to 4 street level villains were always tedious to me.

There is a problem when the motivation is just an excuse and doesn't seem natural, it makes the villain a boring character. Wizard losing billions and his credibility, why should I care? That means nothing to me, its not compelling at all. In the Spider-Man movies most of the villains had motives that made sympathetic or sinister.

Dr. Octopus was an effective Anti villain with motives that made him sympathetic, someone like the Joker is the opposite, his motives make him terrifying, Joker had no powers, but his nihilistic philosophy makes villain that the audience would find very compelling. What you describe for Wizard just comes off as pathetic in comparison, his motives make him either terrifying nor sympathetic. Even movie Whiplash was compelling, because his life was ruined by the actions of Tony's father and his very existence makes Tony question himself. Compared to all that, Wizard's motives as described here, seem pathetic, not the makings of an epic movie villain.

He just comes off as some whiny loser who can't take responsibility for his own flaws and frankly Wizard hating Reed because he pointed a mistake he made, makes him seem like a very pathetic Dr. Doom knock off, without the pathos and other the motivations that made Doom a stronger character.

This new motive doesn't make Wizard's personality any better, its still as one note as ever. He still has only one personality facet, arrogance. I think Wizard needs more personality facets then that to carry a movie.

All I am saying is mix it up a little. Don't give us the same bad guy every time. When Doom is brought back, bring him back right. Ignore any reference to the other films, do the whole European dictator, science/sorcery thing. Just don't do it in the next movie!

But that doesn't mean every FF villain can carry a whole movie, at least not without a giant revamp.

 

[Incrediblejeff]

But that doesn't mean every FF villain can carry a whole movie, at least not without a giant revamp.

Which is what I think they should do to some of the characters.

 

[Kelly]

I would not want a movie made from the earliest years of the comic, but that is just me. I understand why so many of the fans of decades want this, but I wouldn't find it enjoyable I don't think. We are so far beyond what was happening then...I enjoyed reading the story lines of the Marvel Knights edition comics. I would like to see more from those...

 

[The Overlord]

Which is what I think they should do to some of the characters.

I do think some the villains are kinda hopeless though. Trapster always seemed like a broken character, he has laughable gimmick, no real motive and no real personality. He seems like a comic relief character but the FF writers try to make him a serious threat in Frightful four stories and it doesn't work. At least with Whiplash, whips are a cool gimmick, look at Indiana Jones. Paste isn't cool or threatening or even an interesting visual like whips are. It wouldn't be impossible to make him work as a serious villain on screen, but it would be very, very difficult.

 

[Incrediblejeff]

I do think some the villains are kinda hopeless though. Trapster always seemed like a broken character, he has laughable gimmick, no real motive and no real personality. He seems like a comic relief character but the FF writers try to make him a serious threat in Frightful four stories and it doesn't work. At least with Whiplash, whips are a cool gimmick, look at Indiana Jones. Paste isn't cool or threatening or even an interesting visual like whips are. It wouldn't be impossible to make him work as a serious villain on screen, but it would be very, very difficult.

Yeah the glue wouldn't work.You could always give him actual traps.Like he could make different booby traps and be the Trapster in that sense.

 

[bubbadoom]

The Trapster did use various "traps" as often as he did the glue, so of course those would be featured. Maybe he is the comic relief of the group, not as much as Otis was to Lex in the first Super Man, but comic relief none the less.

I am not suggesting the above motives as being ideal for the Wizard, it was just an example of something that could be done, so let's not waist anymore time discussing it's merits. Again, that's what those high priced writers are paid for. They found a way to combing Whiplash with Crimson Dynamo and come up with something neat, I am sure they can do the same here. And yes, I do think that Whiplash looked cooler in the movie than the version with the chaps in the comic [that was the one I thought was silly].

I too like Annihilus and would like to see him and the Negative Zone in an FF movie, this reboot would be fine. I gave up on Marvel Knights after about a year, so I do not have much of an opinion one way or the other on those stories. I do feel, in general, that the better FF stories have always been either those told by Stan and Jack or ones that built upon their ideas, like the John B. years. Most of the FF since Heroes Reborn have been pretty weak.

 

[The Overlord]

The Trapster did use various "traps" as often as he did the glue, so of course those would be featured. Maybe he is the comic relief of the group, not as much as Otis was to Lex in the first Super Man, but comic relief none the less.

Yeah and who likes Otis? Almost no one. People either dislike him or forget he is there, he wasn't very funny or memorable. Not the best comparison.

See though this is my problem with Frightful Four, they supposed to be an evil version of Fantastic Four, a deadly opposite team and yet they waste one of their slots on a guy who is no real threat to anyone on the FF. Trapster presence makes the Frightful Four seem far less powerful then the Fantastic Four.

Even Wizard seems far less intelligent then Mr. Fantastic. I don't think fights between the Fantastic Four and the Frightful Four are very dramatic because the big power gap between the Frightful Four and the Fantastic Four. At this point an Evil Eight would make more sense, at least they would a numbers advantage. Four street level villains, two of which have one note personalities vs. a well organized team that defeats gods on a regular basis doesn't seem very exciting.

I am not suggesting the above motives as being ideal for the Wizard, it was just an example of something that could be done, so let's not waist anymore time discussing it's merits. Again, that's what those high priced writers are paid for. They found a way to combing Whiplash with Crimson Dynamo and come up with something neat, I am sure they can do the same here. And yes, I do think that Whiplash looked cooler in the movie than the version with the chaps in the comic [that was the one I thought was silly].

The problem is thing some of these characters are almost hopeless, like Trapster. Again whips are way cooler gimmick then glue. Glue is not a good gimmick, it isn't cool or dangerous or visually interesting, its just lame as a weapon. So Trapster using glue at all makes him lose creditability as a a villain and if he is just using traps, he still doesn't seem epic enough to be in a FF movie. That just makes him a medium street level villain, not an FF level threat.

The problem is the Fantastic Four is supposed a story about epic adventures and having a story where they fight four street level villains doesn't seem very fantastic.

I too like Annihilus and would like to see him and the Negative Zone in an FF movie, this reboot would be fine. I gave up on Marvel Knights after about a year, so I do not have much of an opinion one way or the other on those stories. I do feel, in general, that the better FF stories have always been either those told by Stan and Jack or ones that built upon their ideas, like the John B. years. Most of the FF since Heroes Reborn have been pretty weak.

But my point is some villains work better on film then others, Annihilus seems like a villain better suited for what the FF are supposed to be about, epic space adventures, then Wizard or Trapster, who seem bit mundane for FF villains.

 

[Mercurius]

Who cares? The psychology of Mole Man is lame, it should be replaced with something better. The problem isn't that is politically incorrect, the problem is that motive is silly and uninteresting, it makes Mole Man into a very one note character and not compelling at all. Compare Mole Man's psychology with Two-Face's motive or post BTAS Mr. Freeze, there is pathos with those two characters, Mole Man's problems could have been solved with a make over or meeting girls with lower standards, it doesn't hold up.

And having Mole Man being evil just because he is ugly in order to bring up some forced parallels between Mole Man and Thing is pretty lame, because it doesn't make up for the fact that Mole Man is one dimensional villain, his case to Grimm wouldn't be compelling because it has no real basis.

There should be a specific incident that explains why he is mad at the world. If Mole Man fell in love with a beautiful woman who was a gold digger, took his money and broke his heart, then you would have a compelling motive, its pretty some vague BS about him being evil just because he is ugly.

I think at this point Mole Man's psychology is very uninteresting, so it should be developed and expanded or completely done away, because right now its vague and uninteresting.




That's pretty vague and pretty lame, that doesn't answer a million questions. Why does Trapster think crime is the best way to make money when he invent something that could make millions legitimately. Wizard being evil just because he is prideful is pretty lame, there are no other aspects to his personality besides that?




Fair enough I'm just when people mention fairly one dimensional villains the main villain for an entire movie, you also have to consider how you can develop them so they would be interesting enough to carry a movie. Just saying they should be the main villain just because they were villains in the comics doesn't quite cut it sometimes.

Because a lot of these villains haven't worked very well in the comics, there isn't a whole lot of classic stories (or any) that were a character spotlight on Trapster, Wizard or Red Ghost and those characters quickly decayed as time went on. Frankly I don't blame Stan Lee for creating one dimensional villains, back in Silver Age comics most villains were one dimensional. I blame modern writers for continuing to use these characters in the same type of stories from the Silver age and not bothering to expand them.

Explaining motivation always makes it lame and all: I find the broken heart explanation unfathomably lame, for instance.

They could only indicate the ugliness stuff, without getting too much into it. I think terry's suggestion about the parallel situation with the Thing a very good option.

And compelling, if well-written.

 

[SPIDERFIST]

The Wizard and Trapster were never major league players. Though initially solo villains, they work better in a group setting. And I agree that pride and greed are lame excuses for going into a life of crime. But hey, not every villain always had such deep psychological factors that motivated them to do what they did. If memory serves me correctly(but often doesn't), I thought initially the Wizard was jealous of the renown that the FF had garnered and simply wanted the renown that would come with putting them in their place(that's pride). I'm probably wrong and won't be offended if I get schooled.

As far as the Trapster goes, wasn't he originally a Ghost Rider villain? I always thought he was weak. I mean a paste gun and piece of flying deck? Still, he developed those things and rather than taking the legitimate route of patenting marketing them, he chose to use them to pursue fame and fortune(that's greed). Again, I'm probably wrong and won't be offended if I get schooled.

I honestly think Annihilus would be a better foe. Maybe for the purposes of the reboot the event that gives the FF their powers could also be the event where Annihilus breaches the confines of the Negative Zone. I don't know.

The only reason I thought the Frightful Four would be cool is because Medusa was a one-time member and it would be a good way to incorporate the Inhumans at some point.

 

[The Overlord]

Explaining motivation always makes it lame and all: I find the broken heart explanation unfathomably lame, for instance.

They could only indicate the ugliness stuff, without getting too much into it. I think terry's suggestion about the parallel situation with the Thing a very good option.

And compelling, if well-written.

And how was Magneto worse off when they gave a more fleshed out back story and tragic motive in the 70s? Was he better as the one note evil villain from the 60s? Is Dr. Doom a bad character because they explained why he is so messed up, instead of just making him evil for no reason? I don't see why Mole Man's psychology from the comics so important, compared to a villain with real problems like Two-Face, Mole Man's issues are shallow and pathetic. The psychology is lame, so it should be ditched and replaced with something better. It is broken so it should be fixed.

So actually exploring characters is worse then giving them one note motives that make very little sense. The importance of actually developing a character is writing 101. Mole Man being evil just because he is ugly is not only lame, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. You might as well say he is evil for no reason and say he just woke up one morning and decided to be evil. That makes about as much sense as him being evil because he is ugly.

I don't see how giving a character a back story and a believable motive is bad. Was Mr. Freeze a worse off character when they gave him a tragic back story in BTAS? I don't see many people who prefer Mr. Freeze before BTAS, where he was evil for no reason, just a character with a gimmick. That's what Mole Man is, a generically evil character, with no interesting motives and a one note personality, he is a generic evil character at this point. Mole Man seems more like a plot device then a character.

The parallels between the Thing and Mole Man would just be shallow, because the Thing is a developed 3 dimensional character and Mole Man is a one dimensional caricature. The debate between wouldn't be interesting, because Mole Man would be so shallow in his motives and reasoning, there is nothing he could offer Ben, there is no case he could make. Ben would just reject Mole Man right away, because his evil seems to be pointless and shallow, rather seductive. It would be like having a debate between Carrot Top and Stephen Hawkins.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

The Frightful Four have always left me a little cold. Compared to the FF, they just seem a limp, weak imitation. They don't have powers to match the FF and the Wizard has never seemed close to a match for Reed's intellect.

If we take Galactus/Surfer and Doom off the table, I'd go with Annihilus as my next choice. If done right, he could offer a very menacing presence.

 

[terry78]

Honestly, most of Marvel's villains started out with motives that were somewhat goofy. Revenge, psychosis stemming from getting their powers, etc. Magneto is honestly the only dude that is somewhat justified in his actions. The rest are evil because something happened to them at one point, or they were just naturally arrogant and felt they were above it all or something.