Fox's Fantastic Four: Sequel Ideas

[The Question]

One I think someone willing to sacrifice an entire town to demons for perosnal power is a very scary character, you have non sympathetic villain, but the character should have a presence, some menace, should be threatening and terrifying or have some style, not be some doofus in pink spandex with a phallic shaped helmet. William Stryker in X-2 wasn't sympathetic, but he was scary villain, a symbol of fanatical hatred. Obadiah Stane, Joker, Abomiation and other such comic movie villains were not sympathetic, but still compelling.

Two how does any of this apply to the Wizard, how is he a 3 dimensional villain? Frankly he is not, there is nothing nothing to his character beyond being a snide jerk. Its a nice speech, but irrelevant if it doesn't apply to the characters we are talking about.

The problem with a Wizard is two fold, he's a forth rate Dr. doom clone and he's annoying. Dr. Doom has facets to his personality and goals beyond getting revenge on the Fantastic Four, does Wizxard have? And what's Wizard's motive, to defeat Reed Richards to prove he is the smartest man alive? Gee, where did I hear that before, maybe because its part of Doom's motive. Doom hates Reed because he blames reed for what hapened to his face, why does Wizard hate the FF again?

Wizard is also annoying, because unlike Doom who can back up his boasts, Wizard's boasts come off as nothing more then verbal diarrhea, he seems completely out of his depth when fighting the FF. Seriously why has he never formed Evil eight, because a genius would learn from his mistakes and try to not repeat them, Wizard forms Frightful fours, over and over again, thinking that will work this time, even though the Frightful four has failed every time. Also why he keep on putting Trapster on the team, instead of switching him someone more powerful. The Fantastic Four is one of the most power teams around and has some of the best team work skills in the Marvel universe and wizard seeks to defeat with a team that usually amounts to a bunch of street level thugs? Wizard even surrenders any sort of numbers advantage

Wizard is supposed to be a genius, but is written as idiot who is over his, head, all the time. He has ability as a inventor, but he is one of the worst tacticians in the Marvel universe and completely unconvincing as a FF villain. That's why he is a bad character.



But I never said a villain has to be sympathetic, I merely said its one way to make a character more multi dimensional.

When I said Wizard is not scary, that means something important, it means he lacks presence and menace and frankly is not a compelling villain at all.

I can find tons of villains scary on different levels, William Stryker from X-2 was scary, not because he had powers or was physically impressive, but because he represented something, fanatical hatred, the type of hatred of that causes wars and genocides. Not sympathetic at all, but still compelling.

How is Wizard compelling, what evil does he represent? Annoying, smug *****e bags?

The Mayor wasn't scary. There was nothing about him that was outwardly frightening. In fact, he talked and acted a lot like a father from a 50s sitcom. I don't think a villain needs to be scary. Nor do I think a villain has to represent some greater evil other than being a very broken person.


As for The Wizard... sure, he hasn't been the best written character at times, but he's not in any way a lost cause. His motivations are serviceable enough, and honestly, the fact that he doesn't fight completely practically shows his layers more. He doesn't form Frightful Eights and he keeps The Trapster around because he loves the idea of playing the archetypical super villain much more than the idea of winning. The idea of having a recurring organization with a faithful lackey and trying to take on the world's smartest man and his team... it's just old school super villain fair. He doesn't hate Reed Richards for any particular reason. He just goes after him because an evil genius needs an opponent, and Reed is a worthy candidate. I think there's a lot you can do with that.

And, I also want to mention that I think if every villain was totally practical, it would make for less interesting and varied characters. In a lot of cases, the reasons villains do stupid things is because of quirks and character traits that make the character more interesting and multi faceted.

Not to say that The Wizard is the deepest character in the world, or that the stories he'd been in are the epitome of literature. Neither is true. I would even go to say that The Wizard is a pretty flat character. But I think he has plenty of potential to work with, that's my point. And I don't think making him more scary or less evil is the way to go in making him a better character.

 

[The Question]

Also, my original point wasn't even really about The Wizard per se, just that I think the idea that a villain must be either scary or sympathetic (and that the way to be sympathetic is to be morally ambiguous) is limited and flawed. Not only can a villain be effective without being especially intimidating to the audience, or the characters for that matter, but a character can be sympathetic while still making it clear that they're pretty thoroughly evil.

 

[The Overlord]

The Mayor wasn't scary. There was nothing about him that was outwardly frightening. In fact, he talked and acted a lot like a father from a 50s sitcom. I don't think a villain needs to be scary. Nor do I think a villain has to represent some greater evil other than being a very broken person.

It doesn't matter if the character is scary, the goal is scary. What's Wizard's goal, publicly humiliate the fantastic four? That's not scary, just stupid.

Plus the Mayor was at least quirky and affiable, does Wizard have traits besides being completely obnoxious?

As for The Wizard... sure, he hasn't been the best written character at times, but he's not in any way a lost cause. His motivations are serviceable enough, and honestly, the fact that he doesn't fight completely practically shows his layers more. He doesn't form Frightful Eights and he keeps The Trapster around because he loves the idea of playing the archetypical super villain much more than the idea of winning. The idea of having a recurring organization with a faithful lackey and trying to take on the world's smartest man and his team... it's just old school super villain fair. He doesn't hate Reed Richards for any particular reason. He just goes after him because an evil genius needs an opponent, and Reed is a worthy candidate. I think there's a lot you can do with that.

I think all of that is completely dull, you might as well say he is one dimesnional villain who comes off as a super villain parody, you haven't said one thing that makes him beyond a one dimensional walking cliche.

I mean why doesn't he become a street level villain or something, he would more sucessful there then trying to defeat a team of. Frankly Dr. Octopus and Baron Zemo seem like far more competent leaders then Wizard, who comes across as a very poor leader. They can at least count.

His motive makes no sense, his costume is awful, his plans are stupid, he's not compelling, on any level.

And, I also want to mention that I think if every villain was totally practical, it would make for less interesting and varied characters. In a lot of cases, the reasons villains do stupid things is because of quirks and character traits that make the character more interesting and multi faceted.

You can have a villin that is completely insane and the villain's insanity could make comeplling.

The problem is Wizard is supposed to be a genius, but is written as an idiot. That makes him lack any sort of menace and a movie villain needs menace.

In comic book movie, you adapt menacing villains, not the lame villains, I mean do you think Crazy Quilt will ever be in a Batman movie?

Not to say that The Wizard is the deepest character in the world, or that the stories he'd been in are the epitome of literature. Neither is true. I would even go to say that The Wizard is a pretty flat character. But I think he has plenty of potential to work with, that's my point. And I don't think making him more scary or less evil is the way to go in making him a better character.

So keeping as him as completely obnoxious and one dimensionsal character is better? Also what "potential" does Wizard have, the potential to be a completely uninteresting and annoying character? I guess Jar Jar Binks has potential too then. Frankly I don't care.

At this point I find Wizard is an annoying character and I don't think a character being annoying is not "multi-facted", annoying is not good, it makes me want to avoid any story with the character. Its like saying Superboy Prime is a good character because he is written in a manner that makes him annoying and pisses people off. The Wizard has been around for 40 years and he hasn't gotten any character development or anything, he is dull static character.

Also keep in mind we are talking about an FF movie here, that is what the thread is about, why is Wizard a good enough villain to be the Big Bad in an FF movie?

Not only would I take Dr. Doom over the Wizard or Galactus over the Wizard as the villain of an FF movie, I would take Puppet Master, Mad Thinker and Annihilus over Wizard, heck I would even take Mole Man over Wizard.

Also, my original point wasn't even really about The Wizard per se, just that I think the idea that a villain must be either scary or sympathetic (and that the way to be sympathetic is to be morally ambiguous) is limited and flawed. Not only can a villain be effective without being especially intimidating to the audience, or the characters for that matter, but a character can be sympathetic while still making it clear that they're pretty thoroughly evil.

Well you can make a character multi facted by giving them a personality beyond a annoying jerk. Sympathetic doesn't have be morally ambigious, even Kingpin who is pretty bad guy, has one or two sympathetic elements to him, like being devoted to his wife. What does Wizard have.

Plus we are talking about villains for a FF movie, that's what this thread is about. So we are talking about the Wizard, that's one of the topic of this thread, not the Mayor from Buffy.

Its true there several ways to make a villain compelling, it is also true comic books are filled with a flat dull villains that aren't compelling at all. The fact is a lot of villains were changed from their Silver Age and many of them for the better, its called character development, something Wizard lacks.

 

[The Question]

The thing is, he's not just a cliched villain. He is fully aware of how cliched he is and is intentionally acting out those cliches because it amuses him. I think that's pretty interesting.

You act like the character is damaged goods... which isn't the case. No character is damaged goods. His basic premise is actually kind of unique. It can be worked with. And you brought up Jar Jar Binks... there have been EU Star Wars comics where I actually found Jar Jar very entertaining. He sucked in the movies, but he worked in other contexts.

Also, you mentioned that The Wizard is supposed to be a genius, but acts like an idiot... that's not how intelligence works. The Wizard is a scientific genius. That in no way implies that he is a skilled tactician or is possessed of common sense or emotional stability. And the fact of the matter is, he's not simply an idiot. He chooses to play the part of the cartoonish super villain because it amuses him to do so. Is that impractical? Yes. But if every character were all completely practical there would be a lot less variation.

We've talked a lot before about this, and you seem to think that a character who hasn't been used well before is inherently bad, and has to be intelligent and effective to be a good character. At least, that's what I've perceived from our exchanged, correct me if I'm wrong. I just don't see that as the case. What makes a good character is A) How entertaining they are, and B) how well developed and layered their personality is, with B being more important in my mind. Now, The Wizard isn't a terrible character. He's got some quirks that have potential and can be worked with. And most importantly, his shortcomings aren't the end all be all of his existence. You mention character development, which is something The Wizard lacks... this is true, but he's never going to get it if people write him off as a bad character and never use him.

 

[The Question]

Also, please don't pick apart what I wrote into multiple quotes, I really don't like dealing with that.

 

[The Overlord]

The thing is, he's not just a cliched villain. He is fully aware of how cliched he is and is intentionally acting out those cliches because it amuses him. I think that's pretty interesting.

You act like the character is damaged goods... which isn't the case. No character is damaged goods. His basic premise is actually kind of unique. It can be worked with. And you brought up Jar Jar Binks... there have been EU Star Wars comics where I actually found Jar Jar very entertaining. He sucked in the movies, but he worked in other contexts.

Also, you mentioned that The Wizard is supposed to be a genius, but acts like an idiot... that's not how intelligence works. The Wizard is a scientific genius. That in no way implies that he is a skilled tactician or is possessed of common sense or emotional stability. And the fact of the matter is, he's not simply an idiot. He chooses to play the part of the cartoonish super villain because it amuses him to do so. Is that impractical? Yes. But if every character were all completely practical there would be a lot less variation.

We've talked a lot before about this, and you seem to think that a character who hasn't been used well before is inherently bad, and has to be intelligent and effective to be a good character. At least, that's what I've perceived from our exchanged, correct me if I'm wrong. I just don't see that as the case. What makes a good character is A) How entertaining they are, and B) how well developed and layered their personality is, with B being more important in my mind. Now, The Wizard isn't a terrible character. He's got some quirks that have potential and can be worked with. And most importantly, his shortcomings aren't the end all be all of his existence. You mention character development, which is something The Wizard lacks... this is true, but he's never going to get it if people write him off as a bad character and never use him.

Except the fact the Wizard doesn't seem to have any personality besides pretending to be a super villain cliche, how is that not a one dimensional character? Plus if he doesn't take this serious, why should I take him seriously?

Plus I don't think character who hasn't been used well before are not inherently bad, I just disagree with your idea that some of these characters don't need fixing, was Magneto perfect before Claremont took in a different direction, was Mr. Freeze prefect before Bruce Timm gave him his tragic back story? I don't see a problem with some of these one dimensional characters in a different direction, nothing ventured, nothing gained.

Here's the problem I don't find Wizard entertaining, I find him annoying and I find his quirks are annoying rather then interesting, I don't find multi faceted, I find him completely one dimensional and a cheap knock off Dr. Doom, also the fact that he constantly creates teams and yet is such a poor leader, makes lack of sort of menace, which is important for a villain and makes stories featuring him very dull Plus it seems like almost all stories with the Wizard the same, at least dr. Octopus does things besides forming Sinister Sixs Wizard seems use the exact same plan in 95% of his appearances in the last 30 years, how is that interesting?. I just don't like him and wouldn't want to read stories with him, considering the way he is now. I mean how is he even consistently written, at all, if he such an egomaniac, why is he working for the Hood, how come no references the apparent mental break down he had in FF# 574? There is nothing about this character that is solid. I think I would rather read another FF story where they fight Doom or go on a cosmic adventure, then fighting Wizard, considering what an annoying twirp Wizard comes across as.

Also you haven't answered by main question, why is Wizard important enough to be the Big Bad in a FF movie?

 

[DigificWriter]

I have a few thoughts on this issue:
1) it doesn't really matter how inherently cliche or not cliche a character is; what matters is the way that the character is utilized. Building off the example of The Mayor that The Question used, the character himself actually falls into a very cliche horror archetype, but it is the way that Joss Whedon wrote the character and Harry Groener portrayed him that made him transcend the cliche and cemented his place as one of the more memorable villains in the series' history.

2) The relative importance or non-importance of a character doesn't and shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not they can be utilized as the central villain - or one of several central villains - in a movie. A perfect example of this would be Rhas Al Ghul; as far as Batman villains go, he was by no means considered to be in the top 5, and yet Christopher Nolan and David Goyer were able to create a story for him that was both believable and allowed him to function as the central villain of Batman Begins. The same thing goes for The Scarecrow, who was also quite far down on the 'totem pole' in terms of his importance as one of Batman's adversaries, and yet was utilized in such a way in Begins that he was successfully able to carry that film as its primary driving antagonistic force given that Rhas Al Ghul didn't actually come into the film until very late.

3) If you were to actually sit down and take a close look at the themes explored by both of the first two FF movies, particularly Rise of the Silver Surfer, it's not that hard to come up with a storyline that could plausibly utilize characters like The Wizard and some of the other members of the Frightful Four. As I stated before, they can very easily be molded to fit the themes of escalation and the darker side of celebrity, both of which are themes that were somewhat explored in RotSS, and which could be easily built upon given the way in which that film ends. In terms of whether or not The Wizard is too similar to Doctor Doom, my personal feeling is that the question, despite being a very subjective one, is actually one that can be utilized as a positive, especially since my overall feeling is that any usage of the Frightful Four would need to be done so in conjunction with the ongoing threat posed by Doctor Doom due to the fact that he had been presented throughout both of the first two films as the Four's most prolific and omnipresent adversary (i.e. 'The Joker' to the Four's 'Batman').

 

[The Overlord]

I have a few thoughts on this issue:
1) it doesn't really matter how inherently cliche or not cliche a character is; what matters is the way that the character is utilized. Building off the example of The Mayor that The Question used, the character himself actually falls into a very cliche horror archetype, but it is the way that Joss Whedon wrote the character and Harry Groener portrayed him that made him transcend the cliche and cemented his place as one of the more memorable villains in the series' history.

And would Wizard be "used well" in a movie, considering he is completely uninteresting he is in the comics. Can you give an example of how he be used well?

Considering the Fox movies made Doom and Galactus into complete crap villains, how would they handle a completely D-lister like Wizard well. Fox can't even handle a good villain, how would they make a good story with a bad villain?

2) The relative importance or non-importance of a character doesn't and shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not they can be utilized as the central villain - or one of several central villains - in a movie. A perfect example of this would be Rhas Al Ghul; as far as Batman villains go, he was by no means considered to be in the top 5, and yet Christopher Nolan and David Goyer were able to create a story for him that was both believable and allowed him to function as the central villain of Batman Begins. The same thing goes for The Scarecrow, who was also quite far down on the 'totem pole' in terms of his importance as one of Batman's adversaries, and yet was utilized in such a way in Begins that he was successfully able to carry that film as its primary driving antagonistic force given that Rhas Al Ghul didn't actually come into the film until very late.

Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul are way better written chartacters then Wizard and amongst comic book fans they were well liked villains

Scarecrow makes characters face their worst fears, Ra's Al Ghul is an well intentioned extremist who tries to convince Batman to switch sides, what's wizard, an annoying jerk who flies?

Scarecrow and Ra's Al Ghul can for example make a top 100 villain list, well wizard will not: http://comics.ign.com/top-100-villains/100.html

3) If you were to actually sit down and take a close look at the themes explored by both of the first two FF movies, particularly Rise of the Silver Surfer, it's not that hard to come up with a storyline that could plausibly utilize characters like The Wizard and some of the other members of the Frightful Four. As I stated before, they can very easily be molded to fit the themes of escalation and the darker side of celebrity, both of which are themes that were somewhat explored in RotSS, and which could be easily built upon given the way in which that film ends. In terms of whether or not The Wizard is too similar to Doctor Doom, my personal feeling is that the question, despite being a very subjective one, is actually one that can be utilized as a positive, especially since my overall feeling is that any usage of the Frightful Four would need to be done so in conjunction with the ongoing threat posed by Doctor Doom due to the fact that he had been presented throughout both of the first two films as the Four's most prolific and omnipresent adversary (i.e. 'The Joker' to the Four's 'Batman').

Those Fox movies were never good, they didn't do well and the critics didn't like them and I saw little worth in them, especially compared the other comic book movie series out there, most of which are superior.

I mean we never got the real Doom in an FF movie, the Fox movies we got see a lame generic slimy corporate snake who has none of the interesting qualities the comic book Doom had, so that's enough of a reason to reboot the FF films.

Frankly trying to continue a failing movie series, with D-list villains like Wizard, would be a really bad move.

 

[bubbadoom]

The Kirby Wizard's costume is great and would translate well on screen.

 

[DigificWriter]

And would Wizard be "used well" in a movie, considering he is completely uninteresting he is in the comics. Can you give an example of how he be used well?

Considering the Fox movies made Doom and Galactus into complete crap villains, how would they handle a completely D-lister like Wizard well. Fox can't even handle a good villain, how would they make a good story with a bad villain?

I've already more or less answered that question, but I'll re-iterate what I've been saying: the best way to make use of The Wizard is to make him someone who views himself as the intellectual rival of Reed Richards and, by extension, a recurring and legitimate foil for/threat to the Fantastic Four, and to legitimize that view of himself by having him have a major success against them early on.

Those Fox movies were never good, they didn't do well and the critics didn't like them and I saw little worth in them, especially compared the other comic book movie series out there, most of which are superior.

I mean we never got the real Doom in an FF movie, the Fox movies we got see a lame generic slimy corporate snake who has none of the interesting qualities the comic book Doom had, so that's enough of a reason to reboot the FF films.

Frankly trying to continue a failing movie series, with D-list villains like Wizard, would be a really bad move.

Three things on this point:
1) You seem to be putting forth the statements that 'the FF films themselves were bad' and 'Doom and Galactus were poorly realized' as indisputable facts, when they aren't. They're opinions, and, as evidenced by myself, they are certainly not universally held, even though they might be the 'majority opinion'.

2) If you feel that strongly about how bad the existing FF films were, why are you even participating in this thread when I made it clear from the outset that this was going to be a discussion about hypothetical sequels to said films?

3) If we get right down to the nitty-gritty, the FF have one of the weakest 'rogues galleries' of any of the Marvel heroes whose adventures have been translated to the big screen, but that doesn't automatically mean that there are not interesting and compelling things that could be done with some of said villains. It's a matter of execution, not substance.

 

[GL1]

But I never said a villain has to be sympathetic, I merely said its one way to make a character more multi dimensional.

When I said Wizard is not scary, that means something important, it means he lacks presence and menace and frankly is not a compelling villain at all.

I can find tons of villains scary on different levels, William Stryker from X-2 was scary, not because he had powers or was physically impressive, but because he represented something, fanatical hatred, the type of hatred of that causes wars and genocides. Not sympathetic at all, but still compelling.

How is Wizard compelling, what evil does he represent? Annoying, smug *****e bags?

Okay, I'll bite.

I don't think a character being scary already prevents them from becoming scary in an adaptation, and I don't think scary, so much, is the point rather than being a 'threat' to add tension to a story, which is certainly an antagonists' job.

I also think Stryker was the exact kind of overused sympathetic that we're talking about. 'Wife killed by enemies' is pretty high up on the sympathetic cliche list.

If anything, a character who surprises the fans with their potency has the potential to be more scary than a character who we already know can be defeated in their scariness. We've seen badass terrifying Doom get his behind handed to him. We've not seen that same with a badass terrifying Wizard.

To me, I don't think him not being very compelling is relevant. If he has layers, he can be made compelling. And if he lacks layers, they can be added. I don't believe there are any worthless characters, and I don't believe that any character with 30+ years of history can't be made awesome with a writer that cares about the character.

 

[bubbadoom]

The FF rogues gallery may be "weak" [and I do not think it is] but is it any worse than Iron Man's? Characters like the Freak, Whiplash, the Unicorn, and Iron Man "rehashes" like Crimson Dynamo, Titanium Man, and Iron Monger are all over that book - yet Marvel has made on GREAT movie with him, and from the looks of things, part two will be good too.

Like I mentioned before, IF Marvel can take a character like Whiplash and turn him into something as cool looking as they have done; then it is POSSIBLE to do the same with most any villain. Sure, you might have to expand the character beyond what has been presented in the books, but what's wrong with that [don't ask how, that's what those high paid movie writers are for], but why toss out what could be a good character/team of villains.

Some think the Wizard looks "lame" - I do not. His body armor/anti gravity powers/wonder gloves would certainly make a more dynamic movie villain the what we have gotten so far out of Dr. Doom. I guess you just have to approach these characters like Marvel Studios is doing [giving them some thought and care in their presentation] and not like Fox has done with the FF thus far.

As for why use these characters, well I for one would not like to see the FF become so one note as the X-Men became - with Magneto ALL the time. At least the one thing the Bat Man and Spider-Man movies have gotten right was a variety of villains.

 

[The Overlord]

Okay, I'll bite.

I don't think a character being scary already prevents them from becoming scary in an adaptation, and I don't think scary, so much, is the point rather than being a 'threat' to add tension to a story, which is certainly an antagonists' job.

But a villain should have menace, something Wizard lacks.

I also think Stryker was the exact kind of overused sympathetic that we're talking about. 'Wife killed by enemies' is pretty high up on the sympathetic cliche list.

Just because someone has a motive for being evil, instead of being evil for no reason, does not make them sympathetic. When Stryker lobotomized his own son and tried to commit genocide, he crossed the Moral Event Horizon line and one cannot be sympathetic after crossing that line.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon

Having a valid motive and being sympathetic are two different things.

If anything, a character who surprises the fans with their potency has the potential to be more scary than a character who we already know can be defeated in their scariness. We've seen badass terrifying Doom get his behind handed to him. We've not seen that same with a badass terrifying Wizard.

To me, I don't think him not being very compelling is relevant. If he has layers, he can be made compelling. And if he lacks layers, they can be added. I don't believe there are any worthless characters, and I don't believe that any character with 30+ years of history can't be made awesome with a writer that cares about the character.

That doesn't mean he is a good choice for being the Big Bad of an FF movie. I don't see how Wizard and the Frightful Four can carry a whole movie. frankly I don't see how Trapster is a believable threat to any member of the FF for example. We haven't gotten a proper version of Dr. Doom, so replacing with a one dimensional character is a bit of a disappointment. The fact is there are several FF villains, Mad Thinker, Puppet Master, Annihilus are better able to carry a movie. Heck the Ultimate Frightful Four are better villains then the 616 Frightful four.

You have to change Wizard and the Frightful four a lot to make them work movie and heck I don't think Trapster works at all as an FF villain the comics, how would he present a threat in a movie?

 

[DigificWriter]

Overlord, you're still looking at the substance of things. To me - someone who is admittedly woefully ignorant when it comes to a majority of the FF's rogues gallery despite considering myself to be a fan of the team and the concept behind it - the actual membership of the Frightful Four isn't what's important in adapting them to the screen; what IS important is the thematic element(s) that they could represent. You're right that Trapster isn't really a character that could be translated from page to screen without seeming laughable (the argument could be made that he's already laughable on the page), but, if you're looking at the entire history of the Frightful Four, he isn't the only character who could be plugged into the fourth spot in the group. Although I presented a version of the group that included Quicksand and Red Ghost earlier in the thread, I've been doing some more thinking, and actually think Absorbing Man might be a better fit, particularly if you used Titania, as doing so would be a way to make audiences sympathize and/or connect with the Frightful Four, particularly if you had a relationship between Titania and Absorbing Man develop over the course of the story, particularly since it could echo the relationship between Reed and Sue.

 

[The Overlord]

Overlord, you're still looking at the substance of things. To me - someone who is admittedly woefully ignorant when it comes to a majority of the FF's rogues gallery despite considering myself to be a fan of the team and the concept behind it - the actual membership of the Frightful Four isn't what's important in adapting them to the screen; what IS important is the thematic element(s) that they could represent. You're right that Trapster isn't really a character that could be translated from page to screen without seeming laughable (the argument could be made that he's already laughable on the page), but, if you're looking at the entire history of the Frightful Four, he isn't the only character who could be plugged into the fourth spot in the group. Although I presented a version of the group that included Quicksand and Red Ghost earlier in the thread, I've been doing some more thinking, and actually think Absorbing Man might be a better fit, particularly if you used Titania, as doing so would be a way to make audiences sympathize and/or connect with the Frightful Four, particularly if you had a relationship between Titania and Absorbing Man develop over the course of the story, particularly since it could echo the relationship between Reed and Sue.

Here's the problem, Fox likely doesn't have the rights to Absorbing Man or Titania, Marvel does and Marvel doesn't like Fox, so they won't give them the rights and unless Quicksand is an FF character, they don't have the rights to her either. So you end up with Trapster instead and I don't think people will impressed with action scenes that centered around a glue gun.


The problem with the Frightful four is simple, the Fantastic Four is family of cosmic adventurers, the frightful four is wizard and some sad collection of street level thugs, they aren't family, so they come across as a 3rd rate super villain group rather then an evil version of the Fantastic Four and since they. Without Absorbing Man and Titania how you can establish the frightful Four as a dark mirror of the Fantastic Four at all. The Fantastic Four should go on grand and epic adventures, the frightful four seem far too mundane and pedestrian to really fit in with the Fantastic Four's mythos.

 

[DigificWriter]

^ First off, why wouldn't Fox have had the rights to use Titania? If Marvel gave them full rights and access to the entirety of the FF's rogues gallery - and I see no reason why they would not have - they would have the right to use Titania because she was at one point an official part of the Frightful Four, and that group is, I believe, primarily a part of the FF's rogues gallery.

Second, where did you get this idea that Marvel and Fox hate/hated each other? Need I remind you that Marvel produced both FF films, and Stan Lee had a cameo appearance in both, and, I believe, appeared in the DVD extras for both as well. Why would these things have happened if Marvel and Fox did not have an amicable working relationship?

Third, even if Fox didn't have the rights to use Absorbing Man, given that he wasn't actually an official part of the Frightful Four, there are other official members of the group to which they would likely have the rights and who could be used in place of Trapster, so your statement that Trapster would automatically have to be used can in no way be proven.

 

[Chris Wallace]

 

[FaT_tONle]

Regarding rights to certain characters, here was Kevin Feige:

Well, Fox has mutants and Sony/Universal…Universal doesn’t have anything. Sony’s got Spidey and Ghostrider, and those family of characters. And Fox has X-Men and Fantastic Four and Daredevil and those family of characters. But any mutants in particular? Mutants are X-Men.

http://www.collider.com/2010/04/26/...future-movies-the-marvel-movie-timeline-more/

Hence Namor can still show up in either Marvel or most likely Fox, since Universal has basically emptied out their Marvel cache. He says family of characters, so I do think Namor would fall into FF, hence will not be an Invader or be featured in Avengers.

And as far as taking back rights of certain properties:

Feige: You know all the contracts are different and they’re all very specific. So for the time being the projects within those other studios are licensed films I think will be there for awhile.

It's not looking good...

 

[Raiden]

I really hope Fox won't get the opporunity to reboot F4, because I sincerely believe they will screw it up again like the previous two F4 movies, and I also believe that the GA will not accept another F4 movie since the last one is still fresh on their mind. Dr. Doom will again be wasted. Once this reboot tanks and the rights finally return to Marvel, the property will be tarnished and Marvel will not be able to use it for many years, so the chance of us seeing a F4 movie done right may never come.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Best Disney can do is probably file a law suit as soon as the next one goes into production claiming some loophole or fine print in the contract that effectively terminates Fox's control of the property(ies). That way at least Marvel could negotiate a heftier chunk of the BO, maybe to a point where Fox kills the production. They can't sit and not take any kind of action. It's ridiculous that they haven't moved on DD yet.

 

[Kevin Roegele]

You know, it's easy to brush aside the two Fantastic Four movies when you haven't seen them in a long time, but I just caught Rise of the Silver Surfer on TV the other day and actually found myself really enjoying it. It made me remember that, in a lot of ways, these movies weren't too bad.

They nailed the family dynamic and the Fantastic Four themselves. I'd even say that the Silver Surfer himself was absolutely perfect; the scenes he featured in felt epic. What really brings the films down is their failure at adapting the villains. Doctor Doom and Galactus are both some of the most powerful, interesting villains that Stan Lee and Jack Kirby ever created and the filmmakers completely dropped the ball on both of them.

As far as what the plot should have been for the third movie - even though I remember them talking a lot about the Black Panther and Wakanda, it seems obvious to me that the right approach would've been to show the invasion of the Skrulls. Either that, or they could go into the Negative Zone and battle Annihilus. The Fantastic Four are always at their best in the more cosmic, "out there" stories anyway.

I agree that the two movies are really not bad at all. The second tells the Surfer's story very well, and the Extended Edition of the first movie is a significant improvement.

But the point is, the FF comics - the Lee and Kirby ones - are incredible masterpieces of soaring imagination and breathless adventure. They just throw one jaw-dropping concept at you after another, and central to this is four wonderful, strong characters flying thru all the mayhem and action.

Compared to the Lee/Kirby comics, the movies are tepid, limp, slow-motion recreations.

A Fantastic Four movie should be Indiana Jones does Star Wars in the style of Back to the Future. It needs to be made by, or in the spirit of, Spielberg and Zemekis.

 

[Maximillian]

I have some ideas on how to improve it. But since Fox is behind it, considering their track record, it's easy to get too jaded to even mention anything. Marvel Studios would've done justice to this reboot.