I found this interesting tit bit on the x-men boards

[Kelly]

hey guys check out this interesting article at www.fantastic411.com

We all complain that the movie wasn't true to comic book but it was for the MOST part.

The movie was made or should i say inspired from FF#1 comic book.









Back to Columns
Previous Article - TheSaintofKillers - Book Review
Source - LigtninStrykez
Date - June 15, 2005
Visions: Kirby Vs. Story
An Indepth Examination
By LigtninStrykez
Welcome to Visions: Kirby Vs. Story, a discussion designed to spotlight the two men who are responsible for the phenomenon coming July 8th: namely, Jack Kirby and Tim Story. The intention of this thread is to enlighten Fantastic Four readers of the greatness that was original artist Jack Kirby, and seeing how the vision he founded in 1961 has been preserved through 2005. It is hoped that newcomers will be educated on the heritage of FF, while us old-timers are reminded of why we fell in love with this comic in the first place.

While some have reservations about changes made to the origin of the Fantastic Four and Dr. Doom, it is important that we don't overlook the faithful rendering of many classic FF moments throughout the film. Today is March 14th, 2005, and already we have plenty of evidence that film director Tim Story and Co. are paying respect to one of Marvel's greatest legends--Jack Kirby--and I'm sure more is to come.

Let's consider some examples of how Kirby's vision and Tim's views on this film are essentially one and the same. I have scanned in excerpts from FF #1 as well as some other early issues, and compared them to the live action development scheduled for release on July 8th. There will be more additions as more information is released. And of course, I encourage any of our resident FF historians i.e. Iron Maiden, Captain Stacey, Vartha, Franklin Richards, Willie Lumpkin etc., to chime in and shed even more light on this examination.

PART I
RAMMING SPEED

As you can see, from the very first few panels of FF#1, the Thing was ramming into oncoming vehicles. From what we can tell, he is responding to an emergency in the 2005 live action film, much as he is in the 1961 comic origin.
THE REAL 'TRAILER'

Also lifted directly from FF #1, Fantastic Four will feature a scene of the Human Torch trying to outfly a missile homing in on his heat trail. I appreciate how the angles shown in the teaser trailer are nearly identical to the drawings that Kirby designed 40-plus years ago.
THROWING COUCHES...AND CARS

The Thing (AKA Ben Grimm) has incredible superstrength. While moviegoing audiences today may be jaded by SFX involving car-throwing, as you can see Kirby already did it first in 1961. It's great seeing how Tim is utilizing this simple, yet effective way to clearing the path of villians.

PART II
CHECK THE LIPS!

One of the most tired-a$$ arguements of the year has revolved around The Thing's look: His unibrow, his size, his coloring, et al. For the record, THE THING IS ONLY SIX FEET TALL, according to Marvel.com. And as you can see from the 1961's rendering, they have indeed gone for his original transformation--not the monstrous designs we see in current comics. These have strayed a great deal from Kirby's original vision, but it's encouraging to see that Tim is trying to honor it. When you look at the live action photo, it's almost as if it was literally lifted from the 1961 page. Check out the protruding jagged bottom lip, and shaded eyes, and the whole melancholy expression on this guy's face. Talk about sticking to the source material...
GREAT BALL OF FIRE

Another wack arguement this year was about the Human Torch's look in the teaser. For some reason, certain fans thought that the Torch should be clearly defined at all times, and that the billowing flames surrounding his flight in the teaser trailer obscured him from view. After examining the source material you can see now why Tim chose this direction. In the early days of FF, Kirby drew the Torch as a pillar of fire. It wasn't until later issues that a more defined look would come for Johnny, as we'll see below. But again, another example of how Kirby and Story's visions are aligned.
TWO SNAPS UP...

Flame on! Taken straight from the 1961 journal, Johnny apparently will be snapping his fingers to flame in the 2005 movie adaption. Another nice touch...and a cookie for us longtime fans.
RED HOT

The SFX on this new film are apparently going to be topnotch. Based on Kirby's "red-hot look" given to The Torch in the comic's early days, Tim & Co. will obviously give Chris Evan's character varying degrees of hotness...including supernova. And yes, the Human Torch will fly and fully flame on.
THAT'S A WRAP
Depending on how impetuous Johnny can be, or the intensity of the situation at hand, one of Reed's most effective ways to controlling the monstrous Ben Grimm, is to literally wrap him up. According to the story boards, this is going to make for some really interesting moments in cinematic history, as we've never seen an elongating live action character do the unthinkable as shown above in 1961 or 2005.
OTHER KIRBYESQUE NODS
IN THE UPCOMING FILM:

• Alicia Masters--a blind sculptor that falls in love with The Thing (portrayed by up-and-coming actress Kerry Washington)
• The Baxter Building--headquarters for the Fantastic Four
• The Yancy Street Gang--a gang that constantly harrassed The Thing
• Cameos from Willie Lumpkin--the Baxter Building's Mailman (portrayed by Stan Lee)
• Collins--the Baxter Building's landlord
• The Fantasticar--We'll apparently get a glimpse of it
• NO SECRET IDENTITIES: The FF will enjoy the celebrity aspect as shown in the comics
• Certain locations in the storyline are actually named after Kirby--literrally! Check these links out for additonal photos!

Kirby Gallery
Kirby Gasoline Station
MY TAKE ON FF #1 VS. STORY'S FILM:
I've been reading the Fantastic Four comics for nearly 25 years. When I first started reading details about the 2005 film, I was impressed by the obvious Kirby nuances sewn throughout this production. This builds faith in me that this film, despite certain liberties taken, may very well be the most faithful of all Marvel films released to date. From the FF trailer and leaked storyboard sketches alone, we can see that much of Fantastic Four Issue #1and other early issues have been clearly lifted for inspiration.
It's ironic that these filmmakers would use FF #1 as their basis for their film--esp. considering the story has been retold throughout the years. Taken out of context, and compared to the comic book art of today FF #1 fares somewhat poorly. After all, the artwork is kinda crude, and the story is very cheesy and simple. Yet despite these shortcomings, Fantastic Four #1 is a brilliant masterpiece that has stood the test of time. In fact, it is one of the three most important comic books ever published behind Funnies On Parade released in 1933 and Action Comics which introduced Superman in 1938. Fantastic Four broke the mode, creating a radical split from the comics that preceded it.
What makes FF#1 so "tite"? Well, before Fantastic Four, a superhero's individuality was simply defined by his occupation. But the Fantastic Four were different: Reed, Susan, Johnny and Ben had personalities, idiosyncrasies, dialogue patterns, unique back stories and a ton of personal conflict. They proved that Superheroes were human, and if Tim Story can capture that element like we are hoping, millions of new heads will be turned on to the FF.

This was directly taken from a thread off of this forum....it was done by Lightnin last year....and they used it on that site...

Lightnin made some wonderful threads....too bad we may not see this type of thing the next go around.....I miss those threads...

 

[Carp Man]

Yea, it was more faithful then people gave it credit for. Being a fan of the early issues I saw it allover the movie. Great job by Story. The visuals, and the felling of the original we're all there. Only those who arn't famillar with the original don't understand. Why I had goose bumps every time I saw it. It captured the imagry, and spirit of the FF, dispite it not being a critical suscess. Dispite the dialog. Dispite Doom being wroung in some respects. It capatured what it needed to capture. And brought it to life.

 

[Kelly]

You can't throw out the bad "dialogue"...the lack of "exposition"...the lack of visuals that showed a vision....a few panels from the comic book does not make it a great visionary adaptation of the comic to movie....it was an entertaining movie imo, but to say that it was a great faithful adaptation of the comic in its early years is wrong....the only thing it had going for it in that respect is the fact that the majority of the people in the movie theatre did not know anything about the early years of F4 or recent years for that matter....they were simply a regular movie going audience that it seems for the most part enjoyed the movie....

This thread was done BEFORE the movie came out using a few pics we had....it was not done to show how faithful the movie was once we saw the entire thing....lets be sure and make that clear at this point.....it was an awesome thread to lead up to the movie....not a thread to show how faithful "THE MOVIE" was....

Fun, entertaining movie....lets not go much further than that....

 

[Carp Man]

You can't throw out the bad "dialogue"...the lack of "exposition"...the lack of visuals that showed a vision....a few panels from the comic book does not make it a great visionary adaptation of the comic to movie....it was an entertaining movie imo, but to say that it was a great faithful adaptation of the comic in its early years is wrong....the only thing it had going for it in that respect is the fact that the majority of the people in the movie theatre did not know anything about the early years of F4 or recent years for that matter....they were simply a regular movie going audience that it seems for the most part enjoyed the movie....

This thread was done BEFORE the movie came out using a few pics we had....it was not done to show how faithful the movie was once we saw the entire thing....lets be sure and make that clear at this point.....it was an awesome thread to lead up to the movie....not a thread to show how faithful "THE MOVIE" was....

Fun, entertaining movie....lets not go much further than that....

You can think what u want about it, I'll think what I want. You think it was a complete failure, well thats cool. Me I don't throw the baby out with the bath water because it was flawed. I look at the entire movie as a whole, and as a whole it worked for me, and still does.And I know the sequel will as well. And I'll defend it against anyone who thinks different. Hardcore fanatic means just that.

 

[Kelly]

You can think what u want about it, I'll think what I want. You think it was a complete failure, well thats cool. Me I don't throw the baby out with the bath water because it was flawed. I look at the entire movie as a whole, and as a whole it worked for me, and still does.And I know the sequel will as well. And I'll defend it against anyone who thinks different. Hardcore fanatic means just that.

Excuse me? where did I say it was a complete failure.....damn, do you even read the posts that you reply to......

did you miss this line?

it was an entertaining movie imo

did you miss this line as well?

Fun, entertaining movie....lets not go much further than that....

 

[Carp Man]

Excuse me? where did I say it was a complete failure.....damn, do you even read the posts that you reply to......

did you miss this line?

did you miss this line as well?

My dog could write a fun, entertaining movie. That's not the point. Fun and entertaining is all you look at, none of the substance. The substance, the essence of the FF was there. IM NY UNHUMBLE, BIASED OPINION. I look at the whole movie, not nit pick it to death. Sure it had flaws, but those flaws did not take away from the whole movie. Like I said, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The movie was great AS A WHOLE. And the sequel will be better.

 

[Kelly]

My dog could write a fun, entertaining movie. That's not the point. Fun and entertaining is all you look at, none of the substance. The substance, the essence of the FF was there. IM NY UNHUMBLE, BIASED OPINION. I look at the whole movie, not nit pick it to death. Sure it had flaws, but those flaws did not take away from the whole movie. Like I said, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The movie was great. And the sequel will be better.

*shakes head*....wow....so out of my post you read that I nit-picked the movie to death, found a fun, entertaining movie with no substance...AND that I threw the baby out with the bathwater....????

its not even worth the time discussing with you....the only thing you got out of my entire post was "fun entertainment"....

*sighs* nevermind....

 

[Hunter Rider]

My dog could write a fun, entertaining movie. That's not the point. Fun and entertaining is all you look at, none of the substance. The substance, the essence of the FF was there. IM NY UNHUMBLE, BIASED OPINION. I look at the whole movie, not nit pick it to death. Sure it had flaws, but those flaws did not take away from the whole movie. Like I said, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. The movie was great AS A WHOLE. And the sequel will be better.

Fishy you on one of those days ?

 

[Carp Man]

Fishy you on one of those days ?

LOL. No. Just trying to educate. 1st movie Fun ? Yep. Entertaining ? Yep. Thing suit need working on ? Neck down ? yep. Neck up ? Nope. Better dialog for sequel ? Yep. Doom need to be powered way down ? Yep. More action ? Yep. Better action ? Yep. Reed need to lossen up ? Yep. Drop "Sue is a Geneticist" ? Yep. More mommy moments from Sue ? Yep. More tension between Johnny and Ben ? Yep. But dispite all that, the movie worked for me. Still gets an 10/10 dispite all that.

 

[Hunter Rider]

LOL. No. Just trying to educate. 1st movie Fun ? Yep. Entertaining ? Yep. Thing suit need working on ? Neck down ? yep. Neck up ? Nope. Better dialog for sequel ? Yep. Doom need to be powered way down ? Yep. More action ? Yep. Better action ? Yep. Reed need to lossen up ? Yep. Drop "Sue is a Geneticist" ? Yep. More mommy moments from Sue ? Yep. More tension between Johnny and Ben ? Yep. But dispite all that, the movie worked for me. Still gets an 10/10 dispite all that.

.....LMAO

they won't change Sue's character in the sequel

 

[Carp Man]

.....LMAO

they won't change Sue's character in the sequel

That was the most glaring fault I had with the movie. Stuck out like a sore thumb. I never bought Sue was a genetic scientist, let alone the head of genetic research. Then they tried putting black rimmed glasses on her, to give her the appearence of being brainy, like Reed. What a joke. They need to lose that in the sequel, and I believe they will. At least I'm keeping my fingers crossed

 

[Hunter Rider]

That was the most glaring fault I had with the movie. Stuck out like a sore thumb. I never bought Sue was a genetic scientist, let alone the head of genetic research. Then they tried putting black rimmed glasses on her, to give her the appearence of being brainy, like Reed. What a joke. They need to lose that in the sequel, and I believe they will. At least I'm keeping my fingers crossed

How can they change that ? the charatcer is now a set

 

[Kelly]

That was the most glaring fault I had with the movie. Stuck out like a sore thumb. I never bought Sue was a genetic scientist, let alone the head of genetic research. Then they tried putting black rimmed glasses on her, to give her the appearence of being brainy, like Reed. What a joke. They need to lose that in the sequel, and I believe they will. At least I'm keeping my fingers crossed

No, they simply need to write Sue some exposition that would show she knows what she is talking about....to only look at what you saw as the problem shows dear Carpy that you know nothing about substance...substance comes from exposition in the dialogue...all you saw was the outward appearance, you saw nothing of what was missing on the inside, in the dialogue, in the lack of filling out the characters further than just the outward appearance.....which takes my back to my first post....and thank you for expounding on what I said....appreciate that....

Taking out the fact that she is a scientist in the first one, would just be stupid.....just write some decent dialogue that shows she knows what she's talking about....geeezus....appearance? thats all you saw as the problem....damn that is sad...

 

[Carp Man]

How can they change that ? the charatcer is now a set

I see by your avitar that your a wrestling fan. Me too. I go back to Bruno Sanmartino. They change the story line all the time. Story, and the writers should take a lesson from that. It's not to late to change the "Sue is brainy" plot. They just don't mention it, and it will be forgotten.

 

[Carp Man]

No, they simply need to write Sue some exposition that would show she knows what she is talking about....to only look at what you saw as the problem shows dear Carpy that you know nothing about substance...substance comes from exposition in the dialogue...all you saw was the outward appearance, you saw nothing of what was missing on the inside, in the dialogue, in the lack of filling out the characters further than just the outward appearance.....which takes my back to my first post....and thank you for expounding on what I said....appreciate that....

Taking out the fact that she is a scientist in the first one, would just be stupid.....just write some decent dialogue that shows she knows what she's talking about....geeezus....appearance? thats all you saw as the problem....damn that is sad...

All I could judge on was appearence. They need to expand it or drop it, and I think dropping it is best. They may just screw it up worst.

 

[Kelly]

I see by your avitar that your a wrestling fan. Me too. I go back to Bruno Sanmartino. They change the story line all the time. Story, and the writers should take a lesson from that. It's not to late to change the "Sue is brainy" plot. They just don't mention it, and it will be forgotten.

Well for you, making her not so brainy would help you understand her character better thats true...she'd be right up your alley....

 

[Hunter Rider]

I see by your avitar that your a wrestling fan. Me too. I go back to Bruno Sanmartino. They change the story line all the time. Story, and the writers should take a lesson from that. It's not to late to change the "Sue is brainy" plot. They just don't mention it, and it will be forgotten.

I wouldn't use pro wrestling writing as a good example of what should be done with a movie franchise

 

[Carp Man]

Well for you, making her not so brainy would help you understand her character better thats true...she'd be right up your alley....

Excuse you ? My wife was a teacher for 31 years. I'm not threatened by smart or intimidated. For Sue, It's just wroung. She's a mommy, she's smart in a mommy kind of way. She helps keep the peace between Johnny, and Ben. And assist the other 3 with her powers. That's Sue Storm. She's not a female Reed Richards.

 

[Kelly]

Excuse you ? My wife was a teacher for 31 years. I'm not threatened by smart or intimidated. For Sue, It's just wroung. She's a mommy, she's smart in a mommy kind of way. She helps keep the peace between Johnny, and Ben. And assist the other 3 with her powers. That's Sue Storm. She's not a female Reed Richards.

LMAO....it just gets better and better from you carpy....

I did a post on the intelligence of Sue quite a while ago on the Sue thread...in the recent comics Sue is far from your "bathroom sink, version of Sue"...there is alot of room between a "Scientist Sue of the UFF" and "your 1960's barefoot in the kitchen Sue"....she's come a long way baby....this is the 21st Century Carpy, come join us.

BTW the panels shown on the post below are NOT FROM the UFF series.......she can move away from being a scientist in title, without losing her intelligence in the proces....

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5629480&postcount=2094

 

[Carp Man]

LMAO....it just gets better and better from you carpy....

I did a post on the intelligence of Sue quite a while ago on the Sue thread...in the recent comics Sue is far from your "bathroom sink, version of Sue"...there is alot of room between a "Scientist Sue of the UFF" and "your 1960's barefoot in the kitchen Sue"....she's come a long way baby....this is the 21st Century Carpy, come join us.

BTW the panels shown on the post below are NOT FROM the UFF series.......she can move away from being a scientist in title, without losing her intelligence in the proces....

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5629480&postcount=2094

Well you know. You have to keep up with the times. And I can fully understand why they would make her like She Hulk, instead of like June Cleaver. The UFF have strayed far away from the original to keep up with the times, and todays kids. And I don't have a problem with that. But my Sue Storm I remember as a kid, is not the Sue Storm of today. Those days are long gone. But I still retain that image of Sue Storm. One thing about the 94 FF movie, they keep the charactors as true to their origin as possible. They didn't give into the new FF. Corman wasn't trying to be politicaly correct.

 

[Kelly]

Well you know. You have to keep up with the times. And I can fully understand why they would make her like She Hulk, instead of like June Cleaver. The UFF have strayed far away from the original to keep up with the times, and todays kids. And I don't have a problem with that. But my Sue Storm I remember as a kid, is not the Sue Storm of today. Those days are long gone. But I still retain that image of Sue Storm. One thing about the 94 FF movie, they keep the charactors as true to their origin as possible. They didn't give into the new FF. Corman wasn't trying to be politicaly correct.

And I fully understand why you hang on to the past...many do.....ummmm again, those panels were not from UFF....and the Corman film was a joke....imho

I think they can definitely find a happy medium, which is what the panels were meant to show....she doesn't have to "she hulk"???? but simply a 21st Century woman in that she is confident, smart (not necessarily Reed like) but intelligent....if she leaves behind her days as a scientist, I see no problem with that....but she doesn't have to leave her brain behind with the title.

 

[Carp Man]

And I fully understand why you hang on to the past...many do.....ummmm again, those panels were not from UFF....and the Corman film was a joke....imho

I think they can definitely find a happy medium, which is what the panels were meant to show....she doesn't have to "she hulk"???? but simply a 21st Century woman in that she is confident, smart (not necessarily Reed like) but intelligent....if she leaves behind her days as a scientist, I see no problem with that....but she doesn't have to leave her brain behind with the title.

The Corman film was a joke. It was awfule. But it remained faithful to the orignal as much as it could. As for Sue, I have no problem with her being a smart, intelectual, strong figure. She was all that in the early comics. The Ultimate Sue, is not Sue Storm to me. Jessica did an excelent job, except she's not a scientist.Now if she walks away from it in the sequel, that will be ok, but please somehow, someway, leave it behind. It would have worked if it was done right, but it wasn't, and it is time to end it.

 

[Kelly]

The MK issues and the regs have used Sue's intelligents very well as the panels I showed have shown....the one panel that is not showing, (i'll work on that later) is Sue talking to an interviewer asking how it feels to live with the world's smartest man....she says you can't live with someone this long and some of that intelligents not rub off......as for leaving the scientist behind...she can walk out of the job if need be...(I still happen to think with a competent writer she can stay)....but if she walks out, you don't all of the sudden have her saying....I'm not a scientist anymore, she can still help Reed out in the lab, etc.......she doesn't have to be his equal in intelligents, but she does need to be his equal as a partner in life, and that includes respect of her intelligence on his part.....Sue is not a "barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen type of woman"....and if they write her that way....(which I happen to think they never will) then they alienated a very large portion of their audience....and Jessica, because she'll speak up at that point....Sue is beautiful, intelligent, strong minded, loving, maternal, sisterly, but when her family is in danger, kick ass......and thats how she should be written.....in my humble opinion....

done with this discussion....

 

[Hunter Rider]

The MK issues and the regs have used Sue's intelligents very well as the panels I showed have shown....the one panel that is not showing, (i'll work on that later) is Sue talking to an interviewer asking how it feels to live with the world's smartest man....she says you can't live with someone this long and some of that intelligents not rub off......as for leaving the scientist behind...she can walk out of the job if need be...(I still happen to think with a competent writer she can stay)....but if she walks out, you don't all of the sudden have her saying....I'm not a scientist anymore, she can still help Reed out in the lab, etc.......she doesn't have to be his equal in intelligents, but she does need to be his equal as a partner in life, and that includes respect of her intelligence on his part.....Sue is not a "barefoot, pregnant, in the kitchen type of woman"....and if they write her that way....(which I happen to think they never will) then they alienated a very large portion of their audience....and Jessica, because she'll speak up at that point....Sue is beautiful, intelligent, strong minded, loving, maternal, sisterly, but when her family is in danger, kick ass......and thats how she should be written.....in my humble opinion....

done with this discussion....

Co-Sign i agree 100%