"It's a prequel" is now the newest bit of backpedaling/damage control...

[The Guard]

More or less what they say in the article the thread's been referencing.

Is this just more "fan interpretation"?

Is there a link to the article?

 

[lordofthenerds]

You also said that no one misused the term regarding Batman Begins. This is also untrue. Maybe you weren't around for it, but trust me, it happened.

Yeah, it happened. The difference is many people (GA and some casual fans) actually thought it was a prequel. They thought it was a prequel to Burton's Batman. They weren't using the word prequel incorrectly, they simply were incorrect in their interpretation of Batman Begins.

If Trank were saying that his movie was a prequel to Tim Story's Fantastic Four, then it would be analogous to the Batman Begins situation. Obviously he isn't saying that.

 

[The Guard]

Yeah, it happened. The difference is many people (GA and some casual fans) actually thought it was a prequel. They thought it was a prequel to Burton's Batman. They weren't using the word prequel incorrectly, they simply were incorrect in their interpretation of Batman Begins.

If Trank were saying that his movie was a prequel to Tim Story's Fantastic Four, then it would be analogous to the Batman Begins situation. Obviously he isn't saying that.

There were also people, including fans who knew it was a total reboot, who used the word prequel. Not sure why this is even in question. Where's this article?

 

[marvelmadness13]

Not arguing the definition, which is why I didn't quote it.
You said no one misuses the word "prequel", which is just patently untrue. Plenty of media people and fanboys have done so.

You also said that no one misused the term regarding Batman Begins. This is also untrue. Maybe you weren't around for it, but trust me, it happened.

Suggesting that no one misuses a particular word is silly. You can't possibly prove that. Whereas examples of reboots occasionally being called prequels by someone, pretty sure that can be proven.

Please stop with the lies. I didn't say no one misuses it, I'm fact I said Trank DID misuse it. You claimed that it's meaning changed and that's how people use it now. What is it about this film that makes its supporters willing to defend even the tiniest mistakes it's crew makes?

If Trank claimed orange juice came from celery there are posters here who would defend that statement to the death.

 

[Miken Ayers]

Is this just more "fan interpretation"?

Is there a link to the article?

http://www.tv3.ie/xpose/article/ent.../Fantastic-Four-depicts-relatable-superheroes



"Speaking at Comic-Con 2015 in San Diego, he explained: ''It's an origin [film] but it almost works as a prequel of the characters before they become the iconic version of those characters. It's a group of friends who become a family.''

 

[lordofthenerds]

There were also people, including fans who knew it was a total reboot, who used the word prequel. Not sure why this is even in question. Where's this article?

Not sure why it's a question either. Never saw anyone claim it was a prequel to TDK. People actually thought it was a prequel to Batman '89. Some people were puzzled why the Joker didn't kill his parents in the movie.

Holy gratuitous prequel, Batman!

http://archive.boulderweekly.com/062305/screen.html

If you love Batman, then Batman Begins will the best Batman movie ever made. On the other hand, if you love Batman movies, Batman Begins may leave you wondering where the Joker went.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/batman_begins/reviews/?page=5&sort=

Would Batman Begins be considered a prequel to the old Batman movies?

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090825073948AAEGA3o

 

[metaphysician]

Pictured: an early Stan Lee/Jack Kirby Fantastic Four comic from Josh Trank's collection:

Hey now, lets not insult a good comic by comparing it with Josh Trank.

 

[Tony Stark]

OK let's be clear here. There were some nebulous interpretations of certain reboots where people weren't sure if it was supposed to be a continuation or a total reboot. The best example of this are the Daniel Craig Bond movies. Bond has always been a character that had to manipulate over time but even if Bond wasn't changing everything around him stayed the same (M, Q, Moneypenny, etc.) Then came Casino Royale.... this was most certainly a reboot, but it was left nebulous enough as not to invalidate the rest of the franchise. Where normally they went the Dr. Who route (everything is linear , just continue on with the next actor) this time they clearly went back to the beginning only SNAP the M is the same one from the Brosnan films, who in Goldeneye is clearly a replacement for Robert Brown's character in License to Kill (who took over for Bernard Lee after his death). Thus we have a Bond paradox!

I agree that Batman Begins while it was clearly a reboot, tried not to invalidate anything from the previous films, and thus alot of people interpreted it as a prequel, but it was clearly a reboot in it's intentions.

That brings us to FFINO. The fact is Fox from the start stated this as a reboot property based on a different line of comics, just as TASM was clearly a reboot. They are retelling the origin.

So that brings us back to the fact that either Josh Trank misspoke, which is entirely possible, or the fact that due to poor tracking of the film and poor fan response they are trying to undo the damage at the last hour. Either way, that does not make this film a prequel.

 

[Miken Ayers]

OK let's be clear here. There were some nebulous interpretations of certain reboots where people weren't sure if it was supposed to be a continuation or a total reboot. The best example of this are the Daniel Craig Bond movies. Bond has always been a character that had to manipulate over time but even if Bond wasn't changing everything around him stayed the same (M, Q, Moneypenny, etc.) Then came Casino Royale.... this was most certainly a reboot, but it was left nebulous enough as not to invalidate the rest of the franchise. Where normally they went the Dr. Who route (everything is linear , just continue on with the next actor) this time they clearly went back to the beginning only SNAP the M is the same one from the Brosnan films, who in Goldeneye is clearly a replacement for Robert Brown's character in License to Kill (who took over for Bernard Lee after his death). Thus we have a Bond paradox!

I agree that Batman Begins while it was clearly a reboot, tried not to invalidate anything from the previous films, and thus alot of people interpreted it as a prequel, but it was clearly a reboot in it's intentions.

That brings us to FFINO. The fact is Fox from the start stated this as a reboot property based on a different line of comics, just as TASM was clearly a reboot. They are retelling the origin.

So that brings us back to the fact that either Josh Trank misspoke, which is entirely possible, or the fact that due to poor tracking of the film and poor fan response they are trying to undo the damage at the last hour. Either way, that does not make this film a prequel.

Casino Royale is a reboot. The same actress played M, but they're treated as completely different characters.

 

[The Guard]

Please stop with the lies. I didn't say no one misuses it, I'm fact I said Trank DID misuse it. You claimed that it's meaning changed and that's how people use it now. What is it about this film that makes its supporters willing to defend even the tiniest mistakes it's crew makes?

If Trank claimed orange juice came from celery there are posters here who would defend that statement to the death.

I think "please stop with the lies" is laying it on a bit thick...

Anyway, turns out RAE said the comment I responded to with "simply not true", not you. I was on a cell phone, read your comment right after my response to him and figured the same person who brought up the issue in the first place was responding to me. My mistake.

Anyway, by responding "It's 100 percent true." to a post where I said that RAE's statements about no one misusing it were untrue, you were effectively telling me I'm wrong about people doing so, and you were agreeing with RAE's statement and in effect, agreeing with RAE in saying that no one misuses the word.

Which, as I told RAE, is simply not true. People often misuse the word. So you're still wrong when you claim no one has misused or misuses the word prequel. Regardless of who you happen to be, and who you were responding to.

Hope that clears up the lies.

Also, I never said it's meaning changed and that everyone uses it that way now. I quite clearly said that it has an accepted new meaning BEYOND its original meaning. Which means that "prequel" has a new meaning that people have started to use to describe things that may not be straight up prequels, AND its original meaning is still intact.

That is simply fact. "Prequel" has come to stand for a lot more than an actual, honest-to-goodness prequel and a lot of people use the word beyond its original scope.

Exhibit A: "Dear Interweb, please stop misusing the word prequel".

http://sidelinesapp.com/item/dear-interweb-please-stop-misusing-the-word-prequel/

 

[The Guard]

http://www.tv3.ie/xpose/article/ent.../Fantastic-Four-depicts-relatable-superheroes

"Speaking at Comic-Con 2015 in San Diego, he explained: ''It's an origin [film] but it almost works as a prequel of the characters before they become the iconic version of those characters. It's a group of friends who become a family.''

Thank you.

If this is in fact what he said, then he never actually called this a prequel.

He said "It almost works as a prequel to the iconic versions of the characters".

Which is obvious from everything we've heard about the film. This should be nothing new to anyone who has followed this production at all. This has always been about the early days of the Four, before they become anything resembling the Four we know.

 

[Miken Ayers]

Thank you.

If this is in fact what he said, then he never actually called this a prequel.

He said "It almost works as a prequel to the iconic versions of the characters".

Which is obvious from everything we've heard about the film. This should be nothing new to anyone who has followed this production at all. This has always been about the early days of the Four, before they become anything resembling the Four we know.

This! http://www.cinemablend.com/m/new/Why-Fantastic-Four-Cast-Was-Told-Read-Comics-70324.html

And this! http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/07...64443?lt_source=external,manual,manual,manual

Now you owe me gas money for taking you to school.

 

[TeeKay]

This! http://www.cinemablend.com/m/new/Why-Fantastic-Four-Cast-Was-Told-Read-Comics-70324.html

And this! http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/07...64443?lt_source=external,manual,manual,manual

Now you owe me gas money for taking you to school.

 

[Boom]

Are you serious? A prequel? Amazing.

And the spin has already begun from people not at all involved in the movie in any way!

"Oh he didn't MEAN prequel, he REALLYYYY meant origin! He's just a complete moron who doesn't know what words mean."

He did teach us the correct meaning of "fantastic," though .

 

[Miken Ayers]

Even if you're being sarcastic, I still laughed.

 

[TeeKay]

Even if you're being sarcastic, I still laughed.

You are owning him. That gif was a response to how good your post was. Nice and simple. You never watched SuperHotFires vidoes? Check em out!

 

[Miken Ayers]

You are owning him. That gif was a response to how good your post was. Nice and simple. You never watched SuperHotFires vidoes? Check em out!

I will now.

 

[mocomic]

If we could all speak "Trankese"

This translation would read.

Umm guys I know me and my cast have pi__ed all you fanboys off. Box office projections are looking weak. Could you please come see the movie I made. Even though fanboys have stated not to mess up the FF

 

[The Guard]

This! http://www.cinemablend.com/m/new/Why-Fantastic-Four-Cast-Was-Told-Read-Comics-70324.html

And this! http://moviepilot.com/posts/2014/07...64443?lt_source=external,manual,manual,manual

Now you owe me gas money for taking you to school.

I don't follow. Nor do I see how this is "owning me" based on anything I've said previously.

Trank has also never promised a sequel with iconic versions of the characters.

Nor do his comments about this almost working as a prequel to the iconic Four promise iconic characters. He's said, from Day One, that he was interested in the psychological aspects of their early transformation and bonding as a team, and wanted a movie that revolved around those things.

 

[Miken Ayers]

I don't follow. Nor do I see how this is "owning me" based on anything I've said previously.

Trank has also never promised a sequel with iconic versions of the characters.

Nor do his comments about this almost working as a prequel to the iconic Four promise iconic characters. He's said, from Day One, that he was interested in the psychological aspects of their early transformation and bonding as a team, and wanted a movie that revolved around those things.

All things to try and sound smart, but this obviously isn't the thinking man's movie.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

He probably means it as another word for Origin. In the origin they become a team and family and become powered, but in the sequel they are like that from the start so this is a prequel to that sequel.

For instance you could call TFA an origin for Captain America and a prequel to The Avengers. And you could call this an introduction and origin of Mr Fantastic, Invisible Woman, The Thing and Human Torch and a prequel to them as a full fledged super team, which they'll become at by the end of this but won't be right from the start

No, just no.

Prequels by their definition are done to preexisting properties. Hence the prefix, "pre". For a prequel to exist, it must come before something already established. But yeah, of course you have to defend this ridiculous idea.

 

[lordofthenerds]

I don't follow. Nor do I see how this is "owning me" based on anything I've said previously.

Trank has also never promised a sequel with iconic versions of the characters.

Nor do his comments about this almost working as a prequel to the iconic Four promise iconic characters.

His comments promise nothing. They do, however, insinuate that there was/is an intention to feature the iconic FF in a sequel. Otherwise, it would be pointless to say "it works as a prequel".

Based on previous interviews done with both Trank and the cast, it seems unlikely that Trank ever had the slightest intention of setting up a more faithful sequel. That's where Mike Ayers' links come into play. If this movie truly was "working as a prequel" to something faithful to the comics, wouldn't it be unwise to actively dissuade the cast from reading said comics?

How would the cast be able to evolve into the iconic characters from the books if they never even picked one up?

He's said, from Day One, that he was interested in the psychological aspects of their early transformation and bonding as a team, and wanted a movie that revolved around those things.

He's interested in the psychological aspects of the transformation and bonding of the team that he's created. The team he's created bares very little resemblance to the early Fantastic Four. If he were interested in capturing the psychology of Lee/Kirby's early Fantastic Four, he would've persuaded them to immerse themselves in that run of comic books.

 

[Miken Ayers]

His comments promise nothing. They do, however, insinuate that there was/is an intention to feature the iconic FF in a sequel. Otherwise, it would be pointless to say "it works as a prequel".

Based on previous interviews done with both Trank and the cast, it seems unlikely that Trank ever had the slightest intention of setting up a more faithful sequel. That's where Mike Ayers' links come into play. If this movie truly was "working as a prequel" to something faithful to the comics, wouldn't it be unwise to actively dissuade the cast from reading said comics?

How would the cast be able to evolve into the iconic characters from the books if they never even picked one up?


He's interested in the psychological aspects of the transformation and bonding of the team that he's created. The team he's created bares very little resemblance to the early Fantastic Four. If he were interested in capturing the psychology of Lee/Kirby's early Fantastic Four, he would've persuaded them to immerse themselves in that run of comic books.

Thanks for breaking it down. I was pretty much done with him at that point.

 

[The Guard]

Pretty sure that he's talking about the kind of story he wanted to tell about the Four in relation to and as opposed to their role as global superheroes, IE the "iconic" version. He's not making any reference to an iconic version he himself will create, or any other film version of the characters.

He's making no insinuation or inherent promise of an iconic version in a sequel. He's likely talking about the Four as they are generally culturally known when he says "iconic", the basic idea of them, not about a specific version from the comics.

He's basically said since early days that he wanted to focus more on the story between the known stories.

 

[Miken Ayers]

I think you're reading wayyy too much into what he said.

He's talking about the kind of story he wanted to tell about the Four in relation to and as opposed to their role as global superheroes, IE the "iconic" version. He's not making any reference to an iconic version he himself will create, or any other film version of the characters.

He's talking about the Four as they are culturally known.

He's basically said since early days that he wanted to focus more on the story between the known stories.

Guard's new name is Spin Wizard.