Fant4stic Michael B Jordan is "Flame On!" The Human Torch - Part 2

[Paradox1]

I believe questions are a good thing for a story. Who is this Darth Vader guy? Where did he come from? What were the Clone Wars? How did Obi Wan know Luke's father? What was Luke's father like? etc.

Distractions are bad for a story.

If this will raise questions or if this will cause distractions remains to be seen, but with as little as we now know, I don't think any of us have any idea how things will play out. But a skilled filmmaker shouldn't have any problem with it.

I think comic-book films tend to try to explain too much. Nothing makes me more uncomfortable than that awkward moment when they feel they need to explain the Superhero name.

I think the worst possible way to handle this would be: "I'd like you to meet my brother Johnny. . . oh, I know what you're thinking. He's adopted."

I'd much rather something like: "I'd like you to meet my brother Johnny." Then cut to the other person's face as we see the wheels spinning, but nothing more is said because the other person is afraid to ask - as they should be.

Consider the alternative in which he asks: "You're brother and sister? How's that?"

"Well, since you ask, funny story really: my mother was raped by a black man. But my mother was Catholic and refused to have an abortion which resulted in the evil rape-spawn you now see before you. Aren't you glad you asked?"

I agree with this for the most part movies try to explain too much. If the movie does a good job of story telling,acting and world building. You will leave the theater without doubt they are brother and sister whether it's explained or not. Bringing it back to Star Wars for example the Force was explained in one line in a New Hope. That's all you need if you do a good job of making the movie immersive to the audience.

 

[BestGirl]

Pretty much. I don't even understand how anyone would ask that question (no offense).

Sure that one can be adopted, but it doesn't work that easy. Adoption isn't so simple. It only adds far more unnecessary questions and variables to their relationship. Which one was adopted? At what age did the adoption take place? What are the psychological effects the adoption had on them? Did it make one feel alienated or defensive of the other? etc. It only complicates a simple basic concept that worked just fine and for no good reason.

Who cares which one was adopted? Maybe neither of them feels alienated from or defensive towards the other. Maybe there are no serious psychological effects. You're acting like those issues can only occur between adopted siblings. You can ask those questions about any sibling pair.

Because mixed-race siblings are not standard. It may be more common than it used to be, but it is still going to raise a lot of questions from large numbers of people. They are going to be asked about this every interview and every talk show they go on promoting the film. You may say that it shouldn't be an issue, but in the real world it will be.

This has nothing to do with the movie. There's no confusion anyway. Most people will assume either Johnny or Sue was adopted.

Because if audiences are confused, then they won't go see the film. They also can't ignore it if they are directly being asked about it every time they try and promote the film.

So it has to be addressed, which makes things more complicated than they need be.

Again, you really think audiences aren't going to be able to figure out that one of them was probably adopted? Give them some credit.

Even if the exact nature of their relationship is never depicted on screen, that ambiguity will just drive the fanfic writers to fill in the missing pieces by themselves.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Pretty much. I don't even understand how anyone would ask that question (no offense).

Sure that one can be adopted, but it doesn't work that easy. Adoption isn't so simple. It only adds far more unnecessary questions and variables to their relationship. Which one was adopted? At what age did the adoption take place? What are the psychological effects the adoption had on them? Did it make one feel alienated or defensive of the other? etc. It only complicates a simple basic concept that worked just fine and for no good reason.

Its not going to complicate things all that much. This is also something that usually depends on the age of the child during the time of adoption.

 

[Ant-manic]

Stevenson was also a good frank castle...though the mvie itself wasn't...good.

Though my fav Frank Castle is still Dolp Lundgren.Heck, when the movie came out, he looked EXACTLY like Jim Lee's Punisher. He was good in that role too, again the movie itself was the problem

i had no problem with Stevenson's version of Castle. he looked like he could seriously hurt someone. they just gave him a crappy story and a ham of a villain. going entirely by looks, Chris Meloni would have made a great Punisher.

 

[Ant-manic]

Because if audiences are confused, then they won't go see the film.

...what? people that stupid probably wouldn't be able to find their way to the movie theater, in the first place.

 

[Ant-manic]

A big part of these films is that the comic book's drawn images have made a strong impression on us and we want to see those images brought to the screen as accurately as possible.

The less they look like those characters, the less the movie works for those who spent a lot of time looking at those images.

People who didn't spend a lot of time looking at those drawings don't give a damn how closely the visuals match, so the visual accuracy doesn't matter to them (and the idea that it would matter to anyone else seems silly).

We see this with every film every time. People don't like the shades of red and blue in Superman's outfit. People don't like Batman's ears etc. etc. etc. We spent months right here discussing the size of the Thing's brow - not because it was a key part of who he was and not because we were racist, but because it didn't match the visuals that had been established by the comics.

It has everything to do with the visual appearance and how closely you are attached to the characters, and it has absolutely nothing to do with race (except for the simple fact that people of different races have visual appearances different than people of other races).

oh the good ol' days; when the movies we watched were conveniently free of those troublesome minorities; unless an extra kill was required, wait staff was needed for a restaraunt, or the hero traveled to africa.

 

[Zarex]

oh the good ol' days; when the movies we watched were conveniently free of those troublesome minorities; unless an extra kill was required, wait staff was needed for a restaraunt, or the hero traveled to africa.

In his very classy response to the criticism over his casting, Mr Jordan showed that he had a far greater understanding of the issue than posters like yourself who are obsessed with racism. You may be projecting your own discomfort regarding people of color onto your fellow posters.

 

[Spider-Fan]

oh the good ol' days; when the movies we watched were conveniently free of those troublesome minorities; unless an extra kill was required, wait staff was needed for a restaraunt, or the hero traveled to africa.

Because he totally said that

 

[Shikamaru]

I agree with this for the most part movies try to explain too much. If the movie does a good job of story telling,acting and world building. You will leave the theater without doubt they are brother and sister whether it's explained or not. Bringing it back to Star Wars for example the Force was explained in one line in a New Hope. That's all you need if you do a good job of making the movie immersive to the audience.

The Force was a major thematic part of the story that played an overall role in Luke's character arc. Not the same case here. It's an apples/oranges scenario.

Who cares which one was adopted? Maybe neither of them feels alienated from or defensive towards the other. Maybe there are no serious psychological effects. You're acting like those issues can only occur between adopted siblings. You can ask those questions about any sibling pair.

They don't have to be serious psychological effects; the point is that the overall dynamic changes.

Its not going to complicate things all that much. This is also something that usually depends on the age of the child during the time of adoption.

You say it won't complicate things that much and then you state the same thing I stated.

 

[Picard Sisko]

I meant to say that being adopted doesn't always complicate things, and its not something we should assume in terms of Johnny and Sue's relationship as siblings.

 

[Schlosser85]

Some of you act like adopted siblings are incapable of having a "real" sibling relationship.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Some of you act like adopted siblings are incapable of having a "real" sibling relationship.

Adoption, half-siblings, etc. Such situations always brings questions that have the potential to change a relationship. I know from experience.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

i had no problem with Stevenson's version of Castle. he looked like he could seriously hurt someone. they just gave him a crappy story and a ham of a villain. going entirely by looks, Chris Meloni would have made a great Punisher.[/QU i thought i was the only one who thought that!t:

But...isn't he a bit short?

 

[Picard Sisko]

Adoption, half-siblings, etc. Such situations always brings questions that have the potential to change a relationship. I know from experience.

I know people who were adopted that have really good relationships with their siblings and other family members. Nothing that really impacts the relationship negatively or even that drastically.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I know people who were adopted that have really good relationships with their siblings and other family members. Nothing that really impacts the relationship negatively or even that drastically.

Of course. But there is always that question imo. I remember when I first realized I had half-siblings. It was around 8 and it brought questions. That doesn't mean a relationship becomes worse, sometimes it even strengthens it. But it does bring questions.

If two siblings of different races walked into a room and introduced themselves, I think few wouldn't wonder if someone was adopted, if they are half-siblings, etc.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Adoption, half-siblings, etc. Such situations always brings questions that have the potential to change a relationship. I know from experience.

My siblings are both adopted. I have a great relationship with my brother... And NO ONE in the family has a relationship of any kind with my sister. So really, my experience has been that like most things in life when it comes to people... It's a 50/50 thing.

Also....

Altman's POPEYE musical, Warren Beatty's DICK TRACY, and both FLINTSTONES films are quite visually accurate to their source materials... and in my opinion they are about the same level of awful. So staying true to the source visually doesn't seem to always be the key to financial or artistic success (**cough**Many things MCU**cough**).

 

[The Guard]

A big part of these films is that the comic book's drawn images have made a strong impression on us and we want to see those images brought to the screen as accurately as possible.

The less they look like those characters, the less the movie works for those who spent a lot of time looking at those images.

All right, they did pretty well casting this one. At least in terms of Fred.

Interesting to note that the characters who are mostly visual gags do look a decent amount like their comic book counterparts. Flattop, The Brow, Pruneface, Littleface, etc.

The one who is an actual leading character in the film, however, Big Boy, looks next to nothing like his comic book counterpart. In fact, he's completely physically different. In the comics, Big Boy was, well, big. In the movie, he's portrayed as a short fellow with a completely different overall appearance. His face is even augmented to accentuate the concept they went with, which is not the concept from the comic strip.

While he's wearing the costume, Robin Williams doesn't really look that much like Popeye, in terms of the character's traditional characteristics. He has a longer, slightly hooked nose vs a round one, a thinner chin VS the obviously wider jaw the character has, and a good deal more hair. And he was 29 years old when he made the movie, whereas Popeye is generally depicted as older than that, isn't he?

However, for every film that is slavishly faithful to a character's visual appearance, you can probably find one that isn't that still worked well.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Umm... For the time those films were made that's about as accurate as you could possibly get with those, frankly, way over the top character designs from the source. Popeye and Dick Tracy especially are truly going out of their way to make in look like it came right of the page or cartoon frame. NO ONE could actually look like Popeye does in real life. Same goes for the Flintstones and Tracy villains. But those films got it amazingly close... And for concentrating on that instead of plot or character development or dialog we got 3 pretty big stinkers. Just saying, visual fealty alone does not a good CBM make.

 

[The Guard]

POPEYE was made in 1980. I doubt it was impossible in 1980 to find someone with a wider jaw and a rounder nose. But they cast Robin Williams and made him look enough like the character that it worked. When it worked (shudder).

The rest, you're right, to a point.

Except for Big Boy, who is a complete departure from the source material.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Umm... For the time those films were made that's about as accurate as you could possibly get with those, frankly, way over the top character designs from the source. Popeye and Dick Tracy especially are truly going out of their way to make in look like it came right of the page or cartoon frame. NO ONE could actually look like Popeye does in real life. Same goes for the Flintstones and Tracy villains. But those films got it amazingly close... And for concentrating on that instead of plot or character development or dialog we got 3 pretty big stinkers. Just saying, visual fealty alone does not a good CBM make.

Absolutely. I agree on all points, and the reason you see less slavish adherence to visual elements in more serious films is that they need to balance visual accuracy with believability. But that doesn't mean visual accuracy shouldn't still be a component. Spider-man takes some liberties here and there, but one thing you'll notice is that when Spider-man is on screen, he looks like he came right out of the comics.

In the examples I posted, I think visual accuracy was what put people in seats (just like big stars put people in seats or marketing puts people in seats even when the quality of the film itself may be lacking). All of those films were bad, but people showed up because people have a desire to see these things brought to life. We can't just dismiss that key concept of these films and say all that matters is the 'quality' of the film. With a film like this, one component of 'quality' has to be how well it portrays the source material.

My point is visual accuracy is a real thing and something viewers are looking for. If visual accuracy will cause problems with the story, it can be sacrificed, but I believe a smart filmmaker will spend a lot of time trying to achieve a good film . . . that also has visual accuracy - and visuals shouldn't be changed arbitrarily when they can be maintained without sacrificing believability or key story elements.

Filmmakers can do whatever they want, but if they want to put fans in seats, they should make efforts for visual accuracy where possible.

Now it is possible that MBJ is perfect for the role and will do a better job than any blonde actors available. I'm one of those who is on record as saying give MBJ a chance (I wish he was younger or the others were older, and I wish he looked more like Johnny but oh well). But even though I'm okay with him, I believe those who want something closer to the comics have a valid point that shouldn't be dismissed too quickly.

 

[starscream22]

People are using interracial couples and adoptions as arguments.

But would that win over the idea having Tony Stark, Pym, Beast and Reid Richards in the same film one day..?

This fake racial controversy is shadowing the bigger picture here...

 

[LaughingMage]

I hate the casting of the Torch. There, my five cent. Why do I hate it? Because of the skin color? Not really. I was aprehensive about Alba as Heimdal because traditionally he's the brother of Sif but, well, they changed that in the movie. Sif was no longer Heimdal's sister and my aprehension evaporated.

Now for Johnny. The skin color ain't that much of a problem imho. really if they also make Sue not his sister or change her skin color too. However, all other options are forced and hockey and would really detract from my enjoyment of the movie.

And then there is the issue of clichee. Oh look the only black dude of the team is the womanizing, thuggish, party animal. Way to go FOX. You know what would have been much better? Cast a black actor to play Reed. Heck, that would have been awesome. One of the most brilliant scientists of the MU being played by,say, Denzel Washington. I would have sooooo been on board with that but nooooo, we get the stereotypical choice. Way to go to be diverse and still insulting FOX!

And then there is the thing with the uniforms, blue just soooo doesn't go with dark skin *g* :P

 

[The Guard]

"thuggish"?

 

[Schlosser85]

I don't picture Johnny Storm as "thuggish". If anything, preppy.

 

[Kelly]

"thuggish"?

If you are looking at it stereotypically I can see why people would describe it in that way....dumb yes, but most stereotypes are...