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

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]463943[/split]

 

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]451523[/split]

 

[Zarex]

Im not sure I understand what you're saying here. This is probably just me, but it reads like you're contradicting yourself.

Through the years the members of the FF grew and relationships changed. Unless you are introducing us to the team mid-career, having the four start out as peers changes the family dynamic in a fundamental way. It's a great story, and Trank is ignoring it.

 

[The Question]

Through the years the members of the FF grew and relationships changed. Unless you are introducing us to the team mid-career, having the four start out as peers changes the family dynamic in a fundamental way. It's a great story, and Trank is ignoring it.

1: It's a great story that isn't suited for film. The development you're talking about happened over 20 or so years in a monthly ongoing series. That kind of serialized storytelling is not suited for a film franchise.

2: Them as peers has been the family dynamic for more than half of their existence. For a lot of people who were born after it became the status quo, it's fundamentally how the FF are. I think it's acceptable to start there instead of working up to it, especially in a medium as inherently non-serialized as film.

3: Pretty much every single adaptation of the FF since 1990 has started with the peer dynamic. In that regard, there is nothing special about this film.

 

[Zarex]

1: It's a great story that isn't suited for film. The development you're talking about happened over 20 or so years in a monthly ongoing series. That kind of serialized storytelling is not suited for a film franchise.

2: Them as peers has been the family dynamic for more than half of their existence. For a lot of people who were born after it became the status quo, it's fundamentally how the FF are. I think it's acceptable to start there instead of working up to it, especially in a medium as inherently non-serialized as film.

3: Pretty much every single adaptation of the FF since 1990 has started with the peer dynamic. In that regard, there is nothing special about this film.

Strongly disagree. The Story films didn't do a lot right, but they did get much of the family dynamic right. As did the accompanying animated series. You can't put four similarly aged twenty-something's on screen and expect it to keep what made the FF special. So in this regard, I agree with you. There is nothing special about this film.

 

[The Question]

Strongly disagree. The Story films didn't do a lot right, but they did get much of the family dynamic right. As did the accompanying animated series. You can't put four similarly aged twenty-something's on screen and expect it to keep what made the FF special. So in this regard, I agree with you. There is nothing special about this film.

1: I think the Story films are a perfect example of an adaptation that de-emphasized the age gap. Johnny was not "the kid" in that team dynamic. He was arrogant, impulsive, and a little immature, but he was an adult and was treated like a peer in that group dynamic.

2: The age gap isn't what makes the Fantastic Four special. What makes them special is their family dynamic, but the comics have had the family dynamic while also completely de-emphasizing the age gap and Reed's original role as the team patriarch for more than half of the comic's existence. Casting the team as all being roughly the same age does not change the dynamic that the group has consistently had since the early 1980s. And, I'll go so far as to say that it's a dynamic that is superior to the original dynamic. The original dynamic was the product of cultural attitudes about what a family is supposed to be that were unrealistic and that our society has been trying to grow out of for decades. What makes the Fantastic Four special is that they are not a conventional family. Only two of them are blood relatives. But they came together and they made a family for themselves. That's beautiful, and you can do that without a huge age gap.

The Fantastic Four, as they are written now and have been written since at least the early 1980s, do not require a huge gap in age with Reed and Ben being much older than Sue and Johnny. It is a vestigial story element.

 

[Kelly]

Strongly disagree. The Story films didn't do a lot right, but they did get much of the family dynamic right. As did the accompanying animated series. You can't put four similarly aged twenty-something's on screen and expect it to keep what made the FF special. So in this regard, I agree with you. There is nothing special about this film.

I disagree, just because you say, "my sister", "my brother", "my husband", "my wife"...doesn't mean they got it right.

Sue was a ***** to Johnny which is far from what she was in either 616 or MK, I guess maybe she is in the UFF, I wouldn't know.
There was a hint at the very sweet friendship between Sue and Ben, but it was left in the street with Sue turning selfish, and Ben whining.
As far as Sue and Reed, there was nothing that was "written" that showed her more than a *****ing girlfriend and fiance.

When Sue is the HEART of the team, and she is written as the ***** of the team, there is no way that the family dynamic could be even a little bit right.
----------------------------------------------

As far as age difference, etc....etc....etc.

People keep trying to explain something to make it right for fans of 616 to get on board with. PEOPLE, UNDERSTAND....this isn't a 616 adaptation, because of that those longtime fans of 616 are not going to be happy no matter how many ways you try to spin it. You can say this Marvel movie was from Ultimate, and that Marvel movie was from Ultimate, and it still isn't going to make these fans happy. You are trying to have an omelete that taste good, and you are saying...."see look, the omelet looks great, just because there is one rotten egg in it doesn't mean anything, until you taste it." These fans do not want to taste that omelet.

 

[The Question]

As far as age difference, etc....etc....etc.

People keep trying to explain something to make it right for fans of 616 to get on board with. PEOPLE, UNDERSTAND....this isn't a 616 adaptation, because of that those longtime fans of 616 are not going to be happy no matter how many ways you try to spin it. You can say this Marvel movie was from Ultimate, and that Marvel movie was from Ultimate, and it still isn't going to make these fans happy. You are trying to have an omelete that taste good, and you are saying...."see look, the omelet looks great, just because there is one rotten egg in it doesn't mean anything, until you taste it." These fans do not want to taste that omelet.

1: I am a long time 616 fan.

2: What's inherently rotten about narrowing the age gap?

3: Saying that Ultimate Fantastic Four is just inherently, cohesively rotten across the board is pretty disingenuous. It had good elements and bad elements that came from several different creators with different visions for the book. In the long run, the bad elements outweighed the good, but not every single idea from UFF is inherently bad regardless of how it's executed. That's silly.

 

[C. Lee]

Like I have said before...I feel the Question is arguing for the sake of arguing.

The Question says he doesn't understand why some people are upset.
People say why they are against the movie.
The Question says explain that better.
People then explain it more thoroughly.
The Question says that's silly.
They explain it again.
The Question says that doesn't make sense to him, please explain it again.
They explain it again.

This has been going on for months.....over and over and over.

As in the post above...people say they don't like the age difference...he asks why...they explain why....he says that doesn't make sense....they explain it more....he again says it is silly to think that way........how many times have different posters given their reasons for not liking that particular point....how many more times are people going to explain that particular point...............

 

[The Question]

Like I have said before…I feel the Question is arguing for the sake of arguing.

And like I have said before, you are wrong.

The Question says he doesn't understand why some people are upset.
People say why they are against the movie.
The Question says explain that better.
People then explain it more thoroughly.
The Question says that's silly.
They explain it again.
The Question says that doesn't make sense to him, please explain it again.
They explain it again.

This has been going on for months…..over and over and over.

1: None of what you're describing has happened in the exchanges I've had today.

2: I ask a lot of questions when I talk to people who I disagree with, in part to get a better understanding of where they are coming from and in part to try and get them to think about what motivates their opinions without coming right out and saying that because it sounds really smug and pretentious. There's nothing disingenuous about it.

3: Isn't there a rule about not making personal accusations?

As in the post above...people say they don't like the age difference...he asks why...they explain why....he says that doesn't make sense....they explain it more....he again says it is silly to think that way........how many times have different posters given their reasons for not liking that particular point....how many more times are people going to explain that particular point...............

None of that happened in the post above. I did not say that I didn't understand why people were upset, Kelly did not explain why she doesn't like age gap, and there were not multiple back and forth exchanges of her explaining it and me asking why. She said that the idea was rotten, I asked why because I do not know why she, specifically, feels that way, and it's better to ask for a clarification of what people mean when they say something than to assume what they meant based on what other people have said. I'm not going to assume that each individual who doesn't like something thinks the same way or has the same reasoning behind their opinions.

Of course, I am almost certain that she has explained her opinion about it in the past, but the thing is that it happened months ago and I do not remember what she said. So, it's better to ask than to just make assumptions based on a hazy memory on one online interaction I had in July.

 

[The Guard]

The original dynamic was the product of cultural attitudes about what a family is supposed to be that were unrealistic and that our society has been trying to grow out of for decades. What makes the Fantastic Four special is that they are not a conventional family. Only two of them are blood relatives. But they came together and they made a family for themselves. That's beautiful, and you can do that without a huge age gap.

This.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I'm going to make a Superman film. I'm going to cast Patton Oswald. Instead of him being from Krypton, he's going to get his powers from a genetic experiment, and Lex Luthor is also going to get powers from that same experiment. Clark Kent will work at a Wal-Mart. He didn't grow up on a farm, but grew up in a townhouse outside of Baltimore with an alcoholic, abusive father and a mother who stripped occasionally to cover the bills when his father was out of work. He's not going to have a superman suit. He's going to have something more 'realistic' like a ski-mask and black duster.

But I'm not going to change any of the 'important' things. He's still going to be named Clark Kent and he's still going to fight crime as Superman with all the powers we know Superman to have. Lex Luthor will be his arch enemy. He's still going to be a good, honest guy who fights for truth, justice and the American way.

Could that be a good film? Sure - if it's well-written and well directed, but it's not going to be a 'Superman' film in terms of offering Superman fans the key elements they want.

It's a very simple concept and I don't know what defenders of this film think they're accomplishing by telling FF fans the basic things we want aren't important. They're important to us even if they aren't important to those who have only a casual interest in and knowledge of the characters.

Saying this could be a good film is meaningless. Saying that elements that define the FF aren't important is meaningless.

If the elements that have historically defined the FF aren't present, few if any FF fans will consider this to be a good FF film. Nothing anybody can post on this board will change that simple, basic concept.

If Fox demonstrates that they actually will give us the elements of the FF we want, that could sway some of us, but simply telling us our desires are unimportant or calling us 'Fan Boys' isn't going to convince us of anything.

 

[The Question]

1: There is zero evidence of changes as drastic as you describe in your hypothetical Superman film in this Fantastic Four movie.

2: I do not have only a casual interest in and knowledge of the characters. This part is really pissing me off. It's the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in full force. Just because I don't think the age gap is a key element that defines the Fantastic Four doesn't mean I'm any less of a fan than you are. It just means I have a different opinion about it. If you think it is a key element that has historically defined the Fantastic Four, that's fine. If you disagree with my arguments for why I think it's not, that's fine. But for the love of God, don't tell me I'm not a real fan because I have an opinion that's different from yours.

 

[Paradox1]

I'm going to make a Superman film. I'm going to cast Patton Oswald. Instead of him being from Krypton, he's going to get his powers from a genetic experiment, and Lex Luthor is also going to get powers from that same experiment. Clark Kent will work at a Wal-Mart. He didn't grow up on a farm, but grew up in a townhouse outside of Baltimore with an alcoholic, abusive father and a mother who stripped occasionally to cover the bills when his father was out of work. He's not going to have a superman suit. He's going to have something more 'realistic' like a ski-mask and black duster.

But I'm not going to change any of the 'important' things. He's still going to be named Clark Kent and he's still going to fight crime as Superman with all the powers we know Superman to have. Lex Luthor will be his arch enemy. He's still going to be a good, honest guy who fights for truth, justice and the American way.

Could that be a good film? Sure - if it's well-written and well directed, but it's not going to be a 'Superman' film in terms of offering Superman fans the key elements they want.

It's a very simple concept and I don't know what defenders of this film think they're accomplishing by telling FF fans the basic things we want aren't important. They're important to us even if they aren't important to those who have only a casual interest in and knowledge of the characters.

Saying this could be a good film is meaningless. Saying that elements that define the FF aren't important is meaningless.

If the elements that have historically defined the FF aren't present, few if any FF fans will consider this to be a good FF film. Nothing anybody can post on this board will change that simple, basic concept.

If Fox demonstrates that they actually will give us the elements of the FF we want, that could sway some of us, but simply telling us our desires are unimportant or calling us 'Fan Boys' isn't going to convince us of anything.

What your described in your Superman analogy is complete hyperbole. The differences in this, to what you have described aren't even remotely the same.

First the appearance of this team isn't so far off that Patton Oswalt could be a stand in for Superman. If you took a silhouette of this four and added the fantastic four logo to their chest they would still be instantaneously recognizable. I love Patton but nobody would say the same for him.

Secondly in Superman's 70+ years he's has had ton of overhauls. Different costumes, different powers, and how they work. I haven't been reading the N52 but apparently he doesn't have super strength anymore, he's a telekinetic. Had a very long debate with the Question about that very subject but I digress. Have you not watched Smallville? his costume was apparently a black coat with S on his t-shirt.

Lastly I think very few people are trying to change anybody elses mind either way. Whether you hate the idea of the film or love it we all are here to discuss it. Me discussing a subject doesn't mean I'm trying to sway you or anyone else to my view. I don't know about anyone else but outside of this forum nobody else in my regular life barely has opinion on comic book and all things related. There is no back and fourth when I bring up the subject which is why I gravitate to this place.

 

[BatsDC]

I'm going to make a Superman film. I'm going to cast Patton Oswald. Instead of him being from Krypton, he's going to get his powers from a genetic experiment, and Lex Luthor is also going to get powers from that same experiment. Clark Kent will work at a Wal-Mart. He didn't grow up on a farm, but grew up in a townhouse outside of Baltimore with an alcoholic, abusive father and a mother who stripped occasionally to cover the bills when his father was out of work. He's not going to have a superman suit. He's going to have something more 'realistic' like a ski-mask and black duster.

But I'm not going to change any of the 'important' things. He's still going to be named Clark Kent and he's still going to fight crime as Superman with all the powers we know Superman to have. Lex Luthor will be his arch enemy. He's still going to be a good, honest guy who fights for truth, justice and the American way.

To be fair, I'd pay money to see that.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

1: There is zero evidence of changes as drastic as you describe in your hypothetical Superman film in this Fantastic Four movie.

What your described in your Superman analogy is complete hyperbole.

Miles Teller is to Reed Richards as Patton Oswalt is to Superman. I will absolutely stand by that.

I changed Superman's origin because UFF DRAMATICALLY changed the FF's origin and all indications are this film will adopt similar changes.

Clark Kent being a reporter and growing up on a farm is no more important to his character than the relative ages of the FF characters and their back-stories (which were changed dramatically in UFF and all indications are similar changes will be made here).

We have been told they will have 'containment' suits instead of uniforms, so I changed Superman's costume to something more 'grounded' as well.

I gave Lex Luthor powers that were tied to Superman's because that's what UFF did (and by all accounts this film will do) with Doom.

I stand by the idea that the only substantive difference between the changes I made to Superman and the changes we're likely to see in this film are that the changes to this film were set up by the UFF comic book.

If someone had created a comic book with my changes and called if "Ultimate Superman" those changes would be just as valid.

 

[Orba]

To be fair Superman has used a containment suit uniform, during his blue energy being phase. t:

 

[The Question]

Miles Teller is to Reed Richards as Patton Oswalt is to Superman. I will absolutely stand by that.

If you honestly see it that way, there's nothing I can do to sway you. But I will say that even if one assumes that Teller is wrong for the role (which I personally am on the fence about), that analogy is grossly hyperbolic.

I changed Superman's origin because UFF DRAMATICALLY changed the FF's origin and all indications are this film will adopt similar changes.

1: There is no indication that their origin will be changed to the extent that you changed Superman's origin in your hypothetical. Nothing that has come out of the production suggests that they'll get their powers from anything other than some kind of scientific accident as they always have. Changing the details of that accident is not as extreme a change as Superman no longer being an alien at all.

2: The change to the Fantastic Four's origin story in UFF was nowhere near as drastic as the change to Superman's in your hypothetical. In UFF, Reed Richards and his three friends got together to conduct a scientific experiment that would revolutionize space travel. The experiment went awry, and it rewrote their biology, granting them superhuman abilities. The only difference is that they were attempting to build what was essentially a stargate instead of testing out a new spaceship, and the characters met each other through a government think tank instead of through a private university. That is nowhere near as drastic a change as making Superman the result of a genetic experiment instead of being the last survivor of a doomed alien world. That's changing one or two details instead of all of the details. Hardly comparable.

Clark Kent being a reporter and growing up on a farm is no more important to his character than the relative ages of the FF characters and their back-stories (which were changed dramatically in UFF and all indications are similar changes will be made here).

1: I'd argue that it is. His job as a journalist and his life on the farm have consistently been integral parts of the characterization of Superman and the themes of his story. I would argue, as I already have, that the age gap between the two halves of the team has been significantly de-emphasized in the comics since at least the early 1980s and is not, in fact, a truly defining aspect of the characters.

2: Their backstories actually were not dramatically changed in UFF. Reed Richards was still a prodigious scientist with an ******* father. Ben Grimm was still an athlete and a soldier who was Reed's best friend. Reed and Dr. Doom still had a friendship/rivalry born out of their mutual interests and intellect. Johnny and Sue's relationship and their relationship with their aloof scientist father was still the same. The only differences in the team's backstories were that Reed, Ben, and Sue were all the same age with Johnny just around two years younger than them, and Sue was a scientist in her own right. I would argue that the former didn't make much of a difference in terms of the character dynamics, and the later was actually a major improvement on the mythos.

Ultimate Fantastic Four was a flawed book, and it ended up spiraling into basically unreadable nonsense, but not every single idea that came out of it was inherently terrible regardless of any possible way of executing it, nor did it completely abandon the established qualities of the characters at every possible turn the way people here have implied. The truth, as usual, is a little more complicated than that.

We have been told they will have 'containment' suits instead of uniforms, so I changed Superman's costume to something more 'grounded' as well.

Complete exaggeration. There is no indication that these "containment suits" won't resemble the classic Fantastic Four uniforms. All we know about them is that they serve a practical function within the narrative that motivates the characters to wear them in-story. We have no reason to assume that they will not be blue bodysuits that, at some point, have a #4 logo on them. Hardly comparable to swapping out Superman's costume for a ski mask and a black duster out of a non-specific desire for realism.

I gave Lex Luthor powers that were tied to Superman's because that's what UFF did (and by all accounts this film will do) with Doom.

That is a total assumption. There are no accounts that actually suggest that. People are assuming that simply because the narrowed age gap and the Baxter think tank elements are being adapted from UFF, that somehow proves that they will also adapt Doom's origin story from UFF. It's a baseless assumption. Adapting one or two elements from a particular version of a story does not prove that they will exclusively adapt elements from that version of the story.

Of course, that's not to say that they certainly won't give Doom super powers in a similar vein to UFF, it's entirely possible that they will. But as it stands right now, there is no actual evidence to support that hypothesis. It's an assumption based on an association.

I stand by the idea that the only substantive difference between the changes I made to Superman and the changes we're likely to see in this film are that the changes to this film were set up by the UFF comic book.

1: You're making a huge assumption about how much they'll be adapting from UFF.

2: The changes made in UFF were not as extreme as they changes you describes in your hypothetical. Not by a long shot. There were changes, to be sure, and some of those changes can easily be argued to have been bad calls, but people are grossly exaggerating the extent of those changes, and they're missing the fact that for the most part, it wasn't the changes that were the source of UFF's failings. It was story lines that either meandered or stopped dead in their tracks, a lack of a cohesive vision, a very constant sense that every new creative team was trying to reboot the book and start from square one, Mark Millar being a hack with a big toner for ****** fan service, and a general sense that nothing was really amounting to anything.

 

[The Question]

I want to stress that at this point, I've grown a little skeptical of the film myself. The low budget and the rushed filming schedule is fairly suspect, and the PR side of things has shown an enormous lack of enthusiasm or direction. But I really do think that a lot of people's reasons for calling this film "FFINO" and assuming it will be terrible are kind of silly. I think it's a game of assumptions, expectations, and mental associations that isn't especially useful or healthy for the criticism and appreciation of film and popular media. In addition, there has been a very consistent theme in these threads of rallying around an identity as "true" Fantastic Four fans, and putting forth the claim that if one does not hold a very particular set of opinions and standards about a property then they are not a true fan and have no place discussing the work, which I find very personally insulting. I am a true Fantastic Four fan. All of you guys are as well. We wouldn't be here if we weren't. That doesn't mean we have to agree.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I want to stress that at this point, I've grown a little skeptical of the film myself. The low budget and the rushed filming schedule is fairly suspect, and the PR side of things has shown an enormous lack of enthusiasm or direction. But I really do think that a lot of people's reasons for calling this film "FFINO" and assuming it will be terrible are kind of silly. I think it's a game of assumptions, expectations, and mental associations that isn't especially useful or healthy for the criticism and appreciation of film and popular media. In addition, there has been a very consistent theme in these threads of rallying around an identity as "true" Fantastic Four fans, and putting forth the claim that if one does not hold a very particular set of opinions and standards about a property then they are not a true fan and have no place discussing the work, which I find very personally insulting. I am a true Fantastic Four fan. All of you guys are as well. We wouldn't be here if we weren't. That doesn't mean we have to agree.

Oh, I agree. You are perfectly welcome to disagree with me on what is the important core of the Fantastic Four and what isn't. I have no expectations that everyone will agree with me.

I also agree with you that there are other warning signs with this film aside from differences from the source material. Even if it was a completely original property, I would be concerned about things like the budget, rushed schedule, and lack of promotion. It it wasn't called Fantastic Four and had a release date already set, I would say it has the look of a film that would ordinarily be dumped in an off month like January with little attention.

 

[Dark Raven]

Maybe instead of FFINO we could refer to it as C2IABN (Chronicle 2 in all but name).

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

And like I have said before, you are wrong.



1: None of what you're describing has happened in the exchanges I've had today.

2: I ask a lot of questions when I talk to people who I disagree with, in part to get a better understanding of where they are coming from and in part to try and get them to think about what motivates their opinions without coming right out and saying that because it sounds really smug and pretentious. There's nothing disingenuous about it.

3: Isn't there a rule about not making personal accusations?



None of that happened in the post above. I did not say that I didn't understand why people were upset, Kelly did not explain why she doesn't like age gap, and there were not multiple back and forth exchanges of her explaining it and me asking why. She said that the idea was rotten, I asked why because I do not know why she, specifically, feels that way, and it's better to ask for a clarification of what people mean when they say something than to assume what they meant based on what other people have said. I'm not going to assume that each individual who doesn't like something thinks the same way or has the same reasoning behind their opinions.

Of course, I am almost certain that she has explained her opinion about it in the past, but the thing is that it happened months ago and I do not remember what she said. So, it's better to ask than to just make assumptions based on a hazy memory on one online interaction I had in July.

I want to stress that at this point, I've grown a little skeptical of the film myself. The low budget and the rushed filming schedule is fairly suspect, and the PR side of things has shown an enormous lack of enthusiasm or direction. But I really do think that a lot of people's reasons for calling this film "FFINO" and assuming it will be terrible are kind of silly. I think it's a game of assumptions, expectations, and mental associations that isn't especially useful or healthy for the criticism and appreciation of film and popular media. In addition, there has been a very consistent theme in these threads of rallying around an identity as "true" Fantastic Four fans, and putting forth the claim that if one does not hold a very particular set of opinions and standards about a property then they are not a true fan and have no place discussing the work, which I find very personally insulting. I am a true Fantastic Four fan. All of you guys are as well. We wouldn't be here if we weren't. That doesn't mean we have to agree.

Oh, I agree. You are perfectly welcome to disagree with me on what is the important core of the Fantastic Four and what isn't. I have no expectations that everyone will agree with me.

I also agree with you that there are other warning signs with this film aside from differences from the source material. Even if it was a completely original property, I would be concerned about things like the budget, rushed schedule, and lack of promotion. It it wasn't called Fantastic Four and had a release date already set, I would say it has the look of a film that would ordinarily be dumped in an off month like January with little attention.

I had a post saying my feelings, but to avoid adding fuel to the fire, I'll just say I agree with all of this. Fantastic Four doesn't seem like it's getting much attention from Fox, but ostracizing others who do not share your anger is pointless and illogical.

 

[RAE072]

I had a post saying my feelings, but to avoid adding fuel to the fire, I'll just say I agree with all of this. Fantastic Four doesn't seem like it's getting much attention from Fox, but ostracizing others who do not share your anger is pointless and illogical.

As well as dismissing somebody's opinion as a "hater" if they don't happen to think this movie so far looks good is also pointless and illogical.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I did not dismiss their opinion, I dismissed their dismissal of an opinion.

 

[The Question]

As well as dismissing somebody's opinion as a "hater" if they don't happen to think this movie so far looks good is also pointless and illogical.

I do not believe that haters exist. Everyone has a reason for disliking something. No one dislikes something purely for the sake of disliking something.