Reasons for the disappointing numbers-Discussion

[highguard]

I want my FF no later than 2009 and with the current cast, finish the trilogy, hire a new director to deceive us into thinking it will be much better if necessary but I am not willing to wait any longer.

I want what I want ASAP.

 

[Kelly]

Well you aren't going to get an FF movie by 2009.......thats a definite.


As for AD, he apparently over stayed his visit a few weeks ago. He's been banned.

 

[Mercurius]

I want my FF no later than 2009 and with the current cast, finish the trilogy, hire a new director to deceive us into thinking it will be much better if necessary but I am not willing to wait any longer.

I want what I want ASAP.

What is the point in making another one the way it is? I just can't see it. Enough of fifth rate stuff jumbled together casually by some careless so-called "director". Trust me: better wait, get things straight and a good movie.

It will happen.

 

[Zombie_Comics]

does anyone else agree with me and think that this movie should of been rated PG-13?

 

[the a1ant]

It's funny how this movie got a PG, but the first got a PG-13. I thought the second was more intense.

 

[Kelly]

The ratings system is ridiculously stupid....

The fact that ALL RR had to do to get "Sin City" from an NC-17 rating to an R rating was to turn some of the blood white, well that tells you how stupid the ratings system is....

 

[Zombie_Comics]

I think that having someone in the movie getting stabbed in the chest with some blood showing and someone getting...well i'm not sure what really happened to the general...but those two things should automatically qualify the movie as PG-13

 

[Kelly]

The first one was rated early enough to where the business man being killed could be changed to pull the PG-13 rating, I don't think they had the time to do that for the 2nd, and I don't think the General's death was that big of a deal. Looked cool onscreen, but had they done it the way it was actually written, then it would have definitely made the PG-13 rating, but they didn't.

 

[Zombie_Comics]

Well I read somewhere that Sue's death was to be more graphic and bloodier, but they had some time to change that and make it short and simple. i still think that the movie should of had a PG-13 rating to it, actually at first it did, some early online posters and the site did say PG-13. But changed like a week before the movie came out.

 

[Kelly]

No, it really wasn't written any more graphic than what was shown......I admit there could have definitely been more blood...that was the last scene shot, there was no way they had time to film any more than that.....they were fighting the weather like crazy during that shoot.....they shot as quickly as possible......but the general's death written was pretty much Doom from head to toe, turning the man inside out.

Different sites showed different ratings, no one knew for sure. A foreign F4 site I believe had it as a PG-13.....

 

[Zombie_Comics]

I just read that somewhere, but did hear from the commentary on the second film that the scene was written different. Your right though they could of used a whole lot more blood, think in the movie wasn't there like a little drop.

 

[Kelly]

I don't remember seeing any blood at all in that scene......I just wrote it off as the spear was actually energy, and in piercing her heart it immediately seared the veins.......or something like that. lol

Had Frost not been on the commentary I would have watched with it on, but after Chiklis making endless excuses during the first commentary.....I didn't think I could stomach another one....

I'm going by Tim's blog on myspace.

 

[Zombie_Comics]

Its barely noticable, it took me about 3 times of watching the movie to notice. Your right about Chiklis he did alot of complaining in the commentary, but for the 2nd movie the writer did one of the commentaries and talked about how Tim shortend the death scene.

 

[Spiderine]

It's funny how this movie got a PG, but the first got a PG-13. I thought the second was more intense.

i did too.

 

[TMC1982]

Where do I begin?

Wrong director.

The cast were decent but executed badly (Doom) or miscast from the beginning (Sue Storm).

Galactus. They wanted it both ways. Either he was a force of nature or it was an alien. Pick one.

Wrong premise. FF being made into a comedy failed in the previous film why continue it again with the same exact cast and director? Story needs to be replaced and the franchise rebooted like Hulk.

The comics are meant to be serious with light humor, not primarily high comedy with the seriously toned down. If Story wants to direct a comedy Marvel property he can make a Squirrel Girl movie.

Be more faithful to the comics.

Spiderman, Hellboy, Batman Begins, X-men 1 and 2 all show respecting the comic source and giving them the proper quality work.

I thought that the 1970s animated series with HERBIE the robot subbing for Johnny Storm and the first season of the 1990s animated series were bad enough. I hope to God that Marvel Comics gets the rights back and produces the next Fantastic Four movie by themselves (a la the Iron Man movie and the new Hulk movie that hopes to fix the 2003 fiasco from Ang Lee). The Fantastic Four is more than a campy, sitcom-ish, romantic comedy disguised as a superhero film. Tim Story, quite frankly isn't a very good action and sci-fi director.
I want a film containing epic, "Star Wars" kind of qualities like the Fantastic Four mythos to be more than simply a 90 minute kiddie film.

When I come to see a Fantastic Four movie, I want to see a Doctor Doom who's genuinely meanacing and mysterious, as opposed to the game show host, Lex Luthor, tycoon flake we got in the movies. I also want Reed Richards to exhibit more confidence (as if he has a chip on his shoulder) as a leader. I want Galactus to be more than purely a gigantic fart cloud with zero personality. I want the actress portraying Sue Storm to actually be a good actress and more maternal, and not just a sexbot in blue contact lenses and a bad blonde doll wig. Only Ben Grimm and Johnny Storm seemed to be remotely accurate.

 

[Silver Knight]

Well you aren't going to get an FF movie by 2009.......thats a definite.


As for AD, he apparently over stayed his visit a few weeks ago. He's been banned.

Why did he get banned?

Just wondering how much FF: ROTSS made total compard to Iron Man.

 

[Lazlo Panaflex]

I'm not a fan of the Fantastic Four but I do have a few issues of the comic but because they were either drawn by Alan Davis, Jim Lee and John Byrne who are good artists'.

So naturally I'm going to be interested in seeing comic books based movies (Catwoman, Elektra, Barb Wire being the exception) so I've seen both FF movies and while they were neat and fun they are basically made for grade schoolers and therefore are considered family films.

Nowadays with violent video games the kids today are expecting that same sort of intense violence (not R-rated of course) in these big Summer movies, just ask any kid who's their favorite hero and they'll either choose Batman or Spider-Man and not someone like the Human Torch.

What Marvel needs to do is take creative control and but the property back from 20th Century Fox, hire a new director and make a good FF movie for a change.

 

[Mercurius]

Nowadays with violent video games the kids today are expecting that same sort of intense violence (not R-rated of course) in these big Summer movies, just ask any kid who's their favorite hero and they'll either choose Batman or Spider-Man and not someone like the Human Torch.

That's waaaaaaaaaaaay beyond the point with FF.

The movies were a sorry mistake, but the above has NOTHING to do with Fantastic Four, and isn't even a good guess at what is needed.

Fantastic Four, as envisaged by Byrne or Davis, is a very solid book of science fiction, a smart-humoured superhero drama, well-written dialog, very well defined characters with distinctive features.

It is, moreover, high scale adventure, and not those shameful hack jobs Story the Butcher tried to pass as "movies" (sic.).

Not even close.

 

[Nightmare]

Just saw this today. Im not suprised it didnt do huge numbers. it was way too damn kiddie for me. This franchise needs an overhaul if it wants to be taken seriously.

 

[Angamb]

Saw it 1 hour ago for the second time and I liked it.

Definetly, could be better, but it could be worse too...

I think the problem was the first movie, the audience didn't see it like a possible great franchise, so many people "decided" to not see more sequels.... I suppose.

Personally, I'd like to see one more, but if it isn't confirmed yet, I'm afraid there won't be more, at least not with Fox and same cast.

But who knows... maybe they announce FF3 next year, hehe, who knows...

 

[Demon Within]

Saw it 1 hour ago for the second time and I liked it.

Definetly, could be better, but it could be worse too...

I think the problem was the first movie, the audience didn't see it like a possible great franchise, so many people "decided" to not see more sequels.... I suppose.

Personally, I'd like to see one more, but if it isn't confirmed yet, I'm afraid there won't be more, at least not with Fox and same cast.

But who knows... maybe they announce FF3 next year, hehe, who knows...

The problem with the first one is it sucked. The biggest problem with the second one was it sucked EVEN WORSE even with the silver surfer trying to keep it cool. If they make another one heads better start rolling at Fox 5 minutes after they see its a flop.

 

[Angamb]

do you think FF2 was worse than the first?

 

[Mercurius]

I do, for one.

 

[Angamb]

curious....

I find the second more entertaining and dinamic... apart from the action, much much better.

 

[Zombie_Comics]

The second one was better becuase they didn't waste time introducing the characters, but the first is classic. I love both of the movies and hope that they make a third.