Simon Kinberg talks about the film's tone and story

[The Guard]

And that line was Ratner's idea, I think. It was his idea to give a nod to that.

 

[bubbadoom]

Yes, I think Brett is to blame/take credit for that Juggy line...

 

[Dasher10]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...tastic-four-reboot-and-black-superheroes.html

Kingberg is describing this as a, "coming of age story" with with humor in it but its not a comedy. Also, the humor is less slapstick than before. The coming of age part doesn't surprise me since Mark Millar is involved and he co-created the Ultimate universe. He's also describing Trank's vision as "real."

I'm interested. Particularly since Kinberg is also producing as is Matthew Vaughn. I doubt that they're intentionally sabotaging this and making a terrible movie.

 

[Lencho01]

Yes, I think Brett is to blame/take credit for that Juggy line...

Fans are to blame for making it popular and thus making him think they'd like it in the film.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

I'm interested. Particularly since Kinberg is also producing as is Matthew Vaughn. I doubt that they're intentionally sabotaging this and making a terrible movie.

You're probably right. It is probably unintentional, because they just don't have any idea how to make this movie

 

[First Avenger]

After seeing how great DOFP was,I'm now interested to see how this will turno out.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

After seeing how great DOFP was,I'm now interested to see how this will turno out.

I want to feel the same way but I just don't understand this kind of optimism? I loved the first two X-films but that didn't stop Fox from delivering not one but two abysmal incarnations of the Fantastic Four - not to mention other films like Elektra, and Wolverine Origins, etc. Bryan Singer making a great X-Men film proves nothing. Fox has never demonstrated any competency with a CBM property not named X-Men.

 

[Gabe99]

"The Fantastic Four" Writer Compares Reboot to "Batman Begins," "Iron Man"
Simon Kinberg says director Josh Trank’s franchise reboot is "grounded, real, gritty, and what it would really be like if you went through a transformation and lost control of your body."

Empire Podcast:
X-Men: Days Of Future Past Spoiler Special Podcast With Screenwriter Simon Kinberg
Days Of Future Past notes

 

[psylockolussus]

I really hope this reboot turns out to be great!

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

"The Fantastic Four" Writer Compares Reboot to "Batman Begins," "Iron Man"
Simon Kinberg says director Josh Trank’s franchise reboot is "grounded, real, gritty, and what it would really be like if you went through a transformation and lost control of your body."

Empire Podcast:
X-Men: Days Of Future Past Spoiler Special Podcast With Screenwriter Simon Kinberg
Days Of Future Past notes

So he has compared it to X-Men, Batman Begins, Spider-Man, Iron Man and Chronicle . . . but it's going to be unique and different.

This:

"real, gritty, and what it would really be like if you went through a transformation and lost control of your body."

And similar comments he has made in several other interviews is what really concerns me.

This isn't The Elephant Man. The primary drama here shouldn't be about their 'deformities'. This should be a story of people with amazing powers who use those powers to protect innocents from powerful forces that seek to do them harm. That's the story here. That's the classic nature of comic books and the reason people read them. Simon Kinberg and Josh Trank aren't nearly smart enough to improve on that basic concept and reinvent the idea.

We've seen the idea of characters struggling to learn their powers far too often. It's cliche' and it's only interesting to a point. Some of that is needed for establishment, but any good superhero film needs to address it quickly and move on. Even if they do it well, it will be a well done dull cliche'.

And wasn't the basic idea of dealing with powers the primary conflict of the original FF? Wasn't that part of the reason it failed? They didn't give us what we really wanted - a conflict between them and a powerful, threatening villain - but rather tacked that on the end as an afterthought.

They seem so fixated on the humor of the first film that they don't recognize they are repeating many of the same mistakes - but then saying it will be better because it will be more 'gritty'.

Couldn't many of Kinberg's comments apply to the first film? It was relatively 'grounded'. We didn't see the characters doing amazing things, and that was part of the problem.

 

[Donut]

We can blame Nolan for gritty & realistic the bastard

 

[Joe Rockhead]

So he has compared it to X-Men, Batman Begins, Spider-Man, Iron Man and Chronicle . . . but it's going to be unique and different.

This:

"real, gritty, and what it would really be like if you went through a transformation and lost control of your body."

And similar comments he has made in several other interviews is what really concerns me.

This isn't The Elephant Man. The primary drama here shouldn't be about their 'deformities'. This should be a story of people with amazing powers who use those powers to protect innocents from powerful forces that seek to do them harm. That's the story here. That's the classic nature of comic books and the reason people read them. Simon Kinberg and Josh Trank aren't nearly smart enough to improve on that basic concept and reinvent the idea.

We've seen the idea of characters struggling to learn their powers far too often. It's cliche' and it's only interesting to a point. Some of that is needed for establishment, but any good superhero film needs to address it quickly and move on. Even if they do it well, it will be a well done dull cliche'.

And wasn't the basic idea of dealing with powers the primary conflict of the original FF? Wasn't that part of the reason it failed? They didn't give us what we really wanted - a conflict between them and a powerful, threatening villain - but rather tacked that on the end as an afterthought.

They seem so fixated on the humor of the first film that they don't recognize they are repeating many of the same mistakes - but then saying it will be better because it will be more 'gritty'.

Couldn't many of Kinberg's comments apply to the first film? It was relatively 'grounded'. We didn't see the characters doing amazing things, and that was part of the problem.

I think the failure on Kinberg's part is that he recognizes that the previous films failed to capture the imaginations of the FF fans, but he doesn't recognize WHY they didn't.

You can make a list of good an bad from those films, and every way they were bad were departures from the original comics.

Love triangle with Reed, Sue, Victor? Never should have happened.

Victor along for the ride and gets powers? Never should have happened.

Victor is a rival businessman, with nothing but cosmetic evidence he's from Latveria? Name dropping the country a couple of times didn't cut it.

Reed an ineffectual leader and basically neutered scientist? Never should have happened.

Devoting half the movie to them getting their powers? Never should have happened.

I think the introduction of the Fantastic Four from their first issue is how things should have been done. The antagonist of Mole Man could have been replaced - but why not start with the mystery of who these people are then fill in the gaps along the way with a couple of flashbacks?

The things they got right - most of the characters names, their looks were passable. They got their powers from a cosmic storm accident in outer space. They live in the Baxter Building.

Character-wise - Johnny and Ben were fine.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I think the failure on Kinberg's part is that he recognizes that the previous films failed to capture the imaginations of the FF fans, but he doesn't recognize WHY they didn't.

You can make a list of good an bad from those films, and every way they were bad were departures from the original comics.

Love triangle with Reed, Sue, Victor? Never should have happened.

Victor along for the ride and gets powers? Never should have happened.

Victor is a rival businessman, with nothing but cosmetic evidence he's from Latveria? Name dropping the country a couple of times didn't cut it.

Reed an ineffectual leader and basically neutered scientist? Never should have happened.

Devoting half the movie to them getting their powers? Never should have happened.

I think the introduction of the Fantastic Four from their first issue is how things should have been done. The antagonist of Mole Man could have been replaced - but why not start with the mystery of who these people are then fill in the gaps along the way with a couple of flashbacks?

The things they got right - most of the characters names, their looks were passable. They got their powers from a cosmic storm accident in outer space. They live in the Baxter Building.

Character-wise - Johnny and Ben were fine.

I absolutely agree.

Sadly, based on the things I've read over the past year, I'm willing to bet they get many of those same things wrong this time around.

Based on Kinberg's comments and UFF, I'm fully expecting Victor to be with them and get powers, I expect Reed to be an ineffectual leader and I expect them to spend most of the movie focusing on them getting their powers.

I don't expect to get the Baxter Building, and I don't expect them to get their powers going to outer space.

It's almost like they're blindly fumbling and clueless about how to make a proper FF film. It's beyond frustrating to watch this train-wreck play out.

 

[Jason Kane]

I really hope this reboot turns out to be great!

Yes, it'll be just as much a BO hit as Catwoman and Jonah Hex. Oh wait.....

 

[Jason Kane]

We can blame Nolan for gritty & realistic the bastard

And the WB for screwing up the Bat fanchise starting with getting to bed in McDonalds and the toy companies followed by giving Burton more creative leeway in the wake of Edward Scissorhands

 

[First Avenger]

I want to feel the same way but I just don't understand this kind of optimism? I loved the first two X-films but that didn't stop Fox from delivering not one but two abysmal incarnations of the Fantastic Four - not to mention other films like Elektra, and Wolverine Origins, etc. Bryan Singer making a great X-Men film proves nothing. Fox has never demonstrated any competency with a CBM property not named X-Men.

But you have to consider that things have changed since Rothman left Fox. I am mostly curious to see what this will turn out to be.

 

[EssayM]

This:

"real, gritty, and what it would really be like if you went through a transformation and lost control of your body."

And similar comments he has made in several other interviews is what really concerns me.

This isn't The Elephant Man. The primary drama here shouldn't be about their 'deformities'. This should be a story of people with amazing powers who use those powers to protect innocents from powerful forces that seek to do them harm. That's the story here. That's the classic nature of comic books and the reason people read them. Simon Kinberg and Josh Trank aren't nearly smart enough to improve on that basic concept and reinvent the idea.

We've seen the idea of characters struggling to learn their powers far too often. It's cliche' and it's only interesting to a point. Some of that is needed for establishment, but any good superhero film needs to address it quickly and move on. Even if they do it well, it will be a well done dull cliche'.

To play devil's advocate (as I so much enjoy doing), it's possible that the "OMG, what's happening to us?" aspect will only be a minor plot thread, and that it will culminate in them gradually overcoming their fear and confusion to gain control of their powers and come together as a team.

Also, "realistic" reactions to such powers can include many things, from "I'm a freak!" to "This is AWESOME!!" to "We should use these powers to help people". Any and all of those responses would make sense, even in a semi-realistic context.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

To play devil's advocate (as I so much enjoy doing), it's possible that the "OMG, what's happening to us?" aspect will only be a minor plot thread, and that it will culminate in them gradually overcoming their fear and confusion to gain control of their powers and come together as a team.

Also, "realistic" reactions to such powers can include many things, from "I'm a freak!" to "This is AWESOME!!" to "We should use these powers to help people". Any and all of those responses would make sense, even in a semi-realistic context.

Sure, those are possibilites, but I'm not just going by this statement but several others Kinberg has made, such as this one:

"It is really about how four, and in some ways five - with Victor von Doom, how five people go from being normal people in the world to being transformed when it first happens to something abnormal and then by the end sort of super human."

Along with his comments that this would be a 'coming of age' story.

Those comments lead me to believe the primary conflict in the film are their powers and dealing with them.

And, again, imagine that above statement and think about the first film. Couldn't that statement be used to describe the first film? For all their talk of doing this different, they seem to be doing a whole lot of things the same.

 

[EssayM]

Sure, those are possibilites, but I'm not just going by this statement but several others Kinberg has made, such as this one:

"It is really about how four, and in some ways five - with Victor von Doom, how five people go from being normal people in the world to being transformed when it first happens to something abnormal and then by the end sort of super human."

Along with his comments that this would be a 'coming of age' story.

Those comments lead me to believe the primary conflict in the film are their powers and dealing with them.

And, again, imagine that above statement and think about the first film. Couldn't that statement be used to describe the first film? For all their talk of doing this different, they seem to be doing a whole lot of things the same.

I see your point, but what else would you suggest? Ignoring that this is Hollywood and they're going to do an origin story no matter what, what other setup would you suggest?

Do you honestly think you could just show audiences a rubbery scientist, a teenager on fire, a blonde in an impenetrable bubble, and a sentient orange rock-monster with a Brooklyn accent, all wearing blue spandex and all fighting an alien species on an alien planet, possibly with a twenty-story devourer of planets in the mix, all of which is followed by a scene where the scientist, the blonde, the teenager, and the rock-monster all return to Earth and are revealed to be world-famous billionaire celebrities......and people will just accept that?!

I agree the whole origin-story format is kind of tired, but how else would you have them introduce something as insane as that to general audiences, other than showing them as ordinary people and going from there?

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I see your point, but what else would you suggest? Ignoring that this is Hollywood and they're going to do an origin story no matter what, what other setup would you suggest?

Do you honestly think you could just show audiences a rubbery scientist, a teenager on fire, a blonde in an impenetrable bubble, and a sentient orange rock-monster with a Brooklyn accent, all wearing blue spandex and all fighting an alien species on an alien planet, possibly with a twenty-story devourer of planets in the mix, all of which is followed by a scene where the scientist, the blonde, the teenager, and the rock-monster all return to Earth and are revealed to be world-famous billionaire celebrities......and people will just accept that?!

I agree the whole origin-story format is kind of tired, but how else would you have them introduce something as insane as that to general audiences, other than showing them as ordinary people and going from there?

I'd do it very much like Kirby/Lee did it FF #1. When we first see them, they amaze us and those around them with their powers and then we see their origin in flashback. That's the first 15 minutes of the film and the rest is a grand adventure.

This is supposed to be a film based on the Fantastic Four comic books, so I don't understand why they're doing everything they can to be as different as possible from the comic books.

For all the Hollywood fear that audiences won't accept amazing characters, I have yet to see a comic-book film that was rejected because it was too much like the comic-books.

 

[EssayM]

I'd do it very much like Kirby/Lee did it FF #1. When we first see them, they amaze us and those around them with their powers and then we see their origin in flashback. That's the first 15 minutes of the film and the rest is a grand adventure.

I don't know...that sounds like kind of a rushed way to introduce the characters, especially if we're supposed to come to care about whether they triumph against [insert alien antagonist here]. An introduction like that sounds more appropriate for the comics than for a film.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I don't know...that sounds like kind of a rushed way to introduce the characters, especially if we're supposed to come to care about whether they triumph against [insert alien antagonist here]. An introduction like that sounds more appropriate for the comics than for a film.

There are an infinite number of ways to do it, but no reason that their origin needs to be particularly long - if shown at all.

A good writer and director will make us care about them because of who they depict them to be - and that doesn't need to be tied to their origin. We need to see them putting others above themselves. That's what heroes do.

If there is a threat to the people they are protecting and they put their lives on the line to save them, we will want them to triumph.

We can find out who they are before they have their powers, or we can find out who they are after they have their powers. I don't know of any story-telling convention that makes it necessary for us to care about superheroes before we can see them get powers. That's just a choice that the storyteller makes.

 

[Joe Rockhead]

Do you honestly think you could just show audiences a rubbery scientist, a teenager on fire, a blonde in an impenetrable bubble, and a sentient orange rock-monster with a Brooklyn accent, all wearing blue spandex and all fighting an alien species on an alien planet, possibly with a twenty-story devourer of planets in the mix, all of which is followed by a scene where the scientist, the blonde, the teenager, and the rock-monster all return to Earth and are revealed to be world-famous billionaire celebrities......and people will just accept that?!

I go back to one of the greatest villains in cinema history - Darth Vader.

Arguably one of if not the most popular character from the original Star Wars - absolutely nothing was known about his history and how he got that way.

Why does the movie need an origin for everything? If you make compelling characters in their own right, with only hints of their past, I think you can make a better story.

Hollywood is so concerned with "what motivates this character" but believes audiences are too stupid to grasp anything without it being fed to them on a silver platter.

 

[Eddie]

Do you honestly think you could just show audiences an alcohol swilling billionaire in a mech, a World War II veteran with a shield, a blonde alien demigod with a hammer, a scientist green rage-monster, a man with a bow and arrow set, and a redhead with handguns all wearing costumes and all fighting an alien species in New York, possibly with twenty-story alien monsters/transports in the mix, all of which is followed by a scene where the drunk, the vet, the god, the scientist, the archer, and the spy all return to a restaurant and eat shawarma and become world-famous superhero celebrities......and people will just accept that?!

 

[Joe Rockhead]

Do you honestly think you could just show audiences an alcohol swilling billionaire in a mech, a World War II veteran with a shield, a blonde alien demigod with a hammer, a scientist green rage-monster, a man with a bow and arrow set, and a redhead with handguns all wearing costumes and all fighting an alien species in New York, possibly with twenty-story alien monsters/transports in the mix, all of which is followed by a scene where the drunk, the vet, the god, the scientist, the archer, and the spy all return to a restaurant and eat shawarma and become world-famous superhero celebrities......and people will just accept that?!

You're not giving the movie going audience enough credit.

I think that it's easier to handle an origin story for a single character - it doesn't have to take half of the movie to tell it.

What did you think of the first X-Men? There was no real 'origin' story for the characters beyond Rogue. The X-Men as a whole were introduced already together. Wolverine the same. Magneto gets a flashback origin that took very little story time to divulge.

Why would the Fantastic Four have to have an incident to cause their powers explained in anything more than a 15 minute flashback?

If Fox is intent on making this movie, and bringing it in under 90 minutes running time like they did with FF:RotSS (another sore point) - I don't want to have to sit through 45 minutes to an hour for them to go through the motions of explaining how they got that way.