So wat was so bad???

[Kahran Ramsus]

If you do decide to watch it again, make sure it is the Director's Cut. It is significantly better.

Yeah, there is still the odd scene that doesn't work, like the playground fight. But it isn't reflective of the film as a whole.

 

[metaphysician]

Didn't the Director's Cut also add a really laughable scene where he basically physically assaults a police officer *as Matt Murdoch*?

 

[Human Torch]

Didn't the Director's Cut also add a really laughable scene where he basically physically assaults a police officer *as Matt Murdoch*?

I think that's the aforementioned "car driving" scene.Worse than the strangely vilified "playground scene."IMO.

 

[Bayne]

Except that Matt Murdock is a freaking LAWYER! He works in a LAW FIRM, and his best friend is also a lawyer. "Courtroom drama" is part of the deal. Also, that "punks" whole sub-plot explains HOW Kingpin ends up being exposed (which is a plothole in the theatrical version), fixes other plot-holes, and explains Ben Urich's decision at the end. But the studio apparently went "drama, character/plot development, interpersonal relationship, nah. Let's just give um sex and action, that's cool right?"

The theatrical release had courtroom drama in it. It didn't need even more courtroom drama just to drive home the fact that he's a lawyer. And the whole story was centered around the fact that the Kingpin was in danger of being exposed, so unless you think the police weren't doing any investigating of that (and Natchios' death) then that's not much of a plot hole. Personally, I didn't need any specific explanation on exactly why Urich chose to do what he did, either. As far as I'm concerned, taking even more time out of the film to explain it was useless dead weight.

 

[psylockolussus]

I just saw the deleted/extended scenes of Fantastic Four for the first time and I wish they made the final cut!

 

[T-Ray]

There is nothing inherently bad about any of these movies, in my opinion. They are enjoyable as most other superhero movies.

Daredevil

I think that the mistake was that they cut the entire subplot which was very important to the flow of the movie and was the "binding tissue" and so the theatrical cut felt disjointed. I put Daredevil (Directors cut) in the same league as Batman Begins. Heck, DD and The Punisher (2004) were "gritty & realistic superhero movies" before all this TDK mania, but somehow fans tend to forget that. (note: I consider Nolan's Bat movies good flicks, not my preferred Bat flicks, but they are good, just for the record.)

Spider-man 3

Exaggerated fan expectations + fan hate over silly things + a little less polished script. I did not have problem with changes and retcons (Sadman killing uncle Ben, for example, was not necessary, but it didn't derail my enjoyment nor ruined the story that much, imo). And "emo Peter" was cool way of showing Peters deterioration (a ego-tripping geek with a gun might be dangerous (Peter killing Sandman), but he would still be looking and acting like a fool (Peter dancing)).

Fantastic Four and Fantastic Four 2

Both OK, lighthearted movies. Fox played it safe, but, so was Marvel in "Phase 1" movies. Again, I put them in the same basket as "Thor", "Thor: TDW", "Iron Man", "Iron Man 2", all have almost the same tone and same amount of changes from source material, imo. And, also, removal of character development scenes in theatrical cut of the first FF.

X-men 3

Similar to SM3... Maybe a better director and a just a tad altered script or just a little bit of risk to try and raise some "controversial" questions would make a huge difference. Combining Phoenix saga with the cure storyline was genius (*ducks in cover*). It worked for what the previous two movies set up (X1-X2 had the debate about whether mutants are dangerous and are humans evil for fearing them and X3 brings the Phoenix.

 

[Damage11]

Spider-Man 3 may not have been the most boring story in the world, it was just edited that way. They should have led with the building collapse scene. Instead there's 15 minutes of lovey dovey BS at the start, and IMO the movie could never catch up.

Having Foreman play Venom didn't help either.

 

[Grommers]

I think one of the biggest issues with these movies are fans..know what they can be. I recently went back and watched X-Men 1, and that movie isn't very good, however it is a milestone, and one of the movies, that really kicked off Marvel's success. I don't feel it aged well at all, with poor character development, bad casting, small scaled. Up until then, we had gotten "decent" movies, none that have got the amount of fans interested as we do now, as per "GotG, Ironman, Spider-man 2".


After those, the expectations for movies are much higher, and as they should be some of these directors/writers/producers are god awful, and chances are..got into the position from knowing a guy.

Now, that we've had great movies, mediocre, or average, doesn't cut it..nor should it, for the millions these make, we as consumers deserve great, and these are average, and thats what I feel hurt/brought these movies down to earth, as bad movies.

 

[Orba]

I think one of the biggest issues with these movies are fans..know what they can be. I recently went back and watched X-Men 1, and that movie isn't very good, however it is a milestone, and one of the movies, that really kicked off Marvel's success. I don't feel it aged well at all, with poor character development, bad casting, small scaled. Up until then, we had gotten "decent" movies, none that have got the amount of fans interested as we do now, as per "GotG, Ironman, Spider-man 2".


After those, the expectations for movies are much higher, and as they should be some of these directors/writers/producers are god awful, and chances are..got into the position from knowing a guy.

Now, that we've had great movies, mediocre, or average, doesn't cut it..nor should it, for the millions these make, we as consumers deserve great, and these are average, and thats what I feel hurt/brought these movies down to earth, as bad movies.

Nicely put

 

[Huddsy]

Fantastic Four and Fantastic Four 2

Both OK, lighthearted movies. Fox played it safe, but, so was Marvel in "Phase 1" movies. Again, I put them in the same basket as "Thor", "Thor: TDW", "Iron Man", "Iron Man 2", all have almost the same tone and same amount of changes from source material, imo. And, also, removal of character development scenes in theatrical cut of the first FF.

To put the original Iron Man int he same class as FF and FF2 is an insult. And I don't even hate the FF movies (I own both of em and watch them when I'm bored). But Iron Man is one of the best comic book super hero movies made to date. EASILY.

 

[Human Torch]

I really enjoyed the FF films,flawed as they may be.I thought the cast was great, (Alba being somewhat miscast,but still decent) the costumes looked good.

The flaws were the rather unambitious villains.(Cloud-actus,Victor Von Osborn) The jokey tone was up and down.In some cases it suited the characters,at other times was fairly annoying.The deleted scenes/extended version did improve the first film a lot.

 

[Slushy]

Daredevil - The playground fight.

Spider-man 3 - Cramming in Venom at the last minute

Fantastic Four - Jessica Alba, incredibly short final fight

Fantastic Four 2 - Jessica Alba, Cloudactus

X-men 3 - Using the Phoenix and The Cure storylines into the same movie. Should've been one or the other. Also, Ratner deserves a swift kick in the crotch for not having Colossus Vs. Juggernaut.

 

[Lantern Venom]

At the risk of being attacked I'm going to ask a question that has been plaguing me but then too afraid to ask...

Ok so here goes>>>

As far as Superhero Marvel movies go..

What was so wrong with:

Daredevil

Spider-man 3

Fantastic Four

Fantastic Four 2

X-men 3

Now while they may have been epic or and had some particular flaws.
I hardly think they were as bad as their made out to be.?

They're all good films that have a few problems that keep them from being classics. There have only been a couple of comic book adaptations in the modern era that have been authentically horrible. The issue is a comparative one since there have been some comic book films that are now in the conversation as some of the G.O.A.T. Fans have higher (and often unreasonable) expectations.

 

[psylockolussus]

The deleted scenes/extended version did improve the first film a lot.

The director should have never deleted them from the final cut in the first place.

I also liked the "space credits sequence" that was cut from Rise of the Silver Surfer.

 

[T-Ray]

To put the original Iron Man int he same class as FF and FF2 is an insult. And I don't even hate the FF movies (I own both of em and watch them when I'm bored). But Iron Man is one of the best comic book super hero movies made to date. EASILY.

First Iron Man movie is awesome movie, and one of my favorites, but it is done as safe as FF movies, IMO. I do not mean that as an insult, though. I understand why they played is safe in both cases, so I can't take that as an argument against movies.

Both are structured as basic hero journey, "by the book" origin stories. Both FF and IM had similarly structured hero and villain arcs building to big action scene done at the very end, and focus was on heroes with villain being there to provide some basic conflict and push the story forward. It is even better seen in extended cut of FF, IMO. Both had light and fun tone, similar cinematography and colorful comic bookish designs.

The major difference is that IM had, by default, more, how to phrase it, realistic and down-to-earth plot devices (war profiteering, terrorism), while FF, by default, had far less relevant plot devices.

 

[T-Ray]

The director should have never deleted them from the final cut in the first place.

I also liked the "space credits sequence" that was cut from Rise of the Silver Surfer.

Is there a reason why Fox removed all the best parts for theatrical cuts of FF and Daredevil?

 

[Loki882]

First Iron Man movie is awesome movie, and one of my favorites, but it is done as safe as FF movies, IMO. I do not mean that as an insult, though. I understand why they played is safe in both cases, so I can't take that as an argument against movies.

Both are structured as basic hero journey, "by the book" origin stories. Both FF and IM had similarly structured hero and villain arcs building to big action scene done at the very end, and focus was on heroes with villain being there to provide some basic conflict and push the story forward. It is even better seen in extended cut of FF, IMO. Both had light and fun tone, similar cinematography and colorful comic bookish designs.

The major difference is that IM had, by default, more, how to phrase it, realistic and down-to-earth plot devices (war profiteering, terrorism), while FF, by default, had far less relevant plot devices.

Not really. They may have the most basic bare-bones "heroes journey" thing, but it's executed VERY differently between movies. Also, IM took itself more seriously and it felt like an actual progression had occurred by the end, not so with FF.

 

[T-Ray]

Not really. They may have the most basic bare-bones "heroes journey" thing, but it's executed VERY differently between movies. Also, IM took itself more seriously and it felt like an actual progression had occurred by the end, not so with FF.

I agree that IM had better director and studio took advantage of charismatic cast and premise for all that is worth unlike Fox with their theatrical cut of FF. Yes, IM felt more serious, because there were "realistically cartoonish" terrorists and on-screen kills, while FF did not have that, there was all that space/sf stuff, and thus felt more "childish", but threat levels are similarly "non traumatic" in both. And its easier to make weapon manufacturer more tragic and make his arc more serious than do the same thing with space explorers, honestly.

I do not belittle IM nor I want to, I like that movie way too much to do that. And, yes, FF could have been way better movie if they took just a little bit more risk, but so could IM. But I still think that IM and extended cut of FF are very close in terms of cinematic quality and character arcs considering the comic books they are based on.

 

[C. Lee]

At the risk of being attacked I'm going to ask a question that has been plaguing me but then too afraid to ask...

Ok so here goes>>>

As far as Superhero Marvel movies go..

What was so wrong with:

Daredevil

Spider-man 3

Fantastic Four

Fantastic Four 2

X-men 3

So okay guys help me out what was soooooo bad about these films???
Is it just a FOX thing???

My opinion....

DAREDEVIL
Personally loved it, especially the director's cut, so never really understand the hate for it.

SPIDER-MAN 3
Sandman is not the killer of Uncle Ben. Never was. Never. Didn't happen.

FANTASTIC FOUR
Biggest complaint was the depiction of Dr. Doom. Doom is not a cosmic storm created electrical mutation who also happens to be billionaire industrialist.....he's the meglomaniacal ruler of his own country.

FANTASTIC FOUR 2
The atrocious makeup used on Alba....and Galactus should have been either shown as a the giant alien he is or not at all.

XMEN 3
The needless killing off of main (and beloved) characters that hadn't died in the comics.

 

[metaphysician]

*rolls eyes* People need to stop defining the word "safe" to mean "uses something at least vaguely recognizable as the Hero's Journey." *Absolutely everything that Hollywood does follows the Hero's Journey.* It is no more a mark of safety than "using color film" is.

 

[agentorange]

I honestly thought the Fantastic Four movies were alright. I never read the comics tho besides the House Of M series so I could never understand why true FF fans hated it so much. And I think they got the casting right as well. As far as Spiderman 3 goes...I haven't watched it in a while but I remember Peter breaking out in a dance routine in the middle of the film...ruined it for me.

 

[Loki882]

I honestly thought the Fantastic Four movies were alright. I never read the comics tho besides the House Of M series so I could never understand why true FF fans hated it so much. And I think they got the casting right as well. As far as Spiderman 3 goes...I haven't watched it in a while but I remember Peter breaking out in a dance routine in the middle of the film...ruined it for me.

I can answer that:

-The horrible portrayal of Doctor Doom. Doom is one of the most brilliant minds in the MU. He's a brilliant scientist and engineer, as well as being a world class sorcerer. He's an expert strategist and manipulator, he's got armor and tech that puts Iron Man to shame, he rules over his own country so he can never be arrested, and he's one of the more complicated villains in the MU. In the films, he's a poor man's Norman Osborn and a massive idiot with no real motivations/larger goal.

-Jessica Alba. She's just miscast and in no way conveys the highly intelligent and strong woman that Sue is supposed to be.

-Nothing really happens in the first movie. The entire plot is dedicated around them trying to be rid of their powers, which is pointless since you know that that's not going to happen. A lot of the movie is them just hanging out in the Baxter Building playing "Fantastic sitcom."

-They butchered the Coming of Galactus story, the Silver Surfer's development was rushed, Galactus as a giant space cloud that doesn't even talk was garbage, the godawful portrayal of the military, and Silver Surfer defeating Galactus so pathetically easily was bullcrap.

 

[agentorange]

Lol yeah I see your point now, I didnt like FF2 as much as the first one anyway cause there was way less action. At least in the first film they had a big fight scene with Doom at the end, whereas in the second film I cant think of one big fight scene that was worth remembering.

 

[T-Ray]

*rolls eyes* People need to stop defining the word "safe" to mean "uses something at least vaguely recognizable as the Hero's Journey." *Absolutely everything that Hollywood does follows the Hero's Journey.* It is no more a mark of safety than "using color film" is.

Maybe I should have cleared that in my previous posts, so sorry for the confusion. Being "hero's journey" or any other type of story does not mean same as "safe".

I meant "safe" as in "they didn't try to do anything that might raise questions or offend somebody (except for the fans, of course, we'd get offended no matter what) or at least try and play with the established tropes of the genre". For example, heroes are misguided and/or selfish but clearly good at heart, villains are clearly evil of "acceptable target group" variety, no shades of "what if villain is actually right" or "does the end really justify the means" or something like that. A lot of superhero movies are guilty of this, though, some just manage to disguise it better.

Again, I do not mind "safe" movies because, sad as it is, movies are expensive businesses and such is the reality of movie-making. And just if I think that some movie is "safe" it doesn't mean that I think that same movie is bad.

Hope that clears this up.

 

[Huddsy]

Maybe I should have cleared that in my previous posts, so sorry for the confusion. Being "hero's journey" or any other type of story does not mean same as "safe".

I meant "safe" as in "they didn't try to do anything that might raise questions or offend somebody (except for the fans, of course, we'd get offended no matter what) or at least try and play with the established tropes of the genre". For example, heroes are misguided and/or selfish but clearly good at heart, villains are clearly evil of "acceptable target group" variety, no shades of "what if villain is actually right" or "does the end really justify the means" or something like that. A lot of superhero movies are guilty of this, though, some just manage to disguise it better.

Again, I do not mind "safe" movies because, sad as it is, movies are expensive businesses and such is the reality of movie-making. And just if I think that some movie is "safe" it doesn't mean that I think that same movie is bad.

Hope that clears this up.

Then pretty much 99% of movies are "safe" lol. Guardians of the Galaxy is not a "safe" movie, despite no real moral implications or soul searching. It's about a bunch of people who come together to stop a planet from being destroyed. Doesn't mean it's "safe".