The Rebooted "Keep Hope Alive" (that the rights can revert back to Marvel) Thread - Part 7

[NotNickFury]

Look, I get the landscape of comic book films has changed, but is a goal of this particular thread to just overlook what the likes of both Sony and Fox accomplished with the first two Spider-Man and X-Men films in molding the environment, and then dusting that aside in 2008 when the likes of Iron Man came out?

 

[wobbly]

Look, I get the landscape of comic book films has changed, but is a goal of this particular thread to just overlook what the likes of both Sony and Fox accomplished with the first two Spider-Man and X-Men films in molding the environment, and then dusting that aside in 2008 when the likes of Iron Man came out?

No, it is not: I've been in on this thread for ages (and others relating to the FF at the deleted section) and I and others have noted that Sony's and Fox's efforts (as well as Blade before either of them) did set the stage for Marvel to even consider getting into the movie business directly themselves. And for those past efforts I am grateful to them.

That is a matter of historical fact and not open to dispute.

Thing is...that is the past, and it doesn't give them a perpetual free pass for dishing out crap or barely average films now.

Seriously, Sony had SM1, SM2...great efforts, then dropped the ball with SM3 and fumbled further still with the TASM/TASM2. Most are welcoming Spider-Man's integration into the MCU as a result.

Fox had hits with X1 & X2...but let us down with Daredevil, Elektra, FF1, FF2, X3 and Origins.

They picked up again with First Class, an ok effort with Wolverine, better again with DOFP, before failing utterly with FFINO. Then Deadpool defied even their own expectations by a country light year, but they fell again with Apocalypse.

So as far as Fox goes, the only true success they have made of a franchise is to do with the X-Men.

Should we overlook that Fox have tried 3 times times with the FF and failed?

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Look, I get the landscape of comic book films has changed, but is a goal of this particular thread to just overlook what the likes of both Sony and Fox accomplished with the first two Spider-Man and X-Men films in molding the environment, and then dusting that aside in 2008 when the likes of Iron Man came out?

Sony gave us a Spider-Man that looked like he came right out of the comics. Their stories and characterizations were a little off and got tired, but I give them credit for having the courage to bring a comic-book character to life.

Fox gave us X-Men in black leather and created and perpetuated the idea that film characters can and should look and act very differently in films than they did in the comic-books. They seem to have always had the attitude that comic books and the colorful costumes and characters that made them work aren't cool enough and have to be improved. I'm not going to thank them for that.

Imagine if in 2000 Fox (or someone else) had the courage to give us characters out of the comic books. Maybe we would have had a real FF film by now.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Look, I get the landscape of comic book films has changed, but is a goal of this particular thread to just overlook what the likes of both Sony and Fox accomplished with the first two Spider-Man and X-Men films in molding the environment, and then dusting that aside in 2008 when the likes of Iron Man came out?

No. This thread is about Fantastic Four. Not Spider-Man. Not X-Men. Just Fantastic Four.

 

[Ivan Drago]

nope. I walked away from FOX after X3 and X:W. after that, they had their second chances already. They made a good, although pretty misogynistic movie called First Class and I hoped it would be the turning point for them. It wasn't. They followed it with that dreadful Wolverine film and DOFP which was a slap in the face for fans. (and F4nt4st1c which might have been one of the worst major studio productions outside of Michael Bay's realm of the last decade)

I even gave them a third chance since Deadpool was a brave little movie, but Apocalypse was an even bigger slap in the face than DOFP. (and after two botched attempts to make a decent Wolverine movie, I'm not sure why I should be interested in watching the fail a third time with Logan)

I'm done with them. They could produce the Citizen Kane of CBM and I wouldn't care. Over the last ten years (or so) the showed us that they are almost as incompetent at making CBM as Zach Snyder is and everything that points in a positive direction happens either because of pure luck or because someone fought hard and long with them to get a decent movie made.

DOFP was really good though. So was The Wolverine, but that movie did have flaws (mostly in it's third act).

 

[First Avenger]

No, it is not: I've been in on this thread for ages (and others relating to the FF at the deleted section) and I and others have noted that Sony's and Fox's efforts (as well as Blade before either of them) did set the stage for Marvel to even consider getting into the movie business directly themselves. And for those past efforts I am grateful to them.

That is a matter of historical fact and not open to dispute.

Thing is...that is the past, and it doesn't give them a perpetual free pass for dishing out crap or barely average films now.

Seriously, Sony had SM1, SM2...great efforts, then dropped the ball with SM3 and fumbled further still with the TASM/TASM2. Most are welcoming Spider-Man's integration into the MCU as a result.

Fox had hits with X1 & X2...but let us down with Daredevil, Elektra, FF1, FF2, X3 and Origins.

They picked up again with First Class, an ok effort with Wolverine, better again with DOFP, before failing utterly with FFINO. Then Deadpool defied even their own expectations by a country light year, but they fell again with Apocalypse.

So as far as Fox goes, the only true success they have made of a franchise is to do with the X-Men.

Should we overlook that Fox have tried 3 times times with the FF and failed?

All of this.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

This:

Is simply inexcusable. Only one studio would even consider doing something this bad in 2015. The production sketches for this would have been burned at Marvel, Sony or WB. Even if all their other Marvel films had been great (they weren't), they would have a lot of explaining to do regarding how that ever could have happened.

Combine that with all their other failures and Fox has done far more harm than good to the genre.

 

[Dark Raven]

This:

Is simply inexcusable. Only one studio would even consider doing something this bad in 2015. The production sketches for this would have been burned at Marvel, Sony or WB. Even if all their other Marvel films had been great (they weren't), they would have a lot of explaining to do regarding how that ever could have happened.

Combine that with all their other failures and Fox has done far more harm than good to the genre.

From left to right: Wig Woman, Speaker, Springs, "Thing".

 

[The Overlord]

Sony gave us a Spider-Man that looked like he came right out of the comics. Their stories and characterizations were a little off and got tired, but I give them credit for having the courage to bring a comic-book character to life.

Fox gave us X-Men in black leather and created and perpetuated the idea that film characters can and should look and act very differently in films than they did in the comic-books. They seem to have always had the attitude that comic books and the colorful costumes and characters that made them work aren't cool enough and have to be improved. I'm not going to thank them for that.

Imagine if in 2000 Fox (or someone else) had the courage to give us characters out of the comic books. Maybe we would have had a real FF film by now.

Does the fact that Batman and Superman look the way they are in the comics, make Batman v Superman a good film?

I liked some the character designs in Suicide Squad, but that didn't make the movie good and Joker looked awful.

I think Deadpool was a step in the right direction, Deadpool and Colossus looked really good and really I did not mind the changes to nothing character like Negasonic Teenage Warhead.

You can say what FFINO did was unacceptable, but was Batman v Superman or Suicide squad a big step up from that? Suicide Squad was a post production mess, just like FFINO was. Sure those movies were better then FFINO, but so what, that is a race to the bottom.

I also think if someone wanted to they could criticize some of the choices made in the MCU movies. Fanboys still complain about the Mandarin (who is a particularly dated character) and the Guardians of the Galaxy movie did its own thing, rather then being an exact reproduction of the comics.

I still think half the X-Men movies are good and the other half range from okay to just bad, which is a better track record then other franchises.

Heck, I have more faith in the new Wolverine movie then I do in any of the upcoming DC movies. Green Lantern looked more like the comics then X-2 or First Class or Days of Future Past, those are still better movies. Those movies were also better then say Spider-Man 3 or Amazing Spider-Man 2.

I think getting the spirit of a franchise right is more important then just trying to get every detail from the comics right.

That being said, Fox does not know how the FF works and should just sell it back to Marvel for reasonable price. The FF franchise has too many great characters who work better with the rest of Marvel, while X-Men can work as a self contained franchise.

Fox can keep X-Men, but they should give up on the FF, they don't understand what makes that franchise work, they have at least some clue over what makes X-Men works.

I am more defending the X-Men movies then the FF films here (because all the FF films were bad), but I never liked the idea that the more faithful to every detail from the comics a movie is, the better it is. Adaptions are adaptions for a reason and some things will work better on the page then in live action. That being said, if you change a franchise into something unrecognizable when adapting it, you are doing something wrong.

 

[Web-Head]

Well,at least we're almost one year closer...

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Does the fact that Batman and Superman look the way they are in the comics, make Batman v Superman a good film?

No, but if they were wearing black leather they would have been even worse.

 

[The Overlord]

No, but if they were wearing black leather they would have been even worse.

I would take X-Men or X2 over Batman v Superman. The Last Stand is on the same level as that film and FFINO is still the worst of them all.

I do think story and characterization is more important then the costumes though.

 

[harryoscop]

If ya'll wanna see an MCU film with some questionable and rather radical liberties taken with the source material, come to the Spidey Homecoming forums

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I do think story and characterization is more important then the costumes though.

True, but why do we have to choose?

Because in 2000, Fox didn't have the balls to make a comic-book film that looked like a comic book. Thankfully Sony showed that it could be done in 2002.

Sony took a risk. Sony spent a lot of money to show us that a soaring, spectacular, colorful superhero could make back it's budget and then some.

Fox didn't take chances with X-Men. They gave us a relatively low-budget film that didn't push the envelope of what a Superhero film could really be or even try to bring the more fantastic elements of comic-books to film. X-Men didn't dare to give us Iceman gliding on ramps of ice or Angel flying and swooping or Beast performing spectacular acrobatics or Sentinels - real, honest to goodness giant, earth stomping Sentinels.

X-Men was a good enough film, but it wasn't as ground-breaking and wasn't a true comic-book film in the same way Spider-Man was.

 

[The Overlord]

True, but why do we have to choose?

Because in 2000, Fox didn't have the balls to make a comic-book film that looked like a comic book. Thankfully Sony showed that it could be done in 2002.

Sony took a risk. Sony spent a lot of money to show us that a soaring, spectacular, colorful superhero could make back it's budget and then some.

Fox didn't take chances with X-Men. They gave us a relatively low-budget film that didn't push the envelope of what a Superhero film could really be or even try to bring the more fantastic elements of comic-books to film. X-Men didn't dare to give us Iceman gliding on ramps of ice or Angel flying and swooping or Beast performing spectacular acrobatics or Sentinels - real, honest to goodness giant, earth stomping Sentinels.

X-Men was a good enough film, but it wasn't as ground-breaking and wasn't a true comic-book film in the same way Spider-Man was.

I am just saying which one elements I think are more important. Good costumes are fine, but plot and story are the key. I also think some costumes don't even work well in the comics, it seems like MCU changes a lot of the non cosmic villains costumes and I don't mind those changes, Whiplash's costume is very stupid in the comics.

X-Men was an okay film, but let's face it, the MCU has many films on that level, Iron Man 2 and 3. It was movie that just came out after the super hero movie crash of the late 90s, I don't blame them for playing it safe and its not like Spider-Man 1 did not have its own flaws.

I still like X-2, sure it didn't have all the stuff you mentioned and it was an imperfect adaption of God Loves, Man Kills, but they tried to adapt an iconic story for the Silver Screen and it did hit a lot of the right notes, even if they left out the religious element to Stryker to avoid controversy. It was not super over the top adventure, but it hit the right notes and I like the original version of Stryker with his personal motive over some over the top super villain who just blows things up, like film Apocalypse or Malekith. It dealt with the X-Men themes well, its shame Fox never did anything great with the FF.

Deadpool did not have a huge budget and it was great, not everything needs a huge budget, Green Lantern threw a bunch of money at the screen and that movie was garbage.


Now I like Spider-Man 2 better then X-2, but they are both good, I would place them both high on a list compared to some of the comic book movies out there.

I actually don't mind some changes, there are a lot of Marvel villains who are one dimensional characters who could use a personality upgrade in other media, like what BTAS did with Mr. Freeze.

I do think the X-Men movies should ditch the leather outfits and switch to a more comic book style now though, with the success of Deadpool and the failure of Apocalypse, that should be a sign for Fox on the direction they should take.

If ya'll wanna see an MCU film with some questionable and rather radical liberties taken with the source material, come to the Spidey Homecoming forums

I think Homecoming would have to make some changes to avoid covering the same ground the last 2 series had.

 

[Endeavor]

Dont mind harry he's just jumping to conclusions based on who knows what. Tomorrow he'll have changed his mind and will think Homecoming shows the most faithful Spidey yet, then 5 minutes later he'll change his mind again.

 

[Snaaaaake!]

Look, I get the landscape of comic book films has changed, but is a goal of this particular thread to just overlook what the likes of both Sony and Fox accomplished with the first two Spider-Man and X-Men films in molding the environment, and then dusting that aside in 2008 when the likes of Iron Man came out?

Sure why not....?

Seriously why do people use these "guilt trip" tactics level the playing field whenever Fox or Sony is backed in a corner or if the spotlight simply isn't on them?

Were these studios not paid for their "contributions" back then? I saw all 4 of these films in theaters and have the 4 DVD's (somewhere). Fast-forward 12 years and there's far better Marvel films being made by a far better studio. we don't owe Fox or Sony our souls!

 

[NotNickFury]

Sure why not....?

Seriously why do people use these "guilt trip" tactics level the playing field whenever Fox or Sony is backed in a corner or if the spotlight simply isn't on them?

Were these studios not paid for their "contributions" back then? I saw all 4 of these films in theaters and have the 4 DVD's (somewhere). Fast-forward 12 years and there's far better Marvel films being made by a far better studio. we don't owe Fox or Sony our souls!

Ah, didn't realize it was guilt-tripping until this very moment. Or that, I dunno, you didn't exactly answer the question.

 

[Snaaaaake!]

Sony gave us a Spider-Man that looked like he came right out of the comics. Their stories and characterizations were a little off and got tired, but I give them credit for having the courage to bring a comic-book character to life.

Not to mention it did almost 3x's as much as X-men and may have hit the billion dollar mark if Green Goblin didn't looks like he summons Megazord's throughout the film.

Fox gave us X-Men in black leather and created and perpetuated the idea that film characters can and should look and act very differently in films than they did in the comic-books. They seem to have always had the attitude that comic books and the colorful costumes and characters that made them work aren't cool enough and have to be improved. I'm not going to thank them for that.

Imagine if in 2000 Fox (or someone else) had the courage to give us characters out of the comic books. Maybe we would have had a real FF film by now.

Does the fact that Batman and Superman look the way they are in the comics, make Batman v Superman a good film?

I liked some the character designs in Suicide Squad, but that didn't make the movie good and Joker looked awful.

.................I'm sorry did they change the name of this thread to "Keep hope alive" (Revert rights to Snyder and WB)???!

This example has NOTHING to do with Marvel Studios who unlike Fox or WB Marvel usually manage to adhere to comic book lore while making a good film.

 

[Dark Raven]

I need to start a "Keep Hope Alive" thread in the Ant-Man forum.

 

[Snaaaaake!]

Ah, didn't realize it was guilt-tripping until this very moment. Or that, I dunno, you didn't exactly answer the question.

Sure I did. Whether you liked the answer or not means about as much as the question does to this particular thread as you've already been made aware of in other post.

Good night.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Look, I get the landscape of comic book films has changed, but is a goal of this particular thread to just overlook what the likes of both Sony and Fox accomplished with the first two Spider-Man and X-Men films in molding the environment, and then dusting that aside in 2008 when the likes of Iron Man came out?

Ah, didn't realize it was guilt-tripping until this very moment. Or that, I dunno, you didn't exactly answer the question.

Do you really want an answer to your question?

Is a goal of this particular thread to just overlook what the likes of both Sony and Fox accomplished with the first two Spider-Man and X-Men films in molding the environment, and then dusting that aside in 2008 when the likes of Iron Man came out?

Of course not. The goal of this thread is to continue to hope that one day we will get a Fantastic Four film that will come close to capturing the essence of one of the most iconic comic books of the silver age.

But the question is so completely unrelated to anything being discussed - and an insult to the people participating in this thread - that you're not going to get a simple answer and be done.

If you simply want an answer to your question, there it is in blue.

 

[Dark Raven]

If Marvel did get the FF back, they should consider plundering any unused Incredibles scripts to help with the making of a new FF movie.

 

[The Overlord]

.................I'm sorry did they change the name of this thread to "Keep hope alive" (Revert rights to Snyder and WB)???!

This example has NOTHING to do with Marvel Studios who unlike Fox or WB Marvel usually manage to adhere to comic book lore while making a good film.

No, but I am talking about something related, being faithful in terms of details and being faithful in terms of spirit and really a movie could be more faithful in terms of details then another movie and the other movie could still be better.

Batman v Superman is more faithful then say X-2 in terms of details, like costumes, but X-2 is the superior film.

Plus if we are going to go with picky fan complaints, we can pick apart the MCU, there are still a ton of fanboys who are mad about the mandarin (who was a very dated character) and you can pick apart other things, Whiplash did not wear his comic book costume, because it sucks and the Guardians of the Galaxy certainly went its own way with some characters (Drax has a far more stream lined origin in the movie then in the comics).

Its hard to use the "just make it like the comics" when some elements have aged poorly, like the Mandarin or were never great to begin with, like Whiplash's costume, that is why an adaption needs to change some things.

Even the Dark Knight took some liberties, Joker looks that way due to make up, rather then getting that look after being dunked in chemicals.

Getting the spirit of something right is more important then getting the details, getting both the details and the spirit right is the best, but I will always choose getting the spirit right over getting details right.

The problem with the FF is Fox does not get this property, they at least have some idea why X-Men works, but they have no idea why the FF was popular. I would happy with Fox getting some of the details wrong, but getting the overall spirit right, but they have not done that.

I think the FF is harder to do then the X-Men, the X-Men has been adapted way more often into other media, with successful cartoons and video games, the FF cartoons have kinda lame in comparison and they have few video games (and the games are all terrible).

The X-Men has social commentary that is easy to present and be appreciated for, the FF's charms are bit more harder to explain and the FF can seem old fashioned compared some of other properties. That being said, if Marvel can make something like GOTG work, I think they could make the FF work as well, too bad Fox poisoned the well with that property.

 

[Spiderine]

I tend to over look a lot of comic films made before 2008 with the exception of the 2 first Spidey films and the first two X films and Batman Begins. Most of rest were either lame cash grabs or just poorly made films. 2008 revival happens and expectations change. You dont make a film like FFINO and think you will be taken seriously. Studios cant do thay anymore. There was no legitimate attempt by Fox to make a decent film. Same with Sony making GR2. I will say I think Sony and even WB to an extent were trying to make truly entertaining films with Spidey and Bats/Supes. At least the intent was there. FOX truly **** on FF. No respect whatsoever.