What can be learned from the previous Fantastic Four movies?

[Dragon]

Start with the characters. Don't make the only interesting thing about them that they have super powers and run around in spandex fighting villains.

The writers need to ask themselves what they imagine life would be like for these folks living day to day without any global threats. Who they are themselves and what they mean to each other, and make that fascinating.

Then introduce the worst possible global threats and put these people in the middle of it, showing how they deal with it.

 

[Kelly]

I agree...

 

[Kelly]

Didn't the writer of Twin Peaks write F4? How'd it turn out so sh****?

And the editor, edited "Dancing With Wolves" and it was the worst editing I had ever seen....

Go figure...?

 

[fantastic fifth]

A villian should never utter the words "Marco.....Polo", or "Let's all go for a spin"............like ever.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I think there were so many things wrong that it's hard to learn much.

We can't say: "If only X were a little better they would have been great films." It's more like: "If X and Y and Z and X' and Y' and Z' were all better they might have been decent films."

There were no great or outstanding elements or moments in either film and the best elements were things that came from the comics . . . that were subsequently watered down by the films rather than improved.

When it really comes to what can be learned - as opposed to "where can we find fault and asses blame?", I think there's much more to be learned from the comics and good films (like The Avengers) than there is to be learned from the first two films.

 

[Quasimod0]

Make doom a threatening villain

 

[Shazam]

I learned that Galactus is a dust cloud...... I also learned that anything but a CGI "Thing" is STUPID!

 

[Kelly]

I think there were so many things wrong that it's hard to learn much.

We can't say: "If only X were a little better they would have been great films." It's more like: "If X and Y and Z and X' and Y' and Z' were all better they might have been decent films."

There were no great or outstanding elements or moments in either film and the best elements were things that came from the comics . . . that were subsequently watered down by the films rather than improved.

When it really comes to what can be learned - as opposed to "where can we find fault and asses blame?", I think there's much more to be learned from the comics and good films (like The Avengers) than there is to be learned from the first two films.

I agree, and I loved The Avengers......but IMO, the dynamics has to be different....yes it was an ensemble superhero film...but the "real family feel" dynamic of the Fantastic Four was not there, and I'm not sure that The Avengers could teach them that...CGI? right amount of humor? etc...sure, but "true family feel" which was NON-EXISTENT in the first 2 films IMO....has to be in this one, or I'm done. : /

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I'd recommend staying away from casting "It" actors and actresses just for the sake of T&A or current popularity. Instead, think about the long term legacy of the film and trilogy you're making. While a big name star(s) casting is beneficial it shouldn't be the primary focus if the character doesn't fit them. The "It-ness" wears off after awhile and the film is dated retrospectively if the casting choices aren't strong.

The original FF series didn't even have enough juice in it to make it into a trilogy, which is such a tragedy to me. It was left feeling so incomplete and much of that had to do with an uncomfortable casting line-up (and a poor director who's vision and experience were limited.) Hopefully FOX has grown up and has moved past the obvious "We've gotta get rich quick!" outlook they clearly had years ago.

 

[Dragon]

I'd recommend staying away from casting "It" actors and actresses just for the sake of T&A or current popularity. Instead, think about the long term legacy of the film and trilogy you're making. While a big name star(s) casting is beneficial it shouldn't be the primary focus if the character doesn't fit them. The "It-ness" wears off after awhile and the film is dated retrospectively if the casting choices aren't strong.

I was going to post the same thing looking at the news of Allison Williams being considered for the cast, although there's no word on whom she'd be playing. I'm even skeptical about the director being flavor of the month hiring. But I'm open to see what happens.

The original FF series didn't even have enough juice in it to make it into a trilogy, which is such a tragedy to me. It was left feeling so incomplete and much of that had to do with an uncomfortable casting line-up (and a poor director who's vision and experience were limited.) Hopefully FOX has grown up and has moved past the obvious "We've gotta get rich quick!" outlook they clearly had years ago.

While few could have been more disappointed with the films than me, I'm still not totally sure that the director had no vision. As I recall he seemed to be saying that he wanted to be truer to the source material but was shackled by Fox.

I still get a chuckle about how Fox was adamant about no armored giants in their films thus why no Galactus or Sentinels; And how Transformers (which was also crap no less) completely trounced FF2 at the box office.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

To be fair, I said that Tim Story had "limited vision", not "no vision." Clearly the studio had his hands tied into a "Yes Ma'am" position.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I like the comment about not going with "it" actors. Especially "it" girls. Hire people who are good at their job and fit their roles. Out of the leads of the last film I only really liked Evans and Chiklis.

 

[Dragon]

I had no problem with the casting of Gruffud, I just think the part was poorly written. I liked Chiklis in the role, but again, bad scripting. I didn't like Evans, although I really like him as Captain America. I think they should cast the Torch as being fairly young. Around the same age as Spider-Man is supposed to be. And Sue needs to be a bit older, especially if they're going to make her a scientist or some such.

 

[Kelly]

I had no problem with the casting of Gruffud, I just think the part was poorly written. I liked Chiklis in the role, but again, bad scripting. I didn't like Evans, although I really like him as Captain America. I think they should cast the Torch as being fairly young. Around the same age as Spider-Man is supposed to be. And Sue needs to be a bit older, especially if they're going to make her a scientist or some such.

IF they are going to cast someone that an American accent is not natural....please let them do a better job than Gruffud in learning lines quickly. One of the problems that they said he had was with the last minute script changes. He could not handle the scripts coming an hour before they were called on set...because he had to practice the accent so much, then when they would fax him the changes it screwed him up. I don't mind casting people from other countries, but that IMO, showed in his line delivery.

I was "ok" with the actors in the first movie, I wasn't real happy with Chiklis cry baby crap on the DVD, and I didn't think Evans was very professional in the promotion of the 2nd movie, but their acting was fine. The second movie, all had their good scenes, and then their VERY BAD SCENES...

 

[psylockolussus]

For some reason I enjoyed the Fantastic Four films that FOX released in the last decade, I wish they made a third one to give the series a proper ending.

 

[bubbadoom]

The biggest thing they need to take from the others is to stick with the original and not go "ultimate" - all those elements were miss-fires the first time around...

 

[Kelly]

The biggest thing they need to take from the others is to stick with the original and not go "ultimate" - all those elements were miss-fires the first time around...

I don't think the general audience saw that as a problem, and if only a % of the fanboys felt that way...why would they change that aspect of it? To please about 5% of the general audience? No reason to...and I got news for ya, you want to turn women off of this movie from the start? Make Sue the blubbering, damsel in distress..."oh Reed please help me" with the usual, "hand over her forehead". You will turn off a far greater % than 5%. No thanks...

You don't want to go UFF, then go Marvel Knights...and bring much of the original into it, but bring Sue far up to date to a 21st Century woman.

 

[chronos]

1) CGI Thing. The reason that Hulk in Avengers was so awesome is that he could do things that a guy in a foam latex suit just can't pull off.

2) Do NOT take the doom out of Doom. Doom needs to be a villain on the level of Vader or Voldemort. He is an evil overlord, a man who could believably take over the world if not stopped. Don't reduce him down to a B grade Norman Osborn knockoff.

3) Don't make the 3rd act anticlimactic. For me, in both movies, the most interesting things (The cosmic ray storm and the Johnny/Surfer chase) happened in the first third of the story. After that, the rest of movie kinda fell flat.

4) Don't forget to give Reed some actual personality. Though, to be fair, alot of comic writers forget this part too.

5) Hire legit actors, preferably those that actually give 2 craps about the roles. Other than Chicklas and Evans (who were the highlights of the franchise), everyone else in the films looked utterly bored to tears.

6) The same rule that goes for all comic adaptations: Don't just try to make a decent comic book movie, try to make a good film. Period.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

3) Don't make the 3rd act anticlimactic. For me, in both movies, the most interesting things (The cosmic ray storm and the Johnny/Surfer chase) happened in the first third of the story. After that, the rest of movie kinda fell flat.

I think this is one of the biggest problems with comic-book movies in general. Often the main story is: "Look at this person (or people) with super-powers. Aren't those super powers amazing? Watch all these neat/unusual/fun/funny things we can do as this person learns about and uses his/her superpowers . . . oh crap. This is a comic-book movie isn't it? We have to have a battle with a bad-guy, don't we? Okay, we've got 10 minutes left. Let's have a battle for which we didn't really build anticipation and finish this thing off."

 

[Dragon]

IF they are going to cast someone that an American accent is not natural....please let them do a better job than Gruffud in learning lines quickly. One of the problems that they said he had was with the last minute script changes. He could not handle the scripts coming an hour before they were called on set...because he had to practice the accent so much, then when they would fax him the changes it screwed him up. I don't mind casting people from other countries, but that IMO, showed in his line delivery.

I was "ok" with the actors in the first movie, I wasn't real happy with Chiklis cry baby crap on the DVD, and I didn't think Evans was very professional in the promotion of the 2nd movie, but their acting was fine. The second movie, all had their good scenes, and then their VERY BAD SCENES...

I never saw the DVD, so I wasn't aware of any problems with Chiklis. I really liked his casting as he seemed to be the one most like the character, in the right way.
Evans simply played the generic Hollywood wise-ass that so many actors like Ryan Reynolds, Owen Wilson, Bradley Cooper etc. etc. have fashioned careers out of. While sure, some of them, Evans included have some real acting skills beneath all the arrogant banter (And some are simply overrated when the audience learns they can do something other than smirk), the character of Johnny was paper thin and I really hated pretty much every on screen moment with him.

I didn't really notice any accent issues with Gruffud.. But that could be because the dialogue was usually so bad it just didn't matter.. Although I can understand the idea of Reed not really speaking in standard American English. Although I'd be fine with casting Reed with an American (Lord knows we have enough Brits playing our iconic American heroes). I was thinking as someone else mentioned Jon Hamm from Madmen as well.

 

[bubbadoom]

I don't think the general audience saw that as a problem, and if only a % of the fanboys felt that way...why would they change that aspect of it? To please about 5% of the general audience? No reason to

...and I got news for ya, you want to turn women off of this movie from the start? Make Sue the blubbering, damsel in distress..."oh Reed please help me" with the usual, "hand over her forehead". You will turn off a far greater % than 5%. No thanks...

You don't want to go UFF, then go Marvel Knights...and bring much of the original into it, but bring Sue far up to date to a 21st Century woman.

Why change that aspect - maybe because the first two attempts did not do that well at the b.o. [when compared to other Marvel projects] and were met with luke warm responses from critics, fans, and general audiences. Sure, no reason to - if you want to repeat the same failure as before - but isn't the point of a reboot to change all that?


And as far as Sue's treatment back then goes - is that really ALL you get out of the original run of the FF - some dated writing of one character. Never mind the artistic and story heights that were reached and have yet to be matched again - of course she will not be presented as such - an no one has ever suggested she should be.

While I was less than impressed by Marvel Knights, I did like it better than the "ultimate" FF - but since nothing of any real significance happened in MK, why even reference it?

 

[Kelly]

I never saw the DVD, so I wasn't aware of any problems with Chiklis. I really liked his casting as he seemed to be the one most like the character, in the right way.
Evans simply played the generic Hollywood wise-ass that so many actors like Ryan Reynolds, Owen Wilson, Bradley Cooper etc. etc. have fashioned careers out of. While sure, some of them, Evans included have some real acting skills beneath all the arrogant banter (And some are simply overrated when the audience learns they can do something other than smirk), the character of Johnny was paper thin and I really hated pretty much every on screen moment with him.

I didn't really notice any accent issues with Gruffud.. But that could be because the dialogue was usually so bad it just didn't matter.. Although I can understand the idea of Reed not really speaking in standard American English. Although I'd be fine with casting Reed with an American (Lord knows we have enough Brits playing our iconic American heroes). I was thinking as someone else mentioned Jon Hamm from Madmen as well.

As far as Chiklis, he *****es quite a bit about his lack of screen time, and how hard it was in the suit, WELL HELL HE'S THE ONE THAT WANTED THE DAMN SUIT.

As far as Gruffud, it wasn't an accent problem that he had, it was a lack of time to build emotion in the dialogue and came off as some fairly "flat" lines. He had to spend the good portion of his time "learning the accent" rather than "learning the meaning behind the lines, the emotion of the lines, etc" if that makes sense?

 

[Kelly]

Why change that aspect - maybe because the first two attempts did not do that well at the b.o. [when compared to other Marvel projects] and were met with luke warm responses from critics, fans, and general audiences. Sure, no reason to - if you want to repeat the same failure as before - but isn't the point of a reboot to change all that?


And as far as Sue's treatment back then goes - is that really ALL you get out of the original run of the FF - some dated writing of one character. Never mind the artistic and story heights that were reached and have yet to be matched again - of course she will not be presented as such - an no one has ever suggested she should be.

While I was less than impressed by Marvel Knights, I did like it better than the "ultimate" FF - but since nothing of any real significance happened in MK, why even reference it?

As a young girl reading those....yeah, I found it very irritating how she was treated, and found myself wanting to be more like Johnny. NOW, as it moved into the 70's, 80's and 90's. Of course that changed with the changing role of women. But, too us growing up in that time period, as young girls, teenager, and woman....F4, though it changed, it was obvious that it was a changed influenced by the writing of men.

As far as the MK, I referenced them because they would be a good meshing of the old and new. Not necessarily the storyline, except that MK Fantastic Four 1,2,3,4 would make an awesome storyline, it can't happen because Fox doesn't have Namor.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

And as far as Sue's treatment back then goes - is that really ALL you get out of the original run of the FF - some dated writing of one character. Never mind the artistic and story heights that were reached and have yet to be matched again - of course she will not be presented as such - an no one has ever suggested she should be.

I think the important thing to keep in mind is that it wasn't just Sue, but Ben and Johnny also. How many times did Reed call Ben a 'fool'? I'm sure it's more than once.

While Reed can't act like the 1960's Reed, I think that arrogance should be there. He's the smartest guy on the freaking planet and he knows it.

Reed needs to be strong, confident, and to some degree, arrogant.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I think the reason Jon Hamm's name keeps coming up is that Don Draper and Reed Richards are very similar. Don is very sure of himself as an ad-man and often expressed contempt for others and Reed should have that same sort of attitude as a scientist.