Fantastic Four (2015)

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by Lehnhart

Damn...you guys are completely abusing this film. Nitpicking it like crazy. I'm open to a different interpretation. I know it may not be the spirit from the original F4 comics, but it doesn't mean it can't be done well. I thought both trailer were put together well and I'm pretty intrigued to see the final product in theaters.

Careful. The "usual suspects" will accuse you of being a fanboy with hater rage if you aren't 100% on board with this movie after one teaser and one trailer.

[Diesel]

I've made no secret of my expectation of this movie to suck, and this trailer doesn't change that overall....but I must admit it was a very good trailer. Horrible movies have had good trailers though so it won't influence my feelings much either way.


However, as I have said before, I'll still be seeing the movie with an open mind hoping to enjoy it. I'd much rather have a good movie experience than walk out having to say I was right about it sucking.

[toddly6666]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

Your logic doesn't apply, by the way. I'm a huge fan of the Fantastic Four comics, which is obvious as my biggest problem with this movie is its lack of faithfulness to the comics, but you ask if I've read the Byrne comics?

Yeah you are right, the Negative Zone should be less nightmarish and have more color and blue sky and happy doormen.

In the trailer, the majority of the scenes are in the Baxter Building, Govt offices, and The Negative Zone, with scenes of the FF4 interacting with each other - Reed acting smart and awkward, Ben acting tough, Sue being smart and not a bimbo, Johnny acting cocky, and The Thing looking bad-ass and not used as comic relief. This trailer is obviously not like the tone as shown in Ant-Man movie or Guardians of the Galaxy as some fans seem to want.

[GC Riot]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

Batman & Robin was "tonally different," to say the least. It had a guy in a batsuit, a batcave, a sidekick named "Robin," villains named Mr. Freeze, and Poison Ivy, and Bane... so it had enough in common to be considered a faithful adaptation. But was it? No.

My point is that if you're going to adapt comics, but then get the tone wrong... you see what happens. The Fantastic Four are not this dark, gritty, sterile, colorless, Cronenberg-esque tale about four thirty-somethings who get powers that they view as "disabilities." That is not the Fantastic Four.

Going back to my earlier example - it's like making a dark, gritty adaptation of Scooby Doo. It's not true to the source.

The Fantastic Four is bright, colorful, optimistic, light. It's about family, adventure, and exploration. A brighter tomorrow and a better today. Not murky browns and having characters picked apart by government cronies like in The Fly. It's almost like a science fiction horror drama, with Reed and the others pinned to tables like frogs in an eighth grade science class.

The entire tone is wrong. You like it, that's cool. But it's not the Fantastic Four. And before anyone asks, yes, the perfect tone for a Fantastic Four movie is the tone most Marvel Studios movies have. Iron Man, Thor, Captain America: The First Avenger, The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, those are what Fantastic Four should be.

Not Batman Begins and Interstellar. Not a Cronenberg inspired freakshow.

Batman by Bob Kane hit sort of a middle-ground with the character, a pulpy tone, then it went straight up goofy, trippy and colourful in the 60's and 70's, then it went completely dark with Neal Adams and Frank Miller. With your reasoning, that last part should never have happened, because "That isn't Batman! Batman is Adam West! Batman is BIFF! SMACK! POW! Batman is 'HOLY SARDINES!'". If people like you had it your way, we never would have gotten The Dark Knight Returns or Year One, or Tim Burton's Batman, or Nolan's Batman and so on and so on...

Change CAN be good, and there's NOTHING wrong with treating your source material in a more mature and serious matter, looking at a story from a different perspective, taking things in a different direction, reflecting the reality and society we live in today. You want a glossy, vibrant, joke and warmth-filled Fantastic Four that looks just like the rest of the Marvel Studios films? Fine, I'd most likely watch it myself and most likely enjoy it, but the prospect of doing this has me way more excited than what the previous film versions managed to do beforehand.

Look, like I said, this might end up sucking, badly, but in no way will I refrain from seeing this film because it differs from the source in some ways, or because of "what it should have been". I'm worried about the story, the direction, the chemistry between the actors, but none of my criticisms boil down to "That isn't Fantastic Four".

And that's all folks.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

Apparently I do, because a "hater" wouldn't say they'll see the movie or say that it doesn't look bad.

You want to see "haters," go read the IMDb boards. Go read the racist filth and the trolling and the posts about wanting to see Fox go out of business.

If I was a hater or if I hated this movie, I wouldn't go see it or say that the movie doesn't look bad. As a huge fan of the Fantastic Four, I'm going to have an opinion on it. Expressing that opinion doesn't make me a hater.

This isn't a fan board. Endless, unfounded praise is as valid a discussion point as criticisms. Put me on ignore if you have a problem with my posts.

There is a middle ground between "racist filth" and "unfounded praise". You're presenting a false dichotomy.

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by toddly6666

Yeah you are right, the Negative Zone should be less nightmarish and have more color and blue sky and happy doormen.

In the trailer, the majority of the scenes are in the Baxter Building, Govt offices, and The Negative Zone, with scenes of the FF4 interacting with each other - Reed acting smart and awkward, Ben acting tough, Sue being smart and not a bimbo, Johnny acting cocky, and The Thing looking bad-ass and not used as comic relief. This trailer is obviously not like the tone as shown in Ant-Man movie or Guardians of the Galaxy as some fans seem to want.

So because I say the film shouldn't have a dark, somber, moody, Cronenberg-esque twisted tone... you take that as me saying there should be no dark elements, at all? Even Disney animated films about fairy tales have dark moments. You need darkness. You need the dark moments with the light. You ignored my part about Waid, by the way. Plenty of dark moments, but still a love letter to those classic comics. And Waid's dark moments weren't the pervasive feeling throughout the entire thing. So, no, I wouldn't want a goofy Negative Zone just like I wouldn't want Iron Man fighting a guy who calls himself the Unicorn.

I have never, not once, said there should be no darkness... I said darkness shouldn't be the prevailing thing, which with this Fantastic Four, it clearly is.

Nor have I ever said a Fantastic Four movie should be a straight adaptation of the Lee/Kirby comics. The Stan Lee Avengers comics were goofy too - but, gasp, Marvel Studios did a great job of adapting them to film. No one -- especially not me -- is saying, "adapt the comics exactly." If that were so, Hulk would have been dressed up as a clown and working at the circus in The Avengers, like he was in Avengers #1.

I don't want the goofy comics translated to screen, word for word, page for page. I want a film adaptation that is true to those comics and their spirit. You know, like Iron Man, and Thor, and Captain America: The First Avenger, and The Avengers...

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

There is a middle ground between "racist filth" and "unfounded praise". You're presenting a false dichotomy.

Any time anyone offers an unflattering opinion towards this film, you and Velvet swoop in and accuse them of being a whiny, crybaby fanboy, or a hater. People can have criticisms on what they've seen. They can state what they don't like or what they think looks stupid without being 100% against the film and wanting to see it crash, flop, and go down in flames.

It doesn't make them a hater. It doesn't make them a crybaby fanboy. It makes them people talking about movies on a message board. That's all it is. I'm not running an anti-Fantastic Four smear campaign and I've made that clear for months. I've stated I'm open to seeing the movie and I'm even open to liking it, despite it not being the Fantastic Four that I want. I want to like the movie. And, as I said today, I might. It just might not be a good Fantastic Four film.

You somehow find it unreasonable or unbelievable that someone could have (a lot of) problems with this film and still be able to recognize and acknowledge its merits.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by trans8010

They also got monotone personified as Dr. Franklin Richards. Seriously I know it's a bit part but couldn't you have gotten somebody better? Someone who could emote above that of a pet rock maybe?

I take it you're not a fan of The Wire or House of Cards. I agree that he seems very stiff and wooden in these trailers (and the voiceovers practically scream 'well, we couldn't get Morgan Freeman but maybe nobody will notice) but Reg E. Cathey is very good.

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

Batman & Robin was "tonally different," to say the least. It had a guy in a batsuit, a batcave, a sidekick named "Robin," villains named Mr. Freeze, and Poison Ivy, and Bane... so it had enough in common to be considered a faithful adaptation. But was it? No.

Batman & Robin was a completely legitimate (though not particularly good) nod to both the TV series and the goofier/cheesier periods of the comics. Purists might sniff and say 'well, that's not the real Batman' but that doesn't render that approach illegitimate.

And I'll also take this opportunity to add (or re-add, I've probably already said something to this effect several times by now) my voice the chorus who doesn't particularly care whether or not this comic adaptation or that is completely faithful to this or that run of the comics.

I understand the people who say 'I don't care if this turns out to be the best movie ever, it's still a fail' but I don't agree with them.

The Addams Family was a (partial, anyway) fail not because it was so dramatically different from the show in tone and tenor but because it just wasn't a particularly funny movie. Addams Family Values took the exact same shifts in tone and tenor and turned them into an absolutely hilarious movie.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

Any time anyone offers an unflattering opinion towards this film, you and Velvet swoop in and accuse them of being a whiny, crybaby fanboy, or a hater. People can have criticisms on what they've seen. They can state what they don't like or what they think looks stupid without being 100% against the film and wanting to see it crash, flop, and go down in flames.

It doesn't make them a hater. It doesn't make them a crybaby fanboy. It makes them people talking about movies on a message board. That's all it is. I'm not running an anti-Fantastic Four smear campaign and I've made that clear for months. I've stated I'm open to seeing the movie and I'm even open to liking it, despite it not being the Fantastic Four that I want. I want to like the movie. And, as I said today, I might. It just might not be a good Fantastic Four film.

You somehow find it unreasonable or unbelievable that someone could have (a lot of) problems with this film and still be able to recognize and acknowledge its merits.

You are presenting even more false dichotomies so I'll let you cool down for awhile.

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by GC Riot

Batman by Bob Kane hit sort of a middle-ground with the character, a pulpy tone, then it went straight up goofy, trippy and colourful in the 60's and 70's, then it went completely dark with Neal Adams and Frank Miller. With your reasoning, that last part should never have happened, because "That isn't Batman! Batman is Adam West! Batman is BIFF! SMACK! POW! Batman is 'HOLY SARDINES!'". If people like you had it your way, we never would have gotten The Dark Knight Returns or Year One, or Tim Burton's Batman, or Nolan's Batman and so on and so on...

Change CAN be good, and there's NOTHING wrong with treating your source material in a more mature and serious matter, looking at a story from a different perspective, taking things in a different direction, reflecting the reality and society we live in today. You want a glossy, vibrant, joke and warmth-filled Fantastic Four that looks just like the rest of the Marvel Studios films? Fine, I'd most likely watch it myself and most likely enjoy it, but the prospect of doing this has me way more excited than what the previous film versions managed to do beforehand.

Look, like I said, this might end up sucking, badly, but in no way will I refrain from seeing this film because it differs from the source in some ways, or because of "what it should have been". I'm worried about the story, the direction, the chemistry between the actors, but none of my criticisms boil down to "That isn't Fantastic Four".

And that's all folks.

Here's the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying:

Batman was goofy for a long time. 40s, 50s, 60s, lot of goofiness. It can be argued that the Adam West Batman is a fair representation because it does reflect some of the comics of the time.

But Batman moved away from that in the 70s. And in the 80s, he ran away from that. And now Batman is generally portrayed as dark and serious (as he should be).

My point is that the darkness and tone of this Fantastic Four film? It was never present in the comics. Lee, Byrne, Waid, whoever was on the title, it was never like this movie. So movies like Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are of course true to the comics, because Batman did go into those darker waters.

The Fantastic Four have never gone into those same territories. So when you make a Fantastic Four movie with the tone of a Christopher Nolan Batman movie? It's unfounded. Again, Scooby Doo - you've never seen a dark and gritty Scooby Doo, so if they made a live action Scooby Doo tomorrow that was dark, murky, somber, and Cronenberg-esque? You'd say, "that's not Scooby Doo!"

You'd have more of a point if the original Fantastic Four comics made that same transition Batman did. But they never have. So when you look at it that way, yeah, Marvel Studios' "glossy, vibrant, joke and warmth-filled Fantastic Four that looks just like the rest of the Marvel Studios films" is what I want, and that's what it should be. If Batman never went dark, and he was still the goofy, campy, silly Batman comics were in 2015, and then you saw the Batman V Superman trailer, you'd say, "that's not Batman! Why's it so dark? The tone is all wrong! Batman in the comics is light, and fun, and bright!"

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

You are presenting even more false dichotomies so I'll let you cool down for awhile.

Nope, I'm fine. As mentioned, you can ignore my posts because you often have problems with them.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

Nope, I'm fine. As mentioned, you can ignore my posts because you often have problems with them.

I'm not going to put you on ignore just because you're getting really worked up about Fantastic Four itt

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

I'm not going to put you on ignore just because you're getting really worked up about Fantastic Four itt

I'm not worked up. I'm posting on a discussion board. Your condescension and your "you're having a hissy fit, go have a time out" comes down to a problem you have. Clearly, my posts bother you. Utilize the ignore feature and stop telling me about it.

[GC Riot]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

Here's the difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying:

Batman was goofy for a long time. 40s, 50s, 60s, lot of goofiness. It can be argued that the Adam West Batman is a fair representation because it does reflect some of the comics of the time.

But Batman moved away from that in the 70s. And in the 80s, he ran away from that. And now Batman is generally portrayed as dark and serious (as he should be).

My point is that the darkness and tone of this Fantastic Four film? It was never present in the comics. Lee, Byrne, Waid, whoever was on the title, it was never like this movie. So movies like Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are of course true to the comics, because Batman did go into those darker waters.

The Fantastic Four have never gone into those same territories. So when you make a Fantastic Four movie with the tone of a Christopher Nolan Batman movie? It's unfounded. Again, Scooby Doo - you've never seen a dark and gritty Scooby Doo, so if they made a live action Scooby Doo tomorrow that was dark, murky, somber, and Cronenberg-esque? You'd say, "that's not Scooby Doo!"

You'd have more of a point if the original Fantastic Four comics made that same transition Batman did. But they never have. So when you look at it that way, yeah, Marvel Studios' "glossy, vibrant, joke and warmth-filled Fantastic Four that looks just like the rest of the Marvel Studios films" is what I want, and that's what it should be. If Batman never went dark, and he was still the goofy, campy, silly Batman comics were in 2015, and then you saw the Batman V Superman trailer, you'd say, "that's not Batman! Why's it so dark? The tone is all wrong! Batman in the comics is light, and fun, and bright!"

And WHY did Batman go dark? Because someone made it so! Just like someone is NOW making Fantastic Four so, as a film. You are really contradicting yourself here, can't you see that?

And no, I wouldn't say "that's not Scooby Doo!". I'd check out a trailer out of curiosty and see if it looked like a good film or not. What's to say that a serious Scooby-Doo couldn't be faithful? Absolutely nothing!

[octagon]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

But Batman moved away from that in the 70s. And in the 80s, he ran away from that. And now Batman is generally portrayed as dark and serious (as he should be).

My point is that the darkness and tone of this Fantastic Four film? It was never present in the comics.

And his point (if I'm reading him correctly) is that darkness was never present in the Batman comics until it was.

The 'real' Batman could have never emerged in the comics if those writers and illustrators in the 70s and 80s hadn't decided they were more interested in writing cool, interesting stories than in writing faithful stories.

And it worked out pretty well overall.

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by GC Riot

And WHY did Batman go dark? Because someone made it so! Just like someone is NOW making Fantastic Four so, as a film. You are really contradicting yourself here, can't you see that?

And no, I wouldn't say "that's not Scooby Doo!". I'd check out a trailer out of curiosty and see if it looked like a good film or not. What's to say that a serious Scooby-Doo couldn't be faithful? Absolutely nothing!

But Batman started as dark. He gunned people down. He kicked a thug in the neck and snapped his neck. He hung a monster from a tree.

He didn't just "go dark" one day.

What is the obsession with turning everything dark? The Fantastic Four aren't dark, they've never been dark. Why does the movie have to be dark?

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

I'm not worked up. I'm posting on a discussion board. Your condescension and your "you're having a hissy fit, go have a time out" comes down to a problem you have. Clearly, my posts bother you. Utilize the ignore feature and stop telling me about it.

Other people here can decide for themselves if your posts are over the top, or not.

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by octagon

And his point (if I'm reading him correctly) is that darkness was never present in the Batman comics until it was.

The 'real' Batman could have never emerged in the comics if those writers and illustrators in the 70s and 80s hadn't decided they were more interested in writing cool, interesting stories than in writing faithful stories.

And it worked out pretty well overall.

Dark Batman was present in the comics from day one. After they added Robin he became goofier and goofier, and it was decided decades later to get back to those dark, pulpy roots.

Whereas this Fantastic Four movie is a dark adaptation of comics that aren't dark... and never have been.

Why make a dark, gritty adaptation of something that isn't dark and gritty?

Why, because people feel the lighter Marvel Studios films aren't "grown up" enough? Should Spider-Man be rated R for the people who are embarrassed to say they like comics where a guy swings around in red and blue tights?

[Diesel]

This debate has been repeated over and over guys, drop it and move on and stop cluttering up the thread now
Not everyone is going to enjoy the same things, 'nuff said.


That said....

image.jpg

[octagon]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

Why make a dark, gritty adaptation of something that isn't dark and gritty?

Because it might make for a really cool movie.

Granted, it might not.

But it might.