Fantastic Four (2015)

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by mrr1

I am a huge supporter of Fox's X-Men, but I think the only reason it is good is because of Bryan Singer. Without him, The X-Men movies would have been as craptacular as Daredevil and the Fantastic Four movies.

I give all the credit to Singer. Fox sucks at this.

Now a Bryan Singer Fantastic Four movie would be worth getting excited for!

Singer definitely has a lot to do with the series' success, but Matthew Vaughn deserves a ton of credit for making "First Class" a truly great entry. I love James Mangold's "Wolverine" film too, especially the extended cut. My only problem with Singer's approach is that he seemed to push one aspect of the "outcasts" allegory a little too far...and I'll leave it at that.

As for "Daredevil", that whole situation came about because Gary Foster and Avi Arad sided with Fox over director Mark Steven Johnson. His cut was so much better than the theatrical, and I'm convinced it would've been a much bigger success with that version in theaters.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

Eventually white people won't be the majority and you will start to see more and more nonwhite actors and actresses playing fictional characters that started out as white.

Fortunately for many of you, you'll probably be dead by then so I guess you won't have to see it.

Pretty much.

I think changing race during a recasting in the same continuity would be the only way changing race would annoy me. Otherwise, I think it's a good thing to bring more diversity to the classic characters, and America is supposed to be a melting pot, so let's make our mythology more of a melting pot as well.

I wish they did it much more often, to be honest.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by camper

A movie based on comic book characters whose identities have not changed in the 50+ years that they've existed, yet when the movie comes out massive rewrites to the characters biographies (such as the bit quoted below) to accommodate the actor...yes, i honestly believe that this is being done only to show they are "progressive."

Does changing a character's skin color really constitute a 'massive rewrite'? Did casting the red-headed Emma Stone require massive rewrites to Gwen Stacy's biography?

Originally Posted by camper

It rarely works, however. Why? Because the experiences of a white teenager, and a black one are very different. Same with a black child raised in a white family, or even a white child raised in a black family.

Guarantee, it will be so lazily and sloppily done that Johnny will be your stereotypical black teen male and Sue will be your stereotypical white girl teen regardless of what kind of family they were raised in. And other than a couple throw away jokes, I doubt they will even address that the experiences between the two are and would be vastly different.

Did you see Chronicle? Michael B Jordan didn't play your stereotypical black teen male (whatever that is). He was just one of three high school kids. Any one of those actors could have played any of the three roles without massive rewrites.

(he was pretty good, too, for whatever that might be worth)

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

Singer definitely has a lot to do with the series' success, but Matthew Vaughn deserves a ton of credit for making "First Class" a truly great entry. I love James Mangold's "Wolverine" film too, especially the extended cut. My only problem with Singer's approach is that he seemed to push one aspect of the "outcasts" allegory a little too far...and I'll leave it at that.

As for "Daredevil", that whole situation came about because Gary Foster and Avi Arad sided with Fox over director Mark Steven Johnson. His cut was so much better than the theatrical, and I'm convinced it would've been a much bigger success with that version in theaters.

Dude, despite being coy, we all know exactly what you mean by this. Given your previous posts I've seen across the forum, I'm not surprised it makes you uncomfortable.

[StingingVelvet]

Honestly I feel like Singer plays the gay allegory very lightly, it could be a LOT more in-your-face in the hands of a lesser director.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Honestly I feel like Singer plays the gay allegory very lightly, it could be a LOT more in-your-face in the hands of a lesser director.

I do too. Let's also not forget that none of the mutants as depicted in his films are actually gay.

[Thomas Guycott]

Considering the X-Men were created in the early 1960s with significant analogies to the Civil Rights movement, it frankly strikes me as a non-issue.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by Thomas Guycott

Considering the X-Men were created in the early 1960s with significant analogies to the Civil Rights movement, it frankly strikes me as a non-issue.

Yeah, the X-Men's outsider status can be seen as an allegory for any number of groups.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

I do too. Let's also not forget that none of the mutants as depicted in his films are actually gay.

That is a very good point, and one that I think is favorable in Singer's approach and direction. Not that I would care that any of the characters were actually gay in the film, if they had originally been depicted as such, but the outcast mutant allegory is strong enough to cover all the bases... and without hitting you over the head with it.

The reason why I think it is so favorable is because the X-men history is very dense with characters and themes and storylines and multiple timelines and events, and if not orchestrated properly, it could end up being a big convoluted mess, which the comics have been at times, and the movies almost stumbled towards at one point. Singer was smart enough to try to keep the franchise streamlined to where it covers what he feels is important to the X-Men concept and history. With all that source material to draw from, I'm very grateful that he didn't force some homosexual Mary Sue character of his own creation upon us just to heavy-handedly push his point across or leave his personal stamp on the franchise. Obviously, the history is so dense that some sacrifices have to be made when adapting from comics to screen -- I still think Cyclops should have had a greater role in all the films, but at least it wasn't at the expense of a Jar Jar Binks.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by Darkstream

That is a very good point, and one that I think is favorable in Singer's approach and direction. Not that I would care that any of the characters were actually gay in the film, if they had originally been depicted as such, but the outcast mutant allegory is strong enough to cover all the bases... and without hitting you over the head with it.

The reason why I think it is so favorable is because the X-men history is very dense with characters and themes and storylines and multiple timelines and events, and if not orchestrated properly, it could end up being a big convoluted mess, which the comics have been at times, and the movies almost stumbled towards at one point. Singer was smart enough to try to keep the franchise streamlined to where it covers what he feels is important to the X-Men concept and history. With all that source material to draw from, I'm very grateful that he didn't force some homosexual Mary Sue character of his own creation upon us just to heavy-handedly push his point across or leave his personal stamp on the franchise. Obviously, the history is so dense that some sacrifices have to be made when adapting from comics to screen -- I still think Cyclops should have had a greater role in all the films, but at least it wasn't at the expense of a Jar Jar Binks.

I ran out of thanks or else I would have given this post some. I agree with everything you said.

There's so much that's outrageous and ostentatious and sometimes even over the top in X-Men that keeping the allegories and real world parallels subtle is just the right way to handle it and maintain balance. The subtext doesn't become text but it's also not barely there either.

[camper]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

Eventually white people won't be the majority and you will start to see more and more nonwhite actors and actresses playing fictional characters that started out as white.

Fortunately for many of you, you'll probably be dead by then so I guess you won't have to see it.

Say goodbye to blondes and redheads, unless that hair color comes from a bottle

Originally Posted by octagon

Does changing a character's skin color really constitute a 'massive rewrite'? Did casting the red-headed Emma Stone require massive rewrites to Gwen Stacy's biography?

What color was naturally redheaded Emma Stone's hair in the Spiderman movies, red? Black? Green? Red?

And regardless, Emma Stone is a white person playing a white comic book character, so even though their personal backgrounds are different it is generally easier for a white person to relate to a white person than it is for a white person to relate to a black person or a black person to relate to a white person. And the character's history of Johhny storm, like it or not, is that of a white person and the history of the character ties into that.

As for the 'massive rewrites', Sue and Johnny being brother and sister, with the same mom and dad, being changed to a mult-ethnic family IS a massive rewrite, and the way the two interact could be different based not only on that perspective, but because (despite what anyone says) adopted children ARE often treated differently than a biological sibling. Even if it is not very overt, it is often perceived--and that changes the family dynamic.

Did you see Chronicle? Michael B Jordan didn't play your stereotypical black teen male (whatever that is). He was just one of three high school kids. Any one of those actors could have played any of the three roles without massive rewrites.

(he was pretty good, too, for whatever that might be worth)

If you don't know what a "stereotypical black teen" is, then you've never watched movies and your trying to act like such a thing as stereotypes in cinema (or in real life) demonstrates your inability to talk honestly about such things.

And while I am not bad mouthing Jordan's skills (though, if your'e saying anyone of the actors could stand in for any other it sounds like he wasn't anything special) playing a character written specifically for a movie is far different than playing an existing character that exists in other mediums.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by camper

And regardless, Emma Stone is a white person playing a white comic book character, so even though their personal backgrounds are different it is generally easier for a white person to relate to a white person than it is for a white person to relate to a black person or a black person to relate to a white person. And the character's history of Johhny storm, like it or not, is that of a white person and the history of the character ties into that.

As for the 'massive rewrites', Sue and Johnny being brother and sister, with the same mom and dad, being changed to a mult-ethnic family IS a massive rewrite, and the way the two interact could be different based not only on that perspective, but because (despite what anyone says) adopted children ARE often treated differently than a biological sibling. Even if it is not very overt, it is often perceived--and that changes the family dynamic.

Agreed 100%; I wish more folks understood things like that.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by camper

Say goodbye to blondes and redheads, unless that hair color comes from a bottle




What color was naturally redheaded Emma Stone's hair in the Spiderman movies, red? Black? Green? Red?

And regardless, Emma Stone is a white person playing a white comic book character, so even though their personal backgrounds are different it is generally easier for a white person to relate to a white person than it is for a white person to relate to a black person or a black person to relate to a white person. And the character's history of Johhny storm, like it or not, is that of a white person and the history of the character ties into that.

As for the 'massive rewrites', Sue and Johnny being brother and sister, with the same mom and dad, being changed to a mult-ethnic family IS a massive rewrite, and the way the two interact could be different based not only on that perspective, but because (despite what anyone says) adopted children ARE often treated differently than a biological sibling. Even if it is not very overt, it is often perceived--and that changes the family dynamic.



If you don't know what a "stereotypical black teen" is, then you've never watched movies and your trying to act like such a thing as stereotypes in cinema (or in real life) demonstrates your inability to talk honestly about such things.

And while I am not bad mouthing Jordan's skills (though, if your'e saying anyone of the actors could stand in for any other it sounds like he wasn't anything special) playing a character written specifically for a movie is far different than playing an existing character that exists in other mediums.

I can't help but think this is a lot of words for "don't cast a black guy or it ruins the character".

Anyway, Fox (and Chris Evans' career) survived two bad Fantastic Four movies so even if this one flops, I don't understand why people assume they'll automatically sell the rights back to Marvel. Seems like wishful thinking to me (even though I'm wishing it happens as well).

[camper]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

I can't help but think this is a lot of words for "don't cast a black guy or it ruins the character".

Well, on this matter its best to explain the point of view and the reasoning behind it lest small minded people belch out the word "racist."

Like I said originally, I could care less about making a character black--I'm just opposed to the Black Johnny/White Sue dichotomy because I do not have faith that it, nor the sociology that goes with it, will be addressed in some meaningful way.

Of course, I could always take the overly racially sensitive route and claim "What, they don't want to make the black guy the genius leader of the group who gets the hot white blonde, so they make him the wisecracking sidekick instead?"

I don't understand why people assume they'll automatically sell the rights back to Marvel. Seems like wishful thinking to me (even though I'm wishing it happens as well).

I didn't think the movies were terrible, but agreed...don't understand why the studio would get rid of the rights even when it flops the third time.

[Comicman494]

Originally Posted by camper

I didn't think the movies were terrible, but agreed...don't understand why the studio would get rid of the rights even when it flops the third time.

The only reasonable answer I could come up with is that we're in a different phase of superhero movie than existed at the time of the previous two. Cinematic universes is the name of the game now. It's all about the big picture. These franchises are being designed to last 10 years now, with annual or biannual entries. If the F4 can't sustain a long haul, then it may be slightly reasonable to think Fox would jettison the extra baggage and focus even more resources into the X-franchise(s), for example, which could go on essentially infinitely with loads of characters and stories.

[Darkstream]

Originally Posted by Infernal King

I can't help but think this is a lot of words for "don't cast a black guy or it ruins the character".

As you already know, I agree with what Camper is saying, and it sounds to me that you're simplifying the argument again into it just being about the character being changed into a black guy. Yes, that is an issue for many of us, but it's also the complication of keeping Sue white and creating a new backstory/plotline where one does not need to exist with the FF concept that creates an even bigger issue.

Anyway, Fox (and Chris Evans' career) survived two bad Fantastic Four movies so even if this one flops, I don't understand why people assume they'll automatically sell the rights back to Marvel. Seems like wishful thinking to me (even though I'm wishing it happens as well).

I'm not sure they'll just outright sell the rights back when it flops, but I can't see them going back to the drawing board yet again and investing more money into a franchise that just isn't working for them. If they do attempt another reboot at some point, they'll probably be so apprehensive about doing it that they'll take too long developing it, and in that time, the rights may just lapse, allowing Marvel to get them back.

[StingingVelvet]

Originally Posted by camper

Well, on this matter its best to explain the point of view and the reasoning behind it lest small minded people belch out the word "racist."

Like I said originally, I could care less about making a character black--I'm just opposed to the Black Johnny/White Sue dichotomy because I do not have faith that it, nor the sociology that goes with it, will be addressed in some meaningful way.

Of course, I could always take the overly racially sensitive route and claim "What, they don't want to make the black guy the genius leader of the group who gets the hot white blonde, so they make him the wisecracking sidekick instead?"

I don't think you're a racist but I do think you fear change. Maybe in society, maybe not, but definitely in adaptations. This movie is not going to be a Fantastic Four comic book. It is its own thing and changing some stuff up from the previous movies and source material is a good idea. What matters in the end is that it's a good movie, and diversity along with more interesting family dynamics can help make that happen.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by camper

Well, on this matter its best to explain the point of view and the reasoning behind it lest small minded people belch out the word "racist."

Sadly, that term's become more of a buzzword now, meant to intimidate ideological opposition rather than expressing any genuine ethnic concerns.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by camper

And regardless, Emma Stone is a white person playing a white comic book character, so even though their personal backgrounds are different it is generally easier for a white person to relate to a white person than it is for a white person to relate to a black person or a black person to relate to a white person.

And how much easier is 'generally easier'?

I'm assuming you don't think it's impossible for a white person to relate to a black person or vice versa. Is it virtually impossible? Ridiculously implausible? Difficult but manageable?

And do actors whose backgrounds differ from their characters in other ways face similar difficulties? For instance, can an actor from a upper-middle class family convincingly portray a character who grew up poor?

I tend to think that's probably pretty doable. I mean, they are actors, right? Pretending to be other people is kind of what they do.

Originally Posted by camper

And the character's history of Johhny storm, like it or not, is that of a white person and the history of the character ties into that.

Is there something specific in Johnny Storm's history that Michael B Jordan simply can't understand? Does Johnny Storm has some characteristic or trait that Michael B Jordan can't replicate in a convincing manner?

Please, be specific.

Originally Posted by camper

As for the 'massive rewrites', Sue and Johnny being brother and sister, with the same mom and dad, being changed to a mult-ethnic family IS a massive rewrite, and the way the two interact could be different based not only on that perspective, but because (despite what anyone says) adopted children ARE often treated differently than a biological sibling. Even if it is not very overt, it is often perceived--and that changes the family dynamic.

That doesn't answer my question. I asked if changing a character's skin color constitutes a massive rewrite.

Does it?

As for adoption being a massive rewrite, eh, I don't really see the big deal. The Brady Bunch seemed to handle the various trials and tribulations of a mixed family with reasonable aplomb, I'm sure the Storms could have managed at least as well.

Originally Posted by camper

If you don't know what a "stereotypical black teen" is, then you've never watched movies and your trying to act like such a thing as stereotypes in cinema (or in real life) demonstrates your inability to talk honestly about such things.

There are a lot of different stereotypes, aren't there? When you say you're concerned that Johnny Storm with be written as 'your stereotypical black teen male' what does that even mean?

Is he going to be covered in fire-proof bling and flashing flaming gang signs across the sky? Will his asbestos boxers be sticking out his baggy FF uniform? Is he going to be a really good dancer?

Originally Posted by camper

And while I am not bad mouthing Jordan's skills (though, if your'e saying anyone of the actors could stand in for any other it sounds like he wasn't anything special) playing a character written specifically for a movie is far different than playing an existing character that exists in other mediums.

You kind of missed the point there. Josh Trask and Michael B Jordan have already collaborated and Michael B Jordan's character wasn't a stereotype or a social/political statement.

He was a high school student. Just like the two white characters.

It was no big deal.

[Infernal King]

Originally Posted by camper

Well, on this matter its best to explain the point of view and the reasoning behind it lest small minded people belch out the word "racist."

Like I said originally, I could care less about making a character black--I'm just opposed to the Black Johnny/White Sue dichotomy because I do not have faith that it, nor the sociology that goes with it, will be addressed in some meaningful way.

Of course, I could always take the overly racially sensitive route and claim "What, they don't want to make the black guy the genius leader of the group who gets the hot white blonde, so they make him the wisecracking sidekick instead?"

You're getting extreme in your arguments. Just because I think you're being silly in your obvious discomfort at having a white character you grew up with being played by a black guy, doesn't mean I want to see a black Mary Sue type character or an ethnic stereotype.

Originally Posted by Darkstream

As you already know, I agree with what Camper is saying, and it sounds to me that you're simplifying the argument again into it just being about the character being changed into a black guy. Yes, that is an issue for many of us, but it's also the complication of keeping Sue white and creating a new backstory/plotline where one does not need to exist with the FF concept that creates an even bigger issue.

Your arguments are simple. Where is the complexity that I'm missing? And only really hardcore white fanboys (the majority of the [older] comic book reading demographic) are getting up in arms about this.

Are there any actual black people on this board who would like to chime in with their thoughts? And no, I don't want a "my best friend/co-worker/garbage man is black" anecdote.