Fantastic Four (2015)

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by octagon

But what if the movie doesn't suck?

It will be a failure, either way. The movie will either end up like Michael Bay's "Transformers" franchise, more focused on the visuals than any heartfelt narrative...or it will go completely the opposite direction like Ang Lee's "Hulk".

[Astro Zombie]

Originally Posted by octagon

But what if the movie doesn't suck?

What will we do then, smart guy???

If you guys think I'm gonna start praising this film if it turns out good, you got another thing coming.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

It will be a failure, either way. The movie will either end up like Michael Bay's "Transformers" franchise, more impressed by the visuals than any heartfelt narrative...or it will go completely the opposite direction like Ang Lee's "Hulk".

So this is going to be a failure whether people like it or not.

Cool.

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by octagon

I'm not sure how to read this.

Are you saying this film barely resembles the source material?

No. I haven't seen the movie.

I'm not talking about this Fantastic Four film specifically (despite the bigger and more obvious changes, it can still be a good enough adaptation), but any property.

[Bolty]

As has been stated Iron Man and Captain America followed pretty darn close to the comic book origins........

MCUs version of the Hulk skipped the origin and did add in the link to the super soldier formula, but him being on the run and the military being after him is very much to the spirit of the 1960s comic.

Thor ABSOLUTELY was an alien in the 1960s. After his first few appearances and BEFORE the comic took off---Lee and Kirby decided he was not a god but a powerful alien that had been worshiped by Nordic people in the past.
They also clarified his origin by saying he was sent to earth in human form to learn a lesson of humility. Sound familiar?

The MCU movies have stuck as close as they can within reason to the 1960s versions of the characters they adapted.
Sony stuck very close to Spider-Man's origin as well.


If Fox can make a hit by using a lesser selling, lesser known, less liked by comic fans version.......good for them.

Maybe the version preferred by most fans of the comic book is not an important factor in the success of a 2015 movie--maybe it is.

Time will answer that.

Anybody doubt if Marvel had rights to the property and did a big budget version that it would more than likely be a hit?

Fox chose to make a medium budget version, with a newer lesser known origin, featuring a cast younger than the classic counterparts to hop on the tween/young adult movie bandwagon.

If the movie is a huge or even moderate hit in August--I will say that I was wrong and that using the Ultimate as a basis was a smart move for Fox financially.

On the other hand if the movie bombs badly, those who think the use of the Ultimate was a good idea will probably cite a half dozen other factors in the movie's failure---and since you can't prove a negative they can still claim the use of the Ultimate wasn't a factor in the lake of success.

Lastly I will concede that most people who end up in the theater for CBM movies aren't comic book readers, but there is no doubt that comic book readers create and maintain buzz for these movies. Fox has taken a big chance by alienating a huge chunk of these people.

it will be very interesting to see if a CBM that is heavily disliked by the hardcore fans can overcome those people.

If yes, then we are likely to see studios take more liberties with the origins and versions they choose to use---

if no, then perhaps they will decide to stuck closer to the roots of the books they are adapting.

[Infernal King]

I dunno, Moviefan2k. You've made up your mind that this film is going to suck no matter what. Personally, I don't bother posting in threads for films I'm not going to see or think will be bad, let alone log hundreds of posts saying how much I hate it. Why aren't you spending the considerable amount of time you've put into this thread in a thread for a film you're looking forward to?

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by octagon

So this is going to be a failure whether people like it or not.

No, its already a failure because the studio and Trank have ignored the iconic elements of the comics. Tim Story's first effort was far from the best, but at least he was heading in the right direction. Trank's not even trying that; instead, he made a bunch of changes to make the tale almost unrecognizable. This is equal in absurdity, to Jon Peters wanting a flightless, suitless Superman fighting a giant spider.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

No. I haven't seen the movie.

"The Fantastic Four" name means jack shit to your average movie goer, so why make a film that barely resembles the source material?

So this was a rhetorical question then. That's all I trying to clarify.

[Astro Zombie]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

No, its already a failure because the studio and Trank have ignored the iconic elements of the comics. Tim Story's first effort was far from the best, but at least he was heading in the right direction. Trank's not even trying that; instead, he made a bunch of changes to make the tale almost unrecognizable. This is equal in absurdity, to Jon Peters wanting a flightless, suitless Superman fighting a giant spider.

F**k, this sounds amazing, someone should totally do this.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by Bolty

Anybody doubt if Marvel had rights to the property and did a big budget version that it would more than likely be a hit?

I would go see that in a heartbeat; something with the humor of "Back to the Future", the heart of "Captain America", and the effects of "The Avengers".

[Thomas Guycott]

Originally Posted by Astro Zombie

F**k, this sounds amazing, someone should totally do this.

You weren't there, man! YOU WEREN'T THERE!!

[Show spoiler]Seriously, it was going to be awful.

[Thomas Guycott]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

I am 34 years old, and I grew up reading the original comics. Trank is almost 31; how could he have read the Ultimate comics as a teen? They were published from 2004 to 2009; he'd have been 20 by the time the first issue came out.

As long as we're sticking with anecdotes, I'm 32 and I really enjoy the Ultimate depiction of the Fantastic Four. Honestly I kind of like it a bit more than the original.

[Astro Zombie]

Originally Posted by Thomas Guycott

You weren't there, man! YOU WEREN'T THERE!!

[Show spoiler]Seriously, it was going to be awful.

Oh, I believe you. I just really wanna see Superman fight a giant spider for some reason.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

No, its already a failure because the studio and Trank have ignored the iconic elements of the comics. Tim Story's first effort was far from the best, but at least he was heading in the right direction. Trank's not even trying that; instead, he made a bunch of changes to make the tale almost unrecognizable. This is equal in absurdity, to Jon Peters wanting a flightless, suitless Superman fighting a giant spider.

So it's not going to be a failure whether people like it or not.

It's already a failure whether people like it or not.

Cool.

[StingingVelvet]

Jurassic Park was a lot different from the book, so that movie is a failure.

[Moviefan2k4]

Originally Posted by octagon

So it's not going to be a failure whether people like it or not.

It's already a failure whether people like it or not.

Cool.

When you purposely go against what made the books so popular, by pandering to demographics and turning tyrants into bloggers...you are betraying the people most responsible for the brand's success. No disrespect intended toward Marvel's literary efforts, but the fans decide what sticks around in the long run. Characters like Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, and Hulk wouldn't be renowned today without a loyal fanbase...and Fox and Trank have been ignoring that with this film. The "X-Men" films have changed some things, too...but they kept the heart and most of the details intact.

[kobol]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

It will be a failure, either way. The movie will either end up like Michael Bay's "Transformers" franchise, more focused on the visuals than any heartfelt narrative...or it will go completely the opposite direction like Ang Lee's "Hulk".

Based on Chronicle alone this film is unlikely to be a Bayformers hollow spectacle, Trank does not seem to be so shallow. Keep in mind that all we've seen of this film so far is a very brief Teaser Trailer. I'm sure there will be character aplenty in the F.F., as bad as Fox can be I believe they have learned their lesson, story & character trumps VFX.

[solarrdadd]

Originally Posted by Bolty

As has been stated Iron Man and Captain America followed pretty darn close to the comic book origins........

MCUs version of the Hulk skipped the origin and did add in the link to the super soldier formula, but him being on the run and the military being after him is very much to the spirit of the 1960s comic.

Thor ABSOLUTELY was an alien in the 1960s . After his first few appearances and BEFORE the comic took off---Lee and Kirby decided he was not a god but a powerful alien that had been worshiped by Nordic people in the past.
They also clarified his origin by saying he was sent to earth in human form to learn a lesson of humility. Sound familiar?

The MCU movies have stuck as close as they can within reason to the 1960s versions of the characters they adapted.
Sony stuck very close to Spider-Man's origin as well.


If Fox can make a hit by using a lesser selling, lesser known, less liked by comic fans version.......good for them.

Maybe the version preferred by most fans of the comic book is not an important factor in the success of a 2015 movie--maybe it is.

Time will answer that.

Anybody doubt if Marvel had rights to the property and did a big budget version that it would more than likely be a hit?

Fox chose to make a medium budget version, with a newer lesser known origin, featuring a cast younger than the classic counterparts to hop on the tween/young adult movie bandwagon.

If the movie is a huge or even moderate hit in August--I will say that I was wrong and that using the Ultimate as a basis was a smart move for Fox financially.

On the other hand if the movie bombs badly, those who think the use of the Ultimate was a good idea will probably cite a half dozen other factors in the movie's failure---and since you can't prove a negative they can still claim the use of the Ultimate wasn't a factor in the lake of success.

Lastly I will concede that most people who end up in the theater for CBM movies aren't comic book readers, but there is no doubt that comic book readers create and maintain buzz for these movies. Fox has taken a big chance by alienating a huge chunk of these people.

it will be very interesting to see if a CBM that is heavily disliked by the hardcore fans can overcome those people.

If yes, then we are likely to see studios take more liberties with the origins and versions they choose to use---

if no, then perhaps they will decide to stuck closer to the roots of the books they are adapting.

that's interesting, i'm in my 50's and i've been a thor fan since i was a little boy. all my followings of thor, from the time of his release, the comics represented the Asgardians as a race of Gods. Thor has always been known as the God of Thunder, not the Alien of Thunder. i can't recall a Thor comic book from back in in the Kirby/Lee days where Thor wasn't considered a God.

Thor was fashioned after the Norse Gods Mythology, they were considered Gods, not aliens.

here is a quote from the wiki page on marvel comics version of Thor:

"Thor's father Odin decides his son needed to be taught humility and consequently places Thor (without memories of godhood) into the body and memories of an existing, partially disabled human medical student, Donald Blake.[48] After becoming a doctor and on vacation in Norway, Blake witnesses the arrival of an alien scouting party. Blake flees from the aliens into a cave. After discovering Thor's hammer Mjolnir (disguised as a walking stick) and striking it against a rock, he transforms into the thunder god.[49] Later, in Thor #158, Blake is revealed to have always been Thor, Odin's enchantment having caused him to forget his history as The Thunder God and believe himself mortal.[50]"

in comics, thor was arrogant, strong headed and war mongering and violent with no sense of humility. Odin wiped his memory, sent him to earth as a crippled mortal with no memory of his Godhood or powers until he learned humility and and was deemed worth to reclaim his true Godhood once again.

personally, i think this Alien thing came about because when it was movie time, Marvel worried that movie audiences, especially religious ones would be leary about having a character who was a God who was supposed to be a good guy. mind you, they are all for a God who is evil and gets defeated (by a human!).

that previous paragraph is my own thinking. i have only been a fan of one character following him for over 40 years and only know him as being a God in all that time. hey, even the female Thor is called "The Goddess of Thunder", not the alieness of thunder.

not hear to argue bolty, just kindly, respectfully, speaking to what you mentioned in the quoted post.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Bolty

If the movie is a huge or even moderate hit in August--I will say that I was wrong and that using the Ultimate as a basis was a smart move for Fox financially.

On the other hand if the movie bombs badly, those who think the use of the Ultimate was a good idea will probably cite a half dozen other factors in the movie's failure---and since you can't prove a negative they can still claim the use of the Ultimate wasn't a factor in the lake of success.

I don't know. If this thing makes a zillion dollars does that mean audiences really loved that Reed and Ben met as children rather than in college? If it tanks does that mean audiences must have hated the fact that that they didn't get irradiated trying to get to the moon?

I just don't see that.

The budget could be a factor at the box office. The overall tone and tenor could be a factor at the box office. The writing and the direction and the performances could be factors at the box office. The effects could be a factor at the box office.

But Reed's age or whether Sue is a Storm by birth or adoption?

I don't see those things impacting the box office too terribly much one way or the other.

[SymbioticFunction]

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

No, its already a failure because the studio and Trank have ignored the iconic elements of the comics.

Trank's not even trying that; instead, he made a bunch of changes to make the tale almost unrecognizable.

Originally Posted by Moviefan2k4

When you purposely go against what made the books so popular, by pandering to demographics and turning tyrants into bloggers...you are betraying the people most responsible for the brand's success.

You own "I, Robot" which has very little in common with the famous Isaac Asimov stories. Therefore I find the nature of your FF arguments to be rather odd and quite spurious. Why is a film like Alex Proyas' "I, Robot" quite acceptable but not Josh Trank's (unreleased and unseen) "Fantastic Four"?