Fantastic Four (2015)

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523Bluray

I disagree. The Batman VS Superman trailer is better because it looks fun. The only criticism I have with it is Lex Luthor with hair. This Fantastic Four film, on the other hand, looks too grounded to be fun. If you're going to see any movie, you're going for the entertainment not for 'Ooh, look how serious this world is'.

This is kind of funny, actually. Not all that long ago MoS was getting slammed by a lot of people because instead of a fun, light, true-to-character Superman movie it followed Nolan's dark, gritty, edgy style of superhero filmmaking.

And now BvS is the poster child for light, airy entertainment?

And no, people don't go to movies for just one thing. There's room for all sorts of movies from fluffy light adventures to dark character dramas and everything in between.

Chronicle was a very good movie. So was The Avengers.

I can certainly understand the disappointment of those who wish was going to be more like The Avengers than like Chronicle but you know what?

That's just how it goes sometimes.

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by octagon

Attachment 119607

So you decide to pick apart one word in my post, and - like usual - direct the conversation from the film to me.

Showing or feeling no interest, enthusiasm, or concern...

I'm not enthusiastic about this movie. You're wrong.

[Dalekbuster523Bluray]

Originally Posted by octagon

Attachment 119607

How do you do that?

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523Bluray

How do you do that?

When you look at listings of thread there's a column with the number of replies. That number is a clickable link that will show you who has posted.

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523Bluray

How do you do that?

Go into the forum to the thread you want & click on the total posts, You will get a popup window telling you who & how many times they posted.

[Dalekbuster523Bluray]

Originally Posted by octagon

This is kind of funny, actually. Not all that long ago MoS was getting slammed by a lot of people because instead of a fun, light, true-to-character Superman movie it followed Nolan's dark, gritty, edgy style of superhero filmmaking.

And now BvS is the poster child for light, airy entertainment?

And no, people don't go to movies for just one thing. There's room for all sorts of movies from fluffy light adventures to dark character dramas and everything in between.

Chronicle was a very good movie. So was The Avengers.

I can certainly understand the disappointment of those who wish was going to be more like The Avengers than like Chronicle but you know what?

That's just how it goes sometimes.

I didn't say Batman VS Superman looks 'light' or 'airy' but what it does look like is 'fun'. And surely 'fun' (whatever style the film is) is the reason why we watch movies?

Let me ask you this: before this film was announced, would anybody have really thought 'Fantastic Four should be a dark movie grounded in reality!'?

My answer: No.

Because unlike the idea of Batman and Superman fighting each other, the concept of a 'dark' Fantastic Four film isn't fun to a lot of people. Whereas before Batman VS Superman was announced, people wanted to see Batman VS Superman fight on the big screen and now they're delivering what people want to see.

[crazyBLUE]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

So you decide to pick apart one word in my post, and - like usual - direct the conversation from the film to me.



I'm not enthusiastic about this movie. You're wrong.

I have 2 choices here

1 ~ Give you a time out for disrupting the thread.
2 ~ Close the thread for a couple hours.

Please move on!

[Dalekbuster523Bluray]

Originally Posted by octagon

When you look at listings of thread there's a column with the number of replies. That number is a clickable link that will show you who has posted.

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

Go into the forum to the thread you want & click on the total posts, You will get a popup window telling you who & how many times they posted.

Thanks. I've seen people on other forums do it and never worked out how.

[GC Riot]

Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523Bluray

And surely 'fun' (whatever style the film is) is the reason why we watch movies?

Nope

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by crazyBLUE

I have 2 choices here

1 ~ Give you a time out for disrupting the thread.
2 ~ Close the thread for a couple hours.

Please move on!

Why would you give me the time out? I'm posting on topic, about the movie. Is there a rule here that all posts about a movie have to be positive? That's not a discussion. I've made my fair share of positive comments, and I'm certainly not disrupting the thread.

You didn't make a "you're disrupting the thread" comment to Foggy last night when he insulted me personally. You didn't make a "you're disrupting the thread" comment to Infernal King when he specifically name dropped me in a post last night. And you aren't making a "you're disrupting the thread" comment to octagon, despite the fact that I'm the one posting on topic in all of these situations. How is that "disrupting the thread?"

Posting about Fantastic Four = disrupting the thread, posting about DisneyBlu = just fine? There are certain members that come into this thread specifically to comment on me personally, whereas I talk only about the movie.

I can stop, but I had to address your post.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523Bluray

I didn't say Batman VS Superman looks 'light' or 'airy' but what it does look like is 'fun'. And surely 'fun' (whatever style the film is) is the reason why we watch movies?

Fun is just one reason people watch movies. Don't get me wrong, it's a perfectly legitimate reason but it's not the only one.

Chronicle was a great movie. It had some fun moments and was very interesting and engaging and I really enjoyed watching it but I'm not sure I would say it was 'fun'.

Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523Bluray

Let me ask you this: before this film was announced, would anybody have really thought 'Fantastic Four should be a dark movie grounded in reality!'?

I think it's an interesting approach and I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays out. Devoting an entire film to a character-based origin story is risky. Batman Begins pulled it off very well but there are a lot of things that can go wrong.

Putting the FF in a universe very much like ours is a limiting (it's hard, for instance, to sell Latverian dicators with a straight face) but it could be very cool.

This whole 'dark and edgy' vs 'fun adventures' argument has been going on for a long time and I don't think there's an obvious winner. Nor does there need to be because like I said: there's plenty of room for both.

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by octagon

Putting the FF in a universe very much like ours is a limiting (it's hard, for instance, to sell Latverian dicators with a straight face) but it could be very cool.

They could pull off ruler Doom very well and do it with a straight face. There are countries with iron fist leaders even today. The country doesn't need to be occupied with robots who are robotic 'clones' of Doom, but an impoverished country with an out of touch, controlling ruler is still very relevant in today's world.

They could have gone with that angle even in this grounded and serious Fantastic Four.

[Dalekbuster523Bluray]

Originally Posted by octagon

Fun is just one reason people watch movies. Don't get me wrong, it's a perfectly legitimate reason but it's not the only one.

Chronicle was a great movie. It had some fun moments and was very interesting and engaging and I really enjoyed watching it but I'm not sure I would say it was 'fun'.

Just looking at the trailer, Chronicle does look fun though. Even something as dark as Les Miserables (one of my favourite West End musicals AND films) has a element of fun. If Les Miserables didn't have the song Master Of The House it wouldn't work because there'd be no light relief to counteract the darkness.

Obviously I haven't seen the film to see if there's any light relief but from the trailers there's nothing to me that suggests there's any light moments. The trailers for Les Miserables, on the other hand, may not show the musical's light moments but do show light shots and not a load of low-key darkly lit ones; that gives more of a indication that it's not all darkness but there are light moments. All the Fantastic Four trailers I've seen have featured a bunch of darkly lit shots.

I think it's an interesting approach and I'm looking forward to seeing how it plays out. Devoting an entire film to a character-based origin story is risky. Batman Begins pulled it off very well but there are a lot of things that can go wrong.

Fair enough but to me it should depend on the story that's being told. Batman Begins, for example, has a understandable reason for being dark because the whole Batman story IS dark (even then, I'd prefer a light Batman).

With Fantastic Four, it's about a guy who can stretch his body, a woman who can project force fields, a pilot who gains the appearance of a rock and a man who can turn into a living flame. How can that be rooted in reality?

It's not supposed to be rooted in reality. To me it's like taking Super-Ted and saying 'This could happen in real life'.

Putting the FF in a universe very much like ours is a limiting (it's hard, for instance, to sell Latverian dicators with a straight face) but it could be very cool.

It depends what your definition of 'cool' is. If somebody without any knowledge of the Fantastic Four watched a film dubbed 'dark and gritty' and saw Mr Fantastic stretching his arms out to save somebody, they'd laugh because it's not supposed to be treated darkly.

This whole 'dark and edgy' vs 'fun adventures' argument has been going on for a long time and I don't think there's an obvious winner. Nor does there need to be because like I said: there's plenty of room for both.

There is room for both but as I said, it should depend more on the story and what the story needs and I don't see anything in Fantastic Four that demands a dark/gritty adaptation.

On the positive side, Fantastic Four is at least a creative adaptation but I doubt it's a creative adaptation that works.

[octagon]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

They could pull off ruler Doom very well and do it with a straight face. There are countries with iron fist leaders even today. The country doesn't need to be occupied with robots who are robotic 'clones' of Doom, but an impoverished country with an out of touch, controlling ruler is still very relevant in today's world.

They could have gone with that angle even in this grounded and serious Fantastic Four.

How do you make him a super-villain in that world though?

A Manderin-esque super-but-largely-conventional-terrorist approach wouldn't really work because you'd have to explain why he hasn't been blasted by drones by now. During the cold war writers could play have a character like Doom play superpowers against each other while hiding behind international law. In today's 'drone strikes first, ask question later' world it's a harder sell.

Do you put him in hiding? That would kind of undercut the whole 'dictator on a throne' bit, no?

And if you do go the super-villain route you're basically faced with writing a really wild coincidence (two bizarre phenomena resulting in super-powered humans) or having one bizarre phenomenon create all the super-powered humans. Which in turn would necessitate some connection between them and that seems like it would be pretty hard to write if one of them is an evil dicator.

Why would a family of four and an evil dictator all be stumbling across the same [power giving plot device]?

[DisneyBlu]

Originally Posted by octagon

How do you make him a super-villain in that world though?

A Manderin-esque super-but-largely-conventional-terrorist approach wouldn't really work because you'd have to explain why he hasn't been blasted by drones by now. During the cold war writers could play have a character like Doom play superpowers against each other while hiding behind international law. In today's 'drone strikes first, ask question later' world it's a harder sell.

Do you put him in hiding? That would kind of undercut the whole 'dictator on a throne' bit, no?

And if you do go the super-villain route you're basically faced with writing a really wild coincidence (two bizarre phenomena resulting in super-powered humans) or having one bizarre phenomenon create all the super-powered humans. Which in turn would necessitate some connection between them and that seems like it would be pretty hard to write if one of them is an evil dicator.

Why would a family of four and an evil dictator all be stumbling across the same [power giving plot device]?

Well, I'd say someone like Victor Von Doom has ways to protect his country from something like drones. He's a genius, after all, so he'd have things in place that would prevent things like that. In the comics he was mostly untouchable because of his diplomatic immunity, and even in this more grounded Fantastic Four world, I think it could be bought. It's really not any more outrageous than a group of people teleporting to an alternate dimension and then gaining superhuman abilities. A dictator who uses technology beyond the technology everyone else has isn't too unbelievable in a movie where a guy who lights himself on fire has a friend who is a giant rock monster.

In the Ultimate comics, Victor was a colleague of the four (who were young) and he was also leader of a country. So it would be doable, even with a young Doom.

I still think a magical Doctor Doom would have been interesting for this iteration, instead of a Doom with "super powers." I know this film is all about the science, but that's why it's so interesting: Reed Richards is all about science, so Doom became all about magic. And magic is something Reed doesn't understand, because he's a scientist. I think that would have been a really interesting angle, even though something like sorcery is "unbelievable" in this more gritty world.

[octagon]

Okay, this round is going to have to be quick - the ambien is kicking in...

Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523Bluray

With Fantastic Four, it's about a guy who can stretch his body, a woman who can project force fields, a pilot who gains the appearance of a rock and a man who can turn into a living flame. How can that be rooted in reality?

I dunno, MoS managed it pretty well and by all appearance BvS is going to be walking the same tightrope.

And so did - he said banging the same drum - Chronicle.

And think about all the different monster movies that take ridiculous conceits (vampires, werewolves, interdimensional monsters, aliens) and treat them in a very grounded, serious way.

Some of those work out pretty well, no?

Originally Posted by Dalekbuster523Bluray

It depends what your definition of 'cool' is. If somebody without any knowledge of the Fantastic Four watched a film dubbed 'dark and gritty' and saw Mr Fantastic stretching his arms out to save somebody, they'd laugh because it's not supposed to be treated darkly.

Early along Trank made reference to David Cronenberg. He was the guy who remade the 50s movie about a guy who got into a transporter with a fly and came out part-man, part-fly. In the fifties movie, the scientist came out of the transporter with a huge fly's head and huge fly arm attached to his human body. The fly had his tiny human head and tiny human arm attached to its fly body.

Pretty silly, non-grounded stuff. Cronenberg took the same idea and grounded it. And it worked really, really well. It was still a fairly silly conceit but the scientist's transformation as a result of getting his genes mixed up with the fly's made for a darned good movie.

Prior to the seventies/eighties movies about a half-man, half-fly or pod people trying to take over the human race or a glob of space goo that eats everybody it touches were silly movies that weren't supposed to be taken seriously. That kind of story was relegated to 50s b-movies.

Until somebody took them seriously and made really good movies in the process.[/quote]

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

Well, I'd say someone like Victor Von Doom has ways to protect his country from something like drones. He's a genius, after all, so he'd have things in place that would prevent things like that. In the comics he was mostly untouchable because of his diplomatic immunity, and even in this more grounded Fantastic Four world, I think it could be bought. It's really not any more outrageous than a group of people teleporting to an alternate dimension and then gaining superhuman abilities. A dictator who uses technology beyond the technology everyone else has isn't too unbelievable in a movie where a guy who lights himself on fire has a friend who is a giant rock monster.

Honestly, I think a guy made of rock and another guy who can set himself on fire would be a lot easier to sell than the idea that the western powers would hold off on attacking a serious threat because of diplomatic immunity.

The tech genius angle could probably work though. A sort of Latverian Iron-Man, maybe. But would that satisfy the hard-core Doom fans?

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

In the Ultimate comics, Victor was a colleague of the four (who were young) and he was also leader of a country. So it would be doable, even with a young Doom.

That I could kind of see that though maybe not over the course of just one movie. A young Doom who has relatives in some Russian-esqe mob or who has some minor title in some small country who stumbles across powers along with the FF and then goes on to consolidate power in his county after splitting with the FF.

Again I couldn't see that all coming together in one movie but over two? Yeah, that could be doable.

Originally Posted by DisneyBlu

I still think a magical Doctor Doom would have been interesting for this iteration, instead of a Doom with "super powers." I know this film is all about the science, but that's why it's so interesting: Reed Richards is all about science, so Doom became all about magic. And magic is something Reed doesn't understand, because he's a scientist. I think that would have been a really interesting angle, even though something like sorcery is "unbelievable" in this more gritty world.

I don't dislike the Thor movies but I do kind of wish they hadn't shied quite so far away from the mystical aspects of Asgard et al. Throwing too much magic into a mix that already has aliens, and genetic super-powers and super-tech might be one conceit too many but if done right it could be pretty cool.

And along those lines (far, far, far along those lines) I actually wouldn't mind seeing Morbius show up in a Spidey story at some point. And not some watered down 'blood condition that mimics vampirism' Morbius either. I want a full-blown (I couldn't bring myself to write blooded there) Vampire or don't even bother.

okay, ambien, gotta go

[Det. Bullock]

Originally Posted by MrBlonde

Does anybody actually like Greg Land? He's the biggest hack working, I have zero idea why Marvel continues to give him work.

Because his stile is flashy and he meets deadlines, it's only once you open the book and see that characters change face from panel to panel, make weird "o" faces and the like that you notice how bad he is.

[duggie walker]

I'm actually quite looking forward to this, I realise. I don't know if it will be terrible or brilliant but - in these days of saturation marketing and impossibly high expectations - I find that quite enticing. It pretty much can't be as bad as everyone's saying which will automatically make it a better experience than discovering that, say, SPECTRE is rotten or STAR WARS THE FORCE AWAKENS is only average. I was fairly convinced AVENGERS:AGE OF ULTRON was a sure winner and....it wasn't.

So bring on FANTASTIC FOUR.

[Bolty]

When and where is the World Premiere showing? When that happens we should get our first informed reactions,

[MrBlonde]

Originally Posted by Det. Bullock

Because his stile is flashy and he meets deadlines, it's only once you open the book and see that characters change face from panel to panel, make weird "o" faces and the like that you notice how bad he is.

Ah yes, the infamous Land porn tracing face: