The Sword and Laser discussion

165 views
TV, Movies and Games > Fantastic Four 2015

Comments Showing 1-50 of 51 (51 new)    post a comment »
« previous 1

message 1: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments The teaser trailer dropped today. It clearly looks like they're using the Ultimate FF origin story for this one. I'm iffy on the casting, but this could go either way.

http://youtu.be/e-BVs-KCSiA


message 2: by Tassie Dave, S&L Historian (new)

Tassie Dave | 3492 comments Mod
It could be a terrible film and still be better than the other 2 FF stinkers.

Looking at the cast list, they obviously had no money left in the budget for A list actors.


message 3: by John (Taloni) (new)

John (Taloni) Taloni (johntaloni) | 3861 comments After they made Galactus a cloud, they lost all credibility. I think even Marvel is hoping this Fox film fails. They've cancelled the FF comic so the movie won't have that support.


message 4: by Tommy (new)

Tommy Hancock (tommyhancock) | 97 comments I'd honestly have a Galactus cloud than a blogger Doom, so they've gone lower for me. I'd watch it, but not in theaters.


message 5: by Trike (last edited Jan 27, 2015 09:06PM) (new)

Trike | 8155 comments I actually really liked FF2 while hating the first one.

I have reasons.

In the first one, everyone is an idiot. Especially Reed. He is fooled by the stupidest trick imaginable, and he continues doing stupid things simply to advance the plot. The FF are eventually hailed as heroes, but literally every bad thing that happens is a result of their stupidity. It was also clumsy and overwrought.

The second one, though, picked up bits and pieces straight from the comics and melded them together seamlessly. Reed was actually *smart* this time. It also had a lighter touch when it needed it without resorting to the lame single entendres of the first flick.

I loved the fact that Galactus was a cloud. I have always hated the giant guy in the stupid winged hat and purple metal skirt. Making him into a force of nature made him really scary instead of ludicrous. While Guardians managed to make good use of the Celestials - including setting part of it inside one of their skulls - you'll notice there wasn't a lot time spent on them hanging around with ordinary-sized people. Eventually it looks like super-Godzilla fighting ants.

For this new one, I think the cast and crew have done really good and really bad work, so it could go either way for me.


Ruth (tilltab) Ashworth | 1861 comments When I get bored half way through a teaser trailer, that is not a good sign.


message 7: by Daniel (last edited Jan 28, 2015 03:09PM) (new)

Daniel K | 164 comments Atmosphere and feel are not bad, actors - not so interesting. Too young and uncharacteristic. Didn't like X-Men: First Class so much because of their "youth league" approach. Also i have a bad association of Kate Mara with her role in House of Cards and cannot perceive her normally after that.


message 8: by John (Nevets) (new)

John (Nevets) Nevets (nevets) | 1528 comments And I've liked Kate Mara since a long forgotten TV show "Jack and Bobbie", different strokes for different folks. I never liked either of the first 2 movies, but then again I was never a huge fan of the comics either. The trailer doesn't have me exited, but I'll keep an eye out for more.


message 9: by Kevin (new)

Kevin | 701 comments Meh. For the first minute or so it looked a lot like the Interstellar trailer. :p
I don't really do the DC and Marvel Universe comics, so I never have that baggage when going into these movies, but the constant unnecessary reboots and attempts to jump on the Marvel movies bandwagon are really creating a sense of fatigue in me.


message 10: by Joel (new)

Joel | 235 comments I agree about the reboots. I would rather like to see hollywood start using their brains more and put some effort forth to come out with something original. I don't mind if they continue to use books for inspiration, but they should at least try a new story before just spending money on the same old idea.

They already tried to reboot Spider-man. I thought the first Garfield one was decent, but the second one with Electro, while not horrible, was quite disappointing.

And I am a little upset about them already rebooting Batman so quickly after the amazing movies that Chris Nolan gave us. Even if the Superman v Batman movie ends up being decent, I just wish they had given a little more grace period before discarding Nolan's story. Nolan's trilogy are some of my favorite movies, and I hope the new movie doesn't put Batman back in a bad light.


message 11: by Daniel (new)

Daniel K | 164 comments Joel wrote: "Even if the Superman v Batman movie ends up being decent, I just wish they had given a little more grace period before discarding Nolan's story. Nolan's trilogy are some of my favorite movies, and I hope the new movie doesn't put Batman back in a bad light. "

I'm sure the director of the brilliant Watchmen is unable to do badly.


message 12: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments Rumor has it Superman v. Batman is going to be split into two films as a Hobbit-like cash grab. If you're looking forward to it, part one apparently comes out this November.


message 13: by John (Taloni) (new)

John (Taloni) Taloni (johntaloni) | 3861 comments Yee diddly. Two films. Well, I'll probably be suckered in, like I am for every superhero move.


message 14: by Yang-Gee (new)

Yang-Gee Nam | 3 comments The trailer felt pretty bland. I am more interested in the Incredibles 2 vs this reboot of the Fantastic 4.

But it is only a trailer.


message 15: by Daniel (last edited Jan 30, 2015 02:25AM) (new)

Daniel K | 164 comments Trike wrote: "Rumor has it Superman v. Batman is going to be split into two films as a Hobbit-like cash grab. If you're looking forward to it, part one apparently comes out this November."

I have no problem with Hobbit being split to 3 parts, for money grab or otherwise. All of 3 movies was awesome. I was glad to be impressed three times instead of one or two.


message 16: by Walter (new)

Walter Spence (walterspence) | 707 comments I need to check on this, but if I remember correctly, rights to the Fantastic Four and Spiderman have to be exercised within a certain time frame, or else they revert to the parent company.


message 17: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments Daniel wrote: "I have no problem with Hoobit being split to 3 parts, for money grab or otherwise. All of 3 movies was awesome. I was glad to be impressed three times instead of one or two."

You have a greater tolerance for tedium than I do.


message 18: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments Walter wrote: "I need to check on this, but if I remember correctly, rights to the Fantastic Four and Spiderman have to be exercised within a certain time frame, or else they revert to the parent company."

That is true.


message 19: by Daniel (new)

Daniel K | 164 comments Trike wrote: "You have a greater tolerance for tedium than I do. "

Even if it was somewhat boring (and it wasn't for me at all) sequels were released a year after previous movie. Its more than enough to start missing the thing. Its hard for me to understand how such a quality and high-fantasy atmosphered film could be boring to someone. Maybe you don't like fantasy, but i doubt that this is the case. But if you like then there are no better ones than movies based on Tolkien books.


message 20: by Kevin (new)

Kevin | 701 comments Daniel wrote: "Trike wrote: "You have a greater tolerance for tedium than I do. "

Even if it was somewhat boring (and it wasn't for me at all) sequels were released a year after previous movie. Its more than eno..."


I loved the LotR film trilogy and was scoffing at all the negative reactions from people when it was announced that The Hobbit would be stretched into 3 parts. Turned out that they were right. Overall I enjoyed the films, but they were bloated. They could've cut the entire "white orc" story line, every single orc from the first film and everything to do with Legolas and you might've had 2 great 2 hour long films. None of that added anything to the actual story of Bilbo's journey. And the modern tendency, that first really started bothering me in the dreadful second Transformers film, to layer on the comic relief characters really annoys me too. It's okay to not make every third character a ridiculous goof. Lotr was great and it didn't have all those things. It's telling that, IMO, the best parts of the films were the ones that focused on just Bilbo. Bilbo's guessing game with Golem, his actions in the Elven palace, his conversations with Smaug and Thorin ...


message 21: by Rob Secundus (new)

Rob Secundus (quintessential_defenestration) | 1035 comments I think an interesting comparison is the ant man trailer-- both really bland, not at all individual, and both seem kind of like they want to apologize for being superhero movies


message 22: by Thane (new)

Thane | 476 comments I think we're supposed to be arguing about Johnny being black, but I'm just annoyed that they seem to be making Ben a young, skinny dude. IMDB says they're 4 scientists. Ben isn't a scientist! Young, skinny scientist? You're thinking of Bruce Banner. Argh.


message 23: by Rob Secundus (new)

Rob Secundus (quintessential_defenestration) | 1035 comments I think S&L attracts the sort of nerd who goes "Michael B Jordan? What an amazing actor! At least they made one good decision" not the sort who goes "WOAH WOAH WOAH THE COMIC WHITE DUDE NEEDS TO BE A MOVIE WHITE DUDE"

But I do doubt that Ben is going to be a scientist. They need some guy to walk around going "Hah! Look at these nerds. Especially that Doom guy! HE IS A NERD I WILL PUNCH HIM" etc


message 24: by Thane (new)

Thane | 476 comments I know. I was teasing, but I do have doubts about Ben. I have to wonder if he'll at least get pants.


message 25: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments Thane wrote: "I know. I was teasing, but I do have doubts about Ben. I have to wonder if he'll at least get pants."

He seems to be wearing pants in the final shot of them looking at the portal with the plane stuck in it. So there's that.

It looks like Johnny is a "gearhead with potential" in this iteration. We see the car speeding along the country road, then we see him working on it later -- although it appears to be a mid-engine muscle car, suggestion a LOT of modifications beyond what the comic book Johnny is capable of.

The narration is apparently Dr. Storm, Johnny's father, which is the part that I find puzzling.

It's not that these characters need to be any specific race, because they don't. Race is completely irrelevant to the characters. But it would seem to be easier to me if SUE were also black, just so we don't have to bother with complex adoption schemes and what have you. It's just easier shorthand if they're biological siblings rather than half-siblings or adopted or whatever.


message 26: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments Thane wrote: "I think we're supposed to be arguing about Johnny being black, but I'm just annoyed that they seem to be making Ben a young, skinny dude. IMDB says they're 4 scientists. Ben isn't a scientist!"

Well, two things: IMDB is often modified by users, a la Wikipedia. And the "four scientists" being referred to are probably Reed, Sue, Johnny and Victor. Johnny looks more like he's part of the team, perhaps an engineering prodigy, than in the comic.

In the Ultimate version, Johnny and Ben were simply nearby when the mishap occurred and were thus transformed, too. Ben was visiting his friend Reed while Johnny was the smart slacker who was on site because of nepotism.


message 27: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments Daniel wrote: "Trike wrote: "You have a greater tolerance for tedium than I do. "

Even if it was somewhat boring (and it wasn't for me at all) sequels were released a year after previous movie. Its more than enough to start missing the thing. Its hard for me to understand how such a quality and high-fantasy atmosphered film could be boring to someone. Maybe you don't like fantasy, but i doubt that this is the case. But if you like then there are no better ones than movies based on Tolkien books. "


I don't know how you could have watched that entire sequence with Smaug in the second film -- which is, what?, 45 minutes long? -- and not be bored to screaming by it.

You KNOW none of the dwarves or Bilbo are going to be killed or even injured, nor is Smaug. They're all coming back for the third installment. So all that scampering about, with the nonsense about molten gold (which apparently can't hurt you if you have a board between it and your skin) and the dodging of dragonfire (which can't hurt you if you stand behind a pillar) and the capering around on things and trapping the dragon, was just the overindulgence of a director no one can say "No!" to, as if he's a spoiled kid playing with his action figures in his sandbox.


message 28: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments Kevin wrote: "I loved the LotR film trilogy and was scoffing at all the negative reactions from people when it was announced that The Hobbit would be stretched into 3 parts. Turned out that they were right. Overall I enjoyed the films, but they were bloated. They could've cut the entire "white orc" story line, every single orc from the first film and everything to do with Legolas and you might've had 2 great 2 hour long films. None of that added anything to the actual story of Bilbo's journey."

A guy created a Fan Edit which cut the running time in half and it addresses these very issues. You can even download it from his website.

I haven't watched it, but the "Barrel Escape" scene he shows there definitely proves that both his intentions and skills are in the right place. Cutting out all the filler would really make that story zing along.

https://tolkieneditor.wordpress.com/


message 29: by Thane (new)

Thane | 476 comments Interesting, there seems to be at least 6 people entering the chamber. Seems like that might be a different chamber.

I'm not seeing pants, just some rocky buttocks.

I may just have to dig out those issues! Boxed 'em up around 10 years ago. Actually, might be easier to request the trades from the library than go digging.


message 30: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments Thane wrote: "Interesting, there seems to be at least 6 people entering the chamber. Seems like that might be a different chamber.

I'm not seeing pants, just some rocky buttocks."


You're absolutely right. I was wrong. He does look pantsless now that I rewatch it. Apparently I was seeing what I expected to rather than what was actually there.

Kind of hope they're not going for some sort of Watchmen-style situation with Little Ben. o.0


message 31: by Daniel (new)

Daniel K | 164 comments Trike wrote: "You KNOW none of the dwarves or Bilbo are going to be killed or even injured, nor is Smaug."

I didn't actually know. I didn't read the book. (oops)

Trike wrote: "with the nonsense about molten gold (which apparently can't hurt you if you have a board between it and your skin) and the dodging of dragonfire (which can't hurt you if you stand behind a pillar) and the capering around on things and trapping the dragon"

Its a fairytale for f... sake! )


message 32: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments Not an excuse for shitty storytelling.


message 33: by Rasnac (new)

Rasnac | 336 comments Actually, I believe any genre with supernatural aspects should be even more convincing and beliviable than non-fantastical counterparts; because suspencion of disbelief is thinnerto begin with. You can make your police detective survive every mass shooting and explosion, but you can't alter your supernatural character's powers mid-story with no reason or logic to it. "Because it is..."(insert any type of fiction here) is kind of a Chewbacca defence IMHO. :)


message 34: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments The new trailer was released. Sounds like the FF trailer is trying to have a Cliche Off with Batman v. Superman. With added orange and blue. The humor really falls flat.

https://youtu.be/POBI7OhGB18


message 35: by Rob Secundus (new)

Rob Secundus (quintessential_defenestration) | 1035 comments Is anyone else really tired of the whole give-them-a-complete-trailer-and-then-after-the-trailer-proper-ends-give-them-a-supposedly-BADASS-moment trend? Here it especially falls flat. It's sooooo long and it's a shot we've seen in a million other action movies, even in marvel movies recently (and marvel did it better, because they used it to lighten the mood, not make it seem INTENSE)


message 36: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments I agree. This movie feels like this year's Green Lantern.


message 37: by John (Taloni) (new)

John (Taloni) Taloni (johntaloni) | 3861 comments This movie seems to already have a bad rep around comic book fans. The question is, will enough of the general moviegoing audience go? Avengers is a huge hit and only a small fraction of the audience has read the comic.

I tend to think that this movie stinks so bad that it will flop. And I kinda hope so, because we don't just want comics movies, we want GOOD comics movies. With 50+ years of comics, there's got to be some good stories.


message 38: by Wilmar (new)

Wilmar Luna (wilmarluna) | 241 comments Thing didn't say "It's clobbering time."

That falling shot was too long and done before.

I don't understand the casting for Reed Richards.

Why is the black guy talking about his children? Was that even necessary, is he going to be Doom?

Lacking in the humor department.

Overall it look better than the original 2 films but those films were garbage anyway and objectifying of women. This will definitely be a wait for rental kind of movie for me or even better, see if it goes free on Amazon prime.


message 39: by Rob Secundus (new)

Rob Secundus (quintessential_defenestration) | 1035 comments Trike wrote: "I agree. This movie feels like this year's Green Lantern."

Which is really upsetting, because I love almost everyone involved with this project. The director, Jordan, Mara, they're amazing.


message 40: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments Rob Secundus wrote: "Trike wrote: "I agree. This movie feels like this year's Green Lantern."

Which is really upsetting, because I love almost everyone involved with this project. The director, Jordan, Mara, they're amazing."


Not to mention Tim Blake Nelson who seems to be on Necessary Exposition duty.

This looks to be a case of the total being less than the sum of the parts. It's weird how that happens sometimes.

I actually like the Ultimate version of the FF they're using, too. I thought that was a nicely done retelling of their origin story. Tying the universe together via Reed's experiments and making their origin story more character-driven really worked. Why they decided to stuff it full of cliches I have no idea.


message 41: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments Wow, critics are HATING this movie.

If all of these reviews are to be believed, it seems like our initial impressions were correct: this is a hot mess of a movie.

Spoiler for The Thing's catchphrase: (view spoiler)


message 42: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments Director Josh Trank seems to be trying to do some spin on the movie's freefall. Currently sitting at 9% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Trank made a cryptic tweet on Thursday that he deleted. It seems to hint that the trouble rumored behind the scenes was actually real, and it was the reason he got fired from an upcoming Star Wars movie.

Sounds like we might have another interesting Hollywood backstory on our hands.

Story here: http://www.ew.com/article/2015/08/07/...


message 43: by John (Taloni) (new)

John (Taloni) Taloni (johntaloni) | 3861 comments Trank isn't doing himself any favors. Fox is known for being tightfisted and meddling. The first X-Men movie had a climactic scene set in a gift shop fer chrissakes, in order to keep the budget down.

When a film is mediocre as FF clearly is, you grit your teeth and do your best to sell it. Some people will love it, a lot will find it okay, and it's your job to make them feel good about that.

Trank is not playing the game well. He says he wants to do something under the radar. Hollywood is likely to give him the opportunity.


message 44: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments The truth is often somewhere in the middle, but I definitely get the sense Trank was constitutionally incapable of the compromise required of being a studio director. Which is not a bad thing, necessarily. Edgar Wright is certainly in that group.

But having that personality and being faced with typical studio micromanaging and meddling can lead to burning down the house. The house in this metaphor is the movie and his career.

Sometimes people can survive that, but usually they end up like Orson Welles or Joe Ezsterhas.


message 45: by Rob Secundus (new)

Rob Secundus (quintessential_defenestration) | 1035 comments Yeah, like Edgar Wright's case, a studio hired a dude specifically for his unique voice, specifically for the ability to produce something that was not the standard superhero movie, something that would stand out-- but then the studio got cold feet and worked to make the movie less unique.


message 46: by Trike (last edited Aug 09, 2015 10:03PM) (new)

Trike | 8155 comments Although to be fair, Wright was in on the ground floor at the same time they started work on Iron Man, but the situation changed from the time he started work on Ant-Man and it went into production. It went from a one-off to a piece of a larger puzzle that's already been worked out by the Marvel brain trust.

At least he had the experience and wisdom to bow out before things became too crazy and he made something he wasn't going to be happy with.

In a bit of serendipity, after I posted earlier I heard about a documentary that's available on Netflix streaming about the Marlon Brando/Val Kilmer version of Dr. Moreau and how it became a sort of mini-Apocalypse Now for the director Richard Stanley. (Brando involved in both, hmm...) Lost Soul: The Doomed Journey of Richard Stanley's Island of Dr. Moreau. I'll be watching this tonight.

Interestingly, Stanley had exactly the same trajectory as Trank: he made a couple small, well-received genre films and then was handed a bigger film that was pretty much doomed from the start. Doesn't look like his career ever recovered.

Trailer: https://youtu.be/0y_wLNe15x0


message 47: by Mark (new)

Mark | 64 comments I saw it over the weekend ... very few people in the theatre. It had some potential, and there were parts I thought were good, but some bad plotting/huh? moments kinda ground it down. Not terrible, but likely to bomb hard.

Maybe this is the end of FF at Fox?


message 48: by John (Taloni) (new)

John (Taloni) Taloni (johntaloni) | 3861 comments FF receipts were fair to poor on Friday and got worse over the weekend. From an estimate of $28 million on Saturday, it actually got more like $26 million. That's against a budget of $120 million. Fox will be hard pressed to squeeze a profit out of this one.

While I am a comics fan and generally will support a comics movie, the FF at Fox have been unbearably bad. I worked there when the first one came out and found it poor, but was willing to put that aside to get to Galactus. Then they made Galactus a cloud. I am perversely glad to see that the fen are giving this turkey the cold shoulder that it deserves.

Fox will ask for money to give up the rights. I hope that Disney will pay them something, then do a decent FF film.


message 49: by Trike (new)

Trike | 8155 comments Some things we should let go. For whatever reason, the FF has been a tough nut to crack.

Disney should just let Fox continue to flounder with their FF films. They're still talking sequel but that would be ridiculous at this point. Eventually the rights will revert back to Marvel, and by then enough time will have passed that the taint will have worn off and they'll need new properties for their film slate.

Rebooting the story yet again is not going to be well received. I don't know of many people who are overjoyed at yet another Spider-man reboot, despite the fact Marvel now has control. And Spider-man is huge. The FF? Not so much.


message 50: by Rob Secundus (new)

Rob Secundus (quintessential_defenestration) | 1035 comments Spider-man isn't doing origin though. If they let the property lie fallow for a while, if say the cast is incorporated into marvel movies as side characters, they could go straight out of the gates with a fun Incredibes-esque movie, no rebooted origin required.


« previous 1
back to top