RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 140,164
Posts: 5,434,905
Members: 24,937
Currently online: 475
Newest member: bryanb2014

TrekToday headlines

Two Official Starships Collection Ships
By: T'Bonz on Oct 22

Pine In New Skit
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

Stewart In Holiday Film
By: T'Bonz on Oct 21

The Red Shirt Diaries #8
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

IDW Publishing January Comics
By: T'Bonz on Oct 20

Retro Review: Chrysalis
By: Michelle on Oct 18

The Next Generation Season Seven Blu-ray Details
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

CBS Launches Streaming Service
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Yelchin In New Indie Thriller
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17

Saldana In The Book of Life
By: T'Bonz on Oct 17


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science Fiction & Fantasy

Science Fiction & Fantasy Farscape, Babylon 5, Star Wars, Firefly, vampires, genre books and film.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 20 2013, 06:00 AM   #271
Turtletrekker
Vice Admiral
 
Turtletrekker's Avatar
 
Location: Tacoma, Washington
Re: Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

RJDiogenes wrote: View Post
Johnny Storm was 16 when he became the Torch.
Yup. Essentially the same age as Peter Parker.

Shaka Zulu wrote: View Post
Turtletrekker wrote: View Post
I am entirely serious. And I agree that it was a piece of crap. But more important that what it did wrong, is what it did right. The character dynamics and interactions between Reed and Sue and Reed and Doom, for one. The Doom in Corman's movie is insanely, gloriously over the top, as Doom should be. Story's Doom was just another corrupt businessman. Corman's FF felt more like a family story than, er, Story's. Story got most of that important stuff wrong.
Story and the scrpitwriters didn't get anything wrong other than people didn't like it for some reason (Johnny and Ben still bicker, Ben's a hotheaded angry guy, Johnny's a show-off-all just like in the original comics. And having Doom be a businessman like Lex Luthor was a great touch-there's only so much one can get out of the 'evil scientist who wants to take over the world' trope.
Oh, I agree that the relationship between Johnny and Ben was spot-on. In fact, IMHO, Johnny and Ben were the only things done right in those movies. And I took no real issue with Sue's new career. Nor did I take issue with Dr. Jean Grey in the X-Movies, or astro-physicist Jane Foster in Thor. In fact, I liked that these female characters were being presented as more than they were in the source material (Stan Lee never was good at writing women.)

Doom, however, was just boring. Doom should never be boring. And it wasn't so much that Doom was another corrupt businessman, it was that he was just another corrupt businessman. If Doom is to be a corrupt businessman, then he should be THE corrupt businessman. J.R. Ewing X 10. With armor that flies and shoots zaps. Instead, we got Dr. Meh.

Anyway, I'm glad that you enjoyed the Story movies. For myself, I hope the re-boot is a BIG improvement over Story. To each their own.
__________________
I hate having thoughts on the top of my head. They usually jump off and commit suicide.
Turtletrekker is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 20 2013, 03:12 PM   #272
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

The first Tim Story movie got a lot wrong. Mainly, the FF weren't heroes in that movie. They weren't protecting anyone but themselves. In their first big action scene on the bridge, sure, they saved people, but only from problems they triggered themselves. And once Victor became superpowered, sure, he killed that one guy, but he never spelled out any plans to conquer the world or destroy people en masse -- he just went after the FF themselves. And the FF were willing to endanger the entire planet with Johnny's nova blast in order to save their own lives -- which is the diametric opposite of what heroes do. Essentially the FF were the villains of that movie, because callously endangering others in the name of your own self-interest is what villains do.

The second movie was better, since the FF actually were trying to protect the world instead of just themselves. But the execution was on a par with the superhero movies from a decade earlier. Their version of Doom just didn't work, and Jessica Alba was woefully miscast as Sue. Basically the only skill she displayed in these movies was the ability to look great in her underwear. That wasn't too much of a problem in the first movie, since it didn't call on her to do much more than that (although that's a more fundamental problem in itself), but the second movie required more from her and she didn't deliver.

That said, I really liked the Thing makeup, which looked to me like an Alex Ross painting brought to life. At the time, I doubt a CGI Thing would've been an improvement, not unless they'd had a lot more care and talent and money put into it than they probably would have in those films. These days, it would be more likely to work -- again, assuming they put enough care into it.

(EDIT: Come to think of it, I probably already said all this earlier in the thread. But there it is.)
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20 2013, 05:43 PM   #273
davejames
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Sac, Ca
Re: Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

For me the biggest problem with the Tim Story movies was just the lack of epic scope. The cast was fine, and had good chemistry together, I thought. And the fun, lighthearted tone felt very true to the FF comics I've read.

But there was too much of a cheap, low-budget feel to the whole thing. The director was just never able to make that world feel as rich or complex as it needed to be, or give the characters enough spectacular things to do on screen.

Hopefully this Josh Trank guy will be able to do better, but frankly I don't get the sense from (the highly overrated) Chronicle that he would be any better at the "epic" thing than Story was.
davejames is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 20 2013, 06:27 PM   #274
The Fiend
Torturing Savage Dragon
 
The Fiend's Avatar
 
Location: Hell
Re: Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

Galactus had to be the biggest disappointment ever. He really dropped the ball with that one.
The Fiend is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 20 2013, 08:55 PM   #275
gblews
Rear Admiral
 
gblews's Avatar
 
Location: So. Cal.
View gblews's Twitter Profile
Re: Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

Christopher wrote: View Post
The first Tim Story movie got a lot wrong. Mainly, the FF weren't heroes in that movie. They weren't protecting anyone but themselves. In their first big action scene on the bridge, sure, they saved people, but only from problems they triggered themselves. And once Victor became superpowered, sure, he killed that one guy, but he never spelled out any plans to conquer the world or destroy people en masse -- he just went after the FF themselves. And the FF were willing to endanger the entire planet with Johnny's nova blast in order to save their own lives -- which is the diametric opposite of what heroes do. Essentially the FF were the villains of that movie, because callously endangering others in the name of your own self-interest is what villains do.

The second movie was better, since the FF actually were trying to protect the world instead of just themselves. But the execution was on a par with the superhero movies from a decade earlier. Their version of Doom just didn't work, and Jessica Alba was woefully miscast as Sue. Basically the only skill she displayed in these movies was the ability to look great in her underwear. That wasn't too much of a problem in the first movie, since it didn't call on her to do much more than that (although that's a more fundamental problem in itself), but the second movie required more from her and she didn't deliver.
I didn't need to have Doom spell out his plans to know that once he defeated the FF, he would be free to do whatever else he wanted. That is what I thought was motivating the FF (in addition to their own survival). If they didn't stop him -- who would?

Also, I took the use of Johnny's super nova as an indication of the level of danger to all presented by Doom rather than as an indication of the FF's desire to survive regardless of the danger to others.

BTW, I think a good portion of the X-Men's motivation in the the first (and second) movie was to save themselves, wasn't it? But to me, a certain amount of self preservation is allowable in an origin story.
__________________
Duckman: I'll never forget the last thing my father said to me...
Cornfed: "Careful son, I don't think the safety's on"?
Duckman: BEFORE THAT!!!
gblews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20 2013, 09:55 PM   #276
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

gblews wrote: View Post
I didn't need to have Doom spell out his plans to know that once he defeated the FF, he would be free to do whatever else he wanted. That is what I thought was motivating the FF (in addition to their own survival). If they didn't stop him -- who would?
Sure, you can assume that if you know the character from the comics, but movies are made for people who aren't familiar with the characters. Every story needs to be complete in itself. If you want the audience to see the villain as a threat to someone other than just the heroes, you have to convey that within the film itself, not just expect your audience to assume it.

The film just didn't establish its version of Doom as a major threat, as a conqueror or aspiring dictator or mass murderer. He was just some rich jerk who had it in for Reed Richards. The stakes were too low.


Also, I took the use of Johnny's super nova as an indication of the level of danger to all presented by Doom rather than as an indication of the FF's desire to survive regardless of the danger to others.
But, again, the film did nothing to demonstrate that such a "danger to all" existed. We were never shown that he had any ambition to harm anyone other than Reed, or whoever got in his way as he went after Reed. It doesn't matter what the comics have established about who Dr. Doom is; this is a different reality from the comics, a film made for an audience mostly unfamiliar with the comics, and so its version of Doom had to be assessed independently of whatever we might know about his comics counterpart. And the film just didn't sell him as a global-level threat.


BTW, I think a good portion of the X-Men's motivation in the the first (and second) movie was to save themselves, wasn't it?
Not even close. In the first film, they were trying to stop Magneto from unleashing lethal mutations on the world's leaders, and thereby probably triggering global war between humans and mutants. In the second, they were trying to stop Stryker from using Xavier and Cerebro to kill every mutant on Earth -- and then to stop Magneto from using them to kill every human on Earth. Both films did an excellent job of establishing that the villains posed a threat on a global scale and that the X-Men were fighting to protect others, to stave off a planetwide race war. Heck, even The Last Stand did a good job of selling the global scale of its threat.

Of course the heroes are usually trying to keep themselves alive; that goes without saying. They can't save others if they get killed, and as a rule they'd like to stay alive themselves. The point is that it's not enough for that to be their exclusive motivation.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21 2013, 08:01 PM   #277
Fist McStrongpunch
Rear Admiral
 
Fist McStrongpunch's Avatar
 
Location: Milwaukeeish
Re: Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

TheSeeker wrote: View Post
Galactus had to be the biggest disappointment ever. He really dropped the ball with that one.
Standard sci-fi/fantasy storytelling rules are that in a given story you are given one "give" that the audience will simply accept. In the first movie it was that people got super-powers from space-light. In the second it was that there's this silver dude on a surfboard. Asking them then to accept that there's this big purple space-giant wearing a building-hat on his head who eats planets was all a bit much at the time.

Nowadays, the Marvel Studios films have done such a good job acclimating people to how superhero films work that you could totally do Galactus right, But back then it just wouldn't fly.
__________________
You all laugh when I look at boxes and talk about robot costumes. Robots, my friends, are no laughing matter.
Fist McStrongpunch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 21 2013, 08:47 PM   #278
gblews
Rear Admiral
 
gblews's Avatar
 
Location: So. Cal.
View gblews's Twitter Profile
Re: Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

Christopher wrote: View Post
Sure, you can assume that if you know the character from the comics, but movies are made for people who aren't familiar with the characters. Every story needs to be complete in itself. If you want the audience to see the villain as a threat to someone other than just the heroes, you have to convey that within the film itself, not just expect your audience to assume it.

The film just didn't establish its version of Doom as a major threat, as a conqueror or aspiring dictator or mass murderer. He was just some rich jerk who had it in for Reed Richards. The stakes were too low.
I don't think anyone seeing that movie, whether they were familiar with the comics or not, had any trouble determining who the "threat" to the world was. The movie may not have allowed Doom to monologue the details of his nefarious scheme for world domination, but I'de be willing to bet that the audience didn't need it.

Your complaint, it seems to me, is a nitpick -- a minor detail (in this particular film) that did not require further explanation or clarification. My daughter has read movie and T.V. scripts for a living, this is the kind of thing she would harp on. But it is not the kind of issue audiences of the first FF movie had a problem with.

It is an interesting topic for debate in forums like this, but from a practical standpoint, the first FF movie had no trouble getting audiences, even ones unfamiliar with Doom and the FF, to believe Doom was a threat serious enough to warrent maximum force.

Keep in mind I am confining my comments and opinions to the first FF movie and not to movies in general.
__________________
Duckman: I'll never forget the last thing my father said to me...
Cornfed: "Careful son, I don't think the safety's on"?
Duckman: BEFORE THAT!!!
gblews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21 2013, 09:10 PM   #279
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

Fist McStrongpunch wrote: View Post
Nowadays, the Marvel Studios films have done such a good job acclimating people to how superhero films work that you could totally do Galactus right, But back then it just wouldn't fly.
Except I for one don't think that it would be "right" to do Galactus as a giant humanoid with a funny hat and a G on his chest. Sure, that's faithful to the comics, but let's face it, it's pretty stupid. Even the modern comics have rationalized it as an illusion created by our minds as we attempt to interpret something beyond our comprehension.

Personally I prefer the idea of Galactus being something completely unlike a human, a vast cosmic force bigger than a planet. I think the movie's version was a decent attempt to convey that. Maybe there's a more impressive way of doing it, design-wise -- maybe something like ST:TMP's V'Ger, which did a superb job of conveying a vast, powerful, and profoundly alien entity. But the Jolly Purple Giant wearing a tuning fork on his head? No, thank you.

If I were doing a Galactus movie, maybe I'd put in a sop to the fans by having a scene where, say, Uatu puts the FF in telepathic contact with Galactus and creates the humanoid image of Galactus in their minds for them to communicate with. But giving Galactus a face and a voice sort of undermines the whole "cosmic entity" thing, makes him less impressive.



gblews wrote: View Post
I don't think anyone seeing that movie, whether they were familiar with the comics or not, had any trouble determining who the "threat" to the world was. The movie may not have allowed Doom to monologue the details of his nefarious scheme for world domination, but I'de be willing to bet that the audience didn't need it.
They never established him as a threat to the world, only to the Four. There was no sense in the movie that the FF were defending anyone else from Doom.


Your complaint, it seems to me, is a nitpick -- a minor detail (in this particular film) that did not require further explanation or clarification.
On the contrary, it's immensely imporrtant. Too many superhero movies get it wrong because they underplay or ignore the importance of protection as a key part of a superhero's job. They treat superheroes as warriors rather than rescuers. This is why the climax of The Avengers works so well while the climax of Man of Steel is just pointless excess. Joss Whedon made his heroes constantly aware of the civilians in danger and constantly working to protect them, as heroes should do. Zack Snyder didn't even have Superman acknowledge the existence of endangered civilians except in one scene, at which point it was too little, too late.

But it is not the kind of issue audiences of the first FF movie had a problem with.
Umm, I saw the movie. I'm part of the audience. And I do have a problem with it. Don't insult me with blanket generalizations.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21 2013, 09:17 PM   #280
davejames
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Sac, Ca
Re: Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

Fist McStrongpunch wrote: View Post
TheSeeker wrote: View Post
Galactus had to be the biggest disappointment ever. He really dropped the ball with that one.
Standard sci-fi/fantasy storytelling rules are that in a given story you are given one "give" that the audience will simply accept. In the first movie it was that people got super-powers from space-light. In the second it was that there's this silver dude on a surfboard. Asking them then to accept that there's this big purple space-giant wearing a building-hat on his head who eats planets was all a bit much at the time.

Nowadays, the Marvel Studios films have done such a good job acclimating people to how superhero films work that you could totally do Galactus right, But back then it just wouldn't fly.
Yeah I frankly thought they made Galactus work on screen about as well as they probably could have (same with Parallax in the GL movie, for that matter).

The best bet would have been to simply avoid using that villain at all. If the only option is to realize him as some giant, abstract cloud, then you might as well not bother in the first place.
davejames is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 21 2013, 10:23 PM   #281
Agenda
Fleet Captain
 
Re: Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

For Galactus, they should stick with the 'giant humanoid' thing, but there are a lot of friggin cool ways to draw a 'giant humanoid'. Maybe make him look more like a Celestial or a Lovecraftian entity. Or maybe don't redesign him....I think we contantly underestimate what modern audiences will accept.
Agenda is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21 2013, 10:49 PM   #282
Christopher
Writer
 
Christopher's Avatar
 
Re: Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

^But why should we "accept" some cheesy old 1960s design rather than come up with a more innovative interpretation? Just because the comics did things a certain way, that doesn't mean it can't be improved on.
__________________
Christopher L. Bennett Homepage -- Site update 4/8/14 including annotations for Rise of the Federation: Tower of Babel

Written Worlds -- My blog
Christopher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21 2013, 11:22 PM   #283
RJDementia13
Idealistic Cynic and Canon Champion
 
RJDementia13's Avatar
 
Location: RJDiogenes of Boston
Re: Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

The reason that comic book movies are never as good as the originals is that the studios feel they have to mainstream the magic out of them. Too cheesy, too unbelievable, too colorful. It's a superhero movie, for crying out loud-- do it right. Holding back on imagination and creativity is not the way to adapt a concept based on imagination and creativity.
__________________
Please stop by my Gallery and YouTube Page for a visit. And read Trunkards! And check out my Heroes essays.
RJDementia13 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21 2013, 11:28 PM   #284
gblews
Rear Admiral
 
gblews's Avatar
 
Location: So. Cal.
View gblews's Twitter Profile
Re: Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

Christopher wrote: View Post
...the climax of Man of Steel is just pointless excess. Joss Whedon made his heroes constantly aware of the civilians in danger and constantly working to protect them, as heroes should do. Zack Snyder didn't even have Superman acknowledge the existence of endangered civilians except in one scene, at which point it was too little, too late.
The only disagreement I have here is that I thought nearly all of MoS was pointless excess.

Umm, I saw the movie. I'm part of the audience. And I do have a problem with it. Don't insult me with blanket generalizations.
Oh, I specifically acknowledged your viewpoint on this aspect of the movie, when I mentioned "nitpick".
__________________
Duckman: I'll never forget the last thing my father said to me...
Cornfed: "Careful son, I don't think the safety's on"?
Duckman: BEFORE THAT!!!
gblews is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 21 2013, 11:56 PM   #285
davejames
Vice Admiral
 
Location: Sac, Ca
Re: Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

RJDiogenes wrote: View Post
The reason that comic book movies are never as good as the originals is that the studios feel they have to mainstream the magic out of them. Too cheesy, too unbelievable, too colorful. It's a superhero movie, for crying out loud-- do it right. Holding back on imagination and creativity is not the way to adapt a concept based on imagination and creativity.
Well you still have to make certain adjustments for live action, I think. Readers may not think twice about characters wearing skimpy, skin-tight outfits in the comics, but the same thing would more often than not look cheap and silly as hell in live action.

And the same would go for other elements as well, like the villains. Maybe they could have had a comic-style Galactus, but it would have taken a LOT more work to sell the idea, and keep general audiences from rolling their eyes in disbelief.
davejames is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
fantastic four, marvel

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:16 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.