Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

I could be wrong, but I took Mr. Light's comment to be less an attack on Trank's ability and more of an observation that he could successfully work on the cheap which, if Light is correct, would be consistent with the idea that Fox is trying to do a low budget movie just to hold the rights.

 

Hell, it'll probably make the Roger Corman one look pretty good too.

 

Honestly, in a lot of ways, I prefer Corman's version to Story's.

 

"Guy named Otto Octavius winds up with eight limbs. What are the odds?"

Obviously, it's not just the name (which is rare and goofy enough as is to be notable); it's the name fitting the in-story supervillain so outrageously well and in such an on-the-nose way. No, it's not impossible, it's just coincidental to the point of eye-rolling silliness.

Raimi acknowledged Doc Ock's name silliness with a lampshading quip. The guys behind this movie had opted to modify their villain's name. Both tacks are legitimate.

 

<<I could be wrong, but I took Mr. Light's comment to be less an attack on Trank's ability and more of an observation that he could successfully work on the cheap which, if Light is correct, would be consistent with the idea that Fox is trying to do a low budget movie just to hold the rights. >>

Yeah, I liked Chronicle, I wasn't attacking the director, I was just saying they seem to be taking the cheap route.

 

But even if they are going the cheap route, at least they've chosen a director with proven skills, which contrasts with the assumption that it's just a throwaway to hold onto the rights.

And really, if it's a lame, forgettable film, surely that would make the rights less valuable to them and increase the odds that they'd lose them to Marvel Studios. If they're really concerned with holding onto the property, they should try their best to do it well. So if they are doing what you suggest, then they're probably acting against their own best interests.

 

Let's remember, Fox didn't exactly break the bank for X1, either. Nor did Lionsgate for the first Hunger Games.

Somehow, both franchises are now doing pretty okay...

 

Does anyone know Kirby or Lee's drug use in the sixties. Many of their creations from the period are decidedly "trippy", the Fantastic Four being no exception.

He's one of those "all but dissertation" jackasses.

Corman's was already the superior movie.

The changes to X-Men though were quite brilliant. They hired a talented creator that respected the characters and some excellent actors to bring those characters to life. They made it a plot driven movie rather than an effects driven one. Finally, they took a great "what if people with extraordinary powers existed in the real world" approach. The final effect was something more along the lines of a good James Bond style movie rather than a super-hero one.

 

I'm sure the Latverian university was suitably appreciative of his credentials and worthiness to award it to him.

 

Ah, kind of like how Bill Cosby got his.

 

...or, they needed to get something made reasonably quick to keep the rights. They didn't know what they wanted to do and so they didn't want to spend a lot of money because the risk was too great. So they decided to do something cheap, hire a director with a proven track record of doing something with a low budget and hope for the best, on the theory they could up the budget and/or reboot later?

 

Exactly. I see no reason at all to assume something like that couldn't happen here.

 

oops, I just changed my incorrect "ordinary" to extraordinary".

 

Bingo. This is why superhero movies and shows almost never interest me-- they always water down the concept to make it palatable to the mainstream audience. That's why the best Marvel movie ever made was The Incredibles and the best DC movie ever made was Megamind.

 

I'm hoping this also. I haven't seen Chronicle but am aware that it got generally good reviews. I'm not familiar with Miles Teller but all of the other 4 as well as the actor playing Doom and the Storm's Dad are strong performers, IMHO.

Don't get me wrong, I would absolutely love a FF movie that embraced the outlandishness of the comic book (ideally a 1960s-set one). But for all the apparent deviation from the source material, I'm prepared to give this a chance.

 

I was aware of that as well...then I saw it and feel I saw a different movie. It's why I don't use RT as anything other than entertainment cause I don't see an 85% grade, sorry critics. I'm much more aligned with that 71% (C-) Audience score. Cause while I could find a few things to approve of overall I was unimpressed with it as a whole.

 

^Hard for me to comment without having seen it, though as an observation I'd note that you and I frequently (but not always) have similar tastes in films.

 

Is this guy for real?

 

^Actually, I agree with theenglish 100%