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

[Doctorwhovian]

It seems that comic book movies rarely get the villains right. Joker,Magneto, and Loki I think are exceptions, on the other hand, you've got decent villains but ones that don't have really anything to do with their comic incarnations apart from looks/powers such as Luthor, Doctor Octopus, Mystique etc. or just plain bad adaptations (Venom, Galactus etc and many Dooms).

 

[Christopher]

^Well, Toby Kebbell said at Comic-Con that his Doom is driven by ego above all, and that sounds like Doctor Doom in a nutshell. So let's not write him off yet. (And apparently the "blogger" rumors about the character were inaccurate.)

 

[The Old Mixer]

I'd find this more interesting if most of the dialogue in the trailers weren't so corny and cliche-laden. I'm afraid I find myself laughing at lines that are supposed to be serious or inspiring.

"He's stronger than any of us!"
"He's not stronger than all of us!"

You've got to hand it to them, taking a risk on a scriptwriter who was in the third grade.

 

[Mr Light]

Yeah, I don't like how vague that is. I need more specifics. Like, "He has Plus Five Armor!" "But we have Plus Seven Shield!"

 

[The Old Mixer]

"We need to roll a Save vs. Box Office Apathy!"

 

[Mudd]

Every movie that uses CG extensively has some bad CG; certainly every trailer does. If that's what one is going to hang their response to this flick on, c'est la guerre.

I never "worry" about a movie - why would one? They're only a few hours' entertainment.

Because I love comic books. Just like I love Star Wars and Star Trek.

The capacity people have to turn love and enthusiasm into pointless anxiety and over thought nitpicking is as remarkable as it is annoying.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

"He's stronger than any of us!"
"He's not stronger than all of us!"

So, I take it that this is a team origin story.

 

[theenglish]

I'd find this more interesting if most of the dialogue in the trailers weren't so corny and cliche-laden. I'm afraid I find myself laughing at lines that are supposed to be serious or inspiring.

"He's stronger than any of us!"
"He's not stronger than all of us!"

You've got to hand it to them, taking a risk on a scriptwriter who was in the third grade.

That line would not have been out of place in Corman's version.

 

[CorporalClegg]

It's out of place anywhere.

It's junior high level writing. And it was the moment I turned off the trailer.

 

[theenglish]

It's out of place anywhere.

It's junior high level writing. And it was the moment I turned off the trailer.

Corman's version is full of horrible lines like that--but it has its charms.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I'd be willing to overlook this film having some corny "trailer moment" dialogue if I thought that it were bringing something to the increasingly overcrowded superhero film table, but I'm not seeing it.

Is it the first big-budget, big-screen adaptation of the FF? No.

Does it have the advantage of being more faithful to the source material than its predecessor? Not by the looks of it.

Is it contributing to the tapestry of a larger shared cinematic universe? That Fox's second attempt at an FF movie series is supposedly part of the long-running and well-established cinematic X-Verse seems like more of an afterthought than world-building.

None of these things alone would be deal-breakers for me, but the combination of those three cons with no pros evident to counterbalance them is damning in my eyes. I'll save my money for the many superhero films that I'm more interested in seeing.

 

[hux]

The first trailer I saw for this film, I genuinely thought it was a fan made trailer. Everything about it seemed cheap and pedestrian. The latest trailers look a little better but there's still something hugely underwhelming about them. I'll reserve judgement but the whole thing just looks and feels very flat.

The cast doesn't excite me either with the exception of Jamie Bell and he obviously gets turned into CGI at some point in the film.

There's always the possibility that it's just another example of a modern trailer being utterly awful and failing the film in every way. We'll see.

 

[Ethros]

Had to sit through this trailer twice today for Ant-Man (long story why)
Which ever version it is, the second trailer I think
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rRoD28-WgU[/yt]

God that ending is so awful. The Thing falling from the sky and Reed saying "might be a little less" cut to Sue Storm laughing. Which is so obviously from another scene all together. I don't know, I just think it's awful editting. And I know trailers do this a lot but this is so painfully obvious.

As I said before, I'm reserving judgement and it could still be amazing, but right now I do think it all looks pretty bad.



I also like that the first line of the trailer is "we gave you six years and millions of dollars and you gave us nothing." I feel like if this is as bad as it looks you could fudge it to that's what the fans will want to say to Fox. (ok, eight years not six since FF:ROTSS came out in 2007)

 

[Tosk]

God that ending is so awful. The Thing falling from the sky and Reed saying "might be a little less" cut to Sue Storm laughing. Which is so obviously from another scene all together.

I hate when trailers do that, (not cutting two shots together, that's par for the course) when they cut in a shot of someone laughing after a supposedly funny moment, to me it's as grating as a laugh track. "See, see! It was funny, even the characters are laughing about it!"

 

[Christopher]

Does it have the advantage of being more faithful to the source material than its predecessor? Not by the looks of it.

Faithfulness isn't necessary so long as it's good. The X-Men movies have been far from faithful, but they brought a fresh and worthwhile approach of their own. I think the idea behind this has potential -- going back to the monster-story roots of the early issues, focusing on the body horror and the personal impact of the transformations. I don't feel that takes the best advantage of what the FF have become in the decades since, but it could be an interesting approach. But it's the dialogue that I find underwhelming.

I hate when trailers do that, (not cutting two shots together, that's par for the course) when they cut in a shot of someone laughing after a supposedly funny moment, to me it's as grating as a laugh track. "See, see! It was funny, even the characters are laughing about it!"

Whether we like it or not, it's part of human psychology. Laughter is fundamentally a social reflex, a form of interpersonal bonding and nonverbal communication. We're wired to be more likely to laugh when we hear other people laughing. People having conversations tend to laugh often, and not even at funny things. We disdain things like laugh tracks, but they actually are effective at putting us in a more receptive mood.

 

[Klaus]

I laugh at nearly everything in life, as it's easier on the throat than screaming...

And I was also underwhelmed by the trailer. Nothing about the others interested me enough to see more than a few moments of them on TV, and I'm actually a big Surfer fan. That's why I stayed away after what I heard about it lol... this wasn't any better.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I think Reed is younger than Johnny.

 

[The Old Mixer]

^Seems like it, doesn't he?

Faithfulness isn't necessary so long as it's good. The X-Men movies have been far from faithful, but they brought a fresh and worthwhile approach of their own.

And as I said, that alone wouldn't be a deal-breaker for me, by any means. That point was more of a sub-point to my previous one, that it also wasn't the first big-budget, big-screen adaptation of the FF. This one needs to bring something to the table that the other didn't, and I was using faithfulness to the source material as an example of what it could bring.

If I could watch that trailer and think, "Ah, now that's the FF," that would be one potential selling point. The larger point of my post was that this film lacks any selling points for me. I haven't seen anything that makes me think, "This is something that I want to invest $12 and 2+ hours of my life in."

 

[Christopher]

That point was more of a sub-point to my previous one, that it also wasn't the first big-budget, big-screen adaptation of the FF. This one needs to bring something to the table that the other didn't, and I was using faithfulness to the source material as an example of what it could bring.

I don't see how the previous movies weren't faithful to the source. Sure, they changed a few details like the origin and the appearance of Galactus, but those were necessary, because the old "We have to beat the Russians to space" origin would never have worked, and because non-comics audiences would've found it laughable if the mighty cosmic destroyer were just some big guy in a funny purple hat. Sure, Doom wasn't handled very well, but as for the rest, as for the characters and their interactions, they were pretty faithful (right down to recreating Stan Lee being thrown out of the wedding). They just weren't particularly good at it. Despite what the detail-obsessed fans insist, lack of fidelity was not the reason those movies did poorly. Their problem was that they just weren't very good, that they were a throwback to an era when comics adaptations weren't taken as seriously and were more slapdash.

 

[The Old Mixer]

I was actually OK with the previous films' portrayal of the FF, but Doom was a big misfire, and lack of faithfulness to the source material was a common complaint about these films, IIRC, warranted or not. Again, it's an example of something that the new film might have improved upon as a selling point, but if anything, it looks like they're just straying further away. And from what I've seen, it looks like they still haven't gotten Doom right.