Also because much of the continuity that gets ignored comes from movies that were poorly received and the audience is happy to ignore -- e.g. X3's version of Angel or XMO's versions of Emma Frost and Deadpool.
News FOX selling out to Disney?
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
Also because much of the continuity that gets ignored comes from movies that were poorly received and the audience is happy to ignore -- e.g. X3's version of Angel or XMO's versions of Emma Frost and Deadpool.
As an OLD FF fan going all the way back to my chidhood in the 1960ies and 1970ies, I'd LOVE an MCU version of the FF. That said, I heard marvel cancelled the Fantastic Four comic run; and what was once the figurehead group of Marvel superheroes (it WAS the first Marvel superhero book under Stan Lee and Jack Kirby once Stan was Marvel's chief editor) has now faded into obscurity.Not entirely disagreeing, but in the case of the Fantastic Four, I'll take that chance. I want to see an enjoyable Fantastic Four movie just once before I die. I've seen four bad FF movies, so I don't think I'm asking for much.
That said, I heard marvel cancelled the Fantastic Four comic run; and what was once the figurehead group of Marvel superheroes (it WAS the first Marvel superhero book under Stan Lee and Jack Kirby once Stan was Marvel's chief editor) has now faded into obscurity.
Well, that was reputedly because they don't have the film rights and want to concentrate on characters they can make movies about. So if they did get the FF film rights back, that would surely drive a revival of the FF in the comics.
Although I think that's already happening to an extent. The team's been split up for a while, with Reed and Sue absent but Ben and Johnny appearing in other team books (IIRC), but I think I read there are some hints of an imminent comeback.
Probably not. One of the reasons Bendis left Marvel was supposedly he wanted to do the Fantastic Four book and they wouldn't revive it for him.
Last edited:
Yep, I've gotten tired of Marvel Studios borderline comedies as well. These films lack gravitas, tension or a sense of threat. I don't want the FF in the MCU because I don't want to see "The Coming Of Galactus" turned into a comedy movie ala Ragnarok.
Agreed. Part of the reason I have much less interest in these movies these days.
FF was a very lighthearted comic, and any fully serious adaptation always falls short. The MCU is the perfect place for the FF. If anyone can make a good FF movie its them. Of course they already lost their opportunity to be the first modern heroes as they were in the comics, so that makes Marvel's task of making them relevant very difficult, but again, if anyone can do it, Marvel can.
The only reason people say that is because the MCU guys were nice enough to let us know about future movies ahead of time. So this can be used as ammunition for how there's never any stakes because we already know the world won't end in every movie and they won't execute the cast en mass.
Make it a period piece set in the 1960s?
Not entirely so. Marvel is reviving the old Marvel Two-in-One title, starring the Thing and the Human Torch. And their first arc is going to be their search for Reed and Sue and the rest of the family.As an OLD FF fan going all the way back to my chidhood in the 1960ies and 1970ies, I'd LOVE an MCU version of the FF. That said, I heard marvel cancelled the Fantastic Four comic run; and what was once the figurehead group of Marvel superheroes (it WAS the first Marvel superhero book under Stan Lee and Jack Kirby once Stan was Marvel's chief editor) has now faded into obscurity.
The only way that can fit into continuity is if they die at the end... Or go to space I suppose...
Or get thrown into the future.
First film ends with them getting trapped in the Negative Zone.
Second film has them battling Annihilus or Blastaar and ends with them escaping the zone. Turns out that time works differently and it's modern day now.
I like it. Make it so Disney and Marvel!
That would be a retcon.
A retcon of that level might as well reboot the story.
^ Says a poster on a Star Trek message board (Trek is the king of massively retconning its central continuity).
Just came back from Thor: Ragnarok. Undoubtedly Disney’s most humorous Marvel comedy to date! 
Can’t wait to laugh with Disney’s X-Men as well!!!
Can’t wait to laugh with Disney’s X-Men as well!!!
It's silly to argue over the nuances of retcons vs. reboots, because these aren't terms that have any official definition to begin with. "Reboot" is a slang term, a figure of speech borrowed from computers, which in turn borrowed it from the expression "to pull oneself up by one's bootstraps," which is facetious and physically impossible.
In industry usage, the term "reboot" originally meant any revival of a dormant property, regardless of whether it was the same continuity or a different one. After all, the computing term just means restarting a program, not replacing it. But the term became popularized with the general public by the 2004 Battlestar Galactica revival, which was a full continuity reset, and so people came to associate the word "reboot" with that specific kind of revival to the exclusion of others, even though that wasn't how it was originally used in the industry (and even though it's pretty much the exact opposite of what the computing term means). Since then, fandom has gotten into the habit of using the word specifically for that, but that's just a popular vernacular usage, not some formal, legally dictated definition.
And of course, as with most things, there are gradations between different categories rather than absolute, impermeable dividing lines. Something like Kelvin Star Trek or the post-DOFP X-Men films represents a middle ground between a continuity revival and a continuity reboot in the modern sense; it serves the function of a reboot by making a fresh start that isn't bound to past continuity, but it uses time travel to justify the changes so that it can simultaneously present itself as a continuation, and thereby have it both ways.
As for "retcon," that's supposed to mean something that reveals new information about a past story without contradicting it, which is why it's called retroactive continuity. If a retcon does actually contradict the original facts, then it's a flawed retcon, or simply a deliberate inconsistency -- unless the original facts can be explained away as a deception or error (for instance, Obi-Wan telling Luke that Darth Vader killed his father). Ideally a retcon should agree with the established facts, just add new facts alongside them or reveal that they didn't mean what we thought they meant.
In industry usage, the term "reboot" originally meant any revival of a dormant property, regardless of whether it was the same continuity or a different one. After all, the computing term just means restarting a program, not replacing it. But the term became popularized with the general public by the 2004 Battlestar Galactica revival, which was a full continuity reset, and so people came to associate the word "reboot" with that specific kind of revival to the exclusion of others, even though that wasn't how it was originally used in the industry (and even though it's pretty much the exact opposite of what the computing term means). Since then, fandom has gotten into the habit of using the word specifically for that, but that's just a popular vernacular usage, not some formal, legally dictated definition.
And of course, as with most things, there are gradations between different categories rather than absolute, impermeable dividing lines. Something like Kelvin Star Trek or the post-DOFP X-Men films represents a middle ground between a continuity revival and a continuity reboot in the modern sense; it serves the function of a reboot by making a fresh start that isn't bound to past continuity, but it uses time travel to justify the changes so that it can simultaneously present itself as a continuation, and thereby have it both ways.
As for "retcon," that's supposed to mean something that reveals new information about a past story without contradicting it, which is why it's called retroactive continuity. If a retcon does actually contradict the original facts, then it's a flawed retcon, or simply a deliberate inconsistency -- unless the original facts can be explained away as a deception or error (for instance, Obi-Wan telling Luke that Darth Vader killed his father). Ideally a retcon should agree with the established facts, just add new facts alongside them or reveal that they didn't mean what we thought they meant.
The term "reboot" first came into association with fictional continuity in 1985 with DC's Crisis on Infinite Earths and its aftermath, not the 2003/2004 BSG series.