Fantastic Four Being Rebooted

[ClayinCA]

Even forgetting the fact that Fox can't make a good movie to save its life, it's too damn soon for a reboot. I don't know if these people realize that quite a few years have to pass between projects for people to forget the bad taste of the last one. Batman Begins was like 8 years after Robin. By the time this film shows up it'll probably be only about 4 years since ROTSS.

Time between HULK and THE INCREDIBLE HULK: five years.

Time between THE PUNISHER and PUNISHER: WAR ZONE: four years.

Of course, neither THE INCREDIBLE HULK nor PUNISHER: WAR ZONE was a box-office smash (though at least THE INCREDIBLE HULK did reasonably well), so I should probably shut up.

And not only that, but a reboot, almost by definition, requires a major step in a different direction. The original films were mediocre at best, although I thought they were pretty damn bad. Does Fox have what it takes to add a little depth and seriousness into the storyline while keeping it somewhat light in tone? That's what FF requires. And I think it requires a really solid screenplay and storyline, something that balances the imaginaut aspect, while keeping the family aspects intact. It requires skill. A rushed hack job won't cut it.

Now, that's for damn sure, and I don't know that Fox/Rothman do have what it takes for that to happen. It's really too bad this franchise can't be brought back into the Marvel/Disney fold, because as many have stated, THE INCREDIBLES has just the right sensibility that a FANTASTIC FOUR film needs.

Do you think Akiva is the bottom, or Rothman?

Oh no, I'm sorry...the fans are.

Nah, it's Rothman. He's demonstrated time and again that he has no artistic sensibility at all when it comes to things like this. Has anybody seen his pontificating when he introduces those movies on the Fox Movie Channel? Kind of sad and funny at the same time.

 

[Captaindemotion]

IMHO, the first two FF movies, while far from perfect, were far better than either of the Batman movies that Goldsman was involved in.

Nonsense. Fans here generally didn't like the scripts for Batman Forever and Batman & Robin. That much is clear. But let's be honest about these movies. Director Joel Schumacher gave both films a lot of style. Also, Batman Forever had Nicole Kidman. Director Tim Story's work on the FF films was passable at best, and neither FF film had any great stars.

Yes, great stars like Tommy Lee Jones giving a horrible performance as Two-Face or Arnold Schwarzenegger giving an even worse one as Mr Freeze. Not to mention George Clooney mugging it up as a Batman who apparently has decided to enjoy being Batman, cos he has cool cars and toys and dates hot chicks (according to interviews George gave at the time, showing he had no clue of what made the character tick. Then again, neither did anyone else involved in making that movie, apparently).

As for 'style', if you mean making Gotham look like a gay S&M disco, yes, there was buckets of that. Not to mention nipples on the Batsuit, costume changes in B&R every two minutes so that more toys could be sold ...

I actually like some of Batman Forever. Carrey gives good shtick, Kilmer is an under-rated Dark Knight and O'Donnell is a decent, if too old, Robin (though he's pants in B&R). And undoubtedly the director of Falling Down, Veronica Guerin and others is a better one than the director of Taxi. But for all Story's sub-Ratner blandness and the miscasting/ mis-writng of Dr Doom, Chiklis and Evans are spot on while Grufyd is a decent Mr Fantastic (Alexis Denisof would've been better). And FF got the tone of that series right - something that can't be said of B&R in a million years.

FF suffered because it came after Spider-man 2, X-MEn 2 and around the time of Batman Begins. None of which it can compare to. But it's still miles better than the Shumacher or Burton Batmovies any day. Any argument to the contrary is rubbish!

 

[JacksonArcher]

Good points, Captaindemotion.

I honestly don't understand why this HAS to be rebooted. This would probably be the case where the hiring of a new director and creative team for the third installment would actually be a good thing, unlike with the aforementioned Batman and X-Men films. Simply get a better writer, a much stronger director (Peyton Reed, who was originally set to direct the first film, wouldn't be a bad choice) and just continue on from there with the same actors, maybe one recast if necessary. I mean Sue Storm I can understand being recast since I never bought Jessica Alba in the role anyway, but it's going to be difficult to replace Chris Evans as Johnny Storm and Michael Chiklis as The Thing. They were pretty good, despite having medicore scripts to work with.

 

[Bad Bishop]

But for all Story's sub-Ratner blandness and the miscasting/ mis-writng of Dr Doom, Chiklis and Evans are spot on while Grufyd is a decent Mr Fantastic (Alexis Denisof would've been better). And FF got the tone of that series right - something that can't be said of B&R in a million years.

I don't want to be run outa town, so I think I'll quit defending the Batman films of the 1990's. But you really can find good things about each of them, if you know where to look. Oops, there I go again.

"Sub-Ratner blandness" is a fair way of describing Tim Story's work on the FF movies. The spirit of the Lee/Kirby stories just wasn't there. The next FF director and screenwriters should be required to read the first hundred issues.

 

[JacksonArcher]

In the defense of Bad Bishop, both Schumacher movies are perfectly valid interpretations of Batman, even Batman & Robin. There was a time when Batman was light and frothy and his villains weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. Not that I'm defending Schumacher's movies in any which way (however I think I kinda am... Oh, whatever...) but both movies have decent parts about them. Heck, I mean I own all of the live-action movies on DVD. I don't have a problem watching either one of them on a rainy afternoon when my girlfriend just dumped me and I'm feeling moderately depressed.

 

[Galactus]

Better than Batman and Robin not better than Batman Forever.

 

[Dream]

In the defense of Bad Bishop, both Schumacher movies are perfectly valid interpretations of Batman, even Batman & Robin. There was a time when Batman was light and frothy and his villains weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer.

Every time someone defends Batman and Robin the Devil kills another angel.

 

[timelord1010]

No, they actually were.

In your opinion...one not shared by enough people that they made significant box office, just not Iron Man numbers, and a hell of a lot better than more than a few Marvel films that get 1/10 the hate.

*edit*
Found my old numbers:


By Total Gross

• Film Bud BO[both in millions] (%)
• Spider Man3 258 890 (3.5)
• Spider Man 139 822 (5.9)
• Spider Man2 200 784 (3.9)
• Iron Man 140 582 (4.2)
• X Men3 210 459 (2.2)
• X Men2 110 408 (3.7)
• Fan 4 100 331 (3.3)
• X-Men 75 296 (3.9)
• Fan 42 130 289 (2.2)
• Hulk (08) 150 263 (1.8)
• Hulk (03) 137 245 (1.8)
• Ghost Rider 110 228 (2.1)
• Daredevil 78 179 (2.3)
• Elektra 43 57 (1.3)
• Punisher (04) 33 55 (1.7)
• Punisher (08) 35 10 (0.3)

By Percentage of Gross/Cost

• Film Bud BO (%)
• Spider Man 139 822 (5.9)
• Iron Man 140 582 (4.2)
• Spider Man2 200 784 (3.9)
• X-Men 75 296 (3.9)
• X Men2 110 408 (3.7)
• Spider Man3 258 890 (3.5)
• Fan 4 100 331 (3.3)
• Daredevil 78 179 (2.3)
• X Men3 210 459 (2.2)
• Fan 42 130 289 (2.2)
• Ghost Rider 110 228 (2.1)
• Hulk (08) 150 263 (1.8)
• Hulk (03) 137 245 (1.8)
• Punisher (04) 33 55 (1.7)
• Elektra 43 57 (1.3)
• Punisher (08) 35 10 (0.3)

I own them both on dvd and thought they were both a bit poo.....the money made doesn;t really say anything about how good a film is

Your statement perfectly covers most of the movies made this summer, Transformers 2 and to a lesser degree Star Trek. And before people start attacking me over the new Trek movie, my complaints are with eliminating the years of experience Kirk had serving on other ships before becoming Captain of the Enterprise and transporting people halfway across the solar system when originally they had problems beaming inside of a ship for fear of putting someone inside of a wall.
I think FF2 was OK, it would have been better if Galactus would have really shown up, not the space tornado. It could have been cool. In the comics Galactus looks like the person who is seeing him: A White person would see a White looking Galactus, A Klingon would see a Klingon looking Galactus. (Star Trek is/was part of Marvel right?)

 

[Turtletrekker]

A Klingon would see a Klingon looking Galactus. (Star Trek is/was part of Marvel right?)

Marvel once (actually twice) held the Trek comics publishing license. There were two Trek/X-Men crossover comics and a crossover novel. The first comic (X/TOS) was actually very good in spite of the cheesy concept. The second comic and the novel (X/TNG) were as bad as the cheesy concept promised they would be.

 

[timelord1010]

I remember Marvel used to have a Trek series in the 1980's, I knew about one X-men crossover but didn't know about the others. No Fantastic Four/Trek cross overs?

 

[Turtletrekker]

Sadly, no. I would have loved to see Reed Richards and Spock playing chess.

 

[Captaindemotion]

In the defense of Bad Bishop, both Schumacher movies are perfectly valid interpretations of Batman, even Batman & Robin. There was a time when Batman was light and frothy and his villains weren't the sharpest knives in the drawer. Not that I'm defending Schumacher's movies in any which way (however I think I kinda am... Oh, whatever...) but both movies have decent parts about them. Heck, I mean I own all of the live-action movies on DVD. I don't have a problem watching either one of them on a rainy afternoon when my girlfriend just dumped me and I'm feeling moderately depressed.

Personally, watching B&R would push me from being moderately depressed to being suicidal! But I agree with you and Bad Bishop to a certain extent - I've already mentioned what I like about Forever and B&R does at least have decents performances from Michael Gough and Uma Thurman, as well as a nice looking Batmobile.

But overall, I do think that the 2 FF movies, for all their flaws (Alba, McMahon, Story) got closer to the bickering family spirit of the comics than either Burton or Shumacher got to the Batman. For the next movie, I'd like to see maybe Peyton Reed given another shot. It might even suit McG (though I'm in the minority that actually liked T4).

And in the 'just for fun' suggestion box, I'd nominate Seth Gordon, who to date has made the comedy Four Christmasses, but whose documentary CV is perhaps more interesting, with The King of Kong, about men dedicated to getting the high score on Donkey Kong is apparently very watchable. Says he's interested in people who don't fit in and has made a comedy about family relationships. If he can handle action and SFX, he might just be the one ...

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I hope that they keep Evans and Chiklis.

Yep. With...

Sue Storm: Smart, youthful blonde - kinda narrows it down in Hollywood, to someone like Kristin Bell.

Reed Richards: This may seem off-kilter, but I think Lee Pace could handle the role well. He can be made up to look about ten years older than his current age if need be.

Doctor Doom: This may seem even wackier, but I'd like to see what Michael C. Hall could do with the role. It's a tough job not to turn this role into something cornball or seemingly derivative (unfairly, since Doom predates the characters he seems to be a "copy" of), so I think this role requires an unusually talented and versatile actor. I usually think of Doom as a big guy, but there's no law that says he needs to be. (Hall is only about 5' 10" and not really that buff.)