Well I think "dark" means that its going to be a bit more shocking. Like say, Doom skewering Sue or Blastaar actually like say, blowing up half a city.
Fantastic 4 reloaded?
- Thread starter captcalhoun
- Start date
Whoa...okay, this is bizarre. I could have sworn I wrote a response to your link an hour ago before you added stuff to your post and now I cannot find it nor other posts I made within the last hour or so. The hell?
In any event, in short: I felt the author was stretching to prove his/her points. For examples, he/she is trying to apply superhero concepts to shows that are not about superheroes. Yeah, some of the shows the author lists have a character that has a power, but does that automatically make they a superhero? Is Highlander a superhero in the way the author is suggesting? No, I do not believe so.
Also, like I said, it stretches its point to make connections. For example: Heroes. That show's premise is not to feature superheroes in a comic book world. The premise as stated by TK is what would happen if real people one day woke up with powers in a real world setting. The author's thesis doesn't apply in this case.
Also, I still don't get where you get with the whole "common moviegoers hate the fantastic". I know you have a laundry list of exemptions on why you think some things work while other's done, but I think that's all hogwash. "Common moviegoers" wouldn't care if something took place in the future, was in magic land, was in the distant past, etc. "Fantastic" is "Fantastic".
Also, I still don't, and probably never will, get your claim that superhero movies are inherently a bad thing in the public eye, especially since superhero movies have been and still are making hugh amounts of money in the theatre. If people didn't want to see them, they wouldn't go see them. I don't care if you claim that they are more down to Earth or not. The fact remains in most of these, you got a guy in a silly costume fighting another guy in a silly costume.
In any case, all this is moot as it doesn't disprove my earlier claim of: "Dark =/= Mob/Crime Story"
And I will continue to disagree with you that GL will be a 100% "down to Earth" story. Judging from what I have read in various interviews, GL will "embrace the cape" and be more of a sci-fi adventure (especically if they want to cram all the stuff they want to cram in to it). I can be wrong, but my current intuition currently doesn't think so.
Then again, the whole movie might get fucking cancelled, so who knows.
In any event, in short: I felt the author was stretching to prove his/her points. For examples, he/she is trying to apply superhero concepts to shows that are not about superheroes. Yeah, some of the shows the author lists have a character that has a power, but does that automatically make they a superhero? Is Highlander a superhero in the way the author is suggesting? No, I do not believe so.
Also, like I said, it stretches its point to make connections. For example: Heroes. That show's premise is not to feature superheroes in a comic book world. The premise as stated by TK is what would happen if real people one day woke up with powers in a real world setting. The author's thesis doesn't apply in this case.
Also, I still don't get where you get with the whole "common moviegoers hate the fantastic". I know you have a laundry list of exemptions on why you think some things work while other's done, but I think that's all hogwash. "Common moviegoers" wouldn't care if something took place in the future, was in magic land, was in the distant past, etc. "Fantastic" is "Fantastic".
Also, I still don't, and probably never will, get your claim that superhero movies are inherently a bad thing in the public eye, especially since superhero movies have been and still are making hugh amounts of money in the theatre. If people didn't want to see them, they wouldn't go see them. I don't care if you claim that they are more down to Earth or not. The fact remains in most of these, you got a guy in a silly costume fighting another guy in a silly costume.
In any case, all this is moot as it doesn't disprove my earlier claim of: "Dark =/= Mob/Crime Story"
And I will continue to disagree with you that GL will be a 100% "down to Earth" story. Judging from what I have read in various interviews, GL will "embrace the cape" and be more of a sci-fi adventure (especically if they want to cram all the stuff they want to cram in to it). I can be wrong, but my current intuition currently doesn't think so.
Then again, the whole movie might get fucking cancelled, so who knows.
Until we know what they mean by a darker take on the FF let's not get our panties in a big bunch. It could mean a dozen different things.
Not by applying basic understanding of how Hollywood Execs think, they'll just look at what's popular now and then try to ape that as best they can because it doesn't matter to them if the current trends mesh well with the source material as long as it makes money.
What's popular now in terms of Superheroes? Dark Knight, which was a dark flick about a "hero" fighting the Mob and displayed little to no qualities of heroism while taking on a common man with no real abilities who had the power of plot contrivance on his side. Therefore, to a Hollywood Exec any post-DK movies should also be dark with unpleasant characters who have little to nothing in terms of superpowers, should not leave their one city setting and should mostly battle normal folks who're entirely made up of mobsters or evil CEOs. Iron Man is just a less-dark take on this new movie trend in that he also has no powers and fought an evil CEO.
Therefore we'll likely get the CEO Doom again since a foreign King is too "Over-the-top".
What's popular now in terms of Superheroes? Dark Knight, which was a dark flick about a "hero" fighting the Mob and displayed little to no qualities of heroism while taking on a common man with no real abilities who had the power of plot contrivance on his side. Therefore, to a Hollywood Exec any post-DK movies should also be dark with unpleasant characters who have little to nothing in terms of superpowers, should not leave their one city setting and should mostly battle normal folks who're entirely made up of mobsters or evil CEOs. Iron Man is just a less-dark take on this new movie trend in that he also has no powers and fought an evil CEO.
Therefore we'll likely get the CEO Doom again since a foreign King is too "Over-the-top".
What about Iron Man? Yes, TDK was popular, but so was Iron Man and that movie had a very different tone to it. True, TDK made a ton more money than Iron Man, but TDK had the advantage of being a sequel (in addition in being the lastest part of a popular film franchise going back to, modern-day speaking, 1989).
Exactly.
Exactly.
Iron Man is also down to Earth and had the hero be a guy with no superpowers fighting a corrupt Company Executive, so he still fits as well. Face it, the audience won't go for something as "out there" as a King of a foreign country or some-such. Which also means no Annihilus, Blastaar, or even friggin Namor.
You clearly did not read my post and instead are twisting it into saying something it didn't to further your arguments.
Yes, Iron Man was more closely tied down to Earth (Like most Marvel Comics are) because it, shock, respected the source material; not because it felt people won't "get it".
In any event, your point is moot as I was discussing the tone of the movie which was a fun, high-adventure romp; in other words not dark and completely opposite of The Dark Knight.
On a side note, how is a king of a country "out there"? I figure that would be one of the most realistic things you can have in a superhero movie.
Yes, Iron Man was more closely tied down to Earth (Like most Marvel Comics are) because it, shock, respected the source material; not because it felt people won't "get it".
In any event, your point is moot as I was discussing the tone of the movie which was a fun, high-adventure romp; in other words not dark and completely opposite of The Dark Knight.
On a side note, how is a king of a country "out there"? I figure that would be one of the most realistic things you can have in a superhero movie.
Ah, a darker take on Fantastic Four. Just when I think things can't get any more retarded.
Of course, the huge success of Dark Trek guarantees that we'll be seeing more of this kind of garbage for years to come. Will the 80s never end?
Is it worth it to have cool stuff like "Days of Futurepast", "Miracleman", "Watchmen", "Dark Knight", etc., if they inspire a Dark'nGrim'nGritty movement that lasts 30 years? Honestly, I don't think so.
I think I'm gonna go read some Stan Lee comics and watch a Warner Bros. cartoon or something.
Can you please cite an example where a villainous leader of a foreign fictional country in a movie has been deemed too out there for audiences?
It's unfortunate, because everything you mention, except for Miracleman, is wonderful stuff. I just don't understand why people can't appreciate variety, and why they need to hide behind all the tough guy, faux cynical posturing. Me, I can appreciate everything from Angel And The Ape to Dangerous Visions; in fact, the wide variety of material is one reason I was always into genre fiction.Ah, a darker take on Fantastic Four. Just when I think things can't get any more retarded.
Of course, the huge success of Dark Trek guarantees that we'll be seeing more of this kind of garbage for years to come. Will the 80s never end?
Is it worth it to have cool stuff like "Days of Futurepast", "Miracleman", "Watchmen", "Dark Knight", etc., if they inspire a Dark'nGrim'nGritty movement that lasts 30 years? Honestly, I don't think so.
It'd be better to find movies where the villain of a movie was the ruler of a foreign country. The sheer lack of them would prove the point as well.
Again with this?
LOL I like how a foreign king would be too 'over the top' in a movie with a man made from rock, and invisible woman, a flying man of fire, and an elsticated man.
The only way the FF movies can work is if they go completely bat-shit mental with them. Giant monsters, robots, new worlds, universes, gizmos and gadgets are all perfectly at home in the FF world.
The only way the FF movies can work is if they go completely bat-shit mental with them. Giant monsters, robots, new worlds, universes, gizmos and gadgets are all perfectly at home in the FF world.
This proves, once again, that The Incredibles was the best Fantastic Four movie ever made. Any chance that Brad Bird can tackle this project?
I can't imagine Namor being anything but a punchline in a live-action movie.
That's just me.
