Fantastic Four: Grade, Review, Discuss, Sequels?...SPOILERS likely

Tim Story did ok anyway - regardless of the critical reception, those films made money and he's worked consistently since.

 

Well, yeah, I know it really screams out as the obvious theory. I can speculate, assume things, and come to seemingly obvious conclusions as well as the next person, but I meant to be asking in the spirit of getting hard confirmation of it, although it's not the sort of thing I'd expect Fox to come straight out and admit. Maybe some "knowledgeable source" is spilling scuttlebutt through the back channels, though.

 

Green Lantern was a box office blockbuster by comparison!

I noticed that Deadpool is scheduled for a February release. The FF should have been released in February as well.

 

Josh Trank, the Joel Schumacher of the 21st Century. At least the latter was a Batman fan.

 

For you old timers like me who grew up on the FF. Here's something to wash the taste of the movie out of your brain:

[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbS3LL0QHg8[/yt]

 

With the clear understanding of what kind of children indulge in "told you so?" Sure, why not?

 

I thought B&R was so cheesy, campy and ridiculous that it was actually fun. I haven't seen FF, but it sounds it can't even be looked at that way.

 

In one light this movie should have got a very hard R rating because the Thing was completely naked through out most of the movie.

Speaking of the Thing's dick, was there any overt evidence that the Grimm's were Jewish like they are in the comics?

 

You're right - one of the most annoying things about it was that it was so dull that doing the MST3K thing on it would be a tedious and hollow exercise.

Which means of course that we can expect the RiffTrax in short order.

 

Out of curiosity for those that did go see this and have seen Chronicle how does it compare? Did it seem that Trank was going for the same vibe here?

 

No

 

I just remembered a couple of earlier posts I meant to respond to that I forgot in my other post.

Maybe since they don't have the F4, Disney and Marvel should just incorporate The Incredibles into the MCU.

Which is wrong if you ask me. Even if you don't want to recreate it exactly, you should still encourage your cast and other people involved in the creative aspects of the movie to familiarize themselves with the source material. If you're version is so different from the source material that you don't want your cast to read it, then you probably shouldn't bother adapting it.

 

Their house had a menorah on the shelf.

 

Three action sets/scenes being removed translates to a huge amount of money from the budget being removed, and possibley another 1/2 hour to the movie, or did they spend so long powerless, stapling together twice as much as Josh wanted to use on that era of their development to make up for the missing fight with Doom, the Absence of the Watcher, and sidelining the Thing destroying a Taliban cell (for instance.).

Does that mean that the budget was 122 million before that was removed or after 30 million dollars worth of action sequences were extracted?

 

Cool.

 

Arguably,Trank is worse. At least Schumacher's resume includes a number of beloved and/or well regarded movies:
A Time to Kill
Falling Down
St Elmo's Fire
The Lost Boys

Schumacher had a full resume before he effed up Batman. All Trank had was Chronicle

 

That's just bizarre -- making the exploration team all-male and having the woman only get powers as an afterthought. Even in the '60s, when the treatment of Sue was horribly sexist and marginalizing, she was at least allowed to come on the dang flight!

Surely it would've made more sense for the Four to go together and for Victor to get his powers from the "wake." Then maybe the fact that he had powers could've been a secret that he could've used to his advantage.

Not necessarily. If you're doing an adaptation, you want to bring something new and different as well as keeping the key elements that work. Maintaining continuity with the source is the business of the writer, producer, director, etc. So there's nothing wrong with having the actors come at it fresh, so that they can create something novel. The script is one thing, the actors' interpretation another. Sometimes you want them to contrast and produce a new synergy. An actor coming into a part with no preconceptions can give a fresh and surprising interpretation to it, or at least a sincere and unaffected one.

Look at Iron Man. Downey and Paltrow and Bridges weren't imitating the comics characters, they were just ad-libbing with each other within the broad confines of the plot. It was what came from the actors themselves, combined with the elements from the source material, that created the synergy that made the film so effective. In theory, that could've worked here if the script and the direction had been up to par.

 

You know, if they announced a sequel to this tomorrow O'd root for them and hope for the best; the other attitude is for losers.