Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;
- Thread starter Turtletrekker
- Start date
Rice pudding maybe...tried it once, it made me vomit.
The correct phrase is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". I wonder how that applies to rice pudding?
The proof of that pudding was in the toilet.
It's fairly amusing to read you trying to spin a positive observation - "I'm intrigued" - into some kind of nonsensical line-in-the-sand whinging on my part about what I will not pay to see.
Yep.
Of course Marvel follows a quite simple formula.. humor, hot main actor/actress, cool CGI and some smaller and a gigantic climax battle.
Now what sets Marvel movies apart, at least for me, is that they respect the core material enough that even die hard Marvel fans enjoy the movies (some of them, others will always find something to bitch about).
And then there are the gems that are Captain America 2, Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy and Iron Man that really knocked it out of the park.
I just don't see that happening with the new FF movie.. might still catch it out of curiosity (and this is all the studio want, they don't care for the reason as long as they earn money) but if no one of my buddies will go i'll catch it later on BR.
I don't think respect for the core material, in and of itself, makes a movie good. Being good makes a movie good, whether it respects the core material or not. Singer's X-Men films took enormous liberties with the core material, but they were still excellent movies. The next few X-Men films, if anything, drew on more elements from the comics, but did so in a clumsy and mediocre way. The Green Lantern movie suffered from being too slavish to the core material, trying to cram decades of continuity and worldbuilding into two hours and not having a strong enough story on its own merits.
The most important thing, always, is the story. If the story works, the movie works, whether it's honoring the source material or taking massive liberties with it.
I would've liked a big tongue-in-cheek faithful rendition of the 60s FF, ideally set in that decade. Basically, like a live-action Incredibles. But taken on its own merits, I think this will be a good enough film. The cast and director have me on board.
Yes, but most of them are mediocre movies. Iron Man, Captain America: The First Avenger and to some extent GOTG and The Avengers are decent. Whedon could probably make a good Hulk film. The worst are the Thor movies.
Story and plotting is the most important thing but there are a few key tonal elements that really set apart the better Marvel movies. The intangible element for me is that they just "feel" like you are watching a comic book. They respect the characters while allowing them to retain a sense of humor that is relatively intelligent. Wolverine's quips, Tony Stark bickering with Pepper, Captain America's fish out of water lines, etc.
Movies like Green Lantern, however, not only had sloppy plotting but Hal's dialogue was so bad you just lost respect for the character and thus the movie as a whole.
Still, it is possible to make a good story without respect for the source material. Kenneth Johnson, maker of the Bill Bixby Incredible Hulk TV series, had no respect whatsoever for the source material and tried to use as little of it as possible. He changed Dr. Banner's first name, ditched all his supporting cast and enemies and origin story, and even tried to turn the Hulk red until Stan Lee put his foot down (a Red Hulk? Who ever heard of such a thing?). It's just about the least faithful superhero adaptation ever, possibly exceeded only by the '40s Captain America serial that wasn't even about Steve Rogers. And yet it's so beloved by fans that it gets referenced in Hulk movies today and Lou Ferrigno keeps getting brought back to do the Hulk's voice. And that's because it was simply good on its own merits.
It also respected the characters. It was quite a serious drama for the time and did treat Banner like a silly comic book character.
I am a big fan of the Fantastic Four but to be honest when I plunk down my money at the cinema, I am indifferent to it being faithful to the comics I just want to have a good couple of hours of fun - being fictional I doubt Reed Richards cares how 'respectful' a film-maker is.
Yes, but it didn't respect the source. David Banner had little in common with Bruce Banner beyond his mean, green affliction. He'd never designed a bomb or worked for the military, he had no Betty Ross or Rick Jones in his life, etc.
People keep trying to say that the quality of an adaptation has to do with its source or its context or anything except the quality of the work in and of itself, which is really the key thing. Sure, it's good if it respects the source, but that is not the thing that determines its quality. Its own internal merits do that, and respect for the source is just a bonus.
Respecting the source material has more to do with understanding what made the storytelling formula work to begin with and working from that foundation when adapting it to film. Singer's X-Men universe is something of a cherry-picked remix of the comics, but it understands what makes the X-Men's story compelling and mostly stays true to the heart of each character (with a few minor and major exceptions). The same can be said about the Batman, Superman and Spider-Man films.
I see. I was perhaps unclear. What I meant in my first response was that it is important for the film to respect the character (as portrayed in the film) not necessarily the source. This also is different than be "respectful". It is caring enough to make the character fully realized rather than a two dimensional cut out (something I think Green Lantern was guilty of).
Venardhi's point is important as well--there does need to be a connection to what made the comic appealing to begin with. The Hulk television series did this by focusing on Banner's isolation and fear of the Hulk which was the essence of the series.
They've released character featurettes for each of the FF actors. They don't really offer any new information about the movie, but I still thought they might be of interest to you guys.
I understand you, I think.
I found what you are saying to be true for the most part. For example, with Bucky and Falcon changes were made, but they were only details, Bucky wasn't a kid but same age as Cap, Falcon wasn't a former gang member turned social worker that could communicate with a falcon, and neither were garishly attired in red, but they both seemed like they could be that character out of the books, at least to me. The personality, the friendship with Cap, the heroic attitude, those are more important, (and being well written and acted) and what counts.