• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

Trekker4747 said:
IIRC it was a special condition of cosmic rays, higher than normal or combined with the equipment or something like that. Needless to say, I don't think it needs to be "explained" much more than a handwaving. It's rather small and insignificant part of the story, overall.
Click to expand...

I sort of agree: Any explanation will be handwaving and it's a small detail. But it's still significant in allowing us to suspend disbelief. A genuinely good explanation would be better writing than a merely sciencey-sounding one, but truly rationalizing this stuff is beyond any human. But whatever fictional science is used needs to be well-written fictional science.

In Nolan's more "realistic" Batman movies....
Click to expand...
 I don't like the Nolan movies. Chris Nolan wouldn't dream of sticking his hand into a working microwave but can't see how silly his microwave weapon was. But we have to "see" microwaves both working and not working at the same moment. And he did stuff like that while confusing drab or confused or merely cynical with realism. Feh.

How did the Fantastic Four's exposure to cosmic radiation impact them and not others who went into orbit before them?
Click to expand...

Well, the early comics clearly established that cosmic rays would give other people super-powers, and their pet apes too. The Red Ghost. Perhaps I'm mistaken, relying on memory, but unlike you I don't think the early comics ever answered the question, despite man's continued march into space.

I don't think it's excessively demanding to expect a new movie adaptation to try to clean this origin up a little.
 
I'm pretty sure that nobody can be born with magnetic or telepathic powers either, but when it comes to fiction, I just let it go.
 
Not sure you can call it a reboot after only one movie. More like a retry to me... :D
 
But at the same moment you are to also to remember and accept that cosmic rays did not do any thing like this to any of the other many people who've gone into orbit!
Click to expand...

"Wow that strange energy wave that we know nothing about give us super powers!" - same outcome no mention of cosmic rays.
 
Beyond Antares said:
I'm pretty sure that nobody can be born with magnetic or telepathic powers either, but when it comes to fiction, I just let it go.
Click to expand...

If one identical twin was born with magnetic or telepathic powers but the other one wasn't, you'd just let it go?
 
Hanukkah Solo said:
Hopefully the Thing will be done with mocap and CGI this time.
Click to expand...

I disagree. The Thing makeup was the most effective thing about the previous movies. Sure, it didn't match the absurdly oversized version of the character in the comics today, but it looked great, like an Alex Ross painting from Marvels brought to life. I'll grant that performance capture has gotten to the point where it can be reasonably convincing, but there's no reason to use it when a real live human being can still play the part just as well. If they want to make him bigger, they can digitally alter his size in post-production as they did with Chris Evans's torso in Captain America.


And hopefully the writing will actually be better, of course. :p
Click to expand...

Can't disagree there. And cast Sue Storm based on the actress's talent and screen presence, not just how good she looks in her underwear.


wissaboo said:
reboots are getting faster and faster. Can't we wait a decent amount of time to let the last one cool off at least?
Click to expand...

20th Century Fox can't wait past a certain length of time, or they'll lose their license back to Marvel. Those are the terms of their contract. Licenses like that are usually a use-it-or-lose-it proposition.

Some people think it would be good if Marvel got the rights to all their characters back, and I used to think that as well, but it's been pointed out that if only one studio had all the Marvel superhero rights, it wouldn't be able to make as many movies per year as could 2-3 studios with the rights split among them. So I'm fine with Fox putting this movie into production so they can keep the rights. I don't see a problem with the short interval. Heck, the previous two movies weren't very good; why should their mere existence prevent the studio from trying to do a better version? In what way is that not "decent?"


As for the source of their powers, I'm surprised that so many commenters here would expect them to use the old cosmic-ray origin. Previous Marvel movies have updated the characters' origins -- Hulk was created by a supersoldier formula (or nanotech in the Ang Lee version), Spidey was created by genetically engineered spiders rather than irradiated ones, etc. The previous FF movies replaced the "cosmic rays" with some sort of exotic space storm. I'm sure the new version will find its own way of updating the technobabble.
 
Evans and Chiklis were very good as Torch and Thing.

Unfortunately, everything else about the first two FF movies were terrible. Jessica Alba was completely miscast as Sue. That Nip/Tuck guy as Doom was also awful.
 
Here's hoping that not only the writing is better but so is the casting. I still can't believe they cast Jessica Alba as Sue. :wtf:
 
Christopher said:
Hanukkah Solo said:
Hopefully the Thing will be done with mocap and CGI this time.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The Thing makeup was the most effective thing about the previous movies. Sure, it didn't match the absurdly oversized version of the character in the comics today, but it looked great, like an Alex Ross painting from Marvels brought to life. I'll grant that performance capture has gotten to the point where it can be reasonably convincing, but there's no reason to use it when a real live human being can still play the part just as well. If they want to make him bigger, they can digitally alter his size in post-production as they did with Chris Evans's torso in Captain America.
Click to expand...
A real live human being does play the part in motion capture. At least the type I'm thinking of, i.e. Bill Nighy as Davy Jones in Pirates of the Caribbean.
 
Really, I think Chiklis as The Thing was perfectly cast and almost perfectly executed. I've no problem with the "guy in a suit" thing with The Thing but in the movie it didn't look quiet right. The colors in the movie were too bright and too perfect and not natural looking at all so The Thing looked less like a walking hulk of rock and more like partly melted Payday bar.
 
I think Fox should cast only Foxs in the reboot.

Matthew Fox as Reed
Megan Fox as Susan
Freddie Fox as Johnny
Vivica A. Fox as Alicia
and Special Guest Star Michael J. Fox as the voice of The Thing
 
Christopher said:
As for the source of their powers, I'm surprised that so many commenters here would expect them to use the old cosmic-ray origin. Previous Marvel movies have updated the characters' origins -- Hulk was created by a supersoldier formula (or nanotech in the Ang Lee version), Spidey was created by genetically engineered spiders rather than irradiated ones, etc. The previous FF movies replaced the "cosmic rays" with some sort of exotic space storm. I'm sure the new version will find its own way of updating the technobabble.
Click to expand...

IIRC, the Ultimate version of the Fantastic Four (and Dr. Doom) got their powers from a teleportation accident that had them briefly exposed to another dimension. It's very complicated.
 
Hanukkah Solo said:
A real live human being does play the part in motion capture.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that, of course. Many human beings are involved, including the performer, the character designer, and the animators. I just resist the kneejerk attitude that CGI is always preferable to conventional effects like miniatures or prosthetics. There are things that CGI is good for and things that prosthetics are good for. I see visual effects as an art form, and I've never seen the logic in thinking that one artistic technique should replace another rather than coexisting with it.


Trekker4747 said:
Really, I think Chiklis as The Thing was perfectly cast and almost perfectly executed. I've no problem with the "guy in a suit" thing with The Thing but in the movie it didn't look quiet right. The colors in the movie were too bright and too perfect and not natural looking at all so The Thing looked less like a walking hulk of rock and more like partly melted Payday bar.
Click to expand...

I still say he looked like an Alex Ross painting brought to life, and thus it worked marvelously.
 
Christopher said:
Hanukkah Solo said:
A real live human being does play the part in motion capture.
Click to expand...

I'm aware of that, of course. Many human beings are involved, including the performer, the character designer, and the animators. I just resist the kneejerk attitude that CGI is always preferable to conventional effects like miniatures or prosthetics. There are things that CGI is good for and things that prosthetics are good for. I see visual effects as an art form, and I've never seen the logic in thinking that one artistic technique should replace another rather than coexisting with it.


Trekker4747 said:
Really, I think Chiklis as The Thing was perfectly cast and almost perfectly executed. I've no problem with the "guy in a suit" thing with The Thing but in the movie it didn't look quiet right. The colors in the movie were too bright and too perfect and not natural looking at all so The Thing looked less like a walking hulk of rock and more like partly melted Payday bar.
Click to expand...

I still say he looked like an Alex Ross painting brought to life, and thus it worked marvelously.
Click to expand...

I dunno, different strokes. The colors and lighting were generally wrong in the F4 movies all over the place giving everything to much of a bright, non-realistic, too-colorful look. Yeah, I suppose is meant to go with the tone of the comic and the look of a comic but it didn't translate well on screen for me. The Thing looked too much like a costume and not much like, well, a chunk of rock.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top