|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jun 28, 2015 22:31:33 GMT -5
Heard a great explanation about this movie today that gave me a new perspective on it. I'm already looking forward to it but I'm not a die-hard FF fan. Anyway, they said that when the original Fantastic Four came out that was the idea of science fiction back then. Today science fiction looks very much like this movie looks. Not even just today. Go as far back as 2001 and onwards and serious sci-fi has obviously changed from the rip-roaring adventure of the old days. And I know people are tired of "realistic and gritty" but unless they made a period piece FF movie this seems like the logical place to go. Even the cast. Miles Teller comes across in the trailers as a young scientist. Not the over-done, over-confident, loud, Big Bang Theory Sheldon stereotype. He acts subdued and smart and kind of shy. But hey, this is all from a trailer. Looking forward to see what the movie does. Side note, The Thing has no thing? Poor guy. But i guess that puts those theories to rest. Henry, I feel that for the movie to be even remotely faithful to the source material, a film entitled "Fantastic Four" HAS TO BE a rip-roaring adventure! Anything else is only going to be a poor imitation, just as having all the character's ages flattened out is, when that skews all the interesting relationships that those differences create! Reed and Ben, as created by Lee & Kirby were each in at least their middle-thirties, with Sue about eight-to-ten years younger, and Johnny a high school student. ps) When Paramount and Marvel were negotiating with Fox to try and get the FF rights back, I have heard from decent sources that they were working on a 60s period piece setting for their fim if the recaptured the film rights! rrr
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jul 20, 2015 5:14:30 GMT -5
Troops,
While looking for the latest trailer, I came across this very entertaining mash-up that replaces the soundtrack with the audio from the 1967 cartoon show promo. It certainly makes the film seem like it would have the lighter tone that old-time fans want to see!
ps) Below is what the promo originally looked like,and boy, was I psyched when I saw it as a 10-year-old!
|
|
|
Post by henrythemorerecent on Jul 29, 2015 17:16:23 GMT -5
Troops, While looking for the latest trailer, I came across this very entertaining mash-up that replaces the soundtrack with the audio from the 1967 cartoon show promo. It certainly makes the film seem like it would have the lighter tone that old-time fans want to see! ps) Below is what the promo originally looked like,and boy, was I psyched when I saw it as a 10-year-old! I was curious, Stan Lee has showed a lot of support for this movie. Wondering if this has convinced you to maybe go The Thing covert style in a trenchchoat and fedora and sneak into a screening?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jul 29, 2015 17:46:13 GMT -5
Troops, While looking for the latest trailer, I came across this very entertaining mash-up that replaces the soundtrack with the audio from the 1967 cartoon show promo. It certainly makes the film seem like it would have the lighter tone that old-time fans want to see! ps) Below is what the promo originally looked like,and boy, was I psyched when I saw it as a 10-year-old! I was curious, Stan Lee has showed a lot of support for this movie. Wondering if this has convinced you to maybe go The Thing covert style in a trenchchoat and fedora and sneak into a screening? Henry, Even though I'm a huge admirer of Stan the Man, since I'm sure that he'll be cashing an Executive Producer check, I'm fairly certain that he's under an obligation to say nice things about the film. As to sneaking in, if I'm going to see the blamed thing, I'll go in openly, but if you've heard this week's show (or seen the post for it), my quandry is how to reconcile myself to giving one cent to this enterprise, even if it's someone else's penny!
|
|
|
Post by henrythemorerecent on Jul 29, 2015 21:57:15 GMT -5
I was curious, Stan Lee has showed a lot of support for this movie. Wondering if this has convinced you to maybe go The Thing covert style in a trenchchoat and fedora and sneak into a screening? Henry, Even though I'm a huge admirer of Stan the Man, since I'm sure that he'll be cashing an Executive Producer check, I'm fairly certain that he's under an obligation to say nice things about the film. As to sneaking in, if I'm going to see the blamed thing, I'll go in openly, but if you've heard this week's show (or seen the post for it), my quandry is how to reconcile myself to giving one cent to this enterprise, even if it's someone else's penny! Fair call.
I'll say this much, I'm looking forward to that review podcast. It's a movie and set of characters I bring absolutely nothing personal to bar a recurring nightmare of a cloud monster reflected in Jessica Alba's fake blue contact lenses. They're the only comic characters I have no real ties to but also its a film from a studio and a director that haven't done much else to compare it to unlike the Marvel Studios movies.
Maybe request the theatre prints your ticket as "Science Siblings" and just pretend its an unrelated science fiction film?
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jul 30, 2015 0:14:58 GMT -5
Henry, Even though I'm a huge admirer of Stan the Man, since I'm sure that he'll be cashing an Executive Producer check, I'm fairly certain that he's under an obligation to say nice things about the film. As to sneaking in, if I'm going to see the blamed thing, I'll go in openly, but if you've heard this week's show (or seen the post for it), my quandry is how to reconcile myself to giving one cent to this enterprise, even if it's someone else's penny! Fair call.
I'll say this much, I'm looking forward to that review podcast. It's a movie and set of characters I bring absolutely nothing personal to bar a recurring nightmare of a cloud monster reflected in Jessica Alba's fake blue contact lenses. They're the only comic characters I have no real ties to but also its a film from a studio and a director that haven't done much else to compare it to unlike the Marvel Studios movies.
Maybe request the theatre prints your ticket as "Science Siblings" and just pretend its an unrelated science fiction film?
Henry, I find it a pity that you've never connected with the Fantastic Four, a property that due to the nature of their characterization and innovative story-telling by Stan & Jack is, to my mind, the most important title after the Golden Age, as everything else in modern comics flows from that wellspring. Comics have been much different since FF #1, but it is so much more than just a pioneering work, as through the book's history, it's been filled with fun stories of rousing sci-fi adventure that never skimped on deep and true human emotions through the complex relationships created by the family dynamic. Sadly, I fear that, based on every bit of footage that I've seen, and every article that I've read, the new film seems to have abandoned all the things that make the Richards' extended family "fantastic".
|
|
|
Post by henrythemorerecent on Jul 30, 2015 16:02:50 GMT -5
Fair call.
I'll say this much, I'm looking forward to that review podcast. It's a movie and set of characters I bring absolutely nothing personal to bar a recurring nightmare of a cloud monster reflected in Jessica Alba's fake blue contact lenses. They're the only comic characters I have no real ties to but also its a film from a studio and a director that haven't done much else to compare it to unlike the Marvel Studios movies.
Maybe request the theatre prints your ticket as "Science Siblings" and just pretend its an unrelated science fiction film?
Henry, I find it a pity that you've never connected with the Fantastic Four, a property that due to the nature of their characterization and innovative story-telling by Stan & Jack is, to my mind, the most important title after the Golden Age, as everything else in modern comics flows from that wellspring. Comics have been much different since FF #1, but it is so much more than just a pioneering work, as through the book's history, it's been filled with fun stories of rousing sci-fi adventure that never skimped on deep and true human emotions through the complex relationships created by the family dynamic. Sadly, I fear that, based on every bit of footage that I've seen, and every article that I've read, the new film seems to have abandoned all the things that make the Richards' extended family "fantastic". Its just the nature of most Marvel comics to me though, not specifically FF. Currently on my shelf I only have Miller's Daredevil and Elektra, the Claremont/Miller Wolverine and Old Man Logan. And I don't even like Wolverine all that much, just those specific stories. But recently, in order to conserve space, I've only been buying and keeping things that have a solid ending. Nothing bugs me more than reading through a writers run on a comic, small or large, and the ending is either just being a poor shift into the next creative team or a lead into an event which then leads into the next longwinded arc. Even Miller's Daredevil, a long run of comics, has a solid ending both in the regular series with that Bullseye hospital issue, and Born Again.
But for example, I've talked about it a lot in this forum, but Bendis' Ultimate Spider-Man. One of my favourite comic book runs of all time. One of the few to get genuine tears out of me. Suddenly he ends Miles Morales with him and the greatest supporting cast I've ever read, looking up at Battleworld. Ultimate End promised to be a worthy ending to the Ultimate Universe, but 4 issues in and it has just been arguments between Tony Stark and Tony Stark, a punch up betwen Hulk and Hulk. No Miles to be seen, no Ultimate Peter to be seen, no May, no Gwen, no MJ. It's ended with a thud. And it shouldn't but its really diminished the quality of the early books for me now because I know that it ends so passionless unsentimentally.
Thats an extreme example. But back to Fantsatic Four, I remember enjoying the Hickman run. The crazy almost retro-sci-fi feel to it. But as all Hickman books do, it just kept going and going. Cliffhanger after cliffhanger. No sense of closure. Then Future Foundation started.
I've read all of Hickmans FF, some Ultimate, the beginning of Matt Fractions. But it's never anything I think back on and say "I'll read that again" because then I have to weave through all the events and never get any closure. Same thing happened to JMS' Thor, Ed Brubaker's Cap and Winter Soldier ended with him co-writing shelf-space-fillers until he could finalize his contract with Marvel and get out of there.
It's the same reason I've never been able to read much X-Men and many other Marvel books. I know open-endedness is the nature of comics, but there's a way to at least end an arc solidly without it having to tie into something.
So if you can name great stand-alone Fantastic Four arcs that doesn't come with the caveat of "To understand the beginning of this you have to quickly read this. Also if the ending doens't make sense its because it leads into this..." I will literally go out and buy it as soon as I read the post.
But again, it's also the problem I have with the X-Men comics compared to the movies. I love the movies. Comics not so much. Which is why I'm excited for this movie because as hard as I try to read and love FF comics, sometimes you just have to admit defeat and say "It's not for me", but if somebody out there interprets it differently and I enjoy it, it's a good thing in my books. At the end of the day its entertainment. A movie. Its not physically hurting anyone or shouting racist/sexist/homophobic rants. It's just interpretting one fiction into a different fiction. And if it makes someone happy it's doing something good. An 8 year old isn't going to walk out of a movie saying "But 75 years of history!!!" And in what will be the case when I take my nephew to see it, he'll be able see Johnny Storm and relate to him better than he would Chris Evans and no doubt be shouting "Flame On!" at school.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Jul 30, 2015 17:34:09 GMT -5
Henry, I agree with many of your points about the nature of modern comics and the need for any series to be "event-beholden", and how it can badly affect the flow of the series being interrupted. As to suggesting some Fantastic Four to read, only yesterday, one I would recommend I gave as a birthday gift to Jacqui (Talking Games)Turner's son Luke, and that is "The Trial of Galactus" by John Byrne. The trade collects the"Big G" material from issues #242 through #262 into a cohesive whole that is one of the greatest FF arcs ever. I'm also a huge fan of Alan Davis' 6-issue mini "Fantastic Four: The End" that is both a fun cosmic adventure and a deeply emotional family-oriented tale.
|
|
|
Post by henrythemorerecent on Aug 3, 2015 18:57:28 GMT -5
Henry, I agree with many of your points about the nature of modern comics and the need for any series to be "event-beholden", and how it can badly affect the flow of the series being interrupted. As to suggesting some Fantastic Four to read, only yesterday, one I would recommend I gave as a birthday gift to Jacqui (Talking Games)Turner's son Luke, and that is "The Trial of Galactus" by John Byrne. The trade collects the"Big G" material from issues #242 through #262 into a cohesive whole that is one of the greatest FF arcs ever. I'm also a huge fan of Alan Davis' 6-issue mini "Fantastic Four: The End" that is both a fun cosmic adventure and a deeply emotional family-oriented tale. So none of these are available locally. However I did buy Volume 1 of the Lee/Kirby Marvel Masterworks trade paperback which are amazingly about 60% cheaper than those hardcovers. Figured if I'm gonna try reading Fantastic Four I haven't read I'm better off starting at the very, very start. And it will literally be my first Stan Lee written comic I have ever read. So hey, at least this movie has inspired me to do that.
On a side note, and not to be a smarty pants (but kind of), I just purchased 3 tickets to see the movie, 1 for myself on opening night and 2 for myself and my nephew on the weekend.
If there's a boycott of this movie I want to boycott the boycott.
Every year has its punching bag movie: The movie that is judged before it even comes out for either (for lack of a better term) geek-rage reasons, behind-the-scenes debacles or budgetary problems. John Carter was doomed before it was even released purely because of the budget and poor marketing. An otherwise amazingly fun movie. Failed. Lone Ranger, nobody could get past the Johnny Depp factor, again budget problems. Not a terrible film and that train sequence is loads of fun. But again, failed. 2014 had two: Amazing Spider-Man 2, financial success but for some reason critisized worse than Spider-Man 3 and led to yet another reboot. Despite probably being one of the most heroic depictions of a superhero in a movie out there (that ending alone). And Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, a movie tonally no different from the 90's version or even the cartoon but, while still a financial success, critisized before it was even released because of 25 year old nostalgia as well as Michael Bay's ties to it.
I don't want Fantastic Four to be that movie.
And it's a fan making a movie. It's worth listening to Josh Tranks recent interviews on Kevin Smith's podcast. He's bringing a lot of passion to this project. And he discusses his sitting with Stan Lee properly, bringing all his ideas to him and getting his approval. I'm sorry but Producer credit aside, the creator puts his stamp of approval on something there's at least something to take from that.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Aug 3, 2015 21:01:36 GMT -5
Henry,
I guess that I'm going to have to not see this film three times to even things out!
Audiences are going to vote with their wallets on this over the next few weeks; considering the small amount of actual comic readers out there in comparison to movie-goers, not to mention the even smaller percentage of film critics that have deep knowledge of comic properties (I've already "arrgghed" at least a half-dozen times due to rampant factual errors in pre-release articles!), no amount of fan-rage will make anything but a farthing's difference in the box-office take...well, excepting my possible ten bucks, anyway!
In all seriousness though, and speaking very personally (and somewhat heart-sickened), I'd like to change up a chord in your statement "I don't want Fantastic Four to be that movie." and say that my feelings are that I don't want "Fantastic Four" to be this movie. Couldn't Fox have saved themselves a lot of grief (and possibly make more money?) by finally making a film that's more in line with the Lee/Kirby tales before going off on an "edgy, grounded" tangent that has more to do with Mark Millar's "ultimate" version? I know that I, and I would bet many others in the more-general cinema audience (and critics, too!), could certainly have gotten behind a faithful period piece "FF" set in the Sixties a la "X-Men: First Class", with the fun, adventurous tone and family dynamics of the original, which would have been something very different for super-hero films!
ps) Time to watch the Roger Corman/Oley Sassone version, the nearest that I'll ever get to seeing the classic Fantastic Four in a film...not counting "The Incredibles", of course!
|
|
|
Post by harmonica on Aug 4, 2015 16:32:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by henrythemorerecent on Aug 4, 2015 17:13:47 GMT -5
Henry, I guess that I'm going to have to not see this film three times to even things out! Audiences are going to vote with their wallets on this over the next few weeks; considering the small amount of actual comic readers out there in comparison to movie-goers, not to mention the even smaller percentage of film critics that have deep knowledge of comic properties (I've already "arrgghed" at least a half-dozen times due to rampant factual errors in pre-release articles!), no amount of fan-rage will make anything but a farthing's difference in the box-office take...well, excepting my possible ten bucks, anyway! In all seriousness though, and speaking very personally (and somewhat heart-sickened), I'd like to change up a chord in your statement "I don't want Fantastic Four to be that movie." and say that my feelings are that I don't want "Fantastic Four" to be this movie. Couldn't Fox have saved themselves a lot of grief (and possibly make more money?) by finally making a film that's more in line with the Lee/Kirby tales before going off on an "edgy, grounded" tangent that has more to do with Mark Millar's "ultimate" version? I know that I, and I would bet many others in the more-general cinema audience (and critics, too!), could certainly have gotten behind a faithful period piece "FF" set in the Sixties a la "X-Men: First Class", with the fun, adventurous tone and family dynamics of the original, which would have been something very different for super-hero films! ps) Time to watch the Roger Corman/Oley Sassone version, the nearest that I'll ever get to seeing the classic Fantastic Four in a film...not counting "The Incredibles", of course! A hyper-stylised 60's version would be incredible. But not even Marvel Studio's would do that. That was what we were expecting to get with Edgar Wright's Ant-Man and he left because of the creative differences. So regardless of which studio it was with, that dream is still a long way away.
But speaking for myself and probably a lot of people, the Ultimate universe is their Marvel universe. It suprises me how quick people are to forget that if it wasn't for Fox studios and the Ultimate comics, we might not have Marvel comics today. If it wasn't for Mark Millar's "edgy" take on the Marvel universe we definitely wouldn't have the MCU, especially not Captain America or the Avengers movie. Hardly anybody I know was buying Marvel comics that wasn't X-Men before the Ultimates came out. And even though they weren't exactly high-adventure, 2 family friendly Fantastic Four movies did happen and they aren't held with high regard so all those combined, it makes absolute sense that they would look at FF at a different angle.
Last night I sat down and read the first 9 issues of the original run. And it was a lot of fun. But it felt disconnected from superheroes and the Marvel universe we know now. To me it doesn't read like a superhero comic, it reads like 60's pulp sci-fi. And the superhero elements I noticed were more because they reminded me of DC things than anything (Fantastic Four sky signal, contacting the Commissioner, they are originally based in "Central City") But it feels very much like sci-fi of its time. So to me it makes perfect sense to translate a science fiction story of the time and updating it with the same characters for a modern setting. If they were doing a period piece, sure, stylize it and stick to the original. But even then, the "cosmic rays" doesn't work anymore and that aspect would still need to be more fleshed out. And because space travel is obviously more thoroughly practised now and not exactly sci-fi, interdimensional travel is the next "final frontier" so to speak.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Aug 4, 2015 23:21:49 GMT -5
Henry, I guess that I'm going to have to not see this film three times to even things out! Audiences are going to vote with their wallets on this over the next few weeks; considering the small amount of actual comic readers out there in comparison to movie-goers, not to mention the even smaller percentage of film critics that have deep knowledge of comic properties (I've already "arrgghed" at least a half-dozen times due to rampant factual errors in pre-release articles!), no amount of fan-rage will make anything but a farthing's difference in the box-office take...well, excepting my possible ten bucks, anyway! In all seriousness though, and speaking very personally (and somewhat heart-sickened), I'd like to change up a chord in your statement "I don't want Fantastic Four to be that movie." and say that my feelings are that I don't want "Fantastic Four" to be this movie. Couldn't Fox have saved themselves a lot of grief (and possibly make more money?) by finally making a film that's more in line with the Lee/Kirby tales before going off on an "edgy, grounded" tangent that has more to do with Mark Millar's "ultimate" version? I know that I, and I would bet many others in the more-general cinema audience (and critics, too!), could certainly have gotten behind a faithful period piece "FF" set in the Sixties a la "X-Men: First Class", with the fun, adventurous tone and family dynamics of the original, which would have been something very different for super-hero films! ps) Time to watch the Roger Corman/Oley Sassone version, the nearest that I'll ever get to seeing the classic Fantastic Four in a film...not counting "The Incredibles", of course! A hyper-stylised 60's version would be incredible. But not even Marvel Studio's would do that. That was what we were expecting to get with Edgar Wright's Ant-Man and he left because of the creative differences. So regardless of which studio it was with, that dream is still a long way away.
But speaking for myself and probably a lot of people, the Ultimate universe is their Marvel universe. It suprises me how quick people are to forget that if it wasn't for Fox studios and the Ultimate comics, we might not have Marvel comics today. If it wasn't for Mark Millar's "edgy" take on the Marvel universe we definitely wouldn't have the MCU, especially not Captain America or the Avengers movie. Hardly anybody I know was buying Marvel comics that wasn't X-Men before the Ultimates came out. And even though they weren't exactly high-adventure, 2 family friendly Fantastic Four movies did happen and they aren't held with high regard so all those combined, it makes absolute sense that they would look at FF at a different angle.
Last night I sat down and read the first 9 issues of the original run. And it was a lot of fun. But it felt disconnected from superheroes and the Marvel universe we know now. To me it doesn't read like a superhero comic, it reads like 60's pulp sci-fi. And the superhero elements I noticed were more because they reminded me of DC things than anything (Fantastic Four sky signal, contacting the Commissioner, they are originally based in "Central City") But it feels very much like sci-fi of its time. So to me it makes perfect sense to translate a science fiction story of the time and updating it with the same characters for a modern setting. If they were doing a period piece, sure, stylize it and stick to the original. But even then, the "cosmic rays" doesn't work anymore and that aspect would still need to be more fleshed out. And because space travel is obviously more thoroughly practised now and not exactly sci-fi, interdimensional travel is the next "final frontier" so to speak.
Henry, I'll be very brief, because even I'm tired of hearing myself on this topic, and this may well be the last I'll say about this film. First, I've heard from sources who would be in a position to have known, that some years ago there were negotiations between Fox and Marvel (then distributed by Paramount) regarding some of the properties changing hands, and the FF were on the table. At that time, there were pitches and drafts prepared for a film set in the "Space Race" era of the Nineteen-sixties, but the deals broke down. Second, although the MCU does have some of the surface trappings of the Ultimate Universe (Sam Jackson included!), the films have far more in common with their roots, save some minor tweaks, although Cap's origin is straight out of "Tales of Suspense"! If Fox's ""X" films got the ball rolling for super-hero films (I'll still give "Blade" that nod!) that's more on Brian Singer, I would think, and yes, Tim Story made two films called "Fantastic Four", but as with the new film's characters, they were also closer to the Ultimate versions in many ways. Why not try being truly faithful to the source material, which would actually be that different angle that you're referring to. At a certain level, what we have is Mark Millar believing that more people would rather see his version than Stan and Jack's I must confess to being flummoxed by your comments regarding the early issues of Fantastic Four; as someone who was reading tons of comic books back then, FF read nothing like those DC super-hero titles of the time, which was exactly what Stan was trying to do. He used the vibe of 50s/60s science-fiction films to create a super-hero team far different than the "boy scout troops" that had come before. As to updating cosmic rays, last time I checked, gamma radiation doesn't make you green, and Marvel felt no need to call Los Alamos or Sandia Labs for an updated origin for the Hulk's condition. Henry, I apologize if I'm being truculent, but I come to this latest film project with a lifetime of love for what Lee & Kirby created, and giants such as Roy Thomas, John Buscema, and John Byrne perpetuated, so the looming release of this thing purporting to be a "Fantastic Four" movie has me beyond weary, and also very sad to know that audiences will probably never get to see a true cinematic representation of "The World's Greatest Comic Magazine"! Go see the film and love it as much as you want, call it the greatest thing since sliced bread (or even "Man of Steel"!), that's certainly you're prerogative, but for me personally, going in, I'm going to be hard-pressed to think kindly of a film whose director continually uses language to describe it that is the antithesis of the historic core values of the property, and who tells his cast that they shouldn't even look at the source material. I understand the director's need to tell his story, but from all I've read of it so far (including early trade reviews), it seems that vision is to the detriment of the characters and material. See you later troops, I'm going back to the 1994 Corman version, which at least tried to do the book properly. (Just a quick note; adjusted for inflation, the 2005 "Fantastic Four" had an opening week-end of $71 million dollars ($56M actual), with an adjusted US gross of $195M and adjusted world-wide of approx. $400M...and it wasn't very good, although it was less "edgy" and "grounded" than this new one. We'll just have to wait and see.)
|
|
|
Post by BatFonz on Aug 5, 2015 7:03:05 GMT -5
See now you've made Bob be very Brief!
|
|
|
Post by Bob Reyer on Aug 5, 2015 19:39:40 GMT -5
See now you've made Bob be very Brief! Simon, I'm never in boxers, so there you go!
|
|