First reviews for Trank's Fantastic Four hit.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Abounder said:
I wouldn't be so sure about that after Mandarin and considering Thanos hasn't done much.

That cloud was pretty stupid but I wonder if they made the cloud and a black Human Torch just to spite Marvel's action figures and casting.
Click to expand...

Thanos looking right is a huge victory in itself

img_2087_cbnews-1-fantastic-four-doctor-2015-doom-costume-leaked.jpg
 
Abounder said:
I wouldn't be so sure about that after Mandarin and considering Thanos hasn't done much.
Click to expand...

What does Thanos not doing much -- a deliberate story decision and one totally unrelated to his appearance anyway -- have to do with Galactus being portrayed as a cloud?

jtb said:
You joke about Hulk (and it is a flawed film) but it is a fucking travesty that the "failure" of Ang Lee's Hulk means we will never again see a superhero film directed by a great director. I don't know how one can claim to love the genre and want to see good superhero films and also see that as a good thing.

I have not been on board for this reboot, ever, at any point in its production cycle... Still, I think that a lot of the criticism of Fox is misguided. Trank is the most inspired directorial hire for a superhero film in a long time. It's a gamble. That's what studios should be doing. Apparently, it was a bad bet—and it's a damn shame that the lesson we all take out from this is that studios should further homogenize the genre and take even fewer risks.
Click to expand...

I had no idea Chronicle was that well-loved. :lol

Sephzilla said:
All three of the Chris Nolan Batman movies came out after Ang Lee's Hulk
Click to expand...

Ah, but didn't you know that Chris Nolan is a total hack and one of the worst filmmakers of his time?
 
I don't love Chronicle, but at least it was a film that was interested in deconstructing the mythos of the superhero genre. You could see some creative spark there. Obviously not Marvel, but I still can't get over the Marc Webb hire. Ugh. What was Sony thinking? I just don't understand.

Sephzilla said:
All three of the Chris Nolan Batman movies came out after Ang Lee's Hulk
Click to expand...

Good point. Nolan didn't have the reputation he has now or the reputation Ang Lee had prior to directing Hulk (obviously, helped in part by those Batman films), but that was an fantastic hire. However, I would also assert that there's no way that Nolan, with that track record, would get hired in the landscape of today's superhero genre—which is ironic and sad, considering he helped build it.

Sibersk Esto said:
And are better directed
Click to expand...

The point isn't that Ang Lee's Hulk is some misunderstood masterpiece (though I'm sure some will argue that :p), but that someone with the quality of Ang Lee's resume pre-Hulk simply wouldn't be asked to direct a superhero film today. And I think that's a huge missed opportunity.
 
Abounder said:
I wouldn't be so sure about that after Mandarin and considering Thanos hasn't done much.

That cloud was pretty stupid but I wonder if they made the cloud and a black Human Torch just to spite Marvel's action figures and casting.
Click to expand...
The real Mandarin is waiting in the wings, & Thanos not doing much yet was a deliberate story decision by Feige & Gunn.

richiek said:
First look at Doom in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzko5iNo5wM

photo_1%20%281%29.jpg


Remember when people were saying that this would be fixed in postproduction? LOL
Click to expand...
Good god, he looks awful. And how is Doom killing everyone?
 
jtb said:
Trank is the most inspired directorial hire for a superhero film in a long time. It's a gamble. That's what studios should be doing.
Click to expand...

His only other movie is a superhero movie, so that doesn't make much sense. Especially when you compare it to other recent comic book directors.
 
Blader said:
Ah, but didn't you know that Chris Nolan is a total hack and one of the worst filmmakers of his time?
Click to expand...

That's a bit of a strawman - just because you don't recognise Nolan as a "great," it doesn't mean you think he's the worst filmmaker ever.

Other possible counter examples, depending on taste, include Bryan Singer, Kenneth Branagh, Sam Raimi and nearly-Edgar Wright.

Edit: Oh, and Brad Bird.
 
jtb said:
You joke about Hulk (and it is a flawed film) but it is a fucking travesty that the "failure" of Ang Lee's Hulk means we will never again see a superhero film directed by a great director. I don't know how one can claim to love the genre and want to see good superhero films and also see that as a good thing.

I have not been on board for this reboot, ever, at any point in its production cycle... Still, I think that a lot of the criticism of Fox is misguided. Trank is the most inspired directorial hire for a superhero film in a long time. It's a gamble. That's what studios should be doing. Apparently, it was a bad bet—and it's a damn shame that the lesson we all take out from this is that studios should further homogenize the genre and take even fewer risks.
Click to expand...

Nolan's a great director. So is Bryan Singer. And Sam Raimi. And James Mangold. And Joss Whedon. James Gunn and Matthew Vaughn as well.

Unless you're referring to only super serious, dramatic directors. But you're right, I doubt we're going to be seeing Paul Thomas Anderson or the Coen Brothers directing Aquaman anytime soon.
 
jtb said:
Good point. Nolan didn't have the reputation he has now or the reputation Ang Lee had prior to directing Hulk (obviously, helped in part by those Batman films), but that was an fantastic hire. However, I would also assert that there's no way that Nolan, with that track record, would get hired in the landscape of today's superhero genre—which is ironic and sad, considering he helped build it.
Click to expand...

I'm legitimately curious how you came to this conclusion. I also think you're slightly overvaluing Ang Lee's resume pre-Hulk, his most famous thing before that was probably Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. Some of his better stuff came after Hulk.
 
jtb said:
I don't love Chronicle, but at least it was a film that was interested in deconstructing the mythos of the superhero genre. You could see some creative spark there. Obviously not Marvel, but I still can't get over the Marc Webb hire. Ugh. What was Sony thinking? I just don't understand.



Good point. Nolan didn't have the reputation he has now or the reputation Ang Lee had prior to directing Hulk (obviously, helped in part by those Batman films), but that was an fantastic hire. However, I would also assert that there's no way that Nolan, with that track record, would get hired in the landscape of today's superhero genre—which is ironic and sad, considering he helped build it.



The point isn't that Ang Lee's Hulk is some misunderstood masterpiece (though I'm sure some will argue that :p), but that someone with the quality of Ang Lee's resume pre-Hulk simply wouldn't be asked to direct a superhero film today. And I think that's a huge missed opportunity.
Click to expand...

I really think DC and Warner Bros. would bend over backwards to get Nolan back, but he doesn't want to come back.

That said it's not like there's a huge line of great directors who want to make comic movies, the only tragedy I can think of is Edgar Wright leaving Ant-man, but that was his choice and we still got a good movie out of it.
 
I actually think that Kenneth Branaugh is the next "inspired" superhero director hire before Trank. Smart, clever hire on Marvel's part. Mixed results, but I think that first film turned out better than I expected, even if it's hardly a great film.
 
jtb said:
I don't love Chronicle, but at least it was a film that was interested in deconstructing the mythos of the superhero genre. You could see some creative spark there. Obviously not Marvel, but I still can't get over the Marc Webb hire. Ugh. What was Sony thinking? I just don't understand.



Good point. Nolan didn't have the reputation he has now or the reputation Ang Lee had prior to directing Hulk (obviously, helped in part by those Batman films), but that was an fantastic hire. However, I would also assert that there's no way that Nolan, with that track record, would get hired in the landscape of today's superhero genre—which is ironic and sad, considering he helped build it.



The point isn't that Ang Lee's Hulk is some misunderstood masterpiece (though I'm sure some will argue that :p), but that someone with the quality of Ang Lee's resume pre-Hulk simply wouldn't be asked to direct a superhero film today. And I think that's a huge missed opportunity.
Click to expand...

If Nolan wants to continue directing comic book movies Warner Bros will give him a blank check. He does not want to.
 
Blader said:
What does Thanos not doing much -- a deliberate story decision and one totally unrelated to his appearance anyway -- have to do with Galactus being portrayed as a cloud?
Click to expand...

Yea Mandarin is a better comparison. But what would you do with Galactus when Thanos hasn't done anything yet? MCU's handling of villains has been pretty crappy

Bulzeeb said:
wasn't part of the problem that Marvel doesn't have rights over the movie merchandise unlike the sony deal?
Click to expand...

Hmm I thought Marvel had the merch but not sure

Slayven said:
Thanos looking right is a huge victory in itself

img_2087_cbnews-1-fantastic-four-doctor-2015-doom-costume-leaked.jpg
Click to expand...

Yea good luck selling that action figure lol. Looks like it was something out of a KaBlam! short
 
jtb said:
You joke about Hulk (and it is a flawed film) but it is a fucking travesty that the "failure" of Ang Lee's Hulk means we will never again see a superhero film directed by a great director. I don't know how one can claim to love the genre and want to see good superhero films and also see that as a good thing.

I have not been on board for this reboot, ever, at any point in its production cycle... Still, I think that a lot of the criticism of Fox is misguided. Trank is the most inspired directorial hire for a superhero film in a long time. It's a gamble. That's what studios should be doing. Apparently, it was a bad bet—and it's a damn shame that the lesson we all take out from this is that studios should further homogenize the genre and take even fewer risks.
Click to expand...

Shane Black was more inspired than Josh Trank (who was a good choice himself).
 
Sephzilla said:
I'm legitimately curious how you came to this conclusion. I also think you're slightly overvaluing Ang Lee's resume pre-Hulk, his most famous thing before that was probably Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon. A lot of his better stuff came after Hulk.
Click to expand...

I'm not. Ang Lee's resume was varied and accomplished even before Brokeback. Crouching Tiger proved he had action chops but The Ice Storm and Sense and Sensibility are also two legitimately great films.

There's too much money on the table now. WB could afford to bet the farm on Nolan because they had nothing to lose—Schumacher had already razed the Batman franchise to the ground. Now, studios play it safe and give these films to people who have experience in the genre or with "genre" fiction, in general (ie. fantasy/sci-fi), for their special effects experience, I guess. So you get Snyder or a random Game of Thrones director. Which isn't to say that they're bad—but usually they haven't proven that they have any kind of creative vision, let alone that they can execute it.
 
jtb said:
That's what studios should be doing. Apparently, it was a bad bet—and it's a damn shame that the lesson we all take out from this is that studios should further homogenize the genre and take even fewer risks.
Click to expand...

I mean, doesn't Marvel do that already?

They got Favreau, only known really for Elf, for Iron Man, Kenneth Branagh, mainly a Shakespeare dude, for Thor, the You, Me, and Dupree dudes for Winter Soldier, and the fucking Yes Man dude for Ant Man.

I agree their movies come off a bit by the numbers, but they do cast unexpected directors that most people didn't see as really superhero directors.
 
I didn't like Chronicle so I was never keen on the Josh Trank pick. From the outset it was fucked, making a "grounded" approach to "Fantastic" Four is something that should never make it past the brainstorming phase.
 
jtb said:
I actually think that Kenneth Branaugh is the next "inspired" superhero director hire before Trank. Smart, clever hire on Marvel's part. Mixed results, but I think that first film turned out better than I expected, even if it's hardly a great film.
Click to expand...

I gotta wonder how Josh Trank is an "inspired" choice, he's only made one movie, they probably got him super cheap.
 
jtb said:
I'm not. Ang Lee's resume was varied and accomplished even before Brokeback. Crouching Tiger proved he had action chops but The Ice Storm and Sense and Sensibility are also two legitimately great films.

There's too much money on the table now. WB could afford to bet the farm on Nolan because they had nothing to lose—Schumacher had already razed the Batman franchise to the ground. Now, studios play it safe and give these films to people who have experience in the genre or with "genre" fiction, in general (ie. fantasy/sci-fi), for their special effects experience, I guess. So you get Snyder or a random Game of Thrones director. Which isn't to say that they're bad—but they haven't proven that they have any kind of creative vision, let alone that they can execute it.
Click to expand...

Counterpoint - I would argue that this is a sign that studios are getting smarter about their directorial hires. Like miscasting an actor into a role, you can mis-hire a director for a movie. Ang Lee was simply the wrong director for the wrong movie.
 
Watch Da Birdie said:
I mean, doesn't Marvel do that already?

They got Favreau, only known really for Elf, for Iron Man, Kenneth Branagh, mainly a Shakespeare dude, for Thor, the You, Me, and Dupree dudes for Winter Soldier, and the fucking Yes Man dude for Ant Man.

I agree their movies come off a bit by the numbers, but they do cast unexpected directors that most people didn't see as really superhero directors.
Click to expand...

There's a difference between unexpected i.e. Branagh and unexpected i.e. TV directors or Peyton Reed.

It would surprise me if Terrence Malick directed Aquaman. It would also surprise me if Joel Schumacher did.
 
jtb said:
I don't love Chronicle, but at least it was a film that was interested in deconstructing the mythos of the superhero genre. You could see some creative spark there. Obviously not Marvel, but I still can't get over the Marc Webb hire. Ugh. What was Sony thinking? I just don't understand.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't really agree -- it just came off like a found footage take on Akira to me. Personally, I thought 500 Days of Summer was a more creative, inventive film (the non-linear editing, expectations vs. reality sequence, Hall & Oates dance montage, etc.), which is partly why I found Webb's work on ASM1/2 so disappointing.

Abounder said:
Yea Mandarin is a better comparison. But what would you do with Galactus when Thanos hasn't done anything yet? MCU's handling of villains has been pretty crappy
Click to expand...

I don't really agree with the Mandarin as a comparison either. The Asian-stereotype terrorist warlord image is still there, it's still presented as the character. He turns out to be not the real villain of the story, but it's not like Marvel shied away from using that imagery as part of the character's appearance.
 
Watch Da Birdie said:
I mean, doesn't Marvel do that already?

They got Favreau, only known really for Elf, for Iron Man, Kenneth Branagh, mainly a Shakespeare dude, for Thor, the You, Me, and Dupree dudes for Winter Soldier, and the fucking Yes Man dude for Ant Man.

I agree their movies come off a bit by the numbers, but they do cast unexpected directors that most people didn't see as really superhero directors.
Click to expand...

And yet when they pick an out-there choice for Spider-Man the only reason is "because he's cheap". I know. The internet confuses me sometimes too.
 
richiek said:
First look at Doom in action:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzko5iNo5wM
Click to expand...

The thing is, this scene would be awesome if he actually looked like Dr Doom

Freewheelin' said:
Mandarin twist is the most ballsy, brave move Marvel have made, and I loved it. Don't treat all these characters and stories as sacred; make your own stories instead of constantly adapting.
Click to expand...

It was absolutely a ballsy decision. That being said, being ballsy doesn't necessarily mean being smart. The Mandarin twist was a really big waste of a supervillain.
 
Mandarin twist is the most ballsy, brave move Marvel have made, and I loved it. Don't treat all these characters and stories as sacred; make your own stories instead of constantly adapting.
 
E the Shaggy said:
grgucJN.jpg
Click to expand...

Uggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghh.

Seriously, why is Doom that hard to do on film? He has a really cool mask. While, yeah, you don't see the actor's face, you can still see their eyes, and plenty of acting can be done with that.

Why do they keep wanting to do shit like this to him?
 
Patryn said:
Uggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggggghh.

Seriously, why is Doom that hard to do on film? He has a really cool mask. You should be able to see the actor's eyes, if not their face.

Why do they keep wanting to do shit like this to him?
Click to expand...

Good scene though (albeit out of context). Surely more importance than appearance is his actions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The Fantastic Four: First Steps | Official Trailer
2 3
109
3K
AJUMP23 replied
Fantastic Four: First Steps trailer - 2/4 at 4am PT/7am ET
2 3 4 5
217
8K
ChuckeRearmed replied
‘Fantastic Four’ Casts Ralph Ineson as Galactus
News 
34
3K
Sybrix replied
Marvel reveals the MCU’s Fantastic Four
2
62
4K
AJUMP23 replied
Coyote vs. Acme to hit theaters as Warner Bros sells film for $50 million
26
1K
Kilau replied
Top Bottom