If it wasn't a high-profile superhero film, it'd be a decent-ish August opening. But considering it was apparently tracking at around 50 mil over the three day a couple weeks ago, and mid 40s last week (I believe), opening just north of 30 mil is not really a good sign. And if word of mouth is as bad as it seems to be, that means the 2nd weekend is probably gonna drop about 60-70%.
If it wasn't a high-profile superhero film, it'd be a decent-ish August opening. But considering it was apparently tracking at around 50 mil over the three day a couple weeks ago, and mid 40s last week (I believe), opening just north of 30 mil is not really a good sign. And if word of mouth is as bad as it seems to be, that means the 2nd weekend is probably gonna drop about 60-70%.
That opening for a film with a $122m budget (apparently not even counting the reshoot budget?) with extremely negative reception that will most likely lead to a 60-70% drop next weekend? And it's not opening in China?
Ben's inability to resent his contrasting fortunes with Reed is endearing. When they go to the city, they look out of the window and take the view.
Ben: this is your home.
Reed: nah, I'm just studying here
Ben: Reed. Look at this place. You're home.
He then gives him a pocket knife wrapped in a cloth. We remember this from the first night they worked in the garage together, where Reed struggled to find a screwdriver for his device and Ben gave him this pocketknife. He fucking wrapped it and handed it to him. That says something not only about their friendship, but Ben's pride in his friend. This is emphasised for what will happen later, and the guilt that drives Reed. When Reed finishes the device with Sue and Victor, he calls Ben. The rest want to go in the machine and "be the first". They have to do it fast. Reed says no, they have to wait until he arrives. When Reed smilingly introduces him to his new friends, Victor responds: "So, this is your inspiration". At this point, its a better love story anything I've seen in recent memory. Interestingly, it is Ben's transformation and his plea that motivates Reed. Not that of Sue or Johnny.
Johnny is burning on the floor unconscious. Sue is unconscious. Who does Reed go to first? I don't even need to say it
The way the accident happens - the desperate plea Ben has when the door wont close and he screams in agony, and hides in the corner of his cell screaming out yet again, in pain, for Reed to come back to him.
It was until recently. But the way the market seems to be blowing up month to month has a lot of studios seriously reconsidering the way they thought about scheduling. Basically, people are realizing that audiences don't necessarily need films to slot into the conventional wisdom about what kind of movie can open when.
Ben's inability to resent his contrasting fortunes with Reed is endearing. When they go to the city, they look out of the window and take the view.
Ben: this is your home.
Reed: nah, I'm just studying here
Ben: Reed. Look at this place. You're home.
He then gives him a pocket knife wrapped in a cloth. We remember this from the first night they worked in the garage together, where Reed struggled to find a screwdriver for his device and Ben gave him this pocketknife. He fucking wrapped it and handed it to him. That says something not only about their friendship, but Ben's pride in his friend. This is emphasised for what will happen later, and the guilt that drives Reed. When Reed finishes the device with Sue and Victor, he calls Ben. The rest want to go in the machine and "be the first". They have to do it fast. Reed says no, they have to wait until he arrives. When Reed smilingly introduces him to his new friends, Victor responds: "So, this is your inspiration". At this point, its a better love story anything I've seen in recent memory. Interestingly, it is Ben's transformation and his plea that motivates Reed. Not that of Sue or Johnny.
Johnny is burning on the floor unconscious. Sue is unconscious. Who does Reed go to first? I don't even need to say it
The way the accident happens - the desperate plea Ben has when the door wont close and he screams in agony, and hides in the corner of his cell screaming out yet again, in pain, for Reed to come back to him.
Honestly man sounds like you should have been the one writing this lol. You clearly understand the movie's characters better than it's own screenwriters seem to.
Honestly man sounds like you should have been the one writing this lol. You clearly understand the movie's characters better than it's own screenwriters seem to.
Like I mentioned during my quick recap leaving the theater, the transformation scene is pretty much the best thing about the entire film. It sort of switches gears to horrifying screams, blood, burning, like some crazy sci-fi film.
I'm not sure who did that scene based on the chaos of studio tampering, but it was the only part in the film I felt some sort of clear vision of what someone wanted to convey to the audience.
Like I mentioned during my quick recap leaving the theater, the transformation scene is pretty much the best thing about the entire film. It sort of switches gears to horrifying screams, blood, burning, like some crazy sci-fi film.
I'm not sure who did that scene based on the chaos of studio tampering, but it was the only part in the film I felt some sort of clear vision of what someone wanted to convey to the audience.
When I first heard the Cronenberg comparisons my mind ran wild; a Thing with his body barely together, coughing rock dust, a Human Torch screaming as his lack of control over fire meant his body still felt full pain. It would be a fascinating deconstruction of the superhero genre, much like Chronicle was supposed to be (must watch it).
But again, not Fantastic Four really, even if done well.
When I first heard the Cronenberg comparisons my mind ran wild; a Thing with his body barely together, coughing rock dust, a Human Torch screaming as his lack of control over fire meant his body still felt full pain. It would be a fascinating deconstruction of the superhero genre, much like Chronicle was supposed to be (must watch it).
But again, not Fantastic Four really, even if done well.
Oh, it doesn't meet the Cronenberg material at all. It was just really a dark scene overall. Not something the MCU I think would scratch.
I would say that is the Fantastic Four to be honest though. They really aren't superheros at their core. I think going heavy with creative sci-fi and maintaining them as a family first makes the most sense.
Been thinking about this since seeing the movie last night. I think the challenge of making a good Fantastic 4 movie is the time that it takes to develop the characters as individuals (which, they actually did a decent job of in the movie except for with Doom's transformation), then develop the characters as a team, then develop the villain. Additionally they need to develop the setting(s) and how all these pieces fit together.
Thing is, you can't really do this in a 2 hour movie which is why it keeps failing.
Why not make a TV series then? I Think it would work much better and give more time to develop it.
Like I mentioned during my quick recap leaving the theater, the transformation scene is pretty much the best thing about the entire film. It sort of switches gears to horrifying screams, blood, burning, like some crazy sci-fi film.
I'm not sure who did that scene based on the chaos of studio tampering, but it was the only part in the film I felt some sort of clear vision of what someone wanted to convey to the audience.
Oh, it doesn't meet the Cronenberg material at all. It was just really a dark scene overall. Not something the MCU I think would scratch.
I would say that is the Fantastic Four to be honest though. They really aren't superheros at their core. I think going heavy with creative sci-fi and maintaining them as a family first makes the most sense.
I think if Daredevil didn't put this to bed, Jessica Jones certainly will. All signs point to them being faithful to the source material, and damn that source material.
I think if Daredevil didn't put this to bed, Jessica Jones certainly will. All signs point to them being faithful to the source material, and damn that source material.
I watched the entire Daredevil show. I wouldn't say they took a ton of creative liberties, but it turned out far better than the rest of the comic book television program breed. The films for the MCU are a bit harder, as they are looking for the absolute widest audience they can achieve.
Because a movie this bad deserves to fail? Because if it was a success then that would tell Fox that it is okay to continue releasing half-assed, unfinished films?
People want to see a cool super hero movie. F4 - when it becomes a super hero movie (emphasis on that) - it is awful. The final act (the only act where they become heroes, or at least come together) is worse than act I can remember in these movies. Green Latern had cool action scenes. This does not. Does it build up to anything? No. I understand why people will hate this movie and I get why some here are panicking at these highlighted points.
But...
The irony is that F4 succeeds in areas that comic book fans generally don't pay as greater focus on compared to e.g. costume choice and action scenes. 2/3rds of this movie isn't even about superheroes and thus the positives of that element are buried or ignored in anticipation of something else.
I enjoyed it because I have found films that emphasise action over everything else to become tiring and dull after a while. So personally, F4 filled a gap for me. It made me sympathise and understand the characters. It made the romantic undertones (thank god there wasn't a forced love interest that ended in an awkward kiss) believable and interesting. In fact, even in these reviews, the first half of the film generally gets positive remarks.
It's just a shame that the positives (something that Marvel films desperately need IMO) are ignored and dismissed.
Comic book movies should not just be about people punched through walls and an exact replica of costumes. They should first and foremost be films with good writing and character development. F4 is not great at it, but it does it well, or at least better than others have.
The image of Doom going around these threads perfectly encapsulates the attitude surrounding this film. Shit sticks on the wall because people want to believe it to be that bad. Lets be honest, minds were made up long before this released. It has had nothing but negative buzz. And yet I came away from it writing all this about a franchise I couldn't give a shit about.
The first half of the movie is better because it holds promise, but it never delivers. It puts out the foundation of character development, but never actually delivers on that foundation.
That is the film's biggest failing. If it had gone full-on into the character development and body horror angle that was hinted at, it could have been amazing. Instead it was some build-up, hard right, random villain transformation, random villain, action, END OF MOVIE WE ARE BEST FRIENDS!
The new Terminator is the better film and arguably the third best entry in its respective series. The amount of fanfic that spews from that film gets absurd to the point where it because hilariously entertaining.
FF would have been leagues better if at least the dialog (or anything) went batshit.
Terminator Genisys is better than Fantastic Four without a doubt.
Terminator Genisys isn't the third best Terminator movie though.
I would put Salvation over Genisys simply because, for all its failings, Salvation tried to do something NEW. It was a new take on the characters. It showed us a new perspective on the universe and how different people dealt with the horror of SkyNet.
Terminator Genisys was so afraid to so something new, it fell into the same trap as T3:RotM and simply rehashed prior story points.
Reed and Ben create a small machine with DIY materials. It looks like something built in a garage by a couple of teenagers. Reed puts a toy plane on the machine - there is a ball of light on it, and it vanishes. He then manages to bring it back, or reappear. His teacher doesn't buy it, dismisses it as 'magic' and then moves on.
There is context, however.
In a previous scene when Reed is a small kid, he claims to want to build a teleportation machine when asked what he'd like to do as a career. "What happened to your flying car project", quips the same teacher. "I've moved on from that". Reed is portrayed as an eccentric, imaginative child who does nothing but make grand claims. So when he actually shows something, its not surprising to see him be dismissed for making something disappear and reappear. He could have dismissed him by challenging him on the science behind it, but it is clear from the onset that he doesn't even like Reed.
The scene isn't bad, and yet people want to give half-assed descriptions to present it in the worst possible way. Same thing with the 'clobbering time' line. This is why I can't take some of you guys seriously.
The scene was poor. The first time could have just been a teacher who was tired of the claims. The second time (high school now instead of grade school) one of the other judges should have at least said something. And why is a grade school teacher judging a high school science fair?
A better writer could have made it work, but as-is, it felt like the script simply had that scene happen for plot reasons rather than anything actually grounded in story context.
Even what happens to the paper plane doesn't make sense given how the teleportation tech works. If the teleporter doesn't move the item, but just displaces the dimensions, why does an inert item have bite marks on it? Forget the fact that Planet Zero is uninhabited (aside from the living goo), if there HAD been an animal there that attacked the plane, said plane wouldn't have been in the target area for the return trip.
In the context of the scene, and what happens during it, yeah. The teacher would have been correct with his statement. The scene prior with the teacher felt more cold and dumb for being so dismissive.
The brother scene isn't really awful in motion either. He says it pretty swiftly to the point where you can miss it easily. There is no dialog that really focuses on him for any sort of duration. Only reason Ben's family exists is to point out his social standing in the film.
The brother scene isn't that swift. The scene focuses on the brother and the beating, so I'm not sure how you would miss the line. There is also the follow-up with Ben's mom, which indicates that the brother's bullying happens often and also that his mom wants a better life for him.
Yeah it is, so is "you walk out of that door you're an Avenger". But it doesn't stand out in those films (maybe because of the several examples of poor dialogue), partially because I thought the delivery made it acceptable enough.
Steve Rodgers couldn't deliver that line, nor could Morgan Freeman (lol). But an emotionally unpredictable and erratic Tony Stark, known for his cheesy quips? It works for him. Then again, I'm defending this film because it does characterisation better than other Marvel films. Does that mean the characters are well written? That we have Shakespearean tension in the writing? Brilliant arcs? Do we even have 'good' writing in this film? No to all of them, but the fact that I felt it did it better than other films should highlight the oddity of labelling this movie as a category of shitness on its own.
Fantastic Four puts down the basics of a foundation for the characters early on, but then fails to deliver in the worst way possible.
Part of the reason the film is getting torn apart is because it starts out by going through the motions of a character drama, but then drops it and switches gears w/o explanation. No, it's not perfect, but it looks like it is starting to try, yet even in the first act it doesn't deliver.
The stuff up to when Reed leaves for school is great.
Though I'll admit to being confused when it was just him. Given their history, I was expecting both Ben and Reed to end up going to Baxter. At that point they had a strong friendship, Reed would have said "We both worked on it, we both go." Nope, the movie just dropped Ben like a rock until it needed him again.
Doom is "edgy" and "jealous" but all of his interactions are superficial.
There is nothing shown as to WHY he would do what he does. He's never really friends with Reed. He doesn't seem to like the idea of someone else being smart, but he also never really hates Reed. It's just this awkward situation.
Sue is just kind of there and Johnny is a rebel
until he picks up that welding torch, then he's all cool.
I can point to several shitty lines in the film and examples of poor acting (agreed with Teller). But:
Avengers 1 and 2
Captain America films
Thor films
Hulk
Amazing Spiderman 1 and 2
GotG
Reed, Ben and Victor were better written, and better developed, characters than anything in those films in my opinion. I could actually sit down and blog about the relationship of these characters. I can't do that for the others in the above list. That's what I was looking and what I got. Ultimately, I really enjoyed it as a result. More so than I did with Man of Steel, Dark Knight Rises etc.
But Reed and Victor and Ben and Victor? There was nothing there. There were a handful of one-liners, but nothing developed between Victor and the team at all. The film teased some threads but an upset look on Victor's face does not make a relationship.
The 2005 film did a much better job of characterizing Victor and his turn into Doom. This film made Doom a villain with the depth of a cardboard cutout.
Ben's inability to resent his contrasting fortunes with Reed is endearing. When they go to the city, they look out of the window and take the view.
Ben: this is your home.
Reed: nah, I'm just studying here
Ben: Reed. Look at this place. You're home.
He then gives him a pocket knife wrapped in a cloth. We remember this from the first night they worked in the garage together, where Reed struggled to find a screwdriver for his device and Ben gave him this pocketknife. He fucking wrapped it and handed it to him. That says something not only about their friendship, but Ben's pride in his friend. This is emphasised for what will happen later, and the guilt that drives Reed. When Reed finishes the device with Sue and Victor, he calls Ben. The rest want to go in the machine and "be the first". They have to do it fast. Reed says no, they have to wait until he arrives. When Reed smilingly introduces him to his new friends, Victor responds: "So, this is your inspiration". At this point, its a better love story anything I've seen in recent memory. Interestingly, it is Ben's transformation and his plea that motivates Reed. Not that of Sue or Johnny.
Johnny is burning on the floor unconscious. Sue is unconscious. Who does Reed go to first? I don't even need to say it
The way the accident happens - the desperate plea Ben has when the door wont close and he screams in agony, and hides in the corner of his cell screaming out yet again, in pain, for Reed to come back to him.
The transformation scene was great, but again, the film completely failed to deliver on the aftermath. Instead of seeing how things developed, it bugged out.
It was basically:
[backstory]
[slow build, some basic foundation laid]
[killing time to big trip]
[team transformation]
--OK, film is finally delivering, let's see what it makes of this premise--
[film completely drops everything up to the point as writers decide you don't need to see resolution of the prior scene]
"One Year Later" was a massive cop out. The potential for an amazing film was there, had the filmmakers had the guts to actually explore how the four dealt with their transformation.
Imagine it... Doctor Banner, Tony Stark, and Reed Richards, all in a science room together working on a problem. "There's something we're not seeing." "Why can't we figure this out?" "... I know someone who might be able to help us." "No, not him!" "Call Victor. We need the help."
If a director brought that level of Doctor Doom to a movie then audiences would understand why the FF works. If Marvel did that with Doom all of these critique about Marvel Movie villains would have to end.
If a director brought that level of Doctor Doom to a movie then audiences would understand why the FF works. If Marvel did that with Doom all of these critique about Marvel Movie villains would have to end.
If a director brought that level of Doctor Doom to a movie then audiences would understand why the FF works. If Marvel did that with Doom all of these critique about Marvel Movie villains would have to end.
If a director brought that level of Doctor Doom to a movie then audiences would understand why the FF works. If Marvel did that with Doom all of these critique about Marvel Movie villains would have to end.
This doesn't even make much sense to me. "They exist in parallel universes." So are they part of the same multiverse? This F4 movie deals a lot with dimensional travel, it sounds more like they don't want to confirm anything but still want to leave it open in case they decide to go through with it. But that would be a real shitty crossover if the F4 just comes to the X-Men universe then goes home.
I can't speak for the guy but I'm glad it's looking to bomb as the entire project was a cynically conceived means to retain rights to a property and nothing more.
As opposed to the cynically concieved exploitation of intellectual property that is every other big-budget potential blockbuster approved since 1985.
The use of the word "cynicsm" implies that succesful, beloved films originate from a place of altruism and goodwill on the part of studios. Which is ridiculous and naive.
Then again all of this ties back to the weird habit of personifying corporations and attributing characteristics and motivations to them as if they're an actual person, so as to more easily pit them against each other as a means to prove one's corporate brand loyalty is properly placed.
As opposed to the cynically concieved exploitation of intellectual property that is every other big-budget potential blockbuster approved since 1985.
The use of the word "cynicsm" implies that succesful, beloved films originate from a place of altruism and goodwill on the part of studios. Which is ridiculous and naive.
Then again all of this ties back to the weird habit of personifying corporations and attributing characteristics and motivations to them as if they're an actual person, so as to more easily pit them against each other as a means to prove one's corporate brand loyalty is properly placed.
See, something like, say, The Dark Knight, or The Avengers, or Guardians of the Galaxy, or countless other GOOD examples, were made by people who, yes, were trying to make big-budget blockbusters, but who ALSO LOVED the material they were adapting.
Guardians of the Galaxy puts a talking raccoon with a machine gun on a giant sentient alien tree and you can feel every last single second of that film brimming over with people who were genuinely, sincerely in-love with the material. It was created with genuine passion, not corporate obligation.
It was a risk, too. A "cynical" company would never have greenlit a movie about the Guardians of the Galaxy... or Thor... or Ant-Man. Marvel, even though they're a business, believed in their properties, more than the number men did. And yet the people who were involved weren't just good filmmakers; in many cases, they were FANS of the material as well. Getting it right was just as important to them as it was to the viewers.
They were skilled, but they were also knowledgeable, and, most importantly, they genuinely loved the stuff they were adapting. Joss Whedon was writing Marvel comics before directing comic book movies, for instance.
It's a big difference between Trank, who told the cast not to even read a single issue of the comic, and Marvel giving their actors every comic they can get their hands on so they can better understand the characters and give them a huge crash-course on their history and identities. You can see the difference on film, clear as day.
