Support NeoGAF

[Bizazedo]

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.

So that Venture Brothers episode with the faux Fantastic Four? .

 

[ScreenSplitter]

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.

I still don't... I mean there are people to blame somewhere man. Nobody's thinking "Fox" is a surname of some guy, F. Felonius Fox who makes horrible Marvel-based decisions. Somebody fucked up. You're using the term "personification" completely wrong, because personification refers to some abstract personality/entity. There are personalities/entities here, somewhere within the Fox conglomerate.

And they. Done. Goofed.

 

[mreddie]

Only half-true.

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. 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.

Pretty much this, hearing how botched the characterizations were, that had to be a factor. I believe Lilly during Antman had to tell Marvel get her the real Antman stuff after they only gave her the OGrady books. And you wouldn't expect Nicholson of all people to get himself into Joker as he did.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

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.

The difference is when you're talking about the positive examples, you're more often than not (and like 90% to 10%) talking about the people actually making the movie. Not the executives that you don't even know and so you turn them all into a single unified person responsible for all the decisions made at that studio stretching back to it's founding. You're talking about the guy who was hired to write it, and the guy who was hired to direct it, and the actors who were hired to play parts in it. Not the unnamed, faceless guys you don't even know of who you lump altogether under the name of the studio that spent money on the production.

The executives don't put movies into production out of some sort of altruistic intent, especially not the kind of movies we're discussing here. They're doing it because they know there is an exploitable commodity they own, and they want to exploit it. Period. Does someone at the studio LIKE that property beyond it's potential for return on investment? Like, as a piece of fiction in and of itself? Possibly. Probably. But it's sure as hell not the main motivation.

There's a narrative at work that suggests good things get made because really rich, faceless people nobody knows the name of have warm and fuzzies for the same things you do, and because they care so much about those things (like you'd care) they make sure to only get the very best people who are also fans (just like you) of the property, and thanks to that fandom, quality will ensue.

It's a weird sort of wish-fulfillment, honestly. It's a way to buy into the notion that being a fan is what makes for quality product. Not skill. Not talent. But plain-ol fandom in and of itself. So when a movie doesn't work, it's not that the million fuckin' things that can go wrong went wrong. It's because the faceless executives nobody can even name weren't big enough fans of the property.

But that's not really the case at all. Fandom's got nothing to do with the ability to make a film, much less make a good film. Fandom doesn't make movies better, doesn't improve stories. And the idea that a film would turn out great just because the unknown suits at the studio read a comic book is really shortsighted.

You're using the term "personification" completely wrong, because personification refers to some abstract personality/entity. There are personalities/entities here, somewhere within the Fox conglomerate.

And you don't know who they are. Nobody does, apparently. They are abstracts. So personification is exactly right, as I just explained above. It's a weird reaction people consistently have, especially when the alternative - investigating what went wrong with the people we absolutely know were involved on the creative side - isn't particularly hard to do. Like I said in my converation with Seph yesterday (back on page six of this thread): No, I don't think people actually think there's a guy at Fox named Fred Fox who Foxes all the Fox decisions. But they consistently ACT like there is anyway. Because it's easier to do so, not because it's accurate, or even representative of how and why things happened the way they did.

 

[Syriel]

Its really not that good.

To be fair, it was the best scene in the movie. It was also where the film went from "has potential" to "WTF are they doing?"

Out of it all, the character development bits are the strongest, so it's a shame that there wasn't a little more focus on the individuals. Still, even the rough spots could've been overlooked once the first trip to the other dimension was made. After the team's disastrous return, with Doom missing and the four afflicted with powers they don't know how to control, "Fantastic Four" was at its make-or-break point. Director Josh Trank teases us with some semi-serious scenes of body horror as the four don't know how to deal with what they've become.

Instead of delving into the unplumbed depths of how "normal" people would deal with the reality of suddenly being granted super powers (something that could've really built on those early character threads), "Fantastic Four" throws us a sudden time jump in the form of "One Year Later."

Yep, it takes the easy way out and quickly glosses over all of the adjustment troubles the four would've had and ignores a lot of the early ground work. It is also the point at which "Fantastic Four" squanders any potential it had left and turns hard into B-movie territory. We're talking quality levels that make SyFy Originals look like top-tier films. At least the people behind the SyFy Originals know they're making films with a bit of cheese in them. Here, everything is played straight, and it's groan-worthy.

http://worthplaying.com/article/2015/8/7/reviews/96894/

 

[Yen]

Can anyone recommend a F4 comic book arc/TP to check out? Never read any before.
Still kinda want to see this despite the awful reviews.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

Can anyone recommend a F4 comic book arc/TP to check out? Never read any before.
Still kinda want to see this despite the awful reviews.

Read Hickmanns Run on Fantastic Four/FF. Its he best there is.

 

[Pai Pai Master]

Can anyone recommend a F4 comic book arc/TP to check out? Never read any before.
Still kinda want to see this despite the awful reviews.

John Byrne, Mark Waid and Jonathan Hickman have all done great runs on the series. Fraction's run was pretty fun too.

Hickman's run on FF is one of the best comics of all time, though it gets pretty balls deep.

 

[TheYoungHeroRises]

Just got back from seeing it this afternoon and oh boy this movie is a godawful piece of shit.

This has to be one of the most boring superhero movies I've ever seen in a long time.

It never goes anywhere and what little action the movie has is completely mediocre and unmemorable.

The CGi is bad and by that I mean 1995 bad, hell the CGI in the original Toy Story looked better than this abomination.

And Dr. Doom looks more like a terminator in a Halloween costume then the one fans of the comics have grown to love over the last few decades.

And why does Dr. Doom turn evil? Because earth is dying and humanity has had it's chance.
He wants to destroy the earth because he believes it's dead and also because he couldn't get with Sue Storm.
I couldn't make this shit up even if I tried. Watching this movie was a throughly uncomfortable experience.

When I was watching this in the theatre I actually burst out into laughter when I saw Dr. Doom's appearance that's how awful this movie was.

Bottom line if you're thinking about seeing this movie don't go see Ant-Man, Inside Out, Trainwreck, MI5, or basically anything else but this.

The only reason I saw Fan4Stic was to warn the fine folks of NeoGaf to not waste their time or money on this disaster.

Congrats goes to Fox as well Josh Trank for fucking up Marvel's First Family yet again.

Honestly the rights should revert to Disney/Marvel in the near future because it's evident Fox has no idea what they're doing.

This movie is offensive & insulting to not only Fantastic Four fans but to fans of Marvel Comics everywhere.

Fantastic Four? More like 50 Shades Of Total Fantastic Fucking Shit rant over.

 

[E the Shaggy]

Can anyone recommend a F4 comic book arc/TP to check out? Never read any before.
Still kinda want to see this despite the awful reviews.

For lighter fare, read Mark Waid and Mike Wieringo's Fantastic Four run. Great fucking stuff in there.

 

[Escape Goat]

Its down to 9%. How low can you go?

 

[Monochromaticx]

Its down to 9%. How low can you go?

4% lets go!

 

[Nokterian]

Its down to 9%. How low can you go?

7% would be perfect or lower.

 

[Lime_In_Da_Coconut]

Its down to 9%. How low can you go?

I was hoping for 4%

 

[obin_gam]

Its down to 9%. How low can you go?

This effectively means it's the worst superhero movie ever made yes? Or are there superhero movies with lower scores?

 

[Sibersk Esto]

The old Stan Lee and Jack Kirby stuff is fun for some batshit crazy goodness

 

[Mercury Fred]

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.

Thanks for your condescending, misplaced and wrong-headed reply.

The word cynicism here implies that most other stabs at adapting comic properties involve at least a cursory attempt at honoring the source material. I don't really appreciate your telling me what I mean here. Further, your issue with people's relationships to brands and corporations seems to be part of some sort of agenda that I'm in the crossfire for, so between that and your incredibly rude reply I'm going to just go ahead and put you on ignore now.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Thanks

Welcome.

 

[kevin1025]

Just got back from seeing it this afternoon and oh boy this movie is a godawful piece of shit.

.

We thank you for your sacrifice.

 

[Yen]

Read Hickmanns Run on Fantastic Four/FF. Its he best there is.

John Byrne, Mark Waid and Jonathan Hickman have all done great runs on the series. Fraction's run was pretty fun too.

Hickman's run on FF is one of the best comics of all time, though it gets pretty balls deep.

For lighter fare, read Mark Waid and Mike Wieringo's Fantastic Four run. Great fucking stuff in there.

Thx guys

 

[Garlador]

The difference is when you're talking about the positive examples, you're more often than not (and like 90% to 10%) talking about the people actually making the movie. Not the executives that you don't even know and so you turn them all into a single unified person responsible for all the decisions made at that studio stretching back to it's founding. You're talking about the guy who was hired to write it, and the guy who was hired to direct it, and the actors who were hired to play parts in it. Not the unnamed, faceless guys you don't even know of who you lump altogether under the name of the studio that spent money on the production.

And, again, that's something in Marvel's favor.

The guy in charge of the movies? Kevin Feige. And everyone who works with him says he's a walking encyclopedia of Marvel knowledge, lore, history, and characters. He's in charge because he also knows when something isn't "right" with the adaptations.

It helps making faithful adaptations when the guy approving them knows more about them than the people making them.

 

[Discotheque]

This effectively means it's the worst superhero movie ever made yes? Or are there superhero movies with lower scores?

RT doesn't work when comparing films

 

[Blader]

Read Hickmanns Run on Fantastic Four/FF. Its he best there is.

Hickman's run is the definitive FF, but I don't know I'd recommend it as a starter run. It's very much a greatest hits collection of FF characters, plot points and themes, kinda like Morrison's New X-Men.

 

[The Beard]

Well Dr.Doom, we really are the the last of us.

 

[PhoncipleBone]

Hickman's run is the definitive FF, but I don't know I'd recommend it as a starter run. It's very much a greatest hits collection of FF characters, plot points and themes, kinda like Morrison's New X-Men.

Perhaps the John Byrne run would be a good starting point. It is much more accessible than Hickman.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

It helps making faithful adaptations when the guy approving them knows more about them than the people making them.

Does it though? When the guy making them isn't actually making them?

Because this narrative ends up confusing things if you follow it. Or at least, it gets tangled up with other narratives we like to cling to when it comes to filmmaking. Narratives like "the studios need to get out of the way of the creatives", that when the studio starts putting its thumbs on the story, the story invariably gets watered down and fails. There are truisms about movies that we buy into that don't necessarily carry the weight we need them to when we look at specific films. But it doesn't stop us from propping them up instantly, automatically once something goes sideways.

Feige (who has a name, at least, and is an executive we know does work at Marvel, so that automatically makes him different than almost every other studio exec we discuss via the name of their studio alone) likes comics. So did Arad, actually. And you're suggesting that the movies turn out well because Feige puts his thumbs all over the stories. Which means that the reason he defies the otherwise conventional wisdom that studios need to get out of the way of the creatives is because he's a fan.

But Whedon (a really big fan) might tell you that the movie he most recently wanted to make didn't get really get made because the biggest fan at Marvel (Feige) kept cockblocking him. And Marc Webb (a big fan) might suggest that because Arad (a big fan) kept putting constraints on him, Amazing Spider-Man didn't get to do what he wanted it to do. However, Tom Rothman (not at all a fucking fan) was in charge of the studio when Bryan Singer (kind of a fan. Ish) turned out X2, which many people consider to be one of the best superhero films ever made. GAF itself put it in their top 10.

So is fandom really a factor here? If it was, couldn't most of these problems with bad superhero films have been fixed by letting the creatives and the executives have some sort of fan-off to fix the movie? "Well, shit. I guess you love this comic more than I do. I'll get out of the way then." But that doesn't really make sense, and it's certainly not how movies actually get made.

The importance of fandom in the quality of a project is highly overstated, and a lot of the discussion about superhero films, especially discussion that focuses solely on studios (and the personalities attributed to them like they're actual people), is less about actually discussing the whys and wherefores of what went wrong and how, but is more about reinforcing the idea that good movies get made because the people making them are good fans. We're not really rewarding the creatives. Or even the studio. We're rewarding ourselves, because if they're fans, and we're fans, then the victory is fandom's. We're right to be the fans we are.

And that's not how it works. Good movies get made because people who are good at their jobs do good jobs at telling the stories they've been tasked to tell. Fandom doesn't really have much to do with it at all. Unless, of course, the metric by which you measure a film's success has more to do with "faithfulness" as opposed to whether or not the story was executed well.

Perhaps the John Byrne run would be a good starting point. It is much more accessible than Hickman.

I'd suggest Waid, simply because recommending Byrne for anything gives me hives.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

Isn't August also not considered a good month to release summer blockbusters?

Bourne ultimatum weekend was $70 million.

 

[Garlador]

Does it though? When the guy making them isn't actually making them?

Because this narrative ends up confusing things if you follow it. Or at least, it gets tangled up with other narratives we like to cling to when it comes to filmmaking. Narratives like "the studios need to get out of the way of the creatives", that when the studio starts putting its thumbs on the story, the story invariably gets watered down and fails. There are truisms about movies that we buy into that don't necessarily carry the weight we need them to when we look at specific films. But it doesn't stop us from propping them up instantly, automatically once something goes sideways.

Feige (who has a name, at least, and is an executive we know does work at Marvel, so that automatically makes him different than almost every other studio exec we discuss via the name of their studio alone) likes comics. So did Arad, actually. And you're suggesting that the movies turn out well because Feige puts his thumbs all over the stories. Which means that the reason he defies the otherwise conventional wisdom that studios need to get out of the way of the creatives is because he's a fan.

But Whedon (a really big fan) might tell you that the movie he most recently wanted to make didn't get really get made because the biggest fan at Marvel (Feige) kept cockblocking him. And Marc Webb (a big fan) might suggest that because Arad (a big fan) kept putting constraints on him, Amazing Spider-Man didn't get to do what he wanted it to do. However, Tom Rothman (not at all a fucking fan) was in charge of the studio when Bryan Singer (kind of a fan. Ish) turned out X2, which many people consider to be one of the best superhero films ever made. GAF itself put it in their top 10.

So is fandom really a factor here? If it was, couldn't most of these problems with bad superhero films have been fixed by letting the creatives and the executives have some sort of fan-off to fix the movie? "Well, shit. I guess you love this comic more than I do. I'll get out of the way then." But that doesn't really make sense, and it's certainly not how movies actually get made.

The importance of fandom in the quality of a project is highly overstated, and a lot of the discussion about superhero films, especially discussion that focuses solely on studios (and the personalities attributed to them like they're actual people), is less about actually discussing the whys and wherefores of what went wrong and how, but is more about reinforcing the idea that good movies get made because the people making them are good fans.

And that's not how it works. Good movies get made because people who are good at their jobs do good jobs at telling the stories they've been tasked to tell. Fandom doesn't really have much to do with it at all. Unless, of course, the metric by which you measure a film's success has more to do with "faithfulness" as opposed to whether or not the story was executed well.

Um, yeah. Multiple directors have said that if they have any questions about the comics, they just ask Kevin Feige and he has answers at the ready.

Similarly, as "bad" as Avengers 2 is... it's really not bad. Disappointing? Sure, but it's still a fantastic comic book movie and far better than 90% of the movies coming out before Marvel started doing their own movies. So, as bitter as Joss Whedon was, and as flawed as the film is, it still succeeds in a way that ASM2 and Fant4stic utterly don't.

You're failing to mention the other half of my statements. Fandom and passion alone are NOT enough, which is explicitly why I said they had to be SKILLED as well.

When your ingredients are the right level of talent, knowledge, passion, and financial support, as Marvel (more often than not) gets lined up, that's when we get the best comic book adaptions.

Fox, plain and simple, failed to do this. The pieces didn't line up. The parts didn't work together. ONE of those faulty parts was a group of people with zero love for the Fantastic Four making a Fantastic Four movie.

 

[kevin1025]

Isn't August also not considered a good month to release summer blockbusters?

August and January are usually the months where "bad" or questionable movies are sent, but sometimes there's fantastic movies that come from those months, as well.

 

[GAMEPROFF]

The 1994 FF is fucking amazing. What a waste, 10 minutes in and its definitly the best FF movie.
Man, they even have Moleman and Alicia Masters.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

Um, yeah.

Um.

Similarly, as "bad" as Avengers 2 is... it's really not bad.

Um. I didn't say it was bad. I didn't even say it was disappointing. I said it didn't turn out the way one fan wanted it, because another fan stopped him from doing what he wanted to do.

So where does the "good fan" narrative that you're buying into work there?

Um.

Fandom and passion alone are NOT enough

I know, what I'm pointing out is that you're suggesting filmmakers prioritize fandom over skill and ability. Um. Not that it 100% replaces skill and ability, but that skill and ability only come into play once the fandom aspect is addressed first. And I'm saying that prioritization is not only misplaced, it's inaccurate. An executive doesn't have to be a fan to greenlight a project, and a writer doesn't have to be a fan before sitting down to write it. That's the thing about fandom - it can come after the fact. It's not a particularly heavy investment. You don't need it upfront. You need someone with skill, and the ability to tell a good story.

Fox

Um. Who at Fox, though? What non-fan didn't do this? If you don't even know who this person is, how do you know that's the source of the dysfunction? How do you know that's what caused shit to fall apart? Did Fox's other productions succeed because there were fans, first and foremost, in charge there where they weren't here? Has the Planet of the Apes revival scored simply because Fox (whoever they are) are just bigger fans of Planet of the Apes? Are they bigger fans of Gillian Flynn? Of John Green? Why do all those movies work and Fantastic Four doesn't? And why is your answer to that "fandom?"

Um. It doesn't fit.

Um.

 

[Mighty Chin]

Perhaps the John Byrne run would be a good starting point. It is much more accessible than Hickman.

Yup I agree it was my favourite run till Hickmans.

 

[Aceun]

Guys I'm taking the fateful plunge to see this tonight. If I survive I will report back.

If not, it means I gouged my eyes out and suffered a tragic death.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

If not, it means I gouged my eyes out and suffered a tragic death.

liberate tute me ex inferis

 

[Toa TAK]

liberate tute me ex inferis

9th circle and everything.

 

[Quick]

Just got back from seeing it.

It's...mediocre. Definitely not the best, certainly not the worst. It actually started off really well, but the middle just crawled to a snail's pace, and the climax was just fucking terrible.

The beginning had a great foundation for what could've been a good movie, but it squandered that opportunity.

I didn't notice it in any of the trailers, but in the movie, young Reed had the same scars Miles Teller has. I'm guessing they added that in for consistency, but it really wasn't necessary, and it didn't look all that great.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Just got back from seeing it.

It's...mediocre. Definitely not the best, certainly not the worst. It actually started off really well, but the middle just crawled to a snail's pace, and the climax was just fucking terrible.

The beginning had a great foundation for what could've been a good movie, but it squandered that opportunity.

I didn't notice it in any of the trailers, but in the movie, young Reed had the same scars Miles Teller has. I'm guessing they added that in for consistency, but it really wasn't necessary, and it didn't look all that great.

Mediocre seems an odd choice from your brief description.

 

[ScreenSplitter]

News just in, nobody works at Fox Studios. Nobody is responsible for anything because they're not named. Payroll are having a fucking nightmare. Nobody knows where the decisions are coming from. "Make a generic Fantastic Four gritty reboot!" A voice proclaimed from the heavens, and thus they obliged. No named employee particularly of course

Mediocre seems an odd choice from your brief description.

Just because he isn't willing to launch into fan fiction about Reed and Ben's relationship like you doesn't mean his opinion is any less valid. Chill out. The movie sucks.

 

[Joel Was Right]

• Wanna see this film because {insert reason here}?
• Cant be bothered to pay?
• Have a PayPal account?

PM me. My only requirement is that you share a detailed review of the film within 24 hours.

 

[TheGreatDirector]

This was the most deserved 5/10 movie I've ever seen.

The first half of the movie held promise. The excitement of building a dimensional teleporter was executed somewhat roughly but still with some good. The noticeable lack of Ben Grimm and Doom coming off like a paranoid recluse were the most noticeable flaws in the beginning. The first time the team went to Planet Zero and the accident scene were genuinely good scenes from the sense of horror at what was happening(Johnny's body on fire, Ben getting bombarded with rocks) to the feeling of wonder of being the first people to step into an entirely new dimension.

However all that potential is squandered in a weak second half. The Fantastic Four are given even less screen time and Doom is virtually absent. The fact that there are no setpieces isn't helped by any of the conflict or drama created from Reed's 1 year escape which feels out of character. The character arc revolving around his departure is completely anti-climatic as everyone seems to forgive him with ease and he himself doesn't seem to learn anything of any real importance. Franklin Storm has no real development and basically gives the same lectures to Johnny at the end. Susan doesn't really get any development whatsoever and she and Johnny have zero chemistry together leading one to wonder if they really were supposed to be written as siblings originally even if Sue was adopted. Ben's service to the military could have been tackled well if the movie had delved deeper into his conscience for the somewhat questionable acts he might have done. However the film glosses over that in favor of bringing back Doom in the most generic way possible of planning to destroy Earth so that he can rule Planet Zero. The jump in characterization for Doom is incredible to see as we go from a cynical and arrogant inventor to a full blown killer with no middle ground. The final act of the film feels so rushed and incomplete that by the team Doom is defeated and the Four are together you neither see them as fantastic or real superheroes in their own right.

I can't say this movie was a complete failure as their were moments of good in it. Yet in the end the film did not deliver anything interesting from what it had started to build to.

 

[Bobby Roberts]

News just in, nobody works at Fox Studios. Nobody is responsible for anything because they're not named. Payroll are having a fucking nightmare. Nobody knows where the decisions are coming from. "Make a generic Fantastic Four gritty reboot!" A voice proclaimed from the heavens, and thus they obliged. No named employee particularly of course.

Yes, this is in fact what you sound like.

 

[Discotheque]

Mediocre seems an odd choice from your brief description.

Lol I think you're just being deliberately obtuse now

If something starts off good and ends up being average or even bad then mediocre is exactly what it is

 

[Garlador]

Um.

Um. I didn't say it was bad. I didn't even say it was disappointing. I said it didn't turn out the way one fan wanted it, because another fan stopped him from doing what he wanted to do.

You didn't, and I never said you did. The point was that the end result, while disappointing, was still a superior product, even in the midst of its failures, than one created by individuals lacking any love for the material. That's my point; one fan keeping another from doing what he wanted still resulted in a superior movie than the alternative if neither were passionate for the material.

So where does the "good fan" narrative that you're buying into work there?

Because the end result was still superior to practically every film made by those with zero ambition or respect for the material. Complain about the movie all you want, but nobody is saying Captain America or The Vision are out of character in the film like they are for Fantastic Four. The "good fan" still did the characters better.

Um.
I know, what I'm pointing out is that you're suggesting filmmakers prioritize fandom over skill and ability. Um. Not that it 100% replaces skill and ability, but that skill and ability only come into play once the fandom aspect is addressed first. And I'm saying that prioritization is not only misplaced, it's inaccurate. An executive doesn't have to be a fan to greenlight a project, and a writer doesn't have to be a fan before sitting down to write it. That's the thing about fandom - it can come after the fact. It's not a particularly heavy investment. You don't need it upfront. You need someone with skill, and the ability to tell a good story.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said fandom takes priority. I'm saying it CONTRIBUTES, and can even make or break a film. So does acting, editing, funding, etc. An executive who understands the property greenlights the properties everyone else DOESN'T because they don't get it. Do you know why Marvel started their own Studio? Because they wanted to make an Ant-man movie and EVERY executive they spoke to "didn't get it" and "thought it was about a half-man, half-ant monster person". They got frustrated by executives with no understanding or passion who would never in their wildest, drug-induced dreams greenlight Ant-man or Guardians of the Galaxy... so they decided to do it themselves. These films would NEVER exist without an executive up top understanding what they are.

Um. Who at Fox, though? What non-fan didn't do this? If you don't even know who this person is, how do you know that's the source of the dysfunction? How do you know that's what caused shit to fall apart? Did Fox's other productions succeed because there were fans, first and foremost, in charge there where they weren't here? Has the Planet of the Apes revival scored simply because Fox (whoever they are) are just bigger fans of Planet of the Apes? Are they bigger fans of Gillian Flynn? Of John Green? Why do all those movies work and Fantastic Four doesn't? And why is your answer to that "fandom?"

Josh Trank. He was the non-fan that did this. Or at least part of it. He's the guy who, ultimately, directed the film. He's the guy who told the cast to not research their material or follow the comics because they were going to ignore it anyway.

Did Fox meddle? Absolutely. And the CEO at the time of the Fantastic Four reboot approval was Tom Rothman... the same guy who stonewalled the Deadpool movie for years (and the guy they're saying "Hi Tom!" to in the test footage). And, yeah, under him we also saw X-men: First Class, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and the original Chronicle. He was inconsistent....

Hell, it was the passion of the fans, and the creators, that is leading to Deadpool being made, and they openly admit that the studio had no passion for it, no matter how much they said fans wanted it. The popularity of the leaked footage changed their minds. So, yeah, seeing passion for the material can get a lot accomplished, something Marvel Studios has little trouble with.

Um. It doesn't fit.

Um.

It does. You also seem to have some weird tic there. I'd get that looked at.

 

[ScreenSplitter]

Yes, this is in fact what you sound like.

"no u"? Seriously Bob?

 

[Toa TAK]

This movie needed more .gif material.

 

[Discotheque]

The worst thing fox has done to a film (in the Scust tier rothman era) was hack an excellent period piece like kingdom of heaven to bits.

 

[Joel Was Right]

This was the most deserved 5/10 movie I've ever seen.

The first half of the movie held promise. The excitement of building a dimensional teleporter was executed somewhat roughly but still with some good. The noticeable lack of Ben Grimm and Doom coming off like a paranoid recluse were the most noticeable flaws in the beginning. The first time the team went to Planet Zero and the accident scene were genuinely good scenes from the sense of horror at what was happening(Johnny's body on fire, Ben getting bombarded with rocks) to the feeling of wonder of being the first people to step into an entirely new dimension.

However all that potential is squandered in a weak second half. The Fantastic Four are given even less screen time and Doom is virtually absent. The fact that there are no setpieces isn't helped by any of the conflict or drama created from Reed's 1 year escape which feels out of character. The character arc revolving around his departure is completely anti-climatic as everyone seems to forgive him with ease and he himself doesn't seem to learn anything of any real importance. Franklin Storm has no real development and basically gives the same lectures to Johnny at the end. Susan doesn't really get any development whatsoever and she and Johnny have zero chemistry together leading one to wonder if they really were supposed to be written as siblings originally even if Sue was adopted. Ben's service to the military could have been tackled well if the movie had delved deeper into his conscience for the somewhat questionable acts he might have done. However the film glosses over that in favor of bringing back Doom in the most generic way possible of planning to destroy Earth so that he can rule Planet Zero. The jump in characterization for Doom is incredible to see as we go from a cynical and arrogant inventor to a full blown killer with no middle ground. The final act of the film feels so rushed and incomplete that by the team Doom is defeated and the Four are together you neither see them as fantastic or real superheroes in their own right.

I can't say this movie was a complete failure as their were moments of good in it. Yet in the end the film did not deliver anything interesting from what it had started to build to.

I agree with this.

One thing that is consistent in most impressions is that the first half of the film is actually quite good, whilst the second half is almost unforgivable. Honestly, I felt the first half was better than any other Marvel film I've seen (except GotG, their best IMO).

 

[Bobby Roberts]

"no u"? Seriously Bob?

The point I am driving at is all right above you in the thread I'm reading and participating in, Splitter. Dunno what else your shit was supposed to prompt there. Its not like it was inaccurate in any case.

Don't put words in my mouth. I never said fandom takes priority.

No, but you didnt have to. Its fairly obvious that its the thrust of your argument. You don't have to outright state its the point of your argument. The argument hinges on that prioritization.

It does. You also seem to have some weird tic there. I'd get that looked at.

Strange you only just now noticed it! I should tamp down on the useless mooing, you're right, and just discuss the points directly without the ums and uhhhs.

 

[Tobor]

Why do you give a shit if we know the executives names or not, Bobby? We aren't professional critics. We're dudes posting on a message board.

It's perfectly fine to say "Fox" screwed up and anyone with any common sense understands that "Fox" means "anyone at Fox responsible".

 

[GAMEPROFF]

Man, the 1994 movie is soooo fucking amazing