• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

FANT4STIC 4OUR |OT| Fantastic 4/10

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sephzilla

Member
No. They aren't. That's the point.

Besides which, Fantastic Four sucking doesn't negate the fact that Mr. Fox here is (according to this train of thought) equally as responsible for

Days of Future Past
Fault in Our Stars
Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Maze Runner
Gone Girl
Kingsman
Home
Spy
Paper Towns.

So how is that explained? How is this single-minded Fox person able to put into production so many different films with varying qualities?

Well, to narrow this down, only two of these are based on comic books to my knowledge.

Also, maybe you missed my edit, I modified my comment to say single mind / group of minds to hopefully clear that up. They're a group of minds that ultimately give a single decision/direction for the movie they want to produce.

So how is that explained? How is this single-minded Fox person able to put into production so many different films with varying qualities?

I think the problem is that they don't have a single-mind controlling their comic book adaptations from an overhead level, which is why we get so much varying quality from their comic book adaptions.
 

Neoxon

Junior Member
There is NO way Fox will allow anyone from this entire movie to come even near X-men
On top of that, I doubt Fox will even attempt to cross the franchises over period. The Fantastic Four in Fox's hands are too toxic, & I doubt that anyone will ever trust Fox to make a good F4 film ever again.
 

Fury451

Banned
It's lower than Halle Berry's Catwoman, Elektra, AND Jonah Hex.

It's honestly a little hard to believe it's worse than these three. I'm not going to pay theater price to find out, maybe I'll catch it when it hits DVD or Netflix or something, but that has to be quite a film to achieve that.

Jonah Hex was one of the most inept films I've ever seen in general, and Catwoman was all kinds of terribad, so I imagine this comes down to boring execution over everything else.
 

X05

Upside, inside out he's livin la vida loca, He'll push and pull you down, livin la vida loca
Yeah, baby. You can't keep true love apart.

Is that a pun?
frank-sideeye-009.noc7irki.gif


Unsure why/how that matters at all. Movies are movies. Fox is a movie studio.
This.
 

Flynn77

Member
Hmmm. I may have to wait all the way till Film 4 for Fant4tastic 4. I'll of course wait till 4 to watch and I'll put 4 to the floor once I'm sure of a score.
 
Between Ant-Man and FF, we're living in a golden age of people reviewing backstage politics they have no idea about vs what's actually on the screen!
 
Because the discussion is Fox and their comic book movies.

Nah, it's more about primarily assigning blame for a film's content to the studio that paid for the film as opposed to the people who actually made the movie. There's no real need to be any more specific than that.

Between Ant-Man and FF, we're living in a golden age of people reviewing backstage politics they have no idea about vs what's actually on the screen!

Can't wait for the movie about the backstage politics, which we can then review based on whether or not backstage politics let us see the real story.
 

Fury451

Banned
Between Ant-Man and FF, we're living in a golden age of people reviewing backstage politics they have no idea about vs what's actually on the screen!

I agree with your sentiment, but I think what's on the screen in this case is definitely the focus.
 
Oh shit, forgot to include Age of Ultron in there as well! All this talk of about Director's Cut and what scenes did Whedon really want to do and which one he didn't, or where this character came from, etc etc, rabble rabble
 

Sephzilla

Member
Nah, it's more about primarily assigning blame for a film's content to the studio that paid for the film as opposed to the people who actually made the movie. There's no real need to be any more specific than that.

I think you're massively trying to shift goalposts.

Fox's comic book movies are very hit or miss, they're still the guys who ultimately have the final say in who gets into the directors chair and what direction they take the movie. If you're going to blame the people who actually made the movie, that includes the people at Fox as well because they are the people who put everyone in place to make that shitty movie.

I'm 100% willing to give them credit where its due for stuff like X2, First Class, DOFP, and (hopefully) Deadpool. But this is also the same studio that gave us X3, Origins, Daredevil, Elektra, and three awful Fantastic Four movies.
 

Slayven

Member
Nah, it's more about primarily assigning blame for a film's content to the studio that paid for the film as opposed to the people who actually made the movie. There's no real need to be any more specific than that.



Can't wait for the movie about the backstage politics, which we can then review based on whether or not backstage politics let us see the real story.

Josh Brolin as Ike Perlmutter would be the Doom we finally deserve

Luke Wilson as Kevin Ferige
 
It's honestly a little hard to believe it's worse than these three. I'm not going to pay theater price to find out, maybe I'll catch it when it hits DVD or Netflix or something, but that has to be quite a film to achieve that.

Jonah Hex was one of the most inept films I've ever seen in general, and Catwoman was all kinds of terribad, so I imagine this comes down to boring execution over everything else.

But it is. It is really toxic pile of turd. I'd rather watch Catwoman thrice than watch this new Fantastic Four movie again.
 
You peeps think Mark Waid's run would've been a good basis, like Hickman's run on FF?

I think it's always a solid bet to check in on what Mark Waid's done with a character, regardless the character. Because I'm having a hard time coming up with a book he's been on that's fundamentally gotten the characters in it wrong.
 

AHA-Lambda

Member
Just seen it, yeah it's crap, 2005 one comes off better as a whole film =/

The sad part is, the film feels like 2 different parts. It starts off well, the setup of their expedition and getting their powers is really good. The problem is that's most of the movie, and so it's paced so poorly; after they get their powers, it just meanders for about a half hour before the ending fight scene, and then just ends.

Doom doesn't turn up until right at the end for the only action scene of the film (and he's done very poorly, there's a reason he's not in the adverts), where a bunch of things just happen with no explanation, but somehow Reed knows what he's doing, cos he's the main character I guess.
I don't even know what Doom's powers were supposed to be, they were so undefined. Whatever suits the script? Psychic powers I guess?
Heck, thinking on it actually, Reed uses his powers twice in the whole movie I think? They come off as a hindrance really :p

Thinking on the characters, Ben is barely in the film, and Sue is reduced to the "socially awkward girl". She has no personality beyond that she likes music and has a knack for "pattern recognition", which is there for the sake of one shoehorned scene.
Johnny is a generic dickhead street racer who doesn't get on with his dad.
And Victor is the angsty teenager/20something scientist who thinks all of man is evil.
Reed feels like the only one with a personality to me, he has appropriate backstory and motivation.

Throw in some really bad dialogue and fairly ropey effects, and the 2005 one comes out looking rosey. That got closer to Doom than this did!!
You can see the effort in the film evaporate as it reaches the last act, the actor's delivery genuinely seems to get worse from there. Miles Teller doesn't sound like he's trying =/
I just can't see a sequel to this going ahead frankly.
 

Slayven

Member
Just seen it, yeah it's crap, 2005 one comes off better as a whole film =/

The sad part is, the film feels like 2 different parts. It starts off well, the setup is really good. The problem is that's most of the movie, it's paced so poorly; after they get their powers, it just meanders for a half hour before the ending fight scene, and then just ends.

Doom doesn't turn up until right at the end for the only action scene of the film (and he's done very poorly, there's a reason he's not in the adverts), where things just happen with no explanation, but somehow Reed knows what he's doing cos he's the main character.
I don't even know what his powers were, they were so undefined. Whatever suits the script? Psychic powers I guess?

Heck, thinking on it Reed uses his powers twice I think?
Ben is barely in the film either, and Sue is reduced to "socially awkward girl" I guess? She has no personality beyond she likes music and has "pattern recognition", which is there for the sake of one shoehorned scene.

Throw in bad dialogue and bad effects, and the 2005 one comes out rosey. That got closer to Doom than this did!!
You can see the effort in the film evaporate as it reaches the last act, the actors delivery genuinely gets worse from there =/
Amazing how all the reviews are saying the same thing. What was it like before the reshoots? Was it worse?
 

womp

Member
Seriously, what was with the Beatles reference in the original OT title? Still trying to work that out.

I didn't see the original OT Title but The Beatles were commonly known as 'The Fab Four' so I'm assuming that is probably the reference.
 

TheSeks

Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
Kate Mara said:
What Kate Mara is saying about her fan experience at Comic-Con:
"We spent a whole day there, sort of working and doing press, and you don't really get to meet the fans. So the next morning, Jamie Bell and I decided, 'Well, we want the experience of Comic-Con. So let's just go out, let's walk to get a coffee amongst all of the fans,'" Mara explained to Kelly Ripa and Michael Strahan. "And we were like, 'Well, maybe this is a bad idea. We'll get mobbed and it'll be crazy,' and not one person...not one person noticed us."

To be fair, Mara: I only know you as the crazy "girlfriend" of Mark Harmon's Crysturbating dude in American Horror Story. If you walked around Comic Con, I'd just be like "oh, that crazy girlfriend of the Crysturbator that is the sister of Rooney Mara/Girl with the Dragon Tattoo/'Lizabeth Salandar. Neat."
 
Again - Fox isn't a person. People are attributing decisions to "Fox" like it's a guy, and the same guy he's always been for the last 15 years.

The people making the movie are well known. They're not "Fox." They're people like Simon Kinberg and Josh Trank and Bryan Singer and Zak Penn
this
 

jtb

Banned
To be fair, Mara: I only know you as the crazy "girlfriend" of Mark Harmon's Crysturbating dude in American Horror Story. If you walked around Comic Con, I'd just be like "oh, that crazy girlfriend of the Crysturbator that is the sister of Rooney Mara/Girl with the Dragon Tattoo/'Lizabeth Salandar. Neat."

Plenty of people would recognize her from House of Cards. Either way, who gives a shit. She should consider herself lucky she didn't have to deal with the Comicon crowds.
 
so who hired them.

That's part of my point. Who did hire them? Do you know who they are? Do you actually know who hired Simon Kinberg and Josh Trank? Do you know if they were the same people that hired Bryan Singer? Do you know if they're the same people that hired Matthew Vaughn? Or Matt Reeves?

Can you name a single executive at 20th Century Fox right now? Can you figure out who at Fox was responsible for what decision that led to what talent working on what movie? And can you figure out how that decision filtered down through those creatives to be ultimately responsible for the film you watched? Do you even know if that's how the film got made?

And why even go in that direction when you do know the writer, the producer, the director, the actors, the people actively, directly responsible for the content that wound up on the screen?
 

nicanica

Member
Throw in some really bad dialogue and fairly ropey effects, and the 2005 one comes out looking rosey. That got closer to Doom than this did!!
You can see the effort in the film evaporate as it reaches the last act, the actor's delivery genuinely seems to get worse from there. Miles Teller doesn't sound like he's trying =/
I just can't see a sequel to this going ahead frankly.

image.php
 

Sephzilla

Member
That's part of my point. Who did hire them? Do you know who they are? Do you actually know who hired Simon Kinberg and Josh Trank? Do you know if they were the same people that hired Bryan Singer? Do you know if they're the same people that hired Matthew Vaughn? Or Matt Reeves?

Can you name a single executive at 20th Century Fox right now? Can you figure out who at Fox was responsible for what decision that led to what talent working on what movie? And can you figure out how that decision filtered down through those creatives to be ultimately responsible for the film you watched? Do you even know if that's how the film got made?

20th Century Fox hired them. While a single person or group of people probably agreed on the hire, the decision is ultimately a decision that is endorsed by the 20th Century Fox company and is a reflection on their decision making as a whole.

I feel sorry for whomever specifically did hire them

And why even go in that direction when you do know the writer, the producer, the director, the actors, the people actively, directly responsible for the content that wound up on the screen?

Because the people at Fox are also directly responsible.

I don't blame Fox themselves - it obviously falls on the director, writers, and actors as well. Absolutely wont deny that. But blame should go to all parties involved.
 

TheSeks

Blinded by the luminous glory that is David Bowie's physical manifestation.
It's Dylan McDermott. I dunno why I thought Mark Harmon... :| Anyway:

Plenty of people would recognize her from House of Cards. Either way, who gives a shit. She should consider herself lucky she didn't have to deal with the Comicon crowds.

True. She didn't have to go to extreme lengths to wander Comic Con alone like Adam Savage (Mythbusters, but he get a kick out of doing the cosplay so net win for him?) and Bryan Cranston. So net positive from that sad story?
 
20th Century Fox hired them.

So no. You don't have answers to any of those questions.

Which is why even going down that path doesn't make any sense to me.

Well, I mean, it does, I just don't agree with it at all. It starts from a position of ignorance and moves forward.
 
You love selectively cherry picking and ignoring other parts of comments, don't you

I explained this to you yesterday: Just because I don't quote the entirety of your post doesn't mean I ignored everything but the quoted part. I read it. It's right there. I can scroll back up and read it again. Everyone can. I only quoted the specific part because it's the most relevant to my response, and provides the easiest springboard to my response. The response itself takes the entirety of your post into context, whether or not the entirety of your post is quoted.
 

Sephzilla

Member
I explained this to you yesterday: Just because I don't quote the entirety of your post doesn't mean I ignored everything but the quoted part. I read it. It's right there. I can scroll back up and read it again. Everyone can. I only quoted the specific part because it's the most relevant to my response, and provides the easiest springboard to my response. The response itself takes the entirety of your post into context, whether or not the entirety of your post is quoted.

That's why i edited my comment out, sorry. Getting back on topic

(i actually wish i would have revisited that star wars thread later after i left to get dinner and stuff, i thought of a good counterpoint to your argument that would ahve made for some interesting discussion)

Well, I mean, it does, I just don't agree with it at all. It starts from a position of ignorance and moves forward.

Just because I can't tell you the names of those people specifically doesn't mean they still shouldn't carry part of the blame or stop existing, and the company that backs their decision making should get part of that blame as well
 
Heh, wasn't expecting it to do this bad. Every time this happens, I wonder what's kept Marvel from one of these roasts.

Because they haven't yet made a movie nearly as bad as the likes of X-Men Origins or Catwoman?

Yes they have some sub-par offerings but even Marvel's worst movies are still watchable entertainment.

It would be equally hilarious if they did, I just think they have more than enough safeguards in place from ever even greenlighting a project that could possibly turn out this bad. Ant-Man was the most troubled production they had yet and they actually used that to their advantage in some ways.
 

Garlador

Member
Because they haven't yet made a movie nearly as bad as the likes of X-Men Origins or Catwoman?

Yes they have some sub-par offerings but even Marvel's worst movies are still watchable entertainment.

Here's the thing. Even Marvel's worst offenders are still, compared to the history of superhero movies, above average. Most of their biggest problems, for films like Iron Man 2 or Age of Ultron 2, are creative choices that are, still, not outright terrible but simply mediocre.

But... when placed next to the likes of Jonah Hex, Green Lantern, The Spirit, Steel, Superman IV, Elektra, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, Blade Trinity, and Catwoman (and now the new Fant4stic), they're practically Citizen Kane by comparison.
 
Just because I can't tell you the names of those people specifically doesn't mean they still shouldn't carry part of the blame, and the company that backs their decision making should get part of that blame as well

No, I get you. I'm not saying film executives should be blameless. Fuck - they're film executives. I'm just arguing that making them the primary focus of the blame when the faults we're discussing are storytelling faults, and the (anonymous) executives being hit didn't write, produce, direct, or star in the film.

Part of the blame is one thing. But usually what happens is Mr. Fox (or Mr. Marvel or Mr. Sony) tends to catch all of it. Disproportionately so. And I think it's mostly because people prefer to buy into the narrative that there are supergenius creative executives hiding at every studio who svengali the fuck out of all their favorite films, like what they have over at Marvel.

So that way, the discussion doesn't have to involve looking at a movie's faults, or critiquing a director's decisions, or thinking much about the writer's choices. It can just be reduced, instantly, to a professional wrestling-level debate.

Basically - people don't want to know what they're talking about before they start talking, because that gets in the way of following the narrative they'd prefer to follow, as a fan, because that's more fun, and makes them feel more involved - even though it really has not much of anything to do with why the movie does or doesn't work.

I'm just trying to get in the way of that a little if I can.
 

Blader

Member
When are more people going to wake up to Simon Kinberg being a bad writer? This is the same guy who wrote X3, and other screenplay gems like XXX: State of the Union, Jumper and This Means War.

And before anyone pulls the DOFP card, tell me with a straight face that that script isn't riddled with breaks in logic (Quicksilver never seen again despite being massively useful to their whole predicament), plot contrivances (Xavier can walk but can't use his powers because of a drug that affects his DNA?) or set-ups that frankly make no sense at all (Magneto somehow reprogramming the Sentinels to obey him by melding metal girders into their frames and CPUs; somehow I don't think that's how AI programming works). It was a good movie but the writing was frequently the worst part of it.

He's not Orci/Kurtzman level; he can't single-handedly ruin a movie (yet?). But damned if that written by credit isn't becoming a red flag more and more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom