Bobby Roberts
Banned
So introducing a family dynamic that treats being adopted as fairly matter-of-fact is beyond the pale but a Fantastic Four adaptation that changes them into mutants is okay.
Fantastic Four Trailer # 1
- Thread starter TheGreatDirector
- Start date
- Status
So introducing a family dynamic that treats being adopted as fairly matter-of-fact is beyond the pale but a Fantastic Four adaptation that changes them into mutants is okay.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
Hey guys, what if this is all part if Marvel's long con and the Fantastic Four universe is an alternate reality to the MCU?
I mean, this is a film dealing with alternate realities and alien dimensions and things man was not meant to know.
I mean, this is a film dealing with alternate realities and alien dimensions and things man was not meant to know.
EightBitNate
Member
That's because most people tried to drown this film. We knew nothing before this trailer, and people couldn't stop shitting on it. I really hope the movie turns out well just so everyone looks stupid.
NotTheGuyYouKill
Member
This would be the worst thing ever.
shinra-bansho
Member
I do get the tonal argument. I don't really get Marvel's first family, celebrated scientist superheroes, returning explorers ticker tape parade.
I get science gone too far, given powers that are a curse rather than a blessing, forced to bear the responsibility to use them to save the world, sadface, from the trailer. They also just feel like a random assortment of beautiful 20-somethings and Miles Teller, but I get that it's hard to get across these sorts of relationships in a short teaser obviously.
(Setting aside that I think the latter makes for a more interesting movie)
I get science gone too far, given powers that are a curse rather than a blessing, forced to bear the responsibility to use them to save the world, sadface, from the trailer. They also just feel like a random assortment of beautiful 20-somethings and Miles Teller, but I get that it's hard to get across these sorts of relationships in a short teaser obviously.
(Setting aside that I think the latter makes for a more interesting movie)
The funny thing is, Toby Kebbell mentioned this to two different film sites, and he told one of them he was a "hacker" and he told the other one he was a "blogger". I think it's possible that he was just trying to express that this Doom is a younger internet-savvy hacktivist sort of character. Story-wise he's probably part of the gifted program Reed is in funding these experiments, but as a foreigner who keeps to himself. We'll see.
Narration fell flat, wasn't particularly engaging, failed to really utilize the tone they were going for, the teases weren't particularly exciting, the logo is godawful.
The first few posts in this thread had me thinking "hey, maybe they orchestrated all that negative press to shock us with how good the trailer is!" And then I watched the trailer which pretty much didn't change my mind about the film.
The first few posts in this thread had me thinking "hey, maybe they orchestrated all that negative press to shock us with how good the trailer is!" And then I watched the trailer which pretty much didn't change my mind about the film.
What you've described here makes a lot of sense, and....I'm ok with it!
It's not a rumor, it's just how the actor playing Doom was trying to explain how the character is a bit different from the classic comic character. He says that his name is Victor Domashev, not Von Doom, and that he's an antisocial computer guy who uses the nick Doom on the internet.
Well, maybe there's more to it than that I bet.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
What's wrong with Doom being a hacktivist? It's by far a great jumping point for motivation if he does want to take over the world. It already shows he's political enough to create his own change. As long as it's fleshed out (and the writers and what not seem capable of pulling this off) that it doesn't seem like a big issue.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
I never wanna see that fucking green screen doom pic again
CassidyIzABeast
Member
This thread is a weird one
EightBitNate
Member
Disgruntled MCU fanboys
Marc
Member
Beyond the pale, no, I didn't say that. I said it contributes along with the numerous other issues fairly up front in the depiction.
They aren't getting their powers in space in the film, are they? And I believe they use ultimates explanation. Which is very different.
Whereas they are originally exposed to a type of radiation that mutates their DNA and gives them amazing powers. Mutations...
A cosmic storm or a device that alters DNA, the result is the same and the 'delivery' is the same. The origin is different but as I said I would be more understanding of that as they are trying to tie the universes together. There is a 'need' to marry the two up. It is arguable that the original F4 are mutants anyway, one mutation is through 'natural selection' and the other through radiation.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I don't think that's actually arguable at all. They're not mutants.
Marc
Member
xam3l - That is awesome!
What makes a 'mutant' then? Radiation mutation occurs in natural selection. Each one got differing powers in the same vein as 'mutants' despite the same exposure.
What makes a 'mutant' then? Radiation mutation occurs in natural selection. Each one got differing powers in the same vein as 'mutants' despite the same exposure.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
They're not mutants because they don't say they're mutants. How they gained their powers is through a mutation. X-Men also deals with the "mutant gene" to give them greater definition but it still doesn't make others not mutants.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
That's not how Mutants work in the Marvel Universe.
Mutants are mutants because they're born with a mutant gene that activates at some point. That's not what happens with the Four. They're just regular ol' superheroes.
crimsonspider89
Banned
No mutants have the x gene. They are mutates. That means something happened to change there genes. In Marvel terms that is.
Also they do have there little Mutant boy.
Professor Renegade
Banned
Yup, that was definitely a teaser.
Schweinehund
Member
it not comic
shinra-bansho
Member
Within the context of Marvel comics a mutant, in the X-Men homo superior sense, is not the same as mutant, in a more general definition sense.
I mean if it was, then Marvel-Fox rights issues would be a whole 'nother can of worms.
Spider-Man is not homo superior, neither are the Fantastic Four, etc. etc.
I mean if it was, then Marvel-Fox rights issues would be a whole 'nother can of worms.
Spider-Man is not homo superior, neither are the Fantastic Four, etc. etc.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
That doesn't change the fact mutations occur outside of mutants in the Marvel universe. I don't think Reed Richards would say he's not a mutant by definition.
The problem is comic universes are inconsistent. At some point some people were like, "Let's have all these dudes together at once" and this is the result. Spider-man is a mutant. His DNA is changed when the spider bites him. This is a fact. No one labels him a mutant because he's not part of the mutant struggle.
SolidSnakesMyStepDad
Member
So is this an origin story?
Bobby Roberts
Banned
No disagreement there.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Oh, so far as the trailer goes.
I still don't know. The talent involved is talent I mostly like. But what they showed didn't really show me anything, either.
So, basically, the same holding pattern I was in before.
Although yeah - they need to ditch that logo. Stop putting numbers into words like they're letters.
I still don't know. The talent involved is talent I mostly like. But what they showed didn't really show me anything, either.
So, basically, the same holding pattern I was in before.
Although yeah - they need to ditch that logo. Stop putting numbers into words like they're letters.
That inconsistency is part of the point though. At the end of the day, they're all genetically mutated with crazy powers, but it's only the people who are born that way that get treated as freaks and outcasts. The ones who grow up "normal" and are changed by some other external influence or accident or still socially acceptable.
Marc
Member
The mutant gene as stated can be dormant and manifest later on, so why not the F4 crew? The radiation activates that gene. As established in that universe you can artificially 'create' mutants.
Have the F4 been tested for the mutant gene? Not familiar enough.
Yeah, I was going to bring Franklin up. Mutant child certainly suggests they're carrying the gene and can pass it on, or have acquired it from the accident.
Just saying, the idea that they're two massively different things is BS. Marvel put up a silly term difference that doesn't actually apply to how 'natural' mutation works, pulling away that veil and there is not much of a difference. And this is the 'Fox' universe so just arguing that there really is little difference for that change to be a big deal. Not advocating it btw, I am quite happy sticking directly to the original team (which they haven't).
edit - Spidey for me is different as are others as he specifically inherited Spider powers from a mutated spider, there was a gene transfer implied in that obviously. Whereas Fantastic 4 just get random powers, same as mutants.
In addition there was that blurb saying Reed and him were friends so it's not like he's going to be hacking away in Latveria sending D00M Programs across the internet to ruin the F4.
I think there's a misunderstanding whenever people talk about mutants in Marvel. It's not inconsistent. Mutant as a general English word would certainly apply to any of the altered heroes or villains. But because of the history of the mutant struggle, the word has basically been appropriated by the cause to refer specifically to those born with the X-gene. So it really depends on who is using it.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
one of their children Franklin is a mutant. Mutants are basically the eternals / kree/ deviants in the human genome, the x gene. Not like Lee and Kirby were working with Watson and Crick at the time they made the book. Later on however what made a mutant a "mutant" was basically shit the celestials did thousands of years ago turned on in a normal human.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
They're socially acceptable because they're not part of the "mutant struggle" which occurred by itself. Spider-man will always be the poster boy for awkward, excluded individual trying to make his way in society. In reality, he's actually well off. That doesn't change the fact that what he represents is something else entirely. Mutant hate only extends to the X-Men universe, not the entire universe. When that happens there's too many holes.
shinra-bansho
Member
I don't think it's been inconsistently applied.
"Mutant" in Marvel Comics is used as a term for Homo Sapiens Superior. The result of evolution of humanity, not an acute mutagenic effect.
Reed is not a mutant in that sense. Spider-Man is not. Cyclops is.
Having a mutant child doesn't make you a mutant.
Regular humans don't fear what the occasional Reed Richards, Steve Rogers or Carol Danvers represents. But they do hate and fear what the likes of Magneto represent - the end of Homo Sapiens Sapiens place as the dominant species on the planet.
"Mutant" in Marvel Comics is used as a term for Homo Sapiens Superior. The result of evolution of humanity, not an acute mutagenic effect.
Reed is not a mutant in that sense. Spider-Man is not. Cyclops is.
Having a mutant child doesn't make you a mutant.
Regular humans don't fear what the occasional Reed Richards, Steve Rogers or Carol Danvers represents. But they do hate and fear what the likes of Magneto represent - the end of Homo Sapiens Sapiens place as the dominant species on the planet.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
We're getting far afield from the point here:
You're protesting the idea that the Storm family can be one that includes Sue being adopted, because reasons.
In response, you're pushing the idea that the Fantastic Four be turned into, essentially, an X-Men spinoff.
The first doesn't change any of the underlying themes of the Fantastic Four insofar as the redefinition of family to be outside typical norms is a huge part of why the comic worked the way it did. They're Marvel's first family for a reason. There's nothing inherently lesser about that first family being adoptive. Or at least, I don't see any reason for that to be the case.
The second takes the Fantastic Four, and makes them X-Men.
Your suggestion is actually more transformative than the "problem" you're trying to solve.
I'm basically saying the problem you're trying to fix with this redefinition of what the Fantastic Four could be isn't in need of solving in the first place, much less with a solution that takes why the Four are unique as superheroes and folds them into an already established paradigm.
User 73706
Banned
I could see the Doom hacktivist / antisocial thing working. He could just start out as some soft-spoken dude that doesn't really rustle any feathers and wants to make things right by appropriating and open-sourcing whatever internet stuff he can find, and then once he gets whatever his face-heel turn opportunity is he jumps on it as a means to "make things right" on a global scale that just so happens to mean he's the evil dude or whatever. I mean, I'm sure there could be more to it than that, but whatever his "origin" is in this movie seems like it'd be in line with that type of personality.
Yes, it's a good idea, that has never really worked to a full extent for serious takes. I'd take this approach. Better safe than sorry I guess.
- Status