# No! No! Baaaaaaad Marvel Comics!



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 5, 2007)

Just saw a clip from the new Fantastic Four movie...

The first one seemed bad enough in the clips that I didn't go to see it, and apparently, I wasn't alone- like Yogi Berra said, people stayed away in droves.  However, it did well enough to spawn a sequel.

A sequel in which, for some reason, coming in contact with the Silver Surfer causes the FF to exchange powers.

WTF?

This is one of their iconic characters & storylines...and they screw around with it?  What's next?  Is Galactus going to be a giant Pac-Man?  Will he even be sentient or will he be just some kind of mindless natural phenomenon?

When will Hollywood learn?  When you're working with an established classic of any genre, you don't need to mess with it.

Apparently, I'll be ignoring this movie even more than the first one...JOIN ME!


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 5, 2007)

Shouldn't this hve been posted in the Media Lounge?  :\


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 5, 2007)

Possibly, but I've no idea where that is.


----------



## Dog Moon (Jun 5, 2007)

Don't worry, I won't go see it.  Different reason than you though: never really was interested in the FF.  Didn't see the first movie either.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 5, 2007)

BTW I happen to _*love*_ the first movie, I guess that is why I'm buying the extended version of it and most likely watching FF4 2 in the theater like 4 times.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 5, 2007)

No reason to say the Power Cosmic couldn't cause power switching...

Honestly, I love what they've shown. The first movie was great except for Doom, and that wasn't even as bad as it COULD have been.

With this one, I just love the Silver Surfer and it looks like they've got him nailed down right. Not only that, but the crazy cosmic stuff is always where FF has been the best. Oh, and there was a trailer not too long ago that showed a quick clip of Saturn's rings fading and a very Galactus-like shadow on the planet...

EDIT: Oh, and one of the best things with the power switching is that we're getting clips of Super Skrull type powers without them having to put the whole craziness of the Skrulls into things.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 5, 2007)

They're messing with the mythology!

*sigh*


----------



## Alzrius (Jun 5, 2007)

It's the price we pay for trying to squeeze the "mythology" into about a hundred minutes of screen time. Anyone who has a problem with the fact that movies based on comics can't be absolutely true to what was printed shouldn't go see the movies at all.


----------



## Raylis (Jun 5, 2007)

There was a period of time where Sue and Johnny Storm switched powers; they're probably dong a play on that.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jun 5, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> A sequel in which, for some reason, coming in contact with the Silver Surfer causes the FF to exchange powers.
> 
> WTF?




Hullo?  Power _Cosmic_?  Matter manipulation?  Harnessing _cosmic forces_ akin to the cosmic rays that gave the Fantastic Four their powers in the first place?  The Silver Surfer has pretty badarse abilities if he bothers to use them, at least as Galactus' Herald.



> This is one of their iconic characters & storylines...and they screw around with it?




I hardly think they'd have that change persist throughout the movie.  At some point the Silver Surfer or Reed will switch their powers back to the way they were, have no doubt.

They're just playing with the storyline a bit, not breaking it.  So Johnny and Ben swap powers for a half hour or _maybe_ hour and a half in the movie, big deal!  The producers are showing just how reality-warping the Power Cosmic is and, by extent, the Silver Surfer and, even moreso, his _master_ *Galactus*.  Who must surely be a dire threat when his _herald_ alone can tinker with matter and energy on a fundamental level with ease.

It's a plot twist anyway, except one we'll all be expecting since we saw the previews.  So Ben can't count on his inhuman durability and strength for a short while, Johnny can't rely on his flight and fire-blasting, and the rest have to worry that the Surfer could change around or negate their own powers if they're not careful.

Mainly, though, it's just meant to be a source of comedy in the movie.  One more thing for Johnny and Ben to snipe at each other about with wise cracks and threats, and a turn-around on Ben's dour attitude from the first movie, I'd bet.  Suddenly Johnny the hot-shot playboy-sort is all ugly and probably moody over his condition, and Ben's his old self.  He had come to terms with his altered form in the first movie, and now he's free of it again for a while but probably expects it to be a fleeting semblance of normalcy.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 5, 2007)

> Hullo? Power Cosmic? Matter manipulation? Harnessing cosmic forces akin to the cosmic rays that gave the Fantastic Four their powers in the first place? The Silver Surfer has pretty badarse abilities if he bothers to use them, at least as Galactus' Herald.




Sorry, pal- I grew up with the FF, and while I was still into comics (I quit them in about 1996 or so) I bought all of the Marvel Universe books, etc.

At no point that I can recall did the Silver Surfer evidence the ability to muck with people's powers like that.

Zip through space?  Check.
Zap people with energy?  Check.
Take a shot from the Thing and keep going?  Check.
Sense life across the interstellar void?  Check.

Alter someone's suite of super-powers & abilities?  Ummm...no.  There just isn't enough Handwavium in the Universe for me to accept _that._

My point is that the series has decades of history & storylines to play with- they didn't need to change this aspect of the titular character.  Its bad writing.

If they wanted to do that kind of jerking the FF around, there are plenty of other beings in the Marvel Universe who could do that kind of thing.  For instance, they could have had the Scarlet Witch lose control of her reality-altering powers during a meeting with the FF...right before the Silver Surfer showed up (and incidentally, launched the possibility of a series of Avenger movies).

Unneccesary changes like this by Hollywood are a pet peeve of mine...the surprise ending of _The Scarlet Letter_...the new foe for King Arthur to fight in _First Knight_- these did nothing for the fans of the inspirational material.  Some, like myself, consider it somewhat of an insult.


> Anyone who has a problem with the fact that movies based on comics can't be absolutely true to what was printed shouldn't go see the movies at all.




There is a way to be true to the comics without slavishly following them _AND_ without resorting to wholesale or unneccesary alterations.  The Spider-Man and X-Men movies have done pretty well on that front.

IMHO, Constantine suffered by divorcing the character from his Cockney roots, for example.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jun 5, 2007)

So you never saw or read of the Silver Surfer using matter manipulation at any point, or any kind of description of what his powers were capable of or how they worked?

Galactus changed him on a fundamental level to make him his herald.  I don't see any problem with the Silver Surfer having similar, if more limited, matter and energy manipulation capacities.

But whatever.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 5, 2007)

> So you never saw or read of the Silver Surfer using matter manipulation at any point,




Not like that.

The ability to make your foes switch abilities would seem to be pretty useful- virtually assuring victory- and would be a valuable opening ploy in any combat.

Yet in my personal reading of the character from 1970 to 1996, he never did that.



> or any kind of description of what his powers were capable of or how they worked?




I just said I bought & read all of the Marvel Universe entries from when they started them in the 1980s through 1996 or so.

From Marvel's own website dealing with such info (http://www.marvel.com/universe/Silver_Surfer) :


> The Silver Surfer wields "the power cosmic", absorbing and manipulating the universe's ambient cosmic energies. He can augment his strength to incalculable levels, and is almost totally indestructible. He can navigate space, hyperspace and dimensional barriers, and can fly at near-limitless speeds on his board, entering hyperspace when he exceeds light speed. He has even proven capable of time travel on occasion. The Surfer does not require food, drink, air or sleep, sustained entirely by converting matter into energy. He is immune to temperature extremes and most radiation, and can survive in vacuum environments such as outer space and hyperspace. *He can analyze and manipulate matter and energy, and restructure or animate matter at will, even transmuting elements. He can heal living beings (though he cannot raise the dead), and has proven capable of revitalizing or evolving organic life on a planet wide scale.* He can alter the size of himself or of other matter, cast illusions, fire energy blasts, form and manipulate energy constructs, manipulate gravity, absorb and discharge most forms of energy, and phase through solid matter. His senses enable him to detect objects and energies light years away, and to perceive matter and energy in subatomic detail; he can even see through time, and with concentration can achieve limited perception of past and future events in his general vicinity. The Surfer has demonstrated limited telepathic ability on occasion, and has proven able to influence human emotion and sensation.




The boldfaced section I emphasized is the only thing I see that even hints at the kind of ability depicted in the movie clip.  When he rearanges matter, its always inanimate matter, when he restored life to a planet, it took him _a lot _of time to do.

Not exactly the kind of thing that he could do in combat.


> Galactus changed him on a fundamental level to make him his herald. I don't see any problem with the Silver Surfer having similar, if more limited, matter and energy manipulation capacities.




The same could be said of each of his heralds.  Admittedly, The Silver Surfer was the most powerful of the bunch, but Nova and Firelord weren't far behind.  Others, like Terrax and Gabriel were still more limited.  However, none of them, despite being "changed him on a fundamental level" evidenced any similar ability to do so to lesser beings.


----------



## Arkhandus (Jun 5, 2007)

Well, the FF did gain their powers from cosmic radiation, didn't they?  The surfer's abilities may've just switched their powers as a result of theirs coming from a similar energy to what the surfer wields (in the first movie, Reed makes a device that returns Ben to normal; then Ben uses it to regain his abilities when he needs to help fight Doom)


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 5, 2007)

Comic Universe =/= Movie Universe.

ALL comic movies have had changes. And on the list of changes, complaining that Silver Surfer has never done this exact thing is a SMALL one. For all we know, the Surfer, COULD. The Power Cosmic is so vague and pretty much equates to "Power What-The-Writer-Wants-It-To-Do-This-Arc"...which is exactly what's being done for the movie.

Besides, as was stated above, Sue and Johnny have switched powers before. Not for the exact same reasons, but they HAVE.

It looks to me like nods to an abolutely huge mythology that FF has developed over the years. Same with the quick shots we've seen of Johnny with a Thing-style arm with flames over it...there's your Super Skrull. Not exactly the same, no, but you wouldn't get THAT nod to the comic lore without the power switch, which isn't nearly as far fetched as...well...most everything in FF lore.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 5, 2007)

Well, I wouldn't say I'm as ardent a fan of the FF as Dannyalcatraz, but I tend to agree with him.  If the first FF (based on either Ultimates or Original) had been a decent movie, I could give this a pass.  What it says to me however, is that the Galactus/Silver Surfer storyline isn't interesting enough on it's own, and needs to be spiced up.  In which case, a) why do Galactus at all?, and b) why even do FF, if the stories aren't perceived as interesting?  Of course I have an idea as to the reasons (cash in on superhero popularity as of late) but in that case, go play around with another franchise that doesn't have the history and mythology and depth of the Fantastic Four.

Also, the reason for power-switching being bad is very simple - for the FF, their powers have always been an extention of their psychological condition.  Switching them around shows a total lack of understanding of a basic tenet of the comic even the slightest fan knows.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 5, 2007)

You seem to be assuming that what happened was intentional on the Surfer's part.  What I saw in the trailer suggests otherwise - I seem to recall Reed saying something along the lines of, "Your encounter with the Silver Surfer may cause...."  Then, in the confines of the lab, Johnny slaps Ben on the back, and hilarity ensues.

In other words, it is an accident.  And accidents with powers are entirely within the genre.


----------



## Vigilance (Jun 5, 2007)

Alzrius said:
			
		

> It's the price we pay for trying to squeeze the "mythology" into about a hundred minutes of screen time.




As long as they get the Surfer and Galactus *mostly* right, I will be happy. This is what I loved about the Spider Man movies. For the most part, Raimi nailed all the characters he dealt with.

Exact events? I can deal with that being tweaked. Just please, no more Dr.-Doom-as-evil-corporate-Enron-execs. That was lame. Not to mention like putting clown smile on the Mona Lisa.


----------



## Ghostwind (Jun 5, 2007)

I liked the first movie for its entertainment value and the second one looks even more entertaining. I'll be taking the family to see it. The kids can't wait.


----------



## Anthraxus (Jun 5, 2007)

I'm not a big fan of the FF- I'm going for the Silver Surfer/Galactus tie-in.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jun 5, 2007)

To summarize:

The Silver Surfer can do anything other than raise the dead.


EDIT: And make himself a pair of pants.


----------



## megamania (Jun 5, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Sorry, pal- I grew up with the FF, and while I was still into comics (I quit them in about 1996 or so) I bought all of the Marvel Universe books, etc.
> 
> At no point that I can recall did the Silver Surfer evidence the ability to muck with people's powers like that.
> 
> Incredible Hulk #250.   To escape Earth he absorbs the Gamma Radiation of the Hulk for a power boost.  Gets free then reliezes Bruce Banner isn't doing so well in space so he gives the power back.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 5, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> EDIT: And make himself a pair of pants.




Oh, he can do that too.  Unfortunately, the only kind he knows how to make are knickers, and they'd look pretty dumb on a surfboard.


----------



## megamania (Jun 5, 2007)

I have not seen the preview nor can I (no TV and limited comuputer ability) but from knowing the character of Silver Surfer, could he have even purposely switched their powers?   Jonny is relentless on picking on Ben and his condition.  Perhaps he wanted Jonny to know what it was like.

Though never done in the comics (except for Power Pack) I believe this is within the limits of the Surfer's powers.


Push comes to shove, there is little the Surfer can not do if he wishes to.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jun 5, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Oh, he can do that too.  Unfortunately, the only kind he knows how to make are knickers, and they'd look pretty dumb on a surfboard.




Ah, I love Twisted Toyfare Theatre.

Brad


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 5, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> Also, the reason for power-switching being bad is very simple - for the FF, their powers have always been an extention of their psychological condition.  Switching them around shows a total lack of understanding of a basic tenet of the comic even the slightest fan knows.




And yet again...in the comics, Sue and Johnny have had their powers switched before. It is NOT a slight against the comics to switch them. There IS a precedent for it.

Why the complaint of "Well, we've never seen it before!!"? That makes no sense. The movies aren't going to be the exact same stories. NONE of the good comic movies have been. They change things, adapt events, and tell us a NEW story about an OLD thing in comic lore so that those of us that know it well don't get bored off of our butts and get something at least slightly new for our money.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 5, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> EDIT: And make himself a pair of pants.




He can make himself speedos- does that count?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 5, 2007)

Wulf Ratbane said:
			
		

> EDIT: And make himself a pair of pants.




The Silver Surfer, thanks to Galactus, has evolved beyond the need for mere pants.


----------



## Randolpho (Jun 5, 2007)

Ahem. I'd just like to say the following:





Spiderman gets bitten by a *genetically modified* spider?








Wait, he squirts his own web out of his wrist, rather than making it in the lab?









There's no Tom Bombadil? No Barrow Wights? 







Jar Jar? *gasp* Midichlorians?






Ok, I take that last one back. Midichlorians sucked, period. 



My point is: it's a movie. Don't over-think the _origin _of the plot, just go enjoy the movie as a movie. The first FF wasn't bad (sure, it wasn't Spiderman, but what can be?), and this one looks better. Who cares if they do a power-switcheroo? Is that somehow unrealistic? Like *any *superpower falls under the term "realistic".


----------



## sniffles (Jun 5, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> They're messing with the mythology!
> 
> *sigh*



Like *every* movie version of a comic doesn't mess with the mythology?!   

Anyway, which version of the mythology? Doesn't Marvel change the mythos, like, every ten years - when they want to attract a new audience of 10-year-old boys? 

I'm actually kind of attracted by the new movie. I didn't see the first one until it was on DVD, and while it wasn't the best superhero movie I've seen in recent years, it wasn't the worst either. I'm not greatly invested in having them stick close to the comics. As long as they don't completely change the FF's powers or names, I'm good.


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 5, 2007)

I am MUCH more concerned about Galactus appearing as a friggen CLOUD rather than as a giant purple humanoid!


----------



## crazy_monkey1956 (Jun 5, 2007)

Movie marketing = careful balancing act between appealing to the fans of the franchise in its original form and attracting new fans who are only going to see the movie.

Example: I could never make myself sit down and read Lord of the Rings.  Just couldn't do it.  Loved the movies.

Example 2: Only casually read comic books over the years.  Have enjoyed the Spider-man movies, the X-men movies, FF, even Daredevil.  Couldn't stand Hulk...but, the Hulk-Poodles may have had something to do with that.

Movie makers HAVE to muck with the mythology a bit in order to attract movie-goers.  Spider-man shoots web out of his wrists.  The die-hard comic purist says, "Hey, that's not how it's supposed to be!"  The movie-goer who has seen Spider-man on his kids shoes or backpack or something says, "Well, ok, so he gets bitten by this spider and now can do spider stuff like shoot webs and climb walls.  Ok, that makes sense, I guess."  The science buff says, "Hey, shouldn't he be shooting those webs out of his butt?"

So...it's a movie.  Let it be a movie, not a comic book.  Comic book stories, as written, don't make good movies.


----------



## LightPhoenix (Jun 5, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And yet again...in the comics, Sue and Johnny have had their powers switched before. It is NOT a slight against the comics to switch them. There IS a precedent for it.




There IS precedent for it, I don't disagree.  It is in the scope of SS's powers as well, no question.

However, the whole "herald of galactus" storyline is not where that happened.  If they weren't taking on a pretty iconic story, and a pretty big piece of FF mythology, it wouldn't be a big deal.  If they weren't making a big push for the SS/Galactus aspect, it wouldn't be a big deal.  However, they are, they're representing it as that story.  If they feel that the story isn't interesting enough to stand on it's own, they shouldn't be doing it.  If they want to make up a random story, like they did with X-Men or Spiderman, that'd be fine.  If they want to stay true to the source material, like Batman Begins, that's fine too.  However, taking an iconic story and screwing with it just doesn't work.


----------



## Crothian (Jun 5, 2007)

I'd also be willing to bet that they deal with Galactus in a way really different from the comic book since there were so many elements going on in that storyline they are not including here.  

The switching of powers seemed to me to serve as a comical part of the movie.


----------



## werk (Jun 5, 2007)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> BTW I happen to _*love*_ the first movie, I guess that is why I'm the extended version of it and most likely watching FF4 2 in the theater like 4 times.




Ditto, I didn't see it in theatres, but that's true of me with most movies.  Saw it on cable, and at this point I watch it most times I see it on.  Please don't badmouth something that you have little to no personal experience, it lowers peoples' respect for your opinion.

Didn't superman have a baby's momma in his last movie?  This seems a rather small liberty compared to that.


----------



## Henry (Jun 5, 2007)

Randolpho said:
			
		

> My point is: it's a movie. Don't over-think the origin of the plot, just go enjoy the movie as a movie.




That's pretty much my take on it as well. The movie makers will muck around with the plot and specifics as they want or need to; as long as they capture the feel of the genre and the characters, that's all that matters to me. It's why I wound up liking -- nay, enjoying the first FF movie. They succeeded in capturing the personalities and interactions of the characters I grew up with. First and foremost, the FF is a family, and they managed to make it show through the movie - their squabbles, their learning to live together, their acceptance of one another, and (I gotta say) I enjoyed the showing of the FF as accepted heroes to the general public, as they usually were in the comics.

I remember power-switching in the original comics, and I seem to recall it in some various What-If type stories, too; it's within the genre, and therefore cool to me. Peter Parker may have been bitten by a gene-altered spider, but the core of the character (geek who becomes cool and learns there's responsibilities with it) wasn't tampered with. Gwen Stacy? They really tampered with her, and I disliked that part of Spider-Man 3; but overall, it still didn't mangle the genre too much.

Heck, they REALLY mangled Lord of the Rings, when you get down to it -- but they didn't touch the core of the story, and it's popularity bore that out.

So far, I'm liking what I see about FF2, and hopefully it'll be successful enough for a FF3 - I'm not looking for Doctor Zhivago, just a cool summer movie.


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 5, 2007)

*five*

Well at least no one is trying to make a "Civil War" movie based on what the Comics did.

Now a Thor movie, THAT would be cool, especially if it was Thor/Hulk throw down.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 5, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I am MUCH more concerned about Galactus appearing as a friggen CLOUD rather than as a giant purple humanoid!




From IESB - April 21

Today in an interview from IESB.net, Avi Arad laughed at the rumor and said we will see more than a cloud and we "will have enough Galactus to rejoice."

*IESB*: We talked about it earlier today, the announcement of Laurence Fishburne being the voice of the Silver Surfer, Fox has said that they don’t know if Galactus will even have a voice, can we address the rumor that Galactus is a giant cloud or something like that, is there any truth to those rumors? 
*Arad*: You know, that’s why they call them rumors (laughter), you will see more than a cloud, you will have enough Galactus to rejoice (laughter).


----------



## Umbran (Jun 5, 2007)

LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> However, taking an iconic story and screwing with it just doesn't work.




To each their own, I suppose.  The fact is that there's a long history of retelling stories in altered fashion.  Shakespeare's "Romeo and Juliet" became the Laurents/Bernstein/Sondheim musical _West Side Story_.  And other Shakespeare gets mangled all the time.

Arthurian Legend gets mangled.  Robin Hood gets twisted and retold.  Greek and any other mythology - same thing.  Why should comic stories be any different?  

Heck, Marvel does it to themselves - certainly, the Ultimate X-Men title are the old iconic stories that have been mucked with to some level or other.  Why should the movies be different?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 5, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I am MUCH more concerned about Galactus appearing as a friggen CLOUD rather than as a giant purple humanoid!




This is a screengrab from one of the TV spots they showed(I believe it was the one during the Heroes finale a few weeks back): 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	






			
				LightPhoenix said:
			
		

> There IS precedent for it, I don't disagree. It is in the scope of SS's powers as well, no question.
> 
> However, the whole "herald of galactus" storyline is not where that happened. If they weren't taking on a pretty iconic story, and a pretty big piece of FF mythology, it wouldn't be a big deal. If they weren't making a big push for the SS/Galactus aspect, it wouldn't be a big deal. However, they are, they're representing it as that story. If they feel that the story isn't interesting enough to stand on it's own, they shouldn't be doing it. If they want to make up a random story, like they did with X-Men or Spiderman, that'd be fine. If they want to stay true to the source material, like Batman Begins, that's fine too. However, taking an iconic story and screwing with it just doesn't work.




Funny thing is about the trailers is that pretty much every single action scene has the four with their normal powers and not the switched ones. The power switching looks to be played for two reasons: Comedy and a nod to Super Skrull.

Note that Reed DOES say "temporarily switch powers", and the trailers are showing this in the action scenes NOT having the powers switched. In fact, the only action scene with a power switch is actually a combination of powers...Johnny using Thing-style arm with flames over it.



			
				Nightfall said:
			
		

> *five*
> 
> Well at least no one is trying to make a "Civil War" movie based on what the Comics did.
> 
> Now a Thor movie, THAT would be cool, especially if it was Thor/Hulk throw down.




I actually enjoyed Civil War...but I'm a Marvel junkie. Despite all the problems with bringing it to screen(say...most every major Marvel character being involved), it would all be worth it to see Cap beat the snot out of Iron Man.


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 5, 2007)

*six*
AMG,

I must have missed that fight. I thought Cap lost to Stark in a no holds barred fight.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 5, 2007)

Nightfall said:
			
		

> *six*
> AMG,
> 
> I must have missed that fight. I thought Cap lost to Stark in a no holds barred fight.



 Stark gave Cap a good beating in issue 3, but Cap tore Tony and his armour up in the last issue. Bah to civilians getting in the way.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 6, 2007)

> For all we know, the Surfer, COULD. The Power Cosmic is so vague and pretty much equates to "Power What-The-Writer-Wants-It-To-Do-This-Arc"




The problem, besides my "purist" complaint, is that this creates a plot hole so big you could drive _Cygnus X-1_ through it.

If, arguendo, SS can do this because Galactus can (as weilders of the "Power Cosmic"):

1) Then why didn't he do this in order to spare him the various butt-kickings he's gotten at the hands of the FF?

2) If SS holds back in order to manufacture a reason to divert Galactus from eating Earth...why doesn't Big G then simply do what SS refused to do, eliminating the threat the FF and others pose and continue to eat the Earth?

3) If SS has had the ability to do so all this time and hasn't done so, then why didn't he get rid of his pals of their burdens- like Ben's condition or Alicia Masters' blindness.  Is he just a secret sadist?

IOW, it strains credulity by violating the internal logic of the Marvel Universe. It is_ bad_ writing.  Indefensibly bad.


> The fact is that there's a long history of retelling stories in altered fashion.



and


> Like every movie version of a comic doesn't mess with the mythology?!
> 
> Anyway, which version of the mythology? Doesn't Marvel change the mythos, like, every ten years - when they want to attract a new audience of 10-year-old boys?



and


> My point is: it's a movie. Don't over-think the origin of the plot, just go enjoy the movie as a movie. The first FF wasn't bad (sure, it wasn't Spiderman, but what can be?), and this one looks better. Who cares if they do a power-switcheroo? Is that somehow unrealistic? Like any superpower falls under the term "realistic".




Again, there is a good way and a bad way to do those things.

Take Spider-Man's black suit.  Originally a symbiote he picked up in the Secret Wars, its bound to be something entirely different in the new movie- at the very least, its origin will differ.

I have zero problem with that- Secret Wars was 12 months of "Deus Ex Machina" rewriting of the Marvel universe with regular comic title tie-ins, followed by another 12 months of the same in a second miniseries featuring the Beyonder on Earth.  It allowed Marvel to change things up on major characters and, more importantly, flood the market (alongside similar efforts by DC) to beat down smaller comic book lines.  Secret Wars was pretty bad writing, overall.

Its an unneccessary change- one that does nothing to improve the SS & FF brands.

And like the other bad changes I listed above (the twist ending to Scarlet Letter, etc.), its enough to keep me away from the film.


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 6, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Stark gave Cap a good beating in issue 3, but Cap tore Tony and his armour up in the last issue. Bah to civilians getting in the way.




*nine*
Actually I was referring to a one shot where Stark and Capt fought after trying to "work" things out.

Btw I still wish Nova had the guts to beat the snot out of Tony and say "Yeah I'm way more bad ass than you have ever been."


----------



## Silver Moon (Jun 6, 2007)

Let me begin by saying that I have a huge Marvel collectiion which includes over 300 issues of FF and over 100 issues of Silver Surfer (including most of the original series).    Guys, it's a Movie - stop nitpicking over details.    I for one would not want to see an exact translation of Fantastic Four 48 to 50 as I found the ending to be a real cop-out.


----------



## papastebu (Jun 6, 2007)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> Let me begin by saying that I have a huge Marvel collectiion which includes over 300 issues of FF and over 100 issues of Silver Surfer (including most of the original series).    Guys, it's a Movie - stop nitpicking over details.    I for one would not want to see an exact translation of Fantastic Four 48 to 50 as I found the ending to be a real cop-out.



Was that the "ultimate nullifier" ending? Me neither.
There is a more recent precedent of ALL of the FF's switching powers, as well as their powers running around and getting into people on the street. It was, I think, in the past year's issues. I can't recall much about it except for that, but it was there.
As to the way the movies have handled the comics? If I'd had a vote, I would have asked for the Ultimates version of things, Spiderman, Hulk, the Avengers/Ultimates, and, most especially the Fantastic Four. X-Men I've almost given up on, but Ilike the ultimate version of that, too.
When I go to a movie about one of these admittedly iconic characters, I try and look at it like I look at the "What If" comics back in the eighties, and the "Otherworld" stuff back in the nineties. They are telling alternate universe/timeline stories, so everything's up for grabs.
That is not to say, though, that I wasn't disappointed with a few things in almost every movie I've seen that has brought one of these characters to life. The only one I didn't have SOME problem with was probably _Batman Begins_, but then I've only seen that one twice.


----------



## jonathan swift (Jun 6, 2007)

Mistwell said:
			
		

> I am MUCH more concerned about Galactus appearing as a friggen CLOUD rather than as a giant purple humanoid!




The lack of a 30 foot man in a purple toga with a tuning fork on his head is a good thing.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 6, 2007)

jonathan swift said:
			
		

> The lack of a 30 foot man in a purple toga with a tuning fork on his head is a good thing.




The toga is Uatu, The Watcher.  Galactus wears purple armor.


----------



## jonathan swift (Jun 6, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> The toga is Uatu, The Watcher.  Galactus wears purple armor.




Ah. See, all these 30 foot giants in Marvel run together in my head. The tuning fork still kills me.


----------



## Randolpho (Jun 6, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Its an unneccessary change- one that does nothing to improve the SS & FF brands.
> 
> And like the other bad changes I listed above (the twist ending to Scarlet Letter, etc.), its enough to keep me away from the film.




Then you missed my point entirely. 

Forget about the origin of the plot. Forget all about the "SS & FF brands." Forget it all. Go enjoy the movie _as a movie_. Look for plot, character development, interesting dialog, exciting special effects. Don't stay away from a movie just because it does things different than the comics or "changes the brand". 

Don't be that guy.

If it helps, I'll give you an example of my own where I disagree with a change that was made in a movie from its source material. Specifically, I refer to Aragorn and his whole "reluctant hero/reluctant boyfriend" bit in the Lord of the Rings trilogy. In the movies, Aragorn has no desire to be king and, although he loves Arwen, he has no desire to see her "wither and die". Contrast that to the books (plus appendix): Aragorn *wants* to be king, nay *needs* to be king. Why? So he can marry Arwen, the woman he loves; Elrond has forbidden their union to any save the king of both the north and south. Which is the more satisfying romance? I claim that it's the version presented in the books. Why? Because Aragorn respects and loves Arwen more fully in the books than in the movie. In the movie, Arwen claims that she would rather live a short life with Aragorn than a lifetime of emptiness and regret without him, yet Aragorn *rejects that* and tells her to piss off to "protect her", because she's too besotted with him to look to herself. He breaks her heart, doing her more harm than he would have by allowing her to chose mortality. It's *unnecessarily* tragic. 

Oy. I look back and realize I've written a novel in and of itself. Clearly it's a touchy subject with me. Despite that, I still went to and *loved* the movies. Sure, they're not the source, but who cares? They're still damn good movies, even with the unnecessarily tragic yet ultimately fulfilled romance. 

I'm not saying Fantastic Four will win Best Picture, in fact I quite doubt it. But to simply discount the entire movie just because it clashes with the Fantastic Four/Silver Surfer "brand" is an injustice not only to the movie, but to yourself. You are denying yourself the chance to see what may turn out to be a fairly decent movie. 

That's a real shame, IMO.


----------



## Piratecat (Jun 6, 2007)

Randolpho, you've perfectly described how I feel about the movie "Constantine." It's a horrible Hellblazer movie, but darn it all, it's a really fun movie. I just had to take it on its own merits to realize that.

I utterly detested the first FF movie, but I'm cautiously excited about the second one. Fingers crossed.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 6, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Sorry, pal- I grew up with the FF, and while I was still into comics (I quit them in about 1996 or so) I bought all of the Marvel Universe books, etc.
> 
> At no point that I can recall did the Silver Surfer evidence the ability to muck with people's powers like that.
> 
> ...



There are no other superheroes in the world other than the ones in the movie  

The thing we got to try to understand is that they only have 2 hours. They would have too much explaining of scarlet witch (who has never been introduced evne in the xmen movies). No regular audience goer has that kind of time, and why muck with the entire movie for some comic relief.  Honestly, it doesn't seem that bad to me. I've seen worst mockeries of comic book continium (Spiderman 3's venom meteor crap, Batman 4's origin of Bane) 

Spiderman and Xmen have mucked up a ton of comic book classic storylines. (Storm's nemesis in Xmen 3 just to give Halle Berry more screen time, Spiderman 3: the Musical).


----------



## Mistwell (Jun 6, 2007)

Piratecat said:
			
		

> I utterly detested the first FF movie, but I'm cautiously excited about the second one. Fingers crossed.




Ditto that.

I was really disappointed that the powers that be didn't make the first FF movie a period piece set in the early 60s, with those early color film tones.  It would have been so much better. The camp of the movie would have worked so much better as well.


----------



## Nightfall (Jun 6, 2007)

*five*

Still...all I know is we do have a Marvel Cross over movie, it should be Onslaught.

That guy is one freaking scary mofo!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 7, 2007)

> Forget about the origin of the plot. Forget all about the "SS & FF brands." Forget it all. Go enjoy the movie as a movie. Look for plot, character development, interesting dialog, exciting special effects. Don't stay away from a movie just because it does things different than the comics or "changes the brand".
> 
> Don't be that guy.




I don't mind changes.

I mind changes that are bad or arbitrary.







> There are no other superheroes in the world other than the ones in the movie




I understand that- the Scarlet Witch's probability affecting powers were just one example of gaining the same effect as in the movie without changing a thing about the SS character.  (Proteus, from X-Men storylines, would have been another...)

IOW, I'm saying there were ways to do that "power switch" without mucking with the integrity of the SS character.

After all, Reed Richards is constantly pushing the boundaries of super-science in his lab- perhaps one of his _numerous_ attempts to alleviate the monstrosity of Ben Grim's condition could have gone awry...at the worst possible moment.



> But to simply discount the entire movie just because it clashes with the Fantastic Four/Silver Surfer "brand" is an injustice not only to the movie, but to yourself. You are denying
> yourself the chance to see what may turn out to be a fairly decent movie.




I really don't think so.  IMHO, making needless changes are an injustice to the source material.  I see no reason to scale down my critique of a film just because its a "comic book movie."

I already had a problem with the change with Reed Richards no longer being significantly older than his wife Sue- their May-September romance was a defining part of their characters, a solid link between them and other romances of the sci-fi movies of the era in which the FF originated.  Eliminating that also excised certain dynamics between the two of them.

The change in LotR that you cited is one that could _possibly _be viewed as an improvement over the original source material.  While JRRT was a fantastic world builder and linguist, there _are_ flaws in his writing.  His prose could be tighter, for instance, or certain interactions more realistic.  Even with that, though, his stuff is rightfully considered to be classic.

But in no way is this randomization of the FF's powers by the SS an improvement.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 7, 2007)

How, exactly, does a side affect of coming into contact with the Silver Surfer changing powers around have anything at all to do with the INTEGRITY of the character?

Not to mention the movie isn't OUT yet so you don't even know how central that is to the plot. Obviously, it has SOME effect, but as I've mentioned several times...it looks to have a POSITIVE one beyond the comedy bits. i.e. Johnny going all Super Skrull with the mixed powers.

THAT is more of a change that something like the Power Cosmic, which may not even be a change because what it can do is so vague anyway. And the Power Cosmic has new effects and does something else everytime a new writer has anything to do with it...so why is this any different?

If you don't like the it, that's one thing...but you haven't even seen the movie so you're basing this outrage on trailers that never give a very good view of what actually happens in the movie.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 7, 2007)

> How, exactly, does a side affect of coming into contact with the Silver Surfer changing powers around have anything at all to do with the INTEGRITY of the character?




Like I mentioned before, the power scrambling effect that is so tremendously useful that it would have been used early and often in any combat, _especially_ if its something that the SS can do because Galactus can do it.  The trailers I've seen indicate that, early on, at least, the victims of the power switch are unable to control their new powers.  In that window of lack of control- at _least_ a minute of screen time, SS could have ended the fight as quickly as you or I could snap our fingers.

Norin Radd may have had human-like morals and restrained himself, but Big G definitely had little regard for Earth beyond it being a tasty morsel.  If Big G had the option, he'd do so and end Earth's superpowered resistance in seconds.  End of Earth, end of story.

And yet, it was never done.

Its _very_ bad writing.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jun 7, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Like I mentioned before, the power scrambling effect that is so tremendously useful that it would have been used early and often in any combat, _especially_ if its something that the SS can do because Galactus can do it.  The trailers I've seen indicate that, early on, at least, the victims of the power switch are unable to control their new powers.  In that window of lack of control- at _least_ a minute of screen time, SS could have ended the fight as quickly as you or I could snap our fingers.
> 
> Norin Radd may have had human-like morals and restrained himself, but Big G definitely had little regard for Earth beyond it being a tasty morsel.  If Big G had the option, he'd do so and end Earth's superpowered resistance in seconds.  End of Earth, end of story.
> 
> ...




I think what he was saying is that the indication seems to be that the power-switching was some sort of *side-effect* of contact with the Surfer. If there was some reason to believe that SS did it on purpose then I missed it.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 7, 2007)

Darth Shoju said:
			
		

> I think what he was saying is that the indication seems to be that the power-switching was some sort of *side-effect* of contact with the Surfer. If there was some reason to believe that SS did it on purpose then I missed it.




That's what I'm saying because that's exactly what the trailers have told us(listen to Reed Richards again, because those are his words...side effect).

But how is it bad writing? That doesn't make ANY sense. You're making huge leaps of logic here and ignoring the simple fact that the MOVIES are NOT THE COMICS. The comics are the beggining point, but they are not a bible that is held sacred when ANY of the movies are made. That's not bad writing. That's just how it is.

And this is a TINY thing. Again, if you pay attention to the trailers and clips we've been shown, this power switching doesn't seem to last. (Not that Reed says 'temporarily switch powers'). But not only that, EVERY fight scene we've seen so far the right powers are used...the only one without it shows Johnny COMBINING powers, not switched.


----------



## Matchstick (Jun 7, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Like I mentioned before, the power scrambling effect that is so tremendously useful that it would have been used early and often in any combat, _especially_ if its something that the SS can do because Galactus can do it.  The trailers I've seen indicate that, early on, at least, the victims of the power switch are unable to control their new powers.  In that window of lack of control- at _least_ a minute of screen time, SS could have ended the fight as quickly as you or I could snap our fingers.
> 
> Norin Radd may have had human-like morals and restrained himself, but Big G definitely had little regard for Earth beyond it being a tasty morsel.  If Big G had the option, he'd do so and end Earth's superpowered resistance in seconds.  End of Earth, end of story.
> 
> ...




The thing is though that you could say that about Galactus and the Surfer in any number of ways.  There's a million ways that either one of them could have "snapped their fingers" and overpowered earth in a few seconds.  "Combat" has nothing to do with it, in a combat the FF would have no chance against Galactus, unless they were all in a comic book.

When Reed holds up the Ultimate Nullifier in his hand and threatens Galatus with it, why doesn't Galactus just paralyze him and take the Nullifier away?  Surround him with the power Cosmic, make him unable to move, and then dump him into a black hole?  Or just place him in the middle of a sun, permanently paralyzed and inaccessible to everyone, still holding the nullifier.  Heck, as he approaches a planet, why doesn't he just paralyze everyone, or sleep them, on the off chance they might not like getting their essences consumed?  He's got the power!

Terrax destroys a planet single handedly in Annihilation, there's no reason to believe that the Surfer or certainly Galactus couldn't just wave a hand and turn all the oxygen in the atmosphere to chlorine, or all the water to arsenic (transmutation like that is certainly within Galactus' power).  Heck, the Surfer in a fit of pique shuts down all sources of power AROUND THE WORLD in an instant, just a couple days of that would have put the Earth into plenty of a panic to not be able to react to Galactus' arrival.

Surely Galactus could destroy our sun before anyone from Earth could get there.  Then all he has to do is wait a bit to have a nice Earthy morsel.  Couldn't he start chucking moons at Earth from far off space?  

Scrambling superpowers is FAR from the only option Galactus didn't take advantage of when trying to nosh Earth.  Yet I don't think of the comics as "very bad writing".


----------



## IcedEarth81 (Jun 7, 2007)

I thought the film version of Arwen and Aragorn's love story was much better. The book barely mentions her. 

Tolkien's masterpiece was fantastic, but it does have a few flaws. Some of his characters are well done and others are pretty one dimensional. Aragorn is one of the one dimensional ones. Put the book version into the movie and they just aren't as good. 

I don't get why so many were angered by Arwen's expanded role in the movies. We are supposed to care about Aragorn and want him to be King and marry Arwen, but yet we never get to know Arwen's character in the book.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 7, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I don't mind changes.
> 
> I mind changes that are bad or arbitrary.
> 
> ...



despite what they say, no one is making movies for comic book fans. They are borrowing material and icons for movie goers.  

Other superheroes don't exist in superhero movies. There is no xmen, prometheus or scarlet witch. If they wanted to introduce such a character, it would take 45 minutes of time to just make the auduence believe that she is not a plot device, which still won't work.  Sure they could pull the old she flys in on a meteor next to the human torch, but, trust me, i saw that earlier this summer and you won't like that either. 

There is not one, not even batman begins, that stays faithful to the comic book. This is because comic book movies are action movies, where as comic books are story driven picture novels.  

A movie must "show" the effects of its characters. Spiderman 3 failed to really show how venom effected spiderman.  Fantasastic four needs to show how the cosmic energy is different from solar or electricity. The power switching side effects is a quick way to show this . This is the primary reason for the cosmic energy switching their powers.  The secondary reason is the comedy.


----------



## Squire James (Jun 8, 2007)

Galactus' energy reserves are not infinite.  He has made comments like "Sure I could do that, but it'd take more energy than this world is worth to me!" several times.  Earth tends to always catch him either when he's not hungry (and thus he plays with his food) or when he's TOO hungry (and thus his energy reserves are low enough that a couple hundred superheroes is actually a threat to him)!


----------



## danzig138 (Jun 8, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> people stayed away in droves.  However, it did well enough to spawn a sequel.



 $156,000,000 domestic, $329,000,000 worldwide according to the wiki entry. 



> Apparently, I'll be ignoring this movie even more than the first one...JOIN ME!



Ummm. . . no. I enjoyed the first movie, and I'll give this one a try. No skin off my butt if you skip it, but I'm not going to because you have some objections that are. . . unconvincing.

Seeing your problems here, I'm mildly curious to know your thoughts on the other recent comic book movies of the last few years.


----------



## Storm Raven (Jun 8, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Norin Radd may have had human-like morals and restrained himself, but Big G definitely had little regard for Earth beyond it being a tasty morsel.  If Big G had the option, he'd do so and end Earth's superpowered resistance in seconds.  End of Earth, end of story.
> 
> And yet, it was never done.
> 
> Its _very_ bad writing.




Yes, the fact that it was never done in the comics is very bad writing. Like most comics, to make the stories work, various super-powered individuals have to periodically forget the full extent of their myriad powers. I'm surprised that you are _just now_ figuring this out.

Galactus _should_ have destroyed the earth dozens of times over. He has not. Therefore, the writers of the comic books are guilty of bad writing. _Very_ bad writing.

Aren't we lucky that the movies have been made to correct this error?


----------



## mmu1 (Jun 8, 2007)

It's wrong to laugh at other people's pain, isn't it? 

Oh well. 

[Nelson Muntz]Ha-ha! Your cherished childhood memories are being violated![/Nelson Muntz]

...hey, that made me feel better about the SW prequels. 

Seriously, though - we're talking about a Galactus storyline, here. The whole thing is one big example of Deus Ex Machina at work. Nothing the characters do is actually relevant to the way the story ends. Galactus gets defeated because that's how it works, and whatever explanation they have for it is always lame.

So if someone's not willing to just enjoy the action scenes, Jessica Alba (or action scenes _with_ Jessica Alba, even), and the occasional laugh, but is actually going to approach the whole story _logically_, it'd seem to me that there ought to be a lot more than that small power-switching bit one ought to have a problem with. Otherwise, it just seems like whining because you didn't get your way. (which is fine, as long as you don't expect everyone to sympathize)


----------



## Brown Jenkin (Jun 8, 2007)

Storm Raven said:
			
		

> Yes, the fact that it was never done in the comics is very bad writing. Like most comics, to make the stories work, various super-powered individuals have to periodically forget the full extent of their myriad powers. I'm surprised that you are _just now_ figuring this out.
> 
> Galactus _should_ have destroyed the earth dozens of times over. He has not. Therefore, the writers of the comic books are guilty of bad writing. _Very_ bad writing.
> 
> Aren't we lucky that the movies have been made to correct this error?




Ooooo, does this mean that Galactus will finaly eat the Earth this time?


----------



## Umbran (Jun 8, 2007)

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Ooooo, does this mean that Galactus will finaly eat the Earth this time?




"You can't eat the Earth!  That's where I keep all my _stuff_!"
-The Tick


----------



## Randolpho (Jun 8, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I don't mind changes. I mind changes that are bad or arbitrary.
> 
> ....
> 
> But in no way is this randomization of the FF's powers by the SS an improvement.




Very well, then, but if you're not going to go see the movie, don't complain about it.


----------



## WayneLigon (Jun 8, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> "You can't eat the Earth!  That's where I keep all my _stuff_!"
> -The Tick




Sadly, it appears that episode won't be on *The Tick Vs Season Two*, apparently because Marvel got all pissy with them about it.


----------



## Matchstick (Jun 8, 2007)

WayneLigon said:
			
		

> Sadly, it appears that episode won't be on *The Tick Vs Season Two*, apparently because Marvel got all pissy with them about it.




Well crud.  

http://www.thetick.ws/wavs/ep7/destroy.wav


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 8, 2007)

Randolpho said:
			
		

> Very well, then, but if you're not going to go see the movie, don't complain about it.



On the _internet_? WTF?

It's the other way around. _You_ don't have to read such posts.


----------



## Randolpho (Jun 8, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> On the _internet_? WTF?
> 
> It's the other way around. _You_ don't have to read such posts.



 Heh... touche. Allow me to amend:

... don't complain about it and expect anyone to actually take you seriously.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 8, 2007)

> I think what he was saying is that the indication seems to be that the power-switching was some sort of *side-effect* of contact with the Surfer. If there was some reason to believe that SS did it on purpose then I missed it.




Even if that were true, that only means that the SS needs to brush up against you, then blast you to atoms as you reel in your power-switched confusion.



> Yes, the fact that it was never done in the comics is very bad writing. Like most comics, to make the stories work, various super-powered individuals have to periodically forget the full extent of their myriad powers. I'm surprised that you are just now figuring this out.




Like I said, I stopped reading 99% of comics in 1996, partly because of bad writing...

like when Spider-Man (not hopped up on any Capt. Universe powers or anything) dropped Firelord in single combat...

...or when Electro figured out Spider-Man stuck to the walls due to static electricity...

etc.







> Aren't we lucky that the movies have been made to correct this error?




Not if their writing is just as bad.


> > people stayed away in droves. However, it did well enough to spawn a sequel.
> 
> 
> 
> $156,000,000 domestic, $329,000,000 worldwide according to the wiki entry.




X-Men 3 did 1/3 of that in one weekend.

By way of comparison, Eddie Murphy's Coming to America did just as well as FF did, but did so in 1988...with a production budget of $30M.  And at that, it actually _lost_ money after figuring in distribution and marketing costs.*

IOW, it was hardly a success.

*In all fairness, part of that loss is attributable to Hollywood accounting methods which are notoriously wonky- see the lawsuit that Art Buchwald filed vs Coming to America's producers, or the one Israel filed vs the producers of Raid on Entebbe.

But that system hasn't changed appreciably.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 8, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Even if that were true, that only means that the SS needs to brush up against you, then blast you to atoms as you reel in your power-switched confusion.




Does the Surfer even know, though?

Really, he uses the Power Cosmic...the FF got their powers from Cosmic Radiation. What are the chances those two things will come together? Probably low, so who knows the side effects.

There's a ton of ways to rationalize this very easily, even moreso than many of the contrivancies in the original Silver Surfer/Galactus storyline. Is it different? Yes. But different does not automatically mean bad, especially since we barely have anymore than bits of the story.


----------



## Megatron (Jun 8, 2007)

Just skimmed the first page, but...

The power switching is their attempt at at a Super Skrull, with out introducing the Skrull.
Also Galactus is a cosmic storm cloud. - taking the same route as Gah Lak Tus, but worse.
Doom rides the silver Surfboard




This whole movie looks horrid.

edit1: Also, Cosmic Rays (which empowered the FF) != The Power Cosmic (which is more akin to a divine spark, a fundamental force)


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 9, 2007)

Megatron said:
			
		

> Also Galactus is a cosmic storm cloud. - taking the same route as Gah Lak Tus, but worse.




That's not true at all, and was a rumour that flew around like crazy. I'd suggest looking at my post on the first page...there's an image of a VERY Galactus-shaped shadow cast on Saturn...and its from one of the trailers.



> edit1: Also, Cosmic Rays (which empowered the FF) != The Power Cosmic (which is more akin to a divine spark, a fundamental force)




Nope, they aren't the same, but its not a stretch to explain power switching by saying these two things interact in unexpected ways. No more a stretch than the Ultimate Nullifier...


----------



## Agamon (Jun 9, 2007)

I don't think this plot change is arbitrary.  Having the FF change powers gives Reed the idea to give all of their powers to one person in order to defeat the Surfer (everyone has seen the clip with the stretchy, flaming guy that punches Surfer with a rocky fist, yes?)  It hints at something from FF lore (Super Skrull).  And the power change thing will be humorous, I assume.  It's not completely unnecessary, and it's not completely out there.  Has Surfer done that in the comics?  No, but it's not so much a stretch to make it work in the movie.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jun 9, 2007)

This thread inspired me to dig out FF 48-50 which I read last night.   A very good story for the mid-1960's but not what I would call the best material for a 2007 screenplay.   I'm going to just sit back and enjoy the movie without any pre-conceived notions as to exactly what should be on the screen.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jun 9, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Even if that were true, that only means that the SS needs to brush up against you, then blast you to atoms as you reel in your power-switched confusion.




Well we don't really know the circumstances around the power switch. It could be more complicated or circumstantial than that. Also, couldn't the Surfer pretty much reduce any one of the FF to atoms *without* switching their powers first?




			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> like when Spider-Man (not hopped up on any Capt. Universe powers or anything) dropped Firelord in single combat...




Wasn't he wearing the venom costume at the time? Also I think there was a combo of Firelord not really looking for a fight and severely underestimating Spidey.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> X-Men 3 did 1/3 of that in one weekend.
> 
> By way of comparison, Eddie Murphy's Coming to America did just as well as FF did, but did so in 1988...with a production budget of $30M.  And at that, it actually _lost_ money after figuring in distribution and marketing costs.*
> 
> IOW, it was hardly a success.




Well I'm hardly an expert on this stuff but those sound like good numbers to me (for FF). Would they have made a sequel if it had lost money?


----------



## Megatron (Jun 9, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Nope, they aren't the same, but its not a stretch to explain power switching by saying these two things interact in unexpected ways. No more a stretch than the Ultimate Nullifier...




No, its just retarded.
I really couldn't care less what you said in previous posts; 

edit: nevermind.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 9, 2007)

> Does the Surfer even know, though?




You mean that he led Galactus to all those populated planets without once ever being touched before?

That's a bit of a stretch.



> Wasn't he wearing the venom costume at the time?




Nope- the "Firelord Beatdown" occured in Amazing Spiderman 269 & 270...he was wearing a  reproduction of the black symbiote costume, which had found Eddie Brock (Venom) in Amazing Spiderman #258 (although he didn't really come back as Venom until about issue #300 or so).

He "won" because his "Spidey sense" allowed him to avoid being hit...and somehow, a guy who had taken hits from the Thing couldn't take a few dozen from Spidey, who isn't even in _Firelord's _strength class, much less the Thing's.



> Well I'm hardly an expert on this stuff but those sound like good numbers to me (for FF). Would they have made a sequel if it had lost money?




Yep.

Coming to America had a budget of 38M and grossed 400M worldwide.  It lost money (like I said, due to wonky accounting practices*) on the studio's books.

FF cost 100M to make and grossed 400M worldwide.  That's a flop- I guarantee you it's net profits finished in the red (see below).

*Those practices include using subsidiaries for nearly everything in the production/marketing/distribution and counting that against the gross.  The _movie_ may lose money, but the _company _makes it hand over fist.  That is why, if you ever get involved in a Hollywood production, you either get your money paid in full before it shows once, or get your money out of the _gross _profits- there will be no _net_ profits.


----------



## death tribble (Jun 9, 2007)

I will see this after the trailer. Now I have read the Silver Surfer in his own series but to see what they did in the movie with him travelling through things was just wonderful.

It may not be the Fantastic Four we want but the medium has to get stuff done in at most 2 hours. So you have to have poetic licence. Should they have had Doom's armour be organic though ? No. But I have better hopes for this after the disappointments of Spiderman 3 and Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End. Your View May Vary and you are entitled to it.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 9, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> You mean that he led Galactus to all those populated planets without once ever being touched before?
> 
> That's a bit of a stretch.




But without ever being touched by someone like Johnny...not as much of a stretch. The FF are pretty unique in the universe, and so one could fairly easily reason that unexpected side effects could easily occur with so much power coming into contact with them.

I'm not saying its a perfect explanation, but its definitely not crazy and way out there. It sounds like you're wanting some kind of concrete rational from something that never had that kind of thing in the first place.

And Megatron, there isn't any need to act so angry about things. I'm sorry that I don't agree about how horrid these things are, but at least there IS evidence that one of the major "THIS MOVIE IS HORRIBLE AND WILL SUCK" screamings that has gone on for weeks is proven wrong by a very clear image from a trailer. Not only that, but we have Avi Arad speaking up in the last week saying that "We will see much more than just a cloud" when it comes to Galactus.

With that little fan tantrum about Galactus being a cloud was proved to be so very wrong, I can't help but think the rest are just stretching to find SOMETHING wrong so people can hate it before its even come out.


----------



## Darth Shoju (Jun 10, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Nope- the "Firelord Beatdown" occured in Amazing Spiderman 269 & 270...he was wearing a  reproduction of the black symbiote costume, which had found Eddie Brock (Venom) in Amazing Spiderman #258 (although he didn't really come back as Venom until about issue #300 or so).
> 
> He "won" because his "Spidey sense" allowed him to avoid being hit...and somehow, a guy who had taken hits from the Thing couldn't take a few dozen from Spidey, who isn't even in _Firelord's _strength class, much less the Thing's.




AH ic. Back then I was randomly getting issues of Spiderman (whatever my parents decided to pick up for me really). All I've got is that one issue of Spidey where he starts fighting him and the issue of Avengers where they get there when it is all done. I never realized it wasn't the symbiote costume he was wearing.




			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Yep.
> 
> Coming to America had a budget of 38M and grossed 400M worldwide.  It lost money (like I said, due to wonky accounting practices*) on the studio's books.
> 
> ...




LOL figures.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 10, 2007)

> I'm not saying its a perfect explanation, but its definitely not crazy and way out there. It sounds like you're wanting some kind of concrete rational from something that never had that kind of thing in the first place.




And yet its much more of a stretch than the plotline I suggested before



> *Dannyalcatraz* Post #55 this thread
> After all, Reed Richards is constantly pushing the boundaries of super-science in his lab- perhaps one of his numerous attempts to alleviate the monstrosity of Ben Grim's condition could have gone awry...at the worst possible moment.




You know...he's got Ben in "Gadget X" running some tests, and the containment field goes wonky-jog.  The inversion of the field is detected and RR shuts the machine down quickly, but not before the FF's powers are scrambled (unbeknownst to them at the time).

Then, before the discovery is made, SS & Big G show up, cosmic battle for fate of Earth ensues, RR uses the machine again to get Johnny all of their powers in one (as per the movie clip), and somehow Earth is off the menu in 90-120minutes.

This is something _well _within the established boundaries of the mythology of the characters involved (Ben's dissatisfaction with his life as the Thing, RR's multiple unsuccessful super-scientific attempts to change his friend's fate).  It introduces no extraneous characters.  It involves no arbitrary changes to any characters (other than the switch itself).  It introduces no plot holes (like why not use this ability 100% of the time, or why the SS doesn't finish them off in their minutes of confusion).

Simple, neat, and non-arbitrary.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 10, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> You know...he's got Ben in "Gadget X" running some tests, and the containment field goes wonky-jog.  The inversion of the field is detected and RR shuts the machine down quickly, but not before the FF's powers are scrambled (unbeknownst to them at the time).
> 
> This is something _well _within the established boundaries of the mythology of the characters involved (Ben's dissatisfaction with his life as the Thing, RR's multiple unsuccessful super-scientific attempts to change his friend's fate).  It introduces no extraneous characters.  It involves no arbitrary changes to any characters (other than the switch itself).  It introduces no plot holes (like why not use this ability 100% of the time, or why the SS doesn't finish them off in their minutes of confusion).
> 
> Simple, neat, and non-arbitrary.




Its also something that has already been done. In the first movie(which, I believe, you said you didn't see), Reed DID create a machine to turn Ben back and it DID work...but Ben decided to return to his Thing form to help the others. That conflict was dealt with then, and bringing it back with the same kind of thing in the second movie is...well, bad writing.

And the plot holes you're claiming to see(again, in trailers), aren't nearly as concrete as you're claiming them to be. The changes are stated to be temporary, are SHOWN that way in the trailers, too. They are also said to be a side-effect of Johnny's encounter with the Surfer. Why doesn't he use this 100% of the time? Well, why doesn't the Surfer encounter the FF on every world? Not only that, but it seems that the ONLY person that this has a direct effect on is Johnny, with the others simply experiencing the switch because of him.

Maybe its something with Johnny specifically.

This is the Fantastic Four. Its all about crazy cosmic situations and weird science. Power switching as a side effect of the Fantastic Four(any one of them) fits in with that just fine.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 10, 2007)

> Its also something that has already been done.




Fair enough.

OTOH, It was also done successfully more than once in the comics as well.  Ben always had a reason to be the Thing...or vice versa.


> And the plot holes you're claiming to see(again, in trailers), aren't nearly as concrete as you're claiming them to be. The changes are stated to be temporary, are SHOWN that way in the trailers, too.




I never said that they weren't temporary.

I just said that the screen-time in the trailers in which they're shown to be confused is more than enough time for them to be picked off by the SS.

The first thing Sue does is panic as she bursts into flames, then rises into the air, uncontrolled, like a big firey baloon. _ Zap_.  1 down.

The first thing that Johnny does is try to flame on and he goes invisible, at which point he is jostled and run over by his fellow city-dwellers.  _Zap._ 2 down.

The first thing that Reed does when he sees his screaming, flaming wife outside the window is nothing but gawp.  _Zap._ 3 down.

For the record, I don't know what Ben's first act after the switcheroo is, but given that at this point, maybe 5 minutes have passed on the screen, and the FF is down to F One, the SS won't have to concentrate on anyone else but Mama Grimm's blue-eyed boy...

The holes remain just as big as ever.



> They are also said to be a side-effect of Johnny's encounter with the Surfer. Why doesn't he use this 100% of the time? Well, why doesn't the Surfer encounter the FF on every world? Not only that, but it seems that the ONLY person that this has a direct effect on is Johnny, with the others simply experiencing the switch because of him.




1) This brings us back to my first post- its bad writing.

2) Even a cursory reading of the SS/Big G history reveals that they've encountered other cultures with very powerful defenders- on Earth, he's battled the Avengers, with members no less mutated than Johnny, and in other storylines, Big G has encountered the Shi'Ar Imperial Guard, the Kree and Skrulls and other races.

And in all of those worlds, with all of their supers- some with much less stable "DNA" than humans- only Johnny gets the contagious superpower flip-flop whammy?

I'm still not buying it, so I'm still not watching it.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jun 10, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I'm still not buying it, so I'm still not watching it.




Okay. Forget everything else, because this seems to be the key.

If this is true...why the hell do you care so much? You didn't even see the first movie anyway. If you aren't going to SEE it it doesn't affect you AT ALL.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jun 10, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> The first thing that Reed does when he sees his screaming, flaming wife outside the window is nothing but gawp.



How can you fault a man for staring at Jessica Alba ?


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 10, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Even if that were true, that only means that the SS needs to brush up against you, then blast you to atoms as you reel in your power-switched confusion.
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, I stopped reading 99% of comics in 1996, partly because of bad writing...



Are you saying that all comic books have been written poorly since 2008. Dude, get a grip.  You obviously missed that whole crazy silly silver era.  Different strokes for different folks, but you seem to be getting bent up out of shape for a non issue.

A. You're not a comic book fan anymore, and if you havn't read in a decade you have no idea whati s going on. For all you know this could be something pulled out of Ultimate or an elseworld you're not familiar with.

B. Comic books are not novels and even they don't go to the movie as is. Not one person, ONE, can name a single print media that went to the screen perfectly without any additions, deletions, changes in character or setting.  

C. They write movies for today's audience.  Someone believes that the story needed some extra drama. Nothing wrong with that.  The FF storyline is going off the fact that they recently received their powers, this already is way off from the original story in the book.  That may play afactor in it.


----------



## Umbran (Jun 10, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> He "won" because his "Spidey sense" allowed him to avoid being hit...and somehow, a guy who had taken hits from the Thing couldn't take a few dozen from Spidey, who isn't even in _Firelord's _strength class, much less the Thing's.




Karma (for those of you who know the faserip Marvel Superheroes game).  It is well established in comics (Marvel or otherwise) that occasionally the guy who you think will win based upon powers alone will lose.  What it amounts to is built up karma, luck, or whatever you want to call it.  Ocasionally, the hero wins because he's the hero.

You may call it bad writing, I call it a genre trope.

And I think A-M Guard has a bit of a point.  Everything you've told us so far says that you don't actually like comics.  That's your right, of course.  But I'm not sure how much creedence that gives to your critique.  It'd rather be like me giving critique on the flavor of a dish that's mostly okra - I hate okra, in and of itself.  My bias against it is so strong as to likely overwhelm my abilities of constructive criticism.


----------



## Angel Tarragon (Jun 10, 2007)

Its not really Marvel Comics fault anyway, they sold the rights for it to be adapted to the screen. It is the director's/writer's fault(s).


----------



## Silver Moon (Jun 10, 2007)

DonTadow said:
			
		

> Not one person, ONE, can name a single print media that went to the screen perfectly without any additions, deletions, changes in character or setting.



Agreed, due in part to the need to condense several hundred of comic book appearances into a two-hour film.   

When the first X-Men film came out I recall hearing considerable criticism of how Rogue was portrayed, people comparing her to the outgoing bombshell of the current comics at the time, although if you go back and reread the first few Chris Claremont/Paul Smith issues of X-Men when she first joined the team the uncertain shy little girl of the movie was quite close.     

Another example is Daredevil, a film that most people didn't care for although the story stayed very close to the original source material of Daredevil #164, 181, and 190 (all written by Frank Miller who participated in the movie.)


----------



## Umbran (Jun 10, 2007)

Frukathka said:
			
		

> Its not really Marvel Comics fault anyway, they sold the rights for it to be adapted to the screen. It is the director's/writer's fault(s).




Well, technically, they could have sold the rights while retaining some creative veto power, if they so chose.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 10, 2007)

Silver Moon said:
			
		

> Agreed, due in part to the need to condense several hundred of comic book appearances into a two-hour film.
> 
> When the first X-Men film came out I recall hearing considerable criticism of how Rogue was portrayed, people comparing her to the outgoing bombshell of the current comics at the time, although if you go back and reread the first few Chris Claremont/Paul Smith issues of X-Men when she first joined the team the uncertain shy little girl of the movie was quite close.
> 
> Another example is Daredevil, a film that most people didn't care for although the story stayed very close to the original source material of Daredevil #164, 181, and 190 (all written by Frank Miller who participated in the movie.)



Two movies that i felt were the closest comicbook adaptations in a decade were Punisher and Daredevil, neither were received well by the public.


----------



## The Human Target (Jun 11, 2007)

This may be the stupidest thread in the history of the internet.

A) Its a movie. It can do whatever the deuce it wants with the FF property.

B) You haven't seen the movie, and have no idea why certain things happen.

C) The power swapping idea comes from the current comics and has nothing at all to do with the Silver Surfer, though it may in the movie. Its also, as has been said, a Super Skrull reference.

D) Complaining about both the movie deviating from the source material and the movie being illogical is ridiculous, as the FF (and most superhero) comics have barely make any logical sense on a good day. 

E) I'm not defending the movie out of enjoyment. The first one was terrible and I have no urge to see this one. But yeesh, take a deep breath.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 12, 2007)

> If this is true...why the hell do you care so much? You didn't even see the first movie anyway. If you aren't going to SEE it it doesn't affect you AT ALL.




Ever hear of venting?

When I first saw the Silver Surfer streak across a movie screen some months ago, I thought

"HELL, YEAH!"

Oddly enough, the same reaction I had when I saw the first clips for Starship Troopers, and after that, The Phantom Menace.

The difference is that I saw more clips of this movie than of Starship Troopers, and feel forewarned.

1 out of 3... :\ 

I'm trying to prevent others from suffering as I did, and passed along the warning.



> Are you saying that all comic books have been written poorly since 2008.




Nope.  I'm saying that:

1) Some comics were well written (or, for that matter, drawn) and some weren't.  The ones that weren't, I dropped.  If the writing/art improved, I'd consider reading them again.

2) Some comic book movies are well written and some aren't.  The ones that aren't don't get my money.



> You're not a comic book fan anymore, and if you havn't read in a decade you have no idea whati s going on.




When I was deep in the hobby, I bought everything Marvel & DC made, as well as some Image, Dark Horse and other comics companies produced...and back issues besides.  My personal collection dates back to things like Thor#5, and takes up more space than a Hummer.

And I still am a fan, and I'm still in touch.  I'm in a comic book shop at least once a week.  I even attend the occasional con or talk to the occasional artist.  There are even some few titles I still read- Y the last man, PS238, the Orson Scott Card take on Iron Man, Hellblazer and 1602 to name a few.  Every week, I get a few titles and updates on the rest...but I buy very few.

I got out of buying most titles regularly because the prices in 1996 versus my enjoyment of the storylines then didn't match up.  I'd finish a week's worth of purchases in an hour or two...but the same amount of dough spent on novels lasted much, much longer.

Ultimately, there were too many continuity conflicts, too many recycled plotlines, too many retcons & changed premises...so I voted with my entertaiment $$$ and did other things with them.



> Comic books are not novels and even they don't go to the movie as is. Not one person, ONE, can name a single print media that went to the screen perfectly without any additions, deletions, changes in character or setting.




Of course not.  However, there are ways of doing it right- say, _Silence of the Lambs_, or the first and the latest Batman movies, and many ways of doing it wrong...like the Captain America movies.



> They write movies for today's audience.




That's no excuse for drek.

If you excuse bad writing just because its a "comic book movie" just means that you're rewarding bad writing and that the producers of comic book movies won't learn.  They'll continue to supply the market with badly written movies because they'll think that we won't care- and rightly so, based on the box office results.



> The power swapping idea comes from the current comics and has nothing at all to do with the Silver Surfer, though it may in the movie. Its also, as has been said, a Super Skrull reference




Power swapping/power loss plotlines go back at least to the 1960s, if not further, in both of the 2 major comic companies.  Again, its no excuse for a poorly conceived reason for the occurance of the swap.

If they really wanted to refer to the Super Skrull, then they should have used the Super Scrull.


D) 







> Complaining about both the movie deviating from the source material and the movie being illogical is ridiculous, as the FF (and most superhero) comics have barely make any logical sense on a good day.






> Two movies that i felt were the closest comicbook adaptations in a decade were Punisher and Daredevil, neither were received well by the public.




True...but perhaps it was the acting rather than the storyline.  Do you mean the Dolph Lundgren or Thomas Jane version of the Punisher?  It doesn't matter, neither movie was particularly decent in the acting department.  Ever notice that Rebecca Romjin only gets roles in comic book movies (OK...50% of her roles, + a cyberpunk movie...as an AI)?

Ditto Ben Afflek's turn as Daredevil- not exactly the best acting I've ever seen action flick.




> > He "won" because his "Spidey sense" allowed him to avoid being hit...and somehow, a guy who had taken hits from the Thing couldn't take a few dozen from Spidey, who isn't even in Firelord's strength class, much less the Thing's.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Please...Firelord taken blows by opponents far stronger than Spider Man- the Thing and Thor for instance- and not been budged by much of anything shy of their absolute best.  I have more of a chance of kicking the armor off of a King Tiger tank that he did of pummeling a Herald of Galactus into submission with just his baseline abilities.

According to Marvel Universe, "Spider-Man is capable of lifting over ten tons under optimal conditions and at maximum exertion"...Firelord, Thor, and the Thing are all cited at being able to lift 60+ tons.  That is akin to the difference between the upper body strength of a somewhat athletic adult male (say, 300lb press) and an average 10 year old boy (about 50lb press).

We're not talking David & Goliath here...we're talking about a fistfight.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 12, 2007)

A fan supports the hobby no matter what, not goes into the comic book store and freeloads.  TO me thats the  equivalence to downloading d and d books illegally or borrowing your friends copies. 

You also can't possibly figure out the state of the comic book industry if your sole source of comic books for 10 years has been a once a week two hour trip to the comic book shop and talking to an artist at a conveintion.  

Your opinion of drek is your opinion, but your opinion doesn't matter, it is what the collective public's opinion thinks that gets how a movie is made.  Sometimes this is bad, sometimes this is good.   Public opinion says they want a comic relief moment in the movies.  Again, they can't possibly introduce.. say the skrul, silver surfer, galactis and scarlet witch in one movie unless you want Batman  Forever.  So they borrow references and combine issues.  I"m not saying thi swill work, i'm saying that we don't know until it comes out.  A lot ofp eople thought sandman/venom would work great and it turned into a fiasco.  Some people thought Batman in an ugly drill bat car was going to flip and it didn't.  Someone probalby thought Nick Cage as Ghost Rider was a great idea, though we havn't found that guy.

Point is you don't know, and you're making us professional ranters (see my spiderman 3 and xmen 3 posts) look bad by prematurally ranting.  After the movie comes out or you see a prerleease, feel free t ocome out and rant all you want. Heck I might even join you. But judging the movie based on a small concept that no one knows about yet before the movie release doesnt bode well.


----------



## TheLe (Jun 12, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> When will Hollywood learn?  When you're working with an established classic of any genre, you don't need to mess with it.




I completely disagree. Many times you do need to make changes to make things work better on the screen. Sure, Hollywood has made some bad mistakes in the past, but fanboys will complain about everything.

Look at all the _successful_ changes. People kicked and screamed about Spider-man not needing webshooters, yet in the end it was a great decision. No one misses it.

People loudly complained that X-men would be in black leather rather than skin-tight costumes, yet the first two turned out be be some of the best superhero movies ever made.

Honestly, do you think Doctor Octopus would look any good in spandex? I don't think so. The fact is that spandexed heroes do look that good on the screen (in general).

And lets not forget the awesome fight on the train in Spider-man 2. Raimi had to come out and mention that "this wasn't in the comic book" but proclaimed that people will like it, and they did.

Sorry, but taking something directly from the comic book and putting it onto the screen is just a bad idea. 

Sometimes you need to make changes.

Sometimes what looks good on paper simply won't look good on screen.

~Le


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 14, 2007)

> Look at all the successful changes.
> <edit>
> Sorry, but taking something directly from the comic book and putting it onto the screen is just a bad idea.




TheLe, I'm not having a problem with changes that were made for good reasons- better consistency, better on-screen impact, etc.

or, to put it another way (for all those who seem to think that I am):

*I'M NOT ASKING FOR STRAIGHT TRANSLATIONS FROM COMICS TO MOVIES!*

I thought the visual change to Doctor Octopus was handled quite well, and Spidey's organic web shooters are actually a better idea than the original- after all, if he's mutated enough to gain strength, dexterity, wall-climbing and a 6th sense, why not web spinnerettes?

My issue is with changes that are deleterious to the on-screen product.

This thing we're talking about with the SS actually _creates_ plot holes.




> A fan supports the hobby no matter what,




Not if the product is bad.

If WotC produced a 4th edition that required players use only jewel-encrusted solid gold minis costing about $20K apiece, would you play?


> not goes into the comic book store and freeloads.




I do no such thing.

I still purchase several titles, not just every one that comes out.  I listen to the suggestions of the store staff and other customers to figure out what is still worth buying.  The rest I leave behind.



> Your opinion of drek is your opinion, but your opinion doesn't matter,




Why, thanks for the insult!


> it is what the collective public's opinion thinks that gets how a movie is made.




Yes, a collective opinion derived from a conglomeration of people like myself, like yourself, and many, many others.

Sometimes this is bad, sometimes this is good. 







> Public opinion says they want a comic relief moment in the movies.




There is nothing wrong with comic relief.


> Again, they can't possibly introduce.. say the skrul, silver surfer, galactis and scarlet witch in one movie unless you want Batman Forever.




Scarlet Witch was quite doable within this movie as a patient with a mysterious malady sending her powers awry...which would also provide a plot hook for an eventual Avenger's film/TV treatment, or using her within another X-Men movie.  And it makes much more sense than some contagious randomization of powers due to Johnny Storm making contact with SS.

And I didn't ask for SW + SS + Galactus_ + Super Skrull._  My point was that if they wanted to do a Super Skrull type plotline, they should have done a movie centered around a Skrull scouting expediton and the Super Skrull.

Too many characters, as you rightly imply, could ruin the film.  Needless complexity has killed many a film.

But even so, comic book movies often contain references to the bigger world of characters beyond the confines of the main plot & its characters.  As I recall, Kitty Pride was hinted at in the first X-Men movie.  In the first (modern) Batman movie, the character Harvey Dent (the attorney who would eventually become Two-Face) was portrayed by Billy Dee Williams (and yes, I'm ticked that they chose a caucasian actor to later portray Two-Face having already established the character's race in the earlier film).  Each had only a few seconds of screen time.

Even comic books do this- Venom didn't show up immediately after Spidey ditched the symbiote.  While it quickly found Eddie Brock, it took a _year f_or Marvel to bring that revelation to light in the form of Venom going after Spidey.



> A lot ofp eople thought sandman/venom would work great and it turned into a fiasco.




I wasn't one of the fans of the concept- again, too many ingredients and you don't have time to get a good, satisfying taste of any of them.

Have you ever seen Chef Gordon Ramsey's tv shows?  There's one in which he rescues failing restaraunts.  In one episode, he asked the restaraunt's chef to make a Broccoli soup, and laid out about 50 ingredients from which the chef could choose- and that man chose to use 15 of them.

Ramsey used Broccoli, salt, pepper and water.

In blind taste tests with the restaraunt's staff & owner, Ramsey's soup won 100% of the time.

Sandman or Venom would have been sufficient a challenge to carry the movie.  Personally, I'd lean towards the former, leaving Venom to a later movie.



> Someone probalby thought Nick Cage as Ghost Rider was a great idea, though we havn't found that guy.




I didn't see that one either- it was out of the theaters before I had a chance to go- but I thought casting him in that role was a decent idea.  After all, he is one of the biggest known fans of the genre- he's dropped serious dough at auctions, and sold some serious collectibles when auctioning off some of his own stuff- and a decent actor to boot.

Still, every actor has a few clunkers on his resume.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 14, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> This thing we're talking about with the SS actually _creates_ plot holes.




How does this create plotholes within the movie when evidently it is part of the plot?

What I'm seeing you saying is that it creates plotholes when compared to the history of the characters in the comics, but as the movie version of the Silver Surfer is essentially a blank slate, I'm not seeing where this screws things up?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 14, 2007)

First, a clarification of an incomplete thought:



> > A fan supports the hobby no matter what,
> 
> 
> 
> ...




A fan_ truly_ supports the hobby by supporting changes that better the hobby or maintaining the status quo of good aspects of the hobby, not by supporting bad elements of the hobby.

After all, I'm a big RPG hobbyist, with more than 100 systems in my collection, but I've never even been tempted to obtain a copy of F.A.T.A.L.




> How does this create plotholes within the movie when evidently it is part of the plot?




A plothole, by _definition_, is an omission from or addtion to a plot that creates at least as many problems with the storyline as it solves, like why people with perfectly functional phones or cellphones still insist on investigating the mysterious noise in the basement with no functioning lights...

Here you have an occurrance- the powerswitch- that would be used as a weapon by any rational being, even if it were unintentional.

And furthermore, it is an occurrance that results in enough confusion in the victims that the fight should be over.  Sue's fiery flight into the heavens is uncontrolled- she's a big flaming baloon to be shot from the sky.  Johnny is virtually trampled by the average joes and janes of the city when he goes invisible instead of flying- SS should just zap the area and be done with it.

But wait- Norrin Radd has morals!

Yes, but they're compromised- Norrin Radd agreed to become Big G's herald in order to spare his planet...and he_ knows_ that Big G's preferred meal is a planet with intelligent life.  The humans of Earth are as good as dead if Big G actually does what he's supposed to.  So what if a few bite the bullet ahead of his arrival- heck, it may even be a preferrable fate.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 14, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> A plothole, by _definition_, is an omission from or addtion to a plot that creates at least as many problems with the storyline as it solves, like why people with perfectly functional phones or cellphones still insist on investigating the mysterious noise in the basement with no functioning lights...




See, the thing is, without having seen the movie or read the script- how can you know that the power switching is an omission or addition that creates problems? 



> Here you have an occurrance- the powerswitch- that would be used as a weapon by any rational being, even if it were unintentional.




And, having seen all of- what- 5 minutes of the movie you already know that the Silver Surfer doesn't somehow take advantage of the power switching? Intentional or not?



> But wait- Norrin Radd has morals!




So- basically, now your complaint is the very thing that is the foundation of the actual storyline in the original Surfer/FF storyline? That Norrin's deep-seated morality is awakened and he decides to turn against his master? Because that is pretty much the core nature of the Silver Surfer throughout his history in comics.

Who's to say it's not that awakening of his morality (again, from the comics, via Alicia Masters- though I'm not sure if it will be her or Sue who is responsible as yet- having not seen the movie) that makes him decide to- say- not take advantage of the power switching, or to switch them back or something?

Frankly, I didn't care much for the last FF movie (it had its good moments, but it had a lot of things I didn't like) and am not personally all that hopeful for this one, but I also recognize that I can't possibly know how good or bad it's going to be without having seen or read it.


----------



## papastebu (Jun 14, 2007)

The Human Target said:
			
		

> This may be the stupidest thread in the history of the internet.



 There must be stupider ones. This one talks about comics. That has to count for something.  



> A) Its a movie. It can do whatever the deuce it wants with the FF property.



 QFT.



> B) You haven't seen the movie, and have no idea why certain things happen.



I'm in the try it before you knock it mindset, myself.



> C) The power swapping idea comes from the current comics and has nothing at all to do with the Silver Surfer, though it may in the movie. Its also, as has been said, a Super Skrull reference.



I like the reference, but why give it to THAT one person. I'd rather see more of Jessica Alba, blue contacts, faux-blonde hair, and... ALL that.



> D) Complaining about both the movie deviating from the source material and the movie being illogical is ridiculous, as the FF (and most superhero) comics have barely make any logical sense on a good day.



 Why does Scott Summers still have a head? Why wasn't the world destroyed by supers getting the hang of their powers, long before Galactus got wind of it. 



> E) I'm not defending the movie out of enjoyment. The first one was terrible and I have no urge to see this one. But yeesh, take a deep breath.



 Sometimes, it is fun to argue.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 14, 2007)

Danny, you're quite wrong.

Please don't think I was singling you out and saying that your opinion doesn't matters from a personal point of view.  

It is as a rabid fanboy, your opinion on how the movie is made doesnt matter.  Mine doesnt either. It's what the collective, non collecting, non reading, comic book public wants that gets in.  Sometimes it works for the best and sometimes its utter crap.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 15, 2007)

Danny,

My apologies, Boy were you right. I am glad I'm not a big marvel fan. I'd be more irked if i was. I'll leave the rest of my remarks for the spoiler thread.


----------



## Tarthalion (Jun 15, 2007)

I absolutely cannot believe that this thread is still going.

I mean honestly people...it's done get over it.  You will either like it or not.  Period.  Whining about it on the internet for three pages is pretty sad.


----------



## Silver Moon (Jun 15, 2007)

Tarthalion said:
			
		

> I absolutely cannot believe that this thread is still going.
> 
> I mean honestly people...it's done get over it.  You will either like it or not.  Period.  Whining about it on the internet for three pages is pretty sad.



Johnny Storm has been dispatched to bring back the Ultimate Nullifier, to then be used on this thread.


----------



## DonTadow (Jun 15, 2007)

This thread was not "official" until today now that hte movie has come out, and danny was right. It was a good movie, right up until the last 30 minutes and the swapping thing didn't make sense nor did the galactus/ surfer angle.  It sucked because it was 1hour of build up for nothing.

And wow, Alba can not act. Man, the audience chuckled everytime she pretended to be invisible woman. Why on earth was an older woman not cast. Reed looks like a child molester in hte movie.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jun 15, 2007)

Tarthalion said:
			
		

> I mean honestly people...it's done get over it.  You will either like it or not.  Period.  Whining about it on the internet for three pages is pretty sad.



I see you're new to the internet.

Welcome! You'll get straightened out soon enough.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 16, 2007)

> See, the thing is, without having seen the movie or read the script- how can you know that the power switching is an omission or addition that creates problems?




It creates problems if the switch is intentional or accidental:

If intentional:

1) Its a tactic that the SS would use whenever applicable.  Most opponents would be so confused that they'd be easy pickings.  As I mentioned above, in the clip I saw, the two initial victims are stymied for _minutes_- that's an eternity in a battle.

If unintentional:

1) A character who is, according to Marvel's official site, capable of controling matter on a molecular level at a planetary scale to recreate whole ecosystems for multicellular beings - such as when he restored life to a damaged planet- can't control his power when he touches one single cosmically irradiated mutant.

And not a singularly rare mutant, either- Marvel's used that trope at least one other time when they created the villainous U-Foes.



> And, having seen all of- what- 5 minutes of the movie you already know that the Silver Surfer doesn't somehow take advantage of the power switching? Intentional or not?




As a rational being with his particular line of work (which he's been doing for some time)- delivering up life-bearing planets to be nibbled by Big G- he knows that defeated planetary defenders are dead if he wins, and his own planet is in jeopardy if he doesn't.

Killing them with a quick zap while they're disoriented is 1) Easy, 2) Humane compared to being eaten, 3) Makes it easier for him to concentrate on other potential hostile, making his job easier.

Besides, clips have aired that are clearly subsequent to the power-switching- Sue & Johnny still live.


> So- basically, now your complaint is the very thing that is the foundation of the actual storyline in the original Surfer/FF storyline?




No, my complaint is as it always has been from my initial post- that the power-switching plot device is shoddy writing without foundation or respect for the core character.

The morality aspect of the character remains true, but the events immediately subsequent to the power-switch plot device would seem to indicate that his morals haven't yet been reawakened, meaning that he should have taken full advantage of the situation...resulting in the probable deaths of Johnny and Sue.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 16, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> It creates problems if the switch is intentional or accidental:
> 
> If intentional:
> 
> 1) Its a tactic that the SS would use whenever applicable.  Most opponents would be so confused that they'd be easy pickings.  As I mentioned above, in the clip I saw, the two initial victims are stymied for _minutes_- that's an eternity in a battle.




"in the _clip_ I saw..."

This is my point. You're making assumptions on a brief clip, and not the actual movie itself. You can't possibly know that it creates plot problems without having seen or read the entire movie (or having it described to you by someone else). 

Now DonTadow, having seen the movie, is able to back up your assumptions with actual measured experience, but this entire thread up until the release date of this movie, has been you jumping to conclusions based on something you had seen a _clip_ of.

And then theres,



> If unintentional:
> 
> 1) A character who is, according to Marvel's official site, capable of controling matter on a molecular level at a planetary scale to recreate whole ecosystems for multicellular beings - such as when he restored life to a damaged planet- can't control his power when he touches one single cosmically irradiated mutant.




"according to Marvel's official site..."

Marvel's official site's description of the character and his powers is _based on the comic version of the character_- it has no relation to the movie version. As we've all discussed here previously, the movie version is not always equivalent to the comic version. It happens that the movie versions are, of course, based around the concept of the comic versions, but there are often changes made (and, in the strange way that art imitates life, or at least other art) changes have also been made to the comics based on the film (Pete's webbing in the comics is now organic, for instance).

So now we see that your premise for this thread was based both on a _clip_ of the movie, and your _assumptions that the character is the same as he is in the comics_.



> As a rational being with his particular line of work (which he's been doing for some time)- delivering up life-bearing planets to be nibbled by Big G- he knows that defeated planetary defenders are dead if he wins, and his own planet is in jeopardy if he doesn't.
> 
> Killing them with a quick zap while they're disoriented is 1) Easy, 2) Humane compared to being eaten, 3) Makes it easier for him to concentrate on other potential hostile, making his job easier.
> 
> Besides, clips have aired that are clearly subsequent to the power-switching- Sue & Johnny still live.




Now you're reading the movie Silver Surfer's thoughts? How about this possibility-

_As a rational being with his particular line of work (which he's been doing for some time)- delivering up life-bearing planets to be nibbled by Big G_- but also being in possession of a moral conscience (that selfsame moral conscience that couldn't let him stand by and see his own planet, full of innocents, be destroyed) he knows that Galactus will go on eating planets with or without him, so to save his own world, he will lead Galactus to other worlds, but he cannot bring himself to do any murdering on his own, so he tries to assuage what morality he has by allowing Galactus to do all the dirty work, and just being the herald of Galactus' arrival.

Essentially, he's making the choice of being an accessory to murder, rather than being the murderer himself.



> No, my complaint is as it always has been from my initial post- that the power-switching plot device is shoddy writing without foundation or respect for the core character.




And, again, you are making this judgement based on a _clip_ of the movie, and not the entirety of the movie. It's the Blind Man and Elephant tale. Or Chicken Little and the falling sky.



> The morality aspect of the character remains true, but the events immediately subsequent to the power-switch plot device would seem to indicate that his morals haven't yet been reawakened, meaning that he should have taken full advantage of the situation...resulting in the probable deaths of Johnny and Sue.




Except that, perhaps, he's not a cold-blooded murderer? But then, to know that, we'd have to- you know- _watch_ the movie.


----------



## BOZ (Jun 16, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> They're messing with the mythology!
> 
> *sigh*




i know... but it's to be expected.  i can't recall a Marvel or DC-based movie where the characters weren't messed around with more than a little to make the movie work.


----------



## Tarthalion (Jun 16, 2007)

Arnwyn said:
			
		

> I see you're new to the internet.
> 
> Welcome! You'll get straightened out soon enough.




Nope...I've been on these boards under one name or another since before 3E when Eric was running the place.  I just have zero tolerance for stupidity like this.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 17, 2007)

> And, again, you are making this judgement based on a clip of the movie,




Sometimes, a sample is all you need.

One does not need to see the whole movie if the clip is utter garbage.

For example- what point was there in my seeing the movie of The Scarlet Letter when I knew that they completely changed the ending, and thus the lessons & tone of the story?


> You can't possibly know that it creates plot problems




Know?  No I can't.

But I can draw reasonable conclusions from what I know of the character & from what I've seen of the changes...and I did.

And I was right.

To look at another relatively recent example, perhaps you recall the outcry about the production of the LoTR movies.  One scene that was filmed involved the on-screen torture of various wizards as the powers of darkness sweep across Middle Earth.

There was a great outcry on the fansites which got back to Peter Jackson's group- and they edited it out.  The fans believed- IMHO, correctly- that such overt torture had no place on the screen in the LotR movies.  There was already going to be a lot of the original left on the cutting room floor (assuming it was even scripted & filmed in the first place) and the torture scene smacked of someone taking undue liberties with the core mythology.


> As a rational being with his particular line of work (which he's been doing for some time)- delivering up life-bearing planets to be nibbled by Big G- but also being in possession of a moral conscience (that selfsame moral conscience that couldn't let him stand by and see his own planet, full of innocents, be destroyed) he knows that Galactus will go on eating planets with or without him, so to save his own world, he will lead Galactus to other worlds, but he cannot bring himself to do any murdering on his own, so he tries to assuage what morality he has by allowing Galactus to do all the dirty work, and just being the herald of Galactus' arrival.
> 
> Essentially, he's making the choice of being an accessory to murder, rather than being the murderer himself.




And while he's busy being an accessory, he isn't taking the chance to euthanize those he can, leaving them instead to face the horror of being devoured alive by a being they can scarecely comprehend.

Personally, given the choice between being something's dinner and a mercy killing, I'll take the latter every time.



> Except that, perhaps, he's not a cold-blooded murderer?




See above.


----------



## Bront (Jun 17, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Just saw a clip from the new Fantastic Four movie...
> 
> The first one seemed bad enough in the clips that I didn't go to see it, and apparently, I wasn't alone- like Yogi Berra said, people stayed away in droves.  However, it did well enough to spawn a sequel.
> 
> ...



Wikipidia says


			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> An alien named Zius came to Earth,[issue # needed] the location of the one being in the universe who could nullify his Galactus-proof planet-cloaking invisibility shield, Susan Richards. Zius threatened to destroy the planet if Sue did not sacrifice herself, but Reed used his power gun to switch her powers with Johnny's and tricked Zius into leaving the planet. As he left orbit, Galactus destroyed Zius's spaceship and claimed Johnny as his new Herald. The cosmic power he was imbued with let him understand whatever he analyzed, leading him to a new appreciation and love for his family. Not wanting to lead Galactus to populated worlds, the Fantastic Four and Quasar managed to make Galactus human for a time. Johnny's power cosmic faded, *though a remnant of it caused the FF's powers to be temporarily transferred to four random New York citizens*.



Of course, it's wikipedia, but there's an example of power transfer due to the power cosmic as used by a Herald.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 17, 2007)

> Of course, it's wikipedia, but there's an example of power transfer due to the power cosmic as used by a Herald.




Not quite.

It is an example of a power transfer due to:



> Reed used his power gun to switch her powers with Johnny's




and only after_ that_, being imbued with the power cosmic by Big G, and the power's  subsequent fade do we get:


> a remnant of it caused the FF's powers to be temporarily transferred to four random New York citizens.




It wasn't the power cosmic as used by a Herald- its the slow fade of the power cosmic from a triply-tweeked (initial accident, Reed's switcher, and G's bestowal of the power) being going out of control in an oddball fashion.

That's not _use_, that's an _accident_, and its an accident due to an inexperienced wielder losing control of his fading power.

Hardly in the same class as a similar event resulting from dealing with an _experienced_ user of the power.

That's like comparing the results of me driving a Formula 1 racecar for the first time, never having driven a manual transmission, while drunk as compared to a 15 year veteran of the sport.  My having some kind of an accident is virtually assured.  His having a comperable accident is extremely unlikely.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 17, 2007)

And a last point to those who are intent upon criticizing my opinion of the movie because:



> ...you are making this judgement based on a clip of the movie




I guarantee you, if you are completely honest with yourself, you have done essentially the same thing at least once each time you have:

1) Decided not to see a movie because it is a "chick flick," or isn't your favorite genre- perhaps the director has created it in a way you'd actually enjoy it; or

2) Decided not to buy a book because of the exerpt you read on its cover or dust jacket or because it isn't your favorite genre- perhaps the writer has written it in a way you'd actually enjoy it; or

3) Declined to eat a certain dish because it contains X ingredient (assuming no health issues, of course)- perhaps the cook has prepared it in a way you'd actually enjoy it; or

4) Declined to buy an RPG because of what you'd read about it;

and a host of other behaviors.

There is no shame in that- its how we humans get through life without being bogged down in our decision-making process.  We rarely form opinions based on full information- we sample the data around us and decide.

Imagine if we actually _had_ to decide based on fully informed choices...eating every okra dish possible before eliminating okra dishes out of hand, paying to watch every "chick flick" ever made before deciding we didn't like any of them, and doing the same for books.

Imagine having to play a game of F.A.T.A.L. before deciding not to buy it.


----------



## Felon (Jun 18, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> No, my complaint is as it always has been from my initial post- that the power-switching plot device is shoddy writing without foundation or respect for the core character.



Danny, I gotta wonder what era of Marvel Comics had this immaculate consistency and commitment to internal logic that you seem to be expecting from the movie. You think you can just say "well, if their powers switched this one time, the surfer would be doing it all the time". That's pretty much a load of nonsense. The power switch is the exact sort of quirky happenstance that occurred in silver age comics. 

People have provided plenty of examples of this happening, and you seem pretty quick to dismiss that they have any relevance. You wanna dig in your heels and vent, then go for it, but if you're trying to do more than vent--if you really want to present some objectively-derived arguement for how the power switch is such a disastrous idea, then you're wasting your time. Comics are loaded with paradoxes, events happen once as a plot device and then is never referenced again, or is even contradicted in later comics. That's always been the way of comics. Logic and consistency have always taken a backseat to endless possibilities.


----------



## Felon (Jun 18, 2007)

Megatron said:
			
		

> No, its just retarded.
> I really couldn't care less what you said in previous posts




This seems to sum up your position pretty well. You're going to continue to split hairs on any counter-arguement and come up with these false syllogisms is order to avoid any flexibility your position. You're too invested in how "horrible" this silly little power-switch plot device is to do otherwise.

Really, just what is the point of this thread continuing?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 18, 2007)

> Danny, I gotta wonder what era of Marvel Comics had this immaculate consistency and commitment to internal logic that you seem to be expecting from the movie.




None.  Both Marvel & DC have done all kinds of things with characters' histories, powers, and so forth every few years- sometimes they'd even differ between to concurrently produced titles.

And when that happened, I'd gripe about it with my fellow readers if it were a bad change, and praise the writers if it were good.

For example, Superman had a 40 year history of power creep up until John Byrne took over (right about the time of the first modern Superman movie)- the more powerful the character got, the worse the storylines got.  With Superman becoming a virtual god among mortals, the writers had to jump through flaming hoops to justify Supes' being in danger of being defeated...more magic, more previously unknown vulnerabilities, and more power creep in his adversaries.  Byrne's team radically toned down the character's power.  No longer was he able to move planets at will, or fly through the core of stars without feeling pain.  This was a good thing.

OTOH, while the writers of the C. Reeves movies did generally follow Byrne's lead, they still had him using gadgets never before seen (middling OK, if goofy), and still had him turn back time to save Lois (bad, very bad).

And, for the record, I'd do the same thing for any kind of entertainment.  When M.A.S.H. or Star Trek Next Generation would introduce a new concept (Hawkeye & Trapper's horse, gone without a trace before Col. Potter ever showed; Crusher & LaForge's on-the-fly kludges that saved the ship this week, never to be used again, regardless of usefulness) and subsequently drop it as if it had never existed, I'd gripe about that too.

Remember when Trills couldn't use teleporters...and then they could?  Yep- I complained.

Again- I'm not going to let some writers tell me something is good if it clearly isn't.  If I think they (or someone else, for that matter) can do the job better, I'll let them know, if by no other way than by spending my $$$ on something else.  If writing is unacceptably bad, regardless of the genre, I won't accept it. 



> You think you can just say "well, if their powers switched this one time, the surfer would be doing it all the time". That's pretty much a load of nonsense.




No, it isn't nonsense- its a logical response to witnessing the results of the power switch.  If the power-switching were something reproduceable, he'd do it every time as a purposeful- probably opening- tactic.  It's simply too useful not to do.



> The power switch is the exact sort of quirky happenstance that occurred in silver age comics.




And in other eras as well.  That doesn't make it good writing any more than Brainiac's pink hot pants was an example of good art.


----------



## Bront (Jun 18, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Not quite.
> 
> It is an example of a power transfer due to:
> 
> ...



All I was saying is that the evidence of it potentialy happening is there.

I think you're taking this way to seriously.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jun 18, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> But I can draw reasonable conclusions from what I know of the character & from what I've seen of the changes...and I did.
> 
> And I was right.




Not sure what exactly you were right about, having seen the movie. Did the powers switch? Yes. Was it intentional? No. Did it severely impact the story and create plotholes you could drive a train truck through? Not really. The only real problem with it, as I saw it, came when Johnny was somehow able to absorb all the powers at the end, when before he was swapping them. Unexplained, kind of silly, but didn't really ruin the movie or anything.




> To look at another relatively recent example, perhaps you recall the outcry about the production of the LoTR movies...  There was already going to be a lot of the original left on the cutting room floor (assuming it was even scripted & filmed in the first place) and the torture scene smacked of someone taking undue liberties with the core mythology.




See, here's what I don't get. You originally were complaining that the power switching was just completely out of the nature of the Surfer's comic origins. To which I, and many others, suggested- why not wait and see exactly what the rationale is before bagging on it.

Then you suggested that the Surfer not taking advantage of the power switch and wiping everyone out was, in your terms, a plot hole, because logically- the Surfer should use that advantage to eliminate the competition.

When I suggested that's not in his nature, that he's not a cold-blooded murderer, you then argued this position:



> And while he's busy being an accessory, he isn't taking the chance to euthanize those he can, leaving them instead to face the horror of being devoured alive by a being they can scarecely comprehend.




Now, I'll leave the question of whether euthanization is any more or less murder than actual murder to other, more philosophical threads, as the answer really isn't germane here.

What is, is this- the Surfer murdering or euthanizing people isn't in his character as depicted in the comics. Never has been. The only times he's had to take a life, he's regretted it. He even asked Galactus to give him back his moral conscience- taking on years and years of guilt over leading the purple guy to planets to eat- for the sole reason that he felt he needed to bear that responsibility fully.

So, on the one hand, you're complaining that the Surfer's powers are depicted inconsistently with his comic depiction, yet you're suggesting that his character should be changed from his comic persona? 

If anything, I'd think the latter choice- making the Surfer a murderer- would elicit far more ire from you (or any fan of the character) than taking some liberties with his powers- which have always been basically "do whatever the writer needs" sort of abilities anyway.

I just don't see any consistency in your arguments here. Particularly when you haven't seen this movie, nor the first one (by your own admission).


----------



## Felon (Jun 18, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> No, it isn't nonsense- its a logical response to witnessing the results of the power switch.  If the power-switching were something reproduceable, he'd do it every time as a purposeful- probably opening- tactic.  It's simply too useful not to do.



Again, you should familiarize yourself with the concept of false syllogisms. Your response has many logical shortcomings. For example, your assumption that the effect is reproducable ad infinitum, or that the surfer's only logical options are to do what you surmise he should do. There are countles x-factors you don't know about, and since all you're going by is the clip, you don't how or if they're accounted for.



> And in other eras as well.  That doesn't make it good writing any more than Brainiac's pink hot pants was an example of good art.



And emphasizing surprises and spectacle over logical consistency doesn't make it bad writing, at least not from any objective sense. You are, of course, entitled to not like what you please, but trying to declare spontaneous power-switching or pink hot pants as "utter garbage" as a matter of unequivocal fact is quite illogical.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 22, 2007)

> Again, you should familiarize yourself with the concept of false syllogisms.




Quite familiar with them, actually.



> Your response has many logical shortcomings. For example, your assumption that the effect is reproducable ad infinitum,




No, that's why I said



> If the power-switching were something reproduceable, he'd do it every time as a purposeful- probably opening- tactic.




Note the "if" and "probably" qualifiers.

Its effective, efficient, and disoriented- an almost perfect alpha strike.  The only problem with it is that it requires close contact.

The strategic potential for the power is so strong that its almost a guaranteed opening tactic.  If, and only if, it failed to confuse the target would SS need to do much of anything afterwards beyond a simple zap.

Heck- he doesn't even have to kill them- just disable them so they can't stop him from feeding them and their world to Big G.



> or that the surfer's only logical options are to do what you surmise he should do. There are countles x-factors you don't know about, and since all you're going by is the clip, you don't how or if they're accounted for.




Sure, but I can surmise, just like any other human being does (as I illustrated a post ago).


> And emphasizing surprises and spectacle over logical consistency doesn't make it bad writing, at least not from any objective sense.




It most certainly does!  That is writing 101.

Logical gaps thrust the reader/observer out of his coccoon of willing disbelief.  The more of them the reader/observer encounters in a given work, the less immersive and thus the less enjoyable the experience.


> You are, of course, entitled to not like what you please, but trying to declare spontaneous power-switching or pink hot pants as "utter garbage" as a matter of unequivocal fact is quite illogical.




No, its an expression of an opinion.


----------



## Tarthalion (Jun 22, 2007)

Can we PLEASE put this to bed?  It's both tiresome and foolish.  It's like a schoolyard argument...


----------



## fusangite (Jun 22, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> This is one of their iconic characters & storylines...and they screw around with it?  What's next?  Is Galactus going to be a giant Pac-Man?



That would be awesome! I'd love to see them defend the earth from a giant pac-man, especially a heavily pixelated one.







> When will Hollywood learn?



Learn what? That pleasing you is more important than pleasing crowds and making money? Never is my guess.







> When you're working with an established classic of any genre, you don't need to mess with it.



You want to see Hollywood messing with an "established classic," go watch Cuckoo's Nest or some other thing where they changed the entire theme or structure. Can you explain how the theme of the Fantastic Four could be changed by this detail? If not, I'm not sure this even rises to messing with something. 

So, were you one of those guys picketing Fellowship because Tom Bombadil was excised?







> Apparently, I'll be ignoring this movie even more than the first one...JOIN ME!



Yeah -- it's really important that I not take this opportunity to oggle Jessica Alba because some detail whose thematic impact you can't even explain was changed. I'm writing to the studio now to propose earth be attacked by a giant Pac-Man in the third movie.


----------



## Ralts Bloodthorne (Jun 22, 2007)

It's a modern movie.

You buy your ticket, hand your brain to the ticket taker, buy popcorn and soda, and hope you have a good time.

Most people haven't read 40+ years of FF, most people couldn't care less about boring ass Reed Richards are the Visible Woman and her powers. Even the Thing took a back seat to the Green Machine.

And they screwed up a Hulk movie and you're expecting them to stay true to the FF?
They had the Green Goblin die by the glider instead of falling into a chimney, and you're complaining about a 5 minute spot?
They had Harry be Goblin Extreme, all he needed was Mt Dew stickers on that lame board, and your complaining because the Silver Surfer did something new?
They've killed off every Batman villian, and you're worried about FF?

It's a Hollywood movie, expect them to mangle everything.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jun 28, 2007)

Apologies in advance- my "living in interesting times" has prevented me from responding...



> You buy your ticket, hand your brain to the ticket taker, buy popcorn and soda, and hope you have a good time.




Sorry, I'm a bit pickier than that- I don't check my brain at any door.



> And they screwed up a Hulk movie and you're expecting them to stay true to the FF?




I complained about that one too (not on this site).



> They've killed off every Batman villian, and you're worried about FF?




Its not like I agreed with those decisions either.  A couple of deaths I could understand- not many actors want recurring supporting roles in comic book movies- but wholesale decimation of his rogues gallery?  Nah. 


> It's a Hollywood movie, expect them to mangle everything.




As long as Hollywood is rewarded (via big $$$ box office returns) for mangled storylines, that's all you can expect.

When people stop going to see crappy genre movies instead of supporting them ("...because its our favorite genre!") Hollywood will either stop making them crappily or stop making them.

Either solution is fine with me.



> Learn what? That pleasing you is more important than pleasing crowds and making money? Never is my guess.




1) My opinion is neither more nor less important than any other potential ticket purchaser.

2) My _guess _is that if they actually took the time to do things right they'd rake in even more money because a film would have an even broader appeal.  Film-making isn't a zero sum game- you _can_ have your special effects tour de force married to a good script with tasty acting and dialogue- good writing only costs marginally more than bad writing, on average- but as long as bad writing gets rewarded, bad writing is all the studio needs to pay for.

And the thing is, movie studios have proven with movies like Spider Man 1, X-Men, a couple of the DC movies that they _can_ do things right and have blockbusters.


> Can we PLEASE put this to bed? It's both tiresome and foolish. It's like a schoolyard argument...




Discussing creative medium is seldom foolish, but if you wish to leave the playground, feel free.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Jun 28, 2007)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> is proven wrong by a very clear image from a trailer. Not only that, but we have Avi Arad speaking up in the last week saying that "We will see much more than just a cloud" when it comes to Galactus.
> 
> With that little fan tantrum about Galactus being a cloud was proved to be so very wrong, I can't help but think the rest are just stretching to find SOMETHING wrong so people can hate it before its even come out.




Heh.

Having just seen the film, I was pretty disappointed by the fact that in the film Galactus is nothing more than... a cloud. The 'very clear image from a trailer' might have looked a little like the shadow of Galactus head, but in actual fact turned out to be... just a cloud.

I'd heard people mention 'a shape within the cloud', but I was looking very carefully and I wasn't able to see anything other than a cloud.

There were also a number of problems (especially in the last part of the movie) which are probably being dealt with over in the spoiler thread right now...

Cheers


----------



## Dimwhit (Jul 7, 2007)

fusangite said:
			
		

> Yeah -- it's really important that I not take this opportunity to oggle Jessica Alba because some detail whose thematic impact you can't even explain was changed.




Oh, amen brother! Like I'm going to pass up oogling Jessica Alba because of some thematic changes in a comic book I haven't read in 25 years? Bag that noise, I'm seeing it!


----------



## Tarthalion (Jul 7, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Discussing creative medium is seldom foolish, but if you wish to leave the playground, feel free.




This isn't discussing creative medium in any sense of the word.  This is one guy who is dead set on nit-picking the minutest details of a summer sction movie in an attempt to chastise the creators of said movie for daring to do whatever the hell they wanted with their own property.

Marvel doesn't OWE you anything.  If they decide the Thing is now purple, there's not a damn thing you can do about it except come here and whine.

I left the schoolyard some years ago BTW...shame I can't say the same for everyone involved in this.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jul 7, 2007)

This is the thread that never ends, it just goes on and on my friends.

Some people, starting posting it, not knowing what it was, and they go right on bumping it forever just because:

This is the thread that never ends...


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 8, 2007)

> This isn't discussing creative medium in any sense of the word.




Sure it is.


> This is one guy who is dead set on nit-picking the minutest details of a summer sction movie in an attempt to chastise the creators of said movie for daring to do whatever the hell they wanted with their own property.




Tell me...how much info do you need before you decide not to watch a movie or read a particular book?

Does it take you more than 1 or 2 clips before you cross a movie off your list?

Or more than word-of-mouth opinions or the cover blurb of the book?

If it does, I'll take your critique as valid.

If it doesn't, then _you're_ guilty of the same kind of behavior you seem to find so distasteful in my decision making process.  Until then, I'd expect you to pay your money, go see the movie and walk out demanding a refund, or trying to return a book from which you've read a few chapters (or spend more time with library books).

My problem with the film is that there were all kinds of ways already established within the Marvel Universe they could have pulled the power switch without mucking with the SS.

Again, I reiterate: just because something is a genre film doesn't mean it can't be well written.

If I'm guilty of anything, its asking for better scripts in genre films.  No different than Noah Antweiler (Gamer's Rant on Movies in _KotDT_), or Kathy Maio and Lucius Shepherd (both established sci-fant authors & movie reviewers for _The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction_).

And, for what its worth, this isn't exactly nit-picking.  According to the spoilers posted elsewhere, its precisely the power-switch that drives certain elements of the plot along.  IOW, it is a plot-point, not a nit.

A nit would be pointing out that Alba isn't a blonde, or that Mr. Fantastic isn't as old vis a vis Invisible Girl as was depicted in the official Marvel Universe.



> Marvel doesn't OWE you anything.




I'm a fan.  They owe me what I paid for.  They owe me in the sense that I helped build the underlying brands that the studio found worth dumping $100M+ into.

IOW, the same as was owed to the fans of X-Men, Batman, LotR, The Scarlet Letter, etc.

No more, no less.


> If they decide the Thing is now purple, there's not a damn thing you can do about it except come here and whine.




In a sense, you're almost correct.

I can actually do 2 things:  I can vote with my dollars by not going, allocating those entertainment $$$ to something I'd find more enjoyable and I can express my discontent- which I wouldn't categorize as whining- in order to convince others to avoid the film as well.

Expressing discontent is Consumer Empowerment 101.

I found an element of the movie displeasurable- I let people know about it, and my reasons for it.  If you don't agree with them, you can go spend your money on the movie- more power to you.

If, OTOH, someone hadn't seen that particular clip (for whatever reason), and agreed that my problem with the film would be a problem for them as well, they might be influenced much as I was, and refuse to see the movie.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 8, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Again, I reiterate: just because something is a genre film doesn't mean it can't be well written.




Given the fact that my niece and her friends (all ages 10-12) have been running around the house FOR DAYS reciting lines from the movie and acting out scenes from it, I contend the movie is well written.

It did something I didn't think possible: it made the FF cool to a new generation.

As for why things had to be different from "canon", it's a movie. It's not part of the Marvel U. It makes it's own reality. 

The Marvel Universe is a comic book construct, that has been rebooted dozens of times. This movie isn't part of that. 

And violating canon doesn't automatically mean it's badly written. 

I think it's awesome that the movie has given my niece and her friends that visceral wow reaction that the comics gave me when I was her age.

Chuck


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 8, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> ...
> 
> I can vote with my dollars by not going, allocating those entertainment $$$ to something I'd find more enjoyable and I can express my discontent- which I wouldn't categorize as whining- in order to convince others to avoid the film as well.



And there it is.  It's the one thing I agree with you in this thread.  You don't dig something?  The only way to truly vote is with your cash.  I don't back any of your other points but the smart move is to not spend a single penny on it if you feel that passionately about perceived problems.

Kudos and kudos again.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2007)

> As for why things had to be different from "canon", it's a movie. It's not part of the Marvel U. It makes it's own reality.
> 
> The Marvel Universe is a comic book construct, that has been rebooted dozens of times. This movie isn't part of that.




Actually, the FF canon has been remarkably stable as comic books go.

Changing that canon "just because we can" _is_ bad writing, since it removes the thing further from its roots in an arbitrary fashion.

I_ might _have been able to stomach it if there had been a good reason for it, and the reactions of the characters involved been more believable.



> I think it's awesome that the movie has given my niece and her friends that visceral wow reaction that the comics gave me when I was her age.




I can think of several ways to retain the power-switch plotline without mucking with the SS and _still _attaining that viceral wow reaction. 



> I don't back any of your other points




You don't think its my right as a consumer to let others know there is an aspect of a movie I don't like, and let them decide for themselves?

Attempted persuasive speech is not OK?

Interesting.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 9, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> You don't think its my right as a consumer to let others know there is an aspect of a movie I don't like, and let them decide for themselves?
> 
> Attempted persuasive speech is not OK?



 That's not a point that I was referencing, just something you are trying to do.  And it's okay that you do it I just don't agree with it.  There simply isn't anything in a film I can think of that would make me actively try and get others to not see it.

All I'm saying is that it's the right way to go: voting with your dollars.

As for the rest, it's a solid meh.  It's a movie (that was actually pretty entertaining).  Lighten up.  Your whole argument boils down to basically not liking a book for its cover.  Hence, the meh.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2007)

> As for the rest, it's a solid meh. It's a movie (that was actually pretty entertaining). Lighten up. Your whole argument boils down to basically not liking a book for its cover. Hence, the meh.




Actually, I'm judging a movie from a _sample of its actual content_, not the mere cover art & title of the proverbial book.  Up until I saw the power-switch clips, I was actually looking forward to seeing this movie.

And I'll ask you the same question I asked Tarthalion above: how much info do *you *need before you decide not to watch a movie or read a particular book?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 9, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm judging a movie from a _sample of its actual content_, not the mere cover art & title of the proverbial book.  Up until I saw the power-switch clips, I was actually looking forward to seeing this movie.
> 
> And I'll ask you the same question I asked Tarthalion above: how much info do *you *need before you decide not to watch a movie or read a particular book?



 I think the important difference here is between deciding NOT to see something because you don't think you'll like it(which is perfectly find and we all do it), and talking about how bad something is without having seen it. A clip, or short except doesn't qualify for the latter...as you may very well like every single other part of the movie except that one and you'll never nkow.

So saying you don't think you like it is fine. But going on for pages and pages swearing this and that about a movie you've not seen is something completely different.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 9, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Actually, I'm judging a movie from a _sample of its actual content_, not the mere cover art & title of the proverbial book.  Up until I saw the power-switch clips, I was actually looking forward to seeing this movie.



Okay, then add the back-cover to the equation if that makes you feel better.  It's still the same thing.  You're basing it on a sampling without context.  Which basically amounts to judging a book by its cover.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> And I'll ask you the same question I asked Tarthalion above: how much info do *you *need before you decide not to watch a movie or read a particular book?



Much, much more than a trailer or cover.  Neither would stop me from seeing something, but it might convince me to see something that I didn't know about before.  If I want to see something, I'm doing it regardless of what the ad department showed me.  I put stock in reviews from people I know.

A trailer or book cover is worth very little to me as it's very hard to show context properly.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2007)

> I think the important difference here is between deciding NOT to see something because you don't think you'll like it(which is perfectly find and we all do it), and talking about how bad something is without having seen it.




I saw a portion of its content and deemed it to be pretty bad.  I decided to not see the movie based on that content.  I decided to share my decision and its basis.

I've even illustrated _why_ the way it was written was inferior to many other potential plot formulations.



> A clip, or short except doesn't qualify for the latter...as you may very well like every single other part of the movie except that one and you'll never nkow.




Same question for you as for Tarthalion & John Crichton.



> So saying you don't think you like it is fine. But going on for pages and pages swearing this and that about a movie you've not seen is something completely different.




This thread has gone on for as long as it has because:

1) People are criticizing my decision making process re: this film because it is based on a sample rather than the whole. I feel compelled to defend my decision making process which is actually pretty normal for human beings...which is why I keep asking people to describe_ their_ decision making processes about what entertainment options they choose.  

2) People are criticizing me for being hypercritical.  That may be so, but since I believe that genre films can be just as well written as mainstream films, I remain unapologetic for my critical stance.  Some people don't like that.  Oh well.

Remember how horror films had real plots beyond seminaked teenagers + scary guy with sharp implement = movie?

Do you remember how bad sci-fi and fantasy movies used to be before a few _really, really_ good ones got made?  Then you'd get the knockoffs of variable but usually inferior quality?

Those knockoffs got made because Hollywood knew audiences would pay to see anything with flying saucers, dinosaurs, etc.  That's why garbagefests like _The Creeping Terror_ got released despite being shelved for several years after its completion, despite much of the soundtrack being lost, despite replacing the soundtrack with a new narrative track written without benefit of the original script (which had been lost), despite filmography which included using film cells backwards & running the film in reverse sequence (so we couldn't tell the alien spacecraft was a US Atlas launch), and many other problems.

It recouped its investment.

So yeah, I'm going to be very critical of genre films.  I'm not giving them a pass just because they're in a genre I love.

Instead, I'm going to eye them critically because I love the genre, and I don't want it to devolve into an endless stream of utterly disposable celluloid.

There is no reason why genre films can't have their equivalents to _Citizen Kane_ except the continued success Hollywood has had delivering bad genre films to record profits.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2007)

> > how much info do you need before you decide not to watch a movie or read a particular book?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



_
Really._

So you're saying you _never_ rule out films or books just because of their genre?

You know- do you not read Westerns because they are Westerns?  Romance novels because they are Romance novels?

Are there _no_ sections of your local bookstore or library you simply avoid?  History?  Self-Help? Computer Programming?

Have you never avoided a film because of a particular casting decision ("Michael Keaton as BATMAN?!?!?! WTF?")?

Impressive.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 9, 2007)

I think you missed my point there. I don't have anything against your decision making process. Its fine. We all have things we don't like. You saw a clip of the movie, and decided you wouldn't like it...

BUT, one clip out of a two hour movie is a TINY PART. You're main criticism of it being 'inferior' is completely off base. Bad writing and similar things for an entire movie are not going to be something you can judge from a clip, or an except from a book. So going on about it being inferior to the comics(which are not that wonderfuly written either, though I do love them) without even seeing the whole picture is the brunt of the problem I know I'm seeing.

You saw part of it and decided you wouldn't like it...okay, fine. You're allowed to. But you can't base the entire movie on that one clip and talk about how bad it is compared to the comics...when you haven't even seen the movie. To actually compare the two, you have to have BOTH points of reference. This has nothing to do with being critical of a genre(which, again, is fine) or things like that...its about having a point of reference to actually COMPARE the two. One clip from a two hour movie is just not enough to judge the movie's quality COMPARED TO THE COMICS.

For taste? Sure. But for it being faithful to the original or anything like that? No way.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 9, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> You don't think its my right as a consumer to let others know there is an aspect of a movie I don't like, and let them decide for themselves?
> 
> Attempted persuasive speech is not OK?
> 
> Interesting.




Um, I didn't realize one of your point was "I have the right to say this!"

I of course believe you have the right to say whatever you want. I didn't realize I had to point that out. 

I was disagreeing with you that strict continuity in movies is important, and that the movie was poorly written.

I'm a huge comics fan, but I view comics and movies as so different that I treat watching an FF movie like I do reading an Ultimate FF comic. It's a restart of the franchise. All bets are off, and continuity doesn't extend beyond the movies themselves. 

Of course, since I have to point these things out, I think reasonable people can disagree on these points. 

But to me, regardless of the merits of the movie itself, my niece who never had read an FF comic in her life, has now borrowed every FF trade I own and has point blank asked me to buy more. 

In short, it took a girl who was a reader of Spider-Man and X-Men (along with Betty and Veronica) and made her a reader of the FF too. 

To me, as a comics fan, that makes the movie an unqualified success.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2007)

> BUT, one clip out of a two hour movie is a TINY PART. You're main criticism of it being 'inferior' is completely off base.




It is a tiny part, as is any clip, but as I pointed out, the power switch was a development with a highly probable logical consequence that was revealed (in the same clip) not to have occurred...and (still in the same clip) was revealed to be a continuing element of the film, despite its problems.



> But you can't base the entire movie on that one clip and talk about how bad it is compared to the comics...when you haven't even seen the movie




Certainly you can if you think the sample you've seen is appallingly bad- which I do.

For another example, all it took me to avoid seeing the movie version of _The Scarlet Letter _was that it had "a surprise ending."  Its a pretty famous book, required reading in many programs...so the words "surprise ending" were a fairly ill omen.  As it turns out, the surprise ending was the main characters running away together.  Merely a complete change of a classic story.


> I was disagreeing with you that strict continuity in movies is important, and that the movie was poorly written.
> 
> I'm a huge comics fan, but I view comics and movies as so different that I treat watching an FF movie like I do reading an Ultimate FF comic. It's a restart of the franchise. All bets are off, and continuity doesn't extend beyond the movies themselves.




Continuity?  As in A follows B follows C?  As in you don't ditch developments from reel 1 when you go to reel 3? That is _essential_ to storytelling.

You apparently mean congruence with the source material.

Apparently, despite my protestations to the contrary, it hasn't sunk in.

*I don't believe in a 1 for 1 translation from source material to movie. * I believe in a _respectful_ translation from source material to movie.

The plot device of power switching is one that could have been handled _many_ ways- none of which involve messing around with the SS's suite of abilities, and some of which would have made just as awesome a movie spectacle.

Just off the top of my head, the power-switch could have been achieved _respectfully_ if the writers had used:

1) A Marvel character known for warping reality, like the Scarlet Witch or Proteus. (This could have been spliced into the SS/Galactus storyline as a combo of comic relief coupled with bad timing.)

What? Those characters don't exist in the FF movies?

Well, neither did SS & Big G before _this _movie.  And the Scarlet Witch has had interactions with the FF.

Read on...

2) The_ actual_ Super Skrull & his bretheren.  The FF fending off an alien invasion?  Classic.  Hey, maybe even the Kree show up to make the power-switch more stable...Humanity as unknowing pawns in an intergalactic war? Epic!

3) A terrestrial pathogen mixed with an alien biology...say, the Bird Flu interacting with the Impossible Man.  (This could have been spliced into the SS/Galactus storyline as a combo of comic relief coupled with bad timing.)

4) An alien pathogen mixed with the FF's biology...say, a bioweapon from the Negative Zone, courtesy of Annihilus.

5) A supernatural curse, courtesy of Doctor Doom (who, in addition to his technological prowess, is one of Marvel's most powerful terrestrial spellcasters).

6) An alien pathogen accidentally or purposefully released from the ship of The Collector. Or as a challenge from one of the other Elders of the Universe, like the Grandmaster or the Champion.  Or the Stranger.  

7) Terrigen Mist, so the plot could involve the Kree, the Skrull, the Eternals, the Deviants, the Inhumans and the Celestials_ in any combination_.

8) An unintended side effect of Reed's labwork.  (This could have been spliced into the SS/Galactus storyline as a combo of comic relief coupled with bad timing.)

9) One of the time-muckers like Kang the Conquerer or the Scarlet Scarab probably has the tech to do this as well.

10) Something completely new, never before seen in the FF history.

Instead, they mucked around with an established character's history.

(And don't even get me started on SS driving off/killing Big G.)


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 9, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> *I don't believe in a 1 for 1 translation from source material to movie. * I believe in a _respectful_ translation from source material to movie.




Again, the fact that my niece for the first is not only reading the FF, and reading it in droves, literally devouring every trade she can get her hands on, as a direct result of this movie, is pretty damn respectful to me.

I mean, I think we can both agree that the REAL place to get the best experience of the FF is courtesy of Lee, Kirby, Buscema, Byrne et al. Right? What's the purpose of these movies? 

I contend: Make Marvel money (which this movie did) and grow the fanbase of the comics (which this movie has done in my personal experience). 

This movie got my niece to borrow the Marvel Masterworks containing the ACTUAL Galactus story and read it.

That's doing right by a franchise in my book.

Good Marvel! Gooooooooooooooood Marvel!


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2007)

> Again, the fact that my niece for the first is not only reading the FF, and reading it in droves, literally devouring every trade she can get her hands on, as a direct result of this movie, is pretty damn respectful to me.




You seem to have a different definiton of "respectful" than do I.

"Respect" of the source material is not introducing arbitrary changes, especially ones that carry continuing weight in the development of the plot at hand.  _Everything_ done in this movie as a result of the mucking with the SS could have been achieved in another manner (see above).

And I applaud how well the CGI dudes captured the epic visuals of the SS character...as soon as I saw the first trailer, I wanted to see this movie.  But, OTOH, they were ultimately hampered by a script that utterly removed from the screen one of Marvel's most powerful beings (Big G).

C'mon...this is the comic franchise that _made_ Marvel.



> I mean, I think we can both agree that the REAL place to get the best experience of the FF is courtesy of Lee, Kirby, Buscema, Byrne et al. Right?




Agreed.



> What's the purpose of these movies?
> I contend: Make Marvel money (which this movie did)




Agreed.

And had it had a better script, it might have made even more.



> and grow the fanbase of the comics (which this movie has done in my personal experience).




As always with opinions, YMMV.

As of this point, I have even fewer reasons to see the next FF movie, if there is one.



> This movie got my niece to borrow the Marvel Masterworks containing the ACTUAL Galactus story and read it.




Good.  And how does she feel about the change from the comics?  And what does that mean in regards to her continued enjoyment of the film franchise?


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 9, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Good.  And how does she feel about the change from the comics?  And what does that mean in regards to her continued enjoyment of the film franchise?




She hasn't commented on it either way. I think she's more used to rolling with continuity changes than my generation.

For example, the X-Men movies made her a huge fan of that franchise several years ago. Since then, she's read the original comics, watched the original X-Men cartoons (which had their own continuity), watched the X-men Evolution cartoons (which had their own continuity) and read Ultimate X-Men (separate continuity).

And she's never minded in my experience. Or if she does, she doesn't mention it and continues to request more to read lol. 

By contrast, when I was growing up I had the Uncanny X-Men and that's it. My nerd friends and I used to read the Dark Phoenix saga on a loop. The addition of New Mutants to the X-verse seemed like a HUGE new level of information on that little corner of the Marvel U. 

These days, comics franchises are huge multi-media brands that you can experience as movies, cartoons, multiple comic continuities and video games (thank you Lord).


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 9, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> So you're saying you _never_ rule out films or books just because of their genre?
> 
> You know- do you not read Westerns because they are Westerns?  Romance novels because they are Romance novels?
> 
> Are there _no_ sections of your local bookstore or library you simply avoid?  History?  Self-Help? Computer Programming?




None of that is what you are doing here.  Actually, you aren't even making sense.  Having genre preference is one thing, not liking something after reading the back cover/case blurb is another.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Have you never avoided a film because of a particular casting decision ("Michael Keaton as BATMAN?!?!?! WTF?")?



Nope.  I don't follow actors.



			
				Dannyalcatraz to Vigilance said:
			
		

> And had it had a better script, it might have made even more.
> 
> >snip<
> 
> As of this point, I have even fewer reasons to see the next FF movie, if there is one.



You have no ground to stand on in regards to the writing of this particular film.  You'd have to see it in order to form a proper opinion.  The most you can say and retain any credibility is that you didn't like the "writing" in the trailer.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jul 9, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> I_ might _have been able to stomach it if there had been a good reason for it, and the reactions of the characters involved been more believable.




Having stated yourself that you didn't see the first movie, and didn't plan on seeing the second one, how can you say that there wasn't a good reason for the changes or that the reactions of the characters involved weren't believable?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 9, 2007)

> None of that is what you are doing here. Actually, you aren't even making sense. Having genre preference is one thing, not liking something after reading the back cover/case blurb is another.




No, rejecting something based on its genre or based on samples of its content are merely differences of scale.

I rejected one movie based on a sample of its content.

You're rejecting an entire style of movies (or books, or whatever medium for which you express a dislike based on a genre preference) based on a smattering of exemplars of the genre you reject.


> You have no ground to stand on in regards to the writing of this particular film. You'd have to see it in order to form a proper opinion.




Again, you're saying I can't have an opinion of something without experiencing the whole thing.

I say that _that_ is an intellectually false position.

Humans- _all _humans- make decisions and form opinions based on incomplete data on a daily basis.  What book to get, what meal to order, what car to buy...

Don't believe me?  Ask a professional.

Did you read _Starship Troopers?_  Did you see the movie?  Did you see the straight-to-DVD sequel?  How much info did you need to decide not to read or see the creations in questions?  For some, it was a must-see as soon as the first Bugs appeared on screen.  For some others, that sentiment was extinguished when they realized that the power-armor suited marines of the books were being replaced by soldiers with equipment essentially indistinguishable from the equipment of today and avoided it.  Still others saw the film in the theatres and were disgusted that a sci-fi classic that dealt with politics & war had been reduced to a space soap opera.

(I was in group 2, saw the movie later on TV, and became a member of group 3.  The Bugs _were_ good, though.)

When you go to your local book store, you completely bypass all kinds of books to get to your preferred genre.  For all you know, one of the books you've passed may be better than the best book you've ever read in your favorite genre...but you'll never know because you don't read books of that kind.

When you get to your favorite genre's section, you don't closely examine every book in minute detail to decide what to buy.  You pass over Author A because you read her debut novel and hated it...nevermind that she's changed her style and won a Hugo or 2 in the past 8 years.  You pass over Series B because a buddy told you it was a lot like another book you already read and found mediocre...never realizing that Series B was the critically acclaimed original ripped off poorly by that the book you disliked.  You pick up Book C in a series because you like that author...nevermind that the book was written while the guy was in heroin rehab and changes everything you liked about the other books in the series with a "twist ending!"

All of these decisions made without complete information.

I saw a clip that I felt was both key and bad and made my decision.  Because of that, I missed out on things like a ripoff of _The 5th Element_ (BBEG is essentially a planet-sized cloud), and _further_ mucking with the Surfer's powers (bringing back the dead).

I stand by my decision.



> Having stated yourself that you didn't see the first movie, and didn't plan on seeing the second one, how can you say that there wasn't a good reason for the changes or that the reactions of the characters involved weren't believable?




Reread my posts a little more carefully, please.

I did indeed say I didn't see the first movie. I had serious issues with casting of 2 of the main characters, and what I knew of it's script was pretty bad- it had been floating around Hollywood for at least 2 decades, going through numerous rewrites and producing some truly horrible screen tests.  When the trailers started to run, I saw nothing to dissuade me of its quality.  When the reviews started rolling in (professional AND those of my buds), I continued to have no reason to see it.

However, I _explicitly_ said that I had intended to see _this_ one, right up until the point I saw the power-switch clips.

In one of them, the reason for the switch was stated as being (I paraphrase the voiceover) "contact with the Silver Surfer."  This conforms to the source material _not one bit._

And, as I stated earlier, the time that Johnny and Sue were confused and the extent to which they were confused _in the clip alone_ was ample enough for them to be taken down by the Surfer (Johnny's being trampled by ordinary citizens, Sue was floating like a glowing baloon in a midway target-shooting game), which the clip also made evident didn't happen.   

That simply wasn't believable in my book.


----------



## Cthulhudrew (Jul 9, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> And, as I stated earlier, the time that Johnny and Sue were confused and the extent to which they were confused _in the clip alone_ was ample enough for them to be taken down by the Surfer (Johnny's being trampled by ordinary citizens, Sue was floating like a glowing baloon in a midway target-shooting game), which the clip also made evident didn't happen.




Yes, the old- "why didn't the Surfer euthanize them" question you raised earlier. Yet when I pointed out that the Surfer doesn't go about killing/euthanizing/whatever you'd like to call it _in the comic source material_, and that to have him do so on-screen would be just as much alteration of canon as some of the things you are complaining about, you had no response to offer.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 10, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> No, rejecting something based on its genre or based on samples of its content are merely differences of scale.
> 
> I rejected one movie based on a sample of its content.
> 
> You're rejecting an entire style of movies (or books, or whatever medium for which you express a dislike based on a genre preference) based on a smattering of exemplars of the genre you reject.



Yes and the scale makes all the difference.  It should also be noted that I don't express a dislike for any genres out there, I have preferences towards them and leave myself open to suggestions for other genres.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Again, you're saying I can't have an opinion of something without experiencing the whole thing.
> 
> I say that _that_ is an intellectually false position.
> 
> ...



You can see it as making this choice and stand by it all you want.  The devil in the details of your presentation.  You are presenting a position of staunch opposition and trying to present arguments about a film you have yet to see based off comic book canon, which is oxymoronic to start with.

It's not about the choice not to see based on a sampling, not the way you have presented yourself here.  You are also *so* That Guy.


----------



## Piratecat (Jul 10, 2007)

Stop.

Passive aggressive vitriol is still vitriol. Please don't be rude to people, and don't take the subject so personally that you're tempted to attack folks who disagree with you.

Thanks! As always, email me if you wish to discuss this.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 12, 2007)

> Yes, the old- "why didn't the Surfer euthanize them" question you raised earlier <snip> you had no response to offer.




Sorry if I forgot to expand upon that- my bad.  Allow me to rectify that omission.

Killing and/or euthanizing defeated opponents- while logical for someone who is setting the table for another to commit global genocide- may or may not be allowable within the Surfer's ethical considerations.  We don't know if he has ever killed an opponent in combat on any of the worlds he lead Galactus to previous to his trip to Earth.  Similarly, we don't know what he would do if he faced flying opposition (be they powerful beings like himself or the FF, or pilots of attack air/space craft) and defeated them in air/space.  Did he rescue them or did he abandon them to their fate?  We simply don't know.

But depending upon the answer, the confused, flaming, floating Sue Storm could have been zapped and left to fall to Earth...

Still, taking them down and immobilizing/imprisoning them would be well within his ethical considerations.

After all, his responsibilities as Herald of Galactus are essentially:

1) Find life-bearing planets for G to consume.

2) If neccessary, pacify the locals.

3) Repeat.

Taking down two powerful opponents while they are vulnerable would be part of the second set of duties.  Finding a way to keep them from returning to battle once defeated would make his job- which we know he finds distasteful- go that much easier.

It could be something as simple as putting them into a coma (multiple methods exist- BFT to the head & causing concussion, oxygen deprivation, etc.) or as complex as manipulating matter at the molecular level to encase them in some kind of prison impervious to their abilities.

Instead, he semi-defeats his opponents and leaves them hale enough to return to the battlefield.

If Earth had been his first stop after Zenn-La, I could see that kind of mistake being made.  But it wasn't- he's experienced at what he does for Galactus...yet he acts like a n00b.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 12, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If Earth had been his first stop after Zenn-La, I could see that kind of mistake being made.  But it wasn't- he's experienced at what he does for Galactus...yet he acts like a n00b.




And here's the crux of the problem...

You never saw the movie. How do you know that?


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 12, 2007)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> But depending upon the answer, the confused, flaming, floating Sue Storm could have been zapped and left to fall to Earth...




But the Surfer wasn't even there when Sue was confused, flaming, and floating.

The Surfer didn't have the ability to switch people's powers; he apparently had the ability to destabilise someone's molecules so that they would switch powers with someone they touched.  So in order to 'use' this to cause a confused, flaming, and floating Sue in the middle of a fight, he'd first have to destabilise Jonny's molecules, and then arrange for Jonny to touch Sue.

How do you arrange for someone who can fly to touch someone who can create force fields, against their will, in the middle of a combat, so reliably that it becomes your standard tactic (at least, standard when facing a group of opponents who include someone who can fly and someone who can create force fields)?

-Hyp.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Jul 17, 2007)

> > If Earth had been his first stop after Zenn-La, I could see that kind of mistake being made. But it wasn't- he's experienced at what he does for Galactus...yet he acts like a n00b.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




More clips.

In one they note that there is a trail of planets that go poof, with the implication that Earth is next, including meaningful glances and ominous music.  (If this scene was left out of the movie and just used for trailers/clips- as _does_ occasionally happen- then its their fault for misleading me.  It helped turn me from a potential viewer to a definite no-show.).

It isn't that I decided not to see the film on the strength of one clip.  Like I said, the first trailer I saw made me want to see this film.  However, the power-switch one disgusted me (clearly) and subsequent ones cemented my decision not to see the film.



> But the Surfer wasn't even there when Sue was confused, flaming, and floating.




According to Marvel canon, his eyesight & attack capability would effectively be horizon to horizon in a planetary atmosphere, and even better outside of it- he _has_ attacked planet-bound targets from orbit.

A distracted target not facing him (Sue was facing a window) wouldn't be much of a challenge.

If he wasn't even in the range of his own eyesight after initiating the power-switch, it introduces another plot hole in the form of him being a poor tactitian. (see below)



> The Surfer didn't have the ability to switch people's powers; he apparently had the ability to destabilise someone's molecules so that they would switch powers with someone they touched. <snip> How do you arrange for someone who can fly to touch someone who can create force fields, against their will, in the middle of a combat, so reliably that it becomes your standard tactic?




Standard_ opening_ tactic.

It isn't that you arrange for someone who flies to touch someone who can create force fields...you just need _any 2 foes with differing abilities_.

Methodology: Choose initial target, destabilize their powers (disabling target if neccessary), then throw or otherwise cause contact with initial target with secondary target.  Repeat if you can.  Use resultant confusion to your advantage.

Even a simple risk/reward analysis makes it a stellar opening gambit.  It won't work every time, but its potential payoff is great.  And if your opponents don't figure it out, all the better- repeat it.  The only times you really wouldn't want to use it is if you had some reason to believe that your opponents were somehow immune to it (intangibility, you're facing an Elder, etc.) or were aware of your destabilization ability (faced them before, hivemind, whatever), thus reducing its potential efficacy.

It is a _well known_ military maxim that wounding/disabling an opponent can often be more effective than killing them.  If you kill one opponent, you have eliminated one opponent.  If you disable an opponent, it typically removes 2-4 others from the fight as they tend to their downed comrade- rendering first aid, removing him from the battlefield, or otherwise shielding him from further harm.

If (as discussed above) the Surfer didn't stick around to take advantage of the power switch he initiated, he's an idiot- either he gave up the chance to take out at least 2 opponents with relative ease *or* he had no idea that this destabilization ability would disrupt the combat effectiveness of the targets involved...in which case_ why do it?_


----------



## warlord (Jul 17, 2007)

Don't take this the wrong way but this thread has become pointless. In fact we've managed to create a thread more pointless then my "How Tolkien ruined Modern Fantasy" thread.


----------

