# Rate Fantastic Four *SPOILERS*



## Krug (Jul 7, 2005)

What d'ya think?


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 7, 2005)

...I think its only Wednesday.


----------



## Krug (Jul 7, 2005)

Some folks in my town have seen it.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 7, 2005)

Krug said:
			
		

> Some folks in my town have seen it.



 Right right...care to beat them up for me?


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 7, 2005)

I haven't seen it yet, but early reviewers so far are almost universally unimpressed.


----------



## Adeodatus (Jul 8, 2005)

Being the third to vote I gave it it's highest rating so far-5.
I think they did a fair job on the personalities of the Four.  The FF as a big family I never really bought and the Ultimate Doom was really really really lame.  You can tell they tried hard to not have Mr. Fantastic rip off from Elasti-Girl too much but thats pretty hard.  On that note I think it is sad but true that The Incredibles was a better Fantastic Four movie in many respects.  But it was better than I thought it would be...but that doesn't say much.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 8, 2005)

Wow, slow day at the movies!  Nobody else rating it?  I just saw it.  I gave it a 6.  Not as good as most of the recent superhero movies, and the ending felt a bit limp, but not at all bad.

My expectations of the movie really went up and down.  Initially, the flurry of "OMG this movie is teh suxx0rz because they changed some idiotic detail that only a wild-eyed fanboi like me will notice, and it's a good change anyway because the original idea is really st00pid!!!!1111oneone" reactions to the movie actually _raised_ my expectations, but the more recent flurry of bad reviews caused them to drop like a rock.

It exceeded my expectations, at least at the moment I saw it.  Was it as good as X2, Batman Begins or Spiderman (1 or 2)?  Not even close.  Was the Incredibles better?  Yep.  Did the presence of token hawt chixx0rz Jessica Alba ruin the movie?  Not at all--I'm not sure I was ever convinced that she was the head geneticist of a major corporation, but everything else about her worked for me.  Was the change to Dr. Doom the End of All Things and the Last Moment of the Apocalypse?  Naw, it worked for me.  Made more sense than the original for that matter.

I dunno.  It was OK.  It was better than other movies I've enjoyed while knowing that they were bad--this one wasn't even bad, maybe just mediocre.  It did feel a bit like one, long set-up for the sequel, which hopefully (as with Spiderman and X-men) outdoes it's predecessor.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 8, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> It did feel a bit like one, long set-up for the sequel, which hopefully (as with Spiderman and X-men) outdoes it's predecessor.



I'm actually ok with that.  I felt that Spidey 1 and X-men 1 were lacking (but still look better than this flick) and were basically set-ups for future films.  Both the sequels were leaps way beyond their previous films and I'm hoping the same is true for FF.

I'll be seeing it around 7 tonight with popcorn in hand.    Review to follow.


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 9, 2005)

Just got back.  Gave it a 7.

A little background: My only exposure to the FF is the Ultimates line. Yeah, I know their original story a bit and am basically familiar with the characters. I can't say the same for the stories, however. That said...

I liked the movie. I would have probably liked it a bit more if EVERY cool scene wasn't already shown in the trailers. I mean seriously, every single durn FX shot and cool action/powers shot I'd already seen. But put all together it wasn't bad.

Taken as a singular film and ignoring what I know from the comics I was entertained. Not a great film by any stretch, I enjoyed it about as much as the first Spider-man and the first X-men (neither were great films). I probably liked both of those a little more than FF simply because their was more there to like (and both films had superior directors).

Again, I'll echo what was said above about this movie being a good set-up for the sequels. The characters could have been given a little more depth and the style could have been, um, better I guess. The movie seemed pretty cookie-cutter for this kind of story. It followed the origin formula pretty much to the letter and tried to taylor it to the heroes. I can say that I didn't like that Grimm was able to be turned human and then back to The Thing again but that was really the only thing that openly annoyed me. It's not that it didn't make sense it just didn't seem right for the movie.

Overall, I feel that with the low expectations I had that they were exceeded. As for grading it with the current crop of Marvel films I'd put it a step above DD and a step below Spider-man (all movies that I would give 7's).


----------



## WayneLigon (Jul 9, 2005)

I was very pleased by it. Probably one of the most faithful adaptation I've seen yet. There were rough spots as in any adaptation but overall I thought it was very entertaining. Ben and Johnny especially were spot-on, and the practical joking between them was cool. I liked that they put in more of Reed's shapeshifting, so he doesn't just stretch all the time.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Jul 9, 2005)

Rated it 7.  Definitely no higher.  It felt too much like merely protracted exposition without being particularly INTERESTING exposition.  They were irradiated.  They wound up with super powers.  Great.  Now have them go DO THINGS with those powers, not just sit around and deal with their respective relationships.

The movie was really more about how a superhero actually comes to grips on a daily basis with his new power - but it wasn't done well from that perspective.  Incredibles was vastly superior in that regard.

A sequel will almost undoubtedly be VASTLY superior because they can have stuff like ACTION, and PLOT, rather than just lots of story.

Still it was entertaining enough to not seem like a waste of money, though it could have been so much better too.


----------



## orbitalfreak (Jul 10, 2005)

I gave it a 6.  Almost a 7.  

I found the movie a bit bland.  There was some story, some character development, some action, but it just wasn't presented well. The story was indeed very cookie-cutter, the whole thing seemed a little bit over the top (certain angles, phrases, poses, etc.).  Jessica Alba was there for T&A, it seems.  I can't really say much for the other actors, either, except the guy who played Johnny.  They all had rather unimpressive performances (though Johnny seemed like a real guy).

Despite all that, it was a decent way to spend $8 (skipping the coke and popcorn).  One pet peeve is a change between the previews and the actual movie.  When the Torch dives off the building to distract the missle, in the previews, the music cuts out for a semi-dramatic, li'l bit o' chill bumps-inducing moment when he says "Flame on!"  In the movie, the music plays on in the background; I think that takes away from the scene a bit, especially having seen it with a silent background.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jul 10, 2005)

A solid 7, leaning towards maybe an 8 with the right crowd. Very fun movie though and that's what I expected so it works for me. 

And the audience made it even better, cracking up at all of Johnny's jokes, collectively gasping whenever Latveria was mentioned. All in all good stuff.

Not the best movie I've seen recently, but maybe the most flat out entertaining.


----------



## stevelabny (Jul 10, 2005)

Hmm.
Well it wasn't as bad as everything else so far this summer.

The sfx were bad. What DID they spend their money on? Some scenes were Spidey 1 / Xmen 1 bad. Some were worse. 

Jessica Alba was bad. She really was just there for T & A and brought nothing to the table.

Dr. Doom was awful. I thought he was weak before the armor, and afterwards he was the lamest villain of all time. It really felt like the filmmakers couldnt decide how "comic book" they wanted to go with him. His "armor" is from the same cosmic storm, but the mask was a trophy given to him by the people of Latveria? The writing for the character was all over the place. There was even one line of dialogue in the armor that had some sort of metallic reverberation, but the others didn't. Plus, they forgot to have a "Doom does something evil and shows off his powers" scene before the final fight. GAH. 

Mr. Fantastic was ok. I wouldve liked a little more genius-dialogue, but whatever. He was close enough to be passable.

The Alicia Masters thing was completely shoe-horned into the movie. Beyond wonky. And we didn't even get to see any of her sculptures? Why not just save her for the sequel? 

Probably because the whole movie was done as generic and mainstream as you could. From some obvious dialogue, to the most obvious directing and framing , the whole thing reeked a little too much of "my first action movie"

BUT 

Johnny and Ben were near perfect. Thing looked tons better on screen than in the stills, and the flame effects were pretty sweet. And not only were the both good individually, they were great together. That WAS johnny and ben fighting with each other on screen the sane way it WAS wolverine saying his claws hurt "every time".  
The scenes with these two made sure I kept a smile on my face through the entire movie, even the kinda weak ending. I coulda done with TWO x-games scenes, but thats why I said near-perfect.

So overall, while the movie is far from great, it at least had the FUN that the other movies this year were missing. I would give it a 6.5 if I could, but I gave it a 7 because tonight I'm actually in a GOOD mood after seeing a movie.


----------



## bolen (Jul 10, 2005)

Not bad.  As others have said the Thing and the Human Torch were by far the best part.

The invisable girl was not bad and neither was Mr Fantastic but Dr Doom was bad.  The story of Dr Doom was a Green Goblin lite.  I kind of liked him getting powers at the same time as the four but why did they not make him a distinct character?

I give it a 6.5


----------



## Krug (Jul 11, 2005)

Did pretty well at the box-office with a $56 million weekend..


----------



## Logan (Jul 11, 2005)

I liked it.  Not a great movie, but I wasn't expecting one, either.  I do have to admit I had some relly low expecptions for it, the trailers I saw did not impress me in the least.  But in the end, I enjoyed.  But Dr. Doom was the weakest part of the film.  They really did turn him into the Green Goblin, thw whole "big morally grey buissness man beacomes evil wean his investors try to take awasy his company' bit was lame.  Ans yes, having him have powers form the cosic strom wasn't a great idea, either, nor was making him an American imigrent.
Oh, well, it was still a fun film.


----------



## Henry (Jul 11, 2005)

I saw it -- TWICE. Once by myself, and then the next day when I found out some friends were going to see it.

I gave it a 7, because I liked it a lot, but the last act felt rather rushed to me. But I'm a sucker for origins in movies, and seeing how something came to be, because the vicarious aspect of a normal person finding out they have powers is part of the draw to a superhero movie. 

The characterizations? Dead on, to me -- even Sue, who in the comics has always needed some spunk rather than the "quiet mothering" that the old Sue Storm from the comics used to do. Jessica Alba (always easy on the eyes) did a good job of being the  "aggressive yet sensible" sister type, and the dynamic between her and Chris Evans was pretty fun to watch for me.

Chris Evans as Johnny Storm was great -- if Johnny were created in the 2000's, he WOULD be an extreme sports fan; hot-rodding in the 60's was the equivalent, and only later in the comics as he grew up would be become more sensible.

Ioan Gruffudd (spelling?) was a surprise success as Reed Richards, even if the Welsh did slip through now and again. Another surprise to me was Michael Chiklis - with the exception of the baldness, he's Ben Grimm all the way, and in the suit with the voice alterations he was exactly what I expected Ben Grimm to be.

Doctor Doom? The ball was dropped here, in my personal opinion. Too much "Nip/Tuck" doctor, not enough Smooth-yet-imperious ruler. I understand a possible need for change of the character, but he was changed TOO much for my liking.

In the end, I found "Batman Begins" the better movie, but this one was still a lot of fun.


----------



## Zog (Jul 11, 2005)

Gave it a 7.

Lots of good character development and story - not enough Super Hero Action.
Spidey got to take on some random punks/swing around New York - the FF had two action sequences - the 'hey we have powers and can save people' and the 'final battle'.  It was really well done - just not enough!  But, it gives me high hopes for a sequal - more villians, more action!
Doom was weak - but I think at the end of the movie he ended up were he should have started - an insane meglomaniac encased in metal, very smart and very dangerous.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jul 11, 2005)

A gave it a 3.  The worst "event" film of the summer by _far_ and probably the worst big budget super hero film ever made.  Worse than The Punisher.  Incredibly weak Mr. Fantastic, Invisible Woman, and Dr. Doom.  I'm not even a stickler for adhering exactly to the comics, but these characters were just _bad._  A total tease in the "super hero" action department, and an appalling level of sexual coarseness for a kid friendly flick.  I wouldn't have been surprised to see Vince McMahon in the credits as a producer.

A couple of funny lines between Johnny Storm and The Thing though (particularly the bit with the hand held mirror after they get back to Earth.)  But not enough to redeem this stinker.  Hopefully this sees a 2nd weekend drop of greater than Hulk proportions.


----------



## The_Universe (Jul 11, 2005)

I gave it a six. Better than I expected - on a level of quality with Daredevil, maybe slightly above. I like the character rivialry, liked the Latveria references, hated Doom. I don't mind a change in general...but the change they chose for his origins were lame. It's really too bad, because Doom has always been one of the best Marvel villains out there. He's iconic - he should be as stunning as the Joker or Lex Luthor are for their own heroic mythos. But he wasn't. He was crap. Crap crap crap.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 11, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> ...an appalling level of sexual coarseness for a kid friendly flick.




Since when is PG-13 kid friendly? Not only that, but since when were any of these new wave of superhero movies TRULY kid friendly?


----------



## CrusaderX (Jul 11, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Since when is PG-13 kid friendly? Not only that, but since when were any of these new wave of superhero movies TRULY kid friendly?




See The Incredibles. 

I haven't seen the Fantastic Four film yet.  But it seems rather wrong that an FF movie be rated PG-13 in the first place.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 11, 2005)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> See The Incredibles.
> 
> I haven't seen the Fantastic Four film yet.  But it seems rather wrong that an FF movie be rated PG-13 in the first place.




One of my favorite movies, but still, I'm not sure I really count that with what I meant by this wave of superhero movies. Maybe I should have said wave of comic book movies.

And if its wrong for FF to be PG-13...what about Spider-Man? What about X-Men? What about nearly all the comic book movies, save Punisher, Hulk, and maybe Spawn?

What does the fact that it is Fantastic Four have ANYTHING to do with the rating the movie gets?


----------



## CrusaderX (Jul 11, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And if its wrong for FF to be PG-13...what about Spider-Man? What about X-Men? What about nearly all the comic book movies, save Punisher, Hulk, and maybe Spawn?
> 
> What does the fact that it is Fantastic Four have ANYTHING to do with the rating the movie gets?




Unlike Spidey and the X-Men, the Fantastic Four have rarely, if ever, been edgy.  The FF is all about wide-eyed wonder and exploration, but more specifically, the heart of the FF concept is all about one thing - family.  Call me crazy, but I believe a wonder-filled comic book concept that has a strong family unit at it's heart should translate into a family-friendly film.  It just makes the most sense to me.


----------



## Henry (Jul 11, 2005)

CrusaderX said:
			
		

> Call me crazy, but I believe a wonder-filled comic book concept that has a strong family unit at it's heart should translate into a family-friendly film.  It just makes the most sense to me.




It still was family-oriented, but I think the themes of family it explores may be a bit much for a pre-teen to appreciate. I think it was the one or two profanities, and the scantily clad Jessica Alba scenes that gave the movie the "13" in front of it.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jul 11, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> It still was family-oriented,



But not family friendly.



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> but I think the themes of family it explores may be a bit much for a pre-teen to appreciate. I think it was the one or two profanities, and the scantily clad Jessica Alba scenes that gave the movie the "13" in front of it.



I wouldn't classify a major character propositioning (successfully even) a nurse to enjoy an impromptu nude "hot" tub out in the snow on their first date or Hooteresque BMXXX cheerleaders as exactly G-rated family material.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 11, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I wouldn't classify a major character propositioning (successfully even) a nurse to enjoy an impromptu nude "hot" tub out in the snow on their first date or Hooteresque BMXXX cheerleaders as exactly G-rated family material.



Neither would I.  However, that's completely irrelevent.  The movie wasn't rated G.  Nobody (except possibly you?) seems to have expected it to be "family friendly."  It's not really a valid criticism of a movie to take it to task for not being something that it never intended to be, never was advertised as, and was (*obviously not completely, but mostly) universally not expected by the audience to be either.


----------



## Henry (Jul 11, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I wouldn't classify a major character propositioning (successfully even) a nurse to enjoy an impromptu nude "hot" tub out in the snow on their first date or Hooteresque BMXXX cheerleaders as exactly G-rated family material.




Didn't say it was "G" - it was easily "PG" though, for the suggestiveness.


----------



## Thornir Alekeg (Jul 11, 2005)

From what I've heard, these days PG-13 is the goal of most movies.  Get PG and you end up with teenagers deciding the movie won't be racy enough for them and their charged up hormones.  Push it to R and you limit the teenage audience (since some kids will actually listen to their parents and some theaters actually try and enforce the rating).  I have heard of films adding suggestive jokes or scenes just to be sure to push them over the PG-13 threshold.  

Let's not forget that Revenge of the Sith got a PG-13 and yet they marketed the movie on all kinds of kid-related items.  Haven't seen much of that for FF so I'm not even sure where the idea of it being family friendly comes from, other than it being a comic book, and the main characters are a family (sort of).  

Ultimately parents need to pay attention to what the ratings are, not what the marketing may imply.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jul 11, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Didn't say it was "G" -




You got that right!    I'm not saying it _should_ have been G, just that the current film was way too far _from_ a G.  There's a pretty big range under PG-13.  From cartoony comic violence (X-Men, Spider-Man) to full-on nudity (Titanic).  They've never swung toward the "Titanic" side when it comes to family friendly comic adaptations, and until now there's never been any precedent to expect them to.  I just think its a sad coarsening of the source material.  But from what I understand most mainstream comics are largely T & A fests now anyway so I probably shouldn't be surprised when it turns up in the movie.

I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years I need to check to make sure the PG-13 Spidey 3 isn't rated as such because Mary Jane wants Peter to draw her naked body. Okay I probably would be, but not as much as I would have been before seeing FF.

And to Joshua Dyal, as far as anyone but me expecting an FF movie to be family-friendly, just read the other posts of this thread.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 12, 2005)

Just got back...I'll give it an 8.

Fun, fun movie. Even though I'm a huge fan of comics Doom, he worked for me in the movie. In fact...everything did. Its just not a 10 because I didn't have the same feeling of amazement as I did with things like Batman Begins and Revenge of the Sith.

Honestly, I feel sorry for some of you guys that seem to hate or at least dislike most of the movies that come out, especially since most of the time its the exact same people with every movie. Sometimes, I wonder if some of you should just save your money and wait for a rental.


----------



## Abraxas (Jul 12, 2005)

I give it an 8. (Jessica Alba and Superpowered Doom are what kept it from getting a higher rating from me).
The FF has always been my favorite comic hero group and it was great to see them in a movie. It was also refreshing to have superheroes that are treated like heroes.


----------



## Agamon (Jul 12, 2005)

I gave it a 7.  I liked it, it was cheesy, but in a good way.  But it didn't have much of a story.  And there wasn't an obvious 'saving of the city/country/world', the final fight seemed anti-climatic, like it wa s agrudge fight, not very FF, IMO.  Also when they were first exposed to the public, they were cheering them, especially the Thing, as heroes, when he was the initial cause of the problem.  I didn't mind Jessica Alba as Sue, but the writer did his best to get her as naked as possible as often as possible.  That was sillly, and not Alba's fault.

On the other hand, if it were up to me, I would be trying to get Jessica naked as often as possible, too...   

I did like it though, for the same reason I liked the Spider-Man and X-Men movies: they captured the characters well (well, excpet Doom, but then they usually mess with the villian big time).

Decent movie, good super-hero movie, better than I expected from the crap trailers.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 12, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> And to Joshua Dyal, as far as anyone but me expecting an FF movie to be family-friendly, just read the other posts of this thread.



I've read the entire thread.  That's not helpful--I still see your expectation as unwarranted, out of the blue, and unreasonable.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jul 12, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I've read the entire thread.  That's not helpful--I still see your expectation as unwarranted, out of the blue, and unreasonable.



As I said earlier based on the current subject matter in comics themselves--I'm not surprised that you do.  What's amusing to think about is what the reaction would have been if Sin City had been G or PG-13 rated.  Many people have no problem with coarsening family material, but tone something down....


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 12, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> As I said earlier based on the current subject matter in comics themselves--I'm not surprised that you do.  What's amusing to think about is what the reaction would have been if Sin City had been G or PG-13 rated.  Many people have no problem with coarsening family material, but tone something down....



 I'm sorry, man, but it wasn't nearly as bad as you're making it. Especially now that I've seen the movie, you're making it out to be much, much worse than it really was.

To be truthful, I've seen PG movies these days that have worse stuff in them than that.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 12, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> As I said earlier based on the current subject matter in comics themselves--I'm not surprised that you do.  What's amusing to think about is what the reaction would have been if Sin City had been G or PG-13 rated.  Many people have no problem with coarsening family material, but tone something down....



I still don't know where you're going.  If anything, you're getting further away from putting out an explanation that makes any sense.

FF is not family material--I've read a fair amount of the older issues, and it's pretty much on par with all the other Marvel series of its time.  And all of those were made into PG-13 movies.

Granted, I don't know much about where FF is as a comic _today_ or even over the last decade or so, but I also don't see how that's even relevant, to be honest with you.  If _thats_ the basis of your expectation, I still think it's unwarranted and unreasonable.  None of the other "recent" Marvel movies have been all that closely grounded in the current state of the magazine on which they were based either.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jul 12, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I still don't know where you're going.



I know.  That's obvious.  And you still obviously think that all PG-13 movies have the exact same level of coarse and raunchy material.  They don't.  That'd be the same as expecting material from Not Another Teen Movie to end up in Gladiator.  I mean, they're both rated R, right?  I don't care if Spider-Man and X-Men were also PG-13 movies based off of Marvel comics.  They still didn't contain crap you'd expect in a Beer commercial or Hooters billboard.

And I read about 20-30 issues of FF from back in the early 80's that didn't have contrived producer inserted scenarios with Invisible Girl stripping or all the junk surrounding the Human Torch character.  But apparently you read comics that did.  I'll allow for that, goodness knows there's over 500 issues to choose from.  So you got the movie you wanted or felt was appropriate and can be glad.  I didn't.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 12, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> And I read about 20-30 issues of FF from back in the early 80's that didn't have contrived producer inserted scenarios with Invisible Girl stripping or all the junk surrounding the Human Torch character.




Actually, Invisible Woman stipping off her clothes to be invisible makes perfect sense if you can't turn them in visible, too, and need to get somewhere. It wasn't contrived at all(though, definitely there were other motives, but at least it had reasoning behind it).

As for Johnny Storm...oh, come on. He's a hot head and a ladies man from the start. He was spot on perfect, more so than most characters in the recent wave of comic book movies.



> So you got the movie you wanted or felt was appropriate and can be glad.  I didn't.




And, truthfully, that's all you really have to say. Otherwise, we'll continue this pointless little thing and continue to be confused by the other's opinions on things. If you didn't like it, there's not much we can do but feel sorry that you wasted your money on it.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 12, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> And you still obviously think that all PG-13 movies have the exact same level of coarse and raunchy material.  They don't.



I don't know how that's "obvious" since that's not at all what I think, and I've made no claim to that effect.


			
				Kai Lord said:
			
		

> I don't care if Spider-Man and X-Men were also PG-13 movies based off of Marvel comics.  They still didn't contain crap you'd expect in a Beer commercial or Hooters billboard.



Looking at the comic books I've seen, FF was pretty equivalent in terms of content appropriateness to Spiderman or X-men (or the Avengers, or Captain America, or any other comic book) for most of its run.  Granted, I've not read FF at all recently, and all of those others have taken a "dark turn" at one point or another in their run, and I can't say if FF has done so or not, because I don't know.  But your point is still bizarre because the FF movie didn't have anything in it that was worse than Spiderman or X-men either; and in many cases it was actually _much more_ tame.  Certainly in regards to violence, it's the tamest of the three.  And the Jessica Alba underwear scene wasn't any worse than the Mystique in the john with the prison guard, or the Mary Jane wet t-shirt scene, or the Wrestlemania cheerleaders, etc.  It's as if you either hadn't seen any of those other movies, or somehow expected FF to be different from those movies.

If you're claiming that FF was _worse_ than those movies in terms of family friendly vs. potentially objectionable content, I'll just disagree with you completely.  I think it's totally on par with the others, leaning towards being the tamest of them.


----------



## Kai Lord (Jul 12, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Actually, Invisible Woman stipping off her clothes to be invisible makes perfect sense if you can't turn them in visible, too, and need to get somewhere. It wasn't contrived at all



Right.  Not contrived at all.  Everyone knows the only way two adult men can squeeze past a crowd is with a naked, invisible girl leading the way.  And then with that perfectly logical evolution of the plot, OOPS, the invisibility didn't quite work!  *chuckles* Wow, whatever justification you need man....



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> As for Johnny Storm...oh, come on. He's a hot head and a ladies man from the start. He was spot on perfect,



...for a character in an American Pie film.  Or maybe Meatballs.  How classy.



			
				Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> And, truthfully, that's all you really have to say. Otherwise, we'll continue this pointless little thing and continue to be confused by the other's opinions on things. If you didn't like it, there's not much we can do but feel sorry that you wasted your money on it.



Yeah I don't know that there's anything more to say at this point.  But if you really did feel sorry for the money I wasted I'd be happy to accept a donation....


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 12, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> But if you really did feel sorry for the money I wasted I'd be happy to accept a donation....




Ha! Nice try! Besides, I'm broke enough as it is. Even the student discount hurts my wallet.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 12, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Another surprise to me was Michael Chiklis - with the exception of the baldness, he's Ben Grimm all the way, and in the suit with the voice alterations he was exactly what I expected Ben Grimm to be.




Not really a surprise for me...  Michael Chiklis is one of the best actors in Hollywood...  

I think they hit the four heroes straight on, they where near prefect in my opinion, and my only complaints were with the villain.  I thought Doom not talking in third person was a serious blow against the movie, I didn’t much care for the character but I did like the ending…

Its nice to see them not kill the villain, and actually setup him up for his role as ruler of  Latveria very nice indeed.

I gave it an 8, which was the same score I gave the first X-men movie, but I thought FF was far better.


----------



## Staffan (Jul 12, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> and an appalling level of sexual coarseness for a kid friendly flick.



Haven't seen it myself, but I find it hard to believe that more boobies would make a movie worse. Just like ninjas never make a movie worse.


----------



## Queen_Dopplepopolis (Jul 13, 2005)

It wasn't *as bad* as I expected it to be.  That certainly doesn't make it good, though.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 13, 2005)

10 Reasons Why the Fantastic Four Was a Lame Movie:

1. Doom isn't a scary dictator. He's a petulant, evil capitalist upset that Reed stole his girlfriend.

2. The people of Latveria award Doom's achievements with the traditional Iron Fright Mask of Evil.

3. Doom doesn't even have a Latverian accent.

4. The Thing is about five-foot-six.

5. "We'll never get through this crowd...unless one of us can elbow people aside. Quick, Sue, turn invisible and strip!"

6. "You mean I can ignite the entire atmosphere and kill everyone on Earth. Neat. I'm gonna go race dirt bikes!"

7. "Until death do us part. Or until you turn into a walking Rice Krispies Treat."

8. The Thing can't understand basic college science jargon, but he can pilot a space shuttle and reverse his transformation.

9. Being stretchy means the toilet paper is never out of reach.

10. Alicia falls in love with the Thing because he's bumpy and sad.

Plus one to grow on:

11. "Hi! My name is Susie! I'm a geneticist! *giggle*"


----------



## Villano (Jul 13, 2005)

Staffan said:
			
		

> Haven't seen it myself, but I find it hard to believe that more boobies would make a movie worse. Just like ninjas never make a movie worse.




Have you seen Elektra?  Ninjas who use safety cables to jump down from trees make a movie worse.  They're ninjas!  Ninjas don't use safety cables!  

OTOH, maybe if there were boobies in Elektra, it wouldn't have been as boring.


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 13, 2005)

Villano said:
			
		

> OTOH, maybe if there were boobies in Elektra, it wouldn't have been as boring.




That’s just wrong…

I thought we were not allowed to agree on anything… yet we have!


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Jul 14, 2005)

I watched FF4 on my laptop in class today.

I really liked it. I think all the characters were portrayed dead on from what their personalities were like in the cartoon and in the one or two comics I've read.



> 10 Reasons Why the Fantastic Four Was a Lame Movie:
> 
> 1. Doom isn't a scary dictator. He's a petulant, evil capitalist upset that Reed stole his girlfriend.



So what? I think it makes far more sense this way and builds a much better rivalry between Reed, and the Fab 4 with doom them simply having him be some dictator in another country. This isint the cold war, this is modern times. And today people can relate to big capitalism far more then a dictator in another land. And you couldnt exactly make him a terrorist either, that would be just plain corny.  The fact of the matter is it was great for the writers of the movie to give a NOD to the comic origins of the character by including it the way they did. To have Doom be FROM Latvia, and be someone highly regarded there only makes it seam more plausible if he becomes the dictator in a sequal.



> 2. The people of Latveria award Doom's achievements with the traditional Iron Fright Mask of Evil.




See Above, plus, if one of the sons of your nation went and became one of the richest men on earth, that nation might want to award him too. Who cares WHY it was the mask, maybe we'll find that in another movie. But it worked perfectly to establish him having it to begin with, and how it became melted to his face too.



> 3. Doom doesn't even have a Latverian accent.



Yes, yet again see above. Its better this way. He doesnt need one. 



> 4. The Thing is about five-foot-six.



Chicklis did a DAMN good job as the Thing.  I really dont think his hight mattered. 



> 5. "We'll never get through this crowd...unless one of us can elbow people aside. Quick, Sue, turn invisible and strip!"



Ok, here I'll agree. I think the original intent was for her to sneak past the police to Ben and to try to calm him down, but the script seems to have jumbled up here and by the time she's through there was no need anymore cause the cops start letting people through. 



> 6. "You mean I can ignite the entire atmosphere and kill everyone on Earth. Neat. I'm gonna go race dirt bikes!"



He's a selfish and shouvanistic guy who likes to have fun. The fact that he can actually hurt innocent people with his powers isn't actually on the top of his mind. I find this very believeable.



> 7. "Until death do us part. Or until you turn into a walking Rice Krispies Treat."



Yea? And? Do you know how many people lie about their true feelings. "I'll love you all the same no matter what happens to you". Bull. Stuff like this happens all the time, and 
aside from calling the chick a heartless ****** you cant really blame her. The short cuddly guy you think you love turned into a giant orange rock...would YOU stay with him?



> 8. The Thing can't understand basic college science jargon, but he can pilot a space shuttle and reverse his transformation.



I think maybe the script originally intended what he said to sound like something way more complicated then it was. The Thing is a PILOT. We're givin no indication that he's a genetecisist or a rocket scientist. Why would he understand specific genetic jargon? We cant all be startrekaphobes.



> 9. Being stretchy means the toilet paper is never out of reach.



I think that was quite humanizing and very funny. So did a lot of other people in the theater who laughed (which you could hear on the copy i got).



> 10. Alicia falls in love with the Thing because he's bumpy and sad.




If I'm not mistaken in the comics and in the cartoon a blind woman also falls in love with ben, she doesnt see the monster but sees inside him. She can feel his sadness and that he's a good person overall. 

The movie gives no indication that she fell head overheals in love with Ben, only that they were at the party together and that they were flirting together.

If YOU had no idea that a super strong, kind hearted, softie of a superhero looked like that, wouldnt you wanna cozy up to him too?


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 14, 2005)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> 3. Doom doesn't even have a Latverian accent.



Well, that's just silly.  There's no such thing as a Latverian accent for him to have.  Latveria's not a real place.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jul 15, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Well, that's just silly.  There's no such thing as a Latverian accent for him to have.  Latveria's not a real place.



 Shut up! You're lying! That's not true!!

*covers ears* LATVERIA IS REAL!!! LATVERIA IS REAL!!! LATVERIA IS REAL!!!


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 15, 2005)

Ankh-Morpork Guard said:
			
		

> Shut up! You're lying! That's not true!!
> 
> *covers ears* LATVERIA IS REAL!!! LATVERIA IS REAL!!! LATVERIA IS REAL!!!



Err... yes, of course.  Just like Genosha.


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 16, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> You got that right!    I just think its a sad coarsening of the source material.  But from what I understand most mainstream comics are largely T & A fests now anyway




T&A fests *now?!?!?!*

Unless you consider everything from 1980-2005 to be NOW, I heartily disagree with that statement. They have been T&A fests for decades. If you're surprised by that, Im sorry. 

Also, T&A only tells half the story. They're also about big pecs and big err... packages on the guys. 

And since I was old enough to notice anyway (back in the 80's- I never knew I went to high school "now" but time is relative) comic costumes have been tight enough to basically be nudity. 

I can understand not *condoning* this trend. But to be shocked by a comic movie representing beautiful people scantily clad seems a little unrealistic.

As a footnote I first saw nudity in a marvel comic in the 70's. But then, Im not insulted by a depiction of a beautiful human body. 

Chuck


----------



## Brother Shatterstone (Jul 16, 2005)

Vigilance said:
			
		

> As a footnote I first saw nudity in a marvel comic in the 70's. But then, Im not insulted by a depiction of a beautiful human body.




Was it Betty Brant? (Incredible Hulk)


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 16, 2005)

BTW... I gave it a 6. I was mildly entertaining cheese. The reason it warrants a better than average score is that I really thought they got the characters of the FF right. Every one of those acting choices was spot-on to me. 

For those who thought Sue was not smart enough and/or too sexy... Namor hasnt been chasing her for 4 decades trying to make her Queen of Atlantis for her college resume 

Chuck


----------



## Vigilance (Jul 16, 2005)

Brother Shatterstone said:
			
		

> Was it Betty Brant? (Incredible Hulk)




Nope. Colleen Wing in Daughters of the Dragon from the long lamented (by me) Deadly Fists of Kung Fu. 

Back in the 70's Marvel experimented with B&W magazine sized books aimed at adults, sold in drug stores as opposed to on comic racks. Other magazine lines were Savage Sword of Conan (which had a LOT of naked women), Vampirella and Marvel Spotlight. 

All great reading. Really cool offbeat stories.

Chuck


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 17, 2005)

I really enjoyed the movie. The actors all had their characters spot on. Ioan Gruffudd in partucular was absolutely perfect as Reed Richards. Though I have to agree that there was something just sort of lame about Doom. He lacked any of the gravitas that someone like Doom needs. 

Normally, I'm not the sort to drool over actresses. Perhaps it was the low cut dresses, but Jessica Alba was stunning. I had to keep mopping the drool off my chin. She was so beautiful it was somewhat distracting. 

Much as I would have wished otherwise, there actually wasn't any nudity in the movie. Lots of suggested nudity, like some of her clothing floating as it was being taken off, but nothing was actually shown that wouldn't be seen if she was wearing a bikini.


----------



## Endur (Jul 18, 2005)

SPOILERS
[sblock]
Johnny Quick was well done.
The Thing was well done, except he went back into the machine too easily to reclaim his Thing form.
Sue Storm worked ok.
Mr. Fantastic worked ok ... except it was never clear how the original miscalculation was made.  That should have been clarified in the movie ... Did Dr. Doom mess up the figures, did Reed mess up, or were they both just wrong?  And both being just plain wrong seems unlikely.
Dr. Doom worked out ok, although the combination of the metal body, the scarred face, and the metal mask was probably overkill.  I would have gone with either the metal body or the scarred face and metal mask.  Both seemed to not make sense.
Also, the part about Dr. Doom's problem being a disease didn't make any sense.  He had the same sort of mutation as the Fantastic Four had.
[/sblock]


----------



## Krug (Jul 20, 2005)

7. Guilt-free experience, that didn't resut in any actual pain or prolonged excitement. Besides, a [b}Fantastic Four 2[/b] has been greenlit.

I wonder how much the movie made from product/logo placement.


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 20, 2005)

Krug said:
			
		

> 7. Guilt-free experience, that didn't resut in any actual pain or prolonged excitement. Besides, a *Fantastic Four 2* has been greenlit.



Has it?  That's good news.  I'd *hope* that this shows the same kind of improvement from freshman to sophomore effort that Spiderman, or X-men (or heck, even Superman) did.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 20, 2005)

Kai Lord said:
			
		

> A total tease in the "super hero" action department, and an appalling level of sexual coarseness for a kid friendly flick.  I wouldn't have been surprised to see Vince McMahon in the credits as a producer.



Just one of the moments I´m reminded that Americans are strange and I don´t have to understand them. The obsession with sexuality and any kind of even just implied nudity is something I will never entirely understand. 

What do you think will cause more fear in a kid: Seeing a man with metal growing out of his skin and taking on a horrible metallic mask, or Jessica Alba wearing only underwear? What would probably appear in his nightmares (in his, not in that of you as a possible parent)?

What is more morally questionable: Killing a man by heating him up several thousand Kelvin and then rapidly cooling him, or a woman wearing a sexy uniform?
I guess only an American can chose the latter option. 

But I won´t worry - we all have our issues... This is a harmless one... (Even though it´s stupid enough that it sometimes simply enrages me ...)

PS: 
Please don´t feel offended, Kai (or anyone else), I just need some venting. I am not doing this kind of thing often enough.

PPS:
Regarding the movie: I gave it a 6. It was not as good as Spiderman, X-Men or Batman, and I also prefer The Punisher over Fantastic Four. (Buit I liked the latter a lot more than it might be worth  ). I think the movie lacked a bit of coheson and motivation - I wasn´t impressed by the character of Dr.Doom as shown in the movie. He could have been more evil...
I don´t know if it´s good that I have no clue about the comics...
In the end, I enjoyed the movie, but it didn´t inspire more...


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 20, 2005)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Just one of the moments I´m reminded that Americans are strange and I don´t have to understand them. The obsession with sexuality and any kind of even just implied nudity is something I will never entirely understand.




Sex is regarded as sinful by a large chunk of american society. Violence however is merely bad. Since violence isn't sinful like sex is, it doesn't threaten their beliefs in the same way that sex does. In other words, violence is bad, but sex is not only bad, but will send you to hell as well. Plus it's viewed as being particularly corrupting to children and teenagers. After all anyone can have sex and everyone has sexual urges, but few people have the guns and ammo to go on a killing spree. Since it is such a part of american culture and has been pretty much since the begining (Thank you Puritains!), it affects even those of use who tend to have a broader view of things.


----------



## Mark Chance (Jul 20, 2005)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Please don´t feel offended, Kai (or anyone else), I just need some venting. I am not doing this kind of thing often enough.




Why would anyone be offended by your labeling only Americans as incapable of making the moral distinctions between violence and nudity necessary to protect our children because we're all so hung up on harmless yet stupid issues framed within the context of an intellectually dishonest false dilemma?

What's next? Cluttering things up with prejudicial caricatures of religious beliefs and disparaging, ignorant comments about Puritans?


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 20, 2005)

Mark Chance said:
			
		

> What's next? Cluttering things up with prejudicial caricatures of religious beliefs and disparaging, ignorant comments about Puritans?




Nope, beat you to the posting. It came first


----------



## Lord Pendragon (Jul 21, 2005)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Please don´t feel offended, Kai (or anyone else), I just need some venting. I am not doing this kind of thing often enough.



Yes, I find that I don't insult Germans often enough myself.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jul 21, 2005)

> Why would anyone be offended by your labeling only Americans as incapable of making the moral distinctions between violence and nudity necessary to protect our children because we're all so hung up on harmless yet stupid issues framed within the context of an intellectually dishonest false dilemma?



Maybe i was ... "overgeneralizing". But I really don´t understand those Americans with those views. And I am certain there are non-Americans with similar views. But thanks to the kind of boards I travel (and the media regarding America) I simply associate this view as typically American. And it sometimes bothers me reading these views.



			
				Lord Pendragon said:
			
		

> Yes, I find that I don't insult Germans often enough myself.



Sometimes you should maybe do it, if you feel like it. 

Though was I really insulting? I usually associate insults with swear-words. Describing someone as strange doesn´t fit to that. Strange is not bad (usually it´s just interesting and remarkably. 
On a second thought, I described it as an issue, that probably counts as insult. 
Even if that´s what I feel on this matter, _I am sorry if I hurt your feelings _. 
What I wanted to achieve (besides the personal venting) is some more introspection on the side of the posters, thinking about their views (and changing it, preferably  ). But I guess that won´t really work, because changing opinions on Message Boards is usually impossible (only forming works).


----------



## Desdichado (Jul 21, 2005)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Though was I really insulting? I usually associate insults with swear-words.



Speaking of strange...

I very rarely swear.  If I lived up to what I'd like to be, I never would.  I find that I can still insult with the best of them.  In fact, the best insults have no swearing in them whatsoever.

Not that I aspire to be an insult-artist by any means.  But I see no correllation at all between swearing and insulting.


----------



## Arnwyn (Jul 21, 2005)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Maybe i was ... "overgeneralizing".



You weren't. The evidence is there (whether it's the populace at large or just those in positions to seriously influence the media can be debated).


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jul 21, 2005)

arnwyn said:
			
		

> You weren't. The evidence is there (whether it's the populace at large or just those in positions to seriously influence the media can be debated).





The problem is there are actual solid reasons for this viewpoint. 

For many Americans sex and violence are both neutral as regards morality in and of themselves. It is conditions and motivations that define them as good or evil.

Accordingly, violence can be allowed, and possibly even the right thing to do in many circumstances including the defense of one's family or country or own self. Thus violence is much easier to rationlize.

Sex however is different. For many with the more black and white moral views, there is nothing intrinsicly wrong with sex, but sex should be kept within certain contexts. And while yes, you could portray sexual acts between married people on screen, that would still defeat the purpose of keeping sex within the context of marriage.

So it isn't a view that violence = okay and sex = bad. Both are equally amoral, just defined by their contexts.


----------



## Henry (Jul 21, 2005)

Ladies and Gentlemen, let's please avoid the generalizations and insults.

Mustrum, though you didn't profane anyone, the generalized statements could come off as insults, for sure. Keep in mind that a plurality (if not majority) of those who frequent these boards are from the U.S., and only one or two have had negative comments on the movie with respect to violence or sexual content.

And Jessica Alba wearing underwear in a PG-13 movie is to me not unwelcome.  For that matter, I have seen worse in rated "G" movies; an animated flick I remember from my childhood has a scene with a man transformed into a frog cavorting for a few seconds in an overweight witch's cleavage for comic effect! Talk about scarring me for life!


----------



## John Crichton (Jul 22, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> And Jessica Alba wearing underwear in a PG-13 movie is to me not unwelcome.  For that matter, I have seen worse in rated "G" movies; an animated flick I remember from my childhood has a scene with a man transformed into a frog cavorting for a few seconds in an overweight witch's cleavage for comic effect! Talk about scarring me for life!



Henry, I KNEW you had frog issues...


----------



## Templetroll (Jul 23, 2005)

In an interview about Sin City Jessica Alba mentioned that she would not do nude scenes as it would offend her father and she would be embarrassed by doing something that would offend him.  She also mentioned that she was able to be sexy enough for the movie in chaps.  

The stuff with Sue on the bridge was that her stripping etc was a distraction that allowed the two guys to slip past the cops, not that the cops were letting anyone through!

I gave the movie an 8 because it was a fun flick that was on enough with the characters and the story was a good origin.  I liked that the most affected was Ben, who was outside and that even Doom was affected with his body taking on something similar to the shielding he was behind.  It was cool that you could track the effect on Doom by watching that scar of his; that also harkened back to a comment about why the comic book Doom wore the mask all the time - his 'disfigured face'.  Was it horribly scarred or just some small cut?  I thought it was neat that was brought in.

The 'disease' thing with Doom was only so the doctor would push to contact the CDC and cause Doom to overreact and kill him.  It was to show how out of control/Evil Doom could be.

I think the problem with no reaction in the movie of the FF 'killing' Doom by making him a statue was just an oversight of the writer/director etc.  We all know Doom isn't actually dead, or we know it pretty quickly.  The line used by Reed was going along with the Doom's taunting of the FF as he dealt with them; it was taunting back to stop it in the same way.

I thought it was fine how the film's Johnny was a 'bad boy but Good Guy' kinda thing that would irk his sister while attracting good press.  That was something that fits with today's style.  Same with Sue being chased by people when they first recognize her on the street; the celebrity culture/papparazzi kind of thing.  It was an updating of it.


----------



## Rackhir (Jul 23, 2005)

Templetroll said:
			
		

> She also mentioned that she was able to be sexy enough for the movie in chaps.




Can't argue with that.   



			
				Templetroll said:
			
		

> that also harkened back to a comment about why the comic book Doom wore the mask all the time - his 'disfigured face'.  Was it horribly scarred or just some small cut?  I thought it was neat that was brought in.




I'm not 100% sure about this as it was never explicity stated to the best of my knowledge. However, I think that his initial "Horrible Disfigurement" when his device to contact his dead mother blew up, was something relatively minor. However, when he was putting together his first suit of armor and was applying the mask, it was given to him still white hot from the forging fire used and distaining the pain and harm, he affixed the mask. I suspect scarring his face far beyond the initial damage.


----------



## Henry (Jul 23, 2005)

Templetroll said:
			
		

> The stuff with Sue on the bridge was that her stripping etc was a distraction that allowed the two guys to slip past the cops, not that the cops were letting anyone through!




I've seen a couple of comments where the "stripping on the bridge" did not make sense. However, having seen the movie twice, I'd like to point out that right after she stripped and elbowed through the crowd, immediately after was the scene where the cops and Ben were having their standoff, and the Power panel near them "mysteriously" exploded, giving Ben the distraction he used to get away. Regardless, they still shot him, and it bounced off. 

I think that Sue orchestrated the exploding power panel, and really didn't get a good look at him when she did so, explaining her surprise along with the others when she got a good look.


----------



## Dark Jezter (Jul 23, 2005)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Just one of the moments I´m reminded that Americans are strange and I don´t have to understand them. The obsession with sexuality and any kind of even just implied nudity is something I will never entirely understand.




Oh great, a blanket statement about how Americans are a bunch of backwards yokels who haven't yet adoped more "enlightened" European viewpoints (the following post even included the requisite jabs at religion and comments about "puritans").  Never seen _that_ before on the internet.

But anyways...

I just got back from seeing it, and gave it an 8.

It was a very fun movie, and more entertaining than I thought it would be (from the trailers, I thought that it was going to suck).  Having never read the comics, I couldn't care less about how faithful of an adaptation it is.  I absolutely loved the Thing, though, and his scenes were my favorite in the movie.  And, as another poster mentioned, Jessica Alba was smoking hot in this movie (there were many scenes were I couldn't believe just how stunning she looked).  The movie also had a lot of parts that made me laugh, such as the toilet-paper scene and the "you've been working out" comment. 

As far as recent comic book movies go, I didn't think it was as good as _Spider-Man_ or _X-Men_, but it was a hell of a lot better than _Daredevil_ or _The Hulk._


----------



## Krug (Jul 23, 2005)

The main problem for me was that the Sue Storm stripping on bridge scene wasn't well edited. The flow was pretty confusing and made many folks go "huh?" I thought she was the one slipping by the cops. How did she perform a distraction while invisible? 

One good thing about the movie; no political references and it was just having a good time.


----------



## Welverin (Jul 24, 2005)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> I watched FF4 on my laptop in class today.




There shouldn't be a 4 at after the FF, that's what the second F stands for.


----------



## Captain Tagon (Jul 24, 2005)

Welverin said:
			
		

> There shouldn't be a 4 at after the FF, that's what the second F stands for.





Funny Fantastic Four
Fantastic Fighting Four
Ferociously Fantastic Four
Fandango's Fantastic Four
Frightening Fantastic Four
etc


----------



## BrooklynKnight (Jul 24, 2005)

Welverin said:
			
		

> There shouldn't be a 4 at after the FF, that's what the second F stands for.




OH i was watching a sequal. I have a time machine and I got all the sequals from the future....


----------



## Templetroll (Jul 24, 2005)

Krug said:
			
		

> The main problem for me was that the Sue Storm stripping on bridge scene wasn't well edited. The flow was pretty confusing and made many folks go "huh?" ...




True enough.  They should be certain to include all possible bits of the stripping scene in the DVD so that it can be .....  uh, nevermind....


----------



## Welverin (Jul 25, 2005)

BrooklynKnight said:
			
		

> OH i was watching a sequal. I have a time machine and I got all the sequals from the future....




So, how are they? Should we be looking forward to them, or just put them out of our minds?


----------

