# So I finally saw the Fantastic Four...



## Mercurius (Nov 1, 2015)

...and I don't get all the nerdrage and general hatred of this movie. It wasn't great; it wasn't even all that good, but it was still reasonably entertaining and certainly not 9%-on-Rotten-Tomatoes-bad. 

It was a bit gloomy and I thought Doom was somewhat silly. I never really connected with any of the characters and had the feeling that something was missing. But again, not terrible. Overall I liked the first two-thirds of the film or so until Doomy showed up. Even then the special effects were pretty fun, although the climax was rather anti-climactic and the defeat of Doom was about as quick and un-exciting as the botched Phoenix saga in_ X-Men: the Last Stand_. But still, it was OK.

Maybe it is mainly a matter of disappointed expectations? I mean, the F4 didn't have the pinazz of the Avengers of X franchises, but the movie wasn't so bad that a well-done sequel couldn't right the ship. 

What gives?


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 1, 2015)

I can't speak from direct knowledge as I took a pledge not to bother with remakes or reboots, but friends have filled me in on their big issues with the movie. 

The first is the one that they found the least invasive; the change in the family dynamic. The FF have generally been viewed as the 'nuclear family' of the Marvel Comics world. 

The second was the shoe-horning in of Doom as a hacker type, rather than the powerful legacy child from the original comic. 

The third complaint involved the fact that it felt like two separate and very different movies, starting from about halfway in. It went from dark and somewhat cerebral, to shoot-em-up and 'splosions.

The whole debacle seems rather well explained by ComicBook19 in one of her excellent reviews. She did something similar on "Prometheus", but I think that it ran afoul of copyright issues. *WHOOPS* Correction, that video series is back up too. Here's a link to her stuff on FF.

[H][video=youtube;qC0mmSDCegk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC0mmSDCegk[/video][/H]


----------



## Morrus (Nov 1, 2015)

It was fine. I quite enjoyed it. No masterpiece, but as watchable as much of the superhero fare of the last decade.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 1, 2015)

Morrus said:


> It was fine. I quite enjoyed it. No masterpiece, but as watchable as much of the superhero fare of the last decade.




And that's the issue. It showed far more promise than the average superhero film of the last decade but because it didn't follow the beats of such a movie, the producers and studio decided to overrule their director. The link that I posted to CBG19's analysis is worth watching.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 1, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> And that's the issue.




Wasn't an issue for me. I don't need a link to explain why I shouldn't enjoy a film.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 1, 2015)

Morrus said:


> Wasn't an issue for me. I don't need a link to explain why I shouldn't enjoy a film.




Seems like it was because it was only 'as watchable as' rather than the better movie that it could have been, had they trusted their director


----------



## calronmoonflower (Nov 1, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> What gives?




I imagine that this is part of it, 






And it was all wonky after the time skip.


----------



## Morrus (Nov 1, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Seems like it was because it was only 'as watchable as' rather than the better movie that it could have been, had they trusted their director




Every movie could have been better or could have been worse. I just watch the movie!


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 2, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> Maybe it is mainly a matter of disappointed expectations? I mean, the F4 didn't have the pinazz of the Avengers of X franchises, but the movie wasn't so bad that a well-done sequel couldn't right the ship.



Well there's the rub. You have to have a well-done sequel to right the ship. That's unlikely to happen. The sequel will probably be worse than the first. I know, frightening. 



> What gives?



 I was highly impressed with how well Kristen Stewart played Dr. Franklin Storm.


----------



## Jhaelen (Nov 2, 2015)

And you never had the feeling "Gee, this movie could have been so much better if they'd just..."?

That's how I felt after watching In Time.
The movie had such an intriguing premise, but it fell completely flat because they apparently couldn't think of _any_ interesting plot that somehow involved the setting. So they went for an utterly implausible and unrealistic poor-man's 'Bonny & Clyde' rehash. Blech!

I think it's entirely appropriate to give an 'about average' movie a poor rating if it messes up a good premise.


----------



## Janx (Nov 2, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Seems like it was because it was only 'as watchable as' rather than the better movie that it could have been, had they trusted their director




I've heard some stories that the director went nuts.

Allegedly trashed the house that was rented for him to stay in while shooting the movie (one with the original families pics and stuff in it) and he trashed the family photos.

So, yeah, it's quite possible they had reason not to trust the director this time around.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 2, 2015)

Janx said:


> I've heard some stories that the director went nuts.
> 
> Allegedly trashed the house that was rented for him to stay in while shooting the movie (one with the original families pics and stuff in it) and he trashed the family photos.
> 
> So, yeah, it's quite possible they had reason not to trust the director this time around.




Not in any way supporting that sort of behaviour but it did come AFTER they did a complete rewrite of the last half of the movie, tossing out his vision for it. That's also covered in the video that I linked.


----------



## Mercurius (Nov 2, 2015)

@_*Ryujin*_, just because a sexy nerdgirl says something doesn't make it so . Seriously though, I did finally watch her review and basically agree. The biggest problem is after "one year later" and the insertion of a big blockbuster style monster fight onto what was more of what was a pretty good if flawed Ang Leeish approach to the Fantastic Four. If the first part had continued it could have been a pretty good film, but given the totality of it I think it becomes "OK."

But here's the thing: it is not nearly as bad as people say, which is mainly based upon nerdrage and disappointment. I think if people were able to approach the movie more impartially and without expectations, it would rank higher than the lower tier comic movies like Catwoman, Batman & Robin, Spawn, Superman IV, Ghost Rider, Elektra, etc...it is better than all of those, in my opinion. It is more along the lines of films like X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Batman Forever, Amazing Spiderman 2, the earlier Fantastic Four movies, Hulk, etc.

My biggest problem with the film, aside from the last part, is the poor use of actor resources. I loved Miles Teller in Whiplash, but he's like a different actor. Such a boring depiction of Reed Richards. Kata Mara somehow manages to be appealing, but could have been more interesting. Michael B Jordan is also much better than what we saw in this film.

Anyhow, the worst part is that they pretty much missed their chance with Doom. Even if they give it another shot and pull the franchise from the precipice of, ah, doom, they can't really re-do the shoddy job they did with Doctor Doom. That's tantamount to blowing it with Magneto in the first X-Men movie.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 2, 2015)

Mercurius said:


> @_*Ryujin*_, just because a sexy nerdgirl says something doesn't make it so . Seriously though, I did finally watch her review and basically agree. The biggest problem is after "one year later" and the insertion of a big blockbuster style monster fight onto what was more of what was a pretty good if flawed Ang Leeish approach to the Fantastic Four. If the first part had continued it could have been a pretty good film, but given the totality of it I think it becomes "OK."
> 
> But here's the thing: it is not nearly as bad as people say, which is mainly based upon nerdrage and disappointment. I think if people were able to approach the movie more impartially and without expectations, it would rank higher than the lower tier comic movies like Catwoman, Batman & Robin, Spawn, Superman IV, Ghost Rider, Elektra, etc...it is better than all of those, in my opinion. It is more along the lines of films like X-Men Origins: Wolverine, Batman Forever, Amazing Spiderman 2, the earlier Fantastic Four movies, Hulk, etc.
> 
> ...




If she had nothing more going for her than being hot, I wouldn't pay any attention to her   As it is, she does rather well researched analysis of movies. Look at her treatment of "Prometheus." 

It seems that the jump to blockbuster movie style is the result of the producer rewrite. As stated in that video the reshoots become rather glaring, due to the crappy wig that they stick on Mara.


----------



## megamania (Nov 2, 2015)

I didn't watch it but will buy it once its on DVD (January I believe).

Why?

To many changes from the original source.    Jonny.... won't go there.

Thing.... pile of lose rocks held together somehow.   Really???

And from there,  there were so many hero / action movies out already- I needed to decide what I could afford to see and what I would wait for on Video.

The Fantastic Four can be a really good movie but they need to incorporate the 'family' with the action and get away from Doom.   There are other villians that could be just as good, if not better.    Doom has yet to be done correctly and at this point they need to move past him and maybe return later.   Sub-Mariner, Annilhilus, Terrax (instead of the Surfer) would be good.


----------



## megamania (Nov 2, 2015)

As a side note, My understanding is Marvel has the rights for Fantastic Four as a movie back but in turn allowed Paramount the rights to do X-men on TV (New Mutants anyone?)

If this is so, maybe we can get a better Fantastic Four movie.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 2, 2015)

megamania said:


> I didn't watch it but will buy it once its on DVD (January I believe).
> 
> Why?
> 
> ...




... and Mole Man.

If you can find it (I think that it's still on Youtube), watch the Roger Corman version of "The Fantastic Four." It's truly horrible but the one saving grace, in my opinion, is that they got the portrayal of Doom pretty damned close. As in nuttyasafruitcake whacko.


----------



## megamania (Nov 3, 2015)

Never thought of Doom as a "nuttyasafruitcake whacko" but okay.    Especially with Marvel/Disney re-acquiring the rights to Fantastic Four movies I could see him being in each movie as a background villain fully used in the third movie.  He is a power hungry self loving visions of grandeur manipulator with a healthy hatred of Reed Richards.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 3, 2015)

megamania said:


> Never thought of Doom as a "nuttyasafruitcake whacko" but okay.    Especially with Marvel/Disney re-acquiring the rights to Fantastic Four movies I could see him being in each movie as a background villain fully used in the third movie.  He is a power hungry self loving visions of grandeur manipulator with a healthy hatred of Reed Richards.




How about "so far over the top that he can see the bottom again" instead? Since childhood I've always pictured Doom as being as flamboyant as a Shakespearean actor, throwing his lines to the back row. I'm talking moustache-twirling evil here, rather than intelligent and calculating evil.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 4, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> How about "so far over the top that he can see the bottom again" instead? Since childhood I've always pictured Doom as being as flamboyant as a Shakespearean actor, throwing his lines to the back row. I'm talking moustache-twirling evil here, rather than intelligent and calculating evil.




Must it be mutually exclusive? Can't intelligent calculating evil have a flare for theatrics and the ego that comes with it?

Pierre Trudeau sure did.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 4, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Must it be mutually exclusive? Can't intelligent calculating evil have a flare for theatrics and the ego that comes with it?
> 
> Pierre Trudeau sure did.




We'll have to differ on Trudeau


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 4, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> We'll have to differ on Trudeau




You just think he was evil!?


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 4, 2015)

goldomark said:


> You just think he was evil!?




No, but not for this thread


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 4, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> No, but not for this thread



Maybe we should start a thread of foreign leaders Marvel turned into comic book villains. Trudeau gets 1st post!


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 4, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Maybe we should start a thread of foreign leaders Marvel turned into comic book villains. Trudeau gets 1st post!
> 
> View attachment 71593




I used to have two full sets of the first run of Captain Canuck (Guardian was a poor copy by Marvel, done a few years later) from back in the '70s. Unfortunately when my younger brother became old enough to read comics he found my stash (including a whole bunch of comics that had 10 and 12 cent cover costs) and started selling them off to an unscrupulous flea market seller, in order to buy new ones.


----------



## Kramodlog (Nov 4, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> I used to have two full sets of the first run of Captain Canuck (Guardian was a poor copy by Marvel, done a few years later) from back in the '70s. Unfortunately when my younger brother became old enough to read comics he found my stash (including a whole bunch of comics that had 10 and 12 cent cover costs) and started selling them off to an unscrupulous flea market seller, in order to buy new ones.




Reminds me of my mother who gave to goodwill my 1980 Darth Vader case and all the figurines it contained... Cause I didn't play with them anymore.


----------



## megamania (Nov 4, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Reminds me of my mother who gave to goodwill my 1980 Darth Vader case and all the figurines it contained... Cause I didn't play with them anymore.




OUCH!


----------



## Ovinomancer (Nov 4, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Reminds me of my mother who gave to goodwill my 1980 Darth Vader case and all the figurines it contained... Cause I didn't play with them anymore.




You, too?!  I still cry.


----------



## billd91 (Nov 4, 2015)

megamania said:


> As a side note, My understanding is Marvel has the rights for Fantastic Four as a movie back but in turn allowed Paramount the rights to do X-men on TV (New Mutants anyone?)
> 
> If this is so, maybe we can get a better Fantastic Four movie.




I believe the current state is that both Fox and Marvel are denying that film rights are back in Marvel's hands. Fox still has the movie rights for the foreseeable future.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 4, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> How about "so far over the top that he can see the bottom again" instead? Since childhood I've always pictured Doom as being as flamboyant as a Shakespearean actor, throwing his lines to the back row. I'm talking moustache-twirling evil here, rather than intelligent and calculating evil.


----------



## megamania (Nov 4, 2015)

billd91 said:


> I believe the current state is that both Fox and Marvel are denying that film rights are back in Marvel's hands. Fox still has the movie rights for the foreseeable future.




Too bad


----------



## MechaPilot (Nov 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> I've heard some stories that the director went nuts.




There are certainly those stories, but I'd probably go a little crazy too if Fox screwed with me the way they screwed with Trank.  Pulling two major set-pieces just before filming starts, banning the director from the editing room, and re-shooting scenes without the director goes way beyond typical studio-meddling.  And it's not like Fox isn't known for doing that with directors who aren't impressively established.


----------



## Staffan (Nov 8, 2015)

WayneLigon said:


> View attachment 71602




He does on occasion use doors.


----------



## WayneLigon (Nov 8, 2015)

Staffan said:


> He does on occasion use doors.




Maaayyybeee....


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 25, 2015)

[video=youtube;wkFEyZL9f_M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkFEyZL9f_M[/video]


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 25, 2015)

Seems like there will be no sequel.

http://www.craveonline.com/culture/927681-flame-off-fox-quietly-cancels-fantastic-four-sequel


----------



## calronmoonflower (Nov 26, 2015)

Maybe they will release the original version on DVD/BR.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 26, 2015)

calronmoonflower said:


> Maybe they will release the original version on DVD/BR.



Do you really think it would to be any better than what was released?


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 26, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Do you really think it would to be any better than what was released?




Better or just different; at least it would be from a single directorial voice.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 26, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Better or just different; at least it would be from a single directorial voice.



So we could get a different kind of suck from one director? I mean, sure, but can't it just be allowed to die? I'd rather they get a completely different movie that has nothing to do with this one.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 26, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So we could get a different kind of suck from one director? I mean, sure, but can't it just be allowed to die? I'd rather they get a completely different movie that has nothing to do with this one.




At the point that the producers and studio stepped in the alternate became Schrodinger's; equal probabilities of being good or sucking. They can't let it die because they would lose the rights, without milking everything out of the property that they want to (that would be ALL the monies).


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 26, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> At the point that the producers and studio stepped in the alternate became Schrodinger's; equal probabilities of being good or sucking.



I don't know about that. The characters were pretty terrible from the start. I doubt anything that was originally planned could have saved that train wreck.




> They can't let it die because they would lose the rights, without milking everything out of the property that they want to (that would be ALL the monies).




Nah... they made a movie. That seems to be enough to fulfill the rights requirement. That's probably why they cancelled the second movie. They did enough to keep the rights for whatever amount of time. Maybe in another ten years Fox will torture humanity again with another Fantastic Four movie.


----------



## calronmoonflower (Nov 26, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> So we could get a different kind of suck from one director? I mean, sure, but can't it just be allowed to die? I'd rather they get a completely different movie that has nothing to do with this one.



Odd that you do not consider your lack of knowledge of what the alternative parts of the film to be any barrier to pronouncing judgment on it.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 26, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I don't know about that. The characters were pretty terrible from the start. I doubt anything that was originally planned could have saved that train wreck.
> 
> Nah... they made a movie. That seems to be enough to fulfill the rights requirement. That's probably why they cancelled the second movie. They did enough to keep the rights for whatever amount of time. Maybe in another ten years Fox will torture humanity again with another Fantastic Four movie.




Maybe yes, maybe no. The simple fact is that they didn't give the director they hired the opportunity to see his vision through, so at the very least it was going to be uneven.

They also made the Roger Coreman movie but never officially released it, in order to keep rights from reverting. By "can't let it die" I was actually referring to the periodic need to produce (but not necessarily release) a movie, in order to retain the rights.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 27, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> Maybe yes, maybe no. The simple fact is that they didn't give the director they hired the opportunity to see his vision through, so at the very least it was going to be uneven.



True, they didn't give him the chance to put out the movie he wanted to put out, but it's not as if they took every element the director put in there out of the final movie. The character's were pretty damn terrible. There was nothing in the movie that gave me the impression that if the director was allowed to release the movie he had in mind that it would be any good.



> They also made the Roger Coreman movie but never officially released it, in order to keep rights from reverting. By "can't let it die" I was actually referring to the periodic need to produce (but not necessarily release) a movie, in order to retain the rights.



Okay, well that makes sense. When I said they should let it die, I was referring to this movie and this version of the Fantastic Four.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 27, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> True, they didn't give him the chance to put out the movie he wanted to put out, but it's not as if they took every element the director put in there out of the final movie. The character's were pretty damn terrible. There was nothing in the movie that gave me the impression that if the director was allowed to release the movie he had in mind that it would be any good.
> 
> Okay, well that makes sense. When I said they should let it die, I was referring to this movie and this version of the Fantastic Four.




No, they didn't take out everything that the original director had put in. They just took out the last third and shoehorned a boss fight into it, instead of his ending, that eliminated any chance of the character development he had done meaning anything. Because viewers didn't get to see that ending, we'll never know if it actually was any good. It's like the business with the original script of "Prometheus" that you can find online, which explains much of the otherwise inexplicable behaviour on the part of people who were supposed to be top researchers, but behaved like complete morons. What gets left on the cutting room floor, or in the case of "Prometheus" tossed out in favour of rewrites by the director, can ruin a film.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 27, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> No, they didn't take out everything that the original director had put in. They just took out the last third and shoehorned a boss fight into it, instead of his ending, that eliminated any chance of the character development he had done meaning anything. Because viewers didn't get to see that ending, we'll never know if it actually was any good. It's like the business with the original script of "Prometheus" that you can find online, which explains much of the otherwise inexplicable behaviour on the part of people who were supposed to be top researchers, but behaved like complete morons. What gets left on the cutting room floor, or in the case of "Prometheus" tossed out in favour of rewrites by the director, can ruin a film.



That's the thing. The first 2/3 of the movie wasn't any good, either. We may never know if the ending was any good, but we know the rest of the movie wasn't very good. Within the first 2/3 of the movie you are introduced to all the characters, which we can assume are what Josh Trank wanted. Dr. Franklin Storm, played by Reg E. Cathey, had no emotion throughout the entire movie. It was as if Trank hired the greatest make-up crew and had them transform Kristen Stewart into an old black man. That's on Trank. According to this article, Trank kept on pushing for the actors to play everything as flat as possible. Well, Cathey delivered one flat Dr. Franklin Storm. The rest of the cast also delivered flat performances.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 27, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> That's the thing. The first 2/3 of the movie wasn't any good, either. We may never know if the ending was any good, but we know the rest of the movie wasn't very good. Within the first 2/3 of the movie you are introduced to all the characters, which we can assume are what Josh Trank wanted. Dr. Franklin Storm, played by Reg E. Cathey, had no emotion throughout the entire movie. It was as if Trank hired the greatest make-up crew and had them transform Kristen Stewart into an old black man. That's on Trank. According to this article, Trank kept on pushing for the actors to play everything as flat as possible. Well, Cathey delivered one flat Dr. Franklin Storm. The rest of the cast also delivered flat performances.




I can't speak to whether it's good or bad from my own point of view, due to my recent swearing off watching remakes and reboots. Those I've spoken to who have seen it seemed to like at least the first part, calling it 'more cerebral' than other recent superhero movies, but that may just have been a combination of pretentiousness and inability to say that they _completely_ wasted twelve bucks


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 27, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> I can't speak to whether it's good or bad from my own point of view, due to my recent swearing off watching remakes and reboots. Those I've spoken to who have seen it seemed to like at least the first part, calling it 'more cerebral' than other recent superhero movies, but that may just have been a combination of pretentiousness and inability to say that they _completely_ wasted twelve bucks



I'd tell you to watch it, so you can decide if the first 2/3 of the movie was any good, but I  don' hate you, so I won't suggest you torture yourself.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 27, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I'd tell you to watch it, so you can decide if the first 2/3 of the movie was any good, but I  don' hate you, so I won't suggest you torture yourself.




I had quite enough of "The Fantastic Four" when they thought that sticking blue contacts on Jessica Alba was a good idea


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 27, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> I had quite enough of "The Fantastic Four" when they thought that sticking blue contacts on Jessica Alba was a good idea



Compared to the bad wig and lack of purpose, besides being the team tailor, blue contacts were a very minor thing.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 27, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Compared to the bad wig and lack of purpose, besides being the team tailor, blue contacts were a very minor thing.




The bad wig only appears in the reshoots that dropped the director's original plans, as Mara cut her hair shortly after shooting principal wrapped


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 27, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> The bad wig only appears in the reshoots that dropped the director's original plans, as Mara cut her hair shortly after shooting principal wrapped



I bet she cut her hair short, so no one could recognize her on the street after F4 came out in theaters.


----------



## Ryujin (Nov 27, 2015)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> I bet she cut her hair short, so no one could recognize her on the street after F4 came out in theaters.




If you're going to talk about that movie please refer to it by its proper name; "Fanfourstic."


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Nov 28, 2015)

Ryujin said:


> If you're going to talk about that movie please refer to it by its proper name; "Fanfourstic."



It would require far more effort to write that than was put into making that movie. I refuse to just on principle.


----------

