Fantastic Four: TWGCM >> View Thread

Author
Comicguy1


Member Since: Tue Apr 04, 2017
Posts: 1,275


The new FF movie was recently on, and I heard that it was SOOO terrible that I just couldn't even bring myself to check it out to see for myself if it was true. The previous two movies didn't exactly set the world on fire either, and people didn't seem to care for them. Marvel has done such a good job with their movies, and it seems like they've managed to get pretty much every other character and property "Right." except for the FF. The Avengers, Thor, X-Men, Cap, even Ant-Man was a success. Yet they can't seem to get the FF. What gives, and can anything be done at this point? Should they not even bother with a reboot? For me, when I saw the preview and heard that they weren't using anything from the comics, I knew that it wasn't going to be as good as the other movies and properties (Although I didn't expect it to bomb to the extent that it did.).


Posted with Google Chrome 56.0.2924.87 on Linux
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,303


Marvel hasn't tried yet. All the legal wrangling has been about getting to try.

I think Marvel will do a good job. Their experience with the Avengers and the Guardians of the Galaxy will point the way.






Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 10
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 10,594




    Quote:
    The new FF movie was recently on, and I heard that it was SOOO terrible that I just couldn't even bring myself to check it out to see for myself if it was true. The previous two movies didn't exactly set the world on fire either, and people didn't seem to care for them. Marvel has done such a good job with their movies, and it seems like they've managed to get pretty much every other character and property "Right." except for the FF. The Avengers, Thor, X-Men, Cap, even Ant-Man was a success. Yet they can't seem to get the FF. What gives, and can anything be done at this point? Should they not even bother with a reboot? For me, when I saw the preview and heard that they weren't using anything from the comics, I knew that it wasn't going to be as good as the other movies and properties (Although I didn't expect it to bomb to the extent that it did.).


I don't think a good Fantastic Four can be made. They've tried and failed 3 times (4 if you count the one that never aired).

Not everything works as a movie.



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
Dakota


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 371


Just for clarity, Fox made those movies, not Marvel/Disney. They haven't had their chance yet. If the pending sale of Fox to Disney goes through, they'd probably get their chance. (There is a third company involved with the movie rights, but I assume it would just transfer the contract)


Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 7
Count Dante


Location: Ad Pages in Old Comics
Member Since: Wed Aug 21, 2013
Posts: 3,215


The problem is in the approach. We have seen the origin in 3 out of the 4 attempts. Only Rise of the Silver Surfer did we see a variation. And that was with a horrible cast from a first movie that screwed with the formula way too much.

My suggestion is: Don't do an FF origin movie. Do a Doctor Doom movie or a Thing Movie - featuring the FF. When all else fails you must try something radically different.




"Deadliest Comic Book Reader Alive!"
Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 10
Iron Maiden 

Manager

Member Since: Sun Nov 02, 2003
Posts: 4,833


I should think everyone knew this and it's why Disney's deal with Fox was such a big story in the news and especially on the comic book sites.

Stan made a deal a long time ago with Constantin Film, who went to Fox to produce the movies. They also rushed that unreleased Roger Corman film into production just to keep the rights they were about to lose.


Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 10
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 10,594




    Quote:
    The problem is in the approach. We have seen the origin in 3 out of the 4 attempts. Only Rise of the Silver Surfer did we see a variation. And that was with a horrible cast from a first movie that screwed with the formula way too much.



    Quote:
    My suggestion is: Don't do an FF origin movie. Do a Doctor Doom movie or a Thing Movie - featuring the FF. When all else fails you must try something radically different.


I don't want a Doctor Doom movie. If we have to have a Fantastic Four movie (which I really don't want) let's use anyone else but Doom. He's hard to get right. Their world is so big...let's see a corner of it where Doom isn't it.





Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
Count Dante


Location: Ad Pages in Old Comics
Member Since: Wed Aug 21, 2013
Posts: 3,215


There are a myriad of options to approach an FF movie without doing the origin.




"Deadliest Comic Book Reader Alive!"
Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 10
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,791



    Quote:
    The problem is in the approach. We have seen the origin in 3 out of the 4 attempts. Only Rise of the Silver Surfer did we see a variation. And that was with a horrible cast from a first movie that screwed with the formula way too much.



    Quote:
    My suggestion is: Don't do an FF origin movie. Do a Doctor Doom movie or a Thing Movie - featuring the FF. When all else fails you must try something radically different.


We've never seen the team's origin in a film. What we've had is some film makers' idea of what that origin should be. THAT's the problem. It doesn't please the fans (And the general public don't care).

Yes, the Fantastic Four's origin in Fantastic Four #1 seems incredibly hokey by today's standards, but then, so did a lot of what Christopher Reeve did in Superman. Reeve absolutely sold it by delivering the lines straight. That's all you need to do with the FF - tell the origin as was (Or with minor changes) and play it straight. The fans will be happy, and the general public will accept it.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Count Dante


Location: Ad Pages in Old Comics
Member Since: Wed Aug 21, 2013
Posts: 3,215


So you advocate for a more faithful origin movie. But wouldn't you need to set the time for the movie in the 60's then?




"Deadliest Comic Book Reader Alive!"
Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 10
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,791



    Quote:
    So you advocate for a more faithful origin movie. But wouldn't you need to set the time for the movie in the 60's then?


No, you could set it today, as long as you still hit the major beats of the story. In fact, a contemporary setting would work better today than at any time over the last 50 years. One of the biggest criticisms of Stan and Jack's origin story was 'How on Earth do you sneak your girl friend and her kid brother on to a space flight'? But that was when only government agencies had the will or the finance to send rockets up. In today's climate we have private individuals - Elon Musk and SpaceX for example - getting in on the act. If Reed was a big noise in such a company it would surely be much easier for them to circumvent any security.

As long as you stick to the major points (The ship should launch in the near future, something happens which necessitates they launch NOW, but the can't get the clearances or it's too dangerous, Reed & co take the ship up, cosmic rays, crash landing back on earth), then the fans would be happy.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,303



    Quote:
    No, you could set it today, as long as you still hit the major beats of the story. In fact, a contemporary setting would work better today than at any time over the last 50 years. One of the biggest criticisms of Stan and Jack's origin story was 'How on Earth do you sneak your girl friend and her kid brother on to a space flight'?


Not just how but - why? There was never any really good reason why Sue and Johnny were on that flight.

Also, humans have been to the moon and back. None of them got powers.

We all just accept the origin because we love the comic. But really, the less we think about it, the better.


    Quote:
    But that was when only government agencies had the will or the finance to send rockets up. In today's climate we have private individuals - Elon Musk and SpaceX for example - getting in on the act. If Reed was a big noise in such a company it would surely be much easier for them to circumvent any security.


But why? And why bring your girl friend and her little brother?


    Quote:
    As long as you stick to the major points (The ship should launch in the near future, something happens which necessitates they launch NOW, but the can't get the clearances or it's too dangerous, Reed & co take the ship up, cosmic rays, crash landing back on earth), then the fans would be happy.


I'm a fan and I'm just as happy to leave the origin alone. But if forced to tell an origin tale yet again, I would radically change it, which I know you don't want.

The only good reason to drag your girl friend and her little brother onto a dangerous rocket flight is if you're fleeing some disaster. (Think Krypton.) Anything else is just dumb. I would have them fleeing the destruction of their Earth, which isn't the Earth we know in the Cinematic Universe. They enter the space between realities and then exit it onto our Earth. Their time in the space between realities transforms them. They crash land and the rest is as we know.

I'm not advocating for that. But if forced to tell an origin story, that's the one I'd tell.









Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 10
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,791





    Quote:
    Not just how but - why? There was never any really good reason why Sue and Johnny were on that flight.



    Quote:
    Also, humans have been to the moon and back. None of them got powers.



    Quote:
    We all just accept the origin because we love the comic. But really, the less we think about it, the better.


Yes, absolutely. That's why I say you just have to present it and play it straight.

And hey, no one gripes when they show crazy stuff like a biomedical engineer (Sandra Bullock) spacewalking and servicing the Hubble telescope as they did in Gravity. But I guarantee you NASA would no more let that happen than your local hospital would allow a plumber to perform open heart surgery on a patient.

And you could always invent some excuse for them to be there. They could be worried about Reed and Ben's safety and threaten to expose their plan unless they take the Storms along. Something along those lines.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,303



    Quote:
    Yes, absolutely. That's why I say you just have to present it and play it straight.



    Quote:
    And hey, no one gripes when they show crazy stuff like a biomedical engineer (Sandra Bullock) spacewalking and servicing the Hubble telescope as they did in Gravity. But I guarantee you NASA would no more let that happen than your local hospital would allow a plumber to perform open heart surgery on a patient.



    Quote:
    And you could always invent some excuse for them to be there. They could be worried about Reed and Ben's safety and threaten to expose their plan unless they take the Storms along. Something along those lines.


The changes you're willing to make are interesting to me. Seems like all you need is the rocket to go up, get bombarded, and crash land. Everything else is negotiable.

So how about this: It's a joy ride. Reed owns the ship which he built himself. He's sure it's completely safe. He convinces his best friend and his girl friend and her little brother to join him on the adventure of their lifetimes. But it turns out Reed is wrong. It's not completely safe. They get bombarded by cosmic rays. The ship malfunctions and crash lands. They survive the crash but are forever changed.

This retains the only element that I think is important: Reed is entirely responsible for Ben's affliction. It also sets up a scenario where Reed was a bit full of himself and needed to be humbled. He comes out of the experience a changed man.

And then the Mole Man attacks.








Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 10
Iron Maiden 

Manager

Member Since: Sun Nov 02, 2003
Posts: 4,833


Lest we forget....


Civilians have been on space flights before. Teacher Christa McAuliffe died in the Challenger space shuttle disaster. Teacher Barbara Morgan was to be McAuliffe's backup but the program "Teachers in Space"was cancelled. Morgan was let into the astronaut training program and did get to go into space in 2007


Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 10
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,791





    Quote:
    The changes you're willing to make are interesting to me. Seems like all you need is the rocket to go up, get bombarded, and crash land. Everything else is negotiable.


Lol! Right.

When you think about all the live action superhero origins that have worked well, they've been reasonably close to the comic book origins.

Superman the Movie redesigned EVERYTHING, but we still got Krypton, Jor-El and Lara, Jor's dispute with the science council, and a ship that takes Kal-El to Earth.

The current Flash tv show may have added dark matter and Reverse-Flash, but we still got a laboratory, a lightning bolt and chemicals.

You can change up whatever you like, as long as what you present is *recognisably* the comic book origin.


    Quote:
    So how about this: It's a joy ride. Reed owns the ship which he built himself. He's sure it's completely safe. He convinces his best friend and his girl friend and her little brother to join him on the adventure of their lifetimes. But it turns out Reed is wrong. It's not completely safe. They get bombarded by cosmic rays. The ship malfunctions and crash lands. They survive the crash but are forever changed.


Yeah, that would work fine. Joyride, test flight... Anything that gets them into a ship, launches them into space and gets them hit by those mysterious cosmic rays. And JUST those four. No one else along for the ride. I think that's necessary to retain their uniqueness, and for the team to bond - they should be the only ones to share the experience.


    Quote:
    This retains the only element that I think is important: Reed is entirely responsible for Ben's affliction. It also sets up a scenario where Reed was a bit full of himself and needed to be humbled. He comes out of the experience a changed man.


Yes. Not just important, but incredibly important: The characters' motivations should be recognisably close to the comics.


    Quote:
    And then the Mole Man attacks.


Sold! I'm booking my tickets to the premiere! \:\)


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Ancient One

Moderator

Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,791



    Quote:
    Lest we forget....


Never.

Heroes all.


Posted with Mozilla 11.0 on Windows 7
Iron Maiden 

Manager

Member Since: Sun Nov 02, 2003
Posts: 4,833



    Quote:

      Quote:
      Lest we forget....



    Quote:
    Never.



    Quote:
    Heroes all.


Amen to that.




Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 10
Mr Why?


Member Since: Wed Oct 28, 2015
Posts: 50


I feel that the problem with the FF is that it is all about family. This does not sit well in today's society with many relationships fractured and people in multiple marriages etc. I am not saying that this in itself is wrong but I feel that the FF represent a stable unit, which is not an idea reflected by society, unlike the Avengers' and X-Men's fluid roster.

So in short it is the subject not the characters.


Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 7
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,303



    Quote:
    I feel that the problem with the FF is that it is all about family. This does not sit well in today's society with many relationships fractured and people in multiple marriages etc. I am not saying that this in itself is wrong but I feel that the FF represent a stable unit, which is not an idea reflected by society, unlike the Avengers' and X-Men's fluid roster.



    Quote:
    So in short it is the subject not the characters.


That may explain the comic's inability to garner a large audience in recent years. Even if we set aside the sociopolitical angle, the simple fact of a static roster may seem intrinsically boring to some readers.

But a static roster would not be a problem for a movie. Nobody expects a team roster to fluctuate much in the middle of a film. One character may turn out to be a traitor and some new member may show up in the second half of the film, but generally, the main cast remains the main cast for the duration of the movie. In Star Wars, for example, we had Luke, Leia, Han, Chewbacca, R2D2, and C-3PO as the main cast not only for the first film but for all three of the first films.

The first and second FF films depicted the FF family unit and did it pretty faithfully. Really, the only problem with those movies was Doom, and, in the second one, the fact that Galactus was dispensed with in the most boring (and ridiculously quick) way possible.

I didn't see the third FF film as I didn't see the point of where they went with that.

I don't think the static roster is a problem for the movies. But it may well be a problem for the comics.






Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 10
Iron Maiden 

Manager

Member Since: Sun Nov 02, 2003
Posts: 4,833



    Quote:
    I feel that the problem with the FF is that it is all about family. This does not sit well in today's society with many relationships fractured and people in multiple marriages etc. I am not saying that this in itself is wrong but I feel that the FF represent a stable unit, which is not an idea reflected by society, unlike the Avengers' and X-Men's fluid roster.



    Quote:
    So in short it is the subject not the characters.


Yet everyone keeps saying that the Incredibles has been the best Fantastic Four movie (not that I necessarily agree with it)




Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 10
Count Dante


Location: Ad Pages in Old Comics
Member Since: Wed Aug 21, 2013
Posts: 3,215


I think it's an interesting theory, but I believe it is wrong.

Having a cohesive family doesn't sit well in today's society? That would suggest that today's society is anti-family, and I don't see evidence of that. I also don't see society viewing stability as a negative. Rather, I think people, in reality, desire relationship stability. Just like people want economic security - but I don't see people disliking Tony Stark for being wealthy. Or for staying with Pepper Potts.

Yes, The Incredibles was a huge hit and a sequel will be coming out soon. The Incredibles is all about family, so that defies the theory that family stability is perceived negatively.

Lastly, comics have never been a true reflection of reality. I certainly think Reed has it pretty good, being married to Sue and having two kids. I just wish the kids were more involved in the team. But I can't imagine anyone thinking "Ewww! They are are all like, in a stable family environment, and actually married and stuff!" Plus it's not not Reed and Sue were Ward and June Cleaver. They were quite dysfunctional at times - with Sue going through a period of infidelity due to Reed's failures as a husband. Things weren't always roses for the FF. And neither were they for The Incredibles. Does anyone really think that having Sue and Reed divorce and in multiple marriages/relationships would improve the appeal?




"Deadliest Comic Book Reader Alive!"
Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 10
America's Captain 

Maintainer

Location: Bayville New Jersey
Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 11,303



    Quote:
    Lest we forget....



    Quote:

    Civilians have been on space flights before. Teacher Christa McAuliffe died in the Challenger space shuttle disaster. Teacher Barbara Morgan was to be McAuliffe's backup but the program "Teachers in Space"was cancelled. Morgan was let into the astronaut training program and did get to go into space in 2007


True. These civilians went into space because they were avid space buffs. So applying that logic to the Fantastic Four, we'd be saying that Reed, Ben, Sue and Johnny all went into space because they were all avid space buffs and had all trained extensively for this opportunity of a lifetime.

I think a movie could be built around that concept. In fact, I think the first FF film pretty much was - if we don't sweat the details. As I've said before, the only thing wrong with that movie was Doom. I was totally satisfied with how the FF were portrayed. I loved the movie. I went to see it in the theaters twice. Despite hating what they did with Doom.

So OK. If we do the origin one more time just to make it visually more identical to Stan and Jack's version - which is something I don't personally advocate but I can run with it as a discussion topic - then it looks like this: Reed, Ben, Sue, and Johnny all go into Reed's rocket ship because they're avid space buffs who've been training extensively for this opportunity of a lifetime. Reed designed the ship himself and owns the company that built it. He's rich from prior entrepreneurial enterprises. The flight is officially scheduled and even has media coverage. Reed is top dog as far as planning and execution. (This makes him responsible for what happens, at least in his own mind - which is the one element I personally insist on.)

Up they go. All is proceeding smoothly when - zap! Cosmic rays! The ship is badly damaged but they manage to bring it back to Earth and crash land. They escape the wreckage and as they remove their space suits they begin to transform. Etcetera.

This sets up some important character elements. All four of the main cast are avid space buffs. Sue isn't along for the ride because she's a dutiful girl friend. Johnny isn't along for the ride because - uh - frankly, I never knew why he was on that ship. But in the version we're brainstorming, he and Sue (and Ben and Reed) are there because there's nowhere else in the world they'd rather be. Which means they all have a highly developed sense of wonder and appetite for adventure. This is a little different from the comics, at least as far as Sue is concerned. I always had the sense that Sue would have been perfectly happy living a mundane life. But the Sue we're envisioning absolutely would not.

This works. I could accept this. In fact this might be the best origin scenario yet.






Posted with Google Chrome 63.0.3239.84 on Windows 10
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 10,594




    Quote:
    I think it's an interesting theory, but I believe it is wrong.



    Quote:
    Having a cohesive family doesn't sit well in today's society? That would suggest that today's society is anti-family, and I don't see evidence of that. I also don't see society viewing stability as a negative. Rather, I think people, in reality, desire relationship stability. Just like people want economic security - but I don't see people disliking Tony Stark for being wealthy. Or for staying with Pepper Potts.



    Quote:
    Yes, The Incredibles was a huge hit and a sequel will be coming out soon. The Incredibles is all about family, so that defies the theory that family stability is perceived negatively.



    Quote:
    Lastly, comics have never been a true reflection of reality. I certainly think Reed has it pretty good, being married to Sue and having two kids. I just wish the kids were more involved in the team. But I can't imagine anyone thinking "Ewww! They are are all like, in a stable family environment, and actually married and stuff!" Plus it's not not Reed and Sue were Ward and June Cleaver. They were quite dysfunctional at times - with Sue going through a period of infidelity due to Reed's failures as a husband. Things weren't always roses for the FF. And neither were they for The Incredibles. Does anyone really think that having Sue and Reed divorce and in multiple marriages/relationships would improve the appeal?


You use the word infidelity...but Sue has never actually slept with another man while married to Reed has she?

I mean even when Reed died I just assumed Namor took Sue out for dinner and dancing and she still wouldn't put out.

Reverend Meteor



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
Reverend Meteor


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 10,594




    Quote:
    Lest we forget....



    Quote:

    Civilians have been on space flights before. Teacher Christa McAuliffe died in the Challenger space shuttle disaster. Teacher Barbara Morgan was to be McAuliffe's backup but the program "Teachers in Space"was cancelled. Morgan was let into the astronaut training program and did get to go into space in 2007


I remember we all gathered in the school library when I was in 4th grade I think to watch the Challenger launch. I guess we didn't understand at the time what the big explosion meant,



Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
The Mandarin


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 5,496


I actually think the most recent movie made a smart play by making them interdimensional explorers rather than space explorers. Of course, everything else about the movie was incredibly awful, but that basic premise update was solid.




Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 10
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 15,624


it is all about how they are approached. At this point they are sort of damaged goods. The approach to the team was not horrible the first time but was made very tongue in cheek, not talking about the Corman movie here. The most recent was just a mess of a movie.

At this point, it is best to skip the origin. If Marvel has the rights again than they should introduce them in other movies. Need to talk to somebody in the know and Tony is not around, go to Reed. Things like that.

They are likable and their villains are pretty great and important to the Marvel Universe on the whole.

It is all about presentation. A bad movie could have been made out of any of the Marvel Studios films. Really, before those one could argue that most comic book movies were bad and the good ones were the exception rather than the rule.

The same problem with those movies is the problem with the FF movies really. They made the movie but it is not entirely clear that the filmmakers cared. It felt very color by numbers and lost the soul. That is a generality, but it seems to be true.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7
bd2999


Member Since: Sat May 17, 2008
Posts: 15,624


There are loads of movies that celebrate family, friendship and so on. Most Disney movies do it. Many movies in general do it to varying degrees and in different ways.

I am not sure that your hypothesis has much merit to it. Other than a negative view of society. Movies about family are still pretty major draws if they are done well.




Look Raist bunnies...
Posted with Mozilla Firefox 57.0 on Windows 7

Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2018 Powermad Software