Karen: I went into the theater to see Fantastic Four having read the reviews, knowing Rotten Tomatoes had the film at a 9% rating, and so I was not expecting anything. That's not true -I expected it to be terrible. And it wasn't, not entirely -the first part of the film was actually somewhat interesting, as the characters were introduced and the story began. But things went awry mid-way and really fell apart in the last 20 minutes or so. All the talk about how the studio had come in and taken the film out of director Josh Trank's hands and performed many reshoots was obviously true, as there were many shifts, thematically and stylistically. Were the reshoots for the better or worse? Who knows. As it stands the film is a mess, but I don't think it is is deserving of the 9% rating -but I couldn't give it a 'thumbs up' either. Karen: I realize it is based on Ultimate Fantastic Four, a comic series I never read. That's probably part of the reason it feels so little like the Fantastic Four to me. For much of the film it could be a generic science fiction film, and while that film might be mildly entertaining, that's not what I want to see when I go to see a Fantastic Four movie.
Karen: None of the characters are particularly likable or compelling. There's no chemistry between any of them -maybe between the very young Reed and Ben. Otherwise, everything feels cold and detached.
Karen: This film gets Dr. Doom even worse than the previous two Fox films, which I would have thought impossible. Honestly, if Marvel gets the rights back to the FF, I think it would be for the best if they avoided using Doom in the first film. He's as played out as Lex Luthor is in Superman films...
Karen: The film is already considered a huge bomb, but it's by no means clear that Fox won't try again, and hang on to the rights. I'd still love to see Marvel get the rights, but this feud between Marvel and Fox seems unlikely to end soon. I can see Fox hanging on almost out of spite.
Karen: If you saw the film, what did you think? Do you think critics are being too harsh? And here's a question: if Marvel Studios got the film rights to the FF back, what would be the best way to incorporate them into the movie universe?
28 comments:
Haven't seen the movie, and don't intend to anytime soon, but address your last question about how the FF could best be incorporated into the Marvel movie universe, I agree with a suggestion made by someone else here before (sorry, can't remember who): it should be a period piece, set in the early 1960s. That way the rather Cold War nature of their origin story could be preserved, and it could also be made as sort of a pastiche/homage to the spy films of the '60s, among other things. Of course, since the FF were never referenced as being part of the past in the Marvel U films up until now, the idea would possibly have to be re-tooled to make them a team that operated in secret rather than publicly.
(And, if necessary, I've even worked out a way to then bring them to the modern Marvel U for the sequel film without aging that doesn't involve them being frozen in an Arctic ice sheet: have them go on a mission to the Negative Zone sometime in the late '60s, and then, because of some kind of malfunction of their interdimensional vessel or a miscalculation on Reed's part, they re-emerge in the present.)
What a huge wasted opportunity this movie appears to be. With the popularity of Marvel movies these days, Fox could have tried to emulate the Marvel Studios style as closely as possible and made a truly great FF movie. But instead it seems they did the exact opposite, and went out of their way to distance themselves from the source material. It's like they wanted it to fail out of spite or something. Very strange. What a shame that the FF may never get the awesome movie they (and we) deserve.
That said, I haven't actually seen the movie (and I don't plan to). The reviews have been almost 100% abysmal, and they all pretty much say the same thing. That it's dull and boring, with almost no action, and no chemistry between the cast, that Dr. Doom is an extremely lame villain, and it apparently has one of the worst third acts in movie history.
After reading all the horrible reviews online over the weekend, I went back and watched the two previous Fox FF movies again. I viewed them through new (more positive) eyes, and I actually enjoyed them quite a bit. They weren't the FF movies I would have made, but at least they were fun and lighthearted, and tried on some level to capture the true spirit of the source material. Man, I never thought I'd become nostalgic for Michael Chiklis as the Thing. (Hey, at least he wearing pants).
Sorry, that last line should read "Hey, at least HE'S wearing pants."
I am the king of the typo.
Like William and Edo , I have no plans to see the film; perhaps I'll catch it eventually on netflix or some such venue. Over the weekend, I took the money a ticket would have cost and bought the final issue of their comic (numbered 645). Can't really say much about the main story as it obviously was the finale of an extended arc, but the comic did feature four short solo stories (one each for Sue, Reed, Ben and Johnny). It also had a nice feature article interviewing some comics luminaries about their favorite FF covers. Among them: John Byrne, George Perez, Joe Sinnot, and John Romita SR.
As for a future film: the 60's approach seems a natural fit (Edo, are you available for script consultation? The director may be calling). Give it a few years, and we'll keep our fingers crossed...
Edo, I love the idea that the FF time travels to the present through the Negative Zone (or something similar). I managed to convince my son the movie probably wouldn't be good because I found an article on Comics Alliance detailing the scenes in the trailer that didn't make it into the movie. Apparently, that's most of the action!
- Mike Loughlin
I believe the retro-setting idea initially came from Karen, edo, IIRC. (Zat right, Karen?)
There's certainly a kind of MAD MEN appeal to that, I'll admit-- but I do wonder if it would then be too cumbersome to (eventually) incorporate them into the ongoing Marvel Cinematic Universe-- especially since Cap already sort of represents the Blast From the Past Contingent. . . and the DoFP film ended with similar notes for the X-Men over at their studio. That may be a well that's been gone to too frequently in a short span of time.
One of the few moments in the trailers that caught my eye was the Thing dropping out of an airplane to get a mission underway. Pretty cool move, even if not entirely original (*cough* Steve Rogers *cough*). At least a couple of reviews pointed out that THAT very sequence never made it through the final cut, which must have been. . . what. . . less than two weeks ago, then?? That is just a blindingly stupid editorial/studio decision-- which is going to predispose even a welcoming audience to reject a movie (same thing happened with HANCOCK, remember?). It comes across as a complete insult to the audience they're trying to pull in-- since it can only be perceived as a cynical bait & switch OR a condescending, "ah, they'll never know the difference", OR both. It's playing to an assumed level of audience stupidity with barely-masked contempt. Again, though-- that's FOX.
Despite all of the acrimonious back & forth, Fox only has itself to blame for this mess, as they handed what should have been a tentpole movie project over to an extremely unproven, unvetted director who really has only one other flukey success to his credit. Maybe some dim suits got the names "Josh Trank" and "Joss Whedon" confused, and thought they were getting that Avengers/Buffy guy/Angel guy back on the staff??
No plans to see it at all. May not even watch the DVD.
HB
'Won't see it.., will wait until it's done right (based on my comments on previous columns...)', David says in his best curmudgeon voice. :)
I find it as mind-boggling as it is insulting that movie makers can't seem to get a grip on the Fantastic Four which is I think a lot more movie-friendly going in than some other comics characters. ..and for christ sake if Darth Vader can be realized on screen Doctor Doom should not be proving this difficult! It is only the absurd contortions through which they avoid just doing the character of Doctor Doom that they so utterly fail at doing Doctor Doom! Also don't tell me that our much vaunted modern special effects cannot do a film worthy Galactus. BS!
Honestly, I hope that maybe the FF gets turned into a tv series at some point. That might be the better destiny for them in media outside of comics.
HB, you're probably right that, if something like my idea ever gets used, the Marvel movieverse would become overcrowded with too many "blasts from the past" (however, I wouldn't even mind a simple one-off FF movie set in the '60s).
I just became so enamored with the retro-setting idea after seeing it used quite well in the only two X-movies I liked, First Class and Days of Future Past - right after I saw the latter (and I think I mentioned it before somewhere), it occurred to me that Marvel should do a Heroes for Hire movie set in the mid-'70s, featuring Power Man, Iron Fist, Misty Knight and Colleen Wing. There's just so much that can be done with that idea, especially in the sense of evoking the mood and style of both the blaxploitation and martial arts flicks of that era.
Otherwise, though, I think MattComix may be right: the FF might probably fare better in a TV series...
Edo, I had the same reaction to those 2 X-movies, the time period worked perfectly and the Heroes for Hire is a great idea as well. Retro FF sounds intriguing to me too.
One thing I think might also help (and not just with the FF) is to actually not do an origin movie. Start right out with them already established, you can throw a few flashbacks or references to the audience to ensure people don't get completely lost (you could even start with a 2 minute origin image montage with narrator voiceover), but I would basically jump right into an epic adventure/plot.
Ewan--
Yes.
Yes.
Yesyesyesyesyes. That is SUCH a good idea. O' course, that particular horse is sadly out of the barn for the FF (for, OMG, the THIRD time now!), but it's definitely worth keeping in mind for when/if Marvel EVER gets that property back!
Hunh-- do we know if Stan had a cameo in this one?
HB
I also thought a retro-4 would be a cool idea—Reed Richards knocking tobacco out a pipe as he explains things at Harvard, Ben Grimm out at Edwards AFB pushing the outside of the envelope showing the right stuff, teen Johnny tinkering on hotrods and sassing the girls, Sue doing the glam mag thing, Gloria Steinem style. They belong in that era, frankly, and we saw how it could work in X-Men First Class.
I think one thing that might persist w/ the FF's trouble translating to film is their powers probably don't translate well to film and those powers are both derivative and kinda flat and sucky. Kirby and Lee just sort of expropriated various power concepts—Plastic Man, the Shadow, Human Torch, the weird monster stuff they'd done through the 50s—and bolted them on to Challengers of the Unknown. A critic once pointed out that if you took away Ben's personality, he basically could just punch. That's it for the dimension of his powers, that observation stuck with me. Johnny can burn stuff. Sue's power can basically be whatever you want it to be. Pretty dull sauce. It was always the family aspect and wild support cast that really boosted the Four into the realm of the Fantastic.
Doom, too, it was always that arrogant and unstable personality that made him work. The best encapsulation of it we ever saw on film was Darth Vader in the first two Star Wars films, and particular Empire Strikes Back. Magic.
The first minute of this video is how they should handle the exposition of their powers in the next film-- and they should spend that much time on the exposition, too.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbS3LL0QHg8&list=PL_plhzjgRin_lTnP3hkylujEzC9Ir5krr
Hiya,
I'm gonna offer a bit of sympathy for Fox and the director of this movie. Moving material from one media to another is one of the most difficult things that can be done.
The creative team is faced with any number of issues, first and foremost the audiences expectations. We want to see in a film what made the book so enjoyable and sometimes things simply don't translate that well.
Yes, I believe the film is as bad as others have described it. I believe that the studio and the creatives brought this down upon themselves and us. I also remember some of the criticisms leveled at the films Marvel Studio have produced and while I hold that some were justified many were wildly exaggerated.
We are a tough crowd to please.
By the way, has anybody else noticed the bias that Forbes magazine has against Marvel/Disney? They were against the purchase and have been beating that drum whenever they can. Today one of their articles carried the headline, "Fantastic Four Biggest Flop since The Avengers." Not the Marvel Avengers, of course. The movie version of the Patrick McGee TV show.
seeya
pfgavigan
Part of the trouble with Hollywood is they’ll get a message like, “Wow, this funny book is hot! It’s about a guy with healing powers who can shoot swords out of his wrists and go all ninja on people!” And some executive will say, “OK, so let’s make him an interpretative dancer struggling with mother issues in a off-broadway production of Cats. And instead of claws, let’s have him shoot stinging foam out an an aerosol spray can.” And later, another executive will say, “This is all great, but that aerosol can stuff doesn’t make any sense. Get rid of it.”
The reason Marvel works is they’ve been stubbornly dogged about insisting the thing people originally liked stays fairly close to the original material.
Great last point, Pat.
Yeah, pfg-- you are a saint for trying to generate a bit of sympathy for the predicament of both director and studio-- but I honestly can't find a shred for those two particular entities. Control games, hubris, arrogance, artistic dismissiveness, temper tantrums, decisions driven by panic rather than by thoughtful intervention-- and apparently neither party having a shred of understanding of the original appeal of the source material-- no, they both fought over who gets the football, and proceeded to mutually fumble it right out of the stadium and into the drainage canal. . . (if that's actually a followable metaphor. . . )
Let's abandon the youth mov't, eh? Could Reed and Ben be actual adults? Could Sue be in her (*gasp*) early 30's, maybe? (Actually, I think Mara probably is just about the right age). The other lesson Fox refused to acknowledge is that FANS WILL WATCH MOVIES WHOSE HEROES ARE GETTIN' OLDER! A story is a story. Throughout history kids have followed the exploits of older/adult heroes-- why is that now deemed impossible?
We need a really good Reed, actually. I do think that's the key to franchise success, and Ione (sp?) Gruffeld (sp?) just didn't have anything like the centered gravitas that Reed requires in the last two films. That's probably what made a lot of it not work for me. If I believe Reed, I'm gonna buy a lot of everything else.
I would vote for Denzel Washington-- but he may actually be too old (willing to give him a try, though).
A British actor that's similar to Denzel is a fellow named Adrian Lester, who is flippin' brilliant. And was stunningly convincing for years as an extraordinary mastermind in a series called HUSTLE.
But, geeze-- focus on casting REED, and so much else is gonna fall into place.
HB
Hiya,
Ain't no saint HB, the nuns at my first school would definitely tell you that.
I'm willing to concede that Marvel, by sticking to the source material and having a clear vision of what they want to do with their cinematic universe is getting a lot of stuff right.
Trouble is that not only does the person in charge, Kevin Feige, has to have extensive knowledge of the source material, he does, he also has to be willing to step on creative toes or part ways with those who want to do their own thing with Marvel's characters and money. He does that too.
I guess if someone does this in the movies we call him a leader with a vision; if he does it in the comic book industry we call him Jim Shooter.
seeya
pfg
Welllllll, those aren't mutually exclusive labels, mind you. . . !
HB
Karen, you might be interested in this news article I ran across a few days ago on the subject of the film rights. Particularly interesting is the perspective that as long as the X-Men and Deadpool films remain successful (assuming the latter is indeed a hit), Fox can afford to keep plugging away at FF. Sometimes it feels like a bucket of water in my face when I'm reminded that business and fandom are often two totally separate animals. :)
I'm already seeing some reviewers and others (who should know better) saying that the characters just won't work in movies. Bull. They always worry about the origin and say it can't work now, but what are we seeing nowadays? Private companies and individuals funding and building space vehicles. That could be Reed. A famous genius inventor, building the first ship capable of flying passengers to Jupiter and back, or achieving light speed or something. Say it's a race to get it done on time and under budget, so maybe there's some skimping on shielding in order to get it launched. Ben works on it with him, and Sue and Johnny are taken along to show how safe it is. They hit some type of radioactive cloud, or something, crash back to earth, and develop their powers pretty quickly, like in the comics. No more spending half the movie building up to showing powers. Have them fight the Mole Man, they could do some great scenes with his monsters and his stealing and wrecking buildings from underground. There could be flashbacks setting up Doom for the sequel. And quit changing Doom, and giving him powers! He doesn't need them! Doom, as written in the comics, is not only one of the great all-time villains, but one of the greatest characters, period! I think it could work, in the right hands. (cough)(cough)Marvel(cough)
Hiya,
Forgot to mention that I probably will go to see this movie.
Hey, I saw Elektra, Daredevil, and Howard the Duck in the theaters.
Besides, a local theater has a great ten dollar Tuesday special; ticket, refillable soda and popcorn plus free 3D glasses if needed.
It's easier not to feel like you've been robbed if something gets tossed in for essentially free.
pfg
Pat Henry, the Fantastic Four are actually based on the four basic elements Earth (The Thing), Wind (Invisible Woman), Fire (Human Torch), and Water (Mr. Fantastic).
I haven't seen it and probably won't see it until it comes out on DVD (which, sadly, happens quickly due to rampant piracy down here). It's really a sad state of affairs to see Marvel's first family of superheroes treated so badly cinematically. I read a news story that Fox only made this movie just to keep the rights to the characters. While I understand that movies are a business like any other, that is definitely the worst reason to make a movie.
If one does not have the utmost respect for the source material, you can forget about making even a half decent movie. The director also said that the final cut was not to his liking, so I guess this film was doomed from the very start all the way to the end.
Count me in on the millions of fans who who wish Fox should immediately hand over all the rights for the FF back to Marvel Studios - it certainly can't be a bigger mess than it is now.
- Mike 'Fox should get a big Ben Grimm Sunday punch' from Trinidad & Tobago.
- Mik
Does anyone know why the movies always mirror the Ultimates? Does anyone care about the Ultimates? Does the majority of comics fans read and prefer the Ultimates?
I truly don't understand it. My feeling is that way back in early 2000-whatever when wheeling and dealing was going on between Marvel and movie studios, there was some sort of joint deal made regarding the Ultimates line of comics and rights to film franchises. It's the only angle that would make any sort of twisted sense, but I've not been able to find any information anywhere about why the film studios continue to persist to base the films on a comics line that I don't feel that many people care about all that much.
Thoughts? Answers?
Saw it last week. The film is so off target that it is almost a guide to how to do it right by doing the opposite. If the FF origin is too clunky, skip it. Nervous about Doom, don't dance around it, go for it. It occurred to me that Doom is just a few notches off from Tony Stark, Brilliant, Type A, builds fantastic armor. No-one & I mean no one has any problem with believing in the cinematic Tony Stark as a viable character, so why can't a twisted foreign born version of Stark be believed as Dr. Doom ? I also was thinking about the Ghostbusters film. Fox shouldn't have tried so hard to convince the audience that the FF were believable, just convince us that the people in the film believe in the FF. Did anyone pause in Ghostbusters, when a team of uniformed characters with fantastic weapons were called upon to save the city from horrible creatures ? Nope in fact, the audience cheered as the fictionalized New Yorkers cheered. It really should be that simple. They could've opened with NY calling the FF to thwart Moleman ala Ghostbusters. Then did a flashback to ( a brief ) origin, setting up Dooms accident & split from Richards, ( leaving him for the 2nd film ) and then you close with a new menace, Maybe Blastaar from the Negative zone. Post credits scene reveals (Aliens ) Skrulls walk among us ! 2nd film, opens like the 1st & has the FF called out to handle (the Skrulls) Men in Black style. & ends with FF beating Doom and post credits scene is The Silver Surfer. 3rd film FF & Doom separately face Galactus, Doom's failure puts earth on the brink & the FF save the day......somebody yell cut, this is addictive, I can't stop !!!
A lot of us life-long FF fans refused to go see this film, myself included. Now if Marvel ever gets back the film rights, it is time to forget Dr. Doom and start with FF #1 and introduce the Mole Man and his Moloids and underground monster friends.
Post a Comment