The Fantastic Four

[RobinSkye]

Mr. Fantastic actor seems incredibly miscast.

 

[great_bay]

Why?

Their race has always been apart of their identity. If you changed that, you have something else. Not a white person. A black person.
Not acknowledging people's race as a part of their identify is an unfavorable answer.

 

[BadOctopus]

Has anyone here actually seen the film yet?

 

[Totenkindly]

Has anyone here actually seen the film yet?

I have that $8 off coupon, so I'll take one for the team and probably go tomorrow.

 

[Totenkindly]

Their race has always been apart of their identity. If you changed that, you have something else. Not a white person. A black person.
Not acknowledging people's race as a part of their identify is an unfavorable answer.

Does that even have much relevance if you're talking about whites and blacks raised in the same environments?

Anyway, that's a minor point. Let's get down to the seeming fact that you're assuming there is some "true" version of a comic book hero. There isn't, not with the format that comics exist in, which is often a decades-running serial cyclic exploration of heroic themes. Comic books are essentially our modern telling and retelling of various "mythic heroes," which we label as mythology for the Greeks, the Norse, etc.

If you study a particular hero over the the decades of storytelling (Thor, Daredevil, Spiderman, X-Men, Avengers, etc.) you'll realize that it is not continuous but more of a revisit/retelling/reimagining of the basic premise for that hero but told through each new narrative team of writer and artist intersecting with the cultural mores of the day. This is why audiences for a particular comic often have a life cycle -- you come in, get used to the character a certain way, then later it changes and you might abandon the comic if the character is being told in a fashion you don't enjoy as much. I didn't much like the X-Men movies because they really didn't capture what made my favorite arcs of X-Men great (which was mostly Claremont/Byrne era), I didn't really like the changes in Mystique, and so forth -- but they're telling a different version of the same general story, it's their spin on it. Whatever. Just like with Batman movies... we see how a new artistic team creates a new interpretation of the Batman and company. Is it "wrong" when they change details from an earlier version? Not necessarily; it's just a new interpretation.

So the Fantastic Four movie is just yet another "spin" on the FF story from a new artist team's POV. There is no 'right' way to do it; it's just that the further you stray from the characters basics, the less you might identify them as those characters and simply as new heroes telling a completely new story. But otherwise really, it's pretty clear it's the Fantastic Four -- experiment gifts all four with the exact same powers of the Fantastic Four, same villain, etc. It's just a retelling of the same basic story. And I suspect race is not really explored much within the context of this movie anyway except to create a cultural connection in a country that is becoming more racially integrated, so does it really matter? Nope. If the FF had been created for the FIRST time in TODAY'S culture ,chances are one of them would be black or Asian or at least non-Caucasian... but at that time in US history you were seeing pretty much just white superheroes.

 

[Mal12345]

I have that $8 off coupon, so I'll take one for the team and probably go tomorrow.

Yes, please do!

 

[cosmic royal]

It seems to be even worse than the previous FF movies. I admit, I enjoyed the movies even if they weren't cinematically acclaimed. And I'm totally fine with Invisible Woman, the Human Torch, and the Thing's actors. But I think the actors who play Mr. Fantastic and Doctor Doom are seriously miscast. Especially Doctor Doom's. They reduced the notorious Latverian genius into a mere Internet troll.

 

[BadOctopus]

If you study a particular hero over the the decades of storytelling (Thor, Daredevil, Spiderman, X-Men, Avengers, etc.) you'll realize that it is not continuous but more of a revisit/retelling/reimagining of the basic premise for that hero but told through each new narrative team of writer and artist intersecting with the cultural mores of the day. This is why audiences for a particular comic often have a life cycle -- you come in, get used to the character a certain way, then later it changes and you might abandon the comic if the character is being told in a fashion you don't enjoy as much. I didn't much like the X-Men movies because they really didn't capture what made my favorite arcs of X-Men great (which was mostly Claremont/Byrne era), I didn't really like the changes in Mystique, and so forth -- but they're telling a different version of the same general story, it's their spin on it. Whatever. Just like with Batman movies... we see how a new artistic team creates a new interpretation of the Batman and company. Is it "wrong" when they change details from an earlier version? Not necessarily; it's just a new interpretation.

This. Race is a part of a character's identity, but it's not their entire identity. Sometimes it's not even a significant part. Heimdall isn't black in the comics, but he's a frigging Asgardian, so does it really matter what color he is? No. He's the color of badass.

In some cases, I would be annoyed if a director changed a character's race. Like Storm. She's the daughter of a Kenyan princess, after all. But most of the time, I don't mind when directors "re-imagine" characters in different ways, as long as their basic personalities are still the same. I didn't even mind when Peter Dinklage was cast as Bolivar Trask. (But that's because Peter Dinklage is awesome.)

 

[Totenkindly]

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/deleted-scenes-and-nasty-allegations-reveal-why-126345230327.html

SOme of the behind-the-scenes drama, although we'll likely not know for sure. Apparently prominent footage we've seen in the trailer and other clips doesn't show up in the released movie, and I've seen one run-down where it's clear some of the dialogue was cut-and-pasted around in the trailer so the lines aren't even in current context. (Either that or the film itself was sliced and diced.)

My impression is that Trank didn't have the experience politically and otherwise to handle a large-budget movie at this time (his Chronicle felt like a small indie-style spin on superheroes), and that the studio couldn't keep their hands off the film and probably screwed it up... maybe kind of Alien3-ish. The painful part is that blaming the studio publicly can really diminish your marketability as a director, so... hard to tell what Trank will do next career-wise.

.... anyway, I'll see what it's like.

 

[Tellenbach]

No extra scenes at the end so you don't have to stay for the credits to finish. I liked this one better than the Gruffold/Alba version. They devote an immense about of time into how the various characters meet so there is more character development. For instance, you find out why Reed is so motivated in finding a cure for Grimm. The treatment of the aftermath of how the characters acquire their powers is also vastly superior in this film.

I give it a 7/10. Few of the characters are relateable. Reed/Susan/Dr. Doom are all brilliant nerds and Grimm's pretty much ignored for most of the film.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

My impression is that Trank didn't have the experience politically and otherwise to handle a large-budget movie at this time (his Chronicle felt like a small indie-style spin on superheroes), and that the studio couldn't keep their hands off the film and probably screwed it up... maybe kind of Alien3-ish. The painful part is that blaming the studio publicly can really diminish your marketability as a director, so... hard to tell what Trank will do next career-wise.

.... anyway, I'll see what it's like.

Because this is 20th Century Fox, I'm inclined to believe the bolded. Not to say the movie would have been great if they left Trank alone, and even though the stories about him may be true, I believe him when he says the studio took the movie out of his hands in post. That's their M.O., especially with directors that have no leverage. If you make a popcorn movie at Fox, they're going to be the ones with their stamp on it, not you.

 

[Qlip]

I don't follow comic book movies closely, but the F4 franchise is such a mess that I now plan to watch the Roger Corman one, which I've heard is the best iteration out there. I've heard the new one described as part family summer blockbuster and part Cronenberg inspired body horror, which frankly sounds glorious. I'd watch it if there was an editor's cut.

 

[chubber]

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/deleted-scenes-and-nasty-allegations-reveal-why-126345230327.html

SOme of the behind-the-scenes drama, although we'll likely not know for sure. Apparently prominent footage we've seen in the trailer and other clips doesn't show up in the released movie, and I've seen one run-down where it's clear some of the dialogue was cut-and-pasted around in the trailer so the lines aren't even in current context. (Either that or the film itself was sliced and diced.)

My impression is that Trank didn't have the experience politically and otherwise to handle a large-budget movie at this time (his Chronicle felt like a small indie-style spin on superheroes), and that the studio couldn't keep their hands off the film and probably screwed it up... maybe kind of Alien3-ish. The painful part is that blaming the studio publicly can really diminish your marketability as a director, so... hard to tell what Trank will do next career-wise.

.... anyway, I'll see what it's like.

That's a damn shame.

 

[great_bay]

I suppose there isn't any wrongdoing with making him a black guy since comics can be written as as a different interpretation.

 

[Qlip]

I suppose there isn't any wrongdoing with making him a black guy since comics can be written as as a different interpretation.

Not only that, historically comics were probably the most progressive entertainment institutions. They were always the first to create new characters and update their stuff along with the progressive social mores of the day. Probably because the creators were a bunch of Jews and weirdos. (no, there's no conspiracy, get over it.)

 

[Totenkindly]

Okay, I've seen it. And I spent about 10-15 minutes afterwards struggling for words to summarize my feelings.

I tend to reserve the word "bad" for movies that frankly are amateur and have no sense of artmanship or craftsmanship about them. I remember calling "Color of Night" a bad movie, although it was bad in a way that also made it almost enjoyable from an amusement POV.

FF isn't a "bad" movie in that sense. It aspires to a certain level of craftsmanship and has moments where you see seeds being planted that unfortunately either never grow into flowers or else spawn flowers that you did not expect and that simply aren't enjoyable or savorable. I guess if I had to reduce it to adjectives, I would say that the movie is disappointing and ultimately unsatisfying -- especially in light of how good it might have been.

Everything good also seems fraught with missteps. The actors are capable, for example, but instead of casting the story closer to the actual ages of the principal actors (who are probably all in their late 20's?), it tries to pretend they are in their late teens; it's just not believable. I really liked the early scenes where Ben and Reed becomes friends -- it's so tonally "on" in terms of personality -- but the last part of the film loses their sense of camaraderie.

I have to say that personally I hate cuts with title cards, especially to pass the marking of time (AKA "5 Months Later"). In about 95% of cases, they are unnecessary [because you can convey passing time in other ways] and/or don't help the tone of the film; they're sloppy and half-assed. So let me say that there are 2-3 of them in this film; and I suspect at least one was used to "hide" a huge chunk of removed footage.

That twist that takes place in the film's middle

Reed runs off for a year out of guilt, Ben becomes a "weapon for the gov" Because WTH not, etc.

is not a twist I enjoyed or thought maintained the spirit of the FF. In addition, the whole deal with Doom takes place way too quickly (and of course his powers are never really explained). In fact, the movie itself has huge pacing issues / the actions beats are off. By the time Doom comes back, after a huge intro/origin story, everything is rushed into the endgame and it feels completely inconsequential. The way the FF wins feels rather random and meh.

And yes, they actually call him Victor Von Doom -- it appears on a piece of paper but seems like a really stupid name in a "realistic-toned" movie. It feels like the studio went back through and kept adding shit back in and/or playing with stuff to make it conform to their traditional view of a superhero movie... but why did they hire Trank if they didn't want his spin on the story? They got cold feet, I suppose.

I don't feel like rehashing a bunch of stuff. Here's a link noting where some deleted scenes probably existed:
Everything That Was Cut From ‘Fantastic Four’ Before Its Release

Anyway, yes, I'd love to see all the footage that got cut/excised/twisted around. I don't hate this movie in a way I typically hate a "bad" movie, I just am left feeling that it is hugely insignificant because they lost their balls halfway through production. After the movie was over, I was left with a feeling of largely, "So that's it?"

Note 1: I haven't seen any of the other three FF movies in existence.)

Note 2: The race of the various characters (as per prior discussion in this thread) is pretty insignificant compared to the movie's larger problems, although it seems tone-deaf in today's world I guess for the black kid to be the one who gets in trouble and be a screw-off while his adopted white sister is accomplished and productive.

EDIT:
Note 3: After a good night's sleep, I find myself liking the movie even less and in fact feeling hugely irritated when I think of it.

EDIT2:

After a week or more, I find myself even more irritated by it. it's a trainwreck.

This is the difference between being able to recognize portions of positive intent and acknowledging them, versus a broader assessment of "how did the movie leave me feeling afterwards?" On the latter basis, it's just a total mess and I'm wishing now I never watched it.

 

[Totenkindly]

Oh, I did like the scene where

the Geek Squad gets all angsty about losing their toy and the scientist never getting the kudos, so they take the dimensional hopper out on a mad nerdy careening 3am drunken spree/jaunt. It was like the sick love child of Project X + Weird Science. (At least it adequately explained why the main scientists would end up being the ones to go versus the trained professionals -- I mean, wouldn't you want the guys who built the thing staying behind to run it and fix things if necessary?)

Then again, unbelievably, they invite Ben along -- who doesn't even WORK at Baxter -- while completely dissing Sue who has been working on the project for years, leaving her to conveniently save their bacon later.

----

Hmmm. The plot thickens.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/fantastic-four-making-of-josh-trank-126516294982.html