The Fantastic Four (Reboot)

NachoBusiness

Drumpot wrote: »

Movie wasn't great but wasn't as bad as being made out. 3/10 ? Come on, that's twilight breaking dawn levels and it was nowhere near as bad as that!

I'd rather go and see a Twilight marathon than sit through 15 mins of the Fantastic Four again.

FreeOSCAR

The last 30mins are some of the messiest I've ever seen from a film nevermind a superhero film.
I thought it was pretty average but watchable up until then.
The ending really just came out of nowhere.

A 2 Star Film which became a 1 Star film by a putrid final act.

Also - No Post Credits Scene - So don't bother waiting.

I have to agree, it's quite weird to see all these new directors being given huge big budget movies. Gunn for Guardians of the Galaxy (he's a relative newcomer with just one low budget affair in Slither), Edwards for Godzilla, that guy for Jurassic World (his name escapes me) and now this fella.

In my opinion, only Edwards and Gunn have succeeded. Let's face it - his Godzilla was essentially Batman Begins of the Godzilla franchise - in that it came after such an abmismal previous offering and was better in every way possible.

ps3lover

Apparently the director of the Robocop reboot had similar issues, describing making that movie as a living hell and having almost no creative freedom on it. Mostly due to the PG13 rating he was forced to work with.

Also someone did a video of all the controversies of Fantastic Four.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OZY_Eno8GE

pmasterson95

Trank covering his ass.

johnny_ultimate

I wouldn't count Gunn among their ranks - as well as Slither and Super, he had worked on several smaller and bigger budget efforts as a scriptwriter (from Tromeo and Juliet to Dawn of the Dead and Scooby Doo), alongside various other projects. Makes sense he would graduate to blockbusters around when he did. As for whether it was a creative success, well I'd disagree a bit there

Oh, forgot he had done Super. There's no denying that GoTG was a mostly critical and definitely box office success.

With regards to Edwards, that guy is a genius and I guess in some regards it's not unexpected that he would be given such a huge project. He's got a real talent - its amazing to think that he did pretty much all the visual effects for Monsters by himself in his house.

Mickeroo

I would quite happily have every future big budget summer blockbuster be as unsuccessful as Guardians of the Galaxy is it means they all end up being of a similar quality.

Did anyone flock to FF this time around?

ps3lover

Deleted User wrote: »

Did anyone flock to FF this time around?

Too early to tell. Personally I feel this will bomb. Even if it opens well it will drop like a rock due to toxic word of mouth. As I said, the biggest issue with this movie is that it's boring as hell and I can't see it getting repeat business.

Zubeneschamali

OSI wrote: »

If you know people are going to flock to see a movie purely because of it's genres current popularity or for nostalgia sake, why pay one of the more established guys 7 to 8 figures when you can get one of the younger guys on creative lock down for pennies on the promise that everyone will know their name.

I think Fantastic Four's opening weekend will demonstrate exactly why.

ps3lover

Mickeroo wrote: »

I would quite happily have every future big budget summer blockbuster be as unsuccessful as Guardians of the Galaxy is it means they all end up being of a similar quality.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not but Guardians Of The Galaxy was a massive hit.

Theboinkmaster

Mickeroo wrote: »

I would quite happily have every future big budget summer blockbuster be as unsuccessful as Guardians of the Galaxy is it means they all end up being of a similar quality.

Was it considered unsuccessful after $775m worldwide off a $170m budget? Were they hoping for a billion+

johnny_ultimate

To be fair I think Mickeroo was just referring to my comment about questioning GotG success, which I have since clarified a bit. No question it was a commercial, audience and even critical hit - IMO, though, it was only a moderate improvement over standard Marvel fare, and definitely wouldn't be a flag bearer for innovative, ambitious and directorially distinctive big-budget filmmaking. Colourful and enjoyable, but not the great hope for superhero blockbusters IMO.

Zubeneschamali

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Colourful and enjoyable, but not the great hope for superhero blockbusters IMO.

I'll take colourful and enjoyable over takes-itself-too-seriously-even-when-not-completely-up-its-own-hole like Nolan's Batman.

Bacchus

I'll enjoy both and not worry that colourful-and-cheerful will find out I'm cheating on it with serious-and-dark.

Good movies are good on their own merit not because they fit a profile of what they "should" be. For me Se7en was a terrible comedy but a great thriller.

pmasterson95

Fox must let FF die and focus on mutants. Marvel would kill to be able to include the likes of Cyclops/Wolverine/Magneto/Professor X/Jean Grey available.

They could tap into a TV series with the likes of X-Factor Investigations/Generation X.

Due to the X-Men having regular overlapping/interacting teams crossovers wouldn't be as forced as they seem with Marvel (ie. Sunspot has taken part in many X-Men missions but has never officially been an X-Man on the main team). I would love to see a movie based around the events of Schism & the Phoenix Five.

Corholio

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'll take colourful and enjoyable over takes-itself-too-seriously-even-when-not-completely-up-its-own-hole like Nolan's Batman.

I love Nolan and Gunn in different ways, as well as their films. But if I had to pick a type of film I'd rather see more of it would be Nolans. I liked Guardians and I thought the humour especially was an upgrade on the likes of Avengers/Downey's which has run well dry at this stage. I don't think there is a 'big hope' for superhero blockbusters though, at least I can never seeing a studio allowing such freedom to anyone. There will be plenty of unhappy directors like Trank to come I suspect.

cloud493

I've formed my thoughts about why I disliked it so bad

- there is little to no chemistry between any of the characters. Like, Ben and Reed somehow become best mates because of a science experiment? Sue and Johnny are supposed to be close but estranged but they have one or two scenes together.
- Miles Teller is one bad actor. Its comical almost.
- His power looks weird, and not in a good way. Bad effects.
- We see Doom has a bit of a problem with the government, and it somehow turns into destroying the earth?
- Theres like one 'action' scene in the whole movie and its so bad and so short.
- it somehow manages to be be too long and yet too short at the same time.
- its been over-edited to the point of incoherence, reminds me of taken 3 in that respect.
- Dr Doom line? Its clobbering time? Are you ****ing kidding me?
- it feels like theres a huge chunk of the thing missing.

cloud493

cloud493 wrote: »

- it feels like theres a huge chunk of the thing missing.

What happened to him?

cloud493

Deleted User wrote: »

What happened to him?

I'll never hear the end of that one

johnny_ultimate

Bacchus wrote: »

I'll enjoy both and not worry that colourful-and-cheerful will find out I'm cheating on it with serious-and-dark.

Good movies are good on their own merit not because they fit a profile of what they "should" be. For me Se7en was a terrible comedy but a great thriller.

And I think Guardians of the Galaxy is merely alright on its own terms, not comparisons to any 'dark and serious' fare (and by all accounts a major issue with F4 seems to be it is so utterly dour and self-serious). It's a pretty standard Marvel film livened up by a vivid colour palette, a handful of strong performances and a couple of smart moments and flourishes (the firefly sequence being the sort of actually memorable, thoughtful SFX spectacle almost entirely lacking in the modern, hyperactive superhero film). But it also adheres so rigidly to the 'rinse and repeat' Marvel formula and extended universe guff that it feels constrained in ways something like, say, The Incredibles - IMO the pinnacle of imaginative yet lighthearted & accessible superhero films - is not. It also doesn't feel like it embraces Gunn's cheeky, provocative side like his other two features did - which is of course inevitable with the bigger budget, but is lacking somewhat in character as a result.

Anyway, getting off track, but just to highlight that the admitted minority who found GotG and the like lacking did not necessarily find that because it wasn't, say, The Dark Knight or The Turin Horse.

pmasterson95

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

And I think Guardians of the Galaxy is merely alright on its own terms, not comparisons to any 'dark and serious' fare (and by all accounts a major issue with F4 seems to be it is so utterly dour and self-serious). It's a pretty standard Marvel film livened up by a vivid colour palette, a handful of strong performances and a couple of smart moments and flourishes (the firefly sequence being the sort of actually memorable, thoughtful SFX spectacle almost entirely lacking in the modern, hyperactive superhero film). But it also adheres so rigidly to the 'rinse and repeat' Marvel formula and extended universe guff that it feels constrained in ways something like, say, The Incredibles - IMO the pinnacle of imaginative yet lighthearted & accessible superhero films - is not. It also doesn't feel like it embraces Gunn's cheeky, provocative side like his other two features did - which is of course inevitable with the bigger budget, but is lacking somewhat in character as a result.

Anyway, getting off track, but just to highlight that the admitted minority who found GotG and the like lacking did not necessarily find that because it wasn't, say, The Dark Knight or The Turin Horse.

Marvel are strangling any creativity/originality from anyone and want to just keep it safe and profitable. I far prefer Fox's approach than Marvels. Thats why I really want them to expand.

johnny_ultimate

pmasterson95 wrote: »

Marvel are strangling any creativity/originality from anyone and want to just keep it safe and profitable. I far prefer Fox's approach than Marvels. Thats why I really want them to expand.

To be fair, I'd still rather take one GotG over ten Wolverine: Origins or Fantastic Fours

pmasterson95

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

To be fair, I'd still rather take one GotG over ten Wolverine: Origins or Fantastic Fours

FF needs to dissapear forever.


As terrible as they were at least Origins & The Last Stand took risks (granted terrible ones that did more harm than good) but I'd take that over The Avengers & Age of Ultron where they just subbed aliens for robots and kept the rest the same really.

Do Marvel own the rights to X-Men? Or Fantastic Four?

cloud493

Deleted User wrote: »

Do Marvel own the rights to X-Men? Or Fantastic Four?

Fox has the movie rights to both, but they need marvels approval for anything else like tv shows.

e_e

Deleted User wrote: »

Do Marvel own the rights to X-Men? Or Fantastic Four?

Kinda hope Fox keep X-Men for now. Days of Future Past had a real spark and ambition to it, lacked the visual blandness of the Marvel studio movies. The future scenes looked absolutely gorgeous.

e_e

Anyone else feel weirdly obligated to see this now?

I kinda of want to see a really odd and interesting misfire instead of the straight down the line stuff we've been seeing lately. Plus if it's really really awful it'll make me appreciate the great Summer movies of this year Inside Out and Mad Max Fury Road all the more.

cloud493

If nothing else, it made me think that DC's efforts have to be better than that.