The fantastic four: first steps

Rocket_GD

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123584062#Comment_123584062

You do realise that reshoots of movies aren't unusual at all these days, especially in the MCU, look at Seth Rollins being removed entirely from Captain America and being replace by Giancarlo Esposito as the most recent example.

As for it being "too woke" the actors themselves want to put their own stamp on the character's, again happens all the time. It may be just evolving with the times. Sometimes it's good not to be stuck in the 60's.

eightieschewbaccy

Reviewing very well, the retro part sounds like it really works for it. Donald Clarke even gave it a luke warm review and he hates marvel stuff.(Which I can get)

gmisk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123660341#Comment_123660341

Reviews do look good alright.

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/the_fantastic_four_first_steps

Empire one good as well. Usually like Dan Jolins reviews.

https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/the-fantastic-four-first-steps/

I will probably go nice and early on Saturday to see it.

The White Wolf

Avoid Reddit and Twitter like the plague. I don't know if it's a generational thing but I've no idea why someone would whip out their phone, take a picture of the screen and put it on social media.

The White Wolf

I saw it there, and thought it was very good, but fell just below my expectations which was inevitable. Spoiler re Galactus follows:

Spoiler Warning

His lack of the use in the trailers make sense now as he doesn't have that much screen time at all. It's more the idea of him and characters discussing the impending threat that sells him more.

Loughc

Saw it last night, Probably should have called it The Final Four: Baby Steps as it focused so much on the baby.

Visual the retro look looked great and the movie was scored perfectly too. Some ropey CGI moments again, having a full CGI baby as times to work around employment laws looked fn weird!

Run time seemed too short for a first outing, felt like we were thrust into the main part of the story all too quickly. The quibs between the team while there just felt forced. Ben literally had little to nothing to do the whole movie and Johnny could have been fleshed out more.

The could have teased more tension between Reed and the team seeing as he kept blaming himself so much for their first failed mission.

It was a grand movie but this was Marvel playing it safe as opposed to knocking it out the park.

Pose credit scene spoiler below.

Spoiler Warning

And don't get me started about the Post credit scene, I understand RDJ would cost millions for a cameo but don't use the Doom character at all if all you are going to do to show the back of his head, there was a better scene to be used there.

A fine 7/10 but can't see it holding up well on re-watches

youngblood

Saw it yesterday, world is really well created, wholesome in a similar, if not better, vibe than Superman although I was expecting a sinister turn which never came. There was a line from Sue during an intense scene which I found a little jarring and not in keeping with the "wholesome" vibe. Anyone else think this line seemed outta place with the tone of the movie?

Some dodgy CGI with fantasticar but otherwise v impressive on the whole. To make a comic book big bad kinda threatening was an achievement. They never really landed the family vibe of the Incredibles though, they seemed a little cold somehow and some of the banter a little forced. Most interesting marvel film in a long time.

Still don't think it was a requirement to see this before Doomsday

AMKC

Well Brian Lyoid just gave it 2.5 out of 5 but then he did say the Superman film was a 4 out of 5 which it really was not.

If I see ut I will go with low expectations and hope to enjoy it.

Foxtrol

Enjoyed the movie. It is an alternative universe and felt that way - not only in the world they built but also the general tone. Barely any Marvel quips during it, to the point where it will be interesting to see if they maintain this during Doomsday.

They did a great job building a sense of dread and stakes. Probably helped by it being a different earth where they could just destroy it.

On the baby, the CGI for it was probably the worst for me. Anything dangerous for the baby could have been CGI'd but they went the whole way. Saw another poster claim employment law being the driver which I doubt - it is just hard to get a baby to do much facial reactions. I presume it cost too much to age the baby but it basically looked the exact same until the post credit scene, despite significant time passing.

I've gone back and forth on the runtime. I was left wanting more, which I feel is a good thing, I just don't how they could have given it without taking away from elements I enjoyed. I liked their approach to quickly get us up to speed and not having to sit through a full origin story again. We could have seen more of them in their world before the big bad arrived but unless it was perfect it could have ruined the movie by a needless side quest.

This is the first time I've felt a true family vibe from any of F4 movies - which were always basically a bunch of friends. Throwing the baby in is an obvious cheat code here but it works.

Loughc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123669137#Comment_123669137

The Full CGI baby thing and employment law was a direct quote from the press junket they did before the release. You can only have a baby on-set for x number of hours a day, week, etc, and with re-shoots and tight deadlines the decision was made to go fully CGI on alot of scenes with the baby.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123668513#Comment_123668513

Isn't First Steps a play on a baby's first steps?

On the post credit scene:

Spoiler Warning

It worked well for me.

The scene most likely had to bridge the period between the climax of the F4 and the F4 ship arriving in the post credits from Thunderbolts.

I am assuming they're setting up Doom stealing Franklin and multiverse hopping. The F4 follow him to the main MCU timeline.

Even if I am wrong there, my hope is that they build out Doom the character more before they show it is RDJ. The whole thing will be a mess otherwise and they will have completely wasted the character. The scene gives me some comfort that they're taking that approach.

RDJ face being in the scene would have been a great sugar high but to me would just sow confusion. Most people going to see this don't follow MCU news so would be complete perplexed as why the dead Iron Man is there. Better the focus to be on Doom first then deal with the impact of it being Stark or a guy that looks like him.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123669177#Comment_123669177

I'll take your word for it but before I posted I searched on google and found nothing.

If they said it to the media, that doesn't mean it is the real reason. I don't buy that it wasn't possible.

Marvel have constantly used the same excuses to use CGI because as it is the best/fastest/only way to do things and then we see time and again others using real effects and getting better results.

We even see Marvel going back to real effects in the likes of Thunderbolts, where a few years ago most of it would be fully CGI.

Even if the employment law thing is real they used the CGI baby too much. Just because you can get a shot with a CGI baby it didn't mean they had to.

Loughc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123669250#Comment_123669250

Agreed the CGI baby was awful and they could have found ways around it over going full CGI

Cotts72

I very much enjoyed it and left me wanting more! The Scene where Galactus first appears on the ship was tense and brilliantly done.

The choice of Shalla Bal worked well for this movie and provided a bit more weight than Norrin Rad would have.

Thought each member were brilliantly portrayed. My only gripe was we didn't really get much development from Reed Richards as a character bar him stressing and coming up with ideas

panevthe3rd

A 1:1 lego version of H.E.R.B.I.E. is surely in the works somewhere. He's made for it.

McDermotX

Wasn't gonna bother with as my interest level in nearly all things Marvel wained a long time back. Plus, I was never a big fan of the whole F4 thing, don't even recall ever watching the older iterations apart from maybe the rubbish Trank effort.

But feck it I says, Superman left a horrible taste in the mouth a couple weeks back that hasn't gone away, so let's see what's going on with this.

Overall, fairly meh and by the numbers, which is almost Marvel's trademark by now. The retro aesthetic and alternate Earth initially feel fresh, at least in this universe, and lend the film some attention. It's hardly an unfamiliar pastiche across various media, but other than some tasters in Loki, it separates itself from most of the MCU so there is a visual interest. 45mins or so in when the meat of the story presents itself is less praiseworthy, right up to the usual magic wand final third and an extremely unsatisfying climax.

Kirby is probably the standout of the group with most range to work with, but it's hardly Shakespeare, most others fill in and do their job with little to no fuss with the little they have to work with, but nothing that would make you want to rush to the cinema to see their next solo adventures - granted Marvel have bigger ensemble plans. Fans may appreciate these characters a bit more, but how much this film will warrant real interest in how they develop in amongst a host of superheros remains to be seen.

Effects vary wildly, and while Galactus was always going to be a struggle to convey, they probably did the best that could be achieved even if it is somewhat underwhelming post the initial introduction. The limited screen time of the initial threat in the first half of the film works far better than the actual confrontation so to speak. Some atrocious Thing work at times, plus the aforementioned issues of having a baby central to action onscreen just asks for inconsistent work. Dont know the teams behind it, but it wouldn't surprise me if it was a collection of effects houses as Marvel has used in the past.

Brisk enough runtime to it all the same so it doesn't drag proceedings out too much, and to be fair to it, it's never outright boredom, but not something that would be getting rewatched anytime soon. Think fans may gel with it more having a greater affinity for the characters as while the drops of backstory conveyed are eminently serviceable for the uninitiated, the group still remains almost paperthin and formulaic. Used to peg Marvel films into three different groupings given the volume and time span - the good, the middling and the poor. This is low enough in the middling, but certainly not the worst of the MCU.

RickBlaine

I'm a big fan of the infinity saga MCU but have struggled a lot with the movies post Endgame. The MCU has felt like a great TV show that has gone on a few too many seasons past its prime. However, I actually really liked F4 and is one of the very few post Endgame MCU movies that I'd rewatch. I like the dynamics between the four leads, the action is exciting and easy to follow, and the production design is fantastic (I'm currently watching Mad Men so 60s aesthetics are on my mind).

Just out of curiosity, I watched the two F4 movies from 2005 and 2007 last week. Hadn't seen them since their release. They are not good movies by any measure but I actually enjoyed them as a guilty pleasure, especially the performances by Chris Evans and Michael Chiklis. The weak link in those movies is Jessica Alba who gives an incredibly wooden performance, and obviously Vanessa Kirby is a far far superior actress. Sue Storm needed to be played by a good actress in this movie as she is the emotional core of the story.

In terms of negatives, Natasha Lyonne is utterly wasted. Anyone who has seen Poker Face would know how good of an actress she is. I can only imagine a lot of her role was cut because there is no point hiring her for a few short scenes otherwise. Also, the CGI baby was distracting at times. I understand the difficult logistics of having real babies on set but there has to be a better solution than that.

But overall, I'm happy with the movie. Probably my favourite tent pole release of the summer.

gmisk

I thoroughly enjoyed it. Looked fantastic for the most part. The CGI on the baby at times was abysmal, Ben holding him just looked awful. It's a shame because the whole aesthetic was so nicely done, Herbie etc. Shalla-bal was ace.

The story was fairly by the numbers, but cast were strong and some nice laughs too. I probably enjoyed thunderbolts more overall (it clearly skewed older given themes) but it's still a solid 7/8 out of 10 for me.

Penn

It was decent. Not great, but nothing really egregiously bad about it. The different universe gave them a lot of scope to go crazy with it, with stuff like Subterranea.

Awful CGI baby aside, the main complaint I'd have is that there was basically no character development. Aside from some moments with Reed, no character really changed or evolved over the film. Johnny and Ben were really wasted in the movie.

Thought they did a great job with Galactus though. Better than Fart-Cloud Galactus from the previous films. Silver Surfer was decent though I actually did prefer the Norrin Radd version.

Overall, yeah, it was fine. Not top-10, but a decent enough introduction to them into the MCU, the actors have a lot of potential if given more to do, and looking forward to seeing them mix with the rest of the MCU.

gmisk

Interesting to read about what was cut out of the final film! Could have been an interesting character.

Spoiler Warning

Not a spoiler but John Malkovich was meant to play a villain called Red Ghost he is mentioned but not shown.

https://www.gamesradar.com/entertainment/marvel-movies/fantastic-four-director-explains-why-one-villain-was-cut-despite-the-actors-incredible-performance-it-was-just-so-much-material/

gmisk

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123674691#Comment_123674691

I agree, it really helped it had no baggage with it, you didn't need to have seen other films or TV shows to get what was going on.

That recent captain American film was a bit of a victim of that, if you didn't watch the falcon and the winter soldier show (which was a slog) you would have no clue who the Isaiah Bradley character was for example.

The cast were good, I know what you mean about the Ben and Johnny character very little to do. Both fancied people that was about it.

Spoiler Warning

Natasha Lyonne wasted. Julia Garner was terrific I thought.

eightieschewbaccy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123675189#Comment_123675189

My guess is that character existed primarily for the opening.

Overall loved it. The overall approach to the villain was incredibly different to simply a boss fight. Thunderbolts and this have had genuinely great villains that don't feel like simple caricatures.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123675713#Comment_123675713

Agreed - I suspect they had more fleshed out versions of interactions and defeating the villains in the news reel at the start but then cut them down.

Unless there was some core character development in them, which is unlikely, then it was the right decision.

Homelander

I thought it was fairly decent by the more recent standard of Marvel movies. It's not…..eh, fantastic, but it's not bad and the actors do a great job with the characters.

Woke is also not a word I'd associate with it. Silver surfer happens to be a woman, I didn't really waste any time thinking about that one, and they certainly alude to the fact Johnny Storm has a soft spot for the ladies.

Thought this version of Silver Surfer was actually very cool as well.

Honestly, the movie has more of a focus on characters and family then it does on their abilities, inevitably that's part of it but I was surprised at how reserved the movie is on that front until the end.

Storyline is fairly simple and parts of it are rushed, but compelling enough and the retro-future design is superb.

I've never read a F4 comic in my life, so I can't really make those comparisons, but as a general Marvel movie in 2025, it could have been a lot, lot worse.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123675758#Comment_123675758

I would guess that it may have been similar to Mole Man, where Malkovich's character may have used his apes to help with the preparation plans in some way (maybe aiding in the construction of some of the bridge things). But if they were just going to essentially fill the same role as Mole Man's character, they may have decided it was repetition and maybe better off saving Malkovich for a different role further down the line.

santana75

This is actually really good. When I saw the trailer I thought it would be terrible but it's really well done. What a surprise.