Re: Fantastic Four

42
"convincingly" being the key word for you i assume, as they both have.

at this point, if they're going to do FF, it should be a TV show sitcom ala Brooklyn 99. anything else is just broken.

Re: Fantastic Four

43
Spielberg did a fine job with Tintin, although he neglected to leave all the drunken racist stuff in. I read a fairly thoughtful review of F4 today, sounds like Trank tried to do a couple of different things to bust out of genre tropes but by the third act the studio clearly told him to make with the CGI fight fight, and nothing's holding together by then.
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Fantastic Four

45
Tweet has been deleted now, but apparently earlier tonight Josh Trank tweeted this:
_1438916499.jpg
It doesn't bode well when the director of a film starts apologizing for it on release day.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Fantastic Four

48
Looks like it's officially a dud. Fox originally forecast $11,264 per screen with a estimated $45m take for the weekend. It opened at $2,829 per screen and will be lucky to make $27m this weekend. Maybe they'll finally give up and give it back to Marvel now. Unfortunately they've produced so many shitty versions the property may be tainted now.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Fantastic Four

50
i wonder how long that was before he sped up the dialog, as usual? the guy never breathes. his reviews are exhausting. give me a microsecond to actually laugh, will ya? but yeah, that pretty much states what i assumed this would be, except that i never enjoyed FF. yawn-fest. the only FF issues i own are cross-overs and "what if" comics.

Re: Fantastic Four

51
Yeah, never a fan either. I know it's too much to hope for but since, going back to the Corman version, we have now had 4 Fantastic Four movies that have all sucked, maybe they can just stop making Fantastic Four movies. I mean I suppose this will recoup its budget internationally at the end of the day, but at some point don't you stop making movies that lose money and make the studio look like a bunch of jackholes?
"I'm like a dog chasing cars, I wouldn't know what to do if I caught one. . . . I'm not a schemer. I just do things."

Re: Fantastic Four

52
Alexhead wrote:but at some point don't you stop making movies that lose money and make the studio look like a bunch of jackholes?
Apparently not if you're Fox, as they're moving ahead with the sequel it seems. Since sequels often make less money than the original, I assume they'll be paying us to go see the next one.

I was never a huge fan of Fantastic Four comicwise, though Straczynski's brief run with it wasn't too bad (he was also writing Amazing Spider-man at the time so the crossed over a lot). Really the villains that come with FF are a lot more interesting than the main characters.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Fantastic Four

53
I watched this today. It's far worse than any of the previous films, trust me. It's an hour in before they even get their powers, by which point there's barely half an hour of film left for any major conflict. You might think, hey, that gives them a lot of time for good character development. Nope. The characters have the depth of a piece of cardboard and their acting is about on par. You never get the sense that Reed and Ben are great friends that have each other's back, of Johnny's hotheadedness (other than in the literal sense), or of Sue's...er...well, she's kind of a nothing character even in the comics really. But if you love watching people who are almost 30 years old pretending to be teenagers working in a lab, this is your film. Horrible casting pretty much all the way around. As for the story, there really isn't much of one. They spend 2/3 of the film trying to get to this other world (you'll be on the edge of your seat during the thrilling high school science fair scene!), find Doom again in the last 20 minutes who's motives for anything fail to rise beyond "he's nuts." The climatic battle lasts about 2 minutes. The whole thing feels like the first act of a film with the last compressed into about ten minutes and tacked on. I really don't know what the hell anyone involved in this film was thinking but I hope they got nice paychecks to offset any career damage the film did. If Fox makes a sequel with anyone who's even remotely involved in this mess they're nuts.
I watched the 2005 Fantastic Four (well, the Rifftrax version) just to have it fresh in my head for comparison. I know that film has serious haters here and I wouldn't call it very good, but it is a billion times better than this new turd. At least the characters have personalities and there's some semblance of a story.
Just cut them up like regular chickens

Re: Fantastic Four

55
wow. i mean yeah, i expected that, but seriously - at this point, how are people making superhero films that didn't learn anything from the xmen franchise, both about how to do it right and how to do it wrong? amazing.

Re: Fantastic Four

56
TC wrote:at this point, how are people making superhero films that didn't learn anything from the xmen franchise, both about how to do it right and how to do it wrong? amazing.
This film wasn't made because someone had a good vision for a Fantastic Four film or a good story to tell. It was more of "Oh shit, we're going to lose the rights if we don't make a film. Put one into production and we'll figure things out as we go." When it became apparent that Trank wasn't up to the challenge of the film, they couldn't stop and pull him off and retool. They just had to keep going and hope for the best to beat the deadline. If they were smart they would have done something really cheap and burried it just to keep the rights and then developed it properly.
Just cut them up like regular chickens