FANTASTIC FOUR TRAILER ONLINE [Archive]

MattBrady

01-19-2005, 08:53 AM

<img src="http://www.newsarama.com/movies/InvisibleWoman-1024.jpg" width="300" height="225" border="0" align="right">It hit theaters with <i>Elektra</i> this past weekend, and now, the trailer for <i>Fantastic Four</i> (http://www.apple.com/trailers/fox/fantastic_four/) has made it online at Apple’s Quicktime site. The trailer gives enough of the film’s story away to officially confirm that Dr. Doom’ origin is now inexorably linked with that of the four.

And the effects…not bad.

The film’s official website has also launched at www.fantasticfourmovie.com The site has a Flash introduction (accessed by Von Doom Industries), as well as biographies of the four heroes, photos, wallpapers. A hint – read the bios, as they outline just how different the movie Four’s backgrounds and origin are as compared to the comic version of the team.

The film is slated to open July 1st in the US.

kerryw

01-19-2005, 09:19 AM

Trailer looks ace to me - esp the Human Torch bits. Not so sure about the look of Ben but I do think Julian makese a great Dr Doom.

The Warped One

01-19-2005, 09:26 AM

How come I didn't see the invisible girl in the trailer?
:rolleyes:

Alfonso

01-19-2005, 09:31 AM

Oh boy . . . "Five people will be changed . . . one will be bad . . . 4 will be fantastic".

This trailer was less than promising. I'm reminded a lot of the Daredevil trailer and how it promised a very mediocre movie, which was, at best, what it later turned out to be.

Christian Otte

01-19-2005, 09:32 AM

Awesome! I guess I'm a sucker for these comic movie trailers, because I'm always excited about 'em, but still... it looks sweet! Especially Ben Grimm AKA Michael Chicklis works a lot better than what I imagined.

The Creeper

01-19-2005, 09:33 AM

I'll probably watch this later today on a better computer.

kerryw

01-19-2005, 09:42 AM

Originally posted by The Warped One
How come I didn't see the invisible girl in the trailer?
:rolleyes:

Because she was invisible in it ;)

Robot H Brian

01-19-2005, 09:53 AM

Despite the über-simplistic typography, I think it's pretty kickass. I can only hope the director of "Friday" and "Taxi" can maintain strong action movie momentum so it's not just dead space between the big setpieces.

Aaron Weisbrod

01-19-2005, 09:58 AM

Wow...

I hate to say this, but I've really been expecting the worst for this movie (especially after having my butt whupped by THE INCREDIBLES)...

But now...

Now I'm not quite so cynical anymore... :)

I thought they pulled-off the flaming scene fairly well, and I've gotta admit, the bit with The Thing throwing the car was pretty spiffy too...

Hmmm... perhaps there is hope after all... :p

Cautiously optimistic,
Aaron Weisbrod

matthewstarnes

01-19-2005, 10:06 AM

Looks great.

cncoyle

01-19-2005, 10:08 AM

I think this looks pretty cool. The effects look pretty spiffy, especially the Human Torch.

Doom is obviously different from the 616 version, but would audiences be able to buy into an armor-wearing black-magic studying dictator of a technologically-advanced foreign country being a former classmate of Reed Richards? While the fanboy in me would want that, it would take half of the movie to establish Victor's origin. (And that's leaving out the whole "gypsy mother in Mephisto's grasp in hell" motivation for Victor to study magic.:p)

My only complaint about the trailer is the music--not that I don't like it, but its style doesn't suit what they showed. Maybe that's just me.

AlexLothos

01-19-2005, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by kerryw
Trailer looks ace to me - esp the Human Torch bits. Not so sure about the look of Ben but I do think Julian makese a great Dr Doom.

I still think the Corman Thing looks better, but otherwise I have to say I was impressed! The Torch bits were very well done and what little I saw of Alba... it looks like she may actually pull it off (which is good as I am an Alba fan!!)!

Pikachu007

01-19-2005, 10:20 AM

So much for remaining faithful to Lee/Kirbys telling of the FF origin... And again Fox can't afford a CGI Thing instead of a walking rubber suit? Sad... And you have perhaps Marvel's greatest villain reduced to a walking tin can... Pathetic... The Incredibles is more like the fantastic four! Oh well, I'll watch it on DVD at the Dollar bin...

Moonbeam

01-19-2005, 10:25 AM

I absolutely love it! Looks awesome!! And the fact that it's scheduled to open on July 4th weekend bodes well for early expectations of the film -- it must be a strong one for the makers to give it the prime spot of the summer. I tried to look at the trailer objectively, and I see more similarities to the Lost in Space flick than Incredibles. This has that type of space travel feel to it. So I think they've succeeded in differentiating this property from the Pixar film.

I am also one of those people who isn't really impressed with CGI comics characters. I thought the Hulk looked pretty good, but feel much more inclined to identify with someone who has more of a human feel to him. And Thing SHOULD have a much more human feel than Hulk. I think Chiklis will pull off the character well in the suit.

I will definitely be seeing this film. In fact, sign me up for a midnight showing!! :D

jclem3

01-19-2005, 10:26 AM

Awesome!

Pretty good trailer and makes me so hopped up to see the actual movie now. I liked the Torch sequences as much of you did. What just worries me though is the plot. I hope its good.

tralfaz

01-19-2005, 10:27 AM

I cant wait for july 4th when everyone watches it and the boards become filled with hatred for this film.

gwangung

01-19-2005, 10:56 AM

Originally posted by cncoyle
My only complaint about the trailer is the music--not that I don't like it, but its style doesn't suit what they showed. Maybe that's just me.

Don't worry. Music for a movie isn't ready until the film is edited and nearly complete (think about it). What you're hearing is placeholder music, from another movie, for which they have the rights for.

perk9600

01-19-2005, 10:59 AM

That is the worst website ever.

I'm not going to watch the trailer. i want to see it on the big screen when I go to Elektra, but I sure hope this is good.

jasinmartin

01-19-2005, 11:01 AM

That was one kick ass preview.

The powers/effects looked cool.
The actors looked like they're a great fit all around.
The suits came off well.
And it left me ready to see the movie...

sign me up for the midnight show too.

Bakema NL

01-19-2005, 11:05 AM

I didn't have high hopes for it, but I must say, looks promising.
Even that blonde latina prostitute looks to be ok for the movie. :p

Jeffbot

01-19-2005, 11:12 AM

I wish they showed more of the actual movie, rather than just the screen text. They really played up the fact that you can interchange 'four' with '4.'

I'm cautiously optimistic about this film. I hope it lives up to its potential!

MurrayC

01-19-2005, 11:14 AM

I have to admit, this trailer looks better than the previous teaser. I was especially impressed with the outerspace sequences at the beginning.

I agree with everyone that the THING doesn't look as good as it could be. Even putting CGI aside, they could have made him look more like rock instead of a lump of shit.

Everyone sems to hate Jessica Alba as Sue Storm. I'll admit, the publicity stills has her hair all "poofy" a la 1985. But some of the shots in the trailer she looks exactly like Sue with her hair a little more straight during battle.

My only complaint about Johnny Storm is that he is so much on fire that you can barely see the outline of a person within the flame.

As for Mr Fantastic, he looks a little lack-lustre, but I am hopinh the creators are saving the cools part as a surprise when we see what he can do in the movie.

mavinga

01-19-2005, 11:35 AM

Not impressed, when there are that many cuts, it means there are things someone would rather not you saw. I could barely follow it.

People, would you like swiss or mozarella?

greenflameuk

01-19-2005, 11:51 AM

There are way to many cuts, but the effects look good:)

Vyper

01-19-2005, 12:20 PM

Didn't like the Thing all that much - it still looks like a guy in a rubber suit. The bit with him jumping in front of the semi truck was pretty sweet though.

My biggest complaint is Doom's (apparent) origin - the screenplay seems to have taken an Ultimized apporach to Dr. D, as opposed to the original - which I think is a mistake. Dr. Doom is not just some clown in a metal suit of armor that throws lightning around - he is a tortured, brilliant, overbearing despot, with a definite Oedipus coplex. I didn't like the way he was presented in Ultimate FF, and I doubt I'll enjoy it in the movie. My philosphy - if something ain't broke, don't fix it.

qtzar

01-19-2005, 12:39 PM

Originally posted by Aaron Weisbrod
Wow...

I hate to say this, but I've really been expecting the worst for this movie (especially after having my butt whupped by THE INCREDIBLES)...

But now...

Now I'm not quite so cynical anymore... :)

I thought they pulled-off the flaming scene fairly well, and I've gotta admit, the bit with The Thing throwing the car was pretty spiffy too...

Hmmm... perhaps there is hope after all... :p

Cautiously optimistic,
Aaron Weisbrod

not to be cynical because im on board with this FF movie but i remember how cool the Hulk looked throwing those tanks....but im sure this movie will not be boaring.........

qtzar

01-19-2005, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by greenflameuk
There are way to many cuts, but the effects look good:)

thats what a trailer is...pieces of a movie that are CUT together.....ps.to splice is to cut together this trailer looked really good.there was nothing wrong with the music, what a jerky thing to say.i have a feeling we are going to be very happy with this movie except for pikachu, who thought the trailer was pathetic...i dont see how someone could think that cool trailer was pathetic

johndallas

01-19-2005, 01:41 PM

That did look rediculous. Alba is a terrible choice for Sue, Thing looks like a pile of Doo Doo and live action stars look stupid in costumes. Marvel needs to do all these movies in CGI instead.

FIG

01-19-2005, 01:52 PM

I think this movie has the potential to sell lots of tickets but that doesn't necessarily translate into it being a good movie. I mean I think it looks cool but I'll go watch it the same way I watched Daredevil and Punisher. I'll lower all expectations and yes, Alba is beautiful but again, shes no Sue Storm. I guess executives have to see her on film to realize that. The best case scenario for Marvel would be to make full CGI movies of the most popular runs from the comics so that they don't bastardize the source material. The translation from comic to film wouldn't even be an issue and you wouldn't have to put up with executives asking for costume or story changes. These films should be made for fans first and formost, especially now that the mainstream audience is aware of comic movies and who Marvel is.

Kusanagi

01-19-2005, 02:24 PM

Looks like a fun movie to go to with my girl.

I'm not going for that
"staying true to the comic/ Alba's bad choice for Sue, Thing looks like shit" rant most people play here:p

Everything looks good about this movie, even a blonde Alba,
so, i'm going to see this.

Kolimar

01-19-2005, 02:47 PM

Not bad. Jessica's still doesn't look the part but she'll have to do. The Thing's... well, not horrible all things considered. The FX are good. They could be better.

Conclusion: this is just a trailer. It shows potential. I hope the movie succeeds in achievieng it but I sincerely doubt it.

Originally posted by perk9600
That is the worst website ever.

Hahahah. I'm not sure if it's the worst ever but I couldn't help laughing at the differentiation between US English (North America) and English (Outside North America), "Espanol" (Castellano) and "Espanol" (Latin america).

:rolleyes: :D :p :D

julez4001

01-19-2005, 02:48 PM

FIG: The best case scenario for Marvel would be to make full CGI movies of the most popular runs from the comics so that they don't bastardize the source material.

um why would making them fullCGI movies make them less so of ruining them. And they are many flavors of CGI (Incredibles look, Final Fantasy:TSW look, Animmatrix, Polar Express) as they are in different artist:( Jim Lee way, frank Miller style, etc) which may or may not help the translation. CGI is not a blanket statement. You have to be more specific.

boypop

01-19-2005, 02:59 PM

Marvel Comics are so bad today, I wouldn't use them as toilet paper and I'm not just saying that because I'm a DC/Independents man myself. But the trailer for this movie looks EXCELLENT. I really can't wait to see it and I think it'll be as big as Spider Man.

Dr. Slim

01-19-2005, 03:03 PM

Forget all this CGI business, I want the Thing to be rendered entirely in stop-motion. They could also represent the Invisible Woman by hauling around teacups pencils and whatnot on wires. It wouldn't look any more fake than what the computers do, and the whole thing would be deliciously old-school....especially on black and white film with occasional inter-titles in the high Stan Lee style: "When Comes the Hour of DOOM," etc.

Cientista

01-19-2005, 03:12 PM

So, who chose the cast, anyway? They all seem so inadequate for their parts (well, execpt for Thing who could be just about anyone with prostetics on him)... the trailer doesn't look bad though, I just think it's unfortunate the casting they made.
And the music that's playing on the trailer is from the latest A Perfect Circle record.

Scavenger

01-19-2005, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by Cientista
So, who chose the cast, anyway? They all seem so inadequate for their parts (well, execpt for Thing who could be just about anyone with prostetics on him)...

Award winning Michael Chicklis (FX's The SHIELD) is the Thing...and I'm not sure there's a better actor out there for the part. And I like how the Thing looks...IF you're going with a real actor, you want to see them be able to act, not watch some cartoon. The Hulk looked fine on his own...and awful when having to stand next to a real person.

Ioan Guffard is a really good actor, mainly unknown in the states, though with FF and the rumors of him being the front runner for the new Bond, that'll likely change.

Don't know the guy playing Torch.

Jessica Alba. She can act well enough to be credible, she can fight well enough to be credible, but more importantly she can melt film with a pout and she looks awesome in blue spandex.

As for plot points...well, I'd prefer Victor in a suit than Victor as a suit, but given he's never out of the armor, it doesn't matter too much....it's more how the story plays out that's important.

I don't mind Sue as scientist and Johnny as pilot, because frankly, the "Reed takes his girlfriend and her kid brother on the experimental space flight" is kind of...well..dumb.

hasno

01-19-2005, 04:10 PM

i went to highschool with the fellow who plays the torch.
his name is chris evans.

i was somewhat skeptical of the trailer. i think that micheal chiklis(sp) as the thing looks phenominal but im not sure about the rest of the cast.
trevor.

enabler

01-19-2005, 04:30 PM

Hmmm. The flame effects look good. I don't mind the Thing suit... that much. The music didn't jibe (and hopefully is a placeholder, as someone else already stated). Not sure about Doom.

I'll wait until more footage or info becomes available, but for now, this doesn't look like it can hold a torch (har har! ugh, boo) to X-Men or Spidey.

zeraze

01-19-2005, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Pikachu007
And again Fox can't afford a CGI Thing instead of a walking rubber suit?

Fox can afford a CGI Thing. But there are two great reasons why the studio didn't go in that direction.

First, Michael Chiklis refused to play the Thing unless he was brought to life through wearing a suit rather than CGI. Since losing one of the movie's stars was out of the question, Chiklis won out.

Secondly, though largely embraced by comic fans, the CGI star of The Hulk got a mixed response from millions of non-fan moviegoers. This among other reasons account for the movie's disappointment box office take. MSNBC explains why moviegoers were so hard on a CGI Green Goliath:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3069201/

Hence, given the circumstances, I agree with Fox's decision to go with a Thing created through make-up not computer pixels.

zeraze

FIG

01-19-2005, 05:57 PM

Originally posted by julez4001
....um why would making them fullCGI movies make them less so of ruining them. And they are many flavors of CGI (Incredibles look, Final Fantasy:TSW look, Animmatrix, Polar Express) as they are in different artist:( Jim Lee way, frank Miller style, etc) which may or may not help the translation. CGI is not a blanket statement. You have to be more specific.

In response to your question julez4001, why would making them CGI make them better movies?-Like I already said, the exectuives or directors wouldn't be able to bastardize the source material, they would have toi stick to whats already there. No more costume changes or story rewrites because "it doesn't look good on film". Also, full CGI would enable Marvel to use specific artists styles that made those particualr comics more popular. Full CGI can be awesome if done right, look at The Incredibles. Does that mean one can't choose a more realisitc style?-Certainly not, the reason movies like Polar Express, which has a more rendered realistic style than say The Incredibles, sucks is because the studio in charge primarily used motion capture over hand animation which made the characters facial animation look stiff and lifeless.

Final Fantasy made the mistake of numerous things as well. Chief among them being neglecting the core audience by giving us characters nobody had even heard of, deleting the whole notion of Fantasy infused in all fo the games and not polishing the facial animation. If a studio makes a stylized yet rendered movie like say, a Spiderman movie based off of Todd McFarlanes run on Spiderman and polishes the facial animation to the point where it looks good, I think you would have a hit on your hands. The reason studios were more reluctant to make comic movies more faithful to their source material is because there weren't very many good ones before. Now that Marvel ahs established good comic movies (Spiderman franchise) they should stop worrying so much about the mainstream audience and focus on their core fanbase because I now think the mainstream audience will follow. Marvel has cemented themselves in the mind of the mainstream audience by now. I hope thats more specific for you.

Alex Clarke Kent

01-19-2005, 06:17 PM

Actually, I thought the CGI animation in the Final Fantasy movie looked phenomenal.

But that was part of the problem. They spent too much time and money on the animation, but not enough time and money on the lackluster script. In the end it was all style and flash, but no substance underneath it all.

Idiosylph

01-19-2005, 06:52 PM

I thought that the trailer looked really good. But Marvel has had enough misses that I'm not going to be 100% convinced until I actually buy my ticket and sit down in the theater come July. But I have to admit that I'm getting a better vibe from this trailer than I ever did from Daredevil or Elektra.

The trailer did help ease some of my fears about Jessica Alba. She does look a lot better as Sue than I thought.

I totally agree with the Thing being a suit rather than a CGed character. While I have no problem with CGed characters, I don't like CG being used on characters that are still very human. In fact, I think the Hulk might have been done better as a guy in a suit. Trick photography can do a lot, just look at how John Rhys-Davies was made into a totally convincing dwarf in Lord of the Rings. And makeup has come to a point that CG can be rendered to little more than the icing on the cake. Just look at the makeup/costumes in Hellboy. Both Hellboy and Abe Sapian looked fantastic, and CG was used only for little things like a tail twich.

As for the non-Lee/Kirby origin that the movie is going to have, I think they had to go with it for realism. They have to make this movie for the general non-comic reading audiance as well a comic fans who could quote you the Fantastic Four's origin backwards. While comic fans will accept that a scientist could get a space-ship, his best friend to pilot it, then take his girl-friend and her underage brother into space with him, Joe Average is going to think that the idea is totally rediculous. However, all four of them being on a space station and an accident happens - not so hard to believe (in movie logic).

As for Doom, I like both the 616 and the Ultimate version. I think that for the span of a two hour movie, the Ultimate version works better. To really understand 616 Doom you need a complete backstory. That is a backstory that was crafted over decades of comics. You have to get into Doom's anger towards Mr. Fantastic, you have to go into his training in the mystic arts, you have to delve into the relationship with his mother... That and a whole lot of things that you can't cover in two hours and leave much room for the Fantastic Four! Ultimate Doom is a better movie Doom. His origin is tied to the Fantastic Four, which gives you an on-screen reason for animosity and conflict without cumbersome flashbacks (which I understand is a major hang-up with Elektra).

I guess long story short, the Fantastic Four have a long and complex history. They're one of the oldest super-teams and to completely get everything would take several movies - and that's if you just want to cover their relationship with Doom. With characters who aren't as familiar to the general public as Spider-Man fans have to expect some reworkings to make them more accessible to the average guy in the theater. Just think about how much was changed in the first X-Men movie. A lot was changed, and not just costumes. Rogue was the Shadowcat/Jubilee character who flirted with Iceman. Sabertooth was a member of Magneto's Brotherhood. Jean Grey was a doctor. A lot was changed, but it was still a great movie. The same for the second X-Men movie. And it was good too.

Yes, Marvel has had more than it's fair share of turkeys. But to say that this movie is going to suck because of changes to 616 history or because the director chose to go with a suit rather than total CG is way too premature. Unless I see something to really convice me otherwise before July 4th, I'll be there to see this movie.

Mister

01-19-2005, 09:12 PM

Trailer only in Apple quicktime, and it needs to be updated, not interested

they should have more player options, Window Media Player

So I still have not seen any FF trailers and I still have no reason to go to the movies until they can get me a file that can play in a player that don't need to be updated every other week

I no longer trust Apple with all those updated

Oh well, maybe a 2 for 1 rental night then

Peter of Smeg

01-19-2005, 09:23 PM

Originally posted by qtzar
thats what a trailer is...pieces of a movie that are CUT together.....ps.to splice is to cut together this trailer looked really good.

what he means, and I agree with him, is things are moved so quickly through that you don't actually get a chance to really see anything. I can't think of a shot that lasts for more than 2 seconds.

This can be the result of a new editor trying to be cool and not knowing how to market a movie... most likely though it's the studio trying to pass off a stinker by making it look exciting.

Michael P

01-19-2005, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by FIG
The best case scenario for Marvel would be to make full CGI movies of the most popular runs from the comics so that they don't bastardize the source material. [/B]

There's enough broken logic in that sentence for Captain Kirk to kill a thousand sentient computers.

Imagine I'm a Hollywood producer. Tell me, exactly, why it would be a good idea to bring together dozens, if not hundreds, of professional creative workers, people who have devoted their lives and livelihoods to self-expression through storytelling, to spend a great deal of their time and my money, and order them to copy exactly, with no deviation, a story created by someone else several decades ago in another medium entirely.

Imagine I'm a comics fan. Please explain why I would want to spend ninety minutes of my life and twenty dollars of my money to see an exact recreation of something I already have at home.

Imagine I'm not a comics fan. Elucidate, as clearly as you can, why I would want to see a movie that was made entirely to satisfy the anal-retentive bleatings of a subset of the population to which I do not belong.

And when you're done with all that, fetch me some magic fairy dust from the fantasy world you're living in.

Vyper

01-20-2005, 12:31 AM

Originally posted by Michael P
There's enough broken logic in that sentence for Captain Kirk to kill a thousand sentient computers.

Imagine I'm a Hollywood producer. Tell me, exactly, why it would be a good idea to bring together dozens, if not hundreds, of professional creative workers, people who have devoted their lives and livelihoods to self-expression through storytelling, to spend a great deal of their time and my money, and order them to copy exactly, with no deviation, a story created by someone else several decades ago in another medium entirely.

Imagine I'm a comics fan. Please explain why I would want to spend ninety minutes of my life and twenty dollars of my money to see an exact recreation of something I already have at home.

Imagine I'm not a comics fan. Elucidate, as clearly as you can, why I would want to see a movie that was made entirely to satisfy the anal-retentive bleatings of a subset of the population to which I do not belong.

And when you're done with all that, fetch me some magic fairy dust from the fantasy world you're living in.
I laughed so hard reading this I almost cried. Good response, and very much along the lines of what I was thinking

Solamon

01-20-2005, 01:02 AM

From reading the boards on Newsarama today, it seems a lot of people got some hate for the Fantastic Four movie. Am I the only one that thought this movie was going to be stupid before seeing the trailer and then thought the movie might not be so bad afterwards? Aside for the "1 will be bad, 4 will be fantastic" crap, I was pretty impressed.

y2auld

01-20-2005, 02:15 AM

I am a long time reader of the Fantastic Four with the exception of the 90's Defalco run, Claremont and Lobdell runs, and the horrid Waid run. I did not like this film:

1) from reading about some of the changes from the original comic book in the plot- Victor Von Doom is on the ship with the rest of the members of the Fantastic Four and gets the same cosmic ray treatment as the rest of them. His scar from the accident mutates into some form of physical disfigurement. Victor Von Doom owning a company compared to being a leader of a foreign country.

2)the miscasting of the Fantastic Four- There is no way that Jessica Alba and Chris Evans could ever be related as brother and sister. Blond hair dye and blue eye contacts cannot make a mixed Latina/Phillipina be related to a white person who needs the blond hair dye to make him look like Johnny Storm. A major age difference between Reed Richards and Ben Grimm (should be same age or Grimm is 2 years older) where Chiklis is 9 years older than the actor that plays Reed Richards.

3) the trailers for this film-This version and an earlier version are horrible. I am glad that I am very frugal about the films I watch and the comics that I buy.

I will avoid seeing this farce of the Fantastic Four and I will rely on the Corman version as the one to see since it adheres to the original Lee/Kirby run with a little tweaking that does not become a problem like this film coming out.

ZakK

01-20-2005, 05:51 AM

"one will be bad"

Geez, it looks like this is all going to be bad.

Sure it's too early to judge, but the Thing just looks like they tacked a bunch of Nilla Waifers on Michael Chiklis. Ah well, who knows... it could be keen. I'm just not a fan of the Ultimate version, and this looks like it.

thunderkid32

01-20-2005, 08:14 AM

If one was to judge the movies by sound effects then that was a kick ass trailer, in reality it was the worse trailer ever.
This movie looks worse then the Hulk did, the Thing crappy looking outfit is just plain wrong, Jessy Alba looks like the hookers of cristmass past, reed Richard real power seem to be his incredibly long and pointy nose, no doubt to compensate for the human toch huge potato, where did they get these people, at the human's freaks carnevals?.
How hard would have been for Fox to get more fitting actors? You know a sue that actually looks like sue ? A touch of CGI to make the thing more credible?
A don't start me with Dr Doom costume, I tought mni skirts went out of style in the 60s.
These movie will open with big numbers in week one only to drop to zero in the next week just like the Hulk did.
When I went to see the Hulk in NYC I spend most of the second part of the movie watching people leaving the theater, that is how bad the movie was, and how pissed people were, the Fantastic Four will no doubt follow in the same steps.

thunderkid32

01-20-2005, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Michael P

Imagine I'm a Hollywood producer.

Sure and I am Tina Turner nice to meet you , glad to see an Hollywood producer with nothing better to do then hang out at the famous Newsrama board, or are you here pushing your own cr.. er product

Tell me, exactly, why it would be a good idea to bring together dozens, if not hundreds, of professional creative workers, people who have devoted their lives and livelihoods to self-expression through storytelling, to spend a great deal of their time and my money, and order them to copy exactly, with no deviation, a story created by someone else several decades ago in another medium entirely.[/QUOTE]

yea why should anyone pay homage to the creator and produce as much as a faitfull movie as possible, just like that flop "NOT" The Lord Of The Rings, you might have heard of it, then again we are dealing with over inflated hollywood egos er.. I meant creative geniuses in hollywood looking down on us poor common people, (sight and double sight), and one wonders why movies do flop!

Imagine I'm a comics fan. Please explain why I would want to spend ninety minutes of my life and twenty dollars of my money to see an exact recreation of something I already have at home.[/QUOTE]

Really? You already have a good fantastic Four movie at home? Did that come from delusion land or the twilight zone?

Imagine I'm not a comics fan. Elucidate, as clearly as you can, why I would want to see a movie that was made entirely to satisfy the anal-retentive bleatings of a subset of the population to which I do not belong.[/QUOTE]

If you are NOT a comic fan you wouldn't give a dime on who the movie satisfy but you would still care on how good the movie is,
and considering how popular/good the original story was it might have been worthed to give it a shot, IF the movie writer and producer BIG EGO would have allowed for that

And when you're done with all that, fetch me some magic fairy dust from the fantasy world you're living in. [/QUOTE]

Sorry we don't have any you will have to trade yours some where else.

Quay Lewd

01-20-2005, 10:26 AM

Well, I'm going to follow all that UNNECESSARY VITRIOL with my 2 cents...

I've been a long-time fan of the FF -- since the mid-70's to be exact. I checked out during the 90's but have really enjoyed Waid's run. FF is my first love, comics-wise. I am also a critical consumer of movies - life is too short to waste on the truly bad films.

That said, I can't wait to see this movie!!! I am a Chiklis fan and while he appeared to be overselling the film in a recent review, I trust that his presence and influence (on the suit, among other matters we may not know) bode well for the FF. The rest of the cast seems right to me, esp. Chris Evan who potrays a perfectly annoying, cocky Johnny Storm.

So it won't be the Godfather of superhero movies. The trailer tells me we're in for a big, fun, 4th of July weekend popcorn movie that will sell lots of tickets and toys. Financially this thing will sail, Stan should get his 10%, and this movie-goer expect to have a lot of fun watching some of my favorite FF moments come to life on the screen - just as I did watching the Daredevil: Directors Cut last week. My kid's going to love it too, so there'll be two FF fans in the house!

You nit-pickers sound "pathetic" and need to find something constructive to do with your free time.

zeraze

01-20-2005, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by thunderkid32
Jessy Alba looks like the hookers of cristmass past

Do people like yourself and John Byrne have unresolved sexual issues from childhood you'd like to discuss?

Frankly, a guy would have to be dead or gay not to think a curvy woman in spandex wasn't sexy. That's a normal response.

reed Richard real power seem to be his incredibly long and pointy nose,

Well, Reed is supposed to be elastic so that's a compliment for the FX guys on the film. ;)

Seriously, Ioan Gruffudd looks normal with no hint of a long, pointy nose. Maybe you watched a Wizard of Oz marathon last night, and still haven't recovered from the maga-size nose of the Wicked Witch of the West.

no doubt to compensate for the human toch huge potato,

After rumors that the Torch wouldn't "flame on," I was pleasantly surprised by the shot of him soaring over NYC.

How hard would have been for Fox to get more fitting actors? You know a sue that actually looks like sue ?

Yeah, we saw how horrible those X-Men films were because they hired an 6'0" Australian actor to play a 5'3" Canadian anti-hero. :rolleyes:

A don't start me with Dr Doom costume, I tought mni skirts went out of style in the 60s.

Doom doesn't wear mini-skirts? He's been wearing one over his armor for 40 years!

And you call yourself a Fantastic Four fan.

In short, the Fantastic Four looks promising. I don't know if the movie will read Incredibles' level of quality, but it doesn't look like the sure fire train wreck that naysayers have predicted it would be.

zeraze

Darkseid147

01-20-2005, 12:50 PM

Originally posted by Dr. Slim
Forget all this CGI business, I want the Thing to be rendered entirely in stop-motion. They could also represent the Invisible Woman by hauling around teacups pencils and whatnot on wires. It wouldn't look any more fake than what the computers do, and the whole thing would be deliciously old-school....especially on black and white film with occasional inter-titles in the high Stan Lee style: "When Comes the Hour of DOOM," etc.

I wasn't aware that the Sci-Fi Channel had anything to do with the production of this film. I myself enjoy this "MODERN" technology these hip new film makers are using. If this film looks not to be your idea of what it should be, I have a bootlegged copy of the Corman film, you are more then welcome to borrow.

zeraze

01-20-2005, 01:19 PM

Originally posted by thunderkid32

yea why should anyone pay homage to the creator and produce as much as a faitfull movie as possible, just like that flop "NOT" The Lord Of The Rings, you might have heard of it, then again we are dealing with over inflated hollywood egos er.. I meant creative geniuses in hollywood looking down on us poor common people, (sight and double sight), and one wonders why movies do flop!

Your argument is flawed on so many levels. First, as faithful as the films were to the books, there are still fans of the Lord of the Rings novels who grumble about minor characters being left out. What's that old saying about not being able to please everyone.

Secondly, a film can be a hit even if it deviates wildly from the original novel or comics book. A great example was 2004's I, Robot which came under fire from some Isaac Asimov fans after it was reveal that the movie would be more of an action flick than an anthology of action-free stories. There were threats of boycotts of the movie and pundits wondering if the controversy would hurt the career of the film's lead Will Smith.

Know what happened? I, Robot was bonafide smash, the first for a great year for Smith. (His other blockbuster was Shark Tale.) Clearly, Smith's star power and a good storyline mattered more to moviegoers than how faithful the movie was to a sci-fi novel. And let's be real: how many Americans know who Isaac Asimov is?

And this is the tip of the iceberg of films that are blockbusters without being completely faithful to their source material. Others include Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (a bigger hit than Superman), The Mask, and Jurassic Park. Check out the following link for exact box office figures:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/daily/movies/100million/article.htm

Hence, Fantastic Four will soar or flop depending on whether the moviegoing public embraces it. The movie could offend every comic fan is America and still be blockbuster as long as it pulls that feat off.

zeraze

GossAmerica

01-20-2005, 02:08 PM

Mixed feelings about the trailer, but I HATE that website. I'm on a high-speed connection at school, and it still lagged at times. If I was at home on dial-up, I'd slit my wrists!

thunderkid32

01-20-2005, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by zeraze
Your argument is flawed on so many levels.

That is not a fact, just your personal opinion.

First, as faithful as the films were to the books, there are still fans of the Lord of the Rings novels who grumble about minor characters being left out. What's that old saying about not being able to please everyone.
[/QUOTE]

Interesting because as a fan of the Lord of The Ring myself I never heard any of that, as matter of fact the opposite was quite true.

Secondly, a film can be a hit even if it deviates wildly from the original novel or comics book. A great example was 2004's I, Robot which came under fire from some Isaac Asimov fans ........snip

Know what happened? I, Robot was bonafide smash,.....snip
[/QUOTE]

Actually I Robot performed poorly, as matter of fact for a summer block buster it was pretty much a flop, note I have yet to hear a positive comment about that movie from anyone.

And let's be real: how many Americans know who Isaac Asimov is?[/QUOTE]

This question show your real lack of understanding, no matter how big Asimov might be in the sci-fi circle, every american kid has read at a time or another the Fantastic Four or watched the TV cartoons,
apple and oranges alll the way to the theater

Fantastic Four will soar or flop depending on whether the moviegoing public embraces it. [/QUOTE]

It doesn't take a genius to see if a movie would do good or bad, yes even from the trailer, I din't go to see the Punisher or Elektra because they looked like crap, and I wasn't wrong they are both Flops, the fantastic Four looks worse.
My prediction stand, this movie will make big money the first week because of the characters popularity and it will totally crash to nothing the next week.

The movie could offend every comic fan is America and still be blockbuster as long as it pulls that feat off.
zeraze [/QUOTE]

Once again you show your lack of understanding, early adoptes are key in many industries, they are the ones to buy a product first and promote it by word of mouth, in this case the early adopters are going to be comic fans and they will be the ones to spread the initial word of mouth, it is essential they be happy or this movie will flop.
Sorry guy such is life, been there, done it, seen it, many, many,many times,
this movie is a lemon.

y2auld

01-20-2005, 07:45 PM

Originally posted by Quay Lewd
You nit-pickers sound "pathetic" and need to find something constructive to do with your free time.

It is the nit-pickers that made Electra go to #5 while making a predictable movie go to #1 in its opening week, a good word of mouth blockbuster continue to make money at #2, take the kids to see talking horses at #3, and take a date to the #4 film. That's one way of doing something constructive with our money and time.

Michael P

01-20-2005, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by y2auld
It is the nit-pickers that made Electra go to #5 I think the almost unanimous pans from the critics might have had just a teensy bit to do with it, don't you?

Mister

01-20-2005, 09:14 PM

Anyway, Marvel & Fox can tease and trailer all they want the new Fantastic Four movie, but I ain't putting a single cent until the old Fantastic Four movie is out on DVD widescreen edition

y2auld

01-20-2005, 11:30 PM

Originally posted by Michael P
I think the almost unanimous pans from the critics might have had just a teensy bit to do with it, don't you?
Yes, but they also panned Coach Carter for having the same type of formula from previous films and a very predictable ending. And that went to #1.

kilroy

01-21-2005, 11:27 AM

I have to say to hell with all you nay sayers. this trailer make the movie look good. Everyone looks the part take the stick out of your as@. This looks like the comic. Sorry but jess looks like sue like a kick ass sue, the way sue should be. Mike is perfect for the thing and looks incredible and yeah if a human being was on fire you wouldnt be able to see his facial features perfectly, the way you do in the comic. The movie is trying to bring to life the fantasy. Julian Doc Doom. This is way better then the xmen movie which was totally miscast in certain roles and had no connection to either MU or Ultimate universe books. Daredevil which had a perfect cats except for the pivotal lead character and the hulk and I was excited about the Superman Movie because Brandon Routh can act but I wont see it now with Spacey as Luthor and the worst casting choice since affleck was given dardevil Bosworth as LOIS LANE what the hell was that queen Bryanthinking and I can call him that because Iam one too. As a gay guy he should no better but then he gave halle berry storm when angela bassett would have been much better. Im beginning to think he has issues with strong women. XMEN was a tad misogynistic

kilroy

01-21-2005, 11:27 AM

Michael P

01-21-2005, 04:19 PM

Originally posted by y2auld
Yes, but they also panned Coach Carter for having the same type of formula from previous films and a very predictable ending. And that went to #1. According to Rotten Tomatoes, far more critics panned Elektra than panned Coach Carter.

fuzznugget

01-21-2005, 09:22 PM

little I saw of Alba... it looks like she may actually pull it off

I'm hoping she'll n"pull it off" in Sin City

I agree with everyone that the THING doesn't look as good as it could be. Even putting CGI aside, they could have made him look more like rock instead of a lump of shit.

Check the 1st dozen issues of FF and tell me what the thing looks like, a pile of rocks or a pile of shit?

zeraze

01-22-2005, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by thunderkid32
That is not a fact, just your personal opinion.

Keep reading.

[quote]Interesting because as a fan of the Lord of The Ring myself I never heard any of that, as matter of fact the opposite was quite true.

These LOTR fans are pretty displeased with the movie versions:

http://www.scifi.com/sfw/issue245/letters.html#adaptation

[QUOTE] Actually I Robot performed poorly, as matter of fact for a summer block buster it was pretty much a flop, note I have yet to hear a positive comment about that movie from anyone. ]

Of course, you'll hear bad reviews about I Robot if you hang out with hardcore sci-fi fans who've seen plenty of "man vs. machine" movies. However, chat with moviegoers who watch few if any sci-fi flicks and you'll get positive reviews of I, Robot. More than likely, this latter group was responsible for the movie's domestice gross $144.8 million, a blockbuster haul by any standard.

This disconnect between hardcore sci-fi fans and the moviegoing mainstream isn't unusual. I mean hard sci-fi fans loathed Independence Day starring Will Smith, but the film raked in over $300 million (in the U.S.) anyway.

This question show your real lack of understanding, no matter how big Asimov might be in the sci-fi circle, every american kid has read at a time or another the Fantastic Four or watched the TV cartoons

Which increases the Fantastic Four's chances for success at the box office. Kids are notorious for enjoying films that adults consider boring, annoying or baffling. Exhibit A: Shark Tale, an animated film that was widely panned by adult critics but widely embraced by kids to the tune of $160.7 million

There's an ironic scenario: the Fantastic Four becomes a blockbuster by drawing in the very kids that have eluded the comic industry.

Once again you show your lack of understanding, early adoptes are key in many industries, they are the ones to buy a product first and promote it by word of mouth, in this case the early adopters are going to be comic fans and they will be the ones to spread the initial word of mouth, it is essential they be happy or this movie will flop.

Okay, answer me this. Hardcore comic fans howled in outrage that the movie adaptation of The Mask (Dark Horse Comics) was less edgy and more kid-friendly. The movie goes on to become a blockbuster, raking in $119.9 million.

On the other hand, comic fanboys praised Hellboy (also Dark Horse) for being so faithful to its source material. Yet, the movie made just $60 million, which is pretty measly compared to The Mask's haul.

What happened? Simple. Just because a comic fanboy thinks a comic book film is horrible and will bomb doesn't make it so. Sure, it's great if a comic-based film is true to its source material, but that doesn't ensure it blockbuster profits.

So, thunderkid, you don't have a clue about the business comic based films. Before you speak on this topic further I suggest you educate yourself. Id' start with this column at Broken Frontier about how comics are translated to the big screen:

http://www.brokenfrontier.com/columns/details.php?id=206

zeraze

P.S.

I got all movie box office information above from the following
link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/daily/movies/100million/article.htm

hellwithout

01-22-2005, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by Pikachu007
So much for remaining faithful to Lee/Kirbys telling of the FF origin... And again Fox can't afford a CGI Thing instead of a walking rubber suit? Sad... And you have perhaps Marvel's greatest villain reduced to a walking tin can... Pathetic... The Incredibles is more like the fantastic four! Oh well, I'll watch it on DVD at the Dollar bin...

Actually I like him better in the rubber suit than if he were CGI. I couldn't stand the CGI Hulk but when I saw League of Extraordinairy Gentlemen, I thought Mr. Hyde looked awesome and he was just a guy in make up. I haven't really been anticipating this movie as much as Sin City or Batman Begins as I'm not an FF fan but after seeing what the trailer showed of the Thing, I'm convinced that I'll have to go see it.