CLIPS: FF 2 WRITER DON PAYNE FROM LIFE AFTER FILM SCHOOL

[MattBrady]

Fox Movie Channel is continuing their series of interviews from their Life After Film School series with principle filmmakers from Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. Last week we had a clip of Stan Lee talking about adapting his work to the silver screen for the program that began airing this week, and right now we have three clips featuring the film’s writer Don Payne from next week’s (June 10th) installment.

Click on the word “clips” or the images to download the Quicktime files or right click to download them to your hard drive, and look for more information about the interview and the program below…

In Clip 1, Payne discusses how he landed the gig as writer of the film…



In Clip 2, Payne cops to being the ultimate fanboy and writing a film that would please hardcore comic book fans like himself…



Finally, in Clip 3, Payne talks about possibly being involved in future FF films and what he’d like to see next if he got the opportunity…



Press Release

Los Angeles, June 06, 2007 – Film students interview screenwriter Don Payne on the Fox Movie Channel series Life After Film School.

The episode premieres on Fox Movie Channel June 10th at 7:30pm Eastern (4:30pm Pacific), with repeat airings throughout the month.

Life After Film School is a talk show where film students interview filmmakers to learn about the realities of filmmaking. Recent episodes featured actor Michael Chiklis (The Shield), director Shawn Levy (Night at the Museum), TV showrunner Jon Cassar (24) and Fantastic Four creator Stan Lee.

Don Payne, the four time Emmy Award-winning writer discusses his incubation period after film school and his journey to writing what he calls “the greatest television show of all time,” The Simpsons. A lifelong fan of comics and sci-fi, Don was itching to work with Marvel. He relates how he broke into features with My Super Ex-Girlfriend and how that gave him the “street cred” needed to be considered as the writer on Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.

Fox Movie Channel’s expanding slate of original programming explores the moviemaking process from script to screen. From behind-the-scenes magic on Making a Scene to creating the perfect cast on Casting Session to unique red carpet coverage on World Premiere, Fox Movie Channel’s unprecedented access provides viewers with a whole studio on one channel.

Fox Movie Channel is the only network presenting movies and original series for viewers who want to know everything about how Hollywood movies are made today. Exclusively airing 20th Century Fox films ranging from contemporary blockbusters to great titles from the studio's legendary library, movies are shown uncut, uninterrupted, commercial-free, and in their original theatrical form.

The Fox Movie Channel has provided Newsarama with a brief clip from an interview with Stan Lee, who will be the featured subject on an episode of their Life After Film School series that will begin airing next week. During the interview Lee discusses how his superhero creations have been adapted for the big screen, and in this clip discusses one of the major changes made to Spider-Man is his translation from page to screen.

For more information visit Fox Movie Channel online www.foxmoviechannel.com

To find Fox Movie Channel on your cable or satellite provider http://fmc.viewerlink.tv

[nickmaynard]

i really like these video bits newsarama has been publishing.

that thing scene at the end of the last clip is sortof groan worthy. but it might be the way its edited.

[SportyFork]

Did the Thing really just say "My bad"... ?

[Impulse2k1]

Does don't look like any of my film buddies.....more like actors pretending to be film students

[johhnypanic]

Yeah he did say "my bad." not cool, not cool!

[AraqnidM]

I don't buy it!

These guys always talk about how they're really just hardcore fans just like us, and that they swear they've made a movie that mainstream america will love just as much as the hardcore fanbase. The truth is the people behind FF2 have made Galactus, one of the greatest characters ever to be introduced in the series, a CLOUD. He's not a character anymore, he's water vapor with an empty tummy. ________! What hardcore fan does this please? Hey, why not make Super-Skrull a ____ing ficus tree?

This guy doesn't give a damn about this movie, it's just another gig to him. Please join me in a massive boycott of this wretched film.

[alazar]

Originally Posted by AraqnidM

I don't buy it!

These guys always talk about how they're really just hardcore fans just like us, and that they swear they've made a movie that mainstream america will love just as much as the hardcore fanbase. The truth is the people behind FF2 have made Galactus, one of the greatest characters ever to be introduced in the series, a CLOUD. He's not a character anymore, he's water vapor with an empty tummy. ________! What hardcore fan does this please? Hey, why not make Super-Skrull a ____ing ficus tree?

This guy doesn't give a damn about this movie, it's just another gig to him. Please join me in a massive boycott of this wretched film.

My goodness, calm down. We still don't know that Galactus is a cloud. It has been hinted that the cloud is only a cover for Galactus.

[beta-ray]

Originally Posted by AraqnidM

I don't buy it!

These guys always talk about how they're really just hardcore fans just like us, and that they swear they've made a movie that mainstream america will love just as much as the hardcore fanbase. The truth is the people behind FF2 have made Galactus, one of the greatest characters ever to be introduced in the series, a CLOUD. He's not a character anymore, he's water vapor with an empty tummy. ________! What hardcore fan does this please? Hey, why not make Super-Skrull a ____ing ficus tree?

This guy doesn't give a damn about this movie, it's just another gig to him. Please join me in a massive boycott of this wretched film.

Wow you know a lot about it... When did you see it?

[JohnLynch]

Originally Posted by AraqnidM

The truth is the people behind FF2 have made Galactus, one of the greatest characters ever to be introduced in the series, a CLOUD. He's not a character anymore, he's water vapor with an empty tummy. ________! What hardcore fan does this please? Hey, why not make Super-Skrull a ____ing ficus tree?

It sounds something like kooky Kirby and Lee would think up However they truly should have stuck with Gah Lak Tus if they didn't want the purple giant. Guess we'll have to just wait and see.

[Lukecage_2099]

Originally Posted by AraqnidM

This guy doesn't give a damn about this movie, it's just another gig to him. Please join me in a massive boycott of this wretched film.

No way!

[hadez]

Originally Posted by AraqnidM

Hey, why not make Super-Skrull a ____ing ficus tree?

Don't worry; the Super Skrull is Johnny Storm in FF:ROTSS

[NightRiver]

Eff all you pessimists!

Im going to see this movie and I'm sure ill enjoy it as much, if not more than, I enjoyed the first one. And all the galactus cloud talk, my take is, "Ill believe when I see it".

[eejobeau]

whether Galactus is a cloud or not shouldn't matter. This movie is about the Surfer. I'd rather see more of Galactus in a Surfer movie as opposed to a wack as cameo like the Sentinel in X-3.

[Gambit8370]

This is the new Marvel continuity.

There is none.

They often opt to take the original character concepts and twist and change them to meet the needs of the new story and limited budget they have.

• Organic webs.
• No gamma bomb.
• Black latex/leather costumes.
• Go Go Goblin Power Ranger.

Do they make Marvel money? Of course. People go there thinking that they are going to get the same Marvel characters that they have been reading for 40+ years in the Marvel comics. But they're not. There getting someone's "unique creative interpretation of the characters". Same thing is true on any of the Marvel animated projects. They change the origin of the character every friggin time they re-tell the story.

It's all the same to me, and it's not the characters that were in the comics that I'd grown to love.

Just once I'd like to see a Marvel Comics character done exactly the way it was originally done in the comic

[AraqnidM]

Originally Posted by alazar

My goodness, calm down. We still don't know that Galactus is a cloud. It has been hinted that the cloud is only a cover for Galactus.

Sorry, I wasn't really that worked up over it, that's just the way I "talk". Anyways, yeah, I read the novelization of the screenplay (i.e. skimmed through it for the stuff about the Surfer and Galactus) and he is in fact a cloud. The main conflict seems to come from Doom and his wacky antics, while Galactus-cloud shows up for a brief moment at the end and is quickly dealt with in a paticularly anti-climactic fashion. I just can't help but be disappointed by this. Organic Webshooters is one thing, but changing a great character like Galactus into a non-character is just a crime.

[GrimmGargoyl]

Originally Posted by AraqnidM

Sorry, I wasn't really that worked up over it, that's just the way I "talk". Anyways, yeah, I read the novelization of the screenplay (i.e. skimmed through it for the stuff about the Surfer and Galactus) and he is in fact a cloud. The main conflict seems to come from Doom and his wacky antics, while Galactus-cloud shows up for a brief moment at the end and is quickly dealt with in a paticularly anti-climactic fashion.

Remember, novelization of a movie does not always mean the novel stays true to the movie. I remember reading the novelization of Gremlins after the movie first came out and the two were very different, like letting you know that Mr. Futterman survived...

[MattBrady]

Originally Posted by Gambit8370

People go there thinking that they are going to get the same Marvel characters that they have been reading for 40+ years in the Marvel comics. But they're not.

I think the "people" who go to these movies thinking that they will be the same as the comics that they've been reading for 40+ years are such a small minority of the full audience that goes to see them, that, in the studio's eyes, catering to that small of a number of potential viewers doesn't make financial sense, Monday morning quarterbacking aside.

MattB

[spidertour02]

Originally Posted by MattBrady

I think the "people" who go to these movies thinking that they will be the same as the comics that they've been reading for 40+ years are such a small minority of the full audience that goes to see them, that, in the studio's eyes, catering to that small of a number of potential viewers doesn't make financial sense, Monday morning quarterbacking aside.

MattB

Exactly. We fanboys need to get over the fact that these movies aren't made with us in mind.

[Gambit8370]

Originally Posted by MattBrady

I think the "people" who go to these movies thinking that they will be the same as the comics that they've been reading for 40+ years are such a small minority of the full audience that goes to see them, that, in the studio's eyes, catering to that small of a number of potential viewers doesn't make financial sense, Monday morning quarterbacking aside.

MattB

I'm not so sure about that, Matt.

Consider that the character has been portrayed in comic books for 40+ years.

Comics are (typically) published monthly (12 times a year).

On the average, let's say, they print 100,000 copies of a comic.

40 x 12 x 100,000 = 48,000,000

A character like Spider-Man may have multiple monthly titles featuring that character. Spider-Man has had like 5 or 6 monthly comics at times.

40 x 12 x 100,000 x 5 = 240,000,000 published printed copies.

So how many individual ticket sales did Spider Man 1 have? Not dollars; individual ticket sales. Take domestic or world gross and divide by $8/ticket.

I think the movie ticket sales arguably are a pale fraction of the number of times that the original character concept actually saw print.

[erikthered25]

Originally Posted by MattBrady

I think the "people" who go to these movies thinking that they will be the same as the comics that they've been reading for 40+ years are such a small minority of the full audience that goes to see them, that, in the studio's eyes, catering to that small of a number of potential viewers doesn't make financial sense, Monday morning quarterbacking aside.

MattB

Great response MattB. Too often we think of these character as our characters but their not our characters these characters are the property of DC, Marvel, Image, Dark Horse, Top Cow so they can pretty much do what they want with the characters within reason. Also we forget that in the comics they had back in the day an infinite amount of time to build up a story line. Some storylines simmered for at least 10 - 15 issues before they exploded. In the movies you have a 2 hour window so you have to be a little bit more realistic and we as fans need to be more forgiving if they fudge the origin a bit to get from point A to point B.

So what if Galactus is a cloud. The movie is not about Galactus that's probably the 3rd movie. The movie is about the silver surfer.

[GalaktikAtak]

Originally Posted by erikthered25

So what if Galactus is a cloud. The movie is not about Galactus that's probably the 3rd movie. The movie is about the silver surfer.

Someone mentioned the possibility of a Silver Surfer movie (sans F4), and I suppose that's where the Galactus focus would be.

I personally wasn't too fond of the first movie, not for typical fanboy reasons, but because (A) I'm not fond of Jessica Alba as Sue Storm, and (B) I don't think Doom was badass enough. That said, I'm going into the second movie with low expectations. Who knows? Maybe we'll be surprised.

[MattBrady]

Originally Posted by Gambit8370

I think the movie ticket sales arguably are a pale fraction of the number of times that the original character concept actually saw print.

probably - add in newspaper strips for Spider-Man, and that's a jillion times more that the character has seen print.

But that's not what was being talked about here.

It was the (paraphrasing) feeling of fanboy entitlement, that just because someone has read and become emotionally invested in a fictional character over say, 40 years, that a studio and movie creators have a certain obligation to make the film version agree with the comic book version, which they don't. In large part, that's most likely due making the property as widely accessible to the largest possible audience, not just the fans who've read and kept up with the character for decades - and that number, of fans of the characters who have kept up over the years, is far, far smaller than the hundreds of millions that you're coming up with, probably a fraction of a percent.

MattB

[funjoe]

Originally Posted by MattBrady

I think the "people" who go to these movies thinking that they will be the same as the comics that they've been reading for 40+ years are such a small minority of the full audience that goes to see them, that, in the studio's eyes, catering to that small of a number of potential viewers doesn't make financial sense, Monday morning quarterbacking aside.

MattB

Not only that, but I think people also have to realize that comics and film are different mediums, and what works in one will not necessarily translate into the other. There are visual issues, pacing issues, believability issues that do not necessarily exist on the printed page. Mechanical web shooters look great in a comic, but how would they look on the screen? How would they fit it under that skintight latex costume? Do the filmmakers take the time to add additional scenes in order to explain how Peter invented them, where he got the materials, how he makes the web fluid, how he affords the ingredients, etc? The filmmakers avoided all of that by simply showing that the webs are organically created. One wordless, humorous scene managed to avoid all the issues that mechanical web shooters would have presented, and the essence of the character (and his powers) was unchanged.

[Gambit8370]

Originally Posted by MattBrady

probably - add in newspaper strips for Spider-Man, and that's a jillion times more that the character has seen print.

But that's not what was being talked about here.

It was the (paraphrasing) feeling of fanboy entitlement, that just because someone has read and become emotionally invested in a fictional character over say, 40 years, that a studio and movie creators have a certain obligation to make the film version agree with the comic book version, which they don't. In large part, that's most likely due making the property as widely accessible to the largest possible audience, not just the fans who've read and kept up with the character for decades - and that number, of fans of the characters who have kept up over the years, is far, far smaller than the hundreds of millions that you're coming up with, probably a fraction of a percent.

MattB

Do we really want to call it "fanboy entitlement", or is it better to call it "being true to the source material"?

Would LOTR fans have minded if Sauron was demoted to being a cloud of evil?

Would Harry Potter fans have minded if... (insert witty Harry Potter analogy here since I don't read/watch Harry Potter)?

But back on topic...

FF2: As a Marvel fan for the longest time, I used to always be the guy who had to see the movie opening day/weekend multiple times. Now for this one, I am going to wait until I hear confirmation from reviews if the Galactus/cloud thing is truly fact. I will base my decision to see the movie on whether I want my mental image of Galactus tainted by someone's creative interpretation which has no resemblence to the original character design.

[PatrickG]

I'm excited about this movie.

I don't care about organic webbing.

The first FF wasn't my thing AT ALL but it was very successful and this film looks like it could win me over to the franchise.

Galactus may not be a cloud. There have been leaks suggesting it's either up in the air what he'll look like or that he'll look like his Ultimate incarnation.

They are using the Gah Lak Tus spelling in the novel. But then again both the SUPERMAN RETURNS and the X3 novels included new scenes, deleted scenes from the script and intentionally omitted major plot twists. The SUPERMAN RETURNS novel doesn't have the Super-Son reveal and the story is otherwise virtually identical.

And as a note, Galactus in the comics has no stable physical appearance. His cosmic presence is so overwhelming that everyone sees him as a reflection of themselves. Skrulls see him as Skrull. Badoon see him as Badoon. He doesn't appear as humanoid to all observers. I think he's even supposed to appear as different races to different people. His height varies from 10 feet to many stories tall.

And in the Ultimate books, he's just a helmet, right?

From what I gather Doom will be right when he appears in this movie. The crazy metal powers are behind us. He's monarch of Latveria. His look will be comic bookish. His approach will be comic bookish. It looks good, IMO. Doom is Doom and you just can't make him into the "Magneto Goblin", which is what I feel they did before.

So, anyway... Specifics Schmecifics. This movie has my DAD excited. (He was a big SILVER SURFER fan in the 60s.) This movie has my friends excited. And this movie has my geek friends excoted for stepping back from some of the flaws of the first movie.

And y'know what? If Galactus is a cloud? And if that bombs with audiences? All you'd need to fix that is for the cloud to take on human form in a sequel.