Fantastic Four

[doug maverick]

saw it! it was pretty good but i wish the story was better, i hated the fact the doom was onboard the ship, i also hated the fact that jessica alba played sue storm, she just didn't sell the character to me, she sounded way to young and she didn't have that strength that sue storm has, the best characters were hands down, johnny storm(i forgot the actors name) and ben grim(that dude from the shield) if there are any sequels(and i hope there will be) i hope they get rid of alba. on a side note i also saw the trailer for transporter two(can you say man on fire?) the story is a whole sale rip off the denzel washington dakota fanning flick, it just has martial arts in it, i think i'm gonna skip that one anyway see ya!!!!!!!!!!!!

[GreenCloudCLF]

I don't see how you can make a movie of a guy who stretches not look cheesy. ANd I wish Jessica Alba's clothes would go invisible and she would stay visible, if you know what I'm saying.

[Shaolinlueb]

im still trying to decide whether i should go see this or not. doesnt look anyting interesting to me.

[gwa sow]

i didn't follow the comic so i dont know how it compares to the comic. but i enjoyed the movie. i liked it but at the same time i felt like it was missing something. i guess they did it like that to set up for a sequel. seems like everything is a sequel or a remake these days. i would recomed it.

[brothernumber9]

Just like every other Marvel movie, the story deviates from the comic, after all doctor doom wasn't even introduced in the first FF issue. So in order to create the normal protagonist-antogonist plot scheme I suppose it had to be done.

The movie was still worth seeing, the friction between the Thing and Human Torch made the movie and Chikless (sp?) made a great albeit short Thing especially in showing the conflict he had with himself.

I didn't think Jessica Alba as the Invisible Woman was so bad, her character was more background in the comic anyway.

The worst thing about the movie outside of the flaw of most comic book type movies trying to squeeze years worth of issues into a 2hr flick, was Doctor Doom. He was supposed to be virtually equal to Richards in intellect, and although the actor is probably a talented actor, his voice ruined the image he was trying to portray. But the far worsesest thing about Doom was the transforming of his skin into a titanium like alloy, and a now mutant like ability to absorb electicity instead of him creating his own intelligent armor (but then I guess the common watcher would probably wonder how he ever would go to the bathroom)

[@PLUGO]

I found the movie to be very entertaining. Light hearted but not Marvel's strongest. However, with the Direct to DVD new Low of the MAN-THING the F.F. is at about the half-way point for me. Better than Elektra and even the director's cut of Dare Devil (which is better than the movie release) but I still Liked HULK better (I know I know; personal choice).

Thing & Torch were the most well done. I would still have liked Torch to be younger and he didn't quite look younger than Jessica Alba. She made a valiant attempt at Sue Storm and though I still think she was miss cast I didn't despise her performance. I found Reed Richards to be played in a much more likable fashion than I expected. Tragically DOOM was the weakest link in the film.

Dr, Doom is MARVEL's number 1 bad guy! He just wasn't played with enough Gravitas. I can understand the reasoning for including him in the origin story and I can forgive the turning him into metal thing but he just wasn't intimidating. Turning him into a CEO and recycling the Green Goblin's character arch was a mistake.

Keeping all things the same his SPACE Station could simply have been a product of Latvernia (sp?) and there could easily have been a very nice political dynamic in having Reed Richards be rejected by NASA and in turn seeking the aid of a foreign "rival." The VON DOOM building could easily have been the Latvernian embassy that just so happened to stock it's own weapons. DOOM never needs to steel weapon's tech as his own inventions are usually much better.

He should have just decided to invade Manhattan (with giant robots preferably) believing the accident on the space station to be an act of sabotage/war against his nation(himself). Having the 4 of them go up against him in the streets just didn't convey any real sense of threat. A tip of the hat to castle DOOM and his dabbling in Black Magic would have been great as well.

He just needed to be someone who's always been a sort of threat but who's vanity kept him believing himself to be "one of the god guys" until he got angry.
Definite set of for a sequel and based on X2 & Spiderman 2 it should be much better than the first.

[mickey]

Greetings,

I saw this version and the Roger Corman version. I thought the Corman version was more like the comic book and had a better story (for those who have not seen it, they are fighting Dr Doom as well), even though the special effects weren't as good as the new version. The Thing in the Corman version looked better.

You may be able to get one at Sci Fi and Comic Book conventions.

mickey

[GeneChing]

Read THE FANTASTIC FOUR: 3rd Time A Charm? by Patrick Lugo

[@PLUGO]

So check out this Simian movements video with Terry Notary.




Also here's the article which discusses the wacky history of Corman's Fantastic Four — Fantastic Faux by Robert Ito, published in the March 2005 issue of of LOS ANGELES magazine.

And of course DOOMED!

[Jimbo]

This latest version of the Fantastic Four has the potential to be the best big-screen version, though so far the reviews I've read haven't been too positive.

Still, for me the best (small screen) version is this, the 1967 Hanna-Barbera cartoon. I still remember watching it on Saturday mornings. It was the most like the original 1960s Stan Lee/Jack Kirby comic:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qXYFKpWyHk&sns=em

[mickey]

Greetings,

Though I have not seen the latest FF, I think the people who are involved with Marvel Entertainment(?) are beginning to understand the Marvel Universe: one which includes an infinite number of parallel universes and dimensions; so, they can make and remake the same movie with different actors, slight changes in script, action and completely pull it off. A few years ago, I generated some heat over expressing an interest in having Brad Pitt play the Black Panther. Given the Marvel Universe, I still think that would rock. I think Wesley Snipes would have made a very interesting Dr Strange.

mickey

[Jimbo]

Greetings,

Though I have not seen the latest FF, I think the people who are involved with Marvel Entertainment(?) are beginning to understand the Marvel Universe: one which includes an infinite number of parallel universes and dimensions; so, they can make and remake the same movie with different actors, slight changes in script, action and completely pull it off. A few years ago, I generated some heat over expressing an interest in having Brad Pitt play the Black Panther. Given the Marvel Universe, I still think that would rock. I think Wesley Snipes would have made a very interesting Dr Strange.

mickey

mickey,

I really don't know if the reboots are meant as alternate realities in the Marvel Universe, as much as simply trying a fresh new approach to the same character(s), as franchises can become stagnant. Also, leading actors often quit superhero roles (Spider-Man, Hulk, etc.), requiring subsequent movies to be recast. I would imagine that in the reboots, the previous films are simply 'erased', as opposed to being consigned to another reality in the same 'Universe'. In the same way that DC's Batman and Superman movies keep getting rebooted.

[mickey]

Greetings Jimbo,

I understand what you are saying. I am not saying that the changes are a deliberate push in the direction of alternate realities. It is that the Marvel Universe easily allows for it; e.g., the casting choice for Johnny Storm in the latest movie. I was startled by that initially. Yet, I understood it from the way the Marvel Universe is.


mickey

[Jimbo]

Yeah, the Marvel Universe appears to have become very flexible, to say the least. Several years ago, I saw a comic (graphic novel?) where Thor was now a woman! I don't know how long that went on, because I'm not into the newer Marvel stuff. But there are times where this looseness with the characters is fine (as in the new movie's Johnny Storm), but IMO, gender-bending top old-school superheroes takes it way beyond acceptable.

Actually, the new Johnny Storm, as you're aware, is only one of a few formerly white Marvel characters who's played by non-white actors; Nick Fury and the Kingpin are others. And in Thor, Hogun was played by top Japanese actor Tadanobu Asano (the arch-villain of Ichi the Killer). Though personally, for the Kingpin character, I would have preferred King Kong Bundy on his size, appearance and physicality alone over Ving Rhames; I'm not sure how his acting would have fit the character, but I think he could have managed. I also think Russell Wong would make a good Sub-Mariner.

I'm guessing a big part of the reason for casting non-whites in some of these roles is to reflect greater diversity, too. Back in comics' golden era, the vast majority of superheroes were white, and black superheroes were few and far between (Luke Cage, Black Panther, The Falcon, Storm), and Asian superheroes even fewer (Shang-Chi, and that one guy in Sons of the Tiger). And Shang-Chi was half-white. If casting were kept 100% true to the comics, all the main Marvel movie characters so far would look more or less the same.

I want to check out this new FF movie, but have been busy lately. Also don't enjoy going to movie theaters like before.

[mickey]

Greetings Jimbo,

I would gladly accept Russell Wong as Sub Mariner. I think it wold be a wonderful "break out' of the stereotypical mold for him. I mentioned Jet Li for that role when I was talking about Brad Pitt for the Black Panther.

The interesting thing about the Marvel Universe is that its characters are pretty much archetypes, forming very strong connections within the psyche. As long as the actor can successfully bring forth that archetype, how the actor looks becomes almost secondary. Is the viewing public ready for that? That really is the question.

mickey