NewEnglandGothic Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 I just finished it. It really wasn't that bad. :shrug: Besides Kate Mara's wig malfunction distractions, it was a watchable enough movie. Might watch it again down the road even. Two stars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jimjum12 Posted January 30, 2016 Share Posted January 30, 2016 Judy and I just finished it (Netflix)...... it had areas that showed potential for me, but in the end the movie as a whole seemed more like a rough draft that ended too suddenly. The battle with Doom on Planet Zero was quick and hollow..... so much more could have been done with that. Personally, I liked Doom and the cast of the FF seemed invested in what they were doing.... the movie just needed another 30 minutes spread into the characters adjustment to their powers and to more "personality" to the CGI in the alien environment.... GOD BLESS... -jimbo(a friend of jesus) Didn't know it was already on Netflix. IDC I'm gonna watch it again. ..... I liked it.... I just hope there's a Director's Cut with about 45 more minutes.... GOD BLESS... -jimbo(a friend of jesus) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 Interesting set of videos concerning what may have occurred leading to the massive failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadOne Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Great videos. Insightful enough to make my stomach hurt all over again. Thanks for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
media_junkie Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Interesting set of videos concerning what may have occurred leading to the massive failure. Interesting, and a good way to waste about 45 minutes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 Great videos. Insightful enough to make my stomach hurt all over again. Thanks for posting. It is a shame what a missed opportunity this turned out to be. And you can tell from the discussions in the Deadpool thread it is still surprising the same studio that hit a home run with that movie bunted with Fantastic Four. These videos really seem to get to the heart of the matter what potentially took place, and why it blew up on Fox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadOne Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 Great videos. Insightful enough to make my stomach hurt all over again. Thanks for posting. It is a shame what a missed opportunity this turned out to be. And you can tell from the discussions in the Deadpool thread it is still surprising the same studio that hit a home run with that movie bunted with Fantastic Four. These videos really seem to get to the heart of the matter what potentially took place, and why it blew up on Fox. I don't remember exactly which video (maybe part 3), but they were discussing passion. I wonder if anyone involved in this FF movie had any passion towards it at all. Maybe Trank did before he had a mental breakdown and maybe Mara did (since she had, supposedly, been trying to be in a superhero movie for so long) until Trank beat her to death with his mental breakdown, but it's really hard to tell someone's motivations. What is easy to tell is how defeated the actors were when they were interviewed just before this movie came out. You can see them, sitting there, just wishing they were somewhere else. I haven't seen Deadpool, but from what I read and what I see in the interviews and the promotions, not a single person seems to be lacking passion. The FF, imo, really needs to go back to Marvel, and to be fully explored as it should, it should really be a Netflix series.... but it would need a Really Big Budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantastic_four Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 I won't be able to set aside 45 minutes for quite a while...who gets blamed by those "trankgate" videos more, Trank or Fox? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 I won't be able to set aside 45 minutes for quite a while...who gets blamed by those "trankgate" videos more, Trank or Fox? It feels more like it was Fox making constant - and major - changes which then caused a lot of turmoil on the set. To include the director losing it and disconnecting from his crew and cast. If that is true, Trank felt lost. He passed that on to everyone else, along with lashing out at cast members he wanted to have (and with Mara, a cast member forced on him). And it just kept getting worse from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantastic_four Posted February 17, 2016 Share Posted February 17, 2016 It feels more like it was Fox making constant - and major - changes which then caused a lot of turmoil on the set. To include the director losing it and disconnecting from his crew and cast. Why was Fox meddling, and was Trank's "losing it" tied to his dismay over them monkeying with the direction or was it completely independent of that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted February 17, 2016 Author Share Posted February 17, 2016 Why was Fox meddling, and was Trank's "losing it" tied to his dismay over them monkeying with the direction or was it completely independent of that? Sounds like you need to find 45 minutes in your day. I think video #2 hits on the production challenges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buzzetta Posted February 18, 2016 Share Posted February 18, 2016 I am happy to report that Girl Scout Troop 616 has had more cookie sales than Fox's Fantastic Four. They thank you for all your purchases of Thin Mints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paperheart Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 who says superhero movies don't win awards? http://deadline.com/2016/02/razzie-awards-winners-2016-full-list-golden-raspberry-awards-1201710388/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meeklo Posted February 28, 2016 Share Posted February 28, 2016 who says superhero movies don't win awards? http://deadline.com/2016/02/razzie-awards-winners-2016-full-list-golden-raspberry-awards-1201710388/ Too bad it wasn't 4 awards... 'Bout time this movie gets the recognition it so tightly deserves! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rjrjr Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 I won't be able to set aside 45 minutes for quite a while...who gets blamed by those "trankgate" videos more, Trank or Fox? It feels more like it was Fox making constant - and major - changes which then caused a lot of turmoil on the set. To include the director losing it and disconnecting from his crew and cast. If that is true, Trank felt lost. He passed that on to everyone else, along with lashing out at cast members he wanted to have (and with Mara, a cast member forced on him). And it just kept getting worse from there. I feel the blame is mostly with Trank. He told his actors not to read the source material. How does an actor *not* read the source material? Compare that to MCU where actors do read the source material. Or Deadpool where the source material was coveted by the star of the movie so much, he made recommendations on how to incorporate more from the comic into the movie. It sounds like Trank wanted to make another movie, the studios wanted a FF movie (I'm guessing they wanted to actually use the license they paid for), and the disaster that we did get was the result. Did the studio get too involved with production? Undoubtedly. But a strong director would have been able to salvage it and make a good movie despite the studio. It happens all the time in Hollywood. Fox would have been better of shelving the movie and not trying to save it with another director. Of course, this is all IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted March 1, 2016 Author Share Posted March 1, 2016 I feel the blame is mostly with Trank. He told his actors not to read the source material. How does an actor *not* read the source material? Compare that to MCU where actors do read the source material. Or Deadpool where the source material was coveted by the star of the movie so much, he made recommendations on how to incorporate more from the comic into the movie. It sounds like Trank wanted to make another movie, the studios wanted a FF movie (I'm guessing they wanted to actually use the license they paid for), and the disaster that we did get was the result. Did the studio get too involved with production? Undoubtedly. But a strong director would have been able to salvage it and make a good movie despite the studio. It happens all the time in Hollywood. Fox would have been better of shelving the movie and not trying to save it with another director. Of course, this is all IMHO. I agree that Trank has blame in the situation. Even the most seasoned directors feel the weight of their 'partner studio' and end up forced into decisions. Just look at Joss Whedon with Age of Ultron, and Sam Raimi with Spider-Man 3. Both financial successes. But they ended with the directors feeling forced into creative decisions which even franchise fans felt dissatisfied with the final results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gatsby77 Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 I think Trank wanted to make the FF as a horror movie - which makes sense in context as a reimagining and _could_ have worked if it had been a) better and b) tonally consistent. But can we PLEASE stop with the mythology of "faithful to the source material equals better" BS? Guardians of the Galaxy was a phenomenal movie that bore little resemblance to the comics I read in the 1990s, let alone the original team from the '70s. Blade 1 and 2 were far better than any treatment the character ever had in the comics - they took a bad Shaft rip-off and gave him far more gravitas. Heck, even the first two Spider-Man movies featured a far more serious Spidey than the fun-loving, motormouth wise-cracking one from the comics -- and it worked. That "true" comic book version of Spidey (sort of Deadpool-lite) didn't appear until The Amazing Spider-Man 2, and yet that alone couldn't save the film. Hell, even the Lord of the Rings trilogy made some ridiculous changes from the books, but the overall movies were so good that few people cared. Quality is quality, and far too many folks hide behind "it wasn't like the original comics," while ignoring that a) many comic books are really difficult to translate to the screen and b) the many superior film adaptations that (oops!) weren't totally faithful to their source. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosco685 Posted March 1, 2016 Author Share Posted March 1, 2016 Quality is quality, and far too many folks hide behind "it wasn't like the original comics," while ignoring that a) many comic books are really difficult to translate to the screen and b) the many superior film adaptations that (oops!) weren't totally faithful to their source. This is it for me. It doesn't have to be exactly like the source material. Just stay focused on the quality of story and characters and fans will throw money at you. It doesn't have to be a personal quest for a director to make it their own creative playground. Great examples too with Blade and Spider-Man 1 and 2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budsbundy Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 Well, the new FF wasn't true to the source material, and it still sucked HUGE BALLS I'm a hardcore FF fan, and I loved the first two movies that most others hated, so I was hoping that this would be better than people were saying also, not the case. I waited till about a month ago to finally see it. Just terrible. The thing, my favorite character from the comics, was the worst I've ever seen him Moved, talked, and looked like a muppet from fraggle rock Kate Mara who was smoking hot in house of cards was completely forgettable Reed was just kind of there. And Johnny, who I was all up in arms about being portrayed as black, ended up being the best part of the movie, and he sucked too, just not as bad as the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fantastic_four Posted March 1, 2016 Share Posted March 1, 2016 That "true" comic book version of Spidey (sort of Deadpool-lite) didn't appear until The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Deadpool is Spidey-heavy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
