Fantastic Four will historically be known as what killed the comic movie craze!

[Comicopolis]

It is absolutely "borderline racist" to criticize Jordan's casting in this movie.

 

There is _nothing_ about the character that necessitates him being white, given an adoption twist.

 

And where was the outrage when we got a black Nick Fury or a black Kingpin? Neither of those changes were necessary or faithful to the books either.

 

Or that we had a part Hispanic actress play Sue Storm in the last two FF movies?

 

Michael B. Jordan brought the necessary cockiness & impulsiveness to the role -- he was great. And the vast majority of critics agree that of the main actors, he was a highlight.

 

Ditto, if he weren't too old, I would love to see Idris Elba as the next James Bond. Same thing -- having read all the Fleming books & seen the movies, there's nothing that requires Bond to be white.

 

So John Cena could play Luke Cage?

 

Marky Mark could play Blade?

 

Toby Maguire could play Static?

 

Stone Cold Steve Austin to play Moses Magnum?

 

Triple H could play Tyroc?

 

Why stop there?

 

Natalie Portman as the Hulk

 

Meryl Streep as Iron Man

 

Emmanuel Lewis as Thor

 

Bill Cosby as Franklin Richards

 

CGI Fred Astaire as Bishop

 

The possibilities are ENDLESS!

 

Peter Dinklage as Stiltman?

 

Stiltman is only Stiltman because of the costume, so yes - that would be awesome.

[Gatsby77]

Again, how is it _any_ different from casting a black actor to play Nick Fury or Heimdall or Kingpin?

 

You glossed over those with a flippant "not paying attention" but none of those characters looks anything like their portrayals in the comics (Ultimates aside).

 

The answer? Nothing was wrong with those portrayals, just as nothing was wrong with choosing a non-white actor to play Johnny Storm.

 

Or (if rumors are true) a mixed actor to play Black Bolt.

 

Likewise, I reckon a bunch of you are going to be peeved if Marvel rolls out a Natalie Portman Thor movie. They've clearly set that up in the comics over the last year.

[RockMyAmadeus]

Again, how is it _any_ different from casting a black actor to play Nick Fury or Heimdall or Kingpin?

 

It's not.

 

There were problems with that, too.

 

You glossed over those with a flippant "not paying attention" but none of those characters looks anything like their portrayals in the comics (Ultimates aside).

 

That wasn't flippant. You weren't paying attention. I said the exact same thing then, too. So did many others.

 

Nick Fury isn't black, nor is Kingpin, nor is Heimdall. Black Panther isn't white. Neither is Psylocke, Bishop, John Stewart, or Miles Morales.

 

Film is a VISUAL medium.

 

The answer? Nothing was wrong with those portrayals, just as nothing was wrong with choosing a non-white actor to play Johnny Storm.

 

Or (if rumors are true) a mixed actor to play Black Bolt.

 

Likewise, I reckon a bunch of you are going to be peeved if Marvel rolls out a Natalie Portman Thor movie. They've clearly set that up in the comics over the last year.

 

If "Female Thor" is a different character from Thor, no problem.

[Prince Namor]

Again, how is it _any_ different from casting a black actor to play Nick Fury or Heimdall or Kingpin?

 

It's not.

 

There were problems with that, too.

 

You glossed over those with a flippant "not paying attention" but none of those characters looks anything like their portrayals in the comics (Ultimates aside).

 

That wasn't flippant. You weren't paying attention. I said the exact same thing then, too. So did many others.

 

Nick Fury isn't black, nor is Kingpin, nor is Heimdall. Black Panther isn't white. Neither is Psylocke, Bishop, John Stewart, or Miles Morales.

 

Film is a VISUAL medium.

 

The answer? Nothing was wrong with those portrayals, just as nothing was wrong with choosing a non-white actor to play Johnny Storm.

 

Or (if rumors are true) a mixed actor to play Black Bolt.

 

Likewise, I reckon a bunch of you are going to be peeved if Marvel rolls out a Natalie Portman Thor movie. They've clearly set that up in the comics over the last year.

 

If "Female Thor" is a different character from Thor, no problem.

 

Exactly. What would be wrong is getting a MAN to play Lady Thor.

 

Well, maybe 'wrong' isn't the right word, it might actually be rather 'fabulous', but it wouldn't be in the correct spirit of what the story was about.

[Comicopolis]

[Chip Cataldo]

Alan Davis.

[mysterio]

it didnt matter what race Johnny Storm was, or if Sue was adopted, those points (which were so incidental) were nothing compared to the horror that was the -script. And it's not even the plot points, it's more intrinsic, its the pacing, the tone, the dialogue... those are building blocks that the plot gets built on top of and they were horrible.

 

Let's put aside that Johnny was African American and just focus on the fact that Sue was adopted.

 

Why? Why throw that twist in there? What was it's purpose? Why diverge from the source material on that point? What possible purpose did it serve?

 

Any work of art is like a woven tapestry. You can't tug on one end without changing a balance or creating a problem somewhere else because it's all connected. Same with a movie - when you add a detail it affects the feel of the whole movie in some way.

 

The fact that the final tapestry sucked when it should have rocked showed that whoever oversaw this film had no idea what they were doing. And making Sue adopted was just one piece of the whole puzzle.

 

But to me it speaks volumes about how lost whoever was in charge of this movie actually was.

 

Kind of like Spider-man not getting to catch Uncle Ben's killer in ASM. A needless change to the origin that negates pretty much his whole reason for becoming the hero he is.

[Prince Namor]

it didnt matter what race Johnny Storm was, or if Sue was adopted, those points (which were so incidental) were nothing compared to the horror that was the -script. And it's not even the plot points, it's more intrinsic, its the pacing, the tone, the dialogue... those are building blocks that the plot gets built on top of and they were horrible.

 

Let's put aside that Johnny was African American and just focus on the fact that Sue was adopted.

 

Why? Why throw that twist in there? What was it's purpose? Why diverge from the source material on that point? What possible purpose did it serve?

 

Any work of art is like a woven tapestry. You can't tug on one end without changing a balance or creating a problem somewhere else because it's all connected. Same with a movie - when you add a detail it affects the feel of the whole movie in some way.

 

The fact that the final tapestry sucked when it should have rocked showed that whoever oversaw this film had no idea what they were doing. And making Sue adopted was just one piece of the whole puzzle.

 

But to me it speaks volumes about how lost whoever was in charge of this movie actually was.

 

Kind of like Spider-man not getting to catch Uncle Ben's killer in ASM. A needless change to the origin that negates pretty much his whole reason for becoming the hero he is.

 

+1,000,000,000

[Cat-Man_America]

 

Exactly, totally unbelievable. The Rotten Tomatoes critical consensus and poor BO are all the evidence needed.

 

I doubt that anything will change Gatsby or Chris's minds because they've chosen the path of race baiting. They're apparently trying to embroil the thread in an off topic controversy to get it shut down. The real issue is miscasting, not racial diversity.

 

That is exactly my point. Everything wrong with this movie does not stem from the fact Johnny is black like many here have been blaming it on. No race baiting about it.

 

And the "Johnny is supposed to be white" comments were going on long before I posted here.

 

No argument on either bold-face point, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge that the miscasting of Johnny Storm even contributed to the film's failure. Other reasons for the failure included scripting and direction, but those asserting that Johnny Storm should've been caucasian and the biological brother of Sue have merit as well. And stating that as a reasonable viewpoint has nothing to do with racism, ...it's how the original comic was conceived.

 

The weak Box Office combined with critical comments leading up to the failure paint a very clear picture that bolsters this kind of pragmatic analysis.

 

 

I never once flat out called anyone racist. I said many people's comments have come off as sounding borderline racist, but apparently you can come on here and start accusing others of things (race baiting) and tell us what path we have chosen as if you know. Whatever you say, buddy

 

The implication is sufficient. Just because something "comes off" to you as one thing doesn't mean that airing that mistaken POV somehow justifies it.

 

No offense, but I can't find another way of interpreting your comments besides race baiting. It's not an accusation, it's your own words. I've had no input into your choice of phrasing or the wild suppositions asserted in your rhetorical comments.

Have you even considered the possibility that the problem might originate with you?

 

It's a serious matter to accuse folks of sounding borderline racist when they don't agree with your viewpoint.

 

My statement is unambiguous: You posted confrontational comments without any evidence of racial bias.

 

IMO, your ultimate goal was to limit fair, honest and well reasoned criticism of the film's casting. If I'm wrong about that I don't mind apologizing to you in advance.

 

Likewise, I'm sure that folks would give you the benefit of doubt if you apologized for your error in judgment, but I suspect pride will get in the way.

Why don't you surprise me and prove my suspicions wrong. My (adjusted for any inflated egos).

 

 

Again, how is it _any_ different from casting a black actor to play Nick Fury or Heimdall or Kingpin?

 

Samual L. Jackson worked well. It was more of a case of casting an actor whose race wouldn't be seen as implausible in the commanding role in an updated time frame. That is a tribute to both the actor and Marvel Studio's vision. But there are limits to how much suspension of disbelief folks will accept to having their collective childhood memories reshuffled before losing interest.

 

The answer? Nothing was wrong with those portrayals, just as nothing was wrong with choosing a non-white actor to play Johnny Storm.

 

Or (if rumors are true) a mixed actor to play Black Bolt.

 

There's a lot wrong with casting that completely ignores the original vision of a classic story in order to satisfy those demanding more diversity, but it's doubtful that any arguments to the contrary will likely change your mind. The problem isn't with casting for diversity, it's determining which roles are appropriate to cast for diversity. For instance, I'd have had no problem with multi-ethnic casting for Ben Grimm. That change might've produced an opportunity to build an interesting backstory unencumbered by Sue & Johnny's complicated family ancestry or adoption explanation that works against the pacing of the story.

 

Likewise, I reckon a bunch of you are going to be peeved if Marvel rolls out a Natalie Portman Thor movie. They've clearly set that up in the comics over the last year.

 

If it's handled within the conceptual framework of the existing Marvel Universe it should work well. After all, the Thor character is very much tethered to his/her hammer that plays an important role in the character's strength. As long as the screenplay doesn't roll out some sort of convoluted gender reassignment plot, I'm confident that Ms. Thor will also fit into the lexicon of the Marvel Universe. Note: I'm sure that Marvel Studios is well aware of that 9% RT consensus and the lame $25m FF opening that's hanging around Fox Studio's neck like Coleridge's albatross.

[oakman29]

I like Turtles!

[Cat-Man_America]

I like Turtles!

 

Turtles only have to worry about shell-shock.

[oakman29]

I like Turtles!

 

Turtles only have to worry about shell-shock.

 

[kav]

 

Yeah after this movie was over I was like WTF?

Minimal characterization, no scenes of the FF in action as a team saving people, just that idiotic ending where Doom is sucking all of Earth to 'his world' for some reason as if a pile of rubble on a pile of rubble is some great deal.

WTF was Doom limping at first? Anyone???

This film could have been pared down to 20 min with no loss of actual story whatsoever.

 

[jsilverjanet]

what's the over/under on when this thread will eventually die?

[paperheart]

what's the over/under on when this thread will eventually die?

 

after the movie leaves theaters, which should be in about 2 weeks

[WernerVonDoom]

Johnny Storm

Warning, Spoiler:

[Chris_Skeleton]

s

No argument on either bold-face point, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge that the miscasting of Johnny Storm even contributed to the film's failure. Other reasons for the failure included scripting and direction, but those asserting that Johnny Storm should've been caucasian and the biological brother of Sue have merit as well. And stating that as a reasonable viewpoint has nothing to do with racism, ...it's how the original comic was conceived.

 

The weak Box Office combined with critical comments leading up to the failure paint a very clear picture that bolsters this kind of pragmatic analysis.

 

The implication is sufficient. Just because something "comes off" to you as one thing doesn't mean that airing that mistaken POV somehow justifies it.

 

No offense, but I can't find another way of interpreting your comments besides race baiting. It's not an accusation, it's your own words. I've had no input into your choice of phrasing or the wild suppositions asserted in your rhetorical comments.

Have you even considered the possibility that the problem might originate with you?

 

It's a serious matter to accuse folks of sounding borderline racist when they don't agree with your viewpoint.

 

My statement is unambiguous: You posted confrontational comments without any evidence of racial bias.

 

IMO, your ultimate goal was to limit fair, honest and well reasoned criticism of the film's casting. If I'm wrong about that I don't mind apologizing to you in advance.

 

Likewise, I'm sure that folks would give you the benefit of doubt if you apologized for your error in judgment, but I suspect pride will get in the way.

Why don't you surprise me and prove my suspicions wrong. My (adjusted for any inflated egos).

 

It's funny, because I agree that Johnny should've been white and the biological brother to Sue. I would have preferred that. However, there was no need to repeat this sentiment of "They ruined this movie. They changed too much. Johnny Storm was not black. Sue was not adopted." I have seen the comments repeatedly throughout the FF threads.

 

My opinion is my opinion. If something sounds racist to me, it sounds racist to me. What do you want me to say? They are based on my interpretations of what was said, just as you apparently have interpreted mine.

 

I'm not accusing them of sounding borderline racist because they don't agree with my viewpoint. Let me make this clear, my viewpoint is that Johnny Storm should've been white and the biological brother of Sue. They casted a black actor. So what? People need to get over it.

 

If he was miscast, then he was miscast. Race had nothing to do with it. If the movie is garbage, the movie is garbage. Race had nothing to do with it.

 

And you are absolutely wrong about my "ultimate goal". I suppose you should apologize for your error in judgement then... My only error in judgement was deciding to post.

[MetalPSI]

It is absolutely "borderline racist" to criticize Jordan's casting in this movie.

 

There is _nothing_ about the character that necessitates him being white, given an adoption twist.

 

And where was the outrage when we got a black Nick Fury or a black Kingpin? Neither of those changes were necessary or faithful to the books either.

 

Or that we had a part Hispanic actress play Sue Storm in the last two FF movies?

 

Michael B. Jordan brought the necessary cockiness & impulsiveness to the role -- he was great. And the vast majority of critics agree that of the main actors, he was a highlight.

 

Ditto, if he weren't too old, I would love to see Idris Elba as the next James Bond. Same thing -- having read all the Fleming books & seen the movies, there's nothing that requires Bond to be white.

 

So John Cena could play Luke Cage?

 

Marky Mark could play Blade?

 

Toby Maguire could play Static?

 

Stone Cold Steve Austin to play Moses Magnum?

 

Triple H could play Tyroc?

 

Why stop there?

 

Natalie Portman as the Hulk

 

Meryl Streep as Iron Man

 

Emmanuel Lewis as Thor

 

Bill Cosby as Franklin Richards

 

CGI Fred Astaire as Bishop

 

The possibilities are ENDLESS!

 

Peter Dinklage as Stiltman?

 

Stiltman is only Stiltman because of the costume, so yes - that would be awesome.

 

Seconded

[RockMyAmadeus]

If he was miscast, then he was miscast. Race had nothing to do with it. If the movie is garbage, the movie is garbage. Race had nothing to do with it.

 

Race DID have something to do with it.

 

But that doesn't mean it's racist.

 

Talking about race isn't racist. Acknowledging race isn't racism. Acknowledging gender isn't sexism. Acknowledging age isn't ageism.

 

Those are only true if we judge a person's value as a human being based on their race, gender, or age. That's not at all what happened here. Michael B. Jordan isn't being judged as a person. He simply doesn't fit the visual appearance of the character they asked him to portray.

 

That would be true if it was him, a 10 year old Vietnamese girl, a 91 year old white man, or any other type of actor that doesn't accurately represent Johnny Storm's visual appearance as he was created.

 

"Racism" has nothing to do with it.

 

 

[Cat-Man_America]

If he was miscast, then he was miscast. Race had nothing to do with it. If the movie is garbage, the movie is garbage. Race had nothing to do with it.

 

Race DID have something to do with it.

 

But that doesn't mean it's racist.

 

Talking about race isn't racist. Acknowledging race isn't racism. Acknowledging gender isn't sexism. Acknowledging age isn't ageism.

 

Those are only true if we judge a person's value as a human being based on their race, gender, or age. That's not at all what happened here. Michael B. Jordan isn't being judged as a person. He simply doesn't fit the visual appearance of the character they asked him to portray.

 

That would be true if it was him, a 10 year old Vietnamese girl, a 91 year old white man, or any other type of actor that doesn't accurately represent Johnny Storm's visual appearance as he was created.

 

"Racism" has nothing to do with it.

 

 

(thumbs u