• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Just rented FF movie

Started by Artboy99,

137 posts in this topic

Red Hook

Red Hook

Posted
Posted

I accepted it for what it was, and enjoyed it. As a rental, and as a 90 minute diversion.

 

Here's the thing. Tell me I'm wrong...but despite all the great story arcs that evolved out of the comic book, character development was never the FFs strong point. And despite a couple of occasional lineup substitutes, the four main characters have stayed unchanged for 44 years.

 

Now take the X-Men movies, .....the plots have some pretty grand themes behind them, some very interesting and complex characters, and were based on a title that's had characters constantly shifting into the lineup to replace others. The FF have remained basically unchanged since 1961. Reed Richards just never was that interesting a character. Sue and Johnny Storm either for that matter. Ben Grimm...yeah, you might have something going there. Get David Mamet on it right away.

 

And I do want to mention, when I was growing up the sixties, the FF were my fave title. Of course I was 13. In this age of Superhero movies going for more mature and realistic themes...the FF movie seemed hackneyed. I don't think it ever had much of a chance.

 

If they'd launched right into a Galactus, Surfer, Watcher tale, that might have been more interesting. But I think the potential of the X-Men movies is much greater and sustainable. The FF movie was a throwback, and I'm not surprised a lot of people were disappointed. I was pretty much expecting a dog. I got a movie that would have knocked me out 10 years ago, but was just enjoyable watching, nothing more, in 2005.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goldust40

goldust40

Posted
Posted
The FF movie stunk. End of!!!!! tongue.gif
What's the matter with you? Did those red pants turn pink in the laundry? gossip.gif

 

You lost me there. confused.gif

 

Anyway, I wanted the last word. cool.gif

 

Ohhh can he talk? Ooooh can he talk? Cootchie coo. Can he talk?

 

Thank you Polly Parrot. smirk.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites
goldust40

goldust40

Posted
Posted
I accepted it for what it was, and enjoyed it. As a rental, and as a 90 minute diversion.

 

Here's the thing. Tell me I'm wrong...but despite all the great story arcs that evolved out of the comic book, character development was never the FFs strong point. And despite a couple of occasional lineup substitutes, the four main characters have stayed unchanged for 44 years.

 

Now take the X-Men movies, .....the plots have some pretty grand themes behind them, some very interesting and complex characters, and were based on a title that's had characters constantly shifting into the lineup to replace others. The FF have remained basically unchanged since 1961. Reed Richards just never was that interesting a character. Sue and Johnny Storm either for that matter. Ben Grimm...yeah, you might have something going there. Get David Mamet on it right away.

 

And I do want to mention, when I was growing up the sixties, the FF were my fave title. Of course I was 13. In this age of Superhero movies going for more mature and realistic themes...the FF movie seemed hackneyed. I don't think it ever had much of a chance.

 

If they'd launched right into a Galactus, Surfer, Watcher tale, that might have been more interesting. But I think the potential of the X-Men movies is much greater and sustainable. The FF movie was a throwback, and I'm not surprised a lot of people were disappointed. I was pretty much expecting a dog. I got a movie that would have knocked me out 10 years ago, but was just enjoyable watching, nothing more, in 2005.

 

You mean in your early 40s this movie would've been a knockout for you? Really?

 

You are correct in one assertion - this movie was indeed a throwback, but that in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

If the producers and directors of the film had set everything in the F.F.s' true home (the early 1960s) and understood the characters' representation of that era, it would've worked better - never mind that Reed Richards and Sue Storm are ciphers. That would've pleased the intelligentsia, and would've allowed for more than what amounts to a shambolic late '70s T.V. movie with CGI.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Timulty

Timulty

Posted
Posted
I accepted it for what it was, and enjoyed it. As a rental, and as a 90 minute diversion.

 

Here's the thing. Tell me I'm wrong...but despite all the great story arcs that evolved out of the comic book, character development was never the FFs strong point. And despite a couple of occasional lineup substitutes, the four main characters have stayed unchanged for 44 years.

 

Now take the X-Men movies, .....the plots have some pretty grand themes behind them, some very interesting and complex characters, and were based on a title that's had characters constantly shifting into the lineup to replace others. The FF have remained basically unchanged since 1961. Reed Richards just never was that interesting a character. Sue and Johnny Storm either for that matter. Ben Grimm...yeah, you might have something going there. Get David Mamet on it right away.

 

And I do want to mention, when I was growing up the sixties, the FF were my fave title. Of course I was 13. In this age of Superhero movies going for more mature and realistic themes...the FF movie seemed hackneyed. I don't think it ever had much of a chance.

 

If they'd launched right into a Galactus, Surfer, Watcher tale, that might have been more interesting. But I think the potential of the X-Men movies is much greater and sustainable. The FF movie was a throwback, and I'm not surprised a lot of people were disappointed. I was pretty much expecting a dog. I got a movie that would have knocked me out 10 years ago, but was just enjoyable watching, nothing more, in 2005.

 

You mean in your early 40s this movie would've been a knockout for you? Really?

 

You are correct in one assertion - this movie was indeed a throwback, but that in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

If the producers and directors of the film had set everything in the F.F.s' true home (the early 1960s) and understood the characters' representation of that era, it would've worked better - never mind that Reed Richards and Sue Storm are ciphers. That would've pleased the intelligentsia, and would've allowed for more than what amounts to a shambolic late '70s T.V. movie with CGI.

 

But Hollywood tried that with "The Avengers"(think Emma Peale) and it was, to be modest, Horrible. You might say that is comparing Apples and Oranges but hey, I think it fits here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PovertyRow

PovertyRow

Posted
Posted

If the producers and directors of the film had set everything in the F.F.s' true home (the early 1960s) and understood the characters' representation of that era, it would've worked better - never mind that Reed Richards and Sue Storm are ciphers. That would've pleased the intelligentsia, and would've allowed for more than what amounts to a shambolic late '70s T.V. movie with CGI.

 

You had me at "shambolic".

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Red Hook

Red Hook

Posted
Posted

You mean in your early 40s this movie would've been a knockout for you? Really?

 

You are correct in one assertion - this movie was indeed a throwback, but that in and of itself is not necessarily a bad thing.

 

If the producers and directors of the film had set everything in the F.F.s' true home (the early 1960s) and understood the characters' representation of that era, it would've worked better - never mind that Reed Richards and Sue Storm are ciphers. That would've pleased the intelligentsia, and would've allowed for more than what amounts to a shambolic late '70s T.V. movie with CGI.

 

I guess what I was trying to say was that the X-Men and ASM films raised the bar. If I'd seen this before those ever came out, I would have been more impressed. I like your theory of a film set in the 60's. Peter Jackson chose NOT to bring his Kong film into the 21st Century and I think will work better with it's depression era background. Your description of it as a late '70s tv movie with CGI is pretty much it. I had a few chuckles, but after all the bad press, as I said, I wasn't expecting much more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing