Fantastic Four reboot in Coming Soon Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Fantastic Four reboot

Author	Comment
delgadosaur		#101	[-]
Aug 21 11 5:34 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Someone needs to hand this property to a major filmmaker who knows and loves the material and get the heck out of the way.
	Remove this ad
Scathach80		#102	[-]
Aug 22 11 6:19 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	To support my contention earlier in this thread that many of the, if not, the most prominent media franchises prominent in recent years, derive from children's entertainment, and that Star Wars serves as an example of this trend: http://www.theforce.net/l...mill_Interview_70903.asp But then Hamill indicates he may be going too far. "I dunno ... I gotta be real careful," he says impishly. He recalls "complaining bitterly" about Return Of The Jedi, the final film in the original trilogy, because "it's all tied up neatly in a little bundle." Lucas heard him out and then gently reminded Hamill that the Star Wars movies were made for seven-year-olds. "He's right when he says fairy tales are always tied up in a neat little bundle, whether it's Little Red Riding Hood or Snow White. I guess I was doing what a lot of the public were doing -- becoming possessive of the material and forgetting the fact that I made it as a fairy tale for children. ... So -- what do I know?"
Carl Eyesnheart		#103	[-]
Aug 22 11 6:58 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Are we stating something BAD about these projects being aimed with younger folks in mind? Does that dimish what the Fantastic 4 was, or what Flash Gordon was? Were the Flash Gordon serials REALLY aimed at kids, or have we just decided that they were, much like we have done with Tom & Jerry and the Looney Tunes, or with comic books in general? Or even the comic strips? Many of those were NOT aimed at kid, but just people in general. My fanzine all about Rock N Roll: www.sonicruin.com
BijouBob8mm		#104	[-]
Aug 23 11 10:51 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	If a film is good, it should appeal to all ages. (Man, Walt Disney was a genius when it came to realizing an animated feature could entertain adults as well as children in an era where Hollywood looked upon cartoons as kiddie fodder filler. He knew making a film that everyone would enjoy would bring the whole family into the theater. And by carefully keeping the film's content timeless so it wouldn't appear dated down the road, it could be reissued to attract new generations of ticket buyers for years to come. Unfortunately, that's a lesson often lost with filmmakers.) As for Lucas saying STAR WARS was made for 7 year olds, I think that's George once again rewriting/contradicting himself. (If he were just making a kid flick, would he have layered in all those themes he gleaned from Joseph Campbell look at compartive mythology?) Given how much better that last HULK film was compared to the Ang Lee movie, I'm hoping history repeats itself with this new FANTASTIC FOUR film.
tonyrivers		#105	[-]
Aug 23 11 1:57 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	There is a difference between things made primarily for children (Sesame Street, Mr. Rogers Neighborhood, Spongebob Squarepants) and things made for FAMILY entertainment (Flash Gordon, Disney movies, Star Wars).
Scathach80		#106	[-]
Sep 18 11 9:15 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Scathach80 wrote: You heard the story that he wanted to make a Flash Gordon film but could not get the rights, correct? I alluded to it. Also, people generally considered space adventure stories children's entertainment anyway in the 1970's. They rarely made the best-seller lists. http://moongadget.com/origins/flash.html More on Flash Gordon/Star Wars (which refers to the contention of derivation of Star Wars from children's entertainment) http://www.forcecast.net/..._Strikes_Back_131342.asp
Scathach80		#107	[-]
Oct 26 11 7:07 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	http://monsterkidclassich...rum.yuku.com/topic/40480 This thread prompted me to start the thread above.
Scathach80		#108	[-]
Feb 2 12 7:27 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Bill Warren wrote: You know, almost my entire life I hoped for big, expensive movies based on comic books. But now I think I've had about enough of them. I wish they'd spend this much on a movie based on a book with hard covers. I think they're just about to spin out and hit the wall, Mr. Warren, aside from my previous response to this thought, I will post some articles from Forbes that indicate why prose books (other than Harry Potter et al.) tend not to receive the budget that the last two Fantastic Four theatrical films did: http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/29/star-wars-harry-potter-business-entertainment-movie-franchises.html?boxes=Homepagemostpopular http://images.businessweek.com/ss/07/08/0808_franchises/index_01.htm http://www.forbes.com/sites/dorothypomerantz/2011/06/13/what-will-hollywood-do-without-harry-potter/ http://www.forbes.com/2010/09/29/star-wars-harry-potter-business-entertainment-movie-franchises.html "Now more than ever Hollywood studios need franchises--films that can generate multiple sequels, TV shows and lots and lots of merchandise. Franchises also make the job of marketing movies much easier, because audiences already know the characters and, if the franchise is successful, are emotionally invested in what happens to them." As I have shown, although authors such as Grisham, Elmore Leonard, and so forth have had some adaptations of their books, franchises per se have generally not resulted. Last Edited By: Scathach80 Feb 2 12 7:30 PM. Edited 1 times.
Scathach80		#109	[-]
Feb 5 12 8:16 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	A further update for my point to Mr. Warren: Overkill: The Rise And Fall of Thriller Cinema by Bill Mesce JR., features this passage: Adult thriller franchises are a poor vehicle for generating large-scale sales of toys, costumes, decorative bed sheets, etc., and the value of that kind. Mesce goes on to cover various other aspects of franchises.
tonyrivers		#110	[-]
Feb 9 12 2:45 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I wonder if most of these authors and psychologists today take into account that most theater moviegoers are teenagers and college aged adults and that those over 30 mostly stay home and watch TV or raise kids and watch what they watch (to make sure it's OK for the kids to watch). Or the fact that Universal just cancelled it's deal with Hasbro to make movies based on Toys or video games since those movies haven't done well at the box office. Or the fact that TITANIC (which is hardly a kid-friendly movie) made tons of money ....or movies like the TWILIGHT franchise about vampires are also successful and not aimed at kids either. Most of these reports are so shortsighted it's not funny.
	Remove this ad
Charles Thaxton		#111	[-]
Feb 9 12 4:15 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I don't get all the dislike for Ang Lee's HULK film...I mean you have the Hulk leaping for miles and throwing army tanks...it's not the best superhero film ever but I like it. Bana did alright, I though.
Scathach80		#112	[-]
Feb 9 12 7:42 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	tonyrivers wrote: I wonder if most of these authors and psychologists today take into account that most theater moviegoers are teenagers and college aged adults and that those over 30 mostly stay home and watch TV or raise kids and watch what they watch (to make sure it's OK for the kids to watch). Or the fact that Universal just cancelled it's deal with Hasbro to make movies based on Toys or video games since those movies haven't done well at the box office. Or the fact that TITANIC (which is hardly a kid-friendly movie) made tons of money ....or movies like the TWILIGHT franchise about vampires are also successful and not aimed at kids either. Most of these reports are so shortsighted it's not funny. Twilight still aimed at tweens (some would consider them kids-sometimes they cause more damage than ten years old, if they have already started drinking liquor, etc.)
steviebabes		#113	[-]
Feb 11 12 7:53 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Charles Thaxton wrote: I don't get all the dislike for Ang Lee's HULK film...I mean you have the Hulk leaping for miles and throwing army tanks...it's not the best superhero film ever but I like it. Bana did alright, I though. I just re-watched this film last week and enjoyed it. Good Superhero movie - unfortunately there have been some truly terrific entries in this particular genre in recent years and I think it does suffer a little in comparison. And it also overstays its welcome by twenty minutes or so. I agree, Charles - Bana is a decent, likeable lead, the rest of the cast do a canny job, the effects work is great and there are a few surprisingly funny moments too. Knight of the Living Dead
Joe Karlosi		#114	[-]
Feb 11 12 8:24 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Charles Thaxton wrote: I don't get all the dislike for Ang Lee's HULK film...I mean you have the Hulk leaping for miles and throwing army tanks...it's not the best superhero film ever but I like it. Bana did alright, I though. I disliked it, just as I disliked THE INCREDIBLE HULK film and the Lou Ferrigno series, for the same reasons: They have not made the Hulk of the comics I grew up loving. There were some correct elements in the movies, but what do these guys have against making the Hulk a poor soul who TALKS a lot in caveman-like words? Instead, they only want him to be a "ROAARRRINGGG MonsterRRRR", and that's not what hooked me on the Hulk. He's a sad, overgrown galoot with a heart and feelings who communicates - and who they just won't leave alone. Unfortunately, the new trailer for THE AVENGERS also seems determined to make the Hulk little more than just an inarticulate, roarrrrrring monster as well. It's a shame, because the possibilities and storylines are endless, if they use some of the narratives from the old Marvel comics series. (The Hulk meeting his girlfriend Jarella, the time he befriends Crackajack Jackson...). Then we have the CGI-rendering. When I saw the films, as much as I hate cartoony characters I was able to get past it. However, I would have much preferred a man in a suit (a la The Thing in the other FF film), or even if they used a real muscular guy and made him CG-enhanced a bit. There is always this misconception that the Hulk is supposed to be King Kong or something, and in the many comics I have (nearly a complete run from 1962 to 1990) he's not that gigantic. A lot of it depended on the artist (Sal Buscema, for instance, drew him not much bigger than the female Valkyrie in one storyline). I'm pretty sure the comic origin description at the front page of each issue said he was 7 feet, not 20 or something... "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel." Last Edited By: Joe Karlosi Feb 11 12 8:29 AM. Edited 3 times.
Servant of Legendre		#115	[-]
Feb 13 12 6:44 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	It's funny, but I'd completly forgotten the grumpy talking Hulk of my childhood until I picked up Vol 1 of Essential Defenders and it all came flooding back to me, poor old Hulk sulking in the woods wanting everyone to leave him alone. I'd gotten so used to the angry raging speechless Hulk. How well the grumpy Hulk would work in a film, I don't know. The voice would have to be absolutely spot on or he'd just sound ridiculous, IMO. Last Edited By: Servant of Legendre Feb 13 12 6:48 AM. Edited 1 times.
Joe Karlosi		#116	[-]
Feb 13 12 8:03 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	And see how "pint-sized" Hulk appears on that DEFENDERS cover above? There's no need to make him so 'humongous' for the movies, but some fans have claimed it's some kind of a necessity and that no real actor could do the job. Still, they could use a real human muscleman and maybe CG-enhance some of his bulk. I think a talkative Hulk could be done, and would make for way more interesting movies and sequels. They could even change Hulk's persona from sequel to sequel, as in the comics - sometimes have him retain Banner's mind in one film, have him become the gray "Joe Fixit" Hulk in another, etc... "Guy named Squeamy got thrown from the fifth floor. He's deader'n a mackerel."
HalLane		#117	[-]
Feb 13 12 8:44 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The Hulk works better for me as a supporting character, even in his own book. This is probably especially true of a cgi Hulk, where it's the interaction more than the visual effect that's most important. The cgi Silver Surfer blended fine with the human Fantastic Four characters, and a cgi Hulk fighting a live action Thing would probably work well too. Pretty sure the Hulk will say something in the new Avengers movie, as they've cast an actor separate from Mark Ruffalo's Banner to supply his voice.
Wich2		#118	[-]
Feb 13 12 11:13 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	The run of HULK that I bought and read regularly was the great Bronze Age series by Len Wein. Put me down as another lover of the sometimes sad, usually crabby "HULK is the strongest one there IS!" declamatory version of Ol' Greenskin! -Craig
Servant of Legendre		#119	[-]
Feb 15 12 8:33 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Ha, I read that very line last night in Essential Marvel Team-Up! A real nostalgiv read because these are the stories I read in the Marvel UK Pocket Books when I was a kid. I remembered the Orb, the Basilisk, I even remember 'Dinosaurs on Broadway.' Although you couldn't really forget that last one! I prefer a CG Hulk to an actor though. The Ang Lee Hulk was spot on - in parts, like the moment when he busts out of desert base - but the Incredible Hulk was just too 'stringy' looking for me.
delgadosaur		#120	[-]
Feb 15 12 9:41 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	There's a 'gangster' hulk for lack of a better term, I think they call mr. fix it, and that is just one of the many reasons I shake my head at the stuff Marvel puts out these days. To say nothing about how they butchered the look of the Abomination in the Incredible Hulk, a movie I liked better as a story than the Ang Lee version.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Fantastic Four reboot