July 08, 2005

Fantastic Fun

In the interest of full disclosure, I will state what most of you already know: I wrote the novelization of "Fantastic Four." So obviously it's to my benefit for the film to do well. Anyone who feels that linkage to the film colors my opinion can disregard it as he or she sees fit.

Now--

Just came back from the FF screening in the city. I heard a number of adults crabbing about how terrible it was, and I was left wondering whether they saw the same film I did. I then asked every kid I could find who was in attendance what they thought of it, and kids of (literally) all ages loved it. Girls liked Sue Storm, boys grooved on the Thing and, particularly, the Human Torch. No one loved Reed. But, hey, what else is new?

Whatever you're expecting in terms of the more mature angle that comic book films have taken, be it "Batman Begins," "Sin City," or even the sophistication of X2...to enjoy "Fantastic Four," you simply have to set the wayback machine in your mind back to when comic books (and movies thereof) were mostly cornball fun. Think "Superman" but without the camp. Some mild spoilers follow:

It's a well-made film with some wince-worthy dialogue that you then realize could have (and possibly did) come straight out of Silver Age FF, and a lot of sequences that just nail the entire squabbling-yet-loving family nature of the FF. The film is at its best when it keeps it small. The character interactions, the throwaway casual uses of their powers. Johnny's tormenting of Ben, including a hilarious practical joke while the Thing is sleeping. And you sit there and say, "That's the FF."

When it goes big, there are stumbles. The main problem centers on Doctor Doom. My concern was not that they changed Victor Von Doom from a Latverian monarch to a corporate douche bag. My concern is that Von Doom blames Reed Richards for the accident that essentially ruined Von Doom's life. In the comic book, this blame is misplaced. In the film, it's not. That Von Doom goes bonkers as a result doesn't change the fact that Reed really IS responsible. I'll grant you, that's consistent with the comic in that Ben blames Reed for rushing them into space without the proper shielding in place. But the thrust of the comic isn't Ben trying to kill Reed as a consequence. In this case, the FF isn't battling a supervillain so much as they are doing damage control, cleaning up after the mess the themselves made (or at least that Reed made).

But there's more than enough in the film to make it worthwhile nevertheless. The Thing should defnitely be seen on a big screen, because all the cries of "Foam rubber" were misplaced. Between the acting, the sound effects, and a few CGI boosts, you'll believe a man can be made out of rock. And the must-see of the film remains the Human Torch. Basically he's an exuberant jackass, but hey, again, that's Johnny. That he's not callow doesn't bother me. After all, he grew up and married a Skrull in the comics, so why not just start with him as the older model? Instead of being a teen and thus expected to be a jerk, he's a guy who refuses to grow up. Johnny Storm with the ultimate in Peter Pan syndrome considering he really DOES learn to fly.

Several key scenes were in the script but not in the film, which would have topped two hours had they been there. These include an entire sequence with Ben attending a soiree at Alicia's art gallery, and Johnny running afoul of a football star and his date at a singles bar. I'll be interested to see if they show up back in the eventual DVD release, as they were excellent scenes (although admittedly they didn't advance the plot much.)

Bottom line, go in expecting a hip, up-to-date rethinking and redefining of the FF, and you're largely going to be disappointed. Expect a reasonably faithful (Von Doom issues aside) translation of the style, spirit and stories of the Silver Age of comics, and you'll have a great time.

PAD

Posted by Peter David at July 8, 2005 12:15 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: ReverendSnow at July 8, 2005 12:57 AM

GREAT! Now I can't wait to go see this film on Saturday!

Posted by: ArcLight at July 8, 2005 02:42 AM

Hmmm...since I'm one of those oddballs that doesn't mind if a movie is just "fun," I'll try and get to it if the car co-operates.

- Chris

Posted by: David Rangel at July 8, 2005 04:19 AM

That's exactly what I want the FF movie to be!
Sounds like Dr. Doom didn't make it through the Hollywood blender in one piece, but you can't have everything.
FF shouldn't be X-Men or Batman. I don't understand fans thinking it should.
The FF has always been bigger, broader, and out there.
I want a fun FF movie with the same passion I wanted a serious Batman movie.
My two kids, 7 & 11, can't wait to see it.
We'll be there this morning.

Posted by: Ovnio at July 8, 2005 04:51 AM

Eh.

I screened it a couple hours ago. It was fun, yes, but I'd put it in the "guilty pleasure" category. The cheese is laid on thick, so that might turn a lot of people off.

My problem with it though, is how unambitious it is. Yeah, they captured the family dynamic of the FF, but not the sense of adventure you always have in the comic. Maybe I've been spoiled by Waid's recent "Imaginauts" run, but that's as essential to the FF, in my opinion, as all the family bickering.

No grand adventure in this movie though. Just generic action scenes in New York. Doom's turned into a generic metal villain that shoots lighting bolts. Yawn.

I liked the cast though. They made the cheese work. I could see them in a much better movie, one that didn't think so small.

All that said, at least it's good enough for kids. I'll be taking my six year old to watch it this weekend, probably.

(oh, and while The Thing looks cool, most FX involving Reed look cheeeeeeeeeeeeap)

Ovnio

Posted by: Mark L at July 8, 2005 08:00 AM

My daughter is already wanting to see it - she likes Sue Storm (she reminds her of Violet from The Incredibles - guess how many conversations we've had about which came first).

I really was hoping that Ioan Gruffudd would manage to do more with Reed - we're fanatics about the Hornblower TV movies he has done (I'm convinced they paved the way for the success of the Master and Commander movie).

Your review is interesting. Others I've seen go the other way: they say the action is fine, but the characterizations of the main four aren't there. I guess we'll have to find out for ourselves.

Posted by: Rat at July 8, 2005 08:50 AM

On my way over to see it after I drop the clone off at school. I don't WANT it to be too serious. Actually, that was really my only gripe with X2, the characterizations were a little darker than usual. Nightcrawler is the clown of the group usually, or at least has a sense of humor. That and I wanted to see more of Colossus.

But I think it's sad that a movie just can't be fun anymore without being trashed for being out of touch. Movies are supposed to be FUN by and large. And that's why my wife isn't allowed to pick movies anymore. All she ever picks are ones where you come out feeling either INCREDIBLY depressed or guilty for not having gone through what the characters went through. UP WITH FUN!

Posted by: JosephW at July 8, 2005 08:56 AM

I haven't seen the film yet (I plan to this weekend, if a certain minor storm system doesn't interfere), but I have to take exception with this comment: The Thing should defnitely be seen on a big screen, because all the cries of "Foam rubber" were misplaced. Between the acting, the sound effects, and a few CGI boosts, you'll believe a man can be made out of rock.
I have seen the Thing on a big screen--the trailers for the film before other movies. Unless the film was *still* undergoing some late post-production work, I haven't seen anything of it that says anything other than "man in a rubber suit".

Posted by: David Van Domelen at July 8, 2005 09:00 AM

"Mr. Moviephone" didn't care for it, and his main criticism resonated with me: plot. When I tried to describe what the movie is about after reading the book, the best I could come up with was "origin story". Not to malign the book, it was a fun read. But it really was all "beginning" with almost no "middle" or "end".

Anyway, I'll be seeing it this afternoon.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 8, 2005 09:09 AM

My wife and I are going to see FF this weekend, but I'm just wondering if I should go by myself.

I figure, most likely, she isn't going to like it (she doesn't like Alba or Chiklis anyways), and I'll really hear about it after the movie.

And this from a woman who really enjoyed Daredevil *sigh*

Posted by: Robbnn at July 8, 2005 09:11 AM

Any blood (I mean at ALL)? My son wants to see it, but he'll hit the floor if he sees blood. (Last night he was pitching for his All Star team when a teammate spouted a bloody nose. I told Ben not to look, but he saw enough - then held the image in his head like a pink elephant. Watching him struggle with that, clearly in mental anquish, and still throw strike after strike was great. They must have been strikes since the batters were hitting them all over the park...)

Any bedroom scenes? There's some smooching, I'm sure, and I'd pay money on a bet that Susan has to strip to be invisible before the suit.

Posted by: Howard Price at July 8, 2005 09:18 AM

Peter, I've always enjoyed your novelizations, many times moreso than the movie itself. But enjoyable reads of "Hulk", "Batman Forever", and "Return of the Swamp Thing" (Yes, folks, the book was GOOD!) still had me wondering about the quality of the film.

What I can say is that, I've enjoyed the novelization, and every single trailer I've seen I can trace directly back to a scene in the novelization.

Tell me Maria Menounos strips out of her pink ski-bunny suit in the film, and I'll be the first in line tonight. :)

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at July 8, 2005 09:19 AM

David van D.: I'd be surprised if it were more than "origin story". Astonishing as it may sound, there are a lot of people out there who have never heard of the FF, and need the background (beside the fact that for the movie, the background had to change - the original version of Doom would've taken almost half the movie itself!). Assuming there's an FF2, that's where you'll probably see the plots start to work...

Robbnn: It's stated in the commercials that the way the movie Sue does the invisibility is by using her force field to bend light around her body. This will work no matter what she's wearing. Yes, I'm disappointed that there won't be any nekkid Jessica Alba in there too. :(

Posted by: Howard Price at July 8, 2005 09:26 AM

However, Jonathan and Robbnn, both the novel and even some of the teasers, show Jessica Alba stripping down to bra and panties to be fully invisible. And while the teaser shows Reed mentioning the "bending light" it does not show Sue's very insightful response about... well, other problems associated with invisibility that throw his little theory in the trashcan.

Posted by: Charlie Griefer at July 8, 2005 09:31 AM

with a disclaimer that i've not yet seen the movie, but based on what i've seen in the trailers and read online...going in with high expectations:

i don't mind that they messed with Doom's origin. A movie is an adaptation of a story. A movie studio has to find that happy medium between keeping comic fans happy, and creating something that's appealing to the general public as well. whatever their motivation was for changing the origin, that's fine (within reason, obviously).

Peter - as far as your contention that Doom now has a legitimate reason to blame Reed...that may be true. But so would Ben (we know that in the books, he does), Johnny and Sue. Reed screwed up, plain and simple.

Still, I don't know that this fact gives Doom any more 'legitimate reason' to become a villain. It'd be just as easy for Ben, Johnny, or Sue to flip Reed the bird, and say "screw you...I'm taking advantage of these powers and use them for personal gain regardless of the cost/harm to others." But they don't.

It's still about choices. Life deals us lousy cards sometimes, whether it's our fault or through absolutely no fault of our own. Arguably, the 'easy route' would be to remain bitter, point fingers, assign blame, and become destructive. It's the hero that, in spite of whether or not he/she "deserved" what happened, rises above it all and further sacrifice themselves in order to do what's "right" and what benefits the greater good.

Maybe I misunderstood...but if you're saying that the storyline in the movie justifies Doom becoming a villain...I respectfully disagree.

Posted by: Peter David at July 8, 2005 10:01 AM

"Any blood (I mean at ALL)? My son wants to see it, but he'll hit the floor if he sees blood."

I've been searching my memory and I absolutely cannot remember any blood. The closest one comes to "ick" is that you see a metal shell forming under Von Doom's skin and a growing scar on his face. But I really don't remember blood.

And no bedroom scenes. Yes, Sue strips down to basically the equivalent of a two piece bathing suit, but y'don't see nothin'.

"Maybe I misunderstood...but if you're saying that the storyline in the movie justifies Doom becoming a villain...I respectfully disagree."

I'm not saying that it justifies it. What I'm saying is that in the comics, Von Doom has no reason whatsoever to despise Reed. That's one of the underpinnings of his character: That Von Doom screwed up his own life, but his ego made him so incapable of admitting he'd made a mistake, that he misplaced his anger onto the guy who actually tried to stop him from making the fatal mistake that resulted in his scarred face. That's part of what makes him such an archly great villain.

In the movie, Von Doom's actions against Reed--while not justifiable from a moral point of view--are rooted in a reasonable gripe. Reed was the one who put Von Doom in harm's way. For that matter, we could argue the cosmic rays may have contributed to Von Doom becoming unbalanced, since there's nothing to suggest he was homicidal earlier. The Doctor Doom who tries to kill the FF and then is trashing NY would never have existed if Reed hadn't (a) talked Von Doom into going up into the storm and (b) completely miscalculated the speed or intensity of the cosmic storm.

Compare it to, say, Burton's "Batman." Yes, the Joker's creation was a result of Batman dropping him into the chemical vat. But at least Batman was trying to stop him from falling in, and besides, "Jack" was a criminal anyway. And furthermore, the Joker was depicted as having killed Bruce Wayne's parents. So the balance of "evil," if you will, remains with the Joker.

Or, dare I say it, consider "The Incredibles." Yes, Mr. Incredible was responsible for the "creation" of Syndrome. On the other hand, he was genuinely acting in what he believed was Buddy's best interests by sending him home after the kid nearly got himself killed. The fact that it festered in Buddy and drove him to become a supervillain is his own lookout, especially since--even as an adult--he saw it as a personal rejection and slight rather than an endeavor to keep him safe and out of harm's way.

So as I said, the FF's major mission is to combat a villain who wouldn't have BEEN a villain if not for the set of circumstances that the FF's leader himself set into motion. It's damage control.

PAD

Posted by: Ali T. Kokmen at July 8, 2005 10:15 AM

I saw the movie in a screening last night too (were we at the same one, I wonder?) and basically agree that the movie is light-hearted fun, but flawed.

I loved Chiklis as Ben Grimm and as the Thing and liked the Human Torch (both the effects and the character) and liked the sniping interaction between the characters. I cared less for Reed and Sue, partially because I seem to become so old and curmeudgeonly to think things like "No way can a person *that* young be such an accomplished scientist/businessperson/genetic researcher, etc." and partially because I didn't feel any chemistry between Alba and Gruffudd (or between Alba and McMahon for that matter...)

I do think that Dr. Doom as villain is the weak point of the movie. Not only, as PAD points out, if anything, Doom has a right to be pissed at Reed. But additionally, the film proposes multiple bits and pieces of his motivation, but they don't seem to add up to enough reason for him to do what he does--is he mad at Reed for destroying his company? For stealing his girl? For scarring his face? Does he want to use Reed's experiments to heal him, or to further empower him? As it comes off (to me, at least) he's motivated by a bit of all these things, and not enough by any one thing.

Steve Saffel once opined to me that a Fantastic Four movie needs to play on the family aspect of the team--that that's the defining element of the FF. I suppose the movie gets to a point where it does that pretty well, but I think also part of the appeal of the FF comics is that they're at the heart of a world filled with adventure--Mole Men and dinosaur islands and alien Skrulls and Negative Zones and Atlantean invaders--this movie doesn't come anywhere near capturing that aspect of the FF appeal, but then again, it might not be reasonable to expect any movie to be able to do that...

Posted by: Rene at July 8, 2005 10:49 AM

I look forward to see this movie.

I always thought a FF movie should be like the "Back to the Future" trilogy. Fun, light, and way out there, but also *smart* and knowing instead of campy and cringe-inducing, hopefully.

Well, Doom not being a self-made monarch is something I tried to get used to ever since I heard of it, so it probably won't affect my enjoyment of the movie.

A pity no one liked Reed, PAD. In the original run he wasn't as interesting as the Thing and the Human Torch, but Reed Richards kinda grew up on me when John Byrne first made the comic closer to a "real" science fiction feel.

Also, much about Reed's human side hang on his relationship with Doom, Sue, and Ben. Supposedly we can scratch Doom, I want to see how he interacts with Sue and Ben in the movie.

Posted by: Robbnn at July 8, 2005 11:06 AM

Thanks, Peter.

S'funny, I've been reading a graphic novel collecting JB's run on the FF and while I loved them during the original run, my word, they're ponderous! Lottsa words, slow plotting. A good editor could have reduced those stories to a few pages...

Posted by: R. Maheras at July 8, 2005 11:21 AM

When I read Ebert's FF review Thursday, I sensed quite a bit of snobbery in his tone. He ripped the film, but he seemed to be doing so because it wasn't the dark, "adult" fare he has apparently come to expect from comic book-related films. Personally, I think such an attitude stems from a basic insecurity many long-time SF and comic fans, like Ebert, have about the material they grew up loving. As with the Hulk, they feel such films must be drenched with dark, adult-oriented themes to be “legitimate.” I say horse patootie! I raised just such an issue during a mail interview with Jack Kirby in 1974, and he wholeheartedly agreed that (superhero) comics should be exciting and entertaining first and foremost. It stands to reason then that their celluloid kin should be approached the same way.

I’ll be seeing the FF film tonight, and I hope it is just like a Kirby comic, rather than, say, Ang Lee’s Hulk film.

Posted by: Howard Price at July 8, 2005 11:42 AM

It was my understanding that Reed didn't have much choice in Von Doom's joining the crew; further, it was Von Doom's space station, and one would assume he was the one who designed the inner chamber shielding, which failed him.

Posted by: Queen Anthai at July 8, 2005 11:46 AM

I read the comic adaptation, and was horrified. I didn't have too much hope that it would even be a cut above the Roger Corman movie (why yes, I do own a copy, and it's everything you've heard...and less).

I think the problems was that I've been spoiled by "gritty" comics lately *cough*InfiniteCrisisTie-Ins*cough* and couldn't enjoy anything Silver Age-y. If I decide to give the flick a shot after all, I'll try to keep it light.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 8, 2005 12:02 PM

Better than expected but I really didn't expect much.

And it could have been SO GOOD. The should have had PAD do the screenplay and Michael France & Mark Frost do the novelization. Tim Story seems like a nice guy in interviews but he brings the same visual flair to this that he showed in TAXI and BARBERSHOP. Doing a comic book movie takes a certain style. Singer has it, Nolan has it, Raimi has it coming out of his ears. Singer, not so much.

I understand that the story of Doom would take too long to tell...then again, I'll bet that Raimi could have shot a 2 minute montage that would have covered all the bases (I love how every Evil Dead sequel gives you the previous movie in the first 5 minutes or so). This is DR freaking DOOM we are talking about here. THE Marvel super villan. It's not like they mucked with the origin of Stilt Man.

And yet, conversely, I kinda wish they had mucked around a bit with the costume. Without Jack Kirby swirling it up what you have is a guy in armour with a green cape. Maybe if they always had him standing on air vents or in front of the Fans Are Us shop, but as it was it just sort of drooped and looked sad.

The Thing and Torch, as everyone has noted, stole the show. If FF doesn't do well how about having Torch show up in the next Spidey movie and I'll bet a Hulk vs Thing movie could rescue both franchises.

Compare how Mr Fantastic is used to Elastic Girl in the Incredbles and it's obvious which movie had the talent. Mr Fantastic could have been awesome--again, hire PAD and the artist of his choice, give them a room for a day with pizza and beverages and then just film the fight scene they come up with.

But one cool thing came out of this--THING HANDS!! Just as cool as the HULK HANDS! Now you and a buddy can re-enact your favorite issue of Marvel 2 in 1, smashing away at each other! They even have Thing Feet--get your local cryptozoologist all excited by stomping around in the mud!

But the dolls blow. The Thing looks ok, the Torch looks like Melted Candy Apple Man, the Invisble Girl...well, if I were the toymaker, I'd just sell and empty box, but that's me. And Reed? Christ, it's awful! He has two long hands reaching out to you in silent supplication as if begging you to turn the box around to hide his shame. He doesn't look at all like a superhero, maybe the world's most successful waiter but that's it. Let it sit on a furnace for a fe hours and you have a much better and more accurate action figure (CAUTION-Let it cool first. Dumbass.)

Any blood (I mean at ALL)? My son wants to see it, but he'll hit the floor if he sees blood.

There goes any chance of him borrowing DVDs from his Uncle Bill's collection...

Posted by: Bobb at July 8, 2005 12:16 PM

Bill, I agree about the "action" figures...boy, do they blow. That's usually not a good sign. That Batman Begins line is really cool, despite 90% of the stuff coming out can at best be said to be "inspired by" the film. But the FF stuff? It's been out for weeks now, and I've just started seeing the 8" invisible woman figures...they do, indeed, stink. All of them look like they were based on Paul Gulacy depictions...the nostrils are HUGE on them all.

You can usually judge how well a movie will do based on what the outside marketing looks like. If McDonalds options the Happy Meal rights, it's usually a hit. Burger King (as is the case with FF) 50-50...although the Amazon Cash cards is a very good idea. If you're movie's is picked up by Taco Bell, KFC, or Hardees, well, welcome to the $5 DVD bin in a few months.

Posted by: Elizabeth at July 8, 2005 12:18 PM

You've already addressed the blood question, but can you tell us if it's appropriate for kids? My six-year-old is a huge superhero fan, desperately wants to go, but I can't afford to go by myself first to preview it and make sure it's okay for him. He likes X-Men, but I wouldn't take him to see BATMAN BEGINS, much as I liked it - the Scarecrow and Evil-Batman faces would be a bit much.

Sorry to put you on the spot. Unfortunately, most movie sites that allegedly report on the kid-safe nature of a movie concentrate on "moral themes" and freak out about cinema violence if someone throws a punch.

Posted by: Brian at July 8, 2005 12:36 PM

Having read the novelation (excellent job, btw), I have serious reservations about the film. I felt they really missed the mark with Doom. Here was what is arguable the greatest villain of all time in the Marvel Universe, and they turn him into a jerk who goes postal because Sue dumped him. It's not to the very end of the movie that he becomes a villain, and we get no sense of anything really bad happen (other than killing the FF) should he succeed. No secret plan to take over the world, no doomsday device (pun unintended), etc. Also, what I felt was the strength of the novel was Peter's excellent characterizations of the FF, and am unsure as to how well they will be presented on the big screen.

Posted by: Dave Van Domelen at July 8, 2005 01:13 PM

Other Jon: Sure, but compare it to Batman Begins. That's also an origin story with a lot of depth to the telling, but BB manages to have a fairly strong plot in addition to the origin story (i.e. two idealistic men with radically different ideas on how to save the world clash in a battle to see whose plan will get to play out).

FF does have a conflict, but the conflict seems to be more about establishing a rivalry than about using one to tell a story. And it just doesn't spring readily to mind.

Posted by: Chuck May at July 8, 2005 01:48 PM

I haven't seen it yet. I will see it, probably late next week.

But, the Fantastic Four is my favorite comic book, bar none. It was the first comic I collected - starting with #260, which I picked up at the local newsstand, then bought a subscription to the magazine starting with #263 - right at the start of the Secret Wars thing, and at the height of Byrne's run. LOVE it.

So, I will like the movie, period. Whatever I need to do to enjoy it, I will do. You bet I'm prejudiced - rose-colored glasses all the way.

Posted by: Jerry Colvin at July 8, 2005 02:25 PM

I absolutely cannot remember any blood.

Actually, there was blood. When Sue strained herself containing Doom, blood started trickling out of her nose.

I agree that Ebert's review was too harsh.

As both a movie freak and FF buff for decades, you could say I've been waiting for this movie most of my life. Doctor Doom as portrayed here was not that menacing of a villian. I had no problem with Ben... he looked fine. Just got back a few minutes ago and have not soaked it all in yet.

The best superhero movie of all time is still Spider-Man 2. This one ranks far below...

Posted by: Don at July 8, 2005 02:34 PM

Peter's mention of the Incredibles reminds me of my overriding thought about superhero movies in the middle of Dash's sequence near the end of that film: "MAN do I want to see this bunch do a Flash treatment."

Posted by: Robert White at July 8, 2005 02:43 PM

"S'funny, I've been reading a graphic novel collecting JB's run on the FF and while I loved them during the original run, my word, they're ponderous! Lottsa words, slow plotting. A good editor could have reduced those stories to a few pages..."

Oh my word! You where actually required to read? How dare John Byrne create a classic superhero series, not equaled since, that actually gave the fans their money's worth of entertainment! Scoundrel!

Padding, at its fans, need to be "edited". Damn I’m glad folks like you where not in charge of comics back then and still aren’t…wait. Shit. Well, at least you weren’t back then…

Posted by: Will McCaffrey at July 8, 2005 02:44 PM

Having read the novelization, I fully intend to see the film and give it a chance. However, there was one thing that didn't grab me about the story and it's certainly no fault of PAD's, but more of the script itself; Maybe it translates differently in the film, but I didn't get any real sense of "Dire peril" from Doom. Yes, he attempts to destroy the FF in his quest for personal power, but I felt that there was something missing... No huge, diabolical act of super villany to raise the stakes like we as comic readers have become accustomed to. Granted, in an origin story we can't really see something on the sale of launching buildings into space, but since that's what we've come to expect from the likes of Doom, his movie counterpart doesn't quite come off as the world-threatening menace we expect him to be.

Still, as long as it's a fun ride, I won't think too hard on it.

Posted by: David Rangel at July 8, 2005 03:55 PM

Saw it with my kids this morning.
We, And the audience, loved it. It's nice to hear people laugh when their supposed to at a comic book movie. And applauded when it's over.
Reed, Ben, Johnny, and Sue were all there.
As far as them missing the "Imaginauts" aspect, That was the whole beginning of the film.
You don't have time for a trip to the microverse or negative zone AND have time to show them developing their powers. Save that for the sequel.
And if the audience was any indication at my suburban theater, than there will be one.

Posted by: Peter David at July 8, 2005 04:20 PM

Yeah, okay, my bad. On the blood thing, I totally forgot that at the very end of the film, Sue is concentrating so hard on her forcefield that two, maybe three small drops of blood trickle from her nose. I was picturing violent sequences, like Johnny getting punched or Von Doom throwing people around, and trying to remember if they bled. Clean overlooked Sue's very minor nosebleed. I hope that doesn't send the young viewer in question into shock or anything.

That said, I saw kids four, five and six years of age coming out of the screening last night looking perfectly happy and talking excitedly about wanting to buy the toys. So I think taking a six year old is simply not a problem.

PAD

Posted by: RJA at July 8, 2005 04:47 PM

I'm going to see it sometime soon. I have modest expectations, and it sounds like it might be fun. "Superman" without the camp should be very much to my taste. Besides, I've never been that big a fan of the comic - I love the Lee and Kirby stories circa the mid-late 1960s, I love the handful of stories by Wolfman and Byrne, I think Simonson's run is as underrated as Byrne's solo run is overrated. I don't know what this Imaginauts thing that people are talking about is, because up until a few months ago, I had been away from comics for several years. Could someone please tell me? If Mark Waid was involved, I'd be interested, I'm a fan of his writing.

Posted by: Rene at July 8, 2005 05:10 PM

"S'funny, I've been reading a graphic novel collecting JB's run on the FF and while I loved them during the original run, my word, they're ponderous! Lottsa words, slow plotting. A good editor could have reduced those stories to a few pages..."

I'm among those fans who think Byrne in the FF was pure perfection, but I see what you mean. Whenever I go read a comic from another decade, I must go through a period of re-adaptation.

I felt the same when I re-read Byrne's Man of Steel. Lotsa captions, thought baloons, and expository dialogue. I've been spoiled by the more cinematic style from current comics.

And the most funny thing is, from the 80's writers, Byrne was one of the more economic in his words. It was simply a different time. Compared to Claremont, or Englehart, or deMatteis, or deFalco, or Thomas, JB was a mime.

Posted by: Robert White at July 8, 2005 05:19 PM

The reason for this style, of course, was because the comics where written so they could be enjoyed by very young readers…as well as older readers mature enough to accept this very altruistic set up.

It's interesting that many of the fans in the letter pages back then, the older ones, seemed to accept this as appropriate for the genre without question, and simply accepted the comics for what they where. I also find that many of those fans where more insightful, intelligent, and complex than many of today’s older fans like to think of themselves as being.

Posted by: Rene at July 8, 2005 06:00 PM

"The reason for this style, of course, was because the comics where written so they could be enjoyed by very young readers…as well as older readers mature enough to accept this very altruistic set up.

It's interesting that many of the fans in the letter pages back then, the older ones, seemed to accept this as appropriate for the genre without question, and simply accepted the comics for what they where. I also find that many of those fans where more insightful, intelligent, and complex than many of today’s older fans like to think of themselves as being."


I think I agree with you, my friend.

While this dialogue style isn't realistic, it did a good job of making the story always easy to follow, not only for younger readers, but also for occasional readers.

Captions and thought balloons used to always establish where the characters were, and what they were feeling, and what it was all about, and who was who and what was what.

Hmmm... and the only point I disagree with the poster who started this discussion, is that the "old" style seemed to result in stories and sagas being shorter, instead of longer.

Nowadays, if you want to transmit an idea to the reader, you can't use captions or thought baloons, and even dialogue baloons are more realistic, so you have to "show, not tell" and it usually takes longer to introduce characters and situations.

Not saying that one style is "better" than the other, though.

Posted by: roegr at July 8, 2005 06:07 PM

pete

how do you compare the novel to the finished movie???

Posted by: Ovnio at July 8, 2005 06:10 PM

Re: Imaginauts.

Well, basically, Waid's run approached the FF more as scientists than typical superheroes, which is exactly what I think the movie should have done. No, you don't need a trip to the Negative Zone or whatever, but you need to give us a sense of adventure, something to set the team apart from any other superhero teams. The plot of the movie is reduced to them trying to get rid of their powers and them trying to stop Doom's rampage in New York. Unimpressive, to say the least.

I say, screw the origin setup. Like I read somewhere else, this is a movie where they could have benefitted from hitting the ground running, like in The Incredibles, giving us the team at their best, and dealing with their origin in flashbacks, if at all. Of course, the movie I'd like the FF to be would have had a much bigger budget and a director with an actual voice. Imagine what someone like Spielberg could do if he wanted to.

As for the movie being appropiate for kids . . . Like I said, I'm taking my six year old (who I wouldn't take to Batman Begins). Scarier than the blood running from Alba's nose is Doom's murder of his physician, but there's no blood there and it's really not that bad.

And I just read Ebert's review . . . He might be too harsh, but I agree with him on the fact that the Fantastic Four are underwhelming. And that's a HUGE flaw.


Ovnio

Posted by: Mike at July 8, 2005 06:20 PM

I COULDN'T TELL IF I WAS WATCHING THE FANTASTIC FOUR OR AN EXTENDED EPISODE OF THIRTYSOMETHING.

LOOK: MILES DRENTELL IS TRYING TO KILL MICHAEL STEADMAN AGAIN. MICHAEL, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO STOP PUNISHING YOURSELF FOR YOUR DEAD FATHER'S BUSINESS FAILURES AND QUIT WORKING FOR SUCCESSFUL EVIL BASTARDS OUT TO STEAL YOUR WORK AND KILL YOU?

LOOK: HOPE IS NAGGING MICHAEL ON YET ANOTHER OTHER ISSUE HE'S STONEWALLING. MICHAEL, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE A STAND ON WHETHER THE CHILDREN SHOULD BE RAISED JEWISH OR INVISIBLE?

LOOK: ELIOT'S MARRIAGE IS FALLING APART AGAIN, NOT BECAUSE HE HAS BRIGHT RED HAIR, BUT THIS TIME BECAUSE HE'S MADE OF BRIGHT ORANGE ROCKS.

LOOK: GARY IS ON FIRE. GODDAMN IT GARY, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO SLOW DOWN ENOUGH FOR MELISSA TO LOVE YOU? BY ALL RIGHTS MELANIE MAYRON'S LOVE BELONGS TO ME.

Good movie.

Posted by: Curiouso at July 8, 2005 07:58 PM

So when is PAD finally going to get to write the FF in comic book form? not a prequell FF story but the main book... Cuz i'd love to read what he comes up with

Posted by: William Watson at July 8, 2005 08:12 PM

1About the blood thing... yes, alba's nose trickles and there are some violent parts mentioned above... but everyone seems to be missing how Doom takes his SECOND life... the banker feller in the parking garage... .that REALLY bugged some people in the audience I was in. Both times... it's a pretty good date movie, guys! It's a rather dark turn for a light hearted movie... I don't want to do a spoiler but part of teh scene IS in the trailers. Some young'uns who have issues... or parents who think their kids SHOULD have issues with certain things might be bothered. Just a warning.

Posted by: Sneezy the Squid at July 8, 2005 08:17 PM

There is one word to use to describe this movie: FUN. I could deal with the changes to Doom, and I thought that they really nailed the team. And Michael Chiklis IS Ben Grim, the ever-lovin' blue-eyed Thing. F4 may not have the character/dramatic depth of the X-Men movies, or the pathos of the Spider-Man films, but it is FUN. Highly recommended, and I look foward to owning it.

Posted by: Sneezy the Squid at July 8, 2005 08:19 PM

Oh yea, one other bit, after seeing the "blood" mention. There is once scene where Doom blows a huge hole through a guy's chest. It's not terribly graphic, but he does stand there long enough to register the hole before he keels over. So there's that and the two nosebleeds when Sue strains too hard that parent's might be concerned about, but not too much.

Posted by: James Carter at July 8, 2005 09:12 PM

I'm looking forward to seeing it. I saw the previews when I saw WOTW (I have no idea where the bad reviews for THAT came from) and it looks good. As it stands, that looks like the only other movie I am gonna see this summer. I will just wait for anything else to come out on Netflix. I would have seen it without your review Mr. David, but now I feel better about it.


"how do you compare the novel to the finished movie???"

I would guess that he prefered the novel, seeing as he wrote it. I have a feeling, based on Mr. David's other novelizations, and his other books, that I will too. He has a way with words and backstory that makes the whole thing even better.

"Superman" without the camp should be very much to my taste."

WHY DOES EVERYONE COME DOWN SO HARD ON "SUPERMAN??" I liked it. (admittedly, I was ten when I first saw it, but I still liked it.)

Posted by: KIP LEWIS at July 8, 2005 10:31 PM

Is Reed responsible for Doom? I'm not so sure he entirely is. Partially in that they wouldn't have been there if not for Reed's proposal. (Then again, there was the suggestion from Ben that Victor may have sabtogued Reed's contract with NASA forcing him to go through Doom's company. If that part is true, then I would say that Reed is even less at fault. However, that's not my main point.)

Victor was safely behind the shielding when the cosmic rays hit. The shielding failed. Perhaps this is a reverse of the comic version where the FF was exposed, because Reed's shielding failed (or did he forget to put them in.) Here, Doom's shields failed to do what they were advertised to do. Doom's mutations are at least partially his own fault.

Though I do agree that most of the movie is "damage control", especially the whole bridge scene.

Posted by: JamesLynch at July 8, 2005 11:06 PM

I saw a matinee show of FANTASTIC FOUR at a matinee (benefit of working 2:30-10), and I thought it was a decent movie. [Lots of spoilers follow, but this far down that's par for the course.] On the plus side, Michael Chiklis was absolutely perfect, both as the human Ben and as the rocky Thing. (I agree with PAD -- he looked awesome!) Jessica Alba, while providing an eyeful, was also a strong female character, something pretty lacking in most movies we've gotten this summer. Chris Evans had fun with the most fun role (the daredevil and sexual addict for whom the powers are a godsend), and Julian McMahon was perfect as Doom. (Sorry Ioan, but you got stuck playing the stiff, responsible character.)

The movie's big plus is that they kept the family dynamic of the comic book: Johnny as the fun-loving troublemaker, Ben as the sullen, angry loner, Reed as the mature father/leader, Sue as the mother who's responsible but not as stiff). Watching them together, argue, make up, and bond worked just fine.

My biggest complaint: not enough action. I know it's supposed to be an introduction, but there's the opening scene on the bridge, the showdown at the end, and... that's it. (Contrast that with THE INCREDIBLES: the opening with the jumper, Mr. Incredible battling the first droid, Elasti-Girl breaking into the base, the kids fending for themselves...) You'd also think someone as influential and powerful as Doom would have some henchmen, or robots (even if not Doombots), instead of just himself and a rocket launcher.

I gotta disagree with PAD about Reed being fully responsible for what happened. Ben pointed out that the storm's acceleration was a fluke that no one could have anticipated, and when Reed suggested aborting the mission Victor was the one who kept things going. Plus Victor saw everything he had (the business) going down the tubes, exactly when the media was showing Richards and his friends as heroes. It made more sense than the comics' "You scarred my face, now I will hate you forever" origin.

I also had a few quibbles that make me want to read PAD's adaption. Why give Alicia drawing tools if she didn't draw anything? Did Doom have a plan, or was he just going to walk through Manhattan blowing stuff up? Wasn't it too fast that Reed proposed to someone he hadn't been involved with for two years? (I love my ex-girlfriend, but we'd have to go on quite a few dates again before I pop the question.) Is Ben going to stay comfortable as the Thing? (The comics had him agonizing over his condition for years.)

I agree with the poster who said the movie toys are fairly weak. The Thing looks great (though who wants to wear Thing feet?), the three Invisible Woman variants (visible, half-invisible, fully invisible) are nice, and the Torch is decent. However, Mr. Fantastic has features not in the movie (hammer hand? buzzsaw hang?), and there's no Doctor Doom figure!

I suppose it's progress of a sort that there's more male skin than female skin. Yes, Jessica Alba shows up once in her underwear (yayyyyy!!!) and gets walked in on in the bathroom. But Chris Evans walks around more in the skin-tight suit, is topless in the snow, and turns up holding a strateggically-placed newspaper as his only article of clothing.

So, who'll the villain be in the sequel? I could see the Mole Man and his armies, or Diablo. Galactus would be a bit much at this point, and the Reed-Sue wedding makes the Namor love triangle a bit moot (unless he interferes with the wedding plans).

Posted by: Todd at July 8, 2005 11:18 PM

The critics were so harsh! I don't get it. I suspect that part of the problem lies with the nature of the Fantastic Four itself. In order to make this film more "grown up" they would have had to distance themselves from the comic more than they did. These critics wouldn't have liked the FF comic either is my guess.

There is one thing that this film did better than any other super-hero movie so far: a real "team battle" at the end. It was wonderful to see Reed directing them against Doom as they used their powers as a team. Hard to pull off, and well done.

Posted by: R. Maheras at July 8, 2005 11:34 PM

I saw FF this evening and I really enjoyed it! The entire theater clapped after it ended, and as we were filing out, I heard a group of pre-teen boys saying stuff like "I'm the Torch," or "I'm the Thing" -- stuff I didn't think kids that age argued anymore.

In my opinion, the dialogue in this film, more than any other Marvel-influence film to date, is the closest to capturing the snappy patter and spirit of a 1960s Lee-Kirby comic -- and that includes either Spider-Man I or II.

My advice to those who have yet to see the film: Approach it like a 1960s FF comic, i.e., don't try to intellectualize or critically analyze it, just enjoy the ride.

Oh, yeah. As I suspected, Ebert snobbed out when it came to his review of this film. Personally, I give it a solid thumbs up.

Posted by: David Van Domelen at July 9, 2005 12:08 AM

Enjoyed the movie. Tightly run, which was good because the plot wasn't thick enough to support much bloat. Alba was competent and not totally unconvincing. Effects were good.

I think the lack of a strong non-origin plot is why it's getting all the Reviewer Hate. Only indie films are allowed to be slice of life.

Posted by: Dennis Donohoe at July 9, 2005 12:18 AM

PAD,

I'm glad to hear you say that taking a 6 year old is okay as my 8 year old daughter is taking me to the movie on Sunday as a Father's Day gift. My 12 year old daughter took me to Batman Begins as a Father's Day gift. Kids are great!!

Dennis

Posted by: JonWes at July 9, 2005 01:00 AM

Okay, so I was worried. I tried to tell myself to not let the reviews effect me. Go in with an open mind. But I was worried. Though they've just been average and not awful, I was ready for my favorite heroes to fall on their faces.

I went with my 10 year old nephew and 9 year old neice to a 1:30 matinee that was PACKED. I hope that bodes well.

From the first we get to see Reed and Ben interact... it's really amazing. I loved the tension between Sue and Reed and Victor. Then the Johnny/Ben stuff was just perfect. I loved Johnny's cockiness. Ben's gruffness. His protectiveness of Reed. Reed's cluelessness. Sue's strength.

It's all there. The plot - well, there's not much. This is true. Heroes get powers. Fight bad guys. That's really enough. There was a good amount of humor, which the crowd reacted great too. There was some great action. The special effects were excellent overall, though there is some semi-obvious green-screen in a few places, but its very few and far between.

I'm so excited for a sequel!!! Hopefully the FF will get more time and more money to polish off the few production problems and by 2008 we'll get a truly awesome FF movie.

But this was a beautiful start. And how exciting is it to see people KNOW the names of my favorite characters? How exciting to see their faces everywhere. How cool to see people leaving the theater laughing and cheering and saying how cool it was.

Posted by: CSO at July 9, 2005 05:30 AM

If you think about it they didn't have to change the origin that much... or doom's motivations...

They could have easily had Reed and Doom involved (seperately of course) with the Space Transport Contest that NASA put on... you know building craft like "Spaceship One" and the like... Gives Room for both Ben to be the Pilot, Reed to be there and since the goal is to bring civilians up as well a spot for both Sue and Johnny... Johnny cold even be a pilot too... Doom could have his own rocket... and Reed could reveiw Doom's specs and in typical Reed fashion point out a flaw in Doom's designs which Vic would of course laugh off... and ect... Rocket explodes or crashes leaving Doom scarred... blaming Richards... meanwhile the future FF rocket into space with Reed's rocket they succeed but the sheilding fails against the cosmic raystorm and they crash back to earth having gained powers...

I know I know... I shouldn't be back seat riding or anything... but whats a fanboy to do... I liked the movie but there was such an obvious modern day correlation... instead of the weak "hollywood-DNA-mystic-science" they gave us...

Posted by: CSO at July 9, 2005 05:33 AM

Sorry for the double post....
but to clarify... I did enjoy the movie... and I should learn to proof my posts better...
riding should be writing...

Posted by: Eric Pilgrim at July 9, 2005 06:55 AM

"I agree about the "action" figures...boy, do they blow. That's usually not a good sign." you know...I disagree with your statment about the action figures. I bought the 26 inch tall "Thing" and its friggin awsome! I put it on my landing and now everytime someone runs up the stairs they come around the corner at my new plastic "Thing" midget. Some of the toys are cool!

Posted by: Eric Pilgrim at July 9, 2005 07:10 AM

"So, who'll the villain be in the sequel? I could see the Mole Man and his armies, or Diablo. Galactus would be a bit much at this point, and the Reed-Sue wedding makes the Namor love triangle a bit moot (unless he interferes with the wedding plans)."
You just know its going to be like X2...more Doom and another classic villan , which should all lead up to a killer part 3, hopefully with Galactus cause thats gotta be the BIGGEST adventure ever.

Posted by: AdamYJ at July 9, 2005 07:58 AM

I haven't seen it yet, but I'm looking forward to it. As I've said before to people online, I don't care how good it is. What I care about is that there's one action movie out this summer that isn't dark and serious. Look at what there's been so far. Revenge of the Sith: Dark. Batman Begins: Dark (if it weren't, the fans would go on a destructive spree). War of the Worlds: looks dark. Right now, I'm just in the mood for a popcorn movie that's entertaining and doesn't take itself too seriously.

And honestly . . . I don't care enough about Dr. Doom to be pissed off at what they changed. I know, it's comic book blasphemy, but I really don't care for Doom all that much. He's got too much hype for me to care about him, I think. In fact, I find him really kind of annoying in the comics. That's me, though.

Posted by: mary ellen wofford at July 9, 2005 09:07 AM

Saw the film last night. Enjoyed it but did feel what I always felt when I read the comics. They should just become the Terrific Three and dump Reed. What a wuss.

Thing was great, really the only 3-dimensional character in the movie. I liked the interplay between he and Johnny, only I missed the way Johnny would apologize in the comics. This kid, an astronaut dropout at 19 or however old he is, never apologizes for anything. Guess he graduated from John Wayne High.

I don't think I will go back for a second look but will buy the DVD. I hope they do a sequel. I'd like to see more character development for the others in the group. Ol' Clobbering Time was just about perfect as far as I am concerned. On a par with Hugh Jackman's Wolverine portrayal.

In fact, I yelled out loud when he finally said "it's clobbering time." My 23-year-old nephew poked me!

Posted by: Joe O'Connor at July 9, 2005 09:58 AM

Going to see it this afternoon. I was depressed by posts on the ff comicboards that revealed that some of my favorite scenes from PAD's novelization were left on the cutting room floor (Alicia's gallery show..gone? What are they thinking?!?) but I guess 2 hours plus is a bit of a run time.

As far as the blood, I've a VERY young son who just happened to turn FOUR on opening day. He wants to see it something awful, but I'm afraid of the scene with Doom and the Doctor that he 'wants a second opinion' from. Is his demise in the film the same as the book?

Overall I'm very excited to see this movie. I thought the novelization was very good and have high hopes that it'll be the fun family fare that has made me an FF fan since the mid 70's

Posted by: Nytwyng at July 9, 2005 10:04 AM

Haven't seen it yet. And, I certainly don't mind fun in my movies.

But, I'm going into this one with incredibly low expectations. They've had me worried ever since announcing the horrible mis-casting of the terribly overrated (in all ways) Jessica Alba, and have added more worries ever since.

Still, I have an overwhelming compulsion to see the bugger. If nothing else, by going in with low expectations, I can be pleasantly surprised, but not disappointed.

Posted by: Batman at July 9, 2005 10:58 AM

hey there pete, i was reading that you've written a few screenplays and/or teleplays, but i can't find any of your work on IMDb, how come? and what screen stuff have you written?

Posted by: Pat at July 9, 2005 11:34 AM

I watched the movie and it was everything I expected to be. The typical cookie cutter summer movie. I really wanted it to more. Now lets all gear up FF2.3..4 and suck money out the viewers pockets....

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 9, 2005 12:48 PM

You know who they really needed in the movie? The nurse who was in the room in one of Marvel's Origin Of Dr. Doom stories. The one who drops whatever it is she's carrying and says something like "That face! How horrible!"

Worst. Nurse. Ever. No wonder the guy is so bitter.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 9, 2005 01:55 PM

In my opinion, the dialogue in this film, more than any other Marvel-influence film to date, is the closest to capturing the snappy patter and spirit of a 1960s Lee-Kirby comic -- and that includes either Spider-Man I or II.

You know, I didn't realize it till after Spider-Man 2 came out, but the one thing missing from the two Spidey movies is the insults.

How many great one-liners does Spidey throw out between the two movies? One? Maybe two?

It's part of his characterization in the comics, and the one part that was pretty much totally lacking in the movies.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 9, 2005 03:23 PM

Yeah, Craig, I noticed that too. I think part of the problem is that the villains in both movies don't lend themselves well to it--Goblin is a murderer and Doc Ock is kind of tragic.

Now if I were in charge of the next Spidey movie (in other words, if the folks at Sony lost their collective minds) I'd open with a battle between Spidey and some third of forth tier villain--the Vulture (Partrick Stewart), or Stegron the Dinosaur Man, or the Hypno Hustler, or (Please God, oh pleasepleaseplease) Stilt-Man, and Spidey could be thorwing all kinds of funny lines. Just to show we remember.

But the main fights with the main villain will probably invlove death and doom and other weighty stuff, no fun at all.

Posted by: Allen W. Wright at July 9, 2005 03:48 PM

Well, it was nice to see the Thing and the Human Torch in a movie. I'm not sure who those extra-dimensional impostors claiming to be Reed, Sue and Dr. Doom were though.

(If they are going to steal another movie badguy's origin for Doom, why not use Magneto's? After all, the more layered Magneto story owes something to Doom.)

I came in thinking it was would be totally crap, and so I found myself pleasantly surprised by some the Johnny and Ben stuff. If I had gone in expected a good movie, I'd have been very disappointed.

It wasn't Catwoman bad. But it still felt very paint-by-numbers.

Allen

Posted by: Allen W. Wright at July 9, 2005 03:49 PM

Well, it was nice to see the Thing and the Human Torch in a movie. I'm not sure who those extra-dimensional impostors claiming to be Reed, Sue and Dr. Doom were though.

(If they are going to steal another movie badguy's origin for Doom, why not use Magneto's? After all, the more layered Magneto story owes something to Doom.)

I came in thinking it was would be totally crap, and so I found myself pleasantly surprised by some the Johnny and Ben stuff. If I had gone in expecting a good movie, I'd have been very disappointed.

It wasn't Catwoman bad. But it still felt very paint-by-numbers.

Allen

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at July 9, 2005 05:31 PM

On reflection, comparing FF to "The Incredibles" does an enormous disservice. Mr. Incredible, Elastigirl, Frozone, even Violet and Dash, all start off knowing what their powers are, and used to a world in which there are superhumans.

The FF may or may not exist in the same movie NY that's home to Spider-Man and/or the X-Men, but even if they are, it's still not the sort of costume-bustling busyness that Metroville was in "The Incredibles". Reed, Sue, Johnny, and Ben all have to get used to the idea that 1) superhuman powers exist, and 2) they've got 'em. I think an inter media res opening, such as that used in "The Incredibles", would have given the FF short shrift. The next movie can open that way, though - maybe opening with Our Heroes defending their home against an attack by the Silver Surfer, thus starting the setup for Galacticus' appearance in the third film... :)

Posted by: Rene at July 9, 2005 06:18 PM

"The critics were so harsh! I don't get it. I suspect that part of the problem lies with the nature of the Fantastic Four itself. In order to make this film more "grown up" they would have had to distance themselves from the comic more than they did. These critics wouldn't have liked the FF comic either is my guess."

Yeah, you gotta take the critics with a grain of salt. One critic complained that Victor von Doom was a silly name, for instance. That is like when Mark Waid talked about the basic suspension of disbelief you gotta have to start to enjoy the superhero genre.

Still didn't saw the movie, though.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 9, 2005 07:09 PM

I just got back from seeing FF.

I really enjoyed it. My wife said it was "ok", but she was smiling and laughing along with everybody else.

Overall, I like the approach they took to the film. I felt they did well enough to really show each character and such.

As for Doom. Well, he never impressed me in the comics, and I think this movie actually does a good service for him - it actually shows the man behind the mask, something I've never personally seen in the comics. Sure, it may not be the same man as in the comics, but it's something.

Tying the two together in a single origin works well as well to keep the story going.

As for SS and Galactus in the next film, I suppose that would depend on who has the rights. I thought I read that somebody did pick them up, and I'm not sure it's Fox.

Just found an article via a yahoo search saying Chris Columbus (who was executive producer on FF) is attached to direct a Sub-Mariner film. But it's for Universal, not Fox.

So, while Sub-Mariner is a logical choice as a hero/villain in an FF sequels, you'd have to see a pretty unique agreement when the rights to the characters are owned by two different companies.

It's why Ulrich (sp) in the Daredevil movie doesn't work for the Daily Bugle.

It sucks, and I'd love to see some stuff mentioned between movies, but these studios aren't about to do that unfortunately.

Posted by: Da Guy at July 9, 2005 07:09 PM

Nice site, no forum though. You might want to visit this site: http://www.adelaidecomicsandbooks.com and have a read of the blog - it's a discussion about PAD's latest Hulk comic...not nice.

Posted by: Clay Eichelberger at July 9, 2005 07:38 PM

[quote]As for SS and Galactus in the next film, I suppose that would depend on who has the rights. I thought I read that somebody did pick them up, and I'm not sure it's Fox.[/quote]

Yup, Fox has both of those characters. I've read several interviews where Tom Rothman (Fox Filmed Entertainment Chairman) has said that Silver Surfer will be the next big Fox/Marvel project after [i]X3[/i] and that Galactus will be a part of that story.

As to FF, I haven't seen it yet...I've been busy trying persuade my non-fan wife that we should go!

Posted by: gary at July 9, 2005 08:02 PM

avi arad says they are thinking about puppet master right now for the sequel

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 9, 2005 08:42 PM

Puppet Master? Eh.

I say go big--if you can't do the Surfer and Big G, go for the Inhumans, or the Kree/Skrull war. Or Him. Maybe Her. Oh heck, make it Them.

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 9, 2005 08:43 PM

20 million dollar opening on friday. Not too shabby.

Posted by: David Bjorlin at July 9, 2005 10:33 PM

I, and about half of Cumberland County, saw the movie this afternoon. PAD, if success for the film benefits you, you should be happy; by the time I got there, the first five or so showtimes had sold out, and since most of the people in the ticket line with me seemed to be families, rather than soldiers, I doubt it's a Fayetteville-specific phenomenon.

I really enjoyed the movie. FF was never a comic series that I followed closely, so the departures from comic canon didn't disturb me (and I probably only noticed half of them). The screenplay had the audience cracking up (on purpose, as someone noted above, which puts it ahead of some comic adaptations). I think the writers actually handled Reed's stretching power pretty well. All of the FF have terrible superhero aliases ("Mr Fantastic?" Please.), but there's not a lot the screenwriters could do about that except have Johnny make fun of them.

Pursuant to the discussion above regarding the violence in the film, I would note that there is one particularly nasty moment where Doom offs a corporate executive. There's no blood, and it's some sort of sci-fi directed energy death, but it is something people MIGHT want to consider before taking their kids. The film is still probably less violent than your average Star Trek DS9 episode, though.

Posted by: wade at July 9, 2005 11:20 PM

I don't understand the critics on this one. It doesn't deserve rave reviews or anything, but it's a helluva lot better than Daredevil (which got much better reviews). It's also much better than Punisher, and it looks like FF will finish with the same type of reviews as that movie. Oh well.

The main problem with the movie is the look of it. Direction is pretty bland, effects/production values mediocre. That said, the movie concentrates on character interaction, and I thought they pretty much got the characters right. Evans steals every scene he's in. Chiklis is good in and out of the costume. Doom is changed, but I thought McMahon did a good job in the movie.

The final fight was pretty anticlimactic, though.

Posted by: JamesLynch at July 9, 2005 11:41 PM

I very strongly doubt they'll have Galactus as a villain in any live-action FF movie. Apart from the tremendous amount of CGI that the big purple guy would take, he's literally too powerful a villain for the FF to take. In his first appearance, it took the Silver Surfer (who they're probably working on a movie for by himself).

My vote would be for a mail villain with an atmy behind him or her -- Super Skrull leading the Skrulls, the Mole Man and his army of mutants, Namor and the Atlantean forces... or yes, Doom and the Doombots.

And who else wants to see Jessia Alba dressed up as, and acting as, Malice?

Posted by: Steve Chung at July 10, 2005 01:34 AM

I'd like to see:

The Negative Zone with Blastaar and Annihilus

The Sub-Atomic Universe of the Psycho-Man

The subterranean hordes of the Mole Man

The Skrulls framing the F.F. by committing crimes in their heroic identities

The Kree with Ronan The Accuser and the Sentry Sinister

Posted by: Nytwyng at July 10, 2005 02:49 AM

And who else wants to see Jessia Alba dressed up as, and acting as, Malice?

Wouldn't this require her to first be able to...y'know...act? ;-)

(Sorry...I'm one of those guys who just doesn't get what the big deal is about her. I find her to be attractive on the scale of, "Hey, man...there's the hot chick that works in the food court." as opposed to the "millions of men bow down to her" scale.)

Posted by: John M Young at July 10, 2005 11:04 AM

Can I take two 5 year olds to the New FF movie? The only PG 13 movie we went to with them was last years Harry Porrer movie.

Posted by: JamesLynch at July 10, 2005 11:39 AM

Nytwyng wrote, "(Sorry...I'm one of those guys who just doesn't get what the big deal is about [Jessica Alba]. I find her to be attractive on the scale of, "Hey, man...there's the hot chick that works in the food court." as opposed to the "millions of men bow down to her" scale.)

While I'm not a fan of her bellybutton piercing, I think she has a great face and nice body. She's made herself a permanent comic book fan fave vixen by playing Nancy and Susan Storm. And it's not her personality that got her on the covers of ROLLING STONE, SHAPE, MARIE CLAIRE, and SEVENTEEN -- this month!

Posted by: Umar at July 10, 2005 11:47 AM

Everyone who said it was FUN is absolutely correct. I felt that it slanted way to much on the Fanboy side, but there nothing bad about that for me at all. It was like Daredevil. After seeing it I thought "Well we got our Blade (unexpectedly),we got our X-Men, we Got our Spider-man, I got my Hulk (stupid movie origin aside), okay I can live with the Daredevils. (I couldn't with the punisher. AFter all the mindless straight to videa and blockbuster action movies they made, that mess THAT up? The PUNISHER? How hard was it. Big guns, lots of death, lots of explotions - what was the problem?). I knew exactly where Catwoman was going when I read the first interviews with Holly Berrie saying she never read the book, was going by the Michele Pfieffer role (which I HATED with a fanboy passion) and that the idea behind the story was that there were MANY Catwomen (SUCKED!). That was just the trailer. The movie left no surprises for me at all.

Where the smaller, more "B" movie get their charm is from just remembering the elements that made us love the stories when we were kids (did any of us actually "grow up?") That is what the FF was. The actor playing Reed seemed uncomfortable with the role, I didn't mind Cole and Dr. Doom, but I wish they had went a different direction. Jessica Alba can do no wrong, I am completely waist-down biased when it comes to her so I say what I always say SHE WAS PERFECT.

An Aside: I didn't mind Jessica as Susan Storm. But a geneticist? Common. I am not saying the the actress might not have the ability, for all I know she could be spending all her money finishing 4th year Microbiology. But let keep the American cheesecake, cheesecake. No offense to Denise Richards, Hollie Barry, Jessican Alba, but you all started off as the cheesecake (yeah, Jess, I fell in love with you in Idle Hands). But you do not make convincing Psychialtrists, Nuclear Physicists or Geneticists. Why didn't they just make her a business woman who saw the practical sides of Reed's inventions or the accident that gave the powers or the media attention. I just couldn't buy her a scientist, God Bless my cheuvinistic soul.

Chiklis, Ben - PERFECT. I didn't care about the size, the character was NAILED.

Alicia Masters - I enjoyed the movie, so I'll leave my personal gripes elsewhere. But if they make Puppet Master a Brother Voodoo knock off, I'm on the tower with a high powered waiting for the unlucky director, producer and I'll even throw in the Key Grip.

I don't know how well it will do, it was really FANBOY at it core and in and everywhere else. But I know I had a hell of a time, and I'll own the special director's cut DVD with two disk set and special features when it comes out.

Posted by: ArcLight at July 10, 2005 12:49 PM

Craig J. Ries:

You know, I didn't realize it till after Spider-Man 2 came out, but the one thing missing from the two Spidey movies is the insults.

That's the one complaint I had about the Spidey films from the start. Well...that and he still sounds exactly like Peter Parker.

I realize that part of it is that during a real-time fight there's not as much time to spout wisecracks but it'd be nice if they figured out a way to slip some more in there somewhere.

Chris
(side note: nice that the Typekey thing seems to be working nowadays...but I'm still not getting any sort of Preview to work so I'm hoping this comes out like I wanted.)

Posted by: Chuck W. at July 10, 2005 01:00 PM

Enjoyed the movie, particularly the characterizations--there were several points where I literally had my fist stuffed in my mouth to keep from laughing too loud and disrupting the movie for everyone else. One thing I was particularly impressed with was the exterior shots of the Baxter Building--a wonderful "updating" of Kirby's depictions of the exterior while still keeping a lot of the recognizable shapes intact.

Posted by: KET at July 10, 2005 01:14 PM

"And who else wants to see Jessia Alba dressed up as, and acting as, Malice?

Wouldn't this require her to first be able to...y'know...act? ;-)"

Actually, I thought that Alba nailed Sue Storm's maternal instincts quite capably. But as is usually the case for actresses who sport stunning and exotic physical features (such as Alba or Angelina Jolie), it's always going to be their beauty that folks will take more public notice of instead of their acting ability.

KET

Posted by: Ali T. Kokmen at July 10, 2005 03:36 PM

Posted by Batman:

hey there pete, i was reading that you've written a few screenplays and/or teleplays, but i can't find any of your work on IMDb, how come? and what screen stuff have you written?

Take a look at:

http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0203035/

Posted by: Mark L at July 10, 2005 05:23 PM

I took my 11-year-old daughter to see it today. It wasn't as bad as the critics made it out to be, that's for sure.

Well, for my money, all of the main four were right on. Sure, Reed was a geek, but (I guess because I am a geek) I enjoyed watching Reed coming to grips with the fact that there are risks worth taking. The Johnny-Ben interaction was probably the best part of the movie (the crumpled car and the pie had to be my favorites). Sue didn't really change much in this movie, except that she realizes she has to hit Reed over the head more.

Doom, on the other hand, was bland, IMHO. Corporate bad guy on the verge of losing it all blames the hero. A little more depth to the character would have been nice. Most superhero movies rise or fall because of the bad guy. That's FF's main weakness this time out (I'm assuming there will be a sequel).

As for my daughter, she liked the movie a lot. Her favorite powers (hey that's what all kids think of, right?) are invisibility and elasticity. See PAD: there's someone who likes Reed :)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 10, 2005 05:34 PM

It wasn't as bad as the critics made it out to be, that's for sure.

Between the box office gross of $56 million and all the positive fan reviews, I'd say the critics missed the point.

Posted by: Nytwyng at July 10, 2005 06:24 PM

Actually, I thought that Alba nailed Sue Storm's maternal instincts quite capably. But as is usually the case for actresses who sport stunning and exotic physical features (such as Alba or Angelina Jolie), it's always going to be their beauty that folks will take more public notice of instead of their acting ability.

Considering I don't see the big deal about her appearance, her acting ability's on display front and center to me.

I stand firm behind my earlier statement regarding her being miscast as Sue. I don't feel she looks the part...I don't think she's capable of performing the part (and doing it justice).

In all fairness, I really only think one bit of casting was dead-on perfect, and that's Chiklis. The other four central roles just seem like they'd fit other actors like gloves....

Clooney wanted the part of Reed, and I can see that working.
Elisabeth Rohm of Angel and Law & Order would make for a great Sue alongside Clooney's Reed.
Seann William Scott would make for a great Johnny.
And, Goran Visnjic from ER would make a great Latverian Doom.

But, hey...difference of opinion's what makes horse races, right? :-)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 10, 2005 07:21 PM

I stand firm behind my earlier statement regarding her being miscast as Sue. I don't feel she looks the part...I don't think she's capable of performing the part (and doing it justice).

Well, Alba did better as Sue Storm than Hallie Barry has done in two movies with Storm.

Clooney wanted the part of Reed, and I can see that working.

I can also see another Batman & Robin...

Seann William Scott would make for a great Johnny.

I can also see another Dude, Where's My Car?

And, Goran Visnjic from ER would make a great Latverian Doom.

I can also see... umm... ok, I'll give you this one. He would be good in the role, but I think McMahon did just fine.

Posted by: Brian Kirk at July 10, 2005 07:24 PM

Have not seen FF yet but all this talk about sequel villains has me thinkin': The Impossible Man! For all our superhero films there's not one Bat-Mite or Mr. Mxyzptlk (that i can think of). Not really a bad guy but can annoy the heck out of heroes...?

Posted by: JonWes at July 10, 2005 10:27 PM

I hope that Puppet Master isn't the villain. I'm sure that Doom will still be in the mix (ala Magneto in the X-men films) and then they'll have a secondary villain. I think Moleman would be cool (maybe they can get Harry Knowles to play him!!!) mostly because we could have some big Subterranean creatures and some exploration of Subterranea. Big monsters and exploration are FF classics.

Puppet Master could be interesting, if he played a conflicted villain to counter Doom's villainy.

Posted by: Mike Stanczyk at July 11, 2005 01:15 AM

I saw the movie this afternoon. Good ride.

Applause:
Well thought out effects. I can't imagine how else it should look when Reed wraps up Ben when Ben's pissed. The Thing's makeup chould have been a little closer to Chiklis' size so Chiklis could better rip out my heart strings...

Gripes:
Casting. Right Ben Grimm. Right Johnny Storm. Wrong Reed Richards. Wrong Sue Storm. They just look too young. They played it as best as they could.

Doom. How stupid *IS* this guy? He severly injured a doctor when Doom should have bought him off. Doom fries the head banker, and several other bankers for taking their money and going home. Hey Doom! Ever heard of blackmail? And when Doom tries to kill the Torch? A heat seeking missle. An off the shelf heat seeking missle. This is *Doctor Doom*? Must have gotten his diploma off the internet.

Who's smarter in the comics, Dr. Doom or Dr. Octopus? Who's smarter in the movies, Dr. Doom or Dr. Octopus? I expected a *much* smarter Doom. Of course, I was a long time Iron Man fan so I may be used to a better brand of Doom. They should have left Doom for FF2 and went with the Mole Man and his Island...

Stunned:
This movie had *how* many stunt people? I stayed to watch the credits and was shocked at the number of stunt people. I think it was twice as many people as the regular cast list not counting extras.

The Puppet Master? How about Geoffrey Holder from Live and Let Die? You know, Baron Samedi, ah ha Ha HA!

Posted by: KET at July 11, 2005 02:59 AM

"Considering I don't see the big deal about her appearance, her acting ability's on display front and center to me."

The "big deal" HAS ALWAYS BEEN her exotic beauty. And if you can't see that...well, dude, then maybe you need to get some glasses or something. :)


"I stand firm behind my earlier statement regarding her being miscast as Sue. I don't feel she looks the part...I don't think she's capable of performing the part (and doing it justice)."

Well, frankly, if you haven't even seen the movie yet, then you're simply making a false assessment.

One of my favorite Alba moments in the film is when Sue has to break up a fight between Torch and The Thing in public. Shortly after, she chases after Ben, half-apologizing for her brother: "Johnny didn't mean it. You know he's always been a hothead." And Ben reacts angrily, "It's not him! It's them!", while waving at the crowd surrounding them. Ben goes on to wish that HE could turn invisible, and Sue's facial reaction reflects total empathy, even though he thinks she wouldn't even begin to understand his situation.


"But, hey...difference of opinion's what makes horse races, right? :-)"

What horse race? It's a movie.

Yet too many folks these days have a bad tendency to prejudge based on what things are NOT instead of what they ARE. That's why so many movie critics basically SCREWED UP when they reviewed FF this past weekend.

Posted by: Cezar at July 11, 2005 06:13 AM

Saw the movie last Saturday with my wife, 4:30 PM, cinema was packed! Wonderful, light-hearted, family-approved film! Well worth the price of admission!

The audience laughed in all the right places. The movie was full of witty one-liners reminiscent for the Lee/Kirby/Byrne issues. Fun-fun-fun for 2 hours, you'll hardly ever notice that 2 hours have actually gone by!

Top 10 FF movie moments...

1. Cosmic storm: AWESOME effect, and you could really feel for Ben and Co. as the storm was about to hit the space station.

2. Movie Johnny Storm: THAT WAS JOHNNY STORM!

3. Movie Thing: You'll believe a man could ROCK!

4. Movie Sue: The first time Jessica Alba walks into the room in the FF space suit...HUBBA HUBBA. and she can act!

5. Movie Reed: 'Boring' and geeky at the start until he loosens up to Sue's charms. Not so boring in the end, as the geek ends up with the girl. Revenge of the nerd, indeed!

6. Those staple FF moments from comics: Reed ties up a raging Ben; Johhny's practical jokes on Ben; FF logo on NY skyline; "It's Clobberin' Time!"; and many more!

7. Those small things: Ben can't 'dial' the numbers on the pay phone; Ben can't pickup small objects with his huge fingers; Johnny burning up his clothes; Reed snoozes, and waks up with his face deformed; Sue nosebleeds under extreme pressure...intense!

8. Ben accepts Doom's offer to turn him back to human (which he does), and later on gives up his newfound humanity to save his best friend: may seem cliche but still well executed.

9. Unlike the 2 other Marvel films which exploded at the box office (X-Men 1/2 and Spidey 1/2 --- which I loved), Fantastic Four never seemed to tkae itself too seriously. It just kept the humor and FAMILY DYNAMICS rolling. It may not be the best superhero movie, but if a perfect superhero movie ever required it to be "fun to watch" nad "all ages (SUPERHEROES ARE FOR KIDS! ...and I'm already 31!)", FF is hard to beat!

10. My wife, and the kids in the movie theater loved it!

Go see it already!

Posted by: Shortdawg at July 11, 2005 07:25 AM

Well, I posted on another board that I utterly hated it. But after reading PAD's and other comments here, I think what I was reacting to the blandness of Doom (and, really, Chiklis aside, the smarminess of the acting). Also, how they actually stopped Doom made no sense to me, and they didn't even bother with a "gotcha" moment (or, for that matter, an on-screen Thing transformation). I still dislike it. But less now. So thanx.

Posted by: Rat at July 11, 2005 08:21 AM

James--did you REALLY want to describe Reed as stiff? Seriously?
And for whoever described Iaon Gruffudd as uncomfortable in the role--that's part of the character, or, as an actor, that's how I saw it, because in the books Reed's uncomfortable with himself, and i thought that came off pretty well.
Too many people worry, though, about established stuff and it keeps them from being entertained. The movie is not the book, nor vicey versey. Trust me, I've seen enough fanboys and girls out there trashing every Trek episode for not being canon to last a lifetime. Just enjoy the story!

Last thing, I gotta go to work, but Jessica Alba...seriously had my doubts when I first heard about her. Well, not the first time I was wrong.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 11, 2005 08:49 AM

Who's smarter in the comics, Dr. Doom or Dr. Octopus? Who's smarter in the movies, Dr. Doom or Dr. Octopus? I expected a *much* smarter Doom.

The difference between Doom and Ock, at least, is that they left open a possible return for Doom.

Which means, if it is well-written, we could see a much better Dr. Doom next time around.

Was Dr. Doom the end-all menace in the comics in his first appearance? Probably not - he probably grew nuttier & more powerful over time.

Posted by: AdamYJ at July 11, 2005 09:27 AM

Just saw the movie and I thought it was pretty good all things considered. FF has never really had any of the themes like responsibility in Spider-Man or tolerance in X-Men. The FF's main draw has always been the characters' personalities and family dynamics and the cosmic scale of their stories. The scale was pretty much undoable in a Hollywood movie that actually had a budget (can you imagine how much special effects it would take to create something like the Negative Zone, Subterranea or Skrull World?) So the full power of the movie fell on the characters and they were pulled off perfectly. Johnny and Ben were perfect. Sue was spot-on and compared to some actresses I've seen, Alba did great. I thought they did a great job with Reed Richards. I think Reed's a hard character to get right. You get him wrong and he seems like a stretchy sitcom dad from the '50s. This movie did a great job of emphasizing the strengths and flaws that make Reed Richards unique, notably his being more comfortable with scientific phenomena than with people. I could complain about Doom, but I thought many aspects important to Doom were there. Namely, his ego. Everything about Doom always came down to ego. And as we saw from the ending, his story is just beginning. Story was a little weak, but they did the best with what they had. SOP in comic movies these days is to create a story that's origin based and utilizes the heroes' most popular enemy. I find it hard to imagine another way to create an Origin/Doom story for the FF. If you look at Spider-Man, they actually had to have two stories in that movie (one was the origin, one was Green Goblin).

Anyway, that's my two cents.

Posted by: Charlie Griefer at July 11, 2005 09:45 AM

Nytwyng:
Clooney wanted the part of Reed, and I can see that working.

Craig J. Ries:
I can also see another Batman & Robin...

Personally, I love Clooney. As horrible as Batman & Robin was (and make no mistake about it...it was the horrible stuff that horrible scrapes off of the bottom of its horrible shoes), I don't see him taking the blame for it.

But as far as Clooney as Reed, I don't see it. Reed is, of course, a little geeky and unsure of himself. I have a hard time seeing Clooney pull off anything other than smarmy and cocky ("so sue, want to see how far I can stretch" as he flashes the trademark clooney grin with a twinkle in his eyes).

Posted by: David Fiore at July 11, 2005 10:36 AM

I absolutely agree, PAD!

Posted by: Robbnn at July 11, 2005 10:37 AM

Okay, clearly there are two different FF movies out right now; the one you all saw and the one I saw.

I was bored out of my mind. I went in expecting not-good, but fun. I got not-good and incredibly dull. These were all problems easily dealt with at the script level, let alone decent direction.

They were celebrities from a single event that they caused????

Reed was miscast and boring - inactive, hesitant characters make for boring characters.

Johnny - the only (dare I say) bright spot of the film. Though Ben refered to him once as blonde, but he wasn't.

Ben - Good actor, looked like he was made out of Belgian Waffles. But - "I look horrible! I think I'll do nothing but hang out in public places!" (and his wife/girlfriend goes for a walk in New York in her nightgown... ????)

Sue - wore more makeup than Ben and looks down right weird - I've never seen the actress before and don't mind if I never do again.

Doom - Are those real eyebrows?

They are refered to as super-heroes before ever getting costumes or fighting anyone (suggesting that other superheroes exist, by the way). And all they do is fight in self-defense.

I can see wanting to cure Ben, but why cure themselves? They have powers, after all. I'm with Johnny on that one.

This isn't a comic where you have issues to develop things. It's a movie (an ACTION movie) where you go BANG out of the shoot). There is no ticking clock, no sense of peril, nothing beyond wanting time to work on their problems (and Ben turns down getting cured again when all they need is a better power source???)

No sweat on the blood thing, Peter. It was brief and miraculously gone in the next shot. It was suitable for kids, in my opinion. Not sure why it got a PG13.

To sum up my opinion, it was a low-budget made for television movie. It was maudlin instead of fun. If instead, you have three people who's world just opened up because of these powers and now they can do anything and DO do everything, dragging along their misshapen buddy who has to occassionally remind everyone of the downside to powers, THEN you have a fun movie.

And for the poster who took exception to my describing Byrne as ponderous - I love reading, but a bazillion word balloons and four pages of Sue looking at her new house in the 'burbs IS ponderous. It was a different time, and I know there were some really good issues, but not in that trade paperback. Renee, thank you for your understanding.

Posted by: Den at July 11, 2005 10:38 AM

First, Clooney needs to learn how to act.

Second, he should be kept far, far away from any comic book-related movie.

And so should Joel Schumacher.

Posted by: Jerome Maida at July 11, 2005 10:48 AM

You know, after reading some particularly nasty reviews and thinking about the last few Marvel movies, I approached this film with a bit of trepidation.
So, I'm happy to say I thought it might have been the most fun Marvel movie yet, at least for me.
Everyone acted in character. Alba was more than fine. There was humor, cool special effects and a villain who actually had a motivation to hate the heroes.
Think back, what REAL good reason did the "Green Goblin have for hating Spider-Man in the first film of that franchise?
Also, in the two Spider-films, the two X-films and even "Batman Begins", the means to acheieve the goals of the villains are never quite made clear. Really, explain Doctor Octopus' grand scheme and motivation behind it in "Spider-Man 2", win valuable prizes.
This was different. This was cool. The focus on Ben was a smart move.
But as some other posters have stated, part of the reason so many critics (and fans) are griping is because it didn't meet THEIR expectations. Our movie reviewer constantly uses terms like "comic book spirit" of the piece when describing comic book movies. See, he already has preconceived notions of what a "comic book movie" should be. Likewise, many were against the idea of Alba as Sue Storm from the get go, and many critics upon hearing that she would be portraying a scientisy, immediately sneered and looked for something to attack in her performance from the get go (since, in their opinion, I guess all female scientists are all unattractive hags).
Doom could have been a stronger villain, but I get the feeling once he is revived and is monarch of Latveris, he will be much more formidable.
And can we please give George Clooney a break? He didn't mess that franchise up. It wasn't him who put Bat-nipples on costumes, cast Schwarzenegger instead of Patrick Stewart as Mr. Freeze, have ridiculous portrayals of Ivy, Bane and basically everybody, and he didn't write the cornball dialogue.

Posted by: Jerome Maida at July 11, 2005 10:52 AM

"Not sure why it got a PG-13."

From what I understand it's Sue Storm's adventures with her invisibility, in which she has to strip to slink away unnotices, is caught briefly in her underwear, and is then imagined to be naked.
If true, that's just ridiculous on the MPAA's part.

Posted by: WarrenSJonesIII at July 11, 2005 11:03 AM

I watched the movie on Friday opening day and I absolutely loved it.

I didn't have the same problem with Von Dooms character as Peter did, but then I loved this actor on Charmed and as far as I was concerned he could do no wrong.

Right now Knight Arthur is making the rounds on premium cable and Ionn (Lancelot) was an extremely likeable character, I don't understand why the critics felt that Mr. Fantastic was stiff. If you read Stan and Jacks silver age comics this was Reed Richards.

Overall I liked this movie more than Batman Begins but I will pick them both up when they ship on DVD.

Watch the movie if you are a comic book fan you won't be disappointed.

Regards:
Warren S. Jones III

Posted by: Jerome Maida at July 11, 2005 11:06 AM

"Why give Alicia drawing tools if she didn't draw anything?"

She was probably coming back from drawing something. I try to bring a pen, pad and tape recorder wherever I go in case something happens, but that doesn't mean I'm going to generally be writing when I'm trying to relax in a bar.
The scene got across that she WAS an artist. For this movie, for me, that's enough.

Posted by: WarrenSJonesIII at July 11, 2005 11:08 AM

Quote:

Posted by: Den at July 11, 2005 10:38 AM
First, Clooney needs to learn how to act.

Second, he should be kept far, far away from any comic book-related movie.

And so should Joel Schumacher.

End Quote...

Truer words never said.

Regards:
Warren S. Jones III

Posted by: Den at July 11, 2005 11:11 AM

And can we please give George Clooney a break?

I'll give him a break when he stops sucking. No, he wasn't the only thing wrong with Batman and Robin, but that doesn't mean he did a good either.

And B&R wasn't the only movie he was terrible in.

I still haven't seen Fantastic Four, but with the horrible reviews, I'm wondering if I shouldn't just wait for the DVD.

Posted by: John at July 11, 2005 11:33 AM

From what I understand it's Sue Storm's adventures with her invisibility, in which she has to strip to slink away unnotices, is caught briefly in her underwear, and is then imagined to be naked. If true, that's just ridiculous on the MPAA's part.

Johnny is also imagined to be naked after burning up the slopes.

But that would be ridiculous too.

Posted by: Bobb at July 11, 2005 12:02 PM

We'll probably wait for the DVD for this. not a huge FF fan, and with the new baby coming soon, we're kinda stingy on the entertainment spending (I know, there's a side of my brain screaming that we should be seeing all the movies we can now, while we still can, but the theater experience just doesn't have the same magic it used to).

Just responding to a few points raised by Jerome on other issues:

Spidey-1 was like 2 movies fused by a montage...Spidey's origin, and Goblin's origin. The first half...Spidey's origin...was fantastic. After that, it went downhill. It might have been very faithful to the images and themes of the comic, but it was forced. Because instead of evolving over the course of months and years in the comic, it was forced to fit into a 2+ hour movie. As an audience, we know Gobbey hates Spidey, but because of the time constraint, the movie doesn't get to show us that.

I'm not sure why a villians means are necessary to show...it's not enough to know that Magneto has a device, powered by gravity, that changes humans to unstable mutants? We need to see ledger sheets showing how he financed it, researched the tech, and had it built?

Still, I'll at least answer the Doc Ock motivation: His machine was intended as a new power source. He arms were programmed with the singular goal of making that fusion machine work. When the inhibitor chip was destroyed, Ock became subject to the arm's programming. Completing the experiment became his driving motivation. Until he learned to control the arms better, that goal tinged all his actions.

I absolutely agree that most complaints I read about comic films are of the "I would have done it differently" variety. I think it's almost funny to read references to Alba's portrayal of a scientist, and how "unreal" it was, leading to a dislike for the film. In Hulk, Jennifer Connely purposefully (either on her own, or because of direction) avoided the glamorous look exactly because of the perception that you can't be both smart and pretty.

I also agree with not laying B&R on Clooney. Dislike him if you want because he hasn't shown a lot of range (I hear seeing him in Solaris changes that opinion of his talent), but don't put the demise of the Bat Franchise on him. Someone on this site (or maybe it was Newsarama) about some of the other stuff leading to Batman Forever and B&R...and it had much more to do with internet chat and focus group reaction. Schumacher was tasked by the studio to make a more "comic-ey" franchise, and he succeeded. It sounds like FF is a decent blend of camp and serious comic action. Both the Spider-Man and X-Men franchises have less camp...of which I'm glad...and variety is going to be essential if comic-based movies are going to survive.

We go to comic movies not to see Schindler's List or Saving Private Ryan, but to essentially see James Bond in tights.

Posted by: Rene at July 11, 2005 12:21 PM

"To sum up my opinion, it was a low-budget made for television movie. It was maudlin instead of fun. If instead, you have three people who's world just opened up because of these powers and now they can do anything and DO do everything, dragging along their misshapen buddy who has to occassionally remind everyone of the downside to powers, THEN you have a fun movie."

60s Marvel Comics was hardly "fun" in the way modern fans use the word (as if to describe bright, light stories featuring heroes who enjoy being heroes). It had it's many camp moments, but as far as the heroes's personalities go, "maudlin" is a good word to describe it. A even better word would be "tragic".

It seemed like the only FF member who enjoyed being a hero was the Human Torch. Sue seemed to want a normal life, the Thing wanted his humanity back, and Reed was torn between guilt for Ben and insecurity as how to deal with Sue, even though Reed was the one with the sense of duty to mankind.

Johnny was the only one who remained more or less angst-free, until he met Crystal...

But I can see how a movie dealing heavily with the "origin" would be kinda light on action, and that would be a problem to some.

"And for the poster who took exception to my describing Byrne as ponderous - I love reading, but a bazillion word balloons and four pages of Sue looking at her new house in the 'burbs IS ponderous. It was a different time, and I know there were some really good issues, but not in that trade paperback. Renee, thank you for your understanding."

No sweat. :) I understand you, but that don't mean I exactly agree with you, since I do like yesteryear's style, and as far as the FF is concerned, I think John Byrne is God (well, okay, Stan and Jack are God, Byrne is more like Christ then).

But not even God is infallible. The "moving to the suburbs" sub-plot seemed at the time as if it would be a big change for the FF, but it went nowhere. It started from a logical development (Reed and Sue worrying about Franklin), but it lasted very little.

I suppose Byrne simply came to the conclusion that secret identities just don't work for the FF, so he mercifully dropped it. But still we had the Mephisto story to wrap it up that I think was pretty cool.

Posted by: Den at July 11, 2005 12:45 PM

I also agree with not laying B&R on Clooney. Dislike him if you want because he hasn't shown a lot of range (I hear seeing him in Solaris changes that opinion of his talent), but don't put the demise of the Bat Franchise on him.

Well, the Bat Franchise is now back from the dead.

Like I said before, Schumacher did suck as the director, but I fail to see how that redeems Clooney. He phoned in a wooden, dull performance. Saying he had a crappy script and poor direction to work may be true, but it's not an excuse.

Posted by: Robbnn at July 11, 2005 01:02 PM

Renee, I left out the Doctor Octopus issue in the trade that was very good, one of my favorites of JB's run. I didn't say I didn't like it, either, just that it was ponderous (I was amused that the galaxy's best justice system, in the Trial of Reed Richards, starts with the assumption of guilty until everyone feels you're innocent. No reasonable doubt or anything).

Maudlin just doesn't work for action movies, and SuperHero movies are action movies. (TMI follows: caffiene and popcorn shrink my bladder to the size of a walnut, making at least one trip to the can during a movie necessary. Normally choosing the spot to go is agony... no such problem here, but apparently I missed the Doom blowing a hole in a guard).

The comics story of them pursuing adventure in a space ship - then a hyperdriven space ship - hints at the adventurer's spirit that infuses the FF. These guys don't go on patrol, they go on adventures! While seeking to improve human DNA is a nice goal, Reed Richards - Researcher doesn't lend itself to much.

If they do a sequel, I'd go with the Skrulls. I'd love the Inhumans, but budget problems wouldn't allow much. The goal would be visual bad guys who don't wear full face masks.

Posted by: Rene at July 11, 2005 01:27 PM

"The comics story of them pursuing adventure in a space ship - then a hyperdriven space ship - hints at the adventurer's spirit that infuses the FF. These guys don't go on patrol, they go on adventures! While seeking to improve human DNA is a nice goal, Reed Richards - Researcher doesn't lend itself to much."

No doubt about it, a sense of adventure and awe has always been a Lee/Kirby trademark, specially on the FF. I only disagreed with the implicit assumption that except for Ben the FF was/should be happy and well-adjusted and elated to have powers.

There was a pretty cool combo in 60s Marvel, equal parts awesome adventures (associated with Kirby) and angsty, tortured heroes (associated with Lee). People usually associate think only Spider-Man and the X-Men had problems, but really it was everywhere. Thor, Iron Man, Captain America, they were all incredibly angsty.

Re: "Trial of Reed Richards". That was great, though controversial. I certainly wouldn't want to be tried by those aliens. Not only you start from guilt and has to struggle uphill, but you're only scott-free if you completely convince EVERYONE attending it that you're innocent. Talk about draconian. :)

Posted by: Mark L at July 11, 2005 01:40 PM

Reed was miscast and boring - inactive, hesitant characters make for boring characters.

I think it has more to do with the character than the actor. Reed is an introspective thinker, which can work well in comic monologues, but hard to translate to the screen. Gruffud took a similar character (Hornblower) and did wonders with it, so I think it's as much the script as anything else.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at July 11, 2005 01:54 PM

Clooney did indeed have something to do with the suckitutde that was Batman & Robin.

The first sign I had that it was going to be a really bad film was during an interview Clooney gave during post-production, when he said that his interpretation of the character borrowed heavily from the man he thought played Batman best - Adam West.

Adam freaking West, for crying in a Bat-bucket!!

That might have worked if the movie series was supposed to be a badly-written, campy parody of action flicks and superheroes - but it wasn't. It was supposed to be an adult, shadowy, respectful treatment of the Dark Knight. Even Michael Keaton was more believable as a conflicted almost-anti-hero!

Schumacher had even more to do with almost destroying the movie franchise, of course. (Note to Joel: We get it. You're gay. Thanks for the bulletin. Guess what - we don't care. Do what you want in your private life - just don't screw up an icon with your personal obsessions, 'kay?)

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 11, 2005 02:06 PM

I still haven't seen Fantastic Four, but with the horrible reviews, I'm wondering if I shouldn't just wait for the DVD.

And if you rely solely on the reviews, you would think this movie only made about $10 million this weekend.

But it made $56 million.

It was well earned.

While I read critics rewviews as much as anybody, I think, as I said before, these guys really missed the point: this isn't meant to be a serious, dark, completely angst-ridden movie like Batman Begins and (to a degree) Spider-Man.

It was meant to be fun.

I think critics have forgetten what it's like to go to a fun movie.

Posted by: Den at July 11, 2005 02:14 PM

While I can't say for certain whether every single critic in the country has forgotten what it's like to go see a fun movie, I have to wonder if the huge openning weekend has more to do with the tremendous amount of hype put behind this movie.

Besides, popular doesn't always = quality.

I'll watch the movie eventually and then judge for myself.

Posted by: Bobb at July 11, 2005 02:49 PM

Well, carp, Den, I can't dig up the link...I found it at least enlightening. I'd always just blamed Schumacher. After reading that it was the studio's (WBs) decision to radically alter the franchise away from the Burton vision, I spread the blame around. WB instructed Schumacher to inject more color, more camp, and lighten the tone from serious back to "comic-ey," because the PTB at the WB felt that Elfman's take just wasn't commercially sustainable.

And to a certain point, I think they were right. The original Batman took in $251 million, Returns $162 million, and Forever $184 million. Returns was a failure on a lot of levels, and while Forever wasn't that much better, it at least showed some improvement.

If you take the understanding that Schumacher was making a movie following the PTB at WB, at least so far as Returns goes, he made a good movie. Not from the comic-fans view, and not from most mainstream movie audiences, but enough that it warranted another shot. B&R, in opting to follow (and most would say one-up Forever) was doomed from the beginning. Clooney's decision to ape West was in keeping with the overall tone of the production: They WANTED to channel the BIFF! POW! of West and Ward. But, again, I'd lay that more on the hands of the studio producers, and not so much the talent.

Just be thankful we didn't get a late 90's Superman movie that ended with a non-long-johned Supes battling a giant spider.....

Posted by: Den at July 11, 2005 03:09 PM

In many ways, I think Burton's vision of Batman was every bit as flawed as Schumacher's, with the horribly miscast Michael Keaton. Plus, Burton isn't exactly my first choice to direct an action movie. Unless the action revolves around a quest for a hug.

Then again, maybe I should be happy he didn't insist on Johnny Depp.

Oh well, as they say, fifth time's the charm.

Well, maybe they'll say that now that we finally have a Batman movie that gets it right.

As for the Jon Peters Superman: Yeah, we dodged a serious bullet there. I think WB is finally waking up to the fact that the people down in that little comics shop they own might actually known something about what makes these characters popular.

Catwoman might have something to do with that.

Posted by: Oscar at July 11, 2005 03:10 PM

My opinion: I liked it! I read all of these negative reviews and excepted it to be crap. I was suprised when it wasn't.

My complaints: It need more action. The final action sequence was way tooo short. 5 minutes? Also. Dr. Doom need a 'voice.' Victor Von Doom was Christain Troy the whole movie. Even when he was Dr. Doom, he was Christian Troy.

Other then, I'd recommend it!

-Oscar

Posted by: Bobb at July 11, 2005 03:26 PM

I'm willing to accept the horrible idea that was Catwoman if it means more films like Begins. And as much as I loved Burton's Batman at the time (might have been the first movie I went to see more than once), I've really come to dislike it. It's a decent movie, especially for it's time, but not what I'd call a good Batman movie. I always thought of Batman and Returns as Elseworld's stories.

Maybe Depp couldn't pull of Bruce/Bats...but could he do a villian? Mad Hatter maybe?

Posted by: Den at July 11, 2005 03:40 PM

Regarding Johnny Depp in Batman:

As someone once said about a different actor, "I'd cast him as Thomas Wayne, that way I could look forward to seeing him get shot."

Posted by: Bobb at July 11, 2005 03:56 PM

I was thinking having him show up in the beginning as Mad Hatter (his Charly outfit as Wonka makes me think of Jervis all the time) and getting taken out with one punch, hauled off to Arkham, and never seen again. Just to get things started, like a Bond film, where the little vignette at the beginning can have nothing to do with the rest of the film.

Posted by: FunkyBlue at July 11, 2005 04:11 PM

**WARNING** Will contain some semi-spoilers!!!!!!

OK, saw it this weekend. It would have been great if they had Doom trying a grand scheme from Latveria and another villain under Doom's command being the villain focal point.

Doom was the worst part of the film. He didn't seem menacing and the voice acting after he donned the mask was entirely wrong. They should have made him talk with a different voice or inflection. The audio was done so badly that it didn't even sound like he was talking in a metal basketball that is the mask.

Another Doom plotline I didn't like. Why do they write the same villain storyline for the Marvel movies? Ok, here's an example from FF - Corporate mogul has something go horribly wrong and he loses his company, money, etc. He then goes insane for revenge and powerlust that he puts on a costume and hunts down the hero(es).

Wait... That was Spider-Man 1, right?

Thank goodness there was only one real "What happens to a toad when it gets hit by lightning - same as everything else" from X-Men 1 type of dialogue at the end.

Other than that, the FF actors were pretty good together. Johnny and Ben stole the show, though. The interaction between those two was excellent.

Posted by: John C. Bunnell at July 11, 2005 04:45 PM

Maybe Depp couldn't pull of Bruce/Bats...but could he do a villain? Mad Hatter maybe?

To go by the TV ads, Depp already is playing the Mad Hatter in the new Charlie & the Chocolate Factory movie -- all you'd have to do would be to dub in different dialogue.

(I have all manner of reservations about that movie, and the degree to which Depp's Wonka looks like Michael Jackson does NOT help. But it looks much too visually cool not to see on the big screen.)

Posted by: Tom Keller at July 11, 2005 06:18 PM

Um...re: George Clooney. He SUCKED as Batman. However, the one scene in the movie that I liked was him as Bruce, sitting at Alfred's bedside.

Posted by: Tommy Raiko at July 11, 2005 06:41 PM

"Not sure why it got a PG-13."

From what I understand it's Sue Storm's adventures with her invisibility, in which she has to strip to slink away unnotices, is caught briefly in her underwear, and is then imagined to be naked.

If true, that's just ridiculous on the MPAA's part.

For what it's worth, according the to MPAA website, the film got a PG-13 "for sequences of intense action, and some suggestive content."

The "intense action" they're talking about is probably the general summer movie blockbuster stuff (stuff blowing up, people being endangered) and the "suggestive content" is probably Johnny & Sue's sorta-nude moments, to say nothing of the joke about Reed being able to stretch any part of his anatomy.

Posted by: Jonathan (the other one) at July 11, 2005 07:11 PM

"...to say nothing of the joke about Reed being able to stretch any part of his anatomy."

Which just reminds me of one of the lines from an early Straczinsky issue of Amazing Spider-Man, as Peter is soliloquizing to himself about carrying things:

"Why didn't I design this suit with pockets? The FF have pockets in their suits. Reed's alone are huge. But that's because he has to carry interdimensional doohickeys and thingamajigs in them. Or maybe he's just real happy to see Sue..."

Posted by: Nytwyng at July 11, 2005 09:16 PM

Craig...

I can also see another Batman & Robin...

What? Y'mean Akiva Goldsman wrote the FF movie, and Joel Schumacher directed? Man...it's worse than I thought. ;-)

But seriously...despite B&R being the only movie to ever make me want to walk out (including years of film classes), I still believe that Clooney could've made a great Bruce Wayne/Batman if he were given a decent script and a competent director.

I can also see another Dude, Where's My Car?

I can't. 'Cuz I've never seen the first one. ;-)

But, I have seen the American Pie movies, and still think he could pull it off.

*******************************

KET...

The "big deal" HAS ALWAYS BEEN her exotic beauty. And if you can't see that...well, dude, then maybe you need to get some glasses or something. :)

Have some. And a recent eye exam. :-)

But, I still find her "exotic beauty" to be overrated. As I said earlier..."food court" hot...not "international sex symbol" hot.

But, hey, whatta I know...I always preferred Alyson Hannigan to Sarah Michelle Gellar or Charisma Carpenter. :-)

Well, frankly, if you haven't even seen the movie yet, then you're simply making a false assessment.

I suppose you could see it that way. However, the way I see it is that I'm making an assessment based upon my reactions to past performances I've seen of hers. Now, maybe...just maybe...she'll turn my reaction to each and every Jessica Alba performance I've ever seen on its head. Or, maybe...just maybe...she'll prove to me that I was right in feeling she can't pull off playing the "first lady of the Marvel Universe," by showing me Sue in Alba's standard, "lookit the li'l sex kitten" portrayal.

Posted by: Ignorant Jess at July 11, 2005 10:15 PM

Off topic but of interest:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-stein10jul10,0,7035737.column?coll=la-sunday-commentary

Posted by: KET at July 11, 2005 11:44 PM

"However, the way I see it is that I'm making an assessment based upon my reactions to past performances I've seen of hers. Now, maybe...just maybe...she'll turn my reaction to each and every Jessica Alba performance I've ever seen on its head...."

...or most likely, this role still won't change a thing about those earlier 'naive ingenue' performances (which, in my mind, didn't require much of an 'acting' stretch). That still doesn't take away from Alba's accomplished work in THIS film, though.


KET

Posted by: David S. at July 12, 2005 12:13 AM

The "intense action" was obviously the violence, especially Doom's murder of the Board member. Be thankful that PG-13 exists. Otherwise, it could have been an "R," and that would have definitely betrayed the fun aspects of this film.

Since most of these posted comments are spoiler-laden, let me ask this:

Am I the only one who noticed that Stan "The Man" Lee actually got to play a character that HE CREATED instead of a generic walk-on character written for the film adaptation? Willie Lumpkin was always among my favorite "comedy relief" characters in comics and it was nice to see Stan play him, especially since he was too old to play J. Jonah Jameson in both Spiderman films.

I personally believe that Ebert and his "brethren" missed the boat on this film because they have a pre-conceived idea of what a comic book film should be about: guys in tights beating up other guys in tights and that's it! Didn't Stan & Jack create the FF to break the comic stereotypes in the first place? Instead of a teenage sidekick, have a teenage hero who's just as vital as any other superhero? Instead of the stereotypical girlfriend of the superhero who ALWAYS needs to be rescued(my one major gripe with "Batman Begins" by the way: haven't we seen this BEFORE?), make her a superheroine in her own rights and have her rescue the GUYS for a change? Instead of a superhero who's handsome, how about one that looks like a MONSTER...before The Hulk was created? Perhaps these "know-it-all" critics should do their homework as they do with high-profile directors and on-camera superstars... or would that be too much like "work" for them?

Posted by: roger Tang at July 12, 2005 12:39 AM

Perhaps these "know-it-all" critics should do their homework as they do with high-profile directors and on-camera superstars... or would that be too much like "work" for them?

I dunno...it's obviously too much work a lot of comic fans, who were pretty much missing the same things (and more) pre-release.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 12, 2005 09:02 AM

I dunno...it's obviously too much work a lot of comic fans, who were pretty much missing the same things (and more) pre-release.

Agreed.

I was at a Bruce Campbell book signing / movie screening last night, and the guys sitting behind me were talking about FF and how terrible they thought it was because they thought it was "fluff".

It seems like alot of fans have raised their expectations as well (due to films like Batman Begins, Sin City, and Spider-Man 2) and even they cannot simply enjoy a more lighthearted comic book movie.

And now everybody wants to compare every comic movie that comes out to the ones I mentioned above, and, to be blunt, it's pathetically unfair.

Posted by: Robbnn at July 12, 2005 09:24 AM

Actually, I think critics just want a good movie. Well written, well directed, well photographed, well acted. As long as those things exist - or a reasonable combination of a few - you have a good movie. This movie did poorly on such things as dialog, story compression, pacing, tension, action, suspense, stakes, and scope - and that's just the script (and some direction). They are judging it on the merits of HOLLYWOOD, not Marvel. It can be as angst-ridden, and off the beaten path as you want, as long as it's done well. This wasn't. It's better than the Corman film - at least the effects and costumes - but that's not saying much.

Posted by: Jon at July 12, 2005 10:29 AM

You know what makes the FF great? The fact that they are completely dwarfed by their adventures. Their stock powers are just the constant in a book that boasts the Negative Zone, the Hidden Land, the Micro-world and Wakanda. I don't know if any movie is going to go as far out as Kirby did.

Posted by: Mark C. Dooley at July 12, 2005 10:35 AM

Well, with the barely whispered phrase, "Please, Mommy, don't let this suck TOO bad...", I checked it out.

And I did like it as the beginning of a franchise.

The highs: Michael Chiklis as the Thing (inspired casting!). Chris Evans as the Human Torch. Any scenes with those two in it. Ben's seduction by Doom drawn straight out of the comics. The cool Baxter Building. Stan Lee as Willie Lumpkin. The rescue on the bridge. The "4" in the sky. "No, IT'S CLOBBERIN' TIME!"

The lows: The absolute waste of one of the most iconic villains in comics. Nonsensical theft of the iron mask. After all that arguing, suddenly she accepts Reed's proposal??!! Tim Story's uninspired direction. No scenes in Alicia's studio (now impatient for the DVD).

No, this is definitely not the worst of the Marvel films (that singular distinction belongs to THE PUNISHER, a film I can't even talk about without slobbering like a mad dog). It's still several steps below SPIDEY 2 and The X-films, and probably on an even kiel with DAREDEVIL. My hope is that the next film will see a vast improvement (better script, better director, better just about everything).

At any rate, I will be picking up the novelization, because I hear the author is pretty good silk purse out of a sow's ear...

Posted by: BBayliss at July 12, 2005 11:09 AM

Holy Cripes. Call me when a new story has been posted. I'm bored to tears by talk of the FF.

Posted by: Neil Ottenstein at July 12, 2005 11:18 AM

Overall, I thought it was a fun movie, though I did not like what they did with Dr. Doom. I am also wondering whether Reed Richard's financial situation will improve before the next film.

Since it made $56M on the opening weekend, I think the odds are reasonable that they'll make a sequel. Now that the origin is out of the way, I hope they do one of their amazing adventures in the second film.

Neil

Posted by: Jerome Maida at July 12, 2005 11:26 AM

Den,
I am not saying Clooney was wonderful, just that nobody - Bale, Kilmer, Keaton or whoever you want - could have saved a movie with that script and that director.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 12, 2005 11:44 AM

Nonsensical theft of the iron mask.

Erm. I got the impression that the mask was in a case in Doom's apartment. So, no theft involved. I mean, it did say on the plaque that it was a gift from Latveria and whatnot.

Posted by: Bobb at July 12, 2005 11:50 AM

Jerome, I go one further and say that no one, not even Spielburg, could have saved B&R. Schumcher takes a lot of the heat...but I think (and I'll keep looking for the website that has this information) that he made the movie he was told to make by WB. Consider some of his other films: St. Elmo's Fire, Lost Boys, Flatliners, Falling Down, A Time to Kill, 8mm, Phone Booth, and his latest, the film version of the Phantom of the Opera (admittedly, I've not seen it, but from what I heard, it was a faithful adaptation of the stage production).

Some of these are not just good films, but great films. Lost Boys is still one of my all-time favorite vampire movies. And some of these are decidely dark...8mm, Falling Down. And some serious drama...A Time to Kill is a pretty darn good movie.

I'd say that Schumacher's resume' proves he's got chops. So, he was either, on some 20 other films, totally restrained by the respective studio, and only allowed to let his "true" colors shown in Forever and B&R, OR the studio hired him to make a more colorful, more comic-ey, more "fun" version of B&R. That the studio's direction was woefully out of touch with what would sell at the time isn't really the fault of any of the talent involved.

Posted by: James Carter at July 12, 2005 12:31 PM

"Holy Cripes. Call me when a new story has been posted. I'm bored to tears by talk of the FF."

Gotta agree BB. Actually, I have been rooting around in the archives. Lots of realllly cool stuff in there. I reccomend it to anyone who is bored.

Posted by: RDK at July 12, 2005 02:02 PM

Just gotta pipe in (first time on PAD's blog), but I have to say that FF was a sloppy, poorly executed mess of a motion picture - a big step below Spider-Man, X-Men, and Batman Begins. I wasn't expecting much - at least in regards Doom - but I was shocked at how contrived and slapdash the plotting was, with logical inconsistencies and plot holes galore. I didn't mind the SFX (which many critics are harping on), but the characters, much as I've loved then for 30 years, were embarrassingly flat, with only Johnny and Ben occassionally standing out.

All that said, the movie's saving grave was its sense of fun; it didn't take itself too seriously. And by not taking it too seriously, I was actually able to enjoy the movie even though I thought it rather poor.

Ray

Posted by: Bobb at July 12, 2005 02:34 PM

Ray, I guess that's what keeping this a DVD film for me. I really don't care that changes were made to characters and plots...I accept that as a given when it comes to comics. Whether a movie or a new writer comes along, some things are going to be different. It's that the one constant behind the reviews is that it's got some issues just being a good movie. This is, to me, what made Batman Begins the best comic origin movie yet: even taking all the Batman stuff out, and it was just a plain good movie.

FF seems like it has re-hashed things already done in other movies, and isn't even trying to do them better. I've already given Marvel Studios well over $40 (seeing Spider-Man twice in the theater, then buying the DVD). I'm not going to give them another $20 (married now) to see the same movie with different colored tights. Marvel's stable of characters has more than enough diversity that they should be able to, without much effort, produce movies that don't repeat recent works. From all I've heard, FF is a decent summer film, and it looks like people enjoy it enough. But it could have and should have been better, and by not paying to see it in the theater, it's my small way of trying to tell Marvel which kind of movie I'd like to see them make.

Posted by: Jesse Hochstadt at July 12, 2005 03:14 PM

I saw the FF movie last night and generally found it enjoyable - a lot more enjoyable than advance word led me to suspect. To my surprise, the standout character - the one I most enjoyed simply watching when he was on screen - was Johnny, who in the comics has always been the weakest link in the team for me (Ultimate Nullifiers and the like notwithstanding). I also agree with those who've said that the Doom portrayal was disappointing. His motivations _were_ obscure and confusing. They hinted at his vanity by showing his being bothered by his scar (and what ever happened to that falling-out hair?), but then he seemed to embrace being turned into metal!

One point I don't think I've seen anyone else here make is that the downfall of his company made little sense. First of all, he was obviously a guy with a strong business track record, so you'd need an Enron-style debacle to get the bankers to call in his loans. The debacle in question, however, was apparently (I'm not sure this was explicitly stated) what happened up on his space station. Now, if you were a successful businessman who had just been in on the creation (however accidental) of a team of suddenly very popular super-heroes, don't you think you'd be able to spin the situation to the P.R. advantage of your company (and finance tends to follow P.R.)? I got the feeling that there may have been some dropped scenes that would have made more sense of Doom's declining fortunes. As far as I was concerned, they could have instead dropped most of the scenes around Ben's ex Debbie, especially that excruciating bridge encounter, which just left me feeling, "What a bitch!" OTOH, it provided a nice moment when Reed gave Ben the ring he couldn't pick up with his club-sized fingers.

I could make many other comments, but I'll just mention one problem with the Sue Storm character that, again, I haven't seen anyone mention. They took pains to introduce Sue as an accomplished geneticist - in the modern world, we can't have her just be "the girlfriend" - but when it comes time to work on curing Ben of what has presumably been an alteration of his DNA, she leaves all the work to Reed. (Compare this with Ultimate FF, where Reed is portrayed as a physics genius rather than a scientific jack-of-all-trades, and Sue is a brilliant biologist.) And it would have been cool if Reed's machinery looked more Kirby-esque and less like leftovers from Cronenberg's remake of "The Fly."

There are many other nitpicks I could make about the film, and it could certainly have been better, but the fact of the matter is that despite these flaws, I enjoyed it a good bit. I especially loved the classic teamwork displayed in defeating Doom, even if the battle was a bit too brief. (But isn't the correct answer to "What happens if you rapidly cool hot metal?" that it becomes brittle? Or do I have metal confused with glass?)

Posted by: Paul F. P. Pogue at July 12, 2005 03:52 PM

"Am I the only one who noticed that Stan "The Man" Lee actually got to play a character that HE CREATED instead of a generic walk-on character written for the film adaptation? Willie Lumpkin was always among my favorite "comedy relief" characters in comics and it was nice to see Stan play him, especially since he was too old to play J. Jonah Jameson in both Spiderman films."

I caught that too. Plus it was nice to see Stan get a speaking part for a change; isn't this the first time he's ever spoken in a live-action Marvel film?

Posted by: Bobb at July 12, 2005 03:56 PM

He had lines in Hulk, and there was a "look out!" in one of the Spider-Man movies, as he's grabbing someone out of the way from debris. I saw an interview with him discussing his FF role, and he said he ad libbed a good portion of his lines. Not sure how much of that would make it to the finla print, though.

The interview was with Kevin Smith. It's truly fascinating for anyone with a love of comics. One of things I found really neat was how Stan will forget he helped create the characters while sitting in the theater and watching them on the big screen. He's just taken with the marvel (cough cough) of it all, in terms of how todays SFX can actually put into motion the amazing powers these characters have.

Posted by: Randall Kirby at July 12, 2005 05:03 PM

"Why give Alicia drawing tools if she didn't draw anything?"

She was probably coming back from drawing something. I try to bring a pen, pad and tape recorder wherever I go in case something happens, but that doesn't mean I'm going to generally be writing when I'm trying to relax in a bar.
The scene got across that she WAS an artist. For this movie, for me, that's enough.

SHE' S BLIND!!
That's why she's a SCULPTOR.
She can't see to draw.

Posted by: RDK at July 12, 2005 05:20 PM

"This is, to me, what made Batman Begins the best comic origin movie yet: even taking all the Batman stuff out, and it was just a plain good movie."

Bobb, you nailed it. I hope I didn't come across too harsh in my comments, but I'm a decades-long Marvel Zombie (R) who also happens to work in the film biz, so this sort of sloppy filmmaking really galls me. I couldn't care less about their costumes or how faithful the details are to the comics, but I could see the botched development and execution of the film right up there on the big screen. Very sad, especially knowing what this could have been. Hopefully, now that a sequel is all but ensured, a bit more time, money, and care will lead to a much better FF2.

Ray

Posted by: R. Maheras at July 12, 2005 05:25 PM

Paul wrote: "I caught that too. Plus it was nice to see Stan get a speaking part for a change; isn't this the first time he's ever spoken in a live-action Marvel film?"


Stan's cameo was like a slap in the face. His voice is so dang distinctive, I'd have known it was him with my eyes closed. And the fact he played a character who actually had a line -- Willie Lumpkin -- was a nice touch. It could have only been better if Stan had demonstrated the comic book Willie's lone power: Wiggling his ears.

Posted by: David S. at July 12, 2005 10:18 PM

"It could have only been better if Stan had demonstrated the comic book Willie's lone power: Wiggling his ears."

LMBO!

I'm glad that someone else remembered that classic FF issue where they were looking for a replacement for Ben. I think that even Fred Hembeck made that touching scene the McGuffen for the "FF Roast."

Getting back to the film, I thought it was an interesting choice to "re-visualize" Alicia. Interracial relationships weren't even explored in Marvel until the Vision/Scarlet Witch romance in The Avengers. It should be interesting to see how this subplot develops.

Also, I don't recall anything romantic happening between Doom and Sue in the comics. Could this have been an amalgamated plot fusing the SubMariner/Reed/Sue triangle with the traditional "You upstaged me, Richards, for the last time!" origin/re-introduction stories in the comics? Does that mean Doom might crash The Wedding instead of Subby in the sequel? Hmmmmm....

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at July 12, 2005 10:19 PM

I hope I didn't come across too harsh in my comments, but I'm a decades-long Marvel Zombie (R) who also happens to work in the film biz, so this sort of sloppy filmmaking really galls me. I couldn't care less about their costumes or how faithful the details are to the comics, but I could see the botched development and execution of the film right up there on the big screen. Very sad, especially knowing what this could have been.

Ray, any chance you could tell us some of the films you've worked on? I find my enjoyment of something goes up 1000% when I have some connection, however tenuous, to the creative people behind it.

Your comments are spot-on. TI have no doubt that Tim Story wanted to make a good FF movie, just as Mark Johnson wanted to make the ultimate Daredevil movie. Why neither succeeded to the same degree that Raimi on Spidey or Norrington on Blade did is worth pondering. I know many breathed a sigh of relief when Peyton Reed dropped out as director but dman if the man didn't do an amazing job of achieving a "look" on Down With Love...I can imagine him having made one hell of an FF movie.

Posted by: dave w. at July 12, 2005 10:42 PM

BID Big Time. But since there has been some talk of the Spider-Man movies, here goes. Just read in CBG that Topher Grace will be in the next Spider-Man movie. Rumor has it he will take over the role of Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Am I the only one worried that he will play the role of ---The Clone!!!

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 12, 2005 11:35 PM

SHE'S BLIND!! That's why she's a SCULPTOR. She can't see to draw.

Last I checked, you didn't need sight to be able to draw.

Just means you can't see the results. But there's nothing wrong with that.

Posted by: Randall Kirby at July 13, 2005 12:20 AM

It also means your drawings will look like shit.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at July 13, 2005 12:50 AM

I saw the movie the other day. It was filled with plot holes, poor characterized, campy, one-dimensional and shallow, and just flat-out mediocre. Thank God I didn't have to pay for it.

Posted by: Jon Van Gilder at July 13, 2005 01:59 AM

Hi PAD, I've got to tell you that I was one of the disappointed adults in the crowd. I didn't want or expect a "dark" film, I wasn't expecting Shakesphere. I just wanted a film with better writing, directing and the adventure of the comic. The actors were great, they weren't given the story and direction to make a great film.

Posted by: Bobb at July 13, 2005 08:41 AM

Ray, just curious, but do you remember what it was like to see shows before you had industry insight? I nearly minored in theater arts in college, and ever since I first took some stage-support classes, learning a lot of the tricks they use to create "the illusion," I've been increasingly critical of both stage and film productions. Production errors that make it on screen, be they set/prop related, dialogue, or editing, really take me out of the atmosphere the film is trying to create. Wy wife had a hard time getting through Batman Begins the first time because she thought the mole/sty on Bale's nose was playing hide and seek...she'd see it in one scene, not see it in another, or it'd be on the other side of his face.

The opening box office take sure says otherwise, and I'm glad that not all in the movie audience isn't a picky at me. While I don't know that FF is the summer savior that the news is trying to make it out to be, I'm glad that it appears to be doing well enough for studios to continue attempting to make comic-based movies. I've seen all but the Blade sequals, Catwoman, and Elektra (and now FF), and I've liked all of them.

Yes, even Daredevil and Hulk.

Posted by: Robbnn at July 13, 2005 09:28 AM

Bobb, I know you're questions wasn't directed at me, but theatrical training makes bad movies worse, but good movies better. Voice your opinions too much, though, and your friends might not want to see movies with you anymore...

Any chance the DVD will have a director's cut like Daredevil did? If so, I *might* get the DVD (Daredevil made sense with the director's cut - though I liked it to begin with, the DC made a huge difference).

Posted by: Bobb at July 13, 2005 11:07 AM

You're absolutely right, Robbnn. I can't get through a bad movie, and I've ruined a few friends' impressions of movies by pointing out some of the defects I see. On the other hand, when a movie does get things right, it adds so much. And when an average movie does something really clever, it can elevate my opinion. Sky Captain was only a so-so movie, but just knowing how they were doing every shot made it a treat to watch. And I remember seeing people walk out of the first 15 minutes of Moulan Rouge, because it was so over-the-top musical stage on crack production, but once you get past that, it's really just a fantastic old-time movie musical tragedy.

Posted by: Jerome Maida at July 13, 2005 11:20 AM

Randall Kirby,
"SHE'S BLIND! THAT'S WHY SHE'S A SCULPTOR! She can't see to draw"

Craig Ries,
"Last I checked, you didn't need sight to be able to draw. Just means you can't see the results. But there's nothing wrong with that."

Randall Kirby,
"It also means your drawings will look like shit."

Not necessarily, Randall. You aware that Beethoven was deaf, right? So using your logic, there's no way he could have done his pieces, because, how could he make such beautiful, powerful music when he couldn't hear it?
People overcome obstacles in their lives every day.

Posted by: Bobb at July 13, 2005 12:32 PM

Bethoven isn't the best example in this case, as he didn't start to lose his hearing until he was 28, well into his career. Since he was a composer as well as a musician, he (like many such extreme talents) "heard" the music in his head, and he would transcribe his talent into musical notation. By the time he started losing his hearing, he no longer needed to physically hear music in order to create it. I think it's also questionable the extent of his hearing loss.

But I think the point is, you don't necessarily need to have the obvious sense associated with certain forms of art in order to create it. I've read of paintings made by elephants selling for thousands of dollars...and they're at least as "good" as what some fully functional adult humans pass off as "modern" art.

Would a blind person be able to draw a likeness of a specific person? Doubtful, unless they had very accurate dimensional measurements to go from. But someone without sight could certainly use traditional pencils/pens/markers to create some form of art. Whether it would appeal to any individuals is of course up to the beholder.

Posted by: Jon Van Gilder at July 13, 2005 12:34 PM

Jerome Maida: Beethoven was not 100% deaf. He had to struggle to hear his music. He also had a rich musical background before he started to lose his hearing. The problem with the film Alicia is that she's not the comic book Alicia. From what I remember of the comics Alicia was made 100% blind by an explosion of Puppet Master's clay. The film Alicia is a big question mark so the fans revert to the comic book version for reference.

Posted by: Barrett Esposito at July 13, 2005 04:02 PM

There are plenty of things to complain about in the film, but the one that I haven't seen anyone mention is the transformation of the Thing at film's end. At the post-fight wrap party, Reed tells Ben he will get right back to work on a cure, and Ben essentially tells him, "nah, I'm good like this." This after an entire film spent agonizing over his transformation into a monstrosity. This after losing his girl, whose picture he carried around for much of the film. His transformation into a monster shattered her life in many of the same ways it did his, and though her decision to "give back the ring" was certainly not the action of someone ready to honor "for better or for worse," her reason for doing so were at least somewhat understandable.
Ben's story arc is utterly bizarre. Misery to complacency in no easy steps. Had he been placed in a position after Doom returned him to human form of knowing he could not go back to Ben if he reversed the process again, it might have been a little more understandable. Instead, he blows off everything that has led to that point in the story. That he determines that he doesn't want to change back, rather than merely forgiving Reed for what happened and accepting whatever fate has in store for him, is just weird.

Posted by: Randall Kirby at July 13, 2005 04:34 PM

Sre, a person who is blind could draw, because they have hands.

But try this. Close your eyes, draw something. Chances are, it looks like shit. Perhaps if you practice drawing with your eyes closed, you could get better at it.

But if you can't see the paper in the first place, you won't know if your art looks good or looks like shit.

And what are you going to do with your art once you've drawn it?
File it?
How are you going to know which piece is which?
I'm not saying blind people can't overcome obstacles. I have blind friends.
I'm saying drawing is very very unrealistic for a blind person.
(And they don't read comic books, either.)

Posted by: hostile17 at July 13, 2005 04:43 PM

I haven't seen the film, even at this late date. I was really turned off by the fact they made Reed Richards so much younger looking. I figured if hollywood can't even get this fact of casting correct, the film will suffer in other elements. However, I may see it this coming weekend and reserve final judgement till then

Posted by: Joe V. at July 13, 2005 04:43 PM

...I saw the movie the other day. It was filled with plot holes, poor characterized, campy, one-dimensional and shallow, and just flat-out mediocre. Thank God I didn't have to pay for it...

but jessica alba does wear a tight outfit so it all evens out :-)

ALL STAR BATMAN & ROBIN #1 comes out today!!!!!

joe v.

Posted by: Elizabeth at July 13, 2005 05:00 PM

I did take my six-year-old to see it. For the record, a nosebleed does not count as serious blood. :) I did have to cover his eyes at the murders of the guy in the parking garage and the doctor (who was definitely dead, his eyes were open and that's movie-code for "he ain't comin' back no more no more"). But I've seen enough movies to tell when something like that is coming, and I'm quick with the hand-over-the-eyes. That's harder with Wolverine on the screen, I have to say. :)

That said, my son - who adores even the Schumacher Batman movies, the Superman movies, the X-Men and worships Spiderman - was bored. He now worships Johnny the Torch Guy (his words) and flies around the apartment shouting, "Flame On!" But the action wasn't enough for him. First time that's happened in a superhero movie (except "Hulk" - he fell asleep, but he was younger then). :) I think the pacing was a bit off.

I enjoyed it for the most part. Wasn't thrilled with Reed, Sue and her eye makeup (which should have gotten credit as an extra) annoyed me. But the Thing and the Human Torch were great. I will agree with analysis of the ending, however - it was so blatantly a setup for a sequel that I found myself slightly cheated.

Still, I think this one's being added to our pantheon of DVDs.

Posted by: David S. at July 13, 2005 09:58 PM

"...the one that I haven't seen anyone mention is the transformation of the Thing at film's end. At the post-fight wrap party, Reed tells Ben he will get right back to work on a cure, and Ben essentially tells him, "nah, I'm good like this." This after an entire film spent agonizing over his transformation into a monstrosity. This after losing his girl, whose picture he carried around for much of the film. His transformation into a monster shattered her life in many of the same ways it did his, and though her decision to "give back the ring" was certainly not the action of someone ready to honor "for better or for worse," her reason for doing so were at least somewhat understandable."


The reason why I didn't comment on this is because Ben's conflicting perspectives on whether he prefers to be the Thing or Ben Grimm has been recycled with each new creative team on the book, so why should the FF film be any different.

It was the on-going "If I'm The Thing, I'm ugly! But if I'm Ben Grimm, I'll lose my superstrength and I can't be part of the team anymore! Besides, Alicia loves to touch my bumpy face. What will I feel like with a 'normal' face to her? Will she stop loving me then?"

If anything, Ben having a wife BEFORE he becomes The Thing made me unsympathetic towards HER when he changed, not Ben! How many times have I heard "Men love women for their looks, but women love men for their PERSONALITIES?" As Ben said, he was the same guy INSIDE despite his appearance. The fact that she couldn't accept it made her look shallow and bigoted! No wonder Ben ended up with Alicia! And I think that it was good writing AND the actress' acting that made her a BETTER choice for Ben. Being able to save Reed and the world from Doom and finding UNCONDITIONAL acceptance afterwards more than likely prompted his final decision. Could he change his mind later? Possibly.

I can remember some John Byrne issues where The Thing became Ben again. He felt powerless and concerned that he could no longer be part of the FF and that Alicia wouldn't "see" him in the same way as before, so Reed developed a special suit for him that resembled The Thing and it gave him partial-Thing strength. Eventually, he fought a super-villain that fired a cosmic ray at him, which caused him to revert to The Thing.

Maybe they'll use that plot in a later film, in the same way that Spiderman II used the "Spiderman Costume found in a Trashcan" storyline.

Posted by: Jerry Colvin at July 14, 2005 08:38 AM

No mention of the autographed photo of Devo in Reed Richards' bedroom? It wasn't merely a fleeting glimpse, it was on screen a good 10 seconds or so...

Posted by: Robbnn at July 14, 2005 09:17 AM

Yeah, changing Ben back should have been a non-repeatable event rather than an event that just required more power.

Hey, maybe Picasso was blind. That would explain a lot...

Posted by: JonWes at July 14, 2005 02:59 PM

I guess originally the movie explained Ben's inability to use the Reversion machine again by saying it used the mutated flowers to somehow run it and there was a limited amount of mutated flower matter to use.

Posted by: HTP at July 15, 2005 12:32 PM

I have been reading the FF since around issue #17, way back in the sixties, and was not disappointed by the movie. I've seen the movie twice now and I actually enjoyed it better the second time. Virtually every movie has plot holes (some more than others) and could be "improved", but I thought this was MUCH better than most of the critic reviews. The two adults and three kids that I dragged along the second time also all liked it, none of them being current comic book fans.

Posted by: Malkie at July 15, 2005 06:56 PM

I've read through some of the statements above (it's getting too long to read all of it) and I have to say the people that criticize this movie are so off. Look I'll admit I'm not a huge Fantastic Four fan. I think I've owned a total of three Fantastic Four comics in my life (No I'm not counting Ultimate FF which I have been collecting since the beginning).

All and all though, I think it was Marvel's BEST team movie thus far and probably their 2nd best movie (following after DareDevil). The writer clearly READ THE COMICS, the casting was strong (Jessica Alba as Invisible Woman just rocked!), and it was a good origin story.

I mean let's take a look at all the hallmark movies that everyone raves are the best Marvel movies. Let's first start with the other team movies, X-Men and X2. Well X-Men started off with a random selection of X-Men characters that still makes no sense to me. There are a few dozen random and pointless changes (like Rogue suddenly becoming reject for the casting of My So Called Life 2000 or how Mystique looks like a blue porcupine and is Magneto's lacky). They stole a great amount from the X-Men characters and they didn't even have an X-Men TEAM. Then we leap to X2, which was a horrible attempt at God Loves, Man Kills and missing the entire point of the story! On top of that, it had to suddenly become Wolverine and those other mutant people.. Not the X-Men. Oh and Jean's amazingly lame death. It felt like it was plugged in at the last minute to make way for the Phoenix storyline, but it wasn't particularly powerful or even good like her original "death" in X-Men. I mean they had at least 2 people who could freeze the water and one who could pulverize the water with his optic blast.. and a whole host of mutants with unknown abilities, so.. let's kill Jean? Yeesh.

Now onto Spiderman which was pretty solid, though I still don't like Tobey McGuire as Peter Parker. He's just too bland and emotionless (he apparantly went to the Keanu Reeves school of acting). Add to the fact that Mary Jane has been downgraded to the status of weak useless heroine, well it's kind of a let down for me. Oh and 3 times they had to chime in with "With Great Power comes Great Responsibility". It was so overkill. The huge let down though was Spiderman 2 which had plotholes big enough to drive a mach truck through. You have the "arms-made-me-do-it" Doc Ock, the sudden realization that Peter Parker can turn on and off his powers at will, and the gaggy messiah scene as Spidey is pulled off the front of the subway train and the kids say "We won't tell.." while the adults have apparantly just forgotten their camera phones cause you know the realistic thing is that they'd cash in on it.

Now we get to the FF movie which only had a couple major changes. One of them is Doom who is quasi-responsible for his own origin (He could have aborted the mission just like Reed told him) and while it can be easily argued as "Damage control", it's beyond question that they are rather heroic in saving New York City and the people of NYC are probably unaware of Doom's origins. Besides, I think his origin was so fitting since it'd take well over half the movie for him to build an army of robots to fight the FF. Instead they gave him powers, I found that acceptable (some people won't ever like it). The only other major change was the age changes and that Sue and Reed had clearly dated before and broke up before, several times. I liked that. It worked well in the film and it was a way for them to get the two married and having kids (so we can see Franklin Richards on the big screen before we're all 100).

I also think this movie was perfectly acceptable for kids, unless they have some sort of aversion to men wearing tiny pink ski jackets. The majority of the sexual energy in this movie was CLEARLY focused on Johnny (though Sue did look gorgeous as Jessica Alba always does). The man spends a good portion of the movie nekkid. I also think the lack of action was appropriate since they're building a family. It was funny and I throughly enjoyed the film.

Posted by: Jerome Maida at July 16, 2005 04:42 PM

Malkie,
Opinions are of course a point of view, and you're entitled to yours.
But you think DAREDEVIL is the BEST Marvel movie? DAREDEVIL? Other than screwing up Matt Murdock's origin story, making his father a crook, having the Kingpin look and act like a character from a Saturday Night Live sketch, having Bullseye more silly than scary, having the ridiculous playground scene, making Daredevil a murderer so Ben Affleck could feel he had a "character arc", having Elektra be the most lame superheroine in history as opposed to a deadly assassin and having Daredevil inexpicably reveal his identity to the Kingpin...what did you like?

Randall Kirby,
What precisely would make recognizing features you've never seen before and doing them well as a sculptor different than doing the same in a drawing? As a writer, I can say there is something special that goes on when I write, like the pen and paper are an extension of me. And I can't draw a straight line. I would imagine the experience is multiplied a thousand times for someone with artistic ability.

Posted by: KIP LEWIS at July 16, 2005 05:27 PM

>>I'm saying drawing is very very unrealistic for a blind person.

I could not figure out why you were all talking about Alicia having drawing tools. So, when I watched the movie again, I looked for them. Unless I missed a scene, Alicia didn't have any drawing tools on her table at the bar. What you saw was her walking stick folded up.

KIP

Posted by: Rene at July 18, 2005 01:11 AM

I just saw the movie today, and I enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would, from reading the reviews and listening to people. I had thought the movie would be horrible, and it was kinda cool.

I think that perhaps the biggest change was the same they make in most superhero movies. They made it more "realistic", setting it in a world more like our own so the non-comic book fans can understand it easier.

On account of this, there is no "Jack Kirby" wow factor to be found. This is perhaps the biggest change that can turn off some of the fans. But, in this more "down-to-earth" background, it makes perfect sense for them to put a heavy emphasis on the family aspect and on the bickering bit.

And I suppose it's a lot easier to for the public to accept and relate to Doom as a guy who owns a company, instead of a medieval castle... All the changes they made to Doom seem to stem from this: making him more integrated into a modern setting and more integrated with the FF.

Johnny and Ben were perfect. I've heard some complaining about the radical sports angle, but I think it's a perfectly valid update of Johnny. If you want to show that a guy is "wild" in 2005, you have to do more than just make him good at working with hot rods.

Even Reed was not as changed as I've heard. Less confident, more vulnerable, without the Jack Kirby square-chinned big hero angle, but still basically Reed Richards, I think. I didn't cared much for the actor's perfomance, though (I can say the same for Doc Doom. Not that they were horrible, though).

Sue was the most changed of the Four, but frankly, on this day and age I think it wouldn't go so well to make her a girly-girly housewife who just wants to be normal.

Her altered history with Reed and Doom can be considered necessary to give them personal stuff to deal with. In the comics, this angle usually appears when they bring Sub-Mariner in. But I suppose that for a variety of reasons it wasn't possible to squeeze in Namor. So, in the movie, if they wanted to give Sue and Reed something to struggled with, they had to work with what they had already, so why not use Doom and make their relationship more rocky, I can see the people who made the movie reasoning in this direction.

All in all, it wasn't a movie to change my life, but it was good and I can't say it's less faithful to the source than the other Marvel movies. Perhaps Spider-Man (the character himself, not his villains or Mary Jane) was more faithful, but the FF must rank a close second.

Posted by: Rene at July 18, 2005 01:18 AM

Oh, and to the fella who said Ben's change should be a one-time event. Man! How many times Ben has changed back and then reverted to the Thing, just on the Lee/Kirby run alone? Sometimes it seemed like it would crop up once every 6 issues or so.


Posted by: Robbnn at July 18, 2005 10:13 AM

Actually, Rene, I meant that the machine should be a one-time event (as it stands, Ben can change back and forth whenever he wants if a stronger power source can be found). In the comics, correct me if I'm wrong, but Reed et al always found different ways to change Ben back. You rob the character of his angst if he can just go back to the transmogrifier and zap himself when he's lonely.

Alicia in the comics - something that always bothered me were her various sculptures of people she likely could never meet and/or touch (how did she get a perfect rendition of the Hulk's face? Why would the Black Panther pose for her?) and why would a serious artist work solely on Superheroes? Of course, that's just picky-picky (like thinking Ben is an insensitive boob for bringing up the fact that she's blind "but sees the world better than any sighted person" in EVERY BLINKING ISSUE!).

Despite all this, the FF has always been one of my favorite comics (except when various artists butcher the art).

Posted by: RDK at July 18, 2005 08:44 PM

[I]Ray, any chance you could tell us some of the films you've worked on? I find my enjoyment of something goes up 1000% when I have some connection, however tenuous, to the creative people behind it.[/I]

Hey Bill - well, i'm a small (and mostly ignored) cog in a very big machine, but I've worked on the Mummy films, Fast & the Furious, Spy Game, Josie, The Interpreter, the Dawn of the Dead remake, and a bunch of others. All development/pre-production work.

And Bobb... the funny thing is, if it's a good, entertaining film, having any "industry insight" (for whatever that's worth) is hardly ever an issue for me. In fact, it's often easier for me to ignore some of the "flubs" that seem to bother so many "non-pros" (I hate that term because it sounds so condescending, but you know what i mean). I find it real easy to put on my film geek hat and simply enjoy a flick or TV show.

But a bad film - now those I think I have a harder time with, especially ones that I wish were good or think might have been good (like FF) if developed and executed differently and/or better. Geez - that bridge/firetruck sequence in FF had me in stitches due to its multiple contrivances and illogic. I know it was hampered by some reshoots and harsh editing, but there's simply no way to excuse it. And as I've noted above, I've worked on some pretty bad s***. ;)

Ray

Posted by: Scavenger at July 19, 2005 03:23 PM

Saw the movie this weekend, and frankly it was one of the most enjoyable super hero films I've seen. Was it the best made? No, but it was light, fluffy and super fun, and really that's all I ask for.

I agree that the normal voice from Doom's mask wasn't right..but then again, it was just a mask he put on..not power armor, not a speaker system, so why should the voice change?

The only real casting issue I have is that Chicklis seems too old to be this life long protector buddy of Reed's...but he rocked, so we'll ignore that.

Alba was just great. I bought her as a scientist....not sure what people think I scientist is like that normal people can't be them. Cause she's pretty? shurg.

Grufford was dead on too. His accent seemed to slip in a little, especialy in the opening scenes (and i really liked the flower scene...Reed doesn't know how to talk to Sue but remembers some little detail like her favorite flower..and probably it was something she mentioned off hand once and he committed it to memory).

And Johnny was perfect.

Really, this was more Ultimate FF than Lee/Kirby FF, but so what..it was just a great fun movie!

Posted by: Rene at July 19, 2005 11:27 PM

Robbnn:

I get what you meant about the Thing now. This is probably something that could (and should) be better dealt with if the movie were longer. Just like more background on Alicia or even Doom.

But some of the things that usually bother fans don't bother me. I'm not overly concerned with "logic", I'm usually more worried about emotional impact. But yeah, I know that for some of the more analytical folks any emotional impact goes down the drain when there is a lapse in logic, but for this to happen to me it must be something pretty big. I suppose I'm just way more unashamed of being gullible than the average folk.

Re: Alicia in the comics.

Her blindness is the dramatic kind, instead of the real life kind, i.e. she is borderline psychic. She would sculpt people as they "really are" instead of what they appear to be, since she is "unburdened by the prejudices accompanying physical appearance".

I also suppose that in a world were superheroes are real, there would be respected artists dedicated to this theme, just like there were/are artists dealing only with religious matters.

Posted by: Robbnn at July 20, 2005 09:00 AM

Hey, I like that. Empathy brought to a near-psychic level. Someone said that Alicia was blinded by her stepdad's radioactive clay... that could all fit, then.

You raise an interesting point. If superheroes were real, would they be treated like celebrities (as done in the FF movie and oft-times in the comics) or something more? If there's a nervous underlining fear about them (which I think I'd have with people who can pulverize planets -- I mean, I've met a few professional boxers and it's kind of creepy knowing these guys fight for a living and if I get them mad, I could be dead... it's the realization, not the idea that they actually might, you understand) then Alicia's subject matter would make sense. It just seems a little vapid - though these guys put their lives on the line so it's a bit different than movie celebs.

Unfortunately, I can't park logic at the door. When Hawkman hacks a bad guy's arm off and caves in the heads of domestic abusers, it all falls apart if there are no ramifications (not to mention just tapping someone with a hundred pound mace with spikes on it would do major damage, but he does a full roundhouse swing). Maybe that's a reason I've always liked the FF so much. They go broke paying for what they've wrecked...

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at July 20, 2005 09:55 AM

If superheroes were real, would they be treated like celebrities or something more?

Well, that's always been the interesting (and sometimes conflicted) thing with Marvel's characters.

The (Marvel Universe) world seems to love the FF and Avengers. Spider-Man is villified by at least one media company, the X-Men are hated, the military wants to whack the Hulk.

Yet, they're all super heroes, regardless.

So, while it's interesting that people could cheer them on, it's also conflicting that some are hated for being different, yet others are loved for it (when, in a nutshell, they're ALL different from normal people, and it shouldn't matter HOW they became different).

Posted by: Rene at July 20, 2005 08:21 PM

"The (Marvel Universe) world seems to love the FF and Avengers. Spider-Man is villified by at least one media company, the X-Men are hated, the military wants to whack the Hulk."

Ya know, I blame this on the 90s. After the fiasco of the grim & gritty phase there was a "let's go back to the fun" movement in the Avengers and FF related titles that, though pretty good, tried to make them as universally loved, bright, untarnished heroes.

But, before that, were the Avengers THAT loved? It seems like the population in the MU is as fickle as in the real world. They turn against the heroes with surprisingly ease whenever some villain frames the Avengers (it happened many times, with Nefaria, the Enchantress, etc.), they will villify Avengers who don't conform to the All-American stereotype (Quicksilver, Wanda, the Vision, Sub-Mariner, all faced a lot of persecution when they were Avengers)...

It seems to me that, before 1997, it wasn't really the Avengers people loved with such gusto, but some of their more "friendly" members, like Captain America, or the Wasp.

Now, the Fantastic Four is a special case. Even though they also faced some periods where the public wasn't hot about them, they have some things going for them that most heroes lack. Like, they don't wear masks, everyone know who they are, and they're a clear-cut all-american family to boot. What's not to like?