Fantastic Four Reboot Released To Tepid Reception 168
An anonymous reader writes: Another month, another superhero movie based on the Marvel universe. Today marked the release of Fantastic Four, an attempt to reboot a film franchise that did poorly in the theaters as recently as 2007. This isn't the same crew that's been pushing out blockbuster after blockbuster, though — it's the crew that keeps releasing mediocre X-Men flicks. From early reviews, it looks like we can expect to see another reboot in 2025. Rolling Stone calls it "the cinematic equivalent of malware," saying that even a solid cast of actors couldn't save it from failure. A.V. Club says it "struggles to fill out its relatively brief runtime," the NY Times says even its special effects aren't up to snuff. Metacritic shows rare agreement between fans (27/100) and critics (2.7/10), and it does just as poorly on Rotten Tomatoes. Even director Josh Trank seemed to have a problem with the film. Those who have seen it, what did you think?
If you don't have riveting hero(s).... (Score:5, Insightful)
Iron Man is kind of interesting. Batman's cool. Spiderman even, and many of the X-Men. The general public will usually risk those.
But when you start getting into "WHO?" territory, like Guardians of the Galaxy or the upcoming Deadpool, you need an incredible presentation to draw attention. GotG had that. Deadpool looks like it's going to be great. Point is, the further you stray from well-known characters into comic culture, you need a movie so cool that people who don't care about the characters will find it interesting. I still only know GotG as "Starlord, Groot, the funny raccoon, green Zoe Saldana and some red guy. But I'd pay to watch a sequel in a heartbeat.
I don't see F4 having that... zing.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't have riveting hero(s), you darned well better have an awesome presentation.
I disagree. Superheroes are, by and large, boring. They're the good guys! They do good things. Whoopee.
It's the bad guys that really give movies and shows their depth. Incidentally, this is also what keeps a lot of marvel movies from being great; the hero is "meh", and the bad guy is "meh". Thor 2? Iron Man 2?
But when the villain is interesting and dynamic? It can save an otherwise blah movie. Case in point; The
Re: (Score:2)
Heroes can only ever be as interesting as their antagonistic foils.
Well, it depends.
I always say, you can have interesting characters or an interesting story. If you have both, you really have something!
The first Iron Man is a neat example. It's considered a very good superhero movie, but the villains--either the terrorist guy or Tony's partner--are pretty weak. But Tony Stark is an interesting character and Robert Downey Jr. did a great job portraying him. Guardians had a pretty lame bad guy, but the characters were fun enough that we let it slide. I actually kind of
Re:If you don't have riveting hero(s).... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, this would be 20th Century Fox, who retains the film rights to FF (and X-Men) so long as they keep making the movies. So it's not really any surprise how this turned out when a primary motivation for making the movie was "If we don't, then Marvel gets to."
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, Jessica Alba as Sue Storm had EPIC FAIL written all over it from the first press release.
Why?
Re: (Score:2)
Hell, the character Violet in The Incredibles was a better Sue Storm than Sue Storm (let alone Jessica Alba) will ever be.
For that matter, The Incredibles was a better Fantastic Four than any of the Fantastic Four movies, even though Johnny Torch.. er, Jak Jak was just a baby. And when I was a kid, FF was my favourite of the Marvel comics. (Not saying much, I'm a DC guy from the Silver Age.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh...You are aware she plays Lt. Uhura? And she played Anamaria in Pirates of the Caribbean?
Re: (Score:3)
couldn't tell what colour Uhura was due to the lens flares, and what's this Pirates thing?
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget Aisha in The Losers, co-starring with Chris Evans who played Torch in a previous version of Fantastic Four.
Anybody else suffering from superhero burnout? (Score:4, Insightful)
Aside from new movies, all the time, there are so many shows on television: Gotham, Super Girl, Flash, Arrow, Agent Carter, Agents of Shield, Daredevil. I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot.
As a kid, I read comic books. At first, it was fun seeing the super heroes come to life. Now it's getting tiresome.
Also, does every other movie have to be a re-boot of the origin story?
Re: (Score:2)
You're not the only one. Pretty much every superhero movie now seems the same to me; I can't even keep track of which ones I've watched.
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you didn't see Catwoman! Halle Berry in a skin-tight black leather suit with kitty ears, doing with her butt what should be done with a butt like that, and saying "Rowwerrr!"
If you saw that, you'd remember it.
Scarlett Johansson in a skin-tight black suit is an Honorable Mention next to Halle Berry.
Whew...
Re: (Score:2)
My favorite as a kid was always Spider-man. The Amazing Spider-Man reboot was one of the better ones. At least in this reboot Peter Parker has web shooters and reformulates his web solution. The previous Spider-Man movies were okay, but the script writers painted themselves in a corner by having the web shooters being part of Peter's physiology.
My favorite Superhero movie to date is still Dark Knight with Heath Ledger as the Joker. Every time I watch it I still can't help morn his death and think about
Re:Anybody else suffering from superhero burnout? (Score:4, Informative)
Ant Man was surprisingly good.
Re: (Score:2)
Aside from new movies, all the time, there are so many shows on television: Gotham, Super Girl, Flash, Arrow, Agent Carter, Agents of Shield, Daredevil. I'm sure I'm forgetting a lot.
As a kid, I read comic books. At first, it was fun seeing the super heroes come to life. Now it's getting tiresome.
Also, does every other movie have to be a re-boot of the origin story?
THIS! I just don't give a damn about the whole "People become mutants, and fight evil" theme any more. And remakes upon remakes just mkes it boring to me. Even the overdone CG is now boring, and has become a cliche, like the inevitible explosion when a car drives over a cliff shtick.. They're like visual Thorazine.
Seriously (Score:3)
I don't care about any of these movies. All I know is that Deadpool is apparently the second coming of Jesus Christ.
Re: (Score:2)
Is it me, or have 2014 and 2015 so far been really sucky years for blockbuster movies? In most years there'l
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of. If I don't have to do any homework to understand who people are in the movies, that's fine. But if I need to watch all of Agents of Shield, Agent Carter, and the Arrow to understand some particular plot in a movie, I'm going to quit coming out.
After Thor 2, Ant Man is the only other Marvel movie I skipped paying for. I might catch it on TV but I just don't care.
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to reconsider Ant Man. It doesn't have the origin story of the original character, it shows the passing of the torch.
It also doesn't require any knowledge of the Marvel Universe, cinematic or otherwise. The only thing you'll wonder is why there's a security guard with wings in one short scene, maybe why they throw out Stark's name and mention the Avengers at one point. But if you were completely ignorant of the Avenge
Token black guy? (Score:3)
Okay, I'll admit I don't really know my Fantastic Four from my League of Superfriends, or whatever, but the main impression I was left with from the trailer was how they seem to have shoe-horned the black guy into the cast.
I guess the world just isn't ready for a black Reed Richards (him being the leader, and all), and a black Thing would probably be racist, or something? And I guess having the other two (who are siblings) both be black was just stretching credulity too far. Nope, better make the sister adopted.
Re:Token black guy? (Score:4, Insightful)
and a black Thing would probably be racist, or something?
He's already the token Jew.
Remakes are seldom worth it (Score:3)
Redshirts the novel (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
'Red Shirts' as a movie anyone?
They already shot it twenty years ago. It was called 'Galaxy Quest' back then.
Still, maybe it is time for a reimaginabootmake.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh jeez, please don't tell me GQ came out 20 years ago... /me checks
Nope, 1999. OK, that's not as bad. Still though, wow. That's over half my life ago.
I'd totally watch another movie in that vein. Properly-done spoofs are rare and difficult. Sci-fi spoofs (that don't look like garbage) tend to have expensive sets and effects. This makes something like Galaxy Quest a real treat.
Re: (Score:2)
Iron Sky?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was really looking forward to a Rendezvous with Rama movie, unfortunately that appears to have failed. I realize it would be a hard movie to make well, as there isn't an actual bad guy but is primarily about some foolish humans exploring a massive advanced alien spaceship, but it would be a welcome change of pace from the hurricane of remakes that seem to have inundated Hollywood over the past few years.
Re: (Score:2)
I was really looking forward to a Rendezvous with Rama movie, unfortunately that appears to have failed. I realize it would be a hard movie to make well, as there isn't an actual bad guy but is primarily about some foolish humans exploring a massive advanced alien spaceship,
Yeah, too bad that failed, we could have had a shitty movie and a shittier video game out of it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Since the first (or maybe second) Jurassic Park movie we've had the CGI technology to something like The Mote In God's Eye or Ringworld.
Probably ain't ever going to happen, the plots require too much thinking for the average movie audience. (And these are not particularly cerebral books.) (But man, can you imagine the ensemble cast of Ringworld done by somebody like Joss Whedon? Sigh.)
And I shudder to think what they'd do with Footfall. Probably turn it into another Tom Cruise vehicle like War of the Wor
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, whaaaat? That whole "so genre savvy you practically break the fourth wall" thing is definitely not going to be everybody's cup of tea, but I thought the novel told a good story and told it well. It was certainly no amateur effort; the amount of character development, background (like that whole "prologue" scene where the guy realizes right before he dies what the purpose of his death is), plot cohesiveness, in-character insights, and out-of-character commentary on the failures of all too many TV shows
Re: (Score:2)
No, it was a decent idea, it was just a weak novel; I didn't even get through the free preview ebook from Amazon. I've read better fan fiction free on the web.
I'd hardly call it the worst novel of the last 20 years, but giving it a Hugo was a better joke than anything I read in the ebook.
I'l wait for the 2015 BitTorrent release (Score:2)
and give the $10 I could have spent on another reboot to the homeless guy I buy breakfast for every few days.
Re: (Score:2)
So, a cammed release? :P
Glad I got to see FF4 for free (Score:2)
I got a couple of free tickets for a pre-screening of the new FF4 movie. I enjoy pretty much any of the comic book movies, but this one was pretty sad. The story line and the characters were cliche and contrived. Nothing about the characters of the story was believable, and the science was beyond bad. Ya gotta wonder who the moron was that wrote this story and the morons who approved it.
Even Catwoman was better. How much better? It has Halle Berry in a skin-tight leather outfit with kitty ears goin
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
About the only place I can mention my one affection for that movie. There's this scene where Berry has just made the spooky change to Catwoman and isn't clearly aware of it yet, and she's describing her "symptoms" to a friend on the phone while walking around the room...except the "walk" is very catlike leaps and pounces onto various pieces of furniture as she goes. They all look unconscious and none break the rhythm of her speech. It was a great physical performance, and, as you say, especially mesmeriz
Re: (Score:2)
4.1 on IMDb => no thanks (Score:2)
But it has no Jessica Alba (Score:2)
What made the original watchable was the delectable Jessica Alba. It was the only movie she ever appeared nekkid in. (Although her being invisible at the time kind of took away from the moment. :P )
Mediocre (Score:3)
"Powerfully mediocre" "Terrifically mediocre" "Decidedly mediocre" "Aggressively mediocre" "Stunningly mediocre".
I went and saw it anyway.
I deserve this ache in my wallet.
You're feeding them (Score:2)
People complain all the time that all Hollywood puts out is the same crap year after year. There's so many comments on there about how terrible the reboots are and that there are so many superhero movies that they are getting tired of them. The movie industry is only putting out those movies because people keep going to those movies. When it takes $100M or more to make a movie are you going to do something that you are pretty sure that people are going to see or take a risk?
If you want to see well writte
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What, market the warmachine-bot to the military? Yeah, that was a pretty gaping hole in CHAPPiE's plot... but the movie wasn't *about* the warmachine-bot, or the psychopath that built it, or the conflict that his goals had with Chappie and his creator... it was about the AI who has days to live and is being raised by a socially helpless nerd and a gang of none-too-bright criminals. Everything else was a bald excuse for action scenes and people dying. If it helps, think of that stuff as just a simulation: "h
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't matter when you give them the money. If you see it in the theater or buy the DVD for these bad movies then they will keep making more.
Anorexia chick.... (Score:2)
Anorexia chick, one gay white guy, one Africanized gay white guy and a CGI rock.
I am glad that I can mock the friend who paid for us to see this excrement and I will do so for a very long time. ;)
"mediocre x-men movies"? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say that Guardians of the Galaxy was a kids movie. I think it was the least childish of the movies you mentioned, all of which I enjoyed to some degree -- admitting that Thor 2 was more marginal than the others.
But I agree: the last two x-men movies have been excellent (an opinion which is shared with critics and the general public). They easily stand with the better of the latest Marvel movies, and above the average Marvel movie.
The Wolverine movies and the 2000s movies were mediocre to bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for the info. I don't know enough, or was involved enough, with any part of GG to have any opinion either way, so I'm still figuring out what's what after the fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Dr. Doom AGAIN (Score:5, Funny)
Seriously, Mole Man? Menace level: "Oh no, he's going to eat my petunia bulbs and make holes in my lawn!"
Re:Dr. Doom AGAIN (Score:5, Insightful)
That's kind of my reaction to most Marvel characters in general - they're on the lame side. And when it comes to the Fantastic Four, I even thought they were lame back when I was a kid. Stretchy Guy? Girl Who Can Hide Really Well? Angry Stone Dude? Give me a break... the Human Torch should just walk away and go solo.
Re: (Score:2)
Both the Human torch and Ben Grim developed into their own magazines, but as I remember even the FF magazines were the Ben and Johnny show.
Re: (Score:2)
More like "Oh no, he can cause the collapse of pretty much any building, commands an army of underground monsters, and has technological knowledge centuries ahead of ours."
Re:Dr. Doom AGAIN (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem that I’m pointing out is that only die-hard fans of the comic will know that, and to everyone else in the world a mole is a small, blind furry creature that can easily be bested with a shovel. “Dr Doom” on the other hand sounds like someone who means business and has the qualifications to pull it off, so he’s much better from a marketing perspective.
(In reality I suspect Fox was too cheap to license any other characters)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like the kind of opponent Aquaman could deal with, perhaps the only kind of villain Aquaman can defeat, besides Cardboard Box Man, Pizza Delivery Man, and Congress Man.
Re: (Score:3)
Hey, Congress Man is an evil bastard who can destroy the lives of millions with virtual impunity. Totally out of Fishstickboy’s league.
Re: (Score:2)
Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, Mole Man? Menace level: "Oh no, he's going to eat my petunia bulbs and make holes in my lawn!"
You forget the kaiju that The Mole Man also controlled. Considering that part of the charm of the comic book FF was the over the top aspect of their villains, they probably would have been good to go with something a little out there, but entertaining. Sort of like the Guardians of the Galaxy movie, they probably should have embraced the kitch and over the top aspect. It is, after all, a group where the lead guy can stretch.
Re: Dr. Doom AGAIN (Score:5, Insightful)
Fox may simply not have licensed enough villains from the Fantastic Four comics. For all we know, their licensing is for the four primary characters and for their origin stories, and for villains from a specific range of comic books, and a prohibition on introducing new main villains that were not featured in those comics.
I don't see why they keep rebooting these franchises. Rise of the Silver Surfer did not so horribly damage the franchise as to make it completely necessary to abandon the storyline established in the Ioan Gruffudd and Jessica Alba version, and one of the few things that the Batman movies showed us is that it was possible to change actors every few movies and still have a continuous franchise. Granted, Batman did eventually jump the shark to the point that a reboot was required, but the Keaton, Kilmer, and Clooney movies are one somewhat contiguous set. Even in the Marvel-controlled Cinematic Universe some characters have been played by other actors and the audience has accepted this.
If they didn't want to continue to cast Gruffudd, Alba, Evans, and Chiklis they didn't have to actually reboot the universe in order to bring in new actors. Some would argue that such a movie might not be as successful as the studio wanted, but what they've created with this reboot is apparently worse than either of the previous movies. Hell, if it's this poorly received then perhaps Sony should release the rights back to Marvel, maybe they can actually make something of it.
Re: (Score:2)
> I don't see why they keep rebooting these franchises.
Replace whatever word they are using: reboot / remake / reimagining / regurgitating / recasting / etc,
And replaced with it these: recash grab
--> Money
Hollywood keeps recycling the same old crap. Because it sells.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Robin Hood has been remade 11 times!
Re: (Score:2)
The Fantastic Four is a specific series of work that has been licensed by a single entity. The entity that has licensed it is not free to do whatever, but they are free to continue the existing story or to tell stories that they've licensed from the print version. Instead they reboot.
Re: (Score:2)
You're missing the point. The issue isn't whether something or not is in the public domain. It is about the _frequency_ of re-releasing the same crap over, and over again.
When the same generic story keeps getting retold every ~10 years, there is only 1 reason for it: greed
Seriously, how many times do we need to keep seeing the same bloody story? The pure stupidity of Jurasic World [youtube.com], along with all the remakes Spiderman and Batman are perfect examples of that.
More explosions, more CG, more lens flares, and
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:The only reboot/reprise/sequal (Score:5, Informative)
Re:The only reboot/reprise/sequal (Score:5, Insightful)
You really need to watch the behind the scenes features for Fury Road. Sure, there was some big obvious CGI (the giant sand storm) but for about 90% of the movie, the things you expect to be CGI (the car crashes, explosions, insane stunts) are real, and the CGI is limited to fleshing out the wasteland background and erasing some safety equipment.
It is a breathtaking movie precisely because it is so real. Action movie fans have been saturated with CGI for so long, we hardly know what the real thing is anymore. Most recent superhero movies have been a big yawn for me. It's all fake and the actors are not really in a scary situation. Nothing brings out good acting like actually driving at high speed through the desert with actual explosions and crashes all around you.
Re: (Score:2)
It is a breathtaking movie precisely because it is so real. Action movie fans have been saturated with CGI for so long, we hardly know what the real thing is anymore. Most recent superhero movies have been a big yawn for me. It's all fake and the actors are not really in a scary situation. Nothing brings out good acting like actually driving at high speed through the desert with actual explosions and crashes all around you.
On the other hand, bad practical-effects can also hurt a movie. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen has a lot of bad practical effects; the car chase and destruction of Venice scenes were mostly filmed in miniature, and other appearances of the automobile featured a full-scale custom car made for the movie. I like the movie, but I do not really care for these scenes as they look pretty silly, and I suspect that the silliness in these particular scenes make it hard to suspend disbelief.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but great effects would not have made that movie great. There was some kind of disconnect between having Tom Sawyer and Dorian Grey as main characters, while seemingly aiming at low brow action.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Except the movie was just bad. There was absolutely no story and the characters were so utterly dull I didn't care what happened to them. Then there was the frame speed ups which were done so badly I initially thought my playback system was borked. That opening scene when he tries to escape getting branded was so bad I almost stopped the movie right there.
Re:The only reboot/reprise/sequal (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, I'm sorry but you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
Mad Max: Fury Road used an incredible amount of practical FX and stunt-work, 80% was practical according to IMDB [imdb.com].
All the vehicles are real. All the chase sequences and crashes and explosions are real. They mostly just used CGI to dress up backgrounds, and for Theron's mechanical arm... that's about it. All the "action" is real.
We're in full agreement on Raiders of the Lost Ark though... greatest movie ever made.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's one of the finest examples of visual storytelling in a long time. There are long sections that could pretty much be straight from a silent film. It reminds me of the original Star Wars, in how it immerses us in this richly developed world without feeling the need to explain every detail, which sets the imagination aflame.
One of my favourite parts is when Furiosa simply turns the wheel and heads off road... and her entire crew follows without question. This tells you so much about her charact
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure he was trolling.
either trolling or stupid and can't tell cgi from real anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm beginning to think people are just starting to assume that everything out-of-the-ordinary is CGI by default.
Which kinda goes to show how good CGI has gotten, actually. People are no longer able to properly distinguish between the two anymore.
Re: The only reboot/reprise/sequal (Score:3)
Every vehicle crash was a real vehicle getting really crashed. When guys were dangling precariously from poles attached to moving cars in the movie, stunt guys were ACTUALLY doing that exact thing.
And the Doof; with his flame spewing guitar and wall of speakers ... yeah, all real. They actually made a 100+ lb. electric guitar that spewed real and actual flames 20 feet out. And they actually strapped that guitar to a mobile wall of amplifiers and drove around b
Re: (Score:2)
For those that are actually curious about this "doomed" fantastic four film...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (trailer)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] (actual movie)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is absolutely stupid- Marvel has shown that they know how to do superhero movies and that they are willing to play ball to get control back (look at the deal they made with Sony for Spiderman). They'd be happy to do the same for Fantastic Four. The problem is the same studio owns XMen, and doesn't want to lose that cash cow.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is absolutely stupid- Marvel has shown that they know how to do superhero movies and that they are willing to play ball to get control back (look at the deal they made with Sony for Spiderman). They'd be happy to do the same for Fantastic Four. The problem is the same studio owns XMen, and doesn't want to lose that cash cow.
So presumably sometime around 2020, we'll see Marvel Studio do Fantastic Four. Hugh Jackman is quitting as Wolverine. He'll be in the next X-Men movie, and in one more Wolverine movie, and then he's done. Which, given that he'll turn 50 before the last Wolverine movie comes out, is hard to hold against him. But it means the end of X-Men being a cash cow.
Yes, Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen have done fantastic jobs, but neither Professor X nor Magneto are the main draws for X-Men. It's going to be extr
Re: (Score:2)
I've heard this theory, but the budget was something like $120M. If I just wanted to shart out a contractual obligation I'd do it on a smaller budget and hope to break even. $120M is pretty big even by big movie standards.
It could just be they can't find their asses with both hands.
Re: (Score:2)
It'll probably never fly, but authors should start negotiating a reversion of rights clause into their film contracts that requires a money-making film every few years, not just a film every few years.
I think the Hollywood accounts' heads would explode. (By traditional Hollywood accounting, no film ever makes money, so the suckers who settled for a percent of the net, rather than the gross, never see a penny. All the income flow is shuffled around in a giant shell game.)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm waiting for Fantastic Sex... um... Six...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Bad movies bombing on the box offices are a regular thing.
But some people just don't learn and deflect blame, or have reasons to not care etc..
For example, in the case of the FF movies in general, the intention of the studio is not to actually sell tickets but keep the rights to the fantastic four, so they just try to make it "believable" enough to not get caught on a lawsuit.
Re: (Score:2)
Literally: every other movie is a re-boot.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe you literally don't know what 'literally' means.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Same reason there are a 100 Call of Duty game sequels. Low risk. These projects involve millions of dollars. The people in charge could risk that money on a really promising story from a nobody. The risk could be worth it and everyone involved makes enough money to build their own Scrooge McDuck money vaults. The project could possibly fail and that failure would blow back not just on the decision makers, but on the entire company. We all know of gaming companies and movie studios who went bankrupt from jus