Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

The Marvel Things That Aren't "Marvel" Things


RIPPA

Recommended Posts

You guys are making me wanna see this movie a lot more than I would if everyone said it just ok.

 

The Fantastic 4 just aren'y my thing. Never really dug them in the comics either. I actually like them better indivdually than together. Thing in New Avengers was fine. Mr. Fantastic in the Illuminati was cool. Human Torch in Ultimate X-Men was alright. Maybe it's because once they get together, a lot of their stories tend to be cosmic stuff, and that's not my bag.

 

But a Dr. Doom movie I'd be all about.

Haven't seen any of the FF movies, and don't plan too, but I hope this POS dies such an infamous death just to get Dr. Doom back in Marvel's hands. Fuck comic continuity, or logic, just gimme a properly epic Dr. Doom as a bad guy for SOMEONE in the Marvel storylines. . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whatever I enjoyed it for what it was. I think if Fox sticks to their guns and releases F4 part 2 that movie will be fine.

It's a middle of the road movie. Not a blockbuster but wayyy better than Batman & Robin.

FWIW the showing I went to was sold out tonight

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Far be it from me, a mere film fan, to give career advice to an up and coming director, but Josh Trank needs to keep his mouth shut. At least for a while.

 

You can get over a film flopping. Loads of people do. You can't get over trashing studios and the people you worked with and slinging mud and being so unprofessional.

 

That's the type of behavior that will ensure the only movies you ever get to make again are sci fi originals or WWE studios' Z movies.  

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even Shia LaBeouf waited a few years before publicly admitting Indiana Jones IV was shit. And he admitted he was part of the problem with it.

 

You know things are bad when Shia is more professional and dignified than you.. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sympathize with Trank to an extent, but, honestly, it is absurdly naive to start working on a big blockbuster superhero film and expect to get 100% your creative direction.

 

Who does get that? Christopher Nolan. And Whedon, I assume. He ain't either of those guys. 

 

I think any director doing one of these films has to commit themselves to doing the best work they can but also knowing they have to acquiesce to the studio most of the time.

 

Ava DuVerney turned down a Marvel movie for similar reasons. She didn't want to spend 2 years of her life being told what to do by money people. And she's famous enough not to need to do it. So she saved herself the grief and is going to projects where she does get to do what she wants. Others should take note.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whedon damn sure didn't.

This wasn't as bad as Catwoman, Supergirl, Superman IV, or Batman Forever. It was also probably better than Elektra. Every other major theatrical comic book movie I think was better. Even shit like Green Lantern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really sure the "they aren't cool" thing is valid when Marvel's going to be trotting out Dr. Strange, Carol Danvers, and the Inhumans as big parts of the MCU(and really, you could probably throw BP in here too).

I'm not saying it was the primary reason why the film failed; it was just another brick in the wall. Compare it to the other supergroups: the Avengers are the modern equivalent to mythological gods ruling from Mount Olympus, the X-men are an orphanage of oppressed minorities, the Guardians are a smartass street-gang. But the Four are... a literal nuclear family who are looked up to by everyone. Yawn! Their gimmick is that they're a bunch of clean-cut squares who are highly respected by the general public and have a minimal amount of serious infighting, which is the exact opposite of a standard Marvel superhero archetype.

 

 

Why fit them into the standard Marvel superhero team archetype? Variety is a good thing and hell,  you don't even need to have them be all widely accepted right out of the box. And honestly, super motherFUCK superhero in-fighting. Been sick of that fucking gimmick for years now. Personally, it's why I'm not even bothering with Civil War next year.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and Batman Forever is still a ridiculously fun and cheesy movie, much more than Green Lantern ever could have been. Fuck, all of the 90s Batman movies are that way, whether they hit the mark on the characters or not. If you had fun and liked the movie - that's all that really matters.

 

Damnit, now I really want to watch Batman & Robin.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unpopular opinion time: The Schumacher Bat-films smoke the shitty Burton ones. By virtue of the Burton ones being just as ridiculous and nonsensical while taking themselves hyper seriously while the Schumacher films are content to be insane sendups to Batman 66.

Also Batman 89 is boring and terrible and Jack Nicholson's Joker fucking sucks.

COME AT ME!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sympathize with Trank to an extent, but, honestly, it is absurdly naive to start working on a big blockbuster superhero film and expect to get 100% your creative direction.

 

Who does get that? Christopher Nolan. And Whedon, I assume. He ain't either of those guys. 

 

I think any director doing one of these films has to commit themselves to doing the best work they can but also knowing they have to acquiesce to the studio most of the time.

 

Ava DuVerney turned down a Marvel movie for similar reasons. She didn't want to spend 2 years of her life being told what to do by money people. And she's famous enough not to need to do it. So she saved herself the grief and is going to projects where she does get to do what she wants. Others should take note.

 

It's why Darren Aronofsky dropped out of Wolverine 2.  He wanted to do it, but from his career and experience he knew it was better for him not to deal with the obligations of such a big studio film.  So ended up exiting the project.  James Mangold did it instead, and it sort of worked out for everyone.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I sympathize with Trank to an extent, but, honestly, it is absurdly naive to start working on a big blockbuster superhero film and expect to get 100% your creative direction.

 

Who does get that? Christopher Nolan. And Whedon, I assume. He ain't either of those guys. 

 

I think any director doing one of these films has to commit themselves to doing the best work they can but also knowing they have to acquiesce to the studio most of the time.

 

Ava DuVerney turned down a Marvel movie for similar reasons. She didn't want to spend 2 years of her life being told what to do by money people. And she's famous enough not to need to do it. So she saved herself the grief and is going to projects where she does get to do what she wants. Others should take note.

 

It's why Darren Aronofsky dropped out of Wolverine 2.  He wanted to do it, but from his career and experience he knew it was better for him not to deal with the obligations of such a big studio film.  So ended up exiting the project.  James Mangold did it instead, and it sort of worked out for everyone.  

 

 

 

Darren Aronofsky should never, ever think he is above doing a comic book movie:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if Trank's idea was to do a Cronenberg body horror/dark sci-fi movie about superheroes, it simply should've been done as an original movie.  Maybe the archetypes are reminiscent of Fantastic Four, but it's not actually Fantastic Four.

 

Didn't someone make one of those already though?

 

Darkman_film_poster.jpg

 

That was Sam Raimi's version of Batman though, not Fantastic Four.

Darkman > Any Burton or Schumacher batman movie

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, We went see FF at a Drive in and then eat the FF menu at Denny's. Guess which was better?

Biggest complaint was that FF wasnt even bad in a way it could be given MST treatment.

Dull. And dreary. Were there maybe 3 scenes shot outside in daylight?

Most of the characters were unlikable. Franklin Storm was best babyface by a longshot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I sympathize with Trank to an extent, but, honestly, it is absurdly naive to start working on a big blockbuster superhero film and expect to get 100% your creative direction.

 

Who does get that? Christopher Nolan. And Whedon, I assume. He ain't either of those guys. 

 

I think any director doing one of these films has to commit themselves to doing the best work they can but also knowing they have to acquiesce to the studio most of the time.

 

Ava DuVerney turned down a Marvel movie for similar reasons. She didn't want to spend 2 years of her life being told what to do by money people. And she's famous enough not to need to do it. So she saved herself the grief and is going to projects where she does get to do what she wants. Others should take note.

 

It's why Darren Aronofsky dropped out of Wolverine 2.  He wanted to do it, but from his career and experience he knew it was better for him not to deal with the obligations of such a big studio film.  So ended up exiting the project.  James Mangold did it instead, and it sort of worked out for everyone.  

 

 

 

Darren Aronofsky should never, ever think he is above doing a comic book movie:

 

 

 

It actually wasn't that at all.  It was more, dedicating several years of his life to a big studio project and after seeing what happened with Gavin Hood on Origins Wolverine realizing he was probably better off not dealing with all the strife it would bring.  It's not that he is above it, he just didn't want to deal with the demands and mandates of the studio executives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or he quit Wolverine because he didn't want to spend time in Japan after the big nuclear accident, which was what was reported as the reason at the time.

I really like Batman & Robin. I really fucking hate Batman Forever. The latter is one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and I've never understood why it's superior follow up gets all the hatred. Green Lantern is significantly better than Forever. Which is an absurdly low bar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been saying for years that the worst thing about Green Lantern is that it's neither good nor bad, it just simply IS.

Batman Forever has Jim Carrey at his gurning worst, and TLJ in basically a nothing role. '89 & Returns are "grimdark" updates of Batman '66 episodes, so the fanboys should love them, while B & R gets unfairly slagged because it was an original story done in the '66 manner.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

at this point I say forget doing FF as a movie. Fox needs to relinquish the license and let Disney/Marvel do a direct to Netflix long form FF TV show. It would be expensive as fuck BUT I bet it would be amazing!

 

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of me thinks the grand master plan was to build to an Onslaught movie with X-Men, X-Force and FF. If that was at all in the plans, it's probably shot to shit now.

Actually, no, just kill the FF in the first 10 minutes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...