#380 The voice of "Mr. DNA", Greg Burson, has done countless voice-over work over the years, including Bugs in recent Bugs Bunny cartoons, "Boss Nass" in Star Wars: Episode I, and Mr. Magoo. Prev - Next
"Fantastic Four (2015)" On 1/27/2015 at 4:43:15 PM, JPwonderboy started the thread: Breaking the silence...
Truth be told, I got a better vibe from this than I got from the ANT-MAN teaser. And I love the visual aesthetic that Josh Trank is going with here. I feel more optimistic about this than I did before.
The one thing about this reboot that has me the most excited didn't even make an appearance in this trailer. Dr. Doom will be played by none other than Toby Kebbell. If you don't know who he is, look him up and you will realize why this is a fantastic casting decision.
Msg #2: On 1/27/2015 at 7:11:54 PM, Carnotaur3 replied, saying: I wish the silence hadn't have been broken.
Msg #3: On 1/27/2015 at 8:03:32 PM, Ostromite replied, saying: I fucking love reboots. They're going to reboot Indiana Jones with Chris Pratt and it's going to be epic. Keep it coming, Hollywood. Everybody loves it. Replies: 4
Msg #4: On 1/27/2015 at 9:00:43 PM, JPwonderboy replied to Msg #3, saying: PARTY ALL THE TIME!!!
Msg #5: On 1/28/2015 at 2:52:14 AM, Trainwreck replied, saying: Don't care, don't care, don't fucking care. About comic book movies, about reboots every five years, about fucking movies anymore.
Seriously. I see maybe a few movies in the theater every year, and most of them are the very few originals that make it through. Movies are dead, TV is king now.
And rebooting shit like Indiana Jones is beyond stupid. It'd be fine if they were rebooting it, say, 50 years from now when the generations who first saw it and/or grew up on it are dead or dying, but not when we're all (relatively) young, and when the films are not so distant culturally that they can't be enjoyed by kids today.
Msg #6: On 1/28/2015 at 6:23:36 AM, Bryan replied, saying: The great thing about Hollywood is they do nothing in moderation. They'll run whatever is selling into the ground, beat it a couple of times even after it has clearly expired, then bury it in a place they can find it a couple of decades later.
Give it another couple of years and they'll burn themselves out. I love comic book movies and even I'm getting a little fatigued.
Msg #7: On 1/29/2015 at 6:16:41 AM, JPController replied, saying: So, we're forgetting these guys exist?
Replies: 8
Msg #8: On 1/29/2015 at 7:09:23 AM, raptor2000 replied to Msg #7, saying: The sad thing is, had they swapped out Alba and perhaps Gruffudd for more appropriate actors, the cast for the original film would have actually been pretty perfect. It's just too bad the movies themselves weren't very good...especially that second one. If they did one thing right with the earlier movies, though, it was that they realized the Fantastic Four is supposed to be a more lighthearted, goofy, comedic franchise than X-men, Hulk, Capt. America, etc. This reboot looks like your typical, post-The Dark Knight dark, brooding, depressing reimagining, which is not what this group of characters is supposed to be.
Msg #9: On 1/29/2015 at 8:02:42 AM, Adam replied, saying: I like it. Looks less superhero-y and more sci-fi adventure-y. And Chronicle was a surprisingly very enjoyable flick, so should be right up Tranks alley.
I know its popular to hate on Miles Teller lately (personally I kinda like him), but apparently he killed it in Whiplash (on my list to watch soon) so I'm optimistic. The other casting choices seemed random when I first heard (Billy Elliot as The Thing, a black Human Torch omg) but this looks like something I could enjoy. I'm not the biggest fan of unnecessary reboots but when I totally despise the original attempts and wish they didn't exist, I'm all for it.
Msg #10: On 1/29/2015 at 10:44:15 AM, Siir replied, saying: Looks OK to me, and I'm hoping that the trailer may be a bit misleading and that the family-bickering is retained in the finished project; just as I heard that Ant-Man will probably be more funny than the trailer indicated.
I never read past the first volume of the Ultimate Fantastic 4, but I did like what I read, and liked the alternate dimension sci-fi of that and Doom tampering with the experiment vs. flying into space and getting hit by "cosmic rays."
I'd love to punch Miles Teller. Replies: 14
Msg #14: On 4/21/2015 at 12:38:06 AM, Velociraptor87 replied to Msg #13, saying: I like that they're going the Ultimate route, with the 4 going to an alternate dimension instead of space. The effects don't look bad, especially for The Thing - a lot better-looking than Michael Chiklis in body suit/makeup, imo.
Msg #22: On 8/8/2015 at 1:14:09 AM, Cameron replied, saying: God I tried. I gave this one a chance. I loved Chronicle, and I'm a huge fan of the cast they assembled for the movie. I'll also admit straight up I like the 2005 film as a guilty pleasure. It's a bad movie but I had fun with it. I wanted to like this one. I really did.
Fantastic Four: Absolutely awful. Makes the 2005 film look great by comparison. The interpretation of Doctor Doom is one of the worst jobs of adapting an iconic supervillain I've ever seen. All exposition, no character development. The four barely know each other or interact, so there's no sense of comradeship or even friendship to be had there. All the ideas are boring and half baked. The first hour is about the quality of a made for TV science fiction film and the last act was laughably bad to the point where I walked out right as the battle between Dr. Dumb and the Failtastic Four was beginning. Costume and character design, especially Dooms was atrocious. The effects would have been below average ten years ago. You can clearly tell the actors weren't enjoying the production, which is a shame, because all are talented and at times show glimpses that with the right writers and director, they could have done these characters justice. But sadly a talented cast was wasted in what undoubtedly is one of the worst comic book based films that I've ever seen
Fantastic Four 2015 gets a 2/10 from me Replies: 23
Msg #23: On 8/8/2015 at 1:27:25 PM, Bryan replied to Msg #22, saying: I'm glad Fox has X-Men, because with Singer at the helm justice is being done, but they have no clue what to do with FF. None. They're like the WB, only worse.
Msg #24: On 8/11/2015 at 4:40:05 AM, PaulSF replied, saying: I'm on the verge of giving Grinch what he wants after seeing it earlier. I completely understand why nearly all of humanity despises this film. It has little to do with what anyone in their right mind would want out of a faithful F4 movie. It's dark, grotesque, and has no action or sense of fun/joy whatsoever until the out-of-nowhere studio re-edited and re-shot finale (and barely). I enjoyed that about it.
I also mostly enjoyed Ant-Man and the Avengers movies with more than a few of the other Marvel Studios films, but a part of me is becoming increasingly disenchanted with everything being a big, funny, safe, easy to roll with swell time that doesn't dare depart from being a big goofy theme park ride. Trank clearly had a serious-minded vision here. The end result is a deeply flawed product from a studio that clearly got nervous in the 11th hour, but the fact remains that what I got was incredibly hard PG-13 sci-fi body horror take complete with nightmare inducing images and violence more suited for Davin Cronenberg's The Fly and Scanners. I actually laughed out loud in disbelief at one point (full-on exploding heads). An F4 with NO ACTION whatsoever until the last ten minutes of re-shot material, devoted up until then by a parade of science and character scenes. I was actually more engaged by this than either MS films from this year. There are two big unfortunate truths here: 1.) Trank's original cut wasn't released and likely never will be 2.) There will be little to no more risky, dark directions like this again for quite some time due to the desire of the masses to munch their fucking popcorn with zero in the way of balls and restraint to harsh their buzz.
This is the closest review I've seen that matches my own feelings, despite not recommending it in the end (cut to the chase: 19:29 in). Jay's face in the capture below sums up my reaction walking out of this.
I'm not against the dark gritty sci Fi premise. But it needed interesting characters that were developed well and gave off a sense of knowing each other. Which this film utterly failed to do.
If you're going to take it in that direction you need to write a good script. Replies: 26
Msg #26: On 8/12/2015 at 5:45:30 AM, PaulSF replied to Msg #25, saying: Nope. I said multiple times I completely understand why people loathe it. Not actively trying to defend it. It's understandable. I was just talking about what I appreciated about it compared to others in this genre (though I did find the characters here actually far more engaging than the generic Ant-Man lot, particularly Reed and Grimm, but excluding Sue) along with acknowledging what it is people in general want from this kind of material. Nothing about the distaste confounds me. You don't need to reiterate what you've already said at me as if I was remotely looking for a debate. If you hated it, you aren't alone. Be content. I didn't. I hated Poltergeist. Fuck that movie.
