Is Fantastic Four cursed when it comes to film?

There isn’t a damn thing wrong with the Fantastic Four.

Only with the story tellers.

KIRBY AND LEE were slinging ink and doing their best to tell an entertaining story and keep their jobs. The FF became powerhouses largely due to the fact that Kirby was at the absolute top of his game at the time, and because the concepts were sound:

A brilliant youngish scientist who needs a family to keep him grounded
A woman who keeps him grounded and is more socially skilled than he is
A teenager who suddenly becomes the center of his own power fantasy
A former pilot and soldier who must suddenly come to terms with his monstrous appearance

and

A raging angsty scientist whose ego has eaten his life, who sees our other scientist as the origin of all his troubles and wants to destroy him.

There’s no reason these characters couldn’t sustain a movie. There’s no reason they’re unrealistic. After all, if Tony Stark could do it in a CAVE with a BOX! OF! SCRAPS!..

The problem here lies in the willingness of the idea people to grab the concept and run with it. The “X-Men” movies suffered from this – we lose a lot of the cartoony and the family concept, because the creators were worried whether it would fly. No, Wolverine cannot haz yellow spandex. Black leather for you, because black leather is kool, even for guys who sprout meat cleavers out of their hands or shoot red zap beams from their heads. We gotta appeal to the grownups…

…while forgetting that THIS grownup grew up reading the stuff, and that my daughter’s prized possessions include my old longboxes. But it worked. They balanced out the action movie with the comic book. And they gave the next generation more confidence.

And this is why Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, The Avengers, and so on went on to mint money in large amounts for their respective stockholders. It’s OKAY to dress a man in a flag suit with a target for a weapon and have him jump around like a hyperactive flag rabbit while he kicks ass!

…as opposed to the 1990 film where he appears in costume all of … twice, I think. It’s a Steve Rogers movie. And it’s crap. Because it’s a comic book movie with almost no comic book in it. And there’s the rub.

X-Men almost fell into this trap… but we finally bring out the goods. Razor claws, lightning bolts, optic blasts, fists that can crush concrete. That’s what comic books are FOR, people.

Iron Man didn’t even pretend otherwise. With a BOX! OF! SCRAPS! And Avengers gave us just enough plot to carry the story before launching into the superhero shenanigans.

…and then FF shows up. And rather than giving us the superhero story we all paid to see… we get a sorta kinda action movie with a naked Thing and yet another reminder of why we’re supposed to be ashamed. The director did not want to make a superhero movie. He did not want to make an action movie. He did not want to give us a mad genius with a ruined face and an Iron Man Meets The Phantom Of The Opera suit and sense of drama.

I haven’t seen the movie yet but I’ve spoke with them what has. And this is a movie that was made by people who were ashamed of it and didn’t really have a clear idea of this “comic book” thing and were working for a paycheck and taking suggestions from every suit in the studio. And none of them knew much about this “comic book” thing, either.

Guess I shouldn’t be surprised. Only old farts like myself grew up with spin racks in every drugstore and grocery. How many of the people making these movies really understand the art form they’re emulating?

I’m guessing very few, judging from the number of expensive misfires I’m seeing. It seems to indicate that you need a Brad Bird or a Joss Whedon to make one of these things, and then you leave him alone and let him do his job.

Durn shame. I loved the FF, way back in the day.

Hmm. So you knew the movie existed, but still took me to task over claiming there were three?

I guess if it’s not released, then, you figure it doesn’t count.

Yes, I thought it had never been released, which is why I considered it “canceled”. And I didnt take you to task, Oh Master of Movie Trivia, I asked a question.

I bow to your superior knowledge.

Not trying to be snarky, but I’m still a bit annoyed about the “three?”

If you didn’t think it was released in the US (which implies it was released outside the country, or put on TV, or something) but you knew it existed, then the “three?” is unjustified – you knew about it.

But if you thought it was “canceled” – which implies that they never finished with it, or they never actually got around to shooting it, or something , so that no movie ever got made to be released in the first place – then I’d expect something like a “Oh, did they actually finish that?” (this possibility is different from the previous one – your story’s slipping)
But your terse “three?” implies that you don’t know about another one existing at all, in any form. And its implied “there were only two, schmuck” cuts me to the quick.
I don’t claim to the Master of Movie Trivia and holder of Superior Knowledge*, but I do try to get common knowledge facts straight.

*I have minions for this.

The way all the reviews speak to an abrupt tone-shift in act three, I’m sure the studio did get involved. But I also suspect that if Trank had delivered a quality product, they wouldn’t have tried to clumsily course-correct.

Either way, a career-limiting move on Trank’s part to blame his employer.

And since when is the Thing 8 feet tall?

I thought it was* never* released, I had heard it was “in production hell” I didn’t realize it had escaped to a general release. I didn’t mean to sound snarky. Sorry.

Yes, after being corrected, I checked, and saw it had been released, and even in the USA. The USA bit frankly shocked me. Some crappy films are given a limited release, or just overseas. But if I was unaware of that sort of release, then no big deal. The fact that it had actually been fairly widely released in the USA surprised the fuck out of me. :eek:

I knew there were three movies; I thought every comic nerd did. Saw the first one on VHS as pirate copies circulated around every comic shop in the known universe. It stank, but it served its purpose as a trademark placeholder.

Second and third: I thought Michael Chiklis did a decent job, but I fail to understand the reasoning behind making Galactus a giant space cloud. Yet another example of “we are ashamed of our source material.”

I understand the Thing in the new one is CGI. Bad idea. The whole point of the Thing is “the man inside the monster.” Unless that CGI is mighty good, the Thing might as well be in “Jurassic World IV: The Search For More Money.”

Eh, I know what you mean, but honestly, a lot of comic book artists drew him massive too.

It’s been decades, but I seem to remember him putting on a fedora and overcoat and more or less blending in with the street crowd. Let’s see the 8’ Thing do that. And what happened to his blind girlfriend? I’m probably dating myself something fierce :slight_smile:

Yeah, I recall those, too. But the truth is that both The Hulk and The Thing have changed their heights and appearances radically in the hands of different artists, and at different times in their careers. The Hulk more than The Thing

I mean, heck, look at the relatyive sizes of them on the cover of FF #12:

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20050929163916/marveldatabase/images/e/e5/Fantastic_Four_Vol_1_12.jpg

But then on the cover of #25, just 13 issuies later, the Hulk is huge (and it’s Jack Kirby drawing them both times):

Then John Buscema draws them o #112, and we’re back to issue #12

Isn’t it established in-universe that the Hulk’s size varies depending on how angry he gets?

Yeah, yeah that’s totally a thing, and you’re right: officially Ben is no taller than the rest of the crew. But comic book reality is really mutable and comic book artists are sometimes given a lot of creative latitude and accordingly there is actually a lot of comic book precedent for showing him big and hulking.

Comic book artists change perspective and scale at will, it’s part of conveying a story in a static form. Even in animation this can be done through the use of extreme close-ups and changing background scale and perspective effectively. The same techniques can be used in live/mixed action but it requires a lot more work. Sin City did the job effectively using green screens, some movie makers have been better than others, but super heroes just don’t look good in standard proportions.

Re. the Thing changing appearance: I’m still working on my FF script part 2 to find good ways to transition between scenes I want to portray. But anyway, one idea I’d use is that at first Ben would vary between semi-human and Early Thing as he struggles to transform back to full human, it being canon that the rockier he gets the stronger he gets. Near the end of the movie he would embrace his inner Thing, and bulk out to the standard Clobberin’ Time rock form.