Some guy asked me why would anyone would want to go see Fantastic Four.
I showed him showed him this:
http://superherohype.com/cgi-bin/imageFolio.cgi?action=view&link=Fantastic_Four/The_Movie/Movie_Stills&image=invisiblewoman.jpg&img=27&tt=
Need I say more. :)

I've got a feeling the poster art is going to be better than the movie itself.

What makes you say that? The Marvel films have been on a pretty good roll, and while they all haven't been flawless, none of them has really hit the "Batman & Robin" basement yet.

I'm going to venture a guess that it's probably better than the Roger Corman film of the same name.

I would like to be as pleasantly surprised with this one as I was with the new Batman.

What makes you say that? The Marvel films have been on a pretty good roll, and while they all haven't been flawless, none of them has really hit the "Batman & Robin" basement yet.

What makes me say that? I've seen the trailers. This doesn't have the flavor of a Marvel "A List" effort like the Spider-Man or the X-Men films or "The Hulk". It has the flavor of the "B List" efforts like "Daredevil" or "Electra" or "The Punisher". I've seen two of those three aforementioned films and never care to watch them again. I'll be happy to be proven wrong and will go to the theater to see it but I expect very little. Maybe I'll be pleasantly surprised (I wasn't at all surprised by the excellence of "Batman Begins").*


*The Corman version was never intended as a "real" movie. It was made specifically not to be seen. I have it on DVD.

The ads have that powerful aroma of a script that might as well be the product of the Execrable Akiva, mistaking painfully cheesy quips for character and dimensionality (usually the warning of an inane plot).

At best, it may have some forgettable, fun action, though if there is any the ads keep it well hidden.

But I'll see it eventually and hope for the best.

I love how folks are already bashing the movie! You're biasing your opinion before you see it based off of some commercials and that's just amazing to me, considering how many movies I've seen that had some of the crappiest commercials in the world, yet were some awesome flicks to watch.

Why not see the movie? It looks like a hoot. I'll go and be a kid for a couple of hours. It'll really have to stink to ruin my day. 'sides...the torch looks pretty darned nice and I like the Grimm look they decided on.

Like I said - I'm going. Like I said - my expectations are very low. As a kid who grew up during Marvel's 1960s Golden Age - these characters mean a lot to me. That's why, when they're done well and the movie-makers "get it" -movies like "Spider-Man II" are so very satisfying. When they're not done well - like "Daredevil" for instance - I find myself just wishing they had left them alone. Everything I know or have seen about "Fantastic Four " indicates that it will fall into that second category.

When they're not done well - like "Daredevil" for instance - I find myself just wishing they had left them alone.

Go buy or rent the DD Director's Cut...it's a WHOLE DIFFERENT movie.

As a lifetime F.F. fan I think all die hard fans of "The World's Greatest Comics Magazine" will be disappointed to one degree or another regardless of how good the movie may be. I have not read any recent F.F., but read the book religiously for over 30 years. From #44 right up to where everybody got killed off and the original book ceased publication. Where the F.F. differ from the other movies is that the characters and basic storyline was never "re-imagined". The 60s F.F. was the same as the 90s F.F. They became like old friends. Even the artwork stuck to a more tradional 60s-70s style. I never could get into Fantastic Four Unlimited. I'm sure the movie won't be like the classic comic which I cherished, but I expect Fox put all the money and effort into this movie as they did The X-Men films. We should all hope it succeeds, a sequel is the best bet for The Silver Surfer, and if we're lucky, Galsctus to grace the silver screen. I hope there is a tip of the hat to Jack Kirby. Years ago(in the 70s) I use to imagine Clint Eastwood as Reed and Jan-Michael Vincent(he would have been perfect) as Johnny Storm.

Expectations in this case are everything. If you don't set your hopes too high you might enjoy yourself. If you "expect the fantastic" you're going to be disappointed.

Someone mentioned the trailer. As one of those responsible you'll have to take my word for it when I say we didn't have a helluva lot to work with.

Expectations in this case are everything. If you don't set your hopes too high you might enjoy yourself. If you "expect the fantastic" you're going to be disappointed.
Exactly! I do my best not to have any pre-conceptions about a movie going in to it. You'll always have some based off of the trailers/commercials and some hype if you allow yourself to see those things. I do my best not to pay any attention to something I really, really want to see, tho. Well, beyond a basic plot summary. :)
Someone mentioned the trailer. As one of those responsible you'll have to take my word for it when I say we didn't have a helluva lot to work with.
Oooh! We've got a media mogul in our midst! :p

Seriously, tho, that's kewel that you worked on the trailer. Give us a basic background on your work with it? Was the production behind, thus not much for ya'll to work with? Geeky minds wnat to know!

Me and my big mouth.

For any number of reasons it's foolish of me to discuss an upcoming release -- especially one which I'm unable to endorse (I doubt Fox upper management lurks around HobbyTalk, but you can never be sure).

After the film opens I'll tell you -- within reason -- anything you want to know.

Someone mentioned the trailer. As one of those responsible you'll have to take my word for it when I say we didn't have a helluva lot to work with.

Because it's not there? Or because it wasn't there yet? Big difference.*

*Just saw your previous post. No need to reply if it compromises you.

Because it's not there? Or because it wasn't there yet?

Take your pick.

It looks like it's gonna be a fun ride- The effects look well done, it's got humor,
action and CLOBERIN' TIME!!!! I can't wait!!
I like the Corman version by the way...kinda like the 60's Batman series. Thing
looked great!

Me and my big mouth.
Especially with me around, eh...? :)
For any number of reasons it's foolish of me to discuss an upcoming release -- especially one which I'm unable to endorse (I doubt Fox upper management lurks around HobbyTalk, but you can never be sure).

After the film opens I'll tell you -- within reason -- anything you want to know.
OK That's kewel. I was just curious to know if they were a bit slow with the production or what. You know, SFX/CGI type issues.




It looks like it's gonna be a fun ride- The effects look well done, it's got humor,
action and CLOBERIN' TIME!!!! I can't wait!!
I like the Corman version by the way...kinda like the 60's Batman series. Thing
looked great!
Yeah, I liked it, too. Picked up a copy at a SciF/Fantasy Con here at a dealers table. Pretty kewel rendition, tho obviously not anything extra special nor extra awesome acting. Still, enjoyable!

I was just curious to know if they were a bit slow with the production or what. You know, SFX/CGI type issues.

For big FX-driven movies it's always an issue getting the FX done in time to include in the trailer. This is especially true of Fox, which likes to cram every FX shot planned for a given film into that film's trailer.

It's not unusual for a picture's FX schedule to be determined in part by marketing considerations, i.e. the studio will "request" certain shots be completed first so those shots can make it into the trailer. This is particularly true with animated films in which "special shoot" gags are often created especially for the trailer -- e.g. an overweight Mr. Incredible trying to wiggle his way into his supersuit. Sometimes these gags can even make their way into the finished film, a la Puss `n Boots throwing a hairball in "Shrek II".

In the case of "F-4" getting approved FX footage was like pulling teeth, but we did the best with what we had. Like I said, it's a pretty typical occurrence, and something we face to a greater or lesser extent on every big FX movie we work on, whether it's "Spiderman", "F-4" or "King Kong". It's just the nature of the beast.

well unlike the hulk, electra, and daredevil, there does seem to be some buzz on the street about the ff movie, not just among comic book or fantasy film fans.
i for one am looking forward to it.

*The Corman version was never intended as a "real" movie. It was made specifically not to be seen.

Why do you say that? I remember going to the theater within a year of its scheduled release date (whenever that was....I forgot what year) and they had a preview trailer for it. I remember thinking it didn't look bad at all. It made me want to go see the film. I was disappointed when it never came out.

I later read something attributed to Stan Lee where he stated it was held back from release to make it even better........and then silence!

Why do you say that? I remember going to the theater within a year of its scheduled release date (whenever that was....I forgot what year) and they had a preview trailer for it. I remember thinking it didn't look bad at all. It made me want to go see the film. I was disappointed when it never came out.

I later read something attributed to Stan Lee where he stated it was held back from release to make it even better........and then silence!

Interesting that you saw a trailer. I am giving you information that I have read from many different sources over the years but the story basically goes like this - sometime in the 80s Corman's company acquired the movie rights from Marvel to produce a Fantastic Four movie. The contract stated that a feature film must be made within seven years from the signing or all rights reverted to Marvel and they could then sell the movie rights to someone else. If a movie was made within that period, then Corman retained the movie rights for several years longer so that he could produce sequels. 6 years pass and nothing's been done and Corman's lawyers remind him of the contract's stipulations. Corman doesn't have the script, money or resources to do a "proper" FF movie so he gets a couple of fanboys to write a script and produce the movie with no budget - I've read that the movie was made for well under a million dollars. The movie is shot, edited, and completed - and the letter of the law is met. Corman has time to raise money and prepare a script for a proper treatment of The Fantastic Four that won't get laughed out of theaters and become known as "the worst superhero movie of all time".
For some reason it never happens and the rights revert back to Marvel a couple of years later. That's the layman/fanboy/internet version - I've never really read an "authoritive" version.

Interesting that you saw a trailer.

The trailer used to be on the old VHS rental tape of Carnosaur. I think I've read that's the only place it ever aired.

The trailer used to be on the old VHS rental tape of Carnosaur. I think I've read that's the only place it ever aired.

"Carnosaur". Now that was a great movie. Carnosaur II and III suffered by comparison. :)

Here's the IMDb trivia page for the Corman FF movie.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109770/trivia

That's why, when they're done well and the movie-makers "get it" -movies like "Spider-Man II" are so very satisfying. When they're not done well - like "Daredevil" for instance - I find myself just wishing they had left them alone.

Funny you should say that.
I didn't like spiderman (too boring) and never bothered with the sequel.
But I loved Daredevil.

Was completely blah about FF until I saw the trailer.
(never a fan of the comic)
But after seeing the trailer, I really want to see this movie.

Rebecca Stahl was one HOT Sue Storm!

I personally enjoyed the Corman FF movie, even though it was done with little money, and thus far fewer special effects for the FF than I think should be in such a movie. It seemed to be done seriously, which for me is the first thing a movie of this type needs in order for me to be able to enjoy it. Had I not been in my early teens when the Batman TV series came out, I don't think I would have loved it like I do. I do remember wishing it was not quite so obviously silly, even then.

My only real complaint is that my apparently bootleg copy of the FF movie had a few unfinished/no sound spots in it, and that is not a fault of the movie but of the nature of the copy I obtained.

i had heard that the budget for corman's ff was about 6 million. peanuts for studio film, but high for a corman film.
i remember pre-release one sheet posters for it, as well as quite a bit of publicity, so i have a very hard time believeing the "never meant for release" story, which all stems from kevin smith, who doenst seem to have been actually involved in the production (ahem).
the story as i read it (i believe in cinefantastique) was that as the film was being prepared for release, speilburg decided he'd like to do a fantastic four movie. now its well known that cormans number one priority as a filmmaker is turning a buck (his autobiography is subtitled "how i made 100 films in hollywood and never lost a dime") so spielburg paid corman the production cost + a couple million to deep 6 the film. if this souds far fetched remember that warner bros bought dc comics in order to simplify the rights negotiations for "superman".
speilburg has his fingers in a lot of fantasy film pies, even those that arent directly produced or directed by himself, and is seems that he'll get started, lose interest, then hand it off to others. he was involved at one point in the 1995 doctor who tv movie (i remember some sketches of the tardis console room he comissioned, much of which did end up in the finished product). knowing that, i tend to believe this version of the story.
this much is certain, theres a lot more publicity and tie ins with ff than with daredevil (and even x-men) (but mercifuly not nearly as much as for the hulk).

Interesting that you saw a trailer. I am giving you information that I have read from many different sources over the years but the story basically goes like this - sometime in the 80s Corman's company acquired the movie rights from Marvel to produce a Fantastic Four movie. The contract stated that a feature film must be made within seven years from the signing or all rights reverted to Marvel and they could then sell the movie rights to someone else. If a movie was made within that period, then Corman retained the movie rights for several years longer so that he could produce sequels. 6 years pass and nothing's been done and Corman's lawyers remind him of the contract's stipulations. Corman doesn't have the script, money or resources to do a "proper" FF movie so he gets a couple of fanboys to write a script and produce the movie with no budget - I've read that the movie was made for well under a million dollars. The movie is shot, edited, and completed - and the letter of the law is met. Corman has time to raise money and prepare a script for a proper treatment of The Fantastic Four that won't get laughed out of theaters and become known as "the worst superhero movie of all time".
For some reason it never happens and the rights revert back to Marvel a couple of years later. That's the layman/fanboy/internet version - I've never really read an "authoritive" version.

Actually, it wasn't Corman who owned the rights. It was a European producer who planned to make a $40 million movie. When he couldn't raise the financing and the rights were about to expire, he went to Corman, who told him he could produce it for 1/10th that. Although it is true that it wasn't released because a bigger budget version was planned, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that it was specifically produced to not be released. I won't completely dismiss it, but it sounds like speculation about motives which is pretty much unprovable unless someone who actually made these decisions confesses. I remember there was considerable publicity when the film was in production which argues against them never planning on releasing it. Also, remember this wasn't the only Marvel character movie from that time that didn't get released. Remember CAPTAIN AMERICA?

And as for Marvel Movies not hitting the depths of BATMAN AND ROBIN, has anyone seen MAN-THING? I haven't, but when a theatrical movie goes straight to cable, it doesn't look good.

Actually, it wasn't Corman who owned the rights. It was a European producer who planned to make a $40 million movie. When he couldn't raise the financing and the rights were about to expire, he went to Corman, who told him he could produce it for 1/10th that. Although it is true that it wasn't released because a bigger budget version was planned, I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that it was specifically produced to not be released. I won't completely dismiss it, but it sounds like speculation about motives which is pretty much unprovable unless someone who actually made these decisions confesses. I remember there was considerable publicity when the film was in production which argues against them never planning on releasing it. Also, remember this wasn't the only Marvel character movie from that time that didn't get released. Remember CAPTAIN AMERICA?

And as for Marvel Movies not hitting the depths of BATMAN AND ROBIN, has anyone seen MAN-THING? I haven't, but when a theatrical movie goes straight to cable, it doesn't look good.

Like I said, I was giving the layman/fanboy/internet version. I don't claim to be an expert. Here's a couple of quotes from the IMBd - but they could have it wrong too:

"In an interview with filmmaker Kevin Smith (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0003620/), Fantastic Four creator Stan Lee (http://us.imdb.com/name/nm0498278/) said that, unbeknown to the cast and crew, this movie was never intended to be released, and was made only because the studio who owned the rights to make a Fantastic Four movie would have lost the rights if they did not begin production by a certain date."

and

"One of the reasons behind the making of the film on such short notice was that Chris Columbus was set to make a big budget version of the comic, but had to wait for the option to expire. The producers rushed this film into production knowing it would never get released, as the makers of the big budget version wouldn't want a cheaper version out there before them. The plan worked, and the film was bought for many times the cost of the option and production, just so that it would never see the light of day. Ultimately, a big-budget version would be released in 2005."

Maybe with the release of the new movie, we'll get an informative magazine article on the Corman version. I'd love to read it and know the "real story".

I'm glad I have a copy of it! There were even Movie posters printed! My
comic shop had one (should have bought it!)

so thats what happened to man thing. disguise inc offered deluxe mask of the film version, be we never recieved it.

I've been watching the Big Movie Events every year, and the one with the most hype and merchandise tie ins usually bombs the biggest. So far, the FF is leading.

What makes me say that? I've seen the trailers. This doesn't have the flavor of a Marvel "A List" effort like the Spider-Man or the X-Men films or "The Hulk". It has the flavor of the "B List" efforts like "Daredevil" or "Electra" or "The Punisher".

I tend to agree with you Zorro. I really liked Spiderman and Hulk, the writers/directors really attempted to put some genuine depth into the characters, story, and choice of quality actors. In contrast, FF (from the trailers) looks too much like over-glossy SFx with superficial script etc.
Fox

It's got Laurie Holden in it, that's good enough for me!

Saw it tonight. It exceeded my admittedly low expectations. Not by much, though. Sort of like a very expensive TV Movie of The Week or TV Pilot with a semi-comedic approach. I would say - if the previews made you optimistic, then you'll probably enjoy the movie - if they made you pessimistic - then the movie will be more or less what you were expecting.

So, I'll wait for video.

So, I'll wait for video.

Ditto.
Heck, between Star Wars, Land of the Dead, and War of the Worlds, I braved the theaters 3 times so far this year, which is more times than I've been to a theater in the last five years! Last thing before Star Wars I braved a theater for was the first Spiderman.

I'm going to venture a guess that it's probably better than the Roger Corman film of the same name.
That wouldn't be hard.

Phillip, I'd give Batman Begins a try if I were you, but probably not today!

Ditto.
Heck, between Star Wars, Land of the Dead, and War of the Worlds, I braved the theaters 3 times so far this year, which is more times than I've been to a theater in the last five years! Last thing before Star Wars I braved a theater for was the first Spiderman.

I agree with F91, BB is great.

I saw BB twice and may see it again. I never do that! On topic, I'll probably see FF tonight.

If I see anything else at a theater, it will be Batman. But man, I sure love my 52" TV and comfortable couch. Versus those Marqui-De-sade designed movie seats not made for guys 6'1" that weigh 220 lbs!

Phillip- I'm 6'1 1/2" 245 ish. Just got back from FF. I liked the Human Torch and the Thing. That's about it.

Jessica Alba is a babe - but she ain't no Sue Storm. I agree that Chiklis and the guy who played Johnny were the best things in the movie. Too bad they didn't have more to work with. Lots of product placements in this one - the "X-Games" sequence seems designed solely as an opportunity to place a whole lot of ads in one scene to get them out of the way. And Dr. Doom was the weakest element of all - a supervillain whose sole motivation is revenge for a business deal that went bad? And he wears a mask that was a gift of appreciation from the people of Latveria? The people of Latveria have very bad taste in gifts.

It was pretty bad. I went in thinking I wouldn't like the Thing and he's about the best part of the movie.

I thought the movie was a little lacking. It was nice to show how they got their powers but that was basically it. It seemed like so much time was spent on interpersonnel relationships that I thought I was watching "on Golden Pond" at times.

Jessica Alba was fine. She is from my neighborhood and is a total babe that was at least pleasing to my eyes during the slow parts.

My friend and I went to see the FF Saturday, since my wife was out of town and I didn't want to wait until she got back to go with me. I was a fan from about issue #5 in the 1960's. He knew nothing about them. We were both very pleased at how enjoyable the movie was.

Other than 4 specific complaints which bothered me (since I know the 'real' version) I thought it was great.

There were two minor but jarring (as a fan familiar with the FF) aspects associated with Ben, which I think were entirely unnecessary to have included in the movie. The creation, and abilities of Doom also jarred me.

I think this part could have been handled differently as well, being equally effective but not jarring to a long-time (or even current) FF fan. The FF have been in comics for 45 years, so a slight modification was needed to their origin, since we have had manned spaceflight for a long time now.

The sort of changes I am complaining about don't need to be made at all, yet nearly every comic book to movie seems to change something just to put the director's (or somebody's) own mark on the movie. Non-fans don't notice and don't care about the normally minor changes, but long-time fans are always bothered by them. It distracts from the action of the movie every time, for me at least.

But I did like the FF movie. The characterization seemed to be right on and straight from the original comics. The Torch's look is unfortunately from the new/current version of the FF's comic, but since I knew that it wasn't a bother to me.

The changes made for the movie to the basline documentation (comic books) of the FF and (and especially Dr Doom) were jarring to me as a long-time fan, and each time one occurred onscreen, I was slapped out of the movie back to the real world for a moment, which to me is not a good movie experience. But I really enjoyed the movie in spite of the things I didn't like.

Despite the bad reviews here and in the local newspaper by the movie critics, many in the audience when I saw the movie actually applauded at the end of the movie. I thought that a little different, since there were only other theater customers in the room, not someone who could actually appreciate the applause. But it did show that it was liked by the crowd that was there when I went. It was the first showing on Saturday, and there were a lot of adults with a few kids here and there. The room we were in was small, and while not full, had probably somewhere between 75 and 150 people (I didn't think to count at the time).

I think this just shows what we all know anyway, that not everybody thinks alike or likes the same things, or even takes things the same way as someone else.

It was not a deep, dark movie, but then I don't remember the FF really being that way either.

It was always more of a soap opera with weird characters in it, at least in what I read in the comics. Poor Ben, crying in his beer because if Alicia was not blind and could see, she would not love him any more. Poor Sue, ignored by Reed so she flirts a bit with Prince Namor, the Sub-Mariner. Poor Reed, feeling bad for how he caused the physical changes in his friends, and not able to change Ben back to human appearance. And (not exactly soap-operish in this case I guess), then there was Johnny, who was basically a good kid but a smartass who liked to have a lot of fun, and was a hothead.