TV/Movie General Discussion

[Abdula]

That is quite ridiculous. There is no point to remaking something if you are going to painfully adhere to the source material out of some deluded sense of honesty or respect. Comic book movies are boring, repetitive and cliched enough as it is already. This isn't Watchmen, this is a Fantastic Four reboot. These things have to be considered on a case by case basis, in this case I don't think the source material is all that good and considering how bad the movies were if they were not going to make any major changes there would be no point to rebooting the series. It is funny you mention the creative process taking a back seat to making money, supporting advertisers when you seem to want them to basically make a live action version of something you read in the 80's or 90's when that requires no creativity at all.

[UChessmaster]

If they make F4 just like in the early comics I fear for the invisible woman.

[Animeniax]

Reproducing something in a new medium has its own intrinsic value that if done right can reawaken interest in the original material. There's a reason the original comic books tend to increase in value when they are made into TV shows and movies. Live action movie versions of anything from comics, cartoons, and TV generate big interest for fans of the original material. Saying it's pointless to make live action versions unless some changes are made is ridiculous.

You don't have to strictly adhere to source material or follow a story verbatim in order to do the originals justice and honor them. But major changes can take someone else's creation and bastardize it. Does the director/producer want to tell a new story with these characters, or do they just want to tweak it to make some money off an existing product? I say it's the latter.

Were the original FF4 movies flops because of the characters or because of the weak storylines and promotion? I think any superhero movie done correctly could be a hit. So what the franchise needs is better writing and production, not some trivial change to one of the characters to satisfy PC demographics.

[UChessmaster]

F4 wasn`t a flop, rise was.

[Animeniax]

It looks like they were both equally successful, though not on Iron Man levels:

http://boxofficemojo.com/search/?q=fantastic%20four

Both opened at #1 for their weekends earning ~$57 million. Surfer didn't do as well globally, earning ~$298m during its run, while FF4 earned ~$330m.

Considering this, why do they feel they need to make such a change to the character? Understandably Chris Evans might be too big a name to want to reprise the role of Johnny Storm, but that doesn't mean the character needs to be re-written.

edit: Plus Evans is busy with Captain America/Avengers 2.

edit 2: While reading up on the potential casting of Jordan as Johnny Storm, I see that Jamie Foxx is most likely getting the role of Electro in the 2nd Amazing Spider-man movie. When will some yellow people get roles? Hollywood is a bunch of racists.

[Kraco]

After thinking about it, I have no problems with this issue despite the fact I read a thick pile of those comics in 80's and early 90's. As long as the actor can pull off the role, of course. Like Nick Fury by Samuel L. Jackson. In fact I doubt anybody could have made that role any better, but then again, Samuel L. Jackson kicks ass in any role he accepts. I reckon the only exceptions would be those characters that I've really liked in these adaptations, like Magneto by Ian McKellen or Wolverine by Hugh Jackman. But in those cases I'd be sad if they were suddenly played by any other actor, regardless of any racial details. Considering Magneto, his role has certain requirements as he's a Jewish survivor from a Nazi concentration camp, so I doubt just anybody could be cast into the role.

Fantastic Four was such a sucky movie that I couldn't care less. All I remember is that it had Jessica Alba.

[Animeniax]

Fantastic Four was such a sucky movie that I couldn't care less. All I remember is that it had Jessica Alba.

Even with the gorgeous Jessica Alba I didn't bother watching either FF4 movie (I don't like her as a blonde, though that's not the reason I didn't see the movies). The new movie will have a new Invisible Woman as well.

[Buffalobiian]

Read around from Ryll's link, and came across:

6 Insane Stereotypes That Movies Can't Seem to Get Over
(#4 onwards is relevant to this discussion)

I don't watch enough movies to point out if he's cherry picking, but I'm not at all surprised about Hollywood warping reality to suit their needs. My wake-up call was their depiction of gun suppressors and fuel tank explosions.

[Animeniax]

Read around from Ryll's link, and came across:

6 Insane Stereotypes That Movies Can't Seem to Get Over
(#4 onwards is relevant to this discussion)

I don't watch enough movies to point out if he's cherry picking, but I'm not at all surprised about Hollywood warping reality to suit their needs. My wake-up call was their depiction of gun suppressors and fuel tank explosions.

Considering some of the recent genocides center in African countries like Somalia, Rwanda, the Congo, Sudan, etc, committed by military warlords, the first stereotype they list isn't that unfair. Hollywood is always looking for a good villain for moviegoers to hate. Personally I'm tired of North Korea and China as the enemy in movies, tv, and video games.

[Ryllharu]

I'm tired of it being posh caucasian Europeans (frequently just British) lately, because anything else would be insensitive.

But the DPRK and China bashing is all part of the great propaganda machine. Just like how they always used to be Russians, and then always generic-Arabs.

[Animeniax]

Yeah but at least Caucasian Euros are portrayed as criminal masterminds bent on world domination through means other than military might.

[Abdula]

Yep, always the suave billionaire philanthropist, reminds me of the whole black Lex Luthor thing. Anyway I don't think this topic is interesting, Hollywood has ridiculous ideas and perpetuates them, nice conundrum by the way.

It looks like they were both equally successful, though not on Iron Man levels:
Both opened at #1 for their weekends earning ~$57 million. Surfer didn't do as well globally, earning ~$298m during its run, while FF4 earned ~$330m.

I just wanted to point out that it is hilarious that you're deciding whether a movie is successful or not based on how much money it made when you were complaining about them essentially selling out in order to make more money. Both the Fantastic Four movies were really bad.

[Animeniax]

Yep, always the suave billionaire philanthropist, reminds me of the whole black Lex Luthor thing. Anyway I don't think this topic is interesting, Hollywood has ridiculous ideas and perpetuates them, nice conundrum by the way.

I just wanted to point out that it is hilarious that you're deciding whether a movie is successful or not based on how much money it made when you were complaining about them essentially selling out in order to make more money. Both the Fantastic Four movies were really bad.

There are plans for a black Lex Luthor? Blasphemy!

Success is often equated with how much money is made. It's not my personal definition of success. Regardless, an opening weekend of $57 million is a successful movie, whether it is good or not.

[Abdula]

If it is not your definition of success then why the hell are you even referencing it. Those last two sentences are contradictory. I feel like shaking you.

[Animeniax]

Speak to your audience. Though it's not my measure of success, it generally is seen as the measure of success, particularly when talking about a superhero movie. Obviously these won't stand the test of time like some of the great movies (Blade Runner, Aliens, etc) so really we can only rate them by how much money they made.

[Kraco]

It's entertainment business. Of course success is measured by how well the investment managed to first cover the expenses and then make profit. The only other measure Hollywood probably cares about are the Academy Awards, but I don't think too many movies that were economic catastrophes got Oscars either.

[UChessmaster]

There are plans for a black Lex Luthor? Blasphemy!

?????

lexluthor96.jpg

Speak to your audience. Though it's not my measure of success, it generally is seen as the measure of success, particularly when talking about a superhero movie. Obviously these won't stand the test of time like some of the great movies (Blade Runner, Aliens, etc) so really we can only rate them by how much money they made.

V for Vendetta.

[Abdula]

It's entertainment business. Of course success is measured by how well the investment managed to first cover the expenses and then make profit. The only other measure Hollywood probably cares about are the Academy Awards, but I don't think too many movies that were economic catastrophes got Oscars either.

That is not the point though. He keeps mentioning that whether a movie was profitable or not is not his definition of success but follows that by saying that making a certain amount of money automatically makes a movie a success. It is very simple if it is not your basis for determining success then why are you using it as such. I mean in the post directly above yours he says you can only rate them by how much money they made. I wonder if he thinks the Resident Evil movies were a success. Based on how he has criticized "Hollywood" and his personal definition of success one would think the answer would be no but since those movies were very profitable his answer would have to be yes.

[Animeniax]

That is not the point though. He keeps mentioning that whether a movie was profitable or not is not his definition of success but follows that by saying that making a certain amount of money automatically makes a movie a success. It is very simple if it is not your basis for determining success then why are you using it as such. I mean in the post directly above yours he says you can only rate them by how much money they made. I wonder if he thinks the Resident Evil movies were a success. Based on how he has criticized "Hollywood" and his personal definition of success one would think the answer would be no but since those movies were very profitable his answer would have to be yes.

As stated already, it is not MY measure of success but the universal measure of success for movies.

Even by these standards, none of the RE movies was a success. They had good openings around $20m but went on to only make $40-60m domestically over their lifetimes. They did better internationally but the domestic market is still the largest determinant of success in Hollywood studios' eyes.

?????

lexluthor96.jpg

V for Vendetta.

He looks more Italian or Greek than anything. Apparently there's debate about it: do-you-think-lex-luthor-is-black-in-justice-league-651759/

What was the point of mentioning V for Vendetta? It was a good movie, but financially it barely broke even. Not sure if it was considered a success or not.

[Abdula]

Lol, I think you misunderstand the meaning of universal Ani. If it does not apply to everyone then it is not universal. To put an end to this, just state what your definition of a successful movie is, since I mentioned Resident evil you can make it specific to action movies. Then state what you would consider to be an unsuccessful action movie and then based on those two things tell us whether you think the Resident Evil franchise was successful or not based entirely on your measure of success.