Amph Official "Fantastic Four" Reboot(s) Thread

Thank GOD. I'm extremely excited about the prospect of a Daredevil netflix series that ties into other street level Marvel heroes like Luke Cage and Iron Fist, much better place than shoehorned between the FF and the X-men...

 

That would be a huge stretch, though, and I think anyone would see through it. He's one guy out of four. Plus, the box office numbers of Will Smith's movies flies in the face of the claim completely. If it was an all black cast, there could have been some truth to it.

 

When I read that Michael B. Jordan was cast as Johnny Storm I was like . Then I read the rest of the cast list and now I think he's the best fit of the four .

 

The thing is, if it turns out to be a good movie nobody's going to care whether it's true to the comics or not. Not even comics fans. I'm still surprised when people say RDjr was/is the perfect Tony Stark - he's nothing like the Stark I remember from the comics, who was serious, controlled, and (ignoring the alcoholic jokes) kind of dry. RDjr is great, he's hugely successful in the role, but he's certainly not true to the comics (imo). I feel much the same about Jackman's Wolverine and Maguire's Spider-Man.

Even if the film is nothing like the Fantastic Four we know from the comics, if it's a good movie and makes the FF seem cool I think even comic-book fans will embrace it. I don't care enough about the FF to get riled-up about bizarro casting decisions and goat-leg Doom, but I feel a little sorry for the few FF fans hoping to see a faithful adaptation.

 

Except, by the time the Iron Man film rolled around, it basically was "who is the most perfect for a middle-aged, recovering alcoholic, womanizing superhero?"

If you answered anyone other than Robert Downey Jr. or Val Kilmer...

Yes, Iron Man ended up more on the funny side than the witty side due to RDJ, but you couldn't say he wasn't brilliant, perfect casting before we knew that especially putting the two halves of his career together as a template for Tony himself.

 

BTW, have you noticed the new comic version of Ms. Marvel is a Pakistani American? Progress!

Regarding Downey Jr. as Stark, I think a serious characterisation of him would make him too similar to Batman and not stand out enough to the average Joe, especially considering they released the same summer. Plus, I feel it would be more difficult to play that movie straight if it had a too serious tone, what with the outlandish high tech gadgetry, talking AI sidekick, not to mention its eventual linkage to Captain America, SHIELD, Norse gods and whatnot. The MCU movies wouldn't work with general audiences if they took themselves too seriously.

Maguire's interpretation of Peter Parker, to my understanding stems from Raimi's adoration of the early days of the character's portrayal from the 60's and 70's, no doubt also mixed in with pop culture nerd stereotypes of the late 90s/early 00s to appeal to the MTV demographic. The reboot, released exactly a decade later, understandably portrays him more in line with his comics characterisation, now that the whole phenomenon of comic book heroes has become much more accepted into the cultural mainstream.

As for Jackman's Wolverine, having not read the comics, but remembering the 90s animated series, he wasn't a very sympathetic character the way I remember him, coming off as a brutish bastard. Without the benefit of a serialised medium like comics to incrementally reveal why he is like that, he simply wouldn't be likeable IMO. His cinematic characterisation rounds the edges to make him more relatable.

All of these changes, in my assessment, worked out for the better, and were necessary at the time.

 

Despite the really stupid plot synopsis, I expect this film to at least be better than the first FF movie.

 

That's a good observation, though I do genuinely like the idea of Michael B. Jordan as Johnny Storm. The problem comes from the fact that Sue is played by the (very white) Kate Mara, and it's unclear if they're meant to be biracial/multiracial siblings or sibling through adoption. Either answer will be awkward, because why couldn't they hire a black or biracial actress?

 

"Oh hai doggy."

 

What a story, Mark. Anyway, how's your sex life?

 

Its funny how everyone says they were fine with Ledger as the Joker, it was everyone else that were freaking out. This isn't "brilliant out of the box" casting. This is "We need to make this movie as quickly and cheaply as possible, so lets cast a few up and coming actors rather than people who actually suit their roles" casting.

 

There were a lot of us who were quite hopeful about Ledger's Joker, we just didn't shout as loudly as the naysayers:

soitscometothis, Apr 23, 2007 at 11:40 AM

soitscometothis, Jul 16, 2007 at 3:40 PM

 

God, that's an awful .gif. I hate Tumblr.

 

I don't know where to find the old threads but I seem to recall being positive as well.

However, I tend to agree with Merk. I'm, as known, generally against changing existing characters ethnicities / genders though I acknowledge the further you get from a main character the less I tend to care (Idris Elba 4ever!).

However, I'm kinda at a loss here. I was never really against MBJ as Johnny Storm in the first place (as really the only defining characteristics of his character was that a) he was a young hot-head pilot and b) he was Sue's brother) but I find myself wondering about what happens when casting MBJ as Johnny Storm is the least objectionable thing the filmmakers are doing with either casting or plotting this film (caveat: final judgment withheld until we learn the actual final plot)...

... well, let's just say I'm not optimistic.

PS - Making Khan white was still really stupid.

 

Montalban wasn't exactly that Asian looking either. You can have white Muslims, why not white Sikhs?

 

We're REALLY going to start the conversation on why white-washing an existing minority role is bad? Yes, Ricardo Montalban was not Indian -- he was Mexican; an even lower represented group, but in any case still minority. He was replaced with a white guy.

I could add the white guy's family made its money as slave owners, but that's not actually relevant.

While I'm generally against any changes, it's even worse when it's white-washing.

 

The point is the character was not properly ethnically cast in the first place, so I don't really see the point in complaining because he looks even less like how he "should" in the reboot. It's like whining about Idris Elba in the Thor movies, it doesn't matter if the acting is good (and it both cases it is).

 

If the forum I discussed TDK on was still around I'd happily link you. The big thing is, I had been watching Ledger on screen for years before most in the US had for a rather obvious reason. I am not saying I picked exactly how he would appear on screen (I was wonderfully surprised by the direction they went), but while everyone was complaining about Nolan picking Ledger and not Paul Bettany who would obviously provide the best on screen version of the Joker ever from the contemporary actors pool, I was saying that he had chosen someone who had the ability to inhabit whatever version of the role Nolan was wanting to use and make us believe it.


Anyway, on topic, most people seem to be against Jamie Bell because he doesn't "look like" Ben Grimm. My question is, why do people believe that Ben Grimm has to be a big and muscled as "The Thing" prior to the exposure that transformed him? If that's the case, then they would need to be casting a WWE wrestler for the role only. The physicality of Thing is going to be CGI based. But what makes Ben Grimm so interesting is that there is this absolute soft-hearted person living inside this large, powerful and so un-subtle body. And that with the transformation that all four members of the FF went through, Ben got the short end of the deal because the others could just go and live their normal lives without anything being different if they wanted to. Ben can't, and there is an amount of anger and resentment that lies under the surface there. It is in that peeling back of the character that Ben Grimm/The Thing has been at his most interesting, rather than him just being the muscle of the FF and essentially being another "Hulk, smash".

This is why Bell is a great choice. Most people seem to only remember him from Billy Elliot and Tin Tin. Ben doesn't have to be this weak and weedy guy, in fact that would be a bad thing because we've seen it all before. But he doesn't have to be a giant ball of muscles either. Go and have a look for pictures of Bell in The Eagle and see what type of body he actually does have. Ben doesn't have to be the stereotypical jock, he can just be athletic and a decent guy who gets turned into something different. More importantly though, have a look at Bell's wider range of films. One thing that is a common thread through most of the roles he has is that there is a simmering anger to each over something in their lives. He never plays the outright "angry with the world and is shouting and throwing things" type of person, but one that deals with the world while showing flare-ups and being able to see the subtle signs of anger under the surface. That is what is needed to give us a Ben Grimm/Thing that people will actually latch onto.

 

Because that's the character? I dunno, call me crazy...