The film did not deserve the crap that it received. It had a lot of great potential, only to be ruined by a mix of studio meddling and audience's reactions. Pay particular attention to the latter. A lot of it has to do with people's reactions to the movie which are not necessarily right or wrong. A lot of the complaints about the movie being "generic" are probably mostly coming from audience members perhaps seeing too many movies. They have spoiled their expectations for movies by devouring what seems like every single movie in a particular genre after another. You do not need to see EVERY single movie that comes your way 

 

As I have always said its not how something is similar to something. It is how it is not. Saying something is crap because it is too similar to something else has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in my life, more ridiculous than the movie/whatever itself. Why do you play Mario Kart/any other racing game with pretty much the same gameplay (btw a LOT more derivative of each other than any similar movies ever will be)? Because you LIKE that kind of gameplay and what to experience it, however similar or different. Its also like playing a sport. SPOILER ALERT: you do the exact same generic thing over and over again with it or any other sport, most of which are quite similar to each other. Whether or not you enjoy them is how they are within themselves. You should treat every single movie you see as if it is the first and last one you'll ever see. You should not have to compare it to others to have a good time. You decide if you wanna see it based on if you like the concepts or ideas teased to you however brief from the trailers or whatever other unbiased source. No need to rely on any of this Rotten Tomatoes or word of mouth crap. Why most of my least favourite movies came from recommendations. I would actually pay money to unsee them. They were that bad. 

 

The movie in itself did have its faults but from what people have said about it, you'd think it was like the worst thing ever made. I've seen many acclaimed movies that I would rank a lot lower, even after thinking critically about them and what made them so acclaimed. I'm hearing more complaints about it being "generic" than anything else. What is generic to you may not be to everyone else. So we are supposed to see every superhero movie ever made eh? What if some people had never seen them or Chronicle (which I haven't nor have any desire to regardless of its acclaim) or any of these other movies its compared to. Besides, you may end up liking the execution better here than even other things that were acclaimed to have done it better. Just because a lot of people do not like it does not mean that it is bad. As well, do you want to be controlled by what you like? Because going by what everyone else says lets them control you. And personally, NOTHING on this earth makes me angrier than being controlled by others. This is MY life.  Whatever I do is MY choice and I will consider, but not let others even majority block me from enjoying whatever it is I want to enjoy. Other times it may be needed but in this context we are talking about an experience that is intimate and personal. Heck my life has suffered more from seeing/doing things that the majority recommended than me trusting myself. 

 

You can read more about my reasonings behind this series continuing here:http://moviepilot.com/posts/2015/10/06/5-reasons-why-fox-should-green-light-the-fantastic-four-sequel-3576531?lt_source=external,manual

 

As well, for anyone interested, the (North American) Blu ray release is December 15 

Um... okay... well... if I can offer a counter-point... is it possible that your expectations are a bit small?

 

Look, friend, let me just sum up the penultimate reason why this film has failed, or at least my own interpretation of the reason because I can't speak for everybody: You see, I've mentioned before in my own review for Fant-Four-Stick and other superhero movie reviews that we are currently living in a golden age of movies based off comic books and superheroes. Like other aspects of geek culture, they have been embraced in the mainstream, and are not only backed by Hollywood but also by content creators who aim to please fans of both casual and hardcore perspectives. Just look at the Marvel Cinematic Universe for proof.

 

However, 20th Century Fox, Josh Trank, and the other content creators behind this movie didn't really hit the mark of why that works. You see, it works because there is a healthy balance (for the most part) of pleasing an audience that wants to see a great comic book movie as well as pleasing an audience that just wants to see a good movie that just happens to have superheroes in it. This movie didn't really try to do that. It wanted to be like the MCU, it wanted to have a big universe and the potential to expand this universe into sequels. But you know what, even though the MCU does that too, it remembers that there has to be interest in this universe first. How do you build interest? Simple. You build it by building interest in everything else. Characters, story, motivations, themes, setting. All of these are what hooks people into that lore. Why should we care about a big universe that is filled with uninteresting or just plain bad things?

 

Take the Amazing Spider-Man film series for example. Now, I've gone on record saying that I enjoyed TASM and TASM2 a lot, and I appreciate that it cared for the Spider-Man brand that the original Raimi film trilogy did, which was just too cheesy and stupid for my tastes. But even I have to admit that Marc Webb and Sony tried very hard to set up it own personal Spider-Man universe in both films, building up more sequels and characters to be revealed later on, and the movies did suffer a bit from that.

 

However, the difference between TASM and Fant-Four-Stick is that TASM still had character, still had plot, still had themes, and etc. There was attention paid to the necessary components that made a good film, not just a good film series with tons of content and lore packed into it. Fant-Four-Stick was too concerned in laying the ground work for something bigger rather than just slowing down and building up for the future rather than slowing down and putting in work for the present. It was too ambitious, and because of that, it shot itself in the foot. There wasn't enough time for anything else in this movie except going through bullet points until they reached a conclusion that would ready themselves for another list of bullet points in the Fant-Four-Stick Two.

 

Don't even get me started on the tone either, we'll be here all day.

 

Overall, the most basic way to say it is that it failed. It failed to capture an interest in the Fantastic Four property, it failed to build interest in a Fantastic Four universe, and it failed to be a good movie altogether.

Edited December 24, 20159 yr by Firaga Sensei

I'm sorry but the movie was bad especially for a Marvel fan. The film's being painfully generic is only the tip of the iceberg. The overall story arc is virtually non existent and mostly consists of the characters being in a laboratory. The special effects were decent but that's marred by the fact you rarely see them due to very little amounts of actions. The lack of action is also a big no no in a superhero film. Yes seeing story and character development is always important in any film but in superhero film fans want the payoff of badass action sequences of their favorite characters. This film had almost none that and failed to capitalize on the potential of the F4 in that regard. The film's saving grace was the character's portrayals and development but even that is marred by the lack of story direction. Yeah they beat the baddie and saved the world but it felt very anticlimactic. It pretty much felt like a very long introduction proceeded by the falling action.

say what? i'm gonna try to go about responding to this with some organized points 

 

A lot of the complaints about the movie being "generic" are probably mostly coming from audience members perhaps seeing too many movies.

So this is just dumb to me. Why is the audience at fault for watching too many movies? If studios used this excuse then that would be counterproductive to their entire business. Don't blame the audience for seeing too many movies. Blame the studios for making movies too samey and generic. 

 

Saying something is crap because it is too similar to something else has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in my life, more ridiculous than the movie/whatever itself

(well you should look at that first quote from you i listed up above cause that's quite a doozy)

While I'll admit that isn't a good complaint, it can still be valid. If two movies present similar themes in identical ways then yea it can ruin the experience a bit if you've seen them both. Now if two movies share similar themes but present them in very different ways then that'd be more understandable, I'd say. Movies sort of do that now, honestly. Similar themes, settings, plots, etc but just present differently.

 

Why do you play Mario Kart/any other racing game with pretty much the same gameplay (btw a LOT more derivative of each other than any similar movies ever will be)? Because you LIKE that kind of gameplay and what to experience it, however similar or different. Its also like playing a sport. SPOILER ALERT: you do the exact same generic thing over and over again with it or any other sport, most of which are quite similar to each other.

I'd say for this it has to do with the new experiences we can get with a new Mario Kart or playing another sport. Sports was a bad comparison because even though the rules and main idea of the game stays the same, the way players go about achieving victory is always different. Video games could be a good comparison but I feel like the interactivity they have just gives them an edge over the film industry. 

Take your Mario Kart example for....example. I don't think someone plays a Mario Kart game and then buys another MK game expecting a brand new experience. No, they expect that classic Mario Kart gameplay that they've come to expect from a series called Mario Kart. As for video games that are not part of the same series, I feel like what I said about sports can apply. The game mechanics may be the same but the way they're presented in different enough ways to let them slide. The platformer genre is a good example The basic jumping mechanics are always there in some way but changed just enough to feel new and refreshing to the player. 

Movies do this too but it seems like the Fantastic 4 reboot just didn't handle it all that well. 

 

You should treat every single movie you see as if it is the first and last one you'll ever see.

that sounds like we'd be playing right into the hands of every lazy movie studio trying to make a quick buck. criticism is good for a reason. we need a basis for comparison in order to sort out the bad movies from the good. otherwise we're just enabling movie studios to make terrible films and not be bashed for it. you shouldn't have to stop thinking in order to enjoy a movie.

 

You should not have to compare it to others to have a good time

but people can compare movies to have a good time or even enjoy the movie more. that statement makes it sound like you're rallying against some mandated movie reviewer rule saying we must compare movies in order to like them. but maybe that's just me.

 

You decide if you wanna see it based on if you like the concepts or ideas teased to you however brief from the trailers or whatever other unbiased source. No need to rely on any of this Rotten Tomatoes or word of mouth crap.

yea but for some people going to the movies is a special treat and so they'd like to be sure they're going to see something worth their time and money. trailers are made to entice viewers so i'd say even an official movie trailer is just as untrustworthy. not all reviews are bad but i agree that they're sometimes not good sources of opinions. still, it comes down to people needing some kind of reassurance that whatever movie they choose to go see will not be bad and movie reviews can give them that reassurance.

 

 Why most of my least favourite movies came from recommendations

sorry to hear that. but hey not everyone has the same tastes i guess. unless your recommendations were from review sites, in which case, yea don't rely solely on what a reviewer says. I'd definitely do more background research to get a wider opinion if i were you.

 

 The movie in itself did have its faults but from what people have said about it, you'd think it was like the worst thing ever made

yea people love to hate. and maybe it was the worst thing for them

 

I've seen many acclaimed movies that I would rank a lot lower, even after thinking critically about them and what made them so acclaimed

well tbh this is just a case of opinion vs. opinion so it doesn't really matter

 

What is generic to you may not be to everyone else

and i guess that's what the studio is banking on. having a dumb audience see their movie and not realize how recycled it is from any other film. why not try to make films better by avoiding what's been done already, rather than make them based on what others haven't gotten around to watching? 

 

So we are supposed to see every superhero movie ever made eh?

of course not. unless they were all linked into one big cinematic universe or something.....

 

Besides, you may end up liking the execution better here than even other things that were acclaimed to have done it better

well that's true and it could happen, but are you also saying someone could like the execution in one movie simply because they haven't seen it been properly done in another better movie that's already been out?

 

Just because a lot of people do not like it does not mean that it is bad

that's usually what that means though when it's a large majority. i mean surely a few of them have legit complaints about it. 

 

As well, do you want to be controlled by what you like? Because going by what everyone else says lets them control you.

well yes that would let them control you. unless of course you hear both sides of the argument, look at the facts, watch the movie for yourself and then come to your own conclusion which happens to land in the majority party. because then they aren't controlling you. at that point you aren't blindly jumping on the bandwagon so it's ok.

 

I will consider, but not let others even majority block me from enjoying whatever it is I want to enjoy

hey thats great. so no hard feelings about this response. i mean i'm not trying to be antagonistic. i just got a very ranty vibe from this post and felt like breaking it down a bit. but yea if you like the movie that's fine. if people hate the movie that is also fine. opinions are fine.

 

aaaaaand bam. 

i think i got most of what i wanted to say out of the way. in conclusion it's ok to like a movie.

just now reading some user reviews of the movie and it looks like people have some legit complaints. sounds like the movie was boring, had bad special effects, terrible plot, no regard for source material, very shallow and run of the mill and of course....generic. 

i haven't seen the movie but i don't doubt the mountain of negative things the movie has going against it. plus even the director, Josh Trank, hates the final product. He says Fox ruined his movie and that his original plan for the film would have gotten better reviews. Of course that's probably just a case of the blame game between him and Fox. Anyways it seems like most people, including the director and the studio behind the film, are having some issues with it and only a small minority of people enjoy the film. Is this because only they can see the diamond in the rough that is "Fant4stic," or have they merely not seen enough good movies to know how to spot a bad one? 

Um... okay... well... if I can offer a counter-point... is it possible that your expectations are a bit small?

 

Look, friend, let me just sum up the penultimate reason why this film has failed, or at least my own interpretation of the reason because I can't speak for everybody: You see, I've mentioned before in my own review for Fant-Four-Stick and other superhero movie reviews that we are currently living in a golden age of movies based off comic books and superheroes. Like other aspects of geek culture, they have been embraced in the mainstream, and are not only backed by Hollywood but also by content creators who aim to please fans of both casual and hardcore perspectives. Just look at the Marvel Cinematic Universe for proof.

 

However, 20th Century Fox, Josh Trank, and the other content creators behind this movie didn't really hit the mark of why that works. You see, it works because there is a healthy balance (for the most part) of pleasing an audience that wants to see a great comic book movie as well as pleasing an audience that just wants to see a good movie that just happens to have superheroes in it. This movie didn't really try to do that. It wanted to be like the MCU, it wanted to have a big universe and the potential to expand this universe into sequels. But you know what, even though the MCU does that too, it remembers that there has to be interest in this universe first. How do you build interest? Simple. You build it by building interest in everything else. Characters, story, motivations, themes, setting. All of these are what hooks people into that lore. Why should we care about a big universe that is filled with uninteresting or just plain bad things?

 

Take the Amazing Spider-Man film series for example. Now, I've gone on record saying that I enjoyed TASM and TASM2 a lot, and I appreciate that it cared for the Spider-Man brand that the original Raimi film trilogy did, which was just too cheesy and stupid for my tastes. But even I have to admit that Marc Webb and Sony tried very hard to set up it own personal Spider-Man universe in both films, building up more sequels and characters to be revealed later on, and the movies did suffer a bit from that.

 

However, the difference between TASM and Fant-Four-Stick is that TASM still had character, still had plot, still had themes, and etc. There was attention paid to the necessary components that made a good film, not just a good film series with tons of content and lore packed into it. Fant-Four-Stick was too concerned in laying the ground work for something bigger rather than just slowing down and building up for the future rather than slowing down and putting in work for the present. It was too ambitious, and because of that, it shot itself in the foot. There wasn't enough time for anything else in this movie except going through bullet points until they reached a conclusion that would ready themselves for another list of bullet points in the Fant-Four-Stick Two.

 

Don't even get me started on the tone either, but we'll be here all day.

 

Overall, the most basic way to say it is that it failed. It failed to capture an interest in the Fantastic Four property, it failed to build interest in a Fantastic Four universe, and it failed to be a good movie altogether.

I would say that this film focused a lot more on its main storyline which was an establishment of the fantastic four then what marvel has done with most of their movies:

 

First Avenger was basically the bastard child of both Thor and Iron Man, focusing too much on elements form both films. I mean having Thor's mythology mixed in with the villain's plot was a bit much. I know that they are part of the same universe but that does not mean that EVERYTHING has to be connected.  No one will care about the crossover unless something by itself is built up well. Hence why First Avenger became one of the lowest grossing MCU/marvel movies in general. It may also explain why AOU did not gross as much as Avengers 1 which many people really thought would happen only to be utterly shocked.  Iron man 3 finally got a perfect balance with staying focused on its own thing while only making subtle references to past things only to have Dark World ruin it up with a funny but unnecessary Cap cameo (let alone its ridiculously  barbaric action). Going back to FA, having iron man's dad there just made it more like I was watching a spin off than a stand alone movie, and it along with the Thor stuff just took me out of it. Looking at the MC as one universe just gives em an enormous headache and actually took away the things that I like about crossovers: The surprise element. With over baked set up like in FA, and with Nick Fury showing up at the end of every Marvel film (some of which like the post credits scene of Thor was VERY pointless, you can take that post credits scene out and still have Avengers make sense and flow from Thor nicely. Having that scene in there causes more confusion if anything) it takes away the value and fun in having a crossover as we already know that they are part of the universe. They do not need to keep reminding us in every single movie. Its more fun to wait until the big cross over event then you can go back and see how they are all connected.  

 

 

If crossover set up was not enough, I found in some of their movies like GOTG it was VERY hard to understand what was going on because they rush through scenes with bad explanation. I must have had to watch that movie more than 3 times before I fully got Ronan's plot, let alone the fact that he was one of the most dull and cliched villains I have ever seen in my life. Here Dr. Doom actually had humanity with clear explanation to his motivations. I felt more sympathy for these Fox characters then I do for most of the MCU characters who mostly feel like weird, dull one note characters that leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. Here in FF alone, with the character moments and action they did have made me feel a lot more inspired and amazed then the overcookedness of what marvel usually does with all of their movies 

If you felt that Fant4stic was trying harder to be more inspired, then your expectations really are something to bring into question.

 

You don't really seem to understand how this whole connected-universe-thing is supposed to work either. First off, "surprise"? If you've been paying attention since Iron Man 1, surprise is not something you should be feeling. Cross-overs don't have to "surprise" anyone unless it's supposed to be unexpected, just like any surprising element, plot twist, or any other trope of that matter. We've known for a very long time that the MCU is the MCU and we do expect to see connections being made here and there. We're not being hit over the head when these connections are being made either, we're being given what we want. What you describe as "pointless" is actually very important to the lore of the MCU. Everything counts. And you know what, the MCU still managed to brings together talent, skill, and interest into its formula. Just stop and pay attention to what exactly is going on the MCU. Is there a lot of exposition about important events and objects and such? Yes. But is there also interesting characters with cool powers, awesome action sequences, and clear motivations, rather they be big or small? Yes yes yes.

 

It's like I said earlier, to build a big universe, you must fill that universe with interesting things. MCU built their universe with interesting things. Fant-Four-Stick built it's universe off half-assery and tediousness. I know that I said I wouldn't speak about the tone either, but I'll clarify a little bit on it: it's boring, it's depressing, it's trying too hard to be all serious and dark. That's also a major part of its failings because even when its actually trying to have some character, its character is exactly those things I described. We're supposed to be past the Daredevil-levels of Superhero Angst Syndrome, and yet this movie caught it anyway. Yes, there is drama in the MCU, but it's understandable drama. It's real drama created by real people, not just "oh boo hoo, being a superhero sucks so haaaaard..."

 

Doom's motivations aren't that great either, even though he was admittingly my favorite character. Not only is his renegade bad-boy image too harshly presented but it gets mixed up with his infatuation for Susan, his jealousy of Reed, not to mention his plan near the end was stupid as all Hell, etc. It's just a big mess.

 

Also, while Ronan and most other MCU villains may not have been that interesting, if you actually pay attention, you will get what they're on about. It's simple: he is a "cleanser", a warrior obsessed with power and order with a dash of arrogance. At least his presence was given more detail than Doom's. Hell, it makes him look like a pissed off teenager in comparison.

The film did not deserve the crap that it received. It had a lot of great potential, only to be ruined by a mix of studio meddling and audience's reactions. Pay particular attention to the latter. A lot of it has to do with people's reactions to the movie which are not necessarily right or wrong. A lot of the complaints about the movie being "generic" are probably mostly coming from audience members perhaps seeing too many movies. They have spoiled their expectations for movies by devouring what seems like every single movie in a particular genre after another. You do not need to see EVERY single movie that comes your way 

 

As I have always said its not how something is similar to something. It is how it is not. Saying something is crap because it is too similar to something else has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in my life, more ridiculous than the movie/whatever itself. Why do you play Mario Kart/any other racing game with pretty much the same gameplay (btw a LOT more derivative of each other than any similar movies ever will be)? Because you LIKE that kind of gameplay and what to experience it, however similar or different. Its also like playing a sport. SPOILER ALERT: you do the exact same generic thing over and over again with it or any other sport, most of which are quite similar to each other. Whether or not you enjoy them is how they are within themselves. You should treat every single movie you see as if it is the first and last one you'll ever see. You should not have to compare it to others to have a good time. You decide if you wanna see it based on if you like the concepts or ideas teased to you however brief from the trailers or whatever other unbiased source. No need to rely on any of this Rotten Tomatoes or word of mouth crap. Why most of my least favourite movies came from recommendations. I would actually pay money to unsee them. They were that bad. 

 

The movie in itself did have its faults but from what people have said about it, you'd think it was like the worst thing ever made. I've seen many acclaimed movies that I would rank a lot lower, even after thinking critically about them and what made them so acclaimed. I'm hearing more complaints about it being "generic" than anything else. What is generic to you may not be to everyone else. So we are supposed to see every superhero movie ever made eh? What if some people had never seen them or Chronicle (which I haven't nor have any desire to regardless of its acclaim) or any of these other movies its compared to. Besides, you may end up liking the execution better here than even other things that were acclaimed to have done it better. Just because a lot of people do not like it does not mean that it is bad. As well, do you want to be controlled by what you like? Because going by what everyone else says lets them control you. And personally, NOTHING on this earth makes me angrier than being controlled by others. This is MY life.  Whatever I do is MY choice and I will consider, but not let others even majority block me from enjoying whatever it is I want to enjoy. Other times it may be needed but in this context we are talking about an experience that is intimate and personal. Heck my life has suffered more from seeing/doing things that the majority recommended than me trusting myself. 

 

You can read more about my reasonings behind this series continuing here:http://moviepilot.com/posts/2015/10/06/5-reasons-why-fox-should-green-light-the-fantastic-four-sequel-3576531?lt_source=external,manual

 

As well, for anyone interested, the (North American) Blu ray release is December 15 

............No, forget it, somebody else will bring perspective to this.

 

Um... okay... well... if I can offer a counter-point... is it possible that your expectations are a bit small?

 

Look, friend, let me just sum up the penultimate reason why this film has failed, or at least my own interpretation of the reason because I can't speak for everybody: You see, I've mentioned before in my own review for Fant-Four-Stick and other superhero movie reviews that we are currently living in a golden age of movies based off comic books and superheroes. Like other aspects of geek culture, they have been embraced in the mainstream, and are not only backed by Hollywood but also by content creators who aim to please fans of both casual and hardcore perspectives. Just look at the Marvel Cinematic Universe for proof.

 

However, 20th Century Fox, Josh Trank, and the other content creators behind this movie didn't really hit the mark of why that works. You see, it works because there is a healthy balance (for the most part) of pleasing an audience that wants to see a great comic book movie as well as pleasing an audience that just wants to see a good movie that just happens to have superheroes in it. This movie didn't really try to do that. It wanted to be like the MCU, it wanted to have a big universe and the potential to expand this universe into sequels. But you know what, even though the MCU does that too, it remembers that there has to be interest in this universe first. How do you build interest? Simple. You build it by building interest in everything else. Characters, story, motivations, themes, setting. All of these are what hooks people into that lore. Why should we care about a big universe that is filled with uninteresting or just plain bad things?

 

Take the Amazing Spider-Man film series for example. Now, I've gone on record saying that I enjoyed TASM and TASM2 a lot, and I appreciate that it cared for the Spider-Man brand that the original Raimi film trilogy did, which was just too cheesy and stupid for my tastes. But even I have to admit that Marc Webb and Sony tried very hard to set up it own personal Spider-Man universe in both films, building up more sequels and characters to be revealed later on, and the movies did suffer a bit from that.

 

However, the difference between TASM and Fant-Four-Stick is that TASM still had character, still had plot, still had themes, and etc. There was attention paid to the necessary components that made a good film, not just a good film series with tons of content and lore packed into it. Fant-Four-Stick was too concerned in laying the ground work for something bigger rather than just slowing down and building up for the future rather than slowing down and putting in work for the present. It was too ambitious, and because of that, it shot itself in the foot. There wasn't enough time for anything else in this movie except going through bullet points until they reached a conclusion that would ready themselves for another list of bullet points in the Fant-Four-Stick Two.

 

Don't even get me started on the tone either, but we'll be here all day.

 

Overall, the most basic way to say it is that it failed. It failed to capture an interest in the Fantastic Four property, it failed to build interest in a Fantastic Four universe, and it failed to be a good movie altogether.

 

 

say what? i'm gonna try to go about responding to this with some organized points 

 

A lot of the complaints about the movie being "generic" are probably mostly coming from audience members perhaps seeing too many movies.

So this is just dumb to me. Why is the audience at fault for watching too many movies? If studios used this excuse then that would be counterproductive to their entire business. Don't blame the audience for seeing too many movies. Blame the studios for making movies too samey and generic. 

 

Saying something is crap because it is too similar to something else has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen in my life, more ridiculous than the movie/whatever itself

(well you should look at that first quote from you i listed up above cause that's quite a doozy)

While I'll admit that isn't a good complaint, it can still be valid. If two movies present similar themes in identical ways then yea it can ruin the experience a bit if you've seen them both. Now if two movies share similar themes but present them in very different ways then that'd be more understandable, I'd say. Movies sort of do that now, honestly. Similar themes, settings, plots, etc but just present differently.

 

Why do you play Mario Kart/any other racing game with pretty much the same gameplay (btw a LOT more derivative of each other than any similar movies ever will be)? Because you LIKE that kind of gameplay and what to experience it, however similar or different. Its also like playing a sport. SPOILER ALERT: you do the exact same generic thing over and over again with it or any other sport, most of which are quite similar to each other.

I'd say for this it has to do with the new experiences we can get with a new Mario Kart or playing another sport. Sports was a bad comparison because even though the rules and main idea of the game stays the same, the way players go about achieving victory is always different. Video games could be a good comparison but I feel like the interactivity they have just gives them an edge over the film industry. 

Take your Mario Kart example for....example. I don't think someone plays a Mario Kart game and then buys another MK game expecting a brand new experience. No, they expect that classic Mario Kart gameplay that they've come to expect from a series called Mario Kart. As for video games that are not part of the same series, I feel like what I said about sports can apply. The game mechanics may be the same but the way they're presented in different enough ways to let them slide. The platformer genre is a good example The basic jumping mechanics are always there in some way but changed just enough to feel new and refreshing to the player. 

Movies do this too but it seems like the Fantastic 4 reboot just didn't handle it all that well. 

 

You should treat every single movie you see as if it is the first and last one you'll ever see.

that sounds like we'd be playing right into the hands of every lazy movie studio trying to make a quick buck. criticism is good for a reason. we need a basis for comparison in order to sort out the bad movies from the good. otherwise we're just enabling movie studios to make terrible films and not be bashed for it. you shouldn't have to stop thinking in order to enjoy a movie.

 

You should not have to compare it to others to have a good time

but people can compare movies to have a good time or even enjoy the movie more. that statement makes it sound like you're rallying against some mandated movie reviewer rule saying we must compare movies in order to like them. but maybe that's just me.

 

You decide if you wanna see it based on if you like the concepts or ideas teased to you however brief from the trailers or whatever other unbiased source. No need to rely on any of this Rotten Tomatoes or word of mouth crap.

yea but for some people going to the movies is a special treat and so they'd like to be sure they're going to see something worth their time and money. trailers are made to entice viewers so i'd say even an official movie trailer is just as untrustworthy. not all reviews are bad but i agree that they're sometimes not good sources of opinions. still, it comes down to people needing some kind of reassurance that whatever movie they choose to go see will not be bad and movie reviews can give them that reassurance.

 

 Why most of my least favourite movies came from recommendations

sorry to hear that. but hey not everyone has the same tastes i guess. unless your recommendations were from review sites, in which case, yea don't rely solely on what a reviewer says. I'd definitely do more background research to get a wider opinion if i were you.

 

 The movie in itself did have its faults but from what people have said about it, you'd think it was like the worst thing ever made

yea people love to hate. and maybe it was the worst thing for them

 

I've seen many acclaimed movies that I would rank a lot lower, even after thinking critically about them and what made them so acclaimed

well tbh this is just a case of opinion vs. opinion so it doesn't really matter

 

What is generic to you may not be to everyone else

and i guess that's what the studio is banking on. having a dumb audience see their movie and not realize how recycled it is from any other film. why not try to make films better by avoiding what's been done already, rather than make them based on what others haven't gotten around to watching? 

 

So we are supposed to see every superhero movie ever made eh?

of course not. unless they were all linked into one big cinematic universe or something.....

 

Besides, you may end up liking the execution better here than even other things that were acclaimed to have done it better

well that's true and it could happen, but are you also saying someone could like the execution in one movie simply because they haven't seen it been properly done in another better movie that's already been out?

 

Just because a lot of people do not like it does not mean that it is bad

that's usually what that means though when it's a large majority. i mean surely a few of them have legit complaints about it. 

 

As well, do you want to be controlled by what you like? Because going by what everyone else says lets them control you.

well yes that would let them control you. unless of course you hear both sides of the argument, look at the facts, watch the movie for yourself and then come to your own conclusion which happens to land in the majority party. because then they aren't controlling you. at that point you aren't blindly jumping on the bandwagon so it's ok.

 

I will consider, but not let others even majority block me from enjoying whatever it is I want to enjoy

hey thats great. so no hard feelings about this response. i mean i'm not trying to be antagonistic. i just got a very ranty vibe from this post and felt like breaking it down a bit. but yea if you like the movie that's fine. if people hate the movie that is also fine. opinions are fine.

 

aaaaaand bam. 

i think i got most of what i wanted to say out of the way. in conclusion it's ok to like a movie.

just now reading some user reviews of the movie and it looks like people have some legit complaints. sounds like the movie was boring, had bad special effects, terrible plot, no regard for source material, very shallow and run of the mill and of course....generic. 

i haven't seen the movie but i don't doubt the mountain of negative things the movie has going against it. plus even the director, Josh Trank, hates the final product. He says Fox ruined his movie and that his original plan for the film would have gotten better reviews. Of course that's probably just a case of the blame game between him and Fox. Anyways it seems like most people, including the director and the studio behind the film, are having some issues with it and only a small minority of people enjoy the film. Is this because only they can see the diamond in the rough that is "Fant4stic," or have they merely not seen enough good movies to know how to spot a bad one? 

 

EXACTLY! Thank you!

 

I would say that this film focused a lot more on its main storyline which was an establishment of the fantastic four then what marvel has done with most of their movies:

 

First Avenger was basically the bastard child of both Thor and Iron Man, focusing too much on elements form both films. I mean having Thor's mythology mixed in with the villain's plot was a bit much. I know that they are part of the same universe but that does not mean that EVERYTHING has to be connected.  No one will care about the crossover unless something by itself is built up well. Hence why First Avenger became one of the lowest grossing MCU/marvel movies in general. It may also explain why AOU did not gross as much as Avengers 1 which many people really thought would happen only to be utterly shocked.  Iron man 3 finally got a perfect balance with staying focused on its own thing while only making subtle references to past things only to have Dark World ruin it up with a funny but unnecessary Cap cameo (let alone its ridiculously  barbaric action). Going back to FA, having iron man's dad there just made it more like I was watching a spin off than a stand alone movie, and it along with the Thor stuff just took me out of it. Looking at the MC as one universe just gives em an enormous headache and actually took away the things that I like about crossovers: The surprise element. With over baked set up like in FA, and with Nick Fury showing up at the end of every Marvel film (some of which like the post credits scene of Thor was VERY pointless, you can take that post credits scene out and still have Avengers make sense and flow from Thor nicely. Having that scene in there causes more confusion if anything) it takes away the value and fun in having a crossover as we already know that they are part of the universe. They do not need to keep reminding us in every single movie. Its more fun to wait until the big cross over event then you can go back and see how they are all connected.  

 

 

If crossover set up was not enough, I found in some of their movies like GOTG it was VERY hard to understand what was going on because they rush through scenes with bad explanation. I must have had to watch that movie more than 3 times before I fully got Ronan's plot, let alone the fact that he was one of the most dull and cliched villains I have ever seen in my life. Here Dr. Doom actually had humanity with clear explanation to his motivations. I felt more sympathy for these Fox characters then I do for most of the MCU characters who mostly feel like weird, dull one note characters that leave me with a bad taste in my mouth. Here in FF alone, with the character moments and action they did have made me feel a lot more inspired and amazed then the overcookedness of what marvel usually does with all of their movies 

.........Hrrmmmmmmmmmmmm, I'm REALLY tempted to call you out on that, but to each their own. And either way, if this has been any indication, somebody will be willing to correct you if they feel you are misinterpreting anything.

 

If you felt that Fant4stic was trying harder to be more inspired, then your expectations really are something to bring into question.

 

You don't really seem to understand how this whole connected-universe-thing is supposed to work either. First off, "surprise"? If you've been paying attention since Iron Man 1, surprise is not something you should be feeling. Cross-overs don't have to "surprise" anyone unless it's supposed to be unexpected, just like any surprising element, plot twist, or any other trope of that matter. We've known for a very long time that the MCU is the MCU and we do expect to see connections being made here and there. We're not being hit over the head when these connections are being made either, we're being given what we want. What you describe as "pointless" is actually very important to the lore of the MCU. Everything counts. And you know what, the MCU still managed to brings together talent, skill, and interest into its formula. Just stop and pay attention to what exactly is going on the MCU. Is there a lot of exposition about important events and objects and such? Yes. But is there also interesting characters with cool powers, awesome action sequences, and clear motivations, rather they be big or small? Yes yes yes.

 

It's like I said earlier, to build a big universe, you must fill that universe with interesting things. MCU built their universe with interesting things. Fant-Four-Stick built it's universe off half-assery and tediousness. I know that I said I wouldn't speak about the tone either, but I'll clarify a little bit on it: it's boring, it's depressing, it's trying too hard to be all serious and dark. That's also a major part of its failings because even when its actually trying to have some character, its character is exactly those things I described. We're supposed to be past the Daredevil-levels of Superhero Angst Syndrome, and yet this movie caught it anyway. Yes, there is drama in the MCU, but it's understandable drama. It's real drama created by real people, not just "oh boo hoo, being a superhero sucks so haaaaard..."

 

Doom's motivations aren't that great either, even though he was admittingly my favorite character. Not only is his renegade bad-boy image too harshly presented but it gets mixed up with his infatuation for Susan, his jealousy of Reed, not to mention his plan near the end was stupid as all Hell, etc. It's just a big mess.

 

Also, while Ronan and most other MCU villains may not have been that interesting, if you actually pay attention, you will get what they're on about. It's simple: he is a "cleanser", a warrior obsessed with power and order with a dash of arrogance. At least his presence was given more detail than Doom's. Hell, it makes him look like a pissed off teenager in comparison.

Case and point.

Edited October 8, 201510 yr by Hero of Light XIV

Nothing anyone says can be a convincing enough argument in the face of the prospects of the F4 license returning to Marvel Studios. Now, it probably won't be happening...ever, really, but what FOX is doing with it, no matter HOW good the movie could have been, can stand on its own two legs next to the MCU. Regardless of your opinion on the MCU films, they have much bigger plans than FOX could dream up and there's a heart there that FOX's corporate cronies can't hope to match.

Edited October 8, 201510 yr by Kaweebo

Nothing anyone says can be a convincing enough argument in the face of the prospects of the F4 license returning to Marvel Studios. Now, it probably won't be happening...ever, really, but what FOX is doing with it, no matter HOW good the movie could have been, can stand on its own two legs next to the MCU. Regardless of your opinion on the MCU films, they have much bigger plans than FOX could dream up and there's a heart there that FOX's corporate cronies can't hope to match.

I dunno if I'd say that. To me with this film especially it looks more like Fox was trying to make something work. MCU o nthe other hand feels a lot more cash grabby in the sense that they are spending way too much time setting up giving unnecessary foreshadowing (like the Thor post credits scene which does not make any sense at all in anyway. So Loki can somehow possess Selvig despite being in another dimension? This has NEVER been acknowledge since. Not to mention that the tesseract set up is perfect the way it is in Avengers without any pointless set up. The audience can put two and two together without needing to be spoon fed. Just seeing Selvig there at the compound says millions more than having a whole scene devoted to him being introduced to the tesseract. We know from knowing SHIELD's past actions in the movies alone that they were somehow able to obtain the tesseract, especially since Howard Stark fished it out in FA and had it in his photo archive. We don't need to see every second of the universe's lives).

 

Here there was set up for the team coming together, making the movie more than just a typical superhero movie. More about people who discover this amazing phenomenon and suffer the consequences as a result only to turn it around for them in the end. These people were all strangers who came together and started some beneficial bonds. How can you say that there was no chemistry or bonding within the team when there was plenty of it through Reed and Sue alone. You are perhaps just over thinking it 

 

To be honest the only things the movie really needed was more action (but what we did get was pretty sweet. Gotta appreciate the little things in life, for they are what really counts) and a better execution for why they snuck into the portal. I could go on and on with what (most of) the MCU really needs: 

 

IM1 - To be honest I do not really get why everyone loves this movie so much. Sure its good, but maybe not great. I honestly found myself more bored with this then with Fant4stic. I do like it and can sorta see its appeal but I think its really overrated. It needs better pacing especially less time in the cave and more dramatic effect with him getting blasted with the shrapnel. Took me a few times to watch it to really understand it and to be honest, I feel nothing when he gets blasted in the opening ambush

 

 

IH - The most under appreciated film in the MCU. It got just about everything right that IM1 did not: Better story, better themes, more emotion, better action, better pacing and a less cheesy villain that was better set up. It s only problem (which is also one for IM1) is that it gets kinda boring with re watch value. Some of its deleted scenes may fix some of the issues that people have with it though. 

 

IM2 - Another under appreciated movie. Better story. themes and action than the first, though I do kinda get why some people found it lacklustre, but I honestly found the first to be even more so, kinda cheesy and forgettable. 

 

Thor - already explained the post credits scene issue, plus it needs some of its deleted scenes at the beginning of the movie including its alternate ending to fix its storytelling issues. It feels more generic to me than Fant4stic does. Typical hero being born, tragic villain (though he is well played) and a very abrupt unresolved ending. Plus it has some of the worst acting i've ever seen in the form of Jeremy Renner's cameo who seems to be pulled off the streets and just did the gig for a pay check sounding more like a robot than Terra/Aqua's VAs ever could. 

 

FA - Explained this already too. Basically a spin off with more of a focus on franchise building than letting us care about the main hero. The stuff with him is too generic and it borrows a little too much from the other movies. Howard stark is ok to make a cameo but when he becomes too much of a main plot point I feel more like I am watching iron man again. Plus the Thor mythology thing was a little big much. Red Skull could have had a better plot and better fate then remaining us too much of Thor which again was too distracting. The whole movie also felt rushed like it was only made to get Cap to the Avengers. An even more lacklustre unresolved ending than Thor, plus other random story points clearly only existing to set up for future movies such as Bucky's death. 

 

The Avengers - definitely one of the best marvel movies ever. The only things hat it needed were Edward Norton to be Bruce Banner (though Mark Ruffalo's hulk almost made up for it. His Banner sounded scripted and monotone though) and it should have had that Oscorp touter cameo, though its not desperately needed so much as an awesome missed opportunity

 

IM3 - Avengers aside, they finally got it right as far as what a movie in this universe should be: containing only a few sublet references to past movies and keeping the focus on the character and their own little universe. As much as many hated the Mandarin, I'm honestly glad that they did not do comic mandarin as it would have been too much of a crossover with Thor. It did have weak execution with Happy's attack but aside from that IM3 was actually pretty good 

 

Dark World - Way too much barbaric action. Did we really need to see Loki's hand cut off and have that (potentially) black humour gruesome ending? It reminded me of the faults of Lone Ranger: too gritty with bad directing and unfocused storytelling. As well the Cap cameo was funny but again too much of a crossover. Besides if Loki was gonna do that he would moreliekly do Hulk or IM as he had more personal interaction with those two. I know that was probably because of actor availability but still they should not have done it for just a random fun cameo unless it makes more poignant sense 

 

WS - Actually pretty awesome. They got basically everything right here staying completely focused on story and character with next to no reference or set up at all.

 

GOTG - Again perhaps the lamest and most confusing villain we've ever had in the MCU. Its probably their voices more than anything but I found it really hard to understand what Ronan and even Thanos' goals were. If you ask me, Doom was a lot better developed than this film. I understood completely why he did what he did. To me, Ronan just came across as this spoiled brat who had a good reason to do what he did but seemed to not be fully invested in what he was doing hence the lack of emotion. I also found Thanos to be quite dull as a villain too. Villains aside, just the execution of the story didn't really feel that well done. It felt kinda soulless with all of these hip characters acting kinda annoying and just unlikeable 

 

AoU - Again, they did not really need the infinity  stone set up. They could handled Thor's dilemma in a different way. Aside from that they stayed pretty true to the main overall story and themes, though that little set up is what kinda ruined it 

 

Ant man -  haven't seen it yet but  having Peggy and Falcon in there was just too much. And I've heard people say that they would have much rather seen Edgar wright's "stand alone" version more, especially considering its unexpectedly low box office. The Wolverine proves that you can do (mostly) stand alone movies without the excessive need to set things up and make references (aside from the post credit scene)

 

On the note of post credit scenes, For the most part they were not really needed (or at least not after the first viewing): 

 

IM1 - Probably one of the few only needed ones but you could (almost) take it out and watch IM2 fine without it. They explain its contents enough without it 

 

IH - N/A though the end scene is nice because it established a connection though the problem is from this point onwards they overdid it

 

IM2/FA/Ant man - Both of their scenes are present in the following film in pretty much the exact same way (Ant man is apparently going to be the same according to Kevin Fiege)

 

Thor - Again I've done my piece on that

 

Avengers - interesting to see and funny for the second one, but again not that desperately needed. It makes it more of a surprise for future movies and it is somewhat set up through GOTG having the Other also being there. The second one is perhaps needed more to fulfill a gag

 

IM3 - This post credits scene actually ruins the movie. Having Tony tell us the story through narration is a lot more effective

 

DW - First one is not needed, we can clearly see in GOTG where the infinity stones stand . The second one actually makes the movie better as we have a more complete and emotionally satisfying ending 

 

WS - Again first one is not needed AOU explains things perfectly well as it is. Second one not desperately needed but had the movie ended with that (along with Steve saying "we just did" as in the trailer) then the movie would have been even more powerful 

 

GOTG - The dancing groot is not really a post credits scene as aside from the "Return" phrase there are not really any credits before it. The Howard the duck scene is actually a funny gag that does not feel like it is setting things up 

 

AOU - Just not needed plus it only causes confusion to the infinity gauntlet. It will be reexplained later on, guaranteed 

Edited October 8, 201510 yr by Flaming Lea

I don't know why you spent all that time analyzing the MCU films because they are a franchise of movies that have all been received from the 'mediocre' to 'brilliantly amazing' categories. Fant4stic just sucks.

 

I dunno if I'd say that. To me with this film especially it looks more like Fox was trying to make something work. MCU o nthe other hand feels a lot more cash grabby in the sense that they are spending way too much time setting up giving unnecessary foreshadowing (like the Thor post credits scene which does not make any sense at all in anyway. So Loki can somehow possess Selvig despite being in another dimension? This has NEVER been acknowledge since. Not to mention that the tesseract set up is perfect the way it is in Avengers without any pointless set up. The audience can put two and two together without needing to be spoon fed. Just seeing Selvig there at the compound says millions more than having a whole scene devoted to him being introduced to the tesseract. We know from knowing SHIELD's past actions in the movies alone that they were somehow able to obtain the tesseract, especially since Howard Stark fished it out in FA and had it in his photo archive. We don't need to see every second of the universe's lives).

Look, man, you can think what you want about the movie but trying to tell me that somehow FOX was trying to make some kind of honest attempt to live up to the source material and make the fans happy over the MCU is BS. Of course they wanted it to work, if it worked then they could make sequels. I'm not saying Marvel Studios' bottom line isn't to make cash but you've seen the people who work behind the scenes on those movies. Most of the people working on MCU films love the comics, which is why they are some of the most faithfully adapted comic book films in the industry. Their method is flawed and yet it works. I cannot say the same for Fant4stic which has failed as both a reboot and a movie.

 

 

Here there was set up for the team coming together, making the movie more than just a typical superhero movie. More about people who discover this amazing phenomenon and suffer the consequences as a result only to turn it around for them in the end. These people were all strangers who came together and started some beneficial bonds. How can you say that there was no chemistry or bonding within the team when there was plenty of it through Reed and Sue alone. You are perhaps just over thinking it 

 

How? What set-up? Four guys (one who wasn't even on the team) go to another dimension and get superpowers, Sue gets superpowers...at random and then they all join forces to stop Doom. Great set-up there. Of course Fant4stic wasn't a typical superhero movie, it was a superhero team movie meaning they had to focus on each character equally without falling apart, which it failed at. You are putting way more emphasis on it being 'atypical', which it isn't anyway, than it deserves. It is a reboot of a superhero team trying to go in a darker, edgier direction and failing at it due to piss-poor BTS decisions and a general lack of effort or care put into the product.

 

I mean my God, they were so unsure of the direction they wanted to go that they had to change the weird alien planet lava into weird green plasma and theatres kept playing the trailer that showed the lava even after the movie released! They didn't even try to pull the original trailer down!

 

The MCU is a flawed franchise, I'm not saying it isn't, but the end result is something that has far, far better prospects than...what, a crossover with X-Men, maybe? What actual endgame does FOX have with Fantastic Four beyond A. Keep making movies so the rights don't revert and B. cashcow the f*** out of the franchise? They can't even cashcow it properly because nobody liked this piece of sh*t. Hell, the very fact that FOX only keeps making these movies to keep the rights from Marvel speaks volumes on their intentions with it. They don't care about the F4, they just know its popular and people will go see it regardless, just like Sony did with Spider-Man. The only difference being that Sony wizened and took Marvel's offer to give their golden boy a better future. 

 

Ultimately, my biggest issue (beyond not liking it as a film) is that the F4 deserve to be adapted like their comic-book counterparts...in a community. By themselves, they are just as useless as The Amazing Spider-Man franchise. Nothing they could do could match up to Marvel even if, miraculously, FOX was making AMAZING F4 films from this that blew the MCU out of the water, they still wouldn't be able to hold a candle to the fact that they are alone. The F4 at FOX will always be alone. They will always be a standalone franchise that has to hold itself under its own two, wobbly legs.

Edited October 8, 201510 yr by Kaweebo

I don't know why you spent all that time analyzing the MCU films because they are a franchise of movies that have all been received from the 'mediocre' to 'brilliantly amazing' categories. Fant4stic just sucks.

 

Look, man, you can think what you want about the movie but trying to tell me that somehow FOX was trying to make some kind of honest attempt to live up to the source material and make the fans happy over the MCU is BS. Of course they wanted it to work, if it worked then they could make sequels. I'm not saying Marvel Studios' bottom line isn't to make cash but you've seen the people who work behind the scenes on those movies. Most of the people working on MCU films love the comics, which is why they are some of the most faithfully adapted comic book films in the industry. Their method is flawed and yet it works. I cannot say the same for Fant4stic which has failed as both a reboot and a movie.

 

 

How? What set-up? Four guys (one who wasn't even on the team) go to another dimension and get superpowers, Sue gets superpowers...at random and then they all join forces to stop Doom. Great set-up there. Of course Fant4stic wasn't a typical superhero movie, it was a superhero team movie meaning they had to focus on each character equally without falling apart, which it failed at. You are putting way more emphasis on it being 'atypical', which it isn't anyway, than it deserves. It is a reboot of a superhero team trying to go in a darker, edgier direction and failing at it due to piss-poor BTS decisions and a general lack of effort or care put into the product.

 

I mean my God, they were so unsure of the direction they wanted to go that they had to change the weird alien planet lava into weird green plasma and theatres kept playing the trailer that showed the lava even after the movie released! They didn't even try to pull the original trailer down!

 

The MCU is a flawed franchise, I'm not saying it isn't, but the end result is something that has far, far better prospects than...what, a crossover with X-Men, maybe? What actual endgame does FOX have with Fantastic Four beyond A. Keep making movies so the rights don't revert and B. cashcow the f*** out of the franchise? They can't even cashcow it properly because nobody liked this piece of sh*t. Hell, the very fact that FOX only keeps making these movies to keep the rights from Marvel speaks volumes on their intentions with it. They don't care about the F4, they just know its popular and people will go see it regardless, just like Sony did with Spider-Man. The only difference being that Sony wizened and took Marvel's offer to give their golden boy a better future. 

 

Ultimately, my biggest issue (beyond not liking it as a film) is that the F4 deserve to be adapted like their comic-book counterparts...in a community. By themselves, they are just as useless as The Amazing Spider-Man franchise. Nothing they could do could match up to Marvel even if, miraculously, FOX was making AMAZING F4 films from this that blew the MCU out of the water, they still wouldn't be able to hold a candle to the fact that they are alone. The F4 at FOX will always be alone. They will always be a standalone franchise that has to hold itself under its own two, wobbly legs.

Your remarks here prove that you and many people are brainwashed into thinking that these movies have to be connected in order for them to be good. Whats wrong with a superhero franchise being by itself? The Dark Knight trilogy proves that a superhero can live on its own and still be strong enough to carry its own weight. This movie proved that they can as they stayed focused on the characters and concepts that could very well bring in great things come sequel time, if/when we ever get there. I found most of these MCU films a lot weaker than this for reasons listed above. So what if behind the scenes people care about the work? That does not prevent them from being garbage. Malficent was one of the worst movies I've ever seen and people behind the scenes of that seemed to care about the material (Don Hahn the Disney animated produer was involved of course same with screen writer Linda Woolverton who wrote The Lion King). As well the later Harry Potter movies were rubbish compared to the earlier films and they had pretty much the same devoted people involved including JK Rowling herself. Each of those movies suffered from bad directing and execution and you can almost tell that they did not even care about the source material despite what they seem. They seemed to more want to get it out of the way and released in the shortest most efficient way possible without really taking the time to make it work unlike some films like pretty much everything from Pixar and Christopher nolan's films. i'm not saying that they tried to put as much effort in as those examples with this film but at least here unlike some of the more popular "successful" examples, they at least (mostly) succeed at making it work with what they got. 

Edited October 8, 201510 yr by Riku21Terr

Your remarks here prove that you and many people are brainwashed into thinking that these movies have to be connected in order for them to be good. Whats wrong with a superhero franchise being by itself? The Dark Knight trilogy proves that a superhero can live on its own and still be strong enough to carry its own weight. 

False. I am perfectly happy with the series such as the Dark Knight trilogy and the X-Men franchise standing on its own without any connective tissue to any other franchise because I find the movies entertaining and enjoyable regardless of FOX's tendency to play around with the continuity. My point was never 'non-cinematic universe films won't succeed', my argument is that a non-cinematic universe Fantastic Four will not succeed. It can't succeed because FOX does not care about it beyond retaining the rights so that Marvel Studios can't make competently made films based on it and a film franchise with no actual studio support will fail.

 

 

This movie proved that they can as they stayed focused on the characters and concepts that could very well bring in great things come sequel time, if/when we ever get there. I found most of these MCU films a lot weaker than this for reasons listed above. 

Except it actually didn't, did it? Because it failed both at the box office and critically. Even the worst critically received MCU films have scores that rise well and above what Fant4stic gathered because nobody wanted it to be made. It was doomed from the start due to incompetence behind the scenes and FOX's smug attitude that people will like it because it's the Fantastic Four. If you want to like a film that has statistically done even worse than the F4 films from the mid-2000's and decry MCU films like Thor 2 and Iron Man 2 as being worse, then go right ahead. You're fooling yourself, but you have the right to that opinion.

 

 

So what if behind the scenes people care about the work? That does not prevent them from being garbage. Malficent was one of the worst movies I've ever seen and people behind the scenes of that seemed to care about the material (Don Hahn the Disney animated produer was involved of course same with screen writer Linda Woolverton who wrote The Lion King). As well the later Harry Potter movies were rubbish compared to the earlier films and they had pretty much the same devoted people involved including JK Rowling herself. Each of those movies suffered from bad directing and execution and you can almost tell that they did not even care about the source material despite what they seem. They seemed to more want to get it out of the way and released in the shortest most efficient way possible without really taking the time to make it work unlike some films like pretty much everything from Pixar and Christopher nolan's films. i'm not saying that they tried to put as much effort in as those examples with this film but at least here unlike some of the more popular "successful" examples, they at least (mostly) succeed at making it work with what they got. 

Yes, but we're not talking about Harry Potter or Maleficent, we're talking about Marvel and Marvel has shown in a record-breaking fashion that they can release hit after hit after hit because the people working behind the scenes care and their movies are entertaining. The people behind Maleficent, while probably caring about the film and the source material, did not have a clear road paved ahead to make a movie that could stand on its own. (To be fair, though, Maleficent isn't terrible. It's not very good but there are decent elements in it) Marvel has a plan that they're working towards, a concrete goal that they wanted to get to and that's why, even with their worst elements, films like Thor 2 and Iron Man 2 still fall somewhere on being entertaining because not only does Marvel care, but they know what they are doing, whereas a film like Fant4stic which prided itself on being an intelligent and dark superhero film that completely fell flat due to a lack of a clear roadmap ahead, as well as studio interference, audience apathy, etc.

 

I will reiterate that Marvel Studios is not perfect. They have produced films with some pretty bad crap in them, but they have always risen above that. For every Thor 2, there's a Winter Soldier; for every Iron Man 2, there's an Avengers. FOX has had three shots: THREE. SHOTS. to get the F4 right and they have failed spectacularly with worse and worse results. 

Edited October 8, 201510 yr by Kaweebo

IM1 - To be honest I do not really get why everyone loves this movie so much. Sure its good, but maybe not great. I honestly found myself more bored with this then with Fant4stic. I do like it and can sorta see its appeal but I think its really overrated. It needs better pacing especially less time in the cave and more dramatic effect with him getting blasted with the shrapnel. Took me a few times to watch it to really understand it and to be honest, I feel nothing when he gets blasted in the opening ambush.

 

Do you need some kind of slow motion instant replay to get the impact? He got shot, his chest was bleeding out, the music and his hearing were dulled out for dramatic effect, etc. If you can't get the substance out of that, then I don't know what to tell you. Also, his "time in the cave" is a major part of his development as a character, of course its going to be given a lot of focus. At least we got to Tony Stark getting out the cave quicker than have the team in Fant-Four-Stick getting into their friggin' costumes.

 

IH - The most under appreciated film in the MCU. It got just about everything right that IM1 did not: Better story, better themes, more emotion, better action, better pacing and a less cheesy villain that was better set up. It s only problem (which is also one for IM1) is that it gets kinda boring with re watch value. Some of its deleted scenes may fix some of the issues that people have with it though. 

 

Except that it shot itself in the foot by trying to be a sort-of/not really sequel to Ang Lee's "Hulk" and came off really lopsided in the long run (though I still liked it), and not to mention that Betty Ross is officially the most useless female in this entire series. Hell, I would pay money to see this done over once more, if only so that Mark Ruffalo gets his chance to be in his own film. On that same note, I'd see a remake of Iron Man 1 with Don Cheedle as Roadie. Not because I thought IM1 was bad but... hell, Don Cheedle is great in everything.

 

IM2 - Another under appreciated movie. Better story. themes and action than the first, though I do kinda get why some people found it lacklustre, but I honestly found the first to be even more so, kinda cheesy and forgettable. 

 

Having your main villain as Mickey Rourke is not an upgrade... okay, that was a little below the belt, but he wasn't exactly stellar regardless. While this film continues Tony Stark's character arc and features the aforementioned Don Cheedle plus Scarlett Johanson as Black Widow, it still could have been better and come on, that tease with Mjölnir was one of the highlights of the film.

 

Thor - already explained the post credits scene issue, plus it needs some of its deleted scenes at the beginning of the movie including its alternate ending to fix its storytelling issues. It feels more generic to me than Fant4stic does. Typical hero being born, tragic villain (though he is well played) and a very abrupt unresolved ending. Plus it has some of the worst acting i've ever seen in the form of Jeremy Renner's cameo who seems to be pulled off the streets and just did the gig for a pay check sounding more like a robot than Terra/Aqua's VAs ever could. 

 

What was explained in the post credits scene? That his hammer fell to Earth? Okay, but how? Why? And where is Thor anyway? You can't just stick the hammer in and leave Thor out of it. Also, no, this story is just about superheroes, it's about gods. Literal gods. If that doesn't peak your interest a little bit, then again, what even are your interests? Also, Hawkeye was only there for a little bit, why is that such a big deal?

 

 

FA - Explained this already too. Basically a spin off with more of a focus on franchise building than letting us care about the main hero. The stuff with him is too generic and it borrows a little too much from the other movies. Howard stark is ok to make a cameo but when he becomes too much of a main plot point I feel more like I am watching iron man again. Plus the Thor mythology thing was a little big much. Red Skull could have had a better plot and better fate then remaining us too much of Thor which again was too distracting. The whole movie also felt rushed like it was only made to get Cap to the Avengers. An even more lacklustre unresolved ending than Thor, plus other random story points clearly only existing to set up for future movies such as Bucky's death. 

 

Oh yeah sure, because we literally got everything we needed to know about Captain America beforehand by the use of... his mill-second long cameo in Incredible Hulk. I'm not even touching this one based on that first point, this is just frustrating.

 

The Avengers - definitely one of the best marvel movies ever. The only things hat it needed were Edward Norton to be Bruce Banner (though Mark Ruffalo's hulk almost made up for it. His Banner sounded scripted and monotone though) and it should have had that Oscorp touter cameo, though its not desperately needed so much as an awesome missed opportunity

 

Norton > Ruffalo? R-really? No. Just... no. Norton couldn't come back anyway, because just like Terrance Howard, he was being a bit of a diva.

 

And I'm just gonna stop right there in fear that I'm going to have an aneurysm. You really don't get how this connected-universe thing works.

Edited October 9, 201510 yr by Firaga Sensei

Do you need some kind of slow motion instant replay to get the impact? He got shot, his chest was bleeding out, the music and his hearing were dulled out for dramatic effect, etc. If you can't get the substance out of that, then I don't know what to tell you. Also, his "time in the cave" is a major part of his development as a character, of course its going to be given a lot of focus. At least we got to Tony Stark getting out the cave quicker than have the team in Fant-Four-Stick getting into their friggin' costumes.

 

 

Except that it shot itself in the foot by trying to be a sort-of/not really sequel to Ang Lee's "Hulk" and came off really lopsided in the long run (though I still liked it), and not to mention that Betty Ross is officially the most useless female in this entire series. Hell, I would pay money to see this done over once more, if only so that Mark Ruffalo gets his chance to be in his own film. On that same note, I'd see a remake of Iron Man 1 with Don Cheedle as Roadie. Not because I thought IM1 was bad but... hell, Don Cheedle is great in everything.

 

 

Having your main villain as Mickey Rourke is not an upgrade... okay, that was a little below the belt, but he wasn't exactly stellar regardless. While this film continues Tony Stark's character arc and features the aforementioned Don Cheedle plus Scarlett Johanson as Black Widow, it still could have been better and come on, that tease with Mjölnir was one of the highlights of the film.

 

 

What was explained in the post credits scene? That his hammer fell to Earth? Okay, but how? Why? And where is Thor anyway? You can't just stick the hammer in and leave Thor out of it. Also, no, this story is just about superheroes, it's about gods. Literal gods. If that doesn't peak your interest a little bit, then again, what even are your interests? Also, Hawkeye was only there for a little bit, why is that such a big deal?

 

 

 

Oh yeah sure, because we literally got everything we needed to know about Captain America beforehand by the use of... his mill-second long cameo in Incredible Hulk. I'm not even touching this one based on that first point, this is just frustrating.

 

 

Norton > Ruffalo? R-really? No. Just... no. Norton couldn't come back anyway, because just like Terrance Howard, he was being a bit of a diva.

 

And I'm just gonna stop right there in fear that I'm going to have an aneurysm. You really don't get how this connected-universe thing works.

what i meant by the thor thing was the post credits scene of THAT film. We do not need to see Fury show Selvig the tesseract. How they show it in the Avengers is all the information that the audience needs instead of showing a 2 minute post credits scene that makes further confusion. What is up with Loki controlling Selvig saying "I guess thats worth a look?" He is supposed to have fallen into another part of the galaxy and if he could control people like that then why would he need that staff with the mind stone? Not only that but like I said that is never even touched upon ever again in any MCU film. What was the point of showing us that aside from teasing The Avengers? In a narrative context it just makes no sense what so ever 

Did i honestly just read a thread on how someone thinks the MCU is confusing/overrated because of crossovers and world building yet tries to defend a crappy fantastic four movie that was made by some selfish studio and doesnt even feature character building? Seriously, stop watching marvel movies if you want dreary over the top hammy sadness that doesnt lead to a character changing, but just for the sake of pain and misery and wait for the DcCU instead, because i can gurantee you will be happy over there. Also, go read a roadmap on how all of the movies are connected, from subtle dialouge, to setpieces, and props, most of which were for fans of the source material, but either way, you're insulting a universe for giving people a glimpse into what is to come, and how those events came from the events of the film you just watched.

 

Each stand alone movie is meant to build toward another standalone movie which is meant to build into an avengers film. They are meant to be able to be watched without having any idea whats going on in the universe as a whole, but if you are interested in said universe that stand alone movie will give you a greater understanding of it.

 

Another thing, IM3 was the most mishandled of the iron man movies yet you praise it on a criteria of a person that essentially has alzhemiers because they can't recall how this person is related to that person and this event led to this one... Also, how in the 9 realms would the mandarin be a crossover with thor? Just because both use magical tech all of a sudden they are directly connected? thats not how it works.

what i meant by the thor thing was the post credits scene of THAT film. We do not need to see Fury show Selvig the tesseract. How they show it in the Avengers is all the information that the audience needs instead of showing a 2 minute post credits scene that makes further confusion. What is up with Loki controlling Selvig saying "I guess thats worth a look?" He is supposed to have fallen into another part of the galaxy and if he could control people like that then why would he need that staff with the mind stone? Not only that but like I said that is never even touched upon ever again in any MCU film. What was the point of showing us that aside from teasing The Avengers? In a narrative context it just makes no sense what so ever 

 

Uh, duh. Teasing the Avengers is kind of the point. That's been kind of the point of all other post-credit scenes prior too. Also, you would have questions to these answers if you stopped to pay attention to the story, but clearly, you haven't. At all.

Edited October 9, 201510 yr by Firaga Sensei

Fantastic does not belong in the MCU: http://moviepilot.com/posts/2015/10/17/5-reasons-why-the-fantastic-four-shouldn-t-go-back-to-marvel-3595280?lt_source=external,manual