www.ditl.org

Looks serious.

Looks exactly like, for want of a better term, a perfect Marvel-ization of the Fox version.

Oh good, just want we needed, ANOTHER telling of their origin.

Here is an idea... just start the story 10 years later. They are the Fantastic Four... do people REALLY need to have their origin? Does it really make the rest of the story more believable?

The next time that they reboot Spiderman do we need to see him get bitten again? You are going to see a Spiderman/Superman/Batman movie... just accept that they are Whateverman and move on...

Remember that as far as a Marvel is concerned, the origin story hasn't been told before. The Fox version might as well have never existed for all the impact it can (and should) have on the Marvel writing team.

That said, if we posit that the origin hasn't yet been told (from Marvel's POV,) then the origin is the correct place to begin - not only temporally but as the basis for the characterization which is integral to the film and which would be baseless if the origin story wasn't related.

The first was crap and boring.

This has promise.

Doctor Doom as a hacktivist. I'm out.

I will reserve judgement until I see him and his role.

But I am not tied to this movie. I am a Iron man fan...

Tsukiyumi wrote:Doctor Doom as a hacktivist. I'm out.

That's the one bit of "Marvel-ization" that could wreck this. I love the new ambience that the trailer is showing. While I certainly do appreciate Jessica Alba in her skivvies, I don't appreciate the 3rd-grade humor of "Look, it's a girl in her underwear" in my movies. However, Doctor Doom is as established as the FF. They wouldn't change, say, Mr. Fantastic's powers no matter how they did the origin, I don't see why it's necessary to do so to Doom. Besides, Doom needs to be over-the-top stupid powerful in order to be a credible plot obstacle.

Pretty boring trailer to be honest.

Doesn't look anymore interesting than the FF movie we already have.....even less so in lieu of no Alba.


(Also..I am one of the crazy guys who actually prefers a guy in a rubber suit to obvious CGI)

Atekimogus wrote:(Also..I am one of the crazy guys who actually prefers a guy in a rubber suit to obvious CGI)

It depends. Groot CG is better than trying to get someone into a suit. Ben Grimm/The Thing... It depends on how big you want to make him. Human size and just rock, suit. Make in 7 foot or so and broader shouldered... CG. I guess I agree in that if you can do a suit, do a suit, just don't let the desire for a suit limit what you do with the character.

The original Thing in the other movies looked cartoonish
It did not look like rock.

So I can understand if they are going to take a more serious look this time around, they would make him more rock like.

McAvoy wrote:The original Thing in the other movies looked cartoonish
It did not look like rock.

So I can understand if they are going to take a more serious look this time around, they would make him more rock like.

Nothing wrong with cartoonish imho. At least you still got an actor unnderneath it. (And the THING having to deal with how he looks like now....that was actually one of the better aspects of the FF movie as far as I can remember...come to think of it...the first movie wasn't really all that bad in that regard...less cgi and more dealing with how those changes affect the characters...)

But from the look of the trailer.....they go the super super serious route..........all grim/dark with huge explosions etc. etc. .......sorry...I am just not interested in such movies anymore.


I'd rather had a cartoonish and fun experience. More Iron Man less Batman...so to speak.


(Also...it's ANOTHER origins movie. Nobody cares......audiences have accepted that there are movies with people who have superpowers in it....why not come up with an original script? Always rehashing the same origin dreck with slight variations....booooring)

The first movie and to a lesser extent were cartoonish.

Problem with The Thing and just like the Hulk is that a person in a big rubber suit won't cut it and CGI needs to be done right along with good acting. I didn't mind the first Hulk look but the Hulk was never rage.

The Thing is supposed to be rock, and he never did. He looked identical to the comic book version but he looked like a guy covered in used bubble gum.

McAvoy wrote:The first movie and to a lesser extent were cartoonish.

Problem with The Thing and just like the Hulk is that a person in a big rubber suit won't cut it and CGI needs to be done right along with good acting. I didn't mind the first Hulk look but the Hulk was never rage.

The Thing is supposed to be rock, and he never did. He looked identical to the comic book version but he looked like a guy covered in used bubble gum.

I am not disagreeing with you there. It's just that for some weird reason I am far more willing to suspense disbelieve with good but still cartoonish makeup than I am with noticable CGI. No idea why. I also prefer real starship models to CGI ones, because for some reason they never look real to me. (Star Trek 2009 came pretty close in a few shots.....but still..very noticable CGI imho)

That is also why I was really blown away from a lot of the Lord of the Rings stuff...the locations looked almost real, well they largely used models. I maintain that good makeup/models is still > than CGI. Sure, for some shots you don't have a choice and I agree, with larger than life figures, such as the Hulk you pretty much need to go CGI. Still...

I am probably weird that way....