The Fantastic Four: First Steps

[ZacKing]

20 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Storytelling in general is something that involves constant revision and reinterpretation for contemporary audiences. 

 

How'd that work out for them in the last FF dumpster fire?  Disney hasn't seemed to learn yet that "reinterpretation" isn't what audiences want.  See Snow White.

 

19 hours ago, battlewraith said:

1. Most streaming content from what I've seen is garbage. The market is probably moving towards streaming largely because it's cheaper to stream and people don't want to drag themselves to the theater. 

 

I completely agree.  Most everything on any of these streaming services is complete garbage and "filler" content to make their library look more impressive.  With that said, audiences are still preferring that garbage over going to the movies, so Hollywood is losing money.  They're not producing a product people want to see.

 

19 hours ago, battlewraith said:

2. MCU is probably getting less popular and that probably has to do with people getting tired of cape flicks. Moreover, superhero comics are far less popular than when I was a kid reading them. There are a lot of reasons for these declines but the biggest is probably far more access to entertainment options. Not middle-aged fans being pissed that things were not the same as in their childhood.

 

I don't think it's "superhero fatigue".  I think it's crap writing.

 

19 hours ago, battlewraith said:

4. Ripley had no child or reference to being a mother in Alien. It was in no way a relevant aspect of her character in the first movie (The theatrical release of Aliens also did not include any reference). Ripley's character did not need any reference to motherhood in order to be a compelling protagonist. Cameron tacked that aspect on to the character in the sequel. If  people are whining about Sue's character in the team being potentially changed--then they should be against Cameron's addition to Ripley's character. But there's no logical consistency here. 

 

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't think the point was to say Ripley's motivations in the first film were maternal, nor is it that the one and only way for a female protagonist to be interesting or compelling is for them to be a mother.  That's not true.  Women characters don't need to be mothers to be good protagonists.  I think the point is that you were suggesting that motherly/matriarch type characters are shallow and not very compelling, and that's not true either.  The maternal instinct is very powerful, and Sarah Connor in T2 is a great example of that.  I don't think anyone would characterize her as weak in that movie.  Ripley protecting Newt was very maternal too.  There's nothing wrong with that.  So Sue Storm being the matriarch of the Fantastic Four doesn't make her weak or shallow or inferior by any stretch.  That's her character.  She doesn't need to suddenly become the general barking out orders to everyone in order to make her more compelling. 

 

19 hours ago, battlewraith said:

5. LMFAO you're trying to make the case for Sue being a matriarch by directing me to material about the fucking queen of England?

 

See above.  I think the point is to show that the matriarch/maternal figure doesn't mean they're weak.

 

19 hours ago, battlewraith said:

6. Yes I'm apparently the only one in this argument who would like more for Sue than stereotyped portrayals of her mothering her male friends and family.

 

I don't understand this.  What makes a mother weak?  Why do you think her being the matriarch of the team makes her less than the others?  I just don't see that in her character.

 

19 hours ago, battlewraith said:

7. Okay so it's a crazy comic book world where the unbelievable happens. So I'll stop taking issue with Super genius Reed taking his civilian friends on a dangerous space mission and you stop seething about Sue getting an expanded leadership role in the team. Mmmmkay?

 

I don't think it's "seething" about there being a strong female character, just that it's out of character for Sue to be in that role, and not following the source material more closely hasn't been working for the MCU. 

 

13 hours ago, BrandX said:

Covid.  Covid changed how people saw things, because Hollywood couldn't handle not making money while the rest of the world wasn't making money.  Moved movies to streaming, now everyone knows "I can just wait for streaming"

 

100% agree.  The movie industry hasn't figured out how to produce a product that will get people back into theaters. 

 

13 hours ago, BrandX said:

MCU is getting less popular because of the writing. 

 

Completely agree.

 

13 hours ago, BrandX said:

As for changes between comics and movies, I think the issue is, we have the MCU and people want more faithful adaptions the first time around to these characters, which MCU hasn't been doing that well for a few of them.

 

^ That.

[battlewraith]

26 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

 

How'd that work out for them in the last FF dumpster fire?  Disney hasn't seemed to learn yet that "reinterpretation" isn't what audiences want.  See Snow White.

 

 

I completely agree.  Most everything on any of these streaming services is complete garbage and "filler" content to make their library look more impressive.  With that said, audiences are still preferring that garbage over going to the movies, so Hollywood is losing money.  They're not producing a product people want to see.

 

 

I don't think it's "superhero fatigue".  I think it's crap writing.

 

 

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but I don't think the point was to say Ripley's motivations in the first film were maternal, nor is it that the one and only way for a female protagonist to be interesting or compelling is for them to be a mother.  That's not true.  Women characters don't need to be mothers to be good protagonists.  I think the point is that you were suggesting that motherly/matriarch type characters are shallow and not very compelling, and that's not true either.  The maternal instinct is very powerful, and Sarah Connor in T2 is a great example of that.  I don't think anyone would characterize her as weak in that movie.  Ripley protecting Newt was very maternal too.  There's nothing wrong with that.  So Sue Storm being the matriarch of the Fantastic Four doesn't make her weak or shallow or inferior by any stretch.  That's her character.  She doesn't need to suddenly become the general barking out orders to everyone in order to make her more compelling. 

 

 

See above.  I think the point is to show that the matriarch/maternal figure doesn't mean they're weak.

 

 

I don't understand this.  What makes a mother weak?  Why do you think her being the matriarch of the team makes her less than the others?  I just don't see that in her character.

 

 

I don't think it's "seething" about there being a strong female character, just that it's out of character for Sue to be in that role, and not following the source material more closely hasn't been working for the MCU. 

 

 

On the point of the source material and reinterpretation, I went back and read the first issue of Fantastic Four which was hilarious.

 

The origin story begins with Ben telling Reed that he refuses to fly the spaceship because he is afraid of exposure to cosmic rays.

Sue then insists that they have to do it or else the commies will get there first. She calls Ben a coward for not wanting to go, making him relent. 

In space, they start suffering the effects of the radiation and Reed says basically "Ben was right. I didn't put enough shielding in the ship."

Once back on Earth, Ben turns into the Thing and swings a tree at Reed, telling him that he's a weakling and that Sue is marrying the wrong guy.

 

By all means, let's insist that Disney put that source material on the screen. The fact of the matter is that all of these old comic characters have gone through waves of revision in their comics history and then further revisions when translated to the screen. 

 

I think there are a number of reasons why superhero flicks are not doing as well. I think crap writing is a flimsy explanation because there has been crap writing throughout. A lot of the Marvel films throughout the earlier phases were pretty crap. They were just new and they were propped up by proximity to the movies that were actually good. Captain Marvel performed very well. The Marvels was a bomb. Having seen both, there was not some huge gap in the quality of the writing. If they hadn't waited 10 years to make The Marvels, it probably would've done a lot better simply through momentum from the first film.

 

Likewise, the fact that streaming is destroying the film industry doesn't mean that people don't want Hollywood's product. It means they don't want to go sit in the theater for it--they'll watch it home. It's about expense and convenience, not quality.

 

Nothing makes a mother weak. I never said that. What I was talking about was cliche, weak storytelling. The notion that Sue as a character is defined as the mom of the team. This is something that John Byrne pushed back on when I was reading FF in the 80s. And in the context of this discussion, people are arguing that "being a mom is a powerful thing" as a way of justifying her not having more of a leadership position. She has status in her professional role as a cosmically powered superhero, not because of her insights, training, or actual superpowers, but because she is the mom of the group. Absolute cack. 

 

I brought this up before, I'll do it again. Simply apply the same reasoning to Reed. He's the father of the group. He's the father to his wife. He's the father to his best friend. And he's the father to his brother in law. And he wants to save the Earth from Galactus because the patriarchal instinct is so strong. It's cringe. It adds nothing of interest to the character and I feel the same way about Sue in 2025 when people have been juggling family and careers for decades. 

 

 

 

[ZacKing]

11 hours ago, battlewraith said:

The origin story begins with Ben telling Reed that he refuses to fly the spaceship because he is afraid of exposure to cosmic rays.

Sue then insists that they have to do it or else the commies will get there first. She calls Ben a coward for not wanting to go, making him relent. 

In space, they start suffering the effects of the radiation and Reed says basically "Ben was right. I didn't put enough shielding in the ship."

Once back on Earth, Ben turns into the Thing and swings a tree at Reed, telling him that he's a weakling and that Sue is marrying the wrong guy.

 

I have to admit, this sounds a whole lot better to me than Sue Storm:  Girl Boss.

 

11 hours ago, battlewraith said:

By all means, let's insist that Disney put that source material on the screen.

 

I'll bet real money studio execs at Disney had the same thoughts about the original Snow White, then came up with their "new and improved!" story for those "modern audiences".  How'd that work out for them?

 

11 hours ago, battlewraith said:

I think there are a number of reasons why superhero flicks are not doing as well. I think crap writing is a flimsy explanation because there has been crap writing throughout. A lot of the Marvel films throughout the earlier phases were pretty crap. They were just new and they were propped up by proximity to the movies that were actually good. Captain Marvel performed very well. The Marvels was a bomb. Having seen both, there was not some huge gap in the quality of the writing. If they hadn't waited 10 years to make The Marvels, it probably would've done a lot better simply through momentum from the first film.

 

So crap writing isn't the reason the MCU is failing, but the movies are crap and bombing.  Ok...

 

11 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Likewise, the fact that streaming is destroying the film industry doesn't mean that people don't want Hollywood's product. It means they don't want to go sit in the theater for it--they'll watch it home. It's about expense and convenience, not quality.

 

Yes, that's right.  Hollywood can't produce a product that people are willing to spend money on and want to go to a theater and see.  Nice to see that's finally sinking in for you.

 

11 hours ago, battlewraith said:

And in the context of this discussion, people are arguing that "being a mom is a powerful thing" as a way of justifying her not having more of a leadership position.

 

Why only Sue?  Why can't Ben Grimm or Johnny Storm be the leader?  Isn't The Thing a cliche of the quasimodo type monster or dumb brute stereotypes?  I don't know where you're getting the whole Sue Storm isn't important enough thing from.  I just don't.  I've never gotten that vibe from the comics.  She's always been an integral part of the team, just like everyone else.  You seem to think that she's somehow subservient to the men on the team and that makes her weak and shallow.  She isn't. 

 

11 hours ago, battlewraith said:

I brought this up before, I'll do it again. Simply apply the same reasoning to Reed. He's the father of the group. He's the father to his wife. He's the father to his best friend. And he's the father to his brother in law. And he wants to save the Earth from Galactus because the patriarchal instinct is so strong. It's cringe. It adds nothing of interest to the character and I feel the same way about Sue in 2025 when people have been juggling family and careers for decades. 

 

This isn't what has been said about Sue though.  What has been said is that being a matriarch or maternal figure doesn't make a female character weak.  That's all. 

[TTRPGWhiz]

Another super normal comic book movie thread.

[battlewraith]

8 hours ago, ZacKing said:

I have to admit, this sounds a whole lot better to me than Sue Storm:  Girl Boss.

 

Right, that's the difference: I'm not bothered by female characters in leadership positions.

I didn't stop reading X-men when Storm took over leadership back in the 80s. I don't equate female leaders with emotionally fragile men getting bullied (or whatever the problem is here).

You would rather have a Sue that berates Ben over legitimate concerns and pushes him into a situation that ruins his life in a rush to beat the commies, than one who can lead.

What more do I need to add?

 

And honestly this whole discussion is dumb because Sue has lead the team at times in the actual comics.

 

9 hours ago, ZacKing said:

Yes, that's right.  Hollywood can't produce a product that people are willing to spend money on and want to go to a theater and see.  Nice to see that's finally sinking in for you.

 

 

If a significant subset of people are able to get something more cheaply or conveniently--they will. It's not an issue about what an industry is producing. File sharing did a lot of damage to the music industry--not because people stopped liking the bands. Streaming did a lot of damage to the porn industry--not because reptiles lost interest in their favorite performers. AI is damaging the financial situations of a lot of artists--not because people like their art less. 

 

Also, Hollywood is producing product that people are willing to go see. Sinners and The Minecraft movie are Killing it--after Warner Bros. had three flops including the disastrous Joker sequel. A couple successful movies and Disney can turn things around and just wave away this doom and gloom.

[BrandX]

24 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

 

Right, that's the difference: I'm not bothered by female characters in leadership positions.

I didn't stop reading X-men when Storm took over leadership back in the 80s. I don't equate female leaders with emotionally fragile men getting bullied (or whatever the problem is here).

You would rather have a Sue that berates Ben over legitimate concerns and pushes him into a situation that ruins his life in a rush to beat the commies, than one who can lead.

What more do I need to add?

 

And honestly this whole discussion is dumb because Sue has lead the team at times in the actual comics.

 

 

If a significant subset of people are able to get something more cheaply or conveniently--they will. It's not an issue about what an industry is producing. File sharing did a lot of damage to the music industry--not because people stopped liking the bands. Streaming did a lot of damage to the porn industry--not because reptiles lost interest in their favorite performers. AI is damaging the financial situations of a lot of artists--not because people like their art less. 

 

Also, Hollywood is producing product that people are willing to go see. Sinners and The Minecraft movie are Killing it--after Warner Bros. had three flops including the disastrous Joker sequel. A couple successful movies and Disney can turn things around and just wave away this doom and gloom.

 

Disney was the only studio to have movies hit over a billion dollars last year, and they did it three times.

 

 

[ZacKing]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

Right, that's the difference: I'm not bothered by female characters in leadership positions.

 

Neither am I, but nice try though.  Good luck trying to prove that I'm a woman hating misogynist.  I've been re-watching the Stargate franchise of late.  Love Samantha Carter and Dr. Weir.  Absolutely in love with Teyla.  Kate Mulgrew as Captain Janeway was fantastic.  I've no problem at all with female characters being in leadership positions.  Like any other fictional character regardless of gender, it depends on how their written.  The characters I've mentioned here are strong women who stand shoulder to shoulder to their male counterparts, not above them and don't need to berate them or talk down to them in order to elevate themselves.  It's no different for a male character that berates or needs to talk down to their female counterparts in order to build themselves up.  That's what a poorly written girl boss character is. 

 

I'll ask again, why does it have to be Sue as the leader?  What's wrong with Ben Grimm?  Why can't he or Johnny be "re-imagined" as the leader of the team?

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

If a significant subset of people are able to get something more cheaply or conveniently--they will.

 

Sure.  And there's a significant subset of people who will take the time to get off the couch and spend the extra money if there's something unique that they want to see in the theaters.  Hollywood isn't producing that product as they used to anymore.

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

Also, Hollywood is producing product that people are willing to go see. Sinners and The Minecraft movie are Killing it--after Warner Bros. had three flops including the disastrous Joker sequel. A couple successful movies and Disney can turn things around and just wave away this doom and gloom.

 

So going by your own statements, Hollywood box office is down because people can just wait for streaming because its cheaper.  No one will be going to the theaters anymore because it's a pain to drive there and tickets and such are too expensive, but Disney can make a couple of movies that will get people back into the theater and suddenly the expense and hassle suddenly disappears?  Which is it?  Pick one.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, ZacKing said:

Neither am I, but nice try though.  Good luck trying to prove that I'm a woman hating misogynist.  I've been re-watching the Stargate franchise of late.  Love Samantha Carter and Dr. Weir.  Absolutely in love with Teyla.  Kate Mulgrew as Captain Janeway was fantastic.  I've no problem at all with female characters being in leadership positions.  Like any other fictional character regardless of gender, it depends on how their written.  The characters I've mentioned here are strong women who stand shoulder to shoulder to their male counterparts, not above them and don't need to berate them or talk down to them in order to elevate themselves.  It's no different for a male character that berates or needs to talk down to their female counterparts in order to build themselves up.  That's what a poorly written girl boss character is. 

 

I don't know what your deal is. What's apparent to me is that there are some hidden assumptions going on with how you are regarding this film.

All I know is that, from what I've read, Sue is in charge of the Future Foundation--which in the comics at least seems to be an overlapping team that may or may not include FF members. 

Based off of that data point, you're speculating that Sue will be a poorly written character berating her male counterparts to boost herself up. 

Lol why? If it is, as you say, about how the character is written then this concern is absolutely baseless at this point.

 

Why not Benn or Johnny as leader? Why not have Franklin bitchslap Galactus? Ask the filmmakers. They are drawing on the source material in a way that interests them. The fact that there are other possible options doesn't mean that these particular choices are arbitrary or bad.

 

1 hour ago, ZacKing said:

Sure.  And there's a significant subset of people who will take the time to get off the couch and spend the extra money if there's something unique that they want to see in the theaters.  Hollywood isn't producing that product as they used to anymore.

 

I still regularly go to the theaters to see movies. And I've seen some excellent films that were flops. And there's also crap that people will turn out to see in large numbers.

 

1 hour ago, ZacKing said:

Which is it?  Pick one.

 

That's exactly your problem. You want to boil it down to one thing. It doesn't work that way. The industry can be suffering from the effects of streaming and be producing blockbuster hits. Both can be true at the same time.

Edited Monday at 04:01 PM by battlewraith

[ZacKing]

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

Based off of that data point, you're speculating that Sue will be a poorly written character berating her male counterparts to boost herself up. 

Lol why?

 

Call it an educated guess based on Disney's track record with pushing the poorly written "girl boss" cliche.  See Rey in the Star Wars films, Snow White,  etc. 

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

Why not Benn or Johnny as leader? Why not have Franklin bitchslap Galactus? Ask the filmmakers. They are drawing on the source material in a way that interests them. The fact that there are other possible options doesn't mean that these particular choices are arbitrary or bad.

 

Nice deflection.  Why is it that Sue has to become the leader?  I know the writers are writing their own story.  That's not what I asked you.  Why is it so important for you that Sue be the leader?  And as far as other options go, see the previous FF film.  How'd that work out for them?

 

1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

That's exactly your problem. You want to boil it down to one thing. It doesn't work that way. The industry can be suffering from the effects of streaming and be producing blockbuster hits. Both can be true at the same time.

 

Of course there isn't one thing that's causing the decline in ticket sales.  It's a combination of a lot of things.  One or two blockbusters aren't saving the industry though.  It's still in decline.  It might not be if they were producing better product that more people favored seeing in theaters over streaming.  You're basically suggesting that losing thousands at the casino, but winning a hundred quid at the blackjack table means you're winning and everything is fine. 

[ZacKing]

3 hours ago, BrandX said:

Disney was the only studio to have movies hit over a billion dollars last year, and they did it three times.

 

And yet the industry is still in decline. 

[battlewraith]

37 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

Call it an educated guess based on Disney's track record with pushing the poorly written "girl boss" cliche.  See Rey in the Star Wars films, Snow White,  etc. 

 

Disney acquired Marvel in 2009. All but the first 5 MCU films were distributed by Disney. I understand that the integration between Marvel and Disney has increased over time but Disney's been involved for a long time. I have not seen an epidemic of girl boss cliches in these films. I don't go to see Princess movies and I thought the Force Awakens was a garbage retread of the first Star Wars film so I didn't see the others. I'm not going to judge this film on the basis of Snow White or whatever other creative teams did on other properties.

 

58 minutes ago, ZacKing said:

Nice deflection.  Why is it that Sue has to become the leader?  I know the writers are writing their own story.  That's not what I asked you.  Why is it so important for you that Sue be the leader?  And as far as other options go, see the previous FF film.  How'd that work out for them?

 

I didn't know that Sue was going to be leader of anything until I started reading people complaining about it here. It's not super important that she be the leader. I'm not even clear on what her being leader actually means--whether she's actually issuing orders in combat or she's setting the budget and overseeing recruiting for a superhero team. Whatever it is--I find that more interesting than her being the mom of the team. I welcome the thought that they might give her character more to do than that.

 

The mom angle is more pernicious than the girlboss. If you're lazy and you don't really want to do something interesting with a female character you can play up their maternal aspects (which FF comics were trying to move away from when I was a kid). Even a character like Ripley who was a strong character that had nothing to do with motherhood. Chuck an endangered child in front of them and play up their maternal instincts. It's pandering, weak writing that's really stale and generic. You could do this to make any female character "strong."

 

I didn't see the 2015 movie. I did see the ealry 2000s one where Reed was the leader and I can barely remember it. 

 

1 hour ago, ZacKing said:

It might not be if they were producing better product that more people favored seeing in theaters over streaming.

 

Maybe you should write a letter to the studio bosses explaining how to save the industry.

[BrandX]

2 hours ago, ZacKing said:

 

And yet the industry is still in decline. 

 

Goes back to streaming.  People feel they can just wait now.  No, not every movie was going to be a blockbuster, they never were.  Some movies just weren't seen in theatres, but some of the movies that haven't made it that big would've done better before streaming, even if they weren't block busters.

 

Covid, streaming, and yes, some of it with the direction some studios have wanted to go with their movies.

 

Combination of factors, it's not just one thing.  However, even movies that people say they want, are written good, are failing, and I'd say that means there's just a vocal minority sounding louder online than there really is.

[biostem]

12 hours ago, BrandX said:

Disney was the only studio to have movies hit over a billion dollars last year, and they did it three times.

2/3 of which were sequels to prior successes, (Inside Out 2 & Moana 2), and the 3rd was essentially a love letter to the Fox X-Men films, and a big middle finger to Disney-Marvel.  I don't know if I'd, at this point in time, put very much faith in Disney-Marvel to stick the landing, with regard to how they handle the Fantastic Four...

Edited yesterday at 01:17 AM by biostem

[BrandX]

3 hours ago, biostem said:

2/3 of which were sequels to prior successes, (Inside Out 2 & Moana 2), and the 3rd was essentially a love letter to the Fox X-Men films, and a big middle finger to Disney-Marvel.  I don't know if I'd, at this point in time, put very much faith in Disney-Marvel to stick the landing, with regard to how they handle the Fantastic Four...

 

Not sure how FF will do either, but I didn't like the casting choices made from the beginning.

 

Not sure I would've gone the multiverse 60's future tech route either.  Hard to say, considering how the started the MCU with introducing the characters they now have the rights too.

[biostem]

4 minutes ago, BrandX said:

Not sure I would've gone the multiverse 60's future tech route either.

It's frustrating, because no matter how well they build up that retro-futuristic 60s dimension, my inclination is, (as you pointed out), that since it's clearly "just" another part of the multiverse, will this setting even get the kind of attention and development that it deserves?  IMO, the answer is no, and they'll rush to get them into the "proper" MCU...

Edited yesterday at 05:05 AM by biostem

[Excraft]

18 hours ago, battlewraith said:

I have not seen an epidemic of girl boss cliches in these films. I don't go to see Princess movies and I thought the Force Awakens was a garbage retread of the first Star Wars film so I didn't see the others. I'm not going to judge this film on the basis of Snow White or whatever other creative teams did on other properties.

 

If you haven't seen an epidemic of poorly written, poorly received girl bosses in movies and television over the last several years, then you aren't watching many movies or television.  As far as the MCU is concerned, see the M-She U.

 

19 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Whatever it is--I find that more interesting than her being the mom of the team. I welcome the thought that they might give her character more to do than that.

 

Sue has always had more to do in the comics than just "being the mom".  That's just one minor aspect of her character. 

 

19 hours ago, battlewraith said:

Chuck an endangered child in front of them and play up their maternal instincts. It's pandering, weak writing that's really stale and generic. You could do this to make any female character "strong."

 

So you feel that characters like Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley were "weak", "shallow" and the writing for their motivations was "pandering"?

 

17 hours ago, BrandX said:

Goes back to streaming.  People feel they can just wait now.  No, not every movie was going to be a blockbuster, they never were.  Some movies just weren't seen in theatres, but some of the movies that haven't made it that big would've done better before streaming, even if they weren't block busters.

 

Covid, streaming, and yes, some of it with the direction some studios have wanted to go with their movies.

 

No doubt Hollywood studios are facing increased pressure from streaming as one of the contributing factors for the decline in business.  The thing is, they have to do something to compete if they want to keep customers coming to movie theaters.  If they don't produce films that people prefer to see in the theater instead of staying at home and streaming, that part of the industry is going to wither away.  It could be that Hollywood may just shift to making streaming only content from here on out and let the movie theater industry die.  Nobody really knows.  Fact is, right now the industry is declining and they aren't producing a product that's getting people back into movie theater seats.

 

On 4/28/2025 at 8:42 AM, battlewraith said:

And honestly this whole discussion is dumb because Sue has lead the team at times in the actual comics.

 

Yes she was, briefly.  For the overwhelming majority of the last 60 years, Reed has been the leader.  The Ant-Man, She-Hulk, Spider-Man, Namor, Black Panther among several others have been members of the Fantastic Four in the comics, but we don't see any of them being included.   

[PeregrineFalcon]

1 hour ago, Excraft said:

If you haven't seen an epidemic of poorly written, poorly received girl bosses in movies and television over the last several years, then you aren't watching many movies or television.  As far as the MCU is concerned, see the M-She U.

I'm sure you already know this, but you're wasting your time talking to him. He's not going to change his mind, he's going to just keep on ignoring everything thing you say while continuing to insist that you don't like the new FF reveal only because you're a "misogynist who doesn't like that a woman's in charge." No matter how many times you tell him that the real reason is because it looks like they're changing Sue's entire personality he's going to keep on holding his hands over his ears while chanting "nah nah nah can't hear you, you just don't like girl boss, nah nah nah you're a bigot."

[Glacier Peak]

On 4/28/2025 at 6:10 AM, TTRPGWhiz said:

Another super normal comic book movie thread.

I know, what have I done 😞

[battlewraith]

42 minutes ago, Excraft said:

If you haven't seen an epidemic of poorly written, poorly received girl bosses in movies and television over the last several years, then you aren't watching many movies or television.  As far as the MCU is concerned, see the M-She U.

 

There are always poorly written, poorly received boss characters in movies and television. Given that the vast majority of these bosses have been men, maybe you're the one not paying attention. For every bad female lead in a superhero picture, there's probably a Kraven, a Morbius, and a shitty Venom film. Not to mention all of the cardboard thin depictions you see in other genres. Regardless, I'm not compelled to keep score. I don't have that hangup. 

 

56 minutes ago, Excraft said:

So you feel that characters like Sarah Connor and Ellen Ripley were "weak", "shallow" and the writing for their motivations was "pandering"?

 

It's worth noting that the examples to which you're pointing are specifically James Cameron's treatment of these characters. Sarah Connor's fine given that it's his material and serves the narrative goals of his films. What he did to Ripley was pandering and a betrayal of the character. Ripley's defining moment in Alien is when she refuses to let the survey team back on to the ship. They are begging her to let them in she refuses because she's rational and understands why there there is a protocol for that situation. If she hadn't been undermined by Ash, the majority  of that crew may have survived the encounter. Cameron does a 180 in the sequel and has her chasing after an endangered child. 

 

That's not to say these are bad movies. That shit works. It worked in theatrical melodramas. It worked in serials when they would tie a girl up and throw her on the train tracks. Personally, I would just like to see something less cliche in 2025. 

[battlewraith]

33 minutes ago, PeregrineFalcon said:

I'm sure you already know this, but you're wasting your time talking to him. He's not going to change his mind, he's going to just keep on ignoring everything thing you say while continuing to insist that you don't like the new FF reveal only because you're a "misogynist who doesn't like that a woman's in charge." No matter how many times you tell him that the real reason is because it looks like they're changing Sue's entire personality he's going to keep on holding his hands over his ears while chanting "nah nah nah can't hear you, you just don't like girl boss, nah nah nah you're a bigot."

 

On the contrary, I'm the eternal optimist. It's like planting a little seed. One day it will bloom and you will take a break from your online outrage peddlers and youtube grifters and realize this anger you have over fictional characters is pretty silly. Maybe you'll even find a girl boss you like, lol.

 

Until then, keep up with the downvotes. Your feelings are very important to me. 🙂

[ZacKing]

15 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

There are always poorly written, poorly received boss characters in movies and television. Given that the vast majority of these bosses have been men, maybe you're the one not paying attention. For every bad female lead in a superhero picture, there's probably a Kraven, a Morbius, and a shitty Venom film. Not to mention all of the cardboard thin depictions you see in other genres. Regardless, I'm not compelled to keep score. I don't have that hangup.

 

Nice strawman. 😉

 

17 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

What he did to Ripley was pandering and a betrayal of the character.

 

LMFAO!!!

[Marine X]

I remember a particular Storyline from years ago when Sue became co-opted by Malice. She beat the pants off the whole team. Between the costume she was wearing, and the way she used her powers aggressively, her teammates never guessed it was her. Neither did I. It really showed that she could very easily be the most powerful member of the FF.

[Excraft]

1 hour ago, Marine X said:

I remember a particular Storyline from years ago when Sue became co-opted by Malice. She beat the pants off the whole team. Between the costume she was wearing, and the way she used her powers aggressively, her teammates never guessed it was her. Neither did I. It really showed that she could very easily be the most powerful member of the FF.

 

Sue isn't some lightweight.  She hasn't been for decades and anyone thinking that's she's some milquetoast hasn't read FF comics.  Even Dr. Doom has often referred to her as the most powerful member of the Fantastic Four on more than one occasion.  She's in no way "weak", "shallow", "cliche" or anything of the sort for being a woman. 

 

As for Sue Storm's cultural relevance and her being "motherly", "maternal" and those qualities being "shallow" and "boring"  ...

 

Quote

George Marston of Newsarama referred to the Invisible Woman as one of the "best female superheroes of all time", writing, "Marvel's first superheroine (debuting 60 years ago this year in Fantastic Four #1 may not have the highest profile of the characters on this list, but Sue Storm set the pace for modern female heroes – and still occupies a fairly unique place in comic books. While it's true that early stories didn't exactly serve Sue particularly well, she developed into the heart and soul of the Fantastic Four, serving as Marvel's first family's de facto – and literal – mother. And that may be one of the most crucial aspects of her character. While Sue Storm is powerful in her own right – many writers have said she's got the most raw power of anyone on the FF – she also represents an important aspect of womanhood that many female heroes have sacrificed or had used against them – motherhood. That Sue can serve as one of the most respected heroes in the Marvel Universe (and its first female hero) while simultaneously raising two children and shepherding the growth of many more through the Future Foundation can't be understated. Plus, it takes a pretty amazing woman to stand up to a blowhard like Reed Richards."

...

Today, the Invisible Woman is a powerful and respected member of the Fantastic Four, and the early issues - however stereotypical - led to the Susan Storm known and loved by the Marvel faithful worldwide.

 

She's become one of the most well loved, enduring and powerful female comic book heroes of all time, all without needing to be "leader" of the FF.  This is the character people are familiar with and want to see, not a re-imagined girl boss for "modern audiences".  She hasn't been the stereotypical "damsel in distress" for a long, long time. 

[Octogoat]

Anyone who thinks mothers and matriarchs aren't strong should come to my CrossFit class.

[battlewraith]

1 hour ago, Octogoat said:

Anyone who thinks mothers and matriarchs aren't strong should come to my CrossFit class.

 

Nobody here AFAIK is saying that. 

Go into that class and tell those ladies that they shouldn't hold any leadership positions. 

That would destroy them--they would become girlbosses. Being a mother and a matriarch is enough.

According to some dudes on the internet.