Jump to content
Hotmail and Outlook are blocking most of our emails at the moment. Please use an alternative provider when registering if possible until the issue is resolved.

Recommended Posts

Posted

Some people can't grasp the difference between dislike of certain types of people and dislike of certain types of characterizations, particularly in fiction. 

Some people understand the difference, but will equate the two things in order to deflect criticism that they don't like. 

 

An easy way to see if somebody has an issue with a female character--put that character in charge of something. See who gets mad.

Also, Alex I'll take therapist for $200. 

  • Thumbs Down 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

An easy way to see if somebody has an issue with a female character--put that character in charge of something. See who gets mad.

 

On 4/29/2025 at 4:22 PM, Excraft said:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a female character being a leader or in a position of authority.  No one has said otherwise.  See the aforementioned Captain Janeway, Elizabeth Weir, Samantha Carter et al.  All of them well loved, well written characters

 

 

 

  • Like 3
Posted
7 hours ago, TTRPGWhiz said:

Feels like this convo has reached a nadir, no?

There's such thing as direct messages as well. 10 of the 11 pages on my thread are three people talking to eachother exclusively. The movie isn't even out yet, I'm surprised how much there is to write about considering. 

Posted

TLDR Version of this thread:

 

1. This movie will suck because of Pedro Pascal

2. This movie will suck because of time travel

3. RDJ as Doctor Doom?!?!

4. This movie will suck because of the fake trailer I just watched. Nothing can polish this turd!

5. Real trailer looks good. Oooops turd got polished.

6. Digression about Superman's disguise. 

7. Griping about modern audiences. 

8. Of course Reed is a dick and will talk down to his wife.

9. No, Sue can't be a bossgirl. She's a mom. Haven't you seen Aliens?!?

 

The thread was rife with negativity from the get-go. I'm looking forward to it. That first trailer won me over.

I think strong visual style is the key to success for this film. I also read articles about Sue and Johnny that make them sound like thoughtful interesting takes on the characters. 

Beyond that I don't want to know much more because I want to go in not knowing how things will play out. 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
  • Thumbs Down 1
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, battlewraith said:

1. This movie will suck because of Pedro Pascal

2. This movie will suck because of time travel

3. RDJ as Doctor Doom?!?!

4. This movie will suck because of the fake trailer I just watched. Nothing can polish this turd!

5. Real trailer looks good. Oooops turd got polished.

6. Digression about Superman's disguise. 

7. Griping about modern audiences. 

8. Of course Reed is a dick and will talk down to his wife.

9. No, Sue can't be a bossgirl. She's a mom. Haven't you seen Aliens?!?

 

You left out - 

 

10.  The parts where you went on and on and on about how female characters written with any inkling of maternal instinct or being a mother as a motivation makes those characters cliche, shallow, weak gimmicks. 

11.  The parts where you went on and on and on about how changing a character from their source material is SUPER BAD BAD!! (see Ripley not being a mom in Alien, but made a mom in Aliens).  Changing a female character to be a mom/have maternal instincts  is SUPER TERRIBLE  BAD BAD!!! and ruins the character by turning them into a gimmicky cliche and is pandering.

12.  The parts where you went on and on and on about how changing a character from their source material who IS a mom and IS a motherly/maternal figure as part of her character (see Sue Storm) while still being well respected, very powerful and a valued team member is NOT SUPER BAD BAD!! because bizarre reasons.  She should be made the leader and the boss lady because MEN BAD!!!  WOMAN MOM GIMMICK!!

Edited by Excraft
  • Like 2
  • Thumbs Down 1
Posted
7 hours ago, Excraft said:

 

You left out - 

 

10.  The parts where you went on and on and on about how female characters written with any inkling of maternal instinct or being a mother as a motivation makes those characters cliche, shallow, weak gimmicks. 

11.  The parts where you went on and on and on about how changing a character from their source material is SUPER BAD BAD!! (see Ripley not being a mom in Alien, but made a mom in Aliens).  Changing a female character to be a mom/have maternal instincts  is SUPER TERRIBLE  BAD BAD!!! and ruins the character by turning them into a gimmicky cliche and is pandering.

12.  The parts where you went on and on and on about how changing a character from their source material who IS a mom and IS a motherly/maternal figure as part of her character (see Sue Storm) while still being well respected, very powerful and a valued team member is NOT SUPER BAD BAD!! because bizarre reasons.  She should be made the leader and the boss lady because MEN BAD!!!  WOMAN MOM GIMMICK!!

 

Lol I went on and on and on because you and others kept quoting me. Don't cry about it. 

The movie will eventually come out, so we will have answers to a lot of the objections (whether Pasco will work as Reed, etc.)

If Sue in the film is put in charge of everything, starts barking orders and making the others look stupid, you can proudly say I told you so.

If it turns out to be a reasonable depiction of the character for 2025, I'll point to all the whinging you did over nothing. 

  • Thumbs Down 1
  • Game Master
Posted

I saw it today. No spoilers, but the cast is good. No boss girl talking down to Reed, no Reed talking down to Sue as if she knows nothing. Great set design, great costumes, they nailed Silver Surfers origin story, it's comic book accurate (Yes there is a canon female surfer), they nailed Galactus. Nice simple plot but some of the cuts and reshoots in the third act are pretty obvious. 

 

7/10 decent movie. It's not going to set the world on fire, but it's easy to follow and it's not overstuffed.

  • Like 1
Posted
1 hour ago, GM Crumpet said:

I saw it today. No spoilers, but the cast is good. No boss girl talking down to Reed, no Reed talking down to Sue as if she knows nothing. Great set design, great costumes, they nailed Silver Surfers origin story, it's comic book accurate (Yes there is a canon female surfer), they nailed Galactus. Nice simple plot but some of the cuts and reshoots in the third act are pretty obvious. 

 

7/10 decent movie. It's not going to set the world on fire, but it's easy to follow and it's not overstuffed.

 

I'm seeing this tonight, but people really gotta stop the "It's comic book accurate" with that, they really can't say anything isn't comic book accurate, because what if/else world/alternate reality characters exist.

She wasn't Silver Surfer for more than like 10 pages of a comic.

 

That's not what people generally call comic accurate.

 

You may as well say "Well, the artists don't always make Wolverine look short, so Hugh being tall is comic accurate" 😛

Posted

Enjoyed it.  I still wouldn't call Shalla-Bal accurate, was hoping we'd see her leaving a non Silver Surfer Norrin and it didn't happen.  😛

 

Also don't need to know anything about anything to see the movie, so for those who whine about wanting self contained marvel movies, this does that.

  • Game Master
Posted
3 hours ago, BrandX said:

Enjoyed it.  I still wouldn't call Shalla-Bal accurate, was hoping we'd see her leaving a non Silver Surfer Norrin and it didn't happen.  😛

 

Also don't need to know anything about anything to see the movie, so for those who whine about wanting self contained marvel movies, this does that.

For the small run she was in it was accurate. I really liked her portrayal. They probably wanted to dive deeper into the back story, I know the film is shorter than originally intended, but it was enough. Shalla Bal has a complicated history anyway, and when you add in things like What If? and cameos she's an easy pick. Especially if they want to use Norrin in the main continuity.

Posted

Just saw it. I think I'd give it a "b". 

The cast was good. The design and the special effects were good. The early part of the movie struck me as more in line with Kirby stories that were tales of wonder.

The second half became focused on "we have to defeat this world ending threat" and it kind of dragged.

I'm really wondering if what ended up being the resolution of the film was entirely different that what was initially supposed to happen.

Posted

Reviewers who I typically agree with have said it's probably the best Fantastic Four movie yet. I'm thinking of actually going to see it.

Being constantly offended doesn't mean you're right, it means you're too narcissistic to tolerate opinions different than your own.

Posted
58 minutes ago, battlewraith said:

Just saw it. I think I'd give it a "b". 

The cast was good. The design and the special effects were good. The early part of the movie struck me as more in line with Kirby stories that were tales of wonder.

The second half became focused on "we have to defeat this world ending threat" and it kind of dragged.

I'm really wondering if what ended up being the resolution of the film was entirely different that what was initially supposed to happen.

Don’t know what the original ending was, but most reports I’d seen said it was the final part of the movie that was reshot.

Apparently people who went to screenings earlier this year really hated the ending.

Posted

Saw it today.  I'd rate Thunderbolts as better personally.  While enjoyable I felt that several great actors (Vanessa Kirby stood out for me) were trying very hard to make an OK script better by sheer force of will.

 

The Retro-future 60s DID look great though.

 

And Galactus is not a cloud.  Bonus point.

AE SFMA Arcs: The Meteors (Arc id 42079) Dark Deeds in Galaxy City: Part One. (Arc id 26756) X | Dark Deeds in Galaxy City: Part Two. (Arc id 26952) | Dark Deeds in Galaxy City: Part Three. (Arc id 27233) Darker Deeds: Part One (Arc id 28374) | Darker Deeds: Part Two. (Arc id 28536) | Darker Deeds: Part Three. (Arc id 29252) | Darkest Before Dawn: Part One (Arc id 29891) |

Darkest Before Dawn: Part Two (Arc id 30210) | Darkest Before Dawn: Part Three (Arc id 30560) |

 Bridge of Forever ( Arc id 36642) | The Cassini Division (Arc id 37104) X | The House of Gaunt Saints (Arc id 37489) X | The Spark of the Blind (Arc id 40403) | Damnatio Memoriae (Arc id 41140) X  The Eve of War (Arc id 41583) | Spirals: Part One. (Arc id 55109) |  Spirals: Part Two. (Arc id 55358) |  Spirals: Part Three. (Arc id 57197)

I Sing of Arms and the Man (Arc id 42617) | Three Sisters (Arc id 43013)

(Pre War Praetorian Loyalist.  Pre War Praetorian Resistance.  Pre ITF Cimerora.  Post ITF Cimerora. X = Dev Choice/Hall of Fame )

Posted (edited)

I really liked it.  There were a lot of comic-book cover scenes and images in the opening montage that I liked, and outside of Reed I really liked the characters, especially the Thing.  My unpopular opinion is that Mr. Pascal doesn't need to be in everything.  I feel like there were easter eggs that hit my subconscious that I need a second viewing to catch properly, but my personal opinion is that I think it's one of the best post-Endgame efforts thus far.  

 

And I'm usually a pretty bitchy fanboy, if I'm being honest.

 

YMMV

Edited by Aracknight
Posted

Had a chance to see this yesterday.  Very enjoyable movie and best MCU film since Endgame IMO.  I really liked how they didn't spend a lot of time covering the origin of the FF.  They followed a similar pattern to The Incredible Hulk where the origin is covered in flashback/news footage which is enough to set the characters up.  I really loved the retro-60s Kirby look to the world.  The CGI was well done. 

 

With exception of Pedro Pascal, I thought the casting was excellent.  Pedro Pascal does ok as Reed Richards, but I think his portrayal was off.  He's the weakest of the cast IMO.  I'm indifferent to Shalla Bal as the Silver Surfer.  I don't know why they went with her instead of the much more established Norin Radd, but whatever.  She's not bad in this movie.  Galactus was spot on and nice to see him properly done.

 

The story does get a bit clunky in the end and it does seem like it suffered a bit due to re-shoots and editing.  

 

Overall this is a very fun movie!  I liked it more than Superman if I'm being honest, although that was good too.  I'm glad some of the rumours turned out to be false.  

Posted

SOME LIGHT SPOILERS.

 

I saw this last Friday. I really liked the FF comics and the Byrne run was iconic. I was so looking forward to this movie. 

 

Then I saw it.

 

Not good. It was a pretty boring plot and not well executed. I am absolutely baffled as to why they used Shalla-Bal as the Surfer. MCU is introducing an iconic character and they go with the second rate version that was around for ...what...a few comics?! Absolute misfire. 

 

They really did a disservice to Galactus as well. Glossed over him and then made him seem almost...evil...and did not really relay his motivation. 

 

I did like the aesthetics and look of the movie. Casting was decent - it would've been better to have a different Reed Richards but what can you do.

 

I'd give it a 5/10. MCU is in trouble IMO.

 

Posted
2 hours ago, BurtHutt said:

They really did a disservice to Galactus as well. Glossed over him and then made him seem almost...evil...and did not really relay his motivation. 

 

Depending on how you define evil, Galactus is evil. He's utterly indifferent to the suffering of sentient beings on the planets he consumes. 

 

Posted
14 hours ago, BurtHutt said:

SOME LIGHT SPOILERS.

 

I saw this last Friday. I really liked the FF comics and the Byrne run was iconic. I was so looking forward to this movie. 

 

Then I saw it.

 

Not good. It was a pretty boring plot and not well executed. I am absolutely baffled as to why they used Shalla-Bal as the Surfer. MCU is introducing an iconic character and they go with the second rate version that was around for ...what...a few comics?! Absolute misfire. 

 

They really did a disservice to Galactus as well. Glossed over him and then made him seem almost...evil...and did not really relay his motivation. 

 

I did like the aesthetics and look of the movie. Casting was decent - it would've been better to have a different Reed Richards but what can you do.

 

I'd give it a 5/10. MCU is in trouble IMO.

 

 

I liked it better than you, but as mentioned earlier in this thread...not even multiple comics.  It was like 10 pages in one comic.  

Posted
1 hour ago, BrandX said:

 

I liked it better than you, but as mentioned earlier in this thread...not even multiple comics.  It was like 10 pages in one comic.  

Yep. Agreed. It was really poorly done. I thought the MCU wanted this to be their big comeback movie. Ah well. It really was a simple story with no depth or detail.

Posted
13 hours ago, battlewraith said:

 

Depending on how you define evil, Galactus is evil. He's utterly indifferent to the suffering of sentient beings on the planets he consumes. 

 

Well, I guess it's a bit more complex. Galactus doesn't seem to have an alignment in most cases. He consumes planets for his own survival - that's his sole motivation. He really should've had more dialogue and discussion with the FF. 

 

I've read Galactus stuff for a long time. I just didn't like the way he was portrayed in this movie. 

 

You suggest he is evil due to causing the suffering of the sentient beings on the planets he consumes. Would you characterize a hunter here on earth also as evil who hunts animals for sport? I can offer many other examples...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...