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.