Many of you know I hate films with reality flaws that drive people to do stupid things. But what I hate just as much are films that don't stick to the original plot line of a previous story.
One film that does that is Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer. I was pretty much excited when I saw the trailers for this film. But after seeing the film, I was deeply disappointed.
Why? They changed the storyline completely. They deleted 2 of the characters from the original story, added a character who wasn't in the original story and thoroughly eviscerated the story.
One character they took out was Uatu, The Watcher. Why wasn't he in the story. In the original story he comes to Earth to warn of the coming of Galactus.
Another character they took out was Galactus himself. Don't tell me he was in it because he was not. He was only talked about by the Silver Surfer and The Fantastic Four. But when we go into space to see him, what do we see? NOTHING BUT A DAMN FIREBALL!!!!
Also, why did the producers take the liberty of removing the Ultimate Nullifier which the Fantastic Four uses to turn Galactus away? That thoroughly destroyed the story for me.
I swear if I were Stan Lee, I would never again allow the people who made FF:ROTSS to touch any Marvel material again.
Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Surfer is the 7th worst film of all for me.
Yeah, "Silver Surfer" was not a very good effort.
On the other hand, it had Jessica Alba wearing skintight spandex. So I was entertained, even if it was for the wrong reasons. :teddyr:
I thought we were going to talk about Man-Thing for a minute.
You want a bad Marvel movie, track that down. It makes Rise of the Silver Surfer looks like a masterpiece.
(Although frankly, I didn't think Rise was a bad movie, but a medicore one that could have defiantly been improved by actually using Galactus as a character.)
I agree...this film was a big disappointment for me. Story and characters were pretty screwed up.
Quote from: Chainsaw midget on November 30, 2012, 03:00:32 PM
I thought we were going to talk about Man-Thing for a minute.
You want a bad Marvel movie, track that down. It makes Rise of the Silver Surfer looks like a masterpiece.
(Although frankly, I didn't think Rise was a bad movie, but a medicore one that could have defiantly been improved by actually using Galactus as a character.)
MAN-THING was made by the Sci-Fi Channel; what'd you expect?
Then, there's THIS....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joZODFleOaA
I actually liked Nick Fury.
Maybe they thought Galactus was too flamboyantly gay for the general audience. :bouncegiggle:
(http://marswillsendnomore.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/comicnut093.jpg?w=490&h=717)
Quote from: WyreWizard on November 30, 2012, 02:33:12 PM
But what I hate just as much are films that don't stick to the original plot line of a previous story.
wow, for the first time ever I can actually empathise with WyreWiz. I haven't seen this film but I can definitely understand why that would be annoying.
but...this suggests your other posts
weren't trolling attempts, which is pretty mindblowing
Quote from: zombie #1 on December 01, 2012, 03:35:12 AM
Quote from: WyreWizard on November 30, 2012, 02:33:12 PM
But what I hate just as much are films that don't stick to the original plot line of a previous story.
wow, for the first time ever I can actually empathise with WyreWiz. I haven't seen this film but I can definitely understand why that would be annoying.
but...this suggests your other posts weren't trolling attempts, which is pretty mindblowing
(http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l79/RCMerchant/tumblr_lf89wxB3ja1qe0eclo1_r34_500-2.gif)
Hitler had a dog....his dog loved him. :smile:
(http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l79/RCMerchant/anjinghitler.jpg)
Quote from: the ghoul on November 30, 2012, 10:54:23 PM
Maybe they thought Galactus was too flamboyantly gay for the general audience. :bouncegiggle:
Flamboyantly gay? I disagree. They lavished The Silver Surfer with so much attention and detail, why couldn't they do the same with Galactus?
Tell me this, how would you feel if they made a movie about your life and the only representation of you in the film was a fireball?
To me, Fantastic Four Rise of the Silver Silver is nothing more than a big "F*** You!" to Marvel Fans from Avi Arad, Bernd Eichinger and Ralph Winter.
The Galactus of the movie was based on the Ultimate universe's version, not the Earth-616 one.
Anyway, no cinecomic has ever adapted a comic-book storyline straight to the last detail, and rightly so. That material is used as a base to expand upon, but keep in mind that comics and movies are two very different media. That said, both the F4 movies were utterly crappy, but we had worse (Man-Thing, Elektra, Ghost Rider...).
Quote from: Chainsaw midget on November 30, 2012, 03:59:52 PM
I actually liked Nick Fury.
Then you might like this.
Nick Fury (voiced by Chi McBride) will be a continuing character in the animated TV series "Ultimate Spider Man" on Disney XD in 2013.
Nick Fury (played by Samuel L. Jackson) will appear in the theatrical film "Captain America: the Winter Soldier" in 2014.
Nick Fury (played by Samuel L. Jackson) will appear in the theatrical film "Avengers 2" in 2015.
And Nick Fury (played by Samuel L. Jackson) will get his own theatrical film "Nick Fury." No release date given.
And then there was Joss Whedon's "S.H.I.E.L.D." for ABC in 2013. Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is not scheduled to appear in it yet, but I can't imagine he won't make at least one guest appearance.
I still thought it was better than the first F4 movie.
Quote from: WyreWizard on December 01, 2012, 12:18:05 PM
Tell me this, how would you feel if they made a movie about your life and the only representation of you in the film was a fireball?
That would be FREAKIN' AWESOME!!!!
Quote from: JoeTheDestroyer on December 01, 2012, 03:50:18 PM
I still thought it was better than the first F4 movie.
I did too, although neither was what I'd call good.
The one thing I'll say in favor of the F4 movies is Michael Chiklis was well-cast as Bryan/Thing and I appreciated that they put him in Thing makeup instead of completely CG-ing him.
Quote from: BoyScoutKevin on December 01, 2012, 03:22:16 PM
Quote from: Chainsaw midget on November 30, 2012, 03:59:52 PM
I actually liked Nick Fury.
Then you might like this.
Nick Fury (voiced by Chi McBride) will be a continuing character in the animated TV series "Ultimate Spider Man" on Disney XD in 2013.
Nick Fury (played by Samuel L. Jackson) will appear in the theatrical film "Captain America: the Winter Soldier" in 2014.
Nick Fury (played by Samuel L. Jackson) will appear in the theatrical film "Avengers 2" in 2015.
And Nick Fury (played by Samuel L. Jackson) will get his own theatrical film "Nick Fury." No release date given.
And then there was Joss Whedon's "S.H.I.E.L.D." for ABC in 2013. Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury is not scheduled to appear in it yet, but I can't imagine he won't make at least one guest appearance.
I'm not a fan of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. It always came across as a pathetic grab for attention when the comics did it and I can't see the character as anything but Samuel L. Jackson walking around being Samuel L. Jackson.
Quote from: ChaosTheory on December 01, 2012, 05:30:19 PM
Quote from: JoeTheDestroyer on December 01, 2012, 03:50:18 PM
I still thought it was better than the first F4 movie.
I did too, although neither was what I'd call good.
Yeah, that's true, but then again that's also why I'm not vehemently against the supposedly upcoming reboot. With the right folks involved, they could easily do the material some justice.
I sort of agree with you. There are some changes while I didn't like, I at least understood.
From what I know about FF#48 (the original Galactus story line) both the Watcher and the Ultimate Nullifier are really more plot elements then real characters. Remember, what works in one media doesn't always work in another. An all seeing alien showing up to tell the Fanataic Four about a dues-ex-machina all powerful weapon might not have been doable in the movie. (Yes, I know they've done it in the cartoons). In the years since, both the Watcher and the Nulifier have been explored, (although the wiki page about it still seems somewhat vague to me) but to they probably wanted the action to focus on the Fanatic Four and the Surfur (who was supposed to get his own spin-off movie)
Another change they made, is one that is propably a misconception a lot of people have. The movie states that the Surfer's power comes from his board. This is incorrect. When I saw it in the movie, I went "WRONG!" The Surfer is bestowed with the power Cosmic from Galactus and the board is an extension of the Surfur's power-not the other way around. He's able to form one at will. There's a mini-series where the Surfer states the reason he creates a board is so his view of the universe isn't hampered as he travels through it.
As for Galactus. Some comics have stated that Galactus' appearance actually differs from planet to planet. Earthings may see him as a large humanoid, while another might see him as a large lizard, or a squid-like god of destruction (as in the Beat Ray Bill mini series). They also talk about him as being more of a force of nature-which is what I think they were going for...but I still didn't like seeing him turned into a cotton candy cloud with a molten carmel core. Heck, I might have actually preferred the fleet of living ship that he is in the Ultimate Marvel Universe. At least that would have been a more concrete concept.
There had to have been some sort of middle ground between the classic Galctus and the more alien eneity they wanted to portray him as.
(http://www.darkhorizons.com/assets/0018/5848/galactus_article.jpg?1344347011)
Quote from: Chainsaw midget on December 01, 2012, 06:12:04 PM
I'm not a fan of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. It always came across as a pathetic grab for attention when the comics did it and I can't see the character as anything but Samuel L. Jackson walking around being Samuel L. Jackson.
Heh, yeah. I don't care about the character's race one way or the other, but I kept thinking about those Sam Jackson Beer sketches on CHAPPELLE'S SHOW whenever he was on screen. Maybe Chappelle should've played Nick Fury. :tongueout:
I don't really mind Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, but I can understand why fans might. He's not really the sort of actor who can become anyone. The characters he plays become Samuel L. Jackson.
Not necessarily a bad thing, but if the character itself is important to you, it might not please you to see Jackson's on-screen persona take it over completely.
Quote from: AndyC on December 04, 2012, 02:15:20 PM
I don't really mind Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, but I can understand why fans might not. He's not really the sort of actor who can become anyone. The characters he plays become Samuel L. Jackson.
Not necessarily a bad thing, but if the character itself is important to you, it might not please you to see Jackson's on-screen persona take it over completely.
Little bit of info for the Non-comic fans.
When Nick Fury first appeared in 1963, he was a white guy with brown hair.
He'd eventually pick up some white streaks in his hair and an eyepatch, but he stayed a white guy with brown hair.
In the Ultimates universe (it's an alternate reality) Nick Fury was first shown as a white guy with either dark brown or black hair. He first appeared in 2001.
Then suddenly out of nowhere a year later, they completed changed his personality, made him into a bald black guy with some very visible scars around his eye patch, and had him blatantly say that if they ever made a movie about him they should cast Samuel L. Jackson. (At this point Samuel L. Jackson had no knowledge of this.) No explanation was ever given for the change and he's been pimped out as being essentially Samuel L. Jackson ever since.
Quote from: Chainsaw midget on December 04, 2012, 02:49:29 PM
Quote from: AndyC on December 04, 2012, 02:15:20 PM
I don't really mind Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury, but I can understand why fans might not. He's not really the sort of actor who can become anyone. The characters he plays become Samuel L. Jackson.
Not necessarily a bad thing, but if the character itself is important to you, it might not please you to see Jackson's on-screen persona take it over completely.
Little bit of info for the Non-comic fans.
When Nick Fury first appeared in 1963, he was a white guy with brown hair.
He'd eventually pick up some white streaks in his hair and an eyepatch, but he stayed a white guy with brown hair.
In the Ultimates universe (it's an alternate reality) Nick Fury was first shown as a white guy with either dark brown or black hair. He first appeared in 2001.
Then suddenly out of nowhere a year later, they completed changed his personality, made him into a bald black guy with some very visible scars around his eye patch, and had him blatantly say that if they ever made a movie about him they should cast Samuel L. Jackson. (At this point Samuel L. Jackson had no knowledge of this.) No explanation was ever given for the change and he's been pimped out as being essentially Samuel L. Jackson ever since.
They modeled the Ultimate Nick Fury from Sam. Jackson, that's why he played as Nick Fury in The Avengers.
Wasn't there a Dr. Strange film in the '70s that was poorly received?
I've only seen clips, but not sure if it was a film or tv show.
QuoteThey modeled the Ultimate Nick Fury from Sam. Jackson, that's why he played as Nick Fury in The Avengers.
Yes. I relize that. My point is they completley changed an already existing character into a copy of Samuel L. Jackson for no other reason than to say "Hey! This guys is just like Samuel L. Jackson!"
Imagine if all of a sudden they made a James Bond movie that starred Mr. T as James Bond and completely ignored the fact that he's British, suave, sophisticated, a ladies man and subtle in favor of Mr. T just acting like he normally acts while everybody else still calls him James Bond.
That's my beef with it. They writer didn't care about the character at all, they just wanted to attach a celebrity name to it.
There's another upcoming film I am NOT looking forward to. The 4th Transformers film by Michael Bay. This film is slated for a summer 2014 release. I am hearing rumors that Unicron will be in it. I sure hope that is not true because I feel very strongly Unicron wll receive the same negligence as Galactus did. Be talked about in the film but be very poorly represented on screen.
Quote from: HappyGilmore on December 04, 2012, 10:13:05 PM
Wasn't there a Dr. Strange film in the '70s that was poorly received?
I've only seen clips, but not sure if it was a film or tv show.
"Doctor Strange" was a TV movie (1978). Wikipedia sez it was intended as a possible series pilot, but the network didn't pick it up.
Useless trivia, the 1992 Charles Band flick "Doctor Mordrid" w/Jeffrey Combs was originally envisioned as a Doctor Strange movie, but Band's option w/Marvel to use the Strange character expired before he could begin production... so he just changed the character's name and tweaked the script to make an original story out of it.