|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Oct 23, 2017 17:58:22 GMT
Epic fail indeed. It couldn't even get a 10% on Rotten Tomatoes. Now, now, no reason to pile on Inhumans just because it's only at 8% on Rotten Tomatoes. I wasn't talking about Inhumans, I was talking about Fant4stic.
|
|
|
Post by justanaveragejoe on Oct 23, 2017 17:59:20 GMT
Marvel's Fantastic Four would get the Fantastic Four, Doctor Doom, and Galactus right. Like MCU got Mandarin right? LOL!!!
Also, there is no MCU's Fantastic Four and there never will be. There's a better chance of Fox making an X-Men / Fantastic Four movie than MCU making a Fantastic Four movie or X-Men movie.
Well, you try to make a good Mandarin without pissing off China and making him an Asian stereotype. I feel sorry for the X-Men and Fantastic Four.
|
|
|
Post by blockbusted on Oct 23, 2017 18:14:52 GMT
Like MCU got Mandarin right? LOL!!!
Also, there is no MCU's Fantastic Four and there never will be. There's a better chance of Fox making an X-Men / Fantastic Four movie than MCU making a Fantastic Four movie or X-Men movie.
Well, you try to make a good Mandarin without pissing off China and making him an Asian stereotype. I feel sorry for the X-Men and Fantastic Four. Also: 1. Ben Kingsley still played a pretty menacing villain until that twist happened. Can't say the same for Toby Kebbell. 2. Real Mandarin is still there somewhere in MCU. 3. This was before 'Doctor Strange', so introducing a magic-based villain might've felt out of place. 4. Speaking of China, 'Iron Man 3' was a US/China co-production by Marvel Studios (USA) and DMG Entertainment (China). 5. Even if those excuses don't work, 'Iron Man 3' was still clearly an Iron Man film (okay, it was arguably more of a Tony Stark film, but you get my point) 'Fant4stic' was 'Fantastic Four'-in-name-only.
Most importantly, on its own, 'Iron Man 3' was a solid film (79% on RottenTomatoes with 7/10 average) while 'Fant4stic' was one of, if not THE worst big-budget film of all time (9% on RottenTomatoes with 3.4/10 average).
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on Oct 24, 2017 0:29:51 GMT
Now, now, no reason to pile on Inhumans just because it's only at 8% on Rotten Tomatoes. I wasn't talking about Inhumans, I was talking about Fant4stic. But your description sounds like you're talking about the Inhumans. You said less than 10% on Rotten Tomatoes. Inhumans is currently at 8%.
|
|
|
Post by dazz on Oct 24, 2017 0:46:20 GMT
She doesn't have a great Rogues Gallery to begin with. There's Ares, Cheetah and...who else? Decay, Silver Swan, Circe, Medusa, Dark Angel, Giganta, Genocide, Baroness von Gunther, Queen Clea, Morgaine le Fey, Strife, Doctor Cyber, Deimos, Phobos, Derinoe, First Born, Apollo, Eirene, Zara, Priestess of the Crimson Flame, Angle Man.
To name a few. I personally think they made a mistake going with Ares in the first film and should have had Cheetah, Silver Swan or Circe instead. You know 4-5 of those names would have sufficed right?
Also is one of those you listed WW's half brother/child of Zeus? If so I think that could make for a good final villain for her in a WW3, or they should have saved Ares for last and make the other one the villain in 2, sadly I agree that they went a bit backwards by using and killing Ares in the first film, they could have used him but had someone else be the real villain and Ares manipulate his way out by not being the cause of WW1 but then he is a villain in the end and use the excuse that Ares was weakened from his battle with Zeus and only the warlike nature of man kept him alive and he has been feeding off of that for centuries until finally so many wars and so much death has allowed him to finally regain his full power, at which point Diana carves his arse up like a turkey.
I get why they used him because he is a name villain, even if people don't know him from the comic lore, Ares the god of war is something most people kind of have a recollection of one way or the other, but I wish they had used one of the other characters or simply used the character as a misdirect.
|
|