|
Post by ThatGuy on May 8, 2017 18:36:22 GMT
But the Robin suit was a focal point. Same with him looking at the open pod (even if it was shorter than the Robin suit). The Robin suit had nothing to do with the plot, but they spent too long on it and, like I said before, had him stand in front of it and stare at it. He stood in front of the Robin suit for about 5 seconds. That's probably shorter than the combined amount of screentime that Stan Lee had in GotG2. The Robin suit and even the pod in MoS weren't central to the plot of the movie. But the origin of the Fantastic Four (how they got their powers and how they formed a team) is central to a Fantastic Four movie. No, it sounds like close to what happened in the original comics. Have them working for SHIELD to make it easier for them to get a hold of the quinjet (those are the premiere craft in the MCU and are shown to be able to go into space on Agents of SHIELD). Then have then transported somewhere else That wasn't what happened in the original comics. did they have his origin in the George Reeves show? Or did they just say it in the opening to the show. Yes, they showed Superman's origin in the George Reeves TV series. In fact, if I recall correctly, the first 3 episodes were about baby Kal-El being put in the spaceship and being sent to Earth and being found by the Kents and growing up on the Kent farm and Jonathon Kent dying from a heart attack and Clark getting a job at the Daily Planet (by scooping Lois on a story). But the F4 have been retconned as the 1st superheroes in the comics. They are the first family 1st, that's not a ret-conn. The FF were always the first superhero team in Marvel. Stan Lee created the FF because his boss saw how popular the Justice League comics were so Stan Lee's boss told Stan Lee to create a superhero team for Marvel. In the Superheroes Decoded documentary that just premiered on the History Channel last weekend, Stan Lee even says in Part 2 that he created the FF because his boss told him to create a superhero team after he saw how popular the JL comics were and if he hadn't created the FF, he would've been fired. The villains aren't what is important to the MCU. Because MCU doesn't have any good villains. All the best villains in Marvel comics belong to either the X-Men or the Fantastic Four. Bruce standing in front of the Robin suit case makes it a focal point. Not important to the plot, but a focal point. A focal point means that it makes you take notice of it. The Stan Lee cameo was a focal point and developed his character more. He's an actual character that brings something to the story as a whole. What did the Robin suit bring? It didn't factor into anything. All Bruce's turmoil comes from his parents dying. Let's see what happened in the original F4 comic... They wanted to go into space... They stole a rocket... They went into space and got bombarded by cosmic rays. Now what did I say that was different from that? Oh wait I added that they were SHIELD agents. But I said what they did in the comics. Well, okay then. I don't feel like looking up the George Reeves show so I'll take your word for it. Meh, I meant they they were retconned out of being the 1st superheroes. There were superheroes around during WW2. Wait Captain America was around in the early 40s. F4 didn't come out until 1961. Are you trying to pull one on us? It wouldn't seem like F4 and X-men have the best villains since they don't know how to use them. How's that Dr Doom doing for them over there? Magneto? Apocalypse? Magneto? Stryker? Magneto? Dr Doom? Magneto? They have all the best villains, but we had Albert as a main villain. Nice.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 8, 2017 18:43:13 GMT
Bruce standing in front of the Robin suit case makes it a focal point. Not important to the plot, but a focal point. A focal point means that it makes you take notice of it. The Stan Lee cameo was a focal point and developed his character more. He's an actual character that brings something to the story as a whole No, Stan Lee's cameo didn't bring anything to the story as a whole and was just another lame MCU gimmick. And Bruce standing in front of the Robin suit for 5 seconds wasn't a focal point. The way you can tell if a scene was central to the plot of the movie is if the scene wasn't there, does it affect the plot of the movie? Remove the 5 seconds of Bruce standing in front of the Robin suit and it doesn't change the plot of the movie. Remove the 2 cameos of Stan Lee and it doesn't change the plot of the movie. So neither scene was central to the plot of the movie. But the origin of the Fantastic Four (how they got their powers and how they formed the team) is central to the plot of a Fantastic Four movie, especially for casual viewers who aren't as familiar with the Fantastic Four's origin as they are with Batman's origin.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on May 8, 2017 18:46:39 GMT
I wouldn't say ASM2 was close to those. What made it bad was that they wanted a cinematic universe and tried to make it right then and there without putting in the work. They were trying to hard to make the Sinister 6 in 2-3 movies. I bet he would have been fighting the Sinister 6 in ASM3. Oh yes, it was. First off, Electro was the imbecile child of Doctor Manhattan and Mister Freeze, Jamie Foxx either phoned it or the writers are to blame. And the Goblin? WT F was that? Not to mention the death of Gwen that was actually cringe worthy, I will say w/o hesitation that loving the character for decades that movie is in my TOP 5 WORST CBM. ------- Now, Holland gives me real hope. I think Electro's problem is that they tried to go more menacing than he should be. His look was fine because he was just the Ultimate version. Electro is just 1 of a bunch of goofy bank robbers that's in Spidey's rogues. They went too soon on the Death of Gwen. They should have kept Norman around, not have a Goblin in the movie at all (if they really needed to have Hobgoblin). Had the Osborn as a Lex Luthor type character for another 2 or so movies. Like I said the problem was that they rushed it to have that Sinister 6 Avengers movie. And yes the look of the Goblin was bad. I don't know why they are so afraid to put them on the comics costume. He's suppose to instill fear by how psycho he is. Not be a horror monster. By the way, I'm not saying the movie was good. I'm saying that it wasn't close to being as bad as those movies.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on May 8, 2017 19:11:03 GMT
Bruce standing in front of the Robin suit case makes it a focal point. Not important to the plot, but a focal point. A focal point means that it makes you take notice of it. The Stan Lee cameo was a focal point and developed his character more. He's an actual character that brings something to the story as a whole No, Stan Lee's cameo didn't bring anything to the story as a whole and was just another lame MCU gimmick. And Bruce standing in front of the Robin suit for 5 seconds wasn't a focal point. The way you can tell if a scene was central to the plot of the movie is if the scene wasn't there, does it affect the plot of the movie? Remove the 5 seconds of Bruce standing in front of the Robin suit and it doesn't change the plot of the movie. Remove the 2 cameos of Stan Lee and it doesn't change the plot of the movie. So neither scene was central to the plot of the movie. But the origin of the Fantastic Four (how they got their powers and how they formed the team) is central to the plot of a Fantastic Four movie, especially for casual viewers who aren't as familiar with the Fantastic Four's origin as they are with Batman's origin. The MCU story as a whole. Not just this 1 movie. And yes Bruce standing in front of the case is a focal point. Why was he standing in front of that case? Was that a suit he use to wear? Who spray painted on the suit? Is that graffiti artist still alive? Did that suit belong to someone else? Are they still alive? Is he mad at the person that use to wear that suit? Was it a man or woman? Did he care for them? Was it one of his villains? You know what I got from Stan Lee's cameo in GotG2? The reason why. Why do you keep saying "central to the plot"? I said it was a focal point. It was something that we should pay attention to. We should take note that Bruce is standing in front of a glass case glaring at a Robin suit with spray paint on it. Why? Will it ever be answered? The Stan Lee cameos weren't central to the plot, but it was character development for his character. Was standing in front of the case character development for Bruce? It told us nothing about his character or the suit. What are you talking about? I've said a way for them to make them getting powers a more central part of the story than how they did it in the past couple of origin movies. Both times they got their powers and they halt the movie like it was 2 separate movies. Hell, even in the comics they went into space, was hit by the cosmic rays, crash back to Earth and the story ends with them in the same place saying they'll form a team. What I was saying is that the event that gives them their powers sends them on their adventure. No crashing back to Earth right away to study what their powers are. They should discover that on the adventure.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 8, 2017 19:24:17 GMT
The MCU story as a whole. Not just this 1 movie. No, Stan Lee's cameos don't affect or change the plot of any of the MCU movies. They're just lame MCU gimmicks. I said it was a focal point. It was something that we should pay attention to. We should take note that Bruce is standing in front of a glass case glaring at a Robin suit with spray paint on it. Why? Will it ever be answered? No, it's not a focal point. Like I said before, it's a 5-second easter egg for fans who read the comcis. But for casual fans who don't read the comics, it doesn't affect the plot of the movie at all and thus isn't central to the plot of the movie and isn't a focal point of the movie at all. The casual viewer who doesn't read comics doesn't need to ask those questions and doesn't need to know the answer to those questions to understand the rest of the movie. Remove that 5-second easter egg and it doesn't affect the plot of the movie at all. But the casual viewer who doesn't read comics isn't going to understand how the Fantastic Four got their powers or understand the dynamics of the team (and their relationships even prior to obtaining superpowers and becoming a superhero team) without an origin story because most casual viewers aren't as familiar with the Fantastic Four as they are with Batman. The Stan Lee cameos weren't central to the plot, but it was character development for his character. Was standing in front of the case character development for Bruce? It told us nothing about his character or the suit. Stan Lee's cameos aren't character development at all. Stan Lee isn't a character. He's just an old man making a bunch of useless cameos which add nothing to the story.
|
|
|
Post by gomezaddams666 on May 8, 2017 19:26:54 GMT
Oh yes, it was. First off, Electro was the imbecile child of Doctor Manhattan and Mister Freeze, Jamie Foxx either phoned it or the writers are to blame. And the Goblin? WT F was that? Not to mention the death of Gwen that was actually cringe worthy, I will say w/o hesitation that loving the character for decades that movie is in my TOP 5 WORST CBM. ------- Now, Holland gives me real hope. I think Electro's problem is that they tried to go more menacing than he should be. His look was fine because he was just the Ultimate version. Electro is just 1 of a bunch of goofy bank robbers that's in Spidey's rogues. They went too soon on the Death of Gwen. They should have kept Norman around, not have a Goblin in the movie at all (if they really needed to have Hobgoblin). Had the Osborn as a Lex Luthor type character for another 2 or so movies. Like I said the problem was that they rushed it to have that Sinister 6 Avengers movie. And yes the look of the Goblin was bad. I don't know why they are so afraid to put them on the comics costume. He's suppose to instill fear by how psycho he is. Not be a horror monster. By the way, I'm not saying the movie was good. I'm saying that it wasn't close to being as bad as those movies. The main problem with SONY, FOX and DC is that they are afraid to remember these are not "Godfather-like Masterpieces", these are movies based on popular comic books where people fly and shit. And THIS is exactly where the MCU excels, so much so they have deme-gods, smart-ass raccoons, killer robots and even ***** wizards... Say what you will about the Maguire trilogy but at lest Dafoe was a menacing Goblin and Molina was n amazing Octopus, those where more "comic-like" in the sense that they didn't care about bending the fabrics of reality, they where sci-fi fantasy. The ASM movies cared a bit too much to go "grounded", and Spidey IS NOT a character you ground.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on May 8, 2017 19:40:50 GMT
I think Electro's problem is that they tried to go more menacing than he should be. His look was fine because he was just the Ultimate version. Electro is just 1 of a bunch of goofy bank robbers that's in Spidey's rogues. They went too soon on the Death of Gwen. They should have kept Norman around, not have a Goblin in the movie at all (if they really needed to have Hobgoblin). Had the Osborn as a Lex Luthor type character for another 2 or so movies. Like I said the problem was that they rushed it to have that Sinister 6 Avengers movie. And yes the look of the Goblin was bad. I don't know why they are so afraid to put them on the comics costume. He's suppose to instill fear by how psycho he is. Not be a horror monster. By the way, I'm not saying the movie was good. I'm saying that it wasn't close to being as bad as those movies. The main problem with SONY, FOX and DC is that they are afraid to remember these are not "Godfather-like Masterpieces", these are movies based on popular comic books where people fly and shit. And THIS is exactly where the MCU excels, so much so they have deme-gods, smart-ass raccoons, killer robots and even ***** wizards... Say what you will about the Maguire trilogy but at lest Dafoe was a menacing Goblin and Molina was n amazing Octopus, those where more "comic-like" in the sense that they didn't care about bending the fabrics of reality, they where sci-fi fantasy. The ASM movies cared a bit too much to go "grounded", and Spidey IS NOT a character you ground. You can ground the world of Spider-man, but not too far. You also don't go too far into the goofy like the Raimi movies. You have to find that happy middle ground. Spider-man should be the goofy one.
|
|
|
Post by gomezaddams666 on May 8, 2017 20:34:41 GMT
The main problem with SONY, FOX and DC is that they are afraid to remember these are not "Godfather-like Masterpieces", these are movies based on popular comic books where people fly and shit. And THIS is exactly where the MCU excels, so much so they have deme-gods, smart-ass raccoons, killer robots and even ***** wizards... Say what you will about the Maguire trilogy but at lest Dafoe was a menacing Goblin and Molina was n amazing Octopus, those where more "comic-like" in the sense that they didn't care about bending the fabrics of reality, they where sci-fi fantasy. The ASM movies cared a bit too much to go "grounded", and Spidey IS NOT a character you ground. You can ground the world of Spider-man, but not too far. You also don't go too far into the goofy like the Raimi movies. You have to find that happy middle ground. Spider-man should be the goofy one. You have to admit that the Raimi movies are by far closest to the 616 in the level of suspension of disbelief, I mean.., Spider-Man has one of the most insane story lines in CB, and so do his rogues... at one point you had an ex bully victim turned into a murderer made out o gold. Webb's movies tried to ground it too much and go with a darker tone... #notmyspiderman
|
|
|
Post by formersamhmd on May 8, 2017 21:17:11 GMT
Oh yes, it was. First off, Electro was the imbecile child of Doctor Manhattan and Mister Freeze, Jamie Foxx either phoned it or the writers are to blame. And the Goblin? WT F was that? Not to mention the death of Gwen that was actually cringe worthy, I will say w/o hesitation that loving the character for decades that movie is in my TOP 5 WORST CBM. ------- Now, Holland gives me real hope. I think Electro's problem is that they tried to go more menacing than he should be. His look was fine because he was just the Ultimate version. Electro is just 1 of a bunch of goofy bank robbers that's in Spidey's rogues. They went too soon on the Death of Gwen. They should have kept Norman around, not have a Goblin in the movie at all (if they really needed to have Hobgoblin). Had the Osborn as a Lex Luthor type character for another 2 or so movies. Like I said the problem was that they rushed it to have that Sinister 6 Avengers movie. And yes the look of the Goblin was bad. I don't know why they are so afraid to put them on the comics costume. He's suppose to instill fear by how psycho he is. Not be a horror monster. By the way, I'm not saying the movie was good. I'm saying that it wasn't close to being as bad as those movies. Well, the thing about Electro is that a guy with his powers really SHOULD be a world-class threat. But for some reason he's always written as this D-List Buffoon. The comics even lampshaded this once. Loki took over his body (I think) and beat up the Avengers while saying that Electro is dumb enough to waste his vast powers trying to rob banks.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on May 8, 2017 22:55:39 GMT
I think Electro's problem is that they tried to go more menacing than he should be. His look was fine because he was just the Ultimate version. Electro is just 1 of a bunch of goofy bank robbers that's in Spidey's rogues. They went too soon on the Death of Gwen. They should have kept Norman around, not have a Goblin in the movie at all (if they really needed to have Hobgoblin). Had the Osborn as a Lex Luthor type character for another 2 or so movies. Like I said the problem was that they rushed it to have that Sinister 6 Avengers movie. And yes the look of the Goblin was bad. I don't know why they are so afraid to put them on the comics costume. He's suppose to instill fear by how psycho he is. Not be a horror monster. By the way, I'm not saying the movie was good. I'm saying that it wasn't close to being as bad as those movies. Well, the thing about Electro is that a guy with his powers really SHOULD be a world-class threat. But for some reason he's always written as this D-List Buffoon. The comics even lampshaded this once. Loki took over his body (I think) and beat up the Avengers while saying that Electro is dumb enough to waste his vast powers trying to rob banks. But that's his character. Electro is a character with just enough imagination to best Spider-man sometimes. He's powerful, but he doesn't have the mentality to take over the world. And most of the time he doesn't. He just wants to make money and get revenge on Spider-man. I think they should have kept him close to what he was when he was the scientist. Or. Not make him a scientist at all. Just make him a regular maintenance worker at OsCorp. Make him the electrician that gets caught up trying to fix something and falls into that vat of eels. Nothing in the movie said he should have been that scientist. That's what Electro is. He's that regular guy that got powers and wanted to be more, but had a mental glass ceiling. ASM2's Electro went straight to Joker levels of psychotic.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on May 9, 2017 0:32:55 GMT
The MCU story as a whole. Not just this 1 movie. No, Stan Lee's cameos don't affect or change the plot of any of the MCU movies. They're just lame MCU gimmicks. I said it was a focal point. It was something that we should pay attention to. We should take note that Bruce is standing in front of a glass case glaring at a Robin suit with spray paint on it. Why? Will it ever be answered? No, it's not a focal point. Like I said before, it's a 5-second easter egg for fans who read the comcis. But for casual fans who don't read the comics, it doesn't affect the plot of the movie at all and thus isn't central to the plot of the movie and isn't a focal point of the movie at all. The casual viewer who doesn't read comics doesn't need to ask those questions and doesn't need to know the answer to those questions to understand the rest of the movie. Remove that 5-second easter egg and it doesn't affect the plot of the movie at all. But the casual viewer who doesn't read comics isn't going to understand how the Fantastic Four got their powers or understand the dynamics of the team (and their relationships even prior to obtaining superpowers and becoming a superhero team) without an origin story because most casual viewers aren't as familiar with the Fantastic Four as they are with Batman. The Stan Lee cameos weren't central to the plot, but it was character development for his character. Was standing in front of the case character development for Bruce? It told us nothing about his character or the suit. Stan Lee's cameos aren't character development at all. Stan Lee isn't a character. He's just an old man making a bunch of useless cameos which add nothing to the story. The Stan Lee cameos are a running thing through out all the MCU. They are mini stories unto themselves. His cameo in Guardians2 told the story of why he is there. Don't get upset because Marvel was smart enough to do this. It's friggin genius to have a mini story that goes through out all their movies. Like I said before, an Easter egg would have just had him pass by the case and not draw attention to it. They drew attention to it for no reason at all. They didn't come back to it later in the movie or anything. They drew attention to the Stan Lee cameo and came back to it later in the movie. Set up and pay off. Nothing was left out in the open in GotG2. Everything had a set up and pay-off. And yes, the Robin case glare was a focal point. It took time out of the movie to show him looking at the case. There had to be a reason. Things shouldn't be in a movie just because. Actually, a casual fan would ask those question and would need to know because they don't know what that suit was. Or why he would be looking at it. That is the point of adding in new elements to a movie. To expand. They did not expand. They just had something in the movie for no reason. They could have done something like having Alfred walk up to him with "Shall I call Nightwing in?" "He's not talking to me after what happened..." And just leave it there. Set up, pay-off, plus an added set up for a later movie. Why are you still coming at me about the F4 origin? I've already said that the origin would be needed to fit them into the MCU. Stan Lee isn't the character's name. That's the actor's name.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 13, 2017 7:53:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 13, 2017 7:55:20 GMT
Why the **** does everyone want a younger cast and the **** negative zone? That sounds like SHIT4STIC! Look, at this point EVERYONE knows their origin story. They should make a movie with the rise of Doom into power and maybe some flashback on how his face was disfigured when he worked with Reed in the past. And stop casting 20 or early 30 somethings for Reed and Susan. Like I said before, this thread is moot because the Fantastic Four aren't part of the MCU and never will be. Even Kevin Feige admits that. www.cinemablend.com/news/1658560/is-marvel-any-closer-to-adding-the-fantastic-four-kevin-feige-says-this[/p]
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 13, 2017 7:58:26 GMT
A movie should never rely on the audience having outside information about its characters. Never. In regards to BvS I think their version of Batman fails precisely because we were supposed to know who he is and what he's all about rather than the movie actually showing us. But in regards to origin stories being done over and over... I think it's a reason not to reboot rather than a reason to just skip the beginning of a character's journey. However, Fantastic Four should do it again because general audiences are not any where near as familiar with them as Batman. Also, the last two origin story movies for F4 weren't massive hits like SM 1 or TASM, or Batman Begins... so doing it again isn't quite as redundant. I don't agree with you on this, because people have been able to pick up on the Fantastic Four's story without seeing the origin for decades now. I still believe that their origin should be minimal the next time around, but to each their own. Like I said before, this thread is moot because the Fantastic Four aren't part of the MCU and never will be. Even Kevin Feige admits that. www.cinemablend.com/news/1658560/is-marvel-any-closer-to-adding-the-fantastic-four-kevin-feige-says-this[/p]
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 13, 2017 7:59:55 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 8:32:19 GMT
[/p][/quote] Again. The article states something different than what yoi claim. The article says there are no talks right now. It also says the studios have no problems. And than there is the fact that fan4stic failed and Fox cannot really reboot anymore. Added to that the righta will fall back to Marvel in 8 years if they dont do anything with it. Those are facts. What you say is not in the article nor fact. Donald stop lying all the time. It makes you look pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by DC-Fan on May 13, 2017 9:18:06 GMT
The article says there are no talks right now. No talks means that MCU won't be allowed to make a Fantastic Four movie, which is what I've said all along. So once again, I'm 100% correct.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on May 13, 2017 11:32:52 GMT
The article says there are no talks right now. No talks means that MCU won't be allowed to make a Fantastic Four movie, which is what I've said all along. So once again, I'm 100% correct. Right now no but you said the F4 will never be in the MCU and you claimed proof in that article. There was none. You lied. Again. Donald, just give it up.
|
|
|
Post by ThatGuy on May 13, 2017 15:57:09 GMT
Okay, Mr. Dead Inside. This is a speculation thread. Meaning "What if the F4 was in the MCU? How would you do them?" It's for fun. It's the same as "What if Superman was a character in the MCU? How would you do it?" It's for fun.
|
|
agentblue
Sophomore
@agentblue
Posts: 792
Likes: 248
|
Post by agentblue on May 13, 2017 20:44:08 GMT
Okay, Mr. Dead Inside. This is a speculation thread. Meaning "What if the F4 was in the MCU? How would you do them?" It's for fun. It's the same as "What if Superman was a character in the MCU? How would you do it?" It's for fun. Yeah hes just being a buzzkill.
|
|