Comics and Movies

[Runwildboys]

The previous three Fantastic Four movies from 2005, 2007, and 2015 were produced by FOX. All three films were separate stories from the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) created by Marvel Studios, distributed by Paramount, Universal, Sony, and primarily by Disney--beginning with Iron Man in 2008.

Yes. Fantastic Four: First Steps is the second remake/reboot since the original 2005. However, neither the original nor the first remake had anything to do with the MCU. This latest remake, coming out July 25, was made exclusively for the MCU storyline.

If you thought the original was great, it is my overwhelming hope this newest FF movie blows your socks off. I thought the first two movies were good, and the last one piss poor pathetic, but none of them truly adapted the comic book title to the big screen in my opinion. Some of the things I hope are done 'right' this time around:

• Do really justice to Galactus. It was a blatant insult, remaking the character into a space cloud entity
• Give the team a grounded, family-oriented aura. That is a central aspect of their comic book.
• Make Sue Storm/Richards character the powerhouse she is. No nosebleeds or exhausting usage of powers this time around.
  
• Make The Thing's CGI realistic. Extremely important in my opinion. No goofy prosthetic cosmetic overlay. No overly dramatic rocky appearance.
• Make Reed Richards' stretching abilities realistic-looking as well. Not campy looking.
• Galactus and Silver Surfer are Power Cosmic entities. Demonstrate their abilities fully in that respect. Do not hint at their abilities. Do not gloss over them either.
• Reed's intellect is at or over Tony Stark, who was absolutely brilliant. Showcase it as much as Stark's was.

I could go on. I do not think the first three versions did the group justice. For what it is worth (and this is just my opinion), even the 'worst' MCU movies have gotten its characterizations mostly, if not completely right. I say mostly because examples like Salma Hayek's Ajak in Eternals still make me want to puke, but I digress.

Pascal was good casting. I hope that they use him as much as they did Robert Downey Jr. in as timely and efficient a manner as humanly possible.

IDK how you make The Thing "realistic". Nor do I know how you make stretching abilities not look campy.
They're both silly powers, and it's probably extremely difficult to make it seem otherwise.

 

[DallasEast]

IDK how you make The Thing "realistic". Nor do I know how you make stretching abilities not look campy.
They're both silly powers, and it's probably extremely difficult to make it seem otherwise.

I will try putting my perspective into words. Not sure I can but here's my take:

Left-to-right: "Modern" Ben Grimm, The Thing in FF 1 &2, The Thing in FF 2015 and the new Thing

Cosmic rays both hardened and strengthened Grimm's entire body. Internally, the girth of his chest, legs and arms reflected his artificially transformed mass. Michael Chiklis' body suit does not pull off the look. It looks like a body suit.

His skin is his most strikingly defining feature. It is a thick, rocky-like structure that does not restrict his body movement. That aspect was not conveyed in the early movies. Chiklis moved like a guy who moved around like his skin was wound too tight. The 2015 CGI Thing moved like a slightly limber Frankenstein monster.

Grimm's body mutated. Just like Bruce Banner's body mutated. His range of motion, flexibility did not change--just like Banner's didn't. When I saw 'realistic looking', I am referring to how a character should look (my opinion again) onscreen, just like they do on the printed page.

Reed Richards' stretching will look 'more realistic' if it is presented as more elongated in nature than rubbery. Truthfully, the CGI had not advanced enough in 2005 and 2007 to pull that off. Miles Teller's stretching in the 2015 film was better, but that dang movie was so dark in illumination that it detracts from getting a good sense of what Richards was capable of.

So far, the trailers have kept Pedro Pascal's stretching at a minimum. The tiny snippet I have seen looks pretty cool. Whether it looks just as good over any extended period is my main question.

Mutation is one thing I really enjoy about comic books. It fascinates me how writers and artists can illustrate what a character can do. I love the imagination. For me, Ben and Reed are no more, silly looking than Sue and Johnny. Heck. It would not surprise me if many people think bones growing naturally out of a person's body would be an extremely silly looking ability. However, I look at a character like Marrow doing that and think that looks cool.

On an off-topic, I must confess thinking about you while watching Superman Friday afternoon. Metropolis and Earth are threatened by a circumstance that truly requires the moviegoer to turn off their brain and go with the comic book theme flow. I know how much you prefer things to follow scientific rules. This particular threat will likely get your head shaking a bit.

 

[quickccc]

I will try putting my perspective into words. Not sure I can but here's my take:

Left-to-right: "Modern" Ben Grimm, The Thing in FF 1 &2, The Thing in FF 2015 and the new Thing

Cosmic rays both hardened and strengthened Grimm's entire body. Internally, the girth of his chest, legs and arms reflected his artificially transformed mass. Michael Chiklis' body suit does not pull off the look. It looks like a body suit.

His skin is his most strikingly defining feature. It is a thick, rocky-like structure that does not restrict his body movement. That aspect was not conveyed in the early movies. Chiklis moved like a guy who moved around like his skin was wound too tight. The 2015 CGI Thing moved like a slightly limber Frankenstein monster.

Grimm's body mutated. Just like Bruce Banner's body mutated. His range of motion, flexibility did not change--just like Banner's didn't. When I saw 'realistic looking', I am referring to how a character should look (my opinion again) onscreen, just like they do on the printed page.

Reed Richards' stretching will look 'more realistic' if it is presented as more elongated in nature than rubbery. Truthfully, the CGI had not advanced enough in 2005 and 2007 to pull that off. Miles Teller's stretching in the 2015 film was better, but that dang movie was so dark in illumination that it detracts from getting a good sense of what Richards was capable of.

So far, the trailers have kept Pedro Pascal's stretching at a minimum. The tiny snippet I have seen looks pretty cool. Whether it looks just as good over any extended period is my main question.

Mutation is one thing I really enjoy about comic books. It fascinates me how writers and artists can illustrate what a character can do. I love the imagination. For me, Ben and Reed are no more, silly looking than Sue and Johnny. Heck. It would not surprise me if many people think bones growing naturally out of a person's body would be an extremely silly looking ability. However, I look at a character like Marrow doing that and think that looks cool.

On an off-topic, I must confess thinking about you while watching Superman Friday afternoon. Metropolis and Earth are threatened by a circumstance that truly requires the moviegoer to turn off their brain and go with the comic book theme flow. I know how much you prefer things to follow scientific rules. This particular threat will likely get your head shaking a bit.

I can't believe i'm saying this ..but i think I favor the Tim Story's 2005 version of Ben Grimm/Thing , with a real actor ...vs the CGI images of 2025 and 2025 ...

 

[DallasEast]

I can't believe i'm saying this ..but i think I favor the Tim Story's 2005 version of Ben Grimm/Thing , with a real actor ...vs the CGI images of 2025 and 2025 ...

Well, count me having the polar opposite vote, lol.

 

[quickccc]

Well, count me having the polar opposite vote, lol.

it's just me, as i like the prominent characters .. the major characters, not being CGI images, ..of course with a character like the Hulk,, those are exceptions.
especially given his immense size and for the most part , non-speaking role.

With a charismatic characvter such as Ben Grimm, " It's Clobberin' Time ..!!" i think i would prefer the realism actor. .vs the cartoon-ish look. .
I don't think a cartoonish Ben Grimm won't make me empathic to his self-pity tendencies of being monsterous looking,..

Even when watching these latest trailers, i felt i was looking at a cartoon Grimm,.. vs a realistic character.

 

[DemonBlood]

The Thing actually looks like The Thing in the new movie.

 

[cowboyec]

i want an animated lone ranger movie.
no origin story.
movie starts with lone ranger and tonto doing lone ranger and tonto stuff....set the stage in the middle...movie ends with lone ranger and tonto doing lone ranger and tonto stuff.

please and thank you.

 

[DallasEast]

it's just me, as i like the prominent characters .. the major characters, not being CGI images, ..of course with a character like the Hulk,, those are exceptions.
especially given his immense size and for the most part , non-speaking role.

With a charismatic characvter such as Ben Grimm, " It's Clobberin' Time ..!!" i think i would prefer the realism actor. .vs the cartoon-ish look. .
I don't think a cartoonish Ben Grimm won't make me empathic to his self-pity tendencies of being monsterous looking,..

Even when watching these latest trailers, i felt i was looking at a cartoon Grimm,.. vs a realistic character.

@DemonBlood beat me to it.

I liked Michael Chiklis wearing a body suit like I did enjoyed Lou Ferrigno playing The Hulk on television. They were substitutes for a true visual representation of their comic book character.

Same goes for how I felt the same about the 2015 Thing and the 2003 Hulk. Both examples were someone's idea of characters on steroids.

 

[Runwildboys]

i want an animated lone ranger movie.
no origin story.
movie starts with lone ranger and tonto doing lone ranger and tonto stuff....set the stage in the middle...movie ends with lone ranger and tonto doing lone ranger and tonto stuff.

please and thank you.

Let me guess: An all Elvis soundtrack?

 

[DallasEast]

i want an animated lone ranger movie.
no origin story.
movie starts with lone ranger and tonto doing lone ranger and tonto stuff....set the stage in the middle...movie ends with lone ranger and tonto doing lone ranger and tonto stuff.

please and thank you.

Be careful what you wish for. NBC Universal owns the rights to The Lone Ranger characters. Its animation studios are Illumination and DreamWorks.

If you do not mind an animated Lone Ranger film drawn and presented like what can be seen in How to Train Your Dragon, Despicable Me, etc., you will likely enjoy the end product. I would say you should be prepared if that is not the case.

Hollywood constantly recycles past material. It will not surprise me if either an animated or another live-action Lone Ranger movie gets green-lighted eventually.

 

[Stash]

Be careful what you wish for. NBC Universal owns the rights to The Lone Ranger characters. Its animation studios are Illumination and DreamWorks.

If you do not mind an animated Lone Ranger film drawn and presented like what can be seen in How to Train Your Dragon, Despicable Me, etc., you will likely enjoy the end product. I would say you should be prepared if that is not the case.

Hollywood constantly recycles past material. It will not surprise me if either an animated or another live-action Lone Ranger movie gets green-lighted eventually.

It would surprise me, especially after how badly the past few attempts bombed.

Investors won’t risk their money funding a project with that kind of a track record.

 

[cowboyec]

It would surprise me, especially after how badly the past few attempts bombed.

Investors won’t risk their money funding a project with that kind of a track record.

i think it would work...animated.
but only clayton moore has succeeded as the live action character.
if you replace armie hammer with josh brolin or henry cavill or anson mount(hell on wheels...amc's post civil war western) i think it could be better.
i liked depp as tonto...but lou diamond phillips might be better.

 

[Stash]

i think it would work...animated.
but only clayton moore has succeeded as the live action character.
if you replace armie hammer with josh brolin or henry cavill or anson mount(hell on wheels...amc's post civil war western) i think it could be better.
i liked depp as tonto...but lou diamond phillips might be better.

Nobody will fund it.

The 1981 film lost money and the Johnny Depp version in 2013 was a box office failure.

Josh Brolin has already had his own disaster with Jonah Hex.

Sadly, I think that the character has had its day.

 

[VaqueroTD]

Nobody will fund it.

The 1981 film lost money and the Johnny Depp version in 2013 was a box office failure.

Josh Brolin has already had his own disaster with Jonah Hex.

Sadly, I think that the character has had its day.

Cowboys and Aliens too. Indiana Jones and James Bond couldn’t save that one either. Just think people don’t like the superhero, fantasy or sci-fi in their westerns.

 

[DallasEast]

That said, I did think the actual font and presentation were somewhat reminiscent of the originals used in the Salkinds’ movies. I would not think that was a coincidence either.

 

[DallasEast]

 

[quickccc]

My review on Superman contains some Spolier Alerts - that i've not mastered how to shadow them yet.

I finally saw Superman 2025. both at theaters and streaming

What I did like:

As expected, it’s absolutely loaded with tantalizing, impressive CGI graphic imaging and fight battle sequences.
(Lex go-bots and neo-techs,clones, pocket dimension blackholes, mutants giant creatures,etc) Slo-mo clips, pocket Matrix format like actions, etc.

- What will make this Superman version different from previous Superman movies is that it features a great deal more interesting number of " characters” .
Both good guys & villains.

- And not just other superhero teammates, but even a trusted, very frisky, lively pet dog, several Daily Planet members, and a host of Lex Luther’s superpowered lead henchmen.

- I got to admit that I didn’t think the super dog Kryto was going to play such a prominent role than what the trailer(s) hinted. But it wasn't just a mere small cameo but
It also tries to follow the format pattern of director James Gunn involving a familiar Blend of superhero fighting/CGI image and light hearted comedy.
much like "Guardians of the Galaxy. " so Gunn's version will be cheesy campy than dark serius

- I was particularly impressed with one of the final battles scenes near the end that saw how Superman dealt with and overcame a near-suffocating ordeal.

-- This version of Superman is also different in its Clark background, as he has both foster parents alive and appearing.
It didn’t give as much details on Clark’s real, biological parents Jor-El (Bradley Cooper) & wife Lara as i thought it would. .

-Very admirable performance by Lex Luther actor Nicholsa Hoult - he brought intrigue to the role, no matter what mood he was in.
Though I still preferred ex-Super actor Henry Cavill, i had no problem with current Superman David Corenswet.

-I thought it was obvious how director James Gunn was setting up characters for potential future spin offs. - and kudos to Gunn to include a very small cameo appearance by the late actor Christopher Reeves actual son.

- At last, it was finally explained how Clark Kent is successfully able to conceal his secret identity as Superman, by wearing " Neuro" effect -eye glasses that affect the brain patterns and vision surrounding Clark.

- Also clever how it was explained how Lex Luther somehow gained entry access to Superman's secret Fortress of Solitude with such ease.

What I did not like:

Sorry, but I just didn’t get into the Clark/Superman & Lois Lane relationship. it seemed more like yabbering ranting . and it wasn’t near as on the interest relationship level of 1978 Superman II movie, Lois/Clark pairing (starring Christopher Reeves/Margot Kidder)

To go further, I wasn’t all impressed or moved with Lois Lane performance of actress Rachel Brosnahan - i just didn't find anything that stood out with her.
She was just okay, but not memorable.

- And I certainly didn't get into the reporter Jimmy Olsen/Miss Tesmacher secret relationship - it was confusing, very annoying goofy and wastefully unnecessary, imo.
-
i also thought the Perry White (Daily Planet editor-in chief) Olsen & Lois joining in spaceship journeys was a mess , and i didnt get the biological monkeys
at the control panels.

- Superman 2025 will have some light comical spots that Man of Steel did not. but there are some predictable elements in it. ala the " Brains over Brawn " turning moment
-But Add me to one of many that did not like this superman costume per colore, design trunks, CGI cape, etc. .

- Another pet peeve I keep having with comic book movie flicks is question & confusion of why directors tend to want to go with an actor whose face has already been in previous superhero films (ala Ryan Reynolds in Deadpool, Blade Trinity, and Green Lantern) Gunn version also included such as actor Ed Gathegi -aka Mr. Terrific (from Xmen First Class) and Frank Grillo (from Winter Soldier)


* Overall, while it does have some flaws & holes, Gunn's all in blend of CGI, battle fights, light humor, and multiple characters managed to combine to make Superman a solidly entertaining popcorn flick,

It's Solid, but not to be confused with all time greats great and extraordinary (ala Avengers Infinity , Dark Knight, or Winter Soldier)

On a scale of 1 to 10,.. i'd give Superman 7.0

 

[DallasEast]

- Another pet peeve I keep having with comic book movie flicks is question & confusion of why directors tend to want to go with an actor whose face has already been in previous superhero films (ala Ryan Reynolds in Deadpool, Blade Trinity, and Green Lantern) Gunn version also included such as actor Ed Gathegi -aka Mr. Terrific (from Xmen First Class) and Frank Grillo (from Winter Soldier)

At first, I was happy seeing Gathegi. It never set well with me how his character was treated given his unique mutant ability.

Now, I am ecstatic with his casting in Superman and what may be to come in the future DCU. Gathegi knocked it out of the park. Heck. I think his Mr. Terrific is trending more on TikTok right now than Nicholas Hoult's Lex Luther. And Hoult did a great job as well, lol.

 

[DallasEast]

Marvel’s Kevin Feige Talks Scaling Back, Losing Kang and His Texts to James Gunn After ‘Superman’​

By Borys Kit, Pamela McClintock | The Hollywood Reporter
July 20, 2025

Read more

A very long but interesting article. Each sub-topic heading below can be clicked and take the reader to that specific section of the article:

• Yes, Feige knows Marvel made too many movies and shows (and the other things they did wrong)
• Here’s why Thunderbolts* failed (even though it’s a “very, very good movie”)
• Feige is staying put at Marvel (for now)
• Feige addresses Jonathan Majors for the first time (without talking about Jonathan Majors)
• Don’t expect a live-action Miles Morales any time soon (thanks a lot, Sony)
• Blade being sharpened (again)
• Tonal malleability is a key to Marvel’s success (yes, there will be more R-rated stories coming)
• Feige still likes the flexibility of going into production without a set script

 

[DoctorChicken]

Nicholas Hoult’s portrayal of Lex Luther taught me that I am not being a hater to my full potential.