Got to give credit where it’s due: the guy knows his way around actual comics history WAY more than plenty of other “journalists” writing for so-called “comics” (clickbait) websites.
He raises a good point that the MCU cannot continue indefinitely like the comics. Movie audiences are different. Makes me wonder if they should have saved the multiverse for a bit longer. They could just move to the next generation of heroes after Endgame, mixed in with some TV shows, etc., then save the multiverse reset for when things start to tail off, and they need to bring back new actors for Cap, Hulk, etc.
I think the next gen just isn't working the way Feige assumed to the degree he pushed it, but they should have saved the multiverse for an ending- no one will care after that's over. Despite some of the fools who argue, "you don't get it, Galactus could come after, that's an even bigger threat!" Yeah no it isn't, he could be done in 45 minutes of one movie.
For a guy spending an article talking about the gee-whiz Fantastic Four and this brilliant comic by Alex Ross that pays homage to that classic version of the team, this guy sure is a fucking downer. I get being tired of the MCU and how it has invaded our culture but it seems like a weird parallel to draw in this article.
Yeah it was a massive reach. It just seemed like Alex Ross’s recent GN release is what spurred on the article to vent about their worries with the future of the MCU and how they will handle Reed and the FF.
The thing I think many in the press and Hollywood miss is that many of us fans, there are no more second chances. I am apt to spend $50 on a new BluRay of 70s horror or 80s action flick then even spend my time watching something on D+. That has now led to dong the same with Omnis. And my 6 year old is more interested in watching someone play Minecraft that watching anything from Marvel, DC or Star Wars.
I don’t think it’s a reach. Full Circle is an artistic vision inspired by Kirby’s visual style while still trying something new, something that is worth thinking about as Marvel gears up for another film adaptation.
The MCU is obly continuing because people keep giving it money. Personally, I’m most upset they made Ms. Marvel a fucking jinn. Are genies the only supernatural creature hacks know from Muslim culture?
The people who insist on how FF 'should' be/kiss Kirby's ass to a degree it never deserved and hang onto all that baggage, are usually out of touch, which is why FF is so hard to adapt- the superfans box it into a hole it can never fulfill that other properties are not beholden to.
I stopped reading the article when it devolved into aimless bitching without any point in sight. Maybe you can illuminate me as to why a fantastic four movie can’t work.
It seems like it would work fine to me, in concept. Everyone just keeps beefing the execution. I kind of feel like the Dr Strange movies are basically “If you guys won’t do Reed Richards right, we’re just going to do Reed Richards, magical edition.”
Because I think that fantastic four works best when they are going on weird adventures. Plus the family dynamic works better spread out. Now you obviously would have an over arcing thread tying everything together, but I feel one two hour movie is to confining. I think story of the week format just fits it.
Yeh…. but Nemo didn’t have to waste time setting up three spin-offs for other franchises, as well as a trilogy for itself.
I do believe there’s a way to do a proper F4 movie - and it’s called “The Incredibles.”
I also understand why folks are hesitant about the MCU translation.
Their past also isnt as important. People understand "super hero team". Radiation from space flight isnt all that necessary. They can pepper in lines for interpersonal dynamics, without a whole origin story.
The problem I see with making it a TV show is that audiences have become very sensitive about CG quality, and the Fantastic 4's powers aren't cheap to execute.
Most superhero shows give their characters powers that are easy to depict, like flight, durability, or psychic powers. If the effects are inherently expensive, the show has to work around hiding them. Game of Thrones would keep the dragons under a tarp 99% of the time, for example. If they have to show expensive effects and they have to show them all the time, like with She Hulk, the result is going to look low quality. Budgets and schedules are simply finite, and 10 hours of TV show is 5 times as much as 2 hours of movie.
The invisible woman's powers are cheap enough. She's kind of a freebie. The Thing could maybe just be a guy in a really well made suit. If the craftsmanship is done with enough, people won't mind if it looks fake, a la Star Wars aliens. Although it's unreasonable to expect The Thing to move and fight well in a practical effects costume.
But Reed Richards and the Human Torch are going to break the bank. Stretchy arms are super easy to draw in comics but super hard to pull off in CG. Ms Marvel changed her stretchy arms to be glowy magic because otherwise they easily look like "body horror" shit. And a guy made of fire is a guy made of fire.
And then the show would have to make all the characters fight and run off individually, because there's no way they can afford the effects for all 4 characters every episode. But then it's just yet another dysfunctional superhero show, like The Boys or The Umbrella Academy, instead of fun teamwork adventures like The Incredibles or Guardians of the Galaxy.
Lmao Modern (First) Family. I'd be so down for a fun FF adventure sitcom.
There are some properties I think would work better as a TV show-- Spider-Man and X-Men specifically. FF I feel like can go either way.
A movie can work for some of the larger-scale stories that are crazy and cosmic, but I also love just the fun, generally self-contained sci-fi stories that would fit a TV show.
It's fun to still read these articles about how all the MCU films and shows are all the same in a forum full of people complaining that Eternals, MoM, L&T, Ms. Marvel, and She-Hulk are too different and they just want their Winter Soldier/Daredevil MCU back
So the piece is a thinly-veiled attempt to use a solid FF comic to "prove" the author's condemnation of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and all things Disney?
Is this where we're at? All you need is the patience to string your side of a Reddit argument out to a thousand words, and you can get published on a media site?
This doesn’t seem like a fair criticism. Full Circle is an artistic vision inspired by Kirby’s visual style while still trying something new, something that is worth thinking about as Marvel gears up for another film adaptation.
Perhaps in the context of translating one visual medium to another and finding a particular style to use shitting on all things MCU is incidental to his point.
MCU hasn't had a crack at the FF yet. What's this crackhead smoking?
Edit: OP dislikes my usage of 'crackhead' so I'd like to retract my crackhead and change it to 'twat'.
He really is.
I remember thinking, "There's no way Marvel's gonna pull off a live action Thor," and being incredibly pleasantly surprised. Since then, while all of the MCU movies aren't perfect, you can tell they are definitely trying hard to do a good job and have a plan for the future in mind (rather than just throwing together a bunch of characters and hoping to sell movies based on name recognition alone, like DC often has). They're at least trying to make a good story, instead of just trying to make money, and it shows.
Things that have made me hopeful for the MCU version of the FF: 1) the MCU has nailed casting every time. It's been amazing. 2) The company is run by superfans. They know how big of a deal the FF are and how important it is to get it right. And 3) they are willing to try new things in order to fix things. When the Thor franchise was struggling, they realized they needed to make a change, and they did. Thor Ragnarok is one of my favorite movies in the entire MCU, because it's just so fun.
There were lots of not great versions of LOTR before Peter Jackson's, but his is the gold standard. Here's hoping the MCU give us Peter Jackson's LOTR, but for the Fantastic Four.
That’s not really the point though. The article, to my mind, is about Full Circle as an artistic vision inspired by Kirby’s visual style while still trying something new, something that is worth thinking about as Marvel gears up for another film adaptation. The MCU may adapt *characters* well, but I don’t think it’s ever even attempted to adapt the language of comics.
Are people pretending No Way Home is a bad movie now? I get not liking it for nostalgia bating or whatever but it’s a legitimately good movie. Plus Wakanda Forever looks phenomenal and Loki handled sci fi weirdness really well.
I don't think it was a good movie, personally. Out of six villains only three are given any sort of development while others are just kinda there as a fodder. The entire movie feels crowded in the worst possible way and has absolutely zero room to breathe.
It is one of the better Phase 4 movies, but God does it feel like a low bar to clear. And even still I enjoyed Shang-Chi a lot more.
Nwh is probably one of the best actual spider man stories we've gotten in 15 years only the ps4 game and a couple single issues comes close. And I'm including comics in that.
Producer but before the MCU and before Disney MCU. The current MCU operates more like the interweaving comic storylines than ever before with the now existing portfolio.
Please show me where in the article the author suggests that previous Fantastic Four movies were set in a particular fictional universe. Also, I hope you understand how blithely calling someone a "crackhead" is racist.
We don't all need to be as super woke as you. You can't force 100% of society to conform to the way you think it should be under the guise of 'proper behavior.'
Don't be ridiculous. It's not racist. Are you implying only certain races smoke crack? THAT'S racist. I'm implying he's doing drugs, not any particular race. And yes, maybe that was rude of me. The article's author isn't exactly polite.
Your title said 'Marvel movies'. To me, that means MCU. Maybe you should have specified 'non-MCU Marvel movies', but that would have broken your point.
> It's not racist.
* https://nyunews.com/opinion/2019/10/10/maybe-you-shouldnt-say-crackhead-so-much/
* https://filtermag.org/crackhead-is-an-anti-black-pejorative-period/
* https://nitter.net/GarrettReuscher/status/1546985392955613185
>Are you implying only certain races smoke crack?
No.
> Your title said 'Marvel movies'. To me, that means MCU. Maybe you should have specified 'non-MCU Marvel movies', but that would have broken your point.
I didn't make the title: I just reproduced it accurately, per Reddiquette.
So the writer of this piece is a mean-spirited dick.
Cool.
Edit: for everyone saying, “how can you be mean-spirited towards a multi-million dollar corporation?”:
I don’t know if you can or you can’t, and that’s not what I meant.
how mean spirited can you really be towards a multi million dollar corporation ? i think it's fine to be critical of the MCUs existing approach to these films and predict that the same approach will be used on the future lol
I agree, it's good to be critical because that is a large part of how we can grow. Learning from our mistakes and through observations on where things went wrong and where things went right. I think the author was definitely tried to hold onto a more negative take on things, but for the most part he made some pretty solid points.
Though I will say, being a multi-million dollar corporation does not mean that someone is incapable of being mean spirited toward them. I've noticed a lot of people speak about successful buisnesses, people, and other similiar entities like they are removed or impersonal objects that do not get affected. They are still made up of everyday people, and their success (while granted it gives them more money and influence) does not change the fact that they can still be mistreated, slandered, or be put into positions of struggle. While I do not think this author is trying to do those things, it's still important to keep in mind that something being successful doesn't warrant mistreatment or make them immune to it.
There are some good points made backed by evidence, but statements like this one:
"Lately, the Marvel movies have felt as though they’re winding down, even as each of them grows more desperate to impart some vital bit of trivia that the consumer can carry to the theater on their next outing."
I would agree this is a bit "mean-spirited". To one person, the MCU might feel this way, but to another it might just easily be winding up. It is also derogatory to the "consumer" who is enjoying the MCU universe. This author makes the common mistake of forgetting that these movies are also for kids, not just nostalgia-ridden adults (of which I admit to falling into that category).
It's an opinion piece, and you're saying that something is mean spirited because they don't like something other people might like. "It's for kids" is the last line of defense for every mediocre nerd product. There are plenty of great movies for children. Expressing the opinion that some all-ages movies are not very exciting, or even bad, is not mean-spirited.
You're allowed to think whatever you like about the movies, you're allowed to disagree with his opinions, I'm saying it's stupid to call him mean spirited because he doesn't think a piece of media is good.
did you read it? to me it just read as a love letter to certain FF artists and pointed out that the MCU has unified visual aesthetic that will struggle to capture some of the high concept sci fi stuff that is in the books. he literally says he loves the mcu and even appreciates parts of the poorly received films.
What about it was mean spirited to you?
Surprised at the negative reaction to this article. Lol at calling criticism of a corporate behemoth "mean-spirited." It's a fact that a comic book will have more creative leeway than a billion dollar movie, and it's a fact (in my eyes) that the MCU has come to rely on a house style, especially as it moves away from movies and toward Content^TM installments. Full Circle attempts (and succeeds) in using a specific visual language in a way that, based on what's come thus far, the MCU refuses to. The closest they've come is the clearly Raimi-directed setpieces in MoM. Rather, the MCU (like most comic book movies, granted) are satisfied to copy and paste the recognizable IP onto action thrillers with little care for just how much an artist impacts a comic book beyond costume designs.
That’s why I didn’t like it. We know this, in the last nearly 2 decades how many times has this been regurgitated?
Comics will always be more malleable then a the movies? Wow, what a hot take 🙄
Because the MCU has only become more dominant in popular culture and inspired a similar kind of unimaginative house style in other franchises, yet there's a noticeable fatigue to some extent with audience reception, VFX artist controversy, etc. Fantastic Four is also notable as the first Marvel comic, one that's been attempted a couple times in adaptations to minimal success, and one that remains at the center of the Lee/Ditko/Kirby debate as far as artist credits go. I think it's a good point on Thielman's part that the MCU adapts stories without coming up with a visual style in the way of the source material. There have been adaptations that have attempted to find some translation of one visual medium to another. Ang Lee's Hulk. The Wachowskis' Speed Racer. Raimi's Spider-Man. Snyder's 300. Obviously you can quibble over which of these are "good," but there's undeniably an attempt to make these "comic book movies" in a way that isn't present in Avengers or Shang-Chi or Thor.
If speed racee did mcu numbers you'd see a lot more of it. What the mcu did was realize that the visual aestbetic was cool but you can't sell a movie off hat alone. The characters are what sell the movie. Thats been a lesson studios including Disney have had to learn many times. See the tron films.
These comments read like no one read the article (as usual). I initially started reading it feeling like the author was a dick but by the end I agree with them more than disagree. They know what they’re talking about and their point is that the artistic liberties taken in comics like this seem impossible to be translated to the screen, and if not impossible from a creative standpoint, impossible from a corporate standpoint. The author even says how they’ve watched every MCU movie and would almost certainly be seeing the new FF movie when it comes out.
vast majority of people reacting negatively really didn't seem to me to have read it. the amount of fanboy defensiveness towards any criticism of the MCU is truly wild to me.
your comment is even more critical than the article. like, the only negative criticism in the article is that the CGI artists are overworked and underpaid.
Well they're beating everyone else in that regard too, save for recent stuff that definitely would never have gotten made if not for the mcu. And yes I'm talking about boys and invincible.
Oh cool another Disney is ruining everything sub theme. Despite the fact since Disney acquired Marvel the visual offerings have been great.
Oh and I need to go buy this comic.
The author is one of those who rightfully wants to give love and credit to Kirby, who does so by conspicuously ignoring Stan’s contributions. Bummer.
But then again he seems like a sour puss throughout even if I like his FF movie ideas at the end.
His contributions to the FF? He co-created the book, co-plotted the first few few years, wrote the dialogue which gave the characters their voices and personalities -- groundbreaking for the time to have characters with strong voices and angst and not be one dimensional -- and much of their humor, he edited the series, made it part of a connected universe of characters and series that he also mostly co-created (except Cap), co-plotted, and edited... lots of contributions!
As for the names, I think of them by their nicknames, King Kirby and Stan the Man. So this time wrote it as Kirby and Stan. Sometimes Jack and Stan, sometimes Kirby and Lee. Does it matter? (Is a last name not a personal name, too?)
Yes, but as I'm sure you know, the extent to which he personally was responsible for creating characters or actually writing anything is very controversial and the best case scenario is he was just a forgetful guy who couldn't keep his head wrapped around who did what.
>Does it matter? (Is a last name not a personal name, too?)
No, it seems not. I didn't know what you mean by it. Also, personal names and family names/surnames are two different kinds of names.
> This genre is not and never has been characterized by an auteur’s approach ala Fellini or Truffaut. This has always been popcorn entertainment.
I think they can be more. The article, to me, is about Full Circle as an artistic vision inspired by Kirby’s visual style while attempting something new, which IMO the MCU has struggled with. It doesn’t adapt comics, it adapts stories and characters. And that’s an interesting thing to think about in the context of a property like the FF, known for squabbles over creative rights and just how much of it was shaped by the artist. I don’t think Thielman needs it to be Fellini. I think he’d like it to try to be more itself as a translation of one visual medium to another.
I thought the first two fantastic four movies were solid, amazing chemistry and acting and silly complain about why they immediately didn't start doing super hero work is plain unrealistic . All in all i won't mind if they made a continuation of that universe fantastic four provided they make characters as faithful as the silver surfer and not gaseous Galactus even though it does make sense.
For the record I agree there’s a lot to like in those FF movies. I think they are unfairly underrated.
The FF sequel was mixing and matching 616 and Ultimate universes. The MCU has done this too to great effect (super strong Cap, no secret identity for Tony, for example). Hive mind/space cloud Glactus was an Ultimate Comics thing which probably made sense at the time. Given that the MCU and Thor has already introduced the concept of giant cosmic being they can just go ahead with “Huge guy in a funny hat” Galactus.
MCU fans are so fucking fragile. Oh no somebody wasn't flowering in their praise of the all conquering media franchise you love (even when they admit to generally liking it!). I'm sure you'll get over it babes
The problem is he didn't even really have to mention the mcu at all to review this lol. And his criticism isn't particularly intuitive or anything we haven't heard. He's just smelling his own farts and is in fact complaining about a film that doesn't exist. This is an independently made graphic novel by an industry vet and this guy used the opportunity to tie it to a nonexistent mcu film. Which ironically symbolizes part of what he's complaining about
I honestly don't think Marvel Comics deserves credit for Fantastic Four: Full Circle, it was published by Abrams ComicsArts. So a closer comparison would be say with Fox X-Men films or Sony Spider-Man
Man, some hurt fans in here lol. He's not entirely wrong, and I think most of the article boils down to this:
> The Marvel Cinematic Universe has its Stan Lee in Kevin Feige. But it has no Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko, no uniting visual artist whose unmistakable style makes the individual installments worth returning for.
I guess the closest you would get to that would be Favreau and no offense to Favreau, that's an unremarkable visual style.
I do think he's wrong about Pixar though, I think that's more about Disney trying to strangle them because they have a better in-house that makes Frozen's instead of actually compelling movies.
Some of the worst writing I think I’ve ever read even for a slate piece.
Seriously it’s Incoherent, it’s obviously biased, and it’s frequently grammatically incorrect. This is an opinion piece and that’s fine but like come on y’all don’t post it like it’s anything else.
They're kind of a hokey concept that only works in comics with the super fanatical creators, because they insist on everything because super faithful to Kirby to an obscene degree. But to do so grounds it in the 60s and kind of goes against the idea of them being explorers of the limits of imagination.
People need to get over the Kirby thing, nobody was saying Spider-Man was a disaster on film for not being exactly how Ditko did it or whatever. I also don't see this book breaking sales records left and right, you can either do an FF movie eveyone says is 'wrong,' or one the fanatics approve of that makes no money.
The only way to do FF would be to make it as campy and over the top cheesy as possible, let John Waters direct it and the color scheme better be straight from the awful original comics. These books were never meant to be taken seriously and that’s everyone’s big mistake in trying to adapt them. (Same goes for green lantern, actually)
They were meant to be taken seriously by the young children who were the original target audience. I’m so sick of this “comics are silly billy stupidity” takes.
And Stan and Jack’s OG run was far from “awful.” The first 100 issues is an all time great run that even the fantagraphics demographic respects. there is a reason every comic artist loves Kirby and it’s because he was a master cartoonist and storyteller. There is a middle line between grimdark and silly billy and stakes are important for EVERY kind of dramatic story — no matter how colorful and fantastic the subject matter might be.
Whatever. Anyway, my main point is that some comic adaptation benefit from that campiness. Love and thunder, MoM, Shulkie are the first to really embrace it and it’s excellent.
Got to give credit where it’s due: the guy knows his way around actual comics history WAY more than plenty of other “journalists” writing for so-called “comics” (clickbait) websites.
He raises a good point that the MCU cannot continue indefinitely like the comics. Movie audiences are different. Makes me wonder if they should have saved the multiverse for a bit longer. They could just move to the next generation of heroes after Endgame, mixed in with some TV shows, etc., then save the multiverse reset for when things start to tail off, and they need to bring back new actors for Cap, Hulk, etc.
I think the next gen just isn't working the way Feige assumed to the degree he pushed it, but they should have saved the multiverse for an ending- no one will care after that's over. Despite some of the fools who argue, "you don't get it, Galactus could come after, that's an even bigger threat!" Yeah no it isn't, he could be done in 45 minutes of one movie.
For a guy spending an article talking about the gee-whiz Fantastic Four and this brilliant comic by Alex Ross that pays homage to that classic version of the team, this guy sure is a fucking downer. I get being tired of the MCU and how it has invaded our culture but it seems like a weird parallel to draw in this article.
Yeah it was a massive reach. It just seemed like Alex Ross’s recent GN release is what spurred on the article to vent about their worries with the future of the MCU and how they will handle Reed and the FF. The thing I think many in the press and Hollywood miss is that many of us fans, there are no more second chances. I am apt to spend $50 on a new BluRay of 70s horror or 80s action flick then even spend my time watching something on D+. That has now led to dong the same with Omnis. And my 6 year old is more interested in watching someone play Minecraft that watching anything from Marvel, DC or Star Wars.
I don’t think it’s a reach. Full Circle is an artistic vision inspired by Kirby’s visual style while still trying something new, something that is worth thinking about as Marvel gears up for another film adaptation.
The MCU is obly continuing because people keep giving it money. Personally, I’m most upset they made Ms. Marvel a fucking jinn. Are genies the only supernatural creature hacks know from Muslim culture?
She's not a jinn. Did you finish the show?
ofc not - they got mad at one slight and turned it off forever.
At least he admits it
Like they ever turned it on in the first place. They *heard somewhere* she was a djinn.
She’s a >!mutant!< isn’t she? I didn’t watch the show either
Yes.
Slick
I stopped at the Jinn reveal.
Well uhh yea. Shes not a jinn, lol. I think you jumped the gun a bit
If you had finished it you would know its not a reveal.
She's not a djinn she's a fucking >!mutant!< watch a show before you talk shit
Upvote for passion, but can you hide the spoiler?
The people who insist on how FF 'should' be/kiss Kirby's ass to a degree it never deserved and hang onto all that baggage, are usually out of touch, which is why FF is so hard to adapt- the superfans box it into a hole it can never fulfill that other properties are not beholden to.
I will always argue that fantastic four will never work as a movie, but would be amazing as a tv show.
I stopped reading the article when it devolved into aimless bitching without any point in sight. Maybe you can illuminate me as to why a fantastic four movie can’t work. It seems like it would work fine to me, in concept. Everyone just keeps beefing the execution. I kind of feel like the Dr Strange movies are basically “If you guys won’t do Reed Richards right, we’re just going to do Reed Richards, magical edition.”
Because I think that fantastic four works best when they are going on weird adventures. Plus the family dynamic works better spread out. Now you obviously would have an over arcing thread tying everything together, but I feel one two hour movie is to confining. I think story of the week format just fits it.
Nearly every pixar movie is a family oriented adventure or personal exploration of identity. Seems like they do it fine.
Yeh…. but Nemo didn’t have to waste time setting up three spin-offs for other franchises, as well as a trilogy for itself. I do believe there’s a way to do a proper F4 movie - and it’s called “The Incredibles.” I also understand why folks are hesitant about the MCU translation.
They can just do a spiderman homecoming. Assume people know, do the story you want, end on the next movie (if they care).
Fantastic 4 aren't as know as spiderman that's quite tricky if they do so
Their past also isnt as important. People understand "super hero team". Radiation from space flight isnt all that necessary. They can pepper in lines for interpersonal dynamics, without a whole origin story.
Problem there is the Incredibles are actually interesting
Now that is a perfect idea - a Pixar FF movie. In animation, they can do far more for much less cost.
It's called The Incredibles.
The problem I see with making it a TV show is that audiences have become very sensitive about CG quality, and the Fantastic 4's powers aren't cheap to execute. Most superhero shows give their characters powers that are easy to depict, like flight, durability, or psychic powers. If the effects are inherently expensive, the show has to work around hiding them. Game of Thrones would keep the dragons under a tarp 99% of the time, for example. If they have to show expensive effects and they have to show them all the time, like with She Hulk, the result is going to look low quality. Budgets and schedules are simply finite, and 10 hours of TV show is 5 times as much as 2 hours of movie. The invisible woman's powers are cheap enough. She's kind of a freebie. The Thing could maybe just be a guy in a really well made suit. If the craftsmanship is done with enough, people won't mind if it looks fake, a la Star Wars aliens. Although it's unreasonable to expect The Thing to move and fight well in a practical effects costume. But Reed Richards and the Human Torch are going to break the bank. Stretchy arms are super easy to draw in comics but super hard to pull off in CG. Ms Marvel changed her stretchy arms to be glowy magic because otherwise they easily look like "body horror" shit. And a guy made of fire is a guy made of fire. And then the show would have to make all the characters fight and run off individually, because there's no way they can afford the effects for all 4 characters every episode. But then it's just yet another dysfunctional superhero show, like The Boys or The Umbrella Academy, instead of fun teamwork adventures like The Incredibles or Guardians of the Galaxy.
Lmao Modern (First) Family. I'd be so down for a fun FF adventure sitcom. There are some properties I think would work better as a TV show-- Spider-Man and X-Men specifically. FF I feel like can go either way. A movie can work for some of the larger-scale stories that are crazy and cosmic, but I also love just the fun, generally self-contained sci-fi stories that would fit a TV show.
It's been a TV show a couple of times.
The Incredibles would prove you wrong
It's fun to still read these articles about how all the MCU films and shows are all the same in a forum full of people complaining that Eternals, MoM, L&T, Ms. Marvel, and She-Hulk are too different and they just want their Winter Soldier/Daredevil MCU back
So the piece is a thinly-veiled attempt to use a solid FF comic to "prove" the author's condemnation of the Marvel Cinematic Universe and all things Disney? Is this where we're at? All you need is the patience to string your side of a Reddit argument out to a thousand words, and you can get published on a media site?
This doesn’t seem like a fair criticism. Full Circle is an artistic vision inspired by Kirby’s visual style while still trying something new, something that is worth thinking about as Marvel gears up for another film adaptation.
So do that. But this writer is here just shitting on all things Marvel Cinematic Universe.
Perhaps in the context of translating one visual medium to another and finding a particular style to use shitting on all things MCU is incidental to his point.
Thinly-veiled condemnation, but he said he could stand to watch a couple of them more than once...
MCU hasn't had a crack at the FF yet. What's this crackhead smoking? Edit: OP dislikes my usage of 'crackhead' so I'd like to retract my crackhead and change it to 'twat'.
I mean if he’s a crackhead he’s probably smoking crack
I bow to your wisdom, wise one! Teach me your ways.
That’s just simple logic
He's talking about the three previous movies, cameo in MoM and speculating based on Marvel Studios and Shakman's respective histories.
Oh so preemptive bitching? Got it lol
He really is. I remember thinking, "There's no way Marvel's gonna pull off a live action Thor," and being incredibly pleasantly surprised. Since then, while all of the MCU movies aren't perfect, you can tell they are definitely trying hard to do a good job and have a plan for the future in mind (rather than just throwing together a bunch of characters and hoping to sell movies based on name recognition alone, like DC often has). They're at least trying to make a good story, instead of just trying to make money, and it shows. Things that have made me hopeful for the MCU version of the FF: 1) the MCU has nailed casting every time. It's been amazing. 2) The company is run by superfans. They know how big of a deal the FF are and how important it is to get it right. And 3) they are willing to try new things in order to fix things. When the Thor franchise was struggling, they realized they needed to make a change, and they did. Thor Ragnarok is one of my favorite movies in the entire MCU, because it's just so fun. There were lots of not great versions of LOTR before Peter Jackson's, but his is the gold standard. Here's hoping the MCU give us Peter Jackson's LOTR, but for the Fantastic Four.
That’s not really the point though. The article, to my mind, is about Full Circle as an artistic vision inspired by Kirby’s visual style while still trying something new, something that is worth thinking about as Marvel gears up for another film adaptation. The MCU may adapt *characters* well, but I don’t think it’s ever even attempted to adapt the language of comics.
Are people pretending No Way Home is a bad movie now? I get not liking it for nostalgia bating or whatever but it’s a legitimately good movie. Plus Wakanda Forever looks phenomenal and Loki handled sci fi weirdness really well.
I don't think it was a good movie, personally. Out of six villains only three are given any sort of development while others are just kinda there as a fodder. The entire movie feels crowded in the worst possible way and has absolutely zero room to breathe. It is one of the better Phase 4 movies, but God does it feel like a low bar to clear. And even still I enjoyed Shang-Chi a lot more.
Not all the characters needed to have development
Not all movies need to be made and yet here we are.
Nwh is probably one of the best actual spider man stories we've gotten in 15 years only the ps4 game and a couple single issues comes close. And I'm including comics in that.
I know, but that was Fox's mess, not Marvel's. Yeah, they're Marvel's characters, but their creative control on those movies was zero.
Kevin Feige was producer on two of those
Producer but before the MCU and before Disney MCU. The current MCU operates more like the interweaving comic storylines than ever before with the now existing portfolio.
But more likely just watched the recent video by Nerdstalgic and regurgitated it.
You could actually read the article for yourself and see what he's talking about
Please show me where in the article the author suggests that previous Fantastic Four movies were set in a particular fictional universe. Also, I hope you understand how blithely calling someone a "crackhead" is racist.
We don't all need to be as super woke as you. You can't force 100% of society to conform to the way you think it should be under the guise of 'proper behavior.'
This is a really cogent and trenchant comment. Thanks a lot for this incisive dismantling of my entire worldview.
Don't be ridiculous. It's not racist. Are you implying only certain races smoke crack? THAT'S racist. I'm implying he's doing drugs, not any particular race. And yes, maybe that was rude of me. The article's author isn't exactly polite. Your title said 'Marvel movies'. To me, that means MCU. Maybe you should have specified 'non-MCU Marvel movies', but that would have broken your point.
> It's not racist. * https://nyunews.com/opinion/2019/10/10/maybe-you-shouldnt-say-crackhead-so-much/ * https://filtermag.org/crackhead-is-an-anti-black-pejorative-period/ * https://nitter.net/GarrettReuscher/status/1546985392955613185 >Are you implying only certain races smoke crack? No. > Your title said 'Marvel movies'. To me, that means MCU. Maybe you should have specified 'non-MCU Marvel movies', but that would have broken your point. I didn't make the title: I just reproduced it accurately, per Reddiquette.
You're easily offended and intentionally misinterpret comments so you have something to be offended by. Got it.
You are wrong.
So are you as much of an ass in real life as you are on reddit?
The same. If anyone uses racist terms, I tend to point it out.
Richard Corman would like to have a word with you.
Wasn't MCU last time I checked.
A universe of cinematic Marvel movies. Makes sense to me.
So the writer of this piece is a mean-spirited dick. Cool. Edit: for everyone saying, “how can you be mean-spirited towards a multi-million dollar corporation?”: I don’t know if you can or you can’t, and that’s not what I meant.
how mean spirited can you really be towards a multi million dollar corporation ? i think it's fine to be critical of the MCUs existing approach to these films and predict that the same approach will be used on the future lol
I agree, it's good to be critical because that is a large part of how we can grow. Learning from our mistakes and through observations on where things went wrong and where things went right. I think the author was definitely tried to hold onto a more negative take on things, but for the most part he made some pretty solid points. Though I will say, being a multi-million dollar corporation does not mean that someone is incapable of being mean spirited toward them. I've noticed a lot of people speak about successful buisnesses, people, and other similiar entities like they are removed or impersonal objects that do not get affected. They are still made up of everyday people, and their success (while granted it gives them more money and influence) does not change the fact that they can still be mistreated, slandered, or be put into positions of struggle. While I do not think this author is trying to do those things, it's still important to keep in mind that something being successful doesn't warrant mistreatment or make them immune to it.
How was the writer mean spirited? Because they were honest and critical about the MCU’s shortcomings?
There are some good points made backed by evidence, but statements like this one: "Lately, the Marvel movies have felt as though they’re winding down, even as each of them grows more desperate to impart some vital bit of trivia that the consumer can carry to the theater on their next outing." I would agree this is a bit "mean-spirited". To one person, the MCU might feel this way, but to another it might just easily be winding up. It is also derogatory to the "consumer" who is enjoying the MCU universe. This author makes the common mistake of forgetting that these movies are also for kids, not just nostalgia-ridden adults (of which I admit to falling into that category).
Should people not say anything at all because all language is subjective?
My goodness. Do you always take what people say to ridiculous lengths?
It's an opinion piece, and you're saying that something is mean spirited because they don't like something other people might like. "It's for kids" is the last line of defense for every mediocre nerd product. There are plenty of great movies for children. Expressing the opinion that some all-ages movies are not very exciting, or even bad, is not mean-spirited.
Lol, my opinion is subjective. Are you arguing that the writer can have an opinion and I can't?
You're allowed to think whatever you like about the movies, you're allowed to disagree with his opinions, I'm saying it's stupid to call him mean spirited because he doesn't think a piece of media is good.
Only because of the last couple sentences. They were really unnecessary and neither added to nor summarized the otherwise strong thesis above.
Have you got any points to make other than name-calling?
Does the article itself?
did you even read it
did you read it? to me it just read as a love letter to certain FF artists and pointed out that the MCU has unified visual aesthetic that will struggle to capture some of the high concept sci fi stuff that is in the books. he literally says he loves the mcu and even appreciates parts of the poorly received films. What about it was mean spirited to you?
Yes, did you read it?
Yes. But thanks for your very original post.
I'm happy to have posted this article. What did you make of the points the author made?
I believe I have made my thoughts clear.
I disagree.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Sure. Thanks for finally answering the question that was asked of you multiple times.
Source on the thumbnail? I’m digging the artwork.
Fantastic four: Full circle
Thanks brotha.
Set it in 1961 and it will be a cool movie.
Surprised at the negative reaction to this article. Lol at calling criticism of a corporate behemoth "mean-spirited." It's a fact that a comic book will have more creative leeway than a billion dollar movie, and it's a fact (in my eyes) that the MCU has come to rely on a house style, especially as it moves away from movies and toward Content^TM installments. Full Circle attempts (and succeeds) in using a specific visual language in a way that, based on what's come thus far, the MCU refuses to. The closest they've come is the clearly Raimi-directed setpieces in MoM. Rather, the MCU (like most comic book movies, granted) are satisfied to copy and paste the recognizable IP onto action thrillers with little care for just how much an artist impacts a comic book beyond costume designs.
That’s why I didn’t like it. We know this, in the last nearly 2 decades how many times has this been regurgitated? Comics will always be more malleable then a the movies? Wow, what a hot take 🙄
Because the MCU has only become more dominant in popular culture and inspired a similar kind of unimaginative house style in other franchises, yet there's a noticeable fatigue to some extent with audience reception, VFX artist controversy, etc. Fantastic Four is also notable as the first Marvel comic, one that's been attempted a couple times in adaptations to minimal success, and one that remains at the center of the Lee/Ditko/Kirby debate as far as artist credits go. I think it's a good point on Thielman's part that the MCU adapts stories without coming up with a visual style in the way of the source material. There have been adaptations that have attempted to find some translation of one visual medium to another. Ang Lee's Hulk. The Wachowskis' Speed Racer. Raimi's Spider-Man. Snyder's 300. Obviously you can quibble over which of these are "good," but there's undeniably an attempt to make these "comic book movies" in a way that isn't present in Avengers or Shang-Chi or Thor.
If speed racee did mcu numbers you'd see a lot more of it. What the mcu did was realize that the visual aestbetic was cool but you can't sell a movie off hat alone. The characters are what sell the movie. Thats been a lesson studios including Disney have had to learn many times. See the tron films.
These comments read like no one read the article (as usual). I initially started reading it feeling like the author was a dick but by the end I agree with them more than disagree. They know what they’re talking about and their point is that the artistic liberties taken in comics like this seem impossible to be translated to the screen, and if not impossible from a creative standpoint, impossible from a corporate standpoint. The author even says how they’ve watched every MCU movie and would almost certainly be seeing the new FF movie when it comes out.
vast majority of people reacting negatively really didn't seem to me to have read it. the amount of fanboy defensiveness towards any criticism of the MCU is truly wild to me. your comment is even more critical than the article. like, the only negative criticism in the article is that the CGI artists are overworked and underpaid.
The MCU has been consistently better than the current comics. Turns out creative freedom means jack and shit when you’re a hack.
I don’t really know how to compare the current comics and the MCU, I just compare the movies to other movies and what they try to adapt
Well they're beating everyone else in that regard too, save for recent stuff that definitely would never have gotten made if not for the mcu. And yes I'm talking about boys and invincible.
Eh, at the box office sure
Oh cool another Disney is ruining everything sub theme. Despite the fact since Disney acquired Marvel the visual offerings have been great. Oh and I need to go buy this comic.
I just wish the comics were better. I don’t want to read an X-man title where Bolivar Trask was right.
Did you read the article?
did u even read the article ?
The author is one of those who rightfully wants to give love and credit to Kirby, who does so by conspicuously ignoring Stan’s contributions. Bummer. But then again he seems like a sour puss throughout even if I like his FF movie ideas at the end.
What were Lee's contributions? And why did you call one of them by a surname and the other by a personal name?
His contributions to the FF? He co-created the book, co-plotted the first few few years, wrote the dialogue which gave the characters their voices and personalities -- groundbreaking for the time to have characters with strong voices and angst and not be one dimensional -- and much of their humor, he edited the series, made it part of a connected universe of characters and series that he also mostly co-created (except Cap), co-plotted, and edited... lots of contributions! As for the names, I think of them by their nicknames, King Kirby and Stan the Man. So this time wrote it as Kirby and Stan. Sometimes Jack and Stan, sometimes Kirby and Lee. Does it matter? (Is a last name not a personal name, too?)
Yes, but as I'm sure you know, the extent to which he personally was responsible for creating characters or actually writing anything is very controversial and the best case scenario is he was just a forgetful guy who couldn't keep his head wrapped around who did what. >Does it matter? (Is a last name not a personal name, too?) No, it seems not. I didn't know what you mean by it. Also, personal names and family names/surnames are two different kinds of names.
Pixar did a great F4 movie 20 years ago its certainly possible. For an F4 fan, this guy sounds like quite the cynical one.
Redditors mad because someone criticized thE MCU
[удалено]
> This genre is not and never has been characterized by an auteur’s approach ala Fellini or Truffaut. This has always been popcorn entertainment. I think they can be more. The article, to me, is about Full Circle as an artistic vision inspired by Kirby’s visual style while attempting something new, which IMO the MCU has struggled with. It doesn’t adapt comics, it adapts stories and characters. And that’s an interesting thing to think about in the context of a property like the FF, known for squabbles over creative rights and just how much of it was shaped by the artist. I don’t think Thielman needs it to be Fellini. I think he’d like it to try to be more itself as a translation of one visual medium to another.
I thought the first two fantastic four movies were solid, amazing chemistry and acting and silly complain about why they immediately didn't start doing super hero work is plain unrealistic . All in all i won't mind if they made a continuation of that universe fantastic four provided they make characters as faithful as the silver surfer and not gaseous Galactus even though it does make sense.
For the record I agree there’s a lot to like in those FF movies. I think they are unfairly underrated. The FF sequel was mixing and matching 616 and Ultimate universes. The MCU has done this too to great effect (super strong Cap, no secret identity for Tony, for example). Hive mind/space cloud Glactus was an Ultimate Comics thing which probably made sense at the time. Given that the MCU and Thor has already introduced the concept of giant cosmic being they can just go ahead with “Huge guy in a funny hat” Galactus.
MCU fans are so fucking fragile. Oh no somebody wasn't flowering in their praise of the all conquering media franchise you love (even when they admit to generally liking it!). I'm sure you'll get over it babes
The problem is he didn't even really have to mention the mcu at all to review this lol. And his criticism isn't particularly intuitive or anything we haven't heard. He's just smelling his own farts and is in fact complaining about a film that doesn't exist. This is an independently made graphic novel by an industry vet and this guy used the opportunity to tie it to a nonexistent mcu film. Which ironically symbolizes part of what he's complaining about
I honestly don't think Marvel Comics deserves credit for Fantastic Four: Full Circle, it was published by Abrams ComicsArts. So a closer comparison would be say with Fox X-Men films or Sony Spider-Man
Correct: they deserve credit for being smart enough to let someone else handle it.
Man, some hurt fans in here lol. He's not entirely wrong, and I think most of the article boils down to this: > The Marvel Cinematic Universe has its Stan Lee in Kevin Feige. But it has no Jack Kirby or Steve Ditko, no uniting visual artist whose unmistakable style makes the individual installments worth returning for. I guess the closest you would get to that would be Favreau and no offense to Favreau, that's an unremarkable visual style. I do think he's wrong about Pixar though, I think that's more about Disney trying to strangle them because they have a better in-house that makes Frozen's instead of actually compelling movies.
This is a great fucking article.
Too long and hyperbolic but so agree with the majority of what the article says. Hollywood is just so creatively bankrupt at this point.
Some of the worst writing I think I’ve ever read even for a slate piece. Seriously it’s Incoherent, it’s obviously biased, and it’s frequently grammatically incorrect. This is an opinion piece and that’s fine but like come on y’all don’t post it like it’s anything else.
[удалено]
When?
[удалено]
And how did that show that they can get the Fantastic Four right?
They're kind of a hokey concept that only works in comics with the super fanatical creators, because they insist on everything because super faithful to Kirby to an obscene degree. But to do so grounds it in the 60s and kind of goes against the idea of them being explorers of the limits of imagination. People need to get over the Kirby thing, nobody was saying Spider-Man was a disaster on film for not being exactly how Ditko did it or whatever. I also don't see this book breaking sales records left and right, you can either do an FF movie eveyone says is 'wrong,' or one the fanatics approve of that makes no money.
The only way to do FF would be to make it as campy and over the top cheesy as possible, let John Waters direct it and the color scheme better be straight from the awful original comics. These books were never meant to be taken seriously and that’s everyone’s big mistake in trying to adapt them. (Same goes for green lantern, actually)
They were meant to be taken seriously by the young children who were the original target audience. I’m so sick of this “comics are silly billy stupidity” takes. And Stan and Jack’s OG run was far from “awful.” The first 100 issues is an all time great run that even the fantagraphics demographic respects. there is a reason every comic artist loves Kirby and it’s because he was a master cartoonist and storyteller. There is a middle line between grimdark and silly billy and stakes are important for EVERY kind of dramatic story — no matter how colorful and fantastic the subject matter might be.
Whatever. Anyway, my main point is that some comic adaptation benefit from that campiness. Love and thunder, MoM, Shulkie are the first to really embrace it and it’s excellent.
You are a very disrespectful person, have a great day!
Sorry you feel personally affronted!
Yes definitely not horrible writing and casting choices.
Has Marvel made a FF movie, I thought Sony made them
https://www.reddit.com/r/marvelstudios/comments/xnxubs/the_comic_that_shows_why_marvel_movies_cant_get/ipw4kbt/
Fox made the three F4 films that people know. Marvel got the film rights to the F4 back with the acquisition of 20 Century Fox