Fantastic Four casting rumors

[hedrap]

Maybe, but that was 50 years ago. That's the problem with a lot of long-term characters; things change and you've got to re-up them. Somehow. (Otherwise Ben and Reed are in their 90's, considering they met in WW2.)

I agree, but they don't. The studios stereotype and do it in the name of diversity. A real re-invention would be welcome, but they're not going that route. We can see that with the casting choices. They're simply plugging in a black guy for no other reason than believing it could generate a larger black male quadrant of ticket buyers. That's pandering to racism through identity, which is nuts because some of the most mainstream Batman fans I know are black males. They "get" the reason behind the blatant casting change and if it doesn't make sense, it's worse.

Like I said; the best way to make Marvel NY more on par with Earth NY would be to add some mixed NEW characters. The problem is like you said; people already have their favourite characters that they want to see.

What we're getting to is the Ultimates/New 52 debate. They claim it's always a reinvention, but it never really is.

[ctc]

>The studios stereotype and do it in the name of diversity.

I think we get the same answer, but our math is different. I don't think they REALLY do it in the name of diversity, but because they think the audience wants to HEAR diversity.... which is why it's never REALLY diversity.

>They're simply plugging in a black guy for no other reason than believing it could generate a larger black male quadrant of ticket buyers

Oh, yeah; but that's how it's always worked with any corporate character. I just find it troubling that so many people call shenannegains NOW, as opposed to any other point during the history of comics.

>They claim it's always a reinvention, but it never really is.

That's my big gripe with the comics too. They're rehashing the late 80's. Still. Over and over in slightly tweaked form. Which ties into my last point: that it bothers me that people who loved it 20 years ago hum and haw over it now.

....not that this applies to the movies.... YET. They've started announcing the reboots before the old runs are done so it's only a matter of time....

Don C.

[enyawd72]

^Or maybe Hollywood just doesn't know what the heck they're doing. I can understand refreshing something, but you don't need to change a character's race to do that.
I think Amazing Spider-Man 2 may be the ultimate irony in Hollywood's handling of comic book properties. Sony has publicly made a big deal about the changes they've made to Spider-Man's costume in response to "fan demand" making it the closest ever to the actual comics version, while simultaneously making the villain about as far away from the comics version as he can get.

[MIB41]

It seems like you're shifting gears a bit, but maybe I'm wrong. I was referring to what you said here: "Most countries take pride in their cultural traditions which are not subject to interpretation like we do here."

How is that statement translated into me saying 'Hollywood is documenting American culture?' Hollywood runs from anything that stands for this country. If something stays a certain way for nearly 50 years, it's hard to argue against it's merits or the consumer expectation that has kept it that way. What this studio is doing goes completely against that model. And the questions raised today are examining the rationale behind that move. Some people can sit in the herd and let others dictate to them. I'm not one of those people. I'm not stating you are either. But when I see revisionism in motion, I pay attention to the messenging in play. There's far more social and cultural subtext in film, than many choose to accept. And it's not by accident either. Trust me. Changes in social behavior often start with our children and what they're exposed to. So I'm mindful of what that message is and challenge it if I find it's motives suspect. Don't kid yourself. Some people just see a mindless costume show. Those folks are always the last to wake up to whats going on.

[hedrap]

>The studios stereotype and do it in the name of diversity.

I think we get the same answer, but our math is different. I don't think they REALLY do it in the name of diversity, but because they think the audience wants to HEAR diversity.... which is why it's never REALLY diversity.

I can see that. That was certainly the motivation when they signed Marlon Wayans for Robin in the original Batman 2/Returns script. The decision made no sense. The difference appears to be where we see the motivation coming from. Are they true believers or opportunists? Both certainly exist.

Oh, yeah; but that's how it's always worked with any corporate character. I just find it troubling that so many people call shenannegains NOW, as opposed to any other point during the history of comics.

IMO, it's the loss of personal connection. You've got three generations that if it wasn't for them, no comic movie or TV show would be the hot studio property. Now the studios have leveraged that into a bonanza and brought in a whole group of people who don't have any connection to what they're watching. The personal language is gone.

In this context, nothing annoys me more than guys like Max Landis and his derivatives. People who are seriously late to the dance, yet claim a deep understanding based moreso off of all the criticism that's come before. You can tell when people have actually read the comic and when they're regurgitating a handful of articles about the important "graphic novels" or superhero "mythos". It's like an entire generation of superhero Cliff's Notes.

That's my big gripe with the comics too. They're rehashing the late 80's. Still. Over and over in slightly tweaked form. Which ties into my last point: that it bothers me that people who loved it 20 years ago hum and haw over it now.

I liked the 80's reset because when you looked at it historically, it hadn't been done since what Schwartz and the Silver Age? It felt like they were closing one book and starting another. And then it became a gimmick.

....not that this applies to the movies.... YET. They've started announcing the reboots before the old runs are done so it's only a matter of time....
Don C.

We have the great divide coming first. What is worth a 200 million budget, and what is not. Like Daredevil. The odds of that character coming back as a television series is about 2-1 over a movie. Same with Punisher. That's where I get irritated with Marvel and DC. You don't have infinite shots at these movies, so how about doing it right one time?

I guess that what kills me about the FF. It's been a half-*** effort from the Corman days, and it deserved the same reverence Superman has gotten.

[BATMAN89]

I guess Johnny's adopted?? or a step kid??

LOL!!!
I'll definitely skip this movie!
It's a matter of principle! Stop changing my comic book heroes!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Forum Runner

[Hector]

Oh the horror, the horror, lol.

[ctc]

>How is that statement translated into me saying 'Hollywood is documenting American culture?'

'Cos of the specific ire against the De-Americaning of said properties. It implies that "Hollywood = America" is the default.

>Don't kid yourself. Some people just see a mindless costume show. Those folks are always the last to wake up to whats going on.

....and stuff like that which straight up states that the aforementioned De-Americanization is part of a concerted effort.

>That was certainly the motivation when they signed Marlon Wayans for Robin in the original Batman 2/Returns script. The decision made no sense.

It makes a LOT of sense, if you look at it from corp mentality. Marlon still had some cred at the time, so they buy the name. Tying into the percieved egalitarianizm; ethnicity, like anything else marketable runs in waves. At the time, the "urban" ideal was big, so of course they'd want to "urban" up the movie. Marketing. Happens a lot. When Jackie Chan got poppular you saw some more asian actors in the big budget films. They were all martial artists.... and there was even a superbudget chambara film to come out that got critical acclaim.... but nowadays asian guys who aren't the doc from "The Hangover" are rare. 'Cos they're not in the public perception.

It's difficult 'cos it LOOKS like racism, but it's mostly ADD.

>You've got three generations that if it wasn't for them, no comic movie or TV show would be the hot studio property.

Two, mostly. The bump started in the 80's, and the kids nowadays don't read superhero comics. But okay....

>Now the studios have leveraged that into a bonanza and brought in a whole group of people who don't have any connection to what they're watching. The personal language is gone.

Hmmmm.... it's a tricky point. You're RIGHT; but it's an unforseen consequence for the fans of Batman "winning." The oldster fans wanted something just like how they imagined things, and "that would be awesome, and Batman, or the X-Men, or whoever would TOTALLY RULE! And then them guys wouldn't make fun of me for reading them, and steal my lunch...."

But when stuff gets moved from one media to another things change. Likewise when your audience expands. The average person ISN'T a member of the 80's comic shop crowd, and things are doctored accordingly. It's a hardware problem; there's little you can do about it. I've read a few articles that allocate the burning nerd rage out there to this: that the oldsters and hardcores feel their victory was taken from them by the norms. And it fuells the ferrociousness that accompanies even the most inconsequential of changes. "Superman wears his undies on the INSIDE now?!?!? AAAAGGGGHHHH!!!! Superman doesn't do that! hE DOESN'T CHANGE CLOTHES, ever! onE PAIR OF TIGHTS.... RED PANTIES external, AND ONE BLUE SUIT! that's it!" Which works in a comic, but makes normal folks ask questions. AWKWARD questions....

>You can tell when people have actually read the comic and when they're regurgitating a handful of articles about the important "graphic novels" or superhero "mythos". It's like an entire generation of superhero Cliff's Notes

HAW! Yeah. I gotta say, most commentators bother me 'cos their knowledge and experience is so limited. Not just in the ways you mention (which makes me grind my molars) but in that "comic" tends to have a SERIOUSLY narrow definition. "Archie? That's stupid and doesn't count. Now, the Punisher is brilliant and awesome! See how sometimes his bullets kill people and sometimes they don't? That represents the duality of justice, and how happenstance...."

THAT bothers me because with such a narrow definition they CAN'T offer any kind of informed opinion. Especially now. That third generation I mentioned grew up on the Japanese stuff.... and the kids read TONS of it; but you seldom see it mentioned anywhere. Archie has been pulling in respectable sales for a while, and you STILL don't see too many references among the "experts;" even though both those examples have essentially BEEN the "Comic industry" for the last decade.

>It felt like they were closing one book and starting another. And then it became a gimmick.

In a lot of ways it really was, although Marvel and DC were late to the party. It also spelled the beginning of the end since they set up things they couldn't sustain. Some time in the mid 90's they lost their minds and have been trying to relive the 80's glory days ever since. (SERIOUSLY Marvel? Your marketing schtick for the "new" X-Men is the Jean dies in a way she never died before? At least they're not kidding themselves....) To me THAT'S their big problem. Hence why I mentioned in another thread they REALLY need to do full reboots, fans be damned. Rearrange EVERYTHING, but KEEP THE CHANGES YOU MAKE! And make them ACTUAL changes. The problem they've had is that NONE of the reboots over the last decade have shown any awareness of what a modern comic fan wants. "We're aiming the 52 run at males, 14 to 24." HOW NOVEL! THOSE people never read comics! And it's not like the last decade has seen a boom in female fans or anything, so you'd best ignore them....

But that ties into the critics as well; they ALL ignore what's actually going on (likely the online nerd rage machine scares them) and dress up the same old. "With characters designs by JIM LEE!!!" Yeah, the hottest artist FROM 20 YEARS AGO! That's why I don't freak about a lot of changes.... like the ethnicity of characters for whom it's a minimal issue. I realize they NEED to change stuff. And I accept that as coprporate properties they're GOING to change stuff. (If you want long term character consistency, read the independents.) It's a bigger problem for the films 'cos they HAVE to appeal to a wider audience, so they HAVE to change more. It's also why so many fan productions are more accurate. They can AFFORD to be.

....but would ANYBODY be willing to give up the effects, names and budgets for sake of accuracy? The moviegoers won't. They neither know nor care about the backstory. They just want to see some action.

>It's been a half-*** effort from the Corman days,

....you give Corman a lot of credit....

>it deserved the same reverence Superman has gotten.

There ya go! Johnny is Reed's illigitimate son!

Don C.