By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - Fantastic Four 2 no longer on Fox's release schedule

The Fury on 26 November 2015
Lawlight said:

I bet you wouldn't say the same thing if a character was changed to white.

There could be more issues due to our own personal histories but each case should be looked at in an individual context, Ben Grimm could easily be changed and I'm sure not many people would have an issue, if they did really have an issue they are probably racist anyway. Michael B was sadly (as I don't rate him as a good actor at all) one of the better things in that movie but as a fan boy, many people had more issues not with Human Torch being black but that Sue wasn't also. People washed this off as 'They could be adopted' but that isn't the point. There is meant to be a certain family dynamic between Sue and Jonny and there wasn't at all, it's like the mostly didn't know each other and inserting a line which said "So you're adopted." meant the film had to actually explain the situation instead of just having a close family dynamic, we could have assumed that she was.



Hmm, pie.

Around the Network
Bofferbrauer on 26 November 2015

That's great.

Now how long until Fox must make a new Fantastic Four movie before the license reverts back to Marvel? Because I'm pretty damn sure they have plenty enough time to re-reboot the franchise again if they don't want to loose the license.



binary solo on 26 November 2015
Lawlight said:
binary solo said:

People didn't go see it because it was a shit movie, not because of any particular casting choices. The movie would have been a success if it had been an actually good movie and it would still have had a black actor in a role that has historically been a white person. Michael B. Jordan's skin colour had nothing to do with this movie being a bad movie which was the sole cause of the movie flopping. So why are you trying to make out like his skin colour was a factor? Are you saying that the vast majority of potential Fantastic 4 movie watchers are sufficiently racist that they would refuse to see the movie because it has a black actor playing an historically white character? I'm pretty cynical about humanity as it is right now, but even I don't have that low an opinion of the general population.

A person's skin colour is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to any fictional role for character credibility, moreso for a character like Jonny Storm who is basically just a gung-ho, hothead, grunt. A person's age can be far more relevant to character credibility when trying to present someone as having had mature experience as a leading scientific mind. A person in their 20's who looks a bit like a Jock and a teen hearthrob (I don't see it in Teller myself, but then again I'm not a teen) just has a hard time being seen as a credible leader in the scientific community. You can have an age approprioate heart throb (Brad Pitt, for instance) play a science genius, or you can have a young person who actually looks like a science genius. But you can't have a young heart throb. Jesse Eisenberg would have been a better choice for a young looking science genius. But even so, as miscast as I think Miles Teller was, his casting into the role of Mr Fantastic was not the reason the movie was a flop. 

I bet you wouldn't say the same thing if a character was changed to white.

The question is, why would you change a character from black to white in a movie or story that is already dominated by white characters? What would be the purpose in doing that? Why was the F4 originally all white in the first place? Was there an inherent racism in the F4 being all white because of the general social attitudes of the time? Should we be bound to the more inherently racist society in which the F4 was originally conceived, or can we incorporate a more enlightened understanding of humanity wherein actually black people can be heroes too?

If a movie or story is predominantly black, then changing one major character to white can be a legit thing. Why not, for instance create an interracial family in a story that was historically all black, because it was written at a time when an interracial marriage was completely unthinkable? 

Was the race of each character determined by a completely neutral coin toss? No, the makers of the movie had their reasons to choose to make Storm a black person, and that was at least in part a sociologically driven decision intended to appeal to a wider audience. Does that make the decision wrong? No. Is it the reason most people didn't go see the movie? Also no. Is it the reason some people didn't go see the movie? Probably yes. Are the number of people who didn't see the movie because Storm is black the main reason the movie flooped? No. Do you think the movie would have been a better movie with Storm being white? I doubt it, but even if you think [insert random white actor here] would have been an improvement, the movie still would have sucked and flopped.

So again, I ask why bring up the race of Storm when it is not at all relevant to the failure of this movie or the fact that there will be no sequel?



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

Lawlight on 26 November 2015
binary solo said:
Lawlight said:

I bet you wouldn't say the same thing if a character was changed to white.

The question is, why would you change a character from black to white in a movie or story that is already dominated by white characters? What would be the purpose in doing that? Why was the F4 originally all white in the first place? Was there an inherent racism in the F4 being all white because of the general social attitudes of the time? Should we be bound to the more inherently racist society in which the F4 was originally conceived, or can we incorporate a more enlightened understanding of humanity wherein actually black people can be heroes too?

If a movie or story is predominantly black, then changing one major character to white can be a legit thing. Why not, for instance create an interracial family in a story that was historically all black, because it was written at a time when an interracial marriage was completely unthinkable? 

Was the race of each character determined by a completely neutral coin toss? No, the makers of the movie had their reasons to choose to make Storm a black person, and that was at least in part a sociologically driven decision intended to appeal to a wider audience. Does that make the decision wrong? No. Is it the reason most people didn't go see the movie? Also no. Is it the reason some people didn't go see the movie? Probably yes. Are the number of people who didn't see the movie because Storm is black the main reason the movie flooped? No. Do you think the movie would have been a better movie with Storm being white? I doubt it, but even if you think [insert random white actor here] would have been an improvement, the movie still would have sucked and flopped.

So again, I ask why bring up the race of Storm when it is not at all relevant to the failure of this movie or the fact that there will be no sequel?

I see - double standards there. It's fine to change a character from white to black but not the reverse.



binary solo on 26 November 2015
Lawlight said:
binary solo said:

The question is, why would you change a character from black to white in a movie or story that is already dominated by white characters? What would be the purpose in doing that? Why was the F4 originally all white in the first place? Was there an inherent racism in the F4 being all white because of the general social attitudes of the time? Should we be bound to the more inherently racist society in which the F4 was originally conceived, or can we incorporate a more enlightened understanding of humanity wherein actually black people can be heroes too?

If a movie or story is predominantly black, then changing one major character to white can be a legit thing. Why not, for instance create an interracial family in a story that was historically all black, because it was written at a time when an interracial marriage was completely unthinkable? 

Was the race of each character determined by a completely neutral coin toss? No, the makers of the movie had their reasons to choose to make Storm a black person, and that was at least in part a sociologically driven decision intended to appeal to a wider audience. Does that make the decision wrong? No. Is it the reason most people didn't go see the movie? Also no. Is it the reason some people didn't go see the movie? Probably yes. Are the number of people who didn't see the movie because Storm is black the main reason the movie flooped? No. Do you think the movie would have been a better movie with Storm being white? I doubt it, but even if you think [insert random white actor here] would have been an improvement, the movie still would have sucked and flopped.

So again, I ask why bring up the race of Storm when it is not at all relevant to the failure of this movie or the fact that there will be no sequel?

I see - double standards there. It's fine to change a character from white to black but not the reverse.

That's all you've got? You clearly have no intention to discuss the subject in good faith.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

Around the Network
Lawlight on 26 November 2015
binary solo said:
Lawlight said:

I see - double standards there. It's fine to change a character from white to black but not the reverse.

That's all you've got? You clearly have no intention to discuss the subject in good faith.


Discuss the subject of you being fine with racebending but only for select races?



binary solo on 26 November 2015
Lawlight said:
binary solo said:

That's all you've got? You clearly have no intention to discuss the subject in good faith.


Discuss the subject of you being fine with racebending but only for select races?

But that's not what I said. So yes, you are not discussing in good faith.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

HEMSTAR on 26 November 2015

Give it to Marvel please!



nuckles87 on 26 November 2015
binary solo said:
Lawlight said:


Because people didn't go and see it? Similarly to how Miles Teller was a cynical appeal to the youth audience, casting Jordan was a cynical appeal to pander to the "progressive" crowd.

People didn't go see it because it was a shit movie, not because of any particular casting choices. The movie would have been a success if it had been an actually good movie and it would still have had a black actor in a role that has historically been a white person. Michael B. Jordan's skin colour had nothing to do with this movie being a bad movie which was the sole cause of the movie flopping. So why are you trying to make out like his skin colour was a factor? Are you saying that the vast majority of potential Fantastic 4 movie watchers are sufficiently racist that they would refuse to see the movie because it has a black actor playing an historically white character? I'm pretty cynical about humanity as it is right now, but even I don't have that low an opinion of the general population.

A person's skin colour is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to any fictional role for character credibility, moreso for a character like Jonny Storm who is basically just a gung-ho, hothead, grunt. A person's age can be far more relevant to character credibility when trying to present someone as having had mature experience as a leading scientific mind. A person in their 20's who looks a bit like a Jock and a teen hearthrob (I don't see it in Teller myself, but then again I'm not a teen) just has a hard time being seen as a credible leader in the scientific community. You can have an age approprioate heart throb (Brad Pitt, for instance) play a science genius, or you can have a young person who actually looks like a science genius. But you can't have a young heart throb. Jesse Eisenberg would have been a better choice for a young looking science genius. But even so, as miscast as I think Miles Teller was, his casting into the role of Mr Fantastic was not the reason the movie was a flop. 


I would disagree. A fictional character's skin color can be quite relevant, if it is an inherent part of the character's identity. However, I would also say that this typically applies to characters belonging to minorities more often then it does to white characters, unless the society said white characters reside in is overtly racist.

That being said, Johnny Storm's race was not really inherent to his identity, and they used adoption in order to make him and Sue Storm siblings. There really isn't anything wrong with it.

Lawlight probably decided to focus on it because he just hates the idea of SJWs having an influence on our media, and seeks to lay the failure of the movie squarely at their feet. I mean, I was fine with the change. I skipped out on the movie because the reviews were DISASTOROUS. I'm pretty sure that's why most people skipped out on it. XD

I mean, on the other side of the coin, I doubt people skipped The Last Airbender because all the characters were made white. Sure, their skin colors were actually RELEVANT to their identities and made them stick out in societies that were almost entirely composed of minorities, but that's not why the movie flopped. The movie flopped because it was, again, AWFUL.



AAA300 on 26 November 2015
The Fury said:
AAA300 said:

I don't care about DC comics at all but there have been some good movies, they're the ones who proved a dark super hero movie could work.
Also I'm sick of hearing people always wanting marvel to have ff/xmen back. They don't shit gold and half their movies suck!

Fanboys moan because of treatment outside of the MCU and FF and X-men's establishment in the MU/616 as a whole. FF were the first Marvel superhero team, they are the Marvel family. Mutants are the definition of persecution in Marvel world and hold huge sway over many things, there are numerous mutant characters in the Avengers line ups and history that would fit amazingly into the MCU. The fact that FF current'y don't have a monthly book and Mutants/X-men are being drowned out for the Inhumans is grating on fans minds and many want Marvel to have the rights back so that they stop abusing these characters.

It's true, half the FF/X-men movies do suck but remember, not all of the new MCU films are masterpieces. I didn't think much of Ironman 2, Cap A 1 or Thor 2 myself.

In my personal view, no mutants, no Marvel. Many people don't seem to know how much influence and the idea of mutants really have on the MU and it's nothing to ignore.

I understand the importance of the characters in the comics and how it feels like marvel is not showing the full love to the franchise's it doesn't have the movie rights to. But I don't like half the movies they do , iron man 2/3 we're complete shit. Sick and tired of how captain America is strong one second and then weak the next. That seen in cap 2 when he was on that ship and he had to hit normal humans multiple times was stupid.And then he had trouble with one on the boat 1 on 1, even my wife was confused as to if they're going to explain why this guy was strong! He kneed one guy 2-3 times in the head, that should have killed him with caps strength! If marvel had the rights back there most likely wouldn't be a R rated deadpool movie,so fox please keep the rights the marvel universe movies are already to crowded.