DaveSumm Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I know zip about FF other than that I saw the previous two movies, but my guess is that making him a blogger gives you a far more plausible reason that someone would voluntarily call themself Dr Doom. Comic movies are all about realism since Nolan's Batman, and a cackling pantomime villain called Dr Doom would be first for the chop if it were my job to Nolanise things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I know zip about FF other than that I saw the previous two movies, but my guess is that making him a blogger gives you a far more plausible reason that someone would voluntarily call themself Dr Doom. Comic movies are all about realism since Nolan's Batman, and a cackling pantomime villain called Dr Doom would be first for the chop if it were my job to Nolanise things. I mean, his name was Victor von Doom. Pretty easy to figure out why he'd call himself Dr. Doom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Comic movies are all about realism since Nolan's Batman, I wouldn't say the Marvelverse movies had anything to do with realism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The BlackBear Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 But Fox have tried and failed to carry off goofy with FF and it didn't work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
protar Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 But Fox have tried and failed to carry off goofy with FF and it didn't work. Doesn't mean they should give up. Marvel has proven that goofy can work. This was the perfect IP for Fox to try it. Like Doom's name for example - it's literally his name, so of course he'd be called Dr. Doom. Or if you really want a slightly less cheesy route than a supervillain who happens to be called Doom: maybe he's Victor Domashev, dictator of Latveria, and his opponent's call him Dr. Doom in a mocking fashion - because he's the dictator of a small, poor country who isn't taken seriously as a threat. And then he appropriates it for himself. It's in no way necessary to make him a blogger to explain his name (though I doubt that plot point is there purely to explain his name.). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
polishgenius Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 But Fox have tried and failed to carry off goofy with FF and it didn't work. But Pixar tried it (well, not goofy, but light and fun in tone while also carrying a more serious storyline) and it worked perfectly. So it's obviously doable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mladen Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I have a feeling that this will be that movie in which Marvel will flop... Luckily for them, this is mainly 20th century Fox product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wmarshal Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I know zip about FF other than that I saw the previous two movies, but my guess is that making him a blogger gives you a far more plausible reason that someone would voluntarily call themself Dr Doom. Comic movies are all about realism since Nolan's Batman, and a cackling pantomime villain called Dr Doom would be first for the chop if it were my job to Nolanise things. Great movies to me atleast isn't movies that aren't those that try to connect to are world as best as possible, but those that feel like comics. Good comics mind you. That is why I think this could work, because this trailer gave the FFs feel of adventure and learning that I love about them. Doom blogger is the worse thing about this as of now, but as others pointed out, who knows, he may become the good doctor yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martini Sigil Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 IMO-- the FF is not the type of brand that can stand on its own.... they were nice characters to have around in a larger arc --like Civil War-- but they're just not that interesting on their own, and I doubt that this movie will be worth going to see.... especially with the first two FOX/FF abominations and the studio's complete lack of respect for the source material.... I realize that they've come a long way with the X-men brand... but this reeks of Sony/Spiderman. I don't begrudge FOX their profits... but this movie should only have been made in conjunction with Marvel, and with a working agreement whereby they share this property... I think that is the only way that this movie wouldn't have gone tits up... but maybe I'll be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSumm Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I wouldn't say the Marvelverse movies had anything to do with realism.By today's standards maybe, but I'd say Marvel's villains are all more realistic (and of course the term sounds silly taking about these outlandish things, but you know what I mean....the 'IF these things were real, how would that look?' philosophy) than Superman The Movie's Lex Luthor and trombone-accompanied Otis, pretty much any of the Burton Batman villains, certainly any of the Schumacher ones. Raimi's Spiderman is taken a little more seriously, but still has a pretty overt comic-tone to it.I'm not arguing either way, I'm just saying that Nolan showed the studios where the big bucks are and they're following the lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I'm not arguing either way, I'm just saying that Nolan showed the studios where the big bucks are and they're following the lead. I don't agree at all. The Marvel movies aren't anything like Nolan's. They don't have the same tone at all and they make a ridiculous amount of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSumm Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 Not the same tone perhaps, but on the believability scale, they sit far closer to Nolan than Adam West. It's just the way things have gone, people are far more willing to take superhero movies seriously. And I don't mean serious as in not funny, I mean just taking the concept seriously. Taking whatever premise is associated with a particular hero and setting it in our world, not a phony pantomime one where people don't act like real people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mexal Posted January 28, 2015 Share Posted January 28, 2015 I see nothing realistic about Thor, Guardians of the Galaxy or the Hulk. None of these are grounded in reality. It might not be as silly or camp as it was, but it's definitely not grounded in reality with no superpowers like Nolans movies. I think it's more evolution of the genre rather than every studio following Nolans blueprint to make money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DemiNymph Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 As long as a show is realistic enough not to jerk the audience out of the story and exclaim things like, "holy fuck that's a fake baby", then it is realistic enough. When you are watching movies, did you stop at any time to go, "holy fuck that's a talking racoon!"? If not, then the movie works sufficiently to suspend the audience's disbelief to get on with the story and that's what we mean by realistic. Note that realistic does not necessarily equate to real. It doesn't need to be real to be realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterfell is Burning Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I know zip about FF other than that I saw the previous two movies, but my guess is that making him a blogger gives you a far more plausible reason that someone would voluntarily call themself Dr Doom. Comic movies are all about realism since Nolan's Batman, and a cackling pantomime villain called Dr Doom would be first for the chop if it were my job to Nolanise things. His name is Victor Von Doom. He's has a doctorate degree. Origin explained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drawkcabi Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 As long as a show is realistic enough not to jerk the audience out of the story and exclaim things like, "holy fuck that's a fake baby", then it is realistic enough. When you are watching movies, did you stop at any time to go, "holy fuck that's a talking racoon!"? If not, then the movie works sufficiently to suspend the audience's disbelief to get on with the story and that's what we mean by realistic. Note that realistic does not necessarily equate to real. It doesn't need to be real to be realistic. Yes. The tagline to the original Christopher Reeve Superman movie: "You will believe a man can fly." That's the kind of realism comic book movies should aspire to, and the successful ones do. About the Fantastic Four movie, if it's a good movie, great a plus for movie lovers. But...if it fails, let if fail spectacularly. It's not that Fox and Sony can't make movies as good as Marvel, it's that being able to see Dr. Doom as a villain in the Marvel movieverse would be so rewarding, more so than a good stand alone FF movie, IMHO. I also agree that the FF is more interesting to me as peripheral characters in combined works, I was never interested in their stand alone adventures much. 15 years ago that trailer would have kicked ass, today it seems rather unfantastic to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
White Walker Texas Ranger Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 It looks like he's remaking Chronicle with a bigger budget. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasta11 Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 I see nothing realistic about Thor, Guardians of the Galaxy or the Hulk. None of these are grounded in reality. It might not be as silly or camp as it was, but it's definitely not grounded in reality with no superpowers like Nolans movies. I think it's more evolution of the genre rather than every studio following Nolans blueprint to make money. Hell, Guardians of the Galaxy had its feet firmly planted in camp, talking racoon and all. Maybe it didn't have Bat-anti-shark-spray, but really the galaxy-saving dancing solo is the next best thing. That movie didn't take itself seriously at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shryke Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 Hell, Guardians of the Galaxy had its feet firmly planted in camp, talking racoon and all. Maybe it didn't have Bat-anti-shark-spray, but really the galaxy-saving dancing solo is the next best thing. That movie didn't take itself seriously at all. GOTG is humorous and occasionally silly, but not campy. All the Marvel films since Iron Man inject humour. (because they are all based on the Iron Man formula) Marvel doesn't do camp though. Adam West Batman or Schumacher Batman, on the other hand, is totally camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
red snow Posted January 29, 2015 Share Posted January 29, 2015 It looks like he's remaking Chronicle with a bigger budget. This is what my thought process keeps coming back to and I'm torn. Because I should be excited about a big budget version of Chronicle and it's maybe the thought that it's not 100% going to be a chronicle sequel that frustrates me more than it not being 100% FF. I think I've been getting the wrong way around until now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.