The Romulan Republic wrote:FaxModem1 wrote:Having not seen the film, and not planning to due to the reviews being spread around, I am just going to comment on casting.
The casting of Johnny Storm seems like an executive based decision. Whether to make some sort of quota and demographic, or to try and positively bring more diversity into the film, I don't know, but why ever it was done, it was not handled correctly.
Do you have any evidence for this being the reason?
None whatsoever. If they picked Jordan based solely on his acting talents, good for him.
If they wanted to make Johnny Storm black, why didn't they also make Sue black as well? This way, you can avoid the added story problems of one or both of them being adopted, don't have to reinforce the fact that they are family, and unless handled correctly by having it add to a theme of adoptive and surrogate families, which the Fantastic Four can be about, the film has another plotline it needs to handle.
I've mentioned how I feel that having a multi-racial family can be a positive. Something which you seem to acknowledge as well, so why take issue with it?
And is it so hard to wrap your head around the idea that people of different races could be siblings and love each other? Does that really require an elaborate explanation?
In theater? No, as it is all about who is the best for the part, and the actors, set designers, etc., can get away with a lot of things and focus on the story. This is why plays aren't renowned for their special effects, costuming, or set design, as it's not as much of an issue as the performers.
But in film, unlike in plays, suspension of disbelief is required at a higher level and things that stick out without either excellent execution or a quick shove of why this is that way. A spaceship hanging from strings would not be acceptable to an audience in a movie theater, nor would sock puppet portraying an alien. The same goes for casting when it comes to families. One example was Battlestar Galactica, where the actor Jamie Bamber put on an American accent to more thoroughly convince the audience that he was in the same family as Edward James Olmos William Adama, who they even had wear blue contact lenses to try and more resemble Jamie Bamber. Another example, Arnold Schwarzenegger film Kindergarten Cop would find some reason why Arnold had an Austrian accent, saying he emigrated to America, even making whole scenes about it. It seemed a bit out of place, but was put in the film as a justification as to why Arnold had an Austrian accent. Jean Claude Van Damme would do similar things in his films, with having him be Louisiana French, such as in Universal Soldier, or something similar to explain his Belgian accent, etc. Street Fighter ignored this, and it seemed to rather stand out that there was a heavily Belgian accented man as an American Colonel, which was one of several things that hampered the film.
If this is central to the plot, or if the setting makes it a non-issue, then it doesn't matter. But film is a visual medium, and when things don't seem to match that should, a workaround will be required.
I agree with the above points that the focus always needs to be on making the story better. Fantastic 4 films, along with X-men and Spider-man, are still being made because Sony and Fox don't want to lose that multi-million dollar pie. If that is the focus, and the chief concern is putting it out in theaters before their license gives out, then the story focus will lose.
Not necessarily. You'd think
there'd be an executive smart enough to realize that a good story is more likely to lead to a successful film.
The Transformers films would seem to argue otherwise. Sometimes if a film just has enough explosions and special effects, it'll be a hit anywhere.
[qupte]
This very much seemed to be a film shaped by committee, and sadly, it will hurt for that. The Dark Knight made nearly a billion dollars(if not over), so we have to have it be dark and gritty(which seemed to affect a lot of films following its success, from James Bond to Star Trek, to varying success).
Star Trek wasn't particularly dark, aside from the destruction of Vulcan. Bond pulled it off very well, at least up until Skyfall (I didn't care for that film), though Casino Royale, which was pretty dark, predated The Dark Knight.
Regardless, I don't know why The Dark Knight would influence people towards darkness when the much lighter Marvel franchise has been dominating the superhero genre ever since.[/quote]
I was talking more about Into Darkness and Skyfall, both of which seemed to ape the one lone(ish) madman who could take down an entire city with an elaborate plan and how they were all powerless in the face of explosions and terrorism.
Film is a business, sadly, and in business, what seems to work is more important than what could be good.
The key is realizing that making a good movie isn't necessarily going to cost you money. The Dark Knight was a good movie, and it succeeded because of it. Avengers, while not brilliant, wasn't terrible either. A good movie and a profitable movie are not contradictory.
I agree completely, but that wasn't the primary motivator, the primary motivator was to keep the film rights from expiring, and to try and make a successful product with it, as letting them expire and Disney/Marvel receiving them would not make economic or financial sense if Disney/Marvel makes a 500 million or higher dollar profit from it and they just gave it away, which would make Fox's executives look rather inept at their jobs.
