Jump to content

Talk:Fantastic Four (2015 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by D0S81 (talk | contribs) at 12:21, 29 September 2018 (→Tommy Wiseau to make a sequel?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Where do we mention the controversies?

I realize that we can't fill the article with every fanboy rage somebody reports on a blog or whatever, but some of the controversies surrounding this movie, particularly regarding Jordan's casting and Mara's comments about the comics, have received enough media attention to merit some sort of mention (the latter was covered by Indiewire and Entertainment Weekly, while the complaints about Jordan were covered by /Film, The Wrap, and even a Cracked.com humor article). So my question is, how do we incorporate this info into the article? Should it have its own Controversy section, or should it just be incorporated into one of the existing sections (Cast, Development, etc.)?--Invisiboy42293 (talk) 21:39, 21 July 2014 (U

I think it should have it's section in this article names "Controversies". --Wikieditor14 (talk) 18:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any major controversies with enough reliable coverage should probably go in the (as yet uncreated) Reception section in a subsection. - adamstom97 (talk) 05:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I just learned about the reboot and the casting on imdb ,came here to read about any controversies (especially Jordan's casting) and followed the links provided above. The impressions I received from reading the articles--and others searched for--were that (a) only 'geek fanboys' and racists have any objections to changing the race of one of the Storm siblings; (b) just because they've always been blond and white in the comic-books didn't mean casting directors were obliged to conform; (c) any so-called problems with a 'white' Sue Storm and a 'black' Johnny Storm can easily be explained (away) by a mixed-race marriage, adoption or some similar premise. In short, there really are no 'controversies' except for those whose minds are too narrow.

JWMcCalvin (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is "no controversy except for those whose minds are too narrow", actually I think that's a quite ignorant comment since you're openly looking down at people - you are therefore the biggest racist. Anyway, if you look at Pan (2015 film) there is a section dedicated to the controversy regarding the casting of Rooney Mara as Tiger Lily who is traditionally depicted as a Native American. She's still a fictional character though, just like Johnny Storm. There's no difference, you are just being ignorant. It's no secret that the pop magazines who report on these news such as Cracked and TheWrap are leftist/hipster - so of course they will call the controversy regarding Tiger Lily as a controversy, while they will call the controversy regarding Johnny Storm as simple racism. Still, they're both controversies and I think this should be included in this article. Wikipedia is supposed to be NEUTRAL so we shouldn't look at races differently. The casting controversy regarding Tiger Lily shouldnt be treated differently than the casting controversy regarding Johnny Storm. --Jonipoon (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Controversy may be too strong a word but at some point the article will need to address the fact a caucasian actress and a black actor have been cast as brother and sister. Aside from the fact Jordan becomes the first non-caucasian to play Johnny Storm, which is significant in itself, the story going to need to address this. If one was adopted, they're step-siblings, or were born to biracial parents which has been known to result in this, any three options are significant changes from the original source material (as is the fourth option that would see one of the characters given a last name other than Storm). If it has already been explained in media reports, then we can use this; otherwise it's a topic that might need to be addressed once the film comes out and its plot and script are known. 68.146.52.234 (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic chat

It's not narrow minds it's purists getting upset over Hollyweird yet again switching things up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.80.104.205 (talk) 15:34, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the article's topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 01:00, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Box office ".0"

So not sure who insists we put ".0" after the $168 for the gross, but it's math 101 you don't put the zero if you round up to the nearest decimal place and it's a zero, so I'm just going to remove that... TropicAces (talk) 13:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)tropicAces[reply]

It would seem to be about whether we are rounding to decimal places or significant digits.
Rounding to one decimal place gives an answer with one decimal place: 12.34 becomes 12.3, 12.04 becomes 12.0, 123.45 becomes 123.5.
Rounding to three significant digits gives an answer with three meaningful places: 12.34 becomes 12.3, but 123.45 becomes 123 and 1234.56 becomes 1230
Yes, when writing "ten", you would normally write 10, not 10.0. However, there are exceptions. When rounding numbers to one decimal, the chosen level of accuracy is retained. Rounding 9.9 to the nearest tenth would be 10.0. Rounding to the nearest unit would be 10. As a result, you know that a 10 that came from rounding to the nearest unit represents data of 9.50 to 10.49. A 10.0 from rounding to the nearest tenth is from data of 9.95 to 10.04.
Including the .0 gives an indication of the accuracy of the displayed result. "10" represents 10 +/- 0.5 while "10.0" means 10 +/- 0.05. - SummerPhDv2.0 14:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gaps

Do all those gaps with persona opinio and speculation need to be in the article? I'll delete them, so please DO NOT add them again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drumerwritter (talk • contribs) 06:08, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You were right to remove them, as that was pure vandalism that someone added. DarkKnight2149 01:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marvel Cinematic Universe

This film has never been part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

And no part of the article insinuates that. Sock (tock talk) 14:48, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Fantastic Four (2015 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Fant4stic"? Proposal to change title...

I propose that we change this title to "Fantastic Four" or "Fantastic 4" throughout the film, because I geniunely do not believe that the creators of the film was aiming for it to be called by this name. A stylized title do not always mean that is how it is supposed to be read or said. Can anyone bring up a video or sound bite of the producers or director calling the movie by this exact title? Because if not, we ought to change it. --Luka1184 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Wiseau to make a sequel?

To be honest, i think if tommy was to make a sequel, it was be terrible, but at least yo know it would have a chance of being the best worst film. i mean, if your gonna do something wrong, do it it wrong...right. lol, soz. i get where they were going with this film, they were basically using 'ultimate fantastic four' as their source material, not regular fantastic four, and they were kinda spot on a bit. but its true that it does feel like a trailer for a film that doesnt happen. its like they made it with the intention to create a series, and forgot that there was a chance it could tank, and so didt bother making it a self contained film that could stand on its own should a sequel never happen. i still dont get why they remade it anyway, yeah the ilver surfer didnt do as well as the predecessor, but it still made double its budget, thats good in my eyes. stuff the critics. look at star trek, how many of those movies are hits and how man are misses. if they went of how bad the first one 'motion picture' was, and decide 'ya know what, it did terrible, lets not do anymore, and lets reboot it' then we wouldnt have had the awesome hits that came after like wrath of khan, first contact, journey home (just cuz i like them bumbling round 1980s san fran' so what, you had a flop-ish, dont give up, if anything that should be more incentive to create a sequel and make it better by fixing what was wrong in the previous film. not every song on a musicians album is gonna be hit, but ya dont see them giving up when they dont reach the top whatever list do you, know they keep going until something sticks. hollywood has always been about the money, but, it used to take more risks with it back in the day. and now its like theyre so scared to put money into someone else hands, that they get too involved in a directors project, and you end up with Spiderman 3. look at X-men, the third one kinda sucks, but if they had just quit, then we wouldnt have days of future past, although i dont know if that counts as sticking with your franchise considering they did an abrahms and just wibble wobble timey wime, and rebooted it. which i thinks a good way to do it, cuz it means, just like with start trek, everything before isnt just erased, its still part of the continuity, plus they still get to give the series a fresh coat of paint. they coulda probably done that with the original fantastic 4 films, but i think they shoulda just kept going. whenever someone says did you ever see the fantastic four film? i dont say which one? my mind just automatically goes to those first two films. they actually feel like they would fit in the MCU tbh. if i was a director, or someone with money to burn...or not. i would bring them all back, i'd give the thing a new lick of cgi paint but still use the actor from the original, make im bigger so he can at least be on par with the hulk (id love to see those two go at it) and just say, he's bigger cuz reed tried fixing him, but it added to the problem, you could even show it, goes in machine rubber suit from 2007, comes out CGI like in this one....but better and looking closer to the comic look with the tiny nose and big brow. jut make him look like the thing dammit. even the 1994 version looks more like the thing than the one in this version. By the way, if your still readin this, this thing doesnt have a point, its just i just rewatched the film, and then rewatched the otehr two, and am just doing what the page says this is for, just talking...well talking cuz im in bed full of flu, and im just passing the time, so soz for my terrible typing, i an just about press the keys. lol. anyway yeah. please dont let tommy wiseau touch the FF, just bring back the original cast...take a risk, do something no one has done with a film franchise before....oh hang on, thats exactly what they did with days of future past wasnt it. you had xmen 1,2 and 3, then the reboot/prequel, then they bought back the original cast for days of future past. so why not do that again? seeing reed from the original two working alongside tony 'downy' stark just seems to look right. the only problem is the human torch and aptain america. if it was me, which it isnt, but if it was, i wouldnt recast for johnny, id still use chris evans, and have it as a gag that people keep sayig they look alike, but they dont think they do...even tho its the same guy. and just have him play both parts, i mean there are people out in the world that look exactly like people from decades past but are no relation whatsoever. it could work if done right. i dont know what story they would have though to bring them in line with the MCU, but i defo think they should include Spideys first issue shenanigans when he broke into the baxter building, just as a homage to that issue. i dont know. all i know is that Marvel/Disney should get all their eggs back into their coop, kinda like they did with spiderman, boy did sony get a good deal there. marvel/disney make their spidey flick for them, and they [sony] get the money, because marvel are sick of one of their best characters being associated with bad films. theyn need to do the same with FF as well. oh oh, talking of FF as FF and not fabtastic four, didnt johnny die n that comic and spiderman took his place for a bit? cuz i remember they all wore those cool white outfits and spidey looks awesome. maybe they could do that, just have chris play torch up to his death, and have spidey join the team FF style. ok im done. if you read this whole thing, give yaself a pat on the back, cuz it was basically just me talking crap. with no point whatsoever. tho if i was to try and make one it would be, tommy wiseau is a no no. forget remakes, this was bad, it felyt like one big intro, and when it got to the peak of whatever theyd been building up too, it lasted two seconds. it was like watching a ballon being slowly inflated, then just let go at the last minute, leaving it a floppy rubbery mess at the end. just go and get the original cast, or if not, get a new cast but make it so the first two flick are still part of the continuity, they werent taht bad, and out of all the FF films made, they feel the most like MCU films, and bring them into the MCU proper for gawds sake. there im done, soz for the typos, my fingers are having trouble hittig the right keys cuz a this dang flu. seeya, hope you have or had a good day.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fantastic_Four_(2015_film)&oldid=861709003"