Fantastic
The new Fantastic Four movie - Rise of the Silver surfer - finally touches on some of the reasons that the comic book quartet has been so popular for more than 40 years. Finally.
The success of recent Marvel comic book movies has a lot to do with the producers' decision to try use the best stories from the actual comics. The Spider-Man comics with the Green Goblin and Doc Ock were great triumphs of the medium, and the first two Spider-Man movies captured the heart of the characters and stores (sadly, not the third movie). Same with the first two (and yes, not the third) X-Men movies.
Spider-Man was able to tell his origin story in a very engrossing way, which led naturally into his conflict with the Green Goblin. Spider-Man 2 retained all the momentum and built on the first movie. The story from Spider-Man #50, from 1967: "Spider-Man No More," is Stan Lee at his best.
The Fantastic Four, a seminal series in the world of comics, didn't fare so well in their first movie. The film never got past their origin story. And, worst of all, they messed with the Stan Lee characters. Dr. Doom was remade into a technology company CEO who gained some sort of magnetic power by being exposed to the same cosmic rays as the FF.
The Thing - my personal favorite character overall - was badly done. He didn't look right and didn't have the wit that Lee and the great Jack Kirby had given him. There were obvious attempts at using some of the classic material, but they were feeble. Jack Kirby and, twenty years later, John Byrne both captured the Thing perfectly. Kirby's Thing was man-sized (as he is in the movie), but Byrne's was larger and more intimidating. Both had a well-formed brow - the character's most distinguishing facial feature, and one they chose to entirely ignore in the film image.
Also,m Kirby and Byrne both concentrated on the lighting effects through the use of heavy shadow, which made the Thing's rocky exterior that much more pronounced. The film version ignores this feature as well, giving the character a constant steady spotlight that makes his rocky exterior seem flat. Why? Were they too busy getting the Torch's flame effects right (which they did).?
Overall, the movie was a disappointment.
But the Silver Surfer was not. Without the burden of an origin story, the characters seemed to work as they should. The Torch (the only successful character from the first movie) has kept his fiery personae intact. The Reed & Sue story was well done, and the Thing, while still well off the mark, was closer.
Lawrence Fishburne did an outstanding job as the voice of the Surfer. It was that haunting tonality from the Matrix all over again. And the Surfer as a tragic figure worked well. The wrote out Galactus, but that's just as well. The fact that the guy threatening to eat the planet is a thirty-foot tall fashion disaster is not a relevant story point.
And Doom is back, and actually stopping over in Latveria (the country he rules in comics) before heading into the thickest areas of the plot. And for those of you who might not know, the Doom plot is straight out of the comics, again from 1967. The Surfer-Galactus story actually predates it by a year.
But that's okay - it works. The film is fun and even an old Silver Age guy like me could enjoy it. The effects were as eye-popping as you'd expect.
There are many, many more great Stan Lee stories to be told. In fact, I'm starting to get a little peeved that Stan doesn't get a writing credit with these movies. They are, invariably, his plots. Doesn't that deserve a mention?
Anyway, go see Rise of the Silver Surfer and hope that the third movie jinx that's killed the X-Men and Spider-Man movie franchises won't get the FF in the future. And that someday they figure out how to portray the Thing.
The success of recent Marvel comic book movies has a lot to do with the producers' decision to try use the best stories from the actual comics. The Spider-Man comics with the Green Goblin and Doc Ock were great triumphs of the medium, and the first two Spider-Man movies captured the heart of the characters and stores (sadly, not the third movie). Same with the first two (and yes, not the third) X-Men movies.
Spider-Man was able to tell his origin story in a very engrossing way, which led naturally into his conflict with the Green Goblin. Spider-Man 2 retained all the momentum and built on the first movie. The story from Spider-Man #50, from 1967: "Spider-Man No More," is Stan Lee at his best.
The Fantastic Four, a seminal series in the world of comics, didn't fare so well in their first movie. The film never got past their origin story. And, worst of all, they messed with the Stan Lee characters. Dr. Doom was remade into a technology company CEO who gained some sort of magnetic power by being exposed to the same cosmic rays as the FF.
The Thing - my personal favorite character overall - was badly done. He didn't look right and didn't have the wit that Lee and the great Jack Kirby had given him. There were obvious attempts at using some of the classic material, but they were feeble. Jack Kirby and, twenty years later, John Byrne both captured the Thing perfectly. Kirby's Thing was man-sized (as he is in the movie), but Byrne's was larger and more intimidating. Both had a well-formed brow - the character's most distinguishing facial feature, and one they chose to entirely ignore in the film image.
Also,m Kirby and Byrne both concentrated on the lighting effects through the use of heavy shadow, which made the Thing's rocky exterior that much more pronounced. The film version ignores this feature as well, giving the character a constant steady spotlight that makes his rocky exterior seem flat. Why? Were they too busy getting the Torch's flame effects right (which they did).?
Overall, the movie was a disappointment.
But the Silver Surfer was not. Without the burden of an origin story, the characters seemed to work as they should. The Torch (the only successful character from the first movie) has kept his fiery personae intact. The Reed & Sue story was well done, and the Thing, while still well off the mark, was closer.
Lawrence Fishburne did an outstanding job as the voice of the Surfer. It was that haunting tonality from the Matrix all over again. And the Surfer as a tragic figure worked well. The wrote out Galactus, but that's just as well. The fact that the guy threatening to eat the planet is a thirty-foot tall fashion disaster is not a relevant story point.
And Doom is back, and actually stopping over in Latveria (the country he rules in comics) before heading into the thickest areas of the plot. And for those of you who might not know, the Doom plot is straight out of the comics, again from 1967. The Surfer-Galactus story actually predates it by a year.
But that's okay - it works. The film is fun and even an old Silver Age guy like me could enjoy it. The effects were as eye-popping as you'd expect.
There are many, many more great Stan Lee stories to be told. In fact, I'm starting to get a little peeved that Stan doesn't get a writing credit with these movies. They are, invariably, his plots. Doesn't that deserve a mention?
Anyway, go see Rise of the Silver Surfer and hope that the third movie jinx that's killed the X-Men and Spider-Man movie franchises won't get the FF in the future. And that someday they figure out how to portray the Thing.
posted by fiduciary at 8:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home