Spoilers Fantastic Four (Spoilers)

Looking at it though, the family dynamics are completely different, which give it a completely different vibe. They aren't analogues of the characters. It just so happens that they are a family.
Yes, quite. Put me in the “The Incredibles are clearly inspired by the FF but aren’t the FF in any way” camp. They’re a very different family dynamic - honestly, more 80s sitcom than anything else - and have quite different themes. I do think Brad Bird’s Objectivist themes have not aged well in particular.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



The “I’m done stealing” “I want you to steal” exchange. Louis’ story time. Shrinking the building. The tiny fight in the kid’s room with the train. The scared kid, dad saves the day bit. The new step-dad who spends the movie busting his chops sides with Ant-Man bit. Lots of greats scenes.
"playing 'Disintegration' by The Cure"

I really liked a lot of the shrunken-down scenes with the ants and that sense of creepy but G-rated adventure some old comics could have. Those scenes gave me a bit of a horripilated thrill and made me think of old stuff like Journey Into Mystery or Tales to Astonish, but updated.
 

I really enjoyed this film when I saw it in theatre, but in retrospect I have to admit that it hasn't really stuck with me. I still love the aesthetic and the casting, but can't put it in my top tier of MCU films.

I think the problem is Galactus. He's more of a force of nature than an understandable antagonist, so it's kind of a disaster movie framed as a superhero film. Or something like that. For whatever reason, the "save the baby" premise didn't hit me like it should.
 

I really enjoyed this film when I saw it in theatre, but in retrospect I have to admit that it hasn't really stuck with me. I still love the aesthetic and the casting, but can't put it in my top tier of MCU films.

I think the problem is Galactus. He's more of a force of nature than an understandable antagonist, so it's kind of a disaster movie framed as a superhero film. Or something like that. For whatever reason, the "save the baby" premise didn't hit me like it should.
I kind of think that the baby thing wasn't supposed to really land in a sympathetic way. They were willing to risk the lives of literally billions for their kid and expected the general public to be OK with it. There's a detachment between The FF and the the average person that I don't think is really accidental.

Maybe I'm giving the writers too much credit?
 

"playing 'Disintegration' by The Cure"

I really liked a lot of the shrunken-down scenes with the ants and that sense of creepy but G-rated adventure some old comics could have. Those scenes gave me a bit of a horripilated thrill and made me think of old stuff like Journey Into Mystery or Tales to Astonish, but updated.
It was a great, fun movie. But I love the goofy and comedic stuff. Same reason I like Guardians of the Galaxy. It doesn't take itself too seriously and leans in to the inherently goofy nature of superheroes and comic books. I love that.

Tales to Astonish is one of the better tracks off the Ant-Man soundtrack.
I kind of think that the baby thing wasn't supposed to really land in a sympathetic way. They were willing to risk the lives of literally billions for their kid and expected the general public to be OK with it. There's a detachment between The FF and the the average person that I don't think is really accidental.

Maybe I'm giving the writers too much credit?
Do you have kids? At a guess, no. Most parents wouldn't even question that decision. Most parents would go a long, long way to protect their kids. So the average person would 100% understand that decision. The only difference being they don't have the responsibility of the world nor the power required for that responsibility.
 

Do you have kids? At a guess, no. Most parents wouldn't even question that decision. Most parents would go a long, long way to protect their kids. So the average person would 100% understand that decision. The only difference being they don't have the responsibility of the world nor the power required for that responsibility.
No, I don't, but I completely get that. As you said, you don't also have the responsibility for 7 billion other people. And their own children.
 

No, I don't, but I completely get that. As you said, you don't also have the responsibility for 7 billion other people. And their own children.
True. But it's not like the F4 just said "Nope. Guess you're all going to die". They said "Nope, we're going to find another solution". Which they obviously did. But the movie did show that there were a number of people still angry, even though in the end the fact that the world had immense faith and belief in the F4 won out over the (justifiable) fear and anger.
 

Do you have kids? At a guess, no. Most parents wouldn't even question that decision. Most parents would go a long, long way to protect their kids. So the average person would 100% understand that decision. The only difference being they don't have the responsibility of the world nor the power required for that responsibility.
I think its because people are parents and go so far to protect their kids that they 100% would not get it.

To "possibly" save your kid, your going to kill my kid, and my friend's kid, and my neightbor's kid....and the entire human race!!!


The problem with morality debates is they tend to falter in the face of that level of scale. When your save yours and kill hundreds of theirs you can justify it.....thousands...maybe. Millions.....phew boy but ok. But when its literally "yeah our planet is going to be destroyed".....there is no moral decision there. Any decision where that is on the table is automatically wrong, and anyone that opens that as a possibilty must be stopped at any cost.
 

Remove ads

Top