Fantastic Fantastic Four?

[takyris]

It was actually pretty appropriate. The trailer is specifically designed so that there's no way you could make that kind of definitive judgement at this point. So your declaration that you will never see the movie except by accident is EXACTLY equivalent to your average ignorant Internet hate blast. And I get annoyed by ignorant Internet hate blasts.

Then, with respect, J-Z-jazzy-Dyal, this was a thread you should have avoided. It was a thread specifically designed with the stated purpose of having people say whether or not they were going to see the movie in theaters -- and except for folks who've seen special sneak previews or gotten to read the script secretly or something, the trailer is all anyone has to go on. If you think that a mere movie trailer cannot possibly tell the audience enough to know whether they are going to like a particular movie, and thus help them make the decision of whether to see it in theaters, then you might have addressed the thread as a whole, instead of lampooning one person who was doing a fine job of answering the question posed by the thread with the information that most of us have on hand.

Personally, I disagree with your assumption. I can tell for the most part whether or not I'm going to enjoy a movie based on trailers and commercials -- or, to be more specific, while I have been disappointed by movies with good commercials that turned out to be bad, I have rarely been amazingly surprised by movies with bad commercials that turned out to be good. Not never -- I'm not claiming infallibility by any stretch -- but generally, if a trailer leaves me thinking "Gosh, that's going to suck," and then I see the movie at some later point anyway, it does, in fact, turn out to suck (at least in terms of satisfying me personally).

While I can't say for certain, I'd disagree that you can't tell anything from the trailer. You can get some idea of their effects level. You can get an idea of what kind of flavor they're going for in terms of their dialogue. You can see what elements of the movie are so important that they thought that they deserved to be included in the trailer as a taste of things to come (and I know that often, movies have different trailers for different previews -- a "nice comedy trailer" that shows before sensitive, sweet movies and a "raunchy comedy trailer" that shows before R-rated stuff, for some comedy movies, for example; the trailer I saw was before RotS, so if there's another one, I haven't seen it, and would be happy to watch it online to form a better opinion).

And based on the trailer I saw, they're banking on special effects without actually having gotten special effects good enough to bank upon. They're also banking on young hot stars, which is not usually a bad idea but runs the risk of annoying die-hard FF fans who wanted a more faithful interpretation. And they're banking on cute self-aware dialogue, which is fine when you have actors who can deliver it, but unless Jessica Alba's scenes were horrifically edited for the trailer (as has happened, I admit), her delivery is bad enough that I foresee comparisons to the Halle Berry toad-hit-by-lightning line in a few places. Jessica Alba is cute. She is not a badass. She does not yet have the acting ability to convey grim determination or steely resolve. Giving her lines that depend upon her being able to convey that stuff is an invitation to unintentional camp.

Ergo, not seeing in theaters, and not feeling like I'll be hovering around the DVD rack when it comes out there, either. Unless, of course, word comes in from reviewers whose opinions I respect saying that the trailer was an attempt to lure teens in, and it's actually a well-written movie with lots of genuine emotion and a clear love for its comic-book roots. I don't think anyone's post, no matter how emphatic, can be written without that caveat, since we're all making our assumptions based on having seen the trailer (unless, as noted, someone has a full script or has seen it all in a sneak preview somewhere already).

When you cut my post down to the one-liner, please use "!!!!!3-in-binary-notation!!". I'd appreciate it.

 

[Desdichado]

Then, with respect, J-Z-jazzy-Dyal, this was a thread you should have avoided.

Quite probably. I have a morbid fascination with posts that I shouldn't read -- that's why I can't really keep anyone on my ignore list no matter how much they annoy me. I have this obsessive compulsion to see what they're saying anyway.

Anyway, cutting someone's post down to a summary, with perhaps a mocking take on the tone, is old news for message board discussions -- it's been going on at rpg.net for years without anyone batting an eye. I probably got my rpg.net tone and my enworld tone crossed for this post, I admit.

But what I said I still stand by -- he takes movies much more seriously than I. I'm a bit of a film buff -- I see a lot of movies, and I love watching movies, but I'm not a critic, and I enjoy most of them, at least to some extent. So maybe that's also where my attitude is coming from -- I have little patience for the "easy on hate on."

If he had said something along the lines of, "based on the trailers, I have little interest in it, and will most likely give it a pass," that would be one thing, but saying, "based on the trailers, I will actively avoid any contact whatsoever with this movie forever, no matter what reviews, friends, office cooler talk, etc. materializes after its release," gets little more than a rolleyes. Trailers are not sufficient information to make that kind of declaration, unless you're just being prejudiced about it, quite frankly. Trailers are typically crafted by the marketing group, not the actual moviemakers, and quite often they are hash-jobs. I've seen plenty of trailers that didn't interest me in the least that went on to be movies that I thought were quite good.

 

[takyris]

That's fair. If you're judging the post by its severity and not its message, I can see your point. That said, he did include the caveats "probably" and "from what I saw of the trailers", which I'd taken to mean "I am admitting that this is all I have to go on, and while it looked pretty bad, it's certainly possible that new information coudl change my mind."

But that's just me putting words in his mouth, too, so what the heck do I know?

As for being critical of movies versus being easy on movies... that's what makes the world go 'round, I guess. Among my writing buddies, I'm known as the hack who can happily enjoy a very silly movie if it owns its silliness, never noticing big plotholes that my buddies comment on later. Here, I'm evidently one of the more critical folks (as noted in the RotS thread, I want my rating of 8 or higher to mean something, so I don't give it out casually, and I'm also a stickler for dialogue). I didn't see "it looks like crap" as over-the-top hate. Making death threats against the actors? Bad. Declaring that anyone who likes the movie is an idiot? Bad. My personal pet peeve is the geek who cynically declares that once again, studio executives have killed his favorite hero out of sheer evilness because they hate superhero movies and just want to take people's money without even trying to give them two hours of happiness -- for whatever reason, the put-upon air of "Oh, woe betide us, the summer blockbusters made to lure us in are not the summer blockbusters we would have chosen to make" grates on my nerves, especially when they end up going to see the movie anyway instead of voting NO with their dollars and teaching studio execs to make better movies.

So I can understand you having a pet peeve, too.

And dude, come on. Get the "!!!!3-in-binary-notation!!" in there. I'm gonna be bummed, otherwise.

 

[Desdichado]

i pwnz u @ll with my l33t moive critec skillz!!!!111eleven!

And you're probably right -- I'm letting one of my pet peeves get the best of me. It's perfectly valid to decide to do whatever with a movie for whatever reason.

I am a bit annoyed by the apparently very prevalent attitude of writing off a movie before we know much of anything at all about it just because of one little thing, though (pun partially intended -- I do think the Thing from the previews looks like a claymation mockery so far...) but that's my cross to bear, not his.

 

[rowport]

It is not just the claymation look- I was disappointed in the *sound* of "It's Clobberin' Time!" Admittedly, the producers cannot get into my head and listen to how it sounds in there when I read the Thing in the comics (at least, that I know of... ) but still, somehow "Snikt!" sounded *perfect* to me in the X-Men movies. Who knows.

Anyway, I did like the bit of character interplay between Johnny and Susan before he leaps off the building... so there is hope...

 

[Iron_Chef]

The movie looks horrible --- the mythic "avoid it all costs now and forever" type of horrible from the trailers I've seen. The Thing does not look right and neither does Dr. Doom (they both looked better in the unreleased Roger Corman version even though the film itself was unwatchable). I hold out no hopes or expectations for the new version and most likely will not be seeing it theaters unless tons of positive reviews sway me and I have nothing better to do with my time and money during a bargain-priced matinee.

Yes, trailers can be deceptive as to the true quality of a film as they are cut by marketing people intent on reaching the lowest common denominator, but in the case of the new FF, I don't see how the movie could be anywhere near the caliber of the Spider-Man or X-Men series. I hope it turns out to be as good, but I ain't holding my breath. It just looks cheap and stupid to me. YMMV.

 

[Eeralai]

Wow. I had no idea my poll would cause such controversy. It was a mere curiosity on my part since Marvel is heading this one. I won't be seeing it in the theaters because we still haven't seen Star Wars and when we do get a babysitter I want to see that first. I would like to see it eventually, though.