Jump to content

  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Fantastic four

scpanther22

By scpanther22,
in Huddle Lounge

Recommended Posts

Crixtala Collaborator

Crixtala

Posted
Posted

i can't figure this movie out

 

this is incredibly late in the game for, basically, the first tease of the movie... rumors are that it's not particularly good (possibly because of the lack of information), but I think that trailer looks ok - definitely different than the normal comic movie - and I want it to do well, because FOX seems to have turned around the X-Men franchise again and there's been rumors for a while now that F4 and the X-Men universe are one and the same and that they'll eventually crossover

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zaximus Veteran

Zaximus

Posted
Posted

I really don't even know what to expect or think.

 

On one hand, they have some good actors in these roles.  On the other hand, changing things like the Johnny and Sue (I guess she is adopted from what I heard) is kind of odd.  I guess it's not a big deal, especially if the director REALLY wanted those particular actors (they are good actors) and felt it would help the movie.

 

At least the movie seems more dark and inline with the X-Men movies.   So I'm still kind of at a wait and see approach, I won't be flocking to the theatre on release unless some early reviews are amazing.  I'm not a huge FF4 fan anyway, other than Doom/Surfer/Galactus being involved there.  I'm keeping an open mind though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Growl Grand Master

Growl

Posted
Posted

I really don't even know what to expect or think.

On one hand, they have some good actors in these roles. On the other hand, changing things like the Johnny and Sue (I guess she is adopted from what I heard) is kind of odd. I guess it's not a big deal, especially if the director REALLY wanted those particular actors (they are good actors) and felt it would help the movie.

At least the movie seems more dark and inline with the X-Men movies. So I'm still kind of at a wait and see approach, I won't be flocking to the theatre on release unless some early reviews are amazing. I'm not a huge FF4 fan anyway, other than Doom/Surfer/Galactus being involved there. I'm keeping an open mind though.

Let's call it was it is: The Johnny/Sue storm change comes out of Fox's need to have a token black guy on the team.

This wouldve been okay if there wasnt a plethora of other idiotic changes.

This is the only movie involving Marvel charcters I've committed to not seeing ahead of time. If it fails horribly then Fox will likely give up on it, and that's one more property Marvel has access to and one less studio trying to cash in on Marvel's recent success and oversaturating the market with crappy superhero movies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ThinkAboutIt Newbie

ThinkAboutIt

Posted
Posted

Let's call it was it is: The Johnny/Sue storm change comes out of Fox's need to have a token black guy on the team.

This wouldve been okay if there wasnt a plethora of other idiotic changes.

Actually, moron, Josh Trank worked with Michael B. Jordan in Chronicle and wanted him for this role. Kudos to Fox for accepting that race is irrelevant to what makes Johnny Storm the human torch.

Now give me more of this post-15987-142241988706_thumb.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Growl Grand Master

Growl

Posted
Posted

Actually, moron, Josh Trank worked with Michael B. Jordan in Chronicle and wanted him for this role. Kudos to Fox for accepting that race is irrelevant to what makes Johnny Storm the human torch.

Now give me more of this ImageUploadedByCarolinaHuddle1422419888.226119.jpg

lol right this does sound a lot better than "we wanted to appeal to every demographic"

but hey I'm sure you're extreme childlike reaction means you're not one to let stuff like that go over your head

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Zaximus Veteran

Zaximus

Posted
Posted

Michael B. Jordan is one of the best young actors in the business.  I'm not sure this is the "token black guy" thing.  He's a great actor.  I remember seeing him in The Wire early on, Friday Night Lights, and then he was good in Chronicle and excellent in Fruitvale Station.  This isn't just some Wayans brother thrown in for comic relief.   

 

What I'm more worried about other than the fact they have a black guy in there is how they do Doom.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • jasonluckydog
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By jasonluckydog · Posted

      Congratulations do they know who the father is?
    • TD alt
      C Mc. Gotta love this guy!!

      By TD alt · Posted

      In my opinion Fitterer was probably right about not paying McCaffrey. Now not wanting to "pay RBs" in my opinion isn't something you want to set in stone, to me it all comes down to the individual.
    • TD alt
      Scourton isn't signed (& apparently it's a thing)

      By TD alt · Posted

      Maybe I'm just not understanding, but everywhere that I have read says that signing bonuses go against the cap prorated by as much as five years. The following example uses Andrew Luck's rookie contract as an example. "Take Andrew Luck, the first overall pick in the 2012 NFL draft. Luck signed a four-year contract with the Colts worth $22.1 million and included a $14.5 million signing bonus. Rather than a $14.5 million cap hit in 2012, the Colts spread out his signing bonus over the life of his contract. The hit against the cap would be $3.625 million per year over four years instead of a direct cap hit of $14.5 million directly in 2012. This gave the Colts more leverage and cap flexibility in signing other players." https://www.the33rdteam.com/nfl-signing-bonuses-explained/ I don't know why some of you think that signing bonuses aren't counted against the cap over the length of the contract, but whatever.   "The bonus with a signing is usually the most garish aspect of a rookie contract. Bonus is the immediate cash players receive when they ink a deal. It factors into the cap, but only for the whole contract duration, in terms of salary cap calculations. In the case of Bryce Young’s $24.6 million signing bonus, that’s prorated to approximately $6.15 million per season over a four-year deal. This format allows teams to handle the cap and provides rookies with some short-term fiscal stability, which is important given the high injury risk in this league." https://collegefootballnetwork.com/how-rookie-contracts-work-in-the-nfl/ I understand how signing bonuses can be a useful tool in order to manage the cap, and as one of the article suggests, signing bonuses may become important if you have a tight cap, but the bill is always going to come due. I'm not necessarily referring to you Tuka, but it seems to me that others simply don't want to understand that fact which is why they're reacting to what I'm saying negatively. How odd. In any event, I have a better general understanding of why signing bonuses are used now, and it's generally to fit salaries under the cap. Surely players, whether they be rookies or not, love a signing bonus because they get a good portion of their money up front. This in turn gives them more security and probably amounts to tax benefits as well. I also understand why teams would not want to use signing bonuses, particularly for players or draftees who have a higher probability of being gone before a contract even ends.
×
×
  • Create New...