Fantastic Four (2005) v Fantastic Four (2015)

[Batmannerism]

Okay, the other night Fantastic Four (2005) was on TV, and I got sucked into watching the last hour.

I came away thinking, okay it was cheesy and the effects were average (even for 2005) and Dr Doom was terrible.

However, it was otherwise quite an enjoyable film that captured some of the dynamics that made the characters so likeable in the comics. In particular Michael Chiklis absolutely nailed The Thing, and Chris Evans was a good Human Torch (their dynamic was terrific).

Jessica Alba was well....hot as Sue and Ioan Gruffud was a reasonable Reed.

All in all , it was a fun movie, which is what I remember FF being as a comic.

Then I thought back to FF 2015, which essentially bastardized the Ultimate Marvel versions of the characters and managed to somehow have a worse version of Dr Doom (which is quite an achievement in of itself).

This movie starts out as one thing, and then halfway through becomes a totally different movie, with similar characters.

It's not totally awful, but not great and nowhere near as much fun as its predecessor.

I was interested on other people's thoughts -I've noticed that FF 2005 gets quite a bit of hate (personally I liked it, and didn't mind FF RotSS, which has some good fan-service, although Galactus is simply terrible).

Anyway, FF 2005 does a much better job of portraying what I feel is the classic FF vibe, where FF 2015 is just misguided, lost and only barely watchable.

Thoughts people ?

 

[psylockolussus]

The 2005 film felt more complete. The 2015 film had too many scenes removed and replaced by reshoots stuff. The 2005 film is also more entertaining and looked more expensive.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

The 2005 film was definitely better, but that doesn't mean it was good. That's like saying syphilis is better than cancer.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

From a broader perspective, FF 2005 isn't comparable to any Marvel Studios films. Even the Fox X-films (including the first Wolverine), which have their own problems, are all (pretty much indisputably) better than FF 2005.

It's watchable - in the same way Casper is watchable - but it's a bad film and while it touches on some elements of the FF, it doesn't portray them well.

Reed Richards is a dweeb instead of being a strong, confident leader. Sue is sort of a b****, Ben can't hold his own against Johnny and ends up being his straight-man. The Thing suit looks ridiculous and is obviously a rubber suit. And the suit prevents him from moving with power the way Kirby drew him. He seems slow and awkward and weak.

Doom was terrible. There was no meaningful story. Doom just turns into a d*** at the end and his motivations aren't developed or even really explained. Tim Story's directing and the script and the characters and story makes everything feel unimportant and there's never a feeling of intensity that draws the viewer in etc. etc. etc.

 

[Spiderine]

To answer the question.....2005 is a more enjoyable light hearted family film. Its also made at a time when the genre was just regaining a foothold in the industry. Lot of failures around this time when it came to these adaptations. It had its problems but they are excusable in my opinion before the Marvel showed a better blueprint.

Nobody should dare make a film like FFINO in this current atmosphere. Inexcusable piece of trash and cheap attempt to hold on to some rights. And its not an enjoyable film in the least.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

To answer the question.....2005 is a more enjoyable light hearted family film. Its also made at a time when the genre was just regaining a foothold in the industry. Lot of failures around this time when it came to these adaptations. It had its problems but they are excusable in my opinion before the Marvel showed a better blueprint.

Nobody should dare make a film like FFINO in this current atmosphere. Inexcusable piece of trash and cheap attempt to hold on to some rights. And its not an enjoyable film in the least.

Very good point. While FF 2005 missed the mark, it was released at a time when studio executives were still skeptical regarding the ability of films like this to really succeed. The 2015 film came out at a completely different time but went backward instead of forward.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Thing and Human Torch were good in the 2005 film. The film was horrible otherwise, but that is still two more good things than the 2015 film had.

 

[Mandon Knight]

The 2005 film get's the 'spirit' and the dynamic on point to the 60's vibe of the original comic but very little else correct.

The 2015 starts off well enough and somewhere about a third of the way in loses any grasp of reality it started with.

Given the trank-cated (sorry) edit and post production process that went on, it's really no surprise.

The sfx are not great in either tbh, but as for enjoying the film ? the 2005 version for sure.

 

[Guard82]

The 2005 film, while definitely flawed, still manages to capture the spirit of the source material and provide some lighthearted superhero fun. And as other people have said, I liked Chiklis as Ben and Evans as Johnny.

 

[ernesth100]

Im not gonna hold you. I dont even know the hate with the 2005 film. Its arguably the most faithful F4 film to the comics.

 

[The Endless]

The 05 film at least tries to get the family dynamic right. And it touched on the "celebrity" superhero thing, which was interesting.

The new film is just shockingly bad, even with a better overall cast.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Im not gonna hold you. I dont even know the hate with the 2005 film. Its arguably the most faithful F4 film to the comics.

I'm the person in my family who looks most like Arnold Schwarzenegger. That doesn't mean I look like Arnold Schwarzenegger.

... and THIS doesn't look like the Thing:

When that photo came out, it was like a kick in the gut.

 

[InCali]

The 2005 film was definitely better, but that doesn't mean it was good. That's like saying syphilis is better than cancer.

It is in so many ways.....

I rather liked the 2005 version. Most especially I liked the portrayal of HT with the Thing not far behind. It was early on and I didn't have much to compare it to.

I didn't see Fan$#itic.

 

[Spider-Fan]

The 2005 version is awful, but it had a few elements correct. Costumes were fine, Evans and Chiklis were solid choices for their roles, and I felt like it got the spirit of the Fantastic Four tone, just wasn't executed well at all. Plus, Doctor Doom was terrible. But, this movie was 100 times better than the hot garbage we got in 2015. I honestly think Fan4stic is the worst CBM film. Gets the tone of the material wrong, poor story, poor characters, looks cheap, is boring. The movie is unwatchable as its own entity on top of being a poor adaption.

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

the difference between both movies, I guess, is, Tim Story seems to have read a couple of FF books and enjoyed them. He might not be a very capable director but at least he tried. Story's FF movies had many, many flaws, but the FF that I knew and loved shined through, here and there. It didn't get it right. Reed and Sue were horribly miscast (or in Gruffuds case, cast too early. Now, over 10 years later, he might be right for the part), and don't get me started on Doom.
Trank's "movie" was just a disaster from start to finish with no redeeming qualities. It was BvS-level bad, but executed worse.

 

[Boom]

If I turn my brain off, I can mindlessly enjoy the stupidity of the 2005 film.

The 2015 film is unwatchable.

 

[Quality]

Both were garbage.

 

[Obi-Ron]

... and THIS doesn't look like the Thing:

When that photo came out, it was like a kick in the gut.

Ah, the good old days of the FF board. Memories...

 

[Primal Slayer]

I still enjoy the 2005 movie. Is it GOOOOOD? No. But its fun, great cast, decent visuals.

 

[psylockolussus]

Can't wait to see a

Fantastic 4 2005 vs Fantastic 4 2015 vs Fantastic 4 2025

Thread in 2 years!