Fantastic Four General News & Discussion Thread (TAG SPOILERS)

[Willie Lumpkin]

Out of curiousity, I did a quick search.

I couldn’t find anything from Variety, but I found this from The Hollywood Reporter.

Was she a “scientist”? Not really. Was she a “love interest”? Not really.

Did she get superpowers? Nope.

Could Variety similarly be taking one fact ( Julia Garner = Shalla Bal ) and adding some context for their readers? Sure.

“We didn’t say she would be Silver Surfer. We just said Shalla Bal was a version of Silver Surfer in the comics.”

 

[Spider-Fan]

She was 100% a love interest in that movie. A large part of Johnny's plot was proving he wasn't a player. As for her profession, it just wasn't clear in the movie what she did other than being in the military and I honestly cannot remember how clear it was. You're reaching here

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

She was 100% a love interest in that movie. A large part of Johnny's plot was proving he wasn't a player. As for her profession, it just wasn't clear in the movie what she did other than being in the military and I honestly cannot remember how clear it was. You're reaching here

Maybe I’m just old fashioned, but when a woman says: “Not interested” clearly and emphatically, I assume she’s not interested.

 

[Shinobi Shaw]

So if Norrin Radd is in the movie, I really hope Lakeith didn’t screw himself out of a role by spilling the beans that quick.

 

[Da-Scribe]

So if Norrin Radd is in the movie, I really hope Lakeith didn’t screw himself out of a role by spilling the beans that quick.

If they didn’t fire Vin or Ruffalo, they shouldn’t fire Lakeith.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Maybe I’m just old fashioned, but when a woman says: “Not interested” clearly and emphatically, I assume she’s not interested.

So you have never seen a romantic comedy where the main character pursues someone who at first has no interest and then they win them over? Common movie trope amigo. There is an entire subplot dedicated to trying to win her over. That's a love interest by any movie definition

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

So you have never seen a romantic comedy where the main character pursues someone who at first has no interest and then they win them over? Common movie trope amigo. There is an entire subplot dedicated to trying to win her over. That's a love interest by any movie definition

In the real world, it’s called “stalking”, but I get your point.

 

[GoblinScrier]

If DanielRPK has any validity as a gossip columnist, he says that Doom will be cast by the time production begins in August...if Doom is expected to be a cameo/mid credit etc, then they can also start using him in a variety of projects leading to Secret Wars....

 

[OrbOfConfusion]

If DanielRPK has any validity as a gossip columnist, he says that Doom will be cast by the time production begins in August...if Doom is expected to be a cameo/mid credit etc, then they can also start using him in a variety of projects leading to Secret Wars....

'Gossip columnist' and 'ScooperRPK' do not mix with 'validity.'

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

If DanielRPK has any validity as a gossip columnist, he says that Doom will be cast by the time production begins in August...if Doom is expected to be a cameo/mid credit etc, then they can also start using him in a variety of projects leading to Secret Wars....

Adding a HUGE amount of speculation to a tiny bit of information (so nothing more than a wild guess ).

I’m thinking:

1. Doom and the FF are well-known and bitter rivals on the world we will be introduced to in FF.

2. The events of Kang Dynasty / Secret Wars will bring the FF and Doom to 616 (are we using that term? I’m never sure what to call the “real” MCU).

3. The events of Kang Dynasty /Secret Wars will “close” the multiverse, and prevent Doom and the FF from leaving 616 (or whatever it’s called).

If I’m right with any of that, Doom taking his rightful place as ruler of 616 Latveria could be a cool little moment, if done right.

 

[GoblinScrier]

Adding a HUGE amount of speculation to a tiny bit of information (so nothing more than a wild guess ).

I’m thinking:

1. Doom and the FF are well-known and bitter rivals on the world we will be introduced to in FF.

2. The events of Kang Dynasty / Secret Wars will bring the FF and Doom to 616 (are we using that term? I’m never sure what to call the “real” MCU).

3. The events of Kang Dynasty /Secret Wars will “close” the multiverse, and prevent Doom and the FF from leaving 616 (or whatever it’s called).

If I’m right with any of that, Doom taking his rightful place as ruler of 616 Latveria could be a cool little moment, if done right.

As always, you have a way with words and ideas when it comes to our beloved monarch of Latveria

 

[Spider-Fan83]

came across this piece of fan art...

 

[DyeLorean]

thE tHiNg

 

[Chris B]

I like how they made The Thing look like a cowardly sidekick.

 

[Sebastos]

Once again the suit designs

 

[Stark Bauer]

That DP3 trailer was amazing. Now my expectations for F4 are raised. The MCU is on the comeback trail!

 

[Cap2024]

Given Variety and such reported it as well, i an inclined to believe it

They also reported that a Mario sequel was in the works based on the Mario filmmakers simply saying that a film "based in the world of Mario" was coming out. Knowledgable gamers would more than likely take that and know they're talking about a spin-off (a la probably 'Donkey Kong' - since there were rumors of a DK film when Mario first came out), not a sequel as was likely mis-reported (as the words sequel, next installment of, and continuation were intentionally never uttered by those working on Mario and it usually takes 5 years between animated sequels).

Thus, his theory that they would jump the gun wouldn't be that far fetched. If not for that massive recent Mario mix-up (which only some trades reported correctly, calling out what I just did above; indicating no press release called it a sequel) I wouldn't be saying that. To me this lowered no-second-guessing credibility as they recently just did jump the gun.

New ‘Super Mario Bros.’ Movie Release Date Announced, But It May Not Be A Sequel

There will be a new Super Mario Bros. movie, and it already has a release date. But it may not be Super Mario Bros. 2?

www.forbes.com

 

[Venom 1988]

They also reported that a Mario sequel was in the works based on the Mario filmmakers simply saying that a film "based in the world of Mario" was coming out. Knowledgable gamers would more than likely take that and know they're talking about a spin-off (a la probably 'Donkey Kong' - since there were rumors of a DK film when Mario first came out), not a sequel as was likely mis-reported (as the words sequel, next installment of, and continuation were intentionally never uttered by those working on Mario and it usually takes 5 years between animated sequels).

Thus, his theory that they would jump the gun wouldn't be that far fetched. If not for that massive recent Mario mix-up (which only some trades reported correctly, calling out what I just did above; indicating no press release called it a sequel) I wouldn't be saying that. To me this lowered no-second-guessing credibility as they recently just did jump the gun.

New ‘Super Mario Bros.’ Movie Release Date Announced, But It May Not Be A Sequel

There will be a new Super Mario Bros. movie, and it already has a release date. But it may not be Super Mario Bros. 2?

www.forbes.com

That's a bit nitpicky. Regardless if it's a sequel or spinoff, a movie is in development. That's not something that would question their credibility.

 

[Cap2024]

That's a bit nitpicky. Regardless if it's a sequel or spinoff, a movie is in development. That's not something that would question their credibility.

The difference between reporting Mario 2 and (likely) Donkey Kong (or a spin-off) is getting the main story incorrect.

Point is simple: the source (like every other source) isn't infallible as they have gotten a major story (more than likely, Mario) wrong recently before.

While they have a better track record than most, just pointing at a source and saying "here, see - thereby it's impossible" isn't as much of an argument as some would think it is. The only truth is at this point due to the amount of secrecy surrounding these projects - only those working on it know many of these details.

Adding: for clarity, I'm not saying Spider-Fan or Willie are correct or incorrect, I'm stating currently there is actually no verification one way or the other.

 

[Venom 1988]

The difference between reporting Mario 2 and (likely) Donkey Kong (or a spin-off) is getting the main story incorrect.

Point is simple: the source (like every other source) isn't infallible as they have gotten a major story (more than likely, Mario) wrong recently before.

While they have a better track record than most, just pointing at a source and saying "here, see - thereby it's impossible" isn't as much of an argument as some would think it is. The only truth is at this point due to the amount of secrecy surrounding these projects - only those working on it know the details (and even then, many don't know all of them).

Sure but playing devil's advocate and say well there could be a chance they're wrong because of random outlier examples is a bit nonsencial. No one has a perfect track record, including the trades, but the trades are who they are because they are usually right 99% of time.

 

[Cap2024]

Sure but playing devil's advocate and say well there could be a chance they're wrong because of random outlier examples is a bit nonsencial. No one has a perfect track record, including the trades, but the trades are who they are because they are usually right 99% of time.

The obvious: Marvel makes everyone working on these films sign non-disclosure agreements. Even people working on these films aren't privy to all of the details in them, let alone just reporters looking on from the outside. They only know as much as studios let them know - nothing more, nothing less - which actually isn't as much as some people seem to believe (that they are privy to what the studios are keeping under wraps).

Thus, yes it largely is contingent on if the press release only stated Shalla-Bal or if it stated Silver Surfer. If it's only the first - they wouldn't know the second. Even if they did, they more than likely wouldn't want to issue leaked information a studio doesn't want out as to avoid getting onto the studio's bad side therefore jeapordizing future stories and access.

Adding: therefore it all comes down to what exactly was stated in the press release and what was researched. As said, either could be correct.

 

[Spider-Fan]

They also reported that a Mario sequel was in the works based on the Mario filmmakers simply saying that a film "based in the world of Mario" was coming out. Knowledgable gamers would more than likely take that and know they're talking about a spin-off (a la probably 'Donkey Kong' - since there were rumors of a DK film when Mario first came out), not a sequel as was likely mis-reported (as the words sequel, next installment of, and continuation were intentionally never uttered by those working on Mario and it usually takes 5 years between animated sequels).

Thus, his theory that they would jump the gun wouldn't be that far fetched. If not for that massive recent Mario mix-up (which only some trades reported correctly, calling out what I just did above; indicating no press release called it a sequel) I wouldn't be saying that. To me this lowered no-second-guessing credibility as they recently just did jump the gun.

New ‘Super Mario Bros.’ Movie Release Date Announced, But It May Not Be A Sequel

There will be a new Super Mario Bros. movie, and it already has a release date. But it may not be Super Mario Bros. 2?

www.forbes.com

Bro, this is very nitpicky and just arguing semantics. I don't think your argument is valid at all

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Not to belabor this point, because, as I’ve said, I think she will be playing Silver Surfer, but the point I was making in my original post is Variety didn’t actually report that she is playing Silver Surfer.

Their exact wording: “Emmy and Golden Globe winner Julia Garner is joining Marvel’s “The Fantastic Four” as Shalla-Bal, a version of Silver Surfer from the Marvel comics.”

Is this saying: ‘Julia Garner is playing Shalla-Bal, and Shalla-Bal will be the one and only Silver Surfer in the first Fantastic Four movie.’?

Or is it saying: ‘Julia Garner is playing Shalla-Bal. For those of you unfamiliar with that character, she was a version of Silver Surfer in the comics, so she may be a Silver Surfer in this film or possibly future films.’?

That was my point and that’s why I looked up the Frankie Raye story from 2006 - to confirm that these stories tend to take fact: “Actor X is playing character Y.” and add some speculation and context to that simple fact.

And once I did that to determine: “Yes. Hollywood Reporter added some speculation/context in 2006 even though they obviously didn’t read the script and didn’t know the things we now know.” I thought some people in here might be interested in seeing what I had seen.

I wasn’t trying to start any debate or arguments.

But it seems, and I should have learned this by now, these forums aren’t like simple discussions between friends:

“Here’s some interesting information.”

“Oh, cool. Thanks.”

I often find myself inexplicably involved in “arguments” after making simple comments about trivial things that I hardly care about. But that’s just the way these forums seem to be.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Not to belabor this point, because, as I’ve said, I think she will be playing Silver Surfer, but the point I was making in my original post is Variety didn’t actually report that she is playing Silver Surfer.

Their exact wording: “Emmy and Golden Globe winner Julia Garner is joining Marvel’s “The Fantastic Four” as Shalla-Bal, a version of Silver Surfer from the Marvel comics.”

Is this saying: ‘Julia Garner is playing Shalla-Bal, and Shalla-Bal will be the one and only Silver Surfer in the first Fantastic Four movie.’?

Or is it saying: ‘Julia Garner is playing Shalla-Bal. For those of you unfamiliar with that character, she was a version of Silver Surfer in the comics, so she may be a Silver Surfer in this film or possibly future films.’?

That was my point and that’s why I looked up the Frankie Raye story from 2006 - to confirm that these stories tend to take fact: “Actor X is playing character Y.” and add some speculation and context to that simple fact.

And once I did that to determine: “Yes. Hollywood Reporter added some speculation/context in 2006 even though they obviously didn’t read the script and didn’t know the things we now know.” I thought some people in here might be interested in seeing what I had seen.

I wasn’t trying to start any debate or arguments.

But it seems, and I should have learned this by now, these forums aren’t like simple discussions between friends:

“Here’s some interesting information.”

“Oh, cool. Thanks.”

I often find myself inexplicably involved in “arguments” after making simple comments about trivial things that I hardly care about. But that’s just the way these forums seem to be.

There is a difference in arguing something that's opinion based, ie was this movie good or was the actor's performance good. That's not what's going on here. What's going on is trying to apply semantical arguments to a pretty basic news report. Such as the back and forth we had about the verbiage of "love interest" you cited before. That's not going to foster the same type of discourse arguing something more opinion based will. We have heard for many months that they were looking to cast a potential female Herald for the movie, and the concept of a female Surfer has been around this movie for months. So taking their word and the outlets who are corroborating the story just seems the more logical thing than setting than trying to hope beyond all hope they're wrong and set yourself up for disappointment.

 

[Kane52630]

came across this piece of fan art...
View attachment 88221View attachment 88222