Anyone know how to get in touch with this person?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Marvel/DC
maskedman66 — 19 years ago(October 10, 2006 02:44 PM)
I happened upon a site called Movies.com which had a feature on the 2005 FF movie, and in which someone made the following "observations" about the 1994 one, in answer to his own posed question, "Wasn't there another, really bad F4 movie?":
Yes, it was produced by Roger Corman back in '94 but never released. What made it so awful:
You could see actor Michael Bailey Smith's eyes peering through the sockets of his rubber Thing mask.
Jay Underwood (And the Beat Goes On: The Sonny and Cher Story he played Sonny) as the Human Torch gave new meaning to "overacting."
The big showdown was with a super-petty thief, the Jeweler. Yawn.
Made Superman IV's special effects look good.
And here are my responses in reverse order, since this guy's first "point" is the most idiotic and thus the most fun to attack.
Again vit' de special effects! Anyone who can't figure out that a less-than $1,000,000 budget won't get you effects like those in "Return of the Jedi" just cannot be reasoned with. As long as SFX clearly show what's going on (which they do in this movie) they've done their job. The play's the thing, not the stage!
The big showdown was with Doctor Doom in his castle in Latveria. I'm guessing this person didn't watch the whole picture, and made the mistake of thinking that Doom's harrowing of the Jeweler's underground "kingdom" was somehow a showdown.
The quality of Jay Underwood's acting, like any actor's acting, must remain a matter of viewers' taste. I thought he adequately played the enthusiasm and impetuosity of the Human Torch to the point that his is the face that comes to mind today when I hear the name "Johnny Storm."
As for the unbelievably stupid remark, "You could see actor Michael Bailey Smith's eyes peering through the sockets of his rubber Thing mask," only two things need be said.- Michael Bailey Smith played only the human Ben Grimm and didn't wear the Thing suit; that was Carl Ciarfalio, as anyone knows who's done even minimal research on the first FF movie.
- OF COURSE you could see Ciarfalio's eyes! Same as you can see Michael Chiklis's eyes "peering through the sockets" of HIS rubber Thing appliances. You were expecting "ever-lovin' blue-eyed" Ben maybe to have no eyes?
Anyhow, I had to get that out of my system since there appears to be no ready way of finding the chap responsible for:
http://movies.go.com/feature?featureid=723575
Mind you, if anyone knows a way, please let me know, or at least get my message to the gent who made those dunderheaded remarks. Not that he's dunderheaded he seems otherwise quite intelligent but his remarks certainly are.
Thanks as always for your time.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" is an absolute statement.
-
maskedman66 — 19 years ago(January 11, 2007 05:43 PM)
Me? Nah, I just thought I'd go to all this trouble for a lark.
I do care about the movie, but even more I care about attacking ignorance and misinformation wherever they surface (and wherever I can answer them).
It's summin'a do in me off ahrs, innit?
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" is an absolute statement. -
maskedman66 — 19 years ago(March 03, 2007 10:40 PM)
In brief (because I could give you a scholarly dissertation on it), I feel it is an excellent representation of the FF, my all-time favorite Marvel Comics team, of whom I've been a fan since childhood. Having been raised on Sid & Marty Krofft Saturday morning shows and Japanese tokusatsu (live-action) series, not to mention being a fan of "Doctor Who" from way back, I'm not as hung up on special effects as lots of folks seem to be when talking about this movie.
Sure, I'm as blown away by "Star Wars"-level effects as anyone, but as far as I'm concerned, if you can tell what's supposed to be happening, the effect has done its job, whether it's Brandon Routh (represented by a combination of live action wirework and CGI) or Kirk Alyn (represented by cell animation) going up, up, and away as Superman.
Regarding the merits of "The Fantastic Four" (which I prefer to 2005's "Fantastic Four") I think the script is good, the casting is superlative, the obvious comeraderie between the leads makes for excellent chemistry between the characters, the music is wonderful, the sound editing spot-on, the camera work never dull, and given the low budget and the 4-week shooting schedule, the whole package is nothing short of amazing.
Also, I'm against unfair treatment. I care about the people involved in the making of the film and was sickened by the shoddy way the cast and crew were treated by Constantin and Eichinger. The most maltreated people were the composers of the music, who after putting up their own money to hire an orchestra and coming up with an entire original score for the movie were not paid one red cent for their efforts. Yeah, I know "that's Hollywood." No matter. It stinks.
I hope that goes some way toward answering your question.
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes" is an absolute statement.