The Untastic Four or What went wrong with Fant4stic (Part Three)

Okay, I'm hoping that this is the last installment. I've already put more effort into deconstructing why this movie doesn't work than Josh Trank or Fox put into making it. I also did it for a fraction of the price (0/120,000,000).

Well, it's not wrong...

Now, that we've discussed the issues the film has with story structure and character, in addition to it's determined attempts to avoid any sort of Superhero elements, lets discuss the last real point...

Why the plot of the film didn't work, and doesn't hold together.

"BECAUSE REASONS" IS NOT A PLOT

As I mentioned before, the movie starts with Reed talking about building a transporter in 5th grade, and his teacher mocks him. He then shows Ben the half working teleporter. We then jump to Reed and Ben at 17, when they've built the teleporter and attempts to present it at a science fair, only to have the same 5th grade teacher say that they're disqualified because the fair is for "science not magic". Immediately thereafter he's approached by Dr. Franklin Storm who recruits Reed, and only Reed, to the Baxter Foundation.

There are several major problems right here, and they fall on both character and plot.

Reed in a genius. Sure, a teacher may have laughed at him in 5th grade, but since then for him to build a teleporter, he should be testing off the charts on every science exam and be a member of MENSA. He's not some D- student who would lack not only a grasp of the science necessary to make teleportation possible, but also the inherent skill to make such a device possible.


So, why do the teachers just assume that the teleporter is a magic trick? The only explanation is "because reasons". The plot requires that no one but Dr. Storm see Reeds genius, so no one else does, and it makes absolutely no sense.

The Untastic Four or What went wrong with Fant4stic (Part Two)

Okay, so I've discussed the structural problems with Fant4stic, and they're pretty big. In fact, they're probably responsible for 60% of what's making this movie so reviled. However, structure's not the only problem.

CHARTERS IN THE LOOSEST SENSE OF THE WORD

As I said before, Act One of Fant4stic takes up about an hour (plus or minute depending on where you think it ends). During that hour, we are introduced to our main 4 protagonists (Reed, Sue, Johnny, and Ben), our eventual antagonist (Victor Von Doom), and our two main supporting players (Franklin Storm and Harvey Elder/Allen). We have a solid uninterrupted hour with these folks before super powers come into play. An hour in which to build these characters. That's an obscene amount of time for a movie that's not a character piece (I'm looking at you There Will Be Blood).

And yet, it means absolutely nothing. You can list on one hand the things you know about these characters before they get powers.

Reed: Smart. Socially awkward. Likes 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea.
Ben: Abusive childhood. Kind of wishes he were as smart as Reed.
Sue: Good at patterns. Likes Portishead. Adopted.
Johnny: Doesn't like authority. Likes street racing. Supposedly good at building things.
Victor: Has a crush on Sue. Said to be lonely.

And, that's about it. We spend an hour with these people, and we end up knowing less about the than I might learn about someone by chatting with them in line at Chipotle.

Or at the counter of a Denny's in the Negative Zone

So where did all that time go?

Green Lantern vs the Warner Brothers curse

Since it's release on June 17, the film adaptation of DC superhero Green Lantern has divided the fan community. Many very vocal viewers have hated the film. Many have loved it. A sizable majority have walked away with mixed feelings. One thing, however, seems obvious, the film was a major misstep in Warner Brothers plan to launch a fleet of superhero films the way that DC's competitor Marvel Comics has.

The question is why?

What went wrong? Why has a film that seems to calculated to make big box office dollars divided fan community in a way that Marvels films (at least the ones Marvel has had creative control over) generally haven't? DC comic has been a subsidiary of Warner Brothers since around 1969 so in house creative control shouldn't have been a problem, should it?

What follows isn't going to be a review of Green Lantern, it's going to be a genuine analysis as to the creative decisions that have led Green Lantern to make it perform well under studio expectations, and how Warner could have done things differently and not left themselves a hundred million dollars in the red on a movie that should have been a success: