Jump to content

Talk:Fantastic Four (2005 film)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


1994 Movie

[edit]

Anyone got anymore info on the 1994 version? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.194.68.22 (talk • contribs) 12:29, 12 April 2005

Yes. See The Fantastic Four (film). -Acjelen 02:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Page Move

[edit]

This article is now here to comply with Wikipedia naming conventions for movies. Please help change the wikilinks pointing to Fantastic Four (movie). -Acjelen 02:32, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

What about Ben Grimm?

[edit]

At the risk of picking holes, the plot summary never tells us who Ben Grimm is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.79.38.74 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 July 2005

Naming

[edit]

I believe the real title for the movie is actually Fantastic 4. I think so because on the DVD case, that's how it's labeled. Also, in the movie, I think it shows the logo with a 4 on it. I think the page should be renamed. Anyone else?--M2K e 01:21, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Now the page contents contradict the title. Plus the title contradicts the display text of most references to this page. Almost everywhere it says "Four", except for the title which says "4". Also, if somebody moves this page again, please check for double (or circular) redirects (which was a problem, till I just fixed it). --Rob 03:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto, I've moved it back. Almost every single source lists as "Four" rather than "4", contrast this the Star Wars films, there is no dispute over whether the films should be titled "Episode III" or "Episode 3" or "Episode Three" because they are always listed with their roman numerals. The Filmaker 20:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly inspired?

[edit]

I don't want to sound nitpicky, but the "plot elements were clearly inspired by Ultimate Fantastic Four" line in the Trivia section seems to be more of a personal opinion. All arguments about how close it is to Ultimate Fantastic Four aside, I think unless that can be backed up by something from, say, the commentary tracks then that item should be removed.--MythicFox 10:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I didn't think bad of the movie. --Yancyfry jr 05:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I removed all the speculation regarding inspiration.Blue Spider 03:26, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctantly

[edit]

In the trivia section, it lists that Jessica Alba was given the part of invisible Woman "reluctantly" by the casters. Now, it's clear that she wasn't the first choice, but does that necessarily mean they were reluctant to give her the part? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.207.168 (talk • contribs) 23:07, 10 February 2007

Paul Walker

[edit]

The page contained the line "*Paul Walker was considered for the role of Johnny Storm but he was considered too young." This doesn't make any sense, considering the actor that played Johnny is nearly ten years younger than Paul Walker. If there are references that support it, then anyone who would like to can add it again and cite it.BOne 19:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Supernova at 4000 Kelvin???

[edit]

When the group are finding about their powers, they test Johnny in a chamber to see how hot he can get. From memory, Reeds says something about approaching a nova at 6000 degrees, and that it would burn all the oxygen in the atmosphere. The script from IMSDb says the following: 

                                  SUE
                        You were at 4000 Kelvin.  Any hotter,
                        you're approaching supernova --

                                  JOHNNY
                        Sweet.

                                  SUE
                        That's the temperature of the sun.

                                  REED
                        Not only could you kill yourself, but
                        you could set fire to Earth's
                        atmosphere and destroy all human life
                        as we know it.

                                  JOHNNY
                        Gotcha.  Okay.  Supernova bad.

However, that's not truthful; the surface temperature of the Sun is around 5000 Kelvin, but the center of our star peaks at about 15,000,000 Kelvin - And our star isn't even big or old enough to cause a supernova until at least several billion years into the future. Perhaps this little morsel should be listed under 'Trivia'. - Xander T. 05:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, you are wrong about the 6000 being mentioned anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk • contribs) 21:40, 1 December 2008

Major Disappointment?

[edit]

A major disappointment with the movie was the choice of casting, as neither Alba nor Evans have natural blond hair.

THAT is why the casting was dissapointing? It makes no sense. I suppose Chiklis' casting was a major disappointment since he doens't actually have orange, rocky skin.

Either reference something tangible, like performance: (Alba was wooden), or age (Alba is not old enough to be a contemporary of Reed Richards) but to claim that the issue with casting was actors hair color is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stonesean (talk • contribs) 16:20, 6 May 2007

Torch'd

[edit]

Should it be noted that Johnny Storm's liscence plate, which reads "TORCH'D", could be a reference to an internet cartoon site, homestarrunner.com? -- 16_BIT_MARIO1

X-Men joke in the theatrical version?

[edit]

I've only ever seen this film on DVD and my understanding is the fourth wall-breaking joke involving Reed turning into Wolverine was only a deleted scene and not included in the theatrical version. Can anyone confirm that the joke did in fact appear in the movie when it played theatres, as the article indicates? (It's not too hard a stretch to imagine this did happen -- in the sequel Reed looks right at the camera in several scenes). But sounds a bit unlikely. 23skidoo 19:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"when the ship carrying them experiences unusual electronic interference"

[edit]

Is this plot description from the film or from the extended edition? If it's the latter, it should be moved to that section. -Lwc4life (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

The image Image:Fantastic four poster.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --03:36, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"What happens when you rapidly cool hot metal"

[edit]

Why is this even mentioned in the article? The reason why he said it was to match Doom's question of heating/cooling rubber when he was trying to kill Reed. It is pointless to have only one of them phrases in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.6.18 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 1 December 2008

same universe?

[edit]

are the Fantastic Four , Daredevil and the x-men films in the same universe due to the fact that they belong to FOX

Yes and no: Yes, they are the same universe; but no, that's because it's the Marvel universe, not Fox.--CRConrad (talk) 00:22, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prequel?

[edit]

This film is in the category Prequel films - why? What does it prequel? David (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Sequel Section"

[edit]

Noob here - reluctant to make that first edit...but in the sequel section it explains "Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer was released on June 15, 2007, and was regarded as being better than its predecessor, but still lacked the flair of the genre and the essence of the comic. Metacritic gave it 45% from 45 people. The sequel earned less at the box office than the first one, and managed to churn out $289,047,763."

Firstly - is any of this information necessary - rather, is it enough for it to just point towards the main article? If it is necessary, then is "churn out" appropriate language? Would not "The sequel earned less at the box office then the first one, but still managed to earn $289,047,763" be more in the manner of an encyclopedia? I know what the person who wrote this means, and "churn out" is a popular informal phrase for cinema takings, however just don't think quite fits here. Greg1138 (talk) 03:44, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Greg! Thanks for bringing this up, and I agree with you. I think it is better to save the details for the sequel's article (and to remove the unencyclopedic language in the process). I simplified the paragraph; let me know what you think. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good - thanks! Greg1138 (talk) 05:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Головка пальца ноги???

[edit]

Why the ship, on which Doctor Doom is being transported back to Latveria is called Головка пальца ноги? Do you even understand what does it mean in Russian? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.190.194.119 (talk) 17:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

American-German Co Production

[edit]

Because this film was also produced by Constantin Film it should be mentioned that it is a american-german Co Production. Any complaints? Otherwise I will change that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.210.102.79 (talk) 21:23, 24 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 February 2015

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Number 57 09:59, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Fantastic Four (film) → Fantastic Four (2005 film) – There is a 2015 film also called Fantastic Four. Richiekim (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article has already been moved but not this page.--69.157.255.228 (talk) 22:51, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Citations for use

[edit]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Fantastic Four (2005 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fantastic Four (2005 film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:17, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fantastic_Four_(2005_film)&oldid=1195141587"