Doesn't really give that much away really as it just looks like it's taken from a comic and is heavily photoshopped. I've got an awful feeling the real thing is going to be a tin-foil covered turd. It's a shame as the Surfer is one of my favourite characters - or should be as the premise is great.
(hope they do something better with him than they did with the wet-wipe that was supposed to pass for Doctor Doom in the first one!)
I don't think it was that bad - speaking as a parent, it's a pretty good family adventure movie. Ioan Gruffyd (or whatever it is), Michael Chiklis and Christopher Evans did as good a job as I think we're going to get. Jessica Alba was mere T&A, and the film was pretty frank about it too.
What was unforgivable, though, was the wasted opportunity that they made of having The Greatest Super Villain of All Time (tm) as the baddie. In the books, Dr. Doom whupped ass. In the film he was a snivelling little rich-boy who couldn't handle a couple of jelly-bellied stockbrokers. Not good. Not good at all.
I thought Johnny Storm and The Thing were the best bit in that movie. I thought Sue and Reed and Doom weren't well realized. Though the 'team-up' battle at the end was good, but X-Men Last Stand out stripped it when it finally came out (I liked X-Men Last Stand a lot).
No, I didn't think they went for kitsch at all; I think they went for 'cool'. It was an identikit superhero film (I'm sure there's a photoshop filter that cranks out comic adaptation film logos these days). If it had a retro 1963 feel, I think the kids would have still loved it anyway (a 1963-dated bus getting wrecked by Ben is going to have the same impact as a 2005-dated bus) but it would have given the whole thing much more of a twist.
At first, I liked the idea of Ben's skin being more bumpy than rocky in a tip of the hat towards the earlier renderings of the character, but I don't think it worked in the end. He just wasn't 'big' enough.
Alba was a crap choice for Sue, and I agree, it was a T&A thing, but it was the wrong T&A. I don't want to come across as John Byrne here, but I think she was a really poor casting choice.
In all, the Invisibles was much, much better Fantastic Four film than the Fantastic Four.
Yes, sorry, I meant the Incredibles. Much better Fantastic Four film. Dealt with the 'family as superhero team' aspect better, the visuals were better, better storyline, better characterisation - better in every way.
I wasn't expecting the Royal Shakespeare Company* but even visually she was wrong. Whilst I don't mean in the way that Byrne apparently meant, but still wrong somehow.
*nobody expects the RSC! Our chief weapon is iambic pentameter... iambic pentameter and tragedy... our two weapons are iambic pentameter ... iambic pentameter and tragedy...
The only reason the Silver Surfer is ever white in comics is due to the limitations of the printing process. When comics are fully coloured, he's never white as such and is usually grey with lots of reflection - so I'm a bit puzzled as to what Max expected. Surely even his name is a give-away?
I thought the rendering of the trailer was as good as could be expected.
That sounds like some weird romance manga. Perhaps the main male character turns into a tea pot in the family restaurant belonging to the female lead in the daytime. Maybe a talking kite/lantern that endeavours to smooth out the couples problems in getting together and some bizarre comedy relief from a mammal that's difficult to distinguish because of the way it's drawn.
I have to say I wasn't sure if I would or wouldn't be offended by chrome scrotums ( Antony Gormley's iron ones on the beach haven't even offended my aged aunt but I wasn't sure if that extended to all metal knackers). I wasn't.
I can't imagien he is going to spend the whole film flying around with his danglies whanging around but it makes a nice bit of extra publicity for them I suppose