Talk:Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer/Archive 1

Archive 1

Who was the original author on this?

I don't mean "who" in the sense of a username, but "who" as in whether they work for the studio or not. 24 refs for a movie that hasn't even been released yet? While I cannot fault the quality of the entry or the thorough professionalism, it raises the possibility that wikipedia.org is being hijacked as a marketing vehicle for the film industry.

Robertstjames 14:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

A lot of future film articles have easier to find news articles on them, unlike past films which are more difficult. WikiNew 15:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Linking characters

i dont think its neccesary to put a link for every character in the movie to the marvel directory page when they can just click on there names on be directed to there page on wikipediaCurefreak 20:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

alba quotes

I like how only Alba has quotes. This is the movie business. Loodog 00:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Page moves

Do not move this page OR redirect it, unless there's a citation provided, a discussion, AND someone who can move the talk page can do the move for you. There were a large number of bounce around redirects, and some edit warring about them. ThuranX 04:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

YET AGAIN THE SAME PERSON HAVE MOVED THE PAGE. And by "MOVE" I mean, copy , paste, redirect. not actual moves. There is absolutely NO valid reason to hijack a page, ever. there is NO reason to MOVE this page. The title of the film is 'Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer'. Unless there's a press release notifying anyone of a change in title, leave the page here. ThuranX 14:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

There's confirmation. --Erik 15:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh. my error. Since there was no proof the first time the other editor made the move, and he didn't use citation... Ok, let's get an official page move done, instead of the strange cutting and pasting that ws previously done, so we can take the talk with us.ThuranX 16:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Moved. —Centrx→talk • 03:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Fantastic Four and the Silver Surfer → Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer – {Rationale: Studio has announced change in title, as cited on page. There is consensus on the talk page regarding the move, but eager editors have already created the new page. Thanks. …} copied from the entry on the WP:RM page

Survey

• Support Erik 03:08, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support (I nominated so the talk page would go to, instead of cut n pastes)ThuranX 13:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
• Support since that is now the official title I see no reason not to move it. --Edgelord 02:40, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Tonight I contacted on of the regular Admins who work the moves page, and asked directly for a move. Hopefully this will get us moved soon, his userpage was full of cooperative praise type stuff, so I think he'll help.ThuranX 02:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Doug Jones as Silver Surfer

Doug is now officially signed for the role, but there has been no - I repeat NO - decision as to who will provide the voice. Hellmistress 20:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. For any dissenters, IGN says, "Doug Jones (Hellboy, Pan's Labyrinth) has also been confirmed as the Silver Surfer," and "The voice of the Silver Surfer has not yet been cast." --Erik 20:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Galactus???

How is Galactus going to appear in this film, anyway? Are they going to follow the same storyline as the comics? Scorpionman 17:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Nothing about the big G has yet been published. When we see sources and citable information, it will be added. ThuranX 05:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A Bleeping cloud............ [1] 81.0.131.209 07:36, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Yea that's what the novel said. I was hoping it wasn't true. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.178.117.15 (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

The director said that most will be satisfied, so either he's waiting until the movies release to reveal him and the novel was just messing with us or he doesnt know what fans of the comics will be satisfied with.

I read the novelization for the film a few months ago, which made me decide not to see the film. In the novel, Galactus is referred to as the Gah Lak Tus, which is how the character's name is spelled in the Ultimate Marvel Universe. Is the difference noteworthy or is it just an interesting little tidbit more than anything else?Odin's Beard 14:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

On the track listing for the soundtrack album, it's spelled "Galactus." So honestly, it could go either way. Also, sorry you missed out. The movie was shockingly good. --Bishop2 14:39, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Plot summaries

Do we really need such an extensive recap of the end of the first movie, all to say that Doom will return? I think not, but want other opinions. ThuranX 04:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nah, smite it. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 04:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Smoten it. Also ,changed it to a Premise, since we still lack a confirmed plot outline. please review? ThuranX 05:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the second paragraph could be dropped into the Cast section, but mention the return of Doom in the first paragraph of the Premise section. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 05:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You certainly didn't wait for very many opinions before changing it ThuranX. LEX LETHAL 06:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Nothing's stopping you from taking a look at the edits I'm making and helping out. I'm just organizing it to reflect greater accurcy,increasing citation throughout the article, and so on. If you have an idea, no one's stopping you. ThuranX 06:15, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought I was helping out. Instead of you helping me out with my edits, you disagreed with my changes, asked for opinions (and got 1) and then deleted the whole section. I'm providing feedback. Before I get a chance to support my reasons for making changes, suddenly I'm invited to make suggestions to your changes. Weird. LEX LETHAL 06:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

In addition ThurnaX, I can see by some of your comments on this Talk page that you are insistant on how things should be run on this page. LEX LETHAL 06:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the history, you'll see that Erikster and I have been working with a number of editors regularly to improve this page. I asked for other opinions. While you were quick to speak AFTER changes, you didn't speak before. If you feel the changes I made are worth disagreement, say something. Let's hear your reasons, and see if there's a good compromise. Finally, sometimes tehre's no reply at all by earlier editors, who feel that any questioning of their edits is hostile. Instead I asked, I got a reply, I acted. according to WP:BOLD, I didn't even have to do that. As I've said before, if you have an idea, go for it. ThuranX 15:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

LEX LETHAL, welcome to Wikipedia. Please excuse the swift change that we made to the article in regard to the Plot section. The reason I suggested the removal of the summary of the previous film is that the information is already available on Fantastic Four (film). I didn't explain my reasoning because having worked with ThuranX for a while, I just didn't feel that it was necessary to elaborate my reasoning. Furthermore, FF2 has been a pretty quiet page with little activity, so boldness works better here than an article like Spider-Man 3 to which quite a few editors attend. I've requested suggestions for improvement on talk pages of certain film articles, but I rarely get responses volunteering to help. Hence the need to be bold. There's a certain way for Wikipedia articles to be written, though, like unsourced statements would be frowned upon and reverted. If you attempt to make any changes and find that they have reverted, just ask on the talk page of the article or the user talk page of the user who reverted you about why your changes were not accepted. Hope this clears anything up. --Erik (^talk/_contrib) @ 17:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Name Change issue

Given that Sue Storm and Reed Richards marry within the film, it's been asked: How do we report and reflect this within the film?. My suggestion is that we reflect the initial appearnace of characters in cast lists, and allow the plot summary to reflect the growth of the characters. The best exception to this I can see is if the film's actual credits call her Sue Storm Richards, then we'll have to change, as a result of the human ground wave of GIPUS and newbs who will inevitably edit for that. ThuranX 04:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

The teaser trailer shows the wedding ceremony being interrupted, so it's possible that Storm doesn't actually become Richards yet. We'll have to see the movie to find out. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Trailer

Is the trailer actually posted anywhere on the Internet? Are we going to include info from the trailer? I would, but I can't find it to watch it! ShadowUltra 02:23, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe that once it's widely available to the general public, in a non-pay-to-see manner, we'll be able to cite it easily, and without objections that the materials added aren't readily verifiable. Probably a week or so, maybe less, and we can add material. ThuranX 06:43, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I saw the trailer countingdown.com. there is a link but don't go to the yotube one ther's two links the one on youtube was removed and the trailer dosen't have good quality but you can see most of what's going on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.231.60 (talk • contribs) 18:43, December 24, 2006

The talk page is for discussing changes to the article: not for asking for trailers. Wikipedia isn't a chat site. RobJ1981 01:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Official source for teaser trailer has been added to the External links in the article. Go forth and enjoy. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:49, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not asking for a damn trailer i am telling you where it is ok. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.231.60 (talk • contribs) 02:44, December 27, 2006

Quit being uncivil and grow up. I added a link to the teaser trailer in the article, and I used this talk page's "Trailer" section to announce the addition accordingly. Nothing to do with you and YouTube. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 06:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so you all know, I am not the anonymous user who posted the above comment. That's someone else. My IP is 69.244.235.160 ShadowUltra 03:41, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries. The difference in the typing was discernable. Your typing is more proper than the anonymous IP. Hope you enjoyed the trailer. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 07:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Lets just remove stupidity for those who really what to know what some dumb anonymous jerk said look in the history Jedi canuck 23:27, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Silver Surfer's eyes

The initial promotional picture of the Silver Surfer had visible eyes, but I saw somewhere in the past couple of days a new picture of the Silver Surfer without the eyes (like the canon Surfer) was released. Can anyone verify if this new picture was an official change or not? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

SuperHeroHype.com covered it. We might want to update the picture with the new one. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 22:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Doug Jones interview

Sci-Fi.com [2] has an exclusive interview with Doug Jones. In it, he explains that he sees the Surfer as "they go so far deep into his backstory" and that he is a "reluctant bad guy" who took on a 'sacrificial and christlike' theme to protect his own world. He went on to say it was an honor to play him. Can we work this into the article? (also, not sure how long that will remain up, nor how to find and cite it after Sci-Fi drops it from it's top banner.) ThuranX 05:05, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Images need fair use

Just to let any editors of this article know that the movie screenshots need fair use rationales. Look to some passed GA/FA films for examples. By adding these, it will prevent them from being deleted. --Nehrams2020 04:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Are we missing one? the images currently on page all have Licensing templates for fair use attached. ThuranX 17:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

He means "fair use rationale" like the one for this image. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

From the cast list

I removed Vanessa Minnillo, Crystal Lowe and Brian Posehn from the cast list because a quick look at their pages and at IMDb showed no indication that they have been cast. If anybody has a citation, add it back. CovenantD 06:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Posehn is the preacher in the trailer. He's in the film. Can't speak to the other two, but the trailer shows posehn clearly. ThuranX 21:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OMG a cloud

There are quite a few sources saying Galactus will definitely be a (choke) cloud. Is it time to add that in or are we waiting for the studio itself to confirm?Rglong 07:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Studio. It's only been rumors, kind of like this Joker pictures, Fishbourne being Galactus, and the color of the Hulk.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 11:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The official novelization describes the Gah Lak Tus as a massive wriling vortex, and as it is the oficial noveliztion, shouldn't it be citeable?69.178.117.15 23:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No, it's called synthesis. There are plenty of instances when a novelization of a film has had minor and majors changes done to it, so as to not spoil the movie entirely.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 23:54, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, the Spider-Man 3 novel was rather spot-on. Of course, that's not eally relevant toards citebility. Couldn't it be said, however, that the novl and aintitcoolnws both refer to Galactus as beign a cloud? That statemet would be fully citebale and relevant, while not nessicerrily confirming that this was the final version.TheGreenFaerae 01:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we consider AintItCool to be reliable, and I remember that bulletin and it didn't attribute the information to anyone specifically. It probably is true, but we don't deal in facts. To be verifiable, reliably, on something like this, I would think we would need Story, a producer, one of the cast...someone connected specifically to the film to verify the info.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 01:11, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood me. I'm nto saying whether it is true or not. I'm simply saying that it would be true to say that "Aintitcoolnews.com posted a bulletin saying that Galactus is represented by a gaseous cloud, and the official novelization sems to confirm this. However it is nto confirmed that this is the form Galactus will take in the final film." That statement would be ture, citeable, and relevnt, wouldn't it. Course the wording could be better, but you should get the idea.TheGreenFaerae 04:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, because we don't say anything about how he looks in the comics. There isn't anything official about what he will look like in the film, if he even shows up. For all we know, he could travel around the cosmos in that "vortex" and never be seen. At one time people were reporting Fishburne to be the voice of Galactus, but that turned out wrong, and we didn't use it because of reliability. The reliability of AintItCool and the novel are what is in question.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:12, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm just saying that even the article quotes Story talking about how the design wasn't finished and that we should becareful what we read. That just says to me that we shouldn't use anything that doesn't actually attribute a quote to someone attached to the film. Otherwise, we could have people who read the novel and are just assuming it's the same (which it probably is, but it's still assumption).  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a cloud I saw it in a trailer today on tv it showed the cloud.TheManWhoLaughs 02:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Galactus is not a cloud. When Galactus traveled to Earth, he destroyed many moons and planets who's remains circled around him like a giant cloud. Galactus appears as a huge whirling flame.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 11:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Game

Should a section about the game be made?

There is already a page on the game.--Gundor Twintle Fluffy 11:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

'Illegal' Silver Surfer Coin?

Thought someone with more interest in this might want to add something about this to the article. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/04/business/media/04quarter.html?ref=movies

Film Locations

do we want these I can search my memory for all the sets I stumbled upon while at work Jedi canuck 23:25, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Song in the Movie

Does anybody know the name of the song Mr. Fantastic was dancing too in the club?

Jesse Morrison

Should something be added to the article about the projectionist who was seemingly fired due to pressure from FOX after he gave it a bad non-professional review on Ain't It Cool News? --Dr Archeville 12:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think it's really notable enough. Especially given the asundry perspectives of what did or didn't happen. --Bishop2 14:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Reception section

Actually, now that I've double-checked, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Reception states specifically that we're only to use professional critics in this section: "Expanding on the second paragraph of the lead section, you should analyse how the film was received by critics, meaning professional or well-known film reviewers." It specifically prohibits use of general-public comments ... which, when you think about it, could be posted by ringers for the studio. In any case, Wiki disallows it. --Tenebrae 21:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow. So after you found the user percentage on the site, you went hunting for an excuse to delete it anyway? You must REALLY hate this film. Anyway, that's fine, we'll leave it out. --Bishop2 21:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Do not insult fellow editors for following the rules. You are guilty of incivility, and, certainly, it was the critics who hated the film, if that 37% positive is any indication. Please don't vent at other editors because you personally like the movie and critics did not. --Tenebrae 23:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that there was no insult made in the previous statement, nor any statement given about my personal opinion of the movie. --Bishop2 14:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I support Tenebrae's interpretation of policy on this matter ,for the simple reason he gives. Public opinion polling like that on the 'net can be broken. ThuranX 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it's the right thing to do. --Bishop2 14:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

That's good of you to say. Just to clarity, the I'm sure unintentional insult was "you went hunting for an excuse to delete it anyway?" Impugning another editor's motives doesn't show good faith. There is honestly nothing personal involved, and whether one likes or dislikes a movie has no bearing on following guidelines that are there for good reasons. Thanks for understanding. --Tenebrae 16:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, you're right. Lack of good faith would totally be the proper label for my transgression, and I can see how that would be insulting to you. I actually thought I was approaching the subject with an air of good humor, but the proper course would been not to have voiced - or held - such an opinion at all. My bad. --Bishop2 17:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Tenebrae, I was also irked that you initially rejected the 61% stat because you said you could not find it in the reference. Then when it was pointed out where the location was, you changed your objection to the Wiki rule. Also, I was not quoting any non critics, I simply thought it was pertinent to the topic to point out that there was a rather large disparity between the critics score and the users score. However I acknowledge that you have put a lot of effort into this page and I bow to your decision. I would hope you do your best to portray a complete picture of this films reception.71.246.229.19 20:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(Undent) The fan ratings at Rotten Tomatoes are not reliable source material. They have no journalistic repute. They can be easily manipulated by hackers. The Critics' percentage can be explained and examined, and has a clear, public formula to consult. Mathematics aren't biased (though statistics can be). Because the fan section lacks reliability, independence, and any means of verifying the individuality of the votes cast, and is vulnerable to tampering ,it cannot be relied upon. I understand some thing the contrast is needed, but it's already reflected more verifiably by the Box Office take, which shows whether or not the masses agree with the critics, in a simple, straight-forward 'vote your dollars' manner. repeating that using a weak fact with serious verifibilty issues doesn't improve the article. We appreciate your efforts, and hope that this clarifies even more the reasons why. Please ask here before readding.ThuranX 03:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Similarities between R.O.T.S.S. & Ultimate Galactus Trilogy

General Hager's character is clearly a composite of Ultimate Nick Fury. His gruff, blunt, U.S. interest above all is just like Fury in the comic. His second in command strongly resembles Colonel Danvers, although her name is changed. Johnny pursues a hopeless romance with her, not unlike Captain Mahr-Vel's flirting with Danvers during Ultimate Secret. Mahr-Vel, being the visible alien, is imprisoned and "interrogated" in Ultimate Secret somewhat like the Surfer is in the film, both being naked aliens. When Mr. Fantastic gives his "engaged to the hottest woman on the planet, now the guy who played football etc etc..." is lifted almost verbatim from Ultimate Extinction. Johnny's encounter with the Surfer resembles Iron Man's encounter with one, albiet Johnny gets dropped while Iron Man is actually attacked. The theme of no-one really knowing what Galactus is or actually does is a running plot device throughout Ultimate Secret and into Extinction. Also, just like how once Gha-Lak-Tus reached Earth orbit, the super-heroes were engaged with an army of villains, so too are the FF busy fighting Cosmic-Doom.

Are you posting this because you think it belongs in the article? OR jsut to tlak about the similarities? ThuranX 19:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX: Both. Marvel is Marvel is Marvel is Marvel. Every Marvel movie will be lifted almost verbatim from a comics series. It's the nature of a corporation to protect itself, and Marvel has millions invested in protecting their characters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.179.30.13 (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

imdb

this film is called 4:rise of the silver surfer. whats the official title?

Unfortunately, IMDb goes by on-screen titles, not official titles. The official title is Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, hence the name of this article. The on-screen title simply shows Rise of the Silver Surfer and the "4" logo, which is why IMDb lists it as 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer. (DT29 (talk) 06:05, 12 March 2009 (UTC))

Soundtrack

Can anyone add some info about the Soundtrack (not 'score'), including songs such as "Ride The Storm" by Simon Webbe, or "Physical" by Nicole Scherzinger?

Future

Just so people know - I basically used the same future in this to help begin to expand the previously empty Fantastic Four film series article. Now, I'd like to ask if it's worth keeping future here, or doing as most film series articles do (i.e. the X-Men film series article), and have any further elaboration of a future project on the Fantastic Four film series article? -- Harish - 15:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the name of the pulse device weapon Reed makes?

When they said it in the movie, it sounded familiar like it's a real thing and now I can't remember. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmaness (talk • contribs) 15:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a trivia resource, and it's not notable enough for the article. Sorry. ThuranX (talk) 21:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Fantastic Four 3

Fantastic Four 3 will might be coming soon to theatres until will be announced that is a possible sequal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.255.82.179 (talk) 00:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)