MovieChat Forums > The Fantastic Four Discussion > Its actually available....

Its actually available....


Last year, in 2005, I friend of mine acquired a Bootlegg copy of what he thought was the New 'Fantantic Four'(2005) movie. But what was really inside the DVD-R was a digitized version of this atrocity. I mean the special effects are like 1970's retro-style ....I mean they're terrible. The funny thing is...my friend was sold a DVD-case with the poster-art and pictures from the New! "Fantastic Four"(2005) movie. That movie is good to sit down and watch it, knowing how awful its going to be.

"Rezuleta"
[email protected]

reply

This is nothing new. There have been hundreds of illegal copies of this movie floating around everywhere, eBay's got tones of 'em, but I got mine at a convention last year. And of course the effects are terrible, the budeget was rather low, and they never actually intened to release it.

reply

I suppose when you consider the miniscule budget of 1.5 million dollars, and that the film was made in 1994 when cgi was in its infancy, then its not a bad effort. It's got an elaborate film score that was written especially for it too. Apparently the only film print no longer exists (it was supposedly deliberately destroyed)so i guess it will never get a proper release even if one was wanted.

I suppose if anyone is desperate to see it then one way is to go and hunt down a dodgy vhs copy. However you may find it easier just to go to the site below and watch it for free.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=X7mdpSsqNsM&mode=related&search=

Enjoy

reply

Not only that, but I'm pretty sure the special effects weren't even DONE. I know for a fact that the audio wasn't. I also suspect there are scenes missing.

reply

"...was made in 1994 when cgi was in its infancy..."

The first Jurassic Park came out in 1993 and the cgi in that was amazing (although they did have more money to spend!) so you can't really use that as an excuse. the effects were just naff, period.

Having said that, this film is great in a cheesy sort of way, but it's certainly not going to win any awards.

reply

Not everybody had cheap access to that type of rendering equipment at that time.
In 1994, everyone had cheap access to the qualty of The Last Starfighter which was the quality of the F4-1994 movie.

Just because 2 rendering houses had it doesn't make it available so it is a valid reason.

reply

In an issue of WIRED in the early 90s there was an article called "Make Movie Visual Effects in Your Basement" about VFX legends Scott and Minky Billups who were doing the VFX for this flick single handledly in their basement. I found it incredibly inspiring and decided to go into low budget indy CGI myself.

reply

[deleted]

The first Jurassic Park came out in 1993 and the cgi in that was amazing (although they did have more money to spend!) so you can't really use that as an excuse. the effects were just naff, period.



The first Jurassic Park had a 100 million budget. Try YOU to do the same thing with 1.5 million. I dare you.

reply

You can see this film in its entirety (though in 9 segments of 9:59 each) at Youtube.com. Simply enter (as written here) Roger Corman Fantastic Four in the search and knock yourself out. It's mental clobberin' time! As for me, I commented there thusly (unabridged version below):

It has everything you would expect from a superhero film produced by B-movie master Roger Corman, the man who introduced moviegoers to man-eating talking plants, psychotic beatnick artists, Lee Van Cleef vs. a Space Carrot Alien, and Jack Nicholson. It was made to be enjoyed with popcorn, Goobers, and Coca-Cola, and not taken seriously. Cheesy good fun from the celluloid cheese-meister that views the way a 60s Fantastic Four comic reads. And really, the Thing looks pretty good, more formidable than the new version's Thing, who looks more like a steroid-enhanced burn victim. Three stars.

And so it goes. It's worth viewing by any comic devotee for its sheer curiosity value.


"I hate people I don't like."


Newz Dawg

reply



It's funny that they say never released, but I remember watching it when I was young and seeing it in many video stores, unless there all buying bootlegs too lol. I remembered it being cheesy but it's pretty vague to me now. Probably just as good as the new one would be if they didn't have todays effects.

reply

theres no way you have seen it back then davehaddad. The leaked copy of it was not available until 1997, that was when it first started turning up and the chances a video store actually renting out a bootleg copy of a purposefully unreleased film is not possible. No video store owner would risk his lively hood because it was already known to be a bootleg publicly and if it came back to the video store they would have been sued for millions. Actually, if thatdid happen, then maybe they could have afforded to release the film. It could have sold well, little kids were superhero crazy then.

reply

All I can tell ya is that I watched it a long time ago on VHS, rented from the video store, way before the DVD renting days, they had some laser disks at the time. So maybe it wasn't 94 but I know it wasn't 98 I moved from there in 97 so... I don't even care anyways its a movie.

reply

YouTube pulled it. Anybody know any other place where we can find this treasure?

reply

What really ticks me is that Stan Lee lavished huge praise for the very silly Japanese Spider-Man TV show, with its giant monsters and robots, and Spider-Man telepathically communicating with his mentor who has become a spider, while dissing the Corman-produced Fantastic Four. Cheese is cheese, no matter what nation it comes from. Looks like Stan the Man, who's ego has outgrown Jim Shooter's, needs to meet Doc Samson for a few sessions.


"I hate people I don't like."


Newz Dawg

reply

I have a bootleg DVD copy..I boought it off ebay a couple of years ago for $6.00.

reply

I picked up a DVD copy a little while ago and watched it once. It's been sitting in my closet ever since.



"Great, just jump all over me, why don't you?
What about the nine kids I DIDN'T lose this week?"

reply

I bought a copy at a comic con 3 years ago...for $20. Yes, you heard that right, but that was the price of all the bootleg DVDs there being sold, and I was desperate to see this film in all its cheesy glory. (The other bootlegs I have are Batman: Dead End, Star Wars Holiday Special and Harvey Birdman Season 1) I've watched it a couple of times and all I can say that's its decent, with a good-looking Thing, Rebecca Stabb as Sue and a Doom that resembles the comic version better than Julian McMahon did.

There's so much pressure to like monkeys.

reply

[deleted]

Julie McMahon?


yes.... Julie McMahon

reply

Roger Corman is known for films like this, but in his defence, this is a half-decent attempt. Even Dr.Doom is more menacing in this, than the pussyfied version in the family friendly releases!

reply

A mate gave me a copy on dvd and it's appalling lmao. View it as a comedy and you may enjoy it, but don't expect to take it seriously. The "special" (and I use the term at it's loosest) effects are ... well.... I don't know if I can comment on them coz I couldn't spot any. And the Thing! Looked like a Tortoise with a hangover. Funniest film I've ever seen.




"John 3:16"

reply

i would LOVE to get my hands on this gem. have tried to see it before, but sources are slim. i see lots of copies on eBay, but none of them specify that its the 1994 version... and honestly, i dont want to own the 2005 version.
i have renewed interest in this one after seeing Captain America last night. wow. they need to make superhero movies like these ones again!!!
any help on sources would be greatly appreciated!

reply

I got it. It's a *beep* VHS rip but you want it say the word. I can probably post it on a site or something.

reply

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omKd_bUQlXo

reply

go to Antimatter Mulitverse they have it there with the Dr Strange movie from the 70's and other hard to get movies

reply

Just got it off TPB last night and was checking this to see what people were saying about it.

reply

Still, the Doom in the 1994 flick is WAY better than the Doom in the new flicks.

reply

I'd give Doom and Ben both a nod in the right direction over 2005's. I love Julian McMahon as Christian Troy, but he is one awful Doom, not entirely his fault, electrical powers in the first, and a glorified Power Rangers villain in the second.

reply

I like 2005 Ben better.

Ben Grimm forever!

reply

I got a copy of the film off ebay about 4 years ago,i thought it was very funny!! Really must find it now i think about it,must be gathering dust somewhere lol

reply

I think the newer Fantastic Four movies were awful.

reply

A cheap mock off.

Surprised its not been on SyFy yet!

Its that man again!!

reply

I picked my VHS up at a comics convention in Charlotte, NC probably in '97.

Being inconsistent is better than being consistently bad.

reply

lol sucker!

reply

I picked up a bootleg VHS copy of this years ago at a local video store. It's not great or anything, but it's better than the recent FF films. Doom and the Thing are way better in this version as well. The only real problem is that the budget was so small so the Human Torch stuff is goofy.

I'd kind of like to see a Future Foundation movie.

reply

I'm reading "Marvel Comics, the Untold Story" by Sean Howe. Page 356 covers the movie. It was such a cheap production that the cameras were borrowed! Ari Avad ordered all prints destroyed, but the video survived. I've read that the movie was shown in a couple of small venues, without publicity, simply to meet legal expectations needed to retain the option. It's illegal to distribute the movie on tape or DVD, but I haven't read of any arrests. As far as damaging the brand goes, the two big-budget movies did a good job of that.

reply