Postmodern Realities Podcast Episode 457: Family First: A Film Review of ‘The Fantastic Four: First Steps’

This Postmodern Realities episode is a conversation with JOURNAL author Cole Burgett  about his article, “Family First: A Film Review of ‘The Fantastic Four: First Steps’” . This also part of Cole’s ongoing column, Cultural Apologetics.[Editor’s Note: This review contains spoilers for Fantastic Four: First Steps.] https://www.equip.org/articles/family-first-a-film-review-of-the-fantastic-four-first-steps/

Related articles and podcasts by this author:Episode 455: Up, Up, and Away (Again): A Review of Superman (2025)Up, Up, and Away (Again): A Review of Superman (2025)Episode 453 Man Creates Something Worse than Dinosaurs: A Review of ‘Jurassic World Rebirth’Man Creates Something Worse than Dinosaurs: A Review of ‘Jurassic World Rebirth’Episode 448: We Used Up All the Perfect: Andor and the Limits of Star WarsWe Used Up All the Perfect: Andor and the Limits of Star WarsEpisode 443: Blades, Spirits, and the Sacred: Encountering Shintoism in Assassin’s Creed ShadowsBlades, Spirits, and the Sacred: Encountering Shintoism in Assassin’s Creed Shadows 

Don’t miss an episode; please subscribe to the Postmodern Realities podcast wherever you get your favorite podcasts. Please help spread the word about Postmodern Realities by giving us a rating and review when you subscribe to the podcast. The more ratings and reviews we have, the more new listeners can discover our content.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:20):
Hi everyone, thank you for tuning in to the Postmodern
Realities Podcast, brought to you by the Christian Research Institute
and the Christian Research Journal. I'm Melanie Cogdill, Managing editor
of the Christian Research Journal. It's August twenty twenty five,
and this is episode four hundred and fifty seven, which

(00:41):
is a spoiler filled conversation about the film in theaters
now called Fantastic Four First Steps. Today's guest is Coolberget.
He's a graduate of DAOs Theological Seminary and the Moody
Bible Institute. He teaches systematic theology and Bible Position classes

(01:01):
and writes extensively about theology and popular culture. Cole has
written a film review for the Christian Research Journal and
his review is called Family First a Film Review of
The Fantastic Four First Steps, and you can read it
for free at equip dot org. Paul, it's glad to

(01:23):
have you on again.

Speaker 2 (01:24):
Always good to be here.

Speaker 1 (01:27):
Well, this is the last of the big blockbusters that
we're covering for the Postmodern Realities Podcast, and that is
the new Marvel film which is called The Fantastic Four,
which is currently in theaters now. Of course, as I
noted this will be spoiler filled, So I don't know

(01:47):
that much about Marvel very much. Before going into this film,
I did not know anything about the Fantastic Four, and
I like you to tell us about it because it
does give us super brief origin story. But I felt
like when the movie opens, I'm just dropped into a
reality where there is the Fantastic Four. So who are

(02:11):
they and what is their story? How did they become
the Fantastic Four.

Speaker 2 (02:17):
So for anybody who knows sort of old school comic
book stuff, the Fantastic Four is one of the foundational,
you know, one of the most iconic superhero teams in
comic book history, and nowadays, the Fantastic Four is often

(02:37):
credited with kickstarting what we sort of now think of
as the modern Marvel Universe. Created by Stanley, the iconic
Stanley and the artist Jack Kirby, Fantastic Four made its
debut in nineteen sixty one, published by Marvel Comics, and

(03:03):
at the time, superhero comics were in a bit of
a slump. You know, you're in the this is the
silver Age of comic books, and Lee and Kirby were
trying to do something new. When we talked about Superman.
You know, we sort of went through the brief history

(03:26):
of comic books and sort of what the ages were
and that kind of a thing and how they you know,
people just sort of look back on it now and
roughly date things. I mean, it's all kind of arbitrary,
but you know, the Golden Age Action comics, you know,
Batman makes his debut, you sort of unequivocally belonged to
what we now think of as sort of like the
core of DC characters. And here in the Silver Age,

(03:49):
Lee and Kirby were trying to do something new. They
were trying to do something a little bit more grounded,
if you will, in human emotion. And so the core
team the Fantastic for is made up of four characters
read Richards or mister Fantastic, his wife, Sue Storm, who's
the Invisible Woman, her sort of you know, hot headed,

(04:13):
no pun intended brother, Johnny Storm, who was sort of
an updated version of this original Marvel superhero called the
Human Torch. And then Reid's best friend, this guy named
Ben Grimm, who's the Thing. The Thing is sort of
the iconic Fantastic for character, the big rock monster looking thing.

(04:37):
So the story goes you know, they gain their powers
after being exposed to cosmic radiation during his space mission.
Comic books loved this idea of, you know, some type
of radiation transforming you the Hulk Fantastic for things like that.
Reid sort of become super stretchy, his anatomy is vastly changed.

(04:59):
Sue turn invisible and can sort of generate these force fields.
Johnny can burst into flames and flies, and Ben becomes again,
you know, this this rock skinned powerhouse. But what made
the Fantastic for different wasn't just their powers, It was

(05:23):
their It was their dynamic. They they bickered like a
real family, They had arguments, they got on each other's nerves,
but they still had to find a way to save
the world. And that blend of soap opera with science
fiction was, you know, in its day, was kind of

(05:46):
revolutionary and historically, in those early days, Fantastic before Fantastic
work sort of became the bedrock, if you will, of
Marvel's storytelling, and their early issues introduced characters and concepts
that became pillars of the Marvel universe, not least of

(06:09):
all Doctor Doom, who you know, is sort of where
the current Marvel cinematic universe is building to Doctor Doom, Galactus,
Silver Server, who was in this most recent film, the group,
the Inhumans, the Scrolls, if you're familiar with the sort
of the alien creatures in Marvel, and even Wakanda and

(06:32):
Black Panther all originated in Fantastic Four comics, and so
you know, the Fantastic Four has sort of been hailed
as Marvel's first family. You'll see that a lot, you know,
the first family of Marvel, and not just because it
has that sort of familial tone, but because it literally

(06:55):
came first in terms of defining what Marvel's interconnected universe
would become. So over the decades, the Fantastic Four have
gone through highs and lows, like so many of these
other you know, comic book properties you're talking about storytelling
over you know, quite quite literally decades, both in their

(07:20):
personal stories and their publishing history. At at their peak,
especially during the sixties and the eighties, they were considered,
you know, Marvel's flagship title. But later years, as you
move into the modern era, began to see shifts in
creative teams and changing tastes. And while they never disappeared,

(07:43):
you know, they sort of took a backseat to characters
like X Men or Spider Man. That said, their influence,
of course remains massive. They've always embodied this sort of
sense of exploration and optimism comes through in this film.
Read Richards is much more of a scientist than a soldier,

(08:06):
and the team often deals with this like interdimensional travel,
cosmic threats, moral questions, which is usually very different from
the traditional Marvel flair, which is a lot of street
level crime fighting and things like that. That the Fantastic
Four is very much big picture kind of stuff and

(08:33):
in a broader cultural sense, and this is probably why
they're a little less known to just general audiences. They're
kind of the Marvel team that got left behind a
little in the cinematic explosion. Rights issues kept them with
twentieth Century Fox for years, and that resulted in a

(08:54):
series of films that really didn't quite capture their essence.
There were some early two thousands Fantastic stick for movies
that some people probably still remember. There was one in
twenty fifteen that the less said about, the better. It's
the failure that has kept Josh Trink in Hollywood's director's
jail for a decade now. But now with the rights

(09:19):
back under Marvel Studios, there's sort of this renewed sense
of anticipation that is paid off with this new film,
which is why the return of the Fantastic Four has
come with such fanfare, because of their importance to Marvel
and the fact that they've been out of the MCU

(09:41):
for so long. So to some it all up. You know,
they're a superhero team, yes, but they're also this this
pioneering group, and their adventures blend family drama and science fiction.
But really what makes them so important is that their
history is inseparable from the rise of Marvel Comics as

(10:04):
a storytelling powerhouse. There is a sense in which, if
not for the Fantastic Four, you would not have Marvel today.
So that's kind of their history and why they're important
to the medium.

Speaker 1 (10:17):
I was going to ask you about this because you
mentioned some of the previous incarnations of the Fantastic Four films,
because this one has it's been a decade since the
last one came out to pretty terrible reviews. I don't
know if people remember that incarnation of the Fantastic Four

(10:38):
that was the one with Miles Teller in it, and
also Michael B.

Speaker 2 (10:43):
Jordan.

Speaker 1 (10:43):
Those are probably the two most known, but even before that,
like twenty years ago, there was the first incarnation of films,
back when Jessica Alba was young and not running her
big businesses for mother products her moms and kids and stuff,
and she was in the one twenty years ago, and
then they did a sequel to that one based on

(11:04):
some of the elements that are in this movie, which
was kind of interesting. I mean, Marvel's never been on
my radar, but I do remember the Silver Surfer because
that was very iconic from back then. And then in
this one, I noticed that they had the Silver Surfer again, which,
you know, again I don't know that much about Marvel Comics,
but thought, oh, they repeated this again because they had
already done a movie about the Silver Surfer and Galactus before.

(11:26):
So what makes this, you know, besides the rights issue,
how is this adaptation different from you know, the two
other sets of films, particularly the one that completely bombed
ten years ago, the one with Miles Teller and Michael B. Jordan.

Speaker 2 (11:42):
Yeah, so it's sort of interesting. There are two previous
major incarnations of these characters that you've mentioned. There's also
a third, and it's worth mentioning this for just a second.
There is and this is sort of I guess, to
an extent, what the kids today would call law. Right,

(12:03):
there's some fantastic for adaptation law here. Way back in
the late eighties through the nineties, you know, Marvel had
some kind of, you know, a bit of a record
with adapting certain properties. Bill Bixby's The Incredible Hult, for example,
had finished its run, and so there was a you know,

(12:26):
sort of an interest in trying to adapt certain properties
as a result of the success of that show. And
at the time, Constantine Films acquired the rights to The
Fantastic Four back in the eighties and the late eighties,
and Roger Corman, who was a very well known filmmaker.

(12:49):
You know, he was a mentor to Francis Ford Coppola,
Ron Howard Scorsese, Dante Joe Dante, John Sales, James Cameron.
You know, he was this sort of a major figure
in what's called the New Hollywood movement. Roger Corman was
hired to produce a low budget version of The Fantastic

(13:11):
Four and that was scheduled to release in nineteen ninety four,
but the film was never actually released. There's a whole
story behind this I won't get into, and you can
read about all that drama, but it's kind of taken
on this mythic status, right, this unreleased Fantastic four film
from the nineties, So there was that adaptation that never

(13:34):
saw the light of day. Then in two thousand and five,
as you mentioned, you had the the version that was
directed by Tim Story where Ian Grufford was read Richard's
jessicalbobasu storm. It had a very young Chris Evans as
Johnny Storman the thing was played by Michael Chickliss, who

(13:55):
was very prominent for his role in the television series
The Shield. And with those two movies, The Fantastic for
two thousand and five and Rise of the Silver Surfer
in two thousand and seven, those sort of became the
well known Fantastic For adaptations, and for a while with
the Definitive take, there were diminishing box office returns in

(14:19):
those unfortunately. What is interesting about that two thousand and
five adaptation is that it was originally speculated the film
would be a period piece set in the sixties, which
we get with this new adaptation, but of course that
never never came to be so those films weren't terrible.
I think they're sort of looked back on now, especially

(14:43):
among millennials, as you know, they weren't terrible. They're kind
of corny, kind of goofy, sort of you know, classic
superhero movies from that early two thousands era where they've
not quite become the cultural phenomenon that they are now,
and there's a little bit more experimentation with what the
superhero movies are and what they could do. But again,

(15:08):
the diminishing returns sort of killed that. In twenty fifteen,
there was a new version of the Fantastic Four for
twentieth Century Fox and that was helm by Josh Trank.
Josh Trank who he did that the film Chronicle, which

(15:30):
was really well received. It sort of put him on
the map. Trank would go on and do the twenty
twenty film Capone with Tom Hardy, but it was twenty
fifteen's Fantastic Four that really did not bode well for
his long term career. He was originally going to be

(15:50):
working on some Star Wars stuff as the Fantastic reviews
were coming out, and you know, between that and the
stories of how he was on set, it just Obald
and he ended up not getting the Star Wars gig.
But that film, the twenty fifteen film, was sort of
it was universally hated in my estimation with the people

(16:12):
I've talked to, my friends who are moviegoers and things
like that, it is roundly considered the worst superhero film
many of them have ever seen. It was a very dark,
gritty reimagining of these characters that might have been interesting

(16:33):
and ambitious in one sense, but was so out of touch,
if you will, so at odds with the tone of
these characters that was so at odds with the call
it the spirit of these characters in the comic books,
that it was pretty universally hated. And that was it.

(16:54):
That was the last adaptation before Marvel finally managed to
re acquire the rights to those characters. And again it
was the right tissues that kept them out of Marvel's
hands for so long, but that all sort of changed
back in the early twenty twenties when Marvel finally required
the rights to them, which has led to this new film.

(17:15):
As far as what makes this one very different from those,
you know, this one has this retro futuristic nineteen sixties
alternate universe aesthetic. The movie establishes that this version takes
place on a separate Earth, Earth eight to eight. In
other words, it's not in the main MCU universe, So

(17:39):
in that sense, it's it's detached from all the other
MCU films, which you know, for my money, was kind
of nice because I didn't feel like I was missing
anything when I watched it. I think Jack Kirby meets
two thousand and one as Space Odyssey is sort of
the vibe of this film, and it sort of embraces

(18:01):
that kind of space age whimsy and these very vivid
color palettes and production designs. Unlike the twenty five and
twenty fifteen films, there is no origin story. The movie
sort of begins, as you said, with the fantastic who're
already established there well into their careers. You sort of
get this a little bit of a retelling that plays

(18:23):
out a bit like a fun sort of TV show
montage of the origin story. But other than that, you're
not going to spend time. The plot is not the
origin story, if you will. Previous adaptations have leaned very
heavily on Doctor Doom's popularity as the villain, but here
the antagonist is Galactus, and Silver Server was played by

(18:45):
Julia Garner, is his herald and so that shift kind
of gives the film a bit of a cosmic stake
and existential tone. It's again sort of like the comics,
the grandeur of the colmic, the zaniness of the comics.
There's much more of a focus here on the characters

(19:06):
having an emotional core, themes of parenthood, and it's a
pretty tight, pretty self contained story. It's under two hours,
which I really appreciated. We sort of live in a
very odd time where you know, kids are watching TikTok
videos and they can't hold their focus for more than

(19:30):
a certain period of time. And yet the movies, the
big blockbuster movies will run, you know, two hours and
twenty minutes, two hours, thirty minutes, two hours forty minutes.
So it's always nice to see a major blockbuster movie
know exactly what it's doing, you know, trim all the
fat off, and I, for one, was a big fan.
I was very relieved to see that I wasn't gonna

(19:50):
have to sit there for three hours by the time
you get through the trailers and all of that. This
one is a very faithful adaptation in terms of visuals,
in in terms of tone, in terms of storytelling, they
take heavy inspiration from Stan Lee and Jack Kirby's original comics.
In fact, there are certain shots in those montages that

(20:12):
recreate iconic comic book covers from the sixties. Of course,
only you know the hardcore fans are going to pick
up on that, but there are several instances in this
film where it feels like you're looking at the literal
cover of an old school Fantastic for a comic book.
So those are all some of the things that makes

(20:34):
this movie, you know, pretty different. Skipping the origin story,
the cosmic scale over, the sense of grounded realism, anchoring
the story and themes of family and very strong emotions,
and then having these very strong performances in this highly
stylized world all sort of gives this version of Fantastic

(20:54):
for its own unique identity.

Speaker 1 (21:00):
You've been listening to the past few episodes, you've heard
me talking about the very special print edition of the
Christian Research Journal that is the culmination of more than
one year of primary research done by CI President Hank Canigraph,
and it is about this insidious cult in China called

(21:20):
Eastern Lightning, which, as I noted last time we did
a news story on almost twenty years ago, or more
than twenty years ago, and it's also known as the
Church of Almighty God. And this particular pseudo Christian cult
is following a self proclaimed female Christ who actually has

(21:42):
theoretical doctrine that incites physical violence with its followers, and
it has psychological intimidation. It disrupts families, and they literally
have perpetrated physical assault. And for that reason, we do
have a trigger warning note for some of the photos
that we show. But it is a very deadly cult

(22:07):
and it is worldwide. It has worldwide followers of more
than ten million people. And so you won't want to
miss out about this because it helps you understand what
you believe and why you believe it, and keep up
with different religious movements that are very dangerous that need
to be exposed like that is done in this particular issue.

(22:30):
So you won't want to miss out on it because
we actually have it now in our hands and you
will want to copy. To get one, you would make
a partnering gift with a Christian research journal at equipped
dot org slash donate and please consider getting this in
depth special issue. It's going to be a collector's item really,

(22:51):
because it is really at the heart of all the
things that we've done for decades at CRI, exposing these
kinds of groups and doing the primary research. So please
go to equip dot org slash donate or on the
front page you will see a picture under resources giving
resources and you can make a partnering gift for your copy.

(23:12):
And now back to my conversation about Fantastic Four with Colebrigette.
So of course I'll say this to you, and we
do it every episode of TV or movies, but there
might be new listeners here. Is this a movie that
you think Christians can see? And maybe some parents because
I did see some families in the theater when I

(23:33):
went to see it. Is it something that parents can
take their children to see?

Speaker 2 (23:38):
Yeah, this is a pretty safe one and in fact
maybe interesting some of the themes we can get into
a little bit later. That makes this one of the
three big blockbusters we've talked about this summer, from Jurassic
World to Superman to this one. There are maybe some
themes and ideas that make this one the most compelling

(23:59):
in terms of Christian viewers and things like that. But yeah,
I think this is a film that Christians could see,
Christian families can see. I would say it, in one sense,
this movie is more palatable for everyday viewers, common viewers
than even Superman. Superman has, as we said, has a

(24:20):
lot of that trademark James Gunn sense of humor. So's
it's very quirky, it's very zany, and this film is
much more general audience focused than Superman. So yeah, I
think this is a film that Christians can see, families
can see, the kids can go now. I was talking

(24:42):
with one of my friends who took his family to
see it on opening weekend, and one of the things
we sort of touched on is that we could kind
of see kids getting bored with this one a little bit,
just because it's not that it doesn't have the big,
you know, battle stuff or all the cgi that the

(25:02):
comic book movies have. It's just that this movie is
sort of a little more deliberately paced. A lot of
the drama in this film comes from sort of the
quieter emotional moments. There's some infighting in the family and
things like that that create tension for the audience, but
you can kind of see younger kids sort of getting

(25:23):
bored with that kind of a thing. But other than that, Yeah,
there's nothing in this movie that stood out as you know,
jarring in any sort of way. So yeah, Christians can
see it, families can see it. I think it could
be just fine for that.

Speaker 1 (25:38):
So why don't you give our listeners kind of a
high overview of the plot. What is this particular movie?
Because it's based on comic books, what is this particular
one about?

Speaker 2 (25:51):
So this one subtitled First Steps, which should give you
a little hint about what the story is about. This
theme of family is about. It follows the Fantastic Four
already well into their superhero journey, as we said, skipping
the traditional origin story, and now Read and Sue are

(26:12):
expecting their first child. That child, of course, comic book
fans will know as Franklin Richards, and of course Franklin
and the comic books is one of the most, if
not the most powerful characters to ever appear in the
pages of Marvel comics. So the movie is about really

(26:37):
this pregnancy that becomes the emotional and sort of the
ethical center to the film. So this version of their earth,
this alternate earth that they live on, is threatened by Galactus.
Galactus is this massive cosmic entity that devour planets. It's

(27:01):
sort of galactas is one of those characters that there's
often been debate about can you even adapt Galactus to
a movie, because it only sort of works in the
pages of comic books. But this movie pulls him off,
and he has this very enigmatic alien herald called the
Silver Serverer here portrayed by Julia Garner, and Galactus demands Franklin.

(27:29):
He demands this unborn child in exchange for sparing their earth.
And so the film is this, you know, really personal
test of sacrifice and courage, and so at its heart,
this film tackles themes of parenthood, It tackles themes of responsibility.

(27:55):
It tackles themes of love, of sacrifice, fear that not
only will he fail as a father, but that there
might be something wrong with their child as a result
of what happened to the family, Sue's willingness to sacrifice herself,
all of those types of themes, all of those tensions

(28:18):
ground this big cosmic spectacle in real emotional stakes. And
then Franklin's birth and the aftermath add some real dramatic
weight to the story as we said before, this film
has a very distinctive style visually and tonally. It is

(28:38):
steeped in nineteen sixties retrofuturism. There's these bright hues, there's
period accurate costumes. There are production designs that nod to
classic sci fi. Think the Jetsons, think those old Kirby
comic book pages, so that sort of space age whimsy,

(29:02):
those old space Age movies were very much an influence
on this film's palette. And then, as we said before,
this particular story, this version of the Fantastic Four avoids
broader MCU tie ins and superhero cameos because it's set
in an alternate timeline, and so it delivers this very

(29:27):
self contained narrative focused on its core ensemble. It's pacing,
focused on character chemistry, and there's a very real sense
in which the drama of this film comes about almost
as a disaster movie. Once Galactus shows up, the film

(29:49):
almost becomes I mentioned this in the review that I wrote,
like a disaster flick. And so you've got this nice
little marriage of the Space Age movies, a little bit
like what you might think of as you know, original
series star trek aesthetics and vibes Gene Roddenberry meeting with
this disaster movie motif. At one point I kind of

(30:11):
thought when Galactus is there stomping around, I was sort
of like, oh, this is kind of like an old
school Godzilla movie, where a lot of the drama is
these really smart scientists trying to figure out how do
we stop this, you know, cosmic level threat to our planet,
our livelihoods. We're not just saving ourselves, we're kind of
saving the world here. How do we do that? And

(30:32):
so a lot of the drama in the film is,
you know, did you call this person? What are these
people saying? Are they going to be able to help us?
We have to get all of these people together to
build this giant thing to help us. So it's very
different in that sense. And so this is a story
that sort of reshapes that fantastic for a narrative at
least that we've seen on movies with a strong ensemble

(30:55):
performance married to that kind of aesthetic. So that's a
little bit about what this film's about.

Speaker 1 (31:02):
In your article, you touch on some messianic imagery around
Franklin Richards In fact that one of their key I guess,
worries about him while he's still in utero. Is will
this kid be a freak? Will he be normal? They're
performing tests on him and so forth. Could you kind

(31:23):
of unpack that for us? And did you think the
filmmakers intentionally had this, oh, chosen one, chosen baby kind
of theme in mind when they made this film.

Speaker 2 (31:36):
Yeah, there's definitely some rich Messianic imagery surrounding Franklin Richards
in this movie, and I do think at least some
of it is intentional, especially given the films more reflective,
character driven tone, and the story itself never becomes overtly religious,

(32:00):
but it does lean into a kind of cosmic mythology
that invites those parallels. For starters, Franklin is positioned as
a little bit of a child of promise before he's
even born. There's this looming question of what kind of

(32:24):
power he might hold, what he might mean to the universe,
and whether his very existence could alter fate. That alone
recalls a lot of Messianic archetypes. Think of figures who
are foretold born into peril, whose arrival up into the

(32:45):
world's balance, And in some ways it's the closest marvel
We'll get to some theological language here and of course
there's the sacrificial framework. Galactus demands the child in exchange
for sparing Earth. It sort of casts Franklin as a
potential savior and scapegoat. And of course Galactus is doing

(33:07):
this because he can sense, he can see and understand
the power that Franklin is ultimately going to wield. And
so it's not hard when you're watching read and Sue
face with these decisions, it's not hard to hear an
echo of Isaac on the altar. Isaac, of course, who
we would say is a Christ type. He is typologically

(33:30):
a version of Christ, innocent but carrying the weight of
judgment and hope. And you know, there will be spoilers here,
so if you intend to see the movie and don't
want to know what happens, and you know, it's probably
best to stop listening, go watch come Back. But really,
the dramatic high point of the movie is that Sue

(33:53):
ends up giving her own life for the child. It
taps into this idea of matern sacrifice, which the film
plays with quite emotionally. You can almost sort of see this,
you know, through a mirror darkly, a kind of marvel
holy family. And then of course after Sue is dead,

(34:15):
the child resurrects her, and it's very eerie the way
that it's portrayed.

Speaker 1 (34:21):
It is was that a computer baby at the end,
It's like they really had like it seemed to me
like a crying infant actor and then all of a sudden,
there he was on his you know, mother's stomach and
looking her into the eyes, and it seemed like eerie,
kind of like AI type of thing.

Speaker 2 (34:40):
Yeah, I think a lot of the stuff with Franklin.
I was cg if I'm not mistaken. It's been a
minute since I've seen it, but the resurrection of Sue
at the end, it did. And I thought this was
very interesting because I couldn't decide if it was intentional,
which I think probably says more about the film than
the audien. It's that this wasn't communicated clearly or the

(35:03):
ambiguity is the point. I haven't really been able to
find anybody talking about that to know for sure in
terms of the filmmakers. But when I saw it in
the theater and you get the scene of the resurrection
where this infant resurrects as mother, it sort of comes
across as weird and it has that you know, classic

(35:24):
Marvel played for last like he he clapsed for himself
at the end, and it's cute and all of that,
but the actual moment of the resurrection. Maybe it's the music,
maybe it's just the way that it's shot, but there's
something very odd about it. It's not I didn't get
the sense that it was meant to be this you know,
great triumphant moment because it was just so odd and

(35:46):
eerie and almost I don't want to say scary, because
it's not, but it's just there's something feels off about
it and that you don't really I didn't at least
take it as very triumphant. And you know, usually in theaters,
especially on opening night when I saw it, you know,
comic book fans are very you know, a rapturous bunch
and things like that elicit you know, claps and people

(36:08):
yelling and things like that, and none of that happened
in that scene. It was everybody, I think was sort
of if you're reading the room, was kind of like,
I'm not so sure this is a great thing. It
was just an odd thing to see. But all of
that to say, yes, the messianic imagery is I think
intentional and that does fit very nicely with what we
know of Franklin and the comic books, who, as I said,

(36:29):
you know, is sort of this legendarily powerful figure. And
so I don't think the film is trying to preach
anything specific, but it is clearly drawing from some deep
mythological wells here, many of which, as we know and
have talked about lived on this podcast, overlap with Messianic themes,

(36:53):
and it lends the film some emotional gravity. Franklin's birth
isn't just a person milestone for Reed and Sue, but
it really is treated as a kind of cosmic event.
I mean, he's born in space while they're trying to,
you know, run from Galactus, and the Silver Surfer is

(37:13):
pursuing them, and the Silver Surfer can work reality, so
you know, the Silver surfers in the ship and you know,
placing her hand on Sue's stomach and Sue's screaming Killer, Killer.
You know, it's pretty heightened drama there, as the child
is being born in zero gravity, which is visually something
I don't know that I've ever quite seen that done before,

(37:36):
And that's exactly the kind of larger than life storytelling
Fantastic four has always done best. So whether or not
it's explicitly theological, I would say the messianic imagery is
deliberate and in certain places it's quite effective. It helps
lift the film from being just another you know, superhero

(37:56):
showdown to something a little more mythic and lasting.

Speaker 1 (38:02):
So is there something there, like you know, you've just
talked about, you know, does it have this messianic theme
and there's resurrection in the film. Are these some of
the things that maybe the Christian apologists can think through
as they approach this film. I mean, what are some

(38:22):
additional themes that they can talk about with other people
that see the film, Because I would think that today
more people see the film that are just hey, let's
go to the movies, as opposed to I read the
comic book series and now I've seen it. You know
how people say, oh, I read the Hobbit and now I'm
going to see it. I think less people have probably

(38:43):
read the comics for the Fantastic Four that are going
to see this movie.

Speaker 2 (38:47):
Absolutely, I think you're right about that. So yeah, I mean,
I think there's rich veins for the apologists to tap.
We've talked about the messianic veins so I won't go
too much into that, but adjacent to the messianic theme,
I was struck by how pro life this film is.

(39:12):
Now I should qualify this we we sort of said
the same thing about Godzilla minus one, right, it was
a shockingly pro life film, but in a very different sense.
That film was not really politically motivated. It was Japanese movie.
It was far more interested in giving a commentary on
the way that, you know, Japan historically had treated the

(39:33):
lives of its soldiers as so expendable, that kind of thing.
But so it was very much, you know, a movie
that loved life and saw value in life. This film
in particular fantastic for pro life in the sense of
how we use it today. And I want to be
very careful here because I don't want to say that
the filmmakers were intentionally trying to make political statements, because

(39:57):
I actually don't think that was the case. But because
it is tapping into this mythology and these mythological images,
and the movie is sort of built around the birth
of a child, it comes across a certain way. And
I'm not the only person to think this. In fact,
this was not the first thing I thought of in
the movie. But when talking with one of my coworkers

(40:19):
who saw it after this coworker teaches Bible, particularly systematic theology,
and in the systematic theology class when they begin to
study human life. One of the things that he said
was the scene where Read and Sue they sort of

(40:40):
use her powers. I think you'll probably remember this scene.
It's been a little over a week, I guess, since
I've seen it. But if you recall the scene where
Sue sort of uses her powers because she can turn
invisible to sort of show Read the baby in the womb,
it's a really jarring scene, right, and she sort of
can use her powers and you see the child forming

(41:03):
in the womb. And my coworker said he absolutely cannot
wait for this film to become widely available because he
fully intends to show that scene as a way of
introducing the discussion of human life, and of course, adjacent
to that is the question of abortion and those sorts
of topics that you ultimately get into, which are very
very hot button topics right now. But my coworker found

(41:27):
that particular scene emotionally very powerful for those discussions, and
so that's just one way that you know, somebody who's
not me, but who is involved in, you know, teaching
the Bible and things like that, saw the film and
said that is a great way. That is a great
way to move into this conversation about these kinds of

(41:48):
theological topics and concerns and things like that. And it's
also worth pointing out that after he saw that and
we had that conversation, I said, you know, I don't
I understand where he's coming from. I don't necessarily know
that I would ascribe that to the film. I don't
necessarily know that I would see it as deeply tied

(42:10):
to serving that purpose as he did. And so I
started looking. I thought, you know, let's see if there's
other people who have other critics of the reviewers who
have seen the film and have sort of caught the
same observations. And sure enough, it was a very quick
Google search I did find one, and I jotted the
quote down, and the quote is this, I'll read it.

(42:31):
The film is shockingly pro life, which I definitely didn't
have on my BINGO card, even going to the point
of showing an unborn child inside a womb in a
way that is tremendously humanizing, and that reviewer whose quote
I just read actually didn't really like the whole film.
They didn't really like the movie as a whole, but
that scene, whatever reason, resonated with them and they kind

(42:55):
of came to the conclusion this is kind of a
you know, weirdly pro life and so that I think
is a really good example of a scene in the
movie outside of you know, the whole messianic imagery that
sort of a thing. Because we're always talking I feels
like on this podcast about you know, the mythological angle,
that is a very humanized scene in the film that

(43:16):
several people have seen said, that's a really interesting entry
point into this discussion over here. But I think in
that context we have to be very careful and not
say that, well, the filmmakers were very intentionally sitting down
to make a movie about this and to make it
extremely conservative and to make it because I don't think

(43:38):
at all that's what that's what was happening. It just
so happened that because they're playing with the mesianic imagery,
because they're playing with these mythological ideas, that they of
course would end up including some kind of scene that
comes across in that way. Because all of those themes overlap.
There is something sacred about human life, and when you
begin to tap into mythological image, you cannot help but

(44:02):
to start to go in those directions. And this is
what we've talked about before on this podcast, where you
can have a world that is in the throes of sin,
that is in the throes of darkness and wanting nothing
to do with the Gospel, and yet in the stories
we tell there exists echoes of eden. There exists a

(44:25):
clear bend, especially in these stories which lean heavily into mythology,
and comic book movies do that all of the time,
when it leans into the power of myth and the
mythic imagery that of course is all throughout the Bible.
We've said a million times before on here when we
say myth in these conversations, we don't mean myth i
e fate. We're not scientific. We're saying mythic in the

(44:49):
sense of there are common threads, common images, common motifs
that transcend culture, that transsind periods of time. There are
certain recurring design patterns, what we might call motifs, what
in literature is sometimes called archetypes, and the Bible has

(45:09):
them as well. In theological studies, we just talk about typology. Right,
You read the story of Isaac and you go Then
you read the story of Jesus and you go, oh,
they're kind of similar. You read the story of Moses
and you read the story of Jesus and you go, ah,
they're kind of similar. And of course, in biblical studies
and biblical theology, we would say those stories are anticipating Christ,

(45:29):
they're pointing toward Christ. The New Testament writers come along
and explain that, the writer of Hebrews will come along
and explain that, and then on the flip side to that,
you'll have these stories we continue to tell today, like
Franklin Richards being Born, that you look at and kind
of go, it's a little messianic. It's kind of like
that Jesus story back there, and you can't get away

(45:52):
from that the allusions, if you will. So outside of that,
for once, here we have an example of a very
you know, humanized portrayal of a child inside the womb
that really does come across as a certain way. And
I think that's a pretty interesting angle into that conversation.

Speaker 1 (46:12):
And like you're saying, I don't think that the filmmakers
are trying to make political statements, but the way that
they portray the Fantastic Four is very much like this
nuclear family and the parents love one another and it's
you know, their family has its up and ups and downs,
but they love one another. It's not this dark, like
you said, gritty tone where everyone's orphaned or they're trying

(46:34):
to make a created family or something like that. So
I did think that for a blockbuster that was different
from the norm these days, kind of like when we
talked about and Or Andrew's going that dark, gritty route,
it's not this okay, this is and were they trying
to do that with that kind of stylized nineteen fifties
vibe to the film. Did they think that, well, this

(46:57):
was kind of like this retro thing, so we'll go
for a t be of the family.

Speaker 2 (47:01):
Perhaps. Yeah. It's one of those where I wish the
filmmakers would be a little more forthcoming, and maybe in
years to come in interviews and things like that, they will.
I always try to be very careful ascribing to a movie,
you know, intentionality in what is being done if it
is not explicit in the narrative, and I think, you know,

(47:24):
you're going to get some varying mileage in terms of
who thinks, you know, this is sort of explicit and
the film is intentionally doing this. But what can be
said is that the film does include this kind of
a thing. It doesn't really make some political statement on it,
and yet the imagery is there and speaks for itself.
Whether or not that was intentional on the part of
the filmmaker is almost it's almost a different conversation. But

(47:48):
when it comes to questions of intentionality and is that
the point of what you're looking at, you know, you're
sort of gonna have to say, well, sort of, having
the person who made it sitting here talking to me,
I won't be able to say for sure one way
or the other. So always be careful when ascribing intentionality
if you can't find an interview or something like that
where the writer the filmmaker talks about it. But beyond that, yeah,

(48:11):
I mean, I think you're absolutely right. It does seem
to be a very tame. I will use the word
conservative not to make any sort of political statement, but
because the word itself detached from the political sphere, it's
a good word for explaining the film's approach. To the
family for explaining their approach to the world that they've built.

(48:35):
It is quite conservative in a lot of ways.

Speaker 1 (48:39):
What do you think that this film means for the
whole Prvel franchise, because you know, like you noted other Well,
first of all, the franchise, you know, it has its
different ups and down. Some of its films have been
more successful and it's TV shows and others have been
kind of bombs. I mean, we were talking about the

(49:00):
Marvel film of Fantastic Four from twenty fifteen that's totally
bombed and was received very poorly. So do you think
that this rejuvenates the brand? And actually I was reading
a piece somewher and I can't remember where where they
were saying, it's not that people don't like superhero movies,
it's just that moviegoers want to see good movies, and

(49:21):
some of the superhero movies we've been seeing are not
very good movies.

Speaker 2 (49:25):
Yeah, I think that's probably the better thing to say,
And we've talked about that a little bit here where
they're you'll sort of get these ideas of franchise fatigue
that float around out there. But then you look at
the money that a Jurassic World is making you look
at the money that a Superman or a Fantastic Four
is making you go, Oh, it's if people are burned

(49:46):
out on franchises, they picked a weird time to show
up in droves, then pay all of this money. I mean,
people have spent a lot of money going to the
movies in the month of July twenty twenty five, and
all of the big blockbusters are franchise movies. So you know,
it's not so much franchise fatigue I think as it
is just bad movie fatigue, which has always sort of

(50:07):
been the case. I think there's certainly a room within
that conversation to say, Okay, too much, too soon is
not the best idea, i e. Star Wars. But it's
not that people are just abandoning franchises left and right.
That's not happening. As far as what this means for
the MCU as a whole, I don't think it's any

(50:28):
stretch to say that since the last film of that
original storytelling arc, The Endgame or whatever it's called, those movies,
the MCU has kind of been in a bit of
a slump. There's a sense of which, you know, they
haven't really had a solid direction. I know that they
had a big villain that they were trying to push

(50:50):
as the next Thanos. But then there was you know,
behind the scenes, real world stuff where he was arrested
or something like that. I hope I didn't get that wrong.
I just know that there was major drama. There were
accusations against him, and they dropped him. Long story stort.
He was no longer the big bad They had to
come up with a new one. And the new one

(51:10):
is Doctor Doom, who is a fantastic word character and
is now apparently played by Robert Downey Junior, who used
to play Iron Man. So that there's a lot of
you know, speculation surrounding that.

Speaker 1 (51:24):
Is that who you're talking about?

Speaker 2 (51:25):
No, no, no, no, Jonathan Majors. It was Jonathan Majors
who was originally slated to play Kang the Conqueror, And
you know, he appeared in one or two of the
movies he was. I think he appeared in Ant Man
and the Wasp one of those, and then I think
maybe he was in Low Key. But if I recall correctly,

(51:45):
it was a couple of years ago as all these
movies were coming out. It was the year that all
that was coming out, he was arrested for physical assault.
He was tried that year and you know, found guilty.
I think it was on misdemeanor accounts, and he was
dropped from numerous projects, including any future involvement with the MCU.
So they were very intentionally setting up at the King

(52:07):
as the new villain. And then in the middle of
all of that, after the ball had started rolling, all
of that happened and they dropped him, so they had
to have a new direction, and that kept them in
a slump for a few years. But now that it
looks like they finally got doctor Doom as their big bad,
they're going to set that up. Fantastic four obviously plays
a huge role in that. So I do think in

(52:28):
that sense, this new film, the Fantastic for It does
sort of harold, if not a new beginning, it harolds
maybe a bit of a resurgence in the MCU. The
question is will the audience be there for it? And
I don't know that the audience. I don't know that
those movies will ever find the audience that they had formerly.
With that original batch of twenty some films leading up

(52:52):
to an Infinity War, an Endgame and all of that,
but it certainly if the films going forward can maintain
the quality of this one, I think that it probably
bodes well for them. Well.

Speaker 1 (53:04):
Finally, on I don't know that I would say it's
a lighter note, but an adjacent note for Cole, I
would like to ask him about the comic books, because
we were talking about earlier in this podcast that more
people will see this film than read the comic books.
So I think for some parents that have fond memories
of you know, picking up a comic book, you know,

(53:26):
old school, in a comic book store or something like that,
what would you recommend for Marvel? Would it be starting
here with a Fantastic four or something else that maybe
we can get some younger kids who aren't interested in
reading more excited about reading by picking up a comic book.
And also are they appropriate? We talked about how this
film is appropriate. I just don't know enough about comic

(53:48):
books to know are those you know, PG thirteen, PG rated.

Speaker 2 (53:52):
R as far as you know if you're trying to
get into Marvel. So here's how I'll answer this. There
are certain key iconic story arcs in comic books period,
and most casual comic book readers will have read the

(54:12):
major arcs in DC. It would be something like, you
know the death of Superman, or you know the crisis
events in Marvel, the death of Gwynn Stacy spider Man.
There again, there are just certain arcs that people know
because they have a very legendary status. But as far
as starting with Marvel, I would say two things. I

(54:38):
would say one, and this is the advice I usually give.
Don't go in looking for an arc because that varies.
Certain things people like more than others. My advice has
always been to find a writer that you like. There
are so many writers in comic books, and they're always
moving off of different books and onto others, and so

(54:59):
in the comic book world we call them runs. You
know John Burn's run on Superman, Scott Snyder's run on Batman,
and that's just the Batman story as told by that rider. Now, yes,
Tom King, for example, will come along after Scott Snyder
and he will do Batman completely differently, And don't really
worry too much about the continuity between their runs. There's

(55:19):
going to be some, there might not be. It's just
part of how it goes. So my advice has always
been to find a writer that you like and read
that writer's stuff, go to some of those books and
read their runs on some of those books. And I
would say with Marvel, Brian Michael Bindis is a very

(55:40):
well known Marvel comic book writer that you could check out.
As far as since we're talking about Fantastic Four, they're
a handful of very iconic Fantastic Four runs. Mark Malar,
I l Lar, Mark Malar's run on Fantastic Four, Dan
Slott's run on Fantastic for Mark Wade is another very

(56:03):
well known comic book writer. Waid, Jonathan Hickman John Byrne
also had a Fantastic for run. So it's again all
of those really well known creators hot books. So my
advice is to find a writer that you like and
follow their titles well.

Speaker 1 (56:22):
Thanks Cole for being a guest again on the Postmodern
Realities podcast.

Speaker 2 (56:27):
Always a Pleasure. Thank you.

Speaker 1 (56:30):
You've been listening to episode four hundred and fifty seven
of the Postmodern Realities podcast. Today's guest was Cole Brigette.
He has written a film review for the Christian Research
Journal and his review is called Family First, a film
review of the Fantastic Four First Steps and You can

(56:51):
read Cole's review completely free without a paywall at equip
dot org. You won't want to miss out on subscribing
to the other podcasts from the Christian Research Institute. We
have the Bible answer Man podcast, which is published Monday
through Friday, with the best of the week on Saturday.

(57:11):
It's hosted by CRI President Hank Handagraph and is available
wherever you get your favorite podcasts. In addition, Hank has
a podcast called Hank Unplugged. Hank takes you out of
the studio and into his study to engage in free flowing,
essential Christian conversations on critical issues with some of the
most interesting, informative and inspirational people on the planet. And

(57:36):
you won't want to miss out on the brand new
podcast from the Christian Research Journal. Christian Research Journal Reads
presents audio versions of Christian Research Journal articles. It was
a print incarnation of almost forty five years. It's now
on the web as you know, with new articles every
single week, so you won't want to miss these audio

(57:58):
articles of some of our most popular and most accessed
articles on our website equip dot org.