Along with these changes will it include making Thing look right?

[Agent 194]

Sure I'd love to see the Fantasti-Car and all the Kirby-esque machinery we were promised but wasn't delivered. I'd love to see it really put in that world that Kirby and Lee created. And for the record I'm really not convinced it can be done unless they go the Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow route. (Has anyone watched that and not imagined what Marvel could co differently/better besides me?)

But at any rate, as I've exhaustively complained and explained many times in the past--why not this time around, make the Thing look the way he's suposed to look like? With the heavy brow, make his nose dissapear to just a little blip, and round out the corners of his eyes. All of these things are possible and go a long way to making it not look like another Howard the Duck movie.

Please do this one right Fox execs. You vetoed these good changes to the last one. Listen to somebody who knows now.

[The Thing 2005]

Sure I'd love to see the Fantasti-Car and all the Kirby-esque machinery we were promised but wasn't delivered. I'd love to see it really put in that world that Kirby and Lee created. And for the record I'm really not convinced it can be done unless they go the Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow route. (Has anyone watched that and not imagined what Marvel could co differently/better besides me?)

But at any rate, as I've exhaustively complained and explained many times in the past--why not this time around, make the Thing look the way he's suposed to look like? With the heavy brow, make his nose dissapear to just a little blip, and round out the corners of his eyes. All of these things are possible and go a long way to making it not look like another Howard the Duck movie.

Please do this one right Fox execs. You vetoed these good changes to the last one. Listen to somebody who knows now.

Big brow ? Small nose ? Unless you're making The Thing cg, isn't happening. Chilkis will be in that thing again. The head should look the same. They can work on the hands, and the body, but you can't take away from the emotions of the face. And if you gave him a big brow you'd take away from that. As far as a button nose, I don't think Chilkisis nose is that small. So the head stays as is.

[TigerClaw]

Its very dificult to bring comic book characters into real life due to certain reality rules, Stuff like this can easily be achieved with CGI, But when you have an actor in full costume, Its pretty much hard to get the same exact look you see in the comics, Cause the comic book versions always have the exaggerated looks to them.

[The Thing 2005]

Its very dificult to bring comic book characters into real life due to certain reality rules, Stuff like this can easily be achieved with CGI, But when you have an actor in full costume, Its pretty much hard to get the same exact look you see in the comics, Cause the comic book versions always have the exaggerated looks to them.

Yup. Well said.:)

[adamcz]

Doing a drastic costume change for Thing is no different than re-casting Jessica Alba as Invsible Woman. Maybe neither character was as good as it could have possibly been, but now that a look has been established, we should ride it out. I hate re-casting.

[The Thing 2005]

Doing a drastic costume change for Thing is no different than re-casting Jessica Alba as Invsible Woman. Maybe neither character was as good as it could have possibly been, but now that a look has been established, we should ride it out. I hate re-casting.

:up:

[Mr. Socko]

Thing was just fine for me.

[blueraja]

I dont have a problem with the things appearance, it reminds me of old lumpy Thing from the early issues of the comic. I would hope that eventually he will evolve into the ever loving blue eyed thing we all know from the more modern comics. You have to think that they have at least tested out new prosthetics to try and achieve the look.:thing:

[terry78]

If he continues to evolve over time, then I would think they'd enhance him a tad, perhaps with CG. I always felt that personally they should've went the Gollum route with him, but the costume they used does work. If they choose that route this around, Chiklis will still be able to play Grimm on the set, they'd just be adding in f/x afterwards.

[Malus]

If he continues to evolve over time, then I would think they'd enhance him a tad, perhaps with CG. I always felt that personally they should've went the Gollum route with him, but the costume they used does work. If they choose that route this around, Chiklis will still be able to play Grimm on the set, they'd just be adding in f/x afterwards.

Ditto to all that.
And y'know, thanks to that happy-dopey ending of the first FF movie ("I'm fine as is." :eek:WTF? :mad: ) Ben needs a reason to hate being the Thing again.

Waking up to a few new mutations would be just the ticket.

I can just hear Reed's voice in the trailer:
"Ben..The transformation isn't complete...You're still changing."
And Ben's: "It ain't over." (and we see Ben smashing a mirror...)

That would really kick up the audience's perception of Ben's tragedy...Give it an urgency...He doesn't know how bad it's going to get...and neither does the audience (for the most part).

In my opinion, Ben must evolve further.
I LOVE Michael Chiklis' performance. I LOVE how he brought Ben to life through the "early Thing" make-up...
But Ben did continue to change, growing subtly more monstrous, over the first 50 issues of the FF comic. It was sort of an unspoken development in the comic (owing more to Jack Kirby's continuing refinement of the character than conscious creative decision) but that 50-issue slow change could be quite dramatic over the course of 3 or 4 movies.

This is my greatest hope for the franchise.

[w@llcrawler]

Ditto to all that.
And y'know, thanks to that happy-dopey ending of the first FF movie ("I'm fine as is." :eek:WTF? :mad: ) Ben needs a reason to hate being the Thing again.

Waking up to a few new mutations would be just the ticket.

I can just hear Reed's voice in the trailer:
"Ben..The transformation isn't complete...You're still changing."
And Ben's: "It ain't over." (and we see Ben smashing a mirror...)

That would really kick up the audience's perception of Ben's tragedy...Give it an urgency...He doesn't know how bad it's going to get...and neither does the audience (for the most part).

In my opinion, Ben must evolve further.
I LOVE Michael Chiklis' performance. I LOVE how he brought Ben to life through the "early Thing" make-up...
But Ben did continue to change, growing subtly more monstrous, over the first 50 issues of the FF comic. It was sort of an unspoken development in the comic (owing more to Jack Kirby's continuing refinement of the character than conscious creative decision) but that 50-issue slow change could be quite dramatic over the course of 3 or 4 movies.

This is my greatest hope for the franchise.

Mine, too! And it could be done to great effect if they keep his head done in makeup (for emoting) and do the body CG so they can make it wider, more massive in the arms and legs. And less neck! I just didn't get a sense of the power the Thing is supposed to have from the first movie. Doom should not be able to handle Grimm that way! Here's my vote for a bigger, more powerful Thing in FF2!

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Big brow ? Small nose ? Unless you're making The Thing cg, isn't happening. Chilkis will be in that thing again. The head should look the same. They can work on the hands, and the body, but you can't take away from the emotions of the face. And if you gave him a big brow you'd take away from that. As far as a button nose, I don't think Chilkisis nose is that small. So the head stays as is.God, do you people just enjoy living in denial so much?:confused:

Things can be done.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/grinchface.jpg

Those ^ are not normal human facial proportions and his face was plenty expressive.

[terry78]

Only thing is, The Thing is not that tall, but he's a wide ass muther****er. Like not being able to fit through doors wide. That type of costume would be difficult to move around in. Hence the need for post f/x work.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Only thing is, The Thing is not that tall, but he's a wide ass muther****er. Like not being able to fit through doors wide. That type of costume would be difficult to move around in. Hence the need for post f/x work.Hey, I wanted him to be completely CGI like Gollum or King Kong because the THING does not have human proportions. That's why the real Thing look's so cool and the movie Thing looks like a rubber burn victim made of corn pops. I have never, ever NEVER seen any artist draw him the way he looked in the movie, at least Spider-Man and Batman and Hellboy and Ghost Rider and Superman TRIED.

The Brow is a major part of the Thing's look and not having the brow was exactly like if they made Batman Begins but took off his pointy ears because they look too "cartoony" or because "some things look cool on the page but don't translate well to real life." ( believe me, I've heard 'em all. :( ).

My Grinch comment was just directed to these people who say "He has to be Chiklis in make-up, and make-up can't have a brow and button-nose."

They're just plain wrong.

One of the main reasons he should've been CGI is that his hide is supposed to look like rock, but rock can't move at the joints.
Just by moving at the joints, it will look rubbery, like human skin.
But with CGI, the could've mathmatically fudged the motion at the joints, made it more like individual scales, like a suit of rock armor, which could never've been done with a suit, as far as facial expression especially.

If anything, making him rubber made him LESS expressive, like Godzilla, because now you have a man under inches of goopy latex trying to exaggerate his features to get acting through the rubber.

God people are so stupid. :(

[celldog]

I want to see the Baxter Building look like the one in the comics. I also want the inside of it to look like the research facility it's always been. Heck the X-Men movie has their sub-basement looking like the Baxter "should" look. The metallic walls and floors etc......

The FF looked like a loft apartment!! Not very FF -ish!!

[Mr. Socko]

Well having The Thing be CG is the best answer. But the suit is definitely cheaper, I don't know if they were thinking of budget for a CG thing when they made it or not. I do know alot of people want the monobrow for Thing, I'll be find with that. But a huge load of changes are not needed, then again, I guess I really wouldn't care because I am just fine with the current thing.

[Lightning Strykez!]

If he continues to evolve over time, then I would think they'd enhance him a tad, perhaps with CG. I always felt that personally they should've went the Gollum route with him, but the costume they used does work. If they choose that route this around, Chiklis will still be able to play Grimm on the set, they'd just be adding in f/x afterwards.


Agreed.:up:

[Grog]

Even the costume designers wanted to give Ben his more traditional look when he transformed back into the Thing in the mutation chamber late in the plot, but Fox poo pooed it. Designing the suit to look like the comic thing was not the issue or a problem as WS states, they wanted to make him look "realistic" hence the burn look. With apologies to Doom fans, for me, this was the single biggest bummer of the film. Like most of you, I hold out a faint hope that things (pun) get righted in FF2. Maybe they could have Alicia as a sculptress carve him a brow since in the deleted scenes she pretty much cleans him like a sculpture anyway?

[Angelus7181]

Hey, I wanted him to be completely CGI like Gollum or King Kong because the THING does not have human proportions. That's why the real Thing look's so cool and the movie Thing looks like a rubber burn victim made of corn pops. I have never, ever NEVER seen any artist draw him the way he looked in the movie, at least Spider-Man and Batman and Hellboy and Ghost Rider and Superman TRIED.

The Brow is a major part of the Thing's look and not having the brow was exactly like if they made Batman Begins but took off his pointy ears because they look too "cartoony" or because "some things look cool on the page but don't translate well to real life." ( believe me, I've heard 'em all. :( ).

My Grinch comment was just directed to these people who say "He has to be Chiklis in make-up, and make-up can't have a brow and button-nose."

They're just plain wrong.

One of the main reasons he should've been CGI is that his hide is supposed to look like rock, but rock can't move at the joints.
Just by moving at the joints, it will look rubbery, like human skin.
But with CGI, the could've mathmatically fudged the motion at the joints, made it more like individual scales, like a suit of rock armor, which could never've been done with a suit, as far as facial expression especially.

If anything, making him rubber made him LESS expressive, like Godzilla, because now you have a man under inches of goopy latex trying to exaggerate his features to get acting through the rubber.

God people are so stupid. :(


Yeah because the CGI rout worked so well with the Hulk. :down :rolleyes:

[terry78]

^It was the only way they could do it. I don't want to see Hulk one piece at a time or them having to use camera trickery to showcase him moving.

[Angelus7181]

^It was the only way they could do it. I don't want to see Hulk one piece at a time or them having to use camera trickery to showcase him moving.

True the Hulk is pretty huge compared to the Thing. Stuffing a guy in a rubber suit wouldn't have worked either but they could have gone with the Jurassic park effect combind with some CGI. But for the thing... all they needed to do was cast someone taller and bigger who can actually act.. but IMO Michael Chiklis potraid the Thing so well it's no longer an issue for the some of us.

[tecnowraith]

If they can make The Thing look like this with low budget make-up
http://www.moviecompound.com/reviews/images/fantastic4b.jpg

Than they should have enough do the same with a bigger budget.

[Pickle-El]

If they can make The Thing look like this with low budget make-up
http://www.moviecompound.com/reviews/images/fantastic4b.jpg

Than they should have enough do the same with a bigger budget.


That looks like a loaf.....A REALLY ugly one.

[Kelly]

If they can make The Thing look like this with low budget make-up
http://www.moviecompound.com/reviews/images/fantastic4b.jpg

Than they should have enough do the same with a bigger budget.

Looks like the creature from the black lagoon...

[Kirby&Ditko]

Wow, thanks for posting the shot of the Corman Thing, I had forgotten how horrible that looked, and proves that a mechanical mask is NOT the way to go.

Hellboy showed us that a true comic to film make-up can be done, the Grinch photo is a good example of the smaller nose working, and there have been lots of make-up with heavy brows that worked fine. It can be done, it's just a matter of the studio and M.C. letting the make-up guys do it.

And PLEASE stop falling back on the lame "lack of expression" excuse. Hollywood has been gluing rubber on actors faces for over 60 years with NO loss of expression [look at everything from the Wizard of Oz to the examples above].

[Wilhelm-Scream]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/thing.jpg


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/Adult_The_Thing_Fantastic_Four_Cost.jpg

[The Thing 2005]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/thing.jpg




The ONLY way you would get that look would either make The Thing completly cg, or do a heck of a lot of work in post production. So lets face it. Chilkis will in the suit, therefore I can guarantee, he won't look like that. They may indeed do some redesigning, but forget that look. Allthough I love that look of The Thing ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[The Thing 2005]

If they can make The Thing look like this with low budget make-up
http://www.moviecompound.com/reviews/images/fantastic4b.jpg

Than they should have enough do the same with a bigger budget.

Looks like something dug up from the bottom of the ocean.:down

[Agent 194]

Well, despite what the general consensus is-I think they can and should make him look more like the Thing. Why not improve the recipe of what I thought was not that well done as it could have been? I still say if they can make that Hellboy look good then do it for the Thing. I think his rock hand looked better than the Thing's prosthetic suit.

And still I say,...I think more of the way to bring the FF we all grew up reading. . .in all it's incarnations....even the Ultimate which I disagree with....but any version could benefit from having a Sky Captain World of Tomorrow approach. I was aware that every frame in that movie was CGI but man what a cool movie that totally sucked me in.

Blip of a nose, heavy brow, more articulated hands,flatter looking feet (look at what they got away with Nightcrawler--you hardly saw his feet). . .I think his height is fine....the Thing I love was never 9 feet tall.

[Agent 194]

Wow, thanks for posting the shot of the Corman Thing, I had forgotten how horrible that looked, and proves that a mechanical mask is NOT the way to go.

Hellboy showed us that a true comic to film make-up can be done, the Grinch photo is a good example of the smaller nose working, and there have been lots of make-up with heavy brows that worked fine. It can be done, it's just a matter of the studio and M.C. letting the make-up guys do it.

And PLEASE stop falling back on the lame "lack of expression" excuse. Hollywood has been gluing rubber on actors faces for over 60 years with NO loss of expression [look at everything from the Wizard of Oz to the examples above].

You go boy-ee...I'm with you all the way.

[terry78]

The Thing is not a scarecrow or a lion.

[Agent 194]

God, do you people just enjoy living in denial so much?:confused:

Things can be done.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/grinchface.jpg

Those ^ are not normal human facial proportions and his face was plenty expressive.

and I'm with you too brother.

[Agent 194]

The Thing is not a scarecrow or a lion.

Agreed. Still can be done though. Don't care what anyone says.

[Kelly]

Sure I'd love to see the Fantasti-Car and all the Kirby-esque machinery we were promised but wasn't delivered. I'd love to see it really put in that world that Kirby and Lee created. And for the record I'm really not convinced it can be done unless they go the Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow route. (Has anyone watched that and not imagined what Marvel could co differently/better besides me?)

But at any rate, as I've exhaustively complained and explained many times in the past--why not this time around, make the Thing look the way he's suposed to look like? With the heavy brow, make his nose dissapear to just a little blip, and round out the corners of his eyes. All of these things are possible and go a long way to making it not look like another Howard the Duck movie.

Please do this one right Fox execs. You vetoed these good changes to the last one. Listen to somebody who knows now.

Your post sounds like the entire movie hinges on Things nose and brow....

i have a list of things they need to work on and change, and noses and brows are at the bottom at the moment...

http://www.superherohype.com/forums/showthread.php?t=218962&page=5

[Willie Lumpkin]

There seem to be three primary reasons not to have the traditional brow/nose:

1. MC couldn't breath in such a mask.

2. MC's acting won't come through.

3. It looks too "cartoony".


1. MC couldn't breath in such a mask. The Grinch, Planet of the apes, Chewbacca http://www.501st.com.br/peterb1.jpg and others have shown it can be done. You can just route breathing holes through the mouth.


2. MC's acting won't come through. I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. I thought his face was, if anything, too expressive in the first film. The hard, rocky plates shouldn't bend so easily, and his expressions should be limited. That's part of the character. He's trapped behind a rocky mask. Again using the example of Chewbacca, Peter Mayhew couldn't do much more than open and close his mouth and move his eyes. Yet, without any dialogue, the character expressed a great deal of emotion.


3. It looks too "cartoony". This is the "official" reason they they didn't use a larger brow. I can see the point to some extent. A difficult task of the first film was to convince a skeptical audience that these characters could actually be real. The lack of a brow also makes him look more human and more tragic. Those factors work for the first film, but can be re-worked for the second film.

In the second film, we already know and believe in the characters. Ben should also be getting used to himself and be more fun and less tragic than he was in the first film.



Considering these points, I don't see any reason why they can't give us a look more conistant with all but a few issues. It's purely a matter of choice.

[Dope Nose]

From Sideshow Collectibles -

http://www.actionfigureinsider.com/news/images/SideshowThingBust.jpg

[Casius--J]

I didnt really have a prob with his look in the first film i thought it was a good way of translating a cartoony character into live action. Although i dont think a bigger brow would do too much harm, and like everyones said it can be explained through him still evolving.

[Kelly]

There seem to be three primary reasons not to have the traditional brow/nose:

1. MC couldn't breath in such a mask.

2. MC's acting won't come through.

3. It looks too "cartoony".


1. MC couldn't breath in such a mask. The Grinch, Planet of the apes, Chewbacca http://www.501st.com.br/peterb1.jpg and others have shown it can be done. You can just route breathing holes through the mouth.


2. MC's acting won't come through. I'm not convinced this is a bad thing. I thought his face was, if anything, too expressive in the first film. The hard, rocky plates shouldn't bend so easily, and his expressions should be limited. That's part of the character. He's trapped behind a rocky mask. Again using the example of Chewbacca, Peter Mayhew couldn't do much more than open and close his mouth and move his eyes. Yet, without any dialogue, the character expressed a great deal of emotion.


3. It looks too "cartoony". This is the "official" reason they they didn't use a larger brow. I can see the point to some extent. A difficult task of the first film was to convince a skeptical audience that these characters could actually be real. The lack of a brow also makes him look more human and more tragic. Those factors work for the first film, but can be re-worked for the second film.

In the second film, we already know and believe in the characters. Ben should also be getting used to himself and be more fun and less tragic than he was in the first film.



Considering these points, I don't see any reason why they can't give us a look more conistant with all but a few issues. It's purely a matter of choice.

According to Spectral they are making changes to the suit as we speak, and some of those changes may be what ya'll are asking for....

[Willie Lumpkin]

According to Spectral they are making changes to the suit as we speak, and some of those changes may be what ya'll are asking for....

:eek: Where did you see that? Any more info.?

[The Thing 2005]

According to Spectral they are making changes to the suit as we speak, and some of those changes may be what ya'll are asking for....

They may make changes to the suit and hands but not the head. If they did, as I said before you would lose much of the expression, which is what made Chilkis's performance so awsome. And he'll do better this time, because he's had practice . They can't make the head with the big brow, and button nose.

[Kelly]

They may make changes to the suit and hands but not the head. If they did, as I said before you would lose much of the expression, which is what made Chilkis's performance so awsome. And he'll do better this time, because he's had practice . They can't make the head with the big brow, and button nose.

We don't know that Thingy...we aren't the experts here....I'll wait and say what changes are made AFTER THE EXPERTS have made the changes.:o

[The Thing 2005]

We don't know that Thingy...we aren't the experts here....I'll wait and say what changes are made AFTER THE EXPERTS have made the changes.:o

One major change I would make would be his hands, they were too big and awkard. He couldn't make a fist with them, they were so big. They were too big for the rest of his body. The scene at the end when he comes busting thru the wall and clobbers Doom, he had his hand in a fist. Don't know how they did that. Mabey post production. I still feel more could have been done in post production with the suit. When he was pulling the fire truck, his right arm looked so skinny. So yes, the suit needs to be worked on. Mabey for the DC. Story said they we're finishing up for the DVD.

[Kelly]

One major change I would make would be his hands, they were too big and awkard. He couldn't make a fist with them, they were so big. They were too big for the rest of his body. The scene at the end when he comes busting thru the wall and clobbers Doom, he had his hand in a fist. Don't know how they did that. Mabey post production. I still feel more could have been done in post production with the suit. When he was pulling the fire truck, his arms looked so skinny. So yes, the suit needs to be worked on. Mabey for the DC. Story said they we're finishing up for the DVD.

Hands....I agree...

[Willie Lumpkin]

I thought the hands should have been bigger.:o

But you're right, they didn't work. I'd make the hands a little bigger and try to come up with better actuators to move them. With some time, effort and MONEY, they can also clean up spots where the hands don't look right with CGI.

[The Thing 2005]

I thought the hands should have been bigger.:o

But you're right, they didn't work. I'd make the hands a little bigger and try to come up with better actuators to move them. With some time, effort and MONEY, they can also clean up spots where the hands don't look right with CGI.

That's what I said, more could have and should have been done in post production. Bigger ? They were too big as it was. lol. On a side note. Saw Ice Age 2 yesterday. Been a long time since i've laughed that hard. It was great.

[Kelly]

That's what I said, more could have and should have been done in post production. Bigger ? They were too big as is lol.

They didn't give themselves enough time.....when you are filming a portion of the bridge scene in April theres a problem...thats why I'm not happy with the time schedule this time either....but when you are having to work with people and their TV schedule I guess you have to make due with what ya got...

[The Thing 2005]

They didn't give themselves enough time.....when you are filming a portion of the bridge scene in April theres a problem...thats why I'm not happy with the time schedule this time either....but when you are having to work with people and their TV schedule I guess you have to make due with what ya got...

Don't think it will be as much of an issue this time. The software is complete, the've worked with it thru 1 movie, and that will make a difference. I'm sure the've been tinkering and refining it all this time.

[Kelly]

Don't think it will be as much of an issue this time. The software is complete, the've worked with it thru 1 movie, and that will make a difference. I'm sure the've been tinkering and refining it all this time.

I think they've been spending all their time on X-men 3....Ralph Winters is the one in charge of all of that....and he's been working on X-men 3, not worrying about the F4 sequel. Also, the same people that worked on some of the cgi are not the same people this time around.

[The Thing 2005]

I think they've been spending all their time on X-men 3....Ralph Winters is the one in charge of all of that....and he's been working on X-men 3, not worrying about the F4 sequel. Also, the same people that worked on some of the cgi are not the same people this time around.

Guess we'll just have to wait till it all falls out, and keep out fingers crossed that it all goes well. :up:

[Kelly]

Guess we'll just have to wait till it all falls out, and keep out fingers crossed that it all goes well. :up:

Thats my usual stand on things...

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I think the only changes they're making to the suit are so that it'll be easier for Chiklis to use the restroom. :)

[The Thing 2005]

I think the only changes they're making to the suit are so that it'll be easier for Chiklis to use the restroom. :)

LOL. A little flap, like the pj's I used to have when I was a kid ? :p Can you imagine if you had to take a wicked dump in the middle of a scene ? I mean 1 of those big old jucy ones ? :eek: Or crapping inside that suit ? Always thought how the heck does he take a dump in that thing ? My goodness. We still all own MC a big round of applause, and a big thank you. He went thru hell in that suit for us. Went above and beyond. And there are those who want to make things bigger. That's easy to say when YOU don't have to be in it 12 hours a day. Stick your rear in it, you'd be crying like a little girl after an hour or 2 if that long.

[fangrl06]

Wait...in the title it says: "include making the Thing look right". What's up with that? I thought the entire cast looked great. Now if they could just hire some better writers.....

[The Thing 2005]

Wait...in the title it says: "include making the Thing look right". What's up with that? I thought the entire cast looked great. Now if they could just hire some better writers.....

Some want The Thing to have the large brow, little button nose, ect, ect, and I say nonsense. Work on the hands, and the suit itself, leave the face alone. Cause if they tinker too much, the'll ruin it.

[fangrl06]

Some want The Thing to have the large brow, little button nose, ect, ect, and I say nonsense. Work on the hands, and the suit itself, leave the face alone. Cause if they tinker too much, the'll ruin it.
Yeah. When he was wearing the "Big and Tall" suit he looked like he was right out of the Kirby comics.

[Obi-Ron]

Brow dammit!

[Mr Sensitive]

Yeah, he needs the brow and some CGI enhancements next time.

But no complaint about Chiklis. The guy is a great actor. Lots of respect for him.

[fangrl06]

A Brow's gonna look weird.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

THE THING IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK WEIRD.
He's a freaky, apish M.O.N.S.T.E.R. made out of living ROCK! :rolleyes:

Don't Batman's pointy ears look weird when they wiggle around?
Didn't Hell Boy look weird with those filed down horn-stubs?
Doesn't Reed look weird when he turns into an inner-tube?

Jeez.

Also, inspired by the post above, I want to add that I agree. As far as I know, no one on Earth could've been as perfect to play the Thing as Chiklis was.

That's why I find it all the more depressing, that they had that rare miracle of perfect casting, but got the aesthetics A.L.L. wrong. :(
:mad:


http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/thing.jpg

The ONLY smart thing to do would've been to've had Chiklis be to the Thing as Andy Serkis was to Gollum and King Kong.
And to those that say, "Oh yeah, 'cause the CGI HULK was so great! :rolleyes: "......um, dumb comment.

I never said he should be "just like the Hulk"...in fact, one thing that sucked about the Hulk was a thing that sucked about the Thing. They weren't true to the character. They kept giving the Hulk a baby face and they made him 50 freaking feet tall.

I'm talking about a Gollum/King Kong-quality CGI job.
If they couldn't afford it, then they shouldn't've made the f*** ing movie.
LOTR cost a s***-load too. It also WON OSCARS.......................................F4 ain't winnin' no Oscars. :o

[Agent 194]

Yeah, he needs the brow and some CGI enhancements next time.

But no complaint about Chiklis. The guy is a great actor. Lots of respect for him.

Si Senor, I agree.

[Agent 194]

A Brow's gonna look weird.

No it's not. It's going to look great and look like it's supposed to.

[The Thing 2005]

Look wake up. Chilkis wanted to do The Thing, no cgi. You want The Thing to look like that ? Only way is CGI. Chilkis did a great job, leave him the hell alone, give him smaller hands, but leave his head alone. Why the heck can't people get that thru their head. No cgi, ergo, you get what we got 1st time. Leave the head the hell alone.

[Kelly]

Look wake up. Chilkis wanted to do The Thing, no cgi. You want The Thing to look like that ? Only way is CGI. Chilkis did a great job, leave him the hell alone, give him smaller hands, but leave his head alone. Why the heck can't people get that thru their head. No cgi, ergo, you get what we got 1st time. Leave the head the hell alone.

Geeee.....thats just his thoughts, dang....leave WS the hell alone...LOL....he's had this problem w/ Thing for awhile, he's not going to get it through his head....he has his idea in mind....and you have yours....chill....:cool:

[Agent 194]

That's why I find it all the more depressing, that they had that rare miracle of perfect casting, but got the aesthetics A.L.L. wrong. :(
:mad:

.

and this I say sir is the most eloguently put phrase I've heard all day. Here, here! Hail, hail the gang's all here and the costumes for this party are all wrong.

[Kelly]

and this I say sir is the most eloguently put phrase I've heard all day. Here, here! Hail, hail the gang's all here and the costumes for this party are all wrong.


YOU HEARD THAT?????!!!!!!!!Damn you're good.....;)

[Wilhelm-Scream]

and this I say sir is the most eloguently put phrase I've heard all day. Here, here! Hail, hail the gang's all here and the costumes for this party are all wrong.Okay, I was going to say it earlier, but I'll say it now...People (for over a year ) have asked why I keep "fighting" with people that liked the movie, and why I still harp on the dumb-looking Thing.

But truly, I'm not here just to bicker. It comes as some consolation whenever I see that I'm not the only sane and smart one that can see how badly they botched "THE THING" in the movie, so thanks for being a real "Thing" fan. :up:

[Kelly]

Oooooh lord.....sits down w/ popcorn and diet coke.......

[The Thing 2005]

Okay, I was going to say it earlier, but I'll say it now...People (for over a year ) have asked why I keep "fighting" with people that liked the movie, and why I still harp on the dumb-looking Thing.

But truly, I'm not here just to bicker. It comes as some consolation whenever I see that I'm not the only sane and smart one that can see how badly they botched "THE THING" in the movie, so thanks for being a real "Thing" fan. :up:

Botched ? I beg your ever loving DC pardon. The Thing, the best comic charactor ever created looked good, MC played him to perfection, and if you have blinders on, or if your myopic, or short sighted, then I can't help you.. You hated the movie, you hated The Thing and thats cool, but don't come here and say it was botched. That's an insult to Jack "King" Kirby, who drew The Thing, in case you have forgoten.

[Kelly]

I think the only changes they're making to the suit are so that it'll be easier for Chiklis to use the restroom. :)


And he will be sooooooo grateful!!!:up:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

That's an insult to Jack "King" Kirby, who drew The Thing, in case you have forgoten....UM,...Did you "say" something?



http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/thing-1.gif



http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/Thing-2.gif



http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/thing-3.gif



...you ignorant, disrespectful mule?

You don't know s*** about Kirby. You're not worthy to even type his name on message-boards.

My extreme, insane love for Jack is one of the biggest reasons that I hated the movie.
Try shutting up next time.


It doesn't matter what you say, none of those ^ look like:

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/thing-6.jpg


Kindly get real, dunce. :o

[Kelly]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/Thing-2.gif


As much as i hate using this word, because its SOOOOOOO overused on the hype everywhere!....BUT

That photo is F***** OWNED worthy!

Sincerely, JMAfan:o

[The Thing 2005]

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/Thing-2.gif


As much as i hate using this word, because its SOOOOOOO overused on the hype everywhere!....BUT

That photo is F***** OWNED worthy!

Sincerely, JMAfan:o

I agree. :up:

Un sincerely, :) The Thing.

[Kelly]

I agree. :up:

Un sincerely, :) The Thing.

How can you not agree w/ that thingy....its signed by Jack Kirby....WS has shown you a pic of what he wanted thing to look like.....you said what he wanted wasn't Kirby, he just proved to you it was....he made a point, he found source to prove his point...theres no denying that...

[Mr Sensitive]

Oh, but Thingy will deny it.

Sit with yr coke'n'popcorn, relax and see.

[Malus]

How can you not agree w/ that thingy....its signed by Jack Kirby....WS has shown you a pic of what he wanted thing to look like.....you said what he wanted wasn't Kirby, he just proved to you it was....he made a point, he found source to prove his point...theres no denying that...

Have to agree. Movie Thing looks very little like the beloved comics icon.
He does somewhat resemble the Thing of approx. issues 4-15, but that's it. So while I've sort of made my peace with what we got in FF1, I won't be happy with FF2 if all we get is more of the same.
Ben should definitely evolve further towards the decidedly more unhuman proportions he took on in the FF's heyday. If for no other reason than he needs a fresh reason to hate being the Thing. This can only enhance Chiklis' performance as we experience his horror at mutating further, his humanity seemingly slipping away.
Anyone who has been paying attention to what Hollywood FX shops have been able to achieve in recent years know that this is possible.
I give a big :up: to Michael Chiklis' performance. Her's perfect.
But as a lifelong FF and Kirby fan, I can only give a firm :down to the half-assed Thing make-up of FF1.

Thing and Wilhelm, you guys need to reel in the attitudes. You're both gonna get put in time out if you keep it up. ;)
Thing, when you question a fan's devotion (and respect for KIRBY, for God's sake!) because they don't like the FF1 Thing, that's just obnoxious. You're not fighting any kind of good fight there.
And Wilhelm, I may agree with you, but resorting to name-calling over this just makes you look bad. The pics you chose and your rightful indignation more than made your point.

[Kelly]

Have to agree. Movie Thing looks very little like the beloved comics icon.
He does somewhat resemble the Thing of approx. issues 4-15, but that's it. So while I've sort of made my peace with what we got in FF1, I won't be happy with FF2 if all we get is more of the same.
Ben should definitely evolve further towards the decidedly more unhuman proportions he took on in the FF's heyday. If for no other reason than he needs a fresh reason to hate being the Thing. This can only enhance Chiklis' performance as we experience his horror at mutating further, his humanity seemingly slipping away.
Anyone who has been paying attention to what Hollywood FX shops have been able to achieve in recent years know that this is possible.
I give a big :up: to Michael Chiklis' performance. Her's perfect.
But as a lifelong FF and Kirby fan, I can only give a firm :down to the half-assed Thing make-up of FF1.

Thing and Wilhelm, you guys need to reel in the attitudes. You're both gonna get put in time out if you keep it up. ;)
Thing, when you question a fan's devotion (and respect for KIRBY, for God's sake!) because they don't like the FF1 Thing, that's just obnoxious. You're not fighting any kind of good fight there.
And Wilhelm, I may agree with you, but resorting to name-calling over this just makes you look bad. The pics you chose and your rightful indignation more than made your point.

yeah the name-calling was uncalled for, but yes Thingy needs to not question someone's devotion to a comic...thats not for us to do...the proof is in the pics...nothing deniable there...is deniable a word????

[Malus]

yeah the name-calling was uncalled for, but yes Thingy needs to not question someone's devotion to a comic...thats not for us to do...the proof is in the pics...nothing deniable there...is deniable a word????

It's gotta be if "undeniable" is.
I think.
Sigh. I still have to look up "occasion."
Had to do it again just now.:(

[Kelly]

It's gotta be if "undeniable" is.
I think.
Sigh. I still have to look up "occasion."
Had to do it again just now.:(

LOL....I do that all the time....its ashame some don't take the time...:(

[The Thing 2005]

...UM,...Did you "say" something?



...you ignorant, disrespectful mule?

You don't know s*** about Kirby. You're not worthy to even type his name on message-boards.

My extreme, insane love for Jack is one of the biggest reasons that I hated the movie.
Try shutting up next time.


It doesn't matter what you say, none of those ^ look like:


Kindly get real, dunce. :o

Like I really give a darn what you or anyone else thinks ? I know more in my little pinky then you do in your whole body.Don't be a dork. But then again for you that's a stretch. You and Zero need to both go suck on a tailpipe with the engine running. You don't want to get into name calling with me. These are the idiots you have to deal with here. And I can deal. I gave my opinion, and you want to act like a dipwad.

[Kelly]

:eek: Where did you see that? Any more info.?

No this was in an article a few months back, and information from a guy who's brother did the work I believe on the Invisible Woman...

[Kelly]

Oh, but Thingy will deny it.

Sit with yr coke'n'popcorn, relax and see.

diet coke please.........thank you........

[Lightning Strykez!]

The next person that hurls some insults on this thread will get banned for 2 weeks--no questions asked. Thing and Wilhelm: You want to beat on your chests as to who is the greater FF fan? Fine. Beat on them in PMs because none of us care.

This is my first and last warning to both of you. Now try me.

[The Thing 2005]

The next person that hurls some insults on this thread will get banned for 2 weeks--no questions asked. Thing and Wilhelm: You want to beat on your chests as to who is the greater FF fan? Fine. Beat on them in PMs because none of us care.

This is my first and last warning to both of you. Now try me.

I've said all I have to say for now. But if someone slaps me in the face, the'd better be ready to get slapped back. I don't turn the other cheek. I believe in an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and at 6'6", and 284 pounds, haven't had to use that philosipy in my life, because noone wants to tangle with me.

[Kelly]

I've said all I have to say for now. But if someone slaps me in the face, the'd better be ready to get slapped back. I don't turn the other cheek. I believe in an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and at 6'6", and 284 pounds, haven't had to use that philosipy in my life, because noone wants to tangle with me.


LMAO....oh my goodness....

If that wasn't such a long quote, it would be sig worthy!!!!!!

[Lightning Strykez!]

I've said all I have to say for now. But if someone slaps me in the face, the'd better be ready to get slapped back. I don't turn the other cheek. I believe in an eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth, and at 6'6", and 284 pounds, haven't had to use that philosipy in my life, because noone wants to tangle with me.


Then I suggest you get an attitude adjustment.

There is an art to debate. Learn how to agree to disagree and then walk away. There is never an excuse for hurling insults at your peers--under any circumstances. Do I need to remind you that The Thing (and his brow) is a fictional character, and that he's not related to you in a literal sense?

Flame Wilhelm or anyone else again publicly and you will be banned. And your 6'6, 284 pounds will be unable to stop that--trust me.

[The Thing 2005]

Then I suggest you get an attitude adjustment.

There is an art to debate. Learn how to agree to disagree and then walk away. There is never an excuse for hurling insults at your peers--under any circumstances. Do I need to remind you that The Thing (and his brow) is a fictional character, and that he's not related to you in a literal sense?

Flame Wilhelm or anyone else again publicly and you will be banned. And your 6'6, 284 pounds will be unable to stop that--trust me.

Like I've always said. People here take thenselfes wayyyyyyyyyyy to seriously. And Lightning let me say something here. My boss at my job tells me to stop, I stop. You know why ? Because he could fire me, which means my way of life would be interupted for a time. But here ? On a public board ? My well being doesn't depend on me being here or not. My financial future is not tied here. I survied for 50 years before this board, or the internet was even here, and I'll survive for another 50 years ( hopefuly ), after It's gone. I am who I am, and for me to be any different would be denying myself. And also, as I've said before the FF is very personnel to me. And The Thing in particular. I don't let anyone, I don't care who it is, put down the FF, or The Thing. Also like I've said, I would have played The Thing for nothing. Would have been a childhood dream come true. So I shall continue to fight against those who want to tear down the FF. I shall always fight for truth, justice, and the FF forever. The greatest comic charctors ever created, in my own way.

[Kelly]

Like I've always said. People here take thenselfes wayyyyyyyyyyy to seriously. And Lightning let me say something here. My boss at my job tells me to stop, I stop. You know why ? Because he could fire me, which means my way of life would be interupted for a time. But here ? On a public board ? My well being doesn't depend on me being here or not. My financial future is not tied here. I survied for 50 years before this board, or the internet was even here, and I'll survive for another 50 years ( hopefuly ), after It's gone. I am who I am, and for me to be any different would be denying myself. And also, as I've said before the FF is very personnel to me. And The Thing in particular. I don't let anyone, I don't care who it is, put down the FF, or The Thing. Also like I've said, I would have played The Thing for nothing. Would have been a childhood dream come true. So I shall continue to fight against those who want to tear down the FF. In my own way.

Then with those thoughts Thingy....you more than anyone else should understand that WS's love for this character is just as great. You 2 simply see him differently....so instead of seeing WS's view as a slam, why not see it as simply another view of this character??? Ya'lls views are different, but when people have a different view from you...you start the whole "True F4 Fan" stuff and that immediately puts people on the defensive....just because they look at things differently from you doesn't mean they aren't fans. Being a fan doesn't mean taking everything in stride, thinking all is well, thinking its ok that they didn't do things like I thought they should its the F4. Some are simply upset with the movie...they put that view on this message board which is their right just as much as it is yours....but to judge someone's love or knowledge of this comic simply by whether or not they agree with the movie is in a word....WRONG.....no matter how you look at it....you can tell me all day long that you've been a fan for over 40 years, you have more knowledge in your little pinky, you will fight till the end......but honestly all I see in your posts is someone who doesn't respect other views, and you don't give a damn if we respect yours.......and unfortunately I'm afraid thats all I will ever see.....and thats sad....we need a positive voice around here, especially in later months....but we don't need a positive voice that doesn't respect other voices.....so honestly if this place isn't a major part of your life.......well.......then move on I guess.....

[Kelly]

Back to the subject....I think all of the above changes can be made.....BUT must be made in moderation....I think character can be kept, and I think most can be made happy......BUT MAYBE NOT ALL.....and thats kind of the way of the world....

[The Thing 2005]

Well you know JM, my way of life says, there are 2 opinions in this world. Everyone elses, then the right opinion, mine.

[The Thing 2005]

Back to the subject....I think all of the above changes can be made.....BUT must be made in moderation....I think character can be kept, and I think most can be made happy......BUT MAYBE NOT ALL.....and thats kind of the way of the world....

Now getting back on subject. We can agree the hands need work. Smaller hands so MC can make a fist. But i will never back down from my opinion that they should leave the head alone. No big brow, no button nose. Unless you want a cg Thing, and that ain't happening. And by the by, I'm not going anywhere. Where else can I have such fun ?

[Kelly]

Now getting back on subject. We can agree the hands need work. Smaller hands so MC can make a fist. but i will never back down from my opinion that they should leave the head alone. No big brow, no button nose. Unless you want a cg Thing, and that ain't happening.

And you know what thingy.....thats perfectly fine.....but allow others to have their opinions as well......:up:

[Kelly]

Well you know JM, my way of life says, there are 2 opinions in this world. Everyone elses, then the right opinion, mine.

Thats sad...really sad.......it would have been nice to have had another positive voice to speak up.......but not yours.....

[The Thing 2005]

And you know what thingy.....thats perfectly fine.....but allow others to have their opinions as well......:up:

Everyones entitled to an opinion, but when I disagree, I'm going to say so. And if the response is negative, or they want to name call, then they make it personnel.

[Kelly]

Everyones entitled to an opinion, but when I disagree, I'm going to say so. And if the response is negative, or they want to name call, then it gets personnel.

When you say....."you're not a true fan, because...." or "speaking from a true fan's point of view...." the response will always be negative......that won't change, you don't give a damn.....so ..... ok..... you aren't here to share your love of the comics you are here to fight.....its very evident now... enjoy!

[w@llcrawler]

Like I've always said. People here take thenselfes wayyyyyyyyyyy to seriously. And Lightning let me say something here. My boss at my job tells me to stop, I stop. You know why ? Because he could fire me, which means my way of life would be interupted for a time. But here ? On a public board ? My well being doesn't depend on me being here or not. My financial future is not tied here. I survied for 50 years before this board, or the internet was even here, and I'll survive for another 50 years ( hopefuly ), after It's gone. I am who I am, and for me to be any different would be denying myself. And also, as I've said before the FF is very personnel to me. And The Thing in particular. I don't let anyone, I don't care who it is, put down the FF, or The Thing. Also like I've said, I would have played The Thing for nothing. Would have been a childhood dream come true. So I shall continue to fight against those who want to tear down the FF. I shall always fight for truth, justice, and the FF forever. The greatest comic charctors ever created, in my own way.


So do you think everyone who thought the Corman FF movie sucked are "tearing the FF down"? Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Sounds like you're the one who's taking things too seriously.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I shall always fight for truth, justice, and the FF forever.

:confused:Then you should be fighting against Avi Arad, Mark Frost, Michael France and Tim Story, not me.

[antonydelfini]

i hope this sequel wont be for kiddies anymore. but the fact that tim story is behind the film makes me fear for the potential of ff2

[Malus]

i hope this sequel wont be for kiddies anymore. but the fact that tim story is behind the film makes me fear for the potential of ff2

I think the fact that Tim is a lifelong FF fan and is involved in FF2 from the get-go this time is something to be optimistic about, in spite of the many failings of the first film. Story was brought in at the last minute with FF1, and had to fight the suits for a lot of what we did like about the first film. Thanks to Tim, at least the awful version of Doom we suffered through had an iron mask, a hood and cape.

And these films should be appropriate for kiddies.
Personally, I really wish they'd left out Ben's "Gimme that G.D. mirror!" line. My kid loves the movie and loves to repeat the lines sometimes. It took me several hours and a cattle prod to get him to say "Dadgum mirror" instead. ;)

My rule of thumb (for any genre film) is this: If you're gonna be using these characters to sell all manner of kids items (action figures, coloring books, easy reader books, paajamas, dress-up kits, etc.) then you'd better be marketing all that junk around a film that is appropriate for those ages.

And besides, Ben Grimm would never use such a severe expletive. It was out of character. A simple "damn" would have sufficed.
Yea, Hollywood. :rolleyes:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

So does that apply to Star Wars ( charred corpses ), Empire Strikes Back ( dismemberment ), Phantom Menace ( bisection ), Attack of the Clones ( beheading ) and Revenge of the Sith ( explicit, gratuitous depiction of mutilated man on fire )?

[Malus]

So does that apply to Star Wars ( charred corpses ), Empire Strikes Back ( dismemberment ), Phantom Menace ( bisection ), Attack of the Clones ( beheading ) and Revenge of the Sith ( explicit, gratuitous depiction of mutilated man on fire )?

Well, yes and no.
Luke's hand getting lopped off in Empire, for instance, was fairly shocking, but bloodless. Han slicing open the belly of the whatchamacallit and scooping out the entrails to help Luke survive the cold jarred my kids more than the hand severing.
I sat with my 7 year-old through her viewing of all the Star Wars films and allowed my 5 year-old son to view A New Hope through Return of the Jedi with us. But they both had to wait a while for Sith, particularly my 5-year old. Lucas himself realized he better issue a cautionary statement about this last one, not that many people seemed to listen; I saw plenty of 4 and 5 years olds in the theater on opening day. Personally, I find the severity of Sith's final scenes to be integral to completing Vader's tragedy, and I wouldn't change it...but I know plenty of other parents besides myself who decided their little ones could wait a few years before seeing it. Ultimately, I watched it (and Eps. I & II) with my kids on DVD, but I briefly scanned through the horrific moments as Annakin suffers the dismemberment and burns...I sort of narrated the freeze-framed images as they flashed by.

To me, superhero films are a slightly different animal.
Superman would never say "Give me that G.D. detonator, Luthor!"
And Peter Parker wouldn't say "Give me that G.D. cash advance, Betty!"

I really can't recall if Peter Parker or Bruce Wayne or any of the iconic characters have muttered a "damn" or "hell" on screen, but I'm pretty "dadgum" sure they haven't used anything stronger.

But that's all language; everything you brought up is violence. And violence is okay in America, as long as they don't show any boobies, right? :)

But seriously, the level of violence troubles me much more. I've found little to complain about in that area with most of the hero films, the most notable exceptions being the slightly-too-brutal final minutes of Spiderman 1, specifically the brutalizing of Peter/Spidey from the pumpkin bomb blast on...not so much a problem with how the Goblin buys it...and of course, the grim bastardization of Hulk, with all its daddy-killed-mommy/supressed memories B.S.
I get depressed just thinking about what they did to the Hulk.

[Mr Sensitive]

I think the fact that Tim is a lifelong FF fan and is involved in FF2 from the get-go this time is something to be optimistic about, in spite of the many failings of the first film. Story was brought in at the last minute with FF1, and had to fight the suits for a lot of what we did like about the first film. Thanks to Tim, at least the awful version of Doom we suffered through had an iron mask, a hood and cape.

And these films should be appropriate for kiddies.
Personally, I really wish they'd left out Ben's "Gimme that G.D. mirror!" line. My kid loves the movie and loves to repeat the lines sometimes. It took me several hours and a cattle prod to get him to say "Dadgum mirror" instead. ;)

My rule of thumb (for any genre film) is this: If you're gonna be using these characters to sell all manner of kids items (action figures, coloring books, easy reader books, paajamas, dress-up kits, etc.) then you'd better be marketing all that junk around a film that is appropriate for those ages.

And besides, Ben Grimm would never use such a severe expletive. It was out of character. A simple "damn" would have sufficed.
Yea, Hollywood. :rolleyes:

I don't agree.

If children (say, till 12 years old) are to go to this kind of movie, it will always suffer for mature audiences, and will be played like fairy tales.

Comics are no more children-oriented, and I hope the movies go that way.

Now, if teens can't hear some coarse words, some level of violence and blood, some psychological drama, then, they're not prepared for life.

All those things, lived in fiction, act like catharsis for violent feelings and nurture experience in a non-dangerous level (the dangerous level would be to live it actually).

[Kelly]

i definitely think there is a balance that can be set...the first movie did not strike that balance...hopefully the 2nd will....

[Malus]

I don't agree.

If children (say, till 12 years old) are to go to this kind of movie, it will always suffer for mature audiences, and will be played like fairy tales.

Comics are no more children-oriented, and I hope the movies go that way.

Now, if teens can't hear some coarse words, some level of violence and blood, some psychological drama, then, they're not prepared for life.

All those things, lived in fiction, act like catharsis for violent feelings and nurture experience in a non-dangerous level (the dangerous level would be to live it actually).


Interesting perspective. I think your view is certainly applicable to the Star Wars and LOTR films. Those stories really couldn't be told properly without the level of violence. I wouldn't change a thing about them, and would just hope every parent would take responsibility in determining what their child is ready for.

And while nobody's said it yet, for the record, the last thing I advocate is censorship. But when it comes to iconic characters that are essentially children's characters, I advocate personal responsibility and thoughtfulness from the producers & creators of these films. If Spidey wouldn't say it or do it in say, the first 200 issues of Spiderman, then he shouldn't say it or do it in the movies. (And that includes shacking up with Mary Jane, by the way, which I hope they're avoiding.)
And really, I don't care what the current tone of the comics product out there is; these characters were created (by their creators) for an all-ages audience, period. As a matter of principle, they should be presented on screen with their essential morality and dignity intact.
Crude language (I'd say anything stronger than "hell", "damn" and "ass", and "ass" is pushing it) should be left out, in my opinion, because putting it in is altering the spirit of the source material in the first place.

Even in the tensest moments, most of our favorite heroes (the true icons like Batman, Spidey, Superman, etc.) do not use profanity. Warner's publishing arm (That's DC, right?;) ) had the bad judgment to allow Miller's Batman boast to a shaken Dick Grayson: "You don't know who I am, kid? I'm the G.D. Batman!" in a general audience Batman title a few months ago, but I'll eat one of those Fear Factor bugs (make it two) if we ever hear Batman use that expletive onscreen. That is so not going to happen.
I'm not saying that Warner necessarily respects their characters' histories more, or puts more thought into how younger fans could be affected, but I think it's safe to say we're gonna see a fairly squeaky-clean Kal-El in Superman Returns, in terms of language, and we'll see violence that is nowhere near the brutality of Spiderman 1's ending.
There's nothing wrong with portraying these characters and stories the way they were originally intended. Spicing up the language (FF1) shoe-horning in disturbing psychological crap (talkin' 'bout Hulk there) or taking the violence over-the-top (Spidey 1) is not necessary to keep the attention of a general audience.
"Lost" manages that balance every week, for the most part, and lots more people watch that show than go to see any of these movies.
Yeah, that's a tv show, so how about Raiders of the Lost Ark? One of the most entertaining adbventure films of all time...I don't recall any particularly bad language or over-the-top violence. Some melting Nazis at the end, yeah, but that's about it. And Dude's head getting propellered was entirely offscreen. ;)

[Malus]

..and of course it was the completely inappropriate heart-ripping scene in Temple of Doom that brought about the creation of the PG-13 rating in the first place. It was a pretty big deal at the time. A lot of parents were rightfully upset.They had every reason to believe the tone of the PG-rated Temple would be similar to that of the PG-rated Raiders. They had been given no reason to expect otherwise.
Was the heart-ripping thing necessary? I can't say, really, I haven't really seen the film since probably 1986..I just wonder if Spielberg spent any time contemplating how the sizable number of children in the audience was going to respond to such a disturbing sequence. I'm sure he did after the fact.

[Kelly]

As i gripe about the dumbing down of the first movie...i remember how much the adults in my life loved it....they aren't dumb people...actually extremely educated in most instances.....but they totally enjoyed it.....who knows how much i would have enjoyed it had i not known what was cut....

[Mr. Socko]

Now whats all this talk got to do with Da Thang

[Malus]

Now whats all this talk got to do with Da Thang
Well over the last dozen posts or so we digressed into discussion of the dialogue spoken by the Thing in FF1, and whether his language was appropriate, and other related topics.
Still very much talkin' 'bout the Thing.:thing:

Jeez, should we start totally new threads every time we digress?

To bring it back to the original topic, I reitterate my hope that they will at least be augmenting the Thing design from FF1 with a few "evolutions," specifically the beginnings of the brow and a somewhat less prominant nose.

[Mr Sensitive]

Interesting perspective. I think your view is certainly applicable to the Star Wars and LOTR films. Those stories really couldn't be told properly without the level of violence. I wouldn't change a thing about them, and would just hope every parent would take responsibility in determining what their child is ready for.

And while nobody's said it yet, for the record, the last thing I advocate is censorship. But when it comes to iconic characters that are essentially children's characters, I advocate personal responsibility and thoughtfulness from the producers & creators of these films. If Spidey wouldn't say it or do it in say, the first 200 issues of Spiderman, then he shouldn't say it or do it in the movies. (And that includes shacking up with Mary Jane, by the way, which I hope they're avoiding.)
And really, I don't care what the current tone of the comics product out there is; these characters were created (by their creators) for an all-ages audience, period. As a matter of principle, they should be presented on screen with their essential morality and dignity intact.
Crude language (I'd say anything stronger than "hell", "damn" and "ass", and "ass" is pushing it) should be left out, in my opinion, because putting it in is altering the spirit of the source material in the first place.

Even in the tensest moments, most of our favorite heroes (the true icons like Batman, Spidey, Superman, etc.) do not use profanity. Warner's publishing arm (That's DC, right?;) ) had the bad judgment to allow Miller's Batman boast to a shaken Dick Grayson: "You don't know who I am, kid? I'm the G.D. Batman!" in a general audience Batman title a few months ago, but I'll eat one of those Fear Factor bugs (make it two) if we ever hear Batman use that expletive onscreen. That is so not going to happen.
I'm not saying that Warner necessarily respects their characters' histories more, or puts more thought into how younger fans could be affected, but I think it's safe to say we're gonna see a fairly squeaky-clean Kal-El in Superman Returns, in terms of language, and we'll see violence that is nowhere near the brutality of Spiderman 1's ending.
There's nothing wrong with portraying these characters and stories the way they were originally intended. Spicing up the language (FF1) shoe-horning in disturbing psychological crap (talkin' 'bout Hulk there) or taking the violence over-the-top (Spidey 1) is not necessary to keep the attention of a general audience.
"Lost" manages that balance every week, for the most part, and lots more people watch that show than go to see any of these movies.
Yeah, that's a tv show, so how about Raiders of the Lost Ark? One of the most entertaining adbventure films of all time...I don't recall any particularly bad language or over-the-top violence. Some melting Nazis at the end, yeah, but that's about it. And Dude's head getting propellered was entirely offscreen. ;)

Malus,

I really think you are overly worried with children. It is too much protection. Orson Welles and Jorge Luís Borges thought it was very good for them to begin reading the original plays of Shakespeare back in their childhood days. And most of them are really bloody.

If we only give children a nice smiling world, without harsh fictional experiences, they won't be able to deal with the harsh world we live in, nor temperate their ideas with maturity. The danger is to extend a supposed "innocence" too far in life.

Maybe you despise how the comics are written today, or ten or twenty years ago, but it was in my early teens when I first read Miller's Ronin and Dark Knight, Moore's Killing Joke and V for Vendetta and Watchmen. These are great controversial stories. And they are full of deep psychological stress, and full of über-violence.

It might astonish you, but I'm no criminal, no deranged, and, as far as I know, no traumas. I just happen to still like comics (which can be a very strange psychological feature).

It gave me a love for elaborated representations of our vile world (as Lawrence Sterne once wrote). And there is no such thing as "bad language": all features of expression are meant to be what they are, and apply to some situations.

I think the world is a complex place to live in, full of beauty and horror. We must know how to understand both, and to know their place, to avoid naiveté; or even to know that we, ourselves, have a dark side that should not be denied: it must be dealt with.

[Kelly]

Malus,

I really think you are overly worried with children. It is too much protection. Orson Welles and Jorge Luís Borges thought it was very good for them to begin reading the original plays of Shakespeare back in their childhood days. And most of them are really bloody.

If we only give children a nice smiling world, without harsh fictional experiences, they won't be able to deal with the harsh world we live in, nor temperate their ideas with maturity. The danger is to extend a supposed "innocence" too far in life.

Maybe you despise how the comics are written today, or ten or twenty years ago, but was in my early teens when I first read Miller's Ronin and Dark Knight, Moore's Killing Joke and V for Vendetta and Watchmen. These are great controversial stories. And they are full of deep psychological stress, and full of über-violence.

It might astonish you, but I'm no criminal, no deranged, and, as far as I know, no traumas. I just happen to still like comics (which can be a very strange psychological feature).

It gave me a love for elaborated representations of our vile world (as Lawrence Sterne once wrote). And there is no such thing as "bad language": all features of expression are meant to be what they are, and apply to some situations.

I think the world is a complex place to live, full of beauty and horror. We must know how to understand both, and to know their place, to avoid naiveté; or even to know that we, ourselves, have a dark side that should not be denied: it must be dealt with.

As there are different children there are as many different ways in which they are raised....if Malus chooses to raise his children in that way....well thats his choice.....the thing i take from his post is the thinking of a teacher, and i wish that parent's i deal w/ thought about the upbringing of their children as much as Malus has shown.....*applauds* kudos....kids get enough of the violence, disrespect, so called real world living etc in a regular school day....kids have told me on a regular basis, that they enjoy my room because it seems safe....i teach geography and therefore it ain't just about plate tectonics....we are about to approach the subject of genocide in Rwanda, Apartheid in South Africa....but its approached in a way that they learn but they don't necessarily have to see the pure killing to get the point.....i think parents can do this as well.....and the choosing of movies and tv programs that their child watches to me is not a type of censorship...but simply a parent raising their child....

BUT back to the semi-topic....i saw nothing wrong as far as the movie for kiddos....imo....i thought it was rather funny to do a family version on demand...but if parents saw a problem w/ some of the scenes then i'm glad they have a choice of what to show their children......as far as the kids i saw at the theatre...the kids as well as their parents enjoyed the movie....and enjoyed seeing it together....and that is the most important thing for me.....

[Mr Sensitive]

As there are different children there are as many different ways in which they are raised....if Malus chooses to raise his children in that way....well thats his choice.....the thing i take from his post is the thinking of a teacher, and i wish that parent's i deal w/ thought about the upbringing of their children as much as Malus has shown.....*applauds* kudos....kids get enough of the violence, disrespect, so called real world living etc in a regular school day....kids have told me on a regular basis, that they enjoy my room because it seems safe....i teach geography and therefore it ain't just about plate tectonics....we are about to approach the subject of genocide in Rwanda, Apartheid in South Africa....but its approached in a way that they learn but they don't necessarily have to see the pure killing to get the point.....i think parents can do this as well.....and the choosing of movies and tv programs that their child watches to me is not a type of censorship...but simply a parent raising their child....

BUT back to the semi-topic....i saw nothing wrong as far as the movie for kiddos....imo....i thought it was rather funny to do a family version on demand...but if parents saw a problem w/ some of the scenes then i'm glad they have a choice of what to show their children......as far as the kids i saw at the theatre...the kids as well as their parents enjoyed the movie....and enjoyed seeing it together....and that is the most important thing for me.....

I wouldn’t have written anything, obviously, if Malus had said it just like you suggest: “It’s just my personal way to deal with my kids” and “I simply choose from what is shown”.

But he implied a general view on the subject and defended the kind of production he hopes the movies to be, with good arguments and a very decent explanation of them.

It is not necessarily the thinking of a teacher. I’m a teacher, too, and I don’t think like that.

The disagreement was on that basis. I said I hope the movies to tell the stories without worrying with violence or the kind of language. Wolverine or Batman, for instance, are supposed to be really violent, as they are in the comics (they are meant to be like that, it has a meaning); a character, pressed by some stress or emotion, should be able to say nasty coarse words. That’s just verisimilitude.

Fiction should not be sanitarized to fill more or less educational purposes. Fiction has a place of its own.

And, by the way, I don’t remember the word “censorship” being mentioned before in this conversation.

PS: Rwanda had one of the worst killings in recent History. If people are of age enough to hear about that, they have to hear in all words. It is the only way to make people aware of what happened in fact, and to build the hope that it stops happening.

[Orko Is King]

And besides, Ben Grimm would never use such a severe expletive. It was out of character. A simple "damn" would have sufficed.
Yea, Hollywood. :rolleyes:

Oooohhh, you shoulda seen how pissed he was when the pie hit his face in Mark Waid's FF run.

[Kelly]

I wouldn’t have written anything, obviously, if Malus had said it just like you suggest: “It’s just my personal way to deal with my kids” and “I simply choose from what is shown”.

But he implied a general view on the subject and defended the kind of production he hopes the movies to be, with good arguments and a very decent explanation of them.

It is not necessarily the thinking of a teacher. I’m a teacher, too, and I don’t think like that.

The disagreement was on that basis. I said I hope the movies to tell the stories without worrying with violence or the kind of language. Wolverine or Batman, for instance, are supposed to be really violent, as they are in the comics (they are meant to be like that, it has a meaning); a character, pressed by some stress or emotion, should be able to say nasty coarse words. That’s just verisimilitude.

Fiction should not be sanitarized to fill more or less educational purposes. Fiction has a place of its own.

And, by the way, I don’t remember the word “censorship” being mentioned before in this conversation.

PS: Rwanda had one of the worst killings in recent History. If people are of age enough to hear about that, they have to hear in all words. It is the only way to make people aware of what happened in fact, and to build the hope that it stops happening.

I will teach the genocide in Rwanda in a way that my students will understand completely of the death and destruction...but I have to keep in mind that some of my parents have boundaries on what their kids watch and read....thats a part of my responsibility as a teacher of their kids. I respect those boundaries....they are the parent...I'm not, even though I feel as if I am sometimes....Heres the thing...I use age appropriate material to teach these subjects....example: Hotel Rwanda PG13....my students are all above the age of 13...I have permission from all parents to show the movie....does the movie show EXACTLY what has happened in Rwanda....NO...if it did it would be an NC17 rating....BUT it will give them a glimpse into what has happened there....as well the articles from the Upfront Magazine, written by the New York Times for my age group....

Very simple....parents need to watch the ratings yes...and talk to people that have seen the movie......if they don't want to have their kids see somethings....then they need to do what my family does.....I go and see the films first, or my sister does....and we report back....again its all really in the eye of the beholder when it comes right down to it.....EX....my family loves diving...so they were excited about the movie "Into The Blue" coming out....my niece read a critique from a moviegoer that called it "soft porn" she freaked out....I went and saw the movie....said that was totally ridiculous we all went to see the movie, and enjoyed the hell out of it....ALL AGES....from 10 -- 52. BUT parents have to do what they think is right....and I have to applaud all parents that at least take time to think about this stuff....

[Willie Lumpkin]

Fiction should not be sanitarized to fill more or less educational purposes. Fiction has a place of its own.




I've read a lot of Fantastic Four comics, and I can't remember Ben Grimm ever saying "God damn". I agree fiction shouldn't be sanitized, but isn't it just as wrong to "dirty" it?

[Kelly]

I've read a lot of Fantastic Four comics, and I can't remember Ben Grimm ever saying "God damn". I agree fiction shouldn't be sanitized, but isn't it just as wrong to "dirty" it?

True, i think a "damn" would have been sufficient.....but they were trying for the PG 13 rating so i guess w/ that and the killing of the executive guy...they got it....

[Malus]

True, i think a "damn" would have been sufficient.....but they were trying for the PG 13 rating so i guess w/ that and the killing of the executive guy...they got it....

Bingo. I'd bet that's exactly why both things were done. In the case of the executive's killing, McMahon has said that he was surprised to see his bolt blow a hole through the guy, 'cause that's not what was scripted.

And Willie Lumpkin is completely right; Ben Grimm has never in over 500 issues used the phrase "Goddamn."
And considering the spiritual aspect given to the character recently by a current day writer, I seriously doubt he'll be saying it in the future.

And yes, Orko, I remember the pie thing. And if I'm not mistaken, Ben's expletives were all presented in "cuss-speak" (nonsense symbols & such) so that his words were obscured. That's like "Beetle Bailey" profanity; not quite the same...

More to say about all this, but I got a couple of kids waitin' on me...;)

[Kelly]

Bingo. I'd bet that's exactly why both things were done. In the case of the executive's killing, McMahon has said that he was surprised to see his bolt blow a hole through the guy, 'cause that's not what was scripted.

And Willie Lumpkin is completely right; Ben Grimm has never in over 500 issues used the phrase "Goddamn."
And considering the spiritual aspect given to the character recently by a current day writer, I really don't think you will.

And yes, Orko, I remember the pie thing. And if I'm not mistaken, Ben's expletives were all presented in "cuss-speak" (nonsense symbols & such) so that his words were obscured. That's like "Beetle Bailey" profanity; not quite the same...

More to say about all this, but I got a couple of kids waitin' on me...;)

i believe on the commentary Jessica mentions that the scene where Doom kills the exec, was changed for the PG 13 rating...

[eXperiment]

I like the movie version of the thing.

[Agent 194]

I liked it too. Chiklis was great. I still give him many props for his performance in the movie and how he was on the talk shows promoting it. He was/is a pro.

The Thing itself could still be better. Look better, feel better, be better. Nothing says that can't happen.

[Mr Sensitive]

I've read a lot of Fantastic Four comics, and I can't remember Ben Grimm ever saying "God damn". I agree fiction shouldn't be sanitized, but isn't it just as wrong to "dirty" it?

I wasn't aiming that precise quote when talking about dirty language, but in that case you are really right.

And yes, to "dirty" it is equally bad.

[Agent 194]

Also,...are we going to get to see all the crazy gadgetry in the lab and all the FF acting and behaving like it's just another day? Reed making something and Ben having to pick up a ridiculosuly big piece of machinery in order to help him. Id love to see that.

[TheSaintofKillers]

Big brow ? Small nose ? Unless you're making The Thing cg, isn't happening. Chilkis will be in that thing again. The head should look the same. They can work on the hands, and the body, but you can't take away from the emotions of the face. And if you gave him a big brow you'd take away from that. As far as a button nose, I don't think Chilkisis nose is that small. So the head stays as is.

I'm guessing the Teenage mutant ninja turtles had human noise, and a human head shape in the first TMNT movie ?

They are COSTUMES. There is no reasons why they can't make it right. They lack talent and imagination. CGI is NOT the only way to go, heck, it's the easy way.

If Jim Henson's company could pull the 4 giant turtles costumes in such a magnificent way in the first TMNT movie 15 years ago, Fox sure as hell shouldn't be excuse for not being able to make ONE single The Thing costume right.

They suck, end of story.

[w@llcrawler]

..and of course it was the completely inappropriate heart-ripping scene in Temple of Doom that brought about the creation of the PG-13 rating in the first place. It was a pretty big deal at the time. A lot of parents were rightfully upset.They had every reason to believe the tone of the PG-rated Temple would be similar to that of the PG-rated Raiders. They had been given no reason to expect otherwise.
Was the heart-ripping thing necessary? I can't say, really, I haven't really seen the film since probably 1986..I just wonder if Spielberg spent any time contemplating how the sizable number of children in the audience was going to respond to such a disturbing sequence. I'm sure he did after the fact.

I have to side with you on this issue. Although I really appreciate the mature tone of this discussion (I've been hanging out on the SM3 board lately - they need a nanny over there!), and I respect the idea of creative license, I just don't think that having Ben say GD served ANY purpose. I have a 12 year old son and we love to watch these movies together. And yes, he will be exposed to that sort of language in real life. But he shouldn't be hearing it from a fictional hero he looks up to who, as has been stated, never uttered such a phrase in the comic books that spawned him. These films can be made with a mature tone without having to resort to inserting the obligatory curse word.

[Agent 194]

I'm guessing the Teenage mutant ninja turtles had human noise, and a human head shape in the first TMNT movie ?

They are COSTUMES. There is no reasons why they can't make it right. They lack talent and imagination. CGI is NOT the only way to go, heck, it's the easy way.

If Jim Henson's company could pull the 4 giant turtles costumes in such a magnificent way in the first TMNT movie 15 years ago, Fox sure as hell shouldn't be excuse for not being able to make ONE single The Thing costume right.

They suck, end of story.

The teenage mutant ninja turtles discussion is something I brought up a year ago. . .I'm glad to hear you say it. I thought what they did with it was brilliant for the time. I can only imagine they could do much more.

I've proposed, many times in the past, a combination of puppetry, CGI, and good old fashioned imagination. I cite the bird horse from Harry Potter 3. That was a combination of all those things and was done very well.

I think it can be done right. Chiklis cann still be the heart underneath. . .Stan Lee, Avi Arad. . .somebody needs to step forward and say..."LOOK", "Let's do it right!"

[Agent 194]

I have to side with you on this issue. Although I really appreciate the mature tone of this discussion (I've been hanging out on the SM3 board lately - they need a nanny over there!), and I respect the idea of creative license, I just don't think that having Ben say GD served ANY purpose. I have a 12 year old son and we love to watch these movies together. And yes, he will be exposed to that sort of language in real life. But he shouldn't be hearing it from a fictional hero he looks up to who, as has been stated, never uttered such a phrase in the comic books that spawned him. These films can be made with a mature tone without having to resort to inserting the obligatory curse word.

And while I was not in on genesis of this discussion. . .I agree with you. Thing should be gruff but clean mouthed. I teach middle school and observe a lessening of standards with every passing year. Fantastic Four is classic and timeless and shouldn't participate in that process.

[Kelly]

And while I was not in on genesis of this discussion. . .I agree with you. Thing should be gruff but clean mouthed. I teach middle school and observe a lessening of standards with every passing year. Fantastic Four is classic and timeless and shouldn't participate in that process.


i agree, and i don't think it has a thing to do w/...."thats how the real world is..." no thats parents, teachers, etc...lessening the standards as you said....unfortunately its not art imitating life....we now live in a world where life is imitating art, and calling it real....and Hollywood is the main player....very unfortunate in my opinion....

i have the worst mouth in the world....just terrible....mostly because thats what i'm around most of the time....BUT not in my classroom....so it can be done....if its not in the comic, theres no need for it to be in the movie....

[Stikmann]

i agree, and i don't think it has a thing to do w/...."thats how the real world is..." no thats parents, teachers, etc...lessening the standards as you said....unfortunately its not art imitating life....we now live in a world where life is imitating art, and calling it real....and Hollywood is the main player....very unfortunate in my opinion....

i have the worst mouth in the world....just terrible....mostly because thats what i'm around most of the time....BUT not in my classroom....so it can be done....if its not in the comic, theres no need for it to be in the movie....

Just because it's not in the comics doesn't always mean it shouldn't or can't be in the movie version. Often, the movies sort of flesh-out the characters. Ben, a gruff, weathered character might have some foul language from time to time but you CAN'T do that in the comics. I mean really...look at Wolverine. He's never uttered a "curse word" in any X-Men issue...But you mean to tell me that a dude that's been running around slicing throats (and worse) for decades never says anything worse than "cripes!"? I'm not saying that Wolvie or any other "superhero" should be going crazy or anything...I'm just saying that a big reason why the Thing wouldn't say G.D. in a comic is beause he can't.

[Kelly]

Just because it's not in the comics doesn't always mean it shouldn't or can't be in the movie version. Often, the movies sort of flesh-out the characters. Ben, a gruff, weathered character might have some foul language from time to time but you CAN'T do that in the comics. I mean really...look at Wolverine. He's never uttered a "curse word" in any X-Men issue...But you mean to tell me that a dude that's been running around slicing throats (and worse) for decades never says anything worse than "cripes!"? I'm not saying that Wolvie or any other "superhero" should be going crazy or anything...I'm just saying that a big reason why the Thing wouldn't say G.D. in a comic is beause he can't.

ok...

[Malus]

Just because it's not in the comics doesn't always mean it shouldn't or can't be in the movie version. Often, the movies sort of flesh-out the characters.

The characters have been "fleshed out" in the comics for 45 years. If anything, more often than not, the movies screw up the characters.

Ben, a gruff, weathered character might have some foul language from time to time but you CAN'T do that in the comics.

Yes, they can do that in the comics. They just don't.
They could just slap a "Marvel Knights" mature imprint on an FF comic and...oh, wait they already did that, with Marvel Knights' "4."
And yet he still hasn't uttered G.D or any other expletive.

Yes, Ben Grimm is gruff and weathered, but it's obvious that he still considers himself a gentleman and he is also a fairly devout Jew.
He doesn't say "God damn."

I mean really...look at Wolverine. He's never uttered a "curse word" in any X-Men issue...But you mean to tell me that a dude that's been running around slicing throats (and worse) for decades never says anything worse than "cripes!"? I'm not saying that Wolvie or any other "superhero" should be going crazy or anything...I'm just saying that a big reason why the Thing wouldn't say G.D. in a comic is beause he can't.

Wolvie and Punisher are the only two characters that came to mind as possible exceptions. I'd actually be surprised if they've never cursed in any of the mature-labeled comics. But looking at Wolverine in the previews for the new film, he's in more of a role model position than before, and I hope they've considered that when it comes to his dialogue.
If any rough language is used, I hope it's in a dramatic situation, not a humorous one. Ben's "G.D. mirror" line was in the latter category, which is what made it extra inappropriate and jarring.

There's plenty of rough language to be heard in the media and in the world around us every day. We don't need to hear it coming out of the mouths of our children's heroes. And like it or not, that's what these characters are.
That's what they were created to be.

[Mr Sensitive]

Wolvie and Punisher are the only two characters that came to mind as possible exceptions. I'd actually be surprised if they've never cursed in any of the mature-labeled comics. But looking at Wolverine in the previews for the new film, he's in more of a role model position than before, and I hope they've considered that when it comes to his dialogue.
If any rough language is used, I hope it's in a dramatic situation, not a humorous one. Ben's "G.D. mirror" line was in the latter category, which is what made it extra inappropriate and jarring.

There's plenty of rough language to be heard in the media and in the world around us every day. We don't need to hear it coming out of the mouths of our children's heroes. And like it or not, that's what these characters are.
That's what they were created to be.

Maybe in the sixties, yes, but not anymore.

Ambiguity teaches the children better than role models. Wolverine, in the movies, gets a bit of his counterpart in X-Men Evolution, which is no good. Why?

It takes out one of his most important features: he is a loner, and has to fight against his extreme animal nature. On the other hand, and still in the comics, Logan has this very delicate relationship with women, children and animals.

I think that to where he directs his violence teaches a good deal about what the world is, and the difficult decisions one has to make in order to calm down his inner fury.

Batman: the same thing. He struggles against his tendency of becoming the same madman as his enemies. It's more difficult to diferentiate his methods from the criminals' (if you compare him with, let's say, Captain America, or Superman), he is many times cynical, or sardonic, etc.

Take one of the best superhero stories, the Born Again series in Daredevil issues, by Miller and Mazzuchelli: Daredevil crosses the line more than once. But it is very substantial. One has to face what it takes to stand for his principles.

Political correctness doesn't give good lessons, it just avoids artificially any possible danger.

[Lightning Strykez!]

*comes in, takes a seat, munches popcorn*

[Kelly]

*comes in, takes a seat, munches popcorn*

Scoot over...*pops the top of my TAB Energy* *steals LS popcorn*

[terry78]

So in essence, we want the Thing to look a little more monstrous.

[Malus]

Maybe in the sixties, yes, but not anymore.

Only to the extent that the publishers try to have it both ways.
(Which will one day blow up in their faces, probably when a third-grader picks up an Ed Brubaker Daredevil from beside the coloring books in the grocery store magazine section. One gander from a lawsuit-seeking parent and it's settlement time for the store, the distributor and Marvel. ;))

Ambiguity teaches the children better than role models.

Well that's news to me and a lot of other parents.
I think my own kids learn more (and learn better) by witnessing what I hope is my dignified and civil interraction with the people and situations we encounter together every day. And they are decidedly disserved and diminished when they witness me lean on the horn at some idiot and mutter "goddamnnidiotmotherfrazzer!"
Of course, I always make sure to follow that up with, "That's not the way you should act, kids!"
There's ambiguity for you.

Wolverine, in the movies, gets a bit of his counterpart in X-Men Evolution, which is no good. Why?
I honestly don't know quite what you're referring to here. And I didn't bring a blue book with me today. Tell you what, make it multiple choice and I'll guess "C."

It takes out one of his most important features: he is a loner, and has to fight against his extreme animal nature. On the other hand, and still in the comics, Logan has this very delicate relationship with women, children and animals....I think that to where he directs his violence teaches a good deal about what the world is, and the difficult decisions one has to make in order to calm down his inner fury.
Batman: the same thing. He struggles against his tendency of becoming the same madman as his enemies. It's more difficult to diferentiate his methods from the criminals' (if you compare him with, let's say, Captain America, or Superman), he is many times cynical, or sardonic, etc.

Take one of the best superhero stories, the Born Again series in Daredevil issues, by Miller and Mazzuchelli: Daredevil crosses the line more than once. But it is very substantial. One has to face what it takes to stand for his principles.

I don't disagree with any of this, really. I have no problem with any of these characterizations; in the case of Daredevil, the grittier approach was what saved the character from becoming a self-parody. And "Born Again" is an outstanding achievement.
Could it work in a movie? With a PG-13 or R rating, sure.
Of course they'd still screw it entirely and strip out every subtle nuance of character that Miller and Mazuchelli infused it with...and probably add some profanity and titillation that wasn't in the comics. ;)


Political correctness doesn't give good lessons, it just avoids artificially any possible danger.

Except that we're not talking about "political correctness," at least not by any definition I'm familiar with.
I'm just saying that these characters (the FF, Spidey, Superman- your iconic characters) were created for children and that they should be allowed to keep the morality and dignity they were created with.

I think the studios want that, too. (They just don't always exercise the best judgment.) And you can bet the licensees want the characters to be age-appropriate as much as possible.

It can be a slipperly slope, though. Where should the publishers draw the line? I enjoyed the hell out of Dark Knight Returns but it didn't belong in an 8-year old's hands, at least not without parental consent. Same thing definitely goes for The Killing Joke. And Ronin. And Watchmen.
And I love 'em all. I will let my future 12-year old read Dark Knight, sure. But my 7 year old? Give me a break.

Where should the line be drawn? It shouldn't. I don't think there is a line. And if there is, it definitely keeps moving.
I don't want any type of media banned or even economically boycotted, but I would like to see publishers, studios and networks show just a bit more civic responsibility, at least in rating and/or identifying content.
I realized a long time ago that I can't stop the dumbass next door from allowing his 5-year old to watch "The Grudge," but I'd be damned if I didn't raise the freakin' roof when I walked into my 3-year old son's preschool a few years back and found them showing the "Hulk" movie. :eek:

Of course they assumed that the Hulk movie would be okay, since their own knowledge of the character came from kids' coloring books, underoos, action figures, the 70's tv show and story books.
I mean even if someone there had read the first 200+ issues of Hulk comics, they'd have no reason to think otherwise.

At least the Hulk's essential character wasn't violated. It was more like the film around him was the violation.

Again, it's not about political correctness.
It's about civility.

[Agent 194]

So in essence, we want the Thing to look a little more monstrous.

On the contrary. . .I think he had more humanity later on than his early days in the first 40 or so issues. The brow and blip of the nose. . .rounded out eyes are as much a part of him as that one hair Charlie Brown has on his head. It's who we've grown to know and love all these years. Why not give the public what they love? He's not monstrous. He's the Thing. That's who I want to see. They can fix it this time rouond.

[Kelly]

On the contrary. . .I think he had more humanity later on than his early days in the first 40 or so issues. The brow and blip of the nose. . .rounded out eyes are as much a part of him as that one hair Charlie Brown has on his head. It's who we've grown to know and love all these years. Why not give the public what they love? He's not monstrous. He's the Thing. That's who I want to see. They can fix it this time rouond.

What percentage of the public do you think knows all of that?....I agree I want more of the brow, etc...and I have a feeling we will get that....but, be honest, truly how much of the general movie going audience knows the above???

[Agent 194]

What percentage of the public do you think knows all of that?....I agree I want more of the brow, etc...and I have a feeling we will get that....but, be honest, truly how much of the general movie going audience knows the above???

Ok,...I'll grant you that. Let's say not a soul knows except us fans (and my wife because I hipped her to it) Let's say no one knows. . .but still why can't they continue his evolution into the Thing that made us fans to begin with? That's the cool look we all liked. Why couldn't whatever that special formula that enchanted us as kids do the same thing for the civlian, common mortal, uninitiated population who just goes to the movies? Afte all it's we fans who went to that movie and dragged our wives and girlfriends there who made it successful. We're the ones who count so why not make it right if just for us? They're making it for us! Like Paul McCartney said, "what's wrong with that? Who says that can't or shouldn't be done, and why?

[Willie Lumpkin]

On the contrary. . .I think he had more humanity later on than his early days in the first 40 or so issues. The brow and blip of the nose. . .rounded out eyes are as much a part of him as that one hair Charlie Brown has on his head. It's who we've grown to know and love all these years. Why not give the public what they love? He's not monstrous. He's the Thing. That's who I want to see. They can fix it this time rouond.


Very true, and this is part of what sold me on the film look as possibly being best for the first film.

Let me explain:

In the early comics, he was monstrous. Neither Jack Kirby or Stan Lee seemed to really know where they wanted to take him in those initial issues. Eventually his look and personality developed into what we are familiar with. It's fun to read some of those early issues because the characters all seem a little edgier before Stan and Jack developed them into the more heroic and more familiar characters that we know today.

When I was looking at the maquette for the Thing in the first movie, I began to see the sadness in that design. By making him almost human, he seems more tragic - like a disfigured person (many people referred to him as looking like a burn victim) - rather than the more fun-loving thing that we know and love from the comics.

Now that the origin story has been told and Ben's tragedy has been explored, they can begin to make the character more fun both in personality and appearance.

Ben is a great, tragic character. Someone who is a hero at the expense of his humanity, but the thing that makes him lovable is that he doesn't beat us over the head with it and spend his whole life moping about it. It's there, and we know it's there, but he deals with it by laughing.

That's an area that I think could be greatly improved in the second film. There really wasn't enough time to make him sad, but funny and self effacing in the first film. I think his comment at the end that he was alright as is (that made me and other long time fans cringe) was an effort to show his optimism and end on an up-point.

If I was a consultant on the second film, one thing I would push would be to lighten his character both physically and mentally, and I really don't think that the filmakers are as "dumb" as many would argue, so I think there's a chance we will see him move more in that direction.

[Agent 194]

Willie, your words and wisdom belie the years of a man who looks the age of the Stan Lee character in you avatar.

Preach on.

[Agent 194]

Fix it Fox. We'll love you for it and bring more wifes and girlfriends this time around. Some might become polygimists for the cause.

[Kelly]

Willie, your words and wisdom belie the years of a man who looks the age of the Stan Lee character in you avatar.

Preach on.

I've seen a picture of Willie Boy....he's a youngster for his age....:)

[Kelly]

Ok,...I'll grant you that. Let's say not a soul knows except us fans (and my wife because I hipped her to it) Let's say no one knows. . .but still why can't they continue his evolution into the Thing that made us fans to begin with? That's the cool look we all liked. Why couldn't whatever that special formula that enchanted us as kids do the same thing for the civlian, common mortal, uninitiated population who just goes to the movies? Afte all it's we fans who went to that movie and dragged our wives and girlfriends there who made it successful. We're the ones who count so why not make it right if just for us? They're making it for us! Like Paul McCartney said, "what's wrong with that? Who says that can't or shouldn't be done, and why?

Theres absolutely "nothing wrong with that"....:) I will throw that in every once in awhile, pretty much to bring us back to the reality (maybe not the reality we want) but the reality of the studio and their thinking....

[Mr Sensitive]

Malus, first of all: I understand and respect your views and concerns on the subject. I even agree with the most part of them. I’ll try to make my small disagreements a bit clearer this time.

Only to the extent that the publishers try to have it both ways.
(Which will one day blow up in their faces, probably when a third-grader picks up an Ed Brubaker Daredevil from beside the coloring books in the grocery store magazine section. One gander from a lawsuit-seeking parent and it's settlement time for the store, the distributor and Marvel. )

In the past, this kind of lawsuit only happened with people like Baudelaire (Fleurs du Mal) and Flaubert (Mme. Bovary); nowadays, look at what we’ve become.

Well that's news to me and a lot of other parents.
I think my own kids learn more (and learn better) by witnessing what I hope is my dignified and civil interraction with the people and situations we encounter together every day. And they are decidedly disserved and diminished when they witness me lean on the horn at some idiot and mutter "goddamnnidiotmotherfrazzer!"
Of course, I always make sure to follow that up with, "That's not the way you should act, kids!"
There's ambiguity for you.

Look, Malus, it’s not the same thing. Coarse words happen in normal life, and it doesn’t take an ass to say it. Of course I’m not suggesting ambiguity in the Vertigo way, but even in Marvel regular comicbook series you can find it: Dr. Doom, for instance. He is definitely a villain, he is a dictator, but in a certain episode, back in John Byrne’s days, the FF found out that he was the better option for Latveria, when Zorba (that they helped in his path to the power) reveals himself to be worse than Doom.

Doom has his code of honor, etc.

That’s the kind of thing I was trying to say. And it is very educative, one just has to take a look at the news.

I honestly don't know quite what you're referring to here. And I didn't bring a blue book with me today. Tell you what, make it multiple choice and I'll guess "C."

I was referring the X-Men animated seres, in which Wolvie is the Professor’s right hand and sometimes a father-figure, without any comportamental ambiguity.

I don't disagree with any of this, really. I have no problem with any of these characterizations; in the case of Daredevil, the grittier approach was what saved the character from becoming a self-parody. And "Born Again" is an outstanding achievement.
Could it work in a movie? With a PG-13 or R rating, sure.
Of course they'd still screw it entirely and strip out every subtle nuance of character that Miller and Mazuchelli infused it with...and probably add some profanity and titillation that wasn't in the comics.

And, maybe, that’s the whole point: I’m not suggesting that we take our children to watch Evil Dead, too; I just think the movies are damaged (like Fantastic Four was) when greedy execs want to cover all the goddamm (sorry, lapsus linguae) demographics, resulting in just a passing “summer flick for all the family”, you know?

Except that we're not talking about "political correctness," at least not by any definition I'm familiar with.
I'm just saying that these characters (the FF, Spidey, Superman- your iconic characters) were created for children and that they should be allowed to keep the morality and dignity they were created with.

Stan Lee, for instance, started that “failed hero” trend, which developed till the present day. Spidey started with a very bad behaviour (he was punished for it, of course, how could we forget if he reminds us every time?); Hulk is a hero, or a misunderstood (and unpredictable) monster?; and so forth.

I think the studios want that, too. (They just don't always exercise the best judgment.) And you can bet the licensees want the characters to be age-appropriate as much as possible.

Of course the studios want that. They want everybody watching the movies. And that’s the problem: all these aspects have nothing to do with telling a good story, but with keeping it sufficiently broad to catch all moviegoers.

It can be a slipperly slope, though. Where should the publishers draw the line? I enjoyed the hell out of Dark Knight Returns but it didn't belong in an 8-year old's hands, at least not without parental consent. Same thing definitely goes for The Killing Joke. And Ronin. And Watchmen.
And I love 'em all. I will let my future 121year old read Dark Knight, sure. But my 7 year old? Give me a break.

Again, Malus, you need not to worry, cause I’m not suggesting you show to a 7 year-old a picture of Batman squeezing a batarang into the Joker’s eyes.
It’s more in the way I said when talking about ambiguity and Doom back there.

Where should the line be drawn? It shouldn't. I don't think there is a line. And if there is, it definitely keeps moving.

Yep.

I don't want any type of media banned or even economically boycotted, but I would like to see publishers, studios and networks show just a bit more civic responsibility, at least in rating and/or identifying content.
I realized a long time ago that I can't stop the dumbass next door from allowing his 5-year old to watch "The Grudge," but I'd be damned if I didn't raise the freakin' roof when I walked into my 3-year old son's preschool a few years back and found them showing the "Hulk" movie.

Of course they assumed that the Hulk movie would be okay, since their own knowledge of the character came from kids' coloring books, underoos, action figures, the 70's tv show and story books.
I mean even if someone there had read the first 200+ issues of Hulk comics, they'd have no reason to think otherwise.

Buenas: but it was not Ang Lee’s fault either, was it? They should’ve known better. Maybe watched the movie before playing it to the kids.

At least the Hulk's essential character wasn't violated. It was more like the film around him was the violation.

Again, it's not about political correctness.
It's about civility.

I agree, but in fiction not all the behaviour is civil. If it was, Spidey wouldn’t need to fight Doc Ock, nor FF x Doc Doom, Good mutants vs bad mutants, etc.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

So in essence, we want the Thing to look a little more monstrous.Yes Yes, Y'all.

[Agent 194]

<sighs>. . .whatever we want to call it....I just want him to look like Thing.

[Dope Nose]

I guess if you can't make the movie look like the comic...

the cover to the upcoming FANTASTIC FOUR #539

http://www.comicscontinuum.com/stories/0604/18/ff539.jpg

[Agent 194]

Okay, that's interesting. . .but I don't want him to look like that (in either medium)

[Mr Sensitive]

Okay, that's interesting. . .but I don't want him to look like that (in either medium)

Yeah...he has a turtle face in it.

[LondonSpitfire]

The Thing looked decent enough...and it was definitely better than CGI. Perhaps if they could lose the shiney look to the suit...give it a real rock-like appearance. But overall, he looked very good in my opinion. ~Sean

[Agent 194]

The Thing looked decent enough...and it was definitely better than CGI. Perhaps if they could lose the shiney look to the suit...give it a real rock-like appearance. But overall, he looked very good in my opinion. ~Sean

Ray Bolger looked good as the ScareCrow in the Wizard of Oz but that was almost 70 years ago. . .come to think of it he looked better than Thing - even given the time difference.

Not to sound like Johnny One Note....but I think they can do better.

[Mr Sensitive]

Not to sound like Johnny One Note....but I think they can do better.

Yes, they can.

They were lazy in the first movie, and had the very good luck of having Chiklis in the role. Otherwise...

[LoGaN's RuNNer]

What was wrong with how Thing looked?
EDIT: nevermind..

[LoGaN's RuNNer]

Big brow ? Small nose ? Unless you're making The Thing cg, isn't happening. Chilkis will be in that thing again. The head should look the same. They can work on the hands, and the body, but you can't take away from the emotions of the face. And if you gave him a big brow you'd take away from that. As far as a button nose, I don't think Chilkisis nose is that small. So the head stays as is.
Yeah, it simply wouldn't work on screen.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

It would totally work. What didn't work on the screen was a rubber/burn victim Thing with human proportions.

The Thing does not have human proportions, a human in a suit can not play him effectively. Chiklis' acting was almost PERFECT, which make it all the more sad that he looked like a joke.

And despite the early, evolving renderings of the Thing, it is clear that an element to the iconography of the character is the huge brow.

Omitting the famous Thing-Brow is just as bad as making a batman movie, but taking off his pointy ears because "they don't translate well to real-life, they look too cartoony."

In my perception, these are not opinions, these are facts and I'm glad at least that Jack Kirby passed away before the movie came out so he didn't have to see his genius raped and butchered on the big screen.

[Agent 194]

Yes, they can.

They were lazy in the first movie, and had the very good luck of having Chiklis in the role. Otherwise...

True, true. I like you Mr. Sensitive. To quote another old movie, "I think this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

[Agent 194]

and Wilhelm-Scream. . .you and I speak from the same book. I especially like what you say about not paying proper homage to Kirby's vision. It can be done. I believe it would be the talk of Hollywood; the coveted job of having pulled off the Thing on screen.

As I've said before. . .a combination of puppetry, prosthetics and CGI- dash of imagination and ingenuity - mix it all together and there's the recipe for a perfect Thing. Ta Da.

[Mr Sensitive]

True, true. I like you Mr. Sensitive. To quote another old movie, "I think this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship."

Cheers to that.

[Carp Man]

It would totally work. What didn't work on the screen was a rubber/burn victim Thing with human proportions.

The Thing does not have human proportions, a human in a suit can not play him effectively. Chiklis' acting was almost PERFECT, which make it all the more sad that he looked like a joke.

And despite the early, evolving renderings of the Thing, it is clear that an element to the iconography of the character is the huge brow.

Omitting the famous Thing-Brow is just as bad as making a batman movie, but taking off his pointy ears because "they don't translate well to real-life, they look too cartoony."

In my perception, these are not opinions, these are facts and I'm glad at least that Jack Kirby passed away before the movie came out so he didn't have to see his genius raped and butchered on the big screen.

The Thing looked excelent, perfect.Raped ? I think not. I think Kirby would be proud, as I am of the job they did.

[Kelly]

LOL....this is just getting funny....

[Wilhelm-Scream]

getting? :)

[TheSaintofKillers]

getting? :)

Well, he's got a point. When we first saw the thing, it sure as heck wasn't funny. But as times went on, and we look back at what we got, I do find it now funny.

The "it's so bad it's actually funny".

Worst, I remember reading back then that the creators (or rather the team behind the thing's costume) were going that way because making it faithful would have been impossible.

We all know it isn't. We've seen a giant live T-rex in action in Jurassic Park. We've seen people able to pull off 4 goddamn beautiful human-turtle as MAIN characters in the first TMNT movie. We've watch movies such as The Dark Crystal and The legend. Heck, like someone said earlier, the Wizard of Oz was done 70 years ago. We've had Carpenter's The Thing.

And yet people say that making the thing faithful with a costume is impossible.

People at fox just lack talent and imagination. Say to Jim Henson's company that it's impossible, or to ILM, and they'll all laugh in your face.

[TheSaintofKillers]

The Thing looked excelent, perfect.Raped ? I think not. I think Kirby would be proud, as I am of the job they did.

We had better done costumes 20 years ago. How the hell can you be proud of that ???

[TheSaintofKillers]

and Wilhelm-Scream. . .you and I speak from the same book. I especially like what you say about not paying proper homage to Kirby's vision. It can be done. I believe it would be the talk of Hollywood; the coveted job of having pulled off the Thing on screen.

As I've said before. . .a combination of puppetry, prosthetics and CGI- dash of imagination and ingenuity - mix it all together and there's the recipe for a perfect Thing. Ta Da.

There's always a way. Unfortunately, people in Hollywood aren't trying very hard these days. Just look at the amount of things made in CGI. That alone proves how much Hollywood is going down in the FX department.

[Agent 194]

There's always a way. Unfortunately, people in Hollywood aren't trying very hard these days. Just look at the amount of things made in CGI. That alone proves how much Hollywood is going down in the FX department.

Yes,..it seems the spirit of Rob Botin and what he did on John Carpenter's The Thing is missing in Hollywood right now. A young guy with imagination who loved what he did and people are still talking about his work 20 something years later. Maybe we need to get him to work on our "Thing."

A lot of people deeply ensconced in the computer world, patting themselves on the back for their digital ingenuity and CGI skill. Seems some of the artistry has been lost. Where are the Jim Hensons of the world? Where is Botin these days? <sigh>

[Tony Stark]

I can see this is going to be the next version of the organic web shooters argument.

Chiklis even explained in the audio commentary why the change was made. I'm sure they'll make improvements to the costume as technology allows between the first and second movie, ala the changes made to the Spidey costume from 1 and 2.

But it won't be anything drastic, the changes that will be made, will be for:

1.) Comfort for Chiklis inside the suit (he mentioned having an alergic reaction to the cleaners that were used).

2.) getting the suit to look even more rock like, taking out some of the foam lates appearance.

3.) increased mobility for the actor in the suit.

4.) improved ways to hook up wire riggings and such

Other than that, the suit is going to look the same. The approach is to see Chiklis' face through the costume. If you don't get that, then go somewhere else to whine.

[Agent 194]

I can see this is going to be the next version of the organic web shooters argument.

Chiklis even explained in the audio commentary why the change was made. I'm sure they'll make improvements to the costume as technology allows between the first and second movie, ala the changes made to the Spidey costume from 1 and 2.

But it won't be anything drastic, the changes that will be made, will be for:

1.) Comfort for Chiklis inside the suit (he mentioned having an alergic reaction to the cleaners that were used).

2.) getting the suit to look even more rock like, taking out some of the foam lates appearance.

3.) increased mobility for the actor in the suit.

4.) improved ways to hook up wire riggings and such

Other than that, the suit is going to look the same. The approach is to see Chiklis' face through the costume. If you don't get that, then go somewhere else to whine.

I understand the approach they've taken. I get it. It's very obvious their thinking on that. It's still one I call lame, lazy and wrong. I'm not going to accept it just as I never accepted Dick Seargant as Darren on Bewitched - I'm not going to accept this.

[Agent 194]

I also take objection to people trying to force the point that you can't vent frustrations. I'm very positive but I gotta let it out on something I care about. I teach public school where it's a generally understood dictum that you can't voice your objections. . .so if I can't do it here - then where else?

[Kelly]

I also take objection to people trying to force the point that you can't vent frustrations. I'm very positive but I gotta let it out on something I care about. I teach public school where it's a generally understood dictum that you can't voice your objections. . .so if I can't do it hear - then where else?

True...:)

[Willie Lumpkin]

I can see this is going to be the next version of the organic web shooters argument.

Chiklis even explained in the audio commentary why the change was made. I'm sure they'll make improvements to the costume as technology allows between the first and second movie, ala the changes made to the Spidey costume from 1 and 2.

But it won't be anything drastic, the changes that will be made, will be for:

1.) Comfort for Chiklis inside the suit (he mentioned having an alergic reaction to the cleaners that were used).

2.) getting the suit to look even more rock like, taking out some of the foam lates appearance.

3.) increased mobility for the actor in the suit.

4.) improved ways to hook up wire riggings and such

Other than that, the suit is going to look the same. The approach is to see Chiklis' face through the costume. If you don't get that, then go somewhere else to whine.

Rather than comparing it to the organic web-shooters, I would compare it to theoretically cutting down Spider-Man's mask so it only covers part of his face so we can "See McGuire's face through the costume".

When a person grows up loving a certain character and spends 35 years looking forward to seeing the character on the big screen, the person simply wants to see that character look as close to the character he has had in his mind for the last 35 years as possible.

It's that simple.

If he had been drawn for 40 years without a brow and then they added one for the movie, I'm sure I would have had the same problem with that as I do with the lack of a brow now.

I can deal with changes to origins and other details like that, but I just want to see the Thing looking like the Thing.

[Willie Lumpkin]

Here's a photoshop Felix posted back in Jan '05 (Wobbly and others also did some nice ones, but this is the only one I found after a quick search):

http://www.webalice.it/felixpetruska/possiblething.jpg

Would something like this really make it impossible for Michael C. to act?

[Agent 194]

Here's a photoshop Felix posted back in Jan '05 (Wobbly and others also did some nice ones, but this is the only one I found after a quick search):

http://www.webalice.it/felixpetruska/possiblething.jpg

Would something like this really make it impossible for Michael C. to act?

No, it wouldn't. And that's part of what you and I and a few others have said. Did all the prosthesis that John Hurt had to wear to play the elephant man keep him from playing the part? No it didn't and as I recall he recieved an oscar nomination for his performance. Who even knew it was John Hurt underneath all there?

[w@llcrawler]

^that pic looks great! The Thing needs more trap and shoulder, less neck. As I've said before, he shouldn't look like a bodybuilder in silouhette. He shouldn't have human proportions. His arms should be biggr around and his legs. And his hands CERTAINLY don't need to be smaller. The fingers should be a bit shorter, more stubby, but definitely not smaller. He needs to have fists like boulders. He doesn't need to be taller necessarily, just more massive. You need to be able to SENSE the POWER of the Thing onscreen. When he smashed the Thing doll in the first film, the whole wall should've crumbled. They need to have the movie Thing equal in strength to the comic Thing and the look to make it believable. Chik is perfect for the part but they need to make him look more powerful. It would be hard to do with a costume. As I've said before, keep chik in make up (with the bigger brow) and do the body CG ala The Hulk. Please, please please!!!!!!!! Improve the Thing for the sequel and BRING HIM TO LIFE ONTHE BIG SCREEN!!!!!

[Wilhelm-Scream]

GOD! th^t would've been so much better.

I wanted all CGI with motion capture acting like Golem and King Kong, but if we had to have a costume TH^T would've RoooOOOOOcked!

Man, I'm depressed now. F*** you Tim Story and co. :( x 1,000


such a simple little change....what were they thinking?!?

that actually kind of looks like the Thing! (except for the 3 day old macaroni and cheese shade of orange, I'm just talking about the brow and nose and eyes.)
:(

[Tony Stark]

Yeah they could have done that, and Chiklis wouldn't be able to breath through his nose. It's easy to mock up any photoshop you want. They went with a longer nose to form fit Chiklis' nose, which probably offset the large brow.

They want to honor the character, but they also want to make Chiklis feel more comfortable.

If I were to change anything about the costume it would be to get rid of the boots, and have him wear the shorts like in the comics.

At least they didn't paint a "4" on a chest like that lame new cartoon, that looks like FF meets Speed Racer.

[Willie Lumpkin]

Yeah they could have done that, and Chiklis wouldn't be able to breath through his nose . . .

More often than not costumes are designed so that the wearer doesn't have to breath through the nose. Air passages can just as easily be routed down to openings through the mouth.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/grinchface.jpg

http://www.moviecompound.com/reviews/images/fantastic4b.jpg

http://news.softpedia.com/images/news2/Chewbacca-Peter-Mayhew-To-Become-Citizen-Of-United-States-2.jpg

[Kelly]

Very true Willie, but the fact that Michael is already wearing 60 lbs over his normal weight, which in and of itself is going to restrict normal breathing, I would hate to think that I'm wearing 60 lbs, more weight and only having one area to breath from and isn't my nose....carrying that much weight for that amount of time doing what he is doing and not being able to breath correctly as in through the nose out the mouth could very easily lead to many other problems.

[Willie Lumpkin]

Very true Willie, but the fact that Michael is already wearing 60 lbs over his normal weight, which in and of itself is going to restrict normal breathing, I would hate to think that I'm wearing 60 lbs, more weight and only having one area to breath from and isn't my nose....carrying that much weight for that amount of time doing what he is doing and not being able to breath correctly as in through the nose out the mouth could very easily lead to many other problems.

I'll do it if he doesn't want to.;)


That raises another point I've suggested before that I'm hoping is at least being considered.

Have you seen how they captured Andy Sirkis' facial movements to map onto King Kong? Something like that could be done with MC. Put him in the suit up to his neck, but leave his head uncovered with just markers for CGI mapping.

http://www.alleycatscratch.com/movie/kong/2005/King_Kong/Making_Faces.jpg

That would be much easier and less stressful for Michael C., and he'd still be on the set interacting with the environment and other characters, but his face could then be done to look more like this:

http://www.actionfigureinsider.com/news/images/SideshowThingBust.jpg

Clearly it's possible based on what we saw on King Kong. It just becomes a matter of cost and artistic choice.

The problem I've always had with CGI is that the characters don't move naturally. When I see a CGI character walk across the screen, I know it's a CGI character, but when I saw close ups of the Hulk's face I was completely sold. With the suit still accounting for 90% of the character, I think we could have the best of both worlds.

I also noticed that most of the "wrinkles: were happening around the neck. With a blending of facial CGI into rubber suit, those wrinkles could also be greatly improved.

If I was either Tim Story or Michael Chiklis, I'd be pushing for that.

[Kelly]

I definitely did not like the wrinkles around the neck...and again to me that was a time problem. They simply ran out of time to be able to go through the film and fix small details....that turned into BIG DETAILS.

[Willie Lumpkin]

I definitely did not like the wrinkles around the neck...and again to me that was a time problem. They simply ran out of time to be able to go through the film and fix small details....that turned into BIG DETAILS.


Right. I'd say they NEED to do a better job with the wrinkles (either with a better suit or CGI fixes or some combination) to prevent the viewer from being taken out of the moment.

I'd like to see them improve the general look of the Thing, but if I have to make a choice of one or the other, I'd go with wrinkles. The wrinkles cause more general, noticable harm to a character that we are meant to believe is covered in rock-like skin.

[Kelly]

Right. I'd say they NEED to do a better job with the wrinkles (either with a better suit or CGI fixes or some combination) to prevent the viewer from being taken out of the moment.

I'd like to see them improve the general look of the Thing, but if I have to make a choice of one or the other, I'd go with wrinkles. The wrinkles cause more general, noticable harm to a character that we are meant to believe is covered in rock-like skin.

THAT was the ONLY THING that my "non-comic book fans" noticed about Thing....they loved the look, they loved voice, they loved the eyes, they loved the character, but they mentioned the wrinkles.

[Willie Lumpkin]

THAT was the ONLY THING that my "non-comic book fans" noticed about Thing....they loved the look, they loved voice, they loved the eyes, they loved the character, but they mentioned the wrinkles.

That makes me think of another issue.

People like seeing a character as they know him/her.

I grew up loving the Kirby Thing. In my mind that's what he looks like. As other artists have drawn him differently, I've always liked the ones that were closest to Kirby and disliked the ones that were more different.

Some people grew up with John Byrne, and in their mind that's how he should look.

Now we've got the "Movie Thing". I'd like to see movie Thing "fixed" to look more like Kirby's drawings . . . but what about your non-comic friends?

To someone who doesn't know the character, will a more traditional look seem just as wrong to them? Will people who enjoyed the first movie but never read a comic book complain that he just doesn't look like the Thing anymore if they beef up his brow?

That could be a barrier to any changes.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

:rolleyes:

The point of making a Fantastic Four movie is not to make sure all the actors are comfy. It's to bring the comic to life in a live-action adaptation. This is all like saying "Um, Sam, those scenes where Tobey's crawling up the wall?, yeah, uh, the concrete is really scraping his hands up, so, can we delete those scenes? Kthx."
:rolleyes:
If Jim Carrey could breath as the Grinch then Chiklis could breath as the Thing.

You do what it takes to film the story. It was really nightmarish and hot inside the suits for Chewbacca and C3PO. It was really grueling to choreograph the thousands of moves in the fight scenes in the Matrix. And in Day of the Dead? when the script called for a living corpse to move around on a table even though it had no head? Yeah, it was really difficult and uncomfortable for the guy who had to crane his neck down into a cutaway and sit there motionless for hours.

If you can't make the movie WELL, then you shouldn't be making the damn movie.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

LOL. It's so weird how people can persist, fighting against the plain truth with a straight face.

Here is a sampling of drawings of the Thing spanning FORTY years, by some of the world's great individualistic artists. FORTY years.

When a character is around that long, it will evolve. So what are the common threads we see that help it to retain it's identity...like pointy ears on Batman, or a cape on Superman?

Let's take a look.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/T-1.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/T-2.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/T-3.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/T-4.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/T-5.jpg
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/T-6.gif
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y199/Wilhelm-Scream/T-7.gif

What are the only things we continue to see despite the divergent styles of the artists and their different approaches and the different time periods in which each was drawn?

Yep. An Orange color (check) A cracked up "rocky" look (check)...and then, whoops,...there's also a huge brow, a bulldog underbite, a little button nose and DEFINITELY Non-Human proportions...even though they're all proportioned differently, they all have non-human proportion in common.

Face it. Movie Thing was played by the best man for the role, but looked Hor.Ren.Dous.

[terry78]

^I'm still curious as to why they can have Logan continue to smoke, yet Ben can't.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

I was gonna say "because they were selling Ben toys to kids", but nope, 'cause there are tons of Woverine toys. :confused:

I think it's just another example of how clueless the people in charge of the movie were, whereas, love or hate the X-Men movies, at least there were intelligent, creative people involved who had a concept of how much change to an internationally beloved character is too much. :(

I thought you'd have to be a retard to try and make Wolverine's goofy horn-hair in real life, but they had the balls to be that true to him because he is a mega-star of the group, as Ben is with the F4.

[Tony Stark]

I was gonna say "because they were selling Ben toys to kids", but nope, 'cause there are tons of Woverine toys. :confused:

I think it's just another example of how clueless the people in charge of the movie were, whereas, love or hate the X-Men movies, at least there were intelligent, creative people involved who had a concept of how much change to an internationally beloved character is too much. :(

I thought you'd have to be a retard to try and make Wolverine's goofy horn-hair in real life, but they had the balls to be that true to him because he is a mega-star of the group, as Ben is with the F4.

Yet there are a bunch of fanboys on the X-boards complaining because Logan doesn't wear a mask.

You can't please everyone.

I agree some improvements need to be made to the costume, ala the wrinkly neck line, but the mask looks fine.

For those of you "all CGI" Thing fans, you need to realize how much of the post production budget is going to do the Mr. Fantastic effects, the Torch effects, and Sue's effects. Do you realize how much time and effort it would take to make an all CGI Thing?

The people doing the Thing costume are the same ones that did Hellboy. Hellboy looked great!

I said the two most important things effect wise in the first film were the Torch and Mr. Fantastic. They did a great job on both, especially Torch. With an improved budget on the second film, I hope for more flame on shots and more wild strechy shots of Mr. F. I don't want to waste the budget on doing CGI shots for the Thing, when he came off very well in the first.

In fact with all of the negative comments from critics about the film, the one constant was how impressed they were with Chiklis' performance.

Everyone is talking about King Kong and Gollem. Do you realize the post production time they had to work on Gollem? They filmed all the primary shots in 2000, and The Two Towers came out in late 2002. Gollem was the primary SFX in the last two movies. The vast majority of effects in TLOTR, were done using traditional effects methods. Minature photography and such. The size difference of the creatures in the film were done with forced perspective, and live stand in replacements, and occasional blue screening.

Use CGI when nessesary but it's a waste of budget to do an all CGI Thing, and plus you miss the subtleties of Chiklis' performance on screen.

[Kelly]

Yet there are a bunch of fanboys on the X-boards complaining because Logan doesn't wear a mask.

You can't please everyone.

I agree some improvements need to be made to the costume, ala the wrinkly neck line, but the mask looks fine.

For those of you "all CGI" Thing fans, you need to realize how much of the post production budget is going to do the Mr. Fantastic effects, the Torch effects, and Sue's effects. Do you realize how much time and effort it would take to make an all CGI Thing?

The people doing the Thing costume are the same ones that did Hellboy. Hellboy looked great!

I said the two most important things effect wise in the first film were the Torch and Mr. Fantastic. They did a great job on both, especially Torch. With an improved budget on the second film, I hope for more flame on shots and more wild strechy shots of Mr. F. I don't want to waste the budget on doing CGI shots for the Thing, when he came off very well in the first.

In fact with all of the negative comments from critics about the film, the one constant was how impressed they were with Chiklis' performance.

Everyone is talking about King Kong and Gollem. Do you realize the post production time they had to work on Gollem? They filmed all the primary shots in 2000, and The Two Towers came out in late 2002. Gollem was the primary SFX in the last two movies. The vast majority of effects in TLOTR, were done using traditional effects methods. Minature photography and such. The size difference of the creatures in the film were done with forced perspective, and live stand in replacements, and occasional blue screening.

Use CGI when nessesary but it's a waste of budget to do an all CGI Thing, and plus you miss the subtleties of Chiklis' performance on screen.

Sorry but I thought the Mr. F CGI was crappy....until the final fight and then for some reason they figured out what to do with him....

[Wilhelm-Scream]

For those of you "all CGI" Thing fans, you need to realize how much of the post production budget is going to do the Mr. Fantastic effects, the Torch effects, and Sue's effects. Do you realize how much time and effort it would take to make an all CGI Thing? Yes, I do. And He's worth it. As I've said often, if you don't have a sufficient budget to do justice to the story, then you shouldn't be doing it. Please watch the T. Rex in the mega-budgeted Jurassic Park, and then watch a T.Rex in a cheapy direct-to-video movie like Carnosaurus or the one with Doug MgClure.

plus you miss the subtleties of Chiklis' performance on screen.Nope. Golem was a better actor than most humans these days.

and, I agree with JMAfan. I saw a couple of shots of Reed where it looked like it should. For the most part it was some of the worst CG I've seen in a big budget movie. Reminded me of the early days of CG, in music videos in the mid 80's. :down. That one shot, where his whole body stretches out and grabs on to that bar, his head was pasted on there so crudely it looked WORSE than picmanips I've done in Paint. :(

The triumph of the movie, the only thing that most agree on is Johnny's fire/flying. It was great. But it's the Fantastic F.O.U.R.
The movie should've been called "The Human TORCH!:and friends". Seriously...lame.

[Kelly]

Yes, I do. And He's worth it. As I've said often, if you don't have a sufficient budget to do justice to the story, then you shouldn't be doing it. Please watch the T. Rex in the mega-budgeted Jurassic Park, and then watch a T.Rex in a cheapy direct-to-video movie like Carnosaurus or the one with Doug MgClure.

Nope. Golem was a better actor than most humans these days.

and, I agree with JMAfan. I saw a couple of shots of Reed where it looked like it should. For the most part it was some of the worst CG I've seen in a big budget movie. Reminded me of the early days of CG, in music videos in the mid 80's. :down. That one shot, where his whole body stretches out and grabs on to that bar, his head was pasted on there so crudely it looked WORSE than picmanips I've done in Paint. :(

The triumph of the movie, the only thing that most agree on is Johnny's fire/flying. It was great. But it's the Fantastic F.O.U.R.
The movie should've been called "The Human TORCH!:and friends". Seriously...lame.

True, true words....

[terry78]

They were playing it very safe and cheap for the first outing, because they know the FF weren't marketed as X-Men and Spider-Man was before they became movies, which is true. That's part of the reason why Story was hired I hate to say. He can do relationships well, but they knew he wasn't going to be commanding 20 mil a picture either. Now that it's done well, he can up the ante some with his paycheck as well as the effects work.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Yes, that's why I'm glad that it inexplicably did so well. Way more likely to pour the cash in to top the first one. There is some hope.

[Dope Nose]

brow dammit!

[Tony Stark]

Yes, I do. And He's worth it. As I've said often, if you don't have a sufficient budget to do justice to the story, then you shouldn't be doing it. Please watch the T. Rex in the mega-budgeted Jurassic Park, and then watch a T.Rex in a cheapy direct-to-video movie like Carnosaurus or the one with Doug MgClure.

Nope. Golem was a better actor than most humans these days.

and, I agree with JMAfan. I saw a couple of shots of Reed where it looked like it should. For the most part it was some of the worst CG I've seen in a big budget movie. Reminded me of the early days of CG, in music videos in the mid 80's. :down. That one shot, where his whole body stretches out and grabs on to that bar, his head was pasted on there so crudely it looked WORSE than picmanips I've done in Paint. :(

The triumph of the movie, the only thing that most agree on is Johnny's fire/flying. It was great. But it's the Fantastic F.O.U.R.
The movie should've been called "The Human TORCH!:and friends". Seriously...lame.

Really you should do some reasearch before you start talking about stuff.

First off as a comparison, the production budget for King Kong was twice that of Fantastic Four. It also had about 2 to 3 times as many effects shots.

The first Spider-man was given a 150 million dollar budget, the second over 200 million, but that's Marvel's flagship character.

Now The Two Towers production budget was only 94 million but keep in mind they were able to significantly lower costs, because all 3 films had primary production done at the same time. Jackson went with almost all unknown actors to keep the budget low. And as I mentioned, most of the effects shots in all of the Lord of the Rings movies were done with more traditional techniques, minature photography, matt paintings, forced perspective, Even animatronic puppets. For instance Tree beard when he was carrying the hobbits was an animatronic puppet, only his face was CGI.

The first X-men movie was only given 75 million dollar, the second 110 million, and neither film was heavily laden with effects shots.

The point being for you to say "if they don't have the budget they shouldn't do the film", is not only patently ignorant, but no movie would ever be made under those constraints INCLUDING LORD OF THE RINGS.

What's so funny is that some of you who complain about the lack of CGI on FF are the same ones complaining on the Spider-man board of too much CGI in place of traditional human actors and wire work ala X-men.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

um DUDE!...did you not observe in the earlier post that because of the fact that Johnny, Sue and Reed required CGI that it would've been too expensive to make a high-quality fully CGI/mo-cap Thing?

Oh...For those of you "all CGI" Thing fans, you need to realize how much of the post production budget is going to do the Mr. Fantastic effects, the Torch effects, and Sue's effects. Do you realize how much time and effort it would take to make an all CGI Thing? Yeah, you did. And you also commented on time constraints.

So, again I say, No one's got a gun to their head to have the movie out at a certain time. A movie as important as F4 should not have been rushed, and time and budget should not've been ANY factor in deciding to do a halloween costume-Thing.

They spent a lot of time, energy and money on Sue, Johnny and Reed? Well they should've spent M.O.R.E. on the Thing, because unlike them, he should've been fully CGI.


P.S. I don't know why you even brought UP all the superb practical effects in LOTR, when I was obviously referring to, uhm...GOLEM, and the BALROG, and THE CAVE TROLL, and the ridiculously massive battle scenes, and the FLYING DRAGONS, and the WARGS, and the Water Horses, etc.

:rolleyes:

[Tony Stark]

You are not listening, a CGI thing would probably put the budget over 200 million. Spider-man has been the only film to get that kind of a budget, and only for the sequal, because the first film made almost 400 million dollars.

If X-men (even the second) couldn't get that budget, and Hulk couldn't get that budget, FF sure as hell isn't going to get that budget.

But according to you it never should have been made. :rolleyes:

[Wilhelm-Scream]

That's correct. It should've been the most fantastic, mind-blowingly colorful rollercoaster ride of all superhero movies. It should have been at least as good as the action scenes in the Incredibles, despite the difficulty of live action compared to animation.

Such a huge project should never in a trillion years have been handed over to the guy whose claim to fame is BARBERSHOP? and TAXI? It's preposterous! But again, a big factor in that decision was *gasp* MONEY, just like I said before....just like YOU said.

In the early days of CGI, it was super expensive to get okay looking stuff. Now, Trekkie fan films made on home computers look better than the effects on the early episodes of the Next Generation.
The CG on Dragonheart (which was cutting edge at the time) now looks like a really good cut scene in a Playstation2 video game, and every crap-ass TV show has okay CGI.

A movie as big as F4, that requires so much visually, they just weren't ready to make it. They were clearly just trying to cash in before the "superhero movie" success-window opened by Spider-Man closes.

But with the exponential advancement in technology, In a few years, maybe quite a few, they could've done it justice. Look at the CG environments of Tron and then look at Sky Captain and the World of tomorrow. Imagine anyone trying to do CG water as well as The Perfect Storm back in the days of The Last Starfighter.
Couldn't be done....given time, doable.

The only hope is that miraculously, much as Batman the dark knight was rescued from the shame of "Batman and Robin", against all odds, they'll someday do a REAL Fantastic Four movie, in 10 or 15 years, though I doubt it, since they never were nor ever will be as big a draw as Batman/Superman/Spider-Man.

The F4 deserve better than a rushed, half-assed rehearsal for a movie. So yes, I would rather they hadn't made it till they could do it right. Case in point? The Fantastic Four Movie circa '94. :down

[Malus]

I think Willie's example of Andy Sirkis in King Kong was on the money (Ang Lee himself performed as the Hulk)...but it probably wouldn't be necessary to go that far for the Thing.

I do agree that it would be a very bad thing to lose Chiklis' face in the mix. But there are many ways Chiklis' performance could be preserved with a combination of CGI & live action.

But even if they don't go that direction, they're fools if they don't at least add the freakin' brow. It's one of the biggest complaints (if not the biggest) that fans had about the character. And it's not the same thing as Wolverine's lack of a mask...Wolverine has frequently been seen without a mask for the last 20 years. When has the Thing ever been without his trademark brow? He's had it since 1964. And except for a few short-lived mutation stories over the years, he has never been depicted without it.

John Byrne tapered the brow into his head a bit, but it was there. Even the awful "pineapple" Thing we suffered through in the late 80's still had the brow.
Only during the dozen or so issues when Byrne regressed Ben to his earliest form did the character go browless, but that's it.

It's not that big a deal, really.
Just follow the progression the character's creators set down and add the brow.

[Kelly]

I think Willie's example of Andy Sirkis in King Kong was on the money (Ang Lee himself performed as the Hulk)...but it probably wouldn't be necessary to go that far for the Thing.

I do agree that it would be a very bad thing to lose Chiklis' face in the mix. But there are many ways Chiklis' performance could be preserved with a combination of CGI & live action.

But even if they don't go that direction, they're fools if they don't at least add the freakin' brow. It's one of the biggest complaints (if not the biggest) that fans had about the character. And it's not the same thing as Wolverine's lack of a mask...Wolverine has frequently been seen without a mask for the last 20 years. When has the Thing ever been without his trademark brow? He's had it since 1964. And except for a few short-lived mutation stories over the years, he has never been depicted without it.

John Byrne tapered the brow into his head a bit, but it was there. Even the awful "pineapple" Thing we suffered through in the late 80's still had the brow.
Only during the dozen or so issues when Byrne regressed Ben to his earliest form did the character go browless, but that's it.

It's not that big a deal, really.
Just follow the progression the character's creators set down and add the brow.

its all about time, if they will take the time, they can do it.......THEY did NOT HAVE time in the first movie because of the stupid shooting schedule....well imo...i actually have no clue how to make a feasible shooting schedule...BUT if they take the time to do it right it can be done right....they have more time it seems this time around...hopefully they will use it in a wiser manner....

[Wilhelm-Scream]

And it's not the same thing as Wolverine's lack of a mask...Wolverine has frequently been seen without a mask for the last 20 years.Thank you. So true. I'll give you a dollar for every Thing you can find without some kind of prominent brow, and you give me a dollar for every maskless Wolverine picture I can find. Deal?

LOL, argument DE-Stroyed. :)

[Tony Stark]

It's not just about time, it's about money. You have 3 characters that all have unique powers, a decision was made to spend the effects on the other 3, and I think it was a good decision. Some CGI was used on the Thing in some shots, to reduce the rubbery look. I think they can do more of that in the 2nd film, but they do not need a complete CGI Thing.

[Kelly]

It's not just about time, it's about money. You have 3 characters that all have unique powers, a decision was made to spend the effects on the other 3, and I think it was a good decision. Some CGI was used on the Thing in some shots, to reduce the rubbery look. I think they can do more of that in the 2nd film, but they do not need a complete CGI Thing.

Do you have a source that says the decision was made to use the money on the other 3? We do know from Story that he ran out of time on the cgi....but i don't remember reading anywhere where they said that they made the decision to spend the money on the other 3....i could be wrong, but i've never read that i don't believe...

[Wilhelm-Scream]

http://www.alleycatscratch.com/movie/kong/2005/King_Kong/Making_Faces.jpg
P.S., that is a super disturbing picture. He looks like a pox-ridden feral freak.

[Malus]

Just a thought, but I'll bet if Chiklis himself asked for the brow, Fox might just give it more consideration.
Anybody got a fan mail address for Michael Chiklis?

[Tony Stark]

Do you have a source that says the decision was made to use the money on the other 3? We do know from Story that he ran out of time on the cgi....but i don't remember reading anywhere where they said that they made the decision to spend the money on the other 3....i could be wrong, but i've never read that i don't believe...


No I don't have a source but it's pretty obvious. He's comparing Gollem and King Kong. Gollem was the major special effect in The Two Towers, and his work likely ate a good share of the effects budget. As I've said 2000 times before, the majority of the effects shots in TLOTR movies were practical effects, which is one reason why the movie looks so amazing. They used miniture photography, models, forced perspective, etc., etc. They were using methods that have been around for ages which is why they made the two towers with only a 95 million dollar budget.

King Kong had twice that budget, and there were alot more CGI shots than Lord of the Rings. Spider-man had 150 million and a 200 million dollar budget for those films.

Yes some of the effects shots were delayed in FF, and it got a boost in the budget to help complete some of the work. But it was planned all along to save the effects shots for Reed, Johnny and Sue.

Spider-man 2 the decision was made to have most of Doc Ock's tentacle effects, practicle effect, and you saw how effective it was in the film. Most of the time you see Ock, especially in close up shots, those are real tentacles, operated by a puppeteer. The CGI was saved for shots like Doc scaling the wall with Aunt May, or Ock walking on his tentacles, or the train fight scene, where pupeteering is not possible, but the closeups are almost all practical effects.

[Malus]

Yes some of the effects shots were delayed in FF, and it got a boost in the budget to help complete some of the work. But it was planned all along to save the effects shots for Reed, Johnny and Sue.
And that was a near-fatal mistake.
It's always been fairly obvious (to most) that Ben Grimm is the star of Fantastic Four. He's easily the favorite character for most fans, with the Torch ranking a fairly distant second. Ben has dominated the covers of FF for well over 40 years for a reason. He's certainly more interesting visually than Reed or Sue, and he sells comics. Sales figures over the years show that issues with Thing-centric covers sell much better. This was particularly true before the direct market (and non-returnability) came along, back when sales were tracked by the number of returns received on an issue. That's why you see a whole lot of FF covers in the 1970's that feature Ben almost exclusively, or sometimes with Ben in the action and little inset heads of Reed, Sue and Johnny "looking on." Torch and Thing covers sold well, too. But readers always snatched up Thing-centric covers in greater numbers.
This info, by the way, came to my ears directly from the mouth of Stan Lee in 1978. A few years later, at the height of his FF popularity, I heard John Byrne say the same thing when a fan asked why Ben dominated so many covers: "He sells comics."
A properly done Thing would have made the first film an even bigger hit -and greatly reduced the moaning and giggling in fandom that started with the first images they released and that continues to this day. The Thing in FF1 barely made the cut (in my opinion) and if they want to really wow audiences in FF2 and beyond they'll start evolving him.
Story says we're going to get a "full-on" Doom this time.
I just hope they're considering what it will take to start moving Chiklis towards a "full-on" Thing.

Spider-man 2 the decision was made to have most of Doc Ock's tentacle effects, practicle effect, and you saw how effective it was in the film. Most of the time you see Ock, especially in close up shots, those are real tentacles, operated by a puppeteer. The CGI was saved for shots like Doc scaling the wall with Aunt May, or Ock walking on his tentacles, or the train fight scene, where pupeteering is not possible, but the closeups are almost all practical effects.

Yes, I agree, it was quite effective.
And there's no reason why they couldn't do this with Chiklis. Show him in close-up a lot, with only minimal CGI enhancement, then layer CGI over him for full body shots. As far as I'm concerned, there could be half as many full body shots of him - if they work.
Again, I don't want to lose Chiklis' face in all this. I don't want a Hulk-type effect; I want Chiklis' great performance incorporated into a Hulk-type effect.
I think it can and should be done.

[Wilhelm-Scream]

As with the "Wolverine didn't wear a mask", the "practical Dr. Octopus tentacles" is a non-point. Completely irrelevant. Here's why, though I can't believe I'd even have to point it out.

The tentacles are MECHANICAL DEVICES. That means a simulation can be fabricated out of whatever material and then puppeteered.

The reason the Thing had to be CGI is that, for the millionth time:rolleyes:, The thing is bi-pedal, and humanOID, but he doesn't. have. human. proportions.

So, unlike practical tentacles, you can't fabricate and puppeteer a CHIKLIS BODY. He's got one body, and that's what you have to work with, and his body-type isn't Thingish. No human's is.

Again, the burden is on the producers and artists involved in the film to bring the comic to life, just like they give Superman red boots and make it appear that he's flying, just like the Balrog had a whip made out of fire, even though fire-whips don't exist in real life.


Another reason he HAD to be CGI, is that the nature of the comicbook character is impossible in real life, hence the crappiness of the costume. He has a rocky hide, he's supposed to have rock-hard skin, but rock isn't flexible. ANY time a human moves, it has to be flexible at the joints, and that flexibility will look rubbery.

CGI is the only way you can make the impossible appear to happen here, by mathematically fudging, making each "rock" in his skin act as scales, or pebbles, adhering to one another with a complex and flexible interaction with eachother, like a pile of nugget-shaped magnets, moveable, but always connected.

Totally impossible with the same technology they used to make Godzilla back in the 50's.


:down:rolleyes:

[terry78]

^I do agree in that respect. The Thing shouldn't even be able to fit into normal doorways. He's not the tallest guy, but he is wide.

[Kelly]

Just a thought, but I'll bet if Chiklis himself asked for the brow, Fox might just give it more consideration.
Anybody got a fan mail address for Michael Chiklis?

They cut a funny scene out of the movie where Thing goes through the door....as was much of the really good stuff, this was cut as well...

[Malus]

The reason the Thing had to be CGI is that, for the millionth time:rolleyes:, The thing is bi-pedal, and humanOID, but he doesn't. have. human. proportions.

I think writer/artist John Byrne described it best 20 years ago: "Ben isn't shaped like a human. He's shaped more like a starfish."
(No Spongebob & Patrick jokes, please.)

[Kelly]

I think writer/artist John Byrne described it best 20 years ago: "Ben isn't shaped like a human. He's shaped more like a starfish."
(No Spongebob & Patrick jokes, please.)

I still think, and always will that it won't come down to money, it won't come down to what Chiklis or Story wants, it won't come down to anything but time....from listening to the commentary, and what I've seen he may have a problem with organizing and time....it seems alot of time, energy and money was wasted on the first movie.....hopefully this won't happen in the sequel.

[Vartha]

Big brow ? Small nose ? Unless you're making The Thing cg, isn't happening. Chilkis will be in that thing again. The head should look the same. They can work on the hands, and the body, but you can't take away from the emotions of the face. And if you gave him a big brow you'd take away from that. As far as a button nose, I don't think Chilkisis nose is that small. So the head stays as is.
This is something both the thing and I have agreed on in the past, there's no way to make the Thing look the way everyone wants him to look.
You have to start from the begining in 1961 and work your way forward with Ben's look today.
I personally think they did a Great job on Ben and they should leave it.:thing:

[w@llcrawler]

I watched FF again last night and I saw something else that shone a "bad" light on the Thing. When Doom throws him through the air and he lands on the car...a 700 lb. boulder crashing from the air onto the hood of a car should crush it instantly and bring it to a stop. In the movie? The car keeps going, the Thing with his "rock like body" sliding back and forth like he is really made of...foam rubber! He hops of the hood and the SMALL indention pops back out to normal! Can't believe I never noticed this before but its even subliminal things like that that diminish the film Thing's power and presence. They need to do better.

[Malus]

You have to start from the begining in 1961 and work your way forward with Ben's look today.
I personally think they did a Great job on Ben and they should leave it.

If they should work forward, why should they leave it?

The FF1 Thing looks somewhat like the comics Thing did for maybe the first two years of the comic and that's it. He evolved in the comics and he should evolve in the movies; into the more monstrous, browed character we're all familiar with.

[Kelly]

I watched FF again last night and I saw something else that shone a "bad" light on the Thing. When Doom throws him through the air and he lands on the car...a 700 lb. boulder crashing from the air onto the hood of a car should crush it instantly and bring it to a stop. In the movie? The car keeps going, the Thing with his "rock like body" sliding back and forth like he is really made of...foam rubber! He hops of the hood and the SMALL indention pops back out to normal! Can't believe I never noticed this before but its even subliminal things like that that diminish the film Thing's power and presence. They need to do better.

Yeah some others saw that as well...

[Malus]

I watched FF again last night and I saw something else that shone a "bad" light on the Thing. When Doom throws him through the air and he lands on the car...a 700 lb. boulder crashing from the air onto the hood of a car should crush it instantly and bring it to a stop. In the movie? The car keeps going, the Thing with his "rock like body" sliding back and forth like he is really made of...foam rubber! He hops of the hood and the SMALL indention pops back out to normal! Can't believe I never noticed this before but its even subliminal things like that that diminish the film Thing's power and presence. They need to do better.

In my mind it's a tie between this scene and "Marco Polo" as the film's worst moments.

[w@llcrawler]

In my mind it's a tie between this scene and "Marco Polo" as the film's worst moments.

I think the worst for me was when Victor says, "This is going to be fun!" in a very un-Doom like tone!

[Vartha]

If they should work forward, why should they leave it?

The FF1 Thing looks somewhat like the comics Thing did for maybe the first two years of the comic and that's it. He evolved in the comics and he should evolve in the movies; into the more monstrous, browed character we're all familiar with.
What I should have said was try to change the face alittle as each movie comes out, but if they change the body, don't make it look like a "starfish".
I can see ailttle more bulk added to the body by cgi, but, then people will nit pick that too.
Like I said, You can't please everyone all the time, at least the movies are being made.:up:

[Willie Lumpkin]

What I should have said was try to change the face alittle as each movie comes out, but if they change the body, don't make it look like a "starfish".
I can see ailttle more bulk added to the body by cgi, but, then people will nit pick that too.
Like I said, You can't please everyone all the time, at least the movies are being made.:up:

I can't remember the exact quote or where I saw it, but I seem to remember Tim Story once made a statement that at least hinted the Thing's look might evolve in the films as it did in the Comics.

Can anyone else remember what I'm thinking of, or - better yet - find the actual quote?

[Kelly]

He might can be drawn in a starfish shape in the comics, but make him look more starfish on the big screen and everyone will call him spongebob's brother....

[Malus]

He might can be drawn in a starfish shape in the comics, but make him look more starfish on the big screen and everyone will call him spongebob's brother....

Now what did I say? ;)
I think writer/artist John Byrne described it best 20 years ago: "Ben isn't shaped like a human. He's shaped more like a starfish."
(No Spongebob & Patrick jokes, please.)

[Kelly]

Now what did I say? ;)

I KNOOOOOOOW.....but when people tell me NOT TO DO SOMETHING....well....you know the rest......:D

[Malus]

I KNOOOOOOOW.....but when people tell me NOT TO DO SOMETHING....well....you know the rest......:D

In that case, do NOT pay my mortgage. I mean it, now.

[Kelly]

In that case, do NOT pay my mortgage. I mean it, now.

After I pay mine....:o

[Wilhelm-Scream]

at least the movies are being made.:up:Doesn't do me any good because the movie was so bad I had to leave the theater from embarrassment. I even bought the DVD and have never been able to watch it all the way through, I skip to the 3 or 4 good parts.

And it is the only movie where every single one of my friends refused to go see it with me because they said it looks like a waste of time. However we all went together to see all the Lord of the Rings movies, all of the Star Wars prequels, and I went with 2 or more of them to Land of the Dead, Spider-Man 1+2 ( twice ), all the Blade movies, Batman Begins (twice ), War of the Worlds, both Kill Bills, The Hulk.......we always go to movies, but not a single one wanted to see F4, and all they knew about it was that they saw the USA Today with the Thing on the cover and said it looked ridiculous, withOUT me saying a word.

[Kelly]

Doesn't do me any good because the movie was so bad I had to leave the theater from embarrassment. I even bought the DVD and have never been able to watch it all the way through, I skip to the 3 or 4 good parts.

And it is the only movie where every single one of my friends refused to go see it with me because they said it looks like a waste of time. However we all went together to see all the Lord of the Rings movies, all of the Star Wars prequels, and I went with 2 or more of them to Land of the Dead, Spider-Man 1+2 ( twice ), all the Blade movies, Batman Begins (twice ), War of the Worlds, both Kill Bills, The Hulk.......we always go to movies, but not a single one wanted to see F4, and all they knew about it was that they saw the USA Today with the Thing on the cover and said it looked ridiculous, withOUT me saying a word.

Wow, all my friends wanted to go see it, and they made sure I was with them....hmmmmm....I guess different types of friends for different types of people uh?

[Mr Sensitive]

Doesn't do me any good because the movie was so bad I had to leave the theater from embarrassment. I even bought the DVD and have never been able to watch it all the way through, I skip to the 3 or 4 good parts.

And it is the only movie where every single one of my friends refused to go see it with me because they said it looks like a waste of time. However we all went together to see all the Lord of the Rings movies, all of the Star Wars prequels, and I went with 2 or more of them to Land of the Dead, Spider-Man 1+2 ( twice ), all the Blade movies, Batman Begins (twice ), War of the Worlds, both Kill Bills, The Hulk.......

It doesn't do me any good either.

I'd rather have a much better movie, a true Fantastic Four movie, with less BO than that crap wrapped up in money for Fox's greedy hands.

[Kelly]

It doesn't do me any good either.

I'd rather have a much better movie, a true Fantastic Four movie, with less BO than that crap wrapped up in money for Fox's greedy hands.

And I guess the question will always be.....which would the movie going audience liked better......a question we will never know the answer to, nor am I going to answer for them...

[Mr Sensitive]

When a filmmaker makes his film, he should not allow the disturbing idea of what would this abstract construct (movie going audience) like better.

There is great probability that this audience doesn't even know what they'll like better. They're there to watch.

A filmmaker should do the best movie, considering its source (in that case, the great FF comicbooks), conveying all that made the comicbook that great.

Someone will have to hammer it inside Story's head.

[Kelly]

When a filmmaker makes his film, he should not allow the disturbing idea of what would this abstract construct (movie going audience) like better.

There is great probability that this audience doesn't even know what they'll like better. They're there to watch.

A filmmaker should do the best movie, considering its source (in that case, the great FF comicbooks), conveying all that made the comicbook that great.

Someone will have to hammer it inside Story's head.

Of course not, why would a filmmaker want to make a film that people enjoy.....how stupid of me to think that....

[Mr Sensitive]

Of course not, why would a filmmaker want to make a film that people enjoy.....how stupid of me to think that....

So, the innuendo behind these words is that: people will only enjoy it if they indulge in making such a crap & messing with great tales?

I disagree. People liked much more than that the LOTR, for instance. And many other great movies, as well.

[Kelly]

So, the innuendo behind these words is that: people will only enjoy it if they indulge in making such a crap & messing with great tales?

I disagree. People liked much more than that the LOTR, for instance. And many other great movies, as well.

No what I am saying is.....people enjoy what they enjoy! People have different thoughts about what they like and don't like....What is crap to one person, may not be to another....we've had this discussion before so I'm not going to go through it again....every movie does not have to be the perfect adaptation, the next Godfather, for people to enjoy it...there will always be people who hate whatever....if I can go into a movie, laugh alittle, cry alittle, jump, get excited, whoop here and there a few aaaahhhh's.....I've had a great time and the movie did exactly what the movie was supposed to do...ENTERTAIN ME....thats what I paid my $10 bucks for + my drink and goodies. Is everyone going to feel the same way I do.....no.....nor do I expect them to....do I care if the critics liked it or not.....no.....because I make up my own mind. Do I care if they followed some experts view of what good film is all about? no.....if I enjoyed it......I enjoyed it.......in this case, if parents can take their kids into see the movie, if the guy can take his girlfriend into see the movie...if I can go with friends and family to see the movie and we enjoy it.....then Story has done in my view....EXACTLY what he was supposed to do....Is anyone going to change my view from that? Probably not, I've had that same view going into every single movie I've ever seen for way into 3 decades.....don't see it changing!

BTW, I fell asleep in alot of movies, that some (thinking their minds much greater than mine) thought were GREAT MOVIES!...

[Agent 194]

Yes, I agree, it was quite effective.
And there's no reason why they couldn't do this with Chiklis. Show him in close-up a lot, with only minimal CGI enhancement, then layer CGI over him for full body shots. As far as I'm concerned, there could be half as many full body shots of him - if they work.
Again, I don't want to lose Chiklis' face in all this. I don't want a Hulk-type effect; I want Chiklis' great performance incorporated into a Hulk-type effect.
I think it can and should be done.

Here's where I feel the need to jump back in. I have felt and stated this before. . .I look at what they did with Nightcrawler in X-2. They could have endlessly CGI'd his feet to look like hoofs on screen - instead I think they made a very wise decision. They just showed them less. I think if they showed Thing as he should be. . .and just be selective about what they show, how they show it; kind of a less is more approach, I could live with that. I would almost rather that see that Thing over the Thing who distracted me because he was obvously in a suit. We pretty much saw him ugly, exposed pores and all.

[Mr Sensitive]

No what I am saying is.....people enjoy what they enjoy! People have different thoughts about what they like and don't like....What is crap to one person, may not be to another....we've had this discussion before so I'm not going to go through it again....every movie does not have to be the perfect adaptation, the next Godfather, for people to enjoy it...there will always be people who hate whatever....if I can go into a movie, laugh alittle, cry alittle, jump, get excited, whoop here and there a few aaaahhhh's.....I've had a great time and the movie did exactly what the movie was supposed to do...ENTERTAIN ME....thats what I paid my $10 bucks for + my drink and goodies. Is everyone going to feel the same way I do.....no.....nor do I expect them to....do I care if the critics liked it or not.....no.....because I make up my own mind. Do I care if they followed some experts view of what good film is all about? no.....if I enjoyed it......I enjoyed it.......in this case, if parents can take their kids into see the movie, if the guy can take his girlfriend into see the movie...if I can go with friends and family to see the movie and we enjoy it.....then Story has done in my view....EXACTLY what he was supposed to do....Is anyone going to change my view from that? Probably not, I've had that same view going into every single movie I've ever seen for way into 3 decades.....don't see it changing!

BTW, I fell asleep in alot of movies, that some (thinking their minds much greater than mine) thought were GREAT MOVIES!...


Well, JMAfan, carissima,

if it is just passing entertainment you're after, then that's fine: you've got it already, as you said.

People can talk about how Alba is hot and nice, how Evans looks really good in that blue outfit, etc, etc, etc. That is entertaining, surely.

I'm still crossing my fingers for a great FF movie. What could I say to you?

And if you really think cinema is just ten bucks, drinking and eating, plus a bit of entertainment, what a poor experience it is.


PS: I don't care what critics say, either. Meaning: not because they're critics.
But then again, I'm no blockhead concerning good points. And I cannot feel satisfied with a bad movie just because I didn't sleep through its one hour and a half.

[Malus]

And if you really think cinema is just ten bucks, drinking and eating, plus a bit of entertainment, what a poor experience it is.

Um...That's not what JMAfan said at all.

And I cannot feel satisfied with a bad movie just because I didn't sleep through its one hour and a half.

And she said nothing about being satisfied with sleeping through a boring movie. Only that she has fallen asleep in movies others considered great.

If I'm ever at a loss for words, perhaps you could put some in my mouth.

(Jeez, was that ever a straight line.)

[Willie Lumpkin]

Can't we get a "FF sucked . . . did not . . . did too . . . did not times infinity" thread started somewhere to prevent every thread being turned into one?http://forums.wdwmagic.com/images/smilies/lookaround.gif

[Kelly]

Can't we get a "FF sucked . . . did not . . . did too . . . did not times infinity" thread started somewhere to prevent every thread being turned into one?http://forums.wdwmagic.com/images/smilies/lookaround.gif

Ummmmm....yeah???? but ummmm....I don't think thats what I said.:confused: But....ok.

Actually that thread should be on the other forum...cause this is the F4 2 forum, and well..........I'm looking forward to a sequel, full of fun, excitment, makes me laugh and cry and over all have a good time with my drink and goodies......hows that?:D

[Willie Lumpkin]

Ummmmm....yeah???? but ummmm....I don't think thats what I said.:confused: But....ok.



LOL I wasn't commenting on anyone's particular post, and I'm not blaming anyone. It just seems like every thread on every topic eventually degrades into very broad argements about the strengths and weakness' of the first film.

It just seems like if we had a thread devoted to the overall quality (since that what it seems most people want to discuss) we could keep some of these other threads focused on the individual topics.

[Malus]

Can't we get a "FF sucked . . . did not . . . did too . . . did not times infinity" thread started somewhere to prevent every thread being turned into one?http://forums.wdwmagic.com/images/smilies/lookaround.gif

No kidding. :up:
It should have a poll attached to it, too, with those exact choices..."Sucked"..."Did not"... "Did Too"..."Did not times infinity."
That would be just about perfect.
I can just see some guy with taped-together glasses, typing furiously... "I'm voting 'Did not suck times infinity!' " :D

Yeah, FF sucked.
It sucked 330 million dollars out of the moviegoing public, baby.

Now here comes the usual "So if a movie makes a ton of money that automatically makes it a good movie?"
Yawn.

[Kelly]

No kidding. :up:
It should have a poll attached to it, too, with those exact choices..."Sucked"..."Did not"... "Did Too"..."Did not times infinity."
That would be just about perfect.
I can just see some guy with taped-together glasses, typing furiously... "I'm voting 'Did not suck times infinity!' " :D

Yeah, FF sucked.
It sucked 330 million dollars out of the moviegoing public, baby.

Now here comes the usual "So if a movie makes a ton of money that automatically makes it a good movie?"
Yawn.

Well guys, be ready...because once filming starts and this place picks up...we will get new people in daily with the same stuff that some have been saying for the past 3 months....on both sides....its the reality of these boards.....and yes its a "yawn".

[Mr Sensitive]

Um...That's not what JMAfan said at all.



And she said nothing about being satisfied with sleeping through a boring movie. Only that she has fallen asleep in movies others considered great.

If I'm ever at a loss for words, perhaps you could put some in my mouth.

(Jeez, was that ever a straight line.)


In fact, Malus, she did say it.

I'll even help you with a direct quotation from her post: "I've had a great time and the movie did exactly what the movie was supposed to do...ENTERTAIN ME....thats what I paid my $10 bucks for + my drink and goodies."

And I didn't say she said she was satisfied in just not sleeping through a movie. I said I couldn't be satisfied with it.

Talk about putting words in one's mouth.

[Kelly]

LOL I wasn't commenting on anyone's particular post, and I'm not blaming anyone. It just seems like every thread on every topic eventually degrades into very broad argements about the strengths and weakness' of the first film.

It just seems like if we had a thread devoted to the overall quality (since that what it seems most people want to discuss) we could keep some of these other threads focused on the individual topics.

But Willie.....that happened in the F4 forum as well....it seemed that every topic moved to what was wrong with Doom.....it happens......how do we stop it.....well people that know what the hell they are talking about when it comes to the F4 step up, and speak their mind. Not just a few.

[Malus]

In fact, Malus, she did say it.

I'll even help you with a direct quotation from her post: "I've had a great time and the movie did exactly what the movie was supposed to do...ENTERTAIN ME....thats what I paid my $10 bucks for + my drink and goodies."


And I didn't say she said she was satisfied in just not sleeping through a movie. I said I couldn't be satisfied with it.

Talk about putting words in one's mouth.

No, what you said was:
If you really think cinema is just ten bucks, drinking and eating, plus a bit of entertainment, what a poor experience it is.

That is putting words in her mouth by recharacterizing what she said.

And all I read into her statement was an assertion that a movie's primary job is to entertain. And guess what? It is. I'm sure Frank Capra, Orson Welles, Steven Spielberg and even Steven Soderbergh would all agree.
And you can bet the studio heads would, as well.
Great films can do much more, of course. No question.
But job one? Entertain.

[Mr Sensitive]

No, what you said was:


That is putting words in her mouth by recharacterizing what she said.

And all I read into her statement was an assertion that a movie's primary job is to entertain. And guess what? It is. I'm sure Frank Capra, Orson Welles, Steven Spielberg and even Steven Soderbergh would all agree.
And you can bet the studio heads would, as well.
Great films can do much more, of course. No question.
But job one? Entertain.

Malus, I frankly don't know why you are doing that, but, anyway.

Again: I didn't say she said that.

Take a good look in what you put in bold. There is an IF starting the sentence.

Please, read before accusing people with the voracity you accuse me.

I don't put words in other's mouth. That's just silly of you to say that.

What JMAfan did say is what you tried to subvert, and to what I called your attention in my last post.

Plus:No job done till a good movie is achieved.

Your list of filmmakers would agree with that. And I'm not talking about masterpieces like The Godfather. I said "a good movie".

X2 is a good movie. Batman Begins is a good movie. FF is not.

[Malus]

Take a good look in what you put in bold. There is an IF starting the sentence.
Yes, I noticed the "if." That's why I bolded it.

"And if you really think cinema is just ten bucks, drinking and eating, plus a bit of entertainment, what a poor experience it is."
Perhaps I should have bolded "...what a poor experience it is."
Because I find that more than a tad condescending.
But maybe I read more into it than was intended.


X2 is a good movie. Batman Begins is a good movie. FF is not.
In your opinion. (A phrase that is too often lacking on these boards.)
In my opinion, I don't think any of those are truly good movies.

[Kelly]

Malus, my dear friend......the reason "in my opinion", "IMO" is used so little around these parts is because.....well some feel their opinion is above such words.....their opinion is based on things you and I cannot see or hear (knowledge they may or may not have) therefore because their opinion is based on their knowledge that we can't see or hear.... "IMO" in their opinion...(lol) is not needed and is almosst condescending to their posts

[Mr Sensitive]

Yes, I noticed the "if." That's why I bolded it.


Perhaps I should have bolded "...what a poor experience it is."
Because I find that more than a tad condescending.
But maybe I read more into it than was intended.


In your opinion. (A phrase that is too often lacking on these boards.)
In my opinion, I don't think any of those are truly good movies.


So if you noticed that I had the care of using a conditional, you shouldn't transform it into an argument.

When I said "what a poor experience it is" every single word has meaning, and they express exactly the situation. If that is the case, then it is, indeed, a poor experience. Condescension is not frank, and I was frank.

"In my opinion" applies only when dealing with opinions. I see people around here are touchy about stating a thing without the help of a cheap relativism.

I respect the taste of others, but I'm not discussing taste (and I wouldn't).

Considering superhero movies, the two I mentioned are good movies, and FF is bad. That's no opinion.

[Kelly]

So if you noticed that I had the care of using a conditional, you shouldn't transform it into an argument.

When I said "what a poor experience it is" every single word has meaning, and they express exactly the situation. If that is the case, then it is, indeed, a poor experience. Condescension is not frank, and I was frank.

"In my opinion" applies only when dealing with opinions. I see people around here are touchy about stating a thing without the help of a cheap relativism.

I respect the taste of others, but I'm not discussing taste (and I wouldn't).

Considering superhero movies, the two I mentioned are good movies, and FF is bad. That's no opinion.

So those of my friends that said it was good, theres is just an opinion then?

Those that have come here stating they really enjoyed the movie and that they thought it was good, theres is just an opinion......BUT yours is not? YOURS is fact...

I think I'm beginning to understand....

[Malus]

"In my opinion" applies only when dealing with opinions.

Okay.:confused:

Considering superhero movies, the two I mentioned are good movies, and FF is bad. That's no opinion.

Well of course that's an opinion.
Just because you don't consider it an opinion doesn't make it anything other than your opinion.
The distinction is as plain as the nose on your face.
Unless you call that something else...?
Jeezus.

[Kelly]

Malus.....Malus.....

People with "assumed knowledge" around here speak in objective facts...

People with "the enjoyment of what they see on the screen" speak in subjective opinions...

I've finally figured it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Malus]

Malus.....Malus.....

People with "assumed knowledge" around here speak in objective facts...

People with "the enjoyment of what they see on the screen" speak in subjective opinions...

I've finally figured it out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I believe you have.:)

[Mr Sensitive]

So those of my friends that said it was good, theres is just an opinion then?

Those that have come here stating they really enjoyed the movie and that they thought it was good, theres is just an opinion......BUT yours is not? YOURS is fact...

I think I'm beginning to understand....

To your first question, JMAfan: of course. Or you could have given very good arguments in contrary.

I didn't say "mine", as if I had discovered America. Any person who understands a bit of cinema will tell you the same. If not, ask them to explain why is it a good movie.

A clue: arguments like "it has a great BO", or "I liked it and had fun with it" are just decoys of "I don't know what I'm talking about", or "it's my taste".

I gave a good deal of arguments against this movie. Never seen 1 argument to sustain its good quality as a movie here nor anywhere. Do you know where I can find one?