The SuperHeroHype Forums  

Go Back   The SuperHeroHype Forums > General Movies > Marvel Films

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-02-2012, 10:59 PM   #676
bubbadoom
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,576
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Lumpkin View Post
If Fox is serious about making this film (and no matter what anybody thinks about Mark Millar, his hiring indicates a certain interest by Fox in developing these properties), you can probably bet that there's some Weta test footage. And I'd further bet that the footage is pretty amazing.

10 years ago when we first started talking about an FF film, I was in the "I want The Thing to have plenty of screen-time, so I don't want him to be CGI" camp.

But in today's world - after we've seen characters like Davey Jones in POTC - I believe any studio who is willing to invest a bit can pull off a convincing CGI Thing.

And I think the visual nature of the Thing and the fact that he hasn't been done right yet could be the cornerstone of the film.

Fox hasn't earned my confidence yet, but I think a wise studio will realize the Thing can and should be done right. He has the ability to carry the film.
There's your key phrase - of course it's possible - but thus far Fox has not been willing to do this, as the $80 and $100 million initial budgets for FF and FF2 show.

When FF2 went into production, WETA had some cool Surfer test footage that they were unable to deliver once the movie was shot so the entire approach had to be scrapped and replaced with the all digital version we got in the movie. Just sayin'...

bubbadoom is offline  
Old 10-02-2012, 11:28 PM   #677
S. Grundy
Side-Kick
 
S. Grundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,906
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

The Baxter Building was fine in the movies.

If they're going for the big bulky modern Thing look, CGI is probably the only way to really achieve that. But if they are going to stick with the more Jack Kirby look that the first two movies went with, then they should just stick with a suit.


Last edited by S. Grundy; 10-02-2012 at 11:33 PM.
S. Grundy is offline  
Old 10-02-2012, 11:48 PM   #678
Shazam
Side-Kick
 
Shazam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,796
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by S. Grundy View Post
The Baxter Building was fine in the movies.

If they're going for the big bulky modern Thing look, CGI is probably the only way to really achieve that. But if they are going to stick with the more Jack Kirby look that the first two movies went with, then they should just stick with a suit.

Huh?

Chiklis looked like the Kirby model did for the first 10 issues only! Kirby had over a 100 issue run. The bulk of his renderings looked nothing like Chiklis. He wasnt lumpy very long. Especially when Joe Sinnot inked him.

http://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/kirby/w...6/10/thing.jpg

http://www.comictreadmill.com/CTMBlo...0601-thumb.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_O4ZzhRdo84...1600/Kirby.jpg

Shazam is offline  
Old 10-02-2012, 11:53 PM   #679
Shazam
Side-Kick
 
Shazam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,796
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by S. Grundy View Post
The Baxter Building was fine in the movies.

If they're going for the big bulky modern Thing look, CGI is probably the only way to really achieve that. But if they are going to stick with the more Jack Kirby look that the first two movies went with, then they should just stick with a suit.
No...the building was not fine.
We didnt even see it in the first movie.

Shazam is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 12:09 AM   #680
S. Grundy
Side-Kick
 
S. Grundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,906
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shazam View Post
Huh?

Chiklis looked like the Kirby model did for the first 10 issues only! Kirby had over a 100 issue run. The bulk of his renderings looked nothing like Chiklis. He wasnt lumpy very long. Especially when Joe Sinnot inked him.

http://kirbymuseum.org/blogs/kirby/w...6/10/thing.jpg

http://www.comictreadmill.com/CTMBlo...0601-thumb.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_O4ZzhRdo84...1600/Kirby.jpg
And by the second movie they refined the look to more or less the pictures you posted, including a more pronounced brow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shazam View Post
No...the building was not fine.
We didnt even see it in the first movie.
They're in it for a good chunk of time in the first one.

S. Grundy is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 08:21 AM   #681
Project862006
Banned User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 21,203
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Lumpkin View Post
Rise of The Planet of the Apes featured a CGI main character as well as a cast of other CGI apes. It was completely convincing and done for a total budget of $93 million.

And I absolutely agree that the Thing will be much easier than apes, Hulk or any other characters that have muscle pulling bones and deforming flesh in extremely complex ways. The computer needs to fool a human eye that spends all day watching other humans and will spot extremely subtle irregularities.

A rock creature with rigid surfaces moving against other rigid surfaces will be much easier to pull off and look convincing. And the thing that threw off the look of the suit - the'rocks' wrinkling in ways they shouldn't - won't only be much more convincing in CGI, but that rigid structure will be easier to animate than other characters.

Think about Hulk or other CGI characters you've seen. As long as they're not moving or moving very slowly, they can look very convincing. But when they're moving, they often have a 'rubbery' feel that just doesn't look right. We know how people move and CGI has a hard time matching that. I believe the Thing will look much better than the Hulk or other characters and it will require less effort.
yeah cesar looked great and fox also did the tiger in life of pi which is all cgi as well


but these are animal's with fur a rock based character might be difficult to pull off

Project862006 is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 08:29 AM   #682
terry78
Heads up, heathen monkeys
 
terry78's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Northwest Indiana
Posts: 61,512
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

^Yeah, I saw the trailer before Hotel Transylvania and some lady was like, "wow,I wonder how they got that tiger to do all that." I was just like, CG has come a long ass way.

__________________
The only thing funnier than watching stupid people argue is watching smart people argue.
-----------
Who the **** makes a movie and while planning it is like, "you know what this needs...is some Greg Kinnear."
terry78 is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 08:48 AM   #683
Spider-Fan83
Thwip Thwip
 
Spider-Fan83's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 5,876
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Project862006 View Post
but these are animal's with fur a rock based character might be difficult to pull off
I would think a rock texture would be easier, fur is very difficult to pull off, with all the individual hairs moving about and such... rock is a solid texture, you only really need to worry about movement in the joints and facial expressions, its not like he's made up of tiny pebbles that are consistently moving independently

Spider-Fan83 is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 09:44 AM   #684
marcvader
Lurker #1
SHH! Moderator
 
marcvader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The MIA
Posts: 10,584
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Inanimate textures are easier than organic.

__________________
* * *CAPTAIN AMERICA* * *
******THE WINTER SOLDIER******
__________________#1 CBM of 2014____________________
Twitter- @mrpink13
GO PHINS
HAIL HYDRA!
marcvader is online now  
Old 10-03-2012, 09:47 AM   #685
Shazam
Side-Kick
 
Shazam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,796
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by S. Grundy View Post
And by the second movie they refined the look to more or less the pictures you posted, including a more pronounced brow.



They're in it for a good chunk of time in the first one.

We never saw the building from afar......not talking about inside.....

Look at this 1994 Roger Corman clip at 8:50......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVfu8...ture=endscreen

The Corman Doom was better than the 2005 Doom.

Shazam is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 10:03 AM   #686
Willie Lumpkin
Trophy Husband
 
Willie Lumpkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southern New Jersey
Posts: 5,194
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spider-Fan83 View Post
I would think a rock texture would be easier, fur is very difficult to pull off, with all the individual hairs moving about and such... rock is a solid texture, you only really need to worry about movement in the joints and facial expressions, its not like he's made up of tiny pebbles that are consistently moving independently
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcvader View Post
Inanimate textures are easier than organic.
I agree but I also think the argument is irrelevant. A proper Thing simply can't be done with a suit and I'm not talking about a seven and a half foot tall Thing, I'm talking a Kirby Thing.

This:



Can't come close to this:



The thing needs to be thick, massive, powerful and he needs to be able to charge like a freight train. No suit can make the Thing what he needs to be to make this film work. They had two films to try and what they came up with wasn't even close.

We can discuss the presumed limitations of CGI, but we don't have to guess when it comes to a suit. We know that a suit is extrememly limited. You can't just put a guy in a suit that looks like it's made of orange rocks and call it a day. The Thing is more than a guy that looks like he's covered in orange rocks.

__________________
Check out my best-selling Science Fiction novel: Land of Nod, The Artifact

Last edited by Willie Lumpkin; 10-03-2012 at 10:49 AM.
Willie Lumpkin is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 10:13 AM   #687
bubbadoom
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,576
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shazam View Post
We never saw the building from afar......not talking about inside.....

Look at this 1994 Roger Corman clip at 8:50......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVfu8...ture=endscreen

The Corman Doom was better than the 2005 Doom.
Of course we saw the Baxter Building from afar in the first film - the frozen Reed sees it lighting up when Ben uses the machine to turn back to the Thing, Doom looks at it when he fires the rocket launcher, we see it when Johnny jumps off the building to avoid the rocket hitting it, etc. There may even be Johnny's pov of the Baxter from the street when the machine is first being used on Ben, but that may be a deleted scene.

In FF2 there's a hand full of exteriors around the wedding as I recall. But I guess neither have the beauty shots that Stark Tower has in The Avengers - the Baxter does need to be treated like the fifth member of the team, and it needs to look like the classic BB!

bubbadoom is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 11:20 AM   #688
Shazam
Side-Kick
 
Shazam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,796
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by bubbadoom View Post
Of course we saw the Baxter Building from afar in the first film - the frozen Reed sees it lighting up when Ben uses the machine to turn back to the Thing, Doom looks at it when he fires the rocket launcher, we see it when Johnny jumps off the building to avoid the rocket hitting it, etc. There may even be Johnny's pov of the Baxter from the street when the machine is first being used on Ben, but that may be a deleted scene.

In FF2 there's a hand full of exteriors around the wedding as I recall. But I guess neither have the beauty shots that Stark Tower has in The Avengers - the Baxter does need to be treated like the fifth member of the team, and it needs to look like the classic BB!

There was never a good shot of the Baxter in that movie. Nothing like the Avenger's Tower. Night time stuff was fairly weak....

Shazam is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 11:55 AM   #689
The Guard
Side-Kick
 
The Guard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 26,106
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

I tend to reject the idea that a "proper" (I assume we're talking about the brow) Thing can't be done with a suit. It's fairly obvious that they chose to minimize the brow in the costume design in order to make The Thing look a tad more human, and more like an extension of a human's physique. But Roger Corman's FOUR movie featured a design with the giant brow and that was a suit, so it's very doable.

Suggesting that The Thing wasn't thick, massive and powerful in the FOUR movies just because he's not as thick and squat as some more cartoony portrayals of himself in the comics...yeah, I don't get that. It's like whining that Batman's muscles aren't depicted as massively as some comics versions. To suggest that the film's designs weren't even close? That's just absurd. He was never going to look in live action exactly how a PICTURE looks.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night
The Guard is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 12:15 PM   #690
Sardaukar
Side-Kick
 
Sardaukar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Off the shores of Orion
Posts: 1,688
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

I prefer the Thing to look more inhuman because then it's easier to buy that he's a character that can lift 80+ tons. Even if he's not much taller than your typical human, he should still look monstrously massive.

Sardaukar is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 01:21 PM   #691
The Guard
Side-Kick
 
The Guard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 26,106
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

He did.

The thing is...some of the pictures being shown here...a few more inches on the muscles isn't really going to make me buy that a character can lift 80 tons.

It's all kind of relative.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night
The Guard is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 02:04 PM   #692
Willie Lumpkin
Trophy Husband
 
Willie Lumpkin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southern New Jersey
Posts: 5,194
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
I tend to reject the idea that a "proper" (I assume we're talking about the brow) Thing can't be done with a suit. It's fairly obvious that they chose to minimize the brow in the costume design in order to make The Thing look a tad more human, and more like an extension of a human's physique. But Roger Corman's FOUR movie featured a design with the giant brow and that was a suit, so it's very doable.

Suggesting that The Thing wasn't thick, massive and powerful in the FOUR movies just because he's not as thick and squat as some more cartoony portrayals of himself in the comics...yeah, I don't get that. It's like whining that Batman's muscles aren't depicted as massively as some comics versions. To suggest that the film's designs weren't even close? That's just absurd. He was never going to look in live action exactly how a PICTURE looks.
It's not some portrayals as you imply. Every portrayal of him ever done has depicted him with arms longer than can be done with a suit, hands and feet bigger than can be done with a suit and chest and shoulders broader than can be done with suit.

Being satisfied with how he's depicted in a suit is like being satisfied with Lou Ferrigno as the Hulk. Someone who isn't very familiar with the characters may feel such diminished dimensions are fine, but people who really like the characters want to see them with the monstrous proportions that make them special.

And it's less about the dimensions than it is the dynamic aspects. Jack Kirby always drew Ben charging, lunging, leaping. The power and movement of the character jumped off the page, but that can't be done with an actor lumbering in a bulky suit. Ben is so powerful that his arms and legs weigh nothing to him, but the weight of the suit on an actor is very real and can't be masked. When we see Chiklis jogging awkwardly down a corridor, we aren't seeing the Thing. The Thing should be taking huge, powerful, purposeful strides about to deliver an unbelievable amount of force.

If the film-makers aren't determined to show the Thing - Probably in the top five of Marvel's most iconic figures - as he should be portrayed, then there's really no point in doing an FF film.

__________________
Check out my best-selling Science Fiction novel: Land of Nod, The Artifact
Willie Lumpkin is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 02:35 PM   #693
marcvader
Lurker #1
SHH! Moderator
 
marcvader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The MIA
Posts: 10,584
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
I tend to reject the idea that a "proper" (I assume we're talking about the brow) Thing can't be done with a suit. It's fairly obvious that they chose to minimize the brow in the costume design in order to make The Thing look a tad more human, and more like an extension of a human's physique. But Roger Corman's FOUR movie featured a design with the giant brow and that was a suit, so it's very doable.

Suggesting that The Thing wasn't thick, massive and powerful in the FOUR movies just because he's not as thick and squat as some more cartoony portrayals of himself in the comics...yeah, I don't get that. It's like whining that Batman's muscles aren't depicted as massively as some comics versions. To suggest that the film's designs weren't even close? That's just absurd. He was never going to look in live action exactly how a PICTURE looks.
So I guess you had problems with people being critical with the Hulk's appearances as well.

__________________
* * *CAPTAIN AMERICA* * *
******THE WINTER SOLDIER******
__________________#1 CBM of 2014____________________
Twitter- @mrpink13
GO PHINS
HAIL HYDRA!
marcvader is online now  
Old 10-03-2012, 02:44 PM   #694
Destructus86
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 4,902
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

I'm not even interested in a Fantastic Four movie now unless it's connected to Marvel Studio's movies.

__________________
Religion should not be taught in school.
Destructus86 is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 02:45 PM   #695
bubbadoom
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,576
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by Willie Lumpkin View Post
It's not some portrayals as you imply. Every portrayal of him ever done has depicted him with arms longer than can be done with a suit, hands and feet bigger than can be done with a suit and chest and shoulders broader than can be done with suit.


And it's less about the dimensions than it is the dynamic aspects. Jack Kirby always drew Ben charging, lunging, leaping. The power and movement of the character jumped off the page, but that can't be done with an actor lumbering in a bulky suit. Ben is so powerful that his arms and legs weigh nothing to him, but the weight of the suit on an actor is very real and can't be masked. When we see Chiklis jogging awkwardly down a corridor, we aren't seeing the Thing. The Thing should be taking huge, powerful, purposeful strides about to deliver an unbelievable amount of force.

If the film-makers aren't determined to show the Thing - Probably in the top five of Marvel's most iconic figures - as he should be portrayed, then there's really no point in doing an FF film.
Most, if not all of Kirby's Thing drawings had human enough proportions to be pulled off by a man in a suit - half the time he's putting on large overcoats, hats, etc. to disguise himself - off the rack stuff, not special built stuff.

Of course all the heavy action stuff would be doubled with a digital double, just like they do with any other character preforming wild action and stunts.

Perhaps a more fit performer needs to be wearing the suit in the first place, but I think Chicky did a fine job in the two films, almost as good as Chris Evans as the Torch.

bubbadoom is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 02:47 PM   #696
marcvader
Lurker #1
SHH! Moderator
 
marcvader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: The MIA
Posts: 10,584
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

He didn't move around well at all, wasn't his fault. He needs to move around like the Hulk almost but less wild.

__________________
* * *CAPTAIN AMERICA* * *
******THE WINTER SOLDIER******
__________________#1 CBM of 2014____________________
Twitter- @mrpink13
GO PHINS
HAIL HYDRA!
marcvader is online now  
Old 10-03-2012, 06:57 PM   #697
bubbadoom
Side-Kick
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 2,576
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Perhaps "more fit" is not being fair, but maybe a more skilled suit performer - like Doug Jones was in playing the Surfer - would work better.

Wearing full body suits, or even just a prosthetic make-up, is not for every actor - you can watch the Burton PLANET OF THE APES and see the ones who got it [Tim R., Paul G. etc.] and the ones who did not.

bubbadoom is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 07:14 PM   #698
S. Grundy
Side-Kick
 
S. Grundy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 2,906
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guard View Post
I tend to reject the idea that a "proper" (I assume we're talking about the brow) Thing can't be done with a suit. It's fairly obvious that they chose to minimize the brow in the costume design in order to make The Thing look a tad more human, and more like an extension of a human's physique. But Roger Corman's FOUR movie featured a design with the giant brow and that was a suit, so it's very doable.
I also genuinely think they were going for the very early Kirby look with the Thing. In addition to wanting to show more humanity in the face.

S. Grundy is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 10:34 PM   #699
The Guard
Side-Kick
 
The Guard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 26,106
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Quote:
So I guess you had problems with people being critical with the Hulk's appearances as well.
Some of the more anal ones, to a point.

Quote:
It's not some portrayals as you imply. Every portrayal of him ever done has depicted him with arms longer than can be done with a suit, hands and feet bigger than can be done with a suit and chest and shoulders broader than can be done with suit.
"Every"?

(Googles images of The Thing)

Umm, no.

I think it's the word "can't" that I take issue with. They can do some pretty insane things with a suit. Long arms aren't remotely outside the reach of that, and obviously big hands and feet can be done as well, because look at the size of his hands in the films.

Quote:
Being satisfied with how he's depicted in a suit is like being satisfied with Lou Ferrigno as the Hulk. Someone who isn't very familiar with the characters may feel such diminished dimensions are fine, but people who really like the characters want to see them with the monstrous proportions that make them special.
No...it would be like being satisfied with someone in a Hulk suit as The Hulk.

He more or less does have the monstrous proportions...and I don't think that's what makes him special anyway. That makes him yet another monster with monstrous proportions.

Quote:
And it's less about the dimensions than it is the dynamic aspects. Jack Kirby always drew Ben charging, lunging, leaping. The power and movement of the character jumped off the page, but that can't be done with an actor lumbering in a bulky suit. Ben is so powerful that his arms and legs weigh nothing to him, but the weight of the suit on an actor is very real and can't be masked. When we see Chiklis jogging awkwardly down a corridor, we aren't seeing the Thing. The Thing should be taking huge, powerful, purposeful strides about to deliver an unbelievable amount of force.
Of course The Thing can be depicted as moving certain ways. It requires stuntment/stunts/coordination, but it can absolutely be shown. It just requires filmmakers to do it.

I have no idea why you're splitting hairs when it comes to how The Thing moves ALL THE TIME.

If he's jogging in a sequence, its because they wanted him to jog in that sequence, not because that's all he can be shown to do. The Thing, as I've read him over the years, certainly is powerful, but "lumbering" certainly describes his movements. He is capable of great speed and occassional agility, but we're not talking about someone who doesn't come across as bulky and awkward anyway, especially initially. Grimm himself describes himself that way half the time.

And yes, it's apparent that there's a Kirby influence in the film design, but I think they looked at a lot of variations of The Thing and included bits from several of them.

__________________
Writer and Lyricist of GOTHAM'S KNIGHT: THE BATMAN MUSICAL

And if I'm right
The future's looking bright
A symbol in the skies at night
The Guard is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 11:03 PM   #700
Shazam
Side-Kick
 
Shazam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,796
Default Re: Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by marcvader View Post
He didn't move around well at all, wasn't his fault. He needs to move around like the Hulk almost but less wild.

Yep ...he was a real stiffy!

That's why it's gotta be CGI next time! Like this......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wrNMPRriwc

AND not stu[id boots!!! I hated them in the early days of the comic and I'm sure that's why Lee and Kirby eventually got rid of them!!

HE'S GOT ROCK FEET FOR CRYIN' OUT LOUD!! He worried about getting a splinter or something??


Last edited by Shazam; 10-03-2012 at 11:11 PM.
Shazam is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:52 AM.

monitoring_string = "dee460792f24517621e3ca080805de7e"
Contact Us - Mobile - SuperHeroHype - ComingSoon.net - Shock Till You Drop - Lost Password - Clear Cookies - Archive - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Top - AdChoices


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SuperHeroHype.com is a property of CraveOnline Media, LLC, an Evolve Media, LLC company. 2014 All Rights Reserved.