Fantastic Four reborn! - Part 5

[Incrediblejeff]

I agree that the Thing should be CGI either that or a really well done makeup like Hellboy's.Or they can do a mixture of both.The problem with making a Fantastic Four film is that it can be a really expensive franchise to pull off well.I wish they had a huge budget and Avatar like effects,but I fear that may be asking for too much along with a bigger chunk of time to complete the film.

I would love for a Fantastic Four film to have a huge scope,and personally I like the idea of Ben having Boots and pants more,but I would be fine with either.Personally I like the Jumpsuit,but I may be alone in that.

[Jordacar]

I look forward to a CGI Thing in the next film. There could also be the occasional puppetry to give the actors something to work with. I'm sure the filmmakers will have fun confounding us viewers as to which is which.

[bubbadoom]

Originally Posted by Shazam

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??

Wow, I forgot how bad that first Hulk stuff was - makes you appreciate him in the Avengers all the more...

Little there that could not be done with a guy in a suit anyway...

Boots or no boots - matters little to me - I would like to see him in the classic wrestling trunks just once...

[bubbadoom]

Originally Posted by Incrediblejeff

I agree that the Thing should be CGI either that or a really well done makeup like Hellboy's.Or they can do a mixture of both.The problem with making a Fantastic Four film is that it can be a really expensive franchise to pull off well.I wish they had a huge budget and Avatar like effects,but I fear that may be asking for too much along with a bigger chunk of time to complete the film.

I would love for a Fantastic Four film to have a huge scope,and personally I like the idea of Ben having Boots and pants more,but I would be fine with either.Personally I like the Jumpsuit,but I may be alone in that.

Funny you should mention the Hellboy make-up, the shop that created the Thing for the FF movies worked on both HB films including producing the HB make-up for HB2!

[Incrediblejeff]

Hmmm...That's slightly disappointing.

[terry78]

Some characters just can't be done well via live action work. They're a little too outlandish. I figured they would do Dr. Manhattan as just Crudup in the costume and turned blue via fx work, but they went full CG. I thought it was a little much, but it worked in the end.

[bubbadoom]

Originally Posted by terry78

Some characters just can't be done well via live action work. They're a little too outlandish.

Fox had a very specific idea in mind for what they wanted the Thing to look like, having designed his look even before hiring Chiklis to play him or the make-up shop to create him [a dangerous trend these days]. They then hired two make-up shops, Spectral Motion and Steve Johnson's Edge FX, to create make-up tests based upon this design. Edge FX pretty much ignored the given design and did their take on the character while Spectral produced what Fox had asked for - and in the end, Spectral got the job.

So I don't think it's so much a matter of some things can not be done as much as the design they were working with in the first place. Spectral even tried to give the Thing a bigger brow when Ben turns back to the Thing at the end of the first film - to suggest he's still evolving - but Fox would not let them.

Their concept for Doom was way off base [an organic metal man], but at least Tim Story pulled it back a little towards a proper Doom by insisting they use the Doom mask.

[marcvader]

Any samples of the different Thing and Doom designs?

[bubbadoom]

Originally Posted by marcvader

Any samples of the different Thing and Doom designs?

Edge FX went out of business a few years ago so I am not sure if there is any place that would have them now.

The organic metal look for Doom is seen in the movie with his arm, etc., but the plug was pulled before the head was fully produced. There may be some images of the design some place, maybe on a make-up web site, or perhaps at Spectral Motion's.

[Willie Lumpkin]

Originally Posted by The Guard

"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.

Go ahead and post what you found. Except for the first 20 or so issues, he has generally looked like this or bigger:





And this is what the best suit we've seen so far has looked like:





Now maybe some blend of prosthetics/suits/CGI could give us something close to what he should look like, but I'm not going to accept what we've gotten so far as nearly good enough.

And with current technology, the obvious way to do it seems to be to have an actor on set wearing a mo-cap suit and then CGI the thing over him.

[DrCosmic]

I think, with the new checkerboard CGI costume, I think Thing could be done some great justice. There'd be a difference between what the actors on set saw and what he ends up looking like in the film, and he'd have to come back for face capture/voice work (or they could do it the Avatar way), and it'd also sort of lend to the performances that he's some odd looking thing, since the actor would look odd in the checkerboard suit with all those dots on his face.

With the actor in a checkerboard suit, the other actors wouldn't be in a position to try and be a convincing family member to an empty space on the set, but an inhuman squatness could be given to Thing in post production. I think that'd be the best compromise, and could make for the best movie overall. It can be done with a suit, sure, but a CGI thing offers a bit more pop, buzz and flexibility, both literally and otherwise.

[CConn]

Eh, I've always thought FF fans complained way too much about The Thing in the movies.

Can and should it be done better now? Of course. But given the budget and the time it was made, the suit was okay. Especially considering the rest of movie looked like cheap crap.

[Willie Lumpkin]

Originally Posted by CConn

Eh, I've always thought FF fans complained way too much about The Thing in the movies.

Can and should it be done better now? Of course. But given the budget and the time it was made, the suit was okay. Especially considering the rest of movie looked like cheap crap.

I think anybody who isn't real into a character will think that people who are into the character are unrealistic when they want to see their character protrayed properly.

What if Batman had no cowl in the next movie and wore a Lone Ranger type mask instead? I don't care. Not a big fan . . . but there are people who would be engaged in a virtual riot on the Batman boards if they found out that was planned for the next film.

I was okay with the look of the Thing in the second film, but we still haven't seen the real Thing. And I don't think think there's any reason not to ask that he be done right in this film. Like I mentioned previously, I think he is in the top 5 of Marvel's most iconic characters so there's reason to do him right.

[CConn]

Oh please. Don't take that pompous superior stance with me. I love the FF. They're one of my absolute favorite books and groups of heroes in comics. I care about them plenty.

I'm not neither whiny nor closed minded enough to cry for literally years about a mediocre movie having a mediocre Thing costume.

[Willie Lumpkin]

Originally Posted by CConn

Can and should it be done better now? Of course. But given the budget and the time it was made, the suit was okay. Especially considering the rest of movie looked like cheap crap.

Originally Posted by Willie Lumpkin

I was okay with the look of the Thing in the second film, but we still haven't seen the real Thing. And I don't think think there's any reason not to ask that he be done right in this film. Like I mentioned previously, I think he is in the top 5 of Marvel's most iconic characters so there's reason to do him right.

Looks to me like we agree. Why are you accusing me of taking a pompous superior stance?

[CConn]

Your first two paragraphs were nothing more than an inference that I'm not a real fan of the FF.

And, again, to compare the FF movies Thing to Batman in a Lone Ranger costume is also a pretty grandios exaggeration.

[Willie Lumpkin]

Originally Posted by CConn

Your first two paragraphs were nothing more than an inference that I'm not a real fan of the FF.

And, again, to compare the FF movies Thing to Batman in a Lone Ranger costume is also a pretty grandios exaggeration.

Actually the first two paragraphs implied, you inferred.

And I apologize if I offended you. I wouldn't be the least bit offended if someone accused me of not being a real FF fan. I haven't picked up a comic book in years. I wouldn't consider it a badge of honor and had no idea you would take offense. I did assume that you weren't a particular Thing fan, and it seems that was a faulty assumption on my part. But even though I made that faulty assumption I wouldn't have thought you a lesser person for it. I just assumed you had different tastes.

So please accept my sincere apology and my admission that you are a bigger FF fan than I am.

[bubbadoom]

Originally Posted by Willie Lumpkin

I think anybody who isn't real into a character will think that people who are into the character are unrealistic when they want to see their character protrayed properly.

What if Batman had no cowl in the next movie and wore a Lone Ranger type mask instead? I don't care. Not a big fan . . . but there are people who would be engaged in a virtual riot on the Batman boards if they found out that was planned for the next film.

I was okay with the look of the Thing in the second film, but we still haven't seen the real Thing. And I don't think think there's any reason not to ask that he be done right in this film. Like I mentioned previously, I think he is in the top 5 of Marvel's most iconic characters so there's reason to do him right.

The Thing suit we got in the two FF movies was much closer in appearance to the comic book Thing than the Nolan Bat Man suit was to the comic book Bat Man. I am not saying it's "bad" just less accurate.

[bubbadoom]

Originally Posted by DrCosmic

I think, with the new checkerboard CGI costume, I think Thing could be done some great justice. There'd be a difference between what the actors on set saw and what he ends up looking like in the film, and he'd have to come back for face capture/voice work (or they could do it the Avatar way), and it'd also sort of lend to the performances that he's some odd looking thing, since the actor would look odd in the checkerboard suit with all those dots on his face.

With the actor in a checkerboard suit, the other actors wouldn't be in a position to try and be a convincing family member to an empty space on the set, but an inhuman squatness could be given to Thing in post production. I think that'd be the best compromise, and could make for the best movie overall. It can be done with a suit, sure, but a CGI thing offers a bit more pop, buzz and flexibility, both literally and otherwise.

Of course, you are assuming we are going to get a GOOD CGI Thing, there's plenty of crap digital effects in movies, like the vampires in I AM LEGEND - I would rather have a practical Thing than a bad digital one like those vampires.

[The Guard]

Go ahead and post what you found. Except for the first 20 or so issues, he has generally looked like this or bigger:

Oh, that's comparable to what I found. It's the idea that you think that couldn't be accomplished with a suit that I take issue with.

Seems to me that the film Thing design is comparable in size and dimension, other than the arms. A suit couldn't add a few inches length to The Thing's arms?

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Willie Lumpkin

I think anybody who isn't real into a character will think that people who are into the character are unrealistic when they want to see their character protrayed properly.

What if Batman had no cowl in the next movie and wore a Lone Ranger type mask instead? I don't care. Not a big fan . . . but there are people who would be engaged in a virtual riot on the Batman boards if they found out that was planned for the next film.

I was okay with the look of the Thing in the second film, but we still haven't seen the real Thing. And I don't think think there's any reason not to ask that he be done right in this film. Like I mentioned previously, I think he is in the top 5 of Marvel's most iconic characters so there's reason to do him right.

Bravo Willie

[Willie Lumpkin]

Originally Posted by The Guard

Oh, that's comparable to what I found. It's the idea that you think that couldn't be accomplished with a suit that I take issue with.

Seems to me that the film Thing design is comparable in size and dimension, other than the arms. A suit couldn't add a few inches length to The Thing's arms?

Some length could be added, but then the elbow joint would look off as they do with Gorilla suits. The Thnig has a size and shape that is different from human, so compromises will have to be made in a suit. And, again, the bigger issue is that creating a suit that looks good in static settings will have big problems moving and that movement is my concern more than anything.

I'm not completely opposed to a suit combined with CGI and prosthetics, but I think we're to the point that motion capture CGI is the best option.

I also strongly suspect that a couple years ago, when news trickled out that the Thing would be CGI, Fox probably had Weta run some tests. I'd be willing to bet there's some footage locked away somewhere that would end any debate.

I think King Kong is a very good example of why CGI is the best route. Gorilla suits have become very sophisticated and realistic, so why did Peter Jackson go CGI? The reason is right there on the screen. I think a Thing suit might sound like a good idea up until we see what's really possible with CGI.

In very simple terms:

Suit - Limitations and compromise

CGI - Whatever can be imagined can be brought to the screen.

King Kong blew me away. I've never been blown away by a suit before. When I see the Thing on screen, I want to be blown away the way I was blown away when I first saw Jack Kirby's Thing.

It's a lot to ask and I'll probably have to lower my expectations, but I can hope for now.

[bubbadoom]

Originally Posted by Willie Lumpkin

Some length could be added, but then the elbow joint would look off as they do with Gorilla suits. The Thnig has a size and shape that is different from human, so compromises will have to be made in a suit. And, again, the bigger issue is that creating a suit that looks good in static settings will have big problems moving and that movement is my concern more than anything.

I'm not completely opposed to a suit combined with CGI and prosthetics, but I think we're to the point that motion capture CGI is the best option.

I also strongly suspect that a couple years ago, when news trickled out that the Thing would be CGI, Fox probably had Weta run some tests. I'd be willing to bet there's some footage locked away somewhere that would end any debate.

I think King Kong is a very good example of why CGI is the best route. Gorilla suits have become very sophisticated and realistic, so why did Peter Jackson go CGI? The reason is right there on the screen. I think a Thing suit might sound like a good idea up until we see what's really possible with CGI.

In very simple terms:

Suit - Limitations and compromise

CGI - Whatever can be imagined can be brought to the screen.

King Kong blew me away. I've never been blown away by a suit before. When I see the Thing on screen, I want to be blown away the way I was blown away when I first saw Jack Kirby's Thing.

It's a lot to ask and I'll probably have to lower my expectations, but I can hope for now.

The suit for the Disney MIGHTY JOE YOUNG was more convincing than the Jackson KONG, but again, the key factor here is money.

Jackson's KONG and the first FF both came out in 2005 - KONG had a $200 million budget [TWICE the FF's budget] so of course they could have all those digital effects.
IF Fox puts that kind money into an FF movie then I am sure we can get a good Thing - digital or practical.
IF they keep low balling the FF like they have been, then I would rather have a practical Think than a digital one that is done on the cheap [like the I AM LEGEND vampires].

[Willie Lumpkin]

Originally Posted by bubbadoom

The suit for the Disney MIGHTY JOE YOUNG was more convincing than the Jackson KONG, but again, the key factor here is money.

Jackson's KONG and the first FF both came out in 2005 - KONG had a $200 million budget [TWICE the FF's budget] so of course they could have all those digital effects.
IF Fox puts that kind money into an FF movie then I am sure we can get a good Thing - digital or practical.
IF they keep low balling the FF like they have been, then I would rather have a practical Think than a digital one that is done on the cheap [like the I AM LEGEND vampires].

True. I think at this point if they're not going to make a real effort, I'm not interested.

I'd say $200 million is a minimum. If they're not willing to put that up, then they're not serious about the movie.

[Willie Lumpkin]

One of the reasons I've heard people argue for a suit is that we need the emotion that only a suit can provide. Check out this clip and ask yourself if this method - or an actor behind several inches of foam rubber - can show more emotion. Also keep in mind the budget for this film was $93 million:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TsHcomGhpM