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

Discussion in 'Marvel Films' started by Agent 194, Apr 6, 2006.

  1. Agent 194

    Agent 194 Class One Supervisor

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2005
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  2. The Thing 2005

    The Thing 2005 Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,350
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  3. TigerClaw

    TigerClaw Mutant Tiger

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,108
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  4. The Thing 2005

    The Thing 2005 Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,350
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yup. Well said.:)
     
  5. adamcz

    adamcz Registered

    Joined:
    May 5, 2005
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  6. The Thing 2005

    The Thing 2005 Registered

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2005
    Messages:
    2,350
    Likes Received:
    0
    :up:
     
  7. Mr. Socko

    Mr. Socko Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    23,329
    Likes Received:
    0
    Thing was just fine for me.
     
  8. blueraja

    blueraja Guest

    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:
     
  9. terry78

    terry78 Saturday night special

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    81,045
    Likes Received:
    1,775
    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.
     
  10. Malus

    Malus Registered

    Joined:
    May 8, 2005
    Messages:
    4,222
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  11. w@llcrawler

    [email protected] Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Messages:
    142
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!
     
  12. Wilhelm-Scream

    Wilhelm-Scream Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    46,304
    Likes Received:
    0
    God, do you people just enjoy living in denial so much?:confused:

    Things can be done.

    [​IMG]

    Those ^ are not normal human facial proportions and his face was plenty expressive.
     
  13. terry78

    terry78 Saturday night special

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    81,045
    Likes Received:
    1,775
    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.
     
  14. Wilhelm-Scream

    Wilhelm-Scream Registered

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2004
    Messages:
    46,304
    Likes Received:
    0
    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. :(
     
  15. celldog

    celldog Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2002
    Messages:
    3,002
    Likes Received:
    0
    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!!
     
  16. Mr. Socko

    Mr. Socko Registered

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2005
    Messages:
    23,329
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  17. Lightning Strykez!

    Lightning Strykez! Former Mod On Pension Pay

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2004
    Messages:
    32,384
    Likes Received:
    0

    Agreed.:up:
     
  18. Grog

    Grog I'm comin' to eat you!

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    753
    Likes Received:
    0
    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?
     
  19. Angelus7181

    Angelus7181 Guest

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    0

    Yeah because the CGI rout worked so well with the Hulk. :down :rolleyes:
     
  20. terry78

    terry78 Saturday night special

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2004
    Messages:
    81,045
    Likes Received:
    1,775
    ^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.
     
  21. Angelus7181

    Angelus7181 Guest

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    404
    Likes Received:
    0
    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.
     
  22. tecnowraith

    tecnowraith Registered

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2002
    Messages:
    1,379
    Likes Received:
    0
    If they can make The Thing look like this with low budget make-up
    [​IMG]

    Than they should have enough do the same with a bigger budget.
     
  23. Pickle-El

    Pickle-El Registered

    Joined:
    May 30, 2004
    Messages:
    6,839
    Likes Received:
    0

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

    Kelly #RESIST

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    70,033
    Likes Received:
    31
    Looks like the creature from the black lagoon...
     
  25. Kirby&Ditko

    Kirby&Ditko Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2006
    Messages:
    124
    Likes Received:
    0
    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].
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"