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

[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):

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):

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.

 

[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.