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

[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.

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:

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]

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."

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.

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.

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 ****** 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.

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 ****** 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. . 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. . 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. . 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.

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[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...