Fant4stic Fant4stic: Reborn! - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 32

[Marvin]

This is becoming tedious. We can argue semantics and sentence structure all day but you continue to ignore the fact that none of your examples are relevant analogies to Ben Grimm's character. So yes - what is done in one franchise has little to no bearing on what is done in another - unless that other franchise happens to have a character named Ben Grimm. You are basically saying that the filmmakers don't need to make their version of Ben Grimm resemble the actual character because other random fictional characters do not resemble Ben Grimm's character.

I asked why you think your fandom is relevant in comparisons as you clearly stated. It goes well beyond semantics and into the fact that you wrote what you wrote. If anything I'm hoping you meant something else and was curious what that was. The only thing tedious is your unwillingness to elaborate. Not sure what is all that confusing about this question. I mean did you read that bolded part? Am I missing something? If I got it wrong just say so and that will be that but instead I'm getting this.


As for this other issue, i'm hardly ignoring it, I just didn't think you cared. I never said filmmakers needing to make 'their versions of ben grim the same as this filmmakers version of ben grim'.
First of all, underwear don't make or break if this character 'resembles the part or not. Aesthetic garments of this sort rarely do and are often a product of their time. Secondly, the argument was that of if a character creature whom identifies as a human person can roam around exposed, more specifically those that long for, and self identify as humans or have had their form striped from them. I not searching for the perfect Grim equivalent for there is none, especially if you can sit there and point out all the ways they are different. I'm digging at the root of if something can be valid. Can a story teller design a character similar to this that doesn't need to wear clothes to work yes or no. If so, then this can be valid as well.
All for us to loop back into, 'well this one is based on ben grim from...and in this material he wore'.

 

[Destructus86]

Every time I see a new tv spot or trailer...I just can't get interested. It almost feels like they are trying not to show too much of certain characters. Doom for one...and second Reed, who is supposed to be the leader of the group...we keep seeing the small selection of clips from him over and over in different spots. It sort of feels like they don't have confidence in certain characters and so avoid showing too much of them.

 

[Marvin]

Now I'm convinced you're just arguing for the sake of it.

Believe what you want. Not all that foreign in some parts of the hype.

He states it's unwanted, I asked whom he's speaking for because it 'sounds' like he's speaking for everyone, including me and my friends and all these people with their tweets...
If that's who he's speaking for, he's wrong. Period.
If he's speaking for himself, then he's putting alot of weight on his own proclivities. But maybe that's just semantics.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I'm convinced some people are determined to hate this movie without even giving it a chance.

Congratulations on your discovery.

And It is that.

I’ve never been a fan of comics, I’ve never actually read one. I was going to for this movie but the director said it wasn’t necessary. Well, actually he told us that we shouldn’t do it because the plot won’t be based on any history of anything already published. So I chose to follow his instructions. - Kate Mara

 

[marvelmadness13]

I’ve never been a fan of comics, I’ve never actually read one. I was going to for this movie but the director said it wasn’t necessary. Well, actually he told us that we shouldn’t do it because the plot won’t be based on any history of anything already published. So I chose to follow his instructions. - Kate Mara

Yep, so much for it being an "Ultimate adaptation."

 

[Kelly]

I asked why you think your fandom is relevant in comparisons as you clearly stated. It goes well beyond semantics and into the fact that you wrote what you wrote. If anything I'm hoping you meant something else and was curious what that was. The only thing tedious is your unwillingness to elaborate. Not sure what is all that confusing about this question. I mean did you read that bolded part? Am I missing something? If I got it wrong just say so and that will be that but instead I'm getting this.


As for this other issue, i'm hardly ignoring it, I just didn't think you cared. I never said filmmakers needing to make 'their versions of ben grim the same as this filmmakers version of ben grim'.
First of all, underwear don't make or break if this character 'resembles the part or not. Aesthetic garments of this sort rarely do and are often a product of their time. Secondly, the argument was that of if a character creature whom identifies as a human person can roam around exposed, more specifically those that long for, and self identify as humans or have had their form striped from them. I not searching for the perfect Grim equivalent for there is none, especially if you can sit there and point out all the ways they are different. I'm digging at the root of if something can be valid. Can a story teller design a character similar to this that doesn't need to wear clothes to work yes or no. If so, then this can be valid as well.
All for us to loop back into, 'well this one is based on ben grim from...and in this material he wore'.

Move on.....

 

[Sleiek]

I really don't get this Thing issue. I mean I get it for the people that have admitted to their intentions as it pertains to this movie. I however see a fantasy creature that looks no less convincing than that walking tree in most finished shots. The comparison to Grood someone made earlier....moving rock creature vs ceaser.

Yeah. Grodd for a TV show was impressive but not for the movies. You can't compare Grodd to Ceaser in PotApes. A rock monster is bound to move differently than a human. Also funny that I am in the minority who doesn't focus on Thing's groin area.

What pops out to me about the Thing is how human he's moving. He's definitely in that uncanny valley and that always creeps me out. Great job by the animators and Bell for his mo-cap work it's excellent.

And looking at his hips it feels like the rocks are moving around and not just static. Looks pretty cool imo. Also I don't like the idea of boxers on rock skin. It is better to wear a big ass trench coat. It is a much better idea than just wearing boxers/half pants.

 

[Zarex]

Yeah. Grodd for a TV show was impressive but not for the movies. You can't compare Grodd to Ceaser in PotApes. A rock monster is bound to move differently than a human. Also funny that I am in the minority who doesn't focus on Thing's groin area.

Ben Grimm has been one of my all-time favorite comic book characters for over four decades, and I have spent no time focusing on his groin area. Until now. I wonder why that is?

 

[starscream22]

Does this?

A Turtle has a shell covering it's privates and in that particular picture he's ironically wearing a coat.

It's like defenders of this film aren't even trying.

 

[Marvin]

^Speaking of trying, looking at your post, maybe you should inquire as to what that discussion was pertaining to.

Move on.....

excuse me?

 

[Paradox1]

Yeah. Grodd for a TV show was impressive but not for the movies. You can't compare Grodd to Ceaser in PotApes. A rock monster is bound to move differently than a human. Also funny that I am in the minority who doesn't focus on Thing's groin area.



And looking at his hips it feels like the rocks are moving around and not just static. Looks pretty cool imo. Also I don't like the idea of boxers on rock skin. It is better to wear a big ass trench coat. It is a much better idea than just wearing boxers/half pants.

I noticed the moving of the rocks as well, don't know how to feel about it yet. I'm gonna have to see more to really get a better idea. As far as clothes, him not wearing any is growing on me.

 

[starscream22]

What pops out to me about the Thing is how human he's moving. He's definitely in that uncanny valley and that always creeps me out. Great job by the animators and Bell for his mo-cap work it's excellent.

It looks like they photo shopped the top half over the bottom half and said "ef it!" For a million dollar picture this sure does rate amateurish to say the least....

 

[Sleiek]

I noticed the moving of the rocks as well, don't know how to feel about it yet. I'm gonna have to see more to really get a better idea. As far as clothes, him not wearing any is growing on me.

Yeah, for me, it's either all or nothing.

I am all in for a trench coat that covers most of his body. Half pants in Comics and cartoons are fine. It's gonna looks bad at the waist as the rocks move around creating friction with the pants. The pants would have to move around too if Thing's rock skin is really as dynamic as I think it is.

 

[starscream22]

^Speaking of trying, looking at your post, maybe you should inquire as to what that discussion was pertaining to.
excuse me?

Apparently you don't if you're using a Ninja Turtle to justify a naked Thing.

Think about it and try again later.

 

[Orba]

Ben Grimm has been one of my all-time favorite comic book characters for over four decades, and I have spent no time focusing on his groin area. Until now. I wonder why that is?

The sad part is that this entire conversation was so easily avoided by just giving his some sort of trunks or trousers or whatever, just like in every version of the character that has ever been. The Ultimate version of the character (and they claim they are basing it on the Ultimate series) in fact wears more cloths than the 616 version tends to wear (although his GotG costume looks to have a full wardrobe).

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Trailer for this has got good reactions both times I have seen it with Jurassic World. Think this may be a surprising hit. Just hope it's a good movie as well.

 

[Marvin]

Apparently you don't if you're using a Ninja Turtle to justify a naked Thing.

Think about it and try again later.

"And in that picture he's ironically wearing a coat"...
Yes very ironic, not sure how I could have let that slip by me given the post I was replying to.

Anyways, I wasn't using it to justify a naked thing, I was using it to answer his exact question. Again, perhaps if you following what was being discussed vs leaping in with a loaded opinion.

 

[Docker2.0]

Trailer for this has got good reactions both times I have seen it with Jurassic World. Think this may be a surprising hit. Just hope it's a good movie as well.

No one would be surprised if this thing made $140M DOM. I think Transformers and Ninja Turtles............basically everything Bay makes does make money but the movies suck. I think/hope that's the ceiling though. It only encourages Fox to keep making garbage that they feel like making with no respect to the source. If it does do well, I can honestly say I have no plans on seeing any Fox superhero movies in theaters again. I can actually make that promise because it's cheaper to see them on bootleg and HBO anyway.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

And looking at his hips it feels like the rocks are moving around and not just static.

That was my biggest problem with it. He doesn't look like an existing solid object and it comes off as incredibly unrealistic because of it. He looks like he's made of mud, like Clayface or something.

 

[Sleiek]

I thought the rocks moved around just enough to allow rotation of his hips to walk. I didn't mean to say it was fluid if it came across like that.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Any one of us could reinvent iconic characters.

Superman doesn't need a cape. It doesn't make any sense for him to have one. And that big 'S' on his chest? That just looks stupid, let's get rid of that. And why would he be muscular? His muscles aren't getting any work-out. He should be skinny and emaciated. And he needs a better disguise when he becomes Clark Kent than just glasses. Should he wear a mask when he's Superman? Yeah, let's do that. That makes sense.

It's easy to reinvent. Anybody can do it. The difficult thing that other films do well and this film fails miserably at is giving us characters that look like the iconic characters we want to see while finding reasons to give them colorful outfits and other things that don't really make sense in the real world.

This film fails at doing the primary thing any film like this should be doing - bringing comic-book characters to life.

 

[pavlov]

It must be a Clark Kent/Superman scenario. The only thing that makes Thing the Thing is his pants. Nevermind the characterization or the fact that he is orange and made of rocks.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Thing not wearing pants is an alteration to his character. That's why fans are so upset about it. He's not some creature or alien like Groot. He isn't losing touch with his humanity like Doctor Manhattan. He's a man. Mentally and emotionally he is the exact same Ben Grimm he was before the accident. He's as human as he ever was. His change was purely physical, and he happens to very sensitive about it. Grimm makes great effort to emphasize his humanity, and by not wearing pants he's doing the exact opposite.

 

[marvelmadness13]

It must be a Clark Kent/Superman scenario. The only thing that makes Thing the Thing is his pants. Nevermind the characterization or the fact that he is orange and made of rocks.

That's all the supporters of FFINO seem to think he is. "It's orange and rock like, ou guys should be happy!"

According to your train of though Ben Grim was killed by Thor in The Dark World...

 

[Kelly]

^Speaking of trying, looking at your post, maybe you should inquire as to what that discussion was pertaining to.



excuse me?

It is obvious, which was already pointed out by C.Lee, that your motive is simply to argue. Everyone's point has been made....so simply move on.