Fant4stic "It's Clobberin' Time!" - The Ben "Thing" Grimm Thread

[Kelly]

What makes him look like Wolverine beside a wig and growing a beard?

When you respect the character you are playing, when you truly get to know that character, and really want to portray that character is the best way possible and that turns into a passion, you become that character and it is far more than a wig and a beard.

Thus far, either these actors really don't know enough about the characters they are portraying to talk about them, or Fox is not allowing it....whatever the case, we are not hearing anything that tells us they have that same kind of passion. Maybe they do, but they certainly are not letting us in on it...

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

When you respect the character you are playing, when you truly get to know that character, and really want to portray that character is the best way possible and that turns into a passion, you become that character and it is far more than a wig and a beard.

Thus far, either these actors really don't know enough about the characters they are portraying to talk about them, or Fox is not allowing it....whatever the case, we are not hearing anything that tells us they have that same kind of passion. Maybe they do, but they certainly are not letting us in on it...

I'm really curious how they'll do Ben. I think Jamie has the talent to pull it off if he's given the right script and Trank allows him.

But based on everything we've seen and heard - the emphasis on how unpleasant and difficult these powers are and the 'tragic' comments from Trank and his comparisons to The Fly - I have a hard time imagining Ben being Ben in that environment.

His great, unique characteristic was his ability to laugh even when he had it so tough, but if Trank wants to play up the tragedy, I can't imagine Ben being Ben.

The fact that nobody is smiling in anything we've seen makes me feel like the tone of this film is going to be very dour.

 

[Urich Leeds]

Nothing, which is my point because they aren't based on real people.

But they are based on characters from a VISUAL MEDIUM. The way comic book characters look (in the comics AND in adaptation/translations) means EVERYTHING, whether people want to admit it or not.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I'm really curious how they'll do Ben. I think Jamie has the talent to pull it off if he's given the right script and Trank allows him.

But based on everything we've seen and heard - the emphasis on how unpleasant and difficult these powers are and the 'tragic' comments from Trank and his comparisons to The Fly - I have a hard time imagining Ben being Ben in that environment.

His great, unique characteristic was his ability to laugh even when he had it so tough, but if Trank wants to play up the tragedy, I can't imagine Ben being Ben.

The fact that nobody is smiling in anything we've seen makes me feel like the tone of this film is going to be very dour.

I agree with your worry, but I also don't want him to be joking like nothing major just happened by the end of this movie. I want to see him work back to making a new life. I want him to still be Ben Grimm and laugh with his friend Reed but to also recognize the gravity of what this means. And see him and Johnny bonding.

Seeing him fix the bike and then having hands that don't allow him to do those small things would be a good emotional point(instead of look I ate through a fork funny right). But to also see the bigger picture and protect his friends. That's why I thought the "we are stronger together" line sounded line Ben.

 

[Paradox1]

When you respect the character you are playing, when you truly get to know that character, and really want to portray that character is the best way possible and that turns into a passion, you become that character and it is far more than a wig and a beard.

Thus far, either these actors really don't know enough about the characters they are portraying to talk about them, or Fox is not allowing it....whatever the case, we are not hearing anything that tells us they have that same kind of passion. Maybe they do, but they certainly are not letting us in on it...

Acting is a different kind of gig, that few of us can truly understand. I have no idea what goes into playing a character and making them your own. Which I believe great actors do, like Robert Downey Jr or a Heath Ledger. RDJ's Tony Stark is not the one I read during the Armor Wars or Extremis. There have been some great Jokers but they are all very different.

What I do know is I don't need lip service from actors. Telling me how much they love this or that, or snapping pictures with them reading comics. Some fans seem to see that as a sign of passion for the character but I do not. Passion for the character is Thomas Jane making a fan fiction film or Ryan Reynolds championing a Dead Pool movie for years. Going out to these small conventions to meet the hardcore fans while your still playing the character. Otherwise they just might be like Michael Keaton's character in Birdman. Deeply resenting the character in secret, at least it seemed like it was.

 

[Kelly]

But they are based on characters from a VISUAL MEDIUM. The way comic book characters look (in the comics AND in adaptation/translations) means EVERYTHING, whether people want to admit it or not.

THIS RIGHT HERE, is what many do not get. It is the reason MANY are upset with this adaptation....because though some changes will happen, the major changes to visual concepts of the comics do make a difference to the fans.

There are going to always be some changes, sometimes because the visual on the page does not translate well to the screen...but none of the changes we have seen thus far fall into that category, they seem to be change for the sake of change.

For me personally, nothing in these changes is all that major for me, except that Mara just does not have the look of the Sue I have seen over the years....ALTHOUGH, she does bare a resemblance to an artist or 2 from the UFF so I'm not so upset with that choice, I will give her a chance for sure.

As far as the others, it's not a major OMG they look nothing like the comics, but I have to admit, the cast certainly don't jump off the pages of the comics. AND....I want to see Doom in all of his glory, just to see how that comes off on the big screen. I wasn't real thrilled about seeing a big purple guy named Galactus, but I was very curious how it was going to be done, and we got a cloud.....

I think my main problem is that so many are so quick to jump to conclusions when it comes to motives behind why so many are not happy with the cast...when it boils down to exactly what you said, and really nothing more....and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that....

 

[Kelly]

Acting is a different kind of gig, that few of us can truly understand. I have no idea what goes into playing a character and making them your own. Which I believe great actors do, like Robert Downey Jr or a Heath Ledger. RDJ's Tony Stark is not the one I read during the Armor Wars or Extremis. There have been some great Jokers but they are all very different.

What I do know is I don't need lip service from actors. Telling me how much they love this or that, or snapping pictures with them reading comics. Some fans seem to see that as a sign of passion for the character but I do not. Passion for the character is Thomas Jane making a fan fiction film or Ryan Reynolds championing a Dead Pool movie for years. Going out to these small conventions to meet the hardcore fans while your still playing the character. Otherwise they just might be like Michael Keaton's character in Birdman. Deeply resenting the character in secret, at least it seemed like it was.

I can tell the difference between "lip service" and "true passion", and if I miss the mark, I can tell on the screen. I have also seen where actors absolutely hated the character they were playing, but they knew the character inside and out, and therefore were able to portray them with a passion. Perfect example: Meryl Streep playing Margaret Thatcher....

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I can tell the difference between "lip service" and "true passion", and if I miss the mark, I can tell on the screen. I have also seen where actors absolutely hated the character they were playing, but they knew the character inside and out, and therefore were able to portray them with a passion. Perfect example: Meryl Streep playing Margaret Thatcher....

Sean Connery thoroughly HATED James Bond, yet it was an absolutely iconic performance.

 

[Joe Rockhead]

Sean Connery thoroughly HATED James Bond, yet it was an absolutely iconic performance.

Yeah, but did he hate Bond Before "Dr. No" or after a couple of films?

Typecasting is rough on any actor.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Yeah, but did he hate Bond Before "Dr. No" or after a couple of films?

Typecasting is rough on any actor.

I have always hated that damned James Bond.

According to him, he never liked it.

 

[DarthDaveBanner]

I doubt Forest Whittaker and Bruno Ganz liked Idi Amin or Adolf Hitler either

 

[Kelly]

I doubt Forest Whittaker and Bruno Ganz liked Idi Amin or Adolf Hitler either

Exactly, but I bet they can tell you all kinds of intricacies of their characters, facial expressions, tone in which they spoke, tidbits of information that many do not know because they took the time to get to know the person they were playing, whether it be a real icon, villain, hero, or character from a comic book that has been around for over 4 decades....

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

I can't wait until we get our first full body picture of the Thing. I think sometime in May just before the second trailer.

 

[psylockolussus]

I cant wait for it too!

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Hopefully sometime next month, maybe a magazine cover or something.

 

[Kelly]

I would venture to say we will get a little of the same in the next trailer, probably simply longer of what we have already seen....and then around Comic Con (especially if they don't show up for SDCC) we will have the tv spots for each of them, along with a few together. POSSIBLY, if they are finished by the Final Four we will get something at that point, but I'm not holding my breath for that...

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

I would venture to say we will get a little of the same in the next trailer, probably simply longer of what we have already seen....and then around Comic Con (especially if they don't show up for SDCC) we will have the tv spots for each of them, along with a few together. POSSIBLY, if they are finished by the Final Four we will get something at that point, but I'm not holding my breath for that...

I doubt that. Comic-con is usually late July and I think that would be far too late.

 

[Kelly]

I doubt that. Comic-con is usually late July and I think that would be far too late.

Not necessarily, if you want the biggest bang for your buck, you hit hard the month before and hit the TV spots hard in specific time slots. Rather than spreading them out over a few months and only putting them on sporadically. The general audience (which is the audience they are hitting with this) makes their decisions usually a couple of weeks before the movie comes out. A good example of this is Frozen. No one had seen anything about Frozen on TV, movies, anywhere until about a month before it came out and them BAM....it was everywhere. If you want the general audience to come in, you hit the TV spots about a month in advance...and you do the "First Look" at the Cinemark theaters two months in advance. I don't think they plan on much promo for this, so all their money should be put where it will have the most impact and that is June and July. Use basketball playoffs as a launching pad for the 4 individual promos and go from there...

 

[Brian Braddock]

But they are based on characters from a VISUAL MEDIUM. The way comic book characters look (in the comics AND in adaptation/translations) means EVERYTHING, whether people want to admit it or not.

Amen. I feel exactly the same way. People can go on about race and creed [and wider socialogical issues that come hand in hand with that] all they want but for me it literally is as simple as the fact that I just want to see the closest live-action visual representation to the printed page as we can get.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Sean Connery thoroughly HATED James Bond, yet it was an absolutely iconic performance.

Yeah, but did he hate Bond Before "Dr. No" or after a couple of films?

Typecasting is rough on any actor.

According to him, he never liked it.

Connery has gone on record as saying ''I never disliked Bond, as some have thought. Creating a character like that does take a certain craft. It's simply natural to seek other roles''.

So I'd say that Joe is right - Sean just didnt want to get typecast.

I do know for a fact that it was his experience filming You Only Live Twice [and the media circus that came with it] in particular that really soured his taste for the role.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Was that leaked pic of the Thing confirmed to be a fake?

 

[Kelly]

Was that leaked pic of the Thing confirmed to be a fake?

I want to say that yes the studio said that that was a fake, but I can't remember exactly when and where that was stated.

 

[Tony Stark]

There were two different photos. One was a bust of what appeared to be the Things head against a green screen, that may have been used for lighting/perspective shots, the other was a concept photo. The concept photo was confirmed to be a fake, I think it was something from a video game or some other media. The bust I don't think was confirmed one way or another.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Was that leaked pic of the Thing confirmed to be a fake?

I want to say that yes the studio said that that was a fake, but I can't remember exactly when and where that was stated.

There were two different photos. One was a bust of what appeared to be the Things head against a green screen, that may have been used for lighting/perspective shots, the other was a concept photo. The concept photo was confirmed to be a fake, I think it was something from a video game or some other media. The bust I don't think was confirmed one way or another.

I don't remember how exactly, but there was some confirmation from somebody that it was a reference bust used on set.

That doesn't mean it's the final design, but it should be close.

As for this:

It was confirmed to be early concept art and the company who did it said the final design was different.

But we can definitely see some similarities - including the lack of pants.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

For comparison: