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

[metaphysician]

MBJ and Miles Teller are both about 6 feet tall, so at 6'8" he'll be a little taller than both of them, but he won't tower over them.

6'8" is not "a little taller". 6'8" is "frickin' gigantic, towering over anyone whose not an NBA player." If Johnny is supposed to be 6' and Ben 6'8", that artwork is just plain wrong.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

6'8" is not "a little taller". 6'8" is "frickin' gigantic, towering over anyone whose not an NBA player." If Johnny is supposed to be 6' and Ben 6'8", that artwork is just plain wrong.

So do you think 6'8" is too tall or are you just disputing that Ben is 6'8" in that drawing? I don't really care if he's 6'3" or 6'8" in that drawing, but I think 6'8" is a good size for him.

Jon Runyan lives near me and I've run into him a few times at the grocery store. He's 6'7" and he's a big guy, but far from 'frickin' gigantic'. In fact the first time I saw him, I thought it looked like him, but decided it probably wasn't because he didn't look that big. The second time I saw him, I asked if he was Jon Runyan, and he confirmed he was.

Really nice guy by the way. Probably why he's getting out of congress.

 

[Kelly]

It will definitely be great to see Thing as a power that will make people pause....we didn't have that in the first 2 movies.

 

[Joe Rockhead]

It will definitely be great to see Thing as a power that will make people pause....we didn't have that in the first 2 movies.

If done right, the Thing will be Fox's "Avengers Hulk"

Done wrong - "X-Men Origins Blob"

 

[Spider-Fan83]

So do you think 6'8" is too tall or are you just disputing that Ben is 6'8" in that drawing? I don't really care if he's 6'3" or 6'8" in that drawing, but I think 6'8" is a good size for him

it depends on how bulky they make him, 6'8" for a person like Daniel Cudmore or Jon Runyan, in real life may not look that "frickin' gigantic", because their proportionally accurate to their height... but someone/something like "the Thing" doesn't have normal human like proportions, for him being 6'8" might mean being like 4'-5' wide

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

it depends on how bulky they make him, 6'8" for a person like Daniel Cudmore or Jon Runyan, in real life may not look that "frickin' gigantic", because their proportionally accurate to their height... but someone/something like "the Thing" doesn't have normal human like proportions, for him being 6'8" might mean being like 4'-5' wide

That sounds good to me. Kirby drew him about 6 feet tall, so at 6'8" he'd be about 10% taller and 10% wider than Kirby drew him. Not crazy but enough to make sure he'd be an imposing figure.

The first time we ever saw the thing, he was smashing through a door that he was too wide to fit through, and that was pretty cool. But for at least the next 10 issues or more, Kirby drew him at a size that wouldn't have any trouble getting through a door. I'd love to see this film feature some variation of that door smashing panel. (if I remember correctly the dialogue was something like 'B'ah, why must I live in a world built too small for me.'

I don't want him to be 8 feet tall or anything crazy like that (and some artists have drawn him close to that), because then he wouldn't be able to fit in a normal room or function relatively normally. But at 6'8" and in proportion to the way Kirby and most other artists have drawn him, he'd be very big and imposing, but able to function.

. . . and consistent with how he has been portrayed by most artists since Kirby.

 

[psylockolussus]

to put that height in perspective look at, Daniel Cudmore (listed as 6'8")



that guy over towers everyone

Off topic I was wondering if Cudmore attended the premiere, but now I know.

 

[Kelly]

That sounds good to me. Kirby drew him about 6 feet tall, so at 6'8" he'd be about 10% taller and 10% wider than Kirby drew him. Not crazy but enough to make sure he'd be an imposing figure.

The first time we ever saw the thing, he was smashing through a door that he was too wide to fit through, and that was pretty cool. But for at least the next 10 issues or more, Kirby drew him at a size that wouldn't have any trouble getting through a door. I'd love to see this film feature some variation of that door smashing panel. (if I remember correctly the dialogue was something like 'B'ah, why must I live in a world built too small for me.'

I don't want him to be 8 feet tall or anything crazy like that (and some artists have drawn him close to that), because then he wouldn't be able to fit in a normal room or function relatively normally. But at 6'8" and in proportion to the way Kirby and most other artists have drawn him, he'd be very big and imposing, but able to function.

. . . and consistent with how he has been portrayed by most artists since Kirby.

UFF has him extremely imposing....I don't see a problem with 6'8"....

It also seemed to me that they drew him bigger than 616 in the Marvel Knights issues as well.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

UFF has him extremely imposing....I don't see a problem with 6'8"....

It also seemed to me that they drew him bigger than 616 in the Marvel Knights issues as well.

Yeah, we've seen him a lot of different sizes (and often artists will even vary how big he appears from panel to panel). Personally, I like to see him a little taller than the people around him and 6'8" should put him right there.

 

[metaphysician]

I have no problem with him being 6'8" either, at least post transformation. I just boggle at that being called "not that tall", or Johnny being that big.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

https://mobile.***********/SuperheroReport/status/492859453599793153/photo/1

 

[TeeKay]

He looks cool and imposing.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Despite lack of orange (I'd like to hear Trank's explanation behind it, hopefully it's not some snotty, "orange is too hokey" or something like that) I actually love the look of it. The design itself is great. I'm just trying to imagine such a soft spoken guy like Jamie Bell as that which is part of the fun.

 

[psylockolussus]

Fox, just make it orange and its perfect.

 

[Lencho01]

I like that look.

 

[Obi-Ron]

Funny thing is, I was at the beach yesterday looking at some orange rocks thinking "See? They come in orange, Thing can be orange."

 

[EssayM]

Despite lack of orange (I'd like to hear Trank's explanation behind it, hopefully it's not some snotty, "orange is too hokey" or something like that) I actually love the look of it. The design itself is great. I'm just trying to imagine such a soft spoken guy like Jamie Bell as that which is part of the fun.

I think the lack of orange is more dramatic lighting than anything else. They might have dimmed it a little, but the orange is still there.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I think the lack of orange is more dramatic lighting than anything else. They might have dimmed it a little, but the orange is still there.

Yeah, Dim lighting tends to make things look more black and white than they are. I'm sure his eyes are blue, but the look gray in that photo because of the lighting. Plus they're not locked into any CGI shading based on this model, so I'm not overly concerned with how the color looks in this one poorly lit photo.

He should be orange, but I'm not convinced he's not just based on this photo.

If Fox wants to dispel the controversy by showing us what he looks like fully-rendered, they can certainly do that.

I'm saying that a bit tongue-in-cheek, but the reason productions like this typically show photos of characters in costumes as production is starting is they know people will get photos and they want fans to see characters as they want them to appear. They don't want people making judgments based on set photos that always leak and typically don't show the characters at their best.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

If I were Fox, I think, at the very least, I would take a well-staged photo of that bust under proper lighting and say: "Okay, you've all seen it, so here's what it really looks like."

 

[Kelly]

If I were Fox, I think, at the very least, I would take a well-staged photo of that bust under proper lighting and say: "Okay, you've all seen it, so here's what it really looks like."

That would be....if it is actually a true bust from this production, no one knows that for sure at the moment.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

The Thing looks rather good.

 

[EssayM]

Yeah, the more I think about it the more that photo doesn't really make sense. If it's a design model, why is it on set instead of in the animators' offices? If it's supposed to be a stand-in, why are they using an expensive, carefully crafted bust instead of a cheap cardboard cutout or a foam dummy, seeing as how it's going to be CG'd over in the final product anyway? And why would they be using a stand-in at all when they already have a mocap actor? What, is Jamie Bell supposed to be carrying that thing around on a pole for all of his scenes?

I'm sure their actual design probably looks pretty similar, but this picture just raises too many questions to be legit.

 

[JP]

Yeah, the more I think about it the more that photo doesn't really make sense. If it's a design model, why is it on set instead of in the animators' offices? If it's supposed to be a stand-in, why are they using an expensive, carefully crafted bust instead of a cheap cardboard cutout or a foam dummy, seeing as how it's going to be CG'd over in the final product anyway? And why would they be using a stand-in at all when they already have a mocap actor? What, is Jamie Bell supposed to be carrying that thing around on a pole for all of his scenes?

I'm sure their actual design probably looks pretty similar, but this picture just raises too many questions to be legit.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Yeah, the more I think about it the more that photo doesn't really make sense. If it's a design model, why is it on set instead of in the animators' offices? If it's supposed to be a stand-in, why are they using an expensive, carefully crafted bust instead of a cheap cardboard cutout or a foam dummy, seeing as how it's going to be CG'd over in the final product anyway? And why would they be using a stand-in at all when they already have a mocap actor? What, is Jamie Bell supposed to be carrying that thing around on a pole for all of his scenes?

I'm sure their actual design probably looks pretty similar, but this picture just raises too many questions to be legit.

1. If other actors have a visual cue of what they're acting against, it can help their performance.

2. It can help Jamie's performance by reminding him what he actually looks like.

3. (probably most importantly) It provides a lighting reference for the CGI people. Since they have to program a light source into their computer model, they have to approximate, as much as possible, the light source on the set. By looking at actual reference shots on the set, they can try different light sources, intensities etc. until the shadows and details on their CGI model match the reference photos taken on the set.

 

[EssayM]

1. If other actors have a visual cue of what they're acting against, it can help their performance.

2. It can help Jamie's performance by reminding him what he actually looks like.

3. (probably most importantly) It provides a lighting reference for the CGI people. Since they have to program a light source into their computer model, they have to approximate, as much as possible, the light source on the set. By looking at actual reference shots on the set, they can try different light sources, intensities etc. until the shadows and details on their CGI model match the reference photos taken on the set.

Okay, that makes sense. I still don't get why they why they need a super-detailed sculpture instead of something more basic. Even just as a size reference, they could easily use a foam rubber headpiece like Mark Ruffalo had in Avengers, and nobody would be the wiser. I guess the rocky texture would require different lighting than plain old skin, so maybe that's why they made it so detailed. Heck, maybe the finished Thing will be even more detailed.

Either way, it does look pretty cool.