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

[Kelly]

Not that I really understand ANY of the changes that have been made up to this point, BUT, I really don't see that they would find a need to change his coloring to green.

 

[bubbadoom]

Wow - thanks for posting this - it looks a million times better than that bust in the leaked photo - just shows it is possible to do a realistic dimensional version of the Thing - no reason that abomination in the leaked photo could not look this good - other than the guys at Fox just not "getting it" - again...

 

[bubbadoom]

That SideShow bust was sculpted by Chet Zar - who also sculpted the Thing make-up for Spectral Motion for the first FF Fox movie.

 

[Kelly]

The reason is that Marvel didn't want to make F4 movies so they leased the property to a Studio that did.

There was no "want" to it, they were not able to make the movies...Marvel Studios of today with Disney, did not exist.

 

[Donut]

Hey look CyclopsIsWrong about something

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I can't speak to the technical details, but I believe the green is a result is some combination of lighting/shadows in the specific photo. In better light, I feel certain it will look more orange and less green.

But if he really is green, yeah, that's pretty bad, but I've never been on that page.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

That SideShow bust was sculpted by Chet Zar - who also sculpted the Thing make-up for Spectral Motion for the first FF Fox movie.

That's interesting! We talked this to death last time around, but if they had gone with a design like that, they would have had to use actuators etc. rather than using Chiklis' expressions, so the film-makers chose, rightly or wrongly, to go with the design they did.

In this case, we don't have those limitations.

I also remember Tim Story using the old standby "it would be too 'cartoony' " to rationalize their decision to not include a brow.

The crazy thing is every time Fox makes a Superhero film, they seem to be obsessed with the idea of it not being too 'cartoony' . . . but I have never seen anybody fault a film like this for being too cartoony. We've got a talking raccoon in GOTG, but I've yet to hear anyone say they're not seeing it because of that. On the contrary, that seems to be one of the big draws.

 

[JP]

It was my biggest fault with TASM2.

But being "too cartoony" should have little to do with aesthetics, and everything to do with overall tone. So it's a poor excuse.

 

[The Question]

People are complaining that it looks green-ish when the photo was taken in a room with bright green walls on all sides? Seriously?

 

[JAK®]

People are complaining that it looks green-ish when the photo was taken in a room with bright green walls on all sides? Seriously?

Someone thought that the green tint was meant to be moss.

 

[JP]

You'd be surprised how lighting can distort things. I remember when 2 on set photos of DoFP's Quicksilver leaked. The lighting was so bad that most of us thought his hair was black with dark grey streaks. Obviously that wasn't the case...

 

[JAK®]

I can't really quantify exactly what I dislike about this Thing design. It has all the elements it should have; the rocky texture, heavy brow, underbite, expressive eyes and I get the feeling it will be more orange in better lighting. It's just that it all seems off.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

It was my biggest fault with TASM2.

But being "too cartoony" should have little to do with aesthetics, and everything to do with overall tone. So it's a poor excuse.

I agree. TASM2 was too much, but not because of the visuals but the general feel, dialogue etc.

I'm encouraged by the way the Thing looks because he does look much more like the Thing than I would have expected based on all the talk about how realistic this film would be.

I can do without things like: "It's clobberin' time", "flame on" "Whatta revoltin' development", Doom's and Reed's general tendency to talk too much, characters bickering and making wise cracks while they're engaged in deadly battle, etc. in the name of keeping things real if Trank's willing to go all out on things like powers, visuals etc. The key is to keep things real in some areas while going over the top in the right areas.

While the design of this Thing isn't exactly perfect, it is a huge, exaggerated, powerful figure that has the most important, key characteristics of the Thing. That's very encouraging to me.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

The reason is that Marvel didn't want to make F4 movies so they leased the property to a Studio that did.

First of all, way to distort the facts to bolster your position. It's well documented that Marvel sold these rights to stay afloat because they were going bankrupt. It had nothing to do with them not wanting to make F4 movies.

Secondly, I ask that you please re-read my statement:

Especially because I need a reason from a fan's perspective why Fox is making this pic instead of Marvel Studios.

As a fan (and as a consumer), it doesn't matter to me who leased what from whom. I care about the final product. Pizza Hut can buy out my favorite pizza joint because they are having financial trouble but it doesn't mean I have to like it and I certainly am not giving them my money when they change the recipe.

Fox has had not one but TWO chances to make a great FF film and they failed miserably. Because of their poor stewardship they have already damaged the brand. They don't deserve to make another one in my opinion - especially when it looks like they will damage the brand even further.

And let's be honest here - they wouldn't even be making this film if the rights weren't expiring in a month or two.

Recently there was leaked test footage of a Deadpool film that's been limbo for who knows how long. Now I'm not a Deadpool fan but I hear other people clamoring all the time for a Deadpool movie. But Fox have never moved forward on it and there's always some excuse as to why they haven't. Meanwhile, nobody was clamoring for an FF film - the opposite in fact - but here we are. What's the difference? Fox doesn't have to make a Deadpool film because they've already renewed the rights with their X-Men releases so they can sit on those rights and do nothing with them for as long as they please. That's all you need to know about the motive behind this movie.

 

[JP]

I agree. TASM2 was too much, but not because of the visuals but the general feel, dialogue etc.

I'm encouraged by the way the Thing looks because he does look much more like the Thing than I would have expected based on all the talk about how realistic this film would be.

I can do without things like: "It's clobberin' time", "flame on" "Whatta revoltin' development", Doom's and Reed's general tendency to talk too much, characters bickering and making wise cracks while they're engaged in deadly battle, etc. in the name of keeping things real if Trank's willing to go all out on things like powers, visuals etc. The key is to keep things real in some areas while going over the top in the right areas.

While the design of this Thing isn't exactly perfect, it is a huge, exaggerated, powerful figure that has the most important key characteristics of the Thing. That's very encouraging to me.

Couldn't have said it better.

 

[JAK®]

I can do without things like: "It's clobberin' time", "flame on" "Whatta revoltin' development", Doom's and Reed's general tendency to talk too much, characters bickering and making wise cracks while they're engaged in deadly battle, etc. in the name of keeping things real if Trank's willing to go all out on things like powers, visuals etc.

Really? If I had to choose it would be the reverse. It was precisely those character traits that separated the FF from the superheroes that came before them. The powers and costumes weren't the things that defined them.

But really they should have both because Kirby's drawings and designs are far superior to realistic nonsense.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

I agree. TASM2 was too much, but not because of the visuals but the general feel, dialogue etc.

I'm encouraged by the way the Thing looks because he does look much more like the Thing than I would have expected based on all the talk about how realistic this film would be.

I can do without things like: "It's clobberin' time", "flame on" "Whatta revoltin' development", Doom's and Reed's general tendency to talk too much, characters bickering and making wise cracks while they're engaged in deadly battle, etc. in the name of keeping things real if Trank's willing to go all out on things like powers, visuals etc. The key is to keep things real in some areas while going over the top in the right areas.

While the design of this Thing isn't exactly perfect, it is a huge, exaggerated, powerful figure that has the most important, key characteristics of the Thing. That's very encouraging to me.

I never saw TASM2 because of all the bad reviews but I don't see how making a bad film about a comic makes making an adaptation more faithful to its comic roots a negative. This is the same flawed argument people use with the Tim Story films. "See they already tried to do the FF right and it didn't work!" - ignoring the fact that they were just plain garbage movies period. How is it that Marvel can be so successful giving us a dude in a spangly red, white and blue outfit or a gun-toting raccoon for crying out loud but the Thing can't look like the Thing?

And yes I want to hear "It's clobbering time!" But I guess that's too cartoony for some of you. Sigh.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

And what is up with people complaining about other people complaining about visual aesthetic in a movie based on a comic book which is in itself a visual medium? Are you like the opinion police or something?

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Really? If I had to choose it would be the reverse. It was precisely those character traits that separated the FF from the superheroes that came before them. The powers and costumes weren't the things that defined them.

But really they should have both because Kirby's drawings and designs are far superior to realistic nonsense.

I would say the thing that separated the FF from the superheroes that came before them was that they were ordinary people with extraordinary powers, adventures and technologies.

Real people may joke, bicker and argue when they're bored sitting around the house (or baxter building), but when they're engaged in mortal combat, they generally put those things aside. The scene in ROTSS in which they were arguing on their way to battle the surfer and the general had to chastise them like small children was the kind of unrealistic thing I could do without.

And while things like catch-phrases, Doom monologueing, Reed explaining something to death while the fate of the world hangs in the balance may be accurate to the comics, they're not real.

The adventures, powers, visuals etc. should be larger in life, but the interactions between characters and other small elements should feel real to make this really work IMHO.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

I would say the thing that separated the FF from the superheroes that came before them was that they were ordinary people with extraordinary powers, adventures and technologies.

Real people may joke, bicker and argue when they're bored sitting around the house (or baxter building), but when they're engaged in mortal combat, they generally put those things aside. The scene in ROTSS in which they were arguing on their way to battle the surfer and the general had to chastise them like small children was the kind of unrealistic thing I could do without.

And while things like catch-phrases, Doom monologueing, Reed explaining something to death while the fate of the world hangs in the balance may be accurate to the comics, they're not real.

The adventures, powers, visuals etc. should be larger in life, but the interactions between characters and other small elements should feel real to make this really work IMHO.

Oh come on. Tell me you didn't geek out when Cap said: "Hulk - smash!"

It's all in the execution.

 

[JAK®]

I would say the thing that separated the FF from the superheroes that came before them was that they were ordinary people with extraordinary powers, adventures and technologies.

Real people may joke, bicker and argue when they're bored sitting around the house (or baxter building), but when they're engaged in mortal combat, they generally put those things aside. The scene in ROTTS in which they were arguing on their way to battle the surfer and the general had to chastise them like small children was the kind of unrealistic thing I could do without.

And while things like catch-phrases, Doom monologueing, Reed explaining something to death while the fate of the world hangs in the balance may be accurate to the comics, they're not real.

The adventures, powers, visuals etc. should be larger in life, but the interactions between characters and other small elements should feel real to make this really work IMHO.

Disagree entirely. The fact that you can describe the characters the way you are currently doing is what makes them real. Of course Reed explains something to death while the world is in danger, that's his character. And Dr. Doom should definitely monologue. That is the essence of his personality. Is it corny? Sometimes, but corniness is real.

Stan and Jack could have given the FF literally any powerset or physical appearance back in 1961, but if they had still given them those personality traits it would still be the same FF.

 

[Donut]

And what is up with people complaining about other people complaining about visual aesthetic in a movie based on a comic book which is in itself a visual medium? Are you like the opinion police or something?

Just ignore the positive guys. They are outnumbered against the negative guys & all they do is whine & complain about the negative opinions on this movie

 

[JAK®]

Oh come on. Tell me you didn't geek out when Cap said: "Hulk - smash!"

It's all in the execution.

The entire audience loved it, not just geeks. Because it was ultimately a human moment. That's what made you believe that Cap and Hulk were real instead of Chris Evans in blue tights talking to a computer generated model.

 

[Kelly]

Oh come on. Tell me you didn't geek out when Cap said: "Hulk - smash!"

It's all in the execution.

He's not saying that he doesn't want it in the movie, he is saying that that is something he could do without if other things remain true.

I am sure Willie boy geeked out all over the place in The Avengers...

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I never saw TASM2 because of all the bad reviews but I don't see how making a bad film about a comic makes making an adaptation more faithful to its comic roots a negative. This is the same flawed argument people use with the Tim Story films. "See they already tried to do the FF right and it didn't work!" - ignoring the fact that they were just plain garbage movies period. How is it that Marvel can be so successful giving us a dude in a spangly red, white and blue outfit or a gun-toting raccoon for crying out loud but the Thing can't look like the Thing?

And yes I want to hear "It's clobbering time!" But I guess that's too cartoony for some of you. Sigh.

If you saw TASM2, I think you'd understand. If you've seen Batman and Robin, it was a subtler variation of that.

The important thing is to capture the spirit of the comics without being overly literal. I think we would all agree that if used a series of FF comics as a script for a film, it would be pretty terrible.

The key is in understanding what Kirby and Lee were trying to accomplish and accomplishing that same thing on film.

Again, to me, it's all about real people engaged in extraordinary adventures with extraordinary visuals. And in the sake of making the characters feel real in terms of their actions, interactions etc. I would sacrifice some of Stan Lee's dialogue and fluorishes which wouldn't feel very 'real' in a film.