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

[lordofthenerds]

I'm pretty sure Trank was as inspired by Kirby's early Thing as he was by the UFF.

 

[Ragnaroknroll]

It reminds me of that and it also reminds be of the Thing in the first film.

But neither of those were what I was hoping for this time around. This time I was hoping it would look much more like the Thing after Kirby hit his stride and the way he has looked ever since.

There are limits with practical make-up, but there are no limits to CGI and after all the bad mouthing of the first film and how bad the Thing looked, it's beyond frustrating to see the designers going right back there.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

Or what, tough guy? You don't want people replying to your public posts on a public internet message board, you should probably take it to PM.

You are the "tough guy" keyboard warrior. I was simply asking him a question as I was curious.

I'm sure the poster is old enough to reply for him or herself.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

He looks like a generic pile of rocks with a smashed up, messy, poorly defined face and he looks nothing like The Ever-Lovin' Blue Eyed Thing that has been clearly and consistently portayed in comic books for the past 50 years.

. . . In my opinion as someone who has never made a secret of the fact that the FF is my favorite comic book and The Thing my favorite character.

Fair enough.

 

[lordofthenerds]

well....thank god its not this

Yeah, thank god he's a generic rock monster instead.

Generic rock monsters are more tragic than unique rock monsters.

 

[Tony Stark]

I'll be honest, I kinda like that Thing. I'm a vocal critic of this movie, and that won't change, but he's my favorite looking character we've seen so far. Not that it says anything, and not that I can really judge that by one blurry picture, but so far I don't actually have a huge problem with it.

I'll give you this, it's certainly not the worst thing about this production and all else being equal, if there weren't other problems with the film, I might be more willing to accept that design. But overall I'm not a fan of it.

 

[TheComicbookKid]

I just went back and looked at the BTS leaked bust image which I liked and it does look like it. Maybe it's that weird angle in that poster.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I just went back and looked at the BTS leaked bust image which I liked and it does look like it. Maybe it's that weird angle in that poster.

I do think the it could have something to do with angle/lighting, but it also looks like there are some basic differences. The worst feature of the leaked bust, the mouth, seems to be the most similar feature with this one. The leaked image appears to have a smoother, less irregular texture and more clearly defined brow and face - I suspect that the lumpier texture is easier to animate and look like 'rocks' than the smoother, more clearly defined texture of the bust.

But I'm hoping it will look better from a different angle. But if that's the case, Fox should have put a better image out there to start with (and they would be wise to show us a better angle now if it will make that much difference).

I'll give you this, it's certainly not the worst thing about this production and all else being equal, if there weren't other problems with the film, I might be more willing to accept that design. But overall I'm not a fan of it.

I agree. If everything else looked great, I think I'd still be disappointed, but it wouldn't seem as bad.

As things stood, the one thing that seemed like it might make this film watchable was the Thing, but with this image, it now seems less likely he'll be able to carry it.

 

[Flint Marko]

I'll give you this, it's certainly not the worst thing about this production and all else being equal, if there weren't other problems with the film, I might be more willing to accept that design. But overall I'm not a fan of it.

I hear ya. Like I said I guess Trank and co. have my expectations so low that I'll be pleasantly surprised if they do anything half right.

 

[Webhead38]

When I see this Thing I can only think of one "thing"...



If Kellogg's sponsor this, they've really jumped the shark. I think I'll go pour myself some milk.

 

[Human Torch]

I'll give you this, it's certainly not the worst thing about this production and all else being equal, if there weren't other problems with the film, I might be more willing to accept that design. But overall I'm not a fan of it.

Same.

Looks like a bulkier,jaggeder version of the Story Thing. Not the worst thing ever,but hardly the ideal.

 

[Kirmit]

I'm not liking the look from that pic, looks more like Hulk's friend Korg than Ben Grimm.

 

[Tony Stark]

It's funny that the Roger Corman Thing might be the most comic accurate interpretation of the character we've ever had.

 

[Miken Ayers]

It's funny that the Roger Corman Thing might be the most comic accurate interpretation of the character we've ever had.

And Doom.

 

[cronosred]

The Thing looks terrible IMO. It's like someone made a clay sculpture of him and when they left the room someone else came in and smacked it in the face with a frying pan.

 

[Travesty]

I think he looks cool.

 

[Spiderine]

Its just a more realistic and grittier version of Thing if a man made of rock existed he would look like this.

 

[lordofthenerds]

Yeah, yeah. The movie's gritty. We get it.

 

[Superhero 101]

I'm not digging it but I'm not hatin on the look of the thing it's just meh

 

[Lencho01]

He looks fat to me.

I actually liked that supposed mock Thing they used on set. I was expecting something closer to that look.

 

[Fincher]

His face could be better, could be worse. I'll have to see to how it looks in motion, but for now my issue with it is that it makes me think of an old man. It's already much better than Story's Thing, though.

 

[terry78]

I am still not entirely sure why this is so hard to put into live action. It's almost like, and I hate to say it, when you have CG at your disposal you overthink this ****.

 

[wobbly]

Its just a more realistic and grittier version of Thing if a man made of rock existed he would look like this.

And that is getting the basic idea behind him wrong: Ben isn't made of rock, he has a skeleton, organs, muscles and skin that evolved from a being a tough 'dinosaur' like hide to being covered by a layer of rocky plates.

Many years back I saw an article describing how he can move (after all, being solid rock as depicted in all film versions so far he wouldn't be able to): The plates covering his epidermis are not bumpy rocks but flatter plates, thinner at the edges so they can slide over and under each other, with smaller plates at the joints, enabling movement. They even pointed out how Kirby would draw some plates as solid black. This was to simply his shorthand way of showing that one was recessed from the others.

This is a rough idea of the wrong and right way of how it's meant to work:

 

[Paradox1]

I am still not entirely sure why this is so hard to put into live action. It's almost like, and I hate to say it, when you have CG at your disposal you overthink this ****.

If I had to guess there might be some intellectual property rights involved. I don't have any idea what the movie rights deal includes but it may not include artist renditions. Bryan Hitch is attached to the property so they may have picked his work.

 

[RAE072]

If I had to guess there might be some intellectual property rights involved. I don't have any idea what the movie rights deal includes but it may not include artist renditions. Bryan Hitch is attached to the property so they may have picked his work.

Bryan Hitch Thing looks like regular 616 Thing.