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

[Lencho01]

They have to Johnny tell him to put on some pants.

 

[Whiskey Tango]

20th Century Fox...giving us amateur photoshoppers opportunities to make something better since 2005...

That statue on cbm looks truly dire. Never have I more pitied a piece of cheesy marketing gimmicktry.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

It does look like the Thing. I'm unsure how it doesn't. Just because of the brow.

The Thing has been drawn by many different artists over the past 50 years, but all of those artists have used the same design cues that have been specifically and intentionally changed for this film.

1. The thing has relatively smooth, regular plates. Not Irregularly shaped rocks that jut out at odd angles.
2. The Thing's forarms are not oversized when compared to his upper arms.
3. The Thing has a clearly defined brow.
4. The Thing has a large, broad moth and rounded chin.
5. The thing has 4 fingers and four toes which are oversized compared to his hands and feet.
6. The Thing wears pants.
7. The Thing has a very small nose with large space between nose and mouth.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Aa can be seen here:

In a world in which we don't see a lot of big, rocky orange guys, the image in that poster might be close enough that you can tell that's who it's supposed to be.

But with CGI, there's no excuse for why they couldn't have nailed his key features better than they did.

 

[Dark Raven]

If they like what they see, they have every right to praise it.

What? There's nothing there to see on Ben though.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Look at the images above that clearly and unambiguously define The Thing's features and compare to this:

He's orange and rocky and roughly the right shape, but the similarities end there and the details are all wrong.

Saying that looks like the Thing just because it's an orange rock man is like saying any man wearing a Superman costume looks like Superman.

This:

is as close to comic-book Superman as this film's Thing is to comic-book Thing.

 

[RAE072]

The Thing has been drawn by many different artists over the past 50 years, but all of those artists have used the same design cues that have been specifically and intentionally changed for this film.

1. The thing has relatively smooth, regular plates. Not Irregularly shaped rocks that jut out at odd angles.
2. The Thing's forarms are not oversized when compared to his upper arms.
3. The Thing has a clearly defined brow.
4. The Thing has a large, broad moth and rounded chin.
5. The thing has 4 fingers and four toes which are oversized compared to his hands and feet.
6. The Thing wears pants.
7. The Thing has a very small nose with large space between nose and mouth.

Yes. Yes to all of this.

 

[kevork89]

You're just nitpicking. The GA won't notice if he hasn't got the brows or toes. The only thing I agree with and they'll notice is the lack of clothes. No one compare them except fans. Look at Beast in the X-Men films. He looks different each time but he's still definable as Beast just as Ben is as the Thing or Hulk. They're defined by the colour and shape, whether there is fur. Same with Mystique or Nightcrawler they've changed in the movies and it's no difference. You know it's the character. I do wish they made Thing a bit more vibrant to stand out more. But whatever colour palette they're using I guess suits the more muted look.

 

[RAE072]

You're just nitpicking. The GA won't notice if he hasn't got the brows or toes.

Haha, so why not throw the fans a bone and give it to him? If the GA doesn't care either way, why not make him look MORE like the Thing?

Amazing.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

You're just nitpicking. The GA won't notice if he hasn't got the brows or toes. The only thing I agree with and they'll notice is the lack of clothes. No one compare them except fans. Look at Beast in the X-Men films. He looks different each time but he's still definable as Beast just as Ben is as the Thing or Hulk. They're defined by the colour and shape, whether there is fur. Same with Mystique or Nightcrawler they've changed in the movies and it's no difference. You know it's the character. I do wish they made Thing a bit more vibrant to stand out more. But whatever colour palette they're using I guess suits the more muted look.

Why would the GA's perception of the character have any impact on my perception of the character or any FF fan's perception of the character?

The Thing is my favorite character of all time. If this film had a Thing that looked like the Thing, I would show up just to see that even if everything else was wrong.

I never made any claims that people who don't know the character would reject him or not because he doesn't look like the Thing. I simply stated that he doesn't look like the Thing and provided details and images to illustrate.

I also don't care if other characters have been changed or not. I'm not talking about other characters, I'm talking about the Thing.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Haha, so why not throw the fans a bone and give it to him? If the GA doesn't care either way, why not make him look MORE like the Thing?

Amazing.

Exactly. And that statement could made for all the elements of these characters that have been randomly changed.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

And I think the toes are an issue for general perception.

When Kirby drew him, his feet were very expressive and his toes would spread to give him good footing and leverage when he was exerting great force. You can see even in the images above how the toes are sometimes spreading and that projects and image of strength and power.

People have toes for a reason and a toeless creature will look unnatural and not move or brace himself convincingly in action scenes.

 

[RAE072]

Exactly. And that statement could made for all the elements of these characters that have been randomly changed.

Seriously. I've said it before and I'll say it again.

The GA will show up if it looks awesome enough. They DON'T care one way or another. If it's comic accurate they'll still show up. There was no reason to change sooooooo much so drastically other than because the people behind this movie have huge egos and wanted THEIR ideas up on screen, but still had to work within the restraints of an established, 50 year old property with lots of fans.

So eff them.

 

[C. Lee]

LORD OF THE RINGS proved 15 years ago that with CGI you can create characters for the screen the way they are described or drawn....if you want to make them look the way they are described or have been drawn for over 50 years that is.

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

That statue on cbm looks truly dire. Never have I more pitied a piece of cheesy marketing gimmicktry.

Really? I quite liked it.

 

[Dark Raven]

If Ben Grimm wore a ballet skirt now and twirled around, or if he stood over a grill and a wave of hot air blew it up, he would have nothing to worry about if he were suddenly exposed.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I really don't see the problem with the Thing statue, I think he looks good. Better than Chiklis ever looked in my eyes.

 

[Matt Mortem]

Whoa...deja vu.

 

[The Guard]

LORD OF THE RINGS proved 15 years ago that with CGI you can create characters for the screen the way they are described or drawn....if you want to make them look the way they are described or have been drawn for over 50 years that is.

Oddly, LOTR only really messed up on the human characters, with difficult visual elements to get right such as "the correct hair color".

 

[Taarna]

The Thing has been drawn by many different artists over the past 50 years, but all of those artists have used the same design cues that have been specifically and intentionally changed for this film.

1. The thing has relatively smooth, regular plates. Not Irregularly shaped rocks that jut out at odd angles.
2. The Thing's forarms are not oversized when compared to his upper arms.
3. The Thing has a clearly defined brow.
4. The Thing has a large, broad moth and rounded chin.
5. The thing has 4 fingers and four toes which are oversized compared to his hands and feet.
6. The Thing wears pants.
7. The Thing has a very small nose with large space between nose and mouth.

Not touching point #6, but on point #1 the Thing once mutated into a spiky Rock like form.

With marvel jumping the shark these days on characters changing genders, and race, I'm glad to see he's going to be Orange for the movie.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Not touching point #6, but on point #1 the Thing once mutated into a spiky Rock like form.

I always thought spikey Thing looked like an artichoke:

But that design was a temporary and ill-advised mistake - certainly nothing an film-maker should be using for inspiration any more than they should be using: "Thing Ring Do Your Thing"

 

[Loden Greatstorm]

I always thought spikey Thing looked like an artichoke:

But that design was a temporary and ill-advised mistake - certainly nothing an film-maker should be using for inspiration any more than they should be using: "Thing Ring Do Your Thing"

 

[The Guard]

So that's where scrawny Ben Grimm came from.

We saw the Thing Ring in the first FANTASTIC FOUR. It was the reminder of Ben's loss of his wife.

 

[Sleiek]

This is hilarious.

[YT]jCCZA4oyY2o[/YT]

 

[Kelly]

So that's where scrawny Ben Grimm came from.

We saw the Thing Ring in the first FANTASTIC FOUR. It was the reminder of Ben's loss of his wife.

First movie? or first comic?