Michael B Jordan is "Flame On!" The Human Torch - Part 2

[Smilodon]

The fact that we see him silently light up from a distance makes that moment all the more powerful. Much better than seeing Chris Evans burn his clothes off while skiing.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

... While there was cheese Pop/Rock playing in the backgrohnd

 

[Kelly]

Please don't remind us of the music....

 

[The Guard]

The flame effects look terrible. That shot of him walking down the hall where you see him flame on from the back. It looks like they just super imposed flames over MBJ walking down in costume. Incredibly cheap looking.

What does that even mean?

How do flames look cheap?

 

[RAE072]

What does that even mean?

How do flames look cheap?

When they're not...rendered well?

Maybe that kinda sorta probably is the reason.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

^last I check fire was free, so I don't know how it can get any cheaper

For those who are curious and not as old and/or not as big car geeks as me, based on the quick glimpse, I believe this is the car Johnny was working on:

It was a relatively affordable mid-engine Toyota (these days, there's really no such thing as an affordable mid-engine car) that was available from the mid-eighties into the nineties.

good catch...
I assumed it was a 80's Mustang, but, I am not much of a car geek

I guess that does fit better, an would explain why he was working in the back (I assume that model of Toyota had a rear engine?

but, that's definitely not the same car we see drive pass the corn fields, so, what type of car was that...

 

[Drz]

I love the flames. Looks like a man on fire instead of a man of fire like Story's FF.

Reminds me of Alex Ross' Torch.

Love that shot!

 

[Tony Stark]

What does that even mean?

How do flames look cheap?

The effects used there are not much different than optical compositing which has been used since back in the 50's.

It's a shot of MBJ walking down a hallway with a layer effect of flames ontop of him. You could do this effect with iMovie it's so cheap.

The human torch is living flame, he should heat up from his core. When any object heats to high temperature it gives off glowing embers.

I'm not saying they need to do it exactly like the other films, but they paid ILM for the effects on the first film, and it holds up over time, and it's 10 year old technology. What they used in this film wouldn't even be considered cutting edge back then.

 

[Kelly]

In that particular scene the flames look fine, while flying? who knows if we will even see him fly this go around.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

but, that's definitely not the same car we see drive pass the corn fields, so, what type of car was that...

That one's pretty hard to see past the crops and through the dust, but if I had to guess, I'd say Lincoln Continental Mark III

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

That one's pretty hard to see past the crops and through the dust, but if I had to guess, I'd say Lincoln Continental Mark III

Looks like it has that Lincoln 'tire lump'.

 

[Dark Raven]

The effects used there are not much different than optical compositing which has been used since back in the 50's.

It's a shot of MBJ walking down a hallway with a layer effect of flames ontop of him. You could do this effect with iMovie it's so cheap.

The human torch is living flame, he should heat up from his core. When any object heats to high temperature it gives off glowing embers.

I'm not saying they need to do it exactly like the other films, but they paid ILM for the effects on the first film, and it holds up over time, and it's 10 year old technology. What they used in this film wouldn't even be considered cutting edge back then.

This. I've said this before, but the Torch looks like a stuntman in an asbestos suit who is set on fire. His flames aren't coming from his core but just seem to be on various places on top of him.

It's as if they couldn't come up with a better looking flame CGI than the Story movies after all these years on just this budget, so they decided to take the cheaper route of saying that he has vents to control the flames so that he isn't completely engulfed in them and his body isn't living plasma.

 

[Nemeres]

Would be cool to see Johnny's face similar to how Steve McNiven draws him, showing his tendons and muscles as if his skin were translucent when he's fired up.

 

[Urich Leeds]

In that particular scene the flames look fine, while flying? who knows if we will even see him fly this go around.

It'll probably be like the 1994 film where he flies only once, at the very end.

But this time, rather than due to a low budget, itll be due to "artistic license" and "grim and gritty" takes on these characters.

 

[Tony Stark]

In that particular scene the flames look fine, while flying? who knows if we will even see him fly this go around.

It's not the flames, it's that MBJ looks normal underneath the composite layer. I don't have a screen grab, but it doesn't look like the torch.

When you look at artwork of the Torch going back to even Jim Hammond golden age torch, it was a guy engulfed in flame to where you couldn't see the distinguished features. I thought they had the right approach in the last films where they went 100% CGI, so that they could get Chris' features wreathed in flame, but obviously they dont' have the budget for that in this film.

 

[Tony Stark]

This. I've said this before, but the Torch looks like a stuntman in an asbestos suit who is set on fire. His flames aren't coming from his core but just seem to be on various places on top of him.

It's as if they couldn't come up with a better looking flame CGI than the Story movies after all these years on just this budget, so they decided to take the cheaper route of saying that he has vents to control the flames so that he isn't completely engulfed in them and his body isn't living plasma.

Thank you! Glad you posted the screen grab to better illustrate this. Yes it looks like that because it's basically a composite layer. That is actually a shot of MBJ in costume from the back, the flames are just layered on top of it, and some ligting effects on the suit to blend it.

Looks terrible.

All the shots of Torch in the Story films are 100% CGI via ILM, where Chris did the mo-cap for it. A much better way to rendition the character.

As I said going back to the Jim Hammond Torch he's always been drawn where he's featureless, and all you see is flames, making out the silhouette of a person behind them.

 

[Tony Stark]

Whatever you thought of the movie as a whole they got this right:

 

[Kelly]

This. I've said this before, but the Torch looks like a stuntman in an asbestos suit who is set on fire. His flames aren't coming from his core but just seem to be on various places on top of him.

It's as if they couldn't come up with a better looking flame CGI than the Story movies after all these years on just this budget, so they decided to take the cheaper route of saying that he has vents to control the flames so that he isn't completely engulfed in them and his body isn't living plasma.

It's not the flames, it's that MBJ looks normal underneath the composite layer. I don't have a screen grab, but it doesn't look like the torch.

When you look at artwork of the Torch going back to even Jim Hammond golden age torch, it was a guy engulfed in flame to where you couldn't see the distinguished features. I thought they had the right approach in the last films where they went 100% CGI, so that they could get Chris' features wreathed in flame, but obviously they dont' have the budget for that in this film.

Thank you! Glad you posted the screen grab to better illustrate this. Yes it looks like that because it's basically a composite layer. That is actually a shot of MBJ in costume from the back, the flames are just layered on top of it, and some ligting effects on the suit to blend it.

Looks terrible.

All the shots of Torch in the Story films are 100% CGI via ILM, where Chris did the mo-cap for it. A much better way to rendition the character.

As I said going back to the Jim Hammond Torch he's always been drawn where he's featureless, and all you see is flames, making out the silhouette of a person behind them.

OK, I see what you are saying now....

Possibly, could that be a part of "getting use to their disabilities" thing?

 

[Weather Witch]

Whatever you thought of the movie as a whole they got this right:

I think it is just a matter of preference like Storm's Eyes or Colossus Skin in the X-Men movies (X2 for both by the way). Personally I preffer a man covered in flames over the visual you posted where a part of his body (or all of it) has turned into flames, but we will just have to wait and see what the final version looks like (especially if he does get to flame on and fly). Also they still have ages to improve on this. t:

 

[The Guard]

We've seen plenty of versions of the Human Torch where he's not "featureless".

I fail to see how "He doesn't look like a featureless red glowing blob" equates to something actually "looking cheap".

Nor do I honestly care how much it costs if it looks like real or meta flame.

Heck, for all we know, this is just him on a "lower setting" or something.

 

[Da-Scribe]

Yeah I love the wide shot, but the up close shot I'm just not digging. I need to see more though. Could just be related to the containment suit or he's just at a "lower setting" like The Guard said. I'll hold off on making any real judgments until we see him in his full glory, but for now I'm on the fence with his design.

 

[Black Narcissus]

Black man screaming''flame on'' I can't wait.

Haters to the left. Lawd.

 

[MakeMinesMarvel]

All the young black kids with an actual hero to dress up as instead of Nick Fury will be so great to see this Halloween. I know MBJ will be so proud.

 

[Kelly]

Ok...ok....let's not go overboard here. Good lord...lol


Please, someone tell me that as a fan of Chiklis and Alba I never posted something like that.

 

[Paradox1]

The flames looking cheap is ridiculous. Nearly all CGI flames are built into the most widespread 3d programs because they are so prevalent.There is some tweaking involved by the artist but the differences are miniscule. The differences you are seeing are from the lighting and environment.