News on The Thing Costume

[Malus]

I think he should lose some expression. He's trapped under a rocky skin. I think isolation should be a theme of the character. He's cut off. Trapped behind that rocky wall.

Part of that should be seen in a lack of ability for him to communicate emotions easily . . . not only becasue it makes logical sense that rocks don't bend as easily as skin . . . but because it will help reinforce the isolation theme of the character.

I totally agree, Willie. Excellent analysis!
I sure hope someone at Fox (or Tim Story) is actually reading this message board. Because it isn't too late to have the SFX guys add something like the picture above. It's a lot closer in spirit to the character while not diverging much at all from the first film's design.
They should do it.

And yes, Carp Man, the hands were way too big. Let's hope they address that, too. Then just zip Chikie in and we're good to go.

 

[knoxf4i]

To me, personally, The Thing needs the protruding eyebrow. I was very disappointed that he didn't have it, though the costume did pay homage to the first few issues of FF.

The Thing really took off, though, when his flesh "solidified" and his brow protruded. And I say put the blue shorts with the black waistline on him!

 

[Balian]

I personally liked the movie look, so I'm fine that there won't be CGI used in the sequel for The Thing.

 

[WTFwuzThT]

CGI is needed to make the Thing all that he could be. The character is nowhere near his potential.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

NO.w.h.e.r.e.

 

[Sabretooth]

The main problems with the suit in the first one are that Chiklis walked like he had a stick up his ass and no brow. And while I liked Chiklis in the movie,he was WAY too short. They really need to step it up next time.

 

[Balian]

The suit can always be improved. As long as the guy under it is good in the role, and Chiklis is, I'm fine.

 

[Darthphere]

The main problems with the suit in the first one are that Chiklis walked like he had a stick up his ass and no brow. And while I liked Chiklis in the movie,he was WAY too short. They really need to step it up next time.

Yeah, the brow needs to show up.

 

[MoPlaYa]

I think they should give Thing a brow...not a huge one but atleast alittle something....and they need to fix his hands...they were too big and he couldnt make a fist

 

[Obi-Ron]

while I liked Chiklis in the movie,he was WAY too short.

The Thing is only 6 feet tall.

 

[Malus]

The Thing is only 6 feet tall.

Correct.
Maybe Lee & Kirby gave him a similar height to his teammates because to do otherwise would have made the constant face-to-face interaction that typified the series difficult. It may not have even been a conscious decision. (Any real Lee & Kirby scholars out there know?)

The Thing's ridiculous proportions in the comic are a very recent "innovation."

If Ben needs anything more onscreen, it's bulk and / or width.
Oh yeah, and a freakin' brow!

 

[Darthphere]

Brow damnit!

 

[EternalMaster]

The movie Thing looked fine. And CGI was used at ceryain action moments.

Unless some of you think they had a semi-truck drive straight into Michael. Or had him fall off a skyscraper.

Suits can be crappy. CGI can be crappy. Suits can be good. CGI can be good.

What gets me are people like Wilhelm who think "OMG only teh CGI iz good, LOLZ!!!!111!" when in reality a suit can work out just as well if the circumstances are right.

Here, where Thing spent most of his comic career standing at around 6-feet tall, the suit works fine.

Now for Juggernaut in X3, a suit wasn't that good. Mostly because comic book Juggernaut has always been a very massive character. In the movie, they boosted his height decently, but he was way too much like a body builder rather than a massive, barrel-chested man mountain.

Likewise for Hulk, CGI seems to be the best route... even though they didn't quite get it right in the first film. Some scenes had him looking like a bright neon cartoon flopping across the screen.

A hybrid of suit and CGI comes from League of Extraordinary Gentlemen. I personally that the movie was crappy, but Hyde looked pretty good. From the neck and up, he was a man wearing make-up. From the neck down, he was mostly CGI layered over a suit. And then during big action moments, he was all CGI. Worked pretty well.

 

[Darthphere]

What gets me are people like Wilhelm who think "OMG only teh CGI iz good, LOLZ!!!!111!" when in reality a suit can work out just as well if the circumstances are right.

Sorry, but WIlhelm is not that type of poster, and if you actually knew him, you'd know better. Thing is his favorite character, and he needs to be perfected, using whatever means possible. The Thing in FF the movie while passable wasnt perfect, there are definite rooms for improvement and if that involves CGI, great.

 

[Sabretooth]

The Thing is only 6 feet tall.

His height is almost always changing. He's probably closer to 7 feet now.

 

[Advanced Dark]

Brow damnit!

They can do it with an explanation. Wonder if Chiklis height had anything to do with not having a brow. Maybe it'd make him look too compact.

 

[Spider - Man]

Physical or cgi, this is the way he needs to be:
He needs:
1) a brow
in relation to his head he needs:
2)bigger arms
3)bigger legs
4)wider, thicker body
5)bigger feet
He needs to have
6)no visible muscular definition
7)no visible teeth
He needs to be
8)portrayed as around 7' tall
9)more "rock looking"
and finally
10)his fingers need to be a bit shorter, more stubby, BUT the SIZE of his hands from the first film was perfect.
However they could achieve this would be fine with me. I don't care - physical or cgi - just whatever works! I know the above is major wishful thinking but to me that would make a perfect Thing!

 

[Nathan]

I hope he looks something like this

Sorry but.. eww... I think his head shape needs to be changed a bit because right now the big grow and lips don't really fit.

 

[Malus]

They can do it with an explanation. Wonder if Chiklis height had anything to do with not having a brow. Maybe it'd make him look too compact.

Chiklis is a fan, so I doubt it. I would think he'd want to look as close to the character as possible.
And for over 40 years, the character has had the damn brow.

Even a hint of it would be a great improvement. It's not that big a deal; they just need to do it.

 

[Obi-Ron]

They can do it with an explanation. Wonder if Chiklis height had anything to do with not having a brow. Maybe it'd make him look too compact.

From a discussion on the FF2 Manip thread:

I don't remember the names involved, but I recall an interview with one of the effects guys who said the browless Thing was a result of one of the suits saying classic Ben looked "too much like a caveman".

 

[Darthphere]

Chiklis is a fan, so I doubt it. I would think he'd want to look as close to the character as possible.
And for over 40 years, the character has had the damn brow.

Even a hint of it would be a great improvement. It's not that big a deal; they just need to do it.

Brow damnit!

 

[Warhammer]

I am glad Thing is as he is.
No CG.

That CG effect money should be used on Galactus and Mister Fantastic instead.

 

[Sabretooth]

Supposedly,the make up crew wanted to add a brow at the very end of FF. But...somebody thought otherwise.....

 

[Carp Man]

Supposedly,the make up crew wanted to add a brow at the very end of FF. But...somebody thought otherwise.....

Good choice.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

What gets me are people like Wilhelm who think "OMG only teh CGI iz good, LOLZ!!!!111!" when in reality a suit can work out just as well if the circumstances are right.

Sir, I'll say it again, I never wanted him 10 feet tall. The reason a suit can NOT work, is that the whole point of the Thing is that he looks like a monster with UNhuman proportions, regardless of what era you want to look at.

You can go back to the early days, before he evolved into the classic form:

Th^t could be 6 feet tall, but the proportions are all wrong for a man.

You can look at the classic form:

See how there's no neck, his arms are long and his legs are short, like an ape?...and the truncated, super wide torso and hips?

and then compare to a normal man's proportions, wearing a layer of rubber, like a 60's Godzilla costume.

John Byrne knew that he's best with the massively wide torso, no neck, brow, bulldog underbite and long arms.

and th^t could've been done to appear 6 feet tall, but not by a guy in a rubber suit...mainly because of the massive, log-like arms.

I don't even like comics from the 90's on, where everything is exTREME, like this:

But he really needed to have, not the enormous height, but massive girth, to look non-human, like a simian monster, like this:

even if only 6 feet tall, if he'd looked like th^t, I would've bought the idea of him stopping a truck.
As it was in the movie, it just looked like a puny human stopped a truck, so it didn't look like his strength and mass stopped it, but rather that he was, like, magically impervious, like Superman, a speck lifting a whole island, and that's lame, and SO not the Thing.

And the button nose rammed up right against the brow, and the caveman brow, sorry, it's as essential to the character as Batman's pointy ears and Superman's red "S" on his chest.

For fans like us, f***ing with his face like that is just like if they'd taken away Batman's pointy ears for fear they'd look too "cartoony".