The Thing poll: Practical or cgi?

[Willie Lumpkin]

I kinda agree and disagree. CG should most definitely be used in complicated shots, and that goes for any film, but,
at the same time, it's used too much when practical effects/shots would be better.
It seems kinda lazy ( and overused ) at times to use CG.

There are scenes in some films that are glaringly CGI, and there are scenes in some films that are glaringly a suit (FF 2005 comes to mind).

The original Jurassic park is a good example of excellent use of both CGI and practical effects.

And I think your word “lazy” calls it out. When Spielberg did JP, it seems clear he went with whatever worked best for the scene - which isn’t easy, but the results speak for themselves.

Since then people have gone too heavy on CGI without either using practical effects when they look better or making sure the CGI is good enough to not take audiences out of the moment.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

it seems that Ebon Moss-Bachrach has been spotted on set in a motion capture suit

so, he will be doing some motion capture scenes

 

[psylockolussus]

it seems that Ebon Moss-Bachrach has been spotted on set in a motion capture suit

so, he will be doing some motion capture scenes

I cannot really see them doing a practical suit and make-up for the Thing. Especially when we got Hulk, She-Hulk, Thanos, Korg, Sandman, Lizard, Beast and several characters in full CGI from them.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

‘Fantastic Four’ Star Ebon Moss-Bachrach Had to Shave for The Thing’s Suit, Cast Sent Him Flowers for Emmy Nom: ‘I Miss Them Already’

Ebon Moss-Bachrach had to shave his face in order to transform into The Thing in Marvel's 'The Fantastic Four: First Steps.'

variety.com

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

I was wondering why he was so bare faced in the proof of concept. Hope they give him facial hair.

 

[psylockolussus]

Why would the Thing need facial hair?

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Why would the Thing need facial hair?

Are..are you serious right now...?

I can't even--

 

[psylockolussus]

Are..are you serious right now...?

I can't even--

He doesn't have facial hair iirc.

 

[Silvermoth]

Curls get the girls

 

[psylockolussus]

I cant see the image.

Thing must look at the very least like this

But would be even better like this

View attachment 56725
View attachment 56726

(
THE THING -ART ASYLUM MARVEL MILESTONES STATUE MIB#9 OF 2500 RARE)

Okay I'm confused. Judging from those pics of The Thing. How is facial hair possible? I don't think I've seen the Thing with facial hair, unless you want his normal human version in the movie.

 

[Spider-Fan83]

I cannot really see them doing a practical suit and make-up for the Thing. Especially when we got Hulk, She-Hulk, Thanos, Korg, Sandman, Lizard, Beast and several characters in full CGI from them.

For smaller scenes if he's just standing around or only seen in the background I could see them using a practical suit for a stand in of the shot too save on CGI ... But, yes , any major scene where he has lots of big movement or action/fight scenes CGI should be used

Like in the teaser we saw I bet the dating game scene of him seating in the dark was practical

 

[psylockolussus]

I only see a practical suit, practical for reference/stand ins that won't be in the final film.

But I don't get why they would need to film Thing in a practical suit for some shots that would be in the actual movie, unless they are desperately in need to save money.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

I could see it being used for certain practical shots. You have to remember every shot of CG does cost money and time. And if a real prop can be used to save time and money then why not? It's likely for lighting reference, but I could imagine other uses as well.

 

[psylockolussus]

I could see it being used for certain practical shots. You have to remember every shot of CG does cost money and time. And if a real prop can be used to save time and money then why not? It's likely for lighting reference, but I could imagine other uses as well.

But did they even do this for Hulk, Korg, Thanos and any CGI character?

To me, if they did that to The Thing, my instant impression would be they are saving money and the budget isn't big enough to begin with.

 

[Silvermoth]

They just spent 100 mill on rdj so I don’t think they’re worried about money lmao

 

[psylockolussus]

They just spent 100 mill on rdj so I don’t think they’re worried about money lmao

Thats for Avengers which are guaranteed to do huge at the box office. The budget for those are separated from Fantastic 4 and other MCU projects.

 

[Gamma Goliath]

But did they even do this for Hulk, Korg, Thanos and any CGI character?

To me, if they did that to The Thing, my instant impression would be they are saving money and the budget isn't big enough to begin with.

Given how critical the media has been about marvel CGI as of late. I wouldn't be surprised if Shakman and co took a different approach. I still believe it's mostly for lighting reference, I wouldn't rule out the possibility of some shots having the real tangible textures and colors.

 

[psylockolussus]

Marvel CGI/VFX look good when they are given enough time and if they don't shoot everything in sound stages. The Marvels imo, looked good. Deadpool & Wolverine's outdoor set of the Void, benefited from the natural sun lighting. Whereas Quantumania obviously needed more time for the VFX.