THING/Michael Chiklis DISCUSSION

How about, they get a BRILLIANT director, with a VISUAL FLAIR, and have an AMAZINGLY LIFE-LIKE CGI character, with a bodily proportion so non-human that a man on a suit would be impossible, like Gollum in the LOTR movies?
Why should they when they can save a lot of money and still end with something that resembles very much the most popular version of the character?
 
Here's this madness again where people act like it's an either/or choice between a rubber Halloween costume, or atrocious, crappy CGI.

How about, they get a BRILLIANT director, with a VISUAL FLAIR, and have an AMAZINGLY LIFE-LIKE CGI character, with a bodily proportion so non-human that a man on a suit would be impossible, like Gollum in the LOTR movies?

Fox executive answers "Because that would be too clever, we would lose our reputation for being idiots and we dont want that."

:woot:
 
Why should they when they can save a lot of money and still end with something that resembles very much the most popular version of the character?
The same exact reason that the Oscar-Winning LOTR film used CGI instead of a man in a clearly rubber suit somewhat resembling the most popular version of the character.
If you don't understand why, well, you'd fit right in with the producers of the F4 movies. Maybe you should pick up an application and help them make another cinematic travesty. :up:
 
I always thought Thing should be CGI, but Fox is too cheap to give Story the money for it, so what can they do?

Make it look like a man in a rubber suit, thats what!
 
It's all about the budget, and until Fox doubles the FF budget to get it close to LOTR and Spidey money, there is NO way we will see a digital Thing. Look how bad those Mr. Fantastic shots are, and that should be comparatively easy. The first IRON MAN movie has a bigger budget than the last FF, and that only has one hero to realize [and I bet it's going to do MUCH better than either FF movie!].
 
i dont have a problem wit theh suit. as long as everyone admits that it looks like a rubber suit.
he didnt look like he was from hard material like stone.
 
id like to say that in such a crappy movie. michael chiklis really stands out. he is perfect as ben grimm/thing. i thought the suit looked good the first time, but that was two years ago they shouldve updated it a little now. the suit just is alright now but nothing special.
 
You guys speak as though CG is the be-all and end-all of existence - it isn't. The suit for Ben is beautifully made, very well done and gives both Michael and the rest of the cast the chance to interact properly, with action and reaction as a scene progresses. No matter how good CG is - and it often isn't that good - you never get the feeling of reality about it. We all knew Gollum was CG, we all knew King Kong was CG ... and it adds a certain sense of detachment to the proceedings, no matter how hard you try to believe otherwise.

And another thing - you all seem to think going with a 'guy in a suit' is a cheaper option compared to CG - well, it isn't. Prosthetic design is very sophisticated, intricate and detailed, and is a long process. And doing Ben with the CG that was in this film? Are you kidding?

Let's face facts here - Ben's a difficult character to design in the first place, and no matter if he's CG or prosthetics, he's never ... never ... going to be the Ben Grimm we see in the comics. I thought the suit was a truly fine piece of design work, and gave Michael a chance to emote really well ... which you can't do with CG, no matter how hard you try. It doesn't have the immediacy and tone of live action. It has its place, I agree, but in this case? No. Unless you want Ben to end up like the Hulk.

HM
 
You guys speak as though CG is the be-all and end-all of existence - it isn't. The suit for Ben is beautifully made, very well done and gives both Michael and the rest of the cast the chance to interact properly, with action and reaction as a scene progresses. No matter how good CG is - and it often isn't that good - you never get the feeling of reality about it. We all knew Gollum was CG, we all knew King Kong was CG ... and it adds a certain sense of detachment to the proceedings, no matter how hard you try to believe otherwise.

And another thing - you all seem to think going with a 'guy in a suit' is a cheaper option compared to CG - well, it isn't. Prosthetic design is very sophisticated, intricate and detailed, and is a long process. And doing Ben with the CG that was in this film? Are you kidding?

Let's face facts here - Ben's a difficult character to design in the first place, and no matter if he's CG or prosthetics, he's never ... never ... going to be the Ben Grimm we see in the comics. I thought the suit was a truly fine piece of design work, and gave Michael a chance to emote really well ... which you can't do with CG, no matter how hard you try. It doesn't have the immediacy and tone of live action. It has its place, I agree, but in this case? No. Unless you want Ben to end up like the Hulk.

HM

Well i actually thought the Hulk and especially Gollum and King Kong all looked more real than The Thing, and all 3 showed just as much emotion for me as well.

I'm not saying CGI is the be all and end all either, but for a character like The Thing, it is a better option IMO.
 
yea king kong was amazing, hulk looked perfect. and gollum was pretty good looking to, although ive never seen any off the rings movies.

yes i know, i deserve to be killed.
 
You guys speak as though CG is the be-all and end-all of existence - it isn't. The suit for Ben is beautifully made, very well done and gives both Michael and the rest of the cast the chance to interact properly, with action and reaction as a scene progresses. No matter how good CG is - and it often isn't that good - you never get the feeling of reality about it. We all knew Gollum was CG, we all knew King Kong was CG ... and it adds a certain sense of detachment to the proceedings, no matter how hard you try to believe otherwise.

And another thing - you all seem to think going with a 'guy in a suit' is a cheaper option compared to CG - well, it isn't. Prosthetic design is very sophisticated, intricate and detailed, and is a long process. And doing Ben with the CG that was in this film? Are you kidding?

Let's face facts here - Ben's a difficult character to design in the first place, and no matter if he's CG or prosthetics, he's never ... never ... going to be the Ben Grimm we see in the comics. I thought the suit was a truly fine piece of design work, and gave Michael a chance to emote really well ... which you can't do with CG, no matter how hard you try. It doesn't have the immediacy and tone of live action. It has its place, I agree, but in this case? No. Unless you want Ben to end up like the Hulk.

HM


I agree with you to a certain degree......but I also believe that a fair amount of CG work could have been added to Ben, and it would have enhanced the bigger than life character that he is in the comics. Much the way that it did for the Silver Sufer. Without the CG, we would not have had the bigger than life, other-world, universal character that we saw on the big screen.
 
I agree with you to a certain degree......but I also believe that a fair amount of CG work could have been added to Ben, and it would have enhanced the bigger than life character that he is in the comics. Much the way that it did for the Silver Sufer. Without the CG, we would not have had the bigger than life, other-world, universal character that we saw on the big screen.

As an enhancement, yes - I would agree it would add to the character. But to completely replace him with CG? Nope. I thought he worked pretty well, and I appreciate what Visual FX has brought to the screen over the past years, and know that without it many very good films simply would not have been made. But I'm also all for keeping it as real as possible whenever possible.

I just have issues with CG being regarded as the answer to everything - it isn't, by any means. It's wonderful, don't get me wrong - but it has its place, and replacing Ben with a CG Ben isn't the answer. I think he would drastically lose something in the translation, much as the Hulk did. And the quality of CG in this film was very patchy at the best of times, the best, in my opinion, being the reflection of Johnny's flame on the Surfer (which was just plain gorgeous), and the worst being the dismal dance sequence. I doubt Ben would have fared well, and more money doesn't necessarily mean better work.

HM
 
As an enhancement, yes - I would agree it would add to the character. But to completely replace him with CG? Nope. I thought he worked pretty well, and I appreciate what Visual FX has brought to the screen over the past years, and know that without it many very good films simply would not have been made. But I'm also all for keeping it as real as possible whenever possible.

I just have issues with CG being regarded as the answer to everything - it isn't, by any means. It's wonderful, don't get me wrong - but it has its place, and replacing Ben with a CG Ben isn't the answer. I think he would drastically lose something in the translation, much as the Hulk did. And the quality of CG in this film was very patchy at the best of times, the best, in my opinion, being the reflection of Johnny's flame on the Surfer (which was just plain gorgeous), and the worst being the dismal dance sequence. I doubt Ben would have fared well, and more money doesn't necessarily mean better work.

HM

I know what you're saying HM, i really do, and i prefer movies that take a more practical approach to FX a lot more, but with The Thing as CGI, i think we would have gotten the comic book look so much more accurate, and for me, Hulk, Gollum, and King Kong all showed just as much if not more emotion.
 
As an enhancement, yes - I would agree it would add to the character. But to completely replace him with CG? Nope. I thought he worked pretty well, and I appreciate what Visual FX has brought to the screen over the past years, and know that without it many very good films simply would not have been made. But I'm also all for keeping it as real as possible whenever possible.

I just have issues with CG being regarded as the answer to everything - it isn't, by any means. It's wonderful, don't get me wrong - but it has its place, and replacing Ben with a CG Ben isn't the answer. I think he would drastically lose something in the translation, much as the Hulk did. And the quality of CG in this film was very patchy at the best of times, the best, in my opinion, being the reflection of Johnny's flame on the Surfer (which was just plain gorgeous), and the worst being the dismal dance sequence. I doubt Ben would have fared well, and more money doesn't necessarily mean better work.

HM


As far as Ben is concerned, simple enhancement above the eyes, and in size would have worked IMO, but it came down to time and money, and in the end with Fox, that speaks louder than character and quality.
 
As far as Ben is concerned, simple enhancement above the eyes, and in size would have worked IMO, but it came down to time and money, and in the end with Fox, that speaks louder than character and quality.

:csad: Shamefully true
 
there's a big difference in F1 and F2 Thing in terms of strength
 
As far as Ben is concerned, simple enhancement above the eyes, and in size would have worked IMO, but it came down to time and money, and in the end with Fox, that speaks louder than character and quality.

I think Ben was done very well, but I do agree there could have been improvements - example: if they had added more sound (rocks grinding together during certain movements, more thundering footsteps - just more...) it would have given the mental image that he was heavier and helped us all to forget it was a suit. :thing:
 
I think Ben was done very well, but I do agree there could have been improvements - example: if they had added more sound (rocks grinding together during certain movements, more thundering footsteps - just more...) it would have given the mental image that he was heavier and helped us all to forget it was a suit. :thing:

EXACTLY, this was a thing they did really well in Hellboy with his stone hand, every time it moved rocky dust would fall off it and a noise of rocks grinding together could be heard. This helped to make us believe the hand was really made of stone.

They should have done this more with The Thing.
 
Well i actually thought the Hulk and especially Gollum and King Kong all looked more real than The Thing, and all 3 showed just as much emotion for me as well.

I'm not saying CGI is the be all and end all either, but for a character like The Thing, it is a better option IMO.
icon14.gif
 
Chiklis did a great job as both Ben Grimm & the Thing but now that I look back CGI could've been the best option.
 
^I think it definately would have been, too many times in both movies, i knew i was watching a guy in a rubber suit rather than 'The Thing', they just didnt do a good job of making it convincing for me.
 
Nope....cool.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"