THING/Michael Chiklis DISCUSSION

[bubbadoom]

So are these "better" than what was in the movie, are they "less rubbery"?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Have these pics been posted before?

http://www.quantumcreationfx.com/

For some reason they look better than what we got in the movie, were are they from? It could even be the same suite, just done better.

 

[highguard]

very cool pics

 

[bubbadoom]

These Thing shots were done by [the now defunct] Steve Johnson's Edge FX when they were in a bidding war with Spectral Motion for the Thing contract for the first FANTASTIC FOUR. This is one of two make-up test Edge FX did, along with about four or five concept sculptures to give the studio a variety of choices. Spectral Motion modeled their make-up test after the moquette that the production had Jose Fernandez create for the show during prep. Spectral got the job, in part, because they gave the producers what they wanted.

I can not say that I find this one an improvement over what we got [still NO brow]. Can someone do a paste up with the two side by side for a better comparison?

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

Edit.

 

[zerohour films]

Yeah I agree with alot of you on here. The suit, although being well made, just didn't do it for me. As much as I like for them to use real world practical effects as much as possible, don't see how Thing can be recreated properly without CGI.

But above any of that, I couldn't stand the size of Thing. He is supposed to be a rather large guy, but due to Chiklis' ahem..short comings he wasn't. It drives me crazy to see him walking along side Sue Storm in some of the production stills or screen grabs and actually look shorter or around the same height.

I could have embraced the rubber suit alot more had they done some type of Gandalf effect with him to make him appear alot larger than the others.

Though props to Chiklis on playing the part. Think he did a great job with what he was given.

 

[bubbadoom]

Why would they make the Thing "a lot larger than the others" when he was shorter than Reed for years?!!?

If the FF had the huge budget that the LOTR had, they perhaps they would have gone digital...

 

[zerohour films]

Why would they make the Thing "a lot larger than the others" when he was shorter than Reed for years?!!?

If the FF had the huge budget that the LOTR had, they perhaps they would have gone digital...

Now granted I wasn't a huge FF comics fan, but I can't recall a time when he was shorter than Reed?? I always remember him being a rather large, massive creature. Of course I guess like in the Hulk's case that could change per artist--but I think height wise doesn't that much.

Anyone know what his comic stats are? I tried looking at a couple of sources online but none seem to tell. Not that it matters in this discussion, just would like to know for my own benefit.

And yes I'm aware that the budget was more than likely the deciding factor for Thing's appearance.

 

[bubbadoom]

Look at any of the First 100 issues, the Kirby run. He is noticeably shorter than Reed. This was the standard at least to the Byrne run, and most likely well past 300, perhaps to the end of the original run of the book.

Maybe when they relaunched the FF with that god awful "Heroes Reborn" crap he got bigger, and since then he has been all over the place, depending on the artist. And I don't care what they are doing in the "Ultimate" FF, because it is not.

 

[Hellmistress]

I have to say that I'm far happier with a prosthetic design than CG, because there is that immediacy, that sense of presence that you don't get with CG, no matter how good it is - and I wasn't terribly impressed with the CG on this film. I don't think that added money to pay for CG would have made a whit of difference. I loved Michael's presence in every scene he was in, and I think the suit was pretty damn' good - good enough for the actor to emote through, and he remains one of my favourite Marvel movie characters despite the dross of the script and direction. So much larger than life, and great fun.

Spectral did a great job, and although Quantum Creation's design is fabulous, it seems just a tad lightweight for me.

HM

 

[bubbadoom]

Look how horrible the vampires are in I AM LEGEND. Would that have been better than a prosthetic make-up for the Thing - I THINK NOT!

 

[zerohour films]

Look at any of the First 100 issues, the Kirby run. He is noticeably shorter than Reed. This was the standard at least to the Byrne run, and most likely well past 300, perhaps to the end of the original run of the book.

Maybe when they relaunched the FF with that god awful "Heroes Reborn" crap he got bigger, and since then he has been all over the place, depending on the artist. And I don't care what they are doing in the "Ultimate" FF, because it is not.

Thanks, I mainly read the newer issues (80's-90's) back in the day, but do have some classic trades stored away from the originals. Have to take a look at them.
Appreciate the heads up.

 

[Hellmistress]

Look how horrible the vampires are in I AM LEGEND. Would that have been better than a prosthetic make-up for the Thing - I THINK NOT!

Dear God, they were horrible, as were the dogs! Just awful. Look back at the reapers in Blade II - granted, there was CG involved, but pricipally it was good quality prosthetic design enhanced by CG, as it should be. Much like the Surfer, and if they had gone that route with Ben, I could have lived with that - indeed, I enjoy good CG work as much as the next person. But CG, no matter how advanced, is no substitute for reality - at least, not at this stage in its evolution. There is more poor CG out there than good, and I will stand by a comment made concerning Guillermo del Toro - he uses CG as punctuation, and not as a sentence.

HM

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Why would they make the Thing "a lot larger than the others" when he was shorter than Reed for years?!!?

If the FF had the huge budget that the LOTR had, they perhaps they would have gone digital...

You do realise that both FF movies combined cost more to make than all 3 LOTR movies dont you?

 

[bubbadoom]

Not SO! A quick check on BoxOfficeMojo has the budget for the first LotR at $93 million, and the other two at $94 each. So that's $281 million [in 2001-2003], where as both FF total $230 million [in 2005-2007]. I am sure some one can adjust those figure for inflation, etc.; but I know $93 mill in '01 went a lot farther than $100 mill in '05. Plus, New Line is said to have thrown extra cash at the sequels for reshoots once part one was such a hit, so I am sure the real cost is even more.

 

[Kelly]

They also saved money filming back to back.....it helps.


Now, if you want to debate that the money in the LOTR movies was used more efficiently and effectively than the FF movies, then that is a debate....

 

[bubbadoom]

Indeed, shooting back to back helps a lot. It was almost like one big shoot, rather that two seperat ones for the FF. A good deal of what was used in the sequels was built for the first LotR, while very little was or could be reused from FF1 to FF2 - they even redid the Thing make-up.

But yes, the money was put to better use on the LotR...

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Not SO! A quick check on BoxOfficeMojo has the budget for the first LotR at $93 million, and the other two at $94 each. So that's $281 million [in 2001-2003], where as both FF total $230 million [in 2005-2007]. I am sure some one can adjust those figure for inflation, etc.; but I know $93 mill in '01 went a lot farther than $100 mill in '05. Plus, New Line is said to have thrown extra cash at the sequels for reshoots once part one was such a hit, so I am sure the real cost is even more.

BoxOfficeMojo can be wrong about budgets though, they list the SR budget as $270 million when it was about $204 million.

The first LOTR cost $60 million, originally the whole trilogy only cost $190 million, but when the first movie was successful, TTT and TROFK got more money from New Line for PJ to make additions and adjustments.

As for which franchise used the budget better, that isnt a debate in my eyes.

 

[bubbadoom]

Wasn't SR's budget listed at $270 million because Warner's insisted on lumping all the costs of the aborted sequels [like Tim Burton's] onto Singer's sequel.

 

[matthooper]

Wasn't SR's budget listed at $270 million because Warner's insisted on lumping all the costs of the aborted sequels [like Tim Burton's] onto Singer's sequel.

Maybe.

WB never released Superman Return's actual budget. The estimates have been anywhere from $200 million to $250 million just for the production itself, and not including any previous pre-production costs. We just don't know. Once it went over budget, they didn't want the true budget to be known. When you spend $10 million on a scene that was never used in the film, it's a mystery what the real budget was.