Fantastic Four's Thing Revealed

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Fantastic Four's Thing Revealed

Jamie Bell's version of the Thing will be created with motion capture and CGI.

Of all the superhero movies on the horizon, Fantastic Four is probably the one that many comic fans are most curious about, if only because we've seen so little of it. For the most part, we already have certain expectations for the other big upcoming releases. With Fantastic Four, Fox has kept things so tightly sealed for so long that we haven't had much to form impressions from. Heck, up until now,we haven't even seen much of what the titular heroes look like after they get all fantastic-ified.

Deciding it was apparently to time give us a little peek at the hero team's new appearance, Fox today has released new images showing off actor Jamie Bell's Thing. Previously only glimpsed from behind in the film's trailer, the new picture directly showcases the actor's take on the hero. He pretty much looks the way you'd expect, like a hulking human made out of stone. One notable difference from the 2005 film at least, is the reported use of motion capture and CGI to create Bell's Thing. In the 2005 film, actor Michael Chiklis donned a bodysuit and make-up to complete his own transformation for the role. According to director Josh Trank, the switch was made to allow for more of Bell's performance to come through one the screen. "Jamie in real life is a tough guy," he said. "He exudes this strength. Ben [Grimm] is [Richard] Reed's best friend in the archetypal, spiritual way, and you want that character to have that warmth and that strength."

Just speaking personally, I don't hate it. If nothing else, it looks faithful to its source material and not worse than Chiklis's 2005 version. That being the case, it still would have been nice if this reveal could have included the other members of the team as well. Fox released two other images alongside the one featuring the Bell's Thing (lord is that awkward sounding), but neither really included anything all that special looking. Frankly, these characters have been around since 1961, there's no reason to keep them under wraps like Fox has been doing. Just show us the other three members of the team with their powers already.


Source: Empire

Permalink

That... actually doesn't look so bad, it's a little dull in color but nothing horrible.

Still have a bad feeling about the movie overall but at least they got this right.

Oh sure. When Hollywood does it, it's fine but let me reveal MY thing just once and boom! Jail!

It's not bad, it look more rocky than the first movie version of him.
Also with him being cgi, I'm fine with it seeing how the original make up suit thing, it literally took him hours to put it on!

I can hardly contain my indifference here. It's like someone saying they got the coolest thing behind this door, but they can't tell you what it is. It's faaar too special to just say what it is, you must see it for yourself. Now please, brace yourselves, grip your seat edge with those tough muscular bumcheeks aannnnd...TADAAA! *jazz hands*

It's a brick.

Jamie Bell's version of the Thing will be created with motion capture and CGI.

Nooooooooooooooooo, really? And here I thought they were to use suits and animatronics, like it's 30 years ago or something.

It's sad when the previous version of the movie Thing looked better.

I am Thing!

I am Groot!

I am THING!

I am GROOT!

That's the first thing that popped into my head.

Certainly a 'gritty' reboot.

I'll get my coat.

I suppose even this movie couldn't screw up the design of Thing. "Make a guy made out of rocks" is pretty much all you have to do and it seems they managed to accomplish this.

It's better than the one who had an accident in a Cheetos factory.

RJ 17:
I suppose even this movie couldn't screw up the design of Thing. "Make a guy made out of rocks" is pretty much all you have to do and it seems they managed to accomplish this.

Yeah, this is pretty much the first thing about this movie that they haven't screwed up. It's still going to be terrible, but I guess any time that there isn't any music and there isn't anyone on screen except Ben, you can pretend you're watching a good Fantastic Four movie.

That certainly looks like a thing alright. A thing completely lacking in any personality. It barely even has a face. Unless ofcourse they were going for that emotionless golem look.

That actually looks pretty good to me. Pretty great even. At least they'll have gotten something right in this film.

Looks... pretty good.

Be nice if it had more colour to it but overall it looks pretty good. I think the only thing we need is how he emotes with his face. Cant wait for a trailer where we see him moving and talking.

Meh. But that's not really their fault. The Thing has always looked terrible, especially in the early days.

Well it's certainly a guy made out of rocks. Something like this is going to be very hard to judge without seeing him moving.

This is slightly less underwhelming that the recent Lex Luthor reveal (spoiler alert, Jesse Eisenberg is BALD!)

Well, right now it seems most of the attention is on their decision to make The Human Torch black given that a family dynamic is central to the team especially after a while given that Sue marries Richard and Johnny is her brother. If Johnny is black that means that either mommy Storm has some explaining to do to daddy Storm or one of the two is adopted, and either way that's going to be touchy since they are playing around with one of the most famous family units in comics. Even when Astro City did a version it was the "Furst Family" for a reason. The Thing tends to be one of the easier characters to do because part of the point became not only his power putting him outside of humanity, but while a good friend he's also somewhat outside the family dynamic that unites the other three. This is also why he's worked okay as a solo act (after "Secret Wars" for example) and been able to be replaced on the team by characters like She-Hulk.

The bottom line is that a lot of people I've talked to seem to think it smacks of disrespect for the source material, far more so than other race-changing controversies because while someone can technically argue Heimdall isn't a big enough character to matter for example, The Human Torch is an entirely different animal especially given that one of the reasons why he's tolerated despite some of his idiotic antics at times (which have gotten pretty bad at times in the comics) is that he's Sue's brother and Reed's brother in law (not to mention Ben's best friend, perhaps more so than Reed given their tendency to play off each other non-stop with both their insults, and spot-on team work).

I know people will argue about that, especially here, but I see that as being the big lynchpin of the entire thing and truthfully I suspect the creators decided after the fact that they weren't going to be able to sell it, along with some other changes to the premise. For example some people having been saying that they are no longer astronauts that had an accident, but were willing participants in some kind of radiation infusion experiment. Apparently not only are they messing with The Human Torch and the family dynamic (some suspect he's not even going to be Johnny Storm) but also one of comics most classic origin stories.

There is also a rumor going around that Stan Lee is opposing this movie, apparently he did a cameo, but then demanded to have it cut out because despite being all about the money, he felt the work was an insult to perhaps his favorite creation (more so than the other movies that at least tried), and the work that pretty much created the Marvel continuity. Then they convinced him to have it put back in, and then removed again, etc... and the creators really wanting Stan's "stamp of approval" even if they can't re-do the movie is one of the reasons it's been delayed. How true that is remains to be seen, but allegedly Stan was one of the ring leaders in a bit in the comics recently where a bunch of actors playing "The Fantastic Four" were murdered, which pretty much summarizes his thoughts on the movie and the new versions of the characters as well as some of those in Marvel. Apparently the business slap fighting doesn't bother him that much in general because he's appeared in non-Disney cameos and has never felt the need to have his former company make an (indirect) statement. The rumor being that whole actor murder bit was him, more than a statement by Disney itself, despite Stan not being the honcho anymore he still apparently has a LOT of pull especially given that his approval brings a lot of cred.

Despite the acting, FX, etc... being better, some are already ready to say that someone finally created a Fantastic Four movie worse than Roger Corman's attempt, which at least the last two attempts could be favorable compared to that outing if nothing else. :)

Wait. The big rock guy looks like a big rock guy?!
OUTRAGE!

Therumancer:
Snip

You do realize that its possible for a mixed race family to exist without the two kids having the exact same skin tone, right?

dalek sec:
That... actually doesn't look so bad, it's a little dull in color but nothing horrible.

Fox is using the "Gritty Reboot" colour palette.

Wow... Really rocking the CGI in that shot...

Other than that, I hoping the Thing gives a solid performance in this movie...

immortalfrieza:
I am Thing!

I am Groot!

I am THING!

I am GROOT!

That's the first thing that popped into my head.

My thoughts exactly.

RealRT:

Jamie Bell's version of the Thing will be created with motion capture and CGI.

Nooooooooooooooooo, really? And here I thought they were to use suits and animatronics, like it's 30 years ago or something.

It's sad when the previous version of the movie Thing looked better.

Not sure if that's a rag or not on Animatronics. Cos err, quite a few of those puppets and animatronics look better than a lot of CGI still and aged incredibly well. I still deem that the transformation sequence in American Werewolf in London has yet to be topped.

RealRT:
Nooooooooooooooooo, really? And here I thought they were to use suits and animatronics, like it's 30 years ago or something.

It's sad when the previous version of the movie Thing looked better.

image

Um...care to explain how that's a bad thing (no pun intended)? Some of the best special effects of the century were created with CGI and motion capture, like Gollum, Groot, and Caesar from the new Planet of the Apes movies.

OT: Looks fine to me. Don't really care one way or another about the movie, but that doesn't look so bad. Is it really absolutely sacrilege that a dude with skin consisting of ROCKS actually has some jagged edges?

This looks okay to me.

I would prefer friggin' orange and a giant jutting Precambrian porch of a brow. You know--like The Thing has. At some point he needs to say the phrase "It's clobberin' time!" and punch a dump truck into dust to really seal the deal.

My co-worker said he looked brutal in this film. He was not lying. He really does look a monster that could rip me limp from limp.

...honestly, to me he looks like he's made out of those clumps of thin mud that get stuck to your shoes after footy. I feel like I could blow on him and he'd crumble to dust. Maybe it's the edges and colour, I don't know.

elvor0:

RealRT:

Jamie Bell's version of the Thing will be created with motion capture and CGI.

Nooooooooooooooooo, really? And here I thought they were to use suits and animatronics, like it's 30 years ago or something.

It's sad when the previous version of the movie Thing looked better.

Not sure if that's a rag or not on Animatronics. Cos err, quite a few of those puppets and animatronics look better than a lot of CGI still and aged incredibly well. I still deem that the transformation sequence in American Werewolf in London has yet to be topped.

Yes, yes it is a rag on animatronics because even when these puppets and animatronics look better, they look better *in static*, but in motion they are painfully, PAINFULLY fake.

bartholen:

RealRT:
Nooooooooooooooooo, really? And here I thought they were to use suits and animatronics, like it's 30 years ago or something.

It's sad when the previous version of the movie Thing looked better.

image

Um...care to explain how that's a bad thing (no pun intended)? Some of the best special effects of the century were created with CGI and motion capture, like Gollum, Groot, and Caesar from the new Planet of the Apes movies.

It was sarcasm, I'm for CGI.

RealRT:

elvor0:

RealRT:
Nooooooooooooooooo, really? And here I thought they were to use suits and animatronics, like it's 30 years ago or something.

It's sad when the previous version of the movie Thing looked better.

Not sure if that's a rag or not on Animatronics. Cos err, quite a few of those puppets and animatronics look better than a lot of CGI still and aged incredibly well. I still deem that the transformation sequence in American Werewolf in London has yet to be topped.

Yes, yes it is a rag on animatronics because even when these puppets and animatronics look better, they look better *in static*, but in motion they are painfully, PAINFULLY fake.

And CGI doesn't look fake a lot of the time? The problem CGI has is it's not actually there, so it never really looks like it's part of the world.. Luke can actually interact with puppet Yoda and he casts shadows realistically. Heck, the Skeletons and Bronze Giant in Jason and the Argonaughts look excellent precisely /because/ they move so unnaturally. ED-209 from Robocop lurches around in a way befitting the nature of the film and Robocop can again, actually interact with it. The Skeksies in The Dark Crystal? They still look fantastically creepy, twitching around, perfectly conveying this ancient decrepit race. The puppeteers seriously outdid themselves on that piece. The Alien movies. Cronenburgs 1986 The Fly. And of course; the legendary Werewolf sequence from AWIL:

There's waaay to much reliance on Greenscreen these days. There's pros and cons to both animatronics and CGI, but acting as if CGI doesn't have fakeness to it is silly, because it's just not true, theres an incredible about of lifelessness to them, a lack of grounding and weight in the world, shadows that feel unreal because they're calculated by mathmatics, movement that's way too slick and lacks subtlety, and the worse bit, it all ages incredibly quickly. Yeah I know the guy in AWIL isn't actually turning into a wereworlf, but it hasn't aged because it was real, on the other hand, the CGI in Harry Potter from a few years ago looks fucking shocking. Obviously some things can't be done with puppets/makeup, but just look at whats possible when you have a talented team of makeup artists and sculptors.

Yea everyone is curious about this movie the same way when your stuck in traffic for half an hour and pull beside a 3 car wreck. You know it isn't right to look but you're curious to look at how bad it could be.

RealRT:

Jamie Bell's version of the Thing will be created with motion capture and CGI.

It's sad when the previous version of the movie Thing looked better.

Dude, that suit looked horrible.

Edguy:

RealRT:

Jamie Bell's version of the Thing will be created with motion capture and CGI.

It's sad when the previous version of the movie Thing looked better.

Dude, that suit looked horrible.

This one's even worse.

elvor0:

RealRT:

elvor0:

Not sure if that's a rag or not on Animatronics. Cos err, quite a few of those puppets and animatronics look better than a lot of CGI still and aged incredibly well. I still deem that the transformation sequence in American Werewolf in London has yet to be topped.

Yes, yes it is a rag on animatronics because even when these puppets and animatronics look better, they look better *in static*, but in motion they are painfully, PAINFULLY fake.

And CGI doesn't look fake a lot of the time? The problem CGI has is it's not actually there, so it never really looks like it's part of the world.. Luke can actually interact with puppet Yoda and he casts shadows realistically. Heck, the Skeletons and Bronze Giant in Jason and the Argonaughts look excellent precisely /because/ they move so unnaturally. ED-209 from Robocop lurches around in a way befitting the nature of the film and Robocop can again, actually interact with it. The Skeksies in The Dark Crystal? They still look fantastically creepy, twitching around, perfectly conveying this ancient decrepit race. The puppeteers seriously outdid themselves on that piece. The Alien movies. Cronenburgs 1986 The Fly. And of course; the legendary Werewolf sequence from AWIL:

There's waaay to much reliance on Greenscreen these days. There's pros and cons to both animatronics and CGI, but acting as if CGI doesn't have fakeness to it is silly, because it's just not true, theres an incredible about of lifelessness to them, a lack of grounding and weight in the world, shadows that feel unreal because they're calculated by mathmatics, movement that's way too slick and lacks subtlety, and the worse bit, it all ages incredibly quickly. Yeah I know the guy in AWIL isn't actually turning into a wereworlf, but it hasn't aged because it was real, on the other hand, the CGI in Harry Potter from a few years ago looks fucking shocking. Obviously some things can't be done with puppets/makeup, but just look at whats possible when you have a talented team of makeup artists and sculptors.

At least it moves more naturally - and what's the point of looking like part of the world if it's an obviously bloody fake part of the world? Luke may interact with puppet Yoda all he wants, but whenever you look at Yoda's face you clearly see it's a puppet and not a living being. All the shadows in the world can't fix that. A lot of the time, especially on hi-def it's obvious this is rubber or plastic or whatnot and not actual skin you are looking at. Have you seen The Terminator lately? It was almost hilarious to how bad it looked with the fake Terminator head and how contrasting it was to the real Ahnold head. ED-209 is a whole different can of worms because it's really obvious it's not on the same level and is actually pretty damn small IRL. And yeah, it did age - it aged better than some tricks, but it still did age, it's really obvious when they are cutting away to change and apply makeup and the whole sequence feels very slow and too drawn out.

I think it's a little less faithful to the comic than the Thing in the earlier movies, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. I know there's a certain futility to making a "realistic" comic book movie, but if the Thing were a living, breathing entity, this more or less matches how I'd imagine him. I like it. Granted, I've never really been a fan of the Thing's design. Or of the Fantastic Four in general. Oops.

They look like big, good, strong hands. Don't they?

Sorry, sorry. He looks better than the other one, he does, but he still looks...weird? He may look better in motion, I don't know, but right now he looks a bit gritty gritty dark dark. "I must frown because this is a serious comic book movie, grr. It worked for DC, right?"

I doubt The Thing is going to be the worst, or grittiest, part of this movie though. Doctor Doom's gonna be some lame ass hacker, there will be worse things.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here