Journal

He’s not BIG enough.

16 Comments

I’ve figured out what bothers me most about the new Fantastic Four film: The Thing isn’t big enough.

For all its faults, The Hulk put things in proportion nicely. Even at minimum size, the Hulk was half again as tall as the average human male in that film. But The Thing, whose comic-book appearances are comparable to The Hulk’s when you’re trying to decide whether size matters, is basically just an actor in a rubber-suit.

I don’t mean to diminish the role of “actors” in the movies. After all, if special effects become paramount, you end up with more Star Wars prequels. But when you’re creating a monstrous, rock-skinned superhuman THING, a rubber suit is going to fall about three feet short.

–Howard

16 thoughts on “He’s not BIG enough.”

  1. It’s not that he’s too SHORT — a lot of artists tend to draw Ben shorter than either Reed or Johnny. It’s that he’s not WIDE enough.

    Still, there’s always the excuse that it’s an early stage of his mutation. I’m kind of hoping that in the sequel, he’s not only wider, but his rocky “facets” are a little more sharply-edged, and that they give him that distinctive Ben Grimm BROW.

    Honestly, Michael Chiklis is my big hope for the film. He’s been not only an FF fan but a BEN GRIMM fan since he was a kid, and FOUGHT to get this role. I’ve never watched his TV show, but I’m hoping that he can pull it off.

      1. I’m in absolute agreement — it’s hard to get a perspective on how wite Chiklis is compared to “normal” humans. He’s not quite The Thing, but he’s the closest anyone can get to it without going through a radioactive magnetic storm.

  2. What bothers me about movie-version Thing is that, basically, he looks like a human covered in rocks. Whereas comic!Thing just isn’t built like a human at all. Especially not facially. He brings whole new meaning to the term ‘crag-faced’.

    I could also go into how the neutralization of the colors just irks me, but I’ll keep my mouth shut for now. ^^;

    2. I like the Thing looking more human and less Neanderthal. What I really like, though, are the pants. Seriously, who fights crime in briefs?

      You’re right about the colors, though. If Spider-man can look awesome in Technicolor, then so can the FF!

  3. But when you’re creating a monstrous, rock-skinned superhuman THING, a rubber suit is going to fall about three feet short.

    Heck, I’ve ALWAYS said that.

  4. I don’t know if it comes across in the flick, but all the posters and promotionals I’ve seen show the “Ever-Lovin’ Blue Eyed Thing” with brown eyes. But yeah, I agree. I The first time I downloaded the preview and saw the Thing, I cried.

    I cried for days and days.

  5. Could be worse

    I do have very specific requirements for the Thing. He has to be true to the Thing physically but moreso mentally. But NO matter what hey mess up, I keep reminding myself it will be a million times better than that monstrosity Corman was making.
    What was Marvel Thinking??? Glad they seem to be thinking better these days.

  6. A bigger worry is Dr. Doom

    I’m more concerned how Dr. Doom is going to be protrayed in the movie. Don’t get me wrong I like the actor playing him. He was interesting in Nip/Tuck and I liked him in Charmed but Dr. Doom was never that charming. Before he had to wear the mask he was good-looking but he was too busy trying with his science projects to chase skirts. I’ve no doubt the actor can do arrogant and pompous, but he doesn’t come across as bombastic very well. Remember this is a villian who always try to end his sentences with “DOOM!!!” in some way. I don’t see the actor really doing that and not sounding like a total goof.

  8. OMG.. that post is so totally laced with inuendo.. Where to start?

    Guess I’ll let it pass on by…

    Thanks for the chuckle!

  9. I agree

    I agree, the Thing doesn’t look “right” in the movie. In fact the more I see previews and such for the film the less I want to see it. I’ll probably see it when the guys bring it to work after DVD release.

  10. Honestly, for me

    I have to agree about the look of the thing, though I am in love with that one clip where the truck flips over him. When I was much littler, I was a fan on the Fantastic Four, then fell out of funnybook fandom for a while. Recently I’ve picked up comics again and I know I won’t be able to help but compare this movie to the recently reinvisioned Reed Richards and company seen in Ultimate Fantastic Four. With writing by B. M. Bendis and then Warren Ellis, I think I’m probably just going to be let down by the dialogue. But yeah, having it pointed out to me like that helps alot. I’d always looked at the Thing as something that didn’t quite fit, but found myself not quite able to put my finger on it.

    (Sorry ’bout the alliteration. I guess I’ve been reading too many old comics recently.)

  11. The truck flip seems taken right out of Hellboy – now, see, that’s more along the lines of how The Thing should look, absolutely larger than life. Don’t get me wrong, the Hellboy movie was a convoluted mess, but the character looked PERFECT. Chiklis doesn’t have the size, presence, or persona for disgruntled, angry Ben Grimm. And the rubber suit makes him look more like an orange toad than a living pile of stone superhero.

    All in all, I have very low hopes for Fantastic Four – which doesn’t bother me, since I didn’t read the comic often, really.

Comments are closed.