Fantastic Four's Thing Revealed
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
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 said:
RealRT said:
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.
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.
...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.
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.elvor0 said:
It was sarcasm, I'm for CGI.bartholen said:RealRT said:
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.
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:RealRT said:
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.
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.elvor0 said:
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.
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.
At least he doesn?t look like he?s just a guy in an terribly obvious plastic practical effect suit this time.
It looks incredibly dull and lifeless to me. I'm hoping that in motion he looks better. But the entire point of The Thing is he is this huge monster but his overall kindness and humanity still comes through via his face and most especially his eyes. Marvel managed to pull this sort of concept off wonderfully with Groot in Guardians. I think part of it is the utter lack of the eyebrow ridge that the art traditionally uses to soften his features and allow him to be more expressive. There's a reason Ben is known as "The ever lovin' blue eyed Thing"
It also kind of bothers me that the still of the CGI character somehow still manages to look like a guy in a rubber suit. And I think Roger Corman's el cheapo rubber suit somehow captured the character better.
It also kind of bothers me that the still of the CGI character somehow still manages to look like a guy in a rubber suit. And I think Roger Corman's el cheapo rubber suit somehow captured the character better.
Well, I think it looks like shit, but then Thing has always looked like shit so I don't really mind.
But hey let's talk about the fact that JAMIE BELL got picked for this. Scrawny (good actor but let's be clear) Jamie Bell does not seem like a great pick for this....
But hey let's talk about the fact that JAMIE BELL got picked for this. Scrawny (good actor but let's be clear) Jamie Bell does not seem like a great pick for this....