• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Fantastic Four reboot-- Casting, Rumors, Pix, ect;

Marsden said:
theenglish said:
Christopher said:
Yes, but it didn't respect the source. David Banner had little in common with Bruce Banner beyond his mean, green affliction. He'd never designed a bomb or worked for the military, he had no Betty Ross or Rick Jones in his life, etc.

People keep trying to say that the quality of an adaptation has to do with its source or its context or anything except the quality of the work in and of itself, which is really the key thing. Sure, it's good if it respects the source, but that is not the thing that determines its quality. Its own internal merits do that, and respect for the source is just a bonus.
Click to expand...

I see. I was perhaps unclear. What I meant in my first response was that it is important for the film to respect the character (as portrayed in the film) not necessarily the source. This also is different than be "respectful". It is caring enough to make the character fully realized rather than a two dimensional cut out (something I think Green Lantern was guilty of).

Venardhi's point is important as well--there does need to be a connection to what made the comic appealing to begin with. The Hulk television series did this by focusing on Banner's isolation and fear of the Hulk which was the essence of the series.
Click to expand...

I understand you, I think.

I found what you are saying to be true for the most part. For example, with Bucky and Falcon changes were made, but they were only details, Bucky wasn't a kid but same age as Cap, Falcon wasn't a former gang member turned social worker that could communicate with a falcon, and neither were garishly attired in red, but they both seemed like they could be that character out of the books, at least to me. The personality, the friendship with Cap, the heroic attitude, those are more important, (and being well written and acted) and what counts.
Click to expand...

Yes, as long as the material is written and presented intelligently and the movie is good.

For example, what is important to FF other than the basic powers? The family dynamic and relationship between the characters, the facing the unknown and "fantastic", and the normal people turned into heroes. If the movie nails this then there is a lot of leeway to play around with the details.

Comics are by their nature reworked and reconstructed every few years and there are always multiple takes on the characters.

Look at the sixties, seventies, eighties (etc.) FF, the Ultimate version, and the 1612 version--they all share common elements that make the team.
 
Full Frontal pic of The Thing. I have only one thing to say. "IT'S CLOBBERIN TIME"
tumblr_nmjmkbyqx71teto02o1_1280.jpg
 
He looks kind of goofy to me. I liked the look of The Thing in the other two FF movies much better. He had the advantage of not being CG, and he actually looked pretty good, although admittedly slimmer than the comic version. This version just doesn't look very good.
 
^ Better than the melted leather look Jack Kirby originally gave the Thing back in 1961.
tumblr_nmjrwxhScm1r4pq4io1_1280.jpg


In 1979 they did a versus between original Thing and Rock Thing,during John Byrne's run. Ben (Rock) comments on how ugly he was in the issue and recalls why he was so angry with Reed after the accident. Good read if you can find it.

tumblr_nmjrzapeO81r4pq4io1_500.jpg
 
Kirby was originally going for "dinosaur hide," seeing the Thing as a sort of lizard-man. It was inker George Roussos who first inked Kirby's pencils in an angular way suggesting rock, which the next inker Joe Sinnott continued doing. Kirby had gone on penciling Ben the same way, but Sinnott was their top inker at the time, so once he started doing it, Kirby finally adapted his pencils to match. (Source)
 
M.A.C.O. said:
Full Frontal pic of The Thing. I have only one thing to say. "IT'S CLOBBERIN TIME"
tumblr_nmjmkbyqx71teto02o1_1280.jpg
Click to expand...

Awesome!

I liked both the Corman and the 20th Century Fox versions of Grimm, but they both had that basically comic-book design stuff going on. This version takes the design premise of "living rock" and gives it some more observant and plausible detailing.

If this is really indicative of the movie's supposed overall "grounded" approach then it might work well.
 
Christopher said:
Kirby was originally going for "dinosaur hide," seeing the Thing as a sort of lizard-man. It was inker George Roussos who first inked Kirby's pencils in an angular way suggesting rock, which the next inker Joe Sinnott continued doing. Kirby had gone on penciling Ben the same way, but Sinnott was their top inker at the time, so once he started doing it, Kirby finally adapted his pencils to match. (Source)
Click to expand...

Dinosaur Hide huh? Good to know. I did wonder about the Thing's original appearance. I suspected it was because Kirby originally wanted Ben to be very repulsive. I suspected Kirby changed his mind and made Ben more rock like in appearance. This after Ben had been restored to human of course. I think it was during a fight with Dr. Doom.

tumblr_nmjy7eOk6a1r4pq4io1_400.jpg
 
Shortly after Bryne took over both writing and drawing Fantastic Four, he actually did temporarily revert the Thing back to his original 'muddy' state for a few issues as a result of another cure attempt. Then of course there's the late 80's "Pineapple" Thing, and She-Thing as well (She-Thing also started off sort of muddy but then became more rocky later on). Which led to this weird-looking cover: http://marvel.wikia.com/Fantastic_Four_Vol_1_317
 
The movie at least looks interesting, so I'm going to check it out. It certainly seems better than the last two movies.
 
I like it. He's definitely recognizable as The Thing, but they still managed to put their own twist on him.
 
Dennis said:
M.A.C.O. said:
Full Frontal pic of The Thing. I have only one thing to say. "IT'S CLOBBERIN TIME"
tumblr_nmjmkbyqx71teto02o1_1280.jpg
Click to expand...

Awesome!

I liked both the Corman and the 20th Century Fox versions of Grimm, but they both had that basically comic-book design stuff going on. This version takes the design premise of "living rock" and gives it some more observant and plausible detailing.

If this is really indicative of the movie's supposed overall "grounded" approach then it might work well.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Plus it's not like you have a lot of options here - I think that's as good as you're going to get.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top