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

[Skywalker]

A real live human being does play the part in motion capture.

I'm aware of that, of course. Many human beings are involved, including the performer, the character designer, and the animators. I just resist the kneejerk attitude that CGI is always preferable to conventional effects like miniatures or prosthetics. There are things that CGI is good for and things that prosthetics are good for. I see visual effects as an art form, and I've never seen the logic in thinking that one artistic technique should replace another rather than coexisting with it.

There's nothing kneejerk about it. Using mocap for the Thing would allow for more flexibility on the filmmakers' part, and allow them to accomplish more with the character in action. The Thing looked decent in the first two movies, but I'm going to have to disagree with you on his looking like an Alex Ross painting come to life. In the Ross painting, the Thing looks like he's made of rock (or whatever rock-like substance he is, I can't remember now). In the movies I thought he looked like he was made of rubber. But people see things differently, so I don't see much use in arguing about it.

 

[Christopher]

Well, maybe I'm being too resistant to change. I liked the prosthetic Thing in the previous movies because CGI at the time was not up to portraying a basically human character as realistically, especially if you wanted that character to deliver dialogue and convey a subtle performance effectively. But in the wake of Avatar and Rise of the Planet of the Apes, I suppose that's no longer the case, if the animation is done well enough.

And that's still the caveat with CGI to this day. Most people make this facile assumption that CGI can do anything more easily than conventional effects, but actually it's much harder to simulate real things convincingly in CG than with other methods, and it really only looks better if you have tons of time, money, and talent to put into it. Really good CG would be better than a rubber suit, but a rubber suit would be better than mediocre CG.

 

[Skywalker]

Really good CG would be better than a rubber suit, but a rubber suit would be better than mediocre CG.

On that we can definitely agree.

 

[Shazam!]

Here's hoping that not only the writing is better but so is the casting. I still can't believe they cast Jessica Alba as Sue.

It surely goes down as the worst piece of casting of all time.

 

[stj]

If you didn't know who Jessica Alba was, her Sue Storm was okay.

 

[Trekker4747]

I think suit/prosthetics can simulate the thing very well. Just because the makeup in the F4 movies didn't properly make The Thing look like "rock" doesn't mean that NO circumstance of materials will not look like rock. Just whatever they did in those movies didn't work. And I think it mostly had to with lighting and colors in the movie.

I think a man in a suit would be much better than a CGI creation. I don't care how good the CGI is, the actors are going to act better talking and interacting directly with someone on screen rather than someone holding a green pole with the Thing's head on it.

 

[lurok]

Sadly, when you see stills like this, it does now look a little...dated and cheesy

 

[Christopher]

I think a man in a suit would be much better than a CGI creation. I don't care how good the CGI is, the actors are going to act better talking and interacting directly with someone on screen rather than someone holding a green pole with the Thing's head on it.

Well, that's not really fair, because present-day performance capture technology allows the actor to actually be there in the scene, interacting with the rest of the cast. For instance, when they did Lord of the Rings, Andy Serkis did his capture work months after the fact and it was integrated with the rest, but on The Hobbit, he was actually there performing the scenes with the other actors on the set or location, because the tech allows for that now. Same with other movies like John Carter and The Avengers.

 

[Trekker4747]

Sadly, when you see stills like this, it does now look a little...dated and cheesy

But only because of the colors used. If it was darker colored and maybe more varied in color it could look good. I see no reason to make The Thing CGI if a human in a suit can do it.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I played with that image in an image editor for shits and giggles and if you tone that orange down and make him more earthy in color it doesn't look too bad (even if he's orange in the comics).

EDIT: added image, what do you think?

 

[Trekker4747]

Works much better. Looks like he belongs in the scene now. I think I'd also have variations in the color to make him look more like "rock." But him being darker colored and not stark orange makes him look better.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Yeah, well that was five seconds work.

 

[Trekker4747]

Yeah, well that was five seconds work.

No slight intended, it looks much better than the original.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^ no worries, as long as we've been here I didn't take that as a slight at all

 

[Christopher]

I don't mind the orange; it suggests sandstone to me. Maybe it could've been toned down a bit, but that photoshop job makes it too brown/gray. The Thing is supposed to be orange, although it could be a less saturated orange.

And I think he looks less like he belongs in the scene in the photoshop, because all the colors in that scene are bright and saturated, so in the original version he fits right in.

 

[Gaith]

Sadly, when you see stills like this, it does now look a little...dated and cheesy

Why yes, the team certainly does.

... Oh wait, we're talking about the rock guy?

I played with that image in an image editor for shits and giggles and if you tone that orange down and make him more earthy in color it doesn't look too bad (even if he's orange in the comics).

EDIT: added image, what do you think?

Augh, a walking dried cowpie! Orange or full gray; avoid the brown.

 

[lurok]

Thinking back now, and I know this is heresy, but I didn't mind the FF themselves so much. I got used to Alba by the sequel. It's the nemesises (? nemeses? ) that really sucked. That dreadful sleazeball Doom. And - ooh, scary - the giant cloud.

Um. Wasn't that the first two?

I think what Millar meant is that it won't go that route.

That's what I meant The first two weren't "grim and gritty".

 

[Kai "the spy"]

I also wasn't keen on the Thing having the option to turn back into Ben Grimm by the end of the first movie and choosing not to. Way to take the tragedy out of that character.

 

[Christopher]

I also wasn't keen on the Thing having the option to turn back into Ben Grimm by the end of the first movie and choosing not to. Way to take the tragedy out of that character.

But hasn't that actually been done in the comics? What's more heroic than choosing to sacrifice his cure in order to save others? Heck, that's the only really selfless or heroic thing any of the Four did in that whole movie. Otherwise they were either cleaning up messes they'd created or trying to save their own lives.

 

[RJDiogenes]

The Thing looks fine in the movie in terms of color, but his anatomy is too human. He should look thicker and squatter, which is hard to do with a costume, so CGI would probably be better. The blue in the FF uniforms, however, is too dark. Overall, the colors should be brighter and more saturated, evoking the Kirby aesthetic.