^There's never been a single invariant way in which the Thing's anatomy has been depicted in the comics. Kirby made him fairly thick and squat, but no more than the other musclemen Kirby drew. Other artists have done a variety of things with his proportions. He blew up to ridiculous size in the '90s, ended up with hands bigger than his head, stuff like that. But that was an era when many superheroes had similarly exaggerated physiques -- and that still happens a lot today. I think we shouldn't take the way superheroes are proportioned in the comics too literally. Even with CGI, the anatomy should be designed to be believable in three dimensions and in motion. As I recall, The Avengers's Hulk was designed more naturalistically than the comics' Hulk; for one thing, the movie version has more body fat and less muscle definition in repose, so that he has "somewhere to go," i.e. shows more musculature when he flexes or tenses. So the goal in CGI isn't to exactly duplicate the proportions of comics characters, which are often caricatured and stylized, sometimes to the point of ridiculousness. And with so many different styles of caricature, how can you really define which is the correct shape for a given character?