Completely CGI Thing Confirmed for Fantastic Four Reboot

Published 4 years ago by , Updated August 11th, 2013 at 3:52 am,

the thing suits Completely CGI Thing Confirmed for Fantastic Four Reboot

Both Fantastic Four movies had a multitude of issues – direction, story, most of the special FX, lighting, blah, blah, blah – but the one thing (pun intended) I enjoyed the most was Michael Chiklis’ performance as The Thing. It was too bad that he was covered in orange foam and makeup for most of both movies because he is, in my opinion, a fantastic actor.

Personal issues with the films aside, the biggest problem came in the form of the suit Chiklis wore to play The Thing. The suit in and of itself was actually a very good special FX job and it made for a great practical effect. That problem is that it stood out when compared to the other three CG-heavy super powers on screen.

Since there was no practical way to show a man stretching, a man on fire flying and a woman turning invisible those FX had to be done with CG. I can appreciate 20th Century Fox’s desire to make a practical effect but in this case I whole heartedly believe it was the wrong decision to make.

It would seem that the suits in charge of 20th Century Fox have heard the fans’ complaints because I have it from a source inside the Fox SFX department working on the Fantastic Four Reboot (officially titled Fantastic Four Reborn) that The Thing will officially be 100% CG.

This is excellent news because with all the advancements in CG technology, a properly done CG Thing will look absolutely fantastic! One of the major complaints about the 2nd Thing suit was the size ( I say 2nd because Roger Corman made the 1st suit in the 90s); Thing is supposed to be a big, hulking, rock monster type creature who is able to lift hundreds, if not thousands, of tons and dwarf everyone on his team in size. This just can’t be pulled off in a practical suit.

abomination hulk Completely CGI Thing Confirmed for Fantastic Four Reboot

A few great examples of what a properly done, oversized person/beast/superhero done in CG look like would be Mr. Hyde from Van Helsing, Hulk from Ang Lee’s 2003 movie as well as the newer Hulk and Abomination from The Incredible Hulk. Now before you start bashing me that most of those films sucked, with the exception of The Incredible Hulk, they all represent what a properly done 100% CG large character can look like.

Another thing my source noted was that work on Fantastic Four Reborn has been put on the back burner until X-Men: First Class is in the can and shooting for that film doesn’t begin until September 21st, 2010. So it could be awhile before we see any images or graphics related to the Fantastic Four Reborn film.

On a personal side note – my proudest moment of Comic Con this year came when Michael Chiklis asked for me to take his picture with one of our Minimalist Superhero Posters that we were handing out at the Con.

What are your thoughts on a completely CG Thing clobberin’ up the screen?

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:
TAGS: fantastic four

104 Comments

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

  1. I actually have to strongly disagree with making the Thing entirely CG. Yes, Chiklis was on the small side for the Thing, that I will agree with. However, the Thing’s defining trait is his humanity, and having a gifted actor in the suit allowed that humanity to shine through. You just can’t get that with a CGI muppet. The Hulk looked good, but he did look fake, and the only emotion the Incredible Hulk showed was rage. The Thing needs to have the ability portray the entire spectrum of emotion, and CGI just doesn’t replace a gifted actor.

    Chiklis as the Thing was by far the best thing about the Fantastic Four films, especially the first one. I think making the Thing all CG is a mistake.

    • Say Jay, were you aware that in several scenes in “King Kong” Naomi Watts was a CGI creation because the scenes would have been too dangerous for a human actor? You say that,”CGI just doesn’t replace a gifted actor”. If that is so you should be able to tell me the scenes in which Naomi was CGI and why she looked phony in those scenes.

      CGI can, and has, created characters that are indistinguishable from a human actor. That is why Superman should be all CGI since no human actor has his physical charateristics. However, he can be made to look like a human actor. I am surprised that no one seems to see this.

      • I can guarantee that any scenes in which she was cg were just her really small in the screen, flailing around in King Kong’s hand. Not really a lot of subtlety required there.

  2. One thing great about a CGI Thing is no storyline that forces you to see the actor.

  3. The CGI WAS why I hated the most in the Hulk movies.
    Not impressed

    • How could u do Hulk without CGI? Troll

      • Ummmmm use a body builder with green??? That wways it looks more real. Hulk isn’t suppose to be 8 feet, he’s only 5 feet. I read the comic book.

        • um since when is hulk only 5 feet tall? i read comics too and the hulk has never, ever been five foot tall.

        • dude wolverine is 5’3 195lbs hulk is 7’5 2000lbs no human being would look 2000 lbs

  4. Not all comic-book films have to be as weighty and angst-filled as a graphic novel. Fantastic Four is neither fantastic nor incredible, but it’s entertaining nonetheless.

  5. i agree a great character like that needs to be done practical with light cg added where it is needed.

  6. practical and cg compliment each other if done by someone who really cares,cg alone really takes a fall.

  7. all the hollywood stuff sucks its realy sad already a reboot,it sa new hype or so sjees

    so we watch a cool movie made today and tomorrorw you can forget about …a new reboot movie is made sucks

  8. If they are going to reboot the FF, I think it would be cool to see Namor introduced to take on the FF. The love triangle between Reed, Sue and Namor could be explored and the battles between Human Torch, Thing and Namor could be great! Dwayne Johnson or the guy from Games of Thrones could portray Namor. Could be a good film. Maybe better than the other 2 films that was put out.

    • Which of the 12 guys in game of thrones did you mean?

  9. I wholeheartedly agree. Ben Grimm must be CGI.And Dr. Doom must be clad in armor.R-E-B-O-O-T Now!!!!!

  10. First, as any FF fan knows, the Thing is shorter than Reed – at least the real Thing is – the one done by Kirby!

    I think Hellboy is a good comparison to the Thing, and he is all practical as well as most of the creatures he fights. No I do know they use digital stunt double for some shots, just like in every other movie, but for the most part – like 99.9% of the time, he’s there on set in make-up.

    I would start with a Thing suit/make-up and then digitally enhance it where needed. The mouth corners can be altered for more of that “frog” mouth, and the eye can be moved apart a little more than humanly possible. Even the nose can be moved up, although that could be done with the make-up, just like all the Who’s in the Grinch. If you want to make him a little taller, do that digitally.

    My chief fear is trying to do a digital Thing on the shoe string budgets Fox has given the FF thus far. When you consider they could not afford a handful of Mr. Fantastic stretching shot that looked any good, how the hell are they going to produce a 100% digital character that’s in most of the movie and has to interact with the rest of the cast. Sure, if you have $400 million like AVATAR you can get some nice cgi work, but I am not seeing it on the budgets Fox has allotted for the FF.

    • Just because kirby was there at the beginning doesnt make his version the ‘real’ one or the best one. The Thing that was in the first comics looked like he was made of clay, would you prefer that too? Having the thing be a short-stack was a mistake that no other artist or writer perpetuated in the future.

  11. The Thing stood out in the movies because he looked fake, and he was WAY too small. Now, Peter Jackson makes Hobbits small and not look fake in his movies, why can’t they make the Thing bigger without total CGI? I do think a suit is gonna suck. Wouldn’t it be cool to see the Thing’s brow react in emotion? I think it’s going to have to be CGI to make it effective, the actor will need to be memorable, (as Chilkis was) and they will need to have Ben transform a bit back and forth. Actually it would be cool to see him start out more blob like like Kirby’s original, and with a few transformations become larger, more defined like present day Thing. Skip the super transformation into Triceratops they had for a while, however.

  12. Rise of the Planet of the Apes recently proved that an actors performance can be captured and then recreated in a CGI character. Avitar did this as well. I think that a CGI Thing will be fantastic!

    • I was thinking the same thing I bet that could work just fine

  13. I think they should take the thing in a whole different direction. I know i will get chewed out for this, but they should have the thing be in CG (of course) but instead of him being orange rock, he should be made of grey stone or granite and look hyper realistic
    What do you think

  14. This is a long overdue decision. Michael Chiklis did a nice job as the Thing, but he was simply too small to see like a credible threat. He didn’t even really look like the character in that lousy suit. Considering what CGI geniuses can do with motion capture (ie. Gollum, The Avengers Hulk), you can have a fantastic Thing (with the right voice actor)

  15. Don’t listen to these guys its Spendid CGI rocks………

Be Social, Follow Us!!