You crack me up!

Maybe they should have shelled out money to make both the alien and Predator CGI instead of how they did them. Why were you so accepting of that?

I'm perfectly happy with the look and feel of the trailer. Too bad you're not, because I wouldn't want to be in the same position you are in as a fan. I'm glad I'm liking it. \:D/

to me, the trailer promises a sunnier hellboy: improbable, fast-paced, and largely forgettable fun. i'll definitely go to see this, but - to put it in perspective - i'll nip out during the film if i find i need the toilet. let's face it - a *good* movie is one you cross your legs for \:D/

i see what you mean, but i can't help feeling it's a bit different. in the original film, the alien (judging by the deleted scene) *did* look terrible. part of the film's genius was keeping it more or less concealed, and letting our imaginations do what a guy in a costume couldn't.

the predator was basically a humanoid in a suit - which begs the question, why bother with cgi, when it's so easy to do for real? but with the thing, we're talking about something that's physically impossible: something rock hard, yet mobile. also, unlike the alien in alien, the thing has to be in the spotlight + constantly visible - walking, talking, doing heroic things, etc., etc. if i hadn't been put off by the cgi hulk, and if cgi didn't usually look like rubber anyway, i'd be all for a computer generated thing...

but funnily enough, superhero films are the ones where i care least about sfx. i'm really into the whole idea of the superhero, so (as with the original spiderman) i'll put up with crappy effects if the story grabs me.

quite true .. most superhero movies so far have been great in terms of character development than anything else ... Spiderman, original superman (where no fights even occurred), Hulk (in my case) .... even the X Men movies ...

I think you're spot on ... with the trailers right now, FF4 is coming off as Forgettable Fun.

you know, i keep meaning to give hulk a second chance. i was drunk when i saw it the first time, and i was expecting something very different - all i knew about the hulk came from the tv show, which i loved; but i guess that was a completely different kettle of fish to the original comics.

i didn't enjoy it, but i don't think i gave it a fair shot. i think i was playing video games at the same time, *blush*. the more i hear about it since, the more i find myself wanting to see it again...

i think the great thing about superhero films is that the stakes are so much higher. that's why i find the character development so rewarding. lately, superhero films have done a great job of putting people into the costumes, and thinking realistically about what would happen if you had that thrust upon you. i'm a sucker for suffering, and in that respect, superhero movies are like tragedies: great people suffer greatly. one of the things i loved about spiderman was that bleak refrain: "with great power comes great responsibility." there was something very timeless about it...

my friend .. you might just enjoy "Begins .."

Maverikk, that's ridiculous to expect the ALIEN and PREDATOR to be CGI when they weren't in the original movies and furthermore, thry looked a hell of alot better in AVP than The THING does in both trailers and he needs to be ALOT Broader and larger than shown.. Dude I grew up reading The FF4 and you can't possibly tell me that you don't think there's room for improvement on how they have him right now?? Come on Mav.. I think it's great your looking forward to this, but you know they need to make him alot larger than he is and more organic looking..

The CGI in The HULK was Superb, everything right down to the pores in his skin and the texture and with as far as we've come in the last 2 years since that film, they could've made a more convincing looking character like The THING.. Much Broader and larger, but still keep him at his height of 6 foot give or take a few inches past.. The THING in the comics weighed 500 LBS.. You'd never of guessed that with how he looks in the trailer, even tossing someone bigger than him aside before punching a Semi..

BKB I just want to know if you'll even give this a chance? Or if you're gonna go into the movie thinking it sucks.

why is the invisible woman not invisible? It's so noticeable that it pisses me off that buddy boy couldn't see her.

I will see it, YES but probably at the cheapest showing possible which would be a Rush Hour Show for 5.00 dollars and like always, I'll either praise it or bury it in my review....

I think like me, he already listed why he thinks the movie will suck. It has nothing going for it too much since the director is crap, the Thing is the size of Michael J Fox and has a skin texture of a reptile, and Dr Doom looks like he stole some kid's Halloween mask. Yes some people will come in thinking it will suck because of what the trailer shown,the pictures on the net shown and the reputation of the director. The movie has to prove us wrong but it will be hard. We already saw how bad Catwoman is even before the trailer hit so we can only second guess it

sadly, keeping only the 2nd trailer in mind, i have to agree. though i dont want The Thing CGI at all.

Well, I guess will have to agree that we disagree STRONGLY Cause The THING does look pretty fake and could look much much better through CGI..

i seem to recall the hulk looked good sometimes (e.g., close ups of his face) but moved in a very artificial way, and just didn't look real - like he wasn't actually there.

i'm quite suspicious of cgi, because even when it's very very good (e.g., gollum), i can't help feeling that something real would be... well... realer. i whinged about the decision to cgi gollum from the start, and i think the opening of ROTK vindicated me. i thought that the last stage of smeagol's transformation, when he's squatting underground + chewing on a fish, was far more haunting + harrowing than the cgi model they used to represent him in the bulk of the film.

in the lord of the rings, they shrank the actors down to hobbit size + hobbit proportions. they didn't just make them smaller - they had to make the limbs shorter in proportion to the head, etc., etc. why can't they do something similar with the thing - except of course the opposite? e.g., take a real bodybuilder, texture his skin with the appropriate make up, and then use a computer to stretch him in the appropriate directions. that would be a middle ground - using computers to do something impossible, but without making a wholly artificial cgi image...

First time hearing this and believe me when i'm saying i've seen prety much all of the behind the scenes stuff (of course i'm not entirely ruling out the possibility that i've missed something, although chances are slim ). Hobbits have proportions that are of humans (well, except the feet ), they are not midgets (Liliputians).

Yoda was originally a puppet, and now he's all CGI.

Like I've said, they have perfectly captured the Thing the way his creator, Jack Kirby, and the definitive F4 artist, John Byrne drew him. He's not really tall, he's only 6 feet. I would much prefer that version, which the movie is going with, than some version from a new comic line drawn by an artist who has never distinguished himself with the character. The Thing that I grew up reading and you grew up reading, I've posted pictures of, and it conclusively proves that he's the right size. His skin looks fine too.



I don't know how much clearer it can be proven than that. They are staying true to the character. The Ultimate version is change, something that you just said that you don't like in the Superman thread, so the version posted above IS the Thing you grew up reading, and as you can see, they nailed it.

unh dude, we're not disagreeing. I do think in this second trailer, The Thing looks like crap. But i'm also saying they could have done a good job with The Thing without using CGI but better makeup.

yes - now i think about it, you're right. i used to read a lot of tolkien. i must've dreamt about the limbs being shrunk - but i bet they *could've* done it

But of course they could have, they are WETA! :razz:

what? what's this that's suddenly appeared under my name? waitress in la?! my avatar's gay enough, without that hanging over it!