Movie News

Ben Grimm clobbers Hellboy and runs off with his make-up team!!!

Published at: June 14, 2004, 5 a.m. CST

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here! I take the below as very good news. The make-up on HELLBOY was fantastic and while Hellboy himself was big, he never looked bulky. The Thing (aka Ben Grimm) will most definitely benefit from this treatment and not look like the orange styrofoam nightmare that appeared in Roger Corman's attempt at this comic book! That coupled with Harry's positive response to the script gives me hope for this movie, even if it is a small one!

Harry,

Just came back from the International Make Up Artist Trade Show in Pasadena (June 13) where they had a large Hellboy panel speaking about the effects for the film. Check the official website for details. (Guillermo couldn't make it.) DDT from Brazil was there even!

Anyway, it was announced that the team that worked on the Hellboy special effects just signed the contract and can now say that they were selected to do "The Thing" in the new Fantastic Four movie!

Earlier in the day I sat in a small room where Dick Smith had a round table discussion about make-up, told stories about working on The Godfather, Amadeus, Little Big Man, the Exorcist, etc.

It was an excellent weekend!Have to go show my 7-year old nephew that I got "Abe Sapien's" (Doug Jones) autograph!

Brenda




Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 14, 2004, 5:06 a.m. CST

    FIRST

    by DirkD13"

    I just don'y believe it, first at last. My life is now complete!

  • June 14, 2004, 5:08 a.m. CST

    blah

    by ChickenGeorgeVII

    This doesn't seem to grab my nads like it should....it's not telling me anything about the stuff that will blow up...And thus, first? - - - George, The 7th Chicken!!!!

  • June 14, 2004, 5:41 a.m. CST

    This means less CG Thing?

    by DomisInnerChild

    That's probably a good thing. Thing effects cheaper: check. Invisible Girl effects: done. Two to go. Budget dropping fast.

  • June 14, 2004, 6 a.m. CST

    actually

    by talbuckin

    DDT are from Spain

  • June 14, 2004, 10:30 a.m. CST

    How can one be doubtful??

    by BlokNarpin

    Fantastic Four is a Marvel movie. Marvel hasn't let us down yet. Why would this movie not be great??

  • June 14, 2004, 7:09 p.m. CST

    This is a little misleading/confusing ...

    by ChaseSequence

    ... because unless I'm mistaken there were two "teams" on Hellboy. One for Hellboy (Rick Baker's crew), one for Abe Sapien and the rest of the critters (Spectral Motion). Which team is doing the Thing?

  • June 14, 2004, 8:17 p.m. CST

    Less CG is always a good thing... er... ALWAYS GOOD.

    by Rufus_T_Firefly

    At least the other three will have something to act against... as opposed to a tennis ball on a stick. The goddamn CG Hulk took me right out of the movie. Until good ol' makeup effects stop looking cool... Make Mine Marvel!

  • June 14, 2004, 8:39 p.m. CST

    thats sounds good

    by proper

    i wonder if the the shade of orange they use will become a issue with people.I hope they make the thing look like a brick s#/t house like walt simonson on top artistic form.hulk vs the thing wouldn't hurt either,its time to start crossing over the characters who already have a film.use the blockbusters(trade paperback)to flesh out the characters and make half hour shorts(single issues) before the main presentations(just like the olden days =)to let other artists loose(spidey and punisher,daredevil and blade,spidey and kingpin in a james bond style beginning sequence).they could be 15-20 minutes or so of action.for spidey and daredevil get stuntmen (masks)they could then sell separate dvd releases and make money make money).This is basic marvel thinking anyway.all that seperate rights for seperate characters is old skool thinking.

  • June 14, 2004, 10:14 p.m. CST

    It'll Probably be a combo of make-up and Cgi

    by The Founder

    Well it sounds somewhat encouraging, but the think isn't like the Hulk, he'd look more realer in CGI. I think a combo of cgi and live action should be the better way to go, I just hope the Thing looks cool.

  • June 14, 2004, 10:24 p.m. CST

    Suddenly it's cool to hate CGI, whoop-de-freakin'-doo

    by Terry_1978

    I still support CG f/x, it's only when it's overused or done in a shabby way that I dislike it. A combo of the two would work best for me, as the Hellboy costume wasn't exactly off the charts in terms of the best makeup job ever.

  • June 14, 2004, 10:45 p.m. CST

    Too bad Lawrence Tierney is dead...

    by Osmosis Jones

    "Okay...The Thing. Motherfucker looks just like The Thing."

  • June 14, 2004, 11:09 p.m. CST

    "That coupled with Harry's positive response to the script "

    by Triumph poops!

    Huh? Did I miss a news update or something? I thought the last we heard from Harry he was 180 degrees from a positive response. Last I remember, he wrote that scathing editorial imploring Marvel and Fox to go back to the drawing boards and adhere more closely to the original Lee/Kirby vision of the team since the movie was going to go down the path of the latest "update" concepts -- like making the FF movie more like the Ultimate Comic and making them teens (which is truly a God awful idea. The Ultimates "recreation" is truly lame ass...)

  • June 14, 2004, 11:28 p.m. CST

    Plea to Fantastic Four Filmmakers

    by odysseus

    If the rumor is true, then please reconsider making the FF teenagers. A teen FF would alienate a great deal of your audience -- i.e. those of us who flocked to the X-Men and Spiderman films because the filmmakers respected the classic versions of those comics. The FF characters and their personalities are embedded in my subconscious as much as the Spidey poses and wisecracks that Raimi got so right, and the group dynamic and individual angst that Singer made damn well sure the X-Men had. Even Ang Lee captured the archetypal Hulk rampage, although he blew it on many other levels -- and that film's underwhelming public and critical success should be a pointed lesson.

  • June 15, 2004, 12:23 a.m. CST

    Fantastic Four Is seriously Flawed

    by Rcamacho2278

    The chances of 4 people getting super hero mutations each with different powers without any reason is beyond comprehension. Almost as flawed as Riddick surviving 700 degree temperature in the shade. HHAHAHAHHAHAH do you realize how stupid you fucken geeks sound now????

  • June 15, 2004, 12:38 a.m. CST

    Rcamacho2278

    by odysseus

    Wow, "Macho" -- you really nailed the insidious flaw of the FF, and pop sci-fi comic books as a whole. So run for your lives everyone! The incisive wisdom of Macho's astounding observation is causing our universe to fold in on itself and implode! What fools we've been! What "fucken" fools!

  • June 15, 2004, 1:18 a.m. CST

    Yeah, odysseus

    by Ribbons

    Lesson learned: Don't make films that are confusing. Those make moviegoers angry. You wouldn't like moviegoers when they're angry. More Hulk Smash or else AUDIENCE SMASH!!!! RARR!!!!!!!

  • June 15, 2004, 5:47 a.m. CST

    Normally I'm against big cg use but this time I have to disagree

    by Darksider

    The Thing is much larger than a human, more like in Hulk's class. The "Thing" aspect will stand out the more non-human he looks. As far as the Hulk cg argument, the Hulk did look like crap for the most part... BUT that's because they can't do skin realistically yet. Rocks on the other hand can be done. A costumed Thing will look cheap or cheesy as would a costumed Hulk. I have some old Godzilla movie flashbacks coming to mind.

  • June 15, 2004, 7:10 a.m. CST

    I was just ...

    by Rcamacho2278

    I was just simply stating how ridiculous people have been sounding by complaining about logical flaws in sci fi movies like riddick. thats all.

  • June 15, 2004, 11:12 a.m. CST

    CGI would be better, I think

    by Ribbons

    They're probably trying to find ways to cut expenses. His appearance would have to be redesigned a bit before make-up could do the job. I'm thinking that there's no way whoever plays the Thing could not look cheesy in a suit, and the Hulk CGI was great, for example. Sometimes people just recycle things they've heard on this site over and over, but to call it "crap" and then call Gollum flawless is ludicrous. They're quite comparable in terms of quality. One just happens to have bright, green skin. Although, speaking of Gollum, if it's the performance of the character they want to capture, they could just do the same thing with whoever that WETA did with Andy Serkis. Anyway, so that's my take on the situation. CGI could do a more serviceable job, and even if it doesn't look quite real, well, neither would make-up, which is the way I fear they're going to go. Oh well. Maybe this project is fucked after all.

  • June 15, 2004, 11:33 a.m. CST

    Hulk and CGI

    by Blok Narpin

    People complainging about the CGI in Hulk are sad people. THe Hulk look great. He looked REAL. There was a scene here and there where he looked cartoony, but overall he looked real, like a soild, living creature. The scene where Nick Nolte touched his face was amazing. It looked like he was really there in the room with Nolte. It just goes to prove that talkbacks are a den of negativity. People complain about stuff that was good just to hear temselves complain. Well have fun with that. The Hulk movie had flaws, but the CGI wasn't one of them. As for Ultimate Fantastic Four...it's by Bendis and Millar. It's great. If the movie is based on that then I won't complain -- sounds good to me.

  • June 15, 2004, 12:26 p.m. CST

    So is it going to be Chiklis?

    by Boris the Blade

    Whadja put in the corn muffins?!

  • June 15, 2004, 12:47 p.m. CST

    WRONG

    by TheWoodMan

    I get a kick out of all this pissin' & moanin'. As a TalkBack-er above pointed out, all of a sudden it's hip to lash out against CGI. It reminds me of the Punk Rock Mentality... "guitar solos are bad". No punk can explain why, exactly, guitar solos are a "bad" thing; it's just that: A) punks, as a rule, have to hate Led Zeppelin B) Led Zeppelin did guitar solos C) therefore (ergo) guitar solos are bad. Something similar is going on here: A) "Lord of the Rings" garnered tremendous mainstream success and made a shitload of money B) many of the special effects were computer-generated C) contrarian nitwits who want to seem "cool" and "controversial" start whining about CGI. What, you want we should go back to stop-motion animation, like with that godawful phony-looking tauntaun at the beginning of "Empire Strikes Back"? Listen, folks, go dig out a Fantastic Four comic (the older the better, needless to say). Take a look at Aunt Petunia's ever-lovin' blue-eyed nephew. He's as wide as he is tall; his arms hang down almost to the ground; his fists are the size of T.V. sets and his feet are the size of your coffee table; he has no neck and his undersized head appears to pop out from between his shoulders; his beady little eyes are unnaturally wide-spaced and his mouth stretches across the entire width of his face. THAT'S WHY THEY CALL HIM "THE THING"... he doesn't look like a big guy with a skin condition, he looks like a bizarre, un-human monster. Doing Ben Grimm with makeup will only result in something that looks like a (slightly) bigger-budget version of Corman's masterpiece. And what's the objection to CGI, anyways? If anything, a Thing done that way should look even more convincing than Gollum, since thay won't have to worry about realistic skin coloration, texture, et cetera. Every bit of info that leaks out about this picture convinces me more and more that this is gonna be one embarassing disaster. Yes... maybe worse than "Catwoman".

  • June 15, 2004, 1:35 p.m. CST

    Darksider

    by Immortal_Fish

    "As far as the Hulk cg argument, the Hulk did look like crap for the most part" :snip: "A costumed Thing will look cheap or cheesy as would a costumed Hulk." -- Okay, so which exactly would you have preferred if not crappy CG or a cheesey costume? There aren't many other options. Stop-go as TheWoodMan mentioned? Old fashioned Rankin style rotoscoping? Perspective.

  • June 15, 2004, 2:18 p.m. CST

    Good post, Woodman

    by Ribbons

    Couldn't have said it better.

  • June 15, 2004, 2:42 p.m. CST

    Thing mask

    by Oliviscus

    If anyone wants to see some cool pictures of an over-the-head latex mask of the Thing let me know. I made Thing fists to fit over the Hulk hands as well. Yes, I am obsessed. I want to try and find a way to get a mask to Chiklis. I think he would make a great Thing/Ben Grimm. If anyone knows how you can send a box the size of a head to a celebrity without getting it blown by bomb squads, let me know.

  • June 15, 2004, 3:28 p.m. CST

    CGI Thing vs suit

    by Oliviscus

    Just to throw my two cents in, I am all for CGI effects in the FF movie. Think about it. The Human Torch - obviously CGI. Mr Fantastic - ditto. We should all realize that it will be a blend of cgi and good old fashion special effects work. Why the big controversy? League of Ext. Gents looked great, as did Hellboy. Neither relied solely on one type of FX tech.

  • June 15, 2004, 3:28 p.m. CST

    : Oliviscus

    by Damer1

    Get a life... Vic Mackey doesn't need your fanboy mail.

  • June 15, 2004, 4:49 p.m. CST

    :Darner1

    by Oliviscus

    My custom mask work has received praise from Randy Bowen, Alex Ross, Mark Waid and even Stan Winston Studios just to name a few. What have you done today Damer1?

  • June 15, 2004, 7:52 p.m. CST

    FF Movie

    by MaulRat

    I'm all for it.. the only thing is, how long can we ride the superhero wave?. It's been a great ride and I don't want it to slow down, but you know it's going to.. I figure that DC should follow Marvel's suit, release a shitload of movies featuring the a-list comic characters and then lock the stars into a Justice League movie.. sweeeeeet. Bale's Batman?, Cavill's Supes?, Caviezel's Green Lantern?, Michael Beihn's Flash maybe? (don't mock.. its just a geek out haha), maybe Charisma Carpenter as wonder woman?, Michael Rosenbaum (aka Chevy Chase's love child) as Martian manhunter (look at the actors and tell me it would cost alot?)... ok now I'm getting really silly eh.. Still it'd be cool to see the characters up on screen..

  • June 15, 2004, 8:54 p.m. CST

    If anyone wants to see the masks

    by Oliviscus

    http://www.ffplaza.com/giftshop/masks.shtml Some of the paint jobs have been updated, but you get the idea. I also have a Scorpius from Farscape that is not shown and I am working on Golgoth from Empire.

  • June 15, 2004, 9:10 p.m. CST

    On the other hand...

    by TheWoodMan

    If they need to cheap out, I suppose they could base the movie on the earliest F.F. issues... y'know, before Kirby figured out how to draw the Thing properly. Just cover some fat pro wrassler with mashed potatoes and spray-paint the whole mess orange. (This could save $$$ with regards to Sue Storm as well... they wouldn't have to pay the actress for very much screen time since, back then, Sue could usually be found either hiding or passed-out from trying to use her powers.)

  • June 15, 2004, 11:23 p.m. CST

    Hulk CGI bad? No, its your eyes...

    by Nivek666

    The Hulk CGI was pretty damn good overall. If you think otherwise, thats cool, but IMO opinion you dont know jack s#!t about SPFX. The Thing should be CGI as well. Why? Because when Corman made his FF movie, the Things prothetic make-up was state of the art make-up FX, but it Didn't really make the Thing massive enough.

  • June 16, 2004, 8:09 a.m. CST

    I agree the Hulk had to be cgi.

    by Darksider

    I just didn't like the way ILM? handled it. I read Hulk for a few years. The first green Hulk should have looked like a rampaging beast. He looked more like a giant green, pouting child with Bana's face. So when I say "crap" I should say that I didn't agree with the "style" Ang and co. went with. I'm sure he looked exactly the way they wanted him to look. Take the Spidey costume for example. Yeah, it's unmistakably Spider-man costume, but they could have made it look exactly like the way it looks in the books. They didn't. It is a different style of costume. Cgi has its limits to be sure, I just feel that since the technology is here, it should be used. And if said technology can make the image look as close to the original as possible, then do it. I just want the Thing to look like the Thing. They can do it, I just don't want some persons "style" to fuck it up if I can get the real version on screen.

  • June 16, 2004, 8:18 a.m. CST

    Too much cgi can be bad.

    by Darksider

    Not enough can be worse. Corman(sp) did the best he could at the time with the budget he had. There is a reason though why these movies are being made now. The technology is here. I don't want full cgi movies and actors, but if the guy is seven feet tall and 500 pounds of rock, I thing cgi wouldn't hurt. You just have to do it right.

  • June 16, 2004, 5:49 p.m. CST

    I've seen the pics...

    by Jeditemple

    The Thing looks like a giant nugget of "Crunch-n-Munch."

  • June 17, 2004, 9:36 a.m. CST

    That makeup team would be the folks at Cinovation aka Rick Baker

    by StoneMonkey

    Rick and crew are the best the makeup effects industry has to offer.

Top Talkbacks