Concern because we've been down this road many times. We know in some way, big or small, they're gonna screw something up.
Sometimes we luck out and besides a minor tweak or two or some unnecessary Hollywood messing about with the myth, the end result is still a great movie.
Witness the two Spider-Man films. There's some goofy changes--webs shoot right out of Spidey's arms instead of artificial web shooters, girlfriend Mary Jane Watson is placed in hazardous situations faced by a gal named Gwen Stacy in the original comics--but, all-in-all, the film is faithful at least to the spirit of the original.
And Spider-Man (and Superman and, for the main part, Batman) looked right.
Distressingly, that's not the case with the big screen "Fantastic Four." Jessica Alba looks too young and not blonde enough to be the Invisible Girl (it's Invisible Woman in the comic book). The guy playing Reed Richards (a.k.a. Mister Fantastic)? Way, way, way too young. The guy playing Johnny Storm the "Human Torch"? Probably a tad too old and not nearly blonde enough.
And then there's the Thing, real identity Ben Grimm, played by Michael Chiklis. Oh man.
Perhaps Chiklis, who's a fine actor, will be able to embody the spirit of the Thing--a lovable curmudgeon whose literally rough exterior conceals a sensitive, often sad, softie. But the look is all wrong and it's really gonna mess up the movie for those of us who love the character.
This is not the Thing.
The movie Thing looks more like the Jack Kirby Thing from Marvel Comics' "What If?" #11, which imagined what might happen if the team's real-life creative team had super powers.
If the film wanted to be completely accurate, the Thing would be lumpy, cuz that's how Ben Grimm looked immediately after he was transformed from his human appearance.
Later on, the Thing took on his classic look.
When he's done right, he always looks like this. The rocky uni-brow thing? He's gotta have it.
Hell, this Thing looks better than the movie Thing, and it's just some guy at a comic book convention (pictured with Jack Kirby and FF inker Joe Sinnott)
So, one more time: Real Thing
The original Thing character was lumpy; that's how Jack "King" Kirby created him -- and the movie version matches that look pretty well, I think. As for the later looks, with thick brow and blocky angular body -- it's fine and good, but not the original vision. Which, again, would be an OK departure for me.
ReplyDeleteBut you are right on the money about Reed and Sue being too young and Johnny being not blond.
The movie thing is kinda lumpy in the face and strives for the latter Thing look in the body. Bottom line: He looks pretty lousy regardless of the texture.
ReplyDelete--John