People are getting really heated over the new Fantastic Four movie. One of the sillier things to come out of their new origins story is the debate that The Thing should be wearing pants. In the comics he most certainly does, and normally sports a blue boxer brief looking outfit or something that covers his whole legs or more. To my knowledge he's never "naked." That said, I think the right decision was made in the new 2015 film even though it's an unpopular one.
Let me break this down, this being one of the strangest things I've ever broken down, but here goes. In the mid 90's the first FF movie came out and it was a complete throw away simply used to allow the studios to retain the property. The big guy looked like this
This movie gets a lot of shit. But because it's a throw away it should be looked at more like an experiment. If you're given this budget (not much) with this amount of time (barely any) what's the product? It should be noted that this is the first attempt at trying to bring the Thing from the characters inked-out-blocky-Kirby-look in the comics to reality, as if he could walk among us. Even viewed as an experiment, boy does it look like crap. Tighty Whities. Sculpted Foam. Something that looks more like an ugly toddler than a crime fighter.
Then in 2005 the Art Directors tried their hand at it again and came up with this.
Micheal Chiklis is well cast but also squished into a foam suit and this time they give him full pants and boots. This raises a few questions immediately in my mind like, why does he need shoes? This may sound strange but one of the best adaptations of a creature made of rocks was in Galaxy Quest. Tim Allen plays Jason Nesmith, a charismatic Space Captain who is ill matched against Gorignak, a giant rock monster. Gorignak looks like this
One of my favorite lines from the film is when Nesmith is asked to locate a vulnerable spot, he screams: "It's a rock it doesn't have any vulnerable spots!" It's a great moment but also brings up a good point. Why the hell would The Thing need any thing on his body. He's a Rock! If we're taking the giant leap to assume a person is now made of rock and can talk, walk and act like us, why give him boots!? Can he get corns, or bunions, or sore feet? NO! He's a Rock! Ok maybe moss would be a creative loophole from a writers perspective but it certainly makes you think. Let's do more of this thinking like a writer as if we're developing a character.
The Thing is always going to be a tough character to bring to the big screen because of the leap we have to take.
Example
The Hulk: Scientist who is exposed to radiation, gets mad and gets buff
Iron-man: Scientist who makes fancy suits and fights crime
Spider-man: Scientist who gets bit by a radioactive spider and is given powers
The Thing: Scientist who is exposed to X in space and becomes a rock person. Now as a writer, what else do you decide? Does he have blood and bones under the rocks... Does he breathe air... Can he feel anything... Does he have a nervous system... Do the rocks regenerate... How do the rocks stay together... All of these questions can be answered when the story is told but it's a much harder starting point. The thinking up process of the character The Thing was a natural step though. I need a new character, something strong, something durable... Rock Man. Done. But it's all of the filler questions that arise that make him a really difficult character. In the original comics the writers decided he was still human just covered in these rocks so occasionally, after a good beating, he could bleed.
In the new 2015 release, trailers are showing him to arise from a rock. As if a slab of marble was given the spark of life and cracked itself into a human form. Which points towards the idea he really is made up of nothing but rock. Much like Gorignak. Here's what he looks like
No shoes. No pants or shorts, no nothing. From the look of him (in this photo his arm in particular) the art directors have given him alternating sizes of slabs of rock that only slightly mimic our own muscles. Much less than the foam adaptations from the previous films. This guy's blocky. That choice of making him blocky has led to, sadly in my opinion but there's no way around it, making him almost entirely in CGI. How do you give life to something that is essentially floating rocks and not make it completely in the computer?
So
as we can all see he has no clothes, but we now know he has no
genitals. He's a Ken Barbie. They could have given him a few well
placed rock genitals but then this film would be rated R and much like
Mr. Manhattan in The Watchmen general audiences would be talking about his dick
more than the plot.
Once those
questions arise, like should we give him a penis? Then a whole series of
other questions come up. Like should he have a butt? OR rather mounds
that look like a butt. They don't serve any purpose. Ultimately he
looks human of course but if he's a rock you can start to destruct him
to the simplest amount of rocks. At the far end of this thinking is
Gorignak who's made up of 15-30 rocks. I'll bet the thing is in the
hundreds or thousands (I never was any good at counting those jelly
bellies in the jars).
Also, Fan boys
have grown up with The Thing looking a certain way. Just like how
Mickey Mouse has pants, but Donald Duck doesn't. It's just how it is.
So when The big guy is thrown up on the big screen, now rocks to the
wind, naturally people wont like it at first.
It's a tough nut to crack.
