First Look? Alleged Photo Of The Thing From ‘The Fantastic Four’ Surfaces

News

by Edward Davis
Sat Jul 26 11:38:26 EDT 2014
13 Comments

If you were paying attention to the online chatter about Comic-Con last night—and we don’t blame you if you weren’t—you probably noticed a lot of griping. The consensus seemed to be that 20th Century Fox's presentation was underwhelming. Fans were asking where the promotion for “The Fantastic Four” could have been (for that matter, Paramount did not produce any “Terminator: Genesis” promotion). “How hard is it," the thinking went, "for Paramount or 20th Century Fox to make a poster, a teaser trailer or unveil some costumes?"

Well before this weekend, the studio confirmed that director Josh Trank and his cast—currently shooting in Louisiana—would not appear at Comic-Con. But it looks like someone tried to slightly counter or address the mounting complaints. A mystery Twitter account @justifiedfilms (which has since been deleted) tweeted out a picture of what looks like to be the reference CGI bust of the Thing, played by Jamie Bell, from the film. Of course the image was captured and traversed the world instantly.

This likely means that Bell will be motion-capture performing the character rather than wearing a silly looking suit like Michael Chiklis did in the "Fantastic Four" films from 2005 and 2007 (thank Christ). Is the image legitimate? Well, it looks a good deal like the CGI reference bust for The Hulk used by the “Avengers: Age of Ultron” team. And that single image looks markedly better than any frame of footage from the previous (and unfortunate) “Fantastic Four” films.

Some outlets claim the image is “confirmed,” which if true goes a long way towards explaining how the diminutive Jamie Bell is to portray The Thing. But why no Comic-Con appearance? For one, “Fantastic Four” is on a tight schedule—rather than using up precious shooting days for travel to San Diego, perhaps the filmmakers decided to skip the Con. There’s also been talk that Fox doesn't have abundant confidence in the film, but that feels like nonsense. There’s a marketing plan in place, and the studio possibly doesn't wish to unveil costumes in bad Comic-Con stage lighting.

Every studio likes to retain a little mystery with respect to their films, and some studios would rather not beat the drum an entire year ahead of time, especially in the midst of production. There’s also talk that “Fantastic Four” is "off-book"—i.e., not very faithful to the essence of Fantastic Four comic books—which if true virtually guarantees volcanic fan backlash. The decision to skip Comic-Con was likely a confluence of all these forces, timing, readiness, marketing timetables, etc.

You’ll get a taste of “Fantastic Four” eventually; it just won’t be at Comic-Con 2014. “The Fantastic Four” hits theaters on June 19, 2015.

News

More: Fantastic Four, Comic Con 2014, Comic-Con, Josh Trank, 20th Century Fox

Free Indie Movies and Documentaries

13 Comments

| Reply
Adder_Astros | Sun Jul 27 16:56:06 EDT 2014Reply

What's the deal with all of this teasing? All of these SciFi movies are teasing footage and pictures and hints to the plot. It's been non-stop, 24-7 up-to-the-minute updates on every movie since after ASM2... so much so, that we'll all have seen the movies before they even hit the theaters.

Give it a rest, already with all of the promotion. I'll probably just wind up watching them all for free at the library, anyway. The gross, blatant commercialization of SciFi has sickened the Baby's Little Belly so much that I don't want to pay the six bucks to see them in theaters. The penance must be paid.
Funky Flashman | Sun Jul 27 14:02:34 EDT 2014Reply

False alarm. That's just Susan Boyle.
alex | Sun Jul 27 03:42:36 EDT 2014Reply

So Johnny is black and now the Thing isn't even Orange??
fans are going to shit all over this
Jeff | Sun Jul 27 02:06:45 EDT 2014Reply

It looks ok, just like the photo of wonderwoman in the next superman vs wonderwoman film looks ok.

It seems to me that their are two very vocal audiences out there. On one side those that love dark and gritty films, they probably loved the disaster movie craze of the 90s. Then there are the people who love comics and colourful heros, these probably watched all the cartoons of the 90s and possibly enjoyed the original fantastic four movies.

Neither side is wrong, but DC has firmly joined with the first group (except possibly the green lantern movie) and Marvel are very much aligned with the second group.

Now the reason people hate Foxs version of the fantastic four, is that they very much advertise it as a. Marvel Movie, which it really isn't. X-men has been pretty dark, as was daredevil and Electra, it's what fox thinks people want, and it is.... It's just not what Marvel fans want.

Eventually I can see Marvel telling Fox to remove the brand name from its films as it is damaging the. Marvel franchise, possibly straight after Fox release Fantastic Four. Especially as Fox very much promote its failed films as Marvel products which I find pretty disgusting as Marvel had nothing to do with them.

Anyway just look up "Marvel Heroes Collection (X-Men 1-3 / Elektra / Daredevil / Fantastic 4) DVD"

Good luck fox, you may get more fans from this, but I'm pretty sure Marvel fans will avoid it.
Dhaval | Sun Jul 27 13:32:38 EDT 2014

@J. Without Fox and Sony and Lionsgate and New Line the Marvel movie trend wouldn't have started and without that trend in place Marvel Studios wouldn't have had a sub-genre to join, not start, but join. It's pretty much a FACT that Iron Man wouldn't have been made if not for the success of the Spider-Man and X-Men franchises, Feige said it himself.

As for getting the casting right, Heimdall? J.A.R.V.I.S? Mandarin? Korath? They are no more wrong than Paquins Rogue.

The first Marvel movie was the 1989 Punisher movie, with New Line being the first to release a theatrical Marvel movie.
J | Sun Jul 27 12:51:56 EDT 2014

Jack I find it funny how you don't know jack about what you are talking about. Do you think Fox was the first studio to make a Marvel film? Did Jeff say all the films were failed films? No. He was most likely referring to the first two FF movies or Daredevil. X-men might have grossed more money but it also cost more to make than Captain America 2. CA2 had a profit around 543 million. X-men's profit was around 537 million. I like the X-men movies but to me they aren't really X-men movies. Marvel Studios would do a much better job with the franchise and actually get the casting right. Anna Paquin as Rogue? Channing Tatum as Gambit? Really? FYI just because a movie makes a lot of money does not mean it is good. The casting of this film is enough to judge thus movie as a train wreck. I don't need to see any footage. Pretty sad when a low budget Punisher movie has better casting than this piece of crap does. You are also an idiot if you think Marvel would have never made their own movies without Fox making movies before them. Studios making bad movies based on their characters is most likely the main reason they formed Marvel Studios in the first place.
Jack | Sun Jul 27 11:50:04 EDT 2014

Marvel Studios can't tell Fox anything, without them they wouldn't be making movies. Fox have been making Marvel movies twice as long as Marvel Studios and paved the way for them. "Marvel" means based on Marvel characters. "Marvel STUDIOS" means made by that studio and it's universe of movies. Two separate definitions.

The reason people hate this movie is because they're bias brand-wagoning fanboys. There is no footage or posters to actually judge yet.

FYI the highest rated and grossing Marvel movie this year was from Fox, so they're hardly failed films.
Chris | Sat Jul 26 22:02:55 EDT 2014Reply

That looks terrible. Like an 80's puppet. Please cancel this movie. All it will do is water down the quality Marvel movies.
Steve | Sun Jul 27 11:56:09 EDT 2014

It's just a reference point for CGI, genius. Unfortunately the Marvel quality has taken a hit recently with Thor 2 and ASM2
John | Sat Jul 26 12:19:17 EDT 2014Reply

It looks great. All over the internet I'm reading "yeah it looks good but everything else will be garbage!" Fanboys are going to play that card right up until release day. It's ridiculous.
J | Sun Jul 27 12:22:52 EDT 2014

I think it looks ok, much better than the costume from the last two. I still will not be seeing this movie as the casting is almost as bad or worse than the SVsB movie. I'm talking about the entire cast btw, not just the fact that Johnny is being portrayed by a black guy.
Jack | Sun Jul 27 11:51:28 EDT 2014

Bingo. It's hate for hates-sake. There is nothing to judge from this movie yet for idiots to objectively examine as garbage
josh l | Sun Jul 27 10:05:46 EDT 2014

the movie is going to be garbage John.