View Full Version : from OLD to NEW (Human Torch)
Just looking through f4 pics and found these 2 pics of the human torch in the films
funny to compare that..
05-12-2005, 10:27 PM
The old one looks funny as hell. The new one looks painful. And poll results look like something naughty.
05-12-2005, 11:37 PM
The new one looks cooler, but Johnny's reaction doesn't seem right. Looks a little stoned to tell the truth.
The old one doesn't look that great, but Johnny is having a more natural reaction to having his hand burst into flames. He's screaming and freaking out. On the bright side the fire should go out as soon as he pisses himself.
OLD PIC: "AAAAAAAA!!!!!! AAA!!! AAA!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!"
NEW PIC: "Duuuude... I can see my tendons smokin'... huh! huh! huh! huh! Coooollll..."
I think the new photo looks a little strange (stoned Johnny Storm chilling with his blazing hand) when looked at out of context. I *think* this image is positioned *after* his entire body blazes in the test tank. He has it ignite, blaze, catch his entire body on fire in an instant, then it's extinguished. Then he looks at this burning hand, the image in the photo.
After being totally on fire, he *might* look a little stoned! And you know, if he seems clam? Well, after turning into a human Roman candle, just a little fire around the fingies (lady fingers?) might seem subdued.
Funny thing is, the old image gives *exactly* the reaction it was intended to, out of context and everything. The new one seems to provide manifold reactions, making it maybe less effective (beyond being a compelling image, a man on fire being *calm*).
IMO they both work in their own ways, one being comic, one being dynamic.
05-18-2005, 01:06 AM
The amazing thing to me about that old pic? The actor portraying Johnny looks pretty much like the "type" that everyone who's a fan of the comic would've been clamoring for! When you take a look at Evans, he looks nothing like what I would remember from the comics, and yet, from what I've seen of him in the trailers, he's certainly got that "essense" of Johnny Storm, dosen't he?! Also, in the old pic? I've gotta say....... I think most of the films budget probably went into that one scene! I've never seen this film (you can get it on e-bay at times as a bootleg), but I must say, that wasn't a bad f/x moment for a film that's supposed to be horrible! :o
Evans really *is* Johnny Storm. He captures the whole hot shot, I love being on fire vibe. People disagree with the short hair, but for a time in the comics, Johnny had a cut like that. And the cut serves a good purpose. People always wondered why Johnny's hair would vanish the instant he in his "flame form", but was there again when he de-flamed. Early in the 70's they tried to give him "fire hair" as a means of correcting this, but it looked absurd. By having his hair buzzed down, it allows no continuity issues between "looks."
I don't think anybody can disagree with the observation that the *new* movie version of The Human Torch looks exactly like the comics version. Take a look:
That's a very dynamic image, sells the whole character. It serves the classic Torch of the 60's, and also recalls very exactly the Alex Ross version fans swooned over.
And look at him here:
Man, that's exciting.
One of my big fears for this movie was that Fox would cheap out and give us Pyro from X2 all over again, throwing fire from the fingertips. The synopsis they released even reads that way. Many of us were convinced this film would utterly suck as a cut rate version without what we'd all hoped to see since we discovered the comics. I can't begin to say how happy I've been at seeing these images, or the flying sequences in the film, which are really thrilling. Finally we're getting a superhero movie with something we *haven't* seen before (since Spider-Man in '02 that is).
So, there really is no comparison between the two Torches at all. One is Johnny Storm in spirit and smile *and* fiery form, the other is a cut rate Human Birthday Candle.
05-18-2005, 10:47 PM
Thanks to ToM for bringing those images in........ yes, they definately make me feel the same thing about this film...... that they didn't cheap out and give us something "cut rate" in order to save money on special f/x or something like that. I have seen these trailers over and over, and have slowed the action down so I could get a better look see at certain sequences with the characters in them (such as slowing down the truck when Ben crashes into it on the Brooklyn Bridge, a great shot!), but I have to tell you...... seeing the Torch in those shots DOES INDEED make me feel a whole heck of a lot better about where this flick is going.
This reminds me of wen people were saying that the Torch was ganna have his hands only go on fire last year....i hated that. this full body flaming Torch is wat comic fans everywhere know is the real Human Torch. :D
Hey, let's talk about early buzz. First of all, part of the reason the FF. started getting slimed early on as "going to suck" was due to the idea promoted that The Human Torch was just going to spit fire from his fingertips, come off like "Fire Starter" on screen. Fox wanted to bring the movie is cheaply, and this character was going to suffer.
The idea that he'd be able to fly wasn't even in the synopsis. So, nobody thought he'd be able to fly (and seeing how many flights the X-Men series has seen, how little they use their powers, this is easily understood).
Now, all of this has been nicely shot down, The Torch looks amazing, even in a still frame. We really didn't think we were going to get a flying, flaming Human Torch, and man, are we getting one.
Johnny's hotdog nature is played up even more in the *new* trailer, where we see him snowboard off a massive cliff (where he's about to burst into flames and shoot off like a rocket). This is the guy we know.
Here's a look at his face as The Torch directly on. At times we're given more detail of Johnny in his flame form than at others (in the first two images). But these (like the one in this image) are fleeting, because he's moving and flaming pretty quickly. It's good to note this though, because it allows us to appreciate the attention to detail that they're giving the character:
The other reason the movie was going to suck was because The Thing looked like a chewed up bit of orange gum. He looked like The Toxic Avenger, or the "melted" looking Thing from the first few issues of the comic in '61 before his look was perfected. These early set photos lacked important details, and gave this false impression. Now, let's look at The Thing in a *large* close-up and see those missing details.
Check it out:
Notice the *tiny* details in each individual "rock" in The Thing's hide? Each one has sections of what one could deem "strata" as we'd expect from a rock-like creature. They're layered, not a single "pebble" is in fact flat. They have groves, indentures, impactures, just as interlocking stones do.
Much had been made of the missing "brow ridge" from front-on photos. Yet, look at him in profile here. Note the profoundly *deep* shadows that hide his eyes entirely. A man simply leaning forwards like that doesn't have his eyes vanish from view like that, not when we're as close up to his face as we are here. Now, certainly there's something of a large brow there for that effect to emerge.
Here's Thing from the front:
Notice that although the light, natural lighting largely from the outside world, is directly in his face, the brow ridge *still* has his eyes deeply set in shadow. THis must've been one of the big challanges of bringing The Thing to the screen. If the brow is *larger*, they must take a chance of losing the eyes entirely in many of the shots (where there isn't so strong a direct lighting, like inside or at night in the street scenes). If they lose the *eyes*, they lose the *character* and all the things he emotes, his sense of being trapped in this monster.
So, on the one hand, they couldv've created this mamoth ridge we know from the comics, but in key scenes like Thing's initial combat with Doom, his expressions are utterly lost. So, they split the difference.
I've heard a few people comment on how Jessica Alba isn't Sue Storm. Listen Kate Bosworth ain't all that much like Susan either. But consider this image from the NYC Fantastic Four shoot.
This image alone recalls very strongly the John Romita take on Susan from a particular issue, Fantastic Four #105. In that, Sue is similarly attired..."WHEN THE MONSTER WALKS THE STREETS." She, alone, ruesh into action, hair flying. And she looks just like this. Alba is a pretty good pick thus far I think.
Here she is holding back an explosion with her force feild, which also recalls number #105 for me (holding back the energy "monster" in the same pose)
Anyway, I think most of the problems that initially started the criticisms are dismissed now. The lack of a literal Human Torch, The Thing looking like chewed up gum, or corn on the cob have all been debunked, and in fact, look pretty good when seen in detail (as they will be in theaters).
I can still remember the hosts of Aint It Cool News ranting about how the production design was "maddening"...even though not one of them would ever explain what that meant, and no elements of the production design had emerged (and none of *them* had ever visited the set). I remember being suspicious of that at the time. Thus far, I'd have to say the film *looks*, by way of looks I mean, pretty much, if not edxactly *as* I think it should. And as I'd have expected a Fantastic Four movie to look, the characters most of all.
06-26-2005, 04:55 PM
I think the new human torch is the best look of the comic 2 film version of the character. the fire and all the action done by him will be great in the film. But shouldnt u add the cartoon version of the human torch too? the 90's series had it ok and the new cartoon with the anime look seems to have johnny with white hair...no pic of him on fire from the new anime verison tho.
06-27-2005, 03:15 PM
Well, without a question, this new Human Torch look's world's better. The fact that he's being done by a big time studio with big time money makes that a no brainer. However, I have stated here before, that I felt that that old pic of the Human Torch from the 1994 version looks like the look that people had been clamoring for to play the Torch/Johnny Storm in the first place (the way the actor looks, not the look of the special f/x).
07-04-2005, 09:44 PM
Is this a trick question?
Now, if you compared the Doctor Doom look from the Oley Sassone's version to Doom in Tim Story's, then there would be some debate. Then again, Doom is Doom, whatcha gonna do?
I agree with ToM. There was a lot of negative talk about the FF when -oh, who was it? Raja Gosnell? Peyton Reed? Well, anyway, there was a lot of concern that the FF would be more like a TV sitcom. That was where most fans started to protest a little. I think the fans were more dismayed under the Peyton Reed rule, since that is when the majority (if not all) of France's work was discarded. Torch had flames only on his fingers, everything was retro, and the Thing battled these giant robots.
Budget was a problem, but so was the sitcom angle.
Peyton lost intrest. In order to keep the project alive, Mark Frost was hired. Soon after Frost's hiring, Tim Story was aboard. Frost and France's scripts were sort of merged in, with a polish from Simon Kinberg.
(How am I doing?)
Now here it is: great looking Torch (and well cast) well cast Ben Grimm (no doubt) and loved every freakin' minute of Anique Faqua's "King Arthur", so Ioan's Reed Richards is fine with me. Yes, I know. Those who know me will say, "yeah, but you were hoping they would cast Richard Gere". True. But Ioan's a good actor. This will be a breakout part for him.
And Jessica? Well, yeah I know "Darren, you were hoping they'd cast either that Bzzz gal Annie Wood or Kelly Preston..." True. Kate Bosworth, however...look. I thought "Blue Crush" was great. And I'm sure she'd make a good Lois Lame (not)
Jessica...Jessica...I liked her in Dark Angel. Yeah. No wait... Idle Hands!
Yeah that's it. Idle Hands! Seriously, I think she's a little young for Sue Storm- Richards, but I'm waming up. She'll be alright.
I hated her in Honey. That's it. That's my bias, I guess.
My only one. Honest.
Note: Rebecca Staab was prettier, but that's beside the point. Jess shows the cleavage.
07-05-2005, 05:34 PM
Darren's last comments would've been more suited for the "Fantastic Four Casting" thread, but that's cool. I think the Torch in BOTH pics would do, but the thing of it is, Chris Evans' Johnny, from all the internet clips on-line that I've seen to date, all suggest that he has INDEED captured the very SOUL of Johnny Storm, which is infinately more important than just getting a blond, blue-eyed actor to portray him. Then again, I haven't seen the original Torch from the 1994 version, so until I cough up the dough to get one of those bootleg copies off of e-bay, I'll just have to stick with Evans' translation!
07-09-2005, 01:33 PM
have any of you all seen that movie? It's as funny as hell. If anyone thinks that that this F4 is bad, they should see the old version. It makes the new one look like it should 5 academy awards....
07-15-2005, 12:28 PM
The new pic does look better but it looks like Johnny is stoned.
Here's something from the OLD FF movie. Let us weep for them and thier hard work that was not usen... :cry: ....yeah I'm done doing that now :P .
Click the sad story... (http://www.comics2film.com/FanFrame.php?f_id=15755)
I'm still not getting this, even when I see it on the streets and on online stores.
11-01-2005, 12:03 AM
Well, yeah, I feel bad for the actors of the film. But the same thing still goes on today. You remember hearing about A Sound of Thunder (I think that's the title)? It's based on a story by Ray Bradbury and starred Ben Kingsley. That thing was made two years ago, and last I heard, is still not being released. This kind of thing happens in Hollywood. It's a tough business, and Marvel should know (Howard the Duck, Dolph Lundgren's Punisher, Captain America, The Fantastic Four). Maybe it was best that Marvel sold the rights to Fox, who could afford the best things for the film, cause I think that film would have been a laughing stock.
11-01-2005, 02:21 PM
But look how far they have come! And the Johnny Storm of THAT film, as I've stated this before, actually looks a LOT like what people would have wanted their Johnny to actually LOOK like. But I'm sure that the film was SO awful that people wouldn't even try CONSIDERING looking at the bright side of SOME aspects of it........like how well they cast some of the characters.
vBulletin® v3.6.3, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.