Why would they make the Thing "a lot larger than the others" when he was shorter than Reed for years?!!?
If the FF had the huge budget that the LOTR had, they perhaps they would have gone digital...
Look at any of the First 100 issues, the Kirby run. He is noticeably shorter than Reed. This was the standard at least to the Byrne run, and most likely well past 300, perhaps to the end of the original run of the book.
Maybe when they relaunched the FF with that god awful "Heroes Reborn" crap he got bigger, and since then he has been all over the place, depending on the artist. And I don't care what they are doing in the "Ultimate" FF, because it is not.
Look how horrible the vampires are in I AM LEGEND. Would that have been better than a prosthetic make-up for the Thing - I THINK NOT!
Why would they make the Thing "a lot larger than the others" when he was shorter than Reed for years?!!?
If the FF had the huge budget that the LOTR had, they perhaps they would have gone digital...
Not SO! A quick check on BoxOfficeMojo has the budget for the first LotR at $93 million, and the other two at $94 each. So that's $281 million [in 2001-2003], where as both FF total $230 million [in 2005-2007]. I am sure some one can adjust those figure for inflation, etc.; but I know $93 mill in '01 went a lot farther than $100 mill in '05. Plus, New Line is said to have thrown extra cash at the sequels for reshoots once part one was such a hit, so I am sure the real cost is even more.
Wasn't SR's budget listed at $270 million because Warner's insisted on lumping all the costs of the aborted sequels [like Tim Burton's] onto Singer's sequel.