Was anyone else disappointed by the version of the Thing as depicted in the new movie? At first I didn't notice why, but I wasn't as happy as I could have been by how he looked. I've decided that it's because he looks more like the first version of the Thing when he was blobby and unformed, rather than the more clean-cut modern Thing. I see that they tried to go somewhere in between, because even though his face is melty, his body still has the rocky plates. But, personally, I feel that his newer look in the comics gives him a more human appearance and makes it easier to empathize with his plight. It would be nice to see them make him more "evolved" for the second film. Does anyone else feel the same?
For those of you that don't know, the Thing series written by Dan Slott and penciled by Andrea di Vito is being cancelled as of issue eight. At the store I work at, it's slowly building in popularity. We had to reorder issue six three different times. I think it's a bad move. However, the trade is coming out in July and it will reprint the entire series. I know the sales on the trade will be awesome, and maybe Marvel will renew the series much like they did with She-Hulk when they canceled it the first time. The Thing is great. If you aren't reading it you should. It's constantly in my top five books of the month. -- IRISH4869 09:57, 19 May 2006 (EDT)
Where ARE his ears? Are they small holes or something? --sulfur