Comic Vine News

65 Comments

Love It or Hate It: Galactus in Fantastic Four 2

I've got my reasons, what are yours?

 

I know it's been quite a while since this film came out, but I've been thinking about this a lot recently. Ever since Fantastic Four 2: Avenging the Silver Surfer's Rise or whatever came out, I’ve heard a lot of people upset, but not with the movie, as a whole, so much. They were upset with the portrayal of the traveling world eater, Galactus. Most people seemed to be upset because it wasn't the same character from the comic book. Although it’s been a while since I’ve seen the film, I’m here today to say, “I love the Fantastic Four 2 version of Galactus, for a couple reasons.”

1. A giant man in purple armor, to me, would not translate well to film. I could only think it would look pretty goofy, almost kiddie-like. He works great in the comics as such, but it’s something we’re used to. Comics are a world of fantasy, and although the movies are also, films try to bring a sense of reality to what the viewer sees, and giant purple man has the potential to come off as just plain silly, and no one can take a giant man who wants to eat your planet that serious… until it’s too late, but then you're dead and you're planet is gone. I did, however, really enjoy the homages the film played to the original character (pictured right). Although some fans may not have enjoyed the way the character came out, you have to admit you got at least a few goosebumps seeing the silhouette of his helmet a of couple times. 
 
2. The film version of Galactus is a little more grounded. I know what you’re thinking, “How is a giant cloud ‘grounded?’” Hear (read) me out. With life we know of three kingdoms (my biology may be off, please feel free to correct me) Animal life, plant life, and fungi. (I think viruses and bacteria may have their own too) When it comes to the rest of the universe, is it that hard to imagine something outside of those kingdoms? An entity entirely energy based? Or what about a creature whose physicality we can’t fully understand? The idea of an entity made of space dust and other debris, if that's what it is made out of, is incredibly intriguing. It's a being that is larger than life and has a life-force we do not completely understand. There is mystery behind that. With the comic version, there isn't too much left that is unknown, since his origin has been completely explained.


== TEASER ==

Neo... Enter the Matrix... I mean, I want to eat your planet. (Gah Lak Tus)

Things within the universe surprise us every day. They change our perception of how the universe works. A being like the FF2 Galactus is something along those lines: A giant space entity that feeds off of planets. There’s much more terror in that rather than the giant purple man. What works well in a comic may not always work well on the screen. I can understand why people would be mad about this. You go into a film hoping to see Galactus, and you get a space tornado. It's the same way I'm sure a lot of people felt when Gah Lak Tus was revealed in the Ultimate Universe, but sometimes we're dealt a weird hand and have to make due.

I grew up with this character being one of my favorites. I always felt sympathetic towards him. He essentially travels through space alone, and he must feed on other planets in order to sustain himself. He's still one of my favorite Marvel characters, but even though Galan doesn't appear the way I grew up with him in the film, I still love what they did with the character. I think the space-tornado was pretty awesome. 
 
Love it or hate it?
I loved the film version of Galactus, it brought something fresh to the screen, and you may laugh, but it seemed more realistic to me than the comic version.
 
What about you guys? Did you love or hate the film version of Galactus? What are your reasons?
 
 
~Mat "InferiorEgo" Elfring is a comedian, teacher, comic book writer, comic store employee, and herald of space tornado.~

65 Comments
  • 65 results
  • 1
  • 2
Posted by danhimself

as corny as it would look I still think he would have been epic looking....they could have changed the colors around a little and gone with the modern non short short wearing Galactus

Posted by Mr.Hulk_Smashin'!

was okay, I have to admit I was pretty disappointed when I saw it, but thinking about it, it's actually a good idea.

Posted by warlock360

galactus was once described to look as anyone would imagine him, most of the part humans would look at him so he looks humanoid, if skrulls look at him he looks skrullish and the same goes for those inhumans. Now, i believe that their imagination was not enough to manifest Galactus into a physical form and yet something scary and cosmic, so, i like it.

Posted by BiteMe-Fanboy

i kind of understood why they did it, buuuuut.. i still hate it.

Online
Posted by AngelFrost

I totally agree with you Inferiorego  [:
I was very impressed with the portrayal of Galactus, a giant man in space would look stupid. -_-  making him a giant, destructive cloud of death is a lot more realistic and logical.

Posted by goldenkey

I liked it when I saw it.  I thought it was kind of spooky seeing the silhouette of his helmet but the the storm looking like it was going to eat the whole planet was great and it gave Galactus a sense of being that powerful.  The rest of the movie was a little cheesy.  To popcorny and I hated Reed Richards.  The Super Skrull concept was great too
Posted by #1ElderScrollsFan

I have mixed feelings about it. I agree with you that it seems more realistic the way the movie portrayed Galactus, but the comic book lover in me wants the the characters to look like they jumped off the pages of the comics and onto the silver screen.

Posted by DEGRAAF

i didnt think it was bad but i had never read a comic book before that movie came out. I think it would have been better if at first it looked like a giant space dust cloud (if you take in to accound his mass and with mass comes gravity) but i think once he stopped moving it should have settled a little and shown atleast his upper body (with gray stone like armor instead of purple) and where skin would be showing maybe have it be like a bright light with only small glimpsed being able to be recognized as his face with his hand big enough to grasp earth like a baseball
Posted by Silver Knight75

it was okay  
  
it would have been cool to see what he would have looked like though

Edited by cmaprice

I was ok with how they handled Galactus-- the writing and direction of the rest of the film? Not so much. The plot and characters were so incredibly cardboard thin. It took the cliches seen in the origin film and stretched them even further, while losing many of the characters' individuality.
 
Susan was entirely defined by her relationship to Reed (and then as an object to the Surfer). It was pathetic.
 
When my friends and I watched it the first time, we looked around and said "that's it?" It felt like half an hour because nothing happened until the end. It was a bunch of filler instead of character development.

Posted by Blindside002

I didn't mind it, I would have rather had him be more of a physical nature, but it wasn't the worst they could have done.
Posted by CATMANEXE

I wouldve went for a Galactus looking Galactus. theres a quote from Kick-Ass! i cant think of at the moment on that, maybe someone will. but no more silly than a big orange rubber turd looking guy. lol.

Posted by sora_thekey

I loved it!
Basically because the space tornado meant one of two things:
1) Galactus was this huge space entity (Like you said in the article) or
2) The tornado was the vessel!
 
Let me explain myself! Silver Surer is too big a character that when being used in a movie Galactus would just over shadow the Surfer, I thought that the tornado could have just been a vessel that covered the World-Eater. A perfect excuse to have Galactus' physical appearance hidden from the public and have that be revealed for a future F4 movie...

Moderator
Posted by grufaine

It's easier to appreciate in retrospect. My first reaction was "Whaat? =( That's not Galactus. =/"    
And now it just is what it is, really. I'm not strong one way or the other. 
  
I'm just wondering how it communicates, since Norrin Rad was apparently able to convince it not to destroy his planet and become the Silver Surfer and all. I suppose telepathically, have Zen-La folk mastered telepathy?   
Unless it's just the vessel like others mentioned, then communication would be easier...

Posted by geraldthesloth
@CATMANEXE said:
" I wouldve went for a Galactus looking Galactus. theres a quote from Kick-Ass! i cant think of at the moment on that, maybe someone will. but no more silly than a big orange rubber turd looking guy. lol.

"
Is that from Marvels?
Posted by napoleon

i think i heard they did it like that because they were saving an actual galactus apearance for the silver surfer film. i think galactus would translate well all you'd have to do is make him darker (just like the rhino from james and the giant peach)

Edited by Shatterstar

You could say the same thing about Thing or Silver Surfer... 
 
1. A giant man made of orange rock, to me, would not translate well to film. I could only think it would look pretty goofy, almost kiddie-like. He works great in the comics as such, but it’s something we’re used to. Comics are a world of fantasy, and although the movies are also, films try to bring a sense of reality to what the viewer sees, and giant orange rock man has the potential to come off as just plain silly, and no one can take a giant orange rock man who wants to clobber people… until it’s too late, 
 
 1. A giant man embossed in silver riding a floating surfboard, to me, would not translate well to film. I could only think it would look pretty goofy, almost kiddie-like. He works great in the comics as such, but it’s something we’re used to. Comics are a world of fantasy, and although the movies are also, films try to bring a sense of reality to what the viewer sees, and giant man embossed in silver riding a floating surfboard has the potential to come off as just plain silly, and no one can take a  giant man embossed in silver riding a floating surfboard  who is a herald of a cloud that wants to eat your planet that serious… until it’s too late.
  
 Its this kind of thinking that gets us effete metro Dr. Dooms and Blackhearts, Optimus Prime with lips, etc. Look at the ridiculous stuff that people have bought in Marvel movies- a giant dude made of sand rampaging around New York, blue furry scientist man in a suit, teleporting self-healing guy with swords coming out of his arms, so on and so forth.
 
Fantasy/sci-fi is about impossible stuff coming to life on the big screen. If people aren't buying into something absurd it has everything to do with the execution.

Moderator
Posted by TheHood
@geraldthesloth:  Yes, it is.
 
Also, I really didn't like the Cloud version of Galactus. But even more, I didn't like how easily he was beaten. All it takes to beat him is for the Silver Surfer to just fly through him?
Posted by Justize

How about make Galactus look like a giant humanoid cyborg-thingy? (Not the best description). Like a sentient alien. I don't know.

Posted by DevilmanEX
@BiteMe-Fanboy: @danhimself:  agreed
 
Its up to the art director of the Film to make him look cool......A quality effort could have made the big man look good....I HATED IT
Posted by NightFang

I was okay with it but I would have preferred his normal from.

Posted by IronSpidy-Rooney

I think the part that looked like his head was a bit much. Liked the new look though

Posted by 00 Raiser

They could have easily changed his color and armor around a bit to make him look better. I mean really a stupid intergalatic cloud. Look like the same storm that gave the Fantastic 4 their power to begin with just with some shape. How many movies have we seen with oversized spaceships (Independence Day). It would have translated well is whoever had more imagination.

Posted by jloneblackheart

I did not like it. It was a major let down for me. 
 
Yeah, maybe it would look a little silly for him to waltz up in his purple armor. Nothing a color change couldn't fix. Everyone needs to face it though: VILLAINS LOVE PURPLE!
 
They could have used him in his true form as well, being energy (not dust). Add a few scenes of different people viewing him and him looking different in every view and you would have gotten a great feeling that this creature was beyond Earth and the known science of it. 
 
There are probably even better ideas out there from someone more creative than me. I think how they chose to do it was weak and disappointing. 
 
Great article IE. I love when staff actually talk about something I know about.

Moderator
Posted by Mbecks14

disappointing. the movie was meh overall.

Posted by Decept-O

@inferiorego:  I'm in total disagreement with your opinion and reasoning.  They mutilated a number of concepts in FF 2, and not showing Galactus really sucked eggs. I don't care if anyone thinks showing a giant purple man may be "out there" but how many other Sci-Fi/Fantasy theme films have characters that are even more colorful and/or bizarre than Galactus?  Quite a few.   
 
Showing a silhoutte or whatever the H it was against a "galactic" cloud didn't appeal to me and it didn't make sense to a lot of non-comic book readers and fans who may have seen the movie.  IF they were going to do a Silver Surfer movie afterwards, and have Galactus show up, O.K., that would be plausible, a bit of a "tease" but that film has not been scheduled to be produced, and according to all accounts, Fox is going to "re-boot" the Fantastic Four franchise, so basically, this whole point is moot regarding Galactus.   
 
The only thing done right and I HATE to admit it, was Chris Evans as Johnny Storm, The Human Torch.   
 
Posted by brendon277

I sorta do see reason 1 because i'm a huge Fantastic Four fan and i would have stuck to the comic Galactus however it would be a bit corny to have something that big be in a movie it would be like  like an old movie with corny graphics again because it wouldn't play out well.

Posted by brendon277

I sorta do see reason 1 because i'm a huge Fantastic Four fan and i would have stuck to the comic Galactus however it would be a bit corny to have something that big be in a movie it would be like  like an old movie with corny graphics again because it wouldn't play out well.

Posted by ninjasquirrel01
@sora_thekey:  I felt the same way about Galactus being INSIDE the cloud, instead of being the cloud. Another FF movie in the same universe probably won't happen, considering that Chris Evans is Cap.
That Galactus didn't make much sense though. He took like 3 seconds to get through half the solar system and about ten minutes to almost eat the Earth.
Posted by Sparda
Posted by Nyogtha
@napoleon:  They did save him for the Silver Surfer film, they said that before they even had a trailer for the movie. I have to agree with you inferior, I loved that they made this mystique about him. They made him more of a force of nature than a living being.
Posted by whirlwind6

If they had to make him look more threatening, than I think they should have gone with something more mystical/religious looking.  Having him look like a fiery, other worldly demon would be much more epic looking (plus it would fit in with the story's theme better).  Look at it this way:  In the 60's, when Stan Lee wrote SS in FF and his own comic, he was portrayed as a Christ like figure.  (Other worldly, seemingly perfect being comes from the heavens, comments on our world, is persecuted,  and then sacrifices himself to save the universe  from ultimate evil). Heck, Mephisto was even introduced in SS #3 as the surfer's arch nemesis!!!   There was an entire issue written by Lee dedicated to Mephisto trying to tempt the Surfer  (very biblical!!!)!!!.  And even if you don't like the obvious Christian aspects, you can't tell me that a big space cloud looks better and more menacing on screen then a demonic, apocalyptic version of Galactus.

Posted by Archetype

I have to wholeheartedly disagree.There is a reason it works in comics and even though I do believe some things won't translate,however I feel Galactus could have been so great.If the audience can accept everything else in that movie, Johnny containing all of the 4's powers or Silver Surfer phasing through buildings, then I believe a brief appearance by Galactus as he appears in the comics would not have made the film any less believable but instead would have been a nice nod to Galactus and Kirby's design.Also there was talk of a Silver Surfer movie and if they had any intention of doing that then Galactus should definitely have resembled his comicbook appearance.Then again I am a bit biased because I love Galactus and his look.  

Posted by bingbangboom

I would have liked to have seen more of a traditional version vs. the Ultimate version. If anything, when the Silver Surfer and Human Torch were flying up into it, if it just had the silhouette of his helmet and showed that a figure was there.

Posted by DarkSyde79

Hated it!!! Galactus is a Titan, not stormy weather!!! :os

Posted by Overguardian

I have a question and I want somebody to answer it: why do movies have to be realistic?

Posted by Mahtu

I love the way they made galactus in the fantastic four movie.  I agree that making galactus a giant humanoid in purple armor would have looked kind of silly on the big screen.

Posted by DH69

as much as i hated the F4 movies its the only way galactus would have worked

Posted by Meteorite

Well, I guess you have made some points there that I overlooked when I first saw the movie, but I still want the comic version.
 
Also, there are five kingdoms:

  1. Animalia (e.g. humans)
  2. Plantae (e.g. trees)
  3. Fungi (e.g. mushrooms)
  4. Protista (e.g. Algae)
  5. Monera (e.g. Bacteria)
Posted by Tainted-Cell

Galactus is not defined by his purple and blue Kirby concoction. Different races perceive him differently. Traditionally, of course, he is more often than not, depicted in his purple and blue armor suit.

The differences aren't only in his physical depiction. Galactus is a force of nature, neither good or evil, he just is. But he is an entity who communicates, nonetheless. You hear nothing from the big cloud. No telepathic language, no channel. He does not speak his mind to the Silver Surfer when his herald turns on him. 

I think people would have been considerably less disappointed had Galactus been a knock-off of the Borg, or even Brainiac. He didn't even have to look like a humanoid. He didn't even need arms, legs, or a head. He could have been a giant floating vessel like VGER or the thing from The Voyage Home. He could have been the fluorescent lifeforms from The Abyss or Eywa from Avatar, and fans would have been infinitely happier. But a big swirling cloud of dust? Not just a big swirling cloud of dust, but a big swirling cloud of dust that is easily defeated by the Silver Surfer. It's like: dude, why couldn't you have just done that before?

No, the movie version was nothing but one big shortcut in every direction. 

Posted by Joe Venom

lol, naw but really I felt turly let down when I didn't see the Purple bucket head cosmic threat that I Know and love love from the comics, it was then that I truly realized that Live action comic Movies were not being made for me, I can give a #@*! about everyone else! I would have gave a standing notation if  the true Galactus would have appeared in the movie
Posted by LT1085
@Justize said:
" How about make Galactus look like a giant humanoid cyborg-thingy? (Not the best description). Like a sentient alien. I don't know. "
You really should think out what you want to say before you click post reply next time. 
Posted by inferiorego

Thanks for all your opinions guys! I love hearing them whether you agree or disagree!


@Meteorite said:

" Well, I guess you have made some points there that I overlooked when I first saw the movie, but I still want the comic version.
 
Also, there are five kingdoms:
  1. Animalia (e.g. humans)
  2. Plantae (e.g. trees)
  3. Fungi (e.g. mushrooms)
  4. Protista (e.g. Algae)
  5. Monera (e.g. Bacteria)
"
Thank you!
Staff
Posted by Wondra

FF2 sucked sweaty fat man's balls. lol
Edited by StrangerXL
@Overguardian said:

"I have a question and I want somebody to answer it: why do movies have to be realistic? "


Because unlike in other parts of the world here in the U.S.A. comics  are not seen as a legitamate art form/medium and has the stigma of being something only enjoyed by children or people who are not "normal" (mentally,emotional or socially challenged).In order to make comic/fantasy based movie "okay" for the non comic reading general public to watch, movies have to be "realistic".  It doesn't help the situation much when you have a segment of the comic fan community who also want comics and comic based movies to be more realistic in an attempt to try to "legitimize" the medium and thereby be seen as normal or cool in the general public's eye. 
Posted by ironshadow

I liked the movie Galactus, he looked like The Void.

Posted by Emerald Dragonfly

I like Galactus from "FF2".

Posted by KJPPPimp
 Reapers: Taking the few cool things about Gah Lak Tus and making them awesome
Posted by Lord Galactus
How dare they say my image is too silly and unrealistic to be on film!!!
Do they know who I am?! I am Lord Galactus! The Devourer Of Worlds!
Where were their action figures of this "cloud" hmmmmmmmmmm?!
Did they think Galactus not capable of acting? Mwahahahaha...such
insignificant fools! Galactus would upstage Alec Baldwin if that is what
he so wished to do, as nothing is beyond Galactus's capabilities, not
even an Oscar Award! And worse, Galactus did not receive any royalties
from this film! They say the checks are tied up in a bank in Tulsa do to
a computer error?! Pheh! Galactus knows better. I hunger!
Posted by Raziel3024

I have to agree, the Giant Living Storm looked pretty cool.

  • 65 results
  • 1
  • 2