to be honest i had walked out the cinema before Galactus must of arrived. i just could not stand the Fantastic four movies, not because they changed things from the comics, but because they sucked, bad acting,bad script,bad action sequences! i could't care less what happened to in them. the first one was terrible and my friend talked me into seeing the second one and we left about 30mins in
that said i would of accept this Galactus as a realistic portrayal of him, i think the idea of giant man in purple is silly even in the comics. i think the ultimate version was pretty realistic too.
Galactus
Character » Galactus appears in 1750 issues.
Galactus is the infamous "Devourer of Worlds" in the Marvel Universe. His powers are nearly omnipotent. He has appointed several entities as his Heralds, imbuing them with the Power Cosmic. He uses energy from the core of planets and universal sources to sustain himself.
Love It or Hate It: Galactus in Fantastic Four 2
Anything translates to film when done right with the goal in mind of telling the story the way it was told in the comic.
For the first two decades of Fantastic Four history to be told in cinematic form bearing any semblance to the comic, one would need a series of movies of comparable contemporary scale to Birth of A Nation meets Avatar meets anything George Lucas and Jon Favreau and Richard Donner, told with Stanley Kubrick precision and with a 2001 : A Space Odyssey vista, and beyond. Probably now in 3D.
The smoke and fire images of Galactus in FF2 were good suggestions, but they weren't even postage stamps in comparison.
CGI helps to make the visuals possible. Disney trained armies of cell animation artists, and John Chambers trained armies of make-up artists to make and apply prosthetics to armies of extras for The Planet of The Apes movies. In the sixties, seventies and eighties I believed a way to create convincing visuals for a convincing Fantastic Four adaptation would be to train matte painters in cell animation and to train cell animators to matte paint. CGI pretty well negates that necessity by doing much of the same thing.
Also, the use of stop-motion effects, a la Ray Harryhausen, to create many of the visuals of an FF adaptation and other comic adaptations, and the need to train armies of stop-motion artists, is also pretty well handled by CGI and the prevalence of the CGI realm. Instead of Mr. Fantastic effects being largely animated matte paintings and Puppetoon-like stop-motion and animatronics, it can be done pretty convincingly with CGI for the most part.
The Human Torch and Invisible Woman, with animation effects, and Thing, with prosthetics and stop-motion and animatronics, can both be concisely done in large part with CGI.
To do an FF movie the right way, 30 or 40 years ago, would have been a painstaking technical achievement that would have taken a long time to produce as movies go. It will still be painstaking, but we now have more universal tools that equate the movie maker to the scope of the comic artist. Something filmakers, prevalently, did not previously have.
A note : Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry loved Marvel, as noted with the Borg Cubes, a la Galactus and the Skrulls, Spock, a la Namor, and Star Trek : The Next Generation, a la X-Men. So, if it can work for Mr. Roddenberry, it can work for Marvel.
Science tells us that Nature doesn't classify us into kingdoms. Leave kingdoms to those who think they can classify Nature.
I acctually liked the way they did Galactus in the movie, I agree a big purple guy would have made the movie a little more silly.
the fantastic 4 movies were'nt the best, they were too cheesy. they chose the wrong director for the films, but ive got to admit i DID like the way Galactus was portrayed. i agree a giant bloke with a huge purple helmet ( haha ) would have looked stupid, this way they made him mysterious and scary, the silhouette of his horns was great and it did give me goosebumps!
so films bad, galactus good!
I see their reason but they could have done better and they could have given him more screen time. I would prefer it to have been more like marvel ultimate alliance Galactus.
And THAT, @Beyond your Doom, is why we love you. Thank you for that. That is also one of the most awe-inflicting depictions of a comic character in comic adaptation history." I see their reason but they could have done better and they could have given him more screen time. I would prefer it to have been more like marvel ultimate alliance Galactus.
"
http://www.villainsandheroes.net/2009/09/26/doom-and-galactus-drop-the-bomb-on-a-fantastic-four-3-movie/
i have to agree with you on that one, i mean he still had the form and hunger of galactus, but without the purple look
I hated the film version coz he seemed weak! the space debris look was cool, I was just dissapointed that the confrontation with him was soooo quick. The big man deserves more screen time and maybe some demonstration of the power cosmic...
"Also, the scientific community as a whole can't agree on whether viruses are alive or not, so they're sort of in limbo. I'd imagine if they were alive, though, they'd get their own kingdom, as they're pretty wildly different from any other form of life, being basically DNA in a protective shell.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.Thank you! "
Also, there are five kingdoms:"
- Animalia (e.g. humans)
- Plantae (e.g. trees)
- Fungi (e.g. mushrooms)
- Protista (e.g. Algae)
- Monera (e.g. Bacteria)
When I saw the movie, I had little to no knowledge about comics, but even I knew there was a problem with the Silver Surfer beating Galactus, the source of his power. I'm thinking of a quote somewhere along the lines of "he who hath given can also take away" or something like that. Why give a possible enemy the power to beat you? And even if you did, why couldn't you just take it back?
I liked it until Silver Surfer actually killied him, kinda makes a few questions
1. How come he didn't do that somewhere between Zenn-la and Earth (was earth like the first planet with life on it?).
2. Galactus is a GOD, and isn't it impossible to kill a god
3. I don't belive that Galactus so stupid to give a weapon that can kill him to someone who's planet he is theatening to eat!
4. After the first couple of credits, it says that Surfer lived?!?!?! AN EXPLOSION THAT CAN KILL GALACTUS CAN LEAVE SURFER ALIVE?!?!?!
2. Galactus is a GOD, and isn't it impossible to kill a god
Technically IRL you kill gods when you stop believing in them, so nope, not impossible at all. Though in the comic book world it may be different, especially if you consider characters like Thor, though I like to believe that they're simply very powerful beings and not actual gods despite what the writers would have us believe.
Please Log In to post.
This edit will also create new pages on Comic Vine for:
Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.Comment and Save
Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Comic Vine users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.
Log in to comment