Fantastic Four reboot is already screwed up...

[Prince Namor]

changing the race of a charcter has nothign to do with ego or money making. I doubt a black human torch will draw in mega dollars.

 

Sure. And putting hot chicks in movies has nothing to do with ego or money making. And putting Coca-Cola or Apple products in movies has nothing to do with ego or money making.

Sure. We're all having fun! We're making movies out here!

Yeah. Hollywood's not about ego or money making at all.

 

Your idea of fidelity is selective and secondly it is impossible as the characters have no definite identity.

 

So...they aren't making a movie because of the characters?

They're making it for... ego and money?

I'm confused.

 

 

[The-Collector]

changing the race of a charcter has nothign to do with ego or money making. I doubt a black human torch will draw in mega dollars.

 

Sure. And putting hot chicks in movies has nothing to do with ego or money making. And putting Coca-Cola or Apple products in movies has nothing to do with ego or money making.

Sure. We're all having fun! We're making movies out here!

Yeah. Hollywood's not about ego or money making at all.

 

Your idea of fidelity is selective and secondly it is impossible as the characters have no definite identity.

 

So...they aren't making a movie because of the characters?

They're making it for... ego and money?

I'm confused.

 

 

For point one: I never said hollywood wasn't about money making I said a black human torch won't make much money so probably wasnt a decision motivated by money.

 

Point two: you are confused. That sentence is re the previous argument about fidelity as a justification for no skin color change. It Is not a statement about hollywood executive motivations.

[Silvers24]

Or, they can still keep him black, but get this....later in his years he has a sex change.

 

And Reed then marries him, er, I mean her, and we see how Sue takes it.

 

But, I don't think this will happen until we have a transgender president.

 

 

[Flaming_Telepath]

I may not be as hardline as Logan on this topic (though it's hard to tell in the ASM movie thread), but I understand where he's coming from in all of this.

 

Most of what makes the Fantastic Four great was established in the Kirby era, and whereas other creators have either (for the most part) repeated the stories in some watered down way or butchered it altogether; occasionally, someone like John Byrne comes along and gets it, respects it, and understands it - taking the Invisible Girl and her powers that match her personality and turning her into the Invisible Woman - things like that, but overall it's difficult to trust Hollywood to approach the material with that same sort of respect, trust and knowledge.

 

This can be irritating to long time fans of the comic, who see certain aspects of the story as important to who the characters are.

 

Because let's face it, the studios change things, simply because they feel they can market it better. It's all about commerce, not art.

 

When Byrne changed things during his time doing the FF, he had his reasons, and they were done with a respect and reverence to the original material. I may not have always agreed with it, but I understood where he was coming from.

 

I can't respect the idea of, "Let's make the Human Torch black because it'll make us more money!" Beyond not being faithful to the source material, I find that offensive.

 

 

 

 

What saddens me most about these debates is that I'm arguing with people who grew up with and love this stuff as much as I do. These are the people that should be irritated when H'Wood kraps all over this stuff in the name of ego.

 

But in the main, it's got nothing to do with 'ego'.

 

Giving the X-Men leather suits rather than spandex? Nothing to do with ego.

 

Making Galactus a big cloud? Nothing to do with ego.

 

Casting Hugh Jackman as Wolverine? Nothing to do with ego.

 

If you simply said 'it's not what I like', there's no problem, as we're all entitled to our opinions.

 

But your attempts to denigrate those changes on a logical basis, backed up with evidence, is failing.

 

As for your comments regarding people who don't agree with you not being 'true fans'...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that utter bollocks and just assume that you're passionate about your opinions.

[Prince Namor]

changing the race of a charcter has nothign to do with ego or money making. I doubt a black human torch will draw in mega dollars.

 

Sure. And putting hot chicks in movies has nothing to do with ego or money making. And putting Coca-Cola or Apple products in movies has nothing to do with ego or money making.

Sure. We're all having fun! We're making movies out here!

Yeah. Hollywood's not about ego or money making at all.

 

Your idea of fidelity is selective and secondly it is impossible as the characters have no definite identity.

 

So...they aren't making a movie because of the characters?

They're making it for... ego and money?

I'm confused.

 

 

For point one: I never said hollywood wasn't about money making I said a black human torch won't make much money so probably wasnt a decision motivated by money.

 

Point two: you are confused. That sentence is re the previous argument about fidelity as a justification for no skin color change. It Is not a statement about hollywood executive motivations.

 

Every decision in Hollywood is motivated by money.

[Bosco685]

As for your comments regarding people who don't agree with you not being 'true fans'...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that utter bollocks and just assume that you're passionate about your opinions.

 

[The-Collector]

changing the race of a charcter has nothign to do with ego or money making. I doubt a black human torch will draw in mega dollars.

 

Sure. And putting hot chicks in movies has nothing to do with ego or money making. And putting Coca-Cola or Apple products in movies has nothing to do with ego or money making.

Sure. We're all having fun! We're making movies out here!

Yeah. Hollywood's not about ego or money making at all.

 

Your idea of fidelity is selective and secondly it is impossible as the characters have no definite identity.

 

So...they aren't making a movie because of the characters?

They're making it for... ego and money?

I'm confused.

 

 

For point one: I never said hollywood wasn't about money making I said a black human torch won't make much money so probably wasnt a decision motivated by money.

 

Point two: you are confused. That sentence is re the previous argument about fidelity as a justification for no skin color change. It Is not a statement about hollywood executive motivations.

 

Every decision in Hollywood is motivated by money.

 

That is a ridiculous generalization.

[Logan510]

I may not be as hardline as Logan on this topic (though it's hard to tell in the ASM movie thread), but I understand where he's coming from in all of this.

 

Most of what makes the Fantastic Four great was established in the Kirby era, and whereas other creators have either (for the most part) repeated the stories in some watered down way or butchered it altogether; occasionally, someone like John Byrne comes along and gets it, respects it, and understands it - taking the Invisible Girl and her powers that match her personality and turning her into the Invisible Woman - things like that, but overall it's difficult to trust Hollywood to approach the material with that same sort of respect, trust and knowledge.

 

This can be irritating to long time fans of the comic, who see certain aspects of the story as important to who the characters are.

 

Because let's face it, the studios change things, simply because they feel they can market it better. It's all about commerce, not art.

 

When Byrne changed things during his time doing the FF, he had his reasons, and they were done with a respect and reverence to the original material. I may not have always agreed with it, but I understood where he was coming from.

 

I can't respect the idea of, "Let's make the Human Torch black because it'll make us more money!" Beyond not being faithful to the source material, I find that offensive.

 

 

 

 

What saddens me most about these debates is that I'm arguing with people who grew up with and love this stuff as much as I do. These are the people that should be irritated when H'Wood kraps all over this stuff in the name of ego.

 

But in the main, it's got nothing to do with 'ego'.

 

Giving the X-Men leather suits rather than spandex? Nothing to do with ego.

 

Making Galactus a big cloud? Nothing to do with ego.

 

Casting Hugh Jackman as Wolverine? Nothing to do with ego.

 

If you simply said 'it's not what I like', there's no problem, as we're all entitled to our opinions.

 

But your attempts to denigrate those changes on a logical basis, backed up with evidence, is failing.

 

As for your comments regarding people who don't agree with you not being 'true fans'...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that utter bollocks and just assume that you're passionate about your opinions.

 

 

 

 

[Logan510]

changing the race of a charcter has nothign to do with ego or money making. I doubt a black human torch will draw in mega dollars.

 

Sure. And putting hot chicks in movies has nothing to do with ego or money making. And putting Coca-Cola or Apple products in movies has nothing to do with ego or money making.

Sure. We're all having fun! We're making movies out here!

Yeah. Hollywood's not about ego or money making at all.

 

Your idea of fidelity is selective and secondly it is impossible as the characters have no definite identity.

 

So...they aren't making a movie because of the characters?

They're making it for... ego and money?

I'm confused.

 

 

For point one: I never said hollywood wasn't about money making I said a black human torch won't make much money so probably wasnt a decision motivated by money.

 

Point two: you are confused. That sentence is re the previous argument about fidelity as a justification for no skin color change. It Is not a statement about hollywood executive motivations.

 

Every decision in Hollywood is motivated by money.

 

That is a ridiculous generalization.

 

 

[Logan510]

As for your comments regarding people who don't agree with you not being 'true fans'...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that utter bollocks and just assume that you're passionate about your opinions.

 

 

 

I never said that, but OK

[Logan510]

I may not be as hardline as Logan on this topic (though it's hard to tell in the ASM movie thread), but I understand where he's coming from in all of this.

 

Most of what makes the Fantastic Four great was established in the Kirby era, and whereas other creators have either (for the most part) repeated the stories in some watered down way or butchered it altogether; occasionally, someone like John Byrne comes along and gets it, respects it, and understands it - taking the Invisible Girl and her powers that match her personality and turning her into the Invisible Woman - things like that, but overall it's difficult to trust Hollywood to approach the material with that same sort of respect, trust and knowledge.

 

This can be irritating to long time fans of the comic, who see certain aspects of the story as important to who the characters are.

 

Because let's face it, the studios change things, simply because they feel they can market it better. It's all about commerce, not art.

 

When Byrne changed things during his time doing the FF, he had his reasons, and they were done with a respect and reverence to the original material. I may not have always agreed with it, but I understood where he was coming from.

 

I can't respect the idea of, "Let's make the Human Torch black because it'll make us more money!" Beyond not being faithful to the source material, I find that offensive.

 

 

 

 

What saddens me most about these debates is that I'm arguing with people who grew up with and love this stuff as much as I do. These are the people that should be irritated when H'Wood kraps all over this stuff in the name of ego.

 

changing the race of a charcter has nothign to do with ego or money making. I doubt a black human torch will draw in mega dollars.

 

Additionally It is reactionary and overly simplistic to say that every Hollywood movie is awful. I have enjoyed 3 of the four Spider-Man movies. I really liked XM first class ditto for Sin City and 300. This doesn’t make me any less a fan.

 

I never consented to the movie being crapped on. My argument for changing it was to make a better movie. I believe race doesn’t matter because my preference isn’t for skin colour it is for the actor that creates the most immersive experience. So if anything I am not glad the movie is being craped on I am happy that directors can think laterally to use the best resources possible to bring the superhero world to life.

 

Your idea of fidelity is selective and secondly it is impossible as the characters have no definite identity.

 

Logan I have dismissed your argument to my satisfaction however it is obvious I will never convince you to your satisfaction.

 

 

 

What saddens me most about these debates is that I'm arguing with people who grew up with and love this stuff as much as I do. These are the people that should be irritated when H'Wood kraps all over this stuff in the name of ego.

[Flaming_Telepath]

I may not be as hardline as Logan on this topic (though it's hard to tell in the ASM movie thread), but I understand where he's coming from in all of this.

 

Most of what makes the Fantastic Four great was established in the Kirby era, and whereas other creators have either (for the most part) repeated the stories in some watered down way or butchered it altogether; occasionally, someone like John Byrne comes along and gets it, respects it, and understands it - taking the Invisible Girl and her powers that match her personality and turning her into the Invisible Woman - things like that, but overall it's difficult to trust Hollywood to approach the material with that same sort of respect, trust and knowledge.

 

This can be irritating to long time fans of the comic, who see certain aspects of the story as important to who the characters are.

 

Because let's face it, the studios change things, simply because they feel they can market it better. It's all about commerce, not art.

 

When Byrne changed things during his time doing the FF, he had his reasons, and they were done with a respect and reverence to the original material. I may not have always agreed with it, but I understood where he was coming from.

 

I can't respect the idea of, "Let's make the Human Torch black because it'll make us more money!" Beyond not being faithful to the source material, I find that offensive.

 

 

 

 

What saddens me most about these debates is that I'm arguing with people who grew up with and love this stuff as much as I do. These are the people that should be irritated when H'Wood kraps all over this stuff in the name of ego.

 

changing the race of a charcter has nothign to do with ego or money making. I doubt a black human torch will draw in mega dollars.

 

Additionally It is reactionary and overly simplistic to say that every Hollywood movie is awful. I have enjoyed 3 of the four Spider-Man movies. I really liked XM first class ditto for Sin City and 300. This doesn’t make me any less a fan.

 

I never consented to the movie being crapped on. My argument for changing it was to make a better movie. I believe race doesn’t matter because my preference isn’t for skin colour it is for the actor that creates the most immersive experience. So if anything I am not glad the movie is being craped on I am happy that directors can think laterally to use the best resources possible to bring the superhero world to life.

 

Your idea of fidelity is selective and secondly it is impossible as the characters have no definite identity.

 

Logan I have dismissed your argument to my satisfaction however it is obvious I will never convince you to your satisfaction.

 

 

 

What saddens me most about these debates is that I'm arguing with people who grew up with and love this stuff as much as I do. These are the people that should be irritated when H'Wood kraps all over this stuff in the name of ego.

 

You've got nothing, have you?

 

Your argument is basically that you can't believe other people don't think exactly like you do and you're using emotive - yet unsupported - words like 'krap' to turn our heads?

 

That's your opinion. And that's great. But it doesn't render our opinion any less valid or any less true.

[Logan510]

I may not be as hardline as Logan on this topic (though it's hard to tell in the ASM movie thread), but I understand where he's coming from in all of this.

 

Most of what makes the Fantastic Four great was established in the Kirby era, and whereas other creators have either (for the most part) repeated the stories in some watered down way or butchered it altogether; occasionally, someone like John Byrne comes along and gets it, respects it, and understands it - taking the Invisible Girl and her powers that match her personality and turning her into the Invisible Woman - things like that, but overall it's difficult to trust Hollywood to approach the material with that same sort of respect, trust and knowledge.

 

This can be irritating to long time fans of the comic, who see certain aspects of the story as important to who the characters are.

 

Because let's face it, the studios change things, simply because they feel they can market it better. It's all about commerce, not art.

 

When Byrne changed things during his time doing the FF, he had his reasons, and they were done with a respect and reverence to the original material. I may not have always agreed with it, but I understood where he was coming from.

 

I can't respect the idea of, "Let's make the Human Torch black because it'll make us more money!" Beyond not being faithful to the source material, I find that offensive.

 

 

 

 

What saddens me most about these debates is that I'm arguing with people who grew up with and love this stuff as much as I do. These are the people that should be irritated when H'Wood kraps all over this stuff in the name of ego.

 

changing the race of a charcter has nothign to do with ego or money making. I doubt a black human torch will draw in mega dollars.

 

Additionally It is reactionary and overly simplistic to say that every Hollywood movie is awful. I have enjoyed 3 of the four Spider-Man movies. I really liked XM first class ditto for Sin City and 300. This doesn’t make me any less a fan.

 

I never consented to the movie being crapped on. My argument for changing it was to make a better movie. I believe race doesn’t matter because my preference isn’t for skin colour it is for the actor that creates the most immersive experience. So if anything I am not glad the movie is being craped on I am happy that directors can think laterally to use the best resources possible to bring the superhero world to life.

 

Your idea of fidelity is selective and secondly it is impossible as the characters have no definite identity.

 

Logan I have dismissed your argument to my satisfaction however it is obvious I will never convince you to your satisfaction.

 

 

 

What saddens me most about these debates is that I'm arguing with people who grew up with and love this stuff as much as I do. These are the people that should be irritated when H'Wood kraps all over this stuff in the name of ego.

 

You've got nothing, have you?

 

Your argument is basically that you can't believe other people don't think exactly like you do and you're using emotive - yet unsupported - words like 'krap' to turn our heads?

 

That's your opinion. And that's great. But it doesn't render our opinion any less valid or any less true.

 

It's hard talking to a brick wall. I can keep repeating my valid points to you and you can keep twisting what I say to suit your own agenda if you like?

 

So, just to humor me...why was Galactus changed into a cloud for the movie if it wasn't for money, ego or embarrassment?

 

 

[Bosco685]

So, just to humor me...why was Galactus changed into a cloud for the movie if it wasn't for money, ego or embarrassment?

 

 

 

It's a stupid reason. But at least it comes from the folks that made the film.

 

Galactus appears in the 2007 film Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, the story of which was based upon the character's debut and his Ultimate incarnation. The official novelization of the film names the character as "the Gah Lak Tus". 20th Century Fox's rationale for having the character as a cloud was to keep him discreet. Visual effects studio Weta Digital convinced Fox to add physical hints of the comic book incarnation, such as a shadow and the fiery mass within the cloud resembling Galactus' signature helmet. Director Tim Story has said he made Galactus a cloud so that the future Silver Surfer spin-off film would have a chance to be unique and introduce the character as he normally appears. J. Michael Straczynski, the spinoff's writer, confirmed Galactus is in his -script, saying, "You don't want to sort of blow out something that big and massive for one quick shot in the first movie."

[zuckuss2003]

I may not be as hardline as Logan on this topic (though it's hard to tell in the ASM movie thread), but I understand where he's coming from in all of this.

 

Most of what makes the Fantastic Four great was established in the Kirby era, and whereas other creators have either (for the most part) repeated the stories in some watered down way or butchered it altogether; occasionally, someone like John Byrne comes along and gets it, respects it, and understands it - taking the Invisible Girl and her powers that match her personality and turning her into the Invisible Woman - things like that, but overall it's difficult to trust Hollywood to approach the material with that same sort of respect, trust and knowledge.

 

This can be irritating to long time fans of the comic, who see certain aspects of the story as important to who the characters are.

 

Because let's face it, the studios change things, simply because they feel they can market it better. It's all about commerce, not art.

 

When Byrne changed things during his time doing the FF, he had his reasons, and they were done with a respect and reverence to the original material. I may not have always agreed with it, but I understood where he was coming from.

 

I can't respect the idea of, "Let's make the Human Torch black because it'll make us more money!" Beyond not being faithful to the source material, I find that offensive.

 

 

 

 

What saddens me most about these debates is that I'm arguing with people who grew up with and love this stuff as much as I do. These are the people that should be irritated when H'Wood kraps all over this stuff in the name of ego.

 

changing the race of a charcter has nothign to do with ego or money making. I doubt a black human torch will draw in mega dollars.

 

Additionally It is reactionary and overly simplistic to say that every Hollywood movie is awful. I have enjoyed 3 of the four Spider-Man movies. I really liked XM first class ditto for Sin City and 300. This doesn’t make me any less a fan.

 

I never consented to the movie being crapped on. My argument for changing it was to make a better movie. I believe race doesn’t matter because my preference isn’t for skin colour it is for the actor that creates the most immersive experience. So if anything I am not glad the movie is being craped on I am happy that directors can think laterally to use the best resources possible to bring the superhero world to life.

 

Your idea of fidelity is selective and secondly it is impossible as the characters have no definite identity.

 

Logan I have dismissed your argument to my satisfaction however it is obvious I will never convince you to your satisfaction.

 

 

 

What saddens me most about these debates is that I'm arguing with people who grew up with and love this stuff as much as I do. These are the people that should be irritated when H'Wood kraps all over this stuff in the name of ego.

 

You've got nothing, have you?

 

Your argument is basically that you can't believe other people don't think exactly like you do and you're using emotive - yet unsupported - words like 'krap' to turn our heads?

 

That's your opinion. And that's great. But it doesn't render our opinion any less valid or any less true.

 

It's hard talking to a brick wall. I can keep repeating my valid points to you and you can keep twisting what I say to suit your own agenda if you like?

 

So, just to humor me...why was Galactus changed into a cloud for the movie if it wasn't for money, ego or embarrassment?

 

 

Now that is actually really funny!

[Bosco685]

SDCC 07: JMS Sheds Light on Silver Surfer Movie

 

When asked about the handling of Galactus in Rise of the Silver Surfer, Straczynksi replied, "I thought it was all they could do in the course of that movie, but in the second movie, you will see more of him." He went on to say, "You don't want to sort of blow out something that big and massive for one quick shot in the first movie… Where you're showing the origin of the Surfer, that's where you do it; that's where you blow it out."

 

What bothered me was not that they altered Galactus. It bothered me they altered him in such a way, it was not as impactful to the movie as it should have been.

 

 

"Run! It's the mighty cloud of death, coming to consume us in its - ummmm - cloudness."

[Logan510]

I may not be as hardline as Logan on this topic (though it's hard to tell in the ASM movie thread), but I understand where he's coming from in all of this.

 

Most of what makes the Fantastic Four great was established in the Kirby era, and whereas other creators have either (for the most part) repeated the stories in some watered down way or butchered it altogether; occasionally, someone like John Byrne comes along and gets it, respects it, and understands it - taking the Invisible Girl and her powers that match her personality and turning her into the Invisible Woman - things like that, but overall it's difficult to trust Hollywood to approach the material with that same sort of respect, trust and knowledge.

 

This can be irritating to long time fans of the comic, who see certain aspects of the story as important to who the characters are.

 

Because let's face it, the studios change things, simply because they feel they can market it better. It's all about commerce, not art.

 

When Byrne changed things during his time doing the FF, he had his reasons, and they were done with a respect and reverence to the original material. I may not have always agreed with it, but I understood where he was coming from.

 

I can't respect the idea of, "Let's make the Human Torch black because it'll make us more money!" Beyond not being faithful to the source material, I find that offensive.

 

 

 

 

What saddens me most about these debates is that I'm arguing with people who grew up with and love this stuff as much as I do. These are the people that should be irritated when H'Wood kraps all over this stuff in the name of ego.

 

changing the race of a charcter has nothign to do with ego or money making. I doubt a black human torch will draw in mega dollars.

 

Additionally It is reactionary and overly simplistic to say that every Hollywood movie is awful. I have enjoyed 3 of the four Spider-Man movies. I really liked XM first class ditto for Sin City and 300. This doesn’t make me any less a fan.

 

I never consented to the movie being crapped on. My argument for changing it was to make a better movie. I believe race doesn’t matter because my preference isn’t for skin colour it is for the actor that creates the most immersive experience. So if anything I am not glad the movie is being craped on I am happy that directors can think laterally to use the best resources possible to bring the superhero world to life.

 

Your idea of fidelity is selective and secondly it is impossible as the characters have no definite identity.

 

Logan I have dismissed your argument to my satisfaction however it is obvious I will never convince you to your satisfaction.

 

 

 

What saddens me most about these debates is that I'm arguing with people who grew up with and love this stuff as much as I do. These are the people that should be irritated when H'Wood kraps all over this stuff in the name of ego.

 

You've got nothing, have you?

 

Your argument is basically that you can't believe other people don't think exactly like you do and you're using emotive - yet unsupported - words like 'krap' to turn our heads?

 

That's your opinion. And that's great. But it doesn't render our opinion any less valid or any less true.

 

It's hard talking to a brick wall. I can keep repeating my valid points to you and you can keep twisting what I say to suit your own agenda if you like?

 

So, just to humor me...why was Galactus changed into a cloud for the movie if it wasn't for money, ego or embarrassment?

 

 

Now that is actually really funny!

 

I find it more annoying

[Logan510]

So, just to humor me...why was Galactus changed into a cloud for the movie if it wasn't for money, ego or embarrassment?

 

 

 

It's a stupid reason. But at least it comes from the folks that made the film.

 

Galactus appears in the 2007 film Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, the story of which was based upon the character's debut and his Ultimate incarnation. The official novelization of the film names the character as "the Gah Lak Tus". 20th Century Fox's rationale for having the character as a cloud was to keep him discreet. Visual effects studio Weta Digital convinced Fox to add physical hints of the comic book incarnation, such as a shadow and the fiery mass within the cloud resembling Galactus' signature helmet. Director Tim Story has said he made Galactus a cloud so that the future Silver Surfer spin-off film would have a chance to be unique and introduce the character as he normally appears. J. Michael Straczynski, the spinoff's writer, confirmed Galactus is in his -script, saying, "You don't want to sort of blow out something that big and massive for one quick shot in the first movie."

 

That's too bad...especially since they never made the spin off. If it were me, I would've blown it out and not have it be a quick shot

[DeliBebek]

So, just to humor me...why was Galactus changed into a cloud for the movie if it wasn't for money, ego or embarrassment?

 

 

 

It's a stupid reason. But at least it comes from the folks that made the film.

 

Galactus appears in the 2007 film Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, the story of which was based upon the character's debut and his Ultimate incarnation. The official novelization of the film names the character as "the Gah Lak Tus". 20th Century Fox's rationale for having the character as a cloud was to keep him discreet. Visual effects studio Weta Digital convinced Fox to add physical hints of the comic book incarnation, such as a shadow and the fiery mass within the cloud resembling Galactus' signature helmet. Director Tim Story has said he made Galactus a cloud so that the future Silver Surfer spin-off film would have a chance to be unique and introduce the character as he normally appears. J. Michael Straczynski, the spinoff's writer, confirmed Galactus is in his -script, saying, "You don't want to sort of blow out something that big and massive for one quick shot in the first movie."

 

That's too bad...especially since they never made the spin off. If it were me, I would've blown it out and not have it be a quick shot

I think the Galactus trilogy in FF 48-50 would have been a tad less significant, had it been the Silver Surfer Trilogy in FF 48-50 and let the readers wait for the big reveal of Galactus in some story arc following that.

 

Especially with the deliberate two-part movie trend that has become almost the norm since that time, a final shot of a mind-bendlingly huge and menacing Galactus and "to be continued..." would have guaranteed an audience for the next movie.

[fantastic_four]

SDCC 07: JMS Sheds Light on Silver Surfer Movie

 

When asked about the handling of Galactus in Rise of the Silver Surfer, Straczynksi replied, "I thought it was all they could do in the course of that movie, but in the second movie, you will see more of him." He went on to say, "You don't want to sort of blow out something that big and massive for one quick shot in the first movie… Where you're showing the origin of the Surfer, that's where you do it; that's where you blow it out."

 

What bothered me was not that they altered Galactus. It bothered me they altered him in such a way, it was not as impactful to the movie as it should have been.

 

 

"Run! It's the mighty cloud of death, coming to consume us in its - ummmm - cloudness."

 

I agree. However, Stan Lee screwed this one up--Galactus as a huge humanoid doesn't translate to the big screen at all. Kirby thought it was dumb and wanted to use one of the big space monsters he was famous for in the 50s, but Stan didn't think people would identify as well with that, so he went with a big human. They've both got points and they're both a mix of wrong and right. I enjoy his humanoid appearance at this point, but I also realize how ludicrous it will be to most people. I don't know what the right way to handle Galactus on the big screen is and haven't heard anyone else propose a good alternative.