Fantastic Four reboot is already screwed up...

[Bosco685]

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.

 

He'll be on in five...four...three...two...one...

 

[Prince Namor]

I saw that black cloud and thought maybe Galactus had farted.

[fantastic_four]

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.

 

I'm not sure that the screenwriters disagree with this, but I also don't think they ever agreed on a good way to depict Galactus, so they just avoided the problem entirely. This film looked like someone assigning writers a difficult task that they just weren't able to solve, so they avoided it.

[Prince Namor]

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.

 

He'll be on in five...four...three...two...one...

 

This is an easy one:

With special effects you can make anything come to life on the screen.

[Prince Namor]

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.

 

He'll be on in five...four...three...two...one...

 

This is an easy one:

With special effects you can make anything come to life on the screen.

 

Except Ben Affleck's acting ability as Daredevil.

[Bosco685]

I saw that black cloud and thought maybe Galactus had farted.

 

It's that Stan Lee Excelsior Beer - gut killlllllllleeeerrrr!

 

[Prince Namor]

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.

 

I'm not sure that the screenwriters disagree with this, but I also don't think they ever agreed on a good way to depict Galactus, so they just avoided the problem entirely. This film looked like someone assigning writers a difficult task that they just weren't able to solve, so they avoided it.

 

Yeah, those are the kind of guys I want handling my big budget action movie.

 

NOT.

[Prince Namor]

I saw that black cloud and thought maybe Galactus had farted.

 

It's that Stan Lee Excelsior Beer - gut killlllllllleeeerrrr!

 

 

[fantastic_four]

This is an easy one:

With special effects you can make anything come to life on the screen.

 

You sound like you've put as much thought into this as Avi Arad did--give it to the writers and CGI guys and they can do ANYTHING!

[jimjum12]

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.

 

..... I always saw Galactus as a metaphor for deforestation, pollution, and the technological cancer that is slowly robbing mankind of it's vitality..... so for me, Galactus as a huge humanoid was OK...... provided he is caked with armor and gadgets and LOTS of high energy. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[Bosco685]

..... I always saw Galactus as a metaphor for deforestation, pollution, and the technological cancer that is slowly robbing mankind of it's vitality..... so for me, Galactus as a huge humanoid was OK...... provided he is caked with armor and gadgets and LOTS of high energy. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

[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!

 

I find it more annoying

I am sure you do. I just find it funny that you could comment about it being hard to talk to a brick wall.

[Prince Namor]

This is an easy one:

With special effects you can make anything come to life on the screen.

 

You sound like you've put as much thought into this as Avi Arad did--give it to the writers and CGI guys and they can do ANYTHING!

 

Seeing movies like Prometheus and Oblivion, yes, I think with CGI they can now do just about anything.

[jimjum12]

..... I always saw Galactus as a metaphor for deforestation, pollution, and the technological cancer that is slowly robbing mankind of it's vitality..... so for me, Galactus as a huge humanoid was OK...... provided he is caked with armor and gadgets and LOTS of high energy. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

 

 

...... that'll work.... sign him up..... but the spandex should be pink...... like the book. GOD BLESS...

 

-jimbo(a friend of jesus) (thumbs u

[fantastic_four]

Seeing movies like Prometheus and Oblivion, yes, I think with CGI they can now do just about anything.

 

The challenge with Galactus isn't special effects, it's a writing issue. What should he be, what should he look like, where did he come from? We have no context to place a huge, planet-devouring life form into, so creating such a life form is quite a challenge and one that Lee and Kirby never solved to either's satisfaction. They did what they did and he's pretty cool anyway, but placed into a real-world context such a film, somebody's got to solve the problem with how to depict the character.

[Prince Namor]

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.

 

Where'd you hear that story of Stan and Jack, I'm unaware of it and would like to add it to my research on the topic of those two?

[Prince Namor]

Seeing movies like Prometheus and Oblivion, yes, I think with CGI they can now do just about anything.

 

The challenge with Galactus isn't special effects, it's a writing issue. What should he be, what should he look like, where did he come from? We have no context to place a huge, planet-devouring life form into, so creating such a life form is quite a challenge and one that Lee and Kirby never solved to either's satisfaction. They did what they did and he's pretty cool anyway, but placed into a real-world context such a film, somebody's got to solve the problem with how to depict the character.

 

Having read that original story 10+ times in my life, I never thought of anything about it as unresolved. I say, depict him as Galactus.

[fantastic_four]

Where'd you hear that story of Stan and Jack, I'm unaware of it and would like to add it to my research on the topic of those two?

 

I'll look around for it. I think I heard it from an interview with Stan Lee where he was describing the creation of the character in his own words.

[Prince Namor]

Where'd you hear that story of Stan and Jack, I'm unaware of it and would like to add it to my research on the topic of those two?

 

I'll look around for it. I think I heard it from an interview with Stan Lee where he was describing the creation of the character in his own words.

 

Ugh. Unless Roy Thomas or John Romita was there to verify things I don't much trust Stan's memory or presentation. I don't mean that in a bad way, Stan just has a way of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story. Or he just outright doesn't remember.

[Bosco685]

Where'd you hear that story of Stan and Jack, I'm unaware of it and would like to add it to my research on the topic of those two?

 

I'll look around for it. I think I heard it from an interview with Stan Lee where he was describing the creation of the character in his own words.

 

Ugh. Unless Roy Thomas or John Romita was there to verify things I don't much trust Stan's memory or presentation. I don't mean that in a bad way, Stan just has a way of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story. Or he just outright doesn't remember.

 

If you don't remember, make it up.

 

- STAN LEE