• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Yikes. What Galactus will look like in FF2...

113 posts in this topic

Although it would probably appear like the Snowpuff Man in Ghostbusters.

 

Dr. Peter Venkman: We've been going about this all wrong, this Mr. Stay Puft's okay, he's a sailor, he's in New York, we get this guy laid we won't have any trouble.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quoteIf the human race can't even agree on what their religious icons look like, clearly Galactus appears to be different to each BEING.

 

We can't even agree on what a comic book's condition is most of the time. There's no way we all have the same mass hallucination. Galactus probably doesn't speak ENGLISH either to the people of the Soviet Union.

 

that's not how the post reads. Each race sees him as a reflection of themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quoteIf the human race can't even agree on what their religious icons look like, clearly Galactus appears to be different to each BEING.

 

We can't even agree on what a comic book's condition is most of the time. There's no way we all have the same mass hallucination. Galactus probably doesn't speak ENGLISH either to the people of the Soviet Union.

 

that's not how the post reads. Each race sees him as a reflection of themselves.

Agreed here is how two different species would view Big G.

germ2.jpg

germ1.jpg

insane.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Galactus is a pu55y, as are the FF. This movie will be like most sequels, it will suck worse then the first one sucked, making it a sucky, sucky movie.

 

I can't wait to not see it on the big screen and then to not rent it on Netflix. thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that Galactus' form and shape (certainly not his wacky Kirbeyesque costume) is "core". You do not.

 

The story itself was the core piece. Galactus could have been portrayed as the Impossible Man with a serious hard-on attitude and the effect would have been the same... confused-smiley-013.gif

 

Galactus is a floow through of the earlier SA monster books Marvel was so fond of. He's this presence. He is humanoid, but very inhuman. He's godlike, and in a scary, Old Testament vengeful sort of way (human fears against god and authority and giants in the land). He taps into the human psyche in a different way than a "swarm" does (human fears against numbers and insects).

 

Dude...you got way more out the story than I ever did. And here I thought the core issue of the story was redemption and using your smarts vs. brute force to win the day.

 

I wouldn't complain too much...you are getting the Surfer and some facimile of the Galactus story. Judging by the tone of the first movie, I'm surprised we really aren't seeing the appearance of the classic Impossible Man... insane.gif

 

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Big Jim,

 

I disagree.

 

*extends hand in friendship.* Nothing to debate really. Two different viewpoints on the importance of the core of the story and character.

 

Nate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if they don't want to use the classic Kirby look

 

I wouldn't describe Galactus as having any kind of "classic Kirby look." Kirby told Stan that Galactus should be some kind of monster-looking creature, not a big giant dude--a big giant human from another planet didn't seem credible to Jack. I agree with him. Not sure if Jack ever visualized a concept for Galactus, but I imagine he meant something like the monsters he did in the late 50s for titles like Amazing Adventures or Journey Into Mystery--perhaps a Fin Fang Foom-type creature. I believe Stan thought kids wouldn't be able to identify with Galactus as a credible villain enough if he wasn't humanoid...I suppose science fiction wasn't quite as mainstream back then and he could be right.

 

In a reinvention of the characters, I'm not really sure what Galactus should look like. I don't think he should be a big giant dude again--it's just impossibly stupid for a devourer of worlds to be a giant human. The cloud concept doesn't sound that great, but it does sound more credible than the giant humanoid concept--just a LOT more boring. All I do know is that after FF1--which I agree wasn't horrible but wasn't very good, either--I have no faith that I'll like anything Tim Story comes up with. And unfortunately, he's announced that the concept for Galactus would be his own creation that "most people watching the film will buy"--I figure he threw that in there knowing that fans of the comics like us probably wouldn't like anything other than Galactus as Stan Lee originally had him depicted.

 

The production schedule on this film is worryingly fast--they're doing all the shooting this year, writing major portions of the -script this year, and only leaving a few months for the CGI? Seems rather shoddy compared to Sam Raimi having Spidey 3 filming mostly complete a year ago, leaving the CGI guys plenty of time to do a great job on Sandman and Venom. If only the FF director/production crew exhibited the same preparation and diligence as the Spidey crew, I think we'd enjoy these FF films...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if they don't want to use the classic Kirby look

 

I wouldn't describe Galactus as having any kind of "classic Kirby look." Kirby told Stan that Galactus should be some kind of monster-looking creature, not a big giant dude--a big giant human from another planet didn't seem credible to Jack. I agree with him. Not sure if Jack ever visualized a concept for Galactus, but I imagine he meant something like the monsters he did in the late 50s for titles like Amazing Adventures or Journey Into Mystery--perhaps a Fin Fang Foom-type creature. I believe Stan thought kids wouldn't be able to identify with Galactus as a credible villain enough if he wasn't humanoid...I suppose science fiction wasn't quite as mainstream back then and he could be right.

 

In a reinvention of the characters, I'm not really sure what Galactus should look like. I don't think he should be a big giant dude again--it's just impossibly stupid for a devourer of worlds to be a giant human. The cloud concept doesn't sound that great, but it does sound more credible than the giant humanoid concept--just a LOT more boring. All I do know is that after FF1--which I agree wasn't horrible but wasn't very good, either--I have no faith that I'll like anything Tim Story comes up with. And unfortunately, he's announced that the concept for Galactus would be his own creation that "most people watching the film will buy"--I figure he threw that in there knowing that fans of the comics like us probably wouldn't like anything other than Galactus as Stan Lee originally had him depicted.

 

The production schedule on this film is worryingly fast--they're doing all the shooting this year, writing major portions of the -script this year, and only leaving a few months for the CGI? Seems rather shoddy compared to Sam Raimi having Spidey 3 filming mostly complete a year ago, leaving the CGI guys plenty of time to do a great job on Sandman and Venom. If only the FF director/production crew exhibited the same preparation and diligence as the Spidey crew, I think we'd enjoy these FF films...

 

Unlike some, I liked the Ultimate Galactus idea: a swarm of giant mecho/insects with a hive mentality, moving through the cosmos eating up worlds. thumbsup2.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unlike some, I liked the Ultimate Galactus idea: a swarm of giant mecho/insects with a hive mentality, moving through the cosmos eating up worlds. thumbsup2.gif

 

I've got all the Ultimate FFs, but haven't read them in about two years. I'll have to read them now, that does sound more interesting than a cloud and more credible than a giant human.

Link to comment
Share on other sites