More of a letdown - Galactus or Parallax?

[Anno_Domini]

Poll time once again!

So I was talking to my friend last night, who saw Green Lantern for the first time(lol), and we had this discussion of how awful Parallax was, but then the conversation evolved into talking about the portrayal of Galactus in Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer, and I have to admit...I don't know which was the worst portrayal. Granted, they top the cake within their own categories(Galactus - worst Marvel villain portrayal ever; Parallax - worst DC villain portrayal ever), but I have to know...which do you think was worst?


Galactus?



Parallax?

[metaphysician]

All mangled and killed? I suppose if I had to pick, Parallax was worse, though. At least Galactus was only apparently killable by his own rather extremely powerful Herald.

[Happy Jack]

Parallax was at least a character. A bad character, but still.

[Project862006]

do you honestly think this can work on screen lol


some fans need to realize some characters visually will never work in live action

i'd love to be proven wrong on galactus

[Saitou Hajime]

Galactus. At least Parallax being a turd (figuratively and literally) was front and center throughout the promotional material, so the blow is cushioned. They sort of just drop the Galactus cloud on us.

Originally Posted by Project862006

do you honestly think this can work on screen lol


some fans need to realize some characters visually will never work in live action

i'd love to be proven wrong on galactus

It can work if someone wants it to work. This self-ironic crap when it comes to overly fantastical elements is what leads to things like the Galactus cloud.

[Project862006]

eh not really he is very over the top looking bright blue and bright pink snd like 100 feet tall with gigantic horns

somethings just dont work in live action it is not about fantastical many comic characters are over the top looking

why do you think even Marvel didn't do this for Arnim Zola in captain america?

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Happy Jack

Parallax was at least a character. A bad character, but still.

My sentiments exactly. Galactus was just a cloud.

[Saitou Hajime]

Originally Posted by Project862006

eh not really he is very over the top looking bright blue and bright pink snd like 100 feet tall with gigantic horns

somethings just dont work in live action it is not about fantastical many comic characters are over the top looking

why do you think even Marvel didn't do this for Arnim Zola in captain america?

But that's the common trap: you think of Galactus as just the big purple guy, all you're going to get is the big purple guy. His portrayal in "Nova" is great example of getting the character to work: a real force of the nature, less humanoid and more of an impassive god.

As for Arnim Zola, the character had to work with more grounded characters, so in his instance stripping his outlandish elements is justified. But Galactus as a character exists above everyone else, so you can away with him having over the top elements.

[ThePhantasm]

Parallax at least had some elements of his character remaining. Galactus had none... he was just a big space cloud.

[The Sarge]

Galactus could be done properly- and as for Arnim Zola, I'm sure if we see him again, he will ed up getting his robot body as it's already been referenced. It's good to ground the character in reality first, before putting them in the body of a teletubby with a camera for a head.

[Wesley Dodds]

Originally Posted by Project862006

do you honestly think this can work on screen lol


some fans need to realize some characters visually will never work in live action

i'd love to be proven wrong on galactus

Actually,if the FF movies had the tone they should've had (Think Futurism, neo-60s aesthetics, theremin soundtrack) Galactus could not only have worked but been ****ing breathtaking, man.

[KangConquers]

Originally Posted by Project862006

do you honestly think this can work on screen lol


some fans need to realize some characters visually will never work in live action

i'd love to be proven wrong on galactus

Giant Space Worms probably weren't supposed to work on screen, but Avengers had them, and it outgrossed X-Men 1-3 combined.

Maybe you and Fox both need to reassess your beliefs?

[Human Torch]

15 to 0 Galactus.That pretty much says it all.

[BenReilly]

A proper Galactus could work on screen. It's tricky but if the execution is right, it could work.

Ghostbusters comes to mind.

A comedy at heart but a great film that had a premise played completely straight and a tone that was completely grounded in our world. By the end of the film, the world is literally coming to an end and this is what our heroes are up against:

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

The film did such a great job at pulling the audience in, that by the time we got to the end, we completely bought into such an absurd concept, without question.

[Anno_Domini]

Originally Posted by Human Torch

15 to 0 Galactus.That pretty much says it all.

Indeed. I always thought Parallax was terrible in GL, but I guess everyone thought Galactus was even worse

[kane9321]

galactus hands down......A HUGE STORMCLOUD...JUST WOW

[Duran Man]

Galactus. It's unfortunate Fox didn't have the balls/brains to give us something like this:

[BlueLightning]

Originally Posted by BenReilly

A proper Galactus could work on screen. It's tricky but if the execution is right, it could work.

Ghostbusters comes to mind.

A comedy at heart but a great film that had a premise played completely straight and a tone that was completely grounded in our world. By the end of the film, the world is literally coming to an end and this is what our heroes are up against:

Spoiler!!! Click to Read!:

The film did such a great job at pulling the audience in, that by the time we got to the end, we completely bought into such an absurd concept, without question.

That's true! I never thought of that before, but you are right. If they got away with that, why can't Galactus be done right?

[Slushy]

do you honestly think this can work on screen lol

YES!

Hell, if they were so anal about "realism" then Gah lak tus would've been acceptable.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

As a bigger Marvel fan, and someone who has read much GL, it has to be Galactus for me, to not actually see him was very dissapointing.

[ShredderX]

Originally Posted by Duran Man

Galactus. It's unfortunate Fox didn't have the balls/brains to give us something like this:

That would've been all types of AWESOME !!

[matrix_ghost]

To those thinking galactus wouldn't work :

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Anno_Domini]

One person finally voted Parallax, haha.

[NewYorkSpider]

Galactus.

[The Guard]

Parallax actually had some story/exploration behind it, and was more or less an improvement over the cosmic space bug.

Galactus is the bigger disappointment, as his story elements were kind of set aside in favor of The Silver Surfer, but I can't pretend that the "cloud", as people call it, wasn't still kind of daunting and threatening. There was clearly something in there...we just didn't get to see it (well, most of it).

The main issue with the portrayal of Galactus is that he didn't really have a personality to speak of. It was just an event that consumed planets. In grand fashion, mind you, but there was no "I must survive" element to the concept as I recall...which was always what made Galactus interesting. You kind of didn't want him to perish, even if it meant eating a planet or two.