Rise of the Silver Surfer GALACTUS Discussion

[SuperBoon]

Yeah its definitely Galactus, a sort of fiery silhouette, right after when The Surfer say's "I will serve you no more". I have a couple of screencaps if anyone wants em - PM me.

-SB

 

[Spider - Man]

I'm waiting for someone to say this could have been "ball lightning" or some such. t:
My quick "courtroom" rendering of the banned screen cap:

Looks like a fiery cactus!

Seriously, I think from what we've heard about the plans for the coming SS spinoff, that the big G was probably in his ship which was generating the cloud, storm, whatever. It is now implied that he does exist as something closer to what we know of him from the comics, but was chosen not to actually be shown in the FF movie. There WAS a visual image representing him (kind of a pathetic pacifier which IMO failed miserably) to try and appease fans who really wanted to see the comic version of Galactus. I don't think the "fiery head" was actually meant to be Galactus but an emanation of his power taking on his true "form". Personally I wish they had gone with what we got but ended the film in a cliffhanger (ala Empire Strikes Back, The Two Towers) setting up an allout confrontation with Galactus in his true form in the third movie, but that's just me.

 

[Mercurius]

Fox didn't want to put more money in order to present Galactus, and thus all this "I saw" "I didn't".

Galactus was barely a shadow, and totally powerless. His defeat was far beyond mediocre.

 

[chaseter]

A lot of people on here are now eating their words...

can someone pm me the gif or the pic...busy day yesterday so I couldn't get on the hype.

 

[Spade]

How so? Memflix said there was a firey shadow with a face within the cosmic storm shaped like Galactus' head, not unlike the shadow cast over Saturn. We've known about it for some time. It's just a handful of users who say it's not there. The rest of us are saying it could have been more.

 

[chaseter]

How so? Memflix said there was a firey shadow with a face within the cosmic storm shaped like Galactus' head, not unlike the shadow cast over Saturn. We've known about it for some time. It's just a handful of users who say it's not there. The rest of us are saying it could have been more.

Because I argued and argued with people Friday after seeing the movie and they whined that he is not in there...look about 10 pages back. Galactus was in the cloud, people who deny it are just mad because they didn't get the full body Galactus. So, those people are eating their own words...

 

[Kelly]

Because I argued and argued with people Friday after seeing the movie and they whined that he is not in there...look about 10 pages back. Galactus was in the cloud, people who deny it are just mad because they didn't get the full body Galactus. So, those people are eating their own words...

They can't see anything 10 pages back because those are no longer there....lol

 

[Spade]

Soon enough this thread is going to eat us all. Seriously, weren't we only at page 30 a few days ago?

 

[chaseter]

They can't see anything 10 pages back because those are no longer there....lol

I can't believe I missed all the craziness yesterday and late Saturday I really wanted to see the typo's of dissapointment on my screen from all the people arguing about Galactus being no where in the entire movie because they didn't get the full body Kirby version setting foot on Earth. It feels good to be right every once in a whilet:

 

[toddly6666]

I called it...i haven't seen the movie yet, but I had a feeling it was going to have a Mortal Kombat ending with Shao Khan in the clouds

 

[chaseter]

I called it...i haven't seen the movie yet, but I had a feeling it was going to have a Mortal Kombat ending with Shao Khan in the clouds

HAHA...I don't want to relate anything to Mortal Kombat...ever

 

[Goodfellas]

Did You Guys Honeslty Expect Them To Do Galactus The Way He Is In The Comics???? I Hope Not Because He Looks ****ing Ridcoulous . Face It This Kind Of Character Would Be Hard As Hell To Do In The Film With Out Him Looking ****ing Stupid As Hell


Man This Movie Would Have Gotten Trashed If They Created A 100 Ft Character Walking Around In The City


Get Real People And Grow Up


Tim Story Did The Best Job He Could Do So Get Of His Back For Crying Out Loud

 

[Spade]

Now THAT would have been a good move on FOX's part. They could improve the CGI later on, but if they would've had Galactus in a clear form parting the cloud cover with the kind of power Shao Kahn invoked I would've been happy.

Mortal Kombat was done quite a long time ago...you'd think the approaches would've improved from then, especially considering it was directed by Paul W. S. Anderson.

 

[Dragon]

Alright, here's my Mod-approved "courtroom rendering" of the fiery Galactus silhouette. The real thing looks far better than this, and the edges aren't as defined, but this definitely recaptures the composition of the shot:

Galactus may be within the cloud or he may be the source of the cloud,
but Galactus is not literally the cloud.

But he does literally look like crap.

 

[The Guard]

Fox didn't want to put more money in order to present Galactus, and thus all this "I saw" "I didn't".

I would imagine that "space cloud" and using Surfer effects with it cost a pretty penny.

Galactus was barely a shadow, and totally powerless. His defeat was far beyond mediocre.

Mediocre...compared to say, Reed Richards THREATENING GALACTUS WITH ONLY WEAPON WHICH CAN DESTROY HIM, which, instead of DESTROYING, Galactus HAPPENS TO KEEP INSIDE HIS SHIP?

I'll take the Surfer's sacrifice, thank you.

 

[Spade]

Did You Guys Honeslty Expect Them To Do Galactus The Way He Is In The Comics???? I Hope Not Because He Looks ****ing Ridcoulous . Face It This Kind Of Character Would Be Hard As Hell To Do In The Film With Out Him Looking ****ing Stupid As Hell


Man This Movie Would Have Gotten Trashed If They Created A 100 Ft Character Walking Around In The City


Get Real People And Grow Up


Tim Story Did The Best Job He Could Do So Get Of His Back For Crying Out Loud

You're so totally right. Kirby was stupid for ever even making him a Godly character. It could never be adapted in any other medium outside of the comics.

Yup...I totally see your outstanding point. No evidence any place of anyone doing a good adaption of Galactus. Totally silly concept. And it's not like Story has the capacity to work really hard on just one character's adaption in a Fantastic 4 film.

Plus..."straight out of the comic books"? Who expects that anymore? We should just be happy with what we get, as most of these gaudy tin heroes would look stupid on the big screen if you just ported their features into a film.

Right? I'm totally happy with what I got.

You, sir...you're a genius. Thanks for your enlightening post.

 

[Ryo Jin]

I feel like the only one to ever use imageshack. All I see are red x's.

 

[Dragon]

As for discounting the Marvel Handbook and the John Bryne story, your defense reminds me of the Black Knight in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, denying that you haven't a leg to stand on. I tell you what, I am going to ask Tom Brevoort and get his opinion on this. He's about the highest current authority you can get on Marvel canon and he has been the FF editor for years now.

Of course. An encyclopedia is the only thing that matters. It isn't as if Marvel isn't constantly updating those things and publishing them yearly or anything like that

You can point to ONE example out of the dozens of Galactus stories that uses Byrne's concept. And not even a major story event. A mini-series featuring an obscure character, no less. But I don't have a leg to stand on.

I think from now on, I am just going to save time and cut and paste a previous response of mine in any further discussions...

Yeah. Marvel constantly changes their characters until the new concept fails and they go with the original winning formula.

*Sigh* I think a lot of you put up the straw man to say that Galactus is the cloud and that's not the sense I get from the movie. The Galactic Storm (because it does not do it justice to call it a mere cloud) is one manifestation of his powers. The Surfer does use the pronoun "he" not "it". He speaks to it, so it is an entity with intelligence. Not just a cloud. If you watched the "Life After Film School" segment, Don Payne makes a statement that this film leaves the door open for future appearances. If anything, Fox is guilty of teasing us for that future appearance.

You seem to consistently miss the point. What was shown of Galactus in this film doesn't look good. Had the character been presented this way in the comics, Galactus would be as well regarded as Paste Pot Pete. You keep wishing and hoping for more Galactus in another film. Which is funny with you FF2 apologists. On one hand you keep parroting that Galactus as he is in the comics wouldn't work- then you say he'll be more like the comics in another film. You're like a snake eating its tail.

The whole point of this is that Galactus, even in the comics, has other forms in the many multiverses. Galen was a humanoid so that's possibly the reason why he took on humanoid form in the 616 universe. The Marvel zombies pretty much kept their form when they became the Galactii of the Zombie verse, which has made incursions into the 616, or traditional Marvel Universe. I've seen the movie twice now and this version of Galactus works for me and apparently it doesn't for you, even if it seems you haven't even seen the movie to make a more informed opinion. Or have you seen it yet?

You can go on fantasizing about Byrne's obsolete vision all you like. The simple truth is that Jack's Galactus is superior to anything Byrne could have conceived, and that's why regardless of the story, time or place, Galactus is always shown to be the same guy that stepped off the orb in FF #48.

 

[Dragon]

Mediocre...compared to say, Reed Richards THREATENING GALACTUS WITH ONLY WEAPON WHICH CAN DESTROY HIM, which, instead of DESTROYING, Galactus HAPPENS TO KEEP INSIDE HIS SHIP?

I'll take the Surfer's sacrifice, thank you.

What sacrifice? He didn't die.

And considering that along with destroying Galactus Reed would've destroyed the known universe with the Ultimate Nullifier as well, I think he made the right decision.

 

[Joe Rockhead]

Of course. An encyclopedia is the only thing that matters. It isn't as if Marvel isn't constantly updating those things and publishing them yearly or anything like that

You can point to ONE example out of the dozens of Galactus stories that uses Byrne's concept. And not even a major story event. A mini-series featuring an obscure character, no less. But I don't have a leg to stand on.



Yeah. Marvel constantly changes their characters until the new concept fails and they go with the original winning formula.



You seem to consistently miss the point. What was shown of Galactus in this film doesn't look good. Had the character been presented this way in the comics, Galactus would be as well regarded as Paste Pot Pete. You keep wishing and hoping for more Galactus in another film. Which is funny with you FF2 apologists. On one hand you keep parroting that Galactus as he is in the comics wouldn't work- then you say he'll be more like the comics in another film. You're like a snake eating its tail.




You can go on fantasizing about Byrne's obsolete vision all you like. The simple truth is that Jack's Galactus is superior to anything Byrne could have conceived, and that's why regardless of the story, time or place, Galactus is always shown to be the same guy that stepped off the orb in FF #48.

If that's truly the case... why do you even bother with reading any FF story beyond Kirby's last? Seriously... according to you, there's never been any depth at all given to any character beyond Kirby's vision, unless of course it's a modification that only YOU approve of.

So the Silver Surfer is the only herald that Galactus ever had.

Doctor Doom never freed his mother from the clutches of Mephisto.

Franklin Richards is still an infant, and Agatha Harkness is still his nanny.

On the one hand you rail on about what is and isn't 'canon' with the FF's history, then you decry the whole thing as a work of only a work of fiction.

You consistently... CONSISTENTLY ... pick and choose what items you deem acceptable and which ones you don't when discussing the history of the FF. If you don't agree with it... it's not 'canon'.

Sounds like a load of bull**** to me.

Like I said before... who made you the arbiter of what is and isn't 'canon' to the FF's legacy?

You wanted references to Byrne's vision of Galactus -- blindly assuming there were none....

And when one reference was provided you dismissed it as "an encyclopedic reference" not actually a story.

Then when the next reference to an actual story was provided - which you yourself conveniently ammended to your initial request for evidence -- you dismiss it as an non-consequential storyline.

Seems to me the only delusional one on this message board is you.

 

[chaseter]

^OH SNAP!!!Someone ate his wheaties this morning...

 

[Spade]

Galactus destroying the Ultimate Nullifier would be asinine, as it's an aspect of himself. So it does indeed make sense that he would keep something engrained with his essence in a safe place from mortal eyes.

 

[C. Lee]

Quit asking for the screencaps people....if you can be banned for posting it....I might start probating for asking for them.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

People who think a giant is too preposterous are hilariously missing the insanely preposterous
SILVER GUY ON A FLYING SURFBOARD and guy whose body stretches like thwappy rubber.


The whole BEAUTY of this escapist literature is getting to see outrageous, jaw-droppingly insane stuff that we don't ever get to see in real life.
Gawd!

 

[matthooper]

The whole BEAUTY of this escapist literature is getting to see outrageous, jaw-droppingly insane stuff that we don't ever get to see in real life.
Gawd!

Calling FF2 escapist literature, is like calling Pauley Shore a thespian.

Even if you liked FF2, it's mindless entertainment at best.