• Xenforo is upgrading us to version 2.3.7 on Thursday Aug 14, 2025 at 01:00 AM BST. This upgrade includes several security fixes among other improvements. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

Rise of the Silver Surfer GALACTUS Discussion

Galactus is definitely still alive. If the cosmic blast didn't destroy Silver Surfer, then it didn't kill Galactus.
 
He's not dead. Even the producers suggesting the "Coming of Galactus" as a possible storyline for part 3 as this was filming.


The thing that pissed me off yet again with the handling is that it could've been much more believable if this cloud was an instrument of galactus. No way could the Surfer ever stop Galactus, even with that blast. Now him blowing up the big G's planet harvesting equipement would have been more belivable. I have no faith that FOX would ever get this right. I really hope that don't bother with any more F4 films.
 
He's not dead. Even the producers suggesting the "Coming of Galactus" as a possible storyline for part 3 as this was filming.


F4 2 has to make some money and I don't see it making over a 120 million domestically. The movie wasn't a diaster, but just underwhelming.
 
I just don't understand (which was my original post's question) how Galactus being a cloud is easier to swallow then having a more humanoid appearance (even if it's just a recognizable head, torso, and limbs; not calling for eyelashes and fingernails here). It may be more "creative" but it's certainly not any more believable (which is what some people are arguing here). At least there are documented cases of humanoid beings (us!) on at least one planet. There are no such cases of sentient clouds. While the existence of either out there in the galaxy is unlikely, at least the precedent is there for humanoids. It's a much smaller leap in logic than the cloud.

And like I said, I wouldn't even have this argument if Cloud-Galactus had been portrayed as a literal force of nature, but that would've thrown out the possibility of Norrin being his herald (it'd be like reasoning with a tornado).

Agreed. I saw no reason to have that Cloud in the movie other then easy FX. Who came up with that? I could've accepted Galactus using that as some sort of device, but not being him. I actually would've preferred the Ultimate galactus drone ships then the cloud. I thought that was what we were going to get. The Cloud fx did look fantastic, but it's not galactus. Something like this would've worked in another end of the world film, but not a F4 movie. They just didnt explain much, which as poor storytelling yet again.
 
Then I would challenge you to go to Byrne's message board with that remark and see how that flies over there...:woot: or better yet, ask Tom Brevoort at the Marvel MB's. Or I could post it as a question at the FF board I moderate.... Walt Simonson, you know a guy who actually wrote the FF for a while and a friend of Bryne's, sometimes posts over there.

The only thing I can recall that got retconned from Byrne's run was how Tom DeFalco annulled the marriage between Alicia and Johnny by turning her into the Skrull spy Lyja. Byrne's FF is considered to be the next best to Stan and Jack's run and I doubt very seriously just because you personally disagree with his ideas about Galactus that it is not part of accepted Marvel mythos.

Challenging me to go to Byrne's message board would prove what, exactly? But I'll gladly meet you on any board you choose and take on anybody you want, baby. Dragon fears no man.

MY proof however, is that we've seen Galactus in MANY, MANY stories since FF #262 in space and on other worlds. The Infinity Gauntlet series, The 80's-90's Silver Surfer series- The Galactus mini-series the covers for which are posted in Malus' thread. Does Galactus look different to you in any of those?

Can you point to Byrne's concept being used as canon?

Galactus' very origin contradicts Byrne's idea. And his suggestion that Galactus is a test of a species' worthiness is supposed to be a thematic one. Not a literal concept.
 
According to your dictionary from Bizarro World, BS = true.

You still have a long way to learning, young padawan. :hyper:

please don't make me pull the **** n00b card.. :woot: :oldrazz:

[BLACKOUT]comic galactus is funny looking. :woot: [/BLACKOUT]
 
Challenging me to go to Byrne's message board would prove what, exactly? But I'll gladly meet you on any board you choose and take on anybody you want, baby. Dragon fears no man.

MY proof however, is that we've seen Galactus in MANY, MANY stories since FF #262 in space and on other worlds. The Infinity Gauntlet series, The 80's-90's Silver Surfer series- The Galactus mini-series the covers for which are posted in Malus' thread. Does Galactus look different to you in any of those?

Can you point to Byrne's concept being used as canon?

Galactus' very origin contradicts Byrne's idea. And his suggestion that Galactus is a test of a species' worthiness is supposed to be a thematic one. Not a literal concept.

I don't see how Galactus still looking like how we see him, effects how he looks on other worlds when we, who are human, are still seeing him on those other worlds. That's how I see it. In other words, he may be on another planet, but we human readers are still seeing him on that planet through our eyes. Though I agree it would've been a lot more interesting to see through the eyes of those races/species. Would've definitely made Galactus a lot more interesting visually.
 
I don't think 100 feet is necessary...now 300 or 500 feet would have been better. A thing that must live by sucking the energy out of a planet for f-k's sake needs to be huge.

According to Marvel Universe, Galactus is around 30ft tall but it does say it varies.
 
We'll see Galactus in the Silver Surfer movie for sure.
 
see i know i saw his face but in that pic i cant really make it out :csad:

Yeah, it was clearer when you could see it moving, but it did go by quick.

. . . still it was clearly there and clearly defined, so I'm not sure why so many people seemed to not even see it.
 
I was really sort of surprised that, after the film, people were still arguing about it.

When you watch the film, you see that Galactus clearly is not a "cloud". There is a space-ship with tendrils. You can see the tendrils withdrawing from the first planet in the opening scenes, and you can see those tendrils snaking toward the earth (and the craters the Surfer created) toward the end of the film.

There is no "cloud" there is no tornado, just rocky tendrils coming from a spaceship that is mostly hidden by debris.

In the end, you see Surfer flying toward the central ship, and when he blasts that ship, you see Galactus for a brief moment.


man wishful thinking is a powerful thing indeed. you GALACTUS there do you?
 
So I was in the theater and you see that first shot of the cloud and the tendrils heading for earth and there is total silence in the theater room... my friend leans over and whispers ever so softly: 'it looks like a giant sphyncter'

I burst out laughing. :)
 
I didn't follow the production of this film and so I can't recall quotes. They mentioned Galactus would be in the movie in some shape or form...you can look up quotes all you want but it really doesn't matter and it is detracting from my original argument. They had to have known some fans would be pissed with changing Galactus' form...so they softened the blow by still making him a cosmic force to reckon with, they had his shadow on Saturn, and you could IMO clearly see his head and face in the clouds at the end. Nothing coincides or contradicts that Galactus is or isn't the cloud does it? You can't entirely prove he is the cloud just as I can't entirely prove he is in it. It's all left open for the fans since they never explicitly said anything about it. And until the next film or a confirmation from someone up high...then it will stay this way. It's all subjective, just like Venom's death, Galactus' death, Doom's 'death' again, etc...A lot of people saw Galactus in the cloud, those who thought the change worked well. The people who were completely pissed off sitting in the theatre red in the face didn't notice anything because they didn't care about it anymore. This movie was not about Galactus...it was about the Surfer and his interaction with the Fantastic Four. Now you can bet that if the Surfer movie is greenlight...Galactus will play a much bigger role and the treatment of the character will be much better. Now you can still deny all you want, your opinion and your choice, but with a set budget, a set time frame, and with all the other constraints on a movie, something else would have suffered to pour money and man hours into making a CGI Galactus...something else would have suffered, even more than Mr. Fantastic's CGI. Just like in X3, not everything we wanted was possible due to time and money (a Colossus vs. Juggernaut fight). It's fine people didn't like this or didn't like that, but it is idiotically ridiculous to pout in a movie theatre and ruin the experience just because one character who was in the last 5 minutes wasn't exactlyt he way you wanted. Same for pissy Venom fans that didn't like his look or Eddie Brock's. Now once again for the last time...I wanted a big @ss Galactus fist fight on Earth like everyone else...loved Ultimate Alliance's battle...but not allowing yourself to understand the changes that obviously had to be made for unobvious reasons is childish.


and there it is. you have proven my point exactly. you are simply incapable of admiting anything that contradicts your own thought (or the thought put in your mind by those in authority). You are also incapable of admitting when you are wrong. even though being wrong is not a big deal. (we are all wrong at one time or another).

having a discussion with this kind of mindset is a total waste of time.
the question was simple.
did they try to "soften the blow" as you asserted?
the situation is that you have a group of people who REALLY, REALLY wanted to see their character FULLY REALIZED on the big screen.
Fox/Story knew this, and also knew that they were NOT going to show him. AT ALL. (other than in name)
you are smart enough to know that there are ways Fox could have "softened the blow" of not seeing him.
they could have
A)told people that he wasn't going to be in the movie in the way they wanted (they could come up with a million reasons).
B) They could have excluded him altogether and NOT shown him at all. WIth the promise/hope that when he does appears he will be as they expected.
C)they could have done EXACTLY what they did in the movie but simply had SS tell IW that Galactus was a being who uses the cosmic cloud to feed.
C)they could have used the cloud thing just as they did in the movie but instead of giving us ink blot shadows they simply could have shown something definitive. It would not have affected anyone's experience (even those who would HATE seeing Galactus) if Story simply showed DEFINITIVELY that there was someone inside the cloud. I'm talking a (real) silouhette), an arm, a ship, something solid and visible rather than ambiguous.

all those things would and could have "softened the blow".
but instead they
-insisted that Galactus WOULD be in the film (misleading us to believe in a humanoid form)
-denied the cloud rumors (knowing that they would use the cloud)
-gave absolutely no indication of any solid being inside the cloud (inspite of what we force ourselves to believe)

those are the facts, but instead of simply admitting that on this LITTLE point you were wrong. That they in fact did not make an effort to "soften the blow" for those who really wanted to see Galactus as he is in the comics. You once again change the subject and refuse to do so.

imagine the waste of trying to discuss anything else with you.
 
and there it is. you have proven my point exactly. you are simply incapable of admiting anthing that contradicts your own thought (or the thought put in your mind by those in autority). You are also incapable of admitting when you are wrong. even though being wrong is not a big deal. (we are all wrong at one time or another).

having a discussion with this kind of mindset is a total waste of time.
the question was simple.
did they try to "soften the blow" as you asserted?
the situation is that you have a group of people who REALLY, REALLY wanted to see their character FULLY REALIZED on the big screen.
Fox/Story knew this, and also knew that they were NOT going to show him. AT ALL. (other than in name)
you are smart enough to know that there are ways Fox could have "softened the blow" of not seeing him.
they could have
A)told people that he wasn't going to be in the movie in the way they wanted (they could come up with a million reasons).
B) They could have excluded him altogether and NOT shown him at all. WIth the promise/hope that when he does appears he will be as they expected.
C)they could have done EXACTLY what they did in the movie but simply had SS tell IW that Galactus was a being who uses the cosmic cloud to feed.
C)they could have used the cloud thing just as they did in the movie but instead of giving us ink blot shadows they simply could have shown something definitive. It would not have affected anyone's experience (even those who would HATE seeing Galactus) if Story simply showed DEFINITIVELY that there was someone inside the cloud. I'm talking a (real) silouhette), an arm, a ship, something solid and visible rather than ambiguous.

all those things would and could have "softened the blow".
but instead they
-insisted that Galactus WOULD be in the film (misleading us to believe in a humanoid form)
-denied the cloud rumors (knowing that they would use the cloud)
-gave absolutely no indication of any solid being inside the cloud (inspite of what we force ourselves to believe)

those are the facts, but instead of simply admitting that on this LITTLE point you were wrong. That they in fact did not make an effort to "soften the blow" for those who really wanted to see Galactus as he is in the comics. You once again change the subject and refuse to do so.

imagine the waste of trying to discuss anything else with you.

Tone your rhetoric down.....
 
It's a bit depressing how fans are grasping for evidence that Galactus was fully realised on the screen.

Come on people, you liked the movie, so be confident in that opinion and stop making excuses.
 
What excuses? I simply posted the picture to show that those who saw it knew that they saw it
 
Qwerty©;11896345 said:
It's a bit depressing how fans are grasping for evidence that Galactus was fully realised on the screen.

Come on people, you liked the movie, so be confident in that opinion and stop making excuses.


Amen.....
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"