How to combine ult galactus and normal galactus?

[LouFerignoDemon]

most likely telapathy. they won't actually be speaking english to one another but they will believe to do so...

just as every race believes to know what galactus looks like but they all seem him differently.


either that or the surfer can scan the mind of lil boy and gather all the relevant information requied for basic communication.

That's basically what I said. x.x

 

[Ulic Queldroma]

Ultimate Galactus is lame.Stick to the classics.

I agree.

 

[Doctor of Doom]

I am trying to have reasoned argument on behalf of Gah Lak Tus here but it is rather difficult when I post a long, reasoned argument about why Gah Lak Tus is better which is followed by someone saying "Ultimate Galactus SUCKS! The comics version is true!" followed by a long string of "YEah! Yeah!"s without giving real reasoning or making ANY attempt to counter the points I made in favour of Gah Lak Tus. Oh yeah, and discussing whether Gah Lak Tus is a borg/matrix rip-off.

I bet Galactus was the first giant planet-eating guy too.

 

[Kelly]

I am trying to have reasoned argument on behalf of Gah Lak Tus here but it is rather difficult when I post a long, reasoned argument about why Gah Lak Tus is better which is followed by someone saying "Ultimate Galactus SUCKS! The comics version is true!" followed by a long string of "YEah! Yeah!"s without giving real reasoning or making ANY attempt to counter the points I made in favour of Gah Lak Tus. Oh yeah, and discussing whether Gah Lak Tus is a borg/matrix rip-off.

I bet Galactus was the first giant planet-eating guy too.

Well DD, be ready because those types of posts will come frequently around here....you are a great poster, don't let that get you discouraged.

 

[wobbly]

I am trying to have reasoned argument on behalf of Gah Lak Tus here but it is rather difficult when I post a long, reasoned argument about why Gah Lak Tus is better which is followed by someone saying "Ultimate Galactus SUCKS! The comics version is true!" followed by a long string of "YEah! Yeah!"s without giving real reasoning or making ANY attempt to counter the points I made in favour of Gah Lak Tus.

I've read your post and the reasons you give aint bad ones, but they are largely subjective with you determining yourself what is better. For instance you say a fleet of millions of AI driven techno-bugs has more of a wow factor, I disagree: I personally think a sentient cosmic force of nature has the edge there by some margin. Perhaps not on a visual level, but most certainly on a cenceptual level and the choice here shouldn't just be made based on what might make for the best eye candy in the end. What gets the audiences thinking should be a factor too.

Oh yeah, and discussing whether Gah Lak Tus is a borg/matrix rip-off.

And its on that visual level mentioned above that the matrix concerns are very valid. Gah-Lak-Tus's bug design was clearly influenced by that, as indeed is the basic concept behind the UFF version. If we were talking about a film decades old they could get away with calling it a homage, but the Matrix bug-eyed squids are a little too recent to go lifting from without inviting a negative comparison. Also, in terms of aliens ravaging worlds and moving on like cockroaches, thats also been covered as a idea in Independence Day.

I bet Galactus was the first giant planet-eating guy too.

Can you name one that pre-dates him?

I'm not saying there isn't one, there probably is something similar somewhere that was put out there before Lee & Kirby did their thing, but the fact there will be no easy recognition for most people that the concept may have been done elsewhere (or even since) speaks a lot for why the original will deservedly be thought of as 'original', and why Gah-Lak-Tus will not.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Lets not forget Galactus is a being of unimaginable power...for him to communicate in any language should not even be an issue...this is a guy who can have a conversation with Eternity in the comics.

I hate the idea of Gah Lak Tus...I think it was a very bad idea from the writers who came up with it. It actually makes me think of the Borg in Star Trek the way it is described. And the whole concept of the Silver Surfer makes no sense of me if we are talking about an armada of ships (like they could not split up to search the galaxy).

Eternity is also conceptual. So that's probably a whole OTHER level.


And the Silver Surfer probably travels much faster than Gah Lak Tus.


Before anybody goes off saying, "Well, why can't Gah Lak Tus do the same thing?!?!" bit, I'll explain it here and now.

Physics BASICALLY says, the bigger something is, the slower it moves. And Gah Lak Tus is HUGE.

And why they can't split up? Because Gah Lak Tus was primitive at best (as they described him), and splitting up to power up only small parts where each drone individually probably couldn't defend itself that well just doesn't work.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

I've read your post and the reasons you give aint bad ones, but they are largely subjective with you determining yourself what is better. For instance you say a fleet of millions of AI driven techno-bugs has more of a wow factor, I disagree: I personally think a sentient cosmic force of nature has the edge there by some margin. Perhaps not on a visual level, but most certainly on a cenceptual level and the choice here shouldn't just be made based on what might make for the best eye candy in the end. What gets the audiences thinking should be a factor too.



And its on that visual level mentioned above that the matrix concerns are very valid. Gah-Lak-Tus's bug design was clearly influenced by that, as indeed is the basic concept behind the UFF version. If we were talking about a film decades old they could get away with calling it a homage, but the Matrix bug-eyed squids are a little too recent to go lifting from without inviting a negative comparison. Also, in terms of aliens ravaging worlds and moving on like cockroaches, thats also been covered as a idea in Independence Day.



Can you name one that pre-dates him?

I'm not saying there isn't one, there probably is something similar somewhere that was put out there before Lee & Kirby did their thing, but the fact there will be no easy recognition for most people that the concept may have been done elsewhere (or even since) speaks a lot for why the original will deservedly be thought of as 'original', and why Gah-Lak-Tus will not.

Not many movies featured a bunch of barely sentient ships, flying around, shooting bullets and Silver Surfers at the planets that release flesh eating viruses so they can puncture the Earth's core for it's very heat. But I can EASILY see what you say by the eyes. Though you can say Matrix ripped that off of a deep sea fish in the ocean that kind of looks that way, eyes wise. But I doubt too many people knew of said fish. ANYWAYS.

People, especially Americans and Europeans, do not see movies, nor enjoy movies, with conceptual abstract ideas. Those are indy films. They like devout, refined, easy to understand things. Take Phoenix in the last X-Men movie. Do you REALLY think the public would've understood a being made of cosmic fire that transcends all of time, composed and manipulative of all telepathic thought that can only be controlled and calmed by a "Level 5" mutant, or else would destroy galaxies? Or do you think it would be easier, and far more relevant, to say it was an extension of her original powers that cannot destroy entire solar systems on a whim?

That's why Gah Lak Tus will be in the movies. Would I like to see Galactus in the movies? No. I already stated how THAT will be messed up. And I like Galactus far too much to wish that upon him. And while I actually enjoy the thought of Gah Lak Tus (there's that robotics/biology/chemistry/physics nerd coming out in me now) because of it's scientific design, it would also make TONS more sense to use him. People will understand and relate with Gah Lak Tus (If one even can) over Galactus (Which NOBODY will).

 

[gerbstat]

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

I never read this in any of the physics courses I took. Are you talking about inertia? That only involves initial acceleration of mass from rest (or deacceleration).

Come to think of it, why are we trying to apply real world physics to a big purple guy (or bunch of little guys) anyway?

And how many Gal Lak Tae can fit on the head of a pin?

Infinite mass/energy theory. Though, if Marvel REALLY followed that, then the Surfer wouldn't be able to exceed 25% the speed of light.

And because Gah Lak Tus, nor the Surfer seemed to be moving faster than light. Evidenced by the Vision, who said Gah Lak Tus' next meal was in the Centauri system (our closest solar system) in four thousand years. Or forty, or four hundred. It had four and thousand in it though.

 

[gerbstat]

 

[Kelly]

Infinite mass/energy theory. Though, if Marvel REALLY followed that, then the Surfer wouldn't be able to exceed 25% the speed of light.

And because Gah Lak Tus, nor the Surfer seemed to be moving faster than light. Evidenced by the Vision, who said Gah Lak Tus' next meal was in the Centauri system (our closest solar system) in four thousand years. Or forty, or four hundred. It had four and thousand in it though.

I'm not familiar with this reference - By this are you referring to the asumption that as a mass accelerates to the speed of light the mass increases, and at the speed of light it become infinite?

And why the 25% of speed of light limit for the Surfer? NASA has speculated that higher velocities might be obtained under constant but low accelerations over a period of time, using ion drives.

And I don't trust that Vision guy. I suspect he has an alcohol problem.

Thank god I teach in the Social Sciences...

 

[gerbstat]

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

I'm not familiar with this reference - By this are you referring to the asumption that as a mass accelerates to the speed of light the mass increases, and at the speed of light it become infinite?

And why the 25% of speed of light limit for the Surfer? NASA has speculated that higher velocities might be obtained under constant but low accelerations over a period of time, using ion drives.

And I don't trust that Vision guy. I suspect he has an alcohol problem.

For mass to approach the speed of light, it must have an infinite power source, and must continually become bigger through absorbing the energy to strengthen it's atomic structure. This of course goes WAAAAY deeper. I'm fairly sure I posted this in another thread.

And 25, because I doubt he could hold together any faster. For a SINGLE atom to move at half the speed of light, it would be bigger than a solar system, and need more rocket fuel than the universe is big.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Thank god I teach in the Social Sciences...

Dude, you make it sound like a bad thing. Your studies are just as useful. Don't think you're on some lower level or anything. It takes more to teach, than it does to learn.

 

[Kelly]

Dude, you make it sound like a bad thing. Your studies are just as useful. Don't think you're on some lower level or anything. It takes more to teach, than it does to learn.

LOL, I'm not a dude, and that was a joke MG. I apologize if it was taken in any way other than just alittle fun. I actually think my studies are more useful, BUT thats the way most teachers are with what they teach. I actually think the 2 go hand in hand, teaching and learning, with neither carrying more weight than the other. The best teachers are those that are still able to learn, and you have the knowledge well in hand when you can teach it. So to me both are important.

Again, sorry didn't mean for anyone to take my post in any way, but fun.

 

[Ulic Queldroma]

I am trying to have reasoned argument on behalf of Gah Lak Tus here but it is rather difficult when I post a long, reasoned argument about why Gah Lak Tus is better which is followed by someone saying "Ultimate Galactus SUCKS! The comics version is true!" followed by a long string of "YEah! Yeah!"s without giving real reasoning or making ANY attempt to counter the points I made in favour of Gah Lak Tus. Oh yeah, and discussing whether Gah Lak Tus is a borg/matrix rip-off.

I bet Galactus was the first giant planet-eating guy too.

Well I try not to get into the psychological and scientific side of comics because, well, they are comics. The truth is that in these universes anything can happen. There is little to no realism to anything that happens, and that's what makes them enjoyable to read. I don't need exposition on how Reed Richards can stretch his body the way he does without feeling pain, or why Spider-man can stick to walls even with gloves and shoes on. Don't get me wrong, it's fun to think about how it all works, but it doesn't need to be explained all the time.

This is why I'm not crazy about all of the "let's make it believable as possible" stuff because sometimes that's what can kill a movie. It works in some and not in others. What I would hope is that they would include the original galactus, maybe redesigned so that he wouldn't look so odd. I have no ideas on that, but trying to make it into a swarm of locust-like drones, while very sci-fi and kind of in line with a planet-devourer idea, it won't connect with long-time fans. It may work on-screen to some extent, I will admit that, but to the fans it will seem like another cop-out to "appease" the non-fans who know nothing about FF and Silver Surfer. Look at what they did to the Pheonix in X3. And the Hulk. I'd rather see them deliver both a good (script-wise, performance-wise and effects-wise), fun film with the characters as they should be (Thing-brow and all) then a film that has greatly changed characters with the all the other good elements tacked on.

Now, that said, even if Gah Lak Tus is what appears in the film, I will still go see it. I'm an unconvetional comic geek, in that I'll give almost any comic film a chance to entertain/impress me. Except for Catwoman. No disrespect to Halle Berry as an actress, but she was a horrible choice and well the rest speaks for itself. Didn't want to waste a single ounce of my time on that one. Anyway, that's why I agreed that Gah Lak Tus was lame, and that I want to see the original on screen. Now I must go buy toner.

UQ

 

[gerbstat]

 

[Ulic Queldroma]

By the way, did I mention it's Sci-Fi comics we're dealing with.

 

[November Rain]

the idea is still a matrix rip off...

 

[highguard]

For mass to approach the speed of light, it must have an infinite power source, and must continually become bigger through absorbing the energy to strengthen it's atomic structure. This of course goes WAAAAY deeper. I'm fairly sure I posted this in another thread.

And 25, because I doubt he could hold together any faster. For a SINGLE atom to move at half the speed of light, it would be bigger than a solar system, and need more rocket fuel than the universe is big.

Not knocking your knowlege but I have a few observations. The atom would not need to be as big as a solar system but would need to have the mass of one I think to be able to utilize certain principles in order to achieve that level of velocity.

Again I think that all of that is based on conventional theories of physics. It is now known that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, and that there must be some sort of vacume energy that is overpowering gravity which acts on the matter present in the universe.

This energy when the numbers are crunched is off the scale and ideed suggests that we should not even be talking to each other right now. So it is now being assumed that there are laws, effects, and theories operating in the universe that are at this point completely unknown.

I would bet that faster than light travel is not only possible but when we understand these things will be a lot simpler than we currently think.

Just to demonstrate the enormity of the mystery in cosmology right now, a neutron that started out a billion years ago from the other side of the universe is actually according to one theory affected by our observation of it.

Now think about this, our observation of an action has an affect on that event and the path that neutron took even though it occured billions of years ago.

this is what this means to me, time is linked in some way to events and if we can determine how we may be able to piggyback on the vehicle of information that somehow is able to bypass the supposedly unbridgeable barrier of time. Now time is related to speed and distance and as such that particular relationship might be bypassable as well.

So to me we are like one single insight or discovery away from cracking the mystery of time and perhaps other things that are whispering in the backs of our minds, I know its in the back of my mind. This sense that what we are seeing is some sort of big interconnected puzzle (maybe an illusion of sorts) that is related to creation and how we came to be.

 

[highguard]

Hmm...Aren't electrons accelerated to nearly the speed of light in particle accelerators? They have mass (though quite small), and the energy involved is finite. Ions with larger mass are regularly accelerated to 10% of the speed of light in the same manner.

I am puzzled by your atom analogy - how can you be sure of the mass of an atom traveling at half the speed of light? Is the relationship between mass and velocity at relativistic speeds linear? I smell some guesswork and pseudo-science here.

I blame this of course on the Vision. His ability to alter his mass has confounded many physicists believing themselves hot on the trail of the Higgs boson and driven many of them to strong drink.

Now, back to our topic - something about combining Galactus and Fat Bastard as I recall...

Yes I think her analogy is incomplete. I think that the speed of the atom is related to the forces being brought to bear on it. For instance Nasa uses the sun to sling shot certain vehicles and increase their velocity. The mass of the vehicle is unchanged but the speed is. So you don't need the mass to be inherent in the object but you do need to harness the force of gravity being generated by an object as massive as the sun. Now black holes are very small in some instances but have the density/mass of millions of suns, if you could harness that force you could move very quickly, of course you would have to be traveling pretty fast to begin with at the right angle not to get pulled in.

The big thing here is that before there was anything, something gave rise to energy and matter and gravity. Initially when we thought the universe was always here we did not know this, but now we know that in the early universe there was an acceleration or inflation of the known universe and that acceration was extremely fast.

The accelerating universe may hold the key to this force that is currently (scientifically at least, unknown). Now this force acted irrespective of the current known laws of the universe as the laws came with the creation of the unniverse not before. Time itself is a creation as before there were two discreet events time in our universe did not and could not exist.

So time itself became possible with the first event and when the second event of existence occured time was recorded. Now the energy that was involved in creation if we could harness that, look out. This energy which may be the vacuum energy indirectly observed since 1998 when the accelerating universe was discovered could well be the Holy Grail of everything, the key einstein was looking for all these years. It may give us for the first time ever a reflection or an insight into the power of God.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Hmm...Aren't electrons accelerated to nearly the speed of light in particle accelerators? They have mass (though quite small), and the energy involved is finite. Ions with larger mass are regularly accelerated to 10% of the speed of light in the same manner.

I am puzzled by your atom analogy - how can you be sure of the mass of an atom traveling at half the speed of light? Is the relationship between mass and velocity at relativistic speeds linear? I smell some guesswork and pseudo-science here.

I blame this of course on the Vision. His ability to alter his mass has confounded many physicists believing themselves hot on the trail of the Higgs boson and driven many of them to strong drink.

Now, back to our topic - something about combining Galactus and Fat Bastard as I recall...

High school physics, right? Yeah. Electrons move extremely slow, until super charged. Their the only things in the universe that can approach the speed of light. THEY are THRUSTED in a particle acceleration machine. But like you said, they move at sub luminal. So that doesn't even come close to discrediting me. For something that HAS mass to reach light speed would NEED infinite energy. Light is the only thing that can move at light speed. (Actually the entire electromagnetic spectrum, since it's all photonic anyway) And it only can because of a lack of mass. As for pseudo science? You can still tell your knowledge in it is rather limited to high school and tv specials. Size and energy have always been a relationship based on the atomic structure, and initial of the initial object. That's been known for years before even my birth. If not, grapes would be able to move at the speed of sound and beyond with zero problems outside of an atmospheric environment. However, as energy is increased from the force of acceleration, the grape just breaks apart. And since the speed of sound is gregoriously slower than the speed of light.

And if you think I pulled it off of comic book physics, that'd be a poor poor observation.

Seriously, I smell high school education.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Not knocking your knowlege but I have a few observations. The atom would not need to be as big as a solar system but would need to have the mass of one I think to be able to utilize certain principles in order to achieve that level of velocity.

And it would increase in size, since mass needs room to increase. So it would need the volume relative to a solar system. The mass wouldn't really matter, since at high energies, atomic structures can't maintain molecular bonds, and would break down into it's initial atomic singular and then into subatomies.

Again I think that all of that is based on conventional theories of physics. It is now known that the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, and that there must be some sort of vacume energy that is overpowering gravity which acts on the matter present in the universe.

Gravity is proven to really be just a bend in something. It isn't really affected by vaccuums and such that the universe causes by mere expansion. If what you state WAS true to a degree that meant that the universe pulls everything to it's walls, it would be so insignificant, that it STILL wouldn't matter. Or else light and mass would only travel in an outward direction.

This energy when the numbers are crunched is off the scale and ideed suggests that we should not even be talking to each other right now. So it is now being assumed that there are laws, effects, and theories operating in the universe that are at this point completely unknown.

Actually, most of these are tested and true. The tests concerning relativity at least for the most part. Such as increased particle size, time dialation, gravity bending things around it and the like.

I would bet that faster than light travel is not only possible but when we understand these things will be a lot simpler than we currently think.

Actually, it's a physical law, not a dupable thing. Chances are it's surpassable, just not in the same way we currently move around. I could see one day having faster than light travel. Though I doubt it would actually be considered travel the way we currently think of it. I'm not saying it's impossible.

Just to demonstrate the enormity of the mystery in cosmology right now, a neutron that started out a billion years ago from the other side of the universe is actually according to one theory affected by our observation of it.

Now think about this, our observation of an action has an affect on that event and the path that neutron took even though it occured billions of years ago.

That's actually very likely, since we direct and redirect mass subatoms and massless subatoms. But the chance of us actually altering the path of a neutron just by LOOKING at it is really not that well placed of a theory. If we sent something like a large light after it, then there's a good chance. So sattelites and such sending waves of frequency out would make sense as changing that. But not just observing it with our eyes or telescopes.

And people have actually thought about this possibility since the beginning of modern physics. Since physics would be considered fragile being that one thing in the universe truly does affect another somewhere along the way.

this is what this means to me, time is linked in some way to events and if we can determine how we may be able to piggyback on the vehicle of information that somehow is able to bypass the supposedly unbridgeable barrier of time. Now time is related to speed and distance and as such that particular relationship might be bypassable as well.

Actually, time relativity is somewhat similar to that. The faster an object goes, the slower time moves for it. So, if we could get an object, who's atomic and molecular structure could literally withstand 40% travel, it's very likely a person would live from Earth to the Centauri solar system. However, time itself, like space, is most likely intangible except through extremely large acts of mass and energy. The sun barely bends light around itself due to it's gravity well.

So to me we are like one single insight or discovery away from cracking the mystery of time and perhaps other things that are whispering in the backs of our minds, I know its in the back of my mind. This sense that what we are seeing is some sort of big interconnected puzzle (maybe an illusion of sorts) that is related to creation and how we came to be.

Time itself is something that we don't really understand all that well. It's very mechanics are beyond our current understanding. Some suppose it's the speed of light, and that's why light doesn't surpass it, and that determines time. But time itself seems to flow on some degree, and might be an extradimensional concept. Which is why many believe it's a fourth dimension. It's there, it effects us in some way, but we can't really interact with it all that much.

 

[LouFerignoDemon]

Yes I think her analogy is incomplete. I think that the speed of the atom is related to the forces being brought to bear on it. For instance Nasa uses the sun to sling shot certain vehicles and increase their velocity. The mass of the vehicle is unchanged but the speed is. So you don't need the mass to be inherent in the object but you do need to harness the force of gravity being generated by an object as massive as the sun. Now black holes are very small in some instances but have the density/mass of millions of suns, if you could harness that force you could move very quickly, of course you would have to be traveling pretty fast to begin with at the right angle not to get pulled in.

Which is basically the elaborated version on what I stated. In order for an atom to survive at speeds, it NEEDS to be stronger. But the only way for it to become stronger is to absorb energy and mass. Unfortunately, the bigger something gets, the slower it must move. To counteract this, you need more and more and more energy to meet the ever increasing mass and weight. Hence, infinite mass and energy. As for the NASA mass vehicle thing. Did you ever actually test it yourself? Ask them a question? See the data? Human's current top speed vehicle moves around 8,600,000 meters per hour. Per HOUR. LIGHT moves at 300,000,000 meters per SECOND. That means the vehicle only moves at 143,333 meters per second. That means FIVE percent the speed of light. FIVE. And the mass does increase gently. But at five percent, it's not that bad. So when you send something to the sun, and we're definitely going to assume we don't have the most powerful rocket attatched to it to send it all along the way, it would take YEARS to reach the sun. Heck some of the sattelites we launched twenty plus years ago are only getting to our outer planets today. With light from the sun though? Ten minutes. Ten. Minutes.

The big thing here is that before there was anything, something gave rise to energy and matter and gravity. Initially when we thought the universe was always here we did not know this, but now we know that in the early universe there was an acceleration or inflation of the known universe and that acceration was extremely fast. The accelerating universe may hold the key to this force that is currently (scientifically at least, unknown). Now this force acted irrespective of the current known laws of the universe as the laws came with the creation of the unniverse not before. Time itself is a creation as before there were two discreet events time in our universe did not and could not exist.

The universe having not obeyed it's own laws? I don't really see where you get this from. If you're following the big bang theory, which it looks like you are, then you would know about the primivial atom, which was basically all structure unto itself. If it exploded from there due to pressure and energy breakdown, then it would follow it's laws perfectly. But as for the universe not and could not existance issue? That's fiarly retrospective based on how things work to us in our known universe. WE work on beginnings and ends. There's no telling what the universe exists within, and so we can't say it simply will and will not exist at points in time.

So time itself became possible with the first event and when the second event of existence occured time was recorded. Now the energy that was involved in creation if we could harness that, look out. This energy which may be the vacuum energy indirectly observed since 1998 when the accelerating universe was discovered could well be the Holy Grail of everything, the key einstein was looking for all these years. It may give us for the first time ever a reflection or an insight into the power of God.

Now see, this is where things get tricky. This is basically Intelligent Mechanics of the Universe. The universe works simply because God wants it to that way. Which may not be the case at all. The accelerating universe caused an outward thrust that interacts with the universe on a very small, yet large scale. Galaxies more or less follow the path outward, but in some cases, don't, and in all cases, the innards of the galaxy is unaffected. So this just pushes on the assumption that galaxies observe Newton's laws, and since they're already moving in one direction uninterrupted without an atmosphere to stop it, it just keeps going. However, the forces around it, such as other galaxies, have been shown to change that. Time itself may have been there before our universe came to be as we exist in it today. It may have even been from the collapse of a former universe.

 

[wobbly]

Not many movies featured a bunch of barely sentient ships, flying around, shooting bullets and Silver Surfers at the planets that release flesh eating viruses so they can puncture the Earth's core for it's very heat.

The details don't have to match exactly for something to still be considered a rip-off, there must be hundreds of movies that testify as evidence to that fact (the Matrix is in fact one of them). You may think people won't recognise how un-original the basic concept of Gah-lak-tus is, I disagree.

But I can EASILY see what you say by the eyes. Though you can say Matrix ripped that off of a deep sea fish in the ocean that kind of looks that way, eyes wise. But I doubt too many people knew of said fish. ANYWAYS.

Now thats just reaching: There's a huge difference between basing a design on something in nature (and being the first afaik to do it in the context of the form for an AI driven mechanical drone) and basing a design on the pre-existing work of someone else (and using it in the same context too).

People, especially Americans and Europeans, do not see movies, nor enjoy movies, with conceptual abstract ideas. Those are indy films. They like devout, refined, easy to understand things.

Disagree on how you see Galactus. For me he isn't an abstract idea at all, he is cleary defined. Now something like 2001- A Space Oddysey? That's what I'd call abstract conceptual ideas at work.

And easy to understand? The concept of Galactus is easy to understand, kids going back to the 60's have understood it and enjoyed it. Give people a little more credit.

Take Phoenix in the last X-Men movie. Do you REALLY think the public would've understood a being made of cosmic fire that transcends all of time, composed and manipulative of all telepathic thought that can only be controlled and calmed by a "Level 5" mutant, or else would destroy galaxies? Or do you think it would be easier, and far more relevant, to say it was an extension of her original powers that cannot destroy entire solar systems on a whim?

Phoenix is a different case. With the way Singer had set up the X-films there was no way they could work with a cosmic level Phoenix without that being entirely at odds with the tone of the previous films. And they still managed to get her wrong even to how Singer had set that up by making out she'd developed the phoenix personality as child, having her kill Scott & Xavier, and having no firebird effect (hell, just a fire-like effect would have done). So all in all X3 aint a good example to use as a justification for anything here.

But I do see what you are getting at. Something closer to real science is better than something much grander in concept...

However...Star Wars (for one) serves as an example against this misconception: What do you think the public preferred? The force as a near mystical cosmic energy binding every living thing in the universe, no scientific rationale required....or the Force as a psuedo scientifically explained microscopic lifeform empowering those who learn how to access the parasites lingering in their systems?

That Lucas only referenced the midicloriwhatevers once more in the prequels gives you a pointer to the answer. Bottom line is the public can handle and accept cosmic concepts, it's all in the way they are handled that determines wether they prove popular or not.

That's why Gah Lak Tus will be in the movies. Would I like to see Galactus in the movies? No. I already stated how THAT will be messed up. And I like Galactus far too much to wish that upon him. And while I actually enjoy the thought of Gah Lak Tus (there's that robotics/biology/chemistry/physics nerd coming out in me now) because of it's scientific design, it would also make TONS more sense to use him. People will understand and relate with Gah Lak Tus (If one even can) over Galactus (Which NOBODY will).

I do understand why you think Gah-Lak-Tus is the better choice for this movie, and on the level of thinking Fox would likely screw up trying the original idea it's hard to argue against that based on the mauling they gave Dr. Doom.
But on the relateable issue again I have to disagree: Gah-Lak-Tus is a hive mind Artificial intelligence with a hatred for all organic life and zero personality. Who can relate to that?

But Galactus is a one time mortal now forced by neccessity to consume planets to survive. For all his great power and the knowledge of his purpose, he is forever tortured by the memory of what he once was whenever he has to feed his hunger. The ultimate addict in many ways. I know which idea I find the more relateable (and impressive).

So no, for me the true reason why Gah-Lak-Tus will (likely) be in the movie is really a good deal simpler than any arguments I've seen put forward on these boards so far: It's called 'embarassment of the source'.