Visual of Galactus. What should a MCU Galactus look like?

[WeaponXCII]

I'm honestly thinking they should make him some sort of large smoke cloud to save budget.

Clad in black leather, of course!

 

[Chance Jackson]

^Sometimes an explanation isn't enough to change the feel of a character. If it's just a one line explanation and him looking different in different places doesn't play into the plot, it feels contrived, imo.



This. Don't mute his colors, the colors aren't what invite thematic dissonance, it's the fact that he looks like he has more in common with Giant Man that a Celestial, and that's just not true. Cover his mouth, keep the colors, the helmet, the size, EVERYTHING else.

gotta agree with DR here

 

[Detective Conan]

Here's what Galactus shouldn't look like: A cloud.

 

[Surfer]

gotta agree with DR here

Galactus has more in common with the Celestials in terms of power, but they are much different characters. As for him looking more like Giant man, well that probably has to do with his origin. Galactus was originally Galan a humanoid looking scientist from the planet Taa, and when the previous universe was being destroyed his life was consumed by the cosmic egg and from it a new life appeared in the form of Galactus. So, since he originally had a humanoid look it would seem to me that this appearance would also come the most natural to him, and that he would most likely present himself this way if he has any control over how any of the races perceive him. So, giving him a human looking appearance is very much a part of who he is and a part of his origin story.

Surfer

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

What if he kept his helmet on but at some point took it off?

 

[Random490]

What if he kept his helmet on but at some point took it off?

I've never seen that panel... it disturbs me.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

Galactus has more in common with the Celestials in terms of power, but they are much different characters. As for him looking more like Giant man, well that probably has to do with his origin. Galactus was originally Galan a humanoid looking scientist from the planet Taa, and when the previous universe was being destroyed his life was consumed by the cosmic egg and from it a new life appeared in the form of Galactus. So, since he originally had a humanoid look it would seem to me that this appearance would also come the most natural to him, and that he would most likely present himself this way if he has any control over how any of the races perceive him. So, giving him a human looking appearance is very much a part of who he is and a part of his origin story.

Surfer

It may be fun as comic book fans (and comic book writers) to speculate about these things and create details and back-stories and justifications, but the problem story-tellers get into by specifically answering questions nobody asked is it leads to more questions.

If he appears different to different people, does his physical form change? If he swats Ben away with the back of his hand, is he doing that with a hand or a tentacle? Wouldn't a tentacle move differently than a hand? Does he even have a physical form or is what we perceive as his physical form just a projection? And if it's a projection, how does that projection work and where is the real Galactus? And why are the Fantastic Four fighting a projection? etc. etc. etc.

And the answers to each one of those questions lead to more questions. For hard-core comic-book geeks like us, those things might be fun to discuss, but for a more casual viewer, they distract from the enjoyment of the film.

The moment someone mentions on-screen that his appearance changes, theatergoers will begin thinking about the kinds of questions I listed above, and then those theatergoers will be in their own heads and out of the scene and not paying attention to what is happening for the next few minutes.

We all know the real reason Galacutus looks the way he does - because Jack Kirby thought it would look cool and drew him like that.

And most things in comic books are like that. A writer or artist thought a particular look or power or phrase was cool, so they did it. And now that those things are established, that's just the way they are. Despite people like Bryan Singer worrying that movie-goers won't accept colorful costumes or Tim Story thinking they won't be able to handle a purple giant, the best, most successful comic-book films just put the comic-books on film without trying to over-explain the things writers or artists dreamed up.

If knowledgeable comic book fans want to watch the film with the idea that Galactus' appearance changes depending on who's seeing him, that's fine, but I don't think film-makers should go down that rabbit-hole and try to explain things that don't need to be explained. He's just a giant, super-powerful being dressed in purple floating above NYC as he dispassionately prepares to eat the planet.

If they don't throw that detail in there, he can be anything the viewer wants him to be. Once they've put that simple line of dialogue in the film, he becomes more limited.

 

[Zarex]

Galactus has more in common with the Celestials in terms of power, but they are much different characters. As for him looking more like Giant man, well that probably has to do with his origin. Galactus was originally Galan a humanoid looking scientist from the planet Taa, and when the previous universe was being destroyed his life was consumed by the cosmic egg and from it a new life appeared in the form of Galactus. So, since he originally had a humanoid look it would seem to me that this appearance would also come the most natural to him, and that he would most likely present himself this way if he has any control over how any of the races perceive him. So, giving him a human looking appearance is very much a part of who he is and a part of his origin story.

Surfer

Though it is true to his comic origins, I still think it would look odd to have the Destroyer of Worlds depicted onscreen as a large white guy in a suit of armor. Marvel has never been shy about changing head gear when appropriate - Thor rarely has his hat, Cap's cowl lasted for about a minute, Hawkeye never even got goggles, and the lower portion of Ant Man's face is not visible through his helm. So some modification seems reasonable for our buddy Galan.

I could see a "Power Rangery" type facemask that resembles a face, or the Big G's actual face being metallic in appearance to match Norrin. Maybe have his face constantly changing as a tribute to Byrne's depiction or crackling with energy. Feige and company should be able to keep as all happy and I'm confident they will make it work.

 

[WeaponXCII]

It may be fun as comic book fans (and comic book writers) to speculate about these things and create details and back-stories and justifications, but the problem story-tellers get into by specifically answering questions nobody asked is it leads to more questions.

If he appears different to different people, does his physical form change? If he swats Ben away with the back of his hand, is he doing that with a hand or a tentacle? Wouldn't a tentacle move differently than a hand? Does he even have a physical form or is what we perceive as his physical form just a projection? And if it's a projection, how does that projection work and where is the real Galactus? And why are the Fantastic Four fighting a projection? etc. etc. etc.

And the answers to each one of those questions lead to more questions. For hard-core comic-book geeks like us, those things might be fun to discuss, but for a more casual viewer, they distract from the enjoyment of the film.

The moment someone mentions on-screen that his appearance changes, theatergoers will begin thinking about the kinds of questions I listed above, and then those theatergoers will be in their own heads and out of the scene and not paying attention to what is happening for the next few minutes.

We all know the real reason Galacutus looks the way he does - because Jack Kirby thought it would look cool and drew him like that.

And most things in comic books are like that. A writer or artist thought a particular look or power or phrase was cool, so they did it. And now that those things are established, that's just the way they are. Despite people like Bryan Singer worrying that movie-goers won't accept colorful costumes or Tim Story thinking they won't be able to handle a purple giant, the best, most successful comic-book films just put the comic-books on film without trying to over-explain the things writers or artists dreamed up.

If knowledgeable comic book fans want to watch the film with the idea that Galactus' appearance changes depending on who's seeing him, that's fine, but I don't think film-makers should go down that rabbit-hole and try to explain things that don't need to be explained. He's just a giant, super-powerful being dressed in purple floating above NYC as he dispassionately prepares to eat the planet.

If they don't throw that detail in there, he can be anything the viewer wants him to be. Once they've put that simple line of dialogue in the film, he becomes more limited.

As someone who doesn't know a whole lot about the character (relatively speaking, of course), as well as an over-thinker and over-analyzer, these are the types of questions I've definitely thought about.

Maybe my thinking is still shaking the remnants of a bygone era, but I'd say that movie audiences are able to suspend their disbelief a bit less than comic book readers... or something along those lines. I'm not sure if I can articulate my thoughts well enough. Why it seems it'd work in one, and not the other.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Who would you guys cast as Galactus?

 

[ernesth100]

Clad in black leather, of course!

Now you're speaking my language.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I'd say that movie audiences are able to suspend their disbelief a bit less than comic book readers.

My personal belief is this is film-makers are afraid this is true and therefore feel compelled to over-explain and/or make alterations, but I also believe audiences are much more willing to suspend disbelief than film-makers think they are.

I still go back to the idea that there is much less controversy/talk etc. and the films simply work better if the film-makers just do what's in that comics than when they try to justify and change things.

I was just watching the original FF the other day, and I found it distracting and annoying that they felt the need to justify their powers (Doom makes a comment about Reed always 'stretching' and there's a lot of subtext about Sue feeling like she's invisible etc.) and I found those things distracting and annoying - not useful justification for what was happening.

And then there are things like organic web-shooters - yeah, it's unrealistic that a high-school kid could create an amazing polymer that could be dispensed in huge quantities from a tiny device - but when they went back to the comic version, nobody complained.

And we could go on and on. Would audiences have really not accepted X-Men with colorful costumes, or did they just not have the chance? etc. etc. etc.

I can think of a lot of instances in which over-explanation and fear of doing anything too 'out there' caused rather than alleviated distraction and other instances (with a talking raccoon for example) in which audiences had no problem simply going with the crazy comic-book premise.

 

[Surfer]

It may be fun as comic book fans (and comic book writers) to speculate about these things and create details and back-stories and justifications, but the problem story-tellers get into by specifically answering questions nobody asked is it leads to more questions.

If he appears different to different people, does his physical form change? If he swats Ben away with the back of his hand, is he doing that with a hand or a tentacle? Wouldn't a tentacle move differently than a hand? Does he even have a physical form or is what we perceive as his physical form just a projection? And if it's a projection, how does that projection work and where is the real Galactus? And why are the Fantastic Four fighting a projection? etc. etc. etc.

And the answers to each one of those questions lead to more questions. For hard-core comic-book geeks like us, those things might be fun to discuss, but for a more casual viewer, they distract from the enjoyment of the film.

The moment someone mentions on-screen that his appearance changes, theatergoers will begin thinking about the kinds of questions I listed above, and then those theatergoers will be in their own heads and out of the scene and not paying attention to what is happening for the next few minutes.

We all know the real reason Galacutus looks the way he does - because Jack Kirby thought it would look cool and drew him like that.

And most things in comic books are like that. A writer or artist thought a particular look or power or phrase was cool, so they did it. And now that those things are established, that's just the way they are. Despite people like Bryan Singer worrying that movie-goers won't accept colorful costumes or Tim Story thinking they won't be able to handle a purple giant, the best, most successful comic-book films just put the comic-books on film without trying to over-explain the things writers or artists dreamed up.

If knowledgeable comic book fans want to watch the film with the idea that Galactus' appearance changes depending on who's seeing him, that's fine, but I don't think film-makers should go down that rabbit-hole and try to explain things that don't need to be explained. He's just a giant, super-powerful being dressed in purple floating above NYC as he dispassionately prepares to eat the planet.

If they don't throw that detail in there, he can be anything the viewer wants him to be. Once they've put that simple line of dialogue in the film, he becomes more limited.

I agree with a lot of the points you made, but just to be clear, I was not saying Galactus should appear different to each character, but that he could appear different to each race. So, all Skrulls would see him as Skrull, and all Humans would see him as Human and so on and so forth. However, I do see your point that it might open up a can of worms that is not entirely necessary. So, perhaps that bit might be better left to the comics and fans speculation and Imagination for the MCU. However, I really am hoping they do not alter Galactus's look too much from the comics. I suppose energy in the place of a face would look okay with the Helmet over it, but I don't want his Helmet to be the only thing we see. He needs to have a face area (preferably not one that looks metal like the Helmet) to give him his own look and help to seperate him from just being part of the Celestial Race.

Galactus is my favorite character, so I am just wanting them to do him justice, and I am sure they will. Anything, though will be better then what Fox gave us. And to your point I often wonder if that quote of Galactus being a force of Nature is what spurred them on to turn Galactus into a Cloud. So, yeah I guess some verbiage is better left to the imagination.

Surfer

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I agree with a lot of the points you made, but just to be clear, I was not saying Galactus should appear different to each character, but that he could appear different to each race. So, all Skrulls would see him as Skrull, and all Humans would see him as Human and so on and so forth. However, I do see your point that it might open up a can of worms that is not entirely necessary. So, perhaps that bit might be better left to the comics and fans speculation and Imagination for the MCU. However, I really am hoping they do not alter Galactus's look too much from the comics. I suppose energy in the place of a face would look okay with the Helmet over it, but I don't want his Helmet to be the only thing we see. He needs to have a face area (preferably not one that looks metal like the Helmet) to give him his own look and help to seperate him from just being part of the Celestial Race.

Galactus is my favorite character, so I am just wanting them to do him justice, and I am sure they will. Anything, though will be better then what Fox gave us. And to your point I often wonder if that quote of Galactus being a force of Nature is what spurred them on to turn Galactus into a Cloud. So, yeah I guess some verbiage is better left to the imagination.

Surfer

Yeah, and I think the images in this thread illustrate it can be done.

 

[Surfer]

Though it is true to his comic origins, I still think it would look odd to have the Destroyer of Worlds depicted onscreen as a large white guy in a suit of armor. Marvel has never been shy about changing head gear when appropriate - Thor rarely has his hat, Cap's cowl lasted for about a minute, Hawkeye never even got goggles, and the lower portion of Ant Man's face is not visible through his helm. So some modification seems reasonable for our buddy Galan.

I could see a "Power Rangery" type facemask that resembles a face, or the Big G's actual face being metallic in appearance to match Norrin. Maybe have his face constantly changing as a tribute to Byrne's depiction or crackling with energy. Feige and company should be able to keep as all happy and I'm confident they will make it work.

Sorry, part of my above response to Willie, was also actually directed at you regarding Galactus's look. I really don't want him to look Power Rangery as I always felt those costumes looked very B rate. But who knows with some Movie magic maybe it would look better. As for your comment of a Large White Guy in a Suit of Armor, I just was saying I felt he should have an area for a Humanoid face. The Face could be White, Black, Latino, Asian or anything else. I was just specifying Humanoid initially, but then after thinking about it I said I might be okay with some other looks also, like Energy, but that I just feel it's essential Galactus have a face area to seperate him from just being another Celestial where their helmet is entirely covering.

Hope that makes sense.

Surfer

 

[DrCosmic]

i've never seen that panel... It disturbs me.

so much.

 

[Silvermoth]

Who would you guys cast as Galactus?

That's the million dollar question. No idea. All my fave actors with deep voices are either already cast in marvel films or dead

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Keith David

 

[Kuwolski]

I always get Keith David and David Keith mixed up.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

so much.

If that disturbs ya'll... Get a load of this:

Spoiler

 

[AndrewGilkison]

If that disturbs ya'll... Get a load of this:

Spoiler

Did the artist intend to make Galactus look like John Travolta there?

 

[Abudefduf]

And now, just for laughs, try replacing classic Galactus in this panel ^

with one of those alternate forms. The green red-eyed blob on the right has no helmet, so what would he take off? And what about the screaming ghost, or the electric brain thing?

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

I'd like to see them emulate this in real time for the first few moments of his introduction.

Shot of Groot looking on: Tree-like Galactus
Shot of Gamora/Drax looking on: green skinned alt costume Galactus
Shot of Korg/Miek looking on: you get it by now.

I think that would set the tone for the rest of the film and allow people's suspension to disbelief to shake hands with their imagination.

Otherwise, Very dark purple and dark blue is totally fine (he's mostly in the black of space anyway). I mean, I'd say Caucasian, but I don't really feel like it matters much. Maybe a sallow and strange skin tone that feels weird with regards to the Uncanny Valley.

Anyway, That's all I got. Keep him mostly the same as the comics.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

If that disturbs ya'll... Get a load of this:

Spoiler

Oy. This is why I hate when people justify things by saying: "It was in the comics." Just because someone, somewhere put it in a comic-book doesn't mean it's good.

 

[Batmannerism]

Who would you guys cast as Galactus?

Hmmmm......A hugely deep resonant voice.

James Earl Jones ? Although G should sound ageless, but also godlike and at the same time kind of anguished.

Kelsey Grammer? He's already got a giant head , and does self pity brilliantly.