What if Galactus looked like this?

[Mr. Dent]

 

[Crimz]

Is that a ghost tree?!

 

[bubbadoom]

No thanks -

what if Galactus looked like Galactus...?

 

[Mr. Dent]

Galactus's appearance depends on who is looking at him.

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

No thanks -

what if Galactus looked like Galactus...?

We've got 50 years of concept art.

 

[bubbadoom]

Kirby created a very workable design back in the '60's so let's just stick with that.

I do like the Byrne notion of his appearance being influenced by who is looking at him, so if the illo above is what he looks like to Groot, then I am fine with that...

 

[Mr. Dent]

A giant humanoid man dressed in purple isn't a very workable design in today's world for a cosmic being that's supposed to eat planets. :/

I like the design in OP because it at least makes more sense as a cosmic being than a big man in a purple suit. It looks more like an organism.

 

[LEOZZTT]

That doesn't look like a cosmic organism. That looks like something you would find in a backyard.

Not everything must have a perfect good explanation or be based on scientific facts. We already had that stupid "Galactus" cloud on the previous FF movie. That didn't make it easier for general audiences to swallow and fans got disappointed. So what was the point? Why change?

There's a giant guy in space wearing a purple bucket on his head who eats planets. That's enough for a conflict.

 

[DarthDaveBanner]

The Thor movies have proved you can take seemingly outlandish cosmic designs and make them tangible. Kirby's Galactus can/should be done.

 

[bubbadoom]

The Thor movies have proved you can take seemingly outlandish cosmic designs and make them tangible. Kirby's Galactus can/should be done.

exactly

nuff said

 

[Perfect Cell]

I never really understood the thought process of "today's audiences wouldn't be able to accept a giant purple man who eats planets". But what evidence supports this? They've never even tried. All we've seen attempted is the cloud monstrosity, and that failed miserably. Any design can work, so long as it's implemented properly. I think if they played up the massive scale of Galactus, and the threat he poses, then people will take it seriously given the world he's in. People accept giant talking robots who turn into cars, viking Gods fighting alongside green rage monsters, and an alien from another planet who can shoot fire from his eyes and lift mountains. I don't think Galactus is any more ridiculous than those.

 

[Donut]

Im sure the next Galactus will just be the 20th Century FOX Logo flying around

 

[Willie Lumpkin]

I never really understood the thought process of "today's audiences wouldn't be able to accept a giant purple man who eats planets". But what evidence supports this? They've never even tried. All we've seen attempted is the cloud monstrosity, and that failed miserably. Any design can work, so long as it's implemented properly. I think if they played up the massive scale of Galactus, and the threat he poses, then people will take it seriously given the world he's in. People accept giant talking robots who turn into cars, viking Gods fighting alongside green rage monsters, and an alien from another planet who can shoot fire from his eyes and lift mountains. I don't think Galactus is any more ridiculous than those.

I'm sure there were people, prior to Star Wars, who said: "Today's audiences won't accept a co-pilot who looks like a Bigfoot and a heavy breathing bad-guy all dressed in black."

I'm sure that when J.K. Rowling submitted her manuscript for Harry Potter publishers said: "Today's audiences won't accept a world of Wizards living alongside modern-day people."

I think the biggest flaws in the comic-book films recently have come from people saying: "Audiences won't accept . . . " and the best moments came from people who said: "This looked awesome in the comics and people loved it in the comics and we're going to put it on the screen."

Tim Story tried to justify the lack of a brow on the Thing by saying it wouldn't look right and people wouldn't accept it. Then he made it a little bigger in the second film and it worked better and looked better.

 

[Rorschach2012]

This isn't a bad look. Honestly I really like it. But I think we'd all prefer humanoid Galactus

 

[fangz]

This isn't a bad look. Honestly I really like it. But I think we'd all prefer humanoid Galactus

me too yeah...
even the cloud could've worked, if the rest of the movie had been good.

but yes, it's gotta be said, giant purple man Galactus is what I vote for too.

 

[Xeno]

That thing looks like Groot. If Galactus' appearance depends on the observer, when he comes to Earth he should look like a human being. Period.


Fox already tried "fixing" Galactus with that hideous ****-cloud design. They should either use classic Galactus or just not use him at all.

 

[Wesley Dodds]

What if Galactus looked like this?

t:

 

[Crimz]

^ That NEEDS to be done it looks awesome, I can already imagine the trailer and posters.

 

[DarthDaveBanner]

What if Galactus looked like this?

t:

Beautiful! Fox's reasoning for not using this design is pretty hilarious: they thought the general audience would laugh at a giant "robot" looking character. This was the same summer that the first Transformers made a killing at the box office.

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

If they had done something like focus on Galactus' physical ship, which if I remember is said to be spectacularly massive, make it truly alien and foreboding looking, then reveal the giant humanoid inside it would allow the audience to come around to the classic look. Of course that means a story that did not follow the path they decided to take with the sequel.

 

[bubbadoom]

Beautiful! Fox's reasoning for not using this design is pretty hilarious: they thought the general audience would laugh at a giant "robot" looking character. This was the same summer that the first Transformers made a killing at the box office.

I always understood they were holding Galactus' reveal for the Surfer solo movie...

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

A giant humanoid man dressed in purple isn't a very workable design in today's world for a cosmic being that's supposed to eat planets. :/

Agreed 100%. it wouldn't make a lick of sense for him to look like he does in the comics

 

[Zarex]

Cover up the mouth and nose and leave two gleaming "eyes" for projecting energy beams. Movie (preferably MCU) Galactus should be a being of pure energy that moves around in a massive humanoid containment suit.

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Sounds good.

 

[Mr. Dent]

I don't understand people's insistence on Galactus looking exactly like he does in the comics just because it's in the comics. It doesn't make sense for him to be a giant purple man. It's fine in the comics, not the movie which should be grounded. A creepy, disturbing organism or like Zarex said pure energy would make more sense than a giant man in a purple suit.

Galactus doesn't even need to look like a man. His only purpose is to devour worlds. He barely talks and when he does it's ALWAYS about how he needs to eat more worlds. It would make more sense to have him look like an organism with no purpose other than to devour, like amoebas, than to make him a giant purple guy.