So iconic, he's been called Eggman for years and years and you didn't notice.Arqus_Zed said:
None of those guys are as iconic as Bowser. Only Sepiroth is even close.
Cloudy With a Chance of Galactus
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
In case you care (and I know you don't) I am aware people have been calling him Eggman for quite some time (though many booklets still feature both names). I simply refuse to call him that, because "Eggman" doesn't sound nearly as villainous as "Dr. Robotnik".Zachary Amaranth said:
Hell, Bowser has even more alter egos than Robotnik - King Bowser, King Koopa, Bowser Koopa, King Bowser Koopa, Bowser Senior - so I really don't know what you're bitching about.
And how DARE you say that the enemy Paddle in Pong is not even close to being as iconic as Bowser? You sir, have just lost your credibility!
Yeah, what I'm getting out of Bob's article is that he's focussing mostly on visual changes. I'm assuming, that despite the changes to Saruman's ending, you agree with or at least enjoy the visual interpretation of the character. By contrast while Willy Wonka (depending on which version you're talking of) may not exactly meet expectations when comparing the movie to the book, in general the whole thing is a director and crew interpretation, while an iconic, if slightly goofy looking, character like Galactus is far more glaring when he changes from a world sized humanoid to a storm cloud in a movie that tries to do everything else "right".artanis_neravar said:
It's not a mystery to those of us sharp enough to have caught that little easter egg commonly known as the Opening Credits that featured marine iguanas getting irradiated.MovieBob said:
He's a fiery Marvel fanboy. Everything about DC, and Batman especially, gets on his nerves.Animyr said:
er what? Dark Knight suit? um...well I thought it was good
but honestly as much as I hated Transformers 2 (the first worked for me), it was the visuals and transformations that stood out as being awesome and good tho the same can't be said about much else in the movie
but honestly as much as I hated Transformers 2 (the first worked for me), it was the visuals and transformations that stood out as being awesome and good tho the same can't be said about much else in the movie
I loved watching American Zilla get his arse handed to him by Godzilla. I'm also Australian and I loved watching them destroy the Sydney Opera House in the process. . .
I'm in complete agreement with you.Aiddon said:
Bob, this is one opinion of yours which isn't going to become more interesting, or relevant, or less contrary to my own, no matter how many times you repeat it.
This is not original, this is self indulging in an old thought process.
First off, that art project sounds neat.Maldeus said:
Second, I think SamElliot'sMustache did a good job of explaining how Kirby takes a basic human and Others him into an unsettling, powerful, alien being. I'd just like to expand on some of that a bit.
Anyway.
Obvious, obvious Kirby fan, so take of this what you will:
First of all, I'd like to say I agree that the FF4:2 movie made a wise move in not simply transposing Galactus as is into the movie. Thanks to very different aesthetics, he would have been hilariously out of place (Still, "Big Ol' Space Cloud" seems a bit unimaginative as a replacement).
Second of all, yes there will likely be elements of Galactus that seem like "cheap, decades old sci-fi" because, quite frankly, Galacus is a decades-old character from a sci-fi comic worth 12 cents an issue (and drawn by an artist who was heavily influenced by the cheap, decades-old sci-fi of his own time). However, there's quite a bit of Galactus, just like there was quite a bit of The Fantastic Four, and Marvel in general that, both in terms of writing and art, have transcended those qualities of cheapness and poor aging. I would like to suggest that part of your struggles with reimagining the Galactus design is in your approach.
From your description (such as your disappointment in the human aspects of Galactus, e.g., his face), you seem to be trying to humanize Galactus in the redesign, which is probably increasing your challenges considerably since "he was designed more as a walking machine than a character" (Kirby Five-Oh! page 110). He's very inhuman. You seem to have grasped this by calling him "the Marvel Cthulhu"; he's a force of nature that doesn't give a damn about humanity. Now, before you suggest that Galactus should be instead a squishy abomination, it's worth considering that he seems like a mechanized human for a reason. For example, it gives a suggestion of uncaring implacability, the very thing that James Cameron would decades later realize is pretty damned terrifying. In addition, the various accoutrements, such as the chest plate, gauntlet, and boots, give him a martial look, and, while combined with the tunic, they also give the costume an ancient feel (compare it to a Roman gladiator and contrast it with the Watcher's similarly ancient but less militaristic appearance). Many of the details add to an imposing, complex, technologically advanced, and alien appearance. The huge helmet is also very useful for, as you yourself highlight, hiding and overshadowing that human face.
The human face of Galactus is important, especially in the way that Kirby overwhelms it with the rest of the costume; it draws the reader to the fact that, yes, this god-like being is somewhat human, somewhat recognizable, while actually caring nothing for us, with thoughts, opinions, an entire existence, completely alien from ours. Also, the face lacks distinguishing features for a reason; it again makes him less human, more uncanny. The helmet also hides much of his face, which helps make him harder to read. What are his emotions? What is he thinking? Who knows. In the original trilogy, he expresses emotion visually maybe twice, and both those times are very important. Also, I don't think Lee gives him any thought bubbles. The entire costume combines to demonstrate power, technology, and the inhuman, and this is pretty important to completing Lee's idea of a sci-fi OT God that maybe isn't particularly worthy of worship.
Oh and, for fun, play compare and contrast with Kirby's Darkseid, where machine gives way to rock and complexity to simplicity. There are very interesting similarities and differences between the two in terms of appearance that highlights the similarities and differences between them as characters.
What on earth could possibly have given you this impression when I explicitly said that it's the human face that loses Galactus points he might otherwise have earned for inhumanity? I'm genuinely curious as to how you could have come to this conclusion.KirbyKrackle said:
Everything about his martial and mechanical appearance aren't really valid, because the elements are too absurd to be taken seriously. That might be what Kirby was going for, but it fell flat by virtue of the fact that "martial" and "mechanical" are probably some of the hardest adjectives to combine with "purple and blue clown suit." Instead of going with gears or hydraulics, Galactus has weird, random plates stapled onto him. Instead of armor that actually looks efficient or impressive, he's got random pieces of armor glued onto random places, as though his creators think there's some kind of threshold for armor pieces which, once passed, automatically makes a character look intimidating, regardless of execution. The gloves, boots, chest plate, etc. etc. aren't martial, they're absurd, like someone's heard of the concept of war but doesn't really seem to have figured it out what it actually means.
That's not what he looks like. He looks like a stupid bruiser. The word "blockhead" is kind of literal, we're programmed (either biologically or culturally) to read stupidity into the overly square jaw and pronounced forehead look, and that's what Galactus is communicating to me. You've seen that graph of the uncanny valley, right? If you want something to be uncanny, you need it to be almost, but not quite, human. A good start for Galactus would be to take the helmet off completely and then never, ever express any emotion.
So, yeah, maybe Kirby was trying for mechanical, martial, uncanny, and inhuman, but he failed. The human musculature and face are too obvious and too many of his costume pieces are absurd and superfluous to be mechanical. The armor is too outdated and too obviously incapable of defending him from anything to be martial. The face is too normal to be uncanny, making him look like a totally normal human in a weird suit. If you want an uncanny monster, a good place to start would be to make sure that you couldn't cast local talent in a $100 costume and get pretty much exactly the same character on screen.
I think I'm the only person that actually liked the Mario Brothers movie. It was an adventure, didn't have horrible dialog, and presented a no-worse-than-others premise (TMNT 3: Turtles in Time I'm looking at you). So maybe I have low standards.
I liked the Transformers movie up until the one robot pissed on the guy. That I thought was out of character for the "Heroes" of the movie. It just made the Autobots, bullies of a slightly different color than the Decepticons.
Ignoring the style differences, it comes back to story. If the story is good, a lot can be forgiven in the presentation. All of these movies in the original article are known to be bad for their stories, as well as the costuming.
I liked the Transformers movie up until the one robot pissed on the guy. That I thought was out of character for the "Heroes" of the movie. It just made the Autobots, bullies of a slightly different color than the Decepticons.
Ignoring the style differences, it comes back to story. If the story is good, a lot can be forgiven in the presentation. All of these movies in the original article are known to be bad for their stories, as well as the costuming.
"Movie Galactus is a giant storm cloud."
That was the worst one of all for me personally.
I mean... come ON!
Sigh
That was the worst one of all for me personally.
I mean... come ON!
Sigh