Cloudy With a Chance of Galactus

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Cloudy With a Chance of Galactus

Sometimes, bad remakes happen to good characters.

Read Full Article

Come on, Bob. The worst batsuit ever? What about nipples and ice skates? *shudder*

But when he appeared in the execrable Fantastic Four: Rise of The Silver Surfer, it was decided that a giant humanoid space god was a little too silly to try and realize onscreen. You will please take note that the film's title character is a naked silver-skinned man who travels on a flying surfboard.

If I had known it was specifically for that reason, I would have been laughing for exactly THIS reason. That and the fact that the movie has the Four switching powers in horribly "comic" moments.

When I saw the cloud, I was hoping it was a "V'ger" thing. Like, Galactus was at the center of the cloud like a center of gooey, cosmic, planet-eating goodness.

GUESS NOT!

I have to say this article hit the nail on the head. However, I don't think Godzilla deserves the derision it gets. Sure, the original is iconic and blah blah but it's not even remotely possible to release something looking anywhere near like that for todays audience and not get laughed out of the industry entirely.

The Godzilla remake did something that's almost impossible. They made the concept of a 'Godzilla' almost realistic. I liked the look of him. I liked the speed and power. Hell, I even liked how he outsmarted military forces in a game of hide and go fuck yourself in the middle of Manhattan. The things that ruined the movie was the performance of the actors, especially Matthew Broderick's mindbogglingly bad attempts at portraying anything but a 'derp' face.

As an action/comedy flick (even though most of the comedy was unintentional, I'm sure) it actually delivered as far as I'm concerned. The original Godzilla was a mindblowing product way back when, but it's not something I'd ever try to 'redo' for the current crop of audiences. A full reimagining like the remake is a much better solution as far as I'm concerned.

Zachary Amaranth:

When I saw the cloud, I was hoping it was a "V'ger" thing. Like, Galactus was at the center of the cloud like a center of gooey, cosmic, planet-eating goodness.

GUESS NOT!

That's what I thought too, but it's been a really long time since I saw it. I remember hearing that they didn't want to blow Galactus's badass reveal in the second FF4 movie because he was supposed to appear in another movie where they wanted to showcase him that wound up never happening.

Actually, the American Godzilla did breath fire. In two scenes. But they went by so fast that I'm not surprised you missed them. Also, one of them the directing of the shot is so bad that you can only figure out that it was breathing fire by realizing its the only place the fire could have come from.

Bob, the constant nitpicking and bitching about how Nolan's Batman doesn't use the sillier elements or how the Batsuit has the common sense to be made of Kevlar became annoying MONTHS ago. Stop it, you're just sounding childish now.

Besides that, this article is quite amusing. My favorite is remembering how 'Zilla got backhanded in Final Wars.

Transformers and Batman don't deserve to be on this list, Godzilla is 50/50 depending on your take on it, die hard fan or not. Everything else does. I'd love to see Bob's artist renditions of how all this SHOULD have looked, but I doubt we'll get that. Just a whine list.

But it is good to see Bob still bitches about the little things and makes himself look like a clown doing it. Stopped watching his videos months ago and now I'll stop reading his whine articles too.

So Bob's reason for hating the American Godzilla movie was the same as James Rolfe's; they took away everything that made Godzilla... well, Godzilla.

RJ Dalton:
Actually, the American Godzilla did breath fire. In two scenes. But they went by so fast that I'm not surprised you missed them. Also, one of them the directing of the shot is so bad that you can only figure out that it was breathing fire by realizing its the only place the fire could have come from.

He actually doesn't, is the thing.

When they were putting the movie together, American Godzilla wasn't going to breathe fire - just blow things over very hard. This got out to fans and caused a ruckus (early days of the internet) so they added two bits where something else explodes in front of his face and gets blown-out by his exhaling, so it would look like he was breathing fire for the trailers.

MovieBob:

He actually doesn't, is the thing.

When they were putting the movie together, American Godzilla wasn't going to breathe fire - just blow things over very hard. This got out to fans and caused a ruckus (early days of the internet) so they added two bits where something else explodes in front of his face and gets blown-out by his exhaling, so it would look like he was breathing fire for the trailers.

. . .

That has got to be the second biggest and most offensive sort of cop-out I've seen in a movie since the Disney Death trope. I need to take a shower now, that's how dirty the thought that I watched this movie makes me feel right now.

I remember in the Chin Li film, Bison is having an evil moment and shortly before he kills someone he says "even milk sometimes goes sour" I remember laughing my arse off with my housemates for like ten minutes. Even? EVEN? pretty much all milk is known for is going sour, classic stuff.

That movie is definatly so bad its good

MovieBob:

RJ Dalton:
Actually, the American Godzilla did breath fire. In two scenes. But they went by so fast that I'm not surprised you missed them. Also, one of them the directing of the shot is so bad that you can only figure out that it was breathing fire by realizing its the only place the fire could have come from.

He actually doesn't, is the thing.

When they were putting the movie together, American Godzilla wasn't going to breathe fire - just blow things over very hard. This got out to fans and caused a ruckus (early days of the internet) so they added two bits where something else explodes in front of his face and gets blown-out by his exhaling, so it would look like he was breathing fire for the trailers.

Ninja'd.

TDK's batsuit was bad, but nowhere nearly as bad as The Batnipple suit. But you have to remember that Nolan made his Batman movies with a closer grounding in realism (a tank that can perform a rampless jump notwithstanding), so full body armour as a first iteration does kinda make sense, in the second movie it was more streamlined. Perhaps in the third it will be closer to what is shown in the comics.

The Dark Knight's Batsuit is not even close to the worst outfit in the movies (and in the film, I distinctly remember him doing rolls and twists in that suit that you definitely don't see happening in any of the other Batman films, so your line about how he can "only move his head" is a bit perplexing). Monochromatic and dull, sure, but not the worst. That honor goes to the black-and-silver one George Clooney wore.

Godzilla, I could see the line of thought for the redesign, to make him faster and more agile (and thus make faster-paced action scenes), but they went too far into turning Godzilla into just a giant dinosaur on the loose.

The rest are spot on, though this article seems a bit...random.

Boring. Anyone can rip apart a movie re-design they don't like, all you need to do is find a movie adaptation where something looks drastically different than it did in the source material and shout "that looks nothing like it's supposed to look!". It's got to be near the top of the list of things the Internet loves to complain about, somewhere between brown shooters and religion.

It would be much more interesting to see you list six re-designs that were actually good. Or better yet, six cases where it was completely inappropriate to keep the look of the source material.

Littaly:
Boring. Anyone can rip apart a movie re-design they don't like, all you need to do is find a movie adaptation where something looks drastically different than it did in the source material and shout "that looks nothing like it's supposed to look!". It's got to be near the top of the list of things the Internet loves to complain about, somewhere between brown shooters and religion.

It would be much more interesting to see you list six re-designs that were actually good. Or better yet, six cases where it was completely inappropriate to keep the look of the source material.

Clue, Father of the Bride, Scarface, The Departed, The Thing, X-men First Class, Captain America, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, The Crow, Sin City, Thor, Watchmen, Under the Red Hood, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, The Adams Family, The Shining, The Patriots Game, Apollo 13, Field of Dreams, Forrest Gump, Psycho, Transformers the Movie, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, The Green Mile, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Harry Potter, Silence of the Lambs, Secrets of Nimh, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Princess Bride, Hunt for the Red October, Lord of the Rings, Shawshank redemption.

artanis_neravar:

Littaly:
Boring. Anyone can rip apart a movie re-design they don't like, all you need to do is find a movie adaptation where something looks drastically different than it did in the source material and shout "that looks nothing like it's supposed to look!". It's got to be near the top of the list of things the Internet loves to complain about, somewhere between brown shooters and religion.

It would be much more interesting to see you list six re-designs that were actually good. Or better yet, six cases where it was completely inappropriate to keep the look of the source material.

Clue, Father of the Bride, Scarface, The Departed, The Thing, X-men First Class, Captain America, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, The Crow, Sin City, Thor, Watchmen, Under the Red Hood, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, The Adams Family, The Shining, The Patriots Game, Apollo 13, Field of Dreams, Forrest Gump, Psycho, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, The Green Mile, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Harry Potter, Silence of the Lambs, Secrets of Nimh, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Princess Bride, Hunt for the Red October, Lord of the Rings, Shawshank redemption.

Nope. Littaly was asking for aesthetic redesigns. Let's parse that:

aesthetic - relating to the surface appearance of things, in this context referring to the "look" of a character or environment.

redesign - changing minor or significant aspects of said characteter or environment.

You responded with a list of well-regarded adaptations. It's possible that some actually have aesthetic redesigns - I'm not familiar with all of them - but the vast majority don't qualify. Silence of the Lambs, for example, is an adaptation of a novel to a movie - aesthetics don't even enter the picture as prose is not a visual medium. Aesthetics play a role in Sin City's success, but that picture is noteworthy for its FIDELITY to Frank Miller's original vision, rather than for any imaginative changes.

Have to agree with Littaly's point on this one - I read/watch MovieBob's stuff every week because he's an *intelligent* fanboy, but in this case he seems to have given in to his baser instincts.

Also, don't knock the (DKR) batsuit.

Yellow Journalist:

artanis_neravar:

Littaly:
Boring. Anyone can rip apart a movie re-design they don't like, all you need to do is find a movie adaptation where something looks drastically different than it did in the source material and shout "that looks nothing like it's supposed to look!". It's got to be near the top of the list of things the Internet loves to complain about, somewhere between brown shooters and religion.

It would be much more interesting to see you list six re-designs that were actually good. Or better yet, six cases where it was completely inappropriate to keep the look of the source material.

Clue, Father of the Bride, Scarface, The Departed, The Thing, X-men First Class, Captain America, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, The Crow, Sin City, Thor, Watchmen, Under the Red Hood, Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World, The Adams Family, The Shining, The Patriots Game, Apollo 13, Field of Dreams, Forrest Gump, Psycho, Transformers the Movie, Once Upon a Time in Mexico, The Green Mile, The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory, Harry Potter, Silence of the Lambs, Secrets of Nimh, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Princess Bride, Hunt for the Red October, Lord of the Rings, Shawshank redemption.

Nope. Littaly was asking for aesthetic redesigns. Let's parse that:

aesthetic - relating to the surface appearance of things, in this context referring to the "look" of a character or environment.

redesign - changing minor or significant aspects of said characteter or environment.

You responded with a list of well-regarded adaptations. It's possible that some actually have aesthetic redesigns - I'm not familiar with all of them - but the vast majority don't qualify. Silence of the Lambs, for example, is an adaptation of a novel to a movie - aesthetics don't even enter the picture as prose is not a visual medium. Aesthetics play a role in Sin City's success, but that picture is noteworthy for its FIDELITY to Frank Miller's original vision, rather than for any imaginative changes.

Have to agree with Littaly's point on this one - I read/watch MovieBob's stuff every week because he's an *intelligent* fanboy, but in this case he seems to have given in to his baser instincts.

Also, don't knock the (DKR) batsuit.

"When translating a property - be it a book, comic, game, TV show or even older movie - into a brand-spanking-new movie, one inevitably runs into some essential asset of said property that proves especially difficult to translate into present-day live action and may require a more radical overhaul than some other assets. Sometimes this approach will work, other times it won't." That's how Movie Bob started off his column. That's what he listed his 6 movies based on and that is what I listed my movies based on.

Clue - Went from a board game to a mini choose your own adventure movie,
X-men First Class - Changed the look and back story of the X-men from the previous movies,
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - made them more "realistic" and flawed
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World - Changed the personality of Scott, along with the entire ending of the movie
The Green Mile - altered the plot in several places
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory - altered the ending of the movie
Lord of the Rings - Changed several factors, and removed some portions of the book
Transformers: The Movie - added several new characters, as well as introducing triple changers and killing off a large portion of the cast.

Just to focus on the ones that I am more familiar with

Actually, I rather liked Godzilla, but whatever.

Once again, I'm depressed by Movie Bob's fanboyism. (My previous ones have been him calling a large slew of the Marvel movies good because they have a bunch of discreet nods and winks only a comic book fan would understand). Bob is outraged whenever something doesn't look like it should, regardless of whether or not that original look is completely ridiculous.

None of the Batman movies have tried to replicate the batman costume because no one wants to run around in fucking gray spandex and black underwear. There's a reason everyone goes to watch Batman and not Superman.

They changed Godzilla because the original model had stopped looking cool around the time everyone had reached the age of 10. I imagine the producers said to themselves, "gee, we could have a giant green lizard with a fat ass and what looks like down syndrome, or we could use this magic technology called CGI to create something that actually looks like it would be a fearsome predator."

They definitely should've gotten a bigger actor than the slight-framed fellow. But once again, they damn sure didn't need to keep the original M. Bison costume. The only villains that wear capes are named Snidely Whiplash. And the only reason M. Bison should be dressed as if he's a Latin American dictator is if he IS a Latin American dictator.

Galactus is the worst offender. The comic image is a giant man with what looks like hollowed out sedan sitting on his head. Every time I see pictures of him I can only think, "WHY?" Why is this impossibly gargantuan and powerful super being even bothering to wear clothes? And where the hell did he even find these clothes? This thing is bigger than a planet, who made the goddamn clothes for him? And why does he wear a friggin' helmet. What possible sort of protection could it be for him? Never mind that a giant man "walking" through space to pick Earth up out of it's orbit and bite into it like an apple would look completely retarded (not to mention that even if you do stop, what do you do now that Earth's out of orbit?). Just answer me why the hell a giant, immortal, planet-eating god of unlimited power justifies needing fucking armor.

TL,DR: Sometimes the way things originally look would look pretty stupid in today's world.

irishda:

None of the Batman movies have tried to replicate the batman costume because no one wants to run around in fucking gray spandex and black underwear. There's a reason everyone goes to watch Batman and not Superman.

It has nothing to do with his costume and Superman is still one of the most popular super heroes ever.

They changed Godzilla because the original model had stopped looking cool around the time everyone had reached the age of 10. I imagine the producers said to themselves, "gee, we could have a giant green lizard with a fat ass and what looks like down syndrome, or we could use this magic technology called CGI to create something that actually looks like it would be a fearsome predator."

If they took the Xenomorph (from the Alien Quadrilogy) and changed it, would it still be a Xenomorph? If they took a human, added an extra joint to his legs increased his height by 5 feet and took away his opposable thumbs is it still a human?

They definitely should've gotten a bigger actor than the slight-framed fellow. But once again, they damn sure didn't need to keep the original M. Bison costume. The only villains that wear capes are named Snidely Whiplash. And the only reason M. Bison should be dressed as if he's a Latin American dictator is if he IS a Latin American dictator.

Or because it is a Street Fighter movie, and that is how the character dresses. Why does Batman have to wear a cape and use bat-a-rangs? Why does the Joker have to have a white face and a green lipped smile? Wouldn't fans be justifiably angry if they made such a giant change to the appearance of the characters?

Galactus is the worst offender. The comic image is a giant man with what looks like hollowed out sedan sitting on his head. Every time I see pictures of him I can only think, "WHY?" Why is this impossibly gargantuan and powerful super being even bothering to wear clothes? And where the hell did he even find these clothes? This thing is bigger than a planet, who made the goddamn clothes for him? And why does he wear a friggin' helmet. What possible sort of protection could it be for him? Never mind that a giant man "walking" through space to pick Earth up out of it's orbit and bite into it like an apple would look completely retarded (not to mention that even if you do stop, what do you do now that Earth's out of orbit?). Just answer me why the hell a giant, immortal, planet-eating god of unlimited power justifies needing fucking armor.

He's a god of unlimited power, he doesn't have to justify anything he appears how he appears for reasons that only he knows.

Either way Eragon is the worst when it comes to staying true to the source material. It beats any other bad movie

Chebs:

That's what I thought too, but it's been a really long time since I saw it. I remember hearing that they didn't want to blow Galactus's badass reveal in the second FF4 movie because he was supposed to appear in another movie where they wanted to showcase him that wound up never happening.

Well, there was going to be a Surfer movie after FF: RoUS. Not sure why. It seemed to make money, but they're evidently rebooting the franchise in 2014. I'm betting if they didn't think it merited another sequel, they didn't think it was worth a spinoff.

artanis_neravar:

They definitely should've gotten a bigger actor than the slight-framed fellow. But once again, they damn sure didn't need to keep the original M. Bison costume. The only villains that wear capes are named Snidely Whiplash. And the only reason M. Bison should be dressed as if he's a Latin American dictator is if he IS a Latin American dictator.

Or because it is a Street Fighter movie, and that is how the character dresses. Why does Batman have to wear a cape and use bat-a-rangs? Why does the Joker have to have a white face and a green lipped smile? Wouldn't fans be justifiably angry if they made such a giant change to the appearance of the characters?

Batman uses the cape and bat-a-rangs to cull a psychological image with criminals. Dark, fearsome, imposing, bat-themed. Joker has clown makeup because he's a lunatic who thinks the world is all one big joke, and he wants to convey that message through his image. They're pretty contrived reasons but hey, it's a reason. M. Bison on the other hand has no reason for looking like he got lost in a tailor's shop. He's a CEO of a major corporation. Does he go to stock holder meetings looking like that? Chun Li also didn't run around in a blue mini-dress and white thigh highs but I didn't see her make the list. In video games characters have to have a certain look that makes them instantly recognizable. But in a movie, there has to be a reason for looking the way you do or dressing the way you do.

Galactus is the worst offender. The comic image is a giant man with what looks like hollowed out sedan sitting on his head. Every time I see pictures of him I can only think, "WHY?" Why is this impossibly gargantuan and powerful super being even bothering to wear clothes? And where the hell did he even find these clothes? This thing is bigger than a planet, who made the goddamn clothes for him? And why does he wear a friggin' helmet. What possible sort of protection could it be for him? Never mind that a giant man "walking" through space to pick Earth up out of it's orbit and bite into it like an apple would look completely retarded (not to mention that even if you do stop, what do you do now that Earth's out of orbit?). Just answer me why the hell a giant, immortal, planet-eating god of unlimited power justifies needing fucking armor.

He's a god of unlimited power, he doesn't have to justify anything he appears how he appears for reasons that only he knows.

Again, so use that line of reasoning to make something that isn't going to be ridiculous. How much harder would the world have laughed at that fantastic four movie if the end bad guy is a giant space man who's going to eat the Earth with a side of Mars.

irishda:

artanis_neravar:

They definitely should've gotten a bigger actor than the slight-framed fellow. But once again, they damn sure didn't need to keep the original M. Bison costume. The only villains that wear capes are named Snidely Whiplash. And the only reason M. Bison should be dressed as if he's a Latin American dictator is if he IS a Latin American dictator.

Or because it is a Street Fighter movie, and that is how the character dresses. Why does Batman have to wear a cape and use bat-a-rangs? Why does the Joker have to have a white face and a green lipped smile? Wouldn't fans be justifiably angry if they made such a giant change to the appearance of the characters?

Batman uses the cape and bat-a-rangs to cull a psychological image with criminals. Dark, fearsome, imposing, bat-themed. Joker has clown makeup because he's a lunatic who thinks the world is all one big joke, and he wants to convey that message through his image. They're pretty contrived reasons but hey, it's a reason. M. Bison on the other hand has no reason for looking like he got lost in a tailor's shop. He's a CEO of a major corporation. Does he go to stock holder meetings looking like that? Chun Li also didn't run around in a blue mini-dress and white thigh highs but I didn't see her make the list. In video games characters have to have a certain look that makes them instantly recognizable. But in a movie, there has to be a reason for looking the way you do or dressing the way you do.

The Joker looks like a clown because he fell into a chemical that made his skin permanently look like that, The Joker in the Dark Knight didn't he looked that way because it was recognizable. For the Chun Li part, Probably because there were too many other issues. M. Bison was the leader of a criminal syndicate, and his goal is to be a world military dictator, hence the outfit. Also in a movie, characters have to be instantly recognizable as well.

Galactus is the worst offender. The comic image is a giant man with what looks like hollowed out sedan sitting on his head. Every time I see pictures of him I can only think, "WHY?" Why is this impossibly gargantuan and powerful super being even bothering to wear clothes? And where the hell did he even find these clothes? This thing is bigger than a planet, who made the goddamn clothes for him? And why does he wear a friggin' helmet. What possible sort of protection could it be for him? Never mind that a giant man "walking" through space to pick Earth up out of it's orbit and bite into it like an apple would look completely retarded (not to mention that even if you do stop, what do you do now that Earth's out of orbit?). Just answer me why the hell a giant, immortal, planet-eating god of unlimited power justifies needing fucking armor.

He's a god of unlimited power, he doesn't have to justify anything he appears how he appears for reasons that only he knows.

Again, so use that line of reasoning to make something that isn't going to be ridiculous. How much harder would the world have laughed at that fantastic four movie if the end bad guy is a giant space man who's going to eat the Earth with a side of Mars.

Well considering the movie was made because of the fans of the comics, it probably would have done a lot better if they kept Galactus true to his original look, just like they did (mostly at least) with the Fantastic Four and Silver Surfer

Despite the stiff necked suit, I've always thought Michael Keaton made the best Batman. Perhaps not the best bat-suit of the various adaptations but easily the best actor to wear one.

The Madman:
Despite the stiff necked suit, I've always thought Michael Keaton made the best Batman. Perhaps not the best bat-suit of the various adaptations but easily the best actor to wear one.

I want a Batman movie with Jason Statham as Batman, Mark Hamill as The Joker, Neil Patrick Harris as the Riddler, and Bruce Willis as Mr. Freeze

Batman suit never bugged me in Christopher Nolan's series. Everything else did bug me.

For the record: The best Batman suit IMO was the one Val Kilmer wore before he got the radar-equipped version in "Batman Forever." It dropped the overly armor-like look of the "Returns" outfit, made the black slightly reflective which looks kind of cool, it kept the more dynamic-looking yellow-oval symbol and... egh, I honestly don't mind the nipples.

Frankly, given that the whole thing is sculpted to resemble human muscles it makes sense to have them there; and if I'm not going to complain about Catwoman wearing what consistently amounts to BDSM gear to "work" it's not really fair to complain about some similar level of fetishism being applied to the male characters. Yes, the Joel Schumacher movies (which ARE bad, but because of scripts and casting, not nipples) lean increasingly-heavy on a homoerotic/"gay-camp" vibe... but since I'm no longer an insecure 14 year-old that no longer horrifies me :)

I don't see what's so bad about some of the live action Batsuits, Michael Keaton and Christian Bales (as much as I hate his acting in TDK) Batsuits both look perfectly good, sure Keatons Batsuit looks a little dodgy now,but only because it's 20 years old but it pretty much IS the Troika era Batsuit and Bales is pretty much the Troika era Batsuit without the yellow ellipse and more armour. They both look how the would look if Batman was real, he'd be wearing black, y'know for stealth, and body armour that allowed protection without sacrificing too much mobility.

Bales could do with the ellipse purely because of the reason it's there (to act as a target to draw fire as it's the most heavily armoured section), but other than that they translate pretty well. Heck I imagine the only reason he wore grey in the first place was because it was easier to draw back in the day both in tech and the artists abilities at the time. Not to say the artists were bad per say, just the companies didn't have the technology or employ people like we have today back when Batman was created.

irishda:
Galactus is the worst offender. The comic image is a giant man with what looks like hollowed out sedan sitting on his head. Every time I see pictures of him I can only think, "WHY?" Why is this impossibly gargantuan and powerful super being even bothering to wear clothes? And where the hell did he even find these clothes? This thing is bigger than a planet, who made the goddamn clothes for him? And why does he wear a friggin' helmet. What possible sort of protection could it be for him? Never mind that a giant man "walking" through space to pick Earth up out of it's orbit and bite into it like an apple would look completely retarded (not to mention that even if you do stop, what do you do now that Earth's out of orbit?). Just answer me why the hell a giant, immortal, planet-eating god of unlimited power justifies needing fucking armor.

What, so you'd be happier if he was lounging around on his giant space-couch in his space-boxers? Or you really think having the Fantastic Four go up against a fucking storm cloud is BETTER somehow? Tell me, if YOU were a giant, immortal, planet-eating god of unlimited power, how would YOU dress to present yourself to the universe?

Sorry dude, your other points weren't too bad, but that last one is so badly thought out (especially claiming that it's "the worst offender") that you accidentally gave away that you're just hating on Bob to be a hater (especially as you pointed out that this isn't the first time that you've done this).

EDIT: Also, your knowledge of Galactus apparently extends no farther than Omnipotus, the parody of him they did on 'The Tick'. Galactus doesn't "eat" worlds by picking them up and biting them like an orange. He isn't even nearly that big! He devours the LIFE ENERGY of planets capable of supporting life through his mastery of the power cosmic. (Additionally, in some versions, he has to wear the armour to help regulate his inconcievable power).

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you were first introduced to Akira long after you were introduced to any of these franchises, since you were able to actually give intelligent commentary on how to appeal to the same themes as the original and how that would actually require dramatically reinventing the aesthetics.

Godzilla is a terrifying, vaguely dinosaur-looking monster who destroys cities and is an increasingly strained metaphor for either forces of nature or nuclear war, depending on the writer. That is all you need to be Godzilla, everything else can be changed and keep the character recognizable. The idea of the poorly balanced, slow, and unwieldly creature made out of necessity in the 50's being considered a legitimate threat to a movie going audience familiar with modern nightmares like the xenomorph is laughable. As in, you would literally need to make Godzilla a comedy if you wanted to keep the old look. The problem with the American Godzilla is the way it handled the theme of the character. Godzilla is finally defeated by being bombed to death and never really seems to represent anything except a giant lizard that wants to kill us, but his actual aesthetic is actually a huge improvement, because he looks legitimately threatening. The fact that he doesn't breathe fire was another blunder, but it's the only valid point you've made.

The Michael Bay Transformers always bothered me. Where does all that extra mass come from? I probably would've given this a pass if the movie wasn't so godawful that I stopped watching halfway through.

Concerning Batman, Bob, you've openly admitted that the reason you can't get into FPS games is because you can't even conceive of the idea of going out and shooting people who are actually shooting back. You just aren't made for a warzone. Okay, fine, the whole point of fighting (legitimate) wars is so that other people don't have to (or so they can avert some worse fate), so I'm not going to begrudge you that, but you do have to understand that your lack of attention or concern for the practical realities of warfare are really obvious and really, really irritating. I'm not intimately familiar with modern body armor, but I know enough to see that the Nolan batsuit is a pretty impressive combination of protection and flexibility. It doesn't make any kind of sense for Batman as a character to be wearing anything else, either. He is defined by his pragmatism and his preparedness, you'd need an insanely good reason as to why he wouldn't wear armor if you didn't want to totally derail the parts of his character that actually matter instead of just clinging to old appearances for the sake of nostalgia and characterization be damned. As for what all those "buckles and straps" are for...I'm looking at the version of the Dark Knight batsuit used for the Got Milk ad right now, it looks like the exact same one to me and it's a pretty good body shot. I see no buckles or straps, just lots of armor plates over a more flexible mesh armor beneath.

I'm not familiar enough with the Street Fighter source material or the film to know whether M. Bison's redesign was a good thing. Unlike Batman and Godzilla, I don't really know what the themes of this character are, so I have no idea if a modern business suit is more evocative of them.

Galactus looks stupid. This isn't to say that the storm cloud of DOOOOOOOM was a good design decision, it wasn't, but really, Galactus looks stupid. I'm doing something with my little brother right now called Alternate Marvel, which is basically an excuse to get him to try out new art techniques by drawing a new Marvel continuity loosely based on a combination of our favorite movies and games on the subject. One of the biggest aesthetic challenges we've run into so far (which, fortunately, is several months ahead of our current storylines) is what on earth we're going to do with Galactus, such that he is still somewhat recognizable. Because absolutely nothing about the original character looks right. The character is a giant, planet-consuming monstrosity, but also sentient. A god of annihilation. If Mephisto is Marvel Satan, that makes Galactus the Marvel Cthulhu. Look at this guy. Look at him. When I think of the color scheme of planet-eating abominations, purple and blue is not what leaps to mind. Those boots and gloves just scream "cheap, decades-old sci-fi," which isn't exactly the image of awe and terror for modern audiences. That plate...Thing on his chest looks neither imposing nor practical (of course, being a planet-eating abomination, nothing is particularly practical for Galactus). And that helmet! The giant prongs coming out the sides, the absurdly elaborate crests, the incredibly boring and unimpressive human face that even loses Galactus what points he might have won with an "unfeeling, inhuman behemoth of steel" look...What's wrong with your faaaaaace?

The one place where you're spot on is Bowser. Shigeru Miyamoto is awesome at a lot of things, like making simple game mechanics with incredibly varied applications, exceptional level design, and really good mood and atmosphere with very limited resources in a wide variety of genres. Character design is another of his many and varied talents. Not only are his character instantly iconic, they're also perfect representations of their simple but powerful personalities, and they are timeless. Decades later, not one that I can think of needs to be updated in the slightest (partly he cheated by setting none of his characters in anything resembling reality, which means he doesn't need to worry about pop culture). Bowser is an evil overlord of immense personal power, but the really punishing parts of the Mario games have always come from his minions and fortifications. He kidnaps royalty (in later years, especially Princess Peach) pretty much for a living, and while he's never won any major encounter with Mario, keep in mind that he is otherwise a wildly successful conquistador, who's laid claim to dozens of lands long enough to entrench them with significant fortifications before our favorite pair of plumbers showed up to evict him. Every element of this is represented in his character design. He has a dragon-like appearance while still being incredibly original and distinct. Something about him seems demonic, but in a Saturday morning cartoon way that isn't genuinely frightening. He also appears intelligent, not just sentient, but actually very cunning. So, yes, the Super Mario Brothers movie was generally terrible, and part of that terribleness was in failing to execute a setting and set of characters that was already incredible and could've easily worked as a faithful adaptation.

Man. I should find a way to get the Escapist to pay me for this kind of stuff.

Arcane Azmadi:

irishda:
Galactus is the worst offender. The comic image is a giant man with what looks like hollowed out sedan sitting on his head. Every time I see pictures of him I can only think, "WHY?" Why is this impossibly gargantuan and powerful super being even bothering to wear clothes? And where the hell did he even find these clothes? This thing is bigger than a planet, who made the goddamn clothes for him? And why does he wear a friggin' helmet. What possible sort of protection could it be for him? Never mind that a giant man "walking" through space to pick Earth up out of it's orbit and bite into it like an apple would look completely retarded (not to mention that even if you do stop, what do you do now that Earth's out of orbit?). Just answer me why the hell a giant, immortal, planet-eating god of unlimited power justifies needing fucking armor.

What, so you'd be happier if he was lounging around on his giant space-couch in his space-boxers? Or you really think having the Fantastic Four go up against a fucking storm cloud is BETTER somehow? Tell me, if YOU were a giant, immortal, planet-eating god of unlimited power, how would YOU dress to present yourself to the universe?

Sorry dude, your other points weren't too bad, but that last one is so badly thought out (especially claiming that it's "the worst offender") that you accidentally gave away that you're just hating on Bob to be a hater (especially as you pointed out that this isn't the first time that you've done this).

EDIT: Also, your knowledge of Galactus apparently extends no farther than Omnipotus, the parody of him they did on 'The Tick'. Galactus doesn't "eat" worlds by picking them up and biting them like an orange. He isn't even nearly that big! He devours the LIFE ENERGY of planets capable of supporting life through his mastery of the power cosmic. (Additionally, in some versions, he has to wear the armour to help regulate his inconcievable power).

I provide legitimate reasons for my previous gripes with Movie Bob. The man provides intelligent commentary for movies, but when it comes to comic book movies, his fanboyism gets the best of him. I know Galactus doesn't actually eat planets. I was deliberately being over the top on that one. But my point still stands. I've always found Galactus to be one of the more ridiculous looking characters of the comic book universe. The cloud works better to me because it gives an impression of power unleashed. A man, even a giant space man, is limited because he has physical form. This physical form has limitations and rules that it must obey purely out of physics. But a cloud has no limits. It is a boundless form that need not obey any such rules. Face it, in printed media, fighting a giant man in space is fine. In a movie, it's probably just gonna look ridiculous. Not that fighting a cloud also doesn't look stupid, but picture the alternative.

artanis_neravar:
snip

"When translating a property - be it a book, comic, game, TV show or even older movie - into a brand-spanking-new movie, one inevitably runs into some essential asset of said property that proves especially difficult to translate into present-day live action and may require a more radical overhaul than some other assets. Sometimes this approach will work, other times it won't." That's how Movie Bob started off his column. That's what he listed his 6 movies based on and that is what I listed my movies based on.

Clue - Went from a board game to a mini choose your own adventure movie,
X-men First Class - Changed the look and back story of the X-men from the previous movies,
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles - made them more "realistic" and flawed
Scott Pilgrim Vs. The World - Changed the personality of Scott, along with the entire ending of the movie
The Green Mile - altered the plot in several places
Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory - altered the ending of the movie
Lord of the Rings - Changed several factors, and removed some portions of the book
Transformers: The Movie - added several new characters, as well as introducing triple changers and killing off a large portion of the cast.

Just to focus on the ones that I am more familiar with

I think you're on point with X-men, TMNT and possibly Transformers, but I haven't seen that. But changing, say, the personality of Scott Pilgrim, making a story change to Willy Wonka or The Green Mile and, in the case of LotR removing story parts deemed less important for time or budget considerations (or whatever) don't count as aesthetic changes.

Based on your criteria, which are based on Bob's, altering the plot of The Green Mile doesn't constitute a "radical overhaul", certainly not a radical aesthetic overhaul.

Mostly your original list was a good list of well done film adaptations of other properties, but not all involved visual overhauls, coming from literature and some are almost literally impossible to transform from comic page or video game to live action, even with the help of CG.

Before I wade into the 'Galactus discussion,' I just want to say this:

I'm doing something with my little brother right now called Alternate Marvel, which is basically an excuse to get him to try out new art techniques by drawing a new Marvel continuity loosely based on a combination of our favorite movies and games on the subject.

Is really cool, especially for a private art project.

Maldeus:
Galactus looks stupid...Because absolutely nothing about the original character looks right. The character is a giant, planet-consuming monstrosity, but also sentient. A god of annihilation. If Mephisto is Marvel Satan, that makes Galactus the Marvel Cthulhu.

I have to agree with the part about Galactus not quite looking 'right,' especially when anyone other than Jack Kirby draws him. Kirby is like the John Williams of comic book art, the genuine article is great, but most of the people who imitate his aesthetic come up lacking.

The only way the design makes sense for me is that it's not really supposed to. Kirby did, after all, base Galactus on the God of the Old Testament (which also informs the creation of the Silver Surfer), who was kinda like humanity (in that we were 'in His image') but still something else. Having Galactus as he is depicted in the comics gives him just enough familiarity that things like the goofy helmet, armor, etc., give him an otherness to him that just feels...wrong. Maybe I'm off in my interpretation, but I think it's something an artist can play with.

Also: if you don't mind me suggesting, I'd say have your brother look into parts of the Bible for artistic inspiration, if you haven't already (perhaps apocrypha like the Book of Enoch, since it has a sci-fi-ish tone?). Never hurts when reinterpreting someone's work to look at the well they drew from.

Bowser - the most iconic villain in videogame history.

*sigh*

First the out of nowhere mention in his review of Twilight that he bought a new Mario game (we're happy for you Bob, we really are) and now this. Bob, we already know you've got a hard-on for Nintendo, really, we do. There's no need to keep reminding us of your unconditional love. every. freakin'. time.

This is worse than Rob Zombie featuring his wife in every movie he makes...

As for the article: True on all accounts, although the design of Nolan's Batman never really bothered me.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 51590)