Cloudy With a Chance of Galactus

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Zom-B:

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.

OK I'll agree with the Green Mile (mostly because it's been awhile since I read the books) But with LotR they removed the conclusion to Sarumans(sp?) story, which was difficult to translate to live action due to time constrictions, they could have shortened battles or other scenes but they chose to remove the end part instead. And with Willy Wonka they remove a level of dementia for Wonka (in the books I believe it is said, or at least heavily implied that the other kids all died, but in the movie it is left open and it gives Wanka more of a slightly weird teacher vibe.) And I suppose I can agree with Scott Pilgrim, although it makes his character...different, in the movie he just seems oblivious and incompetent, where as in the books(manga?) he is just a total douche. Altering the ending is also a rather large aesthetic(as in it is viewed) change that fit well with the new Scott. but if we are talking just visual changes to characters then,
Hermione Granger - (as I recall) was supposed to be rather plain looking (although I suppose looks are a personal preference)
and that's all that I can think of, mostly because I am willing to give allowances to the actors because they can't look exactly like they were described(for books) or previously drawn/rendered(for comics/games)

Arqus_Zed:
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.

Ok, i know Bob's fanboy tendencies get the best of him sometimes, but I don' think this is one of those times. I mean name a video game villain that is more widely recognized by the general public, not just gamers, than Bowser.

Sutter Cane:

Arqus_Zed:
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.

Ok, i know Bob's fanboy tendencies get the best of him sometimes, but I don' think this is one of those times. I mean name a video game villain that is more widely recognized by the general public, not just gamers, than Bowser.

Popping in to agree here. Ask anyone under sixty who Bowser is, and odds are good they'll be able to tell you he's Mario's arch-nemesis, he kidnaps the princess a lot, and they can probably give you a loosely accurate description of him as some sort of giant turtle, or dragon, or dinosaur, or whatever. If you're talking to a male thirty or under, the odds he hasn't personally fought Bowser at least once are something like 50/50. If you're talking to anyone under fifteen, the odds they haven't at least raced go-karts against him are practically zero.

Sutter Cane:

Arqus_Zed:
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.

Ok, i know Bob's fanboy tendencies get the best of him sometimes, but I don' think this is one of those times. I mean name a video game villain that is more widely recognized by the general public, not just gamers, than Bowser.

Maldeus:

Sutter Cane:

Arqus_Zed:
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.

Ok, i know Bob's fanboy tendencies get the best of him sometimes, but I don' think this is one of those times. I mean name a video game villain that is more widely recognized by the general public, not just gamers, than Bowser.

Popping in to agree here. Ask anyone under sixty who Bowser is, and odds are good they'll be able to tell you he's Mario's arch-nemesis, he kidnaps the princess a lot, and they can probably give you a loosely accurate description of him as some sort of giant turtle, or dragon, or dinosaur, or whatever. If you're talking to a male thirty or under, the odds he hasn't personally fought Bowser at least once are something like 50/50. If you're talking to anyone under fifteen, the odds they haven't at least raced go-karts against him are practically zero.

It's the little things.
With ANY other character, he would have said "one of the most iconic villains in videogame history". Just because it's Nintendo, he says it is the most iconic. Normally he always thinks about relativating stuff like this, but just because this is Nintendo, he doesn't.

What about Dr. Robotnik? What about M. Bison? What about the enemy paddle in Pong? What about Sephiroth? I mean, I'm not a big fan of him either, but a lot of people seem to know about him.

It just bothers me that he is always trying to be as objective as possible about everything (with exception of the occasional "nerd rage" moment) yet he always drops the ball when talking about this specific company and its products.

Oh, and Maldeus, I honestly can't call "lies and slander" on that statement of yours, because it might very well be true where you live. However, it seems kind of exaggerated. I asked my mom, she doesn't know who Bowser is. I asked my dad, he doesn't know either. I asked my 12 year old sister and - lo an behold - she has no idea.

Dr. Robotnik is virtually unknown outside the Sonic fandom, which has suffered heavily from a string of terrible games since the 3D era, and the recent success of Sonic Generations isn't anywhere near spectacular enough to make Robotnik or Sonic a well-known face outside of gaming circles...Or even within gaming circles, if the circle is mostly comprised of people 14 and under. There was a joke on Reddit a while back, a picture of a Bison in M. Bison's costume. I didn't get it, and I post critiques of Galactus' character design on the forums for an online video game magazine. He is not well known. The enemy paddle in Pong is not a character. Sephiroth isn't recognizable by anyone on the street. Seriously, take a picture of Bowser, Robotnik, M. Bison, and Sephiroth. Go out onto the street and ask random passers-by if they can name any of them. Bowser will have the vast majority of correct answers. He is, in fact, the most recognizable video game villain ever made, even though I don't actually like Nintendo that much.

Arqus_Zed:

What about Dr. Robotnik?

So iconic, he's been called Eggman for years and years and you didn't notice.

What about M. Bison? What about the enemy paddle in Pong? What about Sephiroth? I mean, I'm not a big fan of him either, but a lot of people seem to know about him.

None of those guys are as iconic as Bowser. Only Sepiroth is even close.

Zachary Amaranth:

Arqus_Zed:

What about Dr. Robotnik?

So iconic, he's been called Eggman for years and years and you didn't notice.

What about M. Bison? What about the enemy paddle in Pong? What about Sephiroth? I mean, I'm not a big fan of him either, but a lot of people seem to know about him.

None of those guys are as iconic as Bowser. Only Sepiroth is even close.

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".

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!

Arqus_Zed:

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!

Don't be silly. I never had any credibility.

artanis_neravar:

Zom-B:

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.

OK I'll agree with the Green Mile (mostly because it's been awhile since I read the books) But with LotR they removed the conclusion to Sarumans(sp?) story, which was difficult to translate to live action due to time constrictions, they could have shortened battles or other scenes but they chose to remove the end part instead. And with Willy Wonka they remove a level of dementia for Wonka (in the books I believe it is said, or at least heavily implied that the other kids all died, but in the movie it is left open and it gives Wanka more of a slightly weird teacher vibe.) And I suppose I can agree with Scott Pilgrim, although it makes his character...different, in the movie he just seems oblivious and incompetent, where as in the books(manga?) he is just a total douche. Altering the ending is also a rather large aesthetic(as in it is viewed) change that fit well with the new Scott. but if we are talking just visual changes to characters then,
Hermione Granger - (as I recall) was supposed to be rather plain looking (although I suppose looks are a personal preference)
and that's all that I can think of, mostly because I am willing to give allowances to the actors because they can't look exactly like they were described(for books) or previously drawn/rendered(for comics/games)

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".

I don't get the hate for Batman's costume and voice. I didn't notice anything much.

MovieBob:
Exactly how/why creature designer Patrick Tatopoulos got from a lumbering, bottom-heavy, dark green fire-breathing behemoth to a speed-running, super skinny, gray-skinned lizard who does not breathe fire is a mystery to this day."

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.

Animyr:
I don't get the hate for Batman's costume and voice. I didn't notice anything much.

He's a fiery Marvel fanboy. Everything about DC, and Batman especially, gets on his nerves.

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

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. . .

Animyr:
I don't get the hate for Batman's costume and voice. I didn't notice anything much.

Apart from the fact that the voice is simultaneously retarded and tragically hilarious, I suppose it's fine.

Aiddon:
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.

I'm in complete agreement with you.
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.

Maldeus:

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?

First off, that art project sounds neat.

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.

KirbyKrackle:
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,

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.

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.

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.

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.

"Movie Galactus is a giant storm cloud."

That was the worst one of all for me personally.
I mean... come ON!
Sigh :(

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here