Galactus vs. the In-Betweener

[drsevarius]

This'll be my last post on S_D for the foreseeable future. S_D hasn't felt the same for a while, though I know some of that can't be helped. And after recent events I don't feel as comfortable posting here. I'm also a lot busier in real life.

Anyway, my last post will be one of my favorite comic book battles, between Galactus and the In-Betweener. Galactus is so powerful that it's unusual to see him fighting someone like this, which always made it stand out to me.

















The battle goes on until the In-Betweener's masters intervene and take him away, leaving Galactus triumphant.

Comments

[xammax]

Oh Galactus you so cosmic.

[perletwo]

I'd like to see a giant amorphous stormcloud do THAT, thankyouverramuch.

[drsevarius]

I think they said they did that because they wanted to save using his actual physical body for the Surfer film.

Wikipedia says Director Tim Story claimed he made Galactus a cloud so that the future Silver Surfer spin-off film would have a chance to be unique and introduce the character as he normally appears. J. Michael Straczynski, the spin-off's writer, confirmed Galactus is in his script and that "You don't want to sort of blow out something that big and massive for one quick shot in the first movie."

[crinos]

The problem with that line of thinking is that you assume there WILL be more movies?

Are they making a third FF movie? I somehow doubt it.

[drsevarius]

I assume they mean the SS spinoff

[jcbaggee]

The plan right now is to reboot it. Also, wasn't the cloud haw Gah-Lac-Tus took shape in the Ultimate Universe?

[psychopathicus_rex]

A plan which I am not in favor of. I respect how 'Batman Begins' and 'Dark Knight' decided to reboot the Batman franchise ('cause goodness knows, it needed it), but I don't really approve of what it's unleashed on comic-book movies. Movie executives all over have been slapping their heads and going 'good lord! It's so SIMPLE! If a franchise isn't making enough money, just start it all over again!' It's one thing when you're talking about the Batman movie franchise, the original version of which had descended into absolute drivel by just about everyone's admission, but it's another entirely when you're talking about something that was simply controversial, like, say, Ang Lee's 'Hulk', or the 'FF' franchise. Personally, I've enjoyed the Fantastic Four's movie outings so far - flawed they definitely are (their version of Dr. Doom sucks), but as fluff entertainment, they're perfectly serviceable, and there have been moments where they really nailed the feeling of the original comics. More importantly in some ways, they're one of the few superheroes in movies right now who are actually FUN, who aren't all grim and dark and 'why me, cruel world?' What's the point of chucking it all out the window? People have complaints about some aspects of it? So ADDRESS those aspects, and keep the good stuff - don't just jettison the whole damn thing. I thoroughly approve of reboots in the case of the original movie(s) royally biting the big one (such as 'The Spirit', for example), but abandoning a perfectly serviceable franchise simply because it hasn't attracted as many fans as it might have strikes me as throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[jcbaggee]

Agreed. While I do vastly prefer Incredilbe Hulk to Hulk, there was really no reason it couldn't be treated/regarded as a sequel.

The Superman franchise is one that needs a reboot, but given how long ago Returns was, my plan would be to do a film adaptation of "Whatever Happened To The Man Of Tomorrow?" altered to include aspects of the Donner films, and put a cap on that series. Wait a few years, then reboot the franchise from that.

[psychopathicus_rex]

But how would that work? It ends with Supes losing his powers. Permanently. How do you stage a comeback for a Superman without any powers? (Not to mention, of course, that there are zillions of Silver Age continuity details that tie directly into the story of 'Man of Tomorrow', which contain many of its finest moments - the suicide of Bizarro, for example. In order to do an adaptation of it, you'd have to eliminate all that stuff, which would be a crying shame.)

[jcbaggee]

You DON'T stage a comeback. The Donner Era films were great in their time, and with Singer's film he tied it to the Donner films while trying to make something unique. I enjoyed Returns, but it's somewhat of a clusterfuck.

You film it as the endcap on The Donner Era, the final bit of THAT series of Superman films. You end it on an up note for the fans of the franchise. You could see it as it ends with Superman losing his powers; or you could see it as ending the franchise with Superman and Lois Lane being together.

Then wait a few years, and reboot Superman films from scratch, maybe even introduce him in a different film. Have the currently realistically grounded Batman from Nolan's films encounter Superman as the one thing he has difficulty wrapping his mind around at first would be a great re-introduction.

I love the Superman films as much as the next person, and I think a really strong sequel to Returns could suffice, but the odds of that happening, and tieing those films into DC's current, apparent plan of building their super hero franchises is a pretty tall order.

[psychopathicus_rex]

Oh, I see what you mean. I suppose that could work, although the problem with that might be that such a dark movie (as an adaptation of 'Man of Tomorrow' would inevitably be; it does, after all, feature the deaths of almost the entire Superman supporting cast) could affect the expectations for a reboot franchise. A Superman origin movie cannot be dark - yes, the character's origin is tied in with the death of a planet, which is very tragic and all, but the root of the character is hope and optimism about mankind - if you don't at some point have people cheering 'yay, Superman!', then it's not really much of a Superman movie. A 'Dark Knight' version of Supes would be disastrous - Superman can deal with dark subject material, but he himself cannot be treated darkly (in an origin movie, anyway), or you lose the heart of the character.

[jcbaggee]

Absolutely, and I think that's why the Man Of Tomorrow film would work. Yeah, it's dark, but scarcely so. A lot of it's darkness is in Superman's misconception of the knowledge that he will "die" at the end of the day.

Coincidentally, that's the scene that makes me think it would work. Watching Superman crying as he believes his life has to come to an end, then persevering because he loves his friends more.

And dear God no, never a dark Superman movie. He can be in dark situations, and things can look grim, but Superman has to be bright, optimistic, and can never give up. When all else fails, Superman is the blur of speed and the flapping red cape that descends from the heavens to pick you up.

[kamino_neko]

When all else fails, Superman is the blur of speed and the flapping red cape that descends from the heavens to pick you up.

But that's exactly what Superman DIDN'T do in WHttMoT - in the end, he only saved 3 of his friends, and none of his enemies, and he did that by betraying one of his most important core values, and faked his own death - 'killing' both Superman and Clark Kent - as punishment.

[psychopathicus_rex]

How is MoT 'scarcely dark'? I mean, everybody DIES. Lana Lang dies, Jimmy Olsen dies, Krypto dies (having the loyal poochie die of radiation poison; that'll bring in the kids), Supergirl is implied to have died, although we never find out how, Bizarro commits SUICIDE after having gone on a murder spree, Toyman and the Prankster...uh... kill people, don't remember who or how many, but they do; Luthor dies, Brainiac, uh, shuts down, I guess, and let's not forget the capper of everyone's favorite mischievous sprite in a derby hat turning out to be an all-powerful, immortal mass-murderer.
Granted, a LOT of those deaths would have to be cut out, since most of those characters never even appeared in the movies, but still, 'Man of Tomorrow' is not exactly a cheerful story, and if you were to do anything close to a faithful adaptation of it, it would inevitably be pretty dark, with the biggest bodycount of ANY Superman film to date.

[jcbaggee]

I dunno, I just never considered MoT a "dark" story *shrug* Never even occurred to me to consider it as such.

[psychopathicus_rex]

Well, it has a happy ending and so forth, and it never descends into outright gloominess, but I think you'd find that it would make for quite a dark movie. There are nuances of expression that a comic has which would not necessarily translate to the silver screen, and basically, any movie that has pretty much the hero's entire supporting cast, including his faithful dog, die in a variety of terrible ways can only be considered some degree of dark. I mean, there are slasher movies that don't have a bodycount that high.

[kamino_neko]

All of Superman's enemies turn into psycho killers - including Toyman, Prankster, and Mxyzptlk. Most end up dead. Lana Lang, Krypto, and SUPERMAN HIMSELF all kill. (Luthor/Brainiac, Kryptonite Man, and Mxyzptlk, respectively.) Everyone close to Superman in the 20th century except Lois and the Whites is brutally killed (or known to die in the near future).

The 'happy' ending doesn't change that it's pretty much unrelentingly dark up to that point.

[kamino_neko]

Toyman and the Prankster...uh... kill people, don't remember who or how many, but they do

Pete Ross. Who they stuffed in a jack-in-the-box and sent to the WGBS newsroom for Clark and Lana to see.

[psychopathicus_rex]

Right - him, too. Deaths deaths deaths!

[auggie18]

I'm sorry you're not feeling the community spirit. I hope you'll come back sometime.

[proteus_lives]

This is almost as awesome as when he breaks out of his prison during Anniliation and goes super-saiyin.

[autumn_lily]

I am seeing this and hearing "Eye of the Tiger" in my head!

Also, when I heard the name The In-Betweener, I thought it was going to be a hermaphrodite...

Also also? that name has the word 'weener' in it...say it out loud to yourself...hehehehehehehe...

[pyynk]

Does the In Betweener have one of the Infinity Gems per chance?

Also, hate to see you go Doc, but I can understand the need for a break.

[icon_uk]

I don't think the In-Betweener has a gem, he's powerful enough not to need one.

[buttler]

And then Galactus gave him a cosmic purple nurple.
Because that's JUST HOW HE ROLLS.

[arilou_skiff]

Galactus: Probably my favourite Marvel Character.

[icon_uk]

Sorry to see you go Doctor Sevarius, hope we'll still see you around, even if it's only commenting.