Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic

> I can tolerate the cloud Galactus, since the practicalities of introducing another such important character would overshadow the Surfer.

********************

Galactus is supposed to overshadow the Surfer, nature of the Beast.
But that doesn't prevent the Surfer from being one of the coolest
comic book characters ever, does it? So why worry about it?

*********************

> However, the one thing that I will not accept is the absence of the
> Ultimate Nullifier, as the Maguffin that chases Galactus away.

*********************

I agree with this. The way the Surfer beat Galactus was as
disappointing as the failure of Galactus to appear. Here you have one
of the best comic book stories ever written, with a perfect ending,
all ready for you. Yet they cast that aside in favor of something
that didn't really even make sense.

As for the Punisher not making an appearance, that didn't bother me at
all.
More glaring is the absence of the Watcher, but I even accepted that
he would not be appearing due to the condensed nature of films. I
figured they would probably just have the Surfer retrieve the Ultimate
Nullifier from Galactus' ship for Reed, and that would end it.
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

On Tue, 26 Jun 2007 17:57:45 -0000, iarwain <iarwain_8 RemoveThis @hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I agree with this. The way the Surfer beat Galactus was as
>disappointing as the failure of Galactus to appear. Here you have one
>of the best comic book stories ever written, with a perfect ending,
>all ready for you. Yet they cast that aside in favor of something
>that didn't really even make sense.

I had hoped and anticipated that they would simply show the giant
Galactus shrugging off attacks by FF and SS, and then leave it as a
cliffhanger.

I suppose they could paste that on the last five minutes of the movie
as an alternate ending if they ever want to make good on it, but why
not now?

Next episode, they could throw in Watchers and nullifiers and new
heralds and kree and skrull and whatever.

Or maybe have Frodo walk up and hand it to him.

I mean, as it is, Doom got the Surfer's powers, never explained, and
all he did with them is ride around for a few hours. Which I guess
isn't that different from the comic, except did Doom ever steal the
Surfer's powers, or was it Galactus's powers, at some much later date?
I never read the originals of most of this.


>As for the Punisher not making an appearance, that didn't bother me at
>all.

There's a ton of canon to get along with, I want Mephistopholes! I
don't know a fraction of it all, except what I browsed off wikipedia,
which is exactly why it's so dumb that they cut themselves off from
fifty canonnical sequels.

J.
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

On Jun 27, 11:26 am, Agent Smith <agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
left.com> wrote:
> Brad Haga <jade... RemoveThis @adelphia.net> wrote innews:jademan-B1FEFB.09170327062007@news.isp.giganews.com:
>
> > Its the licensing thing. Various studios are licensed to use specific
> > characters for their movies. If, say, the rights to Power Man and
> > Misty Knight are optioned by Sony and Iron Fist and Colleen Wing are
> > optioned by Columbia you can't put the two together for the duration
> > of the license. So if the last studio to do Punisher or Hulk or
> > whatnot still retains the rights, you're just not going to see them in
> > another studio's movie. That's one of the reasons that Marvel is
> > trying to get its own in-house production company off the ground: to
> > use whoever they want, whenever they want. DC could theoretically do
> > the same thing via Time/Warner, but their attempts simply haven't been
> > as prolific.
>
> First, they could buy back the license, because the movie was so poorly
> made that it's unlikely to spawn a fixed version before I'm dead, and
> I'm only 46. So unless the license lasts thirty years or longer,
> they're not going to get any more money out of it.
>
> Second, "Punisher" is just a proper noun, and since this is a completely
> different character, they could license the name only and for the
> purpose only of reproducing the character of Galactus' enforcer and
> nothing else, leaving to the license holder the rights to the street
> vigilante character, the skull uniform, the name Frank Castle and any
> other details associated with that comic book and that character.

Wait--what? When did Galactus have a herald named Punisher? The
closest thing to that that I can think of is Terrax the Tamer.

jgb
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

Derek Janssen <ejanss.RemoveThis@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in
news:VsKdnV6FUo7I0BzbnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@comcast.com:

> Agent Smith wrote:
>>
>> I am also disappointed by the absence of The Punisher, who made short
>> work of the FF
>
> (Uh, he was working for another studio, and chasing after John Travolta.)

?
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

In article <Xns995C4BBB0D30Dagentsmithtwoblockso.RemoveThis@207.115.17.102>,
Agent Smith <agent-smith.RemoveThis@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:

> Derek Janssen <ejanss.RemoveThis@nospam.comcast.net> wrote in
> news:VsKdnV6FUo7I0BzbnZ2dnUVZ_qCmnZ2d@comcast.com:
>
> > Agent Smith wrote:
> >>
> >> I am also disappointed by the absence of The Punisher, who made short
> >> work of the FF
> >
> > (Uh, he was working for another studio, and chasing after John Travolta.)
>
> ?
In the last, somewhat more successful, Punisher movie Travolta was a
heavy. I forget which studio that was.

Its the licensing thing. Various studios are licensed to use specific
characters for their movies. If, say, the rights to Power Man and Misty
Knight are optioned by Sony and Iron Fist and Colleen Wing are optioned
by Columbia you can't put the two together for the duration of the
license. So if the last studio to do Punisher or Hulk or whatnot still
retains the rights, you're just not going to see them in another
studio's movie. That's one of the reasons that Marvel is trying to get
its own in-house production company off the ground: to use whoever they
want, whenever they want. DC could theoretically do the same thing via
Time/Warner, but their attempts simply haven't been as prolific.

H. Brad Haga
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

On Jun 27, 2:14 pm, TheWatcherUatu <gro... RemoveThis @videlicet.org> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 11:26 am, Agent Smith <agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
>
>
>
>
>
> left.com> wrote:
> > Brad Haga <jade... RemoveThis @adelphia.net> wrote innews:jademan-B1FEFB.09170327062007@news.isp.giganews.com:
>
> > > Its the licensing thing. Various studios are licensed to use specific
> > > characters for their movies. If, say, the rights to Power Man and
> > > Misty Knight are optioned by Sony and Iron Fist and Colleen Wing are
> > > optioned by Columbia you can't put the two together for the duration
> > > of the license. So if the last studio to do Punisher or Hulk or
> > > whatnot still retains the rights, you're just not going to see them in
> > > another studio's movie. That's one of the reasons that Marvel is
> > > trying to get its own in-house production company off the ground: to
> > > use whoever they want, whenever they want. DC could theoretically do
> > > the same thing via Time/Warner, but their attempts simply haven't been
> > > as prolific.
>
> > First, they could buy back the license, because the movie was so poorly
> > made that it's unlikely to spawn a fixed version before I'm dead, and
> > I'm only 46. So unless the license lasts thirty years or longer,
> > they're not going to get any more money out of it.
>
> > Second, "Punisher" is just a proper noun, and since this is a completely
> > different character, they could license the name only and for the
> > purpose only of reproducing the character of Galactus' enforcer and
> > nothing else, leaving to the license holder the rights to the street
> > vigilante character, the skull uniform, the name Frank Castle and any
> > other details associated with that comic book and that character.
>
> Wait--what? When did Galactus have a herald named Punisher? The
> closest thing to that that I can think of is Terrax the Tamer.
>
> jgb- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It wasn't a Herald, it was a machine sort of thing kept in his big
planet/ship thing as I recall.

JLB
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

On Jun 27, 1:34 pm, JLB <barn....TakeThisOut@shentel.net> wrote:
> On Jun 27, 2:14 pm, TheWatcherUatu <gro....TakeThisOut@videlicet.org> wrote:
> > Wait--what? When did Galactus have a herald named Punisher? The
> > closest thing to that that I can think of is Terrax the Tamer.
>
> > jgb- Hide quoted text -
>
>
> It wasn't a Herald, it was a machine sort of thing kept in his big
> planet/ship thing as I recall.
>
> JLB- Hide quoted text -
>

Ah. I did not know that. Thanks.

jgb
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

iarwain <iarwain_8.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1182880665.619494.227890@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com:

>> I can tolerate the cloud Galactus, since the practicalities of
>> introducing another such important character would overshadow the
>> Surfer.
>
> ********************
>
> Galactus is supposed to overshadow the Surfer, nature of the Beast.
> But that doesn't prevent the Surfer from being one of the coolest
> comic book characters ever, does it? So why worry about it?
>
>> However, the one thing that I will not accept is the absence of the
>> Ultimate Nullifier, as the Maguffin that chases Galactus away.
>
> I agree with this. The way the Surfer beat Galactus was as
> disappointing as the failure of Galactus to appear. Here you have one
> of the best comic book stories ever written, with a perfect ending,
> all ready for you. Yet they cast that aside in favor of something
> that didn't really even make sense.

I'm sorry, but the Surfer doesn't get to beat Galactus. That wrecks the
entire power structure of the mythos, and means that the Surfer is never
imprisoned on Earth.

> As for the Punisher not making an appearance, that didn't bother me at
> all.
> More glaring is the absence of the Watcher, but I even accepted that
> he would not be appearing due to the condensed nature of films. I
> figured they would probably just have the Surfer retrieve the Ultimate
> Nullifier from Galactus' ship for Reed, and that would end it.

Now that I think of it, this could have been the perfect opportunity to
introduce The Watcher. Instead of being a giant, he can keep his true
form secret for a few movies, like Galactus, and adopt the guise of an
average, nondescript bald guy.

When things are at their darkest, and it looks like Reed Richards might
lose the fight, a soft voice from the shadows, beneath a crumbling brick
wall, down a darkened alley, says "Pssst. C'mere. I have something that
might help you."

Soon Johnny is dodging the Bands of Un-Life, as he flies through the
dimension of the Ultimate Nullifier, and the ending follows the
traditional path, with Galactus punishing the Surfer by imprisoning him
on Earth. It may appear to be Deus ex Machina, but in fact, The Watcher
is an important member of the FF pantheon, and the sooner they can
introduce him, the sooner they can get the mythos back on track.

The Surfer is only allowed to defeat Galactus in a universe where
methodically wrecks perfect stories. And why the hell not have Galactus
appear as he's supposed to? Why not just adapt the comic, as written,
and be rid of the obnoxious cloud?

Sure the story would race forward at breakneck speed, but that's what
audiences want. Open by introducing the Watcher, make him surround the
planet with asteroids, and have Galactus unleash the Punisher on the FF.
Who needs the friggin' army, because they should be busy in New Mexico,
chasing after the Hulk.

I don't understand why Hollywood changed a single stupid ingredient.
What a pack of losers.
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:12:32 GMT, Agent Smith
<agent-smith.DeleteThis@two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:

>iarwain <iarwain_8.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:1182880665.619494.227890@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>
>>> I can tolerate the cloud Galactus, since the practicalities of
>>> introducing another such important character would overshadow the
>>> Surfer.

>
>I don't understand why Hollywood changed a single stupid ingredient.
>What a pack of losers.

Because a giant man in purple shorts and a big G on his chest would
look really effin stupid?
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:07:40 -0300, RogerM
<roger.mckay RemoveThis @ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

>"Magnus, Robot Fighter." wrote:
>>
>> Because a giant man in purple shorts and a big G on his chest would
>> look really effin stupid?
>
>Not to the readers, presumably.
>
>What about a flying man in blue tights with a big S on his shirt?

Only the most iconic superhero ever....much more so then anything in
the Xmen or FF universe.
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

On 26 Jun., 19:24, Agent Smith <agent-sm...@two-blocks-on-your-
left.com> wrote:
> These fruitballs are going to have to make every single one of these
> movies over again

That's right; that's what they're gonna have to do. That's what I'm
counting on, too. Marvel Movies, Mark Two! Another Chance To Get It
Right (TM)!

- Tue
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:27:17 -0500, "Magnus, Robot Fighter." <me.RemoveThis@key.com>
wrote:

>Only the most iconic superhero ever....much more so then anything in
>the Xmen or FF universe.

At one point, the three most recognizable pop-culture icons worldwide were
Superman, Tarzan, and .. (something of a surprise) the Phantom ..
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic 

"Magnus, Robot Fighter." <me DeleteThis @key.com> wrote in
news:eo4583tk6btk55puk557o21rnm8f3r328k@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 27 Jun 2007 12:12:32 GMT, Agent Smith
> <agent-smith DeleteThis @two-blocks-on-your-left.com> wrote:
>
>>iarwain <iarwain_8 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in
>>news:1182880665.619494.227890@c77g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
>>
>>>> I can tolerate the cloud Galactus, since the practicalities of
>>>> introducing another such important character would overshadow the
>>>> Surfer.
>
>>
>>I don't understand why Hollywood changed a single stupid ingredient.
>>What a pack of losers.
>
> Because a giant man in purple shorts and a big G on his chest would
> look really effin stupid?

You haven't got a clue, have you?
 >> Stay informed about: Silver Surfer Movie vs. Comic