Almost 20 years after Rise of the Silver Surfer's infamous gas cloud, one of the best things about The Fantastic Four: First Steps is that it finally does Galactus justice
"I herald his beginning. I herald your end. I herald Galactus."
Such ominous words can be hard to live up to, but the Silver Surfer's introduction to her master in The Fantastic Four: First Steps is a perfect encapsulation of the threat that Galactus represents. He's not known as The Devourer of Worlds for nothing, after all.
Yet even so, the sheer scale of his size and might isn't as easy to convey in person. Ever since Jack Kirby and Stan Lee introduced Galactus in Fantastic Four #48, the cosmic alien has become a pillar of Marvel storytelling, heralding doom for our heroes over and over across the past six decades. Onscreen, it's been a different story, though.
With his skyscraper height and funky Kirby-designed helmet, the iconic version of Galactus that's persisted for 58 years and counting in the comics always seemed harder to imagine on film. He's kind of trippy if you think about it, an abstract force with a wacky outfit.
Clouded judgment
That's why Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer tried to work around that design with a now-infamous take on Galactus that ended up portraying him as a giant cloud. Yep, a cloud. And just like that, it suddenly became a lot harder to take the Silver Surfer and his ominous warning seriously.
If I'm being kind, you could argue the trash cloud idea did have some potential. After all, Galactus is supposed to be a cosmic being who came into existence before the formation of reality itself, a sheer force of nature who defies everything you thought you knew about the cosmos. There's something Lovecraftian about this abstract notion that can be hard to capture in the form of a humanoid-looking man, no matter how big or strong he might be.
Plus, you have to remember that special effects in 2007 weren't as capable as they are now (MODOK's ghastly CGI in Ant-Man's Quantumania notwithstanding). Had director Tim Story attempted a comic-book faithful depiction of Galactus, the result might have looked closer to something out of Roger Corman's low-budget Fantastic Four movie from the 90s.
But unfortunately, the Galactus cloud didn't pay off. In fact, it bombed harder than The Thing dropping out of the sky to get his clobber on. And in doing so, it completely derailed Rise of the Silver Surfer's final act after the film had spent so long teasing Galactus's scary arrival.
This was par for the course, though, back during Fox's reign in superhero cinema. There was still a fear in the noughties that mainstream moviegoers wouldn't be open to the wackier side of comic book storytelling. That's why we ended up with the X-Men donned in black leather instead of their regular flamboyant costumes, for example.
All you can eat
A few years back, Story opened up about this problem (h/t comicbook.com), explaining why studios were more hesitant in a pre-MCU world:
"The ones in charge were afraid of what that could be because, you have to remember, even Marvel has gone through quite cleverly and successfully introduced us to superheroes being in space, and at the time that was never dealt with. So, as a being from space, there were those in charge who weren't ready for what that could be. And, so, you know, that's not the interpretation it should have been. But coming up, there will be some good stuff."
Eighteen years later, mainstream audiences have become far more used to seeing outlandish character designs like Galactus on screen. Just look at cosmic entities such as Arishem the Judge in Eternals or even the likes of Rocket Raccoon and Howard the Duck in Guardians of the Galaxy.
Thanks in large part to the work put in by Marvel's ever-expanding cinematic universe, there's now space for comic book movies to be far more faithful in their interpretation of characters like Galactus, and it's paying off.
READ MORE
The Fantastic Four: First Steps ending explained: your biggest questions answered on Galactus, Franklin Richards, and if it sets up Avengers: Doomsday
Just look at the new Galactus in The Fantastic Four: First Steps. Together, director Matt Shakman and his team have done the impossible and given us a Galactus who actually lives up to the Silver Surfer's hype. Holding back from showing him fully in the teasers did have us worried, but it turns out we had no reason to be.
This Galactus is a bona fide threat who never comes across as silly or dumb. You can feel the weight of every movement, every stare, which makes him feel more believable and therefore more dangerous. This is a threat that's worthy of Marvel's First Family and their first outing in the MCU.
Much of that success is down to actor Ralph Ineson, who doesn't just voice a CGI version of Galactus but actually embodies him physically too, acting on set with his fantastic co-stars. It couldn't have been easy to figure out the logistics of working out that scale especially, but it was worth the gamble. Just like Tom Hiddleston's Loki pulling off those giant horns, which would have once been considered too silly for film, so too does Ineson and that even bigger headpiece.
There's a reason why this iconic Galactus design has endured in the comics, to the point where it's long been impossible to imagine him looking any other way. And now, thanks to The Fantastic Four: First Steps, the same is also true on screen as well. As Iman Vellani puts it in her Letterboxd review of the film, "My big hungry boy has been liberated from cloud purgatory!", and I, for one, couldn't be happier.
The Fantastic Four: First Steps is out now in theaters. For more, check out our Fantastic Four: First Steps review, and our breakdown of the oh-so-exciting Fantastic Four: First Steps post-credits scenes.
Solve the daily Crossword
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
a minute ago
- Forbes
‘Fantastic Four' Won Grownups But Lost Kids And Families To ‘Superman'
Director Matt Shakman's Marvel superhero franchise launch Fantastic Four: First Steps is heading into its second weekend having won grownups but lost the kids and family audience to writer-director James Gunn's Superman, as a different paradigm takes hold of blockbuster business at the box office, and superpowers won't change it. Fantastic Four By The Numbers After a low-end debut weekend outcome of just $216 million worldwide, Fantastic Four looks to enter the weekend right around $155 million domestic, and I anticipate a second weekend of about $43.5 million stateside. With international, the global total is eyeing $357 million by end of business Sunday. That's potentially a sizable sophomore drop, especially compared to Superman's own solid second weekend hold. The difference seems due to what I feel is a simple equation: Superman is mostly an all-ages family film that also has strong appeal for adults, Fantastic Four is a mostly adult film that also appeals to all-ages. Put another way, the terrific Superman is made for the kids first, and the also-terrific Fantastic Four is made for the parents first, and only one of those approaches rides the current zeitgeist driving cinematic business. Some pundits expect Fantastic Four to hold better than I do, and to be sure it's entirely possible. Fantastic Four might enjoy such good word of mouth that folks who skipped it opening weekend show up this weekend, and the allure of IMAX, Dolby Cinema, and 0ther premium formats might ensure better weekly holds as people waiting for those prime seat locations keep turning out. And this is the MCU, among the most powerful and successful brands in movie history, so you'd think their summer tentpole release sees steady turnout for several weeks. But the falloff in family viewers and lower interest among teenage audiences points toward a less optimistic best-case scenario, in my own assessment. A worst-case probably sees it falls of a cliff with something closer to $150 million through the weekdays and $40 million domestic, and south of $350 million worldwide. Without decent holds, I don't see a path to a final gross north of $550 million. This is lots of early speculation and depends entirely on what in fact the weekday numbers tell us about word-of-mouth driving business, and what the final second weekend ticket sales look like. There's room for high-end and low-end outcomes here, obviously, and Superman surprised with a solid second weekend hold that changed the narrative and expectations. But signs pointed in the Man of Steel's favor, whereas those same signs don't bode as well for Fantastic Four: First Steps. It's a shift in perspective, but that's always been true of the distinctions between DC and Marvel, from the comics to the films, and now a new factor enters the frame and we'll see how each responds. So far, though, James Gunn and Peter Safran as co-CEOs of DC Studios seem to have recognized the trend or at least sensed a need to lean into that direction (at least for their first foundational feature release), and it payed off. Superman is now flying high and looks to top $600 million, a much happier milestone for everyone involved. Let's see if Keven Feige and Marvel Studios adopts a similar approach, or choose to stake out a position as the adults-first superhero cinematic world while looking to replicate Deadpool & Wolverine's and the Spider-Man franchise's enormous success in an often brutal and unforgiving new theatrical landscape. Of course, I always say not to bet on Disney or Marvel, so Feige surely has plans and insights better than mine here, and I have no illusions I've figured something out that he hasn't. In a general sense, however, I think all of the complexity of this evolving cinematic situation can be summed up with hamburgers. Fantastic Four vs Happy Meals? McDonalds won the burger wars because they have Happy Meals, costumes, and playgrounds. They won the kids first, because they knew the kids would make sure (including with tantrums if necessary) that if the family went out to eat, they went to McDonalds. The result speaks for itself, with McDonalds behind only Starbucks for market share when it comes to eateries. Win the kids' bellies, and their parents will follow. Because even weak burgers and fries with cold sodas still tastes good to kids, so add in 'free' toys and cookies in a cartoon box, and how can anyone else compete? All you need to do then is have some burgers for their parents, too. Again, quality matters less to a captive audience, right? And it gets easier to make that choice every time, especially if they've even got breakfast for you on the way to school or work, too. Cinema is sort of heading that same route in many ways, as studios have increasingly been swallowed into massive corporate bundles that see everything and everyone as a commodity. If you want our dollars, what's the fastest route to our wallets? Look at what toys children want and what cartoons they watch and what video games they play on their phones, and then put most of your chips on those brands/IP (because that's what they are when the bosses decide to use them that way) knowing if the kids show up, they'll bring their parents, so you merely need to do minimum duty providing parents with anything to maintain their interest. Smarter studio conglomerates realize that throwing in some popular younger performers (TV, film, music, anything) to appear or provide voices and/or songs helps hook some teen audiences and provides a wider chain of interconnected merchandising to sell for associated brands. That's how you have to talk to even explain this, but it's important to understand a grossly simplified but generally predictive summation of how most studios are starting to approach making films and distributing them. It's why most of the top 10 highest grossing films are primarily movies made for kids that add something for the parents, or the rare breakout 'parents got a babysitter' adult release like F1 for example (or Top Gun: Maverick for another). If you make a would-be blockbuster film primarily geared toward adults, you better make darn sure it has a huge hook like Deadpool & Wolverine or Avatar that also works to make the kids either a co-dominant target demographic or such a close runner-up it's a distinction without a difference. Or, make it so appealing to grownups and the teenagers in the household that the younger ones are along for the ride regardless. Because otherwise, you have to roll the dice on being the breakout adult-focused movie that claws its way into the top of the box office charts. This is not, by the way, any commentary (yet, as the crucial qualifier) on the movies themselves that are topping the charts. Of the ones I've seen so far, they're all highly entertaining and I get why not only the children in the audience but also the parents enjoyed them, and how this in turn led the parents to recommend it not merely to other parents but to other adults in general. Lilo & Stitch and A Minecraft Movie for example, or Superman as the standout superhero movie that applied the correct template and target demographic approach, which we'll discuss more in a moment. So far, I'm grateful that despite the lack of much interest in overall quality and serious cinematic storytelling and diversity of approaches and stories, the actual artists still determine the final results and are still overwhelmingly committed to their crafts and work. But with studios seeing AI as a chance not merely to be a tool that elevates each crew member's and artists' abilities and work, but to try to replace them and reduce costs, as well as the demand to churn out sequels and spinoffs to maximize merchandising profits as fast as possible in case the kids all grow out of it too fast and the franchise is short-lived, the simple truth is that quality will be sacrificed. I know, gasp, right? But I don't just mean in the general vague sense we all talk about in common discussion but which actually doesn't manifest as the overriding truth or definition of film and TV so far. Quality is in fact great, and improving overall. More options exist with more diverse types of more content for a larger audience, and it's only increasing. What happens next, though, will be determined by a lot of very powerful people, companies, and entities in ways that none of us – including them – can really predict anymore. But we've seen the model at McDonalds, and it also took place amid rapidly improving industrial processes and distribution and expanding cities, driven by technological and social advances. It's not a perfect analogy, but I think once you think about it and look around, it makes a lot of sense and describes what we're seeing. Less like a carefully crafted and precise strategy, than a rough and bumpy outcome after lots of tactical trial and error favoring executives' own wallets than shareholders or studios per se at times, and finally settling into a structure that already existed and merely needed all the various parts to fall into place. We're talking about the top of the box office charts of course, and the race for blockbuster results, so there will still be plenty of lower-tier movies and series produced. But I think the days of superhero cinema dominating the top-10 and having reserved seats in the top-5 are over, except for those occasions when the right template is applied (made for kids, also has something for adults) with a popular enough character/star that great audience grades and equally positive critical reviews generate massive turnout and repeat business from families, in turn spurring big turnout among teenagers and childless adults. Fantastic Four, Superman, And Superheroes' Future Aside from Avengers or other event-status team-ups like Deadpool & Wolverine, I doubt superhero movies will even return to semi-regularly hitting $1 billion or just a stone's throw away. Instead, animated films and live-action remakes/adaptations of beloved animated movies/series/games will probably dominate box office charts now, while superhero cinema only cracks the top-10 with a couple of the best offerings from DC and Marvel, respectively, and most entries that seem to lean toward adult audiences still have heavy appeal to kids as well as the teenage audience. The direct appeal toward the child audiences with clear indicators for parents to attend as well. If it's too kid-focused and overtly lacks any potential adult appeal, there's risk only one parent or a babysitter takes only a few of the kids, instead of both parents and all children in the household – family audiences rule and the kids are in charge, basically. Marvel always had a balance between being kid-friendly superhero fare and appealing to the grownups with smart, witty storytelling and well-defined characters in exciting stories with cool visual effects. Eye candy that isn't so unhealthy after all. But over time, as often happens, the films 'grew up' more with the audience and sometimes felt like they were far more adult-skewing and counted on the kids to keep up because it's still their favorite superheroes. I love most all of those films, but I realize the more they favor adult themed and adult-focused approaches, the less they can count on their reputation as family-friendly and assumptions of 'something for everybody.' It may seem like a mild shift in perception and intent, but it's not, and even when audiences can't put their finger on it or articulate it precisely, they can sense the changes and shifts. They can tell when a story is talking mostly to them, mostly to their kids, or is treating them all like one big family. Each has advantages, and the better the quality of the storytelling and the offerings for kids and adults alike, the better the odds of success. But blockbuster success is going to require the latter two from now on, even if and when exceptions inevitably arise to prove the rule. This isn't 'superhero fatigue," it's simply that unless the superhero movies keep up with the demands of audiences and their families, the genre will have to settle for the lower-end of the top-10 at the box office, and make adjustments to budgets and expectations. Which was always bound to be true, and the post-Avengers: Endgame slump was mostly due to the simple fact it's impossible to maintain that level of anticipation and perpetual self-one-upsmanship the MCU achieved for a brief time. The decline isn't failure, and they'll still be popular and can achieve blockbuster outcomes in the second tier pretty consistently. It will merely be the top tier that I expect will prove elusive from now on. Fantastic Four will probably underperform significantly, like the previous two MCU releases, and Superman will probably wind up at the higher end of the $600 million range. Both are wonderful films with different approaches, and my comparison to McDonalds is about the conceptual appeal to kids and counting on them to bring the parents along, not to suggest films that are currently winning the box office race are cheap or otherwise 'fast food' per se. Yet despite Fantastic Four and Superman, I fear that 'fast food' is too often precisely how studios perceive and approach kids' entertainment, and that they will revert to the worst instincts of profit-driven commodification more and more. So aside from loopholes like Avatar and Deadpool & Wolverine, parents will have a hard time driving the family car anywhere but to the latest Happy Meal Movies.
Screen Geek
an hour ago
- Screen Geek
'Fantastic Four' Star Ebon Moss-Bachrach Previously Played Another MCU Character
The future of the Marvel Cinematic Universe is looking bright with the success of The Fantastic Four: First Steps . The film has done well with both audiences and critics as well as at the box office. With its titular superhero team set to reappear in Avengers: Doomsday , it may be interesting to note that star Ebon Moss-Bachrach previously played another MCU character prior to his tenure as Ben Grimm aka The Thing. Marvel Studios carefully chose the cast for The Fantastic Four: First Steps , making sure everyone worked well together while also embodying the characters they were portraying for the big screen. Fortunately, everyone seems to have done a great job with their respective roles, with Moss-Bachrach receiving praise for portraying a tricky character given the use of CGI and VFX involved. Years prior to playing The Thing, however, Ebon Moss-Bachrach actually portrayed a character in a very different MCU project as far back as 2017. This isn't the first time that a MCU actor played two separate parts in the ongoing film and television franchise, but it's certainly interesting considering just how different these projects – and Moss-Bachrach's roles – have turned out. The aforementioned role from 2017 can be identified in the hit Netflix series The Punisher , a show that was unfortunately canceled alongside the platform's other Marvel shows before they were eventually moved to Disney Plus. In the MCU series, Ebon Moss-Bachrach played a character named David Lieberman, who also went by the name Micro. While Lieberman will likely be retired as far as MCU appearances go, Ebon Moss-Bachrach mentioned the character in addition to his role as Ben Grimm aka The Thing while speaking with Entertainment Weekly. Fittingly enough, he noted that both of his MCU roles were tributes to major Marvel creators Stan Lee and Jack Kirby. 'I think it's cool that Micro is named David Lieberman, who takes his last name from Stan Lee,' the actor explained. 'Then Ben Grimm is this Kirby amalgamation. So, in my brief two portrayals of Marvel characters, I've hit the two big guys. It's a deep honor that I take to heart.' It's nice to know that Moss-Bachrach found some connective tissue between these two otherwise unrelated characters. While many fans might not even recognize that Moss-Bachrach previously played a role in the MCU, it's fitting to see that he now has a much bigger role as he continues to carry on the legacy of The Thing and the people who created him.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
'Fantastic Four' stars Pedro Pascal, Vanessa Kirby's handsy behavior raises eyebrows and movie hype: expert
Pedro Pascal and Vanessa Kirby, whose recent flirtatious behavior towards one another has raised eyebrows, are just two of Hollywood's mega-stars who have sparked romance rumors from handsy, red-carpet appearances. From gentle neck rubs to hand-holding, the superhero power couple — who play Reed Richards/Mr. Fantastic and Sue Storm/The Invisible Woman in the Marvel film, "The Fantastic Four: First Steps" — have been noticeably touchy with one another while promoting the movie. But Pascal, who recently admitted physical touch helps him cope with anxieties, said there's nothing more to it. SCARLETT JOHANSSON DEFENDS VIRAL RED CARPET KISSES WITH CO-STAR JONATHAN BAILEY "I was always one to reach out when I'm facing something that is challenging or making me anxious," the actor, 50, told Men's Health. Kirby also defended her co-star's actions. Recalling the time in which Pascal caught heat after grabbing her hand during an appearance at Comic Con last year, Kirby told Vanity Fair the gesture was innocent. "What happened is we were both incredibly nervous going out in front of thousands of people who love this comic," Kirby said. "He wanted me to know that we were in this together, and I found it a lovely gesture and was very glad to squeeze his hand back." However, Doug Eldridge, founder of Achilles PR, said stars often use this tactic as a way to create buzz. LIKE WHAT YOU'RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS "Nine times out of 10, this tactic is used as a buzz-builder, whether for the studio that financed the film, or the actors themselves, especially if the latter are up-and-comers, who haven't developed household name recognition yet. But again, there is always the '10th time' which could bring skepticism and, more importantly, scrutiny." "Pascal uses touch as a 'grounding' technique to navigate social situations, which might otherwise trigger his anxiety. Skeptics claim that's a farce, but clinical professionals have acknowledged the validity of this technique," Eldridge continued. "Wherever you fall on this particular case, the real 'winner' is the studio, as the internet has been filled with clicks and commentary surrounding Pascal, all of which creates a groundswell of buzz and potential 'butts in the buckets' for the upcoming release of 'The Fantastic Four' re-make." Steve Honig, founder of The Honig Company, told Fox News Digital that it's common for stars to use their on-screen and off-screen chemistry to their advantage during the promotional period of their upcoming project. "There are many ways co-stars can show chemistry on the red carpet without crossing the line into something that might be construed as inappropriate. The key here is to keep it fun and light, not sexual or anything heavy," Honig said. "At the end of the day, a red carpet is a place of work for actors, so the general rule of thumb is to not do anything a 'civilian' shouldn't do in their workplace." CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER "Oftentimes, the intent of red carpet PDA is to generate some additional buzz for the film," he continued. "This can, however, easily backfire and generate negative press about the questionable behavior. Red carpets are great stomping grounds for celebrities to build their brands, and they should use premieres and other red carpet events to that end." "Celebrities, and their reps, need to remember that, unlike Las Vegas, what happens on the red carpet does not always stay on the red carpet," he added. "What happens at a premiere can, and often does, have a huge and lasting impact not only on the specific project but a celebrity's overall image. This can spill over to other projects, endorsements and either damage or build a celebrity's brand." Last month, Scarlett Johansson spoke out after her red carpet kisses with her "Jurassic World Rebirth" co-star Jonathan Bailey went viral. The 40-year-old actress and 37-year-old actor made headlines after locking lips at their film's premiere in London on June 17. On June 23, the two shared another kiss at "Jurassic World Rebirth's" premiere in New York City, where Johansson's husband, "Saturday Night Live" star Colin Jost, was in attendance. During a recent episode of "Today," host Craig Melvin told Johansson that he wanted to ask her about "this kissing thing that you and Jonathan have been doing all over the world." Melvin went on to note that Bailey was "so attractive," to which Johansson responded, "Yeah, you said it!" "Is that why we keep planting lips on him?" Melvin asked. "He's a lovable guy, what can I say?" Johansson replied. "I don't know. We're just friendly people." When Melvin asked whether she was surprised by the public attention to the pair's kisses, Johansson told him, "Nothing surprises me, you know what I mean?" GLEN POWELL DODGES SYDNEY SWEENEY DATING RUMORS AFTER THE PAIR REUNITE AT FAMILY WEDDING "Nothing surprises me these days," she continued. "But, yeah, I've got a lot of love to give, what can I say?" In 2023, Sydney Sweeney and Glen Powell, who starred together in "Anyone But You," sparked romance rumors as fans caught glimpses of the two filming. At the time, the duo appeared on the "Today" show to promote the film and their friendship was questioned by Hoda Kotb, who asked if there was "a little romance" going on at any point. Throughout the interview, Sweeney and Powell shared little looks, and the "Euphoria" star couldn't stop giggling. While Sweeney laughed in response to the question about their relationship status, Powell answered: "No, but we do love each other. And, honestly, this is one of the most spectacular humans I've ever met. She's really great." In September 2021, Oscar Isaac and Jessica Chastain were the stars of a viral video from their appearance at the Venice International Film Festival in 2021 to promote their show "Scenes From a Marriage," where fans noted the pair seemed to be a little too comfortable with each other. In the viral video, the two were posing with their arms around each other for photos. Nothing seemed out of the ordinary until Isaac appeared to kiss and sniff Chastain's underarm area. Isaac spoke on SiriusXM's "The Jess Cagle Show" at the time and offered an explanation for the odd sniffing by comparing himself and Chastain to flatworms. "You know, you can cut them into like a hundred pieces and they will grow a whole new worm out of the little piece. So they're basically kind of immortal, and they've been doing work at the cellular level where they're seeing that the cells kind of talk to each other through electricity and kind of decide, 'Okay you're going to make the head.' 'All right, I'm going to make the tail'…they're communicating through some sort of electro kind of magnetic situation," Isaac explained. "Maybe we should use more actual human language to talk instead of sniffing an armpit and doing things like that," Isaac said. "That's kind of what starts to happen and no matter how much we annoy each other, no matter what happens, it's like, when you get us together, it's like, it's just other stuff that's going on that is making us grow two heads." While Eldridge said the public displays of affection during press are "seldom authentic," some are truly genuine. "It is seldom authentic, but a good rule of thumb is to stay away from terms like 'always' and 'never.' Point being, Kurt Russell and Goldie Hawn have been together since 1983. Tom Hanks and Rita Wilson have been married for 40 years. Freddie Prinze Jr. and Sarah Michelle Geller have been married for 22 years. Ashton Kutcher and Mila Kunis have been married for 10 years. Improbable and impossible are not the same thing. Just because 'most' of these relationships are manufactured, doesn't mean 'all' of them are." "It's not a question of good or bad [press], but rather inevitable," he said. "The purpose of organizing a global media junket is to drive ticket sales, but the formula is slightly more calculated than the target outcome. Again, the process is simple, not easy: build awareness, create interest/intrigue, generate a call to action." Fox News Digital's Lauryn Overhultz contributed to this report.
