Mar 21 2014 2:05pm

Here’s What 20th Century Fox’s “Mystery” 2018 Marvel Movie Should Be

Mystery Marvel movie Fox Galactus

20th Century Fox just announced their Marvel film slate up to 2018 and it ping-pongs between the X-Men and Fantastic Four right up until July 13, 2018, where an untitled Marvel movie blockbuster sits, waiting for us to throw speculation at it.

Here’s the slate of films:

  • May 23, 2014: X-Men Days of Future Past
  • June 19, 2015: Fantastic Four
  • May 27, 2016: X-Men Apocalypse
  • March 3, 2017: The Wolverine 2
  • July 14, 2017: Fantastic Four 2
  • July 13, 2018: ????

Various sites are guessing various things. Comic Book Movie thinks that some X-Men related film is likely, since there’s an X-Force in development. But we’d like to consider the possibility that something far more exciting might be taking place in 2018. Something big. No, something literally BIG.

Mystery Marvel movie Fox Galactus


Odds are this is not the case. A Galactus movie would heavily involve the Fantastic Four and unless they shot a Galactus movie at the same time as FF2 then there would simply be no time to produce a film the following year.

But it might be in 20th Century Fox’s best interest to do so, considering that Avengers 3 is going to be cosmic-sized and will probably stomp all over any other superhero movie that year. In response Fox might need to go big or go home, so to speak.

And we want Galactus! Not some random friggin’ cloud from Fantastic Four: Rise of the Machines or whatever it was. Give us Galactus in all his purple blue glory! Give us the FF and Doom and whoever else Fox has the rights to facing off against this eater of worlds! (And also have the solution to getting rid of Galactus be from what they did in the Ultimate Universe because that was super cool. Huge moral quandaries are super cool!)

We rest our case.

Jay Hash
I hope by 2018 that the Fox Marvel films do so poorly that the rights can revert back to Marvel by some happenstance of contract and Marvel can finally start doing this stuff right...
2. RunningBull
I totally agree that what we all want to see is the REAL Galactus, but perhaps worked into a massive crossover "X-Men vs. Fantastic Four" movie as the uniting force to bring our collected heroes and villians together to fight the common foe.
3. vjj
while I would prefer the Fantastic Four and X-Men rights revert back to Marvel Studios, if they decide to do a crossover Galactus film the absolutely have to use the JAMES STOKOE DRAWING/DESIGN of Galactus - IT'S AWESOME
Alan Dionne
4. amdionne
My money's on The Impossible Man. The Super-Skrull, maybe?

Adam Warlock?

It might depend on "Guardians of the Galaxy." If that does well, Fox might likewise try something a little less familiar. And that, of course, would depend in turn on what rights they hold for which characters.
Christopher Bennett
5. ChristopherLBennett
Am I the only one who thinks the portrayal of an ancient cosmic force of destruction as a giant humanoid in a big purple hat is totally silly and not worth doing in a movie? Rise of the Silver Surfer's version of Galactus may not have been too impressive, but I think they had the right idea in getting away from the big purple guy and trying for something more alien. It's just a question of finding the right alternative.

An idea I had a while back for redesigning Galactus was basically a living black hole surrounded by a vast ring of Kirbyesque technology, maybe with the shape of G's headdress reflected in its design somehow. Ideally something that conveys a sense of vastness and incomprehensible alienness in the way that V'Ger in Star Trek: The Motion Picture did.
6. a1ay
Am I the only one who thinks the portrayal of an ancient cosmic force of
destruction as a giant humanoid in a big purple hat is totally silly

I am with you every step of the way on that one. He looks like a bishop with antlers. The Ultimate idea of a berserker swarm was much better,..
7. hoopmanjh
OK, what is the source for that first picture? It is gorgeous and I must learn more about it. (And if they did an entire movie where he looked like that, I'd be in favor. Heck, don't even bring him to Earth -- do it full-on SF.

(And as long as I'm dreaming, let's get John Byrne to actually finish The Last Galactus Story.)
8. KAsiki
Or instead of trying to out big marvel how about go small. An off shoot or character from the X men. Maybe they have the right to Namor through the fantastic four, so a Submariner movie?
10. KAsiki
Is NBC doing anything with it? How long have they had it? It seems very odd that is the only property they have access too, and the material it interacts with most often seems to be very dependant on the properties who's movie rights are owned by Fox (FF/Xmen) or Marvel (Inhumans).
Christopher Bennett
11. ChristopherLBennett
@10: I'd assume Universal's rights date back to the same period when a struggling Marvel sold off the rights to so many other characters like Spider-Man and the X-Men. At the time, the concept of bringing comics-style continuity to superhero movies didn't exist yet, aside from a couple of throwaway in-jokes like George Clooney's Batman saying "This is why Superman works alone." So there wasn't any concern about keeping related properties together.
Dan Rice
12. driceman
I've been so let down by X-Men and Fantastic Four movies so far that none of these interest me... I agree with @1, have Marvel make them (even if Fox gets a cut of the profits for throwing money at it or something), so they won't suck.
13. Colin R

No offense but I sort of hope that Fox doesn't have the same attitude! It's exactly what has turned me off about most of the Fox movies previously--a lack of confidence in the source material. Marvel Studios in contrast has straight up decided yeah, Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and Rocket Raccoon all exist in the same universe--deal with it.

But the X-Men movies have generally felt uncomfortable about their own stories. Instead of having the Phoenix be a force of cosmic destruction and rebirth, well, Jean Grey is just goes a little crazy and dresses gothy sometimes. The Fantastic Four movies likewise seemed uncomfortable with Dr. Doom, despite the fact that he is probably the greatest comic book villain of all time.

And I don't really get it--why is Galactus too silly, but a man with switchblade hands can headline half a dozen movies?
Kit Case
14. wiredog
I'd say that it's about time for a Howard the Duck reboot.
Christopher Bennett
15. ChristopherLBennett
@13: "And I don't really get it--why is Galactus too silly, but a man with switchblade hands can headline half a dozen movies?"

I hardly think those are comparable. Wolverine actually is a man -- a mutated, surgically modified variant of a human being. That isn't much of a stretch. But Galactus is a force of cosmic destruction as old as the universe itself. There's got to be a more visually impressive design for that than some oversized guy with a stupid hat and a big "G" on his chest.

And it's not about lacking confidence in the source material. The idea behind Galactus is fantastic. But that doesn't mean the design he was given in a 1960s comic was the ideal way of depicting it. It's about taking the essence of the source material and letting it inspire a more interesting visualization. Fidelity to the source does not mean slavish conformity to every trivial detail. It means respecting what's really important about the source. What's important about Galactus is that he's a fundamental force of nature -- an entity that poses an immense threat to life, but that still has a right to exist and is simply acting according to his nature rather than out of malevolence. That's a very compelling and imaginative idea and well worth preserving. But it isn't dependent on him looking like a giant humanoid with a weird hat. Film is a visual medium, so let's find a fresh, really compelling visual way to convey the vastness, alienness, and power of what Galactus is. Let the original inspire new creativity, not suppress it out of misguided slavishness.
16. Colin R
If Jack Kirby says Galactus is what God looks like, I am inclined to believe him.

Sure, there are some challenges to translating a 2-dimensional image into a 3-dimensional (animated) film character. I think that at this point, the film industry is perfectly capable of translating comic book characters faithfully to the screen. The Marvel Studios characters manage to hew closely to the comic book representation of their characters without being slavish.
Christopher Bennett
17. ChristopherLBennett
@16: "If Jack Kirby says Galactus is what God looks like, I am inclined to believe him."

See, that's the difference between the fans' perspective and the creators' perspective. Fans get attached to the ideas as they were originally presented, but creators are constantly looking back on their old ideas with regret and disappointment because they've had better ideas in the interim. Most creators would be happy to go back and change their old ideas -- especially ideas that they just slapped together under the hasty production schedule of comic book stories that they never expected to have any lasting impact. Not everything writers and artists do is meant to be absolute, unshakeable gospel. More often it's just the best they could manage at the time, and sometimes it's simply a bad idea that they later regret.

So if Jack Kirby were still alive and given the chance to reinvent the design of Galactus from the ground up, he might be happy to. After all, creators want to create, to innovate. They don't just want to copy what they did decades before. So creators are rarely as hostile to the concept of changing their old ideas as their fans often are.
18. Colin R
If someone thinks that they can improve on Kirby's designs then that takes chutzpah, but that would at least be something; it would be a bold effort. The thing is, Fox's attempts at 'reinventing' the comic books has generally been to weaken them, to tone them down. Turning Galactus into a dark cloud is not a fresh and innovative way of looking at the character--it's cowardice, a fear that the audience might not accept what they're presenting. That a giant eater of worlds in an ornate purple headress is inherently 'silly' in a way an orange rock monster and a stretchy man are not.

I think if you're starting from the approach that the comic book material is too 'silly' you're drawing from the wrong vein--you didn't want comic book material in the first place. Of course it's silly; so what? What's the point of drawing from comic books if you don't actually want your finished product to resemble the source material?

Of course, if the filmmakers have ideas about how to translate things to the screen in ways that they think are cool, then by all means they should do that. The Blade films worked (well, two of them did) because they were willing to take some departures from the comic books. But they were working with material that wasn't top-notch to begin with, and ultimately the films have changed the perception of who Blade is in the comics.
Christopher Bennett
19. ChristopherLBennett
@18: The problem is that you're talking about the concept and the design of Galactus as an inseparable whole, whereas I'm talking about them as two different things. The idea of Galactus, as I said, is fantastic. It's not silly at all, and is actually quite powerful and thought-provoking. The design, though, works against that, especially for non-comics audiences.

Hell, even Marvel has admitted that the original design of Galactus is nonsense. The current rationale in the comics themselves is that his true appearance is beyond human comprehension, so what we see is an illusion created by our brains. Presumably Skrulls see Galactus as a giant Skrull, Badoons see a giant Badoon, etc. But that's still an imperfect fix, because they're still stuck with the assumption that the original design is in continuity. The advantage of a fresh adaptation is that it lets you reinvent everything from scratch and try new solutions. The Ultimate Universe's Gah Lak Tus, for example, was a really clever and effective reinterpretation. And there could be others too. It's not wrong to try to look for them.
20. Colin R
They are an inseparable whole--comic books are a visual medium. Practically every comic book character worth translating to film is defined at least as much by their visual design as by their character traits. Batman's cape, cowl, and shield are what make him Batman--he has had many costumes, but they are all recognizably the same thing.

I doubt Marvel really has said that Galactus is nonsense, but even if they did, they're wrong. They're as wrong as DC for thinking that Superman is sillier with his underwear on the outside of his costume than without. Galactus has a phenomenal, distinctive design--you cannot mistake him for anyone else. A 'solution' for his design is a solution in search of a problem; his design sits comfortably with Kirby's other greatest designs of the era, like Iron Man and Magneto.

The expectation that a 'non-comic book audience' is somehow going to be less receptive to it is very silly. The top grossing films of all time are dominated by wizards, elves, hobbits, iron men, green monsters in cutoff shorts, robots, a rich dude who dresses up like dracula to scare criminals, homocidal clowns, and zombie pirates. There is no 'non-comic book audience'--the audience is looking for crazy fantasies.
Christopher Bennett
21. ChristopherLBennett
@20: Of course they're not an inseparable whole. Countless comic-book movies have changed costume designs, vehicle designs, the appearance and ethnicity of characters, etc. In the age where Nick Fury looks like Samuel L. Jackson, it is staggeringly disingenuous to pretend that everything has to look exactly the way it did on the page 50 years ago.

And yes, we want fantasy. That's exactly why I want something more imaginative and amazing to look at than some giant white male in a stupid hat. We've seen countless giant humanoids in movies before. You're contradicting yourself because you're using the desire for imagination as an excuse for refusing to open your mind to anything new.
22. Colin R
Au contraire; if there is a new idea then I say try it out. But your arguments are basically falling back to "Galactus looks silly and has a silly hat." That's a dismissal, not a new idea, and I think this is not a fertile ground to start brainstorming from; a new idea that is going to be worth anything should start from an appreciation of the characters.

If you don't like Galactus's design I think you're wrong. It's one of Kirby's great designs, perfectly suited for the story he was telling. But de gustibus non est disputandum. If for example you are going to be interpreting (as opposed to criticizing) Beethoven's work you should probably start from a position of understanding and appreciating Beethoven though, not from a position of "Beethoven is boring why couldn't he be more like Strauss?" Likewise with comic book material. If the starting point is "Galactus is stupid" then don't tell a Galactus story. There is a half century of other stories to draw from.

I'll be pretty skeptical about anyone who is making Fantastic Four stories who doesn't actually like Kirby's designs for their stories, though.
Rob Rater
23. Quasarmodo
Every time someone brings up the "G" on Galactus' costume, you know they're looking for reasons to add to his "silliness". Because every time I check, he doesn't have a "G" on his chest, or his belt, or his boot, or his hat, or anywhere else.
24. James Moar
Because every time I check, he doesn't have a "G" on his chest, or his belt, or his boot, or his hat, or anywhere else.
He had a G on his chest in the original Galactus Trilogy. It was dropped the next time he appeared, and hasn't been seen since.

(Also, the very first time he appeared, he was in different colours -- a mess of red and green, I think it was -- but that changed by the next issue.)
25. IKM
I think Marvel could get the rights to their characters back. They already did with Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch, even if it's only shared rights. The thing is, though, Joss Whedon said he doesn't want to make a nine-hour movie so he's not in a big hurry to get more characters. As for Spider-Man, Sony was all ready to drop an Easter egg in the Avengers movie--they were planning on letting Marvel put the OsCorp tower in the New York Skyline. I too think that it would be nice to have Marvel get the X-Men and FF back, especially since they could do the Civil War, but I don't think those characters will be needed for quite a long time. Besides, Marvel has enough up there sleeves now and while having X-Men, FF, and Spider-Man appear in future Marvel Cinematic Universe films would be awesome, they would need a whole team of awesom--Einstien-calibur--writers to do a crossover and the odds of getting most of their characters back is not likely.
Christopher Bennett
26. ChristopherLBennett
@25: Although that Easter egg is no longer possible, since ASM2 showed Oscorp Tower just a few blocks north of the MetLife Building, whereas in the MCU, the MetLife Building has been largely deconstructed and Stark Tower built in its place. So the ASM films are now clearly in a universe where the MCU's Stark Tower does not exist.

As for the X-Men, I think the films have established a large and distinct history for their universe that would be too hard to reconcile with the MCU (where superpowers were rare and little-known to the public until recent years). It would be a disservice to both these large and richly developed continuities to try to cram them together and ignore their differences.

Besides, I prefer having the Marvel rights spread out among different studios. One studio can only produce so many films per year. Consolidate all the rights under Marvel, and either we'd get fewer Marvel films per year or we'd get rushed, lower-quality films.

Subscribe to this thread

Receive notification by email when a new comment is added. You must be a registered user to subscribe to threads.
Post a comment