WayneLigon said:
I find that usually people who complain about minor plot holes are either nitpickers or simply were not paying attention to the movie; in their head they were already writing out their awesome internet post about how the movie sucked rather than pay attention to what they were being shown and not shown.
We are not talking about the fantastic four's uniforms not matching up right. We are talking about major gaps in the logic of the story. We're talking about holes that made little sense at the end of the movie and aren't beginning. There's one thing to have a solid story and another thing to just end a movie.
To wit:
So you missed all the scenes of imminant destruction as the thing bears down on Earth and is stopped in the nick of time? The 'not doing anything' means Earth is still here and the Surfer stopped it in time.
No what I missed was an actual threat to Earth. There were no scenes of people on any of the planets he destroyed. There was no threat to life. We just see this cloud moving through and eating dead planets, so when he moves in on earth you wonder why he didn't eat any other planets. Again, this is coming from me watching it as a common movie goer. Yeah, comic book knowledge i know he heats planets full of life, but you don't see that in the movie, thus you're left with a midnight audience whom are perplexed.
It's quite clear what the holes are for; they allow Galactus to bypass the crust and go for the interior of the world to rip it apart in order to consume it's life force. The cloud/machine tendrils are clearly shown going for the holes. We see this several times at the end and partially at the beginning.
You missed that whole first part where he destroys a planet on screen?
Clear to who? certainly not the audience i was with and certianly not myself or anyone i was with. It was a cloud. I think this is showing a problem of people too famliar with the comic inserting their own "points" instead of watching the movie. The movie does not explain this and leaves it open. we don't even see tendrils on the cloud.
What I missed was him destroying life.
G
alactus only feeds on planets that have life on them. Dead worlds like everything else in our Solar System don't interest him. He consumes the life force of a planet as well, that thing - what ever it is - that allows a planet to generate and sustain life.
I'm glad you read the comic book, but in the movie that is not explained. Again, seperate your comic book knowledge from what actually happened in hte movie.
Another thing: we don't know if the Surfer destroyed Galactus or simply dispelled him. But this idea touches on another point. Two points, really.
We know that there was no more galactus, its safe to assume from a movie goer standpoint that he killed it. Since silver surfer was denied lines and didn't get to explain what he was doing, we can only assume that the threat was over and that galactus is dead, esle he could just come back.
In the original series, the Surfer rebels but Galactus is ultimately driven off by the appearance of the Ultimate Nullifier, which Johnny gets when the Watcher on the Moon decides to interfere. I defy anyone to present that sequence of events to an audience and have them follow it.
Other times, Galactus has been swayed by pity for the life forms he must consume. We'd hear howls over this, too, 'oh noes, the mighty Galactus defeated by the power of LUV!'.
Ok, what happened in the movie. I realize youre a fanboy, but there's still a movie on screen and none of this background knowledge is known by the audience. Perhaps next time, if this was the directors logic (they already know the comic book and can feel in the blanks) they can provide the comic books so the majority of the disappointed audience can read up after they left about all these glaring plot holes.
The Surfer is a creature that has despaired. He saved his planet but became this thing that has led to the deaths of countless other worlds. He may have had the power all along to break his servitude but could not.
See, in good fiction real characters are often their own worst enemeies. They don't behave like automatons, always chosing the 'smart' path. This is why we are able to empathize with them, because they are not perfect. I often see this kind of reaction among people who have little real world experience or who are not very empathic; they're people who 'don't understand people'. Well when it comes to fiction, that's a crippling disability because that means you're unable to understand the motivations and foibles of well-drawn characters.
Good fiction gives the protoganist proper motivation to overcome these inner demons. A 2 minute heart to heart is not that type of motivation. If saving the lives of your people is not enough motivation, what is. Saving your family and your wife should have been enough. Jessica Alba is easy on the eyes, but certainly not beautiful enough to sway me to do something that saving my wife and family could not.
I can live with the ending quite well enough; because Sue awakens memories of his former life in him, the Surfer can reach down within himself and do what must be done. He finds the will and desire to briefly become something much more than a set of statistics. It's Dramatically Appropriate, and people who can't reconcile with that are missing something inside themselves.
Wow, this sounds like a great movie. Please inform me when they release this one. Because I didn't see any implications of released memories in this one, I didn't see him reaching down. I saw a bad guy just decide at a moment that he had enough power to kill this big bad whom he was the slave of. It's appropriate only because the end of the movie was near and the director realized he didnt know how he would kill galactus. Heck, he made up some cheezeball goofey (going against his movie mythos) way to take the board back from the idiotic dr. doom.
I
usually try to hold my tongue as the level of pure stupid from the various naysayers (who seem to have been suckled on the teet of AICN talkback) is just too daunting. The bashing and nitpicking has really soared to a level that makes me yearn for the eyerolls smilie. No film or book is perfect, but the people that rail on and on about plot holes and all the various other armchair director antics has just gotten silly. I mean, jeez, is there anything these people like at all?
Let me let the persistant naysayers in on a little secret. When you think everything is crap, it's not the 'everything' that has something wrong with it. It's you.
You should probably continue to hold your tounge especially when you're not saying much, and you certainly aren't reading. No one said the movie was complete crap and a critic does not think every movie is crap. YOu look at the movie and you judge it based on what you saw, not what you interpretted and drew from references in the comic book. If the movie didn't make sense to you, if there were glaring plot holes, its certainly not a movie that should be ranked along the batman begins and spidermans, which are solid 7s, 8s and 9s. It should be average at best, which is your 4, 5, and 6 range. My problem is people lacking the knowledge of the rating system of 1-10.
Yeah, there are some truly bad movies out there; I've done my own reviews of some really amazing stinkers but the stuff I see more and more of are people railing on and on and on about stuff that is decent. Millions of other people think it's pretty darn decent as well.
Spidey 3, that was a bad movie, this movie was average. Again, i thought the first hour was pretty good. But the last act was rushed, thrown together, incohorent and went out on a wimper.
