Originally posted by Mr Master
His hunger was tampered with, we agree,
but his absorption capacity was all his own.Galactus doesn't want to eat everything, he's a defender of reality,
he wants reality to flourish, he knows he must be forever hungry for the sake of reality,
he's Eternity's son, brother, and so on, he hails Eternity, as Eternity hails him,
they're survival is based on their existences.If Galactus dies, Eternity/Infinity die,
if Eternity/Infinity die, Galactus will have nothing left to feed on ... and die as well.Unless of course Byrne's vision of Galactus' purpose comes to fruition,
thus making Galactus the next creator of the Marvel Universe,
by using the same energies he fed on that were the reality.Beyond that good friend,
for the sake of story telling,
Galactus has to feed with limitations in the average showing.Taimut basically made it so Galactus could not stop himself from feeding,
that's it.What the arc proved,
)
is that Galactus' storage capacity for energy is boundless/infinite.
(he also seems to already contain infinite energy,
proven when he returned to his natural state in 616
and became a Star that would radiate energy [b]forverGalactus is the one that stops himself after one planet btw,
that's all he needs to stay in functioning conditions,
yet, we know he can absorb more,
even throwing out the 'Black Celestial' arc we know this is true. [/B]
i think i agree with most of that, but it just doesn't have much practical relevence. does he have the CAPACITY to devour the universe or beyond? maybe, i guess. could he willingly do so whenever he chose to do so? based on all his showings, based on how weak we've seen him in the past, and how desperately he's needed to feed? no. at his weakest he's needed to be practically carried to a planet to regain his energy. why not just start absorbing the universe--even a small part of it to sustain himself?
i've always sort of speculated that maybe he COULD absorb parts of the universe, but it simply wouldn't sustain him since it's not biospheric energy. doesn't really make sense since he's devoured dimensions though, so, i don't know. does that mean everytime we see him near death it's because he CHOOSES to be that weak? is it all just PIS whenever he is weak? meh, i'd rather not say that.
what i DO know is that his hunger WAS altered by the celestial, that that version of galactus WAS changed, and hence what THAT version did and was capable of doing really has no bearing on what the normal galactus would/might do.
he may have the CAPACITY to absorb the universe+, but practically speaking (and for purposes of this match) that capacity is meaningless.
Originally posted by Naija boy
In most low showings,g starts out weak. Its different when in this case he was supposedly nourished and then depletes his energy breaching a friggin forcefield. Then we have him brushing off supernovas but almost getting killed by nukes. The whole arc was poorly written and filled with PIS.also when he got toppled by thing he wasnt at all hurt by him. he just got pushed off a ledge unexpectedly. Not the best of showings certainly but it hardly tells us anything about G in regards to power level........but nukes?cmon even the surfer could brush that off easily.
I think Thanos shields are wrote very consistently and shown to be very strong. If it just depleted them with no explanation on why or how that was possible you would have more of a point. However, Big G's own words speak to why that happened and thus it's plausible and not some PIS. He said he's never had to work so hard to break a force field. You can take that statement very easily to mean it's the toughest shield he's tried to break in his long long existence. You can take it or interrupt it how you want but clearly Big G (writer) was trying to convey the messgae that he hadn't encountered such a force field and thus it draining him doesn't seem that far fetched at all. Then when you consider when Thanos's shields did against a being said to be more powerful then Galactus in Omega and how it held up to his pissed off continuous blast it seem like his shields are that damn strong.
Originally posted by Naija boyDo you guys read PIS as Pee-Eye-Ess, or as Piss? Because I crack up all the time on the forum when i read it like that.
In most low showings,g starts out weak. Its different when in this case he was supposedly nourished and then depletes his energy breaching a friggin forcefield. Then we have him brushing off supernovas but almost getting killed by nukes. The whole arc was poorly written and filled with PIS.
Originally posted by leonidasi've always sort of speculated that maybe he COULD absorb parts of the universe, but it simply wouldn't sustain him since it's not biospheric energy. doesn't really make sense since he's devoured dimensions though, so, i don't know. does that mean everytime we see him near death it's because he CHOOSES to be that weak? is it all just PIS whenever he is weak? meh, i'd rather not say that.
Logically though, one thing I haven't really grasped about Galactus is that we've seen Surfer be self-sustaining in his ability to draw sustenance from the cosmos, and from more potent sources like stars and the like during battle. What's stopping Galactus from doing the same, since he definitely has all of SS' abilities but to a much larger extent? Does his hunger override any sustenance that he arbitrarily draws from the cosmos?
Originally posted by Ouallada
Logically though, one thing I haven't really grasped about Galactus is that we've seen Surfer be self-sustaining in his ability to draw sustenance from the cosmos, and from more potent sources like stars and the like during battle. What's stopping Galactus from doing the same, since he definitely has all of SS' abilities but to a much larger extent? Does his hunger override any sustenance that he arbitrarily draws from the cosmos?
galactus's character has really been screwed up, imo, over the years. 😬
the one constant has been he requires BIOSPHERIC energy to replete himself. maybe he is capable of drawing and absorbing ambient cosmic energy, but it doesn't seem to be able to sustain him at all. it's like when he died--he became a star that would burn forever. i just had this discussion not too long ago, but that ever-burning star was utterly ridiculous. what it implies is that galactus himself contains INFINITE energy, yet at the some time he is always hungry and can literally DIE for lack of energy! what the hell?? f his bidy contains infinite energy, then why does he need to feed in the first place??
meh. i think to many writers have put their hands on the character and cumulatively they seem to have made a mess of him. 🙁
Galactus' hunger is a device for maintaining "Cosmic Consonance", no?
sometimes he's just hungry because he must be hungry in order to be compelled to devour worlds (and thus reduce the amount of life in the universe to the balance that is his function).
I don't think he needs organic life to energize himself, as he's proven in the Hyperstorm feat, but he does need it when he's hungry (because of the hunger, rather than energy depletion).
given that he has the power, within him, to annihilate whole galaxies with a wave of the hand (whilst weak, hungry and hurt), it makes no sense to attribute that kind of energy potential to the consumption of a solitary planet.
It's always depicted that he can only replenish himself via biospheric energy, but then and again he sustained himself on hyperspace via Hyperstorm, which I think is more akin to drawing sustenance from the cosmos than feeding on biospheric energy.
Perhaps, a good tradeoff between infinite energy and always being hungry is that Galactus was theoretically formed from the summed remains of the previous universe (which is where the infinite energy comes from) and his hunger can be explained via a combination of sustenance and keeping Abraxas away. I've always taken Galactus to be somewhat of an energy black hole anyway.
Someone more versed in Galactus would probably come in to explain it to us now.
@ Janus: I thought it was the Proemial Gods who were tasked with cosmic consonance, and Galactus was "equity" between Eternity and Death? Not sure how his hunger theoretically furthers that though.
Originally posted by Ouallada
Someone more versed in Galactus would probably come in to explain it to us now.
😂
with our luck it will probably be souldevourer. shock
anyway, i'm pretty sure there IS no explanation.
if he can consume ANY energy to sutain himself, he should never be near death.
if he requires just biospheric energy to sustain himself, hyperspatial energy shouldn't have sustained him.
if he contains infinite energy, he should never require energy. even factoring in the energy required to contain abraxas (a silly creation, imo) infinite energy is . . . infinite.
it was so much better back when he was a simple character. 🙁
Originally posted by Ouallada
@ Janus: I thought it was the Proemial Gods who were tasked with cosmic consonance, and Galactus was "equity" between Eternity and Death? Not sure how his hunger theoretically furthers that though. [/B]
Heavy G is to the "Cosmic Consonance" what the entire Celestial race is to "The Fulcrum", I think.
actually, I think the "Cosmic Consonance" might be the will/plan of The Fulcrum... I await some knowledge on the matter. it's actually one of the more fascinating aspects of the MU... to me anyway.
Originally posted by leonidas
😂with our luck it will probably be souldevourer. shock
anyway, i'm pretty sure there IS no explanation.if he can consume ANY energy to sutain himself, he should never be near death.
if he requires just biospheric energy to sustain himself, hyperspatial energy shouldn't have sustained him.
if he contains infinite energy, he should never require energy. even factoring in the energy required to contain abraxas (a silly creation, imo) infinite energy is . . . infinite.
it was so much better back when he was a simple character. 🙁
Well, I'm not exactly looking forward to a poorly-spelled thesis on why Galactus is now mystical because science (PC) cannot > magic.
Perhaps a wider definition of bioenergy is needed. Bioenergy by itself deosn't need to be living energy per se, nor does it need to be from a living planet, simply one that is capable of sustaining life. It's possible (and also makes a certain amount of sense) that Galactus can draw upon any kind of energy that sustains life. In that sense, hyperspace is possible, as celestials are basically embodiments of hyperspace, in addition to Hyperstorm. Of course, the definition of life-sustaining energy would then get a bit mucky, as all energy is theoretically life-sustaining.
IIRC, there was an arc which described Galactus as the catalyst which led to the creation of the next universe, wasn't there? The one with Nova. If so, it is possible that Galactus' need for energy isn't just for sustenance, but for a fundamental creational need. That, of course, contradicts with the death of any Galactus on panel which did not lead to a new universe (looking at Abraxas here, which I agree was probably a little too contrived a reason for G's well-being). I'm guessing that the true answer lies somewhere in the role that Galactus actually plays, though.
if I recall correctly, Galactus has stated that he works to maintain the Cosmic Consonance. the Pro-Es were there to nurture the universe at a much earlier stage (then Galactus wiped them out, when they no longer served the universe).
Wasn't the cosmic consonance simply the fabric that holds a formless universe together? All that order from chaos and intent from order stuff? I'm honestly not sure how G's purpose correlates with that, though. On that case, from a layman's point of view, what exactly does the balance between Death and Eternity (time incarnate) entail exactly? Understanding that could go a long way to understanding G, I reckon.
As far as the Fulcrum goes, if evolution is the purpose of the Fulcrum, it could be taken to be under the evolutionary umbrella of the consonance, even though I am personally doubtful if that isn't a coincidental correlation.
Originally posted by KuRuPT Thanosi
I think Thanos shields are wrote very consistently and shown to be very strong. If it just depleted them with no explanation on why or how that was possible you would have more of a point. However, Big G's own words speak to why that happened and thus it's plausible and not some PIS. He said he's never had to work so hard to break a force field. You can take that statement very easily to mean it's the toughest shield he's tried to break in his long long existence. You can take it or interrupt it how you want but clearly Big G (writer) was trying to convey the messgae that he hadn't encountered such a force field and thus it draining him doesn't seem that far fetched at all. Then when you consider when Thanos's shields did against a being said to be more powerful then Galactus in Omega and how it held up to his pissed off continuous blast it seem like his shields are that damn strong.
Originally posted by leonidas👆
i think i agree with most of that, but it just doesn't have much practical relevence. does he have the CAPACITY to devour the universe or beyond? maybe, i guess. could he willingly do so whenever he chose to do so? based on all his showings, based on how weak we've seen him in the past, and how desperately he's needed to feed? no. at his weakest he's needed to be practically carried to a planet to regain his energy. why not just start absorbing the universe--even a small part of it to sustain himself?i've always sort of speculated that maybe he COULD absorb parts of the universe, but it simply wouldn't sustain him since it's not biospheric energy. doesn't really make sense since he's devoured dimensions though, so, i don't know. does that mean everytime we see him near death it's because he CHOOSES to be that weak? is it all just PIS whenever he is weak? meh, i'd rather not say that.
what i DO know is that his hunger WAS altered by the celestial, that that version of galactus WAS changed, and hence what THAT version did and was capable of doing really has no bearing on what the normal galactus would/might do.
he may have the CAPACITY to absorb the universe+, but practically speaking (and for purposes of this match) that capacity is meaningless.
Originally posted by Naija boy
Thanos shields did stand up to omega but he was hardly drained or anything even close after the attack. His shields are powerful no doubt but a supposedly nourished galactus depleting his energies to pierce them is pretty ridiculous. Even considering galactus statement that he had never had to work so hard to pierce a forcefield it is still a huge low showing to think that he depleted most of his vital energies doing it. Further we also then have to consider that the arc as a whole was rife with PIS and ridiculous moments and that galactus was portrayed at a much lower level than usual (nourished level that is).
I agree that there were certainly some PIS, make you go what moments in that arc. I do agree with that. First, in the Omega instance we really don't know if he was drained or not. Thanos shields held up but were failing. He then gave the word which set in motion the chain of events that lead to Omegas defeat. It wasn't said it did or didn't drain him which isn't proof one way or the other. For all we know it could've drained him and thus that helped lead to his defeat. I was simply giving you another example of a comparable being in power that struggled to breach Thanos shields and more then likely also drained him. Furthermore, we don't know how much it drained Big G. Obviously enough that the writer wanted to convey his shields were strong and Big G needed to feed. However, he still put in work shortly after that encounter so I doubt it was most of his vital energies. Certainly enough though that he commented on it and wanted to feed. Either way I do agree there were some weird moments in that arc.
Originally posted by Ouallada
That, of course, contradicts with the death of any Galactus on panel which did not lead to a new universe (looking at Abraxas here, which I agree was probably a little too contrived a reason for G's well-being). I'm guessing that the true answer lies somewhere in the role that Galactus actually plays, though.
Galactus didn't die in the Abraxas act but was transmuted into a sun, we can call that killed, however I think that would be a wrong definition given the circumstances imo.
"I'm destined to give back the universe indefinitely more then I have taken"
Originally posted by Utrigita
Galactus didn't die in the Abraxas act but was transmuted into a sun, we can call that killed, however I think that would be a wrong definition given the circumstances imo."I'm destined to give back the universe indefinitely more then I have taken"
I was actually referring to the dead Galactuses that we saw on panel.