Guardians of the Galaxy thread 2 ... Great movie, or best blockbuster of the decade?

[Stannis Eats No Peaches]

Some people just can't see quality when it's put down in front of them. OTOH some people heap praise on the most God awful crap, case in point X-men days of future past present tense....God that sucked ass.

Off topic, but what did you hate so much about it?

[daskool]

Off topic, but what did you hate so much about it?

Gigantic glaring plot hole that ruined the entire movie, Hugh Jackman as Wolverine, usual sprawling plot that lost me entirely halfway through. One great moment in the movie with a fantastic character who then proceeded to disapear for no reason or explanation. But you're right that's another thread. Safe to say Guardians of the Galaxy is a perfect superhero movie, because it's pretty much the opposite of everything in the X-men movie. Marvel I love you.

[denstorebog]

Gigantic glaring plot hole that ruined the entire movie

As much as I disliked DOFP as well, a pet peeve of mine is when people (and especially reviewers) casually mention of giant plot holes but don't bother saying what they're talking about. (Well, I guess reviewers can't really come out and say it.)

[daskool]

As much as I disliked DOFP as well, a pet peeve of mine is when people (and especially reviewers) casually mention of giant plot holes but don't bother saying what they're talking about. (Well, I guess reviewers can't really come out and say it.)

That's because this isn't a thread about X-men, but it was to do with the 're-set' by Wolverine early in the movie that apparently changed history but had no effect whatsoever on Prof X and Magneto in the future. I've heard all kinds of explanations for this bullshit but I was like dafuq? And totally lost interest as I assumed the scriptwriters assumed their audience were a bunch of idiots.

Guardians of the Galaxy is a well written and interesting movie. It doesn't take itself too seriously and tells a simple story with likeable characters around a consistent plot. X-men is a terribly po faced movie with almost no humor that has an overly complicated plot that pretends to allude to some profound truth about acceptance and tolerance but is actually just a McGuffin to excuse a re-boot of the franchise (i.e. pissing all over your own canon).

[Davrum]

Guardians of the Galaxy is a well written and interesting movie. It doesn't take itself too seriously and tells a simple story with likeable characters around a consistent plot. X-men is a terribly po faced movie with almost no humor that has an overly complicated plot that pretends to allude to some profound truth about acceptance and tolerance but is actually just a McGuffin to excuse a re-boot of the franchise (i.e. pissing all over your own canon).

:agree:

I'm not against filmmakers trying to make Serious Comic Book Movies as a concept, but they almost never get it as right as the guys who aim for a more fun tone. Marvel's decision to more or less treat their films as comedies has meant their fare, in my eyes (and heart), is generally superior to anything from Sony, 20th Century Fox or Warner Bros.

[daskool]

:agree:

I'm not against filmmakers trying to make Serious Comic Book Movies as a concept, but they almost never get it as right as the guys who aim for a more fun tone. Marvel's decision to more or less treat their films as comedies has meant their fare, in my eyes (and heart), is generally superior to anything from Sony, 20th Century Fox or Warner Bros.

Yeah the only director who's got it right is Nolan with the Batman trilogy, and even then the reputation of those films is really built around the Dark Knight, which was a tremendous movie, the other two were OK. He did it by making a superhero movie that wasn't really a superhero movie, which is fine for Batman because he isn't really a superhero. If you're making movies based on comic books probably the most important thing to remember is you're basing them around COMIC characters and you're telling fantastical tall yarns. GotG absolutely nails that, X-men, Man of Steel..in fact pretty much every movie not made by Marvel fails miserably.

[AndrewJ]

X-men is a terribly po faced movie with almost no humor that has an overly complicated plot that pretends to allude to some profound truth about acceptance and tolerance but is actually just a McGuffin to excuse a re-boot of the franchise (i.e. pissing all over your own canon).

Yeah, but if there was ever a canon that needed to be pissed over, it was X-Men's (and this is from some-one who quite enjoyed Last Stand. The only issue being that it basically tried to kill off any chance of future movies)

[red snow]

I don't think ALL comic-based films have to be funny. It makes sense with most of the Marvel ones - probably a lot of the DC ones too but I don't think they all have to be funny. Someone probably thought that when they made Batman and Robin and the Fantastic Four films (although I'd never want to see a serious FF film they could make one that's about the adventure)

I don't think I'd particularly enjoy a light-hearted X-men film. The core of what makes the X-men concept work is they are an allegory for any type of prejudice or minority. Sure, they can have fun but if they are all being hunted down to the point of extinction by robots then maybe it isn't the place for a joke-fest.

Obviously this is just talking about superhero comics as well. Although it reminds me of the "fun" version of Watchmen.

[Liffguard]

Nothing inherently wrong with dark, serious, downbeat stories but there needs to be some real intellectual substance at the heart of the story in order to support that much weight. For me personally it can't be entirely dark either. For all of the Nolan trilogy's bleakness there were still plenty of moments of hope and triumph, and even some levity. But it seems like WB/DC are trying to make their movies more "serious" with the result that they're starting to come across like a non-ironic version of Lego Batman's theme song.

[Veltigar]

Although it reminds me of the "fun" version of Watchmen.

Is this real? :shocked:

[Galactus]

Is this real? :shocked:

No.

[Veltigar]

No.

Faith in humanity partially restored :)

[Davrum]

I don't think ALL comic-based films have to be funny. It makes sense with most of the Marvel ones - probably a lot of the DC ones too but I don't think they all have to be funny. Someone probably thought that when they made Batman and Robin and the Fantastic Four films (although I'd never want to see a serious FF film they could make one that's about the adventure)

I don't think I'd particularly enjoy a light-hearted X-men film. The core of what makes the X-men concept work is they are an allegory for any type of prejudice or minority. Sure, they can have fun but if they are all being hunted down to the point of extinction by robots then maybe it isn't the place for a joke-fest.

Obviously this is just talking about superhero comics as well. Although it reminds me of the "fun" version of Watchmen.

I agree with your point that the core of what makes the X-men concept work is they are an allegory for any type of prejudice or minority except I'd add "on the page" after "work". It's very tricky to translate the outlandish worlds we find inside comic books to the big screen without embracing the inherent silliness of men in tights. Even the much-heralded Dark Knight stumbles over cartoonish moments like the ferry set piece and Lucius's cellphone array radar tracking dealio. Neither of those scenes would feel as goofy as they do if they weren't surrounded by such a portentous movie.

I think part of the reason Batman can work better than others in a more sober tone is he doesn't have supernatural powers. It's similar to how Wolverine is so wildly popular both in comic book form and movie form. Relatively speaking he has very simple powers in that healing rapidly and heightened senses are an order of magnitude less goofy than laser eyes, telekinesis, flight or weather control.

[Veltigar]

I know X-Men started as a commentary on things like prejudice and social uphevel, but I don't think the movie are really about that. The X-men movies aren't (goofy) fun like the Avengers, nor grim like tDK. They exist somewhere between those two types. In contrast with what others seem to think, I do feel like their is room for something between Avengers/GotG/Iron Man and tDK. A movie like X-Men: DoFP fits in that spot with ease.

[daskool]

I know X-Men started as a commentary on things like prejudice and social uphevel, but I don't think the movie are really about that. The X-men movies aren't (goofy) fun like the Avengers, nor grim like tDK. They exist somewhere between those two types. In contrast with what others seem to think, I do feel like their is room for something between Avengers/GotG/Iron Man and tDK. A movie like X-Men: DoFP fits in that spot with ease.

They take themselves WAY too seriously. They're made by folk who clearly are attempting to make a superhero movie without really making a superhero movie, which is the track WB (and Fox) have chosen to walk when adapting the source material. Instead of embracing the comic books as Marvel have done so brilliantly, they seem to be embarrassed by them.

[Veltigar]

Not a comic reader. I think X-Men DotFP was a fun blockbuster in its own right. Better than most things Marvel has made (Thor, Iron Man 2-3, Captain America 1, the Hulk movies), though not as good as the Avengers.

[daskool]

Not a comic reader. I think X-Men DotFP was a fun blockbuster in its own right. Better than most things Marvel has made (Thor, Iron Man 2-3, Captain America 1, the Hulk movies), though not as good as the Avengers.

Yeah they made the movie to appeal to a 'wider audience', which is why it sucks IMO. Wolverine is a sensitive new age guy, to appeal to the female demographic. Mystique has no back story beyond being Magneto's pet, and is played as a feisty rebellious teenager! Prof X can walk and he has hair! Magneto isn't really that much of a bad guy, in fact he's a super handsome, and misunderstood, freedom fighter. The bad guys are OF COURSE right wingers in the American government. Why even bother adapting from comic books when there clearly is no respect or love for the source material, especially the characters?

Marvel OTOH are obviously completely head over heals and it shows in their movies.

Two exceptions, as I mentioned the Nolan's Batman which completely captured the tone of the comic books if eschewing much of the comic book elements (which he got away with because Batman is not really a superhero) and the first spiderman trilogy which got lots of things wrong but at least didn't runaway from it's source.

[red snow]

Yeah they made the movie to appeal to a 'wider audience', which is why it sucks IMO. Wolverine is a sensitive new age guy, to appeal to the female demographic. Mystique has no back story beyond being Magneto's pet, and is played as a feisty rebellious teenager! Prof X can walk and he has hair! Magneto isn't really that much of a bad guy, in fact he's a super handsome, and misunderstood, freedom fighter. The bad guys are OF COURSE right wingers in the American government. Why even bother adapting from comic books when there clearly is no respect or love for the source material, especially the characters?

I must have watched a different version of DOFP to you given those complaints about the characters. I agree with the time travel ultimately making no sense though.

I also find it odd that Fox panders to a wide audience while Marvel somehow doesn't. Really? I'd say Marvel do a far better job of pandering to a wide audience (explaining why they do so well).

I'm also not so sure about Marvel's "embracement" of the comics either. Guardians of the Galaxy is still very much its own movie version of what the current comic and the ones from 6 years ago were. I think it's embraced Joss Whedon's "firefly" and Henson's "farscape" if anything.

Marvel is great at what they do - I still don't think it means every superhero film should be the same and we may miss out on the perfect take of a superhero. That will get dull fast. Although I do agree that trying to make everything like Nolan's Batman is just as dangerous.

[daskool]

I must have watched a different version of DOFP to you given those complaints about the characters. I agree with the time travel ultimately making no sense though.

I also find it odd that Fox panders to a wide audience while Marvel somehow doesn't. Really? I'd say Marvel do a far better job of pandering to a wide audience (explaining why they do so well).

I'm also not so sure about Marvel's "embracement" of the comics either. Guardians of the Galaxy is still very much its own movie version of what the current comic and the ones from 6 years ago were. I think it's embraced Joss Whedon's "firefly" and Henson's "farscape" if anything.

Marvel is great at what they do - I still don't think it means every superhero film should be the same and we may miss out on the perfect take of a superhero. That will get dull fast. Although I do agree that trying to make everything like Nolan's Batman is just as dangerous.

Marvel embrace the core elements of the comic books. Their canon is consistent as they have enough love and respect for the source material not to take a large steaming dump all over it whenever it's time for a re-boot. What's the point of the first X-men trilogy and even the two Wolverine movies? None, all those myriad story lines have now disappeared, vanished forever like the echos of a bad dream. There's money to be made from giving the whole thing a do over after all. Same with spiderman, superman, fantastic 4 and so on and on. The people making those films couldn't give a fuck about the books because they don't see it as literature, just rather silly children's illustrations that they can extract characters from to award themselves an interested audience.

[Kalbear]

Ya know, talking about the movies shitting on canon and not staying true to the comics is kind of funny - do you have any idea how many times the xmen have hit the reset button on their own canon? Doing something like this is if anything way truer to the comic book world than anything any other series has done. Time travel changing things so that the world is different? Check, check, check and check.

I agree about spider man - that was a money grab. For Xmen, I felt like that was the most true to the actual characters of almost any comic book movie. It was really clear to me that DOFP cared deeply about the comic spirit, even if the actual events didn't work - to the point where they wanted to figure out a way to get rid of the hideous xmen 3. If you loved xmen 3, I am sorry - but that was their stated goal.