Without clicking on the link, Marvel has always said the plan was to recast just like the 007 series. Downey's shtick can get old.
Moderator: Andrew
The_Noble_Cause wrote:
Without clicking on the link, Marvel has always said the plan was to recast just like the 007 series. Downey's shtick can get old.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
Review: 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2' has that familiar feeling, maybe too much of it
As a result of trying too hard to maintain the original's insouciant attitude, what was fresh now seems institutionalized, what was off the wall now feels carved in stone and the film's trademark irreverence has become dogma. When the unruly Rocket asks wearily, "So, we're saving the galaxy again," the raccoon is being more truthful than he knows.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
verslibre wrote:http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-guardians-of-the-galaxy-2-review-20170503-story.htmlReview: 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2' has that familiar feeling, maybe too much of it
As a result of trying too hard to maintain the original's insouciant attitude, what was fresh now seems institutionalized, what was off the wall now feels carved in stone and the film's trademark irreverence has become dogma. When the unruly Rocket asks wearily, "So, we're saving the galaxy again," the raccoon is being more truthful than he knows.
Monker wrote: Even Gunn admitted that other than ST:TNG, Farscape was the only scifi he watched.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-guardians-of-the-galaxy-2-review-20170503-story.htmlReview: 'Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2' has that familiar feeling, maybe too much of it
As a result of trying too hard to maintain the original's insouciant attitude, what was fresh now seems institutionalized, what was off the wall now feels carved in stone and the film's trademark irreverence has become dogma. When the unruly Rocket asks wearily, "So, we're saving the galaxy again," the raccoon is being more truthful than he knows.
LOL....too funny. The first one wasn't "original" either...they just wrote a Farscape movie. Even Gunn admitted that other than ST:TNG, Farscape was the only scifi he watched. It's not original. It's good characters. It's good writing and story-telling. It's good choices of actors and acting ability...even voice acting. It's just a well made movie - all the way around. So, bring on "more of the same". DC fans like you should learn from it rather than look for negative reviews to post.
Monker wrote:What I am getting from the reviews I have seen, and not cherry-picking good or bad ones like you, is a good part of the first half of the movie is "more of the same" and the second half dives deeper into a character driven story (like Farscape did) in a way the first never attempted. Even the previews show that the story is about "family", not just a bunch of a-holes in space (Red Dwarf).
Also, the original "a bunch of escaped prisoners take a joy ride in space and defy the powers that be." is actually originated by Blake's 7 in the late 70's. But, whatever.
Guardians of the Galaxy is every bit as quirky and entertaining as I could have hoped. The lineup, which includes Conquest faves like Warlock, Quasar, Drax, Gamora, and Star-Lord's crew, is is one of the greatest assembled in years. The issue starts off annoyingly slow (which is odd considering it's all action), but once the personalities start to clash I was immediately hooked.
YoungJRNYfan wrote:I'm actually shocked how many people are talking smack on GoTG2, especially since Gunn wedged his entire body on the humor pedal and extravagant; colorful action. Most are saying the story is lacking and the humor feels unbalanced. I thought for sure this film would settle atleast in the mid 90's on RT and open at the BO at its highest 160+ mil projections. It could dip into the 70's on RT and the BO opening looks to be in the 138-140+ range, which is good but not what most were expecting. I thought for sure, givin' the hype and over-predictions, that GoTG2 would hit 1 bil. Not sure about that now but it's still big.
The_Noble_Cause wrote:At least Crichton came from modern times so it made sense that he would be up-to-date with pop cultural and scatological references. StarLord, on the other hand, was abducted as a child and grew up in a distant galaxy. Doesn't make any sense why every line out of his mouth is some forced witticism ("dance off bro?"). I thought Guardians 1 was pretty lame tbh.
Seven Wishes wrote:"Abysmal? He's the most proactive President since Clinton, and he's bringing much-needed change for the better to a nation that has been tyrannized by the worst President since Hoover."- 7 Wishes on Pres. Obama
The_Noble_Cause wrote:At least Crichton came from modern times so it made sense that he would be up-to-date with pop cultural and scatological references.
As a aside, SyFy is incompetent. They cancelled Sliders to afford Farscape
then they cancelled Farscape to afford Battlestar Galactica....etc etc.
RedWingFan wrote:Think I liked Vol. 2 better. Have to give the first one another watch to be sure.
Monker wrote:And, BTW, for all your whining about the original comic Guardians, they are all there...either in the movie or in the post-credits bits. Gunn has talked about putting that team together...and Guardians 4 is to have a new cast.
Each is the last of their kind and they are forced to come together as a team against the Badoon, an alien race who wants to rule Earths solar system. Over the course of the war against the Badoon, the team slowly grows to include new members such as Starhawk and Nikki, a genetically engineered being created to live on the planet Mercury. When they appear years later in their own title the team consists of several members which lead Martinex to create a second unit called the Galactic Guardians to work along side the original team.
The most well-known version of the team and the one that the feature film is based on is the modern Guardians of the Galaxy who first appeared in May 2008. Created by Dan Abnett and Andy Lanning, the new team is formed of existing characters from the Annihilation storyline with an initial roster of Star-Lord, Adam Warlock, Gamora, Drax the Destroyer, Quasar and the two most popular characters the gun toting Rocket Raccoon and the sentient tree Groot.
Monker wrote:This Star-Lord version was always meant to be a trilogy.
verslibre wrote:Monker wrote:And, BTW, for all your whining about the original comic Guardians, they are all there...either in the movie or in the post-credits bits. Gunn has talked about putting that team together...and Guardians 4 is to have a new cast.
What whining? Chill. I merely intoned I don't like what Marvel's been doing with the characters since 2008. But since you never read the Englehart and Byrne Star-Lord stories, I don't expect you to understand. It's got nothing to do with what they're doing in the movies.
FWIW, here's the original GotG. From L-R: Vance Astro, Charlie-27, Matinex T-Naga, and yes, that's Yondu, before he was colored blue.
Monker wrote:This Star-Lord version was always meant to be a trilogy.
Bullshit.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:Monker wrote:And, BTW, for all your whining about the original comic Guardians, they are all there...either in the movie or in the post-credits bits. Gunn has talked about putting that team together...and Guardians 4 is to have a new cast.
What whining? Chill. I merely intoned I don't like what Marvel's been doing with the characters since 2008. But since you never read the Englehart and Byrne Star-Lord stories, I don't expect you to understand. It's got nothing to do with what they're doing in the movies.
Yeah, you can't accept the fact that these are not the comics, but the movies. They don't have to follow the comics.
Monker wrote:And, here are the roles as they are cast for the post credit scene...where Starhawk says they need to reunite.
Monker wrote:So, you either did not read any of the many articles last month, or you believe Gunn is a liar
Monker wrote:Crichton did not make "modern" references. His references were almost always pointed to classic and OLD references. I can't think of anything from the late 90's. Everything was older, "Let's get the band back together." "I'm not Kirk, Spock, Buck, or Arthur frelling Dent...I'm Dorothy Gale from Kansas." And, some were even a bit hidden: "Well, other than being shot at by the Electric Mayhem...." "Enough with the Luxan poetry." Even Harvey is a reference to the pooka in the movie "Harvey". I could go on and on...but, it's not "modern".
Monker wrote:First of all, I LOVED Sliders. But, Sliders was DEAD after season 5. The show had no reason to exist. The ONLY original was Rembrandt. What they did to Wade was horrible. Professor, dead. There was really no reason for the show to continue.
Monker wrote:The mistake Scifi made with Sliders was making it an alien show about Kromaggs instead of an alternate history show. They made changes in writers and producers, too. THAT is what caused both John-Rhys Davies and Sabrina Lloyd to leave. They screwed with the entire premise of the show - and THAT killed it. It was ready to be pulled after season 4, really. Season 5 may have had OK ratings, but the writing and story arc was not there...and it was painful to watch compared to seasons 1-2, and even 3 was more fun despite things starting to fall apart. Season 1-2 of Sliders is scifi that everybody should watch.
verslibre wrote:Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned: I added to the domestic gross of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.
(At least it was a matinée.)
Goodness gracious, great balls of heaping flaming SUCK.
WTF are people jizzing over? If the movie concluded with a tits-out lesbian orgy between Gamora, Mantis, Nebula and the gold-skinned bitch Ayesha, maybe I'd have found something to enjoy.
I can't believe how bad the dialogue and the jokes in this sucker are. I mean BAD. Not "so bad, they're good"...I mean BAD. And that fucking exaggerated laughter Drax busts out in every 15 minutes is supposed to be hilarious? I wanted a starcraft to fall on his nutsack! Gunn dug deep into his coffers for his old junior high school jokes, and came up with "Scrotum-hat"!
The entire opening sequence is stupid. From then on, the movie is one predictable real-time narrative, with a completely predictable death and resolution (ka-boom). Not to mention the messages Gunn beats you over the head with: "You don't have to be them...you can be YOU!" "You're better than that!" "You're beautiful on the inside!" "It's about FAMILY! We're family!" There is nothing subtle about this film. It's pie-in-face all the way, especially with all references to retro bullshit.
I about LOL'd when I saw the "Sovereign": instead of a cool effect, they went econo and spray-painted a bunch of actors to look like the "m@ster r@ce" landed on another planet. Think old Star Trek!
(Don't even get me started on that little sentient twig. I wanna squirt him with lighter fluid and...Whooooosh!)
This movie has quite a few utilizations of slo-mo, too. Why are people complaining about the slo-mo in the WW trailer and not the slo-mo in this movie?
The post-credits scenes all sucked, too! A first!!!
Save your money!
verslibre wrote:Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned: I added to the domestic gross of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.
(At least it was a matinée.)
Goodness gracious, great balls of heaping flaming SUCK.
WTF are people jizzing over?
verslibre wrote:Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned: I added to the domestic gross of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.
(At least it was a matinée.)
Goodness gracious, great balls of heaping flaming SUCK.
WTF are people jizzing over? If the movie concluded with a tits-out lesbian orgy between Gamora, Mantis, Nebula and the gold-skinned bitch Ayesha, maybe I'd have found something to enjoy.
I can't believe how bad the dialogue and the jokes in this sucker are. I mean BAD. Not "so bad, they're good"...I mean BAD. And that fucking exaggerated laughter Drax busts out in every 15 minutes is supposed to be hilarious? I wanted a starcraft to fall on his nutsack! Gunn dug deep into his coffers for his old junior high school jokes, and came up with "Scrotum-hat"!
The entire opening sequence is stupid. From then on, the movie is one predictable real-time narrative, with a completely predictable death and resolution (ka-boom). Not to mention the messages Gunn beats you over the head with: "You don't have to be them...you can be YOU!" "You're better than that!" "You're beautiful on the inside!" "It's about FAMILY! We're family!" There is nothing subtle about this film. It's pie-in-face all the way, especially with all references to retro bullshit.
I about LOL'd when I saw the "Sovereign": instead of a cool effect, they went econo and spray-painted a bunch of actors to look like the "m@ster r@ce" landed on another planet. Think old Star Trek!
(Don't even get me started on that little sentient twig. I wanna squirt him with lighter fluid and...Whooooosh!)
This movie has quite a few utilizations of slo-mo, too. Why are people complaining about the slo-mo in the WW trailer and not the slo-mo in this movie?
The post-credits scenes all sucked, too! A first!!!
Save your money!
Hillarious. Not too long ago, you two were saying how critics were giving mediocre reviews and that the movie was obviously not as good as the first.
But, of course, that was before it was actually released and before the FANS gave it a 90 on RT. Now, people are "jizzing over" it.
I find it a huge heaping mound of jealousy you are expressing here.
Let me put it in perspective for you. In the other thread you celebrated that BvS entered the top 50 best selling Blu-Rays of all time. Well, Disney owns 7 of the top 10....Including Avengers and....the first GotG. DISNEY knows how to make films that people want to see, and see again, and again, and go and buy it on DVD/Blu-Ray. Thus far, DC seems content to make movies destined to be "cult classics"...aimed at a very specific DC comic book audience. WW may change that...but history does not seem to indicate that.
And, now, Disney will probably have the top two best selling movies of the summer, if not the entire year with GotG:v2 and Beauty and the Beast. Oh, yeah, can't forget SW:ep8....the top 3 best selling movies of the year. WW is not going to come close. And, IMO, Justice League could be anything from great to completely sucking, as BvS...and there is no reason for me to believe it will be more like BvS...and under perform.
Ironically, people are invested in the GotG characters and the movies themselves are part of pop culture...the type of thing Quill sorta mocks. People care about the characters beyond the superficial level that you do. Ironically, or perhaps not, most of the things you complain about are things you complained they - both Marvel and GotG - were not doing. There were consequences where an important character died. They gave the characters more depth by exploring their relationships all within a "family" context. You complained about "You are beautiful, on the inside." But, you leave out the entire story line of Drax saying Mantis was ugly...but, that is good because if someone loves you then you know it is for who you are on the inside. So, at the end he says she's, "beautiful >pause< , on the inside".
And, "You don't have to be them...you can be YOU!" To me, that was taken directly from Farscape - and Farscape did it better. Aeryn Sun: It's my duty, it's my breeding since birth. It's what I am.
John Crichton: You can be more.
See, that is the difference between having a well defined character and a character who is grumpy because he's old and tired of doing the same old vigilante bullshit. But, of course you would rather have the one-dimensional character of Batman, because, hey, he's Batman and we already know his character. This is why the DC movies thus far have been critiqued to death while Marvel keeps cranking out hits that are well received by everybody.
I don't know where this idea came from that what is in GotG2 was "settle". I do not see how anything in the movie was meant to be taken as being "settle".
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned: I added to the domestic gross of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2.
(At least it was a matinée.)
Goodness gracious, great balls of heaping flaming SUCK.
WTF are people jizzing over?
Hillarious. Not too long ago, you two were saying how critics were giving mediocre reviews and that the movie was obviously not as good as the first.
But, of course, that was before it was actually released and before the FANS gave it a 90 on RT. Now, people are "jizzing over" it.
Monker wrote:I find it a huge heaping mound of jealousy you are expressing here.
Monker wrote:Let me put it in perspective for you. In the other thread you celebrated that BvS entered the top 50 best selling Blu-Rays of all time.
Monker wrote:Well, Disney owns 7 of the top 10....Including Avengers and....the first GotG. DISNEY knows how to dumb movies dumb so that the sheep flock to them again, and again, and go and buy 'em on DVD/Blu-Ray. Thus far, DC seems content to make movies destined to be "cult classics"...aimed at a very specific DC comic book audience. WW may change that...but history does not seem to indicate that.
Monker wrote:And, now, Disney will probably have the top two best selling movies of the summer, if not the entire year with GotG:v2 and Beauty and the Beast. Oh, yeah, can't forget SW:ep8....the top 3 best selling movies of the year. WW is not going to come close. And, IMO, Justice League could be anything from great to completely sucking, as BvS...and there is no reason for me to believe it will be more like BvS...and under perform.
Monker wrote:Ironically, people are invested in the GotG characters and the movies themselves are part of pop culture...the type of thing Quill sorta mocks. People care about the characters beyond the superficial level that you do. Ironically, or perhaps not, most of the things you complain about are things you complained they - both Marvel and GotG - were not doing. There were consequences where an important character died. They gave the characters more depth by exploring their relationships all within a "family" context. You complained about "You are beautiful, on the inside." But, you leave out the entire story line of Drax saying Mantis was ugly...but, that is good because if someone loves you then you know it is for who you are on the inside. So, at the end he says she's, "beautiful >pause< , on the inside".
Monker wrote:And, "You don't have to be them...you can be YOU!" To me, that was taken directly from Farscape - and Farscape did it better.
Monker wrote:See, that is the difference between having a well defined character and a character who is grumpy because he's old and tired of doing the same old vigilante bullshit. But, of course you would rather have the one-dimensional character of Batman, because, hey, he's Batman and we already know his character. This is why the DC movies thus far have been critiqued to death while Marvel keeps cranking out hits that are well received by everybody.
verslibre wrote:Fixed. It's Gunnderful that you're carrying the torch for Disney.
verslibre wrote: But wait, why are you contradicting yourself by saying Batman is one-dimensional? A one-dimensional character wouldn't need to be reintroduced into the DCEU. You know, the way you said he needed to be, because audiences don't know "this" Batman, because he must be green and ride an orange camel, while the guy from the Nolan movies wore a black suit and drove something called the Tumbler.
verslibre wrote:It wasn't a 90 on RT. It was 100%. One hundred, baby. And I don't get that, either. People are clearly afraid to talk down Marvel. Proof: all the IMDb reviews that exclaim: Better than the first! Amazing! Marvel does it again! Gunn is the Messiah! And so on. It's ridiculous.
I went in with a completely open mind, and the movie sucked.
Then I watched the first GOTG again. Now I like that movie, warts and all. Gunn tried to build a bigger bonfire and burned the whole joint down. Ronan shouldn't be a bigger threat than something like Ego (and technically he is not), but he was the source of much pain and anguish to those who crossed him. Ego came off like an entity trying on shoes and finally finding the pair that fit.
Monker wrote:I find it a huge heaping mound of jealousy you are expressing here.
Oh, for crying out loud. DId you actually watch this movie, or are you reading spoiler-laden reviews again as you did with Civil War?
Monker wrote:Let me put it in perspective for you. In the other thread you celebrated that BvS entered the top 50 best selling Blu-Rays of all time.
Which has nothing to do with my thoughts on GotGVol2.
Monker wrote:Well, Disney owns 7 of the top 10....Including Avengers and....the first GotG. DISNEY knows how to dumb movies dumb so that the sheep flock to them again, and again, and go and buy 'em on DVD/Blu-Ray. Thus far, DC seems content to make movies destined to be "cult classics"...aimed at a very specific DC comic book audience. WW may change that...but history does not seem to indicate that.
Fixed.
It's wunnerful that you're carrying the torch for Disney. Do you think The Force Awakens was a masterwork?
Now that movie grossed over 2B, but that doesn't mean it's an extraordinary film.
Monker wrote:And, now, Disney will probably have the top two best selling movies of the summer, if not the entire year with GotG:v2 and Beauty and the Beast. Oh, yeah, can't forget SW:ep8....the top 3 best selling movies of the year. WW is not going to come close. And, IMO, Justice League could be anything from great to completely sucking, as BvS...and there is no reason for me to believe it will be more like BvS...and under perform.
Monker wrote:Ironically, people are invested in the GotG characters and the movies themselves are part of pop culture...the type of thing Quill sorta mocks. People care about the characters beyond the superficial level that you do. Ironically, or perhaps not, most of the things you complain about are things you complained they - both Marvel and GotG - were not doing. There were consequences where an important character died. They gave the characters more depth by exploring their relationships all within a "family" context. You complained about "You are beautiful, on the inside." But, you leave out the entire story line of Drax saying Mantis was ugly...but, that is good because if someone loves you then you know it is for who you are on the inside. So, at the end he says she's, "beautiful >pause< , on the inside".
Except way before that, Gamora tells Mantis she's not ugly, after Mantis tells her she's ugly because Drax told her so. Again: did you watch the movie, or are you just reading up on stuff?
People like silly and cute shit, like Baby Groot.
They took the marginally annoying stuff of the first film and turned them up to 11 for the 10-year-olds. It's a goofy movie for kids. That's why Ego the LIVING PLANET didn't compress his entire core and just smush them all down into fertilizer, not to mention they're having an entire conversation about "tape" WHILE flying around inside a closed environment dodging drone blaster-bolts. That's why you have "Daddy Ego" and "Son Petey" playing catch with a ball of energy. It's supposed to make you go Awww.... (I went "Aw, shit, I could've hit the concession stand.")
Monker wrote:And, "You don't have to be them...you can be YOU!" To me, that was taken directly from Farscape - and Farscape did it better.
One-dimensional? Did somebody tell you that? Because the following persons disagree with you, and they're all creators who have worked on Batman:
But wait, why are you contradicting yourself by saying Batman is one-dimensional? A one-dimensional character wouldn't need to be reintroduced into the DCEU. You know, the way you said he needed to be, because audiences don't know "this" Batman, because he must be green and ride an orange camel, while the guy from the Nolan movies wore a black suit and drove something called the Tumbler.
Monker wrote: IMO, a lot of that is a backlash against DC fans talking down Marvel films. It did not matter if I went to a YouTube of the latest trailer or review, or a web review that allowed comments. There were ALWAYS DC fans there saying exactly what you do - that the consensus is blah, blah, blah and so it is not as good as the first. To me, it seems like both sides have groups of "fans" talking smack and trying to boost and lower ratings depending on what side they are on.
"Suck" is such a lame generic critique. But, if that is what you want to believe, fine - believe it.
I saw CA:CW the weekend it was released....just as I did both GotG movies.
Yes, it does. You celebrate such things for DC but you refuse to acknowledge that Marvel is doing it better. GotG is a worldwide phenomenon while something like Suicide Squad is just a movie that had some success with it.
And, there you go. Jealousy.
So what? The intro was basically a parody of the intro to the first movie. Yeah, turned up to 11...but hilarious and perfect.
The Batman in BvS is old and grumpy,. He tortures, branding people and sends them to jail to die. Even Alfred was disturbed by it. And, there is hardly any character development into how he became that way. That is the very definition of a one dimensional character.
They could have done a solo Batman movie where he started as the Batman we knew from Nolan but by the end enough events happened where he became this disturbed old guy in a bat suit.
Instead, we just have to believe it is because Superman is an alien who can destroy the world, and it was all stopped because of Martha. Dude, it's just lame.
YoungJRNYfan wrote:Dude, welcome to the damn internet! Where the hell have you been lately? Youtube, comment sections, FB comments and other areas's regarding basically anything have jackass's with keyboards spitting fire! Of course there are split fanbase's, but it just so happens that Marvel fans have cult-like personalities and smother every DC smear campaign they can get sniff out. Say you dislike a wonderful, adventurous, laugh out loud charming and seducing Marvel film, and all hell breaks loose (Point being, v's GoTG2 review. You took his review so personally that you couldn't help but bring out the credentials of what Marvel has achieved to bury v's review rather than just accepting that he didn't like a the damn film!) Say you dislike a DC film, everyone laughs at it, even beforehand. The internet is designed to accelerate the bias in us all, especially with clickbaiting techniques that register emotional outbursts but Marvel properties are protected by some outlets while clickbaiters have proved that any vile flung at the DCEU brings in the most clicks.
"Suck" is such a lame generic critique. But, if that is what you want to believe, fine - believe it.
Bro, you literally JUST said this:
"And, IMO, Justice League could be anything from great to completely sucking, as BvS...and there is no reason for me to believe it will be more like BvS...and under perform."
Don't be a fuckface!
I saw CA:CW the weekend it was released....just as I did both GotG movies.
Did you see BvS yet?
Yes, it does. You celebrate such things for DC but you refuse to acknowledge that Marvel is doing it better. GotG is a worldwide phenomenon while something like Suicide Squad is just a movie that had some success with it.
Nope. Still has nothing to do with v's thoughts on GoTG2, no matter how bad you want it to be.
Were you the "I know what you are but what am I" 3rd grade champion or some shit? For real, v is without a doubt the most well-rounded comic book/movie fan here. He has deep knowledge in not only the source material, but has fairly stated his love or hate for both studio's CBM's. No matter how bad you want to talk shit over BvS or the DCEU, they have a legion of fans and for some reason, that bothers Marvelites.
So what? The intro was basically a parody of the intro to the first movie. Yeah, turned up to 11...but hilarious and perfect.
Perfect? DOUBT IT.
They could have done a solo Batman movie where he started as the Batman we knew from Nolan but by the end enough events happened where he became this disturbed old guy in a bat suit.
[/quote]Instead, we just have to believe it is because Superman is an alien who can destroy the world, and it was all stopped because of Martha. Dude, it's just lame.
The Martha scene could have been handled better, but still..nope. There's a ton of great context in the scene that reflects back to the source material and why Batman thinks that way he does in the context of the film. The name is used as a trigger, not a result.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:It wasn't a 90 on RT. It was 100%. One hundred, baby. And I don't get that, either. People are clearly afraid to talk down Marvel. Proof: all the IMDb reviews that exclaim: Better than the first! Amazing! Marvel does it again! Gunn is the Messiah! And so on. It's ridiculous.
IMO, a lot of that is a backlash against DC fans talking down Marvel films. It did not matter if I went to a YouTube of the latest trailer or review, or a web review that allowed comments. There were ALWAYS DC fans there saying exactly what you do - that the consensus is blah, blah, blah and so it is not as good as the first. To me, it seems like both sides have groups of "fans" talking smack and trying to boost and lower ratings depending on what side they are on.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote: I went in with a completely open mind, and the movie sucked.
"Suck" is such a lame generic critique. But, if that is what you want to believe, fine - believe it.
Monker wrote:veslibre wrote: Then I watched the first GOTG again. Now I like that movie, warts and all. Gunn tried to build a bigger bonfire and burned the whole joint down. Ronan shouldn't be a bigger threat than something like Ego (and technically he is not), but he was the source of much pain and anguish to those who crossed him. Ego came off like an entity trying on shoes and finally finding the pair that fit.
You are totally missing the point in both movies, or at least Vol 2. Ronan was the stereotypical villain in an origin story...both Starlord and the Guardians themselves. That is the role he played.
Monker wrote:Ego was not just a simple villain . He was Peter Quill's dad...and that is why he was there. It brought a depth of character to Quill that the first movie did not. The same with Gamora and Nebula. It's one thing to be sisters who hate each other. It's another to explain the deep rooted hatred Nebula feels and let Gamora react to it. The same with Drax and Mantis. When Drax tells the story of his wife and Mantis touches him and feels his pain and cries...that deepens the understanding of Drax and provides a connection between Mantis and Drax that is deeper than what Drax has with any of the others.
Monker wrote:So, Ego was there to add to Starlord's character - not just to be a bad guy. They throw the ball back and forth. They talk about girls. They do the "dad" things that Starlord says he missed. All to make it easier for Starlord to follow Ego. But, in the end, Yondu is his "daddy."
Ego is exceptionally intelligent, although as its name suggests, it harbors an extreme superiority complex and can be emotional if thwarted. For a while Ego is propelled through space via the engine Galactus implanted on it and can travel at faster than light speeds (for unknown reasons, Ego is unable to remove the powerful propulsion unit placed at its south pole), however later this device is removed.[23] Ego has total control over its entire mass down to the molecular level; it often shapes its surface into the appearance of a gigantic face to address powerful beings, and can also shape its terrain to suit the circumstances. It is able to use its own substance to extrude tentacles, organic sensors, plant-like growth, and to create humanoid vessels for its consciousness. It can shape its surface to appear as a dead inhospitable world, or into an idyllic, lush green paradise to lure unwary space travelers to its surface, whom it promptly consumes. Ego possesses various internal features analogous to a living organism, such as gigantic tunnels that have been compared to arteries, and a gigantic brain-like organ deep below its surface. It can heat up its internal temperature to destroy beings inside it. Ego possesses both digestive organs, which it uses when absorbing living beings, and an immune system with which to create powerful antibodies to destroy beings which resist absorption. [24]
It also possesses vast psionic abilities, and can project blasts powerful enough to destroy other worlds. [25] He was able to read Thor's mind during his first appearance and scan his biological structure.
Monker wrote:The entire story is about family, and loss of family. And, it is about growing the characters, not just saving the galaxy a second time.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:Which has nothing to do with my thoughts on GotGVol2.
Yes, it does. You celebrate such things for DC but you refuse to acknowledge that Marvel is doing it better. GotG is a worldwide phenomenon while something like Suicide Squad is just a movie that had some success with it.
Monker wrote:And, there you go. Jealousy.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:Now that movie grossed over 2B, but that doesn't mean it's an extraordinary film.
NO, it means that George Lucas dreamed up characters and told a story in such a way that drew people into a fandom that has lasted multiple generations now. It's an extraordinary character driven STORY.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:Rogue One didn't make as much because the only major Jedi presence in it is Vader, but the One Big [Fan Service] Moment at the end > all the Fan Service in TFA combined.
You are now just guessing and inventing facts. Rogue One was the SECOND of the new SW films. Rogue One did not have Han, Leia and Luke reunited in the same film. Rogue One is not part of the new trilogy. Rogue One did well despite all of these things being against it, IMO.
Monker wrote:verslibre wrote:Except way before that, Gamora tells Mantis she's not ugly, after Mantis tells her she's ugly because Drax told her so. Again: did you watch the movie, or are you just reading up on stuff?
Yes, Gamora did say that....and it is probably something that could have been cut.
Monker wrote:So what? The intro was basically a parody of the intro to the first movie. Yeah, turned up to 11...but hilarious and perfect.
Monker wrote:So, now it's a movie for kids.
Monker wrote:They could have done a solo Batman movie where he started as the Batman we knew from Nolan but by the end enough events happened where he became this disturbed old guy in a bat suit.
Monker wrote:In the case of GotG, we have Peter Quill who has had both his father and his adoptive father die...and his father killed his mother. That is one fucked up situation. In Vol 3, he has to rise above all of that and become something more, and without the god powers inherited from Ego (unless he finds something lingered). BTW, that is all symbolized by the destruction of his Walkman - his last real connection to his mother. That is awesome story telling by Gunn.
Return to Snowmobiles For The Sahara
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests