-
[QUOTE=Kevinroc;3960196]Yes, I can see the numbers. I can also see that movies that made $773.3 and $863.8 (as Guardians 1 and 2 did respectively) not already being classified as "massive successes" is moving the goal posts something fierce.
[B][COLOR="#0000FF"]
You don't know what kind of growth Guardians 3 would have had (and neither do I) after Infinity War and its sequel.[/COLOR][/B] And now we never will. For even if Guardians 3 ever actually comes out, it has been so tainted that we couldn't say what could have been.
Disney turned a sure fire hit into a massive fiasco. And undercutting this by saying "they'll be fine because they have (insert other massively popular IP here)" is a terrible way to run a business. But it's nothing new for Hollywood. It just boggles my mind how many people here will defend Disney from criticism over how they handled this.[/QUOTE]
While I don't "know", the movies that pulled off that increase in sales had one thing in common. Core "Avengers" members.
Could "Guardians" have done the same? Maybe. That said, they didn't have the component that the other runs had in common.
As for "Massive" successes, take a look at your own list. They round out the top ten. They are potentially dropping off of that list in the very near future.
-
[QUOTE=XPac;3960222]If it were a big deal for them, they would have simply not fired Gunn and made the darn film. But since they honestly know they have have a dozen films which will make millions and dozens more doen the pike yeah .... rhis is likely no big deal. They are in a position where they can fire who they want, make the movies they want. In the grand scheme of things whether or not they rhey make Guardians 3 simply won't matter.[/QUOTE]
This continues to be the absolutely worst take. Disney pissing away millions of dollars on nothing more than ego (and not the villain of Guardians 2) and people defending them for doing so.
-
[QUOTE=numberthirty;3960246]While I don't "know", the movies that pulled off that increase in sales had one thing in common. Core "Avengers" members.
Could "Guardians" have done the same? Maybe. That said, they didn't have the component that the other runs had in common.[/QUOTE]
Who was front and center in Infinity War? The Guardians.
Who's going to be front and center in Infinity War's sequel? The Guardians (or at least Rocket and Nebula before Thanos' actions in Infinity War are undone/reversed/whatever).
The Guardians movies were mostly off on their own, disconnected from everything else until Infinity War. And they were still some of the MCU's highest grossing films. What IW and its sequel would have meant for Guardians 3 is now completely unknowable.
-
[QUOTE=Kevinroc;3960251]Who was front and center in Infinity War? The Guardians.
Who's going to be front and center in Infinity War's sequel? The Guardians (or at least Rocket and Nebula before Thanos' actions in Infinity War are undone/reversed/whatever).
The Guardians movies were mostly off on their own, disconnected from everything else until Infinity War. And they were still some of the MCU's highest grossing films. What IW and its sequel would have meant for Guardians 3 is now completely unknowable.[/QUOTE]
Name a part of the film where Guardians were not paired with a core Avenger.
Seriously.
Never mind that they took on Thanos in Wakanda...
-
[QUOTE=numberthirty;3960243]Yep.
Folks were talking "Uh, Uh!" when Whedon jumped ship. Same when they parted ways with Wright.
Disney/Marvel just laughed while they were dragging their loot to the bank.
This is no different.[/QUOTE]
That you compare this to Whedon and Wright shows that you don't understand what this is about at all.
-
[QUOTE=numberthirty;3960252]Name a part of the film where Guardians were not paired with a core Avenger.
Seriously.[/QUOTE]
Gamora makes Star-Lord promise to pull the trigger if Thanos gets her. Drax and Mantis also appear in this scene.
Star-Lord, Drax, Gamora, Mantis vs. Thanos on Knowhere.
-
[QUOTE=Kevinroc;3960255]Gamora makes Star-Lord promise to pull the trigger if Thanos gets her. Drax and Mantis also appear in this scene.
Star-Lord, Drax, Gamora, Mantis vs. Thanos on Knowhere.[/QUOTE]
One short section of a film that clocked in at almost one hundred-fifty minutes.
Never mind that they had already been paired with Thor prior to that scene. They had a role. "Front And Center" might be blowing it out of proportion by a bit.
-
[QUOTE=numberthirty;3960259]One short section of a film that clocked in at almost one hundred-fifty minutes.
Never mind that they had already been paired with Thor prior to that scene. They had a role. "Front And Center" might be blowing it out of proportion by a bit.[/QUOTE]
That they had previously interacted with Thor is irrelevant. Thor (or any other Core Avenger) is not in these scenes I mentioned and you can not change stipulations after the fact.
There are also scenes of Thanos with Gamora or Thanos with Gamora and Nebula that do not involve core Avengers. (And, no, Red Skull definitely does not count as a "core Avenger.")
-
[QUOTE=Kevinroc;3960247]This continues to be the absolutely worst take. Disney pissing away millions of dollars on nothing more than ego (and not the villain of Guardians 2) and people defending them for doing so.[/QUOTE]
That's the thing .. I don't know its nothing more than ego. If rhey openly said we are doing rgis purely out of ego I'd disagree with it more. But U don't work for Disney and never discussed the matter personally with rhem, so I can't come ro that conclusion.
But rhe way I see it, if they genyinely feel this is the right thing to do for them, and it's really not hurting them or me for that matter then really why should I even care? Their money, their movie, so all seems welk with the world.
-
[QUOTE=XPac;3960266]That's the thing .. I don't know its nothing more than ego. If rhey openly said we are doing rgis purely out of ego I'd disagree with it more. But U don't work for Disney and never discussed the matter personally with rhem, so I can't come ro that conclusion.
But rhe way I see it, if they genyinely feel this is the right thing to do for them, and it's really not hurting them or me for that matter then really why should I even care? Their money, their movie, so all seems welk with the world.[/QUOTE]
Your fanboyism is once again showing.
-
[QUOTE=numberthirty;3959870]A third "Guardians" film where it feels like a chapter was going to end, or putting the money into other properties that could turn out another couple of profitable films?[/QUOTE]
Let's not forget that Gunn wasn't just doing Guardians 3. He had gone beyond a mere director and was going to set up the cosmic side of the MCU.
-
[QUOTE=Kevinroc;3960270]Your fanboyism is once again showing.[/QUOTE]
On the contrary its lack of fanboyism which makes me not care who Disney fires. Again, their money and their movie and I'm 100% certain marvel and Disney will continue to thrive either way so I'm good.
Again, if they flat out said it was purely done out of ego like you claim I'd be more critical of it. But as I wasn't in the room at the time when this was decided, I can't say that. Lack of telepathy and fanboyism isnt the same thing.
-
[QUOTE=Carabas;3960281]Let's not forget that Gunn wasn't just doing Guardians 3. He had gone beyond a mere director and was going to set up the cosmic side of the MCU.[/QUOTE]
Thats actually where I think the acquisition of Xmen and FF changes things. I don't think it would effect Guardians 3, but if down the line you're wanting to make Deadpool and Xmen movies, what needs to give way to make room? It probably won't be the Avengers stuff.
-
[QUOTE=XPac;3960282]On the contrary its lack of fanboyism which makes me not care who Disney fires. Again, their money and their movie and I'm 100% certain marvel and Disney will continue to thrive either way so I'm good.
Again, if they flat out said it was purely done out of ego like you claim I'd be more critical it. But as I wasn't in the room at the time when this was decided, I can't say that. Lack of tekeoathy and fanboyism isnt the same thing.[/QUOTE]
Your argument is essentially that because Disney made this decision and doubled down on it, it must have been the right decision. That is not a good argument to make. The history of the world shows a lot of people in various positions who have made terrible decisions and doubled down on them even when given the opportunity to relent.
-
[QUOTE=Kevinroc;3960290]Your argument is essentially that because Disney made this decision and doubled down on it, it must have been the right decision. That is not a good argument to make. The history of the world shows a lot of people in various positions who have made terrible decisions and doubled down on them even when given the opportunity to relent.[/QUOTE]
Specifically, I'm saying because they doubled down on the decision it means it was the right decision for them. By whatever standard of judgement they are using, which may be different than yours or mine, they seem good with the decision they made with better understanding of the circumstances and consequences than we ever will.
And in the grand scheme of things, given its their money and movie, in this instance theirs is the only opinion that really matters.
