Guardians of the Galaxy: Movie Discussion (SPOILERS)

[stingnewell]

True. I'm just hoping we see recurring villains more often.
And Lee Pace is a favourite of mine.

Only Marvel villains I've seen in the MCU still alive are
Red Skull, Loki, Abomination, Nebula, and Justin Hammer.

[DebkoX]

Only Marvel villains I've seen in the MCU still alive are
Red Skull, Loki, Abomination, Nebula, and Justin Hammer.

I wish there was more, I'm probably in the minority though.....

[Sutekh]

Only Marvel villains I've seen in the MCU still alive are
Red Skull, Loki, Abomination, Nebula, and Justin Hammer.

Marvel has kind of missed opportunities here.

Arnim Zola could easily have been left open for use, instead of Pierce flat-out stating that he'd been killed in the bunker explosion. Some Chitauri could have survived the battle of New York, or some Dark Elves the events at the end of Dark World, or some Extremis soldiers the end of Iron Man 3, and Agents of SHIELD would be a perfect vehicle to continue that storyline. Ivan Vanko didn't really need to die at the end of Iron Man 2, it didn't really do anything to advance the story.

The same thing happens in Batman and Spider-Man movies. Perfectly good potential recurring characters / villains were available in Doc Ock, Venom and Goblin Jr. / Harry Osborne, or any of the various Bat-villains who have been killed off. X-Men villains seem to fare the best.

Note to self; as a super-villain, you have a higher chance of surviving if you pick a fight with cinematic Wolverine, than with cinematic Iron Man or Spider-Man...

[stingnewell]

Marvel has kind of missed opportunities here.

Arnim Zola could easily have been left open for use, instead of Pierce flat-out stating that he'd been killed in the bunker explosion. Some Chitauri could have survived the battle of New York, or some Dark Elves the events at the end of Dark World, or some Extremis soldiers the end of Iron Man 3, and Agents of SHIELD would be a perfect vehicle to continue that storyline. Ivan Vanko didn't really need to die at the end of Iron Man 2, it didn't really do anything to advance the story.

The same thing happens in Batman and Spider-Man movies. Perfectly good potential recurring characters / villains were available in Doc Ock, Venom and Goblin Jr. / Harry Osborne, or any of the various Bat-villains who have been killed off. X-Men villains seem to fare the best.

Note to self; as a super-villain, you have a higher chance of surviving if you pick a fight with cinematic Wolverine, than with cinematic Iron Man or Spider-Man...

Oh yeah, maybe Arnim did survive there are always back up drives. But the rest yeah Marvel could have used some of those left over henchmen in Agents of SHIELD.

[Qwathings]

Marvel has kind of missed opportunities here.

Arnim Zola could easily have been left open for use, instead of Pierce flat-out stating that he'd been killed in the bunker explosion. Some Chitauri could have survived the battle of New York, or some Dark Elves the events at the end of Dark World, or some Extremis soldiers the end of Iron Man 3, and Agents of SHIELD would be a perfect vehicle to continue that storyline. Ivan Vanko didn't really need to die at the end of Iron Man 2, it didn't really do anything to advance the story.

The same thing happens in Batman and Spider-Man movies. Perfectly good potential recurring characters / villains were available in Doc Ock, Venom and Goblin Jr. / Harry Osborne, or any of the various Bat-villains who have been killed off. X-Men villains seem to fare the best.

Note to self; as a super-villain, you have a higher chance of surviving if you pick a fight with cinematic Wolverine, than with cinematic Iron Man or Spider-Man...

If any dead characters are needed for future stories they could simply be brought back. For example: Agent Coulson didn't stay dead for very long, and that's because the studio had a use for him.

As for Chitauri, Dark Elves, and Extremis soldiers, showing some of them still lingering around at the end of the movies leaves loose ends. Implying or showing them all being killed wraps everything up so the story can move on and end. If these characters are needed later on more can be brought in or it could be revealed that some weren't killed and are still around.

[Qwathings]

As for the complaints about Ronan, here's my thoughts on the matter:

The movie was "Guardians of the Galaxy", not "Ronan: The Movie". The main characters, the group dynamic, and the universe they inhabit all had to be established for the first time. Adding a fully detailed and fleshed out version of Ronan would have eaten up some of that time.

Also, the main characters are essentially a bunch of criminals. A thief, two thugs, an assassin, and a murderer. The movie had to focus on making this group likable and sympathetic. Adding another morally grey character that the audience would possibly care about and empathize with would muddy the water. The line between hero and villain wouldn't be as clear. Even though it is possible to tell a story where the protagonist and antagonist are complex, morally ambiguous and they leave the audience wondering who to cheer for, that's not a good fit for the kind of story that they wanted to tell with GoG. The movie needed a truly villainous villain.

And if Ronan had been a sympathetic character the ending wouldn't have worked. Ronan is defeated with a joke. That joke is at its funniest if it's at the expense of this over the top, completely evil, supervillain.

Now that the characters have been established, and they are shown to be likable and sympathetic, there is room to build up a more complex villain in the next movie. Ronan just had the misfortune of being the first villain out of the gate, and so there wasn't much room for the creators to explore him.

[Tazirai]

As for the complaints about Ronan, here's my thoughts on the matter:

The movie was "Guardians of the Galaxy", not "Ronan: The Movie". The main characters, the group dynamic, and the universe they inhabit all had to be established for the first time. Adding a fully detailed and fleshed out version of Ronan would have eaten up some of that time.

Also, the main characters are essentially a bunch of criminals. A thief, two thugs, an assassin, and a murderer. The movie had to focus on making this group likable and sympathetic. Adding another morally grey character that the audience would possibly care about and empathize with would muddy the water. The line between hero and villain wouldn't be as clear. Even though it is possible to tell a story where the protagonist and antagonist are complex, morally ambiguous and they leave the audience wondering who to cheer for, that's not a good fit for the kind of story that they wanted to tell with GoG. The movie needed a truly villainous villain.

And if Ronan had been a sympathetic character the ending wouldn't have worked. Ronan is defeated with a joke. That joke is at its funniest if it's at the expense of this over the top, completely evil, supervillain.

Now that the characters have been established, and they are shown to be likable and sympathetic, there is room to build up a more complex villain in the next movie. Ronan just had the misfortune of being the first villain out of the gate, and so there wasn't much room for the creators to explore him.

I agree with a lot of this. I also think Ronan may be able to make a return one day. He was able to wield the stone for a time, and could have absorbed some of it's power. Hell once Thanos gets the soul Gem he can do whatever he wants honestly. Bring back Ronan, The Other, and whoever else he wants.

I don't think Korath is dead either, he got shorted out, but may yet still be alive.

[THANOSRULES]

My review...finally got the baby sitter

A surprising mixed reaction. Overall I enjoyed the film. I laughed, I marveled at the insanely well executed CGI and visuals, and I walked away feeling like I had seen a polished summer flick.

But there was a lot I felt could have been better and I didn’t love it. I did not really feel like i was seeing DnA or Starlin’s visions come alive on the screen. Overall I had a few problems that make me one of the ones who are not as high on this film as you might think.

First off, Bautista’s Drax was absolutely abysmal. I cringed at the dialogue ..and yes I know some of this was by design. But it didn’t work. He didn’t work and he dragged down the movie. I’m not going to harp on what he should have been, but I think Gunn should have used the Giffen riddick esque Drax..

Next we have Gamora. I didn’t have much problem with her, aside from the fact Saldana is just a terrible actress who can’t act well. I struggled with some of the visuals of her as Gamora as well. I would have preferred a bit more amoral version. As it was her change of morals and betrayal of Thanos was just kinda odd and came off as forced writing and rushed.



Both those characters really struggled and it was tough to not cringe. Bautista was the bigger problem, but luckily most everyone else did a good job. My personal favorite was Pond as Nebula. I was never a huge fan of DnA’ s Nebula, as I was always a fan of the Starlin space diva..but this won me over.

Some of the changes were just nonsensical. Drax’s origin didnt even need to be discussed. it was silly to write off a potential Moondragon etc. Not sure why Star Lord got more motivation from a mom who died from Cancer VS aliens.I’m not sure how i feel about the Thanos scene. It was not that bad..but he was a bit cheshire cat-ish? I don’t get why Ronan needed to be such a non complex villain..his comic counter part is so much more fascinating and he seemed so dummed down. Thats not my Ronan.

The big issue I had was the movie almost had too much humor and seemed embarrassed of its source material. While Whedon’s Avengers had me thinking “Wow that embraced the source material”..I thought more like this movie struggled hard to window dress it. It desperately tried to sass up the source material with comedy and tongue and cheek and ended up relentlessly making fun of it. And now this “cosmic” MCU world seems so intrinsically tied to this level of satire that it almost seems like it NEEDS it. It seems like a Nova centurion can not forevermore pop up without someone making a fart joke as well….and that’s not true to the source material I read that was touted as this movie’s inspiration. That’s a very different feel from the Avengers stuff and I think it should have been tempered a bit. I laughed my ass off and enjoyed most of it here…but I’m concerned it went a bit too far. There were certainly a few jokes I just thought missed..especially some of the Reilly stuff with the Nova corps.

I didn’t really care for the depiction of the Nova Corps. The costumes looked fairly cheap and did not satisfy. Glenn Close as Nova Prime was not up to snuff…some of the scenes with her during the vaunted final Ronan attack were just awkward. Again, I’m not sure why Nova corpsman flying up like little iron men to fight the Dark Aster would have been any more ridiculous than star shaped ships. I’m not sure really why them linking up to form a barrier was a good move or power to have. Just some awkward changes that didn’t need to made.

Overall 3/5 stars and a worthwhile summer flick , but no legendary film on the level of Avengers.

[stingnewell]

I can understand your complaints believe me I do. But what made me not hate was the fact the trailer gave me the warning from the get go. It knew what it wanted to be where as Green Lantern flopped between the two, it didn't know whether to be comedy or try to be serious. Guardians succeeded in its execution because it knew it wanted to be those elements and thus gave the finish product. But to each his own in truth I would like a day when Marvel and DC can make a film that matches all criteria.

[THANOSRULES]

I can understand your complaints believe me I do. But what made me not hate was the fact the trailer gave me the warning from the get go. It knew what it wanted to be where as Green Lantern flopped between the two, it didn't know whether to be comedy or try to be serious. Guardians succeeded in its execution because it knew it wanted to be those elements and thus gave the finish product. But to each his own in truth I would like a day when Marvel and DC can make a film that matches all criteria.

Well its not like i wasnt going to check it out though...i do like comedy...but the lead up to the film was also some decent gushing about how DnA's cosmic run was unabashedly the source material for the flick... I didnt find that as true as some...surely there were echoes of it...

also its tough to tell much from previews these days...sometimes they are just not done well (see John CARTER)

[Punisher007]

As for the complaints about Ronan, here's my thoughts on the matter:

The movie was "Guardians of the Galaxy", not "Ronan: The Movie". The main characters, the group dynamic, and the universe they inhabit all had to be established for the first time. Adding a fully detailed and fleshed out version of Ronan would have eaten up some of that time.

Also, the main characters are essentially a bunch of criminals. A thief, two thugs, an assassin, and a murderer. The movie had to focus on making this group likable and sympathetic. Adding another morally grey character that the audience would possibly care about and empathize with would muddy the water. The line between hero and villain wouldn't be as clear. Even though it is possible to tell a story where the protagonist and antagonist are complex, morally ambiguous and they leave the audience wondering who to cheer for, that's not a good fit for the kind of story that they wanted to tell with GoG. The movie needed a truly villainous villain.

And if Ronan had been a sympathetic character the ending wouldn't have worked. Ronan is defeated with a joke. That joke is at its funniest if it's at the expense of this over the top, completely evil, supervillain.

Now that the characters have been established, and they are shown to be likable and sympathetic, there is room to build up a more complex villain in the next movie. Ronan just had the misfortune of being the first villain out of the gate, and so there wasn't much room for the creators to explore him.

Then don't call him Ronan. Call him something else, like "Evil McGeneric Badguy." But don't try and pass this guy off as being Ronan the Accuser, because he's not. And it still doesn't change the fact that he wasn't all that interesting, hence why many of the reviews by both critics and fans (even the overall positive ones like myself) point out him being underwhelming as a flaw in the movie. Oh and the "it wouldn't have worked or taken too much time" argument is just nonsense. Just make your movie longer, the GA has already proved repeatedly that they'll sit through a longer CBM if what's happening onscreen is still fun or interesting. So there's no reason why the movie needs to be only two hours. And so what if the waters are muddied? The waters were already muddied, I see NO EVIDENCE at all that the audience would have rejected a more nuanced Ronan. It would have been an interesting parallel between him and the GOTG if they had delved into what paths grief and loss had led these different characters down for example. Those justifications come across as much more like excuses, nothing more.

[stingnewell]

Then don't call him Ronan. Call him something else, like "Evil McGeneric Badguy." But don't try and pass this guy off as being Ronan the Accuser, because he's not. And it still doesn't change the fact that he wasn't all that interesting, hence why many of the reviews by both critics and fans (even the overall positive ones like myself) point out him being underwhelming as a flaw in the movie. Oh and the "it wouldn't have worked or taken too much time" argument is just nonsense. Just make your movie longer, the GA has already proved repeatedly that they'll sit through a longer CBM if what's happening onscreen is still fun or interesting. So there's no reason why the movie needs to be only two hours. And so what if the waters are muddied? The waters were already muddied, I see NO EVIDENCE at all that the audience would have rejected a more nuanced Ronan. It would have been an interesting parallel between him and the GOTG if they had delved into what paths grief and loss had led these different characters down for example. Those justifications come across as much more like excuses, nothing more.

I would loved to see more of Ronan's character personality from the annihilation and Conquest days in the movie instead of his Roy Thomas personality. Plus a complex villains can be done just ask Zod in the MOS probably one of the few positives I enjoyed in the movie.

[Punisher007]

My review...finally got the baby sitter

A surprising mixed reaction. Overall I enjoyed the film. I laughed, I marveled at the insanely well executed CGI and visuals, and I walked away feeling like I had seen a polished summer flick.

But there was a lot I felt could have been better and I didn’t love it. I did not really feel like i was seeing DnA or Starlin’s visions come alive on the screen. Overall I had a few problems that make me one of the ones who are not as high on this film as you might think.

First off, Bautista’s Drax was absolutely abysmal. I cringed at the dialogue ..and yes I know some of this was by design. But it didn’t work. He didn’t work and he dragged down the movie. I’m not going to harp on what he should have been, but I think Gunn should have used the Giffen riddick esque Drax..

Next we have Gamora. I didn’t have much problem with her, aside from the fact Saldana is just a terrible actress who can’t act well. I struggled with some of the visuals of her as Gamora as well. I would have preferred a bit more amoral version. As it was her change of morals and betrayal of Thanos was just kinda odd and came off as forced writing and rushed.



Both those characters really struggled and it was tough to not cringe. Bautista was the bigger problem, but luckily most everyone else did a good job. My personal favorite was Pond as Nebula. I was never a huge fan of DnA’ s Nebula, as I was always a fan of the Starlin space diva..but this won me over.

Some of the changes were just nonsensical. Drax’s origin didnt even need to be discussed. it was silly to write off a potential Moondragon etc. Not sure why Star Lord got more motivation from a mom who died from Cancer VS aliens.I’m not sure how i feel about the Thanos scene. It was not that bad..but he was a bit cheshire cat-ish? I don’t get why Ronan needed to be such a non complex villain..his comic counter part is so much more fascinating and he seemed so dummed down. Thats not my Ronan.

The big issue I had was the movie almost had too much humor and seemed embarrassed of its source material. While Whedon’s Avengers had me thinking “Wow that embraced the source material”..I thought more like this movie struggled hard to window dress it. It desperately tried to sass up the source material with comedy and tongue and cheek and ended up relentlessly making fun of it. And now this “cosmic” MCU world seems so intrinsically tied to this level of satire that it almost seems like it NEEDS it. It seems like a Nova centurion can not forevermore pop up without someone making a fart joke as well….and that’s not true to the source material I read that was touted as this movie’s inspiration. That’s a very different feel from the Avengers stuff and I think it should have been tempered a bit. I laughed my ass off and enjoyed most of it here…but I’m concerned it went a bit too far. There were certainly a few jokes I just thought missed..especially some of the Reilly stuff with the Nova corps.

I didn’t really care for the depiction of the Nova Corps. The costumes looked fairly cheap and did not satisfy. Glenn Close as Nova Prime was not up to snuff…some of the scenes with her during the vaunted final Ronan attack were just awkward. Again, I’m not sure why Nova corpsman flying up like little iron men to fight the Dark Aster would have been any more ridiculous than star shaped ships. I’m not sure really why them linking up to form a barrier was a good move or power to have. Just some awkward changes that didn’t need to made.

Overall 3/5 stars and a worthwhile summer flick , but no legendary film on the level of Avengers.

-Well Drax is being touted as one of the highlights of the movie, so you're definitely in the minority on that one. Personally, I loved him here.

-No, Gamora's motives were not rushed. Thanos slaughtered her people, tortured and experimented on her, and turned her into a living weapon. She ALWAYS hated him, as did Nebula. She just didn't think that she could get away. And she was ALREADY betraying him before the movie even started (she had already made the deal with the Collector BEFORE her first scene). So it wasn't "forced" it was just that YOU personally didn't like it. Those aren't the same thing. It wasn't hard to buy at all. Oh and Zoe's a good actress and I liked her as well.

-The reason for the change in Drax's origin made perfect sense. They were playing up the uniqueness of Quill being the only human (or half-human). So having this other guy also happen to be human undercuts that. Also, they didn't remove the Moondragon angle AT ALL. Given what were told, there's absolutely NO reason why she couldn't appear in the sequel. The ONLY real difference is that she'd be alien instead of human, but her basic character could still be the same.

-Where did they ever say that Quill's mom dying of cancer gives him MORE motivation, they didn't. Meredith's death in the comics was a really clichéd "woman in refrigerators" moment. Her dying on cancer accomplishes the same goal without resorting to such a lazy cliché/and it gives her a more dignified death.

-Because the Nova Corps are still using ships, just differently designed ones. It's no different than the Earth militaries using fighter planes or helicopters for example. And it's certainly a lot easier to sell to the GA than all of the Corpsmen flying around under their own power. You'd have had to take time out of the movie to explain how that works, and THAT would have been unnecessary as this isn't a Nova movie. Besides, given what happens in this movie, there's nothing to stop them from making the Corps more like the comics in the sequels, it'd be a pretty organic transformation. Glenn Close is always awesome and I wish that she'd have gotten more to do. And I'm not sure why the net thing was such a problem. It'd made sense in context and was working until Ronan used his Infinity Stone-powered Universal Weapon against them.

-I agree with you about Ronan and Nebula (wish she'd have gotten more to do, hopefully in the sequel).

Overall, a lot of your complaints seem to essentially boil down to "this isn't DnA's GOTG." And it was never going to be that, it was an amalgamation of multiple incarnations. That was made obvious by the marketing, so you should have known that going in. And as much as I love Avengers, the simple fact is that there was HUGE chunks of Avengers lore from the comics that weren't touched upon, just like this movie. And the plot to the Avengers wasn't anymore deep or complex than the plot to this movie, and this movie was definitely funnier than Avengers imo. There were times when I couldn't even hear the dialogue because everyone in my theatre was laughing so hard, it happened repeatedly over the course of the movie.

[cyberhubbs]

I'm not sure why they shouldn't call him Ronan the Accuser. 'Cause he's not "your" Ronan? Please. How long did it take Ronan to get fully fleshed out in the comics? Probably longer than an hour and a half worth of comic reading, I bet.

[Qwathings]

Then don't call him Ronan. Call him something else, like "Evil McGeneric Badguy." But don't try and pass this guy off as being Ronan the Accuser, because he's not.

He was Ronan. Not the version you wanted, but still a version that the owners of the characters approved of.

And it still doesn't change the fact that he wasn't all that interesting, hence why many of the reviews by both critics and fans (even the overall positive ones like myself) point out him being underwhelming as a flaw in the movie. Oh and the "it wouldn't have worked or taken too much time" argument is just nonsense. Just make your movie longer, the GA has already proved repeatedly that they'll sit through a longer CBM if what's happening onscreen is still fun or interesting. So there's no reason why the movie needs to be only two hours.

More time equals more money. Actors get paid, sets get built, CG effects get created, and a whole crew needs to be assembled. I don't know if that's the reason that the movie wasn't longer, but it is a practical reason that was thought up in one second to respond to the "no reason" comment. Obviously there was some reason, otherwise the movie would have been longer.

And so what if the waters are muddied? The waters were already muddied, I see NO EVIDENCE at all that the audience would have rejected a more nuanced Ronan. It would have been an interesting parallel between him and the GOTG if they had delved into what paths grief and loss had led these different characters down for example.

When it comes to telling stories, something always gets cut. There's never enough room for everything. In a perfect world, Guardians would have been ten hours long and would have maintained the story, tone, and level of interest throughout the entire movie. This isn't a perfect world, and so we got a less detailed version of Ronan. It didn't hurt the story that was told, only denied the story that some wanted to be told. Ronan worked well for his intended role.

Those justifications come across as much more like excuses, nothing more.

I'm sorry you are interpreting my post that way. I intended it as an analysis of the choices made in the story based on my observations and opinions.