|
Tommy 2.0 posted:Maaannnn Yondu I feel like maybe Ego's spore or whatever swallowing part of Missouri will at least get worked into explaining how (in addition to Thanos of course) the Guardians get connected to the other big MCU players for Infinity War - maybe via Dr. Strange or Thor & Hulk's Excellent Space Adventure? That aside, as long as we get to see Rocket be totally unimpressed with Tony's cute little toys and whatnot, i'll be happy.
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 18:41
|
|
Best part of the movie. Please bring him back some how. 
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Yeah, it was unfair that way. It's definitely better, but it doesn't really cover for how uninventive the movie's visuals and their underlying story are. Yes, of course, this is 100% true if you ignore the things the movie shows and tells you. Totally agreed on that.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Yes, of course, this is 100% true if you ignore the things the movie shows and tells you. Totally agreed on that. ...What visual and narrative inventiveness is being ignored? Basically anyone you ask is going to agree that these movies are a bit by-the-numbers.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 19:00
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:...What visual and narrative inventiveness is being ignored? Basically anyone you ask is going to agree that these movies are a bit by-the-numbers. So you just poo poo up every single movie thread, that's your schtick? Man that's great stuff.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Deathwing posted:I feel like maybe Ego's spore or whatever swallowing part of Missouri will at least get worked into explaining how (in addition to Thanos of course) the Guardians get connected to the other big MCU players for Infinity War - maybe via Dr. Strange or Thor & Hulk's Excellent Space Adventure?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Jose Oquendo posted:Care to elaborate on that? The old pop hits are a huge part of what makes the movie work. they didn't use the good part of "the chain" (which they used in the trailer) during the final battle despite using the other parts. it woulda been perfect.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 19:09
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:...What visual and narrative inventiveness is being ignored? Basically anyone you ask is going to agree that these movies are a bit by-the-numbers. Uhm...no? All the reviews I've read and people I've talked to, even those otherwise critical of the movie, have pointed out how colorful and good looking the movie was.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 19:16
|
|
|
Strange Matter posted:I lost it for a good five minutes when Ben Browder showed up as the Sovereign Admiral doing his best Peacekeeper accent. Holy poo poo yes - this was me last night. I'm still not over how great it is.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 19:29
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Uhm...no? All the reviews I've read and people I've talked to, even those otherwise critical of the movie, have pointed out how colorful and good looking the movie was. Well, I wrote that it was visually and narrative uninventive, not that it wasn't colourful and good-looking. These are two colourful and decent-looking movies, but their visuals and the story they're used to tell are uninspiring.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Well, I wrote that it was visually and narrative uninventive, not that it wasn't colourful and good-looking. These are two colourful and decent-looking movies, but their visuals and the story they're used to tell are uninspiring. Well, you keep using terms like "uninventive", "unimaginative", and "uninspiring" to describe your subjective opinion of the film. What can I say except I (and, obviously, a lot of people) disagree with you? Things like the use of colour and movement, that establishing shot of Knowhere, the Milano leaving Morag, I find them all impressive, imaginative, and inventive. And you've shown that you're just unwilling to engage with the film on anything but the most superficial narrative level, so it's no wonder you don't find it inspiring.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It feels less that I'm shocked they killed them, and more like the movie felt like it went SO far out of it's way to make the sovereign absolutely not die in the space battle and then had rocket, who is a total psychopath only use fun traps when defending the ship. So it felt really suprising when suddenly they kill like 50 people really casually. Did any of the guys caught in Rocket's "fun" traps show up again later? Also the sovereign thing was another aspect of their character where they're so far up their own asses that instead of using drone warfare as a safe alternative for their people, they use it as another way to show they're better than others. And the High Priestess is so snooty that she's a bigger dick than Admiral Golden Peacekeeper Crichton, which is impressive. Gyges fucked around with this message at 20:42 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Well, you keep using terms like "uninventive", "unimaginative", and "uninspiring" to describe your subjective opinion of the film. What can I say except I (and, obviously, a lot of people) disagree with you? Things like the use of colour and movement, that establishing shot of Knowhere, the Milano leaving Morag, I find them all impressive, imaginative, and inventive. And you've shown that you're just unwilling to engage with the film on anything but the most superficial narrative level, so it's no wonder you don't find it inspiring. You're insisting it's all a subjective opinion, but it's very easy to point out how lame GotG's sci-fi vision is. GotG 1 is a movie about a rag-tag bunch of misfits stopping a terrorist attack, in space. It's a very prosaic movie. You're praising technically accomplished but otherwise workmanlike efforts. The establishing shot of Knowhere in GotG1 is a good example of something that is on a technical level very good, but in design and effect completely pedestrian. The character's stare at in awe, but for some reason the visual effects team stuck a bunch of nebula (lol) in the shot to obscure it and to prevent proper contrast. So the effect is uninspiring despite the fact that the audience is looking at a colossal, severed head in space. Examples from GotG2 would have to include that scene where Ego is pontificating about how he's not alone in the universe when his villainy is revealed,for one. All the shots and the sets do very little to accentuate the emotion and horror of the scene (that zoom on Star-Lord is just bad). Sure, the set looks nice, the directing is there, the acting is sufficient, but better things have been done with cinema.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 20:46
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:You're insisting it's all a subjective opinion, but it's very easy to point out how lame GotG's sci-fi vision is. GotG 1 is a movie about a rag-tag bunch of misfits stopping a terrorist attack, in space. It's a very prosaic movie. You're praising technically accomplished but otherwise workmanlike efforts. Again, because every time anyone tries to point out anything deeper going on in the movie you just plug your ears and say, "No, it's dumb and facile and shallow!" quote:The establishing shot of Knowhere in GotG1 is a good example of something that is on a technical level very good, but in design and effect completely pedestrian. The character's stare at in awe, but for some reason the visual effects team stuck a bunch of nebula (lol) in the shot to obscure it and to prevent proper contrast. So the effect is uninspiring despite the fact that the audience is looking at a colossal, severed head in space. Actually it looks awesome. It's in a nebula because that's part of Guardians of the Galaxy's aesthetic: space isn't cold and black and empty, it's filled with trippy, shifting, amazing colours. And the nebula barely obscures anything. I have no idea what you're talking about there. That must be the lovely computer monitor glitch or something.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:better things have been done with cinema. Is your whole point that everything is either perfect or it's bad? I don't understand
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 20:56
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Sure, the set looks nice, the directing is there, the acting is sufficient, but better things have been done with cinema. Okay, great, you've said this several ways, several times now. Anything else?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
"It's alright" is a pretty fair assessment of the film, but probably not worth a multi-page discussion.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Did any of the guys caught in Rocket's "fun" traps show up again later? Yes. I don't know their names, but they did show up. I think there's a narrative difference between the Sovereign and the Ravagers that accounts for the death count. In the Sovereign story-line they were undisputedly the wronged party. They were robbed of half a million credits and wanted justice. Killing them off would have moved Rocket's crime from dick-baggery to outright evil. Whereas the Ravagers were mutinous pirates -- it would have been bizarre if Yondu hadn't killed executed the lot of them. Considering that the Guardians are supposed to be anti-heroes I was actually really happy about how dark this got. Rocket, Yondu, Groot, and Drax are at best amoral and I think the film showed that side of them really well.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 21:36
|
|
|
I think it's fun that James Gunn placed the intro in Missouri where he's from. I think the old couple taking pictures on their phone might be his parents (but I don't know for sure)
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 21:50
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:Again, because every time anyone tries to point out anything deeper going on in the movie you just plug your ears and say, "No, it's dumb and facile and shallow!" You're appealing to the "deeper" things in these movies when they very much thrive on being superficial - like already pointed out, it's a movie about not being egotistic where the villain that represents egotism is called Ego. The reading that the movie is about not being egotistic is correct. The movie's way of delivering that is what's uninspiring. The movie plays on the same themes as Man of Steel, where the hero possessing special genetic heritage is a key part in the villain's plan to twist to realize a nightmarish fantasy of domination, and made that story really soar. Outside of comic book movies, I could point to Er Ist Wieder Da, which a comedy that also explored those themes of ego and domination. It achieved the impossible and managed to make Hitler scary, and it's still a comedy. . Phylodox posted:Actually it looks awesome. It's in a nebula because that's part of Guardians of the Galaxy's aesthetic: space isn't cold and black and empty, it's filled with trippy, shifting, amazing colours. And the nebula barely obscures anything. I have no idea what you're talking about there. That must be the lovely computer monitor glitch or something.  It looks decent, but it's not trippy, shifting, or amazingly colourful. Notice how the giant head is in the same colour tones as the nebula, and it melds into the fog, obscuring it. There's no effective contrast to really sell the concept. It looks decent, and that's it. Deathwing posted:Okay, great, you've said this several ways, several times now. Anything else? 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 21:53
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:You're appealing to the "deeper" things in these movies when they very much thrive on being superficial - like already pointed out, it's a movie about not being egotistic where the villain that represents egotism is called Ego. I'm talking about the endless, circular discussions about the original. I won't be seeing Vol. 2 until next week. Until then, I'll just have to take everyone else's word that you're wrong about this one, too. quote:
It's a giant, disembodied organic-mechanical god skull bathed in brilliant turquoise and orange galactic clouds, twinkling city lights dotting its surface and bright light pouring out of its empty eye sockets. It's like a Kirby panel come to life. And that's with the lovely computer monitor appearance. It looks even better on television. Absolutely stunning on a movie screen.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 22:02
|
|
|
Yakmouth posted:Yes. I don't know their names, but they did show up.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 22:13
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:I'm talking about the endless, circular discussions about the original. I won't be seeing Vol. 2 until next week. Until then, I'll just have to take everyone else's word that you're wrong about this one, too. Not empty quoting, because this made me laugh almost as hard as Admiral Chrichton's cameo.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 22:14
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:I'm talking about the endless, circular discussions about the original. I won't be seeing Vol. 2 until next week. Until then, I'll just have to take everyone else's word that you're wrong about this one, too. There's not odd with noting that a movie about egotism with a villain named Ego is somewhat superficial. And more so, emphais on surface and image is not a negative for a visual medium. You seem to be insistent that i'm wrong, when I'm actually agreeing with the reading that the movie is about egotism. It's just a very uninspiring movie about egotism. Phylodox posted:It's a giant, disembodied organic-mechanical god skull bathed in brilliant turquoise and orange galactic clouds, twinkling city lights dotting its surface and bright light pouring out of its empty eye sockets. It's like a Kirby panel come to life. And that's with the lovely computer monitor appearance. It looks even better on television. Absolutely stunning on a movie screen. Well you've made a concrete statement, but it doesnt' actually look like a Kirby panel. Kirby would use different flat colours to create contrasting and distinct shapes, with emphasis on geometric forms. You're too busy hyperventilating about the concept of the image to just it's use of space, colour, etc.   The shot of Knowhere on the other hand is just too busy with the nebula. The movie in general is bad with framing this stuff. You can also compare it to the concept art.   Also, I didn't post a poor-quality version. BravestOfTheLamps fucked around with this message at 22:40 on May 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 22:16
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:There's not odd with noting that a movie about egotism with a villain named Ego is somewhat superficial. And more so, emphais on surface and image is not a negative for a visual medium. Again, haven't seen the movie. But, given your track record, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to whoever else is in here. quote:Well you've made an actual concrete statement, but it doesnt' actually look like a Kirby panel. A Kirby panel would use different flat colours to create contrasting and distinct shapes, with emphasis on geometric forms. You're too busy hyperventilating about the concept of the image to just it's use of space, colour, etc. Whatever version you post, it's not going to look as good. Because it doesn't look as good on a computer screen. So, unless you can somehow post to my TV screen or adjust the image to mimic how it looks on a TV screen, that won't change. And there's nothing wrong with the framing or contrast. Knowhere is perfectly discernible for what it is, while still looking spooky and mysterious. It doesn't literally look like a comic panel, in case you couldn't suss that out from the context of my sentence. It's the kind of trippy, cosmic subject matter Kirby loved.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
JazzFlight posted:I should note that Rocket, after stealing the batteries, did say "I feel like killing something" and blew up the Sovereign ships, only to be told afterwards that they were unmanned. He did try to murder the wronged party. A lot of the reviews I've been reading have pegged Rocket as being too much of an a-hole in this film for their liking, but even so I'm sure you'll admit there's a difference between him saying he wants to murder everybody and having it actually depicted on film. It's a tricky thing to convince an audience that your protagonists are 'bad' without making them unlikable in the process. The obvious solution, from The Dirty Dozen onwards has been to make the antagonists even worse. What was the line from the first movie? "We're a-holes but we're not 100% dicks"? GotG2 obviously went this route, but I'm glad that they also showed our 'heroes' haven't yet expunged their selfish criminal instincts.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:And there's nothing wrong with the framing or contrast. Knowhere is perfectly discernible for what it is, while still looking spooky and mysterious. The issues with framing and contrast have been pointed out - the lack of negative space or colour contrast means that it's subject is muddled and vague, while still lookig decent. When pointed out that it doesn't look like Jack Kirby art, you're now trying to abstract his very discernible style into "trippy, cosmic subject matter". Knowhere isn't spooky and mysterious in the movie, it's an extremely prosaic mining operation/resort.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 22:38
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The issues with framing and contrast have been pointed out - the lack of negative space or colour contrast means that it's subject is muddled and vague, while still lookig decent. When pointed out that it doesn't look like Jack Kirby art, you're now trying to abstract his very discernible style into "trippy, cosmic subject matter". You said it wasn't trippy. That was your original assertion. I said it (the subject matter) looked like something out of a Jack Kirby panel. I guess I needed to say "The subject matter looks like something Jack Kirby would have loved to have drawn, but does not look exactly like a drawn, static panel, because it is in a different medium, and so places different requirements upon the artist." quote:Knowhere isn't spooky and mysterious in the movie, it's an extremely prosaic mining operation/resort. It's where the heroes go to learn the hidden history of the film's McGuffin, bestowed upon them by a mysterious, possibly nefarious stranger. They're flying into the unknown.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 22:56
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:You said it wasn't trippy. That was your original assertion. I said it (the subject matter) looked like something out of a Jack Kirby panel. I guess I needed to say "The subject matter looks like something Jack Kirby would have loved to have drawn, but does not look exactly like a drawn, static panel, because it is in a different medium, and so places different requirements upon the artist." It's not very trippy. Jack Kirby would use clashing, contrasting colours and shapes for a trippy effect, with little space for the eye to relax. The shot of Knowhere is framed so that it's subject is at a reasonable distance (Kirby loves his dominating close-ups) and melds into the environment that's mostly dominated by a single colour, without many contrasts. Also, it's a static shot so it very much resembles a comic book panel in a generic sense, so the difference in medium is negligible. Phylodox posted:It's where the heroes go to learn the hidden history of the film's McGuffin, bestowed upon them by a mysterious, possibly nefarious stranger. They're flying into the unknown. Knowhere is just a fairly generic city in space, if you'll forgive the oxymoron. This is what it looks like:  The concept could be improved by making it an entire bod instead of just a head, and play on that.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
As fans of Steven Universe as well, my friend and I couldn't help but make this comparison while we were watching the movie: Like, I was half expecting the words "I want that planet to DIE" to come out of Ayesha's mouth at some point. (Coincidentally, I only learned her name via googling that picture of her, previously just knowing her as "the High Priestess of the Sovereign".) Enjoyed the movie, found it interesting that even the space pirates consider trafficking kids as going too far. Been kind of interested in more backstory on all sorts of things in this, but it seems that the MCU has enough departures from the comics that reading up on character histories from the comics is pretty much useless.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2017 23:43
|
|
|
taiyoko posted:Been kind of interested in more backstory on all sorts of things in this, but it seems that the MCU has enough departures from the comics that reading up on character histories from the comics is pretty much useless. I wouldn't say it's useless exactly, I find it interesting to compare the differences if nothing else, and it can help you catch easter eggs sometimes. Given me a kick to start reading a few series that i've really enjoyed also.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:04
|
|
|
You're bad at movies, debates, and reading comics.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 00:28
|
|
.
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:It's not very trippy. Jack Kirby would use clashing, contrasting colours and shapes for a trippy effect, with little space for the eye to relax. The shot of Knowhere is framed so that it's subject is at a reasonable distance (Kirby loves his dominating close-ups) and melds into the environment that's mostly dominated by a single colour, without many contrasts. You're just being, like, super pedantic. You've gotten to the point where you're arguing that it doesn't look trippy because it doesn't literally resemble a Jack Kirby panel out of a comic book, as though that's the only acceptable definition of "trippy". quote:Knowhere is just a fairly generic city in space, if you'll forgive the oxymoron. This is what it looks like: They fly in through an eye socket into a cavernous, excavated skull, complete with what appear to be vertebrae in the background, and pools of cerebrospinal fluid. And, again, it's the techno-organic skull of a space god from before the universe. It's spooky and mysterious just for what it is.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Phylodox posted:They fly in through an eye socket into a cavernous, excavated skull, complete with what appear to be vertebrae in the background, and pools of cerebrospinal fluid. And, again, it's the techno-organic skull of a space god from before the universe. It's spooky and mysterious just for what it is. For emphasis, I really can't name creative details from any other Marvel movie or DCU that surpasses that without looking out of GotG franchise. A battle on a floating island that's coming crashing down to destroy everything is close, but GotG has sevral other sets that beat that.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:20
|
|
|
Best $16.00 I ever spent on novelty popcorn and soda cups. I think I am going to turn the popcorn one into a planter.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The establishing shot of Knowhere in GotG1 is a good example of something that is on a technical level very good, but in design and effect completely pedestrian. The character's stare at in awe, but for some reason the visual effects team stuck a bunch of nebula (lol) in the shot to obscure it and to prevent proper contrast. So the effect is uninspiring despite the fact that the audience is looking at a colossal, severed head in space. I'm not sure I'd give GotG particularly high marks for visual design as cosmic sci-fi epics go, but a high-contrast shot with sharp clarity probably would have been a really dumb choice for a place called "Knowhere" that is a gigantic mysterious skull.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
Hodgepodge posted:I'm not sure I'd give GotG particularly high marks for visual design as cosmic sci-fi epics go, but a high-contrast shot with sharp clarity probably would have been a really dumb choice for a place called "Knowhere" that is a gigantic mysterious skull. That is taken straight from the Annihilation comic series where the modern Guardians meet and form as a team. That is also where Cosmo the dog hangs out.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
JazzFlight posted:I should note that Rocket, after stealing the batteries, did say "I feel like killing something" and blew up the Sovereign ships, only to be told afterwards that they were unmanned. He did try to murder the wronged party. Rocket really annoyed the poo poo out of me in this movie. He was such a little douche, and mostly not in the fun way like in the first one.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:35
|
|
|
raditts posted:Rocket really annoyed the poo poo out of me in this movie. He was such a little douche, and mostly not in the fun way like in the first one. I fully believe that was intentional, and I appreciate that choice. Edit for clarity: there were a lot of criticism for Rocket and Groot being Mascot: "The Characters". For the story to be told, you can't have everyone be loveable. That's not the characters. Rocket is, arguably, the most broken of these characters. He carries a burden of hate. So while you get fun cute dumb Baby Groot, Rocket doesn't get a lot of catharsis until he's with Yondu. Yondu teaches him, Hey bud, I relate to you. It's rough being the bad guy. I know you want love, because that's all I want. But you gotta stop being an rear end in a top hat. And Rocket has to set aside his pride. By the end, Rocket understands the situation. He has to be the mean person at the end making pragmatic decisions for the team, even though he wants to save Yondu and Quill. Yes, he didn't have a lot of time to show his changes, but he cries over Yondu's death, sees himself in Yondu, and says 'They forgave him. Even though he stole batteries he didn't need' He's not a cute cuddly character, and I think that's what people want. He's an rear end in a top hat because he's had, as of Vol. 2, only been accepted for a few months by people willing to call him family. That's not easy to accept for a person who has lived their life being abused for selfish purposes. He's a misanthrope. You don't become an optimist or a friendly person just because you're surrounded by people finally being nice to you. He has issues, but he accepts that, and he does want to be better. Yondu's sacrifice teaches him that. The fact that he calls all of Yondu's old friends in hopes they will give him a tribute is enough insight alone to his character. Franchescanado fucked around with this message at 01:51 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
It's not exactly out of character for him either. You get the feeling that if anything kept Rocket in line in the first film it was Groot, and now Groot's a baby so Rocket is free to wallow in his own crapulence. His worst instincts come to the fore and trouble follows. Though in his defense the Sovereign are elitist eugenicist dicks so stealing from them is basically stealing from Nazis right. (I doubt he thought that much about it, though.)
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
Franchescanado posted:I fully believe that was intentional, and I appreciate that choice. While I appreciate what they were doing with it, I felt like Rocket and Yandu's arc was a little forced and rushed. A little too much telling everyone what they are feeling and the lesson they are learning right now. Same with the Gamora and Nebula resolution. Just a little too quick and a little too much I will say exactly how I am feeling and what I am processing at this moment. Not bad, just a little to pat and quick. Which is why despite Kurt Russel and the wax dioramas of learning I think the first one was better. The moment between Drax and Mantis was fantastic, and may be causing an unfair judgement of the others by reflection.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2017 01:50
|
|