|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
Deathwing posted:You're not 100% a pedantic dick. But you're getting close. I don't know that I believe anyone is 100% a pedantic dick, 'mam.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
howe_sam posted:Vol 1 is on FX and they just did that line. Vol 2 really did miss John C Reilly You can say that about almost any movie, honestly. It would have been hard to include him, though, without it feeling shoehorned in.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 02:55
|
|
|
Have there been any casting rumours about Reilly being in Infinity Wars? Thanos is going to have to swing by Xandar to pick up the power stone at some point, so it would be a perfect time to bring back him and Close.
Yakmouth fucked around with this message at 03:06 on May 8, 2017 |
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
Comstar posted:So with everyone else in the case be a comic book character from a comic book, who is the guy who's the last man from Yonda's crew who joins the Guardians at the end? I thought he was a random reg shirt and ended up joining the crew and having a new captain. "They killed all my friends" really hit home to me - he grew from an extra with a speaking part to being part of the crew. What matters here I think is that he's played by Sean Gunn, James' brother. So I don't think you need to worry about him getting snuffed out any time soon.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 14:42
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:oh I have a theory/question(?) about (post-credit spoiler) Adam Warlock If I'm remembering the comics correctly, this is exactly what happens -- so...good odds.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
Guy A. Person posted:I guess I had kind of assumed he had a drastically different origin in the comics. Was he literally created as a weapon by some "superior" race, only to immediately surpass them by being above that kind of poo poo? Because that is an awesome origin story I'm working from memory here, but not a superior race but a human supremacist cult. Otherwise, yeah.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
Gyges posted:I'm kind of hoping that the High Priestess just bombarded the poo poo out of Adam in his coccoon with all the 1970/80s Earth culture she could get a hold of as part of her master plan to create something taylor made to destroy the Guardians. Then he abandons his designed quest, because of 70s/80s pop culture reference, goes to Earth, and bonds with Vision while they listen to Mr. Roboto and Vision tries to convince Adam to wear cashmere. So, turn him into the Beyonder then?
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
The film was good, I certainly plan on seeing it again. That said, does anyone else wish they'd focused more on either Ego or the Mutiny instead of trying to fit both into the same movie? Both storylines were strong enough that I think either one could have carried the whole show. Like, for all that Yondu and Quill's relationship are a main focus of the story they spend practically no time together at all. That isn't something I really noticed at the time, but it's been niggling at me.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 23:00
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:The joke, to me, is in the absurdity of the machine's progressive attempts to warn about the middle finger, including it's ability to see it coming with Peter's little jack in the box bit. Is that joke in the theatrical release or from a television edit? I don't remember it at all and I rewatched the film just a couple of weeks ago. I think it's a lot funnier than him just giving them the finger (which is how I remember the scene)
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 17:58
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:It's from the trailer. They should have left it in the final cut.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 18:03
|
|
|
Question. What if I see something that I wanna take and it belongs to someone else? Then you will be arrested. But what if I want it more than the person who has it? Still illegal. That doesn't follow. No, I want it more, sir. Do you understand me? What are you laughing at? What? I can't have a discussion with this gentleman?
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2017 20:13
|
|
|
Brother Entropy posted:seriously though why did ego have to give his baby mama brain cancer? i liked that quill immediately went guns blazing once it sunk in but going straight from the twist to the action kinda left the 'why' hanging in the air Well, I used to play a lot of World of Warcraft and got really into it. When I realized it was interfering with my actual job I deleted my account. I'm pretty sure Ego was operating under the same mindset.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2017 05:05
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Well I am reminded of how I challenged people to find any good writing in that book, but nobody ever would because 1) they didn't really have the critical ability or confidence to find good writing and 2) there wasn't good writing to be found in that book. Even if the themes of the film are not expressed visually, they certainly appear through plot and dialogue -- not just with Ego, but through the interactions of the other characters as well. Take Gamora and Nebula as an example; through Nebula's backstory we learn that Gamora's need to 'win' kept her from being the sister that Nebula needed. Or even something small like Rocket and Quill fighting over who was the best pilot. Throughout the entire story the characters are hampered by their need to be superior to everyone else around them. James Gunn is foremost a writer, so it seems natural that he expresses his themes through his script rather than his cinematography. That being said, I'd like to argue that Gunn doesn't rely much on symbolic visuals, not for a lack of talent, but because GotGv2 (and 1, for that matter) is first and foremost a comedy and he's pushing hard to make the visuals funny instead of meaningful. This shows up right from the opening credits when the camera focuses on Groot dancing over the 'epic' action fight going on behind him. Or the Loony Tunes gravity trap of Rocket's that the Ravagers fall prey to. Or with Groot trying to retrieve Yondu's fin and bringing back increasingly absurd other things. If you'd like to criticize the film's cinematography for being insufficiently humorous go ahead -- but in my opinion claiming it to be insufficiently profound misses the point entirely.
|
|
#
¿
May 17, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The issue isn't profundity, It's that the movie has very ineffective cinematography. Way to dismiss comedy and Gunn's efforts to tell a story about love and pain. Ineffective how? My claim is that James Gunn was primarily interested in conveying humour through his visuals. I further claim that he succeeded.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 00:20
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:I'm gonna hazard Hot Fuzz as a good comedy movie with visuals that are both funny and 'cinematic'. I'm embarrassed to admit I never got around to seeing Hot Fuzz, but based purely on its reputation I've no doubt you're right. But I never said GotG v2 is uncinematic. I was only trying to suggest that the overall themes of the film weren't being expressed primarily through it's cinematography. Visually the film is a live-action cartoon. Story-wise it's much more personal -- exploring parenthood and community in some very deep ways, in my opinion. I think the dichotomy between the two is intentional.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 01:37
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:It was a good reminder of his basic character: a manchild who's extremely attached to gadgets and pop culture. Half the time the script forgets that he's a satire of a space adventurer. Yeah, because he isn't a satire of a space adventurer. Parody and satire are not synonyms.
|
|
#
¿
May 18, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Lt. Danger posted:... but a lack of visual flair is a legit criticism. No one has actually disagreed with this charge, only excused it. Any criticism can be legit if supported, but BravestOfTheLamps made an unsubstantiated claim using vague terminology based on what I maintain is a flawed interpretation of the film's intent. Here's the entirety of their argument regarding the cinematography of GotG v2: BravestOfTheLamps posted:...that scene of Kurt Russell pontificating about how he's not alone with very undynamic shots and set just reminds one how better the equivalent sequences with Jor-El and Zod were. BravestOfTheLamps posted:It's not a particularly radical opinion to note that Man of Steel is visually speaking probably the best of all superhero movies. You don't even need to like Zack Snyder to admit that he's a great visual stylist. It's also not very radical to note that the GotG movies aren't particularly good looking despite all the colourful sci-fi imagery - the Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy movie for example looks superior (also looks funnier, as a comedy). BravestOfTheLamps posted:Man of Steel is a great-looking movie. You don't like it, but to deny it's technical accomplishments is just silly. 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. Here's round 2 of their 'critiques': BravestOfTheLamps posted: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. BravestOfTheLamps posted:GotG movies are unimpressive past the immediate observation that they're colourful and sometimes pretty. BravestOfTheLamps posted:I'm specifically talking about visuals. GotG 1&2 feature very impressive technical achievements, but they're in the service of very bland sci-fi. This is why the movies rely so heavily on catchy pop songs to hammer in certain scenes. BravestOfTheLamps posted:The GotG movies occasionally have what is basically good-looking sci-fi environments and action, but like Cnut the Great pointed out the visual storytelling is lacking at best. The one example that struck me most was when GotG's villain is called Ego and is all about egoism and solipsism, but the direction or visual design doesn't bring any of that across. it was really bad, because you can convey domineering egoism pretty easily with camera angles or close-ups. With Guardians of the Galaxy v2 James Gunn built a Ferrari, and BravestOfTheLamps can't get over the fact that's not a sailboat.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2017 00:36
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:The Scene Set to Pop Song #31 was a passable space comedy scene, not some masterwork of cinema. BravestOfTheLamps posted:Instead of saying why they were good, you state how they were 'extensively' praised for being 'shocking and unexpected'. Maybe people just liked some mediocre scenes? My proof is empirical, here's a partial selection of quotes: Those are genuine emotional responses. The scenes worked because they did what they set out to do: make people gasp, tear-up, etc. What made them mediocre? BravestOfTheLamps posted:...A glitzy piece of capitalist excess vs something romantically adventurous?
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2017 01:56
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:Well now you're just being silly - emotional reactions can actually undermine critical judgement. Instead of talking about direction, cinematography, composition, etc, you're reducing it to a question if other people cried or gasped. You brought emotion into the conversation, not me. BravestOfTheLamps posted: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). BravestOfTheLamps posted:The Pop Song Scene #31 is 'passable' - it meets the minimum requirements of being technically functional. It's not very good, and just another wearisome segment like the Cherry Bomb scene in the first movie. The arrow is a striking visual motif, but the scene is narratively pointless, as it doesn't accomplish much aside from being 'cool' and providing the catharsis of seeing the less marketable freakish outcasts get slaughtered (I'd love to eventually see a Youtube Dubber with, say, the Requiem for a Dream theme over it).
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
BravestOfTheLamps posted:I was talking about the emotions and sentiments the scene represented, and you started talking about emotional reactions as an appeal to popularity. As an appeal to popularity? Not at all. You seem to have it completely backwards, imagining that people are only laughing and gasping and crying because the movie is popular when in actuality their reactions are the source of the film's popularity. Please explain the difference between the emotions a scene 'represents' and the emotional reaction the scene invokes. Other than cause and effect, I mean. You can't call a scene 'scary' if it doesn't make people scared. You can't call a scene 'funny' if it doesn't make people laugh. If people react to a particular moment in an intended manner it seems obvious that the moment 'worked'. Analysis is about deciphering why it worked (or didn't work as the case may be). It isn't about trying to convince people that their reactions are somehow 'wrong'.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2017 19:48
|
|
|
I'm obviously differing from Sir Kodiak and GoldfishStew in that I think the film worked on a scene-by-scene basis, but I do agree that the movie as a whole is flawed. I just think the flaws might be more structural. Like, I don't know for certain that James Gunn was trying to do Volume 1 only more so. I mean maybe, but when I watched it I felt like it was trying pretty hard to be different. I think the issue is that Gunn tried to be too ambitious in his story telling -- something I think a lot of the MCU movies are guilty of. The pirate mutiny could have been a film all of its own, likewise the Ego/Nebula stuff. But Gunn wanted his film to be both an action-space adventure and an exploration of family and belonging. Trying to weave the two together did a disservice to both. It split up the team unnecessarily, and kept the film from fully fleshing out either premise. On top of that the movie is a comedy. I know some people are tired of the marvel quip-factory style of screenwriting, and if this were about Doctor Strange I'd agree that the humour injections were unnecessary, but I think everyone would agree that if GotGv2 was supposed to be anything at all, it was supposed to be a comedy. So James Gunn is trying to do a lot in this film, and this is the highest-profile biggest-budget project he's ever worked on. Maybe his reach exceeded his grasp to some degree. It happened to Joss Whedon with AoU and there's a good chance the Russo Brothers bit off more then they can chew with Infinity War. Sir Kodiak posted:Yeah. For myself, I went into the movie to enjoy the experience, and found it didn't work at all emotionally and wasn't particularly funny, so I'm left with a movie that didn't even look particularly good. But if you did find it moving and funny I can't expect you to care all that much about the latter.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2017 23:11
|
|
|
GoldfishStew posted:The Starlord/Gamora story and the Gamora/Nebula story just weren't expanded upon/different enough from the first to make me feel they were necessary to the film in a film that already had a lot going on, story wise. I can't remember who wrote it, but there was a least one review suggesting that the first Guardians of the Galaxy would have been improved if Gamora had been the focus character. There's no obvious reason that Quill needs to be the focus of each film and I hope (although it probably won't be the case) that Volume 3 gives someone else the 'A' plot. I don't really agree with you about Gamora/Nebula -- I liked what they did with that relationship. What you see as a retread I saw as a continuation. Maybe it's because Zoe Saldana and Karen Gillan are both strong enough actors to do a lot with very little material. I basically do agree with you about Starlord/Gamora. If Gunn was going for a Danson-Long chemistry he missed the mark. Sir Kodiak posted:Whereas, I'm an easy mark for, like, pets in danger.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 2, 2024 18:58 |
|
|
Yakmouth posted:How did you react to the Ravagers torturing Groot? Did it work, or were you pretty much checked out of the film by that point? Sir Kodiak posted:That was reasonably funny. Wow.  You and I are on really different pages regarding this film. Like, that scene of them trapping Groot in a circle and pouring whiskey on him creeped me the gently caress out. I was bringing it up as a response to your 'pets in danger' comment but I guess your take on Groot's role in the film was different from mine. I was reading him less 'elder god' and more 'eager puppy'
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2017 00:38
|
|