Guardians of the Galaxy

[nexus]

Originally Posted by Luminous

Star-Lord (Peter Quill) is from Earth.

According to a synopsis I read, he was also supposed to be taken from Earth when he was 9 (so in the 90s or earlier). That's why he will have the headphones, and old earth tech and pop culture references.

[ratchet]

Originally Posted by snappahead

Levity is a good thing imo. Even serious movies usually have a little here and there. Doom and gloom is tiring without it. MoS desperately needed some to me. If done properly, both can coexist. Its ok to have a little fun in our superhero flicks.

Agreed

Originally Posted by Hellboy

I've heard this argument about Man of Steel a lot and I just don't understand it. It was an origin story, and as such is it so hard to imagine that the events in MoS shape Kal into the man he will become? Seeing the destruction he is responsible for will probably change the way he views his powers and the responsibility that comes with them. I expect that to be a major theme in the sequel. For those that want the Boy Scout right out of the gate the Donner films still exist but I actually prefer to see him evolve.



Well, there is comedy that works because it's used in moderation (Avengers) and then there is comedy that feels forced (IM3, Blade Trinity) and changes the overall tone of the film. In the case of GotG people are already going to have a difficult time taking the subject matter seriously. Hopefully this will be similar in tone to Firefly/Serenity which found that perfect balance.

I think Marvel has been putting out movies that capture the best of both worlds - with just the right amount of levity but with a solid story behind it. IM3 was not a great story - but the humor saved it from being a complete waste of time. MOS was a solid story but didn't have enough levity to make fun to watch, IMO

[snappahead]

Originally Posted by Hellboy

I've heard this argument about Man of Steel a lot and I just don't understand it. It was an origin story, and as such is it so hard to imagine that the events in MoS shape Kal into the man he will become? Seeing the destruction he is responsible for will probably change the way he views his powers and the responsibility that comes with them. I expect that to be a major theme in the sequel. For those that want the Boy Scout right out of the gate the Donner films still exist but I actually prefer to see him evolve.



Well, there is comedy that works because it's used in moderation (Avengers) and then there is comedy that feels forced (IM3, Blade Trinity) and changes the overall tone of the film. In the case of GotG people are already going to have a difficult time taking the subject matter seriously. Hopefully this will be similar in tone to Firefly/Serenity which found that perfect balance.

Since we haven't seen MoS2 yet, we can only speculate that he'll become the character we expect of him. I hope you're right, but until we see it, it's just an assumption that they're taking the character where we want him to go.

[snappahead]

Originally Posted by nbr3bagshotrow

Yep, IM3 was a joke.

Hehe, well said. It was indeed a fun ride.

[metroid]

Originally Posted by snappahead

Since we haven't seen MoS2 yet, you're speculating that he'll become the character we expect of him. I hope you're right, but until we see it, it's just an assumption that they're taking the character where we expect them to.

There is no MOS2 but a "yet to be named" sequel.

[snappahead]

Originally Posted by metroid

There is no MOS2 but a "yet to be named" sequel.

Well, the film formally known as MoS2.

[built2shred]

It's going to come down to preference of course, but MOS followed the lines of Nolans Batman trilogy, which was a more serious take on the franchise. Having Superman save kittens from trees like Reeves did or cracked one liners wouldn't of worked in MOS given the story...

Both Batman Forever and Batman & Robin sucked in large part because of the humor they tried to put in the movie.

Even RDJ's humor can start to go to far if not kept in check by the director.... In IM3 I liked the whole Tony Stark angle, but the villain is where they screwed up that movie, having the ""bad guy"" turn out to be a wussy actor was meant to be funny but I found it more annoying...

Another good example of humor gone terribly wrong is Jar Jar Binks

GotG could go either way based on the trailer.... I hope it's good but it could end up being a joke of a movie

[metroid]

Originally Posted by snappahead

Well, the film formally known as MoS2.

Informally yes, formally no.

[ratchet]

Originally Posted by built2shred

Both Batman Forever and Batman & Robin sucked in large part because of the humor they tried to put in the movie.

No - they sucked in large part because of the direction Schumacher took those movies - the horrendous action scenes, nonsensical plots and over campy set designs were also huge factors in the suckage of those films.

[Bullseye]

Karen Gillan as Nebula