Guardians of the Galaxy

[csdot]

yeah Avengers opened the Marvel cinematic universe up to basically limitless possibilities. if you can have an army of space aliens, demigods, flying robot suits, and a green monster man in the same movie nothing is really off limits. the comic is incredible, they have plenty of material to work with and Gunn is a knowledgeable fan. not worried one bit.

[Buddy Ackerman]

Originally Posted by Bill Clay

At best it will be a bomb and disappear quickly.

I don't think you know what the word 'best' means.

[AmrlKJaneway]

I think we're forgetting what makes Marvel good - suspension of belief. Batman was believable to the point of boring, none of the Marvel build up has been realistic. Guys frozen under ice for decades, a mutating green hulk, gods from outer space who come to Earth in storms?

We all know this movie's gonna be great. And probably not horribly realistic, which doesn't matter if the plot makes sense within itself. I found a GotG comic in the roof the other day (condition=poor, unfortunately), and it said they live in the 30th Century, so I hope it's really far-out!

I'm so pumped to see this now!

[mrrant_33]

We as moviegoers have successfully bought into; child wizards, hobbits destroying a magic ring, cyborgs from the future sent to the present to kill unborn future leaders, ewoks and wookies, people implanting ideas in dreams within dreams within dreams, a computer generated world where machines generate energy from humans, a giant monkey climbing the empire state building, genetically created dinosaurs, a man who's not only lucky enough to find the ark of the covenant but he also finds the holy grail AND an alien skull, and who can forget the story of a reese's pieces addicted alien who lived in a kid's closet for a few months

If it's done right, I don't understand how the idea of a gun toting talking racoon is anymore unbelievable or absurd

[csdot]

with Gunn directing Michael Rooker should totally do the voice of Rocket Raccoon

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by EricJ

What do you mean "We", paleface?

(Let's reappraise ourselves, here:
You've got Gunn, who thought beating Warner's CN school-bully retro-kitsch into the ground was hilarious enough for two Scooby-doo movies, and you've got Marvel trying not to pretend that GotG is one of their more retro-kitschy attempts at reviving an expired and often fan-sneered franchise for a new audience--What do YOU think will happen, kids?
You're holding a dynamite stick in one hand, and a match in the other, and asking "Oh, it's all careful, what could happen?")

I don't understand what you're saying. Do you just mean that you aren't looking forward to this, or that I, by putting "we", somehow implied that everyone on this forum was indeed excited by it and was condemning you for not? I think it's in the hands now of people that would be the best choices to make it a good film, and that it's going to come out at the right time - i.e. when pretty much everybody will eat up any Marvel releases. If they're going to make this film at any point, now would be, and is, the perfect time for them.

It doesn't matter that Gunn was simply screenwriter for those awful attempts to cash-in on Scooby Doo's retro simplicity because he redeemed himself by directing one of the best horror comedy films in existence. Whether he can handle a film of this scale and hype remains to be seen, but I'm sure that Kevin Feige won't be expecting him to do everything by himself - who'd have thought that Kenneth Branagh would be able to direct something as big and unwieldy as Thor? I certainly didn't, but he did an awesome job with it.

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by mrrant_33

[Show spoiler]We as moviegoers have successfully bought into; child wizards, hobbits destroying a magic ring, cyborgs from the future sent to the present to kill unborn future leaders, ewoks and wookies, people implanting ideas in dreams within dreams within dreams, a computer generated world where machines generate energy from humans, a giant monkey climbing the empire state building, genetically created dinosaurs, a man who's not only lucky enough to find the ark of the covenant but he also finds the holy grail AND an alien skull, and who can forget the story of a reese's pieces addicted alien who lived in a kid's closet for a few months

If it's done right, I don't understand how the idea of a gun toting talking racoon is anymore unbelievable or absurd

It's certainly not any more absurd - if anything, it's probably a bit more understandable and less surreal than something in your average David Lynch film. Movies have always been about making dreams a reality, seeing things that you can't in everyday life, and yet some people seem to have major problems with suspending disbelief for a superhero film.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

It doesn't matter that Gunn was simply screenwriter for those awful attempts to cash-in on Scooby Doo's retro simplicity because he redeemed himself by directing one of the best horror comedy films in existence.

I'm hoping you're not referring to "Tromeo & Juliet".
(And saying that he directed one movie that lucked out during the hip-deconstructionist 90's Scream era and got a 58% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes is a bit like saying "Sure, Bob Clark did the Porky's movies, but he's the Black Christmas guy and then he did Christmas Story, so it's okay again! " Which one is the fluke exception and which one's just naturally in his DNA?)

And once a Troma, always a Troma: In invoking the Scooby-Doo's, believe I was referring to Gunn's tendency to jump a little too readily onto the "camp" bandwagon to make sure we're all having a good time.
Yes, Marvel may have a cool head and see a vision for the film (and thinks that what happened to Fantastic Four can never, ever happen to them), but they're not the ones writing and directing it:
Marvel: "We'd like a slightly more...tongue in cheek approach to what's regarded as one of our more--
Gunn: "--You mean, they think it's 70's crap? Don't worry, we'll give that obnoxious lil' furball what's coming to it!"

We have yet to see an example of "subtlety" from Mr. G.

[csdot]

neither Slither nor Super are the least bit campy
and Slither came out in the late 2000's not during the 90s Scream era and has nothing to do with those films.

[Galactus]

Originally Posted by csdot

with Gunn directing Michael Rooker should totally do the voice of Rocket Raccoon

No thanks. I recommend Steve Buscemi, he would be perfect for RR.

[Kaiju]

Originally Posted by csdot

neither Slither nor Super are the least bit campy
and Slither came out in the late 2000's not during the 90s Scream era and has nothing to do with those films.

What? Really? Slither is INSANELY campy... and Super is somewhat tongue in cheek as well.

[Walts Ghost]

Originally Posted by TheMan

What? Really? Slither is INSANELY campy... and Super is somewhat tongue in cheek as well.

I think he means campy more in a 'Scooby-Doo' and 'Scream' style. because that's what Eric j keeps taking about them.

[Delta09]

Originally Posted by Buddy Ackerman

James Gunn Confirmed to Direct and Rewrite Guardians of the Galaxy

And Gunn released this statement:



Glad this has been confirmed, he's a great choice.

Nice!

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by EricJ

I'm hoping you're not referring to "Tromeo & Juliet".
(And saying that he directed one movie that lucked out during the hip-deconstructionist 90's Scream era and got a 58% audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes is a bit like saying "Sure, Bob Clark did the Porky's movies, but he's the Black Christmas guy and then he did Christmas Story, so it's okay again! " Which one is the fluke exception and which one's just naturally in his DNA?)

And once a Troma, always a Troma: In invoking the Scooby-Doo's, believe I was referring to Gunn's tendency to jump a little too readily onto the "camp" bandwagon to make sure we're all having a good time.
Yes, Marvel may have a cool head and see a vision for the film (and thinks that what happened to Fantastic Four can never, ever happen to them), but they're not the ones writing and directing it:
Marvel: "We'd like a slightly more...tongue in cheek approach to what's regarded as one of our more--
Gunn: "--You mean, they think it's 70's crap? Don't worry, we'll give that obnoxious lil' furball what's coming to it!"

We have yet to see an example of "subtlety" from Mr. G.

I don't agree that Gunn jumps onto the bandwagon any faster than other film-makers in Hollywood - every commercial director will try to do a film in a genre that's doing well, because that's all the film companies will offer them. In screenwriting for Scooby Doo, we can hardly blame the terrible end result on him - he'd have been approached with this offer to write for a big production, and I've gotta say, if I'd have been in a position where I hadn't done much work for years like him, I'd have taken it too.

It's a superhero film, though, so there really isn't an amount of subtlety in it - in fact, Avengers was probably one of the least subtle films I've ever seen, and also one of the best superhero films ever released.

I'm not a James Gunn fanboy by any stretch of the imagination, I just think that his two major films - Slither and Super - were good, genre-grounded films, and that, if he keeps up that attitude with this project, he'll do it well.

[Lemmy Lugosi]

Originally Posted by Galactus

I recommend Steve Buscemi, he would be perfect for RR.

Oh, hell yeah!

[Foggy]

Originally Posted by Bill Clay

Yeah, just looking at the comic I can't understand why they'd choose to throw away millions of dollars on this. At best it will be a bomb and disappear quickly. At worst, it will bring down the credibility of all of Marvel's other movies. I loved "Iron Man" because as far-fetched as it was, it was believable. Some of that got chipped away very slightly in "The Avengers" when nobody raised an eyebrow about an alien invasion. It will go completely out the window when a talking raccoon shows up.

Dude, you posted the exact same thing a month or two ago.

[EricJ]

Originally Posted by legendarymatt92

In screenwriting for Scooby Doo, we can hardly blame the terrible end result on him - he'd have been approached with this offer to write for a big production, and I've gotta say, if I'd have been in a position where I hadn't done much work for years like him, I'd have taken it too.

Well, the reason, I'm concentrating on the Scooby-Doo metaphor, is to try and gauge who sees the project as what:
The reason Warner greenlit the Scooby-Doo movies back in '00 was that their Cartoon Network tie-in was on a roll for pop-smearing and school-bullying their hated Hanna-Barbera cartoons as retro-kitsch, with Scooby cliche's taking most of the easy pasting. (Oh, geez, remember that one with Velma defending "Sheep in the Big City" in the high school lunchroom? )
Flush with their "success", Warner immediately assumed the entire audience was on "their side", thought CN core-fans would rush to see it, and made an entire movie of moronically mean-spirited pop-bashes of the show ("Your name means Scooby Poop!"), that ended up, er, alienating the more sentimental fanbase, that should have been its major audience.

We know why Marvel hired Gunn for this project, I'm just not sure if Gunn knows--
Marvel, aka "THEY", hired him two minutes after "Super" for the exact same reason the Fox X-Men producers hired the Chronicle guy: Hitching their wagon to fresh meat, and hoping indie-superhero directors will liven things up.
Gunn, aka "HE", gets the idea that fans giggle at GotG's image in the Marvel canon, and may be going forward in the idea that Rocket Raccoon is the Scrappy-Doo of Marvel.

...We shall see who ultimately wins, They or He, but the battle won't be pretty.

[csdot]

Originally Posted by TheMan

What? Really? Slither is INSANELY campy... and Super is somewhat tongue in cheek as well.

its tongue in cheek not campy. the tone of Slither isnt that much different from the Marvel films.
and fans dont giggle at GotG, only people who know nothing about it do.

[MCT]

Thanos!!!

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by EricJ

Marvel, aka "THEY", hired him two minutes after "Super" for the exact same reason the Fox X-Men producers hired the Chronicle guy: Hitching their wagon to fresh meat, and hoping indie-superhero directors will liven things up.

I understand what you're kind of saying, but I don't agree with Marvel needing anyone to liven things up at all - each Phase One release has been superb, with enough excitement and entertainment to keep each fan happy. Avengers was the culmination of that, took the stance of "bigger is better" and delivered something that was huge (in terms of superhero films). Directors who have happened to make superhero films with indie sensibilities aren't the people Marvel need to start consulting for future releases - they just need directors who know how to make genre-based popcorn flicks. Chronicle, despite how indie it was, was just a typical superhero film underneath its found footage exterior (Super was a bit more genre-busting in that it didn't really conform to a simple superhero idea, instead choosing to use black humour as a device to mock it).

Anyway, we'll soon see how this turns out - if you're right and it's a total train-wreck, you'll receive my apologies.