Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120581046#Comment_120581046

This is my feeling on them too.

To me the Nolan trilogy gets extra credit from many because it has a different than most comic book movies, with it being more 'street level', and that it was a big pivot from what we'd seen from Batman in the past.

On the other side I give bonus points for the far more difficult challenges that Gunn faced in what he built, introducing complete unknown set of characters, building multiple unknown worlds, finding balance between humour, action, and heart in all the trilogy, dealing with space, aliens and super powers, having to fit into a larger comic book universe, and having character development arcs for several characters across all three movies.

brianregan09

What trilogy is the best is purely subjective anyway , the 2nd nolan film is massively overhyped aswell because of heath ledgers death , rises was awful , Batman Begins was the best 1 by far in my opinion

Loved Guardians 3 better than the 2nd one but nothing beats the 1st one that was absolutely fantastic

pixelburp

I think it's clearly the high point of the MCU either way, and whatever trilogy one thinks is the pinnacle across the genre, it's no coincidence that Guardians' success is down to its creator having the space to make it the way he wanted.

I'm sure James Gunn still had certain mandates & constraints - the Bollix resurrection of Gamora for instance, Guardians 3 openly calling our the inanity of that felt like Gunn's voice - but there's no mistaking the craft of a single creative force working driving the bus vs. committee scripts and PreVis driven plots.

flazio

Same can be said for Ant-man. OK Edgar Wright left the director chair before 1 got finished, but his influence still shone through into, OK not a Wow phenomenal movie, but a decent little spin. That was all but gone by the time we got to 3.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120591068#Comment_120591068

God I forgot we came so close to having an Edgar Wright superhero movie. Oof. Some of those other universes really have it better. As you say the footprints were there, so might also speak to how the sequeld tapered off so dramatically from that template.

JP Liz V1

I thought Bradley Cooper was singing the slow acoustic version of Creep, again great songs, love the soundtrack

The film was an awesome mix of Firefly, Serenity, Annie, War of the Worlds, Noah's Ark and Secret Life of Pets, a good final swansong which Drax stole, mvp

Theboinkmaster

Want to see Guardians last night thought it wasn’t great. First one was brilliant but I think vols 2 and 3 were fairly shite.

they tried to shoe horn too many songs many of them felt abrupt and unnecessary. Wil Poulter and his character were under used. Story was fairly crap and a lot of set pieces just thrown in for the sake of it (that whole planet they broke into with Nathan Fillian)

really poor film I hope he does a better job on superman.

peacemaker Tv show was one of the best of the last few years

AMKC

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120593414#Comment_120593414

Jeez someone must have been having a bad day if you think this was shite. It's a brilliant film, funny and heartwarming as well as having plenty of sad and upsetting parts too. I can not wait to go and see it for a second time as I know I will enjoy it even more now.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120576292#Comment_120576292

As expected, the 'early indicator' MCU doom mongers were completely wrong.

51% drop, looking like it'll be another one to go well over another $500m haul.

Around $3.6b+ taken in by the MCU in the last year over 5 movies - very 'worrying'.

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120594782#Comment_120594782

in fairness nothing has changed, Marvel cant depend that all their films make a profit, even with Guardians, people didnt give it an automatic chance, they needed word of mouth to confirm its worth going to see. Marvel still need to get a handle on their bloated production budgets and the fact people just wont automatically q up to see b team movies.

Loughc

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120594868#Comment_120594868

Exactly this. Marvel no longer can offer up guaranteed slam dunks.

Apparently with The issues with CGI backlogs, Jonathan Majors and now the writers strikes there is massive talks within marvel of completely scrapping the rest of phase 5 and 6 and just release one shot movies like fantastic 4, Spider-Man and deadpool.

flazio

Time will tell, but while Disney Marvel are faltering, Warner DC aren't exactly stepping up to the plate.

pixelburp

Guardians 3 will either be the kick in the pants and give the MCU renewed energy, or the final swing before it further stalls. The "last" Guardians film was always better placed to do well than others. Especially given the very vocal, supportive word of mouth.

I've said it before but "Death" is exaggerated bordering on hyperbole - we've to have a categorical bomb, we're very far from Shazam 2 territory - but you'd be hard pressed to find the same volume of viral enthusiasm for the newer "phase", nothing's taking. My prior analogy of the band with a key member gone stands imo; something isn't gelling and interest may dwindle if that excitement can't be renewed. While the Majors controversy became the wrong kind of publicity for the upcoming Big Event (Marvel's silence on this is ... interesting).

Time will tell, and it's too soon for the autopsy to start, but these new albums (stretching the metaphor) are missing something, some ineffable sound. Audiences won't follow forever. Guardians 3 is doing ok but that mightn't translate onwards to (say) Thunderbolts or Cap. America 4.

James Gunn proves one thing: give the right creative mind control to tell their story, and interest follows. It's not perfect cos you need the RIGHT kind of person who fits the material - cough cough Zack Snyder - but the constant succession of bland nobodies thrust into a Blockbuster after one indie film remains a risky strategy.

SuprSi

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120594259#Comment_120594259

Agreed. My wife, who I had to convince to come to the cinema with me and hadn't seen any of the earlier movies, absolutely loved it. She was in stitches, in tears and completely engrossed in what was going on. She enjoyed it so much she wants us to watch the 1st movie tonight, which I'm more than happy to go along with 😊

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120594868#Comment_120594868

Marvel did an amazing job over the years, especially leading up to Endgame, that they've broken the brain of some people on what success is.

All of the above has always been true for the MCU and every other movie and franchise out there.

An expectation that coming out of Phase 3 that MCU was going to maintain those heights was a bar that was never going to be met. Talk about it 'dying' or everything is 'worrying' is just consistent hyperbole.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120596053#Comment_120596053

Yeah they were always going to take a big dip in Phase 4, with the loss of some of the biggest characters, the ending of the Infinity saga, setting up the next saga, new characters, dilution with all the TV shows.

Admittedly, the dip has been more severe than most expected, and some of the films have been awful (and most others a very mixed bag).

But the movies are still performing well in cinemas, unlike the last few DC films. There's a definite drop, especially with Quantumania, but there's also plenty of time for them to course-correct, realise what's not working and maybe start giving themselves a bit more breathing room and bring in more experienced writers (think the writer of Quantumania had only really worked on Rick & Morty and American Dad).

There's no point jumping to conclusions and obsessing over analysing box office second week drop off etc. Not until the films really start bombing, and that didn't even happen with Thor 4 or Quantumania. Disappointing returns, yes, but still profitable.

Sudden Valley

I would be surprised if some of the guardians dont appear in a future avengers type movie but overall a good movie and much better than the disappointing GOTG 2. Its sad how the avengers movie killed the Quill Gamora relationship, it was something i enjoyed from the first two movies.

Definitely think it was the right time to bow out, the story had run its course.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120596292#Comment_120596292

There's no point jumping to conclusions and obsessing over analysing box office second week drop off etc. Not until the films really start bombing, and that didn't even happen with Thor 4 or Quantumania. Disappointing returns, yes, but still profitable.

I'm open to correction, but AFAIK we don't know what Marvel's own projections dictate, or where their own expectations lie. If Marvel started the post Endgame phases with the presumption they were heading back to formula, fair enough; makes sense we give them runway to shape the new approach. Or indeed, if the effect of the quick move to Disney+ factors into things. But if there was a belief audiences would just continue to tune in, then the issue of stalling numbers becomes a tad contextual and relevant.

Guardians 3 becomes an outlier because it was such an independent beast compared with the trend of other MCU films; while Quantumania never shook the feeling it existed as a stage for the new Big Bad. Did Feige and the brain trust expect audiences to flood the cinemas to meet the new Thanos?

pixelburp

Probably seen before by others, but hadn't realised (or had forgotten) Pratt and Batista screen tested together; by all accounts Batista seemed to have Drax down pretty early one...

https://youtu.be/tGYIBWlJcro

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120596053#Comment_120596053

between it and DC, there will always be a market for Batman, Superman, Spiderman and one or two others, pace them out and they will still be making them in 30 years plus they can start rebooting the likes of Iron Man and Captain America and the parents who watched these film as kids will bring their kids to them as nostalgia. What wont happen is Eternals or Shang Chi films being churned out over the next decade or that whatever new characters they base movies on will be instant hits just because its a Marvel or DC film.

Over time probably the best thing is to close Marvel down/absorb it into Disney and just make movies as and when

pixelburp

Wait, so we're now pivoting from "the MCU is dying" to "Marvel Studios will be no more"? 🙄 Paging Foxtrol, paging Foxtrol... 🤣

Worth baring in mind that the biggest IP in the entire Marvel catalogue - the X-Men (at least, before the MCU kicked off) - haven't yet made their appearance as bonafide members of the MCU. Not even hinted at, baring the now-legally-allowed mention of "Mutants".

Even after 2008+ and Fox clinging to the licensing, I daresay the arrival of Prof X and friends remain a potentially huge switch-up in the MCU. The universe could keep going for years more just on that demographic of characters alone - that bench is huge.

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598661#Comment_120598661

there is a reason we dont watch as many westerns as in the 60's, either the genre gets played out or the companies lose their edge, I cant see why super hero movies would buck the trend, I'd bet heavily against MCU's conveyor belt continuing uninterrupted for the next 10 years just on the basis that all trends peak and go into decline

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598661#Comment_120598661

Are they not going to pause any new x-men movies since the Fassbender and co versions ended only quite recently? Given how badly the New Mutants film did I don't think there is much appetite for x-men characters outside of the core professor x and magneto teams.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598705#Comment_120598705

Cinema has definitely historically gone through trends, where particular genres are popular for a decade or so. I think part of why superhero films have seen a bit more longevity than usual is because it's a very adaptable genre that you can combine with other genres. Superhero/High school drama like the first few Spiderman films. Superhero/Spy like CA: Winter Soldier. Superhero/Road-trip like Thor Ragnarok. Superhero/Culture/Royalty like Black Panther. Superhero/Heist like Ant-Man. They're also planning on going a bit more horror with Blade, go R-Rated comedy with the next Deadpool as part of the MCU.

Look at how different each of the Thor films have been, or even the Captain America films. Each are superhero films with the same core characters, but are very different in terms of tone, style, content. Westerns, Sci-Fi, Buddy Cop, Action etc, all those genres which were dominant for their decade or so in the cinemas weren't usually as adaptable. A Western/High School Drama is just Little House on the Prairie. Of course it'll eventually go into decline, but the Marvel films have found a longevity by mixing genres to keep trying to provide something different.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598705#Comment_120598705

The superhero genre only compares up to a point though. There wasn't this entirely untapped sub-universe of stories Westerns never touched 'cos of rights issues. There's a good reason Fox jealously retained the X-Men IP for as long as they did; it can't be underestimated just how large that bench of characters are. You could jettison the entirety of the current MCU roster - and still have more than enough in the X-Men to power a new universe. And you don't even have to keep the same genre, character to character.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598714#Comment_120598714

There are no X-Men films currently planned or announced as far as I know, but I'd say after Phase 6/Kang, the MCU might shift to be more centered around the Fantastic 4 and X-Men, with a reboot of the X-Men (all the Patrick Stewart/Michael Fassbender/Hugh Jackman will probably just be from a different multiverse and we'll get new actors and a reboot for all the X-Men).

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598773#Comment_120598773

The amount of material available to strip mine isnt that important to the popularity of the genre, probably less than 1% of good sifi will ever be turned into movies and goes in and out of fashion. Its whatever is front and centre of what kids are into gives the genre its importance as it drives family's cinema attendance and the whole merch side. Kids for example arent into Star Wars anymore so your audience is adults who liked it as kids so interest is kinda capped. If Mario is anything to go by, turning video games that kids like into films is going to be big which will dilute interest in Marvel going forward

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598661#Comment_120598661

😂

Sure let's just get it over with and shutter Disney altogether at this point? All that money is just not worth the bother

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120597327#Comment_120597327

We don't know for certain but unless they are completely deluded it all points to them planning a reset - right from how there was no post credit scene after Endgame, to no 'big bad' being intro'd in phase 4, to them holding back F4 and X-men.

They definitely didn't get it right and are learning some lessons but Guardians isn't an outlier at all and audiences do 'just continue to tune in'. Last year MCU made up 3 movies in the top 8 and the year before Spider-Man nearly hit 2bn, twice the take of the second placed movie - all of that with the audience knowing their movies were coming to streaming quicker than in the past.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120599058#Comment_120599058

Mario is nothing to go by, it is just another cartoon that there have been throughout the time of the MCU. That movie was was near pure nostalgia, they can't get away with that in another movie unless they hold off for a few years. As for other video game IP, they've done Sonic already and there isnt that much else out there. If it eats any share it'll be of other cartoon movies.

Biggest risk of competition for the MCU is if Gunn can get things together with DC. I really like him but I'm not sure he has the range to make it work across a universe, especially with characters that don't necessarily fall into his usual approach - an approach that has been very hit and miss at the box office. Not sure if duplicating the MCU formula will work either, though it has to be better than the road DC have been taking.

Went to see on Saturday. Would put it as one of my most enjoyable cinema trips in a long time.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120599058#Comment_120599058

The Baby Yoda mania has shown there's still enthusiasm for Kid level Star Wars TBH, you see the backpacks and dolls everywhere. The flatlining is happening with adults, whose response to the nostalgia bait has been variable at best.

And as I've said, the X Men is a big chunk of Marvel that'll be guaranteed to be a big thing. Marvel are taking their time because it's likely they know they're having to compete with iconic prior actors.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120598714#Comment_120598714

New Mutants partially failed cos as with many Sony X-Men swings, they made a bags of it all. The production was a hot mess IIRC and it's no great surprise it flopped. But I'd not put that on the shoulders of the Mutants themselves.

I just never got the sense Sony really knew how to work the X-Men: the ones people liked made by a sex pest - so that didn't help bed down the goodwill. The reboot films started strong enough but the dive off the cliff was pronounced; Dark Phoenix was a bit of a disgrace if I'm honest, and a truly ignoble end to a swing that had promise. Jennifer Lawrence effectively derailing her character and the film's didn't help.

Then there's Logan, which is so far off on another planet, such that it exists in its own ecosphere - like Guardians as its own thing. I suspect we'll never get a Marvel treatment like that again anytime soon. It's also one of the best films I never want to watch again.

flazio

X-Men was never a Sony project, it was 20th Century Fox. Spider-Man on screen is owned by Sony while The Incredible Hulk is a Universal Studios property.

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120601240#Comment_120601240

Neither Sony nor Fox knew how to work with what they had with their characters and nearly completely ignored a key element of it.

It actually ties into Penn's earlier point regarding the sub-genre.

Some of Feige's notes to Sony for Garfield's Spider-man was why they were trying to run him out of high-school so quickly. Fox did the same with X-men, there was little focus on the younger cast outside of an odd scene, the focus was always the older actors.

What MCU did so well in Phases 1 -3 were to bring together a bunch of different characters who were very different from each other and brought their different perspectives, which you then saw change and grow overtime. Tom Holland's Spider-man brought heart to Infinity War through his innocence.

I'm not surprised they're only now having him 'grow up' more when they have Ms Marvel and likely young X-men characters to fill the gap of teenagers. Spider-man will now move on to deal with the challenges of early adulthood, likely alongside a few other characters they've introduced of that age.

flazio

Sony are actually doing quite well with Spider-Man. OK Morbius was a mis step and Venom fell off a cliff, but we are mere weeks away from a highly anticipated Spider-Verse movie with another one next year and their collaboration with Insomniac Games for their PlayStation games have been flying off the shelves.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120601240#Comment_120601240

Aye my bad. Was thinking of the Spidey properties when typing and getting them mixed up. But stand by the point, confusion on studios notwithstanding: Fox just didn't seem to know what to do with what was, at the time, the biggest IP in the Marvel stable.

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120599699#Comment_120599699

its not inevitable that MCU hands the mantle to NCU, there might be none, but you just know they are cooking up a Zelda movie and it will take in a billion. The question is the sustainability of big budget Marvel films, they arent in the breakeven businesses so their 200m + film need 800-1bn to turn a profit. I just see these slots being taken up by other competition and not super hero genre as such. Plus they tied their hands that they cant make Captain America and Iron Man going forward for example.

Sudden Valley

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120602180#Comment_120602180

I thought Falcon was now Captain America so will appear in new movies. The DCU and MCU have had a mix of family and more sophisticated movies that I dont think the NCU can ever have.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120602995#Comment_120602995

I think what silverharp meant was the actor/character, so Chris Evans/Steve Rogers. Even though the mantle of Captain America has been passed on, the MCU has still lost the likes of Steve, Tony, Natasha.... characters who have been mainstays since the start and became big draws.

But obviously, actors/characters have to move on, otherwise we end up with Batman/Spider-Man stuff where we get constant reboots of the same characters with new actors, re-telling new versions of the same stories again. It'll probably happen with the MCU eventually when it's fully lost all its appeal and main characters, there could be a full reboot of the whole thing. With so many interconnected films and characters, they can't really reboot one like Iron Man without rebooting them all.

As for the Nintendo Cinematic Universe, I don't see how it relates to the MCU/DCU side of things. It's like comparing the Fast & Furious universe and spin-offs to the MCU. The Mario film could definitely lead to Donkey Kong spin-offs etc, but them being successful in their own right doesn't mean it'll have an effect on the MCU.

johnny_ultimate

I’d be hesitant around declaring a video game film adaptation craze until we have more than one mega hit. No doubt there’ll be a gold rush now, but exceedingly few games have the wide cultural appeal of Mario, and even something like Sonic has been a modest hit rather than absolute juggernaut. Even within Nintendo, you’re into diminishing cultural recognition beyond Mario and perhaps Zelda (Pokémon films have been coming out annually for the best part of three decades).

pixelburp

The chance of a Zelda movie might have gone up a tick in light of the Mario movie's success... but I'd be very slow to put any money on an actual film coming out anytime soon. High Fantasy seems to be a very risky proposition at the best of times, even with existing IPs (oh high Dungeons and Dragons); while Zelda itself wouldn't have near as much cultural omnipresence as Mario would have.

If anything, there's probably a better chance Metroid got made first, given SciFi & Space Adventures are very much a stronger genre ATM. And even then, Nintendo won't be rushed or cajoled into doing anything they're not sure of.

Penn

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120603239#Comment_120603239

Also much harder to have a shared universe between the Mario, Zelda & Metroid games. Mario & Donkey Kong, sure, but I doubt there'd be any real kind of connected universe/story between all.

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120603248#Comment_120603248

I have a vague memory that there WAS a Zelda production, briefly fadó. That it was in very early pre-production before the team got flown out to Kyoto, just to be told "No" by Nintendo. It took 30 years before they took a chance on Mario again, I really wouldn't hold my breath for this great gaming floodgate opening.

Most we'll see might be other IPs getting adaptation treatment, but of the strata of Last of Us and the like. I know there's an Amazon adaptation of fallout on the go ATM.

flazio

How much of this thread is actually discussing GOTG3?

pixelburp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120603362#Comment_120603362

I am Groot.

silverharp

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120603039#Comment_120603039

There is a lot to be said for locking in the character like Bond/007 , ensures movies can be made well into the future. the Characters of Tony Stark or Steve Rogers could run along independently? as it is I dont think the casual film going public want to be locked in to having to see 5 movies and 3 TV shows just to follow the next film.

On your last part ,The MCU can be affected by competition in general wherever it comes from, there are only going to be so many big films a year and the energy will go where the energy goes. I get the sense that the next few movies arent must see, Maybe Deadpool 3 next year?

Foxtrol

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120602180#Comment_120602180

Zelda isn't anywhere close to name recognition of Mario. Even for those who know of the game, most wouldn't even be able to name the main character in it.

As has been noted many times already, MCU have plenty of ammo with the F4 and X-men coming through - CA and IM had basically ran their race by Endgame. Both F4 and X-Men are many multiples more well known than the vast majority of characters that the MCU have relied on since it began and lightyears beyond anything the likes of Zelda.

Please provide any proper evidence that a 200m movie needs to hit near 1bn to turn a profit. It is complete nonsense, the exact type of stuff that gets spouted for clicks on youtube and people try to shove into MCU discussions to try to make something seem like a failure. If a movie needs to make 5 times the budget to make a profit the film industry would have shut down decades ago

johnny_ultimate

I would generally agree that Zelda doesn't quite have the same wide recognition as Mario - but given Tears of the Kingdom just sold 10 million+ copies in three days, I'd be pretty confident it's next in line for adaptation :)

But yes, I don't really see a coherent 'Nintendo universe' either, unless there's some big Super Smash Bros crossover movie down the line. That said, and to steer this slightly back on topic, I do think GotG3 is a strong case in point that maybe superhero / MCU films - at least some of them - are much stronger when able to do their own thing without being weighed down by the wider machinations of the 'shared universe'.

Homelander

So anyway, I went to see this and didn't want to expect much but it's actually a truck-load of fun from start to finish and absolutely doesn't feel too formulaic or generic despite telling a simple story well. Great design and visuals and surprisingly creatively violent without being expressly graphic.

Head and shoulders above everything else in Phase 4 and 5 thus far (though I think Quantumania is the only other film so far).

James Gunn really is fantastic - Guardians Trilogy, The Suicide Squad, Peacemaker - all fantastic fun. Things could finally be looking up for DC under his tenure, that's for sure.

Anyway, for me this is the best Marvel movie probably in years, I'd have to go back to Endgame most likely.

banie01

Went to see this on Wednesday. It was exactly what I expected, proper popcorn fare that does a really good job of closing the circle on the guardians arc. Great soundtrack as per usual but some really gut wrenching moments too, a tear or 3 may even have crept from my cynical eye.