-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Marvel movies are getting too cookie cutter.
- Thread starter WayneMorse
- Start date
- Status
Guardians was a safe bet now?
"Who will want to see a talking raccoon and a walking tree, who's only dialogue is 'I am groot'?"
"There is no Iron Man in this, people will not know it's part of the Marvel Franchise"
"No big names to pull people into the seats"
"Sci-fi space operas are a thing of the past."
"Who is this Chris Pratt? That fat kid from Parks & Rec?"
"This is the end of Marvel. It starts with GotG."
Yeah, everyone was convinced it would be a smash hit.
"Who will want to see a talking raccoon and a walking tree, who's only dialogue is 'I am groot'?"
"There is no Iron Man in this, people will not know it's part of the Marvel Franchise"
"No big names to pull people into the seats"
"Sci-fi space operas are a thing of the past."
"Who is this Chris Pratt? That fat kid from Parks & Rec?"
"This is the end of Marvel. It starts with GotG."
Yeah, everyone was convinced it would be a smash hit.
I do have a serious issue with X2, and it's to do with Magneto. In the film's climax, he hijacks the villain's plan and tries to use Professor X and Cerebro to...kill literally every single human on the planet?
What the hell kind of Magneto did they make? Nothing in any of the X-Men movies indicates he is willing to commit genocide on 7 billion people, but suddenly he does that out of the blue, and no one even mentions it again. His plan in the first movie is to make the world leaders into mutants, in the third it's to gather mutants together to make an army capable of defending itself, and even in DOFP he's only looking to kill the President, not "everyone, ever".
Just always stood out to me as unnecessarily extreme and out of place. Like they just wanted him to do something bad and didn't really consider the breadth of what they made him do.
What the hell kind of Magneto did they make? Nothing in any of the X-Men movies indicates he is willing to commit genocide on 7 billion people, but suddenly he does that out of the blue, and no one even mentions it again. His plan in the first movie is to make the world leaders into mutants, in the third it's to gather mutants together to make an army capable of defending itself, and even in DOFP he's only looking to kill the President, not "everyone, ever".
Just always stood out to me as unnecessarily extreme and out of place. Like they just wanted him to do something bad and didn't really consider the breadth of what they made him do.
George Oscar Bluth II
Banned
At least your posts match up to the first part of your username.
TheLaughingStock
Member
OT, but Big hero 6 is awesome. Watched on vudu last night. Looked good, sound was good, and story had my attention. Would recommend.
Monocle
Member
I haven't really noticed this. If anything, Marvel films are getting more diverse, considering recent movies like Guardians of the Galaxy and The Winter Soldier.
Yeah, it's fantastic.
I agree. They still need to appeal widely to justify their budgets, but at least we are seeing a bit of diversification.
People who expect arthouse film risks on a $200M franchise film production are a bit delusional.
IndoAssassin
Banned
I love em the way they are can't stand artsy fartsy movies.
Psycho_Mantis
Banned
They make good superhero films but really the shining example of a fantastic superhero film will always be The Dark Knight.
Can Crusher
Banned
Winter Soldier, GoTg, Iron Man 3, Thor Dark World.... all very different movies.
Haters don't know shit, specially those who will champion garbage like Man of Steel. And As excited as I am for Apocalypse, days of future past looked cheaper than Avengers and wasn't particularly good either..
Haters don't know shit, specially those who will champion garbage like Man of Steel. And As excited as I am for Apocalypse, days of future past looked cheaper than Avengers and wasn't particularly good either..
Marvel films for me are the definition of a 'popcorn movie'. They are mindless fun and great to watch on the big screen, but after that they really lose their magic for me. The first Iron Man is IMO the best, since everything was fresh and Robert Downey Jr. was amazing casting. The rest I can't really watch more than once. I tried rewatching Guardians of the Galaxy and The Winter Soldier, but they just fell flat for me when not watched in IMAX. I would never consider the Marvel movies released thus far to be 'the best' of anything.
I really like Shane Black (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is one of my favorite films ever), didn't really care about the time he was in the suit or not and don't read the comics so know nothing about The Mandarin.
Iron Man 3 is terrible though, by far the worst movie Marvel has ever made.
1. Groot and Rocket Raccoon were basically just a weirder Chewbacca and Han Solo, there was nothing really original about the characters despite their looks and the fact that Groot grows flowers out of his hand. Of course people want to see a movie featuring a wisecracking merc and his funny sidekick, hundreds of movies in the past already showed that.
2. Marvel's name was everywhere in the promotions for GotG, along with 'From the makers of Iron Man and Avengers'.
3. Everybody saying that clearly doesn't pay attention to what's popular. Star Wars has been one of the most popular franchises for the last ten years (and will stay that way for an X amount of years after this), there really was no question Guardians of the Galaxy would be amazingly popular considering the fact that it's basically Marvel Star Wars.
I really like Shane Black (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is one of my favorite films ever), didn't really care about the time he was in the suit or not and don't read the comics so know nothing about The Mandarin.
Iron Man 3 is terrible though, by far the worst movie Marvel has ever made.
Eh, Guardians was good, but it was also pretty safe and these three arguments have always been pretty silly.
1. Groot and Rocket Raccoon were basically just a weirder Chewbacca and Han Solo, there was nothing really original about the characters despite their looks and the fact that Groot grows flowers out of his hand. Of course people want to see a movie featuring a wisecracking merc and his funny sidekick, hundreds of movies in the past already showed that.
2. Marvel's name was everywhere in the promotions for GotG, along with 'From the makers of Iron Man and Avengers'.
3. Everybody saying that clearly doesn't pay attention to what's popular. Star Wars has been one of the most popular franchises for the last ten years (and will stay that way for an X amount of years after this), there really was no question Guardians of the Galaxy would be amazingly popular considering the fact that it's basically Marvel Star Wars.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
I doubt they didn't expect $800. They didn't expect a bomb. It was never going to bomb. The surprising part is how MUCH it would make.
Why does Sculli's opinion matter regarding gross profits?
Marvel already took the risk with down on their luck actors, no-names, and Johnny Storm before MCU. You can say Guardians of the Galaxy was a risk but it really isn't. You can spend $195 million and market the movie with confidence. Disney knew it would sell. No person who could understand the market said it would bomb. Why? Because they understand the power of the Marvel brand. No one articulated why it would fail. Some people wanted it to fail because of the Marvel hate train. Disney and people who understand the market never once said it would.
MOS >>>> Iron Man 3, Dark World
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
at this point no marvel film is risky at its opening weekend, however GoTG's BO run was pretty unexpected even if people felt it would be successful.
God forbid someone prefers other movies over Marvel stuff.
Days of Future Past is the best comic book film since TDK. What was cheap about it?
-ImaginaryInsider
Member
So you're going on the record that Disney pretty much already expected $800 million from Guardians?
Wow.
On paper, of course GotG had potential to make money, your arguing that for it to be any kind of risk, Disney should have seen no potential in it and made the movie anyway. There were enough components and unknown variables to Guardians that it could have performed poorly or just broke even.
And why the hell would Disney say Guardians would fail even if they thought it would? Also please why does $195 million automatically guarantees a movie confidence?
Lol not in a million years, MOS is a bad movie, Iron Man 3 and dark world are worlds better than it.
Anton Sugar
Member
wut
I'd put it above The Incredible Hulk, Iron Man 2, and The First Avenger, easily.
HELL NO.
MOS was basically "Let's make The Dark Knight again...But with Superman!!"
They completely missed the tone of Superman, they batmanized him, and it sucks for me.
MARVEL gets the tone of their heroes far better and correctly differentiates(sp?) them.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
It was a typo, obviously. Re-read it. You will notice what I say after completely contradicts the "didn't".
Because people are saying in this very thread Disney thought it would bomb. I even asked for a citation and that man disappeared. I tried finding something and it was only Chris Pratt who thought that.
$195 million for a movie tied to the Avengers isn't a risk. The movie universe is established and ties into Thanos (the current Avengers big baddie). They didn't just think, "let's take a huge risk with these nobodies!" They knew what they were doing.
Again, can anyone point me to any analyst who has some credibility who articulated why (before the release of the movie) Guardians of the Galaxy would fail? That's a really difficult task to do. Why? Because no one of worth thought that. You may think people on NeoGAF or other messages boards thought it would bomb but I can be anecdotal too: my friends who don't read comics watched the movie and were legit excited for it. They didn't care who Chris Pratt was (now they do), they just saw Marvel and thought, "YES! ANOTHER AWESOME SUPER HERO MOVIE".
Disney IS NOT stupid. They're not going to gamble with MCU. You can't prove otherwise. Saying so doesn't make it so. Show some citations if you want to be so bold. The lack of citation just fortifies my position.
True but guess what...it was still the better movie.
LOL what fucking world are you living on?
I'd put Man of Steel on the same level as Thor: Dark World or Iron Man 2. AKA - Man of Steel is a mediocre movie.
Pai Pai Master
Banned
it's like it's this earth shattering, shocking revelation that people have different opinions about movies
bob_arctor
Tough_Smooth
This was one of the biggest cinematic disappointments for me in a while. My wife and kids loved it but to me it was hollow and well, boring. I really wanted to like it too. :-(
"They completely misrepresented a character...but its better than the ones who did not!!"
smh
Where MoS was a bad movie and you are wrong for saying it was better than them. I have no hope for the next superman movie either but it will be better than MoS.
I agree with him. The only good thing about MOS were the trailers.
Marvel's Phase 2 films have been anything but "cookie cutter"
Iron Man 3 is a 1980s style buddy cop action film thanks to Shane Black.
Winter Soldier is 1970s conspiracy thriller.
Guardians is a full on sci-fi space adventure.
It was the better movie man...go shake your head all you want...
Pai Pai Master
Banned
I like big hero 6 but I definitely think it's pretty safe and by-the-numbers. It's far more "cookie cutter" in terms of general story beats than any other recent superhero movie.
the revisionist history is seriously annoying.
I'm pretty sure Civil War will do that
BadAss2961
Member
I really, really don't see it. You're reaching.
I don't think he's saying the idea was a safe bet. He's saying the movie itself played it safe.
Big Hero 6 has its moments though. The scene where
Hiro pulled out his bother's card from Baymax and made him go angry Hulk
If you've ever seen any of Shane Black's previous works, you can see his trademark style in Iron Man 3.
ZackieChan
Member
No matter how many times it is explained, they'll never listen, and these threads will continue to appear every couple of weeks. It is insanity.
Ok..
If I'm walking out of the theater and I thinked that Iron Man 3 sucked....am I really gonna care about how accurately they portrayed Tony Starks? Like am I gonna be like "oh man that was garbage but how about them getting the Iron Man character down to a T man! Wow he even uttered that line from the comics bro!!!!!"
Hell up outta here I wouldn't give a shit then.
Thor should be a straight fantasy movie. LOTR with more magic and monsters. Thor has been the least interesting series in the MCU so far.
I have to laugh at calling anything Marvel has done as safe. It's purely revisionist. Iron Man, Thor and the Avengers ten years ago were not sellers. They were outsold by even the lowest selling xmen book probably. Launching them as solo movies was risky. Topping them off with Avengers was bonkers.
I have to laugh at calling anything Marvel has done as safe. It's purely revisionist. Iron Man, Thor and the Avengers ten years ago were not sellers. They were outsold by even the lowest selling xmen book probably. Launching them as solo movies was risky. Topping them off with Avengers was bonkers.
Subpar Spatula
Banned
I didn't know posters on forums were the sole reason for a movie bombing or succeeding.
- Status