Marvel planning Guardians of the Galaxy movie!

I'm suprised that no one mentioned

Spoiler: spoiler

Richard Rider

is supposed to be in the post credits scene.

 

Here's what the Netflix UK cover (from the dvd/blu ray discs) looks like.

 

That's just were SHIELD found Skye. Doesn't mean her parents (assuming they're aliens of course) were dropped off in China. Plus not like they'd have to walk to make their way half way around the globe. Just using human transportation that could easily do that in under 24 hours.

Or, if they were hunting baby Skye, maybe whoever took her fled half way around the globe before finally being cornered?

 

Plus, of course, Hulk was in The Avengers. But they certainly seem to have abandoned the movie.

Yeah, it's not like Marvel Studios is losing money. Did the movie really do so badly? Plus, a sequel would probably do better since it would tie in to the incredibly (pardon the word) successful Avengers movie.

I didn't know that. Very interesting.

Cool. It's a good title and appropriate to the story. It would have fit perfectly if they used it here.

 

It didn't flop outright, but it underperformed to about the same extent as Ang Lee's Hulk.

They'll probably have another crack at a Hulk film given how popular the character was in The Avengers.

 

That would be nice. He feels kind of orphaned as it is now.

 

It always works better IMO when the title card appears near the start of the movie.

All the shit is going down at Shield, Loki escapes, kidnaps Hawkeye etc. Coulson talks to Fury on the radio "What do we do?"...... cue AVENGERS ASSEMBLE in massive letters.

There's your answer Coulson

 

How did that version of the title card moment look in the UK theatres, anyway?

 

Pretty crap. The audience I saw it with either laughed or looked on in confusion (for the ones that hadn't heard about the name change).

On DVD it doesn't seem to bad but in the cinema you could tell it was a cheap replacement for the proper one.

 

Most people on either side of the Atlantic really don't seem to have much trouble telling the US superheroes from the UK superspies, do they?

 

Since no one even made the connection until they changed the title, no, it was never going to be a problem in the slightest. The change was completely unneeded and stupid.

 

No it didn't. I've checked the US version and it's exactly the same font, style, size, positioning etc
Just rather than "The Avengers" it says "Avengers Assemble"

Everyone I've ever spoken to refers to it as The Avengers anyway. And it makes sense why they did it, I remember wondering if they'd change it years ago. It's really not a big deal.



And sorry but how dumb would you have to be to go to a cinema and not even look at the posters all over the walls, the big screen with all the times on it, or even the ticket in your hand to notice what the movie your going to see is called? Now that makes me laugh.
It wasn't like it was only changed for the title card; all the pre-publicity called it Avengers Assemble weeks/months in advance. So I'm sorry but if anyone only found out when they were sat in their seats and that card appeared...

Hell even the BBFC card that appears before every film you ever see at a British cinema said Avengers Assemble

 

I would have thought so too, but there were a few quiet "what?"'s coming from the rows behind. I don't know, maybe someone dragged them along that afternoon.

 

Despite it being "risky" because it's got a talking tree and a talking raccoon, everything I've seen with this film looks awfully safe that it seems "Vanilla." Look at the scene where StarLord takes the relic and is questioned by some guards in the first trailer. We later can see how he escapes and it's so "safe" and "routine" for these kinds of films (they shoot at him, he ducks, the wall explodes, and while still leaning down, he fires some kind of rocket that propels him out the hole that was just made). Also the humor seems overly snarky and and the style in which it is acted and filmed has no style to it whatsoever. It should a be a SyFy film

 

Now you're just repeating yourself.

 

It bears repeating. Am I repeating myself any more than the endless trailers for this movie, and how it's from a certain studio?
if I was inclined, I could say that Marvel was lading further down the route of cinematic diarrhea. However, I won't go that far, because they are still fun films. Also, I like the casting quite a bit. It looks like Chris Pratt plays his role a bit more broadly than it needs to be played, but Evans, Downey, and Ruffalo, and Hemsworth all really made the character distinct.. I may be less impressed with Hiddleston as Loki but I can go with it.

 

I think this looks like the funnest out of all the Marvel movies so far. I also am having quite a good time collecting the comics and living in this world, from everything I've seen so far the movie looks extremely faithful to the source comic (or at least Bendis' run, as that's the only one I've read).

 

I've read some of the earlier incarnation, set in one of Marvel's collection of alternative futures, and it was fun on its own terms. It won't be for everyone, but not to worry.

 

It looked fine both times I saw it in the cinema, given Coulson asks, what do we do now or somesuch and then the title appeared. I personally think, as do a few people I have discussed such matters with agree, it added, not subtracted from the film.

I did and still "get" why the BBFC or whomever decided to change the title from just "The Avengers" to "Avengers Assemble" because of the Steel/Peel Avengers that is pretty engrained in peoples minds, I doubt anyone would have honestly thought they would be seeing a "reboot" of that, but given how much money was spent and needed to be recouped, it makes sense to change the title of the film a very slight amount.

Anyway, the film is about them assembling and fighting the good fight as they're not a fully fledged team until New York and that's only because Coulson "snuffs it."