GUARDIANS of the GALAXY - Grading & Discussion

[Alidar Jarok]

Well, that kind of defeats half the point about how his friends betrayed him.

Anyway, there already is a great Planet Hulk movie. A live-action one has the problem of not involving Mark Ruffalo, which defeats most of the point anyway.

 

[Mr Light]

yeah, a Planet Hulk movie done proper wouldn't really be feasible because they could never afford to animate a photorealistic CGI Hulk for two hours straight. Take a look at how much ACTUAL screentime Hulk has in any given movie

 

[Gil T.Azell]

FYI: over at Zedge there is a "I am Groot" notification/Ringtone.
if you are so inclined.

 

[Hypaspist]

yeah, a Planet Hulk movie done proper wouldn't really be feasible because they could never afford to animate a photorealistic CGI Hulk for two hours straight. Take a look at how much ACTUAL screentime Hulk has in any given movie

They did a pretty badass job mixing CGI with regular actors in this movie. I think Planet Hulk is feasible. There are a lot of characters who could be done by regular actors. Am I wrong when I assume that the pink people in Guardians are directly lifted from Planet Hulk?

I do like how the aliens in this movie were done. It was just like Star Trek: they are weird space aliens, but they're only weird in appearance. For all other intents and purposes, they're regular people.

It's kind of like how the Avatar aliens would have fit into Star Wars. That's not a swipe at Star Wars - I hate Avatar, but the world it created would fit into that kind of world very easily.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

The point is, if they're going to make a live action movie, they're going to want their movie star who plays the Hulk (Mark Ruffalo) to be in it. That's why everyone involved in anything that matters has said that a Planet Hulk movie isn't even being considered.

Seriously, why does it need to have some live action characters and a CGI Hulk? What's wrong with the animated version, which is a pretty faithful adaptation.

 

[kirk55555]

Seriously, why does it need to have some live action characters and a CGI Hulk? What's wrong with the animated version, which is a pretty faithful adaptation.

The animated version of Planet Hulk was great, its basically Marvel doing a DC direct to dvd style animated movie right (they generally do it badly, often very badly). The only "bad" thing is that World War Hulk was never made to go with it It obviously doesn't need the sequel, but it would have been awesome to see.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I thought the Doctor Strange movie was pretty good too.

 

[Mr Light]

I hated the Dr Strange movie, personally. I thought it was the worst Marvel animated movie. But I'm not a big Dr Strange fan...

 

[Agent Richard07]

I loved it.

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I hated the Dr Strange movie, personally. I thought it was the worst Marvel animated movie. But I'm not a big Dr Strange fan...

Well, obviously whether or not you like the character would affect your enjoyment. I'm obviously talking about judged on its own merits for what it is.

 

[Mr Light]

Oh yknow what, I'm thinking of the Iron Man cartoon movie. The one with the lady ghost Mandarin. THAT one was the worst!

 

[kirk55555]

I thought the Doctor Strange movie was pretty good too.

Yeah, they've done a few good ones. I liked Doctor Strange and the Hulk vs. animated stuff, along with Planet Hulk. But the young Thor and Ultimate Avengers stuff was pretty bad, and the animated Iron Man movie wasn't very good.

 

[Mr Light]

I had to check the list:

Ultimate Avengers: okay
Ultimate Avengers 2: bad
Invincible Iron Man: bad
Dr Strange: okay
Next Avengers: surprisingly good!
Hulk Versus: excellent!
Planet Hulk: excellent!
Tales of Asgard: I can't even remember this so I'm gonna go with bad?
Iron Man Technovore: mindless action but looked amazing
Avengers Confidential: haven't seen it yet

Is that really all there are?

 

[Turtletrekker]

Avengers Confidential: haven't seen it yet

Bad, bad, bad.

 

[Mr Light]

is the animation really good at least? I'm waiting for it pop up on Netflix or Red Box.

 

[Skywalker]

Marvel's animation always looked really cheap to me, at least compared to DC's.

 

[BigJake]

It's kind of like how the Avatar aliens would have fit into Star Wars. That's not a swipe at Star Wars - I hate Avatar, but the world it created would fit into that kind of world very easily.

I doubt it. The only thing Avatar has in common with Star Wars is spectacle. As to the world it creates, it's very carefully worked-out science fiction as opposed to science fantasy and its aliens and biosphere are all visibly part of a system, designed to mesh with each other (with Eywa as a kind of biological analogue of the Internet, tying everything together at the level of a collective sort-of-subconscious). They're not at all like Star Wars aliens which mainly follow the Rule of Cool as applied to a Doc Smith-style space opera. They could be fit into something like the Star Wars universe to a certain extent, but it would be awkward and unrewarding and would miss the point.

 

[Mister Fandango]

As to the world [Avatar] creates, it's very carefully worked-out science fiction as opposed to science fantasy...

<brain melts at the idea that someone actually believes that>

It's about as "carefully worked-out" as Endor was. Just because there's some bullshit about a biological internet doesn't make it anymore "carefully worked-out science fiction" than the Ewoks living in treehouses on a forest planet.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

As to the world [Avatar] creates, it's very carefully worked-out science fiction as opposed to science fantasy...

<brain melts at the idea that someone actually believes that>

It's about as "carefully worked-out" as Endor was. Just because there's some bullshit about a biological internet doesn't make it anymore "carefully worked-out science fiction" than the Ewoks living in treehouses on a forest planet.

Well, let's see. From http://avatarblog.typepad.com/avatar-blog/2010/05/five-cool-factoids-about-the-making-of-avatar.html:

It is estimated that every individual frame of the film (which amounts to 1/24 of a second) took an average of 47 man hours to complete.

Assuming that is correct, for 161 minutes of film, we have

161 min * 60 sec/min * 24 frames/sec = 231840 frames​

and

231840 frames * 47 man hours/frame = 10896480 man hours​

and

10896480 man hours * (1/24) days/hours * (1/365) years/days = 1244 man years​

to make the film.

That fits any practical definition of carefully worked out.

 

[Mister Fandango]

Uhm, no. That fits the definition of "lots of computer hours spent rendering way too much CGI for that annoying 3D fetish."