I never did... but someone accused me of trolling.
GUARDIANS of the GALAXY - Grading & Discussion
- Thread starter Agent Richard07
- Start date
Outside of some grief Gamora and Drax have very different backrounds, Gamora was an orphan and Drax's wife and child were killed by Ronan, Thanos took Gamora in and adopted her. And I'd hardly called Nebula bland, I liked how Karen Gillan played her very much different than Amy Pond on Doctor Who. And yes Ronan was out for revenge, but then villains normally want either revenge or power.
Personally I loved how James Gunn gave us such a sad scene of the death of Quill's mother with him unwilling to hold her hand to 26 years later and we see Quill dancing his way across the lanscape of Morag. I also loved how the gelled together during the prison break, not even the Avengers came together so quickly and smoothly.
Personally I loved how James Gunn gave us such a sad scene of the death of Quill's mother with him unwilling to hold her hand to 26 years later and we see Quill dancing his way across the lanscape of Morag. I also loved how the gelled together during the prison break, not even the Avengers came together so quickly and smoothly.
Last edited:
Gamora also doesn't get a very limited figure of speech, "Footloose", poles up their butts. The kind of figures of speech that don't 100% translate from language to language and culture to culture HERE let alone across the galaxy.
So, her not understanding those terms is very different than Drax not understanding the throat gesture as being a metaphor for killing someone, considering it's a relatively "common-looking" gesture that the other aliens in the room understood and is probably pretty universally understood on our planet since most people would get the idea that slitting the throat is lethal to all living creatures. Drax doesn't understand metaphors and there's many others he's exposed to over the course of the movie he didn't immediately grasp (like "things going over his head" later in the security room.)
Drax's lack of understanding of metaphors is very different than Gamora not understanding the terms "footloose" and "poles stuffed up their butts."
So, her not understanding those terms is very different than Drax not understanding the throat gesture as being a metaphor for killing someone, considering it's a relatively "common-looking" gesture that the other aliens in the room understood and is probably pretty universally understood on our planet since most people would get the idea that slitting the throat is lethal to all living creatures. Drax doesn't understand metaphors and there's many others he's exposed to over the course of the movie he didn't immediately grasp (like "things going over his head" later in the security room.)
Drax's lack of understanding of metaphors is very different than Gamora not understanding the terms "footloose" and "poles stuffed up their butts."
A
Amaris
Guest
I don't give a shit if it has Googlorp stamped on it. Whether or not I like a movie is up to the movie itself.
That may be, but I see it as very messy and cavalier scriptwriting from writers who just want to splash as many catch-phrases into their script as they can
I didn't particularly think he was a fish out of water character. I thought all the characters had gaps in their knowledge with nothing particularly standing out. To me, his role was as a bridge between worlds (so we could understand the references the character was making).
Groot is interesting for reasons completely unrelated to his abilities. Characters, even in comics, are not a sum of their powers. Particularly Marvel characters, where it's possible to have an interesting issue where a character never uses his powers or put on a costume. Groot is a character and a fun one at that.
+1.Works for me.
@FSM: I think the thing about GotG was that a lot of people didn't expect to enjoy it as much as they did. My son recommended it, and I was like, talking raccoon, really? So I went along, and enjoyed it way more than I thought I would, glad I went. It's not that it was overrated, it was more underrated.
Seriously. Anybody that claims it's the best film ever or even the best comic book film ever is clearly delusional, but as we all should know from being Star Trek fans, fandom being gung-ho about their chosen properties does not devalue the media itself...just makes some people look stupid.
We don't know that. One other person agreed with Quill when he asked, but he also says "No" twice immediately after. He seems to answer differently depending on who is looking at him for an answer...or he changes his answer because he's scared of Drax. Could go either way.
It's when you start saying that the people who liked it aren't being honest just because it's a Marvel film is where a lot of people are feeling insulted.
If someone likes the film they like it, it doesn't mean they are faking it just because of a label.
my opinion is not trolling. if it didnt have marvel stamped on it people wouldnt be trying to defend this mess
again my opinion
again my opinion
Not trolling, sure; but it's rather offensive to suggest that there's so many people completely blinded by no more than a brand name, wouldn't you say?
An absurd opinion nonetheless. It has no foundation as there is no way to even attempt to gauge the likelihood of this "opinion" as an even remotely accurate reflection of reality. Moreover, it essentially labels everyone who likes the movie (myself included) a liar. That you don't like it is crystal clear. And there's nothing wrong with that. But going beyond that point and dismissing those who do like it as dishonest or delusional (the unavoidable implication of your "opinion") is, frankly, asinine.
Incidentally, no one appears to doubt the sincerity of your disapproval of the movie. You could certainly try harder to extend that courtesy in the other direction.
I understand your point.
I just don't think the film would have been as respected, well-regarded, or popular if Marvel hadn't slapped their name on it.
That's not meant to offend anyone
I just don't think the film would have been as respected, well-regarded, or popular if Marvel hadn't slapped their name on it.
That's not meant to offend anyone
Well, let me be the first to say that I look at Marvel movies the same way I look at any kind of movie in any kind of franchise. As a seperate thing, and I judge it thus. I love the HP franchice, but not all movies are as good to me as others, same thing goes for Star Trek, Star Wars and what not.
I know of plenty of Marvel fans who loved Thor in Avengers, but his two solo movies didn't do it for them.
Your conclussion doesn't hold because you yourself have a narrow view of the world around you, and are unwilling to alter it. On this board alone, there are so many examples of people saying there are Marvel movies they don't like. The Marvel-stamp you speak of doesn't automatically make them love it.
So yes, when this movies is being praised by many, I think they simply love it, despite the flaws, which all of us saw. But we see beyong those, because we see so much we do love. And that makes it awesome for us.
“Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.”
― George Carlin
He made the same gesture at Gamora when she was in her cell.
And, as I said, many people were writing this movie off before it was released; saying it was a big risk and likely to be Marvel's first real flop given that they were making a movie centered around characters no one had ever heard of, cared about, and characters (like a walking talking tree and raccoon) that required vastly more suspension of disbelief to care about and believe.
Talking trees have already been successful in films (The Two Towers) and talking CGI creatures have been successful as well. Plus I am sick of hearing people say how risky this was for Marvel.. all that talk fed into the curiosity and more people went to see it, not less.
Yes, talking trees have been successful in films. Namely two that I can think of, The Two Towers and Wizard of Oz. And in both those cases the talking trees were exactly the same as a tree walking around fighting bad guys as a hero.
And, yes, talking CGI characters have been successful. But usually when you have a talking animal in a movie he's a side-kick, a cute-factor or something along those lines. Not a foul-mouthed, surly, rodent who's taken seriously as an action hero.
And this *was* a risk for Marvel because, again, it dealt with characters no one have even heard of or cared about and wasn't even largely connected to the greater Marvel Universe. Many people *did* expect this to be something of a failure for Marvel because it wasn't felt the property was known enough to draw people in and that there were elements in it that would be a hard sell.
Chose one from below...
1. You have to see Guardians it's just like the Avengers, but in Space.
2. You have to see Guardians because it's a bridge between Avengers 1 and 2, and you might get lost if you don't see everything. Oh, and watch Winter Soldier as well.
3. You have to see Guardians because Marvel made it.
1. You have to see Guardians it's just like the Avengers, but in Space.
2. You have to see Guardians because it's a bridge between Avengers 1 and 2, and you might get lost if you don't see everything. Oh, and watch Winter Soldier as well.
3. You have to see Guardians because Marvel made it.