Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2
- Thread starter Kemaiku
- Start date
I considered it. then, I remembered who was in charge of the film. With Gunn, it could go either way. I suppose I don't have much faith in the writer of Scooby-Doo and Scooby-Doo: Monsters Unleashed.
So, the movie is goofy enough for Baby Groot, but Ego the Living Planet in his real form isn't "relateable", so he has to be in human form? There is no reason the villain of a superhero film has to be relateable, at least in a case like this. He's a living planet, he's not supposed to be relateable. I'll grant you that apparently Ego had taken human form before Gunn came around. But, he didn't exactly have a kid in that form, did he?
Plus, he wasn't really the human form. His planet body existed, and his mind never left. It was either a crazy clone type thing one time, or basically a human shaped puppet. That's pretty different then what Gunn seems to be doing. To be clear, I think Ego is great, and having him in a Marvel movie is awesome. I just wish he was being used fully, as an actual Living Planet, and not in a way that seems like the people in charge are either ashamed of the character or don't care about the character at all. That's not to say we won't see his real form once or twice, but that's what he should be the whole movie, The Living Planet. That's an interesting character, and a huge threat to the heroes. He's also unique, certainly more then Kurt Russel walking around as "Ego".
In the comics Groot's regeneration wasn't done to be "cute" or sell toys, and it didn't last very long. He also didn't, from what I remember, have a bunch of wacky adventures in that form. I'd take "Baby Groot" if he was just in the movie long enough for Groot to suddenly grow large
So when George Lucas makes Ewoks or Jar Jar Binks for kids, its generally unpopular. When James Gunn does it, its a good thing
Yep, I'm sure he took on two (and more to come) of these films because of his utter hatred for the source material. That makes a ton of sense.
It gets him work, he gets money and more fame, and he has more creative control then basically any other company would give him over an established company. In that situation, what director would leave?
New creative forces could easily make things better, and make use of several Marvel space properties Gunn has either outright stated he dislikes (Nova) or stuff he obviously doesn't care about (Moondragon, Quasar, Adam Warlock, etc). Plus, we probably would see the end of Baby Groot, have better writing, a better villain, and maybe more control by the MCU creative people. There seems to be no downside to Gunn leaving in my opinion. I doubt they'll force him to go, but I'm betting he'll either be lured away, or maybe he'll start feeling "artsy" and move on from blockbuster type movies.
Anyway, to be clear, I liked Guardians of the Galaxy. Its not my favorite MCU movie, and probably not in my top 5, but it was good. I'm sure I'll like the sequel. I'm just ready to see different people explore the "cosmic" part of the MCU, people who like the material more and want to make a good movie over making a toy mascot for little kids (in their PG-13 movie). Hopefully Captain Marvel will have a bit of that with the Kree when that movie comes out, but that's still Earth focused. I want to see Nova, Quasar and all the other cool cosmic characters (that Marvel still have the film rights to), and with Gunn if he uses any of them it won't be well.
Oh, so instead of Groot being a problem, the movie is now completely out of sync for when Infinity War happens. I had assumed they would at least cameo in that, since Thanos is in it, but that means there will either be a huge time jump between GotG 2 and Infinity War, or GotG 1 took place years ahead of the movies released around the same time.
Last edited:
I considered it. then, I remembered who was in charge of the film. With Gunn, it could go either way. I suppose I don't have much faith in the writer of Scooby-Doo and Scooby-Doo: Monsters Unleashed.
So, the movie is goofy enough for Baby Groot, but Ego the Living Planet in his real form isn't "relateable", so he has to be in human form? There is no reason the villain of a superhero film has to be relateable, at least in a case like this. He's a living planet, he's not supposed to be relateable. I'll grant you that apparently Ego had taken human form before Gunn came around. But, he didn't exactly have a kid in that form, did he? Plus, he wasn't really the human form. His planet body existed, and his mind never left. It was either a crazy clone type thing, or basically a human shaped puppet. That's pretty different then what Gunn seems to be doing. To be clear, I think Ego is great, and having him in a Marvel movie is awesome. I just wish he was being used fully, as an actual Living Planet, and not in a way that seems like the people in charge are either ashamed of the character or don't care about the character at all.
In the comics Groot's regeneration wasn't done to be "cute" or sell toys, and it didn't last very long. He also didn't, from what I remember, have a bunch of wacky adventures in that form. I'd take "Baby Groot" if he was just in the movie long enough for Groot to suddenly grow large
So when George Lucas makes Ewoks or Jar Jar Binks for kids, its generally unpopular. When James Gunn does it, its a good thing
It gets him work, he gets money and more fame, and he has more creative control then basically any other company would give him over an established company. In that situation, what director would leave?
New creative forces could easily make things better, and make use of several Marvel space properties Gunn has either outright stated he dislikes (Nova) or stuff he obviously doesn't care about (Moondragon, Quasar, Adam Warlock, etc). Plus, we probably would see the end of Baby Groot, have better writing, a better villain, and maybe more control by the MCU creative people. There seems to be no downside to Gunn leaving in my opinion. I doubt they'll force him to go, but I'm betting he'll either be lured away, or maybe he'll start feeling "artsy" and move on from blockbuster type movies.
Anyway, to be clear, I liked Guardians of the Galaxy. Its not my favorite MCU movie, and probably not in my top 5, but it was good. I'm sure I'll like the sequel. I'm just ready to see different people explore the "cosmic" part of the MCU, people who like the material more and want to make a good movie over making a toy mascot for little kids (in their PG-13 movie). Hopefully Captain Marvel will have a bit of that with the Kree when that movie comes out, but that's still Earth focused. I want to see Nova, Quasar and all the other cool cosmic characters (that Marvel still have the film rights to), and with Gunn if he uses any of them it won't be well.
Oh, so instead of Groot being a problem, the movie is now completely out of sync for when Infinity War happens. I had assumed they would at least cameo in that, since Thanos is in it, but that means there will either be a huge time jump between GotG 2 and Infinity War, or GotG 1 took place years ahead of the movies released around the same time.
So… how would you feel about James Gunn in ST4? Be honest, are you in favor or against?
Teen Groot!
Nicole Perlman certainly does deserve some credit, but it was Gunn who made it work. He took a couple of passes at Perlman's script himself before shooting, after all. His second draft came about because Joss Whedon commented that his first script "needed more James Gunn."
I AM Groot!^^Please noooo! He'll wind up being all emo and goth...And angsy.
So… how would you feel about James Gunn in ST4? Be honest, are you in favor or against?
It depends. Is this the type of change where they just stick a scene into The Voyage Home of him, I don't know, reacting to the Bird of Prey landing/taking off? Or is he being "Forrest Gump'd" into the movie, like the DS9 crew during Trials and Tribble-ations? If its the latter, maybe they could make him the punk Spock knocks out, or one of the humans on the trashed Earth right before the whales are brought to the future.
More like: "I," <insert tree-like sigh> "am Groot..."
We were talking about James Gunn's fitness to continue helming the franchise according to K5s. Why would I bring up someone else who he wasn't directing his ire at and further complicate the discussion just to needlessly list the full writing credits of the film, which weren't in dispute by anyone?
That's so petty. You're not arguing on the merits of the previous GotG film, which even you acknowledged you enjoyed, or the current trailers, you're just going for a cheap shot based on his past credits.
No, you were the one making the silliness argument (regarding Baby Groot), not me. It has nothing to do with goofiness. It's a practicality and emoting issue, among other reasons. Why does Spider-Man ridiculously take off his mask every five minutes (or half of it gets blown off)? Why do we always get close-up shots of Tony's face inside the Iron Man helmet? Why does Batman make an armored suit with an exposed mouth hole that Superman could easily vaporize if he were so inclined? It's because audiences take their cue from the heroes or villains facial expressions. There are counter-examples of course, but generally the principle holds true.
If Ego shares substantial dialogue with the team and Peter Quill in the film, which given his status as Quill's (and Mantis') father he probably will, that means putting Quill in a position where he can be having a conversation with him. If Ego is the size of a planet, that would make Quill too tiny to visibly occupy the same frame at the same time and would require a radical shift in perspective between every shot. Also, (though the movies don't seem too concerned with physics) you can't carry on a conversation in open space. If Ego communicates telepathically so we can focus on Quill's face, then you're not seeing the planet talking and it's just a big rock in space. The compromise between the two is to have Ego detach one of his constituent parts to form a humanoid avatar, played by Kurt Russell, because fuck yeah, Snake Plissken. This also allows him to have a child and to raise Mantis, which is far more interesting.
Where are you getting your information from the Ego is the chief villain of the film? It's my understanding that the main villain is going to be Ayesha/Kismet, who initially hires the Guardians for a mission but then they become enemies after that fails, and members of the Ravagers who mutiny against Yondu, with Nebula taking on a sort of love/hate relationship with her sister Gamora.
https://www.moviefone.com/2016/06/02/villain-of-guardians-of-the-galaxy-vol-2-ayesha/
Yes, Ego didn't have a kid in his humanoid forms before, but so what? You have to learn to be more flexible and allow for some changes.
You're splitting hairs. It's Ego in humanoid form. It's been done before. Deal with it.
I wasn't the one who suggested Baby Groot was only there to be cute and sell toys, you were. What is your problem with turning around your own arguments onto me? What I said is that there's nothing wrong with wanting to sell toys as long as you still make the character enjoyable in the process, and judging by the reaction, most people seem to be happy with Baby Groot.
Only if you didn't read what I actually said about there being nothing wrong with appealing to kids too as long as you don't compromise the character in the process. Jar Jar (IMO) was a poorly conceived, questionably accented, lowest common denominator scatological slapstick comedy performing, Roger Rabbit ripoff made as a proof of concept for CGI characters by George Lucas and his yes men that was so bad he went from being a key player in the first film to a lesser role in each subsequent film. The Ewoks were fine. Baby Groot from what I've seen so far looks hilarious and can still kick ass, and will eventually (probably in this film) be back to full size.So when George Lucas makes Ewoks or Jar Jar Binks for kids, its generally unpopular. When James Gunn does it, its a good thing
Good heavens, a time jump of a couple years. However will scifi fans cope?
He'd be playing Amanda Grayson.
I realize that some people have already made up their minds, but James Gunn explains the decision to keep Groot little, and that it wasn't driven by the thought of toy sales.
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/guar...galaxy-vol-2-director-james-gunn-says-a147453
https://www.comicbookmovie.com/guar...galaxy-vol-2-director-james-gunn-says-a147453
Makes sense to me. Thanks for sharing.
Looks awesome, dug the original and can't wait for this one and hope they do another Howard cameo
Ok, wait a second. What the fuck do you mean Ego raised Mantis? Ok, yeah, fuck Gunn. baby Groot is annoying, and Ego the Living Human was stupid, but at this point he's giving a big "fuck you" to Steve Englehart along with everything else. Its not like I'm a Mantis expert or super fan, I read a little bit of her Avengers run and a good amount of the GotG comic run she was in, but this is just moronic. I mean, at least Star Lord's family back story and origin wasn't super essential to the comic character for most of his existence, so giving him a (much worse) back story doesn't really change the character. I had enough problem with Mantis just being an alien and having no connection to the real character already, but not only is she completely different from the real character, she's now the daughter (either born or at least adopted) of Ego the Living Human?
At this point, we'll be luck if GotG 3 doesn't introduce Moondragon as the daughter of Cosmo the talking space dog. This is what happens when a writer uses a character after barely glancing at a wikipedia page, getting bored half way through skimming the page, and just writing the character based on the fact that they like their design.
Oh, so Gunn seems to not want to use or even mention Adam Warlock, but the extremely obscure villain that really shouldn't exist without Adam warlock is the villain for GotG 2? I had literally heard nothing of this character being in the movie. Hopefully it means Marvel didn't want Gunn to touch any of their good cosmic villains, so he's pulling from the bottom of the barrel stuff. Well, it could be worse. The villain could be a monstrous version of Scrappy Doo, like in one of Gunn's previous films
There is nothing wrong with selling toys. its "making the character enjoyable" that they haven't figured out yet, although to be fair no writer, ever, could make Baby Groot work as more than a one off joke concept, or a very, very short lived character.
From what I've seen so far, Baby groot makes Jar Jar look hilarious, and I say that as someone who hates Jar Jar. I'd say they're about equal when it comes to being poorly conceived. I'll admit that Groot doesn't have the questionable accent and, hopefully, not the scatological comedy. But, he's just about as bad a character from what I've seen, just in different ways.
But honestly, at this point I'm pissed off about Mantis more then I am about Groot being ruined. I don't think I've ever been this unexcited for, and preemptively pissed off at, a Marvel movie. I was probably more interested in Batman v Superman then I am for GotG 2, and I knew that movie would suck before I saw it. It looks like Thor: the dark world won't be he "least good" marvel movie in a few months time. Hopefully it won't be the first actually bad MCU movie, something I always thought was, when it comes to my tastes in superhero movies at least, an impossibility.
Ok, wait a second. What the fuck do you mean Ego raised Mantis? Ok, yeah, fuck Gunn. baby Groot is annoying, and Ego the Living Human was stupid, but at this point he's giving a big "fuck you" to Steve Englehart along with everything else. Its not like I'm a Mantis expert or super fan, I read a little bit of her Avengers run and a good amount of the GotG comic run she was in, but this is just moronic. I mean, at least Star Lord's family back story and origin wasn't super essential to the comic character for most of his existence, so giving him a (much worse) back story doesn't really change the character. I had enough problem with Mantis just being an alien and having no connection to the real character already, but not only is she completely different from the real character, she's now the daughter (either born or at least adopted) of Ego the Living Human?
At this point, we'll be luck if GotG 3 doesn't introduce Moondragon as the daughter of Cosmo the talking space dog. This is what happens when a writer uses a character after barely glancing at a wikipedia page, getting bored half way through skimming the page, and just writing the character based on the fact that they like their design.
Oh, so Gunn seems to not want to use or even mention Adam Warlock, but the extremely obscure villain that really shouldn't exist without Adam warlock is the villain for GotG 2? I had literally heard nothing of this character being in the movie. Hopefully it means Marvel didn't want Gunn to touch any of their good cosmic villains, so he's pulling from the bottom of the barrel stuff. Well, it could be worse. The villain could be a monstrous version of Scrappy Doo, like in one of Gunn's previous films
There is nothing wrong with selling toys. its "making the character enjoyable" that they haven't figured out yet, although to be fair no writer, ever, could make Baby Groot work as more than a one off joke concept, or a very, very short lived character.
From what I've seen so far, Baby groot makes Jar Jar look hilarious, and I say that as someone who hates Jar Jar. I'd say they're about equal when it comes to being poorly conceived. I'll admit that Groot doesn't have the questionable accent and, hopefully, not the scatological comedy. But, he's just about as bad a character from what I've seen, just in different ways.
But honestly, at this point I'm pissed off about Mantis more then I am about Groot being ruined. I don't think I've ever been this unexcited for, and preemptively pissed off at, a Marvel movie. I was probably more interested in Batman v Superman then I am for GotG 2, and I knew that movie would suck before I saw it. It looks like Thor: the dark world won't be he "least good" marvel movie in a few months time. Hopefully it won't be the first actually bad MCU movie, something I always thought was, when it comes to my tastes in superhero movies at least, an impossibility.
NO ONE CARES.
Ok, wait a second. What the fuck do you mean Ego raised Mantis? Ok, yeah, fuck Gunn. baby Groot is annoying, and Ego the Living Human was stupid, but at this point he's giving a big "fuck you" to Steve Englehart along with everything else. Its not like I'm a Mantis expert or super fan, I read a little bit of her Avengers run and a good amount of the GotG comic run she was in, but this is just moronic. I mean, at least Star Lord's family back story and origin wasn't super essential to the comic character for most of his existence, so giving him a (much worse) back story doesn't really change the character. I had enough problem with Mantis just being an alien and having no connection to the real character already, but not only is she completely different from the real character, she's now the daughter (either born or at least adopted) of Ego the Living Human?
At this point, we'll be luck if GotG 3 doesn't introduce Moondragon as the daughter of Cosmo the talking space dog. This is what happens when a writer uses a character after barely glancing at a wikipedia page, getting bored half way through skimming the page, and just writing the character based on the fact that they like their design.
Oh, so Gunn seems to not want to use or even mention Adam Warlock, but the extremely obscure villain that really shouldn't exist without Adam warlock is the villain for GotG 2? I had literally heard nothing of this character being in the movie. Hopefully it means Marvel didn't want Gunn to touch any of their good cosmic villains, so he's pulling from the bottom of the barrel stuff. Well, it could be worse. The villain could be a monstrous version of Scrappy Doo, like in one of Gunn's previous films
There is nothing wrong with selling toys. its "making the character enjoyable" that they haven't figured out yet, although to be fair no writer, ever, could make Baby Groot work as more than a one off joke concept, or a very, very short lived character.
From what I've seen so far, Baby groot makes Jar Jar look hilarious, and I say that as someone who hates Jar Jar. I'd say they're about equal when it comes to being poorly conceived. I'll admit that Groot doesn't have the questionable accent and, hopefully, not the scatological comedy. But, he's just about as bad a character from what I've seen, just in different ways.
But honestly, at this point I'm pissed off about Mantis more then I am about Groot being ruined. I don't think I've ever been this unexcited for, and preemptively pissed off at, a Marvel movie. I was probably more interested in Batman v Superman then I am for GotG 2, and I knew that movie would suck before I saw it. It looks like Thor: the dark world won't be he "least good" marvel movie in a few months time. Hopefully it won't be the first actually bad MCU movie, something I always thought was, when it comes to my tastes in superhero movies at least, an impossibility.
Whatever, there's no talking to you. Have fun pouting in a corner about a movie you haven't even seen yet.
I'm preeeeetty sure he succeeded. Somehow I think your twisted view of the world is translating into your head as "my opinion is the everyday man's opinion, and I'm just an average person not a grumpy forum troll." That's the only thing that really makes sense here.
Similar threads
