Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 |OT| Anyone can save the galaxy once - SPOILERS!

GAMEPROFF said:
Enjoy the last few Movies before they are getting bought by Apple
Click to expand...

GOTG3: Oh no, Star-Lord, your shitty Microsoft Zune broke!

It's ok guys, I was able to find the 7th Infinity Stone and put it into this amazing new device called the iPhone 9S!

Tatsumaki Senpuukyaku! said:
They should have made Ego more...disconnected? Like he didn't fully understand humans I guess, so that he could have delivered the line about killing Peter's mom like he really didn't understand how big of a deal it was. As it stood though, Ego seemed to understand humans perfectly fine and probably knew what kind of reaction Peter would have.
Click to expand...

It would've been more natural for Ego's mask to slip and he either forgets her name or says he didn't actually give a shit about her, but it really hits hard when he's like 'yeah I was catching feelings, so I slowly killed her'
 
Ionno why they keep undercutting emotional moments with shitty jokes. Yondu's funeral because you cringe at David Hasselhoff.

It was alright but you can see James Gunn's imagination hit its peak.
 
Vipershark said:
Definitely disappointing.

It went from an action/comedy to a straight comedy with a few action pieces added in.
The entire movie was jokes, most of which weren't good (though admittedly I did get a few laughs in) and there was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay too much Groot oversaturation.

They went full-on memes and fan service with this movie and not in a good way. It came off as trying way too hard but I know reddit and imgur and tumblr are going to eat it up and they'll keep going for that cringeworthy aesthetic in the future.

It wasn't a bad movie, but it wasn't good either.

The first was far better.
Click to expand...
I don't much like Groot, but the only scene I disliked was the opening dance number. After that I enjoyed how he was used. Perhaps you dislike him to such a degree that a proportional amount of groot (compared to the other characters) feels like oversaturation?
 
TheDarkKnight774 said:
And even the first job is not really shown because they wanted to have groot dance on screen
Click to expand...

Movies not by James Gunn would have just shown them fighting the big monster the whole time. This was more fun.

Also I loved Baby Groot. He was having fun and so was I.

Having a little toddler like that as part of the team really helped sell the family angle. There are so many background and subtle moments of the Guardians saving Groot from trouble, like parents.
 
crisdecuba said:
I don't much like Groot, but the only scene I disliked was the opening dance number. After that I enjoyed how he was used. Perhaps you dislike him to such a degree that a proportional amount of groot (compared to the other characters) feels like oversaturation?
Click to expand...

I wasn't really a fan of Groot in the first movie but that was because I didn't really have much reason to care about the talking-tree-who-only-says-one-thing when there were better characters like Rocket and Drax to hold my interest. Despite that though, he actually had some good scenes in the first movie and proved to be a competent, even brutal fighter.

Then baby groot happened and he became an idiot, and there's even less reason to care about him.
 
Vipershark said:
I wasn't really a fan of Groot in the first movie but that was because I didn't really have much reason to care about the talking-tree-who-only-says-one-thing when there were better characters like Rocket and Drax to hold my interest. Despite that though, he actually had some good scenes in the first movie and proved to be a competent, even brutal fighter.

Then baby groot happened and he became an idiot, and there's even less reason to care about him.
Click to expand...

Groot has always been a lovable idiot though. He spent his introductory scene in GotG 1 drinking fountain water instead of listening to Rocket.
 
Secret Fawful said:
Child = idiot. Got it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because children are incapable of telling one button apart from another or following a direction like "open the drawer and get my fin out" resulting in totally hilarious hijinks of them bringing everything EXCEPT your fin from the drawer!

Those darn kids!
 
Aloof is probably the better word.

I thought Gunn sidestepped what i'd imagined to be a fairly rote battle against against not Shuma-Gorath with the Groot stuff. I mostly looked at the shit going down behind the foreground though, some great actiony stuff there. Almost made me miss 3D.
 
Glass Rebel said:
Baby Groot is 4 months old.
Click to expand...
And yet he understands english and can properly verbalize the word freakin, except not freakin.

Him "being 4 months old" isn't really an excuse.
Either he's a baby and acts like a baby with all that comes with that, such as not understanding words, or walking, or doing anything, or he isn't a baby and has some kind of deficiency.

"He's an alien tree, go with it"
I mean I can't really argue with that, whatever
 
AndersK said:
Aloof is probably the better word.

I thought Gunn sidestepped what i'd imagined to be a fairly rote battle against against not Shuma-Gorath with the Groot stuff. I mostly looked at the shit going down behind the foreground though, some great actiony stuff there. Almost made me miss 3D.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it was a great way to do an action set-piece in a way that avoided being a generic action set-piece.
 
Vipershark said:
I wasn't really a fan of Groot in the first movie but that was because I didn't really have much reason to care about the talking-tree-who-only-says-one-thing when there were better characters like Rocket and Drax to hold my interest. Despite that though, he actually had some good scenes in the first movie and proved to be a competent, even brutal fighter.

Then baby groot happened and he became an idiot, and there's even less reason to care about him.
Click to expand...
I understand why you dislike him - it's a type of character (cute but dumb... maybe like Joey on friends? :-)) that doesn't work for everyone. However I don't think it's accurate to say that he was disproportionately represented in the movie.
 
Saw the film last night and really enjoyed it. With all the comic book/cartoon/etc... movies coming out now, Guardians really stands out for not just being a "fun" movie, but for also just embracing it's comic book origins and continuing to push what is "acceptable" in a comic book film. Even after the first Guardians, I would still see discussions even on GAF with people arguing why film adaption changes to source material "had to be done" because "x is too cheesy" or "take your nostalgia glasses off, it wouldn't look good now". This movie is making that outdated argument even harder.
 
Vipershark said:
Yes he is. The first movie repeatedly references how promiscuous he is with female aliens (the "Jackson Pollock Painting" joke is the most obvious example but really it's everywhere all over the movie) which is reinforced by him flirting with the Gold lady, but Gamora being there causes him to knock it off when she gives him the "I'll kill you" look. Sure, he chose to settle down with her, but if she wasn't around and/or had she not been in the vicinity you can be sure it would have gone further. Maybe not all the way, but further than it did, for sure.
He's definitely still obscene though, he directly admits he'd "create some fucked-up shit" using his god powers and that's just one example of many throughout both movies. He's not malicious about it or anything, but he is definitely obscene with his humor and thoughts.
Click to expand...

Are you critiquing the character in general or the character as portrayed in *this* movie? Because your stance leans so heavily on his portrayal in the first movie. In this movie the most you get is a couple of allusions from Ego and a quickly muted return flirtation from Peter. As far as being obscene, I don't see it. There's a difference between making a couple of low brow jokes and being obscene and Peter is far more the former in this. Though this is likely just a difference in our individual barometers for what equates obscene.

Vipershark said:
You aren't necessarily wrong, but it wasn't done very well. In the original movie I felt that Rocket was a well-rounded character who even though he was a raccoon had a lot of potential and backstory to go into. This movie just has him kind of moping around a lot and pushing people away and while they do make some allusions to the scientists that caused him to be that way, there would have been infinitely more payoff had they actually done flashback scenes showing what caused him to become so angry or in some way had Rocket be able to strike back at the people who experimented on him or use his skills to overcome his issues or something.
Instead it's just kind of "you push people away, stop that" and he's like "oh i do, huh" and ...that's really about it.
There wasn't much of a payoff with his conflicts with Quill throughout the movie either, they just kind of stopped arguing.
Click to expand...

The movie doesn't focus on it because they can't. This is a large ensemble film and there just isn't room for every character to have in depth exploration of their issues. And Rocket's defense mechanism isn't at all solved. Recognizing that that is what he's doing does not a solution make and they stop fighting for the same reason they did in the first film. The threat becomes large enough that they have to focus on it entirely instead of being self indulgent.

Vipershark said:
That's the problem, Drax's only real scene of any substance in this movie was the one where Mantis felt his sadness for his family. I just remembered the scene where he flies behind the ship with the gun and that was kind of cool, but it still felt like a waste of potential overall. During the opening fight where there WAS hand-to-hand going on they could have at least had him do some cool brutal warrior stuff to take down the enemy but they reserved that for Gamora instead since he took the comedy option. I feel like it would have been better to have Gamora's big scenes be the fights with her sister nd Drax could have been given the kill on the big bad at the beginning to balance it out a bit, but instead they make him look like an idiot for laughs. You do have a point in that there wasn't much hand-to-hand going on but they could have tried to maximize it where possible, y'know?
Otherwise it was just HA HA HA LOOK AT ME I MADE A FUNNY and when it worked it worked well, but when it didn't it fell hard.
Click to expand...

Again, ensemble film with not a ton of time for every character to have meaningful exposition and focus. And it wouldn't even have been appropriate for Drax to have a heavy focus here as his major hook lies directly in Thanos. He had more character moments than just with Mantis. He also brought wisdom (in his own weird way) to Peter in the People who Dance. His conclusion isn't objectively fact but he was the only one to recognize and vocalize the differences in types between Gamora and Peter (and later between himself and Mantis). Those who express everything outwardly (Rocket, Peter, and Mantis) and those who shield their emotions with a veneer (Gamora, Drax, and Yondu). Drax being more of the stoic type alongside his personal views on acceptable expression means that his interactions are going to be limited. He will always view and express everything simplistically regardless of the underlying complexity. Because that's who he is at his core.

Vipershark said:
What do you really even want me to say that hasn't been already said? They wasted too much time on Groot-centric scenes because he was the popular character from the first movie. It was 100% pandering. "But it was only three scenes!" Yeah and they were all long and had no real overall substance to the story and were only set up for laughs.
Groot was mostly a joke character in the original as well but still managed to have legitimate characterization which wasn't present in this movie. They made him worse and turned him into a moron.
Click to expand...

He's not a moron. He's a child. This is represented in his extreme mood swings, lack of focus, and inability to retain/understand anything slightly intricate or complex. Being a child AND being of such small stature with zero ability to communicate effectively with anyone that isn't Rocket limit him as a character. Either he plays the role he played in the film or he's virtually non-existent. It would make zero sense for him to have the emotions and intelligence of an adult and just be tiny. He has to grow and learn like any other living being.

Vipershark said:
It absolutely does. The movie only has X amount of screen time and X amount of budget. The more time they dedicate to shoehorning in jokes as opposed to giving the characters actual characterization, the less time there is for this characterization to take place, meaning it'll hen have to be squeezed into future movies.

I have no problem with the movie having jokes, nor do I have any problem with comedies; as I said before, I greatly enjoyed GotG1. What bothered me is that the movie came across as though they specifically tried to fit in as many jokes as possible, often to the detriment of everything else that was going on.
I feel that the comparison I made to Portal 2 was pretty apt: Had the game spent most of its script making callbacks to cake jokes it'd be boring and annoying, but instead it went to do new things and made its own jokes and references (see: Potato memes). GotG2 on the other hand feels like it tried to rehash what GotG1 created while upping the percentage of it as far as possible, as opposed to building on the base that the first movie created with its own original stuff.
Click to expand...

The only thing that effectively takes screen time are physical gags. One liners don't detract from screen time for development. They can only detract from emotional impact (which they did at times in this film). While I do think they went just a tad too far with the gags (and I said as much in my own mini review earlier in the thread) it wasn't so much that it detracted from character development. That was limited primarily due to the size of the cast, which was grown significantly this time around with Yondu and Nebula development. The main cast has already been characterized with the first film. You don't need that again in the sequel. You need development. And while not everyone saw significant development, no one was ignored and there was progress made for all of them. Progress which can be built upon for the next film (which everyone knew was coming regardless).

Vipershark said:
Yeah, because children are incapable of telling one button apart from another or following a direction like "open the drawer and get my fin out" resulting in totally hilarious hijinks of them bringing everything EXCEPT your fin from the drawer!

Those darn kids!
Click to expand...

A toddler, which is essentially what Groot is in this film, absolutely has trouble retaining directions for more than a few moments. There's a reason why early education tends to rely on repetition. Toddlers also have trouble with focus, which is what was showcased by Groot constantly bringing other things that caught his interest rather than the item that he'd never seen before.

Vipershark said:
And yet he understands english and can properly verbalize the word freakin, except not freakin.

Him "being 4 months old" isn't really an excuse.
Either he's a baby and acts like a baby with all that comes with that, such as not understanding words, or walking, or doing anything, or he isn't a baby and has some kind of deficiency.
Click to expand...

A Toddler understands language just fine though they don't understand complex expressions in language (metaphor, simile, personification, etc..) and a Toddler's vocabulary is absolutely reflective of their surroundings. Growing up being primarily parented by Rocket of all people would absolutely result in a foul mouthed Toddler.

I don't want to presume anything about your life but your stance on this gives the impression what you haven't been around a lot of small children. And there's nothing wrong with that at all. It shouldn't be expected that the audience does have a lot of experience with small children. But that's part of the beauty of Groots portrayal. For those with little context, he's funny. For those with proper context, he's funny because he's a toddler.
 
The worst part about li'l Groot for me was that the first trailer kinda blew the button-gag. Would've floored me proper if i had'nt seen it before.
 
Vipershark said:
And yet he understands english and can properly verbalize the word freakin, except not freakin.

Him "being 4 months old" isn't really an excuse.
Either he's a baby and acts like a baby with all that comes with that, such as not understanding words, or walking, or doing anything, or he isn't a baby and has some kind of deficiency.
Click to expand...

The pedantry in this post is overwhelming.

I feel bad for people who let intrusive thought processes like this interfere with having fun with a superhero movie lmao.

Went to see the movie last night with a couple coworkers and we were all dying laughing at the Baby Groot scenes :)
 
With a few of the characters calling Rocket a fox, I was expecting a montage of him fucking shit up to the tune of "Fox on the Run" and I never got it. :(

Was the song even in the movie? I don't remember hearing it.
 
AndersK said:
Groot has always been a lovable idiot though. He spent his introductory scene in GotG 1 drinking fountain water instead of listening to Rocket.
Click to expand...

Also:
Rocket: "Put him in the bag!"
*Groot wraps up Gamora with branches*
Rocket: "No! Not her, him. Learn genders, man!"

Groot: "I am Groot"
Rocket: "So what it's better than 11% What the hell does that have to do with anything?"
Peter: "Thank you, Groot. Thank you. Groot's the only one of you that has a clue-"
*Groot eats twig off his shoulder*
 
It's weird but there's a throwaway line that I thought was gonna lead somewhere. Right before things picked up, Ego told Peter that Gamora should be grateful because Peter saved her from her old life. I thought that was a "too much info" moment, because I'm not sure how Ego knew that. I guess he knew who Thanos and his children are. It was just an odd line.
 
RyanardoDaVinci said:
With a few of the characters calling Rocket a fox, I was expecting a montage of him fucking shit up to the tune of "Fox on the Run" and I never got it. :(

Was the song even in the movie? I don't remember hearing it.
Click to expand...

Would have been good for the scene in the woods, but maybe a little too on the nose?
 
One thing that didn't make sense to me was why Peter's father chose to tell him about putting the tumor in his moms head. I enjoyed the reaction, certainly, but it felt needless and stupid for Ego to do. Anything I'm missing?
(Sorry if this has already been asked like 17 times).
 
crisdecuba said:
One thing that didn't make sense to me was why Peter's father chose to tell him about putting the tumor in his moms head. I enjoyed the reaction, certainly, but it felt needless and stupid for Ego to do. Anything I'm missing?
Click to expand...

It's another element of his self-centered characterization. Ego is so full of himself that he thinks that simply explaining his plan should make sense to everyone as the best thing to do. Especially since he sees his children as worthless as anything except as extensions to his own power. This is part of the reason why he spends the fight not understanding why Peter is resisting. In his mind, this is Peter's purpose and being part of Ego, he should just get it and nothing else should matter.
 
I thought Ego was a weak villain in terms of motivation. What's the point of making a planet into your own essence when it isn't supposed to have other lifeforms on it?

Say he did accomplish all that. Okay. Now what? You're supposed to be alone in the universe with every planet being part of you? What is in the purpose in that?

What's the difference between being alone by yourself without having any planet being part of you and being alone by yourself with other planets being part of you? Nothing really.
 
crisdecuba said:
One thing that didn't make sense to me was why Peter's father chose to tell him about putting the tumor in his moms head. I enjoyed the reaction, certainly, but it felt needless and stupid for Ego to do. Anything I'm missing?
(Sorry if this has already been asked like 17 times).
Click to expand...

Because ultimately he does not quite understand humans and human emotion as much as he seems to think he does.

He believes that the newly bestowed insight Peter has will allow him to take this information in stride. I mean, he just effectively told him what he did to all his siblings and what he intends to do to the rest of the universe.
 
Wellington said:
Ego was a bit contrived and the final battle was just as bad, the dude is a celestial and manifested a human form.... who cares if you beat the crap out of the human form. Have to believe he "allowed" himself to lose, right?

EIther way, it was fun I just question some of the decisions made.
Click to expand...

I believe he was never worried about his human form, and was unaware of the actual threat till it was too late to do anything about it.

I'm just surprised he wasn't able to materialize himself in multiple forms at once, especially on his own planet.

But then again, over millions of years, I don't think he's ever really had to, as his planet seems to relatively be left alone.
 
Jest Chillin said:
It's another element of his self-centered characterization. Ego is so full of himself that he thinks that simply explaining his plan should make sense to everyone as the best thing to do. Especially since he sees his children as worthless as anything except as extensions to his own power. This is part of the reason why he spends the fight not understanding why Peter is resisting. In his mind, this is Peter's purpose and being part of Ego, he should just get it and nothing else should matter.
Click to expand...

Ego also doesn't have a mother. He seems woefully unable to emphatize with anything he himself hasn't experienced.

Also almost too on the nose that Ego spends half the movie projecting a false image - The ego is our social mask, that we project to the outside world. Keanuwhoa.gif
 
Kadey said:
I thought Ego was a weak villain in terms of motivation. What's the point of making a planet into your own essence when it isn't supposed to have other lifeforms on it?

Say he did accomplish all that. Okay. Now what? You're supposed to be alone in the universe with every planet being part of you? What is in the purpose in that?

What's the difference between being alone by yourself without having any planet being part of you and being alone by yourself with other planets being part of you? Nothing really.
Click to expand...

His name is 'Ego'. That alone should explain his motivation.

His search for other beings worthy of him is fruitless / a sham: he will ultimately always find anything or anyone that his NOT him fundamentally lacking in some way. This is the realization that drove him to set his plan into motion.

Secret Fawful said:
I'm pretty sure you see a flash of humanoid movement in Peter's eyes when he says he can see Eternity.
Click to expand...

You are a dick, you know that? Now I have to go an re-watch the movie just to confirm/deny this.
 
Puck Beaverton said:
Nerds are the literal worst when it comes to movie criticism. Focusing on details that don't matter.
Click to expand...

"You guys wanna talk about the parallels and contrasts in Starlord and Rocket's respective relationships with Yondu? The exploration of parental abuse in Gamorra and Nebula's arc? How the theme of parenthood extends past Ego and Starlords relationship into everyone's relationship with baby groot?"

*crickets...*

"Is the cartoon tree a little too dumb?"

*5 pages of debate and discussion follow*
 
Kadey said:
I thought Ego was a weak villain in terms of motivation. What's the point of making a planet into your own essence when it isn't supposed to have other lifeforms on it?

Say he did accomplish all that. Okay. Now what? You're supposed to be alone in the universe with every planet being part of you? What is in the purpose in that?

What's the difference between being alone by yourself without having any planet being part of you and being alone by yourself with other planets being part of you? Nothing really.
Click to expand...
His...his name is Ego. His motivation is in his name
 
I just realized the Guardians are kinda similar to the Bebop crew. Outcasts and loners who come together and fuck around trying to outrun their insecurities.
 
Puck Beaverton said:
Nerds are the literal worst when it comes to movie criticism. Focusing on details that don't matter.
Click to expand...

Words to live by.
TWwk63N.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LTTP: Guardians of the Galaxy 3
40
2K
Doom85 replied
Once Upon a Time in Hollywood 2 in the works at Netflix -- written by Quentin Tarantino, directed by David Fincher
2
58
2K
DKehoe replied
Can anyone suggest movies where the failure character is trying to do one good thing?
22
776
Men_in_Boxes replied
D12 released two new albums - Return of the Dozen, Vol 1 & 2
5
1K
Soodanim replied
Deadpool & Wolverine Open Spoilers Thread
|OT| Spoilers  3 4 5 6 7
326
22K
near replied
Top Bottom