• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Time to eat crow regarding "Guardians of the Galaxy"

Status
Not open for further replies.
The GAF eating crow trail is long and vast. See for example many examples including paying for online multiplayer (PSN) and other future crow-eating endeavors such as digital library ownership, VR, PSNow...
 
I think the most surprising thing about this is learning that GotG cost 170mil to make. For some reason I thought it would be even more than that.
 

Dug

Banned
Those make sense, most are ingrained in American popculture,
Who the fuck besides an extreme niche of even comic fans knew of GotG?

Marvel knows what they are doing.
I knew about Rocket Raccoon from MvC3. Didn't know about the other team members though.
 

Raxus

Member
I think the most surprising thing about this is learning that GotG cost 170mil to make. For some reason I thought it would be even more than that.

Yeah I was thinking they must have payed the other actors a relatively small amount because damn that movie was filled to the brim with (good) CG.
 
Comic books or not it looked like a super fun sci-fi movie and a lot more interesting than yet another Captain America or Iron Man. I really love the poster for it too, it kinda reminds me of Star Wars in a way.

This is how I got 2 people to come along to GotG. They watched Cap 2 with me and were pretty sick of having to know/remember how everything ties in, since one of them hadn't seen Avengers and wasn't sure what was going on.
After seeing a GotG they were interested since it looked like a standalone Marvel movie.
 

Trickster

Member
All this conflict...

iSnV2LQmPF54f.gif

Where is that from ?
 

Toparaman

Banned
That first batch of quoted posts in the OP didn't say the movie would bomb or be bad. They just stated they had never heard of GoG before.
 

DodgerSan

Member
Yeah. Since the first trailer I had good feelings about this movie. I was constantly saying to my friends "Trust me."

Glad I'm not the one eating crow! :)
 

Dalek

Member
Yeah I was thinking they must have payed the other actors a relatively small amount because damn that movie was filled to the brim with (good) CG.

Marvel is notoriously cheap with their actors. Chris Hemsworth was only paid 200,000 dollars for The Avengers.
 

Trey

Member
A bit early to pull some receipts I think, but a bomb this ain't.

I see we're still pretending TWS is some sort of smart political/spy thriller.

It's just a fun movie to me. People will read from it what they want.
 

Instro

Member
Marvel is notoriously cheap with their actors. Chris Hemsworth was only paid 200,000 dollars for The Avengers.

Its sort of meaningless because either they will eventually get paid big money by Marvel when they sign a new contract, or much like Chris Hemsworth use the fame to make a shit ton of money in other films. He was one of the highest paid actors last year.
 
That's some pretty big reaching for crow in that OP. I'll happily send mine back.

Some of the effects in that released trailer that I commented about DO still look like shit.
 

duckroll

Member
That's some pretty big reaching for crow in that OP. I'll happily send mine back.

Some of the effects in that released trailer that I commented about DO still look like shit.

Yeah you can totally get a crow refund. Have you seen the movie yet? Lots of the effects in the actual film look like shit too! I love the art direction, but the visual effects and cinematography totally doesn't do it justice. There are some pretty nice establishing shots, but by and large it looked really cheap.
 

jtb

Banned
Winter Soldier has more to say about politics/spy shit (which, admittedly is very very little) than TDK did on crime... or politics.... or much of anything... i dunno nolan something something hero we don't deserve something oh fuck it

Guardians of the Galaxy was alright. Unsurprising that it made money. It's fun and features the one and only Kevin Feige absurdly-safe-no-creative-risks-whatsoever stamp of approval.
 

F0rneus

Tears in the rain
There are some pretty nice establishing shots, but by and large it looked really cheap.

I thought it had some of the best cinematography and visuals in a Marvel Studios picture, so I really disagree there. Film was pure visual bonbon. Even outside of the setpieces, it was a gorgeous movie.
 
Yeah you can totally get a crow refund. Have you seen the movie yet? Lots of the effects in the actual film look like shit too! I love the art direction, but the visual effects and cinematography totally doesn't do it justice. There are some pretty nice establishing shots, but by and large it looked really cheap.

Seeing it next weekend.
 

duckroll

Member
I thought it had some of the best cinematography and visuals in a Marvel Studios picture, so I really disagree there. Film was pure visual bonbon. Even outside of the setpieces, it was a gorgeous movie.

The only possible way I can even imagine this opinion being logical is if you're unable to differentiate actual cinematography merits with good set design and art direction. Sorry. :(
 
Still haven't seen GotG, but the best photography in any Marvel film thus far is Winter Soldier - shaky action scenes notwithstanding. A DP who was allowed to light a set properly actually worked on the film! I was shocked.
 
X

Xpike

Unconfirmed Member
Giant alien-cat hybrids starred in the biggest box office success of all time

Talking trees were in another huge blockbuster event film

A raccoon with a gun is digestable too

Now an advanced African civilization? Hahahhaaaa

Black Panther is heavily rumored to be one of the Phase 3 movies, plus Wakanda is probably in Avengers 2 in some capacity, don't see where this is coming from.
 

jett

D-Member
It's a real good one though.

It's just a fun movie to me. People will read from it what they want.

It is a good movie and a nice change of pace from most Marvel movies (until the third act.) It didn't rise above that for me, though.

Yeah you can totally get a crow refund. Have you seen the movie yet? Lots of the effects in the actual film look like shit too! I love the art direction, but the visual effects and cinematography totally doesn't do it justice. There are some pretty nice establishing shots, but by and large it looked really cheap.

The city shots are probably the worst. The people and the scenery did not fit together at all. A movie of this scope definitely could've benefited from a more ambitious budget, but I guess it was a risk just as it is.
 

Error

Jealous of the Glory that is Johnny Depp
Marvel is notoriously cheap with their actors. Chris Hemsworth was only paid 200,000 dollars for The Avengers.

I'm willing to bet these actor accept those cheap paychecks because Superhero movies catapult their careers and then they can negotiate for more lucrative deals, who was chris hemsworth before thor? also RDJ's career pretty much revived after IM1.
 

Trey

Member
I thought it had some of the best cinematography and visuals in a Marvel Studios picture, so I really disagree there. Film was pure visual bonbon. Even outside of the setpieces, it was a gorgeous movie.

It looked sterile. Like no one was happy on set when it was shot.

I'm surprised some of the jokes worked as well as they did considering how it was shot, and the tone it imparted.
 
Still haven't seen GotG, but the best photography in any Marvel film thus far is Winter Soldier - shaky action scenes notwithstanding. A DP who was allowed to light a set properly actually worked on the film! I was shocked.

There's no way in hell you're actually going to eat crow on this one, I think. I could be wrong, but I doubt this movie is going to really mean that much to film GAF. And I like the movie.
 

MattKeil

BIGTIME TV MOGUL #2
Yeah you can totally get a crow refund. Have you seen the movie yet? Lots of the effects in the actual film look like shit too! I love the art direction, but the visual effects and cinematography totally doesn't do it justice. There are some pretty nice establishing shots, but by and large it looked really cheap.

Can't agree on the cheap. The visual effects looked great. The cinematography is unimaginative most of the time but gets the job done. The critique that the cinematography doesn't do a very good job of showing off the effects is a valid one, I'd say.
 

overcast

Member
Hearing everybody talk about Guardians at work is crazy.

Think the sci if adventure angle is making it more interesting to the general public, I don't think another normal superhero movie from Marvel would have done as well (this year).
 
I am really hyped for this film and going to see it with some friends on Wednesday. Got to admit I hadn't even heard of the guardians of the galaxy before the trailers for this film popped up so going in blind really. The trailers alone sold it to me and now with all the great reviews and hype surrounding it I really can't wait to see it which is strange for me as I don't usually get this hyped to see a film but something about it has just captured me.

Edit:

Hearing everybody talk about Guardians at work is crazy.

Think the sci if adventure angle is making it more interesting to the general public, I don't think another normal superhero movie from Marvel would have done as well (this year).

Yeah I think it's the Sci-fi aspect that has me hooked, I am getting a bit bored of things being set in New York or some other City. This is bringing something different to me and I love my space opera films so had me interested from the first trailer.
 
I thought it had some of the best cinematography and visuals in a Marvel Studios picture, so I really disagree there. Film was pure visual bonbon. Even outside of the setpieces, it was a gorgeous movie.

Guardians isn't super imaginative from a cinematography standpoint, although it is LEAGUES better than the basic-cable drama camerawork in The Avengers.
 

MoxManiac

Member
I was thinking about how far we have come.

I remember wayyy back, when X-Men: Last Stand came out, thinking they could never do a character like Juggernaut faithfully, since his power comes from a gem that originates from outer space. The mainstream audience would never tolerate that "corny nerd sci-fi crap" or however you'd describe it.

It is now 2014 and we have GOTG. Amazing.
 

Darkmakaimura

Can You Imagine What SureAI Is Going To Do With Garfield?
I was thinking about how far we have come.

I remember wayyy back, when X-Men: Last Stand came out, thinking they could never do a character like Juggernaut faithfully, since his power comes from a gem that originates from outer space. The mainstream audience would never tolerate that "corny nerd sci-fi crap" or however you'd describe it.

It is now 2014 and we have GOTG. Amazing.
I think they're still a bit concerned with certain origins and taking risks. That's why Asgard is not magic, but an advanced technology. I have a feeling Dr. Strange will be similar. It won't be magic, but some kind of 'cosmic force', maybe related to the Cube/Tesseract. In fact, isn't Juggernaut's helmet magical or something anyways?
 

anaron

Member
I've never liked Ben Davis's work as DP so now I'm worried hearing it's apparently still shitty and he's since he's also doing AoU...ugh
 

G-Fex

Member
Does TMNT have the potential to be good, yes. Will it outgross GotG Week 2, not likely unless TMNT is amazing. Like I said before, it's tracking pretty low. Even GotG had great projections for a new franchise.

Also, initial Twitter reactions aren't a good way to see if a movie is gonna be good. TASM2 was being praised by early viewers on Twitter, & we all know how it turned out. The best way to know is to wait for full reviews to come out.

I'm talking about gaf reactions. Nothing super positive but enough to say it's not the abomination that GAF is over-exaggerating it to be for the past year.

Man fuck twitter reactions they don't mean jack shit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom