Guardians of the Galaxy (James Gunn)

[Dukefrukem]

Edgar Wright wasn't going to make Ant-Man a hit. The marketing and how they sell the film to tie-in with other MCU movies will. I think Ant-Man could be a hit (maybe not GotG big), but I wonder how much their willing to spend on it considering how much has been already spent over the past few years getting it into development.

But I think the studios are reluctant to say "This didn't work because of X" if a movie gets favorable reviews but still bombs. I do think losing Edgar Wright will hurt this project either in the box office or critically.

[number8]

Edgar Wright would have made the movie good, but come on, in what world is he a big mainstream draw? Have you seen his BO numbers?

[Pop Trash]

Edgar Wright would have made the movie good, but come on, in what world is he a big mainstream draw? Have you seen his BO numbers?

Have you seeen James Gunn's BO numbers pre Galaxy? Super and Slither weren't exactly blowing up the multiplex.

[number8]

Have you seeen James Gunn's BO numbers pre Galaxy? Super and Tromeo & Juliet weren't exactly blowing up the multiplex.

Yeah, that's my point. He wasn't the main draw, and neither would Edgar Wright had been.

Even if Edgar Wright had stayed on, the trailers would probably focus on marketing Ant-Man as part of the unbeatable Marvel brand more than "From the director of Shaun of the Dead."

[Pop Trash]

Yeah, that's my point. He wasn't the main draw, and neither would Edgar Wright had been.

But given his track record, Wright would most likely make Ant-Man suck less and thus it would at least have better W-O-M. Career-wise, he isn't that far off from where Sam Raimi was before Spider-Man or Peter Jackson was before LOTR.

[Watashi]

I think the Marvel name is a big enough draw that you could attach any no-name director and it will still open decent.

[Grouchy]

I think the Marvel name is a big enough draw that you could attach any no-name director and it will still open decent.

Pretty much.

I hold an odd kind of personal grudge towards Ant-Man. It's the first time I've ever wanted something to flop, or cared one way or the other.

[Henry Gale]

I don't think Marvel ever has or ever will use their directors to market their stuff. I mean, what would they have done early on?

From the director of
Elf and Zathura

IRON MAN

...

From the director of
Unleashed and Transporter 2

THE INCREDIBLE HULK

...

From the director of
Dead Again, Henry V, and Mary Shelley's Frankenstein

THOR

Even as recent as The Winter Solider they would've been touting directors whose last film work was You, Me and Dupree, despite all the great stuff they did on (the still totally different) Community, Happy Endings and Arrested Development. They saw the potential and went for it.

And I guess that's the best thing you can say about Marvel's track record so far is that they tend to look at the sensibilities, talent and imminent take their directors can bring to the material more than what's necessarily dictated by what's already on their resumés or past box office success, since their brand will do that work for them.

[DavidSeven]

If Guardians proved anything, it's that Marvel can sell these movies with their name, a 90% pre-release tomatometer, and strong word-of-mouth. The director's name is almost immaterial. It also doesn't need to be a highly recognized property and doesn't have to look exactly like their other movies. Just put out a good product, and the brand/word-of-mouth will do the work.

In that regard, Wright would've been a good choice for Ant-Man (assuming the alternative would be some director acting as a Marvel drone that'll pump out a safe and unspectacular product).

I'm hoping Gunn's success here will encourage Marvel to lighten up a bit on the cookie-cutter approach that they've been following thus far. Maybe we'll see less instances of potentially interesting voices like Patty Jenkins and Wright being canned for deviating from the company line.

[Lazlo]

When is a director's name ever really effective in selling a movie to the general public beyond Spielberg, Nolan, Cameron, Tarantino... could be end of list.... Ant Man will do just fine because of the Marvel logo above the title.

[Irish]

Just put out a good product, and the brand/word-of-mouth will do the work.

Well, that and $100 million in marketing.

[DavidSeven]

Well, that and $100 million in marketing.

Yeah, that too.

:lol:

[D_Davis]

And a multi-generational, rabid fanbase.

[DavidSeven]

And a multi-generational, rabid fanbase.

Not even sure that's required. Guardians certainly didn't break $500M on the back of its existing fanbase, though I'm sure the fervor among big fans helped spread WOM.

[number8]

Weirdly enough, I've actually had to tell several people who wanted to see it that it's based on a comic book and that it's tied to the Marvel movies. Now that I think about it, their marketing didn't exactly push that angle as hard as I thought they would.

[Boner M]

I'm the first to 'con' this? Really? ¯\\_(ツ)_//¯

[Pop Trash]

I'm the first to 'con' this? Really? ¯\\_(ツ)_//¯

Dude. Look again.

[Boner M]

Dude. Look again.

Meant in the ratings.

[Pop Trash]

Meant in the ratings.

Gotcha. 3 stars seems accurate for my feelings.

[Boner M]

Maybe seeing it in an empty theatre with two relatively fun-averse friends didn't do it any favours, but I was really grateful to see this end. (possibly the reason why baby Groot was the clear highlight)

[Pop Trash]

Maybe seeing it in an empty theatre with two relatively fun-averse friends didn't do it any favours, but I was really grateful to see this end. (possibly the reason why baby Groot was the clear highlight)

Nooooooooooo...

[Boner M]

Seriously, my next favorite thing was probably the Footloose reference. ¯\\_(ツ)_//¯ ¯\\_(ツ)_//¯

[max314]

Pelvic sorcery / 10.

I don't understand what this movie is.

It's a space opera. No, it's a comedy. Nope, it's a space opera. Oh, we're back to mocking the genre again. Ah, it's actually a space opera. Okay, it's actually a parody.

It's a space opera.

...?

[Dead & Messed Up]

I felt here what I felt during "Avengers," which is that I wish these characters didn't have such transparently plotty stuff to do and could just hang out. Whenever they were bickering with each other, I was having a ball. The action? Not so much. Those scenes stay afloat thanks to the little asides - Raccoon fucking with people's prosthetics is a hoot. And God, whenever the villains were talking about Xandar and Thanos and all that crap, I was thinking of those senate scenes from the prequels. And I wish Gunn built up the spectacle more. This year's "Godzilla" movie showed such a command of how to make spectacle invigorating instead of exhausting.

THAT BEING SAID,

The film's puckish eagerness to undercut its drama is even more effective than Whedons quippery at offsetting eye-rolls. Ronan is dopey, but I admire Pace going full bore into the melodramatics. His jaw deserves a supporting credit. The hero cast is uniformly great. Pratt nails it, but what I really loved was Bautista as Drax. His literalism bounces very well off the snarkier heroes. And I appreciated that every character had clear, sympathetic reasons for their decision to fight Ronan.

I also loved seeing Gunn regulars sneak into the movie, and I wanted to know more about that setting that was the head of a former celestial god. What is that thing? And, God help me, I enjoyed the heroes defeating the villain with the Power of Friendship. Oh, and Saldana yawning during the Hero Walk.

I don't think Marvel takes much risk in their individual movies - their big risk is in stringing them all together like a cinematic baton race. But props to them for taking a kid-friendly "Heavy Metal" story and giving it to the guy who turned a alien victim into a barn-sized womb. He didn't drop the baton.

[Dukefrukem]

GuardiansoftheGalaxy just passed up the original Iron Man domestically to become Marvel’s 3rd biggest US hit ever (after Avengers & IM3).