Weekend Numbers: GOTG - 94M (PG 180) [25.5M Sunday (Spatula) Cancel the Godzilla legs!]

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

Bland is so incredible far from the word I would use to describe this movie.

 

 

I guess "bland" is an easy word to describe something that doesn't grab you for one reason or another. If a story doesn't take you in, I'd imagine the experience would leave you cold. Much like how I felt watching say, Forrest Gump or Shawshank. I know the films are supposed to be unbelievably good, but for me, they just didn't grab my interest. Hence, I would describe them as "bland".

[baumer]

It's not a sequel, so it gets the benefit of the doubt as getting to be labeled original, even though yes it's based on a comic. And a movie like this could never have come out even say 10 years ago...it was a risk and daring to make a $170m big budget movie on a somewhat obscure comic book with a very odd cast of characters and hard sell to the masses.

 

It's not much of a risk.  Disney has made so much money with their MCU films that dropping 250 mill on this was a calculated gamble.  I doubt they would have batted an eyelash if this didn't succeed.

[ecstasy]

I've enjoyed every movie I've seen in the theater this year  except one.

[JohnnY]

I know I get flack for this but it just seems like anything Marvel shovels out there, the masses love.  I don't understand what was so great about GOTG.  It just seemed so generic and like many other films.  Sorry, I know that's not the popular thing to say, but it seems to be true.  If Marvel's name wasn't on this most of you would ignore it....imo.

 

Well, I think you are describing all Marvel Universe movies.

[Mango]

It is not dead. It is just that original movies are becoming more and more rare. 

 

Maybe not yet, but at the rate we're going everything is going to be a sequel/remake/reboot/whatever in the near future.

[Sam]

Nah. You'll notice folks who CAN'T STAND being disagreed with. That's who I was talking about

I have a feeling I know who's leading in that category

[Heat Vision]

So far I've enjoyed all of the Marvel movies except a couple to some degree.

The only movie I could say I didn't enjoy is the first Thor. In my opinion both Thor films have been weak.

[baumer]

Fault is adapted from a popular book, it's anything but original

 

So it's adapted, that doesn't make the story not original.

[Empire]

Maybe not yet, but at the rate we're going everything is going to be a sequel/remake/reboot/whatever in the near future.

 

You could be right, but I hope not. 

[MovieMan89]

Except.... it isn't any of those things.

It is at least a little different/daring in terms of what audiences tend to go for. Hence why many of us laughed at first that Disney was attempting a lesser known comic movie with a talking tree and raccoon, pro wrestler, and that guy from Parks and Rec...

 

Also the marketing with all our "heroes" in the lineup looking bored or just overall odd and lines of dialouge like "this might not be  a good idea" basically coming off as quirky confessions from Disney that it could bomb was a unique approach.

[Jandrew]

Originality in Hollywood is as good as dead and I have just kind of accepted it is probably never coming back.

Comedies are safe. As for big budget, EOT's gross put a dent in the original potential pipeline, but hopefully Interstellar can rise the stock back up. Lucy also opened well for an R-rated original. I havent completely lost faith, but I dont see the sequel and remake craze slowing done, just them shoving more original movies in-between them.

[Dementeleus]

It seems a lot of ppl disagree...including me. It may be inspired by a lot of what has come before, but it is nowhere near anything I've ever seen.

 

Okay, let me lay this out there. And I'm by no means trying to knock the film, or anyone who loves it (for all I know, I will too).

 

But even those who love it are calling it "a tribute to ANH" or "an homage to ANH" or "inspired by SW" or "Groot and Raccoon are the new Chewy/Han".... how is that "nowhere near anything I've ever seen"?

 

Space opera's been around since the 1920s. It was refined and popularized to the point where people started getting tired of it (in the '50s). Comics, novels, magazines, serialized adventures (movies and TV), Buck Rogers, etc. Everywhere.

 

Then the genre came back in the '70s with Star Wars. And everyone jumped back on the bandwagon. BSG, Buck Rogers (again!), countless crappy SW ripoffs, and so forth. You even had brilliant comedic variations: The Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy.

 

In the '90s, it returned to TV. Babylon 5, Farscape, Lexx, countless anime versions, etc. 

 

In the 2000s, SW returned again. In the late 2000s, AVATAR restarted a subset of space opera which resulted in several of (floptastic) Golden Age space romances.

 

How is GOTG "unique" or "original" or "unlike anything else"?

 

It's a variation on a well-established exceedingly-over-produced field that -- by its own definition, practically -- is playing sort of like a greatest hits remix of movies that've come before it.

 

edit: I'm not even going into the countless SF novels and serialized adventures that have gone leaps and bounds past GOTG in terms of originality or bizarre, unique fun within the same genre.

Edited August 2, 2014 by Telemachos

[Sam]

I've enjoyed every movie I've seen in the theater this year  except one.

Poor Godzilla. It's getting there. Almost there.

[eXtacy]

Ranking this summers films I have seen

 

1. Guardians of the Galaxy

2. Days of Future Past

3. Edge of Tomorrow

4. Planet of the Apes

5. 22 Jump Street

6. How to Train Your Dragon

7. Godzilla

8. Neighbours

9. The Amazing Spider Man 2

10. Maleficent

11. Transformers 4

[grim22]

So it's adapted, that doesn't make the story not original.

 

You know what I never understood about the Oscars. Why are sequels to original movies (like say Toy Story 2) in "Best Adapted Screenplay" category just because those characters already exist. The story may be completely original but because it is a sequel it goes into "Best Adapted".

[Chewy]

So it's adapted, that doesn't make the story not original.

 

Of course the original story was original, I guess it just bugs me when people call adaptations "original films". Semantics I know, lol. But to me an original film is a brand new story thought up by the writer or producer or director or whoever

[ecstasy]

Poor Godzilla.It's getting there. Almost there.

 

LOL

[Accursed Arachnid!™]

The only movie I could say I didn't enjoy is the first Thor. In my opinion both Thor films have been weak.

 

 

They don't hold up like Cap or IM. TIH with its downright headache inducing 3rd act is probably down there as well. "Down there" in B/B+ territory. There hasn't been a Marvel Studios stinker yet, IMO.

[Deep Wang]

Not really. The entire battle with the Bride and all of Lucy Liu's warriors was 100% rip off of MR.

...because they both involved kung fu?Then I have to tell you something, you might want to sit down for this one. You ready?The Matrix owes A LOT to the Asian film industry. Like, a lot.

[Mango]

You could be right, but I hope not. 

 

Yeah, I really hope I'm wrong too.

 

Comedies are safe. As for big budget, EOT's gross put a dent in the original potential pipeline, but hopefully Interstellar can rise the stock back up. Lucy also opened well for an R-rated original. I havent completely lost faith, but I dont see the sequel and remake craze slowing done, just them shoving more original movies in-between them.

 

EOT isn't actually original though. And yeah Lucy did well, but it had a pretty unfortunate release date coming one week in front of Guardians. Which, even though it isn't original, I am glad is doing well because it does look like a unique type of adaptation.