Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 | May 5, 2023 | The 9th most profitable film of 2023

[SnokesLegs]

27 minutes ago, SpiderByte said:

Nah, that'd be like "brief strong language" for one in a PG-13 movie. It's weird. Usually the rule is PG-13 only gets one F bomb but like Knives Out I believe had two. The MPAA is infamously opaque as to how their ratings system works.

I wonder if they’ve just taken exception to the excessive use of the word “flarkin’” from Rocket.

[deniima]

Fandango also has a listing for a 7 hour GOTG IMAX marathon

[Krissykins]

That’s quite long. I feel like we’ve been hit with more long films than usual over the past year or so. 

[thajdikt]

Looks like premiere is set for 27th April and that the 6th of April was a placeholder

[cookie]

From @datpepper in the tracking thread:

14 hours ago, datpepper said:

Hearing Guardians Vol 3 tix April 3 at 9am EST

2 hours ago, datpepper said:

 

A follow-up on this: Thursday preview showtimes start at 3pm. There are some sites reporting the runtime of the movie is 2hr29m, but a pal of mine says it might actually be closer to 2hr42m.

 

[froztking]

14 hours ago, thajdikt said:

Looks like premiere is set for 27th April and that the 6th of April was a placeholder

isn't that the same time around the flash premier in cinema con ?

[fabiopazzo2]

Where is the new trailer? 

[thajdikt]

54 minutes ago, fabiopazzo2 said:

Where is the new trailer? 

Won´t be a new trailer, they have already released two and Gunn confirmed they won´r release another on. It´s all TV spots going ahead now I presume

 

On 3/26/2023 at 11:28 AM, froztking said:

isn't that the same time around the flash premier in cinema con ?

I believe that´s the 25th but I´m not sure

[kayumanggi]

 

[Ken]

I felt like sharing something that's been on my mind.
Just to be clear, I really enjoy Volume 2 a lot: I think it's one of the best examples in recent history of a strong sequel, and it solidified this series as Gunn's franchise. Yet I also remember that the reaction to it back in 2017, while mostly very positive, was kind of divisive (obviously not to the same extent as another sci-fi sequel that year). 'Cause of this, I can't help but wonder if that film would have had a worse reception if it came out now. 

Think about some of the criticisms, do any of these sound familiar?

• This one had too many characters, and not enough got the depth they deserved. Also, some of my favorites from the last film were absent with no explanation.
• There was WAY too many action sequences and CG VFX, especially the third act. They should have trimmed some of them down. [Also, Dairy Queen's inclusion was accused of being product placement.]
• Too many good actors "wasted". They killed off Russell's Ego, Debicki didn't have much to do, Stallone & others were only in it for a few minutes.
• Too much bad humor! Every serious moment was undercut by a joke immediately afterwards!
• They did nothing to set up Infinity War! No Thanos, no soul stone, are the heroes on Earth going to even acknowledge Ego's destruction in any of the upcoming films? 

Obviously, this wasn't the first time a Marvel film got critiques like these, but is the film really worthy of a high merit, or were people more easily accepting back then? Are the films really that much worse now? To me, it feels like a film that could get away with an 85% RT and A CinemaScore back then would now have like a 69% and B with how much restless people are now.

 

And if Volume 2, The Suicide Squad, and Peacemaker didn't make enough people think that Gunn went too far, what could Volume 3 do to tick audiences off?

[Menor the Destroyer]

3 hours ago, Ken said:

I felt like sharing something that's been on my mind.
Just to be clear, I really enjoy Volume 2 a lot: I think it's one of the best examples in recent history of a strong sequel, and it solidified this series as Gunn's franchise. Yet I also remember that the reaction to it back in 2017, while mostly very positive, was kind of divisive (obviously not to the same extent as another sci-fi sequel that year). 'Cause of this, I can't help but wonder if that film would have had a worse reception if it came out now. 

Think about some of the criticisms, do any of these sound familiar?

• This one had too many characters, and not enough got the depth they deserved. Also, some of my favorites from the last film were absent with no explanation.
• There was WAY too many action sequences and CG VFX, especially the third act. They should have trimmed some of them down. [Also, Dairy Queen's inclusion was accused of being product placement.]
• Too many good actors "wasted". They killed off Russell's Ego, Debicki didn't have much to do, Stallone & others were only in it for a few minutes.
• Too much bad humor! Every serious moment was undercut by a joke immediately afterwards!
• They did nothing to set up Infinity War! No Thanos, no soul stone, are the heroes on Earth going to even acknowledge Ego's destruction in any of the upcoming films? 

Obviously, this wasn't the first time a Marvel film got critiques like these, but is the film really worthy of a high merit, or were people more easily accepting back then? Are the films really that much worse now? To me, it feels like a film that could get away with an 85% RT and A CinemaScore back then would now have like a 69% and B with how much restless people are now.

 

And if Volume 2, The Suicide Squad, and Peacemaker didn't make enough people think that Gunn went too far, what could Volume 3 do to tick audiences off?

There is absolutely no way that Guardians 2 would get a B Cinemascore if it was released today. In fact, I'd be willing to bet it's crowdpleasing nature would stand out even more with the MCU average being down recently. 

[robertman2]

13 minutes ago, Menor Reborn said:

There is absolutely no way that Guardians 2 would get a B Cinemascore if it was released today. In fact, I'd be willing to bet it's crowdpleasing nature would stand out even more with the MCU average being down recently. 

maybe it'd be widely recognized as the best MCU movie it is

[Seth Irskens]

Anyone knows what time tix go on sale on monday?

[Saul Goodman]

Is there really a new trailer being shown before DnD in some theaters?

[Saul Goodman]

 

[Krissykins]

All the PLF showings of this at my local come with forced 3D unfortunately. 
 

I’m guessing it wasn’t even shot for 3D? 

[SnokesLegs]

1 hour ago, Krissykins said:

All the PLF showings of this at my local come with forced 3D unfortunately. 
 

I’m guessing it wasn’t even shot for 3D? 

Nope, but if GOTG1 and 2 are anything to go by, James Gunn does tend to have a bit of fun with the 3D. On the Blu Ray’s the 3D effects break out of the frame and into the black borders, it’s not Avatar obviously, but it’s fun.

[Krissykins]

14 minutes ago, SnokesLegs said:

Nope, but if GOTG1 and 2 are anything to go by, James Gunn does tend to have a bit of fun with the 3D. On the Blu Ray’s the 3D effects break out of the frame and into the black borders, it’s not Avatar obviously, but it’s fun.

Ah yeh, the first time I seen that border effect was Ghostbusters 2016 actually, I don’t even know if that was available in 3D, but the proton beams go into the black borders too. 

[dobrevv]

IMAX is having screening 2 days before release https://twitter.com/IMAX/status/1642859497889878016?t=_xs6sVFnx51kt_17ztvOAg&s=19

[Saul Goodman]

AMC is selling already.