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

[TalismanRing]

On 11/27/2018 at 8:09 PM, Warmaster506 said:

This will still happen as Disney will look to spite WB/Gunn. 

Sure that's why they'll make a sequel to a money making franchise. 

 

As for spiting WB, I guess that's why they made Infinity War and A4 - to spite to spite WB for hiring Whedon.

 

 

[Valonqar]

This was always going to happen. they are not gonna give up on GOTG characters and universe and eevrything can be successfully directed by different directors. Lets hope Gun course corrects SS franchise and Knight continues GOTG glory cause that's a win for us. 

[cookie]

4 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

Sure that's why they'll make a sequel to a money making franchise. 

 

Doing a sequel to a highly profitable comic book franchise to own the libs Warner Bros. 😎

Edited November 29, 2018 by cookie

[Jessie]

On 10/20/2018 at 11:19 PM, TalismanRing said:

The Avengers was Whedon's and Iron Man was Favraeu's and yet....

 

As for Guardians being all Gunn's baby... even if we ignore pre-existing comic material 

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2014/08/04/guardians_of_the_galaxy_co_writer_nicole_perlman_vs_director_james_gunn.html

 

So basically the standard uninspired story was Nicole's work and the humour, character arcs and everything else that gave the movie it's heart and made it as popular as it was is Gunn's work? 

 

yeah it's safe to say it's all Gunns baby

[TalismanRing]

1 minute ago, Jessie said:

So basically the standard uninspired story was Nicole's work and the humour, character arcs and everything else that gave the movie it's heart and made it as popular as it was is Gunn's work? 

 

yeah it's safe to say it's all Gunns baby

According to Gunn.

 

Again, not any more Gunn's baby than Avengers was Whedon's and yet ...

 

 

[Jessie]

3 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

According to Gunn.

 

Again, not any more Gunn's baby than Avengers was Whedon's and yet ...

 

 

oh I totally agree there. Afterall the Guardians were amazing in IW and it's not like Gunn directed that.

 

I will say this though, I miss Favrea. Even if IM2 was disappointing, his films seemed a little more grown up and I miss the touch he added. RDJ as Iron Man was best in the first 2 movies under his direction and he can hardly be blamed for being made to turn IM2 into an Avengers Trailer

Edited November 29, 2018 by Jessie

[TalismanRing]

1 minute ago, Jessie said:

oh I totally agree there. Afterall the Guardians were amazing in IW and it's not like Gunn directed that.

 

I will say this though, I miss Favrea. Even if IM2 was disappointing, his films seemed a little more grown up and I miss the touch he added. Iron Man was best in the first 2 movies under his direction.

IM is great and still top tier though I much prefer IM3 to IM2 which is so messy and feels like a running in place movie even if RDJ was still strong in it.   Tony as a character fares better in IM3 (even if IM gets less screen time).  I think he's had some of his best and strongest material in the Avengers movies and particularly CW. 

 

[cookie]

Iron Man 2 is one of those movies that's just marking time during its second act before it can get to the Expo finale. Not much of consequence actually happens for long stretches of it.

[Jessie]

33 minutes ago, TalismanRing said:

IM is great and still top tier though I much prefer IM3 to IM2 which is so messy and feels like a running in place movie even if RDJ was still strong in it.   Tony as a character fares better in IM3 (even if IM gets less screen time).  I think he's had some of his best and strongest material in the Avengers movies and particularly CW. 

 

see I disagree with the latter part. Russo bros turned Iron Man into a more serious superhero where RDJ can show strong acting however they seem to strip away a part of his humour because of it. IM is good in Civil War but he's more fun in everything else.

[Barnack]

1 hour ago, TalismanRing said:

According to Gunn.

 

Again, not any more Gunn's baby than Avengers was Whedon's and yet ...

 

 

Not sure I get the Avengers being Whedon baby, almost nothing was from him in that movie no ?

[cookie]

1 hour ago, Barnack said:

Not sure I get the Avengers being Whedon baby, almost nothing was from him in that movie no ?

He has lone writing credit on both of his Avengers movies (aside from Zak Penn having a story credit on the first one)

[Barnack]

41 minutes ago, cookie said:

He has lone writing credit on both of his Avengers movies (aside from Zak Penn having a story credit on the first one)

Wasn't almost all the characters (the biggest part of those movies) already casted, created, tone/voice setted by previous movie and the Avengers concept already well developed in other medium in the past ?

 

Is Iron-Man/Thor/Captain/Hulk/etc... much different in is version than what came before ? The sound/score style, the visual palette/production design/cinematography/editing style ?

 

That is getting close of calling some TV season 2 episode 3 the creation/baby of the writers/directors of that specific week level.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Barnack

[The Futurist]

Avengers was Whedon's baby through and through.

[Barnack]

11 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

Avengers was Whedon's baby through and through.

Except for all the elements cited above ? (through and through not even freaking including casting, character creation, production design, color palette, here ?) Like I said the baby of dialogue and narrative, like it is for a TV episode.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Barnack

[Cap]

Just now, Barnack said:

Except for all the elements cited above ? (through and through not even freaking including casting here ?)

I'm actually with Futurist on this.  Avengers and Age of Ultron are SUCH Joss Whedon works.  Particularly when you look at the chraracterization of say Steve Rogers and Natasha Romanoff from AOU to TWS.  He also bascially turned Ultron into his Id.  So, yeah.  Their his babies -- for worst or, *looks at smudged hand* better.  

[MCKillswitch123]

24 minutes ago, Barnack said:

Wasn't almost all the characters (the biggest part of those movies) already casted, created, tone/voice setted by previous movie and the Avengers concept already well developed in other medium in the past ?

 

Is Iron-Man/Thor/Captain/Hulk/etc... much different in is version than what came before ? The sound/score style, the visual palette/production design/cinematography/editing style ?

 

That is getting close of calling some TV season 2 episode 3 the creation/baby of the writers/directors of that specific week level.

I'm pretty sure that if you get a more cinematic director than Joss Whedon, all of those would have a far different look than what either Avengers film had (except maybe the editing style). Did Kenneth Branagh's Thor look and sound like The Avengers? Did Jon Favreau's double take on Iron Man feel exactly the same as Avengers? Did Joe Johnston direct Cap 1 the same way that Whedon did Avengers? I'm just saying. There are obviously elements out of Whedon's control, but it's not like the artistic vision of the final product wasn't strongly derived from him. It's like saying that someone not named George Lucas couldn't have directed The Empire Strikes Back, despite the cinematography, pacing and overall tone of the film feeling quite a bit different from A New Hope.

[Barnack]

3 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

Did Kenneth Branagh's Thor look and sound like The Avengers? Did Jon Favreau's double take on Iron Man feel exactly the same as Avengers? Did Joe Johnston direct Cap 1 the same way that Whedon did Avengers

Well yes, those are my questions, do they ? (I have not seen many of those movies and not remember much those I have seen)

[Barnack]

17 minutes ago, captainwondyful said:

I'm actually with Futurist on this.  Avengers and Age of Ultron are SUCH Joss Whedon works.  Particularly when you look at the chraracterization of say Steve Rogers and Natasha Romanoff from AOU to TWS.  He also bascially turned Ultron into his Id.  So, yeah.  Their his babies -- for worst or, *looks at smudged hand* better.  

They are not through and through in such a very trivial way, how they look, who the actors are, what the characters look like (what everything look like), what you describe is pretty much like a tv episode when the characters do not feel like they usually do because of the week writers/directors changing.

[Premium George]

8 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

I'm pretty sure that if you get a more cinematic director than Joss Whedon, all of those would have a far different look than what either Avengers film had (except maybe the editing style). Did Kenneth Branagh's Thor look and sound like The Avengers? Did Jon Favreau's double take on Iron Man feel exactly the same as Avengers? Did Joe Johnston direct Cap 1 the same way that Whedon did Avengers? I'm just saying. There are obviously elements out of Whedon's control, but it's not like the artistic vision of the final product wasn't strongly derived from him. It's like saying that someone not named George Lucas couldn't have directed The Empire Strikes Back, despite the cinematography, pacing and overall tone of the film feeling quite a bit different from A New Hope.

George lucas created star wars. Joss whedon footprint is all over avengers but he didn't created it. Avatar are cameron's baby. MCU, feige. Having a style doesn't mean that film is that director's unseparable product. James Gunn comes between it, as he was passionte and was clearly more invested in gotg brand. I mean whedon is not directing avengers, his baby any more, by his own decision after such a short time.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Premium George

[Barnack]

12 minutes ago, MCKillswitch123 said:

It's like saying that someone not named George Lucas couldn't have directed The Empire Strikes Back, despite the cinematography, pacing and overall tone of the film feeling quite a bit different from A New Hope.

Not sure I get here (too many negative use for my small understanding of English) ? since Lucas didn't direct Empire Strikes Back that would possibly (or maybe not) be a strange thing to say.

 

I am not saying Whedon authorship does not shine through here, obviously dose, but did anyone really thought Avengers could not work without him when all those characters in looking exactly the same with almost same tone movies were doing billions ? Well if those person really existed in a significant amount and this is not a strawmen, they were quite wrong.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Barnack