- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Guardians of the Galaxy and Marvel's Risk
Posted on 7/26/14 at 5:21 pm
Posted on 7/26/14 at 5:21 pm
Nice read by Forbes (I didn't read the review, just the intro context):
LINK
The last part is intriguing comparing them to Pixar. I don't think the overall quality is near that level, but the audience satisfaction is close, and that isn't a bad thing. GotG just might let them take more chances, and that is a good thing.
LINK
quote:
As I wrote back in March, it is going to be awhile before we get a Marvel Studios production that isn’t seen as some kind of barometer for the company as a whole in one fashion or another. As such, Walt Disney’s Guardians of the Galaxy will be heavily scrutinized for a number of reasons some more fair than others. First of all, there is a perception that the overall summer box office has been sometime weak compared to years past. So as such, as the last would-be mega movie of the summer, Guardians of the Galaxy is now in the unpleasant position of having to “save” the summer. That’s silly of course, but that’s the narrative. Also of note, it’s Marvel’s first non-sequel since Captain America: The First Avenger in July, 2011.
quote:
At around $170 million, the film is somewhat of a risk as it’s obviously less of a sure thing than the likes of Thor: The Dark World. But obviously Marvel is playing long-ball, and while the film is 99% stand-alone, there is a tangent or two that will likely make the picture somewhat required viewing for The Avengers 3 in four years. Moreover, this is a case of the comic company using their hard-won capitol to produce something somewhat outside the box of conventional superhero comic book adventures. If the film underperforms (let’s say under $150m here and under $350m worldwide), it will still be a case of Marvel using capitol to attempt to expand what constitutes a comic book franchise picture. If it hits big, then it’s further proof that the Marvel brand name is the most important component of a respective marketing campaign, making the Walt Disney-owned studio something akin to Pixar and making contract negotiations with the likes of Robert Downey Jr. somewhat less predictable.
The last part is intriguing comparing them to Pixar. I don't think the overall quality is near that level, but the audience satisfaction is close, and that isn't a bad thing. GotG just might let them take more chances, and that is a good thing.
Posted on 7/26/14 at 5:25 pm to Freauxzen
I didn't really see it as a risk, IMO. There was a time when funny sci fi movies ran the world. It looks like it has everything you would want out of a summer movie, comedy, action, and great CGI.
This post was edited on 7/28/14 at 9:25 pm
Posted on 7/26/14 at 5:31 pm to abellsujr
quote:
I didn't really see it as a risk, IMO.
Except new properties are risky, regardless of pedigree. Everything a sequel/a reboot/etc.
The article points out that this is Marvel's first non sequel since the First Avengers.
Posted on 7/26/14 at 5:41 pm to Freauxzen
more importantly, it's not a "major" source material. that's the huge risk, imho
Posted on 7/26/14 at 5:43 pm to Freauxzen
The fact that Thanos was introduced at the end of The Avengers almost made Guardians required because of Drax.
Posted on 7/26/14 at 5:44 pm to SlowFlowPro
The only thing I would say that's very risky, they don't have a big name as the main character. Cooper and Diesel are not visible. Other than that, even if you don't have the Marvel name, it looks like a fun movie.
Posted on 7/26/14 at 6:01 pm to abellsujr
quote:
The only thing I would say that's very risky, they don't have a big name as the main character. Cooper and Diesel are not visible. Other than that, even if you don't have the Marvel name, it looks like a fun movie.
Read the article. It's also a risky time of the year to release in.
Posted on 7/26/14 at 6:09 pm to Freauxzen
quote:How is The Sixth Sense "flukey" success? Everybody raved about that movie. It was nominated for Best Picture.
Aside from the somewhat flukey $672 million success of Disney’s The Sixth Sense 15 years ago
Posted on 7/26/14 at 6:12 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Read the article. It's also a risky time of the year to release in.
Yeah and if it does well, which I think it will, Marvel will stop with the whole 2 movies a year, and up the ante, 3 maybe eventually 4 a year if they are the right titles.
7:30 cant get here soon enough...pretty sure Marvel will have a crap load of surprises tonight.
Posted on 7/26/14 at 6:49 pm to Joe Mantegna
quote:
Yeah and if it does well, which I think it will, Marvel will stop with the whole 2 movies a year, and up the ante, 3 maybe eventually 4 a year if they are the right titles.
Honestly, I hope they don't go with four feature films. 3 Films per year and 4-5 TV Series would be a nice balance.
quote:
7:30 cant get here soon enough...pretty sure Marvel will have a crap load of surprises tonight.
Is that their live presentation time? Nice.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 9:23 pm to Freauxzen
Judging by the reviews so far it looks like its going to be a great movie. I really hope its going to be a smash at the box office. I know I'll be there opening night to catch it in IMAX !!
Posted on 7/28/14 at 9:35 pm to Das Jackal
Not a risk. And if it's a huge hit, the Marvel name will be a small part of its success. Pratt is the next big thing in movies.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 9:40 pm to Freauxzen
i dont think its a huge risk at all.
i think this has more to do with just cashing in on sequels first and expanding the first stories. Hollywood in general makes sequels/reboots because they are easy cash cows. why bother on something else? its more laziness than riskiness.
They promoted the hell out of Guardians, have a very reputable studio behind it, with some big names attached. Also releasing after any competition could hinder them. Sounds pretty low risk.
quote:
The article points out that this is Marvel's first non sequel since the First Avengers.
i think this has more to do with just cashing in on sequels first and expanding the first stories. Hollywood in general makes sequels/reboots because they are easy cash cows. why bother on something else? its more laziness than riskiness.
They promoted the hell out of Guardians, have a very reputable studio behind it, with some big names attached. Also releasing after any competition could hinder them. Sounds pretty low risk.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 9:56 pm to Freauxzen
I'm pulling for it in the respect that it is supposed to be a "different" comic/superhero movie and I want Marvel and DC to feel comfortable getting outside the box on occasion.
I understand that Iron Man and the Avengers have to follow the cookbook since those are the two franchises that are truly paying the bills but some of these other titles can get a little weird with no harm, IMHO.
I understand that Iron Man and the Avengers have to follow the cookbook since those are the two franchises that are truly paying the bills but some of these other titles can get a little weird with no harm, IMHO.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:16 pm to Walking the Earth
This is about as weird as they're going to get.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:33 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
So as such, as the last would-be mega movie of the summer, Guardians of the Galaxy is now in the unpleasant position of having to “save” the summer. That’s silly of course, but that’s the narrative.
I think that author is just pulling that part about having to "save the summer" out of his arse. On the other hand he is right about that being a silly thought.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:42 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
But obviously Marvel is playing long-ball, and while the film is 99% stand-alone, there is a tangent or two that will likely make the picture somewhat required viewing for The Avengers 3 in four years.
Ever since GotG was announced I thought it'd figure a good deal into Avengers 2 but now it seems from what they are saying it has very loose connections outside of Thanos. So on one side of the coin I'm bummed that we won't be seeing any GotG cast in Age of Ultron, but on the other side I love seeing them set up the long game with these movies.
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:50 pm to LE610N
Surely the post credit scene will feature at least one of the major Avenger characters
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:53 pm to WicKed WayZ
I thought stark was already locked as a cameo
Posted on 7/28/14 at 10:55 pm to WicKed WayZ
I agree with that but when it was originally announced I was expecting GoTG to appear in Avengers 2. I'd say from what what the word is now going around that they won't be in Age of Ultron.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News