All that was missing was a thumbs up!
[Movies] Guardians of the Galaxy
- Thread starter evilmike
- Start date
Now we know how Turtles made $65m....
If the Cinema Snob midnight screening is any indication, most of the audience this weekend was either post-college guys in Turtles masks pretending they were ninjas (i.e. probably drunk or high) or parents who grew up with Ninja Turtles and dragged their kids who didn't want to be there and didn't care about the Turtles.
You cannot force your kids to like the stuff from your childhood. It does not work that way. You can surround and immerse them in it, and maybe they'll pick it up briefly because it's there, but unless they themselves genuinely like it, they're either going to ignore it soon, and eventually see you for the lame-ass "kindergarten was the best year of my life" loser that you are. (Oh hey, now we're back to an earlier page's derailment.)
Apparently the worst thing about the Turtles movie is that it could've been good. Like, it was clear the people working on it were fans and cared. They just weren't talented. I've heard "it's better than Turtles in Time" bandied about.
Guardians is at about $175 mil right now, which is pretty damn good for week two. I don't expect Turtles to make half of that come next week, though it'll probably hit 120+ once international is taken into account.
Meanwhile, Guardians is already over $300 mil international.
I think Rotten Tomatoes needs to update itself then. It's most recent take is 175.
Thing is, there IS a new Turtles cartoon that kids today could watch and enjoy. And it's not only good, but apparently pretty successful. So there is a way for kids today to have that interest in the new movie. Of course, it resembles absolutely nothing about the cartoon that they love, so I can't imagine they'd enjoy it as much. There was also the Turtles cartoon from the early 2000s that introduced the franchise to new audiences.
Oh, I know about those. Both of those series are apparently better than this movie. I'm not saying there aren't kids who are into Ninja Turtles, just that nostalgic parents can't make them get into it.
Definitely not arguing there.
Let's put it this way, as far as how bad this movie is, though. Some are saying it's worse than Turtles III, the concert tour shows, and even worse than The Next Mutation, where they introduced the girl turtle.
...I think I'm glad I missed all that
Didn'tl ike it when it happened to the smurfs, wouldn't've liked to have seen it on the Turtles 
Hey, Smurfette was awesome. Venus Di Milo was... a little creepy....I think I'm glad I missed all that
You mean the one female in a village of 100 asexual creatures, created by the Evil Mastermind with the express intent to confuse and bewilder them all? The one that's not-at-all-slightly-sexist?
I dunno. After a while, Peyo got a handle on it and she sort of worked. Her introduction and first few stories, though, are beyond cringeworthy and sail easily past the "oh but it just 'was' that way back then" filter that gives, say, Tintin in Africa a pass. I love both the Smurfs and Tintin (Belgian comics represent!) but both have some questionable stereotypes - some perfectly defensible from a historical point of view, some...Not as much.
I've started a thread for that. I suggest we take the Turtles talk over there and leave this thread for the coolness of Guardians of the Galaxy.
I am Groot.
Dave
Staff member
I know, but it's really hard to move posts from one thread to another. There's no need for that kind of language.
My thoughts exactly. We've really mainly been discussing it in context of how much better Guardians is.
Can't wait to see that again; just two weeks.
One thing that deeply impresses me about the Marvel movies is their ability to take directors who by and large haven't made high-octane blockbusters or large-budget movies of any sort, write them an ENORMOUS check, and turn it into some truly excellent (and financially quite successful) films. Jon Favreau had indie cred and his movies were generally small but well received. Then he brings us Iron Man and Iron Man 2, kicking off the entire MCU/Avenger success story. Joe Johnston did the Rocketeer, which is good, then Jumanji and Jurassic Park III which were kind of meh, but Captain America The First Avenger was fantastic. Joss Whedon's only previous feature outing was Serenity, which was good, but not in the same league as The Avengers.
I think this is key right here. You absolutely want to find someone who does low budget indie stuff because these are the ones who can write. When you don't have endless amount of money at your disposal, and you can't pop in a CGI scene wherever you want, you have to actually make the dialogue and story work so you don't have to have those things, and still have an enjoyable movie. Take Star Wars 4-6 for example, not considering that Lucas didn't direct all of them, he did write the stories. I think what makes those movies enjoyable is the adventure, the wit, the dialogue and the actors. The special effects are great for the time, but they were all practical effects and didn't need to be outrageous and huge to make it work. Then you see what a difference the special edition versions make, and see how the extra stuff actually starts to make the experience less enjoyable. Then of course there are episodes 1-3 which were clearly written by coming up with the special effects first ("I want to have a scene where baby Anakin is taking out an entire fleet by himself") and you see where that gets you.
Lucas, Bay, even Spielberg sometimes go with spectacle. Whedon, Gunn, Favreau want story behind the spectacle. (Though Favreau was kind of going for spectacle in Iron Man 2). A great example of story before spectacle is the mid-credits scene of Avengers. No special effects. No dialogue. Just everyone eating. It's hilarious and doesn't need a fart joke, or someone to actually say anything silly for us to see that it's hilarious.[DOUBLEPOST=1407777522,1407777040][/DOUBLEPOST]Because my personal life is so controlled by my wife I have asked her to let me know when would be the best opportunity to see Guardians of the Galaxy on my own since I was unable to see the entire film when the baby started crying.
I expect to see it when it comes out on DVD.
I'll be that person. Serenity wasn't a good movie. This is not coming from a CDS "Whedon is terrible" stance. Compared to Firefly it's weak, tonally off, and one of its most talked about moments (River) is pretty much a swerve out of left field. Plus the genre breaking explanation of the reavers was really unneeded. On it's own apart from the show I don't think it holds up, and am not sure what's in it for someone to latch on to if it's their first exposure.
In short. I did not like it, and think it's horribly overrated.
In short. I did not like it, and think it's horribly overrated.
According to Whedon Serenity was essentially what season 2 of Firefly was going to be. Obviously we got a condensed version, so it's understandable if you feel that it doesn't have the same tone as the show. The show could slow down in places whereas the movie could not.
I think some elements of the seasons that could have been are covered in the comics, but if I remember correctly the government basically marks the Serenity crew as traitors and a whole new level of shit goes down for them.