[Movies] Guardians of the Galaxy
- Thread starter evilmike
- Start date
figmentPez
Staff member
Quill's father:
[DOUBLEPOST=1410043380,1410042825][/DOUBLEPOST]Wait, wut? I was trying to search for other crazy theories and...
Al Pacino asked to play Peter Quill's father.
Al Pacino asked to play Peter Quill's father.
Damn, I've seen this movie three times in theaters... and now I want to see it again.
Movie tickets ain't cheap... I gotta stop this.
What percentage of a ticket do you have?
I could probably afford 12% of a ticket.
I . . am Groot.
With a student ID, movie tickets here are $4.50 but concessions are a rip-off.
Tickets at my local theater (and the -only- theater, mind you) are eighteen dollars.
I hope the theater is gold-plated and the seats dispense Sno-Caps, because sweet Christmas that's insane.
That must not be a chain, right?
It might just be in an expensive city or the only theater for miles. Non-chain theaters tend to charge less than the big places in order to get more traffic. My local, non-chain theater (Studio 35) has been operating since the 70's, had a liqueur license almost as long (they started the trend), and has a pizzeria next door that will bring you pizza right into the theater. Tickets STILL start at 5 bucks for everything but special events.
But I figure if he was in a city, there would be more than one theater. I don't like going to the movies in NYC because the prices tend to be that high across the board, but there are tons of theaters ... all of them over-priced for what you're getting.
So what if it's better than 11% of a ticket?!
I am used to paying a lot for movies these days, but that is because I can't seem to go to regular theaters anymore. I enjoy going to Alamo or Flix, where I can sit and have a beer and a great meal. As such my wife and I just plan the movies we most want to watch and just budget for the whole experience. Less movies, but better experience, which is what matters.
See, this is why I go to Studio 35. It's basically a high class Alamo Drafthouse, except I can get decent pizza and attend awesome events.
The only time I go to a chain theater is if it's something I need to see ON RELEASE.
What you mean by "high class" though?
My favorite theater is literally behind my house, called Flix Brewhouse in Round Rock. It opened maybe two or three years ago and is basically a more modern Alamo with a lot better food, comfy leather chairs, and way more beers (it even has a built-in brewery). I really only go to Alamo if Flix is already booked up for the movie I want to see.
It's basically this. I'm starting to wonder why this idea only just started catching on...
Speaking of Flix, I had to pass them today while running errands, and looked at the movies playing. They are still showing GoTG at nine different showtimes, which is more then even the newer released movies. TMNT has dropped to only four showings. 
This movie has some legs.
This movie has some legs.
You know, even just the trailers are more entertaining than the entirety of Thor 2 or Man of Steel.
Man of Steel, I'll grant you. But I liked Thor 2. Don't understand why so many people didn't like it.
I thought it was about on par with the other Marvel movies. I couldn't help but notice that people seemed a bit burned out on the post Avengers movies, for no reasons that weren't found in other Marvel Studio films. I preferred Thor 2 to Thor 1, other than Anthony Hopkins phoning it in.
I also think Captain America: The First Avenger is the best Marvel Studios movie so make of it what you will.
I thought Thor 2 was alright. While it did fix flaws from the first film, I thought that it just felt a bit flat. It wasn't helped by how Malekith seemed like such a generic doomsday villain, especially in comparison to Loki. I didn't think it was a bad film, it just...felt a bit dull. I'm not quite sure how to explain it.
Sure, I can get that. Not going to argue Malekith was generic in comparison to Loki. But I thought the movie was overall pretty good. I enjoyed the final battle and the action in general. The movie gets a lot better - and a lot more fun - once Loki joins up.
Definitely. Honestly, I think it did take a jump in quality once Loki got into the picture and kind of showcased even more how generic Malekith was.
Another plus I will give to Thor 2: little to none of the excessive dutch angle shots that Kenneth Branagh had in the first film.
I only had three issues with Thor 2.
The editing was pretty bad. They had multiple scenes that felt kind of shoehorned in, often using the same shot as an old shot. Example, when Thor is explaining to the other Asgardians about the plan, he mentions how "Malakith is still out there" or something, and it cuts to the EXACT same shot as when Malakith first awoke. It felt really shoe-horned in for exposition sake, which is the second problem.
It had way to much exposition. We had the opening with the flashback where Odin talks about the past. We have the scene where Odin gives all the information again for Jane, most of it even countering what he said in the first exposition. Then we have that scene above where Thor feels like he is just retreading information we knew ten minutes ago. It feels sloppy, like maybe they didn't hit the runtime they wanted and so they stuffed in a few more scenes like that just to drag it out.
The villain, for the most part, was forgettable, which is odd considering he had the highest "stakes" of all the villains. He was not just going to screw up Earth, he was going to destroy the universe, and yet we never get to really know his motivations outside of "Ha Ha Bad Guy Loves Darkness". He had no personality, even down to his straight faced laugh out loud death when his ship falls on his armless body. When compared to Loki, he was just a joke.
That in the end I think is the crux. The villain was just a means for Thor and Loki to have more interaction without once again having Loki be the main villain for a third movie, which is why they played him so forgettable.
The editing was pretty bad. They had multiple scenes that felt kind of shoehorned in, often using the same shot as an old shot. Example, when Thor is explaining to the other Asgardians about the plan, he mentions how "Malakith is still out there" or something, and it cuts to the EXACT same shot as when Malakith first awoke. It felt really shoe-horned in for exposition sake, which is the second problem.
It had way to much exposition. We had the opening with the flashback where Odin talks about the past. We have the scene where Odin gives all the information again for Jane, most of it even countering what he said in the first exposition. Then we have that scene above where Thor feels like he is just retreading information we knew ten minutes ago. It feels sloppy, like maybe they didn't hit the runtime they wanted and so they stuffed in a few more scenes like that just to drag it out.
The villain, for the most part, was forgettable, which is odd considering he had the highest "stakes" of all the villains. He was not just going to screw up Earth, he was going to destroy the universe, and yet we never get to really know his motivations outside of "Ha Ha Bad Guy Loves Darkness". He had no personality, even down to his straight faced laugh out loud death when his ship falls on his armless body. When compared to Loki, he was just a joke.
That in the end I think is the crux. The villain was just a means for Thor and Loki to have more interaction without once again having Loki be the main villain for a third movie, which is why they played him so forgettable.
I tried to watch it like 4 times, and fell asleep on the couch during the first 20-30 minutes every time. Finally I forced myself to power through the slow opening, and ended up enjoying the movie. They really should've done something about the first half hour though.
But that is true in any story.
At the very least, when we get another Thor film, here's hoping we get a more interesting villain than Malekith was. I know Tom Hiddleston has mentioned wanting to see the Enchantress turn up.
She has on the TV show.
Actually, that was Lorelei, the Enchantress' sister. Similar shtick, except Enchantress has better spells and has the Executioner at her beck and call.