Guardians of the Galaxy Trailer up

[Elheru Aran]

Drax was kind of a dumb idiot for a while there, mostly when he was wearing his purple cape outfit. He could hit things very hard... really, he was pretty much the Hulk with more clothes. I think it was Adam who gave him a little more intelligence, but I can't be positive.

Comics wise usually the main Guardians don't really do big things-- they're a supporting cast to the big names, but they do pull a lot of sneaky stuff behind the scenes and such. When Nova and Iron Man and Silver Surfer and whoever are making a big scene, they're the ones stealing into the bad guy's headquarters to nab the secret plans... and of course things go balls-up in the middle of it and they have to shoot everything out. It seems to be a bit of a rule of theirs that nothing ever goes remotely close to plan...

[Lord Revan]

so they're like the Serenity crew from Firefly or the main cast of Farscape then but as super heroes?

[Elheru Aran]

so they're like the Serenity crew from Firefly or the main cast of Farscape then but as super heroes?

That's a pretty decent way to put it. Cliche band of misfits who can never do anything right even though they have good intentions.

[Ahriman238]

That's a great way to put it. With a bit more character conflicts and overall craziness. Well, maybe they're not crazier than the Moya crew.

[Agent Fisher]

Well, I know nothing about the Guardians of the Galaxy. I had heard them in passing (as in 'hey Mike, one of hte next marvel movies will be GotG). After watching the trailer, yeah, sign me up, I'll be watching this in theaters.

I mean besides, any trailer that uses Hooked on a Feeling while showing action scenes, that movie's got to be at least worth a try.

[Alkaloid]

I wouldn't be all that sure it's going to be a comedy romp. The Avengers trailers made it look like they were taking things a lot less seriously than they actually did.

Also I really like the idea of relatively low rent superheros taking on much more dangerous threats than the big 6. I really want the avengers movies to chuck all the sidekicks from the standalone movies together in a couple of scenes as well, for hilarious awkwardness.

[Vendetta]

I was mostly happy that the trailer didn't feel the need to go *bwooooom* at depressingly predictable intervals.

[LadyTevar]

Drax was kind of a dumb idiot for a while there, mostly when he was wearing his purple cape outfit. He could hit things very hard... really, he was pretty much the Hulk with more clothes. I think it was Adam who gave him a little more intelligence, but I can't be positive.

Drax had been mind-bombed by Moondragon (his daughter) and suffered a loss of intelligence. Moondragon later got that fixed.

I'm begining to think they've all gotten arrested, because there's something/someone in that Jail/on that planet that they're targetting. So, we're gonna see "Leverage" or "Ocean's Eleven" style shenanigans.
It'll be great

[Vendetta]

Either that or they'll take a leaf out of the original team's origin and it'll be a sort of space Dirty Dozen.

[Ahriman238]

Either that or they'll take a leaf out of the original team's origin and it'll be a sort of space Dirty Dozen.

Pretty much my thought, they could be meeting up in prison. Or the prison sequences are just for the trailer and have nothing to do with the film itself.

[Havok]

It's certainly going to tie-in with the Infinity Gems/rocks since the Collector (Del Torro) is in it.

I think the trailer is perfect and I am fucking glad Marvel is getting off Earth. Some of their best and most fun story arcs have been space based. (Secret Wars, The Dark Phoenix Saga, Annihilation)

[2000AD]

Can't remember who said it but it sums things up well:

DC: Not risking doing a Wonder Woman solo movie.
Marvel: Here's Bradley Cooper as a Racoon and Vin Diesel as a tree.

[Tsyroc]

Can't remember who said it but it sums things up well:

DC: Not risking doing a Wonder Woman solo movie.
Marvel: Here's Bradley Cooper as a Racoon and Vin Diesel as a tree.

It helps that when Marvel took some chances they also worked rather hard to keep the budget under control. I'm not sure if they are doing as well on that as when they started but I think it was an important part of them doing the movies themselves.

[Vendetta]

I've mentioned this before, but the closest Marvel analogue to a WW movie was the original Thor movie.

You can see in the original Thor movie that they didn't have a lot of faith in it, it didn't get a lot of budget, half the movie has no FX and is set in bumblefuck nowhere, leaving the FX bits for Asgard at the start and end.

That was because, unlike Captain America which came out the same year it was a more offbeat property that relies on more of its fantastical elements than "weedy kid really wants to punch nazis" which can draw many of its core elements from a cultural common currency (World War 2, underdog struggle, etc).

Wonder Woman will be like that, it relies on fantastical elements of its setting that the audience has to accept in order to accept the movie. Thor got around that by basing the narrative on the most understandable element (conflict between brothers) and letting that draw along the fantastical elements. The central conflict of Thor would be transferrable to any movie with any setting, because it's a conflict between the favoured son and the jealous one.

But how do you do that with Wonder Woman? The most obvious character conflict is between her and her mother but that conflict is rooted in her mother's desire to keep Themyscera isolated which means that you need to draw in specifics of the setting which is what you're trying to avoid because you're attempting to use the character conflict to sell the setting, but you need the setting to sell the conflict.

Whilst it's an entertaining comparison that Marvel are now willing to make a movie with a talking raccoon with more guns than Texas and DC still can't figure out how to do one of their biggest names, they've also spent the last five to ten years building up the Marvel name in action movie cinema to the point where they reckon people will go and see Guardians just because it's the new Marvel movie, whereas DC have managed to do Batman properly and stumble repeatedly on getting Superman right.

[Crazedwraith]

i've never been sure about that comparison. I mean sure Marvel are willing to do fun films with a raccon and talking tree as supporting characters. whereas as DC are only willing to do Batman and Superman with terrible po-faced seriousness. But then marvel's movie strategy as been throw lots of characters at the screen and see what's sticks.

To my mind there are two main problems with Wonder Woman as the studio sees it; a) people won't buy the mythic elements and b) people won't buy the female superhero lead. (and lets face it the superheroine movies they have done were pretty shit though that by no means mean they're impossible to do well)

So while yeah Marvel's doing raccons and tree-people. They're only as a support to the classic bland white male lead. If Marvel was actually doing say Black Widow. (basically they're best prospect coming of IM2/Avengers) or even Ms.Marvel movies then it might be a better point.

I pick those two because they're prominent marvel superheroines who aren't team players or obviously female counterparts of male heroes,like say she-hulk or Spider-woman. (Yeah, Ms.Marvel technically is too Marvel's Captain Marvel but basically completely overshadows him anyway)

[Imperial Overlord]

I've mentioned this before, but the closest Marvel analogue to a WW movie was the original Thor movie.

You can see in the original Thor movie that they didn't have a lot of faith in it, it didn't get a lot of budget, half the movie has no FX and is set in bumblefuck nowhere, leaving the FX bits for Asgard at the start and end.

Thor had a $150 million dollar budget, more than the original Iron Man. While setting it in nowhere for the middle part of the movie probably kept costs down (for relative values of down) the front and back parts of the movie were drowning in FX. They may not have had as much faith in it as in Captain America, but they weren't half assing it or starving it for resources.

[Simon_Jester]

i've never been sure about that comparison. I mean sure Marvel are willing to do fun films with a raccon and talking tree as supporting characters. whereas as DC are only willing to do Batman and Superman with terrible po-faced seriousness. But then marvel's movie strategy as been throw lots of characters at the screen and see what's sticks.

Thing is, practically everything sticks. They must be doing something right other than "spam movies," because the actual Marvel Studios movies almost invariably make money hand-over-fist, with the sole exceptions I can think of being Daredevil, Elektra, and the Punisher movies (which I hadn't even heard of until I went digging).

Guess what those have in common? They're all basically NOT superhero movies, they're fairly mundane action flicks (with the sole exception being the schtick Daredevil has of being blind and seeing by sonar). Even Captain America had more super-heroics, because there was 'super-science' of the pulp era type going on in the plot, and because the setting was the relatively grand stage of the Second World War, rather than gritty "Manhattan is full of criminals" stuff.

So I feel fairly justified in saying that whenever Marvel Comics makes a superhero movie, a real super-hero movie, they make money. Spamming attempts is not all that's going on here.

I pick those two because they're prominent marvel superheroines who aren't team players or obviously female counterparts of male heroes,like say she-hulk or Spider-woman. (Yeah, Ms.Marvel technically is too Marvel's Captain Marvel but basically completely overshadows him anyway)

That's a legitimate point. I do think we need a successful breakthrough for female lead superheroics, and I'm rather frustrated that we haven't got one.

On the other hand DC is also having trouble getting 'Green Lantern' to work, which doesn't have a female lead. A priori there's no reason it should be harder to make a good Green Lantern movie than a good Iron Man movie; if someone had offered me the bet in 2004 I'd have said there was no way to know which would take off and which wouldn't.

Marvel has to be doing something right here.

[Elheru Aran]

Part of the thing between Marvel and DC, I think, is their past history in television beyond comic books. DC has the Super Friends cartoon (which has basically defined retro cheese for our entire generation), an assload of Batman cartoons, couple of Justice League things that went a few years, one season of animated Superman and a few recent animated movies. Apart from Batman, they really don't have much presence in the field of television. The DCAU (Timmverse specially) is pretty notable for its quality, but there isn't all that much quantity if you think about it.

Marvel on the other hand has had two or three X-Men cartoons, they had Spiderman and His Amazing Friends, at least a couple other Spidey shows, Iron Man, Fantastic Four cartoon, heck I think they had a Captain America cartoon at one point... they definitely did have a Captain America TV show (live action), cheesy as that was.

I think they're having an edge in that history in terms of sheer quantity. More people remember the Marvel cartoons than DC from 'our' generation (people born in the late 70s/early 80s). My childhood Saturday morning was like this... BTAS, then Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man and the Power Rangers. One to three. Not really fair.

Of course my perspective may be skewed as I only saw a whole lot of cartoons in approx '98-99...

[Havok]

They must be doing something right other than "spam movies," because the actual Marvel Studios movies almost invariably make money hand-over-fist, with the sole exceptions I can think of being Daredevil, Elektra, and the Punisher movies (which I hadn't even heard of until I went digging).

Guess what those have in common? They're all basically NOT superhero movies, they're fairly mundane action flicks (with the sole exception being the schtick Daredevil has of being blind and seeing by sonar). Even Captain America had more super-heroics, because there was 'super-science' of the pulp era type going on in the plot, and because the setting was the relatively grand stage of the Second World War, rather than gritty "Manhattan is full of criminals" stuff.

Daredevil, Punisher and Elektra were not done by Marvel Studios. The rights for the movies only reverted to Marvel in 2012 and 2013.

P.S. The last Punisher movie was great if you realize you are watching a comicbook.

[JME2]

Part of the thing between Marvel and DC, I think, is their past history in television beyond comic books. DC has the Super Friends cartoon (which has basically defined retro cheese for our entire generation), an assload of Batman cartoons, couple of Justice League things that went a few years, one season of animated Superman and a few recent animated movies. Apart from Batman, they really don't have much presence in the field of television. The DCAU (Timmverse specially) is pretty notable for its quality, but there isn't all that much quantity if you think about it.

Marvel on the other hand has had two or three X-Men cartoons, they had Spiderman and His Amazing Friends, at least a couple other Spidey shows, Iron Man, Fantastic Four cartoon, heck I think they had a Captain America cartoon at one point... they definitely did have a Captain America TV show (live action), cheesy as that was.

I think they're having an edge in that history in terms of sheer quantity. More people remember the Marvel cartoons than DC from 'our' generation (people born in the late 70s/early 80s). My childhood Saturday morning was like this... BTAS, then Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man and the Power Rangers. One to three. Not really fair.

Of course my perspective may be skewed as I only saw a whole lot of cartoons in approx '98-99...

Part of the problem is that Marvel's had more success branching out and achieving diversity among their brands.

WB, by contrast, keeps going back to the Bat/Supes cash cow because they've stumbled every time they try to branch out (ex. the GL film).

[Elheru Aran]

Right. That diversity is benefiting Marvel now as their movies are more accessible. "Captain America? Oh hey, I saw him in that Spiderman cartoon when I was a kid, he was cool, I'll check it out."

DC on the other hand has the two tentpoles of Supes and Bats, and beyond that... they don't have much. JL is semi-viable because they had the cartoons and enough people remember those that it's possible the movie may work if it doesn't go full crazy-nuts, but beyond that none of their characters can really stand on their own. "Arrow" has been working out alright and has been introducing some characters from the wider DC universe (Flash is coming up soon), but it's still fairly niche as far as I know. It's not movie material, to be honest, and I think DC needs to focus on television more than movies right now.

Given Marvel's so-far success with Agents of SHIELD and their cartoons, I would say that's probably the safer path right now. Build up your universe and then throw out some movies that add to it... I suspect Nolanverse Batman will hurt DC in the long run because those movies have built up an image of Batman for a generation, and when future movies don't meet that image, they'll disappoint the non-geeks. Honestly I'm dreading the Batman/Superman movie, as far as that goes.

Oh, and for all that the geeks hate it, Marvel hooking up with Disney was a strategically brilliant move for the company. They get Disney's near-unlimited financial and publicity resources to support and promote their products. DC, meanwhile, has WB... which has a shitty TV network and that's kind of about it. Harry Potter was a big product for WB, but it's not comics-related (if somewhat the same genre). If you want to extend things out to AOL Time Warner, then you have a little more pull, but nowhere near Disney's (who the heck uses AOL anymore, anyway?).

It comes down to Marvel just ended up in a situation where it played the long game much better than DC at this point.

[JME2]

It comes down to Marvel just ended up in a situation where it played the long game much better than DC at this point.

Which is why I'm against the current Justice League film project.

WB is rushing to cash in on their competitor's success as quickly as possible -- yet they're overlooking that this success was achieved because, as you noted, Marvel was willing to play the long game.

[Civil War Man]

Marvel has to be doing something right here.

I think one of the biggest reasons for Marvel's success is casting. They've done pretty well so far getting the right actors placed in the right roles. RDJ for Iron Man is the obvious example, but Thor for example probably wouldn't have been as much of a hit if it weren't for Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston.

[JME2]

Hiddleston is the best casting choice for the entire MCU after RDJ.

That's what made their confrontation in Tony's pad all the better -- because you had such great actors playing off each other.

[Elheru Aran]

You have some surprises there too. Who would've thought frat-boy Johnny Storm actor Chris Evans would've had the chops to get into shape and pull off Captain America? But he did. And after the debacle that was Ang Lee's Hulk, Edward Norton and later Mark Ruffalo were great choices to play Bruce Banner.

Honestly the casting is just one part of it though, they've had some very savvy directors such as Kenneth Branagh and Joss Whedon.

The Other Guys, on the other hand-- Christian Bale as Batman was a great hit, but again, the Batman movies (apart from Man of Steel) are the only DC movies to really do well in casting recently. Brandon Routh looked right (silly brown costume redesign aside), but couldn't really act Superman. Even Henry Cavill, while he was good, made the character somewhat different from what I was expecting as "Superman". The less said about Ryan Reynolds as Green Lantern, the better.

Looking at the list of DC-imprint films on Wikipedia, I'm struck by the titles. Bunch of Superman and Batman, a few oddities like Swamp Thing from the 70s, then a couple of abortions like Catwoman and Jonah Hex. The only DC movie besides the big two to do well recently was Watchmen, and that says something. V for Vendetta counts too, I suppose, but that's another non-traditional superhero movie.

So that's another thing for the mindset of movie viewers to take into account. Marvel has a lot of variety, while DC is more "man, another Batman/Superman movie? Didn't they have one of those just a couple years ago?" Basically, Marvel can shotgun the movies out. They can afford to take a loss or two if they have a stinker like Daredevil or Punisher. DC only has two properties that really ring any bells with the general public, and if they flog those two too hard, the public gets bored. If they try to do anything that's not Bats/Supes, the public has no idea what they're on about.

It can be done-- Marvel is proving it with Guardians of the Galaxy, which is a long shot if I ever heard of one-- but DC doesn't really have the nards to step up and do it right, apparently. At this point, I'm not sure they *can*.