Guardians of the Galaxy -----> it sucks, yes

For reviews and close examination of sources - episode reviews, book reviews, raves and rants about short stories, et cetera.
User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Guardians of the Galaxy -----> no it doesn't suck

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Jan 09, 2015 10:02 pm

Lucky wrote:2) A movie like GOTG is meant to entertain first and foremost, and most people who see it seem to think it does its job well enough.
I thought the vast majority of movies were meant to entertain. I sure don't watch movies to be bored, but perhaps I'm a rare bird out there.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Guardians of the Galaxy -----> it sucks, yes

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Jan 12, 2015 7:22 pm

End of movie, forced drama and glaring tear milking:

GAMORA
Peter! Take my hand!

PETER
Ugh! Argh! I'm kinda occupied right now! Like, on the verge of collapse while containing a voracious purple energy cloud of death that's about to destroy all life on this planet!*

GAMORA
Yes! But take my haaaand!

PETER
Are you blind?! What about YOU move a couple inches closer and grab mine??

GAMORA
Pleeeaase! Peteer! Take my haaaaand!

PETER
Argh! WHAT??! Get out of my head, I'm seeing my deceased bald mom and she's on a bed, floating amid some pot-induced coloured space. Uh... that's... kinda fun... No wait! I'm DYING!!

GAMORA
I AGREE!! So take it! Take it! My ha--

PETER
AAWWWCH!! If I ever take it, I'll use it to punch you in the face until it turns purple too, you stupid dumb green bitch! Ouch! Ouch! OUCH!! AAAYYYEEEEE!!!!

GAMORA
You must resist! Take my haannd! Peter! My. Hand. There!

PETER
I'm fucking burning alive dammit! My skin is peeling off and floating in front of my eyes!! And I'm STUCK! Argh! Oh man it HURTS! Look! See those?? Fingers, grab any of them NOW!

GAMORA
Peter, we're so wasting time!

PETER
WHA?? LIKE... POT KETTLE RAINBOW! AAARGH!!

Seconds later, after this epic win.

PETER
Oh, that was close.
...
Wait. What are those civilians doing there? I thought they said the city was evacuated.

And how come there isn't any stupid clot to take pictures with his smartphone.
That would have been funny.


*The cloud forms unless you're pink or blue skinned. That's racist.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Guardians of the Galaxy -----> it sucks, yes

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:20 pm

I shouldn't go into details about the whole "climax", because it's truly terrible.
There's so much to tear apart, sometimes you get a WTF every ten seconds.
But let's just pick another one...

Definition

Annihilation Protocol (IIRC), compound noun: putting the Necrocrafts (wow scary name for tissue paper vessels) to good use, because they turn out to be much more "deadly" by crashing into city parks on Xandar than actually using their shitty semi-guided energy weapons (which they can't hit anything with) on and on until half the city burns (but what for?).
I mean, you know there's something wrong with the action and drama in that movie when you were more worried about your craft not being hit in the very first level of Starfox64 than about any bird being shot during the whole final air battle of GotG.
Mind you (going back to the Necrocraps), it's not like the whole ship was chokeful with them and could have used them to... mmm... defend the damaged Dark Ashtray perhaps? Or blast the Nova Corps out of the sky while they were sitting ducks, all glued together by the Energetic Yellow Cloth of Victory.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Guardians of the Galaxy -----> it sucks, yes

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jan 13, 2015 1:36 am

OMG! Absolutely solid review, hands down!
Comments are gold too.

Sideswipe
Bridge Officer
Posts: 134
Joined: Sun Jun 03, 2007 2:51 pm

Re: Guardians of the Galaxy -----> it sucks, yes

Post by Sideswipe » Tue Jan 20, 2015 1:40 pm

I don't get all the massive praise for this movie. Aside from a few bits of dialogue here and there it's not that memorable. This is another MCU movie that suffers from Weak Villain syndrome.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Guardians of the Galaxy -----> it sucks, yes

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:10 pm

Sideswipe wrote:I don't get all the massive praise for this movie. Aside from a few bits of dialogue here and there it's not that memorable. This is another MCU movie that suffers from Weak Villain syndrome.
That's the magic of Super PR!
There's one simple rule that even the dumbest duck on the planet can get, is that if you have a vilain that sucks honey balls, then the movie is fubar, especially if it's about defeating said protagonist, and that no matter what way one enthusiastically spins it.
I'm pretty sure even an auto plot generator would have pulled something better.

It's absolutely clear to me that this movie would have made much more sense if it had been produced as a cartoon anime, with cartoon physics and the most over the top fruity and gloating bad guy who gets stupidly owned at the end. You know, like in any fuuhnee kiddy cartoon.
And perhaps I'm harsh with kiddy cartoons because I think they respected their bad guys more than GotG ever did.

Man... The Lion King was awesome.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Guardians of the Galaxy -----> it sucks, yes

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Jan 20, 2015 11:59 pm

There was this reviewer, I think it was about three monhts ago, at first it seemed fair. At bit harsh, but quite fair and I couldn't see the value of it. So I tried to see the whole from his perspective. Then, it dawned on me, this guy is pioneering the concept of "evolving content". If you wonder, that's it. It's just baffling. Who could even see it coming from such a small space on internet? I mean, you hear them all in IT, you know, it's blogs, it's content marketing, so you got to be here and there, cause that's where the money is and the business, well, the business side is rather important, it has to be pretty well oiled and so they keep talking about the website you get and how your customers, who are not that different from you and me mind you, or perhaps they are because I don't want to be discriminating here but you see the point that is we have to be taking a larger scope on this, if only for the sake of fairness, that's the idea. No one can dispute it, that's for sure. We try to be fair. Yes, fair, and yes, it's true it's hard to have a rather balanced view on such changes until you have a rather decent experience in these matters. You can be aged and yet know zip. I'm not saying that being old is bad, I've seen enough in my own life to know we cannot be so judgemental so you compare the facts, and these people, they often come on top. But it's also a competitive environment, you can't always be sure that you'll easily take enough elements in consideration, or say at least a bit of everything without perhaps missing on something that seems minuscule at first, at all. And then, just out of nowhere, they talk about video, like it's the only one thing that matters now, you're expected to forget the rest and the next minute everybody does videos and they're even directors. They can be the small ones or dare I say, the big ones, they really go for it at this points, all hands up, it's almost insane. Then they think they can claim massive amounts of money. Soon enough they even get the ads rolling, just like that, as if they were in the process of turning the entire industry upside down! This is when a timely comparison can be made with the evolution of microchip distribution in southern states circa 1983, give or take. The parallels, they just jump at your face. You see, the problem repeats itself. First we get the initial wave of me too guys, they're annoying but you can get past them and we're not pay much attention. Truth is, you rarely get the obnoxious one in a meeting so that's rather easy. It's not like I want to blame them either, they're doing something that appeals to them and we all know trends come and go, we'd probably do the same, wouldn't we? Plus the tech, back then, looked awesome, and we didn't have all the commodities that surround us today. Those we don't pay attention to. We just don't do that anymore, it's more, like, streamlined I suppose, if we go down that road. And they're honest, really, it's often the edge of what I'd see as a tight network, some few relevant acquaintances I guess, they make the difference and the rest just follows, that's quite the rule of the game. Well obviously the first wave is all about criticizing, but in a rather kind way, and no one would really bother with that unless there was some kind of emotional involvment which, I dunno, feels misplaced to me anyway. But that's the trick, because these guys, they in fact carry the message which we should pay attention to. It's as a group that they work well, almost making wonders, but if you care about one or two individuals, isolated you wouldn't notice much! It's almost superfluous. But as a whole, there's definitely something into that mindset that must be considered. They're not your everyday commentor, that's true, and perhaps that's what makes them stick out. Sometimes you may even regret not toeing the trail, because what comes next is just insane. Like the review and evolution of special effects, the rapid burst that came with the technological revolution, so each day it seems you're already out of the game but everybody plays this game, no one has a head start, yet you must pretend you do otherwise you lose. It's kinda big lie, this whole parade. I'd say it takes about three months to get the gist of it, at least if you connected with the right sales persons. See? Like spare parts, you really get messy with them, you need advice, opinions, guidance of some kind, and most likely a whole lot of teamwork to get things moving. This is not about pulling the best out of a rejuvenated Chevy with amped pistons, that's not the topic, plus it's rather outdone in terms of authority, you're more like filling a niche at this point and the initial phase is long overdue anyway, don't pay attention to the sidelines, so they say... yeah however how do you reach the next batch of reports? There's like a hundred plus of docs to wade through, I know that, and they're all bunched up so all fun is ruined at this point, for most of the guys who worked on the paper initially. It doesn't look like it, but there's more than meets the eye.

EDIT: I had to reduce the length. I may post part II, III and IV in about one week. I need to change bits in Part V.
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:04 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Guardians of the Galaxy -----> it sucks, yes

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Jan 21, 2015 12:02 am

Perhaps we need a new perspective on all this?
Try this one. It's quite toned down but I think it's fair. I might even agree.

Darth Spock
Bridge Officer
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: A Beta Quadrant far far away

Re: Guardians of the Galaxy -----> it sucks, yes

Post by Darth Spock » Thu Feb 19, 2015 1:39 am

Since I finally got around to seeing GotG, I figured I may as well throw my opinion on the pile, however belatedly and unnecessarily. And my verdict is...

...

...

...

...

I liked it! ... And it was a crappy movie.

Big surprise, the raccoon did it for me. Really, how can you go wrong with a talking raccoon with a gun, IN SPACE! "I need that guy's leg." Phht! HehehheHAHAHAHHAHAaaaahohhohohohhheeeee huuuhhhhhhhh. Yeah. Not much in life better than a smart arse talking rodent with a gun. IN SPACE!

For as much fun as I had though, I agree Mr. O, it was a sloppy, predictable, illogical, poorly explained bit of cinematic fluff with a confusing/nonexistent back story. Of course, it's pretty obvious the only reason this film exists is to introduce the "Guardians of the Galaxy" and provide a base for guys like me who don't know jack about the comics they originated from. So while I found the movie did a poor job of establishing back stories and explaining things in general, it does serve as a back story in its self. In that regard, I have no hesitation about seeing the inevitable sequel. Hopefully, it will retain the same degree of frivolous fun, but try a little harder to explain the "who" the "what" and the "why."
Oh yeah, one example of the wasted potential in this movie, the scanner thing "Space Lord, mothah, mothah" -- I mean Peter, er, "Star Lord," was using at the beginning. I figured out quick enough that it let him look into that space as it existed in the past. Cool. But so what? After they draw attention to it, why did they bother, it certainly didn't seem to have anything to do with actually finding the orb doodad. So yeah, a lot of things in the movie did seem to just be thrown in there with no real purpose, other than being "cool." I enjoyed it, but there was a great deal of wasted potential. Here's hoping for the next installment!

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Guardians of the Galaxy -----> it sucks, yes

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Feb 20, 2015 10:22 pm

Yes, one of the reviews concluded that this movie only existed for a sequel to be made.
If you think of it, it's almost paradoxal. Like the sequel is actually going to legitimize the first one. Hurr Durr...

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Guardians of the Galaxy -----> it sucks, yes

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Sat Sep 12, 2015 9:32 pm

I saw it in IMAX 3D. There were a few production flaws that were visible to me (the 3D wasn't quite working right in a couple scenes between the CGI and "live" parts, with parts of it being "flat").

Overall, I enjoyed it. Yes, there were some things that were very silly about it, but it was funny and never boring. The movie is halfway to being entirely CGI animation, but that's not a bad thing, IMO (except for the moments that someone forgot to - or forgot to budget for - a full second-perspective render for 3D). The premises are ridiculous - but once you move past the premises, things hold together pretty well. Drax made a lot of sense as a character: He's alien (at least from the perspective of a normal human), but he is consistent. Aliens who don't think like normal humans are difficult to pull off successfully (look at how hard it has been to write aliens who aren't just funny-looking humans consistently in Star Wars / Star Trek - and how strong it is when it works), but they did a good job with Drax.

The big bads are cartoonishly evil in some ways - especially in their scenes with each other - and that is the weak point of the film. However, it was thoroughly entertaining, and you didn't need to be familiar with the source material to find it entertaining (a major problem with a lot of comic book movies, over the years).

I found the mix tapes' role very touching and quite thoroughly realistically human.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Guardians of the Galaxy -----> it sucks, yes

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Tue Sep 29, 2015 9:20 pm

I find them cheap and just a way to lure in grown ups through nostalgia and an equally cheap trick to sell a "new" OST on iTunes.
The swearing, only taking second seat to most overused clichés, also hurt the movie. I know swearing these days in about every [fucking] sentence makes you sound cool and affirmative, like if other words wouldn't carry enough weight, but that won't help make the movie the presumed classic it's been touted as on the long term.
It's also a movie that's at odds with the rest of the MCU products, even the most light hearted, like Avengers.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Guardians of the Galaxy -----> it sucks, yes

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:45 pm

With the benefit of time, hype balloon poped and with heads having cooled down, I look at opinions about that passable movie and I'm constantly left aghast by the miracles this movie managed to pull in so many people's minds.
It has tons of flaws which are detrimental to the overall quality of a true and solid movie. Weak plot, vapid main characters, vulgarity that's supposed to sell (to nowaday audiences I guess it does), dubious morals, forced humour and coolness, stupid and forgettable villain, zero tension, a copious reliance on going for the deus ex machina bag anytime a significant problem needs to be solved, trying to be subversive to a genre when it is not, not even managing to be tongue-in-cheek when it should probably have, exploiting nostalgia like you've never seen before (aside from the new SW movies and remakes of classics) and globally failing to be clever. All that, wrapped in good CGI eye candy.
I read here and there people saying they had fun.
I need to understand their meaning of that word.
They admit huge flaws but they had "fun". It is like some fancy buzzword which you can use in any form of discussion about cinematographic tastes when you actually have a shred of courage to say that no, not all movies are equal. Then, this word acts as a veiled ad hominem because the other person clearly is a grumpy old fart who can't have this same preshious "fun".
Fuck that.
I went there and read what follows. A person replies to someone else's message:
periphery72271 12 points 2 years ago wrote:There are a lot of reasons I go to the movies.

One of them is to have fun.

This movie has exactly zero new concepts in it, really, I mean if you break it down every single part of it has been done before. But the reason all this stuff has been done before is because done well, it's fun to watch.

I watched this movie and spent 2 hours smiling and laughing and at a few points almost feeling like I was going to tear up. [Was this person on crack or something?] When I laugh and almost cry 10 minutes into a movie? it's doing it's job. I knew the whole time what Gunn was doing, but he was doing it really, really well, so I went with it, and I'm glad I did. [Couldn't because it's quite badly written.]

You held back, you didn't take the ride, and so all you see you've seen with a critical eye. [I guess that's the really the magic. Having no critical eye is having no wisdom. AKA being dumb. A cretin. A moron. Etc.] And frankly, this wasn't a movie that was that impressive from an 'art of filmmaking' point of view. None of Marvel's movies are, actually. I see what you're saying, and better yet, I agree. The characters were pretty two dimensional, the plot alone was boring, and the action sequences were flashy and in their own way repetitive. [So the movie was shit basically. I wonder why this commercial product gets such a free pass...]

But it never bored me. Just in the same way the eternal chase between Wile E. Coyote and the Roadrunner will never bore me [B.S.; Roadrunner is based on a running joke (more humour in that pun than in all GotG combined) and actually relies on a principle that is deeper than thought, but then again you'd probably quickly reach a saturation point after binge watching them, prehaps because they're meant to be seen in short cups at regular intervals], or I will never tire of seeing Vader tell Luke who his father is. [HURR DURR. Perhaps because that was actually good dialogue, with at least a very strong and honest emotional weight, eh? And there, again, another comparison to SW, like if GotG had any worth in order to be granted that privilege.]

Some movies are meant to be works of art, others are just meant to be pure enjoyment. [Err... no? In fact, isn't a work of art in cinematography precisely meant as to be pure enjoyment? Or are both irreconciliable? Or does he mean it's just dumb shit? So why don't you say so and stop giving high praises to that dumb shit that will go down the drain of cinematographic history anyway?] I am really actually sorry for you that you missed the ride on this one, because honestly, they're really pretty rare nowadays.
You want to see cleverness (and with good acting, that is, precisely not Pratt because he is just so bland), see this.
Those clever blends of tension, action, thrill, danger and humour... those are the rare gems. Oddly enough, ou'd find them in greater quantity pre-2000.

EDIT: this short one totally does it.
ThatsObviouslyWrong 2 points 2 years ago wrote:
It's fresh [fucking how?], it's funny [here's that word again, albeit in a slightly longer form; how cheeky!], it looks great [sure it does but that does not make a good movie], characters are relatable [the hell they are, there's only one you could relate to and it is the human because what happens to him is somehow "normal" and "happenable" on Earth too, to anybody else, but it's a rather bland exploitation of a comics/tv trope so there's no point waxing lyrical about it] and easily understandable [sure, they're flat characters with no complexity at all and no risk is to be taken to like them]. Story is easy to follow [i.e. plots fur fellaz who has teh dumbs] and set pieces are quite exciting [pretty lights!]. Also, the licensed soundtrack is amazing [that's part of the commercial trap. There also are tons of good tunes to like in the world but I doubt they automatically make a movie good just because you use them in yours]. What's not to like?

Also, home experience of this movie is not as great as going to a theater with great sounds and big ass screen. It's a joy to watch and hear in theater. [Argument applies to ANY (action) movie with booms and nice pictures.]

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Guardians of the Galaxy -----> it sucks, yes

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:53 pm

Just to tell you how the end could have been good (but that would have required the movie to be made by different people).
Imagine if Ronan had been built as a proper villain, one to fear and respect, and that in the end, after having betrayed Thanos, he was about to launch the attack on LovePlanet. But he'd have to either regroup to a specific place or launch an attack on an outpost first (plot reasons) and the GoodGuys would learn about that because Gomora would still pretend working for Ronan. So GoodGuys would lure Thanos by telling him where Ronan is going to move to and when, and that he'd face the Imperial fleet too. Then, Thanos could get the best out of both and recover the stone. Of course both sides wouldn't be fools and they'd know that in this strange threesome, there would be only one victor.
A small imperial taskforce would be there to force Ronan to fight and keep him in place in this sector, enough to have Thanos move in. Not because they'd be doing that for Thanos, but because Thanos may wait a bit for both forces to weaken each other.
However, as Thanos' fleet would arrive, so would the full contingent of imperial ships plus the Ravagers, which Thanos wouldn't have counted on.
All three fleets would engage and suffer great losses.
Then the Darkaster would be sent reeling into deep space or crash on the alien world and Thanos would go after Ronan to recover the stone.
We'd get an impressive fight between both villians as Ronan wouldn't be that easy to beat. The GoodGuys land their ships too and would jump on the occasion to get the best part out of that melee, then succeed, grab the stone and flee as two enemy legions would converge on the heroes.
Would end with a weakened Ronan being finished by Thanos and now having a personnal axe to grind with the GoodGuys.

Post Reply