• Secure your account

    A friendly reminder to our users, please make sure your account is safe. Make sure you update your password and have an active email address to recover or change your password.

  • Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here

Guardians of the Galaxy Does "not taking place in this galaxy" spell doom for this movie?

Yeah, all movies set in space bomb.

Except for, y'know, Star Wars, Star Trek, Avatar, etc

Green Lantern was beyond horrible (also maybe 10 minutes of it were set in space, lol) and John Carter managed to take the setting of Mars and make it indistinguishable from Utah
 
The point of GOTG is it takes place far, far, far away from Earth. Nobody's gonna balk if it's 1 billion light-years away as opposed to 10,000.

There's a lot of reasons that GL and JC failed, but the setting isn't part of either's shortcomings.
 
Disagree, the setting was a big part of the failure of both. Green Lantern was sold as a 'space movie' and there was no space stuff beyond what was in the trailer. It actually opened reasonably (50M), it just fell off a cliff because it was stupid and horrible and of no interest to anyone.

And no one took the 'Mars' of John Carter all that seriously because it just looked like a desert. Would of helped if the movie wasn't so stilted and boring, too
 
Disagree, the setting was a big part of the failure of both. Green Lantern was sold as a 'space movie' and there was no space stuff beyond what was in the trailer. It actually opened reasonably (50M), it just fell off a cliff because it was stupid and horrible and of no interest to anyone.

And no one took the 'Mars' of John Carter all that seriously because it just looked like a desert. Would of helped if the movie wasn't so stilted and boring, too

That's what I meant. It wasn't the fact that they were "space movies" that caused them to fail; but NOT being "space movies" certainly contributed to them bombing at the box office.

Had either movie concentrated on being more alien and spending far, far more time in space and on distant planets than on boring and unoriginal subplots here on earth, then they might have actually turned out decent.
 
Yep. Basically if you're gonna make a 'space movie' don't half-ass it, go all in.
 
From the front page...

http://www.superherohype.com/news/a...axy-will-takes-place-in-a-galaxy-far-far-away

James Gunn says the movie won't take place in this galaxy. I can think of two recent movie disasters that featured the story takiing place away from Earth, and with a cast of mainly aliens..

Green Lantern
John Carter (of Mars)
This doesn't really make a lot of sense. We always knew this film would not take place on Earth, how does it taking place in a different galaxy make anything different?

A movie does not have to take place on Earth or an Earth-like planet to be successful...that said now that I think about it I can understand why so many people are apprehensive on whether this can actually be a success since there hasn't been a big space opera blockbuster hit in a very long time. But that's why Marvel has the perfect opportunity to knock this out of the park.
 
http://www.sfx.co.uk/2013/03/04/sfx-233-preview-marvel-boss-on-phase-2/

“I wouldn’t say that in a broad sense. The Thor film and the Guardians Of The Galaxy film certainly are cosmic. Guardians and Thor will take the brunt of the cosmic side of the universe, particularly Guardians, which is 95% in space. I think Iron Man 3 shows the other side of Phase 2, which is delving deeper into the characters. Throwing them on a much more personal journey. And Captain America will showcase… What’s exciting to me about Cap – sort of about Iron Man 3 too if you look at it – is it’s tonally almost like a different genre. Shane Black’s described Iron Man 3 as a Tom Clancy sort of political thriller, which I like a lot. We hired our directors on Cap because they loved our explanation that we really want to make a ’70s political thriller masquerading as a big superhero movie. Just like with the first film – we got Joe Johnston because we said, ‘We want to do a ’40s World War Two movie masquerading as a big superhero movie.’ I love that we’re doing a sequel to a film that’s a completely different genre than the first film. I think that’s fun. And the comics do it all the time.”

THANK YOU BASED FEIGE.
 
The other 5% is probably Star-Lord's origin.
 
Yeah the latest 2 examples of a film taking place in space bombing has more to do with the quality of the film rather the fact that it takes place in space.
 
If the movie is about 130 minutes long then 5% of that would be about 6-7 minutes to tell Star-Lord's origin. That's fine with me.
 
95% in space = 110% win.

:up:

I can't believe some people are complaining that it's not going to be in our solar system or even have scenes on Earth.

I'm glad neither of those two things are happening, it would be kind of boring.
 
Pretty sure Guardians takes place before The Avengers
 
I imagine it'll be more like 25 minutes on Earth, the rest in outer space. I can't imagine them stuffing Star-Lord's origins into 7-8 minutes.
 
If the movie is good, people will see it. Disney's going to market the hell out of this movie, I think both Marvek and Disney see potential in the Guardians as a big franchise
 
I imagine it'll be more like 25 minutes on Earth, the rest in outer space. I can't imagine them stuffing Star-Lord's origins into 7-8 minutes.


You mean his earthly origins....? Hell, that's all they need. 7-8 minutes. His *real* "origin story" is "human gets shot into the far reaches of space and joins a band of alien misfit adventurers." No need to dwell on his mundane life at home.
 
I imagine it'll be more like 25 minutes on Earth, the rest in outer space. I can't imagine them stuffing Star-Lord's origins into 7-8 minutes.
Theye could do it in a LOTR or Watchmen style prologue.
 
You mean his earthly origins....? Hell, that's all they need. 7-8 minutes. His *real* "origin story" is "human gets shot into the far reaches of space and joins a band of alien misfit adventurers." No need to dwell on his mundane life at home.
They might want to make it clear he's half-alien and show the time his mother/father spent together and a slight bit of his childhood. Shouldn't take more than another 7-8 minutes though.
 
I think it's a very new and bold move for the creators which I like. Usually we have to go through the relatability on Earth. He happens to live in New York. He lives alone so no-one depends on him when he suddenly dissappears etc etc.

Building a whole new world is trickier but more rewarding I think. Lord of the Rings can do it without starting the story in present day New York, let's give it a try!
 
You mean his earthly origins....? Hell, that's all they need. 7-8 minutes. His *real* "origin story" is "human gets shot into the far reaches of space and joins a band of alien misfit adventurers." No need to dwell on his mundane life at home.

Well Iron Man and Captain America got entire first acts of films for their origins. I just can't imagine everything Star-Lord being shoved into the first few minutes. If you want the audiences to care about this character long term, they need to spend a little time with him before he's blasted into space.

Guardians of the Galaxy #0.1 was a surprisingly great issue, and I could see that being reproduced beat for beat in a film, followed by some of the Marvel Premiere stuff with Peter Quill moving up in Nasa (it might be SWORD in GoTG) and blasting himself off into Outerspace.
 
They don't have to explain his origin at all in the beginning. No one says he was born on Earth.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"