Guardians of the Galaxy Guardians of the Galaxy in Avengers 2?

[TheHeatKitchen]

Even if it's the only GOTG film to come out (no direct sequels) it cant' be a one-off by definition because it exists in the large MS continuity. Long term repercussions of offing new characters have to be taken info effect.

Yes he's starring in the SHIELD series

The GOTG story can be a one-off film while still existing in a bigger universe. And let's say this story takes place in another galaxy, not ours, as they've said. The only appearance by any characters from this film on Earth would be Thanos as the antagonist in an Avengers sequel and possibly Starlord in a post credit scene to GOTG to link the films. You don't need to dig into the long term repercussions all that much. At most, show Starlord's growth after their deaths and Thanos' abilities. There's not all that much complexity to link together after Thanos. It would just be a side story. "Meanwhile... deep in space...." type of deal. Nick Fury doesn't know Drax exists and vice versa.

I know Coulson has a tole in the series, but we don't know anything about the plot yet. We don't know how he plays in. We don't know if he'll be in flashbacks, training videos, portrayed as The Vision project, or just a straight up "he didn't die" situation. We don't know details of when the story takes place or anything yet.... unless you guys know something I don't.

 

[Chewy]

Let's say there's a Justice League story. Darkseid kills Flash and Martian Manhunter sacrifices himself trying to transport Darkseid away from Earth. ... not interesting?

I assume there would be narrative weight there, in that their deaths would have meaning and would bring about Darkseid's defeat

What you're proposing is a movie in which the heroes teaming up means nothing, as their lives and team end with Thanos still moving along unimpeded. Meanwhile the lead is ejected from the film with no closure, leaving him to get stuffed in a fridge in a separate movie

ie you're suggesting a terrible movie that wouldn't even begin to stand on its own two feet. Death on film is only meaningful to the audience if the narrative builds up to it or there's specific fallout coming out of it. A group of misfits who team up to "guard the galaxy" and die at the end of a 'one-off' without acheiving any sort of galactic betterment provides neither

 

[Poni_Boy]

I assume there would be narrative weight there, in that their deaths would have meaning and would bring about Darkseid's defeat

What you're proposing is a movie in which the heroes teaming up means nothing, as their lives and team end with Thanos still moving along unimpeded. Meanwhile the lead is ejected from the film with no closure, leaving him to get stuffed in a fridge in a separate movie

ie you're suggesting a terrible movie that wouldn't even begin to stand on its own two feet. Death on film is only meaningful to the audience if the narrative builds up to it or there's specific fallout coming out of it. A group of misfits who team up to "guard the galaxy" and die at the end of a 'one-off' without acheiving any sort of galactic betterment provides neither

Screenwriting 101

And like I said, Marvel couldn't even let Coulson -- who fans did love to death but was also a supporting character and specifically created for film use -- die. The outcry had his brought back to lead the SHIELD show.

Survey says - Marvel is going to tread lightly with whom they allow to be killed off in the future

 

[Poni_Boy]

I know Coulson has a tole in the series, but we don't know anything about the plot yet. We don't know how he plays in. We don't know if he'll be in flashbacks, training videos, portrayed as The Vision project, or just a straight up "he didn't die" situation. We don't know details of when the story takes place or anything yet.... unless you guys know something I don't.

Do. Your. Research.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/10/13/phil-coulson-clark-gregg-shield/

 

[Octoberist]

edit

 

[TheHeatKitchen]

Do. Your. Research.

http://insidetv.ew.com/2012/10/13/phil-coulson-clark-gregg-shield/

Yeah, that's why I asked in the first place. I don't search every single story that pops out here.

I'm still curious as to how that's going to work. Bottom line is we still don't know exactly what's going to happen with it.

 

[TheHeatKitchen]

I assume there would be narrative weight there, in that their deaths would have meaning and would bring about Darkseid's defeat

What you're proposing is a movie in which the heroes teaming up means nothing, as their lives and team end with Thanos still moving along unimpeded. Meanwhile the lead is ejected from the film with no closure, leaving him to get stuffed in a fridge in a separate movie

ie you're suggesting a terrible movie that wouldn't even begin to stand on its own two feet. Death on film is only meaningful to the audience if the narrative builds up to it or there's specific fallout coming out of it. A group of misfits who team up to "guard the galaxy" and die at the end of a 'one-off' without acheiving any sort of galactic betterment provides neither

Teaming up wouldn't mean "nothing." Just because the story doesn't progress the way people were hoping doesn't mean it was for "nothing." Look at it from the villains standpoint. Batman defeated Talia and Bane in TDKR. Does that mean that their teaming up for their master plot was for nothing?

I wouldn't say there would be no closure because I didn't exactly write a full story here. It's not even a "work in progress." I'm just pitching ideas for the sake of pitching ideas.

It sounds like you're stuck in a realm where the "good guys always prevail." I'm viewing this idea more as a prequel aside to the Avengers saga. It would be more about Thanos than the Guardians themselves. Not a Guandians origin story, not a heroic movie. It would be more about Thanos' journey to the Avengers on Earth. Almost like a backward comic book movie. A villain success story, almost.

This MCU ,to me is all one giant tapestry. I see them as one gigantic storyboard broken into a large number of films. That means that within this universe, there are tons of short stories. They don't always have to end with the protagonist succeeding. Did The Empire Strikes Back end on a happy note? I know this is different with the idea of characters actually dying, but the concept remains. To me it just leads to an interesting "story." I fully believe if this was a comic book mini series instead of a film, I think it would be perceived a little differently.

Again, I'm just tossing around some ideas. I really don't care either way, as long as the film is done well. For all I care, they can kill Thanos in GOTG and move on to Ultron or even do Loki again for Avengers 2, as long as the story is told well.

 

[Chewy]

Look at it from the villains standpoint. Batman defeated Talia and Bane in TDKR. Does that mean that their teaming up for their master plot was for nothing?

Yes. They failed.

As for the rest of your post, nowhere did I suggest that the good guys must always win. I did suggest that a movie needs to not have a hallow ending that renders the first two acts meaningless.

The Empire Strikes Back takes a close group of friends, methodically breaks them down and apart on several levels, and eventually ends in their failure to save their friend and stop their enemy. It works because it was building to that moment from minute one. It wouldn't have worked without the happy ending of Star Wars. Star Wars built them up as a unit and gave them (and the audience) that final moment of triumph, and Empire takes that and turns it on its head.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Yes. They failed.

As for the rest of your post, nowhere did I suggest that the good guys must always win. I did suggest that a movie needs to not have a hallow ending that renders the first two acts meaningless.

The Empire Strikes Back takes a close group of friends, methodically breaks them down and apart on several levels, and eventually ends in their failure to save their friend and stop their enemy. It works because it was building to that moment from minute one. It wouldn't have worked without the happy ending of Star Wars. Star Wars built them up as a unit and gave them (and the audience) that final moment of triumph, and Empire takes that and turns it on its head.

Bingo. Without thought out purpose and meaning behind character development you get Battleship where people are dying left and right but it carries no weight and no one cares.

 

[TheHeatKitchen]

Yes. They failed.

As for the rest of your post, nowhere did I suggest that the good guys must always win. I did suggest that a movie needs to not have a hallow ending that renders the first two acts meaningless.

The Empire Strikes Back takes a close group of friends, methodically breaks them down and apart on several levels, and eventually ends in their failure to save their friend and stop their enemy. It works because it was building to that moment from minute one. It wouldn't have worked without the happy ending of Star Wars. Star Wars built them up as a unit and gave them (and the audience) that final moment of triumph, and Empire takes that and turns it on its head.

There's failure in every story then, which by that logic means someone did something for nothing. Why can't it be a good guy for once?

A New Hope was originally made as a stand-alone picture. They didn't have the trilogy in place until the screenings that were so well received. ESB was building to the end, yes. But with my idea, GOTG would be building to a bigger end involving the Avengers.

again, just brainstorming as I'm typing each of these posts. It's not even a solid plan or anything in my mind. Just thinking outside the box is all.

 

[TheHeatKitchen]

Bingo. Without thought out purpose and meaning behind character development you get Battleship where people are dying left and right but it carries no weight and no one cares.

I'm glad you said that. I'll be sure not to see Battleship now. There was only a 3.5% chance I would to begin with, but I'll trust you and stay far away. Hahaha.

 

[Chewy]

There's failure in every story then, which by that logic means someone did something for nothing. Why can't it be a good guy for once?

Because this movie is called Guardians of the Galaxy and the throughline is the Guardians. If it were called "Thanos!" and Thanos' arc was the main one then you could structure it like that without audiences feeling ripped off, lol

A New Hope was originally made as a stand-alone picture. They didn't have the trilogy in place until the screenings that were so well received.

I know, that was sort of my point. Star Wars told the story of the heroes' triumph, only when Lucas decided to make a sequel did he tear them all down. Because no one would have cared about their failure without first sitting through (and loving) their success

Cheers

 

[Spider-Vader]

If they kill the Guardians off just to make Thanos look badass, then THIS would be an ad for Avengers, like how everyone said IM2 was just an ad.

 

[Artistsean]

When did this become the GOTG must die or not die thread? Its about will they be used in the Avengers 2 movie.
(OK, I get the idea that this film could be an Ad. But I doubt they would create a new franchise like this, like Star Wars level big,
Just to kill them off for the Avengers movie.)

I guess most of my reasoning comes from this (that leads into the Guardians comic, which seems to be an introduction for a movie)
Iron Man is asked to join them in space and he gets excited as if he has never left the planet before and this is a huge deal for him.
Almost like this was in the Marvel movie universe. But then he is part of the team in the new Guardians comic.
And it hit me, they have done a lot of work since Comic Con and maybe they will have all the prep work done before the Avengers 2.
(They haven't even gotten that far with Ant Man yet, and he is an Avenger. So maybe there is a reason I am thinking.)

 

[KangConquers]

There's failure in every story then, which by that logic means someone did something for nothing. Why can't it be a good guy for once?

A New Hope was originally made as a stand-alone picture. They didn't have the trilogy in place until the screenings that were so well received. ESB was building to the end, yes. But with my idea, GOTG would be building to a bigger end involving the Avengers.

again, just brainstorming as I'm typing each of these posts. It's not even a solid plan or anything in my mind. Just thinking outside the box is all.

That would be great, if killing off the Guardians didn't impede Marvel's ability to sell Rocket Raccoon Plushies from release date to eternity.

This film, like the 5 properties that came before it, will be given a chance to become a franchise. If it fails to make bank the TIH did, it will be placed on the back burner. If it makes a profit the way the other Marvel Studios films have, they'll fast track a Phase 3 sequel.

 

[pr0xyt0xin]

My best guess? Not as Avengers, and not as main characters. Most of these posters are right, over a dozen heroes is pushing it this early in the game. But I could see them showing up. Having a serious meeting with the Avengers. Either at the beginning (if Thanos is the baddie in A2) or at the end (if they are saving him for A3.)

 

[Poni_Boy]

Someone has to watch the skies for us.

The Avengers are basically Earth's guard. Thor and the Asgardians handle interdimentional problems and the Guardians take care of inbound threats.

Kind of how the Army,Navy and Air Force work together.

 

[Spider-Vader]

I think the Guardians could show up in the third act to assist the Avengers. I don't think that would take much away from the actual Avengers.

 

[cherokeesam]

I think the Guardians could show up in the third act to assist the Avengers. I don't think that would take much away from the actual Avengers.

Yeah, participating in the climactic battle alongside the Avengers would be okay. Wouldn't feel forced, and wouldn't detract from the Avengers' story. But having some or all of them as major characters *throughout* TA2 would be a detraction and a distraction.

Like Chewy said about Guardians: it's there in the title: "Guardians of the Galaxy," not "Thanos: The Movie." Similarly: Avengers 2. (For now. We'll see if they decide to add a tagline later.)

 

[chatterbot]

What will probably happen is that just the leader of GOTG will be in the Avengers 2 as a primary supporting character. The other Guardians would show up later for the main battle. They can then get rid of Hawkeye and Black Widow on the poster. Replace these characters with Adam Warlock, et al. The poster look a lot better. Thor and Drax need to fight at least once though....like in the beginning of the film, perhaps, until it is found that they are actually on the same side.

 

[Mr. Dent]

Yeah I can agree with that, having the Guardians show up later in the movie. You have to wonder how they'd work that out without making it feel forced though. I'm hoping Iron Man has something to do with it.

 

[lozzy.94]

would love to see the Guardians show up in the finale battle scene of Avengers 2. Think of all the potential awesome scenes that would come with.

Star Lord and Captain America working together to try and lead both teams.
Rocket taunting Hulk.
Gamora and Black Widow fighting side by side.

the list goes on.

 

[TheVileOne]

How did Star-Lord not die? How did he get out of that trap with Thanos?

What happened to Rich Ryder Nova?

 

[3X0dus]

1) Guardians of the Galaxy aren't going to die. Get over it.

2) On-screen moment with Stark and Rocket Racoon...the sooner, the better.

3) Guardians will probably be there to prevent the armies of Thanos from interfering when the Avangers go head-to-head with Thanos. A lesser role, but an important one nonetheless

 

[Mr. Dent]

How did Star-Lord not die? How did he get out of that trap with Thanos?

What happened to Rich Ryder Nova?

Bendis and Loeb are ignoring continuity right now.