Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (2017)

[JustaPerson]

I think he's doing a great job as Rocket but tbh I never would have pegged Bradley Cooper to do voice acting. I mean if you have Benedict Cumberbatch's voice it's obvious, but not really Cooper. Not that every voice actor should/does sound like Benedict but for a path from live action to voice acting I never would have thought of it for Bradley Cooper

[festivus]

OMG I just now saw that trailer and I'm getting my Fox on the Run! Even if it's only in the trailer, that's so great. I'm so excited for this movie, I can't wait. 

[SimoneS]

Baby Groot. That is all.

[Artsda]

Superbowl commercial:

[JustaPerson]

If you want to watch it on youtube

Damn Elizabeth Debicki (that was her right?) looking regal and gold

Again freaking out over the asian alien. Between this and Rogue One it's been pretty good for us recently in terms of characters who get lines and stuff to do (so Katana from Suicide Squad does not count).

[JessePinkman]

Add to that there are four women in this movie. Sure they're all covered in makeup and prosthetics but this is like a gigantic leap forward for Marvel.

[Dandesun]

Everyone's covered in makeup and prosthetics (or complete CGI) though. Except Star-Lord and he's from Earth. I know that the planet they were working to protect in the first one had a lot of non-makeup/prosthetic people on it but I'm inclined to think that budget had something to do with that. With GotG2 they're able to show a lot more alien races, which I like.

Nice promo. "Only he didn't say 'frickin.'" (As Baby Groot confirms that with a nod.)

[Matt K]

18 minutes ago, Dandesun said:

Everyone's covered in makeup and prosthetics (or complete CGI) though. Except Star-Lord and he's from Earth. I know that the planet they were working to protect in the first one had a lot of non-makeup/prosthetic people on it but I'm inclined to think that budget had something to do with that. With GotG2 they're able to show a lot more alien races, which I like.

Nice promo. "Only he didn't say 'frickin.'" (As Baby Groot confirms that with a nod.)

To be fair their leader was Glenn Close, so another positive.

[romantic idiot]

19 hours ago, Artsda said:

Superbowl commercial:

A little less humour in the trailer than I would have expected. And exposition heavy. Are Super Bowl commercials supposed to be more 'spectacle' and less 'joy'?

[AimingforYoko]

3 hours ago, romantic idiot said:

A little less humour in the trailer than I would have expected.

I don't know, "Look out!" was pretty damned funny.

[JustaPerson]

*shakes head* I tried, guys. 

[Watermelon]

Baby Groot! On Yondu's shoulder, running and fighting, and needing Rocket to translate. He's just....the best. 

[Artsda]

6 hours ago, romantic idiot said:

A little less humour in the trailer than I would have expected. And exposition heavy. Are Super Bowl commercials supposed to be more 'spectacle' and less 'joy'?

Pretty much, trying to catch the attention of billions and hold it for the few seconds of air time they have.

[romantic idiot]

re: Look out, it's still just one joke, no matter how funny.

Edited February 7, 2017 by romantic idiot

[starri]

Between "Fox on the Run" and now Fleetwood Mac, they've really upped their trailer music game.

[Morrigan2575]

4 hours ago, starri said:

Between "Fox on the Run" and now Fleetwood Mac, they've really upped their trailer music game.

I can't remember the last Movie Soundtrack that I bought but, I'm very tempted to buy GotG Vol.2 (and probably pick up Vol.1as well)

[Bruinsfan]

The use of "Fox on the Run" makes me sad they didn't use "Love Is Like Oxygen" for the scene where Quill rescued Gamora from outer space in the first movie.

[Ms.Moon]

9 hours ago, Morrigan2575 said:

I can't remember the last Movie Soundtrack that I bought but, I'm very tempted to buy GotG Vol.2 (and probably pick up Vol.1as well)

GotG Vol.1  soundtrack was excellent nearly everyone I know loved it and I know I made sure to get it after the movie.  It really made the movie for me because it really made everything fit together perfect and it made all the emotional beats impactful. 

[BetterButter]

[Joe]

Funny thing. I was just thinking, wasn't there supposed to be a new trailer today? So I went to Youtube and there it was. Maybe I should start wondering about money.

Gamora finally talks! And where did Groot get M&Ms? Maybe they go to Earth during the movie?

[Jediknight]

Baby Groot is going to move so much merchandise.

[VCRTracking]

I love the part where Baby Groot is waving at Gamora who is busy firing her gun at something but she takes time to say "Hi!" to him!

[Traveller519]

This thing is either going to solid laughs throughout or seem like it's trying to hard and fade quickly. They built of enough goodwill in Vol 1. They get the benefit of the doubt, I just worry they're going to be too joke-y

[Danny Franks]

Hey, it's Fleetwood Mac, with the BBC Formula One music! They continue to make great musical choices, with this movie.

I'm really looking forward to seeing Nebula interacting with the rest of them. I really liked her in the first movie, and I think they need a wildcard in the group, now the core characters all seem to have bonded. Not so interested in Yondu, though. I'm also interested to see Quill and Gamora explore a relationship, because they're two character archetypes that really worked well together in the first movie.

And yeah, two months from now, every Disney Store in the world is going to have Baby Groot merchandise overflowing every shelf. For the first time, they can market 'lifesize replica' stuff for one of their characters (actually, I guess they could have done that for Ant-Man as well).

[VCRTracking]

New poster:

[Morrigan2575]

That poster reminds me of the 80s

[dkb]

That poster is beautiful, wouldn't mind getting one opening weekend at Cineplex.

[Danny Franks]

12 minutes ago, dkb said:

That poster is beautiful, wouldn't mind getting one opening weekend at Cineplex.

I love that Starlord is the one doing the closest approximation of the female comic book character 'boobs and arse in the same picture' pose.

[benteen]

Love that poster and I agree it reminds me of the old 80s posters, which is a good thing.  So few movies put an actual effort into their movie posters nowadays.

Loved the trailer and I'm really looking forward to this movie.

Quote

This thing is either going to solid laughs throughout or seem like it's trying to hard and fade quickly. They built of enough goodwill in Vol 1. They get the benefit of the doubt, I just worry they're going to be too joke-y

So long as they don't go the Iron Man 2 route.  That movie decided to rely more on Tony's wacky antics and it failed miserably (story-wise).

[Danny Franks]

1 hour ago, benteen said:

So long as they don't go the Iron Man 2 route.  That movie decided to rely more on Tony's wacky antics and it failed miserably (story-wise).

The problem with Iron Man 2, in my view, is that they wouldn't commit to the Devil in a Bottle story, where Tony Stark became an alcoholic, and they wouldn't commit to actually exploring what it meant for a man to cope with the fact he was going to die.

In the end, it was mostly played for laughs, right down to Pepper learning that Tony had been dying, and she shrieks at him over it, but then they move on to smashing up robots.

I don't think the same mistakes will be made here, because there doesn't seem to be anything that requires a particular heaviness of tone to work. The first movie was lighthearted and fun, and I expect this one to be the same.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Danny Franks

[SeanC]

On 3/1/2017 at 6:02 AM, Traveller519 said:

This thing is either going to solid laughs throughout or seem like it's trying to hard and fade quickly. They built of enough goodwill in Vol 1. They get the benefit of the doubt, I just worry they're going to be too joke-y

It doesn't really look any different from GOTG Vol. 1 in that regard; the first movie was the closest the MCU has come to a full-on comedy to date (other than its opening scene).

It was kind of cruel of Star-Lord's mother to deprive her son of the rest of Rumours.

[tennisgurl]

This looks like just the kind of wacky adventure story I was hoping it would be! It looks like its keeping the tone of the first one (funny adventure full of weird locations, but also with some nice emotional beats) while adding some new elements and characters, and more screen time for some supporting characters who worked in the first movie, so I'm optimistic. Really, I have yet to find a MCU movie that is really, truly bad (Iron Man 2 is the closest to being bad, but there were enough good elements to make it just kind of meh), so I'm mostly just excited.

[Kel Varnsen]

On 02/03/2017 at 11:44 AM, Danny Franks said:

The problem with Iron Man 2, in my view, is that they wouldn't commit to the Devil in a Bottle story, where Tony Stark became an alcoholic, and they wouldn't commit to actually exploring what it meant for a man to cope with the fact he was going to die.

In the end, it was mostly played for laughs, right down to Pepper learning that Tony had been dying, and she shrieks at him over it, but then they move on to smashing up robots.

I don't think the same mistakes will be made here, because there doesn't seem to be anything that requires a particular heaviness of tone to work. The first movie was lighthearted and fun, and I expect this one to be the same.

Iron Man 2 had the worst villain in the entire MCU even worse than Copperhead from Luke Cage.  Seriously whoever thought Mickey Rourke deserved dB a comeback made a huge mistake. As long as Whiplash doesn't show up at some point I think it will be ok.

[SeanC]

On 3/3/2017 at 9:42 PM, Kel Varnsen said:

Iron Man 2 had the worst villain in the entire MCU even worse than Copperhead from Luke Cage.  Seriously whoever thought Mickey Rourke deserved dB a comeback made a huge mistake. As long as Whiplash doesn't show up at some point I think it will be ok.

Apparently Rourke's character had a lot more characterization, but the studio insisted on cutting most of it, which Rourke was vocally pissed off about.

[Kel Varnsen]

51 minutes ago, SeanC said:

Apparently Rourke's character had a lot more characterization, but the studio insisted on cutting most of it, which Rourke was vocally pissed off about.

What did they cut as far as characterization? Did he have a second parrrot? Overall i found whiplas, and the way Rourke played him, super annoying. And i am not sure more screen time could have saved the character.

[SeanC]

1 minute ago, Kel Varnsen said:

What did they cut as far as characterization? Did he have a second parrrot? Overall i found whiplas, and the way Rourke played him, super annoying. And i am not sure more screen time could have saved the character.

He talked about it a few years ago, and didn't mince words with what he thought of the studio:

Quote

I got the impression that even though you’re technically the “bad guy” in the movie, that he seemed to really sympathize with your character a lot.

Well, I always try to bring that to a character. It’s like when I did Ivan Vanko in Iron Man, I fought… You know, I explained to Justin Theroux, to the writer, and to [Jon] Favreau that I wanted to bring some other layers and colors, not just make this Russian a complete murderous revenging bad guy. And they allowed me to do that. Unfortunately, the [people] at Marvel just wanted a one-dimensional bad guy, so most of the performance ended up the floor.

That’s too bad.

Well, you know, it is f**king too bad, but it’s their loss. If they want to make mindless comic book movies, then I don’t want to be a part of that. I don’t want to have to care so much and work so hard, and then fight them for intelligent reasoning, and just because they’re calling the shots they… You know, I didn’t work for three months on the accent and all the adjustments and go to Russia just so I could end up on the floor. Because that can make somebody say at the end of the day, oh f**k ‘em, I’m just going to mail it in. But I’m not that kind of guy. I’m never going to mail it in.

I could tell you didn’t mail it in on ‘Iron Man…’

No, but I’m saying it’s frustrating when that happens, when you care so much and you try so hard. At the end of the day you’ve got some nerd with a pocketful of money calling the shots. You know, Favreau didn’t call the shots. I wish he would have. And Theroux, we worked together to bring layers to that character, so, you know, I fight for that any time I’m playing like a bad guy. What made Henry Fonda so fantastic in the western that he did when he played a bad guy was what he brought to the character. All the goodness that he had in his face, or the moments that he had when he just wasn’t a one-dimensional bad guy. Because then, when he’s bad, you see that other color. You don’t want to always make him all “black.”

Edited March 5, 2017 by SeanC

[Danny Franks]

That is too bad, Mickey. But here's the thing, that movie wasn't about you and your narcissistic desire to be the centre of attention (it was about RDJ and his narcissistic desire to be the centre of attention). But hey, at least you're not being a dickhead douchebag about it, huh?

Honestly, I agree that Whiplash was a crap villain, but I don't think he would have been any better if we'd seen more layers to him. He'd still be Mickey Rourke doing a bad Russian accent and looking filthy. I do think Marvel movies, in general, have a villain problem. There's really only so much you can do with antagonists, and when the final act has to revolve around big action scenes, you're limited in how much thouht you can put into them.

Obadiah Stane was interesting, right up to the moment he put on the giant robot suit. Whiplash wasn't even that.

[Bruinsfan]

Their villains tend to fall flat even when they have really good actors like Guy Pearce, Lee Pace, or Mads Mikkelsen in the roles. So far Arnim Zola and Loki are the only ones I think they've done right by, and the latter threatens to take over the Thor franchise from its titular protagonist. (Credit where credit is due, the Red Skull doesn't exactly lend himself to nuanced three-dimensional explorations of character, so I can't blame the writers or Hugo Weaving for how he turned out.)

[Danny Franks]

10 minutes ago, Bruinsfan said:

Their villains tend to fall flat even when they have really good actors like Guy Pearce, Lee Pace, or Mads Mikkelsen in the roles. So far Arnim Zola and Loki are the only ones I think they've done right by, and the latter threatens to take over the Thor franchise from its titular protagonist. (Credit where credit is due, the Red Skull doesn't exactly lend himself to nuanced three-dimensional explorations of character, so I can't blame the writers or Hugo Weaving for how he turned out.)

I just don't think it's easy to create a compelling, complex and potent villain, in the format of these movies. You need to establish the hero, the supporting cast and you need the action set pieces. There isn't much time to devote to the villain, unless he also fits into the picture like Stane and Loki did, starting off as the hero's friend.

The first Guardians movie might have had a more compelling villain if they combined the roles of Yondu and Ronan. Not in terms of character, but in terms of narrative. Have Ronan be a mentor of sorts to Quill, and the guy who sent him to get the orb, and Peter learns its purpose, and his mentor's megalomaniacal ambitions. It gives both of them a personal stake in the conflict, and makes Ronan less remote and flat. As it was, the movie was fun enough that Ronan's shortcomings didn't really matter.

[SeanC]

30 minutes ago, Danny Franks said:

I just don't think it's easy to create a compelling, complex and potent villain, in the format of these movies. You need to establish the hero, the supporting cast and you need the action set pieces. There isn't much time to devote to the villain, unless he also fits into the picture like Stane and Loki did, starting off as the hero's friend.

I don't buy that.  Other superhero films haven't had the same noticeable problem of creating nuanced, interesting (or just memorable) villains.  Magneto was immediately compelling in X-Men; so was the Green Goblin (debates about his costume aside) in Spider-Man, and those were both first films; Nolan's Batman films, likewise.  Moreover, if it was an issue of establishing things, you would expect it to fall away in the sequels where the hero and his supporting characters were already established, but that hasn't really been the case.

[Danny Franks]

18 minutes ago, SeanC said:

I don't buy that.  Other superhero films haven't had the same noticeable problem of creating nuanced, interesting (or just memorable) villains.  Magneto was immediately compelling in X-Men; so was the Green Goblin (debates about his costume aside) in Spider-Man, and those were both first films; Nolan's Batman films, likewise.  Moreover, if it was an issue of establishing things, you would expect it to fall away in the sequels where the hero and his supporting characters were already established, but that hasn't really been the case.

I'd have to disagree there. I didn't find the Green Goblin much more than comical, and not just because of the costume. But even then, Norman had a pre-existing relationship with Peter that lent some drama to their enmity. And Magneto worked mostly because of the actor playing him. By that, I mean Sir Ian McKellen,  not Fassbender.

As for Nolan's Batman films, I'm not a fan anyway. But when you're allowed to run for two and a half hours, you will get more time to devote to all your characters. Even so, the only good villain in that trilogy is the Joker, and that was down to Ledger's performance, more than the writing. The Scarecrow was creepy, but more of a distraction that a main villain.

[benteen]

On ‎3‎/‎5‎/‎2017 at 11:57 AM, SeanC said:

Apparently Rourke's character had a lot more characterization, but the studio insisted on cutting most of it, which Rourke was vocally pissed off about.

Whiplash was such a shit villain.  He fights Tony in the middle of Iron Man 2 and loses.  He then spends the rest of the movie literally hiding out in a warehouse and mumbling while building another suit that leads to another loss.  Add to that Justin Hammer, who is only there to make Tony look good in comparison and isn't even a threat to Pepper, let alone Iron Man.  Just terrible all around.

I thought Mads Mikkelsen was good in Doctor Strange and that was a case of the actor rising above the material.  Having watched some of the deleted scenes, they left some good stuff with him on the cutting room floor.

[SeanC]

2 hours ago, Danny Franks said:

But even then, Norman had a pre-existing relationship with Peter that lent some drama to their enmity.

So?  That's a writing choice.  Whether you try to develop your villain or not is always a writing choice, and most Marvel movies don't try.

Sure, Ian McKellen is a terrific actor, but most of the Marvel films cast strong performers as their villains, they just rarely give them much to do.

[Kel Varnsen]

3 hours ago, benteen said:

Whiplash was such a shit villain.  He fights Tony in the middle of Iron Man 2 and loses.  He then spends the rest of the movie literally hiding out in a warehouse and mumbling while building another suit that leads to another loss.  Add to that Justin Hammer, who is only there to make Tony look good in comparison and isn't even a threat to Pepper, let alone Iron Man.  Just terrible all around.

I am not sure if it is coincidence or not but it seems that the worst mcu villains are ones where their powers aren't just copies of the hero's. As mentioned above Stane was interesting until he put on another suit and was able to somehow fight good even though he had never worn it before. Yellowjacket was just another guy who could shrink, Copperhead was a really strong guy fighting a really strong guy.  But Loki was a trickster fighting a super strong Thor. Killgrave was a mind control guy fighting super strong Jessica Jones and Pierce was a corrupt diplomat up against Cap. To get back on topic, curious to find out if the villain in Volume 2 is Ego or those gold douchebags. I think the Guardians does ok because they are such weird characters that it is hard to find a villain that is really the same as them.

[Bruinsfan]

Of course, it's not as if the DC movies of recent years have done better on the villains front. Ledger's Joker was awesome of course, and  Man of Steel lucked into Antje Traue giving a really good performance as Faora Ul, but for the most part they've ranged from mediocre to Razzie-worthy (why hello there, Jesse Eisenberg!).

[SeanC]

13 hours ago, Bruinsfan said:

Of course, it's not as if the DC movies of recent years have done better on the villains front. Ledger's Joker was awesome of course, and  Man of Steel lucked into Antje Traue giving a really good performance as Faora Ul, but for the most part they've ranged from mediocre to Razzie-worthy (why hello there, Jesse Eisenberg!).

Yeah, but DC movies (post-Nolan) suck at almost everything, so having lame villains is par for the course there.  Whereas Marvel Studios' output tends to do fairly well with the main/supporting characters (even if they're perhaps getting formulaic at this point), which I think is why the pattern of generic, unmemorable villains has been focused on.

[JessePinkman]

I love it.

[BetterButter]

[Morrigan2575]

The Hoff? ??

[Joe]

For some reason, this comes out on Tuesday in Australia. that's odd, because movies normally come out on Thursdays. Of course, next week I can't see it until Thursday anyway. Annoying.