nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Guardians Of The Galaxy Vol 2

Lithium93_

Script is done
12507661_10153105699521157_6044513474395244250_n.jpg?oh=d25272c15edc8e5228a9e954c1bb492c&oe=5743EC47

As is the table read
https://twitter.com/JamesGunn/status/692359186743758848?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Filming starts in February.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

david75

Yeah this was really really sub par. Probably fatally.

I'd say we've seen the last of this franchise tbh

johnnyskeleton

BMMachine wrote: »

well the big problem with this film is that it does nothing.

Could be said about any movie I suppose. I mean, it either entertains you or it doesnt. Its not going to do anything more than that, like make toast or fill in your taxes.

It has the same resolutions as the last film and our crew barely go anywhere or barely get involved with anything connected to anything else. In long parts of this film its just boring, sitting around on Kurt Russell: The Planet waiting for the action to come to them.

A bit like saying a football match is just a bunch of guys running around for 90 mins. I thought it delved a lot further into the universe and had a clear plot flow from beginning middle to end. I found the interactions with Kurt Russell to be very suspensful and well acted, and couldnt see where it was going.

The film is riddled with too many characters and too much stuff going on which has little consequence.

Well maybe, but I happen to like those little vignettes that expand the viewers understanding of the world. I accept thats not for everybody and sometimes people want a lot of focus. I wouldnt say this movie was the worst offender on the too many characters/plot points though and I didnt have trouble keeping up, even having never read the comics.

There is (as with all the Disney films) a complete lack of sexuality and everyone seems to be walking around like they have been castrated, anything that would provide emotion or context in this way (such as Starlords relationship with Gomorrah) is once again - told, not shown.

I strongly disagree with that. I thought the romance aspect was as good as the leia/han solo tension in the empire strikes back. It was fresh and well acted. I dont think its a spoiler to say there was no explicit nudity, if thats what you were looking for, but for me such overt sexualisation would ruin the cartoon/comic book feel of it.

It does have pretty colours and a big FX budget and explosions happen and all that but Im sorry, that is so run of the mill for todays films - they all have this, it doesn't score points for having spent a lot of money.

I suppose I shouldnt express a firm view on this because this was my first time seeing a proper iMax production. I found the whole thing looked beautiful on the screen and was genuinely squirming in my seat during some of the fast paced action scenes.

Maybe thats standard in iMax, but I felt the excitement of seeing a movie in the cinema that I havent felt since I was a kid!

The film itself does know its weaknesses and is fully aware of them, otherwise it wouldnt be distracting you all the time with a baby tree or cracking wise - anything to stop you thinking.

Id agree that Groot and the continuous references to the soundtrack/awesome mix were very self aware and I can see how you would be annoyed by them. I was happy to forgive them this because of the movies other qualities but yeah, it ought to have been toned back a bit.

The villain was again terrible as is the way with all these Marvel films and there was no stakes we haven't heard of before, no connections other than a hamfisted one with no emotional content.

Im not a big fan of the other marvel movies but I thought the villain was good. It might cause problems down the line with the series, but I thought it was interesting. I mean, if you watch enough movies eventually every theme and plot will be repeated so truly original plot lines are quite rare. What is less so is when they present a novel spin on an old plot line, and I think they had sufficent novelty in this to distinugish it.

All the derpy, repeatable and easily set up jokes in the world and all the cutesy aliens acting stupid in the world won't solve those problems, though they do serve their purpose well in distracting away from them.

I was in a packed cinema with lots of people belly laughing for this movie, and its not often you see that when the movie isnt specifically a comedy. Sense of humour is subjective but I dont know why you are so hard on it.

Sudden Valley

Enjoyed the film but thought it wasn't as good as the first one. Pratt surprisingly have very little to do for most of the movie and like the first one the villain was bit meh. the baby groot jokes got old very quickly but I enjoyed the humour involving Bautista/Drax. Odd though having an ex-wrestler in a movie and giving him no had to hand combat scenes. Would recommend it.

Penn

Anyway, just back from a second viewing. Have to say, the humour still holds up for the most part, as did all the Yondu scenes throughout. He really was the crux of the film.

The film still does drag in the middle and the same issues I had with it didn't improve on second viewing, but I still think it's a solid film, and still fun as hell.

Penn

uncleoswald wrote: »

Off topic I know but, you'd give a movie that you mostly hated a 5/10? To each their own but that sounds like your rating system is servery unbalanced.

It had enough good bits to bring it to a 5, mostly in the performances and a lot of the scenes, particularly with Batman. Plus a lot of my hate comes from my own expectations of what the film should have been as opposed to the quality of the film itself, and ultimately you have to judge a film based on what it was, not what it wasn't.

Outlaw Pete

freedominacup wrote: »

Tbh if you're old enough to have a boards account you're probably far too old for your opinions to matter to the producers of this movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fChF1w9Dvno

Avatar MIA

pjohnson wrote: »

Well
Hoff wasn't actually his dad just Ego messing around with Easter Eggs haha

I know, but it is at least plausible.

uncleoswald

Penn wrote: »

The film has its flaws, particularly with the action scenes and some of the comedy was overdone... but a 2/10? Jesus Christ... Hell I hated Batman V Superman for the most part and I'd still give it at least a 5.

Off topic I know but, you'd give a movie that you mostly hated a 5/10? To each their own but that sounds like your rating system is servery unbalanced.

pixelburp

freedominacup wrote: »

It's rated 12a. The references are for the grownups who are the A for the u12s.

Just because something is suitable for children doesn't make it made FOR children. The Marvel cinematic universe has a demonstrably wide demographics, blockbusters tending towards the younger adult bracket and I guess those wit more disposable income. The phenomenal success of the MCU franchise is down to the huge adult audience, simple as. If you're claiming some "these films are for kids" angle, it's proven false, financially and culturally. Kids love these films absolutely, but so do adults, men, women etc.

freedominacup

pjohnson wrote: »

So you think the target audience is under18? How many under 18's will get Pac-Man and David Hasselhoff references. Surely it would be Justin Bieber or Peppa Pig. And Demi Lovato instead of Fleetwood Mac.

It's rated 12a. The references are for the grownups who are the A for the u12s.

pjohnson

Avatar MIA wrote: »

All credit to the Beebs, but wouldn't he be a tad young to be the Starlord's Dad?

Well

Hoff wasn't actually his dad just Ego messing around with Easter Eggs haha

Avatar MIA

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

It's a comic book film. You can make up any rule you like!

You could, potentially, but would it be worth the pages and pages of people on Boards.ie whinging about it

:pac::D

MilesMorales1

Avatar MIA wrote: »

All credit to the Beebs, but wouldn't he be a tad young to be the Starlord's Dad?

It's a comic book film. You can make up any rule you like!

Avatar MIA

pjohnson wrote: »

Surely it would be Justin Bieber or Peppa Pig. And Demi Lovato instead of Fleetwood Mac.

All credit to the Beebs, but wouldn't he be a tad young to be the Starlord's Dad?

Evilsbane

Really enjoyed it. Better than the first one imo, although I realise I'm in the minority there.

I think where people are having problems is that they went into the first not knowing what to expect and came away amazed, whereas they went into this one having a fair idea of what to expect and got it. People in the cinema were roaring with laughter and the fireworks at the end were really emotional. It did everything I hoped it would.

pjohnson

freedominacup wrote: »

The target audience from this house went to see the movie on Fri night along with a group made up of other members of the target audience. They enjoyed it. Compared well to the first one. Tbh if you're old enough to have a boards account you're probably far too old for your opinions to matter to the producers of this movie.

So you think the target audience is under18? How many under 18's will get Pac-Man and David Hasselhoff references. Surely it would be Justin Bieber or Peppa Pig. And Demi Lovato instead of Fleetwood Mac.

pixelburp

freedominacup wrote: »

The target audience from this house went to see the movie on Fri night along with a group made up of other members of the target audience. They enjoyed it. Compared well to the first one. Tbh if you're old enough to have a boards account you're probably far too old for your opinions to matter to the producers of this movie.

The target audience of most blockbusters, including the MCU films is about 16 - 30 these days, give or take a year or two. Theyre certainly the demographic most craved and sought for . So yeah, plenty of boards users' opinions are valid. It's not like we're discussing "The Boss Baby" or anything...

freedominacup

The target audience from this house went to see the movie on Fri night along with a group made up of other members of the target audience. They enjoyed it. Compared well to the first one. Tbh if you're old enough to have a boards account you're probably far too old for your opinions to matter to the producers of this movie.

Jelle1880

Thought it was great, I was afraid that in the beginning (especially given the opening scene) they would use mini Groot as a gimmick through the entire movie, but that wasn't the case.

I do feel that for the next one they'll need to ramp it up a bit though, as I can see the format becoming stale.

Outlaw Pete

One of the worst films I've ever had the displeasure of attending. At many points throughout the screening I actually considered leaving the auditorium. The film is totally devoid of nuance for one and the characteristic compositions..... ah I'm only messing, was good craic. Seen it in the IMAX and glad I did as I think it added to the overall atmosphere. Decent soundtrack too. Love the cheesiness but maybe it was a little shoehorned at times but sure why not.

Favourite lines was:

"You shouldn't have killed my mom... and squished my Walkman!".

pjohnson

Penn wrote: »

Dude, it's a film featuring a talking raccoon, a tiny tree monster and a planet who can turn into a person.

Yeah, the film should have some substance and character development behind it, and I believe this film does. But you're clearly expecting something from this film that it was never going to even try to hit let alone whether or not it achieved it.

Films can, and in many cases should, just be fun and entertaining.

Dont forget its a sequel. Tree Monster may now be Seedling Monster but neither the tree or the talking trash panda are going to have radically transformed their personalities or what exactly they do.

thebostoncrab

I'm sorry, but why the hell are there so many posts referencing the lack of sexuality in the film? It's a Disney film that is going to attract a lot of families to it, what do you expect!?!

The whole Marvel vs Transformers argument in terms of why one gets a pass when some lump them together as "the same" is something I had a chat about only recently. The difference between Marvel's films and the drivel Michael Bay pushes out is that Marvel does spend the time fleshing out its charterers to have geniue heart and depth. Is it on the level of something like Room or Moonlight? Of course not, but it doesn't need to be because these are not the same type of films. We get enough to care about the characters and their goals. You also don't have the same obsession with racist stereotypes, sexist casting and roles, and too much cgi to focus on what's actually happening like you do with Mr. Bay, THATS why you are wrong to say "Oh if this is good then Transformers is a masterpiece because they are the same thing."

/rant.

Onto the film. I thought it was good. It didn't blow me away or have the same magic of the first film, but that's ok; not every film I see needs to be excellent and there is nothing wrong with something being good. I was entertained, the jokes landed for the most part, the action worked and I got more backstory for the crew, more than I thought I would considering the size of the cast.

I think what prevented it from reaching the heights of the first flick is that it just seemed a little more "cruel" rather than having the charming anti-hero vibe of the first GOTG. Peter in particular seemed like more of a real asshole rather than the chancer we got originally. Like when we spoke to Rocket it did seem to go too far, or when he attempts to catch up Gamora it seemed more frat boyish rather than charming like he was in the first film. It's a little thing on the outside, but it really made me look at him differently.

If I was to score the film I'd give it a 6.5/10. It's a good film, I enjoyed myself but it just missed the charm and magic that we know it could reach.

If you're putting it between other MCU films in terms of ranking, I'd say it's better than Captain America: The First Avenger but just behind Doctor Strange.

Penn

BMMachine wrote: »

so what IS good and great? this is where the problem really lies isn't it. And its definitely what I have the most issues with. I firmly believe that through modern communications there has become a mass distortion of reality and that how people identify themselves through culture, politics, society etc has become a lot more personal and I do not believe that is to the benefit of humanity - case in point: politics right now. And I think its the same for the film world. But I digress, probably a conversation for another forum or whatever and I am unsure of how much depth Im allowed to go into that kind of thing here but I would certainly like to converse about it more

Dude, it's a film featuring a talking raccoon, a tiny tree monster and a planet who can turn into a person.

Yeah, the film should have some substance and character development behind it, and I believe this film does. But you're clearly expecting something from this film that it was never going to even try to hit let alone whether or not it achieved it.

Films can, and in many cases should, just be fun and entertaining.

Blazer

Saw it last night and really enjoyed it. I don't expect much from Marvel movies anymore and just go with the flow.

pjohnson

BMMachine wrote: »

We have very different ideas on what 'good' and 'great' are.
If thats good and great, so are the Transformers films. There is very little difference between them. The biggest difference being that Transformers is overtly sleazy and sexist but hey, at least people in Transformers have some sort of sexuality, even if it is the most horrible kind.

A word on comedy though:
(spoilers - will be dipping in and out) So the best gag in the film is the 'Mary Poppins' joke towards the end and it goes to a character thats about to die. It helps get that character on your side and in a film which isn't primarily a comedy, this is a great way of breaking through tension and making characters approachable and on the side of the audience. So this works very well here with the character and context in question.

Now where this film doesn't hold up in that regard, is it just overloads on one type with Drax. Where yeah, he does have some good lines, there is just so much forceful bluntness that doesn't go anywhere or serve any purpose - it does nothing for the character later and its just there for it to be this characters thing. Other characters do have moments, but again its consistently one of two jokes - 80s references or 'oh no you didn't'. Because of the severe lack of weight in the characters - Rocket, Drax, Gamorrah, Groot - its more just done to either pass time or to shield from their complete lack of character. Starlord gets a few chuckles but there is so little going on (all told, not shown) that once again it just feels blunt and distracting.

This films biggest crime is that it has so much opportunity to go somewhere, go on an adventure with fun characters but instead we sit on Kurt Russell: The Planet and crack wise while shoving a load of inane sh*t thats of no consequence into the film to make up for its lack of any actual real substance. But hey, millions of dollars and thousands of fans can't be wrong, just like Michael Bay wasn't wrong and makes money hand over fist. Thats where we are, Michael Bay won

I think we all know you are a Michael Bay fan at this point.

Avatar MIA

Just back from watching. Really enjoyed it. Possibly best ever opening sequence (when we first see Groot) to a movie.

[Deleted User]

BMMachine wrote: »

so what IS good and great? this is where the problem really lies isn't it. And its definitely what I have the most issues with. I firmly believe that through modern communications there has become a mass distortion of reality and that how people identify themselves through culture, politics, society etc has become a lot more personal and I do not believe that is to the benefit of humanity - case in point: politics right now. And I think its the same for the film world. But I digress, probably a conversation for another forum or whatever and I am unsure of how much depth Im allowed to go into that kind of thing here but I would certainly like to converse about it more

Oh holy ****, we get it. You don't like the film,

BMMachine

Nervous Wreck wrote: »

I believe that's exactly the point. :rolleyes:

so what IS good and great?

this is where the problem really lies isn't it. And its definitely what I have the most issues with. I firmly believe that through modern communications there has become a mass distortion of reality and that how people identify themselves through culture, politics, society etc has become a lot more personal and I do not believe that is to the benefit of humanity - case in point: politics right now. And I think its the same for the film world. But I digress, probably a conversation for another forum or whatever and I am unsure of how much depth Im allowed to go into that kind of thing here but I would certainly like to converse about it more

Nervous Wreck

BMMachine wrote: »

We have very different ideas on what 'good' and 'great' are.

I believe that's exactly the point. :rolleyes:

BMMachine

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

(All entirely in my opinion)

- Great music choices.
- Great atmosphere, cool irreverent off beat feeling, even if that feeling isn't as strong as it was with the first.
- Real great acting and character beats. Got me emotional, even if it did nothing for you. Drax and Rocket are excellent specially, and Yondu and Stallone were fab.
- Cool action, cool villain as well,
Ego
was a great choice.
- Looks amazing and bright and colourful.
- It was funny and easily passed the 6 laugh test.
- Confirmed a cool fan theory.
- Didn't feel a need to overload itself with connections to other MCU stuff or set up future sequels/related MCU films.

See, two people had two different reactions to the same film, isn't that mad.

We have very different ideas on what 'good' and 'great' are.
If thats good and great, so are the Transformers films. There is very little difference between them. The biggest difference being that Transformers is overtly sleazy and sexist but hey, at least people in Transformers have some sort of sexuality, even if it is the most horrible kind.

A word on comedy though:
(spoilers - will be dipping in and out) So the best gag in the film is the 'Mary Poppins' joke towards the end and it goes to a character thats about to die. It helps get that character on your side and in a film which isn't primarily a comedy, this is a great way of breaking through tension and making characters approachable and on the side of the audience. So this works very well here with the character and context in question.

Now where this film doesn't hold up in that regard, is it just overloads on one type with Drax. Where yeah, he does have some good lines, there is just so much forceful bluntness that doesn't go anywhere or serve any purpose - it does nothing for the character later and its just there for it to be this characters thing. Other characters do have moments, but again its consistently one of two jokes - 80s references or 'oh no you didn't'. Because of the severe lack of weight in the characters - Rocket, Drax, Gamorrah, Groot - its more just done to either pass time or to shield from their complete lack of character. Starlord gets a few chuckles but there is so little going on (all told, not shown) that once again it just feels blunt and distracting.

This films biggest crime is that it has so much opportunity to go somewhere, go on an adventure with fun characters but instead we sit on Kurt Russell: The Planet and crack wise while shoving a load of inane sh*t thats of no consequence into the film to make up for its lack of any actual real substance. But hey, millions of dollars and thousands of fans can't be wrong, just like Michael Bay wasn't wrong and makes money hand over fist. Thats where we are, Michael Bay won