no

What about a MacGuffin stone?

there's no stones in this movie. its about something completely different.

Yeah, no stone; no Thanos; no subtly.

Pretty bad film.

Dont listen to this guy, the movie is awesome. Almost as good as the first one

I don't know. I think fan reaction is going to be very mixed.

@Halberstram said:

Yeah, no stone; no Thanos; no subtly.

Pretty bad film.

I agree and disagree. I think you have to look at the movie contextually.

This movie was too packed and didn't have focus, but that's a problem with a lot of comic book movies including the very well reviewed Logan. Ofcourse, comparing it to other comic book movies doesn't excuse it. What does excuse it, for me, is knowing the context, the audience. This movie, similar to other comic book movies, is made for people who have a low attention span. They get bored if a movie sticks to one topic and if it devotes a lot of attention and time to that one topic.

The best movies are those that stick to one topic, carefully fleshing out all the ideas and complexities of that one topic, possibly interjecting complex symbolism and ambiguity. The best movies are those for which every scene has a motive, where every scene contributes to the overall complex structure. This movie does not have the goal of being one of those movies. This movie is a summer movie that caters to an audience with ADHD; they are bored and aggravated by complexity. Ofcourse the movie lacks subtlety, you can't assume that an audience like this can do analysis of subtleties. They just want to go watch a movie that's fun and humorous so that they can have a good time. They no want think real hard.

So taking into account the audience this movie is made for, I think it accomplishes its task well enough.

If you look past all the waste-of-time scenes which are only there to please its ADHD audience, this movie does manage to give the characters some pretty decent characterizations. Especially considering how many characters there are and how little time there is to develop the characters, I think it does an okay job.

My advice is just don't compare it to good movies. Look at the movie contextually.

It's fine to make a sub-par movie that doesn't alienate a majority of its audience through complexity.

I think there was a lot of "fan service", but most people don't read the comics.

Taserface? Really?

@Halberstram said:

I think there was a lot of "fan service", but most people don't read the comics.

Taserface? Really?

No no, you misunderstand. I have erred in my explanation.

The reason comic book movies attract a certain kind of audience is not because of the comic book adaptation nature of them, but because of the fact that they are blockbuster action movies. You can generalize the audience I'm talking about to non-comic-book blockbuster movies as well, like Jurassic Park, for instance, and the Star Wars movies. I'm sure a lot of the comic book movie audience have not read the comic books.

I haven't read any of the Guardians of the Galaxy books myself, but I have read all origin books of X-23, some of the Wolverine origin books and all of the original Old Man Logan series. I can tell you that the books are infinitely more complex than the movies. Part of it because the books have a lot more time to explore certain characters, their motivations and personalities. The comic books can also assume a bit more intelligence on the part of their audience.

I agree with Geff. Not a bad film but definitely packed with subplots while lacking much of a main one.

It's fine for what it is but definitely has some script problems.

I'm trying to go for an engaging, funny youtube channel so, if you have the time, take a look. Hope you enjoy what you see. Thanks in advance. A review of the movie here- https://youtu.be/4yxQsi5ERi4