Discussion in 'Community' started by The2ndQuest
, Apr 26, 2010.
Because that's obviously weirder than the talking tree sounding like Vin Diesel...
Because talking trees are normal?
Edit: Beat me to it.
Technically, we've just been waging a valiant effort to try and explain to you why this film isn't that weird, because you apparently think a talking raccoon is a concept so earth-shatteringly whimsical that no one will ever, ever parse it.
Personally, I'd enjoy a discussion beyond "wow such raccons much talking," as that's basically the single note the internet as a whole seems to be able to focus on.
BECAUSE HE'S AWESOME!
Well, I can understand the concern about Rocket Racoon because it boarders on campy and that might work against this film. It looks like it belongs in a Disney film like "The Shaggy D.A.", not something that's supposed to be credible.
I can see the confusion.
And camp has never, ever been successful
Yeah, for about give minutes. And there's every bit of possibility that people could walk out because of how silly a talking racoon with a gun is. In which case only stoners might appreciate it.
"Yes, I just spent $13 on this movie ticket, but I'm arbitrarily drawing the line at a talking raccoon that literally everyone already knew was in the film. If only I had some ganja I might enjoy this, but sober? No." - Apparently someone, according to this theory.
I'm still looking forward to watching this regardless and will try to love it as much as I can.
If a movie about a bunch of sparkly vampire misogynists is a huge hit, why can't this one be as well?
Well, in my case, I use the example to draw a contrast with DC, which doesn't know what to do with the most recognizable female character in the superhero genre. This despite the recent proven success of "Action Girl" movies.
At least the women in this film appear to be of the kickass variety and not wishy washy nitwits.
I don't think "wishy" "washy" and "nitwits" are the exact terms to describe the women in Twilight.
In the case of Wonder Woman, it will take honest to goodness divine intervention to find the right group of people that know the character, write a competent, non-misogynistic story around said character and somehow make Warner take the leap of faith needed to just launch and successfully promote the movie. But of course, pigs well spawn wings before that happens.
Dude, just have a man save her -- totally the way to go.
I was mostly referring specifically to Bella Swan for most of the films, and she's the lead character.
I think it's simply the fact that there's a superhero angle (or connection to other superhero movies) that throws people off.
If GOTG was a complete standalone movie that didn't open with a red Marvel banner connecting it to Iron Man and the Avengers, I don't think people would be commenting on how odd it seems- for the reasons people counter that argument with.
But, since it IS something with overt superhero connections and angles, it is registering as something so outside the framework and wheelhouse people perceive superhero films (or films with superhero elements) with, that it strikes them as odd.
To continue on the same point, we have been exposed to the emerging "superhero genre" over the last 10 years and it has been governed by one strong influence that helped make it so successful this time around - that they are as realistic as possible. Despite how absolutely fantastical many of the elements of the franchises that are there, there has been an overt realism to all of them and how the more supernatural powers and situations relate to the modern world. Spider-Man, the X-Men, Hulk, and Captain America have all had their power sets grounded in science that is very contemporary and only a generation or two outside current scientific knowledge. Superman and Thor tap into the unknowns of non-human beings and that there are still some limits to what they can do as constrained by some sort of rules. And Iron Man and Batman are just extensions of what could happen with current technology given enough money and a leap or two in the current paradigm.
But GotG takes the 'alien' aspect and tears up a lot of the more realistic boundaries that have been set and harkens more to the space operas of Star Wars and Star Trek lineage. The best analogy would be to think about Alien and Aliens, and how instead of being promoted as a sci-fi horror and sci-fi action movie they were promoted as just a horror movie and an action movie. There is a disconnect for a lot of people because anything that comes from Marvel is seen as being a movie in the 'superhero' genre which has specific limits placed around it. Is it a "superhero" movie with sci-fi (space opera) elements? Or is it a "sci-fi" movie with superhero elements?
We are so used to pidgeon-holing things that it has been ingrained in what to expect from something rather than allowing for some things to be cross-genre at the very core. GotG is a "space action superhero" movie. But while people get that upon reflection, the trained response has been to classify it as a "superhero" movie and the immediate expectations are derived from that.
I wouldn't say the last ten years. It was there with "Superman" and to a lesser degree with "Batman". It just became more important after "Batman Forever" and "Batman & Robin" screwed things up. The argument with Rocket would be the same if "Green Lantern" spawned a sequel with Ch'P and G'Nort, a squirrel and a dog respectively.
To be fair though, the comics themselves are the exact same way. Marvel's "Cosmic Line," while admittedly not a separate line at all, has always held the regular "Earth-Bound" Marvel Universe at arm's length.
Jim Stalin probably fleshed out the Marvel U outside of Earth-bound stories more than anyone, and Stalin's stories certainly had a different feel than what Spider Man or X-Men were going through at the time. Where Spider Man was worried about where his rent was coming from, Adam Warlock had to contend with existing in a realm that was subject to his own thoughts. Jack Kirby, Stan Lee, Mark Gruenwald had characters like the Elders of the Universe, Galactus, Silver Surfer, Warlock, etc..... and they were all quite trippy. Outside of Earth, the Marvel Universe is almost pure fantasy. When you have the living embodiment of time debating with the judge and jury of all reality, things tend to get into the abstract and based on pure imagination. Guardians of the Galaxy is very much part of this.
If the Doctor Strange movie has the proper focus, then it too will bend the conventions of the super-hero genre, because Dr Strange's world of magic is just as fantastical as the Marvel Cosmic entities.
Yes, Batman Forever was definitely the point where the 90s Batman films got unrealistic.
I don't think I would make any case for GotG seeming "odd" because of some "Muh realism" classification that I'd wager a good chunk of the audience doesn't care about. I think you could make a case for it seeming odd based on a bunch of expectations for the genre's formula, which has very little to do with realism and a lot to do with reiterating proven beats, and GotG strays from that formula simply by means of... following a different genre's formula. And in neither case would I consider verisimilitude and/or a lack thereof to be a key ingredient.
Starlin, I believe you mean.
No, it was Joesph Stalin's brother Jim. He was really on the fence whether or not to continue in his brother's political science path and make the family happy, or go with what he really loved, art. He chose art, and the rest is history.