Guardians of the Galaxy and other Marvel Tie-ins

[Hopeless]

Was wondering if anyone had started a thread on this and thought... why not?:smallsmile:

[KillianHawkeye]

About what exactly? Did you have something to discuss? :smallconfused:

[Mordar]

Premise: Movies made from Marvel properties via Marvel Studios are auto-successes.

Flaw: Movies made from Marvel properties featuring at least some characters commonly known outside the comic book readership* are auto-successes.

Guardians of the Galaxy is, in my opinion, capable of being the first Marvel Studios flop. There's no identifiable draw that will bring non-comic geek crowds. It may still turn a profit, but frankly at this point if the profit isn't above the $110M US bar set by The Incredible Hulk I can't imagine it will be viewed as a success given the opportunity cost.

If people go expecting a super hero movie I think they'll be disappointed, but if it is promoted as a Sci-Fi movie I think the numbers of people going will be lower. Kind of a Catch-22.

With all of the available properties (even considering the rights that were owned by Sony or Fox at the time Guardians was starting production), I think this one is really a flyer. Does anyone know the reported budget?

- M

* - Hulk, Captain America and Iron Man, in order of non-geek fame and inverse order of box office

[KillianHawkeye]

As a non-comic reader, I admit that I'd never heard of Guardians of the Galaxy until the speculation began for what Marvel was going to do after The Avengers. That being said, I will probably go see it. I will reserve the final determination until I at least see the trailer.

[Dienekes]

I'm interested in Guardians of the Galaxy, though I barely touched the comics mostly because I want to see what they do with it. Avengers worked (maybe) because of the time Marvel took to make these characters interesting in their own right before throwing these weird characters into a movie together. We were already invested in them enough to let the craziness happen and enjoy it.

Guardians has the same ridiculous group of non-compatible heroes like Avengers but they're all unknowns to the public and no one except the real fanboys have reason to go see it. Mind you, I hope it will be better than Thor (setting my bar low here) and having a pre-established group allows for some good interactive dialogue if done right. So I think I'll enjoy it, but I'm not certain it'll be a succession.

[Hopeless]

So far they're basing this on the latest comic release so Starlord, Gamora, Drax the Destroyer, Rocket Racoon, Groot with Karen Gillan playing a villainess with Ronan the Accuser and possibly introducing Thanos as seen at the end of the Avengers movie as an introduction to Avengers sequel

[Devonix]

Remember Iron Man was not well known to the non comic book public before the first movie either.

[Sith_Happens]

Seems to me like Marvel is making a bet that their track record for putting out good movies can stand on its own at this point. If that bet pays off then it means some pretty big things.

That, and it looks like the Guardians tie in pretty heavily with Thanos and therefore Avengers 2.

[Deathkeeper]

Seems to me like Marvel is making a bet that their track record for putting out good movies can stand on its own at this point. If that bet pays off then it means some pretty big things.

That, and it looks like the Guardians tie in pretty heavily with Thanos and therefore Avengers 2.

Honestly, I think it might pay off. Avengers' success has at this point very much outweighed thinks like the Hulk movie that didn't have as much praise. Even Amazing Spider-man, which wasn't unanimously considered a better reboot, was still well received. I honestly think that now, probably at the height of the hype they've built before people start claiming that they're milking sequels, Marvel can probably slap their sticker on something that to non-comic fans is just "a cool looking idea" and make decent sales.
And as was said before me, All Hail Rocket Raccoon!

[Selrahc]

Guardians of the Galaxy is, in my opinion, capable of being the first Marvel Studios flop. There's no identifiable draw that will bring non-comic geek crowds. It may still turn a profit, but frankly at this point if the profit isn't above the $110M US bar set by The Incredible Hulk I can't imagine it will be viewed as a success given the opportunity cost.

Iron Man 1.
Iron Man really didn't have much of a presence outside comics. People may have heard the name... but more probably they hadn't.

Guardians of the Galaxy is an even less well known superhero franchise than Iron Man. But it is coming off the back off a line of successful superhero films, and it will probably tie in heavily to Avengers 2.

Guardians also had a really good comics run under Dan Abnett not too long ago. And Rocket Racoon was in the latest Marvel vs. Capcom game. I think geekcred for the Guardians is probably at an all time high.


Even Amazing Spider-man, which wasn't unanimously considered a better reboot, was still well received.

Which is probably annoying for Marvel. It wasn't actually made by them.

[Kitten Champion]

There's plenty of draw for a non-geek crowd, it's Star Wars with a talking raccoon and Zoe Saldana.

[Man on Fire]

I'm not happy about this movie for three reasons

1) Director made some sexist and homophobic comments on his blog about comics characters.

2) We get only Star-Lord, Drax, Rocket Racoon, Groot and Gamora. Meanwhile, the team in comics involved also: Adam Warlock, Bug, Jack Flagg, Cosmo (Russian dog telepath), Mantis, Moondragon and Quasar (later Martyr). Last three of them were women, last two were lesbians in a relationship. Out of all four female characters they could get for the movie Gamora, the one who was biggest fan-service, was picked up. I dislike the message it sends, that they apparently picked a woman so there would be a woman in the movie, which implies they don't care really about the characters they're working on. Not only that, but the character they picked was a miss fanservice of the series (through by the costume she was wearing, rather than creators actively trying to put any fanservice) while it would make more sense to pick up Mantis, who actually had intereting relationship with Starlord. And I dislike that two lesbian characters were the ones to get kicked out.

3) Because of this movie Guardians got new comics, which featured only the characters from movie team rooster with no explanation what happened with al lthe rest and their personalities simplified. One of the more interesting teams got reduced to bunch of tired, standard tropes and got Iron Man forced into it because of this movie. Not only that, but they undid very good death that Star-Lord had, one of the better heroic deaths I've seen, with no explanation whatsoever. And then they simplified them to the point of stupidity.

[Mordar]

As a non-comic reader, I admit that I'd never heard of Guardians of the Galaxy until the speculation began for what Marvel was going to do after The Avengers. That being said, I will probably go see it. I will reserve the final determination until I at least see the trailer.

I should have been a bit more general in my term...though the GitP forum readers are by no means homogeneous, we are similar enough that "outsiders" could reasonably assume us all to be in the population likely enough to go to a movie like Guardians that we do not warrant special consideration.


Remember Iron Man was not well known to the non comic book public before the first movie either.


Iron Man 1.
Iron Man really didn't have much of a presence outside comics. People may have heard the name... but more probably they hadn't.

Certainly not as well known as Hulk and Cap (hence my footnote in my original post) but certainly better known than Daredevil, Ghost Rider and Punisher (all of whom are better known than the Guardians).

An interesting point, though, is that the Blade movies did pretty well though not a Marvel Studios production. Like Iron Man (I), Blade (I) relied on a very well known actor to launch the franchise. Guardians doesn't have "that guy", but as Killian said, maybe the Marvel Studios cred is enough.


Guardians of the Galaxy is an even less well known superhero franchise than Iron Man. But it is coming off the back off a line of successful superhero films, and it will probably tie in heavily to Avengers 2.

Guardians also had a really good comics run under Dan Abnett not too long ago. And Rocket Racoon was in the latest Marvel vs. Capcom game. I think geekcred for the Guardians is probably at an all time high.

Which is probably annoying for Marvel. It wasn't actually made by them.

Geekcred certainly doesn't hurt, but it also doesn't make $350M profits. Even if every single copy of GoG #1 sold indicated a movie goer (~212,000, pretending there were no multiple-issue buyers), and each went 10 times at $10 a ticket (well above the 2012 average ticket price of $7.86) that would still only account for $21M in gross ticket sales. Heck, it'd probably take each one going 50 times to make back the production budget.

Moms taking their 8-year-olds, non-geek teens going in droves, dads taking the older kids to see an action movie, *and* geekcred make for $350M profits. Early reviews of Dredd had very positive geekcred...and it has a worldwide gross of ~$40M against production budget of $35M (not counting advertising, which was really probably not too much). While Dredd certainly didn't have the promotion that GoG will, it probably had a broader pre-promotion knowledge thanks to the previous movie and easy-to-grasp "bad a$$ cop with a license to kill mete out justice" concept.


There's plenty of draw for a non-geek crowd, it's Star Wars with a talking raccoon and Zoe Saldana.

Well, that's fair given my initial mistake (saying "non-comic geek"), but barring an exceptional promotional campaign and a clear decision to market it as a sci-fi movie instead of a superhero movie, it won't have near the buzz of Star Wars; it can't get the "cute talking animal" angle for the kiddies (where the talking animal money is...not with the furries :smallwink:) while maintaining *either* sci-fi or superhero cred, and Zoe Saldana is gaining buzz, but still isn't going to sell a lot of tickets on her own.

Again, I want to reiterate that my position is that Guardians has the potential of being the first Marvel flop, not that it necessarily will be the first flop.

- M

[Velaryon]

I think people are underestimating the degree to which Iron Man was a known superhero before the films. Sure, he wasn't exactly an A-lister the way Spider Man or the X-Men might have been, but he was better known then people are giving him credit for, I think. Certainly much better known than the Guardians of the Galaxy.


Seems to me like Marvel is making a bet that their track record for putting out good movies can stand on its own at this point. If that bet pays off then it means some pretty big things.

That, and it looks like the Guardians tie in pretty heavily with Thanos and therefore Avengers 2.

This is very much what it looks like to me. This seems to be a test of whether they've established a strong enough reputation to get their D-list* superhero teams into feature films.

*I speak in terms of mainstream recognition, not quality, of which I am admittedly ignorant.

From what I've read, Fox still owns the movie rights to X-Men, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, and Silver Surfer, while New Line owns Blade, Columbia/Sony has Spider Man and Ghost Rider, Universal has Namor, and Lionsgate has Punisher. Some of that could be inaccurate or out of date, but even if it's all correct, Guardians of the Galaxy seems like an odd choice to me. Surely there's someone with a bit more name recognition that hasn't been brought to the big screen yet?

[Tiki Snakes]

I think one or two of those have reverted, but can't be sure without checking.

[Mordar]

From what I've read, Fox still owns the movie rights to X-Men, Daredevil, Fantastic Four, and Silver Surfer, while New Line owns Blade, Columbia/Sony has Spider Man and Ghost Rider, Universal has Namor, and Lionsgate has Punisher. Some of that could be inaccurate or out of date, but even if it's all correct, Guardians of the Galaxy seems like an odd choice to me. Surely there's someone with a bit more name recognition that hasn't been brought to the big screen yet?


I think one or two of those have reverted, but can't be sure without checking.

My understanding is that Daredevil and Elektra have reverted (linky (http://screenrant.com/daredevil-movie-rights-revert-marvel/)), I am certain Blade and Punisher have reverted (see here (http://movies.yahoo.com/news/marvel-regains-movie-rights-blade-183100445.html)), and it seems Ghost Rider has as well (another linky (http://screenrant.com/ghost-rider-movie-rights-marvel-punisher-blade-daredevil/)).

There is less certainty about Namor, but sources report Universal owns "nothing", and Joe Q says "To the best of my knowledge" Marvel has Namor (reference (http://www.dailysuperhero.com/2012/05/film-rights-of-namor-sub-mariner-said.html)).

Fox does still have Fantastic Four (having recently hired a script-polisher just last month for FF3), and one would assume Surfer and Galactus (and sadly other heralds thereof).

There was an interesting point made that properties that reverted likely did so because the studios that owned the rights didn't meet requirements, suggesting either released movies weren't well received (DD/Elektra) or had casting issues (Ghost Rider, Blade (Snipes being no longer available)) and thus weren't necessarily great candidates for movies.

The blanket rights for X-Men and "mutants", combined with the Spiderman property, create a big wrench in the works if you consider how large of a scope of characters this removes from eligibility.

Still, if they wanted to go off the standard superhero reservation I would have liked to have seen something like the Defenders or [what was the name of the other "dark" mystic group with Strange, Ghost Rider, Manthing and so on...?] instead of GotG.

- M

[Dienekes]

I think people are underestimating the degree to which Iron Man was a known superhero before the films. Sure, he wasn't exactly an A-lister the way Spider Man or the X-Men might have been, but he was better known then people are giving him credit for, I think. Certainly much better known than the Guardians of the Galaxy.


I agree with this. Iron Man might not be known to everyone as say people know roughly what Spiderman is, but I think he was more widely recognized than freaking Rocket Raccoon. Even folks who enjoyed Iron Man will find an anthropomorphic freakin' raccoon right out of Star Fox is a hard sell. Expect there to be many jokes about furries.

[Moak]

Wait. Are they seriously making the Guardians WITHOUT Warlock?

.... woah.

It was the only thing that was making me care for this movie.

Well, let's hope for the best.

[Hopeless]

Wait. Are they seriously making the Guardians WITHOUT Warlock?

.... woah.

It was the only thing that was making me care for this movie.

Well, let's hope for the best.

I'm hoping he's what they described as something everybody wants specifically the soul gem set on his brow...

I figure he's in suspension and most of the team don't know he's aboard as the Church is after them since he's proof that the Magus who leads the Church is posing as Adam Warlock.

I'm hoping they reveal Gamora stole the slumbering Warlock on her father's orders who seeks both the gem and to topple Magus thereby helping his own plans since he has a somewhat singular purpose after all!