[worry]

MTS, on 07 March 2013 - 11:45 AM, said:

worrywort, on 06 March 2013 - 10:17 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure the phrase is "Lettuce leave that".

Shouldn't that be "Lettuce leaf that"?

You'd be surprised at the controversy. It's like dwarfs vs. dwarves.

[polishgenius]

Orlion, on 07 March 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

Specifically Rocket Raccoon. There is only so much that the audience will accept, and I do not think the broader audience would be willing to have a talking space critter which seems to equate with a Jar-Jar-Binks occupation. It's too much.

You can't equate Rocket Raccoon to Jar-Jar at this stage. He didn't ruin Star Wars because he was a space critter, he ruined Star Wars because he was annoying. No-one had a problem with Yoda, did they? Play him right, and R-R could end up being one of the most popular characters in the whole Marvel cineverse.

The 'people won't like it because it's too cheesy and out there' thing was a line brought up before Thor as well, and look how well people accepted that film in the end. What'll matter is if the film is good, not if the concept is kooky.

[Orlion]

polishgenius, on 08 March 2013 - 01:54 AM, said:

Orlion, on 07 March 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

Specifically Rocket Raccoon. There is only so much that the audience will accept, and I do not think the broader audience would be willing to have a talking space critter which seems to equate with a Jar-Jar-Binks occupation. It's too much.

You can't equate Rocket Raccoon to Jar-Jar at this stage. He didn't ruin Star Wars because he was a space critter, he ruined Star Wars because he was annoying. No-one had a problem with Yoda, did they? Play him right, and R-R could end up being one of the most popular characters in the whole Marvel cineverse.

Completely? No. Potentially? You betcha. The character itself can not be taken completely seriously by the general audience Marvel Studio has. This means that RR is probably going to fulfill a sort of comedic role. So, if done right he might be like Gimli... if done wrong he would be like Jar-Jar. As far as Yoda, the problem arose when they decided to have Yoda become an action hero and not the dignified (if muppety) Jedi he was in ESB and RotJ. It just looked ridiculous to many people (though to be fair, it was not a deal breaker for those same people). Rocket Raccoon is guaranteed to be actiony... though hopefully it won't even enter into Action-Yoda territory since he uses a lot of ballistic weapons.

Quote

The 'people won't like it because it's too cheesy and out there' thing was a line brought up before Thor as well, and look how well people accepted that film in the end. What'll matter is if the film is good, not if the concept is kooky.

With Thor, they changed the idea to make it less kooky. It was no longer the actual Norse Gods, just an alien race mistaken as gods when they visited Earth a while back. Thor being turned essentially human throughout most of the film also helped the audience relate.

Can 'kooky' ideas be turned into good films? Perhaps. But the more 'out there' an idea is, the harder it is to make into a final product the general audience will be willing to pay for. And this idea has been one that has been hard to sell to the normal comic book audience.

[worry]

How do you know all this? Who's taking any of these movies seriously and how do you know to what degree they are doing so? And how did you get this information?

[amphibian]

worrywort, on 08 March 2013 - 02:35 AM, said:

How do you know all this? Who's taking any of these movies seriously and how do you know to what degree they are doing so? And how did you get this information?

Far, far too many hours impersonating a janitor standing idly by the elevator down to the carpark as theatergoers exit the movies.

Market research at its finest.

[polishgenius]

Orlion, on 08 March 2013 - 02:14 AM, said:

This means that RR is probably going to fulfill a sort of comedic role. So, if done right he might be like Gimli... if done wrong he would be like Jar-Jar.

Yeah, but comedic doesn't mean he can't also be awesome... Look at Jack Sparrow. Or Reepicheep, perhaps the closest existing character to Rocket Raccoon on screen and probably the only bit of Prince Caspian that could be said to have actually worked.

Quote

As far as Yoda, the problem arose when they decided to have Yoda become an action hero and not the dignified (if muppety) Jedi he was in ESB and RotJ. It just looked ridiculous to many people (though to be fair, it was not a deal breaker for those same people).

I think you're the first person I've come across who doesn't think Yoda showing his skills was one of the saving graces of the PT. And bear in mind that the notorious difficulty in the real actors interacting with CG elements that plagued Star Wars has, on all evidence so far, been far better handled by Marvel.

Quote

It was no longer the actual Norse Gods, just an alien race mistaken as gods when they visited Earth a while back. Thor being turned essentially human throughout most of the film also helped the audience relate.

The purely magical aspects might have been played down a touch but I don't see how they weren't still meant to be the actual Norse gods. Immortal beings with magical powers who live in another realm called Valhalla that doesn't actually appear to be a planet? I'm not that familiar with the Thor mythology in the comics, but from what I've read I don't see how what they did was a massive departure, apart from the physical transformation into Donald Blake.

Quote

Can 'kooky' ideas be turned into good films? Perhaps. But the more 'out there' an idea is, the harder it is to make into a final product the general audience will be willing to pay for. And this idea has been one that has been hard to sell to the normal comic book audience.

I think you're seriously overselling how seriously people take superhero movies, or at least how seriously they feel the need to do so.

[worry]

Haha, well I didn't wanna be mean about it, but it all sounds invented, particularly "The character itself can not be taken completely seriously by the general audience Marvel Studio has." This wasn't exactly an issue addressed on the latest census, I don't think. It's logical in the sense that it's a conclusion you can fairly draw from givens you've invented for the sake of self-debate entirely self-contained in one's inner monologue.

[worry]

I mean, everyone has those kinds of conversations with themselves, in their head, not a big deal...but it doesn't necessarily resemble the real world at all.

[polishgenius]

worrywort, on 08 March 2013 - 02:55 AM, said:

It's logical in the sense that it's a conclusion you can fairly draw from givens you've invented for the sake of self-debate entirely self-contained in one's inner monologue.

I'm not quite sure why, but I think this sentence is amazing and needs singling out.

[Orlion]

polishgenius, on 08 March 2013 - 02:52 AM, said:

Orlion, on 08 March 2013 - 02:14 AM, said:

This means that RR is probably going to fulfill a sort of comedic role. So, if done right he might be like Gimli... if done wrong he would be like Jar-Jar.

Yeah, but comedic doesn't mean he can't also be awesome... Look at Jack Sparrow. Or Reepicheep, perhaps the closest existing character to Rocket Raccoon on screen and probably the only bit of Prince Caspian that could be said to have actually worked.

I suppose the question is whether or not the audience for Narnia would be the same as for Marvel. I mean Narnia in general, never saw Prince Caspian but Reepicheep himself was one of the better characters in the book, in my opining.

Quote

Quote

As far as Yoda, the problem arose when they decided to have Yoda become an action hero and not the dignified (if muppety) Jedi he was in ESB and RotJ. It just looked ridiculous to many people (though to be fair, it was not a deal breaker for those same people).

I think you're the first person I've come across who doesn't think Yoda showing his skills was one of the saving graces of the PT. And bear in mind that the notorious difficulty in the real actors interacting with CG elements that plagued Star Wars has, on all evidence so far, been far better handled by Marvel.

Different crowds, I suppose. I've never met anyone who did not view those scenes with mild disdain. Though once again, as I tried to imply before, it did not stop them from spending money on it.

Quote

Quote

It was no longer the actual Norse Gods, just an alien race mistaken as gods when they visited Earth a while back. Thor being turned essentially human throughout most of the film also helped the audience relate.

The purely magical aspects might have been played down a touch but I don't see how they weren't still meant to be the actual Norse gods. Immortal beings with magical powers who live in another realm called Valhalla that doesn't actually appear to be a planet? I'm not that familiar with the Thor mythology in the comics, but from what I've read I don't see how what they did was a massive departure, apart from the physical transformation into Donald Blake.

Off the top of my head, in the intro where they were showing the war against the Ice Giants, you had a person wearing the Loki costume. Obviously, that could not have been Loki (he was just a wee Ice giant then), so there seems to be retirement or death or whatever for specific roles. At least two different people have filled the 'Loki' role in this embodiment, and I imagine (though I am far from certain) someone else was 'Thor' before Thor. We know from the movie that he was still a wee-Valhallan when the gods had (allegedly) last visited the Earth. So they are long-lived/outside of time/insert whatever generic sciencefiction explanation you want here.

But that hardly addresses the actual point... it just wastes your time, mwahaha.

Quote

Quote

Can 'kooky' ideas be turned into good films? Perhaps. But the more 'out there' an idea is, the harder it is to make into a final product the general audience will be willing to pay for. And this idea has been one that has been hard to sell to the normal comic book audience.

I think you're seriously overselling how seriously people take superhero movies, or at least how seriously they feel the need to do so.

*shrug* Everyone has a breaking point for their "suspension-of-disbelief*. And a lot of that has to do with expectations. Just because they'll suspend disbelief for the Hulk does not mean they'll be champing at the bit for a Howard the Duck remake (random example, only tangentially related to Rocket Raccoon, whom I think has a much better chance at being accepted than Howard).

And finally:

Quote

Haha, well I didn't wanna be mean about it, but it all sounds invented, particularly "The character itself can not be taken completely seriously by the general audience Marvel Studio has." This wasn't exactly an issue addressed on the latest census, I don't think. It's logical in the sense that it's a conclusion you can fairly draw from givens you've invented for the sake of ]self-debate entirely self-contained in one's inner monologue.

In one word, that's called speculation. You get a lot of it on the board, from what Erikson could have meant, why more people don't like x, y, z, why do people have trouble with Gardens of the Moon, etc. etc. Of course we are going to bring our experiences with how people we know respond to certain things, and of course little (I'll say none) is traceable back to peer-reviewed scientific journals. My idea is that the Marvel movies, making as much money as they do, probably have a much broader audience than, say, Watchmen. The speculation comes in where one speculates as to what will alienate a portion of that audience and what will not.

[amphibian]

There is a certain kind of awesomeness in the thought of alienating the audience with aliens. Or something that isn't a puppet.

[worry]

Yah, my point was that you "speculated" the data as well as the conclusion.

[Orlion]

worrywort, on 08 March 2013 - 04:45 AM, said:

Yah, my point was that you "speculated" the data as well as the conclusion.

Once again, something that tends to happen on the internet forums. When talking about 'tastes' there tends not to be any actual study. So we base it on what little peripheral data we have (such as, say, the incarnation of the GotG the movie being based on was canceled after 25 issues) with whatever interactions and discussions you have with people. Sometimes, *shock!* you come across conflicting viewpoints.

And sometimes you come across people who instead of engaging in the discussion critique it on the basis of 'faulty data' without providing a counterpoint with "legit data".

[worry]

Enlightening. I was not aware that imagining up a hypothetical cross section of the broad Marvel movie-going public was common internet forum practice. Nor, for that matter, that one's wholly hypothetical consideration of that audience's consensus view on a space warrior raccoon character -- that it would turn off casual fans of iron men, angry green giants, and Norse god-aliens -- could be so passionately and nobly fought for. I agree that Guardians of the Galaxy will likely have a lower box office draw than the Avengers movies, whether it's good or not. And if it makes you feel better, I might even pretend to worry that Avengers 2 is threatened by a different goofier Marvel movie directed by the well-regarded Troma-raised director behind B-movie minor classics Slither and Super. I mean, what you forgot to mention was not only did GotG last 25 issues, its very existence caused The Avengers comics to tank. That happened, didn't it? I've consulted several million imaginary comic book fans and that's what they told me, so from my viewpoint it stands as accurate.

In the meantime, you don't have to keep replying to everything I say, I am satisfied being right without your acknowledgement either way. Something that tends to happen on internet forums.

[dktorode]

Orlion, on 07 March 2013 - 08:49 PM, said:

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 07 March 2013 - 10:54 AM, said:

As someone whos only comic book experience is reading things on this site and letting my blue link syndrome take over on wikipedia, I have no idea what the Guardians of the Galaxy are, other than I read a review saying there going to be a bit of a gamble as theyre not as well known as the Phase 1 Marvel characters.

The gamble is not so much in the characters not being known, but in the characters being the most outlandish out of all the movies. Specifically Rocket Raccoon. There is only so much that the audience will accept, and I do not think the broader audience would be willing to have a talking space critter which seems to equate with a Jar-Jar-Binks occupation. It's too much. The gamble then further endangers the Avengers 2 (at least potentially so). Thanos is assumed to be the big villain... but can he be taken seriously if he is defeated/hindered/even cares about a bazooka wielding rodent you expect to be stealing pizza crusts from the local trash can? Which goes into your main point:

Im willing to bet it will work, and not only that, the majority people will love it not only the people who know it,

Think "TED" with a bazooka rather than your ill advised Jar-Jar-Binks reference.

Now that's gold i tells ya...GOLD!!

[McLovin]

A short fuzzy guy with a big weapon could also be Gimli from LOTR. Which means overall it could not suck, but probably will.

[Abyss]

Wile the core concept of the Rocket Racoon character as intelligent semi-anthromorphic wisecracking racoon may be humorous and played for laughs, the DnA Guardians of the Galaxy comic series that is the supposed basis for the film often played Rocket as dead serious badass, and it was one of the high points of the series, often specifically because it was an intelligent semi-anthromorphic racoon shooting space gods in the face.



The Avengers cartoon also played him serious, including one point where he shoots the Hulk repatedly in the face, and it was awesome.


My point is that Jar-Jar Binks would have been infinitely improved if he had spent less time jive talkin and more time shooting people in the face.

[tiam]

When I first raised this point I had no idea there was some sort of maniacal heavily armed racoon and that he would be fighting alongside Capn America and the Hulk. Now I know this to be true I really am put off by there inclusion, unless there really popular in the comic book world and Marvel thinks theyll fill seats. Im am really put off by this sort of Avengers:Rocky and Bullwinkle edition that might happen. I have this horrible flashback to Transformers 2 with those stupid jive talking small robots that annoyed me very much.

Still if they can pull it off it might be a strange thing and Marvel might look like geniuses/genii/geniusing

[amphibian]

We should pitch a maniacal heavily armed raccoon vs. Galactus movie.

Oh wait, it needs to be maniacal heavily armed raccoon and Wolverine vs. Galactus thing to get any traction with Marvel.

[polishgenius]

Jean-Claude Van tiam, on 08 March 2013 - 08:57 PM, said:

When I first raised this point I had no idea there was some sort of maniacal heavily armed racoon and that he would be fighting alongside Capn America and the Hulk.

It's unlikely that they'll appear alongside the Earthbound Avengers, except maybe briefly. Kevin Feige has said that GotG probably won't be as intrinsically involved with the Avengers as other movies- I suspect it'll be more about providing Thanos backstory, though we'll see.

I find it odd that the raccoon is causing so much more difficulty to people than the talking tree.