A friend of mine saw it at a pre-screening last night and his post on Facebook after seeing it just said that this movie is going to make a bazillion dollars. Considering he is usually pretty critical of movies, I took that as a great sign.
Trying so so SO hard to avoid reading or watching anything further in order to avoid any more spoilers. I don't want to know any more until I watch it in the theatre. It is killing me! I don't need any more info... I KNOW that I am going to love it.
It's not even that bad a review. I do love that almost every article I've read includes the line "little known character from Marvel that debuted in 1969." Like it's too difficult to do basic research and see this isn't that group if little known characters, but an entirely different group of little known characters. I swear if do a spit take if I saw just one mainstream article that knew the difference.
This is why I like to pretend this movie has a completely different title. I love the Charlie-27/Vance Astro group so much that I almost decided to boycott this flick
It's not even that bad a review. I do love that almost every article I've read includes the line "little known character from Marvel that debuted in 1969." Like it's too difficult to do basic research and see this isn't that group if little known characters, but an entirely different group of little known characters. I swear if do a spit take if I saw just one mainstream article that knew the difference.
This is why I like to pretend this movie has a completely different title. I love the Charlie-27/Vance Astro group so much that I almost decided to boycott this flick
It's not even that bad a review. I do love that almost every article I've read includes the line "little known character from Marvel that debuted in 1969." Like it's too difficult to do basic research and see this isn't that group if little known characters, but an entirely different group of little known characters. I swear if do a spit take if I saw just one mainstream article that knew the difference.
This is why I like to pretend this movie has a completely different title. I love the Charlie-27/Vance Astro group so much that I almost decided to boycott this flick
It's not even that bad a review. I do love that almost every article I've read includes the line "little known character from Marvel that debuted in 1969." Like it's too difficult to do basic research and see this isn't that group if little known characters, but an entirely different group of little known characters. I swear if do a spit take if I saw just one mainstream article that knew the difference.
Does it REALLY matter if they are little known characters? Shouldn't that make it better for the reviewers because they don't have any pre-conceptions? Most movies aren't based on decades long, well known characters. And the ones critics tend to like are the most original, so.... that should be a plus.
It's not even that bad a review. I do love that almost every article I've read includes the line "little known character from Marvel that debuted in 1969." Like it's too difficult to do basic research and see this isn't that group if little known characters, but an entirely different group of little known characters. I swear if do a spit take if I saw just one mainstream article that knew the difference.
Does it REALLY matter if they are little known characters? Shouldn't that make it better for the reviewers because they don't have any pre-conceptions? Most movies aren't based on decades long, well known characters. And the ones critics tend to like are the most original, so.... that should be a plus.
In early 1977, Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Leia Organa, Chewbacca, Obi Wan Kenobi, R2-D2, C3PO and Darth Vader were "little-known characters".
It's not even that bad a review. I do love that almost every article I've read includes the line "little known character from Marvel that debuted in 1969." Like it's too difficult to do basic research and see this isn't that group if little known characters, but an entirely different group of little known characters. I swear if do a spit take if I saw just one mainstream article that knew the difference.
Does it REALLY matter if they are little known characters? Shouldn't that make it better for the reviewers because they don't have any pre-conceptions? Most movies aren't based on decades long, well known characters. And the ones critics tend to like are the most original, so.... that should be a plus.
It doesn't matter at all. Lazy cut & paste journalism does. Not that this is a truly important story, it's just irksome.
It's not even that bad a review. I do love that almost every article I've read includes the line "little known character from Marvel that debuted in 1969." Like it's too difficult to do basic research and see this isn't that group if little known characters, but an entirely different group of little known characters. I swear if do a spit take if I saw just one mainstream article that knew the difference.
It's not that far off, though. They may not be the same characters, but the concept of Guardians of the Galaxy was introduced back then. You could argue that the X-Men introduced in films back in the '90s weren't the X-Men introduced in comics back in the '60s (or even the ones in the '70s), but I don't think most people analyze it enough to make that distinction.
It's not even that bad a review. I do love that almost every article I've read includes the line "little known character from Marvel that debuted in 1969." Like it's too difficult to do basic research and see this isn't that group if little known characters, but an entirely different group of little known characters. I swear if do a spit take if I saw just one mainstream article that knew the difference.
It's not that far off, though. They may not be the same characters, but the concept of Guardians of the Galaxy was introduced back then. You could argue that the X-Men introduced in films back in the '90s weren't the X-Men introduced in comics back in the '60s (or even the ones in the '70s), but I don't think most people analyze it enough to make that distinction.
True, but even the concept is pretty different. Classic Guardians and new Guardians really only share the name. It's not a big deal, I just wish one mainstream reviewer had also been a fan also.
It's not even that bad a review. I do love that almost every article I've read includes the line "little known character from Marvel that debuted in 1969." Like it's too difficult to do basic research and see this isn't that group if little known characters, but an entirely different group of little known characters. I swear if do a spit take if I saw just one mainstream article that knew the difference.
It's not that far off, though. They may not be the same characters, but the concept of Guardians of the Galaxy was introduced back then. You could argue that the X-Men introduced in films back in the '90s weren't the X-Men introduced in comics back in the '60s (or even the ones in the '70s), but I don't think most people analyze it enough to make that distinction.
True, but even the concept is pretty different. Classic Guardians and new Guardians really only share the name. It's not a big deal, I just wish one mainstream reviewer has also been a fan also.
They're probably all getting their information from a press release, anyway, which means that someone at Marvel Studios probably didn't bother to elaborate. I often get the impression that research isn't always a priority for entertainment journalists.
Comments
http://www.popmatters.com/post/183990-the-top-10-reasons-why-guardians-of-the-galaxy-is-awesome/
I don't need any more info... I KNOW that I am going to love it.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/guardians_of_the_galaxy/reviews/
I particularly like this quote from the critic at the Arizona Republic ... "Really, "woo-hoo!" just about covers it."
Business Insider already spoiled the end credits scene...
WHY IN GODS NAME DID I CLICK ON THE LINK?!?!?!?!?!?!
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/guardians_of_the_galaxy/
Hoping to see it this weekend (if my wife lets me :-) )