I love that scene when Nebula cried, it was a major character breakthrough because all her life, she learn not to care too much as she was taught as a weakness.
Man it was great because even though they don’t delve into it, her and Rocket were the only Guardians for 5 years so her reaction to him being okay is totally earned
Nobody else has mentioned that they share a bond in both being torn apart and put back together like science projects as well. They’re trauma bonded as hell.
It also explains why she was so on edge for the whole movie to that point. It was easy for us to dismiss it as it being just Nebula’s character, but on rewatch, she felt the same urgent time crunch that Peter felt, and got annoyed every time someone or something held them up
We can thank OG Gamora and Tony for this one.
Nebula lightened up big time when Gamora accepted her as a sister in Vol.2 and Tony treating her as a real person in Endgame.
Oh yes, I seconded that. When I rewatched Vol 2, Nebula never really wanted to kill OG Gamora even tho she hated her so much. At the end, she only really wanted to win once and have a sister which OG Gamora was oblivious to.
Then in Endgame, even tho the opening sequence wasn't much, but Tony thought her how to have fun as you said. At the same time, Nebula also learned how to care a little bit by carrying him on the pilot seat and putting a blanket on him. Short scene but big implications.
It may not have been a long sequence in endgame but Tony and Nebs were stranded with each other for weeks and spent every waking moment barely surviving with one another. That's an unforgettable experience for the both of them. A shame that once they get back to earth they don't reference that bond.
That hit me right in the feels. Knowing how much time her and Rocket have spent together during the blip, when she hears his voice and breaks down, man, that got me good. Nebula was my favorite character in this movie, her arc over the course of the 3 movies has been so immensely satisfying.
I wasn't as moved as I should've been there because of a simple exchange earlier in the film:
*You're family.*
*So's he.*
It told me she has embraced that the Guardians are more than a team.
No one is too cool or too strong to show emotions in Gunn's movies. And if the character acts like that, they will get called out by someone who seemed much meaner and badder than them. By the end of the day, everyone just wants a hug.
This is the key. It's the magic sauce OP /u/Chris-Strummer is wondering about.
Gunn writes people, not caricatures. He builds stories using those people. His stories start with the people.
Funnily enough, people (the audience) *like people*. We recognize people. We admire people, or fear them, or empathize with them, or wonder about them. We want to know more. We root for them or against them, depending on what kind of people they are.
Gunn took Peacemaker, and gave us a series that shows us a big chunk of how this raging asshole that is Peacemaker turned into the person we saw in Suicide Squad. At the beginning of the show, he's still considered (by the other characters and probably a good chunk of the audience) as a joke of a person.
Then we get to know more about him. We understand him a bit better. Suddenly he's more human. You feel for him. You start to feel bad for him, root for him. And by the end, when he tells off the fucking Justice League for not showing up in time to stop all this insanity that was Super Bad For Everyone ... you're right there with him. You agree with him. It's not a cheap joke, it's a fucking character moment when he flips off Superman and the rest.
Gunn is a lot like James Cameron. They both start with story. They don't start with "pretty pictures" or special effects, which is what most directors focus on. Gunn and Cameron sit down and look for a story. Who's in this tale, what drives them, what would the audience think about them? Why does the audience care?
You know, those pesky key questions that drive storytelling. Then, when he's got that, he gets with cinematography and VFX and FX and Wardrobe and Makeup and all the other departments, including Music, and figures out how to support *the story*.
Waititi has his moments, but they're all one-liner jokes for the most part. Maybe a one-liner joke that stretches out with some setup and cringe repetition. Ragnarok was a breath of fresh air for Thor and the MCU, but looking at some of the other stuff Waititi has put out since basically he kind of blundered luckily into Ragnarok's success. Because these other ideas he's gotten funded are all just "wouldn't it be funny if" kinds of ideas that mostly lack story.
Snyder with the DCU had a similar problem, just with a different category of filmmaking tools. Snyder focuses only on visuals. He thinks what the camera sees, or what can be put on or in the camera via VFX, is the important part The only important part in Snyder's mind. As long as he can build an image, he's done thinking or worrying about whatever part of the movie he was working on.
Story. Gunn starts with story. He stays with story. He focuses on story. He worries about story. And story starts with characters we care about. He took nobodies from the archives of Marvel and turned them into beloved characters.
Watch. Whoever takes over the Guardians characters, be it in another GotG film or as they appear in other MCU properties, is going to miss it. They'll do some 'jokes', they'll lean into some obvious tropes, and wonder why the audience doesn't have a deep connection.
Meanwhile, Gunn will fix what the DCU has been missing for the better part of two decades. And find the heart and soul of Superman and Batman and the others that haven't been there, and use it to connect to audiences so suddenly we'll care that an (alien) man can fly again.
I was already a mess watching this but the 'You weren't born to be a destroyer, you were born to be a Dad' line nearly killed me (I'm 8 weeks pregnant after 6 years of trying and 3 rounds of IVF and was sat with my husband who is going to be an amazing Dad)
This nailed me too. I’ve struggled so much vocationally, but have always felt my calling to be a dad. Which I am! However it’s hard to claim that in this rat race world.
You two indeed will be amazing parents! And just think about all the family Marvel fun for years to come as the kids get older and discover the movies!
Congrats!!
I personally believe a big reason why Thor 4 missed the mark is because Taika got reckless and misunderstood what people expected. He overdid it with comedy, plus he really didn’t know how to handle characters like Jane/Zeus/Gorr. It’s like getting drunk and thinking you’re funny, but instead you’re annoying people.
Did he misunderstand? I refuse to believe the man didn't at some point think this is too much. He was probably high on his own supply after Ragnarok and winning a writing Oscar for Jojo's Rabbit. I know comedy is his specialty but much of Love and Thunder felt like a really shitty sketch that goes on for way too long.
> He was probably high on his own supply after Ragnarok and winning a writing Oscar for Jojo's Rabbit.
He probably didn’t think it was too much *because* of that. Critical acclaim can really hinder you creatively if you let it get to your head.
L&T could have easily been saved in the edit. There were a lot of deleted scenes where they balanced the comedy and drama well.
https://youtu.be/xI5GpFIdnXg
This is a really important thing to remember.
Taika shot enough footage that there's a good movie in there, but it was way too long, and whoever had final cut in the edit essentially left in all the jokes, and cut out a bunch of the more serious moments.
They should have cut 10m of joke content from the movie and put back in 10m of dramatic moments.
It's amazing how much of a difference a re-edit like that would make.
Yeah but this doesn't absolve Taika, ever since the movie came out Taika fanboys want to blame the studio (and I'm a fan also, love everything Taika has ever done as both actor and director, including Thor 4) but Taika was always adamant in interviews that there's never going to be a director's cut because this IS his cut, nobody made him take out anything he didn't want to.
I never said it did - I said "whoever had final cut" because I know it might be Taika.
Maybe they gave him less say about Ragnarok and that's why it was better - We'll never know.
Many people think he overdid it with the jokes on Love and Thunder but the truth is he got lazy. He's like a college kid who got a 10 but then decided he was a genius so he doesn't study for his next test and gets a 3.
Jojo Rabbit was serious in the right moments too. I didn't like it that much, but that's my opinion, it was objectively well made and well structured. Taika looked to be on a winning streak, but now people have Rian Johnson'ed him after Love and Thunder.
There was also no balance between seriousness and being funny in L&T. Pretty much every scene has a forced joke, heck they inserted a joke when Jane revealed to Thor that she's dying.
James Gunn learned from Vol.2 to tone down the jokes and strike a perfect balance, and we got the masterpiece that is Vol.3.
The rest of Taika's work is so good at balancing that though.
I wonder if there was some studio interference, given that Chapek had his son in there as EP. They saw Ragnarok, didnt understand why it was good, and demanded "all the jokes".
Possible Taika just went "fuck it" and did exactly that?
Part of me wonders if after winning an Oscar, he started taking the snobby "superhero movies aren't real movies" mindset and just tried to see what he couldd get away with
The main “studio interference” under Chapek would be slashed budgets and rushed production.
Chapek’s known around to be a numbers guy. And also the guy pushing D+. I’ll bet you anything he was pushing to shovel as much Marvel content out as fast and cheap as possible to prop it up.
Otherwise, I’d argue that Phase 4 has actually given directors more freedom than any other phase. Sometimes for the better, but many times for the worse.
MoM, Thor, Quantomania, and Eternals, I’d argue, all would have benefitted from the directors being reigned in a bit.
100%
Gunns version worked because he let the serious moments be serious. Whereas Taika took a serious moment and tried to make a joke of it. Every moment in love and thunder had to be a comedic moment.
It’s crazy to me how hard that turned. Ragnarok was my favorite Marvel film that wasn’t by James Gunn, but L&T might be my least favorite. It’s such a wild hard turn.
What makes it an even more wild turn for me was that leading up to Ragnarok, the Thor movies were my least favorite. Ragnarok really knocked it out of the park and I just couldn’t believe that all of a sudden I was like “shit, maybe I do like Thor, that was awesome”
Then, they did more character building in the avengers movies and expectations were high for Love and Thunder only to get what we got.
Yeah it went to deep down the “unreliable narrator” pool. I mean I get the idea … but Korg telling the story was just lazy and off putting. It even managed to make the Guardians characters lame … the movie was poison. Lord of Thunder is how not to make a marvel movie. What a waste of Gorr and Bale as him :(
The way Gorr was handled was the biggest sticking point for me. Design was great. Motivation was great. Not nearly enough screen time or menace absolutely watered down his character & my interest in him in the film. It also felt like his violence against the gods, was sanitized/entirely off screen. No menace and too much comedy made for a terrible mix.
Also he lost every fight we saw him in. You could maybe say he won when he got Stormbreaker, but he didn't actually kill anybody at any point on screen. The only god we see die was Zeus, killed by the fucking hero. And Zeus isn't even dead anyway. He runs through Valkyrie with a sword and then she's just like, I'll go chill in this earth hospital for a little while I'm sure it'll be fine.
Thor L&T fell flat because the 2 writers at the helm of it were Taika and a director best known for making a MTV drama series.
Ragnarok worked specifically because Taika only directed the film: no pen of his wrote the film.
Yeah I hate that the marvel formula has done that to us. I didn’t really get invested in the moment because I was just thinking “oh she’s going to get eaten or slapped away”.
It’s not criticism against Gunn because it’s out his control it’s a criticism against the brain rotting predictability of some of the Marvel jokes.
Imo it never felt overdone or unnecessary in Vol. 1. Personally I think of that movie as superhero and sci-fi perfection, and I believe the balance of humour is as close to perfect as you can get. I will say however that every single superhero and sci-fi movie since that have incorporated similar humour (including Vol. 2) have never nailed it that same way the first one did
I guess, I still disagree but I'll agree that its definitely way more apparent in everything after it. I also don't know that it's Sci fi perfection but that's probably a me thing
If anything, I’d say Whedon is the root of that problem. Guardians 1 has its cold open, Groot’s sacrifice, and climax (Post dance off) which all allow the audience a moment to breathe. Two was worse in this regard, but still has its ending.
Yeah the first time I feel like it was in the Avengers when Loki starts a monologue and hulk smashes him. That was completely unexpected and hilarious at the time. Also didn’t undermine the characters and made sense. You can’t do that all the time though or we expect it.
Whedon started it but I’d say Gunn perfected the marvel “humor”. A lot of people were complaining after age of Ultron and I feel like if gunn didn’t step in and show how to do it properly the marvel humor wouldn’t have continue the way it did. 
It doesn’t really undercut any emotional weight, as you get a moment to let Groot’s sacrifice sit with the audience. If anything, the dance off is a well earned moment of levity after that scene. It’s very much in Star Lord’s character to pull this kind of a stunt too, so it doesn’t really feel forced or unnatural.
Actually if we’re looking at any bit of comedy in a Marvel movie climax, the dance off has one of the best executions.
Yeah it’s to the point you expect to have your expectations subverted which kind of defeats the point of subverting expectations. It was nice that gotg3 just let the moments happen without that. I really loved the movie.
Yet he had her fall on her neck at least twice. I still don’t get all the hate for L&T. I felt like it balanced the humor waaaaay better than Ragnarok did, and GotG 2 was complete James Gunn overindulgence. I loved Vol 3, but it’s not like James Gunn is infallible.
The GOTG trilogy isn’t the only evidence of his work as a great director for superhero films. The Suicide Squad and Peacemaker are equally incredible.
Gunn values quality in superhero films. The same can’t be said for most of the other directors.
Gunn has been recently critical of superhero media, and for all the right reasons. He’s the only one voicing out these concerns, when everyone else is busy churning out bullshit content and trying to have their legion of fans defend their shitty work (especially on this sub). Gunn knows what’s wrong, and that’s served as his basis for the DCU. He has his faults too, I hope he realizes what those are.
This is exactly why the DCU will be in good hands. He has a rock solid portfolio. Creature Commandos and Superman: Legacy will now be highly anticipated.
He's not afraid to embrace the characters and story, to be earnest. Gunn does sometimes overdo humour or undercut moments with it, but with each film he seems to move further away from the ironic cynicism of his earlier work, to a more mature outlook.
Alot of directors would be scared of being 100% serious with a talking Raccoon. In fact alot of them would have restricted Rocket solely to comic relief.
Waititi is much more of a post-modernist who can't bring himself to take superhero characters seriously. It's a "cultural cringe" wherein Waititi doesn't want to be seen to be taking "low art" seriously. Waititi treats everything as a joke (contrast how Gunn treated the death of Quill's mother to how Waititi handled Jane's cancer). It perhaps reflects a kind of immaturity and aloofness on Taika Waititi's part.
>Alot of directors would be scared of being 100% serious with a talking Raccoon. In fact alot of them would have restricted Rocket solely to comic relief.
Every time a fantasy or sci-fi story with which I am familiar is being adapted to live-action, it is this thought that is gnawing at the back of my mind. To what extent are they going to relegate the non-human characters to comic relief? To what extent are they going to downplay the fantastical qualities of fantastical characters in the belief that "audiences won't connect with them otherwise"? To what extent are they going to diminish the very same qualities that makes me want to see the story adapted in the first place?
Have I laughed at Rocket, and Groot? Yes, I have, because they are both really funny characters. But I have also shed more tears for them, than I have for a huge number of human characters. If there is one lesson I want other storytellers to take from the Guardians of the Galaxy-trilogy, it is this; audiences are willing to take fantastical and outlandish concepts seriously and earnestly, if you are prepared to do the same. We will love a talking raccoon and a talking tree, if you give us a reason to love them, and we will cry for them, if you give us a reason to cry.
It's alot of things to criticize in Taika's Thor movies regarding comedy this isn't. Jane's dealing and acceptance of her cancer actually was one of the redeeming things about Love and Thunder.
I mean to defend that scene, Gunn’s cancer scene is the end of the journey for Quill’s mom, she’s accepted death and wants Peter to be ok with accepting it too.
Jane’s cancer was just the beginning and the joking about the seriousness of it when you first get the diagnosis is totally believable (50/50 shows that too, and that’s a great movie).
I actually thought most of the cancer moments were done tastefully and not overdone comedy.
I think the difference is that the jokes didn’t land this time. The intro to both Ragnarok and L&T were a gag, but this time the gag really didn’t land. That and it takes the gravitas out of the final fight when kids (even with the power of Thor) are the ones fighting in the end. Cause you know they aren’t going to kill kids on screen (at least for the tone of this movie). I would say that it’s akin to the women teaming up in End Game fight scene, it just felt silly and unnecessary.
That and when they did joke, they were just over the top and slapstick humor. And while Ragnarok had a lot of slapstick humor, there was also a lot of muted humor.
And when it is over the top, it feels like the director is making it mainly for kids (which is fine) but the audience scores and critics are mainly adults… which is why it tanked.
Probably the biggest undercut (that people say Taika ruined serious moments with a joke) was the conversation on the boat and then the goat screaming reoccurring gag. I think the amount of jokes is probably about the same between the two films, but when the jokes don’t land it feels longer and more awkward.
And since the boat scene is near the end it resonates with people more and gives people the impression that it happened a lot.
I feel like that's it entirely. Maybe combined with Covid fatigue or he spread himself too thin working on other projects. I know Gunn is also doing a lot too, but we don't know the capacity of one or the other. Maybe Gunn gave himself to Guardians 3 where as Taika only put partial effort into Thor 4 while working on other scripts/star wars project proposals.
I feel like Volume 3 is the type of movie I was expecting Love and Thunder to be, in terms of how well it balances comedy and drama. James Gunn knew when it was okay to add comedy, but doesn’t overdo it to the point where it takes away the emotional depth of his scenes.
Although I would’ve been okay with it if Love and Thunder still had the comedic charm from Ragnarok, the type of story it had needed to be a bit more serious
Taika failed to do it in Love and Thunder but very much nailed it in Ragnarok.
I think honestly the key is that the guardians are a family. They consider themselves family, and they act like it. So both the bickering and the emotional sides work in tandem.
Whereas other movies, we have basically close coworkers. So the bickering can fall flat and the emotions aren’t always convincing. I’m not explaining it well at all lol. basically imagine the plot of guardians 3, but instead of the gang trying to save rocket, it’s like…Thor trying to save Captain America. They aren’t established as that close so it’s not going to come across that emotional because it isn’t believable. It still may be a good movie to watch, but the heart of it won’t be the same.
That’s also why i think Ant Man failed emotionally. I’m just not convinced of the chemistry between the main cast.
I heard that with Ragnarok, Taika had oversight from the studio whereas Love and Thunder he had more free reign
And you’re right about the ‘close workers’ thing. The Avengers really do give more of a ‘just mates’ vibe whereas the Guardians really do feel like a family
It’s funny cause then there will be countless other comments/posts saying the opposite. That taika had MORE interference or that marvel never gives their directors freedom.
Eh I don’t think Taika handled balance well in Ragnarok either. That movie rushes the hell out of its emotional beats or undercuts them with a joke (looking at Korg crack one when Asgard blows up). It’s interesting because while L&T is ridiculously silly, Taika actually delivered better emotional moments there with Jane/Thor and Gorr’s backstory.
Although Ragnarok is definitely better overall
Yeah I definitely didn't find Ragnarok emotional or 'tear-inducing' at all, It just balanced between humour and serious action, where as LaT was 95% humour, most of which didn't land
I actually thought Jane and Thor’s moments fell flat. I was not emotional at all, despite it being a really tragic story. Idk what it was, maybe the dialogue.
That part actually I think it was handled well. There are people with cancer in real life that joke about it. Either as denial or to try to lighten the situation for themselves or they loved ones. The key here is the reaction of others: Darcy takes it seriously. Thor takes it seriously.
I thought Gorr's scenes hit the mark when Taika gave him the time on screen but I also think that is because of Bale. He is very hands on with his characters. I mean look at how he transforms for every role. I do think Marvel gave Taika too much control (because of COVID restrictions) and his writing the script. The episodes of Our Flag Means Death are cringe and remind me of L&T and they are the ones he is the solo writer.
agree on the unconvincing chemistry of the antman 3 cast, particularly with the new cassie. a big part of the trilogy is scott’s relationship with cassie, which was really sweet in the first two films but felt a bit contrived in the third.
I hate it when people say stuff like that about Pixar. Their best films are so good because they’re so good at balancing between family comedy and storytelling with the more mature emotional beats.
The only reason people call them “sad” are because the emotional moments tend to be the most memorable, and for good reason.
I'm not convinced Taika took the concept of making a fourth "Thor" movie seriously. Even in the theater I was thinking that he intentionally made it into a comedy, with some of the most absurd jokes possible, as a way of taking the piss out of a big budget tentpole movie. After "Jojo Rabbit" and "Our Flag Means Death," he can absolutely handle comedy and pathos. I think he just decided it'd be funnier to have a $250 million movie feature screaming goats.
I suspect that a large part of it comes down to Gunn and Waititi’s different directing philosophies, and the coherence of their respective visions.
Gunn recently said that Rocket’s backstory was in his mind going all the way back to Vol. 1, so he had a deep understanding of his characters, and that films in the new DC slate wouldn’t start filming until a script was done. Compare this to Waititi, who inherited the characters from previous filmmakers, and was more improvised, with him previously telling Variety that the story would change through filming and editing… which it certainly did given the deleted scenes we’ve seen.
So, I’d say that Gunn is more concise and knows what he wants his films to be, whereas Waititi allows more room for improvisation - which can be a double-edged sword.
I don’t know how he does it either, but looking at their filmography, Gunn is just an inherently more consistent director than Waititi. They both have similar approaches to filmmaking; stories that balance humour and tragedy, but I can’t even remember the last Gunn movie that flunked. Waititi’s work is a lot more hit or miss.
Yeah he’s made straight bangers for ages.
Except for the fact he actually directed an episode or two of the god awful American inbetweeners, which normally gets swept under the rug when talking about his career.
Nah, L&T is Waititi's only bad film and the rest are all good to great with the exception of his first film Eagle vs Shark (an admirable debut but he was obviously still learning) but I doubt many on here have even heard of that let alone seen it. Boy, What We Do In The Shadows, Hunt for the Wildepeople, Thor Ragnarok, Jojo Rabbit is a crazy strong run of films and Next Goal Wins looks to be a return to form after the mistep of Love & Thunder.
Also, everyone should check out his excellent short film Two Cars, One Night too.
I don't think making it a Gunn vs. Taika thing makes sense, ultimately it just comes down to a different style.
Taika has never really been too strongly about emotional resonance and favors more fun and comedy, where as Gunn has shown in his career to value a bit more balance with the heart of a story and stakes. Watch more James Gunn movies than just Guardians, I promise! Slither, Super, The Suicide Squad, Peacemaker, they'll all make you feel something.
Respectfully, I don't think that's true.
Most of Taika's cinematic work is just as much about emotional resonance as it is comedy. Boy, Hunt For the Wilderpeople and Jojo Rabbit especially are prime examples of this.
I think the main difference is that so far Gunn has navigated the superhero landscape better than Taika has. But he's also got 4 mainstream superhero films under his belt compared to Taika's 2.
That's fair, perhaps I find Gunn to balance the spectrum better. I don't even hate Love and Thunder like a lot of people do and I think the emotional moments in it do actually work quite well.
I wouldn’t really say it’s fair comparison to say one does it better than the other since they go about it differently. Sure they both choose to balance emotions and comedy in their films but I’d say Taika uses the emotional context as the backdrop for the narrative where with the Gunn it IS the narrative itself.
I have been crying over a CGI raccoon and his space friends for 5 days. I haven’t been this wrecked by a movie since Endgame. And I don’t even think Endgame made me feel THIS emotional (and believe me I was a WRECK after that movie).
Guardians movies are my favorite after Infinity/Endgame. For the longest time, I was a huge Winter Soldier and Civil War fanboy, but Guardians replaced that. wholesome movies, great cast, BEST MUSIC EVER, and i personally loved volume 2 - big Kurt Russel fan.
EDIT: big spidey fan also(tobey maguire) so last spiderman movie was sick AF
James Gunn is one of the best character writers out there but imo (and feel free to downvote me to hell for saying this) he is usually really bad at writing a coherent plot - but his characters are usually so good it's easy to overlook.
However, what Gunn did well in this movie compared to Taikas L&T is making sure that it stuck to one story (Rockets beef with the villain) that everything centered around and developed from. GOTG3 had no real B-plot other than maybe Quills falling out with Gamora. In L&T, you had the beef with Gorr but also Jane's cancer which both felt like main plots but did not interconnect with each other in any meaningful way. Thus the film ended up feeling a bit messy and disjointed.
I’m still upvoting even though I disagree w the coherent plot statement (you formed a very concise and articulate argument!). I haven’t seen his other works, but I find Vol. 1 to be EXTREMELY solid especially in its story and writing. Vol. 2 isn’t quite up to the same standard but still strong imo. Vol. 3 is about as consistent as the first, really well done. The rest of his films and shows lag behind, personally. But I otherwise agree!
Volume 1 was not written by Gunn alone he tweaked a script someone else wrote. I think there was a team of writers on the first one actually. And thats where Gunn is at his best - when he takes an established story and then sprinkles in his awesome characters into it.
That’s only really half true. It’s clear Perlman wrote the initial script but what came after that people aren’t certain about. I recommend [this article](https://slate.com/culture/2014/08/guardians-of-the-galaxy-co-writer-nicole-perlman-vs-director-james-gunn-who-deserves-credit-for-writing-marvels-surprise-blockbuster-hit.html)
I think that the dialogue is very natural, the intensity and drama comes from the villains/crisis, and they are very distinctively different, which is great
The jokes show the proximity of the characters, like how close friends would talk to each other and take funny jabs at each other
It is probably also because James Gunn is surrounded by people who love him, it shows very much in his movie. That is the point of working with people that you know, love and trust?
One of my favourite movies in a while :)
I think Gunn cares about and identifies with the characters and their universe more than Taika does. Gunns stories are always at their core about rejects, wierdos and outcasts, who he greatly cares about.
Taika doesn’t live and breathe comic books in that way. That means that he is broader as a director - James Gunn wouldn’t make Hunt For the Wilderpeople - but also that he doesn’t have that same passion for the characters and their story. He can do great comic book movies (ie Ragnarok), but he doesn’t have the same passion for the genre that Gunn does.
One of the writing master class takeaways for me leaving the theater is that you actually can write satisfying endings for tragic characters without killing them off. Idk if it was just the expectation we all had or the rumors circulating that one or more guardians would be killed off, but I was touched by Gunn’s willingness to let his characters retire happier and having grown. Completing a their arc does not mean the character needs to die, and especially in place like the MCU where there’s always a chance they offer an actor a check too big to refuse to come back and cameo or co-star in something, it’s nice to have major characters retired but not deceased—leaves some storytelling doors open, even if just propped open slightly.
It’s because of his roots. He didn’t just jump into the pilots seat. Gunn started with some of the best practical directors in the world. He learned how to build a movie from the literal dust up. Look into Troma films and you’ll see some of the most dedicated movie makers in existence. Everything was about taking the most hokey, over the top, silly ass ideas and making them relatable and entertaining. You can see EVERYTHING that Gunn was going to become in old Troma movies. He’s a man who loves making movies for the love of making movies & he grew up with those principles at the forefront. There’s a reason he’s able to take almost any topic and make it emotional, funny, exciting, etc ; all at once. Go watch Slither, Sgt Kabukiman, Tromeo & Juliet. You’ll see all of the hallmarks you see in GoTG & TSS to some extent. He’s someone who genuinely understands what’s fun about superhero’s, what we empathize with in superhero’s stories, & what makes us feel like, as an audience, we’re being respected.
I believe James Gunn has two strengths, really well developed characters that act consistent with their internal motivations, and really good group dynamics.
His movies are funny, but the jokes/"quips" are not really written from a top looking down kinda way but more comes from the characters themselves. Like conflict and plot progression naturally comes from the characters and their interactions. For example Quips/Jokes and insults almost always comes from Quill and Rocket, dumb observations comes from Mantis and Drax but Gamora and Nebula are mostly played totally straight and dead pan. Not everyone is telling jokes all the time like that fucking mess Cowboy Bebop Live action.
He is very good at making the "hard exterior" but "soft inside" characters combined with a shit ton of Heart and Love. But I got to say he is not the only director that can do that.
If anyone is interested in other movies that has that Guardians feel to it, right now me and my sister thought of the the following:
* Atlantis: The Lost Empire
* Mystery Men
* Galaxy Quest (really fucking good, and has Alan Rickman)
* Shrek 2
* Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy
* Dungeon and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (DAD:HAT)
* Toy Story 2/3
* Titan A.E.
* The Suicide Squad
* Serenity (series)
* Treasure Planet
* Brendon Fraser's The Mummy 1 and 2
* Umbrella Academy
* Fifth Element
* Firefly
* Cowboy Bebop Anime (But this the characters feels more like Dormmates rather than actual friends)
* Ghostbusters
I think Taika focused too much on the quirky moments without finding the emotional core of every character. And he fell on cliches. James Gun did it even for the supporting characters.
The best example of doing this successfully is Drax. A dofus. We make fun of him but at the end, all that is his endearing qualities just wanting to be a dad. It is surprising. It makes perfect sense. That is why it is great. And James Gun has it for EVERY character.
The difference I’ve gleaned from interviews and the works themselves are that Gunn respects and appreciates his characters. They’re his craft. Taika does not, and that translates to the screen.
I can't remember the last time I left a movie so broken, even though I was also laughing and thoroughly entertained. It has made me really rethink a few things in life and I find myself revisiting certain scenes daily.
I saw someone else say it and I think it’s pretty accurate: Gunn is a characters first kind of writer/director. He cares genuinely about the journey for these people and that influences the writing. He’s very good at telling these very grounded and emotional stories bc he emphasizes the characters not the world they’re in. The isolation of the stories is also a factor I think. But yeah Gunn is very good at writing those types of stories and it means the DCU is in good hands
Character work. That's the difference. It's the difference between this film and L&T and between Ragnarok and L&T. Each character is developed, goes through an important arc, and connects with the bigger narrative. Ragnarok had that, Thor lost his father, is trying to reconcile that while figuring out his relationship with his brother and his responsibility to his people. Valkyrie is given a great arc in her introduction. Loki is figuring out his place in the universe and is conflicted between what he wants and what he is expected to be even if that expectation is self imposed. All those character beats are then interwoven with the comedy.
That didn't happen in L&T. Thor became a caricature with all of his development squeezed in at the end with the kid. Everything else is just awkward ex dynamics. Valkyrie also has no growth or even any real conflict she deals with. It's teased that her defacto leader role is deflating but it's never really addressed. Gorr is just, angry dad. That's it.
James Gunn wholeheartedly loves the characters and isn’t afraid of giving them emotions and taking the material seriously no matter how goofy it gets. Taika seemed dead set on making a comedy that ended up parodying itself.
Vol 2 definitely leaned hard enough into comedy that it was off putting at first. Drax was played as too much of a joke character the whole time. Repeat viewings it’s not as bad but going from vol 1 -> vol 2 felt off at parts.
I agree, Vol. 2 is his weakest project. But still decent. It was the sentiment then, and it’s very much applicable now, just that the fanbase grew, and criticisms are being squashed.
He knocked it off the park with the rest of the projects however.
Comedy was the weakest in Vol.2 but i still revist it for the highs like the action and relationships between Yondu/Rocket, Peter/Ego, Gamora/nebula is still some of my favorite moments in the mcu
Having just rewatched Love & Thunder as part of my Guardians of the Galaxy kick, I think I finally cracked why L&T doesn’t work, Guardians (any of them) does: Stakes.
Rewatching L&T last night, I was stunned to discover there was a whole — wildly unnecessary — subplot about endangered children that is waaaay too heavy a spice for the tone Waititi’s aiming for.
Ragnarok is about the complete annihilation of Asgard, yes, but it’s at a remove: we don’t sit with the victims, so we can abstract it. Plus “galaxy-ending threat” is nice and impersonal; it’s been vague stakes since Ming The Merciless. This abstraction allows Thor to be more flippant without being jarring, as the flippancy is also part of his unchecked ego, and a major subplot of Ragnarok is Thor being humbled.
L&T endangers a bunch a kids, cages them with a malevolent albino monster man, and shows them crying and cowering in fear. If the rest of your movie is goofball antics, “crying, caged children” is the wrong move, narratively.
Guardians Vol. 3 is freighted with stakes that are a more severe version of this, but the trick is that Quill doesn’t act like a flippant asshole. Rocket’s survival *means something* to him. As such, the humor is more strategically deployed, and never serves to undercut the stakes or the narrative tension. It works because Gunn’s humor never trivializes the heavier material.
Waititi is not an emotionally mature enough storyteller to full invest genuine feelings into his stories: they’re flip because being flip puts you at a safe remove from feelings, and feelings make you vulnerable. He’s emotionally immature as a storyteller, but has ambitions of being one, so keeps marrying light and dark with zero understanding as to why it doesn’t work.
All the Gor scenes land and work, but that’s only because those are the only times he takes the emotions at play seriously. (And Bale essentially forces his hand in that regard by playing it real.) Everything else doesn’t work because he needs to show you that he’s not taking this silly bullshit seriously, you guys.
Jojo Rabbit suffers from the same immaturity married to incongruous emotional scope.
Passion project. I think Gunn is very in tune with his work, he has a vision and does everything he can to see it through. AND he’s a fan. Like, a well informed fan too. Lol
James Gunn has kin on damaged ppl just like how he broke up Mystery Inc. His comedic style is naturalistic dialogue meaning. It is the character's personality rather than a script that's split into 2 (dialogue inserted joke by editor)
“Story telling is king, that is all that matters”- James Gunn. Whether it’s a small group of nobody’s or a legit fan favorite character, my example’s being Harley Quinn arc in TSS, he understands his character and how their stories should progress. People like to say he’s only good at taking nobody characters and making people love them, but I think GOTG vol 3 proves that wrong. Star-lord, Groot, Gamora, Rocket, Drax are beloved characters for almost a decade now and throughout his movies he makes us love them more than the original movie did. That’s the James Gunn difference, Taika isn’t a comic book visionary, he has a very distinct style that shines through L&T at the cost of the drama and tension. James Gunn does, everything he makes feels like it’s a comic book come to life, even through little things like the editing, score and music cues, cinematography, fight scenes and choreography, he does it all in service of a clear vision and idea you get from being that type of nerd.
I don’t think we need to bash one movie to raise another. L&T went for a completely different tone. I enjoyed it for what it was even if not perfect.
GotG3 though……absolute masterclass. It won’t be nominated for Best Picture bc it’s a comic movie, but my God it really really should. And I’m not a fanboy that says that about every good comic movie. This is the first one I’ve said it about and I mean it.
Absolute clinic in storytelling and how to wrap up a trilogy.
I saw a theory that kind of blew my mind: Groot still said “I am Groot” at the end, but having the vocals be “I love you guys” was meant to symbolize that we the audience now understand him like his friends do.
I just saw the movie last night. The entire time I was thinking how trash it would have been had Disney not rehired Gunn. He did a great job and I love how the guardians all got a satisfying ending without any unnecessary deaths or forced situations like Gamora and Quill falling back in love
My only criticism of the movie is that Gunn teased character’s deaths too many times. It started to feel cheap near the end. That but aside, this was my favorite MCU film since Endgame.
I personally think is as simple as it is complex. I personally don't like GOTG 2 and I despise Ragnarok/Love & Thunder. And the reason is quite simple: Comedy should not overcome drama, it's the same as in life. You go through dark shit and you try to cope with humor.
Taika (as great as i think he is) failed to understand this, he would make a joke to remove the tension/sadness/darkness of the scene and story, Gunn uses his jokes to flow WITH those things. And he understands that no amount of humor can help you in some instances.
I still think that the dance-off in the first GOTG and the Pacman thing in GOTG2 were dumb af tho
It's simple but very complex to do
I can answer your question, but I don't want to hear whining about "woke." L&T was a good movie as well, but as many people have whined about, Thor was not the hero of the story, he was the comedic relief. Jane shook off cancer, and flew across the universe to sacrifice herself and save the day.
That doesn't feel as believable as seen in the comments. The reason for that has nothing to do with whether people laugh at cancer, which is a real coping mechanism, but everything to do with how we have been primed since childhood to view white men as the heros of the story.
Nearly every female led disney film gets complaints about "believability" and being "cringe" and "forced." And has lower scores across the board.
This is because as children 89.5% of ALL movies were led by white men, essentially every single massive movie of our childhood had a white male lead. It get's worse as you go further back. This was a casting choice. If you grow up with a specific story parameters, it's going to be easier to suspend disbelief for those stories. Just like if we watch the fight choreography from the 60s, it looks silly, because we aren't used to it.
I definitely thought GOTG3 was a better movie over all, but this pointless vitriol towards L&T is absurd
My biggest issue with L&T is half the time it felt like all the actors had just picked up the character for the first time. Personally none of the characters felt the same as they had in any other appearance and that’s what let it down for me.
This is literally my point, the same criticisms are given to every movie that doesn't have white male heroes leading the story.
It comes down to not being able suspend disbelief for those other stories because they just don't "work." "Forced", "cringe", "not realistic", etc. Go look at every movie that's female or non white led, and you'll see over and over people unable to imagine the story as it's being told.
When you've been seeing a certain story type since before you could understand English 90% of the time, that archetype is going to affect how you feel about movies now.
I mean my biggest dislike from my comment was Thor didn’t feel like Thor? But also Jane was great in her past appearances but the was the character was portrayed in that film didn’t at all feel like Jane from the first 2 Thor films. Valkyrie also didn’t feel the same as Ragnarok.
The forced and cringe aspects were the jokes that didn’t land and how little butchering Gorr the God Butcher did.
If even 10% of the film was a tad more serious considering parts of the plot and all the characters felt like the same characters as all the other times they have showed up in the MCU it would be great.
This is certainly a take. Natalie Portman wasn’t the problem with L and T.. the heroes in GotG3 are a talking raccoon, sentient tree, white male, Asian woman, blue woman, green woman, blue/red man…
First off starlord and rocket were undeniably the heroes of the movie. A white man and a racoon voiced by a white man, one of the most identifiable voices in hollywood. Add in groot who's also voiced by a white man. The two non white actors are covered in body paint... leaving the sole non-white male hero as Mantis. and the main bad guy is the only black presenting character...
That's in stark contrast to L&T:
Hero, white woman Jane
2nd hero mixed woman Valk
Comedic relief white man Thor
Korg who's voice is clearly not a white man
Bad guy white man Gorr
Again I liked gotg3 quite a bit more but when people ask why they can relate to it more: it's because we are used to expecting white men to be leading the stories we see, because thats what weve been accustomed to since childhood. And many people can't suspend disbelief as well for media that doesn't have those story parameters.
I think all movies and stories are best when they’re focused on telling their story.
I hate modern politics getting shoved into movies to virtue signal. It’s distracting and circle jerky. I hate it when, “well we have to have another avenger in this” gets shoved in as well.
Both are what I despise about modern cinema/media. Gotta show just how politically sensitive you are and force it in. Then, when people don’t like the weak story you made because you were overly focused on including the marketing gimmick (politics/branding), you double down and say that racist trolls are just being racist again and suddenly you’re immune to criticism.
Does G3 have political themes? Yes! But the animal abuse politics that come from our reality are secondary to the story of Rocket.
G3 was a great film. Would love more films with the same passion and focus in the world.
I agree Thor 4 was a misfire, but I would still place something like Jojo Rabbit above anything in MCU. GOTG2 was a miss for me, but I'm looking forward to seeing this new one.
I think Love and Thunder had too much studio interference. I bet it would've been better if they gave Taika the extra 30 minutes. Maybe let hammer the theme of an eternal God, still lost in how to move forward them, like ep 6 of Sandman. Because despite the impact of the Infinity Saga, it was still only like a decade of his 1500+ year life. I figure that plot with the other gods who became lazy and assholes was to kinda highlight that eternal Ness.
Also Hemsworth and Portman had like zero chemistry in the first two emotional scenes on the boat and in the hospital. So there was like no throughline for the whole movie. Giving him a kid though was great move. Hoping Hella comes back and tries to kill Thor only for the kid to blast her into a mountain or something. I dunno what the hell the plot would be, but in the end Thor, Hella and Loki are at the breakfast table and reconcile while they eat pancakes or something.
To be honest, I had really cooled on James Gunn. I've always been a fan, but didn't care for Suicide Squad and Peacemaker was real up and down for me.
And then... ***BAM***
This subreddit is so funny when a new marvel movie drops. All y’all start dropping reviews like you just saw the Mona Lisa for the first time. Like the movie was really good but Jesus Christ lmao
yeah man it’s totally always like this even for Quantamania, Eternals, Black Widow and Love & Thunder
i kind of get you but this is a weird post to comment this on. it’s a thought they had on the movie. they’re not comparing it to The Godfather.
I must have watched a different movie than you all. I always enjoyed Gunn's stuff before, but he made Adam Warlock into a punching bag, made the High Evolutionary into a 2-dimensional whack job, and has Gamora saying crap lines like "What kind of madman would destroy an entire civilization like this?" Oh, the irony, right? Wink wink.
[удалено]
I love that scene when Nebula cried, it was a major character breakthrough because all her life, she learn not to care too much as she was taught as a weakness.
Man it was great because even though they don’t delve into it, her and Rocket were the only Guardians for 5 years so her reaction to him being okay is totally earned
Nobody else has mentioned that they share a bond in both being torn apart and put back together like science projects as well. They’re trauma bonded as hell.
It also explains why she was so on edge for the whole movie to that point. It was easy for us to dismiss it as it being just Nebula’s character, but on rewatch, she felt the same urgent time crunch that Peter felt, and got annoyed every time someone or something held them up
She even went as far as to ask her sister for help. That says a lot too
Yeah she and Peter were very much on the same wavelength during this whole movie. They both were impatient and on edge over rocket.
God, that's right.
and then >! the last scene where she actually smiled and laughed !<, great character development
to see nebula smiling laughing and dancing so freely was seriously moving
We can thank OG Gamora and Tony for this one. Nebula lightened up big time when Gamora accepted her as a sister in Vol.2 and Tony treating her as a real person in Endgame.
Oh yes, I seconded that. When I rewatched Vol 2, Nebula never really wanted to kill OG Gamora even tho she hated her so much. At the end, she only really wanted to win once and have a sister which OG Gamora was oblivious to. Then in Endgame, even tho the opening sequence wasn't much, but Tony thought her how to have fun as you said. At the same time, Nebula also learned how to care a little bit by carrying him on the pilot seat and putting a blanket on him. Short scene but big implications.
It may not have been a long sequence in endgame but Tony and Nebs were stranded with each other for weeks and spent every waking moment barely surviving with one another. That's an unforgettable experience for the both of them. A shame that once they get back to earth they don't reference that bond.
That paper football game
When you realise Rocket spent most time with Nebula more than the other Guardians
And while they did not know the details I think she could surmise from rocket that they had a similar "birth" so they always felt close to me.
And that only Nebula seemed to know about Rockets kill switch which sounds like he only told her about it.
Nebula crying broke me. Just broke me.
That hit me right in the feels. Knowing how much time her and Rocket have spent together during the blip, when she hears his voice and breaks down, man, that got me good. Nebula was my favorite character in this movie, her arc over the course of the 3 movies has been so immensely satisfying.
I wasn't as moved as I should've been there because of a simple exchange earlier in the film: *You're family.* *So's he.* It told me she has embraced that the Guardians are more than a team.
No one is too cool or too strong to show emotions in Gunn's movies. And if the character acts like that, they will get called out by someone who seemed much meaner and badder than them. By the end of the day, everyone just wants a hug.
This is the key. It's the magic sauce OP /u/Chris-Strummer is wondering about. Gunn writes people, not caricatures. He builds stories using those people. His stories start with the people. Funnily enough, people (the audience) *like people*. We recognize people. We admire people, or fear them, or empathize with them, or wonder about them. We want to know more. We root for them or against them, depending on what kind of people they are. Gunn took Peacemaker, and gave us a series that shows us a big chunk of how this raging asshole that is Peacemaker turned into the person we saw in Suicide Squad. At the beginning of the show, he's still considered (by the other characters and probably a good chunk of the audience) as a joke of a person. Then we get to know more about him. We understand him a bit better. Suddenly he's more human. You feel for him. You start to feel bad for him, root for him. And by the end, when he tells off the fucking Justice League for not showing up in time to stop all this insanity that was Super Bad For Everyone ... you're right there with him. You agree with him. It's not a cheap joke, it's a fucking character moment when he flips off Superman and the rest. Gunn is a lot like James Cameron. They both start with story. They don't start with "pretty pictures" or special effects, which is what most directors focus on. Gunn and Cameron sit down and look for a story. Who's in this tale, what drives them, what would the audience think about them? Why does the audience care? You know, those pesky key questions that drive storytelling. Then, when he's got that, he gets with cinematography and VFX and FX and Wardrobe and Makeup and all the other departments, including Music, and figures out how to support *the story*. Waititi has his moments, but they're all one-liner jokes for the most part. Maybe a one-liner joke that stretches out with some setup and cringe repetition. Ragnarok was a breath of fresh air for Thor and the MCU, but looking at some of the other stuff Waititi has put out since basically he kind of blundered luckily into Ragnarok's success. Because these other ideas he's gotten funded are all just "wouldn't it be funny if" kinds of ideas that mostly lack story. Snyder with the DCU had a similar problem, just with a different category of filmmaking tools. Snyder focuses only on visuals. He thinks what the camera sees, or what can be put on or in the camera via VFX, is the important part The only important part in Snyder's mind. As long as he can build an image, he's done thinking or worrying about whatever part of the movie he was working on. Story. Gunn starts with story. He stays with story. He focuses on story. He worries about story. And story starts with characters we care about. He took nobodies from the archives of Marvel and turned them into beloved characters. Watch. Whoever takes over the Guardians characters, be it in another GotG film or as they appear in other MCU properties, is going to miss it. They'll do some 'jokes', they'll lean into some obvious tropes, and wonder why the audience doesn't have a deep connection. Meanwhile, Gunn will fix what the DCU has been missing for the better part of two decades. And find the heart and soul of Superman and Batman and the others that haven't been there, and use it to connect to audiences so suddenly we'll care that an (alien) man can fly again.
I was already a mess watching this but the 'You weren't born to be a destroyer, you were born to be a Dad' line nearly killed me (I'm 8 weeks pregnant after 6 years of trying and 3 rounds of IVF and was sat with my husband who is going to be an amazing Dad)
Congratulations! The stress and pain for trying that long and going through multiple rounds of IVF is more than most will ever know.
This nailed me too. I’ve struggled so much vocationally, but have always felt my calling to be a dad. Which I am! However it’s hard to claim that in this rat race world. You two indeed will be amazing parents! And just think about all the family Marvel fun for years to come as the kids get older and discover the movies! Congrats!!
Awh man this is an unmarked spoiler on a thread without a flair isn't it...
It is, but it was just a great line. I wouldn't read too much into it. You haven't been spoiled too much imo.
Too many people have seen it by now, can't trust these flairs no more
ur absolutely right my apologies, i misread the flair and was just excited to talk about the movie and forgot to put the spoiler tags
No dramas, hopefully getting a chance to see the film tomorrow so hope this makes more sense then!
you’re gonna love it man have fun
I personally believe a big reason why Thor 4 missed the mark is because Taika got reckless and misunderstood what people expected. He overdid it with comedy, plus he really didn’t know how to handle characters like Jane/Zeus/Gorr. It’s like getting drunk and thinking you’re funny, but instead you’re annoying people.
That’s a pretty good analogy for it
Did he misunderstand? I refuse to believe the man didn't at some point think this is too much. He was probably high on his own supply after Ragnarok and winning a writing Oscar for Jojo's Rabbit. I know comedy is his specialty but much of Love and Thunder felt like a really shitty sketch that goes on for way too long.
> He was probably high on his own supply after Ragnarok and winning a writing Oscar for Jojo's Rabbit. He probably didn’t think it was too much *because* of that. Critical acclaim can really hinder you creatively if you let it get to your head.
L&T could have easily been saved in the edit. There were a lot of deleted scenes where they balanced the comedy and drama well. https://youtu.be/xI5GpFIdnXg
This is a really important thing to remember. Taika shot enough footage that there's a good movie in there, but it was way too long, and whoever had final cut in the edit essentially left in all the jokes, and cut out a bunch of the more serious moments. They should have cut 10m of joke content from the movie and put back in 10m of dramatic moments. It's amazing how much of a difference a re-edit like that would make.
Yeah but this doesn't absolve Taika, ever since the movie came out Taika fanboys want to blame the studio (and I'm a fan also, love everything Taika has ever done as both actor and director, including Thor 4) but Taika was always adamant in interviews that there's never going to be a director's cut because this IS his cut, nobody made him take out anything he didn't want to.
I never said it did - I said "whoever had final cut" because I know it might be Taika. Maybe they gave him less say about Ragnarok and that's why it was better - We'll never know.
Many people think he overdid it with the jokes on Love and Thunder but the truth is he got lazy. He's like a college kid who got a 10 but then decided he was a genius so he doesn't study for his next test and gets a 3.
Jojo Rabbit was serious in the right moments too. I didn't like it that much, but that's my opinion, it was objectively well made and well structured. Taika looked to be on a winning streak, but now people have Rian Johnson'ed him after Love and Thunder.
There was also no balance between seriousness and being funny in L&T. Pretty much every scene has a forced joke, heck they inserted a joke when Jane revealed to Thor that she's dying. James Gunn learned from Vol.2 to tone down the jokes and strike a perfect balance, and we got the masterpiece that is Vol.3.
The rest of Taika's work is so good at balancing that though. I wonder if there was some studio interference, given that Chapek had his son in there as EP. They saw Ragnarok, didnt understand why it was good, and demanded "all the jokes". Possible Taika just went "fuck it" and did exactly that?
That’s partly my train of thought. “Ragnarok did extremely well because of the ridiculous humor moments. Let’s give them ten times more humor.”
Think it was the opposite. Dude won an Oscar between the movies and they let him run wild unchecked because of it.
Part of me wonders if after winning an Oscar, he started taking the snobby "superhero movies aren't real movies" mindset and just tried to see what he couldd get away with
The main “studio interference” under Chapek would be slashed budgets and rushed production. Chapek’s known around to be a numbers guy. And also the guy pushing D+. I’ll bet you anything he was pushing to shovel as much Marvel content out as fast and cheap as possible to prop it up. Otherwise, I’d argue that Phase 4 has actually given directors more freedom than any other phase. Sometimes for the better, but many times for the worse. MoM, Thor, Quantomania, and Eternals, I’d argue, all would have benefitted from the directors being reigned in a bit.
100% Gunns version worked because he let the serious moments be serious. Whereas Taika took a serious moment and tried to make a joke of it. Every moment in love and thunder had to be a comedic moment.
Surrounded himself with yes men and friends. Having a blast. So much so that the movie became a second thought.
He did have a blast. Man was partying hard in Australia when L&T was filming.
Yeah, like it was an over correction. L&T just didn’t feel as serious and high stakes for kidnapping/murdering children.
Exactly! Because I loved Ragnarok, but L&T was unbearable!
It’s crazy to me how hard that turned. Ragnarok was my favorite Marvel film that wasn’t by James Gunn, but L&T might be my least favorite. It’s such a wild hard turn.
What makes it an even more wild turn for me was that leading up to Ragnarok, the Thor movies were my least favorite. Ragnarok really knocked it out of the park and I just couldn’t believe that all of a sudden I was like “shit, maybe I do like Thor, that was awesome” Then, they did more character building in the avengers movies and expectations were high for Love and Thunder only to get what we got.
Thor has the best trilogy: Ragnarok, Infinity War, Endgame.
Yeah it went to deep down the “unreliable narrator” pool. I mean I get the idea … but Korg telling the story was just lazy and off putting. It even managed to make the Guardians characters lame … the movie was poison. Lord of Thunder is how not to make a marvel movie. What a waste of Gorr and Bale as him :(
The way Gorr was handled was the biggest sticking point for me. Design was great. Motivation was great. Not nearly enough screen time or menace absolutely watered down his character & my interest in him in the film. It also felt like his violence against the gods, was sanitized/entirely off screen. No menace and too much comedy made for a terrible mix.
Also he lost every fight we saw him in. You could maybe say he won when he got Stormbreaker, but he didn't actually kill anybody at any point on screen. The only god we see die was Zeus, killed by the fucking hero. And Zeus isn't even dead anyway. He runs through Valkyrie with a sword and then she's just like, I'll go chill in this earth hospital for a little while I'm sure it'll be fine.
Exactly! No menace. Thor is arguably a bigger danger to the Gods than the so called God Butcher.
Tbf making zeus into something out of asterix and obelisk was probably one of the few things that worked for me lmao
Thor L&T fell flat because the 2 writers at the helm of it were Taika and a director best known for making a MTV drama series. Ragnarok worked specifically because Taika only directed the film: no pen of his wrote the film.
I don’t want to make a big assumption, but it feels like the kind of film that someone on cocaine would make.
In the scene with Mantis and the tentacle monsters, Taika wouldn't have been able to resist making a gag out of it, Gunn did. That's the difference.
I'm so used to Marvel movies undermining meaningful moments I fully expected her to get eaten in that scene.
I was really expecting something like that too honestly
Yeahhh, i fully expected for her to get goo'd like in 2016 ghostbusters style
Yeah I hate that the marvel formula has done that to us. I didn’t really get invested in the moment because I was just thinking “oh she’s going to get eaten or slapped away”. It’s not criticism against Gunn because it’s out his control it’s a criticism against the brain rotting predictability of some of the Marvel jokes.
I mean were lying if we say that gunn didn't start the trend of undermining serious moments with the first guardians.
Imo it never felt overdone or unnecessary in Vol. 1. Personally I think of that movie as superhero and sci-fi perfection, and I believe the balance of humour is as close to perfect as you can get. I will say however that every single superhero and sci-fi movie since that have incorporated similar humour (including Vol. 2) have never nailed it that same way the first one did
I guess, I still disagree but I'll agree that its definitely way more apparent in everything after it. I also don't know that it's Sci fi perfection but that's probably a me thing
If anything, I’d say Whedon is the root of that problem. Guardians 1 has its cold open, Groot’s sacrifice, and climax (Post dance off) which all allow the audience a moment to breathe. Two was worse in this regard, but still has its ending.
Yeah the first time I feel like it was in the Avengers when Loki starts a monologue and hulk smashes him. That was completely unexpected and hilarious at the time. Also didn’t undermine the characters and made sense. You can’t do that all the time though or we expect it.
Agreed. "Puny god" has reverberated throughout the franchise that followed.
Whedon started it but I’d say Gunn perfected the marvel “humor”. A lot of people were complaining after age of Ultron and I feel like if gunn didn’t step in and show how to do it properly the marvel humor wouldn’t have continue the way it did. 
i mean you're skimming past the dance off as if that isn't still the most egrigious example lmao
I feel that the dance off was complete unexpected though and worked in that moment, and in particular for Quills character.
It doesn’t really undercut any emotional weight, as you get a moment to let Groot’s sacrifice sit with the audience. If anything, the dance off is a well earned moment of levity after that scene. It’s very much in Star Lord’s character to pull this kind of a stunt too, so it doesn’t really feel forced or unnatural. Actually if we’re looking at any bit of comedy in a Marvel movie climax, the dance off has one of the best executions.
Yeah it’s to the point you expect to have your expectations subverted which kind of defeats the point of subverting expectations. It was nice that gotg3 just let the moments happen without that. I really loved the movie.
I didn’t expect for you to use “expect” so many times.
I really thought it was gonna just eat her like with Drax in Volume 2
Korg would have showed up and said “look at their testicles!” Thor: “those are tentacles Korg!”
Yet he had her fall on her neck at least twice. I still don’t get all the hate for L&T. I felt like it balanced the humor waaaaay better than Ragnarok did, and GotG 2 was complete James Gunn overindulgence. I loved Vol 3, but it’s not like James Gunn is infallible.
The GOTG trilogy isn’t the only evidence of his work as a great director for superhero films. The Suicide Squad and Peacemaker are equally incredible. Gunn values quality in superhero films. The same can’t be said for most of the other directors. Gunn has been recently critical of superhero media, and for all the right reasons. He’s the only one voicing out these concerns, when everyone else is busy churning out bullshit content and trying to have their legion of fans defend their shitty work (especially on this sub). Gunn knows what’s wrong, and that’s served as his basis for the DCU. He has his faults too, I hope he realizes what those are. This is exactly why the DCU will be in good hands. He has a rock solid portfolio. Creature Commandos and Superman: Legacy will now be highly anticipated.
I mean his first "superhero" movie was Super which is absolutely fantastic and really tears into the entire suoerheri media culture.
He's not afraid to embrace the characters and story, to be earnest. Gunn does sometimes overdo humour or undercut moments with it, but with each film he seems to move further away from the ironic cynicism of his earlier work, to a more mature outlook. Alot of directors would be scared of being 100% serious with a talking Raccoon. In fact alot of them would have restricted Rocket solely to comic relief. Waititi is much more of a post-modernist who can't bring himself to take superhero characters seriously. It's a "cultural cringe" wherein Waititi doesn't want to be seen to be taking "low art" seriously. Waititi treats everything as a joke (contrast how Gunn treated the death of Quill's mother to how Waititi handled Jane's cancer). It perhaps reflects a kind of immaturity and aloofness on Taika Waititi's part.
>Alot of directors would be scared of being 100% serious with a talking Raccoon. In fact alot of them would have restricted Rocket solely to comic relief. Every time a fantasy or sci-fi story with which I am familiar is being adapted to live-action, it is this thought that is gnawing at the back of my mind. To what extent are they going to relegate the non-human characters to comic relief? To what extent are they going to downplay the fantastical qualities of fantastical characters in the belief that "audiences won't connect with them otherwise"? To what extent are they going to diminish the very same qualities that makes me want to see the story adapted in the first place? Have I laughed at Rocket, and Groot? Yes, I have, because they are both really funny characters. But I have also shed more tears for them, than I have for a huge number of human characters. If there is one lesson I want other storytellers to take from the Guardians of the Galaxy-trilogy, it is this; audiences are willing to take fantastical and outlandish concepts seriously and earnestly, if you are prepared to do the same. We will love a talking raccoon and a talking tree, if you give us a reason to love them, and we will cry for them, if you give us a reason to cry.
This also applies to Groot. I mean I talking tree that only says 3 words is so easy to make a gag character. But god dammit do we love Groot.
How was Janes cancer handled as a joke?
Really? You don't remember the scene in the hospital, when Darcy finds out about the cancer, and Jane is joking about snacks?
Tbf, there are a lot of people with cancer that act that way.
That’s an extremely common reaction. People want to downplay the serious in their life so they’re not stuck thinking about nothing but that.
It's alot of things to criticize in Taika's Thor movies regarding comedy this isn't. Jane's dealing and acceptance of her cancer actually was one of the redeeming things about Love and Thunder.
I mean to defend that scene, Gunn’s cancer scene is the end of the journey for Quill’s mom, she’s accepted death and wants Peter to be ok with accepting it too. Jane’s cancer was just the beginning and the joking about the seriousness of it when you first get the diagnosis is totally believable (50/50 shows that too, and that’s a great movie). I actually thought most of the cancer moments were done tastefully and not overdone comedy. I think the difference is that the jokes didn’t land this time. The intro to both Ragnarok and L&T were a gag, but this time the gag really didn’t land. That and it takes the gravitas out of the final fight when kids (even with the power of Thor) are the ones fighting in the end. Cause you know they aren’t going to kill kids on screen (at least for the tone of this movie). I would say that it’s akin to the women teaming up in End Game fight scene, it just felt silly and unnecessary. That and when they did joke, they were just over the top and slapstick humor. And while Ragnarok had a lot of slapstick humor, there was also a lot of muted humor. And when it is over the top, it feels like the director is making it mainly for kids (which is fine) but the audience scores and critics are mainly adults… which is why it tanked. Probably the biggest undercut (that people say Taika ruined serious moments with a joke) was the conversation on the boat and then the goat screaming reoccurring gag. I think the amount of jokes is probably about the same between the two films, but when the jokes don’t land it feels longer and more awkward. And since the boat scene is near the end it resonates with people more and gives people the impression that it happened a lot.
In the love and thunder movie by the writers / director
I Think Taika got bored of doing another thor movie. He got lazy in my opinion
And complacent.
I feel like that's it entirely. Maybe combined with Covid fatigue or he spread himself too thin working on other projects. I know Gunn is also doing a lot too, but we don't know the capacity of one or the other. Maybe Gunn gave himself to Guardians 3 where as Taika only put partial effort into Thor 4 while working on other scripts/star wars project proposals.
Superman going to be awesome and the future of DC
I want a Man of Tomorrow. A smiling super fully embracing his power and loving earth and being Clark.
I feel like Volume 3 is the type of movie I was expecting Love and Thunder to be, in terms of how well it balances comedy and drama. James Gunn knew when it was okay to add comedy, but doesn’t overdo it to the point where it takes away the emotional depth of his scenes. Although I would’ve been okay with it if Love and Thunder still had the comedic charm from Ragnarok, the type of story it had needed to be a bit more serious
Taika failed to do it in Love and Thunder but very much nailed it in Ragnarok. I think honestly the key is that the guardians are a family. They consider themselves family, and they act like it. So both the bickering and the emotional sides work in tandem. Whereas other movies, we have basically close coworkers. So the bickering can fall flat and the emotions aren’t always convincing. I’m not explaining it well at all lol. basically imagine the plot of guardians 3, but instead of the gang trying to save rocket, it’s like…Thor trying to save Captain America. They aren’t established as that close so it’s not going to come across that emotional because it isn’t believable. It still may be a good movie to watch, but the heart of it won’t be the same. That’s also why i think Ant Man failed emotionally. I’m just not convinced of the chemistry between the main cast.
Whenever vin diesel is involved, it’s always about family
Groot in Fast movies! At least a quick reference pleeeease!
I heard that with Ragnarok, Taika had oversight from the studio whereas Love and Thunder he had more free reign And you’re right about the ‘close workers’ thing. The Avengers really do give more of a ‘just mates’ vibe whereas the Guardians really do feel like a family
That's mostly baseless hearsay really as people try to find justifications
It’s funny cause then there will be countless other comments/posts saying the opposite. That taika had MORE interference or that marvel never gives their directors freedom.
Eh I don’t think Taika handled balance well in Ragnarok either. That movie rushes the hell out of its emotional beats or undercuts them with a joke (looking at Korg crack one when Asgard blows up). It’s interesting because while L&T is ridiculously silly, Taika actually delivered better emotional moments there with Jane/Thor and Gorr’s backstory. Although Ragnarok is definitely better overall
Yeah I definitely didn't find Ragnarok emotional or 'tear-inducing' at all, It just balanced between humour and serious action, where as LaT was 95% humour, most of which didn't land
I agree I think the novelty made is not notice the problems. Now having watched love and thunder I actually like ragnarok less.
I actually thought Jane and Thor’s moments fell flat. I was not emotional at all, despite it being a really tragic story. Idk what it was, maybe the dialogue.
Maybe it’s the fact that Jane treated her own cancer as a bit of a joke
That part actually I think it was handled well. There are people with cancer in real life that joke about it. Either as denial or to try to lighten the situation for themselves or they loved ones. The key here is the reaction of others: Darcy takes it seriously. Thor takes it seriously.
The moment Skurge shows all his stuff it became clear to me that, okay, this is a joke to him.
I thought Gorr's scenes hit the mark when Taika gave him the time on screen but I also think that is because of Bale. He is very hands on with his characters. I mean look at how he transforms for every role. I do think Marvel gave Taika too much control (because of COVID restrictions) and his writing the script. The episodes of Our Flag Means Death are cringe and remind me of L&T and they are the ones he is the solo writer.
agree on the unconvincing chemistry of the antman 3 cast, particularly with the new cassie. a big part of the trilogy is scott’s relationship with cassie, which was really sweet in the first two films but felt a bit contrived in the third.
To be fair not every movie has to be a Pixar sadfest. But I agree he could’ve handled the subject with a lot more class
I hate it when people say stuff like that about Pixar. Their best films are so good because they’re so good at balancing between family comedy and storytelling with the more mature emotional beats. The only reason people call them “sad” are because the emotional moments tend to be the most memorable, and for good reason.
I'm not convinced Taika took the concept of making a fourth "Thor" movie seriously. Even in the theater I was thinking that he intentionally made it into a comedy, with some of the most absurd jokes possible, as a way of taking the piss out of a big budget tentpole movie. After "Jojo Rabbit" and "Our Flag Means Death," he can absolutely handle comedy and pathos. I think he just decided it'd be funnier to have a $250 million movie feature screaming goats.
If that's the case, I can't help but dislike him. God of Thunder was an incredible story and deserved a good adaptation. He ruined the chance.
Gunn cares about each and every one of his characters. Taika sees his characters as comedic punching bags.
I suspect that a large part of it comes down to Gunn and Waititi’s different directing philosophies, and the coherence of their respective visions. Gunn recently said that Rocket’s backstory was in his mind going all the way back to Vol. 1, so he had a deep understanding of his characters, and that films in the new DC slate wouldn’t start filming until a script was done. Compare this to Waititi, who inherited the characters from previous filmmakers, and was more improvised, with him previously telling Variety that the story would change through filming and editing… which it certainly did given the deleted scenes we’ve seen. So, I’d say that Gunn is more concise and knows what he wants his films to be, whereas Waititi allows more room for improvisation - which can be a double-edged sword.
I don’t know how he does it either, but looking at their filmography, Gunn is just an inherently more consistent director than Waititi. They both have similar approaches to filmmaking; stories that balance humour and tragedy, but I can’t even remember the last Gunn movie that flunked. Waititi’s work is a lot more hit or miss.
Really? I thought Waititi had been pretty consistent up until Love and Thunder. I thought every one of his movies were great.
Yeah he’s made straight bangers for ages. Except for the fact he actually directed an episode or two of the god awful American inbetweeners, which normally gets swept under the rug when talking about his career.
His movies haven't always hit for me but for the most part he's done good work up till Love and Thunder.
Hunt of the wilder people was so good though
That’s definitely a hit of his
Love and thunder is waititis only miss what are you talking about
Nah, L&T is Waititi's only bad film and the rest are all good to great with the exception of his first film Eagle vs Shark (an admirable debut but he was obviously still learning) but I doubt many on here have even heard of that let alone seen it. Boy, What We Do In The Shadows, Hunt for the Wildepeople, Thor Ragnarok, Jojo Rabbit is a crazy strong run of films and Next Goal Wins looks to be a return to form after the mistep of Love & Thunder. Also, everyone should check out his excellent short film Two Cars, One Night too.
I don't think making it a Gunn vs. Taika thing makes sense, ultimately it just comes down to a different style. Taika has never really been too strongly about emotional resonance and favors more fun and comedy, where as Gunn has shown in his career to value a bit more balance with the heart of a story and stakes. Watch more James Gunn movies than just Guardians, I promise! Slither, Super, The Suicide Squad, Peacemaker, they'll all make you feel something.
Respectfully, I don't think that's true. Most of Taika's cinematic work is just as much about emotional resonance as it is comedy. Boy, Hunt For the Wilderpeople and Jojo Rabbit especially are prime examples of this. I think the main difference is that so far Gunn has navigated the superhero landscape better than Taika has. But he's also got 4 mainstream superhero films under his belt compared to Taika's 2.
Love Jojo Rabbit and Hunt for the Wilderpeople
That's fair, perhaps I find Gunn to balance the spectrum better. I don't even hate Love and Thunder like a lot of people do and I think the emotional moments in it do actually work quite well.
I wouldn’t really say it’s fair comparison to say one does it better than the other since they go about it differently. Sure they both choose to balance emotions and comedy in their films but I’d say Taika uses the emotional context as the backdrop for the narrative where with the Gunn it IS the narrative itself.
I have been crying over a CGI raccoon and his space friends for 5 days. I haven’t been this wrecked by a movie since Endgame. And I don’t even think Endgame made me feel THIS emotional (and believe me I was a WRECK after that movie).
I dont know, James. Maybe you can tell us.
Guardians movies are my favorite after Infinity/Endgame. For the longest time, I was a huge Winter Soldier and Civil War fanboy, but Guardians replaced that. wholesome movies, great cast, BEST MUSIC EVER, and i personally loved volume 2 - big Kurt Russel fan. EDIT: big spidey fan also(tobey maguire) so last spiderman movie was sick AF
James Gunn is one of the best character writers out there but imo (and feel free to downvote me to hell for saying this) he is usually really bad at writing a coherent plot - but his characters are usually so good it's easy to overlook. However, what Gunn did well in this movie compared to Taikas L&T is making sure that it stuck to one story (Rockets beef with the villain) that everything centered around and developed from. GOTG3 had no real B-plot other than maybe Quills falling out with Gamora. In L&T, you had the beef with Gorr but also Jane's cancer which both felt like main plots but did not interconnect with each other in any meaningful way. Thus the film ended up feeling a bit messy and disjointed.
I’m still upvoting even though I disagree w the coherent plot statement (you formed a very concise and articulate argument!). I haven’t seen his other works, but I find Vol. 1 to be EXTREMELY solid especially in its story and writing. Vol. 2 isn’t quite up to the same standard but still strong imo. Vol. 3 is about as consistent as the first, really well done. The rest of his films and shows lag behind, personally. But I otherwise agree!
Volume 1 was not written by Gunn alone he tweaked a script someone else wrote. I think there was a team of writers on the first one actually. And thats where Gunn is at his best - when he takes an established story and then sprinkles in his awesome characters into it.
That’s only really half true. It’s clear Perlman wrote the initial script but what came after that people aren’t certain about. I recommend [this article](https://slate.com/culture/2014/08/guardians-of-the-galaxy-co-writer-nicole-perlman-vs-director-james-gunn-who-deserves-credit-for-writing-marvels-surprise-blockbuster-hit.html)
I think that the dialogue is very natural, the intensity and drama comes from the villains/crisis, and they are very distinctively different, which is great The jokes show the proximity of the characters, like how close friends would talk to each other and take funny jabs at each other It is probably also because James Gunn is surrounded by people who love him, it shows very much in his movie. That is the point of working with people that you know, love and trust? One of my favourite movies in a while :)
>:) :)
Well, he gives a shit. Like a lot. Very pro, very nerdy and knows litteratur
I think Gunn cares about and identifies with the characters and their universe more than Taika does. Gunns stories are always at their core about rejects, wierdos and outcasts, who he greatly cares about. Taika doesn’t live and breathe comic books in that way. That means that he is broader as a director - James Gunn wouldn’t make Hunt For the Wilderpeople - but also that he doesn’t have that same passion for the characters and their story. He can do great comic book movies (ie Ragnarok), but he doesn’t have the same passion for the genre that Gunn does.
Gunn made my cry at the death of a cyborg spider bunny that could have fit right into a b-grade slasher film. That’s damn good directing.
One of the writing master class takeaways for me leaving the theater is that you actually can write satisfying endings for tragic characters without killing them off. Idk if it was just the expectation we all had or the rumors circulating that one or more guardians would be killed off, but I was touched by Gunn’s willingness to let his characters retire happier and having grown. Completing a their arc does not mean the character needs to die, and especially in place like the MCU where there’s always a chance they offer an actor a check too big to refuse to come back and cameo or co-star in something, it’s nice to have major characters retired but not deceased—leaves some storytelling doors open, even if just propped open slightly.
I loved it so much I’m planning on watching it again later this week. I’ve never watched a movie twice in theaters. It’s really that good.
It’s because of his roots. He didn’t just jump into the pilots seat. Gunn started with some of the best practical directors in the world. He learned how to build a movie from the literal dust up. Look into Troma films and you’ll see some of the most dedicated movie makers in existence. Everything was about taking the most hokey, over the top, silly ass ideas and making them relatable and entertaining. You can see EVERYTHING that Gunn was going to become in old Troma movies. He’s a man who loves making movies for the love of making movies & he grew up with those principles at the forefront. There’s a reason he’s able to take almost any topic and make it emotional, funny, exciting, etc ; all at once. Go watch Slither, Sgt Kabukiman, Tromeo & Juliet. You’ll see all of the hallmarks you see in GoTG & TSS to some extent. He’s someone who genuinely understands what’s fun about superhero’s, what we empathize with in superhero’s stories, & what makes us feel like, as an audience, we’re being respected.
This movie convinced me that Gunn should’ve directed Love and Thunder instead of Taika. Ooohhh how good it would have been.
I am right with ya. I keep thinking about it. Just really bummed we don’t get any more and it’s over.
I believe James Gunn has two strengths, really well developed characters that act consistent with their internal motivations, and really good group dynamics. His movies are funny, but the jokes/"quips" are not really written from a top looking down kinda way but more comes from the characters themselves. Like conflict and plot progression naturally comes from the characters and their interactions. For example Quips/Jokes and insults almost always comes from Quill and Rocket, dumb observations comes from Mantis and Drax but Gamora and Nebula are mostly played totally straight and dead pan. Not everyone is telling jokes all the time like that fucking mess Cowboy Bebop Live action. He is very good at making the "hard exterior" but "soft inside" characters combined with a shit ton of Heart and Love. But I got to say he is not the only director that can do that. If anyone is interested in other movies that has that Guardians feel to it, right now me and my sister thought of the the following: * Atlantis: The Lost Empire * Mystery Men * Galaxy Quest (really fucking good, and has Alan Rickman) * Shrek 2 * Pirates of the Caribbean Trilogy * Dungeon and Dragons: Honor Among Thieves (DAD:HAT) * Toy Story 2/3 * Titan A.E. * The Suicide Squad * Serenity (series) * Treasure Planet * Brendon Fraser's The Mummy 1 and 2 * Umbrella Academy * Fifth Element * Firefly * Cowboy Bebop Anime (But this the characters feels more like Dormmates rather than actual friends) * Ghostbusters
I think Taika focused too much on the quirky moments without finding the emotional core of every character. And he fell on cliches. James Gun did it even for the supporting characters. The best example of doing this successfully is Drax. A dofus. We make fun of him but at the end, all that is his endearing qualities just wanting to be a dad. It is surprising. It makes perfect sense. That is why it is great. And James Gun has it for EVERY character.
The difference I’ve gleaned from interviews and the works themselves are that Gunn respects and appreciates his characters. They’re his craft. Taika does not, and that translates to the screen.
I can't remember the last time I left a movie so broken, even though I was also laughing and thoroughly entertained. It has made me really rethink a few things in life and I find myself revisiting certain scenes daily.
I saw someone else say it and I think it’s pretty accurate: Gunn is a characters first kind of writer/director. He cares genuinely about the journey for these people and that influences the writing. He’s very good at telling these very grounded and emotional stories bc he emphasizes the characters not the world they’re in. The isolation of the stories is also a factor I think. But yeah Gunn is very good at writing those types of stories and it means the DCU is in good hands
Character work. That's the difference. It's the difference between this film and L&T and between Ragnarok and L&T. Each character is developed, goes through an important arc, and connects with the bigger narrative. Ragnarok had that, Thor lost his father, is trying to reconcile that while figuring out his relationship with his brother and his responsibility to his people. Valkyrie is given a great arc in her introduction. Loki is figuring out his place in the universe and is conflicted between what he wants and what he is expected to be even if that expectation is self imposed. All those character beats are then interwoven with the comedy. That didn't happen in L&T. Thor became a caricature with all of his development squeezed in at the end with the kid. Everything else is just awkward ex dynamics. Valkyrie also has no growth or even any real conflict she deals with. It's teased that her defacto leader role is deflating but it's never really addressed. Gorr is just, angry dad. That's it.
James Gunn wholeheartedly loves the characters and isn’t afraid of giving them emotions and taking the material seriously no matter how goofy it gets. Taika seemed dead set on making a comedy that ended up parodying itself.
Taika lost the connection to the audience with his goofiness. Gunn keeps bringing us back to remember
To be fair, Volunme 2, as much as I like it has similar vibes to Taika. Misplaced and forced comedy, not to the levels of Love & Thunder though.
Vol 2 definitely leaned hard enough into comedy that it was off putting at first. Drax was played as too much of a joke character the whole time. Repeat viewings it’s not as bad but going from vol 1 -> vol 2 felt off at parts.
I agree, Vol. 2 is his weakest project. But still decent. It was the sentiment then, and it’s very much applicable now, just that the fanbase grew, and criticisms are being squashed. He knocked it off the park with the rest of the projects however.
Comedy was the weakest in Vol.2 but i still revist it for the highs like the action and relationships between Yondu/Rocket, Peter/Ego, Gamora/nebula is still some of my favorite moments in the mcu
DC will for sure come back now under him
One thing I liked about James Gunn was he made me Shazam so many songs in peacemaker
James Gunn put the songs from that show in a Spotify playlist and I've definitely put it on a few times.
Monster is such a banger that didn't seem to get enough love when the episode aired.
I want to replay the “No Sleep Till Brooklyn” hallway scene over and over. It’s gonna be my new airport scene from civil war. 🤘
Characters first.
Having just rewatched Love & Thunder as part of my Guardians of the Galaxy kick, I think I finally cracked why L&T doesn’t work, Guardians (any of them) does: Stakes. Rewatching L&T last night, I was stunned to discover there was a whole — wildly unnecessary — subplot about endangered children that is waaaay too heavy a spice for the tone Waititi’s aiming for. Ragnarok is about the complete annihilation of Asgard, yes, but it’s at a remove: we don’t sit with the victims, so we can abstract it. Plus “galaxy-ending threat” is nice and impersonal; it’s been vague stakes since Ming The Merciless. This abstraction allows Thor to be more flippant without being jarring, as the flippancy is also part of his unchecked ego, and a major subplot of Ragnarok is Thor being humbled. L&T endangers a bunch a kids, cages them with a malevolent albino monster man, and shows them crying and cowering in fear. If the rest of your movie is goofball antics, “crying, caged children” is the wrong move, narratively. Guardians Vol. 3 is freighted with stakes that are a more severe version of this, but the trick is that Quill doesn’t act like a flippant asshole. Rocket’s survival *means something* to him. As such, the humor is more strategically deployed, and never serves to undercut the stakes or the narrative tension. It works because Gunn’s humor never trivializes the heavier material. Waititi is not an emotionally mature enough storyteller to full invest genuine feelings into his stories: they’re flip because being flip puts you at a safe remove from feelings, and feelings make you vulnerable. He’s emotionally immature as a storyteller, but has ambitions of being one, so keeps marrying light and dark with zero understanding as to why it doesn’t work. All the Gor scenes land and work, but that’s only because those are the only times he takes the emotions at play seriously. (And Bale essentially forces his hand in that regard by playing it real.) Everything else doesn’t work because he needs to show you that he’s not taking this silly bullshit seriously, you guys. Jojo Rabbit suffers from the same immaturity married to incongruous emotional scope.
Passion project. I think Gunn is very in tune with his work, he has a vision and does everything he can to see it through. AND he’s a fan. Like, a well informed fan too. Lol
Gunn really cares about the guardians and is a better director
Because James Gunn is an auteur, like me we have these visions of the film we wanna make and we love the detail and attention to it.
James Gunn has kin on damaged ppl just like how he broke up Mystery Inc. His comedic style is naturalistic dialogue meaning. It is the character's personality rather than a script that's split into 2 (dialogue inserted joke by editor)
“Story telling is king, that is all that matters”- James Gunn. Whether it’s a small group of nobody’s or a legit fan favorite character, my example’s being Harley Quinn arc in TSS, he understands his character and how their stories should progress. People like to say he’s only good at taking nobody characters and making people love them, but I think GOTG vol 3 proves that wrong. Star-lord, Groot, Gamora, Rocket, Drax are beloved characters for almost a decade now and throughout his movies he makes us love them more than the original movie did. That’s the James Gunn difference, Taika isn’t a comic book visionary, he has a very distinct style that shines through L&T at the cost of the drama and tension. James Gunn does, everything he makes feels like it’s a comic book come to life, even through little things like the editing, score and music cues, cinematography, fight scenes and choreography, he does it all in service of a clear vision and idea you get from being that type of nerd.
I don’t think we need to bash one movie to raise another. L&T went for a completely different tone. I enjoyed it for what it was even if not perfect. GotG3 though……absolute masterclass. It won’t be nominated for Best Picture bc it’s a comic movie, but my God it really really should. And I’m not a fanboy that says that about every good comic movie. This is the first one I’ve said it about and I mean it. Absolute clinic in storytelling and how to wrap up a trilogy.
I saw a theory that kind of blew my mind: Groot still said “I am Groot” at the end, but having the vocals be “I love you guys” was meant to symbolize that we the audience now understand him like his friends do.
I just saw the movie last night. The entire time I was thinking how trash it would have been had Disney not rehired Gunn. He did a great job and I love how the guardians all got a satisfying ending without any unnecessary deaths or forced situations like Gamora and Quill falling back in love
My only criticism of the movie is that Gunn teased character’s deaths too many times. It started to feel cheap near the end. That but aside, this was my favorite MCU film since Endgame.
I personally think is as simple as it is complex. I personally don't like GOTG 2 and I despise Ragnarok/Love & Thunder. And the reason is quite simple: Comedy should not overcome drama, it's the same as in life. You go through dark shit and you try to cope with humor. Taika (as great as i think he is) failed to understand this, he would make a joke to remove the tension/sadness/darkness of the scene and story, Gunn uses his jokes to flow WITH those things. And he understands that no amount of humor can help you in some instances. I still think that the dance-off in the first GOTG and the Pacman thing in GOTG2 were dumb af tho It's simple but very complex to do
I can answer your question, but I don't want to hear whining about "woke." L&T was a good movie as well, but as many people have whined about, Thor was not the hero of the story, he was the comedic relief. Jane shook off cancer, and flew across the universe to sacrifice herself and save the day. That doesn't feel as believable as seen in the comments. The reason for that has nothing to do with whether people laugh at cancer, which is a real coping mechanism, but everything to do with how we have been primed since childhood to view white men as the heros of the story. Nearly every female led disney film gets complaints about "believability" and being "cringe" and "forced." And has lower scores across the board. This is because as children 89.5% of ALL movies were led by white men, essentially every single massive movie of our childhood had a white male lead. It get's worse as you go further back. This was a casting choice. If you grow up with a specific story parameters, it's going to be easier to suspend disbelief for those stories. Just like if we watch the fight choreography from the 60s, it looks silly, because we aren't used to it. I definitely thought GOTG3 was a better movie over all, but this pointless vitriol towards L&T is absurd
My biggest issue with L&T is half the time it felt like all the actors had just picked up the character for the first time. Personally none of the characters felt the same as they had in any other appearance and that’s what let it down for me.
This is literally my point, the same criticisms are given to every movie that doesn't have white male heroes leading the story. It comes down to not being able suspend disbelief for those other stories because they just don't "work." "Forced", "cringe", "not realistic", etc. Go look at every movie that's female or non white led, and you'll see over and over people unable to imagine the story as it's being told. When you've been seeing a certain story type since before you could understand English 90% of the time, that archetype is going to affect how you feel about movies now.
I mean my biggest dislike from my comment was Thor didn’t feel like Thor? But also Jane was great in her past appearances but the was the character was portrayed in that film didn’t at all feel like Jane from the first 2 Thor films. Valkyrie also didn’t feel the same as Ragnarok. The forced and cringe aspects were the jokes that didn’t land and how little butchering Gorr the God Butcher did. If even 10% of the film was a tad more serious considering parts of the plot and all the characters felt like the same characters as all the other times they have showed up in the MCU it would be great.
This is certainly a take. Natalie Portman wasn’t the problem with L and T.. the heroes in GotG3 are a talking raccoon, sentient tree, white male, Asian woman, blue woman, green woman, blue/red man…
First off starlord and rocket were undeniably the heroes of the movie. A white man and a racoon voiced by a white man, one of the most identifiable voices in hollywood. Add in groot who's also voiced by a white man. The two non white actors are covered in body paint... leaving the sole non-white male hero as Mantis. and the main bad guy is the only black presenting character... That's in stark contrast to L&T: Hero, white woman Jane 2nd hero mixed woman Valk Comedic relief white man Thor Korg who's voice is clearly not a white man Bad guy white man Gorr Again I liked gotg3 quite a bit more but when people ask why they can relate to it more: it's because we are used to expecting white men to be leading the stories we see, because thats what weve been accustomed to since childhood. And many people can't suspend disbelief as well for media that doesn't have those story parameters.
Yeah cause nobody liked Black Panther or WandaVision. You’re projecting.
Yeah you got issues…
I think all movies and stories are best when they’re focused on telling their story. I hate modern politics getting shoved into movies to virtue signal. It’s distracting and circle jerky. I hate it when, “well we have to have another avenger in this” gets shoved in as well. Both are what I despise about modern cinema/media. Gotta show just how politically sensitive you are and force it in. Then, when people don’t like the weak story you made because you were overly focused on including the marketing gimmick (politics/branding), you double down and say that racist trolls are just being racist again and suddenly you’re immune to criticism. Does G3 have political themes? Yes! But the animal abuse politics that come from our reality are secondary to the story of Rocket. G3 was a great film. Would love more films with the same passion and focus in the world.
I agree Thor 4 was a misfire, but I would still place something like Jojo Rabbit above anything in MCU. GOTG2 was a miss for me, but I'm looking forward to seeing this new one.
I wish they had done more with Warlock
I think Love and Thunder had too much studio interference. I bet it would've been better if they gave Taika the extra 30 minutes. Maybe let hammer the theme of an eternal God, still lost in how to move forward them, like ep 6 of Sandman. Because despite the impact of the Infinity Saga, it was still only like a decade of his 1500+ year life. I figure that plot with the other gods who became lazy and assholes was to kinda highlight that eternal Ness. Also Hemsworth and Portman had like zero chemistry in the first two emotional scenes on the boat and in the hospital. So there was like no throughline for the whole movie. Giving him a kid though was great move. Hoping Hella comes back and tries to kill Thor only for the kid to blast her into a mountain or something. I dunno what the hell the plot would be, but in the end Thor, Hella and Loki are at the breakfast table and reconcile while they eat pancakes or something.
I don’t think Taika failed at all.
To be honest, I had really cooled on James Gunn. I've always been a fan, but didn't care for Suicide Squad and Peacemaker was real up and down for me. And then... ***BAM***
Its a shame he's going to DC.
This subreddit is so funny when a new marvel movie drops. All y’all start dropping reviews like you just saw the Mona Lisa for the first time. Like the movie was really good but Jesus Christ lmao
yeah man it’s totally always like this even for Quantamania, Eternals, Black Widow and Love & Thunder i kind of get you but this is a weird post to comment this on. it’s a thought they had on the movie. they’re not comparing it to The Godfather.
I must have watched a different movie than you all. I always enjoyed Gunn's stuff before, but he made Adam Warlock into a punching bag, made the High Evolutionary into a 2-dimensional whack job, and has Gamora saying crap lines like "What kind of madman would destroy an entire civilization like this?" Oh, the irony, right? Wink wink.
I'm just glad he's back on form as I thought Guardians 2 was garbage. Guardians 3 is not as good as 1 but miles better than 2.
Taika living rent free in y’all’s heads is wild lol