Guardians of the Galaxy: What do you think?

[lebeau]

If anyone is interested, here is my review.

Like everyone else, I thought it was fun.

 

[NMBC1993]

Even though the film has been out for a week now, I figured I'd chime in with my review. Now I know what all of you are probably thinking, "Holy Country Style Potato Salad, NMBC1993 watched another Marvel film"!!?? What can I say? It was a rainy day and the movie theater was across the street.

Anyway, I thought the movie was enjoyable, thankfully I didn't walk out of the theater angry which was the case with Avengers, IM3, and Thor 2. The characters were fun and of course nobody can come out of the movie not being a Rocket fan.

That being said...I did have a few issues with the film as well. First of all, as I was watching the film I couldn't help but feel that someone went to James Gunn at some point and told him "Uh James, we need more dramatic bits" as it felt the movie, right after something comedic or an action scene had to pause for some required dramatic back story, which is rushed through to get back to the action. Sure Drax is upset about his family, but you never really feel it...at least I didn't. In fact I feel that if you strip away the heroes and the comedy, your left with a pretty bland story.

Also, I have to agree with several reviewers out there who say Ronan is a forgettable villain. He just stood around acting menacing and barking orders. He was one step above Malekith from Thor: The Dark World, but that's not saying much. Just like the case with the Either, once the villain gains the "ultimate power" he's beaten so easily (at least this time it wasn't because of two interns carrying tripods). As someone who knows the comics and what's coming, can we please show the audience why these items present a threat? If they continue this trend, it will mean nothing when the final showdown happens.

Finally, something I had a big problem with involves sort of a spoiler. In the movie, Starload is carrying something on his ship that he received when he was a kid, something very special to him. So, how in the heck does he not open it for 26 years? Wouldn't he want to know what was inside because of the importance it has to him?

Overall like I said it was an enjoyable film. To me it's not as memorable as Captain America: Winter Soldier or any of the Phase 1 Marvel films (except Iron Man 2 and The Avengers). The movie just went though the motions for me, nothing special or lasting in my eyes. It was indeed a PRODUCT of Hollywood...

 

[Gomer]

Finally, something I had a big problem with involves sort of a spoiler. In the movie, Starload is carrying something on his ship that he received when he was a kid, something very special to him. So, how in the heck does he not open it for 26 years? Wouldn't he want to know what was inside because of the importance it has to him?

...

Starlord didn’t open the present because his mother told him to open it “After she was gone”. As he rejected her pleas on her deathbed and missed his chance to say goodbye, the gift was painful to him. Opening it would mean admitting she was gone and admitting that his selfishness as a child took away his only chance to say goodbye.

I thought it was touching that he kept it unopened for so long and only opened it after he had moved on from his mistake and found his “new family”.

 

[NMBC1993]

Starlord didn’t open the present because his mother told him to open it “After she was gone”. As he rejected her pleas on her deathbed and missed his chance to say goodbye, the gift was painful to him. Opening it would mean admitting she was gone and admitting that his selfishness as a child took away his only chance to say goodbye.

I thought it was touching that he kept it unopened for so long and only opened it after he had moved on from his mistake and found his “new family”.

That does make sense when you look at it. I guess my problem is Peter, in his later years didn't come across as someone who was troubled. He spent the whole movie cracking one-liners and acting (as my girl friend put it) Tony Stark Lite. Because of this I never got a sense of his dramatic past, at least one that would cause him to put off for 26 years, opening the last present his mother ever gave him. Maybe if there was a scene where he was staring at the box, touching it, thinking about opening it, then putting it away I would have gotten that feeling more. But the problem is the box only makes two appearances in the film, and both were for .15 seconds.

It's not the fault of the script, it just suffers, to me from the same thing Iron Man 3 did. If Tony Stark is yucking it up with kid sidekicks, you can't take him serious.

 

[Gomer]

That does make sense when you look at it. I guess my problem is Peter, in his later years didn't come across as someone who was troubled. He spent the whole movie cracking one-liners and acting (as my girl friend put it) Tony Stark Lite. Because of this I never got a sense of his dramatic past, at least one that would cause him to put off for 26 years, opening the last present his mother ever gave him. Maybe if there was a scene where he was starring at the box, touching it, thinking about opening it, then putting it away I would have gotten that feeling more. But the problem is the box only makes two appearances in the film, and both where for .15 seconds.

It's not the fault of the script, it just suffers, to me from the same thing Iron Man 3 did. If Tony Stark is yucking it up with kid sidekicks, you can't take him serious.

Today of all days I have to disagree with that. As we learned last night with Robin Williams. Those who do the most "yucking it up" are often hiding the most pain. I thought Pratt and Downey both did a really good job of laying on the sarcasm while keeping those expressions so you know there is more going on inside. This wasn't Adam Sandler saves the universe. I think they both showed pain with the humor. Its subtle, but I think they both pull it off well.

 

[lazyboy97o]

That does make sense when you look at it. I guess my problem is Peter, in his later years didn't come across as someone who was troubled. He spent the whole movie cracking one-liners and acting (as my girl friend put it) Tony Stark Lite. Because of this I never got a sense of his dramatic past, at least one that would cause him to put off for 26 years, opening the last present his mother ever gave him. Maybe if there was a scene where he was starring at the box, touching it, thinking about opening it, then putting it away I would have gotten that feeling more. But the problem is the box only makes two appearances in the film, and both where for .15 seconds.

It's not the fault of the script, it just suffers, to me from the same thing Iron Man 3 did. If Tony Stark is yucking it up with kid sidekicks, you can't take him serious.

To make this a little topical, Robin Williams was a comedian but just committed suicide following years battling depression.

 

[NMBC1993]

Today of all days I have to disagree with that. As we learned last night with Robin Williams. Those who do the most "yucking it up" are often hiding the most pain. I thought Pratt and Downey both did a really good job of laying on the sarcasm while keeping those expressions so you know there is more going on inside. This wasn't Adam Sandler saves the universe. I think they both showed pain with the humor. Its subtle, but I think they both pull it off well.

True, Pratt's acting was nowhere near something like Adam Sandler (although Sandler was almost cast as Rocket). It was very clever of your to bring up Robin Williams. It is the perfect example to use on a day like today. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. As I said before, those dramatic bits in the movie felt like an afterthought to the comedy and action. That has been my problem with Marvel for a long time now, they don't know how to properly balance comedy and serious drama, except for two instances. One being Ed Norton's version of The Hulk (which they replaced with comedic gorilla Mark Ruffalo) and the other being Bucky/The Winter Solider. When you see him strapped to that operating table, being brain washed and watching him struggle internally with his feeling for Rogers throughout the entire film, now that I got a sense of pain and suffering.

But hey, it's all good. The best part about film is that it's subjective to different opinions

 

[Gomer]

True, Pratt's acting was nowhere near something like Adam Sandler (although Sandler was almost cast as Rocket). It was very clever of your to bring up Robin Williams. It is the perfect example to use on a day like today. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. As I said before, those dramatic bits in the movie felt like an afterthought to the comedy and action. That has been my problem with Marvel for a long time now, they don't know how to properly balance comedy and serious drama, except for two instances. One being Ed Norton's version of The Hulk (which they replaced with comedic gorilla Mark Ruffalo) and the other being Bucky/The Winter Solider. When you see him strapped to that operating table, being brain washed and watching him struggle internally with his feeling for Rogers throughout the entire film, now that I got a sense of pain and suffering.

But hey, it's all good. The best part about film is that it's subjective to different opinions

Guess it’s just a matter of style preference. In my own life experience, all of the troubled souls I have encountered have far more in common with RDJ’s stark or Pratt’s starlord than the dark brooding types like Bales Batman or Norton’s Hulk. And traumatic and dramatic experiences tend to happen with more uncomfortable sarcasm like I’m living a Whedon script, than with the rumblings and grumblings of melodrama.

I don’t think that makes either way untrue. It just means I identify with one more than the other as it is true to my experience. But a lot of people like to harp on the comedy as if its unrealistic, and I think that’s unfair. It’s all based on the personalities of those dealing with the conflict. The personalities in a the Avengers universe react to their circumstances in a way true to the characters that have been designed. I feel it’s how I would act in similar situations (you know…next time I have to save the galaxy or something) so I relate to it more and find it far more believable than the overly serious approach which I find a bit dull and one note.

But as I said. In the end, It’s just a preference of style more than a right and wrong.

 

[NMBC1993]

Guess it’s just a matter of style preference. In my own life experience, all of the troubled souls I have encountered have far more in common with RDJ’s stark or Pratt’s starlord than the dark brooding types like Bales Batman or Norton’s Hulk. And traumatic and dramatic experiences tend to happen with more uncomfortable sarcasm like I’m living a Whedon script, than with the rumblings and grumblings of melodrama.

I don’t think that makes either way untrue. It just means I identify with one more than the other as it is true to my experience. But a lot of people like to harp on the comedy as if its unrealistic, and I think that’s unfair. It’s all based on the personalities of those dealing with the conflict. The personalities in a the Avengers universe react to their circumstances in a way true to the characters that have been designed. I feel it’s how I would act in similar situations (you know…next time I have to save the galaxy or something) so I relate to it more and find it far more believable than the overly serious approach which I find a bit dull and one note.

But as I said. In the end, It’s just a preference of style more than a right and wrong.

I agree with everything you've said. There are different types of ways people deal with their issues, it's not one or the other. I know a lot of people on here think I am one of those people who dismiss comedy as being unrealistic. In reality, I'm not one of those people. I love comedies and I feel they it should have a presence in the MCU, I've never suggested Marvel should go the "Nolan route" because then it would be no different than something like Man of Steel.

What gets to me more than anything I think is Joss Weiden's writing style. I am not a fan. It just comes off too much like a T.V. sitcom. Everyone has to say something witty, so much so that your expecting the audience laugh track to go off in the background. Meanwhile the Chitauri villains get no back story and mean nothing when the heroes are "threatened". To me, when someone uses a lot of banter and wise-cracking, it's like they're trying to cover up for the lack of quality script writing. "Lets distract the audience from all the plot holes with our never-ending banter". If the writers spent more time developing the characters and villains, I feel that I could relate to them better. But when the villains are not presented as a threat, the heroes take nothing serious, and the tone is all over the place I can't get any emotion out of the film...

I guess in the end it's not something completely serious or comedic that I'm looking for. It to have more fleshed out characters. Ones that scratch deeper than just the top layer of their personalities.

 

[Gomer]

I agree with everything you've said. There are different types of ways people deal with their issues, it's not one or the other. I know a lot of people on here think I am one of those people who dismiss comedy as being unrealistic. In reality, I'm not one of those people. I love comedies and I feel they it should have a presence in the MCU, I've never suggested Marvel should go the "Nolan route" because then it would be no different than something like Man of Steel.

What gets to me more than anything I think is Joss Weiden's writing style. I am not a fan. It just comes off too much like a T.V. sitcom. Everyone has to say something witty, so much so that your expecting the audience laugh track to go off in the background. Meanwhile the Chitauri villains get no back story and mean nothing when the heroes are "threatened". To me, when someone uses a lot of banter and wise-cracking, it's like they're trying to cover up for the lack of quality script writing. "Lets distract the audience from all the plot holes with our never-ending banter". If the writers spent more time developing the characters and villains, I feel that I could relate to them better. But when the villains are not presented as a threat, the heroes take nothing serious, and the tone is all over the place I can't get any emotion out of the film...

I guess in the end it's not something completely serious or comedic that I'm looking for. It to have more fleshed out characters. Ones that scratch deeper than just the top layer of their personalities.

I’ll keep going here, because…well I don’t feel like working today. I love debating this stuff (sad, I know), so dont' take my comments personally.

I disagree on Whedon. I think the character development is in the humor. In my experience, that is how real people talk. Their wit might be sharper and quicker than in real life, but in my experience that is real. People constantly trying to break tension or one up each other with wit. And that style allows the characters to retain personality within a genre which is very often without it. It takes them approachable and makes you feel like you are part of this group athat is about to save the world. And while it may not delve into obvious expository charcter development, I see more character development in the way Bruce Banner retorts to Tony stark than in any of the past Hulk movies combined. Again, its subtle, and it is just hints. But to me, that’s far more entertaining than being bludgeoned over the head with flashbacks to Banner’s past to explain why he is the way he is. We don’t need that, we are smart enough to get it from inferences and facial expressions. It’s there. It’s just not in your face.

I won’t argue with you on the Chitauri. They were glossed over. But, I see them as a plot device, not an enemy. The enemy in Avengers is Loki and SHIELD. The chitauri are the equivalent of the Death Star in Star Wars. They are a weapon being wielded by the villain. Would I have welcomed another 20 minutes of movie to get us insight into Thanos, The Other, and why the Chitauri were invading. Absolutely. But, it doesn’t ruin the movie for me as they are not the focus of the movie. The focus of the movie is how the Avengers interact and become a team. The conflict is secondary.

 

[flynnibus]

It's not the fault of the script, it just suffers, to me from the same thing Iron Man 3 did. If Tony Stark is yucking it up with kid sidekicks, you can't take him serious.

Ironic you make these false conclusions... when one of the most humorous, yuk-yuks of our time, just killed himself because internally he was deeply depressed. Yet you wouldn't know that by watching him out mingling with others.

People cope in different ways... some exaggerate elements to compensate for the things they fear facing. (like Stark's playboy life)

You still way over analyze things to justify something... and still get it wrong.

 

[flynnibus]

Just watched The Amazing Spiderman last night...

And it's more of the 'serious' angle as NMBC1993 would want compared to Avengers and GotG. And while the film had memorable stuff (and lots of stuff you can tell were made with presentation in mind.. IMAX.. 3D). The film still had some comedy gags, but lacks the humor of IronMan or GotG.

I really don't see GotG being 'worse' because it had that humor. I found GotG more entertaining, easier to watch, and frankly I felt better after watching it.

 

[Matt_Black]

Just watched The Amazing Spiderman last night...

And it's more of the 'serious' angle as NMBC1993 would want compared to Avengers and GotG. And while the film had memorable stuff (and lots of stuff you can tell were made with presentation in mind.. IMAX.. 3D). The film still had some comedy gags, but lacks the humor of IronMan or GotG.

It also lacks coherence and focus. "We want this movie to be like the first Raimi one, but different! But also exactly the same! But different! But we still need a scene of average New Yawkers helping out Spidey!"

 

[NMBC1993]

I’ll keep going here, because…well I don’t feel like working today. I love debating this stuff (sad, I know), so dont' take my comments personally.

I disagree on Whedon. I think the character development is in the humor. In my experience, that is how real people talk. Their wit might be sharper and quicker than in real life, but in my experience that is real. People constantly trying to break tension or one up each other with wit. And that style allows the characters to retain personality within a genre which is very often without it. It takes them approachable and makes you feel like you are part of this group athat is about to save the world. And while it may not delve into obvious expository charcter development, I see more character development in the way Bruce Banner retorts to Tony stark than in any of the past Hulk movies combined. Again, its subtle, and it is just hints. But to me, that’s far more entertaining than being bludgeoned over the head with flashbacks to Banner’s past to explain why he is the way he is. We don’t need that, we are smart enough to get it from inferences and facial expressions. It’s there. It’s just not in your face.

I won’t argue with you on the Chitauri. They were glossed over. But, I see them as a plot device, not an enemy. The enemy in Avengers is Loki and SHIELD. The chitauri are the equivalent of the Death Star in Star Wars. They are a weapon being wielded by the villain. Would I have welcomed another 20 minutes of movie to get us insight into Thanos, The Other, and why the Chitauri were invading. Absolutely. But, it doesn’t ruin the movie for me as they are not the focus of the movie. The focus of the movie is how the Avengers interact and become a team. The conflict is secondary.

Lol, you too huh? I've got some work to do around here as well, but I love me some civilized discussion

Of course I don't take any of your comments personally, like I said everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's actually been nice to talk to you about all this. I'm starting to see things from the other side of the coin, does that mean I've changed my ways of thinking? No. But it's very interesting to see why people feel the way they do.

I find it amazing that you saw all this development in The Avengers through the wit and banter, to me it just went over my head as nothing more than attempts at comedy to make the audience laugh. I suppose I am the type of person who does want to be hit over the head with it. I wanted to see the Hulk present a threat to The Avengers, show why he's afraid of himself. But when Bruce is matching wits with Tony Stark, how can I know he's deeply troubled? Seems to me like he's having a great time. That's kind of what I mean. I didn't see 6 super heroes with different personality traits, I saw five super heroes trying to imitate Tony Stark. The only exception would be Steve Rogers towards the end of the film. He starting branching out into that leader role that we all know him for.

Also, I know this is my own fault and not of the movie, but I've never been able to get that chip off my shoulder involving the trailer for The Avengers. For a year and a half I was seeing advertisements and marketing for a gritty, dark, "In a World" type of movie. I never got that movie...instead what I got was a lighthearted action comedy.

I have to give Guardians of the Galaxy credit, although I personally didn't feel any depth for the characters, they at least tried to add some in there compared to The Avengers where there was none at all. It seems to me that DC and Marvel should start talking to each other more. DC's problem is they DO take things too seriously and do not know when to bring heart into their films (See Man of Steel). Marvel's problem is they put TOO MUCH heart into their films that it takes away from being anything more than "lighthearted fun".

There needs to be a balance. 50% comedy 50% drama/suspense (at least in my eyes). But hey, what do I know right? I'm just the grumpy old troll who hates fun

 

[NMBC1993]

Just watched The Amazing Spiderman last night...

And it's more of the 'serious' angle as NMBC1993 would want compared to Avengers and GotG. And while the film had memorable stuff (and lots of stuff you can tell were made with presentation in mind.. IMAX.. 3D). The film still had some comedy gags, but lacks the humor of IronMan or GotG.

I really don't see GotG being 'worse' because it had that humor. I found GotG more entertaining, easier to watch, and frankly I felt better after watching it.

It also lacks coherence and focus. "We want this movie to be like the first Raimi one, but different! But also exactly the same! But different! But we still need a scene of average New Yawkers helping out Spidey!"

Actually, I have problems with The Amazing Spider-Man as well. One of the big problems like Matt_Black said was that they tried too hard to make it like the Nolan films, but at the same time tried to be the Raimi films all over again. Personally, they didn't need another Peter Parker origin story. Why not just start the film with him landing on a skyscraper telling the audience "Yep, I'm Spider-Man" and just go from there.

Also yes, they tried WAY too hard with the presentation. So much so that a lot of scenes were stolen recently for the new TMNT movie (if you've seen the trailer, you know what I'm talking about). That scene with the cranes....was so horrible.

No, the problem with The Amazing Spider-Man is that they took a character who should not be presented as "deep and brooding", the same way Batman is portrayed in the Nolan series. It's Peter Parker...heck he and Tony Stark are the only two characters that SHOULD be doing banter while they're fighting villains. They tried to fix that in The Amazing-Spider Man 2 but by then it just came off as a mishmash of elements. Too much like Batman Forever, if you ask me.

 

[flynnibus]

It also lacks coherence and focus. "We want this movie to be like the first Raimi one, but different! But also exactly the same! But different! But we still need a scene of average New Yawkers helping out Spidey!"

I felt like a film that needed to do a 'modern reboot'.. the technology and peter's character felt a little forced to make them 'current'. I had low expectations for the film, but it was ok, and managed to keep my wife watching till the end. I'm not sure I'd look to watch it again.

 

[Gomer]

Lol, you too huh? I've got some work to do around here as well, but I love me some civilized discussion

Of course I don't take any of your comments personally, like I said everyone is entitled to their opinion. It's actually been nice to talk to you about all this. I'm starting to see things from the other side of the coin, does that mean I've changed my ways of thinking? No. But it's very interesting to see why people feel the way they do.

I find it amazing that you saw all this development in The Avengers through the wit and banter, to me it just went over my head as nothing more than attempts at comedy to make the audience laugh. I suppose I am the type of person who does want to be hit over the head with it. I wanted to see the Hulk present a threat to The Avengers, show why he's afraid of himself. But when Bruce is matching wits with Tony Stark, how can I know he's deeply troubled? Seems to me like he's having a great time. That's kind of what I mean. I didn't see 6 super heroes with different personality traits, I saw five super heroes trying to imitate Tony Stark. The only exception would be Steve Rogers towards the end of the film. He starting branching out into that leader role that we all know him for.

Also, I know this is my own fault and not of the movie, but I've never been able to get that chip off my shoulder involving the trailer for The Avengers. For a year and a half I was seeing advertisements and marketing for a gritty, dark, "In a World" type of movie. I never got that movie...instead what I got was a lighthearted action comedy.

I have to give Guardians of the Galaxy credit, although I personally didn't feel any depth for the characters, they at least tried to add some in there compared to The Avengers where there was none at all. It seems to me that DC and Marvel should start talking to each other more. DC's problem is they DO take things too seriously and do not know when to bring heart into their films (See Man of Steel). Marvel's problem is they put TOO MUCH heart into their films that it takes away from being anything more than "lighthearted fun".

There needs to be a balance. 50% comedy 50% drama/suspense (at least in my eyes). But hey, what do I know right? I'm just the grumpy old troll who hates fun

I disagree strongly with the five starks thing. Yes, they all display a bit of wit and sarcasm, but we have 5 ½ very unique personalities here (I’m giving hawkeye a pass until the next film as he really was more of a plot device than a fully developed character). As you mentioned, CAP holds his own with his heart, genuine attitude, and leadership. At the same time he’s a bit of a lost soul who needs to prove he can hold his own in the modern world with these far more cynical heroes. Thor is Thor. He’s a meathead. But, he could have easily been treated like Colossus in the X-men movies, strong/silent/boring. Here, the comedy adds a hint of vulnerability to his romance novel cover looks.

Stark and Banner are like two sides of the same coin. Both dealing with pain, but in different ways which is why they form a bond. Banner is bitter and angry. His wit, when it comes is seething and slower paced. You see his pain more clearly in his initial scenes with Black WIdowm and he relaxes throughout the movie as he gets more comfortable peaking in the defeated but confident expression as he hulks out during the chitauri invasion while revealing his “secret”. Stark, on the other hand, is someone who constantly keeps moving so he doesn’t have to stop to think about his pain. He fidgets, he makes jokes, all to keep busy. IM3 is his moment where he finally has to step back and address his issues which should make for interesting characterization choices in the next Avengers.

The most interesting one to me though is Black Widow. Her two interrogation scenes (first with the Russian generals, and later with Loki) are my two favorite scenes in the movie. The writing in those scenes is top notch. The double meanings, the manipulation, are written brilliantly. Black widow is such a deep and damaged character and I hope they give her a solo film soon.

And I get what you are saying about wanting to see Hulk as a threat. And you will, I believe, in the next movie. You say Whedon is too much a TV guy. Well then, to back you up, I’d say Avengers is a bit of a pilot for the remainder of phases 2 and 3 of the MCU. Avengers puts all the characters in place, and I think you’ll see increased seriousness and conflict in Age of Ultron with all the other movies in between either serving as character development or to move the plot along.

In the end the Avengers wit and ease of conversing with each other makes them easy to identify with in a similar way to GOTG (shameless attempt to bring this back on topic). Its necessary to make these characters familiar when you have so many to develop in a short amount of time and a bit of light heartedness breeds that familiarity. I think the short hand with which this is done in both GOTG and avengers is fantastic. If you went the more traditional route, you’d be dealing with 4 hour long movies.

 

[DisneyFan 2000]

Just watched The Amazing Spiderman last night...

And it's more of the 'serious' angle as NMBC1993 would want compared to Avengers and GotG. And while the film had memorable stuff (and lots of stuff you can tell were made with presentation in mind.. IMAX.. 3D). The film still had some comedy gags, but lacks the humor of IronMan or GotG.

I really don't see GotG being 'worse' because it had that humor. I found GotG more entertaining, easier to watch, and frankly I felt better after watching it.

To me the glue to the new Spidey franchise is hands-down the chemistry of the leads. If they weren't sparkling with romantic magnetism I would probably be a whole lot harder on TAS. Heck, the scene of them on the rooftop - when he reveals to Gwen he is Spiderman - is one of my favorite movie scenes in recent history. But I do agree it doesn't have much else going for it, unlike GotG and the new Captain America.

 

[erasure fan1]

Finally got to see guardians and I really liked it. I know I am late to the discussion but I agree with @Gomer, the humor is the part that I identify with. While I still really liked what Nolan did with Batman, I like the fact that the Marvel movies have that humorous element to them. I will agree with the fact that Ronan could have been better developed but that was a minor complaint. I thought they did a really nice job giving insight into the overall story ark and tying the phase 1 and 2 movies together while still leaving you wanting more. For me this was my favorite of the phase 2 movies with the winter soldier a close 2nd.

As for the new spiderman, it was just OK. It really is a shame that Disney can't use spiderman (or come to an agreement) because I would LOVE to see Andrew Garfield as Peter Parker working with the Avengers.

 

[RandomPrincess]

From Entertainment Weekly -

Guardians of the Galaxy‘s $10.16 million take brings the domestic total to a staggering $294.57 million and its global total to $586 million, and it still has yet to open in Japan (next weekend), China (Oct. 10), and Italy (Oct. 22). Guardians has now exceeded the global grosses of its fellow “first-timers” in the Marvel universe including Iron Man ($585 million), Thor ($449 million), and Captain America: The First Avenger ($371 million).