‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ Will Be a Flop By Marvel Standards

A movie about an unknown group of superheroes that includes a talking raccoon and a tree that's sort of a person won't be a box office hit no matter how many Marvel fanboys watch its trailer online. As films like "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World," "Kick-Ass," and "Watchmen" have proven, being big as a comic book or graphic novel does not guarantee a box office hit.

Buzz can be good for a movie. But as we learned from the box office bomb "Snakes on a Plane," high levels of pre-release Internet chatter don't always result in people actually spending money to see the film. With "Guardians of the Galaxy," Marvel has the classic ingredients for a flop -- perhaps not a huge one, but a failure compared to the superhero films the company has released since falling under the Disney (NYSE: DIS  ) banner.

It's not 'Iron Man'

In any argument about whether a lesser-known comic book character will break through and become a successful movie franchise you must address Iron Man. That character was not as well-known as Spiderman or Wolverine outside the comic book world and the movie became a sequel-spawning hit.

Iron Man was less known to non-comic book fans, but he's not the complete unknown the various Guardians are. Plus a rich guy in a robot suit is a lot more accessible than a talking tree voiced by Vin Diesel (whose talking skills are not great in the first place) or Rocket the Raccoon, a character actor Bradley Cooper described to MTV as "He's the sort of Joe Pesci in 'Goodfellas' guy. You need Henry Hill."

It can be argued that aside from "Goodfellas," "My Cousin Vinny," and maybe "Casino" (where he plays the same part he did in "Goodfellas"), nobody wants to watch a movie with the actual Joe Pesci, let alone a talking raccoon version of him.

Unknown comics tend to be minor hits at best

Of "Scott Pilgrim," "Kick-Ass," and "Watchmen" you can only really argue that "Kick-Ass" was economically successful. The movie was a mild (very mild) hit taking in just over $96 million in global box office, according to Box Office Mojo.  With a budget of $30 million, according to IMDB's estimates, the movie might have been a hit (as evidenced by Lionsgate (NYSE: LGF  ) making a sequel) but it was by no means a blockbuster (remember marketing costs and theaters taking about half the gross). "Scott Pilgrim" had a $60 million budget and a $30 million domestic gross, according to IMDB -- a flop despite its heavy buzz.

"Watchmen," which cost $130 million to make and took in $107 million in U.S. box office, might be the best direct comparison to "Guardians." It was based on a hugely popular graphic novel (more popular than the Guardians comics) but was largely unknown outside the comic book universe. It wasn't a massive flop like "John Carter" ($250 million budget, $73 million domestic gross), but it was a failure that lost money for its backers.

Marvel can do no wrong

Under the Disney banner, Marvel has not had a movie not become a major hit. All of the films in the Iron Man/Avengers universe -- which "Guardians" is based in -- have been massive successes. Much like sister-studio Pixar, the Marvel brand name carries some clout and a certain part of the audience will see anything that carries the Marvel imprint.

"Guardians" however does not have the built-in audience of kids that Pixar has. Yes Pixar has a reputation for producing quality films, but that's not the only reasons its movies are a hit. Put the Pixar brand on a film and you are basically telling parents it's OK for them to take their kids and kill two hours watching a movie that they probably won't hate.

"Guardians," with its PG-13 rating, won't be the same no-brainer for parents. It also won't be a film that kids demand to be taken to because unlike "Spiderman" or "Iron Man," the Guardians don't have a cartoon and kids don't know who they are.

Marvel is really confident

The studio is so confident that audiences will flock to see a bunch of unknown and somewhat unappealing characters that there are already rumors of a planned sequel. That seems mighty ambitious for a film that at the very least presents a giant risk for the studio.

"Guardians" comes out Aug. 1 during the height of the busy summer movie season. That release date can lead to huge hits or -- if the movie fails to connect with audiences -- it can quickly disappear. It's fanboy sacrilege to say that Marvel will fail with anything, but "Guardians" just has too many things working against it.

In addition to featuring unknown superheroes, it also features its best-liked actor (Cooper) only as a voice. The rest of the live-action cast features Chris Pratt (who has never carried a movie), virtual unknown Karen Gillan, and pro wrestler Dave Bautista. Only Zoe Saldana of "Star Trek" and "Avatar" is an actual movie star, and she was hardly the reason either of those two films were successful.

The big mistake however is that Marvel had every opportunity to introduce these characters to its audience.

"Marvel must have been out of their minds to release a stand-alone film outside of the 'Avengers' that does or doesn't correlate with their already blossoming franchise," wrote Ryan Nicholas Glenn on WhatCulture.

That is where the mistake lies. Marvel could have dropped a Guardians short before any of its recent films -- something that introduced the characters and tells the audience why it should care. A trailer appeals to people already interested in the product. A short would have forced an audience to learn something about the characters in a way that commercials can't accomplish.

Even if Marvel had given the Guardians cameos in its other films or released a short TV series, it might have helped. The studio didn't and it's left with a movie puffed up by Internet buzz that won't translate to box office success. After "Guardians" under-performs, if the galaxy is to be rescued, we'll probably need Iron Man or Thor to step in and save the day.

And now, an opposing view on why this prediction misses the mark entirely.

The next step for you
Want to profit on business analysis like this? The key for your future is to turn business insights into portfolio gold through smart and steady investing ... starting right now. Those who wait on the sidelines are missing out on huge gains and putting their financial futures in jeopardy. The Motley Fool is offering a new special report, an essential guide to investing, which includes access to top stocks to buy now. Click here to get your copy today -- it's absolutely free.


Read/Post Comments (114) | Recommend This Article (21)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 8:56 AM, AnakinCorleone wrote:

    This post completely overlooks the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which is the first point listed in the counterargument link. While I agree it's not Iron Man, it is more akin to 'Thor', which introduced strange new worlds and new characters to the broader audience but also tied it into the larger story arc encompassing the other Marvel films.

    Also, the statement "In addition to featuring unknown superheroes, it also features its best-liked actor (Cooper) only as a voice." is a complete swing-and-miss, unless you consider Oscar-nominated actors like John C. Reilly, Benecio del Toro, and Glenn Close to not be well-liked.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 9:38 AM, NotQyteNeo wrote:

    The headline told me all I needed - no need to read further. This movie will definitely NOT be a flop. It may not hit the $400M mark(then again, it may go higher than that), but it will definitely be a success.

    I had lukewarm interest in this movie until I saw the trailer. Now August can't get here fast enough. I think it's going to be awesome. And I only gave the trailer a 9 out of 10 on SuperHero Hype. Most votes are 10 out of 10.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 10:58 AM, TXObjectivist75 wrote:

    "Virtual unknown Karen Gillan"? Seriously? Amy Pond alone will probably help boost the UK box office for this movie.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 11:43 AM, Sugoda wrote:

    I like that you guys write two separate articles about the same movie with completely different outcomes. Nice of you to cover your bases.

    The movie won't flop, it's building buzz now and like Iron Man who was a B comic book character at best when his movie came out. This movie will do well and become a big hit.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 11:45 AM, divaddjk wrote:

    This and Spider-Man are the only Marvel movies I really want to see. Just sayin.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 11:48 AM, ickabodx wrote:

    Thor proved that done correctly, this can work. I was worried about this one because we hadn't seen a trailer, but after seeing the trailer, this looks fantastic.

    I also imagine that the Marvel / Disney hype-promo machine will be in full effect after Captain America to build up interest in GotG

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 11:52 AM, raya wrote:

    It won't do Avengers or Iron Man numbers, sure, but if it starts a franchise like the first IM (or Thor, or Captain America) AND introduces these characters to the general public (toys, clothes, legos), then it's going to be a success for the company. My kids never read a GotG comic and they're already excited by this and love the Rocket/Groot weirdness.. I think this has the potential to be something pretty remarkable.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 11:56 AM, thekidfliessolo wrote:

    I normally don't quote or post on this site, but after reading this article I had to. This could be the dumbest piece of garbage article that has ever been written. No one outside of the comic book realm knew anything about Loki or Thor's origins. Now look at it, Loki has become a star, even enough to when people found out that he wasn't going to be in Avengers 2 there was an outcry. Rocket Raccoon could be the most underrated character in the Marvel universe. YES people will want to see him. This author has it all wrong and when this movie kills it a the box office, I hope he writes an apology article saying he didn't know anything about Marvel movies and the universe that is why he wrote this crap article. Its a mistake to call this movie a flop after one trailer has been released and it has been the most watched trailer for about a week now. As for your comment about Iron Man being a lesser known character, you are wrong again. Iron Man had his own cartoon, plus made appearances on others, including Spiderman. Guess what idiot, GotG made an appearance on the Ultimate Spider-Man last season! That has been one of the most successful cartoons that Marvel has put out in a while. Marvel knows what they are doing. This movie will be far from a flop.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 11:57 AM, drvideogm wrote:

    It may not be a huge smash but if anything it's going to do 2 huge things:

    1. Open up the Marvel Universe in film that hasn't even scratched the surface in past movies. Even with Fantasic Four, X-Men and Spider-Man being owned by other studios and thus some of these characters, this will allow more heroes/villians movies to be made that Marvel still owns the rights to (honestly how many sequels of the same heroes can Marvel do?). Eventually even as awesome as these movies have been, the audience will want more and new exciting characters. This is the door that opens the floodgates to the galaxy of tons of new characters, even if unknown by most.

    2. Get even more casual viewers into the comic book genre. Imagine if this film is done right, what will result? Buzz and people talking about it. It's one of the reasons why movies such as Titantic and Avatar were so huge. Word of mouth got around that it was an entertaining movie, so friends of friends of friends went to go see it (and the original audience went to see it again with their friends).

    It all comes down to if this is in fact a well made movie. Again it's not going to break records, but it's going to be a big hit this year. Also you mentioned that kids aren't going to know who the Guardians of the Galaxy characters are. That isn't entirely true because shows such as "Avengers: Earth's Mightest Heroes" and others have featured them in a few episodes. Although not nearly as well known as say Iron Man, Spider-Man etc. I don't think that's an issue with not selling movie tickets. Kids most the time see superheros and they get excited whether it's well known or not. But, already stated it all comes down to one thing= The quality of the movie.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 11:58 AM, Badger521 wrote:

    '"Guardians," with its PG-13 rating, won't be the same no-brainer for parents.'

    Really? With all the parents I see bringing in kids < 10 to rated 'R' movies, I think this one will be a no-brainer. Or at least plenty of parents without brains.

    To the larger point - Being that this is a big Marvel production - I would find it incredibly surprising (even astounding) to see this movie flop.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 11:59 AM, RenoRick wrote:

    I sense this guy doesn't truly understand the world of movies, just making money off of them. Then again, Motley Fool says Netflix is doomed every other week, so I shouldn't be surprised by the article.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 12:01 PM, Droppo wrote:

    It doesn't have to set a new record at the box office to be successful. If it ONLY makes 2-300 million in the US, fools like the writer of this article will call it a failure. If the movie is good, word of mouth will encourage the people who were on the fence. If it isn't very good, then it should end up the failure that this article predicts. Having not seen the movie, the writer here is just blowing smoke out of a raccoon's rocket.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 12:07 PM, JRobertHanson wrote:

    The article fails to take in the most important ingredient—the Marvel ties-ins to this movie. If you're even remotely interested in the Marvel universe, this movie connects into the franchise of story telling—which is why the other movies were so successful. It's all part of one big story. If Guardians were meant to stand on it's own, I'd be inclined to agree with the writer.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 12:08 PM, goatboy wrote:

    If Ironman is a B character then so is Captain America, thor, all of the x-men and even Wolverine. Pick three marvel characters that are on par with DC top tier three and you won't find one? Why is that, because Marvel spreads their character out instead of pushing a certain character or characters. Tell me one story line that didn't involve either Superman, Batman or Wonder woman in DC?

    Another plus for Guardians is that Guardians is not a well known series unless you are a long time fan of the marvel universe. I would think that would play into making the movie great. It's not your usual super hero comic book movie when people are getting tired of the same thing. All i can say is I am bored as hell with X-men, Wolverine Superman and Batman. Give me something different, give me Guardians.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 12:10 PM, JohnM15 wrote:

    This movie will live or die on the story and the humour. Neither of which we are given in the trailer. How can anyone make a prediction by being shown a bunch of rag-tag characters thrown together in a trailer?

    It could be great, it could be a disaster. All depends on the final product. The Lego movie carried the same risk. It could have been horrible but the story and humor carried it.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 12:18 PM, Megabeatz wrote:

    Man this writer is going to look like a total tool after gotg cashes in at the box office. Where do they find these low iq writers at?

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 12:18 PM, robert912 wrote:

    The comic book gendre fans, the marvel fans, and the sci fi fans will go see the movie in the first two weekends. Then the determination will be made on whether the movie can be successful. Great reviews and those questioning whether they want to see it will go and if it is bad well then no one else sees it and it dies a quick death.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 12:33 PM, saucyswells wrote:

    ...and to add on to everyone else's arguments...the writer's argument that Chris Pratt has never carried a movie before...well, neither did Chris Hemsworth, Andrew Garfield, Chris Evans...and even though he was always known as a strong actor, before Iron man, Robert Downey Jr never carried a movie to box office heights.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 12:35 PM, Cliffhanger77 wrote:

    I don't think this article is correct. I think you are ignoring the tremendous fan buzz "Guardians" is receiving, with many people comparing Chris Pratt's character, "Star Lord," to a new-age Han Solo. I think the trailer upped the buzz a million-fold -- a lot of people were trepidatious about Rocket Raccoon and how he'd be portrayed, but the trailer showed an actually interesting and well-portrayed character. Plus, everyone who's a fan of the Marvel Cinematic Universe KNOWS this is the Next Movie in the Lineup - which is like the next chapter in the book! -- and we trust MCU and we will all go along for the ride. It won't be Avengers-style box office, but I think you will be surprised how well it does -- I think it will equal Thor or Captain America.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 12:35 PM, limeh wrote:

    Dude,

    Did you note that the Collector is present and you know WHO he is???- He is linkd to avengers 2- age of ultron, (mviewise) as well as the comic version.

    His powers are wide and can only be succumbed by a few. Tho that is just a matter of opinion.

    lim

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Gr00t wrote:

    Daniel B. Kline is part of the problem with the movie industry today. They are so concerned about making money that they never try anything new leading to the viewers getting bored and not going anymore.

    This is a fairly safe bet for Disney and Marvel to make. They have brought a ton of star power to this movie, and they will surely promote the hell out of it after The Winter Soldier has come out. We will know and love the characters by the time this movie comes out through comics and cartoons that are sue to be released later this year.

    If the Lego movie can be a hit, a raccoon played by Bradley Cooper, and a tree played by Vin Diesel is not a risk at all.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 12:53 PM, jhs39 wrote:

    Based on the trailer I think this one has the potential to bring in Marvel fans and also people who don't care about superhero movies but are more interested in Star Wars/Star Trek type space adventures. And Watchman flopped because it was a boring, pretentious movie--not because it was based on a comic unknown outside the fanboy world. Watchman had a strong opening weekend but then box office dropped by 68% after toxic word of mouth spread. I saw it opening weekend and close to half of the audience walked out of the theater before the movie was over. I don't think Guardians of the Galaxy is going to have that problem.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 12:59 PM, mac2j wrote:

    I bookmarked this so I can come back this year when this movie makes 350 million domestic and remind "Daniel" why he's writing this garbage and not working in Hollywood. This is MUCH more broadly based and approachable source material than Watchmen or Kick-Ass - those are apples to oranges comparisons in audience.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 1:11 PM, shadx wrote:

    When making a comparison to what he deems comparable movies the writer totally fails to take in to account the director and the script. If those things are lousy then the movie will be too. Most likely he's just being contrarian to increase his hipster cred

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 1:12 PM, Loves2Splooge wrote:

    I'm glad you website says to "entertain", because this is the most laughable pile of crap, and thats offensive to most piles of crap. GotG isn't some underground or unknown comic. Its bigger, WAY bigger than Scott Pilgrim, Kick-ass, and Watchmen. It has been big since they rebooted the whole comic back in the 90's. Being a Marvel movie, and tie-in to all the other top flicks, this movie is all but promised to make bank. Seriously...laughable.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 1:16 PM, jd2134 wrote:

    I have co-workers that where so-so about the avengers and iron man, but cause of those films that are pysched up to see GOTG. Being the major marvel fan and attended San diego Comic con, you can see people that know nothing about the marvel world, suddenly asking their nerdy co-workers about it and making plans to see it.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 1:17 PM, 69camaross wrote:

    Have you forgotten Star Wars and Terminator?

    Characters do not have to be well known to do well in the movies. What is important is the quality of the movie. Watchmen was horrilble. Snakes on a Plane??? really? Kinda reaching there. Just look at what happened to the Lone Ranger. Why? Because the movie was horrible, not because the character was not well known or not. Green Lantern struggled for the same reason: the movie was only passable.

    And I think you underestimate the draw of a half-naked blue alien in IMAX 3D glory, when considering the success of Avatar. it was like soft porn for suburbanite males. So yeah Zoe Saldana clothed in green skin will draw some people.

    The buzz about this movie is positive, the tone looks spot on in the trailers, and people are curious. If it is a good movie, they will come in droves. Just like Iron Man.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 1:33 PM, Puma wrote:

    Can't wait until this movie earns like $400 million and the 'writer' of this piece is eating crow. No way this movie bombs, I can't wait to see it, and can't wait until the credits roll to see the next MCU teaser.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 1:58 PM, Facer5 wrote:

    I agree with this article, but it seems the Marvel fanboys are on blind-rage mode here.

    I think it will cross the 100 million mark thanks to the Marvel fanbase alone, but I don't think this one will hit 200 million domestic.

    It will make enough money worldwide to save face, just not enough to really warrant a sequel unless it explodes overseas.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 1:58 PM, FoolishLonghorn wrote:

    Most of these comments are just hilarious.

    This movie's success or failure has almost nothing to do with the popularity of a given comic or Marvel character.

    Sure, there are fan boys who will be there for opening weekend. But after that, it's about the general public, most of whom haven't read a comic book since they passed puberty.

    I went to see the Avengers, the Iron Man movies because they were good movies. My wife, who has never read a comic book, went with me. I have seen most of the X-men character movies on DVD because they were OK, but did not want to spend $10/seat.

    I haven't seen John Carter or Kick Ass or Scott Pilgrim because they were not good movies.

    I go to a movie to be entertained. It can be entertaining because it's funny, because of great special effects, or because the plot is suspenseful.

    The vast majority of money taken in by the Avengers came from people people who rarely, if ever, read comic books.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 2:20 PM, FoolishLonghorn wrote:

    To emphasize my point:

    Guardians of the Galaxy, Issue #1, sold about 211,000 copies last year. It was the biggest seller for Marvel in 2013.

    If all 211000 people who bought this comic were to go to the movie and pay $15/seat, the total take would be a bit more than $3 million.

    If Guardians of the Galaxy takes in $30 million in the opening weekend, it will be considered an epic flop.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 2:24 PM, FilmGuy21 wrote:

    Horrible article. Will "Guardians of the Galaxy". Hit the numbers of "Iron Man" or the "The Avengers"? No, who thinks it will? However it comes out in a dry August with the only real competition being a Planet of the Apes sequel coming out July 11. I think this movie will feed off its Marvel roots more than you do. I bet it's budget also won't be in "Iron Man" 's territory either. I see this film landing in and or around the where the first Thor film landed. Which would be a good sign for it's rumored sequel. Which really every comic book movie being made today has it's eyes on sequels. If it ends up being a decent film and word of mouth gets into play then it might take off even bigger. Sure it could flop, but it's not as likely as you think.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 2:35 PM, FilmGuy21 wrote:

    These comments are hilarious. People saying they haven't seen a film because it's not good. How do you know if you haven't seen it? Transformers 2 and 3 were huge hits and horrible films. I've seen horrible films in theaters and seen some films on DVD that made me wish I'd seen them in theaters. A films quality is not directly linked to its box office total. Thor and Captain America took in around $65 million in their opening weekends. I imagine Marvel will be looking for a $45-$50 Million opening for this film.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 2:47 PM, FoolishLonghorn wrote:

    " How do you know if you haven't seen it?"

    Reviews, word of mouth

    " A films quality is not directly linked to its box office total. "

    True, but there is a strong correlation.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 2:53 PM, Mentallect wrote:

    GOTG will do well at the Box Office. Perhaps, if they have more Thanos, it would gross 800 billion, but I see it in the 600 million range worldwide.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 3:07 PM, Groot187 wrote:

    You couldn't be more wrong. Mark my words, this movie is going to be a blockbuster, with at least 2 sequels and likely cameos in the future. Disney studios has been pretty successful with its other space franchise. Maybe you've heard of Star Wars? Despite the PG-13 rating, what you're missing is that this movie will not only resonate with the true comic book fans (18-45 demographic) but with younger kids as well. Have you seen the recently released toys coming out in relation to this movie anounced at the lates toy convention? HUGE. Yeah, you never heard of them. You will. You are obviously not a comic book fan and your examples of Kick-Ass, Scott Pilgrim (good movie) and Watchmen are unsupported, these films are all entirely different comic book universes, from different publishers and produced by different studios. It doesn't matter whether there is widespread knowledge about Guardians. If peiople like the movie (and they will), the buzz will be enough to prompt more ticket sales.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 3:11 PM, TheFume wrote:

    This foolish article is laughable.

    I've talked to a lot of my co-workers (who do not collect comics or read them) and they ALL want to see this movie. This movie is going to *BLAM* Murder the box office. Mark my words FOOLS. The word of mouth over this movie is just getting started and bet your ass that GotG will have a trailer at the beginning of Captain America 2, which ALOT of people will FLOCK to the movies to see. Once the initial Captain America 2 crowds see this trailer (if they haven't already) you will see a lot more people jumping on the wagon for a ride of a lifetime.

    FOOLS are warned.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 3:13 PM, gbigdog501 wrote:

    In less than 6 months you'll realize how wrong you are. Quit constantly writing about comic book movies and focus more on what you are supposed to do.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 3:25 PM, Groot187 wrote:

    Daniel Kline is my new least favorite writer.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 3:26 PM, ComicInvestor wrote:

    The GOTG have shown up in the new Spider-man cartoon, and I suspect Marvel is seeding their other venues with GOTG references. Also, I was under the impression that the Big Bad for this film is Thanos, which gives it a very obvious Avengers tie-in.

    I think we've seen that trying to categorize too many films into a single "genre" is a (lower-case) fool's errand. Only studio execs and industry analysts would look at all these films and lump together into one "genre." While having a recognizable character and "buzz" can carry a film a week or two, a film's sustained success depends on how well the writing, acting, and direction fulfill what audiences want to see and give them something to care about. I would argue that Avengers did better than Superman because even though Superman is more universally known, Avengers was just a better film.

    Will GOTG succeed? Won't know till I see the film.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 3:33 PM, thedudeofhere wrote:

    Hopefully people realize that Guardians is just another piece of the puzzle. They are leading up to the Infinity Gauntlet (which I've been hoping for since they started making Marvel movies) and this is one more addition to that. Yes, the characters may not be well known, but that won't stop the majority of people from going to see it.

    I wasn't too interested at first, but the trailer sold me. Action packed and quite humorous as well. And that's what a movie trailer should do...make you want to see a movie.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 3:49 PM, caseysledge wrote:

    The article had me, all the way up until the words "virtual unknown Karen Gillan". This phrase proves that the author is incompetent to write about superhero or science fiction movies in general. Yo, fool, that's "Amy Pond". 'Nuff said.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 4:20 PM, GouryG wrote:

    Ok this article contradicts another Motley Fool Article written by Jake Mann that was earlier today. I personally think it will work great. Sometimes we need these fringe comic stories to shake up the status quo.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 4:21 PM, JoeKidd85 wrote:

    1. Don't put down Pesci.

    2. Star Wars didn't have a ready made audience in `77, Guardians of the Galaxy is more an ensemble space opera than superhero movie, so that may be a better comparison.

    3. Kick-Ass and Watchmen were rated R, they lost the youth audience, hence less box office.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 4:33 PM, PAJohnDoe wrote:

    What NO ONE has mentioned as far as the various Marvel film properties are concerned is that it was "Blade" that got the whole ball rolling, and this was a hard R-rated film about a relatively unknown BLACK Marvel character that wasn't necessarily a superhero. "Blade" successfully tested the cinematic waters for Marvel, showing that it was safe to invest in finally getting "X-Men" off the ground, which paved the way for "Spider-Man", which created the template for the last decade or so of big budget superhero films. Marvel has a TON more stroke than they had in 1998, so if they can sell a black adult-oriented comic character to filmgoers while going through bankruptcy, releasing a film about a gun-toting space raccoon and his tree sidekick under one of the most recognizable banners in the world should be a walk in the park. If it underperforms, they still have several billion dollar franchises to fall back on.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 4:51 PM, foolmehah wrote:

    First off, kids/people who play video games would have known RocketRaccoon from a game called (Marvel vs Capcom). Groot - well, he's an action-hero version of the talking/walking trees from LOTR movies (so what's weird again?). Second, the movies mentioned to be so-called "comparable" to GOTG were made pretty badly. Had they been made with as much care(story, casting, marketing) as the hit Marvel movies - I know they would have been blockbusters as well regardless of them being relative unknown comicbook characters. Third, it's the merchandise tie-ups (toys/clothing/etc) sometimes - I do not remember the other movies mentioned have any hot collectible items at all. These items make the characters more real and dear to people, as they can take them home. Btw, never read GOTG comics but am looking forward to the movie! Go RocketRaccoon...

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 5:11 PM, PAJohnDoe wrote:

    As far as Watchmen is concerned, I think the bad reaction of general audiences who were unaware of the book or at least hadn't read it (basically not people that would have complained about changes to source material) was that Warner Brothers was giving it a "Dark Knight"-like push, making the upcoming adaptation look similar to their then -current superhero hit, which is actually the approach they STILL kind of use with their other superhero films. Huh. WB/DC tries to make their properties all look like their other properties, and people have a bad reaction, while Marvel is pushing something in a way that makes it look like it's own thing, and Marvel's doomed WHY?

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 5:52 PM, msorrentino wrote:

    First off, Karen Gillian is well known to geek culture, she played Amy Pond on Doctor Who.

    Second, Gamora a key member of the Guardians, is Thanos's (the big purple grinning guy at the end of Avengers, you know Loki's benefactor) adopted daughter. Thanos will most likely have a role in the events of Guardians just as he did with Avengers.

    Third, the movie will introduce the third infinity stone. The first being the Tesseract (space gem) from Avengers, and the second being the Aether (power gem) from Thor The Dark World.

    Fourth, The Collector appeared in the end credits scene for Thor The Dark World in which he was given possession of the Aether, for safe keeping. He will be a main character in Guardians.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 6:00 PM, Lostcause wrote:

    Yup, I call BS. This whole movie will put the rest of the MU together. Next billion for Marvel comming soon.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 6:06 PM, msorrentino wrote:

    Oh, how could I forget. Michael Rooker of Walking Dead fame portrays Yondu Udonta, who if you look closely is listed as an associate of Peter Quill's in the data beside him during the line up scene in the trailer. For those who don't know in the comics Yondu was the founder of the original Guardians of the Galaxy, meaning before Starlord, Gamora, Drax, Groot and Rocket came along.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 6:19 PM, jeremy3852 wrote:

    what an idiot, the reason why watchmen failed as a movie was that they changed the ending. if you change the ending of a book to make it easier for a movie audience to view you run the risk of ruining the story like they did. second the reason why scott pilgrim failed was they started the film at the end of the comic series. it would be like starting the lord of the rings trilogy with return of the king. it doesn't work very well to the broader audience and only plays to the comics fans.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 6:27 PM, CalvinballPro wrote:

    It's a new 'Star Wars' for the next generation. While old franchises die or get run into the ground (i.e. the actual 'Star Wars'), fans are still wanting something new, and that's Guardians. Maybe it won't be a monster and break records, but this movie will be a hit.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 6:29 PM, CalvinballPro wrote:

    Also, this author doesn't get it. The MCU is the franchise, and this is another movie in it.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 7:04 PM, Richardragan wrote:

    DANIEL KLINE You are a fool unknown you say not to me i have been reading GoG from day one .Some of the members of the Guardians are Ironman, Adam Warlock ,Quas

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 7:10 PM, Richardragan wrote:

    Quasar ,mantis,Moondragon,Captain Marvel ,Firelord, Nova unknown you say i say you're wrong

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 7:30 PM, CriticKitten wrote:

    Made a new account just to pick this article into pieces.

    1) The writer doesn't understand the concept of a "flop". A "flop" is when a film fails to make back its original budget.

    "Snakes on a Plane" grossed $62 million in the box office on a budget of $33 million, which is not a flop. "Watchmen" made a $185 million gross on a $133 million budget, which is not a flop (though not particularly impressive numbers, agreed). "Kick-Ass" grossed $98 million on a $20 million budget, which is not even CLOSE to a flop. In fact, it was successful enough to spawn a sequel, and it's fair to argue that Kick-Ass was a far less known franchise than Guardians of the Galaxy.

    "Scott Pilgrim vs the World" is the only actual "flop" on that list, and that film gained cult status shortly after releasing on DVD, where it performed far better and eventually recouped its costs.

    2) "It's not Iron Man" is not a valid point for or against the GotG film. "Iron Man" was a relative unknown to the movie audience prior to the films. The film pulled in big numbers because it starred a recently clean and powerful rising star in RDJ.

    3) The argument that "Guardians" lacks a dedicated kid base and is therefore doomed to fail is....absurd. People will know that this is a Marvel movie, they'll have seen the trailer and know darn well that it's a more goofy and comical film, and they'll consider that enough to call it kid friendly. I know this because I've spoken to friends who have both kids and no clue who the GotG are, and they've said they'll definitely go see it. The writer underestimates the movie's potential to draw kids simply because it doesn't feature Spider-Man or Iron Man, which is ludicrous when you consider that most kids aren't nearly that damn picky when it comes to superheroes.

    4) The writer has no clue who the actors are, so he assumes that they are all nobodies. A quick Google search would have taught him better.

    Ever heard of "The Lego Movie"? Chris Pratt voices the main character, Emmet. And that film has proven itself a gold mine, with Pratt delivering a great voice-over for an amusing character that helps carry the film. No, he's not the sole star in that film, but neither is he here.

    Karen Gillian is a "relative unknown"? She's Amelia Pond from Doctor Who, one of the best known characters in "New Who" fandom and a great actor. The UK box office will pull higher numbers than usual purely because of that.

    Bautista is perhaps the only one on that list that's questionable, and they've got him playing a muscle-bound hulk. Which is a role he played for a solid 8 years in WWE. Not exactly out of his element here.

    5) The writer hasn't been following the story of the MCU, or he'd know that this film is extremely important to the overall continuity. It introduces Thanos's daughter (and possibly Thanos himself, for all we know), will likely be the first formal introduction of The Collector (who we saw obtain one of the Infinity Stones at the end of Thor 2), and is a possible candidate for the third Infinity Stone as well. People will go see this movie simply to make sure they know what the hell's going on in the future films when these guys come back for Avengers 2 or 3.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 7:47 PM, Richardragan wrote:

    not only does the Collector get one of the Infinity stones theres a cocoon behind him ..could that be Him aka Adam Warlock who plays a big roll in the Infinity Gauntlet who is allso a member of GoG ... plus more stones have been seen in Ironman ,Captain America Avengers and The Infinity glove and another stone is seen in Thor allso Adam Warlock has one of the stones ..If i had the cash i would bet they are gearing up for a Infinity Gauntlet movie staring the Avengers and GoG

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 7:49 PM, mynamejuan206 wrote:

    Unknown comic book unknown story, someone slap this author.... smdh is out of his damn mind....

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 8:23 PM, rdpulfer wrote:

    Well, first off, not all of Marvel's movies have been widely successful. The studios takes half of the domestic gross and roughly a quarter of the international gross (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in this formula). So by this standard, the first "Thor" just barely made back its money, the first "Captain America" lost a little money and "The Incredible Hulk" lost a bunch of money . . . but none of them derailed the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

    I think it's possible "Guardians of Galaxy" will be a repeat of one of these box office performance, but I really hope it's more successful.

    Regardless, I'm glad Marvel is taking risks, even if I admit "GoG" is just that . . . a risk. But as it stand, I'd much more excited to see "Guardians of the Galaxy" than "Batman vs. Superman".

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 8:31 PM, Richardragan wrote:

    more like an unknown author with no clue on Marvel history to thoses that may not know who the Guardians are read some of their books dont even think a Racoon and a tree make you think this will be a funny movie . It wont be what you may think im excited and cant wait to see this movie ...its going to lead up to a Infinity Gauntet movie remember the clip at the end of the Avengers that was Thanos the God who worships Death who is all so after the Infinity Gauntlet. read the book Infinity Gauntlet get a leg up on Avengers 3 movie it will blow you away great book going to be a great movie DC doesnt stand a chance Ha haha

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 8:33 PM, mg1201 wrote:

    this writer is just mad because his book flopped Guardians of galaxy will be the biggest hit in 2014 also if u read what others the reason why watchmen was not a hit is because they change ending d cline dont write what ur not expert in go back to staff job not writer ur not season in movie criticing

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 9:22 PM, Gaberax wrote:

    Maybe the author should stick to business critique rather than film critique. I have a feeling this review may be way, way off the mark...for all the right reasons.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 9:23 PM, mxavierw wrote:

    Motley Fool has NEVER gotten one of these articles right.

    It's already made a 46 year old song a hit again.

    Meanwhile MF keeps hyping the Warner/DC hit-movie machine…….understand?

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 9:38 PM, Richardragan wrote:

    ok rdpulfer { ill correct you just as you asked } first the Hulk movie cost 137 mill to make it grosed 245 mill world wide true that could be called a fail. the movie was made by Marvel / Universal pictures not Marvel/Disney ,and it was nominated for best science fiction , ,best music but lost out to X-2...Thor the first movie was the 5th highest grossing marvel movie with 449 mill, ok call that a fail if you wish . Captain America was a commercial success grossing 370 mill world wide in 2000 a lawsuit between Marvel and Joe Simon over the copy rights at the end Marvel won .was it a fail ya the lawsuit had some help for that ..remember they all so said Ironman was a risk too see what happen there . only time will tell i think Marvel/Disney will pull off another block buster with GoG if movie fans dont lissen to these dumb critic's most of the time they harp and love movies i think suck and hate movies i like then agen mabie its me . cant think of a good movie any film critic liked most of them are bad movies .{correct me if im wrong }

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 9:52 PM, kfordham wrote:

    Motley Fool, wrong as always. Do you really doubt the marketing arm of Disney? Grant it, they have had 2 mistakes in John Carter and Lone Ranger, but those were 2 movies that were getting next to no hype from a pre-installed fan base. Consistently across the internet, I see 2 films that everyone seems to be excited for: Godzilla and Guardians of the Galaxy. Short of the movie sucking, nothing will derail the success of this movie. I really wish your sensationalist media and video game related articles would stop appearing on my yahoo news feed.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 9:57 PM, Richardragan wrote:

    kfordham.i loved the John Carter movie and the Lone Ranger movie wasnt as bad as they said it was could it had been better heck ya get rid of the dumb Tonto

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 10:05 PM, anth1225 wrote:

    Wow reading all the posts lots of guys are mad because of the negative review.

    I'm a Marvel fan but haven't been part of the comic book universe for decades.

    Not familiar with Guardians; not excited by them either.

    I saw the trailer and found it obnoxious. Hopefully the movie and the characters are better than what little I saw.

    Readers are right though; popularity has little to do with success. If you make a good movie people will watch.

    I'll wait for the dvd if it's any good.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 10:11 PM, DonkeyJunk wrote:

    This article was published today, so I thought I'd read this article and proceed to debunk it. Alas, a mammoth 65 people have beaten me to the punch.

    I don't think anyone could have garnered more attention without mentioning Obamacare. THAT is the power of Marvel and the effect of the truly amazing trailer for GotG.

    I'll see you all at the cinema in August. Maybe more than once.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 10:12 PM, Dee177 wrote:

    This movie isn't even out yet and the motley fool is deeming it a flop? This will be far from a flop. Didn't this site also say Catching Fire was a disappointment for only opening to 180 million? And also deemed the Hobbit a flop though it has made 850 million+ worldwide. Um, ok.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 10:50 PM, MontyPla wrote:

    No one gave a crap about or had heard of Blade before the movies either, and they still did well. And that was before Marvel had things like the connected cinematic universe or Disney's immense advertising budget and abilities to get people into the theaters. Which is why movies like Scott Pilgrim (Kick Ass and Watchmen are a very different case since they're too "mature" for children, and families are a big audience for superheroes) didn't so as well as other comicbook films. It has nothing to do with the characters being complete unknowns, since to everyone who doesn't read comics even Spider-Man and Batman are basically complete unknowns. Those movies just didn't get the same level of marketing. And the movie being part of the MCU and leading towards Avengers 2 will draw people in, since it all ties in with the other movies.

  • Report this Comment On February 26, 2014, at 10:54 PM, drdoorjammer wrote:

    The writer doesn't understand because it is clear he is not a fan of marvel universe that this is a set -up film ....to future films including both the Guardians and the Avengers as my wife says at 61 I am still a comic book geek ...but the writer and some of the misinformed have no clue about what they are saying.......Vin Diesel , John C Reilly, for us Doctor who fans Karen Gillian who has more fans this crappy badly written web site....she is only the most popular companion in Doctor Who History except maybe Rose Tyler....this trailer was funny ....the story like I said is a set -up because these so called unknowns will become quite heroic.....and they balance the whole marvel Universe.....but then again I am an old guy who liked The Lone Ranger ( I think the same idiot who wrote this trashed that as well) if you read the book The Lone Ranger ...written in the early 1900's you loved this new version of the film ...if you saw the TV show you were disappointed.....I loved it ...the John Carter film ....tried to cram too much in 2 and 1/2 hours ...it just didn't work ....this will work as it sets up a story line that will be continued in other films and set up one big GOG and Avengers Film that should be the best Sci _fi film ever made .

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 12:30 AM, guestofroom2002 wrote:

    First of all,

    Let us not assume anything

    Over react or

    Predict what is going to happen!!!!

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 12:36 AM, krazie5150 wrote:

    its all about word of mouth. same with ironman, thor, and captain. look what all that brought you? GOTG!!! it don't matter if no one heard of it. just as long as the people who want to see it, which is even damn person who seen The Avengers!!! so please stop fooling yourself. besides girls just love to hear vin diesels voice!!!

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 12:37 AM, KingSully06 wrote:

    By Marvel's standards, I think this movie will be as successful as they suspect. I think you are selling things a little short, or maybe just trying to play "Devil's Advocate" here...But one thing millions of fans, comic book or otherwise have learned about Marvel movies, is they always offer something "extra" that you have to be there to see. There are "easter eggs" and little gems that give a nod to something fanboys love, or hint towards something bigger. No, Guardians isn't a BIG Marvel comic, but it's known enough and has had some tie-ins to other comics over time. I also think fans will be happy to see something "different" than the BIG heroes. Don't get me wrong, they all will line up for Cap 2, Spidey 2 and so on...But I think this brings something different and refreshing to fans, from a comic book stand point. Iron Man was successful because of the writing, directing, who they picked to play the characters and the special effects were up to the task. You can have a big name super hero (Batman and Superman ring a bell?) and it can just flop for all the reasons I mentioned above, but for the opposite reasons. Marvel WANTS to expand it's universe. If you feed too many big names, it'll tire out and fans will flame out. You add different elements, different characters on the lesser levels, fans will take interest and see how it ties in. Like what they are doing with Netflix and SHIELD (Deathlok). And to a degree, what Arrow is doing for DC and WB. So, yes, it probably WON'T make the uber millions the big names have, but it will be successful and I suspect, better than you think. But as successful as Marvel expects...They aren't expecting Iron Man/Thor/Cap/Avengers numbers. That's my opinion though...we'll see...

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 12:43 AM, hudkina wrote:

    What kind of moron compares Scott Pilgrim vs. the World to Guardians of the Galaxy. Just because both have their origins in the comic book industry doesn't mean they have anything else in common. Even Kick-Ass has very little in common with this movie. Kick-Ass is more akin to Spider-Man, albeit darker, smaller and less accessible. While Watchmen may be the closest of the three, it's still a vastly different movie. It is a very dark, very genre-oriented, R-rated movie. Guardians of the Galaxy is a light-hearted, high-concept, PG-13 movie.

    It falls more in line with other high-concept sci-fi/fantasy movies like Star Wars ($1.49 billion, adj.), Avatar ($812 million, adj.), Jurassic Park ($768 million, adj.), Raiders of the Lost Ark ($739 million, adj.), Independence Day ($578 million, adj.), Pirates of the Caribbean ($423 million, adj.), Transformers ($387 million, adj.), etc.

    While the first stand-alone Captain America and Thor movies were essentially in the $180 million range domestically, they were considerably more genre-oriented and had nowhere near as massive a concept as Guardians of the Galaxy. Of all the Marvel films released so far under the current Marvel Cinematic Universe, it most closely resembles The Avengers. While it almost certainly won't make the money that The Avengers made, being a massive, high-concept sci-fi/superhero crossover within the same cinematic universe really gives it a chance to be a major breakout success.

    Movies today have proven that you don't need major star power to generate success. In fact, many of the traditionally highest paid actors in the business have several major bombs under their belts in recent years. Today it's all about the concept. High-concept sci-fi/fantasy is a major selling point and while it doesn't hurt to have an A-lister in such movies they aren't as necessary as they were in the 80's and early 90's.

    Even a modest box office prediction would fall in the $200-250 million range domestically, and maybe $300-$400 million internationally. If it becomes a massive crossover success it could easily surpass $300 million domestically and $500 million internationally.

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 12:44 AM, pastywhite wrote:

    This movie has a raccoon with a gun. It's success is practically guaranteed. Seriously, a raccoon......with a gun. Plus everything else looks awesome too.

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 1:23 AM, gundasha wrote:

    Apparently this writer has no clue , and or has not done his research at all on genre movies. Basically he's a moron. This movie was already set up by Thor 2 and The Avengers. In addition this movie is setting up the next Avengers movie. I hope he doesn't get paid to write for a living and if he does he should be canned for misinformation about subjects he has no inkling for.

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 1:25 AM, elainaleone wrote:

    Karen Gillan is the reason I'm looking forward to this movie. If you think she's a "virtual unknown," you've missed the growth of Doctor Who in the US. And Chris Pratt-- isn't he the star of the Lego Movie? AKA the movie that's dominated the box office for the last few weeks? I think Marvel might know what they're doing with this one.

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 1:43 AM, Vamroc wrote:

    FLOP? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    GotG is going to SHATTER box office records your right it's not The Avengers or like any Marvel film we've seen before. This is their "Firefly" okay Serenity didn't exactly set the B.O. on ablaze but it's universally hailed for it's writing, story, and charactors. Where Serenity failed is that very few people even knew the show existed. THAT IS NOT THE CASE WITH GotG. By the time GotG comes out every kid in America is going to want the I Am Groot t-shirt or for parents the Relax with Drax coffee mug. Also Serenity didn't have a mass market merchandising campaign to attract people to the theater. Which one needs with a film of that nature for it to be mega successful. GotG will have such a campaign so JUST HAND YOUR KID YOUR WALLET NOW

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 2:56 AM, M1725 wrote:

    Is this article supposed to be important?LOLOL I saw the preview for the 1st time on Wednesday, and I loved it!!!!!!!!! It seems to have a lot of humor in it. I will definitely see it. I think it helps too that it's being released on August 1st. I think of May-July as Blockbuster Season, so August has room to be a little funky. We'll see.

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 8:00 AM, brendannhart wrote:

    I went to pick up a Blu Ray of new THOR yesterday at local Wal Mart, and they were TOTALLY sold out of every product (Blu, DVD)...

    clerk said it sold "unbelievably well";

    Guardians is not Thor, BUT Thor, Frodo Baggins, etc were unknown to lot of world UNTIL movies caught on...

    I don't know about all time Top 10, but I believe it will do WELL;

    e.g. I was actually astounded at how well Iron Man 3 did, so..never know..

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 8:30 AM, JustAGuyNamedJoe wrote:

    At minimum, the movie pulls in $300 US, double that worldwide. If you wanna call that a 'flop' go ahead. Whatever rocks your socks.

    But, keep in mind that Disney will have an array of tie-in products so vast that the Collector himself could not hope to obtain them all.

    So, whether its box office platinum or not, the movie is going to make tons and tons and tons of money for Marvel, Disney and their respective investors.

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 11:47 AM, eroc wrote:

    DUDE, This is THIS generations STAR WARS. They said the same crap back then.

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 12:12 PM, zeeEVIL1 wrote:

    Wow.

    So many things are wrong with this article that I do not know where to begin.

    First; The GOTG are not Superheroes. Just because it is a comic book and they exist in the same universe, they are not the same. GOTG is a science Fiction book. It is a Science Fiction film with a motley group of characters. Like Star Wars. And like Star Wars, it will release with w fully realized universe to exist within and will build upon Marvel's success and diversity.

    As for the characters being unknown, they appeared in Ultimate Spider-Man. They appeared in a season 2 Episode of Avengers EMH they also appear at the end of LEGO Marvel Superheroes.

    Talking animals and weird creatures are loved by children all over the place.

    There are 3 oscar winning or nominated actors in the film.

    It will come down to marketing and how they present that marketing. Then, word of mouth will propel the film.

    The problem with the fool guys, is that they love comics and gaming, but have zero sense of history and how certain flop worthy things have been monumental success's Star Wars, was not always the preferred fantasy of billions. It was something that Lucas had to make for free in exchange for the licensing rights, which BTW created the entire licensing market when the studio didn't want to finance it. Look what happened there.

    The other thing that has to be kept in mind, is that these characters have been in the market for over 35 years.

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 1:40 PM, Facer5 wrote:

    And Marvel fanboys continue to rage. It's fun.

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 1:55 PM, msorrentino wrote:

    The writer of the article says that a talking raccoon and tree might be to much for the viewers to buy into.

    First, Groot is essentially an alien Ent (aka Lord of the Rings' Treebeard)

    Second, I'm almost certain that some people said that a franchise about mutated, talking, ninja, pizza eating turtles would be a flop. Oh, wait that's right, Teenage Ninja Mutant Turtles is one the biggest franchises marketed to kids. Same thing goes for Transformers, vehicles that turn into robots. Back when Hasbro introduced them I bet there were people questioning their intelligence. Of course now Transformers is one of the highest grossing franchises of all time despite what Michael Bay has done to them.

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 3:08 PM, amputech1 wrote:

    I totally disagree with Daniel Kline. This movie may not make as much as Iron Man and Avengers, of course, but Marvel has proven itself. Marvel makes great movies. I am not worried that " Guardians" will be a flop I think many people will agree with me that they can't wait to watch this movie. It features a great cast with some academy award winners. Maybe many people thought "Thor" wouldn't be as successful but it was and Thor isn't a super famous superhero. This is what I like about Marvel, they think outside the box. They are not afraid to use all their superheroes just because they aren't as famous. I honestly wish DC could learn something from Marvel. DC always uses their same heroes over and over again..batman and superman ....and they are really bad movies.

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 3:19 PM, tbplayer59 wrote:

    I agree with some of the posters that the problem with this article is perpetrating the notion that these characters are superheroes. If the public has that idea, yes, they will be disappointed in the movie. If Marvel can sell the idea that this isn't exactly related to the Avengers' universe, then it has a chance of succeeding.

    I think that was the biggest problem with Watchmen, which is a great movie. It was sold as a superhero movie in the wake of Iron Man, etc. Of course people were disappointed. It's the anti-superhero movie.

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 3:22 PM, tbplayer59 wrote:

    Another thought... what this movie has going for it is freshness. Never before seen characters in a big space opera. Face it, Iron Man 3 felt a little worn. If it's a great movie, it will be successful. Quality counts.

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 3:28 PM, amputech1 wrote:

    GOTG is going to blow everyone away!!!!!I'm sure I will see Mr. Daniel Kline buying his ticket on Aug.1st...

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 3:59 PM, Bigfuzzy666 wrote:

    I really wish Motley Fool would just go away. You're never right and just make it harder for those of us who genuinely love the Comics medium as a whole to enjoy a movie without months of negative faggotry to taint the whole experience. You ruin films and you ruin what used to be a fun experience in waiting for them to be released.

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 8:15 PM, Yahoo101 wrote:

    I actually thought the movie was gonna be good UNTIL I saw the trailer

  • Report this Comment On February 27, 2014, at 11:06 PM, tmcottle wrote:

    I see the Motley Tool is striking doom and gloom on something else..........

  • Report this Comment On February 28, 2014, at 12:48 AM, MontyMoonlight wrote:

    Certainly ballsy to say this movie won't be a huge success. I can't imagine it being anything but! The Marvel Cinematic Universe is insanely popular, and that will be the force that drives everyone to go see this! That and the fact that it has a GREAT trailer. The humorous tone of it is making people thing it will be more like Iron Man, too, which is getting them more amped up. Plus, everyone is already in love with that raccoon! This movie is going to be HUGE!

  • Report this Comment On February 28, 2014, at 1:04 AM, ToddPolt wrote:

    What do you mean by "Marvel standards"? If you mean the billions made by AVENGERS and IRON MAN 3, then yeah you would be right. But with this logic, do you call the other Marvel movies flops? No you don't. Let's strive for reasonable expectations.

    The first Captan America movie did $379 million global. We're getting an upcoming sequel. I think that's the goalpost for GOTG at this rate.

    Give Marvel credit, they seem to have a knack for giving their properties dramatic hooks to make audiences (even those who never picked up a funny book) to invest themselves in those characters and their worlds.

    Or put it another way, how is a talking raccoon with a trigger finger anymore difficult to sell than a walking U.S. flag and a Shakespeare-talking alien with a magic hammer?

  • Report this Comment On February 28, 2014, at 1:11 AM, ToddPolt wrote:

    Ten years ago, most people would've been able to tell you what Iron Man's civilian identity was.

    Now everybody knows Tony Stark.

  • Report this Comment On February 28, 2014, at 2:09 AM, doitinprivate wrote:

    Now I want to see this movie 10 times just to prove this writer wrong.

    Here's the thing about flops: they're generally not very good. Or they don't appeal to an audience broad enough to recoup their costs. Or their costs were outrageously high to begin with.

    The article counts "Kick-Ass" a hit. Okay. On to "Scott Pilgrim," with its highly unusual style and episodic structure, which cost too much, but everybody overlooks world b.o. and home video. Ditto "Watchmen," a nihilist fantasy that was going to disappoint anyone familiar with the source material and confuse those not familiar with it.

    "John Carter" at $250 million? Please.

    Chris Pratt can't "carry" a movie? Nobody "carries" movies anymore. Studios used to give stars a pile of money because their presence in the movie guaranteed an audience -- Let's go see the new So-and-So Movie, regardless of genre. Now reviews are in early and aggregated -- everybody knows before opening day whether the movie is a stinker. "Lone Ranger" much?

    Plus: kids. SF toys and action figures. Odd settings, weird-looking characters. The ratings system is so much more lax -- "comic book" violence with a machine-gun toting raccoon is fun for the whole family, but an actual Joe Pesci would be rated R.

    See you there, opening weekend, if it rates above 70% on Flixster. Otherwise I'll wait for home video.

  • Report this Comment On June 26, 2014, at 12:30 PM, Kreefan wrote:

    I just googled 'Gardians flop' and it led me here..

    I also had a chance to watch the first complete cut of the film (June 26th majority screening) and unfortunately its pretty horrible..

    everyone is overacting and it shows.. I cried because they butchered the entire comic world.. Ronan is a crazy overacting idiot, as well as Nebula and Collector...its just over the top bad and I don't think audiences will relate with it..at all..

    I wanted to root for Starlord but he's just not a likeable guy.. he comes off cocky but forced, moreso than Tony Stark but just plain bad acting... so by the end of the film I was rooting for the villains.. who come off as a disorganized group of misfits..

    The writer of this article is totally off though.. and wrong on so many levels..

    this movie will fail simply because its bad.. Cap 2 and X-men days are true gems though..

  • Report this Comment On August 03, 2014, at 11:57 AM, idgetmyasskicked wrote:

    So I had to register just to post this bump of thread. Just goes to show how wrong an analysis can be.

  • Report this Comment On August 03, 2014, at 5:12 PM, mac2j wrote:

    I bookmarked this thread just so I could go back and point out what utter crap this article was: see my comments above.

  • Report this Comment On August 04, 2014, at 2:49 PM, AaronLJL wrote:

    Well, that was embarrassing.

  • Report this Comment On August 05, 2014, at 11:22 AM, bradboss12 wrote:

    I guess you can't get it right all the time. I'm glad that you missed the mark on this one. My family didn't make opening weekend, but we are definitely going to see it. : )

  • Report this Comment On August 06, 2014, at 8:56 PM, WhiteKnight2012 wrote:

    Dude just stick with Microsoft... dumb@$$

  • Report this Comment On August 07, 2014, at 2:10 PM, Shaitan wrote:

    BAWAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!! $94 million!!! "A movie about an unknown group of superheroes that includes a talking raccoon and a tree that's sort of a person won't be a box office hit" -- how's that foot tasting??

    Listen buddy, one day you're going to discover that market saturation, recognizable franchises and box-office draw are not what make a great film. A great film makes a great film. PERIOD.

    Someday, when you pull your heart out of your wallet, you may get it. But you're an economics guy so .... yeah, probably not.,

  • Report this Comment On August 07, 2014, at 9:42 PM, MarvelRulesAll wrote:

    So.

    Much.

    Crow.

    ...to eat.

  • Report this Comment On August 08, 2014, at 12:17 AM, MistaMann wrote:

    HahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahaha

    <Deep Breath>

    HahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahahaHahahahahaha!

  • Report this Comment On August 08, 2014, at 3:23 PM, Starlord999 wrote:

    That's a fake laugh.

  • Report this Comment On August 08, 2014, at 6:43 PM, USAgent13 wrote:

    I am Groot!

  • Report this Comment On August 08, 2014, at 10:18 PM, arney1492 wrote:

    The movie was great.

  • Report this Comment On August 08, 2014, at 11:31 PM, SATXUSA wrote:

    Obviously the author did not collect comic books. The Marvel universe is full of original, entertaining and profitable characters. They have barely scratched the surface.

    Saw Guardians in 3D and it was awesome. Thanos, Galacticus and Silver Surfer will be coming down the pipe soon.

  • Report this Comment On August 31, 2014, at 7:55 PM, eroc wrote:

    You do realize this is now the #1 movie of the year in this country. Time to start writing a new article about next years ANT-MAN. You might just get it right.

  • Report this Comment On September 03, 2014, at 9:20 AM, FoolishLonghorn wrote:

    Good movie. Went with my wife last weekend.

    Still haven't read a comic book in the last 20 years, however.

  • Report this Comment On September 14, 2014, at 8:14 PM, Johnnya7780 wrote:

    Just passed $300M domestically this weekend. Care to retract any statements?

  • Report this Comment On October 13, 2014, at 3:52 PM, ce00100 wrote:

    Wow this movie just joined the $1 billion club! This is the biggest epic fail of an article ever haha

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2850414, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 12/19/2014 12:46:44 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...