Marvel's GUARDIANS of the GALAXY Vol. 2: May 5th, 2017 (1 Viewer)

[Jeff Adkins]

The unique thing about Guardians was that its soundtracks used songs that weren't used in a ton of movies.

I think they did a pretty good job with the 2nd film as far as that goes. Only "Fox On The Run" was bothersome in that I immediately associate it with Dazed And Confused. The first film however, I disagree. To me they used too many songs that were iconic in other films.

"Hooked On A Feeling" - I think of Reservoir Dogs

"Fooled Around And Fell In Love" - I think of Boogie Nights

"I'm Not In Love" - I go straight to The Virgin Suicides

"Come And Get Your Love" - I played the soundtrack to Dick hundreds of times after that movie came out, so that's what I think of

"Cherry Bomb" - Again, this one also totally belongs to Dazed And Confused

Many of the other songs have been used in quite a few movies. I think "Esape (The Pina Colada Song") has been used to death. However, none of them were really quite memorable like the songs I mentioned above.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I think they did a pretty good job with the 2nd film as far as that goes. Only "Fox On The Run" was bothersome in that I immediately associate it with Dazed And Confused. The first film however, I disagree. To me they used too many songs that were iconic in other films.

Fox On the Run wasn't even in Vol. 2 proper. It was on the soundtrack because it was used in the trailer. I don't think it's a problem to reuse songs that have been used in other films if they are in a new context. And the family audience that will go to Guardians wouldn't have seen any of the movies you listed above anyway. I'm pretty sure to this generation, "Hooked on a Feeling" will be inexorably linked to Guardians. But that doesn't mean some other film in the future can't find a completely different and valid use for it in the context of the story they're trying to tell.

 

[TJPC]

It’s not as if these random songs were actually written for any movie!

 

[Jeff Adkins]

Fox On the Run wasn't even in Vol. 2 proper. It was on the soundtrack because it was used in the trailer. I don't think it's a problem to reuse songs that have been used in other films if they are in a new context. And the family audience that will go to Guardians wouldn't have seen any of the movies you listed above anyway. I'm pretty sure to this generation, "Hooked on a Feeling" will be inexorably linked to Guardians. But that doesn't mean some other film in the future can't find a completely different and valid use for it in the context of the story they're trying to tell.

Fair point regarding "Fox On The Run". I work with a guy (he's 26) who played that soundtrack for weeks after the film came out and every time I heard it, it made me think of DAC. I had forgotten that it wasn't in the actual film itself.

I guess I feel like certain songs belong to certain films. Anytime I hear "Layla" used in anything else, it feels like it belongs to Goodfellas. If someone were to use "Miserlou" by Dick Dale (I don't think anyone else has), I'm immediately going to think of Pulp Fiction. I'm sure I could come up with numerous others. I'm sure you could too. But I do see your point regarding generations. I remember so many of my parents' friends complaining about "I Will Always Love You" being a big hit from The Bodyguard when they felt like it was robbing The Best Little Whorehouse In Texas (despite being a new recording by a different artist). It's never bothered me because I was too young to have seen the Dolly Parton version on film when it came out.

Again, I thought Gunn did a great job with the soundtrack for the second film. I just wish he had been as creative with the first one as he was for the second.

 

[Jeff Adkins]

It’s not as if these random songs were actually written for any movie!

No, but are you going to tell me that if you hear "Also sprach Zarathustra" used somewhere that you aren't going to associate it with 2001: a space odyssey?

 

[TJPC]

No, but are you going to tell me that if you hear "Also sprach Zarathustra" used somewhere that you aren't going to associate it with 2001: a space odyssey?

I guess I see a vast difference between using a piece of classical music as a background score and a bunch of pop tunes. I know that orchestral scores were abandoned in favour of pop tunes at one time on an attempt to sell more records.
As it was, Kubrick abandoned a score written for the movie by Alex North in favor of recordings from his own collection.

 

[Sam Favate]

On the subject of songs in movies, I always defer to David Chase, who effectively used so many songs in the Sopranos, who said that the key to using pre-existing songs in your work is that the song has to have some kind of emotional connection, however subtle, to whatever is going on in the scene. If you have that, it works.

I think a big problem with Suicide Squad was that it had great songs, albeit overplayed ones, but many of them lacked that connection to the scenes they were in. (Not all: You Don't Own Me by Lesley Gore was used effectively.)

 

[Jeff Adkins]

On the subject of songs in movies, I always defer to David Chase, who effectively used so many songs in the Sopranos, who said that the key to using pre-existing songs in your work is that the song has to have some kind of emotional connection, however subtle, to whatever is going on in the scene. If you have that, it works.

I think a big problem with Suicide Squad was that it had great songs, albeit overplayed ones, but many of them lacked that connection to the scenes they were in. (Not all: You Don't Own Me by Lesley Gore was used effectively.)

Agreed on both counts. There are plenty of songs that are just kind of thrown in to movies and don't get associated in people's minds. The thing I've always admired about Tarantino is that he (almost always) chooses songs that don't have a connection to a previous movie. "Across 110th Street" would be an exception, but I think it works in that setting.

 

[Tommy R]

Every single time I hear "Stuck in the middle with you" on the radio I picture Marvin Nash being tortured by Mr. Blonde. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

 

[Jake Lipson]

The latest rumor is that production on Vol. 3 is now being targeted for 2021.

https://movieweb.com/guardians-of-the-galaxy-3-production-start-2021-working-title/

Although a long way off, This actually makes sense, since it is far enough out that they could ask the cast to hold time in their schedules for 2021 without interfering with other current projects. It also means that among Pratt's schedule, the not-yet-filming Jurassic World will come out before we see Star Lord again (Avengers 4 notwithstanding.)

That would also give Disney plenty of time to throw out Gunn's script and commission a totally new one, if they want to throw his name off the movie altogether. I hope they don't, but they absolutely could if they are going to push this back that far.

 

[Sam Favate]

Wow, so 2022 for the third film? That's a whopping five years between installments, more than any other Marvel film has had (Thor had 4 years between parts 2 and 3).

I continue to think this is a big mistake and Disney should hire Gunn back to start filming next year.

Look at other movie series that took too long in between installments - very often the sequel didn't perform as well. (The new Star Trek series of films, for one.)

 

[Jake Lipson]

I continue to think this is a big mistake and Disney should hire Gunn back to start filming next year.

We've discussed this both here and privately, and you know I think this is the right call, but even if they wanted to backtrack, I don't think Gunn could do it now since WB has him under contract to work on Suicide Squad for the immediate future. And the cast has been freed to pursue other work during the time period they had set aside to shoot this.

Also, 2021 might be the earliest that Disney could ask the cast to carve out time for this production again. They aren't exactly waiting by the phone for Disney's call. Chris Pratt has Jurassic World 3 which will need to shoot in 2020 to make its June 2021 release date. Zoe Saldana is balancing a multi-film commitment to Avatar (which is soon to be a Disney franchise) and Star Trek (if they ever figure out what's going on with that.) Dave Bauista wants to join Suicide Squad. And so on. It is entirely possible that they can't get everyone free at the same time again until 2021. These are in-demand busy actors who will not stay out of work very long.

 

[Tino]

The Gunn issue is dead. Dead and buried. Beaten to death.

No amount of wishing or hoping or petitioning will bring him back. Ever.

It’s DISNEY

Time to move on.

 

[Sam Favate]

I suppose the new timetable, if true, could give credence to the idea that Marvel would like the Russos to direct. They'll be presenting Avengers 4 in 2019, these movies take about 3 years to put together, which makes 2022 the new date for GOTG3.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Disney has moved Jungle Cruise to July 24, 2020.

I bring this up in this thread because they have also removed a Marvel title that was set for July 31, 2020 from the release schedule entirely.

https://deadline.com/2018/10/dwayne...ZrGK_VQWeSQIe0jVkKzCh0JHJAVxpfql2pML1CtgT2rrQ

Obviously, they are hoping that Jungle Cruise (which until today was set for October 2019, a month Disney rarely uses for new film releases) will help fill the hole in their summer release slot.

This means they will only have two Marvel releases in 2020 -- one in May an one in November -- which is surprising but I guess is what happens when they nuke one of their own franchises.

I assume that Guardians was probably actually set internally for the May slot, but that one of the other two films slated for that year will be moved up. Disney would rather lose a Marvel title in July than in May, since their having the summer kickoff film on the first weekend of May is a tradition and they'll want to keep that going. (I'm including Infinity War in that too even though they moved it up since it was still the first big blockbuster of the summer this year.)

What's kind of surprising is that this means Disney will only have two MCU films for the next two years. In 2019, the third one is Spider-Man, which does count as a Marvel title but which will have its grosses going to Sony.

2020 is not a great time for Marvel to be at less than full strength, since Disney also does not currently have a new Star Wars title in 2020 either. (Episode IX will make some of its money in 2020 by virtue of its late December release date, but I mean a new release, since it still counts as a 2019 release.)

 

[holtge]

Who knows. Maybe one of Fox's Marvel titles will actually help the overall count that year.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

An interesting semi-left field choice to direct this would be Karen Gillan. Her directorial debut, The Party's Just Beginning, is making the rounds on the festival circuit right now. Opinions on the story and the script are mixed, but the direction is getting a lot of praise. Assuming Disney sticks with Gunn's script, that shortcoming wouldn't be a problem here. Gillan has a lot of experience with both comedy and action. And, obviously, she has history with the franchise.

There have been some people suggesting that the performance of Ant-Man and the Wasp won't trigger a third film in that series. Since it is at $621 million worldwide, I think they will probably do a third and are just waiting to announce it until after Avengers 4 along with the rest of their slate. I also think this uncertainty around Guardians actually makes them even more likely to do more Ant-Man, since they won't want to derail two franchises in a row.

It also helps that the Ant-Man movies are just about the cheapest movies Marvel makes, right now. When Ike Perlmutter was in charge, he was very aggressive at keeping budgets down, to the point where it alienated important talent. Since the Disney acquisition, budgets have ballooned such that Ant-Man and the Wasp's $130 million budget was the cheapest of the three Marvel movies released in 2018.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Karen Gillian would work for the same reason I thought Bradley Cooper would work before finding out he didn't want it, because she's already part of the franchise and has the cast's respect and would make everyone feel comfortable and likely strive to honor Gunn's overall vision. I haven't seen The Party's Just Beginning, but it would probably be worth Marvel taking a meeting with her at the very least.

 

[Tino]

Interesting suggestion but Ain’t ever gonna happen with her either. Just like it was never gonna happen with Cooper.

Disney will go with an established genre director or new talent.

Not any actor or actor/director from any of the Marvel films.

My money is on the Russo Bros.

 

[Jake Lipson]

My money is on the Russo Bros.

If they want it, I think that would absolutely be Disney's first choice. The cast is already comfortable with them from working on the Avengers films with them. However, these guys have been working with Marvel on four films since 2014 and may want to take a break and/or do something else. If that's the case, I think reaching out to Cooper or Gillian would be in their interest to at least discus it. There is no harm in taking the meeting.