Guardians Of The Galaxy has "franchise potential", new pics

News Simon Brew 8 May 2014 - 06:58

Disney's boss offers hints of a Guardians Of The Galaxy 2, as Marvel releases new pictures from the film...

As things stand, Marvel's phase three of movies in its cinematic universe is set to feature Captain America 3, Thor 3, Ant-Man, The Avengers 3 and more than likely Doctor Strange. Unless Marvel is looking to slot a sixth film into this particular phase, that's your lot until 2018.

One name missing from that slate is a possible Guardians Of The Galaxy 2. The first film, directed by James Gunn, is due out on August 1st, and is arguably the toughest sell Marvel has to date. That said, the trailer certainly helped. However, as things stand, there's no space in Marvel's calendar for a sequel until at least 2018 - which would be four years after the first movie came out.

But is Marvel planning a sequel anyway, or is this more of a standalone? Well, according to Disney CEO Bob Iger, Guardians Of The Galaxy is a film "we believe... has strong franchise potential". Those are not the words of a man who has ruled out Guardians Of The Galaxy 2 at all.

Talking further about the film, Iger said that it's "a whole other Marvel realm or universe in terms of where it takes place, the characters that populate it and the stories that you can tell for those characters. So, I think, I'm not going to predict that we've got another Avengers on our hands, but that's certainly the goal".

One last thing on Guardians Of The Galaxy while we're here: Marvel has released a pair of new stills from the film, featuring Chris Pratt. You can see those below.

Guardians Of The Galaxy arrives in cinemas on August 1st 2014.

CBM.

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Yes please.

I don't see why 'Guardians' doesn't have franchise potential. It can explore the literal Universe of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, which offers such a wide range of possibilities. Moreover, if they wish to take some inspiration from the comics, Abnett and Lanning's run offers some great stories and ideas for character arcs and evolution.

Because it opens up the whole of Marvel's "Cosmic Universe", basically.

I'll be 'ooga' chuckin my money at this when it comes out!

At this point, if Marvel want to start making 3-4 movies a year, I'm not complaining.

Franchise potential, of course. But got to see how the film fares first, it's just smart.

It doesn't rule out the character potentially popping up in cameos or supporting roles in other films either, I guess, in much the same way that Hulk has benefitted from his Avengers turn despite not having Hulk 2 nailed down anywhere yet.

Now substitute Marvel with "DC" or "Sony" and notice how your feelings instantly change. Funny thing, that.

Planet Hulk!

I read a comment from Kevin Feige the other day saying they have a great concept for an Avengers video game, but they aren't doing anything with it yet, because they are still looking for a developer who they think will do it justice.

This seems to be the way they do business these days, with a massive emphasis on quality over product. They could be churning out movies and games right now, but are taking their time, and getting it right. This is the complete opposite of Sony, who are trying to squeeze every last drop out of their cash cow.

I don't mind other studios copying Marvel. I just wish they would learn the right lesson

To their credit, Fox's attempts at building a cinematic universe with X-Men did take on board something from Marvel's. 'The Wolverine' told a complete story on its own and had one after-credits hinting at 'Days of Future Past'.

Sony, on the other hand, tried to use 'The Amazing Spider-Man 2' as a springboard for their Spidey cinematic universe by cramming as many references and origins into a single outing. The end result was quite detrimental to the actual story of the film itself.

Yeah, the jury is still out on Fox. There record has been very patchy up to now, but seem to be taking a longer approach now, and it's already looking better. The Wolverine was ok, and DOFP is looking surprisingly good at the moment.

On the other hand, they are also developing X-force, Deadpool, Mystique and Gambit movies at the moment. There might be mileage in an X-force movie, and Deadpool could be great (although VERY hard to get right), but does anyone care about a Mystique or Gambit solo movie? The Mystique one is clearly a Jennifer Lawrence vehicle, so will probably be terrible.

Also, don't even bother with FF. Just give it back to Marvel

Yes, FF should definitely go back to Marvel. Even if the FF themselves are left on the shelf for some time, it would be great to have the Skrulls, Silver Surfer and Galactus to use in the MCU. It would bring us a step closer to an 'Annihilation' adaptation.

I really think Marvel Studios is on the brink of going to 3 movies a year. A start of April / mid July / end of October schedule should be spaced out enough! With the Cosmic Universe being opened up there are far too many stories to tell in a 2 film schedule.

FF just don't make as much sense with the xmen as with Avengers.

How is it a hard sell? A talking racoon with a big gun

- there. Sold.

The FF are basically like a tightly-knit group/family of Avengers which share a common superhero origin, so they would definitely go well with the Avengers themselves. When it comes to the X-Men, you;re right, not so much.

To be fair, though, nothing in the Marvel universe really gels well with the X-Men. You do have to suspend belief quite a bit to accept that people in the same universe/planet praise the FF and Avengers and despise mutants when the only real difference between them is the source of their respective powers.

Hopefully GotG and sequel can be used to introduce other concepts/characters - eg GotG meet The Inhumans.

That's a good point. I'm perfectly fine with xmen staying with Fox, they seem to be fixing some things and dofp looks awesome. Besides, apocalypse is my favorite big bad.

DoG, of COURSE there will be a sixth film in Phase 3. You keep getting the number of films wrong, in every single article. One in 2015, two in 2016, two in 2017, Avengers in 2018. For pity's sake, it's not that difficult, you shouldn't be screwing up in the first paragraph.

You mean like how DC decided to move back the Batman vs Superman movie to make sure it was done well even though they could have cashed in no matter what??

The film was laughably poor

Which one? 'Spider-Man' or 'Wolverine'?

Or possibly so it doesn't suck as hard as the abortion that is Man Of Steel

...Or the initial schedule for that film was shoddy even for DC & Warner's slapdash approach.

I heavily suspect it'll join it's fellow Marvel endeavours in the realm of 'OK'. Except Captain America. That was far, far from OK.

I'm a Marvel guy as well (at least in the movies), but I was entertained by Man of Steel. I agree they could have done better in both character development and dialogue, but it was good to see Superman back on the screen and done by someone who genuinely seems to love the material (despite what you think of his directorial choices). Enough of the movie was done well and it set up a solid foundation for future films. I also like that the tone is different than Marvel and Spiderman to give us something different while still getting superheroes.
I think now that the origin is out of the way (again), Snyder will have a chance to dig deeper into the characters that have been established while establishing new characters (that will probably have poor development initially) that can be explored in the Justice League movie.
Marvel obviously hit a homerun with its world-building and DC is playing catch-up, but I cannot be upset when we are still getting fun, entertanining movies that are well worth my $12.

I'd rather like to see Mads Mikkelsen as Doctor Strange...

I like Snyder! Watchmen is terribly underrated (though I'm pro-squid so that still pisses me off) and if anything I think Snyder minus the Nolan and Goya influence would have absolutely nailed a bright and hopeful Superman with some actual heart and maybe even made a lick of sense (unlike anything in MOS). I say that sincerely: Pro-Snyder, very tired of the Nolan/Goya aesthetic.

Yeah I didn't take any convincing either.

Spider-Man, some of the worst character development in a film ever! Wolverine was dire, the first half of The Wolverine was ok

I thought Wolverine was just ok, but definitely nothing remarkable or really worth remembering.

Spider-Man was pretty hit-and-miss; I appreciated the brighter colour tone, genuine chemistry between Garfield and Stone, Dehaan's Harry Osborn, the improved special effects and the fight choreography in certain cases. I really wanted to like the film, but the rest was pretty much a mess and nothing more than set-up for future instalments.

The Rhino was embarrassingly bad. The set up for the sinister six wasn't the best sign of things to come, its like here is some tech just add bad guys. The criminals need to have their back story.

made sure it was done well? You suuuuuuuuure about that?

Disney seem to be pushing for that more than anyone, I think Kevin Fegie was happy with 2 movies a year so as to maintain the quality control but Disney are intent on cashing in, can't blame them really the fans are clamoring for Marvel movies so they may as well up the output.

Sponsored Links