New at BOP: Review: Matrix Resurrections Movie Review: Moonfall Movie Reviews: Scream The #1 Movie in America November Forecast The Many Saints of Newark October Forecast New Trivia Question All site updates Share & Save   Tweet Print this column

Edwin Davies: David's absolutely right that much of the reason for this success lies in the aggressive-verging-on-assaultive advertising campaign, which did a great job of introducing people to the characters and selling the light-hearted tone of the film without actually telling people that much about it (it's the first Marvel film that seems to be sold primarily on the idea of hanging out with some fun characters for a few hours) and the way that first Marvel and then Disney have built the reputation of the brand over the last six years. (Incidentally, isn't it insane that a mere six years ago the idea that people would be excited for an Iron Man film seemed like a gamble and that the plans to build to an Avengers film seemed like the fevered dream of mad man?) Whereas before the films were sold on a premise or a particularly appealing lead actor, now the brand alone guarantees a floor for these films regardless of any other factor.

That's partly the result of great advertising, but it's also down to solid, dependable filmmaking. Marvel makes fun, agreeable blockbusters that sometimes achieve greatness (The Avengers) but never end up being awful. That's not an easy thing to achieve, but they've settled on a formula that works and they've avoided making any outright duds (I mean, there's an argument to be made about The Incredible Hulk, but even that wasn't a complete failure) or over saturating the market. They've created their own self-sustaining ecosystem in which each film reinforces the others.

Also, if we're talking about what other pop culture items Guardians of the Galaxy reminded us of, I spent the whole film thinking that it was basically Farscape if the main character was Indiana Jones, which isn't a bad combination.

Felix Quinonez: I think it mostly comes down to the Marvel name. They've not only gained audience loyalty that rivals Pixar at their peak but because they've established a shared universe people feel like all these movies are connected and want to see them all.

Bruce Hall: I have to agree. I'm not convinced that anybody loves Thor, Captain America, and even Iron Man as much as they love the Marvel Universe in general. The multi-property spanning cinema universe they've created is beginning to mirror the comic universe that inspired it. It's a world Disney already knows well. Its own properties, as well as their newly acquired Star Wars universe, both rely on brand name recognition. It doesn't matter what the next Disney movie is about, because you're going to see it. Star Wars fans are excited about the possibility of a Boba Fett movie. This is a character who never did anything but become breakfast for a giant ant lion. But it doesn't matter. Star Wars is Star Wars.

I believe the Marvel cinematic world is fast approaching this level of ubiquity. I've said many times that the superhero movie is not going away anytime soon. What we're seeing is not the end, but merely the adolescence of the genre.

Jason Barney: This opening is the story of the summer, probably for the year, and will deserve a footnote in the history of the industry. I am shocked on many levels and feel a small measure of satisfaction in what happened this weekend.

First, I recall a headline from the early 2000s which asked if Marvel was going to be able to save Hollywood. It was in the context of the Spider-Man and X-Men films gaining popularity more than 10 years ago. That question was answered, and interest in tie-ins like Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, and Avengers skyrocketed. The line has not been moving straight up with respect to each of these, but well, pretty close. When a brand like this has become so popular and so successful it is only natural to try and attempt to expand on what has worked.

I read this comic when I was a teenager, and it is definitely one of the less known Marvel properties. I was surprised when I learned of the initial decision to bring Guardians of the Galaxy to the big screen, and I was disappointed by the price tag. There are a lot more worthy projects that could have seen this level of investment, as $170 is massive. On some level I thought it was arrogance that Disney and Marvel would be willing to spend so much with so little foundation or national exposure. I was scratching my head to say the least. David mentioned John Carter and the misfire that it was. I think another worthy comparison is The Lone Ranger last year. It seems Disney just has the resources to throw as many darts out there as they can, hoping, perhaps knowing, that some of them are bound to hit the mark.

Continued:       1       2       3       4