Talk:Guardians of the Galaxy (film)

Draft for Guardians of the Galaxy sequel

This is just a notice that there is a draft for the sequel to Guardians of the Galaxy at Draft:Guardians of the Galaxy 2 until such time that it is ready for inclusion in the mainspace. All are welcome to come help nurture the article's development there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Review in the Nerdist

This concerns this reversion [1]. I feel that, in addition to the independent value of Anderson's analysis, the fact that people are still talking about this movie two years later and comparing it to later releases is significant. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Favre1fan93: I feel that Anderson's review has considerable value. Not only does it demonstrate that the film is still relevant two years later, but while most of the other reviews in the critical response section say that the film was good or bad, Anderson gets into the underlying reasons why it was so well received. That more than earns the space it takes up, which I'm guessing might be your reason for removing it. Darkfrog24 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed it because your reasoning was "per the talk page" and I couldn't find anything supporting its inclusion (outside of your one post with no replies). You hardly waited a day for responses and apparently decided since no one commented, it was all good to add. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

With all due respect to The Nerdist, we already have over ten samples of reviews from some of the most prestigious newspapers and trade publications. The Nerdist is frankly not as reputable as these other sources. And as you say its only been two years, the film is still fresh in the zeitgeist. Its not like its the 30th anniversary or anything. Also I disagree with your claim, "while most of the other reviews in the critical response section say that the film was good or bad, Anderson gets into the underlying reasons why it was so well received." All the samples given state their reasoning. Besides the full review not even about this film, its about Deadpool.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, I waited more than a day and no one objected.

None of those other sources get into the underlying strategy or core issue of why the film was so popular. They're all talking about "cheeky tone" or individual actors' performances. Those are all surface issues. None of them talk about the adaptation of the work from the source material or what risks the studio did and did not decide to take. The fact that Guardians is being shown in the context of a wider pattern in superhero movies means that, while The Nerdist isn't The New York Times, it's also giving us some depth that NYT hasn't hit. Darkfrog24 (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

What is the MPAA Rating for this film?

I am a parent looking for films to watch with my children. It seems quite odd to me that given the depth of information that has been recorded about this film, I do not see the film's rating posted anywhere on this page? Someone might want to address that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.54.21.19 (talk) 17:20, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:FILMRATING for why no film ratings are not included (generally) on any film article across Wikipedia. Additionally, please also read WP:NOTFORUM. Talk pages are not forums, which this post is boarder line of going against that policy. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 24 August 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Per WP:SNOW, this isn't happening. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

---

Guardians of the Galaxy (film) → Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1 – I just found out that the second Guardians of the Galaxy movie will be titled Vol. 2. 2.85.7.245 (talk) 15:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Regardless of what the second film is called, the WP:COMMONNAME of the first film is not Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1. Betty Logan (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose The title of the sequel has no bearing on the name of this film. - DinoSlider (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose, rationale given does not meet WP:NAMECHANGES — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:11, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose. It's a made up name. PC78 (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. After the announcement of title of the sequel to this film, Gunn began referring to this film as Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1. However, that is not its name. Proper mention of this is included in the lead, but the page should not be moved to that location. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1

I agree with the anon editor on this one, Gunn calling it "Vol. 1" a few times seems extremely trivial. The film was not released under that title, has never been rereleased or marketed with that title, and is not known by that title. This is no different to people calling the first Iron Man film "Iron Man 1"- it's for clarity of language when talking about multiple similarly-titled films, not a retitling of this film. The lead is a summary of important information from the article, not a dumping ground for minutiae.

If, at some point in the future, the film is actually referred to as "Vol. 1", in any official capacity, then we could talk about adding it to the lead. -Fandraltastic (talk) 22:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, the article should not be named this, but there definitely should be a note saying this is vol. 1. The producers and distributors are clearly marketing the second film as vol. 2, which means they want this to be known as vol. 1. Chase (talk) 23:08, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The second film is titled Vol. 2. This film is not titled Vol. 1, nor is it commonly known as Vol. 1, nor is it referred to as Vol. 1 outside of a small handful of interviews with the director where he is comparing the two films. Most films are spoken about as [Title] 1 when a sequel comes around, we don't mention it because it's trivial, it's language so a speaker can clearly identify the film opposite its sequel. When people speak about the Godfather trilogy they call the first film Part I for clarity, that doesn't mean the film is commonly known as The Godfather Part I.

If the studio "[wants] this to be known as vol. 1" as you suggest then they'll refer to it as "Vol. 1" in a meaningful capacity at some future point, and we can add it as an alternate title then. That's not what the current sourcing indicates. -Fandraltastic (talk) 00:44, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It is very likely that, in the future, the Guardians of the Galaxy films will be sold in a complete package, and the first one will become "Vol. 1" or something like that. That was, for example, the case of the "Star Wars" film, which is now universally known as "A new hope", although that wasn't the original name. But that's something for the future. Right here and now, September 2016, there is a single Guardians of the Galaxy film, and it has not been renamed in advance, so we should stick to the way things are. After all, the "Vol. X" may be discarded along the way and replaced by some other numbering system. Cambalachero (talk) 01:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Since Gunn has referred to it as Vol. 1, and that is not standard (we wouldn't note it being called Guardians of the Galaxy 1, but Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1 is less obvious), I think it should be mentioned in the article, but perhaps how it currently is gives too much weight to an unofficial and non-common title. Why not a note, like we already have for Cosmo and Howard, that says Gunn retroactively refers to the film as Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 1? - adamstom97 (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that vol.2 will end up being called something else once it is released and thus not necessitating a retroactive name change. I recommend a "wait and see" approach. Betty Logan (talk) 02:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@Betty Logan: Why do you think that? Vol. 2 is it's title, after being known as the Guardians of the Galaxy sequel, or informally as Guardians of the Galaxy 2. For the topic at hand, I added this statement to the lead, because it seemed pretty notable to refer to the film in such a way, beyond just saying Guardians 1 etc. And it was multiple instances, not just a one time thing. I used "referred" to make it clear that it is not the official name of the film in any way (yet). And the lead seemed the best place to state such, because it has nothing to do with its "release" so it wouldn't fit there. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:13, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The placement and wording make it seem like an important piece of information, as though the film is commonly referred to as such. You're right that it has nothing to do with the production, or release, or anything the article covers, which is why it seems to be a piece of trivia ("the director retroactively used the sequel's numbering scheme to refer to the film"). Something does not have to be untrue to be trivial. Perhaps it will become commonly referred to as Vol. 1 down the line, which would warrant a mention, but that's not the case for now. -Fandraltastic (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)