Critique of Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 2

→ in
Tools    





MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD - You have been warned

Star-Lord:- his story ark is generic,- things happen to him, he doesn't make things happen. His heroics amounts to defeating evil within himself, which is ineffective story telling device if it enfolds as main struggle instead of it being psychological background of real events.

Gamora:- again, her presence is generic.

Drax:- one of two well developed characters. Humor with him works, his emotional arch is compelling, his heroic actions and his interaction with Mantis are reasonable and conscequential.

Rocket:- he's an *********, and not sympathetic one.

Baby Groot:- he's just stupid and therefore not funny, maybe if for 5 to 9 year olds.

Yondu:- he starts off as clear cut villain, then just because his situation has changed we are supposed to root for him and as luck would have it he dies as the greatest hero at the end. His character representation and/or development is sudden and with little rational foreshadowing. Besides, it took only one weapon for him to not only escape imprisonment but also to destroy entire spacehip with hostile crew, who could do nothing but wait for their turn to die a senseless death.

Nebula:- second of two well developed characters. She is the only reason Gamora has her stand out moment. Confrontation between two sisters was one of too few moments when I cared what was happening.

Mantis:- she had good interaction with Drax, but didn't stand out on her own.

Ego:- he was supposed to be many things, but ends up being nothing in particular. His ridiculously overpowered threat rested entirely in the willingness of Star-Lord to support it. Was there anybody in the audience who thought that would work out for him?

Sovereign people:- nothing but plot device.

Plot contrivances:- Vol 2 was full of them, especially in relation with Yondu. It is when first an outcome is established and plot is written to fit an outcome afterwards. What happens during plot contrivance is of little importance because the only reason it exists is to have a desired outcome and effect by the end of it, making a movie unengaging.




Welcome to the human race...
Star-Lord:- his story ark is generic,- things happen to him, he doesn't make things happen. His heroics amounts to defeating evil within himself, which is ineffective story telling device if it enfolds as main struggle instead of it being psychological background of real events.
Man-against-himself is a legitimate source of conflict, though - why exactly is it bad that it is framed as the main struggle? The conflict doesn't resonate unless there are emotional stakes, and Star-Lord has that in that his arc sees him make the choice between his actual father and the family he's made with the Guardians.

Gamora:- again, her presence is generic.
This statement is generic.

Drax:- one of two well developed characters. Humor with him works, his emotional arch is compelling, his heroic actions and his interaction with Mantis are reasonable and conscequential.
It seems strange that you'll complain about the other characters having bad character arcs but then praise Drax, who has one of the lesser arcs in the movie. Like Groot, he's kind of a flat character by design.

Rocket:- he's an *********, and not sympathetic one.
What makes him unsympathetic?

Baby Groot:- he's just stupid and therefore not funny, maybe if for 5 to 9 year olds.
I might just grant this since Groot is seemingly the weakest character by design (there's only so much you can do with a character with only three words of dialogue), but I found Baby Groot more tolerable than I expected.

Yondu:- he starts off as clear cut villain, then just because his situation has changed we are supposed to root for him and as luck would have it he dies as the greatest hero at the end. His character representation and/or development is sudden and with little rational foreshadowing. Besides, it took only one weapon for him to not only escape imprisonment but also to destroy entire spacehip with hostile crew, who could do nothing but wait for their turn to die a senseless death.
That's a redemption arc. He's not a straight-up villain - he's done good things and bad things, but he's got his reasons for doing both and he's got his own past trauma that makes him more sympathetic than generic raiders like Taserface. It does build upon subtle foreshadowing from the first film to boot.

Also, don't the parts with his arrow happen in slow-motion anyway? How do you even defend yourself against a weapon that moves faster than you can react and can shoot through walls?

Nebula:- second of two well developed characters. She is the only reason Gamora has her stand out moment. Confrontation between two sisters was one of too few moments when I cared what was happening.
Point conceded, even if it still short-changes Gamora.

Mantis:- she had good interaction with Drax, but didn't stand out on her own.
Is this really that much different from what you said about Drax?

Ego:- he was supposed to be many things, but ends up being nothing in particular. His ridiculously overpowered threat rested entirely in the willingness of Star-Lord to support it. Was there anybody in the audience who thought that would work out for him?
Well, he is called Ego, so it makes sense that he's so...egotistical that he mistakenly assumes that Star-Lord would automatically see things from his point of view because he's part-celestial and therefore not like "the others". It's a deliberately-developed character flaw, not a lapse in storytelling logic - the audience seeing through it doesn't mean that it doesn't work.

Sovereign people:- nothing but plot device.
I reckon they've got some solid thematics behind them - they are a race of "perfect" people who nevertheless depend on the imperfect Guardians to stop the monster at the start. Also, they are so intolerant of any slight against them that they will try to kill all the Guardians because Rocket stole a few small batteries as a joke. That, and their method of fighting using unmanned fighter ships that invite comparisons to drone warfare and videogame desensitisation. They may be a plot device here in order to provide a decoy antagonist to hide the fact that Ego is the true antagonist, but the post-credits scenes imply that they'll return in Vol 3 so they may yet get extra development.

Plot contrivances:- Vol 2 was full of them, especially in relation with Yondu. It is when first an outcome is established and plot is written to fit an outcome afterwards. What happens during plot contrivance is of little importance because the only reason it exists is to have a desired outcome and effect by the end of it, making a movie unengaging.
What exactly is wrong with an outcome-first development? Creating a story doesn't necessarily require starting at the beginning - starting with an ending and then figuring out the exact circumstances that would result in such an ending is just as legitimate a means of storytelling as setting up a beginning and seeing where it goes from there.
__________________
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0



Man-against-himself is a legitimate source of conflict, though - why exactly is it bad that it is framed as the main struggle?
A) It can not be observed. (I disregard CGI nonsense illustrations of internal struggle)
B) It has no context and can't be compelling.
The conflict doesn't resonate unless there are emotional stakes, and Star-Lord has that in that his arc sees him make the choice between his actual father and the family he's made with the Guardians.
Father whom he just met and who is responsible for his beloved mothers death. Additionally, Star- Lord is the protagonist making the plan "screenplay unfeasible" to work.
It seems strange that you'll complain about the other characters having bad character arcs but then praise Drax, who has one of the lesser arcs in the movie. Like Groot, he's kind of a flat character by design.
The moments he has adds to already established characteristics instead of demanding audience to revolutionize his character.
What makes him unsympathetic?
Most of the time he complains.
Also, don't the parts with his arrow happen in slow-motion anyway? How do you even defend yourself against a weapon that moves faster than you can react and can shoot through walls?
That's why such overpowered weapons are recipe for bore fest. THERE IS NO CONFLICT!
Is this really that much different from what you said about Drax?
Mantis has potential in further installments.
What exactly is wrong with an outcome-first development? Creating a story doesn't necessarily require starting at the beginning - starting with an ending and then figuring out the exact circumstances that would result in such an ending is just as legitimate a means of storytelling as setting up a beginning and seeing where it goes from there.
The problem is not intrinsic, but rather symptomatic. As benchmark movies should be 90 minutes long with continuously meaningful material. As opposed to contrived filler with added demand to suspend disbelief. In other words Vol 2 didn't make me care. If dude had otherwise experience, that's cool.



I've noticed in popular movies now, as long as the audience enjoys the humor, they'll enjoy the film, regardless of whether it's exciting, has good characters or a decent story. The studios know this which is why the jokes in the film were largely well crafted but the rest of it was not.



Welcome to the human race...
A) It can not be observed. (I disregard CGI nonsense illustrations of internal struggle)
B) It has no context and can't be compelling.
A) How do you acknowledge that the CGI illustrates the internal struggle yet still say that the struggle cannot be observed?
B) There's context. Star-Lord's hang-up over never knowing his father has lasted longer than the hang-up over his mother's death that he overcame in the first film, so that's what he's got to work through this time around - mixing that with his complicated relationship to Yondu and the squabbles he has with the surrogate family of the Guardians makes it compelling to a degree.

Father whom he just met and who is responsible for his beloved mothers death. Additionally, Star- Lord is the protagonist making the plan "screenplay unfeasible" to work.
It's not like he makes the choice immediately. It's pretty telling that Star-Lord is genre-savvy enough to call his relationship with Gamora a Sam-and-Diane example of unspoken romantic tension but not enough to immediately realise that his dad is the standard manipulative deadbeat (and only turns on Ego once he mentions the mum's brain tumour).

The moments he has adds to already established characteristics instead of demanding audience to revolutionize his character.
It's fine if it's just consistent building on his existing characterisation, but that's all that it is.

Most of the time he complains.
Not without reason.

That's why such overpowered weapons are recipe for bore fest. THERE IS NO CONFLICT!
The conflict in that particular sequence comes from the trio managing to escape captivity. Killing the raiders is just the cathartic aftermath.

Mantis has potential in further installments.
Granted.

The problem is not intrinsic, but rather symptomatic. As benchmark movies should be 90 minutes long with continuously meaningful material. As opposed to contrived filler with added demand to suspend disbelief. In other words Vol 2 didn't make me care. If dude had otherwise experience, that's cool.
I guess. Can't really imagine a 90-minute version of this, though.

I've noticed in popular movies now, as long as the audience enjoys the humor, they'll enjoy the film, regardless of whether it's exciting, has good characters or a decent story. The studios know this which is why the jokes in the film were largely well crafted but the rest of it was not.
Like I said to you in the other thread, you can't treat the humour as a completely separate element.



A system of cells interlinked
Clearly, a thread like this will contain spoilers, but I added a warning at the start of the thread just to be fair.
__________________
“It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.” ― Thomas Sowell



Like I said to you in the other thread, you can't treat the humour as a completely separate element.
You can treat every aspect of a film as a separate element. A film can have humor, action, romance, suspense, drama; different parts of the same story just as fingers and elbows are different parts of the same body.

You may not be able separate the humor from the story but you can definitely treat it separately from the story's other components, even when they overlap.