![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
@ TriiipleThreat, Favre1fan93, Richiekim, and Adamstom.97: All righty, following through on WP:BRD, I have a bone to pick with the post-credits scene's inclusion in the plot summary. I already removed it and was reverted, so I come here. I fail to see why the completely inconsequential scene should be included in this plot summary. If it were literally anywhere else in the film, it wouldn't be included because it would be irrelevant. Perhaps right after Tivan's collection explodes, we see Cosmo lick him and Howard make fun of him, then the film goes on. Would we include that? In my opinion, no, we wouldn't. And honestly, I cannot disagree more with the rationale of "Other MCU films include post credit scenes in the plot section". MCU films are not immune to WP:FILM standards and WP:FILMPLOT, and yet this post-credit scene sits here in all of its irrelevance. What are some other thoughts?
Note: I am not, in any way, opposed to including post-credit scenes. However, inconsequential or joke ones (such as this film's scenes, the shawarma scene in
The Avengers, the Bruce Banner scene in
Iron Man 3) have no basis for inclusion, in my opinion.
Sock
(tock talk)
15:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
On a lark I checked the word count and got 701, one over the WP:FILMPLOT recommendation. i wouldn't remove this information for a one word violation, but if the plot is expanded further this would be on the shortlist of things I might be inclined to remove. So maybe it's a question of how we anticipate the plot summary evolving and whether it might be worth removing this in favor of more pertinent material. DonIago ( talk) 17:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
You can find all my points and arguments here:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film)/Archive_2#Box_office_-_overbloated
Basically, too many details that aren't notable (e.g. opening weekends in various countries that weren't records of any sort etc), recentism, application of ranking methods/criteria that are meaningless (as in they don't offer any insight into why the film's run is considered notable/significant).
Please consider weighing in with specific targeted arguments.
This is my version:
Box office
Guardians of the Galaxy has earned $332,226,145 in North America, as of December 7, 2014, and $439,600,000 in other countries, as of November 16, 2014, for a worldwide total of $771,826,145.[3] Worldwide, it is the second highest-grossing non-sequel superhero film, behind Spider-Man,[192][193] the third highest-grossing film in the MCU, behind The Avengers and Iron Man 3,[194] the second highest-grossing 2014 film and the highest-grossing superhero film of 2014.[195] It had a worldwide opening weekend of $160.7 million.[196]
North America
Guardians of the Galaxy is the highest-grossing 2014 film[197] and the third highest-grossing MCU film.[198] It earned $11.2 million during its Thursday late-night showings, the biggest Thursday late-night start in 2014.[199] IMAX accounted for 17% of the total gross ($1.9 million), setting an August record for IMAX late-night showings.[151] On its opening day, the film earned $37.8 million, including the Thursday late-night earnings.[200] It topped the box office during its opening weekend with $94.3 million, setting an opening-weekend record for August[201] and scoring the third biggest debut of 2014.[202] The film's success was partially attributed to its appeal to both genders: the opening weekend audience was 44% female, which is the biggest proportion ever for a MCU film,[201] and 55% was over the age of 25. During its opening weekend, 3-D showings accounted for 45% of ticket sales, while the IMAX opening-weekend gross set a record for the month of August ($11.7 million).[201]
Although the film fell to second place in its second and third weekends, behind Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,[203][204] it topped the box office on its fourth, fifth and sixth weekend.[205][206][207] It tied The Dark Knight for the most weeks at number one (four in total) among superhero films[208] and also scored the third largest Labor Day four-day weekend.[209] As of December 10, 2014, it is the only 2014 film to have passed $300 million.[210] It remained in the Top 10 for ten weekends[211] and was said to have "injected life" into an otherwise lower than normal summer box office.[212][213][214]
Outside North America
It is the eighth highest-grossing 2014 film[215] and the fifth highest-grossing MCU film.[198] On its opening weekend, Guardians of the Galaxy was released in 42 markets and grossed $67.4 million.[216] The film topped the weekend box office two times, on its first and second weekends.[217] On its twelfth weekend, it was in a close second ($22.0 million), behind Dracula Untold (estimated $22.5 million), although this ranking is based on estimates since the the actuals for the latter were not reported.[194] Its biggest opening occurred in China ($31.1 million),[218] where the film set an October opening-weekend record,[219] followed by Russia and the CIS ($12.9 million) and the UK, Ireland and Malta ($10.7 million).[220] These are also the three biggest markets in total earnings for the film: $96.5 million in China, $47.4 million in the UK, Irleand and Malta and $37.5 million in Russia and the CIS.[220] Spinc5 ( talk) 16:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
After reading snippets of the previous discussion on this topic, I am rather surprised that the box office section is still overwhelmed with extraneous details. Spinc5' suggested version fixes most of the issues of the current version. For example, the introduction makes a not-so-notable remark that it was the "7th" film to hit the $200 million mark and attaches it with a by-the-way comment that it was accomplished "in 10 days." The overseas section also suffers the same problem with overly stretched comparisons to other CB movies and insignificant remarks such as "seventh highest grossing market for the film." If were to report every single weekend gross of every country then the text would go on for pages. I think Spinc5's approach is the most reasonable and effective one. -- Eddyghazaley ( talk) 22:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Where should I start?
1. "fourth Marvel Studios film to surpass $700 million" For the umpteenth time I will tell you that this is not significant. $700M is an arbitrary threshold. Why not say "third Marvel Studios film to surpass $750 million". This will be removed unless you finally provided any concrete argument to justify these additions.
2. You said you removed "rankings that [...] would possibly eventually change". However, you added "the biggest Thursday evening start for a movie in 2014" and "Its debut weekend gross was the third biggest of 2014". These are not true anymore, unlike the rankings I added: "highest-grossing 2014 film and the third highest-grossing MCU film" which are arguably more relevant as they compare across a wider range of films and talk about total gross - not midnight numbers. In retrospect, the total gross matters more.
3. You say: "the first film in 2014 to top the domestic box office in non-consecutive weeks". Why is this so important? Other films have achieved this in previous years. Compare it first at an all-time level and check if it has a significant ranking. If not, then don't mention it at all.
4. Same stands for this: "first MCU film to be the top film for four weeks". COUNTLESS non-MCU films have achieved this. We can use the criterion "MCU films" for a certain number of milestones (opening weekend, total gross, opening day) but "number of weeks at number one" is too trivial a milestone to rank it only against MCU films. If it had compared well against all films all-time, then this would be relevant.
5. Menitoning the date for every single record overwhelms the article. In the case of "it became the biggest film of the year", why is the date even important to anyone who's reading the article. Does it matter if it was in October or December or whatever?
6. In the overseas section, you are mentioning too many countries (Mexico, Brazil, South Korea) without justifying their importance. The film did not break any records in those countries and they weren't its biggest territories - I believe the three biggest territories are sufficient.
7. "In its sixth weekend, Guardians of the Galaxy was playing in 69 territories, its most" I do not understand why this is important.
8. "Guardian of the Galaxy 's twelfth weekend saw an additional $21.3 million from China" Is the fact that it was its twelfth weekend important? Also, why is the second weekend of its run in China important? We mentioned its opening weekend and its final gross. I believe that's enough.
In contrast with previous occasions, your version is not the consensus. Please justify your changes USING SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS otherwise they will be undone. Thank you. Spinc5 ( talk) 00:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Today, tomorrow, five years from now, those are still accomplishments for the film. And they all relate and tie into the first sentence of that paragraph, as well as the "injected life" sentence. It is not like they are just being listed; by starting that sentence with "By doing so", it is tying it to the weekend number one information. As for the international information, the only thing (again) based on what you said, would be to remove the South Korea. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Recently an IP editor added verbiage regarding the cassette tape Quill opens at the end of the film. I saw the edit and didn't revert it, because it was accurate. Darkwarriorblake reverted the edit, however, because the initial cassette tape is not mentioned in the plot summary, which is correct. My issue is that in an earlier incarnation of the article the original tape was mentioned (it was the version right before the article was nominated for GA status). The only reason the cassette at the end of the film is relevant is due to Quill's having gotten the earlier cassette tape. I think that either the earlier tape needs to be mentioned at the beginning of the plot summary (and then the IP's edit re-established), or the mention of the second cassette tape should be omitted. Onel5969 ( talk) 14:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The tape does not need to be mentioned anywhere else in the plot for the plot to make sense, the only important aspect is that he finally opens the last gift he received from his mother, resolving his mother issues. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
We seem to have the beginnings of a possible edit war on this issue; so just putting this here as an encouragement for editors to discuss the matter. DonIago ( talk) 20:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
James Gunn is doing an event right now where he is watching the film along with fans and posting behind-the-scenes info, stories, etc. as comments on a specific post as the movie goes on to form a live commentary. Should something he says be appropriate for inclusion in this article, how would one cite the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.33.204 ( talk) 04:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lead describe the orb as a "powerful, coveted orb"? OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 22:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Any objection to "powerful artifact" in place of "powerful orb"? DonIago ( talk) 14:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
This article was never nominated for a DYK. Anyone up to helping create one? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 05:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the lead should say science fiction and not superhero because it does not fit the general superhero genre formula. If it wasn't based on comic books, it probably wouldn't be considered to be superhero movie at all. However, with all the space travel, aliens and advanced technology, it clearly fits the science fiction formula. JDDJS ( talk) 00:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"a science fiction film is a subgenre of a superhero film " I'm sorry, but that is 100% wrong. Majority of science fiction films are not considered superhero films. They are completely different. Are you seriously trying to say that movies like Star Trek, E.T., District 9, Back to the Future, Her, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Alien are superhero films? If anything, superhero films would be a subgenre of science fiction, but even that doesn't work because of movies like Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Kick-Ass and the Legend of Zorro. And your compromise to use "comic book film" is not at all valid because that is not a genre. We don't call Harry Potter a novel film. JDDJS ( talk) 04:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
In an interview with GQ in the frame of the promo of Jurassic World, Chris Pratt has indicated that he signed to appear as Star-Lord in five films, which includes two Guardians of the Galaxy sequels, and two other unspecified films. Therefore I think the section header should be plural. Hektor ( talk) 07:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why has someone reverted the annotation that the cassette at the end of the movie can be considered a 'Vol 2'?
Hello, earlier this month I amended a minor error in the plot summary which was reverted, namely, that Rocket crashes the Milano into the Dark Aster to disable it, when, in fact, after several rewatches of the film, Quill's group had used the Milano way earlier to breach the Dark Aster in the first place. Rocket was separated from the group in his own personal ship (dubbed in the unofficial wiki as the Warbird or something, and easily distinguishable from the Milano by its enormous wing guns), which he rams the Dark Aster with, not the Milano. Is there something I or anyone else can do about this without edit warring like crazy? 124.189.145.155 ( talk) 02:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Guardians of the Galaxy (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't recall it being said in the film, or in the credits, but during the Nova line-up scene, it is listed in Quill's data as "Kraglin Obfonteri". Reliable source for this here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
GoneIn60, I wanted to go into more detail why I reverted your edit as a courtesy to you. The "Accolades" section of this article shows that the film won an award for "Best Ensemble" at the the 2014 Detroit Film Critics Society Awards. Also, it was a nominee for the award of "Best Ensemble Acting" at the 2014 Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards. This alone should be enough to convince anyone it's an ensemble film, but if it isn't then you still have the other sources to go along with it to say that it is. Combine all this with the fact that Ensemble cast defines an ensemble as, "made up of cast members in which the principal actors and performers are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance and screen time in a dramatic production." and there can be no doubt that this is an ensemble film. Huggums537 ( talk) 01:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Notice: I want to make it duly noted that my opening statements here point to specific parts of the article that are reliably referenced. Therefore, the citation of reliable sources is implied within my statements. Thank you. Huggums537 ( talk) 23:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
each member of the ensemble cast steals every scene they are inas referring to Hounsou, or (a bit more debatably) Reilly. Also, you are (strictly speaking) wrong to say the source uses the word twice in the same way we do -- in the second instance "it" clearly refers to the film itself rather than the cast. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with adding sources in the lead if that source contains extra information (not found in the body) to support it.is contrary to WP:LEDE's
Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.Huggums, it seems you still don't understand what my problem was: I wasn't saying that including citations in the lead was a problem in itself, which was the implication of your
both of the concerns hijiri had at the same time, effectively killing two birds with one stone-- only the second bird you list was actually a concern I had; yes, I don't like the prospect of having a lone citation in the lead for a single peripheral detail, but that's just a cosmetic issue and it wasn't what I was talking about above.
In August 2013, Marvel announced that Bradley Cooper would voice Rocket,[38] joining the ensemble cast.[127]is a poorly constructed sentence and that the use of "ensemble" here is awkward and POINTy, and would be redundant if the far superior description
The film features an ensemble cast.were added at the top of the "Cast" section. Think about it -- why is the main feature of the lead's description of the cast supported by a statement in the "Filming" section rather than the "Cast" section? Technically, Marvel's announcement of the casting of Cooper isn't even related to "Filming" per se (Rocket is entirely CGI, and Cooper's involvement in the film was mainly as a voice actor; the sentence is included where it is for chronological rather than thematic reasons). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Guardians of the Galaxy (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
@ TriiipleThreat, Favre1fan93, Richiekim, and Adamstom.97: All righty, following through on WP:BRD, I have a bone to pick with the post-credits scene's inclusion in the plot summary. I already removed it and was reverted, so I come here. I fail to see why the completely inconsequential scene should be included in this plot summary. If it were literally anywhere else in the film, it wouldn't be included because it would be irrelevant. Perhaps right after Tivan's collection explodes, we see Cosmo lick him and Howard make fun of him, then the film goes on. Would we include that? In my opinion, no, we wouldn't. And honestly, I cannot disagree more with the rationale of "Other MCU films include post credit scenes in the plot section". MCU films are not immune to WP:FILM standards and WP:FILMPLOT, and yet this post-credit scene sits here in all of its irrelevance. What are some other thoughts?
Note: I am not, in any way, opposed to including post-credit scenes. However, inconsequential or joke ones (such as this film's scenes, the shawarma scene in
The Avengers, the Bruce Banner scene in
Iron Man 3) have no basis for inclusion, in my opinion.
Sock
(tock talk)
15:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
On a lark I checked the word count and got 701, one over the WP:FILMPLOT recommendation. i wouldn't remove this information for a one word violation, but if the plot is expanded further this would be on the shortlist of things I might be inclined to remove. So maybe it's a question of how we anticipate the plot summary evolving and whether it might be worth removing this in favor of more pertinent material. DonIago ( talk) 17:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
You can find all my points and arguments here:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_(film)/Archive_2#Box_office_-_overbloated
Basically, too many details that aren't notable (e.g. opening weekends in various countries that weren't records of any sort etc), recentism, application of ranking methods/criteria that are meaningless (as in they don't offer any insight into why the film's run is considered notable/significant).
Please consider weighing in with specific targeted arguments.
This is my version:
Box office
Guardians of the Galaxy has earned $332,226,145 in North America, as of December 7, 2014, and $439,600,000 in other countries, as of November 16, 2014, for a worldwide total of $771,826,145.[3] Worldwide, it is the second highest-grossing non-sequel superhero film, behind Spider-Man,[192][193] the third highest-grossing film in the MCU, behind The Avengers and Iron Man 3,[194] the second highest-grossing 2014 film and the highest-grossing superhero film of 2014.[195] It had a worldwide opening weekend of $160.7 million.[196]
North America
Guardians of the Galaxy is the highest-grossing 2014 film[197] and the third highest-grossing MCU film.[198] It earned $11.2 million during its Thursday late-night showings, the biggest Thursday late-night start in 2014.[199] IMAX accounted for 17% of the total gross ($1.9 million), setting an August record for IMAX late-night showings.[151] On its opening day, the film earned $37.8 million, including the Thursday late-night earnings.[200] It topped the box office during its opening weekend with $94.3 million, setting an opening-weekend record for August[201] and scoring the third biggest debut of 2014.[202] The film's success was partially attributed to its appeal to both genders: the opening weekend audience was 44% female, which is the biggest proportion ever for a MCU film,[201] and 55% was over the age of 25. During its opening weekend, 3-D showings accounted for 45% of ticket sales, while the IMAX opening-weekend gross set a record for the month of August ($11.7 million).[201]
Although the film fell to second place in its second and third weekends, behind Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles,[203][204] it topped the box office on its fourth, fifth and sixth weekend.[205][206][207] It tied The Dark Knight for the most weeks at number one (four in total) among superhero films[208] and also scored the third largest Labor Day four-day weekend.[209] As of December 10, 2014, it is the only 2014 film to have passed $300 million.[210] It remained in the Top 10 for ten weekends[211] and was said to have "injected life" into an otherwise lower than normal summer box office.[212][213][214]
Outside North America
It is the eighth highest-grossing 2014 film[215] and the fifth highest-grossing MCU film.[198] On its opening weekend, Guardians of the Galaxy was released in 42 markets and grossed $67.4 million.[216] The film topped the weekend box office two times, on its first and second weekends.[217] On its twelfth weekend, it was in a close second ($22.0 million), behind Dracula Untold (estimated $22.5 million), although this ranking is based on estimates since the the actuals for the latter were not reported.[194] Its biggest opening occurred in China ($31.1 million),[218] where the film set an October opening-weekend record,[219] followed by Russia and the CIS ($12.9 million) and the UK, Ireland and Malta ($10.7 million).[220] These are also the three biggest markets in total earnings for the film: $96.5 million in China, $47.4 million in the UK, Irleand and Malta and $37.5 million in Russia and the CIS.[220] Spinc5 ( talk) 16:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
After reading snippets of the previous discussion on this topic, I am rather surprised that the box office section is still overwhelmed with extraneous details. Spinc5' suggested version fixes most of the issues of the current version. For example, the introduction makes a not-so-notable remark that it was the "7th" film to hit the $200 million mark and attaches it with a by-the-way comment that it was accomplished "in 10 days." The overseas section also suffers the same problem with overly stretched comparisons to other CB movies and insignificant remarks such as "seventh highest grossing market for the film." If were to report every single weekend gross of every country then the text would go on for pages. I think Spinc5's approach is the most reasonable and effective one. -- Eddyghazaley ( talk) 22:19, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Where should I start?
1. "fourth Marvel Studios film to surpass $700 million" For the umpteenth time I will tell you that this is not significant. $700M is an arbitrary threshold. Why not say "third Marvel Studios film to surpass $750 million". This will be removed unless you finally provided any concrete argument to justify these additions.
2. You said you removed "rankings that [...] would possibly eventually change". However, you added "the biggest Thursday evening start for a movie in 2014" and "Its debut weekend gross was the third biggest of 2014". These are not true anymore, unlike the rankings I added: "highest-grossing 2014 film and the third highest-grossing MCU film" which are arguably more relevant as they compare across a wider range of films and talk about total gross - not midnight numbers. In retrospect, the total gross matters more.
3. You say: "the first film in 2014 to top the domestic box office in non-consecutive weeks". Why is this so important? Other films have achieved this in previous years. Compare it first at an all-time level and check if it has a significant ranking. If not, then don't mention it at all.
4. Same stands for this: "first MCU film to be the top film for four weeks". COUNTLESS non-MCU films have achieved this. We can use the criterion "MCU films" for a certain number of milestones (opening weekend, total gross, opening day) but "number of weeks at number one" is too trivial a milestone to rank it only against MCU films. If it had compared well against all films all-time, then this would be relevant.
5. Menitoning the date for every single record overwhelms the article. In the case of "it became the biggest film of the year", why is the date even important to anyone who's reading the article. Does it matter if it was in October or December or whatever?
6. In the overseas section, you are mentioning too many countries (Mexico, Brazil, South Korea) without justifying their importance. The film did not break any records in those countries and they weren't its biggest territories - I believe the three biggest territories are sufficient.
7. "In its sixth weekend, Guardians of the Galaxy was playing in 69 territories, its most" I do not understand why this is important.
8. "Guardian of the Galaxy 's twelfth weekend saw an additional $21.3 million from China" Is the fact that it was its twelfth weekend important? Also, why is the second weekend of its run in China important? We mentioned its opening weekend and its final gross. I believe that's enough.
In contrast with previous occasions, your version is not the consensus. Please justify your changes USING SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS otherwise they will be undone. Thank you. Spinc5 ( talk) 00:11, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
Today, tomorrow, five years from now, those are still accomplishments for the film. And they all relate and tie into the first sentence of that paragraph, as well as the "injected life" sentence. It is not like they are just being listed; by starting that sentence with "By doing so", it is tying it to the weekend number one information. As for the international information, the only thing (again) based on what you said, would be to remove the South Korea. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 20:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Recently an IP editor added verbiage regarding the cassette tape Quill opens at the end of the film. I saw the edit and didn't revert it, because it was accurate. Darkwarriorblake reverted the edit, however, because the initial cassette tape is not mentioned in the plot summary, which is correct. My issue is that in an earlier incarnation of the article the original tape was mentioned (it was the version right before the article was nominated for GA status). The only reason the cassette at the end of the film is relevant is due to Quill's having gotten the earlier cassette tape. I think that either the earlier tape needs to be mentioned at the beginning of the plot summary (and then the IP's edit re-established), or the mention of the second cassette tape should be omitted. Onel5969 ( talk) 14:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
The tape does not need to be mentioned anywhere else in the plot for the plot to make sense, the only important aspect is that he finally opens the last gift he received from his mother, resolving his mother issues. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
We seem to have the beginnings of a possible edit war on this issue; so just putting this here as an encouragement for editors to discuss the matter. DonIago ( talk) 20:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
James Gunn is doing an event right now where he is watching the film along with fans and posting behind-the-scenes info, stories, etc. as comments on a specific post as the movie goes on to form a live commentary. Should something he says be appropriate for inclusion in this article, how would one cite the source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.228.33.204 ( talk) 04:19, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the lead describe the orb as a "powerful, coveted orb"? OnBeyondZebrax ( talk) 22:33, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Any objection to "powerful artifact" in place of "powerful orb"? DonIago ( talk) 14:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
This article was never nominated for a DYK. Anyone up to helping create one? - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 05:58, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
I think the lead should say science fiction and not superhero because it does not fit the general superhero genre formula. If it wasn't based on comic books, it probably wouldn't be considered to be superhero movie at all. However, with all the space travel, aliens and advanced technology, it clearly fits the science fiction formula. JDDJS ( talk) 00:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
"a science fiction film is a subgenre of a superhero film " I'm sorry, but that is 100% wrong. Majority of science fiction films are not considered superhero films. They are completely different. Are you seriously trying to say that movies like Star Trek, E.T., District 9, Back to the Future, Her, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Alien are superhero films? If anything, superhero films would be a subgenre of science fiction, but even that doesn't work because of movies like Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Kick-Ass and the Legend of Zorro. And your compromise to use "comic book film" is not at all valid because that is not a genre. We don't call Harry Potter a novel film. JDDJS ( talk) 04:48, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
In an interview with GQ in the frame of the promo of Jurassic World, Chris Pratt has indicated that he signed to appear as Star-Lord in five films, which includes two Guardians of the Galaxy sequels, and two other unspecified films. Therefore I think the section header should be plural. Hektor ( talk) 07:37, 25 May 2015 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why has someone reverted the annotation that the cassette at the end of the movie can be considered a 'Vol 2'?
Hello, earlier this month I amended a minor error in the plot summary which was reverted, namely, that Rocket crashes the Milano into the Dark Aster to disable it, when, in fact, after several rewatches of the film, Quill's group had used the Milano way earlier to breach the Dark Aster in the first place. Rocket was separated from the group in his own personal ship (dubbed in the unofficial wiki as the Warbird or something, and easily distinguishable from the Milano by its enormous wing guns), which he rams the Dark Aster with, not the Milano. Is there something I or anyone else can do about this without edit warring like crazy? 124.189.145.155 ( talk) 02:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Guardians of the Galaxy (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Don't recall it being said in the film, or in the credits, but during the Nova line-up scene, it is listed in Quill's data as "Kraglin Obfonteri". Reliable source for this here. - Favre1fan93 ( talk) 16:45, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
GoneIn60, I wanted to go into more detail why I reverted your edit as a courtesy to you. The "Accolades" section of this article shows that the film won an award for "Best Ensemble" at the the 2014 Detroit Film Critics Society Awards. Also, it was a nominee for the award of "Best Ensemble Acting" at the 2014 Phoenix Film Critics Society Awards. This alone should be enough to convince anyone it's an ensemble film, but if it isn't then you still have the other sources to go along with it to say that it is. Combine all this with the fact that Ensemble cast defines an ensemble as, "made up of cast members in which the principal actors and performers are assigned roughly equal amounts of importance and screen time in a dramatic production." and there can be no doubt that this is an ensemble film. Huggums537 ( talk) 01:57, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Notice: I want to make it duly noted that my opening statements here point to specific parts of the article that are reliably referenced. Therefore, the citation of reliable sources is implied within my statements. Thank you. Huggums537 ( talk) 23:39, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
each member of the ensemble cast steals every scene they are inas referring to Hounsou, or (a bit more debatably) Reilly. Also, you are (strictly speaking) wrong to say the source uses the word twice in the same way we do -- in the second instance "it" clearly refers to the film itself rather than the cast. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 03:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with adding sources in the lead if that source contains extra information (not found in the body) to support it.is contrary to WP:LEDE's
Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.Huggums, it seems you still don't understand what my problem was: I wasn't saying that including citations in the lead was a problem in itself, which was the implication of your
both of the concerns hijiri had at the same time, effectively killing two birds with one stone-- only the second bird you list was actually a concern I had; yes, I don't like the prospect of having a lone citation in the lead for a single peripheral detail, but that's just a cosmetic issue and it wasn't what I was talking about above.
In August 2013, Marvel announced that Bradley Cooper would voice Rocket,[38] joining the ensemble cast.[127]is a poorly constructed sentence and that the use of "ensemble" here is awkward and POINTy, and would be redundant if the far superior description
The film features an ensemble cast.were added at the top of the "Cast" section. Think about it -- why is the main feature of the lead's description of the cast supported by a statement in the "Filming" section rather than the "Cast" section? Technically, Marvel's announcement of the casting of Cooper isn't even related to "Filming" per se (Rocket is entirely CGI, and Cooper's involvement in the film was mainly as a voice actor; the sentence is included where it is for chronological rather than thematic reasons). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:11, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Guardians of the Galaxy (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:13, 20 November 2017 (UTC)