Showing posts with label guardians of the galaxy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label guardians of the galaxy. Show all posts

Saturday, May 6, 2017

Live-tweeting Guardians of the Galaxy

Not the sequel, mind you. I had to go back and try again with the original before I tried for the first time with the sequel.

But I didn't expect to live-tweet it. Especially since I told my friend I was chatting with on Facebook that I was not going to live-tweet it, having seemed to introduce the possibility by shooting him a couple comments about the opening.

But then I thought, why not live-tweet it? Or really, my equivalent of live-tweeting something -- writing a stream of comments in a Facebook message thread and then transplanting that to my blog. (I tried with Twitter years ago, but lasted only a month or two. One day I will inevitably have to pick it up again.)

And as he was in Chicago beginning his Friday morning as I was winding down my Friday night, he got kind of a kick out of it -- or told me that he did, anyway.

So the following is that transcript, edited for relevance, typos, grammar and some extraneous personal chat. It doesn't contain any time stamps or anything like that, because that was pretty much beyond me (I didn't want to divide my attention any further than it looked like I was starting to plan to do). But if you're familiar with the film you'll probably easily imagine where I am in the narrative.

And if not, maybe it will just make an interesting read in its own right.

But first, my reasons for returning to Guardians of the Galaxy before I went to see Guardians of the Galaxy: Volume 2.

The movie doesn't really work for me. It never did. I gave it a three-star rating on Letterboxd that I now think was too generous by at least a half star. I'm basically a hater when it comes to Guardians of the Galaxy, not in that I hate the movie, but that I act the role of hater when it comes up in conversation. I'm a naysayer. And I rarely resist the chance to tell people it didn't really do anything for me.

But I thought maybe it didn't have to be this way.

Rewatches have sometimes brought me on board with movies I wasn't sure about, and there was an obvious precedent. When Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring came out, I didn't like it. I scoffed at it, actually. But fortunately, that didn't stop me from going to The Two Towers a year later, though I did not rewatch Fellowship to prepare. I ate The Two Towers up, and Flickchart actually shows it to be in my current top 50, though these rankings tend to be fluid and sometimes inaccurate to a concerning degree. (It's #42, to be exact.) I still don't love Fellowship -- the maudlin display of emotion at the end remains kind of laughable to me -- but I do have a great fondness for it, as part of a trilogy that became beloved for me.

I'd rather like Guardians than dislike it, so I had to try.

So let's finally do this thing. My comments start with Me: His comments start with Him: Again, I've discarded some of both, particularly the ones that were too irrelevant. And anything in brackets is me speaking to you now, to give you a little context for what I meant if it's not clear. I've included several photos I sent him along the way, as well.

Here we go:

Me: Man the beginning of this movie is waaaaaay too heavy.

Him: I love the beginning when he's dancing in the space cave.

Me: No, I mean when the fucking mother dies of cancer!

Him: Yeah that part fucking sucks.

Me: What a weird way to start a "good time movie"!

Him: Is that the opening scene?!?

Me: YES.

Him: Dumb. Yes. I remember the dancing first.

Me: I like this kind of rewatch. A visually dynamic film that I may have been wrong about. Looking forward to it but off to a bad start.

Him: I love the scale of that dancing.

Me: Splash title. [That was me indicating that the way the title fills the screen is a great touch.]

Him: He's the perfect size on screen.

Me: Don't worry, I won't live-tweet the whole thing. [Famous last words.]

Me: How does he keep getting batteries for that walkman? [Peter Quill has been in space for more than 20 years.]

Him: Magic. Space batteries.

Me: Nuh uh.

Him: You are fundamentally hateful of space batteries.

Me: Awesome line delivery: "Who?" - Djimon Hounsou

Me: I know more about space batteries than you think.

Me: I could see me showing my kids this movie but I'd have to start after the cancer scene.

Him: I was using space batteries when you were sucking your mother's [REDACTED].

Me: My mother is a woman so she does not have a [REDACTED].

Me: I don't like Rooker in this film. [Michael Rooker]

Me: There are too many blue people in this movie. I'm racist against blue people.

Me: And there's Stan Lee. Yawn. [Marvel granddaddy Stan Lee makes a cameo in every MCU movie.]

Me: Groot = The Iron Giant. Discuss. [Vin Diesel voiced both.]

Him: Oh oh oh hold on that Stan Lee judgment.

Me: Okay.

Me: Zoe Saldana was going to kill him! Until that raccoon jumped on her. [I meant but could not elaborate that it was a strange choice to have our eventual hero trying to use lethal force on one of our other heroes.]

Me: Apparently I'm live-tweeting the whole thing. [Ya think?]

Him: Keep going. I'm reading and driving. [Don't hold it against him, people.]

Me: John C. Reilly is in this!

Me: And Glenn Close.

Me: Glenn Close is in the Jodie Foster in Elysium role.

Me: "You can't hear this? Do you want me to turn it up?" [The cranking up of the middle finger, as in the picture above]

Me: I also think it's weird that they used "Hooked on a Feeling." Doesn't Tarantino own that?

[This is where I told him about my intentions of turning this into a blog post.]

Me: When I look at Gamora I think of that line some comedian once said about Captain Kirk "fucking a green bitch" or whatever the exact wording was. [It later occurred to me that it was Eddie Murphy. Confirmed online.]

Me: Dave Bautista is the best part of this movie. Discuss.

Me: Ronan and Thanos. Are they Greek?

Me: Don't worry, I'm not going to force it. Organic observations only. I'm not going to be "looking for things." [You be the judge whether I lived up to my promise or not.]

Me: "Units" is their currency. Is that kind of like bitcoin?

Me: This space rock where they're meeting is giving me bad Green Lantern flashbacks.

Me: I have to say, Karen Gillan really disappears into her role. Unrecognizable.

Me: Like Groot in the background pulling the battery early. [At the space prison.]

Me: Prison guard: "Drop the leg and get back to your cell." In the middle of a full-scale riot. He'd just have shot him.

Him: Drax is the first autistic main character ever in a blockbuster. Discuss.

[He gave me Dave Bautista's character's name here but I didn't pick up on it and I never learned it otherwise during the course of viewing.]

Him: Who the fuck is Karen Gillan?



Him: You don't know anything about space prison.

Me: Love the random comment about all the jizz in his spaceship.

Him: Is she orange in the movie? [Regarding Gillan.]

Me: These fucking villains are ridiculous looking.

Me: She's blue.



Me: Rooker's floating space arrow is dumb.

Him: Oh. Robot Sinead. [Re: Gillan again.]

Me: If you must.

Him: I like the arrow. Love the red line that it makes.

Him: It's like a kids book.

Him: That kills people.

Me: This movie suffers from that "naming of funny sounding things" problem that tends to afflict Hobbit movies.

Him: It's better than The Hobbit on that front. It knows it's a problem and just goes for it.

Me: Love the use of the Bowie even though it's on the nose. "Moonage Daydream."

Me: News flash: Groot is kind. (Gives a flower to a little girl.)

Him: Of course he is. He's the Iron Giant. Made of wood. [He had not read my earlier comment likening Groot to the Iron Giant at this point.]

Me: Starlord puts the headphones on Gamora in a clever reversal of the iconic scene in the masterwork of that great auteur Zach Braff, Garden State.

Me: Benicio del Toro, you can do better.

Me: Here's the part where Benicio del Toro tells us about everything.

Me: That girl just blew up. Yeah, probably not showing it to my kids after all.

Me: Ronan looks like The Golem from that old movie.

Him: Don't know Ronan.


Him: Still don't remember.

Me: He's not memorable.

Him: Is he like the big bad or something? Or at least you think he is and then there's a bigger bad?

Me: There's a bigger bad but I think he is meant to factor more into future installments. Gamora's dad.

Me: I feel like Rocket probably has the most useful set of skills overall.

Me: Cue "their lowest moment."

Him: Yes Rocket is cool. And he's psychotic.

Me: Wow, he was really lucky Michael Rooker wasn't on the shitter or something so he could pick them up before they died without their helmets on in space. (I will eventually learn Michael Rooker's character's name.)

Me: Toyota? Honda? Something like that. [It's Yondu, but at the time I wrote this I thought it was Hondu.]

Me: The bigger bad serves the equivalent role of the Emperor or Snoke.

Me: Lee Pace is a strange choice for Ronan.

Him: They kept saying his name in part two and I never knew who they were talking about.

Me: Thanos?

Me: Thermos?

Him: Lee Pace can go fuck himself.

Him: Thanos is the big bad.

Him: As he is in Marvel in general.

Me: Remember that twee show about dead people starring Lee Pace?

Me: Pushing Daisies, was it?

Me: That's the problem with Marvel in general. In what universe does Captain America interact with Thanos?

Me: The Marvel CINEMATIC Universe, that's what universe.

Me: There's more space in comic books than I like.

Him: I AGREE.

Me: Between this, Thor and Green Lantern, it's too much.

Me: The squabbling over semantics is really forced.

Him: This is why I like Batman.

Him: When the comics bring Batman to space, I check out.

Me: Yeah but now Batman fights Green Lantern's villains, right?

Him: And Batman doesn't give a shit about semantics.

Him: Not often.

Me: But he has.

Him: No. I don't think so.

Me: I guess Batman has probably done everything. Even horse tranquilizers.

Him: Batman may have fought them in space.

Me: Locker room speech is not working for me, Starlord.

Him: Batman fights Superman's villains and Green Arrow's villains and Flash's villains. But not so much Green Lantern's. [And it occurs to me now: Why the hell did DC have two characters with Green in their names? Confusing. Then of course there was also the Green Hornet, unrelated.]

Him: Because Green Lantern sucks.

Him: You are filled with so much hate over Guardians.

Me: But he's got that ring!

Him: Thousands of other beings also have the same ring. Maybe millions. He ain't so cool.

Me: Spoiler alert: Groot is about to say he's Groot.

Me: Ch- ch- ch- ch- ch- ch- ch- ch- cherry bomb.

Me: Now everyone's explaining their role in the plan. When did they turn into Jeff Probst?

Me: "The stone." This is the dictionary definition of a MacGuffin.

Me: Oh hey, John C. Reilly and Glenn Glose. Good to see you for the first time in an hour.

Me: You know what the problem with this movie is? Everyone's Han Solo.

Him: It's true. But that's my problem with Marvel in general.

Me: And somehow, there's a giant space battle.

Me: Why is Peter Serafanowicz in this and why doesn't he get to be funny?


Me: Where did a million x-wing pilots come from all the sudden?

Me: And I am reminded of the fact that Footloose exists in this world.

Me: And Groot does something magical and beautiful. Cue the violins.

Me: Oh, now Gamora's sister gets to have her moment. No wait she doesn't! Dave Bautista shoots her mid-sentence. Classic!

Me: And super arrow finally gets to kill everybody really quickly.

Me: Oh wait, Gamora's sister is back. Cat fight!

Me: The pink-skinned mother and daughter are okay!

Me: (I realize almost nothing I'm saying has any context for you.)

Me: Alright, end battle growing tiresome. Just kill yourself already, Groot, and let's get on with the credits.

Me: Wait, Djimon Hounsou was a robot?

Me: "You stand accused." Oh right, he's called Ronan the Accuser. Somehow I know this.

Me: Glad Rocket thought Dave Bautista would surely be okay when he crashed a spaceship into where he was standing.

Me: More magic for Groot.

Me: Use the force, Groot.

Him: You root for Groot. Hard.

Me: How many movies have featured a spaceship crashing into a city in the past five years?

Me: Groot is fine.

Him: All the movies.

Me: Was especially unexpected in Boyhood.

Me: And after all that we still have more Ronan shit to deal with.

Me: Oh, he just named them the Guardians of the Galaxy!

Me: You're a legend, Ronan.

Him: But not unexpected in The Hottie and the Nottie.

Me: Oh yeah, and now Starlord sings The Five Stairsteps at Ronan. [I had to look up who sings that "Oooh child, things are gonna get easier" song]

Me: Have you seen The Hottie and the Nottie? It's not awful. [See here.]

Me: Now they all have to share the explosive power of the stone.

Me: Ah, the stone affects people like the one ring goes. Knew there was another Hobbit connection.

Him: I really don't like the infinity stones/glove/gauntlet.

Me: "The tesseract."

Me: The true uselessness of Close and Reilly in this movie is astonishing.

Him: They're famous.

Me: I hear Reilly is fun in Kong.

Him: I also heard that.

Me: Wait, he really never opened the present?

Him: He knew it would be more poignant if he did it in 23 years.

Me: Heh.

Me: Why do we need a post credits sequence reminding us that Benicio del Toro was in this movie, which includes Howard the Duck? Okay, live tweeting over.

Was it worth typing all that out? Probably not. Will I do it again? Probably not. But you can never rule anything out.

So as you can see, I'm just never really going to like this movie. It took me three times to start to love 2001: A Space Odyssey, but Guardians is not 2001.

I guess I also wonder if deciding to live-tweet something makes you inevitably snarkier about it. Perhaps you only live-tweet something you are expecting to be snarky about. Like the Golden Globes.

Well, I guess we'll never know now.

I'm not sure whether this leaves me in a better position to like the second Guardians or worse -- it could be worse, but I also now have lower expectations so it could be better. However, word on the street is that it's pretty disappointing.

Then again, maybe I'm just a bizarro Guardians fan -- what other people like, I don't, and vice versa.

We'll find out sometime this week.

Thursday, March 23, 2017

I may not love Guardians movies ...


... but DAMN do I love the posters.

And who knows, maybe I will actually love this one.

I probably owe the original a revisit, especially considering how most people worship it.

Maybe I'll try to fit that in before the new movie comes out.

Hey, it could happen.

Saturday, August 9, 2014

Down the superhero rabbit hole


You could not make a more obvious comment about the state of movies today than that superheroes rule the roost.

If any more evidence was needed, just look at last weekend's U.S. box office. Even the off-brand superheroes featured in Guardians of the Galaxy rode enough smart advertising and word-of-mouth to $94 million in domestic ticket sales. That is, frankly, ridiculous.

But it's other examples of the dominance of superheroes -- or, more broadly, comic book characters -- that are sometimes more sobering. 

Yes, I say "sobering." Because I'm not entirely sure this decade-long trend is something to be overjoyed about. It's blurring the line between "movie fans" and "fans of comic book movies." Movie discussion groups, which may have once been more balanced between lovers of the form and genre lovers, now tend to be dominated by genre lovers. When you want to have a good talk about movies, which means all movies, it's harder to find that talk without getting sidetracked into the latest thing Marvel Studios is doing. 

Few examples are more sobering than the email I got this week from MovieWeb. Although I don't remember doing so, I must have signed up for their weekly newsletter at some point in the past, and I tend to glance through it whenever I get one.

Let me take you down through the email -- down the rabbit hole, so to speak -- and describe my thought process as we go:


Okay, fine. Nothing unsurprising here. The movie that joins history's two most iconic superheroes has been getting almost as much "first look" coverage as Star Wars Episode VII is sure to be getting soon. 


Speculation on the mashing up of more properties. Just as summer music festivals have replaced giant stadium tours by individual bands, it's seeming more and more like we want to get all the movie characters we like in the same place at the same time. There's something extra ridiculous about this (probably true) rumor, because The Avengers is ALREADY a gathering of characters who were previously separated into different movies. Adding Guardians to the mix just makes the gathering exponential. 


Huh? Isn't Darth Vader already dead? I don't even want to know what this speculation means, because it suggests all kinds of weird things about time travel and alternate timelines that I don't want to consider. Let's just hope that this doesn't mean that Star Wars is considering time travel. At least this story is not about a comic book movie.


Cool. This was not something I knew anything about and I find it genuinely interesting. Also, it's only vaguely fanboyish.


Okay, this is not about superheroes or comic books either, but bear with me, we're getting somewhere.


More Guardians stuff, not much of a surprise. But what I find noteworthy about this -- and it may be more an indication of the age we live in generally, than specifically about comic books -- is that there is essentially no actual news here. It's just the director engaging with his audience, as today's Twitter-loving celebrities are wont to do. I doubt MovieWeb would include a link where Martin Scorsese thanks his audience for going to see The Wolf of Wall Street, to take an example of a different kind of movie popular with this same demographic. Though Scorsese would probably never do that in the first place. 


This is where things start to get a bit more arcane and geeky. Sure, Spider-Man is a popular superhero -- he might be right behind Superman and Batman in terms of his iconic status -- but a spinoff in the Spider-Man universe featuring a female Spider-Man? A Spider-Woman? I'm sure there is a corollary in the comics, and it seems like a reasonably smart move with box offices becoming increasingly female-driven, but we're starting to see how much studios are willing to stretch and expand their superhero products to keep amassing our dollars. This feels like fringe information, but it's intended for a mainstream audience.


Another one that interrupts my flow, so let's just skip ahead. It is interesting to note, however, that this is the second story in this email that has a connection to Tim Burton (after the bit about the Alice in Wonderland sequel, which is not being directed by Burton). 


Okay, here's where we go off the rails into total fringe geekery: the "in what movie will such-and-such character from the comic book finally appear?" story. MovieWeb is here taking for granted that its readership not only cares when this character will appear (allegedly, in a sequel to a movie that has not even been released yet), but actually knows who this "Darkseid" is. I consider myself acquainted enough with comic books to be familiar with many of the names, but this is my first introduction to a name this piece considers an "iconic villain." 

And last but not least ...


More Spider-Man. What I consider strangest about this story is that the previous Spider-Man rumor, about that female spinoff, is also allegedly planned for 2017, though from a different studio. (Which studio owns the rights to which parts of which comics is a discussion for another time, one I would probably never undertake because that would require trying to understand it.) Second strangest: the fact that both studios don't consider the Spider-Man universe dead after the largely disliked Spider-Man reboot and its largely disliked sequel. Yet another indication of how the movie mainstream has been co-opted by the comic book fringe ... or what was once considered the fringe, anyway.

After I got to the end of this email, I felt exhausted and out of touch.

To be clear, I don't mind that there's a strain of popular movie fandom with which I don't feel comfortable aligning myself. I don't particularly want to be part of the movie mainstream. And I'm certainly enough aligned with them, as I have high levels of affection for the likes of Captain America: The Winter Soldier just this year alone. 

But there is a tendency amongst human beings to have an uneasy relationship with the popular, one paradoxically characterized both by a sense of liberating distance from the popular, as well as a struggle to understand the popular, which often takes the form of mocking and resentment. That's kind of where I find myself now. I feel like I don't fully understand people who can get all their cinematic nourishment from superheroes. In the 1990s people thought that superheroes were just stunted adults running around in tights. Has so much changed since then?

If MovieWeb had existed in the 1980s, would I have expected the stories to be about My Dinner With Andre? No, likely not. It would have still catered to the popular.

So I guess what disturbs me the most is that what's popular at the movies has become kind of homogeneous. In the 1980s and 1990s, weird phenomena were able to jump out and become popular. As just one example, a podcast I listen to was recently discussing how Crocodile Dundee could never become the second-most popular movie in a calendar year these days. Crocodile Dundee would be more likely to become a straight-to-video curiosity than it would be to beat 99% of the other releases that year. 

So as this blur of colorful superhero outfits is starting to blend into something muddled and gray, I'm seeing a world without distinguishing features, fueled only by the desire to fulfill a wish to become superhuman.

And I find that super boring. 

Friday, August 1, 2014

Guardians of the Galaxy and itself: a heckuva double feature


I don't still live in America, but I do still receive my weekly emails from Mission Tiki Drive-in, the pride of Montclair, California.

This week they are doing something extra-special awesome: showing customers the same movie twice in a row.

I've written a number of drive-in posts over the years The Audient has been in existence, and if you're interested in perusing them, you can follow the "drive-in" label at the bottom of this post. If you recall reading any of them, you also recall that going to the drive-in is designed, at a minimum, as a double feature. We've seen as many as three movies on a visit (the first movie usually plays a second time after the second, and if you switch screens you can catch all three) and as few as one (we once got busted for trying to switch screens, which you're not supposed to do).

It's the second parenthetical point in the sentence above I'm calling attention to now. YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO SWITCH SCREENS BETWEEN MOVIES. In fact, two dudes in a golf cart started to follow us when it became clear we were trying to do that back in early 2011, when we saw Battle: Los Angeles and then tried to see Hall Pass on another screen, rather than sit through Battle's double feature partner, The Green Hornet, which I'd already seen. They didn't force us to leave, but that's what we decided to do rather than endure The Green Hornet again.

Unless they've changed their policy, which I seriously doubt (those guys had major poles up their asses), that golf cart is going to be pretty busy this Saturday night.

After all, if you are going to abide by their rules, your only option is to sit there and watch Guardians of the Galaxy twice in a row.

It's supposed to be a really good movie, but that's a little much, don't you think?

But this isn't just faulty logic. Oh no. It has a very business-specific intended outcome.

See, Mission Tiki wants to start upselling the most popular new releases. Instead of getting Guardians of the Galaxy AND some other movie for your $7, you get just Guardians. And then they clear out most if not all the cars from the Guardians lot, in order to sell Guardians to another group of cars arriving for the second screening.

Well, shouldn't they be worried about having to police people who leave one screening to go to another, and the extra strain that will put on their resources? Aren't they concerned that this pairing forces people to consider breaking the rules?

Nope. By running 122 minutes, Guardians ends well after the start of all the other second movies. (Which are The Purge: Anarchy, Maleficent and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, in case you're keeping track at home.)

It's a dick move by people who have proven themselves to be dicks before. However, you should take my outrage with a grain of salt, as living in Australia has acquainted me with just how good a deal people are getting at Mission Tiki. If this same concept existed in Australia, they would charge $20 a head and consider it a bargain. The fact that you are getting even one new release for $7, let alone two, is astonishing. Sure, it's not theater-quality sound or picture, but you also get to bring in as much of your own food as you want, further mitigating the costs.

And as for what many people are now calling their favorite Marvel movie -- a bold statement considering some of Marvel's recent successes -- we Australians will get our first crack at Guardians of the Galaxy next Thursday.

Just the one time, for most of us.

Sunday, May 18, 2014

This.


I make it a habit of using post titles only once on The Audient. I've kept track of all my titles since I've started on a Microsoft Word document, and if I think I might be using the same one again, I check to be sure that I don't. I suppose this is so that when my work is being discussed by future generations long after I'm dead, they will be able to refer to my posts by title only without creating any ambiguity.

I tell you this because it means I am using my one and only "This." on this incredible new poster released for Guradians of the Galaxy:


Yep, I'm going large, just so you can take in every magnificent detail. However, it's probably still best to click on it and open it in a separate window.

Have you ever seen anything quite so gorgeous? If I were a Scottish guy and this poster picked me up in a truck, I'd say to it "Aye, you're gorgeous." (I still have not seen that film, but have heard the line several times now.)

When someone else posted it in a Facebook film group to which I belong, I commented that I couldn't stop looking at it. And I can't. It makes me want to see this movie -- of which I was once quite skeptical -- even more. The first (and only, so far) trailer I saw for it started me on the path to being excited about it, and this just ratchets things up one more level.

Anyway, now that I have it here on my blog, I can stare it as much as I want.

Monday, December 3, 2012

Guardian fatigue


And speaking of Rise of the Guardians (as I was yesterday), one of my first experiences with it, a few years back, was thinking the title sounded awfully similar to Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga'Hoole. The fact that both were animated movies aimed at children made the possibility of mixing them up even greater.

Thank goodness for Legend's hilarious subtitle, which helped keep things straight.

But it makes me wonder if they won't want to change the title Guardians of the Galaxy by the time James Gunn's movie comes out in August of 2014.

Guardians of the Galaxy is the latest in-production Marvel movie whipping geeks into orgasmic levels of excitement. It was announced at Comic-Con this summer, an adaptation of the interstellar comic books that Marvel first started publishing in 1969. It gives off an instant and probably not coincidental Avengers vibe.

But depending on how kind two years and four years of existence, respectively, are to Rise of and Legend of the Guardians, fans may be getting unfortunate vibes from those two films when Guardians of the Galaxy tries to stake its claim to tentpole status two summers from now.

And even if history is kind to them, who wants to be the third in any trend?

The problem with each of these properties is that they were all based on previously existing material, all of which used the word "Guardians" in the title. The owl books were called Guardians of Ga'Hoole, but I guess they wanted the movie's title to introduce the concept of owls to the consciousness of selective viewers. Rise of the Guardians was based on books called The Guardians of Childhood, and I guess having the word "childhood" in the title would have made that one sound too wimpy. But even if either movie had kept the series' original title, that title would have including the word "Guardians" regardless.

I can see why Guardians of the Galaxy would be loath to change its title, considering that this is the entirety of the title, and it existed as a brand nearly 35 years before Guardians of Ga'Hoole (which came into existence in 2003) and over 40 before The Guardians of Childhood (a newbie, having debuted in novel form only last year). Besides, how many adaptations of well-loved comic books have had to back off from using their original titles?

So I guess they're probably stuck with it, for better or worse.

Something that's kind of funny about this word "guardian" popping up so frequently: Isn't a "guardian" someone who's kind of lame? In fact, to a child, isn't it often seen as a synonym for "parent"? As in "No one under 13 permitted without parent or guardian." To kids, a guardian isn't necessarily someone who keeps you safe. It's someone who rules strictly and arbitrarily, and prevents you from having any fun.

I mean, the galaxy would probably have a blast with all those black holes and supernovas if it weren't for those pesky guardians.

(And I'll thank you not to debate me on scale and scope when it comes to my astronomy-related claims in the previous sentence.)