DrCrowTStarwars

waste industries

It's a long story.

Noted.

I have moved my last post there.  If anyone wants to continue this please join me in that thread.

DuracellEnergizer said:

Sadako said:

The nonsense biology I can buy--it's the 24th century, and based on a remark made in TNG 02x20, it seems that someone has developed a gene splicing doohickey for interspecies couples, and it's existence is apparently well-known and often used, given the existence of B'Elanna, K'Ehleyr, Spock, and Troi

That doesn't explain interspecies offspring in situations where such technology simply wasn't available (Worf's human brother having a child with some rubber forehead chick on a primitive planet, for example).

I simply don't know why the writers didn't simply make most of the human and rubber forehead aliens genetic offshoots of humanity. Going by TOS, we already know aliens had transplanted humans to other worlds from Earth long before humans developed interstellar travel; it's well within the realm of possibility that some of these transplanted populations could have evolved/been modified into new species and subspecies over the centuries/millennia.

Jeez ... now I'm just serving to remind myself of why I dislike TNG so much. Why did the writers of the show have to bungle almost every aspect of the ST Universe in such a horrible, slipshod manner?

 That sounds like how they explained every planet having humans or human like aliens on it in SG1.

As for TNG that show was fine and they did pretty much what you asked for. I can't remember every detail as it has been years since I have seen it but there was an episode where they discovered that most life in the galaxy was created by a single race and used the same basic DNA as it's building blocks. They did pretty much what you said they should do. Also I wouldn't be too hard on them remember the show started in the late 80s and had to stay on budget while using model shots and sets for pretty much everything. B5 and Farscape are from the 90s and could use CGI to generate ships and alien planets and thus were able to save money that they could spend on makeup. also neither of those shows went on location as much as TNG did. The only other show I can think of that went on location as much as TNG was SG1 and they had aliens that were completely human,they didn't even do foreheads,so I really think it was a budget thing and if you let TOS off of the hook for it's Asian looking Klingons i really think you should cut TNG some slack. They didn't have unlimited money either. Farscape also had Jim Henson's creator ship at their beck and call. I don't think anyone was being lazy and trying to make a bad show and I think the show they made holds up at least as well as TOS with it's loincloth wearing aliens,space hippies,and red shirts dying by the dozens.  It was a good show and I think it still stands up today.

I was told to take this here so I said this about DS9.

Yeah not to mention that just watching the characters interact was fun and very interesting.  The episode where Garak tortures Odo is a stand out if you ask me as is any episode with the Maquis,the fact that they were human and the issues were so complex that often Sisko was hunting them but you never really felt they were the bad guys always made those episodes a favorite of mine.

Oh and any scene where Dukat and Weyoun interacted was a ton of fun to watch.

I really like the episode where Dukat and Sisko crash on a planet and Dukat spends the whole episode trying to justify everything he has done and then just completely flips out at the end.

bkev said:

Jetrell Fo said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Oh, and IMO, DS9 didn't fuck up Star Trek. If anything, it rectified some of the damage that TNG had done and restored some of the fun to the ST Universe that had been lacking in it since the TOS films had come to an end.

I agree with you 100% on this.  DS9 gave Star Trek it's teeth back.

 Also agreed.  DS9 took a few seasons to find its groove -- if Sisko's not bald, you're probably watching the wrong episode -- but man did it get good.  I especially liked the moral ambiguities of the Federation in this series.  showing that we're not perfect is always important in Trek, even if it's at the cost of some of the Utopian imagery.

Also, seriously.  Jeffrey Combs as Weyoun.  Andrew Robinson as Garak.  PERFECT casting and acting.  In fact, I think the whole cast is strong (but they are the standouts.)  Hell, even Terry Farrell learns to act after a few seasons; a part of me wonders if she really did get attached to Jadzia.

 Yeah not to mention that just watching the characters interact was fun and very interesting.  The episode where Garak tortures Odo is a stand out if you ask me as is any episode with the Maquis,the fact that they were human and the issues were so complex that often Sisko was hunting them but you never really felt they were the bad guys always made those episodes a favorite of mine.

Oh and any scene where Dukat and Weyoun interacted was a ton of fun to watch.

I really like the episode where Dukat and Sisko crash on a planet and Dukat spends the whole episode trying to justify everything he has done and then just completely flips out at the end.

Yeah he got it completely backwards. I have to wonder if QT has ever seen a Superman film or read a comic.

CatBus said:

Harmy said:

Oh, well, it's true of most projectors, but it's possible that some projectors can actually do true 24fps but I've never seen one. I know that digital projectors in cinemas definitely have higher refresh rates then 24Hz, so it seems curious, that a home projector would do native 24fps.

But with a color wheel, the projector has to refresh 3 times for each full-color frame, so my guess would be, that its true refresh rate for 24fps sources is 72Hz, thus producing 24fps in full color and for higher frame-rate sources, it's capable of even higher refresh rates.

Yeah, and 120Hz+ displays should be able to do the same thing.  So if the player upscales 720p24 to 1080p24, the only conversion is the image upscale, no change to the frame cadence.  If it converts to 720p60, it's likely the display will need to upscale the image too, so you get both conversions.

Again, not so you'd notice for the most part. But you do need to hand in your videophile card if someone catches you watching film at 60Hz.  I hear they take your plasma away too ;-)

 What do they do to you if you only have an LCD that goes up to 60hz?

Not that I would know anything about that,or know anyone who would know anything about that.

Yeah I really can't and I would rather see them retire.  I hope they don't kill off Cap because after all he has been through getting killed off would just feel too depressing,I would rather see him retire to a normal life or something like that.

I am all for bringing in new members and keeping the team going. it should help to keep things fresh and it will be interesting seeing how they interact. It can be done I mean just look at Doctor Who.  Marvel has so many characters I would rather see the team change up and new characters given a shot then see parts recast and the universe rebooted. I think I have had it with comic book movie reboots for the moment. I would rather see it go on with other characters.

I really hope you are right about Antman because while he was never one that I followed in the comics he was an important member of the Avengers and I am really looking forward to his movie. I think it would be great to get him on the team.

doubleofive said:

The issue with getting X-Men, Spider-man, Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, etc back is that I cannot tell you how many complaints I see about "Why doesn't Avenger call other Avenger to help?". If there were EVEN MORE heroes in the area, the excuses as to why they couldn't help gets even more thin. Especially if you get into X-Men territory. They wouldn't even need to call people on the phone, they could just think really hard and Xavier would hear it and send Wolverine to stab people.

 Yeah I left the XMen off my list for that reason.  Since there are only four of them I can buy the Fantastic Four being busy and with Spiderman he is a kid so I can see why the government wouldn't call him to help,but once you get into the Xmen with their hundreds of members it makes no sense. Also I am not sure they would fit into a world where super powered heroes are looked up to,so I say leave them out of the MCU for those reasons.

Jetrell Fo said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Oh, and IMO, DS9 didn't fuck up Star Trek. If anything, it rectified some of the damage that TNG had done and restored some of the fun to the ST Universe that had been lacking in it since the TOS films had come to an end.

I agree with you 100% on this.  DS9 gave Star Trek it's teeth back.

 It's my favorite of the spin offs.

I still remember waking up at five every Saturday morning to tape each episode as it aired.

Here is my complete collection.

http://www.invelos.com/DVDCollection.aspx/Doctor%20Who99

The pollen is out and that can only mean one thing. my right ear is stuffed with wax to a painful degree and my rash is breaking out all over my body.

I hate spring!

Yeah this how I watched CA and I loved every minute. I think my favorite bit was the part where he was selling war bonds on the stage,that scene was just a lot of fun to watch and the song was catchy.

I wish Marvel could get a hold of the rights to Spiderman and the Fantastic Four and but them in the MCU,because I would love to see what they would do with them there. 

Still you can't have everything.

Oh and you are right TWS was a bit like Empire,it's the dark game changer and I can't wait to see where it goes next.

Yes this is going to get confusing for casual viewers,with two different versions of the same character out there. Hopefully it will not hurt the MCU.

Okay Maybe I am just stupid but do BluRays really cost more these days? Maybe it is just my part of the country but a new BluRay costs around $15-$20 and normally has the DvD version in the case and budget titles and older movies run between $5-$10 the same as DvDs. I really am confused because for a long time all the stores in my neck of the woods have been charging the exact same amount of money for new Blrays as they have for new DvDs,some times less because the DvDs don't sell as well any more.  Is it different in other parts of the country?

My most recent buys are...

Psych seasons 1 and 2 on DvD(I have only just started watching this show and it is great.

Better off Ted season one on DvD(Why didn't this show run longer? What kind of a world is this where this show gets two short seasons and Two and a half men is still on the air?)

StarGate Atlantis season four on BluRay

The Hobbit:The Desolation of Smaug on BluRay.

Doctor Who:The Day of the Doctor on BluRay

Doctor Who:The time of the Doctor on BluRay

And last night I picked up High Noon on Blu ray,I can't wait to watch this.

Very pleasant at the moment. it's in the lower sixties which is a relief after all the snow we got this winter.

Maybe that was a little too combative. I do have a tendency to take things a little too personally sometimes and if that was too combative or rude I would just like to say I am sorry.

Still I think the stories have found the exact right balance for summer popcorn fare and I really enjoyed CATWS and I am not sorry I did.

That is all sorry if it got too involved or personal.

Wow,you know the people in my family think I am a movie geek who is knows a lot about this sort of thing and is extremely picky but I am only understanding about every third word said in this thread. I need to do some research:)

Ryan McAvoy said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

The overuse of human and rubber forehead aliens.

 This says it all ^.

When the show got so complacent that it would introduce us to new Alien races week after week with ever so slightly different nose jobs, was when the problems started.

Then when it got to DS9 they thought it was exceptable to have the main Alien race (The Bajorans) that the entire show revolved around, have four nose ridges and an earing?! When you had Babylon 5 airing at the same time who had wierd and freaky aliens (with peacock hair, ornate bones growing out of their heads, full reptillian facial appliances or no physical presence at all) then your franchise starts to look tired.

 To be 100% fair The Bajorans were a hold over from TNG and they were made that way so they would contrast with the more inhuman Cardasians who were lizard people and didn't look all that human for TV aliens and lived in places that didn't look very human at all.

I will agree that B5 was better written and had better aliens but I think both TNG and Ds9 were great series that stand on their own. I was just rewatching the third season of TNG on bluray for the first time in years and I was expecting it to be really dated but I have been surprised to find that most of the episodes hold up pretty well.

Really no growth at all? You watched a completely different movie.Oh and I stand by my statement that these movies have just as much focus on the characters as the star wars movies.

I think here is the difference between us and why I can't explain these things to you. You go into these movies looking for something to hate so you can go online and tell everyone they are idiots for liking these movies.  I go in looking to have a good time. that doesn't mean I turn my brain off but it also doesn't mean that I go in with a chip on my shoulder.  yes Tony was unlikable and yes Thor had a lesson to learn. In story telling that is called an arc. if you think character growth should never happen and every character should be 100% perfect and not undergo any growth or changes then Yeah I guess these movies are not for you. Also if you need someone to pretend to be human and bumble around a hospital to see their humanity then I feel sorry for you. Thor's alter ego wasn't needed for the story to work so they didn't ad a half hour of screen time to the movie for it. You also seem to have personal hatred of some of the actors so ago I can't help you with your personal grudges.  Oh and I have yet to read any tie in novels or any comics and I saw growth.  Oh and history isn't self contained,everything that has ever happens leads to the next thing that happens,so now stories are evolving to reflect that. Each movie does tell it's own story but there are links to other stories,that doesn't make it bad story telling. Henry V mentions events and characters that happened in Henry IV parts one and two,does that mean Shakespeare was a hack. I have watched these movies with people who haven't seen the other ones and they are able to follow them just fine. Why just today I saw CATWS with someone who hadn't seen CA and he had no trouble following anything that was going on it the movie.

Look we are never going to agree so why don't you just ignore these movies since you were never going to like them in the first place? why watch something you don't want to watch?

I just got back from CATWS and all I can say is wow. I don't want to spoil anything for anyone but if you are an inbred moron who needs to be shot to keep his or her genes out of the gene pool and you like these movies like me then these movie is just an unbelievable game changer.  It was the most intense and personal of the movies so far and I can't wait to see what happens in this universe next. I really hope we get a Nick Furry movie because after the way this movie ended I really want to see a whole movie that is about him on his own. oh and I now can not wait for Tuesdays episode of AOS. In short I am enjoying the heck out of the marvel cinematic universe and if that makes me an inbred idiot who can't find his own backside with both hands a flashlight and a map well then I guess you can call me one but I am what I am and I can't be anything else. So I guess you should just avoid me because I am too stupid to live and I will not pretend to hate something I enjoy just to look smarter.

SilverWook said:

Reel to reel home video recorders did exist in the 60's, and at least one Doctor Who episode was taped that way. Alas, not a lost episode.

My parents owned a 25 inch RCA console tv in 1966. ;)

 Yes I know but I am talking about what was in common usage and the way the people who produced the episodes expected them to be viewed.

Maybe the UK was way ahead of where I lived but most people I knew didn't get a TV that large or a home recording device until the late 80s.

As I said these are just general trends I am not trying to speak for every person on the planet.  Just give a general idea of how Tv was viewed and the conditions it was produced under in the 60s and 70s. That is all.

Ryan McAvoy said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

the budget for Doctor Who was much lower then even children's shows in the states at the same time.

To give you some idea of just how much lower Doctor Who's budget was then the average American show I will compare the budget of two episodes of Doctor Who to one episode of Star Trek made in the 1960s since they have the same run time. Now remember Star Trek's special effects have been mocked from time to time. Well any way for the same run time Doctor Who had a budget of between five and six thousand pounds converted to dollars that makes just under ten thousand dollars give or take. Star trek had a budget of between one hundred and fifty thousand and one hundred and eighty thousand dollars for a fifty two minute episode. That means that Star Trek had a budget of around fifteen to eighteen times what Doctor Who did.

I know this conversion isn't perfect and that both shows had there own problems to contend with(Such as Star Trek's larger cast and model shots that were needed every week)but I bring it up to demonstrate why some times Doctor Who would come up short in the special effects department. Personally it never bothered me,even as a kid. As long as the actors reacted as if they were seeing monsters and space ships I believed in the monsters and space ships even if they were bits of clay and pieces of old toy.  Then again I grew up watching a lot of stuff that had bad special effects and was always more interested in the ideas that made up a story then how it looked on screen so I know I do not represent your average viewer.

 I'd wondered what the budget ratio between Dr Who and Star Trek was but never took the time to work it out thanks. I'm surprised it wasn't more.

Other things to consider though. A Dr Who serial is typically 4x 25 minute episodes long, meaning the set building budget is stretched twice as far as Star Trek. However Dr Who had to build entirely new sets for every story and often every episode (Tardis interior console room and The Doctor's UNIT laboratory room in the Pertwee era being two exceptions) where as I'd guess that around 75% of Star Trek is just shot on the single expensive looking Enterprise set every week, dramatically saving costs. On the other hand Dr Who used location filming to save on building sets for it's earthbound episodes, where as Star Trek shot damn near everything in the studio, so it all had to be built and paid for.

 Yeah those are all really good point. Also filming on location was less costly them building sets a lot of the time for Doctor Who.

As for Star Trek's special effects i always thought they looked really good for Tv at the time and my hat goes off to the people who produced them but I grew up watching the show with of nongeeky people around and some aspects would get mocked. Scuh as the sets for alien planets,the fact that aliens looked mostly human,and the number of times glowing lights were passed off and alien spaceships.  Still I think that did an amazing job.

One thing to remember with both Star Trek and Doctor Who is that the average TV set was much smaller back then,around 20 inches so every detail of the special effects shots couldn't be blown up the way it is now. Also they didn't have VHS tapes or any form of home recording back then so people didn't see the episodes over and over again so flaws in the special effects were much less likely to be spotted when most people were only ever going to see the episode once.

Still I think both shows did a very good job all things considered and yeah while POTD was a mistake(I am not sure I would have greenlit a story like that on Doctor Who's budget in the first place.)even the greats mess up from time to time so I never really saw it as that big a black mark on the show.

in the end I think with both shows it is up to the actors to sell you on the effects and I think you have to be willing to lose yourself in the moment.  I think Shakespeare said it best "Think when we talk of horses, that you see them
Printing their proud hoofs i' the receiving earth;
For 'tis your thoughts that now must deck our kings"

DuracellEnergizer said:

DrCrowTStarwars said:

DuracellEnergizer said:

Truth be told, I don't enjoy the MCU. There's far too much style, not nearly enough substance.

I'd much rather watch superhero movies that are smaller in scale, with more emphasis placed on character development, than ones with big explosions, CG monsters, and megalomaniacal villains trying to take over the world. 

  I think they got the focus just right,these are supposed to be adventure stories for kids after all so the focus should be on the adventure.

A story can have adventure without sacrificing/deemphasizing characterization and without the entire city/nation/world/etc. having to be at risk.

Each movie has had enough moments to make me care about the characters and the setting so I don't really have a problem.

The thing is is that if a superhero movie just doesn't click for me, I'm not going to give any of its sequels a chance. I need satisfactory characterization right off the bat, otherwise that's all she'll write.

I mean people have complained that the Spiderman and XMen series had too many shots of heroes crying so you have to find a balance and I think they did.

From the MCU movies I've seen, I've seen no balance whatsoever. If anything, they just sit on the opposite end of the spectrum from the movies you mentioned.

 That's funny because it seems to me each of these movies has been focused on the characters and I am not saying that you can't have character moments in a kids movie but I do think you can go too far and loose the sense that you are on an adventure,just look at Superman Returns. I wanted to like that movie but in the end I don't watch a superhero movie to learn about bastard kids and break up.

Are you really saying that there should be no action scenes of any kind in these movies? Because each one seems to have been focused on the character,just with an adventure story.  They have as many character moments as the original Star Wars movies and everything that happens is a direct reaction to our heroes.

Iron Man. Everything in this is a reaction to Tony's actions and his discovery that he doesn't really like the man he has become and tries to change.

The Incredible Hulk is all about a man at war with himself and it is played out like a form of PTSD. The whole focus is all Bruce Banner and how being the Hulk effects him and everyone around him.

Iron Man 2 is about Tony going through all the stages of grief when he finds out he is dying and trying to make a connection to his dead father who's own actions are now effecting him. It's played really well and again every single thing that happens is linked into how the character is reacting to coming face to face with his own mortality. Again the focus is squarely on the character.

Thor is my favorite of the Marvel movies and it is all about the character. The whole reason Thor is on earth is so he can grow and we see that. He has the best,least over the top,and most believable love story I have ever seen in a comic book. We see his heart break when he gets the news from Loki that their father is dead. We see him refuse to go into battle when it will only get others killed,and then he cuts himself off from the woman he loves to save people who he was going to kill himself earlier in the movie and I believe it all because we have spent our time with him and gotten into his head. It's all about him and his relationships with others and how they change him over the course of his adventure. I could write a whole lot more about how Loki is written so well in this movie that he almost doesn't count as a villain but that would be rambling.

Captain American is all about how a boy becomes a hero. Again everything that happens is pretty much a character moment that is there to change him and boy does it change him. His relationship with Bucky is great and the scene where he loses him and then reveals that he can't get drunk is just amazing but again this movie never forgets that it is an old fashioned adventure story so like Star Wars we don't spend half an hour listen to him cry,you don't need to do that when you have good actors,instead he has to deal with the problem in front of him.

The Avengers was just an amazing piece of work. They put all those heroes together onscreen and it was all about them and how they related to each other and that is not easy to do. We see the conflicts between the members and we see them come together as a team and Tony's best moment is when he learns that he can depend on other people and he gives up control and gives Captain America command of the team.

Are these stories played out on a big canvass just like Star Wars? Yes. Does that make them bad movies? no.  The characters are there. You can have big action scenes and that doesn't mean you have to match them minute for minute with characters crying. Did we have even one scene in Star Wars with Liea cried over the destruction of her home world? No because the story didn't need it. Compared to that these movies are chopped full of character moments. Maybe these movies should try to be more like Citizen Kane and the modern comics and we should just get two hours of Tony getting drunk with no threat or action of any kind but that wouldn't sell tickets and that isn't what I was expecting going in.  I was expecting an adventure that revolved around the heroes I grew up reading about in the comics and that is exactly what I got.  I think they have done a great job focusing on the characters since while keeping the adventure aspects in tact.

As for there being too much action well here is the thing you kind of need that to justify the heroes being called into action in the first place. if the world isn't in danger can you really justify calling in a man in a robot suit,a super powered ww2 vet,a giant green monster,and Norse god?  Not really. If the story was just about parking tickets,or someone stealing something then that would seem like compete overkill. Plus the threat has to be something that is on par with their powers,so it really does take something that threatens the world to push these guys to their limits and if it didn't threaten the world well there would be no reason for these guys to get involved in the first place. it would really look like they were over reacting.

Again I go back to Star Wars because it is one of the most perfect examples of this type of story on the big screen. There is a reason Lucas set the stakes so high in those movies and that is because anything less and what the rebels were doing would seem like a complete over reaction and the drama would be lost. I mean if taxes were just a little high and the whole movie was about nothing but people complaining about them would we still support the rebels killing tens of thousands of people to change things? No,that would seem like a complete over reaction and there wouldn't be any real stakes in the story.  it may have resulted in more character moments but that wouldn't have made them better movies.

In order to justify calling out something like The Avengers you need a threat that is pretty extreme,and that is what these movies give us.

When I say these movies are for kids I don't mean they are stupid and you should turn off your brain what I mean is that they are adventure stories for kids and you should watch them the same way you watch Star Wars. When you are a kid you just instinctively understand that people are going to but upset but things like their home being destroyed and you don't want to watch them spend two hours crying about it. What you want to see is what they do about it,that is what makes heroes well..heroes. You want a larger then life world that you can escape into and not be bothered by all the things adults worry about day to day. You want to be able to believe the characters are human so you can relate to them and insert yourself into the adventure but you also want them to be larger then life and to be bold and take you to places you can never see in real life. That is what these movies do for me. That put me in touch with the kid inside of me. No they are no in depth explorations of characters that are on par with Citizen Kane but they don't have to be. They are about giving us a part of our childhood back and that is what every one of them has done for me so far and I find enough depth to the characters that I like them and understand what they are going through. I know comics in recent years tend to spend issue after issue looking at things like characters' drinking problems and have no action in them but remember these movies just has two hours to tell a story and again they are for the ten year old in all of us not the adult. That doesn't mean that have to be stupid and for the most part these movies haven't been. Instead of comparing them to comics and movies like The King's Speech I think we should compare them to Star Wars because they is the type of feel they are going for.  Look around at any kids you run into and you will see these movies are this generation's star wars and turning them into some dark character drama would wreck that. Please don't wreck that for the kids,adults could have easily spoiled Star Wars for us by holding it up to the standards of an adult drama but they didn't. Let the kids have their moment and if you go to the theaters go in expecting a fun ride where you reconnect with your inner child. If you can't do that all well and good but I wouldn't call the movies bad or act like the people working on them are not trying to produce good movies. I think that have produced really good escapist adventure stories and I look forward to loosing myself in the adventures of Captain America an over the top hero who lives in a larger then life world for two hours this afternoon.

If you can't do that fine. Still for me and I know alot of others these movies leave us with big grins on our faces and just feeling better about things in general then we did when we walked it and anything that does that for me is a good movie in my book.

michaelkirschner said:

djchaseb said:

Nearsighted Scrappile said:

I tried to build a menu and make my own BD. Let's just say that my Vanilla Coke has a new place to sit.

 BD menu authoring is no joke, I use MultiAVCHD but it's just a simple menu so the movie doesn't start as soon as I pop it in.

 Is there any Blu-ray software that will allow for better menus with several audio tracks that are affordable? 

 While it may not have the fanciest stuff out there I use DVD architech studio 5.0. The menus are decent,it supports Blu ray,and it encoded the discs at a bit rate of 28mbs which looks great to me.  As I said it is not the fanciest piece of software but it is easy to use and it has never let me down.

I also use it to make blurays of Tv shows that are broadcast in HD but only released on DvD(I refuse to pay for discs that look worse then what was broadcast on TV)so I use it all the time and it has never screwed up and adding chapters to a video file is as easy as watching it and clicking where you want a chapter.

I have used a few programs to make Bluray discs and while it may not be pro grade if you want a program that will just make the discs for you with out any trouble that is the one I would use.

I didn't mean to imply you had to be interested. I was just trying to explain why I think Marvel is doing the Ant Man movie and why I am looking forward to it and GOTG.

It also doesn't hurt that AntMan is being directed by Edger Wright and he directed Hot Fuzz one of my top ten favorite films. So I am really looking forward to Antman.

Ant man is a founding member of The Avengers and the creator of the villain in the second Avengers movies,I would hardly call him loosely connected. Also it has a great director in charge so I would say we are in safe hands.

Oh and as I said I know nothing about them but I applaud marvel for taking a chance on GOTG. Most studios wouldn't give something that off beat a chance. I am glad they are using the success of the other movies as a spring board to try other things and hopefully GOTG will do well so they will give other lesser known comics a chances. Projects like Ant Man and GOTG give me hope that Marvel is willing to shake things up and will not let this universe go stale an time soon. I hope the rumors of a Doctor Strange movie are true because I would love to see that and it would really shake things up.