The Guardians of the Galaxy and it’s effects on the MCU
For better or for worse?
I’m not sure if you remember the first time you saw the Guardians of the Galaxy movie, but I sure do. I was just finishing Year 9 of High School, and I wanted to do something with my summer. My friend group at the time were not as socialable as me, but one friend was up for going the cinema. Based on the pre-existing credit the Marvel universe had built over the last 6 years, I decided to go watch the new and strange looking movie from the studio. I remember walking back from the cinema discussing the film with my friend for a while, about how great it was. Now, 10 years on from the James Gunn hit, I thought I would look at the legacy which the movie has left behind, both for the MCU and maybe even the modern action-comedy genre.
Cute, Marketable Characters
Whilst it may not be the first thing that comes to mind, I look at the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise, particularly the second movie, and the marketability of the characters, especially Groot. In the first movie, he is practically a mute, except for his three famous words. He is a lover not a fighter, and he is largely useful due to his nature (no pun intended) and his ability to work as part of a team. He is the emotional core of the group, but he is also the most unique and loveable character.
When the second film hit cinemas, and the tease of a smaller version was given towards the end of the first, fans got their first glimpse of “Baby Groot”, a smaller and more adorable version of an already beloved character. The internet was set ablaze with chatter about this tiny talking tree, and he instantly become the poster child for the movie, spawning memes, trends and also plenty of merchandise. This was the first example, in my memory anyway, of Disney toying with the idea of a cute “baby” character in the MCU, since they got the rights at the start of the 2010s.
From here, like most Disney products not belonging Star Wars or Marvel, all of the media owned by the company started introducing animal sidekicks and loveable aliens. Some, like Baby Yoda/Grogu, have become a phenomenon, and a major cash cow for the House of Mouse. Others, like the cats in the much maligned The Marvels, have fallen short of what was expected. However, this has become a very common trend across both the MCU and Star Wars, and can even be seen in other popular media.
The “MCU Humour” Schtick
Love it or hate it, it’s here to stay — that being “MCU Humour”. I would say before Guardians blew up, the MCU on the whole was rather serious and had light-hearted moments scattered about. Captain America, Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk were action first and laughs second, the only film which really experimented with more slapstick comedy was the original Thor and even that was rather melodramatic at times. This all changed, however, when GOTG made a lot of money for Disney, and from then on the MCU was forever changed.
Looking at a lot of MCU films, there are still some that take the job seriously. Infinity War, The Winter Soldier, Civil War all have typical humour but also had that sombre tone and espionage aspect. Unfortunately, as the years have progressed, so has the number of movies plagued with this corny humour. However, the thing they lack, which James Gunn managed so well previously, was consistency. For every Ant-Man, there is a Ant-Man Quantummania; For every Thor Ragnorak, there is a Thor: Love and Thunder. And the issues continue because every movie is trying to capture the lightning in the bottle that was the aforementioned 2014’s summer hit. But, you cannot keep trying the same thing and hoping it will work — it won’t. Guardians of the Galaxy worked so well at the time because it was unique, it was a new style for the MCU — these pale imitations are not.
The issues don’t stop at soul-destroying “comedy” either — we have all heard the ‘he’s right behind me, isn’t he?’ humour before — it now bleeds into the heart of the film. We seriously can’t have a serious moment which isn’t undercut with some forced and tedious quip which sells the scene short. The final battle in the first outing for the ragtag misfits we loved had this same energy, but fool me once, shame on me. We even saw this same non-serious pastiche in the sequel, which seems so unserious at times and so serious in others it feels almost like whiplash between moods. The Star Wars sequels did not really have this issue for the most part, but they did suffer from the MCU style quips and spoon-fed banter heavily.
Giving/Taking Away Creative Freedom from Directors
My final point in this piece will be about the creative freedom and liberties afforded to directors in the wider universe of Marvel. At the beginning of the whole Infinity Saga, the movies were considered by many fans of the comics to be beat for beat with the written origins, perhaps only updating the timeline to fit with modern times due to the age of the source material. However, the main elements remained largely the same. The first example I can clearly see of a Marvel director being given more room to roam and be expressive would be James Gunn. Not only could he use his own vibrant, overly brutal visual direction, but also his witty banter and jokes. This also seemed to translate to his version of the characters, with Peter Quill being more emotional and rash compared to his original version, and Drax being comic relief due to his failure to understand things like sarcasm. However, this did not detract from their characters, and this was maintained throughout their time in the movies they appear in.
The success of the Guardians of the Galaxy franchise and its ability to have creative control was not afforded to Edgar Wright, however. A director known for his great utilisation of music during action set pieces, and for his own niche directing decisions, was originally working on the Ant-Man origin movie, before departing the project due to creative differences. Whilst the final product from Peyton Reed was not a beat-for-beat superhero origin we have previously witnessed, I do wonder what could’ve been had Wright been able to have his claws in it further.
Marvel then decided to again let the reigns loosen a little with Taika Waititi in Thor Ragnorak. Perhaps it was the underperforming previous entries in the Thor trilogy, or them realising their films were starting to stagnate and become too similar, but all appeared to be going for them. Thor Ragnorak was considered one of the better MCU movies and received a large box office return. As a byproduct of its success, the studio allowed Waititi even more creative control on its sequel, Love and Thunder, which was not very well received. It appears that the director needed some form of supervision to make his work, well, work. The film struggled due to the effects which the Guardians started — over-reliance on humour in serious moments and struggling to follow through on heartfelt beats. It also completely undid the character development of its titular hero, and threw the whole series of films into question.
Marvel has been rather cautious on letting directors and showrunners loose since, but there have been some very divisive distinctions drawn since then. For example, the Black Widow’s treatment of villain Taskmaster has left many with a bitter taste in the mouth, and the version of Kingpin seen in Hawkeye felt like a betrayal to the original Daredevil interpretation. Maybe the key in future is, like with Gunn, allowing freedom whilst also maintaining some level of supervision.
