Guardians of the Galaxy has been a huge success for Marvel Studios. Last weekend, director James Gunn's heartfelt and hilarious movie held the top spot at the box office yet again. And, as you all probably know by now, the sci-fi adventure has also generated a mountain of money and received overwhelmingly positive reviews. A sequel was confirmed before the movie was even released and we know Guardians of the Galaxy's quality means plenty of people will purchase a ticket when the second movie opens, but what else does it mean for Marvel Studios? So, grab a drink, get comfortable, play a song from the Awesome Mix and let's chat about what this sci-fi movie means for Marvel Studios and comic book movies in general.

First and foremost, Guardians of the Galaxy was a fairly risky move for Marvel Studios. Yes, the studio's a marketing machine and has built a fanbase with previous projects -- so that alone guarantees the movie won't a complete failure -- but this movie is unlike anything else they've created. We all know this movie was going to bring in some money, but how much was absolutely open for debate. Instead of being a slight disappointment in Marvel's eyes, audiences threw their money at the movie and many happily watched it more than once. Because, you know, it's seriously lovable. This surprised many and for a very simple reason: the pre-existing fanbase for this team isn't big. Like, at all.

While heroes like Iron Man or Thor weren't exactly popular among moviegoers before Marvel Studios began its universe, the general public at least had a basic understanding of the characters. Iron Man? Smart dude in an armor that flies and shoots stuff with his hands. Thor? That dude with fabulous hair and a mighty hammer. The understanding is simple enough to generate interest, especially after the way the movies are marketed and some big names are included. However, Guardians of the Galaxy not only goes sci-fi heavy and sports a very unique vibe, but it also features five characters that even many comic book fans aren't that knowledgeable about.

When there's so many big budget movies being released, it was uncertain how big of a success GotG would be and whether it could keep audiences going back into theaters for more. Fans can only spend so much money at the movies, after all. On top of a vast majority of audiences thinking this is a wacky sci-fi movie with cosmic characters they've never heard of, the biggest names are hidden behind CGI beings (Bradley Cooper and Vin Diesel). Luckily, Gunn's a thoroughly talented director and the project not only taught everyone about these characters, but it also made them fall in love with the unique team. A premise like this has the potential to come off as too ridiculous and silly, but thanks to a strong script and skilled handling of the scenes, it worked and then some.

When so many movies struggle to give proper attention to multiple teammates, Guardians of the Galaxy gave five totally new characters an impressive amount of depth and focus. It just goes to show that, in the right hands, Marvel can turn almost any individual or team into a successful feature film, and we all know just how many heroes and teams the Studio has at its disposal. Sure, the plot wasn't noteworthy, but the focus on character most definitely was. If they could make the Guardians of the Galaxy popular among the general audience, this should give them the confidence to continue selecting characters that aren't in the A-list or are mostly unfamiliar to non-comic book fans. We know Marvel Studios likes to look very far ahead, so GotG's triumph should open the door to so many more options. At this point, nothing should be stopping them from making Black Panther, the Inhumans, Blade (yup, they have the rights back!), or Captain Marvel big players in Phase 4 and beyond. It's just a matter of finding the right director and cast -- GotG proves this.

While Warner Bros. is obviously going for a completely different tone with its DC properties, a talking tree and a gun-crazy "racoon" raking in the big bucks could make the studio more open to eventually dipping into its vast cosmic pool of teams and heroes. And, according to a new rumor, it looks like GotG's prosperity has possibility motivated them to consider properties which previously could have been deemed as too out-there or unpopular.

We know we'll be seeing more of the team in the sequel and it has been said there's plans to have the group bump into the Avengers (Rocket arguing with Iron Man could be priceless), but considering just how big of a hit the movie was, it seems more than likely that Gunn will be given the opportunity to direct a third Guardians of the Galaxy film. When Marvel Studios presents a character -- or, in this case, a team -- it looks like the plan is to give them a trilogy (while also working in cameos elsewhere) and then make room for new franchises to shine. This can be seen as Cap and Thor enter approach their third movies and the studio will soon begin push Doctor Strange and Ant-Man. Will some characters eventually go beyond a trilogy? Only time will tell, but right now it seems like Marvel wants to give viewers three doses of something they love and then introduce them to something new. So, if the first GotG movie included the Nova Corps, Adam Warlock's Cocoon and brought in Howard the Duck just for laughs, we can only imagine how Gunn and Marvel Studios will continue to expand the cinematic universe's cosmic scene as they move forward with the franchise.

Could we eventually see the members of the Guardians of the Galaxy get their own spin-off movies -- basically the reverse of what happened with The Avengers? There's no sign that'll happen, but after this movie became such a victory for Marvel, the possibility is definitely there. This film teased a rich story for each of these characters and, despite Groot or Rocket often being the favorite characters, many viewers ended up liking all of them. How cool would a Groot & Rocket Racoon team-up movie or a Gamora solo adventure be? Answer: very cool.

Last and certainly not least, Gunn's work with GotG has apparently solidified his relationship with Marvel Studios. He seems to totally embrace the cosmic universe and all of the craziness that comes with it. Wacky and fun works well for the studio and it's a tone Gunn handles incredibly well (Slither and Super also proved this). Perhaps it's just wishful thinking, but based on his posts made via social media accounts, it definitely looks like he has a positive relationship with the studio and he's more than earned their faith. So, here's hoping they not only give him three GotG movies, but also grant him the opportunity to bring other cosmic properties front and center as he works to expand the evergrowing cosmic stage. Now, we're not saying he should hog the spotlight and be the go-to guy for every movie that takes place outside of Earth, but he without question has what it takes to make unfamiliar franchises a hugely entertaining experience which can be enjoyed by all kinds of fans. When it comes to Marvel potentially focusing on cosmic characters that are unknown to a vast majority of moviegoers (e.g. Inhumans), that's a pretty important talent to bring to the project.

Rocket stole the show, and I'd be there opening night for a Rocket/Groot movie.

It's funny, because the Iron Man being well known thing isn't really all that true. Kevin Feige (I think) mentioned in an interview that when they were trying to get the first movie started up, a lot of the people they talked to out in LA thought he was a robot or something. As to Thor, I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the general public really didn't have a clue about who he was until the movie hit, also.

- TAS

Oh man, what a fun movie, I want more movies like this, they shouldn't take the fun out of superhero movies and this movie is proof. Looking at you DC.

I haven't seen the movie yet, but I'm truly glad it succeeded. It opens for so many possibilities in comic book movie universe.

@bappyhimself: You will love it! I'm going to see it in 3D for the first time (second time over all) this weekend with my little girl, and I never care to see a 3D movie.

I'd rather a captain mar-vell movie.

They should just do rocket and groot they are the only ones worth watching.

Thanks for recommending. I'll watch it as soon as I can make time for it, probably this weekend or a weekend later.

@viin: nuuhh crazy head! Drax was Hilarious and Gamora was adorable. Scared of the walkman and all.

@meatwadf: they might not have known thor was a super hero but im sure there are more people then not who know who thor is in mythology vs iron man

Normally I'd be all cynical and say "now Marvel is gonna start whoring them out like they've been doing with the Avengers", but you're absolutely right.

There are no A, B, C list of superheros, in movie adaptation, the movie just have to be good.

@perfect_10: You would be surprised. A lot of people don't have even a basic understanding of mythology beyond "that show with Kevin Sorbo." lol

I've pretty much forgotten most of it, even the soundtrack (Maybe because I've already heard all the music growing up from my parents, so I wasn't exposed to for first time like some people).
The only thing I clearly remember from it was that it was another macguffin plot.

It just another Instant Gratification Marvel Film, fun but forgettable in long term.

I suspect most people are most likely only remembering/hyping it more now is because its the end of the blockbuster season. The film is made for casual blockbluster audience who move from blockbluster to blockbuster film, but here what's gonna replace it in the audience mind? nothing for a while. (that also explains why its still number 1 in cinema's - little competition. Secondly on the internet you've got that short term tumblr gif/Meme expressionism, but again that will also fade pretty quickly when something comes along to replace (maybe Doctor Who/Sherlock etc).

Better Question: If GoG 2 comes out in start/Middle of crowded blockbuster summer will it have the same impact on the audience?

@novemberx2: a voice of reason among madmen

Still haven't seen it. I had very little interest in this film, I planned on waiting for it to be on demand, but given the hype I may hit the theatre. From a business perspective, did Marvel just make these guys a better movie than DC did for Supes? I just can't believe it happened, but from what I've read........

Sorry if I was unclear in the article, but the implication isn't that people have a moderate degree of knowledge on those characters, just that a fair amount at least know of their existence and the bare basics of what they look like.

Heh they sure did.

@dimitridkatsis: Not every superhero movie needs to have that comedic tone. It worked great for Guardians of the Galaxy (and even successfully hid the movie's flaws) because Marvel movies are always about the heroes, not the villains.

But this is what I don't get. Just because GotG was fun and successfully translated a comedic tone into a superhero property, does not mean it should always be done this way. Case in point : Thor 2. The overabundance of witty banter and heavy-handed jokes in that movie is proof that if you don't let the humor stem from the characters naturally (and Gunn did that really well in GotG), and instead just shove it down the viewer's throat because you think it's clever, then the movie will suffer, and more specifically the more dramatic moments will be robbed of their significance.

You can't have that tone with the Captain America movies. The Russo bros knew that, and cleverly avoided it. As a result, CA the Winter Soldier is arguably the best superhero movie of the year. For me at least. They didn't try to lighten the gravity of some of the confrontations (cap vs the Winter Soldier mainly) with misguided humor. They knew what tone would be appropriate for the story they wanted to tell. And it worked perfectly. And CA WS was a lot offun. But for different reasons.

For GotG, the lighter, more humorous tone was appropriate, because it's a space adventure at the heart, with an eclectic band of misfits most people had ever heard of before. Gunn had to make them likable, and relatable to a certain extent. And it worked. The movie does have flaws (Ronan is underdeveloped, The Collector is still terrible, the entire plot revolves around a MacGuffin, ...), but the charm and earnestness it displays in telling the story largely outweighs them. Plus it helps to have a cool soundtrack :-P

In short, it's about what sort of tone a character can handle. Batman movies can never be that light. Superman movies can (and should) be lighter than Batman movies. But that doesn't mean they should go all the way down to the GotG tone.

Hey now, Fox and Bruce had some classic well timed banter.

Personally, if you capture the full Thor when he's on Earth, I don't see how you leave out the humor as he's just such a misfit on Earth. It's not needed in the Asgard scenes.

@k4tzm4n: Ah. Yeah. They were at least aware of them being a thing.

If it was up to me, Marvel would be taking advantage of their GotG swag and putting out a Hypno Hustler movie.

@thorverine: Oh yeah. You actually smile at times while watching GotG.

I havent watched this Movie and i dont think i will. It just dosent appeal to me. I have heard it was good and its results speaks for itself. I hope Marvel continues to do good and i cant wait for DC to put out theres. Im more of a serious tone kind of guy.I have grown out of "Fun" movies.

I'd give a lot for a Richard Rider Nova-movie and an Inhumans movie.

@jean_dezem all I said was moviemakers shouldn't get the fun out of them, yeah other movies like Thor 2 didn't do it as successfull and the way of being fun can be different between movies and Superman shouldn't have such a serious tone so how do we disagree? I didn't say this specific kind of humour should be used for every super hero.

I still can not for the life of me figure why this movie is so well received. Maybe by the Transformers crowd, bu that's it. I could go on and on, exaggerating humorously about the nauseating humor that damn near resulted in a bloody anus, I could pontificate about how the entire middle chunk of this garbage felt even more uneccessary than the rest of the film (a feat worthy of the battle forums), and I could spout about concerning how the threat level is about as non-existent as Square's ability to tolerate event the most minor of grammatical offenses, but I intend to just get straight to the heart of the matter. That heart is: THE MOVIE STINKS!!! Lame fights, insulting annoying humor, and an ugly lead actor that thinks he's sexy. Not to mention a tree with down syndrome. The only thing these guys should be guarding is a comedy club, since they'd fit right in.

P.S. This comment was funnier than the entire movie.

not sure this movie would do great as a trilogy. instead as their third installment it would be cool to have an Avengers or X-Men crossover movie!

also, they should think about doing a Thanos stand-alone movie, that would be amazing and also taking advantage of casting an incredible actor like Brolin.

I can't wait to see what the sequel is like.

More comedy for Marvel and their villains doesn't have to be taken seriously.

@patrat18: Preach, Rev.

I love that GotG poster at the top. Star Lords face is class. It's like he's really crapping himself but he's also trying to remain calm and look sexy LOL

I'm not normally a huge fan of Super Heroes in movies... I find they don't transfer that well to the big screen mostly.

But GoTG was a great time. I mean, it wasn't top quality cinema and is still far away from my top films list, but it was entertaining, fun, and original enough to keep me interested. I'll be happy to see the sequel(s), which is more than I can say for most other Super Hero movies.

Also, for the people saying that Marve takes risks, what risks?

This, Thor(s), and Iron Man(s) have the exact same tone with the Avengers.

Its success means that Marvel will probably put more effort into making related films and films like it, which is a shame. GotG wasn't manly enough, and I'd hate to see Marvel waste time on stuff like this instead of making manly movies about their manly characters.

It's success hopefully means Nova and Adam Warlock are on the way.

PPS. No. It wasn't. If my level of entertainment during GotG was a 10, the level during your post was less than or equal to zero.

Transformers for instance was serially panned by critics and even "fans" of the movie ("I know the plot/acting/script was horrible but I like shiny things"). If most people like a thing then the thing is considered good. How else could we possibly judge objective goodness or badness besides voting?

Do you think this speaks to the value and social position of Superman as an international icon?

I do not mean to discredit GOTG's achievements (even though I consider it to be the worst film I've seen this year...), it only seems to be America that has responded so well to the film - here, in Britain, people have largely been a little indifferent (but I don't know if that's just the sort of people I've been talking to), and that seems to be shown in box office results.

By far, one of the things I least liked about the film was that it depended too much on humour and references - something that only really appeals to the general American comedic sensibilities; something that, without which, the film would expose it's underlying lack of plot and coherency.

" First and foremost, Guardians of the Galaxy was a fairly risky move for Marvel Studios. Yes, the studio's a marketing machine and has built a fanbase with previous projects -- so that alone guarantees the movie won't a complete failure -- but this movie is unlike anything else they've created"

This is what I keep reading about this movie and, sorry but it's all bullsh*t. The only risky thing this movie did was beting on some unknown character, which isn't even that much of a bet since every f****ng original movie not based on anything (do you remember when they did those? oh boy... good old times) has to deal with the same problem. Apart from that we had Marvel's formula again. It's nearly the same plot as Thor: The Dark World was and has the same problems that one did (pointless macguffin, lame villain etc).

Don't get me wrong, I did enjoy this movie a lot, it was one of the funniest movies I've seen in a while, but don't come up again with the "this was really risky for Marvel" crap, 'cause IT F****NG WASN'T.

Obviously every movie not based on a popular franchise uses characters that are "new" to the audience, but comic book movies often require some degree of familiarity to get people interested enough in shelling out $9+ for a ticket. In some cases, that can even work against it (e.g. Dredd 3D in the US). As stated in the article, "A premise like this has the potential to come off as too ridiculous and silly." Without knowing these characters, seeing that the latest Marvel movie focuses on a talking tree and "raccoon" could potentially be off-putting to many because they have no idea what to expect and it could be viewed as too absurd for much of the general audience. That thankfully wasn't the case, but the possibility was absolutely there.

I want a Moon Knight movie

I really don't wanna be "that" guy, but I was pretty let down by Guardians of the Galaxy, along with a bunch of the Marvel movies of late. The only ones that I've really found worthwhile were the first Iron Man, the first Thor, and Captain America: Winter Soldier. The rest, however, have been kind of...disappointing, I wanna say? I know that the people here, especially @gman and @undeadpool are enthralled with them, but every time I see a Marvel movie, I'm left with this empty feeling like I didn't really see anything I haven't seen before.

I mean, its the same exact thing almost every time. They rely way too much on puffed-up action and campy comedy. Yet, people are way too ready to give them a free pass because they're "fun." Um..."fun" doesn't mean much when there is almost no substance. One article I read the other day described Avengers as "one contrivance after another" and I have to say that I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately, Guardians of the Galaxy is no exception, which is almost painful for me to say, as I really like Chris Pratt (Andy Dwyer has to be my favorite character on Parks and Rec). It honestly felt more like a superhero parody movie than an actual superhero movie. Star Lord distracts Ronan by dancing for god sake. Dancing!! Like, what the hell. I just wish the Marvel movies would focus more on, you know, being a little more serious.

@zeeguy91: Movies quality is very subjective and any opinion it's just yours, the movie is critic acclaimed (92% RT) and done a great box office performance for a non squeal and unknown franchise.

But in my personal opinion i agree with you in some points like the stupid dance with Ronan.

True, but we both know that the RT score is a really poor indicator of actual quality. It decides its score based on an aggregate of reviews, and while that seems like a good indicator, we don't know whether or not that aggregate is a representative sample. Furthermore, box office is also not a good indicator of actual movie quality. The typical moviegoer will sit through the most mediocre movie and essentially call it Shakespeare just as long as it gives them enough exciting chase scenes or loud, pretty explosions. My sixty-year-old parents are the perfect example of that.

@zeeguy91: Like i said in the first post movie quality is very subjective and you know that in the present it's hard to reach consensus, there are n reviewers and everybody thinks his opinion is the universal review about the movie, and metacritic and RT give us some clues about what critics in general thought about the movie.

In terms of movie business you know that 92% on RT and a predictable $700 million worldwide ($588 but still china and japan release to go) for an original franchise is a great great success and the squeal will probably reach $900, but i understand your review in some points, i just mentioned some movie business aspects.

@rainja: how can you out grow "fun" movies? Do you mean movies that are advertised as "Fun for the whole family" cause I can't see anyone outgrowing comedy movies or something similar

@chaos911: Yea. that's what I meant. Should have put it into context.

@rainja: oh OK cause I when I first saw your post and I couldn't think of anybody outgrowing fun in general