Chris Pratt would make Guardians Of The Galaxy movies without James Gunn, probably
As long as they honored the original films, Chris Pratt would keep making Guardians Of The Galaxy movies without James Gunn
Aux News Guardians of the Galaxy
He played Mario. He’ll play Garfield. But now Chris Pratt is boldly going where he’s gone six times before: Star Lord Peter Quill. The latest Guardians Of The Galaxy movie, releasing later this week, marks at least one definitive ending (for now): James Gunn’s role in the franchise. After taking over leadership of Marvel Studios’ direct competition DC Studios, Gunn won’t be returning to this Galaxy any time soon. However, one person who probably will is Chris Pratt—though he admits it “would be strange” without James Gunn.
“He’s done such a masterful job in the first three films,” Pratt told GamesRadar+. “We really found the voice of Peter Quill together and without him, obviously, I would never have had this opportunity. He writes it, he directs it, he dreams up the music; it’s his imagination on screen. So, to continue to tell the story, it would really be important to honor what he’s done in the first three films and to honor what the fans have grown to love about the character and not simply do it because people might show up to pay for it, you know?”
Of course, Pratt and the rest of The Guardians have performed these roles for other directors, including Taika Waititi, the Russo brothers, and whoever helmed the Disneyland ride Guardians of the Galaxy – Mission Breakout! Still, when working in the broader MCU, Pratt and fellow Guardian Pom Klementieff reportedly called Gunn for direction on the set of the Avengers movies. “I was being given directions, and I was like, ‘I think I’m going to call James,’ Klementieff told The Hollywood Reporter. (What’s particularly strange about this is that the Russos couldn’t replicate Gunn’s direction via A.I.) Still, Klementieff’s comments speak to a director’s limits on Marvel productions, where actors technically undermine their directors by calling another director for clarification—this might speak to the mixed reaction to Thor: Love & Thunder. But Pratt’s not opposed—he just doesn’t want to be “cynical in the approach.”
“Maybe down the road, if something makes sense, I would do it, but it would really have to check a lot of the right boxes,” Pratt said.
It’s hard to imagine Marvel not tapping a star like Pratt for future installments—they might have to. At the risk of upsetting the MCU faithful and despite churning out hit after hit since Endgame, the Studio has only successfully launched one new character: Simu Liu’s Shang-Chi. The rest of Phase Four has benefited chiefly from a leg-up from legacy characters and, in the case of No Way Home, legacy characters from other universes.
Though Pratt and Thor’s Chris Hemsworth have threatened to retire the cinematic universe thing, it doesn’t seem likely. When Marvel gets to its next team-up movie, it doesn’t seem likely they’ll leave the Chrises on the sidelines, with so few new stars to take their place. What are they going to do? Bring back fan-favorite Corey Stoll’s M.O.D.O.K.? Elevate the beseiged next-big-thing Jonathan Majors? Pray that the fanbase comes around on She-Hulk? Lean on Hawkeye? In this multiverse of madness, it doesn’t matter who’s dead or who quit. Everyone’s likely to come back at some point—no wonder Chris Evans is already plotting his return.
54 Comments
Actors like work, part 23
Read it here, folks! “Pratt Likes Buying Mansions”! Hot off the presses!
Hell, Pratt qualified it a hell of a lot more than most would!
Pratt needs the money. He has to tithe to his Mega-Church.
Which is somewhat interesting… I hate work.
And I’d watch Guardians without Chris Pratt. Actually, I’d watch about anything that was without him
Eh, he’s perfectly fine in these movies. Don’t let your worst-Chris hate completely blind you.
yeah the hate towards him is super weird. I thought we were supposed to like everyone, despite of religious views, and be inclusive.
I don’t think it’s all unearned. The church he famously attends (attended?) is famous in it’s own right for it’s treatment of people it deems lesser, mostly LGBT members. His insistence to play coy and pretend like he was unaware of what his church was known for rubbed a lot of people the wrong way.His divorce from Anna Faris was pretty messy too, mostly because of how he handled the press at the time. Especially in regards to his newfound relationship, which was suspicious enough.
The church stuff basically boils down to Elliott Page, having gone five minutes without attention, calling it out and Pratt ignoring him.
As for the divorce, who actually cares?
I still think most of the Pratt hate comes down to Star Lord punching Thanos. Because most people are fucking morons.
That whole “My new wife gave me a good healthy kid, not like that useless damaged kid my other wife gave me” thing was the tipping point for me.
If that’s the view of pratt and his church, basically everyone should immediately stop watching anything made in hollywood. scientology to start.
It feels disproportionate. Denzel Washington is a member of The Church of God and Christ, which sees homosexuality and abortion as sins (and actively promotes those stances), but that’s not as well-known or doesn’t seem to impact people’s views of Denzel.
Yeah, Denzel has some pretty fucking appalling comments in his past. “Don’t be kissing no dudes” was his advice to Will Smith over a movie role.
I have more empathy for people who were raised in a church like that (Washington’s father was a pentecostal minister), then for people who decide to convert to a homophobic religion (outside of converting for marriage). There are many, many, LGBTQ friendly religions and churchs in LA that Pratt could have joined, but he chose that one.
I get that, too, but I don’t know if we treat celebs raised in the Church of Scientology too differently from celebs who joined in adulthood. I also still think it’s disproportionate in that Denzel gets ZERO flack for being in that church and Pratt is nearing persona non grata status among AVClub commenters. I think his being young(ish) sets expectations much higher when it comes to having less conservative politics I suppose.
Oh no! Will Chris not get to voice Mario in the sequel if AvClub commenters don’t like that he’s a bigoted sack of shit?!?!Wait no he’ll be fine.
I’m not interested in debating it but I like Chris Pratt in these movies, the Lego movies, Parks and Rec, and others. He’s a funny dude. I’m not down with homophobia but I really have no idea what his personal views are. I certainly am not willing to judge him for “Christian, frat boy, reads Jordan Petersen, would join the Federalist Society if he was lawyer” vibes because that’s not my take. He seems like an affable doofus to me. It helps that he started his career as a big, shlubby puppy. He was hilarious in the Lego movie. He’s not my favorite Chris but not my least favorite either. I have not seen any Jurassic Park movie beyond Jurassic Park 1.
I don’t think Pratt is persona non grata here, every time he’s mentioned people come sweeping in to say they don’t get the hate. I’m largely indifferent to Pratt, but I understand the side eye for someone who, as an adult, joined and very publicly stans a homophobic church. I wonder if Denzel gets something of a pass because he was in Philadelphia.
sometimes your enthusiasm for someone just leaves and it’s not their fault. i don’t need a reason to not like a celebrity, and i just got tired of pratt pretty quickly. i can feel it happening with pedro pascal in real time.
For me the dislike (I don’t hate the guy, but I’m sick of him) comes from overexposure and his career pivot to leading man. He was great as Andy on Parks and Rec, and Star Lord really fits those strengths. After that, he transitioned into a lot of self-serious action-hero stuff and kind of shed everything affable and relatable about his image.Yeah, the religion stuff adds an ick factor, but boiling the dislike down to what church he attends is dismissive of his actual place in Hollywood.
I feel the same way. It got worse after I saw Passengers, that movie made no sense. I hope he hasn’t brought his off screen persona to GotG 3’s Starlord.
I mean, every cast interview from the last couple months indicates that his actual “offscreen persona” consists of providing incredible leadership behind the scenes to ensure Gunn’s reinstatement, while Dave publicly bloviated.Seems like a perfect dynamic to bring to the Quill-Drax relationship!
That movie really showed his weaknesses as an actor because someone like…Tom Hanks in the early 90s really could have played that character in a way that made him empathic despite how every choice he made was selfish, problematic and icky. But because Chris Pratt now just gives off “Christian, frat boy, reads Jordan Petersen, would join the Federalist Society if he was lawyer” vibes the character’s behavior seems predatory versus desperate and lonely which isn’t what the movie wanted.
Jurassic World really felt like the point where he said “Fuck everything people love about me, I want to just be the cool douchebro now!”
Chris Pratt is a piece of shit, and the people who blindly support him (and pull the shit you’re pulling) are usually also pieces of shit.
I would hope so, because you’d be missing out. Most movies don’t have Chris Pratt in them. Like roughly 99.9%.
“So, what do you think of my movie pitch?”“Eh, it’s okay, I guess.”“What if I told you it doesn’t feature Chris Pratt?”“I’m sold!”
Triumph of the Will?
Saw it( Gotg 3) this afternoon Spoiler warning ,……….Seriously …….There’s a ’James Bond ‘ style tag at the very end of the movie that mentions ‘The legendary Starlord* will return’.Although FYI it doesn’t mention Peter, but starlord…..also …more spoilers….., similar to the post civil war style ‘ Avengers 2.0 ‘ theres a mid credits ‘new guardians’ scene, which would ve pretty cool if they do sequels…
Fuck dude SPOILERS!
Breaking news! Actor says he might continue to do role that made him a boatload of cash.
…the Disneyland ride Guardians of the Galaxy – Mission Breakout!One of those Disneyland rides they accidentally put in Florida?
Guardians of the Galaxy: Mission Breakout is in Disneyland, NOT in Florida.
#pedantfail
Oh, they turned the Tower of Terror into a Guardians of the Galaxy ride? That’s too bad.
I agree!
The is in California at Disneyland. It is a pretty fun “experience/story” ride that includes all the characters with Rocket as the star of the show.
‘the Studio has only successfully launched one new character: Simu Liu’s Shang-Chi’i like having a laugh at the mcu as much as the next guy, but were the launches of monica rambeau, moon knight, agatha harkness, america chavez, ms marvel, she-hulk, namor, riri williams, kang* and whatever they’re gonna call florence pugh’s widow all considered failures? not to mention the relaunch of captain america**, hawkeye, whatever they’re gonna call ant man’s kid, who else am i forgetting?*if you wanna be a pedant sure you can say rambeau was in the first captain marvel and i do imagine when they recast it will not be looked back on as a great debut for kang.**i kinda think that was a failure but we’ll see how the movie is.
Monica Rambeau is Captain Marvel. She was Captain Marvel in the Eighties and groomed to be leader of The Avengers. Editors fired her creator, removed her powers, and literally wrote the other Avengers suddenly questioning her and calling her “dead weight” and inept. The fact that a blonde White Woman becomes Captain Marvel and Monica is chipper about being her pal is really insulting to the character.
alright man i’ll add that to the failure tally then.
To be fair, the blonde took the title from the/in honor of the alien that used the same name. It was still some BS.
Danvers also gets treated awfully though, including mind control, rape, losing her powers, alcoholism, alien experimentation, and what seems to be an editorial desire for her to always be championing the ‘bad’ side when it comes to crossover events full of in-fighting.
Successfully? That movie ended with teases promising us more from the Ten Rings, and more from the Eternals, but didn’t promise jack shit for more Shang-Chi.
You’re assuming Gunn stays away for all that much time. DC has broken better creators than him.
So all that stuff about how James Gunn shouldn’t have been fired and only he can do these movies was just bullshit as far as Pratt was concerned, I guess.
Pratt literally spearheaded the campaign to get him rehired, haha.Maybe…read the actual interview, instead of an article written by ChatGPT imitating Plumberduck sweatily failing to imitate Sean?
Plumberduck! Damn you for reminding me of what we’ve lost here.
I assume that he thinks there’s a difference between “being fired at the behest of hooting twitter lunatics” and “retiring from a position by choice.” Dunno, that seems like a straightforward difference to me.
“boldly going where he’s gone six times before”
This is minor but isn’t it seven times before. Three GoTG, two Avengers, 1 Thor, 1 Holiday Special.
Apparently James Gunn himself directed the clips of the GOTC actors for “Mission Breakout.”
The way things are going Chris will be playing Tony Stark by the end of the decade.
The only actors who have unequivocally said they’re done are Saldana (who pitched a fit at Marvel’s secrecy with scripts) and Bautista (who has delusions of grandeur and thinks he’s the next Brando and equates Drax’s makeup to working in the coal mines). Karen Gillan has also said she wants to continue as Nebula post 3.
Wait one damn minute. An actor. Willing to act in a movie without a certain director attached? What next? Will they start taking more money to star in roles they don’t want to do? This is a big news story.
Well pratt is a sack of shit who will do anything for money, so this tracks.
I mean, yeah he’s gonna say that. Because Guardians is a big paycheck for him. Just like he’ll keep doing Mario movies as long as Nintendo and Illumination back up trucks full of money to his door.