Shocker: Guardians of The Galaxy Will Tie-In To Avengers 3

[Farseer]

It's not based on anything in particular (my feeling, that is) as I honestly haven't seen much or even heard much about GotG, and I certainly don't know them from the comics so I can't point to anything in particular that just screams "this will be a bad movie."

Just a feeling I've got.

I've always been one to say 'trust your instincts.' I, however, am really looking foreward to Guardians of the Galaxy. But, the reason I'm looking foreward to it is because GotG looks so weird/ out-there. I don't expect many to share my views on that one.

I've heard Iron Man is a member of the Guardians of the Galaxy, lately in the comics. Maybe Stark is getting into privatized space flight and bumps into the Milano. But, what I would love to see is the Red Skull, whom I believe wasn't killed but was teleported into space somewhere, show up at the end and somehow point the Mad Titan at Earth.

Also, Star Lord is from my home state. I find that hilarous.

 

[scotth266]

I don't know why people are predicting that THIS movie is going to be Marvel's big flop when there's an Ant-man movie in the pipeline. If anything, this looks to be right up the general public's alley: sci-fi action-adventure with some humor? People should flock to the theaters.

Ant-man on the other hand... a lot of people who saw the demo reel say it was the shit, but honestly, do you see people going to see an Ant-man movie?

Then again, I thought Pacific Rim deserved to be a box-office smash, and people went to see Grown-ups 2.

 

[RJ 17]

Except that you're saying that this particular movie will fail, not that it is likely that any random one of the whole set will fail. Your sample size is effectively one.

I'd love to hear how you came to that conclusion, seeing as how my sample consists of

Captain 1
Captain 2
Iron Man 1
Iron Man 2
iron Man 3
Thor 1
Thor 2
Avengers

All of them have been pretty successful, hence my saying "they're due for a flop", and this next one could be it.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Except that you're saying that this particular movie will fail, not that it is likely that any random one of the whole set will fail. Your sample size is effectively one.

I'd love to hear how you came to that conclusion, seeing as how my sample consists of

Captain 1
Captain 2
Iron Man 1
Iron Man 2
iron Man 3
Thor 1
Thor 2
Avengers

All of them have been pretty successful, hence my saying "they're due for a flop", and this next one could be it.

Nope, unless you can prove that the previous events would change the likelihood of later ones then they are in no way part of your sample. You could say that any one of them is likely to flop. You cannot say, after having noticed that none of the others flopped, that the next is going to. It has the exact same chance of flopping as any previous film (assuming that the previous events have no impact on the later ones, which you have presented no argument that they do).

Saying that "they're due for a flop" is the definition of the gambler's fallacy, which is a fallacy for a reason.

I fucking love math.

Edit- to be more specific, they aren't part of your sample size because you aren't considering them as part of this specific conclusion, rather they are part of the argument for it. Your sample size for your conclusion is just GotG.

 

[RJ 17]

Except that you're saying that this particular movie will fail, not that it is likely that any random one of the whole set will fail. Your sample size is effectively one.

I'd love to hear how you came to that conclusion, seeing as how my sample consists of

Captain 1
Captain 2
Iron Man 1
Iron Man 2
iron Man 3
Thor 1
Thor 2
Avengers

All of them have been pretty successful, hence my saying "they're due for a flop", and this next one could be it.

Nope, unless you can prove that the previous events would change the likelihood of later ones then they are in no way part of your sample. You could say that any one of them is likely to flop. You cannot say, after having noticed that none of the others flopped, that the next is going to. It has the exact same chance of flopping as any previous film (assuming that the previous events have no impact on the later ones, which you have presented no argument that they do).

Saying that "they're due for a flop" is the definition of the gambler's fallacy, which is a fallacy for a reason.

I fucking love math.

Edit- to be more specific, they aren't part of your sample size because you aren't considering them as part of this specific conclusion, rather they are part of the argument for it. Your sample size for your conclusion is just GotG.

Yeah, you are just my favorite type of person to talk to. So on that note, I'm just going to consider everything you say to be a thrilling yarn about a bridge. Have a pleasant weekend.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

Except that you're saying that this particular movie will fail, not that it is likely that any random one of the whole set will fail. Your sample size is effectively one.

I'd love to hear how you came to that conclusion, seeing as how my sample consists of

Captain 1
Captain 2
Iron Man 1
Iron Man 2
iron Man 3
Thor 1
Thor 2
Avengers

All of them have been pretty successful, hence my saying "they're due for a flop", and this next one could be it.

Nope, unless you can prove that the previous events would change the likelihood of later ones then they are in no way part of your sample. You could say that any one of them is likely to flop. You cannot say, after having noticed that none of the others flopped, that the next is going to. It has the exact same chance of flopping as any previous film (assuming that the previous events have no impact on the later ones, which you have presented no argument that they do).

Saying that "they're due for a flop" is the definition of the gambler's fallacy, which is a fallacy for a reason.

I fucking love math.

Edit- to be more specific, they aren't part of your sample size because you aren't considering them as part of this specific conclusion, rather they are part of the argument for it. Your sample size for your conclusion is just GotG.

Yeah, you are just my favorite type of person to talk to. So on that note, I'm just going to consider everything you say to be a thrilling yarn about a bridge. Have a pleasant weekend.

Math ain't a "thrilling" yarn about a bridge. Math makes things fucking work. If you don't think that it's awesome that all the previous flips of a coin have no impact on the later ones, if that can't blow your mind or change your life, then you are the boring one. If you aren't impressed by how having a significantly large sample still leads to the overall distribution of outcomes being comparatively closer to the projected average despite that fundamental rule of statistics, you are the one who is essentially just making meaningless speeches about meaningless things, ignorant of the awesome logic that surrounds us.

If you consider it boring to be corrected, to have the ignorance of your statements laid out before you for you specifically to see, such that you can learn something meaningful about the world around you and attain a greater grasp of the world that you exist within, then you are the one who is dull, trivial, and meaningless, or at the very least you will never be able to become less so in any meaningful way.

You are restricted by your brain's inherent misunderstanding of statistics such that you can never truly "get" statistics, and you refuse to overcome it. You are limited by your far too common sense, and you will never have anything meaningful to say about anything related to probability if you cannot grasp the basics of it. Your meaningless comment is just a waste of our time with it's appeasement of our primitive monkey brains. Jon, you are the bridges. You have always been the bridges. You will always be the bridges.

I. FUCKING. LOVE. MATH.

 

[Michael Law]

Everyone forget about those two Hulk movies? I hear they totally didn't flop at all.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

Everyone forget about those two Hulk movies? I hear they totally didn't flop at all.

Surprisingly both made a profit, the Marvel reboot exceeding expectations (which were low after the Ang Lee's versions expected high performance).

 

[Michael Law]

Oh wow really?
That is kind of amazing haha.
Critically though, both were flops for sure. Not well received. Though I thought the one with Tim Roth was fine. I hope they bring him back as Abomination.