Point/Counterpoint - Guardians of the Galaxy

I suspect most readers here don't get their entertainment news from The Motley Fool so I'll present these posts from their website offering two different views of the upcoming Guardians of the Galaxy movie. The writers are not comic book guys so they argue from a more mainstream point of view.

The first post has the clickbait title "'Guardians of the Galaxy' Will Be a Flop By Marvel Standards." The writer compares GotG with Watchmen and Scott Pilgrim vs. the World.

"Watchmen," which cost $130 million to make and took in $107 million in U.S. box office, might be the best direct comparison to "Guardians." It was based on a hugely popular graphic novel (more popular than the Guardians comics) but was largely unknown outside the comic book universe. It wasn't a massive flop like "John Carter" ($250 million budget, $73 million domestic gross), but it was a failure that lost money for its backers.

The other post is the almost as clickbaity "5 Reasons the 'Guardians of the Galaxy' Movie Will Prove Critics Wrong." The writer argues the same points that many here have used.

What hasn't been said about Guardians of the Galaxy's first full-length trailer? It's energetic, quirky, and unexpectedly amusing for a sci-fi epic. Half Star Wars, half Firefly with a dash of Indiana Jones, Disney and Marvel Studios hold the keys to a potential blockbuster.

...

While the obvious risks — that Guardians is too goofy for sci-fi fans and too niche for those in the mainstream — remain, I applaud Marvel's decision to go forward with the film. It's a unique entry into a genre that's been unimaginative in recent years, and if aliens listening to "Hooked on a Feeling" isn't original, I don't know what is.