Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is 376941

[Mondragon]

How did they drop the ball on the evident JL movie?

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4293/avengersmoviepromowindc.jpg

Why couldn't they pull this off?

[Tobias]

the only thing keeping SR from having a sequel was the the cost to make.

This is true. WB detrmined the cost to make Superman vs the receipts from a Superman film and decided it wasn't finacially feasible. So they shelved the franchise.

[CConn]

Personally, what impressed me most about Superman Returns was its art direction and cinematography. The one major complaint I always had with Bryan Singer was that his films lacked visual flair and really awe-inspiring cinematography. With SR, he improved on his visual work in X1 and2 by leaps and bounds.

The story was, admittedly, odd for a superhero movie. But at the same time, it was refreshing. It wasn't the same standard plot formula that's been used in STM, Batman Begins, Spider-Man, etc., etc. And the subtlety and emotional beats seemed more similar to a Burton Batman movie than any other superhero film - which I did enjoy.

Most importantly, it's characterization of Superman gave him a real sense of humanity and the proper amount of imperfection that is often missing in superhero movies. As someone who's not a big fan of the original Superman movies, or Superman in general, I left the theater pretty interested and pretty invested in Superman as a character, and that's really what every Superman movie should do.

Of course it had flaws. The fact it's a semi-sequel to the originals hurts the film I feel - it feels like its a sequel to a film that doesn't even really exist, and that muddles the continuity throughout the film. Spacey's Luthor was great, but the script really limited him from being TOO threatening, and that whole schtick with a super villain only having a girlfriend and a handful of henchmen to help him is inherently unrealistic and downright campy at times.

[akfj]

How did they drop the ball on the evident JL movie?

http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/4293/avengersmoviepromowindc.jpg

Why couldn't they pull this off?

They still can. They have eternity to do it.

[DoomsdayApex]

They still can. They have eternity to do it.

Wonder Woman and Flash to be made first though.

I wouldn't mind if WB/DC took five years to make a JL movie.

[CConn]

Personally, I'm not all that excited to see a JLA movie. I've always much preferred to see those heroes separately than together.

[DoomsdayApex]

I'm not too excited right now either. The Avengers deluded a Justice League adaptation, but eventually interest will grow down the road.

[marcvader]

I'd like to see them separate as well as together.

[chiefchirpa]

Like I said, me personally, I thought IM2 was not significantly better than GL, in any shape or form.



Your opinion is still among the minority and of course, it’s not wrong. Even if IM2 is far from a stellar movie, IM is clearly not a debased franchise after IM2. Non-comicbook reading people are still looking forward to the next IM, the actors are enthusiastic to do another round. GL as a franchise is “tainted” after GL. Admit it, your interest of watching the GL universe "inflates" what you perceive over the quality of GL. Unbiased people don’t see the “magic” as they can see the flaw of GL instantly. They see GL is just another cartoon/comic turned for live action. Little substance, just cartoon drawing turned into living men.



I never indicated otherwise. I said both suffered script issues, but Green Lantern's actors did a far better job than what was expected.

And I wouldn't praise Cheadle. Howard might have been the lesser actor but he had more chemistry (w/RDJ) and charisma for the role of Rhodey than Don did in IM2.


If GL script turned out to be that bad (it was), then I pity the GL actors.

But better acting performance is better acting performance, bad script notwithstanding. Script is even somewhat unimportant in IM2 that RDJ acted some of his performances unscripted as he interpreted some of the scenes improptu.



Nope. Both are on the same level. So far, Blake and Scarlett have had only one role that was considered (from what I've seen) performance-worthy. And if you claim that ScarJo did a far better in IM2 than Blake did in GL, then you're loco.


Vicky Christina Barcelona and Lost in Translation is where Scarlett have shown that she could act. Where have Blake Lively shown she could act? The Town? She's actually channeling herself, when she's high on crack.

[Boom]

I never really cared for the Justice League, personally.

[CConn]

Honestly, a straight up Batman/Superman movie would interest me more purely because you would have the time to really explore the parallels between the two characters, and really get into character introspection.

[DoomsdayApex]

Your opinion is still among the minority and of course, it’s not wrong. Even if IM2 is far from a stellar movie, IM is clearly not a debased franchise after IM2. Non-comicbook reading people are still looking forward to the next IM, the actors are enthusiastic to do another round. GL as a franchise is “tainted” after GL. Admit it, your interest of watching the GL universe "inflates" what you perceive over the quality of GL. Unbiased people don’t see the “magic” as they can see the flaw of GL instantly. They see GL is just another cartoon/comic turned for live action. Little substance, just cartoon drawing turned into living men.

Absolutely not. You can't allow yourself to think that way, or Batman Begins & The Dark Knight would have never happened after Batman & Robin. Under the right direction, Green Lantern can be just as mainstream as Batman and Superman. It should have been DC's next cash cow, but they f**ked up big time with the script, CGI/SFX and marketing. Thanks to their 'strategy', the film was a clusterf**k and we've probably seen the last of Green Lantern on the big screen for a long time. Which is a shame really because the character brought numerous aspects, elements, dimensions, characters, etc that most other CBM did not have.

If GL script turned out to be that bad (it was), then I pity the GL actors.

But better acting performance is better acting performance, bad script notwithstanding. Script is even somewhat unimportant in IM2 that RDJ acted some of his performances unscripted as he interpreted some of the scenes improptu.

Green Lantern (collectively) had the better performances in terms of supporting cast, but yes, RDJ easily manhandled both IM2 and GL. He's a gifted actor.

That isn't to say that Ryan Reynolds is a mediocre actor though.

Vicky Christina Barcelona and Lost in Translation is where Scarlett have shown that she could act. Where have Blake Lively shown she could act? The Town? She's actually channeling herself, when she's high on crack.

Lost in Translation is the only film where I found ScarJo's acting not to be subpar and bland as of late.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona was a film where ScarJo benefited from Javier Bardem's, Rebecca Hall's and Penelope Cruz's acting and Woody Allen's script. I did not find Scarlett Johansson's performance any where near fantastic or memorable, but she wasn't terrible either.

Maybe so, but Lively wasn't high on-set. :o

Blake, herself, isn't a stellar actress but at least she's starting to pick up stronger scripts (The Town, Savages and Hick).

[Thundercrack85]

It really shouldn't be this hard. Just make a good Superman movie, then Batman, have a crossover and then expand on that.

[Bruce_Begins]

According to many posters here as well as Marvel fans it is very hard for WB to integrate the DC Universe, or even make a World's finest movie featuring Batman and Superman. Many DC fans feel the same way.

DC heroes cannot exist together in one Universe, even Nolan thinks so (before that Singer was of the same opinion). Even Martin Campbell, ruled out any cameo appearances of other DC heroes in his GL movie, saying that he does not want it.

There is a reason this has not been done before. General Audience does not care either.

[Thundercrack85]

I believe it would be difficult to make characters like Wonder Woman, Superman and Batman work on the same screen.

But it can be done with at least some of them. Batman and Superman can be done.

[RoughNTumble]

A justice league movie could be amazing if done right, but it's so much easier to screw up than individual hero movies.

We dodged a bullet with justice league mortal.

[Thundercrack85]

I still say a Superman Batman crossover would be the best way to go. A litmus test.

[thorstone]

1. Green Lantern was heavily CGI and people are tired of that.
2. Green Lantern casting.
3. Heroes are only as interesting as their villains (thus Spiderman and Batman movies are easy compared to Aquaman, Flash, and Wonder Woman).
4. Superman Returns violated issue three when the character has powerful villains like Darkseid, Kalibak, and Doomsday.
5. Man of Steel once again has a boring villain.

[Thundercrack85]

With a good writer, most villains can be compelling. Lex Luthor done right, is one of the most interesting, complex villains. Or a uninteresting loser obsessed with real estate like in Superman Returns.

[DoomsdayApex]

1. Green Lantern was heavily CGI and people are tired of that.
2. Green Lantern casting.
3. Heroes are only as interesting as their villains (thus Spiderman and Batman movies are easy compared to Aquaman, Flash, and Wonder Woman).
4. Superman Returns violated issue three when the character has powerful villains like Darkseid, Kalibak, and Doomsday.
5. Man of Steel once again has a boring villain.

1.) ...Then Avatar would have flopped, by your logic.
2.) The casting was fine.
5.) Says who? You? Zod is an interesting villain, and the perfect one for an origin story.

[roach]

1. Green Lantern was heavily CGI and people are tired of that.
2. Green Lantern casting.
3. Heroes are only as interesting as their villains (thus Spiderman and Batman movies are easy compared to Aquaman, Flash, and Wonder Woman).
4. Superman Returns violated issue three when the character has powerful villains like Darkseid, Kalibak, and Doomsday.
5. Man of Steel once again has a boring villain.

wow...this is so full of wrong

[CConn]

1. Green Lantern was heavily CGI and people are tired of that.
2. Green Lantern casting.
3. Heroes are only as interesting as their villains (thus Spiderman and Batman movies are easy compared to Aquaman, Flash, and Wonder Woman).
4. Superman Returns violated issue three when the character has powerful villains like Darkseid, Kalibak, and Doomsday.
5. Man of Steel once again has a boring villain.
Yup, you're ungodly wrong.

[craigdbfan]

After TDKR I'd love if DC/WB would follow a similar blueprint to what Marvel studios has been doing in setting up a world where all these characters exist and can eventually star in a team up. That doesn't mean the style has to be exactly like the Marvel studio films but rather take a tip in how they created this world where it's all possible.

We've had enough success/failed attempts at solo projects for most of the big DC heroes at WB that it's time that they broaden their horizons and give something like this a shot so we may see the likes of Wonder Woman, Flash, & Martian Manhunter.

Not to mention that a strategy like this can really exemplify why some of these characters that have been untouched for live action in the DC vault why they're great to most of the world. Batman and Superman are of course key to this so they would need their individual films beforehand but it's something I would completely support.

[DoomsdayApex]

1.) ...Then Avatar would have flopped, by your logic.
2.) The casting was fine.
5.) Says who? You? Zod is an interesting villain, and the perfect one for an origin story.

Edit: 3-4 :facepalm:

I still can't grasp the stupidity behind them... no matter how many times I read them.

[The Morningstar]

Just a small word on the Captain America romance from the previous thread.

I thought it was great because it was believable and didn't seem forced. It wasn't like "quickly force these characters into a romance for the benefit of the plot!". It let it develop in a natural and believable manner.

What I also really liked was the subtle facial expressions and body language from Evans and Atwell. Like the scene where they were watching the news clips of Cap's missions, and we see he has a picture of Peggy with his compass lockett thingy. No dialogue, just an awkward glance from Rogers to the camera. Also with Peggy, a knowing look from Tommy Lee Jone's General and a nervous smile from Peggy.

I like when there isn't any dialogue but you can still get what the characters are feeling. That's called acting. You don't need spoon feeding dialogue where characters explain their feelings in words. Evans did really well, his performance is actually quite subtle and for me, he's the best lead in the Marvel movies so far, in terms of actual acting. RDJ gets the plaudits because his character is more charismatic and perhaps interesting than Rogers. But yea, for me Evans gives the best performance and is unfairly underrated.

[craigdbfan]

Well said. :up:

[CConn]

Yup. :up:

[DoomsdayApex]

The romance didn't need spoon-fed dialogue to get its point across, but the relationship between Peggy and Steve was incomplete, rushed and poorly constructed. The relationship went from a mutual respect to reluctant love warp-drive style. There was hardly any development and progression inbetween the characters to spark that relationship.

[The Morningstar]

Thanks :D I just think it's a little bizarre and unfair that Evans, and the subtler parts of Captain America get overlooked.

Not that it's a perfect or even great film by any means. But it's solid and has some truly great moments, especially in terms of characterisation.

[The Morningstar]

The romance didn't need spoon-fed dialogue to get it's point across, but the relationship between Peggy and Steve was incomplete, rushed and poorly constructed. The relationship went from a mutual respect to reluctant love warp-drive style. There was hardly any development and progression inbetween the characters to spark that relationship.

Who says? Who are any of us to say how long it takes for love to blossom? Who are any of us to say there was no development?

There is no set rules to love and romance, no set amount of time it takes to fall in love etc. That's why they call it a "funny old thing".

For me the romance, or beginnings of a romance in Cap were very believable. Due to the actors chemistry and how their interactions as characters changed as the movie went on. It was an almost "will they, won't they" thing. Neither character actually declares their love. They don't share a kiss. But you can tell there is feelings there through subtle pieces of acting and great little scenes, like the one i mentioned in my previous post.

I mean, Peggy and Steve's relationship is much more believable to me than Bruce and Rachel's.

Even though we are told they've known each other since children, even though we are told Rachel is Bruce's only hope for a normal life, it just never seems believable because the actors don't have any chemistry together. They have, like Steve and Peggy, an "unrealised" romance. But it isn't believable, I never got the sense that there was this sense of love bubbling under the surface with Bruce and Rachel. Not once. Even with the characters having known each other for decades and having actually admitted their feelings to each other.

[Boom]

I was too busy staring mindlessly at Atwell to notice anything else.

[CConn]

Thanks :D I just think it's a little bizarre and unfair that Evans, and the subtler parts of Captain America get overlooked.

Not that it's a perfect or even great film by any means. But it's solid and has some truly great moments, especially in terms of characterisation.
Personally, Cap is one of my favorite.

Honestly, I think the script itself is pro ably pretty mediocre, but the director, and cast, breathed such life and love into the film, that it almost feels like it should be much better than the script lets it be.

[craigdbfan]

I mean, Peggy and Steve's relationship is much more believable to me than Bruce and Rachel's.

Even though we are told they've known each other since children, even though we are told Rachel is Bruce's only hope for a normal life, it just never seems believable because the actors don't have any chemistry together. They have, like Steve and Peggy, an "unrealised" romance. But it isn't believable, I never got the sense that there was this sense of love bubbling under the surface with Bruce and Rachel. Not once.

Yes and no.

In Batman Begins there was a ton of chemistry between Bale and Holmes. I still stand with my view that while Maggie might be the better actress overall her version of Rachel felt inconsistent and had zero chemistry or anything that resembled genuine care towards Bruce when compared to Katies.

It was well established in Begins but that aspect was kind of fumbled with the recasting in The Dark Knight.

[CConn]

I didn't see any chemistry at all between Bale and Holmes, myself. :confused:

[The Morningstar]

Yes and no.

In Batman Begins there was a ton of chemistry between Bale and Holmes. I still stand with my view that while Maggie might be the better actress overall her version of Rachel felt inconsistent and had zero chemistry or anything that resembled genuine care towards Bruce when compared to Katies.

It was well established in Begins but that aspect was kind of fumbled with the recasting in The Dark Knight.

I agree that Holmes seemed to have more chemistry with Bale. Not nearly enough for me to believe those characters have known each other since they were children and harbour romantic feelings for each other.

I still find the Bruce/Rachel relationship extremely false and unbelievable. We're TOLD all these things about them, but none of it carries any weight because what he SEE is completely different.

[DoomsdayApex]

I couldn't disagree more.

The subtly was present, however, it was no where near enough for me. Personally, I could care less about romance and love stories, but if you're going to engage and present the audience with a 'love-interest', then you had better go beyond just body language and facial expressions.

Similar to how Bucky was 'killed' off, the Steve/Peggy relationship had zero emotional weight when Steve promised Peggy to arrive on-time for their date. It felt as cold as Nolan's touch on romance, or the Terminator's for that matter.

[DoomsdayApex]

I was too busy staring mindlessly at Atwell to notice anything else.

The size of those ba-zingas will do that to any man.

[Boom]

She also reminds me of a girl I had a helpless crush on in college.

/Pathetic sob story

[craigdbfan]

Atwell is gorgeous from top to bottom. :hrt:

[DoomsdayApex]

She also reminds me of a girl I had a helpless crush on in college.

/Pathetic sob story

You never forget those who got away, huh?

If she appeared anything like Atwell, I would have showered her with roses and poems.

Atwell is gorgeous from top to bottom. :hrt:

That she is... :hrt:

[Rockstar]

Atwell for Wonder Woman!

Seriously though, I think "Justice League" should be the next project Warners should work on after "Man of Steel."

The individual films for Flash and WW are too far into development hell to materialize. JL is their best chance for some exposure.

Green Lantern needs a drastic reinvention as well, which Justice League could provide.

[chiefchirpa]

Absolutely not. You can't allow yourself to think that way, or Batman Begins & The Dark Knight would have never happened after Batman & Robin. Under the right direction, Green Lantern can be just as mainstream as Batman and Superman. It should have been DC's next cash cow, but they f**ked up big time with the script, CGI/SFX and marketing. Thanks to their 'strategy', the film was a clusterf**k and we've probably seen the last of Green Lantern on the big screen for a long time. Which is a shame really because the character brought numerous aspects, elements, dimensions, characters, etc that most other CBM did not have.


I don't think that GL will be forever done and there will be no future Green Lantern movie(s). Never say never. But there will certainly be a long pause between the year 2011 and the year where another solo GL movie launches. Or they will put GL inside a JLA movie. Eight years are required to reboot DC de facto flagship Batman. And Batman is the best DC got and which also has significant realism infused in it. Realism (or really pseudo realism) is why Batman and Iron Man is readily understood by the average movie crowds. And GL doesn't have or have very little realism. GL may be a cash cow to the comic crowds but to the average movie who doesn't give a damn to fantastic fictions, GL should be having a harder time for acceptance.



Green Lantern (collectively) had the better performances in terms of supporting cast, but yes, RDJ easily manhandled both IM2 and GL. He's a gifted actor.

That isn't to say that Ryan Reynolds is a mediocre actor though.


LOL. No.

Again, your perception of the movie inflates its merit. Show me reviews where GL's acting troupe other than Mark Strong is constantly praised. RDJ and Gwyneth still had the chemistry. Reviews praised Rockwell and to a lesser degree Rourke and Cheadle, who actually act like a tougher air force man than Terence Howard.


Lost in Translation is the only film where I found ScarJo's acting not to be subpar and bland as of late.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona was a film where ScarJo benefited from Javier Bardem's, Rebecca Hall's and Penelope Cruz's acting and Woody Allen's script. I did not find Scarlett Johansson's performance any where near fantastic or memorable, but she wasn't terrible either.

Maybe so, but Lively wasn't high on-set. :o

Blake, herself, isn't a stellar actress but at least she's starting to pick up stronger scripts (The Town, Savages and Hick).

What was Lively latest film after GL? Johanson wasn't half bad said ]reviews of We Bought a Zoo.

Lively isn't a better actress than the more vet Johansson who was nominated for and actually won awards. And BTW, Johansson isn't the lead actress in IM2, she's a side character.

[Rockstar]

Lively was horribly miscast in GL.

The only casting that worked as Strong as Sinestro, and they gave him nothing to work with.. so his performance was meh.

[The Morningstar]

Blake Lively was good in The Town. That's about it.

And i'm sorry Apex, but the idea that anyone in GL, besides Strong, even approached anyone in IM2, in terms of acting quality, is laughable.

RDJ and Paltrow were still great. The Tony/Pepper romance is one of the best in any comic book movie series ever.

And Rockwell was great. The Hammer character was actually quite complex and Rockwell did well with the role. He wasn't just a Tony Stark wannabe. He seemed to actually have a man crush on Stark, and deeply resent him at the same time. I'm pretty sure Rockwell had the idea for the little character quirks like the fake tan and his little dance on the stage at the Stark Expo as well. Despite the characters scenery chomping nature i thought Rockwell brought some subtleties to him too. With his body language and facial expressions. A scene that really demonstrates this for me is when he is having a go at Vanko near the end. He's angry at him, threatening him and all that, but through the tone of Rockwell's voice you can sense he's more desperate than anything. Underrated performance.

Rourke, whilst not one of his better performances was still good. He did a great russian accent and still had a great screen presence (when he was actually there, which wasn't enough).

Cheadle was much better than the effeminate Howard in the role of Rhodie. I could actually buy him as a military guy and friend of Stark.

Tell me where anyone in GL brought that level of craft or screen presence to their roles. Besides Mark Strong of course. I mean obviously the script was beyond awful, but great actors can elevate weak scripts. Like with Thor. GL had some great actors, but it seemed they were all there for the paycheck and knew they were in a stinker. Tim Robbins specifically. Mark Strong seemed like the only one who wanted to elevate and treat the material with respect. Reynolds, who i usually like was just in auto-pilot mode (har har). Thing with Reynolds is, his humour is only good when he can fully unleash it and not worry about it being PG-13. So the humour should have been left out entirely. Lively was wooden. Skarsgaard wasn't bad, and his character was actually more understandable and sympathetic than the so called hero of the movie, who was a complete and utter douche bag who whined too much.

GL was just an awful, awful, soulless sterile movie that stunk of "made by committee". It felt like they just wanted to get GL out the way so they could do more Green Lantern movies. Like, the thought never crossed their mind that they had to, you know, make a great movie first before thinking of sequels.

[T"Challa]

Blake Lively was good in The Town. That's about it.

And i'm sorry Apex, but the idea that anyone in GL, besides Strong, even approached anyone in IM2, in terms of acting quality, is laughable.

RDJ and Paltrow were still great. The Tony/Pepper romance is one of the best in any comic book movie series ever.

And Rockwell was great. The Hammer character was actually quite complex and Rockwell did well with the role. He wasn't just a Tony Stark wannabe. He seemed to actually have a man crush on Stark, and deeply resent him at the same time. I'm pretty sure Rockwell had the idea for the little character quirks like the fake tan and his little dance on the stage at the Stark Expo as well. Despite the characters scenery chomping nature i thought Rockwell brought some subtleties to him too. With his body language and facial expressions. A scene that really demonstrates this for me is when he is having a go at Vanko near the end. He's angry at him, threatening him and all that, but through the tone of Rockwell's voice you can sense he's more desperate than anything. Underrated performance.

Rourke, whilst not one of his better performances was still good. He did a great russian accent and still had a great screen presence (when he was actually there, which wasn't enough).

Cheadle was much better than the effeminate Howard in the role of Rhodie. I could actually buy him as a military guy and friend of Stark.

Tell me where anyone in GL brought that level of craft or screen presence to their roles. Besides Mark Strong of course. I mean obviously the script was beyond awful, but great actors can elevate weak scripts. Like with Thor. GL had some great actors, but it seemed they were all there for the paycheck and knew they were in a stinker. Tim Robbins specifically.

yeah, IM2 wasnt a great piece of filmaking but the acting was noticeably better than in GL. Seriously apart from Mark Strong who was bleeding volumes of badass as Sinestro (seriously, how did they not give him more screentime?), no one else really stood out. Rourke,Cheadle,Paltrow,Rockwell did a much better job collectively than Lively/Saasgard/Rush/Bassett etc

[The Morningstar]

You know, I completely forgot that Geoffrey Rush was even in the film. That movie was such a waste of talent, money and potential. I rarely get angry over movies, but i was angry at GL and the people who made it.

[T"Challa]

You know, I completely forgot that Geoffrey Rush was even in the film. That movie was such a waste of talent, money and potential. I rarely get angry over movies, but i was angry at GL and the people who made it.

Yeah, i was disappointed with IM2 but it didnt come close to how mad i wasa when i stepped out of the theatre after GL. There was so much potential with that film. I mean look at this lineup. Geoffrey Rush/Mark Strong/ Michael Clarke-Duncan/Angela Bassett. There's some serious acumen in that lineup bu they were so underused. It was frustrating

[chiefchirpa]

Well Anthony Hopkins did the intro voice over better in Thor than Geoffrey Rush in Green Lantern. Hopkins voice is soothing telling the audiences about the Nine Realms while Rush voice is a bit overbearing telling the story of "Fear, Emerald force of willpower" yada yada mumbo jumbo to uninitiated audiences.

[chiefchirpa]

Rourke,Cheadle,Paltrow,Rockwell did a much better job collectively than Lively/Saasgard/Rush/Bassett etc

That's why I LOL. :cwink:

[The Morningstar]

Hopkins opening narration sounded majestic, and it had some great imagery to go with it. It was like the opening to a fairy tale or something.

Rush's sounded robotic, which I guess you can say was the intention. But it didn't have great imagery to go with it from what i remember. Maybe if it was set against a backdrop of some cosmic war, the Guardians actually doing something, maybe fighting Parallax, it could have worked. But it was just very monotonous, like the film makers put that in there because they had to, rather than wanting to.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Although they were in smaller roles, Garry Shandling and Samuel L Jackson were great in Iron Man 2 as well.

[The Morningstar]

It is nice to see Sam Jackson not play the caricature that he has become, yea.

And Shandling, like Hammer, was a guy i loved to hate.

[Kahran Ramsus]

I didn't see any chemistry at all between Bale and Holmes, myself. :confused:

Me neither. Say what you will about the Marvel romances or how underwritten they were in some cases (which is true), but Downey/Paltrow, Evans/Atwell, Hemsworth/Portman, and Norton/Tyler all had good chemistry with each other.

Bruce/Rachel doesn't come off nearly as well Bruce/Selina from Batman Returns or even Bruce/Andrea from Mask of the Phantasm. It is more like Bruce/Vicky from Batman 89 where their lack of a connection was completely intentional.

[Godzilla2014]

Honestly, a straight up Batman/Superman movie would interest me more purely because you would have the time to really explore the parallels between the two characters, and really get into character introspection.

I think it would be awesome. I'd certainly like to see the two team-up more than them fight each other.

With a good writer, most villains can be compelling. Lex Luthor done right, is one of the most interesting, complex villains. Or a uninteresting loser obsessed with real estate like in Superman Returns.

I completely agree.

[The Morningstar]

Speaking of Lex, people should read Azzarello's Lex Luthor: Man of Steel. Amazing story. Really highlights why Lex can be such a great villain. Well, character in general.

[DoomsdayApex]

I don't think that GL will be forever done and there will be no future Green Lantern movie(s). Never say never. But there will certainly be a long pause between the year 2011 and the year where another solo GL movie launches. Or they will put GL inside a JLA movie. Eight years are required to reboot DC de facto flagship Batman. And Batman is the best DC got and which also has significant realism infused in it. Realism (or really pseudo realism) is why Batman and Iron Man is readily understood by the average movie crowds. And GL doesn't have or have very little realism. GL may be a cash cow to the comic crowds but to the average movie who doesn't give a damn to fantastic fictions, GL should be having a harder time for acceptance.

If that were the case, then Pixar would have gone out of business a long time ago and Avatar would have bombed at the Box-Office (cuz all the film revolved around was SFX/CGI).

Green Lantern doesn't to have go through the trenches to gain acceptence.

LOL. No.

Again, your perception of the movie inflates its merit. Show me reviews where GL's acting troupe other than Mark Strong is constantly praised. RDJ and Gwyneth still had the chemistry. Reviews praised Rockwell and to a lesser degree Rourke and Cheadle, who actually act like a tougher air force man than Terence Howard.

My merit? Hardly.

The acting in Iron Man 2 was scattered like a disassembled puzzle and outside RDJ/Gwyneth (I'll make the exception for Rockwell since he was only on-screen for 5-6 minutes) the performances were unstimulating and vapid. Rourke, Johansson and Cheadle were as vanilla as it got. There was nothing there. Zlich.

Green Lantern, at the very least, had the collective acting aspect down. It didn't feel like a one or two man show with the rest of the cast putting in a minimal effort with the end result feeling like the performances were from an unrelated film. Like it or not, that is my opinion

What was Lively latest film after GL? Johanson wasn't half bad said ]reviews of We Bought a Zoo.

I suggest you watch Hick and Savages this year. She picked two very interesting scripts. It's yet to be seen if her acting will be memorable but we'll see.

I haven't watched I Bought a Zoo yet.

Lively isn't a better actress than the more vet Johansson who was nominated for and actually won awards. And BTW, Johansson isn't the lead actress in IM2, she's a side character.

Did I state that Lively was the better actor? No.

My statement was that I found both (ScarJo and Lively) on the same level based on the one performance each that I found commendable.

Point? Johansson still brought virtually nothing to her role in IM2. She was just eye-candy -- that was her sole purpose in that film.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Green Lantern's acting was overall, cornier and less believeable than most B-Movies. Doesn't matter how many A-Listers they signed. At least in Iron Man 2 the cast acted like they gave a sh**, chewed the scenery and had some pretty sharp dialogue on top of it.

The delivery of *practically every* line in GL is almost bad enough for a TV movie...on lifetime. It's actually hard for me to imagine how those actors act so well in there other movies, but, it's pretty clear Martin Campbell fell asleep at the chair.

[craigdbfan]

It was an awful mess.

[Optimus_Prime_]

I didn't realize Blake Lively was an actress. I guess I've been too busy thinking about f***ing her everytime I've seen her to notice.

[The Morningstar]

Watch The Town and your urge to **** her will either decrease or increase exponentially.

[The Guard]

The hyperbole...make it stop...

[The Morningstar]

Explain how GL isn't an atrocious piece of crap then. Actually i'll make it easier for you. All i want you to do is explain how Hal Jordan is a good lead character.

A superhero movie lives and dies by it's main protagonist (and antagonist). For me, movie Hal Jordan is one of the worst main protagonists in a superhero movie... ever. EVER.

Firstly, he's got it easy. He's got family and friends around him who care about him. He gets the hot chicks... and treats them like crap. He's got an obnoxiously cool muscle car. He's got a ****ing awesome job and his boss is hot as hell.

But... he's still a whinger. He's still moaning about ****. Along with the already mentioned treating women like crap thing, he also is extremely selfish and arrogant. Costing a lot of people their jobs and not really giving a **** about it.

Oh i forgot, he suffered a tragedy as a child, he watched his father die. So all is excused! Well, maybe, if his fathers death, in the theatrical AND extended cut didn't come across as a parody of ****ing Top Gun.

Honestly, how can anyone care or connect with this guy? He's a ****ing douche bag.

Hector Hammond was more understandable and sympathetic... and he was supposed to be the villain?!!?

[Optimus_Prime_]

Watch The Town and your urge to **** her will either decrease or increase exponentially.
I have. Luckily I'm over Ben Affleck so I could understand most of the movie.

Why Ben, why did you do DareDevil:cmad:...after all those Kevin Smith movies...I felt so betrayed:csad:

[craigdbfan]

Hopkins opening narration sounded majestic, and it had some great imagery to go with it. It was like the opening to a fairy tale or something.

Rush's sounded robotic, which I guess you can say was the intention. But it didn't have great imagery to go with it from what i remember. Maybe if it was set against a backdrop of some cosmic war, the Guardians actually doing something, maybe fighting Parallax, it could have worked. But it was just very monotonous, like the film makers put that in there because they had to, rather than wanting to.

Reminded me exactly of the opening for Dragonball: Evolution where it's all exposition of the history instead of some actual footage.

It's the definition of lazy.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Everything in GL comes off like someone reading you a wikipedia article about GL. The performances were simply serviceable, like someone at a convention who doesn't break character but is just doing it for the lulz. The story was just a basic sequence of events, with no emotional center. The whole movie, and the cast, are just there.

Iron Man 2 had heart throughout, and the interactions and performances simply had more depth, period. The plot definitely needed work, especially in the pacing of it, but I at least sensed a realness from the characters. They weren't sleepwalking like they were in GL.

Prime example: Tony and his Dad. I really liked how they humanized that relationship in IM2. Tony's bitterness, and his Dad's inability to communicate his actual feelings were definitely something I could relate to and I felt were conveyed in a very relateable way. They didn't make the characters into stoic, super serious messes like they do in GL.

Green Lantern was completely awkward from start to finish, especially when it tried to humanize it's characters. I think you see this problem to a much lesser extent in Batman. The use of humor becomes awkward rather than natural. I also think Bruce makes this slightly more believeable though because part of the premise is that Bruce no longer behaves like a normal human being.

[DoomsdayApex]

Watch The Town and your urge to **** her will either decrease or increase exponentially.

Then, Lively did her job -- just as Rockwell made Hammer incredibly annoying and pompous (it was the first time I hated any of Rockwell's characters).

I didn't realize Blake Lively was an actress. I guess I've been too busy thinking about f***ing her everytime I've seen her to notice.

The same could be said about Scarlett Johansson, as of late.

Green Lantern's acting was overall, cornier and less believeable than most B-Movies. Doesn't matter how many A-Listers they signed. At least in Iron Man 2 the cast acted like they gave a sh**, chewed the scenery and had some pretty sharp dialogue on top of it.

The delivery of *practically every* line in GL is almost bad enough for a TV movie...on lifetime. It's actually hard for me to imagine how those actors act so well in there other movies, but, it's pretty clear Martin Campbell fell asleep at the chair.

Yes, because Cheadle's, Johansson's and Rourke's characters/performances didn't put me to sleep. :o

[The Morningstar]

That's on you though if you found them boring.

To question Rourke's effort is laughable. The guy went and spent time in a Russian prison talking to the cons, learning what their tattoos meant and he learnt Russian. He gave a good performance, for what he had to work with, which wasn't a lot unfortunately. Still, as one of his weakest performances it was better than anyones in GLs, apart from Strong, who basically makes that film worth watching for his scenes alone.

No one involved in the GL movie put half the effort in that Rourke did.

As for Hammer? He was SUPPOSED to be annoying and pompous, surely you know that right? He was over compensating for his inferiority complex about Tony Stark.

My point about Lively was you'd either find her sexy as ****, or horribly trashy. I found her both :D

[craigdbfan]

That's on you though if you found them boring.

To question Rourke's effort is laughable. The guy went and spent time in a Russian prison talking to the cons, learning what their tattoos meant and he learnt Russian. He gave a good performance, for what he had to work with, which wasn't a lot unfortunately. Still, as one of his weakest performances it was better than anyones in GLs, apart from Strong, who basically makes that film worth watching for his scenes alone.

No one involved in the GL movie put half the effort in that Rourke did.

As for Hammer? He was SUPPOSED to be annoying and pompous, surely you know that right? He was over compensating for his inferiority complex about Tony Stark.

My point about Lively was you'd either find her sexy as ****, or horribly trashy. I found her both :D

Exactly.

I loved Rockwell in that movie. An understated performance.

mgw-7z7qtGw

[The Morningstar]

:funny: He's such a ****. Gotta love him though.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Then, Lively did her job -- just as Rockwell made Hammer incredibly annoying and pompous (it was the first time I hated any of Rockwell's characters).
The movie never lies about this though. From his first scene he's presented as if he's an annoying and pompous little snot and all the [other] characters feel the same way. Look at how Tony doesn't want anything to do with him even when he's being casually friendly, or look at how Ivan Vanko regards him as a panty-waist. So your perception of his character is very much intentional, all the other characters concur.
The same could be said about Scarlett Johansson, as of late.
I think in general hot actresses get passed male actors don't. Think about Eva Mendez in the movie Hitch and The Other Guys for example. She can play Eva in any given role, while Smith and Marky Mark have displayed much more range. So, yeah, I kind of agree but Black Widow at least was a lot more fun than Ferris.
Yes, because Cheadle's, Johansson's and Rourke's characters/performances didn't put me to sleep. :o
That's at least something. Rourke's effort in his role is clear, Cheadle was very believeable as War Machine, and Johansson at least provided a fun but kind of unnecessary character. The banter between Tony and Pepper is great too, as is the banter between him and just about everyone else. I really can't say any of this for GL. GL is just a truly awful film I will never watch again. Iron Man 2 is very rewatchable, on the other hand.

[DoomsdayApex]

That's on you though if you found them boring.

No, that's on the script writers and editors.

To question Rourke's effort is laughable. The guy went and spent time in a Russian prison talking to the cons, learning what their tattoos meant and he learnt Russian. He gave a good performance, for what he had to work with, which wasn't a lot unfortunately. Still, as one of his weakest performances it was better than anyones in GLs, apart from Strong, who basically makes that film worth watching for his scenes alone.

No one involved in the GL movie put half the effort in that Rourke did.

I'm not questioning Rourke's effort. Mickey is one of Hollywood's best actors today. In fact, I had no interest in watching the sequel when the villain (Whiplash) and plot were announced. The trailers didn't help the case either. However, when Rourke made his appearance, I was convinced to buy a ticket just to see him tear it up.

Mickey did all he could for the role but Marvel Studios really let him down with the editing. It made it appear as if Rourke was indifferent to the role/character. The same goes for Don Cheadle (even though I felt no chemistry between him and RDJ). I gave him the benefit of the doubt because Cheadle is great actor as well with a respected resume.

I probably should have worded my statement differently.

As for Hammer? He was SUPPOSED to be annoying and pompous, surely you know that right? He was over compensating for his inferiority complex about Tony Stark.

I'm quite aware of that, but I still despised his character. It's nothing against Rockwell.

My point about Lively was you'd either find her sexy as ****, or horribly trashy. I found her both :D

Ha!

For me, it was the first time I found her attractive. :hehe:

[The Guard]

I know what Rourke has said, but I don't think that there's some magical depth to the character of Whiplash/Dynamo that director/editors removed. Rourke's performance is Rourke's performance. Unless there's been confirmation otherwise. I know Rourke is upset that some of his better takes weren't used.

[The Guard]

Explain how GL isn't an atrocious piece of crap then. Actually i'll make it easier for you. All i want you to do is explain how Hal Jordan is a good lead character.

At this point, I kind of don't see the point, because I fully expect that all I'll hear is a bunch of "nuh uh's!" with no rational explanation why, other than bringing up other films.

GREEN LANTERN is not an atrocious piece of crap because it's a medicore film for the most part. It has about the same level of story, character development, effects and acting as most other average comic book films. I'd put it at about the same level as the first Fantastic Four movie. Fans being disappointed in it on several levels does not make it a bad film or adaption.

An atrocious piece of crap would be an atrocious piece of crap.

The idea that we must always like our lead characters for them to be good ones is laughable to me. That's a ridiculous, blanket way to look at writing.

Hal Jordan is a good lead character precisely because he is a flawed character. Because the potential for character testing and character development exists. He is a man, a very flawed but still somewhat likeable human man, who goes from being selfish, reckless and irresponsible and afraid, to someone who displays courage and responsibility. And that's what happened in the movie. It's certainly not the most interesting character arc ever, but you know what? It never was. The Green Lantern mythology is about a ring that seeks out someone who ALREADY possesses the attribute it requires to operate, and allows this man, who has been a bit selfish and reckless, to utilize his courage to live a life of responsibility.

A superhero movie lives and dies by it's main protagonist (and antagonist). For me, movie Hal Jordan is one of the worst main protagonists in a superhero movie... ever. EVER.

I don't know what to tell you. That's your opinion.

Firstly, he's got it easy. He's got family and friends around him who care about him. He gets the hot chicks... and treats them like crap. He's got an obnoxiously cool muscle car. He's got a ****ing awesome job and his boss is hot as hell.

Way to simplify.

I don't see him treating any hot chicks like crap. I see him joking with them a little, and jawing with Carol a bit, which is faithful to the mythology.

He has a job where he is apparenty limited in what he can do.

His boss is a woman he has feelings for but shares a painful past with.

Yeah, he has a car. That must be really emotionally fulfilling.

But... he's still a whinger. He's still moaning about ****. Along with the already mentioned treating women like crap thing, he also is extremely selfish and arrogant. Costing a lot of people their jobs and not really giving a **** about it.

A whiner?

What specific things do you take issue with him moaning about?

Yeah. He's selfish and arrogant (and reckless). That's how the character starts out.

Oh i forgot, he suffered a tragedy as a child, he watched his father die. So all is excused! Well, maybe, if his fathers death, in the theatrical AND extended cut didn't come across as a parody of ****ing Top Gun.

No one excused him of anything. The point is watching him grow beyond his weaknesses.

A parody of Top Gun? I don't think I've seen the scene in Top Gun where a kid's dad crashes and he watches him get blown up.

Honestly, how can anyone care or connect with this guy? He's a ****ing douche bag.

I don't know. Because not everyone thinks in such black and white terms? Because maybe, just maybe, we don't have to "connect" with every lead character there is.

Hector Hammond was more understandable and sympathetic... and he was supposed to be the villain?!!?

Are you asking a question or making a statement?

No. Hector Hammond wasn't more sympathetic. He wreaked havoc, endangered innocent lives and killed once he got his power because he was jealous and angry. Definitely not more sympathetic than a guy who has been reckless and selfish learning to change his ways. The villain having a reason to be angry doesn't suddenly make him sympathetic when he kills.

Everything in GL comes off like someone reading you a wikipedia article about GL.

Everything? How so?

The performances were simply serviceable, like someone at a convention who doesn't break character but is just doing it for the lulz. The story was just a basic sequence of events, with no emotional center. The whole movie, and the cast, are just there.

A story does tend to be a basic sequence of events.

You do know that serviceable is a good term, right? It means put to good use and durable, being of service. A performance on an appropriate level, without being over the top or anything mindblowing.

I'm not sure what you mean by no emotional center. There's a very clear emotional theme to the film.

Everything is just...there? Could you be any more vague?

Iron Man 2 had heart throughout, and the interactions and performances simply had more depth, period. The plot definitely needed work, especially in the pacing of it, but I at least sensed a realness from the characters. They weren't sleepwalking like they were in GL.

Let's try discussing GREEN LANTERN, shall we? If you cannot discuss Green Lantern based on its own merits and faults, you are probaly not qualified to discuss it. Because otherwise, I can just say "Well, GREEN LANTERN did this, this and this better than GHOST RIDER: SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE", and also bring up dozens of other movies, and we'll endlessly compare and create straw arguments and be here all day. We can compare films endlessly. That proves nothing about the quality of an individual film.

Prime example: Tony and his Dad. I really liked how they humanized that relationship in IM2. Tony's bitterness, and his Dad's inability to communicate his actual feelings were definitely something I could relate to and I felt were conveyed in a very relateable way. They didn't make the characters into stoic, super serious messes like they do in GL.

Yeah. That was a highlight of Iron Man 2. Pretty well done. Back to GL. The actors in GL were very much not sleepwalking. Except maybe Tim Robbins. Who kind of always sleepwalks these days. The rest? They're into it. Fully.

The characters in GREEN LANTERN aren't stoic, super serious messes, what the heck are you talking about? If anything, most of them are quirky and emotionally vulnerable.

Green Lantern was completely awkward from start to finish, especially when it tried to humanize it's characters. I think you see this problem to a much lesser extent in Batman. The use of humor becomes awkward rather than natural. I also think Bruce makes this slightly more believeable though because part of the premise is that Bruce no longer behaves like a normal human being.

The only awkward element I can think of in terms of its attempts to humanize comes in the first five minutes of the film, and has to do with the editing and execution of the sequence with his father. It's mostly awkward because it's given very little context. The rest of the film, Hal's human moments are perfectly natural and relevant.

[Kahran Ramsus]

GREEN LANTERN is not an atrocious piece of crap because it's a medicore film for the most part. It has about the same level of story, character development, effects and acting as other average comic book films. I'd put it about the same level as the first Fantastic Four. Fans being disappointed in it on several levels does not make it a bad film or adaption.


If you are saying it is on the same level of the first Fantastic Four, then I am glad that I didn't see Green Lantern. I never even made it through all of Fantastic Four. Truly one of the worst movies I have ever experienced.

[Thundercrack85]

I never got the appeal of Fantastic Four. Some of the individual characters were kind of interesting. But overall, I couldn't care less about the movies. I do get the appeal of Green Lantern... and it was still a very bad movie.

[LibidoLoca]

I watched FF for Chris Evans. He's hot and I'm not ashamed to admit it.

[chiefchirpa]

If that were the case, then Pixar would have gone out of business a long time ago and Avatar would have bombed at the Box-Office (cuz all the film revolved around was SFX/CGI).

Green Lantern doesn't to have go through the trenches to gain acceptence.


Pixar made animated film stories usually geared for children. Avatar, actually a mediocre film, was sold by its heavy budget director who made the film feel like a complete package. The most important thing is GL doesn't have the same quality to Pixar films and Avatar. It's still easier to sell realistic films than fantasy films.


My merit? Hardly.

The acting in Iron Man 2 was scattered like a disassembled puzzle and outside RDJ/Gwyneth (I'll make the exception for Rockwell since he was only on-screen for 5-6 minutes) the performances were unstimulating and vapid. Rourke, Johansson and Cheadle were as vanilla as it got. There was nothing there. Zlich.

Green Lantern, at the very least, had the collective acting aspect down. It didn't feel like a one or two man show with the rest of the cast putting in a minimal effort with the end result feeling like the performances were from an unrelated film. Like it or not, that is my opinion


I don't get what collective acting means. Worse acting performance (than what's in IM2) is worse acting performance/ I believe you're trying to window dress GL for yourself and justify its existence as one of your okay movies. Of course it's your opinion and I will not say it's wrong. But your opinion is different from the majority here or anywhere else who would say that IM2, far from a stellar film it is, have better acting performance than GL.



I suggest you watch Hick and Savages this year. She picked two very interesting scripts. It's yet to be seen if her acting will be memorable but we'll see.

I haven't watched I Bought a Zoo yet.

Did I state that Lively was the better actor? No.

My statement was that I found both (ScarJo and Lively) on the same level based on the one performance each that I found commendable.

Point? Johansson still brought virtually nothing to her role in IM2. She was just eye-candy -- that was her sole purpose in that film.Why do you suggest watching those two yet to be released movies? Are they any good? Sorry they're not on my radar..

Johansson was a side character. Lively is a lead actress and should have bigger responsibility in the film. Yet Johansson kicking ass in the last moment of IM2 and her first entrance when RDJ is boxing with Favreau are more memorable to movie audiences than the whole scene with Blake Lively in GL.

[Optimus_Prime_]

I think the Fantastic Four comparison is very fair for GL. I would not put it on the same level of bad as Catwoman, Elektra, and Ghost Rider 2. It's worse than Wolverine IMO, Wolverine was bad but far more entertaining.

[roach]

oh hell nah....Wolverine had no redeeming qualities to it

[craigdbfan]

Amen. :funny:

[Optimus_Prime_]

I watched FF for Chris Evans. He's hot and I'm not ashamed to admit it.
Fantastic Four had some pretty decent actors in it, and some pretty decent chemistry but the leads were too weak. Especially Reed. They never made him seem capable which brought down the whole movie. They focused too hard on making him nerdy and oblivious. I think some of what they did was very good, I even like the Reed bachelor party scene, but his general patheticness just highlighted how silly he was...which killed the point of that scene IMO. Then to top it off they never sold that Reed-Victor rivalry. That whole relationship was DOA.

[Boom]

Wolverine was a cinematic abortion.

[roach]

there was nothing as atrocious in GL as the mind wiping adamantium bullet...in fact the whole Wolverine script was stupid combined with craziness wrapped in dumb

[craigdbfan]

GL is slightly better than Wolverine and I mean very slightly. Like a fraction level of slightly.

[Optimus_Prime_]

oh hell nah....Wolverine had no redeeming qualities to it
I dunno. I like Hugh Jackman too much in that role to completely hate it. Plus it's very unintentionally satirical. The whole thing is like a parody of an action film.

The whole time I was watch GL, from frame one I was like "omg wtf am I watching".

For me Liev Schrieber and Jackman do make that movie watchable. A great hero villain rivalry wrapped in a really silly popcorn flick.

[craigdbfan]

Kind of funny how Deadpool was played by Reynolds and that was probably the most hated aspect of the movie. :funny:

Poor guy can't catch a break.

[RachelDawes]

Kind of funny how Deadpool was played by Reynolds and that was probably the most hated aspect of the movie. :funny:

Poor guy can't catch a break.

But his Wade Wilson was probably the most loved aspect of the movie, so he's got that going for him.

[chiefchirpa]

Kind of funny how Deadpool was played by Reynolds and that was probably the most hated aspect of the movie. :funny:

Poor guy can't catch a break.

I think Reynolds is a match made in heaven for Deadpool. Other than his acting style, RR is:
a) a fan of Deadpool
b) Canadian like Wade.

The best DC role for Reynolds is Wally West. But DC didn't have a long-term time table so it picked any popular actor for any film it got at the time.

[CConn]

oh hell nah....Wolverine had no redeeming qualities to it
You what's funny?

The Wolverine video game - even simply story wise - was awesome. It was almost a perfect vehicle and story to showcase Wolverine as a character. I played it all the way through before seeing the movie, and it made me ridiculously excited to see what thy were going to do with it.

Then I actually saw the movie, and saw how they gutted 60% of the story that made the game worthwhile and reduced the entire film to a few cluttered scenes haphazardly thrown together and called a movie.

That's the real shame; if they had made it 30-40 minutes longer, it could've been pretty good.

[CConn]

I never got the appeal of Fantastic Four. Some of the individual characters were kind of interesting. But overall, I couldn't care less about the movies. I do get the appeal of Green Lantern... and it was still a very bad movie.
The pull for the FF is the character interaction and classic sci-fi focus on the adventure and mystery in exploring the unknown reaches of science.

[chiefchirpa]

GL is slightly better than Wolverine and I mean very slightly. Like a fraction level of slightly.

Wolverine biggest hole is the crappy "made by Fox, to hell with you comicbook readers" script. Acting-wise Wolverine is superior than Green Lantern.

[T"Challa]

Wolverine made me want to cry. The sad thing is , jackman nailed the character IMO..positively nailed it. He got dealt the worst card ever with that script. And Reynolds was put on this earth to play deadpool..(maybe Wally West too, but thats for another day). I hope the sequel is much better.

[DoomsdayApex]

Pixar made animated film stories usually geared for children. Avatar, actually a mediocre film, was sold by its heavy budget director who made the film feel like a complete package. The most important thing is GL doesn't have the same quality to Pixar films and Avatar. It's still easier to sell realistic films than fantasy films.

Please provide evidence that 'realistic' films are easier to market than fantasy-based films. That's like saying Act of Valor is more simplistic to promote than The Avengers or Star Wars.

Pixar films were geared towards children, and yet thrived under the teenage/young adult demographic. The same demographic that CBMs thrive under.

I don't get what collective acting means. Worse acting performance (than what's in IM2) is worse acting performance/ I believe you're trying to window dress GL for yourself and justify its existence as one of your okay movies. Of course it's your opinion and I will not say it's wrong. But your opinion is different from the majority here or anywhere else who would say that IM2, far from a stellar film it is, have better acting performance than GL.

I'm starting to believe that you possess reading comprehension issues.

I've stated numerous times on this thread (and others) that Green Lantern was a subpar/low-tier film. I am not trying to justify anything as 'okay' (status-wise). However, while the acting in GL wasn't prestigious and more impressive than IM2, it was still more cohesive than Iron Man 2's ensemble cast.

Why do you suggest watching those two yet to be released movies? Are they any good? Sorry they're not on my radar..

Those films will have a strong cast, especially Savages. If she has any talent, we'll see. She's going to either sink or swim.

Johansson was a side character. Lively is a lead actress and should have bigger responsibility in the film. Yet Johansson kicking ass in the last moment of IM2 and her first entrance when RDJ is boxing with Favreau are more memorable to movie audiences than the whole scene with Blake Lively in GL.

'Kicking ass' and looking good have nothing to do with acting.

Furthermore, Rockwell was on-screen for possibly six minutes, and yet his performance overshadows anything that ScarJo presented.

[roach]

You what's funny?

The Wolverine video game - even simply story wise - was awesome. It was almost a perfect vehicle and story to showcase Wolverine as a character. I played it all the way through before seeing the movie, and it made me ridiculously excited to see what thy were going to do with it.

Then I actually saw the movie, and saw how they gutted 60% of the story that made the game worthwhile and reduced the entire film to a few cluttered scenes haphazardly thrown together and called a movie.

That's the real shame; if they had made it 30-40 minutes longer, it could've been pretty good.

"How are we gonna convince a person with hyper senses like hearing and smell that his girlfriend is dead?"
"Eh just cover her in blood...don't even bother making cuts on her...tell her to hold her breath really long."
"That makes no sense...he's still gonna come after us."
"Don't worry if I shoot him in the head with this bullet he'll forget everything."
"Wait what?"

[chiefchirpa]

Please provide evidence that 'realistic' films are easier to market than fantasy-based films. That's like saying Act of Valor is more simplistic to promote than The Avengers or Star Wars.

Pixar films were geared towards children, and yet thrived under the teenage/young adult demographic. The same demographic that CBMs thrive under.


Actually Act of Valor will have an easier time to market than Avengers (need a string of member films for the average people to get interested) and Star Wars (1977 WOM to scifi fantasy starved people)



However, while the acting in GL wasn't prestigious and more impressive than IM2, it was still more cohesive than Iron Man 2's ensemble cast.
This is where we have our differences. You have a glass filter called "Lifetime DC Comics fan membership" to distort reality which a film so bashed by critics on some of its acting performances to become better than what it really is. I am not the only who's saying it that GL acting performances are nothing worth to note. Almost everyone said it here, do you agree?

If you choose to be "unique", suit yourself.


Those films will have a strong cast, especially Savages. If she has any talent, we'll see. She's going to either sink or swim.
Don't care about Savages. Wake me up when there's any good review about the film.

Tell me you just IMDB'ed the film because you're trying to defend Blake Lively.


'Kicking ass' and looking good have nothing to do with acting.

Furthermore, Rockwell was on-screen for possibly six minutes, and yet his performance overshadows anything that ScarJo presented.Scarjo was also in IM2 for around six minutes. What is your point? That she was a very important cast in IM2 that she had 20 minutes or so screen time like Lively in GL? Scarjo and SLJ are cast placement for the Avengers. While Rockwell acted as RDJ's primary business competition. Rockwell was doing a more important role than Scarlet Johansson.

[DoomsdayApex]

Actually Act of Valor will have an easier time to market than Avengers (need a string of member films for the average people to get interested) and Star Wars (1977 WOM to scifi fantasy starved people)

That wasn't the point. I didn't state what was needed to promote these films. Quite simply, films such as The Avengers, Toy Story, Alien, and Star Wars are not more difficult to promote than films like Public Enemies, Miami Vice, Se7en, and Act of Valor.

This is where we have our differences. You have a glass filter called "Lifetime DC Comics fan membership" to distort reality which a film so bashed by critics on some of its acting performances to become better than what it really is. I am not the only who's saying it that GL acting performances are nothing worth to note. Almost everyone said it here, do you agree?

Wow, I stand by my statement. You really have issues understanding what people write.

If you choose to be "unique", suit yourself.

Is that the word? :o

Don't care about Savages. Wake me up when there's any good review about the film.

Tell me you just IMDB'ed the film because you're trying to defend Blake Lively.

Oh yes, I'm a huge Lively supporter... even though I've said (about three times now) that I don't view Blake as a credible actor.

I'm an Oliver Stone fan. I follow his work, but I'm sure you don't care. Your little swipe wasn't about Lively.

ScarJo was also in IM2 for around six minutes. What is your point? That she was a very important cast in IM2 that she had 20 minutes or so screen time like Lively in GL? Scarjo and SLJ are cast placement for the Avengers. While Rockwell acted as RDJ's primary business competition. Rockwell was doing a more important role than Scarlet Johansson.

Let's see, what have I been discussing for 3-4 pages now? Hmmmmm... oh! That ScarJo is a mediocre actress on par with Lively, as of late, in my personal opinion.

Well, she was casted as Black Widow (an apparent Avenger). I would assume that's a big deal, but that's just my line of thinking.

[chiefchirpa]

That wasn't the point. I didn't state what was needed to promote these films. Quite simply, films such as The Avengers, Toy Story, Alien, and Star Wars are not more difficult to promote than films like Public Enemies, Miami Vice, Se7en, and Act of Valor.


Well of course it is. Act of Valor could just have that single ad with that blaring music and people would see that so-called "marines with guns" movie, no explanations given. Avengers got that string of solo films so people will be more acquainted to what it is about. It's not about marketing to the comic book people, but to the average people who usually don't give a damn to fantasy/comic book/sci-fi stuff.


Oh yes, I'm a huge Lively supporter... even though I've said (about three times now) that I don't view Blake as a credible actor.

I'm an Oliver Stone fan. I follow his work, but I'm sure you don't care. Your little swipe wasn't about Lively.
Because she's been in a DC movie so you're becoming a fa.. oh no supporter? No I'm not that curious.

I see movies for what they are. Trailers might catch my eye but WOM + reviews are the ones who pull me. I'm not a director's fanboy, actor's fanboy, company's fanboy and I don't waste time researching IMDB on upcoming films. I do like comicbook films so yeah I don't follow Oliver Stone whose last film, Wall Street 2, never bother to watch.


Let's see, what have I been discussing for 3-4 pages now? Hmmmmm... oh! That ScarJo is a mediocre actress on par with Lively, as of late, in my personal opinion.

Well, she was casted as Black Widow (an apparent Avenger). I would assume that's a big deal, but that's just my line of thinking.Not a big deal during IM2 when Avengers is still a working project. She was a bit more than a cameo. Avengers wasn't that big and certainly Widow wasn't that obvious will be in the Avengers movie. With IM2 having War Machine as another heroic role, Black Widow's screen time should have been limited.

Lively on the other hand is the lead actress. She has 20 minutes or so screen time with Reynolds or alone. Then what has she achieved in GL? None better & memorable than what Scarjo has done in 3 minutes of goons kickass-ing time.

[DoomsdayApex]

Well of course it is. Act of Valor could just have that single ad with that blaring music and people would see that so-called "marines with guns" movie, no explanations given. Avengers got that string of solo films so people will be more acquainted to what it is about. It's not about marketing to the comic book people, but to the average people who usually don't give a damn to fantasy/comic book/sci-fi stuff.

De facto, your argument holds little to no ground at all. Realistic films rarely outgross CB/Sci-Fi/Pixar/Mythology films, and it's not because of ingenious marketing schemes. It's because the general audience gravitates to these genres.

Because she's been in a DC movie so you're becoming a fa.. oh no supporter? No I'm not that curious.

I see movies for what they are. Trailers might catch my eye but WOM + reviews are the ones who pull me. I'm not a director's fanboy, actor's fanboy, company's fanboy and I don't waste time researching IMDB on upcoming films. I do like comicbook films so yeah I don't follow Oliver Stone whose last film, Wall Street 2, never bother to watch.

No one is trying to make this a DC vs Marvel fanboy debate except you, so please, just stop embarrassing yourself.

I don't care what you are, and what you're a fan of or follow, but I'm a fan of cinema. So yes, from to time, I'll follow my favorite directors and actors to see what type of new projects they're creating and/or attached to.

The hypocrisy is mind-blogging.

Not a big deal during IM2 when Avengers is still a working project. She was a bit more than a cameo. Avengers wasn't that big and certainly Widow wasn't that obvious will be in the Avengers movie. With IM2 having War Machine as another heroic role, Black Widow's screen time should have been limited.

Lively on the other hand is the lead actress. She has 20 minutes or so screen time with Reynolds or alone. Then what has she achieved in GL? None better & memorable than what Scarjo has done in 3 minutes of goons kickass-ing time.

That's a seldom excuse. Black Widow is still an Avenger and Scarlett Johansson's name was billed in Iron Man 2. Imagine that.

It's cute that you believe that 10-15 more minutes for ScarJo's character would have made an immense or significant difference when, in fact, it wouldn't -- unless you consider three more scenes of her speaking no more than five words in latex or performing Lucha Libre stunts as stellar acting.

[Bruce_Begins]

Because she's been in a DC movie so you're becoming a fa.. oh no supporter? No I'm not that curious.




Lively on the other hand is the lead actress. She has 20 minutes or so screen time with Reynolds or alone. Then what has she achieved in GL? None better & memorable than what Scarjo has done in 3 minutes of goons kickass-ing time.


The Irony. :whatever:

You are a Marvel fan, admit it. :dry:

[chiefchirpa]

The Irony. :whatever:

You are a Marvel fan, admit it. :dry:

Well yeah, I'm also a DC fan sometimes. Depends on the situation.

But do you think being a Marvel fan in this thread is a problem? :word:

[jmc]

Black Widow was the biggest waste of time in IM2 and Scarlet completely miscast. I do not buy her as this kick-arse action woman.

[Bruce_Begins]

Come on, you were the one who said that DoomsdayApex was a DC fan.

I am a fan of both, maybe more of DC. :word:

[The Morningstar]

Black Widow was the biggest waste of time in IM2 and Scarlet completely miscast. I do not buy her as this kick-arse action woman.

I can agree with this. I'm meh about her role in Avengers too.

[Bruce_Begins]

Black Widow was the biggest waste of time in IM2 and Scarlet completely miscast. I do not buy her as this kick-arse action woman.

To be honest, Happy Hogan could have done whatever a$$ kicking she did in IM 2, she was there just so that she could get entry into Avengers, the whole movie was a setup to Avengers.

[DoomsdayApex]

Come on, you were the one who said that DoomsdayApex was a DC fan.

I am a fan of both, maybe more of DC. :word:

He knew exactly what he was doing.

I might be a fan of DC, Dark Horse and Image more than Marvel, but I am no damn fanboy.

Black Widow was the biggest waste of time in IM2 and Scarlet completely miscast. I do not buy her as this kick-arse action woman.

I wholeheartedly agree with this.

Hawkeye was another waste too.

[The Morningstar]

That, i can't agree with though.

There wasn't even a single Avengers reference until over an hour into the movie. And that was just a passing comment.

Iron Man 2 had problems. It wasn't an advert for Avengers though, this is one the biggest, ******** arguments i've heard (read?) on these boards.

[jmc]

I keep asking why is she in that film and the only response I've heard is 'to keep an eye on Tony', which is possibly the lamest reason to put a character in a film.

[DoomsdayApex]

That, i can't agree with though.

There wasn't even a single Avengers reference until over an hour into the movie. And that was just a passing comment.

Iron Man 2 had problems. It wasn't an advert for Avengers though, this is one the biggest, ******** arguments i've heard (read?) on these boards.

Bulls**t.

The film was rushed for a reason, and The Avenger Initiative was present since Iron Man and The Incredible Hulk (2008).

[The Morningstar]

Explain, in detail, how the film is an Avengers advert. I'm not talking about the production being rushed, i'm talking about the actual content of the story, being an Avengers advert.

I've yet to see anyone come close to convincing me.

SHIELD perhaps being too "Deus ex machina...ry"? I can accept that though.

[DoomsdayApex]

I'm not saying that the entire plot revolved around The Avengers, but the introduction to Black Widow and an appearance made by Nick Fury certainly gave off that odor -- not to mention Thor's Hammer at the end of the film.

And yes, of course, SHIELD.

[chiefchirpa]

Realistic films rarely outgross CB/Sci-Fi/Pixar/Mythology films, and it's not because of ingenious marketing schemes. It's because the general audience gravitates to these genres.


Just tell me which film grosses more Begins/TDK or GL. Iron Man or GL. In the beginning of this debate it's really about the question why people doesn't get interested much on GL compared to the rather more realistic superhero movies. $100 million marketing push for GL equals to the budget of many realistic films. Film like the Vow requires $30 M to make, but it's now making more than twice its production budget.


No one is trying to make this a DC vs Marvel fanboy debate except you, so please, just stop embarrassing yourself.

I don't care what you are, and what you're a fan of or follow, but I'm a fan of cinema. So yes, from to time, I'll follow my favorite directors and actors to see what type of new projects they're creating and/or attached to.

The hypocrisy is mind-blogging.
It's not really about DC vs Marvel, but you got to be carried away on (neutral) superhero films which people don't think it's anything impressive but in your view it's something. GL is a slightly below average movie, the reviewers have voted but if you still think that GL has better ensemble acting performance than IM2, it's your call. :cwink:


That's a seldom excuse. Black Widow is still an Avenger and Scarlett Johansson's name was billed in Iron Man 2. Imagine that.

It's cute that you believe that 10-15 more minutes for ScarJo's character would have made an immense or significant difference when, in fact, it wouldn't -- unless you consider three more scenes of her speaking no more than five words in latex or performing Lucha Libre stunts as stellar acting.Scarjo had awards and nominations. Lively had none (but in your mind, she might have). End of Story

[chiefchirpa]

Come on, you were the one who said that DoomsdayApex was a DC fan.

I am a fan of both, maybe more of DC. :word:

I can see that TDK is a better film than IM, and IM is a slightly better than BB. I value each film of what it is, whether is Marvel or DC or any other brands. I don't have an comics based avatar so that says how biased I'm to a superhero brand.

Now if someone says that GL has a better ensemble act than IM2, I can't say other than the person is firmly biased trying to polish a guano.

[chiefchirpa]

To be honest, Happy Hogan could have done whatever a$$ kicking she did in IM 2, she was there just so that she could get entry into Avengers, the whole movie was a setup to Avengers.

Well in essence you're right. Black Widow was a cameo for the Avengers, but the Avengers or BW in the Avengers itself was not a sure thing back during IM2.

[DoomsdayApex]

Just tell me which film grosses more Begins/TDK or GL. Iron Man or GL. In the beginning of this debate it's really about the question why people doesn't get interested much on GL compared to the rather more realistic superhero movies. $100 million marketing push for GL equals to the budget of many realistic films. Film like the Vow requires $30 M to make, but it's now making more than twice its production budget.

I'm quite sure that the theatrical trailers released and the bad reviews were the culprits. It had nothing to with the fantasy elements of the film. You're stretching here. Films like TDK and IM grossed more money because of their quality. It virtually had nothing to do with 'realism' alone.

Your comparison is incredibly flawed.

It's not really about DC vs Marvel, but you got to be carried away on (neutral) superhero films which people don't think it's anything impressive but in your view it's something. GL is a slightly below average movie, the reviewers have voted but if you still think that GL has better ensemble acting performance than IM2, it's your call. :cwink:

Yes, it is my call.

The only one that got carried away was you. Don't try to play it off either. I'll let it go, but don't ever make another snarky fanboyish remark like that again.

Scarjo had awards and nominations. Lively had none (but in your mind, she might have). End of Story

:facepalm:

Your stupidity continues to amaze me.

[chiefchirpa]

I'm quite sure that the theatrical trailers released and the bad reviews were the culprits. It had nothing to with the fantasy elements of the film. You're stretching here.


The quality of the film is the culprit. But there's a reason why Marvel heavily modify Thor from being an utter fantasy to a slightly more realistic film, with more Earth scenes than Asgard. As more realistic superhero films are better received than the more fantastic films of its genre, the trend is still the same.


Yes, it is my call.

The only one that got carried away was you. Don't try to play it off either. I'll let it go, but don't ever make another snarky fanboyish remark like that again.

:facepalm:

Your stupidity continues to amaze me.

Well, I rather be stupid than being a biased consumer.

[jmc]

Well in essence you're right. Black Widow was a cameo for the Avengers, but the Avengers or BW in the Avengers itself was not a sure thing back during IM2.

I think it's safe to say both her and the Avengers were a sure thing during IM2 given they are smack bang in the middle of the movie.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Wolverine biggest hole is the crappy "made by Fox, to hell with you comicbook readers" script. Acting-wise Wolverine is superior than Green Lantern.
I never said Wolverine is good, but I think it's better than Green Lantern (that ain't saying much though).

[DoomsdayApex]

The quality of the film is the culprit. But there's a reason why Marvel heavily modify Thor from being an utter fantasy to a slightly more realistic film, with more Earth scenes than Asgard. As more realistic superhero films are better received than the more fantastic films of its genre, the trend is still the same.

There was nothing realistic about Thor, other than one of the settings featured modern Earth. However, do continue. It's entertaining to watch you grasp for straws and try wiggle out a sane argument without trying to sound like a fanboy. Let's see what else you can pull out of your ass when I simply tell you that your logic does not compute. That there is nothing realistic about Frost Giants, a Thunder God, Asgard, Mjolnir, a BiFrost bridge, etc moreso than traveling through Wormholes, a Power Ring, an Intergalactic Police Force, etc.

Well, I rather be stupid than being a biased consumer.

Interesting statement... good for you Jack. :up::o

[Optimus_Prime_]

I was actually impressed by how Thor very matter of factly presented the Kirby-esque and mystical elements of the fiction. They jammed packed quite a bit of the mythos in the story, and I felt did so in a way that is not disjointed (which is something people have said about Iron Man 2). I also felt like they did a nice job making the case that in the confines of the movie science and magic really were one in the same. Magic simply became science we haven't discovered yet rather than something foreign to it.

Having rewatched Thor, Thor really seems like it accomplished much of what Green Lantern failed to and it has a really strong cast and very strong dialogue. Thor is a well rounded film.

[craigdbfan]

Definitely agree with that.

[roach]

I was actually impressed by how Thor very matter of factly presented the Kirby-esque and mystical elements of the fiction. They jammed packed quite a bit of the mythos in the story, and I felt did so in a way that is not disjointed (which is something people have said about Iron Man 2). I also felt like they did a nice job making the case that in the confines of the movie science and magic really were one in the same. Magic simply became science we haven't discovered yet rather than something foreign to it.

Having rewatched Thor, Thor really seems like it accomplished much of what Green Lantern failed to and it has a really strong cast and very strong dialogue. Thor is a well rounded film.

my only issue with the way they portrayed the science/magic was that it was Thor who described the magic as a form of science. For someone who believes he is the god of thunder to poo-poo all over that...i would have preferred if someone else made that assumption.

[roach]

I never said Wolverine is good, but I think it's better than Green Lantern (that ain't saying much though).

wholeheartedly disagree....IMO there were no insane leaps of logic in GL.

[DoomsdayApex]

my only issue with the way they portrayed the science/magic was that it was Thor who described the magic as a form of science. For someone who believes he is the god of thunder to poo-poo all over that...i would have preferred if someone else made that assumption.

I absolutely hated that quote.

"Your ancestors called it magic, but you call it science. I come from a land where they are one and the same."

:barf:

[Bruce_Begins]

^^ Worst part is that Jane is a scientist and she accepts Thor's explanation without any questions just because she likes him.

[roach]

I absolutely hated that quote.

"Your ancestors called it magic, but you call it science. I come from a land where they are one and the same."

:barf:

IMO it didn't make sense for Thor to say that

Jane:"He says he's Thor the god of thunder. Is that possible?"
Dr Selvig:"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

[The Morningstar]

Or maybe it's because he fell from the sky in a worm-hole? Religious people question their faith, scientists sometimes questions their... knowledge of science? lol

[The Morningstar]

I think it's safe to say both her and the Avengers were a sure thing during IM2 given they are smack bang in the middle of the movie.

How was anything Avengers related smack bang in the middle of the movie? I see people making these claims about IM2 but they never explain it.

There wasn't a single Avengers reference until the final third of the film, and that was a jokey line about a "superhero boy band".

Coulson mentions he has to do something in New Mexico, obviously referencing Thor.

An appearance by Cap's shield.

Then in the second from last scene of the film we have Stark talking to Fury about the Avengers.

None of these things impede on the main story of the movie. The idea that IM2 was an Avengers advert is utter, utter ********. Unless someone can counter me on these points, which hasn't happened since i've been here which is nearly a year...

And no, the involvement of SHIELD doesn't count. A shady government agency getting involved with a guy like Tony Stark makes sense. Just so happens that in the Marvel Universe there is a shady government agency called SHIELD.

This is not to say IM2 isn't flawed. It is, very much so. But again, none of those flaws have anything to do with the Avengers.

[DoomsdayApex]

IMO it didn't make sense for Thor to say that

Jane:"He says he's Thor the god of thunder. Is that possible?"
Dr Selvig:"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"

Exactly. It made no sense to me for Thor to make a statement of that nature to Jane.

Or maybe it's because he fell from the sky in a worm-hole? Religious people question their faith, scientists sometimes questions their... knowledge of science? lol

Both fields are flawed and limited because they were established by the hand/mind of man. The Earth is not 6,000 years old, and Einstein died thinking that Tachyonic Neutrinos didn't exist.

[Optimus_Prime_]

wholeheartedly disagree....IMO there were no insane leaps of logic in GL.
Not sure what you mean by that:huh:, I mean the premise itself is an "insane leap of logic". Both films make a lot of the same mistakes. Green Lantern and Wolverine have several scenes that abruptly come out of nowhere, Green Lantern does it throughout the entire film actually. To me what edges out Wolverine is the two lead actors. They were a very strong centerpiece of that film. Also, in my opinion, the underlying basic premise of Wolverine is good, but they do an absolutely sh***y job telling it. Green Lantern can barely claim to even have a story at all. It's just "this happened, then this happened, then this happened, then...oh crap, we have to end this...the end".

[Optimus_Prime_]

IMO it didn't make sense for Thor to say that

Jane:"He says he's Thor the god of thunder. Is that possible?"
Dr Selvig:"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic"
Magicians don't think of what they do as magic, only the audience does. It makes absolute sense that Thor fully accepts what he is and what he does as not magical.

[Bruce_Begins]

First half of IM 2 -it was about Iron man / Tony Stark and Vanko / Whiplash but Scar Jo makes an appearance as an under cover Shield agent. (Note: beginning of Avergers related character shoe horned in)

Second half: Vanko meets hammer, Tony falls ill, becomes drunk, does some silly stuff, the movie drags until nick Fury Fury hints at how to create new alloy (Vibranium ?) as power source. Hints about Avengers.

Third Act: All Shield agents : Colson, Black Widow, Nick Fury assist Stark.

[The Guard]

Not sure what you mean by that, I mean the premise itself is an "insane leap of logic". Both films make a lot of the same mistakes. Green Lantern and Wolverine have several scenes that abruptly come out of nowhere, Green Lantern does it throughout the entire film actually.

What do you mean scenes that come out of nowhere? Can you provide some examples?

Green Lantern can barely claim to even have a story at all. It's just "this happened, then this happened, then this happened, then...oh crap, we have to end this...the end".

Green Lantern has a very clear storyline. It's just not a very deep, or particularly complex one.

[The Morningstar]

The cafe scene where Tony first meets Fury is the beginning of the final act. And none of them assist him, Fury basically just gives him a kick up the arse and tells him he needs to sort himself out because the world needs him. Yes it's kinda deus ex machina-ry and clunky. But it also allows for a great character moment for Stark where he realises that his father did in fact love him.

[roach]

Magicians don't think of what they do as magic, only the audience does. It makes absolute sense that Thor fully accepts what he is and what he does as not magical.

You are talking about stage magicians...they pretend to be something they aren't.
Do you think Gandalf believes he is practicing magic or science?

[roach]

Not sure what you mean by that:huh:, I mean the premise itself is an "insane leap of logic". Both films make a lot of the same mistakes. Green Lantern and Wolverine have several scenes that abruptly come out of nowhere, Green Lantern does it throughout the entire film actually. To me what edges out Wolverine is the two lead actors. They were a very strong centerpiece of that film. Also, in my opinion, the underlying basic premise of Wolverine is good, but they do an absolutely sh***y job telling it. Green Lantern can barely claim to even have a story at all. It's just "this happened, then this happened, then this happened, then...oh crap, we have to end this...the end".

there is a difference between a fantastic premise and an insane leap of logic
A man receiving a power ring to be a space cop is a fantastic premise....Shooting someone in the head with an adamantium bullet to make them have amnesia when that person can heal from any wound...insane leap of logic

[DrCosmic]

The cafe scene where Tony first meets Fury is the beginning of the final act. And none of them assist him, Fury basically just gives him a kick up the arse and tells him he needs to sort himself out because the world needs him. Yes it's kinda deus ex machina-ry and clunky. But it also allows for a great character moment for Stark where he realises that his father did in fact love him.

That's an assist, and it's my least favorite part of the film, that SHIELD comes in and cuts the tension that has been building into bits. The film, imho would have been superior with Tony finding the tape himself and limping through the element creation process. But that was sacrificed to make Avengers better.

[Optimus_Prime_]

You are talking about stage magicians...they pretend to be something they aren't.
Do you think Gandalf believes he is practicing magic or science?
I'm talking about both. Gandalf, Dr. Strange, or any "magician" you could name would have to, by being a practicioner, intuitively understand why what he does produces the result it does, even if his explanation is unintelligible to others. The whole invention of magic in the human psyche is in fact simply an outgrowth of a less than full understanding of seemingly random events. In order for Gandalf to conjure magic he has to in some form control the outcomes of his inputs, meaning he understands the rules of magic whereas others do not. For him to exert any form of control whatsoever would assume that magic, like science, obeys laws and rules. There has to be something, for example, that ensures Thor's hammer produces thunder and lightning instead of sunshine and flowers, or else every time he used it he'd be uncertain of the reaction. Yet for Thor that device and his world has enough predictability for him to live and survive in it, and also for him to be able to modify aspects of his world, even weaponize this. All of this is impossible if magic exists outside of a causal reality. Hence why Thor's approach actually makes a ton of sense. It's not magic to Thor because to Thor it's his everyday reality, a reality which he has a very firm grasp on that "our scientists" do not.

[DrCosmic]

Magicians don't think of what they do as magic, only the audience does. It makes absolute sense that Thor fully accepts what he is and what he does as not magical.

Except he thinks of technology as magic, which is why he says they're the same thing. The word doesn't mean the same thing to him as it does to us. In the same way, stage magicians refer to what they do as magic, but they don't define in the same way we do.

there is a difference between a fantastic premise and an insane leap of logic
A man receiving a power ring to be a space cop is a fantastic premise....Shooting someone in the head with an adamantium bullet to make them have amnesia when that person can heal from any wound...insane leap of logic

True that, but honestly... mutants are a fantastic premise, and suddenly being able to control a construct made by someone else's mind, as Movie Hal did when he defeated Hammond, is an insane leap of logic. GL also didn't have the advantage of ppl already caring about the character... but it sure acted like they did, and spent all its character development time on the throwawa villain. Dear goodness it was a bad script that would have worked great in a comic book.

[Optimus_Prime_]

True that, but honestly... mutants are a fantastic premise, and suddenly being able to control a construct made by someone else's mind, as Movie Hal did when he defeated Hammond, is an insane leap of logic. GL also didn't have the advantage of ppl already caring about the character... but it sure acted like they did, and spent all its character development time on the throwaway villain. Dear goodness it was a bad script that would have worked great in a comic book.
Wasn't Geoff John's heavily involved in the script because I can see your point about it being more of a comic book script than a movie script?

[Optimus_Prime_]

First half of IM 2 -it was about Iron man / Tony Stark and Vanko / Whiplash but Scar Jo makes an appearance as an under cover Shield agent. (Note: beginning of Avergers related character shoe horned in)

Second half: Vanko meets hammer, Tony falls ill, becomes drunk, does some silly stuff, the movie drags until nick Fury Fury hints at how to create new alloy (Vibranium ?) as power source. Hints about Avengers.

Third Act: All Shield agents : Colson, Black Widow, Nick Fury assist Stark.
The second act definitely slows down the movie, unfortunately.

The hate for IM2 is completely hyperbolic though. Batman Begins has a lousey second act, ditches it's best villain for the majority of the film, and the Mr. Earle subplot is pointless and full of holes. Yet those things are brushed aside. Although, I feel like because BB was an introduction film it's gets more of a pass because the sequel eliminated many of the hang ups I have with the first one.

[Lord]

Green Lantern: Secret Origin, also written by Geoff Johns, was a better origin story for the character than the movie.

[Kahran Ramsus]

SHIELD was all over the first Iron Man too.

I also don't see the argument that the Marvel films are just advertisements for The Avengers, although I concede that Iron Man 2 has the most to do with it.

I've seen people say that Thor & Captain America are the same and I really don't understand that. They have nothing to do with the Avengers outside of a comment now and then and an easter egg after the credits.

[chiefchirpa]

There was nothing realistic about Thor, other than one of the settings featured modern Earth. However, do continue. It's entertaining to watch you grasp for straws and try wiggle out a sane argument without trying to sound like a fanboy. Let's see what else you can pull out of your ass when I simply tell you that your logic does not compute. That there is nothing realistic about Frost Giants, a Thunder God, Asgard, Mjolnir, a BiFrost bridge, etc moreso than traveling through Wormholes, a Power Ring, an Intergalactic Police Force, etc.


You have reading comprehension problem, as always. I said they have heavily modified Thor from pure fantasy in the old comics to something that comes out of sci-fi or more believable fantasy. Thor in the movie is firmly set to be an inter dimensional alien. That's been said, Thor is still a fantasy movie as with other superhero films. It's just that the fantastical elements in Thor has been tempered down a notch or two from the source comics.

[Rockstar]

According to Rotten Tomatoes, Wolverine = Fantastic Four II. 37%

and

Green Lantern = Fantastic Four. 27%

All bad films.

[roach]

my rankings

Fantastic Four
Green Lantern
Wolverine

[chiefchirpa]

SHIELD was all over the first Iron Man too.

I also don't see the argument that the Marvel films are just advertisements for The Avengers, although I concede that Iron Man 2 has the most to do with it.

I've seen people say that Thor & Captain America are the same and I really don't understand that. They have nothing to do with the Avengers outside of a comment now and then and an easter egg after the credits.

Iron Man 2 is the Green Lantern movie of Marvel Cinematic Universe. The difference between them is that the cast members prepared for Avengers will be in Avengers, while cast for JLA like Angela Bassett is in Limbo and most probably will not be hired for further DC movies.

[chiefchirpa]

my rankings

Fantastic Four
Green Lantern
Wolverine

:up: Same order with me

[Kahran Ramsus]

I never saw Green Lantern, but Wolverine was way better than Fantastic Four. At least it had Hugh Jackman & Liev Schrieber and some good action scenes. It was terrible, don't get me wrong, but it was better than Fantastic Four. The only good thing about Fantastic Four was Johnny Storm.

[chiefchirpa]

Baraka-pool is the travesty which lowers down Wolverine point. I'm sure there were more, but it seems that Fox don't give a damn on the source materials. Acting-wise, Wolverine is exemplary.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Baraka-pool is the travesty which lowers down Wolverine point. I'm sure there were more, but it seems that Fox don't give a damn on the source materials. Acting-wise, Wolverine is exemplary.

The idea wasn't that bad had they just used an original character as Weapon XI instead of making him Deadpool. There was no reason he had to be Wade Wilson, except to piss people off.

[roach]

I never saw Green Lantern, but Wolverine was way better than Fantastic Four. At least it had Hugh Jackman & Liev Schrieber and some good action scenes. It was terrible, don't get me wrong, but it was better than Fantastic Four. The only good thing about Fantastic Four was Johnny Storm.

for me its all about the story...while the FF script was nothing to write home about the Wolverine script was all over the place and as I said before made insane leaps in logic.
Of the FF movie there were several things that I liked:
Johnny Storm
The Thing
Stan Lee as Willie Lumpkin
Julian McMahon as Doom (yes I am sure I am gonna be Nova blasted for this but I thought he did a good job with what he had)
The dynamic between Johnny and Ben
The tone of the movie fit with what I have read in the comics

[roach]

The idea wasn't that bad had they just used an original character as Weapon XI instead of making him Deadpool. There was no reason he had to be Wade Wilson, except to piss people off.

or the fact that Blob got to his massive form by over eating?
or "where gonna perform an operation on Logan that makes him even more unkillable...and then try to kill him...just to see if we can do it?
Do I need to keep bringing up amnesia bullets?

I can sit thru FF when its on Tv
I can't when Wolverine is on

[DoomsdayApex]

You have reading comprehension problem, as always. I said they have heavily modified Thor from pure fantasy in the old comics to something that comes out of sci-fi or more believable fantasy. Thor in the movie is firmly set to be an inter dimensional alien. That's been said, Thor is still a fantasy movie as with other superhero films. It's just that the fantastical elements in Thor has been tempered down a notch or two from the source comics.

:doh:

A notch down? Believable fantasy? Are you honestly this doltish? Thor was Green Lantern in terms of fantasy-based elements.

[Optimus_Prime_]

or the fact that Blob got to his massive form by over eating?
or "where gonna perform an operation on Logan that makes him even more unkillable...and then try to kill him...just to see if we can do it?
Do I need to keep bringing up amnesia bullets?

I can sit thru FF when its on Tv
I can't when Wolverine is on
Differently strokes. They both suck. Wolverine is appealing to me on a B-movie level. Ever seen the Day of the Dead remake with Nick Cannon. Its horrible, but its hella entertaining. Wolverine is like a 1980s comic, so bad and stupid its entertaining with cool characters too boot.

[craigdbfan]

@Apex Not even. Oa was portrayed terribly. It was a poorly rendered giant green rock and that's it.

Whereas I get a much better sense with the portrayals of Asgard and Jötunheimr. It actually felt like it was inhabited and tangible unlike Oa.

[chiefchirpa]

:doh:

A notch down? Are you honestly this doltish? Thor was Green Lantern in terms of fantasy-based elements.

I said compared to the source material. Marvel made Thor more like a sci-fi , more believable fiction than a pure fantasy of god and fairies.

[Optimus_Prime_]

:doh:

A notch down? Believable fantasy? Are you honestly this doltish? Thor was Green Lantern in terms of fantasy-based elements.
I agree. Green Lantern could've been better IF it developed it's concepts and presented them more like Thor. Thor did a much better job.

[DoomsdayApex]

I agree. Green Lantern could've been better IF it developed it's concepts and presented them more like Thor. Thor did a much better job.

I'm sorry, but that's a big load. Thor was not more believable than Green Lantern. Both aspects of these films were drenched in Sci-Fi/Fantasy material. Neither one was more believable or 'realistic' than the other.

[Optimus_Prime_]

I'm sorry, but that's a big load. Thor was not more believable than Green Lantern. Both aspects of these films were drenched in Sci-Fi/Fantasy material. Neither one was more believable or 'realistic' than the other.
Are you such a whiney DC fanboy that you argue with a post that started with "I agree".

[DoomsdayApex]

Are you such a whiney DC fanboy that you argue with a post that started with "I agree".

Firstly, Don't call me a fanboy. If that were the case, then I would have despised anything that Marvel released.

Second, you didn't make yourself clear. I admit, I jumped the gun also, but I thought you were agreeing with Chief's sentiment. People have responded to me on this site like that before, and it gets confusing.

[jmc]

Please tell me there isn't an argument going about which is the more 'believable' of two character who share an equal amount of unbelievability.

[craigdbfan]

I think their wording is off but I think Doomsday was saying that Oa felt as equally fleshed out and well portrayed as Asgard and Jotunheim did in Thor.

Something that is just flat out not true. Oa barely got the attention or depiction it deserved and was simply a boring green slab of rock.

[The Morningstar]

Both characters and their worlds are "unbelievable". But this much is certain, Thor did a better job of creating it's world/rules and making the audience understand and appreciate them. I don't see how this is deniable.

Both movies are "out there". Thor executed better.

As for Wolverine? Problem with that movie was it was watered down. Jackman was saying we see Wolverine as an animal in all the press interviews before hand. Well, no, he wasn't. He was a pussy. He was more of an animal in the X-Men films.

And that is a grave mistake, considering the movie was supposed to be about Logan's conflict, retaining his humanity and not embracing his animal side. Well, what conflict? There was no animal side. How can anyone feel for the character and his plight if his plight wasn't properly portrayed? What they should have done is show Wolverine as a cold blooded killer with the Weapon X team. Show him as a guy who maybe even kills innocent people. But then he grows weary and jaded of all this, and wants to quit. He wants to redeem himself maybe. I don't know, just anything but what we got.

Instead what we got was Logan moping around whilst the likes of Wade and Creed showed that they were the "best at what they do", not Wolverine.

[Parker Wayne]

I agree that Thor did a much better job of doing that. Oa was barely explored and not in Green Lantern long enough, I guess it was to keep costs down because that damn CGI suit.

[The Morningstar]

I didn't mind the suit, but yea, it wasn't very practical, financially speaking.

They could have got the same effect if they did the suits like in Tron Legacy. Actual suits but just enhanced with CGI.

Comparing GL and Tron for a second, what was Tron's budget? It looked spectacular, apart from some shots of CLU. Whereas GL looked like the cheapest big budget movie i've ever seen. Even the practical sets looked so bland and cheap.

[craigdbfan]

Tron Legacy was around $170 million.

[Optimus_Prime_]

I think with Green Lantern the sci-fi aspects were fine and dandy, but they presented it like a wikipedia article. They should've either cut out aspects of the mythos to focus more strongly on certain characters or made the movie longer and the plot more developed. Superhero movies are all equally unbelieveable at their core. Batman is impossible, so is Thor. No one could be Batman, no one could be Green Lantern, and no one could be Thor, end of story.

[The Morningstar]

Yea, it makes me laugh when people say Batman is realistic. He's not... at all. Like you say, it's just as impossible for someone to be Batman as it is to be Thor or Green Lantern.

[DoomsdayApex]

I think their wording is off but I think Doomsday was saying that Oa felt as equally fleshed out and well portrayed as Asgard and Jotunheim did in Thor.

Something that is just flat out not true. Oa barely got the attention or depiction it deserved and was simply a boring green slab of rock.

No, not all. Oa was only on display ...for what? Three minutes? The planet was barely explored. We, as an audience, didn't even scratch the surface.

I was debating Chief's view in where he or she claimed that Thor was more 'realistic' and believable than Green Lantern, and it led to Thor being more marketable than Green Lantern, which is just not true. The fantasy elements for both films were equally believable and unbelievable.

Yeah... no.

[Parker Wayne]

^ Agreed.

[Optimus_Prime_]

What they should've done is just used Hector Hammond as the sole villain, and made the story about Sinestro helping Hal defeat Hammond, perhaps with Sinestro starting to turn evil slowly in the process. Then ending the movie with a trip to Oa, having Hal earning his place to be amongst the Lanterns. I would've largely confined the first two acts to Earth, saved the trip to Oa for the end, and made Sinestro the only other Lantern we saw or heard from. I would've also had Sinestro stay in Hal's apartment, maybe make a running gag out of him trying to conceal who this person is from his friends and family. That way, in the next film, they could've really fleshed out the other Lanterns and the Guardians. Green Lantern is far too ambitious with all it tries to cram in. They spread themselves way too thin, and the result is what we all saw.

[The Morningstar]

Agreed also.

But the one thing that I think made GL a bit more difficult to swallow for people who are not fans of comics was... the ring. At the end of the day it's a brightly coloured piece of costume jewellery that allows to user to create things from his imagination.

A little bit cheesier than a big **** off hammer.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Agreed also.

But the one thing that I think made GL a bit more difficult to swallow for people who are not fans of comics was... the ring. At the end of the day it's a brightly coloured piece of costume jewellery that allows to user to create things from his imagination.

A little bit cheesier than a big **** off hammer.
Eh? Naw. Wrapped in a good, much tighter story, this wouldn't have been an issue. For example, the reason I'd suggest having Sinestro in Hal's apartment as a gag is it embraces some of the concept's inherent silliness and makes it something the audience can relate too. Maybe people start believing Hal is secretly gay because he's secretly keeping this guy in his apartment. Maybe Sinestro makes some major faux paus while Hal is trying to entertain a lady friend (this also would've made much more use of Ryan Reynolds' style of acting). Instead they did this hyper-serious approach, and crammed all these plot points down people's throat like some preachy, fat, virgin comic collector would.

[The Morningstar]

Oh of course, it's all about execution.

But i mean the idea of a bright green ring that gives the user powers is just inherently cheesier and more "out there" than a guy with a big hammer who batters people round the face with it.

Power rings haven't been cool since Captain frickin Planet. lol

[HighFivingMF]

According to Rotten Tomatoes, Wolverine = Fantastic Four II. 37%

and

Green Lantern = Fantastic Four. 27%

All bad films.

I agree. Besides Green Lantern.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Oh of course, it's all about execution.

But i mean the idea of a bright green ring that gives the user powers is just inherently cheesier and more "out there" than a guy with a big hammer who batters people round the face with it.

Power rings haven't been cool since Captain frickin Planet. lol

Captain Planet was never cool.

[The Morningstar]

You know, i was actually going to say "and even that was questionable" heh.

[HighFivingMF]

Captain Planet was never cool.

Captain Planet's hair, however....

[The Morningstar]

... was a sight to behold indeed.

[Tobias]

Let me say this about FF.

It was a huge missed opportunity by the studio in terms of the sequel.

FF itself did gangbusters. Raking in almost 100 million in profit from theatre showings alone. Going by The Numbers.

GL and SR both lost a ton of money for WB from theatre alone numbers. Going by The Numbers. Neither GL or SR got a sequel but FF did.

Even Thor and Cap made "just" tens of millions from theatre showings.

So the ball was in the court for the studio after and given FF's numbers. And the potential they portended.

An FF sequel could have, should have been huge but for the failure of the studio to leverage the sucsess of the first film. It killed this installment of the franchise. But the potential is there for a revival.

[DoomsdayApex]

What they should've done is just used Hector Hammond as the sole villain, and made the story about Sinestro helping Hal defeat Hammond, perhaps with Sinestro starting to turn evil slowly in the process. Then ending the movie with a trip to Oa, having Hal earning his place to be amongst the Lanterns. I would've largely confined the first two acts to Earth, saved the trip to Oa for the end, and made Sinestro the only other Lantern we saw or heard from. I would've also had Sinestro stay in Hal's apartment, maybe make a running gag out of him trying to conceal who this person is from his friends and family. That way, in the next film, they could've really fleshed out the other Lanterns and the Guardians. Green Lantern is far too ambitious with all it tries to cram in. They spread themselves way too thin, and the result is what we all saw.

To be honest, I would have preferred if Hector wasn't even featured in the film at all. He was a waste, in my opinion. Parallax was more than enough for Hal, Sinestro and the rest of the Lanterns to worry about it. I also hated the fact that the training for Hal on Oa was much too short. It was, hands down, one of (if not the best) parts of the movie. Yet, the training, and exploration of Oa and The Green Lantern Corps was reduced to the minimum.

Oh of course, it's all about execution.

But i mean the idea of a bright green ring that gives the user powers is just inherently cheesier and more "out there" than a guy with a big hammer who batters people round the face with it.

Power rings haven't been cool since Captain frickin Planet. lol

Oh please, is a Power Ring really more cheesier than a Shield that acts like a boomerang or a term like SHAZAM!?

[craigdbfan]

Parallax also looked like a nasty case of diarrhea. Literally.

http://i.imgur.com/5gDyC.jpg

Another giant missed opportunity that is on the level of cloud Galactus.

[LibidoLoca]

Wow, critics were not kidding when they said he resembled fecal matter. :barf:

[Lord]

Parallax also looked like a nasty case of diarrhea. Literally.

http://i.imgur.com/5gDyC.jpg

Another giant missed opportunity that is on the level of cloud Galactus.
Cloud Galactus didn't make people laugh, and besides comic-book fans, people didn't find him ridiculous

[Parker Wayne]

Yeah, they did.

[Lord]

Galactus? Nah, people didn't find him ridiculous, Parasite yes, but not cloud galactus, that was more of a thing comic book fans b***d about

[DoomsdayApex]

Parallax also looked like a nasty case of diarrhea. Literally.

http://i.imgur.com/5gDyC.jpg

Another giant missed opportunity that is on the level of cloud Galactus.

I had forgotten Parallax's appearance. Shame. :csad:

[HighFivingMF]

I seriously think all of you should get to a doctor if you think that's what poo is supposed to look like...

[The Morningstar]

Oh please, is a Power Ring really more cheesier than a Shield that acts like a boomerang or a term like SHAZAM!?

Yes. Well, maybe not cheesier than someone shouting SHAZAM.

[The Morningstar]

I seriously think all of you should get to a doctor if you think that's what poo is supposed to look like...

Take away Krona's face then... yea, kinda. The yellow bits even look like sweet corn :D

[DoomsdayApex]

Yes. Well, maybe not cheesier than someone shouting SHAZAM.

Well, that is your opinion but I personally dig the ring so long as I see similar feats of this nature in the comics, shows and and games:

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/222/glgame11.jpg/sr=1

[The Morningstar]

Oh so do i. I love the GL mythos.

My point is, a "magic green ring" is a bit harder to sell than a "big **** off hammer".

[craigdbfan]

At least we have GL: First Flight. Essentially everything the movie should have been and then some.

[HighFivingMF]

Take away Krona's face then... yea, kinda. The yellow bits even look like sweet corn :D

No, my poo has faces in it. They're just smiling usually.

[CConn]

**** anyone who insults Captain Planet.

[Bruce_Begins]

GL is at the same place where Hulk was after failure of Ang Lee's Hulk.

[CConn]

You mean Marvel will buy GL's rights back and make one last solo movie for him so he can appear in the Avengers?

[Optimus_Prime_]

GL is at the same place where Hulk was after failure of Ang Lee's Hulk.
Ang Lee's film is far superior though.

[HighFivingMF]

Ang Lee's film is far superior though.

Not really even sort of.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Not really even sort of.
Really sort of. I can't tell you what your opinion is but Green Lantern is an atrocious film that should've never been made. Hulk wasn't very good come act III, but overall not a bad film.

[craigdbfan]

GL is at the same place where Hulk was after failure of Ang Lee's Hulk.

Not even. Hulk actually had depth to it.

Ang Lee's film is far superior though.

This.

[HighFivingMF]

Really sort of. I can't tell you what your opinion is but Green Lantern is an atrocious film that should've never been made. Hulk wasn't very good come act III, but overall not a bad film.

I don't think anything shouldn't be made, because anything you make someone will enjoy and I'd never to deprive anyone of that. But Hulk ****ing blew. Green Lantern was a perfectly good, fun movie. But of course, it's cool not to like it so every detail has to be awful. :whatever:

[Optimus_Prime_]

I don't think anything shouldn't be made, because anything you make someone will enjoy and I'd never to deprive anyone of that. But Hulk ****ing blew. Green Lantern was a perfectly good, fun movie. But of course, it's cool not to like it so every detail has to be awful. :whatever:
Every detail is awful. It shouldn't have been made, not like that. Did they read that script before filming it? I have to really wonder. It's atrocious. Hal's flashback featuring his father reminded me of the flashback sequences in Airplane!. In fact Hal's character is almost identical to Airplane!'s main character. There is no chemistry between Blake and Ryan onscreen, it's like watching two people who just had an awkward one night stand. There is literally no emotional center to the movie either. Why is Hal chosen again? Because he's a d***? They did a good job establishing he's a d*** who leans on his friends, and his grand catharsis is where? It never happens. He just snaps in and out of emotional states with no transition whatsoever. All the relationships felt like that. I never once gave a sh**. An ocean liner could've fallen from the sky and killed every character with zero emotional impact. Fun??? Unless I can picture myself having "fun" with those characters I cannot have "fun" watching them. If I had to spend two minutes with any of those one dimensional caricatures in real life, I'd be forced to hang myself.

[Tobias]

GL is at the same place where Hulk was after failure of Ang Lee's Hulk.

I agree.

I have no doubt GL will be re-booted. Maybe sooner than some think.

It probably won't get a sequel though RR is vague on this.

WB spent 200 million to make GL because WB believes it's a potential huge film franchiase. That GL didn't pan doesn't take away from it's ultimate potential if/when done right.

Unlike say Superman. After SR WB determined Superman wasn't finacially feasible as a film franchise and ended it.

This is not happening with GL however. A GL w/RR sequel may not happen but no way is WB gonna shelve GL as they've done with Superman.

[CConn]

As moronic as Optimus_Prime is, I have to say, I too find Hulk marginally better than GL.

As I just posted in the Hulk vs. TIH thread, Hulk at least tries to be a genuinely good film - more to the caliber of TDK than Ghost Rider, etc. it, of course, fails to do that due to a lackluster script and some pretty hammy acting on Nolte's part. But there's still some very high quality aspects of the film; the cinematography, acting, art direction, score, editing, etc.

I didn't find GL to have any of those qualities. It didn't even try to be great. At best, it would've been on the level of Spider-Man or Iron Man; definitively "fun" movies, but also pretty devoid of any great level of depth. The cinematography was average, the art director and set design looked down right cheap, it had a very forgettable score, absolutely dreadful editing, and while I'm one of the few who like RR, except for Mark Strong, none of the actors' performances were all that impressive.

[HighFivingMF]

Every detail is awful.
That's pretty much impossible.

It shouldn't have been made, not like that. Did they read that script before filming it? I have to really wonder. It's atrocious.
It's not perfect or great, but atrocious I feel is an overstatement.

Hal's flashback featuring his father reminded me of the flashback sequences in Airplane!. In fact Hal's character is almost identical to Airplane!'s main character.
I don't see it, but if you say so.

There is no chemistry between Blake and Ryan onscreen, it's like watching two people who just had an awkward one night stand.
Things were supposed to be awkward between them at first.

And there was plenty of chemistry, they are a real couple after all.

There is literally no emotional center to the movie either.
Hal's doubt, his unwillingness to be open about having such doubts, his getting over that and being open about the doubts and fears, then finally overcoming them.

Why is Hal chosen again?
For the reasons they said. The bravery thing, the overcoming fear thing.

Because he's a d***? They did a good job establishing he's a d*** who leans on his friends,
When does he lean on his friends? And what does he do that's dicklike? Destroys the planes? While doing the job he was told to do?

and his grand catharsis is where? It never happens. He just snaps in and out of emotional states with no transition whatsoever.
Yeah... There's nothing in the movie pushing Hal to overcome the doubts about himself... Besides the gigantic monster eating his planet and not having any help in the matter. Hal's been skating by his entire life, but with Hector and Parallax he was the only that could do anything, he had to step up. They said Hal had the power to overcome fear, this movie was about him doing just that. To protect Carol, his family, his friends, everyone.

All the relationships felt like that. I never once gave a sh**. An ocean liner could've fallen from the sky and killed every character with zero emotional impact.
Fair enough. But I think if that happened the only emotion present would be confusion anyway.

Fun??? Unless I can picture myself having "fun" with those characters I cannot have "fun" watching them.
OK then.

If I had to spend two minutes with any of those one dimensional caricatures in real life, I'd be forced to hang myself.
Kind of... Over-dramatic.

While you can argue the quality of the details you said were missing, they were definitely there. Different strokes for different folks, so whatever. I enjoy chatting about things I love on here, unfortunately when it comes to Green Lantern it's always defending it. I love it, I'll always love it. My close circle of friends all enjoyed it too, so I have no reason to complain.

[roach]

I think Hulk would have been a better film without the crazy editing

[CConn]

I liked the editing myself, but even if I didn't, that was hardly the biggest flaw of the film.

[roach]

I liked the editing myself, but even if I didn't, that was hardly the biggest flaw of the film.

while i know its not the biggest flaw...its the one thing most people who watch movies for fun had an issue with

[CConn]

Really? That bothered them more than like the solid hour of exposition and psychobabble that comprises the film?

[LibidoLoca]

You mean Marvel will buy GL's rights back and make one last solo movie for him so he can appear in the Avengers?
Omit buying back the rights and replace Avengers with Justice League and you got it! :o

[dnno1]

You mean Marvel will buy GL's rights back and make one last solo movie for him so he can appear in the Avengers?

Actually, the WB/DC has taken the property to the small screen for now. He already makes appearances with the Justice league in the animated movies.

[Lord]

Green Lantern is getting a tv show right now that from the first episode seems to be really good, if kids like it enough i think that they should try a reboot in some years from now, when those kids are teenagers and want to get a sence of nostalgia, that's one of the reasons why X-Men and Transformers made so much success.

Green Lantern should keep franchising itself with comics and TV Shows, after some time you can start anew, before that time WB can try other possible franchises with the other original Justice League members.

I think that the first bets should be Wonder Woman and Flash, WW because Refn seems to be interested, he's a great director and it would be interesting to see him try a diferent genre of movies, with a property he seems to like, that can seem like a possible campbell on Green Lantern disaster but it's a risk that needs to be taken if people really want to see her on screen.

I mentioned The Flash because it would be a cheaper movie, and not as big a risk, he may even have spider-man's potential, in least the same appeal, a hero that likes what he does, a genius in his oun right as shoun by some devices he created. His rogue gallery is full of colorful villains, but some would be interesting to see, something new about them is that most of Flash's enemies don't really like to kill and have an honor code

Aquaman is an unexplored property that if done right it can be really epic, true Star Wars underwater, but underwater scenes would be a bit expencive, i can imagine many time being spent out of water but this film needs a big budget, so WW and Flash are what can open the doors to this film.

[Tobias]

Green Lantern is getting a tv show right now that from the first episode seems to be really good, if kids like it enough i think that they should try a reboot in some years from now, when those kids are teenagers and want to get a sence of nostalgia, that's one of the reasons why X-Men and Transformers made so much success.

Green Lantern should keep franchising itself with comics and TV Shows, after some time you can start anew, before that time WB can try other possible franchises with the other original Justice League members.

I think that the first bets should be Wonder Woman and Flash, WW because Refn seems to be interested, he's a great director and it would be interesting to see him try a diferent genre of movies, with a property he seems to like, that can seem like a possible campbell on Green Lantern disaster but it's a risk that needs to be taken if people really want to see her on screen.

I mentioned The Flash because it would be a cheaper movie, and not as big a risk, he may even have spider-man's potential, in least the same appeal, a hero that likes what he does, a genius in his oun right as shoun by some devices he created. His rogue gallery is full of colorful villains, but some would be interesting to see, something new about them is that most of Flash's enemies don't really like to kill and have an honor code

Aquaman is an unexplored property that if done right it can be really epic, true Star Wars underwater, but underwater scenes would be a bit expencive, i can imagine many time being spent out of water but this film needs a big budget, so WW and Flash are what can open the doors to this film.

You make good points.

With the GL TV show I don't expect an immediate reboot but can see one in 5 or 6 years.

It seems WBs' pattern is to do one superhero/DC film per year. It may not be hard and fast and I'm not sure they will do one in 2014.

IMO WB definitely will do something for 2015 and it will likely be Flash or WW.

2016 will be a rebooted Batman. No way they let that franchise go w/o a film for more than 4 years.

Then voila, GL reboot in 2017. A 6 year wait which sort of matches the Spiderman wait the Raimi incarnation nd the new incarnation this year.

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think Green Lantern is easier to salvage than Hulk was. Everybody knows who Hulk is, so when he has a movie people don't like it is hard to get them back to another film just a few years later. Most people thought Incredible Hulk was a sequel, not a reboot, and it is very hard to get that information out there no matter how hard you try. Batman Begins had the same problem.

But Green Lantern is not nearly as well known and the public viewed it as more of a Ryan Reynolds movie than a big time superhero film. It was more like Iron Man, except Iron Man worked because Robert Downey Jr. is a far, far better actor than Reynolds is. Do the next Green Lantern with John Stewart as the lead and make it look as different as reasonably possible and people probably won't even recognize it as being the same series. A badass black superhero will be more unique and have more mass appeal than Van Wilder and his whacky fratboy hijinks.

[craigdbfan]

Iron Man also worked because it was a far, far better movie than GL in general. RDJ definitely added to that of course.

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Green Lantern was one of the worst films I have ever seen. If that gets rebooted in the next decade I will be shocked. Absolutely horrible.

[Octoberist]

Green Lantern was one of the worst films I have ever seen. If that gets rebooted in the next decade I will be shocked. Absolutely horrible.

It's an awkwardly made film that felt like it belongs in the 90's.

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

Agreed. Martin Campbell was just a hired hand with no affinity for the character. Paint by numbers. A failure from conception.

It would be cool to see a Kyle Raynor GL film though.

[Tobias]

Green Lantern was one of the worst films I have ever seen. If that gets rebooted in the next decade I will be shocked. Absolutely horrible.


Assuming WB will do 1 superhero film per year from 2015 on, leaving GL out of that equation does not make sense to me.

Of all the JL characters only GL, IMO, can do huge numbers. Not a billion like Bats, but say 500 - 600 million like IM.

I'd love to see Flash and WW on the big-screen and I think we will but these are not to me mega-franchises. At best they are Thor like franchises. 450 million or so. And that ain't bad. Thor is getting quick sequels.

I just don't see how WB doesn't do a GL reboot w/in 10 years.

Unless WB goes with it's secondary characters. Those films would be cheaper to make and I think, aside from GL and Bats, WB will find it's next mega-franchise from one of these.

Top of the list - Shazam. It has the potential to be another Spiderman.

Next decade?

2015 - Flash
2016 - Batman reboot
2017 - WW, if not a GL reboot
2018 - Flash 2
2019 - Batman reboot 2
2020 - Shazaam
2021 - WW 2
2022 - Batman reboot 3

There. I did a full decade ahead for WB w/o including GL. However, I think a GL reboot will come around a lot quicker than many think.

[roach]

Green Lantern was one of the worst films I have ever seen. If that gets rebooted in the next decade I will be shocked. Absolutely horrible.

um thats what happens to horrible movies...they get rebooted

[The Guard]

There's a lot of hyperbole about GREEN LANTERN. It has several subpar elements, but it's not overall a bad film. It will either get a sequel in the next few years, or it will get nothing for a while. I don't see a reboot happening with it, at least not anytime soon. WB is either going to commit to the character, or they aren't. The approach to the basics of the mythology aren't what created the weaknesses of the film. The concept of Green Lantern and his world was sound. It was the actual execution of that concept in places by the creative teams and the choice of villains that were the issues. It doesn't need a total teardown or a reboot. It just needs a stronger villain (Sinestro), more space mythology, and a slightly more serious approach.

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

I think GL could have been that huge franchise, but the ball was dropped and most people do not have an appetite for another IMO. And to do justice to GL you need a massive budget. Wouldn't they be gun-shy with what just happened? Now if WB makes a really epic JL film and redeems the character in what could be a massively successful film, then perhaps it may be moved up on their slate.

If Snyder's MOS doesn't flame out, then you have to think that sequels will be on their radar before trying to resurrect a GL franschise.

I see Shazam as Thor at best.

[Optimus_Prime_]

I think Hulk would have been a better film without the crazy editing
That wore thin quickly.

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

um thats what happens to horrible movies...they get rebooted

It's one thing if a film or film(s) made hay before getting rebooted, it's another when it fails right out of the gate.

[Tobias]

I think GL could have been that huge franchise, but the ball was dropped and most people do not have an appetite for another IMO. And to do justice to GL you need a massive budget. Wouldn't they be gun-shy with what just happened? Now if WB makes a really epic JL film and redeems the character in what could be a massively successful film, then perhaps it may be moved up on their slate.

If Snyder's MOS doesn't flame out, then you have to think that sequels will be on their radar before trying to resurrect a GL franschise.

I see Shazam as Thor at best.

I don't think WB is planning any Superman after MOS.

The legal issues aren't going well and won't be resolved probably for a long time. preventing a follow-up to MOS.

In any event, WB had already decided to shelve Superman films because they are not financially feasible. No one seems to be expecting much from MOS. Maybe 400 million? When it costs 200 million to make and maybe 100 million to market that is a bad investment.

This is good for GL. WB is probably right now looking for that franchise to complement Batman. WW and Flash are contenders but GL is probably the only major DC franchise that can do huge numbers.

Just satyin - don't count GL out.

[roach]

WB wouldn't be making MOS of they didn't think they won't be making sequels

[Rockstar]

They're making MoS because of the lawsuit. The trades confirmed this multiple times.

[Lord]

Which is an origin, they're making this an origin because from what i get they won't be able to do a film about his origin after the time the siegel and shuster estates get the rights of Action Comics 1

[The Morningstar]

Yea even if WB/DC lose the lawsuit they don't lose the Superman character. Just certain (albeit important) things from his mythos. Like the origin and all that.

[craigdbfan]

I thought if MoS makes money then the Siegel estate won't be able to get those rights back right?

It's really convoluted so I'm not sure about all the details.

[Donut]

With a Green Lantern Sequel at least they do not need Hal. They can say that after Hal's success of being a Green Lantern. More Humans started to become Green Lanterns & bring in someone like John or Kyle

[dnno1]

I don't think WB is planning any Superman after MOS.

The legal issues aren't going well and won't be resolved probably for a long time. preventing a follow-up to MOS.

In any event, WB had already decided to shelve Superman films because they are not financially feasible. No one seems to be expecting much from MOS. Maybe 400 million? When it costs 200 million to make and maybe 100 million to market that is a bad investment.

This is good for GL. WB is probably right now looking for that franchise to complement Batman. WW and Flash are contenders but GL is probably the only major DC franchise that can do huge numbers.

Just satyin - don't count GL out.

I think they would just have to pay royalties to the Siegel and Schuster familes to start making films again. That's all.

[CConn]

I think they would just have to pay royalties to the Siegel and Schuster familes to start making films again. That's all.Exactly.

Finally someone gets it. :o

[Tobias]

Which is an origin, they're making this an origin because from what i get they won't be able to do a film about his origin after the time the siegel and shuster estates get the rights of Action Comics 1

First time I've heard this.

The trades back then reported WB as ending the Superman franchise because it wasn't profitable for them or profitable enough.

Then they were ordered to make MOS and scrambled to get it out by the deadline.

I don't read anything into the semi-origin story except that it was the quickest script treatment WB could turn into a film.

[solidsnake86]

First time I've heard this.

The trades back then reported WB as ending the Superman franchise because it wasn't profitable for them or profitable enough.

Then they were ordered to make MOS and scrambled to get it out by the deadline.

I don't read anything into the semi-origin story except that it was the quickest script treatment WB could turn into a film.

You read wrong.

The lawsuit the estate won was in regards to elements of action comics 1, and only what was in that issue. Meaning WB has to pay them to use those elements that appeared in that issue.

The movie is a separate issue, because I think the estate could sue for damages if they didn't make one.

Both the family and WB own important parts to the character as he is today, I would even say WB owns the most important part, the symbol, because that goes on all that merchandise they sell.

[Gamma Burst]

Green Lantern was one of the worst films I have ever seen. If that gets rebooted in the next decade I will be shocked. Absolutely horrible.

This.

[thorstone]

1.) ...Then Avatar would have flopped, by your logic.
2.) The casting was fine.
5.) Says who? You? Zod is an interesting villain, and the perfect one for an origin story.

1. Avatar pulled in a bunch of idiots goggling over 3D; and already people are over the 3D trend. People want realism in their super hero movies; they want to feel they take place in real cities on real streets.

2. I'm pretty confident that Jamie Fox would be a bigger draw.

5. It's Luthor all over again-- can't we get a villain that wasn't in Donner's films? Superman has much better villains than a mirror version of himself.

[Parker Wayne]

1. Green Lantern was heavily CGI and people are tired of that.
2. Green Lantern casting.
3. Heroes are only as interesting as their villains (thus Spiderman and Batman movies are easy compared to Aquaman, Flash, and Wonder Woman).
4. Superman Returns violated issue three when the character has powerful villains like Darkseid, Kalibak, and Doomsday.
5. Man of Steel once again has a boring villain.

This is all pretty much wrong, except for 3, but you screwed yourself over the latter parenthesis.

[Parker Wayne]

1. Avatar pulled in a bunch of idiots goggling over 3D; and already people are over the 3D trend. People want realism in their super hero movies; they want to feel they take place in real cities on real streets.

2. I'm pretty confident that Jamie Fox would be a bigger draw.

5. It's Luthor all over again-- can't we get a villain that wasn't in Donner's films? Superman has much better villains than a mirror version of himself.

Avatar wasn't just 3D. They pulled people because it introduced audiences into a unique, photorealistic world and smoothly blended CGI and human people.

I thought we were talking about critically. And also, I thought we were over the whole race issue with Green Lantern.

And Zod is the main villain. It's a redundant choice but one with much potential.

[Tobias]

And Zod is the main villain. It's a redundant choice but one with much potential.

It's a weak choice for a villain but a lot cheaper to do than Brainiac. I'm not happy with the choice but I get why WB went that way.

I think WB is holding back on what it spends for MOS because they don't believe the franchise is a money maker. Why blow a lot of money on the film when you don't expect to make much from it and hadn't planned to do another in ther first place.

[Optimus_Prime_]

Zod is a 'hedging our bets' choice for sure.

[HighFivingMF]

Or he could be a "he suited the story we wanted to tell about Superman" villain. I'm going to bet on that one, since that's how Goyer and Nolan brothers chose the Batman villains.

[roach]

It's a weak choice for a villain but a lot cheaper to do than Brainiac. I'm not happy with the choice but I get why WB went that way.

I think WB is holding back on what it spends for MOS because they don't believe the franchise is a money maker. Why blow a lot of money on the film when you don't expect to make much from it and hadn't planned to do another in ther first place.

i think your logic is flawed.
Studios aren't going to make a movie if they don't think its gonna make them money back.
The choice of villain never bothers me...its how the villain is used. If this was a retelling of Birthright and Luthor was the villain again I would be ok with that. Is anyone upset that Nolan used Joker in TDK or Catwoman and Bane in TDKR???
Or Magneto in First Class????

[Optimus_Prime_]

Or he could be a "he suited the story we wanted to tell about Superman" villain. I'm going to bet on that one, since that's how Goyer and Nolan brothers chose the Batman villains.
This film is way more studio driven than Nolan's Bat-franchise. Both the director and choice to redo an origin were studio choices. Like many have pointed out they wouldn't necessarily feel the need to do the origin if it weren't for legal issues.

[roach]

but even if they weren't under the gun to do the origin I think the next Superman film would have been an origin film to reboot the series and not be connected to the Donner films.

[Tobias]

i think your logic is flawed.
Studios aren't going to make a movie if they don't think its gonna make them money back.


That is true. Keep in mind though that WB shelved the franchise a few years ago for financial reasons.

WB wasn't going to do more Superman until the court ordered them to do MOS. WB was forced to make the film.

[roach]

Lot of misinformation out there:
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118005806
http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118007269
August 2009 saw a court ruling in which Jerry Siegel's family recaptured the rights to Superman's origins and Siegel's copyright in Action Comics #1. In addition, a judge ruled that Warner Bros. did not owe the families additional royalties from previous films. However, if they do not begin production on a Superman film by 2011, then the Shuster and Siegel estates will be able to sue for lost revenue on an unproduced film.

Yes they are forced to make this film but I can guarantee they are still counting on this to make them some money...why else cast fan fav Henry Cavil as Superman, why else have Geek God Christopher Nolan Exec Prod this, why else cast legitimate actors such as Costner and Crowe and Laurence Fishburne, why else spend 175M on the production????

[The Guard]

Was was trying to make a Superman film anyway. The only question was whether it would be a sequel to SUPERMAN RETURNS or a reboot, and when it would be. The court order may have hastened the process, but they were working on it already. The success of The Dark Knight provided a clear springboard for it, when Goyer and the Nolans came aboard.