State your unpopular film related opinion - Part 7

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is Here

[Thread Manager]

This is a continuation thread, the old thread is Here

[Thebumwhowalks]

Originally Posted by thebumwhowalks

Having a superhero in a high school environment is a lot of fun, it condenses the usual secret ID trope 'If they only knew...!', so you have people bullying, girls/boys laughing at him/her like they are undateable pariahs(although, I guess they have removed that element by casting lookers as Parker in the movies, as opposed to the somewhat regular flawed looking Ditko version, but they could have it that he is looked down on as a science geek or whatever).... the Lee/Ditko high school stuff was some of the best comics ever written, and the first three seasons of buffy were amongst the best, arguably because of this.

It's also good cause, going back to the original concept of Spider-man as the first kid superhero who was not a sidekick, everyone who reads comics as a kid fantasise at some point about being a superhero, so here we get to watch one was actually was, at that period in your life, when there were so many times you wished you had powers cause of all the jerks you had no choice but to deal with everyday.

I'm looking forward to it a great deal, i hope they set the sequel during his high school days as well. I wanna see a proper adaptation of the interactiosn between him and Flash Thompson, like the classic books, i don't know what they did in the ultimate version, made Flash a school pervert who wears a raincoat or whatever, but i wanna see the ginger loudmouth who is Spidey's biggest fan and Pete's nemesis at the same time.

Originally Posted by DarkSoverignty

exactly. spiderman is wish fulfillment for the shy geeky kid at its primordial roots.

but, with the twist that it never quite goes right for him, no matter what he does.

'primordial roots'? haha , the last time I got my hair streaked like that it made my parents mud!

[kedrell]

I will say I'm looking forward to ASM more than any of the previous 3 movies. I barely even knew the first movie was coming out until it was about to hit theaters.

[gwynplaine]

He seems like a nice guy, but regardless I don't really like Cameron Crowe's movies in general, but "We Bought a Zoo" looks even worse than usual.

[gwynplaine]

Originally Posted by kedrell

I will say I'm looking forward to ASM more than any of the previous 3 movies. I barely even knew the first movie was coming out until it was about to hit theaters.

Not being a big fan of Raimi's SM movies myself, I'm looking forward to ASM as well. Also I think Garfield is a great actor. I hope Webb can pull it off though, I didn't think 500 days was that good.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by gwynplaine

I didn't think 500 days was that good.

Take it back.

[gwynplaine]

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

Take it back.

Haha, ok. Anyway I should have said instead that it didn't really do it for me. But since so many people seem to love it, maybe I should give it a second chance. Looking forward to ASM.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by gwynplaine

Haha, ok. Anyway I should have said instead that it didn't really do it for me. But since so many people seem to love it, maybe I should give it a second chance. Looking forward to ASM.

The more I watched it, the more I loved it. St first when I watched it, I liked it. The more times I watched it (it recently played on hbo a lot) the more I loved about what it said about love and wanting to love, both the good and bad parts of it.

[bullets]

Originally Posted by kedrell

I will say I'm looking forward to ASM more than any of the previous 3 movies. I barely even knew the first movie was coming out until it was about to hit theaters.

I'm guessing ASM will be much better. I was just amazed to see Spider-man on film but I never really liked Toby as Parker. Now I think they'll be able to get it right. Not to say I didn't enjoy the other films but certain aspects were uneven to me.

[DyeLorean]

I didn't think Tropic Thunder was really THAT funny. The actors, the plot, the idea was very good, but I hate to admit that besides a few scenes, I didn't laugh a lot.

[Wesley Dodds]

Having watched it a second time last night, I can honestly say I really rather enjoy the Green Lantern movie. Is it flawless? Ptttt, heck no! but it's a perfectly servicable origin movie for a franchise. Any problems it has (and it does have problems!) can easily be ironed out in future installments.

[Rowsdower!]

Originally Posted by Wesley Dodds

Having watched it a second time last night, I can honestly say I really rather enjoy the Green Lantern movie. Is it flawless? Ptttt, heck no! but it's a perfectly servicable origin movie for a franchise. Any problems it has (and it does have problems!) can easily be ironed out in future installments.

I liked it too.

But be prepared for 5,984,329,883 posters on this site to tell you why you're completely wrong and that the movie was the worse than genocide with a side of Bubonic Plague.

[Wesley Dodds]

Originally Posted by Rowsdower!

I liked it too.

But be prepared for 5,984,329,883 posters on this site to tell you why you're completely wrong and that the movie was the worse than genocide with a side of Bubonic Plague.

Haha! Oh, I know! But the Summer needed a whipping boy and it seems Green Lantern was it.
It's cool if it wasn't people's cup of tea but, like you said, the way some folks talk about it... like it's the worst film in the history of cinema, like they'd walk out of it even if they were on a plane... yeah, that's ****ing insane!

[CelticPredator]

Originally Posted by Wesley Dodds

Haha! Oh, I know! But the Summer needed a whipping boy and it seems Green Lantern was it.
It's cool if it wasn't people's cup of tea but, like you said, the way some folks talk about it... like it's the worst film in the history of cinema, like they'd walk out of it even if they were on a plane... yeah, that's ****ing insane!

No. That was Transformers 3.

Unlike Green Lantern, everyone should've known Dark of the Moon would be a bad film. Yet they saw it, and *****ed anyway.

Green Lantern could've been astounding. Epic. Emotional.

But it wasn't. It was dull. Boring. And emotionless. The effects weren't great. The hero wasn't great. The editing was awful...ect, ect.


Green Lantern deserves the hate it received.

[Wesley Dodds]

Originally Posted by CelticPredator

No. That was Transformers 3.

Unlike Green Lantern, everyone should've known Dark of the Moon would be a bad film. Yet they saw it, and *****ed anyway.

Green Lantern could've been astounding. Epic. Emotional.

But it wasn't. It was dull. Boring. And emotionless. The effects weren't great. The hero wasn't great. The editing was awful...ect, ect.


Green Lantern deserves the hate it received.

[A Necessary Evil]

Originally Posted by Wesley Dodds

Having watched it a second time last night, I can honestly say I really rather enjoy the Green Lantern movie. Is it flawless? Ptttt, heck no! but it's a perfectly servicable origin movie for a franchise. Any problems it has (and it does have problems!) can easily be ironed out in future installments.

[Rowsdower!]

Yeah. The movie had it's problems, but the majority of them were problems you'll find in nearly every other superhero film that's come out in the last 10 years (corny lines, some questionable FX here and there, obvious product placement, plot holes, rushed sequences and a few moments that make you go, "Huh?"). I think that, for some reason, people just decided to ignore those elements in other movies in the genre but chose to focus on ONLY those things in Green Lantern. Why? I don't know.

Not everyone thought this way though. Roger Ebert liked it better than Thor (though most critics and fans thought Thor was leaps and bounds above GL). I would say the movies are pretty equal with each other... Thor did have a better villain and love interest, but I also found some parts a bit... off, like all the Rainbow Bridge stuff. I didn't understand how a bridge could destroy and entire planet. Maybe they explained it somewhere, but I missed it. I also thought the opening battle (that tried REALLY hard to look like the opening of The Fellowship of the Ring) was absolutely pathetic.

[Wesley Dodds]

Originally Posted by Rowsdower!

Yeah. The movie had it's problems, but the majority of them were problems you'll find in nearly every other superhero film that's come out in the last 10 years (corny lines, some questionable FX here and there, obvious product placement, plot holes, rushed sequences and a few moments that make you go, "Huh?"). I think that, for some reason, people just decided to ignore those elements in other movies in the genre but chose to focus on ONLY those things in Green Lantern. Why? I don't know.

Not everyone thought this way though. Roger Ebert liked it better than Thor (though most critics and fans thought Thor was leaps and bounds above GL). I would say the movies are pretty equal with each other... Thor did have a better villain and love interest, but I also found some parts a bit... off, like all the Rainbow Bridge stuff. I didn't understand how a bridge could destroy and entire planet. Maybe they explained it somewhere, but I missed it. I also thought the opening battle (that tried REALLY hard to look like the opening of The Fellowship of the Ring) was absolutely pathetic.

I couldn't agree more, Rowsdower.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by Rowsdower!

Yeah. The movie had it's problems, but the majority of them were problems you'll find in nearly every other superhero film that's come out in the last 10 years (corny lines, some questionable FX here and there, obvious product placement, plot holes, rushed sequences and a few moments that make you go, "Huh?"). I think that, for some reason, people just decided to ignore those elements in other movies in the genre but chose to focus on ONLY those things in Green Lantern. Why? I don't know.

Not to sound like a dick, but this sounds more like denial. The good or even the average Superhero movie don't have as many problems as GL has. I mean, if most people dislike Green Lantern, it obviously goes beyond those points. Personally, there were much deeper problems with Green Lantern and it was the acting and the story that made it look really bad. I'm not trying to change your opinion, but don't make everyone else look like they're wrong or crazy because they didn't like it.

[Parker Wayne]

double post

[Parker Wayne]

You're completely wrong and that movie was worse than the Bubonic plague.

In all seriousness, all I can do is explain why I like or dislike movies. No one's wrong for liking a movie (unless their actually wrong with a fact or something).

I find Thor to be better than Green Lantern because it did an immensely better job at explaining the mythology and keeping it engaging than Green Lantern. Plus, GL just had so many stupid story choices Such as "there's a huge threat about the destroy the galaxy. Let's send our rookie Green Lantern and few others instead of the whole corps." Not to mention the lack of character development with Sinestro.

The difference between GL and good origin movies is that the leads in good origins movies tend to be compelling and fun to watch. Ryan Renolds wasn't. He once again played Ryan Renolds even though he could do better than that (and I've seen movies in which he did). It's not the corny lines that did it, it was just the fact that I couldn't take Renolds seriously as Jordan like I could do with RDJ/Stark, Wayne/Bale, Hemsworth/Thor, Evans/Cap, or even Maguire/Spider-man.

I'd say the opening battle was fine. It wasn't even that long, but it did help explain the mythology of behind Asgard.

[Wesley Dodds]

I dont see the need to compare Thor and Green Lantern. They're two completely different things. PW, in regards to your "lets send the rookie Lantern" point, having watched it last night, the Guardians didnt send him, so much as they pretty much went "Meh. Whatever." and got on with the plan they'd formulated with Sinestro. (Use Earth as Collateral damage while they train the Corps to harness the yellow energy)
Also, I thought Reynolds equipped himself well enough. Plenty of room to expand on what he did with the role in a sequel (If we're very lucky and get one!)
The only actor who was lacking in the movie was the rather ironically named Blake Lively (They might as well have just put lipstick on a wooden plank and cast that instead!)
But, yeah, disappointing/annoying female leads in comicbook movies is weirdly common... dunno why.

[Wesley Dodds]

Double post.

[Parker Wayne]

To be honest, I haven't seen Green Lantern in months, but I remember not liking that they didn't send the whole Corps to deal with that problem. Also, Sinestro putting on the ring in the after credits was really weak.

The problem with Portman in Thor probably had more to do with our expectations of female leads than it had to do with her performance. We expect so much more out of our female leads, but in reality in some movies they're just there to be love interests and dansels in distress than to function as full fledged characters.

With Thor, I was meh on it. Could've done a hell of lot more with it though.

It's a good thing Captain America came along and broke that trend. Come to think of it, X-men First Class' leading lady wasn't bad at all too, so I wouldn't call it a trend.