Biggest Worries About the Film?

[JAK®]

But very few are actually saying "it has the space stuff but it's still unimpressive". They just keep bringing up humour. Which leads me to think they're okay with everything else but still focus on small things like that.

 

[KalMart]

But very few are actually saying "it has the space stuff but it's still unimpressive". They just keep bringing up humour. Which leads me to think they're okay with everything else but still focus on small things like that.

Well, they may not be saying it, but it could still be a big reason. Sometimes, broader things have a way of dulling themselves out, leaving only the minor things to surface upon initial impression.

Put it this way...Depp in POTC ended up being the icing on what was a very tasty and savory cake, whereas in comparison...GL is making Reynolds out to be the icing on a rather bland and unremarkable cake. It's still cake....but one that you could probably slap a lot of different icings or coatings on to fill up the space, rather than one that has a unique flavor and character to it. Both need the icing to be complete...but one just has better...cake...if you will.

 

[dnno1]

I think 'epic' should be more a term of quality than quantity when describing a film. 'Epic' can also mean 'saga' and expanse in time as well as scale in some cases...like Goodfellas was a Mafia epic or saga despite not really being on the scale of a Lawrence of Arabia or Star Wars. Sure, the term epic can describe the physical scale of a picture...but then you could use it to describe Heaven's Gate and Waterworld in that case....so it's no guarantee that it will feel 'epic'.

That's your opinion, which you certainly are entitled to, but it is not based on any fact. An epic film is usually a great (as in length) work that differentiates it self from films in that same genre in it length and scope. Green Lantern differs from most other superheroes in that his theater of involvement is an entire (infinite) space sector and that the acts of this film will transition back and forth between terrestrial antics and heroics to a space opera. I think you are confusing "epic" with "classic", which has yet to be determined with this film.

 

[KalMart]

That's your opinion, which you certainly are entitled to, but it is not based on any fact. An epic film is usually a great (as in length) work that differentiates it self from films in that same genre in it length and scope. Green Lantern differs from most other superheroes in that his theater of involvement is an entire (infinite) space sector and that the acts of this film will transition back and forth between terrestrial antics and heroics to a space opera.

What we were discussing was why someone would not qualify the trailer/film feeling epic, rather than just quantify....even if by technical terms, the story entails an epic scale.

I think you are confusing "epic" with "classic", which has yet to be determined with this film.

You're confusing the point of the conversation, as illustrated above. But you're entitled to your confusion, too.

 

[camp Blood]

Ok grammar police hands up!

 

[dnno1]

I'm concerned about this being a bit too cute and hokey. There is nothing wrong with a dash of humour, but going by the trailer alone, the humour completely fell flat with me.

It needs to be epic, this is supposed to be a grand scale cosmic action adventure. I just hope the attempts at comedy don't take away from that.

I agree but a few shots in the trailer were epic

But the lack of epicness can be questioned

Not really, because the mere fact a portion of the movie is in space makes it more epic than just about every other comic book movie. I'm going by the actual definition of epic here.

Not at all. Just because it's set in space doesn't make it inherently epic. That's a foolish mentality.

It has to be executed well. It's all about execution. And going by the trailer, which is the only thing we can go by at this moment in time, it didn't come across epic and grand to me.

Like i said, it came off too cute and hokey.

An epic is a story that is written on a grand scale and is larger in scope than other films in that genre. It definition is irrespective of whether it is good or not (since that is subjective). The fact that Green Lantern is a comic book movie that takes place in space as much as it does on earth makes it epic in scale since not very many other films in that genre have done that (Superman films are the only ones that come to mind).

No, you're wrong. Being in space makes it an epic. An epic is a story told on a grand scale.

I think 'epic' should be more a term of quality than quantity when describing a film. 'Epic' can also mean 'saga' and expanse in time as well as scale in some cases...like Goodfellas was a Mafia epic or saga despite not really being on the scale of a Lawrence of Arabia or Star Wars. Sure, the term epic can describe the physical scale of a picture...but then you could use it to describe Heaven's Gate and Waterworld in that case....so it's no guarantee that it will feel 'epic'.

Heaven's Gate and Waterworld are epics. Just bad ones.

Epic being synonymous for 'awesome' is a relatively recent phenomenon.

Crapics.


And when one describes something as not feeling epic, even though the visual scale qualifies it as so...it can be a valid point, y'know?

Well personally I think a lot of fans can't see how this movie is the first to portray a superhero operating on a galactic scale. All they can see is humour and Ryan Reynolds (who is a legitimately good actor, a lot of fans just hate him because he reminds them of a high school jock). So yeah, anyone who says "this isn't epic" while ignoring all the unique things it promises, I don't think they have a valid point.

That's sort of what I was getting at in other conversations regarding the trailer...in that for whatever reasons at this point, what we're seeing of the galactic concept itself (that you described above) doesn't really stand out as something wondrous, or on a cinematic level that hasn't been seen/experienced before in a host of other movies. After things like Star Wars, Avater, Star Trek, and just a bunch of big-time adventure movies...for a non-GL fan, the fact that it's GL and a Superhero isn't enough to make it feel unique or eventful. And I think that's what's being reflected in some actual comic/GL fans...that this character/story is feeling like just another one of a crowd. Another story about a guy who's unexpectedly called upon to be a protector of such-and-such...with some effects and sci-fi thrown in. So in that respect, the only thing that stands out is...well...Reynolds...and his persona that people have come to expect.

What many may take from the trailer is that it's Ryan Reynolds in a superhero movie....perhaps because that's all that the trailer is significantly communicating when all's said and done.

That's your opinion, which you certainly are entitled to, but it is not based on any fact. An epic film is usually a great (as in length) work that differentiates it self from films in that same genre in it length and scope. Green Lantern differs from most other superheroes in that his theater of involvement is an entire (infinite) space sector and that the acts of this film will transition back and forth between terrestrial antics and heroics to a space opera. I think you are confusing "epic" with "classic", which has yet to be determined with this film.

What we were discussing was why someone would not qualify the trailer/film feeling epic, rather than just quantify....even if by technical terms, the story entails an epic scale.


You're confusing the point of the conversation, as illustrated above. But you're entitled to your confusion, too.

I don't think I am confused at all. The original post had it right in intent that an epic is on a grand scale, but he (The Morningstar) then retreated and attempted to change the definition by associating epic with quality (which is actually what a classic is). You then expanded on it by saying that you thought (or felt) that an epic actually should be associated with quality. We already have a word for films that are associated with quality and those are called classics, and that is not what this particular discussion was talking about.

 

[KalMart]

I don't think I am confused at all. The Original post had it right in intent that an epic is on a grand scale, but he then retreated and attempted to change the definition by associating epic with quality (which is actually what a classic is). You then expanded on it by saying that you thought (or felt) that an epic actually should be associated with quality.

And we discussed how in a lot of ways, it is....in conjunction with the relative scale of the story, but not always dependent on it. Classic has nothing to do with it.

We already have a word for films that are associated with quality and those are called classics, and that is not what this particular discussion was talking about.

No...that's how you want it to go. Too little, too late. But thanks for coming.


Seriously....if someone looks the GL trailer and says it doesn't seem epic...it's probably not because they somehow missed that some of it takes place in space. It's also why someone who may see the first Star Trek trailer would probably not say it looks 'classic'. It feels impressive and eventful, and...well...epic. The actual physical scale is technical...how it feels is qualitative...and using the term 'epic' in both categories has merit. But if you prefer, we can say that for some, the GL trailer made it feel like a movie whose physical scope will be epic, but whose cinematic impact will be very medium. But at least it's an Epic, right....in terms of grand expanses of space and such...? Then again...so was Waterworld.

 

[camp Blood]

When I think of "epic" I think of super awesome

But when I think of a "classic" movie I think of one that will stand the test of time the Kubrick movies, the dollars trilogy, ghostbusters, star wars 4-5-6, the original superman, indiana jones, ET those kind of movies that can never be replaced and the world would be duller without them

While it may be great I highly doubt green lantern will be a "classic" film. Modern classics are few and far between

 

[JerseyJoker]

Epic is a word that is so overused in today's generation that they just see it as another term that only means "awesome".

Where in terms of a picture, you could say that Waterworld, Master and Commander, Troy, these are considered "epic" films cause of the grandeur of the picture and the way it is shot and released.

But no offense, none of this is a reasonable argument against a DC mark, so its like talking to a wall, which im not trying to insult Dnno, but when you are someone set in their ways in term of opinion on something that hasn't even come out, or set in their ways of a brand (DC), there will always be conflicting views on something that they blindly enjoy/love/support.

 

[KalMart]

There's a lot of epics coming out these days. Just like there's a lot of comedies and romances.

 

[Jordacar]

I'm sure it's been said, but my biggest worry is that Blake Lively as Carol is gonna be a Bosworth/Lois situation all over again.

 

[Project862006]

i thought she was really good in the town tho

 

[The Morningstar]

I don't think I am confused at all. The original post had it right in intent that an epic is on a grand scale, but he (The Morningstar) then retreated and attempted to change the definition by associating epic with quality (which is actually what a classic is). You then expanded on it by saying that you thought (or felt) that an epic actually should be associated with quality. We already have a word for films that are associated with quality and those are called classics, and that is not what this particular discussion was talking about.

I never retreated on anything.

Someone said just because it's set in space that means it's automatically epic.

No it doesn't, it's that simple.

Is Space Balls epic? Is Ghosts of Mars epic?

Are all swords and sandals fantasy movies epic? No, of course not.

I said it's about execution. As in execution of the setting, the story. Is it taken seriously, does it have a grand scope is it genuinely mind blowing and make you go WOW! That's what epic should do, make you awe struck, speechless.

Going by the trailer, which as i said, is all we can go by at this precise moment in time, i don't get that sense of WOW! at all. Just because it is set in space and has a guy flying around doesn't mean it is inherently awe inspiring. It's all about the execution.

But going by your avatar and other peoples comments, you seem to be a DC fanboy so me taking the time to make this point will probably be pointless.

 

[redhawk23]

When I think of "epic" I think of super awesome

But when I think of a "classic" movie I think of one that will stand the test of time the Kubrick movies, the dollars trilogy, ghostbusters, star wars 4-5-6, the original superman, indiana jones, ET those kind of movies that can never be replaced and the world would be duller without them

While it may be great I highly doubt green lantern will be a "classic" film. Modern classics are few and far between

classics of any kind pretty much always have been, or at least they weren't recognized as classics at the time, thats why they are so cherished.

 

[HighFivingMF]

classics of any kind pretty much always have been, or at least they weren't recognized as classics at the time, thats why they are so cherished.

The Thing and The Shining weren't well received at first and are undisputed classics now. I was only born in '91, so I only know about well-documented ones but I'm sure there are more.

 

[KalMart]

Can anyone think of any epic cult classics?

Dune, perhaps?

Battle Beyond The Stars?

 

[dwfeenstra]

my fear is that they try to make it a "funny" action movie. To often they mix in stupid jokes in action and it ruins it for me

 

[camp Blood]

@kalmart only dune comes to mind

 

[Wesley Dodds]

I worry it'll turn out to be one of the lesser superhero movies... One of the duds the GA are indifferent to and the fans just hate.

Fantastic Four, Ghost Rider, Daredevil... etc.

Hmp.