Could a GL movie have been made back in the days of pre-CG?

[terry78]

This was just something I was discussing with some geeks on IMDB . Someone mentioned that they could have easily done this flick in the 80s with the f/x they had, and used movies like Ghostbusters as examples. But I was like, even detractors of CGI in film have to admit that this movie would be nigh impossible to pull off without the current technology, especially if they didn't want to cheap out on the constructs.

 

[Alchemyst]

Ewwww, I can only imagine it being done in the 80's, they would have possible tried to blend animation with live action, meaning his rings powers would have been represented by a cartoon image acting out whatever it was he was attempting to create.

 

[JokerLedger]

It could have been done in the 80s... it just wouldn't have looked as cool.

 

[Sam]

It could have been done in the 80s... it just wouldn't have looked as cool.

What he said.

It could have been done, but it would be very limited story-wise. I dont think it would make justice completely to GL mythos.

 

[GreenLantern1]

It would have been horribly cheesy.

 

[Captainhulk]

They made a Doctor Strange TV movie pilot back in 1977, so I think they could have.

 

[Tony Stark]

Much like the Spider-man movies, I'm glad this one got held up long enough where the technology caught up to where it was possible to make the effects look believable.

 

[dnno1]

If you go back far enough, you will realize that they didn't have the technology to pull off some of the stunts that most superheroes could do in the comics and in the animated cartoons. In the 1970's Superman's ability to fly (seemingly without wires) was a major innovaton and one of the selling points of the 1977 classic. Today, it is a given that you couldn't make a good comicbook film without some kind of CGI effect in it.

 

[Sawyer]

Could it have been done? Sure.
Should it have? No way. I'm so glad they've waited.

 

[Kurosawa]

I was watching STM the other day on AMC and the flying composites looked very dated....a GL movie would have been very very difficult to do pre-CGI.

 

[Sawyer]

For some reason, this is what I think of when I think of a pre-CG Green Lantern...
[YT]uS9GJNETHsw[/YT]

 

[ChickenScratch]

It could have been done, but it would have been limited to green power blasts from the ring kinda like old fantasy movies like Krull. The constructs would be simple and far between done kinda like Slimer in Ghostbusters or the ghost in The Frighteners. The constructs themselves would not really be able to interact with anything really well too.

Could have been funny. Could have been cool given a good script and striping his powers way down.

 

[Colonel Kurtz]

CGI looks like a cartoon. Batman and Superman were made using practical effects, I don't see why a Green Lantern film would be limited.

 

[terry78]

CGI looks like a cartoon. Batman and Superman were made using practical effects, I don't see why a Green Lantern film would be limited.

.............


You ever see something so tempting you have to just stop yourself from partaking in it?

 

[Colonel Kurtz]

The Green Lantern isn't about the effects, it's about the story. The story of a fearless man being given the chance to join something bigger than himself. That chance makes him a humble person. You don't need CGI to show that.

 

[Doctor Jones]

It could have been done, but limited and it would have sucked probably. Something like this needs time. And now it is the time.

 

[Doctor Jones]

It could have been done, but limited and it would have sucked probably. Something like this needs time. And now it is the time.

 

[Steelsheen]

could they have been able to do GL in the 80s? sure they could. would it look cheesy or unconvincing? you bet.

one of the best examples of cutting edge filmmaking way ahead of its time is TRON. back then it was all oohs and ahhs. now only those nostalgic for the old film would find it hard not to laugh. thats why TRON: Legacy's timing couldnt be more perfect. all the elements that would make it fantastic that would (hopefully) stand the test of time is available.

 

[Colonel Kurtz]

This type of thinking led to the Special Editions. NEVER FORGET!

 

[dnno1]

I was watching STM the other day on AMC and the flying composites looked very dated....a GL movie would have been very very difficult to do pre-CGI.

I am not sure when you were born, but at that time it was state of the art. Prior to that they used props (Captain Marvel used a manakin on a wire and George Reeves laid on a diving board). You often could see the wires on objects and actors that flew (Buster Crab and Flash Gordon comes to mind right now). STM was a major breakthrough in cinematography as to why the film won an Oscar for Special Achievement in visual effects. I would argue that that technique is still employed in some films today.

 

[Octoberist]

If they had the budget of Superman and the ambition of the original Star Wars films, then yes. That's why I feel like they probably would have relied more on the story and acting than VFX, if all else.

 

[Kurosawa]

The Green Lantern isn't about the effects, it's about the story. The story of a fearless man being given the chance to join something bigger than himself. That chance makes him a humble person. You don't need CGI to show that.

You need CGI or something comparable to make a visual of the ring constructs that would look good enough to not be distracting.

I am not sure when you were born, but at that time it was state of the art. Prior to that they used props (Captain Marvel used a manakin on a wire and George Reeves laid on a diving board). You often could see the wires on objects and actors that flew (Buster Crab and Flash Gordon comes to mind right now). STM was a major breakthrough in cinematography as to why the film won an Oscar for Special Achievement in visual effects. I would argue that that technique is still employed in some films today.

I was born in 1968 and saw STM in the theater when I was 10. I'm not saying it's terrible and in it's time it was great but the greenscreen compositing on a lot of effects films from that time look bad now. If you look at the original Rancor scene in ROTJ you'll see what I mean. Even as recent as the Twin Towers there's been bad obvious composite shots in effects movies. It's hard to pull off without using CGI and computer color correction. Could a GL movie that was as good as STM been made in the late 70's-early 80's? I'm sure it could have, but today's effects are just better. A character like GL would not have been adapted in those times and the expense would have been part of the reason why.

And the flying scenes in The Adventures of Captain Marvel are just beautiful. The fact that serial was made in 1940-41 makes them even more impressive.

 

[Spideyfan93]

To make a great Green Lantern film, I say definitely not. It was good to wait until more recent times when technology advanced enough.

It would have looked too cheesy imo.

 

[Colonel Kurtz]

Last time I checked, Blade Runner, Superman, Batman, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, 2001, Alien, Aliens, and The Terminator didn't require CGI to be made. Why would the Green Lantern?

 

[JAK®]

I actually think a Green Lantern movie would've been possible in the '80s. The constructs would have looked similar to Slimer in Ghostbusters.