Green Lantern 2

[Maximus One]

Man, every time I read Bleez I here Chiana from Farscape shreiking in my head. I think that would be a ****ing awesome bit of casting right there if they ever had the red lanterns in a movie

 

[HighFivingMF]

That's the one. The only thing that didn't make sense was that Parallax was going to Oa despite not having enough power to repel the entire Corps and the Guardians,

The way I saw it, Parallax was sure he could take them. But if he went and took care of Hector and Hal, then the rest of the Earth, he'd be more than powerful enough.

 

[DrCosmic]

There's nothing "muddy" about the presentation of what the ring does. It doesn't get much "clearer".

Uncompelling? Well, no, the ring alerting Hal to trouble isn't the most compelling aspect in the world, but along with the other elements of the ring, it forms a compelling overall concept.

He's a space cop whose alien ring alerts him to trouble. That should really be enough info. It’s a ring that makes things out of green light. Getting into what particular types of trouble it alerts him to seems irrelevant and kind of misses the point, since the film SHOWS what types of trouble. Issues in the immediate vicinity requiring his help. Yeah. It's cheesy. It's always been cheesy and a little out there. That's half its charm. That there's a ring that does all this stuff.

Cheesy is not charming to the cynical adult. It leaves a lot of unanswered questions that take the viewer emotionally out of the experience. It's enough info to understand, but not enough info to invite the audience to care and draw them into suspense and tension and story. Likewise, cool powers are not compelling to the cynical adult. They just make cool action scenes, but they don't compel anyone to get into the story or characters, just to stare at the screen they were gonna stare at for the next two hours anyway.

It's a matter of history that Green Lantern failed to make an emotional connection with the general audience, despite story elements having explanations. I'm simply pointing out some of the reasons why those explanations had little to no impact on the audience's investment in the characters or evaluation of the storyline. If you feel like it was a film that people dug then we can just agree to disagree, that's fine.

 

[The Guard]

I'd be hard pressed to find people who have told me they were taken out of the experience because they didn't know what kinds of trouble the ring responded to.

Psst...GREEN LANTERN quite clearly wasn't made for "cynical adults".

Whatever that means.

I never stated it was a film that people dug, and I'm not even sure why you're bothering to make that point.

 

[KangConquers]

I'd be hard pressed to find people who have told me they were taken out of the experience because they didn't know what kinds of trouble the ring responded to.

Psst...GREEN LANTERN quite clearly wasn't made for "cynical adults".

Whatever that means.

I never stated it was a film that people dug, and I'm not even sure why you're bothering to make that point.

Green Lantern was WB's failed attempt at making a Marvel Cinematic Universe style film. It was definitely not created for cynical adults.

If they had taken more cues from Donnor's Superman, and tried less to make the film their own Iron Man (which is hard to do with out an actor like Robert Downey Jr), it would've been a much better film.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Green Lantern was WB's failed attempt at making a Marvel Cinematic Universe style film. It was definitely not created for cynical adults.

If they had taken more cues from Donnor's Superman, and tried less to make the film their own Iron Man (which is hard to do with out an actor like Robert Downey Jr), it would've been a much better film.

Reynolds and Downey have the same type of on-screen persona.

I've watched the Blu Ray numerous times, and I still cringe when I think of a Guardian being Parallax. That's when the movie lost it's potential. Fear vs Will is an ongoing concept in the GLC mythos, but it could have been handled in so many different ways.

The more I think about it, the more the First Flight formula with dissention among the GLC seems right to me. WB obviously wanted to save Sinestro for the 2nd movie, but now that a direct sequel is up in the air, that looks like a mistake.

 

[Lantern Venom]

I'd be hard pressed to find people who have told me they were taken out of the experience because they didn't know what kinds of trouble the ring responded to.

Psst...GREEN LANTERN quite clearly wasn't made for "cynical adults".

Whatever that means.

I never stated it was a film that people dug, and I'm not even sure why you're bothering to make that point.

It was clear to me that it meant threats directly related to Hal. The first time, it was bodily harm. The second time, it was the love of his life and his home.

From the comics, we know that the rings take on a certain emotional connection to the individual wearer, in some cases being linked to their DNA. Was an explanation of that necessary for the film? Tough one.

 

[Stikmann]

I’m a long time GL comic reader and fan (I even have a GL ring tattooed on my finger)…that said, the ring’s “trouble alert” fell flat on me. It was too broad and convenient to me. It’s like when my friends and I were kids and playing cops & robbers. We pretended to have “never run out bullets” in our toy guns. Yeah, it works just fine for an 8 year old…but it’s a lame “easy out”. If the ring actually spoke, like in the comics it probably would have worked better. Of course, then you have the problem of it seeming like a rip off of Jarvis in Iron Man’s armor. But the ring blinks and he automatically knows where to go is just too easy. To me it takes away from the character and the ring itself. That’s just me though.

 

[DrCosmic]

I'd be hard pressed to find people who have told me they were taken out of the experience because they didn't know what kinds of trouble the ring responded to.

Psst...GREEN LANTERN quite clearly wasn't made for "cynical adults".

Whatever that means.

I never stated it was a film that people dug, and I'm not even sure why you're bothering to make that point.

The Mainstream audience is composed of cynical adults, afaik, so yeah, definitely for them. Why do you think movies take the time to explain stuff, and draw the viewer in? And I literally mean cynical adults. People 18 and older that are doubtful that these things could happen. Is there a better word for the audience's need for intellectual and emotional coaxing? Skeptical maybe?

Drawing the viewer in is not something that happens consciously. It wouldn't work if they were aware, it would feel forced. So when it doesn't work people just say: the story sucked. It may have been a great story on paper, but if it it's not compelling, no one cares about it, and they say it sucks. They don't care enough to analyze why it sucked, so no, they won't point out the specific reasons.

I'm sorry if I thought you thought people liked the film. My mistake. Why do you think Green Lantern failed commercially and critically?

 

[metaphysician]

Green Lantern was WB's failed attempt at making a Marvel Cinematic Universe style film. It was definitely not created for cynical adults.

Then how come the actual Marvel Cinematic Universe succeeded with those same "cynical adults" that compose the GA?

 

[The Guard]

Green Lantern was WB's failed attempt at making a Marvel Cinematic Universe style film. It was definitely not created for cynical adults.

If they had taken more cues from Donnor's Superman, and tried less to make the film their own Iron Man (which is hard to do with out an actor like Robert Downey Jr), it would've been a much better film.

Reynolds and Downey have the same type of on-screen persona.

I would tend to agree that they have a similar approach to acting, or at least to comedy/humor. Reynolds isn't as good at it, but he's also fairly young, and let's face it, Downey is among the best of the best at it.

I've watched the Blu Ray numerous times, and I still cringe when I think of a Guardian being Parallax. That's when the movie lost it's potential. Fear vs Will is an ongoing concept in the GLC mythos, but it could have been handled in so many different ways.

Why?

Because of the change to comic book lore?

Why is a being being seduced by fear and becoming an entity driven by it any less compelling than a being of fear that just exits?

The more I think about it, the more the First Flight formula with dissention among the GLC seems right to me. WB obviously wanted to save Sinestro for the nd movie, but now that a direct sequel is up in the air, that looks like a mistake.

And thats probably the main issue GREEN LANTERN had. Its villains just weren't that interesting, and pretty much were not going to be, becuase they've never been that interesting, even in the source material. Hector Hammond is a classic villain, and he has some more potential, but we were never going to see a "deep" version of the character. And Parallax, however powerful the concept of seduction by evil/fear may be...is a being made of yellow light. The filmmakers actually tried to add more TO Hammond and Parallax, via tying them together and giving Parallax the Guardian/Kronos angle, and it still didn't work for a lot of people.

It was clear to me that it meant threats directly related to Hal. The first time, it was bodily harm. The second time, it was the love of his life and his home.

Which the film also showed, several times. We saw him face bodily harm, and psychologically be almost infected by fear.

I dunno, he said:

It leaves a lot of unanswered questions that take the viewer emotionally out of the experience. It's enough info to understand, but not enough info to invite the audience to care and draw them into suspense and tension and story.

And had been discussing in particular the sequence where Hal's ring alerts him to trouble.

If viewers are taken out of the experience to think about the concept in more depth, that, to me, is more the sign of a successful film and concept than a weak one.

I'm curious as to what unanswered questions take the viewer out of the experience of a guy and his magic ring trying to overcome fear.

From the comics, we know that the rings take on a certain emotional connection to the individual wearer, in some cases being linked to their DNA. Was an explanation of that necessary for the film? Tough one.

What emotional connection are you referring to? You mean that they're powered by emotion?

The Mainstream audience is composed of cynical adults, afaik, so yeah, definitely for them. Why do you think movies take the time to explain stuff, and draw the viewer in? [/quote[

Some movies do. By and large, most movies don’t. They just present something they want people to think is cool/compelling so people will buy into it. Most movies, especially bigger ones, attempt to engage an audience emotionally via melodrama and spectacle, not via much in the way of logic.

And I literally mean cynical adults. People 18 and older that are doubtful that these things could happen. Is there a better word for the audience's need for intellectual and emotional coaxing? Skeptical maybe?

There's a better word. “Unimaginative”.

Anyone who goes to a movie about a guy with a magic ring, who doesn't like the concept because "that couldn't happen in real life", just strikes me as an unimaginative moron. TONS of movies present impossible events, and don't do nearly as good a job as GREEN LANTERN in making it plausible, and yet people still buy into the concepts.

This movie about a magic ring that creates images made of light, where a Corps of aliens has to combat fear through the power of will…was not made for cynical adults. Nor should it have been. The biggest disappointment for GREEN LANTERN for me that people didn't buy into the basic concept, which is just really, really cool, magical, and imaginative, and yes, somewhat emotionally compelling, although not as grounded as some others.

The nature of Green Lantern's powers was not explained exhaustively, but the movie DID explain it. Green Lantern's powers and basic mythology was no worse portrayed than Iron Man's technology in THOR, or Thor's powers in THOR, or Spider-Man's powers in SPIDER-MAN, or any other superhero film really...people just didn't LIKE it that much...and that bothered me a bit. I don't think its a failure or a lack of an effort on the filmmaker's part either, because all the ingredients were there. People just didn't like the concept.

Drawing the viewer in is not something that happens consciously. It wouldn't work if they were aware, it would feel forced. So when it doesn't work people just say: the story sucked. It may have been a great story on paper, but if it it's not compelling, no one cares about it, and they say it sucks. They don't care enough to analyze why it sucked, so no, they won't point out the specific reasons.

Of course it happens consciously, or they wouldn't know whether they'd been drawn in or not, or whether they'd enjoyed various elements of the film.

Yes, when they don't like it people say "It sucked". Because that's about the intelligence level of most people anymore, and their ability to communicate their feelings. And that’s pretty much what’s happened with GREEN LANTERN. People didn't like the concepts, and decided that the story, by extension, was awful, and that everything about it was awful. Though very few of them can say why without just pointing out the differences between the comics and the fim, or to say why with any real sense of logic.

I'm sorry if I thought you thought people liked the film. My mistake. Why do you think Green Lantern failed commercially and critically?

For the same reason any film fails. Because people obviously didn’t care about the concept of Green Lantern that much, and the film was sunk by critical reviews that, in my opinion, rather hyperbolized its quality, or lack thereof.

Then how come the actual Marvel Cinematic Universe succeeded with those same "cynical adults" that compose the GA

I don't know that they did. There are plenty of people who think IRON MAN and THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA were silly, unrealistic movies that didn't reach their potential, and somewhat subpar films in certain ways.

Why did MARVEL succeed in general? Because Marvel presented safe, almost purely entertaining films. Films that were based on far more well known concepts than Green Lantern's ring, like weapons technology or a caped mythological hero with godlike powers. We've seen variations on those things before, through myth, and on film and TV in various incarnations. Whereas Green Lantern and his magic ring that fights evil with light is an almost entirely new concept to most people.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Why did MARVEL succeed in general? Because Marvel presented safe, almost purely entertaining films. Films that were based on far more well known concepts than Green Lantern's ring, like technology or a caped mythological hero with godlike powers. They were appealing to the broadest audience possible, not just “cynical adults”.

Prior to 2008, I think Green Lantern (Jordan, at least) was more well-known than Iron Man. Iron Man was a 2nd or 3rd tier character in the Marvel Universe. Now he's top 5, due in large part to the MCU.

Take it a step further, how did Blade, one of Marvel's most obscure characters spawn 3 movies and a TV series? As in the case with Iron Man, it comes back to a solid vision realized through great writing.

It should have been impossible to make a GL movie that fell short of the box office. I'm still impressed with the visuals and I don't think there was a single bad acting performance. But nothing can save an adaptation that doesn't trust it's roots.

I'm happy that we got a Green Lantern movie. I'm happy for just about any comic book that gets a big budget flick because I grew up in a time when comic book characters were scoffed at as major attractions. However, Green Lantern could have been a cultural phenomenon. But when the writers decide to take popular characters and not even name them (like Bzzd) or worse, kill them with zero character development (Isamot Kol), then why should non-fans be drawn in?

 

[Spuzz]

There should NOT be a GL sequel. Just wait until the JL movie and recast him.

 

[ЯɘvlveR]

I'd really like to see mark strong as sinestro soon again.

 

[The Guard]

Prior to 2008, I think Green Lantern (Jordan, at least) was more well-known than Iron Man. Iron Man was a 2nd or 3rd tier character in the Marvel Universe. Now he's top 5, due in large part to the MCU.

It's not about who is more known...its obviously about which concepts audiences responded to. They responded to badass with a suit of techy armor. They didn't respond to the guy with the magic ring.

Take it a step further, how did Blade, one of Marvel's most obscure characters spawn 3 movies and a TV series? As in the case with Iron Man, it comes back to a solid vision realized through great writing.

BLADE succeeded because it was a badass martial arts/action romp with vampires. People like those things, and liked those things long before BLADE. Qualitywise, you're right, the vision was solid. The BLADE movies are average at best. Much like GREEN LANTERN, really.

It should have been impossible to make a GL movie that fell short of the box office. I'm still impressed with the visuals and I don't think there was a single bad acting performance. But nothing can save an adaptation that doesn't trust it's roots.

How didn't it trust its roots?

 

[DrCosmic]

And had been discussing in particular the sequence where Hal's ring alerts him to trouble.

If viewers are taken out of the experience to think about the concept in more depth, that, to me, is more the sign of a successful film and concept than a weak one.

I'm curious as to what unanswered questions take the viewer out of the experience of a guy and his magic ring trying to overcome fear.

Let's start with: It's Magic!? I think you're letting your familiarity with the concept blind you to how it may be perceived by someone who's introduction is the film.

And thinking about a film later can be a good thing, or a bad thing, it depends on the conclusion of examining it more in depth. Concerning the trouble sense, I'm pretty sure it was inconsistent, in addition to being unexplained (that's why we all have different takes on what it actually is, because they gave a generic danger sense, and then- surprise- it had a specific application that we are expected to infer throughout the course of the film, which is never confirmed. That's bad writing, imho).

What emotional connection are you referring to? You mean that they're powered by emotion?

Some movies do. By and large, most movies don’t. They just present something they want people to think is cool/compelling so people will buy into it. Most movies, especially bigger ones, attempt to engage an audience emotionally via melodrama and spectacle, not via much in the way of logic.

Most movies do. That's why they spend half an our introducing you to a superhero before he gets his powers, before you see the cool concept, because a cool concept is not compelling if the character is not compelling. That emotional connection is what movies strive to build, that's why they show you the character's personal life, and their trials and faults to build a connection. Successful movies do this well. Excellent movies do this brilliantly. Failed movies, like Green Lantern, don't do this or do this badly.

What do you think the first half hour of a movie, before the action and spectacle starts, is for?

There's a better word. “Unimaginative”.

Now you're getting it. Most people are very unimaginative.

Anyone who goes to a movie about a guy with a magic ring, who doesn't like the concept because "that couldn't happen in real life", just strikes me as an unimaginative moron. TONS of movies present impossible events, and don't do nearly as good a job as GREEN LANTERN in making it plausible, and yet people still buy into the concepts.

This movie about a magic ring that creates images made of light, where a Corps of aliens has to combat fear through the power of will…was not made for cynical adults. Nor should it have been. The biggest disappointment for GREEN LANTERN for me that people didn't buy into the basic concept, which is just really, really cool, magical, and imaginative, and yes, somewhat emotionally compelling, although not as grounded as some others.

The nature of Green Lantern's powers was not explained exhaustively, but the movie DID explain it. Green Lantern's powers and basic mythology was no worse portrayed than Iron Man's technology in THOR, or Thor's powers in THOR, or Spider-Man's powers in SPIDER-MAN, or any other superhero film really...people just didn't LIKE it that much...and that bothered me a bit. I don't think its a failure or a lack of an effort on the filmmaker's part either, because all the ingredients were there. People just didn't like the concept.

That is an incredible point of view. I can see how someone who does not highly value the emotional content of these films and they way it is communicated and the way people are pulled into the story can think it's a primarily intellectual exercise, and thus, any failures with the film would be with the concepts, and not with the execution.

No amount of explaining stands up to the bare fact that these things can't happen. It's not an intellectual appeal. What happens is, people end up caring about the characters and going along for the ride, and as long as the premise is internally consistent and doesn't conflict with itself, they won't get taken out of that emotional connection so say something doesn't make sense, because premise is baked into the character's experience that they're identifying with.

Of course it happens consciously, or they wouldn't know whether they'd been drawn in or not, or whether they'd enjoyed various elements of the film.

Yes, when they don't like it people say "It sucked". Because that's about the intelligence level of most people anymore, and their ability to communicate their feelings. And that’s pretty much what’s happened with GREEN LANTERN. People didn't like the concepts, and decided that the story, by extension, was awful, and that everything about it was awful. Though very few of them can say why without just pointing out the differences between the comics and the fim, or to say why with any real sense of logic.

That's just it, they don't know that they've been drawn in. No one describes it like that. No one realizes that they're heart is racing during the action scenes and goes back to normal during the talking scenes. It's completely subconscious, they might remember the spectacle and talk about that, but very few people realize how many emotional, physical and chemical experiences they've had while watching a big film.

For the same reason any film fails. Because people obviously didn’t care about the concept of Green Lantern that much, and the film was sunk by critical reviews that, in my opinion, rather hyperbolized its quality, or lack thereof.

I don't know that they did. There are plenty of people who think IRON MAN and THOR and CAPTAIN AMERICA were silly, unrealistic movies that didn't reach their potential, and somewhat subpar films in certain ways.

Why did MARVEL succeed in general? Because Marvel presented safe, almost purely entertaining films. Films that were based on far more well known concepts than Green Lantern's ring, like weapons technology or a caped mythological hero with godlike powers. We've seen variations on those things before, through myth, and on film and TV in various incarnations. Whereas Green Lantern and his magic ring that fights evil with light is an almost entirely new concept to most people.

I do agree that the movie is underrated due to a sort of domino effect, but I don't think the concepts themselves were a fault. The problem started with the vehicle that carries the audience to the concepts narratively.

Daredevil is more or less the same concept as Batman, but it failed, and Batman succeeded. Even within Batman, Batman Robin probably failed, assuming that foreign distribution was stickier back then, and Batman Begins, TDK and TDKR clearly did not fail.

And while familiar concepts make it easier, the *most* successful films have taken new concepts and made them clear and relatable. Take a look at Avatar. Take a look at Inception. It spends thirty minutes, and gives us a simple text book example, then a newbie character, explaining all the rules early, so that when we get to the action, everyone is invested in the tension, we all know the risks, we all know the twists that can come, so things are surprising but not out of left field - without having to think about it, because it's been shown to us smoothly as part of the story - AND at the same time, a character (several really) is developed in Cobb that we relate to on a very personal level.

But then Sucker Punch does that same concept and everyone hates it.

People don't reject concepts. They reject movies as a whole. 200 people don't come together and spend two years of their lives working together to 'get the concept right' so people will like the movie. Everything, the dialogue, word choice, music, all of that has to do with getting people to love and remember a film. Green Lantern failed on multiple levels. It has a great concept, that I think people would love if it had A) A character that people could love B) A storyline that people could care about and C) A conflict that makes sense

 

[The Guard]

Let's start with: It's Magic!? I think you're letting your familiarity with the concept blind you to how it may be perceived by someone who's introduction is the film.

My familiarity with the concept has never changed the fact that it is, at best, magic or alien pseudo science. Its a ridiculous concept. Always has been, always will be.

And its not like the film presents it as just "pure magic". The film explains the nature of the power, power rings and lanterns.

And thinking about a film later can be a good thing, or a bad thing, it depends on the conclusion of examining it more in depth. Concerning the trouble sense, I'm pretty sure it was inconsistent, in addition to being unexplained (that's why we all have different takes on what it actually is, because they gave a generic danger sense, and then- surprise- it had a specific application that we are expected to infer throughout the course of the film, which is never confirmed. That's bad writing, imho).

The trouble sense was clearly explained. Very clearly.

There's an actual line where Tomar Re says "Your ring will alert you when trouble is near".

It can't be inconsistently portyrayed when its already basically described as a vague trouble sense, more or less a la Spider-Sense.

Most movies do. That's why they spend half an our introducing you to a superhero before he gets his powers, before you see the cool concept, because a cool concept is not compelling if the character is not compelling. That emotional connection is what movies strive to build, that's why they show you the character's personal life, and their trials and faults to build a connection. Successful movies do this well. Excellent movies do this brilliantly. Failed movies, like Green Lantern, don't do this or do this badly.

What do you think the first half hour of a movie, before the action and spectacle starts, is for?

Oh, emotional connection to a character. Yeah. That's fairly neccessary. For some reason I thought you meant emotional appeals/connections to a concept. I've been sick today.

GREEN LANTERN certainly made an attempt to have you connect emotionally to Hal. Like IRON MAN, the film wanted its audiences to identify with someone trying to better and redeem themselves. But whereas they were willing to give Iron Man, who is still kind of an ******* throughout the film, a pass, they weren't willing to give Hal, who has very realistic problems until he finds the ring, the same courtesy. I'm still kind of baffled on that one, especially as, other than comedy, the level of the writing quality in terms of presenting those characters and their issues are about the same.

That is an incredible point of view. I can see how someone who does not highly value the emotional content of these films and they way it is communicated and the way people are pulled into the story can think it's a primarily intellectual exercise, and thus, any failures with the film would be with the concepts, and not with the execution.

I don't think it has to do with the failure of the film's concepts. It's an audience not embracing them. Plenty of films with great concepts have flopped, or failed to find a large audience. I don't consider that an issue of weak concepts.

No amount of explaining stands up to the bare fact that these things can't happen. It's not an intellectual appeal. What happens is, people end up caring about the characters and going along for the ride, and as long as the premise is internally consistent and doesn't conflict with itself, they won't get taken out of that emotional connection so say something doesn't make sense, because premise is baked into the character's experience that they're identifying with.

Can you elaborate?

What was internally inconsistent about the film?

That's just it, they don't know that they've been drawn in. No one describes it like that. No one realizes that they're heart is racing during the action scenes and goes back to normal during the talking scenes. It's completely subconscious, they might remember the spectacle and talk about that, but very few people realize how many emotional, physical and chemical experiences they've had while watching a big film

I wouldn't say "no one".

I do agree that the movie is underrated due to a sort of domino effect, but I don't think the concepts themselves were a fault. The problem started with the vehicle that carries the audience to the concepts narratively.

The problem is that people didn't embrace the concept. It's not an issue with the concept itself. I don't think its an issue with the execution of the concept.

General audiences don't usually look at film the way many of us do. We really don't live in a world where most people refuse to see a film because it's not among the best-written or best-executed or best rated out of its genre, so I don't buy that critic reviews is the only reason people didn't see GREEN LANTERN.

I think most people just found the concept silly and didn't respond to it.

Daredevil is more or less the same concept as Batman, but it failed, and Batman succeeded. Even within Batman, Batman Robin probably failed, assuming that foreign distribution was stickier back then, and Batman Begins, TDK and TDKR clearly did not fail.

DAREDEVIL is actually a good example of what I'm talking about. It is a flawed film, but its 45% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is really rather undeserved. And the movie didn't fail, financially or otherwise. It made money, spawned an ELEKTRA spin-off film and a DD sequel was planned for some time, and then ELEKTRA failed and they lost their window to use Ben Affleck again as he moved on and the sequel project fizzled.

And while familiar concepts make it easier, the *most* successful films have taken new concepts and made them clear and relatable. Take a look at Avatar. Take a look at Inception. It spends thirty minutes, and gives us a simple text book example, then a newbie character, explaining all the rules early, so that when we get to the action, everyone is invested in the tension, we all know the risks, we all know the twists that can come, so things are surprising but not out of left field - without having to think about it, because it's been shown to us smoothly as part of the story - AND at the same time, a character (several really) is developed in Cobb that we relate to on a very personal level.

AVATAR didn't succeed as a flm because it explained its concepts and made them clear and relatable". AVATAR succeeded because it was a massive film with groundbreaking new special effects technology that was immensely hyped and helmed by a beloved SciFi and mainstream drama director. It succeeded because people liked the look of the concept and went to see the movie.

INCEPTION didn't succeed because it explained its concepts and made them clear and relatable...it succeeded because people liked the concept and and went to see the film.

But then Sucker Punch does that same concept and everyone hates it.

SUCKER PUNCH isn't really the same concept as INCEPTION, though they have a similar story within a story structure. INCEPTION is an incredibly safe and straightforward film compared to SUCKER PUNCH, which relies mostly on metaphor and visuals to tell its story and explore its themes.

People don't reject concepts. They reject movies as a whole.

When most people reject a movie as a whole, they are rejecting a concept. Most people don’t go to movies because they’re “well made and well written” That’s movie fans/buffs, etc, which are the minority. Most of the time, people go to movies because they like the basic idea, or concept, behind the film.

200 people don't come together and spend two years of their lives working together to 'get the concept right' so people will like the movie. Everything, the dialogue, word choice, music, all of that has to do with getting people to love and remember a film. Green Lantern failed on multiple levels. It has a great concept, that I think people would love if it had A) A character that people could love B) A storyline that people could care about and C) A conflict that makes sense

Maybe not, and I know its not quite this simple, but you have to get people into the theatres. If the general public doesn't like the basic concept enough to go see it in droves, no amount of work on the film can make audiences like it. There are plenty of examples of this in the past.

Again, people don't generally go to movies to see "well executed films". Or there'd be a lot more of them out there. People go to movies becuase they like an idea or an actor.

 

[Lantern Venom]

It's not about who is more known...its obviously about which concepts audiences responded to. They responded to badass with a suit of techy armor. They didn't respond to the guy with the magic ring.

Therein lies the problem. It isn't a magic ring (except for Scott's), it's Oan technology. Had the movie's plot remained in space, that fact could have been fleshed out more. Green Lanterns have created, in the blink of an eye, suits similar to Stark's, or a plethora of eye-popping constructs. The movie barely scratched the surface of the ring's abilities.



BLADE succeeded because it was a badass martial arts/action romp with vampires. People like those things, and liked those things long before BLADE. Qualitywise, you're right, the vision was solid. The BLADE movies are average at best. Much like GREEN LANTERN, really.


Yeah, we couldn't have more differing viewpoints there. Until The Avengers, I thought Blade 2 was Marvel's best film, if only for it's embrace of a merciless, unapologetic anti-hero who proved to the uninitiated that not all comics are simplistic kid's tales.

How didn't it trust its roots?

Sheesh, where do I start? No flightless simulator, no communication with the ring, Hal training for a few minutes instead of weeks, no book of Oa scenes, Hal quitting, only 4 Lanterns outside of Hal even given names, Parallax's backstory being completely gutted.

Not to mention a simple logic problem of the central battery being threatened, yet the GLC just sat back and waited for it to happen? Please.

 

[Lantern Venom]

There should NOT be a GL sequel. Just wait until the JL movie and recast him.

I want to see GL either get a sequel or reboot just because I like the GLC that much. I know the logical counter-argument is "why would they risk it?" To be brutally honest, I don't care about the reasoning. Just put the Corps on the screen again.t:

 

[shauner111]

Re-cast for JL, keep him exclusive to that for as long they can until another solo movie is in high demand. And that will only be the case if we get a Ruffalo moment where he steals certain scenes and goes over extremely well with fans.

 

[DrCosmic]

My familiarity with the concept has never changed the fact that it is, at best, magic or alien pseudo science. Its a ridiculous concept. Always has been, always will be.

And its not like the film presents it as just "pure magic". The film explains the nature of the power, power rings and lanterns.

That's all I'm saying. "What's so difficult about a guy with a magic ring" doesn't seem like a reasonable question. The audience needs more than that, it needs the pseudo science, it needs the power and effects not to be arbitrary. The plain fact is, that a polkadot sasquatch is more ridiculous than a brown sasquatch. They aren't received the same way, even though they are both impossible. A pseudosciene ring says : there is a power source you don't understand. Okay, fine, there are already power sources I don't understand in real life. A magic ring says: you don't understand anything about how this works. That's harder to accept narratively, in a modern context.

The trouble sense was clearly explained. Very clearly.

There's an actual line where Tomar Re says "Your ring will alert you when trouble is near".

It can't be inconsistently portyrayed when its already basically described as a vague trouble sense, more or less a la Spider-Sense.

If it's explained as something vague, then it's not explained clearly. Those are antonyms. For instance: What is "near?" I think you're taking the fact that is was explicitly explained and then taking that to mean that it's abilities and purpose was very clear. I don't believe those are synonyms.

Oh, emotional connection to a character. Yeah. That's fairly neccessary. For some reason I thought you meant emotional appeals/connections to a concept. I've been sick today.

GREEN LANTERN certainly made an attempt to have you connect emotionally to Hal. Like IRON MAN, the film wanted its audiences to identify with someone trying to better and redeem themselves. But whereas they were willing to give Iron Man, who is still kind of an ******* throughout the film, a pass, they weren't willing to give Hal, who has very realistic problems until he finds the ring, the same courtesy. I'm still kind of baffled on that one, especially as, other than comedy, the level of the writing quality in terms of presenting those characters and their issues are about the same.

And that's what I'm getting at: I'm not at all baffled. I can definitely see how Stark's life is more appealing than Hal's, AND how Stark's endearing moments: yakking with troops and his friendship with Rhodey are much more appealing than Hal's endearing moments: chatting with his nephew and... maybe flirting with his boss was supposed to be endearing?? All of these things, and their ability to draw in the audience are not just affected by the dialogue quality, but by the context they're shown in the films, and how things like military and extended family are perceived in the context of modern society. Even in the construction of the film, the first clip of Iron Man is him getting hurt through no fault of his own (it seems at the time) interesting the audience in his fate. The first clip in Green Lantern is Parallax exposition.

Iron Man just did a better job making people like Tony Stark before he became Iron Man. It's not a coincidence that it was more successful.

I don't think it has to do with the failure of the film's concepts. It's an audience not embracing them. Plenty of films with great concepts have flopped, or failed to find a large audience. I don't consider that an issue of weak concepts.

Can you elaborate?

What was internally inconsistent about the film?

I don't recall offhand, but that's not the point I was making, the point I was making is that people didn't care about the character to go along for the ride to be thrown off by it being internally inconsistent.

I wouldn't say "no one".

That's true, that should have been a generalization, not an absolute.

The problem is that people didn't embrace the concept. It's not an issue with the concept itself. I don't think its an issue with the execution of the concept.

General audiences don't usually look at film the way many of us do. We really don't live in a world where most people refuse to see a film because it's not among the best-written or best-executed or best rated out of its genre, so I don't buy that critic reviews is the only reason people didn't see GREEN LANTERN.

I think most people just found the concept silly and didn't respond to it.

Neither do general audiences evaluate concepts outside of the emotional context they find the concept in. Concepts are never, ever, evaluated by themselves by someone who goes to be entertained, because a concept, by itself, cannot entertain. A silly concept, like mute robots in love, or snakes on a plan, can be done in a way which people love. A simple concept, like cops and robbers, can be done in a way which people will hate. It has to do with the context the concept is taken in, every bit as much as the concept itself.

The concept of Green Lantern is no sillier, or pseudo-sciency or abstract, than that of Thor or Superman, but the movie as a whole wasn't as good, so people didn't buy into the concept.

DAREDEVIL is actually a good example of what I'm talking about. It is a flawed film, but its 45% rating on Rotten Tomatoes is really rather undeserved. And the movie didn't fail, financially or otherwise. It made money, spawned an ELEKTRA spin-off film and a DD sequel was planned for some time, and then ELEKTRA failed and they lost their window to use Ben Affleck again as he moved on and the sequel project fizzled.

AVATAR didn't succeed as a flm because it explained its concepts and made them clear and relatable". AVATAR succeeded because it was a massive film with groundbreaking new special effects technology that was immensely hyped and helmed by a beloved SciFi and mainstream drama director. It succeeded because people liked the look of the concept and went to see the movie.

INCEPTION didn't succeed because it explained its concepts and made them clear and relatable...it succeeded because people liked the concept and and went to see the film.

SUCKER PUNCH isn't really the same concept as INCEPTION, though they have a similar story within a story structure. INCEPTION is an incredibly safe and straightforward film compared to SUCKER PUNCH, which relies mostly on metaphor and visuals to tell its story and explore its themes.

Again, my point is that they succeeded because people cared about the characters, thus cared about the concept. And while we can argue if the dreams in Inception and the trances in Sucker Punch are the same thing, the difference in their success is defined by the care for their characters. Look at the trailers. One appeals with Cobb's personal flight, the other appeals with Browning's underage-looking sexuality.While Daredevil may indeed be an example of what you're talking about, it's also an example of what I'm talking about: same concept, different reception. AVATAR made more money overseas than it did here. Much more. It succeeded because people could identify with the characters. Green Lantern also had groundbreaking new special effects, as did Water World, and several other ill received films.

For everything we can mention, we can find several failed movies that have that thing in spades... except for compelling characters. Every movie, regardless of concept, regardless of special effects, regardless of budget, if people like the characters, they will like the film.

When most people reject a movie as a whole, they are rejecting a concept. Most people don’t go to movies because they’re “well made and well written” That’s movie fans/buffs, etc, which are the minority. Most of the time, people go to movies because they like the basic idea, or concept, behind the film.

Maybe not, and I know its not quite this simple, but you have to get people into the theatres. If the general public doesn't like the basic concept enough to go see it in droves, no amount of work on the film can make audiences like it. There are plenty of examples of this in the past.

Again, people don't generally go to movies to see "well executed films". Or there'd be a lot more of them out there. People go to movies becuase they like an idea or an actor.

I see what you're saying now. Yes, there are some concepts that can turn an audience off. What I'm saying is that only concepts that make the main character unlikeable can have that effect. And like being drawn in, while the general audience may not evaluate movies as well made or well written, movies that are well made, all other things being equal, are more successful. That's just because well made movies get you into the character and keep you there. And while I agree the process of getting people into theatres is complicated, the quality of the movie plays a big part in that.

For instance, if you want to get people into theatres, you have to make them care about the main character even in the trailer. All the successful movies do this, because they know the concept means nothing if the audience isn't invested in the character. No successful movie is sold on concept alone. The people who made Green Lantern didn't know this, they thought the concept was awesome enough in itself, and failed to make the audience love Hal, and so the movie failed.

 

[rayc1971]

Re-cast for JL, keep him exclusive to that for as long they can until another solo movie is in high demand. And that will only be the case if we get a Ruffalo moment where he steals certain scenes and goes over extremely well with fans.

yup i agree look at the hulk the reboot didnt make as mush as the first.now with ruffalo being a fan favorite in the avengers another hulk solo could happen.green lantern could go the same route in a justice league film.dont rush to reboot it they already wasted 200mill on the first try.

 

[The Batkilt]

I didn't know too much about the Green Lantern before seeing the film and, although it felt a bit flat, I enjoyed it more than Thor. I was greatly disappointed when I began reading the Green Latnern more after that as I thought there was great potential for a trilogy there. I can't pretend to know how I'd do it, but I'd have had a long-term vision for Sinestro as my lead villain in a second GL movie, with Hal Jordan being taken over by Parallax toward the end of the second movie or start of the third.

 

[Lantern Venom]

I didn't know too much about the Green Lantern before seeing the film and, although it felt a bit flat, I enjoyed it more than Thor. I was greatly disappointed when I began reading the Green Latnern more after that as I thought there was great potential for a trilogy there. I can't pretend to know how I'd do it, but I'd have had a long-term vision for Sinestro as my lead villain in a second GL movie, with Hal Jordan being taken over by Parallax toward the end of the second movie or start of the third.

Alot of people have suggested a plot similar to Green Lantern: First Flight. We are introduced to Hal, see the Abin Sur crash, and Hal is taken to Oa. He gets training, we see the interstellar policing by the GLC, it becomes obvious that there is dissention among the Corps, which is headed by Sinestro.

It seems to me that a Green Lantern origin story should have stuck close to that. I liked the movie too, but my biggest disappointment was the plot coming back around to "save the earth".

 

[The Batkilt]

Alot of people have suggested a plot similar to Green Lantern: First Flight. We are introduced to Hal, see the Abin Sur crash, and Hal is taken to Oa. He gets training, we see the interstellar policing by the GLC, it becomes obvious that there is dissention among the Corps, which is headed by Sinestro.

It seems to me that a Green Lantern origin story should have stuck close to that. I liked the movie too, but my biggest disappointment was the plot coming back around to "save the earth".

I think a film based on/inspired by First Flight could work really well. And I can kind of understand why Sinestro wasn't the villain in the first film, so as to introduce him so when he 'turns bad' it's more impactful - but it seems like they decided to put that on hold and didn't have anything nearly as good for the first movie. Seems like such a waste too as Mark Strong being cast as Sinestro was one of the things that got me quite excited about the movie in the first place.