Green Lantern 2

[The Guard]

Not only wasn't GREEN LANTERN as bad as everyone says, it wasn't bad, period. It was a solid movie, with some key issues.

I can understand people not liking it for various reasons, but to call it an "abomination" is pushing it. "Disappointing in some ways" is the most I'd say.

 

[wonderwoman5757]

Green Lantern was AWFUL. you need to see more movies if you think that had any semblance of being adequate.

 

[KalMart]

Horrible is probably most accurate. Not that there aren't other horrible movies in history, or even ones worse. But it still was, all on its own.

If Ghost Rider and Fantastic Four got a sequel then Green Lantern deserves one.

I really don't agree with this thinking at all....it's negative justification. It's not a good thing that Ghost Rider and FF got sequels, so why should use it as an excuse? How about they actually do the RIGHT and responsible thing and not waste more money and effort on it...have movies actually earn sequels on merit, not as salvage/desperation moves? Then maybe others will finally catch on and stop making terrible sequels to terrible movies...save all of us the embarrassment.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Not only wasn't GREEN LANTERN as bad as everyone says, it wasn't bad, period. It was a solid movie, with some key issues.

I can understand people not liking it for various reasons, but to call it an "abomination" is pushing it. "Disappointing in some ways" is the most I'd say.

I with you. There were definitely elements that could have been better (Parallax's screwed-up story, not enough ring-slinging training, no flightless simulator), but I'm still trying to figure out what people expected?

We got the selection process with Abin Sur, the oath, Hal & Carol's spotty relationship, the GLC on Oa, and Hal going from a self-centered flyboy to a genuine hero. That's a pretty solid nod to GL's origin.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Horrible is probably most accurate. Not that there aren't other horrible movies in history, or even ones worse. But it still was, all on its own.



I really don't agree with this thinking at all....it's negative justification. It's not a good thing that Ghost Rider and FF got sequels, so why should use it as an excuse? How about they actually do the RIGHT and responsible thing and not waste more money and effort on it...have movies actually earn sequels on merit, not as salvage/desperation moves? Then maybe others will finally catch on and stop making terrible sequels to terrible movies...save all of us the embarrassment.

The "right" thing is to keep making comic book adaptations. I've seen just about all of them, and there are only a couple (no more than 5 or 6) that are total wastes.

 

[KalMart]

The "right" thing is to keep making comic book adaptations.

They dont 'need to be made any more or less than any other movie genre or adaptation. If one's bad and unsuccessful, then it should be stopped...just like any other type of movie. At least movie on to another character, don't try to salvage what already failed.

I've seen just about all of them, and there are only a couple (no more than 5 or 6) that are total wastes.

Doesn't make them any more special than anything else. Obviously, there's a prerogative to capitalize on them, but know that it is the bottom line and if not for that, then creatively it's at the same level as anything else. If it's not a critical or financial success, then it had its chance.

Green Lantern didn't work at all from its first step, just like the Spirit didn't. So they should move on and try someone else.

 

[Lord]

While i agree with you there i also think that in some years from now they should try again, i think that Spawn for example should get a chance if teh comics ever become popular again.

 

[KalMart]

While i agree with you there i also think that in some years from now they should try again, i think that Spawn for example should get a chance if teh comics ever become popular again.

Many years later, sure they could give it another try...like in an completely different generation of movies. But at least spare this one by not bringing it back sooner.

I also don't think that movies should be seen as the ultimate 'prize' or what have you for comic characters and/or stories. Some things just might be better for comics and animation, and there should be no knock/shame in that if it doesn't make it to movies.

 

[Young Superman]

I hope Ryan Reynolds gets a second chance as Hal. Also this time I hope he wears the classic GL uniform, white gloves and all.


P.S I also want Mark Strong back as Sinestro.

 

[Boosted]

i remember turning to my friend right when the credits came up and saying "dude, you know me, i love the last indiana jones movie, but this was ********!"

 

[Lantern Venom]

They dont 'need to be made any more or less than any other movie genre or adaptation. If one's bad and unsuccessful, then it should be stopped...just like any other type of movie. At least movie on to another character, don't try to salvage what already failed.


Green Lantern didn't work at all from its first step, just like the Spirit didn't. So they should move on and try someone else.

I couldn't disagree more. Green Lantern isn't just a crucial piece of the Justice League, but there is a nearly-infinite amount of stories to tell with the Green Lantern Corps. I don't think WB failed, they just didn't hit the Grand Slam that should have been easy to hit.

The Green Lantern Corps could be a successful space epic franchise if the right pieces are put in place. The Blu Ray/ DVD sales alone should prove that the interest in the character(s) is there, but WB should rethink the budget and direction of future GL projects.

But don't stop. No no no, don't stop.

 

[DrCosmic]

Not only wasn't GREEN LANTERN as bad as everyone says, it wasn't bad, period. It was a solid movie, with some key issues.

I can understand people not liking it for various reasons, but to call it an "abomination" is pushing it. "Disappointing in some ways" is the most I'd say.

I actually agree that Green Lantern is not as bad as everyone says, but let's look at the ways in which it was disappointing:

Disappointing Special Effects (including when he's just standing around!)
Disappointing Action
Disappointing Main Character development
Disappointing Villains
Disappointing CGI set design
Disappointing Climax

So... what do we have, then? We don't have a "solid" movie. We have a possibly okay, but most likely bad movie. When I take all those disappointments and put them up against fan expectations (who absurdly think translating a CGI-heavy nigh omnipotent superhero is "easy.") then I can see why they give it such a bad rap.

I'd love to see "Emerald Guardian" or something with John Stewart as the lead. That would pretty much make my year.

 

[KalMart]

I couldn't disagree more. Green Lantern isn't just a crucial piece of the Justice League, but there is a nearly-infinite amount of stories to tell with the Green Lantern Corps. I don't think WB failed, they just didn't hit the Grand Slam that should have been easy to hit.

Doesn't matter. If it was a crappy movie...it's at best a crappy movie. It doesn't get extra babysitting because it's a comic movie.

The Green Lantern Corps could be a successful space epic franchise if the right pieces are put in place. The Blu Ray/ DVD sales alone should prove that the interest in the character(s) is there, but WB should rethink the budget and direction of future GL projects.

But don't stop. No no no, don't stop.

Yes they should absolutely, positively not continue that POS in any form....like they should have not done more Ghost Riders or Punishers...it'd be nice to see the responsible thing done and cut it off. Stop at least for a while and let the mess that was GL just fade as completely from memory as possible first, then give it a try again in the next generation..at least a decade or so after.

 

[Lantern Venom]

Doesn't matter. If it was a crappy movie...it's at best a crappy movie. It doesn't get extra babysitting because it's a comic movie.


Yes they should absolutely, positively not continue that POS in any form....like they should have not done more Ghost Riders or Punishers...it'd be nice to see the responsible thing done and cut it off.
.

Disagree on all points. I'll continue to watch GR, Punisher, and Fantastic Four sequels too. Hollywood makes continual sequels to mindless slasher flicks, endless horny teen movies, generic romantic comedies, and man-with-gun-goes-for revenge on bad guys flicks. Not everything is meant to be a classic, but sometimes something great comes together, ala Nolan's Batman.

That can't be done if they stop trying.

 

[KalMart]

Disagree on all points. I'll continue to watch GR, Punisher, and Fantastic Four sequels too. Hollywood makes continual sequels to mindless slasher flicks, endless horny teen movies, generic romantic comedies, and man-with-gun-goes-for revenge on bad guys flicks. Not everything is meant to be a classic, but sometimes something great comes together, ala Nolan's Batman.

That can't be done if they stop trying.

Problem is that this is not just about comic fans...it's more than that and what applies to all movies have to apply here in this case. It's really an insult to film to send even more money and time to salvage an already expensive flop. You're still justifying your needs with the wrongs bringing up other bad starts and sequels. They won't stop trying, but they need to go with what works from the outset then drop what doesn't at least for a long while. Put the time and resources they spend trying to makeup for a horrible last film towards a different new character and see if that works. GL failed horribly out of the gate...it needs to take a long break away from movies while they try others. Then much later on, you could introduce a new one in the GL or as a reboot if it looks good. But for now, hopefully they'll do the right thing and let this dead horse stay buried.

New, completely rebooted GL far down the line if at all, period. The Reynolds one....one and done history and ancient history hopefully.

 

[HighFivingMF]

I've lent the movie to a few people since it's been out. The people never bothered with it in theaters but told me they thought it was pretty good when they returned it. The worst thing was "Eh. I had mixed feelings but some of it was cool."

 

[KalMart]

I've lent the movie to a few people since it's been out. The people never bothered with it in theaters but told me they thought it was pretty good when they returned it. The worst thing was "Eh. I had mixed feelings but some of it was cool."

And that's e best that GL will be...a disc lend-out that isn't paid for and was 'okay, I guess'. It should consider itself lucky to be even that, considering the movie it was. t:

Seriously...they should just try again much later with a new version (and hopefully it will be good), but they need to sit this one out after that one.

 

[8Diagrams(WU)]

It was meh. Some very good things (the atmosphere of the abin sur scenes in space was suspenceful and looked cool) and some very bad things (script - dialogue - earth characters)

 

[Revenger]

I actually agree that Green Lantern is not as bad as everyone says, but let's look at the ways in which it was disappointing:

Disappointing Special Effects (including when he's just standing around!)
Disappointing Action
Disappointing Main Character development
Disappointing Villains
Disappointing CGI set design
Disappointing Climax

So... what do we have, then? We don't have a "solid" movie. We have a possibly okay, but most likely bad movie. When I take all those disappointments and put them up against fan expectations (who absurdly think translating a CGI-heavy nigh omnipotent superhero is "easy.") then I can see why they give it such a bad rap.

I'd love to see "Emerald Guardian" or something with John Stewart as the lead. That would pretty much make my year.

Yeah. Pretty much everything with GL missed the mark. Add disappointing cast to that too. Ryan and Blake just didn't work.

 

[HighFivingMF]

And that's e best that GL will be...a disc lend-out that isn't paid for and was 'okay, I guess'. It should consider itself lucky to be even that, considering the movie it was. t:

Well, one only one of the four thought it was just OK. Similar thing happened with Batman Begins which I lent out 6 times leading up to Dark Knight and at least 5 more afterward.

The audience is building. As long as it's well received by the critics and people that see it first I think the sequel could do well. Outside of the comic fans that go to extremes with everything, not that many people despise it. So we'll see. I hope it gets another chance, I loved it and would be first in line. But I'm not going to try and fool anyone into thinking I won't be first in line if a reboot is made instead.

 

[MrGreen]

I actually agree that Green Lantern is not as bad as everyone says, but let's look at the ways in which it was disappointing:

Disappointing Special Effects (including when he's just standing around!)
Disappointing Action
Disappointing Main Character development
Disappointing Villains
Disappointing CGI set design
Disappointing Climax

So... what do we have, then? We don't have a "solid" movie. We have a possibly okay, but most likely bad movie. When I take all those disappointments and put them up against fan expectations (who absurdly think translating a CGI-heavy nigh omnipotent superhero is "easy.") then I can see why they give it such a bad rap.

I'd love to see "Emerald Guardian" or something with John Stewart as the lead. That would pretty much make my year.

The Special Effects were good, the only time it looked weird is when Hal is flying with Tomar-Re
The CGI set design was great, I loved Oa.

I think that the rest of the complaints goes to the script. It was a mess from a lot of writers.

Problem is that this is not just about comic fans...it's more than that and what applies to all movies have to apply here in this case. It's really an insult to film to send even more money and time to salvage an already expensive flop. You're still justifying your needs with the wrongs bringing up other bad starts and sequels. They won't stop trying, but they need to go with what works from the outset then drop what doesn't at least for a long while. Put the time and resources they spend trying to makeup for a horrible last film towards a different new character and see if that works. GL failed horribly out of the gate...it needs to take a long break away from movies while they try others. Then much later on, you could introduce a new one in the GL or as a reboot if it looks good. But for now, hopefully they'll do the right thing and let this dead horse stay buried.

New, completely rebooted GL far down the line if at all, period. The Reynolds one....one and done history and ancient history hopefully.

If they had stopped after the first Star Trek movie we wouldnt have had the Wrath of Khan.
All they need to do is a JLA movie with Reynolds as Hal and then do another GL movie with a different writer and director.
Thats it.

I don't get why all the hate to this movie. It wasn't the best but definitely wasn't the worst movie out there as some people says.
GL is a tough concept to put on screen and IMO they did it well. Most people complain about character development and some of the CGI but I haven't heard a single thing about the concept or idea of the GL Corps. I mean, not once have I heard someone say "that is silly" or something like that and if you can make a movie about a dude with a ring that can make everything without making it cheesy or silly then you've done a good job. Now do a sequel without the introduction and make it 100% space action flick.

 

[KalMart]

If they had stopped after the first Star Trek movie we wouldnt have had the Wrath of Khan.
All they need to do is a JLA movie with Reynolds as Hal and then do another GL movie with a different writer and director.
Thats it.

Star Trek had already established a longer history of TV, and there wasn't as much variety of other sci-fi films for the studio to try in its place. Not so with comic properties and such today. Lot more untapped material to turn to than trying to hang on to something already dead.

No...no more Reynolds and no GL for a long while. Let them establish others, reboot Batman and establish a whole separate JL-universe that Gl can maybe show up in if they get to a JL movie down the road. Introduce a new GL in that movie and if it's successful they can think about spinning off with him afterwards. Not this Ryan one. And he should stay as far away from it as possible for the better of his career now. It'd be like Clooney trying another Batman.

Well, one only one of the four thought it was just OK. Similar thing happened with Batman Begins which I lent out 6 times leading up to Dark Knight and at least 5 more afterward.

The audience is building. As long as it's well received by the critics and people that see it first I think the sequel could do well. Outside of the comic fans that go to extremes with everything, not that many people despise it. So we'll see. I hope it gets another chance, I loved it and would be first in line. But I'm not going to try and fool anyone into thinking I won't be first in line if a reboot is made instead.

But GL wasn't though...it was one of the most panned movies in recent history...and rightly so by the reaction of most who saw it. I just think it would be better protocol for WB to acknowledge that they should start from scratch again later than trying to salvage such spoiled goods. It doesn't deserve a 'second chance' any more than any other flopped and bad movie would. And just because others try to do it don't mean you have to follow them off a cliff. They have plenty of other characters to choose from who haven't already faltered miserably, and they might find the next young-novel series to pick up the slack left by Potter. If they want to public to 'forgive' the for GL, the best thing to do is not to bring it up or continue it anymore for a long while. That goes beyond someone's comic fandom/pride (which is understandable), it's just wiser film-business in today's atmosphere.

 

[Revenger]

Yeah it would be a really bad business move to keep Ryan's GL going. The movie tanked.

Even Star Trek The Motion Picture made it's production budget back. That's why it got Wrath of Khan.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=startrek.htm

 

[Lantern Venom]

The Special Effects were good, the only time it looked weird is when Hal is flying with Tomar-Re
The CGI set design was great, I loved Oa.
Now do a sequel without the introduction and make it 100% space action flick.

Oh, man, the scene when Hal arrived on Oa was just amazing. And I couldn't agree more about keeping the plot of the sequel in space. I drool at the prospect of seeing an all-out war between the GLC and the Sinestro Corps.

 

[MrGreen]

Oh, man, the scene when Hal arrived on Oa was just amazing. And I couldn't agree more about keeping the plot of the sequel in space. I drool at the prospect of seeing an all-out war between the GLC and the Sinestro Corps.

The whole training montage was great IMO. Everything on Oa looked great. I wasnt totally sold on the cg suit when they announced it but it looked amazing IMO.
I insist that they just need another director and writer. They've already established the concept (witch in itself is a tough concept to sell) just do a sequel with an all-out war between GL and Sinestro corps.