Green Lantern 2

[Revenger]

To me it looked like a poor PS2 game. Way too fake and animated. I would have preferred physical sets and an actual suit. The cartoon suit just looked so odd in live action.

 

[KalMart]

Hopefully, it's at least a good learning experience for them...albeit a costly one...so that they'll avoid a lot of the same mistakes on a reboot if at all down the road a ways.

 

[MrGreen]

To me it looked like a poor PS2 game. Way too fake and animated. I would have preferred physical sets and an actual suit. The cartoon suit just looked so odd in live action.

Maybe a combination of both. A physical suit with cg elements like the light and stuff so it doesnt blow the budget

 

[DarkSovereignty]

It astounds me how people can say the cg was "amazing," Green Lantern had to be the cheapest looking 250 million dollar movie I've ever seen, the costume looked like a damn cartoon, as did Oa. the beginning scenes with Paralax being released looked like a video game.

 

[Lantern Venom]

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.

Yes, I liked the suit too. The constant light moving through it reminded us that it was made of energy, not just spandex. My initial fears were the opposite of yours. I was more concerned that GL would have a cheap, Halloween costume look like the old Superman films. That certainly wasn't the case.

 

[shauner111]

The first half wasnt that bad at all, the last half was some of the worst **** ive ever seen in my life.

The CG was by far the worst ive seen in a lonnnnnnng time.

 

[Lord]

I didn't hear anybody saying good things about the special effects, my friends weren't interested because they didn't like them. The effects of the constructions made by the rings however weren't that bad, that had to be CGI and it was as i would imagine glowing green contrsuctions would be like.

 

[HighFivingMF]

But GL wasn't though...

I know. I was talking about the sequel.

And one of the most panned movies in recent history? It was panned, but nothing close to most panned. I mean, 20% on RT and 6.0 on IMDb is still better than A LOT of movies.

 

[KalMart]

I know. I was talking about the sequel.

And again, it needs a good/successful first movie before it can or should get a sequel. That hasn't happened yet.

And one of the most panned movies in recent history? It was panned, but nothing close to most panned. I mean, 20% on RT and 6.0 on IMDb is still better than A LOT of movies.

And assault & battery and attempted murder is a lesser charge than mass murder...it's still not someone you'd want watching your kids or the like. Its merits and 'sequelability'...like any other movie...shouldn't be based on how less bad it was than some of the biblically bad ones. It should start well in order to keep going...reasons for continuing, not excuses for it. WB has plenty of other characters to try in a time where superheroes are still popular. They shouldn't be shackled to this lemon.

 

[The Guard]

D'oh.

 

[The Guard]

Hmm...I'd have thought the Hyperbole Corps would have been out in full force. I'm pleasantly surprised.

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!)

I disagree. I think people were disappointed with some tonal elements of the effects/film, but the effects themselves were pretty good.

Disappointing Action

How so? Multiple sequences of training and combat, multiple usages of lantern power...the action tended to have stakes...what was so bad about it?

Disappointing Main Character development

Highly disagree. Hal has a clear, fairly well developed arc in the film.

Disappointing Villains

This I will agree with. This is the film's biggest issue, the failure to produce compelling villains.

Disappointing CGI set design

Not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean Oa?Can you elaborate?

Disappointing Climax

Why?

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 can see how people could be disappointed in some ways...or how they could have wished for more, in terms of things like The Corps, etc. But fan expectations not being met doesn't mean the film was bad.

 

[Revenger]

Yup. General audience expectations and critical expectations are key, and GL failed in those areas too.

 

[Big Lob]

I always thought the movie was bad because Hal is a bad character. He has no great appeal to the wide movie going adudience. He's just some a-hole who got a decoder ring. That's not a compelling story.

 

[DrCosmic]

Hmm...I'd have thought the Hyperbole Corps would have been out in full force. I'm pleasantly surprised.

To be fair, the GL Oath is "Brightest day blackest night" so Hyperbole comes with the territory.

I disagree. I think people were disappointed with some tonal elements of the effects/film, but the effects themselves were pretty good.

How so? Multiple sequences of training and combat, multiple usages of lantern power...the action tended to have stakes...what was so bad about it?

Highly disagree. Hal has a clear, fairly well developed arc in the film.

This I will agree with. This is the film's biggest issue, the failure to produce compelling villains.

Not sure what you mean by that. Do you mean Oa?Can you elaborate?

Why?

I can see how people could be disappointed in some ways...or how they could have wished for more, in terms of things like The Corps, etc. But fan expectations not being met doesn't mean the film was bad.

I was talking about general expectations for a good movie, not fan expectations for GL. The Climax was disappointing because it didn't build on the film very well (why Parallax was going to Earth, Hammond's underwhelming defeat and execution for failure to do... what, exactly?) so it lacked the ability to satisfy for the film. I was indeed referring to Oa's unimpressiveness. When I saw Asgard that summer I was like "Whoa!" When I saw Oa that summer I was like "What the...?"

Hal's arc may be touched on in the film, but it's not compelling. We are never given much chance or reason to like him, so it's difficult to identify with his inability to overcome fear... which, despite Johns' thought bubble illogical that works in comics, doesn't actually vibe with someone who flies jets for a living. So, not only is the arc not relatable, it's not compelling, leaving the whole film disappointing for the lack of identification with its lead.

What disappointed me about the action was the lack of contrast and struggle. He either pwned or got pwned, there wasn't much in terms of back and forth. I liked that they limited him to one construct at a time, but beyond that, it was very one sided to me.

But no, many, many people were disappointed with the special effects, it's the number one thing people rant about, and it's no surprise, when more than 70% of the film is a special effects shot, you need to account for that somehow. GL didn't, afaik, and it wound up with very unimpressive and sometimes bad effects. They didn't bother me personally much except a couple scenes, but most people were grossly disappointed in the CGI, which the movie basically hung on.

GL was not a misunderstood film, it's just not very good. It can be defended, like Catwoman, and has more defenders, but I don't think it's because the movie is much better, I just think more people like Green Lantern than Catwoman and Ryan Reynolds than Halle Berry.

 

[Lord]

I actually think that Hal Jordan can be a relatable and likeable character, however the movie didn't show much of that, Secret Origin was by far a better story and the arc there could have worked very well on film, he's somebody that during his entire life wasn't allowed to do what he wants, he didn't allow fear to control him and stop him from doing what he wanted.

In the film he was an idiot that put his life in danger while having people that actually cared for him, he made collegues get fired and never had a second thought about it, changes in the movie that could have actually been interesting like Hammond being a mirror oposite of Hal weren't well done and for them 3 being childhood friends they seemed to have some serious age diferences.

Secret Origin serves a good example to how the story should have been if they went for a 50s conspiracy theories theme for the story, while Green Lantern: First Flight is how it should have been if they went for a space opera vibe, the movie didn't know which one to be and failed miserably. I think Hal Jordan was and still is the best way to go, which is also one of the reasons why he was ressurrected.

 

[DrCosmic]

Hal can be interesting, and the movie mishandled him, I agree with that. I don't think that he's still the best way to go for a film, since he's been 'tarnished' and there are two other untarnished lead GLs with just as much potential.

 

[The Guard]

I was talking about general expectations for a good movie, not fan expectations for GL. The Climax was disappointing because it didn't build on the film very well (why Parallax was going to Earth, Hammond's underwhelming defeat and execution for failure to do... what, exactly?) so it lacked the ability to satisfy for the film. I was indeed referring to Oa's unimpressiveness. When I saw Asgard that summer I was like "Whoa!" When I saw Oa that summer I was like "What the...?"

I don’t understand that at all, as I feel like many of the outdoor sequences on Oa are comparable to what happens in Asgard in terms of locale, but…okay.

As far as the climax not building on the film very well…the reason Parallax is going to Earth is pretty clear…Parallax destroys planets, and is drawn there by Hammond. The villains aren't compelling or well developed. But to say their reasoning isn't there, or that the movie doesn't build to something, I can't agree with that.

As for Hammond, his entire arc relies on seduction to the power of fear, and his use of it to gain power. And then he faces down a will-based superhero and can’t muster the willpower to make the ring work, and is ultimately destroyed by fear. If anything, Hammond’s defeat at Hal’s hands is one of the more satisfying elements of the film, both as an adaption of the comics and as a film, because its one of the few times it steps outside cliche and a more generic approach.

Hal's arc may be touched on in the film, but it's not compelling. We are never given much chance or reason to like him, so it's difficult to identify with his inability to overcome fear... which, despite Johns' thought bubble illogical that works in comics, doesn't actually vibe with someone who flies jets for a living. So, not only is the arc not relatable, it's not compelling, leaving the whole film disappointing for the lack of identification with its lead.

I would agree with that, to a point. He’s not a hugely likeable character through much of the film, though there are obvious points in the movie where he's shown to be a redeemable character and a good guy. He’s not really supposed to be hugely likeable, though, until he stops feeling sorry for himself and overcomes his fear. I guess the filmmakers shouldn't have tried to go with a lofty concept like "bettering yourself" for a superhero movie.

What disappointed me about the action was the lack of contrast and struggle. He either pwned or got pwned, there wasn't much in terms of back and forth. I liked that they limited him to one construct at a time, but beyond that, it
was very one sided to me.

That's not neccessarily true. There's every bit as much battle and struggle as most superhero films have. Part of the "ownage" is because he’s a rookie ringwielder. He’s learning to use the ring, to muster the willpower, and to overcome fear. There were very deliberate choices made by filmmakers to show him failing, so that they should show him growing as a hero, and as a character.

So he basically gets owned at every step he’s truly tested because he’s not ready yet, which is kind of the whole point.

It’s not really any different than Batman originally getting his ass handed to him by The Scarecrow because he’s not quite ready to face him in BEGINS, or any number of superhero film encounters where the hero doesn't triumph right away.

What about the fight sequence between he and Hammond in the lab? There’s a very clear battle/struggle of emotions/powers going on there. There's a shifting of momentum between he and Hammond.

What about the sequence between Green Lantern and Parallax at the end of the film? There’s a pretty clear struggle between he and Parallax, a very clear thematic and visual contest of fear VS will. It’s one of the focal points of the climax.

Does that get muddled a little because they’re shooting colored light at each other? Yes, but it is still very much there.

But no, many, many people were disappointed with the special effects, it's the number one thing people rant about, and it's no surprise, when more than 70% of the film is a special effects shot, you need to account for that somehow. GL didn't, afaik, and it wound up with very unimpressive and sometimes bad effects.

Yes, but where? Where are these bad effects? The closest thing to subpar effects is the opening pre-title sequence.

I know some people rant about the effects, but the creature work was more or less flawless, the environments were fantastic. I can’t consider a somewhat heightened, cartoony look in relation to the suit and Hal's powers to be a bad one when that’s what they went for, but that seems to be what people pick on when discussing the quality of the effects.

It'd be one thing to discuss the approach, or the tone, or the visual choices themselves. But the quality of the effects themselves was pretty darn good.

They didn't bother me personally much except a couple scenes, but most people were grossly disappointed in the CGI

I wouldn’t begin to say “most”.

 

[shauner111]

Hal Jordan is cool and has personality, John Stewart is awesome too but a lot of people dont like how serious he is. I dont see a problem with it. I think they can both work in a JL just fine.

To be honest i think Hal Jordan as Green Lantern on his own is sort-of doomed. If i was WB i would re-cast Hal for JL. and keep him exclusive to that throughout the decade.

Once the 2020's hit and the shared universe is over. You bring in John Stewart as the Green Lantern and do solo movies with him. At the end of a second JUstice League something can happen to Hal and he passes the torch.

 

[Boosted]

Hal is supposed to be a Han Solo/Indiana Jones character. Didn't see that on screen at all.

 

[KalMart]

Turned out to be more like Jar-Jar....in the Phantom Menace of superhero movies.

 

[Lantern Venom]

I always thought the movie was bad because Hal is a bad character. He has no great appeal to the wide movie going adudience. He's just some a-hole who got a decoder ring. That's not a compelling story.

You obviously haven't read much Green Lantern. The titular characters (except for Alan Scott, who's ring isn't connected to Oa) are all selected by the technology in their rings (as are other Corps of light members) for certain personality traits. The ring itself amplifies and focuses those characteristics.

 

[66 Face]

Hal is supposed to be a Han Solo/Indiana Jones character. Didn't see that on screen at all.

Thats right. That wasn't Hal on screen. Just Ryan Reynolds being Ryan Reynolds again. As soon as Reynolds was cast I knew just what kind of movie we were going to get.

Hal is supposed to be a leader and kind of a bad ass. We got Spiderman with that goofy Marvel tone.

I was hoping for something more along the lines of a space version of Raiders of the Lost Arc. Plenty of room for fun and action but it takes itself seriously.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Turned out to be more like Jar-Jar....in the Phantom Menace of superhero movies.

Hey. He didn't step on no poo.

 

[kewlmatto]

I think if Warner Bros were to attempt reviving Green Lantern (which I don't think they're interested in but anyways), they should take inspiration from what Marvel's done with Hulk.

Keep Ryan Reynolds or recast Hal Jordan, change the costume, make sure he has a very good role to play in Justice League - to the point where he is a standout of the film, like Hulk was in Avengers.

At this stage I see that as the only way we'll see another solo Green Lantern film in the future.

Thing is, they don't have to reboot at all. They just need to not directly reference the movie, but let people choose to see it as part of a series if they want to. In some ways (with the exception of the origin), Hulk and The Incredible Hulk can be read this way.

 

[HighFivingMF]

Thats right. That wasn't Hal on screen. Just Ryan Reynolds being Ryan Reynolds again. As soon as Reynolds was cast I knew just what kind of movie we were going to get.

Hal is supposed to be a leader and kind of a bad ass. We got Spiderman with that goofy Marvel tone.

I was hoping for something more along the lines of a space version of Raiders of the Lost Arc. Plenty of room for fun and action but it takes itself seriously.

No. You got origin Hal. The badass leader space cop stuff comes after he becomes a badass leader space cop.