Green Lantern 2

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I think it's better than GL, but I don't think it's that good. Still one of the below average CBMs. I think TIH was better, but I think that was one pretty average. They should have kept in the deleted scenes.

 

[Rum Runner]

I thought this film was a huge waste of potential. It's the very definition of mediocre. And incidentally, wasted potential hehe.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

I think it's better than GL, but I don't think it's that good. Still one of the below average CBMs. I think TIH was better, but I think that was one pretty average. They should have kept in the deleted scenes.

TIH was missing some much needed character moments, available via deleted scenes. No wonder why Norton doesn't really like it, despite being a huge hulk fan himself (I do really like TIH though).

 

[Doc Ock]

I love TIH, good as every MS film so far. I even liked it more than Iron Man. I loved Iron Man and thought it was the superhero film of the year...then Hellboy II and TIH came out.

I think its quite silly to compare it to GL.

 

[BatLobster]

I think if GL were released in the 90s, it would have been seen as a pretty decent superhero flick. Unfortunately it just pales in comparison to most post X-Men comic book films and doesn't bring much to the table. It took me about 4 tries to actually get through it all the way without turning it off or falling asleep.

It's too bad, there was definitely some potential there. I actually wouldn't mind them bringing back RR as Hal for Justice League and just keeping the first film in a vague continuity, cause it'd be a shame to waste some built in star power for an arbitrary recast to remove the stigma of the movie. People hated the movie, but they like Ryan Reynolds.

 

[hammerhedd11]

I think if GL were released in the 90s, it would have been seen as a pretty decent superhero flick. Unfortunately it just pales in comparison to most post X-Men comic book films and doesn't bring much to the table. It took me about 4 tries to actually get through it all the way without turning it off or falling asleep.

It's too bad, there was definitely some potential there. I actually wouldn't mind them bringing back RR as Hal for Justice League and just keeping the first film in a vague continuity, cause it'd be a shame to waste some built in star power for an arbitrary recast to remove the stigma of the movie. People hated the movie, but they like Ryan Reynolds.

I agree. Also, if I was 12, I would've loved it.
I thought the film actually did quite a bit right. The mythology and all the weird space stuff was not toned down, and for not being afraid to go all-out comic booky on that stuff, I think earns it some props. Too bad it was cut so short due to what I assume were mostly budget and time constraints.

 

[BatLobster]

I definitely enjoyed all the Oa stuff. That is where the movie definitely was able to show off its uniqueness and invite you into a fun and imaginative world, but I didn't feel the rest of the movie was able to keep it up to par with that material.

There's just something about this movie that screamed 90s to me and I can't really put my finger on it. But I agree, I would have loved if it came out when I was 12 (the 90s, ha). What I'm realizing is that sometimes there's a bit of trial and error when it comes to getting a superhero on film right. Sometimes a couple of versions need to get out there and fail in order to work out the kinks and figure out what the audience wants from that character. Because in the meantime, you are still establishing a shorthand with the audience and familiarizing them with the character.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^Thats why I think they would be better going the sequel with a lesser budget route. Expand on the things people liked, tone down the stuff they didnt but keep the same cast, I think it could work.

GL's dvd/BD sales showed that it had an audience out there.

 

[Micromind]

^^ One thing that Green Lantern movie did was to get Hal Jordan's origin story out of the way, now it would be better to move forward, they can only do better than the first one.

It would be a bad decision to reboot the Hal Jordan's origins as his origin story is not exactly great, if you look at GL: Emerald Dawn Hal is shown as a drunk jerk who also mistakenly kills his friends, then there is Geoff Johns' GL: Secret Origins which was already used as a template in the Ryan Reynolds movie.

Character of Hal Jordan always starts out as an imperfect reluctant hero in comics, yet people start complaining about that, so it's better to move ahead.

And, those who are in favor of using John Stewart as GL, how can you do that without introducing Hal as GL, even if Hal is completely ignored, a new reboot would be needed to show origins of John Stewart as Green Lantern.

So, why not make a sequel to GL movie and then in that movie introduce John Stewart as new GL ?

 

[DrCosmic]

That's pretty much what I would do. Give it five years, do a sequel from John's perspective, feature Hal and John as a buddy cop team dealing with Sinestro building his Yellow Lantern Corps, including Amon Sur, Arkillo, Kryb and Ranx with a climactic battle at Ranx vs Mogo.

Now it's possible to do a John Stewart movie and have Hal simply be a cameo, or mentioned in passing, but Hal's a good character, no reason to exclude him completely.

 

[Doc Ock]

I definitely enjoyed all the Oa stuff. That is where the movie definitely was able to show off its uniqueness and invite you into a fun and imaginative world, but I didn't feel the rest of the movie was able to keep it up to par with that material.

The Oa stuff was great, I loved seeing Tomar-Re for the first time. I thought Hal's time on Oa was really rushed though.

I certainly do see Mark Strong as the most amazing fantastic uber-awesome part of the movie.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I think if GL were released in the 90s, it would have been seen as a pretty decent superhero flick.

This. Basically. The film is a victim of the saturation of the Superhero market, the relative quality of the "genre's" best films, and the film's own routine and perfunctory nature. It's a victim of time. Were it to come out a decade earlier or something, it would've been favorably received, Because objectively, it's not a bad movie. It's technical qualities are decent. Decent cinematography, decent acting, decent chemistry between the stars. But it never rises above that threshold and attempts to stand out in a summer filled with your Thor's, your Cap's and especially your First Class's. It was devastatingly safe.

 

[747]

Subjectively, it is a bad movie though.

I wouldn't have liked it in the 90s either.

 

[Rum Runner]

This. Basically. The film is a victim of the saturation of the Superhero market, the relative quality of the "genre's" best films, and the film's own routine and perfunctory nature. It's a victim of time. Were it to come out a decade earlier or something, it would've been favorably received, Because objectively, it's not a bad movie. It's technical qualities are decent. Decent cinematography, decent acting, decent chemistry between the stars. But it never rises above that threshold and attempts to stand out in a summer filled with your Thor's, your Cap's and especially your First Class's. It was devastatingly safe.

I can't agree with your opinion on it's technical qualities. I thought the cinematography was dull and uninspired. Surprising considering the source material. And the set design was also dull and uninspired. As for the acting? Only Mark Strong was good for me. Reynolds was not bad. But Blake Lively was wooden and Tim Robbins gave a masterclass in phoning it in just for the paycheck.

If it was made in the 90s it may have been better. Because it would have forced the writers to be more original and imaginative instead of copy and pasting bits and pieces from other superhero films, in terms of the films structure.

 

[HR-PUFF&STUFF]

Green Lantern would have been lumped in with the likes of Steel, the Phantom, and the Shadow as bad/rushed comic book movies.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

I almost wish this was made in the nineties, at least they might not have been so inclined to rely is lazily on cg and actually build some sets for Oa and make an actual costume, or at least have an excuse for all the sh***y cgi because hey, it was the nineties.

 

[christinecooper]

I don't have much confidenc ein this movie.

 

[Rocketman]

Green Lantern was a fine movie. I loved it. It didn't take itself too seriously, and it was the perfect film for its (assumed) target audience: kids. By no means was this an "adult" movie, yet it's adults (adult fans, adult critics) who are hating on it. It seems invalid to me. I feel like the movie is "good" by default. Isn't that all we ask - that it be good? Everything needs to reach this Dark Knight / Avengers level now, which means those two movies pretty much killed the genre.

This is my whole problem with comic book films, and I have to throw a little blame at Nolan, even though he did nothing wrong himself; he just kind of spoiled the adult comic book fans. I was 10 years old when Batman & Robin came out (1997), and I thought it was the coolest damn thing on the planet. All of my friends were rattled by it, and were foaming out the mouths over Schumacher's two films. Imagine me, a 10 year old boy who loved Batman, sitting in the theater next to a 35 year old, and the 35 year old says, "This movie SUCKS! Worst movie EVER!" What gives him the right to say that? The answer is: Nothing. The movie wasn't for him, just like Green Lantern wasn't entirely for us.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Green Lantern bombed Hulk style and was as tepidly received. The movie was the butt of late night jokes and is seen as an all around failure. There is no way WB would be stupid enough to make a sequel, they might make another film but not a sequel. The few fans of the movie are fooling themselves if they think that Ryan Reynolds and crew will be invited back. Reynolds is going the way of Bana and Routh when it comes to playing a Superhero.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Rocketman having a terrible, idiotic opinion on something?

In other news the sun came up today.

 

[shogunrua]

Green Lantern was a fine movie. I loved it. It didn't take itself too seriously, and it was the perfect film for its (assumed) target audience: kids. By no means was this an "adult" movie, yet it's adults (adult fans, adult critics) who are hating on it. It seems invalid to me. I feel like the movie is "good" by default. Isn't that all we ask - that it be good? Everything needs to reach this Dark Knight / Avengers level now, which means those two movies pretty much killed the genre.

This is my whole problem with comic book films, and I have to throw a little blame at Nolan, even though he did nothing wrong himself; he just kind of spoiled the adult comic book fans. I was 10 years old when Batman & Robin came out (1997), and I thought it was the coolest damn thing on the planet. All of my friends were rattled by it, and were foaming out the mouths over Schumacher's two films. Imagine me, a 10 year old boy who loved Batman, sitting in the theater next to a 35 year old, and the 35 year old says, "This movie SUCKS! Worst movie EVER!" What gives him the right to say that? The answer is: Nothing. The movie wasn't for him, just like Green Lantern wasn't entirely for us.

I'm sorry but your point is very weak. So you say that "green lantern" is aimed at kids, which I agree with, but what do you make of pretty much everything Marvel Studios has put into screen ? You can't say they are aimed at adults. They are, however, entertaining films that everyone can find appealing, not just kids. A studio can't put hundreds of millions of dollars in a movie and just aim to a small part of the moviegoing crowd (wether it's kids or comic book fans). I'll give you one thing, Nolan (and Raimi, and Favreau and Whedon) did make a change in the way comic books are portrayed on film. They were respectfull of the source material AND put out stories that were engaging and "believable" character-wise. Basically they rendered the "eh you know it's just a comic book movie" argument obsolete.

Green Lantern is a schizophrenic and dumb movie, with characters doing dumb things after dumb things, and lacking a clear direction of what they wanted to tell and accomplish. And if you tell me "well they wanted to wow kids", then I'll reply that if Warner executives were seriously hoping to make money with this film, considernig how much money they've put in it, then they are even dumber than this joke of a movie.

Green Lantern deserves better than this

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Rocketman having a terrible, idiotic opinion on something?

In other news the sun came up today.

I wouldn't be quite that harsh but I don't get his post. GL's problem wasn't the light tone, it was the copy and pace script/ comicbook movie tropes and it coldly copied those tropes. I felt no heart in the film what so ever. The director, actors and even score were passionless. I can forgive a lot if I thought someone cared but they didn't. It's nothing but a vapid studio film that tried and failed to successfully copy Iron Man.

I didn't hate it but it's just a middle of the road film.

 

[DarkSovereignty]

And was it just me or did anybody think they were playing the superman theme whenever go was on screen lol, it like a really lame inversion of the same theme.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I wouldn't be quite that harsh but I don't get his post. GL's problem wasn't the light tone, it was the copy and pace script/ comicbook movie tropes and it coldly copied those tropes. I felt no heart in the film what so ever. The director, actors and even score were passionless. I can forgive a lot if I thought someone cared but they didn't. It's nothing but a vapid studio film that tried and failed to successfully copy Iron Man.

I didn't hate it but it's just a middle of the road film.

I guess was a bit harsh. But he pretty much used the tired excuse of "It's supposed to be for kids (which is wrong too)".

I'm a huge Green Lantern fan, and I still found myself severely let down by the movie. It was the movie I joined the hype for, and in the beginning the GL forums were the forums I spent the most time in. Even worse, I read the original script which was much better than what we got. It was disappointing the Geoff Johns forced his material in there when he became head of DC entertainment.

 

[The Overlord]

Green Lantern was a fine movie. I loved it. It didn't take itself too seriously, and it was the perfect film for its (assumed) target audience: kids. By no means was this an "adult" movie, yet it's adults (adult fans, adult critics) who are hating on it. It seems invalid to me. I feel like the movie is "good" by default. Isn't that all we ask - that it be good? Everything needs to reach this Dark Knight / Avengers level now, which means those two movies pretty much killed the genre.

This is my whole problem with comic book films, and I have to throw a little blame at Nolan, even though he did nothing wrong himself; he just kind of spoiled the adult comic book fans. I was 10 years old when Batman & Robin came out (1997), and I thought it was the coolest damn thing on the planet. All of my friends were rattled by it, and were foaming out the mouths over Schumacher's two films. Imagine me, a 10 year old boy who loved Batman, sitting in the theater next to a 35 year old, and the 35 year old says, "This movie SUCKS! Worst movie EVER!" What gives him the right to say that? The answer is: Nothing. The movie wasn't for him, just like Green Lantern wasn't entirely for us.

Its not the worst comic book movie ever, but its not a good movie either. Plot threads are introduced and dropped (Hal's nephew), characters feel really undeveloped (Carol, Hal's best friend, Hector Hammond all felt one note), the special effects look unfinished, the plot makes no sense (Parallax can kill several GLs, but somehow Hal can take him out in 15 minutes), other characters feel sidelined (Sinestro, Tomar-re and Kilowog did not have enough screen time), Hal was very unsympathetic, Hal left Oa way too quickly, Hal's supposed character arc was not well executed and really the whole thing felt like a poor man's Iron Man.

When I was 10 I liked all sorts of terrible TV shows and movies, but then I got older and realized those things were not good. Kids do not have developed sense of taste, so saying you liked something when you were 10 is not really a ringing endorsement and really saying that because its aimed at kids means WB can crank out a mediocre product is not good logic. Yeah, kids often like terrible TV shows and movies, but there are great TV shows and movies for kids. So I don't like the idea that a entertainment product can be lazy if its aimed at kids.

GL may not be completely terrible like say Catwoman, but it is mediocre at best. There are so many better Comic book movies then GL.