Green Lantern Script Review

[Keyser Soze]

Exactly.

Forget that they would actually imply that someone of any specific nationailty might actually be a criminal...

... but, the script is also guilty of assigning the Latino character to the class level of "inconsequential".

Drug dealer AND second class status as a character, even.

The indignity.

Thank you for totally missing the actual point I was making, and once again misrepresenting the issue. But hey, you got to do this - - so it's all good, right?

Don't sit at the grown up table unless you can keep up with what the grown-ups are talking about.

He's one dead, inconsequential dude. We will probably never be able to tell wheter he's latino or not. I doubt Hammond will go "Oh looky, a Latino!"

EXACTLY! This is what I'm trying to say! It's utterly inconsequential, to the point where the character's race is of no significance. Hence why it seemed pointless to even specify the ethnicity in the first place.

People call El Mayimbe ridiculous for getting pissed about this. But in truth, all you guys going on and on about it, and trying to paint some picture of bleeding-heart lefties where there is none, when there's so much more interesting and relevant stuff from the review to talk about, are equally ridiculous. Because, just like El Mayimbe, you're making a big deal out of nothing.

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

Ouch. You sure told me...

You should print that zinger of a post out and take it upstairs and show your mom and dad. I bet they'd hang it on the fridge for you.


In all seriousness, I'll try to be more uptight in further posts, so that you'll like me.

 

[dnno1]

Yes, he is.

A hothead (i.e. a prick) yes, but not a rogue (as in vagrant or criminal). The Latino Review article said nothing about Jordan being a villain.

 

[Webhead2006]

I think we should just stop the whole drug dealer/latino stuff and get back to the story of the film itself.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Ouch. You sure told me...

You should print that zinger of a post out and take it upstairs and show your mom and dad. I bet they'd hang it on the fridge for you.


In all seriousness, I'll try to be more uptight in further posts, so that you'll like me.

Contribute something that's worth the slightest shred of merit or note, and I'll like you fine. Still waiting...

 

[The Guard]

I think part of the problem is Latinos/Blacks being constantly demonstrated as criminals, and when theres only one prominent Latino and he's a criminal it attracts attention. maybe if there were more Latinos who are not criminals it wouldnt seem as bad

As a criminology major...there's a reason that many criminals are portrayed as "minorities". At least as of circa 2000, many criminals ARE "minorities". This is a stereotype that unfortunately has it's basis in statistical fact. Especially in larger, more urban cities. Now, are many criminals white as well? Yes, but look at the races and ethnicities that jails and prisons are full of. The poor, and the "minorities".

More than 6 in 10 persons in local jails in 2002 were racial or ethnic minorities, unchanged from 1996.

An estimated 40% were black; 19%, Hispanic, 1% American Indian; 1% Asian; and 3% of more than one race/ethnicity.

I guarantee you this all has some completely rational explanation like...Writer 1 has a Latino friend who needs his "movie break" or something.

So let's talk about the leaked Robert Smigel GREEN LANTERN script that was to feature Jack Black. While that's not what I'd want to see from a GL film, I personally found it hilarious. I thought there was some very clever comedy in it, along with the obligatory fart jokes. But the funnier side of Green Lantern could make a heck of a comic book, or even movie, if we weren't deprived of the serious side of the mythos.

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

Contribute something that's worth the slightest shred of merit or note, and I'll like you fine. Still waiting...

I understand you're probably upset because my joke that the Latino snuck into the script illegally was funnier than your telling me how I can graduate from eating at the folding table with the cousins, where there isn't a table cloth, we get paper plates instead of china, there's no center piece, and we only get Stove Top instead of the family recipe homemade stuffing... or whatever the failed metaphor was...

I'd probably be bitter and derail the thread, too.

So, I forgive you.


So, thanks for the hot man on man action that I wasn't expecting... that teaches me not to bend over in front of you... let's get back to discussing what really matters, which is whiny *****es not being able to handle a character having a non-issue identity in a mili-second cameo in a fictional film... unless all of this was your way of asking me if I would team up with you and a pet white tiger and go do magic together in Vegas.

It would be a lifestyle adjustment, but it might be worth the money we'd make.

 

[Crook]

Did I read something wrong, cause I could've sworn both of you were agreeing with each other a few posts back.

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

Did I read something wrong, cause I could've sworn both of you were agreeing with each other a few posts back.

Yeah, we actually were agreeing. Well, if contextual skills were in use.

He must have pegged me for someone who would PayPal my lunch money to him or something...

 

[Saint]

Hal Jordan is not being portrayed as a hotheaded rogue in this film although there are those at this forum who take offense to him becoming Parallax later on in a future film.

A hothead (i.e. a prick) yes, but not a rogue (as in vagrant or criminal). The Latino Review article said nothing about Jordan being a villain.

"Rogue" is not synonymous with "villain." In this instance it refers to one who misbehaves, is mischievous or difficult to control.

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

"Rogue" is not synonymous with "villain." In this instance it refers to one who misbehaves, is mischievous or difficult to control.

Then, is he... an "original maverick"? Now, I'm stuck with the horrific image of John McCain with a power ring.

And tights.

 

[Keyser Soze]

Did I read something wrong, cause I could've sworn both of you were agreeing with each other a few posts back.

Yeah, essentially we seem to think the same thing. But he misunderstood my original post and thought I was on the opposite side, and realising his mistake, decided to just go off on a tangent of insults towards me to avoid having to admit he was wrong. Sadly, it seems like he's one of these little annoyances that just like to be obtuse, and argue for the hell of arguing, context, viewpoints or actual relevance be damned.

Case in point: his last post. I read about two lines, then just skimmed the rest, because it was clear any actual coherent argument was being forsaken in favour of message board *********ion. So I won't be stroking his ego and fulfilling his desperate, transparent and frankly sad pleas for attention by addressing him directly any longer.

Moving onto what the thread is actually supposed to be about - discussing details of the script review...

I think it's a smart move making Hal somewhat a "prick" in the film's opening act. Even now, the character of Hal Jordan has an arrogance about him, and so I see no problem keeping that intact.

 

[Saint]

So, thanks for the hot man on man action that I wasn't expecting... that teaches me not to bend over in front of you...

You know you're clever when you're making gay jokes.

Wait, is clever the word I'm looking for?

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

Actually, I don't think I read your original post. I was being farcical about all of the reactions, in general.


And, instead of admitting I was wrong (?), I was distracted by being told I wasn't old enough to sit at the big people table.

And all I wanted to do was not take this topic seriously.

Now, I am under peer pressure to write my posts like they're Shakespeare.


And, even after all of this, I still think it's funny that it's an "inconsequential" character who is Latino, which is far more insulting than being portrayed as a criminal.


EDIT- I will also admit I was dead wrong in my response to all of this. I wasn't responding to any post in particular with the original post quoted by Keyser, but all of my juvenile crap afterward was absolutely wrong. I happened to be in a bad disposition when I read that I was an inconsequential child, and my response was utter garbage. Some days I can handle being insulted for no reason... that post just came at the wrong time... and that's no one's fault. The reaction was all me.

My apologies to Keyser, to everyone who had to read a page full of this banality, the mods, this site's wasted bandwidth, the Latino community for their suffering of the original indignity, and to Seigfried and Roy. Oh, and their tiger.

 

[dnno1]

"Rogue" is not synonymous with "villain." In this instance it refers to one who misbehaves, is mischievous or difficult to control.

So Jordan is not a villain (as I said before) and, once again I think there would be people who would be upset if he was. Why did you even bring that up?

 

[Saint]

So Jordan is not a villain (as I said before) and, once again I think there would be people who would be upset if he was. Why did you even bring that up?

Did you actually read what I said? I just explained that "rogue" is not synonymous with villain--which means that describing him as a rogue does not mean I am describing him as a villain. "Rogue" describe Jordan in that he has always been resistant to authority; he is difficult to control, he misbehaves and is known to be a rule-breaker. It has nothing to do with him being a villain.

In case you are still unlcear, let's review the conversation:

Saint: "Jordan is a rogue."

Dnno1: "He's not a villain, so he's not a rogue!"

Saint: "Rogue does not necessarily mean villain; it can refer to one who misbehaves, who is mischievous or hard to control, which Jordan has always been."

Dnno1: "What are you talking about? He's not a villain!"

Do you see the problem?

 

[Keyser Soze]

I will also admit I was dead wrong in my response to all of this. I wasn't responding to any post in particular with the original post quoted by Keyser, but all of my juvenile crap afterward was absolutely wrong. I happened to be in a bad disposition when I read that I was an inconsequential child, and my response was utter garbage. Some days I can handle being insulted for no reason... that post just came at the wrong time... and that's no one's fault. The reaction was all me.

My apologies to Keyser, to everyone who had to read a page full of this banality, the mods, this site's wasted bandwidth, the Latino community for their suffering of the original indignity, and to Seigfried and Roy. Oh, and their tiger.

Well, the apology is appreciated. I think I was in somewhat of a "bad disposition" myself in my initial response to your post, as I doubt I would have lashed out at such a post usually, and certainly wouldn't keep such a conflict going as long as I did. So I think it's best to say the issue's dropped, and just try and move on in an on-topic direction.

 

[IDrawDeadPeople]

You're beautiful! :heart:



On topic: The completely irrelevant non-character's race is completely inconsequential.

And, I decided I prefer the term "rogue" to "maverick" now that maverick has been forever ruined for me.

"Maverick" now officially means "old man" to me, so I can't use that for Hal.


Sorta on topic... I brought the initial idea up in another thread, but THIS one seems most appropriate... if a "critic" is going crazy over "dead criminal number 386" being a Latino character... I would really love to see what general audiences would do with an Alaskan/Asian called PieFace.

 

[Katsuro]

Look, you don't know that. Each culture reacts differently to issues like that. I can remember that members of the Muslim community was all up in arms over a film by the name of Mohamed, Messenger of God (also known as "The Message"), because they made a film about Mohammed (though was never shown in the film). "The Last Temtation of Christ" is another example. You can't just speak for all cultures just because you saw "The Dark Knight".

Techincally no one can speak for all cultures, since they dont all share one hive mind or something. Some latinos may be whiny *****es like El Miyambe and get up in arms cuz there's a latino drug dealer, and others just wont give a crap.

You seem to be implying that because this one Latino is up in arms about it, that the entire latino community is going to boycott the film. Who's stereotyping now?

 

[dnno1]

As a criminology major...there's a reason that many criminals are portrayed as "minorities". At least as of circa 2000, many criminals ARE "minorities". This is a stereotype that unfortunately has it's basis in statistical fact. Especially in larger, more urban cities. Now, are many criminals white as well? Yes, but look at the races and ethnicities that jails and prisons are full of. The poor, and the "minorities".

More than 6 in 10 persons in local jails in 2002 were racial or ethnic minorities, unchanged from 1996.

An estimated 40% were black; 19%, Hispanic, 1% American Indian; 1% Asian; and 3% of more than one race/ethnicity.

I guarantee you this all has some completely rational explanation like...Writer 1 has a Latino friend who needs his "movie break" or something.

I don't know what criminology has to do with story writing. Are you sure you are a criminologist? Your figures fail to mention that 36% were white. In fact the highest proportion of the prison population comes from both the white and black races. Thus, it is erroneous to conclude that most criminals are Hispanic (of which an even smaller number are drug dealers) since they are outnumbered by whites and African Americans.

Furthermore, the following two tables above came directly from Bureau of Justice statistical reports (see http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/cpus98.pdf and http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/jim07.pdf). They indicate that whites have been right up there in population along with their black cohorts. Also, this data only pertains to the prison population (of less than 3 million) in the United States (it doesn't even cover criminals who have not been incarcerated). Half the audience for this film will coming from foreign countries where they have a different understanding of the demographics of prisoners in jails. You are being very misleading, sir, with your post. What kind of criminologist are you anyway? You are trying to paint a picture that poses white people as superior sine (as you are impling) "white people don't go to jail as much as minorities" and that is not necessarily the case. This behavior is commonly known as racism and you have fallen prey to being guilty of it. I think we are better off not mentioning the race of the cadaver. There will be a lot less complaints if they do so.

 

[Katsuro]

It's funny. Reading this thread, you'd think people had never seen... well... any movie ever before.

Oh my god! A Latino drug dealer! Never before have I seen a film dare to portray a minority as anything less than a stand up citizen! This is absolutley unheard of!!!

So yeah, there will be an outrage by the Latino community over this movie just like there is every other movie with Mexican drug dealers. Which means, there wont be one.

 

[dnno1]

El Mayimbe has no credibility after his many bogus script report with terrible analysis.

That's a matter of opinion. What is a fact is that The Guard has no credibility for his bogus statistics.

 

[dnno1]

It's funny. Reading this thread, you'd think people had never seen... well... any movie ever before.

Oh my god! A Latino drug dealer! Never before have I seen a film dare to portray a minority as anything less than a stand up citizen! This is absolutley unheard of!!!

So yeah, there will be an outrage by the Latino community over this movie just like there is every other movie with Mexican drug dealers. Which means, there wont be one.

I guess the last one I saw was "Scarface", and he wasn't even played by a Hispanic. Really, it was more than likely the case were the Hispanic community never had the numbers to challenge these issues. Now it might be the case that they do.

 

[I Am The Knight]

This is great.

 

[Saint]

Your attempt to vilify Guard is a sad ploy, at best. Guard didn't say anything about white people being "superior," nor did he say that most criminals are Hispanic. Someone said that films too frequently portray blacks minorities as criminals, and Guard responded by saying that, statistically, a majority of criminals are minorities. You confirmed this by posting statistics that indicate the same.

The reason for this statistic, of course, has nothing to do with anyone being superior or inferior. It's simple: poor people are more likely to resort to crime. Minorities are more likely to be poor because decades of racism meant they did not have the same opportunities as the white majority. Even if they do have those opportunities today (and some will argue that they do not; that institutionalized racism still prevents it), it is still a greater challenge for them to surmount the conditions that were created by those decades of racism.

Or, more simply: racism created poverty among minorities, and even though racism is (mostly) gone, the poverty persists, which creates crime, which is why the statistics indicate that the majority of criminals are of racial or ethnic minorities.