Green Lantern vs Superman Returns

[The Endless]

Both were incredibly boring and had lame leads. But overall i think Returns is a better made movie.

 

[Grommers]

I've never got through Superman returns - It's bored me 30 minutes in, and I've turned it off everytime.

Green Lantern on the other hand, I was a fan of when it came out, and I saw this opening night..that's also the ONLY time i've watched this movie, and I remember leaving the movie disgusted.

To compare either or for me, is an injustice - one isn't terrible but is ridiculously boring, the other is just god awful story writing with over the top cgi.

Comparing these movies however doesn't do either movie justice, it's still apples and oranges on what each other's flaws are, however, Im gonna give it to SR being the better movie, only because there is hope it gets better as the movie progresses.

 

[Human Torch]

Numbers means jack**** as do reviews it's about one persons opinion, your own. There's no fact here in which film is better no matter what numbers you throw at it.

I mean you can't really think say the box office proves anything.

Superman had been a pop culture for 50+ years by the time SR came out. While GL was the first movie ever made featuring the character. The audience was warmed up to Superman, he had an advantage.

Thank you.QFT.

 

[flickchick85]

First of all, I don't care for either one at all. But while I agree that Returns is a better-made movie, if you forced me to choose one to watch right now, it would be Green Lantern. It's easy to watch that movie and imagine the better movie it could have been, so that's a little more entertaining for me, lol.

 

[Micromind]

I mean you can't really think say the box office proves anything.

Superman had been a pop culture for 50+ years by the time SR came out. While GL was the first movie ever made featuring the character. The audience was warmed up to Superman, he had an advantage.

This argument is not really applicable to GL's performance (or lack thereof) especially, after the success of Guardian of The Galaxy (first movie ever made featuring a bunch of characters in space.).

Also, GL was more or less in the same position (same amount of awareness in pop culture) as the first Iron Man which was successful, GL simply failed.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Your argument fails once again, as guardians of the galaxy was basically a sequel to a very well established brand

 

[Micromind]

Your argument fails once again, as guardians of the galaxy was basically a sequel to a very well established brand

Well established brand argument doesn't mean that any movie is "fail-proof", and I've also given the example of the first Iron Man movie as it was the first movie made by Marvel Studios and Iron Man was nowhere as popular as Superman was, still it was successful.

 

[Rorschach2012]

If sr faced the same disadvantages that GL did, it probably would've made around the same amount of money

 

[Flint Marko]

There isn't anything for me to like about the green lantern. I recently watched it just to revisit it, and my opinion was further solidified that there isn't a single redeeming aspect of that movie.
That says a lot, because a lot of movies I find to be pretty lackluster have some rewatchability or merit on further viewing. For instance I didn't enjoy man of steel, but damn if that isn't the best looking blu Ray I own. ASM 2 had great CG and the dynamic between Peter and Gwen was straight out of the comics. X-men 3 had some fun fight scenes and was, at the very least, an entertaining watch.
Green lantern was none of that. Every actor was phoning it in, the CG looked like vomit, the character motivations were non existent, the humor was obligatory and awkward, Parallax was the single worst bit of production design I've seen on any film ever, the list goes on and on.

 

[Loki882]

This is tough, but I think that GL is a bit better (but still not good). There was more that I liked in GL and some of the themes/characterizations weren't downright creepy/disturbing like they were in SR.

 

[Lantern Venom]

I have no idea how film makers can think the general audience can/will feel a sense of menace from a fully CG villain. Has there ever been a great villain in the history of live action cinema that was completely comprised of pixels?

How WB could have thought the space turd in GL would be a credible villain is anyone's guess. Same goes for Fox's galactic space cloud. Ugh.

Violator and Abomination for CBMs. It's fair to include General Grevious and Megatron if we're counting the larger fantasy genre. But I see your point--the list is indeed short.

 

[Lantern Venom]

There isn't anything for me to like about the green lantern. I recently watched it just to revisit it, and my opinion was further solidified that there isn't a single redeeming aspect of that movie.
That says a lot, because a lot of movies I find to be pretty lackluster have some rewatchability or merit on further viewing. For instance I didn't enjoy man of steel, but damn if that isn't the best looking blu Ray I own. ASM 2 had great CG and the dynamic between Peter and Gwen was straight out of the comics. X-men 3 had some fun fight scenes and was, at the very least, an entertaining watch.
Green lantern was none of that. Every actor was phoning it in, the CG looked like vomit, the character motivations were non existent, the humor was obligatory and awkward, Parallax was the single worst bit of production design I've seen on any film ever, the list goes on and on.

Even Mark Strong and Michael Clarke Duncan?

 

[spider-neil]

Violator and Abomination for CBMs. It's fair to include General Grevious and Megatron if we're counting the larger fantasy genre. But I see your point--the list is indeed short.

Violator, Abomination and Megatron are not credible villains at all. I think they all look terrible and lack the true menace of an actor playing a bad guy.

 

[Loki882]

Abomination was absolutely a credible villain. Megatron was as well, for the first movie (they really neutered him in the sequels). And GL by it's very nature is going to need a lot of CGI if you want to portray it properly. The aliens, Oa, the constructs, etc. It's just part of the deal. Heck even if they'd done Parallax completely right, then he would have been a giant yellow CGI space grasshopper as opposed to a giant yellow cloud of space Diarrhea.

 

[spider-neil]

Abomination was absolutely a credible villain. Megatron was as well, for the first movie (they really neutered him in the sequels).

Each to their own. We're going to have to agree to disagree.

And GL by it's very nature is going to need a lot of CGI if you want to portray it properly. The aliens, Oa, the constructs, etc. It's just part of the deal. Heck even if they'd done Parallax completely right, then he would have been a giant yellow CGI space grasshopper as opposed to a giant yellow cloud of space Diarrhea.

They could have had Parallax take over a human agent but chose to go the CG route.

 

[Loki882]

That'd be a terrible generic idea. Seriously, that's like Smallville-Darkseid levels of cheap crap.

 

[snpklsdmbldr]

I think both movies are "just ok" at worst and definitely not bad that comicbook nerds are trying to say over and over again.

but I think Superman Returns is the better movie.

 

[Flint Marko]

Even Mark Strong and Michael Clarke Duncan?

In any other movie their performance would have been regarded as marginal. Because they were in such a failure, they are given credit (too much I'd say) for actually showing up and giving some sort of effort.
I wasn't impressed by anything they did. They are both actors with a good presence, but I don't think they really did anything remarkable in their roles.

 

[Cobblepot]

First half of GL and middle from SR the rest was "ok".

 

[Lantern Venom]

Violator, Abomination and Megatron are not credible villains at all. I think they all look terrible and lack the true menace of an actor playing a bad guy.

We'll have to disagree on that. They're each designed to look menacing, and they each pull it off in their own ways. I've always been impressed with Violator in particular given that he was done in 1997, and his transformation scene was sublime.

 

[ctriis]

In any other movie their performance would have been regarded as marginal. Because they were in such a failure, they are given credit (too much I'd say) for actually showing up and giving some sort of effort.
I wasn't impressed by anything they did. They are both actors with a good presence, but I don't think they really did anything remarkable in their roles.

I have to agree with this. Mark Strong, Michael Clarke Duncan and Geoffrey Rush are/were all exceptional actors, but watching this movie, it felt like the actors/actresses didn't even believe in what they were doing themselves. The whole thing just looks like an amateurish production with a handful of talent lured in.

SR is one of the most boring films I've seen in the theater in the last decade, but it is a much better production, and personally I liked a few of the portrayals in the movie.

 

[Rorschach2012]

Lol did someone just say Violator isn't a credible villain? Whatta joke...

That dude scared the **** outta me when I was younger and the effects still hold up today. He's one of the best things about that movie

 

[The Endless]

If sr faced the same disadvantages that GL did, it probably would've made around the same amount of money

What disadvantages? You mean like being a **** movie? Green Lantern had an advantage over Iron Man. In that it had a much bigger production and marketing budget.

 

[Rorschach2012]

What disadvantages? You mean like being a **** movie? Green Lantern had an advantage over Iron Man. In that it had a much bigger production and marketing budget.

We aren't comparing Iron Man and Green Lantern though!

Green Lantern totally had disadvantages compared to Superman Returns. That doesn't need to be explained

 

[Flint Marko]

Green lantern had a much bigger budget than SR., and no previous continuity to address.
I'm not sure where this idea that GL faced disadvantages came from, it just isn't true.
EDIT: Nevernind just checked, superman returns had a 270 million dollar budget. WOW. Did not realize it was that high, that's insane.