Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 10

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ok...I obviously get Rowsdower that you are making a joke. However, I felt like Thor grew up a little bit in his movie. That he actually learned something. He was changed by what happened to him, having to fight his brother.

Do you disagree? If you do, thats fine. I think my point still stands...why would the ring chose Hal?

I like your sig, Rowsdower. Morbid, but funny...
 
Why on Earth (pun intended) would they need to focus the sequel on space instead of terra firma...?

Look: Hal Jordan (and his successors) are the *human* Earthling Green Lanterns of this sector. Easily the majority of their comic book issues take place right here on Earth, and even the space issues almost always revolve around an alien threat to Earth.

"Too much Earth" isn't even remotely the problem with GL. The "problem" with GL is simply that mainstream audiences aren't interested. There is nothing innately WRONG with GL in terms of story, acting, directing or concept. It is what it is: Green Lantern. And, just like in the real world of comic fandom, Green Lantern is an acquired taste that not many people ever acquired.

How GL could have benefitted:
1) Make the movie more epic, by making it longer. The battle scenes were short as hell; the training sequence virtually nonexistent. Give Hal more time to interact with Kilowog, Tomar-Re and Sinestro....show more alien GLs....give Hal an introductory shakedown mission on some alien world that doesn't relate directly to the main Parallax plot.
2) John Stewart. Seriously. GL purists will howl, but honestly, those Hollywood liberal reviewers who cast about aimlessly looking for some legitimate reason to hate the movie would have been heaping nothing but praise on it if it featured a black movie star in the central role. And face it: there's a large portion of younger moviegoers who know GL *only* through the Justice League cartoons.

The consensus (at least among the critics) is that Green Lantern is silly. The truth of the matter is that they made a film that only fans (and maybe some kids) could appreciate and that there are not enough Green Lantern fans to pay for this film let alone a sequel. Had they made it like a "Star Wars" and focused more on space scenes (that could have been done by adding a space mission - kind of like they did in the Green Lantern DTV's) it would have more space based science fiction fans. The success of a franchise is not necessarily about staying closely to the source material but more about finding the right market and adapting your product to suit. There was plenty enough source material that they would have written something that could have lured in more SciFy fans and made this look better at the box office.
 
The success of this franchise was about being good. It wasn't. I hoped it would be but damn, it just wasn't.
 
Just saw this on Monday. I was really excited for this, but it wasn't as good as I had hoped. But in no way did I think it was terrible. Screw the critics. I had fun and enjoyed it. (gave it a 7. A 7.5 is more exact) I loved how it opened. Sci-fi openess is something I love(being a sci-fi person usually). Aliens galore! Although I felt the whole time something was missing and the music would sometimes seem off. The effects were alot better than I intially thought they were going to be. Tomar-Re was the coolest. :D

I'd love to see a sequel that goes beyond this.
 
I've heard plenty of GL fans complain about it so even if WB made GL for fans only they appeared to have done a **** job of that too.
 
Like every movie? :huh:

Yep. I have always said that whether a film is good or bad is subjective. What matters more is if it was successful or not. It appears that "Green Lantern" was film made for kids and Green Lantern fans since they enjoyed it the most. It just so happens that there aren't enough kids and Green Lantern fans to pay for a film like this one. That was their mistake.
 
Yep. I have always said that whether a film is good or bad is subjective. What matters more is if it was successful or not. It appears that "Green Lantern" was film made for kids and Green Lantern fans since they enjoyed it the most. It just so happens that there aren't enough kids and Green Lantern fans to pay for a film like this one. That was their mistake.

So you have to wonder what it is about a movie that makes so many subjectively dislike it and not recommend it. In this case...being a bad movie may be a big part of it.
 
Last edited:
It was not a bad movie.

Even if it isn't, GL was set out to make alot of money, given its huge budget + marketing, and clearly it fell short of its goal.
 
Ok...I obviously get Rowsdower that you are making a joke. However, I felt like Thor grew up a little bit in his movie. That he actually learned something. He was changed by what happened to him, having to fight his brother.

Do you disagree? If you do, thats fine. I think my point still stands...why would the ring chose Hal?

I like your sig, Rowsdower. Morbid, but funny...

It was a bit of a joke, but I think the point is valid. Both Hal and Thor are arrogant jerks at the beginning of each movie. But someone or something (the ring or Odin) knew that each of them had a hero deep down inside. I think that by the end they both learned something. And in both cases, you could see glimpses of the men they truly were (or truly could be).

In Hal's case, you see him instantly jump into the wreckage of Abin's ship and try to save him. You see him outfly the drones, partially out of his own overconfidence but also (I think) because of the old John Henry concept: a machine is no replacement for a human being (because humans have willpower). And he ultimately defeats Parallax because his willpower allows him to overcome his fears of failure.

Maybe they could have given us more glimpses, but this movie has been accused of beating people over the head with a slew of other things, I can't really blame them for not going overboard in this respect.
 
The whole "This should have taken place in space more" thing is valid to a certain point, but not in an origin film. There were quite a few elements that took place in space for a film that is introducing this concept. The sequel should certainly have some more space action, but I thought there was plenty for an origin story.

I don't really think general audiences refuse to go to movies because they are not terribly well written or executed. I don't think they listen to critics that much either, or poo poo cliches as much as fanboys do. Or scads and scads of other movies wouldn't make much money. My guess is that Green Lantern, for whatever reason, despite a relatively popular leading man in Ryan Reynolds, just didn't appear dynamic and exciting enough for a lot of people to give it a chance. And maybe a little silly.
 
That explains it's opening weekend but bad word of mouth explains that 66% drop. Thats highly unsual for a non-sequel.
 
It was not a bad movie.
Nope, I found it quite enjoyable. Sort of in the way (God forgive me) I found the Fantastic Four films enjoyable. Not alot of thought but pure fun.
 
That explains it's opening weekend but bad word of mouth explains that 66% drop. Thats highly unsual for a non-sequel.

I'm pretty sure that a little Disney-Pixar film called "Cars 2" explains that 66% drop adequately.

The competition is absolutely fierce this summer, with no single movie holding a #1 spot for more than 2 weeks, tops, this year. (So far, only three movies in 2011 have managed to eke out 2 consecutive #1 weeks: Thor, Rio, and Hop).
 
I'm pretty sure that a little Disney-Pixar film called "Cars 2" explains that 66% drop adequately.

True, Cars 2 was always going to drop it down. But it even came in below Bad Teacher. Also, how do you explain the 23% drop from Friday to Saturday on it's opening weekend? I'd say bad WOM had a lot to do with that
 
There we have it. Green Lantern's title was too long.

This just in:
Marvel Studios has just announced that "Captain America: The First Avenger" has been retitled "CA." :word:


...wait:
...this just in, also: millions leave the much-anticipated Captain America movie (recently retitled "CA") in great confusion, complaining that not a single scene even took place in California
 
So you have to wonder what it is about a movie that makes so many subjectively dislike it and not recommend it. In this case...being a bad movie may be a big part of it.

How many?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,265
Messages
22,075,974
Members
45,876
Latest member
Pducklila
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"