Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 9

[KalMart]

For Spider-Man 2? Execution, even if I found the logic behind the action illogical. Still, Spider-Man 2 worked like gangbusters on me...which has always been odd because I absolutely, positively loathe the first Spider-Man film.

Trust me, I was crushed after Spider-Man because I was ready for a Spider-Man film for a long time...to the point that I almost DIDN'T see Spider-Man 2 when it was released because of my reaction to the first film.

Train sequence? Still one of the absolute best action sequence of the genre, 7 years later.

I still think plenty of people/critics/etc can 'get' GL just fine as long as it's presented in a way that they'll enjoy getting it...just as much as any other superhero, or almost as much so it's too close to call.

Now...if one were to surmise that GL, as a concept, runs a higher risk of being ridiculed if it DOESN'T deliver....because of the big green shapes/less familiarity or what have you....there might be something to that.

 

[J.Howlett]

Listen, I know bad films. I even own a few as pure guilty pleasures from my youth.

But Green Lantern isn't bad. It just isn't. If you want to call it middle of the road. Okay. Mediocre. Sure.

But the outright hatred towards this film, I just don't see it. Maybe if I had read the comic in my youth, I'd feel differently but as somewhat of a newbie to the mythos through the two animated films, I get what they were trying to establish with this film.

The second half character arcs don't gel. There's no debate on that but it doesn't drag the film down, for me, considering the rest of the picture. Yes, it's a bit rushed to get to the end where Hector Hammond's demise doesn't have the emotional impact that the film desires but there's just too many good parts to this film to completely wash one's hands of it.

I'm just at a loss as to why this film is getting torn apart like it is. It's in the middle of the pack in this genre. It should've been more. But, not at this level of hatred does this film deserve.

I just don't get it.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Listen, I know bad films. I even own a few as pure guilty pleasures from my youth.

But Green Lantern isn't bad. It just isn't. If you want to call it middle of the road. Okay. Mediocre. Sure.

But the outright hatred towards this film, I just don't see it. Maybe if I had read the comic in my youth, I'd feel differently but as somewhat of a newbie to the mythos through the two animated films, I get what they were trying to establish with this film.

The second half character arcs don't gel. There's no debate on that but it doesn't drag the film down, for me, considering the rest of the picture. Yes, it's a bit rushed to get to the end where Hector Hammond's demise doesn't have the emotional impact that the film desires but there's just too many good parts to this film to completely wash one's hands of it.

I'm just at a loss as to why this film is getting torn apart like it is. It's in the middle of the pack in this genre. It should've been more. But, not at this level of hatred does this film deserve.

I just don't get it.

It is not an out and out bad film. I've said that from the beginning and I stick to that now. But it was the perfect storm of mediocre quality, overdone marketing and high expectations (I don't want to copy paste the whole thing here, for further clarification see: http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2011/06/15/pietros-movie-review-green-lantern )

It just.. didn't stand a chance in the 2011 summer movie season being "ok"

 

[Karelia]

Listen, I know bad films. I even own a few as pure guilty pleasures from my youth.

But Green Lantern isn't bad. It just isn't. If you want to call it middle of the road. Okay. Mediocre. Sure.

But the outright hatred towards this film, I just don't see it. Maybe if I had read the comic in my youth, I'd feel differently but as somewhat of a newbie to the mythos through the two animated films, I get what they were trying to establish with this film.

The second half character arcs don't gel. There's no debate on that but it doesn't drag the film down, for me, considering the rest of the picture. Yes, it's a bit rushed to get to the end where Hector Hammond's demise doesn't have the emotional impact that the film desires but there's just too many good parts to this film to completely wash one's hands of it.

I'm just at a loss as to why this film is getting torn apart like it is. It's in the middle of the pack in this genre. It should've been more. But, not at this level of hatred does this film deserve.

I just don't get it.

After the movies, me and my friends agreed that it was nowhere near as bad as the critics were making it out to be. It's definitely not the most epic super hero movie like we hoped it would be, but it's no Batman & Robin. Kinda confused with the hatred as well.

Critics- Why so serious?

 

[KalMart]

Listen, I know bad films. I even own a few as pure guilty pleasures from my youth.

But Green Lantern isn't bad. It just isn't. If you want to call it middle of the road. Okay. Mediocre. Sure.

I'm not calling it good or bad. I'm saying that IF it's good/sucessful or bad...what would you attribute that goodness/badness to? I think what counts most is how it's made, less who/what it's about.

But the outright hatred towards this film, I just don't see it. Maybe if I had read the comic in my youth, I'd feel differently but as somewhat of a newbie to the mythos through the two animated films, I get what they were trying to establish with this film.

The second half character arcs don't gel. There's no debate on that but it doesn't drag the film down, for me, considering the rest of the picture. Yes, it's a bit rushed to get to the end where Hector Hammond's demise doesn't have the emotional impact that the film desires but there's just too many good parts to this film to completely wash one's hands of it.

I'm just at a loss as to why this film is getting torn apart like it is. It's in the middle of the pack in this genre. It should've been more. But, not at this level of hatred does this film deserve.

I just don't get it.

Again, I think that movies that have high budgets and are clearly intended to be big blockbusters open themselves up to heavier criticism if they fall short. For some, being 'just okay' or so-so is almost worse than being horrible...you could easily dismiss horrible, especially if it looks like it never had a chance anyway. But okay/mediocre, for something that wants to be a really successful and has the ingredients/money/potential, but somehow shanks it? That frustration of having it but not 'nailing' it can feel worse...and I think that it can end up 'sicking the hounds' on something that in and of itself may not be so 'sick-worthy'. If that makes any sense.

If you like it though, you shouldn't let it bother you.

 

[J.Howlett]

The bothering comes when everyone gives a similar film a pass. Iron Man 2 got a pass and I'd argue that it's worse than Green Lantern given the film that came before it.

 

[KRIM]

Well, Batman & Robin made almost $300 million despite it being complete crap. Sure, it was the lowest grossing Batman film, but it still made a lot of money.

It was neither a critical nor financial success. So it's rather unrelated to my statement in any fashion.

It is not an out and out bad film. I've said that from the beginning and I stick to that now. But it was the perfect storm of mediocre quality, overdone marketing and high expectations (I don't want to copy paste the whole thing here, for further clarification see: http://www.dailyblam.com/news/2011/06/15/pietros-movie-review-green-lantern )

Mediocre quality doesn't make a film bad?

 

[S.A.A.D.]

People aren't giving GL a pass because they think that it's 'formulaic' yet they have given a pass to other comic book movies and non comic book movies that are 'formulaic'.

 

[KalMart]

The bothering comes when everyone gives a similar film a pass. Iron Man 2 got a pass and I'd argue that it's worse than Green Lantern given the film that came before it.

I dunno, Iron Man 2 was good. If GL really is as good as IM2, then yeah, something's up. But if you don't let it bother you that they don't like GL, it shouldn't bother you who they give a pass to either.

 

[Poni_Boy]

The bothering comes when everyone gives a similar film a pass. Iron Man 2 got a pass and I'd argue that it's worse than Green Lantern given the film that came before it.

Iron Man 2 was not a bad film, it was marketed and released wrong. Marvel's original plan was to release Thor the year after Iron Man, then IM@ and Cap this summer. That would have acted as a solid segway to The Avengers movie (which is what IM2's purpose was, especially with all the Cap tie ins). Due to the major delays on Thor they chose to swap it's release with IM2. IMO, though I loved the hell out of the movie, bad move

 

[J.Howlett]

I had never heard that, Poni. That's...interesting.

 

[EML420]

To be honest I mean really honest I like Iron man 2 more than the first one there I said it hopefully this post wont hurt my future stance on movies. Green Lantern im really mixed on this I mean for 300 Mill I was expecting so much more.

 

[Chewy]

Yeah IIRC Marvel wanted Thor and Ant-Man to be their 2009 films. However the writers' strike delayed both and they decided to rush IM2 through production because they NEEDED product (due to their financial arrangement with Merrill Lynch)

 

[Poni_Boy]

I had never heard that, Poni. That's...interesting.

I came into this industry a little over a year ago, but only in the past 6 months or so did I start finding out how convoluted film production and marketing is. It really opened my eyes

 

[Weadazoid]

At that time Thor was still Marvels LotR....... with perhaps little to no ties to the Avengers.....


What we got was a mixture of mythos and the 'real world' that Iron Man and TIH exist in.....



I have to admitt the idea of seeing Thor go toe to toe with the green behemoth if even only breifly makes me smile

 

[Venom'sDad]

Look, GL is not Spider-Man; so lets end that debate right now. Overall, GL was not a bad film. True, for $300 mil, I expect more... especially a more cohesive story; but come on, it was not as terrible as many critics made it out to be. Much better than SR imho.

If anything, what I found greatly disappointing was Parallax cartoonish look and simple reason of being(the escape). I wish we would have gotten a little more of the dynamic between GL & Sinestro given where that is eventually heading. I am glad they chose the route they took with Hector... making him a great engineer for a company lobbying his Senator father; over him being just a low-tier criminal. That was an improvement; should have made him more deadlier or more threating. However, his role fit what they wanted to use him for.

I still feel that Ryan was miscast. GL is not the wise cracking funny guy, and Ryan was just being Ryan, not Hal Jordan. That's what I got from his characterization of Hal. The film could have been edited longer to give us a little more character development of the Corps members, and serious training(not give up so easily). Definitely left the theater with much to be desired; but, it was not a bad film. Mark Strong definitely stole the show...would have love to see more of him and his path to betrayal.

 

[Poni_Boy]

People aren't giving GL a pass...

Please stop there. That's the problem, why should we give ANY movie a free pass? Is this 1990 when only a tiny percentage of movies being made had anything to do with comic book properties?

X-Men started a new era of comic book movies, then Iron Man raised the bar again, followed by The Dark Knight. Why do we have to "settle" for anything? This summer alone we have five comic book films, do we automatically give them all credit just for being made?

I guarantee you if Cowboys & Aliens bombs critically and financially like Green Lantern did only a vry small number of people (if any) would ask others to give it a "free pass"

 

[chiefchirpa]

It absolutely perplexes me there are people out there that are convinced concept or brand name strength alone, are able to carry any film to huge success -- in spite of content.

I didn't think you could possibly be that disillusioned.

Welcome to the world of comic book fanboys. t:

 

[Marvin]

Iron Man 2 was not a bad film, it was marketed and released wrong. Marvel's original plan was to release Thor the year after Iron Man, then IM@ and Cap this summer. That would have acted as a solid segway to The Avengers movie (which is what IM2's purpose was, especially with all the Cap tie ins). Due to the major delays on Thor they chose to swap it's release with IM2. IMO, though I loved the hell out of the movie, bad move

that would have made the after the credits scene on IM2 pretty hilarious

 

[Poni_Boy]

that would have made the after the credits scene on IM2 pretty hilarious

LOL yeah but that (and Coulson's involvement) were added after the change. It was supposed to be solely Captain America and Avengers nods. Script re-writes in comic book films tend to forebode ill reception

 

[S.A.A.D.]

Please stop there. That's the problem, why should we give ANY movie a free pass? Is this 1990 when only a tiny percentage of movies being made had anything to do with comic book properties?

X-Men started a new era of comic book movies, then Iron Man raised the bar again, followed by The Dark Knight. Why do we have to "settle" for anything? This summer alone we have five comic book films, do we automatically give them all credit just for being made?

I guarantee you if Cowboys & Aliens bombs critically and financially like Green Lantern did only a vry small number of people (if any) would ask others to give it a "free pass"

I honestly wasn't trying to say that people should give GL a pass just for the hell out of it, all I meant was that if people are going to criticize it for being formulaic then they should criticize the movies that they dug for being formulaic and not let them get away with it as well. I understand why people have issues with the GL movie and am capable of putting myself in their shoes. You are absolutely right when you say that no movie should get a pass.

 

[The Morningstar]

Ugh. People aren't hating GL just because it uses formulas. ALL MOVIES USE FORMULAS AND CLICHES.

It's the execution. Execution is all that matters. GL failed to execute.

 

[mcallima]

And I have said before, the audience applauded in the theater I was in when the film was over (just like other reports). How can I be sure that you haven't caved in to the opinions of the critics? I certainly can't tell.

I can assure you, completely and honestly, that's not the case. I've followed this film for two years, "Constructing Green Lantern" sits on my shelf, and I did my best to build buzz with my friends. I definitely wanted to love this flick. I don't exactly bow to popular opinion either, as I think The Dark Knight was a mess of an adaptation.

For the first 30 minutes, I thought the critics were insane. But then we settled into a movie that was just trying to get from point A to point B with little build up, had unbelievable character development, poor pacing, and AWFUL dialogue. Then, we get to a finale that would have been insanely cool if a) it had been properly built up to, and b) didn't make the Corps look totally impotent. People are free to like the movie all they want, but it disappointed me greatly. I just hope that the franchise gets a chance to redeem itself.

 

[EML420]

Green Lantern it is what it is. Im assuming this is going to become like Dardevil to people the way history remebers it if that makes any sense.

 

[The Morningstar]

The Directors Cut of Daredevil is leaps and bounds above this piece of crap. I mean, at least the main character had a fully developed arc and the two villains were used well.