Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 9

[Octoberist]

it felt off. the camera placements and cinematography gives off a cheap look. the funny thing is that if you asked me why, I don't have a clue. it just doesn't feel right. I also think the editing doesn't help nor the settings. I don't think New Orleans was fully utilized.

 

[Rowsdower!]

There's so much I'd love to say about how this movie didn't work, and could have been a lot better, but I honestly don't feel like putting the effort to back up my opinion of this movie because fanboys will instantly shoot it down, having the most ridiculous rebuttal. It's rather sad. We all need to just respect each other's opinion and not act as if one is better than the others.

For someone calling for people to respect each other, you sure have a funny way of going about it.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

it felt off. the camera placements and cinematography gives off a cheap look. the funny thug is that if you asked me why, I don't have a clue. I also think the editing doesn't help nor the settings. I don't think New Orleans was fully utilized.

I see.

 

[Spideyfan93]

This film had potential to be one of the greatest comic book films to ever grace the big screen, and you see that potential during the film. Oa and it's characters were amazing when they were there, and Ryan Reynolds was a great Hal Jordan...this mediocrity wasn't his fault.

It really annoys me how much better this film could have been. And that's what brings it down, the wasted potential.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Just curious, if Hector had been removed altogether and the villain plot was Sinestro's downfall, would more people like the film?

 

[BestGirl]

GL is not without its obvious flaws but come on, critics were clearly leaving a middle ground and moving towards bashing up a comic book based movie that is geared towards kids (as compared to earlier DC Comics movies do you want me to list them ?)

Are these DC Comics based movies Kid friendly ? Constantine, V for Vendetta, Batman Begins, Superman Returns, The Dark Knight, Watchmen, Jonah Hex, Losers, Red ?

Green Lantern was aimed at Kids and it worked from that perspective, it also stayed pretty close to comics (Secret origins), for its flaws it should have gotten an Average rating between 45 to 65 % but look at what majority of critics did RT Rating of 22 % I mean really what were they smoking ?

Only 25% of critics liked it, but they gave it an average score of 4.6/10, which it sounds like you think it deserved.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

For someone calling for people to respect each other, you sure have a funny way of going about it.

I know, I just get frustrated. It could have been said differently, but when it comes to debates, I honestly can't stand rebuttals that are irrelevant. I will admit, I could have said it differently, but I felt the need to get the point across. Sorry, but pointing out another movie's weakness to defend your own, when it has nothing to do with it is a weak defense in my book.

 

[BestGirl]

It took it seriously to a point. The main plot of the movie was still Magneto trying to turn people into mutants, which turns out making them into puddles of water. It's a silly plot. Makes me think of Grodd turning the world into apes, which may work for something a bit more tongue and cheek like the Flash, but in a more serious comic like X-Men...way too silly. Magneto himself was portrayed well, but his overall plan was stupid. That, and it had some horrendous dialogue. Even when it came out, I was critical of it.

How is Magneto's scheme any sillier than many other supervillain schemes? Most of the superhero movies I've seen have had pretty foolish supervillain plots, except for perhaps TDK and Thor.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I know, I just get frustrated. It could have been said differently, but when it comes to debates, I honestly can't stand rebuttals that are irrelevant. I will admit, I could have said it differently, but I felt the need to get the point across. Sorry, but pointing out another movie's weakness to defend your own, when it has nothing to do with it is a weak defense in my book.

Fair enough. And hey, no one says you have to like the movie.

For me personally, I would have changed a couple of things and maybe added some stuff, but I wasn't displeased with what we got. I wish more people would have liked it though, so I guess I wish we got whatever it would have taken to make that happen. But what the is, specifically, I don't know. We can't be sure that more Oa scenes or a different villain would have made critics or fans happy.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Yeah, I was one of the ones that didn't mind the first trailer, but even I had to admit that it wasn't as good as it could have been, particularly on the effects side. They would have done better to just show a couple quick finished shots of the costume, if anything.... or maybe just play up the more normal (but serious elements) like him putting on the ring and saying the oath. Give it more of a teaser feel, you know?

That last shot of him in the unfinished mask was horrrrrendous. It look like he had green slime on his face.

I think movie trailers should be like the first JAWS movie: the less you show, the better. It's all about build up to a "big reveal", which this movie lacked entirely. We saw 95% of the effects-heavy scenes before it even hit theaters. No wonder people were disappointed with the final product.

 

[StarkTheProdigy]

Fair enough. And hey, no one says you have to like the movie.

For me personally, I would have changed a couple of things and maybe added some stuff, but I wasn't displeased with what we got. I wish more people would have liked it though, so I guess I wish we got whatever it would have taken to make that happen. But what the is, specifically, I don't know. We can't be sure that more Oa scenes or a different villain would have made critics or fans happy.

Thank you. Yeah I didn't hate the movie, in my review, I actually pointed out things I really thought was interesting (The back to back transformations of Hector and Hal) I just thought that was a unique way of dealing with that.

 

[Spider-Fan]

How is Magneto's scheme any sillier than many other supervillain schemes? Most of the superhero movies I've seen have had pretty foolish supervillain plots, except for perhaps TDK and Thor.

Not that many in more recent ones, and many sillier plots were in bad movies. The only plots from more recent comic films I can remember being silly (off the top of my head mind you) were Lex Luthor's Kryptonite continent, Green Goblin teaming up with Spider-Man to get some ill-defined power (though I love the movie otherwise), Jigsaw's ludicrous plot in War Zone. Those are the ones I can think of right now, though I am sure I'd come up with a few more if I had time. Magneto's plot is just very silly in that film. But, X1 had other points of criticism for me, so that is not my only complaint about the film.

But, I don't want to derail the thread into being an X-Men thread. So, I'll say my visitor's message page is open for further discussion on this, lol.

 

[Mysteryman]

I think Singer's first X-Men film is very overrated. It's a decent movie, but VERY flawed and silly when you actually examine it.

actually, it's my favorite with X2 close behind.
I thought it was the most emotional of the three.
And I liked the relationship between Hugh Jackman and Anna Paquin.

 

[Rowsdower!]

I think movie trailers should be like the first JAWS movie: the less you show, the better. It's all about build up to a "big reveal", which this movie lacked entirely. We saw 95% of the effects-heavy scenes before it even hit theaters. No wonder people were disappointed with the final product.

You know, that's a VERY good point. I understand the massive media blitz with this film (obscure character to the GA, poor reaction to the first film) but it's never a good idea to show ALL your cards. Though I like the film, I have to admit, the was very little that surprised me in the effects department. Of course, that's my own fault for watching so many trailers and TV spots.

 

[dnno1]

blade started in the 90's on a low budget.

i am talking about 2009-2011 and budgets over 200.

please

I you'll notice, dark_b, that's the only way those type of films make it. The Tyler Perry films are so successful because they are made for under $40 million and rake in probably three times that. On the other hand, though, Wesley Snypes and Will Smith are legitimate A-listers and can almost hold a franchise on their own.

That may be one of the issues with the Green Lantern franchise, though. From the looks of some of the comments made via social media, there may have been some folks who felt slighted because John Stewart wasn't in the film although he was a leading member of the Justice League during their cartoon run during the turn of the century. That might have discouraged a number of people from going to see the film.

 

[KalMart]

You know, that's a VERY good point. I understand the massive media blitz with this film (obscure character to the GA, poor reaction to the first film) but it's never a good idea to show ALL your cards. Though I like the film, I have to admit, the was very little that surprised me in the effects department. Of course, that's my own fault for watching so many trailers and TV spots.

They probably felt that it was all they could use to create 'buzz'. Subtlety doesn't really work in the blockbuster game, y'know...unless you're specifically trying to hide something in the actual story like with Super 8. And then....look at the film (GL). Did it really have very much to offer that wasn't generic, aside from its effects and the stuff on Oa?

THere were similar sentiments around Superman Returns...like the trailers showed too much, they were all too similar, etc. But then....look at the film. Aside from the two action sequences, what did it have aside from a lot of heartache and strained emotions? How the heck are you going to attract mass audiences to a Superman film with that?

Marketing does deserve its fair share of criticism here and there...but they can only work with what they've got. If you want to build up 'mystery' and intrigue...it REALLY helps if the film itself has got a lot of it to the extent that marketing can use a lot of material without letting the cat out of the bag. But if the film doesn't have it, you can't really manufacture that in marketing without running out of ammo really soon.

So those who felt that marketing 'lied' to them...if you were them, and you knew you needed to hit big on opening wknd to have a chance of making money with this film....do you really think it would have been better off being more 'honest' about the movie? Advertising it to be a rather run-of-the mill superhero story with some wisecracks here and there and just a little bit of space/aliens? Granted, it can tick audiences off and create bad word of mouth if they feel duped....but in a way, maybe they thought that they'd make more money overall by dupe-ing the opening wknd crowd into seeing it, rather than boring them away from it....because one way or another, it'd be clear after it opened how generic, etc. the actual movie is, marketing or no marketing.

It's like a lawyer defending you in court....you bet your butt he'll try to make you out to be a saint, even if you're not....because his job is to win the case, not tailor your public persona for the next ten years or what have you.

 

[dnno1]

They probably felt that it was all they could use to create 'buzz'. Subtlety doesn't really work in the blockbuster game, y'know...unless you're specifically trying to hide something in the actual story like with Super 8. And then....look at the film (GL). Did it really have very much to offer that wasn't generic, aside from its effects and the stuff on Oa?

THere were similar sentiments around Superman Returns...like the trailers showed too much, they were all too similar, etc. But then....look at the film. Aside from the two action sequences, what did it have aside from a lot of heartache and strained emotions? How the heck are you going to attract mass audiences to a Superman film with that?

Marketing does deserve its fair share of criticism here and there...but they can only work with what they've got. If you want to build up 'mystery' and intrigue...it REALY helps if the film itself has got a lot of it to the extent that marketing can use a lot of material without letting the cat out of the bag. But if the film doesn't have it, you can't really manufacture that in marketing without running out of ammo really soon.

So those who felt that marketing 'lied' to them...if you were them, and you knew you needed to hit big on opening wknd to have a chance of making money with this film....do you really think it would have been better off being more 'honest' about the movie? Advertising it to be a rather run-of-the mill superhero story with some wisecracks here and there and just a little bit of space/aliens? Granted, it can tick audiences off and create bad word of mouth if they feel duped....but in a way, maybe they thought that they'd make more money overall by dupe-ing the opening wknd crowd into seeing it, rather than boring them away from it....because one way or another, it'd be clear after it opened how generic, etc. the actual movie is, marketing or no marketing.

It's like a lawyer defending you in court....you bet your butt he'll try to make you out to be a saint, even if you're not....because his job is to win the case, not tailor your public persona for the next ten years or what have you.

They spent too much money on Superman Returns. Furthermore, I want to believe that there were too many people that disliked the character and opted to see something else. That's not to mention the changes they made to the character (a dead beat dad who didn't once hold the American Flag in the film) that a lot of folks didn't like.

 

[Rowsdower!]

They spent too much money on Superman Returns. Furthermore, I want to believe that there were too many people that disliked the character and opted to see something else. That's not to mention the changes they made to the character (a dead beat dad who didn't once hold the American Flag in the film) that a lot of folks didn't like.

What character?

Hell, I could have lived with the deadbeat dad thing if I didn't feel like Superman was nothing more than a mute who enters the picture whenever something gigantic needs to be lifted.

 

[dnno1]

What character?..

Superman, of course.

Hell, I could have lived with the deadbeat dad thing if I didn't feel like Superman was nothing more than a mute who enters the picture whenever something gigantic needs to be lifted.

But there were a great number of people (with conservative values) who frowned upon that point. He's supposed to be a role model and then when he finds out that he fathered an illegitimate child, instead of doing the right thing, he just says "I'll be around." That showed a little callousness towards family values.

 

[KalMart]

They spent too much money on Superman Returns.

And on GL, it seems.

Furthermore, I want to believe that there were too many people that disliked the character and opted to see something else. That's not to mention the changes they made to the character (a dead beat dad who didn't once hold the American Flag in the film) that a lot of folks didn't like.

I honestly think they would have rolled with those elements a bit better if the overall story/movie was somehow more enjoyable and energetic...if one can imagine being so with those elements. Put it this way..and granted, this was 20 years back....in Superman II, Supes gave up his powers and responsibility for a roll in the hay with Lois. It's hard to think of anything less-Supermanly than that. Yet, people as a whole still enjoyed the movie with its action et al.

But again...it lies with the movie. Marketing can only do so much with the content they're given to work with....and sometimes, they're forced to do too much, just to give their product a chance.

 

[JAK®]

But there were a great number of people (with conservative values) who frowned upon that point. He's supposed to be a role model and then when he finds out that he fathered an illegitimate child, instead of doing the right thing, he just says "I'll be around." That showed a little callousness towards family values.

Yeah, he should have just told Richard to go away despite having raised the child lovingly for 5 years. Family values and all that.

 

[Doc Phosphorus]

They were making the comic book movie movie kid friendly not Critic friendly, and from that point of view it was a good movie.

Are you implying that it can't be both?

Kid friendly movies are liked by critics just as often, as long as they're good movies. Like, every Pixar movie.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Superman, of course.



But there were a great number of people (with conservative values) who frowned upon that point. He's supposed to be a role model and then when he finds out that he fathered an illegitimate child, instead of doing the right thing, he just says "I'll be around." That showed a little callousness towards family values.

I knew you meant Superman. What I meant was, he literally had no character. When someone is that emotionally vapid, is it any surprise he's a crap father? THAT movie is a perfect example of writers that not only knew little to nothing about the character... they didn't even seem interested in him. It was like they couldn't wait to show you more scenes of Lex being evil or Lois acting like a b**ch.

 

[KalMart]

Are you implying that it can't be both?

Kid friendly movies are liked by critics just as often, as long as they're good movies. Like, every Pixar movie.

And Iron Man, and Spidey 1&2, for the most part.

 

[dnno1]

I knew you meant Superman. What I meant was, he literally had no character. When someone is that emotionally vapid, is it any surprise he's a crap father? THAT movie is a perfect example of writers that not only knew little to nothing about the character... they didn't even seem interested in him. It was like they couldn't wait to show you more scenes of Lex being evil or Lois acting like a b**ch.

Pretty sad, huh?