Bruce Timm on Green Lantern #1 (circa 2002): “I really love the John Stewart ...
http://jl.toonzone.net/lantern/lantern.htm
http://jl.toonzone.net/lantern/lantern.htm
Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 9
- Thread starter Thread Manager
- Start date
- Status
Roose Bolton
Son of Katas
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2011
- Messages
- 19,511
- Reaction score
- 3,799
- Points
- 103
I'm aware that there are other lanterns. But Hal has been GL the longest,and is the most iconic within comic circles.making John Stewart or Kyle Rayner the title character in the first big screen adaption of the franchise would be like putting Jean-Paul valley in the first Batman movie.
Brian Braddock
R.I.P. '96 Y.N.W.A.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 15,646
- Reaction score
- 259
- Points
- 73
Totally agree, OB.
Let's take skin-colour out of the equation for a second (because Lord knows some seem to be making a massive deal about it) - just how would some folk feel if there was a Batman reboot but they featured Jean Paul Valley as Batman over Bruce? How could someone justify favouring a largely supporting character as the lead over the established main character who's been the main character for decades? My guess would be most would simply say 'why have they done that'?
My God, I'm having flashbacks to that ridiculously ignorant Twitter thread. Seriously, anyone making the case that John should have been the main character in the movie over Hal is like saying that Rhodey should have been the main character in Iron Man over Tony Stark. It's not a racial issue - it's simply a matter of who got there 1st and who's been the main, established character for longer. If there's a sequel, we'll undoubtedly see Stewart (although even then there'll probably be complaints that he isnt used right or something.............)
Let's take skin-colour out of the equation for a second (because Lord knows some seem to be making a massive deal about it) - just how would some folk feel if there was a Batman reboot but they featured Jean Paul Valley as Batman over Bruce? How could someone justify favouring a largely supporting character as the lead over the established main character who's been the main character for decades? My guess would be most would simply say 'why have they done that'?
My God, I'm having flashbacks to that ridiculously ignorant Twitter thread. Seriously, anyone making the case that John should have been the main character in the movie over Hal is like saying that Rhodey should have been the main character in Iron Man over Tony Stark. It's not a racial issue - it's simply a matter of who got there 1st and who's been the main, established character for longer. If there's a sequel, we'll undoubtedly see Stewart (although even then there'll probably be complaints that he isnt used right or something.............)
RoughNTumble
i m not desperate
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2011
- Messages
- 4,227
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Neither john nor hal have personalities, but I identify more with hal because he's white like me.
Is that racist?
Is that racist?
Blatant Insubordination: Leave Green Lantern Alone!!!!!
* June 19th, 2011
***“Blatant Insubordination” is a regular column published at Primary Ignition by Rob Siebert, editor and Fanboy Wonder. The views expressed here are his, and do not reflect those of the staff of Primary Ignition.***
*sniff*…and how dare ANYONE out there make fun of Green Lantern, after all the cast has been through!!! Ryan Reynolds went through a divorce!!! Blake Lively had nude pics leaked!!! Peter Sarsgaard got dentures after chewing all that scenery!! All you people care about is Ryan Reynolds and the CGI costume!!! HE’S A HUMAN!!! *huff huff* These people are just trying to make you fans happy, and you know, make a bunch of money…and all you do is write a bunch of crap about them!!! Green Lantern has NEVER had a movie before! EVER!!! LEAVE GREEN LANTERN ALONE!!! LEAVE IT ALONE!!! I’M SERIOUS!!!
*ehem* So anyway…
In all seriousness, I’ve been encouraged to talk about Green Lantern this week. As many of you know, the film opened to a lot of abysmal reviews. On Wednesday night I was horrified to see the film had garnered a average of 22 percent on RottenTomatoes.com. One reviewer said the film was worse than X-Men Origins: Wolverine, another said it was a classic example of what happens when you value CGI over substance, another said it completely killed any chances of us ever seeing a Flash or Justice League movie. So when Eric Stuckart, Seth Miller and myself saw the midnight showing this past Friday, we were prepared for the worst.
We were shocked at what we saw: The movie really wasn’t that bad. Certainly not the diced dog **** that many critics had made it out to be. Granted, it wasn’t fantastic, but it wasn’t horrible by any means. In his review, Seth Miller gave it a 7/10. I’d have gone with a 6 or a 6.5. Eric said he’d have given it about a 5. But I think we all went in expecting a 1 or a 2.
I suspect some (SOME, not all) of the reviewers, namely those reporting from a fanboy perspective, had a skewed perspective because the film either didn’t look like the Green Lantern movie they’d been picturing in their heads for years, or they were biased against Ryan Reynolds. When you put a character like Green Lantern on the big screen, or on ANY screen for the first time, you’re going to get a lot of heated opinions, because the fan base is very passionate. This is a character that’s underrated in the eyes of many, and fans DESPERATELY wanted him to get the awe-inspiring big-screen debut he deserved. The standards for this film were set ridiculously high.
So did GL get his grandoise debut? Kind of…
The movie had its share of shaky moments. A lot of folks are complaining about Peter Sarsgaard’s performance as Hector Hammond, a mad scientist who undergoes a horrific physical transformation as he becomes a telepath. In particular, there’s a scene where his head forcibly grows larger, and he violently screams out in pain. He might have gone a bit over the top and traveled into laughter territory. The entire Hector Hammond story arc is a bit awkward at first, because by the time we get into it, we’ve met all the other main characters, and Hal Jordan’s journey as a Green Lantern is well underway. It’s almost as if the film was saying “Oh, I forgot to tell you! There’s this other guy named Hector who knew Hal growing up, and they’ve kind of got a parallel path/yin yang thing going.” I suspect there was an earlier scene with Hector that was left on the cutting room floor.
Surprisingly, some of the reviewers were pretty easy on Ryan Reynolds. One even said his charm was the best part of the film. Personally, I think Reynolds did a fine job as Hal Jordan. He may not fit the image that some fans have of Hal in their minds, or what has sometimes been portrayed in the comics. But at the end of the day, Reynolds gave us a daredevil who was afraid to admit to anyone that he could be afraid. He shows us that if we’re brave enough to step up and face our fears, we can overcome them. That’s what Green Lantern is all about, isn’t it? Overcoming fear.
I think fans hate on Reynolds simply because he’s a talented, good looking, muscular movie star, who until recently was married to Scarlet Johannson. He’s got the life a lot of us wish we had. He doesn’t always have the most enduring screen presence. I certainly couldn’t watch Ryan Reynolds movies all day, but that doesn’t mean he’s not talented. He’s got good comedic timing, too. While he’s not my favorite by any means, I think a lot of the fans who are hating on Reynolds in the Hal Jordan role need to lighten up, and be a little more secure about their own looks and identities, if you catch my drift.
Having Parallax as the primary antagonist in the film made me nervous, because I was afraid Green Lantern was going to fall into the same trap Superman Returns did, and not give Hal anyone to actually fight. To an extent, that did happen. But the training scenes with Sinestro and Kilowog, as well as the emotional intensity of the battle with Parallax made up for it. That moment where Parallax is taunting Hal, telling him he’ll be responsible for the extermination of the human race, and that everyone he loves will die was really well done. You can’t put a heavier load than that on someone’s shoulders, can you? The way Hal got rid of Parallax was acceptable, though something of a bore. In the early part of the film, Parallax’s head also made be a bit leery. For some reason it reminded me of the aliens from Mars Attacks.
Blake Lively’s performance was a pleasant surprise, in that she wasn’t as wooden and bland as I was worried she would be (mind you, I’ve never seen her in anything else). She was no Margot Kidder, but she was fine. The only thing I can say against her is that she’s 23, and Ryan Reynolds is 34, so they don’t always look like a realistic couple. But I can look past that.
I still maintain the costume is fine. Is it different? Yes. But that’s the whole point. The costume is derived from the energy in the power ring, thus it makes sense for the costume to look like flowing energy. Heck, even the mask turned out better than it originally looked in the trailers.
All in all, Green Lantern was decent. But someone asked me today: Is decent good enough? In this case, I think so. I enjoyed Green Lantern. I enjoyed it as much as I did Thor, though not quite as much as X-Men: First Class (for my money, that film has the year’s top superhero film honor thus far). As of Sunday at 1:05 a.m. CST, the film has an average of 24 percent from critics on RottenTomatoes.com. But from viewers it has 65 percent. Still not great, but much better than you might read about it.
I truly hope DC and Warner Bros. don’t go the reboot route with the Green Lantern franchise. While it might not have been as successful as they were hoping, there’s so much more interesting territory they can explore in a sequel (did everybody stay for that post-credits scene?). We don’t need to tear the house down and start from scratch. This is only the first act. The story gets better from here, and if you show people that in a sequel, they’ll come back for more.
Front page image from nerdreactor.com. Chris Crocker image from focus.com. Green Lantern image 1 from buzzsugar.com. Hal Jordan and Kilowog image from cinemablend.com. Hal Jordan and Tomar Re image from The Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.primaryignition.com/2011/...lantern-alone/
* June 19th, 2011
***“Blatant Insubordination” is a regular column published at Primary Ignition by Rob Siebert, editor and Fanboy Wonder. The views expressed here are his, and do not reflect those of the staff of Primary Ignition.***
*sniff*…and how dare ANYONE out there make fun of Green Lantern, after all the cast has been through!!! Ryan Reynolds went through a divorce!!! Blake Lively had nude pics leaked!!! Peter Sarsgaard got dentures after chewing all that scenery!! All you people care about is Ryan Reynolds and the CGI costume!!! HE’S A HUMAN!!! *huff huff* These people are just trying to make you fans happy, and you know, make a bunch of money…and all you do is write a bunch of crap about them!!! Green Lantern has NEVER had a movie before! EVER!!! LEAVE GREEN LANTERN ALONE!!! LEAVE IT ALONE!!! I’M SERIOUS!!!
*ehem* So anyway…
In all seriousness, I’ve been encouraged to talk about Green Lantern this week. As many of you know, the film opened to a lot of abysmal reviews. On Wednesday night I was horrified to see the film had garnered a average of 22 percent on RottenTomatoes.com. One reviewer said the film was worse than X-Men Origins: Wolverine, another said it was a classic example of what happens when you value CGI over substance, another said it completely killed any chances of us ever seeing a Flash or Justice League movie. So when Eric Stuckart, Seth Miller and myself saw the midnight showing this past Friday, we were prepared for the worst.
We were shocked at what we saw: The movie really wasn’t that bad. Certainly not the diced dog **** that many critics had made it out to be. Granted, it wasn’t fantastic, but it wasn’t horrible by any means. In his review, Seth Miller gave it a 7/10. I’d have gone with a 6 or a 6.5. Eric said he’d have given it about a 5. But I think we all went in expecting a 1 or a 2.
I suspect some (SOME, not all) of the reviewers, namely those reporting from a fanboy perspective, had a skewed perspective because the film either didn’t look like the Green Lantern movie they’d been picturing in their heads for years, or they were biased against Ryan Reynolds. When you put a character like Green Lantern on the big screen, or on ANY screen for the first time, you’re going to get a lot of heated opinions, because the fan base is very passionate. This is a character that’s underrated in the eyes of many, and fans DESPERATELY wanted him to get the awe-inspiring big-screen debut he deserved. The standards for this film were set ridiculously high.
So did GL get his grandoise debut? Kind of…
The movie had its share of shaky moments. A lot of folks are complaining about Peter Sarsgaard’s performance as Hector Hammond, a mad scientist who undergoes a horrific physical transformation as he becomes a telepath. In particular, there’s a scene where his head forcibly grows larger, and he violently screams out in pain. He might have gone a bit over the top and traveled into laughter territory. The entire Hector Hammond story arc is a bit awkward at first, because by the time we get into it, we’ve met all the other main characters, and Hal Jordan’s journey as a Green Lantern is well underway. It’s almost as if the film was saying “Oh, I forgot to tell you! There’s this other guy named Hector who knew Hal growing up, and they’ve kind of got a parallel path/yin yang thing going.” I suspect there was an earlier scene with Hector that was left on the cutting room floor.
Surprisingly, some of the reviewers were pretty easy on Ryan Reynolds. One even said his charm was the best part of the film. Personally, I think Reynolds did a fine job as Hal Jordan. He may not fit the image that some fans have of Hal in their minds, or what has sometimes been portrayed in the comics. But at the end of the day, Reynolds gave us a daredevil who was afraid to admit to anyone that he could be afraid. He shows us that if we’re brave enough to step up and face our fears, we can overcome them. That’s what Green Lantern is all about, isn’t it? Overcoming fear.
I think fans hate on Reynolds simply because he’s a talented, good looking, muscular movie star, who until recently was married to Scarlet Johannson. He’s got the life a lot of us wish we had. He doesn’t always have the most enduring screen presence. I certainly couldn’t watch Ryan Reynolds movies all day, but that doesn’t mean he’s not talented. He’s got good comedic timing, too. While he’s not my favorite by any means, I think a lot of the fans who are hating on Reynolds in the Hal Jordan role need to lighten up, and be a little more secure about their own looks and identities, if you catch my drift.
Having Parallax as the primary antagonist in the film made me nervous, because I was afraid Green Lantern was going to fall into the same trap Superman Returns did, and not give Hal anyone to actually fight. To an extent, that did happen. But the training scenes with Sinestro and Kilowog, as well as the emotional intensity of the battle with Parallax made up for it. That moment where Parallax is taunting Hal, telling him he’ll be responsible for the extermination of the human race, and that everyone he loves will die was really well done. You can’t put a heavier load than that on someone’s shoulders, can you? The way Hal got rid of Parallax was acceptable, though something of a bore. In the early part of the film, Parallax’s head also made be a bit leery. For some reason it reminded me of the aliens from Mars Attacks.
Blake Lively’s performance was a pleasant surprise, in that she wasn’t as wooden and bland as I was worried she would be (mind you, I’ve never seen her in anything else). She was no Margot Kidder, but she was fine. The only thing I can say against her is that she’s 23, and Ryan Reynolds is 34, so they don’t always look like a realistic couple. But I can look past that.
I still maintain the costume is fine. Is it different? Yes. But that’s the whole point. The costume is derived from the energy in the power ring, thus it makes sense for the costume to look like flowing energy. Heck, even the mask turned out better than it originally looked in the trailers.
All in all, Green Lantern was decent. But someone asked me today: Is decent good enough? In this case, I think so. I enjoyed Green Lantern. I enjoyed it as much as I did Thor, though not quite as much as X-Men: First Class (for my money, that film has the year’s top superhero film honor thus far). As of Sunday at 1:05 a.m. CST, the film has an average of 24 percent from critics on RottenTomatoes.com. But from viewers it has 65 percent. Still not great, but much better than you might read about it.
I truly hope DC and Warner Bros. don’t go the reboot route with the Green Lantern franchise. While it might not have been as successful as they were hoping, there’s so much more interesting territory they can explore in a sequel (did everybody stay for that post-credits scene?). We don’t need to tear the house down and start from scratch. This is only the first act. The story gets better from here, and if you show people that in a sequel, they’ll come back for more.
Front page image from nerdreactor.com. Chris Crocker image from focus.com. Green Lantern image 1 from buzzsugar.com. Hal Jordan and Kilowog image from cinemablend.com. Hal Jordan and Tomar Re image from The Christian Science Monitor.
http://www.primaryignition.com/2011/...lantern-alone/
An Insensitive and Non PC Review of Green Lantern
(There are some minor spoilers in this) This is my review and rant of the highly underrated Green Lantern movie. Are the bad reviews uncalled for? Did I like the movie or did I agree with the other reviewers? Let’s see.
I saw the movie twice, once in 3D last night and once in 2D today. Well let us start with the acting. Some fan boys did not like the casting of Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) and Carol Ferris (Blake Lively) but I thought their acting and portrayal of the characters was spot on. I especially liked the scene with the two of them together where she recognizes that it is Hal under the mask. Kind of poking fun at idea of a domino mask hiding the identity of someone you know so well and kind of a swipe at the Superman/Clark Kent glasses thing. Some reviewers said they had no chemistry but in this scene and in the tower scene it showed their intimacy toward one another. Of course I thought the acting of Mark Strong as Sinestro was great, even though there was not much character development for him but just enough to give you an idea of what to expect from him in a sequel and the movie was not about him anyway. As for Peter Sarsgaard as Hector Hammond I think he portrayed a perfect creepy introvert that all of a sudden gets all this power. I was never a fan of the character in the comic and was kind of hoping when WB started making the movie they would have gone with Legion from Emerald Dawn I. But I think he serves as a decent villain along with Parallax for this first movie being an origins tale. All the other actors like Tim Robbins, Angela Bassett, Geoffrey Rush, and Michael Clarke Duncan were all great. And even Clancy Brown as Parallax was awesome.
Now for the script, unlike others I thought the tone, pacing, editing and story was good. It kept getting better as the story moved along. It showed only the points that had to be made and did not drag it out like The Dark Knight did. There is no reason to do that. I know some people wanted to see what drives Hal Jordan but what drives him is to overcome fear and save the Earth and the ones he loves once he realizes they are threatened. The movie succeeded in this. The fight scene at the end was pretty good, could it have been better maybe. But I found it much better than the fight scenes at the end of Ironman I and II.
On the jokes in the movie and on the cocky character of Hal Jordan, well Hal is former military and a test pilot that’s the way they act. He is not a moody guy whose parents were murdered by a thug, nor does he have a stick up his butt like Batman. He is the opposite of Batman in the comics, Batman being very dark and Hal being light. Also he did not have to hide who he is most of his life like Superman. In the comics Hal faces danger with a smirk on his face. The jokes he cracks in the movie are indicative of a guy who is like this and is 30 years of age especially in this day and time. I like that about him. The jokes were not cheesy at all except maybe the jokes that he intended to make light of the situation and he was having with his new found power. That is what I would have done under those circumstances. It was not overly cheesy and it did not seem unrealistic. There was also a scene that might seem cheesy when Hal was trying to act like a cop to Carol but that was him pretending to be what he thought an authority figure should act like. Remember he is new to this hero thing. It provided a good laugh.
About the FX I thought they were pretty good. The suit, the constructs, the look of the aliens and Oa were all great. The mask could have been better but even in the movie they kind of joke about it. The FX of Parallax was not great but was good. Nothing like the cloud Galactus in Fantastic Four 2 like some feared. And the 3D was probably the best post 3D I have ever seen.
The only major complaint I would have about this movie was the music score. It was pretty bad. A lot of times the score sets the tone for a movie and I think that is the reason people thought the tone was a little off.
Now for the Insensitive, Non PC rant portion. It has to do with why I think this movie got such bad reviews. Some of the things I have said this week about the reviewers of this movie (which I still believe) were that liberal Hollywood reviewers can’t stand this movie (Rolling Stone and Village Voice for example) because it has a cocky superhero that never learns humility. They always love superhero movies where the hero is flawed or is an allegory for how homosexuals are persecuted. I am not saying I think the movie was perfect but all I kept reading was they thought he is a too good looking cocky hero who does not show emotion and they don't like it, well guess what real men don't cry every 5 minutes like Peter Parker in Spider-Man 1,2,and 3. All the bad stuff they kept saying is exactly how Hal Jordan is portrayed in the comics. If you have read the comic and don't like it or old school cocky non Emo non flawed heroes or can't understand the concept of the ring or an intergalactic police force then you will not like this movie.
Or a lot of these reviewers were bashing this movie as soon as it was announced how much WB spent on it. Like these reviewers find it obscene that the studio spent $300 million on it and that amount of money should only be spent on an environmentally conscious movie like Avatar or it has to deal with some sort of social issues.
It also seemed these reviewers were trying too hard to go lock step with all the other reviewers just to say “Look at me I gave it a bad review as well, I can chop heads and be critical too.” Case in point some of the Junior Editors on this site who want to grow up to be big time Movie Reviewers. And after reading the other's reviews were trying to find anything to scrutinize. (Not really hating on the Junior Editors just making an Observation.) Even worse were the Marvel fan boys who have always been unsupportive of this movie, who have commented that feeling on this site many times and have now been saying in recent comments that “Oh I was so looking forward to this movie but it was awful.” You Marvel fan boys doing that are full of ****.
Something else I would like to say about the character of Hal Jordan to fans and non fans of the comic is that young Hal Jordan is a cocky joker in the comics. Some might say “no he isn’t“ or “that is Geoff Johns’ recon version” well you would be wrong just read Emerald Dawn I and II also read Green Lantern Vol. 3 from the late 80’s he has always been cocky and had a little problem with authority. Some might also say that Guy is the joking ass hole of the human Green Lanterns and that is also true. But one thing to understand about the human Green Lanterns that came after Hal was that each of them has a more extreme aspect of Hal’s own personality. Guy Gardner is the ******* side, John Stewart the Serious side, and Kyle Rayner the Creative side. Put all three of those together and you have Hal Jordan. And if you still don’t think he is a joker just look at some of constructs he makes like giant fists, springs and baseball bats. A Green Lantern’s constructs are indicative of the ring bearer’s personality.
I am a former Marine and while in the military my fellow Marines and I took our job very seriously but we cracked jokes quite a lot, we were pretty cocky too. Let me ask you who you would rather have on the battle field next to you the serious guy with a stick up his butt quoting rules and regulations, the guy off to side on his knees praying, the guy behind you crying about how much he misses his girlfriend or the joker who smirks at the coming storm? I will take the Joker any day.
In closing I loved the Green Lantern movie was it perfect no but what is. Both times I went to this movie everyone in the theater walked out saying they loved it. The first night I went to see it with my wife, best friend and his girlfriend they all said they had great time and the movie was good. To the critics your out of touch, most people don't want to go see a movie and get a message beaten over their head they go to be entertained and have fun. This movie does both of those.
Overall I give The Green Lantern 4 out of 5 stars.
(On a side note my best friend that went with me to see Green Lantern walked out during the first 20 minutes of Thor when it came out and snuck off to see a comedy instead he said he thought Thor was bad and Asgard looked cheesy. He loved Green Lantern though. I disagree with him about Thor but I do think Green Lantern was better.)
http://www.**************.com/fansites/demonsfansite/news/?a=39798
(There are some minor spoilers in this) This is my review and rant of the highly underrated Green Lantern movie. Are the bad reviews uncalled for? Did I like the movie or did I agree with the other reviewers? Let’s see.
I saw the movie twice, once in 3D last night and once in 2D today. Well let us start with the acting. Some fan boys did not like the casting of Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) and Carol Ferris (Blake Lively) but I thought their acting and portrayal of the characters was spot on. I especially liked the scene with the two of them together where she recognizes that it is Hal under the mask. Kind of poking fun at idea of a domino mask hiding the identity of someone you know so well and kind of a swipe at the Superman/Clark Kent glasses thing. Some reviewers said they had no chemistry but in this scene and in the tower scene it showed their intimacy toward one another. Of course I thought the acting of Mark Strong as Sinestro was great, even though there was not much character development for him but just enough to give you an idea of what to expect from him in a sequel and the movie was not about him anyway. As for Peter Sarsgaard as Hector Hammond I think he portrayed a perfect creepy introvert that all of a sudden gets all this power. I was never a fan of the character in the comic and was kind of hoping when WB started making the movie they would have gone with Legion from Emerald Dawn I. But I think he serves as a decent villain along with Parallax for this first movie being an origins tale. All the other actors like Tim Robbins, Angela Bassett, Geoffrey Rush, and Michael Clarke Duncan were all great. And even Clancy Brown as Parallax was awesome.
Now for the script, unlike others I thought the tone, pacing, editing and story was good. It kept getting better as the story moved along. It showed only the points that had to be made and did not drag it out like The Dark Knight did. There is no reason to do that. I know some people wanted to see what drives Hal Jordan but what drives him is to overcome fear and save the Earth and the ones he loves once he realizes they are threatened. The movie succeeded in this. The fight scene at the end was pretty good, could it have been better maybe. But I found it much better than the fight scenes at the end of Ironman I and II.
On the jokes in the movie and on the cocky character of Hal Jordan, well Hal is former military and a test pilot that’s the way they act. He is not a moody guy whose parents were murdered by a thug, nor does he have a stick up his butt like Batman. He is the opposite of Batman in the comics, Batman being very dark and Hal being light. Also he did not have to hide who he is most of his life like Superman. In the comics Hal faces danger with a smirk on his face. The jokes he cracks in the movie are indicative of a guy who is like this and is 30 years of age especially in this day and time. I like that about him. The jokes were not cheesy at all except maybe the jokes that he intended to make light of the situation and he was having with his new found power. That is what I would have done under those circumstances. It was not overly cheesy and it did not seem unrealistic. There was also a scene that might seem cheesy when Hal was trying to act like a cop to Carol but that was him pretending to be what he thought an authority figure should act like. Remember he is new to this hero thing. It provided a good laugh.
About the FX I thought they were pretty good. The suit, the constructs, the look of the aliens and Oa were all great. The mask could have been better but even in the movie they kind of joke about it. The FX of Parallax was not great but was good. Nothing like the cloud Galactus in Fantastic Four 2 like some feared. And the 3D was probably the best post 3D I have ever seen.
The only major complaint I would have about this movie was the music score. It was pretty bad. A lot of times the score sets the tone for a movie and I think that is the reason people thought the tone was a little off.
Now for the Insensitive, Non PC rant portion. It has to do with why I think this movie got such bad reviews. Some of the things I have said this week about the reviewers of this movie (which I still believe) were that liberal Hollywood reviewers can’t stand this movie (Rolling Stone and Village Voice for example) because it has a cocky superhero that never learns humility. They always love superhero movies where the hero is flawed or is an allegory for how homosexuals are persecuted. I am not saying I think the movie was perfect but all I kept reading was they thought he is a too good looking cocky hero who does not show emotion and they don't like it, well guess what real men don't cry every 5 minutes like Peter Parker in Spider-Man 1,2,and 3. All the bad stuff they kept saying is exactly how Hal Jordan is portrayed in the comics. If you have read the comic and don't like it or old school cocky non Emo non flawed heroes or can't understand the concept of the ring or an intergalactic police force then you will not like this movie.
Or a lot of these reviewers were bashing this movie as soon as it was announced how much WB spent on it. Like these reviewers find it obscene that the studio spent $300 million on it and that amount of money should only be spent on an environmentally conscious movie like Avatar or it has to deal with some sort of social issues.
It also seemed these reviewers were trying too hard to go lock step with all the other reviewers just to say “Look at me I gave it a bad review as well, I can chop heads and be critical too.” Case in point some of the Junior Editors on this site who want to grow up to be big time Movie Reviewers. And after reading the other's reviews were trying to find anything to scrutinize. (Not really hating on the Junior Editors just making an Observation.) Even worse were the Marvel fan boys who have always been unsupportive of this movie, who have commented that feeling on this site many times and have now been saying in recent comments that “Oh I was so looking forward to this movie but it was awful.” You Marvel fan boys doing that are full of ****.
Something else I would like to say about the character of Hal Jordan to fans and non fans of the comic is that young Hal Jordan is a cocky joker in the comics. Some might say “no he isn’t“ or “that is Geoff Johns’ recon version” well you would be wrong just read Emerald Dawn I and II also read Green Lantern Vol. 3 from the late 80’s he has always been cocky and had a little problem with authority. Some might also say that Guy is the joking ass hole of the human Green Lanterns and that is also true. But one thing to understand about the human Green Lanterns that came after Hal was that each of them has a more extreme aspect of Hal’s own personality. Guy Gardner is the ******* side, John Stewart the Serious side, and Kyle Rayner the Creative side. Put all three of those together and you have Hal Jordan. And if you still don’t think he is a joker just look at some of constructs he makes like giant fists, springs and baseball bats. A Green Lantern’s constructs are indicative of the ring bearer’s personality.
I am a former Marine and while in the military my fellow Marines and I took our job very seriously but we cracked jokes quite a lot, we were pretty cocky too. Let me ask you who you would rather have on the battle field next to you the serious guy with a stick up his butt quoting rules and regulations, the guy off to side on his knees praying, the guy behind you crying about how much he misses his girlfriend or the joker who smirks at the coming storm? I will take the Joker any day.
In closing I loved the Green Lantern movie was it perfect no but what is. Both times I went to this movie everyone in the theater walked out saying they loved it. The first night I went to see it with my wife, best friend and his girlfriend they all said they had great time and the movie was good. To the critics your out of touch, most people don't want to go see a movie and get a message beaten over their head they go to be entertained and have fun. This movie does both of those.
Overall I give The Green Lantern 4 out of 5 stars.
(On a side note my best friend that went with me to see Green Lantern walked out during the first 20 minutes of Thor when it came out and snuck off to see a comedy instead he said he thought Thor was bad and Asgard looked cheesy. He loved Green Lantern though. I disagree with him about Thor but I do think Green Lantern was better.)
http://www.**************.com/fansites/demonsfansite/news/?a=39798
EML420
It's only part time.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2010
- Messages
- 850
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 11
No Im not black but I identify more with Jon because hes black I identify better when the characters arnt white lol minorites ftw.
RoughNTumble
i m not desperate
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2011
- Messages
- 4,227
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
It's surprising that they had so much confidence a sequel might happen, while at the same time we kept receiving reports about the crappiness of the script.
Of course I never believed them, since latino review gave the script an A- in their review, and people kept saying it was good, but apparently they hacked it into pieces somewhere along the line.
Marvin
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Messages
- 19,564
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 31
this is bad writing imo
Last edited:
The Morningstar
Avenger
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Messages
- 10,017
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I don't think anyone is hating on Reynolds. He seems to actually be getting a lot of praise for this movie. Although most of the praise is "it wasn't his fault, the script let him down".
This is from another thread.
How much are the negative reviews going to effect Green Lantern’s profits?
With Green Lantern’s release this week amongst mostly negative reviews, does it stand a chance at the box office? It would not bode well for future DCcomic book movies if this movie bombs. But historically, does the quality of the comic book movies affect their ability to make money?
http://media.**************.com/images/users/uploads/33534/lantern2.jpg
With plans of a Justice League movie in the future, DC is banking on their first big non-Batman/Superman movie to make money at the box office. Early reviews for the film are overwhelmingly negative and this could potentially derail GL’s money making ability. However, it is not unheard of for bad comic book movies to make money. This got me thinking and I took a look back historically at the quality of comic book movies and their profits.
Before you crucify me for it, let me explain my ranking of ‘quality’. This might not be popular but I am going to use a movie’s rating on rotten tomatoes. These ratings have aggregated many different people’s views on a movie and put it into one quantifiable number. It may not be perfect, and I may not personally agree with all of the ratings, but overall I think that these provide a general ballpark of how good or bad a film was. For comparison’s sake, GL’s current rating on rotten tomatoes is 24%.
http://media.**************.com/images/users/uploads/33534/box%20office2.png
As you can see, as a general rule, the better your film is; the better chance it has of making money. The films that have been really good, The Dark Night, Spider-man 2, and Iron Man all have rating over 90% and have made a combined $1.8 million in profits. These movies get all of the comic book fans out for multiple viewings and draws in a huge amount of the general public.
There are some films that go against this grain though. Some films that are quite good don’t end up making money. Take Scott Pilgram for example. A very good movie that did not make any money. Or the Hellboy series, both good movies that did not make money at the proportionate quality-to-profits ratios at the other on this list. These movies, despite their quality, never quite make it onto the public radar and sometimes do not even bring in all of the comicbook fans out there. These characters are relatively unknown to the general public and were not able generate huge profits.
There are many movies that go against the trend the other way. Movies that are not very good, but for a number of reasons manage to still make a lot of money. The best example of these types of movies is X-MenOrigins:Wolverine and Spider-man 3. Both of these movies were disliked by critics and fans but still managed to make a lot of money. They were recognisable characters with the general public and people were drawn to these movies regardless of the films quality.
With many of these films, most of the people on this site and others like it are going to go see them regardless of quality, because all of the characters are recognisable to us and we are fans of them. We are almost a guaranteed audience, and I am very okay with that. As long as they keep making movies based on these characters I am going to go see them. However, if they want to make a lot more money, they have to get the general public out, as this audience is going to differ based on the quality of the film and the recognition and fan base of the character.
How does Green Lantern fare under these circumstances? The film, (which I have not seen yet) does not appear to be very good based on the RT scale. So the chances of it making a huge amount of money are limited, as the general public will not be going in huge numbers due to negative word of mouth. GL has a limited built-in fanbase. Green Lantern has never been in a feature film before and has not been in any previous live-action form. He has many comic book fans who will be seeing the movie regardless of its quality due their regard for the character, however, I do not think he is very-well known to the general public. However, WB has done an excellent job of marketing this film all across multiple forms of media. This may have made him a familiar enough face across the world and built up enough anticipation to overcome the negative reviews.
As of Saturday morning, the film had made 21.6 million on Monday and was on pace to make $57 million over the weekend (as per boxofficemojo.com). So the marketing campaign may have been enough to make this film some profit, but I doubt we will see it making huge numbers.
Looking back, history has shown us that some movies that aren’t great still manage to make some money. But overall, the better you make your film, the more money it will make you. I hope Green Lantern does well enough to warrant a sequel and an expanded DC film universe. But I also hope its underwhelming success serves as a lesson to studios that you have an opportunity to make a lot more money if you make a higher quality movie, and then we all win; fans and studios alike.
Gandalf
Gandalf
6/18/2011
http://www.**************.com/fansites/gandalf/news/?a=39787
How much are the negative reviews going to effect Green Lantern’s profits?
With Green Lantern’s release this week amongst mostly negative reviews, does it stand a chance at the box office? It would not bode well for future DCcomic book movies if this movie bombs. But historically, does the quality of the comic book movies affect their ability to make money?
http://media.**************.com/images/users/uploads/33534/lantern2.jpg
With plans of a Justice League movie in the future, DC is banking on their first big non-Batman/Superman movie to make money at the box office. Early reviews for the film are overwhelmingly negative and this could potentially derail GL’s money making ability. However, it is not unheard of for bad comic book movies to make money. This got me thinking and I took a look back historically at the quality of comic book movies and their profits.
Before you crucify me for it, let me explain my ranking of ‘quality’. This might not be popular but I am going to use a movie’s rating on rotten tomatoes. These ratings have aggregated many different people’s views on a movie and put it into one quantifiable number. It may not be perfect, and I may not personally agree with all of the ratings, but overall I think that these provide a general ballpark of how good or bad a film was. For comparison’s sake, GL’s current rating on rotten tomatoes is 24%.
http://media.**************.com/images/users/uploads/33534/box%20office2.png
As you can see, as a general rule, the better your film is; the better chance it has of making money. The films that have been really good, The Dark Night, Spider-man 2, and Iron Man all have rating over 90% and have made a combined $1.8 million in profits. These movies get all of the comic book fans out for multiple viewings and draws in a huge amount of the general public.
There are some films that go against this grain though. Some films that are quite good don’t end up making money. Take Scott Pilgram for example. A very good movie that did not make any money. Or the Hellboy series, both good movies that did not make money at the proportionate quality-to-profits ratios at the other on this list. These movies, despite their quality, never quite make it onto the public radar and sometimes do not even bring in all of the comicbook fans out there. These characters are relatively unknown to the general public and were not able generate huge profits.
There are many movies that go against the trend the other way. Movies that are not very good, but for a number of reasons manage to still make a lot of money. The best example of these types of movies is X-MenOrigins:Wolverine and Spider-man 3. Both of these movies were disliked by critics and fans but still managed to make a lot of money. They were recognisable characters with the general public and people were drawn to these movies regardless of the films quality.
With many of these films, most of the people on this site and others like it are going to go see them regardless of quality, because all of the characters are recognisable to us and we are fans of them. We are almost a guaranteed audience, and I am very okay with that. As long as they keep making movies based on these characters I am going to go see them. However, if they want to make a lot more money, they have to get the general public out, as this audience is going to differ based on the quality of the film and the recognition and fan base of the character.
How does Green Lantern fare under these circumstances? The film, (which I have not seen yet) does not appear to be very good based on the RT scale. So the chances of it making a huge amount of money are limited, as the general public will not be going in huge numbers due to negative word of mouth. GL has a limited built-in fanbase. Green Lantern has never been in a feature film before and has not been in any previous live-action form. He has many comic book fans who will be seeing the movie regardless of its quality due their regard for the character, however, I do not think he is very-well known to the general public. However, WB has done an excellent job of marketing this film all across multiple forms of media. This may have made him a familiar enough face across the world and built up enough anticipation to overcome the negative reviews.
As of Saturday morning, the film had made 21.6 million on Monday and was on pace to make $57 million over the weekend (as per boxofficemojo.com). So the marketing campaign may have been enough to make this film some profit, but I doubt we will see it making huge numbers.
Looking back, history has shown us that some movies that aren’t great still manage to make some money. But overall, the better you make your film, the more money it will make you. I hope Green Lantern does well enough to warrant a sequel and an expanded DC film universe. But I also hope its underwhelming success serves as a lesson to studios that you have an opportunity to make a lot more money if you make a higher quality movie, and then we all win; fans and studios alike.
Gandalf
Gandalf
6/18/2011
http://www.**************.com/fansites/gandalf/news/?a=39787
moviedoors
Indeed 🦉
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 5,190
- Reaction score
- 3,146
- Points
- 103
So now it's a left wing conspiracy that critics didn't like Green Lantern? Good grief.
And on another note, you guys do realize that most professional critics get to see movies before literally just about everyone else. They don't know what the general consensus is when they turn in their reviews, so can we put this ******** "they're just parroting each other" crap to bed?
Accept that a lot of people genuinely didn't like it and get on with your lives.
And on another note, you guys do realize that most professional critics get to see movies before literally just about everyone else. They don't know what the general consensus is when they turn in their reviews, so can we put this ******** "they're just parroting each other" crap to bed?
Accept that a lot of people genuinely didn't like it and get on with your lives.
Last edited:
moviedoors
Indeed 🦉
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 5,190
- Reaction score
- 3,146
- Points
- 103
I don't think so. Wolverine was astonishingly bad. Green Lantern is just mediocre.
The Morningstar
Avenger
- Joined
- Mar 7, 2011
- Messages
- 10,017
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I'd say they are about even.
ClarkLuther55
Sidekick
- Joined
- Oct 14, 2002
- Messages
- 1,331
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
I really don't think people are hating on Reynolds. It sounds like an excuse to me. Ryan Reynolds may be a cool guy, but he also has a very funny and friendly public persona and he's been involved in a lot of fanboy movies. He seems to be a bit of a fanboy himself, continually talking about doing a Deadpool movie. Reynolds is the guy that women want, and who men want to be. Everyone I know loves this guy.
Sith Scotti
Sidekick
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,934
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
The critcs are idiots . GL is about the same tone & quality as Thor . Yet one stands at 77 percent on the rt and the other is in the 20's .
HyperSuperHero
Civilian
- Joined
- May 9, 2011
- Messages
- 2
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
HELL NO! Green Lantern was pretty good, it just had flaws. It needed to be a bit longer for the plot and characters to flesh out more. But it was really entertaining and a fun ride. I'd put it about on par with The Incredible Hulk and I enjoyed it as much as Thor, however Thor was better made and had better executed humor in it.
Whoever is reading this, I'd recommend seeing Green Lantern. The ratings given for this movie is unreasonable. The fan in me loved the beginning of the movie, I just thought when Parallax comes to Earth and their fight near the end fell very flat and was the most disappointing part of the movie. The movie made me feel like I was a little kid again watching the first Spider-Man, just got to not take it too seriously. I feel that's how the younger generation will look at it too. I'd give it a 7.8/10.
Poni_Boy
Superhero
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2011
- Messages
- 9,440
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Not even close.
Especially considering that the GL mythology has much more potential than Thor; not to mention Hal's character depth that would appeal to so many people if portrayed right.
Thor has Hopkins and Hiddleston as it's strong points and knew it; hence, they focused on those characters more than Hemsworth's Thor. GL had the equivalent in Mark Strong (still, only one against two) but instead of utilizing him they undermined him
Brian Braddock
R.I.P. '96 Y.N.W.A.
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2005
- Messages
- 15,646
- Reaction score
- 259
- Points
- 73
You havent come across any of The Vile One's posts then, I take it - the guys ridiculously hating on Reynolds in the extreme.
Terminator
Judgment Day
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2007
- Messages
- 1,933
- Reaction score
- 42
- Points
- 58
I liked Wolverine more. I thought Wolverine was fun. Green Lantern is as generic as you can get.
moviedoors
Indeed 🦉
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 5,190
- Reaction score
- 3,146
- Points
- 103
Yeah, and one was much better than the other.
Son of Coul
Not 100% A Dick
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 4,943
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 31
Ahahahaha this is just idiotic
Marvin
Avenger
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2003
- Messages
- 19,564
- Reaction score
- 2
- Points
- 31
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
Users who are viewing this thread
Staff online
-
Lily Adler🔥 Hot Scoops 🍨
