Obviously someone decided practical suits with light effects wasn’t cost effective compared to CGI. I can see that argument. I have a hard time believing that a filmmaking team would just go with the most expensive and inefficient approach for the hell of it.
You guys, it's not the CGI nor is it the budget. It's the concept. Critics think that the notion that a guy that has a ring that can do anything he can imagine is silly (although had it been an Arab beggar/thief with a magic oil lamp that had a genie that would grant him 3 wishes, it would have been a classic). There is a double standard here and it's really not fair nor is it ethical. I think we should stop this discussion about budget and Sfx since it really isn't a factor here. Films like POTC and Spider-Man had higer budgets and used CG as well, but got a pass from critics. It is the perception of the critics that is the issue here and we should be considering (or discounting) that.
I agree this is a clear issue in many of the reviews to a point. They don’t seem to “get” some of it, or think its outright silly.
The way I describe it with TDK is that even though movies like SR and GL try to show the world coming to an end, in TDK you FELT like the world was coming to an end more. Scale/scope is almost insignificant compared to how well you can immerse and engage your audience in the action...and that depends on the filmmaker/writer.
I get that, kind of. But TDK Is one of the best comic book films ever made. Maybe THE best. I don’t think saying “Green Lantern’s was not as good” makes it outright bad”. Though I wouldn’t say I felt the world was coming to an end in TDK. Personally, I found the “boats” plot rather silly and predictable, and I found this and Batman’s final confrontation with The Joker, other than The Joker’s speech, to be one of the film’s weakest points. The tension in that scene felt very, VERY manufactured. I didn’t care about those people, and I cared about them even less when they started spouting silly cliche "Us and not them" lines. I will say, Coast City was supposed to be in danger in GREEN LANTERN. I bought that. That’s all I was asked to buy. Was it the BEST “peril” scenario ever? Nope. But it was still a pretty good one.
But to deny the fact that WB lied to us all is just idiotic. WB made this movie out to be a sci fi extravaganza. We spend about 20 minutes in space.
Where and when did WB say anything that makes you think that you were lied to? This WAS a science fiction movie. There were a lot of sci-fi elements in it.
When was this actually pitched as the next Star Wars? Saying it has some things in common with Star Wars is accurate, really. Green Lantern's mythology does. But who touted it as "The next Star Wars" during the marketing campaign?
Coast City was barely there too. It looked boring as ****. I just saw New Orleans with some CG placement.
Well, Coast City is Coast City. It isn’t Metropolis or Gotham. It’s just a city. In the comics, its a fairly nondescript city. And Coast City looked pretty decent to me, if nothing truly special. It had a pretty sizeable city, a coast, a desert, and Ferris Industries, and these things all looked fine.
Exactly. I can't quite fathom how GL fans are defending this. It's a complete disservice to the character and mythos.
See, when you say things like “Complete” disservice to the character and the mythos, I kind of want to ask you which mythos you have read. Not including the entire Corps in battle isn't a "complete disservice" to the character and the mythos. Nor is spotlighting two fairly thin and straightforward villains or the relatively straightforward nature of Hal Jordan's journey to become Green Lantern.
