The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 3

[dark_b]

i dont want to sound like a hypocrit by always mentioning Iron Man. as we knwo Iron Man didnt have a finished script. on set RDJ and Favraue improvised a lot . Iron Man 2 showed us that IM was luck. since they tryed the same BS on the sequel and it didnt work. teh editing and pacing was not good.

so IM was luck. but just because it works on other movies that doesnt mean that you can allow yourself the same risk.

 

[Godman]

Morningstar,

And Marvel cares more about making decent films than making a franchise than DC?

Bull****. Can we say shoehorning in SHIELD everywhere....

Can we say rushing out Iron Man 2 when the director wanted another year? Have we forgot about X-Men the Last Stand?

Marvel are even worse than DC. They have the cheapest style of film making with mediocre directing. I have yet to see a cool factor such as Dark Knight or Watchmen coming from Marvel. all their movies are rushed and too comical rather than the tone DC go for with their styles. Honestly even superman returns wasnt garbage, just a weak story thats a few years too late as we are in a time where we need SUPER villains and extreme devastaion for a character like superman and not some soft core story telling that felt like a soap opera and not an EPIC journey.

I think Nolan is the only guy who may have not seen Batman as a comic book or graphic noval but a legit story worthy of a great interpretation. Id love to see what directors would do if they were never allowed to see the comic books and only were given descriptions and a script straight from the respective line, dc/marvel.

 

[Secret_Riddle]

Secret Riddle,

Did we forget the part where are all the people at the party stopped and stared at Hal...and as he takes off, a woman records it on her cellphone.

Later, we hear about his heroics on the news.

This isn't some compelling stuff at all but to say there's no reaction to Hal's appearance as Lantern in the film is a lie. There was one. And Carol comments on it the next night when she thanks him...until realizing that it's actually Hal.

"We" didn't forget anything. You think staring is a reaction so witnessing a seemingly alien being fly? No one mentions whether or not it's Hal..no one screams, they aren't surpised. No shock really..just blank stares..a brief mention on the news? That's it?..no talk of it in any other area in the film. It's not just that it's not compelling, it's completely and utterly misconceived. It completely spoils the immersion.

It's as if everyone goes "Oh, ok. Cool then."

Where does he take Carol? Just back to her office? When she finds out he can fly the next day she doesn't really care or seem surprised that aliens exist..she's not scared. She makes a comment about having seen him naked? It's just a completely unrealistic reaction.

The two plotlines don't mesh at all. It's completely stilted and awkward, and in my opinion, one of the film's biggest flaws. It's like when the two world come together, the film can't compute it realistically. Felt like two completely different films. This is also a fairly common complaint, so I don't really understand the objection to it.

 

[Godman]

they approached GL like iron man/spiderman rather than TDK or BB. the difference is two are based on the "COMIC" and the other two are based on the "BOOK" part of comic book

 

[moviedoors]

Yeah, that news report talks about "who is this mysterious man?" when it should've been saying "What the hell was that thing! I'm mean seriously, WTF! Call the president! Call Stephen Hawking, cause that was some crazy ass ****!"

 

[The Morningstar]

Morningstar,

And Marvel cares more about making decent films than making a franchise than DC?

Bull****. Can we say shoehorning in SHIELD everywhere....

Can we say rushing out Iron Man 2 when the director wanted another year? Have we forgot about X-Men the Last Stand?

Marvels movies, apart from IM2, stand on their own two feet though. You take away the fact that they are interconnected, it wouldn't make the movies better or worse.

X-3 is Fox, not Marvel...

 

[J.Howlett]

Godman,

And that's been my issue with Marvel from the get go, except for a few exceptions.

For Marvel, especially their "Studios" films, the mantra has been "good enough so we can get to Avengers."

 

[The Morningstar]

Marvel are even worse than DC. They have the cheapest style of film making with mediocre directing. I have yet to see a cool factor such as Dark Knight or Watchmen coming from Marvel. all their movies are rushed and too comical rather than the tone DC go for with their styles. Honestly even superman returns wasnt garbage, just a weak story thats a few years too late as we are in a time where we need SUPER villains and extreme devastaion for a character like superman and not some soft core story telling that felt like a soap opera and not an EPIC journey.

I think Nolan is the only guy who may have not seen Batman as a comic book or graphic noval but a legit story worthy of a great interpretation. Id love to see what directors would do if they were never allowed to see the comic books and only were given descriptions and a script straight from the respective line, dc/marvel.

Nonsense. All of it. Marvel Studios films are not cheap and don't have mediocre directing.

Iron Man is one of the best CBMs ever made.

The faults with the less than perfect Marvel films like Hulk, IM2 and Thor comes from writing. Not the directing.

 

[Mysteryman]

After approving of the script i dont see how professional film makers and studios could have green lit it. The script would have screamed horrible so i dont see how what they completed made them feel satisfied. They should take $200 people to watch animatronic story board of the movie and tell them all the problems. I dont think movie studios really listen to criticism before its too late. SO when bad reviews come in i dont understand how they could have thought it was going to be great.

Honestly I think martin Campbell thought Casino Royale and Golden Eye were something to behold upon release, even mask of zorro, but i really think deep down Campbell wasnt amped about this project like Nolan was for batman, snyder was for 300, rob rodriguez for sin city, Sam Raimi for spiderman, richard donner for superman etc...all those directors, even burton for batman OWNED their movies to the end and made it THEIR movies. I got Martin Campbell trying to do a comic book movie as a job he was hired to do and not Martin Campbell's Green Lantern, a project he was dying to work on.

I mean campbell can do action adventure and also very well with gritty action movies...so i dont understand how they gave an average director at best who has given SOME good movies in comparisson to people who are masters of a certain genre that give multiple GREAT movies in their genre. Campbell for Punisher YES, but for a sci fi green lantern movie? no

From we have been hearing, Earlier drafts were quite different .
It wasnt Greenlit in its current form, they made changes along the way.

 

[J.Howlett]

He doesn't take Carol back to her office. He just leaves. Carol's with her father at the end of the situation.

And I'm not objecting to the complaint. I even have issues with it, but it doesn't weigh down the film for me...

 

[moviedoors]

From we have been hearing, Earlier drafts were quite different .
It wasnt Greenlit in its current form they made changes along the way.

The basic skeleton of the story isn't all that drastically different. It was a problematic script (in that draft, Carol doesn't recognize Hal with his mask on. Groan!) but for the most part, all they did was dumb down an already goofy script and pull the action and scope way back, which was one of the few things that script got really right: the large scale.

 

[Mysteryman]

i dont want to sound like a hypocrit by always mentioning Iron Man. as we knwo Iron Man didnt have a finished script. on set RDJ and Favraue improvised a lot . Iron Man 2 showed us that IM was luck. since they tryed the same BS on the sequel and it didnt work. teh editing and pacing was not good.

so IM was luck. but just because it works on other movies that doesnt mean that you can allow yourself the same risk.

No ,IM wasnt luck.
They focused on Tony Stark.
IM2 focused on setting up The Avengers.

 

[ElMariachi]

i dont want to sound like a hypocrit by always mentioning Iron Man. as we knwo Iron Man didnt have a finished script. on set RDJ and Favraue improvised a lot . Iron Man 2 showed us that IM was luck. since they tryed the same BS on the sequel and it didnt work. teh editing and pacing was not good.

so IM was luck. but just because it works on other movies that doesnt mean that you can allow yourself the same risk.

It wasn't luck. Both Iron Man movies were great. I actually watched IM2 yesterday and the quality of that movie really stands out compared to Green Lantern. Everything about Iron Man 2 was top notch aside from a few scenes in the script that slowed the movie in the middle. The quality of IM2 to GL stands out when you compare special effects, acting, humour, soundtrack, pacing, and even the bold colors and sharpness of the movie itself. It's easily the most underrated movie on this website.

 

[The Morningstar]

I wouldn't go that far. IM2 still focused on Stark. Him dealing with the fame, him being self destructive and nihilstic due to his illness and also his fathers legacy.

Put it this way, the scene where Stark is watching his fathers old reels of footage, then comes across the message his father left for him, elevates IM2 above GL automatically.

SHIELD didn't even turn up til three quarters of the way through. And Avengers wasn't even mentioned until the second from last scene.

People can say what they want about Marvels films. But every single one of them has something Green Lantern doesn't. And that is heart and soul. Emotion. Charm.

Green Lantern is lifeless and sterile. There is no emotion. There is a bunch of flashy special FX, a derivative story line and appalingly soap opera-esque dialogue.

 

[Godman]

Godman,

So, you think that the script was written and no changes were made while shooting? A script is almost always in flux, no matter how good or bad it is.

On set, the chemistry and flow of the actors could change things up from the script. Something that reads very, very well in the script could actually not work when actually shot, so you have to change it.

There's all sorts of reasons why the representation of script is the way it is when the finished film is released.

I think this has more to do with pieces cut out than the actual script issues, which are there. But, we have no idea if the issues people have with the film are fixed with deleted material or was just written that way.

Nobody knows.

never to a point it can RUIN an entire movie. good story telling rules are u NEVER eliminate things u introduce in the first act as nothing is a mistake in films as far as what is allowed don screen. Everything has a purpose like a puzzle. each piece finally has to fit.

You introduce a nephew for the main character we HAVE to see him again unless he dies, but even the death needs to come back up or you will confuse the audience as to why you even placed that concept there to begin with.

we didnt need the family scene in GL as it served no purpose in strengthening the script unless they were going to reintroduce the family at different points. Hal's bro storms off and we never see him again. i'd have thought it be cool if we even got a phone convo or their take on the new green flying hero. maybe if the nephew had a convo about aliens with the uncle if they exist or what not and then showed him a picture of a space fighter man or something that he ahd been drawing and the kid states he's having issues thinking of a good bad guy for his hero...thats a cue for hal to say, you gotta get creative and use everything around u to think of crazy stuff then he can use how george lucas used a burger to come up with one of the ships in star wars...lil meanigful convo like that would have added depth.


Also a scene where Hal is walking and talking with his first teacher guy through the halls and spends a good 5 mins of the movie in Oah, giving us meat about the place and its inhabitants. I swear id have jumped on these factors to turn this movie from alive action saturday morning cartoon, to indeed a new STAR WARS saga...something that would give even dark knight a run as far as depth and time taken to develop an entire universe and franchise. Id have had only ONE villain and parallax should have been a mystery for the first movie that sets up for that sequel and sinestro in a third movie.

hell even a lil explanation as to how he doesn't suffocate in space would have been cool in developing even more intimacy with his power and ring abilities



even one scene of GL flying through the milky way embracing the universes beauty while he absorbs knowledge of more and more with his ring with some epic score trailing along with him would have lent to a more magical experience and not just a hacked up up mess

 

[Tony Stark]

From we have been hearing, Earlier drafts were quite different .
It wasnt Greenlit in its current form, they made changes along the way.

It's hard for me to immagine this script in any form being good at one point. Like I say the biggest issue is the love story just felt forced, and there was literally nothing for Mark Strong to do except look cool for the sequel.

I don't know why this movie seemed to want to follow the Spider-man, Superman formula, when it should have gone in it's own direction. Oh well.

 

[Son of Coul]

It wasn't luck. Both Iron Man movies were great. I actually watched IM2 yesterday and the quality of that movie really stands out compared to Green Lantern. Everything about Iron Man 2 was top notch aside from a few scenes in the script that slowed the movie in the middle. The quality of IM2 to GL stands out when you compare special effects, acting, humour, soundtrack, pacing, and even the bold colors and sharpness of the movie itself. It's easily the most underrated movie on this website.

Yeah, IM2 next to IM1 is indeed weaker but still pretty solid. And IM2 next to GL is like a masterpiece.

 

[Mysteryman]

The basic skeleton of the story isn't all that drastically different. It was a problematic script (in that draft, Carol doesn't recognize Hal with his mask on. Groan!) but for the most part, all they did was dumb down an already goofy script and pull the action and scope way back, which was one of the few things that script got really right: the large scale.

Large scale means spending lots of money.
Apparently,WB vetoed that idea.

 

[Godman]

It wasn't luck. Both Iron Man movies were great. I actually watched IM2 yesterday and the quality of that movie really stands out compared to Green Lantern. Everything about Iron Man 2 was top notch aside from a few scenes in the script that slowed the movie in the middle. The quality of IM2 to GL stands out when you compare special effects, acting, humour, soundtrack, pacing, and even the bold colors and sharpness of the movie itself. It's easily the most underrated movie on this website.

Though IM2 is far better than GL, it still shouldnt be considered great AT ALL, but merely entertaining yet a mess in its own right. dancing scene in ironman suit was nonsense

 

[BH/HHH]

The Mask looked terrible. It just did.

I dont see how it did, its supposed to be a construct of light created from the ring so it probably would look like that.

 

[The Morningstar]

Large scale means spending lots of money.
Apparently,WB vetoed that idea.

You're kidding right? This movie cost a **** ton of money. AT LEAST 200 million to make.

Makes you wonder where all that cash went.

 

[Marvin]

Unfortunately, they won't move away from that formula until audiences vote with their wallets.

I really hate to say this, because i want to see more DC movies, but i hope this movie bombs. It deserves to.

yes, you've made that quite clear

I'm going to forge a ring out of the light of hyperbole, because apparently that's the most powerful force out there right now.

indeed

 

[ElMariachi]

I wouldn't go that far. IM2 still focused on Stark. Him dealing with the fame, him being self destructive and nihilstic due to his illness and also his fathers legacy.

Put it this way, the scene where Stark is watching his fathers old reels of footage, then comes across the message his father left for him, elevates IM2 above GL.

SHIELD didn't even turn up til three quarters of the way through. And Avengers wasn't even mentioned until the second from last scene.

exactly. SHIELD/Avengers was barely in the movie and they had nothing much to do at all regarding the plot of IM2. It's just a cheap excuse people on this website have to hate in IM2.

I was entertained alot by Green Lantern. It was a real fun movie. But emotionally, it made IM2 look like Schindlers List.

 

[Godman]

From we have been hearing, Earlier drafts were quite different .
It wasnt Greenlit in its current form, they made changes along the way.

well i'll be damned...still horrible so i wonder what they paid those writers for if it is this atrocious?!

 

[Godman]

I dont see how it did, its supposed to be a construct of light created from the ring so it probably would look like that.

would have been cooler if it looked more like light than a weird glob of green on his face at times. it was too organic. the suit was cool, but something about the mask just turned me off lol maybe if they went with the closer to black mask it would have been different