The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 4

[mace1]

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

 

[Marvin]

I'm not usually one to defend a film I haven't seen but why not.

4) Parallax Nerf: Abin Sur, the "greatest warrior of the Green Lantern Corps", jobs to Parallax. Sinestro, second most powerful, takes a bunch of other powerful Lanterns and they job to Parallax. Hal goes up against a Parallax that has taken in more power, and manages to defeat him on a first go, even though Hal jobbed to Hector Hammond? Worse, Parallax jobs to Hal in a solo battle. Just because Thor got back his godhood and wrecked the Destroyer's ****, doesn't mean that noob Hal can just do whatever he wants. He had no experience, bland constructs and a clear confidence issue throughout the entire film. Yet I am to believe that Hal can defeat a foe so powerful that the Guardians thought that the Lantern Corps, filled with THOUSANDS of Lanterns, would lose in a fight.

Just like that kid from the desert farm(lol does that even make sense....well of course it does, it's not in Green Lantern lo kidding). Just like this kid that put in a fighter jet in the shape of an X destroy a laser baring celestial body with the help of some ingenuity and luck. The same Death star that no one else could apparently destroy?

come on man contrivity is what film is built upon. Especially when it's set up. Or did hal just fly up and punch the monster in the face with his ring on...He found it's weakness.

There are plenty of other issues, but I don't want to turn this post into a pseudo blog. I expect this film to have a fantastic opening weekend, because it is a new super hero film, but the drop off should be pretty steep. If the budget were more reasonable ($150 million seems to be the standard for super hero films), this would easily be a profitable venture. However, with the inflated $300 million budget, I expect Green Lantern to be the "Superman Returns" of this summer. The greatest failing of this venture is that Warner Bros. already had a well crafted blue print to follow. Green Lantern: First Flight was not only an impressive animation, it was an amazing adaption of the Green Lantern mythos. It handled the origin story in a believable manner. It had a fantastic sense of exploration and growth. I am not suggesting that Warner Bros. should have just made a live action conversion of First Flight, but they should have opted for a script that uses a similar structure/narrative.

Agreed fully. Like with many comic book films, I think the audience would have been completely in love with this franchise if they simply followed what obviously worked.
And it worked beautifully, he's(we're) brought into the club just as the mutiny is upon it and the new guy saves it. Moreover you really feel like he gains a handle of the ring in that movie.

[YT]e7XmPLazGYU[/YT]

plus the inner workings of what hal did to keep busy during the second act of that film seem like they would be a whole lot more entertaining/engaging that what I've heard happens in GL.

None of them are as stupid as this.

And no Hal didn't go through a character arc. He went from A-C. The B part was missing. He had his pretty little girlfriend explain everything to him in awful dialogue "You have the ability to overcome fear". A true character arc, Hal would have learnt all that stuff by himself. But no, the writers cheated and had another character spoon feed it to him. That's just horribly lazy writing.

attaining an ark has nothing to do with how proactive the character is. You can have a story about an unfair judge that does nothing but sit on his chair, listen to sob stories all day and by the end of the STORY, have had an obvious and cliched ark.

all this beside the fact that it's not even a rule that characters need to ark.
If you don't like the film fine, I've been there, you come out and it's just meh or worse, but throwing these terms around in order to convince others just seems kinda off to me.

In all honesty i think the reason i'm so hostile and unforgiving is because the marketing campaign, everything WB and the actors told us in the build up to this movie... WAS FLAT OUT LIES.

This wasn't an epic, sprawling, cosmic adventure story. 90% of the movie was Hal mooching around on Earth. There wasn't a load of Lanterns involved. The Corps played barely any part. Hal had a 5 minute training scene, instead of a proper, cosmic boot camp, which would have been awesome. It was propaganda to fool all of us into thinking this would be the next Star Wars. I mean, remember the posters with Boodika, Green Man etc? Where the **** were they!?!?!?

Lies, all lies. That's part of the reason why i can't forgive or excuse this movies flaws.

Again, I've been there. In fact, I remember a certain batman film had a ton of marketing that highlighted him training with ninjas. Only to have a film with 12 mins of that and a cameo in the 3rd act. Sound familiar?

granted the training nor the ninjas had their own posters. Just being objective.

 

[J.Howlett]

First Flight handles the origin of the Corps. But it doesn't handle the origin of Hal that well at all. He gets chosen and is basically okay with everything. He doesn't even question the notion of an alien lifeform crashing to Earth.

I love First Flight but there's no arc for anyone in that movie. But, we like it because Hal's off on adventures at a whim.

 

[mace1]

here is a negative review
Review: "Green Lantern" Shines a Dim Light
From the opening narration to the repeated discussion of Will vs. Fear, to the constant recounting of action that happens off-screen to the skipping over of other important moments to the awkward editing, “Green Lantern” has to stand as one the worst pieces of storytelling this year.

.
Worse yet, it’s
boring

“Green Lantern” stars Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan, a skirt-chasing test pilot for Ferris Aircraft, the company owned by the father of his lifelong friend and occasional bedmate Carol, played by Blake Lively. One day Hal finds himself scooped up by a mysterious green light and whisked through the sky to the site of a crashed spaceship, where an alien tells him that "the ring" has chosen him to be the next member of the Green Lantern Corps, a collection of 3,600 warriors powered by the force of Will to protect the people of the universe from Fear - and, more specifically, a giant lava-like blob called Parallax.



It’s your classic “Chosen One” story, with the attendant “You’ve got the wrong guy” reservations on the part of the reluctant hero. Yet for reasons beyond human comprehension, this takes director Martin Campbell almost 40 minutes to explain it all. It’s funny, too, because Campbell’s “Casino Royale” took off like a shot, but here he takes an eternity to get the ball rolling. Yes, Bond has the advantage of having a well-established backstory, and, yes, “Green Lantern” is a second-tier hero whose story isn’t as well known. But Campbell could’ve easily made that work to his advantage, allowing him to take more shortcuts without having to withstand the howling of a billion fanboys.



One of the film’s few bright spots is Peter Sarsgaard’s performance as Dr. Hector Hammond, who starts out as a balding, sweaty lab rat and morphs into a fleshy-headed mutant with telepathic powers after coming into contact with some yellow Fear. Sarsgaard’s Hammond is all twitchy and moist and hunched and brimming with rage—rage that would resonate more if we’d been told at some point earlier in the film that he has a relationship with Hal and Carol that goes back to when their kids. Alas, Campbell couldn’t find time to wedge that piece of info into the film’s first half, so he just drops it into a line of dialogue, much to late for it to matter. Of course, it’s unfair to lay all the blame for the story, such as it is, at Campbell’s feet, as the film did have four guys who got writing credits—never a good sign.


And not only is the story itself a mess, the tone is all over the place. Reynolds’ Green Lantern hearkens back to the pre-“X-Men” era of superhero movies, when the prevailing attitude was dopey humor and a knowing wink that said, “Let’s not take this seriously.” But in the past decade-plus it’s been proven time and again that a successful superhero movie has to take itself at least a little seriously for it to resonate. Reynolds proved himself capable of playing heavy in last year’s “Buried,” but it’s the glib, too-cool Reynolds that prevails here—pity.


On a purely visual level, "Green Lantern" is just OK. The 3D is barely noticeable (not a compliment), you'd do well to see it in 2D and save a little more money if you just have to see it. The planet Oa is a little silly, the Guardians look awfully familiar and Geoffrey Rush's fish-headed Green Lantern is just inane, regardless of how true to the comic it is. But Parallax, the giant yellow-and-black lava-like squid monster looks pretty awesome twisting its way across the city.

As is the custom of the day, halfway through the closing credits of “Green Lantern,” there’s a teaser that sets up the second chapter in the “green space cop’s” saga, and maybe it will be better now that they’ve gotten past the insanely tedious origin story. But if you somehow survive "Green Lantern," you’ll be hard pressed to go back for more.

BY Scott Ross // Thursday, Jun 16, 2011

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/blogs/pop...st/Review-Green-Lantern-Is-Dim-123940339.html

 

[The Morningstar]

attaining an ark has nothing to do with how proactive the character is. You can have a story about an unfair judge that does nothing but sit on his chair, listen to sob stories all day and by the end of the STORY, have had an obvious and cliched ark.

all this beside the fact that it's not even a rule that characters need to ark.
If you don't like the film fine, I've been there, you come out and it's just meh or worse, but throwing these terms around in order to convince others just seems kinda off to me.

Of course characters need to have an arc. Lead characters do.

Hal Jordan didn't have an arc. He was given all the answers. He didn't learn, or grow as a person.

He became the hero at the end because the story dictated it. Not because it actually made sense.

Again, I've been there. In fact, I remember a certain batman film had a ton of marketing that highlighted him training with ninjas. Only to have a film with 12 mins of that and a cameo in the 3rd act. Sound familiar?

granted the training nor the ninjas had their own posters. Just being objective.

Batman Begins' trailers never made it out he'd be spending loads of time with ninjas.

And besides, the movie made it very clear Bruce trained with them for a long time.

Hal LITERALLY has one 5 minute training session where he gets his ass kicked.

 

[J.Howlett]

The story didn't dictate that Hal was to be the hero at the end. He decided.

 

[spider-neil]

okay, saw this last night in 3D. let me say this is far and away the best post 3D converted movie to date.

I am capable of forming my own opinion and don't really hold much stock in overly negative (or positive) reviews, so the SEA of negative reviews didn't bother me in the least.

so, what did I think of this movie? I thought it was 'okay' like SM3 was 'okay and X3 were 'okay' not the utter rubbish most people seem to make out those movies to be. not rubbish just entertaining but ultimately disappointing (to me disappoint doesn't equal = rubbish).

the things I thought the movie did really well;

Green:
I thought the suit and constructs looked fantastic.

OA:
I thought OA looked equally as impressive as asgard

sinestro:
mark strong gives an excellent performance as sinestro.

okay things I thought the movie got badly wrong and I'll go into a bit more detail as I want to stress I was disappointed but ultimately entertained

parralax(sp):
everything about this villian was disasterous, from his origin to his motivation to his look. a TERRIBLE villian.
because this villian was essentially a floating cloud head (I couldn't help thinking about galactus in FF2, another terrible villian) it's really hard to take a villian like that seriously. then you hear the origin and motivation for wanting to destroy OA and you are left thinging 'WHAT?!' totally weak and not engaging at all, no sense of peril no sense of dread. terrible.

hal:
I am getting sick of ryan reynolds, he brings the SAME performance to every frigging movie he is in. what was the difference between reynolds in 'the propersal' and this movie. NONE. the SAME character.

exposition, exposition exposition:
oh, this is why we have the green lantern corp.
oh, this is why the green lanterns are so badass.
oh, this is why you shouldn't be afraid, hal.
I am being TOLD everything. first rule of movies SHOW, DON'T TELL.
SHOW ME why it is a big deal paralax takes out so many GL so easily.
SHOW ME why hal is afraid.
SHOW ME why sinestro would turn.

------------------

basically if I were going to make changes I would have have it so hal recieves his ring very early in the movie (which he does) he then would have left earth there and then and wouldn't return for the rest of the movie.

paralax would have a human/humaniod host so there would be someone the audience can connect with from a villian stand point. I would despense with hector hammand as he takes up precious screen time and adds VERY LITTLE, very one dimensional villian.

I would show sinestro's fall from grace so when you see 'that' scene it would make frigging SENSE.

I would have extended the traininig sequence.

bottom line, all of GL problems could have been fixed.
this movie is no where NEAR as bad as some people are making out and this movie is worth watching at the cinema AND in 3D. however I don't need to see this movie again and I'm not getting it on blu ray.

this movie gets a solid 7/10 or 3/5
a 'fair' score on RT would have been 65-70%

 

[The Morningstar]

The story didn't dictate that Hal was to be the hero at the end. He decided.

He decided because the story needed him to.

It didn't feel like a natural progression at all.

Sulking because he was unworthy, is too afraid...

Gets pep talk from pretty girl...

BANG! All of a sudden he's a world saving hero.

 

[J.Howlett]

Morningstar,

The whole point of the film is that Hal doesn't understand why he was chosen, considering the job description of "being without fear", when the death of his father has caused him to be afraid of "things" his whole life.

But what the death of his father has also done to him is given him fearlessness in the way he lives...in his actions.

The flaw of the film is that he's told this by Carol, twice, even though we as the audience see the fearlessness that he has in his actions (the dogfight sequence, the fight between him and Hector, the rescue of Senator Hammond, and his showdown with Parallax).

We see that, even though he has doubts about himself, his "devil may care" way brings about a fearlessness in him.

 

[J.Howlett]

Morningstar,

Thor learns humility in six hours, if you go by what happened in that film. That wasn't enough either. Both films suffer because they decided that the audience already knows that both Hal and Thor will learn their lessons.

There's really no weight to either one of them, but there are pieces to both character arcs.

 

[spider-neil]

The flaw of the film is that he's told this by Carol, twice,

HATED that, it's bad story telling, simple as that.

 

[The Morningstar]

Morningstar,

Thor learns humility in six hours, if you go by what happened in that film. That wasn't enough either. Both films suffer because they decided that the audience already knows that both Hal and Thor will learn their lessons.

There's really no weight to either one of them, but there are pieces to both character arcs.

There is weight to Thor's change. Because as far as he knows, his reckless, arrogant, *****e bag behaviour has caused the death of his father and his mother to disown him. If that doesn't make a man look into the mirror and re-evaluate who he is... nothing will.

Hal's change? It doesn't come anywhere near that level of weight or emotion.

Nothing in Green Lantern has any emotion. NOTHING.

When Hal discovers Abin Sur? That's supposed to be emotional, it wasn't. As Abin Sur lies there dying, this is Hal's reaction "no, no, no don't do that! Don't do that" Are you ****ing kidding me?

When Hal has the flashback of his dad dying? That's supposed to be emotional, it wasn't. In fact it was ****ing laughable (people in my audience actually chuckled)

Now look at Thor. Odin banishing Thor? Emotional. It carries weight. Mainly thanks to Hopkins amazing performance, but there you go.

Loki confronting Odin? That **** wouldn't look out of place in some Oscar bait period drama. That's emotional. That's powerful stuff.

When Loki visits Thor at the SHIELD facility? That's emotional.

Green Lantern just can't compare in terms of gravitas and emotion. Say what you will about Thor, but it has heart and soul by the bucket load. Green Lantern is a sterile, soulless product of a corporation.

 

[J.Howlett]

Not disagreeing. It's a flaw.

 

[J.Howlett]

Morningstar,

And yet, the very next morning, he learns that Loki lied about the whole thing...so everything he's learned is technically a lie.

He should be going back to pissed Thor, now knowing that he's been lied to.

 

[moviedoors]

Morningstar,

And yet, the very next morning, he learns that Loki lied about the whole thing...so everything he's learned is technically a lie.

He should be going back to pissed Thor, now knowing that he's been lied to.

He'd already had his moment of clarity by then. He'd learned humility and learned to not be so brash, and by that point he can see Loki wanting to make the same mistakes he did ("You can't kill an entire race") Lesson learned.

 

[The Morningstar]

Morningstar,

And yet, the very next morning, he learns that Loki lied about the whole thing...so everything he's learned is technically a lie.

He should be going back to pissed Thor, now knowing that he's been lied to.

So he should revert back to being how he was before? Why?

Loki's lie to him, was a wake up call. Whether it was truth or not.

I don't think Thor's change was perfect. But it was certainly more natural and believable than Hal's in my opinion.

Hal: wah wah wah i'm not fit enough to wield the ring. i'm too scared!
Carol: No Hal, you have the ability to overcome fear (horrible line by the way)
Hal: OH OK CAROL! YOU'RE RIGHT! I BETTER GO AND BE A HERO NOW!

 

[CrazyDavey]

Pretty sure he just means that he likes Superman more than Green Lantern in general.

exactly. Thanks!

 

[J.Howlett]

Morningstar,

Why are you on this crusade with Green Lantern? Many of us who like the film have already acknowledge that it has it's issues in the character department.

You seem to want to make sure that people know that you think it's the worst film in the genre...

What's the deal?

 

[J.Howlett]

And Thor's lesson doesn't register either because it's too damn quick.

Both films are in a rush to get the leads where they need to be in the end.

I honestly don't see that big a difference between the two, in that department.

Everything else in terms of filmmaking, Green Lantern wins, hands down.

And that's my final word on it....

 

[Marvin]

First Flight handles the origin of the Corps. But it doesn't handle the origin of Hal that well at all. He gets chosen and is basically okay with everything. He doesn't even question the notion of an alien lifeform crashing to Earth.

I love First Flight but there's no arc for anyone in that movie. But, we like it because Hal's off on adventures at a whim.

apparently that doesn't happen in the Campbell movie either.
which is the saddest part if true.

 

[spider-neil]

to be fair aunt may's 'to be a hero you have to sometimes give up your dreams' speech in SM2 is 'similar' to carroll telling hal he is courageous, but it (may's speech) flowed much more organically. peter is having doubts about putting on the costume again because it's blocking everything he wants out of life and may TELLS him, yes you aren't going to get what you want but when your career is over you will be remembered far longer than your years. this works because she isn't talking DIRECTLY to peter she is saying why she misses spider-man.

hal says he has no idea why the ring choose and and carroll TELLS him why. it's sloppy it's rubbish. how much better wouldn't it have been better if hal went into a fight full of doubt and in the event of saving someone's life he realises it isn't about having no fear it's about keeping that fear in check - courage.

rubbish scriptwriting.

 

[Quasimod0]

Ehhh, I think Hector was even weaker.

Perhaps you're right.

 

[spider-neil]

they should have taken the story structure, pacing, villians and settings of first flight and put it on the big screen because from a character developement point of view it is 10 times better than the green lantern movie.

 

[Marvin]

Of course characters need to have an arc. Lead characters do.

Hal Jordan didn't have an arc. He was given all the answers. He didn't learn, or grow as a person.

He became the hero at the end because the story dictated it. Not because it actually made sense.

this is a tangent considering hal does have an ark, but no, it's not a law. Look at the Character in Surf's up for example, it's a well known paradigm, sometimes there are stories where everyone else arcs around the lead.

and yes if hal didn't believe in himself at the start, and some life experience, even if it's by way of someone re-assuring his doubts, changes his mind frame that would be a legitimate arc however stupid a decision it was to do it in the lamest way possible.

If you take the movie Iron man and you replace all that experience he faced during the second act(including being taken prisoner, with just one scene of someone telling him to grow up. Well by golly he would still have effectively arked. It's not the process, it's the results.

Batman Begins' trailers never made it out he'd be spending loads of time with ninjas.

And besides, the movie made it very clear Bruce trained with them for a long time.

Hal LITERALLY has one 5 minute training session where he gets his ass kicked.

whatever you took from the trailers is on you, the GL trailers literally sold what was in the movie. unless they had a shot were reynolds grew a 5 oclock shadow on oa or something.

I was told batman would have ninjas and it did barely. What it had an abundance of is batman. Just like GL.

 

[spider-neil]

And Thor's lesson doesn't register either because it's too damn quick.

one minute he is willing to charge into battle without a care who gets killed as a result the next he is washing dishes and willing to sacrifice his life so his friends can life. the hell did THAT change come from? on cosy sleepover round a camp fire?