The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 4

[FreeRadical]

If that's the reasoning then it's DOA. And they're really not vested in the DC properties and never have been. Before the failed Superman Returns it was years and years of failed Superman scripts, and attached writers/directors.

WB is a badly managed company.

Marvel movies have been released over the past decade now, with FOX managing to produce 9 Marvel films of various quality over that time: 5 X-Men films, Daredevil, Elektra, and 2 FF films from 2000 to now. WB seems to be so disorganised, spending over $300million on one film, the aborted Superman Lives film, the aborted JJ Abrams Superman, Catwoman, producing a failed Wonder Woman pilot, Birds of Prey, Superman Returns, Jonan Hex, the cancelled Justice League film, Joss Whedon's aborted Wonder Woman project, etc.

WB could have produced a Flash and Wonder Woman film during the past 10 years, but they can never get in gear.

I remember reading an interview from Bruce Timm saying that one area of WB were threatening to sue another department just because they wanted to a DC character on one of the animated shows! WB's embargo of DC characters was crazy!

I thought the formation of DC Entertainment would improve things at WB, but it looks like business as usual......

 

[I Am The Knight]

Both Hulk and The Incredibly Hulk are awesome.

 

[Vile]

Just saw Green Lantern and in my opinion will probably be the weakest of the Blockbusters this summer.

While not as bad as some reviews made it out to be...it was pretty generic and forgettable. It seems to me the director had a choice to really embrace the 'space opera' aspect but insteaf decided to gloss over it to keep your general audience hooked.

Sinestro had no arc, so the 'end credit' scene made no sense; Kilowagg (sp?) was just annoying and the training scene was just dull and short.

Hammond was easily the best of the film as I enjoyed his snivveling nerdish 'too smart for his own good' embracing of the yellow energy...sadly, his character's 'death' was just stupid - Galactus Part II shows up and thats that? How exactly did Hammond 'fail'? He HAD THE DAMN RING? Thats pretty badass to me.

Anywho...if GL is the 'worst' of the films this summer itll still be a great movie summer!

Bring on Captain America!

 

[Doc Samson]

Punisher: War Zone was the perfect cinematic representation of Garth Ennis' Punisher, IMO. The problem is that what works in the comic doesn't necessarily translate to the bigger audience of cinema. Which makes me concerned about the attempts to put Preacher into live action, because that's even more ridiculous and absurd.

Absolutely! Anyone who read the Ennis run on Punisher can't say that Warzone wasn't almost identical to an issue of it. But just like you said, sometimes as fans, we have to remember things can get lost in translation.

Way before anything was released for this movie, I knew it was either going to be epically fantastic, or not very good. There's really no middle ground for GL, and it's one of those characters that's extremely easy to mess up. I think at times fans of a certain hero around here get bent out of shape like it's a personal attack on them or something.

Not every single comic movie is destined for greatness, or anything even close to it. It's hard enough to get these things to just be enjoyable, and after recent years of 2-3 comic movies every summer, you had better try your best to skirt the cliches' because people are just getting tired of the genre conventions.

 

[Poni_Boy]

The Punisher will never be accurately depicted on screen and also be a financial/critical success. War Zone was the closest but it was a craptastic film. Jane's Punisher was much more well received but it really wasn't any closer to The Punisher comics as Dolph's was back in the day.

Punisher is not marketable as a comic book movie hero. He's a vigilante that executes bad guys. He's a loner. He doesn't take joy in winning the day and he doesn't get the girl...


SPEAKING of girl, that's one of the reasons I think Carol Ferris and Hal Jordan's relationship in the film was so flawed and forced. Hal shouldn't "get the girl" in the conventional manner. That's what makes his relationship with Carol more interesting in the comics' later years than when they were an item. She's now being groomed to take over Ferris Air, she's his boss. It's business before pleasure. I would have gladly taken a final Hal/Carol scene that emulated the comics (a flirtatious "Don't be gone too long Mr. Jordan" "I'll do my best Ms. Ferris") than that forced kiss that could be seen coming 3 miles away.

Also, they didn't even HAVE a history in this film to start with aside from a brief mention that they grew up together and had a one night stand. Besides that she's been pining for his for years while he screws around. Boring

 

[HaloCod27]

Hm, while RT says Armond White gave the movie a rotten, he gave it a 4/5 stars!

He liked it....that shows what this movie is.

 

[The Guard]

Marvel movies have been released over the past decade now, with FOX managing to produce 9 Marvel films of various quality over that time: 5 X-Men films, Daredevil, Elektra, and 2 FF films from 2000 to now. WB seems to be so disorganised, spending over $300million on one film, the aborted Superman Lives film, the aborted JJ Abrams Superman, Catwoman, producing a failed Wonder Woman pilot, Birds of Prey, Superman Returns, Jonan Hex, the cancelled Justice League film, Joss Whedon's aborted Wonder Woman project, etc.

WB has also released WATCHMEN, and two successful Batman films, one of which was one of the most successful movies of all time. It also had SMALLVILLE run for 10 seasons. There have been plenty of failed or stuttering Marvel projects, too. DEATHLOK, SUB MARINER, IRON FIST, and it took a long time to get even films like CAPTAIN AMERICA, THOR and IRON MAN made once discussions about them began in the early to mid 2000's. Marvel's been trying to get its own stuff off the ground since the late eighties and mid nineties in some cases, IE the Spider-Man franchise and the X-Men one.

I know what you're talking about. I've hardly read any Green Lantern. I read GL in the 60's...stopped after the Neal Adams run in the 70's. I went into the movie with no expectations at all....I found it fun.

This brings up a point I've been meaning to make. A lot of the posters here don't even seem to know much of the Green Lantern mythos that doesn't involve dozens of GLs side by side all the time, a war of light, Sinestro always there with a distinct backstory and ties to Hal, etc. So for them, this probably felt very basic and simple.

I guess I could understand some of the criticisms of GL if I thought fans and critics held ALL comic book movies to the same standards. Bad dialogue? Excuse me, but that line at the end of TDK where Batman says something like "this city showed you that it's filled with people who believe in good" is one of the worst lines in any movie I've ever heard. Mary Jane's confession that she loves Peter in Spider-Man is so out-of-the-blue that it left me thinking, "Huh? Did I miss something?" Bad dialogue exists in every single comic book movie somewhere. But for the life of me, I can't remember one line in GL that made me cringe, other than maybe Hector screaming like a girl.

Exactly. And Hector screaming like a girl only made me cringe because he sounded like he was in so much pain. Now dialogue seems to be the whipping boy here. I don't recall hearing any truly bad dialogue.

I'm getting a little tired of the "It's not perfect defense". No one is expecting perfection, or even greatness.

Yes. Yes they are. Because a solid movie with some decent characterization for the hero isn't enough for them. Good isn't enough. They wanted very good to great. Its apparent in almost every negative post here. "Green Lantern deserved" this or that, "potential wasted" yadda yadda, etc. People wanted greatness, and have said so.

But it's not what's in the comics, especially not what is in Secret Origins; the comic arc that everyone in the production swore up and down the film used as a blueprint.

There are elements in this film that are clearly drawn from both EMERALD DAWN and SECRET ORIGIN. No one ever said it'd be a direct adaption. And SECRET ORIGIN wasn't that great, merely an attempt to make Atrocitus and Black Hand more relevant and make Hector Hammond someone Hal and Carol knew. Frankly, I feel this movie was a bit deeper in many respects, especially in terms of Hal's journey to becoming Green Lantern. He just sort of puts on the ring in SO and bam, he's a hero in training. Here, there's actually some conflict surrounding his decision to accept that responsibility, thin as it is.

This movie isn't just "fun". It's got a lot of the key elements of the Green Lantern mythology.

And I keep seeing people whining about Hammond, and I really think they're missing the point. Hector Hammond never fits in as a character anywhere. Even in his own mythology, he's hardly worth anything. The film nailed his utter uselessness and pathetic nature. That's like his other power from the comics. Being useless.

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes. Yes they are. Because a solid movie with some decent characterization for the hero isn't enough for them. Good isn't enough. They wanted very good to great. Its apparent in almost every negative post here. "Green Lantern deserved" this or that, "potential wasted" yadda yadda, etc. People wanted greatness, and have said so.

I think you are heavily generalizing here. I couldn't care less how close it is to the comics, I just wanted a good movie. Some of us feel this film is far from a "solid movie with decent characterization".

 

[Poni_Boy]

There are elements in this film that are clearly drawn from both EMERALD DAWN and SECRET ORIGIN. No one ever said it'd be a direct adaption. And SECRET ORIGIN wasn't that great, merely an attempt to make Atrocitus and Black Hand more relevant and make Hector Hammond someone Hal and Carol knew. Frankly, I feel this movie was a bit deeper in many respects, especially in terms of Hal's journey to becoming Green Lantern. He just sort of puts on the ring in SO and bam, he's a hero in training. Here, there's actually some conflict surrounding his decision to accept that responsibility, thin as it is.

Never said it was, I said Secret Origins was pandered as a blueprint for this film. Blueprint and direct adaptation are not synonymous. But if you doubt how much the movie was compared to the comic, here ya go:

"His Secret Origins book is what I used as the bible for this," Reynolds told the press this week. "It's an easy thing to reference because it's an origin story as well."

http://www.irishcentral.com/ent/-Ryan-Renolds-inspired-by-DC-Comics-writer-104144188.html

" This book basically gave me the introduction I was looking for in order to begin the incredible ascent to Oa."

Secret Origins Introduction by Ryan Reynolds

"So I’ve been reading 'Secret Origin' with a real interest in seeing 'OK, how did Geoff solve this problem?' There are certain elements just for anyone trying to retell Hal’s origin for a modern day audience has to address and grapple with. For example, why the hell was Abin [Sur] flying in a space ship when he's a Green Lantern? You don't ask that question back in the Silver Age, but when you're writing in the Modern Age, you have to answer these things."

- March Guggenheim

Even on the red carpet recently Ryan was asked how non-fans should get acquainted with the character and he said "Read Secret Origin"

 

[moviedoors]

I initially wanted something more than just good. With the credentials involved, the huge budget, and the mythology, I don't see how its unreasonable to expect something special. After word started to get out, I adjusted my expectations accordingly and just wanted a solid, fun movie, and I didn't even get that.

Blame, blame, blame, excuses, excuses, excuses. Just accept that there are people who genuinely didn't like it.

 

[DaveMoral]

LULZ .... everyone is blind I guess, but you and Maggin' ....

^This right here is the problem. This nebulous "everyone" that you appeal to for authority. It's BS, complete and utter BS.

 

[Frodo]

I agree with this. Everyone has to make this about DC vs Marvel whine fests anymore, and gloat when something fails. I have no problems critiquing this movie or discussing if it was a financial disappointment, but I have tried remaining respectful while doing so. I wanted this film to succeed as much as anyone. I'm sad it looks like it won't.

Totally agree. The whole DC v Marvel thing is counter productive. As CB fans we should want all of these films to be well received and to do well because if TDKR bombs then that hurts the chances of Iron Man 3 . It doesn't matter what publishing company the characters are from because its easy to paint all of the films with a broad brush. It can only help when everybody does well.

 

[DaveMoral]

I love how the folks that "genuinely didn't like" the movie are now getting their panties in a bunch when people who do like it finally speak up and to the merits of the film. Suddenly we are "making excuses" "defending the indefensible" and now you guys feel like an oppressed minority because a growing number of people don't agree with you.

A day ago it seemed like there was nothing but vitriol spewing around here. Today you're acting like people are keeping you down because you didn't like the film.

 

[moviedoors]

To say that the original Hulk was superior in ANY way to the follow up is ridiculous.

Call me ridiculous then, because I prefer the first Hulk to the second, easily.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I love how the folks that "genuinely didn't like" the movie are now getting their panties in a bunch when people who do like it finally speak up and to the merits of the film. Suddenly we are "making excuses" "defending the indefensible" and now you guys feel like an oppressed minority because a growing number of people don't agree with you.

A day ago it seemed like there was nothing but vitriol spewing around here. Today you're acting like people are keeping you down because you didn't like the film.

Is it really useful to try and establish who is a hater/lover? In the majority/minority? It's a comic film, many of us saw it, we all have differing opinions on it. Some loved it. Some hated it. Some liked it. Some disliked it. Why do we need to seperate people into psuedo political parties based on their opinions of the film? Can't we all discuss the film in a respectful manner? Without attacking/labeling people?

 

[moviedoors]

I am referring to people who appear to be taking some kind of weird glee in bad mouthing the movie and those whose opinion on it differed from them.

Why don't you apply the same standard to people who liked the movie and say those that didn't have their head up their ass?

 

[Poni_Boy]

I love how the folks that "genuinely didn't like" the movie are now getting their panties in a bunch when people who do like it finally speak up and to the merits of the film. Suddenly we are "making excuses" "defending the indefensible" and now you guys feel like an oppressed minority because a growing number of people don't agree with you.

A day ago it seemed like there was nothing but vitriol spewing around here. Today you're acting like people are keeping you down because you didn't like the film.

I've only been a contributing member of this forum/discussion for one day but I cna't for the life of me find any posts that back up this claim; even going back to posts from before it's release. All I've noticed are:

- People who liked it explaining (some vigorously) why they don't understand the bad press

- People who didn't like it explaining (even more vigorously) why they were disappointed

- People who are on the fence about it but expected "more"

The things that the majority of posters seem to agree on are that the film A) could have presented a better story B) could have spent less money on marketing and more on the film itself and C) that it is an utter disappointment, regardless if they liked the film or not, that it wasn't well received by critics and audiences

Then you have the random and unnecessary Marvel vs DC comments that serve no purpose as well as the people who come in and insult other members. Their comments hold absolutely no weight whatsoever.

That pretty much sums up this messageboard in the past 72 hours IMO

 

[AndrewGilkison]

You can like the movie all you want, but it's bad reviews are not some grand plot, or other reviewers subscribing to "peer pressure" or whatever people are saying when this movie isn't getting the response they think it should be getting. For whatever reason, this movie is not connecting with the public the way Batman Begins and Iron Man were able to do.

 

[DaveMoral]

^The way I see it the disrespect started with people going on and on about how terrible GL is, then others start to speak up about how much they liked it and they get lampooned and labeled by those that didn't like the film.

I'm all for respectful discussion, but it seems to me that there's a side that's not been respectful and it's mostly been in those who passionately have a hate on for this film.

Which, of course, was the point of my post. Some folks are so passionately negative about the film that anyone that says something positive is "obviously" crazy in some fashion. It's staggeringly stupid.

 

[Poni_Boy]

^The way I see it the disrespect started with people going on and on about how terrible GL is, then others start to speak up about how much they liked it and they get lampooned and labeled by those that didn't like the film.

I'm all for respectful discussion, but it seems to me that there's a side that's not been respectful and it's mostly been in those who passionately have a hate on for this film.

Which, of course, was the point of my post. Some folks are so passionately negative about the film that anyone that says something positive is "obviously" crazy in some fashion. It's staggeringly stupid.

Like I said in my above post, I don't seem to notice these. Can you link me to where these supposed haters are attacking people who liked the film? And didn't you say earlier that people who gave the film bad reviews have their heads up their asses?

 

[Spider-Fan]

^The way I see it the disrespect started with people going on and on about how terrible GL is, then others start to speak up about how much they liked it and they get lampooned and labeled by those that didn't like the film.

I'm all for respectful discussion, but it seems to me that there's a side that's not been respectful and it's mostly been in those who passionately have a hate on for this film.

Which, of course, was the point of my post. Some folks are so passionately negative about the film that anyone that says something positive is "obviously" crazy in some fashion. It's staggeringly stupid.

From my time in here the last couple days since the movie came out, that has gone both ways when fighting has started. People on one side ALWAYS feel more wronged by the other side. It's a constant of the universe. But, it is simply not true. There have been some disrespectful people on both sides. So, in order to try and stop the trend, try not to lower yourself to that level as opposed to calling out the other side.

We have reasonable/unreasonable posters on both sides. So, instead of insulting individual sides, let's all just be respectful

 

[FreeRadical]

WB has also released WATCHMEN, and two successful Batman films, one of which was one of the most successful movies of all time. It also had SMALLVILLE run for 10 seasons. There have been plenty of failed or stuttering Marvel projects, too. DEATHLOK, SUB MARINER, IRON FIST, and it took a long time to get even films like CAPTAIN AMERICA, THOR and IRON MAN made once discussions about them began in the early to mid 2000's. Marvel's been trying to get its own stuff off the ground since the late eighties and mid nineties in some cases, IE the Spider-Man franchise and the X-Men one.

Watchmen, two Batman films (so far), Superman Returns, Catwoman and Jonah Hex. That's it. If WB's film division were more organised, they could have put more DC characters on film other than Batman and Superman. If Marvel could do it, why not WB? It's only now WB has noticed that Harry Potter is ending and Nolan's Bat Trilogy is finishing, that they need another cash cow. With Green Lantern they got off on a bad start. I wonder what will happen to the rumoured Hawkman film......

Smallvile is not really a ratings success. If it was on one of the main networks, it would have been cancelled. Lois and Clark was good when it was on in the 90's.

DC's animated output has been excellent, since Batman The Animated Series, especially the DTV animated movies.

 

[DaveMoral]

You can like the movie all you want, but it's bad reviews are not some grand plot, or other reviewers subscribing to "peer pressure" or whatever people are saying when this movie isn't getting the response they think it should be getting. For whatever reason, this movie is not connecting with the public the way Batman Begins and Iron Man were able to do.

Seems to me that folks wait around for reviews with bated breath and give them a great deal of credence, after all YOU are appealing to bad reviews for authority, and that in turn shapes their perceptions going in and going out of said film. It's why "the public" isn't connecting with the movie. They read a negative review and they decide to stay away from it without ever thinking that the reviewer just might be full of **** and that they might actually really enjoy the film. Likewise, many go into movies on negative reviews because well, they've just gotta see it regardless and never the less they are primed to look for flaws rather than be truly open to enjoying what is presented to them.

It's basic psychology. Not some "grand plot." That's how people are affected by media. You listen to a political pundit with a particular spin and if you aren't bothering to investigate beyond that(and most do not) your sole view on the question at hand is going to be shaped by that one pundit.

I mean, a week and a half before the movie came out some folks who managed to get in on the critic screeners posted on their Facebook pages how much they liked the movie and there were posters saying "those are nobodies" and yet they'll appeal to authority for critics listed on RT just because they are "somebody." It's weak.

And the folks in the theater I was in seemed to genuinely enjoy the movie. Including a 60 year old friend of mine that went with me who knew nothing about Green Lantern. The audience seemed to connect to the movie when I went to see it.

 

[The Guard]

Never said it was, I said Secret Origins was pandered as a blueprint for this film. Blueprint and direct adaptation are not synonymous. But if you doubt how much the movie was compared to the comic, here ya go:

"His Secret Origins book is what I used as the bible for this," Reynolds told the press this week. "It's an easy thing to reference because it's an origin story as well."

http://www.irishcentral.com/ent/-Rya...104144188.html

" This book basically gave me the introduction I was looking for in order to begin the incredible ascent to Oa."

Secret Origins Introduction by Ryan Reynolds

"So I’ve been reading 'Secret Origin' with a real interest in seeing 'OK, how did Geoff solve this problem?' There are certain elements just for anyone trying to retell Hal’s origin for a modern day audience has to address and grapple with. For example, why the hell was Abin [Sur] flying in a space ship when he's a Green Lantern? You don't ask that question back in the Silver Age, but when you're writing in the Modern Age, you have to answer these things."

- March Guggenheim

Even on the red carpet recently Ryan was asked how non-fans should get acquainted with the character and he said "Read Secret Origin"

None of these statements indicate that Secret Origins was used as a blueprint for the story of the film. Only that Ryan Reynolds thinks its a good starting point for people who don't know what GL is in general, and that Marc Guggenheim read it, and may have drawn some inspiration from it for certain elements. Ryan flat out says "It's a good reference because its also an origin story", but he never says anything about the film being based on it. I'm sure they drew from elements of it, as they appear to have drawn from several Green Lantern origin stories. But I don't think it can be called the blueprint for this film. Mostly because this film doesn't resemble it that much.

I'm curious as to what people think a "solid" Green Lantern film with decent characterization looks like.

 

[DaveMoral]

Give me a break, there's plenty of **** slinging on both sides. How many times have people said those that didn't like it have their "heads up their ass" or just straight up "**** 'em." The extremes of both sides are being asshats.

I said it once, a couple pages back, in agreement with Elliot S! Maggins' blog post and in response to the many many unreasonable posts about how there is "nothing" good about this movie.