The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 5

[Rock Sexton]

SuperDaniel is entitled to his opinion.

Nobody said he's not. But just like any other opinion on here it's open to constructive criticism ..... much like those who think the complete opposite.

 

[Flint Marko]

^ Literally just laughed out loud

 

[Liam_H]

LOL @ SuperDaniel

....nothing else to really say

 

[SuperDaniel]

Agreed...I'd be interested to know why you think that though, Superdaniel.

I actually enjoyed Thor a lot but GL is a better movie in my eyes

1-I'm more of a GL fan than Thor so I obviously care about this mythology a lot more.

2-The romance, the backbone of both movies, in GL is a thousand times more credible and more developed.

3- Mark Strong presence as Sinestro overcomes anything Loki ever attempted to do.

4- I think the main character Arc is more developed in GL

5- Comedy in Thor is really stupid while the comedy in GL works, imo, so GL is a more fun movie.

Both are good movies so I like GL better.

 

[wobbly]

So it's the audiences fault now the film isn't doing well at the Box office?

There was me thinking it not being a good enough film was the problem.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I actually enjoyed Thor a lot but GL is a better movie in my eyes

1-I'm more of a GL fan than Thor so I obviously care about this mythology a lot more.

2-The romance, the backbone of both movies, in GL is a thousand times more credible and more developed.

3- Mark Strong presence as Sinestro overcomes anything Loki ever attempted to do.

4- I think the main character Arc is more developed in GL

5- Comedy in Thor is really stupid while the comedy in GL works, imo, so GL is a more fun movie.

Both are good movies so I like GL better.

I think everyone here understands that you are 1000% behind the GL movie, but trying to force your opinions on others with insults and far fetched claims really isn't helping. Sometimes less is more, a simple "I loved it regardless of it's flaws or general opinion" would garner more respect.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Certain characters resonate more with the audience than others.

But i have no doubt in my mind that what was presented in the movie was GL, his mythos and his origin story and they did them all justice.

Maybe a complaint that is understandable is that it was just a taste and not enough mythology and space but this was Hal Jordan`s story and it was pretty clear from DAY 1.

And to say Hector was useless, did nothing, didnt serve for nothing is pretty much BS.

ps: How about Thor's mother? lol

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Nobody said he's not.

Your comment here doesn't seem to suggest that.

No, but he's got his home made Green Lantern ring on, so everything he sees in his mind becomes reality.

 

[DACrowe]

It was never explained in the comics so i dont know WTF is the problem. Maybe GL isnt for you, then.

I guess you can say that for all audiences. You can do ponderous mythology (Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, Game of Thrones on TV now) in a smart way. GL just seemed silly and arbitrary in the film. If that is how it is in the comics, then I guess it's not for me or those who like more than geek exposition.

BTW, GL is better than Thor.

I could write a long post about how GL is far inferior in terms of direction and acting or how it lacks charm, warmth and wit in its pace and narrative. But I learned long ago that when a fan who needs to love something so much not to bother.

And it was actually explained that the Guardians were immortals, one of the first species of life EVER, so they ponder their decisions over milleniums. They were always cold like that in the comics.

It was explained but there was no attempt to provide plausibility or a sense of wonder to it. It's just, "Oh there's these god-like beings called Guardians. They will give you exposition now."

There's plenty of humanity and character in the movie. It is very defined in the movie. Maybe you just didnt see it but it was quite clear that:

-Sinestro is the confident, master, arrogant warrior who believes he can master any power, yellow or green.

-Tomar-Re is the smart, receptive one.

-Kilowog is the Drill Sargent

And the humanity is brought from Hal who is lost among all these alien species and responsibility.

Thanks for making my point for me about how two-dimensional and studio cookie-cutter all these characters were. So much so, that you could describe all of them in a one sentence archetype.

Hal had a clear arc in the movie, he was the irresponsible, reckless guy who didnt care for anything in life, is bestowed this enormous responsibility and learns to be a hero when the people who he cares and his world are in danger.

If you'll let me.....

Tony Stark had a clear arc in the movie, he was the irresponsible, reckless guy who didnt care for anything in life, is bestowed this enormous responsibility and learns to be a hero when the people who he cares and his world are in danger.

I could use Peter Parker if you prefer.

I'll leave it there.

 

[Liam_H]

And to say Hector was useless, did nothing, didnt serve for nothing is pretty much BS.

ps: How about Thor's mother? lol

That's not really an apt comparison; you might as well of compared Hal's brother or nephew to Loki.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Certain characters resonate more with the audience than others.

But i have no doubt in my mind that what was presented in the movie was GL, his mythos and his origin story and they did them all justice.

Maybe a complaint that is understandable is that it was just a taste and not enough mythology and space but this was Hal Jordan`s story and it was pretty clear from DAY 1.

And to say Hector was useless, did nothing, didnt serve for nothing is pretty much BS.

ps: How about Thor's mother? lol

You really going to compare Thor's mother to Hector? Thor's mother was not a villain.

 

[SuperDaniel]

You really going to compare Thor's mother to Hector? Thor's mother was not a villain.

No but THIS IS an example of a character that did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the movie.

 

[Liam_H]

Who's insulting who? I didnt call anybody names and im actually backing up my arguments with character arcs from the movie.

Dude, you ILLEGALLY leaked pictures from the movie. What kind of reporter are you?

You praised you were a grown up man, was/is in the army, air force, and yet continued to do ILLEGAL stuff day after day when working for a not credible website...

Didn't you say we didn't like the movie cause we were too dumb to understand it?

 

[Miranda Fox]

 

[SuperDaniel]

That's not really an apt comparison; you might as well of compared Hal's brother or nephew to Loki.

His brother and nephew actually served a purpose in the story, the complete opposite of his mother who was JUST THERE.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Didn't you say we didn't like the movie cause we were too dumb to understand it?

In so many words ... LOL .... remember it's the audiences fault for not "getting" the movie.

 

[Crimson King]

SuperDaniel is entitled to his opinion.

I didn't deny him an opinion. I simply pointed out that he was in the minority. What's wrong with that?

 

[Supermanreturns]

I actually enjoyed Thor a lot but GL is a better movie in my eyes

1-I'm more of a GL fan than Thor so I obviously care about this mythology a lot more.

2-The romance, the backbone of both movies, in GL is a thousand times more credible and more developed.

3- Mark Strong presence as Sinestro overcomes anything Loki ever attempted to do.

4- I think the main character Arc is more developed in GL

5- Comedy in Thor is really stupid while the comedy in GL works, imo, so GL is a more fun movie.

Both are good movies so I like GL better.

OMG. I will start from 2 then i will come back to number 1.

2. They're both lacked. GL lacked, Thor lacked. They're bot not credible and not developed.

3. Mark Strong as Sinestro? He's good but he doesn't do anything in the movie. Tom Hiddleston's Loki have much more screentime and then he's far away more credible and way more good than Strong. He's one of the better villain seen in recent comic-book movies (after TDK).

4. Absolutely not. But neither Thor. They're lacked.

5. Thor has funny moments. But Green Lantern was stupid. It was comic when it doesn't have sense...

And then:

1. You're not credible because you will ever say that GL is far away better than Thor or other CBM's because you're a GL fanboy. So nobody will take care of your fanboy's word.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

We are dumb because the editor didn't have the decency to grant us establishing shots as we moved to the next location.

 

[Chewy]

And to say Hector was useless, did nothing, didnt serve for nothing is pretty much BS.

ps: How about Thor's mother? lol

lol Oh my

Next let's compare Kal Penn in Superman Returns to Aaron Eckhart in The Dark Knight

 

[DACrowe]

Just to pick a few....

I actually enjoyed Thor a lot but GL is a better movie in my eyes

1-I'm more of a GL fan than Thor so I obviously care about this mythology a lot more.

So....GL is a better movie because you like GL as a character better than Thor? Well, I'm not surprised. But I'll put it this way. I like Batman as a character better than GL. But I'm not going to say I like B&R better just out of brand loyalty.

2-The romance, the backbone of both movies, in GL is a thousand times more credible and more developed.

I will agree that Blake Lively's character and Hal having a romantic history years back is more believable than a serious scientist falling for a buff homeless guy who MIGHT be a norse god--albeit by the same token Natalie Portman as a scientist is far more believable than Blake Lively as a fighter pilot. In any case though, Portman's performance was much more believable and her scenes with Hemsworth were charming and enjoyable. They were fun to watch together. In GL they were surprisingly shallow after the set-up with her lecturing Hal every time they see each other and then getting kidnapped. It felt obligatory.

3- Mark Strong presence as Sinestro overcomes anything Loki ever attempted to do.

Perhaps, but Sinestro wasn't the villain. Hector and a CGI cloud were. Was a cloud really better than Hiddleton's scenes with Hopkins or when he goes to Earth to lie to his brother? I think not.

4- I think the main character Arc is more developed in GL

Well, they both have the villain saying--"You CHANGED" to the hero. I thought it was pretty much the same arc in both movies.

 

[Liam_H]

His brother and nephew actually served a purpose in the story, the complete opposite of his mother who was JUST THERE.

Besides getting the idea to create a race track. What purpose did they serve besides showing that Hal is not a jerk for coming to his Nephew's party. His family never comes back into play in the entire movie.

I disagree Thor's mother states that Odin always does something for a reason. Not completely necessary but it was a nice scene.

 

[SuperDaniel]

Didn't you say we didn't like the movie cause we were too dumb to understand it?

I am actually pointing out the main criticisms this movie is getting.

Nobody still have not given me a valid point of criticism.

Someone first criticize how the movie jumps around its hard for people to understand. Give me an example where that happens.

-The fight in space scene with all the Lanterns? It is explained in the movie that Sinestro was going to go find Parallax with some of the best of the GLs and hunt it. They are overpowered and defeated and then Sinestro asks the Guardians how?

-Someone criticize that after Hal goes back to OA, he opens the door of his apartment in street clothes. That was the most ridiculous statemnet ive heard. We are shown him coming from OA and arriving on Earth, we are shown that the GL costume is made of light and instantly disappears so WTF is the problem?

 

[SuperDaniel]

We are dumb because the editor didn't have the decency to grant us establishing shots as we moved to the next location.

where did that happen?

 

[Chewy]

Nobody still have not given me a valid point of criticism.

How about this

There is a scene where Hal leaves Earth, goes to the guardians on Oa, and asks for permission to go back to Earth and fight Parallax.