The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 5

[MadVillainy]

he is executive producer on MOS, it would seem like a logical conclusion.

Nah man from what theyre saying. Theyre all seperate universes

 

[Superfreak]

He's a producer, not an executive producer. Big difference.

And they've already said that Batman and Superman won't be sharing a world. They are self contained.

cool, thanks, I'm not up to date anymore. Takes too much effort, over too long an off season. I figured they'd keep'm seperate for atleast the introductory films. Gotta define the characters individually in their respective franchises before tieing them together, if they ever plan to.


but I wanted to ask, does the angela basset/amanda waller character not strike anybody as the marvel Colson? She seems like a pretty heady actress to be cast in such a small role.

 

[Poni_Boy]

cool, thanks, I'm not up to date anymore. I figured they'd keep'm seperate, atleast for now. Gotta define the characters individually in their respective franchises before tieing them together, if they ever plan to.


but I wanted to ask, does the angela basset/amanda waller character not strike anybody as the marvel Colson? She seems like a pretty heady actress to be cast in such a small role.

Yep. It was a throwaway character. They should have just left Alan Scott in there instead

 

[Rock Sexton]

I'd put it with FF, both hulk movies, the spiderman followup films and Thor (definately not on the same level as Xmen, the first spiderman or Ironmen) ... basically like a second string Marvel movie. Which IMO, is where this movie should be... GL is a second stringer in my books, when considering movie properties(he's not a second stringer really, but I'll always put him a step behind Bats, Supes and WW). I've always found the Marvel movies to be uninspiring. Fun to watch and really entertaining. But they've always lacked the serious take on the character they are portraying that DC movies have done or attempted to do. I come out of Batman wanting to be batman... not so much for this movie.

I guess my final thought is that the movie is not worth the 200 mil investment they made. Could have been simplified and cheapened a little, and still held the same level of quality.

GL fans still trying to drag Thor down to it's level.

I'll argue though that TIH (not Ang Lee's Hulk) was a better movie than GL. It just suffered from zero publicity due to the rift between Norton and Marvel and the fact that marketing didn't tell the audience whether it was a reboot.

 

[Raiden]

yeah, that's kind of it. DC has always tried to be a less light hearted than the marvel films. When you look at BB, TDK and even SR, they are all rather dark, when compared to any of the marvel properties. The tone of the two movie universes is different. But GL feels like it's trying to mimic the Marvel tone of movies, rather than stick with the DC theme.

it's kind of hard to put into words. But there is a clear difference between the Marvel and DC films... and GL feels like it fits more in the Marvel family of films than the DC.

So how serious were DC superhero movies like Superman 3 & 4, Supergirl, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, Catwoman, and Steel? You made it sounds like all the DC movies are dark while no Marvel movies have any serious tone or depth.

 

[Mysteryman]

Yep. It was a throwaway character. They should have just left Alan Scott in there instead

I think she was meant to be
DCs Nick Fury actually.
At least that is what Angela Basset has been saying.

 

[Silver Surfer]

GL fans still trying to drag Thor down to it's level.

I'll argue though that TIH (not Ang Lee's Hulk) was a better movie than GL. It just suffered from zero publicity due to the rift between Norton and Marvel and the fact that marketing didn't tell the audience whether it was a reboot.

Don't worry as much as they would like to they can't. Between Critical reaction, Word of Mouth and Box Office numbers it's not happening. simply put Thor is something GL isn't, a success.

 

[Superfreak]

So how serious were DC superhero movies like Superman 3 & 4, Supergirl, Batman Forever, Batman & Robin, Catwoman, and Steel? You made it sounds like all the DC movies are dark while no Marvel movies have any serious tone or depth.

I've been talking about the current generation, not the pre 2000 generation of films. There is a clear difference. Old franchises, are old franchises... they were rebooted. You might as well lump 1960 batman in there too by your line of thought, but you didn't

 

[Metamorpho1977]

just saw the movie. I liked it. some continuity errors but they weren't big enough to draw away from the enjoyability of it. the action was good. I liked the little Capt America knod during the Kilowog training scene.


I only saw it once. So could you please name those continuity errors that you saw

mostly just the secret identity revelations.

Anyways, after seeing the polls in here.....48 people in here thinks it's great, 73 thought it was average, and 47 people thinks it sucks.


So at worst, this movie is average.

Not bad

it was mostly just the secret identity revelations.

 

[Superfreak]

GL fans still trying to drag Thor down to it's level.

I'll argue though that TIH (not Ang Lee's Hulk) was a better movie than GL. It just suffered from zero publicity due to the rift between Norton and Marvel and the fact that marketing didn't tell the audience whether it was a reboot.

I'm not trying to drag anything down, or puff anything up. Thor was good, but I expected more. GL delivered more, it just wasn't very good.

 

[Raiden]

I've been talking about the current generation, not the pre 2000 generation of films. There is a clear difference. Old franchises, are old franchises... they were rebooted. You might as well lump 1960 batman in there too by your line of thought, but you didn't

Catwoman was made in 2004, and I don't why you can just pick & choose which films to make your point. As for 1960 Batman movie, it was based on the old TV show and as much camp & cheese as the show was, it really fit the era it was made and who doesn't like Adam West as Batman? I'm not going to criticize it for what it is.

 

[Superfreak]

Catwoman was made in 2004, and I don't why you can just pick & choose which films to make your point. As for 1960 Batman movie, it was based on the old TV show and as much camp & cheese as the show was, it really fit the era it was made and who doesn't like Adam West as Batman? I'm not going to criticize it for what it is.

that's what I'm trying to get at, the eras in which those films were made also influenced them.

so just to clarify: by current generation of DC films, I mean post 2005 inclusive... ie. when it appeared that WB/DC had finally appeared to approach their films more seriously.

likewise, for marvel, I'd put the current generation beginning with the Xmen franchise.

there is a pretty clear line drawn at these transitions where comic book movies went from being pulp laden, to being produced with a more serious outlook... ie. they realized that if they make'em good, they can line their pockets with gold. Marvel has figured it out... WB/DC is still a mess.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I think she was meant to be
DCs Nick Fury actually.
At least that is what Angela Basset has been saying.

That only works if you're planning on tying other film franchises together. Which WB has no plans of doing.

Angela Basset is full of ****

 

[Poni_Boy]

that's what I'm trying to get at, the eras in which those films were made also influenced them.

so just to clarify: by current generation of DC films, I mean post 2005 inclusive... ie. when it appeared that WB/DC had finally appeared to approach their films more seriously.

likewise, for marvel, I'd put the current generation beginning with the Xmen franchise.

there is a pretty clear line drawn at these transitions where comic book movies went from being pulp laden, to being produced with a more serious outlook... ie. they realized that if they make'em good, they can line their pockets with gold. Marvel has figured it out... WB/DC is still a mess.

Quick question: Why do you keep changing the dates to serve your point? First it was movies in general, then modern movies, then 2000 and now 2005. Looks like you only want to recognize Batman Begins and onward for your argument

 

[Superfreak]

Quick question: Why do you keep changing the dates to serve your point? First it was movies in general, then modern movies, then 2000 and now 2005. Looks like you only want to recognize Batman Begins and onward for your argument

because I don't know all the dates off by heart anymore man. But you guys start nitpicking, so then I have to go search IMDB to make my statement more accurate.

two, I figured you guys would get the idea, that comparing franchise from the 90s and 80s, to the current, just doesn't work. I figured you guys would understand what I mean by 'current generation'. I never meant movies in general... I was only refering to the current... because the past franchises, which have finished, are just that, passed.

That's why.

and indeed, I am only recognized BB forward, because it was the first of the new generations of DC films that took itself seriously... until GL that is.

likewise for marvel, after Xmen, things were taken more seriously... yeah, there were some major flops... but in marvels defense, they've been pumping out way more movies that DC, and they were bound to have a couple of missteps.


apologies for not being as accurate as I should have been in my initial posts. But I hope you guys understand what I'm trying to get at. It's like comparing old and new battlestar galactica, same subject matter, but two very different animals.

 

[Paradox1]

I gotta agree with Superfreak here a lot of Marvel movies have been a lot of fluff. There are dark places that they will not take their movies which is one of the reason I didn't Iron Man 2. Stark was being so self destructive but none of his friends called him out on that. I'm just saying don't act like he doesn't have a point what so ever because he does.

 

[Superfreak]

I gotta agree with Superfreak here a lot of Marvel movies have been a lot of fluff. There are dark places that they will not take their movies which is one of the reason I didn't Iron Man 2. Stark was being so self destructive but none of his friends called him out on that. I'm just saying don't act like he doesn't have a point what so ever because he does.

thanks man, you summed that up greatly. There is a difference between the approach both companies are taking to their current properties.

 

[Rock Sexton]

I gotta agree with Superfreak here a lot of Marvel movies have been a lot of fluff. There are dark places that they will not take their movies which is one of the reason I didn't Iron Man 2. Stark was being so self destructive but none of his friends called him out on that. I'm just saying don't act like he doesn't have a point what so ever because he does.

Marvel wasn't "making" those movies. Other studios were. NOW they make their own movies and the quality control is obvious.

 

[C. Lee]

That only works if you're planning on tying other film franchises together. Which WB has no plans of doing.

Angela Basset is full of ****

So....you know more the WBs plans than the Oscar nominate actress they employ?

 

[Crimson King]

I gotta agree with Superfreak here a lot of Marvel movies have been a lot of fluff. There are dark places that they will not take their movies which is one of the reason I didn't Iron Man 2. Stark was being so self destructive but none of his friends called him out on that. I'm just saying don't act like he doesn't have a point what so ever because he does.

No one called him out on it? What about Pepper and Rhodey? Hell, Fury basically put him under house arrest until he got his crap together.

 

[Superfreak]

Marvel wasn't "making" those movies. Other studios were. NOW they make their own movies and the quality control is obvious.

even so, marvel's approach is more still more fluffy than DCs. I'd go so far to say that the problem with GL is Reynolds. A little too much cocky funny man.

It may have to do with the target audience... with Marvel aiming a little lower in age than DC.

 

[Poni_Boy]

and indeed, I am only recognized BB forward, because it was the first of the new generations of DC films that took itself seriously... until GL that is.

likewise for marvel, after Xmen, things were taken more seriously... yeah, there were some major flops... but in marvels defense, they've been pumping out way more movies that DC, and they were bound to have a couple of missteps.

I gotta agree with Superfreak here a lot of Marvel movies have been a lot of fluff. There are dark places that they will not take their movies which is one of the reason I didn't Iron Man 2. Stark was being so self destructive but none of his friends called him out on that. I'm just saying don't act like he doesn't have a point what so ever because he does.

You guys are talking apples and oranges. Marvel Studio has only produced four films so far with a fifth set for release in July.

Every other film was produced (from scratch) and distributed by other studios that own(ed) the film rights. WB/DC cannot make that claim. Ever.

Using your timeline let's compare the Marvel Studios/DC film slate:

Iron Man/The Incredible Hulk/Iron Man 2/Thor with Cap coming out next month

Batman Begins/Superman Returns/The Dark Knight/Green Lantern

If you want to stay as true to a comparison as possible then these are the only films to use.

 

[Crimson King]

I think both DC and Marvel need to mix it up. DC doesn't need to be the "serious one" while Marvel is lighthearted. Pigeon-holing yourself never works. That being said, GL suffered from not being sure which direction it wanted to go.

 

[C. Lee]

No one called him out on it? What about Pepper and Rhodey? Hell, Fury basically put him under house arrest until he got his crap together.

Don't confuse people with facts...it disrupts the Force.

 

[Crimson King]

Gotcha. My bad.