The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 5

[Poni_Boy]

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

I know that Geoff Johns is the one who swapped out Alan Scott for Amanda Waller per the studios' request for another strong female character. I know that Johns did that to open doors for other franchises even though WB knew full well the character would not be utilized for that. I also know that Bassett was only signed on for one film.

Besides that, I don't know much else about her involvement.

 

[Superfreak]

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.

I really don't care which production company makes the films. It shouldn't matter... and doesn't. Because using your system, it excludes a number of Xmen and spiderman movies, which have all been solid (with some weaker than others, but nothing horrifying). It has nothing to do with which studio is producing, and more with how much care is put into making said movies(in marvel's case atleast, warners is a disaster, and they should be outsourcing).

and like I said, the number of movies Marvel has been pumping out, they can be forgiven a couple of flops. They've made maybe three times as many films as DC. DC has dropped the ball on 2/4 current franchises, that's half. Marvel, irregardless of studio, has a better record, even though more they have more failures.

 

[Poni_Boy]

]I really don't care which production company makes the films. [/B]It shouldn't matter... and doesn't. Because using your system, it excludes a number of Xmen and spiderman movies, which have all been solid (with some weaker than others, but nothing horrifying). It has nothing to do with which studio is producing, and more with how much care is put into making said movies.

and like I said, the number of movies Marvel has been pumping out, they can be forgiven a couple of flops. They've made maybe three times as many films as DC. DC has dropped the ball on 2/4 current franchises, that's half. Marvel, irregardless of studio, has a better record, even though more they have more failures.

Then your logic is completely flawed. You're picking and choosing what facts to use as your argument while disregarding others that are equally relevant, which makes whatever points you are tying to make biased and irrelevant.

Marvel DID NOT have control of any of their characters prior to Marvel Studios' inception, nor did they have the right to veto any changes made to them from other studios' films.

I bet that if Fox was making a Batman movie and made his suit white with gold trim you'd DEFINITELY care which production company made the film and would cry fowl if people blamed WB.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I really don't care which production company makes the films. It shouldn't matter... and doesn't. Because using your system, it excludes a number of Xmen and spiderman movies, which have all been solid (with some weaker than others, but nothing horrifying). It has nothing to do with which studio is producing, and more with how much care is put into making said movies(in marvel's case atleast, warners is a disaster, and they should be outsourcing).

and like I said, the number of movies Marvel has been pumping out, they can be forgiven a couple of flops. They've made maybe three times as many films as DC. DC has dropped the ball on 2/4 current franchises, that's half. Marvel, irregardless of studio, has a better record, even though more they have more failures.

Production company matters. DC's characters are all under the WB umbrella. That is the prime reason fewer DC films are made. If FOX, Sony, Universal, etc all had pieces of the DC pie, like they do/did Marvel, then we'd have more DC films. It's basic math/econmics: more companies that have ownership of properties, the greater the chance of movies about said properties being made. Marvel, themselves, have released 4 films and finished 5. That is all that counts for the Marvel umbrella. That is why no one counts them for Marvel. Marvel had little power over them, so their quality is immaterial to how Marvel makes movies.

 

[Superfreak]

Then your logic is completely flawed. You're picking and choosing what facts to use as your argument while disregarding others that are equally relevant, which makes whatever points you are tying to make biased and irrelevant.

Marvel DID NOT have control of any of their characters prior to Marvel Studios' inception, nor did they have the right to veto any changes made to them from other studios' films.

I bet that if Fox was making a Batman movie and made his suit white with gold trim you'd DEFINITELY care which production company made the film and would cry fowl if people blamed WB.

no really, I don't. But I'd blast both companies for failure, the comic company for giving up their property to some *****e bag production company, and the production company for failure. In the end, both are responsible for whatever result is produced, be it successful, or a failure.

IMO, I'd like to see DC contracting their properties out once the current projects run their course. Because veto power has not helped WB/DC very much, and was hardly needed for most of the externally produced marvel products.

 

[Poni_Boy]

no really, I don't. But I'd blast both companies for failure, the comic company for giving up their property to some *****e bag production company, and the production company for failure. In the end, both are responsible for whatever result is produced, be it successful, or a failure.

IMO, I'd like to see DC contracting their properties out once the current projects run their course. Because veto power has not helped WB/DC very much, and was hardly needed for most of the externally produced marvel products.

Why would you blast a comics company for selling the film rights to their characters to major motion picture studios? How else are they supposed to get comic book films made unless the comics company owns a movie production company. That makes no sense

 

[Superfreak]

Production company matters. DC's characters are all under the WB umbrella. That is the prime reason fewer DC films are made. If FOX, Sony, Universal, etc all had pieces of the DC pie, like they do/did Marvel, then we'd have more DC films. It's basic math/econmics: more companies that have ownership of properties, the greater the chance of movies about said properties being made. Marvel, themselves, have released 4 films and finished 5. That is all that counts for the Marvel umbrella. That is why no one counts them for Marvel. Marvel had little power over them, so their quality is immaterial to how Marvel makes movies.

actually, under DC's umbrella, I include all DC properties, and under Marvel, I include all marvel properties. Outsourced or not. One way or another rights have changed hands for $$$$, or they've remained in house. Marvel comics (not studio) has had much more success than DC, but the thematic approach used to produce movies of either companies comics is different.


to be honest, I can't even remember what we are talking about anymore. All I know is that GL feels more like a movie produced from a marvel comics property, rather than a DC comics property... mostly because of the lighthearted approach to the film.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Why would you blast a comics company for selling the film rights to their characters to major motion picture studios? How else are they supposed to get comic book films made unless the comics company owns a movie production company. That makes no sense

Much like his argument.

 

[Superfreak]

Why would you blast a comics company for selling the film rights to their characters to major motion picture studios? How else are they supposed to get comic book films made unless the comics company owns a movie production company. That makes no sense

for failure my friend, not for the sale, and if you read on, you'll notice that I would like DC to outsource, because WB has proven many times (excluding batman) that there is something flawed with their approach to making DC movies.

 

[Raiden]

no really, I don't. But I'd blast both companies for failure, the comic company for giving up their property to some *****e bag production company, and the production company for failure. In the end, both are responsible for whatever result is produced, be it successful, or a failure.

IMO, I'd like to see DC contracting their properties out once the current projects run their course. Because veto power has not helped WB/DC very much, and was hardly needed for most of the externally produced marvel products.

It's really like comparing apples and oranges regarding DC and Marvel's situation. DC has always have a big movie studio to make movies of, but Marvel was in financial difficulties (and even filed for bankruptsy once), and by themselves had no capability to make any movie. That's why they not only licensed their movies out to Sony, Fox, and other studios, but also gave those studios alot of leeway to make movies their way, even the condition where Marvel could get the rights back. Marvel has gotten some really well-made movies that they could not have done given the financial hole they were in, but it also resulted in some poorly-made movies they had no way of stopping or influencing. DC, of course, didn't have this problem, but WB hadn't treated them with the kind of respect they deserved all the time imo.

 

[Paradox1]

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.

Don't forget to mention V for Vendetta, Constantine, and Watchmen when you talking about WB of late. They are not without fault but of late their movies have taken a very serious note.

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.

That is not the kind of calling out I was thinking of I was thinking more of a intervention. That would of showed Tony digging deep that would of forced him to reanalyze not only his actions but the effect it had on the ones who loved him. What happen in Iron Man 2 didn't touch any emotional cords like it should of with his drinking and self destructive path.

 

[Poni_Boy]

for failure my friend, not for the sale, and if you read on, you'll notice that I would like DC to outsource, because WB has proven many times (excluding batman) that there is something flawed with their approach to making DC movies.

You're scrutinizing the forehead pimple to overlook the ugly face it's sitting on.

Marvel HAD to sell film right because A) They were bankrupt and needed collateral and B) They did not have, nor could they afford, to create a production house.

And who in their sane mind would want anyone to make DC movies besides.. DC? Sure they could screw it up (and they have) but then the blame falls on their shoulders. If they sell the Batman film rights to any other studio then they have no say.. whatsoever.. on how the character is depicted on screen.

It just looks like you're either ignorant to the facts at hand (which several people have spelled out for you) or incapable of understanding the logic behind it. You're playing the blame game, and badly.

 

[Poni_Boy]

That is not the kind of calling out I was thinking of I was thinking more of a intervention. That would of showed Tony digging deep that would of forced him to reanalyze not only his actions but the effect it had on the ones who loved him. What happen in Iron Man 2 didn't touch any emotional cords like it should of with his drinking and self destructive path.

I would think that kicking your friend's ass and taking one of his super suits qualifies as an intervention in the comic book movie world. If not, putting him on house arrest till he cleans up his act definitely is.

 

[wobbly]

for failure my friend, not for the sale, and if you read on, you'll notice that I would like DC to outsource, because WB has proven many times (excluding batman) that there is something flawed with their approach to making DC movies.

Sorry, but I don't think outsourcing is the solution. They would be losing a lot of money to other studios for characters they already own*.

No, what they need to do (imho) is try to set up a dedicated production department with a cohesive vision of where they take these films. At the moment they just spread them out to different producers and the result is films that differ wildy in tone and quality (leaving them pretty much standalones as well with little or no room for integration down the line).

With Warner's looking for the next big franchise now Potter is coming to his end adopting the Marvel approach of building an extended universe, where the individuals for each film can come together more or less seamlessly at a later time, would seem like a smart move to me.


*That's the whole reason Marvel got fed up with the situation and created Marvel Studios: Others making a crap load of money from their properties. They took a chance with a huge loan to get them started but it paid off so well the mighty mouse of Disney sniffed them out.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Sorry, but I don't think outsourcing is the solution. They would be losing a lot of money to other studios for characters they already own*.

No, what they need to do (imho) is try to set up a dedicated production department with a cohesive vision of where they take these films. At the moment they just spread them out to different producers and the result is films that differ wildy in tone and quality (leaving them pretty much standalones as well with little or no room for integration down the line).

With Warner's looking for the next big franchise now Potter is coming to his end adopting the Marvel approach of building an extended universe, where the individuals for each film can come together more or less seamlessly at a later time, would seem like a smart move to me.


*That's the whole reason Marvel got fed up with the situation and created Marvel Studios: Others making a crap load of money from their properties. They took a chance with a huge loan to get them started but it paid off so well the mighty mouse of Disney sniffed them out.

Bingo. Which is what WB tried to do with DE Entertainment, they obviously just didn't do it right.

I truly believe that WB won't adopt the Marvel approach out of either spite or to lessen the comparisons between studios. I don't think many people would care if they copied Marvel's approach, as long as they made good movies.

 

[wobbly]

Bingo. Which is what WB tried to do with DE Entertainment, they obviously just didn't do it right.

Yeah...That's what I meant by a cohesive vision. That division gets some things right (Animations, the Batman Games etc), but obviously dropped the ball with this film.

I truly believe that WB won't adopt the Marvel approach out of either spite or to lessen the comparisons between studios. I don't think many people would care if they copied Marvel's approach, as long as they made good movies.

Thing is they did sort of head there back with Batman Forever, when Metropolis was mentioned (they also had the 'this is why Superman works alone' line in B&R, but the less people are reminded of that one the better). So the DC faithful could argue they set that kind of thing up first. And yes, studios ape each others tactics all the time. Make the product good and no-one will care about that.

 

[akfj]

Kevin Smith also had a Bruce Wayne cameo in his Superman Lives script, and Michael Keaton had agreed to do it.

 

[Willi Berg]

Angela Bassett never confirmed that Waller was DC's answer to Nick Fury. A reporter brought it up to her and she said it "wasn't set up that way" but that she hoped it would turn out that way, though she never discussed it with WB.

Is “Green Lantern’s” Amanda Waller going to be the Nick Fury of the DC Movie Universe – the connective character that brings superheroes together? If Angela Bassett has her way, that's a big, fat yes.

“I didn't want to just come out and ask [the studio] that, but maybe I should have – I certainly hope so,” Bassett tells PopcornBiz

The Wall’s” inclusion in the film suggests she might recur in another DC flick down the line, and while Bassett knows just how key her comics alter ego can be, she’s not certain if she’ll be keeping tabs on any other heroes or villains.

“It wasn't set up that way,” she admits. “Hopefully somebody as brilliant as you that's got their thinking cap on.”

http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/popcornbiz/Angela-Bassett-Wants-Amanda-Waller-to-Be-DC-Movies-Nick-Fury-124231554.html

 

[A Necessary Evil]

isn't she kinda....dead though.

 

[Willi Berg]

isn't she kinda....dead though.

Green Lantern saved her with that puddle of green water.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

I need to see it again.

Only saw it opening night, been meaning too, but haven't. Musta missed out on that one.

 

[Spider-Fan]

Angela Bassett never confirmed that Waller was DC's answer to Nick Fury. A reporter brought it up to her and she said it "wasn't set up that way" but that she hoped it would turn out that way, though she never discussed it with WB.





http://www.nbcbayarea.com/blogs/popcornbiz/Angela-Bassett-Wants-Amanda-Waller-to-Be-DC-Movies-Nick-Fury-124231554.html

Difference between her an Fury to this point: Fury has yet to be owned like Waller was.

 

[Rock Sexton]

Green Lantern saved her with that puddle of green water.

LOL .... as exciting as the giant green net.

 

[Paradox1]

I would think that kicking your friend's ass and taking one of his super suits qualifies as an intervention in the comic book movie world. If not, putting him on house arrest till he cleans up his act definitely is.

Kicking someone's ass because they are acting like a jackass is not an intervention. An intervention is a very emotional event that stirs up all kinds of feelings such as anger, resentment, and often leads everyone involved in tears. Fury putting him on house arrest is not a detox and yes alcoholics do go through a detox. The side effects aren't as severe as let's say a heroine detox However they are still there and we've all seen movies of perfectly good detox scenes and interventions that would of worked perfectly fine in this movie. I would of left the theater feeling like wow Marvel was really bold tackling a real issue with someone like Stark. It would of instantly made the movie more dark, more real and more gritty.

Furthermore being real and gritty isn't using a real life tech to make it seem more grounded, its about dealing with real life issues that the everyman face in our lives. That is what makes a movie more real and more gritty in my eyes

 

[Spider-Fan]

Kicking someone's ass because they are acting like a jackass is not an intervention. An intervention is a very emotional event that stirs up all kinds of feelings such as anger, resentment, and often leads everyone involved in tears. Fury putting him on house arrest is not a detox and yes alcoholics do go through a detox. The side effects aren't as severe as let's say a heroine detox However they are still there and we've all seen movies of perfectly good detox scenes and interventions that would of worked perfectly fine in this movie. I would of left the theater feeling like wow Marvel was really bold tackling a real issue with someone like Stark. It would of instantly made the movie more dark, more real and more gritty.

Furthermore being real and gritty isn't using a real life tech to make it seem more grounded, its about dealing with real life issues that the everyman face in our lives. That is what makes a movie more real and more gritty in my eyes

IM2 wasn't supposed to be dark/gritty. Nor was IM1. The Iron Man films have a seriousness to them, but maintain a lighter tone. All the Marvel films have maintained a lighter tone, and I don't think IM2 needed to be darker. It just needed better writing in regard to the villains and to not rush the story arcs.

Not all comic films need to be dark/gritty. Iron Man doesn't need it.