The Official Green Lantern Review Thread

[J.Howlett]

On point, Lestat.

The lack of Wonder Woman bothers me because it's the one trump card DC has over Marvel and they refuse to play it.

 

[KRIM]

The opening of the Hollywood Reporter review is what I feared; the fatigue of the genre might be setting in with a lot of people.

This was bound to happen.

BS. The fatigue of bad movies and repetitive storytelling is what will do the genre in. Not the inherent nature of being a comic book adaptation or featuring a film with a superhero. What happens in some miraculous event that half a dozen or so superhero flicks turn out to be individually great films in a short timeframe? Critics and audiences randomly single one out and tear it down, because well, "we've filled our quota for good filmmaking"? No, of course not.

How else has something like Harry Potter been able to sustain this long and still be a top tier grosser? It stands out from the rest of the pack, has a rich narrative that people crave, and has been consistent enough that back-to-back films are of no issue whatsoever. It will be eight films in when all is said and done. That's from one franchise. Am I to believe that 4 or more movies in the same year from different properties that potentially offer quite different narratives -- is overkill? Please.

Yeah we can't expect every superhero movie to be good, even though they're approached more 'seriously' these days. It may, unfortunately, just be a bad movie. But I would doubt it'd be bad enough to signal the waning days of the entire genre.

A few more bad ones, though, and it could signal a reality check and more 'selective' concentration on fewer key franchises.

Which is a shame. These brands should be handled on a case by case basis. It's unfortunate the "genre" is so interconnected with each other. The success/failures of one should have little impact on another. The sooner "comic book films" are treated no differently than "book films", the better.

 

[biolumen]

Screen Daily's review is mixed/negative.

Attempting to puncture the self-importance of other superhero movies, Green Lantern leads with its dopey, self-effacing charm. But despite a winning aw-shucks performance from Ryan Reynolds, such a stance can only take a film so far, and this Martin Campbell-directed adaptation of a DC Comics property can’t overcome its thinly drawn characters and generally hokey execution.
....

Unfortunately, the film (with a screenplay credited to four writers) doesn’t just want to be a fun romp. Whether it’s Hal’s dead-father issues or the progressively gloomier textures of a third act in which a powerful force threatens to destroy Earth (while sucking the souls out of several frightened humans trying to get out of its path), Green Lantern aspires to the same gravitas that has become de rigueur for most superhero movies. This creates only a muddled mix of cheerful cheesiness and unconvincing darkness that never quite congeals.

http://www.screendaily.com/reviews/latest-reviews/green-lantern/5028728.article

 

[J.Howlett]

KRIM,

Not saying you're not correct but you got at least think that seeing this many back to back in one summer, might cause a negative effect...even if it's unwarranted.

 

[flickchick85]

It could be a healthy thing to pull back and concentrate on fewer, better movies than just trying to cover as many characters as possible.

I agree, but I don't want WB/DC to lose their nerve on other non-Bats/Supes properties thanks to this movie, either. I'm not saying I want them to pull a Marvel Studios and bring as many characters out of the woodworks as possible, but there are a couple of DC characters (Wonder Woman, for example) who really deserve to be given a chance, imo.

 

[The Riddler]

I'm disappointed that this movie is likely a mess. The reviews make it sound bland and inconsistent.

 

[kedrell]

On point, Lestat.

The lack of Wonder Woman bothers me because it's the one trump card DC has over Marvel and they refuse to play it.

I think you'll see a She-Hulk or Ms. Marvel movie before you see a Wonder Woman one. Then the trump card won't mean anything.

 

[J.Howlett]

Especially Wonder Woman.

Personally, I don't think DC's approach has been bad. In fact, I prefer it over Marvel's. But, I've had this hunch all along that Thor and Green Lantern were going to be true tests for the audiences for this genre in how much they can swallow.

I mean, these two character's universes and mythologies are out there.

At the same time, if the audience can dig something like Star Wars (over the years), the Matrix Trilogy, and Lord of the Rings, why not these two characters? They're not that far off from those properties.

 

[chiefchirpa]

I think you'll see a She-Hulk or Ms. Marvel movie before you see a Wonder Woman one. Then the trump card won't mean anything.

The failure of Hal Jordan might mean the failure of Carol Danvers. The characters are too similar being jet pilots and domino mask costume.

I can't envision She Hulk survives in the big screen.

 

[Lestat74]

On point, Lestat.

The lack of Wonder Woman bothers me because it's the one trump card DC has over Marvel and they refuse to play it.

I'm a huge Wonder Woman fan, so that one in particular has been hard for me to watch all these years.

But the truth is, Warners might have waited too damn long...it has been over a decade since X-Men, 9 years since Spider-Man, and it has taken them this long to start mining their other characters, long after Marvel has given most of their main characters a chance at the big screen, and almost all of them to at least financial success...say what you want about Fantastic Four, they would not have a second one if the first one didn't make money.

As it stands, while DC has as many iconic characters as Marvel (supporting characters like Robin, Lois Lane, Joker, Catwoman, Supergirl are all iconic, but are still supporting players to Superman and Batman) they only really have five super heroes who can hold their own movies. GL is the third after Superman and Batman...now it is highly unlikely Flash and Wonder Woman will ever get their shot.

And that just bums me out.

 

[J.Howlett]

kedrell,

Because of Marvel's attitude toward what they think they can get away with, I think you might be right about She-Hulk and Ms. Marvel.

I'm guessing what I'm now understanding for the first time ever is the notion that I've heard all along in that Marvel's characters are just much more viable and easier to grasp than DC's.

I never understood the notion because I think DC has some wonderful characters.

It's my personal opinion that Marvel has gotten a lot wrong than right over the years but they keep chugging along.

Why is it so hard for DC?

 

[J.Howlett]

Lestat,

Stop reading my thoughts!

 

[KalMart]

Which is a shame. These brands should be handled on a case by case basis. It's unfortunate the "genre" is so interconnected with each other. The success/failures of one should have little impact on another. The sooner "comic book films" are treated no differently than "book films", the better.

Not necessarily. Rarity is a good thing for film. Granted, I can see how a comic fan has a certain internal desire to see their beloved hobby/obsession/etc. get its 'due', but the more a genre gets saturated/crowded, the more the movies turn into vehicles...OR...the more it has to fight not to be labeled as such. Books are different because they all have different self-contained styles and such, and movies based on books aren't exactly trying to address literature or the experience of reading a book.....whereas comic movies more and more are addressing their 'comic-ness', which invariably gives them all a more apparent common denominator. Hence, the identifiable genre.

But really, it's no more or less succeptible than, say, a slew of westerns or space-movies creating a crowded pond. Yes, it can become an unfortunate circumstance for a genuinely enjoyable, comic-like movie like the original Spiderman if it comes out at a time when audiences are getting a bit punch-drunk on the genre. But any genuinely good movie, I believe, will always be genuinely good even if it needs time for that recognition after its run. If one is looking for something beyond that...like, say, six comic-based movies coming out every year for the rest of time....that's a different story. I don't think any genre can have that kind of permanent reign in film....nor should it, for that matter.

It's nice when we can cherish certain chunks of time when some gems rise to the surface. If gems were as widely distributed as sand...they'd lose their preciousness.

 

[Lestat74]

I think you'll see a She-Hulk or Ms. Marvel movie before you see a Wonder Woman one. Then the trump card won't mean anything.

She-Hulk and Ms.Marvel might show up in Avengers 2, but in their own movies? I highly doubt it. And I like them both, I just don't see Marvel taking the risk.

 

[kedrell]

Especially Wonder Woman.

Personally, I don't think DC's approach has been bad. In fact, I prefer it over Marvel's. But, I've had this hunch all along that Thor and Green Lantern were going to be true tests for the audiences for this genre in how much they can swallow.

I mean, these two character's universes and mythologies are out there.

At the same time, if the audience can dig something like Star Wars (over the years), the Matrix Trilogy, and Lord of the Rings, why not these two characters? They're not that far off from those properties.

It's all in the execution. And they DID get into Thor, because it was executed well.

 

[flickchick85]

She-Hulk and Ms.Marvel might show up in Avengers 2, but in their own movies? I highly doubt it. And I like them both, I just don't see Marvel taking the risk.

I could see it with Ms. Marvel, if she became a fan-favorite in an Avengers flick, but not so much She-Hulk.

 

[kedrell]

She-Hulk and Ms.Marvel might show up in Avengers 2, but in their own movies? I highly doubt it. And I like them both, I just don't see Marvel taking the risk.

Not on their own right out of the gate, perhaps. But spun off from the Avengers? I could easily see that happening.

 

[kedrell]

I could see it with Ms. Marvel, if she became a fan-favorite in an Avengers flick, but not so much She-Hulk.

She-Hulk could be good if given a tone similar to the 1st MIB movie.

 

[chiefchirpa]

As it stands, while DC has as many iconic characters as Marvel (supporting characters like Robin, Lois Lane, Joker, Catwoman, Supergirl are all iconic, but are still supporting players to Superman and Batman) they only really have five super heroes who can hold their own movies. GL is the third after Superman and Batman...now it is highly unlikely Flash and Wonder Woman will ever get their shot.

And that just bums me out.

One advantage that Marvel have are most of their characters are not legacy and supporting characters. DC would be hardpressed to launch Robin and John Stewart movies (but they did with Catwoman and Supergirl), but Marvel can launch Iron Fist and Black Panther anytime. Even Falcon can have his own movie, because as a character he's not tied to much with Captain America.

 

[kedrell]

kedrell,

Because of Marvel's attitude toward what they think they can get away with, I think you might be right about She-Hulk and Ms. Marvel.

I'm guessing what I'm now understanding for the first time ever is the notion that I've heard all along in that Marvel's characters are just much more viable and easier to grasp than DC's.

I never understood the notion because I think DC has some wonderful characters.

It's my personal opinion that Marvel has gotten a lot wrong than right over the years but they keep chugging along.

Why is it so hard for DC?

You only really fail if you quit trying.

 

[flickchick85]

She-Hulk could be good if given a tone similar to the 1st MIB movie.

I'm not saying it couldn't be a good movie, I'm just saying the same Hollywood sexism that's preventing them from giving us a big-budget female superhero is exactly what would make them extra-hesitant about giving us one who goes all green and muscle-y. I doubt they'd approve of one who can't be conventionally attractive all the time.

 

[chiefchirpa]

She-Hulk and Ms.Marvel might show up in Avengers 2, but in their own movies? I highly doubt it. And I like them both, I just don't see Marvel taking the risk.

Ms Marvel is a blue collar superheroine with versatile power set & ability. I think that's a premise good enough for movie.

 

[KalMart]

I agree, but I don't want WB/DC to lose their nerve on other non-Bats/Supes properties thanks to this movie, either. I'm not saying I want them to pull a Marvel Studios and bring as many characters out of the woodworks as possible, but there are a couple of DC characters (Wonder Woman, for example) who really deserve to be given a chance, imo.

I don't think they'll lose their nerve so much as take a little more time and care in between.....hopefully. It's like any rush to capitalize in a market.

I also think a big part of it is that not every comic character/title needs a movie series to further legitimize it or what have you. Doesn't mean that some are better for movies and some aren't. Obviously there's a certain 'badge of honor' aspect to having a comic character also be big in movies, but hopefully, some fans won't have to feel 'left out' if their favorite character doesn't get one.

 

[kedrell]

I'm not saying it couldn't be a good movie, I'm just saying the same Hollywood sexism that's preventing them from giving us a big-budget female superhero is exactly what would make them extra-hesitant about giving us one who goes all green and muscle-y. I doubt they'd approve of one who can't be conventionally attractive all the time.

She can be hot when She-Hulk and cute when Jen Walters. It's two different aspects that could feed into each other if done right. Some guys like one type, some the other. As with every good superhero film, casting the right person as the lead would be the crucial component. And I don't think she'd need to be some FBB or anything like that. Just fit.

 

[Lestat74]

One advantage that Marvel have are most of their characters are not legacy and supporting characters. DC would be hardpressed to launch Robin and John Stewart movies (but they did with Catwoman and Supergirl), but Marvel can launch Iron Fist and Black Panther anytime. Even Falcon can have his own movie, because as a character he's not tied to much with Captain America.

Oh, I agree...that is why (in my mind) DC only really has five iconic super hero properties that would work as films. There are only 5 DC characters/concepts that have remained in continuous publication since the early 40's (minus a few years off in the early 50's) Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, Flash and GL. With only 5 to work from, how hard can it be to make sure they all get launched the right way? Marvel had double the number, and did just fine for the most part.

btw, that is not to say I don't love Aquaman, J'onn, Hawkman etc, but...they are supporting players more often than not. JLA movies maybe, on their own would be a hard sell. They have a hard enough time getting their own comics to be hits, they can never seem to catch on that way. Movies would be twice as hard.