The Official Green Lantern Review Thread

[TheMadScientist]

Today was GL premiere in Auckland NS, most comments I heard are rather positive!

 

[TheMadScientist]

And green lantern is trending in NewZealand at the moment.:

http://trendsmap.com/local/new+zealand

 

[TheMadScientist]

And green lantern is trending in NewZealand at the moment.:

http://trendsmap.com/local/new+zealand

 

[jmc]

WTF? New Zealand is getting GL this week but us Aussies aren't? **** that.

 

[TheMadScientist]

Well, Campbell, Ngila Dickson , Grand Major, T Morrison are all from there....

 

[S.A.A.D.]

" Just saw 'The Green Lantern'... It was awesome. Make sure you see it in 3D, it made it that much better."

http://***********/#!/MarkJamesDye

"just got home from NZ premiere of The Green Lantern - bloody awesome in 3D plus Blake Lively mega hottie! In cinemas this Thursday"

http://***********/#!/ChangHung23/status/79858516646567936

"just got home from #greenlantern it was pretty cool BUT i don't know the comic too well so interested to see how it compares..."

http://***********/#!/RosieIvyLies/status/79860750155395072

"Went to Green Lantern premiere, such a cool movie! "

http://***********/#!/Kiminz/status/79866600802619393

"Green Lantern is AMAZING!!"

http://***********/#!/massad/status/79868617516253184

 

[Micromind]

Dan_Aux Dan Aux
Saw Green Lantern tonight! its pretty epic. But, couldn't help feel a little underwhelmed. Just another predictable super hero movie


muzwilson Maree Wilson
Just saw my first 3D movie - Green Lantern. How have I managed to not see 3D yet?? So cool! (and styley glasses too!)

 

[Mac_Hine]

So far I'm getting the vibe that it's a cool, visually appealing, safe movie. I'm alright with that. Maybe in the sequel, they could push the boundries a little bit an not play too safe. Still going opening day to see it!

 

[Octoberist]

It might be the classic 'comic book movie' case where the sequel might be the stronger movie.

 

[The Morningstar]

The first movie, the introductory movie, is always gonna be formulaic and "safe". That's just the way it is. Especially with far out concepts like this.

 

[The Sage]

Probably so. It's what I expected with it being an origin story.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I don't trust their opinion that the 3D is good. Early reviews said Thor had good 3D too. It was dreadful.

 

[J.Howlett]

A safe introductory Green Lantern film is okay, in my book. Again, the classic case of the sequel pushing the boundaries is just fine with me.

WB honestly just needs this one to be well liked and make cash...a la Batman Begins. With the right script and the right director, the sequel could be the one.

Still, it sounds like we're getting a solid Green Lantern film. Who would've thought that five years ago?

 

[KRIM]

The first movie, the introductory movie, is always gonna be formulaic and "safe". That's just the way it is. Especially with far out concepts like this.

Not necessarily so. You can have a relatively simple and even formulaic story (what isn't?), but the execution of spectacle and plot can be well above standard entertainment fare.

Star Wars and Avatar are the two biggest sci-fi debuts ever. Neither of them would be praised for their scripts. But the scale and sheer balls the creative team took to deliver something quite unlike anything else out there, is widely acknowledged.

It still remains to be seen how the final product delivers, but I'm just not getting that epic feel that it should be. The crew really painted themselves in a corner by constantly describing this as a "space epic" and always comparing itself to SW. Absolutely none of the marketing material so far has indicated anywhere close to that level of scale.

 

[dnno1]

I don't trust their opinion that the 3D is good. Early reviews said Thor had good 3D too. It was dreadful.

Sorry, bud, there's too many positive comments about the 3D not to believe that it is good, and "Green Lantern" is not "Thor". The former film was designed for 3D.

 

[Rowsdower!]

Ehh, in my opinion it was very corny. Even down to the names of things, the "rainbow bridge", etc

I just couldn't invest because it was so out there for me.


Oh, it absolutely could've been worse. LIke I said, I feel the Thor source material when translated to film is inherently corny. They did the best they could with what they had.

Still doesn't make the film any less cheesy for me.


If the shoe fits, wear it though. haha

Nah, it's just to me ..

Some of these lesser comic book characters IMO don't translate well to film. They are corny on the page, and becomes almost cringe worthy on screen.

I have a problem with the GL film seeming like its done completely in CGI. It's such lazy film making, and for me it pulls me right out of the reality of the movie. I would have liked to have seen some more practical effects, etc. I've literally seen shots from the trailers where the only real thing in the camera frame is Ryan Reynolds head ... haha. It's jarring to me as a viewer.

They should've just went all out and made it a cartoon.

They did make a couple of GL cartoons recently. My advice would be to watch them if the CGI in the live-action movie bothers you that much.

Honestly, I think CGI is unavoidable in a GL live action film. The constructs... how would you do those without CGI? It would look worse, no matter what you did. The suit? It would just look like normal tights/rubber/plastic armor if they didn't use CGI. The aliens? Animatronics and makeup might work, but it might look even less realistic.

 

[KRIM]

They did make a couple of GL cartoons recently. My advice would be to watch them if the CGI in the live-action movie bothers you that much.

Honestly, I think CGI is unavoidable in a GL live action film. The constructs... how would you do those without CGI? It would look worse, no matter what you did. The suit? It would just look like normal tights/rubber/plastic armor if they didn't use CGI. The aliens? Animatronics and makeup might work, but it might look even less realistic.

For the amount of time they're on-screen, I think they could've gotten away with make-up and animatronics.

My biggest issue is with Oa. The plane is consistently flat and the foreground is so full of empty space, that even good CGI can't hide how the actors are obviously just standing in front of a bluescreen. Real sets, enhanced through CGI, is a far better method.

 

[The Morningstar]

Not necessarily so. You can have a relatively simple and even formulaic story (what isn't?), but the execution of spectacle and plot can be well above standard entertainment fare.

Star Wars and Avatar are the two biggest sci-fi debuts ever. Neither of them would be praised for their scripts. But the scale and sheer balls the creative team took to deliver something quite unlike anything else out there, is widely acknowledged.

It still remains to be seen how the final product delivers, but I'm just not getting that epic feel that it should be. The crew really painted themselves in a corner by constantly describing this as a "space epic" and always comparing itself to SW. Absolutely none of the marketing material so far has indicated anywhere close to that level of scale.

Well I agree. What I mean is, the plot, the arc of the main character is 9 times out of 10 gonna be cliche.

It's the execution and the "dressing" so to speak, that elevates it.

And I also agree with your last paragraph. They've talked the talk. They really, really, really need to show that they can walk the walk. Or it could be pretty embarrassing.

 

[dnno1]

Not necessarily so. You can have a relatively simple and even formulaic story (what isn't?), but the execution of spectacle and plot can be well above standard entertainment fare.

Star Wars and Avatar are the two biggest sci-fi debuts ever. Neither of them would be praised for their scripts. But the scale and sheer balls the creative team took to deliver something quite unlike anything else out there, is widely acknowledged.

It still remains to be seen how the final product delivers, but I'm just not getting that epic feel that it should be. The crew really painted themselves in a corner by constantly describing this as a "space epic" and always comparing itself to SW. Absolutely none of the marketing material so far has indicated anywhere close to that level of scale.

When George Lucas made "Star Wars" decades ago, he basically took the best elements from different action and adventure films and poured it into one movie. "Avatar" was basically cowboys and Indians told in a futuristic setting. Neither film was conservative at all, nor is "Green Lantern" for that matter.

 

[Blader5489]

Sorry, bud, there's too many positive comments about the 3D not to believe that it is good, and "Green Lantern" is not "Thor". The former film was designed for 3D.

No it wasn't, it was shot in 2D just like anything else. There's considerably more CGI in Green Lantern, which is why it'd look better in a 3D conversion than Thor, but that doesn't mean it was designed for 3D.

 

[The Morningstar]

For the amount of time they're on-screen, I think they could've gotten away with make-up and animatronics.

My biggest issue is with Oa. The plane is consistently flat and the foreground is so full of empty space, that even good CGI can't hide how the actors are obviously just standing in front of a bluescreen. Real sets, enhanced through CGI, is a far better method.

Exactly! That is my biggest problem with CGI these days. The Star Wars prequels are guilty of bringing that in.

CGI backgrounds. CGI sets. CGI environments etc. I hate it.

The art of actually constructing a big, amazing looking and imaginative set/environment is lost these days. Thanks to the Star Wars prequels it's all CGI. And no matter how good the CGI is, no matter how detailed, it always looks fake and lacking depth. You can always tell the actors are not actually there on a tangible set or environment... they're just standing in front of a green/blue screen.

And really, it's inexcusable. A lot of Oa could have been constructed and built for real. The training area for example. Or the Guardians platform.

 

[The Morningstar]

When George Lucas made "Star Wars" decades ago, he basically took the best elements from different action and adventure films and poured it into one movie. "Avatar" was basically cowboys and Indians told in a futuristic setting. Neither film was conservative at all, nor is "Green Lantern" for that matter.

The plot and arc of the main character will be conservative.

Guy is a bit of a likable *****e, gets powers, learns to use powers, learns to be a better person, gets the girl, saves the day.

That is as cliche as it comes.

 

[The Morningstar]

Thank You. I think this poster has a better understanding of what works on film.

It's one of the prime reasons the original Star Wars trilogy > Prequels

The writing, scripting and dialogue isn't significantly better in the latter three movies than it was in the originals.

It's the fact that you can visiaully invest yourself in the world because things look three dimensional and feel real.

You're supposed to use CGI to accentuate viduals, not BE the visuals. haha

The whole movie is practically made in the computer. It was similar in Thor apart from when they were on Earth (which was the best stuff in the movie) ...

Well with Thor a lot of the environments in Asgard were actually real constructions. The throne room was real (although made to look bigger via CGI), Odins vault was real, Heimdell's observatory was real etc.

 

[J.Howlett]

Oh please. There's absolutely no way Lucas would've been able to pull of the vistas and imagination he wanted to achieve in the Prequels (and what he wanted to do with the Originals for that matter) with practical effects and sets.

And before you don't think I have understand of it all, remember one thing about the Prequels; Episode I had more models than the Original Trilogy combined. FACT. And that's not including how much more model work was done with Episodes II and III. Prime example, the podrace. It was advertised as this big time CG sequence, when it fact, it's a 50/50 split between models, practical and digital.

There's a lot more sets and model work in those Prequels than they've been given credit for. It's just so happens that each Prequel ALSO had 2,000 visual effects for each picture.

I'm sure Green Lantern has it's fair share of a lot of methods to make the world of Oa real.

 

[The Morningstar]

It doesn't, Oa is 100% CGI.

And i'm not talking about models and props. I'm talking about environments. There wasn't as many real sets and environments. They weren't constructed, you could tell. The actors didn't look like they were really there.