Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[The Morningstar]

Just a small word on the Captain America romance from the previous thread.

I thought it was great because it was believable and didn't seem forced. It wasn't like "quickly force these characters into a romance for the benefit of the plot!". It let it develop in a natural and believable manner.

What I also really liked was the subtle facial expressions and body language from Evans and Atwell. Like the scene where they were watching the news clips of Cap's missions, and we see he has a picture of Peggy with his compass lockett thingy. No dialogue, just an awkward glance from Rogers to the camera. Also with Peggy, a knowing look from Tommy Lee Jone's General and a nervous smile from Peggy.

I like when there isn't any dialogue but you can still get what the characters are feeling. That's called acting. You don't need spoon feeding dialogue where characters explain their feelings in words. Evans did really well, his performance is actually quite subtle and for me, he's the best lead in the Marvel movies so far, in terms of actual acting. RDJ gets the plaudits because his character is more charismatic and perhaps interesting than Rogers. But yea, for me Evans gives the best performance and is unfairly underrated.

 

[craigdbfan]

Well said.

 

[CConn]

Yup.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

The romance didn't need spoon-fed dialogue to get its point across, but the relationship between Peggy and Steve was incomplete, rushed and poorly constructed. The relationship went from a mutual respect to reluctant love warp-drive style. There was hardly any development and progression inbetween the characters to spark that relationship.

 

[The Morningstar]

Thanks I just think it's a little bizarre and unfair that Evans, and the subtler parts of Captain America get overlooked.

Not that it's a perfect or even great film by any means. But it's solid and has some truly great moments, especially in terms of characterisation.

 

[The Morningstar]

The romance didn't need spoon-fed dialogue to get it's point across, but the relationship between Peggy and Steve was incomplete, rushed and poorly constructed. The relationship went from a mutual respect to reluctant love warp-drive style. There was hardly any development and progression inbetween the characters to spark that relationship.

Who says? Who are any of us to say how long it takes for love to blossom? Who are any of us to say there was no development?

There is no set rules to love and romance, no set amount of time it takes to fall in love etc. That's why they call it a "funny old thing".

For me the romance, or beginnings of a romance in Cap were very believable. Due to the actors chemistry and how their interactions as characters changed as the movie went on. It was an almost "will they, won't they" thing. Neither character actually declares their love. They don't share a kiss. But you can tell there is feelings there through subtle pieces of acting and great little scenes, like the one i mentioned in my previous post.

I mean, Peggy and Steve's relationship is much more believable to me than Bruce and Rachel's.

Even though we are told they've known each other since children, even though we are told Rachel is Bruce's only hope for a normal life, it just never seems believable because the actors don't have any chemistry together. They have, like Steve and Peggy, an "unrealised" romance. But it isn't believable, I never got the sense that there was this sense of love bubbling under the surface with Bruce and Rachel. Not once. Even with the characters having known each other for decades and having actually admitted their feelings to each other.

 

[Boom]

I was too busy staring mindlessly at Atwell to notice anything else.

 

[CConn]

Thanks I just think it's a little bizarre and unfair that Evans, and the subtler parts of Captain America get overlooked.

Not that it's a perfect or even great film by any means. But it's solid and has some truly great moments, especially in terms of characterisation.

Personally, Cap is one of my favorite.

Honestly, I think the script itself is pro ably pretty mediocre, but the director, and cast, breathed such life and love into the film, that it almost feels like it should be much better than the script lets it be.

 

[craigdbfan]

I mean, Peggy and Steve's relationship is much more believable to me than Bruce and Rachel's.

Even though we are told they've known each other since children, even though we are told Rachel is Bruce's only hope for a normal life, it just never seems believable because the actors don't have any chemistry together. They have, like Steve and Peggy, an "unrealised" romance. But it isn't believable, I never got the sense that there was this sense of love bubbling under the surface with Bruce and Rachel. Not once.

Yes and no.

In Batman Begins there was a ton of chemistry between Bale and Holmes. I still stand with my view that while Maggie might be the better actress overall her version of Rachel felt inconsistent and had zero chemistry or anything that resembled genuine care towards Bruce when compared to Katies.

It was well established in Begins but that aspect was kind of fumbled with the recasting in The Dark Knight.

 

[CConn]

I didn't see any chemistry at all between Bale and Holmes, myself.

 

[The Morningstar]

Yes and no.

In Batman Begins there was a ton of chemistry between Bale and Holmes. I still stand with my view that while Maggie might be the better actress overall her version of Rachel felt inconsistent and had zero chemistry or anything that resembled genuine care towards Bruce when compared to Katies.

It was well established in Begins but that aspect was kind of fumbled with the recasting in The Dark Knight.

I agree that Holmes seemed to have more chemistry with Bale. Not nearly enough for me to believe those characters have known each other since they were children and harbour romantic feelings for each other.

I still find the Bruce/Rachel relationship extremely false and unbelievable. We're TOLD all these things about them, but none of it carries any weight because what he SEE is completely different.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I couldn't disagree more.

The subtly was present, however, it was no where near enough for me. Personally, I could care less about romance and love stories, but if you're going to engage and present the audience with a 'love-interest', then you had better go beyond just body language and facial expressions.

Similar to how Bucky was 'killed' off, the Steve/Peggy relationship had zero emotional weight when Steve promised Peggy to arrive on-time for their date. It felt as cold as Nolan's touch on romance, or the Terminator's for that matter.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I was too busy staring mindlessly at Atwell to notice anything else.

The size of those ba-zingas will do that to any man.

 

[Boom]

She also reminds me of a girl I had a helpless crush on in college.

/Pathetic sob story

 

[craigdbfan]

Atwell is gorgeous from top to bottom.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

She also reminds me of a girl I had a helpless crush on in college.

/Pathetic sob story

You never forget those who got away, huh?

If she appeared anything like Atwell, I would have showered her with roses and poems.

Atwell is gorgeous from top to bottom.

That she is...

 

[Rockstar]

Atwell for Wonder Woman!

Seriously though, I think "Justice League" should be the next project Warners should work on after "Man of Steel."

The individual films for Flash and WW are too far into development hell to materialize. JL is their best chance for some exposure.

Green Lantern needs a drastic reinvention as well, which Justice League could provide.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Absolutely not. You can't allow yourself to think that way, or Batman Begins & The Dark Knight would have never happened after Batman & Robin. Under the right direction, Green Lantern can be just as mainstream as Batman and Superman. It should have been DC's next cash cow, but they f**ked up big time with the script, CGI/SFX and marketing. Thanks to their 'strategy', the film was a clusterf**k and we've probably seen the last of Green Lantern on the big screen for a long time. Which is a shame really because the character brought numerous aspects, elements, dimensions, characters, etc that most other CBM did not have.

I don't think that GL will be forever done and there will be no future Green Lantern movie(s). Never say never. But there will certainly be a long pause between the year 2011 and the year where another solo GL movie launches. Or they will put GL inside a JLA movie. Eight years are required to reboot DC de facto flagship Batman. And Batman is the best DC got and which also has significant realism infused in it. Realism (or really pseudo realism) is why Batman and Iron Man is readily understood by the average movie crowds. And GL doesn't have or have very little realism. GL may be a cash cow to the comic crowds but to the average movie who doesn't give a damn to fantastic fictions, GL should be having a harder time for acceptance.

Green Lantern (collectively) had the better performances in terms of supporting cast, but yes, RDJ easily manhandled both IM2 and GL. He's a gifted actor.

That isn't to say that Ryan Reynolds is a mediocre actor though.

LOL. No.

Again, your perception of the movie inflates its merit. Show me reviews where GL's acting troupe other than Mark Strong is constantly praised. RDJ and Gwyneth still had the chemistry. Reviews praised Rockwell and to a lesser degree Rourke and Cheadle, who actually act like a tougher air force man than Terence Howard.

Lost in Translation is the only film where I found ScarJo's acting not to be subpar and bland as of late.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona was a film where ScarJo benefited from Javier Bardem's, Rebecca Hall's and Penelope Cruz's acting and Woody Allen's script. I did not find Scarlett Johansson's performance any where near fantastic or memorable, but she wasn't terrible either.

Maybe so, but Lively wasn't high on-set.

Blake, herself, isn't a stellar actress but at least she's starting to pick up stronger scripts (The Town, Savages and Hick).

What was Lively latest film after GL? Johanson wasn't half bad said ]reviews of We Bought a Zoo.

Lively isn't a better actress than the more vet Johansson who was nominated for and actually won awards. And BTW, Johansson isn't the lead actress in IM2, she's a side character.

 

[Rockstar]

Lively was horribly miscast in GL.

The only casting that worked as Strong as Sinestro, and they gave him nothing to work with.. so his performance was meh.

 

[The Morningstar]

Blake Lively was good in The Town. That's about it.

And i'm sorry Apex, but the idea that anyone in GL, besides Strong, even approached anyone in IM2, in terms of acting quality, is laughable.

RDJ and Paltrow were still great. The Tony/Pepper romance is one of the best in any comic book movie series ever.

And Rockwell was great. The Hammer character was actually quite complex and Rockwell did well with the role. He wasn't just a Tony Stark wannabe. He seemed to actually have a man crush on Stark, and deeply resent him at the same time. I'm pretty sure Rockwell had the idea for the little character quirks like the fake tan and his little dance on the stage at the Stark Expo as well. Despite the characters scenery chomping nature i thought Rockwell brought some subtleties to him too. With his body language and facial expressions. A scene that really demonstrates this for me is when he is having a go at Vanko near the end. He's angry at him, threatening him and all that, but through the tone of Rockwell's voice you can sense he's more desperate than anything. Underrated performance.

Rourke, whilst not one of his better performances was still good. He did a great russian accent and still had a great screen presence (when he was actually there, which wasn't enough).

Cheadle was much better than the effeminate Howard in the role of Rhodie. I could actually buy him as a military guy and friend of Stark.

Tell me where anyone in GL brought that level of craft or screen presence to their roles. Besides Mark Strong of course. I mean obviously the script was beyond awful, but great actors can elevate weak scripts. Like with Thor. GL had some great actors, but it seemed they were all there for the paycheck and knew they were in a stinker. Tim Robbins specifically. Mark Strong seemed like the only one who wanted to elevate and treat the material with respect. Reynolds, who i usually like was just in auto-pilot mode (har har). Thing with Reynolds is, his humour is only good when he can fully unleash it and not worry about it being PG-13. So the humour should have been left out entirely. Lively was wooden. Skarsgaard wasn't bad, and his character was actually more understandable and sympathetic than the so called hero of the movie, who was a complete and utter *****e bag who whined too much.

GL was just an awful, awful, soulless sterile movie that stunk of "made by committee". It felt like they just wanted to get GL out the way so they could do more Green Lantern movies. Like, the thought never crossed their mind that they had to, you know, make a great movie first before thinking of sequels.

 

[T"Challa]

Blake Lively was good in The Town. That's about it.

And i'm sorry Apex, but the idea that anyone in GL, besides Strong, even approached anyone in IM2, in terms of acting quality, is laughable.

RDJ and Paltrow were still great. The Tony/Pepper romance is one of the best in any comic book movie series ever.

And Rockwell was great. The Hammer character was actually quite complex and Rockwell did well with the role. He wasn't just a Tony Stark wannabe. He seemed to actually have a man crush on Stark, and deeply resent him at the same time. I'm pretty sure Rockwell had the idea for the little character quirks like the fake tan and his little dance on the stage at the Stark Expo as well. Despite the characters scenery chomping nature i thought Rockwell brought some subtleties to him too. With his body language and facial expressions. A scene that really demonstrates this for me is when he is having a go at Vanko near the end. He's angry at him, threatening him and all that, but through the tone of Rockwell's voice you can sense he's more desperate than anything. Underrated performance.

Rourke, whilst not one of his better performances was still good. He did a great russian accent and still had a great screen presence (when he was actually there, which wasn't enough).

Cheadle was much better than the effeminate Howard in the role of Rhodie. I could actually buy him as a military guy and friend of Stark.

Tell me where anyone in GL brought that level of craft or screen presence to their roles. Besides Mark Strong of course. I mean obviously the script was beyond awful, but great actors can elevate weak scripts. Like with Thor. GL had some great actors, but it seemed they were all there for the paycheck and knew they were in a stinker. Tim Robbins specifically.

yeah, IM2 wasnt a great piece of filmaking but the acting was noticeably better than in GL. Seriously apart from Mark Strong who was bleeding volumes of badass as Sinestro (seriously, how did they not give him more screentime?), no one else really stood out. Rourke,Cheadle,Paltrow,Rockwell did a much better job collectively than Lively/Saasgard/Rush/Bassett etc

 

[The Morningstar]

You know, I completely forgot that Geoffrey Rush was even in the film. That movie was such a waste of talent, money and potential. I rarely get angry over movies, but i was angry at GL and the people who made it.

 

[T"Challa]

You know, I completely forgot that Geoffrey Rush was even in the film. That movie was such a waste of talent, money and potential. I rarely get angry over movies, but i was angry at GL and the people who made it.

Yeah, i was disappointed with IM2 but it didnt come close to how mad i wasa when i stepped out of the theatre after GL. There was so much potential with that film. I mean look at this lineup. Geoffrey Rush/Mark Strong/ Michael Clarke-Duncan/Angela Bassett. There's some serious acumen in that lineup bu they were so underused. It was frustrating

 

[chiefchirpa]

Well Anthony Hopkins did the intro voice over better in Thor than Geoffrey Rush in Green Lantern. Hopkins voice is soothing telling the audiences about the Nine Realms while Rush voice is a bit overbearing telling the story of "Fear, Emerald force of willpower" yada yada mumbo jumbo to uninitiated audiences.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Rourke,Cheadle,Paltrow,Rockwell did a much better job collectively than Lively/Saasgard/Rush/Bassett etc

That's why I LOL.