Explain how GL isn't an atrocious piece of crap then. Actually i'll make it easier for you. All i want you to do is explain how Hal Jordan is a good lead character.
At this point, I kind of don't see the point, because I fully expect that all I'll hear is a bunch of "nuh uh's!" with no rational explanation why, other than bringing up other films.
GREEN LANTERN is not an atrocious piece of crap because it's a medicore film for the most part. It has about the same level of story, character development, effects and acting as most other average comic book films. I'd put it at about the same level as the first Fantastic Four movie. Fans being disappointed in it on several levels does not make it a bad film or adaption.
An atrocious piece of crap would be an atrocious piece of crap.
The idea that we must always like our lead characters for them to be good ones is laughable to me. That's a ridiculous, blanket way to look at writing.
Hal Jordan is a good lead character precisely because he is a flawed character. Because the potential for character testing and character development exists. He is a man, a very flawed but still somewhat likeable human man, who goes from being selfish, reckless and irresponsible and afraid, to someone who displays courage and responsibility. And that's what happened in the movie. It's certainly not the most interesting character arc ever, but you know what? It never was. The Green Lantern mythology is about a ring that seeks out someone who ALREADY possesses the attribute it requires to operate, and allows this man, who has been a bit selfish and reckless, to utilize his courage to live a life of responsibility.
A superhero movie lives and dies by it's main protagonist (and antagonist). For me, movie Hal Jordan is one of the worst main protagonists in a superhero movie... ever. EVER.
I don't know what to tell you. That's your opinion.
Firstly, he's got it easy. He's got family and friends around him who care about him. He gets the hot chicks... and treats them like crap. He's got an obnoxiously cool muscle car. He's got a ****ing awesome job and his boss is hot as hell.
Way to simplify.
I don't see him treating any hot chicks like crap. I see him joking with them a little, and jawing with Carol a bit, which is faithful to the mythology.
He has a job where he is apparenty limited in what he can do.
His boss is a woman he has feelings for but shares a painful past with.
Yeah, he has a car. That must be really emotionally fulfilling.
But... he's still a whinger. He's still moaning about ****. Along with the already mentioned treating women like crap thing, he also is extremely selfish and arrogant. Costing a lot of people their jobs and not really giving a **** about it.
A whiner?
What specific things do you take issue with him moaning about?
Yeah. He's selfish and arrogant (and reckless). That's how the character starts out.
Oh i forgot, he suffered a tragedy as a child, he watched his father die. So all is excused! Well, maybe, if his fathers death, in the theatrical AND extended cut didn't come across as a parody of ****ing Top Gun.
No one excused him of anything. The point is watching him grow beyond his weaknesses.
A parody of Top Gun? I don't think I've seen the scene in Top Gun where a kid's dad crashes and he watches him get blown up.
Honestly, how can anyone care or connect with this guy? He's a ****ing *****e bag.
I don't know. Because not everyone thinks in such black and white terms? Because maybe, just maybe, we don't have to "connect" with every lead character there is.
Hector Hammond was more understandable and sympathetic... and he was supposed to be the villain?!!?
Are you asking a question or making a statement?
No. Hector Hammond wasn't more sympathetic. He wreaked havoc, endangered innocent lives and killed once he got his power because he was jealous and angry. Definitely not more sympathetic than a guy who has been reckless and selfish learning to change his ways. The villain having a reason to be angry doesn't suddenly make him sympathetic when he kills.
Everything in GL comes off like someone reading you a wikipedia article about GL.
Everything? How so?
The performances were simply serviceable, like someone at a convention who doesn't break character but is just doing it for the lulz. The story was just a basic sequence of events, with no emotional center. The whole movie, and the cast, are just there.
A story does tend to be a basic sequence of events.
You do know that serviceable is a good term, right? It means put to good use and durable, being of service. A performance on an appropriate level, without being over the top or anything mindblowing.
I'm not sure what you mean by no emotional center. There's a very clear emotional theme to the film.
Everything is just...there? Could you be any more vague?
Iron Man 2 had heart throughout, and the interactions and performances simply had more depth, period. The plot definitely needed work, especially in the pacing of it, but I at least sensed a realness from the characters. They weren't sleepwalking like they were in GL.
Let's try discussing GREEN LANTERN, shall we? If you cannot discuss Green Lantern based on its own merits and faults, you are probaly not qualified to discuss it. Because otherwise, I can just say "Well, GREEN LANTERN did this, this and this better than GHOST RIDER: SPIRIT OF VENGEANCE", and also bring up dozens of other movies, and we'll endlessly compare and create straw arguments and be here all day. We can compare films endlessly. That proves nothing about the quality of an individual film.
Prime example: Tony and his Dad. I really liked how they humanized that relationship in IM2. Tony's bitterness, and his Dad's inability to communicate his actual feelings were definitely something I could relate to and I felt were conveyed in a very relateable way. They didn't make the characters into stoic, super serious messes like they do in GL.
Yeah. That was a highlight of Iron Man 2. Pretty well done. Back to GL. The actors in GL were very much not sleepwalking. Except maybe Tim Robbins. Who kind of always sleepwalks these days. The rest? They're into it. Fully.
The characters in GREEN LANTERN aren't stoic, super serious messes, what the heck are you talking about? If anything, most of them are quirky and emotionally vulnerable.
Green Lantern was completely awkward from start to finish, especially when it tried to humanize it's characters. I think you see this problem to a much lesser extent in Batman. The use of humor becomes awkward rather than natural. I also think Bruce makes this slightly more believeable though because part of the premise is that Bruce no longer behaves like a normal human being.
The only awkward element I can think of in terms of its attempts to humanize comes in the first five minutes of the film, and has to do with the editing and execution of the sequence with his father. It's mostly awkward because it's given very little context. The rest of the film, Hal's human moments are perfectly natural and relevant.
...after all those Kevin Smith movies...I felt so betrayed
He's such a ****. Gotta love him though.
