Where did DC/WB go wrong? - Part 1

[Kahran Ramsus]

Baraka-pool is the travesty which lowers down Wolverine point. I'm sure there were more, but it seems that Fox don't give a damn on the source materials. Acting-wise, Wolverine is exemplary.

The idea wasn't that bad had they just used an original character as Weapon XI instead of making him Deadpool. There was no reason he had to be Wade Wilson, except to piss people off.

 

[roach]

I never saw Green Lantern, but Wolverine was way better than Fantastic Four. At least it had Hugh Jackman & Liev Schrieber and some good action scenes. It was terrible, don't get me wrong, but it was better than Fantastic Four. The only good thing about Fantastic Four was Johnny Storm.

for me its all about the story...while the FF script was nothing to write home about the Wolverine script was all over the place and as I said before made insane leaps in logic.
Of the FF movie there were several things that I liked:
Johnny Storm
The Thing
Stan Lee as Willie Lumpkin
Julian McMahon as Doom (yes I am sure I am gonna be Nova blasted for this but I thought he did a good job with what he had)
The dynamic between Johnny and Ben
The tone of the movie fit with what I have read in the comics

 

[roach]

The idea wasn't that bad had they just used an original character as Weapon XI instead of making him Deadpool. There was no reason he had to be Wade Wilson, except to piss people off.

or the fact that Blob got to his massive form by over eating?
or "where gonna perform an operation on Logan that makes him even more unkillable...and then try to kill him...just to see if we can do it?
Do I need to keep bringing up amnesia bullets?

I can sit thru FF when its on Tv
I can't when Wolverine is on

 

[DoomsdayApex]

You have reading comprehension problem, as always. I said they have heavily modified Thor from pure fantasy in the old comics to something that comes out of sci-fi or more believable fantasy. Thor in the movie is firmly set to be an inter dimensional alien. That's been said, Thor is still a fantasy movie as with other superhero films. It's just that the fantastical elements in Thor has been tempered down a notch or two from the source comics.

A notch down? Believable fantasy? Are you honestly this doltish? Thor was Green Lantern in terms of fantasy-based elements.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

or the fact that Blob got to his massive form by over eating?
or "where gonna perform an operation on Logan that makes him even more unkillable...and then try to kill him...just to see if we can do it?
Do I need to keep bringing up amnesia bullets?

I can sit thru FF when its on Tv
I can't when Wolverine is on

Differently strokes. They both suck. Wolverine is appealing to me on a B-movie level. Ever seen the Day of the Dead remake with Nick Cannon. Its horrible, but its hella entertaining. Wolverine is like a 1980s comic, so bad and stupid its entertaining with cool characters too boot.

 

[craigdbfan]

@Apex Not even. Oa was portrayed terribly. It was a poorly rendered giant green rock and that's it.

Whereas I get a much better sense with the portrayals of Asgard and Jötunheimr. It actually felt like it was inhabited and tangible unlike Oa.

 

[chiefchirpa]

A notch down? Are you honestly this doltish? Thor was Green Lantern in terms of fantasy-based elements.

I said compared to the source material. Marvel made Thor more like a sci-fi , more believable fiction than a pure fantasy of god and fairies.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

A notch down? Believable fantasy? Are you honestly this doltish? Thor was Green Lantern in terms of fantasy-based elements.

I agree. Green Lantern could've been better IF it developed it's concepts and presented them more like Thor. Thor did a much better job.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I agree. Green Lantern could've been better IF it developed it's concepts and presented them more like Thor. Thor did a much better job.

I'm sorry, but that's a big load. Thor was not more believable than Green Lantern. Both aspects of these films were drenched in Sci-Fi/Fantasy material. Neither one was more believable or 'realistic' than the other.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I'm sorry, but that's a big load. Thor was not more believable than Green Lantern. Both aspects of these films were drenched in Sci-Fi/Fantasy material. Neither one was more believable or 'realistic' than the other.

Are you such a whiney DC fanboy that you argue with a post that started with "I agree".

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Are you such a whiney DC fanboy that you argue with a post that started with "I agree".

Firstly, Don't call me a fanboy. If that were the case, then I would have despised anything that Marvel released.

Second, you didn't make yourself clear. I admit, I jumped the gun also, but I thought you were agreeing with Chief's sentiment. People have responded to me on this site like that before, and it gets confusing.

 

[jmc]

Please tell me there isn't an argument going about which is the more 'believable' of two character who share an equal amount of unbelievability.

 

[craigdbfan]

I think their wording is off but I think Doomsday was saying that Oa felt as equally fleshed out and well portrayed as Asgard and Jotunheim did in Thor.

Something that is just flat out not true. Oa barely got the attention or depiction it deserved and was simply a boring green slab of rock.

 

[The Morningstar]

Both characters and their worlds are "unbelievable". But this much is certain, Thor did a better job of creating it's world/rules and making the audience understand and appreciate them. I don't see how this is deniable.

Both movies are "out there". Thor executed better.

As for Wolverine? Problem with that movie was it was watered down. Jackman was saying we see Wolverine as an animal in all the press interviews before hand. Well, no, he wasn't. He was a *****. He was more of an animal in the X-Men films.

And that is a grave mistake, considering the movie was supposed to be about Logan's conflict, retaining his humanity and not embracing his animal side. Well, what conflict? There was no animal side. How can anyone feel for the character and his plight if his plight wasn't properly portrayed? What they should have done is show Wolverine as a cold blooded killer with the Weapon X team. Show him as a guy who maybe even kills innocent people. But then he grows weary and jaded of all this, and wants to quit. He wants to redeem himself maybe. I don't know, just anything but what we got.

Instead what we got was Logan moping around whilst the likes of Wade and Creed showed that they were the "best at what they do", not Wolverine.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I agree that Thor did a much better job of doing that. Oa was barely explored and not in Green Lantern long enough, I guess it was to keep costs down because that damn CGI suit.

 

[The Morningstar]

I didn't mind the suit, but yea, it wasn't very practical, financially speaking.

They could have got the same effect if they did the suits like in Tron Legacy. Actual suits but just enhanced with CGI.

Comparing GL and Tron for a second, what was Tron's budget? It looked spectacular, apart from some shots of CLU. Whereas GL looked like the cheapest big budget movie i've ever seen. Even the practical sets looked so bland and cheap.

 

[craigdbfan]

Tron Legacy was around $170 million.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

I think with Green Lantern the sci-fi aspects were fine and dandy, but they presented it like a wikipedia article. They should've either cut out aspects of the mythos to focus more strongly on certain characters or made the movie longer and the plot more developed. Superhero movies are all equally unbelieveable at their core. Batman is impossible, so is Thor. No one could be Batman, no one could be Green Lantern, and no one could be Thor, end of story.

 

[The Morningstar]

Yea, it makes me laugh when people say Batman is realistic. He's not... at all. Like you say, it's just as impossible for someone to be Batman as it is to be Thor or Green Lantern.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

I think their wording is off but I think Doomsday was saying that Oa felt as equally fleshed out and well portrayed as Asgard and Jotunheim did in Thor.

Something that is just flat out not true. Oa barely got the attention or depiction it deserved and was simply a boring green slab of rock.

No, not all. Oa was only on display ...for what? Three minutes? The planet was barely explored. We, as an audience, didn't even scratch the surface.

I was debating Chief's view in where he or she claimed that Thor was more 'realistic' and believable than Green Lantern, and it led to Thor being more marketable than Green Lantern, which is just not true. The fantasy elements for both films were equally believable and unbelievable.

Yeah... no.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

^ Agreed.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

What they should've done is just used Hector Hammond as the sole villain, and made the story about Sinestro helping Hal defeat Hammond, perhaps with Sinestro starting to turn evil slowly in the process. Then ending the movie with a trip to Oa, having Hal earning his place to be amongst the Lanterns. I would've largely confined the first two acts to Earth, saved the trip to Oa for the end, and made Sinestro the only other Lantern we saw or heard from. I would've also had Sinestro stay in Hal's apartment, maybe make a running gag out of him trying to conceal who this person is from his friends and family. That way, in the next film, they could've really fleshed out the other Lanterns and the Guardians. Green Lantern is far too ambitious with all it tries to cram in. They spread themselves way too thin, and the result is what we all saw.

 

[The Morningstar]

Agreed also.

But the one thing that I think made GL a bit more difficult to swallow for people who are not fans of comics was... the ring. At the end of the day it's a brightly coloured piece of costume jewellery that allows to user to create things from his imagination.

A little bit cheesier than a big **** off hammer.

 

[Optimus_Prime_]

Agreed also.

But the one thing that I think made GL a bit more difficult to swallow for people who are not fans of comics was... the ring. At the end of the day it's a brightly coloured piece of costume jewellery that allows to user to create things from his imagination.

A little bit cheesier than a big **** off hammer.

Eh? Naw. Wrapped in a good, much tighter story, this wouldn't have been an issue. For example, the reason I'd suggest having Sinestro in Hal's apartment as a gag is it embraces some of the concept's inherent silliness and makes it something the audience can relate too. Maybe people start believing Hal is secretly gay because he's secretly keeping this guy in his apartment. Maybe Sinestro makes some major faux paus while Hal is trying to entertain a lady friend (this also would've made much more use of Ryan Reynolds' style of acting). Instead they did this hyper-serious approach, and crammed all these plot points down people's throat like some preachy, fat, virgin comic collector would.

 

[The Morningstar]

Oh of course, it's all about execution.

But i mean the idea of a bright green ring that gives the user powers is just inherently cheesier and more "out there" than a guy with a big hammer who batters people round the face with it.

Power rings haven't been cool since Captain frickin Planet. lol