Because you don't agree with me and think a garbage film is good...
No. I don't believe you are not analyzing simply because I don't agree with you, but rather because I don't see you doing any analyzing. I think GREEN LANTERN is okay. It's got some very nice moments, and they got a lot right. There were a couple of key missteps, and a few more glaring flaws.
Who gives a **** if it has oodles of comic book inspiration or science fiction? Just because it's there doesn't mean it's done well.
You're creating strawman arguments. We weren't discussing whether it was done well.
I know you don't like the film. I know you don't think it was done well. I don't need you to tell me that in response to everything I said.
We were discussing whether Martin Campbell was appropriate for the role of director of GREEN LANTERN. You suggested he was not because he didn't know/like the comics, and because he was untested with regard to science fiction.
I'm asking how that is borne out by your examples. I asked where he failed in this regard.
I'm asking...where were his missteps in regard to the source material and the science fiction elements of the movie? Not the script's. Where were Campbell's?
If you don't think Johns was involved with the conception and writing of the script you're on a different planet.
I didn't say that he wasn't involved. I know he was. I said he was not the one who chose the tone and approach of the film. That was on paper in the original draft of the script...years before he was ever directly involved with the project.
Yes i do. A wooden performance is a performance that is unbelievable and shows no life or emotion. Pretty much characterises the entire cast apart from Mark Strong.
A wooden performance is a performance that is stiff and unnatural. You sort of know what it is, but you apparently have no ability to judge it, because you're implyin that the entire cast gave them. The only performance in the film that shows no "life" or "emotion" is the one delivered by Tim Robbins, and even that one is not that bad. A good amount of critics and fans praised the performance of Reynolds and Lively, for instance. Angela Basset certainly wasn't bad, and its quite clear that Saarsgard, Strong and Rush weren't.
You are welcome to your opinion, doesn't mean it isn't wrong. GL is a bad film, it's that simple. But is it wrong for people to enjoy it? Of course not. There is nothing wrong with enjoying bad films, more people need to adopt that mentality. What bothers me though is when someone claims a fundamentally bad film is a good one.
It isn't a fundamentally bad film. It's an average film with missteps. Saying words like "bad" and "wooden" doesn't make it these, especially if you don't bother to point to examples.
There's a difference between you just flat not liking something, and something being an actual, tangible creative flaw.
At this point, you're just engaging in hyperbole. If you have any ability analyze a performance or a piece of art, I haven't seen it, because you just keep using adjectives to describe your final impression.
If you just want to spout your opinion, fine. I find that kind of ranting kind of boring.
The action was crap. The training montage was laughable. So was the final fight. It doesn't matter if it looks cool, if the context behind it is crap, it's a crap, redundant action scene.
Allow me to retort in kind:
No it wasn't. The action was great. The training montage was great. The final fight was stupendous. It looked amazing, and the context was perfect.
See what I mean? There's no discussion going on here...just adjectives. This is no way to analyze a film. You have apparently already analyzed it, but what your basis for it is, I cannot tell. That's what I'm trying to discern.
So this cosmic being of near infinite power that can destroy entire planets is stupid enough to get sucked into the ****ing sun?
Apparently. Yes.
No one ever said Parallax was particularly intelligent, just that it was a powerful being of fear.
Can't you see how utterly crap that is?[/quote\
A cloud of fear chasing Green Lantern through space until he is sucked into the SUn, and Green Lantern, through sheer force of will, resits its pull?
No, that's way too unique a concept for me to think its "crap". I can see how its a little silly and over the top, but we're talking about Green Lantern's universe, and a being made of fear light.
[quote\Hal trains for literally 5 minutes with Sinestro and Kilowog, then runs off home like a little *****? Can't you see how much that short changed the fans and also made Hal out to be a ****ing lame lead character? And then you have this stupid line from Kilowog at the end "I know how to train them!" WTF? Complete and utter waste of a character.
No. I see that it made him human.
It's not like that's all he did in the film, or as Green Lantern. He redeems himself later on.
And Kilowog DOES know how to train them, as evidenced by the final sequences.
The dog fight? Please. Again further displays why Hal is a prick.
It was supposed to display that he is a prick. So it succeeded.
Fact is no one likes Hal. And when no one likes or at least can connect to your titular character, you have failed. It really is as simple as that.
No, that's...that's not a fact. That's hypebrole. You may not like Hal. Plenty of people did, and discussed liking him.
SFX and bright colours don't make a great action scene.
I didn't say it was great.
I said it had imagination. Which is the point you had made about it, that it lacked imagination.
You still haven't explained why it doesn't.
You know exactly what i mean. But because i'm trashing a movie you like you're playing coy
No, I really don't know what you consider "heart and soul" in writing terms. In the context of Hal Jordan, what do you feel Green Latnern lacked in terms of "heart"? Heart and soul to me equals "emotion", and an emotional core idea, and some kind of common human issue. GREEN LANTERN has those things.
So what is it that it didn't have that you wanted to see?
I can't explain it any easier than I already did. They committed to the studio, meaning Marvel Studios for so many movies contractually. That's all I'm saying.
