No Green Lantern! >.<

[King Robert]

I liked it :/

 

[PyroDaFox]

Green Lantern angered me, not because it was badly scripted and plotted but because it could have been much better because the strength of the franchise's premise. I've been a part-time fan of Green Lantern through the Rayner years (I was more into Marvel at that point) but jumped on with "Rebirth" and fell in love with it. You have ring that essentially turns thoughts to reality, an intergalactic police force, and creatures that can manipulate fear to make civilizations annihilate themselves. Just add in a hero-figure that can grow into the role internal and external conflict over two or three films and you go an epic space opera.

But no, Warner Brothers had to get greedy and tried to smash too many villains (Hector Hammond, Sinestro [though he didn't turn yet], and Parallax). Plus the copious amounts of CGI turned me off; you get make more convincing costumes, aliens, and sets with latex, make-up, prosthetics, and models. If the WB green lights Green Lantern 2, then they better hire a director that can do what Nicholas Meyer did for Star Trek with "The Wrath of Khan." Story first, effects and marketing later.

 

[Joshawott]

Cinema as a whole is "Effects and marketing first, story later". See Avatar for example.

 

[Zeta]

A sequel got greenlit. Hopefully the writing will be better in the second one, and will feel more like a space opera than Ryan Reynolds doing a bad impersonation of the Human Torch from Fantastic Four on earth.

 

[King Robert]

Quit hatin' on my favorite color, yo.

 

[boop]

Green Lantern angered me, not because it was badly scripted and plotted but because it could have been much better because the strength of the franchise's premise. I've been a part-time fan of Green Lantern through the Rayner years (I was more into Marvel at that point) but jumped on with "Rebirth" and fell in love with it. You have ring that essentially turns thoughts to reality, an intergalactic police force, and creatures that can manipulate fear to make civilizations annihilate themselves. Just add in a hero-figure that can grow into the role internal and external conflict over two or three films and you go an epic space opera.

But no, Warner Brothers had to get greedy and tried to smash too many villains (Hector Hammond, Sinestro [though he didn't turn yet], and Parallax). Plus the copious amounts of CGI turned me off; you get make more convincing costumes, aliens, and sets with latex, make-up, prosthetics, and models. If the WB green lights Green Lantern 2, then they better hire a director that can do what Nicholas Meyer did for Star Trek with "The Wrath of Khan." Story first, effects and marketing later.

First of all, you can't compare Green Lantern to Wrath of Kahn. It was released in 1982. We weren't quite as advanced in the computer-generated special effects department yet. It was a Star Trek flick, and therefore had characters the average movie-goer already knew and loved. Not to mention, Wrath of Khan was a sequel.

Green Lantern set out to be one thing and one thing only; a really fun, really green popcorn superhero movie. I don't give a shit about character development when the main character is a dude who gets a magic green ring that allows him to create whatever the hell he wants. All I want is Ryan Reynolds spending part of his time flying around space and part of his time being a cocky asshole. That is what I got, that is why I'm happy with the movie.

No sane fan of the series expected this flick to be for them alone. A Green Lantern flick only for Green Lantern fans doesn't get a $200 million dollar budget. Hell, a Green Lantern movie only for Green Lantern fans doesn't even get interest from a major studio. That is what the straight-to-Blu-Ray animated releases are for. This Green Lantern was for a wide audience, and as such had to introduce this character and this world to that new audience. And it succeeded at doing just that.

 

[Eredar Warlock]

The fact that it is Hal Jordan and not John Stewart is reason enough to know that the movie is garbage.

 

[Zeta]

I can't imagine the rage that more casual, black Green Lantern fans who know the character best from the Bruce Timm cartoons must have felt upon seeing the trailers.

 

[Falconwing]

I pity people who learned about GL through the cartoons and not the comic books. Because this was taken from the comic books. all the inspiration for this came from the comic books.

I have yet to see it, but from what I can see it's just a fun, superhero flick. Sure you can have a story driven epic with GL. Everyone knows that. But they chose not too. And in the end, I'm not complaining.

AS for the CGI... I must suck as a movie goer. I hardly ever complain about bad visuals. And GL's don't even look that bad. CGI costumes? so what? It's a costume that is created by an alien ring. I'm not surprised.

 

[Ivysaur]

Yeah, after seeing the movie (ended up watching it anyway) I gotta say I agree with Jacob. It was a fun popcorn flick, nothing more, nothing less. At least it was more entertaining than Thor.

 

[PyroDaFox]

*Facepalm* I'll emphasize my points to make it easier for you to comprehend.

First of all, you can't compare Green Lantern to Wrath of Kahn. It was released in 1982. We weren't quite as advanced in the computer-generated special effects department yet. It was a Star Trek flick, and therefore had characters the average movie-goer already knew and loved. Not to mention, Wrath of Khan was a sequel.

Did you even read that part of my post? I said if they were going to green light (no pun intended) a sequel then "they better hire a director that can do what Nicholas Meyer did for Star Trek with 'The Wrath of Khan.'" I'm outlining my expectations for Green Lantern 2. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was total mess of a movie that emphasized special effects over a coherent story, much like Green Lantern. Wrath of Khan is a more memorable movie because it focused on story: Kirk's internal conflict with the fact that he's getting older, the conflict between him and Khan (with a nice callback to the TOS episode "Space Seed"), Spock's sacrifice, and a half-dozen other plot elements to say nothing of the tight script and pacing. What I want is for Warner Brothers to apply those lessons to Green Lantern 2.

Green Lantern set out to be one thing and one thing only; a really fun, really green popcorn superhero movie. I don't give a shit about character development when the main character is a dude who gets a magic green ring that allows him to create whatever the hell he wants. All I want is Ryan Reynolds spending part of his time flying around space and part of his time being a cocky asshole. That is what I got, that is why I'm happy with the movie.

Some of us go to movies to see a story has the hero that overcomes his own demons and an overarching conflict. Green Lantern failed to deliver because the movie never gave me the time to identify with any of the characters or properly assess the threat Parallax represents. It violated an important rule of storytelling, "Show, don't tell." If you're happy with shutting off your brain to enjoy this, fine, that's your prerogative. But some of us actually want to engage with the material.

No sane fan of the series expected this flick to be for them alone. A Green Lantern flick only for Green Lantern fans doesn't get a $200 million dollar budget. Hell, a Green Lantern movie only for Green Lantern fans doesn't even get interest from a major studio. That is what the straight-to-Blu-Ray animated releases are for. This Green Lantern was for a wide audience, and as such had to introduce this character and this world to that new audience. And it succeeded at doing just that.

This is not about the fans; there are many non-fans who absolutely hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, HATE this film and it's unreasonable for people to expect a good return on their $15 investment when they see it in the theatre? Their opinions don't count because they refuse to shut off their brains to enjoy it? Thanks a lot, you know how to make someone feel appreciated.

Green Lantern failed if its intent was to introduce the series to a mainstream audience. I talked to the owner of my local comic book shop who brought his Green Lantern cap to a poker tournament in Las Vegas last weekend, and no one knew what the Green Lantern insignia was. If the film had a decent story (or if more people watched Big Bang Theory) then it would have generated enough good word-of-mouth to garner the public's interest. Much like Star Wars did in 1977.

I didn't expect a film to cater exclusively to Green Lantern fans. I expected a film to take from the rich, fifty year history of the character and make it accessible to a mainstream audience. Sadly it failed spectacularly in that respect because my father (who is not a fan of the character at all) did not think it was any good.

 

[boop]

@PyroDaFox - Since you decided get all condescending, I shall do the same.

Regardless of you comparing the eventual Green Lantern sequel (and not the 2011 flick) to Wrath of Khan, you still were comparing the 2011 flick to the first Star Trek series of films when there is no comparison. Star Trek: The Motion Picture failed because it set out to be a piece of pop art that resonated with both a mass audience and film aficionados. That's why they hired Robert E. Wise to direct it. Green Lantern was directed by the dude who did fuckin' Zorro and Edge of Darkness (although Casino Royale was an intelligent action movie). Not exactly in the same class (not that this is an inherent detraction).

And on your second point, you may think it makes you sound intelligent to insinuate that you walk into every single movie expecting to be thoroughly engaged and challenged by a film with a dense, character-driven plot, but all it really does is make you come off as a snooty kid who just watched his first Oscar-bait film and expects all movies from all genres to be like that. All three Jackass flicks had pretty wide critical acclaim. Just because something is turn-off-your-brain fun doesn't mean it is bad, and it doesn't mean you are better than it because you walked in expecting something more. My point was anyone walking into Green Lantern expecting something more wasn't paying much attention to any of the trailers or any of the other build-up. Because they presented it as Ryan Reynolds flying in space, being a cocky, sarcastic superhero. And that is what it was. At no time did Warner Bros. try to get people to believe this was Batman Begins for Green Lantern. Hell, they never even advertised it as if it was Spider-Man for Green Lantern.

You don't review flicks for what you want them to be, you review them for what the movie wants to be. Does your own personal taste influence your take on the movie? Yeah. But what shouldn't influence it is this bullshit notion that all film is on an equal playing field and should set out to resonate with people on some deep level. There is a difference between film and movies. Green Lantern is a movie. Not a good film, but a damn good movie. I'm able to make that distinction, and my appreciation of cinema as a whole is better for it.

As for the whole "Show, don't tell." thing? That is a rule taught in high-school to keep kids in Creative Writing class from rambling. And even when it is apt, it is apt in written fiction. Film is (obviously) a visual medium, so as long as you have an above-average control of the English language, you can make a damn good movie out of nothing but people talking. While he has been hit and miss, Kevin Smith is a fantastic example of this. He has made 5 good-great flicks out of nothing but "telling". Hell, Clerks is a generation defining movie because of that. Sure, exposition that is nothing but dialogue can be bothersome, but good characters are nothing without good dialogue. Regardless, I don't think Green Lantern broke that rule anyway. Or, at least it didn't break it enough to take me out of the movie. Ryan Reynolds is charismatic enough to carry dialogue exposition and make it not only watchable but entertaining. Information dumps have always been a prerequisite of a popcorn superhero flick.

 

[GrnMarvl14]

Let's play nice, guys.

 

[Zeta]

As for the whole "Show, don't tell." thing? That is a rule taught in high-school to keep kids in Creative Writing class from rambling. And even when it is apt, it is apt in written fiction. Film is (obviously) a visual medium, so as long as you have an above-average control of the English language, you can make a damn good movie out of nothing but people talking. While he has been hit and miss, Kevin Smith is a fantastic example of this. He has made 5 good-great flicks out of nothing but "telling". Hell, Clerks is a generation defining movie because of that. Sure, exposition that is nothing but dialogue can be bothersome, but good characters are nothing without good dialogue. Regardless, I don't think Green Lantern broke that rule anyway. Or, at least it didn't break it enough to take me out of the movie. Ryan Reynolds is charismatic enough to carry dialogue exposition and make it not only watchable but entertaining. Information dumps have always been a prerequisite of a popcorn superhero flick.

There's a difference between conversation that develops character and exposition dumps of a past that would be better seen visually. Just because someone's talking doesn't mean it's worthy of being in a movie. The conversation in a Kevin Smith movie reveals both character development and humor. I would say comparing a good Kevin Smith movie to GL is as silly as comparing GL to Wrath of Khan.

 

[PyroDaFox]

Let's play nice, guys.

I said my piece. There's nothing more for me to discuss as far as I'm concerned.

 

[King Robert]

I'm sorry, I fail to see why this movie deserves to be labeled "spawn of Satan". I for one liked it. A lot.

 

[boop]

There's a difference between conversation that develops character and exposition dumps of a past that would be better seen visually. Just because someone's talking doesn't mean it's worthy of being in a movie. The conversation in a Kevin Smith movie reveals both character development and humor. I would say comparing a good Kevin Smith movie to GL is as silly as comparing GL to Wrath of Khan.

I wasn't really comparing the movies, but was pointing out that "Show, don't tell." isn't necessarily a rule to be followed religiously. It eventually came back to GL, but I wasn't comparing the two. There were two different arguments; one about that rule itself and one about whether GL broke that rule, and even if it did whether or not it hurt the flick. Reading though it again, I probably should have separated those thoughts.

 

[Barb]

I liked it. I noticed that Geoff Johns, the man responsible for DC's Green Lantern:Rebirth, Blackest Night, and Brightest Day, was one of the producers. His stories are partly why I started liking this character (that, and Denny O'Neill's 1970s run with GL/Green Arrow).

However,

Spoiler

Why did they retcon Parallax's origin? In the books, Parallax is a yellow entity "born at the beginning of sentience" made entirely of fear. Here, in the film,he's a Guardian who dared to bathe himself in the yellow energy of fear and became Parallax. WTF, Johns?

Also, having both Parallax and Hector Hammond in the same film diminished both characters. Hammond's actually a good villain in the books, but in the film he's little more than a distraction.

I do, however, give Ryan Reynolds' abs a perfect 10.

 

[Gohansan]

Ugh, just ugh. I would complain that I wasted my money if I was the one who actually bought the tickets to go see it. In my opinion, it's as bad as Dragonball Evolution. Moviebob's review of the film summed up my feelings nicely.

I'm okay with the odd mindless popcorn flick for the proles, like The Hangover, but when movie studios ruin and exploit good franchises for quick cash *cough*Transformers*cough* that I get pissed off.

 

[fate]

Did you even read that part of my post? I said if they were going to green light (no pun intended) a sequel then "they better hire a director that can do what Nicholas Meyer did for Star Trek with 'The Wrath of Khan.'" I'm outlining my expectations for Green Lantern 2. Star Trek: The Motion Picture was total mess of a movie that emphasized special effects over a coherent story, much like Green Lantern. Wrath of Khan is a more memorable movie because it focused on story: Kirk's internal conflict with the fact that he's getting older, the conflict between him and Khan (with a nice callback to the TOS episode "Space Seed"), Spock's sacrifice, and a half-dozen other plot elements to say nothing of the tight script and pacing.[/i].

Felt the need to comment on this, because honestly I think The Motion Picture gets waaaay too much unwarranted hate (except for the uniforms, those WERE terrible)...

(inb4 someone decides to be clever and asks "how you define unwarranted?")

Yeah, Wrath of Khan was a good movie. But it was almost solely responsible for derailing the Star Trek franchise into the realm of military. Meyer was a huge submarine warfare buff, and as such, he tried to make Star Trek INTO a submarine warfare franchise. Ever notice how neither ship ever had shields available when fired on? Or the entire Mutara Nebula battle... no shields, almost blinded, etc. He took away the sci-fi conventions to essentially create bare-bones submarine warfare. The uniforms, while a major improvement over TMP, are very military. And if you saw Star Trek VI, the other movie directed by Meyer (admittedly, he did A LOT better this time), the Enterprise-A's interiors were very similar to that of a submarine. The halls had piping running along the ceilings, and the bridge had a rotating alert light at the top, similar the alarms we have today. And while he let the Enterprise have shields this time, he still had the gimmick of having an invisible opponent (but in this case, it worked into the story well enough).

So yeah, those movies are good, but Meyer is overrated as a director for Star Trek. Robert Wise at least tried to keep a certain awe and mystery about space, and didn't try to bring things to his comfort level in order to direct properly.

(/ramble)