# Green Lantern (2011)



## soliloquy (Jun 17, 2011)

has anyone seen this yet?

ads looked incredible, but i'm not sure if it will live up to the ads hype :S

and apparently its sequel is already in the making :s


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 17, 2011)

I saw the premiere, and I was, to put it mildly, insulted.

If you're a fan of GL's comics, don't see this movie, as you will more than likely be driven to commit suicide. I'm not really a fan, but I am pretty familiar with the Green Lantern mythos, and unlike some recent comic book movies (X-Men: First Class comes to mind) they clearly know the source material. There's a lot of fan service, and it's overall an interesting retelling of the story...except for how hard it sucks. As always, I loved the references to little tidbits of GL trivia, which I thought was brilliantly executed. It's subtle, and only fans would notice it, but it's stuffed in everywhere.

I know that movies clearly are meant for a different audience, and superhero flicks in particular can't delve into something like 60+ years of material, so I won't get into the many ways they butchered Hal Jordan, Sinestro, Tomar Re, and pretty much everything else. This is to be expected when making the jump from comics to the big screen. This movie doesn't fail in it's retelling of Green Lantern as much as it just fails at being a movie. 

It starts off bad, with a blistering history of the Guardians of the Universe and the Green Lantern Corps. I've never liked movies with a huge amount of expositional shit in the beginning, so maybe that's just a personal issue. Where the movie goes wrong is in how fast it is, and how disjointed the plot is. Without really giving too much away, Hal goes from being a normal dude to taking THE GRAVEST THREAT IN THE GREEN LANTERN CORPS' HISTORY like it's nothing. There's seemingly no learning curve, and the character development is mostly implied, rather than seen. He goes from quitting the Corps at one point, and just being the quintessential Ryan Reynolds-irresponsible-yet-impossible-to-hate guy into the more solemn, responsible user of the world's greatest weapon in literally minutes. There's barely any progression of him fighting a few common thugs or saving some innocents, it's just BLAM! I'm fighting a force that has consumed the strongest Lanterns ever. With ease!

The plot also leaves sooooo many issues unresolved. It'll continually bring up facets of Hal Jordan's character, like his daddy issues, or his relationship with his family, and then after the scene, it's never mentioned again; instead, they'd rather introduce another wrinkle in the plot, as if we're all on coke and don't want to stay on one thing too long.

Aside from Ryan Reynolds, and whoever played Hector Hammond, the acting is mediocre. Both of them gave really good performances, and Hammond's portrayal was decidedly dark, yet believable. Ryan Reynolds is well, Ryan Reynolds, but I'm a fan of his, so that's okay with me. The other actors weren't bad, but they weren't anything special, really.

The unequivocally worst part of the experience, however, was the CGI. Movies that came out 10 years ago have had better effects than this. It seemed like the producers wanted to put in as much CGI as they could, for no other reason than that they could. If it was handled better, this wouldn't be a problem, but most of the shots heavy with special effects looked like something out of a well-designed video game, or like the cutscenes in FFVIII. 

My harsh judgement aside, it's still worth seeing, just don't expect a Dark Knight caliber movie. If you really just love GL, give a shot. You might be less opinionated or detail-obsessed than I am, in which case I imagine it's not bad.

Also, if you're a die-hard fan, you'll be just as amused as I was that in this supposed trilogy, Hal takes care of the biggest threat in his whole career in the first movie. They really screwed the pooch on this one.


----------



## MFB (Jun 17, 2011)

Yup, from what I've heard this is absolute garbage and the movie is overall a disaster, which why as a Green Lantern fan - I most certainly will NOT be seeing it anymore. Green Lantern is my FAVORITE superhero, and I knew this was going to be utter shit when I heard RYAN FUCKING REYNOLDS was the lead; Reynolds is nothing more than the wise-cracking supporting role, not the lead, especially as something like Hal Jordan. Jordan is no nonsense, by the book, Green Lantern. You wanna use Reynolds? Great, fucking cast him as Guy Gardner who's the comic relief, and leave Hal Jordan's role to REAL actors like Jeremy Renner or someone else.

Also, there's artistic liberties and then there's butchering the entire fucking origins of the story. 

Spoiler for some people :


Spoiler



Parallax doesn't just come out of fucking NOWHERE, he was hidden by the Guardians when they realized fear was their weakness and would lead to the prophecy of Blackest Night. In the movie, he just comes out of the Yellow Power Battery and is like "Hey let me fuck shit up" which is NOT how it happens. Originally Sinestro turns against the Green Lanterns and then is banished to the Anti-Dimension where he meets the Weapons of Qward, and it's THERE he makes the Yellow Power Ring and harnesses Parallax. THAT'S how it should've gone, Sinestro never went to the Guardians asking him to make the Yellow Ring and then puts it on - that's fucking HORSE SHIT.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 18, 2011)

Jeremy Renner playing Hal Jordan wouldn't have made for a good movie.

He can't headline a major motion picture anyway. That's why he's Hawkeye.


The movie industry is ALWAYS going to take liberties with stories. If this is the way they go, then fine, look at it as someone else's interpretation of a story. It's what happens in comic books everytime a new writing team comes in.

I suggest you go see the movie, with a clear head, and make your decision after seeing it. 

That's why I don't read reviews, and just go see movies blind. I want to make my own decision. It sucks that you guys think it's a "flop".

I'm seeing it and The Hangover 2 tomorrow, I'll let you guys know how it goes.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 18, 2011)

First off, it was better than Thor. *laugh*

Yes, a bit one dimensional... but the only two superhero movies based on a longstanding comic which had any emotional depth to them that I can remember were the first Spiderman and Iron Man films. I *love* superhero movies, and have a groaning shelf of just this genre, but only those two of the mainstream films will do when I want something better than "ExplosionMan!" 

It's funny to hear the complaints about the CGI. I have seen some bad CGI, and I do rewatch older movies, so the idea that the CGI looks dated made me laugh. 

Should films stick obsessively to an established version? Should bands only play exactly like a recording? Tastes vary, and I can see someone being butthurt about just taking certain aspects of a friggin' comic book and not being slavishly faithful to the whole made-up story... which, of course, is a recasting of the original magic-based Green Lantern. "Oh, but those changes are different, because I wasn't devoted to the original Lantern!" Yeah, okay, whatever. I wasn't expecting them to set up "Blackest Night," I was just expecting to watch "Green Lantern." When it comes to people putting their spin on ideas, I'm open to it, and don't become slavishly fanboi. I'm funny that way. 

I went and saw an entertaining summer film. I didn't expect a deep story, because it was based on a comic book which also started out without a deep story. I expected explosions, and I got explosions. I expected decent 3D and effects, and got it... better than Thor, incidentally. 

And, best of all, I got to hear the Oath. Who hears that and doesn't want to be a bulwark against evil in the same way?


----------



## MFB (Jun 18, 2011)

From what I've heard the entire movie is a set up for the sequel, and I think critics were even saying this as well. Not to mention, Hal Jordan isn't the first human Green Lantern, the original was Alan Scott back in the 40's who got his ring from a mystical lamp that dated back to ancient China and  Go read the originals for that story if you're really interested.

I should also mention, why the fuck did they use CGI for this suit? Spiderman got a suit, technically 4 if you count one for each film PLUS the Symbiote, and Superman got a suit for each of his films, not to mention Batman and even that atrocity of a film Catwoman - so why not make a Green Lantern one? Ryan Reynold's eyes looked like they were gonna friggin' burst out of the thing just in the previews alone.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 18, 2011)

Am I the only one who remembers when Hal had to change into the costume? Even the first time, after he stripped it off the dead alien guy, leaving him there naked after jacking him for his ring? *laugh* Since "Rebirth," it's been a ring-generated suit. (Yes, I can be a nerd.) 

I actually thought the visible depth of the suit was interesting, in terms of watching the lines of power, but I saw it in 3D. 

Given the explanation they gave for the suit, I don't have a problem with it. As the costume is a ring construct, I don't necessarily feel it should have looked like a real world cloth suit.


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 18, 2011)

I wondered about the eye thing myself. Like I said, I'm familiar with quite a bit of Hal Jordan's mythos, but I thought maybe I was forgetting that his eyes were blue when he had the mask on.

Then I remembered that they were pure white. I'd like to know why the powers that be decided a fake, fish-belly blue would work better than an imposing white void.

Also, like I said in my post, fanboy-ism aside, it's not a great movie. I've said previously, I think in the Thor thread, that I don't expect movies to align perfectly with multiple decades of continuity. I felt this movie failed at just plain being a movie.

"Hal, I went over every inch of the flight data. Nothing went wrong with the plane. What happened to you up there?"

"Oh, not shit, really. I froze up thinking about my dad's tragic death, but this issue doesn't need to be resolved with a line of dialogue or anything."

I especially like the part where he repeats the same words to his nephew that his dad said to him, and then we never see the kid again. It was a fairly emotionally loaded scene (as far as summer blockbusters go), as well as his interaction with his brother, and you never see them again. The guy doesn't even say goodbye to them before he flies off to be a space cop.

He took the saying "Bros before hoes" and turned it on its fucking head. 

I really felt like they either extensively rewrote the script, turning it into a hodgepodge of half-developed themes, or else took a bunch of possible scripts and just jammed them into one movie.


----------



## JamesM (Jun 18, 2011)

5/10.

EDIT:
You thought the CGI was bad? You've got to be kidding me. That movie was stunning visually. The only good component of it, honestly. Arguing that it is bad is a null argument--you don't spend more money than was spent on the Dark Knight and end up with bad CGI. Period. 

EDIT2:
OH YEAH! When he said the same thing his dad said to him, but to his nephew, I aloud yelled "OH COME ON."  I'm not normally that guy but... OH COME ON!


----------



## OrsusMetal (Jun 18, 2011)

CONTAINS SPOILERS. Don't read if you don't want to know.

I saw the midnight premiere. While I have been unhappy with how Hal looks, I felt the CG was fantastic on everyone else. It also looked a bit better on the big screen.

While watching, I was a bit unhappy with how many changes they had made to the story line (e.g. Paralax origin, yellow ring origin etc). I'm a Green Lantern junkie and I really like it's story line. Even though I was unhappy with these changes, I was okay with them as they still worked, in a way. They changed the origin of Paralax....eh, whatever. Tons of comic book movies have been changed that have worked and while I want to see what I have read in comics actually on the big screen, little changes like that make things interesting. I still think it worked well. Especially since other Guardians had created other corps later on in the story line anyways. So, I was fine with that change. 

Now the part where Sinestro is wanting to make a yellow ring. I like Sinestro. I like his story line a lot. This change bugged me, but again, it made sense. They didn't have time to go into Hal and his friendship. They also didn't have a lot of time to go into the whole "police" aspect of the corps. You don't get to see his change from a Green Lantern to wanting to police a new way. So, they changed it with the Paralax story. It made sense. I mean, in a movie they probably aren't going to keep the same villain around for all the movies. So getting rid of Paralax in this story made sense, as did the changes.


The things I'm still unhappy about:

Hal Jordan having to deal with being a frighten child the whole time. One of Hal's characteristics is about how courageous and fearless he is. He hasn't shown fear since his father's death. Which it was neat that they touched on that, but he still was bothered by it. I understand it gives him something to overcome in the movie and makes for a touching love story...but that isn't Hal. That is a very big point about Hal, and while he gets it later on, that is a big change to him. If they wouldn't have done that, maybe they could have focused a bit more on the Corps than him overcoming his failures.

I didn't understand why Hector had as much background story as Hal. I know they wanted to show his downfall, but at the same time it seemed a bit unnecessary. Especially since there were so many gaps in how everyone was connected. It made me not really care about why he was out for Hal and Carol. I mean I knew why, but it just seemed a little silly. This doesn't mean I didn't like his character. I just felt that all the background and development they were giving him was a bit unnecessary. 

Why did they change the appearance of everyone in this film....but Hal Jordan looked like Ryan Renolds? They could have at least styled his hair. They didn't do ANYTHING to make him look more like Hal. It just seemed like they put a lot more effort into the other characters, like Sinestro and Hector.

There was some other things that I will probably remember later. Like why was Sinestro's eyes glowing yellow towards the beginning of the movie, but green towards the end? Was he that touched by Hal's actions or was he finding Paralax to be appealing.

Anyways, I am sort of on edge about this one. I have issues with it, and it bothers me because I am very attached to the story line. At the same time, I enjoyed it for other reasons. 

One thing I will say though is that I really enjoyed Mark Strong in this. He did a great Sinestro, imo. He is a great actor.


----------



## JamesM (Jun 18, 2011)

Did anyone sit through the credits? At the end there was a short clip of Sinestro putting on the yellow ring. 

Yeah, sorry Ryan Reynolds, I don't predict this movie doing well enough for you to get a sequel.


----------



## OrsusMetal (Jun 18, 2011)

I did. I always sit through the credits. Plus, it has become a pretty big trend to put extras during or after the credits now so I always stay. I also enjoy looking at who did what in films. 

I really wasn't expecting to see that part after Hal decided to face Paralax on his own. When Sinestro comes and they go all buddy, buddy at the end, I was expecting the sequel to touch more on their friendship and him turning on the Guardians. Now I'm not sure if he is going to go between the two rings in the next movie or what.


----------



## JamesM (Jun 18, 2011)

Like, how immediately after Hal finishes Paralax off, the three Lanterns he knows happen to have just shown up. 

That movie was awful.


----------



## OrsusMetal (Jun 18, 2011)

They were the cheering section. The dialog went something like this.

*enter Sinestro, Kilowog, Tomar-Re*

Sinestro: Yikes, that is a huge fucker.
Sinestro: Kilowog....go help him.
Kilowog: Fuck that. You do it, Pooter.
Tomar-Re: I'm not doing it....I don't know him well enough. Sinestro?
Sinestro: .....No....look, he's got this. See? He just punched him into the sun.
Tomar-Re: Let us go cuddle him.


----------



## JamesM (Jun 18, 2011)




----------



## Explorer (Jun 18, 2011)

First off, I'm kind of surprised that those discussing specific aspects of the story aren't using the spoiler tags, making reading such material an option for those who want to. You just use the square brackets with the word "spoiler" in them, and end it with "/spoiler" in brackets at the end. Then people can select the green section to read it... if they wish.



Spoiler



I think if they had truly made Green Lantern into Daredevil, the Man without Fear, there would have been even less character development than in Thor. (I know I've stated my dislike for that movie more than once, but I just can't get over it. *laugh*) So, they decided to give him the potential to move beyond fear, instead of making him completely fearless and a candidate for a Darwin Award. If you all want a character with no character development, then you'd probably do better just watching "ExplosionMan."



Ah, well. I was expecting a popcorn movie, not a monument to a comic book. I didn't care about the eyes not matching the comic. I'm okay with the variance from the comics. I also wasn't expecting a deep story, since I've only got that twice from mainstream comic movies. (Incidentally, I highly recommend "Defendor" with Woody Harrelson, "Special" with Michael Rappaport, and "Super" with Raine Wilson over almost all the comic movies which have come out.) If someone wants to watch more of a character study about Green Lantern, I suggest they watch "Justice League: the New Frontier," the excellent animated straight-to-DVD movie adapted from the 6-issue comic. 

It will be interesting to see where the Rotten Tomato meter will land after the weekend. We'll be past any initial weighting towards the fanboi contingent who made special plans to watch it on the day of release, and more towards non-comic oriented folks.


----------



## soliloquy (Jun 18, 2011)

@ Explorer: idk. for the most part, old movies used some brilliant CGI effects. even something as old as gremlins, and 'never ending story' or even more recent stuff. but if you see video games now a days, and compare them to the CGIs being used in movies, you'd say that the movies are video games and video games are real.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 18, 2011)

just saw it here's my take:

Those badmouthing the CGI, it's not dated, it looks great and works for the movie. It's not Avatar, don't walk in expecting to fucking watch Avatar as Green Lantern. 

The story isn't disjointed and fucked up. It flows well, and the movie does seem to drag on in some parts, but it's still not bad.

You can not have a super hero movie with the main hero automatically ready to take up everything. There's a process that each person, character, has to go through before they're mentally ready to take on this kind of power. It's in Spiderman, Ironman, Superman, Batman, etc... Saying, "Hal Jordan is Hal Jordan because of his courage, and not some bitch with daddy issues" is kind of a dick thing to say. 

The movie wasn't terrible, it wasn't a flop. It was a good film, it showed aspects of Hal's character with human emotions. He's scared, he's "only human". He has to accept his fear and use it to fuel his will to save his people and his courage to stand up to this alone. And that's what makes him one of the greatest Green Lanterns ever.

I think a lot of you went into this expecting the greatest retelling of Green Lantern's Origins, and it's not that movie, and that movie will never be made into a big summer block buster film. It's time you accept that and see that this is a good summer action movie, that features one of your favorite super heroes.

That's why it's a good film.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 18, 2011)

@Soliloquy: I wouldn't know about the video games, since I don't play them. I sometimes do see them on large screens when I go to a consumer electronics store, but they definitely look like computer graphics. 

There have been some movies with amazing CGI effects which raised the bar on how to use such, to the point where the effects aren't noticed at all. "What Lies Beneath" contained a huge amount of effect shots which were invisible. However, when one is talking about people flying through space without spacecraft, I think there might be limits on how much suspension of disbelief one can bring to bear. (And, again, kudos to the first Iron Man for using motion capture to find out how a person moves while flying.)

(Did they remake "Gremlins" and "The Neverending Story" with CGI? I only remember the puppet effects from the originals... although there might have been a rough-looking gremlins-on-the-march scene which was clearly fake.)


----------



## stevemcqueen (Jun 18, 2011)

I hate Ryan Reynolds. He annoys me.


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Jun 18, 2011)

MFB said:


> Spoiler for some people



This is completely wrong and not how it happened at all, they gave backstory into it etc. Probably not the original back story according to the comics etc but he didn't just pop out of nowhere. They started off the damned movie with how he ended up a present thread and then filled in more back story later on. 

I can't possibly fathom wtf goes through critics heads because they are mostly incompetent. I enjoyed the green lantern it was easily as good as any of the other superhero / similar movies to come out within the last decade. 

Apparently critics were praising the xmen movie where my friend who is a comic nerd and keeps up with xmen thought it was an absolute abomination. If your a green lantern fan and expect to get a true representation of all that is the comics don't bother watching it.

It was a good movie, so was thor I enjoyed the crap out of both. I must have watched a different movie because I didn't experience any of these apparently awful parts of the movie that every critic is ranting about.

Oh I also watched the xmen movie too and enjoyed it as well, I guess a lot of enjoying these movies is being blissfully ignorant to the characters original comic book stories etc.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 18, 2011)

your friend who's badmouthing the xmen movie needs to get over his nerd rage.


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 18, 2011)

I think most of you people are misunderstanding most of the points I'm trying to get across. For the record, I'm a Marvel fanboy (and an even greater Deadpool fanboi...conflict of interest much?) so I'm not butthurt at all that they changed the story.

What bugged me is the constant issues with the plot's pacing and bringing up elements of Hal they never explore later. It's like if in one of the first scenes they establish that he has AIDS, and then you don't see anything else about it. You're just left wondering, "Dude, where's my car?".

Also, if I may be allowed to indulge a bit: Sinestro made a complete 180 degree about-face on using fear as a weapon, and decided to overcome it, right? And clearly he's been set-up to be the main villain in the next film, using the power of fear, essentially. Does he change his mind? And how is he supposed to be more imposing than the physical embodiment of fear like Parallax was?


----------



## JamesM (Jun 18, 2011)

Maybe he'll turn into this:


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 18, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> I think most of you people are misunderstanding most of the points I'm trying to get across. For the record, I'm a Marvel fanboy (and an even greater Deadpool fanboi...conflict of interest much?) so I'm not butthurt at all that they changed the story.
> 
> What bugged me is the constant issues with the plot's pacing and bringing up elements of Hal they never explore later. It's like if in one of the first scenes they establish that he has AIDS, and then you don't see anything else about it. You're just left wondering, "Dude, where's my car?".
> 
> Also, if I may be allowed to indulge a bit: Sinestro made a complete 180 degree about-face on using fear as a weapon, and decided to overcome it, right? And clearly he's been set-up to be the main villain in the next film, using the power of fear, essentially. Does he change his mind? And how is he supposed to be more imposing than the physical embodiment of fear like Parallax was?



I like Marvel far more than I like DC, but at least I can follow the story of a comic based movie.

What elements are you talking about? I couldn't think of anything that was brought up and then never spoken about.

Sinestro is the main villian in the Green Lantern comics. Parallax is, in a way, too. But he's different. 

I guess you have to have some kind of inkling of the Green Lantern story line to understand the movie. It's not that hard to follow..


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 19, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> I like Marvel far more than I like DC, but at least I can follow the story of a comic based movie.
> 
> What elements are you talking about? I couldn't think of anything that was brought up and then never spoken about.
> 
> ...



Inkling? I have more than an inkling. I can explain to you in exacting detail the process whereby Alan Scott became a Green Lantern of sorts, I know all about Sinestro and Hal Jordan, the whole Parallax storyline, and Hal's brightest moment, his stint as The Spectre. None of that helps the hackneyed plot flow better.

Refer to my extensive previous posts for my exact problems with the movie, I'm tired of saying it over and over .


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 19, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> I saw the premiere, and I was, to put it mildly, insulted.
> 
> If you're a fan of GL's comics, don't see this movie, as you will more than likely be driven to commit suicide. I'm not really a fan, but I am pretty familiar with the Green Lantern mythos, and unlike some recent comic book movies (X-Men: First Class comes to mind) they clearly know the source material. There's a lot of fan service, and it's overall an interesting retelling of the story...except for how hard it sucks. As always, I loved the references to little tidbits of GL trivia, which I thought was brilliantly executed. It's subtle, and only fans would notice it, but it's stuffed in everywhere.
> 
> ...



okay these are from your first post, and I'm not going to comment on your hate for the CGI.


Spoiler



1) That's the whole story, that you seemingly missed. He doesn't just go from "Hi I'm Hal Jordan, Let's get these pants off." to "FUCK YEA KILLED PARALLAX!" The whole story and his progression as a hero is displayed there on the screen infront of you.
2) Again, in front of your face. He goes from having these issues to understanding them, facing his fears, and conquering them. Is it spectacular? Not really, but it does happen. There's nothing implied.
3) He fights his ex-coworkers, after he manages to unleash a little of the ring it takes him to Oha, He trains some, realizes he's a bitch because of Sinestro, then goes home to realize that he's been chosen and has to do something about it. And it takes Blake Lively to help him come to terms with all his shit.
4) Daddy issues: Looks up to father who always puts on the brave face, Hal sees father die in plane crash. It haunts him, so he tries to be like his father, fearless, daring, hero. But he's scared.
5) Family is worried about him doing stupid bullshit that nearly gets him killed. Apparently repeatedly because of a motorcycle accident that's mentioned by his brother.
(6) This should have been first but I missed it when numbering. The history lasts all of 20 seconds and is a good introduction to people unfamiliar with it. It gives people a basis, and introduces the villian, and who the swole pink alien from the trailers is and why he's kind of important.



I usually don't stand up for movies like this, but it just seems like you didn't watch Green Lantern, but went in for the soul purpose to nitpick it to death because you weren't going to get what you wanted from a Green Lantern movie.

I don't mean to be a dick or anything. I respect your dislike of the movie, I just don't understand why.


----------



## The Reverend (Jun 19, 2011)

I dislike the movie because I think it sucks, that's the most blunt way to put it. Even in your post you say there's things that weren't done amazingly. My question is, why the hell not? With such a huge budget, and such a huge IP, you'd think they could make a movie that everyone, fan of comics or not, would find good.


----------



## ST3MOCON (Jun 19, 2011)

I liked the movie. I thought it was a fun and entertaining movie. Watching it in 3D made it even cooler. Its a fun summer flick.


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 19, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> I dislike the movie because I think it sucks, that's the most blunt way to put it. Even in your post you say there's things that weren't done amazingly. My question is, why the hell not? With such a huge budget, and such a huge IP, you'd think they could make a movie that everyone, fan of comics or not, would find good.



Because, it's a comic book movie. Lower your expectations, and roll back your fan boy attitude and you might actually have enjoyed the film.


----------



## OlisDead (Jun 19, 2011)

I'm curious to see that movie. Even if the trailer was mmm, cheap?^^


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Jun 19, 2011)

The Reverend said:


> I dislike the movie because I think it sucks, that's the most blunt way to put it. Even in your post you say there's things that weren't done amazingly. My question is, why the hell not? With such a huge budget, and such a huge IP, you'd think they could make a movie that everyone, fan of comics or not, would find good.



Apparently something like 70% of moviegoers found it to be a good / entertaining movie. 

That's a majority which is what you could expect. I also imagine the remaining % is just people like you who went in there to nitpick so yeah...

Nothing wrong with the movie.


edit: not saying you can't hate it with a firey passion, its just not as awful as a movie as you think it is. No different than me thinking the movie doubt was the first truly bad movie I've seen where there wasn't a single mildly entertaining aspect of it and yet plenty of people like it. 

Some shits just not for you.


----------



## MFB (Jun 19, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> Because, it's a comic book movie. Lower your expectations, and roll back your fan boy attitude and you might actually have enjoyed the film.



I can't help but feel like it's these kind of statements that is killing the movie industry and allowing sequel upon sequel to be pumped out. WHY should we lower expectations, when they've got 40+ YEARS of material to work with AND a huge budget? They could've made a fantastic movie that both casual and hardcore fans would like, but it seems we're only catering to one or the other nowadays (X-Men will be the exception, NOT the rule here).


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 19, 2011)

When you see a movie that's an adaptation of a novel, do you go in expecting the movie to be word for word of the novel? Or do you expect them to take liberties with it to make it a more appealing movie to a wider audience?

If you think that every single movie ever made needs to meet or exceed your expectations, then I don't think you should ever see a movie.

It's not that my point of view or similar ones are "ruining" anything. If a movie is written, directed, and acted well enough, and makes enough money it should be expected that a sequel will be made, if they project warrants it. 

Like comic book movies, there is a lot of material to go through, so the possibilities with three parts, or 4 part or even 6 part series of movies shouldn't be surprising. There's enough material to milk, and enough audience to make enough money off of.


----------



## Explorer (Jun 19, 2011)

MFB said:


> I can't help but feel like it's these kind of statements that is killing the movie industry and allowing sequel upon sequel to be pumped out.



I absolutely agree with your point. Why waste money on making a movie about a childish comic book when one can start with a fresh, original premise?

I think, though, that a lot of movies are made because they provide spectacle instead of requiring any thought. That's why so many studios rely on "ExplosionMan" and his ilk to draw in the male demographic. 

Personally, I prefer movies which rely on emotion, although spectacle can be added. That's one reason "Super" has been superior to all these filmic sequels to old comic books. I don't mind seeing how an idea makes the jump from one medium to another (book/comic/movie/radio/etc.).

Honestly, though, I always feel sad when someone doesn't ever expand beyond relying on, say, the bookshelves at a local bookstore which are dedicated to all the Star Wars novels, or who only wallow in the story "universes" of DC and Marvel. 

----

It's funny that "Doubt" made an appearance in this topic. Everyone I know who has seen it and thought about it has a different opinion regarding the characters. It's clear that we all bring our own viewpoints to our interpretations... and I think that is why a film like "Doubt" is considered to be better art than a lot of movies. 

Now, back to discussing the minutia of comic book movies!


----------



## soliloquy (Jun 21, 2011)

saw it last night and i thought the movie was okay. but seriously lacked character development. my main concern with these movies is their length. why the hell can they NOT MAKE A MOVIE LONGER and tie up the loose ends rather than rush everything into 2 hours? make it into 3 and i'm happy as they tie up about 80% of the loose ends rather than force fillers that feel very unnessessary... 

also, i kept laughing at how similar ryan renolds looks like the indian actor by the name of Hrithik Roshan:


----------



## Sicarius (Jun 21, 2011)

I don't think I could handle a 3 hour long Green Lantern or any comicbook movie.

Unless 1950s Akira Kurosawa came back from the dead to make it..


----------



## soliloquy (Jun 21, 2011)

Sicarius said:


> I don't think I could handle a 3 hour long Green Lantern or any comicbook movie.
> 
> Unless 1950s Akira Kurosawa came back from the dead to make it..



dont think of the time, but think of the journey. 
the spider man series was about 2-3 hours long each because they had a LOT to deal with.
superman had a 3 hour movie because they had a LOT to deal with
x-men 3 was so epic because they had a LOT to deal with

not super hero movies, but the lord of the rings were 3 hours each (longer if you consider the extended editions) because they had a LOT to deal with.

i rather have a movie too long than a movie that starts at point A, then five minutes later, its at point D, then 10 minutes later its at credits.

i mean, think about it...almost all super hero/comic books have what? 40-60 years worth of stuff they can put into movies. sure, cramming them into 2 hours is difficult as it seems too rushed. but if you select the best points and put it in 3 hours, then yeah, that makes a bit more sense as it flows better


----------

