Green Lantern Movie thoughts

[Operation:Mego]

Evidently Warner re-registered the website for Green Lantern 2.

www.comicbookmovie.com/green_lantern/news/?a=51715

Not much news... but a thread of hope for a sequel? Nah, probably not.

I hope that means that a sequel will happen. Green Lantern deserves one!

[Operation:Mego]

Proud owner of the Bluray. Liked the movie and Reynolds as Hal Jordan.

Same here!

[Random Axe]

I gotta be truly honest with myself on this one. I so wanted to like this movie, I really did. After repeated viewings I only see what could have been, I only see the gaping flaws within the film.

A giant, planet sized yellow fart cloud with Abe Vigoda's face begins terrorizing the universe and the only individual in all of this universe capable of defeating it, out of 6000 sectors or so, is the un-heroic, smarmy underachiever Reynolds, who is not only given the most powerful weapon in the universe with virtually no training but is also allowed to face the enemy completely alone. All of this is happening while Clint Howard is terrorizing Earth and the boring, talentless Blake Lively with his telekinesis and horrible over-acting. Did I miss a plot thread?

The largest misstep they made was in casting. Reynolds can be funny, really funny. He cannot be heroic. That is not in his nature. It's not his fault, he just can't inspire anyone.

If they do decide there is something left to do a sequel with, I think Mark-Paul Gosslear would be a perfect Hal. He's likeable, funny, witty and actually has dramatic acting chops, which he is seldom allowed to use. He also has the look.



The GL character might not translate perfectly into the film world, but DC deserves another shot to get it right cause when it is done right, it will be HUGE.

[emeraldknight47]

I gotta be truly honest with myself on this one. I so wanted to like this movie, I really did. After repeated viewings I only see what could have been, I only see the gaping flaws within the film.

A giant, planet sized yellow fart cloud with Abe Vigoda's face begins terrorizing the universe and the only individual in all of this universe capable of defeating it, out of 6000 sectors or so, is the un-heroic, smarmy underachiever Reynolds, who is not only given the most powerful weapon in the universe with virtually no training but is also allowed to face the enemy completely alone. All of this is happening while Clint Howard is terrorizing Earth and the boring, talentless Blake Lively with his telekinesis and horrible over-acting. Did I miss a plot thread?

The largest misstep they made was in casting. Reynolds can be funny, really funny. He cannot be heroic. That is not in his nature. It's not his fault, he just can't inspire anyone.

If they do decide there is something left to do a sequel with, I think Mark-Paul Gosslear would be a perfect Hal. He's likeable, funny, witty and actually has dramatic acting chops, which he is seldom allowed to use. He also has the look.

http://i214.photobucket.com/albums/cc282/Therandomaxe/mark-paul.jpg

The GL character might not translate perfectly into the film world, but DC deserves another shot to get it right cause when it is done right, it will be HUGE.

I thought RR did an all right job as Hal Jordan, but I still say that WHEN they make the sequel [and I hope they do], if they do decide to recast Hal, only ONE person can wear the Ring----Ben Browder of FARSCAPE. From the very first time I watched him in FARSCAPE, I thought "Man, this guy would make an excellent Hal Jordan!"

As for Blake Lively, she didn't bother me as much as Carol Ferris as she did other folks, I think she just had a few clunky lines [and her trailer scenes were poorly edited]. She was also particularly easy on the eyes and would LOVE to see her in a Star Sapphire outfit!!!!

[Operation:Mego]

I just looked at it to see if there was some insight posted or something.

Well, I taught you the correct meaning of a word. That not exactly "insight", but I taught you something you didn't know.

[MIB41]

I can see I need to pull out my Lantern Pooch once more. GL was a fine film. It gets a bad rap because Lantern's origin is actually not that complex. To hate this film is to hate the Lantern's origin. Sure there were some liberties taken, but that is essentially his origin. Not every hero has a Spiderman or Batman style origin. It is what it is.

[emeraldknight47]

Actually, and I know MIB41 agrees with me on this, GREEN LANTERN got slaughtered by the critics before it ever even made it to the theaters, which is a crying out loud shame because probably 50% (and that's being generous) of the critics even knew who Green Lantern was or what his backstory/origin were. In some ways, so many of the reviews were so alike in their negativity, it was like the critics were students in Study Hall passing notes back and forth to each other.

I think another problem the critics had with Green Lantern can be somewhat attributable to a certain Mr. Nolan (sorry, TK, but I think this is true) grounding heroes SO MUCH in the fabric of reality that, for a character like Green Lantern, whose very existence and origins lie in the complete and total willing suspension of disbelief, the critics had forgotten how to go into a super-hero movie and actually have fun with it. Granted, THOR was also a character whose story and origins are far-fetched, but that movie was still more grounded in the reality of the world today instead of being a flight of fancy.

I liken GL's origin and stories more the to the old Buck Rogers or Space Patrol stories where characters were not grounded so much by personal baggage or relationship troubles and the characters actually had fun doing what they did. It was obvious (to me anyway) that Hal Jordan LOVED being Green Lantern once he wrapped his head around the concept and he was determined to carry out his duties as a Green Lantern, but not become a dark, avenging figure like The Batman or a figurehead like Superman.

I hope that GL gets another chance to soar on the big screen again and that we do get to see more cool space action and more of the other Corps. members....

Rant over....

[Hector]

but I still say that WHEN they make the sequel [and I hope they do], if they do decide to recast Hal, only ONE person can wear the Ring----Ben Browder of FARSCAPE. From the very first time I watched him in FARSCAPE, I thought "Man, this guy would make an excellent Hal Jordan!"

I'm a HUGE fan of Farscape...and yes...Browder has the look to play Hal/Lantern.

Having said that...let's be realistic...the guy is 49 years old (my age) and is mainly a TV actor...you know, and I know...that no way in hell is the studio going to go that route. If they decide to recast the role...it's going to go to another young film actor...now...they might pull a surprise and go with an unknown...but he's going to be young nevertheless...no way will they ever cast a 50 year old as a leading silver screen comic book superhero...never. I myself would, but "they" won't.

[thunderbolt]

Well, I taught you the correct meaning of a word. That not exactly "insight", but I taught you something you didn't know.

No, no you did not. I know what a tool is, and Ryan "Van Wilder" Reynolds is it. "a stupid, vapid, or unpleasent person." < your posted definition applies to his acting ability and wide range of emotion on display in his movies.

[MIB41]

Actually, and I know MIB41 agrees with me on this, GREEN LANTERN got slaughtered by the critics before it ever even made it to the theaters, which is a crying out loud shame because probably 50% (and that's being generous) of the critics even knew who Green Lantern was or what his backstory/origin were. In some ways, so many of the reviews were so alike in their negativity, it was like the critics were students in Study Hall passing notes back and forth to each other.

I think another problem the critics had with Green Lantern can be somewhat attributable to a certain Mr. Nolan (sorry, TK, but I think this is true) grounding heroes SO MUCH in the fabric of reality that, for a character like Green Lantern, whose very existence and origins lie in the complete and total willing suspension of disbelief, the critics had forgotten how to go into a super-hero movie and actually have fun with it. Granted, THOR was also a character whose story and origins are far-fetched, but that movie was still more grounded in the reality of the world today instead of being a flight of fancy.

I liken GL's origin and stories more the to the old Buck Rogers or Space Patrol stories where characters were not grounded so much by personal baggage or relationship troubles and the characters actually had fun doing what they did. It was obvious (to me anyway) that Hal Jordan LOVED being Green Lantern once he wrapped his head around the concept and he was determined to carry out his duties as a Green Lantern, but not become a dark, avenging figure like The Batman or a figurehead like Superman.

I hope that GL gets another chance to soar on the big screen again and that we do get to see more cool space action and more of the other Corps. members....

Rant over....

Agreed on all points. No apologies needed for the DK compare. It's true. Dark Knight raised the bar and expectation for what the general consumer is looking for in this genre. BUT what people forget (or don't know) is that GL and Batman are apples and oranges when it comes to realities. Where you can ground Batman firmly in his concept, the same can not be said for Green Lantern. Batman has no supernatural ability. Green lantern is Space Patrol with Christmas lights. I think critics were hard on the film because they didn't know the origin. And the diehard fans wanted a more integral blend with the modern day mythology. So the final product found a limited audience. Personally I liked it for it's lighthearted approach. It was sci-fi eye candy. And I'm sorry. But if fans of the Phantom Menace can justify losing two hours of their life watching that mindless drool, I think watching Green Lantern is far less taxing in the effort.

[Earth 2 Chris]

I do agree that GL was perhaps dismissed too quickly by critics and those who didn't get the concept, or want to accept it since it was more "out there" than the Nolan films or any of Marvel's comic movies.

But in hindsight, I don't think the film was strong enough to rally beyond those initial rumblings. I felt Reynolds was fine, and the origin was portrayed well. Like most have said, the Hector Hammond plot points drag the movie down considerably, where as the GLC segments are too brief and leave you wanting more...and not in a good way. You feel a bit cheated that the cool stuff is deemphasized for Brain Boy. Parallax wasn't really effectively portrayed either, and the resolution was a bit weak.

In relation, many of the same things can be said about Superman:The Movie. The ending is confusing, Lex is played too campy, etc. BUT, Donner fully conveys the epic scale of that film, Reeve is dead-perfect as Superman, and despite most of our objections on Kidder, the two do have onscreen chemistry. Add in John Williams masterpiece of a score, and the whole is much greater than the sum of it's parts. GL didn't have any of those things to bring it all back together. The score was weaker than any of the DCU DVD movies.

If they had just released the Blu-Ray cut into theaters, it would have helped immensely. Those 8 brief minutes make us understand Hal and Hector SO MUCH better, and their important childhood relationship is firmly established. You don't feel as if the movie is being usurped by some guy Hal had gym class with or something.

Chris

[kingdom warrior]

I do agree that GL was perhaps dismissed too quickly by critics and those who didn't get the concept, or want to accept it since it was more "out there" than the Nolan films or any of Marvel's comic movies.

But in hindsight, I don't think the film was strong enough to rally beyond those initial rumblings. I felt Reynolds was fine, and the origin was portrayed well. Like most have said, the Hector Hammond plot points drag the movie down considerably, where as the GLC segments are too brief and leave you wanting more...and not in a good way. You feel a bit cheated that the cool stuff is deemphasized for Brain Boy. Parallax wasn't really effectively portrayed either, and the resolution was a bit weak.

In relation, many of the same things can be said about Superman:The Movie. The ending is confusing, Lex is played too campy, etc. BUT, Donner fully conveys the epic scale of that film, Reeve is dead-perfect as Superman, and despite most of our objections on Kidder, the two do have onscreen chemistry. Add in John Williams masterpiece of a score, and the whole is much greater than the sum of it's parts. GL didn't have any of those things to bring it all back together. The score was weaker than any of the DCU DVD movies.

If they had just released the Blu-Ray cut into theaters, it would have helped immensely. Those 8 brief minutes make us understand Hal and Hector SO MUCH better, and their important childhood relationship is firmly established. You don't feel as if the movie is being usurped by some guy Hal had gym class with or something.

Chris

I remember as a kid when I heard Gene Siskel's review of Superman the movie....it not being all that favorable. He kinda gave it a Ho hum ok which at the moment seemed to me like are you nuts....but now as an adult i see the parts of STM which drag a bit.......

I still like GL yeah Ok it wasn't perfect but there were enough bits in there that made me smile......I'm a GL fan and waited a long time for this

[RickD]

I think people who are not comic books fans or know the story behind Green Lantern or any comic book hero want quick story lines and lots of action. This is just how the majority of people are anymore (Impatient!)

I think that is why the Fantastic Four movies were a bomb in my opinion(especially the second one). They didn't do justice to the Silver Surfer! Didn't take time to tell the story properly and just wanted to be a people pleaser with action and a garbage cast.

Green Lanterns story line is so detailed that you can't jump straight to action.

I personally really enjoyed the movie and can't wait for the second movie!

[Operation:Mego]

No, no you did not. I know what a tool is, and Ryan "Van Wilder" Reynolds is it. "a stupid, vapid, or unpleasent person." < your posted definition applies to his acting ability and wide range of emotion on display in his movies.

Reynolds is one of the nicest people I've had the pleasure of meeting, by luck, at a restaraunt one day. He's very humble and modest. And I actually happen to like Van Widler and a lot of other movies he's been in. Yes, he's done humorous roles, but have you watched Buried? He can do serious roles too, and that's what he did with Green Lantern; a mix of humor, and then after he (Hal) got the ring, he got more serious. Gee, just like Hal did in the comic book.

Edit: And actually, taking roles that make him a smart-*** doesn't make him a tool. If that's correct, then I guess RDJ is a tool for doing Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes.

[emeraldknight47]

Reynolds is one of the nicest people I've had the pleasure of meeting, by luck, at a restaraunt one day. He's very humble and modest. And I actually happen to like Van Widler and a lot of other movies he's been in. Yes, he's done humorous roles, but have you watched Buried? He can do serious roles too, and that's what he did with Green Lantern; a mix of humor, and then after he (Hal) got the ring, he got more serious. Gee, just like Hal did in the comic book.

Edit: And actually, taking roles that make him a smart-*** doesn't make him a tool. If that's correct, then I guess RDJ is a tool for doing Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes.

Right on, Operation: Mego! It's good to hear someone else defending RR's turn as Hal Jordan. I thought he did a great job of capturing Hal's cockiness (without making him a p***k (as he currently appears to be doing in JL), his love of flying, his abiding (and somewhat paralyzing) sadness over the loss of his father, and his sense of humor over dealing with an absurd situation.

And if anyone wants to talk about someone acting like a "tool", just look at how RDJ did portray Stark in IM2. He was basically an arrogant, c**k-of-the-walk, half-drunk weinerhead throughout most of the movie!!

I truly think that GL's weakest link was the way in which the screenplay handled the character of Hector Hammond. I can only figure that they decided to cast him the way he was in the movie (as basically a brilliant misfit-hermit) because in the book (especially SECRET ORIGIN), he's much more a reflection of Sinestro; sort of an earthbound version of him, as a matter of fact. I can only guess that the studio assumed (incorrectly) that the general viewing audience would not be able to differentiate the two of them had they play Hammond the way he comes across in the book...