Green Lantern - what went wrong? ...and the sequel...

[Jason in Ohio]

If I can throw in my two cents...

While not an avid reader of the comics, I knew a little abou GL. The movie to me seemed to lack any punch (no pun inended). It didn't suck me in like Iron Man or Iron Man 2. Those at least had a good, over the top, comic book feel to them. GL just seemed a little flat. Oh well. Like I said, it's just my opinion.

I will say, though, that I was VERY happy with how Killowog turned out! he was always one of my favorite characters in the books.

 

[YenChih Lin]

And compared to First Flight, Frosty. Which one is superior?

 

[StevenRogers84]

I am new here, but my main issue is that yes the movie blew for the most part! I still went and watched it with my wife and our five year old! (WHO DIDN'T LIKE IT EITHER)!!!!!! But..... we still went and watched it as any real comic book fan should have done. If the movies don't make money at the box office they won't make them. If you are a comic book fan regardless of what word of mouth is go watch it. Now because of all the bad things said we may never get DC characters other than Batman or Superman on the big screen and that is sad!

I am still waiting for Gaimans Sandman to be made with Johnny Depp as Dream and Christina Ricci as Death! Directed by Tim Burton! ......Now to my eternal regret we may never get to see it.......Because and you know who you are didn't go to the theater and watch Green Lantern! You are guilty of being a comic book fan poser!

 

[Lord Boron]

If they are going to continue to make comic book movies like this I DON"T WANT THEM TO CONTINUE TO MAKE THEM. By supporting it, I would just be saying, "yes, I like horrible actors, bad directors, and horribly contrived plot-lines, please make all your moves like this"

 

[StevenRogers84]

Touche! Ryan Reynolds will probably make a decent (non wolverine origins deadpool though!) Not much acting required there.

 

[timelordjedi777]

And let me just say...I know some people think it's a gimmick...but WTH...why not use 3D for a superhero that makes 3D constructs?????!!!?!?! I mean the glove should have punched out of the screen...as should have all the other constructs. This "3D is only for adding depth" crap is bull$.

I totally agree. I was hoping for the same thing.

 

[mez7]

they really should have stuck more to the sinestro/hal story for the first movie.....make it less a space epic (which would have saved them cash) and made it more a character study between hal and sinestro. and the differences in their usage of the rings..hal's a fun loving test pilot sinestro is a dictator...and play on that...

then maybe for a sequel bring in the corp and paralax....

 

[Solo4114]

I finally saw this movie on DVD. I gather there was some discussion of an extended edition, but I see -- on IMDB at least -- no mention of any alternate version of the film. Just a theatrical version?

Anyway, the version I watched said it had a running time of 114 min, but honestly....it felt longer.


I think, ultimately, that the problem with this film came down to script and pacing. Stuff happened....and I honestly don't really remember most of it. By the end of the movie, Hal says soemthing like "The bigger you are, the faster you burn," and I had NO RECOLLECTION WHATSOEVER of where that was coming from. My friend had to remind me that this had something to do with Hal's training. I still don't remember that coming up in the 15 seconds of training that we saw.


There seemed to be a ton of talking in this film, but a lot of it felt like talking that didn't SAY anything. They spent a LOT of time doing stuff that, to my dim recollection, meant nothing and didn't go anywhere. There were plenty of F/X shots, it seemed, but....I dunno. The movie still felt very thin on F/X, to be honest. Like, if they were there, they didn't matter. I didn't care.


Honestly, I really did NOT like this movie, which is a shame considering the source material. And it wasn't even a case of "I hated their interpretation of XYZ which was different from the comics." It was that there seemed to be...just.....nothing really going on in the film, or to the extent there was stuff going on, it just happened randomly and for a few seconds, then we're back to some big talking scene.


Pacing, possibly editing, and a lousy script, from what I could tell. Capable cast, with perhaps the exception of Blake Lively, but there's only so much you can do when the other elements just don't come together, and boy did they NOT come together here.

 

[dualedge]

The extended version is available. I have it but haven't watch it yet but I know it starts with a sequence of the characters as kids which sets up some of the stuff later. I think the theatrical version starts with Hal waking up in bed with that girl before he goes to that big flight test thing.

I know they have the extended version on iTunes and on blu-ray. Dunno if they released it on the dvd version.

I broke down and bought the blu-ray when it was on sale for $10 on black friday... I have a fairly high level of tolerance when it comes to superhero films (though I won't ever be buying the Green Hornet.)

 

[Solo4114]

I read about that. I don't think it'd help. It'd give a bit more background as to why Hal behaves a bit the way he does, but that wasn't really my gripe. I KNOW Hal's backstory (especially the Geoff Johns version upon which the film is based). None of that was an issue for me as I was unconsciously filling in the blanks about what made Hal tick. My problem was more that, as written, (A) it wasn't really Hal, and (B) I didn't give a damn anyway. The movie was 114 min long and I can barely recall what the hell happened in it. That's NOT a good sign. To me, that's a sign of a movie that is any or all of the following:

- Poorly written.

- Poorly paced.

- Poorly edited.


Events happened, and I didn't care. Characters talked, and I still didn't care. Not in a sense of "I don't like them." More in the sense of "None of this crap matters. When's the important stuff happening?" The end result was that when important stuff happened (IE: Hal flies back to OA and says "Let me go save the earth") I'm sitting around saying, "Wait. How'd we get here again?" Actually, that's a perfect example. Hal....is on Earth fighting Parallax, and then flies back to Oa....to ask them to let him go back and fight Parallax?

WTF?

Did I miss something? Did the guardians take his powers away in the middle of the fight? I don't think so... Weren't the Guardians telling Sinestro to take the Corps and go fight Parallax? Ok, so, why didn't Sinestro fly back and help Hal or bring a bunch of Lanterns with him? Or did he and I forgot? Oh, and meanwhile, there's some bit with the Yellow Ring Sequel Plot Device that Hal says "Don't use it," and the Guardians just kinda sit there and then Hal says "Let me go back and fight." Dude...nobody's stopping you. Knock yourself out. P.S. Why'd you come HERE to ask to do something you WERE doing?

This would be akin to me writing a paper in Philadelphia, taking the train to Pittsburgh, and then pleading with people in Pittsburgh to let me go back to Philly and write my paper.


I think there were other moments like that in the film that happened....but I can't really remember. And for the record, I was stone cold sober during ALL of this. I just don't think the film was structured particularly well.

Also, at times, I got the sense that stuff wasn't being show for budgetary reasons, yet it appeared that there was PLENTY of money spent on things like Hal's CGI costume, Abin Sur, Sinestro, The Guardians, Parallax, Oa, etc. And yet, we don't get a lot of the Lanterns in battle, we get maybe a 5-10 min sequence of a few familiar faces training Hal on his own in rapid succession, and that's it. It was as if they blew their budget animating Parallax and Kilowog's face, and that was it. They couldn't spare it for anything more. In essence, that meant that a supposed "A" level movie took some real "B" movie "Sorry audience, we couldn't afford to show you XYZ" shortcuts.....and it really FELT like shortcuts.

And the shame of it is that the cast COULD have done a terrific job. The director is a solid director. And the source material is fantastic.


This film just...wasn't very well made.

 

[Larry Young]

Welcome to the party, Mr. Come-Lately. :lol

 

[Solo4114]

Thank you, thank you. It's nice to be here.

I've found that I tend to miss a lot of these movies in the theaters, so I end up catching them only when they come to Netflix. >shrug<

 

[dualedge]

Thank you, thank you. It's nice to be here.

I've found that I tend to miss a lot of these movies in the theaters, so I end up catching them only when they come to Netflix. >shrug<

Funny thing is I don't disagree with a single thing you said and yet I know I'll still wind up rewatching it every once in a blue moon. It makes me feel like an addict who doesn't care if he has to use a dirty needle to get his live-superhero fix.

 

[Solo4114]

Well, admitting you have a problem is the first step.


I think there are basically three levels of live-action superhero movie.

You have the topmost level, where your Iron Man films and the occasional X-men film goes. These films are genuinely entertaining and well crafted, in addition to being decent screen versions of your favorite comics.

Then you have your second-tier films like Captain America, Thor, and the like. They're not fantastic films, but they're entertaining enough. Not top-notch, but a decent screen translation and kinda fun.

Lastly, you have your "Why the hell did they bother?!" films like Green Lantern, the Punisher films, and the Fantastic Four films. These films are usually done so poorly that you can't help but wonder what the hell the point is. They're mostly cash-grabs. Which is usually a pity, given the potential of the source material.


I suppose there's also a fourth level -- the godawful "Must not speak of it" films like Elektra, but those are a whole other thing.

 

[Alan Cross]

Yeah, the Fantastic Four deserved better than the 'comedy-light' treatment it got. And as to GL, I still haven't seen it. But I will say this (and this is about as bitchy as I get) I've worked with one of the screenwriters, Greg Berlanti. Spent a lot of time with him and I know his personality pretty well. He doesn't give a **** about comic books. He doesn't care about Green Lantern. Not even a little. Now, did he do his research and fall in love with the character and try his hardest to write a great script? Or did he have a shot at a high profile film assignment and figured he could slot it in between his TV series work. You make the call.

 

[Jeyl]

Yeah, the Fantastic Four deserved better than the 'comedy-light' treatment it got. And as to GL, I still haven't seen it. But I will say this (and this is about as bitchy as I get) I've worked with one of the screenwriters, Greg Berlanti. Spent a lot of time with him and I know his personality pretty well. He doesn't give a **** about comic books. He doesn't care about Green Lantern. Not even a little. Now, did he do his research and fall in love with the character and try his hardest to write a great script? Or did he have a shot at a high profile film assignment and figured he could slot it in between his TV series work. You make the call.

Latter. Defintely the latter. What was there to love about Hal Jordan in this movie?

 

[Jedi2016]

Why the hell would you even hire somebody for an adaptation who's not a fan of the source material? The best movies are the ones where there's a real love of the material in everybody that works on them.

I didn't think GL was bad, really, but it wasn't particularly good, either. I picked it up on Blu-ray cheap, and I had to think about it.

 

[Solo4114]

Yeah, the Fantastic Four deserved better than the 'comedy-light' treatment it got.

FF is a tough property to sell in this marketplace anyway. When everything is all "dark" films, it's hard to get FF across effectively. They've NEVER been "dark" really, except in some circumstances, and even then it was a stark contrast to their more high-flying stuff. They were always more of a whiz-bang comic, as I see it. The "cool" factor was their amazing powers, not so much the taut dramatic interplay between the characters and such. That's fine in comic-land, but for motion pictures? I don't know that it works that well with today's audiences. There's also a REALLY tough balance between "goofy comedy stuff" and "light-hearted but action-packed entertainment." I actually think Thor did a better job at finding that balance than this stuff.

And as to GL, I still haven't seen it. But I will say this (and this is about as bitchy as I get) I've worked with one of the screenwriters, Greg Berlanti. Spent a lot of time with him and I know his personality pretty well. He doesn't give a **** about comic books. He doesn't care about Green Lantern. Not even a little. Now, did he do his research and fall in love with the character and try his hardest to write a great script? Or did he have a shot at a high profile film assignment and figured he could slot it in between his TV series work. You make the call.

My sense is that he read Geoff Johns' Secret Origin, did a bit of wiki-research, and otherwise pretty much winged it. Mostly the latter, therefore. He did enough work so that people wouldn't say "WTF is this?!" and it was at least recognizable in comparison with the source material....but it was a fairly half-assed job.

I actually think Ryan Reynolds COULD have done this role terrifically. I think he actually gave it a decent try, in fact. The problem was that the script wasn't there, and I think the budget and editing may not have been there to get this thing done right.


I can't help but wonder if, at some point in the post-production process, when looking at everything here, Martin Campbell and his editor didn't just sort of put their heads in their hands and say "Oh man....we're screwed. I guess we'd better make the most out of this..."


For me, though, there just wasn't much "there" there. It was a long movie but it was a very "thin" movie. I never thought I'd say this, but at least in a Michael Bay film, you know you're gonna get 'splosions and slow-mo pans across the chestical regions of well-endowed women.

 

[Alan Cross]

Yeah, and to be fair to Berlanti, he was one of, what, three or more writers on that movie? So who knows what he brought to it... but I know for a fact he has no love or respect for the genre or the character.

 

[Alan Cross]

BTW, the Fantastic Four has at least one very powerful story element to mine for a feature length film: The fact that Ben Grimm agrees to help his friend Reed Richards fly a ship into deep space... and instead of finding glory, winds up being transformed into a grotesque looking monster called The Thing. Reed's responsible for his best friend losing his humanity and vows to try and cure his friend of his cosmic ray disfigurement... that's a rich and emotionally galvanizing story to anchor a movie... enriched by larger than life Jack Kirby-esque machinery and super villains. It would take a director with a true fan's love for the FF and the visionary skill to really capture the original Lee/Kirby world. But, my God, what an amazing movie there is to make! Hope they get it right when they attempt the inevitable reboot.