First Green Lantern trailer released

I liked it. Total popcorn. I even liked the over-the-top CGI.

The only thing I didn't like was Skaarsgard's rubber face.

I went and saw the movie tonight, and it was OK. I think the problem with that is there have been a glut of superhero movies recently and OK just doesn't cut it.

If you still feel like going, don't bother seeing it in 3D if you have the choice, it's not worth it.

The CG is really not that great and I could totally understand how that might turn people off, fortunately I enjoyed the movie enough to let it slide.

Ultimately I think Nathan Fillion would have done a better job, but Ryan Reynolds was perfectly fine.

Its just a poor movie in general even giving the CG a pass and the horrible job they did with Green Lantern story itself. This had 4 or 5 different writers and it was passed back and forth and the movie feels like it. They just cobbled a bunch of somewhat related ideas together and hoped for the best.

I saw the film last night. I think MovieBob 1) Expected it to be bad from the get go (not one good word for any of the trailers on his personal blog), and 2) has too much knowledge of the comic to be an unbiased party.

As a film, it was flawed. It's like you have a script where someone decided it would be interesting if Hal Jordan had commitment issues because he was afraid people would find out how weak he truly was, and his role in the Green Lantern Corps forced him to get over it. Then someone in a later script revision shouted "Too subtle! We need daddy issues so the audience can relate!" And lo, a crappy flashback during a suspenseful scene is used to try and get us in full sympathy mode.

It didn't work. This sort of thing happens all over the movie, where it just feels like someone just graduated from film school and tossed around all the "examples of making a character deep" segments into the script. It prevented Hal Jordan from feeling like a well-rounded character, as well as the villains.

All I knew of Parallax from this is that he's evidently some sort of evil space dragon, and they made him into an evil space octopus. Whatever. Doesn't matter, since he's nothing more than this big evil thing that wants to destroy everything just because. I know they needed Hal to prove himself to the rest of the Green Lanterns, but having him take out some big bad evil thing in a movie after having a much more interesting small scale villain, well, it just didn't work. The big bad should have been a threat preserved for several films, being the ultimate aggressor that causes all the other villains to spring up.

Maybe comic book films just feel the need for multiple villains in one shot? I dunno. The Hulk (Ed Norton version) only had one and that was fine. Same with both Iron Man films.

Nonetheless, I'd say the film is on level with the Spider-man films (even the first two). Of course, for me, the Spider-man films are movies that I can't watch without picking apart their flaws, and I imagine I'll be the same with Green Lantern. Take with that as you will. I think a lot of people may be over-reacting, but then again, I never read the comics.

It's not Fantastic Four or Transformers bad. I can say that much.

Saw this last night. I agree with a lot of the criticisms. I think the biggest problem, though, is it was a movie built to please no one. The topic was so opaque (the Corps, the Guardians, etc) that I'm sure the average movie watcher unfamiliar with Green Lantern was confused or annoyed. And the average Green Lantern fan (I've been reading the comic since I was 7) wasn't in love with the way the story was so compressed and they way they tried desperately to shoehorn in love stories and forced humor.

I don't think they could really win with the material, though. Kind of like with The Watchmen. The history is just too dense and the material too opaque to condense into a movie that short. I believe Green Lantern deserved a proper treatment. A mini-series or a 3 hours long movie that focused on exactly what the fans would like to see. I think about a movie like Lord of the Rings and I think they did the right thing in letting the movie be dense and long.

I realize Green Lantern isn't Lord of the Rings, but explaining 3,000 aliens with energy rings powered on "will" is about as difficult a task as explaining orcs and the "one ring". The difference is that more people know Lord of the Rings, whereas Green Lantern is fairly niche. So after seeing the movie I don't know that they could have done it better. I would have loved a 3 hour long movie that went through the actual Hal Jordan backstory without some of the shortcuts, but other than people like myself, who would have watched that?

Also I do think there is superhero fatigue. Counting movies like The Watchmen, I wonder how many superhero movies we've had in the last decade.

Batman Begins
Dark Knight
Superman Returns
Green Lantern
Thor
X-Men 1, 2, 3
X-Men First Class
X-Men Wolverine
The Watchmen
Spiderman 1, 2, 3
Ironman 1, 2

just a first pass

I resent your use of the "The" in Watchmen while cutting it in The Dark Knight. Bad nerd-manners.

DSGamer wrote:

The topic was so opaque (the Corps, the Guardians, etc) that I'm sure the average movie watcher unfamiliar with Green Lantern was confused or annoyed.

I typically use my sister to gauge the average movie goer, as she exclaims time and again that the only point of a movie is an hour and a half of entertainment and that thinking about it too much is pointless.

Which is a horrible way to look at entertainment, but okay.

So she liked it, and the only complaint she had were science lab protocols being ignored (she's a molecular biologist, so that would). So I think the average movie goer can enjoy this well enough.

ccesarano wrote:

Maybe comic book films just feel the need for multiple villains in one shot? I dunno. The Hulk (Ed Norton version) only had one and that was fine. Same with both Iron Man films.

I think poor writers and/or clueless film execs believe that multiple villains make the story more epic and exciting, when in reality what you get is a muddled story. I can't help but think about the rise and fall of Burton's Batman series, where more and more villains were added to every sequel until you ended with Mr. Freeze, Bane, and Poison Ivy. The X-Men movies crashed with the 3rd installment, which tried to include every mutant imaginable on both sides. Spider-man 3 threw Venom and Goblin in with Sandman and was a disaster.

So far, Christopher Nolan has been the only director to use multiple villains in a comprehensible manner.

Saw it last night with my son and one of my friends. We all loved it. The use of superpowers was some of the most creative and fun yet and I thought the final battle was pretty fun to watch.

It got me really interested in wanting to go back and read the comics, any one have any suggestions on where to start with them?

DSGamer wrote:

Also I do think there is superhero fatigue. Counting movies like The Watchmen, I wonder how many superhero movies we've had in the last decade.

Batman Begins
Dark Knight
Superman Returns
Green Lantern
Thor
X-Men 1, 2, 3
X-Men First Class
X-Men Wolverine
The Watchmen
Spiderman 1, 2, 3
Ironman 1, 2

just a first pass

Fantastic Four 1 &2

Daredevil
Elektra
Cat Woman
The Incredible Hulk
Hulk (Ang Lee)
Hellboy 1 & 2
The Punisher
Ghost Rider

n/m.

faide wrote:

Saw it last night with my son and one of my friends. We all loved it. The use of superpowers was some of the most creative and fun yet and I thought the final battle was pretty fun to watch.

It got me really interested in wanting to go back and read the comics, any one have any suggestions on where to start with them?

My introduction to Green Lantern was through a class I took. We read DC Universe: The Stories of Alan Moore, which had a few great Green Lantern Corps stories, including the basis for Geoff John's reboot. The Green Lantern stuff was easily my favorite in the book.

But the book also has a ton of stories featuring Superman, Batman, Green Arrow, and others. It easy to see why Alan Moore is considered a genius. But topping hte list why the book is a must have is that is concludes with The Killing Joke, which might be the best Batman story ever told.

For older stuff, I picked up Green Lantern: In Brightest Day, which is a collection of Geoff Johns favorite stories.

So, I guess he didn't like it?

faide wrote:

Saw it last night with my son and one of my friends. We all loved it. The use of superpowers was some of the most creative and fun yet and I thought the final battle was pretty fun to watch.

It got me really interested in wanting to go back and read the comics, any one have any suggestions on where to start with them?

How far back do you want to go?

If you want to go back to the beginning, DC has published five "Showcase" collections which are in B&W and run about 500 pages each. These start from the "silver age" GL's first appearance in the 60s.

Fast forwarding to the Denny O'Neil/Neil Adams era in the 70s, and GL turned into a sort of "message book." He teamed up with Green Arrow, dealt with side-kick drug addiction and tried to confront racism.

IMAGE(http://goodcomics.comicbookresources.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/hardtravelspecial.jpg)

Those issues were seen as groundbreaking at the time, but I'm sure they're pretty corny now.

I'm not that familiar with the current runs, although the recent "rainbow rings" thing seems quite silly to me. Haven't actually read any of the actual issues.

Went to a matinee with my sons today and we had a good time. Not the best comic movie, but by FAR not the worst.

We saw it in 2d (like most movies, I don't care for 3d unless it was specifically shot that way.) I would recommend it at matinee and discount theaters, and this is coming from a comic geek with almost 30 years of sequential art background.