Green Lantern: The Fanboy Free Breakdown
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Wow... Green Lantern does really sound that bad... Good thing I decided to skip it and watched Xmen: First Class instead...
It's funny, I like Green Lantern but I could tell from the preview it would be bad. Granted I'll still have to watch it to form a realistic opinion. I'm really not looking forward to doing that though...
Right on the money, Bob. And the crucial difference between GL's opening info dump and those of Thor and Fellowship of the Ring is that the latter two actually showed the exposition via action sequences, while GL was dropping a lot of non-contextualized fanboy references while doing slow pans of stars and planets. It felt like one of the video game opening cutscenes where they do solemn narration over recycled unanimated concept art. Snore. Set the tone for the rest of the movie, where nothing happens for the first half, and you can't be bothered to care by the second half.
Eh, I quite liked it as a fun sci-fi CGI-fest. I didn't have any expectations, so I wasn't disappointed, though nor was I too pleased. I suppose it also helped that I never read any superhero comics and only know of Green Lantern from the Justice League cartoon.
Okay, I've already said that this movie wasn't as bad as Bob made it out to be. Mind you, I'm not saying it's a great movie, but an acceptable inoffensive summer diversion that doesn't bear too much thought.
I can see from this analysis, and I can agree that every point he makes here is valid -- Green Lantern is an example of flawed movie making -- but it doesn't excuse Bob from going all-in with the fan-boy nerd-rage in his initial review.
I can see from this analysis, and I can agree that every point he makes here is valid -- Green Lantern is an example of flawed movie making -- but it doesn't excuse Bob from going all-in with the fan-boy nerd-rage in his initial review.
I would imagine it is the same reason that Will Smith has problems in movies where he is not strictly forbidden to "be" Will Smith. Reynolds has a wry sensibility about him that just doesn't fit with this character. Hugh Jackman, played the character of Wolverine. Tobey McGuire became Peter Parker. Ryan Reynolds is being himself wearing a Green Lantern outfit, that never works no matter who the actor is or how good the movie may or may not be.
This is admittedly rather tangential, but the movie industry needs to stop obsessing over superhero origin stories. I realize if you want to start a series or franchise you need to spend some time on this, but compare Tim Burton's original Batman to the recent Iron Man, Spider-Man, and Green Lantern movies.
In Batman we get a few flashback scenes about Bruce Wayne's parents but it isn't the A story. And when the movie starts he's already Batman, we don't sit through ninety minutes of martial arts training and moping about his parents.
Origin stories can be handled well and there have been quite a few excellent ones recently. But from reading reviews of Green Lantern it sounds like someone decided this needed to be an origin story and then faffed around with that concept for the majority of the script. We can't have him accept this ring and try and join the Lanterns, we need to spend at least thirty more minutes on the protagonist being conflicted!
In Batman we get a few flashback scenes about Bruce Wayne's parents but it isn't the A story. And when the movie starts he's already Batman, we don't sit through ninety minutes of martial arts training and moping about his parents.
Origin stories can be handled well and there have been quite a few excellent ones recently. But from reading reviews of Green Lantern it sounds like someone decided this needed to be an origin story and then faffed around with that concept for the majority of the script. We can't have him accept this ring and try and join the Lanterns, we need to spend at least thirty more minutes on the protagonist being conflicted!
Glowy veins doesn't have the same hilarity as bat-nipples. And bat-nipples were more undermining to batman than veins were to green lantern.
So, no.
Great article, Bob.
So, no.
Great article, Bob.
Thank you Bob, for calming down and tearing into the movie for its cinematic failings. This was significantly more edifying than the video review as to why it's so bad. Thanks for showing us why it's a bad movie, not just a bad Green Lantern movie.
Granted, it helped that Batman was so iconic already in modern pop culture, and Green Lantern definitely is not. Still, there had to be a better way.
I second this. Hollywood's trope obsession is just too big right now; because the first successful superhero movie (Superman) was an origin story, that instantly became the template for all superhero movies since then. Let's see a little more branching out. And double thanks for trotting out Tim Burton's Batman. I'm all for celebrating the recent set of Batman movies (and they deserve it), but let's not forget that they're not the only good ones. Christian Bale is very good, but I'll always see Batman as Michael Keaton.Hungry Donner said:
Granted, it helped that Batman was so iconic already in modern pop culture, and Green Lantern definitely is not. Still, there had to be a better way.
From the sound of it I won't have any regreat watching X-Men: First Class instead (I didn't wany to pay extra cash for a bad film in 3D).
Yeah DC comics is only known to be good at Batman only in terms of turning them into films. Too bad they didn't turn the animated film Green Lantern First Flight into a live action instead since the animated film is good.
Yeah DC comics is only known to be good at Batman only in terms of turning them into films. Too bad they didn't turn the animated film Green Lantern First Flight into a live action instead since the animated film is good.
I think you hit the problem between critics and fans Bob: "It's film studies 101".
We don't take the course. Most people don't even get into nuts and bolts about filmaking or try to gain a deeper understanding of way they like certain things, or why certain things work better than others. They just judge based on entertainment, hence people respond better to a poorly told entertaining story than a well told boring one.
Not that I'm saying that a good attitude. If anything it's pretty damaging in all media. How many good TV shows got the ax because fans couldn't take a lull in the action with little regard for setup, pacing and characterization? Still, we need education on some of this, otherwise people raised on crap won't realize there's better.
We don't take the course. Most people don't even get into nuts and bolts about filmaking or try to gain a deeper understanding of way they like certain things, or why certain things work better than others. They just judge based on entertainment, hence people respond better to a poorly told entertaining story than a well told boring one.
Not that I'm saying that a good attitude. If anything it's pretty damaging in all media. How many good TV shows got the ax because fans couldn't take a lull in the action with little regard for setup, pacing and characterization? Still, we need education on some of this, otherwise people raised on crap won't realize there's better.
You know, this movie actually makes for an interesting comparison with Emerald Knights, an animated GL film that came out a few weeks earlier. It's basically a collection of short stories featuring various Green Lanterns - but not Hal Jordan. Oh, he's there, and he plays a part in the framing narrative, but the focus is on the more colorful unknown quantities in the Corps.
And it's a much better film for that, because there's really very little about Hal Jordan that hasn't been done elsewhere - Spider-Man, Batman Begins, Iron Man and so on, I think most moviegoers have already figured out the formula. But when Hal Jordan's front and center, it's the exact same process all over again: flawed protagonist with a tragic past discovers The Hero Within and overcomes his own shortcomings, saves some girl in the process, blah blah blah. There are other types of stories to tell, especially with a rich high concept like Green Lantern, but I really don't think you can get there with Hal as the protagonist.
And it's a much better film for that, because there's really very little about Hal Jordan that hasn't been done elsewhere - Spider-Man, Batman Begins, Iron Man and so on, I think most moviegoers have already figured out the formula. But when Hal Jordan's front and center, it's the exact same process all over again: flawed protagonist with a tragic past discovers The Hero Within and overcomes his own shortcomings, saves some girl in the process, blah blah blah. There are other types of stories to tell, especially with a rich high concept like Green Lantern, but I really don't think you can get there with Hal as the protagonist.
We can only hope that's the case......but lets be honest they are not going to do a special extended edition of a movie that tanks as bad as GL has. The reason LoTR got its extended edition is because the thing we saw in theaters was AWESOME.... and so they sold the original and then after 4-6 months they resold a special extended edition, thus getting all us fanboys twice ( though by the third film I had learned the virtue of patience.) But GL as bob said PROBABLY won't get a 2nd film let alone a 3rd.Arkvoodle said:
He made it pretty clear that this analysis was nothing to do with fanboy-ism, which means he wasnt trying to explain his 'fan-boy nerd-rage' here. And if there are things in the movie that piss off fans (I dont really know the green lantern mythos so I cant comment on that), then that added to his points in this article are why he trashed it.Hitchmeister said:
There's one problem that I have with this: who would you do it otherwise? Visually, I mean.Will Chandler said:
Here's what the Hal Jordan Green Lantern looks like in the comics
Visually, Reynolds is a decent pick, and, with all the actors looking for work, you really need to find someone that could immediately be identified as the character in the story. The problem is that his acting in this movie is terrible, which I can see as partially the fault of the director and producers. If he could act and they could do their jobs properly, this would have been a significantly better movie.
The alternative would be to frame the story around John Stewart (the marine/GL made famous by the recent Justice League series, not the comedian), but that would probably cause die-hard GL fans to sit out opening weekend.
Dude go see it, it's honestly not as bad as Bob says I was expecting it to be bad but I really enjoyed it. I think a lot of these reviews came from people who decided not to like it before watching or who are biased against Ryan Reynolds.WanderingFool said:
Reading a lot of websites I think the anti backlash has started, a lot of people are coming out and saying that they enjoyed the film which says to me a lot of the anti Lantern sentiment comes from people who are judging it by the poor previews and 'nerd' critics pandering and exhagerating their opinions for their readers.
Seriously everyone give it a chance, it's a fun film it's not as good as Iron man but I thought it was as good as Thor (which was a great film but really dipped during the Earth parts and what's with all the dutch angles, seriously that film would not have been as loved if it didn't have the perfect for the role Chris Hemsworth).