Green Lantern: The Fanboy Free Breakdown
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
good job on an unbiased breakdown.
Now if you can use this same formula to prove Scott pilgrim was good, I'll gladly eat crow.
Consider that gauntlet thrown down bobbo.
Now if you can use this same formula to prove Scott pilgrim was good, I'll gladly eat crow.
Consider that gauntlet thrown down bobbo.
This is a fanboy free breakdown?! Id hate to see your message board posts. The fact the you even felt the need to go on and negatively review the film again shows where you are really coming from. Even if you'd done a better job of attempting to mask the personal hate and injury behind your writing.
agreed, i haven't looked into it but if they are making a deadpool movie to stand alone i pray they pick him for it again, and not to judge on the green lantern movie, which as a B movie it wasn't "horrible" to just sit and somewhat enjoy if you just had some snacks and were just watching for fun, but i definitely think they could have found someone a bit more serious to use for this movie than ryan..can't think of someone off the top of my head but someone.ccdohl said:I think that it is more about Hal's personality and demeanor. Ryan Reynolds is a great pick for Deadpool or, in my opinion, The Flash, but Hal is meant to be a bit more serious. He isn't a comedic character, and while Reynold's is a fine actor, he does the comedic roles much more effectively.The Gentleman 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.
Exactly. I've always been a proponent of animation and books when it comes to the Green Lantern IP, since there's only so much you can do with CGI without making it look phony and cheap. When a power ring can literally bring to life any thought, capturing that in animation is just easier, less expensive, and allows for more creativity.Scarim Coral said:
Completely agree and support the message, Bob.
It's one thing to get the fanboys riled up. They'll always find SOMETHING that isn't perfect, so I generally let those complaints slide.
However, basic film making is something that needs to be addressed. I think you summed it up nicely back in your 2012 review (11/13/09) when you mentioned that any movie, even silly ones can still be made well. Pacing, shot composition, proper editing, coherent visual storytelling, technical acumen... It's spelled out already, between Film 101 and the basic 3-act structure, any movie today really just needs to connect the dots to have a somewhat decent movie. If you decide to skip around and ignore the basics you only have yourself to blame for the disastrous result
As for Ryan Reynolds, I've gotta agree with some of the other people in this thread. He's a good actor, and does well in action/comedy roles with a bit of camp to them. But Hal Jordan is supposed to be a square-jawed, classic hero kinda guy. "John Wayne in green tights" to quote the Bob. Ryan Reynolds is not that guy. On the other hand, that is why Reynolds makes a perfect Deadpool. Action and comedy, with a big helping of campy... right in his wheelhouse. And I don't think Reynolds' situation was helped any in this movie, when the majority of his scenes were alone on a green screen. "Look up at the camera and start talking."
Here's to hoping that a director cut GL eventually surfaces. While it won't be able to fix the hideous suit, at least it can (hopefully) put the story back together and make the narrative worthwhile.
It's one thing to get the fanboys riled up. They'll always find SOMETHING that isn't perfect, so I generally let those complaints slide.
However, basic film making is something that needs to be addressed. I think you summed it up nicely back in your 2012 review (11/13/09) when you mentioned that any movie, even silly ones can still be made well. Pacing, shot composition, proper editing, coherent visual storytelling, technical acumen... It's spelled out already, between Film 101 and the basic 3-act structure, any movie today really just needs to connect the dots to have a somewhat decent movie. If you decide to skip around and ignore the basics you only have yourself to blame for the disastrous result
As for Ryan Reynolds, I've gotta agree with some of the other people in this thread. He's a good actor, and does well in action/comedy roles with a bit of camp to them. But Hal Jordan is supposed to be a square-jawed, classic hero kinda guy. "John Wayne in green tights" to quote the Bob. Ryan Reynolds is not that guy. On the other hand, that is why Reynolds makes a perfect Deadpool. Action and comedy, with a big helping of campy... right in his wheelhouse. And I don't think Reynolds' situation was helped any in this movie, when the majority of his scenes were alone on a green screen. "Look up at the camera and start talking."
Here's to hoping that a director cut GL eventually surfaces. While it won't be able to fix the hideous suit, at least it can (hopefully) put the story back together and make the narrative worthwhile.
Just recently I saw The Spirit for the first time and, egads, was that an awful movie... but I get the feeling that I'll remember more of it in a year's time than the meh Green Lantern.
I think the big problem with Green Lantern is that it's just not going for broke. It's playing it extremely safe and no one seems to be trying to make the movie their own. Say what you will about Batman & Robin, but Joe Schumacher is making the movie he wants to make. Frank Miller made the Spirit movie he wanted to make. Green Lantern has a made-by-committee feel about it, which is why a few days later, my memories of the movie are fading quick.
I think the big problem with Green Lantern is that it's just not going for broke. It's playing it extremely safe and no one seems to be trying to make the movie their own. Say what you will about Batman & Robin, but Joe Schumacher is making the movie he wants to make. Frank Miller made the Spirit movie he wanted to make. Green Lantern has a made-by-committee feel about it, which is why a few days later, my memories of the movie are fading quick.
To be honest, I don't think its quality alone is to blame for this movie's commercial failure. Being part of the target age group (22-year-old university student) but not of the target cultural group (from Europe, not the US), I find the appeal of this movie very hard to understand. Certainly, I know Batman, Superman, Hulk and some others, but that's because they were cultural icons besides their comic book existence.
Iron Man, for example, wasn't. The movie was still decent, but I would never have spent money to see it in theatres or buy the DVD/BluRay. Instead, I watched it with friends because we wanted some not-too-brainy action with lots of special effects one evening.
Green Lantern, on the other hand... To be honest, I have heard of the character, but if it weren't for MovieBob, I would have no idea what he is about. And still, the concept itself seems insanely silly and overpowered to me, lacking any sort of potential conflict. I don't want to bash GL itself though, as the comics might be interesting to comic readers - I can't judge that. What I can judge is the likelihood of someone like me going to see this movie:
Zero.
Not because it's a bad movie. Not because of the critiques online. Not because it's an action movie. But because I just can't relate to it. I have no idea what to expect from this, no idea at all. And that is why this movie will fail with all but the most hardcore comic book fans. The producers seemingly miscalculated the appeal of less known comic books, and this is what they get for it.
On a related note: where have all the original SciFi movies gone? Why don't we get any science fiction movies based on an original idea anymore? Everything these days seems to be an adaption or spin-off. When do we get the next "Star Wars"?
Iron Man, for example, wasn't. The movie was still decent, but I would never have spent money to see it in theatres or buy the DVD/BluRay. Instead, I watched it with friends because we wanted some not-too-brainy action with lots of special effects one evening.
Green Lantern, on the other hand... To be honest, I have heard of the character, but if it weren't for MovieBob, I would have no idea what he is about. And still, the concept itself seems insanely silly and overpowered to me, lacking any sort of potential conflict. I don't want to bash GL itself though, as the comics might be interesting to comic readers - I can't judge that. What I can judge is the likelihood of someone like me going to see this movie:
Zero.
Not because it's a bad movie. Not because of the critiques online. Not because it's an action movie. But because I just can't relate to it. I have no idea what to expect from this, no idea at all. And that is why this movie will fail with all but the most hardcore comic book fans. The producers seemingly miscalculated the appeal of less known comic books, and this is what they get for it.
On a related note: where have all the original SciFi movies gone? Why don't we get any science fiction movies based on an original idea anymore? Everything these days seems to be an adaption or spin-off. When do we get the next "Star Wars"?
What??? He's saying it's a bad movie...Brad Shepard said:
It is a bad movie. It really, really, is.
Waw Dudes! 90% of the heroes films are crap. You know it. Of course, you'll say that 10% of the viewers always say that 90% of comic books heroes are garbage and 86% of the statistics are made-up but, you get my point.
Yeah, but what should our response be? Should we say "well, it doesn't suck any more than 90% of the rest of the stuff out there" or should we say why it sucks so that fans can better find movies that they like and avoid ones that would irritate them.Mangue Surfer said:
If great comic book movies make tons of money, and bad ones receive only ridicule, then perhaps we will see more good ones and less crap.
I'm starting to see why they cast Reynolds in the first place: much of the movie involves odd winks to super-hero tropes and needed someone with a comedic background to have it make sense. Hell, speaking of tropes, the scene after the "green match-box car" is the definition of Lampshading (blatantly pointing something out to make it funny):
Friend - "A match-box car? That's the best you could come up with?"
Hal - "Why? You weren't impressed?"
The makers KNEW it was going to look stupid and tried to beat the audience to that realization by bashing it first.
I will say that the "useless mask" thing was rather surprising, something you'd think would've been obvious in the real-world but don't expect a movie to actually point out. It was genuine curve-ball, for me at least.
But, yeah, there really does seem to be a "parody" subtext in the writing which really hurt the tone of what probably should have been a little more dramatic.
Friend - "A match-box car? That's the best you could come up with?"
Hal - "Why? You weren't impressed?"
The makers KNEW it was going to look stupid and tried to beat the audience to that realization by bashing it first.
I will say that the "useless mask" thing was rather surprising, something you'd think would've been obvious in the real-world but don't expect a movie to actually point out. It was genuine curve-ball, for me at least.
But, yeah, there really does seem to be a "parody" subtext in the writing which really hurt the tone of what probably should have been a little more dramatic.
In order to avoid being one of "those people" I'm going to preface this entire piece, which will be interpreted as a fanboy rant, by saying that it isn't going to be a fanboy rant but you should probably not bother to read it unless you actually intend to respond to a fanboy rant. Confused? I know I am. Also I'm going to say it now, spoiler warnings ahead. I do this as a courtesy, aware of how redundant it may be given what I'm effectively replying to and in full awareness that nobody will probably ever bother to read this.
I am not a huge comic book geek by any definition of the term "geek", what I am is a guy who regularly hangs around with comic book geeks and through osmosis has developed some degree of comic book knowledge. The internet has also helped. So when I say that "I didn't like Green Lantern" what I mean is "I didn't like Green Lantern" but also "I didn't like Green Lantern because I don't enjoy a) wasting my time and money watching tripe like that b) seeing a film with enormous potential go down the drain in spectacular fashion and c) having to ultimately consider what a film like that means for the industry", there are a lot of reasons there and I don't have the time, patience or the phalangic dexterity to fully explore them.
Having read the extremely loquacious and almost verbose analysis provided here, I find nothing to disagree with and wholeheartedly support his points. But the reasons given, while valid and contributing to my dislike, are not the primary reasons I dislike Green Lantern. Allow me to elaborate.
The Score
I love James Newton Howard's work, everything from the oft forgotten gem that was the score for Snow Falling on Cedars to the more contemporary and well known work he did on the Dark Knight, the man has without fail set the bar for theatrical music for years. Then he did this. From the get go I felt that the entire backing track was almost out of sync with what was occurring on the screen, I specifically reference the very first piece of compositional material in that regard. While it worked its way through the incredibly lazy info-dump there was a terse and drum heavy backing track, which is actually really out of character for Howard as a composer as he usually relies on strings, but which really worked for it right up until the point where it stole from and morphed into the John William's score for Superman.
Now while I appreciate the similarities presented in terms of setting, which is another thing about the film that I'll get to later, and I understand the imitation is the greatest form of flattery... really? And that particular track isn't the only thing that suffers from it, the other pieces are littered with references to music used throughout the Superman film franchise with at least two forays into Ottoman's score for Superman Returns. This was immediately the first thing that struck me, being aware of the intense and convoluted background of Green Lantern I forgave the opening narration, as a bad sign for the rest of the film. As a whole the score is functional, completely lacking in the typical JNH flair, but a workable soundtrack... if it was made for a different film. Which is something that relates to my next point.
What script is it anyway?
Am I the only one who walked into the theatre, sat down with a few friends anticipating something well below par but at least vaguely similar to the as advertised plot displayed in trailers and discussed at length in interviews, and then upon seeing the film wondered if I had somehow missed something? I don't think so but maybe.
It honestly felt like the people in charge of the lavish advertising campaign either a) knew little about the plot of the film beyond broad strokes told them by several different people with different perspectives or b) developed their entire advertising campaign for an earlier script that was significantly rewritten. And this really shows throughout the film, at least to me. Everyone from the actors to the composer, as alluded to above, seem to be working on a subtly different film which really shows as you look at the film as a whole. I can't even begin to summarise the degree upon which it occurs but I'll give it a shot anyway with few examples.
1) The score as a whole really never worked for any scene it was in, bar a few moments which appeared to function, obviously there was a lot of post-production fiddling involved here and that would account for the glaring tonal differences but even then you've got to wonder was anybody actually talking to anyone else in that editing room?
2) The Stargate. Yes I'm aware that it exists in universe but you'd think that the most significant discovery in the history of mankind, beyond the "aliens exist" bit, would warrant more than what honestly felt like a few frames. I mean really, an intergalactic portal nestled conveniently behind the Moon and Hal decides to never do anything with it ever again? Even after it's introduced it never gets explained in any significant fashion and if Hal felt that Parralax (who actually deserves his own section here) was on the way to Earth surely his first port of call would be to obliterate his only way to get to Earth. Of course apparently Parralax isn't bound by the puny laws of physics so...
3) Parralax, really? You watched the one thing in the system which could actually give you a significant fight run away from you and your response is to chase it? But what about all the tasty human... souls... energy... fear power stuff that is littered all over the planet! Consume it all and grow stronger, then kill him. Don't pursue him to the Asteroid Belt (it could also be the suns Lagrange point but I doubt they thought about it that much) and then to the Sun (which is in the OTHER direction anyway), before falling for the most obvious ploy ever. Yannow for a supposedly quasi-omnipotent immortal being personification of fear space bug octopus thing, you're really dense.
I could go on about all of those but you get the point, and finally.
Green Lantern, mixed signals?
Having watched the film to its conclusion I'm struck by something very disturbing about the plot as a whole, allow me some leeway here. It seems to suggest that if you're a lazy, reckless, self-centred, mildly misogynistic (not that Ms. Lively did anything positive for the gender), cowardly, indecisive, immature, ignorant and arrogant douche but you look good, which is what's important, then ultimately everything will turn out well for you and all your myriad daddy issues, obvious Oedipus complex and various other psychological issues will just work themselves out and you'll be totally awesome. Because you're good looking!
Whereas the flipside, if you spend your life dedicated to a cause, try to stay true to your morals, don't bother to really impress your parents and actually work to improve the world you live in, then you'll end up fat, in a wheel chair and evil.
Which is rather disturbing.
Anyway, for those three reasons more than anything else I disliked the film.
I am not a huge comic book geek by any definition of the term "geek", what I am is a guy who regularly hangs around with comic book geeks and through osmosis has developed some degree of comic book knowledge. The internet has also helped. So when I say that "I didn't like Green Lantern" what I mean is "I didn't like Green Lantern" but also "I didn't like Green Lantern because I don't enjoy a) wasting my time and money watching tripe like that b) seeing a film with enormous potential go down the drain in spectacular fashion and c) having to ultimately consider what a film like that means for the industry", there are a lot of reasons there and I don't have the time, patience or the phalangic dexterity to fully explore them.
Having read the extremely loquacious and almost verbose analysis provided here, I find nothing to disagree with and wholeheartedly support his points. But the reasons given, while valid and contributing to my dislike, are not the primary reasons I dislike Green Lantern. Allow me to elaborate.
The Score
I love James Newton Howard's work, everything from the oft forgotten gem that was the score for Snow Falling on Cedars to the more contemporary and well known work he did on the Dark Knight, the man has without fail set the bar for theatrical music for years. Then he did this. From the get go I felt that the entire backing track was almost out of sync with what was occurring on the screen, I specifically reference the very first piece of compositional material in that regard. While it worked its way through the incredibly lazy info-dump there was a terse and drum heavy backing track, which is actually really out of character for Howard as a composer as he usually relies on strings, but which really worked for it right up until the point where it stole from and morphed into the John William's score for Superman.
Now while I appreciate the similarities presented in terms of setting, which is another thing about the film that I'll get to later, and I understand the imitation is the greatest form of flattery... really? And that particular track isn't the only thing that suffers from it, the other pieces are littered with references to music used throughout the Superman film franchise with at least two forays into Ottoman's score for Superman Returns. This was immediately the first thing that struck me, being aware of the intense and convoluted background of Green Lantern I forgave the opening narration, as a bad sign for the rest of the film. As a whole the score is functional, completely lacking in the typical JNH flair, but a workable soundtrack... if it was made for a different film. Which is something that relates to my next point.
What script is it anyway?
Am I the only one who walked into the theatre, sat down with a few friends anticipating something well below par but at least vaguely similar to the as advertised plot displayed in trailers and discussed at length in interviews, and then upon seeing the film wondered if I had somehow missed something? I don't think so but maybe.
It honestly felt like the people in charge of the lavish advertising campaign either a) knew little about the plot of the film beyond broad strokes told them by several different people with different perspectives or b) developed their entire advertising campaign for an earlier script that was significantly rewritten. And this really shows throughout the film, at least to me. Everyone from the actors to the composer, as alluded to above, seem to be working on a subtly different film which really shows as you look at the film as a whole. I can't even begin to summarise the degree upon which it occurs but I'll give it a shot anyway with few examples.
1) The score as a whole really never worked for any scene it was in, bar a few moments which appeared to function, obviously there was a lot of post-production fiddling involved here and that would account for the glaring tonal differences but even then you've got to wonder was anybody actually talking to anyone else in that editing room?
2) The Stargate. Yes I'm aware that it exists in universe but you'd think that the most significant discovery in the history of mankind, beyond the "aliens exist" bit, would warrant more than what honestly felt like a few frames. I mean really, an intergalactic portal nestled conveniently behind the Moon and Hal decides to never do anything with it ever again? Even after it's introduced it never gets explained in any significant fashion and if Hal felt that Parralax (who actually deserves his own section here) was on the way to Earth surely his first port of call would be to obliterate his only way to get to Earth. Of course apparently Parralax isn't bound by the puny laws of physics so...
3) Parralax, really? You watched the one thing in the system which could actually give you a significant fight run away from you and your response is to chase it? But what about all the tasty human... souls... energy... fear power stuff that is littered all over the planet! Consume it all and grow stronger, then kill him. Don't pursue him to the Asteroid Belt (it could also be the suns Lagrange point but I doubt they thought about it that much) and then to the Sun (which is in the OTHER direction anyway), before falling for the most obvious ploy ever. Yannow for a supposedly quasi-omnipotent immortal being personification of fear space bug octopus thing, you're really dense.
I could go on about all of those but you get the point, and finally.
Green Lantern, mixed signals?
Having watched the film to its conclusion I'm struck by something very disturbing about the plot as a whole, allow me some leeway here. It seems to suggest that if you're a lazy, reckless, self-centred, mildly misogynistic (not that Ms. Lively did anything positive for the gender), cowardly, indecisive, immature, ignorant and arrogant douche but you look good, which is what's important, then ultimately everything will turn out well for you and all your myriad daddy issues, obvious Oedipus complex and various other psychological issues will just work themselves out and you'll be totally awesome. Because you're good looking!
Whereas the flipside, if you spend your life dedicated to a cause, try to stay true to your morals, don't bother to really impress your parents and actually work to improve the world you live in, then you'll end up fat, in a wheel chair and evil.
Which is rather disturbing.
Anyway, for those three reasons more than anything else I disliked the film.
Bob, I have disagreed with your views several times in the past, but this time you and I are on the EXACT same page on this movie. Especially with regards to how Hector Hammond's story arc was butchered. I like to pretened, just for a chuckle, that Hammond's story is taking place in a low-budget sci-fi horror flick from 1981, based on his features and apparel. It helps detract from the pain of knowing I could have had Ch'p and Medphyll instead of Carol giving Hal the "Mommy Talk" and his little dickweed pal squealing at his costume like a girl scout getting her knitting badge. "You're a sooper-hero! Wheeeeeee!!" All my friends think I'm the world's biggest numbnut for hating this film. Oh, well...
