Green Lantern: Grading, Review, Discuss, Tracking, Sequel?

[Samuel Walters]

RAMA wrote:

---

I knew that, but I had no idea JUST how big loud and stupid Tran3 was going to be...they literally had characters screaming for 10 secs at a time. I think half the script was screaming...

See ... that's what I don't understand. At this point, how can anyone NOT know what to expect out of a Michael Bay film -- particularly a Bayformers film?

I think the other problem with GL (other than its mediocrity) is that the film looks like a comic book come to life. The whole point of a live-action film is to translate the comics into an entirely different aesthetic. And yet GL, with its combination of the suit & mask, the alien settings, the aliens themselves ... it looks like it ought to have been an animated film. In fact, had the film been presented as pure CGI (or traditional animation) I guarantee that, at the very least, the critical reception would be much more forgiving.

davejames wrote:

---

I didn't sense any pretention in GL at all. And I certainly don't see how Hal being a jock qualifies. The fear stuff might have been pushed a little hard, and may not have been completely believable coming from Reynolds, but it was all still fairly standard, comic booky stuff anyway (and not much different than all the cheesy "lessons" we heard in the Spidey movies).

To me, pretentious is the SW prequels, or Matrix sequels. GL doesn't even come CLOSE to that. It was just trying to be a fun little supehero movie.

Perhaps we're interpreting pretension differently, then. Which is certainly a possibility. But, to me, trying to portray Hal as a sympathetic, aw-shucks character while he's got this charmed life is the very definition of pretentiousness. Especially considering the film tries, HARD, to convey the thematic element of confronting and accepting one's fear. I think audiences and critics would be more open to such a theme if the main character wasn't a cocky, ladies-man test pilot. If you don't see it that way, that's cool. I don't think you're wrong. But I think my interpretation is, at least in part, why some reviewers reveled in criticizing the film.

[RAMA]

Samuel Walters wrote:

---

See ... that's what I don't understand. At this point, how can anyone NOT know what to expect out of a Michael Bay film -- particularly a Bayformers film?

I think the other problem with GL (other than its mediocrity) is that the film looks like a comic book come to life. The whole point of a live-action film is to translate the comics into an entirely different aesthetic. And yet GL, with its combination of the suit & mask, the alien settings, the aliens themselves ... it looks like it ought to have been an animated film. In fact, had the film been presented as pure CGI (or traditional animation) I guarantee that, at the very least, the critical reception would be much more forgiving.

Perhaps we're interpreting pretension differently, then. Which is certainly a possibility. But, to me, trying to portray Hal as a sympathetic, aw-shucks character while he's got this charmed life is the very definition of pretentiousness. Especially considering the film tries, HARD, to convey the thematic element of confronting and accepting one's fear. I think audiences and critics would be more open to such a theme if the main character wasn't a cocky, ladies-man test pilot. If you don't see it that way, that's cool. I don't think you're wrong. But I think my interpretation is, at least in part, why some reviewers reveled in criticizing the film.

Obviously Tran3 hit a new level of loud stupidity previously unseen...although I had the misfortune of watching Armageddon, and that was pretty dire as well.

RAMA

[RAMA]

davejames wrote:

---

I didn't sense any pretention in GL at all. And I certainly don't see how Hal being a jock qualifies. The fear stuff might have been pushed a little hard, and may not have been completely believable coming from Reynolds, but it was all still fairly standard, comic booky stuff anyway (and not much different than all the cheesy "lessons" we heard in the Spidey movies).

To me, pretentious is the SW prequels, or Matrix sequels. GL doesn't even come CLOSE to that. It was just trying to be a fun little supehero movie.

Also, I don't think the film was pushing Hal Jordan as anything OTHER than a jock...I don't think he was shown as an everday Joe at all. He is obviously a unique individual as evidenced by being chosen by the ring.

RAMA

[Samuel Walters]

Right. The whole family scene ... Reynolds' entire performance ... none of it tried to portray Hal Jordan as anything but a truly exceptional, better-than-the-audience character. Come to think of it, such a portrayal would be ... I dunno ... pretentious?

[RAMA]

Samuel Walters wrote:

---

Right. The whole family scene ... Reynolds' entire performance ... none of it tried to portray Hal Jordan as anything but a truly exceptional, better-than-the-audience character. Come to think of it, such a portrayal would be ... I dunno ... pretentious?

So exceptional human beings don't have family life???

It IS true that Jordan tried to fake out Hector Hammond by saying he had expectations put upon him and such, but those were expectations of someone unique, not an avg Joe.

RAMA

[Samuel Walters]

You miss the point. Most every-day Joes aren't test-piloting, model-banging egomaniacs who neglect the vast majority of their families. That GL tried to portray Hal Jordan as an every-day Joe who, oh by the way, is a test pilot who wakes up with models and neglects the vast majority of his family, is the basis of the why I believe the film is pretentious.

You don't see it that way? Fine. But the vast majority of moviegoers decided not to see the film -- to the point where it literally bombed at the box office. And I'm pretty sure that my perspective is at least part of the reason why.

[RAMA]

Samuel Walters wrote:

---

You miss the point. Most every-day Joes aren't test-piloting, model-banging egomaniacs who neglect the vast majority of their families. That GL tried to portray Hal Jordan as an every-day Joe who, oh by the way, is a test pilot who wakes up with models and neglects the vast majority of his family, is the basis of the why I believe the film is pretentious.

You don't see it that way? Fine. But the vast majority of moviegoers decided not to see the film -- to the point where it literally bombed at the box office. And I'm pretty sure that my perspective is at least part of the reason why.

Well its hard to say why people didn't see it...lots of sheep around these days who only judge by critics. Word of mouth wasn't strong...suggesting it just wasn't gripping enough for people to recommend it. Strong competition is another reason...both from action movies and other superhero movies. I think that "concept" foes like Parallax don't do as well with audiences, and nerdy Hector Hammond didn't make up for that by giving it a "humanized" element. Hal Jordan pretentiously portrayed as an everyman jock...probably not high on the list avg moviegoer didn't see it.

For myself I like certain moments and parts better than the overall movie. For a superhero movie it has a stratospheric background saga compared to others, but with middle-of-the-pack execution. Still, I think the scenes on Oa are iconic.

RAMA

[Samuel Walters]

For what it's worth, I loved the thematic foundation of the story: the power of Will vs. the power of Fear. Parallax, as the embodiment of Fear, works on a symbolic level. I just think the film did a poor job of connecting that theme to the audience. The alien worlds and cartoonish visuals were a hindrance; Hal as a test-pilot jock -- as the supposed symbolic embodiment of Will -- was a hindrance. That's not to say that it's impossible for viewers to make the intended connections, but considering the presentation, it's not surprising that most people opted not to even bother putting their arses into theater seats (and why critics were so happy to criticize the film).

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Samuel Walters wrote:

---

And I'm pretty sure that my perspective is at least part of the reason why.

I doubt it.

The movie hasn't done all that well.

You have a theory.

There's literally no connection between these two things.

Moving on...

I'm going to see this again tomorrow evening, despite it no longer showing in 3D near here. I hate to pay to see a 3D adventure movie flat, but them's the breaks.

[Captain Craig]

davejames wrote:

---

Yeah, between the critics not understanding the character or universe at all, and the comic fans being pissed that it wasn't some huge, epic space movie (alongside the fact they just don't like Reynolds as Hal), the negative buzz was just too much for it to overcome I think.

It always gets pointed out, maybe not here but about the net, that movies aren't solely made for comic fans. That's true. It's always noted, accurately I'll add, that there aren't enough dollars to just make a movie for the diehards or even the occasional comic book fan of a character. I just want to note the converse and point out comic fans could've not shown up and the movie would still have a total of $95-$100m, we just aren't that big.

This movie died because it was made for general audiences, like any movie, and it was a mess. Word of Mouth + reviews confirmed that overall it was a "wait for DVD" movie.

[Gaith]

RAMA wrote:

---

Kind of sad this movie made less than $150 million...I just didn't think it was bad enough to warrant this sort of indifference in a summer movie climate of blockbuster action movies.

I dunno; for a movie to get a warmer response than indifference, I kinda think it should be a bit better than "not that bad". Maybe it should even be good.

[davejames]

Captain Craig wrote:

---

It always gets pointed out, maybe not here but about the net, that movies aren't solely made for comic fans. That's true. It's always noted, accurately I'll add, that there aren't enough dollars to just make a movie for the diehards or even the occasional comic book fan of a character. I just want to note the converse and point out comic fans could've not shown up and the movie would still have a total of $95-$100m, we just aren't that big.

True, but I wasn't really talking about the box office, just the huge amount of negative buzz that was out there. And I don't think there's any doubt that the genre fans trashing the movie from the beginning contributed a fair amount to that.

[Professor Zoom]

DarKush wrote:

---

Yeah, I don't get the collapse or the pile-on. Lantern wasn't great, but it wasn't the abomination the critics made it out to be. I think the near universal negative reviews from the critics really helped sink this film. It didn't help though that the film was just average and didn't have much to stave off the heavy condemnation. I wonder if it had been released in February or March, without all the stiff competition, if that would've helped it.

I don't think a 300 million dollar movie released in Feb or March would've gotten it's money back either. Remember Watchmen?

This GL was designed (maybe overtly so) for a summer release. The mix of reviews from critics with the bad word of mouth is what sunk it. And I think that would have happened even in Feb or March. It wasn't the competition that sunk it, it was just not a good movie.

[davejames]

It's starting to feel to me like GL is the Shadow all over again-- another small-scale, kinda cornball comic book movie that I completely dug from the beginning and thought hit all the right, geeky notes.... and which every other scifi fan just shrugs at and goes "eh, whatever." lol

[Professor Zoom]

davejames wrote:

---

It's starting to feel to me like GL is the Shadow all over again-- another small-scale, kinda cornball comic book movie that I completely dug from the beginning and thought hit all the right, geeky notes.... and which every other scifi fan just shrugs at and goes "eh, whatever." lol

Perhaps. But, I doubt they spent 200-300 million dollars on The Shadow--which, I agree, is a fun movie.