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

[davejames]

Dennis wrote:

---

I don't think GL is gonna succeed in the movies on the basis of his ring constructs unless they become a lot more inventive. This is one of those things that worked better in the comics than on screen. What he does is sometimes counterintuitive; someone unfamiliar with GL watching him go through his machinations with the oil tanker, springs and artillery gun is more likely to think he's wasting time than to think "wow, cool."

I thought the constructs were about the only thing that really made GL stand out and feel unique from all the other superhero movies out there.

And I don't think you really have to be a fan (I certainly wasn't until recently) to find those scenes to be the highlight of the movie.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Some worked, some didn't. I didn't think any of them were the "highlights" of the film, because they tended toward the gimmicky. I mean - an artillery gun and giant springs? Blowing up an oil tanker?

What's wrong with just pointing the ring right at Parallax's face and letting loose on it? Come to think of it, the GLs in space didn't try that either, they just took turns conjuring up a chain-link necklace for the critter.

Nowhere in the movie was it suggested that the rings were ineffective directly against Parallax because of the alleged "yellow impurity," so that's not it.

[davejames]

Dennis wrote:

---

Some worked, some didn't. I didn't think any of them were the "highlights" of the film, because they tended toward the gimmicky. I mean - an artillery gun and giant springs? Blowing up an oil tanker?

Well, yeah, that's the point! Silly, ridiculous, Rube Goldberg-style gimmicks are a heck of a lot of fun to watch. At least I tend to think so.

What's wrong with just pointing the ring right at Parallax's face and letting loose on it? Come to think of it, the GLs in space didn't try that either, they just took turns conjuring up a chain-link necklace for the critter.

Eh, some of that would have been fine, I guess. But personally I always found it dull as hell on the Justice League cartoon when Stewart would do nothing but shoot energy beams and create shields around stuff.

You have a magic, all-powerful ring... and that's all you do with it??

[Admiral Buzzkill]

davejames wrote:

---

You have a magic, all-powerful ring... and that's all you do with it??

Well, the problem is that there's nothing "all-powerful" about conjuring up a gun and a gasoline explosion to fight a genocidal intergalactic alien menace. That's why it comes off as a bit silly on screen.

[flemm]

davejames wrote:

---

You have a magic, all-powerful ring... and that's all you do with it??

I think you're touching on an aspect of the character that is challenging to handle in all media, including comics.

Initially, a weapon that is limited only by its user's creativity would seem like an artist's (or special effects guru's) dream come true, but in fact it can be hard to satisfy the expectations that the concept creates.

As far as the franchise's future film prospects are concerned, though it pains me to say it, I expect we will see a se-booted GL in a few years' time. Or possibly a re-quel

Another GL movie will be made but they will need to distance themselves from this movie in one way or another, even if it means inventing new jargon.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

They most likely think that replacing the director and screenwriters will be sufficient, and that's probably a good call. They'll try to hold on to the cast.

[flemm]

Maybe, though for most movie-goers, the star is probably the most recognizable figure. By most accounts, Reynolds is not the problem with this movie, but rather script and production issues. Still, bringing him back would move the film toward sequel territory, which might not be wise considering the film's under-performance and widespread perception that it was/is a failure.

Whatever, I'm sure the suits are hashing this all out as we speak, and there are other variables.

If Man of Steel and Avengers are both hits, WB might decide to do a Justice League movie and re-introduce Green Lantern that way, along with Flash and a few others. Then individual movies could be spun out of that film. This would probably mean a different actor for GL.

[davejames]

I don't understand the problem people have with the movie's direction at all. I thought Campbell took a rather thin story and made it feel about as substantive and polished as it could possibly be.

I thought the action scenes worked really well too. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing a sequel really needs is a stronger story.

[P0sitr0nic]

Loved it.

[O'Dib]

It's a serviceable film. Good enough to satisfy that theater-going crave in the absence of anything better.

[flemm]

^ Well, the film's critical and financial reception suggests that there were deeper issues. Now, I'm not denying the buzz was perhaps worse than the film really deserved, all things considered, but perception is king in this scenario: for whatever reason, audiences did not respond well to this movie and are therefore not likely to respond well to a sequel.

If ads for the next GL movie feature Ryan Reynolds in the same green CGI suit, there is no reason to think audiences will suddenly have a change of heart. If anything, such a film would be likely to perform even more poorly than this one did, as reviews were embargoed until just prior to opening weekend. A sequel would have to overcome the first film's negative reception, which would be extremely difficult.

In that sense, changing the director and writers means little unless they bring in someone like Abrams, Nolan or Bay, which seems unlikely. Writers are pretty much faceless to general audiences, and there are only a few directors with the type of established reputation and record of success that could change the franchise's fortunes.

[Professor Zoom]

davejames wrote:

---

I don't understand the problem people have with the movie's direction at all. I thought Campbell took a rather thin story and made it feel about as substantive and polished as it could possibly be.

I disagree. Campbell's to blame. From the thumb's up of Hal's Father at the moment of explosion to the nonsensical placement of the asteroid belt....

At the very least, he could have cut the Belt from the theatrical cut--it didn't do anything, we wouldn't have missed it. (I know I'm harping on that stupid belt, but, it's short hand for the idiocy of the direction) Or he could have cut Parallax escaping--you know, from an unguarded cell that only made the GLs look stupid.

Films are a director's medium, the writers have very little power. Campbell should've stepped up. He's capable.

He'll be dumped if there's a sequel.

[OdoWanKenobi]

They can't dump him if he's already said he won't return (which he has.)

[T'Baio]

Campbell would not necessarily be to blame for things like the asteroid field, especially if he's merely a "director-for-hire." A for hire director might not be quite as hands on with the art or effects department as we've been led to believe when watching docs about George Lucas or Jon Favreau. That scene might be halfway rendered by the time he sees it and goes "...an asteroid belt!?! Between the Earth and sun? No!" "That'll cost 3 million bucks to fix, Mr. Campbell." "Fuck it. perfect."

He is, however, partly to blame (outside of executive tinkering, which is highly likely considering the "edited by Stuart Baird" credit...the great studio's go to fix it guy! Haha!) for the film's lack of consistent tone, sloppy and careless shooting style, some bad performances, refusing to really show the audience anything and continually cutting to "tell us what's happened/happening" dialogue scenes, and the films terrible pace.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

OdoWanKenobi wrote:

---

They can't dump him if he's already said he won't return (which he has.)

Which is why he announced he's not coming back. It's called "jumping before you're pushed."