I didn't say anything about the plot. I suppose it worked; the plots to most movies do. Plot is also the least interesting aspect of film for most moviegoers and in most cases is the element that has the least bearing on a film's success.
Green Lantern: Grading, Review, Discuss, Tracking, Sequel?
- Thread starter Captain Craig
- Start date
I didn't say anything about the plot. I suppose it worked; the plots to most movies do. Plot is also the least interesting aspect of film for most moviegoers and in most cases is the element that has the least bearing on a film's success.
I know you enjoyed this movie and would like to believe that it had some sort of depth and humanity that audiences and critics have simply been unable to appreciate, but that has everything to do with your bias going in, and little to do with the merits of the film.
Iron Man was a huge success because people connected with the main character and, to a lesser extent, the supporting characters. That is the measure of a film's "humanity": does it make you care and relate to these fictional constructs that are all, at the end of the day, basically just variations on the same themes and tropes?
Thor was also able to do that as well, to a lesser extent, because the director and cast elevated a competent but unremarkable script evoking a mythos that is wacky and unintuitive, even by comic book standards. There is nothing in GL that comes even close to the depth of Loki's conflicting emotions when he learns of his true heritage, or Thor's heartbreak when he finally understands the full measure of his situation ("Can I come home?").
GL has its moments, but at the end of the day it is not going to be a critical or financial success because it didn't give audiences enough of a reason to care about the main character or his entourage. A difficult production and technical shortcomings no doubt contributed to that.
Comic book movies are a bit of an odd beast, in that they cannot get away with being dumb action flicks like Fast 5. These types of stories ask more from the audience in terms of suspension of disbelief and emotional engagement. The successful ones infuse the material with an emotional depth that transcends the formulaic aspects of the genre; the unsuccessful ones do not, generally speaking.
Last edited:
When Iron Man came out, I thought that Robert Downey Jr. was totally miscast as Tony Stark and I couldn't figure out why everyone was raving about him. It was only later that I realized that RDJ's fun and charisma was probably needed to make the film a bigger success. A more accurate version of the character might not have made the movie what it was.
Compared to...? I was pretty specific, but thanks anyway.
I'm not the only person in the audience who really liked the movie; I'm simply in the minority, which is fine. I'll always prefer my taste and opinions to those that differ. Independently knowing what I like has served me well.
Exactly. Downey carried what otherwise was a by-the-numbers movie with good effects about a second-tier character. Especially after that second installment, he's really all they got.
Last edited:
I think the best superhero movies are when the characters are flawed in some way and try to change. They really emphasized Tony Stark's callous arms dealing, just like they stressed Thor's arrogance and Spider-Man's insecurities. In the first X-Men movies, Wolverine carried the whole thing with his feral "man without a past" shtick.
You've got to grow with the characters in order to feel involved, and with less successful movies you don't. Like in Daredevil, Matt Murdock's character arc was all over the place, and in FF I didn't feel much for the characters at all because everything in that movie was pure popcorn.
I haven't seen GL, but if they didn't get the "hero's journey" thing right then I have little hope for the movie.
You've got to grow with the characters in order to feel involved, and with less successful movies you don't. Like in Daredevil, Matt Murdock's character arc was all over the place, and in FF I didn't feel much for the characters at all because everything in that movie was pure popcorn.
I haven't seen GL, but if they didn't get the "hero's journey" thing right then I have little hope for the movie.
There's really nothing to the "arrogance" thing in Thor; the entire affair as far as the characters are concerned is paper-thin and perfunctory. Same for Stark; Downey's charm and performance carries the superficial and predictable "arc."
I mean, there are movies released every month in which character and character evolution matter and are treated with some observational acuity if nothing else - but these are films made for grown-ups and don't involve people in costumes flying and throwing things.
I mean, there are movies released every month in which character and character evolution matter and are treated with some observational acuity if nothing else - but these are films made for grown-ups and don't involve people in costumes flying and throwing things.
I thought that Thor's character arc needed a bit more development, like more time learning humility on Earth. I didn't think it was a perfect movie but it was still on the right track and was true to the character, imo.
I can't tell if in your continued defense of GL in your statements are meant to be ludicris or you just really think your opinion is carte blanche correct for a large vast majority.
Plot is the least interesting aspect? I have to give that a big ole
Character Development + Plot = Reason to Care
I, nor anyone is suggesting you change your mind about GL. You loved it and that is great. I liked Prince of Persia and despite scores hating on it I still stand by it as a fun film. I get it. It does seem at this point some rose colored glasses are still being worn.
It's standard. Both Yahoo! Movies and Box Office Mojo also use the +/- grading system as well. Sometimes some viewers are going to need that variance. If you don't, cool, but some might and that is why the option is there.
Eh you know I made some commentary on that aspect in my lost review (from the browser crash) but I suppose my annoyance made me miss some
of the humor in it...
I don't think it's entirely wrong to say that with Summer Popcorn flicks that great Action and 'splosions by themselves makes filling seats easier than good characterization and plot without the great 'splosions and action
I can't tell if in your continued defense of GL in your statements are meant to be ludicris or you just really think your opinion is carte blanche correct for a large vast majority.
Plot is the least interesting aspect? I have to give that a big ole
Character Development + Plot = Reason to Care
I, nor anyone is suggesting you change your mind about GL. You loved it and that is great. I liked Prince of Persia and despite scores hating on it I still stand by it as a fun film. I get it. It does seem at this point some rose colored glasses are still being worn.
Eh, I wouldn't call any of that particularly "deep" myself. It was still all very surface-level, comic booky stuff.
I certainly won't argue that GL was very deep or complex, but then I never felt that way about Iron Man, Donner's Superman, Burton's Batman, or the first two Spidey films either. Those were all very simplistic movies as well, and yet most fans still manage to love those.
GL might not be quite at that level, but I still don't see what it does that's so incredibly different either.
We're comparing comic book movies and therefore referencing emotional depth within that context.
Obviously, as everyone is aware, there are films that present significantly more depth of various kinds than any film of this type. That said, even the greatest films often build on the same basic tropes that we see in genre films, so there is so huge chasm separating them. It's just a question of degree, ambition, subtlety, etc.
I don't think it is incredibly different. It's just not an especially effective take on the same basic formula.
Exactly - the fantasy that there was anything humanly meaningful going on in that movie is a pathetic one.
They're all nothing but comic book movies. Superman, Spider-Man and GL do some nice things with how the characters feel about one another, that's all.
I would agree to a ceratin extend, don't see the need for an A+, but as for the rest I would tend to agree sometimes you need a larger range
For example I would have given X-Men: First Class
a B- or a 7/10 or 3.5stars
without a greater range it would have been
C as It didn't warrent a B.
So if I urinated at him with enough force, I could kill him?
Well yeah, obviously if someone just finds this superhero movie less effective than others, there's not much one can argue with there.
Part of me wants to believe it's simply fans' hatred for Reynolds and the CGI suit that's coloring their judgement of the movie... but then I remember that most of the critics (who don't give a crap one way or the other) hated it as well. So THAT theory's out the window. lol
Amen!
Of all the complaints to have with a movie, "the black woman wasn't fat enough" has to be one of the silliest I've ever heard.
