Busted.
That's Freudian mis-spelling for you, because I thought about wether to use "spell" or "write" while writing it.
Green Lantern Series
- Thread starter cbspock
- Start date
Busted.
That's Freudian mis-spelling for you, because I thought about wether to use "spell" or "write" while writing it.
I thought so too, but would every line and every scene have worked equally well if they were done in live-action? Animated shows and movies have a level of fun, simplicity and inherent cartoonishness that live-action doesn't have and can't always get away with, so I don't know if a comparison is fair.
I don't agree. I've seen plenty of animated shows with writing that was richer, subtler, and more intelligent than in a lot of live-action shows. Live action and animation are mediums, not genres or styles. The live-action Batman and Robin is a vastly more simplistic and "cartoony" film than the animated Mask of the Phantasm. M. Night Shyamalan's live-action The Last Airbender didn't have a fraction of the depth and complexity of the animated series it adapted. And I'm sure the same will be true of the upcoming Americanized live-action remake of Akira. You've obviously never explored Japanese animation if you think it's possible to make a generalized statement about all animation being fun and simplistic. Go watch Akira and Grave of the Fireflies and Serial Experiments Lain and get back to me.
I've dabbled in anime and agree with what you've said. A lot of these animated shows do have writing and characterization that are quite rich, intelligent and well done, but at the same time, isn't animation, for the most part, stylized differently? Could you really take a lot of these animated shows and do them exactly as-is in a live-action format? It's possible that I'm not being clear, but I do see a difference in how live-action and animation are done and notice that people will accept things in animated shows and movies that they won't necessarily accept in live-action.
Of course there are differences in style and approach between live action and animation, as there are between any two artistic media. But that doesn't translate to animation always being simpler and more superficial.
^ I meant "simple" as in different, not inferior. A lot of animated works can tell a complete story and/or hit the right notes without the same approach to detail or the runtime that's required of live action.
Okay, true, the two media have their own distinct kinds of pacing and structure. One of the strengths of animation is that it's distilled and streamlined compared to live action. But then, why even bother asking the question of how the structure of an animated story would play in live action? That's like asking whether a sculpture would work as a painting. Obviously any artwork is going to be tailored for its particular medium. If the same story were done in live action, it's a given, by your own premise, that it would be done differently. So what's the point of even suggesting the comparison?
There's no reason to expect an adaptation of the comics to exactly copy their storylines. Especially when there are some obvious differences here -- establishing a wider "frontier" of Green Lantern activity, introducing the Interceptor and Aya, having Hal and Kilowog get stranded for nine months. None of that is from the comics.
Do the comics still divide the entire universe into 3600 sectors? Never quite figured that one out. Glad they did away with it here.
That's exactly what I was getting at.
Because it was implied that the first episode was better than the motion picture when the two aren't in the same medium. Sure, you can compare them, but like I said, I don't think it's entirely fair because one has the advantage of being animated and therefore doesn't require the same level of complexity that a big-budget live-action film does. My asking how the animated episode would play out in live action was an attempt to bring attention to that fact. The episode was good, but could you do this in a live-action movie as is? Probably not. And maybe you (the general you) didn't like the movie, but it's a live-action work and can't get away with what an animated episode of television can get away with. The show might very well be better written, but the fact that this and the movie are in different mediums is also a factor and that can't be ignored.
I've compared live-action with animated works myself and found the live-action wanting on several occasions, but for whatever reason, the issue of whether it's fair to do so hit me now.
Well, they did say their existing patrol zone was 3600 sectors but they were beginning to expand beyond it.
I do find that very silly, the idea that the entire universe could be patrolled by only 3600 Green Lanterns. I mean, even just the observable universe is estimated to contain over half a trillion galaxies. That's something like 150 million galaxies per Green Lantern. Ridiculous. Not to mention that there is no "center of the universe" for Oa to sit in, since it's unbounded and has no definable edges. DC should've retconned it ages ago to say that the Green Lantern Corps patrols only the Milky Way and divides the galaxy into 3600 sectors, with Oa located near the center of the galaxy. (It couldn't be at the center of the galaxy since there's a huge honkin' supermassive black hole in the way.)
Except the whole problem with the movie was that it was too complex. It tried to cram too much stuff into one story, to be too slavish to the comics and pander too much to the continuity mavens. And yet despite that, it still managed to feel shallower in its characterizations than this cartoon did, because it left itself too little room to develop them.
If anything, where the GL movie failed was in trying to be too much like the cartoon adaptations of the DC Universe we see these days. Look at Justice League Unlimited or Batman: The Brave and the Bold or Young Justice and you'll see a lot of the same stuff you saw in the GL movie: stories jam-packed with dozens of gratuitous guest characters and obscure continuity nods. And it's not just DC; this was a trademark of the '90s X-Men animated series, and to some extent the contemporaneous Spider-Man series. And it's the bread and butter of the current Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes.
The reason it works better in animation than in live action is what you said, that animation is more distilled and doesn't need to take as long to get from point to point, so you can jam in a lot of continuity and still not lose any significant story depth. (Although Avengers: EMH suffers on that count because it's more interested in nonstop action.) But the GL movie tried to cram in the same level of continuity and felt too cluttered and superficial as a result.
Conversely, "Beware My Power -- Green Lantern's Light!" didn't try so hard to cram in characters and references, instead focusing on telling its own story at the pace it needed to be told, and allowing much more room for subtle characterization. Which feels like more of a live-action approach to me.
Exactly. And even if you could make it work, there's no way a GL would be able to sit on his homeworld for any length of time at all, given the amount of space he's required to somehow protect. I'm not just thinking of Hal here, either.
Interestingly, Elliot S! Maggin's Last Son of Krypton Superman novel did make this concession, but I've never heard it anywhere else. Including the new series. Their references made it pretty obvious that it extended beyond the Milky Way, what with Kilowog's "a billion light-years" and the Red Lanterns' intent to "conquer this galaxy".
Even Ganthet's Tale by Larry Niven and John Byrne stuck to the old saw about covering the entire universe, and you'd think Larry Niven would be the first one to object to that. I guess they have to stick to the story, or else they can't call them "the Guardians of the Universe" anymore.
Niven tried to rationalize the sector thing by saying the 3600 sectors were all shaped like pyramids, each with its apex centered on Oa and each extending infinitely outward. Seems a bit forced, but he did try.
I finally got a chance to see it and thought it was really good. The animation doesn't bother me at all and Josh Keaton is good as Hal. As I mentioned before Bruce Timm has stated that there is a possibility of seeing Blackest Night unfold as we go along in the series. For a cartoon pilot I think this establishes its self very well.
Finally had a chance to watch the premiere, and I was a bit disappointed. The feel of the series was reminiscent of those 90's quest series where the premiere sets up a single dilemma that it takes 13 episodes to resolve (for example, Beast Machines). I've never really cared for that formula; I guess it's because each episode ultimately serves to just drive the quest plot while the "story" of the episode is really just there as filler put in place so that the quest can last 13 episodes.
I guess Timm and Dini spoiled me with the previous series where we just had a new and unique story each week (maybe a two part story here or there); and to be honest, I think that approach is better for the DC characters given that their more than 75 year history is so rich and full of depth. As it stands, I believe that this new Green Lantern series feels more like just a toy commercial.
I guess Timm and Dini spoiled me with the previous series where we just had a new and unique story each week (maybe a two part story here or there); and to be honest, I think that approach is better for the DC characters given that their more than 75 year history is so rich and full of depth. As it stands, I believe that this new Green Lantern series feels more like just a toy commercial.
@CBSspock or whatever your name is...after watching the episode I didn't detect any Star Trek sounding effects whatsoever. Since you didn't provide any kind of other content about the series in your posts it makes me wonder why you started this thread in the first place. Has anyone else noticed what he posted about? Or even cared to notice in the first place?
I had a hard time making it through this. I didn't have a problem with the animation at all. It was pretty good I just prefer the way Clone Wars is done. But that show has improved animationwise over the last few seasons so GL may do so as well. I was rather bored but then I haven't got much sleep lately and tv can make me quite sleepy when I don't get a good night's rest. Perhaps I need to see it again.
There were definitely Star Trek TOS sound effects: button pushing tones, and the sound of engine power increasing. I noticed them right away.
Similar threads
