Amazon Vehicles Beauty Trade in your textbooks STEM nav_sap_plcc_ascpsc Limited time offer Wickedly Prime Handmade Gifts for Dad Book House Cleaning twinpeaksv2 twinpeaksv2 twinpeaksv2  Introducing Echo Show All-New Fire HD 8 Kids Edition, starting at $129.99 Kindle Oasis Trade it in. Fund the next. Spring Savings Event on Ellen
Customer Discussions > Comics forum

Green Lantern Movie-

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 37 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jun 21, 2011, 6:32:24 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 27, 2011, 2:07:15 PM PDT]

Posted on Jun 21, 2011, 10:01:28 AM PDT
Thelonious says:
Visual effects - very impressive even in 2-D
Acting - some good, some not so good
Plot - pretty dumb (don't get me started on plot holes!)
Dialogue - pretty bad

Overall - pretty bad

The script is so full of cliches and missteps that it feels as if it's aimed at people who've never seen a move before (The hot guy and the hot girl are bitter rivals - they couldn't possibly....fall in love!?!?! after he....saves her life!?!? Wait! You mean one courageous man with a pure heart might succeed where hundreds have failed? Astonishing!). I know it's a superhero movie and not necessarily meant to be deeply philosophical (though it could be) but it doesn't have to be geared towards 4th graders either.

Posted on Jun 21, 2011, 2:07:20 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 27, 2011, 2:07:18 PM PDT]

Posted on Jun 21, 2011, 9:31:46 PM PDT
Grant says:
I blame the failure entirely on script although the casting was problematic. The acting was good enough but there was no chemistry between anyone on any level. And I'm not even sure that they tried to do too much. SpiderMan 3 tried to do too much. Burton and Shumacher Batman films tried to do too much. It seems like Lantern didn't do enough. Or that is, didn't do enough with what they had to work with. They go through the origin with decent enough pacing and even tell the mundane story with equally even pacing. It's the unimaginative story that they're telling that's the problem. There was nothing remotely engaging for me until around the 90 minute mark. There was zero creativity with regards to the ring constructs. An old car, a big gun, a sword...that's pretty much it. Where were the giant fly swatters, giant broom and dustpans, giant vacume cleaners to suck up the villains, giant mixing bowl and blender? Also, whoever wrote this aparently watched Superman the Movie before writing. I mean, the girl endangered by a runaway helicopter? Seriously? And what kind of crappy save was that anyways? Hal lets the copter literally crash INTO THE CROWD OF PEOPLE before he even shows up! Guess he took longer than expected to think up that old time car. What was that anyways? A rolls royce phantom? So I'd say they should have done more instead of less.

Sinestro was really the only part of the movie I liked. The Guardians were completely wasted. And I did like when Carol recognizes that Lantern is Hal. That was legitimately funny to me. But that whole thing with Hal and Paralax and the daddy issues...jeez that sucked hard. Yeah...definitely the script.

I just wish Thor had had GLs budget. I was entertained for the most part watching Thor but damn did that movie look cheap. And I mean Sci Fi channel cheap.

Posted on Jun 22, 2011, 10:01:01 AM PDT
Green Lantern was a HUGE disappointment.

Posted on Jun 23, 2011, 1:43:23 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2011, 1:44:53 AM PDT
Jack Napier says:
Like Grant, Sinestro was the only part of the movie that I actually liked.

Posted on Jun 23, 2011, 4:52:31 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 27, 2011, 2:07:23 PM PDT]

Posted on Jun 23, 2011, 7:01:05 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jul 12, 2011, 6:38:38 PM PDT
Yeah, Mark Strong was great!. The movie was not.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 23, 2011, 11:10:03 AM PDT
Grant says:
and unlike Downey Jr's "Tony", I didn't care about Reynolds "Hal" at all. It takes more than a cliche cutsie pie scene with a kid in order to make me care about a character and more than a near fatal crash caused by a flashback of daddy dying to make them sympathetic.

Posted on Jun 23, 2011, 11:15:52 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 27, 2011, 2:07:25 PM PDT]

Posted on Jun 23, 2011, 3:41:57 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 23, 2011, 3:42:57 PM PDT
Grant says:
I also think that, while Oa and the Guardians and the concept of a intergalactic police force is interesting, Hal's origin is not. In fact, I can't think of a less interesting origin story. I much prefer the origin for the Golden Age Green Lantern. It has much more emotional impact IMO. The green meteor that brings death, life and then power is a fascinating idea. A dying alien that you see for two seconds handing a ring to some guy? Not exactly Shakespeare is it?

And I think ultimately, that is a weakness of the character as a whole. There is zero tragedy involved. Think of Batman losing his parents, think of Supermans planet and species being destroyed, think of Spider-Mans selfishness leading to his uncle's death. Think of Doctor Strange, a vain surgeon losing the use of his hands and seeking out the Ancient One which leads him on a different journey all together. Think of Tony Stark having to build the armor just to stay alive. But Hal? No tragedy at all connected to his origin. His gift is handed to him on a silver platter. That is not appealing from a narrative standpoint. I think of Billy Batson who was also "handed power" on a silver platter. Only with that story he's a child, and homeless and an orphan on top of it, and there's the element of danger to it because one tends to worry about a childs safety so there is a certain amount of protectiveness the audience might feel for that character.

And there are other characters that have the same problem as Hal. While I like Hawkman, his origin is incredibly boring. I love Flash (Barry Allen) because of his power and because of his great rogues gallery, but his origin isn't really all that exciting either. This is something that DC has more of a problem with than Marvel who always seemed to try to make the origin stories for all of their characters tragic in some way. There is some sort of "loss", some sort of personal price to be paid by the hero in return for their power. Hal Jordon has none of that in his back story or in his origin. And in the Green Lantern movie, that was a huge problem.

Posted on Jun 24, 2011, 6:03:11 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Jun 27, 2011, 2:07:26 PM PDT]

Posted on Jun 26, 2011, 6:03:12 PM PDT
Sevenflow says:
I Liked it

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 27, 2011, 8:05:23 AM PDT
gambitrmp says:
I gave you a plus vote & see your point but someone becoming a hero because they had a tragic event in thier life shouldn't be the only reason for someone becoming a hero. IMO it's sad to think only tragedy can bring forth that level of commitment. Hal still has to accept the ring & the responsibility that goes with it as anyone who takes a police badge does. Past tragedy can't be the only reason for someone to serve honorably can it? That's a little depressing to think "true goodness only comes as a result of evil". Not that you said that.

Anyway I did like your point & a movie can only provide so much backstory. Of coarse some will be more compelling than others. Speaking of handing people powers. Stan Lee finally "gave up" & came up with Mutants as a fast/easy way to develope new abilities & I think it turned out pretty well. Coarse it's not like that means there's no back story. Magneto (a villain) was given a pretty good motivation out of tragedy as well. It's also a good way to teach about discrimination without using an existing group as the example.

Posted on Jun 27, 2011, 5:56:18 PM PDT
Money says:
I'd agree with those here who've stated that good characters in comics are often faced with tragedy that compels them to do good. But Green Lantern has never been about that. It's about a fearless character with a strong will. The powers the ring gives are like Aladdin's Lamp, allowing him to make dreams a reality, albeit in a 'construct' form. He's always been, in my opinion, a character that complements others, as in the JLA. I mean, he usually makes a catcher's mitt to fly the Flash around! What a good teammate!

As for the movie, I enjoyed it. I liked that Sinestro was still a GL and Parallax was a pretty cool looking villain. I wasn't expecting Oscar winning material when I bought the ticket, but the action and tongue-in-cheek humor was good fun. Is it the best superhero movie ever? No. Is it the worst? No on that too. As for tragic heroes, I can name 3 tragic character films that truly stunk: Hulk (Ang Lee film), Daredevil (theatrical version), and Spider-Man 3 (no, no, no, I {Sandman} killed your Uncle Ben... you were wrong all along and I totally ruined your origin story while I was at it). Tragedy helps but doesn't always make a character more compelling.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2011, 1:50:55 PM PDT
Grant says:

re: "but someone becoming a hero because they had a tragic event in thier life shouldn't be the only reason for someone becoming a hero."

I agree completely. And I think that could be done in an interesting way. I think Shazam is sort of like that. Billy Batson is a good, kind person and is rewarded for it. If, in the movie, Hal had been at least a little worthy of the ring at the outset, showing him being a good, caring, self sacrificing guy, then his origin would be much more interesting. Unfortunately, they make him out to be a complete jerk. If the ring "chooses" him, then shouldn't he at least be somewhat of a good person on the surface as well as inside? Be shown to be somewhat self sacrificing? That would be much more interesting from a narrative standpoint and would make Hal much more sympathetic, something he was not in the movie.

He wasn't a complete jerk in the original stories, he was a brave, fearless man and thats why the ring chose him. But somewhere along the way they made him a jackazz. I guess that was to humanize him.

But yes, I agree with your point that a hero doesn't have to be born of tragedy to be interesting or complex. But compare the origin story of Hal to someone like Captain America, which I think proves out your point perfectly. Steve Rogers is too frail and sickly to join the army. But he wants to join so bad and loves his country and is such a good guy that he keeps trying. That he is chosen to be Captain America instead of some jerk who has to overcome his own jerkiness makes for a great story. Steve is basically tragedy free (mainly because he's a product of the Golden Age and the hero born of tragedy was fairly rare even after the creation of other golden age characters with "tragic origins" like Superman and Batman).

So I agree with you. I think a hero born of tragedy is more interesting personally speaking, but I believe a hero not born of tragedy can be very entertaining from a story standpoint. I just think the Green Lantern movie failed to do that on all levels.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2011, 2:16:15 PM PDT
Grant says:

re: "I'd agree with those here who've stated that good characters in comics are often faced with tragedy that compels them to do good. But Green Lantern has never been about that. It's about a fearless character with a strong will."

I agree completely. I think it's possible to make a entertaining movie about a hero who uses the power of will. I just don't think the movie made it "look" interesting. I'm reminded of the story that ran in Amazing Spider-Man that culminated in ASM #33...

I'm sure most everyone knows of this story but it showed Spiderman, by sheer force of will, lifting all that machinery off his back and overcoming all of Doctor Octopus' goons so he could save his Aunt. Yes, Spiderman has superpowers, but he had to access power he didn't know he had through force of will. That was a story that made "will power" look interesting. But in the Green Lantern movie, they didn't make Hal's "will power" look interesting.

I agree with you that in the comics, Hals constructs are lots of fun and I was hoping to see the movie have some fun with that. If they had done those classic comic book constructs like the catchers mit that you mention, or the giant vacume cleaner, or giant broom and dustpan, or something even remotely fun and creative, I might have enjoyed the movie more. But we didn't really get much of that and that was disappointing.

I couldn't agree more about the third Spiderman movie. That was horrible and yes, the story completely undermines the dramatic power of Spidermans origin. And yes, there have been movies with heroes born of tragedy that sucked, as you mention with daredevil and Ang Lees Hulk and the aforementioned Spiderman 3. But I'd argue that that wasn't the fault of the material the movie was based on but how that material was interpreted on screen. As I mentioned before, there are ways to make a hero that isn't born of tragedy interesting. I just don't think the GL movie delivered in that department. Just as Daredevil, Hulk and SM3 also failed in doing a good job of portraying tragic heroes. Although I will say that I was never really a fan of Daredevils origin story. I think he's a character that became interesting later on as opposed to grabbing me with the first issue.

I do think the second Hulk movie did a much better job at painting Bruce Banner as a tragic figure. That Ang Lee mess didn't really make Bruce sympathetic at all. And giant mutant poodles? Seriously Ang?

Posted on Jul 4, 2011, 4:04:54 PM PDT
T. Wallace says:
for green lantern to be a success and have a good story, they should have used Kyle Rayner. The best Green Lantern imo..

Posted on Jul 4, 2011, 6:46:04 PM PDT
Money says:
Just remember, Hal Jordan has always been a kind of hot shot type of character. Imagine him in the context of Maverick from Top Gun- confident, fearless, arrogant and a little over the top. I think that's where the inspiration for his portrayal came from, and why it worked for me. Not all characters should be cookie cutter boy scout types. That's Superman's wheel house. And Blake Lively is easy on the eyes.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 4, 2011, 8:07:34 PM PDT
Grant says:
They don't have to be boy scouts. Maverick was self destructive and put his friend in danger, indirectly causing his death. That's not really bravery so much as it is "young a hole with something to prove". I think you can be fearless and not be a total tool and still be complex. It's all in the writing.

Besides, if the ring had a choice between Maverick, Goose and Iceman, Maverick would have been the last one picked. ;)

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2011, 11:06:41 PM PDT
Really? I thought the ring chooses people that can overcome great fear. Wouldn't that be Maverick. Funny that this was brought up who would of been a better casting then Reynolds for Hal. Cruise?! I thought of this analogy earlier is all.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 9, 2011, 11:10:08 PM PDT
Grant for the record didnt Hal kill a host of people for the very same reasons.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2011, 2:07:15 AM PDT
Grant says:

Well, just being a fighter pilot in and of itself shows bravery, does it not? I didn't see Iceman or Goose walking away from being pilots to take on a desk job. The difference between them and maverick was that neither of them had anything to prove. Neither did Hal in his original incarnation. Hal never had "daddy issues" like Ryan Reynolds "Hal" or Cruises "Maverick". In comics there are lots of villains in the universe that are fearless. Can they be Lanterns too?

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2011, 2:16:59 AM PDT
Grant says:
I thought Hal killed the Lanterns because he wanted their rings and wanted power enough to restore his destroyed city, and because he was infected by Parallax. How is that the same as maverick being a hot dog with daddy issues? And how is that the same as Reynolds Hal being a hot dog willing to sell out his partner and risk her life because he also has daddy issues. That isn't bravery or being fearless. That's called "over compensating". Just like middle aged guys buying a corvette and cheating on their wives with the 20 year old secretary is also not being "fearless" or "brave".

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 11, 2011, 1:54:15 PM PDT
Grant I dont think its a matter of being fearless, if so how do you explain Kyle? I think it is Overcoming great fear. Iceman goose didnt have fear and were brave. Mav was scared witless about everything and tried to cover it up. He overcame that fear when it overwhelmed him after the accident and finished his schooling. Thats why I think the ring would pick him over ice man. He overcame is fear not that he was absent of it. Does that make sense?

And isnt the thing with hal he goes in head strong and endangering others along the way. Wasnt that Jons and bruces beef with him when they argued. He doesnt think he hot shots around and it got himself infected and killed millions from it. I havent seen the movie so.. Maybe I should exscuse myself from the topic. :) I just found the GL Top gun analogy cool.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in

Recent discussions in the Comics forum (550 discussions)


This discussion

Discussion in:  Comics forum
Participants:  14
Total posts:  37
Initial post:  Jun 21, 2011
Latest post:  Jul 19, 2011

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers