It may be a stoning offense but I liked Ang Lee's Hulk.It had upsides and downsides. Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly are worth ten Ed Nortons and four Liv Tylers, respectively, but ye gawds, Nick Nolte was terrible as a villain, while Tim Roth was an excellent Blonsky. Then again, I thought Christian Bale was a ponderous and deadly dull Bruce Wayne, and that Michael Keaton did a much better job (and that nobody has even come within low-earth orbit of Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman yet), so I'm probably the last person whose opinion on superhero casting will be relevant. :)
I agree on most of that except for Michelle Pfeiffer cat woman. Eartha Kitt's Catwoman from the cheesy 60's show, to me, is the best cat woman. Eartha had a raw sexuality that the cheesiness couldn't hide and her voice could melt butter. Also Eartha's Catwoman wasn't a mentally broken psycho but a calculating if capricious thief.
It didn't me. Ruffalo just sells it a lot better than Norton. You'd never look at Edward Norton and go "Yeah, I can totally see him as a scientist". He looks more like a potential Batman actor than a Bruce Banner.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree on most of that except for Michelle Pfeiffer cat woman. Eartha Kitt's Catwoman from the cheesy 60's show, to me, is the best cat woman. Eartha had a raw sexuality that the cheesiness couldn't hide and her voice could melt butter. Also Eartha's Catwoman wasn't a mentally broken psycho but a calculating if capricious thief.
Julie Newmar
'nuff said.
(Regarding Ang Lee vs Ed Norton Hulk's: it's interesting to note that as critically panned as Lee's non-MCU Hulk was, Incredible only made $1.5 million more than it domestically. That's not a huge margin.)
After the first one was so bad, releasing a new one so close will kill the second one's sales.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Ang Lee Hulk should not have happened.
Crouching mutant poodle, hidden Hulk.
While fair, I didn't mean "bomb" in the financial sense. I meant it in the "this is a terrible movie" sense.When I think "bomb"... I think Green Lantern.
And no MCU has every achieved that level of ineptitude.
Any one of them might not be to everyone's personal liking or tastes... but none were as bad as that. ;)
Go lower...
I'll always stand by that Green Lantern and Daredevil were awesome movies.
They were FLAWED movies... but as my two favorite heroes.... I still thoroughly enjoyed the movies.
YES... Flaws... Decisions that I wish I could have changed... but still very fun movies.
Green Lantern was a typical by-the-numbers origin story. Same as every other Superhero movie #1 is. When I plan out what I want there... It hit every bulltpoint that I would have expected.
The biggest issue with it, was that they had JUST released an animated version that told the same story, only better. As it was sci-fi and animation... And I hated the CGI costume... with passion. but that's pretty superficial.
Catwoman. Elektra. Batman and Robin. Blade Trinity. Ghost Rider 2. X3 STEEL!!!
These are what "I" consider to be SUCKY comic movies. Compared to them IM2 & 3, either Hulk, Pretty much ANY comic movie made after GR2 have been AWESOME flicks that I've been glad to add to the collection. Ant-man will blow these movies out of the water. I hate the character... but it will still be land high on this scale.
But REALLY, let's keep a solid grasp of where the bar is REALLY set. Just because movie #3 isn't 'as good' as the #2 which last year everyone was screaming was the greatest thing EVER!!!! does NOT mean that it 'sucks'.
It may be a stoning offense but I liked Ang Lee's Hulk.It had upsides and downsides. Eric Bana and Jennifer Connelly are worth ten Ed Nortons and four Liv Tylers, respectively, but ye gawds, Nick Nolte was terrible as a villain, while Tim Roth was an excellent Blonsky. Then again, I thought Christian Bale was a ponderous and deadly dull Bruce Wayne, and that Michael Keaton did a much better job (and that nobody has even come within low-earth orbit of Michelle Pfeiffer's Catwoman yet), so I'm probably the last person whose opinion on superhero casting will be relevant. :)
I'm a big fan of Ed Norton and didn't really know Eric Bana at the time. As for Connelly vs Tyler... Good heavens... I'm a fan of both. No losers there!!! ;)
I'll agree with Keaton. I really liked his version best so far... but Catwoman? I find it incredibly SAD that Pfeiffer is considered the standard...
The moment they gave her 'amazing reincarnation powers' and 'revived by herd of cats'... I pretty much lost respect for that version.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I agree on most of that except for Michelle Pfeiffer cat woman. Eartha Kitt's Catwoman from the cheesy 60's show, to me, is the best cat woman. Eartha had a raw sexuality that the cheesiness couldn't hide and her voice could melt butter. Also Eartha's Catwoman wasn't a mentally broken psycho but a calculating if capricious thief.
Amen, on my desk at work I had the 66 Batmobile, Batman and Robin Clix, and I made a point to get the Ertha Kitt catwoman clix. Only think sexier than her was Yvonne Craig in the Batgirl outfit.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
A blind man who can see is your favorite superhero?
Speaking as a fan of Daredevil. Daredevil isn't cool because of his power, he's cool because he's cool.
Saying he can't be because his power is less than spectacular is like saying Batman sucks because he doesn't have powers...that's just not how it works.
A blind man who can see is your favorite superhero?Speaking as a fan of Daredevil. Daredevil isn't cool because of his power, he's cool because he's cool.
Saying he can't be because his power is less than spectacular is like saying Batman sucks because he doesn't have powers...that's just not how it works.
Pretty sure the powers make him cool. Super senses and super agility are serious bad-ass powers.
|
|
Pretty sure the powers make him cool. Super senses and super agility are serious bad-ass powers.A blind man who can see is your favorite superhero?Speaking as a fan of Daredevil. Daredevil isn't cool because of his power, he's cool because he's cool.
Saying he can't be because his power is less than spectacular is like saying Batman sucks because he doesn't have powers...that's just not how it works.
No. The powers don't make him cool. His grit and Lawful Goodness do. He's a lawyer that sees the flaws in the system, and tries to fill the gap in the most abandoned by the law parts of New York. He's freakin cool. He could have no powers and still be cool as Hell's.... Kitchen. :P
|
|
I just knew about his super hearing which made up for the fact that he was blind.
Never liked him. Probably because he was always at odds with spider-man. :D
Spider-Man is cool because of his powers. Yes. Without his AMAZING powers he would have bit the dust a long time ago, mainly due to his methods and grandstanding and showboating and and and. He's a guy villains truly hate. Take the powers away and he better hide in Costa Rica for the rest of his life, otherwise the villains will take revenge within seconds.
Now Daredevil sees a kid like this, broad daylight doing whatever, while he on the other hand makes sure he's only out at night, always always hiding, being so cautious of EVERYTHING 'cause he's a lawyer and knows exactly if he's doing a crime if he does A B or C... etc. I would also kind of be at odds with spidey... association with spidey is risky from his perspective.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spider-Man and Daredevil (and Spider-Girl/Anya and Nightcrawler and Timber Wolf and Nightwing and Jolt) are favorites of mine for the same reason, all are (in some cases, superhumanly) acrobatic fighters who are all over the place, very dynamic and kinetic. I love that sort of character.
Of the original Guardians of the Galaxy, Nikki, in addition to keen senses and resistance/immunity to some energy effects, was a super-acrobatic fighter and sharpshooter. She'd be cool to see, on screen, doing Spider-Man / Nightcrawler-like fighting moves (and perhaps shrugging off blaster fire, while remaining vulnerable to knives and fists and bullets, and still having good reason to keep moving and dodging and flipping through fights).
࿙࿙࿙࿙࿙࿙࿙࿙࿙. Elektra. Batman and Robin. Blade Trinity. Ghost Rider 2. X3 STEEL!!!
These are what "I" consider to be SUCKY comic movies.
Wait, why are there weird boxy characters as the first title? Is it censored or something? Did you mean to type a movie name there?
Wait, why are there weird boxy characters as the first title? Is it censored or something? Did you mean to type a movie name there?࿙࿙࿙࿙࿙࿙࿙࿙࿙. Elektra. Batman and Robin. Blade Trinity. Ghost Rider 2. X3 STEEL!!!
These are what "I" consider to be SUCKY comic movies.
Your mind just omitted something it thinks you're not yet ready to see.
Wait, why are there weird boxy characters as the first title? Is it censored or something? Did you mean to type a movie name there?࿙࿙࿙࿙࿙࿙࿙࿙࿙. Elektra. Batman and Robin. Blade Trinity. Ghost Rider 2. X3 STEEL!!!
These are what "I" consider to be SUCKY comic movies.
You must remember!!! Never forget the tragedy that comic fans suffered through... It's easy to forget! But then you end up with people forgetting what a truly BAD movie actually is :D
CATWOMAN.... Without Selena Kyle. Not a thief. No costume to speak of... (putting it kindly) no mention of Batman...
REMEMBER!!!!
A blind man who can see is your favorite superhero?
I've always been a fan of the more 'human' characters. I prefer the gymnast/martial artist types to the bulletproof types. Batman used to be awesome, but they have him so armored up and invincible that he's lost his appeal to me. Now it's more nightwing then Batman.
Daredevil is tough to nail down as he frequently has nervous breakdowns and writers take him into completely different directions and personality... but at his core... He's a hero who was bullied as a kid, and is out to make sure that the bigger bullies have someone out there to stop them.
Also, when at his best... he's a solid force for GOOD. None of the morally ambiguous vigilantes. He's just as likely to fight the punisher to stop him from killing a criminal then he would be to fight the criminal. He's all about the law and the system. Then steps outside of it on occasion to get more evidence or protect a client...
Go lower...
I'll always stand by that Green Lantern and Daredevil were awesome movies.
They were FLAWED movies... but as my two favorite heroes.... I still thoroughly enjoyed the movies.
YES... Flaws... Decisions that I wish I could have changed... but still very fun movies.
Green Lantern was a typical by-the-numbers origin story. Same as every other Superhero movie #1 is. When I plan out what I want there... It hit every bulltpoint that I would have expected.
The biggest issue with it, was that they had JUST released an animated version that told the same story, only better. As it was sci-fi and animation... And I hated the CGI costume... with passion. but that's pretty superficial.
Catwoman. Elektra. Batman and Robin. Blade Trinity. Ghost Rider 2. X3 STEEL!!!
These are what "I" consider to be SUCKY comic movies. Compared to them IM2 & 3, either Hulk, Pretty much ANY comic movie made after GR2 have been AWESOME flicks that I've been glad to add to the collection. Ant-man will blow these movies out of the water. I hate the character... but it will still be land high on this scale.
But REALLY, let's keep a solid grasp of where the bar is REALLY set. Just because movie #3 isn't 'as good' as the #2 which last year everyone was screaming was the greatest thing EVER!!!! does NOT mean that it 'sucks'.
In most sectors, sorry to say you stand alone in that assertion of Green Lantern... but to each their own on the point of subjective personal entertainment.
However I will say this... With the Dark Knight trilogy as a standard for DC films and the MCU as the standard for Marvel, everything previous to that point can be recognized effectively as a "developmental" stage and ought be held to standards that take the context of their time period into consideration. Most of those movies you think suck ARE tied to a period of time where getting it done was good enough because there was nothing else or not all that much better. Just "getting it done" should not be "good enough" any more.
Once we saw what the industry could do with the right talent involved, it becomes a criticism of why they do not live up to the best of those standards. Technology has finally reached the point where what they can show on screen is near limitless.
So Green Lantern? Utterly failed its potential. (And I disagree that the direct-to-video animation had any impact on the movie. If anything it helped broaden the base audience to the character.)
Man of Steel? Failed us.
And both failed in story and visualization, in the context of an industry capable of much better.
Dark Knight 3 was always going to be tough after the sensation the Joker brought to DK2... but even that maintained a standard that those two films failed, even if it didn't exceed itself. That trilogy holds as their best (and among the best) of recent years.
You named a number of PRE-MCU films you think suck, all fair, but my initial point stands: "no MCU has every achieved that level of ineptitude" exhibited by Green Lantern. Adding a list of a previous decade's films doesn't weaken that assertion.
And for the record... I HATE being disappointed by these films. GL is also one of my favorites from childhood. I don't "like" that the film failed us. I wanted better. All fans did. I wish DC would give us better. Their track record just isn't supporting that kind of faith in them. (Except where television is concerned... I've been very impressed with Arrow and expect Flash to be great as well...)
To chime in on Green Lantern - I felt it was a disappointing movie, but not a bad one. Everything about it felt consistently average. It was enjoyable enough, but the whole time I felt like it could be so much more. It was more not living up to expectations than actively being bad. Most of the Thor movies have felt the same way, but Loki is awesome as a villain. The Green Lantern villain was pretty bad. And in a lot of ways, the villain makes the hero.
Ghost Rider 2 was actively bad (except for Idris Elba. He was the one good thing.)
|
|
My tastes have always been weird.
I have watched Green Lantern again, and still found it pretty enjoyable.
The Nolan Batman movies bored me with their deadly serious and deadly dull monotony, and I don't see any need to lose more hours of my life sitting through them yet again.
I know, Batman made all the moneys, and Green Lantern was a terrible flop or something, but Green Lantern was *vastly* more entertaining, to me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think what I liked best about Man of Steel was the subtle use of imagery.
Once we saw what the industry could do with the right talent involved, it becomes a criticism of why they do not live up to the best of those standards. Technology has finally reached the point where what they can show on screen is near limitless.
So Green Lantern? Utterly failed its potential. (And I disagree that the direct-to-video animation had any impact on the movie. If anything it helped broaden the base audience to the character.)
Hal Jordan has a very well known origin, and a first movie has to include the following.
Meet Hal. Cocky but cool test pilot. Fearless. Takes risks. He's a bit of a womanizer and/or Flirt.
Introduce Carol. His boss and potential/possible girlfriend.
Alien crashes, searches out the best possible replacement. Hal is chosen, gets ring, Learns about GLC.
Introduce/explain Guardians
Include awesome light-constructs.
Kilowog trains him.
Sinestro trains him. (optional)
No human has been a GL,
Hal proves himself against something massive when nobody else does.
It's a bulletpoint list of what NEEDS to be in a GL movie. The movie had all of it. So did First Flight.
The biggest problem is that First Flight did it better. Batman Begins saved Joker for the Sequel, and GL tried to do the same with Sinestro.
If they had STARTED with Sinestro going evil and Hal fighting him, it would have been a better movie. Parrallax in all its forms has always sucked. I was glad for the retcon in rebirth, but they should have just buried it after that.
I've seen a LOT of people talking about how the movie needs a reboot, but I absolutely do NOT want that. We will JUST see the exact same bulletpoint list all over again. Use this as the springboard.... tell the origin in the opening in the opening credits... but then move on.
As for a criticism of standards... I don't really agree. SOME characters have always been held back to technical limitations. That's a given. But not all of them.
Story, plot, acting is just as important as special effects. Pre MCU there were still some good movies made. There were also TERRIBLE ones made... They all came from the same source material and the amount of respect to that source material is pretty showing some times.
Even the 'average' ones made today are REALLY good interpretations compared to the crap that just stole a characters name to trick you into watching it like we used to get...
Once we saw what the industry could do with the right talent involved, it becomes a criticism of why they do not live up to the best of those standards. Technology has finally reached the point where what they can show on screen is near limitless.
So Green Lantern? Utterly failed its potential. (And I disagree that the direct-to-video animation had any impact on the movie. If anything it helped broaden the base audience to the character.)
Hal Jordan has a very well known origin, and a first movie has to include the following.
[snip]
Kilowog trains him.Sinestro trains him. (optional)
[/ snip]It's a bulletpoint list of what NEEDS to be in a GL movie. The movie had all of it. So did First Flight.
The biggest problem is that First Flight did it better. Batman Begins saved Joker for the Sequel, and GL tried to do the same with Sinestro.
If they had STARTED with Sinestro going evil and Hal fighting him, it would have been a better movie. Parrallax in all its forms has always sucked. I was glad for the retcon in rebirth, but they should have just buried it after that.
I've seen a LOT of people talking about how the movie needs a reboot, but I absolutely do NOT want that. We will JUST see the exact same bulletpoint list all over again. Use this as the springboard.... tell the origin in the opening in the opening credits... but then move on.
As for a criticism of standards... I don't really agree. SOME characters have always been held back to technical limitations. That's a given. But not all of them.
Story, plot, acting...
I'm really not going to break down every awful element of the film... there is plenty of that out there.
But on one point, I have to object:If Jordan's origin is so well known (to you or anyone,) why would you assert Kilowog training him is a "need?" It never happened in his origin (until retconned) as Kilowog was first introduced to Jordan in the mid 80's, some 27 YEARS after his debut. Tomar-Re was the first other Green Lantern he ever encountered and Jordan was never portrayed as formally trained by any other GL until Emerald Dawn in the 90's.
Not to say Kilowog, "shouldn't" assume that role in an adaptation. But it's not a requirement of the story. It was ret-conned post-Crisis. Neither is Sinestro for that matter because in Jordan's origin, he never encountered him AS a Green Lantern... until that same ret-con.
Including them isn't the problem though, even if they are not necessarily absolute requirements to make the film good.
But the film absolutely failed to even be successful enough for DC not to abandon the sequel it set up. You may not want a reboot... but whatever the DCCU does with the character, you can be sure it won't be anymore a sequel than Incredible Hulk was to Ang Lee's Hulk.
Including a checklist of elements it ought to include doesn't mean they executed them well. They didn't. You've even detailed some ways they didn't yourself.
More than showcasing a list of elements we recognize from the comics, we should have seen better acting, better story, less plotholes, better graphics, better villains... maybe a face mask that didn't make Jordan look cross-eyed, etc... All stuff the industry had shown us it was capable of achieving... and didn't.
And the "biggest problem" of the film will never be that a straight-to-video cartoon did it better. That was irrelevant to the broader audience. I enjoyed First Flight and think it's among the more solid adaptations out there, but you're crediting it with far more influence than it merits.
And even if First Flight had not been as good as it was, the live action film would still be as bad as it is.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Green Lantern Tangent.
1st movie. Hal gets the ring and the lantern, Ring does the "Hal Joran of Earth.." bit Hal enjoys becoming a hero. Keep Hector Hammond being mutatned, they bring the big fight, Hal wins. End of film (or post credits scene) Sinestro shows up to find out what happened and ends with them leaving for Oa.
2nd movie. Basically Emerald Dawn. First movie is Hal Jordan, second one is green lantern corps, buddy cop flick as Sinestro teaches Hal how to be a GL, Sinestro style. Ends with Sinestro stripped of his ring and one a barren world, exiled. A yellow streak comes from the sky, "Thall Sinestro of Krougar, you have the ability to inspire great fear. Welcome to-" Sinestro catches the ring and slides it on. "The Sinestro Corps." He finishes.
3rd movie big knock down drag out between the GL corps and Sinestro corps. Movie ends with Hal winning and becoming part of the honour guard, restoring the corps. Last scene is a new ring streaking towards earth (and in my dream version) "John Stewart of Earth..."
Well to be honest my ideal green lantern movie would translate the DCAU John Stewart to the big screen. Might as well let Dave Batista take the role. ;-)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yellowdingo rates Guardians of the Galaxy: (8/10) finally saw it on DVD. If it lacked that one thing to get it to nine out of ten, it lacked that moment where green ninja girl gamora is listening to peter's music tape while fighting and her in-combat prowess doubles.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Once we saw what the industry could do with the right talent involved, it becomes a criticism of why they do not live up to the best of those standards. Technology has finally reached the point where what they can show on screen is near limitless.
So Green Lantern? Utterly failed its potential. (And I disagree that the direct-to-video animation had any impact on the movie. If anything it helped broaden the base audience to the character.)
Hal Jordan has a very well known origin, and a first movie has to include the following.
[snip]
Kilowog trains him.Sinestro trains him. (optional)
[/ snip]I'm really not going to break down every awful element of the film... there is plenty of that out there.
But on one point, I have to object:If Jordan's origin is so well known (to you or anyone,) why would you assert Kilowog training him is a "need?" It never happened in his origin (until retconned) as Kilowog was first introduced to Jordan in the mid 80's, some 27 YEARS after his debut. Tomar-Re was the first other Green Lantern he ever encountered and Jordan was never portrayed as formally trained by any other GL until Emerald Dawn in the 90's.
Not to say Kilowog, "shouldn't" assume that role in an adaptation. But it's not a requirement of the story. It was ret-conned post-Crisis. Neither is Sinestro for that matter because in Jordan's origin, he never encountered him AS a Green Lantern... until that same ret-con.
Including them isn't the problem though, even if they are not necessarily absolute requirements to make the film good.
But the film absolutely failed to even be successful enough for DC not to abandon the sequel it set up. You may not want a reboot... but whatever the DCCU does with the character, you can be sure it won't be anymore a sequel than Incredible Hulk was to Ang Lee's Hulk.
You're quite right. The original origin had no Kilowog. However, to the average comic fan, they don't remember a time that Kilowog was NOT the corp trainer. It's been 26 years post-Emerald Dawn, as opposed to only 30 years Pre-Emerald Dawn... He's been there in everything GL related since Timmverse Justice League...
As much as I love the original silver age stuff, Kilowog has become a staple to the franchise. Personally I HATE all the Sinestro as a GL stories... I much prefer him to have been rogue before Jordan showed up too... but with all the retcons over the years, a movie has to latch on to the most 'iconic' and 'classic' versions of the franchise and Kilowog and Sinestro are it now.
And honestly, people seem to REALLY like the 'space opera' version of Green Lantern. I do not... The idea of the main character standing around with a bunch of people with all the same powers only with more experience... really annoys me. I much prefer the classic Earthbound hero vs. Supervillain threat then I do Cosmic apocalypses... but if people want to see the corp, it is always best to throw the 'fan favorite' ones in the mix ;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yellowdingo rates Guardians of the Galaxy: (8/10) finally saw it on DVD. If it lacked that one thing to get it to nine out of ten, it lacked that moment where green ninja girl gamora is listening to peter's music tape while fighting and her in-combat prowess doubles.
Personally, I thought it was missing the scene where Gamora watched Dirty Dancing.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I say reboot Green lantern with Guy Gardner.Green Lantern is a crappy story. Period. You can try to make crap look good by adding fragrance to it, powdered sugar, and other masking effects, but it's still deep space, boring, uninspired crap. DC space stuff is absolute garbage (IMO). ;)
I grew up loving DC's space stuff, especially the Legion from around Earthwar/Pulsar Stargrave until Time Trapper/Glorith and the reboot that ruined it all.
I like the Green Lantern stories set in space far more than the Earth bound stuff.