JJLewis

October 29, 2011 3:52 pm Since the first images released in Entertainment Weekly I have heard absolutely nothing but negative regarding Green Lantern. Nothing Positive at all. And since the movie's release it has been bashed on by every geek with an opinion and small following. Repeating the same spun and regurgitated rhetoric that Movie reviewer so and so expressed on such and such a date, dating all the way back to when the first images appeared in the movie trades. Having seen the movie, more than once now, I'm going to step forward and express my opinion on not just Green Lantern the film, but comic book properties in general, as well as the main movie going public. This is also a message to movie critics who have done nothing but bash this movie since before it's release date. I'm a Green Lantern Fan -that way you know and understand that I am a Comic Book Geek. As well as a comic book historian. Yes, I am One of those guys, and I have been a Lantern fan since the seventies. I was introduced to him on Challenge of the Super friends as a kid, I was reading the comic in the eighties and early nineties as an adolescent, and as an adult switched to Green Lantern trade paperbacks to keep up on what has been happening with the character. I have watched and enjoyed the various Cartoon appearances of not just Hal Jordan, But John Stewart, and the multitudes of other Lanterns, on various animated shows and animated movie projects. I'll admit I was skeptical when I learned that DC's next major character to hit the screen was Green Lantern. I said to myself and wondered about the decisions made by these executives. " Wait...What? Hold up a sec...what the hell are you doing? It's not going to do well. But my reasoning at the time had nothing to do with CGI costumes, or what is considered by some so called movie experts, as a rehash of Top Gun, or even Iron Man as bad film making in the vein of Batman and Robin. My reason was simple. Today's paying movie going audience is too Fickle a bunch for a Green Lantern movie to be a success right now. These people can determine the life of a movie, in this day and age a year before the first shot is even in the can. Think I'm wrong look at the scrutiny happening with both The Avengers, and The Dark Knight Rises. That being said, Green Lantern was a painful tremendous gamble. Even for a comic book fan. And Especially after following the second biggest money making movie of all time, as an attempted launch for new major character franchise. As both a movie fan and fan of the comic character, Do I have my gripes about the movie? Yes I do. The Green Lanterns have a large cache of Villains that could have been used for the movie that would have made a more compelling story than either Hector Hammond or Parallax. But they opted to use those two villains. Since I didn't write the script I have no choice but to accept what was written in the screen play. And keep an open mind. I also understand as a comic book reader, I am going to care more about what happens on the screen with these characters, than the masses, because I am already acquainted with these characters and their back stories. So for Hector Hammond's origin to get tied to Parallax no big deal, at least they kept the character essence. If characterization, motivation, or powers are different in some way, I will know, and may say something about it, Not just Bash. I'm going into the movie knowing, it's a different medium, it's a different interpretation of said characters. I'm not going to instantly jump on the Bashing Bandwagon just because I'm a little distracted by whether or not the costume is glowing using computer graphics. In one video review, the reviewer went off a full two minutes on just the CGI and kept going back to it. Okay, I'm sorry it wasn't to their satisfaction. CGI is used as a means of telling the story, sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. And yeah it tends to work better if working hand in hand with practical effects, but to say " the movie is a horrible piece of shit" which is a direct quote by one reviewer is at best excessive especially if their majority basis of argument is on the visual effects. Maybe I can accept the costumes on the Lanterns a little bit better because I understand that the uniform itself is what is referred to in the comic as a" hard light construct". In other words a three dimensional virtual hologram, to uniform said Green Lantern. The reviewers are bitching about computer generated images based on a technology that enables hard light computer generated images produced from someone's imagination fed from the power ring itself. The constructs are hard light, the life support is hard light. Everything regarding that ring is based on imagination and the hard light technology of the ring. If you stop and look at it that way...what the hell is the problem? That's like saying The movie is a piece of shit because the constructs aren't realistic. If you are bitching about that you missed the concept, that was explained in scenes on Oa. But is the movie as bad as they are making it out to be? The answer is no. Is it a little bit disappointing? Yeah. When M.I.B. was released, I knew Hollywood was capable of producing a Green Lantern movie. But in the Forty some year history of Hal Jordan's Green Lantern, there are a lot of things to chose to try to put it in a 2 hour Origin Movie. You have Abin Surr, The Planet of Oa, The Guardians, Carol Ferris, and Sinestro who are the staple characters to consider. Were they in the Movie? Was the Corp in the movie? Yeah. As far a the Top Gun Bash, apparently some of these Cyber Geeks, who did their painstaking research know just enough to explain in their rants how long the character may have been around, however might have not gotten around to reading certain source materials...like say, Oh Emerald Dawn. Which explains the fears Hal has, and the so called Daddy issues which continued all through the Third Green Lantern Volume run, which one critic really had a problem with. Both Iron Man and Green Lantern have a bit of existentialism to the philosophies of their characters as written in the comics, so why bitch about it when it happens on the screen? The critics had to whine about that too. And then these so called Plot holes. Again having seen the movie more than once there are quite a few subtle clues that are laced through out the movie that the average viewer isn't going to pick up the first time, especially when they are so focused on "THE BAD CGI" Could it have been dumbed down a bit more for the non comic fans that don't understand the continuity. Sure. As I said I was a little disappointed as well, I'm not saying the movie is perfect, because it isn't. But to compare it with Batman and Robin? Or Star Wars the Phantom Menace, particular critics are over exaggerating. Not to mention they are just jumping on the band wagon of others who are were also disappointed, to the nth degree. There appears to be a problem with a Film Franchise that blows up and exceeds all expectations. you end up with a double edged sword. I'm of coarse talking about "THE DARK KNIGHT", one of the Greatest comic book movie successes ever. That isn't an opinion. that is a fact. You are running into a enormous problem with releasing a Movie based on a character from that stable of characters after that much success. It becomes a question of how do we capitalize on the success which inevitably devolves into how to we make more money? Because after all, Movie making is a business. The Bat has proved to be the ever giving cash cow for Warner Bros since 1988, and for DC Comics. But Batman and Robin almost brought the end to both the franchise and the Comic book Genre as a marketable resource single handed. What most of these critics don't mention when they are bashing is, Genres go in cycles, public tastes in films change, and script and script rewrites go through draft after draft, changing writers which adds to the problems making a incomplete script into a bad movie. Resources are constantly tapped to the point they become Toydetic, which also feed the problem. And a studio's lack of faith in a production causes a studio to at times over- market, trying to build the hype where little fan fare is there. DC has been plagued in the past by their successes. Donner's Superman even today remains the standard by which all comic book movies are made.They suffer from trying to capture that lightning in a bottle again. The movie has to be right, and released at the right time. I'm not talking just about effects or casting, I'm talking about the love and creativity and verisimilitude of the transition of characters from the printed page to the silver screen. If Hollywood actually paid attention to their history regarding this genre they would perhaps discover that the biggest surprises and cash cows the industry has had have also had a long history of development. And during that development have been low key. Twenty years ago, a good film took around three years to complete from pre-production to release. Those days are few and far between, but when it happens, and are low key, you have a tremendous hit. Look at Batman Begins. Look at Spider-Man. Look at Burton's Batman. DC has THREE characters that if you say their names- everyone on the planet knows who they are. Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman. There is a reason why they are referred to as the DC Trinity. Wonder Woman would have been the best viable option to follow logically. Instead, the Higher Ups decided that Wonder Woman wasn't a strong enough movie option and decided to capitalize on her television success by ordering an ill fated TV pilot, which was of coarse was ripped apart and torn to shreds, by the same cybergeeks on their websites and pod casts after seeing a couple of production stills they didn't like.There was so much negative criticism in fact, the major networks passed on it and the pilot is destined to never appear on anything but as a special feature on a DVD or Blu Ray. Wonder Woman production still from the Pilot.There was so much negative criticism in fact, the major networks passed on it and the pilot is destined to never appear on anything but as a special feature on a DVD or Blu Ray. For that you have my thanks. And Yeah, I do mean that in the most sarcastic and snarky way possible. DC takes a gamble and tries a relatively obscure character (to the general public) and hopes for the best. I can't fault DC for taking the gamble. As much as I love the character, this film was poor timing and a costly gamble right out the gate. For all my skepticism, I gave the movie a try, with an open mind. For all your expertize and Bravado you opinionated Jack Asses didn't help the cause,to make it a success. You want to blame DC and Warner Bros, for making a bad movie. We have to take a little responsibility. Maybe if comic book geeks weren't so quick to judge every little decision, regarding costumes, casting, effects, writing, directing, and any other thing you can possibly complain about, during pre-production and during production, maybe studios wouldn't be so scared that they have to second guess everything before a release, and better movies would be made. It's hard to complain about the problems when you are part of the problem. Maybe if certain critics actually took that into consideration, they may have a decent movie.