• 60 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by CODYSF (2053 posts) - - Show Bio
#2 Posted by _Zombie_ (10454 posts) - - Show Bio

I honestly don't know if a sequel can fix the numerous problems of the first. I'll wait to see how the second one turns out before crying "REBOOT!"..

#3 Posted by The Stegman (25002 posts) - - Show Bio

To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.

#4 Posted by _Zombie_ (10454 posts) - - Show Bio

@The Stegman said:

To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.

It still looks like it can be saved, really. Though that s**t version of Parallax will stick with me for awhile.

#5 Posted by Video_Martian (5645 posts) - - Show Bio

OMIGOD PLEASE YES DO A REBOOT I HATED THE FIRST MOVIE SO MUCH IT SUCKED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#6 Posted by The Stegman (25002 posts) - - Show Bio
@ZombieBigfoot:  
 


@The Stegman said:

To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.

It still looks like it can be saved, really. Though that s**t version of Parallax will stick with me for awhile.

Yeah...Parallax was bad...the smoke monster from Lost was more threatening than him...but to me, the worse part was Hammond..he literally didn't need to be in the film, Parallax was the main villain, Hammond was just...filler
#7 Posted by _Zombie_ (10454 posts) - - Show Bio

@The Stegman said:

@ZombieBigfoot:

@The Stegman said:

To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.

It still looks like it can be saved, really. Though that s**t version of Parallax will stick with me for awhile.

Yeah...Parallax was bad...the smoke monster from Lost was more threatening than him...but to me, the worse part was Hammond..he literally didn't need to be in the film, Parallax was the main villain, Hammond was just...filler

Fortunately, I didn't go see it. But I've heard enough from friends who did. When my friend described in-depth how they handled Parallax, I raged. And I agree, Hammond sounds like he was a bit of a pointless addition.

#8 Posted by haydenclaireheroes (9174 posts) - - Show Bio

I would rather see a sequel than a reboot

#9 Posted by Video_Martian (5645 posts) - - Show Bio

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@The Stegman said:

@ZombieBigfoot:

@The Stegman said:

To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.

It still looks like it can be saved, really. Though that s**t version of Parallax will stick with me for awhile.

Yeah...Parallax was bad...the smoke monster from Lost was more threatening than him...but to me, the worse part was Hammond..he literally didn't need to be in the film, Parallax was the main villain, Hammond was just...filler

Fortunately, I didn't go see it. But I've heard enough from friends who did. When my friend described in-depth how they handled Parallax, I raged. And I agree, Hammond sounds like he was a bit of a pointless addition.

Smartest thing I've heard all night. That movie was an abomination to the Green Lantern franchise. It pisses me off how people keep saying how much they "liked it" or that it "wasn't so bad", that movie was terrible and everyone knows it, it's the main reason why I have little faith in DC's live-action movies nowadays...

#10 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@The Stegman said:
To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.
This. The first film was seriously not that bad, particularly when you look at the source (GL Volume 4). 
#11 Posted by _Zombie_ (10454 posts) - - Show Bio

@mr.obvious said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@The Stegman said:

@ZombieBigfoot:

@The Stegman said:

To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.

It still looks like it can be saved, really. Though that s**t version of Parallax will stick with me for awhile.

Yeah...Parallax was bad...the smoke monster from Lost was more threatening than him...but to me, the worse part was Hammond..he literally didn't need to be in the film, Parallax was the main villain, Hammond was just...filler

Fortunately, I didn't go see it. But I've heard enough from friends who did. When my friend described in-depth how they handled Parallax, I raged. And I agree, Hammond sounds like he was a bit of a pointless addition.

Smartest thing I've heard all night. That movie was an abomination to the Green Lantern franchise. It pisses me off how people keep saying how much they "liked it" or that it "wasn't so bad", that movie was terrible and everyone knows it, it's the main reason why I have little faith in DC's live-action movies nowadays...

For once, reviews helped me avoid a bad movie. And I'm worried as well, especially because Nolan is leaving after TDKR. Dunno how the inevitable Batman reboot would work.

#12 Posted by Video_Martian (5645 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@The Stegman said:
To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.
This. The first film was seriously not that bad, particularly when you look at the source (GL Volume 4).

-_- What I'm talking about...

#13 Posted by _Zombie_ (10454 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@The Stegman said:
To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.
This. The first film was seriously not that bad, particularly when you look at the source (GL Volume 4).

Even if it was that bad, a reboot after one movie just seems like an overreaction.

#14 Posted by Jonny_Anonymous (33885 posts) - - Show Bio
@mr.obvious said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@The Stegman said:

@ZombieBigfoot:

@The Stegman said:

To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.

It still looks like it can be saved, really. Though that s**t version of Parallax will stick with me for awhile.

Yeah...Parallax was bad...the smoke monster from Lost was more threatening than him...but to me, the worse part was Hammond..he literally didn't need to be in the film, Parallax was the main villain, Hammond was just...filler

Fortunately, I didn't go see it. But I've heard enough from friends who did. When my friend described in-depth how they handled Parallax, I raged. And I agree, Hammond sounds like he was a bit of a pointless addition.

Smartest thing I've heard all night. That movie was an abomination to the Green Lantern franchise. It pisses me off how people keep saying how much they "liked it" or that it "wasn't so bad", that movie was terrible and everyone knows it, it's the main reason why I have little faith in DC's live-action movies nowadays...

Hardly, I liked it.
#15 Posted by Video_Martian (5645 posts) - - Show Bio

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@The Stegman said:
To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.
This. The first film was seriously not that bad, particularly when you look at the source (GL Volume 4).

Even if it was that bad, a reboot after one movie just seems like an overreaction.

Hey, Marvel did that with Hulk and Punisher, look how that turned out... :P

#16 Posted by cattlebattle (12975 posts) - - Show Bio

It was bad....real bad...well, it was to me, being as I never really liked Green Lantern anyway, my opinion is hardly valid.
 
I just don't understand the Ryan Reynolds obsession, people seem to think he automatically equals every white super hero ever with a bit of a sense of humor...he is not a very convincing actor, unless he's Van Wilder...which apparently he has been playing that character since 2000.
 
Nathan Fillion, and a laundry list of other actors would have been a way better Green Lantern

#17 Posted by War Killer (20337 posts) - - Show Bio

Reboot...Please...

#18 Posted by _Zombie_ (10454 posts) - - Show Bio

@mr.obvious said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@The Stegman said:
To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.
This. The first film was seriously not that bad, particularly when you look at the source (GL Volume 4).

Even if it was that bad, a reboot after one movie just seems like an overreaction.

Hey, Marvel did that with Hulk and Punisher, look how that turned out... :P

Worked for Hulk, but didn't for Punisher the third time around(I maintain that Thomas Jane did an epic Punisher). So yeah, there's that.

#19 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@mr.obvious said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@The Stegman said:

@ZombieBigfoot:

@The Stegman said:

To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.

It still looks like it can be saved, really. Though that s**t version of Parallax will stick with me for awhile.

Yeah...Parallax was bad...the smoke monster from Lost was more threatening than him...but to me, the worse part was Hammond..he literally didn't need to be in the film, Parallax was the main villain, Hammond was just...filler

Fortunately, I didn't go see it. But I've heard enough from friends who did. When my friend described in-depth how they handled Parallax, I raged. And I agree, Hammond sounds like he was a bit of a pointless addition.

Smartest thing I've heard all night. That movie was an abomination to the Green Lantern franchise. It pisses me off how people keep saying how much they "liked it" or that it "wasn't so bad", that movie was terrible and everyone knows it, it's the main reason why I have little faith in DC's live-action movies nowadays...

How was it an abomination to the GL franchise? Hal was more of a character in that movie than he has been in 10 years. Parallax sucked, because PARALLAX SUCKS. The movie was Geoff Johns' Volume 4 as it was through an untainted glass.  
 
Pure mediocrity.
#20 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@ZombieBigfoot said:

@mr.obvious said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@The Stegman said:
To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.
This. The first film was seriously not that bad, particularly when you look at the source (GL Volume 4).

Even if it was that bad, a reboot after one movie just seems like an overreaction.

Hey, Marvel did that with Hulk and Punisher, look how that turned out... :P

Worked for Hulk, but didn't for Punisher the third time around(I maintain that Thomas Jane did an epic Punisher). So yeah, there's that.

Exactly. Inc Hulk was awesome (ED NORTON). Had it retained Jennifer Connelly instead of Liv Tyler, it would have been Marvel's second best film (behind Cap).  
 
Thomas Jane's Punisher had the aesthetic down perfectly, and was a better film than War Zone, but technically, (although Ray Stevenson wasn't half as good as Jane), WZ was more comic-accurate. 
#21 Edited by _Zombie_ (10454 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@mr.obvious said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@The Stegman said:

@ZombieBigfoot:

@The Stegman said:

To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.

It still looks like it can be saved, really. Though that s**t version of Parallax will stick with me for awhile.

Yeah...Parallax was bad...the smoke monster from Lost was more threatening than him...but to me, the worse part was Hammond..he literally didn't need to be in the film, Parallax was the main villain, Hammond was just...filler

Fortunately, I didn't go see it. But I've heard enough from friends who did. When my friend described in-depth how they handled Parallax, I raged. And I agree, Hammond sounds like he was a bit of a pointless addition.

Smartest thing I've heard all night. That movie was an abomination to the Green Lantern franchise. It pisses me off how people keep saying how much they "liked it" or that it "wasn't so bad", that movie was terrible and everyone knows it, it's the main reason why I have little faith in DC's live-action movies nowadays...

How was it an abomination to the GL franchise? Hal was more of a character in that movie than he has been in 10 years. Parallax sucked, because PARALLAX SUCKS. The movie was Geoff Johns' Volume 4 as it was through an untainted glass. Pure mediocrity.

I agree that it really wasn't that bad, but for different reasons. I don't hate Johns' GL work(to each his own), but other than Parallax and the pointless inclusion of Hammond, it doesn't really sound like it's bad enough to be anywhere near the level of abomination. That title is reserved for Ghost Rider 2 and Batman and Robin..

#22 Posted by BlackArmor (6141 posts) - - Show Bio

@The Stegman said:

To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.

This.

#23 Edited by _Zombie_ (10454 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@mr.obvious said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@The Stegman said:
To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.
This. The first film was seriously not that bad, particularly when you look at the source (GL Volume 4).

Even if it was that bad, a reboot after one movie just seems like an overreaction.

Hey, Marvel did that with Hulk and Punisher, look how that turned out... :P

Worked for Hulk, but didn't for Punisher the third time around(I maintain that Thomas Jane did an epic Punisher). So yeah, there's that.

Exactly. Inc Hulk was awesome (ED NORTON). Had it retained Jennifer Connelly instead of Liv Tyler, it would have been Marvel's second best film (behind Cap). Thomas Jane's Punisher had the aesthetic down perfectly, and was a better film than War Zone, but technically, (although Ray Stevenson wasn't half as good as Jane), WZ was more comic-accurate.

I agree, but WZ could of benefited from a better plot. That was my only real complaint with it. I liked Stevenson's performance(not on Jane's level), but WZ's story just felt a little.. off. Accurate, but off. Can't quite say what bothered me about it, but it just kinda did.

Edit: The action was sick, though.

Edit(x2): Also, I fragging HATED what they did to Maginty. In MAX, he was a hardcore Black-Irish thug. In WZ, he was some parkour dumba**!

Edit(x3, I swear, the last one): Also, WTF did they do to Ink?! He's a twitchy mute homicidal killer in the comics. In the movie, he was some asian generic gangster! ARGH!

#24 Posted by Video_Martian (5645 posts) - - Show Bio

@cattlebattle said:

It was bad....real bad...well, it was to me, being as I never really liked Green Lantern anyway, my opinion is hardly valid. I just don't understand the Ryan Reynolds obsession, people seem to think he automatically equals every white super hero ever with a bit of a sense of humor...he is not a very convincing actor, unless he's Van Wilder...which apparently he has been playing that character since 2000. Nathan Fillion, and a laundry list of other actors would have been a way better Green Lantern

QFT

@War Killer said:

Reboot...Please...

THIS

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@mr.obvious said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@The Stegman said:

@ZombieBigfoot:

@The Stegman said:

To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.

It still looks like it can be saved, really. Though that s**t version of Parallax will stick with me for awhile.

Yeah...Parallax was bad...the smoke monster from Lost was more threatening than him...but to me, the worse part was Hammond..he literally didn't need to be in the film, Parallax was the main villain, Hammond was just...filler

Fortunately, I didn't go see it. But I've heard enough from friends who did. When my friend described in-depth how they handled Parallax, I raged. And I agree, Hammond sounds like he was a bit of a pointless addition.

Smartest thing I've heard all night. That movie was an abomination to the Green Lantern franchise. It pisses me off how people keep saying how much they "liked it" or that it "wasn't so bad", that movie was terrible and everyone knows it, it's the main reason why I have little faith in DC's live-action movies nowadays...

How was it an abomination to the GL franchise? Hal was more of a character in that movie than he has been in 10 years. Parallax sucked, because PARALLAX SUCKS. The movie was Geoff Johns' Volume 4 as it was through an untainted glass. Pure mediocrity.

It was an abomination because as a GL fan, I was expecting an epic, amazingly stunning debut from DC of one of their major characters that WASN'T Superman and Batman, and all we got was... this. crap. I swear I've never been more dissapointed with a movie before in my life, which explains why I HATE this movie with a burning passion...

#25 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@mr.obvious said: 

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@mr.obvious said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@The Stegman said:

@ZombieBigfoot:

@The Stegman said:

To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.

It still looks like it can be saved, really. Though that s**t version of Parallax will stick with me for awhile.

Yeah...Parallax was bad...the smoke monster from Lost was more threatening than him...but to me, the worse part was Hammond..he literally didn't need to be in the film, Parallax was the main villain, Hammond was just...filler

Fortunately, I didn't go see it. But I've heard enough from friends who did. When my friend described in-depth how they handled Parallax, I raged. And I agree, Hammond sounds like he was a bit of a pointless addition.

Smartest thing I've heard all night. That movie was an abomination to the Green Lantern franchise. It pisses me off how people keep saying how much they "liked it" or that it "wasn't so bad", that movie was terrible and everyone knows it, it's the main reason why I have little faith in DC's live-action movies nowadays...

How was it an abomination to the GL franchise? Hal was more of a character in that movie than he has been in 10 years. Parallax sucked, because PARALLAX SUCKS. The movie was Geoff Johns' Volume 4 as it was through an untainted glass. Pure mediocrity.

It was an abomination because as a GL fan, I was expecting an epic, amazingly stunning debut from DC of one of their major characters that WASN'T Superman and Batman, and all we got was... this. crap. I swear I've never been more dissapointed with a movie before in my life, which explains why I HATE this movie with a burning passion...

Ah well you see, that was your problem. Having read GL for years, and knowing who (modern) Hal Jordan is and what he brings to stories, I had no expectations for it, and was pleased when I left.  
 
Now if it was a Kyle Rayner-based film, then I'd be right there with you. 
#26 Posted by _Zombie_ (10454 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@mr.obvious said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@mr.obvious said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@The Stegman said:

@ZombieBigfoot:

@The Stegman said:

To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.

It still looks like it can be saved, really. Though that s**t version of Parallax will stick with me for awhile.

Yeah...Parallax was bad...the smoke monster from Lost was more threatening than him...but to me, the worse part was Hammond..he literally didn't need to be in the film, Parallax was the main villain, Hammond was just...filler

Fortunately, I didn't go see it. But I've heard enough from friends who did. When my friend described in-depth how they handled Parallax, I raged. And I agree, Hammond sounds like he was a bit of a pointless addition.

Smartest thing I've heard all night. That movie was an abomination to the Green Lantern franchise. It pisses me off how people keep saying how much they "liked it" or that it "wasn't so bad", that movie was terrible and everyone knows it, it's the main reason why I have little faith in DC's live-action movies nowadays...

How was it an abomination to the GL franchise? Hal was more of a character in that movie than he has been in 10 years. Parallax sucked, because PARALLAX SUCKS. The movie was Geoff Johns' Volume 4 as it was through an untainted glass. Pure mediocrity.

It was an abomination because as a GL fan, I was expecting an epic, amazingly stunning debut from DC of one of their major characters that WASN'T Superman and Batman, and all we got was... this. crap. I swear I've never been more dissapointed with a movie before in my life, which explains why I HATE this movie with a burning passion...

Ah well you see, that was your problem. Having read GL for years, and knowing who (modern) Hal Jordan is and what he brings to stories, I had no expectations for it, and was pleased when I left. Now if it was a Kyle Rayner-based film, then I'd be right there with you.

I suppose that's why I might not hate it entirely myself. Hal Jordan is a s**ty GL..

#27 Posted by Video_Martian (5645 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt: Thanks FTBB, it's good to know that there's at least SOMEONE out there who understands what I mean...

#28 Posted by Hot_Karl (288 posts) - - Show Bio

@ZombieBigfoot said:

I honestly don't know if a sequel can fix the numerous problems of the first. I'll wait to see how the second one turns out before crying "REBOOT!"..

Hey, The Incredible Hulk did a fine job of fixing everything that was wrong with the first film. Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance was a vast improvement over that first movie. Same goes for Rise of the Silver Surfer. I'm ok with a sequel as long as the writers sit down and find out what worked (...Green Lantern is a cool character?) and what didn't (every thing in that abomination of a film).

#29 Edited by _Zombie_ (10454 posts) - - Show Bio

@VinceNotVance said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

I honestly don't know if a sequel can fix the numerous problems of the first. I'll wait to see how the second one turns out before crying "REBOOT!"..

Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance was a vast improvement over that first movie.

Wait.. what? How the eff was that thing an improvement. If anything, it was worse..

It was technically a sequel anyways. Same with Rise of the Silver Surfer.

Anyways, GL wasn't bad enough to warrant a reboot.

#30 Posted by Whisper_ (3464 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't understand how Blake and Ryan can have a thing in real life and have absolutely no chemistry on screen.

#31 Posted by Illuminatus (9510 posts) - - Show Bio
@_Whisper_ said:

I don't understand how Blake and Ryan can have a thing in real life and have absolutely no chemistry on screen.

I think they're just hitting the bone-zone over and over and over again, and you can't really do that in a family-adventure film that was made for children.
#32 Posted by Whisper_ (3464 posts) - - Show Bio

@Illuminatus said:

@_Whisper_ said:

I don't understand how Blake and Ryan can have a thing in real life and have absolutely no chemistry on screen.

I think they're just hitting the bone-zone over and over and over again, and you can't really do that in a family-adventure film that was made for children.

Right, but you still have to have chemistry for that (or at least to enjoy it) even if it's just physical/sexual chemistry. They were so flat and wooden with each other onscreen. I absolutely didn't buy the romance aspect.

Also LMAO @ bone-zone.

#33 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@_Whisper_ said:

I don't understand how Blake and Ryan can have a thing in real life and have absolutely no chemistry on screen.

They did have chemistry. You ship Sookie/Eric, what do you know? =P 
 
@mr.obvious said:

@FadeToBlackBolt: Thanks FTBB, it's good to know that there's at least SOMEONE out there who understands what I mean...

(Thumbs up)
#34 Posted by Illuminatus (9510 posts) - - Show Bio
@_Whisper_ said:

@Illuminatus said:

@_Whisper_ said:

I don't understand how Blake and Ryan can have a thing in real life and have absolutely no chemistry on screen.

I think they're just hitting the bone-zone over and over and over again, and you can't really do that in a family-adventure film that was made for children.

Right, but you still have to have chemistry for that (or at least to enjoy it) even if it's just physical/sexual chemistry. They were so flat and wooden with each other onscreen. I absolutely didn't buy the romance aspect.

Also LMAO @ bone-zone.

That have no chemistry on the screen because Lively has the acting range of a doorknob.
#35 Posted by Aiden Cross (15575 posts) - - Show Bio

@_Whisper_ said:

I don't understand how Blake and Ryan can have a thing in real life and have absolutely no chemistry on screen.

i thought they had chemistry in the movie... *shrugs*

#36 Posted by Whisper_ (3464 posts) - - Show Bio

@Illuminatus: lol

@FadeToBlackBolt: Eric/Sookie is a great ship.

#37 Posted by cattlebattle (12975 posts) - - Show Bio
@_Whisper_ said:

I don't understand how Blake and Ryan can have a thing in real life and have absolutely no chemistry on screen.

because they can't act??
#38 Posted by FadeToBlackBolt (23334 posts) - - Show Bio
@_Whisper_: Pffft. Bill/Sophie-Anne is the best. Or Sophie-Anne/FTBB. 
#39 Posted by CATPANEXE (9368 posts) - - Show Bio

Sequel. But no Reeses Peanut Butter promotions. My Peanut Butter Cups went up in price when Ryan's face was stamped on them.

I love comics, but Peanut Butter Cups>Comics.

#40 Posted by White Mage (18740 posts) - - Show Bio

It's too early for a reboot. They have to do a sequel.

#41 Edited by royale_with_cheese (747 posts) - - Show Bio

2011, the year of comics book movies in review:

X-men First Class>>>Thor>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Captain America the First Avenger>/= Green Lantern (besides romantic comedies, I don't expect much from Reynolds, and this was no exception)

If they do decide to do a reboot, all I ask is that they recall Mark Strong to reprise his role as Sinestro. That's all I ask.

#42 Posted by Onemoreposter (4069 posts) - - Show Bio

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@The Stegman said:
To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.
This. The first film was seriously not that bad, particularly when you look at the source (GL Volume 4).

Couldn't agree more. Hal Jordan has pretty much sucked since Rebirth and the advent of volume 4. The movie was indeed, right in line with it's source material.

However, I do agree we don't need to go full reboot. Instead lets just forget about Hal for a few films. Bring in Kyle, John, Guy or any combination. Hal can come back in 3 or 4 if the franchise decides to start thriving. By then maybe we can bring him back with a different, older actor (Dennis Quaid?) complete with white hair stripes.

Hey, if this franchise made it's way into a DC conglomerate movie franchise (like whats going on at Marvel studios) nothing would be better than bring Hal back for the JLA movie. They could do Parallax right.

#43 Posted by Malonius (892 posts) - - Show Bio

Hal Jordan doesn't have much depth of character even after all these decades. He's a character description and an origin blurb: "Ace pilot Hal Jordan receives a power ring from a dying alien which can, through sheer force of his indomitable will, turn his thoughts into action, transforming Jordan into a member of the Green Lantern corps, an intergalactic band of heroes dedicated to bringing peace and security to the universe." Then he goes on exciting adventures in space.

The movie suffered because there is nothing interesting about Hal Jordan. It's the same problem with Ghost Rider. Who the heck knows or cares about Johnny Blaze? Just set GL on awesome star spanning sci-fi adventures and just set GR on brutal fantasy horror tragedies. Those are both visually stunning characters that should have been climbing out of the screens into our dreams/nightmares.

#44 Posted by TDK_1997 (14983 posts) - - Show Bio

The movie didn't suck that much for a reboot.A sequel can fix things.

#45 Posted by JediXMan (30902 posts) - - Show Bio

Reboot! Do a reboot! That was a terrible movie - if anything should be rebooted, it should be GL!

Moderator
#46 Posted by Phaedrusgr (1672 posts) - - Show Bio

Well, it wasn't the best film I've ever seen and certainly, I don't think so that it was so haljordanish, nevertheless, it wasn't that bad. Reboot? No... Sequel, working it really hard to fix it? Yes.

#47 Posted by thechessclub (503 posts) - - Show Bio

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@mr.obvious said:

@ZombieBigfoot said:

@FadeToBlackBolt said:

@The Stegman said:
To me the first one wasn't THAT bad...a good sequel can balance it out..but a reboot...no, don't think so.
This. The first film was seriously not that bad, particularly when you look at the source (GL Volume 4).

Even if it was that bad, a reboot after one movie just seems like an overreaction.

Hey, Marvel did that with Hulk and Punisher, look how that turned out... :P

Worked for Hulk, but didn't for Punisher the third time around(I maintain that Thomas Jane did an epic Punisher). So yeah, there's that.

Tom Jane was great. I second that=]

#48 Posted by Steps (657 posts) - - Show Bio

I'll wait for a sequel before I decide on whether it's needs a reboot.

#49 Edited by Hot_Karl (288 posts) - - Show Bio

@ZombieBigfoot: A. Did we watch the same Ghost Rider? At least Spirit of Vengeance was watchable, had decent action and an AMAZING Nic Cage freakout. Nothing memorable about Ghost Rider. I had friends fall asleep on my dorm room floor while watching that movie. B. I never said that they should reboot it, just that there's precedence for the sequel improving on the original film. C. Yes, Green Lantern was that bad. It's like it took all of the terrible stuff from Spider-Man, Iron Man & Batman and made something near-unwatchable as a result. I can't think of one single thing that I liked about Green Lantern. The color green wasn't even that bright.

(My opinion, of course. I think I was just severely let down, I love Green Lantern as a character, but that movie was hodgepodge-y and all over the place.)

#50 Edited by _Zombie_ (10454 posts) - - Show Bio

@VinceNotVance said:

@ZombieBigfoot: A. Did we watch the same Ghost Rider? At least Spirit of Vengeance was watchable, had decent action and an AMAZING Nic Cage freakout. Nothing memorable about Ghost Rider. I had friends fall asleep on my dorm room floor while watching that movie. B. I never said that they should reboot it, just that there's precedence for the sequel improving on the original film. C. Yes, Green Lantern was that bad. It's like it took all of the terrible stuff from Spider-Man, Iron Man & Batman and made something near-unwatchable as a result. I can't think of one single thing that I liked about Green Lantern. The color green wasn't even that bright.

(My opinion, of course. I think I was just severely let down, I love Green Lantern as a character, but that movie was hodgepodge-y and all over the place.)

I have to disagree. It was so bad that it had me laughing. At least the original didn't take itself as seriously. And I disagree again. Like FTBB said earlier, I just don't like Hal Jordan as a character, so my expectations were low.