Don't you just hate how people bash a movie before it's even out? 

Hope this movie flops.

Don't you just hate how people bash a movie before it's even out? 

AWESOME

Not really a DC fan, but Ryan is a great actor and I hope its a good movie

I can easily see Reynolds being the only bad thing about the movie, everything else looks pretty good.

Nice trailer :)

I'm completely meh about this. Was psyched at first, but Thor has really raised the bar and this movie is kind of underwhelming me. I'm not keen on Ryan as Hal, I think he's going to end up playing himself as he usually does, I would have liked to have seen Nathan Fillion in that role. I'm completely unconvinced about Blake Lively. The three or so seconds that they've shown of her in trailers along with the one line have failed to assure me that she has the ability to play this prominent a role in this large a movie. The CGI effects are decent, but they're not blowing me away like Thor's did. All in all, the movie looks like it'll be okay, but nothing special at all. 

Awsome!!!!

Stupid Ryan reynolds wrecking the awesome green lanterns......

Hurray for TOES - FREE trailers!

The only fear I have (aside from his feet / toes) are the fact that I hope DC didn't try to do "too much" with this film.  Here's hoping they didn't overdo it i.e. Spider-Man 3.

I mean you have Van Wilder dealing with himself as Green Lantern, then also the Green Lantern Corps, dealing with Parallax, and Hector Hammond, traveling to earth, back to outer space, maintaining a love life with Carol Ferris, etc.

Here's hoping Nick Jones would not just be a John Stewart cameo, but more... especially if you already have the whole Corps in the film anyway.

I'm completely meh about this. Was psyched at first, but Thor has really raised the bar and this movie is kind of underwhelming me. I'm not keen on Ryan as Hal, I think he's going to end up playing himself as he usually does, I would have liked to have seen Nathan Fillion in that role.

Nathan Fillion looks nothing like Hal Jordan. Reynolds looks exactly like him. Especially with the mask on.

that movie would be awesome

  I think this movie is going to be a good start. So far from what I can see they have all the proper story elements in place. I think this is going to be a good start for Green Lantern. The uniforms of the Corps makes since. Parallax I have to admit works for me. Ryan playing Hal Jordan sorta bugs me. But at the same time it works cause Hal in the beginning was rather cocky and somewhat funny. Its not until he got possessed by Parallax, almost wiping out the Lantern Corps, etc, etc, did he take on the whole more serious persona. Im all ready for a second GL movie. Though the second movie has to either show the Sinestro Corps or its beginnings.

This was such a better trailer than the first one! Excitement just got cranked up a notch.

Cant wait to see this movie I am so excited!

This is looking awesome.

I'm completely meh about this. Was psyched at first, but Thor has really raised the bar and this movie is kind of underwhelming me. I'm not keen on Ryan as Hal, I think he's going to end up playing himself as he usually does, I would have liked to have seen Nathan Fillion in that role. I'm completely unconvinced about Blake Lively. The three or so seconds that they've shown of her in trailers along with the one line have failed to assure me that she has the ability to play this prominent a role in this large a movie. The CGI effects are decent, but they're not blowing me away like Thor's did. All in all, the movie looks like it'll be okay, but nothing special at all. 

LMFAO @ every scene of the ring flying around.
Looks so cheap.
Like a shitty 80's movie with crappy CGI.

I bet Syfy channel has dibs on this one!

cannot wait to see this movie

Does look quite good! ; )

I'm completely meh about this. Was psyched at first, but Thor has really raised the bar and this movie is kind of underwhelming me.               

too long trailer

@sesquipedalophobe: Im a huge Green Lantern fan but im also a film student. If I wasnt a Green Lantern fan then i wouldnt have gone through hell to read the script. It wasnt good. Not that it was bad. But it was alright. And even after pumping (was it 25,000,000?) dollars into cgi, it still looks like crap. The directing looks horrible. The scenes that weve seen away from Oa look like sh*t. Its almost like Thor. Everything in on earth in Thor was horrible. It would have been a better movie if it was entirely in Asgard. But sadly I think GL is going to be worse. I think itll make some money but not as much as they think its going to make. It wont live up to Thor or Captain America because of all the hype. I blame Martin Campbell for ruining this movie. And I blame Warner Brothers for hiring him. Hes past his prime and doesnt fit in with this era of film. In fact there are a lot of directors who dont. Thats why almost every movie made in the last two years have been bombing.  Most of my family works at Warner Brothers and a family member of mine who distributes films to theaters said that Green Lantern is being made until the last second it comes out. Theyre still working on it. its going to be incomplete by the time it comes out. I have no faith in this film at the moment, but im hoping the movie will prove me wrong because I cant stand to see people not knowing the real green lantern, bashing it.

I am also a film student, and I just have to say that you are completely off base amigo. Seriously, did you watch Thor? The stuff on earth was INCREDIBLE. The formal elements were ingenious in all scenes, and the material set on earth was no exception. The mise-en-scene was absolutely incredible, frames within frames within frames all pointing to poignant subtextual themes. The fact that you missed this is troubling, and your disparaging remarks on what was clearly an artistically inspired film casts a negative light on your film program. 

Honestly, if it was set entirely in Asgard the whole point of the movie would have been lost.

I applaud you for making a judgment call about the direction of the film from a trailer only, and would love to hear your reasons for thinking the direction is crap, becuase they are wrong. You think Martin Campbell is going to ruin this film because he is past his prime? What are you talking about? This man rebooted the James Bond franchise with one of the absolute best Bond movies that has ever been made. If auteur theory holds any truth whatsoever anyone can see that he knows his action films, and will apply that knowledge here.

Seriously buddy, no using your film student status to make these kinds of remarks. Bad form.  

Reynolds is going to be great as Jordan, his past roles have prepared him perfectly, Oa looks incredible and Parallax looks so cool, really taking advantage of the possibilities of the medium more than just a big yellow bug would have done.

This looks great, Thor was great, this is an incredible year for comic book movies!      

Hmm...I think I'm-a like this movie.

It chose Deadpool? O_o

That was my first thought when I saw Ryan lol

BTW what happened to "I know Right?!"

This trailer is much better than the rest. This one actually makes me want to see it. My one concern is that it seems too reliant on CGI.

Also, why was the ad after the video in Spanish?

@Harlekin said:

Hope this movie flops.

Why do you hate DC? 

I do enjoy this new footage

Awesome!!
!@dorsk188 said:

@carnivalofsins00 said:

How great would it be if we get Parallax taking control of Hal? ;)

That sounds like a standard movie sequel to me.  Like the toxicity of Iron Man's arc reactor or the black suit Spider-Man, it's an obvious (and somewhat tired) direction to take a franchise.  Also, expect a black (but equal) ally in a sequel.  I'm already expecting a John Stewart casting call.

You know what be cool !?! If we got to see Guy, Kyle and john in the same movie.

the graphic look dissapointing, i dunno not much hope for this movie sadly    :/

I can only hope this will be as good as it looks!

If only they would have included Ion too...seriously though this looks AMAZING

@caesarsghost: Thor was very overrated. Too many plot holes, bad characterization, very cheesy lines (especially when the destroyer attacks Warrior 3), very corny in some parts (seriously Janes books are just out there for anyone to take? lmao) and that part where they just let Thor go because some professor says he knows him. It was like a childrens movie.

Seriously i don't know why people keep saying it great. 

Negative my friend. We can continue this discussion elsewhere (I blogged about it actually), but Thor was absolutely one of the best comic book movies that has ever been made and is a great film on its own, every fan of comic books that likes seeing the franchises make it to the big screen needs to feel thankful for this movie bringing a level of sophistication to what has been (wrongfully) percieved as an artistically poor genre.

Your criticisms focused mainly on the plot which was actually ingenious, tightly woven and motivated by character. As such the characterization was organic and believable in the situation.

And come on man, complaining about 'cheesy lines' in Thor? Thor was built on cheesy lines. Lines about Volstagg hearing frost giant farts from mountains away and Thor yelling "have at thee." And honestly, are we wanting realistic dialogue when three Norse gods are attacking a mythical monster bent on destruction? One would think that if there were a time for heightened dialogue or cheesy lines as they say, it would be when fighting soulless mechanical war machines.

@mark5 said:

@caesarsghost: Thor was very overrated. Too many plot holes, bad characterization, very cheesy lines (especially when the destroyer attacks Warrior 3), very corny in some parts (seriously Janes books are just out there for anyone to take? lmao) and that part where they just let Thor go because some professor says he knows him. It was like a childrens movie.

Seriously i don't know why people keep saying it great. 

Negative my friend. We can continue this discussion elsewhere (I blogged about it actually), but Thor was absolutely one of the best comic book movies that has ever been made and is a great film on its own, every fan of comic books that likes seeing the franchises make it to the big screen needs to feel thankful for this movie bringing a level of sophistication to what has been (wrongfully) percieved as an artistically poor genre.

Your criticisms focused mainly on the plot which was actually ingenious, tightly woven and motivated by character. As such the characterization was organic and believable in the situation.

And come on man, complaining about 'cheesy lines' in Thor? Thor was built on cheesy lines. Lines about Volstagg hearing frost giant farts from mountains away and Thor yelling "have at thee." And honestly, are we wanting realistic dialogue when three Norse gods are attacking a mythical monster bent on destruction? One would think that if there were a time for heightened dialogue or cheesy lines as they say, it would be when fighting soulless mechanical war machines.

So awesome! I can't wait! The biggest issue I had was the costume but I am even warming up to that now.

It chose Deadpool? O_oThat was my first thought when I saw Ryan lol

Negative my friend. We can continue this discussion elsewhere (I blogged about it actually), but Thor was absolutely one of the best comic book movies that has ever been made and is a great film on its own, every fan of comic books that likes seeing the franchises make it to the big screen needs to feel thankful for this movie bringing a level of sophistication to what has been (wrongfully) percieved as an artistically poor genre.

Your criticisms focused mainly on the plot which was actually ingenious, tightly woven and motivated by character. As such the characterization was organic and believable in the situation.

And come on man, complaining about 'cheesy lines' in Thor? Thor was built on cheesy lines. Lines about Volstagg hearing frost giant farts from mountains away and Thor yelling "have at thee." And honestly, are we wanting realistic dialogue when three Norse gods are attacking a mythical monster bent on destruction? One would think that if there were a time for heightened dialogue or cheesy lines as they say, it would be when fighting soulless mechanical war machines.

@caesarsghost said: 

Negative my friend. We can continue this discussion elsewhere (I blogged about it actually), but Thor was absolutely one of the best comic book movies that has ever been made and is a great film on its own, every fan of comic books that likes seeing the franchises make it to the big screen needs to feel thankful for this movie bringing a level of sophistication to what has been (wrongfully) percieved as an artistically poor genre.

Your criticisms focused mainly on the plot which was actually ingenious, tightly woven and motivated by character. As such the characterization was organic and believable in the situation.

And come on man, complaining about 'cheesy lines' in Thor? Thor was built on cheesy lines. Lines about Volstagg hearing frost giant farts from mountains away and Thor yelling "have at thee." And honestly, are we wanting realistic dialogue when three Norse gods are attacking a mythical monster bent on destruction? One would think that if there were a time for heightened dialogue or cheesy lines as they say, it would be when fighting soulless mechanical war machines.

No no that, i don't mind the old english, its part like when Sif says "No Thor, i will die and make my name remembered" and just the entire fight with the Destroyer is bad. No two ways about it. Also Thor saying "Now thats more like it", delivery is very bad. same with Sif. What about the part with the professor rescuing Thor? Thor just taking the book? The warrior 3 finding Thor inside some place after being on earth for like 10 minutes. The entire part when Thor destroys the bridge is full of PIS, Loki just sits back and watched him as he smashes it THEN jumps in the way in the final swing. The Bifrost aims up when it projects people into the galaxy yet at the end Heimdall looks down at the galaxy and tells Thor about Jane. What the heck does Jane do as an astrophysicist? They don't even tell what her work is and why most of the time she's acting like a storm chaser (not a good way to be a astrophysicist), no detail as to why her work entails looking out for some aurora. Most overrated comic book film after Iron man, buts that my cup of tea.

Well at least you can back up your cup of tea, which is more than I can say for most. Now here is my rebuttal.

For things like Sif's line, and Thor's 'now thats more like it,' even though it is not in old English those kinds of lines fit the scenario. Its that heightened, melodramatic, arch-dialogue that exists nowhere outside of action/adventure and science-fiction films. The Thor comics are chalk full of cheesy dialogue like this, and its inclusion in the movie was Branagh being truthful to the source material. But he did a great job of diluting the arch-dialogue with really poignant moments between Thor and Loki, Thor and Jane, and Jane and the Professor. Its all about finding the balance, and I think the movie did that.

The problems in continuity- that is always going to be an issue with really complicated films. But the fact that Heimdall looks down is not a deal-breaker gaff for me. I do not pretend to be an expert on Asgardian astrophysics, perhaps Asgard moved. Physically, then, it would not do for Asgardians to constantly be looking up at earth because A.) it just looks cooler and B.) adds gravitas and meaning to have Heimdall looking down on earth rather than up at it. Asgardians exist on a higher plane of existence than we mortals, so it would not do to have them looking up at us all the time, makes no sense.

The Professor rescuing Thor- It was clear that SHIELD was not taken in by Solvang's ruse, the fake ID clearly came up on their screens. They were releasing him into the Professor's custody because he was no longer an immediate threat, and they wanted to follow him and see where he would take them. This leads them to the town and the Destroyer etc... And Thor casually swipes the book because that is how things work in comic books- what you need just happens to be there because it needs to be to move the plot along. The book is of little narrative importance anyway, the only purpose it served as an object was to move Thor and Jane's romance along, so his taking it was not some hugely incongruous occurence and it served its purpose well.

Jane is a rogue astrophysicist, she takes no guff from the man and does her work in the field! I really liked this about her, they took her out of her simpering nurse origins in the 60s and moved her to  her 2000s take charge persona. It was smart that the film did not include the whole Thor is Don Blake idea, as it would have been way to confusing for the length of time that they had, and if he is no longer a doctor then their meeting and relationship would have to be motivated by something other than his alter ego's profession while maintaining her as a smart, confident character. Enter astrophysics, connecting the celestial realm of Asgard to earth in a very clever way! And she was all stormchaserified because she was tracking an atmospheric disturbance, which turned out to be glimmers of the Bifrost.

Thor and Loki on the bridge- come on, Loki was in shock that Thor would destroy the Bifrost! Yeah he could have jumped in the way before the final swing, but jumping in the way of the final swing is so much cooler and more dramatic!

So we have gotten way off topic from GL, but I will defend this movie any time, any where, becuase it was so darn good!

Well at least you can back up your cup of tea, which is more than I can say for most. Now here is my rebuttal.

For things like Sif's line, and Thor's 'now thats more like it,' even though it is not in old English those kinds of lines fit the scenario. Its that heightened, melodramatic, arch-dialogue that exists nowhere outside of action/adventure and science-fiction films. The Thor comics are chalk full of cheesy dialogue like this, and its inclusion in the movie was Branagh being truthful to the source material. But he did a great job of diluting the arch-dialogue with really poignant moments between Thor and Loki, Thor and Jane, and Jane and the Professor. Its all about finding the balance, and I think the movie did that.

 

The problems in continuity- that is always going to be an issue with really complicated films. But the fact that Heimdall looks down is not a deal-breaker gaff for me. I do not pretend to be an expert on Asgardian astrophysics, perhaps Asgard moved. Physically, then, it would not do for Asgardians to constantly be looking up at earth because A.) it just looks cooler and B.) adds gravitas and meaning to have Heimdall looking down on earth rather than up at it. Asgardians exist on a higher plane of existence than we mortals, so it would not do to have them looking up at us all the time, makes no sense.

 

The Professor rescuing Thor- It was clear that SHIELD was not taken in by Solvang's ruse, the fake ID clearly came up on their screens. They were releasing him into the Professor's custody because he was no longer an immediate threat, and they wanted to follow him and see where he would take them. This leads them to the town and the Destroyer etc... And Thor casually swipes the book because that is how things work in comic books- what you need just happens to be there because it needs to be to move the plot along. The book is of little narrative importance anyway, the only purpose it served as an object was to move Thor and Jane's romance along, so his taking it was not some hugely incongruous occurence and it served its purpose well.

 

Jane is a rogue astrophysicist, she takes no guff from the man and does her work in the field! I really liked this about her, they took her out of her simpering nurse origins in the 60s and moved her to  her 2000s take charge persona. It was smart that the film did not include the whole Thor is Don Blake idea, as it would have been way to confusing for the length of time that they had, and if he is no longer a doctor then their meeting and relationship would have to be motivated by something other than his alter ego's profession while maintaining her as a smart, confident character. Enter astrophysics, connecting the celestial realm of Asgard to earth in a very clever way! And she was all stormchaserified because she was tracking an atmospheric disturbance, which turned out to be glimmers of the Bifrost.

 

Thor and Loki on the bridge- come on, Loki was in shock that Thor would destroy the Bifrost! Yeah he could have jumped in the way before the final swing, but jumping in the way of the final swing is so much cooler and more dramatic!

 

So we have gotten way off topic from GL, but I will defend this movie any time, any where, becuase it was so darn good!

Ok i guess the movie had what you like in a film and you were satisfied with that you saw on film. However those things that you hand-wave really bug me in any movie i see. I'm a film fan and critic. I don't go along on the ride a film wants to take me to unless it does so convincingly. I like attention to detail and people going the extra mile in the movie making and script building because it enhances the story and also because thats how i am in real life. I hate the mediocrity in new films movie-goers have grown to accept and adore, so thats why i prefer the works of Christopher Nolan, Martin Scorsese, Peter Jackson, Alfred Hitchcock and Ridley Scott. 

Like i said i just thought it got more props than it deserved. People calling it flawless and perfect even though there are numerous plot holes (many of which are balantly obvious) such as Odin arrives at Jotenheim on a horse but when we go back to the Bifrost observatory where the team arrives the horse is gone. Things like that bug me and tell me that they writers have not done enough effort to make the film tight and compact in its story writing. 

For me a great film is a great film, one with a tight, well composed script and story and excellent direction without flaws (or obvious ones), good cinematography and a compelling score. 

A good film is usually an entertaining film ( ala Inception, Black Hawk Down, Memento, Requiem for a dream), however an entertaining film is not necessarily a good film.

For me Thor is an entertaining film, without too much thought with brainless fun, but is not a good film.

I think what we are getting at here is where we are putting our evaluative criteria. For you, attention to detail is paramount. This is not a bad thing, not in th eleast, but Nolan, Jackson, Scorsese, Hitchcock and Scott all have plenty of continuity errors of the manner you noted in Thor (Gimli's axe in Fellowship, Bruce's seatbelt in Batman Begins, the list goes on) so no director is perfect. Expecting them to go the extra mile is not a bad thing, but that kind of thing can soon turn to snobbery. What I am getting at with 'hand-waving' is a willing suspension of disbelief, where the audience needs to suspend its awareness that it is looking at images qua images and see them as part of a larger narrative structure in which we are to be immersed. Thor did this spectacularly- yeah, there were some continuity gaffs but that is a common affliction to literally all filmmakers and the whole film should not be brought down because of a few continuity mistakes as the story and imagery were brilliant.

Were there flaws? Of course. No such thing as a perfect movie. But Thor was just fantastic in its formal elements such as framing, composition, movement and narrative elements like characterization and plot development.  Example- the camera moves differently in Asgard than it does on earth, more grand sweeping up and down motions that give you this epic, larger than life feeling and then when we go down to earth everything is more stable, literally grounded- brilliant visual metaphors working in a comic book film! That is what I really loved about it, the artistry that Branagh brought to the table.

Kudos on the distinction between entertaining films and great films, and I agree. Just not this time! But the standards of comparison (genre, purpose etc...) for something like Black Hawk Down and Thor are such completely different things it would be hard to do either of them justice with any kind of standardized evaluation. Best just to take each of them on their own terms, and in that sense I really loved Thor.