capelesscrusader's forum posts

#1 Posted by capelesscrusader (103 posts) - - Show Bio

I was a huge proponent of this movie from the time it was announced. Hal had long been one of my favorite characters, as his "Chuck Yeager" sensibility really appealed to me.

That said, I was horribly disappointed by the Green Lantern movie. Why? I'll tell you.

1) Scripting

The script had some serious pacing problems. There was the obligatory "secret origins" sequence showcasing the death of Martin Jordan, which is fine, but there was very little time spent on making the audience care about the character of Hal. There are some nice moments with his nephew, but other than that, he seems like a rather generic cutout in the frat boy, "Top Gun" mold. This gives the audience nothing to really root for as the movie progresses.

The Oa sequences, which were by far the most visually spectacular portion of the movie, were poorly handled. WB spent an inordinate amount of time and money marketing the various Green Lantern Corps members only to reward them with perhaps a few seconds of screen time apiece (Kilowog being the lone exception). Again, this creates no emotional investment on the part of the audience, which means that when several of these characters bite the proverbial bullet at the end of the second act, there is no reason for the audience to care.

2) Direction

Martin Campbell deserves much of the fault for the critical failure of this film. All of the actors in the cast, from Ryan Reynolds on down, have all turned in far superior work from an acting standpoint on other films. Ryan Reynolds was allowed to slip, far too often, into his standard personality, which is completely on the director. His Hector Hammond was overblown, and many of the supporting characters felt like cartoons rather than fleshed out people. Again, when you know that the actors have the capability based on previous work, then the responsibility for this failure falls squarely on the shoulders of the director.

3) Wasted Opportunities

Parallax: Done. Hector Hammond: Done. Krona: Done. All great concepts that could carry films on their own, if done right, and were mashed together in an unintelligible jumble.

The original production design for the film included references to Gotham and Metropolis, which would have made this film feel a part of a larger universe, but was written out by WB execs as "confusing". There was even an Alan Scott reference in the original shooting script that was also canned.

In short, the production was rushed, the script was rewritten to death, and the studio didn't trust audiences to be intelligent enough to know a good movie when they saw it. The sequel has the opportunity to make up for a lot of these mistakes, but only if done right. Otherwise, WB will have squandered one of their best opportunities for an enduring science fiction franchise that could be the next Star Wars.

/endrant

-----

CapelessCrusader.org

#2 Posted by capelesscrusader (103 posts) - - Show Bio

@Kallarkz said:

Some titles I like. Some I don't. Same with DC. Same with Image. Same with Boom. Same with Dark Horse.

THIS. Simply put, don't blame the industry for not catering to YOUR specific tastes. Books change, writers change, characters change. If you don't like what you're reading, go read something else.

#3 Posted by capelesscrusader (103 posts) - - Show Bio

@NeoAndroid: Glad you enjoyed the article. I did NOT ask her about the haircut, mostly because I think that's probably more of an artist note. I think that they'll probably allow artists to play with the style, especially since she utilizes a helmet. I think it's fair. The woman in my life changes her 'do often enough that I find it completely workable.

I love that Carol is getting a spotlight. I have always thought she had the potential to be truly badass, and would love to see her really reach an epic level of triumph.

#4 Posted by capelesscrusader (103 posts) - - Show Bio

@Darkmount1: I understand, and I have been there myself. You're kind of stuck going "But I... you're... no, wait... damn..." ;) Nothing but love, sir.

#5 Posted by capelesscrusader (103 posts) - - Show Bio

I actually have a pretty decent rundown after having read the first issue while meeting Ms. DeConnick.

Check it out here

#6 Posted by capelesscrusader (103 posts) - - Show Bio

: I think that you might be falling into the trap of projecting your own perceptions of comicdom onto the fan community as a whole. While the "overly stylized" art might not be to your taste, I, for example, find that I really enjoy a great deal of modern comic art. While you may not enjoy stories that question the nature of what it means to be a hero to the point of questioning whether a character actually is a hero, there are those, myself included, who do.

Consider, if you would, that perhaps it is not that comics themselves are bad, but that you simply don't enjoy the ones you're reading. In that case, you may want to consider looking at a different selection of books.

There is a great deal of originality in comics, you just have to look around. It is more than possible to execute original story ideas with characters who have been around for decades. That is because those characters are archetypal. You could substitute Samson into most any Superman story and have much the same result, outside of the character relationships. There are more examples of this dynamic than I would care to count.

In short, my friend, what you seek is out there. You just have to look until you find it.

#7 Posted by capelesscrusader (103 posts) - - Show Bio

@Darkmount1: Fans of historical fiction, the demographic that both the original and sequels appealed to, would most definitely be interested in the story of an American heiress who flees the Reconstruction South for Ireland, only to find herself caught up in yet another Civil War.

But then, maybe I'm just a history nerd.

#8 Posted by capelesscrusader (103 posts) - - Show Bio

@DocFatalis: "Scarlett" was actually quite good. She gets sick of the US and returns to the original Tara, in Ireland, where she gets caught up in "the troubles".

#9 Posted by capelesscrusader (103 posts) - - Show Bio

@Roxanne Starr: There have actually been two sequels to Gone With the Wind, one authorized by the Mitchell estate, one not. :P

#10 Posted by capelesscrusader (103 posts) - - Show Bio

I will occasionally listen to his radio show, only because I think that's where a lot of writers get their ideas for evil world conquerors.

This guy can take ANYTHING and filter it through his lens and call it programming. It's almost sad, in a way, because he probably can't enjoy anything he reads, watches, or hears.

Take anything he says with a teaspoon of salt. As far as his take on Batman... yeah, he's nuts. If anything, Nolan is raising a critique of the warrantless wire-tapping, especially through the character of Lucius Fox, which Jones ignores for the purposes of HIS programming message.