@fadetoblackbolt: That term is indicative of a shift of paradigm. You're altering the standard and lowering your expectations of the film once you deem something a "popcorn flick." The term, by nature, indicates that the film is sub-par in at least writing and probably a few other facets. By nature, these films can only be enjoyed through liberal doses of "don't think about it" and "ignore it if you do." While you are certainly allowed to enjoy the film, this is similar in vein to the terms "B-movie" and "chick flick": both of which require some caveats for their enjoyment. Having to recite the MST3k mantra doesn't make the film good.
Also, your remark labeling Green Lantern a "popcorn comic" are at best ignorant. Nevermind that "high literature" is a nebulous term, Batman, for instance, was never "high literature" until someone decided to write a thought provoking piece concerning him. If writers like Grant Morrison and Alan Moore prove anything, it's that it's execution that separates "high literature" from the rest. Your notion crumbles in lieu of this. Even if the source material is the worst story to ever exist, it wouldn't exclude this film from being a train wreck.
@atphantom: I actually think he's onto something. These were things that would have been plotlines if they were more organically written. As things stand in the film, nothing was given time to develop, and this ultimately results in a mishmash of plot points.
As for the Thor/GL mini-discussion happening here, I'd say Thor gets a major bonus from having a more coherent sequence of beets. They did meander a bit, though. Of course, it wasn't a very good movie, either.
Log in to comment