Post by Jilak on Jul 28, 2010 3:26:30 GMT -5
Be forewarned, kind traveler, this rant is actually quite happy and more of a... random pondering thread, than anything.
So, DC, also known as Detective Comics, is working on a Green Lantern film. A live-action one. I'm not sure how I feel about this.
On the one hand, DC has a nice history with films, their only notable 'bad' movies being Batman and Robin and Superman Returns, that I can recall at the moment. The only problem is, when DC makes a bad movie, they make a really bad movie. Batman and Robin was, as already noted, pretty godawful. And Superman Returns... I'm not even going to discuss Superman Returns.
But in a similar vein, when DC makes a good movie, they make an amazing movie. Notable examples include Batman Begins, Dark Knight, Superman 1, Batman(the film from the '80s), and Batman Returns. Films that came in and completely blew away my preconceptions of live-action adaptations.
Green Lantern will start, presumably, as all superhero movies do: With a back-story. Getting those not familiar with the character up to speed, and refreshing the memories of everyone else. DC seems pretty good with handling this portion of their films, however, with this being perhaps one of my favorite parts of Batman Begins. The Batman film of the 1980s also manages to hold my attention as we find out exactly why Bruce Wayne goes out and kicks ass in a bat-suit.
Even Marvel, notorious for relatively awful live-action adaptations(looking at you, Spider-Man 3). I mean, the first Spider-Man film holds a spot near and dear in my heart. Really, all of my largest problems with live-action adaptations seem to be mostly due to decay over time, such as between Spider-Man 1 and Spider-Man 3. The Green Lantern film may very well be the only live-action Green Lantern film ever made(though, it's unlikely with DC's history of trilogies and the such), so I should theoretically have nothing to worry about.
The problem is that there have been numerous cases where this has not in fact been true. An example that I regret ever seeing being the 2003 Hulk film, called simply 'The Hulk'. While I understand this is from Marvel and not DC, it does raise a concern that other, more recent films, Dragonball Evolution and The Last Airbender, fail to quell. The Last Airbender is especially concerning due to the fact that the creators of the cartoon supposedly worked pretty closely with M. Night Shamylan. Hell, The Hulk was so terrible that Marvel scrapped it and rebooted with The Incredible Hulk in 2008.
Another concern rises from another staple of superhero films: villains. Green Lantern, like most superheroes, has his own Rogues Gallery. This leaves DC with a lot of ample choices. Will they go with the Star Sapphires, or will they go with Sinestro? The thing is, they may make their choice easier and multi-villain. Now, films like Batman returns, Batman Begins, and Dark Knight showed us that DC knows what the hell they're doing and can do multiple villains in one film quite masterfully. The 2008 Incredible Hulk film showed us that they aren't the only ones.
However, if they do use multiple villains, the approach they take could make or break them. Batman Begins and Dark Knight made it work by starting and ending each villain's story at different times. For example, in Batman Begins, we meet Ra's Al Ghul at the beginning of the film. His story isn't resolved into the very end, a bit after Scarecrow's. This formula is repeated in Dark Knight, with Twoface's beginning sort of marking the end of Joker's story, and the end of Twoface's story marking the end of the film.
Batman Returns manages to work both Catwoman and Penguin using a similar method, if I recall correctly. Now, The Incredible Hulk on the other hand, morphs them together in a way that sort of blows my mind. The movie doesn't technically have two villains. The only actual 'villain' is the Abomination, but the US Military also play antagonists to Dr. Banner, going so far as to be a direct cause of the Abomination.
Unfortunately, films such as Spider-Man 3(and partially Spider-Man 2), showed us that this can also be done wrong. Horridly, horridly, wrong. Spider-Man 2, while it really only has Doc Ock as the film's antagonist, tries to introduce multiple concepts to us. It does so quite poorly. A bit into the film, we get Peter losing his powers. He goes to a psychiatrist and presumably asks for help with impotence. The doctor tells him something about 'stress', and then a bit later we get Peter randomly on the top of a building. Presumably he tells himself 'I'M SPIDER-MAN I'M SPIDER-MAN I'M SPIDER-MAN' in a long internal monologue, and web-slings to the next building.
This entire segment seems to be nothing more than a Big Lipped Alligator Moment, as it is never spoken of again once it is resolved. It's not even some strange metaphor about events happening with Doc Ock, Peter just really seems to have forgotten how to shot web. While I personally also have problems with how the film tries to make the viewer sympathize with Doctor Octopus, that's unrelated at the moment.
Then comes Spider-Man 3, which features not one, not two, but THREE villains. Technically four if you consider the symbiote itself a different entity to Venom. Instead of ending their stories at different times, or wrapping it all up masterfully(which, in this author's opinion, Incredible Hulk does), it sort of jumbles it all together in a random clusterfuck of an ending. Venom kills Harry, Spidey uses a combination of sound and Harry's bombs to kill the symbiote, Eddie decides he wants it back and jumps into it as the bombs go, and... Sandman, perhaps the film's first major villain(I can't seem to remember if he or Harry came first), gets away unscathed? Because he was 'just doing it for his daughter'? No, movie, no. I refuse to accept that a man gets away with attempted murder and theft simply because he had good purposes! Just... no!
All that aside, though, this creates a creeping fear in the back of my mind. Even if the film only includes one villain, will they go the route of Green Lantern: First Flight and have Sinestro turn evil over the course of a few hours, or will they hold off on that until, possibly, a second Green Lantern film?
Casting is also a problem. One thing that made Dark Knight and Batman Begins such good movies is that they cast good actors. Admittedly the cast of Batman and Robin were presumably good actors, but they knew what kind of movie they were in. They knew you don't bring good acting to a movie with a Bat Credit Card.
The largest problem I have, though, is that this is a live-action Green Lantern movie. I'm not going to lie, even with its flops, DC's had a good movie run. But all of the examples I can list are either of Batman or Superman. And while I will be one of the first to admit that Dark Knight was a godly amazing film, I'll also be one of the first to admit that a lot of those movies' success came from the fact that they were, well, about Batman. Now, I'm not going to say that a film's success comes solely from how well-known the subject is, because that's not true. However, one of the reasons I went to see flops such as Dragonball Evolution as because I was familiar with the subject matter. I knew the characters, I knew the story, I wanted to see it translated into another media form. Green Lantern... to my knowledge, not a particularly famous character(though Green Lantern and the Green Lantern Corps /are/ becoming the center of the universe thanks to the greatest writer ever, Geoff Johns, so... there's that).
And then there's the feel of each film. Batman Begins and Dark Knight were both rather dark, gritty films. They told the story of a boy that lost both of his parents to a random mugger in an alley, whom went on to fight crime during the night as Batman. The first film's central theme was fear, what with Scarecrow being the main villain, and the second film seemed to be geared towards the divide between good and evil(Batman and Joker are two sides of the same coin).
Superman's theme seemed to be pride and nobility or something, I dunno. But the point is, Green Lantern's general theme, depending on how you interpret it, is... different. While it does start with a general theme of loss, what with Hal Jordan losing his father, Hal doesn't dwell on it such as Batman does. For Batman, his parent's death is the driving force that keeps him moving at night, that won't let him stop even when he feels his body has reached its physical limits.
Hal Jordan, on the other hand... Hal chooses to become a pilot, honoring his father's memory. While Bruce Wayne has no other family, except for Alfred and Damien, and has trained himself rigorously to be a creature of the night that strikes fear into his enemies' hearts, Hal... Hal's grown up in a relatively loving family. His older brother was a bit of a prick, and his younger brother is quite rigid(not even allowing his son to play football around the house), Hal's mother did the best she could. So I suppose she's a bit like Alfred in that way, except... not?
The point is, Hal hasn't gone through rigorous mental training, or come up with numerous plans, or any of that. Hal just comes across a ring one day thanks to a dying alien, a ring that gives him the power to shape anything his mind, and will, can allow.
Not to mention, if the Green Lantern movie goes well, and a series of movies is made, will they cover the Sinestro Corps War? Or the Blackest Night storyline? Or even Green Lantern: Rebirth? I mean, Hal Jordan is possessed by both Parallax and the FUCKING SPECTRE. Plus, Blackest Night has zombies. Hoping for a good superhero film at the same time as a good zombie film might be pushing it.
In the end, though, DC has handled all things Green Lantern pretty well in terms of other media(i.e. Green Lantern: First Flight). Green Lantern also remains my favorite hero, with inspirational characters and storylines, so maybe, just maybe, DC can make lightning strike thrice.
So, DC, also known as Detective Comics, is working on a Green Lantern film. A live-action one. I'm not sure how I feel about this.
On the one hand, DC has a nice history with films, their only notable 'bad' movies being Batman and Robin and Superman Returns, that I can recall at the moment. The only problem is, when DC makes a bad movie, they make a really bad movie. Batman and Robin was, as already noted, pretty godawful. And Superman Returns... I'm not even going to discuss Superman Returns.
But in a similar vein, when DC makes a good movie, they make an amazing movie. Notable examples include Batman Begins, Dark Knight, Superman 1, Batman(the film from the '80s), and Batman Returns. Films that came in and completely blew away my preconceptions of live-action adaptations.
Green Lantern will start, presumably, as all superhero movies do: With a back-story. Getting those not familiar with the character up to speed, and refreshing the memories of everyone else. DC seems pretty good with handling this portion of their films, however, with this being perhaps one of my favorite parts of Batman Begins. The Batman film of the 1980s also manages to hold my attention as we find out exactly why Bruce Wayne goes out and kicks ass in a bat-suit.
Even Marvel, notorious for relatively awful live-action adaptations(looking at you, Spider-Man 3). I mean, the first Spider-Man film holds a spot near and dear in my heart. Really, all of my largest problems with live-action adaptations seem to be mostly due to decay over time, such as between Spider-Man 1 and Spider-Man 3. The Green Lantern film may very well be the only live-action Green Lantern film ever made(though, it's unlikely with DC's history of trilogies and the such), so I should theoretically have nothing to worry about.
The problem is that there have been numerous cases where this has not in fact been true. An example that I regret ever seeing being the 2003 Hulk film, called simply 'The Hulk'. While I understand this is from Marvel and not DC, it does raise a concern that other, more recent films, Dragonball Evolution and The Last Airbender, fail to quell. The Last Airbender is especially concerning due to the fact that the creators of the cartoon supposedly worked pretty closely with M. Night Shamylan. Hell, The Hulk was so terrible that Marvel scrapped it and rebooted with The Incredible Hulk in 2008.
Another concern rises from another staple of superhero films: villains. Green Lantern, like most superheroes, has his own Rogues Gallery. This leaves DC with a lot of ample choices. Will they go with the Star Sapphires, or will they go with Sinestro? The thing is, they may make their choice easier and multi-villain. Now, films like Batman returns, Batman Begins, and Dark Knight showed us that DC knows what the hell they're doing and can do multiple villains in one film quite masterfully. The 2008 Incredible Hulk film showed us that they aren't the only ones.
However, if they do use multiple villains, the approach they take could make or break them. Batman Begins and Dark Knight made it work by starting and ending each villain's story at different times. For example, in Batman Begins, we meet Ra's Al Ghul at the beginning of the film. His story isn't resolved into the very end, a bit after Scarecrow's. This formula is repeated in Dark Knight, with Twoface's beginning sort of marking the end of Joker's story, and the end of Twoface's story marking the end of the film.
Batman Returns manages to work both Catwoman and Penguin using a similar method, if I recall correctly. Now, The Incredible Hulk on the other hand, morphs them together in a way that sort of blows my mind. The movie doesn't technically have two villains. The only actual 'villain' is the Abomination, but the US Military also play antagonists to Dr. Banner, going so far as to be a direct cause of the Abomination.
Unfortunately, films such as Spider-Man 3(and partially Spider-Man 2), showed us that this can also be done wrong. Horridly, horridly, wrong. Spider-Man 2, while it really only has Doc Ock as the film's antagonist, tries to introduce multiple concepts to us. It does so quite poorly. A bit into the film, we get Peter losing his powers. He goes to a psychiatrist and presumably asks for help with impotence. The doctor tells him something about 'stress', and then a bit later we get Peter randomly on the top of a building. Presumably he tells himself 'I'M SPIDER-MAN I'M SPIDER-MAN I'M SPIDER-MAN' in a long internal monologue, and web-slings to the next building.
This entire segment seems to be nothing more than a Big Lipped Alligator Moment, as it is never spoken of again once it is resolved. It's not even some strange metaphor about events happening with Doc Ock, Peter just really seems to have forgotten how to shot web. While I personally also have problems with how the film tries to make the viewer sympathize with Doctor Octopus, that's unrelated at the moment.
Then comes Spider-Man 3, which features not one, not two, but THREE villains. Technically four if you consider the symbiote itself a different entity to Venom. Instead of ending their stories at different times, or wrapping it all up masterfully(which, in this author's opinion, Incredible Hulk does), it sort of jumbles it all together in a random clusterfuck of an ending. Venom kills Harry, Spidey uses a combination of sound and Harry's bombs to kill the symbiote, Eddie decides he wants it back and jumps into it as the bombs go, and... Sandman, perhaps the film's first major villain(I can't seem to remember if he or Harry came first), gets away unscathed? Because he was 'just doing it for his daughter'? No, movie, no. I refuse to accept that a man gets away with attempted murder and theft simply because he had good purposes! Just... no!
All that aside, though, this creates a creeping fear in the back of my mind. Even if the film only includes one villain, will they go the route of Green Lantern: First Flight and have Sinestro turn evil over the course of a few hours, or will they hold off on that until, possibly, a second Green Lantern film?
Casting is also a problem. One thing that made Dark Knight and Batman Begins such good movies is that they cast good actors. Admittedly the cast of Batman and Robin were presumably good actors, but they knew what kind of movie they were in. They knew you don't bring good acting to a movie with a Bat Credit Card.
The largest problem I have, though, is that this is a live-action Green Lantern movie. I'm not going to lie, even with its flops, DC's had a good movie run. But all of the examples I can list are either of Batman or Superman. And while I will be one of the first to admit that Dark Knight was a godly amazing film, I'll also be one of the first to admit that a lot of those movies' success came from the fact that they were, well, about Batman. Now, I'm not going to say that a film's success comes solely from how well-known the subject is, because that's not true. However, one of the reasons I went to see flops such as Dragonball Evolution as because I was familiar with the subject matter. I knew the characters, I knew the story, I wanted to see it translated into another media form. Green Lantern... to my knowledge, not a particularly famous character(though Green Lantern and the Green Lantern Corps /are/ becoming the center of the universe thanks to the greatest writer ever, Geoff Johns, so... there's that).
And then there's the feel of each film. Batman Begins and Dark Knight were both rather dark, gritty films. They told the story of a boy that lost both of his parents to a random mugger in an alley, whom went on to fight crime during the night as Batman. The first film's central theme was fear, what with Scarecrow being the main villain, and the second film seemed to be geared towards the divide between good and evil(Batman and Joker are two sides of the same coin).
Superman's theme seemed to be pride and nobility or something, I dunno. But the point is, Green Lantern's general theme, depending on how you interpret it, is... different. While it does start with a general theme of loss, what with Hal Jordan losing his father, Hal doesn't dwell on it such as Batman does. For Batman, his parent's death is the driving force that keeps him moving at night, that won't let him stop even when he feels his body has reached its physical limits.
Hal Jordan, on the other hand... Hal chooses to become a pilot, honoring his father's memory. While Bruce Wayne has no other family, except for Alfred and Damien, and has trained himself rigorously to be a creature of the night that strikes fear into his enemies' hearts, Hal... Hal's grown up in a relatively loving family. His older brother was a bit of a prick, and his younger brother is quite rigid(not even allowing his son to play football around the house), Hal's mother did the best she could. So I suppose she's a bit like Alfred in that way, except... not?
The point is, Hal hasn't gone through rigorous mental training, or come up with numerous plans, or any of that. Hal just comes across a ring one day thanks to a dying alien, a ring that gives him the power to shape anything his mind, and will, can allow.
Not to mention, if the Green Lantern movie goes well, and a series of movies is made, will they cover the Sinestro Corps War? Or the Blackest Night storyline? Or even Green Lantern: Rebirth? I mean, Hal Jordan is possessed by both Parallax and the FUCKING SPECTRE. Plus, Blackest Night has zombies. Hoping for a good superhero film at the same time as a good zombie film might be pushing it.
In the end, though, DC has handled all things Green Lantern pretty well in terms of other media(i.e. Green Lantern: First Flight). Green Lantern also remains my favorite hero, with inspirational characters and storylines, so maybe, just maybe, DC can make lightning strike thrice.
