Escape to the Movies: Green Lantern: Extended Cut
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You know Bob, sometimes I just don't understand you. Yes, Green Lantern was horrible. Nobody is arguing with you on that, and it is pretty much unanimous. So why bother dragging this corpse up again? Do we, as a group of comic and movie fans, really get anything else about heaping more hate on it? What's the point of just reminding everybody about how shitty it was?
Immediately when I saw they were releasing an extended cut, I wondered, "what does Moviebob have to say about this?" Now I know... Thank you Moviebob, thank you very mitch.
Why, you're welcome! There's never really a reason people can't be civil in a conversation, especially in a matter that is more about opinion than anything else.Sober Thal said:
Indeed special edition should be reserved for quality productions.
Also can you next time take a non-comic related movie. I like seeing you do videos with that kind of passion, but really there are enough other movies out there.
Also can you next time take a non-comic related movie. I like seeing you do videos with that kind of passion, but really there are enough other movies out there.
Having seen all three, I agree with you. I'd rank them CA->GL------------->Thor.Zachary Amaranth said:
**spoilers below**
Thor was awful, IMO (I don't even wanna know whether it was true to the comics--I'll stay positive and assume the comics are significantly better). It had significantly less substance than GL. Bob complains that all the details about Hammond's daddy issues/his unrequited love for Carol aren't enough to establish him as a foe for Hal, but Loki's only characterization is "I have daddy issues cause my brother's cool and I'm adopted, so Imma try and take the throne by almost-killing my dad and then actually-killing my brother". All of which take up maybe 10 minutes of the movie to develop. Thor is barely developed as a character at all (he's impulsive for the sake of the plot and then immediately becomes responsible/etc all of a sudden for the sake of the plot), and the second half/two thirds is basically filled with Natalie Portman swooning over him all the time, and Thor dishing out one-liners and looking attractive. It's not a good action movie, because except for the LotR-esque opening fight there is no good action; it's not a good comic book movie, because it plot-dumps everything into the first twenty minutes and then spends the rest of the time doing what I can only hope is butchering all the characters and turning them into one-dimensional archetypes so that they don't distract from the flashy bits (which aren't flashy enough to excuse the poor writing; I don't know how anyone can think GL looked awful but Thor's non-desert scenes looked awesome).
CA I didn't like all that much simply because I think CA/CA's universe is dull, but it was a much better-constructed film than Thor, and to some extent GL (though the premise is simpler, and therefore easier to lay out).
OT: GL didn't disappoint me, personally, because it had a light-hearted Silver Age feel to it that made it stand out to me from all the other reboots/debuts happening around it. That and the fact that it fleshed out all the characters just as well as the comics have (some even more so; the fact that Carol recognized Hal off the bat as GL because she wasn't a total ditz was awesome, for example). I don't get how Movie Bob can criticize the film for not being deep when the subject material (not even Blackest Night) ain't that deep either (and this is a friggin' origin movie, and considering Hal's origins aren't anything close to Bruce Wayne-level dark, that'd be nigh impossible). I don't get how anyone would be upset that the film wasn't basically Blackest Night, considering the character and his world had to be introduced before they could launch into that insanity. I'm not saying the film is gold by any means, but for what it was (an origin story for a character whose origins really aren't that deep/dark/gritty/etc for the purpose of further exploring the more interesting material in future installlments)...I don't understand the hatred for it.
I did like the way he pointed out the whole director's cut/extended cut issue, that the whole thing is being abused.Henkie36 said:
Even when it isn't being abused, and the extended cut really is longer, sometimes, things really were meant to leave on the editing room floor.
Sadly, with too much of this stuff, we might overlook genuinely good director's cuts. Example: I thought "Butterfly Effect" had a good alternate ending.
Why exactly did Movie Bob do an episode on this? He doesn't usually do DVD and the home version as it were. He usually does stuff from the cinema. On top of that, he's already reviewed the movie and hated it. Why would he want to do it again? I sure hope this isn't another bash something even harder using his internet show because he didn't like it.
Aside from that, did you consider that maybe the guy who gets his power from the evil fear thing is evil because... I dunno his powers are evil? Also, doesn't being chosen, since the status is only given to those who have courage and heroic properties, imply that the person is heroic and good and noble and all that stuff. Maybe it needs to be worded better but it seems like a misaimed fit of rage for one bad line.
EDIT: Oh forgot, be careful on elitism of implying that only people who are good at something should do it. The irony of only people who are "chosen" should do something like writing or film making might make the universe implode.
Aside from that, did you consider that maybe the guy who gets his power from the evil fear thing is evil because... I dunno his powers are evil? Also, doesn't being chosen, since the status is only given to those who have courage and heroic properties, imply that the person is heroic and good and noble and all that stuff. Maybe it needs to be worded better but it seems like a misaimed fit of rage for one bad line.
EDIT: Oh forgot, be careful on elitism of implying that only people who are good at something should do it. The irony of only people who are "chosen" should do something like writing or film making might make the universe implode.
WHAT THE F, Bob?
You watched this piece of shit again, and then you have to tell everyone about it?
Seriously?
Congrats on increasing the view count for this blu-ray.
You watched this piece of shit again, and then you have to tell everyone about it?
Seriously?
Congrats on increasing the view count for this blu-ray.
while not having seen Captain America, yet. so it won't be part of the fallowing.Sober Thal said:
but did see Thor, and did seen Green Lantern, and your correct, GL isn't 'the worst movie ever', nor was it imo 'fantastic 4 bad' (i seem to have a mental block on batman and robin). how ever, there is a very jarring difference in quality between Thor and Green Lantern, from writing, to acting, to special effects, there's no real excuse a movie that cost as much as GL did should look as poor as it dose.
not when you have movies like Thor, with its gorgeous visuals, CGI that almost looks real and so on. Green Lantern IS very flawed, its not total awful, but its now where near the levels of production value of the Marvel or recent Batman movies are.
Uh... actually, Green Lantern wasn't a "bomb" at the global box office:
Also, we'll probably see the (now-looking inevitable) sequel do a lot more with the property. With the way it has been set up at the end of the film, along with the critical mistakes being pointed out, we can all hope the sequel will become the Wrath of Khan rebirth of the franchise that Warner Bros. really needs.
So, it's hard to call it a "complete" box office failure, as the numbers show that it made its production budget back, at least.Box Office Mojo said:
Also, we'll probably see the (now-looking inevitable) sequel do a lot more with the property. With the way it has been set up at the end of the film, along with the critical mistakes being pointed out, we can all hope the sequel will become the Wrath of Khan rebirth of the franchise that Warner Bros. really needs.
That doesn't consider distribution and advertisment costs. It's probably not an absolute failure, but it won't have made it's backers a lot of money.GloryQuestor said:
I suppose the context of the villain makes sense, considering that for some reason, the American news outlets view intelligence as a sign of being evil.
Movies are considered bombs if they don't make back at least 50% of their original budget. Hollywood mathematics has never made much sense to me, but then again Hollywood has been making very little sense the last 15 years.
If it makes back what you spent it can't really be called a success, getting 19mill over what you paid to make it doesn't exactly qualify it as a resounding success either.
Movies are considered bombs if they don't make back at least 50% of their original budget. Hollywood mathematics has never made much sense to me, but then again Hollywood has been making very little sense the last 15 years.
If it makes back what you spent it can't really be called a success, getting 19mill over what you paid to make it doesn't exactly qualify it as a resounding success either.
Here's the deal: Green Lantern could NEVER be a good big budget live action movie. Ever. The fact that the director/writer/actors/special effects people failed so spectacularly does not diminish the fact that they could not have succeeded.
It could have been better, but the core of the movie: guy with magic ring that can do anything but in green, could never ever have been a good live-action movie. It would always have looked cheesy and there's no way to feel empathy for a guy who can do literally anything. The best they could have hoped for are some Spider Man being a dork sort of antics. It was doomed.
What I wanted to see this week instead was an episode on the great 1973 Three Musketeers after pretty much everything interesting about the new one (Three Musketeers 2011) was blatantly stolen from that particular version. The new additions worked okay about half the time, but it was ultimately pretty uninspired.
It could have been better, but the core of the movie: guy with magic ring that can do anything but in green, could never ever have been a good live-action movie. It would always have looked cheesy and there's no way to feel empathy for a guy who can do literally anything. The best they could have hoped for are some Spider Man being a dork sort of antics. It was doomed.
What I wanted to see this week instead was an episode on the great 1973 Three Musketeers after pretty much everything interesting about the new one (Three Musketeers 2011) was blatantly stolen from that particular version. The new additions worked okay about half the time, but it was ultimately pretty uninspired.
I would like to continue with what wolfthomas said. With all the advertising, distribution, and other costs the movie had a budget of around three hundred million dollars. A loss of around 80 million dollars is, what I would consider to be, a flop. Captain America on the other hand made around 366,000,000 on a 140 million dollar budget or after all expenses a 200-220 million dollar budget which was pretty dang good.GloryQuestor said:
I didn't mind that Bob reused a movie for this, I quite enjoyed his discussion of director's cuts (which seemed to take up the majority of the episode).
I remember when my friend's and I were eagerly awaiting the Aliens and Army of Darkness director's cuts, and how cool they were to watch. But today they almost always disappoint. The past few years I think every director's cut I've gotten has been incidental - sometimes it was even the only choice available.
I remember when my friend's and I were eagerly awaiting the Aliens and Army of Darkness director's cuts, and how cool they were to watch. But today they almost always disappoint. The past few years I think every director's cut I've gotten has been incidental - sometimes it was even the only choice available.