Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Paradigm wrote:
I think the Red Skull is one of Marvel's better villains to be honest.

Yes, his plan is nuts and he's completely over the top, but when you're introducing Captain America to the 21st century audience, I think you kind of need to put him up against the most comically ludicrous extra-Nazi Nazi you can, and Hugo Weaving as Red Skull was perfect for that. He's one-dimensional, but as a counterpoint to the most idealistic and uncompromised version of Cap we've seen, he works very well, I reckon.

Problem for me was Hydra was supposed to be somehow more evil than the Nazi's but you can;t show or do that in the sort of film they were making, so to me they just come across as a minor evil thats hanging about with them - it doesn't help that their troops are awful and thier boss just comes across as weak.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
I think the Red Skull is one of Marvel's better villains to be honest.

Yes, his plan is nuts and he's completely over the top, but when you're introducing Captain America to the 21st century audience, I think you kind of need to put him up against the most comically ludicrous extra-Nazi Nazi you can, and Hugo Weaving as Red Skull was perfect for that. He's one-dimensional, but as a counterpoint to the most idealistic and uncompromised version of Cap we've seen, he works very well, I reckon.

Problem for me was Hydra was supposed to be somehow more evil than the Nazi's but you can;t show or do that in the sort of film they were making, so to me they just come across as a minor evil thats hanging about with them - it doesn't help that their troops are awful and thier boss just comes across as weak.

Morden, I'm actually going to agree with you somewhat for a change. The Red Skull is a character defined by his Nazism. He was trained personally by Hitler to be the perfect Nazi...at least in the comics. And really that should be more than enough to establish that he's a really, really evil guy. Now, I understand that there are reasons they had to avoid all the swastikas, etc., so a traditional Red Skull was never going to happen. But I don't think they established Hydra well enough as a bunch of super-duper not-quite-Nazis who are really, really, REALLY evil.

This is probably nitpicky on my part, but I would have preferred to see Cap punching out a traditional Red Skull. I also think the character is less interesting as a super-soldier.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Dogma more or less covered it for me.

One of my main issues with Superman, and not about a particular take on him, is I don’t feel he has any real motivation to be heroic.

Mercenary? Absolutely. But there’s no motivation for altruism. And when you’re as powerful as he is, where’s the challenges to overcome? Not stuff like Darkseid or Ultron. But internal challenges. Facing yourself, and making the hard but right choice.

I’m not saying MCU got that spot on, but they’ve at least tried it with each of their characters. That’s why the origin movies all follow a single string - You vs Evil You. The man who would exploit your powers.

BvS actually addressed this, and it's been addressed before in similar ways at times in the comics.

"You are my world." Lois keeps him grounded. When he's saving or helping people, it's like he's saving or helping Lois.

And I think that WB and Snyder were absolutely borrowing from Injustice. Considering its popularity, they were probably surprised when a darker turn in BvS and JL (as originally planned) was met with such resistance.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

I’m not saying MCU got that spot on, but they’ve at least tried it with each of their characters. That’s why the origin movies all follow a single string - You vs Evil You. The man who would exploit your powers.

Iron Man is the first film in the MCU, and they nailed that origin story because Tony Stark comes off as an arrogant prick throughout the film.

He goes through the whole hero's journey in that movie, and still comes out of it being an arrogant prick at the end.

In other words, he’s human.

I’m still sad to see DC struggling when I know they can do it. Obviously everyone remembers the animated shows right? And I hear the arrow verse does it right too. Has there been a thread about what Warner is doing wrong and how to fix/restart DC?

I don't think so? Though it may be a can of worms....

I totally agree on DC's animated fare. It completely blows Marvel's animated stuff clean out of the water.

I mean, consider Batman The Animated Series. It took the cues and general feel of Tim Burton's Batman, and somehow made it compelling for all ages whilst staying completely kid friendly. Released in the same year as X-Men, there's just no comparison.

I can still watch Batman The Animated Series with great relish and genuine enjoyment. X-Men Animated? Pretty cringe worthy. YMMV of course!

 dogma wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

I’m not saying MCU got that spot on, but they’ve at least tried it with each of their characters. That’s why the origin movies all follow a single string - You vs Evil You. The man who would exploit your powers.

Iron Man is the first film in the MCU, and they nailed that origin story because Tony Stark comes off as an arrogant prick throughout the film.

He goes through the whole hero's journey in that movie, and still comes out of it being an arrogant prick at the end.

To me, that's what makes MCU films work. When they let the character drive the story, and really stay true to their nature- even if it isn't heroic. As a sample, look at the Thor films. The first one is a bit uneven, because Thor is figuring out who he is. The 2nd is not great, because there's none of that Asgardian family feud, just a poisoned love interest and the plot railroad. The third- they basically dumped Thor on a whole new planet with Hulk and Loki and watched what happened. And it is the strongest of the three. His heart's in the right place, but Thor will rarely take anything seriously- and will avoid responsibility as much as possible.

The same thing happened with Guardians. The first one is a weird mashup of selfish criminals slightly finding interest and saving the galaxy from problems that they are at least partially responsible for creating. It's unpredictable and deftly done. My personal favorite is when Drax gets bored of the whole thing and calls Thanos to challenge him to a duel. The 2nd is Starlord going all Disney and finding his Dad, while Rocket wonders if his friends really like him. Let's face it, after 20-30 years of the galaxy kicking you around and people trying to eat you that's not very realistic motivation. The most compelling work in that movie is Yondu, remaining a weirdly touchy feely mercenary with massive problems expressing his real feelings. They let him do his thing, and had the consequences of his actions play out.

MCU does this with surprising, and awesome regularity.When they're character driven, they are incredible to watch, probably because we've spent years watching these characters grow. When quality stumbles, it's because plot was given precedence.

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
I don't think so? Though it may be a can of worms....

I totally agree on DC's animated fare. It completely blows Marvel's animated stuff clean out of the water.

I mean, consider Batman The Animated Series. It took the cues and general feel of Tim Burton's Batman, and somehow made it compelling for all ages whilst staying completely kid friendly. Released in the same year as X-Men, there's just no comparison.

I can still watch Batman The Animated Series with great relish and genuine enjoyment. X-Men Animated? Pretty cringe worthy. YMMV of course!

I'd agree with the bolded, except that Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes exists.



I think part of the problem with DC is that there is a definitive version of each character, and they try their best to avoid doing that version. I mean, how many people felt that Reynold's portrayal of Hal Jordan felt ANYTHING like the Hal Jordan we've grown to know in the comics? And that's the rub right there, less than half of the characters in the last few DC movies FELT LIKE the characters they were portraying. I'll argue that Cavill's Superman did, but I'm sure that'll be met with staunch criticism.

Marvel got the core of the characters right. Every Marvel based movie that did well got the core feel of the characters right. Every one of them that failed critically or commercially did NOT. That's where Marvel is beating DC. They've got their cinematic universe locked tight under one vision, and it all jives with the feel of the characters. DC needs to do THAT before they can compete.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

I’m not saying MCU got that spot on, but they’ve at least tried it with each of their characters. That’s why the origin movies all follow a single string - You vs Evil You. The man who would exploit your powers.

Iron Man is the first film in the MCU, and they nailed that origin story because Tony Stark comes off as an arrogant prick throughout the film.

He goes through the whole hero's journey in that movie, and still comes out of it being an arrogant prick at the end.

To me, that's what makes MCU films work. When they let the character drive the story, and really stay true to their nature- even if it isn't heroic. As a sample, look at the Thor films. The first one is a bit uneven, because Thor is figuring out who he is. The 2nd is not great, because there's none of that Asgardian family feud, just a poisoned love interest and the plot railroad. The third- they basically dumped Thor on a whole new planet with Hulk and Loki and watched what happened. And it is the strongest of the three. His heart's in the right place, but Thor will rarely take anything seriously- and will avoid responsibility as much as possible.

The same thing happened with Guardians. The first one is a weird mashup of selfish criminals slightly finding interest and saving the galaxy from problems that they are at least partially responsible for creating. It's unpredictable and deftly done. My personal favorite is when Drax gets bored of the whole thing and calls Thanos to challenge him to a duel. The 2nd is Starlord going all Disney and finding his Dad, while Rocket wonders if his friends really like him. Let's face it, after 20-30 years of the galaxy kicking you around and people trying to eat you that's not very realistic motivation. The most compelling work in that movie is Yondu, remaining a weirdly touchy feely mercenary with massive problems expressing his real feelings. They let him do his thing, and had the consequences of his actions play out.

MCU does this with surprising, and awesome regularity.When they're character driven, they are incredible to watch, probably because we've spent years watching these characters grow. When quality stumbles, it's because plot was given precedence.

I would agree with most of this - good summary and what i was trying to say earlier and probably failed (although I really liked Thor 2 and thought Guardians wasn't as good)

I think Marvel tell stories about people who happen to be superhero's - espcecially Tony Stark, Hawkeye, I loved the bit in Avengers with Pepper and Tony in their building at the start and then Hakweye and his family in Age of Ultron to me it just shone through that these were real (ish) people.

and I can;t think of somethnig similar in DC films until Wonder Woman where they took much more time over the relationship between Diana and Steve.....

MCU works because recent action, sci-fi adventure and fantasy movies are usually pure garbage... now, I consider all the MCU episodes mediocre or decent at most but the lack of competitive opponents is the key of their success.

 Blackie wrote:
MCU works because recent action, sci-fi adventure and fantasy movies are usually pure garbage... now, I consider all the MCU episodes mediocre or decent at most but the lack of competitive opponents is the key of their success.

Seen plenty of action and superhero films recently that I enjoyed - but different strokes

case in point looking at your avatar - did you really like La La Land ? I did not.

 Blackie wrote:
MCU works because recent action, sci-fi adventure and fantasy movies are usually pure garbage... now, I consider all the MCU episodes mediocre or decent at most but the lack of competitive opponents is the key of their success.

I'd argue their continuing level of quality is in spite of a lack of serious competition.

I mean, we're about to hit 20, 20 MCU films by the end of the year.

And none of them is a genuinely bad film. Yes, some are weaker than others, and some exceed the benchmark. But none of them are a confusing waste of celluloid and the audience's time. Some people not unfairly call them 'popcorn movies'. I'd go one further and say they are all good popcorn movies.

In terms of franchises, the only one I can think to exceed that in terms of volume would be Bond - and those are spread over a number of decades.

And all in the face of a marked lack of organised competition. They've very much proven they'll make bank on every single release, so some might expect the law of diminishing returns. But that's just not what we're seeing. They're maintaining their quality, and continue to reap the rewards at the box office and home media releases.

That is highly unusual. Normally when a creative medium has no real competition to spur it in, you lose innovation and quality suffers. Let's consider Bond for a second. By end of Brosnan's stint, we'd had one genuinely solid film in Goldeneye, one middling, and two absolutely god awful efforts. The Bond formula was stale. It hadn't moved with the audience. In 2002, when the last of Brosnan's efforts came out, so did The Bourne Identity. Both are cut from the same broad cloth. Well, the impact of that can be seen in the frankly superb, back-to-basics Casino Royale, released in 2006. That dragged Bond kick and screaming into modernity. Conservative use of gadgets which are actually feasible and plot necessary - without requiring the baddie to set up a specific death trap which only Q's latest gizmo can get anyone out of....

And already, that take on Bond is a bit on the wane. Not quite stale, but definitely getting somewhat 'By The Numbers' - because the market has stalled again.

But Marvel Studios? 20 films, same central story pillars, but a fair variety of themes and tones.

 Yodhrin wrote:
On the point of expectations regarding Star Wars characters specifically - if you're referring to the common criticism that people who were annoyed by the direction Johnson chose to go with Rey's backstory were unpleaseable because they spent ages speculating, I've never seen that view as fair even if it's not an issue with the film that bugged me all that much personally.

It's not the fans' fault they chose JJ "mystery box" Abrams to direct TFA. It's also not the fans' fault they then allowed Johnson to come in and throw JJ's plan for the Sequels - Rey's origins included - out the window so he could "make a point". The filmmakers created and encouraged speculation and expectations, and then the filmmakers intentionally dashed those expectations to show how super-duper clever and edgy they were. The only people to blame for the bad reaction(at least, the part of it that falls within rational discourse, because of course these days you have to confirm you're not defending the tiny, tiny, microscopic minority of idiots who set their toy collection on fire or threaten to murder people's families) to that kind of thing are the people making the films.

I don't think SW's had anything like that going on. Supposed "mysteries" of Rey's or Snoke's origins were entirely on fans' heads, I doubt Abrams, Kasdan or anyone planned to build on them, first film gives no indication on that. If you watch TFA, nobody cares about those issues except Rey who daydreams that her abandonment had a purpose. Then Maz flat out tells her to get over it - which exactly foreshadows what then happened in TLJ.

Major mistake for new SW continuum IMO is basically that they are trying to crank them out too quickly. There has not been enough time to focus out the story, purpose and role of the characters and the films come out disjointed. Also, selecting JJ Abrams was big mistake because he cares little about plots or backgrounds. He's a great choice if you just want to play it safe and make a glorious looking space action flick, but Star Wars is so much about emotional connection and backstory that his style just doesn't work, especially when combined with completely opposite take of Johnson. I guess this reflects somewhat what you said in your first reply. Now last movie is going to be all Abrams, and I don't have my hopes up.

Basically, with new SW they took very committee-like, "no risks" approach on first flick, then went crazy with the others. MCU on the other hand, began its own thing right from the start and built on that. In a way pretty much what original Star Wars did: if it had failed, no biggie. Dump the whole thing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

That is highly unusual. Normally when a creative medium has no real competition to spur it in, you lose innovation and quality suffers. Let's consider Bond for a second. By end of Brosnan's stint, we'd had one genuinely solid film in Goldeneye, one middling, and two absolutely god awful efforts. The Bond formula was stale. It hadn't moved with the audience. In 2002, when the last of Brosnan's efforts came out, so did The Bourne Identity. Both are cut from the same broad cloth. Well, the impact of that can be seen in the frankly superb, back-to-basics Casino Royale, released in 2006. That dragged Bond kick and screaming into modernity. Conservative use of gadgets which are actually feasible and plot necessary - without requiring the baddie to set up a specific death trap which only Q's latest gizmo can get anyone out of....

And already, that take on Bond is a bit on the wane. Not quite stale, but definitely getting somewhat 'By The Numbers' - because the market has stalled again.

Rule of thumb with Bond films is that every other is good, like it used to be with Star Trek films. See:
GoldenEye - great
TND - crap
TWINE - good
DAD - crap

then move on to Craig films:
Casino Royale - awesome
QoS - crap
Skyfall - good
Spectre - crap

So, next one is going to be good! Right...?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:

 ScarletRose wrote:
I think part of it is pacing - many of the MCU movies work on their own. If Iron Man or Capt. America or Dr. Strange had come out on their own they'd still be good watchable movies. The knowledge that they're part of a greater universe makes fans more excited, they look for the little connections, stick around for the end credits etc.

But the movies stand by themselves too. One of the things with the Tom Cruise Mummy was it wasted a bunch of time with setting up future films, and the remained was just the usual cliches presented in the usual way.

So I think part of it comes from DC and others believing an extended universe is a substitute for quality film making instead of a bonus that enhances quality film making.

Problem with Tom Cruise’s Mummy was.....Tom Cruise. He basically plays an utterly unlikeable dill weed who constantly screws stuff up, putting lives in danger.

He’s got no charm, so doesn’t work as an antihero. He’s just a massive, massive arse.

The setting up other movies? Bit heavy handed, but perhaps needed as an intro to a darker world.

The problem with the mummy is it tried to recapture lightning in a bottle by imitating aspects of the Brandon Frasier movies while not keeping any of their charm. If the latest mummy was a full on horror/monster movie she would have made an excellent terrifying mummy. But that movie tried to be serious like a horror movie while never actually trying to be scary.

I couldn't get over just how much I hated Tom Cruise's character.

Its all his fault. All of it. All on him. And in the end, despite having learnt nothing, he 'wins'. And then resurrects the friend he got killed, presumably to ensure his afterlife is as awful as his first life.

Tom Cruise's Character is a modern day Zak Morris.

 Gitzbitah wrote:

As a sample, look at the Thor films. The first one is a bit uneven, because Thor is figuring out who he is. The 2nd is not great, because there's none of that Asgardian family feud, just a poisoned love interest and the plot railroad. The third- they basically dumped Thor on a whole new planet with Hulk and Loki and watched what happened. And it is the strongest of the three. His heart's in the right place, but Thor will rarely take anything seriously- and will avoid responsibility as much as possible.

The third only works because of the first and the second. The first establishes Thor as a selfish, aggressive, idiot; that's why Odin humanizes him. Then, in a Dark World he does the same thing.

 Gitzbitah wrote:
... while Rocket wonders if his friends really like him. Let's face it, after 20-30 years of the galaxy kicking you around and people trying to eat you that's not very realistic motivation.

What you just said is the basis of many inferiority complexes. So, yeah that's believable.

Didn’t the mummy also spend too much time shilling future instalments? Dr Jerkyll and somebody else etc. That’s always a big no no.

Eh, that didn't both me. Indeed, given they were going down a broadly similar route to World of Darkness, I'd say it was necessary.

We go from modernity, to the veil being twitched aside, confirming there are other horrors that must be fought.

 Just Tony wrote:
I think part of the problem with DC is that there is a definitive version of each character, and they try their best to avoid doing that version. I mean, how many people felt that Reynold's portrayal of Hal Jordan felt ANYTHING like the Hal Jordan we've grown to know in the comics? And that's the rub right there, less than half of the characters in the last few DC movies FELT LIKE the characters they were portraying. I'll argue that Cavill's Superman did, but I'm sure that'll be met with staunch criticism.

Marvel got the core of the characters right. Every Marvel based movie that did well got the core feel of the characters right. Every one of them that failed critically or commercially did NOT. That's where Marvel is beating DC. They've got their cinematic universe locked tight under one vision, and it all jives with the feel of the characters. DC needs to do THAT before they can compete.

In Iron Man 1, RDJ had more funny quips than Tony Stark did in the history of Iron Man comics. Tony Stark just wasn't that interesting of a character, and that's a big reason why Iron Man was a 'C'-list character in the comics until the movies REDEFINED him.

Perhaps Reynolds' Hal Jordan was a little too 'Ryan Reynolds' at times, but I don't think he was THAT far off, nor do I think he was the problem with that movie. Fix the movie around him, and Reynolds would have been just fine.

Yeah, I actually rather enjoyed GL just because Reynolds as Hal and especially Mark Strong as Sinestro were well cast. The rest of the movie I can take or leave, but I'd be fine with either of those two reprising the roles if/when DC finally get round to another GL film.

Though I still think Tom Cruise would play an amazing Hal Jordan...

 gorgon wrote:

Perhaps Reynolds' Hal Jordan was a little too 'Ryan Reynolds' at times, but I don't think he was THAT far off, nor do I think he was the problem with that movie. Fix the movie around him, and Reynolds would have been just fine.

The Green Lantern was fixed on him. The whole movie can be summed up as "This is how Ryan Reynolds became the Green Lantern."

But you're correct. It wasn't bad acting, or bad writing, that killed the movie; it was a bad character. The Green Lantern falls into the same traps that a lot of DC characters do: We can blow up the world, but we don't because morals.

 Just Tony wrote:



I think part of the problem with DC is that there is a definitive version of each character, and they try their best to avoid doing that version. I mean, how many people felt that Reynold's portrayal of Hal Jordan felt ANYTHING like the Hal Jordan we've grown to know in the comics? And that's the rub right there, less than half of the characters in the last few DC movies FELT LIKE the characters they were portraying. I'll argue that Cavill's Superman did, but I'm sure that'll be met with staunch criticism.

Marvel got the core of the characters right. Every Marvel based movie that did well got the core feel of the characters right. Every one of them that failed critically or commercially did NOT. That's where Marvel is beating DC. They've got their cinematic universe locked tight under one vision, and it all jives with the feel of the characters. DC needs to do THAT before they can compete.

I agree about the "definitive character" problem. Any new Superman would be compared to Christopher Reeve. Any new Batman would be compared to, well, take your pick of previous Batmans. Wonder Woman to Lynda Carter, etc. Marvel didn't really have to deal with that problem, as most of their characters weren't really cemented in the public's minds.

It'll definitely be a problem for Marvel 20-30 years from now.

Not sure Marvel will have quite the same problem.

Superman, Batman and Wonder Woman are individuals.

Iron Man, Captain America etc are arguably more ideals. Anyone can Wield the Shield. Anyone can don Iron Man's armour - and then, to all intents and purposes, they become that hero.

That's something they can work with. And if handled well, do a Doctor Who and keep on recasting without resetting.

 dogma wrote:
The Green Lantern was fixed on him. The whole movie can be summed up as "This is how Ryan Reynolds became the Green Lantern."

But you're correct. It wasn't bad acting, or bad writing, that killed the movie; it was a bad character. The Green Lantern falls into the same traps that a lot of DC characters do: We can blow up the world, but we don't because morals.

Yeah, DC characters tend to be really op. Superman, Martian Manhunter, Shazam...hell, I thought the GL was one of their more understated characters, and that says a lot.

@ Tannhauser42

True. I only remember Wesley Snipes as Blade and Tony Maguire as Spider-Man. Everyone else in marvel was up for grabs.

I read that as Wesley Crusher as Blade.

I was ever so confused!

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 dogma wrote:
The Green Lantern was fixed on him. The whole movie can be summed up as "This is how Ryan Reynolds became the Green Lantern."

But you're correct. It wasn't bad acting, or bad writing, that killed the movie; it was a bad character. The Green Lantern falls into the same traps that a lot of DC characters do: We can blow up the world, but we don't because morals.

Yeah, DC characters tend to be really op. Superman, Martian Manhunter, Shazam...hell, I thought the GL was one of their more understated characters, and that says a lot.

The DC characters have worked fine in other incarnations, from live-action to animation. Yes, they're powerful when compared to Marvel's characters, but then DC villains tend to be more powerful as well.

Superman is very powerful, but just how powerful depends on the era you're talking about. And he's had plenty of very powerful villains. Darkseid, Doomsday, Zod, Imperiex, Bizarro, Cyborg Superman, Lobo and Mongul all have the ability to go toe-to-toe with him. His greatest villain has the ability to out-think and out-maneuver him. Brainiac combines raw power and intellect. He's had multiple Kryptonite-powerful villains. And although he's a comic relief character and not actually evil, Mr. Mxyzptlk is enormously powerful and able to reshape reality.

The DCEU was going to have a cosmic-level villain until BvS blew up on Snyder and JL part 2 was cancelled. The Legion of Doom/Injustice League thing that they teased in the JL credits won't represent the same kind of threat (if another JL movie even happens). But then the Marvel movies have had one tin can villain after another -- almost all of them with a set of disposable drones in tow -- and seem to be doing fine.

Yeah, the comparison generally goes that DC are gods playing at being men, while Marvel is the reverse.
It does mean Marvel characters are more relatable and hence make for better protagonists.

Bran Dawri wrote:
Yeah, the comparison generally goes that DC are gods playing at being men, while Marvel is the reverse.
It does mean Marvel characters are more relatable and hence make for better protagonists.

Exactly. That’s the point I was driving at. Superman, Martian Manhunter, Wonder Woman and Aquaman (I think?) were never humans to begin with. But I suppose that good story writing gets past that.

Also, my knowledge of comics isn’t too deep (they’re hard to find around my way) so could somebody more knowledgeable tell me if the MCU deviates from or takes artist license with its source material or do they follow it to the letter?

 gorgon wrote:

Perhaps Reynolds' Hal Jordan was a little too 'Ryan Reynolds' at times, but I don't think he was THAT far off, nor do I think he was the problem with that movie. Fix the movie around him, and Reynolds would have been just fine.

Green Lantern's biggest issue in general is that most of his classic mythos is fairly terrible. The greatest run the character has ever had is largely rooted in a massive retcon to one of the worst stories they've done and almost everything great about him talks about the past in ways that make them sound way more profound than they actually were. The other big challenge is that most of his Earth based conflicts have been pretty silly, but Hal as a character really needs the background with Carol and his family to be more interesting than the gimmick of his powers that are otherwise easily transplanted to other characters.

The primary problem with the GL movie though was just that it was in a hurry to get to the Sinestro Corp War, which is the story that gave the series enough credibility to be worth making a movie for in the first place. Trying to get there in the second movie was disastrous and I'm curious if they actually were hoping to get to Blackest Night for a trilogy. Again, its an issue with rushing things. I think if the first movie had focused on a more direct story; Abin Sur's ship crashes transporting Atrocitus or some other evil alien threat (Parallax is actually not a bad call but he needs to be vastly different). Hal gets the ring, learns to use it just enough to stop the bad guy and at the end the Corps arrives to see what the rookie accomplished. Movie 2 is training day in space focused on Sinestro training Hal ending with Hal realizing the tyranny in which Sinestro keeps order and ends with Sinestro going rogue. Trilogy ends with Sinestro Corp War and if we're still ticking along we can discuss an actual War of Light. In any case, the problem with the movie is just that it forgets that much of the strength of great GL stories comes from the history they mine. Trying to tell them without making us care about the characters misses a large part of why it all works.

 LunarSol wrote:

 gorgon wrote:

Perhaps Reynolds' Hal Jordan was a little too 'Ryan Reynolds' at times, but I don't think he was THAT far off, nor do I think he was the problem with that movie. Fix the movie around him, and Reynolds would have been just fine.

Green Lantern's biggest issue in general is that most of his classic mythos is fairly terrible. The greatest run the character has ever had is largely rooted in a massive retcon to one of the worst stories they've done and almost everything great about him talks about the past in ways that make them sound way more profound than they actually were. The other big challenge is that most of his Earth based conflicts have been pretty silly, but Hal as a character really needs the background with Carol and his family to be more interesting than the gimmick of his powers that are otherwise easily transplanted to other characters.

The primary problem with the GL movie though was just that it was in a hurry to get to the Sinestro Corp War, which is the story that gave the series enough credibility to be worth making a movie for in the first place. Trying to get there in the second movie was disastrous and I'm curious if they actually were hoping to get to Blackest Night for a trilogy. Again, its an issue with rushing things. I think if the first movie had focused on a more direct story; Abin Sur's ship crashes transporting Atrocitus or some other evil alien threat (Parallax is actually not a bad call but he needs to be vastly different). Hal gets the ring, learns to use it just enough to stop the bad guy and at the end the Corps arrives to see what the rookie accomplished. Movie 2 is training day in space focused on Sinestro training Hal ending with Hal realizing the tyranny in which Sinestro keeps order and ends with Sinestro going rogue. Trilogy ends with Sinestro Corp War and if we're still ticking along we can discuss an actual War of Light. In any case, the problem with the movie is just that it forgets that much of the strength of great GL stories comes from the history they mine. Trying to tell them without making us care about the characters misses a large part of why it all works.

If only this had happened. I would have loved that. And look, in one post you’ve done better than Warner Brothers have done so far. Which shows that it’s not actually that hard to do when you space the movies out and stick to the material!

 Tannhauser42 wrote:

It'll definitely be a problem for Marvel 20-30 years from now.

At which point The Mouse will have made it's money.