Marvel Studios Head Talks ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ Avoiding ‘Green Lantern’ Problems

Published 1 year ago by

Guardians of the Galaxy Earth Ship Art 570x320 Marvel Studios Head Talks Guardians of the Galaxy Avoiding Green Lantern Problems

Superhero movies are a hard sell when it comes to the general public – particularly because they often stretch a viewer’s ability to suspend their disbelief (especially when that viewer is not pre-sold on seeing superheroes and villains duke it out). When Marvel Studios endeavored to make Thor, it was a big deal; many were skeptical that the studio could sell a character rooted in both sci-fi and mythology to the masses.

When DC/WB made Green Lantern, they were taking an bigger risk: a superhero with alien-based powers, whose origin story was partially set in space amongst hordes of alien characters. As the cynics long predicted, the film (and its titular character) never really connected with audiences the way the studio hoped. As it stands, more grounded stories (like Nolan’s Dark Knight Trilogy) tend to win out over more fantastical comic book movie fare.

Guardians of the Galaxy movie cantina art 570x320 Marvel Studios Head Talks Guardians of the Galaxy Avoiding Green Lantern Problems

‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ concept art

Marvel is going to be upping the ante in a big way with their forthcoming sci-fi action blockbuster, Guardians of the Galaxy. Based on several iterations of the classic Marvel Comics team, Guardians takes place in an alternate future and centers on a team comprised of characters from various different alien backgrounds, with a human warrior (played by Zero Dark Thirty star Chris Pratt) as their leader. One of those aliens happens to be a living tree – and we also know that a major focus of the film (and the franchise) will be “Rocket Raccoon,” a character who is a gun-toting, hard-as-nails CGI warrior raccoon.

Understandably, some folks have yet to fully warm to the idea of Marvel movies (literally) going this far out there with their concepts – as Marvel Studios head Kevin Feige is all too aware. When fielding questions about GotG while at the premiere for Iron Man 3, Feige said the following to i09 regarding the stigma still hanging over cosmic superhero movies in the wake of Green Lantern:

Well the same way, Iron Man 3 has as much CG as any movie we’ve ever made, and I hope it doesn’t feel like Green Lantern. And it’s all about the aesthetic you go for and already we have an art department as impressive as any art department I’ve ever seen in London on Guardians. And it’s, you know, designing things and believing that they’re real when part of the team’s made up of a raccoon and a tree.

Green Lantern Official Trailer 2 Marvel Studios Head Talks Guardians of the Galaxy Avoiding Green Lantern Problems

Now before anyone starts the “Marvel is dissing DC!” fight speech; Feige isn’t so much dissing Green Lantern as he is commenting on what many fans have already said before him: that that film felt hollow and unconvincing with its abundance of CGI characters and costumes. It certainly is a challenge facing GotG; and, despite the cool Star Wars-esque concept art we’ve seen (see above), if not executed correctly, this film could end up feeling more like Episode I than Episode IV. Given how important Guardians is to the events of Avengers 2, Marvel’s Phase 2 teamup event could hinge upon how effectively director James Gunn and his effects team are at convincing you that a talking Raccoon is real.

Guardians of the Galaxy stars Chris Pratt as Star Lord; Zoe Saldana as the warrior Gamora; Dave Bautista as resurrected badass, Drax; Michael Rooker as alien archer Yondu Udonta, and Lee Pace as the villain. No word yet on who will voice CGI characters Groot and Rocket Raccoon.

———

Iron Man 3 releases in U.S. theaters on May 3rd, 2013, followed by Thor: The Dark World on November 8th, 2013, Captain America: The Winter Soldier on April 4th, 2014, Guardians of the Galaxy on August 1st, 2014The Avengers 2 on May 1st, 2015, Ant-Man on November 6, 2015, and Doctor Strange sometime after that.

TAGS: green lantern, guardians of the galaxy

108 Comments

Post a Comment

  1. I predict that this movie will surprise everyone in a good way.

    • Second that.

    • I agree, I think it’ll be the surprise hit of phase 2.

  2. For a second I thought Kratos was in that cantina artwork.

    • Ah, you mean Kratos the Drax ripoff? Gotcha.

  3. Better than Green Lantern could still be pretty bad… I mean, on a scale there is: Green Lantern – bad movie – decent movie – good movie.

  4. I thought I saw on Aint it cool news somewhere where it was confirmed Michael Rooker (Merle from the walking dead) had the part for rocket raccoon.

    • Please don’t visit that site ever again. It’s awful. Stay with us here. We’re all pals. (^-^)

    • He’s playing Yondu, one of the original guardians, not RR.

  5. M. Rooker is on the castlist for GOTG on IMDB….but umless its a fake page they have M. Rooker as playing a bounty hunter named Yondu. not R. Raccoon.

  6. Kofi, why is it that my comment is awaiting moderation? Nothing violent or insulting anywhere in the comment.

  7. When did Zoe Saldana get confirmed? I swear I read on this site it was stil only a rumour just a couple days ago.

    • Same thing for Michael rooker…I guess they listen to the fans. I lovveeee zoey she can kick my butt anytime.

    • The article shouldn’t of been made. You can’t compare Guardians to GL at all. Two completely different animals. If Star Wars didn’t have the popularity, this article is more like comparing Star Wars to GL; you can’t. If it came down to it, I can see why Rob didn’t write the article. Rob knows what he is talking about when it comes to Guardians.

      • You should HAVE paid attention in English class.

        • @Cave-ish Man, From falling asleep in the back of english class all the time, I tell that to myself everyday. My grammar is atrocious.

  8. My problem with Green Lantern wasn’t with the FX and CGI characters. Except for maybe the big cloud antagonist villain, it looked fine. The acting was ok too.

    Here’s the problem with GL:

    Green Lantern’s script sucked! The story sucked! The dialog was clunky.

    Same problem with the Ghost Rider movies.

    • There was some issue with his mask/suit – especially his mask. I thought it looked pretty bad – almost like CGI of ten years ago.

      • Yes, the mask and the skinned green muscle suit were horrid.

        • I don’t even mind the cg of the suit, it makes sense that the suit is made out of the ring’s energy. Its just that it was a horrible design. The glowing lines running through it. The muscle fiber detail, the colors, all of it. There were no contrasts to the color scheme. You couldn’t even see the pattern. It wasjust bad.

    • Amen

  9. “Green Lantern”, for me, wasn’t terrible. It was just average

    • Same here. I only saw it once, when it was in theaters (no desire to see it again really), but I just was like “eh, it was okay.” and moved on. I certainly didn’t think it was quite as terrible as people made it out to be. It was just mediocre.

      Then again, I’m one of the very few that actually liked Spider-Man 3, so what the hell do I know, right?

    • im one of the few that enjoyed green lantern <.< so im pretty sure ima enjoy guardians

    • I agree. I don’t know why there is so much bashing/hate. After I saw it I was a bit disappointed about what it could have been, but I also didn’t think it was terrible. Certainly not as terrible as people make it out to be.

    • I saw a fan made trailer on Youtube that was better than the entire movie.

    • I still think Green Lantern was a better film then both Fantastic Four films. Tomato meter shows to be even with the first FF and slightly lower than FF2. On a profit term, it made less especially concerning budget.

      But it was so poorly written. Its unfortunate. I would hope its given a second chance. And I’m sure it will if cameo’d in another DC franchise.

  10. It’s so frustrating hearing all the DC people talking about being careful with properties that are less viable after Green Lantern or Marvel saying GotG is risky b/c of it’s cosmic setting. That’s a copout. The reason Green Lantern didn’t do well was that it was a sh@&ty movie. It’s script was not even halfway finished and they rushed it into production and said toss in hot actors and CGI the hell out of it and no one will notice. Space movies don’t turn off audiences. One of the greatest franchises ever was set entirely on alien planets(Star Wars). Poorly written movies, however, whose stories make no sense, don’t do as well(Terminator 4, Gangster Squad, Superman Returns). The main thing that prevented Green Lantern from being a good movie was a bad script. No linear plot, one dimensional characters(as hard as Reynolds tried to be more), slim to no character motivation, and jumps from point A to point D with no B and C. If anything is to be learned, it’s to hire people who care about story(Nolan and Co. and Joss Whedon, the billion dollar bards). It’s better for everyone that way.

    • +1

    • -1

      • +100

    • @ Huntthejest
      Great post. I always enjoy reading a level headed, thought out response.
      Even if I disagree (I don’t here) I’m more likely to interact and debate with someone who knows how to make a point rather than lob insults to either another commenter or whoever wrote the article.

    • Yep.

      In fact one of GLs major failings was trying too hard to stay on earth. Coming up will silly reasons for him to return (self doubt that Hal Jordan NEVER had) and then having the big bad villain (a twisted and contorted version of Parallax) just HAVE to attack earth…….if they had been willing to let go of the notion that audiences will only relate to the characters and peril if they are earth bound and based it completely on Oa/space, it would have been a successful movie.

      Fast tracking and completely ruining the concept of where the Yellow Lanterns originate from didn’t help either.

      • They jumped from Earth back to space without any rhyme or reason and it just seemed like rough edit cuts in some spots. The parts on Earth were just generic and the use of the Green Lantern Corps. idea was a waste in my opinion. As someone with only basic knowledge of the whole narrative I was just struck at how unimpressive they made the alien Green Lanterns just to make the Hal Jordan character shine (granted he was the focus of the movie). I mean thousands of aliens from all over the multi-verse could not figure out they could drag Parallax into a sun?

  11. “Superhero movies are a hard sell when it comes to the general public – particularly because they often stretch a viewer’s ability to suspend their disbelief”

    I disagree with this statement.

    Its not that superheroes in space is a hard sell to the general public. Its a hard sell to those people who actually have knowledge of the characters/universes. And THAT fault lies solely with the production companies whether they want to acknowledge that or not.

    Super Hero movies are a niche genre like any other, and if your going to deliberately do things that you KNOW will alienate (pun intended)the fan base then you have no one but yourself to blame.

    Take your Green Lantern example. The movie itself production wise wasn’t terrible. The bulk of the CG was smooth. Kilowat and Sinestro looked visually good.

    The huge elephant in the room was that Hollywood made the same fatal flaw they make in 95% of the Comic book movies. They screwed with a good thing. They turned a well defined Villain and turned him into a giant yellow cloud.

    Studios insist that they must put their mark on the franchises. Why? That’s a sign of ego not necessity to sell.

    Most of these universes have decades of material to pull from. There are literally hundreds of good story lines to pull from. Just admit that some of the folks in the comic industry know how to write better than you, let it go, and go with what you’ve got. Keep to the basics of the cannon, pick a good story and.just.go.

    You don’t have to tweak it, you don’t have to change it, & you certainly don’t have to make it “yours”. That’s not what the fans want. They want a rendition that easily reminds them of the characters they grew up enjoying.

    • One if the best posts I’ve read I’m a while. Nice job.

    • very good post. you’ve said it all.

    • @Yliesa

      THANK YOU VERY MUCH!

    • I think that is one area where Marvel movies have been making good decisions: the comics writers have serious input into the films. Case in point, Joss Whedon, a Marvel comics writer before he directed a Marvel movie.

    • Out of curiosity, what’s your take on the WBs Dark Knight series, or even the upcoming Man of Steel?

      • Mine?
        Dark Knight was decent. Batman has always been a tragic hero with a lot of bleakness in his past. The anti Hero type & grittiness works for him. Part 2 was by far the best.

        Superman I’m VERY leery about. My biggest b$%^$ with Superman Returns is another Hollywood trend that is frustrating. They got him completely wrong because they wanted him to be “relatable” to the newer generation.

        Drab muted clothing, making him a deadbeat baby daddy, and pretty much emo-fieng him. They couldn’t have missed the mark on him more if they tried.

        Superman is supposed to be the ultimate boy scout. A product of a happy home full of acceptance that he passes on into his everyday dealings. He is an optimist that believes in a greater good.

        In his truest form he is an ideal, that hero to aspire to be. That’s what comics used to be. Icons, examples to live up to, or hero-worship as it were.

        This latest obsession with adding realism or black emotion into everything is getting old. They need to stop with all the emo drama. We’ve got plenty of dark heroes Batman, Punisher, Wolverine, hell even Sinestro depending on what side his conscious is on at the time.

        Current writers: believe it or not people really are OK with having good guys to look up too. Stahp trying to reinvent a non broken wheel.

  12. I thought Green Lantern was OK. I think most people, made a mountain out of a molehill, when reviewing this film. Just my 2 cents.

  13. Well Kevin has a point. If Guardians is as horrendous as Green Lantern, it will bomb. Even Halle Berry’s Catwoman was better than Green Lamtern, that’s how bad Green Lantern was.

    Marvel needs to play it smart here, and I have full confidence that they will. Marvel will not produce something like Green Lantern.

    • No. No way in h*** Green Lantern was as bad as Catwoman. Catwoman was an utter disgrace to fans, completely changing her story, and now I shun that movie. I refuse to think of that movie relating to any actual DC character. Green Lantern may have been s%&@ty, but at least some level of amusement was maintained.

      • @ Luthor. I’m with you. Since I work in the comic industry I tend to buy EVERY comic book based movie, even if I didn’t enjoy it personally, to do my small part to encourage them to keep trying. However Catwoman was just SO horrid I couldn’t bring myself to own that one, even from a bargain bin.

        • @ LUTHOR
          @ Yliesa

          I’m sorry, maybe I was expecting more from Green Lantern as he is one of my favorite superheroes, but Green Lantern the movie was a train wreck. Bad acting, bad story, bad script, bad everything. It is exactly on par with Catwoman if nor worse.

          I remember reading the reviews for Green Lantern and thinking to myself,”it can’t be that bad”, and sure enough it was. I don’t know how they recover from that other than to reboot the character.

  14. I thought the parts in space were the best part of Green Lantern. I’m very excited for GOTG. Marvel has made sure that their films aren’t grounded in realism and so far, it is working out great for them. Once you have an enormous green behemoth smashing everything in sight, it’s kind of hard to stay realistic.

    • That big green behemoth was the best part of Avengers. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen the movie but each time Hulk does his thing after Cap says, “Hulk…smash!”, the geek in me just goes wild.

      • See, I thought the best part of Avengers was Iron Man, the others just weren’t developed as characters (other than Loki but I was talking strictly heroes).

        Hulk was just “meh” to me in that movie. He could have been left out of the mvoie entirely and I wouldn’t have noticed. Same with Banner’s character too.

        • inb4; i am the one who is constantly saying Avengers movie is the weakest Marvel movie so far so my above opinion doesn’t matter much.

        • Hiddleston’s portrayal of Loki tied that movie together for me, without him there would have been no interaction with the antagonists and all it would have been was the heroes fighting a horde of creatures from space.

          • I agree Loki was the best acted role, but Hulk was the best action/humor role. Catching the pilot and then chucking him off to the distance…classic. Iron Man seemed like the same ol’ spiel that been happening in both of his other movies.

  15. Marvel studios has a lot of heart when it comes to their movies. While that certainly pays off when creating something like the Avengers, a heavy CGI and fantastical film like GOTG needs to have more than heart to make it successful. IMO Thor, Captain America, and Iron Man 2 were good to average movies. The only thing that really made them special was that we knew that the movie was taking place in a shared universe. Again, that’s not going to be enough when I have to take a talking raccoon with a bazooka seriously. I’m going to have faith that the movie will do well, only because Marvel hasn’t given me a reason to believe otherwise, but if Thor 2 is a critical bomb (like I think it’s turning out to be) than you can bet I won’t be racing to the theaters to see GOTG.

    • Good we dont want someone like you there behind us blabbering on about a talking raccoon with a bazooka not being believable… JUST DONT GO SEE IT! cause if your behind me im throwing my pop on you then my popcorn!!!

    • Je ne comprendai pas.

      Why will Thor 2 be a critical bomb, decent cast, very good director with a great visual eye regarding the whole viking/norse iconography and knows how to shoot action, it’s got a pretty secure audience (80-90% of peeps who have seen Thor AND Avengers i would expect to see Thor 2).

      As for Guardians, what’s wrong with a raccoon with a bazooka and why do you need to take him seriously, dunno where your from but here in Lancashire, England we’ve got LOADS of raccoons with bazookas knocking about, rabbits with Uzi’s and a couple of pinguins in Eurofighters.

      Okay slight exaggeration (we don’t have raccoons in the UK, they’re actually squerrels bigging themselves up) but the point is either you CAN susppend your disbelief and go with the flow or you CAN’T.

      If you can’t GotG aint gonna be for you, no shame in it.

      Do have one question though, how’d you get on with Star Wars or the Lord of the Rings cause there you have a green frog with a lightsabre bouncing round like he’s made of Flubber(TM) and a hoard of walking talking trees (GotG only got the 1)or something like Scott Pilgrim?

      Go back to the Green Lantern thing of the article, CGI heavy isn’t necessary a bad thing, it depends on how it’s done.

      GL and SW Eps 1-3, all very clean, shiny and fake looking (Ep 1-3 would of benifited SO MUCH from having a couple of physical sets) but you look at LotR or even the Avengers or something like Sin City and 300 with CG sets and it’s total acceptable and believeable because it fits in to the world around it…. it seems right and you don’t notice.

      Bad CG stands out as CG, good CG you don’t even notice you just accept, like the Hulk, Iron Man, Gollum, Treebeard, Drone 166 and hopefully Rocket Raccoon

  16. I loved Thor, thought that Green Lantern was horrible for so many reasons. Primarily the script and screenplay, but also the fact that most of it did not take place in space. Most of it was on earth, ergo, boring.

    When you do sci-fi fantasy, you have to go all-in or go for tongue-in-cheek self parody. Otherwise, you get something like Green Lantern. But the real issue is whether or not it was a good film, period. If so, there is definitely a comic book audience. Also, nothing that Marvel has done has been as bad as GL, so I expect GotG to be good. It’s Warner/DC who has not figured it out yet.

  17. Well, I am definitely very excited for this movie and I doubt Marvel would make the mistakes “Green Lantern” did.

    Phase Two looks amazing already with Iron Man 3 coming out and with only one trailer for The Dark World, so I don’t think Marvel will disappoint us. Not with The Winter Soldier and not Guardians, not to mention Avengers 2.

    Space fantasy/sci-fi is an awesome genre and movies like that can be huge hits if done right.

  18. @Yliesa
    I absolutely agree with your statement. Why on earth do some major studio jancho ALLOW certain ppl to go with some mediocre rendition of the comic’s origin story, belittling it to TV trash? IDK. They need to hire writers that understand thematic elements, character motivation, complexity with subtley, multi-dimensional characters that brings viewers into their minds a bit, exploring the psychology behind their motives, etc.

    I also dislike poor CGI usage in the movie, like exceeding fantasy and not assembling set designs or environments that convince viewers “we’re actually there”…

    The original SW trilogy for instance, offered that greatly. Even the Cloud City of Bespin for example may have been painted and used as a backdrop for the frame; understandably, the special editions showed us a CGI illustration of Bespin and looked real good…imagine what that would look like had they used the 3D CGI that was used for Avatar, (with all do credit for ILM!)

    These studios must “wake up” and re-introduce a high quality realism into motion pictures, especially now with the Disney Marvel collab of translating space themed comics into BIG blockbuster movies. May the force be with all the makers of GotG!!! My two cents, have a nice one!

  19. I’m actually very excited about this film, I have a feeling it’s going to be spectacular visually, and Marvel hasn’t disappointed yet script/story wise. And I too am one of those that liked Green Lantern. It was not a horrible movie, it just was nowhere near what it could have/should have been. I thought the CG was done well (aside from the mask, which was indeed horrible), and I thought Reynolds was a good choice for Hal Jordan. The directing and the script left a lot to be desired, but still a very watchable movie for me.

  20. I’m not sure yet about guardians. I will wait for more information. However, one of the things that did in green lantern was the clumsy manner with which renolds portrayed hal jordan. Second, the sesame street muppet-like appearance of the villain made him less threatening and scary. I did like blake lively in the movie (pretty lady). Third, the movie just was not serious. It was more comedic and campy than serious. But, kofi, you are definiterly right about there being too much CGI in the film.

    Nolan’s batman did successfully well, particulary number 2. However, I think people are reading into it incorrectly as to why his bat movies did well. I wouldn’t say it was primarily because it was a grounded movie, but moreso because his movies were serious. There was no comedy and there was no camp in any of his batman movies (nor in Iron Man as well). You can have a successful comic book movie that does require CGI (even a lot of CGI), but what is needed is the movie be given a serious tone. When you have a movie requiring tons of CGI such as the green lantern, combined with a camp and/or comedic tone, the movie begins to feel like a children’s movie because folks already have the mindset that what they are seeing is not real (because of the CGI); and it is because of that why serious elements–which causes the movie goer to take the movie more seriously–need to be implemented to balance or offset the unrealistic nature of the film. It is why Lords of the rings did very well (combined with the delicacy the paid attention to detail with which jackson handled those movies).

    • This is one of the reasons why the stories in the comics that do translate well to film, should follow the comics and not be changed or watered down to “appeal” to a “wider audience.” If it is not broken don’t fix it. Use what is already in the books, because, since non-fans know nothing or very little about the character, why then change the story or character to appeal to the non-fans when they are going to sit in the theater seats even when the story follows the books? You won’t risk losing them because they know nothing about the character, but you do risk losing the fans. Therefore, if they follow the source material comic book movies would lose no one. I think it’s common sense.

  21. That’s what I’m afraid of. James Gunn making it more like Green Lantern than a Marvel film.

  22. I’m very skeptical about this one but I do hope they can pull it off

  23. I think this film will be awesome. Its box office I’m worried about. I think that fact that its crazy concept and characters and the fact that it has “from the guys that made the Avengers” will sell this film. Plus Iron Man might show up. Quality wise, I refuse to believe this will be as terrible as Green Lantern. This is Disney/Marvel here people, they are not going to throw out millions of dollars on something like this without knowing its great. People didn’t have to be sold on Star Wars. People bought a giant walking carpet with a crossbow, they should also buy a talking raccoon with a rocket launcher.

    • By Thunder, yet another person dissing Green Lantern! Well, I happen to like it, so please let me know which of your bumcheeks I should kick first? You people griping are what cost us the sequel and franchise in all likelihood, so you can kiss my bumcheeks! Now stand back, bend over, bare your bummy for a Rumplestiltskin-kicking, cuz my foot is aching to yell, “Here’s the wind-up!”

      • @Goldilocks, “You people”? You do realize you are becoming those people by doing the same thing to Guardians of the Galaxy. “By thunder,” you are what you hate.

        • By thunder, there is a difference. I am defending Green Lantern, as a movie already made but unduly ripped upon. I am condemning Guardians of the Galaxy as a dumb idea (mainly because of the tree and raccoon) that will take away some of the seriousness of the Thanos threat as far as the avengers franchise is concerned. All it would take is for Euell Gibbons to come along and gobble up the tree man (“ever eat a pine tree?”), and Daniel Boone or Davy Crockett or somebody to come along and make a coonskin cap out of the rocket raccoon ranger, and an integral part of the team is already gone. No, seriously, I hope I am wrong, and will watch GOTG when it comes out (after all, it is Marvel), but I have grave doubts about it. I do hope I am proven wrong. (of course, now everyone is entitled o their opinion, and preconceived notions are a human trait in everyone, but if you were to say I sucked the big one for being too judgmental before seeing the film–even though I do qualify the reasons–well, by thunder, you “might” be correct…!). I still defend Green Lantern though.

    • “This is Disney/Marvel here people, they are not going to throw out millions of dollars on something like this without knowing its great”

      Actually this is subjective. Disney has been know to throw tons of money out on meh interpretations of franchises: John Carter & Prince of Persia to name 2 recent ones.

      The difference here being 1) that they have a far higher track record of good movies & 2) This is purely a Marvel production. I have high hopes for this movie because it’s being done by them.

      I love fantasy and Sci-Fi genres so I can see this as being a fun ride.

  24. Green Lantern was a bad film regardless of subject material, it was the stuff on earth that felt phony such as the forced romance, ryan reynolds acting etc etc.

    • By Thunder—here we go again! Mull my last rant over about kicking Rumplooskis while I get both feet revving up to do some kicking like Fred Flintstone’s feet powering the Flintstone-mobile! Oh, this pile of people needed their pig-skins punted over the moon are gonna have to reach up to tie their tennis-shoes when I get done, for the way they have been treating poor Green Lantern!!!

      • Poor Goldilocks

        • Poor perhaps in my worldly riches, but rich indeed in my knowlage of the comic book movie universe!

  25. I think a big downfall of green lantern was that the cgi wasnt used to enchance real element, and at times it was like watching a video game. a totally CG costumes was stupid, and it was always obvious to the viewer they where looking at fakes costumes instead of something real. people like cgi, but practical effects really give things a special feel, and you can then blend that with some cgi to sell it even more. i feel like thats what gunn is going to do with his movie, practical makeup and effects with enhancements done by cgi to further sell the images.

  26. i like fantasy over reality and thats why i prefer a marvel movie to the nolan batman rubbish anyday. if i want gritty realism i’ll watch a thriller but if i want aliens and humans with superpowers i will watch a superhero movie!

  27. A talking tree and a rocketeer ranger raccoon? You bet this movie has troubles! I think it may not be the hit Marvel hopes for.
    And Green Lantern, despite flaws, was not that bad; in fact for a first attempt, it was rather good!

    • @Goldilocks, “By Thunder,” I bet you have troubles! By your parents having you, it wasn’t what they hoped for.

      • green lantern was a big missed opportunity. they were able to produce a good animation with Green Lantern: First Flight. they had the formula right in front of them. there were just too many writers, i guess. they should;ve put hal jordan in space the entire act 2 & act 3 in the film. sheesh. it was that simple.

      • I may not be #1, but I am ahead of whoever is in second place! The difference is you were born in a barn, while I was born in a manger!

  28. Don’t make a cloud of smoke the villain and you should be good.

    • Didn’t work when Fox tried it on Rise of the Silver Surfer god knows why Warners thought it would work on GL

    • Right. A cloud of smoke may be the villain if you are puffing away on those nasty old ciggarettes, but in a comic book movie, we need something more substantial for the villain!

  29. for me, it’s not about if characters are unbelievable as a walking tree and a talking raccoon. it’s the story that matters. however ridiculous the characters may seem, as long as the story is good and fits them well, the audience will care.

    • I hope you are right….

Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.


If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it.

Be Social, Follow Us!!