Nothing I've heard makes me want to spend money to see this. And I like the Johns run more than you do.
The one thing that really got me to say No is the after-the-credits scene I've heard about, which immediately tosses out all the great work Johns has done in making Sinestro a great villain with believable motivation. If you can't find a way to use that, to show the fall of Sinestro as he goes corrupt and then "evil," why bother using him at all?
Well, in its defense, the script still does pretty well by Sinestro and Mark Strong is a good choice to play him. If the writing team wasn't hellbent on rushing through the plot, and had moved that scene to the closing credits of the *sequel*, they would have given themselves plenty of time to nail down those motivations.
Even flawed as the first movie is, though, it shouldn't be too hard for the sequel to make a case for Sinestro putting on the ring due to, 1) over-confidence that he could handle it, and 2) excessive worry that the Corps is doomed if he can't.
The problem is they treat that scene like a big reveal but didn't do the groundwork they needed to make non-fans *care* about it.
The problem for me wasn't that I didn't care, it was that Mark Strong (plus 'evil' looks and the name 'Sinestro') never ever plays good guys. It wasn't a shock, or even a mild surprise. It was the inevitability that I'd been amazed hadn't happened before the credits.
Other than that, I thought it was a cute, comic-book-looking (ie more in vein with Fantastic Four than X-men) summer popcorn film. It didn't thrill me, and Reynolds wasn't playing anything we haven't seen before, but it was enjoyable viewing nonetheless.
Yeah, you nailed the problem with trying to do an Anakin with Sinestro. Such a terrible choice of name to give that character. But that's Silver Age comics for you.
I know nothing about Green Lantern whatsoever, and I was so bored. This hasn't been the case for any other superhero movie I've seen, despite not knowing anything about, say, Iron Man or Thor, either. They even made Ryan Reynolds boring! WTF?
Yeah, the script needed that extra oomph and just never got it. I can't believe I'm saying this, but it needed to spend more time worrying about newcomers and not cater so much to fans.
And, yeah, I don't think I was really adding much new in the way of critique. What people have been saying (definitely including you) just seemed dead on to me.
Comments 7
The one thing that really got me to say No is the after-the-credits scene I've heard about, which immediately tosses out all the great work Johns has done in making Sinestro a great villain with believable motivation. If you can't find a way to use that, to show the fall of Sinestro as he goes corrupt and then "evil," why bother using him at all?
Reply
Even flawed as the first movie is, though, it shouldn't be too hard for the sequel to make a case for Sinestro putting on the ring due to, 1) over-confidence that he could handle it, and 2) excessive worry that the Corps is doomed if he can't.
The problem is they treat that scene like a big reveal but didn't do the groundwork they needed to make non-fans *care* about it.
Reply
The problem for me wasn't that I didn't care, it was that Mark Strong (plus 'evil' looks and the name 'Sinestro') never ever plays good guys. It wasn't a shock, or even a mild surprise. It was the inevitability that I'd been amazed hadn't happened before the credits.
Other than that, I thought it was a cute, comic-book-looking (ie more in vein with Fantastic Four than X-men) summer popcorn film. It didn't thrill me, and Reynolds wasn't playing anything we haven't seen before, but it was enjoyable viewing nonetheless.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Gah, did I really just type that?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
And, yeah, I don't think I was really adding much new in the way of critique. What people have been saying (definitely including you) just seemed dead on to me.
Reply
Leave a comment