jump to last post 1-16 of 16 discussions (59 posts)

Green Lantern movie

  1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
    Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago

    Ryan Renyolds did for Green Lantern as Ben Affleck did for Daredevil and Jennifer Gardner did for Electra. The only redeeming factor for this movie was Peter Sarsgaard portrayal of Hector Hammond. Again another sleeper performace by another underappreciated actor. I know I am late to the game of throwing a comment about this movie up but I only just saw it this afternoon. What was everyone else's thoughts on this movie?

  2. Cagsil profile image60
    Cagsilposted 5 years ago

    I've seen the movie. It was okay. Nothing spectacular.

  3. Captain Redbeard profile image61
    Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago

    The message was great but the story was thin and the script was weak. I mean am I suppost to believe that Renyolds is smarter and has a greater will than that of other hardened Green Corps. Vets? Parallax was able to destroy, I think I counted like 16 corp memebers, one of which was Abin Sur, the greatest of all the corps. members but Hal Jorden who refused training by the elite was able to destory him?! Really, come on......come on.........

    1. Cagsil profile image60
      Cagsilposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      lol lol lol

    2. Stevennix2001 profile image82
      Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      You just watched a movie about a guy that can use a magic ring that can somehow form the shapes of whatever the hell his mind is able to comprehend, yet you really want to question how realistic the story is that Hal Jordan can defeat parallax when other Green Lantern Corpse failed? 

      Look, there was a lot of things wrong with Daredevil and Green Lantern, but none of those problems had anything to do with Ben Affleck or Ryan Reynolds, as they were the least of the film's problems.  Besides, that's like blaming George Clooney for how awful "Batman & Robin" was.  Sure, neither actor helped by giving mediocre to average performances at best, but I think anyone who knows those actors well enough can tell you that if you give them a script that's good, then they'll give you gold.  You give them crap, and this is what you get.  Not all actors can be Johnny Depp or Will Smith to where they can still come out great in spite of a mediocre horse s*** ridden script.  That's just reality. 

      No, the main problems were the story, weak character developments, and lack of general direction.  Those were the main problems with Green Lantern.  As for Daredevil, the main problem with that movie was the script and dialogue.  None of it made sense, and it came off too cartoonish to really take seriously.  That was Daredevil's problem. 

      Having said that though, I am rather sad to see Green Lantern bomb at the box office because of two reasons.  One, we'll never see Sinestro become a villain in the sequel.  And two, this more than likely kills any possibility of other superhero movies outside of superman and batman from dc for a very long time.  I don't know if you keep up movie news or not frequently, but Warner Bros. recently created DC entertainment to counter Diseny's buy out of marvel studios.  Marvel Studios used to be a studio owned by Marvel to specifically create movies based on marvel comics, until Disney bought them out recently to take a share of those profits.  Granted, marvel studios is left alone to their own devices, but they now have to share part of their profits with Disney.  Warner created DC entertainment to exclusively handle any tv shows, cartoons, or any movies based on dc and vertigo comics.  Supposedly before Green Lantern was released, DC Entertainment already made plans to release a Flash film after GL, and a possible Justice League movie too.  However, since Green Lantern was DC Entertainment's first big budget film, and not to mention that Warner execs admitted to having a lot riding on that movie, it'll be interesting if we still get a Justice League movie. sad  Kind of sad, huh?

      1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
        Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I just wrote a 5 paragraph response only to accendetly delete it....sad

        I'm not typing all that out again. I'll just say this.

        Yes, I have a huge problem with a premise like that. It's not believable.

        Casting is a huge part of a film and they dropped the ball. I would never cast Jim Carrey as James Bond or Ryan Renyolds as a John McClain type character. If the shoe doesnt fit, don't force it.

        Best part of Daredevil was the end lol

        I just hope someone like Nolan does Red Son. I loved that graphic novel.

        1. Stevennix2001 profile image82
          Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          Well no doubt casting is important, and could potentially change the whole dynamic of a film completely.  However, all I was saying is that those movies suffered from much BIGGER problems than casting is all I was getting at.

          1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
            Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            I agree, With most these films,  x-men, daredevil and such. If I could turn off my brain and forget the comix, I am sure I would enjoy them. But as it stands, I just can't stand behind a wolverine that's taller than a cyclops or a superman that doesnt throw a single punch in the movie!

            What did you think of spawn? The movie from when we were kids?

            1. Stevennix2001 profile image82
              Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Okay.
              Turn off your brain?  Well, no offense, but I never liked it when people use that logic to promote any movie.  As the instant a person uses the "If you turn off your brain" logic to tell you how good a movie is, the only thing I'm going to hear is that movie sucks so freaking bad that only brain dead morons would find it entertaining.  I do apologize to anyone if that comes off as rude, but that's just how it registers with me if you say that logic.  I get so tired of people using it that it sickens me.  Seriously, if you stop to think about it, you can use that same damn logic for ANY movie, and you'd still win.  Think about it.  I personally think the last two "Alvin and the Chipmunk" movies were horrible, but you can easily counter my argument by saying.."But Steven!  If you turn off your brain, then it's actually very good.  nyuk nyuk!" 

              Anyway, long story short.  To me, the whole "turn off your brain" logic is nothing more than a cheap cop out for people to use to justify their interest in a film to another person, when they have NO VALID ARGUMENTS to back up their claim that the movie is worth watching.

              As for as comic book films go, I think the thing you have to keep in mind is this.  No matter what's being adapted to the big screen (regardless if it's based on a book, comic book, video game, or whatever), then you can never expect it to be a 100 percent accurate to the source.  Anyone who expects that is going to be severely disappointed.  Even some of the best comic book films like "The Dark Knight", "Superman:  The Movie" and "Spider-Man", to name a few, have made a few changes to the original story line if you research it hard enough..BUT the movies were still faithful to the heart of the character's story line; which is basically the best you can hope for. 


              Taller than cyclops?  I don't know.  I thought Hugh Jackman and James Marsden looked to be the same height to me in the "X-Men" films, but that's just my opinion.  As far as height goes, that's kind of irrelevant, as trick cinematography can easily hide a person's true height on film.  Take a look at any of the "Lord of the Rings" films, or some of Arnold Schwarzenegger's early films like "Commando" or "Terminator 1 & 2", as you'll swear that guy looks to be about 6 foot tall, but he's actually closer to my height which is 5' 7. 

                This I can agree with you on completely.  Although I loved the first two Superman movies as a child, and still do. However, it's a shame that Hollywood still wants to try to portray Superman as being the Jesus Christ of Superheroes.  Sure, there's some religious symbolism to superman's lore, but it was NEVER that freaking obvious for pete's sake in the comics.  sheesh. 


              I have mixed feelings about it.  don't get me wrong, I don't like the movie at all.  However, I can see what Todd McFarlane was going for with the movie, as he was obviously catering the movie to appeal to a wider audience.  Unfortunately, it came at the risk of changing the story line completely from what it was originally intended to be; which is why you have so many p***ed off fans raving about it to this day.  But then again, I think if the movie had been more faithful to the original comics, I think the Church would've had it banned from theaters more than likely.  Seriously, if movies like "Last Temptation of Christ" or "Passion of the Christ" were enough to p*** off the Church to want to try to ban those movies from theaters, then you know a faithful adaptation of "Spawn" would certainly p*** them off more.

              1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
                Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                All I'm going to say is this, when you take iconic figures like Green Lantern, Superman or the X-men and try to develop a horrible story that doesn't live up to the legand, yea it's going to suck. I hated the x-men movies, lets be clear about this. I hated them because of the rip off of what they have been and could be. If I had no knowledge however about the Marvel universe I would be ok with the movies because I wouldn't know the cheap knock off story they were telling me. These are established characters that they run into the ground with  shotty story telling and bad choices for the actors because they want the name of teh actor to attract the attention instead of the story.

                "turn off your brain" I was never saying they were good movies.

                I get that they won't be the same. I totally get why in X-Men 3 they made Marco a mutant. It would take 3 movies in itself to properly explain his relationship to Charles and who exactly he is and why he isn't a mutant. I get it, but cripes sake they blended Jubilee and Rouge's origin to make that crap character and so wrongly named her Rouge! Jean never killed Cyclops, what they did to Storm and Colossus made me want to kick in my tv.

                The whole thing about wolverine was that he was a short and stout pittbull. He most certainly should have been shorter. It's part of who he is. Now granted they can't pull off the 3 foot span of his chest but they could have at least hired the right guy to pull the character. They could have done trick shots to make him shorter but they didn't did they? Hugh Jackman should have stayed in Australia.

                I have a collection of the comic strip of Superman back when he would hold bankers out of windows if they didn't give a loan to the local farmer. That superman was awesome. BTW, this was before he could fly.

                I bring up Spawn because I loved it. Then again I never read any of the comics. I have no idea what they are about so I had nothing to compare it to.

                1. Stevennix2001 profile image82
                  Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't seem to recall ever mentioning otherwise.  All I said was the best you can hope for in any adaptation of ANYTHING is to expect the movie to be faithful to the heart of the original source.  Other than that, you have to almost expect liberties to be taken in almost any adaptation.  That's just reality.  If you don't like the adaptation, then don't see the movie.  Hell, I still run into people to this day that'll go on record to say that the "The Dark Knight" sucks because it was too dark from the version they read from the comic books.


                  Okay.



                  Although, I respect your opinion on this.  I'm going to tell you EXACTLY what I told one guy on youtube once that ranted like hell about boycotting the "X-Men:  First Class" film just because he didn't like the previous films, and wanted to see the rights revert back to Marvel Studios.  This is basically the gist of what I said:

                  "First of all, you have to keep in mind that when movie studios make these kinds of films, they're not just promoting it to the one comic book nerd in the audience eating pizza and drinking soda.  No, they have to sell it to a larger audience.  Meaning, that movies are catered to appeal to not only comic book fans, but non fans as well.  Granted, there's always going to liberties taken (some movies take more than others), but if the story is well told, AND the characters' personalities and heart of the series is still intact, then that's all that matters.

                  And besides, you can't expect over 50 years of history to be crammed into a two hour movie, as that's simply isn't possible.  As for research into the comics, I don't know if you followed any of the behind the scenes interviews of x-men, but Brian Singer did do a lot of research into the characters believe it or not.  If you're questioning why he picked the characters that he did, he picked them because each character showed how mutation is a gift, while others show it's a curse.  Plus, you have to take in the fact that we live in a politically correct society.  Therefore, it's kind of expected that Singer put Storm into the first X-Men movie.  As for Wolverine, he's the most popular x-men, so he'd be a moron not to put him into the movies.  Anyway, the point is that all the characters he picked for the first movie were there for a reason.

                  Besides, did you ever watch the 90's "X-Men" cartoon?  That show took a lot of liberties too, but I still loved it as a kid.  Are you going to complain about that show too?  If you say no, then that makes you a hypocrite in my book.  After all, if you're going to be hard on the movies for taking liberties, then you have to by default not like the cartoon series back then as well for doing the same damn thing.  No offense, but I make it a point to never ignore the obvious.



                  Well, I don't know if you can say that about all superhero movies, but I can see where you're going with this, as you do bring up a good point there.



                  I know you weren't.  I just wanted to throw my thoughts in there about the whole "Turn off your brain" logic, as I see it thrown around too often by people that it sickens me.  My thoughts are if you can't justify why you like a movie other than that scrupulous logic, then it's probably best you don't try to convince others to see the same said film.  At least, that's just me.




                  Oh okay.  I guess we are on the same page then after all.  Never mind.  Sorry. 



                  Well to be fair, you have to look at the film maker's intent when analyzing movies.  First of all, during various interviews, Singer said he selected mutants for his first "X-Men" movie that would both represent the gifts and curse of being a mutant; hence why Rogue was chosen as her mutant power is obviously a curse, while Jean Grey's telepathy and telekenisis is deemed a gift in some ways.  Anyway, from watching the movie play out, I can see exactly what Singer was going for.  It's obvious he made Rogue a lot younger, and changed her character to appeal more to the younger audience watching the "X-Men" movies.  It's really not that dissimilar when the "X-Men" cartoon used Jubilee as a way to connect to the younger crowd when the show was introduced.  Therefore, it's easy to see why Rogue was portrayed the way she was in the first two movies.  After all, how are most teenagers? 

                  Well, most are highly insecure, emotional, have a hard time fitting in, rebellious at times, and often very naive.  Sound familiar?  Therefore, I think the reason why Singer modeled her character that way because he was trying to make her character appeal to a younger audience.  If you look at it from a marketing view point, then it does make sense when you stop to think about what he was going for.  Just saying. As for Storm, I don't disagree, but again we have to look at the intent.  Plus, we know that when the movies were released that society was a lot more politically correct about issues, so she kind of serves as the de facto minority of the group so to speak.  Granted, I felt they could've gotten a better actress to play Storm, but for what Singer wanted at the time, I think she did okay.

                    Well, let me ask you this.  What's more important?  An actor that looks like the character, but can't act for s***?  Or would you rather have an actor that doesn't quite perfectly match up with the comic book character's looks, but can probably do better at playing him than any other actor out there?  Which would you choose?  After all, just because an actor looks like the spitting image of a character, it doesn't necessarily mean the movie will be any good.  Take "Masters of the Universe" for instance. I think Dolph Lundgren is a spitting image of He-Man with long hair, but the movie sucked.  Or take "Steel" for another example.  Shaq may be the only actor (I used that term loosely referring to him) in the world that looks like the comic book character, but the man can't act for crap.  Seriously, he's one of the worst actors ever in cinematic history if you ask me, and the only reason he got cast for "Steel" was not only because of his name, but because he looked like the character.  Therefore, just because an actor looks like the character, it doesn't equate to a solid performance in the movie.

                  Take Michael Keaton for instance. NOBODY thought he could pull off Batman in 1989 because everyone didn't think he looked particularly like the character.  But guess what?  The movie was a hit, and I think he did a great job playing Batman during that time period (until Bale came along to prove he can do an even better Batman). 

                  Or take Christopher Reeves as another example.  Did you know that some people doubted Reeves could pull off Superman because many thought he looked too skinny to play the part?  Well guess who's laughing now, as he still holds up as being the gold standard for actors to portray superman to this day.

                  Therefore, that goes to prove that you shouldn't just base casting solely on the actor's looks.


                  Cool beans.  The issue must be worth a lot of money, and thanks for sharing.


                  Well to be honest, I never read Spawn either, but my brother did when we were growing up; thus he would always tell me about how awesome the character which is why I know a bit about his history.  Plus, I did watch the animated series for a while on HBO when it was on, so I know the Spawn they portrayed in the movies is not who Spawn really is.  If they wanted to portray Spawn accurately, the movie would've had to be given an "R" rating, and it would be highly controversial in terms of violence and religion.  However, I know Todd McFarlane wanted the character to be more commercial friendly for the movies, and it back fired on him big time, as it should.  After all, you can't take away one of the things that makes your character relevant and get away with it.

                  1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
                    Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

                    lol I like you man. I think the smartest thing that DC did was scrap he entire universe and start over with 52. Things have become so complex that things were hard to follow and people had allegiance with different storylines. I think the same should be done with Marvel. Burn it to the ground and start over.

                    I am a hypocrite, as much as I complain about the comics and movies, I will never stop supporting them. Even as I sit here I am wearing my marvel shirt with Spiderman, wolverine, silver surfer, nightcrawler, beast, black panther, Cyclops, hulk, iron man, colossus, thing, and captain America. In a way I like every re telling of these characters. Even when they get my goat I still like them. Superman having a kid has always pissed me off but I bought the Superman Returns. smile

                    There will always be things that piss me off tho Jessica alba being Sue Storm for one or Lex Luther always being the villain in every freaking Superman movie save like two.

                    In my opinion movies like 300, Road to Perdition and such were fantastic because it wasn't a 50 year long history. It was a graphic novel with a beginning and an end. They like scripts. I think that's why is so hard to do a Green Lantern or a Superman and such.

  4. skyfire profile image73
    skyfireposted 5 years ago

    Comic movies are fine no matter how bad director and actors perform. I think GL was okay film. I don't expect it to go on sequel for sure.

    Try watching so-called hit movie - "Lord of the rings". Trust me i can tolerate any bad sci-fi or comic movie but LOTR is like brain-*ape to me. Boring, stretchy and yet again boring.

    1. Stevennix2001 profile image82
      Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Lord of the rings isn't science fiction or a comic book movie. It's fantasy.  There is a difference between these three genres.

      1. skyfire profile image73
        skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        I know but my point was why OP is so picky with all the stuff in Comic movies. I wonder what's his comment on new spiderman movie, which is again bootup version and adds nothing for viewers. 

        I see that LOTR and other similar CGI  movies in fantasy , Historical plot contain plenty of mistakes, still people love them. Resident evil (game spin-off) has plenty of mistakes in plot, casts and story, still people love it. Irrespective of genre, i don't understand how come people have stamina to tolerate LOTR  lol So yeah, like OP i'm venting on my LOTR allergy.

        1. Stevennix2001 profile image82
          Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          lol  Fair enough, but I say who cares?  I still can't figure out why people love any of Michael Bay's movies, or why people still flock to see those god awful twilight films either.  But to each their own.  Besides, life would be boring if we all liked the same thing. wink  lol

        2. Captain Redbeard profile image61
          Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I didn't care for the LOTR movies. I like the style but not so much the movies. Resident Evil, never played the games, only saw the first movie, it was forgettable and I don't have much of an opinion.

          Spidey.......Toby was not a good choice first off. Peter Parker was nerdy but a wisecracking cuttup. Gwen didn't even make an appearence until Collage and whats with him being able to shoot webs? That wasn't part of his transformation when he was bit. As for the reboot. IDK, I haven't seen it but it looks like their taking an emo route with Parker this time. roll
          I just hope we get to see some real baddies in this one like The Lizard, Rhino or maybe he coult run into Daredevil....they never did get along did they smile

          @Steve, I agree. I can't stand most of what Michael Bay does. As far as twilight goes, I like my vampires to bite, mame and torment not be toremented by school girls......Pedobear alert!

          1. skyfire profile image73
            skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Like you even i pay attention to the details in comic and movie plot. I agree, killing mystique in last stand or cyclops was the worst way to kill x-men series. As for spiderman reboot they're releasing it this march with new name 'amazing spiderman' or something like that. I just dont understand why they're killing comic plots just because some director leaves the scene.

            I like micheal bay on transformers series but hated his other movies like PH. I admit, twilight and LOTR are the best way to torture any comic fan out there.

            1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
              Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              PH?

            2. Stevennix2001 profile image82
              Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Don't tell that to Avi Arad.  According to him AND Andrew Garfield, "The Amazing Spider-Man" film is actually more of a quasi sequel continuation that takes place within the original Raimi trilogy, and NOT a reboot.  Although, you and I both know it's a freaking reboot for obvious reasons, but that's how Avi Arad is selling this new movie.  wink

          2. Stevennix2001 profile image82
            Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Nobody else here liked the "Lord of the Rings" trilogy?  It was an epic fantasy series that featured a strong classic story of good vs. evil. Plus, like many other great fantasy/science fiction films there was a lot of underlining metaphors that could grasp from that series that gives it that much more depth.  Plus, you had great diverse characters in it, as well; which only makes the movies that much more interesting to watch.  But as I said before, to each their own.



            Wow, you're a lot nicer to the movie series than I am.  As I would go as far as to say that all the "Resident Evil" movies (with the exception of the first one) are giant pieces of crap.  lollol



            Well to be fair, I thought he was a great Peter Parker in the movie series, but it was the Spider-Man persona he never fully captured.  But then again, we have to keep in mind that Raimi had his Spider-Man films primarily focused on the man behind the mask versus the actual hero himself when you stop to think about it.



            Damn straight he is, and that's why we love him. big_smile lol



            Well to be fair, I think Raimi was just following the Ultimate Spider-Man story line when he decided to make Mary Jane his first girlfriend and next door neighbor.  I don't know if you know about the "Ultimate" marvel universe or not, but a few years ago, Marvel created an alternate universe for their characters where they would basically retell a more modernize version of some of their characters for today's generation; without the need of going back to research the history of the characters.  Well in the "Ultimate Spider-Man" universe, Mary Jane is Peter's next door neighbor, and first girlfriend in the series.  Therefore, you can't really blame Raimi for wanting to incorporate some of the "Ultimate Spider-Man" story elements with the traditional "Spider-Man" story elements that you and I grew up with. 

            This goes back to what I was telling you earlier about how some people didn't like "The Dark Knight" because it portrayed Batman as being darker than the version they grew up with in comic books.  Therefore, it's basically impossible for movie makers to make ALL FANS OF COMIC BOOKS happy, as there's been several re-imaginings, rewrites and various interpretations of the character that it's damn near impossible.  That's why the movie company's have to try to sell these movies to as many people as possible because if they worry about appeasing every comic book nerd that expects damn near 100 percent accuracy to the version they read, then they'll always be fighting a losing battle.  Why?  Because that one interpretation of spider-man could be way different than what another comic reader grew up with.  Get the point? 



            Well, to each their own.  But I agree with Stan Lee when he said that if he had known more about genetics back when he originally created Spider-Man, then he would've given him organic webshooters.  Just saying. 



            Idk about that.  From what I've read about the new reboot thus far, it's supposedly taking the movie into a more darker and less campy direction than where Raimi took his movies.  It should be interesting to see how it turns out, but I'm definitely not loving the new costume, as it looks freakishly cheap if you ask me....



            Actually, the Lizard is the main villain in the upcoming reboot of Spider-Man.  In fact, Rhys Ifans is playing him.



            That would be cool, but it's a shame it's never going to happen.  Although both characters exist in the same comic book universe, and are owned by Marvel.  Their movie rights are a different story.  Fox studios owns the film rights to daredevil; while Sony owns Spider-Man.  Therefore, it would be impossible for them to ever do a crossover UNLESS Marvel Studios and Disney somehow gets back the film rights for both characters.



            Thanks. I'm glad to see I'm not alone in this thought. smile


            lollol

            1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
              Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

              I have seen all the LOTR movies, went and saw them all in the theater opening night actually but they didn't really resinate with me for some reason. I dont know what or why but they didn't have the profound effect on me that the books had. I loved the Hobbit and am hoping that the upcomeing flick will do what the triligy didn't.

              The best part of the LOTR movies that I really got into was the portrayl of Smegal or Gollum.....both actually. That more than anything kept me glued. To this day when I see duel personalities played in a film like Mr. Brooks with Kevin Cosner (terrific btw) I always seem to compare. I loved the easter eggs in the movies too like in the first when the hobbits are with Aragone* spelling, in the woods and you can see the trolls statue from the hobbit. I loved that!

  5. optimus grimlock profile image60
    optimus grimlockposted 5 years ago

    I just watched this last night and it wasnt bad. Better then thor and not as good as x-men 1st class. The Green lanterns did train him, Micheal clarke duncan kicked his butt for 10 minutes of the movie. Sarsguard wasnt that good in this movie! In the Orphan he was pretty good, the best movie he was in had hayden christinson as a writer who made up storys then was cought dont remember the name. ummmmm hugh jackmen is shorter then james marsden and M.C.D was good as kingpin! Twilight is worse then any comic book movie because theres no blood!wtf how can you have werewolves with no blood even monster squad had blood in it!

    1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
      Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      He dropped some rocks on his head, threw some discs at him, punched in him the jaw and let him feel the force of the suns gravity. If that's all it takes to be trained as a lantern then they arn't all they claim to be.

      Sarsgaard was awesome in the film, come on! What beef could you throw at him? He was tortured, reveled in his powers and totally went to the darkside. Kingpin was white.......that's not racist to say either it's factual. lol

  6. optimus grimlock profile image60
    optimus grimlockposted 5 years ago

    sarsgard acted out bein tortured wow thats hard. I think you wanted a more literal training wich doesnt make sense in a movie that last barely 130 minutes. I know kingpin was white but who would of donr a better job then duncan....

    1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
      Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Butterbean lol

  7. optimus grimlock profile image60
    optimus grimlockposted 5 years ago

    king kong bundy

    1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
      Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Micheal Cera!

  8. optimus grimlock profile image60
    optimus grimlockposted 5 years ago

    I like alba as storm! I think your a comic book puriest thats the thing and you want it more like the comic book. I was like that before I saw M.C.D as kingpin then I was like f it.  I mean the transformers series could of been done better but I still love the 3r4d film!!!

    1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
      Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      That's probably true.

      The transformers thing makes me sad just because my son really wants to see them but I just am not comfurtable with him seeing half naked girls and such. It's like Green Lantern, saying Bi*ch and Go**amn all the time. What's the point? That just makes me not feel comfurtable having my kids watch these movies. I think part of the problem too is that the movies don't keep to th eold comic code.

      1. Stevennix2001 profile image82
        Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Well to be fair, if you look at Michael Bay's resume on imdb, his first directing job was for playboy a while back, so I guess the man is just sticking to his strengths. wink  lollol

        1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
          Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          yikes had no clue!

    2. Stevennix2001 profile image82
      Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree with Grimlock about this. I don't think Jessica Alba was bad as Sue Storm, as I think she did a great job.  The only people that was miscast in the "Fantastic Four" movies were Iaon Grufford and Julian McMahon.  Don't get me wrong, I know in my review of the second movie, I said Julian McMahon was one of the few bright spots of that movie, and I meant it.  However, that's because everything else in that movie was horrible by comparison that it made him look better than he actually was. 

      As for seeing Michael Clarke Duncan as the Kingpin, I couldn't agree more. As lousy as Daredevil was, I thought the villains in that movie were the only thing good about it.  In fact, a part of me hopes that they'll still cast Colin Farrell and Michael Clarke Duncan in their perspective roles again in the reboot, since I know the story line revolves around Kingpin discovering Daredevil's identity.  But since it's a reboot, I doubt they will be recast...sad..

  9. A Troubled Man profile image59
    A Troubled Manposted 5 years ago

    http://i1189.photobucket.com/albums/z433/Ravager11/SouthPark-noonecaresaboutgreenlanternworld.jpg

    1. optimus grimlock profile image60
      optimus grimlockposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      for stuffing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1

  10. skyfire profile image73
    skyfireposted 5 years ago

    Slightly off topic but any news on 'aliens' or 'predators' series ?  big_smile

    1. Stevennix2001 profile image82
      Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

      The alien prequel comes out next year, as it's being called "Prometheus."

      1. skyfire profile image73
        skyfireposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Thanks reading about it on Wikipedia. There wasn't much anything on scifimoviepage.com about this.

        1. Stevennix2001 profile image82
          Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

          that's cool.  well if you want, there's already information about it on imdb if you want to check it out.  idk if you have or not, but here's the link:

          http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1446714/

          1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
            Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            Steve you're a man who knows his genre. What did you think of the ever changing storyline of the preditor mythos? We first hear about them coming in the hottest months and such then find out that they go to the coldest place on earth to train? Then jumps back to the hot environments with the game preserve in the recent preditor movies. What were your thoughts on it?

            1. Stevennix2001 profile image82
              Stevennix2001posted 5 years ago in reply to this

              Eh. I just see it as a petty attempt to make the franchise go longer to milk more money off it if you ask me.  Not saying they're necessarily bad movies, as most casual viewers don't really notice minor details like you and I do.  Hell, some people tend to think that Adrian Brodie's character, in "Predators", is an older version of Arnold's character, in the first "Predator" movie, as I actually met people that argued with me to the death when I tried to correct them on that. But oh well. 

              To be honest, I thought all the "Predator" movies had a unique concept to them, and I thought they were pretty good action/science fiction films.  The only exception would be "Aliens vs. Predator 2", as i thought that was just freakishly stupid.  The first "Alien vs. Predator" movie was okay, but it was a bit gimmicky for my own tastes.  Then again, one could call me a hypocrite though since I would love to see a Batman vs. Superman movie come into fruition.  Although, I know most people will say that I'm crazy, but seeing two heroes that are the polar opposites of each other would be interesting to see in a movie if you ask me.

  11. optimus grimlock profile image60
    optimus grimlockposted 5 years ago

    omg the new pred movie sucked it was sooooo boring no kills untill the movie was 70% over!!! AVP 2 sucked as well, however avp was really good! The jungle,the hood,ice,a preserve whats next??????

    1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
      Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Preditor was awesome, part duex was sweet! It can't get any better than Danny glover sporting future weapons in the year 1997! lol

      Yeah then I think we had AVP I don't remember there being anything between. AVP was ok. I kind of thought there shouldn't have been any people in it. But it was cool to see Bishop before he was bishop ya know. Then it was Requiem and now the Arian Brody Predators, which I gotta be honest. I dug it. I liked the alien dogs flushing them out and the two different specie of Predator in a blood war. My man Lawrence was crazy in that too.

      I'm ready for a strickly full on Predator movie, no humans. Take me to their planet, lets hear their language and such. I want to them hunt something other then us........just thought of this, what if we saw a Predator take on a Prime!? That would be freaking amazing. Anyone see Batman Dead End? Batman vs Predator vs Alien, I thought it was exceptional for a fan made movie.

  12. skyfire profile image73
    skyfireposted 5 years ago
    1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
      Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      HALLA LUCIOUS! I loved it, the guy they got to play Joker looked like a meth head I think.

  13. LookingForWalden profile image60
    LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago

    I don't get why LOTR is being grouped into the discussion. It's not relevant to the discussion as its high fantasy and not a comic book movie.

    Anyone who read the books would agree they were too short if anything as they were missing bombadil and prince imrahil. The scene with Saruman at the tower. How the fight really ended at helms deep. The barrow downs. The real ending to the book. It goes on and on of the cool stuff that had to be left out for time constraints.

    It's one of the top 100 books of the century.
    And it's an Oscar winner.
    It revolutionized cg and mocap.

    Sorry for the rant.
    I understand it's not for everyone I guess it's hard to believe that though sometimes.

    1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
      Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I just don't understand why you're talking about LOTR on a Green Lantern topic thread...... wink lol Just mess'n with you.

      Visually, they were astounding. I have to say. I just commented on a thread about the mot beautiful movies and LOTR was in the ones I commented on.

      What I found interesting was the drastic change from the first one to the third one graphic wise. It shows just how far the industry came during the making of the film.

  14. LookingForWalden profile image60
    LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago

    I agree and the guy who played Smegal didn't get his due.
    He was great in planet of the apes too.

    Back on topic.

    The HBO Spawn series was sick.
    Did any of you guys watch batman year 1? I liked it.

    1. optimus grimlock profile image60
      optimus grimlockposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      um when was stahl in planet of the apes???? Im guessin u mean the one with marky mark.

      1. LookingForWalden profile image60
        LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        Ummmmm.  His name is Andy Serkis.
        He is in Rise of the Planet of the Apes.
        You must of not seen it if ou didn't know what I meant.
        You should rent it, it's a good movie.

        1. optimus grimlock profile image60
          optimus grimlockposted 5 years ago in reply to this

          I loved rise of the planet of the apes, one of the best movies this year! semigal was nick stahl tho

          1. LookingForWalden profile image60
            LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            No, it's Andy Serkis. Check imdb, Wikipedia, rotten tomatoes. Etc

          2. Captain Redbeard profile image61
            Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

            IMDB.com doesn't say that, it says that it was Andy Serkis.

    2. Captain Redbeard profile image61
      Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I agree, POA was epic. A perfect revamp for the franchise.

      I haven't see Year One yet. Giant Eagle has it on sale for like 6 bux the last time I was there. I'll have to go see if they still have it. I just got the Public Enemies movie though, it was pretty good. I will always be a loyalist to the comix though as some of the others have so notably pointed out lol

      1. optimus grimlock profile image60
        optimus grimlockposted 5 years ago in reply to this

        that was me lol everyone is a puriest at something!!!

  15. LookingForWalden profile image60
    LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago

    You think Reynolds will still make the Deadpool movie after gl?

    I think he would make an excellent Deadpool if they stay true to the comic. It's the comic book movie I look the most forward to.

    1. Captain Redbeard profile image61
      Captain Redbeardposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      I think he will, DC and Marvel are two different universes not likely to ever cross on the big screen. But really they already messed up the Deadpool story with the GAWD awfull wolverine origin movie. By the end of that, wade was nothing like Deadpool.

      Staying true to the comic is a absolute impossability for various reasons but even if they could just streamline it for the films sake they won't, they never do.

  16. optimus grimlock profile image60
    optimus grimlockposted 5 years ago

    really ive always heard it was stahl o well.  ya deadpool never talked and he was more vengefull. I always liked cable!!!

    1. LookingForWalden profile image60
      LookingForWaldenposted 5 years ago in reply to this

      Cable and Deadpool movie would be even better.

      I'd rather see it be animated because the animated movies always seem to be truer to the comics. At least in my opinion

 
working