New Green Lantern Wonder-con Footage
Posted: Sat, 2nd Apr 2011, 8:39pm
Post 1 of 47
Green Lantern opens June 17th 2011
To me this makes the movie look better instead of that first trailer that the studio came out with, but thats just my opinion
What do you guys think?
Posted: Sat, 2nd Apr 2011, 8:44pm
Post 2 of 47
Definitely better than the first trailer, but it still looks ultra cheesy and the CGI creatures all look ultra cartoony. Maybe that's the point.
Posted: Sat, 2nd Apr 2011, 9:31pm
Post 3 of 47
Aculag wrote:Definitely better than the first trailer, but it still looks ultra cheesy and the CGI creatures all look ultra cartoony. Maybe that's the point.
Words right out of my mouth. Although the gatling gun looked kind of bitchin'. I'm anxious to see a Hal Jordan/Sinestro fight on the big screen after seeing Sinestro so vividly in the trailer.
Posted: Sat, 2nd Apr 2011, 9:38pm
Post 4 of 47
I like the trailer a lot, and I love that they dare to be outlandish and "super" in this day and age of trying to cash in on following Nolan's Batman-example of "darker and more realistic" (when those movie actually make money by being good
, not by being dark).
There is still some problems. Aculag voiced the main one.
Aculag wrote:but it still looks ultra cheesy and the CGI creatures all look ultra cartoony. Maybe that's the point.
Regardless of if it's intentional, I think it will suck all the tension out (like it did in Attack of the Clones) if everything on the screen looks non-existent. It will also date the film before it comes out. I'm also not sure about the transition between the CGI-scenes on the alien planet, and the Earth-scenes. They seem like different movies to me and that could be a problem. Also the costume is always the main character of these films. Remember what people talk about when mentioning Batman and Robin? Have you seen all the fuss about the new Wonder Woman costume? Therefore I would be really scared when making the first of these with a CGI costume. I can appreciate that the costume had to be CGI and the concept behind it looks good, but they should be working their arses off to make it look photoreal. A silly, dated looking, CGI costume is not what your superhero franchise needs.
Posted: Sat, 2nd Apr 2011, 10:05pm
Post 5 of 47
Aculag wrote:Maybe that's the point.
Yeah, I really was thinking the same thing, but all this makes me think of is a video game. It doesn't look like a movie, even if that were the point. Looks very very unrealistic, but lets hope that it looks better when it hits the big screen...
Posted: Sun, 3rd Apr 2011, 1:43am
Post 6 of 47
Oh dear, this looks terrible. Like a haphazard, overly-cheesy Star Wars ripoff, even with Ryan Reynolds clearly giving it his all.
Yikes. Embarrassingly bad.
Posted: Sun, 3rd Apr 2011, 1:48am
Post 7 of 47
You couldn't stay away. Could you?
Posted: Sun, 3rd Apr 2011, 1:59am
Post 8 of 47
I was gonna try a week. A day seemed better.
Also- Staff Only- the integral problem with the costume, regardless of everything else, is how light it is. The green isn't deep, it isn't striking, and it isn't dark enough to blend into the environment well. Instead, it's a pale light/pastel-ish green- but not one that seems to have enough shimmer or afterglow to justify it's hue.
So instead the eye is trying to gauge it as either the result of reflected light, or a dark, deep green suit. And since it's neither, it comes off as paintbrush in Photoshop set to 80% transparency on every frame.
But yeah, this looks awful. The only part I cared at all about were the 10 seconds of Hal Jordan running towards the spaceship on Lake Pontchartrain/a bayou with inaudible sound and handicam- as at least they felt very real and dramatic in terms of filmmaking. As opposed to the saturated-yet-oddly-pale-shimmer-and-shine-Dr-Who-effects-fest the rest of the footage gives off.
That, and yeah again, Ryan Reynolds trying. He's a great actor when given good material, and he seems fitting here- but trying to elevate and stretch something too fantastical for his casting at the same time.
Posted: Tue, 5th Apr 2011, 1:55pm
Post 9 of 47
Everyone want to try it again in higher resolution?http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/wb/greenlantern/
Somehow CGI has a habit of looking a bit better when you can properly see the amount of detail in the texturing and lighting. Some of the shots work for me, and some don't. I still think more work should have gone into the aliens and as Atom pointed out they should have chosen a much more CGI friendly colour for the costume.
Posted: Sat, 30th Apr 2011, 10:21am
Post 10 of 47
$9 million is a pretty big chunk of cash compared to any VFX-budget (which averages around $40-50 mill on regular giant CGI-heavy movies from what I've heard).
So yeah, this is quite huge.http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Green-Lantern-Gets-An-Extra-9-Million-T%20o-Finish-The-Visual-Effects-On-Time-24387.html
Posted: Sat, 30th Apr 2011, 7:33pm
Post 11 of 47
They saw the TF3 trailer and were like "well, we're boned."
Not that I think TF3 looks like a good movie, but the CGI does look like eleven thousand times better than Green Lantern's.
Posted: Sat, 30th Apr 2011, 8:36pm
Post 12 of 47
Aculag wrote:They saw the TF3 trailer and were like "well, we're boned."
Not that I think TF3 looks like a good movie, but the CGI does look like eleven thousand times better than Green Lantern's.
Hahaha, yeah, probably.
They do look about 5-7 years apart in visual effects. I don't really know what Tin-Tin will look like, but if the Oscars weren't a bunch of pretentious douchebags I'd say ILM had it in the bag with TF3.
Posted: Wed, 4th May 2011, 9:35pm
Post 13 of 47
Posted: Wed, 4th May 2011, 9:43pm
Post 14 of 47
DX6channel wrote:New Trailer:
Yahoo's HD videos are a joke. You can also get it in 1080p on apple - linky
Posted: Wed, 4th May 2011, 10:05pm
Post 15 of 47
NuttyBanana wrote:Yahoo's HD videos are a joke.
They are indeed, why is that?
Anyway, that really won me over! Looks pretty amazing. I'm so glad we are actually getting a super-hero, finally
, that actually dares to be super. I'm almost getting tired of just re-watching The Incredibles over and over again (not that this stands much chance against Brad Bird..). And no, the horrid Fantastic Four films don't count, as they decided to mock themselves and exploit the good looks of Alba and Evans to win over the audience.
This film is not ashamed to be nerdy and I love that.
Posted: Thu, 5th May 2011, 1:07am
Post 16 of 47
Looks pretty lame. I swear this movie looks a little worse with each new trailer that comes out. I kept waiting for a trailer that would change my mind (like the latest Thor trailer did), but if the movie is anything like the trailers I will happily skip it.
First, I know nothing about Green Lantern except for the fact that he was that black dude in the Justice League cartoon, so it's not like I would actually want to see the movie because of him. Not only that, the movie just doesn't look impressive. It reminds me of Fantastic Four 2 but with bad CGI.
The only reason to see this, for me, is because Blake Lively is so hot! But I'd rather tune in to Gossip Girl and watch her for free than pay money for this terrible looking thing.
BTW don't the people behind this realize how fake that mask look?
Posted: Thu, 5th May 2011, 2:36am
Post 17 of 47
Worse and more embarrassingly-bad the more they show. Too fantastical and colorful and nerdy and everything I don't at all care to see. Another huge problem I have is with the color palette. Really? Purple everywhere, teal everywhere, PBS-kids-show-looking skies and planet models? Characters? Sets? Why?
For a movie about Green Lantern, the color green feels like an afterthought. And even then, it's a low-saturation sort of odd, ingenuine green too. Not CG-complimentary. Eek.
This is all forgiving and avoiding the fact that, for how big the scope of the film may present itself (oh look, it's an earth film and a space opera!) I feel like I'm seeing very low stakes on another planet and a likely 'ending scene of the movie' sequence on Earth, and the movie based on these just simply feels very small.
Human interaction, human condition, and humanity itself is what drives superhero films. You remove that and set the film in a poorly-CGI'd, rainbow-y universe where Green Lantern is 'the only human' and you're immediately going to have problems no matter what with how the film will work. On a fundamental level, really.
The setting and core concept behind this movie was terrible, and even perfect execution never could've saved it from there. Keep it on Earth, or at least Earth-centric. People may say they want a space journey film in this, but the truth of the matter is you're paired to Earth for the origin story anyway- and you try and take that to space, you're creating an uneven, conflicting universe, style, and route-of-filmmaking for yourself right off the bat.
God, this looks bad.
Bet Warner is just happy they've got the HP tentpole to fall back on this summer when this movie bombs.
Posted: Thu, 5th May 2011, 8:37am
Post 18 of 47
RodyPolis wrote:It reminds me of Fantastic Four 2 but with bad CGI.
Fantastic Four 2 had terrible CGI. The only good CGI in the film was the Silver Sufer because he was made by Weta Digital. Everything was putrid in those films. You can count on one hand the films I've give 1 or 2 on IMDb, and the Fantastic Four films are two of them. They are offensively bad.
Atom wrote:Worse and more embarrassingly-bad the more they show. Too fantastical and colorful and nerdy and everything I don't at all care to see.
Those things have nothing to do with whether or not a film is good. Especially the part about you
not caring for it.
Atom wrote:Human interaction, human condition, and humanity itself is what drives superhero films. You remove that and set the film in a poorly-CGI'd, rainbow-y universe where Green Lantern is 'the only human' and you're immediately going to have problems no matter what with how the film will work. On a fundamental level, really.
Tarn wrote:Surprising amount of the story takes place in and around Asgard, which is superb - it's not a cheap "spend 5 minutes in Asgard, then send Thor to Earth" movie like you'd have got in the 80s.
Yeah. I'll wait until the film comes out to talk about those things. I will never believe that there are "fundamental" things you can't do in film if you want your film to work. I know some things are considerably harder to pull off, but Cameron recently got every damn person in the world to watch a film mostly about blue, CGI Native Americans with tails
. If Martin Campbell is good enough: none of your arguments matter (except the poor CGI one).
Posted: Thu, 5th May 2011, 9:11am
Post 19 of 47
I'm trying to figure out what it is that makes Thor's fantastical scenes and design work so well, while all the stuff in the GL trailers leaves me cold. GL and Thor are probably the most fantasy-based superhero films we've had so far, but I can't quite put my finger on why one of them seems to have worked and the other hasn't.
Maybe it's simply the Branagh factor. There's an integrity to the acting and filmmaking in Thor that just doesn't seem to be there in GL.
Posted: Thu, 5th May 2011, 9:21am
Post 20 of 47
I can't disagree with that, but I'm really hoping Green Lantern makes it, because I'm tired of that superhero-films have to chose between being gritty-Nolan-non-superhero films, or this-is-tongue-in-cheek-making-fun-of-itself Spider-man/Fantastic Four superhero films.
If Green Lantern makes it I'm hoping they completley stop pandering to people like Atom who are too cool for school and just sell exclusively to nerds. And I'm not really talking about the colour. I agree that it's too much. I'm talking about that in this you have the hero basically saying: "No evil shall escape my sight!". That is so deliciously nerdy, and something I've missed in the other superhero-films, which are to preoccupied trying to prove to Atom that they are relateable and have "humanity". I want a hero that's just like: "Evil: DESTROY! Nothing escapes my sight!", and that focuses more on the fake-hero-identity than the new trend to focus on the man behind the mask (see Batman Begins, Iron Man, The Incredibles etc.).
Also I'm pretty sure the whole subplot about Hal Jordan having to get over fear is to, again, make him relateable and lend him humanity.
Posted: Thu, 5th May 2011, 9:40am
Post 21 of 47
Staff Only wrote:I can't disagree with that, but I'm really hoping Green Lantern makes it, because I'm tired of that superhero-films have to chose between being gritty-Nolan-non-superhero films, or this-is-tongue-in-cheek-making-fun-of-itself Spider-man/Fantastic Four superhero films.
Yeah. See: Thor. It has the best 'proper' superhero action I've seen in a movie so far (with the possible exception of the Superman Returns plane sequence and the Spidey 2 train sequence).
Posted: Thu, 5th May 2011, 9:45am
Post 22 of 47
You've really got me interested now! I'll go see it this weekend.
Posted: Thu, 5th May 2011, 12:58pm
Post 23 of 47
Yeh Thor seems to hit a nail on the head somewhere in regards to it based off of Earth so much. When I look between the 2 films though, the CGI in Thor excellent. The world of Asgard (is that right? I forget) is designed well and looks real. The beings in Thor all look real, including the ice giants. GL has this cartoony thing going on with the aliens which takes me out of it a bit.
One way or another Thor worked out, myself and my mum both loved it so it's definitely hitting as lot of different tastes. There's also nothing in there that makes me think it's not an amazing film for kids either.
I don't know much about the GL character other than some stuff I saw in a few batman brave and the bold cartoons my son watches but I thought it'd be a good film to see happen. Maybe it's just a case of bad trailers.
Posted: Thu, 5th May 2011, 9:13pm
Post 24 of 47
Staff Only wrote:stop pandering to people like Atom who are too cool for school and just sell exclusively to nerds.
You, I certainly hope, do
realize that by stopping selling to what you're alluding to being an elitist niche that's 'too cool for school'- you're wanting to make something exclusively
for nerds is an actual
elitist, small, niche group.
And it gets 'pandered to' much more than any other.
Posted: Thu, 5th May 2011, 11:04pm
Post 25 of 47
Atom wrote:You, I certainly hope, do realize that by stopping selling to what you're alluding to being an elitist niche that's 'too cool for school'- you're wanting to make something exclusively for nerds is an actual elitist, small, niche group.
Yes, I do, but I don't want it for the reasons you think.
Making people like something like The Dark Knight is so
easy. I hated watching the "general population" in the form of girls in my class who have absolutely no interest in film (the kind that loves reality shows) walk up to me and say: "I loved The Dark Knight and I don't even like films like that
." I just felt like screaming "That's because The Dark Knight isn't, and was never, a "film like that"
Making it as accessible as possible was done in The Dark Knight's case because Nolan likes that sort of thing, but was done by everyone else because they are too lazy to figure out how to make compelling films with larger-than-life stuff that the "Reality show crowd" (I'm not referring to you anymore, I would never accuse you of being one of them) can't take. See J.J. Abrams' Star Trek for a guide on how to not
take everything fantastical out of a concept and still be cool
. That's what I want for superhero films. Mimicking Nolan is so
cheap and lazy. And down to earth, accessible stuff that my grandmother could understand and enjoy is not what I want to be watching when I'm seeing a film about a character like Superman or The Green Lantern. I also thought Batman and his universe was much more interesting in Arkham Asylum, Batman Begins or this show
than in "Crime drama"-The Dark Knight. Even Nolan who's one of my favorite directors failed at his own game in my opinion. The Dark Knight is good, but not as a Batman-film. Yes you have to be as good as Abrams or Snyder to pull it off (make nerdy look good that is), so don't hire directors for these kinds of films that aren't.
(I agree about the CGI. The reason you can now keep it fantastical is that CGI has come so far, so it dosen't help that the aliens in Green Lantern look fake. In Star Trek the CGI was flawless in every shot.)
I'm now really looking forward to Thor.
EDIT: I understand my post above basically said "Make it inaccessible and strange and just for nerds", but that's not what I meant. What I meant is that I want to see the meticulous work that went into making Star Trek stylish, instead of the "In the source material their costumes were yellow. Make them black leather. Yellow looks ridiculous on screen." (X-men) Now guess what? Yellow looking pretty good in the new X-men movie. Or how about: "The Hulk was too big and too light green for people to accept him in Hulk (2003). Are we going to spend $300-mill making people believe in the Hulk like Cameron did with just as difficult images in Avatar? Nope, make him dark green and smaller. Much cheaper."
So every time I see them "Cutting stuff because it will never work in a movie." all I hear is "Cutting corners because that would be really hard/expensive to make work in a movie."
I hope that explains it better.
Posted: Fri, 6th May 2011, 12:47am
Post 26 of 47
Looks like someone has a huge problem with anything mainstream Lol There's nothing wrong with the 'reality show crowd' liking a movie if it's good. To me it sounds like you're pretty much complaining that there aren't enough movies just for the nerds.
Anyways, Green Lantern will be the least grossing superhero/sci-fi movie of the summer because it does look too nerd-oriented.
Seems to be the perfect movie for the crowd who wants the Transformers movies to take place on Cybertron with no humans. I never got that, and never will.
Posted: Fri, 6th May 2011, 12:50am
Post 27 of 47
Maybe the concept of adaptation is lost on you more than anything else.
Change and alteration is a fundamental part of making something successful and strong in one medium the same in another.
Posted: Fri, 6th May 2011, 3:02am
Post 28 of 47
I agree with Staff for the most part, I'd like to see some more comic-book-esque style from Nolan's Batman series but that won't happen, so I enjoy them for what they are. Anyway, you can't really put Star Trek into the "I'm-geeky-but-cool-at-the-same-time" class because although it is cool, it, like TDK, is not like the original. If you know about the original Star Trek (and I don't know much) then at least you know that the point was to "explore new worlds" not fight off crazy aliens who hate future Spock. Not to mention, in the original series, when they had space battles, they were often short and only used as the spark that sets up the plot. Ya know what I mean? I just feel that using it as an example of a "nerdy-but-cool-movie" doesn't really fit...
Posted: Fri, 6th May 2011, 4:03am
Post 29 of 47
Most Star Trek fans were closeted before JJ Abrams' movie came out. At my school Star Trek didn't really come up in a conversation unless people were making fun of that ONE kid who was an out and proud ST fan. He would come to school wearing the ship crew uniforms, he'd do that "Live long and prosper" thing with his hands etc... The kid was weird.
He was pretty much the laughing stock of the whole school and I remember people would walk by him and yell "Star Wars rules, Star Trek sucks" and then he'd go on and on about how Star Wars is fantasy fiction, and Star Trek is true Sci-Fi.
Anyways, my point is it wasn't until after the JJ Abrams movie came out that Star Trek would come up in conversations as something that was socially acceptable. People now actually had actual Star Trek conversations with the kid instead of just making fun of him. I found out that a good number of people at the school watched Star Trek (whether it was movies, or re-runs), but just wouldn't openly talk about it because of high school's...you know.
So ya I would agree with Biblmac and say Star Trek 2009 isn't true Star Trek, but just a better and more mainstream adaptation. Which reminds me, I haven't seen that movie since the theater. Gotta Netflix it!
Posted: Fri, 6th May 2011, 4:46am
Post 30 of 47
RodyPolis wrote:Seems to be the perfect movie for the crowd who wants the Transformers movies to take place on Cybertron with no humans. I never got that, and never will.
I reckon that would be awesome
, and I think GL looks like crap. I migrate between crowds, apparently.
Posted: Fri, 6th May 2011, 5:11am
Post 31 of 47
That's the way to be! Never be part of just one crowd Lol
Posted: Fri, 6th May 2011, 8:20am
Post 32 of 47
RodyPolis wrote:Anyways, Green Lantern will be the least grossing superhero/sci-fi movie of the summer because it does look too nerd-oriented.
It'll be the least grossing superhero/sci-fi movie of the summer because it looks arse. Nothing to do with it being 'too nerdy'.
'Nerds' tend to have higher expectations, better understanding of the source material and are generally known to be better educated and more well-read than mainstream audiences.
I've always been what some people would categorise as a 'nerd' or a 'geek', and I'm very proud of it.
Posted: Fri, 6th May 2011, 12:54pm
Post 33 of 47
Tarn wrote:It'll be the least grossing superhero/sci-fi movie of the summer because it looks arse.
Posted: Sat, 21st May 2011, 6:12pm
Post 34 of 47
Posted: Sat, 21st May 2011, 6:23pm
Post 35 of 47
Lamer and lamer looking. You honestly could've put LOTR in space and got the same nerdy-and-obscure-fan-stuff-to-an-embarrassing-point levels.
God, I wish this didn't look flat-out terrible.
Posted: Sat, 21st May 2011, 9:31pm
Post 36 of 47
Wasn't a fan of that third trailer, but whatever trailer I saw before Pirates actually had me a bit excited for it. I don't know, maybe it's just the nerd in me, but I don't think this is going to be as bad as I had imagined.
Posted: Sat, 21st May 2011, 9:56pm
Post 37 of 47
While it does look massively cheesy/nerdy, I thought that third trailer was the one that piqued my interest the most. Might end up seeing this after all...
Posted: Mon, 23rd May 2011, 8:05am
Post 38 of 47
Yeah, this is the first one to have anything of note in it. Although coming off the back of Thor it does unfortunately (in the trailers, at least) come across as a cheap knock-off with less convincing CG.
Then again, Thor looked much cheesier in the trailers than the film turned out to be, so I'm not going to completely write off GL yet.
Posted: Mon, 23rd May 2011, 1:48pm
Post 39 of 47
Wow... That trailer was a big let down for me... It is a good idea, a good plot, a good movie in general with just terrible CG. I can't believe they are going to let it go to waste like that... they should have just made it a cartoon movie...
Posted: Mon, 23rd May 2011, 2:27pm
Post 40 of 47
The worst part for me is Reynolds reciting that lame green lantern oath that sounds like a poem written by a five-year-old. "See mommy I can whyme!"
"That's nice, dear..."
Posted: Mon, 23rd May 2011, 2:54pm
Post 41 of 47
Pffffft! The oath is epic.
Posted: Mon, 23rd May 2011, 5:40pm
Post 42 of 47
Yeah, epically lame.
Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if I could actually take Ryan Reynolds seriously. Meh.
Posted: Sat, 18th Jun 2011, 5:55am
Post 43 of 47
Anyone going to see this?
Posted: Sat, 18th Jun 2011, 6:07am
Post 44 of 47
Posted: Sat, 18th Jun 2011, 7:02am
Post 45 of 47
I saw it and I'm not ashamed! It was horrible though. The concept, the story, was pretty good, and I like it, but that may be because I love Green Lantern, too bad the effects sucked. My little brother went with me and he has seen Thor (and I haven't) and after we saw GL he wouldn't stop talking about how much better Thor's cg was...
Posted: Mon, 20th Jun 2011, 6:05pm
Post 46 of 47
Biblmac wrote: too bad the effects sucked. My little brother went with me and he has seen Thor (and I haven't) and after we saw GL he wouldn't stop talking about how much better Thor's cg was...
Just curious, what did you not like about the effects?
Posted: Mon, 20th Jun 2011, 10:53pm
Post 47 of 47
They just seemed cartoony. I mean like the aliens all looked like something out of an old Spy Kids movie or something... I'm not sure what exactly it was, it just made me think of it as "cartoony".