Guardians of the Galaxy Coming to Marvel Cinematic Universe

[Ahriman238]

I have heard that the GL film got killed in editing and the director's cut is far better. I've simply never cared enough to find out.

Hal is flawed, he's overconfident and fearless only outside of interpersonal relations. The movie did suck in getting across most of that.

[Batman]

Because nobody outside the fan community has a clue what the Green Lantern Corps is.

And yes, they ruined Parallax, but as far as I'm concerned so did DC Comics, and again, that's something only the fan community would care (or know) about.

That doesn't really address the nature of the complaint. It's hard to make a villain who looks like a pile of urine and fecal matter with a face pasted on it credible in any sense of the word. It works in comedy (The Golgotham comes to mind), but not for a serious villain.

Which is-your personal opinion, nothing more.

As a standalone movie, to an audience that doesn't know much if anything about the Green Lantern subset of the DC universe, I maintain this movie was okay.

Even in the face of a massive structural flaw, which was just one of several within it?

What massive structural flaw? Nobody but you gives a damn about the kid, for the vast majority of viewers this movie was about special effects tinted green for a change, and that's what they got.

Don't let your personal liking of a movie fool you into thinking that it's anything other than extremely flaws or downright bad.

This movie had Hal Jordan so I dislike it by default, as far as I'm concerned the Green Lantern of sector 2814 is Kyle Rayner.

Green Lantern has, from what I recall of my one viewing, an unlikable protagonist which is given the flimsiest and most offhanded humanization I have ever seen. That is the core flaw that sinks the entire picture

Why? Because you say so? I hate to tell you, but a lot of people going to the movies don't give a damn about that.

[Havok]

People knew who the fuck Green Lantern was. People also knew who Iron Man was.

The difference is Robert Downey Junior vs whatshisface.
With Iron Man, you had a brilliantly cast movie with someone who knew the material directing. I can't even remember what the lead actress looked like from GL, let alone who the director was and I saw the movie twice.

Up until Iron Man, Marvel only had two truly iconic characters that were recognized the world over; Spider-Man and The Hulk. Even Captain America wasn't on that level. Iron Man was nowhere near it. Marvel showed how to take a B-List character and make him A-List.
DC showed, with the Green Lantern, how to take a B-List character and make him C-List.

And for the record, Superman Returns WAS a sequel. It was an intentional follow up to SMII and ignored III & IV. The problem was, it played more like a remake of Superman, than a sequel to Superman II, which is even worse than a reboot because they destroyed all the anticipation and expectation that people had coming off the long absence of the character and the excitement Batman Begins had built and wasted all that time until now when they could have just reboot it in the first place.

[Majin Gojira]

Which is-your personal opinion, nothing more.

So you're either telling me it doesn't resemble excrement and urine, or that there can be a monster that looks like excrement and urine that can be taken seriously as an adversary?

I really don't know about that.

What massive structural flaw? Nobody but you gives a damn about the kid,

And that's the goddamn problem! Why introduce a character in act 1 who isn't that important to the plot in the most pathetic "Pet the dog" tactic I have seen int he 21st century so far?

for the vast majority of viewers this movie was about special effects tinted green for a change, and that's what they got.

Stupidity of the viewing public is not a valid defense for "This movie isn't that bad".

Why? Because you say so? I hate to tell you, but a lot of people going to the movies don't give a damn about that.

Why is Hal unlikable? Oh, it's very simple: he's not given a strong sympathetic aspect for the audience to relate to. This is a basic conceit of movies. Heroes start of (Physically, emotionally and/or socially) in a worse off position than the average audience member. Villains tend to start of (physically, emotionally and/or socially) better of than the average audience member.

Hal really doesn't start of with that, and what little there is, is not emphasized enough to properly counterbalance the initial gains he has over the viewing audience.

Or, I could turn it around and ask "What does the movie do to make me care about Hal Jordan?" And the answer is already mentioned. They throw in a totally blatant "pet the dog" moment that has no bearing on the rest of the film.

That's why I harp on it--it is a sign of a greater problem.

But in truth, Overconfidence is possibly the WORST flaw you can give your hero. It is extremely difficult to work with, unless his arrogance turns to Hubris, and here it does not. Worse, his overcoming his character flaw seems to be . . . well, the big hero moment is about overcoming fear, which is being even more forceful and rigid in ones belief in the self. In other words, he has to make his character flaw WORSE in order to save the day.

Again, that's from what I can recall from one viewing where me and two buddies mocked the hell out of it, so I could be wrong.

And for the record, I sang "I am the great mighty poo" when Paralax was on screen.

The other flaw mentioned (hard time relating to others) doesn't really bear into the main plot of the movie.

These problems COULD have applied to Tony Stark, but he's save by his truly good comic wit (IE: if there was a better writer on this picture, it'd lessen the bitter taste) and by his secretary. Tony may have money, fame and women, but he is not emotionally secure. He's basically an adult child, and the one person who he does have some emotional attachment to (Pepper) is, at first only shown trading barbs with him. He may have it all materially and socially, but emotionally? The audience is far better off.

Then Bad things happen to him, making him even more sympathetic. He had it all, but then lost it and was maimed. So if the emotional problems weren't enough to break you in, int he first 30 minutes, he pretty much is brought far lower than the average viewer.

We root for the underdog. The ones that suffer. Hal doesn't suffer nearly enough. It has to happen within those 30 minutes (or within 10-15 if we want to be strict about it.

Or, to use another superhero example, The Incredibles. The first 15 minutes of it has the Golden Age being VIOLENTLY ripped out from us. Even better, our hero, Mr. Incredible, is shown as a good hero, but his frustrations during his day make him sympathetic and the comedy of it connects us even more.

Sure, he's a super hero, but that darned cat will NOT let go of the tree! We can relate to that frustration pretty easily. And that is pretty damn important for a movie's protagonist.

Hell, those first 15 minutes are solid Gold. Watched it in film class as "The perfect 15 minutes" of a movie script. It does everything those 15 minutes need to do. Introduces all the characters, the tone, and so on.

Sorry, film school's leaking out everywhere.

So, if that doesn't answer your question, answer me this: what do you think makes Hal Jordan relate-able or sympathetic to the viewing public?

[JME2]

Here were some of the key problems I have with the film:

1. GL had four credited writers. That's never a good combo or sign and the uneven nature shows it.

2. Ryan Reynolds was miscast and I was against it from day one. RDJ carried the first IM through its weak points whereas Reynolds made it worst.

3. The villains have to be interesting enough to drive the movie. Hammond and Parllax showed what happens when you fail to replicate the Batman Begins formula of not starting with the main adversary -- which was the right call for Sinestro, but still. I'd have used the Manhunters.

4. GL should NEVER have gotten a $200 million budget. Not for an untested character and the bad marketing choices in the late Fall of 2010 were like a prelude to what happened with John Carter.