web counter
 

WonderCon Green Lantern Footage: Uh, What Kind of Goofy F**knuttery Is This?

By Dustin Rowles | Posted Under Trailers | Comments (72)

green_lantern_wondercon_630-thumb-630xauto-31969.png

I know, I know, I know. I should stay away from the comic-book shit. Shut-up. I have a vested interest in Green Lantern. It’s like not wanting an ex to do well. And man alive, if the four minutes from the Green Lantern movie embedded below are any indication, it’s like finding out an ex-girlfriend was dating a sewer grate. Maybe all the nerds will be blinded by the bright lights, the goofy costumes, and the grotesque faces to see it, but if this is the best that Green Lantern has to offer, what we’re looking at is a massive fanboy trainwreck, a bazillion dollar live-action Saturday morning cartoon. The geeks may stick their faces in the Green Lantern bowl and lap this up, but speaking for someone who likes their characters grounded in reality, this looks like an unflushed toilet after Spinach Sunday. Like The Fantastic Four crossed with green Avatar people with a bunch of comic-book hoo-ra patriotic wisdom. Goofy fucking adolescent superhero pablum.


(Via Movieline)










Each Time You Like, Share, Tweet or Stumble a Pajiba Post, An Angel Does the Paul Rudd Dance

← Hop Review: Cadbury Egg Copiously Filled With Crap | Last Night on "SNL": Elton Who? How About Tom Fu*king Hanks →









Comments

"A bazillion dollar live-action Saturday morning cartoon" is exactly what I was expecting this to be. It's right on the mark, as far as I'm concerned.

Posted by: hoganbcmj at April 2, 2011 6:15 PM

Wasn't as bad as described, but I'm still unsure about the film as a whole. It's not like every superhero movie is going to fulfill it's promise of being awesome.

Posted by: Matt at April 2, 2011 6:19 PM

i disagree. this is making me want to see now.

and just take 2/3 of the trailer scenes (i.e. watch my suit explode onto me, catwoman-style best friend) and get rid of them altogether.

Posted by: gp at April 2, 2011 6:21 PM

"HI! i'm dustin rowles! i hate comic book stuff and can't be objective about it so here's a clip from a comic book movie that i'll trash while telling you not to point out that i shouldn't be the one commenting on it in the first place!"

also i love that you like your characters "grounded in reality," whatever the hell that means. not a big travis bickle fan then, i guess.

Posted by: welp at April 2, 2011 6:23 PM

The geeks may stick their faces in the Green Lantern bowl and lap this up, but speaking for someone who likes their characters grounded in reality, this looks like an unflushed toilet after Spinach Sunday. Like The Fantastic Four crossed with green Avatar people with a bunch of comic-book hoo-ra patriotic wisdom. Goofy fucking adolescent superhero pablum.

That's a lot of bile for a pretty big part of your readership. Which of us geeky, lap dog, human shitsmeares was clamoring for a "realistic" Green Lantern, exactly? It's one thing to rag on original properties for looking comic book-y, but lets give the actual comic book adaptation a moment before damning it for the same attributes.

I love this site, Dustin. And you said it, maybe you're not the one to cover the comic book stuff. And I'll be the last person to tell Pajiba to take its fangs out, but it's one thing to say something looks silly from a dramatic standpoint and something else entirely to say it looks silly from a comic book fan's standpoint.

So yeah, Green Lantern is clearly not one of "your characters," whoever the actor playing him is. This one belongs to a whole bunch of other folks.

Posted by: coryo at April 2, 2011 6:25 PM

but speaking for someone who likes their characters grounded in reality

And there's your problem.

Posted by: duckandcover at April 2, 2011 6:25 PM

Holy sticky hairballs.

Looks like my beloved Nathan Fillion dodged a big ole shit-bullet when he got passed over for this.

Posted by: Jerce at April 2, 2011 6:26 PM

also it is pretty funny that you mad about the "comic-book hoo-ra patriotic wisdom" when if you had some context for that particular scene that you seem to be bitching about you probably wouldn't have said that.

but hey, let's take everything at face value, fuck it.

Posted by: welp at April 2, 2011 6:29 PM

I should probably expand.

I've got nothing against the guy who actually got the role. I've got nothing against Green Lantern or comic-book heroes in general. I've got nothing against a good CGI action-extravaganzalooza. These kinds of movies can be tremendously entertaining, quality stuff. Look at Spiderman. Look at Iron Man.

Now look at that footage again.

This is gonna be horrible.

Posted by: Jerce at April 2, 2011 6:30 PM

Eh...I was neutral until I saw the profile shot of Ryan Reynold's ass...I'm totally in now.

Posted by: ban-Danna at April 2, 2011 6:39 PM

The Oath always gives me chills, but I'm not sure abou the rest of it. Some of those scenes looked like a cluttered mess.

But I'll still be watching this, just maybe at the $6.00 early show.

Needs more Kiliwog.

Posted by: calliope1975 at April 2, 2011 6:39 PM

And the cycle of crap movies continues, as fanboys, so wery, very hungry to get their geek on, screech in excitement at any glimpse of their comic book heroes.

Posted by: bbmcrae at April 2, 2011 6:51 PM

Hehehehehe nice going, Rowles.

Posted by: BarbadoSlim at April 2, 2011 6:59 PM

I must confess to all Pajibans that the Lantern Oath gives me a thrill. Not in the nethers, of course, but it's a sublime bit of doggerel.

However, this movie looks like it might end up like Daredevil.

Posted by: The Wanderer at April 2, 2011 7:05 PM

SO MUCH CGI!!

Posted by: camytaru at April 2, 2011 7:12 PM

And how exactly were they supposed to make it gritty and based on reality? It is, after all, a Comic Book. Some comic books lend themselves to a more realistic takes, and this is not one of them. I get sick of every comic book movie trying to pretend like this is all normal and could totally happen in this world. Its part of the reason why I'm so ambivalent about the new Batman films. Them trying to pass the movies off as serious just highlights how absurd it really is and makes it seem corny to me.

That said, this could easily blow donkey dick. Green Lantern is kind of a lame hero.

Posted by: elgarcon at April 2, 2011 8:09 PM

The geeks may stick their faces in the Green Lantern bowl and lap this up, but speaking for someone who likes their characters grounded in reality, this looks like an unflushed toilet after Spinach Sunday.
Oh I see. The geeks have no discerning taste. I guess I shouldn't be on this site anymore then.

Posted by: Amanda at April 2, 2011 8:26 PM

What exactly looked so bad about that? Sure, it's not going to get any nominations, but that certainly wasn't enough footage to damn the thing.

Posted by: Socraz6 at April 2, 2011 8:34 PM

"The geeks may stick their faces in the Green Lantern bowl and lap this up..."

Uh, yeah. I probably wouldn't have gone with the whole "insult 2/3 of the reader base" angle with my review, but maybe I just don't get the sexy, high pressure world of internet writing.

Posted by: Craig at April 2, 2011 8:42 PM

So let me get this straight: This movie "Green Lantern" is about a superhero who is part of an intergalactic police force with weird looking aliens and stuff.

I don't get it- No Stars! Doesn't make sense!

But all is not bleak at the multiplex. There's a wonderful film, not for the under 17's (it's a little surreal), but otherwise 4 stars all the way for "Three Men and a Baby!"

The title makes me laugh!

Now, if you'll excuse me, Dustin and I are going to a chili cookoff with Dr. John.

Posted by: c at April 2, 2011 9:04 PM

I liked the footage, it looks like a total blast. And the CGI looks incredible (though his suit is a little iffy). However I'm a total geek, though not a DC fan, so maybe I just have no discerning tastes.

*lap lap lap*

Posted by: Chugga at April 2, 2011 9:15 PM

not diggin much on the costume.
gil kane's take on the character was simple & stylish and extremely cool visually. wish they'd stayed with that. (yeah, i got the geek cred)
other than that, it looks decent, probably better than daredevil or ff but not up to (nolan) batman or (raimi) spiderman...

Posted by: the Fatman at April 2, 2011 9:39 PM

this looks like an unflushed toilet after Spinach Sunday

What's wrong, Dustin? You seem upset. Is it constipation? It's constipation, isn't it? I know, buddy, it makes me cranky too when it hits me. Just take a couple of Metamucil capsules with several glasses of water every day and you'll be right as rain in no time, back to insulting people who aren't your core audience. God bless.

Posted by: Uriah Creep at April 2, 2011 10:18 PM

I didn't know the backstory of the comic. The concept is actually...interesting. The first half of the trailer looked good. The second half of the trailer, however, makes the movie look like a bad remake of The Last Starfighter.

Posted by: Three-nineteen at April 2, 2011 10:20 PM

The Oath always gives me chills

I think that's why they feature it twice in that clip. It's, without a doubt, the best part of the GL mythology.

As for Dustin, ah, go easy on him. It's obvious he doesn't get/like comic books and comic book movies. I'd rather he be honest of his biases than try to bullshit us.

That said, come on dude. This is a comic book about interstellar supercops. Reality doesn't enter the equation.

Posted by: Fredo at April 2, 2011 10:25 PM

Oh I see. The geeks have no discerning taste. I guess I shouldn't be on this site anymore then.

Well, geeks like you have no discerning taste. I mean, Christ almighty, did you kids not learn from the train-wreck that was Spider-Man 3? Everyone loved the trailer and was so psyched to see the film, calling it awesome before it even hit theaters. Then it came out, and it sucked donkey balls.

A trailer is just some of the flashy scenes from the film cut and edited together for advertising purposes. Flashy SFX won't redeem shitty storytelling or crappy dialogue. Not that the SFX are all that great, either; it looks like what a videogame console is capable of churning out for a cutscene cinematic, with plastic-looking graphics, and doesn't hold a candle to what ILM is capable of churning out. The designs still look like crap. The lantern looks like an alien bong, and the "organic" designs don't really draw a good connection between these characters and "intergalactic police force" as much as, say, the designs from Mass Effect would. Casting could've been better (and I'm not even talking about Reynolds, here).

What the author of this article meant by superheroes grounded in reality is that the characters don't act like slapstick caricatures of themselves through forced, contrived writing (which seems to be the cast both in this video and the last teaser we saw).

I fear that the author is right; all the geeks WILL be slobbering all over this, but the wide general audience (who make up the majority of box office revenue) don't really care about comics, and will probably walk out of the theater not really knowing any more than they went in with.

Or, it might end up like the new Star Trek flick; a big-budget light show with an overly-formulaic D-Grade script and boring characters (save for one or two), received with an equally-resounding "meh" by the fandom and the wide general audience alike. And, of course, pissing off the occasional ardent super geek, upset at how it didn't live up to his/her expectations of a Green Lantern film.

You guys are judging an entire flick based on four minutes of footage. The film is, in all likelihood, going to exceed 2 hours. 4 carefully-picked minutes isn't necessarily a good indicator of what over 2 hours of film would be like.

But eh..... fanboys will be fanboys.......

Posted by: Dave at April 2, 2011 11:33 PM

The only time GL has ever been grounded in reality is when he was hanging with Green Arrow. And speaking as a comic fan-I'm actually getting more annoyed with all that grounded, realistic, grim n' gritty Frank Miller/Alan Moore wannabe BS superhero comics.

That said, I'm 'meh' about this.

Posted by: C. Towns at April 2, 2011 11:52 PM

The only time GL has ever been grounded in reality is when he was hanging with Green Arrow. And speaking as a comic fan-I'm actually getting more annoyed with all that grounded, realistic, grim n' gritty Frank Miller/Alan Moore wannabe BS superhero comics.

C. Towns, you miss the point about what is meant by "grounded in reality". All Dustin means is that the story can adequately suspend your disbelief instead of feeling forced and contrived, and characters behave naturally, rather than act like cartoonish caricatures of themselves.

People take the term "grounded in reality" or "realism" too literally. Said people seriously need to get bent.

Posted by: Dave at April 3, 2011 12:49 AM

calm down guys...

looks ambitious. curious to see how it turns out.

Posted by: JOE! at April 3, 2011 1:05 AM

"received with an equally-resounding "meh" by the fandom and the wide general audience alike"

How could we forget the 257 million grossing, critically approved and generally liked Star Trek, was only met with a "meh."

You sound more insulated than the geeks you're trying to offend.

Posted by: yawn at April 3, 2011 1:28 AM

Imagine this movie in black and white.Yeah thought so

Posted by: YesPlease at April 3, 2011 1:46 AM

I'm fine with it. Yes, it's very cheesy, but GL has always been cheesy.

Posted by: Lucas at April 3, 2011 2:39 AM

Am I the only one who still thinks Ryan Reynolds is a horrible choice for Hal Jordan? Yes? Ok, I'll sit down.

Posted by: Alex00 at April 3, 2011 3:25 AM

@Dave-
Way to miss the point entirely, dude. I'll make it a little less obtuse for ya: why would I (a geek!) come to a site that belittles it's main audience? I don't have put up with that shit, I can just unsubscribe from the RSS feed and not think anymore of it.

Posted by: Amanda at April 3, 2011 3:42 AM

In Loudest Din, or Hush Profound
My Ears Catch Evil's Faintest Sound
Let Those who Toll out Evil's Knell
Beware my Power: The F-Sharp Bell!

-Rot Lop Fan, of the F-Sharp Bell Corps

Posted by: Wintermute at April 3, 2011 4:04 AM

But eh..... fanboys will be fanboys.......

Posted by: Dave at April 2, 2011 11:33 PM

Woah buddy, I don't know that the majority of us have been getting at Dustin because the trailer looks so good. It doesn't. But I understand the tough sell that something like Green Lantern can be, so I'm willing to let the property speak for it until someone sees the thing. As of right now, no one has, so that's some pretty heavy criticism to be throwing at the property alone. A decades old property, beloved by a whole lot of the folks who pay Dustin's bills.

If he sees it and hates it he can rip it up for us in a review. He can say the trailer doesn't look to do the property justice. But that's not what he said. He said the whole idea looked inherently stupid and that those of us who disagree do so with the loud moans of a cock-stuffed throat, knees to the floor of the Hollywood machine. In not so many words.

Posted by: coryo at April 3, 2011 6:53 AM

Look how cute, Dustin's got a little sock puppet named Dave! Can you make him dance, Dustin?

Posted by: snapnhiss at April 3, 2011 7:58 AM

I just hope Queen did the soundtrack.

Posted by: Rob at April 3, 2011 9:15 AM

You guys are judging an entire flick based on four minutes of footage.

You realize that includes Dustin, right?

Posted by: Todd at April 3, 2011 9:29 AM

Truth, Dustin. It takes balls to say the emperor has no clothes when we are given a peek. This is just ridiculous and Ryan Reynolds is awful.

Even geeks deserve an honest effort...didn't Batman teach anybody anything?

Posted by: sittingpat at April 3, 2011 9:41 AM

Wait. Wait wait wait wait WAIT!

Does this mean Rowles has officially dumped La Reynolds? I can understand the lack of interest in comic books and the movies that they spawn. But there seems to be a lot of vitriol here and I wonder if it is related to the movie or the actor. I know that Dustin is seeing other people now (Baby Goose, G. Gordon Leave It and maybe Sean Penn).

But does that mean it's okay for me to say that Ryan Reynolds has always annoyed the hell out of me and he reminds me of Affleck with better abs?

Still too soon?

Posted by: greer at April 3, 2011 10:25 AM

I know, I know, I know. I should stay away from the comic-book shit.

Yes, you should.

Shut-up.

No. YOU shut-up.

Posted by: ForbiddenDonut at April 3, 2011 10:28 AM

Which of us geeky, lap dog, human shitsmeares was clamoring for a "realistic" Green Lantern, exactly?
---
Who was clamoring for ANY kind of Green Lantern, exactly?

*Still waiting on the big-budget Banana Splits movie*

Posted by: , at April 3, 2011 11:09 AM

haven't taken a look at the comments yet but...this looks just like that dc universe movie i saw a while back (i'm not a hardcore green lantern fan)...it seems fine to me. what's wrong with a bright lights and special effects? not everything HAS to be grounded in reality. this is a summer movie after all.

oh, dustin. you disappoint. as for "Goofy fucking adolescent superhero pablum" all i can say is fuck you.

Posted by: splinter at April 3, 2011 11:34 AM

SICK TO DEATH of movie nerds being so hypercritical of CGI. OMG the CGI isn't as good as fucking Avatar or whatever, it's horrible! Get real.

Posted by: the new transported man at April 3, 2011 11:42 AM

SICK TO DEATH of movie nerds being so hypercritical of CGI. OMG the CGI isn't as good as fucking Avatar or whatever, it's horrible! Get real.

There is so much wrong with this post that I'm not sure...

Being critical of bad CGI is not being "hypercritical" when the CGI is near-SciFi Movie levels of shitty. They have 'shopped away Reynolds' entire body and replaced it with a bad cartoon that looks like no one involved ever had a peek at a human anatomy textook.

And that green is worse than...I was going to say "the glowsticks at an LSD rave gone wrong" or "the puke puddles at a six-year-old's TMNT-themed birthday party" but I can't think of a simile to do it justice. But it's BAD. It's worse than a very bad thing. And it's all over the fucking place.

And the last two-word sentence of your post exposes a level of cognitive dissonance that I find myself unable to adequately define. I can only point to it.

Posted by: Jerce at April 3, 2011 12:18 PM

goddam... whole lotta wadded-up panties flyin around. As a geek, comic reader and GL fan, I was not in any way "alienated" by the article. Though, i am vaguely fascinated by anyone who does feel that way. What a strange reaction.

Posted by: firedmyass at April 3, 2011 12:54 PM

Rowles, from time to time you and I have had our disagreements. And I know just how much you like “The Abs” and it pains me that the “Green Latrine” looks like it’s going to suck boar balls. But don’t let it get you down my friend, keep your chin up, there’s always a horrible Tyler Perry film just around the corner for you to review.

Posted by: Pookie at April 3, 2011 1:26 PM

I was way much more positively impressed by these four minutes than I thought I could ever be. They've left the funny business aside and focused on the story; the effects are mostly correct(-ed), the whole "mythology of the character" (yeah, I know) is very well transposed and I'm just hoping this latest exhibit becomes a good 'picture' of the rest of the movie.

If it is, then we'll have at least a nice action/superhero flick, which is more than we've been expecting from GL.

Posted by: godzilla_foil at April 3, 2011 1:56 PM

It's a movie about Green Lantern. Yes, we're gonna need a shitload of CGI to make it happen with the whole ring and thought process thing going on. I don't know why people are shocked about that. So LOTR and Thor didn't use CGI?

I'm curious, so I'll be going.

Posted by: Four Eyes at April 3, 2011 3:19 PM

Honestly, I don't see anything terribly offensive or amazingly compelling in this trailer. You see a little bit more of the Green Lantern planet (Oa, I believe it's called) and other Lanterns, but there's no indication to me at least that most of the film is going to be primarily set there or heavily feature them.

And it doesn't look like Hal is super down with the "comic-book hoo-ra patriotic wisdom" anyway. He looks more bewildered than anything else.

I'm just confused, Dustin. What did you want it to be? Cuz I don't think you can't give a gritty, realistic treatment (a la The Dark Knight) to Green Lantern.

Posted by: TheBoy at April 3, 2011 3:44 PM

BTW, a compliment to the producers who recognized their weakest part and sort of minimized it -- Blake Lively doesn't utter a word.

Posted by: Fredo at April 3, 2011 4:38 PM

"speaking for someone who likes their characters grounded in reality" Really? You're seeking REALITY in a COMIC BOOK/SUPERHERO adaptation? What an idiot.

Posted by: SS at April 3, 2011 7:14 PM

"What the author of this article meant by superheroes grounded in reality is that the characters don't act like slapstick caricatures of themselves through forced, contrived writing (which seems to be the cast both in this video and the last teaser we saw)."

*******

Wow. Thanks Dave. Never would have caught that. Now it totally makes sense, thanks to you. You know what would be awesome? If you could do like a Cliff Notes explanation of all Dustin's reviews going forward. That way, I could read Dustin's review, then read your post so I can figure out what Dustin meant, then read Dustin's review again, but this time without my being quite as stupid. So helpful!

********

"You guys are judging an entire flick based on four minutes of footage. The film is, in all likelihood, going to exceed 2 hours. 4 carefully-picked minutes isn't necessarily a good indicator of what over 2 hours of film would be like."

******

Again Dave, totally awesome. That's exactly what I was doing without even realizing it until you pointed it out. You should mention this to Dustin, as it kinda looks like he might have been doing the same thing (the part where he watched the 4-minute trailer and judged that the entire movie was likely to be "a massive fanboy trainwreck, a bazillion dollar live-action Saturday morning cartoon").

Still, love that you're here to explain what Dustin is saying and what I shouldn't be thinking in response to reading his review.

Posted by: jollies at April 3, 2011 8:52 PM

can we retire the word fanboy? if it ever meant anything, it's since been expanded to dismiss anyone who takes any interest in something the writer doesn't like.

and any of this endless discussion of geeks, the defenders and the detractors: you live in a world where video games are the biggest thing around, where superhero and sci-fi movies are the greatest box-office draw, where Paul is a mainstream movie, where critics are lavishing praise on Rubber, where vampires, werewolves and superheroes are as common as procedurals on tv.

there is no protective or derided geek niche. it's mainstream mass culture. none of it makes you culturally hip or especially retarded. it makes you average.

i thought the trailer looked fun, looked big and impressive, and from the little i know of the character, seemed true to the storyline. it's a comic book, what's it supposed to be?

Rowles wrote this with no personal ire, but instead had the sole intention of stirring shit up because it's good for business. Rowles is the weakest link on his own website. good thing he delegates better than he thinks or writes.

Posted by: idleprimate at April 3, 2011 8:56 PM

"Rowles is the weakest link on his own website. good thing he delegates better than he thinks or writes."

Seconded. I think he understands that, though. That's why the site is usually so full of win.

Posted by: orly at April 3, 2011 9:02 PM

Posted too soon. What I meant by that ^ is that I like the site generally, and if Dustin wants to write some (occasional) inflammatory posts just for the Hell of it, I really don't have a problem with that. It's his site.

Posted by: orly at April 3, 2011 9:05 PM

b-b-but the trailer wasn't that good.

Honestly, watch it again. As a piece of fanservice, sure, it does the trick. But would it convince an average movie-goer to see Green Lantern?

If I show that to someone who hasn't read the comics, they will probably be more intrigued at hearing Geoffrey Rush's voice than seeing Tomar Re. Wondercon audiences probably had the opposite reaction.

And once again, this speaks to the misunderstanding that online fans do not a box office smash make. Watchmen con trailer - people went nuts. Come opening weekend, a notably more subdued reaction. Spider-man 3 is still - STILL - spoken off as some kind of abomination, but it was a huge hit and even if people who paid to see it did not like the movie, they probably don't really care either way.

So some perspective. As a trailer it's not really up to snuff. Fair comment.

Posted by: Somnopolis at April 3, 2011 9:46 PM

Hey, Dustin.
Dustin.

Shut your face.

Posted by: superasente at April 3, 2011 9:53 PM

Wow..I just wasted 10 minutes of my life reading these comments. I'll never get that 10minutes back.
This was a review of a Movie Trailer, not a movie. I love this site, because the people that work here don't take themselves to seriously. I can't say the same for the people that left these comments. What I read here at Pajiba takes my mind of the real world..at least for a few minutes. Keep up the good work Dustin, and everyone else that writes for Pajiba.

Posted by: Patrick at April 3, 2011 10:25 PM

It's going to be epic. We will reverently list this along with the best of all time. Why?

3D Bitches! There will NEVER be a bad 3D movie!

Posted by: Mrcreosote at April 3, 2011 10:27 PM

I feel like this movie's gonna need a hell of a lot of this:
http://www.sadtrombone.com/

Posted by: Figgy at April 3, 2011 11:03 PM

Honestly, watch it again. As a piece of fanservice, sure, it does the trick. But would it convince an average movie-goer to see Green Lantern?

As someone who has never even seen a green lantern comic, much less read one, I can assure you this trailer does nothing for me.

Lemme guess. Seemingly average dude is going through a hard time in his life. Unbeknown to him, certain circumstances are conspiring that will lead him to receive some sort of mythical power, either in the form of "powers" or some artifact.

He will then undergo a training montage and a few lightweight battles while trying to hide this new life changing event from Legs McGee (I did note Blake Lively, yes?). Hilarity probably ensues at some point.

Then, said dude learns of huge evil villain trying to destroy earth/good/life-as-we-know-it. He fights said dude, damned nears dies but through the magic of human willpower/ingenuity/love he manages to pull through.

That about right?

As for Dustin, you kids can back the fuck up off my lawn. Dustins willingness to cut you jackholes down a few notches every now and again is one of the reasons I constantly return to this site.

What he said is perfectly sound. Green Lantern fan boys may love this but to this average movie goer, the movie looks like trash.

Posted by: Lennon at April 4, 2011 1:12 AM

What the hell's happened here? Pookie has the funniest comment and everyone's losing their shit and hating Dustin? Whoo boy.

Posted by: Kolby at April 4, 2011 9:25 AM

Hi, I'm Commander Shepard, And Dustin Rowles Is A Whiney Bitch.

Posted by: I see dumb people at April 4, 2011 10:28 AM

*lap...lap...lap...lap...lap...lap...*

Oh I'm sorry, you guys were talking? I was too busy being a drooling fanboy. Yes, I'm serious...I think these clips were fuggin' great. On the whole, I think this project has really gotten the character of Hal Jordan and the concept of the Green Lantern Corps and its history down pretty well. Now...if only Joe Public would agree. Meanwhile...

*lap...lap...lap..lap...lap...lap...*

Posted by: Green Lantern at April 4, 2011 11:59 AM

My two cents (a day late, and a dollar short, zing): Dustin is nominally correct that most super hero tales (whether they be movies, comics, or whatever) tend to very simple, non-rational cardboard cutouts. That doesn't mean they can't also be good; especially considering they're basically retellings of older, classical myths (that we can all appreciate for narrative consistency and legitmacy, if not bask in their less-than-stellar poetry). They're the sorts of stories that continue to be told from generation to generation, because of some human desire for simplicity. That doesn't mean they're necessarily good, either. Some are, some aren't. This one, Green Lantern, probably won't be. And, yes, that is just from judging it based on the trailers I've seen. (Everyone needs to get off their high horses on that issue, how else are we supposed to determine what movies we want to spend our money on? Fucking film critics?! Absurd.)

But I've had it up to here :waves hand at cranium level: with this bullshit that comic book = super heroes, or that comic booky = adolescent drivel. Most comic books are about super heroes, yes, but some are about gang warfare, or crime noir, or fantasy heroines, or grizzled cowboys, or the dude who works at the pharmacy, or the two chicks who go on road trips because they're bored, or turn-of-the-century-robots, or zombies, or any fucking thing they want to be about. Comic books aren't a fucking genre, they're another in a long line of story delivery systems. There are good ones, there are horrible ones, there are great ones that tug at the heart strings or reveal something fundamentally true about human nature, there are those that have no agenda but fun, there are ones that attempt to teach kids lessons (valuable, or otherwise), and there are the few comics that try and fail to be something new and different, and the even fewer that succeed. Just like every other medium. Comics don't deserve your derision, nor do they beggar your respect. Just don't belittle an entire art form because Hollywood makes shitty movies out of successful (monetarily, if not always creatively) comic books that have been in print for 50-60 years. Or longer. You, yes you, sound like the critics who dumped on Shakespeare primarily because the masses loved him, and the masses didn't know shit. The technical term for that type of person is, I believe, a "wanker".

Now, back to your previous existence of moving-on-from-this-thread. Cheers!

Posted by: RobP at April 4, 2011 1:06 PM

Between me and my husband we've owned more MP3 players over the years than I can count, including Sansas, iRivers, iPods (classic & touch), the Ibiza Rhapsody, etc. But, the last few years I've settled down to one line of players. Why? Because I was happy to discover how well-designed and fun to use the underappreciated (and widely mocked) Zunes are.

Posted by: cheapest original lopid at April 30, 2011 9:43 PM

You gave tremendous positive points there. I did a search on the topic and found most peoples will agree with your blog.

Posted by: what should your cholesterol numbers be at May 13, 2011 5:03 PM

You sure do know what youre talking about. Man, this blog is just great! I cant wait to read more of what youve got to say. Im really happy that I came across this when I did because I was really starting to get bored with the whole blogging scene. Youve turned me around, man!

Posted by: can you buy bactrim at May 18, 2011 10:53 PM

There are certainly a lot of details like that to take into consideration. That is a great point to bring up. I offer the thoughts above as general inspiration but clearly there are questions like the one you bring up where the most important thing will be working in honest good faith. I don?t know if best practices have emerged around things like that, but I am sure that your job is clearly identified as a fair game.

Posted by: how to buy generic cipro at May 20, 2011 7:25 AM

You have some honest ideas here. I done a research on the issue and discovered most peoples will agree with your blog. After that early period, the Beatles evolved considerably over the years.

Posted by: buy amoxil at May 21, 2011 5:32 PM