Jump to content


Photo

Green Lantern


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Lee Tamer

Lee Tamer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 17 June 2011 - 07:56 PM

Critics seem to be tearing this movie apart left and right, but audiences seem to love it. I enjoyed it for what it was, it had some serious problems, but it wasnt awful. It was on the level of Thor and the first Iron Man to me.

Has anyone else seen it yet?
  • 0

#2 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11936 posts
  • Other

Posted 17 June 2011 - 08:43 PM

They're just starting to trail it here.

Some time ago, I harboured a fairly intense dislike for comic-book adaptations, mollified somewhat by the film-noir grittiness of the Keaton Batman. Comic book heroes are stupid. It can't happen. They're depicted breaking the laws of physics. That's not awesome, that's just stupid. Feh. Off to the back of the class with you, Comic Book Movies. Sit alongside the entire fantasy genre. Go on.

I mean, honestly. Science fiction - at least, good science fiction - does its best to minimise any hand-waves required to make the storyline work (Star Trek Voyager, I'm looking at you, and your fictional-field-or-particle-o-the-week shenanigans). Superheroes make a fetish out of displaying the the same fallacies as story points.

As I say, this was my position a few years ago, back when they had just started remaking Superman, and, well, that's sort of justifiable because the old Christopher Reeve ones were sort of kitschy and fun, OK. And then they did Spiderman, the comic-book antihero with the intensely pathetic and unlikeable central character - this is starting to grate, now, but perhaps, on the basis that Spiderman is almost as well known as Superman and perhaps you could garner a little credibility from that... well, OK, if I must...

And then they did Fantastic Four* and X-men and more Superman and more Spiderman, and GI Joe, and good grief how many carefully-considered updates of embarrassing spandex outfits can we possibly cram into the school summer break? My previously carefully-considered dislike of superhero movies and comic-book adaptations has grown and prospered under this tidal wave of valueless bilge, the cinematic equivalent of a stale twinkie eaten during a severe head cold. These days, trailers for things like Green Lantern make me stir from my customary TV-watching slouch and shout obscenities and throw potato chips at the screen, and insert into my dreams entertaining images of the studio executives responsible locked in a very small cell, into which the words "behold my power, green lantern's light" are piped twenty-four hours a day at THX Logo Volume. For a month.

Oh no, is this sort of thinking inevitable once you leave your twenties behind?

P

* Partial credit for Jessica Alba in that outfit.
  • 0

#3 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 17 June 2011 - 08:57 PM

Oh no, is this sort of thinking inevitable once you leave your twenties behind?


Yes. I mean, I grew up during the great explosion of sci-fi movies in the 1970's, and this after already being a die-hard Star Trek fan. I loved fantasy and science fiction more than anything else. And yet, today, when I sit through some big-budget comic book movie and struggle to stay awake during a 20-minute efx-heavy action sequence as more and more fantastical CGI is laid out before me in an embarrassment of riches, and then later, as I find myself forgetting the movie even before I've gotten back to my car, and feel no reason to see it twice -- and this is a guy who saw "Star Wars" 25 times in a movie theater over a two-year period -- I have to attribute some of my lack of enthusiasm to age, I'm just not the person I was when I was a teenager. I'm not that forgiving, I've seen too many similar products, I've been overloaded with sci-fi fantasy when it used to come out once in a blue moon.

On the other hand, last night I caught "Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend" on cable (hey, it was shot by John Alcott) and it still sucks as a movie, it's perhaps even more embarrassing today, it's not like the old movies are necessarily better on the whole.

But the best of the best, like "Alien" or "Empire Strikes Back", are still worth revisiting, even without the veil of nostalgia.

As for serious, thought-provoking science fiction that isn't burdened with heavy action just to sell tickets, that is pretty rare these days. But I don't think you should even think of "Green Lantern" in those terms, I think all that really matters is whether it is entertaining and are you involved in the story, are you able to engage in the "willing suspension of disbelief" enough to worry about the fate of the character, believe he is in danger, believe he overcomes his obstacles and thus be thrilled and moved. From the trailer, the movie seems so overburdened with fantastical CGI effects that it just looks like an animated movie. Now maybe that's OK -- after all, "The Incredibles" was an animated movie, and a thrilling one at that.
  • 0

#4 Lee Tamer

Lee Tamer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 17 June 2011 - 10:01 PM

To me comic book movies are a fun way to waste two hours. If I want to watch something thought provoking I'll go look up a Jean Luc Goddard film or something. If I want to be entertained at the movies I'll watch a comic book movie. Now do I always want to watch this type of movie? No, sometimes I want something thought provoking.
  • 0

#5 Justin Hayward

Justin Hayward
  • Sustaining Members
  • 928 posts
  • Director
  • Chicago, IL.

Posted 18 June 2011 - 11:20 AM

These days, trailers for things like Green Lantern make me stir from my customary TV-watching slouch and shout obscenities and throw potato chips at the screen, and insert into my dreams entertaining images of the studio executives responsible locked in a very small cell, into which the words "behold my power, green lantern's light" are piped twenty-four hours a day at THX Logo Volume. For a month.


Phil, I think you'll enjoy this article, The Day the Movies Died.

"let's look ahead to what's on the menu for this year: four adaptations of comic books. One prequel to an adaptation of a comic book. One sequel to a sequel to a movie based on a toy. One sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a movie based on an amusement-park ride. One prequel to a remake. Two sequels to cartoons. One sequel to a comedy. An adaptation of a children's book. An adaptation of a Saturday-morning cartoon. One sequel with a 4 in the title. Two sequels with a 5 in the title. One sequel that, if it were inclined to use numbers, would have to have a 7 1/2 in the title.1"

"here's what's on tap two summers from now: an adaptation of a comic book. A reboot of an adaptation of a comic book. A sequel to a sequel to an adaptation of a comic book. A sequel to a reboot of an adaptation of a TV show. A sequel to a sequel to a reboot of an adaptation of a comic book. A sequel to a cartoon. A sequel to a sequel to a cartoon. A sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a cartoon. A sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a sequel to a movie based on a young-adult novel.2 And soon after: Stretch Armstrong. You remember Stretch Armstrong, right? That rubberized doll you could stretch and then stretch again, at least until the sludge inside the doll would dry up and he would become Osteoporosis Armstrong? A toy that offered less narrative interest than bingo?"

  • 0

#6 Justin Hayward

Justin Hayward
  • Sustaining Members
  • 928 posts
  • Director
  • Chicago, IL.

Posted 18 June 2011 - 11:29 AM

I hate these movies, and I haven’t seen most of them. So, yes, I judge books by their covers.

Whenever it became “cool” to be a “nerd” is when the artists were shoved out. I recently read an article talking about all these actresses, going on talk shows, and calling themselves “nerds” cause they like “Star Wars.” He wrote, “You’re a nerd cause you like the highest grossing movie of all time, too???”
  • 0

#7 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 18 June 2011 - 11:46 AM

Yes. I mean, I grew up during the great explosion of sci-fi movies in the 1970's, and this after already being a die-hard Star Trek fan. I loved fantasy and science fiction more than anything else. And yet, today, when I sit through some big-budget comic book movie and struggle to stay awake during a 20-minute efx-heavy action sequence as more and more fantastical CGI is laid out before me in an embarrassment of riches, and then later, as I find myself forgetting the movie even before I've gotten back to my car, and feel no reason to see it twice -- and this is a guy who saw "Star Wars" 25 times in a movie theater over a two-year period -- I have to attribute some of my lack of enthusiasm to age, I'm just not the person I was when I was a teenager. I'm not that forgiving, I've seen too many similar products, I've been overloaded with sci-fi fantasy when it used to come out once in a blue moon.

On the other hand, last night I caught "Baby: Secret of the Lost Legend" on cable (hey, it was shot by John Alcott) and it still sucks as a movie, it's perhaps even more embarrassing today, it's not like the old movies are necessarily better on the whole.

But the best of the best, like "Alien" or "Empire Strikes Back", are still worth revisiting, even without the veil of nostalgia.

As for serious, thought-provoking science fiction that isn't burdened with heavy action just to sell tickets, that is pretty rare these days. But I don't think you should even think of "Green Lantern" in those terms, I think all that really matters is whether it is entertaining and are you involved in the story, are you able to engage in the "willing suspension of disbelief" enough to worry about the fate of the character, believe he is in danger, believe he overcomes his obstacles and thus be thrilled and moved. From the trailer, the movie seems so overburdened with fantastical CGI effects that it just looks like an animated movie. Now maybe that's OK -- after all, "The Incredibles" was an animated movie, and a thrilling one at that.

David i had a small involvement in Alien and Empire . Both done without CGI and still the time factor to me has not aged them .
  • 0

#8 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11936 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 June 2011 - 01:54 PM

David i had a small involvement in Alien and Empire . Both done without CGI and still the time factor to me has not aged them .



Really!? Holy awesome model work, Batman!



I was reading about the effects models on Alien just yesterday, looking at the finished work and photos of the build process, pausing frequently to push my gaping jaw closed with a spare hand.

P


  • 0

#9 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 18 June 2011 - 04:07 PM

The best model work is impressive and often more convincing than a lot of GCI work, which somehow can lack the right dynamics and can visually feel more like a video game than reality.
  • 0

#10 John Holland

John Holland
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2248 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • London England

Posted 18 June 2011 - 04:37 PM

I wasnt involved with the model work it was the actor bit ! On Empire i did shoot some VistaVision plates for models to be added in California later .
  • 0

#11 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 18 June 2011 - 04:45 PM

Really!? Holy awesome model work, Batman!

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Vh78T--ZUxY

I was reading about the effects models on Alien just yesterday, looking at the finished work and photos of the build process, pausing frequently to push my gaping jaw closed with a spare hand.

P


I'm currently investing myself in the back issues of Cinefex - just read #1 (Star Trek+ Alien) - #27 Aliens on the way from the UK as I type - currently in Ghostbusters and Last Starfighter where they put quotations around the word 'pixel', 'frame buffer' and the recent invention of bump mapping


This was 1984 - care to guess the resolution the CGI was recorded onto film at ? (no cheating - take a guess)

But yeh, Alien >> Ridely Scott had an idea that apparently made even Giger grimace - they tried to keep live maggots under the transparent alien head but the heat of lights 'put them to sleep' - there is actually a humanoid skull under there, the idea of making them blind and yet still terrifyingly capable in their sense of the world around them appealed more than just giving them eyes...

Ghostbusters fascinating also
  • 0

#12 Brian Dzyak

Brian Dzyak
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1517 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Encino, California USA

Posted 18 June 2011 - 06:01 PM

To me comic book movies are a fun way to waste two hours. If I want to watch something thought provoking I'll go look up a Jean Luc Goddard film or something. If I want to be entertained at the movies I'll watch a comic book movie. Now do I always want to watch this type of movie? No, sometimes I want something thought provoking.



Sometimes, "throw away" movies say more than we realize behind their Playskool colors. For instance, every time I watch the Pixar movies "CARS" I see something deeper that speaks to issues of fate and purpose. Point being, we can be beat over the head with "importance" by "foreign" movies or be willing to look deeper into movies that just seem to be mere entertainment on the surface.
  • 0

#13 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19759 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 18 June 2011 - 07:34 PM

Sometimes, "throw away" movies say more than we realize behind their Playskool colors. For instance, every time I watch the Pixar movies "CARS" I see something deeper that speaks to issues of fate and purpose. Point being, we can be beat over the head with "importance" by "foreign" movies or be willing to look deeper into movies that just seem to be mere entertainment on the surface.


It's not so much that popcorn movies are deeper than we think, it's just that a few are, they have the potential to be more than throwaway entertainment, to be forgotten in a few days after viewing. In fact, the studios would profit even more if these movies had some sort of long-term resonance with audience, but that doesn't happen unless the movies are more than disposable -- they have to have compelling characters, they have to have a few ideas behind the action, they have to engage the viewer emotionally and intellectually after the credits have finished in order to become long-term cherished classics.
  • 0

#14 Chris Burke

Chris Burke
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1675 posts
  • Boston, MA

Posted 18 June 2011 - 08:25 PM

they have to have compelling characters, they have to have a few ideas behind the action, they have to engage the viewer emotionally and intellectually after the credits have finished in order to become long-term cherished classics.


the last star trek worked on that level for me. I watched it several times and own the bluray.It was compelling and I cared about the characters at least as far as I wanted to know what happened next. Inception as well.

What happened to the UFO remake movie? There is a series that was rather cheesy when it first aired, but it had some emotional guts underneath and could be a very worth while film. However a FX guy is at the helm and that doesn't bode well. the Straker story line about a man torn between duty and family made for IMHO, the best episodes of the original series, so there is hope.

I think the biggest problem with Green Lantern is that he was a tertiary level hero at best. The story was never there to begin with.
  • 0

#15 Brian Drysdale

Brian Drysdale
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5069 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 19 June 2011 - 03:35 AM

Pixar seems to invest a large amount of time in their story development and a tough battle for the best ideas between their animators. "The Incredibles" more or less says it all about comic super heroes, but as the Studios search for more of these characters from the comic world, the less successful ones will move along into the production line. They are part of modern culture, if they're an escape from the pressures of a modern world, who knows, I'll leave that to a Ph.D. student.

http://en.wikipedia..../Comic_Book_Guy
  • 0

#16 Lee Tamer

Lee Tamer
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 102 posts
  • Cinematographer

Posted 20 June 2011 - 03:11 PM

I think the main problem with all of these summer blockbuster movies is that they seem to have 5 to 6 writers. Thor, X-men First Class, Green Lantern, and even the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie have 6 writers credited. Super 8 had one writer, and its the movie I've enjoyed the most this summer. I cant imagine how 6 people can write a script and all be on the same level of what the story should be. I believe the heavy CGI movies are trying to distract you from the fact that the script is a mess.
  • 0

#17 Mei Lewis

Mei Lewis
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 347 posts
  • Other
  • UK

Posted 05 September 2011 - 07:10 AM

This was 1984 - care to guess the resolution the CGI was recorded onto film at ? (no cheating - take a guess)


640x480.
  • 0

#18 Phil Rhodes

Phil Rhodes
  • Sustaining Members
  • 11936 posts
  • Other

Posted 05 September 2011 - 07:37 AM

I don't know.

I do know that some of the stuff for Tron was actually vector output, so the notion of resolution, while valid, has a rather different meaning. Last Starfighter was clearly raster, though. Not sure. I'd guess it was probably at least a couple of K. They knew the resolution of the film stock back then and I know that some of the Evans and Sutherland gear would do many thousands of lines. Slowly. Very slowly.
  • 0

#19 Chris Millar

Chris Millar
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1642 posts
  • Other

Posted 09 September 2011 - 08:05 PM

Not sure how it works aspect wise (non-square pixels?)

but the answer from Cinefex 17 June 1984 is 4000 x 6000 res ...

sub film grain









  • 0

#20 Brian Hulnick

Brian Hulnick
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 358 posts
  • Sound Department

Posted 15 September 2011 - 09:28 AM

I think the main problem with all of these summer blockbuster movies is that they seem to have 5 to 6 writers. Thor, X-men First Class, Green Lantern, and even the latest Pirates of the Caribbean movie have 6 writers credited. Super 8 had one writer, and its the movie I've enjoyed the most this summer. I cant imagine how 6 people can write a script and all be on the same level of what the story should be. I believe the heavy CGI movies are trying to distract you from the fact that the script is a mess.


That is the problem. Put 6 people in a room and they will all have different ideas about how something should be done.
Put 6 writers in a room, all with corresponding ideas on how the movie should be made, all with Hollywood egos and you have a disaster waiting to happen.

Saying that, I did rather enjoy this summer's collection of movies. Super 8 has to be my favorite of them all though.
  • 0


Paralinx LLC

FJS International, LLC

Opal

The Slider

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Metropolis Post

Willys Widgets

Ritter Battery

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Technodolly

Abel Cine

CineLab

Visual Products

CineTape

rebotnix Technologies

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

CineLab

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Rig Wheels Passport

Wooden Camera

Glidecam

Ritter Battery

CineTape

Metropolis Post

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

The Slider

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Willys Widgets

Opal

Broadcast Solutions Inc