Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 9

[Nemi]

the problem with cloud villains is all the same. they are nto characters. they are something that you use for destroying the planet. ntohing more. but this doesnt make a good villain.
it wouldnt be a problem if they would start with the villain as small blue alien (Krona). and through the movie he would get more powerfull. and then at the end he can eb a big cloud. you need to start smal land then build up.

the movie starts with Parallax as a cloud right? aliens find Krona and he escapes and becomes big in less then 2 mintues right?

So the problem with cloud villians is that they have about as much personality and character development as global warming.

 

[gmanca]

There was no "cloud monster" in The Mummy. It was a cloud of locusts. The only other cloud-like this was a sandstorm with The Mummy's face in it; but you actually SAW a physical manifestation of the character throughout the film.

This film did the same thing, you saw the physical form of Parallax in the fallen Guardian, not just in the introduction but also in the explanation later on. There just wasn't enough to personalize and demonstrate/develop Parallax.

As constituted in the film, the "cloud monster" would not work. That does not mean all "cloud monsters" don't work.

 

[KalMart]

How much longer should movies try to actually do a cloud monster right, though?

Have we had enough, or have we just not seen it done the best it can yet?


RAAWwrrr! Cloud monster.

 

[Krimasen]

I wonder: do studios ever go back and touch up CG effects for a movie's DVD release? Or do they generally leave it as it was presented at theatrical release? There's a few effects that could use some touching up (namely the CG suits).

 

[J.Howlett]

The majority of studios don't go back to touch up effects for home release. Lucas is the only one I know of to do it for the actual film itself and for the deleted scenes. Normally, it's just not done.

 

[gmanca]

How much longer should movies try to actually do a cloud monster right, though?

Have we had enough, or have we just not seen it done the best it can yet?


RAAWwrrr! Cloud monster.

The Day the Earth Stood Still remake had a cloud monster and I don't remember people complaining about it, more that the film sucked. It did make 230 million worldwide though.

WB needed someone to come in and explain to them that as constituted the film sucked and if they wanted to make more money and keep the franchise in positive territory, they'd have to spend some more cash to make it work. If they had a real filmmaker as an executive producer, like Robert Zemeckis, this wouldn't have been such a clusterf-.

 

[dnno1]

The monster/villain wasn't the problem with this film. That is a stigma that is farce. The main thing was the brand awareness and negative reviews that scared away viewers. Now piracy is kicking in.

 

[Kirmit]

How much longer should movies try to actually do a cloud monster right, though?

Have we had enough, or have we just not seen it done the best it can yet?


RAAWwrrr! Cloud monster.

It's not the fact they're clouds that's the problem, it's that they're being shown as one dimensional villains with no personality, just destroy.

 

[KalMart]

It's not the fact they're clouds that's the problem, it's that they're being shown as one dimensional villains with no personality, just destroy.

Te question is...is it really worth trying to find that villainous personality recipe....for a cloud monster?

 

[gmanca]

It's really not a recipe so much as just doing what you would normally do for any other character.

This is where I'm coming from; you know that part where Parallax is hovering over that planet when Sinestro and the others come out to restrain it? Why didn't we see Parallax tearing that planet up? It was a quick little bit where three Lanterns are killed and it's over, but it was nothing different from when we saw the three alien explorers getting killed.

 

[Kirmit]

Te question is...is it really worth trying to find that villainous personality recipe....for a cloud monster?

Well that's the thing, without the villainous recipe that's all they are, a cloud monster and as we've seen so far, that's not working. I think it's worth knowing the villain a bit more, what drives them, how they came to be that way etc etc for a more interesting foe whether it be a cloud, an all powerful alien, a mad scientist or a giant mutated bug.

 

[SuperDaniel]

It's not the fact they're clouds that's the problem, it's that they're being shown as one dimensional villains with no personality, just destroy.

The joker is pretty one-dimensional too. He just want to create chaos. I actually like these villains more than good guy gone bad of the Marvel way. I like the villains to be just Evil. No other reason necessary.

 

[Kirmit]

The joker is pretty one-dimensional too. He just want to create chaos. I actually like these villains more than good guy gone bad of the Marvel way. I like the villains to be just Evil. No other reason necessary.

I did think of the Joker as I was writing that and came to the conclusion he wasn't as one-dimensional as Parallax and Galactus, we didn't see the method behind his madness (mainly as there didn't seem to be a one) but we did see his personality, perhaps the fact he had more than a couple of lines helped that.

 

[HaloCod27]

The problem with comparing the Joker and Paralax is that the Joker is actually a compelling, interesting villain.

 

[Infinity9999x]

The joker is pretty one-dimensional too. He just want to create chaos. I actually like these villains more than good guy gone bad of the Marvel way. I like the villains to be just Evil. No other reason necessary.

The Joker at least had a discernible motive behind his want to create chaos. He wanted to prove that deep down, everyone would end up like him. He even says it to Batman in the interrogation scene. "You'll see, when the chips are down, they'll eat each other."

At least we understood his need to create chaos. It was a bit more then just I'm evil because...I am evil! HAHA!

And it helped that he was an intriguing villain. He got the audience wondering what caused him to be the way he was. One reason why he's so interesting. It's kind of that age old question. Can people be born evil? Or do we all start out at essentially the same clean slate and it's experiences that can turn us into monsters. And exactly what does it take to turn somebody into an individual as deranged as the Joker?

So while he himself was fairly one track in what he was out to accomplish, he had enough layers and intrigue to make him very interesting.

 

[WeasleyIsRKing]

Parallax isn't what was wrong with the movie. It was how they used him/showed him. They should've given him more to do, extended some of his scenes. Its like everyone has said. The movie was too all over the place...with no clear direction of what it was trying to accomplish. Parallax is only a small piece of that. For example, why were we introduced to Hal's nephew early on, and then we never see him again? Stuff like that, I don't get. Either give Hal's nephew and family more to do, or cut them altogether.

The movie smacks of no clear direction, or too much studio involvement...or combination of a lot of negative factors.

 

[Krimasen]

Parallax didn't need motives; he was supposed to be pure fear. Fear exists to spread fear. Hector, however, did need more motivations.

 

[misjuevos]

How much longer should movies try to actually do a cloud monster right, though?

Have we had enough, or have we just not seen it done the best it can yet?


RAAWwrrr! Cloud monster.

the nothing in the never ending story was so influential though obviously, lol. at least in that movie it was called the nothing, lol. i am joking clearly.

parallax wasn't bad, i just thought the ending should have been a combination of the glc and hal fighting him instead of just hal, he is a major threat. they probably could have cut the 2 scenes together and made a better ending. the part where the glc try to catch him in a net and when they cut back to sinestro, just pick up with hal flying in to try something crazy that works.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

The monster/villain wasn't the problem with this film. That is a stigma that is farce. The main thing was the brand awareness and negative reviews that scared away viewers. Now piracy is kicking in.

Oh anything but the flick. Anything but the flick.

 

[mcallima]

The monster/villain wasn't the problem with this film. That is a stigma that is farce. The main thing was the brand awareness and negative reviews that scared away viewers. Now piracy is kicking in.

Give me a break. You're the guy that ties box office and quality together so tightly, so can't you just accept that most people didn't like what they saw and told their friends?

You have goggles on. I wanted a great Green Lantern film too, but that's not what we were given.

 

[moviedoors]

The Day the Earth Stood Still remake had a cloud monster and I don't remember people complaining about it, more that the film sucked. It did make 230 million worldwide though.

I'll fix that now then? Why make Gort, a badass robot, turn into boring-ass grey goo? Lame!

There. All better.

 

[Rowsdower!]

So... how does Parallax rank againt other Cloud Villains?

Galactus - F4: Rise of the Silver Surfer

The Smoke Monster - Lost

Greenhouse Gas Emissions - An Inconvenient Truth

Hexxus - Ferngully

Brain Cloud - Joe Versus the Volcano

 

[Saitou Hajime]

Warner Bros. still pushing ahead with Green Lantern Sequel

Warner Bros. are still going to produce and fund a sequel to 2011's Green Lantern despite a massive negative reaction and are already looking at Director's to replace Martin Campbell.

I have a source who I would say is "close" to Warner Bros. and he slips me little bits here and there and is always spot on. Well he slipped me another little thing here that is interesting.

"Despite the negative critical reaction and fan boy reaction, Warner Bros. are concerned about the Box Office numbers but believe it will make $400million which is less than the $550million they projected. But they are still pressing ahead and Martin Campbell left because of "differing agreements" with some of the Producers. Warner Bros. are looking at Matt Reeves to reinvigorate the franchise with the sequel as Director. The first film was always there to set up Sinestro as the villain in the sequel which will no doubt prove to be 100 times better from what I'm hearing, I believe at the moment it's called "Green Lantern: Rise of Fear" but don't quote me on that."​

I replied asking him about the Martin Campbell differing agreements bit and he said that it was creative differences in the finished product. He said he heard rumours that Campbell stopped putting his input into the final product at the end of May after "serious rows". This is why the film was so badly put together.

Also regarding the sequel (or Green Lantern: Rise of Fear), he said Warner Bros. want Matt Reeves to direct it who has experience with filming aliens in Cloverfield.

I assure you this is genuine and my source is definitely "in the know". What do you make of this?

Assuming this isn't just a tough act of WB's part in light of the current crisis, I don't know what to say. This is self-destructiveness of a level not even Fox is capable of.

 

[The Sage]

Curious about that news, if it's true.

It would explain a lot, but it doesn't sound like WB knows that they messed up. If they messed up Campbell's work, what's to stop from them doing it in a sequel by Reeves?

 

[moviedoors]

I like Matt Reeves. I'm a big fan of both Cloverfield and Let Me In. Talented guy.

But if all this crap about WB micromanaging Green Lantern to death is true, I just hope they learned their lesson. I don't want Jeff Robinov to be the new Tom Rothman. If that's where its headed, Reeves being attached is pretty much meaningless. Remember Gavin Hood? Won an Oscar for Tsotsi. Then he made Wolverine.