http://www.stumbleupon.com/su/1bqCL...ic-con-2010-green-lantern-footage-first-look/ http://www.ugo.com/movies/comic-con-2010-green-lantern-footage-debut?cmpid=rss-movies
I'm excited about this and all reports are that it's shaping up well. I'm also more than a little surprised that while a big name like Batman does well, and while slightly lesser-known heroes like Iron Man and Green Lantern do well, no one can seem to get Superman right.
The first two Superman movies were probably the best superhero movies ever made. And, yeah, Nolan will do well by him too. I don't expect GL to be very good, but it seems like it will be very faithful to the comic (a lot more than I'd have thought) and that pleases me as a fan.
Are you freaking kidding me? They were the best superhero movies made until X-Men and Spider-Man hit. I realize that you're pushing 40 (not sure how old, but as a ref, I'm 37), but don't be naive. Modern super-hero movies are far, far superior to the Superman flicks of the Reves era.
I sure hope so. If anyone can do, it's him. You have a more than arguable point re: Spiderman, but not so much with X-Men. Purists and fans alike were plenty pissed re: lack of faith to the source material, making Cyclops a chump, and pretty accurately considering the X-Men movies to really be Wolverine movies with a supporting cast of various X-Men. And I liked the X-Men movies.
The body suit looks like a green version of the skinless demons from Hellraiser or the Freman suits from Dune. The mask doesn't work.
Movies aren't all about special effects. I'd put Nolan Batman movies and Spider-Man slightly under the first two Superman movies because those two Superman movies were freaking perfect. Great stories, great casts, great direction. I'd put all those movies way ahead of any of the X-Men movies. They were just okay. I don't really see what my age has to do with it, but I'm 41.
I agree. Movies aren't anything about special effects. It's about using what you have at your disposal to make a great flick. I suppose you could argue that special effects at the time of the Superman movies were good enough to compare to today's movies. I suppose I agree (Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Etc). But, I just don't think that the Superhero movies were taken as seriously then as they were today. Citing the above examples...they were really a novelty compared to the box office draws of the era. Take today's (the past 10 year's) draws, which means money, directors and actors, thrown at hero flicks. You have top-notch actors in hero movies like Norton and Oldman in these movies. As for age, I don't think it's not fair to qualify favorites in a certain genre with age of the consumer. Even though you're a few years older than me, I think we can both agree that we remember the hype of the first Superman movies coming out. It still gives me the geek-chills. In closing, I agree that SM 1 and 2 are great flicks. They just don't measure up to today's good hero movies in direction or acting. Different era.
We just have slightly different tastes, I guess. I don't factor in commercial success when deciding what I like. In fact, my tastes generally run counter to the market at large. Although, in this case, all the films we're talking about were very popular. That an already popular genre became more popular over time isn't any sort of evidence that it got "better." What's much more likely is that the effects got better and these movies became easier to make. Superman didn't rely on great effects. Spider-Man and X-Men did. Can you even imagine 70s versions of those movies? I can't. All Superman really had to do was fly and hit people hard and they had that down well enough back then for it not to be ridiculous. They knew better than to try to do X-Men back then. That was about effects, not because they didn't have good source material or scripts. The Watchmen is a better comic book than pretty much anything else from Marvel or DC and it didn't sell as well as Batman or X-Men comics, so that's another knock on your market forces argument. Plus, the Watchmen movie, made in an era when superhero movies were "taken more seriously," pretty much sucked. As for the acting, I think Christopher Reeve gave the performance of a generation in the Superman movies - and it was a more impressive performance than Oldman as Gordon or Norton as Bruce Banner. Not to mention the fact that Marlon Brando was in Superman. I think he was a pretty hot actor, but maybe it's just because I'm old. Or maybe people just have different tastes. But I doubt you'd disagree with my response to Lynus that someone has indeed "ever" gotten Superman right. In fact, the modern comics pretty much use those movies as an example of how to tell great Superman stories. The same is not true of Spider-Man or X-Men. The movie versions of those properties don't set an example for the comic versions because the stories just aren't as iconic or good as the Superman movie ones (and performances) were. Christopher Reeve is still the definitive Superman. Tobey Macguire will never be the definitive Spider-Man, even though he was plenty good.
Agreed. I think them getting Brando was akin to Lucas getting Alec Guiness and Peter Cushing in Star Wars. Even though Brando's role in Superman was comparatively much smaller, it was still bold, and added some very-real star-powered legitimacy to the film. I should have been more clear, because again I agree with you re: Superman I & II, but I was referring to the current/modern flop of Superman Returns and how project after project seems to keep getting shelved (or maybe that's just my perception). But yes, Reeve was/is the definitive Superman, and those movies rocked.
I love both the first two Superman movies. But as a one time comic geek, both of them fall apart for me at the end. You can see the exact moment where Hollywood takes over and messes with something they don't understand. The first one was a little more forgivable because of the time period, but it still brings them down a peg for me. And I wouldn't throw X-Men at the top of that superhero movie list. In fact, I liked the second X-Men a lot more. But still, good efforts (if you forget X-Men III). Just off the top of my head, Spiderman I and II, Superman I and II, Batman Begins, Dark Knight and Iron Man are among my favorites.
IMO, the first two Spiderman movies are the very top of the comic film genre. First two Superman flicks were the best of their time (and the only) but had some big flaws (the crystal chamber looks idiotic, the Luthor gang humor was low level slapstick, etc). Burton Batman was a nice second step in the evolution. The X-Men movies plus Wolverine, like the current Transformers, are popular cash cows, but sold out too much of their soul and integrity to Hollywood. Then there's the graveyard of films that just didn't quite do it (regardless of box office): Fantastic Four, Hulk(s), Punisher(s), Daredevil, Ghost Rider, Elektra - all forgettable. Honestly? Daredevil was my favorite of the group. Personally, I wish the focus had been more on crossovers the past two decades. Develop the Universe, then let individuals have their own franchise if they're popular enough. But I understand that's difficult since Marvel signed over the rights to several of their biggest guns. Iron Man has been very good straddling the fence. It also helps that a second tier hero gives you more leeway in translation - Iron Man fanboys are harder to come across than Inuits.
And here I thought The Watchmen was the best of the bunch. I not much of a fan of the comic book hero genre movie. Many of these movies became big budget, star vehicles. Plot be damned.
Watchmen should have been a high budget cable series. Trying to tell that story in two or three hours shrunk it tragically. And I don't say that just as a purist. I had low expectations going in but the movie failed to meet even low expectations. The soul was sucked out of it. I can see why someone would like the movie though if they didn't have the incredible comic book to compare it to. If you didn't read the comic (not sure if you did) you wouldn't know what the movie was missing. As for the genre generally, I'm not sure how you can say that about the first two Supermans, Spider-Mans or Nolan's Batmans. All of those movies had great plots, great acting, great direction and rose above the usual trappings of the Hollywood machine (though I agree with the earlier post about the Luthor flaw in Superman I).
