Green Lantern may be stumbling – oh, alright, outright flopping – at the box office, but according to Mark Millar, we shouldn’t be too worried about the death of the superhero movie just yet:
I plan to focus solely on creator-owned for AT LEAST the next couple of years and so these trends are important. It’s essential that nobody comes along and messes up the very successful system we’ve had for the last decade or so. But we have to keep things in perspective. Any Chicken Littles screeching about Green Lantern being a flop and ruining everything must look at the big picture and remember it’s far rosier than any other genre. Our track record in comic book movies has been incredible since Goyer and Norrington changed the game with Blade, Singer carried it through with X-Men and Sam Raimi slam-dunked with Spidey. In the decade that followed we’ve had monster hits from almost unknown characters. Iron Man sells around 40,000 copies a month, but a combination of a fun script and very clever casting turned it into a $500 million grossing beast. Last year’s sequel hit $650 million and these numbers don’t even include DVD. The X-Men franchise has managed over 2 billion dollars in 5 movies and Spidey and Batman are the biggest of the lot. Check out www.boxofficemojo.com and it’s very heartening to note that superhero and comic book adaptations have an incredible consistency for turning vast profits. There’s the occasional dud like Catwoman and Jonah Hex, but these tend to be the exceptions rather than the norm and rare examples of unknown writers and directors being attached to characters traditionally coveted by the Hollywood A-list.
Of course, DC might want to be a little worried that, Batman aside, it’s their characters that are failing at the box office… but Millar has a theory about that, too:
Nobody sets out to make a bad movie, but the non-Batman DC characters just don’t seem to work in modern cinema and TV. I’ve loved these characters as far back as I remember, but whether it’s Wonder Woman or Superman or the Aquaman pilot or Catwoman or Jonah Hex or Birds of Prey or whatever… they just don’t seem to catch on in the modern world. I think it’s hard to compete with the new characters (or even the more recent Marvel characters, created a full generation later). Batman works because he’s more human for the big screen and more empathetic, but I fear The Flash and others would just meet the same fate as Green Lantern. They’re just too outrageous to provide tension in a live action format and I’d love to see them done, Pixar style, as brilliant, theatrical animated movies. Aquaman talking underwater would have us wincing in live action. In a cartoon we wouldn’t even blink. Some stuff just doesn’t suit the format.
It’s an interesting idea, and one that would hold a little more water if it wasn’t for the success of Thor who is, I think, as “unrelatable” as any DC character in terms of being removed from the average man, and has surroundings just as outrageous. That said, Millar’s right that Green Lantern is the only superhero movie to fail at the box office so far this year, and so perhaps concern about the genre is premature… We’ll have to wait and see how Captain America fares at the box office, I guess.
June 27th, 2011 at 1:34 pm
I don’t buy this argument or any other similar arguments about how “unrelatable” DC characters are. Characters are as “relatable” as the writers/artists/directors/actors make them. That’s all there is to it.
If DC characters fail in movies or elsewhere, it’s because the people adapting them are doing a poor job.
June 27th, 2011 at 1:49 pm
I don’t think he’s right about DC’s heroes in general. (Jonah Hex would have worked if anyone making the film had actually read the comic and made an actual western.)
But I think he is dead on about using animation. It might be fair to say that the best superhero film of our time is The Incredibles.
June 27th, 2011 at 1:58 pm
These Chicken Little articles are all so dumb…Thor just came out and was a big success JUST ONE MONTH AGO, then another superhero movie comes out and flops and suddenly it’s supposed to be a death knell for superhero movies? Superhero fans are so insecure and in search of mainstream validation for their hobby that they overanalyze and freak out over everything when the rationale is simple, and it’s a rationale that’s been with us for almost a century of movies…are you ready for it? Okay…here it is…
The “Keep It Simple Stupid” Rule of Movies: People like and go see GOOD movies, especially if well-marketed and with good word of mouth. People dislike and don’t see BAD movies, especially if poorly marketed and with bad word of mouth.
If Thor is a good movie with a good marketing campaign and good word of mouth, and ends up making money, it just confirms what we already knew, that good movies that are well-promoted make money. It doesn’t mean anything special for the future of comicbook movies, it just means that people still like good movies.
Likewise, if Green Lantern is a crappy movie with horrible commercials and brutally bad word of mouth and it ends up losing money, that in turn doesn’t signify the end of superhero movies. It just confirms what we’ve known for many decades not: people don’t like shitty movies.
All these Chicken Littles need to do is just stop thinking of every new superhero movie as reflecting on all superhero movies and just treat individual movies separately based on their merits. If a movie is good, it will do good. If it’s bad, it will do badly.
When a Dane Cook or Carrot Top comedy flops, people don’t release a slew of articles asking if comedy is over do they? No, they just blame the right culprits: crappy movies. We need to start doing the same.
June 27th, 2011 at 2:42 pm
Millar says Green Lantern (and DC characters in general) are unrelatable? To that I say,”Bull$#!^.” Did Luke Skywalker suddenly become less relatable because Obi-Wan hand him his father’s lightsaber? No, Green Lantern did not fail because there was something inherently wrong with the character or the concept. It failed because it was horribly paced and badly written. Had someone handed the writers a copy of Joseph Campbell’s “Hero With a Thousand Faces” or Northrop Frye’s “Anatomy of Criticism” and learned the right lesson from them then Green Lantern could have blasted Thor our of the water. We could have had an epic space opera on par with Flash Gordon or Star Wars (original, not prequels) but Warner Brothers really dropped the ball on this one.
Seriously, I don’t know why anyone goes to Millar for expert advice. Maybe he has a few excellent points but I become more of the opinion that he’s out of touch with contemporary pop culture.
June 27th, 2011 at 3:03 pm
There’s a pretty obvious reason why DC characters have a harder time becoming good movies: Warner Brothers makes them, not DC. The WB takes the property and makes a movie about it. Marvel has its own studio, placing them in charge of the movie, or at least giving them more input than DC has with their films.
Granted, this will all change if Marvel’s films start to bomb. Then I would imagine Disney will sweep in and take control of everything.
But no matter how much influence Geoff Johns had on Green Lantern, it was still written by committee (or so I’ve read). It was pieced together by Warner Brothers and pushed out.
June 27th, 2011 at 3:25 pm
I think another problem was hit on in another article.
Batman likes being Batman
Iron Man likes being Iron Man
Thor likes being Thor.
Movies like the Green Lantern, Punisher, and Superman, where the heroes spend times disliking what they are a downer and no fun to see.
I’d bet a Wally West Flash film would do well because he always enjoyed being what he is.
June 27th, 2011 at 3:30 pm
There’s nothing wrong, at all, with any of the DCU heroes. It’s the people (or committees) who are adapting them. Green Lantern is no more ridiculous than Thor, but had the been given a decent treatment, it would have soared.
Millar goes on about the “non-Batman superheroes” as if the 1978 Superman movie isn’t the patron saint of superhero movies.
And “it’s hard to compete with the new characters”? Which characters would those be? Kick-Ass? Superior? Nemesis? Poorly imagined analogues of Spider-man, Superman, and Batman?
Make a good movie or TV show and people will watch it.
For Pete’s sake Wonder Woman dominated a month of news cycle based on a change of wardrobe. You can’t buy that kind of publicity. If you do it right, the public will come out to see it.
June 27th, 2011 at 3:46 pm
Nowadays I don’t think that box office numbers matter. I think the real money comes from DVD, Blu-Ray, PPV, and network showings. So a movie like this, sure it didn’t as well as predicted (probably from the inflated 3D prices), but it will have legs when released around X-Mas
June 27th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Agreed with most of these posts. Maybe Millar should have mentioned the excellent films on Punisher (Dolph Lundgren style), Fantastic Four (Corman), and Elektra while he’s at it. The guy has zero credibility as an ‘independent observer’. His expertise is publicity, and good for him.
June 27th, 2011 at 3:50 pm
Honestly, it probably did horribly BECAUSE it was too Johnsian. The problem with DC comic fans is that they think because THEY like Johns and his uberviolent fanwankery so much, normal people will like his ideas and style just as much. But to a normal person I think Johns ideas are just not that hot. Most of the things I saw people complaining about were things straight out of a Johns comic, like green representing the emotion willpower (willpower isn’t an emotion) and yellow representing the emotion fear and how stupid Parallax was and how the movie was schizophrenic in not knowing if it wanted to pander to kids or be disgusting and grotesque (total Johnsian complaint there).
June 27th, 2011 at 3:52 pm
And we fans care what the most overrated Comic book writer of all time has to say why?
June 27th, 2011 at 3:53 pm
I liked the Green Lantern movie.
June 27th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
I don’t buy Millar’s argument. Personally, I think the successes is going through Millar’s head, makig him think he is like a comic/comic movie god.
But, he does point out on characters being human. Well, then that’s it. Superman, Wonder Woman, Flash, Aquaman, even Martian Manhunter and Hawkman; it doesn’t matter what they can do, just make them human. I’ve seen Smallville, read Bryne’s run, and read It’s Superman; it can work for Superman. On Wonder Woman: look at Perez’ run. Hell, he explained why a warrior preaches for peace for the entire world in his first arc. And Diana; look at her as an explorer who wants to get off the farm (Themyscira), kinda like Dorothy from Wizard of Oz. For Flash; a guy who is never there, even when he has superspeed, I can think of a Flash film based on the same if not similar themes used in Spider-Man 2. Aquaman? I can’t think of anything but a story on a King of the Seven Seas facing the problems from Atlantis’ army toward the Surface World led by his brother, with envorimental themes that is subtle (yes, they can do that, and work). Martian Manhunter: a stranger in a strange land story, and use the racism themes used on aliens. Hawkman: start out with the curse that has him and his lover reincarnated, and explore Carter’s rage and desire to not be destiny’s puppet. Then reveal Thanagar, either in that film or in a sequel, as being there is more to the story.
So you see: Millar’s argument is flawed and wrong. Making characters, even those with god-like abilities and can do anything, human with the story that can match, can make the movie work.
Oh, BTW: Justice League; how about a story exploring a superhero team on Earth as if they were gods walking among us; the Government’s POV (aka Cadmus/Checkmate), and how unintentionally, our heroes come across like gods themselves.
P.S. when I talk about how they can make these movies, why aren’t they doing that?
June 27th, 2011 at 3:59 pm
“but whether it’s Wonder Woman or Superman or the Aquaman pilot or Catwoman or Jonah Hex or Birds of Prey or whatever… they just don’t seem to catch on in the modern world.”
uh, that’s because those were all terrible. perhaps if they made an actual Catwoman or Jonah Hex movie faithful to the character, people would like it. Thor did well because it was a good movie. GL flopped because it just wasn’t a good movie. that’s all there is to it.
June 27th, 2011 at 4:21 pm
Well, all DC Characters arent ‘unrelatable’. Watchman and V for Vendatta, they were both DC comic book movies that did real well. Even Contstanitine I think read pretty good on screen and did fairly decent at the box office. I liked the GL movie. Thought it could be better, but it was pretty good anyway.
Lets look at marvel flops. Daredevil, Elektra. Um GHOST RIDER anyone? That was horribile!
June 27th, 2011 at 4:22 pm
Did you ever think of the two problems. DC needs more freedom to control its movies. Second Ryan Reynolds as Green Lantern Hal Jordan was a terrible choice. The casting at Warner Brothers is horrible. Marvel has the the control that allows them to truly reflect the comic book. One more comment, your comparing Catwoman and Jona Hex to Iron Man and Thor, really?
June 27th, 2011 at 4:31 pm
I concur. It’s not about whether or not this super hero or that super hero is relatable. It’s the story. If the story sucks then it’s not one folks are going to want to see. GL wasn’t just a bad super hero movie. It was a bad movie. Period. The argument about it being to Johnsian is ludicrous. Where they screwed up in terms of the Johnsness is that they bastardized the ideas, hence they didn’t make a lot of sense. They should have fully explored one or two concepts in each movie instead of half-way exploring ten of them all at once. That was a key to Thor’s success (and may be the key to the Avengers movie’s undoing if the rumors of everything that’s supposed to be in it are to be believed – Skrulls, Kree, Loki, Thanos, Cosmic Cube, etc).
June 27th, 2011 at 4:34 pm
Releasing movie images on a movie that isn’t ready (especially ones heavily dependant on special effects) is ALWAYS a bad idea. The early GL stuff looked like crap… as did the early Hulk stuff. At the end both looked fine, but geniuses thought that it didn’t “look real” and it made them feel smart that giant aliens or green monsters aren’t “real” and they knew they weren’t real…. so the movie was doomed before it ever hit theaters.
I think that the one thing that superhero movies ought to maybe take a break on is the “origin” storyline. They suck. I get it… something weird happened and now life is weird… there are only so many ways to tell that story and all of them suck. Green Lantern would have been a million times better movie (and it was fine for what it was) if Hal Jordan was out there kicking ass right away and they did a quick flashback to show him getting the ring. It’s not the Bible or the cinematic equivalent to Citizen Kane. It’s a summer popcorn flick… make them that way.
June 27th, 2011 at 4:51 pm
I thougt the Green Lantern movie was awesome ! Totally enjoyable from beginning to end. Not one bad thing I could say about it. If people aren’t going just based on the critics, they are cheating themselves out of a great, fun superhero movie.
June 27th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
JONAH HEX : John Carpenter
DOOM PATROL : Terry Gilliam
KAMANDI : Roger Avary
THE CREEPER : Shinya Tsukamoto
SHADE THE CHANGING MAN : Damon Packard
DEADMAN : Guillermo Del Toro
SWAMP THING : Andrew Leman
HELLBLAZER: Brian Yuzna
CATWOMAN : Mark Evans
June 27th, 2011 at 4:53 pm
tss…
June 27th, 2011 at 4:54 pm
Nice Millar, no mention of the Hulk,Elektra, or Punisher movies? Or did you think they were all hits because they are Marvel characters?
June 27th, 2011 at 5:06 pm
Most of you DC fans don’t get it. Marvel has had way more success with their B-level roster of characters in cinema than DC. He is right,DC characters are unrelateable. Stop trying to act like DC characters are as flawed or as human as Marvel ones. Name one dam character on DC’s roster that isn’t below 6’3 and with perfect jawlines?
Spiderman/Wolverine/hell,most of the x-men cast are perfect examples of imperfect people.
June 27th, 2011 at 5:21 pm
And let’s be honest, this is a flop in the modern sense of movie-making but all in all GL is going to be doing all right in any other conventional sense. It didn’t rule the first week or two of its release. Though honestly it wasn’t ever going to beat Cars 2 in its second week, it still should have been able to beat Bad Teacher. Sure.
Thing is, it’ll still make back the money put into it, and then some. In two weeks it’s made 118 on a 200 (plus) million budget. It’s not Iron Man numbers, or Thor numbers, but certainly on par. And that’s before we factor in the rest of its theatrical life and DVD sales.
DC and the WB should be getting more for its ad bucks, sure, but there’ll still be a sequel to Green Lantern, et al.
June 27th, 2011 at 5:23 pm
Yeah, Marvel has the better roster of characters… just waaay better, even Thor is more human than most of them, and he’s a friggen God. So… Marvel will succeed more often than not at the box office. And in the comic book industry…
June 27th, 2011 at 5:27 pm
“Name one dam character on DC’s roster that isn’t below 6’3 and with perfect jawlines?”
Doctor Psycho.
Changeling (or Beast Boy)
Robin
June 27th, 2011 at 5:31 pm
The only thing wrong with green lantern was that its budget was too damn big.
June 27th, 2011 at 5:33 pm
DC has plenty of off-kilter heroes that are ripe for smaller budget adaptations, and don’t even get me started on Vertigo, Marvel has nothing which can touch that level of material.
Its all a matter of making the films good, Green lantern failed because it was a poorly edited and structured film, it was no more out there than Thor or any other Sci-Fi movie like Star Trek or Star Wars, in fact it should have embraced those elements more.
The more iconic a character is means that they can be deconstructed that much more not to mention the characters of the 50′s have developed far more in recent years.
I still don’t see how Wonder Woman wold be anything other than a box-office smash, the name alone would pack people (especially women) in to the theatre.
June 27th, 2011 at 5:48 pm
I think the big problem with DC/Warners is not the characters but rather the way they are adapting them.
There is someone in that organization forcing his dated POV on the characters, and going out of their way to target children. The only reason Batman is working is because they learned their lesson the hard way with the old Batman flops of the 90s.
As someone who has worked with FGDs all his life, Green Lantern reeks of it. Whether actual FGDs or notes. The kid? The love interest? The explanations so that people “get it.” The happy feel good ending? Ugh. Actually, with a little editing, it can be very decent movie. Mostly by trimming some of the fat. The best bits were already there but someone chose to marginalize them. Sinestro, Tomar and Kilowog were cool. Even Hal and Tom’s rapport was all they needed. (Carol was forced) The relat
Marvel is doing better because they have taken creative control.
Jonah Hex!? They should have just made an out and out bad ass Western. No superhero crap.
On the other hand. Marvel also struggled with the X-Men (before first class), Fantastic Four, the third Spiderman flick, Daredevil, Ghost Rider the Punisher and the Hulk. In all those cases, creative call wasn’t fully under Marvel’s control. (although that means they have no excuse for the lousy second half of Iron Man2)
So it’s not a matter of Marvel’s characters being better than DC. It’s people doing a better job at adapting them.
Dark Knight and Iron Man remain the best examples. Story first. Worry about selling toys, appealing to certain markets and other crap later.
June 27th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
The rule with all movies is, “get the script right and you’ll have a solid base to work from.”
It doesn’t matter if the central character is a single lesbian mother raising 2 children, or an ace pilot suddently rocketted into space by a ring full of green energy. If the script is solid, the movie should work.
Miller’s comments are defeatist, and perhaps they show his limitations within the script-writing process.
June 27th, 2011 at 6:05 pm
The problem with Green Lantern is that it’s just not a very good movie. It’s very hard to get people to watch a movie that gets critically lambasted. I think this is an indictment of the movie itself and not the property as a whole.
June 27th, 2011 at 6:25 pm
Am I crazy or what? I thoroughly enjoyed the Green Lantern movie! I loved the reimagining of Oa, the Guardians, the costume, the lantern and ring. I mean…what am I missing that so many on this board despised it? I bought the “making of” book and was stunned at the thought that went into making the movie, down to the smallest details. Someone needs to explain this to me.
June 27th, 2011 at 6:40 pm
To Millar, all I have to say is Daredevil, Electra, X3, Spidey 3, Hulk 1 and 2, Fantastic Four 1 and 2, Ghost Rider, Punisher, more than half of Thor, anything animated passed X-Men TAS. Heck, I found Iron Man 2 boring. Funny how you never read about DC guys talking down Marvel.
June 27th, 2011 at 7:03 pm
@Unit99: SO TRUE!
I dislike Millar’s stories very much, his use of…”pop-culture” or what he believes to be popular is so…blatantly contrived that I can’t take him seriously.
As for his argument, he does have some solid points. But as most of you have been saying, the crew that is making the film should have found a way to make him relatable (sp?). The first draft of the script really really built the whole fear-complex in Hal (losing his father and such) way more than the final product (scenes that were replaced with Blake Lively as a prop).
This is one film where a reboot would actually be welcomed.
Star Wars-scale Super Hero movie please. Kthx.
June 27th, 2011 at 7:04 pm
From what I read in many of the reviews, many of their problems with GL movie were problems with the basic premise. Beyond the pure cheesiness of magic space rings, many reviews seemed to be left with one big question. Why Hal Jordan? Why would a ring choose a douchy pilot jock when there’s a planet with humanitarians and brilliant scientists and political masterminds? You know, somebody who might have some wisdom to go with that nuclear bomb on their finger instead of just a square jaw and ab muscles. Nope, the ring picked Maverick from Top Gun.
June 27th, 2011 at 7:07 pm
Green Lantern wasn’t a bad movie. The reviews were.
I have hope for DC characters. Though i do think it’d be cool to have just a whole bunch of big blockbuster Animated/Pixary/Dreakworksy DC movies.
June 27th, 2011 at 7:14 pm
Millar is full of crap. You’d think the creator of such classic literature as Kick-*** would have more class. *eyeroll*
June 27th, 2011 at 7:18 pm
Ummmm….am I the only guy over 30 who remembers SUPERMAN from 1978?
I think that film was pretty successful, no? And – correct me if I’m wrong here – it’s still remembered as one of the best films (superhero or otherwise) of that decade. Maybe even beyond the deacde.
It’s got nothing to do with the characters, because even Marvel’s 5-foot Canadian Golden Boy starred in a terrible solo movie, and that sucker should have been a license to print money.
No, it has nothing to do with character, and everything to do with the people who make the damn movies. Like a poster said above – a good movie will be successful. Crap begets crap.
June 27th, 2011 at 7:21 pm
DC characters are camp, they have silly and or dated names, ridiculous costumes and powers that make them nothing special or super godlike and therefore -boring.
The Flash? Sounds like something from the 50′s, Superman? He wears underwear on the outside of his tights…
Wonder Woman? Apart from for camp nostalgia at a gay pride event, who seriously is interested in such rubbish?
Batman is the only remotely cool character DC have and even that took DECADES at the movies to get even half way right and watchable.
Swamp Thing, Hawkman, AQUAMAN?! LOL! LAME!!!!!
June 27th, 2011 at 8:20 pm
The problem is Green Lantern, while flawed, wasn’t BAD, and I’d argue it was better than the critically beloved (yet only slightly above average) Thor (making GL slightly above slightly above average in my book). The production design alone MIGHT’VE been enough to turn people off (it is horrible), but the disproportionate drubbing suggests to me that there might be a backlash (“We cannot countenance three of these abominations in one season!”). However, if Cap doesn’t tank and then Batman is the next big one, momentum might be regained. I think the superhero genre needs to be established as its own genre, instead of being dismissed as a backward subgenre.
RE: DC, I think if there is a GL2, enough time will have passed that people will be able to judge it fairly and, presumably it’ll be a better flick with a lot of the clunky exposition out of the way and an excellent antagonist on board. I think Flash can be made relatable. If John Carter does well, maybe Aquaman can be approached as an underwater fantasy. Maybe. Even with all that, I fully expect Zak Snyder to make a charmless Superman that actually turns people off by the millions, so who knows where DC will be when that happens. Wonder Woman is doable, I think… (I’m full of optimism.)
June 27th, 2011 at 8:49 pm
I don’t think that it’s impossible to adapt DC characters on screen, but sadly it’s true that it’s more difficult… the dc characters are too perfect, no real flaws. If you make a DC movie, you must alter the core character of the heroes (they tried badly with Hal Jordan) or chose updated versions: for exemple, Kyle Rayner, a wanna-be artist who can’t pay his rent, and who receive the ring accidentaly, is cinematicaly more interesting. The same for Wally West, or even Bart Allen. But seriously, Barry Allen, Hal Jordan, Arthur Curry ? outside the comics they are just boring…
Superman and Batman are in a différent category, but for the others, it’s very complicated.
June 27th, 2011 at 9:07 pm
Superman Returns was loved by the critics and hated by general audiences so critics don’t always know best. GL is no better or worse than many vacuous summers blockbuster who make money.
June 27th, 2011 at 9:15 pm
Ar Mark Millar, good to hear some self entitled twaddle from you… It must be atleast 2 days since the last twaddle you dribbled… Hey just out of curiosity Millar, if you have time to be critical of movies, you must have the next issue of all those comic books you are meant to be putting out, that are months late already.
June 27th, 2011 at 9:30 pm
The Avatar The Last Airbender films are still being made…[although they better be seriously re-evaluated] I think the Green Lantern franchise (if continued) will be fine… haha
June 27th, 2011 at 10:36 pm
I think DC has a harder time selling their characters because marvel was the company that started the whole characters that you can relate too trend. My friend summed it up as “DC was your parents, while marvel was you”.
Plus they got started early with fox and ghost rider/daredevil etc while DC only got batman and supes out there. even thought most of marvel’s filmed flopped they got their named out there more than dc did.
June 27th, 2011 at 11:50 pm
I read all these posts about how DC characters suck because they are too powerful, too perfect and have no real flaws so that makes them boring and unrelatable. I read comics to have fun, I read comics to see powers and abilities far beyond what we see in the real world. I get enough of the real world in my day to day life. I read comics to escape from that, to escape from reality. THAT IS WHAT COMICS ARE FOR! I like my comic characters ultra powerful. When I go see a comic movie, I want mind-blowing power effects, fantastic settings and the morality that is sadly lost on the modern world. Nowadays all people seem to be interested in are flaws and that shows how far society has fallen. True heroes show us the morality that we should all strive to have, yet the modern generations would rather celebrate and idolize people and characters that are broken. It just doesn’t make sense to me. Everything is backwards, is this Bizarro World that I find myself on?
June 28th, 2011 at 12:03 am
I liked Green Lantern. I didn’t love it, but it was better than I expected after seeing the trailer. It was fun, in kind if a “Last Starfighter” way. And, unlike most if the other examples listed, it was a science-fiction movie.
Sure, there were things that could’ve been better. But I’ll still buy the DVD when it comes out.
And as much as I like Millar, it was better than Kick Ass.
Jason
June 28th, 2011 at 12:19 am
Let’s be totally honest here, Greeen Lantern made most of us wince when the trailer came out. Oh, not for the CG, which was very nice, nor for any particular failing on the part of Ryan Reynolds, who can pull of whatever you put in from of him. It all comes down to script that was written (a “one-time, let’s fit it all in” effort) which really wasn’t looking to get to the heart of the character and let that character carry the movie (such as the efforts of the two leads in the new X-Men flick), and the need for producers and movie moguls to have fingers in places they should not be. If you want a toy on every shelf, or a drink cup at McDonalds, that’s fine- that’s business. If you want to make a movie with longevity and sequels out the wazoo, get a director and stars that can carry a script that has a story that has a chance to be told.
Look at the first Chris Nolan Batman flick. It took an hour before we saw the Batman costume, but who can doubt that Christian Bale was embodying the Dark Knight during that expository first hour. When he fought in the prison in China(?) against all those guys, I couldn’t help but see a precursor to the Batman versus Police scene in “Dark Knight Returns” (comic book, not second movie.
Tell the story right with someone who can embody the character, and you have a real chance. Green Lantern is a scaredy-cat version of what it could have been.
June 28th, 2011 at 1:30 am
I’ve spoken to about 10 of my friends who have seen the Green Lantern movie and 9 of them loved it. The other one swears Daredevil is the best superhero film yet. Out of this group of ten there’s 2 women, 1 musician, 1 comic fan and a few who knew nothing about GL going in. People place way too much faith in what critics say. No movie critic will have given GL a higher score than The King’s Speech but I would bet all I have that more people would enjoy GL. It has all the things people complained that Superman Returns was lacking.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:11 am
I honestly don’t know if Green Lantern was better than Kick-Ass. And the ending of KA was terrible with that jetpack, but at least Hit-Girl was impressive.
I think the problem DC has is that they’re trying to “humanize” their heroes ala Marvel when what they should do is develop the “Mythological” part of the Character.
I really don´t care about the love life of Clark Kent when i can see a lot of movies that explore the same situations. What i want to see is what does make Superman the kind of hero everybody wants to be, the relation between the people he saves and him, the values, justice, truth and the american way.
Green Lantern tries for 10 minutes to be the movie that i want with OA and the Corps but then it struggles to let the hero be the “Icon” and again turns it into a “human” with fear and doubts and all the fun ends.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:58 am
“Most of you DC fans don’t get it. Marvel has had way more success with their B-level roster of characters in cinema than DC. He is right,DC characters are unrelateable. Stop trying to act like DC characters are as flawed or as human as Marvel ones. Name one dam character on DC’s roster that isn’t below 6’3 and with perfect jawlines?
Spiderman/Wolverine/hell,most of the x-men cast are perfect examples of imperfect people.”
This is a silly comment because:
A. Pretty much all super-heroes are beautiful or handsome with perfect bodies, even the X-Men. Not many of them are ‘freaks’ anymore. Marvel seems to systematically remove the ugly ones like Beak or Chamber (with the exception of Beast) every so often. Even Wolverine, who is supposed to be short, hairy and un-attractive is played as the super-cool, bad-ass, manly-man. Peter Parker isn’t the 90 lb weakling he was in the 60s either. Marvel were more relateable than DC when they debuted because DC’s stable of characters were one dimensional so Marvel created two dimensional characters. None of them were really 3 dimensional until years later.
B. The arguement that Marvel is still more relateable than DC is absurd, it’s subjective and based on the qualitity of the writing and the reader themselves. I find Oliver Queen to be more relateable than Peter Parker. Honestly, I find Bruce Wayne more relateable than Peter Parker. Personally, I have more issues in common with them than I do Parker.
C. It’s all moot as any mainstream Hollywood movie is going to have an uber-handsome or uber-hot star regardless of the how “imperfect” their comic counterpart is. Guess who is is 6’3″ and has a perfect jaw-line: Hugh Jackman!
I can think of two very good examples of DC characters that don’t fit “6’3″ perfect jaw” blueprint:
1. Doom Patrol (who the X-Men were based on)
2. Legion of Super-Heroes (who other X-Men were based on)
June 28th, 2011 at 4:58 am
I think fans of SMALLVILLE would disagree the DC characters have no place in modern tv/movie land. 10 years is a big deal for genre show. It definitely had its ups and downs, but I don’t think any other superhero show will last that long.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:29 am
Even Batman has had flops in the movie theatre (Schumacher, anyone? blahhh). I believe it has everything to do with the moviemakers if a film does’nt turn out well. Of course you can’t always have Nolan filming all DC titles and Singer the Marvel. Singer jumped at doing Superman, leaving the X-Men franchise out to dry and that didn’t go too well (for both franchises). It’s all a matter of chance. If it works it works. Like not all horror/romantic/drama/acton films are gonna be good, as much is expected from superheroes films, so I don’t get why anyone (critics and creators alike) would jump at the chance to make such arguements.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:43 am
This whole Marvel vs. DC thing is lame.
If you truly enjoy comics, you enjoy them from both companies — or any company for that matter (otherwise Mr. Millar wouldn’t be doing anything “creatively owned”).
Same with the films. A good movie’s a good movie, and people will see it consequently. A bad one isn’t, and we all avoid those. But turning this into a Marvel vs DC thing is like saying “I only watch NBC television.”
“So, you’ve never seen Lost? Or the Big Bang Theory?”
“Nope … I only watch NBC shows.”
“Congratulations.”
Sure, you can say it, but you sound like an idiot. Marvel has some good films and some crap ones. Same with DC. There’s nothing more or less relatable about the characters of either company. It’s the story and the acting that counts.
It’s time for fans to quit buying into this “rivalry”.
June 28th, 2011 at 6:03 am
“Nowadays I don’t think that box office numbers matter. I think the real money comes from DVD, Blu-Ray, PPV, and network showings. So a movie like this, sure it didn’t as well as predicted (probably from the inflated 3D prices), but it will have legs when released around X-Mas”
You’d be right if this were 5 years ago but DVD (and blu-ray) sales are way down since people either just get it streaming, on digital copy or through a rental. Pay-Per-View and Network Showings (who but FX really even shows movies anymore) just give a lump sum which is good money, but hardly competes with box office.
June 28th, 2011 at 6:54 am
If you think Marvel superheroes are actually “relatable”, you’re a superficial thinker. Or someone with an arrested sense of what an angsty 12-year-old finds interesting.
At best.
Batman works because the concept is simple and compelling, visually arresting. And to an extent, the lack of powers and hokey oaths makes it a tad more believable. But it has little to do with “character arcs” and flaws. Hell, the most successful Bat-film – Dark Knight – doesn’t have anything remotely resembling a character arc for its “main” character.
Green Lantern has performed poorly because it wasn’t very good. Even still, if it had rocking action scenes in the trailers, it still would have made big money at the box office.
Because THAT is what the mass audience responds to.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:08 am
The Green Lantern movie wasn’t as bad as it seemed. There are actually two major problems with comic book movies:
1. Comic book fans – most of them (us) are so concerned about staying true to the source material that it becomes hard to make a decent movie. And if one gets done we are still not happy. Sorry its the truth. If you wanna enjoy the movie, go with someone who has no idea what its based on. Kinda see it through their eyes.
2. Villians! If the villian sucks, no one will care about the hero. Thats it. There has to be major tension in the movie. Every successful franchise (Batman, Star Wars, X-Men and even the Bond films) has a great villians. This will make any comic book movie good.
It doesn’t matter if its DC or Marvel, a good story with a good villian will make the movie successful.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:18 am
when are people just going to admit that green lantern is terrible. 24 percent on rotten tomatoes. that doesn’t happen by accident. i’m tired of reading “but i liked it” Well if you did you have no damn taste. And that has nothing to do with another boring dc versus marvel conversation. as a film it’s a steaming turd.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:28 am
Millar’s a hack who’s had some limited “success.” His best work was when he wrote for Superman Adventures years ago.
He’s also still pissed that the WB didn’t go for his Superman film idea, which we should all be thankful for, as it was pure crap.
June 28th, 2011 at 7:55 am
Kick-Ass only made $96M (Kick-Ass cost $30M) box office?
What’s Millar complaining about?
Besides, we don’t have the final tally for Green Lantern?
June 28th, 2011 at 8:28 am
@T:
I disagree with most of what you said:
Honestly, it probably did horribly BECAUSE it was too Johnsian….. like green representing the emotion willpower (willpower isn’t an emotion)”
This has been stated NUMEROUS TIMES before, both in the comic, and even actually in the movie itself (did you actually watch it? I’ve seen it TWICE, and it gets better with every viewing): Will is not an actual emotion, it’s the balance to all the other emotions.
What’s so hard to get about this?
“….and yellow representing the emotion fear….”
And what’s precisely wrong with that?
“….and how stupid Parallax was…”
I gues I can’t argue with this point. But there’s no real guarantee that Parallax in its true, comic form would have went over any better.
“….and how the movie was schizophrenic in not knowing if it wanted to pander to kids or be disgusting and grotesque (total Johnsian complaint there)….”
I’m convinced that we didn’t watch the same movie. I continue to hear alot of people’s “complaints” about the GL movie, and most of them don’t match what my perception of the movie was.
June 28th, 2011 at 8:47 am
“And we fans care what the most overrated Comic book writer of all time has to say why?”
I didn’t realize this article was about Geoff Johns. NATCH!!
June 28th, 2011 at 9:16 am
@LYRD:
See, this is why some people shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a computer.
“DC characters are camp, they have silly and or dated names, ridiculous costumes and powers that make them nothing special or super godlike and therefore -boring.”
So wait, Thor IS a god, but he’s not boring?
Captain America isn’t a silly name? Or the Silver Surfer?
Nothing special??? You’ve never read a DC comic, have you? Flash can run so far beyond the speed of light, that he can access an extra-dimensional plane (time, space, etc). Can Marvel’s Quicksilver do that? Hell, QS is slower than DC’s slowest speedster.
The Flash? Sounds like something from the 50′s,
Uhmm, that’s because…. He is from the 50′s. So are almost ALL of Marvel’s Super-Heroes.
“Superman? He wears underwear on the outside of his tights…”
OMG, if I hear this argument one more time…. So did Cyclops. So did Magneto. So did the FF. So does Captain America. So did Daredevil. So did Wolverine. So did Sentry.
You are acting like you just started reading comics yesterday. You are looking at Marvel’s updated looks for their characters, as if they had always been that way, when it wasn’t.
Besides, how stupid is it, that Bruce Banner changes to the Hulk, a creature 10+ times his size/mass, and busts out of his shoes, but still keeps the same jeans/pants on? That’s not lame to you?
“Wonder Woman? Apart from for camp nostalgia at a gay pride event, who seriously is interested in such rubbish?”
Wow, that’s an insult to most women everywhere, but coming from you, I’m not surprised.
You’ve never actually read a DC comic in your life, have you?
“Batman is the only remotely cool character DC have and even that took DECADES at the movies to get even half way right and watchable.”
Dude, were you born yesterday? Marvel’s latest movies just started becoming popular, in the past decade. Aside from the Hulk on TV, Marvel basically had NOTHING.
“Swamp Thing, Hawkman, AQUAMAN?! LOL! LAME!!!!!”
So wait, Swamp Thing is lame, but Man-Thing (an obvious rip-off) isn’t?
HawkMan is lame, but Angel (another rip-off) isn’t? Aquaman is lame, but Namor isn’t?
I won’t even bother asking you why; we both know you dont have a reason.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:18 am
@JASON:
“when are people just going to admit that green lantern is terrible. 24 percent on rotten tomatoes. that doesn’t happen by accident. i’m tired of reading “but i liked it” Well if you did you have no damn taste. And that has nothing to do with another boring dc versus marvel conversation. as a film it’s a steaming turd.”
This, coming from the guy that sites “Rotten Tomatoes” as a source. You’ll forgive me if I don’t take someone whose a clear victim of Group-Think mentality seriously.
June 28th, 2011 at 9:55 am
Graeme McMillan needs to stop these divisive set ups that obviously lead to more unecessary marvel vs dc hate speeches.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:07 am
As with any other ‘argument’ on the Internet, this one is pointless. The DC vs Marvel wars are starting to reach the level of stupidity of the Xbox vs. PS flamefests.
If you like something, fine… like it. Trying to justify liking something by ripping on the competitor is in no way going to sell your argument to the people you are arguing with. And, if you’re not trying to actually convince others of your viewpoint, why bother posting at all? Simply seeing your words on a message board thread cannot be the point, can it?
I thought Green Lantern as a film was very uneven. I thought the casting was poor (except for Sinestro), and I felt like the movie lacked cohesiveness. Meanwhile, I quite enjoyed Thor, which I felt did a very good job of creating a different type of hero, one who was unbelievably arrogant (but arguably justified in being so), without malice, and whose character arc, while short, was believable and involving.
That doesn’t mean DC’s stable of heroes is worse than Marvel’s. It just means I felt this one DC movie turned out poorly. Marvel has definitely had a better track record so far, but they’ve (a) released a LOT more movies, (if you release 15-20 movies, it’s easier to have a handful of genuine hits), and (b) made the smart move of trying to bring movies back under their creative control. DC will get there too.
I’m very much looking forward to Captain America. I’m also looking forward to the Superman reboot. If they could ever get Wonder Woman to film or television, I’d look forward to that as well.
It does not have to be a case of one or the other.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:11 am
it was nice of Mark Millar to gloss over things like the Fantastic Four bombs and Daredevil and Elektra. Marvel makes bad movies too.
It has nothing to do with the characters. The problem with the WB is that its too Hollywood. Too many people are involved. Too many writers, producers, etc. Marvel gets to do it as their own studio which helps them control things a lot more. This is where the WB is failing.
A-list creators who can tell the studio, back off, like Chris Nolan, are pretty much the only ones who are going to save DC movies.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:17 am
Mark Millar, what do u know? U cried during Star Wars Episode 1. They turned down ur Superman Reboot treatments. Go Home, no one should ever listen to U.
June 28th, 2011 at 10:22 am
I’m not too sure I agree with Mark Millar’s take on DC characters in movies. Sounds like self-aggrandizment and self-promotion on his part to me. Nothing in comics is as ridiculous as a franchise featuring a bunch of kids riding around on brooms and waving wands, but it worked. WB messed up on the marketing and trying to cash in on the 3-D craze. Besides, GL’s run isn’t over, who knows how much it will make. It will do good on DVD I’m sure, cable, and merchandising. People seem to like the GL character, plus the movie has some tough competition. I hope they make the sequel.
June 28th, 2011 at 11:05 am
The premise of the article wasn’t “Is the GL movie good?” It was whether people are over the superhero genre. With that arguement, Millar is absolutely right. It’s a blip. There is no way around it – GL underperformed at the box office. ESPECIALLY considering the amount of advertising dollars pumped into it. But as HORRIBLE as some superhero adaptations have been (Jonah Hex, Ghost Rider, Electra), I’ll bet they covered their budget in theatrical release.
The arguments of whether DC characters are relatable are ridiculous. We are still paying millions to see Superman films, even when they are not very good. Green Lantern is a marginal character in the general public’s awareness. They needed inspired casting and script/direction that knocked it out of the park (like Iron Man) in order for it to succeed. And they didn’t do it.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:13 pm
I agree with what one or two people said. Even though the DC characters aren’t all flawed and have “feet-of-clay” like Marvel’s, but if written and executed correctly, they’ll work. Green Lantern was no Dark Knight by any stretch of the imagination, but it was no Electra either.
June 28th, 2011 at 12:50 pm
The argument is bobbins, people bought Iron Man, Thor, X-Men and so on they would have bought GL if it wasn’t presented so badly and frankly a bloody awful film. Step outside the genre and people buy much weirder stuff than superhero’s. Throw some stars and talent at anything it will at least be half way to decent. Green Lantern had neither.
June 28th, 2011 at 2:36 pm
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thinks DC’s properties could stand a better chance as animated features. Their DCU Online clips are proof they can deliver great stories in CGI.
June 28th, 2011 at 3:19 pm
Is it just me or is part of the problem that Ryan Reynolds was just horribly miscast. Hal Jordan should be a true hero, not just a snarky smartass.
June 28th, 2011 at 4:37 pm
To put it simply, this is the dumbest thing ever said by mark. He has no point and nothing he is saying should even be entertained by any one anywhere on this planet. DC characters translate just fine into movies, but it would help if that movie was good. This entire green lantern saga has nothing to do with this crap about geek culture or comic books in general, the movie was bad. That-is-all. Mark should know about Bad movies and turning off an audience better than anyone. All this nonsense he is vomiting from his cram hole is more of the same old Mark Millar “Look at me I’m talking shite” crap he always pulls when he needs attention. DC Characters should not be seen as these regular people types anyway, how can any one not see that DC is full of larger than life characters who operate with in genre driven adventure and dramatic stories. Lets face facts you can do a Superman movie that would knock the socks off any one if the movie is done right. Green Lantern isn’t Iron Man, Green lantern should be Star Wars, Big Exiting and Sci-fi heavy. Tell a well paced, well directed, well written story and we have a different outcome. Maybe if the Film makers made some better choices as far as casting (Blake!) and maybe a redesign on that suit and maybe we have a different out come. But I’m sure Green Lantern 2 will be fine.
And Mark if we are to think your point about these characters not being human enough than Thor should have flopped bigger than anything and so should any Super-hero movie its an out of this world situation no matter how down troted the main character is. Bruce Wayne is not relatable in many ways. I mean okay how many regular people get to see their parents shot in front of them at a young age and use their ten of dollars to fight crime. really that’s it, Batman is so Fantastical it blows my mind. Yet you draw a nice shadow in a comic and suddenly every suburban kid with a complex thinks he is Bruce Wayne. Batman is lucky that his story for the most part is easy to tell and has been told by good talented people. That is all. Don’t make too much of this i’m sure Mark will be talking about how awesome DC characters are when he need s a job. You are a Fraud Mr. Millar.
June 28th, 2011 at 5:55 pm
I think the big difference between DC and Marvel is that Marvel uses cities in the real world, vs imaginary places.
Over time, it forces writers to make countless little decisions in plots, decisions that reflect how a fictional character would do something in a real world place. It imposes a kind of rigor or discipline to always go “X” when it would be possible to do “X” “Y” or “Z” if it were a purely fictional city, where anything could happen. (For years, the DCU was the place more likely to have talking animals than the Marvel 515.) Even Hogwarts is moored by proximity to London, after all.
June 29th, 2011 at 12:27 am
What Millar neglects to understand is that the DC films which have failed are terribly written and, in some cases (esp. GL), horribly directed.
Thor wasn’t exactly a masterpiece, but it was well-directed, well-acted, fun, and, over all, pretty original for a mainstream superhero/action film. The writing wasn’t great, but it wasn’t bad.
I can’t say any of these things for Hex, Superman Returns, or GL. The Losers was fun, but, really, we’d seen that story several times already, so it wasn’t anything new. There IS a reason these DC movies isn’t doing well…and it’s not about being relatable, but I think Millar knows this and was just trying to say something that incites a response.
Is the lack of being relatable why Kick-Ass underperformed? No. Not at all.
June 29th, 2011 at 4:23 am
Comeon Mark, do you seriously believe that the DC characters do not work on the screen? Or is it just that the movies are not good.
Let’s face it, shticks aside, what do we have in the new GG movie, or the Sups before it, in comparison to Bats? Bats was a classic because it was wonderfully done, both acting and script-interpretation to the screen, the others…? Meh. Movie makers have to acknowledge that the current crowd demands more, and just as the comics industry evolved, so does the related movies should.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:05 am
@HEBIT:
A) you mention the fictitious cities bit, like that’s a bad thing. I’ve been reading DC for over a decade now, and I’ve yet to see any of these “talking animals” of which you speak. The only one I can recall, is Talky Tawny, and (sadly) he’s rarely ever present.
B) DC does in fact use real cities from time to time. Blue Beetle operates out of El Paso, TX. Knight and Squire are in London. NY and DC are present and accounted for as well.
June 29th, 2011 at 7:10 am
People seemed to either love or hate the GL movie. I, for one, loved it. On a scale of 1 to 10, I give it an 8, maybe 8.5…. And I’ve seen it twice already.
People have been saying it’s “bad”, but can’t really demonstrate why. Someone here said “it needs better actors”…. Umm, it was nearly an all-star cast!!
My only problems with, were A) I didn’t care for the way Parallax was depicted, but then I’m not sure his true insect version would’ve went over any better, and B) even though Ryan Reynolds pulled it off okay, I feel like he would’ve made a better Kyle Rayner, than Hal Jordan.
Other than that, I loved the movie, can’t wait for it to come out on blu-Ray.
June 29th, 2011 at 10:05 am
Let’s see, Miller works for Marvel, has developed knock-off copy cat characters that suck and is still pissed off because Warner Bros. and DC didn’t hire him to writ e the new Superman Movie. Do you think he has a vested interest in bad mouthing DC? What a totally no real talent BS’er who is on a self delusional ego trip. I kinda remember him at DC years ago who attempted to write Swamp Thing. It was very sub-par work compared to Moore and Veitch. Let Marvel have him! What a DWEEB!
June 29th, 2011 at 7:52 pm
I agree with Millar!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He is right and I’ve said this before Marvel’s characters are easily relate-able to the every-man and woman. DC’s characters are for the most part (the big guns that will be the first to be adapted) are all based on Deities(Greek, Roman etc..)
This isn’t the end of the Comic book movie. We have plenty of time to see your favorite character soar or flop!
Some of you people really have no idea what you’re talking about…it’s really astounding that you even embarrass your self commenting.
June 30th, 2011 at 11:58 am
Maybe the reason why the non-Nolon-Batmovies from DC stink cause they were god-aweful movies? GL-Bad on every level of conception, Superman Returns- Man there will be college class on what went wrong there, Catwomen-Really? Jona Hex-wasn’t even a movie it was like pieces of a movie. Why is Man of Steel gonna suck- See Watchmen. Still it’s not like out side X-men 2 and first class, Ironman and Spidey 2 Marvel does any better.. Thor-passable barely, Ghostrider-bad, FF 1& 2- stunk outloud, Spiderman 1- rather boring. Spidey 3- onpar with Superman 3, both Hulks- boring dreks, X-men- might have been good if it had any budget. Punisher-which verson is the worst? Blade- like Thor barely a movie- the sequals were unwatchable. Ironman II-lets take the parts that didn’t work in Ironman and make that. I want Cap to work, I have a feeling it will but still Millar needs to really look at these movies. I mean his own movies Kick-ass and Wanted- they maybe the worst of the bunch. Done right the Flash would be an amazing movie. The key there is DONE RIGHT. Most of these are marketing tools and nothing more.
June 30th, 2011 at 8:41 pm
I think its a setback not a genre ending move. GL didn’t manage to inspire the same sort of trust that Marvel was able to get with Iron MAN. But its not something they cant recover from so they should just concentrate on fixing the mistakes and trying better next time.
On the issue of relatability, Marvel is more relatable because it was more advantageous to be that because it had to be different from DC in order to sell more. But its not that hard to make DC characters relatable, just gotta find a core or an anchor that allows insight into a character that allows us to care.
July 2nd, 2011 at 11:26 am
Gonna have to disagree as well with Millar’s assessment. The biggest problem that GL had was the fact that he was a wishy washy character.
Why do people like Hal? Hal is bravado. He’s an arrogant pilot that’s very sure of himself. Heck, even in Johns’ Secret Origins, he is so in love with flying that he alienates his family.
In this movie, I’m not even sure he liked being a pilot. He seemed like he did it because he was expected to do it, and because he was naturally talented. Much as I had problems with Johns’ Secret Origins, at least Hal obviously loved being a pilot and pushing the envelope, he wasn’t just a piloting savant that happened to also be an emotional cripple.
The best portrayal we could have seen in the movie was a Hal that heard the Guardians and other GLs downplay his ability, and Hal not caring what they said and doing his job better than anyone else could have.
In fact, while the overall story wasn’t great, the character of Hal Jordan in Green Lantern: First Flight at least seemed like the Hal we should have gotten in this movie.
Flash could be a great, fun super hero movie with great, fun villains, but instead, if it gets made, we’ll probably get brooding, “my mother was murdered” Barry Allen instead of someone that loves helping other people and has fun doing it.
The biggest problem with DC’s movies is that the movies aren’t about the characters as they have most successfully been portrayed. Hal Jordan isn’t known for self-doubt and inner fears, and Clark Kent isn’t known for whinning about not being able to be with a human woman and brooding over how alone he is.
December 13th, 2011 at 8:43 pm
Sit back and watch complete videos for free
January 8th, 2012 at 2:35 am
Pretty portion of content. I simply stumbled upon your site and in accession capital to say that I get in fact loved account your blog posts. Anyway I’ll be subscribing in your augment or even I achievement you get admission to constantly rapidly.
February 21st, 2012 at 7:51 pm
I’m really impressed along with your writing skills as neatly as with the layout for your weblog. Is that this a paid theme or did you customize it yourself? Either way stay up the excellent quality writing, it’s uncommon to see a great weblog like this one today..
March 12th, 2012 at 7:49 am
I will right away snatch your rss feed as I can’t in finding your e-mail subscription hyperlink or e-newsletter service. Do you’ve any? Please allow me recognise in order that I may just subscribe. Thanks.