Sentry 459 wrote:
If that's true, then I'm surprised the SFX weren't more spectacular in GL!  In other words, I liked GL, but not nearly as much as the other Marvel/DC superhero movies I've seen.  Furthermore, Avatar is stunningly gorgeous.  I don't think GL comes anywhere as close to being cinematic eye candy as Avatar.


Wha?! I thought the effects work was fabulous! The amount of detail that went into every Corps member was jaw-dropping. It craps all over the creature effects in Star Wars (all of 'em)! The fact that there were entire scenes that were virtually entirely animated, but looked live-action, is insane. Go back and look at, say, the Spider-Man films. There are definitely rough/fake-looking FX shots in those. But GREEN LANTERN looked really smooth to me!

And the Big Bad (I don't want to get too spoilery) would definitely have scared the pants off me as a little kid, even if it's less scary to us jaded adults.

I couldn't care less about the Green Lantern property, either; I've rarely read any GL stories that I didn't find disposable, but for me the film is a keeper! It'll be one of the first live-action superhero films I'll show to kids, after the 1966 Batman and the first two Superman films.

RE: ticket sales - Personally, I couldn't care less about box-office totals. They rarely reflect a film's quality, and U.S. theatrical profits are only a small part of a film's success these days. As long as it makes enough for Warners to make more superhero films, I'm happy; and if not, there are thousands of other films that will keep me entertained until I die!

- Mike Hansen