Green Lantern was a better film than Superman Returns

Green Lantern was a better film than Superman Returns

Follow the jump to read my comparison of Green Lantern and Superman Returns...

Editorial Opinion
By LP4 - Jul 11, 2011 04:07 PM EST
Filed Under: Green Lantern

What prompted me to write up this editorial was that lately I've been hearing people on this site actually say that "Superman Returns" was a better film than "Green Lantern" and others simply compare them side-by-side to one another.

I'm here to say- Green Lantern (despite its flaws) was a much, much better film than "Stalkerman Returns" and down below I will explain why.

1) The Green Lantern film actually had ACTION. Hal Jordan fought.

Oh and get this...Hal actually- 'threw a punch' lol. As the picture below plainly shows...he REALLY punched. Superman didn't even throw a single punch in SR.



2) We had REAL villains in Green Lantern. Paralax and Hammond. The movie version of Paralax was lame but it was leaps and bounds beyond Spacey and Kumar in "Superman Returns"



As opposed to...

SPACEY AND [frick]ING KUMAR!!!!



I mean are you people going to seriously tell me Spacey and Kumar were somehow BETTER villains than Paralax and Hammond???!! Jesus on ice-skates on people, I don't know how much more blunt I must be. Spacey and Kumar were ridiculous in the movie. From that picture I could see them more as a comedy sitcom rather than "threatening" villains in a big budget Superman film.

3) Ryan Reynolds actually had more ACTUAL flying scenes whereas Brandon Routh was CGI'd through most of his flight sequences. He even complained himself in an interview that he wanted more actual flight scenes than the CGI ones.

The CGI was so painfully obvious



3) The lead actor- Ryan Reynolds actually ACTED in his film. As opposed to Routh who didn't even act...



Most importantly, at least the Green Lantern film was more faithfully adapted from the comicbooks than Superman Returns which was simply a Donner Superman 1 remake with even less action. Green Lantern was disappointing and faaar from perfect but at least it was entertaining. At least it kept me awake!

I was not happy with the Green Lantern film myself but to downgrade it to "Superman Returns" level is just petty and sad. I get that "Superman Returns" made big bank at the B.O but what people fail to realize is it only made lots of money because it was a SUPERMAN film. Superman is very marketable for Warner Bros. His "S" shield alone is marketed on shoes, shirts etc- So imagine the name/title- SUPERMAN. That is big bank. Plus adding in the fact that people had waited about 20 years for a new Superman film...so the anticipation was quite high from the start.

So people who keep claiming that Superman Returns was somehow "better" than Green Lantern...




Whatever you're smoking, PLEASE share. Because you guys must have seen a different movie than the one I saw.


One guy even said Superman Returns was equal to THOR. So to people making these odd claims...



Yeah that video above just about sums it up for me...
MAN OF STEEL Writer David S. Goyer Shares His Surprising Thoughts On James Gunn's SUPERMAN
Related:

MAN OF STEEL Writer David S. Goyer Shares His Surprising Thoughts On James Gunn's SUPERMAN
2011's GREEN LANTERN Starring Ryan Reynolds Is Actually A Great Movie — Here's Why
Recommended For You:

2011's GREEN LANTERN Starring Ryan Reynolds Is Actually A Great Movie — Here's Why

DISCLAIMER: As a user generated site and platform, ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and "Safe Harbor" provisions.

This post was submitted by a user who has agreed to our Terms of Service and Community Guidelines. ComicBookMovie.com will disable users who knowingly commit plagiarism, piracy, trademark or copyright infringement. Please CONTACT US for expeditious removal of copyrighted/trademarked content. CLICK HERE to learn more about our copyright and trademark policies.

Note that ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
1 2 3 4
LP4
LP4 - 7/11/2011, 4:43 PM
And I'm not giving up on my hatred for Superman Returns until I actually witness with my own eyes, a GOOD Superman film.

Until then...



At the time we already had 4 Superman films of pure character-development...6 years of Smallville with ALL character Clark-development and ZERO Superman. Then douchebag in the above picture, makes a Superman film of nothing but character-development and nostalgia for a 30 year old movie that is completely out of date.

Bryan Singer...you and your self-proclaimed-"Devil Wears Prada" CHICK FLICK [frick]ING FAIL!!!
golden123
golden123 - 7/11/2011, 5:25 PM
1)Superman Returns was not primarily an action film. It was a drama. Green Lantern was primarily an action film. That makes these hard to compare off the bat.
2)SR's Lex=an outdated bronze age villain
GL's Parallax= a less than eight year old villain
I seem to remember you love the modern age to the point the other age's hold no comparison. I think I solved that.
3) Just because someone has few lines doesn't mean they didn't act.

Superman Returns had both critical and financial success, by the way.
golden123
golden123 - 7/11/2011, 5:28 PM
@Oreos: Emerald Dawn was better. Secret Origins had the similar problems to X3. It didn't have a one certain plot. It had two. I don't know why Secret Origin is so loved. Maybey, it's because Geoff Johns has his name on it. I don't know.
LP4
LP4 - 7/11/2011, 5:42 PM
@Oreos- Fair enough, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Btw- I'm not 10 yrs old. I'm 24.

@golden123- Dude then why make a SUPERMAN film as a "drama"? Superman is an ACTION hero in both the comics and cartoons. Making his film purely DRAMA was not a good idea. If Singer wanted to make a drama film he should have directed a "Dear John" film or something.
imnotahero
imnotahero - 7/11/2011, 5:58 PM
They're both bad, yes. But in completely different ways. Superman Returns was bad because it was boring and had too much emphasis on his bastard child. Green Lantern was bad because it felt like Fantastic Four 3. Superman Returns is definitely better, it's greatest fault is that it just has so much boring crap in between the cool moments.
JM4Superman
JM4Superman - 7/11/2011, 6:00 PM
Brilliant article
THEDARKKNIGHT1939
THEDARKKNIGHT1939 - 7/11/2011, 6:01 PM
I liked Superman returns more. It was more dark.
naterator
naterator - 7/11/2011, 6:19 PM
SR was a better film...storywise but i enjoyed both. GL had action but very little story. Hard to compare.

Remember LP, SR wasnt supposed to be an action film. IT. WAS. NOT. DESIGNED. TO. BE. ONE. It was a re-introduction film, ya know since he had been absent for several years...right? So, SR served its function. Its just too bad that we never got to see the sequel which WOULD HAVE been a ACTION film becuase that was the plan. Anyhow, all these articles are sounding the same. BASH BASH BASH.
golden123
golden123 - 7/11/2011, 6:20 PM
@LP4: He's a superhero not an actionhero. Do all superhero flicks have to be primarily action flicks? I don't think so. If you remember, the most critically acclaimed comic book superhero movie was not primarily an action flick. Yes, I'm talking about The Dark Knight. It was primarily a crime drama. Have you noticed the difference between The Dark Knight, in terms of action, and other Superhero flicks. Besides, Superman has one of the most legendary love stories on the planet, and one of the most legendary non-fighting villain on the planet. It makes sense that a Superman movie would be a candidate for a superhero flick that isn't primarily an action movie.

@imnotahero: I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who noticed the resemblence between Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer and Green Lantern. Besides the main villains being gases.
FriendlyNeighborhoodSpidey
FriendlyNeighborhoodSpidey - 7/11/2011, 6:29 PM
I thought green lantern was better, but not much better.
Akercocke
Akercocke - 7/11/2011, 6:31 PM
Nope, GL is worse because:
a) the script was just plain stupid
b) It was nothing but a CGI mess with no structure (and the CGI sucked)
c) Chemistry between actors just wasn't there.

Good points:
-Ryan Reynolds wasn't bad, he did what he could.
naterator
naterator - 7/11/2011, 6:35 PM
@GOLDEN123...exactly he is a superhero, not a hardass that beats down criminals...thats Batman. In short ..i agree with your argument.
LP4
LP4 - 7/11/2011, 6:49 PM
@GDSUPERGUY- The casting was bad? Hardly. Mark Strong was an EPIC Sinestro. The casting of Hammond was also dead-on. The voice-actors did great too.

@golden- In the comics Superman fights a lot. He IS an action-hero. He's fought- Brainiac, Darkseid, Doomsday, Parasite, Zod etc heck even Lex when he wears his battle-armor from time to time. Superman DESERVES to fight in his movies.

btw- I would gladly take a gas villain over Spacey and Kumar any day of the week.

@naterator- You don't like my articles? DON'T [frick]ING READ THEM THEN. Commenting about your deep man-crush on routh, singer and their lame film isn't helping you.
incrediblesuperbatspider
incrediblesuperbatspider - 7/11/2011, 6:53 PM
I think your title should've read: "Green Lantern was a better comic book movie than Superman Returns"...When you compare the two films side by side purely as cinema, Superman Returns is a lot better, the story, characters and motivation was fleshed out, but as a comic book film then yes, Green Lantern was more faithful and action-packed.
golden123
golden123 - 7/11/2011, 7:06 PM
@LP4: Ok, I was wrong to say Superman isn't an action hero. What I should have said was, "Superman isn't primarily an action hero". Similar to the way Superman Returns wasn't primarily an action movie. Superman is primarily a superhero. SR portrayed him as being a superhero. He performed heroic feats after all. He was "super" because he was always there when he was needed.
halvor311
halvor311 - 7/11/2011, 7:34 PM
Ok, what in the world was wrong with Green Lantern??? I don't understand it at all. Everything I've read from Green Lantern comic books is pretty good and the movie takes it pretty seriously. I just don't get it.
BIGBMH
BIGBMH - 7/11/2011, 8:20 PM
I completely disagree.
LP4
LP4 - 7/11/2011, 8:24 PM
@BIGBMH- Why exactly do you disagree? Mind elaborating?

@DROMEO- Yeah I could have expanded on the title a bit, you're right.

@Fitz- No I'm fine with people having different opinions than my own but the GL film gets way more shit thrown at it than it should. And I mean especially compared to SR. Just doesn't seem right. GL for the most part was better- had better villains, better action, even a better story! SR had a HORRIBLE story- Superman impregnated lois, ditched her and the kid for 5 years...that is horrible.
sonofsamadams
sonofsamadams - 7/11/2011, 8:27 PM
@LP4
You really do hate Superman Returns, don't you?
LP4
LP4 - 7/11/2011, 8:28 PM
@golden- "Similar to the way Superman Returns wasn't primarily an action movie"

What do you MEAN Superman Returns wasn't "primarily" an action movie? It wasn't an action movie AT ALL PERIOD. There was NO action. Superman lifting heavy objects doesn't count as action because it isn't fast-paced, edge of your seat crap. The entire movie seemed like it was in slow-motion. Dear god it was a "Grandma's film" give me a break people.
LP4
LP4 - 7/11/2011, 8:30 PM
@Justsomeawesomeguy- Yes I DO hate SR because I like many others had waited a long, long time for a new Superman film only to get- Superman impregnating a bitch, then ditching her for 5 years. THAT. AINT. SUPERMAN.
golden123
golden123 - 7/11/2011, 8:45 PM
@LP4: Action doesn't mean fighting.
LP4
LP4 - 7/11/2011, 8:51 PM
@golden- Typically yeah action does refer to fighting or at least something occurring that is exciting. Superman lifting something slowly isn't even exciting.

Face it- SR was devoid of any/all action.
superotherside
superotherside - 7/11/2011, 9:06 PM
I agree... GL had its flaws but SR was stupid, I couldn't even watch it... lol the only good thing about it was it did have cool music... but that's the only thing...

still I hope that the new movie has it's own music... give a nod to the old music but not the exact same thing... lol
LP4
LP4 - 7/11/2011, 9:14 PM
@otherside- Thank you my friend. SR WAS very stupid. Good to meet like-minded people on here.

And I agree with you, hopefully MOS can make its own musical score. Snyder needs to set his own standard...he shouldn't HAVE to adhere to the Donner universe or the "Donner way"

Donner's time is DONE.
sonofsamadams
sonofsamadams - 7/11/2011, 9:50 PM
@LP4
You forgot... He's also a peeping Tom :P
LP4
LP4 - 7/11/2011, 9:58 PM
@Justsomeawesomeguy- Oh yeah I forgot, he peeped on Lois ;P

Not only that but if you rewatch that scene, it showed him descending from behind what i believe was either a bush or a tree while he spied on lois. It's one thing to spy on someone but to do it behind a tree or bush is just plain CREEPY. lol
Superheromoviefan
Superheromoviefan - 7/11/2011, 10:39 PM
Agree. Lantern is better
LP4
LP4 - 7/11/2011, 10:49 PM
@MrSuperheromoviefan- Thank you my friend. ^_^
jaysin420
jaysin420 - 7/11/2011, 11:40 PM
Well if you go by critics and box office results, it's not even close. But if you go by action scenes and potential, then maybe.
spider1489
spider1489 - 7/11/2011, 11:41 PM
green lantern was waayyy better
spider1489
spider1489 - 7/11/2011, 11:41 PM
green lantern was waayyy better
LP4
LP4 - 7/12/2011, 12:40 AM
@JM4Superman- Thank you my friend.

@JaySin420- I already said i'm not going by the box office numbers or critics. I'm going by fan-standards because in reality- fans are the best and truest and MOST REAL critics for these films.

@spider1489- Thank you!!
Berger45
Berger45 - 7/12/2011, 12:44 AM
Green Lantern was waaaaay way better than Superman Returns. Superman Returns sounds epic but it was as epic as Sex in the City. However I always thought Routh could really become the new Superman but evidentely not.. Green Lantern was unlucky. I do not know how they could [frick] it up so much. It had so much potential but it was still a million times better and more engaging than Returns. Reynolds IS Hal Jordan!
blackcelebration
blackcelebration - 7/12/2011, 3:28 AM
@jimyjam1991.

I agree allot with what you said.

My main problem with the movie wasn't the Superman-Lois relationship, it was the Clark-Lois relationship. Singer seemed to get the Superman-Lois relationship (Well kinda) but forgot about Clark and Lois.

Yes, we all know that Clark is Superman, but Lois doesn't. The charm of their relationship has always been them working together on a dangerous story and Clark having to turn into Superman to rescue her.

If Singer really wanted a Kid then when Superman returned Lois should have been a single mother and through Clark they form a relationship. Instead all we had was Lois bragging how much of a jerk Superman is to Jason whilst Clark mopes around in the background. This as well as Lois and Clark working on the story of Metropolis's newest villain (Lex, Metallo, Toyman...) should have been the main focus.

The biggest problem was that in this film Superman was a reactive character not proactive. Had he been proactive (Which he easily can be through Clark) then we would have seen far more awesome action than we did.

Hopefully The Man of Steel puts as much (If not more) Clark time as Superman time.

As far as this debate on Green Lantern and Superman Returns go, then it's Superman Returns, yes, Green Lantern had action but it had no characters I cared about, also, unless you're a comic buff you'd be lost on half of the plot.

Although, Superman Returns characters were flawed and their decisions questionable. They were more character like than Green Lantern (Although, the characters in Superman Returns are capable of much better).
1 2 3 4
Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder