Big Bang Theory Biting The Green Ring That Feeds It

[Rich Johnston]

It's been pointed out that The Big Bang Theory, produced by Warner Bros TV, is pretty much in bed with DC Comics. From choice of cosplay, to the new 52 displayed prominently, it's what' called synergy.

But not even that could protect a certain summer blockbuster from geek scorn this week. From the show's pre-title sequence...

SHELDON: "If we poison the critical thinking facilities of children by telling them that rabbits come out of hats, then we create adults who believe in astrology and homeopathy and that Ryan Reynolds was a better choice for Green Lantern than lovable rogue Nathan Fillion."

LEONARD: "But Sheldon, he?s going to do a few magic tricks for kids ? I really don?t think they?re going to end up liking the Green Lantern movie."

If only it were that simple.

[Blackfist]

hmm, well it would have been worse if they bigged up the movie.

[mel2112]

The truth hurts.

[Peter J Poole]

"If we poison the critical thinking facilities of children by telling them that rabbits come out of hats, then we create adults who believe in astrology and homeopathy and that Ryan Reynolds was a better choice for Green Lantern than lovable rogue Nathan Fillion."

QFT...

The spoof trailer with Fillion is at least twice as good as the actual movie was. By me, anyway.



Cheers

[_OM_]

...Definition of how bad the GL movie was: the screener has been sitting on my server for months, and I haven't even watched it long enough to even see if it downloaded properly.

[Eric Sean]

I was pulling for Bradley Cooper as Hal Jordan. I thought Ryan Reynolds did a fine job.
IMHO, casting was not the problem with GREEN LANTERN.

[Scavenger]

Ryan Reynolds was perfectly fine for the Hal Jordan in the script.
That they used a script where Ryan Reynolds was perfectly fine for Hal Jordan was the problem.

[Peter David]

You know what? I still don't get all the hostility and contempt for the Green Lantern movie. Maybe it's because in my twenties, what Hollywood handed me for a live action Green Lantern was "Legends of the Superheroes," ultra camp with a non-existent budget and Charlie Callas as Sinestro. The current "Green Lantern" wasn't perfect--it suffered from too many hands in the story phase, I suspect--but it was faithful to the source material, the performances by and large were engaging, it had its heart in the right place, and it didn't display contempt for its audience. Plus Charlie Callas wasn't Sinestro. I don't want to say that modern fans are ingrates; what I'm saying is that maybe they could maybe appreciate what they have a little bit more, and what they didn't have to suffer through in terms of live action superheroes.

Of course, "Thor," "Captain America" and "X-Men: First Class" were all superior, but I'm biased.

PAD

[Drew Melbourne]

what I'm saying is that maybe they could maybe appreciate what they have a little bit more, and what they didn't have to suffer through in terms of live action superheroes.

I think it's a testament to how good a lot of the superhero movies are that we don't need to be kind to the ones that disappoint. As a little kid, I would have been floored by the existence of ANY Green Lantern movie, but that doesn't mean that we should tolerate mediocrity.

I actually think the backlash against Green Lantern, while maybe a LITTLE over the top, actually helps DC in the long run. Can you imagine if everyone just sort of shrugged and accepted Green Lantern? What kind of message would that send in terms of what DC could get away with for Flash or the post-Nolan Batman films?

I'm just glad that the public consensus seems to be: It wasn't a very good movie. (And not a larger statement about the character or about lesser known superheroes getting their own films.)

[Peter J Poole]

I'm just glad that the public consensus seems to be: It wasn't a very good movie. (And not a larger statement about the character or about lesser known superheroes getting their own films.)

I'm tap-dancing this on the fly, but I think the big leap forward is that super-hero movies are now a genre, with a growing back catalogue of example movies, within which there can be good movies, bad movies and everything in between movies, instead of something where one bad apple upgefukts everything else...

But I also think a key note of a super-HERO movie is that the lead actor has to sell the movie and carry the audience along to the goalposts... and Reynolds - again, for me - just didn't manage that the way Reeves, or Bale, or Downey Jr, et al, did...

Cheers