 |
| It's Cap, by a mile. |
I've finally caught up with Captain America and the Green Lantern. And, having seen them just days apart, couldn't help comparing the two. Both of them comic book icons, ... and that's where the similarities end, actually. Frankly, I found it pretty easy to come up with why I genuinely liked the Captain and couldn't care less about the Lantern. Here's my two (actually three) cents:
- Give us a hero we can care about: Cap is the ultimate everyman - just a guy who wants to do the right thing and isn't allowed to because he just isn't fit enough for war. Even when he's given his powers, he remains the little guy with the big heart. Hal Jordan (Lantern) on the other hand is on ever so many ways removed from the everyman and so - who cares.
- Give us a world we can relate to: I expected this to work against Cap. But they've kept WWII down-to-earth without going too deep into the horrors. Set in the past, it's still the world we know and feel at home with, a world that matters. Lantern on the other hand gives us a big chunk of the film in fantasy land with Guardians and Lanterns and so, again - who cares.
- Give us a villain we love to hate: It's the usual, the better the bad guy, the more our hero gets to shine. Captain America has the Red Skull - an excellent, crystal-clear bad guy. The difference between good and evil couldn't be more pronounced. In Green Lantern we're given an evil dark cloud (Parallax) and a guy with a big head (Hector Hammond). And so, for the third time - who cares.
I don't even have to go into the stories and character developments - the above alone ensures that you'll sit through Lantern without an ounce of emotional engagement. You'd think with all of that expertise amassed in Hollywood, at least one of them might have pointed out the above factors. Green Lantern reportedly cost somewhere around 200 million and has pulled in just a bit more than that worldwide (major ouch). Cap on the other hand cost roughly 140 million and is edging toward 370 million worldwide.
I tend to believe that the very basic who cares factors have a lot to do with those numbers.
|
|
|
3 comments:
I guess, DC guys are not doing justice to the storyline. Just yesterday I watched their latest animation movie called "Justice League of Doom"... It was just sad!!!
Voice of flash had gone robotic! Not even close to justice league the TV series... On the other hand, marvels are doing just wonders with whatever they are doing.
But yes, I somehow always loved the fantasy world of DC reason? It goes beyond earth and the familiar settings.
:o)
You make it sound like Green Lantern was a flop. The film has made nearly 225 million. It cost a ton to make but basically everyone was paid. I call that a moderate success and worthy of a sequel - which I would love to see.
You have two different types of films - two heroes on the opposite ends of the spectrum (super-powered, the other slightly-powered), two environments that are completely different (gritty, worldly vs cosmic, otherwordly).
The only thing that these two films share is that they are based on comic book characters. Next up... you'll be comparing 'My Big Fat Greek Wedding' against 'Predator'.
One was a well-built drama, the other a CGI-entertainment piece that was pretty decent. The latter compares well to other films of its' ilk.
Hi John - I'd have made the same observations even if GL had been a huge success. But as for flop - heck, if something costs 200m to make and pulls in just a few mil more, then that's pretty much a flop by Hollywood standards.
You think it doesn't make sense to compare the two? I'd say they're perfect for comparison - they have a ton in common but have chosen to deal with it very differently. It's not about small vs big, earth vs universe - it's about story and character - regardless of setting, that will always be what either emotionally engages you in a film - or leaves you cold. With LG, I ended up watching lots of great visuals ... but story and character? Didn't engage me for a instant on that level.
Post a Comment