Does it depress you that they spent 200 million dollars on a Green Lantern movie...

[Magus]

...when for five dollars at Wal-Mart you can buy a far superior film that is "just" a cartoon?

With superior acting, story, characters, and plot? Better pacing? Cooler visuals, really, when you get down to it?

Then watch Green Lantern: First Flight, now available on DVD for like, next to nothing.

It's just...better. And very enjoyable. I was fairly surprised that a 73 minute film (only 73 minutes! Green Lantern with Ryan Reynolds felt like two and a half hours...) could deliver something superior, for a fraction of the cost, than a 200 million dollar feature film.

Oh, and all those other DC Animated Universe movies are pretty good, too. You should look into them if you haven't.

[Seil]

The movie wasn't that bad. It was really bad, but it wasn't that bad.

[Magus]

Fun fact: The Dark Knight cost 100 million dollars less than The Green Lantern starring Ryan Reynolds.

EDIT:

OMG GREEN LANTERN MAY HAVE COST 300 MILLION DOLLARS IF YOU FACTOR IN ADVERTISING.

JESUS CHRIST.

[Aerozord]

well was obvious it would cost a fortune considering how his powers work. But you know america, live action films are the only way for something to be taken seriously

[Shyria Dracnoir]

I can assure you that that money was well spent.

[Magus]

Originally Posted by Aerozord

well was obvious it would cost a fortune considering how his powers work. But you know america, live action films are the only way for something to be taken seriously

Ironically, the limitations of the animated format or the budget prevented them from the excesses of the theatrical film. The most complex thing the Lanterns used in this film were perhaps grappling hook constructs or maybe a large gun. You had something of a Terminator 2 feeling about the limitations of the ring's power. This was true of the Justice League cartoon and so on, as well, where the cartoon format almost creates a limitation to the powers of the Green Lantern that the creators have to work within in the plot. They can't depend on some crazy special effect to pull the scene along.

Whereas in the theatrical film I believe there was a scene where Ryan Reynolds saves a bunch of people by creating a life-sized Hot Wheels loop-de-loop track and race car that like zig zags all over the screen to do something or other, like just block some debris from hitting somebody. If the creators had been somewhat limited he would have just created a large green hand to swat these things away. Instead we get something so distracting and off-the-wall that it takes us out of the moment, besides probably costing ten times as much to create as something simpler but still capable of moving the plot forward to the same degree.

Also, the choice of characters and villain in this cartoon film were so much more elegant. Plus some of the Lanterns actually die and I felt myself caring whether they would or not--I never felt that all watching the Reynolds film. There seemed to be not only better characterization of side characters (the Guardians, for instance, were massively humanized, compared to the threatrical film), but the acting, despite only being voice acting, was superior enough that I felt a connection with the characters. The climax of the cartoon was also a zillion times superior to the climax of the theatrical film--it had much more weight and heft, quite literally in the fighting scenes, but also in that I actually cared who lived and who died.

[mauve]

Eh, the price tag doesn't surprise me, considering EVERYTHING in that movie was CG'd. It would've been cheaper to MAKE AN ACTUAL COSTUME rather than poorly animating it, but then they couldn't advertise the amazing leaps and bounds they've made in the field of computer animation.

Also, Shyria, that spider pic is terrifying.