Green Lantern was a better film than Superman Returns

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2)SR's Lex=an outdated bronze age villain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.

@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.

Brilliant article

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.

I thought green lantern was better, but not much better.

@GOLDEN123...exactly he is a superhero, not a hardass that beats down criminals...thats Batman. In short ..i agree with your argument.

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.

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.

I completely disagree.

@LP4
You really do hate Superman Returns, don't you?

@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.

@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.

@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.

@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

@MrSuperheromoviefan- Thank you my friend. ^_^

green lantern was waayyy better

@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!!

@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).

Well, ok, but GL didn't impregnate some chick and just leaver high and dry with the kid for 5 years. That really adds a realistic edge that GL couldn't match.







Oooh, sorry, a forgot to hit the sarcasm button first.

They both flattered to deceive. They both needed to stick to the comic book script and they needed to tell stories worth telling in a good way. Superman told a story no one was interested in and Green Lantern told a good story badly. Check the review: http://rubadiri.blogspot.com/

@LP4, I strongly disagree that GL is better than Returns and I feel that your points don't prove that GL is a better film.

1. GL had more action. Transformers has more action than TDK. Doesn't make it better. They're different kinds of movies. I actually think the plane rescue in Returns was quite good. It was more exciting than some of Gl's action scenes for me.

You claim that SR was completely devoid of action. Not true. Along with the airplane rescue, there's the bullet in the eye scene. It's not much, but it still qualifies and if it was part of a Superman movie that people loved, it would probably be a favorite scene amoung Superman fans.

2. Parallax is a real villain? He's a blob that just wants to destroy stuff. No personality or anything. Hammond was pretty crappy too. Lex's plan sucked, but Spacey acted the role well and he's easilly the best of the 3 villain for me.

3. Seems pretty inconsequential to me.

4. Routh didn't act? You may think that he didn't act well, but he acted. He's not really Superman. I anything, I think it's worth admitting that he did a good job with that version of Clark Kent even if you don't agree with the interpretation of the character.

5. More faithful to comics =/= better movie. It makes it a better adaptation, but not a better movie.

Note that I'm not saying "You're wrong." I'm saying I disagree with your opinion and the points you made aren't strong enough to make me consider changing my mind.

@ Oreos I think most people completely forgot about the left out scene descriptions we got from the makers of the film, which tells me that wasn't Campbells cut of the film. I think were suppose to be getting a directors cut thats more like Secret Origin.

Great article LP4, I thought it was much more exciting and better than Superman Returns. At least we got to see some punches thrown.

@LP4.....You could put just about any CBM title in the title of your article and it would still work. The 1990 version of Captain America is better than Superman Returns!

BTW, were you aware that Kumar (Kal Penn) is now part of the Obama staff. Kumar friggin' works at the White House! One more nail in the coffin of Western civilization.

Hector Hammond screamed like a whiny school girl, super villains do not do that. He is not even a 3rd rate villain, I had to open my DC Encyclopedia to look him up and he only has 1/4 of a page where Sinestro had a FULL page.

@InfiniteJest: I'm with you, but in all fairness, you're going to be hearing the same arguments over and over again. What are they supposed to do? Come up with new reasons of why they hate Superman Returns every day? That is absurd.

@Knightstalker: Parallax first appeared by name in 1994. He was simply the evil version of Hal Jordan. In the miniseries, "Green Lantern: Rebirth", in 2004, was Parallax's first appearance as the demonic yellow creature we know him to be. It was retconned that the being known as Parallax took over the body of Hal Jordan. The version of Parallax on the big screen was not an evil Hal Jordan. It resembled the version published less than eight years ago. I would like to note that I was talking about versions of the characters. I mentioned the bronze age Lex, which is very different than the modern incarnation, and I infered the current version of Parallax, not the one that first graced the pages of a comic book in 1994.

@claybo4131: Sinestro is GL's arch-nemesis. Of course the arch-nemesis's are going to have a lot of space. GL's rogues gallery isn't as big as Superman's, Batman's, or The Flash's. Their villains are more recognizable and probably have more room. Besides, GL is an origin movie. Origin movies don't need to have A class villains. I don't know what yearr that encyclopedia is dated, but Hector Hammond has become a much greater villain in the past years. HH has done alot under Geoff Johns. Another thing you should consider is that not all villains are supposed to be these cool, sly, bad@$$ed villains. In real life alot of the so called infamous villains of the world were losers. I don't see why a villain can't be a loser. Did you know Hitler went to art school, but his teacher said he was no good. So he went and started his path to being the ruthless dictator we know today.