Movies are awesome

[andersonh1]

Superman/Doomsday

I was prepared not to like this movie very much, since I knew going in that it deviated quite a bit from the comic book "Death of Superman" storyline. I'll give the writers credit. It's not a bad Superman movie, though it's only an adaption in a very loose sense of the word. And despite all the comments from the authors and producers about trying to make it look different than Superman TAS and Justice League in order to seperate it from both, it feels very much like it belongs in that universe.

The differences from the original storyline are numerous, so I won't try to list them all. The similarities are that the creature Doomsday escapes his underground prison, goes on a killing rampage, reaches Metropolis and fights Superman to the death. Only Superman didn't quite die, but while he was in a near-death state, someone else appears in Metropolis who looks and acts like him, but isn't. Superman dons the black and silver suit and has to defeat him to protect the city. Missing from Superman/Doomsday are the Justice League of the time, all the other heroes at the funeral, Pa Kent, and the four Supermen. And we won't even get into the destruction of Coast City...

If you're looking for a faithful adaptation here, save your money. You won't find it. If you're looking for a streamlined version of the death of Superman that evokes the original without being very faithful to all the details, the this movie is pretty good. The animation is a step above the level of the various tv series, but not as good as DC's later movies. The voices all sound strange when I'm used to the tv voice actors, but they generally do the characters justice.

Hey, I only paid $2.00 for the movie. It was certainly worth that.

[andersonh1]

Green Lantern: First Flight

Another DC animated movie that takes elements from throughout Green Lantern's long history and uses them to tell a new story of Hal Jordan's first days with the Green Lantern Corps. There are elements drawn from the original origin story from the Silver Age, plot points taken from "Emerald Dawn"

Spoiler

(Hal absorbing the power from the battery into himself rather than the ring),

and Sinestro ends up in his Sinestro Corps uniform rather than his more traditional outfit.

The basic setup ought to be familiar to anyone who's read Green Lantern. The dying Abin Sur crashes on Earth, where he instructs his ring to find someone worthy to be his successor. The ring picks test pilot Hal Jordan. Jordan is contacted by the GLC, where he goes for training and ends up under the supervision of Sinestro. But in "First Flight", the plot revolves not around Legion or Atrocitus, but around the theft of the "yellow element", a power source equal and opposite to the "green element", which powers the main power battery on Oa. It's not hard to guess that Sinestro is involved in the plot, since we all know where his character ends up anyway. But even for the first time viewer, it shouldn't take long to pick up on the fact that he isn't impressed with the Guardians' methods of keeping order in the universe, and the fact that he thinks he would do a much better job by making everyone afraid of him.

I've always thought that the Green Lantern concept would lend itself well to animation due to the "make anything" nature of the power rings. And unlike John Stewart on the Justice League series, who rarely made anything elaborate with his ring, Hal and the other Lanterns constantly use their rings in a creative way. Hal makes a folding metal chair to wack the villain with during a bar fight. He makes a giant flyswatter to smack around the buglike aliens, and stomps on one with a giant green boot. And of course, he plays golf and baseball with the yellow power battery.

And while Jordan is clearly the main character, a few others get decently sized roles in the story. Sinestro almost steals the show, and both Kilowog and Bodikka get a good amount of screen time. The Guardians actually act like well-intentioned moral beings for once, being tough with Hal when enforcing the rules, but genuinely angry with Sinestro when he tortures a prisoner to death for information.

Some of the character redesigns are jarring. Characters like Hal and Kilowog and Tomar-Re look much as they always have, with some tweaking. But then Abin Sur and Kanjar Ro look nothing like the comic book versions, which seems odd to me, since there's no real reason to change them so drastically. The Green Lantern uniforms have been tweaked to show rank designations on some Lanterns, and the white gloves have been replaced with the green wrist bands from Justice League.

Overall: this is a good introduction to the Green Lantern concept and characters. It departs from the comics in a few areas, but is generally faithful to the source material while telling its own story.

[138 Scourge]

Interesting castong on this one. I like Christopher Meloni, but I don't think I'd have chosen him for Hal Jordan. Guy, on the other hand, I've always thought he'd be perfect for.

Anyway, how'd you think dude did as Jordan?

[andersonh1]

Interesting castong on this one. I like Christopher Meloni, but I don't think I'd have chosen him for Hal Jordan. Guy, on the other hand, I've always thought he'd be perfect for.

Anyway, how'd you think dude did as Jordan?

I'm not really familiar with Meloni, so I had no preconceptions. I think he did fine. There was nothing distinctive about his voice, but he did a good job. If anything, he underplays the part, which is an interesting choice for Hal Jordan. I was more familiar with Tricia Helfer, Kurtwood Smith and John Larroquette.

[138 Scourge]

You ever see Law and Order: SVU? He's the cop on that show that's always got the wild-eyed, pissed off look. That look just says "Guy" to me.

So, was Kurtwood Smith playing Kilowog? Because that would be awesome. And who was Laroquette?

[andersonh1]

You ever see Law and Order: SVU? He's the cop on that show that's always got the wild-eyed, pissed off look. That look just says "Guy" to me.

I don't watch it, but I've probably seen him in commercials for the show and didn't realize it.

So, was Kurtwood Smith playing Kilowog? Because that would be awesome. And who was Laroquette?

Kurtwood Smith was Kanjar Ro, and one of the Guardians. Laroquette was Tomar-Re. I don't know who did Kilowog's voice. He did a good job though, whoever he was. They didn't go with the "big dumb guy" voice used on Justice League, which is good because Kilowog is supposed to be pretty smart and technically skilled.

[Onslaught Six]

I saw this ages ago when it came out, a friend bought it and we watched it together. They really portray Hal as kind of a dick, I thought. Not that I'm opposed to that.

[Dominic]

Okay, thoughts on Crab's post in the comic thread:

i have not seen the movie, but Crab's initial 'reading" of it sounds like an honest mistake. I would probably have figured much the same. ("Aha! She is upping the ante!")

But, Hitchcock made his intent clear in the book. The truth is, besides being arguably creepier, much different. The girl has lost her mind, and identifies with the victims....hoooookay.

One can argue how well Hitchcock conveyed his intent. But, his intend is still the "correct", if somewhat obscured, reading.


Dom

[Mako Crab]

Might as well copy my post from the comics thread:

Goddamn, this old argument again. Oh well, here's my 2 cents.

I was in a film studies class once, and we were talking about Alfred Hitchock's "Shadow of a Doubt." There was a scene near the end of the movie where this girl, Charlie, had discovered that her uncle Charlie was a murderer. Uncle Charlie blackmails her into staying quiet. Later she finds a ring that belonged to one of his victims, and during a big party scene, she comes down the stairs wearing the ring. Uncle Charlie sees her wearing the ring, and decides that it's time to leave town quietly.

Watching this scene, and without any knowledge of what the author intended, I viewed it as Charlie girl turning the tables and blackmailing uncle Charlie to leave town. Made sense to me. That's what I got out of it. My teacher, armed with a big book filled with Hitchcock's own words on what his movies meant, told me that I was wrong and that Hitchcock said that Charlie girl was actually identifying herself with the victims. This did not sit well with me. Why willingly place yourself in a position of weakness? To me, she clearly took a position of strength and showed him that she could play his little game as good as and better than him. But no. My teacher was insistent that I was wrong. My interpretation didn't matter, because it's not what Hitchcock had said.

To which I call bullshit. What I originally got out of that scene was just as valid an interpretation as the "official" word. I don't need Hitchcock or anyone else to spoon-feed me all the answers, thank-you very much.

It's like telling a little kid that gets frightened by a movie that's genuinely not trying to be scary. Are you going to tell the kid he's wrong for being scared? Doesn't matter, because the emotion is still real and still valid. The movie didn't intend to be scary, but that's the effect it had anyway.

[Mako Crab]

Okay, thoughts on Crab's post in the comic thread:

i have not seen the movie, but Crab's initial 'reading" of it sounds like an honest mistake. I would probably have figured much the same. ("Aha! She is upping the ante!")

Except that I don't view it as a mistake. I still hold that my original interpretation of the scene is the one that personally works for me. I acknowledge that Hitchcock intended something different, and can accept that too, but I'm not giving up my view of the scene.

But, Hitchcock made his intent clear in the book. The truth is, besides being arguably creepier, much different. The girl has lost her mind, and identifies with the victims....hoooookay.

Yeah, except that she didn't lose her mind. Not in the least.

One can argue how well Hitchcock conveyed his intent. But, his intend is still the "correct", if somewhat obscured, reading.
Dom

And that's fine. But it's not the only way to interpret the scene as evidenced by my reaction to it. And nothing says they have to be exclusive interpretations. Both could work at the same time. Using the movie and that scene as an example, let's look at the point of view of Charlie girl and her dad. Charlie girl is glad to see her uncle announce his departure. She knows the evil things he's done and is glad to see him go. Her dad, viewing the same scene but unaware of the murders his brother has committed, is sad to see him go. Same scene. Same actions. Same dialogue. But two different ways of seeing it. Both reactions are the right ones based on the knowledge the characters have of Uncle Charlie.

The same is true of people in real life. We all come from different backgrounds with varying levels of education and all sorts of factors. None of us will ever see the same thing in the same exact way.