The GREEN LANTERN movie thread

[gbagok]

I've seen at least one review compare it to Thor, citing similar problems with the "fake" Asgard and Oa. For me that's good news because I liked Thor.

http://www.theonion.com/video/green-...ee-lant,20741/

Did she say "Greg Lantern is going to be a huge hit"?

[Optimus Prime]

http://www.theonion.com/video/green-...ee-lant,20741/

Hmm, the video wouldn't play for me, it just played that 'Man with a van' crap

[SCB]

I've seen at least one review compare it to Thor, citing similar problems with the "fake" Asgard and Oa. For me that's good news because I liked Thor.


Did she say "Greg Lantern is going to be a huge hit"?

Yep

The video starts after the Van ad.

[Rhanen]

Even if it gets horrific reviews, it doesn't mean it's going to be a bomb(remember Transformers ROTF?). Do I want it to be good? Damn straight. I can deal with it being bad but still popular. As long as it's successful enough for DC to not get cold feet about making movies that don't star Batman or characters made popular by Alan Moore.

My thoughts exactly. Except for the Batman or Alan Moore's based movies since I liked them

Even though, I never could understand how so many people liked Transformers RoTF so much.

I do really wish that this movie makes more than 200 million in the US only even though it's a brainless movie. I just wish that WB and Legendary pictures or else start making movies of Flash, Wonder Woman, Firestorm, Metal Men, Shazam, Green Arrow, Black Canary, Zatanna, The Spectre, Swamp Thing, Teen Titans and Justice League.

[Greyskull09]

All i hear are people saying i am waiting for dvd then they wonder why movies are not making money this year as they should be. Also these same people were haters clear through who just didn't give it a chance.
I am seeing this because there is nothing else out new that i haven't seen. Well theres Hangover 2 but id rather throw acid in my face then see that. The kind of acid that made skeletor the man he is today.

[Krueger]

As long as it's successful enough for DC to not get cold feet about making movies that don't star Batman or characters made popular by Alan Moore.

That's what I'm getting really worried about. I'm just scared that if WB deems it a failure, this is exactly what's going to happen. DC has been the Mattel of the comic book publishers, being too scared to venture out of their comfort zone. Now that they finally have, I just hope it doesn’t backfire on them and scar them for life. If it does then I fear we’re not going to be seeing anything form WB and DC apart from reboot after reboot of the Batman and Superman franchises for the next twenty years. I want my Aquaman film, dammit!

Even though I’ve never been one to put much stock in what critics say, as we’ve disagreed far too many times in that past, I am truly gutted to see it getting really bad reviews. Especially taking into account that it’s actually got a really good team behind the camera. Martin Campbell is a great action director and is the man responsible for quite possibly two of the best 007 films of all time.

I’m still going to watch it, but I’m going to make sure to lower my expectations beforehand.

[supes78]

Despite the reported $300million budget, the reviews on rottentomatoes puts the GL movie's approval rating at only around 20% with the official consensus being "Noisy, overproduced, and thinly written, Green Lantern squanders an impressive budget and decades of comics mythology."

Even some of the worst movies have had cool looking trailers but GL didn't even have that going for it. It's a mystery to me why WB still can't seem to put out decent screen adaptations for most of their superheroes. Meanwhile, Marvel keeps kicking butt with their movies. The only question left in my mind now is whether this fluorescent turd is even worth renting.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/green_lantern/

[SCB]

The last two trailers for GL were actually really good.

[hopewell]

In my opinion, a good movie needs a decent script. A bad script will kill any performance, budget, or time spent on a film. If the characters are shallow, nobody will care. All the reviews I've read stated that the characters were under written and the movie follows the whole "Tell don't show" philosophy that kills pacing and investment. So looks like we have a bad GL movie. Maybe they'll try some of the other human gl characters to make it work.

I think Parallax and Hector Hammond were just bad villains to throw together. Most of the bad superhero movies tend to combine too many unnecessary villains. Batman and Robin, Spiderman 3, etc.

[Greyskull09]

If not mistake the movie budget was 200 million not 300 million and if am right 200 is about normal for comic book films these days.

[Dave-Man]

What I've seen of it so far looks all right to me...

[MegaGearMax]

Even though, I never could understand how so many people liked Transformers RoTF so much.

I know ROTF instantly conjures up the negative images of Devastator balls, Sam's mom on marijuana brownies, screwing dogs, Simmon's underpants and the Twins, but it did have alot of good stuff going in there too, which was why so many people liked it:

Devastator, Soundwave, Megatron and Starscream, more robot action and destruction than the first one and Prime is more bad-ass in the intro and the epic forest fight, making up for being too weak in the first movie.

[Rhanen]

If not mistake the movie budget was 200 million not 300 million and if am right 200 is about normal for comic book films these days.

300 million is outrageous for any movie that is not a safe bet like Transformers, Shrek or Nolan's Batman now or if your name isn't James Cameron.

The movie would be around 200 million and God's know how much was put into marketing campaign, which means that only in US should make over 200 to secure sequels and may open the door for any other DC character.
I hope it does close to 80 million on the first weekend to secure over 100 in the first week for WB to feel more comfortable. Although, I may suspect that their expectations were close to over 100 million on the first weekend.

I don't recall how much did Batman Begins on the first weekend, but I do recall that it wasn't as good as expected till the positive buzz made it a winner at DVD's also.

[Greyskull09]

My guess is it will be a world wide hit when things are done. Comic films ave good success and this year the global movie market has been pretty good for films

[SCB]

This sounds like a movie that would have passed as a good comic book movie in early 2000 back when superhero films were considered a niche genre and we would have to say "Spiderman 1 and X-Men 1 were good for comic book movies". Nowadays comic book movies are actually great on their own and it sounds like Green Lantern falls short in front of Thor and First Class, films even critics love, aside from Ebert.

Either that or the movie really stinks.

[heavy-eternium]

82 reviews , 21 % , i don't care ,they just are critics

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/green_lantern/

[Bonehead]

Hate to say it but ever since I saw the trailer last year at SDCC I thought this movie was going to bomb. It looks like I was right.


Don't get me wrong, I would have LOVED a good GL movie but IMO this looks horrible. It almost looks like there is just too much stuff in it for one movie.

I have a friend who's a local film critic, and who happens to be a comic book nerd like me, and he said as far as DC movies goes; the movie was better than Batman Forever and Superman 3 and 4 but not as good as Batman and Robin. Ouch!

[gbagok]

I have a friend who's a local film critic, and who happens to be a comic book nerd like me, and he said as far as DC movies goes; the movie was better than Batman Forever and Superman 3 and 4 but not as good as Batman and Robin. Ouch!

Anyone who would say Batman and Robin was better than even those other three is not to be trusted.

[supes78]

This NYTimes article puts the budget for the GL movie at $300mil.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/mo...r=1&ref=movies

The irony of the GL movie is that it is the first movie property from the DC Entertainment company, which WB recently established to solely focus on DC movies. It's supposedly comprised of DC veterans like Geoff Johns and Jim Lee but all they come up with is a movie built around a lot of CGI and an overrated Ryan Reynolds. Did they learn nothing from the Nolan Batman films or the growing list of good Marvel films? Marvel really seems to have found their groove with their movies. Meanwhile, 33 years after the first Superman movie, WB still can't seem to get a handle on their superhero properties.

[Krueger]

This NYTimes article puts the budget for the GL movie at $300mil.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/12/mo...r=1&ref=movies

The irony of the GL movie is that it is the first movie property from the DC Entertainment company, which WB recently established to solely focus on DC movies. It's supposedly comprised of DC veterans like Geoff Johns and Jim Lee but all they come up with is a movie built around a lot of CGI and an overrated Ryan Reynolds. Did they learn nothing from the Nolan Batman films or the growing list of good Marvel films? Marvel really seems to have found their groove with their movies. Meanwhile, 33 years after the first Superman movie, WB still can't seem to get a handle on their superhero properties.

I’m sorry, but I really don’t buy that 300 million. There is no way a major studio would spend such a reckless amount of money on a second tier character who is completely untested with mainstream audiences. No way. I’ve heard its closer to 150-180. At maximum, 200. If WB really did spend such an absurd amount, then they deserve to fail. It will teach them a very harsh lesson about superhero films, which they haven’t actually had much experience in, bar Batman and Superman.

Anyway, I’ve read that WB got tax rebates for Green Lantern, so you can knock a bit off whatever the budget was.

The odd thing is, even in a lot of the bad reviews I've read, three things seem to get praised a lot: Ryan Reynolds, Mark Strong and the 3D. Apparently Reynolds and Strong really do give it their all and the 3D, despite being converted, is actually done pretty well, especially in the outer space sequences.

BTW, Roger Ebert gave it a so-so review (2 1/2), deeming it better than Thor.

[LesPaulPS2]

I really enjoyed the movie. I don't know what critics' problems are. I thought it was a pretty faithful adaptation and good origin story.

[Grimbot]

I'm not much of a Green Lantern fan... all I know of him is from his animated appearances... soooo can he really make a fully working minigun with his ring?

[mightybuck]

I'm not much of a Green Lantern fan... all I know of him is from his animated appearances... soooo can he really make a fully working minigun with his ring?

he can, but it wouldn't create fire as it shoots.

[Fisto]

Hello there, People!

I am in Australia, and this movie will not open here until early August. I was wondering if this has opened in the U.S., yet or is still a few hours away? Has anyone here attended a session that was not a free screening for the entire audience? If so, are people seeing many people in their local cinemas? It is very important that this film does well, not only do I want to see a Green Lantern Movie Franchise, but I want to see other heroes within the DC Universe receive their own movie franchises, in a similar fashion to what we have seen with Marvel.

Take Care,
Darren

[EldestSon]

he can, but it wouldn't create fire as it shoots.

unless instead of construct bullets, he fed real bullets into it.