Green Lantern Movie

[batfan08]

Saw the movie again, is it just me or did Hector Hammond scream like a *? I wish Hal would've brought a green sledgehammer down on that idiot's watermelon of a head. Also, if a green lantern can create anything he imagines, why not just create a paralax construct that feeds on will?

[Drazar]

Originally Posted by Old_BenKenobi

Its pretty simple what they need to do: They need to make good movies with rich and deep characters, an area DC struggles more with than Marvel.

Exactly, judging by Green Lantern and the canceled Wonder Woman tv show, you can see they don't have a clear direction what to do with these characters. Zack Snyder is doing Superman because Duncan Jones as an example can't do it as fast, now Snyder has box office hits on his belt and some even genuily well critically received movies (i've liked about 3 of his movies alot) but he hasn't made a box office hit since 300 and Superman is up againts Peter Jackson's Hobbit.

DC has so many great properties they can make a movie out of, they got so many larger than life characters that can just scream of a movie epic, but it just seems they're only daring to go with Superman because they would lose his rights, we don't know their Batman plans post-TDKR and who knows what WB decides to do once Green Lantern has been released world wide and they can see how much money they earned, it's definatly not earning that much in US.

[batfan08]

I do think that GL will make its budget back, though. Between International and domestic box office, not to mention merchandise, and the eventual DVD/Blu-Ray sales.

EDIT: Draz, when can you see GL?

[Drazar]

Originally Posted by batfan08

I do think that GL will make its budget back, though. Between International and domestic box office, not to mention merchandise, and the eventual DVD/Blu-Ray sales.

EDIT: Draz, when can you see GL?

Green Lantern made 16-17 million international when Thor made 18 million in Russia alone, i mean it didn't even cross a million in Britain. Merchandise and dvd/blu-ray sales to save it's budget doesn't really scream of a profit at all.

I'm waiting for the Blu-ray which i'll rent.

[Zur-en-ah]

dunno if you guys have read this ... it's pretty spot-on, I think

http://modernmythmedia.com/ModernMyt...n_Lantern.html

[Batman The Trailer Hunter]

Originally Posted by Zur-en-ah

dunno if you guys have read this ... it's pretty spot-on, I think

http://modernmythmedia.com/ModernMyt...n_Lantern.html

I agree 100%. I saw the movie again last night and it was even better. My mom and niece (who have never heard of green lantern) loved it...the problem was they didnt learn squat about the franchise. And that is why the movie is not doing well. The thing they are doing well with is the action and animation. Like transformers, if movie makers cannot hook you with story/plot they will attract you with the action.

Think about it, when the first trailer came out everyone was negative and said "No or Maybe". Yet when they showed a lot of the action scenes during comic con, the fan tone shifted in a positive to "Maybe or Yes". The average movie goer is giving it a B+ because the action/animated/fights scenes basically saved the movie. IF the sequel is goina happen (and do well) they either need to focus of the story a LOT more...OR do like transformers and have like 45 mins of solid CGI star wars style fighting in space (making the 3d totally worth it). If they have a TON of Good Quality fighting scenes they might be able to convince the movie watchers to forget the crappy plot....even tho this would probably alienate the majority of fans, but they can attract new fans who simply want to be entertained

[Drazar]

Originally Posted by Batman The Trailer Hunter

The average movie goer is giving it a B+ because the action/animated/fights scenes basically saved the movie.

I'd say the reception based off Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes is a D+ at best:
6.5/10 on Metacritic

58% People liked it on Rotten Tomatoes

Hollywood Reporter is claiming they do intend to make a sequel since they need a franchise post-Potter, here's what the article states:

Sources say Warners still believes in the franchise, even if the studio is “somewhat disappointed” with Green Lantern’s result.

Green Lantern cost $200 million to produce before a sizeable marketing spend (rival studios say it was one of the most expensive on record). Warners, preparing for the end of Harry Potter, needs new franchises, so was willing to invest big in Green Lantern.

They should scrap the CGI suit that eats the budget, focus on the characters and not setting up an antagonist and show the protagonist as a hero who is part of this Police squad and endangers himself constantly to save innocents and keeping the universe safe. I don't know but i'm mixed feelings whenever or not they should just do a soft reboot like the Incredible Hulk did & Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance is doing, tho then again the Incredible Hulk wasn't a major box office hit, but that also suffered from clear studio interference where alot of parts we're cut out to make more showings avaiable and thus try and get as much money as possible. Still focus on the hero doing heroic things and give Mark Strong and Ryan Reynolds like most of the screen time.

Originally Posted by Batman the Robin is cooler than Starkiller Hunter

even tho this would probably alienate the majority of fans, but they can attract new fans who simply want to be entertained

Well considering the movie isn't making much theres not that many fans to begin with, the geek audience is never the majority, it's always the general audience.

[batfan08]

I read that too, honestly, I think this movie would've been so much more with a better story. I just hope that WB looks at this as a chance to fix the problems with the first film.

[Old_BenKenobi]

I saw it today. Even though I used a gift certificate I wish I hadn't. I haven't seen a movie so mind-numbingly mediocre since Ghost Rider. It just has no life and fails to leave any impact. And what a terrible decision it was to bring Parallax in on the first movie.

The CGI suit is damn stupid too. I didn't like it from the beginning but it really was pointless. Using a CGI suit was doomed from the beginning beause the very idea is flawed. The CGI makes it look like its awkwardly floating over him and it looks totally fake. But in the few moments where its convincing theres no point in having a CGI suit because it looks like a normal suit. So whats the point? Just a waste of money.

The only worthwhile aspect of this movie is Ryan Reynolds, not because he makes a good Hal Jordon (he doesn't) but hes charismatic enough to sell the snappy oneliners.

[Zur-en-ah]

well, despite how ropey it was ... looks like they're going ahead with the sequel

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/...ern-2-greenlit

fingers crossed they do a better job 2nd time round! (certainly enough "learnings" they can take!)

[Old_BenKenobi]

For years there was talk of a sequel to Superman Returns. I'm taking that announcement with a grain of salt.

[Zur-en-ah]

there's been far worse films released that have, unbelievably, gone and got sequels

immediate examples include GI Joe and Ghost Rider

[Old_BenKenobi]

Green Lantern is just as bad as Ghost Rider, maybe even worse. Ghost Rider was actually profitable at least, with 228mil gross against a 110mil budget.

[JackWinz]

The only good parts about Ghost Rider was the when he was actually the ghost rider.
Other than that it was pretty lame.

[batfan08]

Green Lantern wasn't even close to that bad, it had some bad writing, and a few wooden performances. Ghost Rider had some of the cheesiest dialogue, acting, and villains I've ever seen, not to mention Nick Cage at his worst.

[Drazar]

Man Ben, of all the movies you could have seen you went to see Green Lantern? Me sad.

[Batman The Trailer Hunter]

Come on dudes, Green Lantern is NOT that bad.

[Old_BenKenobi]

Originally Posted by batfan08

Green Lantern wasn't even close to that bad, it had some bad writing, and a few wooden performances. Ghost Rider had some of the cheesiest dialogue, acting, and villains I've ever seen, not to mention Nick Cage at his worst.

Yes it was. Green Lantern had terrible dialog, acting and villains as well. Not to mention a downright terrible story and horrible choppy editing. Its like everytime Hal did something they had to intercut it with Hector doing something. WE GET IT, Hector is Hal gone wrong, or something, for some reason.

Blake Lively sucked too. Man did she suck in that movie. And you gotta love how every time Hal flew into or out of a scene they played a shallow ripoff of the Superman theme. Way to make the pathetic score sound even worse by reminding me of one of the best movie scores of all freaking time.

How about that scene at his nephew's birthday party? The one with the family thats never seen again? Its like they realized "Hey, wait a minute, nobody cares about Hal Jordon so we'll give him a family for one scene to squeeze in some emotional content. And lets foreshadow one of his later constructs."

At least Ghost Rider had some badass visuals to look at and a cool song. I don't think Green Lantern has any real redeeming features, other than Ryan Reynolds' "wink to the camera and crack a joke" style (which to me seems out of character but whatever), the ten minutes on Oa and seeing Hal make a giant green boxing glove... twice.

I stand by my drawing:

[batfan08]

No, it wasn't. Blake Lively turned in the only truly bad performance. Even the guy playing Tom Kalmaku let you know he was the comic relief, and although annoying at times, Peter Saarsgard turned in a decent performance. The editing was fine as well, if the script says to cut to a scene of Hector after a scene of Hal, how is that the editor's fault? We both know you've been *ing about the suit since day one, so of course you'd find fault with the visuals that were some of the best this year. The villains were also fine, would you rather that Paralax was the freaking space cricket or that Hector Hammond had a head larger than his body. The fact that you're citing the dialogue as the main cheesy part is the most surprising, though. Have you seen the Green Lantern!?! This is a guy who defeats his enemies with enormous fly swatters and boxing gloves. As much of a fan as I am, the entire execution is pure camp. Bottom line:doesn't touch Ghost Rider bad.Anyway, feel free to retort, as I know you will.

[Old_BenKenobi]

The only performance that was actually good was Mark Strong as Sinestro. Everyone else was either hamming it up (Saarsgard), acting like themselves (Reynolds), just being bad (Lively) or being phoning it in.

The actual cuts are the responsibility of the editor. The editor determines how it flows. The movie was edited very choppily and hacky, it felt very rushed. Not just in the cuts between Hal and Hector but throughout the whole movie.

And the visuals were very few and far between. The training bit on Oa was the only thing that looked really good. Parallax looked lifeless and retarded (turd cloud for sure), the constructs looked lackluster, etc. I don't even need to mention the terrible CG costume. There was nothing there as cool visually as a flaming motorcycle and horse riding across the desert at night.

The villains were terrible too. There was a scientist who became a mediocre threat and was never really menacing and a giant cloud of space dust that has no personality. Hector Hammond and Parallax should have been combined into a single character called Hector Hammond. There was no real justification to have two major villains in this movie. If Parallax had to have been in the movie he should have been a background figure rarely seen, whose existence is confirmed by Hector's corruption. Parallax is a villain that needs a lot of setup. I mean, hes literally the embodiment of everything the GL Corps opposes, the conflict with him is the conflict all Lanterns face. Why kill him off in the same movie you introduce him in? Parallax's status as a main villain is flawed because thats a battle which would logically merit the attention of more than one GL. By ignoring that conflict the Guardians and the Corps come off as ignorant and pompous and very stupid. Hector Hammond, on the other hand, is a character that supposedly has a personal connection to Hal, making their confrontation more emotional. And because hes only a single villain with relatively limited power he would make a good threat for a single Lantern without requiring the attention of the entire Corps. Hector Hammond could have made a good first-installment villain. Instead they decided to force in Parallax and blow their load early on. Thats just terrible writing.

And as cheesy as the concept is... that doesn't matter. All superhero stuff is inherently silly. The writers, artists, directors, actors, etc have to sell the audience on the material and make them accept the cheesiness of the concept.

[Drazar]

I enjoy Ghost Rider director's cut because it has redeeming values, it suffers heavily from having disappointing fight scenes that range from mere seconds to... well mere seconds. Green Lantern's script is laughed at and i can (withouth even seeing the movie) pinpoint the flaws the movie had, and you guys whom seen the movie can just confirm me, correct so lets list what GL got wrong:
- Abin Sur alone defeats Parallax, but doesn't tell anyone how he managed this and leaves the Corp clueless.
- Hal Jordan shoots down Blake Lively as a decoy withouth taking this as an advantage, then for no reason has daddy issues and causes people losing jobs, our hero everyone.
- You never hear from the jobless people that Hal punches, did he kill them?
- Hal Jordan after 2 minutes of training and a fight with Sinestro gives up, because clearly he isn't the hero of this film but it's Sinestro, and apparently the Guardians are more than okay with with Hal keeping the ring and lantern, but not doing his job whatsoever, so whos actually protecting Abin Sur's sector? It isn't Hal Jordan, so who?
- Blake Lively's dad gets the contract anyhow and everyone is okay with Hal causing peopke to lose jobs.
- Instead of saving the senator safely, he causes an old man to go thru a hot wheel's race that could cause him an heart attack, our hero oh and commercialism.
- We learn that Krona the Guardian is what Parallax is possessing, so the Guardians think that giving a ring of fear would be as smart idea, because clearly it works this way.
- Hal Jordan not only gets his ass kicked in the labratory and saves to save the senator, he also doesn't go searching for Hector Hammond whos seen just going to his own apartment and sleep there, the senator's son whos a monster just goes to his home and the Green Lantern doesn't bother at all, our hero.
- How did Hal know Lively was captured and how did he find her?
- Guardians not wanting to help with Hal at all, now granted Hal calling them cowards is from Johns' comics, but really? Making the Guardians look like douches in the very 1st movie and also managing to make the Corps look pointless with Hal saving the day alone?
- The essence of fear is defeated by a single Corp member and then saved by Kilowog, Sinestro and Tomar-re, now here's two question, if Parallax died then how can Sinestro ever create the corps? And if the host only died and Parallax got away, why didn't noone capture him? Why didn't he try to just take over Hal Jordan? Why did he let himself get so easily defeated and how was it that only Hal Jordan could come up with this.
- For no real reason whatsoever, Hal Jordan is the hero of the film despite Sinestro being the more heroic one thruouth the whole movie, and then he puts on the yellow ring of fear, why? Why would movie-Sinestro do that? Will power is clearly much more powerful in this universe, so why use a weaker source at all?

Ah well, another Hollywood Reporter article

Green Lantern: Sequel with Big Plans, but a Tepid Box Office creates a Tough Call

That’s the question Warner Bros. faces in the wake of the less-than-stellar worldwide roll-out of the superhero tentpole. The studio appears to be grappling with the challenging decision. While a top studio source told THR on Sunday that Warners was proceeding with plans for a follow-up film, a WB studio spokesman said Monday that no decision has been reached.

The situation illuminates a dilemma facing Hollywood studios so intent on launching lucrative franchises that generate multiple revenue streams, including from sources other than box office, that they might find it difficult to accept the cold reality of disappointing ticket sales.

The studio is hungry to launch a new franchise based on its DC Comics properties to replace the Harry Potter cash cow ending this summer.

Observers note there are many factors that will determine whether the studio ultimately goes forward with a Green Lantern sequel. Most significantly, Warners must determine what kind of total gross would justify another film, particularly if a follow-up can be done for less money.

Green Lantern had a budget well in excess of $200 million, according to industry sources, as well as an outsized marketing spend estimated at $100 million domestic and $75 million foreign. A source with ties to the studio says it is reasonable to assume that Warners has spent well over $400 million on the film -- not too unusual for a summer tentpole, but the high cost is making profitability a steep uphill to climb.

Though the film is still rolling out overseas, current numbers suggest that Green Lantern could top out at $260 million or $270 million in worldwide gross. Green Lantern's weak foreign showing is especially problematic, considering that more than ever, international box office often drives tentpoles.

Though Warners had high hopes for the film starring Ryan Reynolds and directed by Martin Campbell, Lantern not only failed to ignite at the box office but was also rejected by critics, earning a mere 26% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes—not that reviews are crucial to the success of movies based on toys and comic books.

Some observers outside the studio say a Green Lantern sequel would be a misstep, one which Warners probably will not end up making. “I don’t see how they actually move ahead, even if they are dying to launch some non-Batman, non-Superman DC [Comics] heroes,” a studio executive said.

On the other hand, Warners’ deep marketing spend has familiarized worldwide audiences with the character. And studio franchises are not just about box office any more. Disney’s Cars, one of Pixar’s lowest-grossing and least-embraced films, launched a $1 billion global licensing juggernaut that paved the way for the just-released sequel. Similarly, Warners is planning an aggressive roll-out of Green Lantern merchandise, with more than 100 global licensees, an animated series, games and theme park rides. A Lantern sequel could feed all of those revenue streams.

Plus, a talent rep associated with the film argues that the studio has learned from the first movie and could correct the tone of a sequel, hire a director with more CG experience and/or mandate a lower budget.

A script for a sequel was being developed with writer Michael Goldenberg even before the film opened as a matter of routine. And though Reynolds is said to be willing to reprise the role, several industry sources expressed doubt that another excursion would be a good move for him. “It’s not like he doesn’t have career choices,” a rival executive said. “He has no need to do it.”

Originally Posted by Batman The Trailer Hunter

Come on dudes, Green Lantern is NOT that bad.

The general audience has spoken and the movie is a flop.

[Old_BenKenobi]

You missed the most important one Draz:

Parallax is revealed to be a result of the Guardians trying to utilize fear as a weapon and learning that its a bad idea. Immediately after this information is revealed Sinestro suggests the creation of a yellow ring to use fear to fight Parallax. The Guardians agree. Then later on willpower is shown to be more powerful than fear when Hal Jordon singlehandedly punches Parallax into the sun (even though they fly through an asteroid on the way there...) and Sinestro puts on the yellow ring anyway. So basically:

Guardians: "We tried to harness fear but it was a terrible idea that didn't work and ended up killing Abin Sur, your best friend"
Sinestro: "Hm, maybe we should harness fear and use it to beat Parallax!"
Guardians: "Thats not necessary as Parallax is dead and Willpower was shown to be much more powerful than Fear is anyway"
Sinestro: "Screw you guys I'm putting on a yellow ring anyway!"
Audience:

[Drazar]

They should have done the Jack Black movie instead.

[Old_BenKenobi]

Just so must stupidity and missed opportunity. So many things that you want to be wonderful are so horribly mishandled. Its like watching a horrible accident in slow-motion, as you're watching it you can see it fall apart and you're like "No don't do that OH GOD YOU'RE ACTUALLY DOING THAT"

[The Hylden]

This sounds like the reaction I had to the first Transformers movie. People were actually trying to convince me, or themselves, more likely, that it wasn't that bad. It was a terrible film that somehow made a hell of a lot of money. Not so here on the latter front, however.