Escape to the Movies: Green Lantern
- Thread starter MovieBob
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Just saw the movie (sorry Moviebob, but no way could it be as bad as you painted and I had to see) and was surprised as how not awful it was. Sure the chemistry between the lead male and female was non-existent, unnecessary for the plot and filled up too much screen time, yeah the music was generic and sometimes pandering (tones of Superman theme tune at points) and the special effects weren't very special and almost funny in places, but I liked the fast intro to the corp and the fact they got to Hal pretty fast.
Ryan Reynolds IS a good actor and he did a decent job with the character, but he wasn't given enough screen time with other good actors. That awful, long scene in the bar where they are dancing could have been removed in it's entirety from the movie and lost nothing and the hammering home of the fear factor just mean lots of dialogue for poorer actors than Reynolds rather than SEEING the character face and overcome those fears.
I thought the climax was good, especially the part where he lets go of the fighter jets for the final punch to send Parallax to his doom and played to the character's strengths. It definitely suffers from the feeling of having too many hands at the wheel and there is a feeling that DC feel they missed the boat with the franchise thing so used GL as an experiment to see what worked and didn't work. In this case the whole movie suffered from feeling like it had been patched together from parts, but there were some good scenes and good concepts from the quilt. Hopefully whatever hero DC choose next they will learn to let one vision see it through instead of trying to put too much on the screen at once.
In the end, this was like a kid making a smoothie for the first time. You put in lots of ingredients, without caring which works with other ingredients and the overall effect fails, but you learn and leave out the prunes and broccoli next time.
Ryan Reynolds IS a good actor and he did a decent job with the character, but he wasn't given enough screen time with other good actors. That awful, long scene in the bar where they are dancing could have been removed in it's entirety from the movie and lost nothing and the hammering home of the fear factor just mean lots of dialogue for poorer actors than Reynolds rather than SEEING the character face and overcome those fears.
I thought the climax was good, especially the part where he lets go of the fighter jets for the final punch to send Parallax to his doom and played to the character's strengths. It definitely suffers from the feeling of having too many hands at the wheel and there is a feeling that DC feel they missed the boat with the franchise thing so used GL as an experiment to see what worked and didn't work. In this case the whole movie suffered from feeling like it had been patched together from parts, but there were some good scenes and good concepts from the quilt. Hopefully whatever hero DC choose next they will learn to let one vision see it through instead of trying to put too much on the screen at once.
In the end, this was like a kid making a smoothie for the first time. You put in lots of ingredients, without caring which works with other ingredients and the overall effect fails, but you learn and leave out the prunes and broccoli next time.
MovieBob is WRONG about one very important thing...
There WILL be sequels. Probably SEVERAL of them?
Why? Because for us fans, this movie was garbage. For those of us who watch a lot of cartoons or read a lot of comic books, this movie is the epitome of terrible.
But to the average movie going audience that just enjoys special effects? This movie is raking in the CASH. Massive, massive amounts of it.
Remember how awful Transformers was? Remember how awful the second one was? Remember how bad Spiderman 3 was? Remember how terrible X-men Last Stand was? How about Wolverine?
Notice how all of those movie franchises still live on (with the exception that the X-men made a decent reboot) and every single ONE of them has sequels in the works or on the verge of release. Hell the first Fantastic Four was sci fi channel original movie BAD... and it STILL got a sequel!
Nobody at warner brothers is going to go "Man, that movie sucked, it was terrible in oh so many ways." All they will look at will be box office numbers.
"Hey it made x-amount of millions and millions of dollars! Green light the sequel immediately!"
I thought Chris Nolan was kinda watching over the DC Film franchises. I guess he was too busy making the new Batman and keeping Superman from sucking that he ignored GL.
If there was any justice, this film would bankrupt WB. But we all know it won't. We also all know that in two years, we'll be seeing "Green Lantern 2: Brightest Dayz" (they'll add the z to make it hip and trend) and it'll be even crappier than this one, complete with childish in-jokes so that all the little kids will be entertained on their way to walmart to beg their parents for the tie-in toy lines.
There WILL be sequels. Probably SEVERAL of them?
Why? Because for us fans, this movie was garbage. For those of us who watch a lot of cartoons or read a lot of comic books, this movie is the epitome of terrible.
But to the average movie going audience that just enjoys special effects? This movie is raking in the CASH. Massive, massive amounts of it.
Remember how awful Transformers was? Remember how awful the second one was? Remember how bad Spiderman 3 was? Remember how terrible X-men Last Stand was? How about Wolverine?
Notice how all of those movie franchises still live on (with the exception that the X-men made a decent reboot) and every single ONE of them has sequels in the works or on the verge of release. Hell the first Fantastic Four was sci fi channel original movie BAD... and it STILL got a sequel!
Nobody at warner brothers is going to go "Man, that movie sucked, it was terrible in oh so many ways." All they will look at will be box office numbers.
"Hey it made x-amount of millions and millions of dollars! Green light the sequel immediately!"
I thought Chris Nolan was kinda watching over the DC Film franchises. I guess he was too busy making the new Batman and keeping Superman from sucking that he ignored GL.
If there was any justice, this film would bankrupt WB. But we all know it won't. We also all know that in two years, we'll be seeing "Green Lantern 2: Brightest Dayz" (they'll add the z to make it hip and trend) and it'll be even crappier than this one, complete with childish in-jokes so that all the little kids will be entertained on their way to walmart to beg their parents for the tie-in toy lines.
Thanks for hammering the point home.
To be honest though, I wasn't expecting anything else from this movie (Van Wilder as a super hero is just a non-starter for me). If movie studios have trouble with canon like X-Men, Batman, Spiderman and the Transformers I can hardly imagine them making anything promising out of a less-popularized character. Ironman was a sunny exception to this, but I find it's better to be surprised by a bright-spot rather than let down by a expectations.
Unfortunately, by not seeing this movie the Studio will take it as a, 'comic-book-heroes-don't-sell' statement, rather than a bad-movie-is-bad statement -- something that you touched on with your Chthulu episode on 'The Big Picture' -- and remedy this in the future....it'll just lead to more Knight and Day scripts being greenlighted /cry
To be honest though, I wasn't expecting anything else from this movie (Van Wilder as a super hero is just a non-starter for me). If movie studios have trouble with canon like X-Men, Batman, Spiderman and the Transformers I can hardly imagine them making anything promising out of a less-popularized character. Ironman was a sunny exception to this, but I find it's better to be surprised by a bright-spot rather than let down by a expectations.
Unfortunately, by not seeing this movie the Studio will take it as a, 'comic-book-heroes-don't-sell' statement, rather than a bad-movie-is-bad statement -- something that you touched on with your Chthulu episode on 'The Big Picture' -- and remedy this in the future....it'll just lead to more Knight and Day scripts being greenlighted /cry
It's actually not, though.HyenaThePirate said:
Warner Bros. cops to spending about $200 Million making "Green Lantern" initially, and since studio math is ALWAYS a lowball estimate when talking about cost it's a given that the "real" number was up around $250 Million or above. And that's not counting the marketing materials, which are up around $100 Million just on their own. When all is said and done, it's safe to project that this thing cost between $400 Million and $500 Million altogether to make, market and distribute.
"Old math" used to say that a movie had to make three times what it cost to be considered a financial success; and while that's no longer a "hard" figure it doesn't change the fact that "Lantern" needs to do "Avatar"-level business in order to just break even... and that isn't happening.
The numbers are in, and it did about $52-54 Million, and the size of audience actually SHRANK by about a quarter between just Friday and Saturday. If you're Warner Bros, those are DISASTEROUS numbers - those are "tons of people are getting fired over this" numbers. (By comparison, "Thor" did about $25 Million MORE it's first weekend and cost significantly less to make.) What's more, most of this money is coming from the inflated prices for 3D theaters, and next week they'll be losing most of those screens to the 3D prints of "Cars 2." Even POPULAR movies tend to drop by about 50-60% in their second week - and this will be lucky to "only" drop that low. It's done for. Kaput. They'll SAY otherwise for about a year, as it'll take that long for everyone to get out of their multi-film contracts, but this franchise is toast.
I saw this film before watching the review, and was genuinely surprised when Bob mentioned the whole "DC mainstay getting loads of script and backstory" bit, then spent the rest of the review straining to remember her.
Only while writing this comment I realised who she was.
Kinda goes to show how bad this film was. Just a little.
Only while writing this comment I realised who she was.
Kinda goes to show how bad this film was. Just a little.
Zing. I always thought superhero movies were kind of silly, anyway. Coupled with the fact Green Lantern has such a ludicrously nebulous backstory, it's hardly surprising the film suffered in all departments. Without people with a passion for this stuff behind the helm, it's little wonder that it comes out as being terribly sub-par, the effect of which is augmented by the same fanboys they are trying to appease - as fanboys tend to be the hardest to please. If something isn't perfect or in their vision, then hell hath no fury. This isn't a sleight against you or comic book fanboys in general, if a Halo movie came out for example (real one not the animated thing), and it wasn't how Halo fans wanted it to be, rage would erupt and it would fail as a result. The problem with comic book hero titles is that it's still appealing to a niche demographic. No-one here in the UK really knows or cares about comic book superheroes for example (that i know of anyway) and i'm sure it's the case for most of Europe as well, so when you're relying on a very specific audience from a specific part of the world (mainly the US) it's all too easy for it to tank without someone from that niche demographic influencing the direction and handling of the source material. Though superhero movies does tend to appeal to the younger audience (power fantasy elements, see the spiderman movies for a prime example) though it has to fulfill two criteria; that it is not too extraneous (I.E. it is relatable because it is grounded in every day life on earth in some way. Again, with Spiderman, it had an element of mundanity to keep it from being ridiculous) and that it is not too heavy, dark or gritty. In other words, that it isn't trying to be another Batman or Dark Knight. (Batman is the exception because he isn't actually superhero - he's a regular guy with lots of cash and kick-ass gadgets. He's human, making the movie more human as a result and therefore able to be taken seriously as opposed to people shooting lasers out their arse) Really, the production costs are absolutely appalling and it just goes to show that you can't just throw money at something and expect results. It was the same with Suckerpunch, all that glitz and special effects and big robots and CGI and babes and whatnot and the actual movie turned out to be garbage with no real discernible plot that became highly convoluted. Money does not equal success and it's up to Hollywood to realise this. I'm not saying we should abandon our big lavish blockbusters, but perhaps look to movies like Trollhunter to see how good movie making can be done without trying to patch up the inconsistencies with dollar bills.
I see your point, MB, and I don't mean to be argumentative for the sake of...MovieBob said:
BUT..
Do you honestly think this movie isn't going to make $200 million or more back over the rest of the summer? I mean, sure it probably won't be the big opening weekend seller, but to me it's kind of a slower burner, especially since with the exception of Transformers in a few weeks, I can't think of anything else between now and then that people will want to see. Cars 2? People WILL eventually get out to see GL, and it WILL make its money back, I'd almost wager my Guy Gardner custom made real leather Jacket signed by John Broome on it.
Furthermore, now that you've got the 'first' out of the way, GL is a far more lucrative property with a TON of sequel potential. Hell, if we're lucky a tv series spin off could really be done if they really wanted to. Thor? I don't see many Thor sequels that can come out of that property. It generated some buzz, was a curiosity, but been there, done that, GL is much much more recognizable and marketable.
There were CHILDREN... in the THEATER raising their little glowing GL rings towards the screen during almost every fight scene (I on the other hand was trying to figure out the best way to destroy mine utilizing a weapon powered by the energy released from the massive fissures being created in my broken, GL-loving heart).
That's just the thing. You're talking Father's day weekend, off end of a payday, I don't know, there's a dozen reasons why the movie didn't take off on opening weekend, but no reason why it won't make big fat fistfuls of the REAL "green" WB wants.
All I know is, I hate movies like this and I am resentful that people will still ignore all warning (including their own) and go support a cinematic donkey punch like this film. I mean, Okay, it wasn't THAT horrible of a film: IF... IF it had been a MINI-SERIES on SyFy channel. THEN it would have been rather acceptable. The fact that this movie was treated like a respectable big, budget summer flick up there in the ranks of Return of the Jedi and Titanic makes me sick.
But then again, I know tons of people who walked out of Transformers HATING it.. REVILING it.. sickened by it, even. Isn't stopping the sequel from coming.
On another note, Ryan Reynolds has used up all his "comic book" hero capital with me. Hannibal King? Okay maybe that was the director's fault? Gave him too many comedy lines, and they had some problems with the script okay, I get it. Deadpool? Okay, he didn't design the character, but dammit he should have spoken up and said "Um... guys have you read the source material? This is NOT how this should be." And to the people who keep saying he should go back and play Deadpool, kindly go and put your heads through a windshield. I'd rather Donald Glover have a crack at that (since he was woefully overlooked for Spiderman since too many people in our so-called modern day society still seem to have issues with a "black" character in a white role). And now Green Lantern. I'm sorry but at some point an actor has to take responsibility. He has to say, "Screw this, I'm walking away from this project. I won't let you piss all over the fans."
Anyway, that's my rant. And I'll readily admit that MovieBob has probably forgotten more about how the film industry works (especially in regards to production, funding, etc.) than I'll ever even think to ask about, but I just have a feeling that I'm right, the movie will make upwards of $300 million worldwide over the next few weeks or so, and a sequel will get "Greenlit" (no pun intended).
It'll suck, but I'm confident it WILL happen.
So I got drug to this movie expecting to see a spectacular shit show. Instead I saw a movie I would describe as "okay."
Yeah, it felt like about a fifth of the movie was missing. Yeah, there were characters introduced that seemed to serve no point. Yeah, it was riddled with clichés.
But it was not on par with the hate that Bob's review spat forth. It wasn't good, but it wasn't the shit show Bob made it out to be, either.
...I almost feel like I should go see Pirates of the Caribbean now (which I skipped because of how awful it sounded)
Here's hoping whatever movie he sees next week realigns him. Because I value and consider Bob's opinion when it comes to movies.
Yeah, it felt like about a fifth of the movie was missing. Yeah, there were characters introduced that seemed to serve no point. Yeah, it was riddled with clichés.
But it was not on par with the hate that Bob's review spat forth. It wasn't good, but it wasn't the shit show Bob made it out to be, either.
...I almost feel like I should go see Pirates of the Caribbean now (which I skipped because of how awful it sounded)
Here's hoping whatever movie he sees next week realigns him. Because I value and consider Bob's opinion when it comes to movies.
Actually, yes - there is a pretty good chance that, with an opening weekend well under $60 Million, it will not make $200 Million back by the end of the summer. In any case, that's somewhat beside the point since it needs to make MUCH more than $200 Million to not be a net-loss for the studio. And that's theatrical money, BTW - DVD sales are tanking across the board, and toy retailers were buzzing that the GL-branded merch wasn't moving before it opened.HyenaThePirate said:
I could be wrong. I'm not a professional boxoffice analyst - but in this case, I don't think I need to be. It's basically dead-on-arrival opening weekend, it's going to TANK next week (60-70% drop, easy) against Cars 2, Harry Potter and Transformers are after that, not a hard call to make. Plus, the industry/audience buzz is uniformly pretty bad - it's going to be a movie-news punchline by the end of the summer. It's DOA. The main players will be towing the "oh yeah, part 2 totally coming!" line for about a year or so, but nothing will come of it and eventually we'll stop asking. (For comparisons sake: Daredevil, the 1998 American Godzilla, the Super Mario Bros. Movie, Ang Lee's Hulk and Superman Returns ALL had sequels "still greenlit" for YEARS after they'd come out that were never "officially" called-off.)
Well, Green Lantern made slightly less than First Class (opening weekend, that is), and I actually noticed that the marketing for First Class increased after the first weekend it was out (maybe it's just selection bias, but I noticed A LOT more advertising for it the second week it was out). At this point, First Class is at ~120 million. Green Lantern won't have the rush of positive critical reception that First Class did, so it'll likely fall off more quickly even if WB tries a large marketing push -- quote mining bad reviews to make them look good can only do so much. It might have one more "decent" week, since Transformers doesn't come out until week after next, and nothing coming out next week (that I know of) fits "action" movie like Green Lantern (does? should?).MovieBob said:
Also, Bob, I haven't decided if I'm going to see it (I almost want to see it so I can know what caused you to spew such bile), but I took your advice and didn't watch it this weekend to perhaps hurt its box office. I know my $5 matinee ticket makes a HUGE impact on the $52 million, but every bit counts, right?
EDIT: Funny how no one knows how much this movie cost. Wikipedia says $200 million, IMDB says $150 million, Washington Post says $200 million, with another 125 in marketing. Hollywood Accounting is incredibly confusing and seems to be more about lying than recording actual money.
Soon as I saw that Ryan Reynolds was cast as Hal Jordan for this movie I decided I was gonna wait till it came out on tv to watch it. What a terrible casting choice it tells me that the actor is the main draw not the quality of movie. Oh I'm not saying I hate Ryan Reynolds he just is not a good green lantern choice. Also I caught a clip of the show on Conan and it looked really bad.
Kinda makes me sad that Ryan Reynolds performances lately kinda remind me of Uve Boll movies.
Kinda makes me sad that Ryan Reynolds performances lately kinda remind me of Uve Boll movies.
How do so many people not see that movie bob did not like this. He said it was worse that fantastic 4 and daredevil, and he directly said it was terrible about 50 times.
Yea, I gotta say I enjoyed Daredevil and FF 1 and 2 as well.. until they decided to make Galactus a cloud tornado thing...VonBrewskie said:
Bob, sorry but your SO very wrong here. The movie is nothing special but frankly it's only crime is of being very very average and a bit too long. Ordinarily I at least can see where your coming from with your reviews even when I disagree but this whole review just comes across like an utter rant from a wounded fanboy. It's a dissapointing movie but this is just a bad review. In fact pretty much everything you said about the movie I would say applies to this review.
Sorry dude, ordinarlily I love your reviews but this one is just rubbish imo, fine you didnt like the movie but the slating you're giving it here is wholy unjustified.
Sorry dude, ordinarlily I love your reviews but this one is just rubbish imo, fine you didnt like the movie but the slating you're giving it here is wholy unjustified.
I'll go see it. Fact is that the people that I do know that have seen it said it was a good movie. Granted these are not comic book people, but if there is one thing Bob has proven is that if something to do with comic book sucks, he'll rage hard about it. In fact, I'm more likely to see this movie because of how colored Bob's review of it was. This wasn't a level-headed review, it was the review of a man angry and heart-broken, so I can't take it seriously. I'll have to decide for myself.