Green Lantern: Grading, Review, Discuss, Tracking, Sequel?

They most likely think that replacing the director and screenwriters will be sufficient, and that's probably a good call. They'll try to hold on to the cast.

 

Maybe, though for most movie-goers, the star is probably the most recognizable figure. By most accounts, Reynolds is not the problem with this movie, but rather script and production issues. Still, bringing him back would move the film toward sequel territory, which might not be wise considering the film's under-performance and widespread perception that it was/is a failure.

Whatever, I'm sure the suits are hashing this all out as we speak, and there are other variables.

If Man of Steel and Avengers are both hits, WB might decide to do a Justice League movie and re-introduce Green Lantern that way, along with Flash and a few others. Then individual movies could be spun out of that film. This would probably mean a different actor for GL.

 

I don't understand the problem people have with the movie's direction at all. I thought Campbell took a rather thin story and made it feel about as substantive and polished as it could possibly be.

I thought the action scenes worked really well too. As far as I'm concerned, the only thing a sequel really needs is a stronger story.

 

Re: Green Lantern...to see or not to see?

Loved it.

 

Re: Green Lantern...to see or not to see?

It's a serviceable film. Good enough to satisfy that theater-going crave in the absence of anything better.

 

^ Well, the film's critical and financial reception suggests that there were deeper issues. Now, I'm not denying the buzz was perhaps worse than the film really deserved, all things considered, but perception is king in this scenario: for whatever reason, audiences did not respond well to this movie and are therefore not likely to respond well to a sequel.

If ads for the next GL movie feature Ryan Reynolds in the same green CGI suit, there is no reason to think audiences will suddenly have a change of heart. If anything, such a film would be likely to perform even more poorly than this one did, as reviews were embargoed until just prior to opening weekend. A sequel would have to overcome the first film's negative reception, which would be extremely difficult.

In that sense, changing the director and writers means little unless they bring in someone like Abrams, Nolan or Bay, which seems unlikely. Writers are pretty much faceless to general audiences, and there are only a few directors with the type of established reputation and record of success that could change the franchise's fortunes.

 

I disagree. Campbell's to blame. From the thumb's up of Hal's Father at the moment of explosion to the nonsensical placement of the asteroid belt....

At the very least, he could have cut the Belt from the theatrical cut--it didn't do anything, we wouldn't have missed it. (I know I'm harping on that stupid belt, but, it's short hand for the idiocy of the direction) Or he could have cut Parallax escaping--you know, from an unguarded cell that only made the GLs look stupid.

Films are a director's medium, the writers have very little power. Campbell should've stepped up. He's capable.

He'll be dumped if there's a sequel.

 

They can't dump him if he's already said he won't return (which he has.)

 

Campbell would not necessarily be to blame for things like the asteroid field, especially if he's merely a "director-for-hire." A for hire director might not be quite as hands on with the art or effects department as we've been led to believe when watching docs about George Lucas or Jon Favreau. That scene might be halfway rendered by the time he sees it and goes "...an asteroid belt!?! Between the Earth and sun? No!" "That'll cost 3 million bucks to fix, Mr. Campbell." "Fuck it. perfect."

He is, however, partly to blame (outside of executive tinkering, which is highly likely considering the "edited by Stuart Baird" credit...the great studio's go to fix it guy! Haha!) for the film's lack of consistent tone, sloppy and careless shooting style, some bad performances, refusing to really show the audience anything and continually cutting to "tell us what's happened/happening" dialogue scenes, and the films terrible pace.

 

Which is why he announced he's not coming back. It's called "jumping before you're pushed."

 

He may have seen the writing on the wall.

Unless he was a last minute director, like Joe Johnston on The Wolfman, Campbell would've been there through the story boarding, which would've been done before any work would be done on CGI.

 

Re: Green Lantern...to see or not to see?

The movie was pretty good but I would say wait for the DVD

 

I can't believe people are still harping on the asteroid belt. I'm a pretty huge astronomy nut, but I couldn't give a rat's ass whether they got details like that right in a superhero movie.

Hell, the last Star Trek movie probably had 20 times the scientific inaccuracies that GL did. And it's freakin Star Trek.

I don't know, those cheesy, comic booky moments didn't seem any more numerous than what we got in the first Iron Man (and that's clearly the movie this one was trying all too hard to emulate).

 

That's such a non-issue I palm the nearest face whenever someone brings it up.

 

Re: Green Lantern...to see or not to see?

I think if you don't mind a rather simple, comic booky story, you might like it. If you're looking for a more complex and sophisticated superhero movie, probably not.

 

Re: Green Lantern...to see or not to see?

It is not horrible despite what some critics say. But I can't really say it's the surprise hit of the summer. I don't think it is worth $12. I would say wait til it hits discount theatres (if there's one in your area), or wait for DVD.

 

Re: Green Lantern...to see or not to see?

Thanks for all the input, everybody!! It's MUCH appreciated! :-)

 

What the fuck's the deal with the asteroids - I didn't pay any attention to that. I take it they were in the wrong place or something?

 

People have figured out they were in the wrong place. But really, who cares? Of all the movie's problems, that was the least of them.

 

It's true it's the least of them, however it's a great symbol of the flaws. For fuck's sake, they couldn't even do THAT right. It's such a stupid error....

Many of the flaws are artistic, and thus based in opinion, but here's a FACT, an objective fact they got wrong.

But, then, if the REST of the movie had been great, I would have been son in it, I might not have seen the mistake.

Yes. The exact opposite direction as shown in the movie.