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

[Sindatur]

davejames wrote:

---

It's starting to feel to me like GL is the Shadow all over again-- another small-scale, kinda cornball comic book movie that I completely dug from the beginning and thought hit all the right, geeky notes.... and which every other scifi fan just shrugs at and goes "eh, whatever." lol

Hey Dave, fellow Sacramentan here. I won't see it in the theater, but, I fully expect to enjoy it when it gets released on DVD.

[Harvey]

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

Perhaps. But, I doubt they spent 200-300 million dollars on The Shadow--which, I agree, is a fun movie.

It cost $40 million in 1994 dollars, according to The-Numbers. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $58 million today.

[davejames]

Harvey wrote:

---

It cost $40 million in 1994 dollars, according to The-Numbers. Adjusted for inflation, that's about $58 million today.

Not really sure what the budget has to do with anything. Just because GL may not look like the 200 million movie it is, doesn't affect my enjoyment in any way.

It feels to me like about the same scale as a Shadow or Rocketeer, and that's good enough for me.

[Captain Craig]

davejames wrote:

---

True, but I wasn't really talking about the box office, just the huge amount of negative buzz that was out there. And I don't think there's any doubt that the genre fans trashing the movie from the beginning contributed a fair amount to that.

Genre fans just agreed with the critical response, that doesn't always happen. Maybe it felt like a pile on but Joe Public isn't visiting genre sites so it's really on the choir singing to each other on the fan sites. The masses didn't show up due to critics and water cooler talk not fandom of the character/genre. They simply don't know where to go to read those thoughts most likely.

For their time Rocketeer and Shadow are both good movies. Hell even the Billy Zane Phantom is fun and they look good for their budgets. Your statement that the budget doesn't matter to enjoyment is or should be true. However, when I know $200m was spent I expect excellence on all fronts. When $40m is spent I keep my expectations in line as well. If I buy a BMW I want what's expected same with a KIA, what's behind the creation of a product can and does with some impact expectations.


Going into Potter-mania Green Lantern sits at $111.4m domestic and $144m worldwide.
The bigger news is the film is having another consecutive huge drop in screens. This time it's losing 1,000 screens or 51% of it's current total. Up from 1/3 last week even considering that was a 1,200 screen loss. Theaters are dumping it quick.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

davejames wrote:

---

Not really sure what the budget has to do with anything. Just because GL may not look like the 200 million movie it is, doesn't affect my enjoyment in any way.

It didn't actually cost 200 million, but that's kind of a moot point because a lot of other films don't actually cost as much as is claimed either.

I really don't see how they could have done much differently and been as faithful to the Green Lantern comics and mythos as they were.

Well, I'm usually one to argue in favor of ditching anything and everything that the filmmakers think doesn't work for them in the translation to a movie, so I'm in the kind of odd position of being happy that they didn't - I really love GL, just the way it is and has been - but having to accept the commercial consequences of that as the cost of taking that risk. C'est la guerre... but I'm sure glad that they did this one they way they did it.

[Captain Craig]

The fall continues.
Green Lantern has now been leap frogged by films that opened weeks before it in the box office weekend standings. The film placed #14 and took in another $1.2m on 973 screens after losing over 1,000 screens to raise it's total to $112.6m. Worldwide it's total is $145.9m but it's fair to note that it's been stagnant as it's not poised to open in some markets till next first of August. Spain and Australia are I believe the next big markets so hopefully GL can see a surge in it's WW total as domestic has tapered off. Hopefully.

Films leaping GL include Super 8 And Bridesmaids while films opening the same weekend are holding better such as Mr.Poppers Penguins. X-Men: First Class placed #15 for the weekend and could in theory leap frog GL if it has another massive screen loss AND 60% drop next weekend.

[Professor Zoom]

Dennis wrote:

---

It didn't actually cost 200 million, but that's kind of a moot point because a lot of other films don't actually cost as much as is claimed either.

I really don't see how they could have done much differently and been as faithful to the Green Lantern comics and mythos as they were.

I think they could've have simplified the story for one. Wasn't it in the comics issues and issues before Hal went off planet? Maybe the story could have been ALL Earth based and at the very end the Corps arrive... showing Hal a whole big universe, setting up the sequel.

OR

I could've been all SPACE based. That would've been different for a superhero movie. Hal, fearless, yet self-involved, gets the ring, flies off into space, trains with Sinestro, they do a mission together, someone self-involved Hal has to save people he's never met, he changes, and flies back home... a changed man...

[Snick27]

Seen this movie a few weeks ago. Just came across as by the numbers comic book movie. Just nothing different. Just like the last Superman movie, just wasnt anything new and bland.

Didnt help that i felt Ryan just didnt fit the part.

[CorporalCaptain]

When I heard the villain would be Parallax and not Sinestro I immediately thought "WTF?". I gave it the chance it deserved, but as it stood, the movie gave the audience zero interest to care about defeating Parallax. I think it's a no-brainer that the movie should have had Sinestro turn from good to bad during this movie and become the primary antagonist. I don't really understand why they thought it was a good idea to put that off for a sequel that might never get made.

[StarTrek1701]

Samuel Walters wrote:

---

You miss the point. Most every-day Joes aren't test-piloting, model-banging egomaniacs who neglect the vast majority of their families. That GL tried to portray Hal Jordan as an every-day Joe who, oh by the way, is a test pilot who wakes up with models and neglects the vast majority of his family, is the basis of the why I believe the film is pretentious.

You don't see it that way? Fine. But the vast majority of moviegoers decided not to see the film -- to the point where it literally bombed at the box office. And I'm pretty sure that my perspective is at least part of the reason why.

You are making this out to be a bit more serious than it is. The Audience does not care to find any similarities between themselves and the heroes/villains of a sci fi action film. All they want is a good, entrtaining, coherent, engaging and flashy piece of movie that'll cheer them up better than the average dull life we all almost lead. Watch First Flight and then also Emerald Warriors to see how a good "Green Lantern" film should be made. Hell, they could have just transferred GL: Secret Origin, with a bit of fat trimmed off, word for word, onto the screen and they'd have had a huge hit in their hands.

Green Lantern the movie was boring, drab, unimaginative and incoherent from beginning to end. Simple reason why it failed.

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I think six times is about it for me, in the theater. This is probably the last weekend it'll play in my neighborhood, and there's nowhere in reasonable distance that's doing 3D for it now so it's not worth the travel. So now I'll wait for the DVD.

My favorite scene is still Hal trying to do the "Lone Ranger" masked man thing on the balcony and Carol calling him on it. If there was more stuff like this in superhero movies the entire fad would be a little less tedious. I appreciate Sarsgaard's eccentric performance as Hammond more and more.

I'd like to see another of these with the same characters and hopefully the same cast, but if not then not; at least we got this one. I certainly have little interest in seeing it carried forward by shifting to Stewart or Gardner or Rayner - they're supporting characters and/or bit players on the same level as Boodikka or Ch'p or Rot Lop Fan; Hal and Sinestro are the main event.

[OdoWanKenobi]

Yeah, Kyle Rayner was totally a supporting character in the Green Lantern books while he was the only Green Lantern for ten years.

[JD]

StarTrek1701 wrote:

---

You are making this out to be a bit more serious than it is. The Audience does not care to find any similarities between themselves and the heroes/villains of a sci fi action film. All they want is a good, entrtaining, coherent, engaging and flashy piece of movie that'll cheer them up better than the average dull life we all almost lead. Watch First Flight and then also Emerald Warriors to see how a good "Green Lantern" film should be made. Hell, they could have just transferred GL: Secret Origin, with a bit of fat trimmed off, word for word, onto the screen and they'd have had a huge hit in their hands.

Green Lantern the movie was boring, drab, unimaginative and incoherent from beginning to end. Simple reason why it failed.

I actually just read GL:SO for the first time about a month ago, and afterwards I was wishing they had used Atrocitus as the villain. I haven't seen the movie yet, so I can't judge it's quality, but I could easily see a kick ass movie with Sinestro and Hal hunting Atrocitus as he's going around killing people.

[Gaith]

Dennis wrote:

---

I think six times is about it for me, in the theater.

... The entire [superhero movie] fad [is] tedious.

There's a joke opportunity in here somewhere, but I can't quite pinpoint it...

[Admiral_Young]

@StarTrek1701...I guess you didn't know this but the film's later drafts were based on "Green Lantern: Secret Origin". Ryan Reynolds wrote a forward for one of the recent editions where he stated he used the book as his bible for Hal Jordan. One of the problems the movie's script suffered from is that the final film we got was a mesh of the original early drafts of the screenplay and the later "Secret Origin" revisions. I would agree that if they did a straight up adaption of Secret Origin from the start it the plot would have been much more straight forward.