Last edited:
Green Lantern (2011)
- Thread starter Admiral_Young
- Start date
- Status
Went up to 33%, back down to 27% currently.
I wonder if GL might possibly do better b.o. than FC if appeals to broader demographic; esp. family/pre-teen audience? FC, for all its strengths/weaknesses, doesn't strike me as family/pre-teen film in same way as say, Superman or SW. Just a thought...I'm sure someone will explain how cinema demographics work
Interesting to see in credits Trek alumni: Clancy Brown, Salome Jens and Stuart Baird (now back on editing duties
)
I wonder if GL might possibly do better b.o. than FC if appeals to broader demographic; esp. family/pre-teen audience? FC, for all its strengths/weaknesses, doesn't strike me as family/pre-teen film in same way as say, Superman or SW. Just a thought...I'm sure someone will explain how cinema demographics work
Interesting to see in credits Trek alumni: Clancy Brown, Salome Jens and Stuart Baird (now back on editing duties
)
Methinks Drew didn't get a set visit. "This is not the role for Reynolds" and then "Ryan Reynolds seems well-cast to me".
He's saying that this is not the big, star-making role Reynolds seems to have been waiting for, but that he thinks RR is well-cast as Hal Jordan. Not really a contradiction.
Yeah, the good old days of March 11, 2011.
...you know, when Source Code was released.
That actually makes it sound kind of good.
I like this one:
An "accurate representation of the comic book" is exactly what I want to see, in this case.
Now, whether that kind of fidelity to the source material can produce a successful movie is another question - GL is kind of an exception for me, as I'm almost always in favor of filmmakers doing whatever they think is best with the source material (such as JJTrek, which worked - and succeeded - where oldTrek had finally failed).
I guess it'll be a shame if being true to the comic produces a failure here...but at least I'm getting what I want to see.
An "accurate representation of the comic book" is exactly what I want to see, in this case.
Now, whether that kind of fidelity to the source material can produce a successful movie is another question - GL is kind of an exception for me, as I'm almost always in favor of filmmakers doing whatever they think is best with the source material (such as JJTrek, which worked - and succeeded - where oldTrek had finally failed).
I guess it'll be a shame if being true to the comic produces a failure here...but at least I'm getting what I want to see.
Well, Last Stand made 460 million worldwide and Wolverine made about 375 mill, both with "rotten" ratings over at RT. So there's hope.
Fuck - I just checked out the numbers on The Hangover II (I haven't seen it) - it's made 430 million worldwide, and topped out at 35 percent at RT.
Fuck - I just checked out the numbers on The Hangover II (I haven't seen it) - it's made 430 million worldwide, and topped out at 35 percent at RT.
Last edited:
Oh man. 
I was really looking forward to this movie. I've loved Green Lantern since I was a little kid. It's breaking my heart to read some of these review. I'll probably still go see it. After all, it's a Green Lantern movie. No matter how bad, I may be able to find something to like. I still hope for it to do well enough to get a hopefully better sequel. Sinestro Corp, please.
I was really looking forward to this movie. I've loved Green Lantern since I was a little kid. It's breaking my heart to read some of these review. I'll probably still go see it. After all, it's a Green Lantern movie. No matter how bad, I may be able to find something to like. I still hope for it to do well enough to get a hopefully better sequel. Sinestro Corp, please.
I'm seeing on Friday evening, and again on Sunday. 
^ What if you HATE it on Friday?
I've seen more than enough to know what this movie is like - what the performances are like, the quality of the visuals, the story etc....I like everything I've seen, and I'm going to enjoy it a great deal.
^X-Men 3, Spider-Man 3, and Terminator Salvation all had pretty cool trailers that had me really excited and liking what I saw.
Well, that's your experience. It's not mine. I liked Spider-Man 3 all right - actually, the first one was the only one I really thought was great - but I don't remember anything about the trailers. Those other two, I haven't seen. They didn't look worthwhile to me, based on what I knew.
I haven't really been disappointed by a movie I paid for since...probably Star Trek: The Motion Picture, which was pretty lame. In those days you couldn't find out a whole lot about a movie before you saw it, especially one that was finished so close to its premiere.
This is not the same as saying I haven't seen any movies I was unimpressed by during that time. I see movies for many reasons, some of them social. I didn't go into Dick Tracy expecting much, for example; it bored and irritated me, but I was just going along with some folks after dinner at the Galleria.
I'm occasionally pleasantly surprised by a movie that's better than what I've heard about it. I wasn't a big fan of Firefly before I saw Serenity at the encouragement of someone close to me; after that I watched the whole series in order and was hooked.
Down to 24% on RT. Ouch.
The first trailer made me not want to see the film; the second trailer looked a lot better; it's looking like the first trailer might have been a better representation.
I'm unsure whether I'll go see it.
The first trailer made me not want to see the film; the second trailer looked a lot better; it's looking like the first trailer might have been a better representation.
I'm unsure whether I'll go see it.
- Status
Similar threads
