Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Captain Craig, Jun 16, 2011.
What? You want us to keep talkin' about Green Lantern, that's so last weekend...
It's about Gaith ruining another topic.
Back a million years ago when I worked in a comic shop, I had to reevalute a customer after he said something like "I'm sick of the writer in Green Lantern pushing the gay agenda, why can't they do that in their own comics?"
Kyle's assistant/office monkey for his art studio was gay. They was an issue where he was lynched, followed by several issues of apology and recrimination.
Judd Winick was writing the book at the time.
I was wondering the same thing?
Everyone please try to get back to the topic of the movie, its potential sequel (admittedly surprising) and so forth.
Jetfire and Gaith, either kiss and make up or steer clear of each other for awhile.
With Narnia we have precedent that WW gross was a proven mark of encouragement towards getting another movie out of the series. With Warners I see how they handled Returns as a precedent for what is going to happen with Green Lantern. The movie has a staggered international release but even if it does a type of 60/40 split we sometimes see GL isn't going to do $400m WW, which Returns essentially had. Even taking out the 18yrs of development cash the budget for Returns was essentially $200m so that's why I feel as if we are seeing a likely rehash going on here.
Warners sunk lots of cash into Returns, like GL, and the ultimate decision was to let it go fallow and try again later. I didn't hate GL, really only kinda liked it. There are worse movies, worse comic book movies but based on the uneven response to this movie that tilts towards the unsatisfied and current financial take I think I'm looking at it rationally.
My point though is that Fox still waited for those world wide receipts to come in before making a decision on the future of it's franchise Indeed I think the producer who died who helped secure funds for a green lit on another movie probably had a hell of a time doing so. I suspect that we could be looking at a similar case for "Green Lantern". If not then I'm wrong. I also don't like this new fad of fandom where we write off movies based on a weekend or two weekend's of performance. We declare it a flop. There is a process that takes place to determine a sequel. I think we overact to a degree because we're fans and passionate about these things. I don't think I'm expressing myself right.
Green Lantern...to see or not to see?
I love the GL comics and the current storyline going on with the GL Corps, but I have heard mixed reviews on the GL movie.
I wanted to get some fans opinions, before I decide to 'pay the price' to go see it.
Was the movie good, bad, indifferent? Did the plot just fall apart in the movie?
Would love your feedback.
Re: Green Lantern...to see or not to see?
There is a grading/discussion thread here - but for me, it's released here sometime in August. I may see it, or I could wait until it's released on DVD. But most likely will see sometime, as I want to see it on a big screen.
Re: Green Lantern...to see or not to see?
As I pretty much said in my original review, I found it average. Not as bad as critics say, but not something that left a great impression either. I recommend you check it out if you've got the cash to spend and make up your own mind. I saw it in 2D so I don't know what the 3D is like.
Re: Green Lantern...to see or not to see?
I've seen it three times and like it a lot.
To restate the obvious, no one here is an expert on the movie business, and none of us have any inside knowledge regarding the decision making process at Warners or what they have on their minds beyond the reported box office. We're just blowing smoke on an Internet board.
What we know this morning is that the Warners execs still intend to make a sequel to Green Lantern.
It's not "face saving" or spin at this point - a week out, the first movie is spilt milk for better or worse. No one thinks a low-key reaffirmation of sequel plans is going to pump up box office and it's certainly not going to impress other people actually in the business in any positive way. Nor has the movie's soft box office negatively affected the value of Time-Warner...and It's w-a-a-y easy to just say nothing on a Sunday afternoon when your movie has dropped over 60% on the weekend.
Why? Who knows? We sure don't. And they can change their minds about this, as a practical matter, any time between now and the beginning of principal photography.
Now, on to the usual BBS smoke-blowing...this rumor was actually floating around on Friday, out at one of the comic sites that has a particularly high bullshit-to-information ratio - comicbookmovie.com. I didn't think it worth posting here because it was an unidentified "inside source" talking to Comic Book Guy. According to that rumor, Warners is looking at Matt Reeves to direct.
BTW, some ancient history that's relevant to this board in particular - the accepted fact that ST:TMP turned out to be profitable for Paramount was anything but clear in the first year or two after its release. The movie opened to tepid-to-bad reviews (my favorite, in it's entirety: "Star Trek, The Motion Picture...frankly, that's giving it the benefit of the doubt"). The numbers available from trade sources at the end of 1980 pegged the film's negative costs at 45 million dollars and its total first-run box office at just 50 million. They didn't give a firm greenlight to a sequel until 1981.
It's altogether possible they still have confidence in building a franchise, correct what was wrong in this one (For starters the incredible budget and apparently the alck of focus) and see any losses from this as "Leader Losses".
The 2 recent Animated movies, and the Animated series coming, could likely elevate Green Lantern's profile and make a well done sequel profitable (But, of course, with so much coming out, the timing of release of a sequel, would be just as important as the quallity of the sequel)
In Really Distressing News, someone over at Screenrant may have coined an awful new word:
There's really not much chance that a second GL movie would cost less than the first, despite that being the common wisdom: the cost of sequels to these films inevitably rises whether the first movie was particularly successful or not. The realities of the market in the current day (as opposed, again, to 1982 for example) is that there's no reward for playing small ball.
The actual negative and marketing costs of this movie, BTW, are being somewhat exaggerated by executives from rival studios ginning up the scope of Warners' problem here. There are reasons the flick shot in New Orleans.
Even if we DID get a sequel, I can't imagine it would be the huge, epic, space-based one fans want anyway. It would most likely be even MORE Earth-based than this one was, in order to save money.
(Personally I would be okay with that, if it meant we could at least see more of those cool constructs, but I know I'm in the minority there.)
No, they're not going to spend less on a second movie. They'll spend more or they won't make one.
I don't think GL is gonna succeed in the movies on the basis of his ring constructs unless they become a lot more inventive. This is one of those things that worked better in the comics than on screen. What he does is sometimes counterintuitive; someone unfamiliar with GL watching him go through his machinations with the oil tanker, springs and artillery gun is more likely to think he's wasting time than to think "wow, cool."
That's IMAO, of course. People will pay money to see Transformers movies, so I'm probably not all that much in tune with what mainstream audiences will regard as unutterably stupid and what they won't.
I also think Hal ought to lose the mask. They could generally rethink the costuming a bit.
I thought the constructs were about the only thing that really made GL stand out and feel unique from all the other superhero movies out there.
And I don't think you really have to be a fan (I certainly wasn't until recently) to find those scenes to be the highlight of the movie.
Some worked, some didn't. I didn't think any of them were the "highlights" of the film, because they tended toward the gimmicky. I mean - an artillery gun and giant springs? Blowing up an oil tanker?
What's wrong with just pointing the ring right at Parallax's face and letting loose on it? Come to think of it, the GLs in space didn't try that either, they just took turns conjuring up a chain-link necklace for the critter.
Nowhere in the movie was it suggested that the rings were ineffective directly against Parallax because of the alleged "yellow impurity," so that's not it.
Well, yeah, that's the point! Silly, ridiculous, Rube Goldberg-style gimmicks are a heck of a lot of fun to watch. At least I tend to think so.
Eh, some of that would have been fine, I guess. But personally I always found it dull as hell on the Justice League cartoon when Stewart would do nothing but shoot energy beams and create shields around stuff.
You have a magic, all-powerful ring... and that's all you do with it??
Well, the problem is that there's nothing "all-powerful" about conjuring up a gun and a gasoline explosion to fight a genocidal intergalactic alien menace. That's why it comes off as a bit silly on screen.
I think you're touching on an aspect of the character that is challenging to handle in all media, including comics.
Initially, a weapon that is limited only by its user's creativity would seem like an artist's (or special effects guru's) dream come true, but in fact it can be hard to satisfy the expectations that the concept creates.
As far as the franchise's future film prospects are concerned, though it pains me to say it, I expect we will see a se-booted GL in a few years' time. Or possibly a re-quel
Another GL movie will be made but they will need to distance themselves from this movie in one way or another, even if it means inventing new jargon.
Separate names with a comma.