• We experienced a brief downtime due to a Xenforo server configuration update. This was an attempt to limit bot traffic. They have rolled back and the site is now operating normally. Apologies for the inconvinience.

Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 9

Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I finally saw it.

That was pretty shameful. Usually, when a movie is going to be a mess, the trailers give it a way--usually you can tell, because it often goes hand and hand with disregarding the source material. In this case, they tricked me. They observed the material, but they just ended up doing a really weak, lame job of it.

Weak effects, weak characters, weak plot, weak scripting, weak action--the whole deal. They just saturated the whole thing with lameness. I walked away from a Green Lantern movie thinking that Hal hadn't done a single cool or interesting thing with his ring, and that sucks.

Additionally, those areas where the source material did deviate were all for the worse, not the better. Parallax as a rogue Guardian was lame, the forging of the yellow ring that never got used didn't make any damn sense (fight fear with fear? What?), and then Hal asks the Guardians for permission to go back to his own sector and do his job? What? I imagine what was supposed to happen was that Hal would enlist the helpt of the Corps to fight parallax--but then they realized they couldn't afford it, so the scene was rewritten into the nonsensical pile of crap it turned out as.

Furthermore, Sinestro putting on the ring at the end came out of nowhere, since the darker side of his character was never established.

Hector Hammond was also lame (are you sensing a theme of lameness yet?), and was basically an engine for laughable scenes and action sequences.

The movie wasn't Catwoman bad, it wasn't Batman & Robin bad. In fact, it was nowhere near that bad. Instead, it was simply Punisher-bad--it tried to do everything right, it had it's heart in the right place, but it just failed to reach the level it needed to reach. It was just too lame. I can't believe they made an honest, true-to-the-source Green lantern movie, and it turned out lame. How do you even accomplish that?

Maybe they can recover, though. First Class raised X-Men from the dead, so maybe with a sequel they can finally take this one all the way. I just hope that the lameness of this movie doesn't hurt GL's chances of making it to the screen in a superior form somewhere down the line--and the same goes for the Flash and the rest of DC's stable.
 
The only way that I see this film getting a sequel is if it's lucky enough to pull out the same luck that films like Fantastic Four and Transformers 2 were able to do with their box office earnings despite the negative reviews against them.
 
The only way that I see this film getting a sequel is if it's lucky enough to pull out the same luck that films like Fantastic Four and Transformers 2 were able to do with their box office earnings despite the negative reviews against them.

I think it's safe to say that TF2-like performance ain't gonna happen. :O
 
The movie wasn't Catwoman bad, it wasn't Batman & Robin bad. In fact, it was nowhere near that bad. Instead, it was simply Punisher-bad--it tried to do everything right, it had it's heart in the right place, but it just failed to reach the level it needed to reach. It was just too lame. I can't believe they made an honest, true-to-the-source Green lantern movie, and it turned out lame. How do you even accomplish that?
Usually with bad filmmaking. ;)
 
I think it's safe to say that TF2-like performance ain't gonna happen. :O

lol, what about a Fantastic Four one? If that film can get enough money in to get a sequel....surely GL can?

Though then again, FF didn't have the same type of competition that GL is about to get, let alone the amount of money gone into making it like it was for GL.
 
lol, what about a Fantastic Four one? If that film can get enough money in to get a sequel....surely GL can?

Though then again, FF didn't have the same type of competition that GL is about to get, let alone the amount of money gone into making it like it was for GL.
Yeah...if it only cost them FF-like money to make....instead or, say, SR-like money....
 
lol, what about a Fantastic Four one? If that film can get enough money in to get a sequel....surely GL can?

Though then again, FF didn't have the same type of competition that GL is about to get, let alone the amount of money gone into making it like it was for GL.

I think the sequel for FF was greenlighted because Fox wanted to hold on to the rights, not because the first movie was such a critical & box office success. So what we got was two mediocre movies in a row.
 
I think the sequel for FF was greenlighted because Fox wanted to hold on to the rights, not because the first movie was such a critical & box office success. So what we got was two mediocre movies in a row.

Anaconda got a sequel.
 
EqnIi.jpg


In spite of being less faithful, that is a far superior design for the Guardians. They were probably the most wasted in terms of CGI. Could've used actual actors or at least puppetry. Instead useless computer work was done, and not even good one at that. There was one particular scene (I think where Hal and Sinestro are conversing with them) that looked so awful it made them look like they belonged in an animated movie.

The more I linger on this film, the more I get more pissed off at their stupid rookie mistakes. Damn poozers. :(
 
EqnIi.jpg


In spite of being less faithful, that is a far superior design for the Guardians. They were probably the most wasted in terms of CGI. Could've used actual actors or at least puppetry. Instead useless computer work was done, and not even good one at that. There was one particular scene (I think where Hal and Sinestro are conversing with them) that looked so awful it made them look like they belonged in an animated movie.

The more I linger on this film, the more I get more pissed off at their stupid rookie mistakes. Damn poozers. :(
It is a superior design,but it's a movie that was marketed to kids, and those Guardians look FRIGHTENING.
 
As one who thought the movie was a mess, it's definitely not Catwoman bad or Batman and Robin bad. I'd say its up to par with the Fantastic Four films, it's not dreadful, just not as epic as it was made out to be.
 
That's Krona and it is very similar to the one used in the movie...
 
Well, I finally saw it.

That was pretty shameful. Usually, when a movie is going to be a mess, the trailers give it a way--usually you can tell, because it often goes hand and hand with disregarding the source material. In this case, they tricked me. They observed the material, but they just ended up doing a really weak, lame job of it.

Weak effects, weak characters, weak plot, weak scripting, weak action--the whole deal. They just saturated the whole thing with lameness. I walked away from a Green Lantern movie thinking that Hal hadn't done a single cool or interesting thing with his ring, and that sucks.

Additionally, those areas where the source material did deviate were all for the worse, not the better. Parallax as a rogue Guardian was lame, the forging of the yellow ring that never got used didn't make any damn sense (fight fear with fear? What?), and then Hal asks the Guardians for permission to go back to his own sector and do his job? What? I imagine what was supposed to happen was that Hal would enlist the helpt of the Corps to fight parallax--but then they realized they couldn't afford it, so the scene was rewritten into the nonsensical pile of crap it turned out as.

Furthermore, Sinestro putting on the ring at the end came out of nowhere, since the darker side of his character was never established.

Hector Hammond was also lame (are you sensing a theme of lameness yet?), and was basically an engine for laughable scenes and action sequences.

The movie wasn't Catwoman bad, it wasn't Batman & Robin bad. In fact, it was nowhere near that bad. Instead, it was simply Punisher-bad--it tried to do everything right, it had it's heart in the right place, but it just failed to reach the level it needed to reach. It was just too lame. I can't believe they made an honest, true-to-the-source Green lantern movie, and it turned out lame. How do you even accomplish that?

Maybe they can recover, though. First Class raised X-Men from the dead, so maybe with a sequel they can finally take this one all the way. I just hope that the lameness of this movie doesn't hurt GL's chances of making it to the screen in a superior form somewhere down the line--and the same goes for the Flash and the rest of DC's stable.
:down
 
Edited- I want ADD this
I AGREE.







___________________________________________________________________

Really good points i found from another website.

by Arfaib

quote-
I'm also a fan who enjoyed the film, and I can relate to how you feel. Since I hear so many people nay saying the movie, I wonder if I'm wrong. But honestly, it was very accurate to the comic book. I wish Mark Strong had had more screen time, and that the Corps as a whole got more development, but I didn't think the movie was bad. It established some things that could lead up to a greater payoff. The script was so so, but I think Mark Strong, Peter Sarsgaard and Temuera Morrison were all very good. The film could of been a bastardization of the comic books, and it was not in anyway. I think the people that don't like the film in many case have issues with the source material, and that's fine. The movie isn't for everyone. But if it's the source material they have a problem with, they could never like the film that was this close to the comics. I also agree with what others have said here, when the film gets a directors cut, it will be a much better film. Who knows what decision Warner Brothers imposed on the final edit of the film? We could get an entirely different movie, or a better one.

and


by - hernandez-merida_87

quote-

I wouldn't trust rotten tomatoes on this movie if I were you. I know now more than ever that ''movie critics'' in Rottentomatoes can't enjoy anymore a fun and entertaining superhero movie without some ''art'' in it which is what GL is IMO! Overall, the acting is good in GL. I mean, if you just know what the concept of the Green Lantern is and If you go to see this with an open mind like the OP says, there's no reason you wouldn't enjoy this flick. No reason. Don't get me wrong, GL is no masterpiece like TDK but it is far from being the 2011's Batman and Robin that Rottentomatoes is making it out to be. GL deserves way better! So, the IMDb rating is more accurate in this movie than the RT rating IMO even though, I think it's still a bit low (the IMDb rating). My personal opinion is that Green Lantern and Thor are about equal in quality (although I enjoyed more GL than Thor and I say that even though I'm more a fan of the Thor character than of Green Lantern) which is a notch above IM2. Therefore, I think GL deserves at least the same success at the BO than Thor.

_____________________________________________________________________
Really good points,of course i like the green lantern characters/story more than thor.



http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1133985/board/flat/184310068?p=1
 
Last edited:
Thats your opinon man dont try to convince others. If you liked it cool but alot of other people didnt it happens.
 
My personal opinion is that Green Lantern and Thor are about equal in quality (although I enjoyed more GL than Thor and I say that even though I'm more a fan of the Thor character than of Green Lantern) which is a notch above IM2. Therefore, I think GL deserves at least the same success at the BO than Thor.

No, Thor is definitely less cringeworthy than GL with the word "fear", "fearless", or their kin words spoken dozens or so times. Thor doesn't muck around cringeworthy phrases like "For Asgard" or "For Odin". I think the mainstream viewers choose which movie that doesn't act like a comic fanboy service and from the way it's presented, Thor wins.
 
From Variety:

Film News
Print Share
Posted: Wed., Jun. 22, 2011, 4:00am PT
'Lantern' lit by teen aud
Solid Monday perf totals $5.1 million
By ANDREW STEWART

"Green Lantern"

Tweens and teens didn't light up the frame for "Green Lantern" this weekend. But a solid Monday perf totaling $5.1 million -- almost double its nearest competitor -- suggests the Warner Bros. comicbook pic is heating up with under-25 auds.
"Green Lantern" opened to $53.2 million through Sunday, of which moviegoers over 25 contributed the biggest share at 63%; pic so far has tallied $58.3 million.

Now, Monday's perf indicates that the pic's age gap appears to be shrinking.

According to B.O. observers, that's because auds under 25 (and particularly those under 18) are able to boost midweek sales, especially during the summer when school is out.

"I guarantee we're getting younger," said Warners distribution exec Dan Fellman. "If you look at the comparisons of what the other films did, you'll find that we held our own."

Fellman said biz should slow down Tuesday tonight, but pick up later in the week as younger auds turn out for daytime screenings, boosted by positive word of mouth. ("Green Lantern" scored a B+ CinemaScore rating among under 18 auds vs. its overall B.)

Paramount's "Super 8" was the No. 2 pic on Monday, grossing $2.6 million, followed by 20th Century Fox's "Mr. Popper's Penguins," which tallied $2.4 million in its first post-debut foray. So far, "Super 8" has grossed $75.6 million; "Penguins," $20.8 million.
 
So is GL a financial success or not?
 
JAK®;20679155 said:
So is GL a financial success or not?

You've got to wait a few months.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"