C. Nolan's Interstellar - Part 2

[redfirebird2008]

WB has their good sides. Like letting their filmmakers have a healthy amount of creative control. Only WB could've greenlit a faithful Watchmen adaptation.

That's true, but on the flip side we have Green Lantern.

 

[redhawk23]

I'm always confused by how exactly Green Lantern came out. There was a lot of talented people involved, and it was certainly important for the studio, who has made some damn good movies but then Green Lantern itself is pretty much a mess.

 

[redfirebird2008]

GL's ultimate legacy is being so bad that the SHH forum dropped the Green Lantern forum. I can't remember that happening for any other movie on this website, especially not so soon after release (less than 2 years!).

 

[Hyde]

It's crazy. I haven't even heard anything from Martin Campbell since that movie...

 

[craigdbfan]

GL's ultimate legacy is being so bad that the SHH forum dropped the Green Lantern forum. I can't remember that happening for any other movie on this website, especially not so soon after release (less than 2 years!).

Dragon Ball but even that one lasted a bit longer than GL.

 

[Rocketman]

Green Lantern was ultimately trying to be "DC's Iron Man", and I appreciated that it wasn't trying to take itself too seriously. It wasn't what I wanted as a fan, but I didn't hate the movie either. I liked it, but I had envisioned something as big and epic in scope as "The Next Star Wars", and instead, I had "a good time at the theater."

I think another problem with movies now (critically and financially) is that movies can't just be good anymore. They have to be great. It can't be a good time at the theater, it has to be the best experience of your life, in the third dimension. It can't make $200 million, it has to make $1.5 billion. If not, it's a failure. I think movies have lost their way, and they're getting way too big.

 

[Travesty]

You don't have to make over a billion to be considered a success.

 

[mclay18]

You don't have to make over a billion to be considered a success.

Only if the studios spent less than $100M to produce and market the film (even with co-financing deals and production rebates). And then the exhibitors get their 45% take, then the talent's backend deals, and then factor in P&A costs. Costs have gone up way too much, if you ask me.

Green Lantern was ultimately trying to be "DC's Iron Man", and I appreciated that it wasn't trying to take itself too seriously. It wasn't what I wanted as a fan, but I didn't hate the movie either. I liked it, but I had envisioned something as big and epic in scope as "The Next Star Wars", and instead, I had "a good time at the theater."

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only person who shared the same feelings about it.

 

[Rocketman]

You don't have to make over a billion to be considered a success.

Uh, if you're a big franchise property, you pretty much do. All the studios are craving that.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Dragon Ball but even that one lasted a bit longer than GL.

Damn, that's embarrassing. GL had a $250m production budget (on the low end) and I've heard rumors they spent around $150m marketing it as well. That's more than they spent marketing TDK or TDKR. GL was a giant money pit and people hated the end result.

 

[craigdbfan]

Damn, that's embarrassing. GL had a $250m production budget (on the low end) and I've heard rumors they spent around $150m marketing it as well. That's more than they spent marketing TDK or TDKR. GL was a giant money pit and people hated the end result.

That whole project was awful for everyone involved I feel. Like you said it was a gigantic waste of money. Pitiful on every level.

 

[Rocketman]

Only if the studios spent less than $100M to produce and market the film (even with co-financing deals and production rebates). And then the exhibitors get their 45% take, then the talent's backend deals, and then factor in P&A costs. Costs have gone up way too much, if you ask me.



Thank you. I'm glad I'm not the only person who shared the same feelings about it.

Well, I just hate how it's hailed as terrible when it wasn't. It wasn't awful - it just wasn't amazing. The internet is obsessed with this mentality that something is either the best thing ever or the worst thing ever. Nothing can be, "Yeah, I found it to be quite fair." I respect and admire that fans demand high quality, but don't call something terrible or say it's the "worst comic book movie ever", when it is nowhere near the level of Catwoman, or Batman & Robin, or Jonah Hex, or Elektra, or half of the actual crap out there.

I thought Green Lantern was better than Iron Man 2. There, I said it. And Iron Man is like, the hottest franchise in the world right now.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I thought Green Lantern was better than Iron Man 2.

That's not saying much. IM2 was pretty bad in its own right.

 

[Rocketman]

That's not saying much. IM2 was pretty bad in its own right.

Luckily for me, I wasn't trying to say much.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Luckily for me, I wasn't trying to say much.

Nice. t:

 

[Rocketman]

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/christopher-nolans-interstellar-warner-bros-562879

Does anyone else find it hilarious that Nolan stirs up this much trouble, simply because he's good at his job? The guy just wants to make his movie, and now Jason Voorhees and South Park are caught up in the mix. I find this to be so random and delirious.

What it also tells me is that Interstellar must be scalding hot. Like they just know that it's huge, and they all want a piece of it. It makes me smile.

 

[redfirebird2008]

What it also tells me is that Interstellar must be scalding hot. Like they just know that it's huge, and they all want a piece of it. It makes me smile.

I hope that's what it means. Hopefully WB wouldn't blindly follow him and give up so much to be part of the project without seeing the script.

 

[craigdbfan]

Well, I just hate how it's hailed as terrible when it wasn't. It wasn't awful - it just wasn't amazing. The internet is obsessed with this mentality that something is either the best thing ever or the worst thing ever. Nothing can be, "Yeah, I found it to be quite fair." I respect and admire that fans demand high quality, but don't call something terrible or say it's the "worst comic book movie ever", when it is nowhere near the level of Catwoman, or Batman & Robin, or Jonah Hex, or Elektra, or half of the actual crap out there.

I thought Green Lantern was better than Iron Man 2. There, I said it. And Iron Man is like, the hottest franchise in the world right now.

For you maybe but I'd personally put it among those you listed. Someone said it before but failure isn't the worst outcome but mediocrity is. The amount of money and talent wasted on this poorly thought out commissioned adaptation was downright unforgivable.

 

[Rocketman]

I hope that's what it means. Hopefully WB wouldn't blindly follow him and give up so much to be part of the project without seeing the script.

Could you imagine if this movie ended up being awful? Like, After Earth awful?

WB: "We lost Friday the 13th for this?"

 

[Rocketman]

For you maybe but I'd personally put it among those you listed. Someone said it before but failure isn't the worst outcome but mediocrity is. The amount of money and talent wasted on this poorly thought out commissioned adaptation was downright unforgivable.

Thank you for not calling me names. I respect your opinion.

For me, Transformers 2 and 3 were worse than GL. But those movies made a HUGE amount of money, so they're still making them. Mediocrity
(financially) seems to matter at the box office, but critical acclaim does not (which GL didn't get either).

Not sure what my point is (lol), besides "movies can be total crap, as long as they rake in dough." Green Lantern would've gotten a sequel if it made bank. That's a given. It just needs to make money. That's why we're on our 5th Scary Movie.

 

[craigdbfan]

Thank you for not calling me names. I respect your opinion.

For me, Transformers 2 and 3 were worse than GL. But those movies made a HUGE amount of money, so they're still making them. Mediocrity
(financially) seems to matter at the box office, but critical acclaim does not (which GL didn't get either).

Not sure what my point is (lol), besides "movies can be total crap, as long as they rake in dough." Green Lantern would've gotten a sequel if it made bank. That's a given. It just needs to make money. That's why we're on our 5th Scary Movie.

I definitely get what you're saying. Although to touch on Transformers I absolutely understand why it makes money and that has everything to do with the visuals. Michael Bay despite being almost completely oblivious to what it means to write a good script is incredibly good and I'd downright call him a master at setting up shots for ILM along with any other vfx company involved to create some of the most impressive photo realistic CGI out there. The man knows how to shoot a good looking film and is technician of the highest degree when it comes to effects and action.

Green Lantern along with Sony Imageworks never came anywhere close. So even in that regard it never stood a chance to attract crowds on merely its visuals as a way to compensate for a weak script.

 

[Rocketman]

Green Lantern along with Sony Imageworks never came anywhere close. So even in that regard it never stood a chance to attract crowds on merely its visuals as a way to compensate for a weak script.

Definitely agreed here. It was almost on the level of a SyFy original movie.

 

[Octoberist]

If 'Guardians of the Galaxy' is a critical and finicial darling, that's going to make Green Lantern look even worse. Especially if a movie with a talking raccoon and the Nova Corps. outshines Hal And the GL gang.

 

[Rocketman]

If 'Guardians of the Galaxy' is a critical and finicial darling, that's going to make Green Lantern look even worse. Especially if a movie with a talking raccoon and the Nova Corps. outshines Hal And the GL gang.

That's the one movie that makes me fear for Marvel a little. That could be the one where maybe they don't drop the ball per say, but it's the first sign of trouble down the road. Are they supposed to be connecting that to The Avengers universe?

I'm a little concerned for Thor 2 and Cap 2 as well. I don't think we'll get a Part 3 for either of those.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I'm a little concerned for Thor 2 and Cap 2 as well. I don't think we'll get a Part 3 for either of those.

What makes you think that? The first films of those characters already made profits, now with the Avengers boost their second installments are all but financially secure, and if they are able to turn a profit once more, which they most definitely will, why wouldn't they have their third movies?

That's true, but on the flip side we have Green Lantern.

Green Lantern was directed by the wrong director. Campbell is a very capable studio director who specializes in old school stunt driven action films. Yet they gave him exactly the kind of movie he doesn't know the first thing how to make.

Superman Returns was also another movie where the director had a lot of creative control. So there's that too.