Does anyone think that Green Lantern is going to end up getting slammed by critics?

[HighFivingMF]

It's like syfy channel saturday movie.

I'm 100% certain people who say things like this have never seen a SyFy channel movie. Like the people who don't like something and immediately compare it to Power Rangers. You can feel how you want, but SyFy movies are gorefests about hybrid animals.

 

[Longshot777]

Yes..i've seen lots of Syfy movies and never finish them because they are soo bad.


I want GL to do really good coz i'm a DC fan over Marvel.


But those trailers alone, i'm predicting this will be the same level as Daredevil and Fantastic 4.


Unfortunately it will not be in the same league as 1977 Superman, 1989 Batman, X-men 1 and 2, Spiderman 1 and 2, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, Watchmen, Ironman and now Thor.


Hope i'm wrong and we will all see this summer.

 

[dnno1]

Daredevil and Fantastic Four were never Space Based SciFi movies.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

Yes..i've seen lots of Syfy movies and never finish them because they are soo bad.


I want GL to do really good coz i'm a DC fan over Marvel.


But those trailers alone, i'm predicting this will be the same level as Daredevil and Fantastic 4.


Unfortunately it will not be in the same league as 1977 Superman, 1989 Batman, X-men 1 and 2, Spiderman 1 and 2, Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, Watchmen, Ironman and now Thor.


Hope i'm wrong and we will all see this summer.

So, you have seen the whole movie?

 

[S.A.A.D.]

daredevil and fantastic four were never space based scifi movies.

Yup. However, Fantastic Four 1 and 2 were very briefly space based (The Fantastic Four's origin, Silver Surfer fighting Galactus, Silver Surfer fighting the Human Torch in space).

 

[The Morningstar]

He's obviously not talking about setting. He's talking about quality.

Although i will say, Daredevil, the directors cut at least, is underrated. If you can just pretend that playground fight scene never happened!

Anyway, it seems the critics are soft this year. Thor in the 90s and Fast Five in the 80s on Rotten Tomatoes? Wow, never saw that coming. So if GL does do poorly with the critics, you know it's bad.

 

[Chewy]

Anyway, it seems the critics are soft this year. Thor in the 90s and Fast Five in the 80s on Rotten Tomatoes?

Have you seen either film? If not, I wouldn't think calling the critics soft is justified.

 

[Sith Scotti]

Green Lanters best be w2orried about Box office rather than critics if they want sequels . Got tons of competetion in June. So if it opens with little fanfate , WB may just say Green Lantern doesn't have the mainstream of Batman or Supes ....

 

[TheMadScientist]

Article that predicts, that Green lantern "is destined to flop", imo badly written:

http://www.benzinga.com/analyst-ratings/11/05/1053823/the-green-lantern-destined-to-flop-twx

 

[S.A.A.D.]

The guy is an idiot, the whole movie isn't completely made of CGI.

 

[The Riddler]

if thor can get great reviews on rotten tomatoes, i don't see why gl can't.

thor was predictable without many grand set pieces or great fight scenes, but a decent movie overall. i think gl has potential to be better, but it also could be worse.

 

[The Morningstar]

Have you seen either film? If not, I wouldn't think calling the critics soft is justified.

Not calling into their quality. I'm just saying those are usually the kinds of films critics like to rag on. Seems to me they have toned down the pretentious, nit pickyness that usually seeps out of big mainstream blockbuster reviews.

 

[Sith Scotti]

The better question is does Green Lantern have a built in audience .... I really wonder how many people outside of a few comic nerds give a damn about the Lantern .

 

[terry78]

The better question is does Green Lantern have a built in audience .... I really wonder how many people outside of a few comic nerds give a damn about the Lantern .

You could insert Iron Man or Thor in place of GL. And we saw how that fared. Reynolds will basically be doing what Downey did....sparking some life into a character that wasn't A-list before.

 

[dnno1]

Article that predicts, that Green lantern "is destined to flop", imo badly written:

http://www.benzinga.com/analyst-ratings/11/05/1053823/the-green-lantern-destined-to-flop-twx

This is laughable at best. The guy didn't see the movie yet and he's already saying the it has bad acting. The CG looks great to me.

 

[jmc]

if thor can get great reviews on rotten tomatoes, i don't see why gl can't.

thor was predictable without many grand set pieces or great fight scenes, but a decent movie overall. i think gl has potential to be better, but it also could be worse.

Thor also played it very safe. What prevented it from reaching that next level was that it wasn't ambitious enough in it's story and the result was a very easy to digest film that doesn't really do anything wrong, hence why it's got mid-90's score on RT but has an average rating of a little over 6.5/10 (which is a fair rating imo). To use a sporting analogy Thor was playing not to lose rather than playing to win. Something tells me WB is playing to win with GL, therefore more susceptible to criticism.

 

[The Sage]

The trailer alone will get smashed by critics!!!


It's like syfy channel saturday movie.


I just saw Thor and i'm a bigger GL fan but that Thor movie will kill GL.


I mean c'mon!!! When Ryan Reynolds said...."I pledge of allegiance to blah blah B-movie comedic non-sense." just killed it!!!

You don't have to be Mr. Serious....But that kind of childishness is NOT a superhero movie I would expect to be respected by critics like Batman Begins, The Dark Knight, or Spiderman 2 and 1977 Superman.

If Thor getting tasered by a girl in the opening of the second trailer didn't get it destroyed, I'm sure Hal saying that oath won't kill Green Lantern, as I'm sure both scenes are funny and work within the context of the film.

Anyway, whether it gets slammed or not is solely based on the quality of the film. I was worried about Thor getting received but it sounds like the movie delivered. Can't wait to see it, and can't wait for GL.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

Thor also played it very safe. What prevented it from reaching that next level was that it wasn't ambitious enough in it's story and the result was a very easy to digest film that doesn't really do anything wrong, hence why it's got mid-90's score on RT but has an average rating of a little over 6.5/10 (which is a fair rating imo). To use a sporting analogy Thor was playing not to lose rather than playing to win. Something tells me WB is playing to win with GL, therefore more susceptible to criticism.

What the? It shouldn't play to win people over? That isn't the problem, what is important is how it will play to win people over. If it doesn't do a bad job then there will be no problem. At least Green Lantern isn't going to totally play it safe, I mean it's sticking close to the GL comics.

 

[dnno1]

Thor also played it very safe. What prevented it from reaching that next level was that it wasn't ambitious enough in it's story and the result was a very easy to digest film that doesn't really do anything wrong, hence why it's got mid-90's score on RT but has an average rating of a little over 6.5/10 (which is a fair rating imo). To use a sporting analogy Thor was playing not to lose rather than playing to win. Something tells me WB is playing to win with GL, therefore more susceptible to criticism.

Thor hasn't gotten ratings from any top critics yet. I think they just had the U.S. Premiere just recently. Let's see what the score looks like after the top critics do their review.

 

[jmc]

What the? It shouldn't play to win people over? That isn't the problem, what is important is how it will play to win people over. If it doesn't do a bad job then there will be no problem. At least Green Lantern isn't going to totally play it safe, I mean it's sticking close to the GL comics.

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Playing safe may result in a film that isn't bad, but that's not necessarily a good thing because you don't really get much out of repeated viewings. I walked out of Thor liking it, but didn't feel the need to rush out and see it again, probably won't see it again until it comes out on DVD, nothing about it made me want to go see it again in spite of it being a well made and acted film, in contrast to IM1 or TDK. I'd rather a film go down swinging than tip toe around trying not to fall.

 

[The Sage]

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Playing safe may result in a film that isn't bad, but that's not necessarily a good thing because you don't really get much out of repeated viewings. I walked out of Thor liking it, but didn't feel the need to rush out and see it again, probably won't see it again until it comes out on DVD, nothing about it made me want to go see it again, in contrast to IM1 or TDK. I'd rather a film go down swinging than tip toe around trying not to fall.

Playing it safe means the movie hits the notes and cliches to ensure its appeal to the mass audience and guarantee financial success but didn't bring anything else besides that, nothing with thought provoking? Average movie?

 

[jmc]

Pretty much, it's like playing percentage football, like I said playing not to lose rather than playing to win. Does it make it average movie? Depends on how well it's made, some directors can elevate a soft script, as with Thor.

 

[Chewy]

Thor also played it very safe. What prevented it from reaching that next level was that it wasn't ambitious enough in it's story and the result was a very easy to digest film that doesn't really do anything wrong, hence why it's got mid-90's score on RT but has an average rating of a little over 6.5/10 (which is a fair rating imo). To use a sporting analogy Thor was playing not to lose rather than playing to win. Something tells me WB is playing to win with GL, therefore more susceptible to criticism.

6.9

 

[jmc]

Hadn't checked RT for a while. Still a fair rating as far as I'm concerned.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

You're misinterpreting what I'm saying. Playing safe may result in a film that isn't bad, but that's not necessarily a good thing because you don't really get much out of repeated viewings. I walked out of Thor liking it, but didn't feel the need to rush out and see it again, probably won't see it again until it comes out on DVD, nothing about it made me want to go see it again in spite of it being a well made and acted film, in contrast to IM1 or TDK. I'd rather a film go down swinging than tip toe around trying not to fall.

You're right, if Green Lantern doesn't play it safe enough then it will fail. I personally think that the balance will be fine from the sound of it. I say that because there have been movies that played it safe enough that made a good amount of money, comic book movies, or not.