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

[moviedoors]

No. I'm not worried about critical reception or box office draw. Martin Campbell knows how to make blockbuster that's actually a good movie. My instinct tells me WB has a two fold hit on their hands. I eagerly await laughing at the cynics.

 

[dnno1]

BTW, the word out is that Warner Brothers is buying RottenTomatoes.

 

[kedrell]

Huh? The leads are Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman. It also has that Hannibal guy...

He meant the hero & the villain, both of whom are unknowns. The main protagonist and the main antagonist of a film are usually the most important roles. Hence, they're the leads.

 

[The Sage]

He meant the hero & the villain, both of whom are unknowns. The main protagonist and the main antagonist of a film are usually the most important roles. Hence, they're the leads.

Then was Blake Lively's name getting mentioned? She's not the antagonist, she's the love interest like Natalie Portman. The antagonists are Parallax and Peter Sarsgaard as Hector Hammond. Is Sarsgaard pretty famous?

 

[Miranda Fox]

Sarsgaard has been in some notable movies.

 

[The Morningstar]

He's not famous though.

I wouldn't even say Reynolds is that famous either. But he and Blake Lively definitely have in built fan bases. In fact, I think Lively was chosen for the role mainly based on her having an in built fan base. Her casting is amazingly similar to Katie Holmes' with Batman Begins. Who also had an in built fan base from a WB show.

 

[kedrell]

Sarsgaard is about the level of a Tobey Maguire in his pre-Spidey days. He's been around and is known somewhat but nothing that stands out. Hiddleston in contrast is virually unknown unless you're either one of the few people who watch Wallander or like checking him out in theaters in the U.K. As far as hollywood goes, he's completely unknown.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

There is no doubt that GL looks out there and thus is a huge risk. I mean I think that it looks awesome but I can understand how some think that it looks unappealing. With all the silly looking aliens and planets and what-not. Thats whats attracting me to this film though, one womans trash and all that.

I would not be surprised if it tanked with the critics and the audience, especially if it is mediocre or just flat out bad. (not all bad movies tank)

But to answer the question I don't think that it will get awful reviews from the critics. If the mediocre The Incredible Hulk can get decent reviews I have a hard time believing that this won't unless it's just flat out awful. A 50/50 split is more likely than a complete put down IMHO.

And as others have said, the audience is the most important factor to movie studios. Superman Returns was well reviewed but it wasn't as well received by the average moviegoer as it was with the critics.

The critics are an interesting breed anyhow, sometimes they ignore flaws in some movies while constantly pointing them out in others. I mean I love Star Trek (8.3/10) but lets face it, that script was s**t and the critics should have pointed that out more but they didn't for some reason.

Early word is the key to GL's success. Somebody needs to see this movie and say that it is good and entertaining/fun.

Again, I'm one of the movie's biggest cheerleaders but one is crazy if they are not worried about this film quality wise. Because all that strange looking crap has to fit together and not make you laugh when you are watching the film.

 

[kedrell]

Does anybody know how this film is getting released? Is it doing a North America first thing or other countries?

 

[S.A.A.D.]

^Here.

"Here are the worlwide release dates for the upcoming Green Lantern Movie. Subject to change."


The U.S. date is June 17th, 2011.
NORTH AMERICA
United States 17 June 2011
Canada 17 June 2011
LATIN AMERICA
Argentina 30 June 2011
Bolivia
Brazil | Brasil
Chile
Colombia
Mexico
Panama
Peru
Puerto Rice
Uruguay
Venezuela
ASIA – PACIFIC
Australia
Hong Kong
India
Indonesia
Japan 22 July 2011
Korea
Malaysia 16 June 2011
New Zealand
Philippines | Pilipinas
Singapore
Taiwan
Thailand
MIDDLE EAST – AFRICA
Egypt
Israel
Lebanon
South Africa
EUROPE
Austria
Belgium | België | Belgique
Bulgaria
Croatia | Hrvatske
Cyprus
Czech Republic | Ceská republika
Denmark | Danmark
Estonia | Eesti
Finland | Suomi
France 03 August 2011
Germany | Deutschland 04 August 2011
Greece
Holland | Netherlands | Nederland 16 June 2011
Hungary | Magyarország
Iceland
Italy 17 June 2011
Latvia | Latvijas | Latvija, Latvija | Latviju
Lithuania | Lietuvos | Lietuva
Norway | Norge
Poland | Polska 17 June 2011
Portugal 28 July 2011
Romania
Russia
Serbia | Srbija | Crna Gora
Slovakia
Slovenia | Slovenija
Spain | Espana
Sweden | Sverige 8 July 2011
Switzerland – French | Suisse
Switzerland – German | Schweiz
Switzerland – Italian | Svizerra
Turkey | Türkiye 17 July 2011
Ukraine
United Kingdom 17 June 2011

http://movies.cosmicbooknews.com/content/green-lantern-movie-worldwide-release-dates

The Hollywood Premiere of it is on June 8.

http://www.myworldevents.com/usa/california/green_lantern_us_premiere.html

 

[DaveMoral]

There is no doubt that GL looks out there and thus is a huge risk. I mean I think that it looks awesome but I can understand how some think that it looks unappealing. With all the silly looking aliens and planets and what-not. Thats whats attracting me to this film though, one womans trash and all that.

I would not be surprised if it tanked with the critics and the audience, especially if it is mediocre or just flat out bad. (not all bad movies tank)

But to answer the question I don't think that it will get awful reviews from the critics. If the mediocre The Incredible Hulk can get decent reviews I have a hard time believing that this won't unless it's just flat out awful. A 50/50 split is more likely than a complete put down IMHO.

And as others have said, the audience is the most important factor to movie studios. Superman Returns was well reviewed but it wasn't as well received by the average moviegoer as it was with the critics.

The critics are an interesting breed anyhow, sometimes they ignore flaws in some movies while constantly pointing them out in others. I mean I love Star Trek (8.3/10) but lets face it, that script was s**t and the critics should have pointed that out more but they didn't for some reason.

Early word is the key to GL's success. Somebody needs to see this movie and say that it is good and entertaining/fun.

Again, I'm one of the movie's biggest cheerleaders but one is crazy if they are not worried about this film quality wise. Because all that strange looking crap has to fit together and not make you laugh when you are watching the film.

I think this movie is a risk on par with what Star Wars was in '77. It's far out, weird aliens, mystic mumbo jumbo samurai, etc.

Green Lantern could end up being a smash hit on par with that. The only thing weighing it down... GL's a comic character, and to most a fairly obscure one, despite his mythos being as old as Batman and Superman.

 

[moviedoors]

Again, I'm one of the movie's biggest cheerleaders but one is crazy if they are not worried about this film quality wise. Because all that strange looking crap has to fit together and not make you laugh when you are watching the film.

Call me crazy then. I'd be more worried, even despite all the awesome new footage, were a lesser known director attached. But Martin Campbell? I've had faith since his name was first announced.

 

[Micromind]

Most people think that because his powers originate from a ring, it is silly, but they conveniently choose not to think that the ring is actually an miniaturized alien device like a small quantum computer having intelligence and the ability to make constructs according to ring wielders willpower.

It is not what it looks (a ring.) All the Sci Fi aspects of GL are as unknown to us as the ideas of Star Trek were to GA in 70's.

 

[The Bruce]

I Think we're all forgetting the kids. Green lantern wil have kids going crazy. Plus it kinda looks like avatar to normal people.

 

[kedrell]

Most people think that because his powers originate from a ring, it is silly, but they conveniently choose not to think that the ring is actually an miniaturized alien device like a small quantum computer having intelligence and the ability to make constructs according to ring wielders willpower.

It is not what it looks (a ring.) All the Sci Fi aspects of GL are as unknown to us as the ideas of Star Trek were to GA in 70's.

I think that exists but much more than that it is that a guy just going along and then getting chosen to have superpowers/be a superhero is kind of weak, story-wise. It'd be like if you stripped the whole death of Uncle Ben part out of Spider-man and just had him go from getting bit to choosing to be a superhero. That would be very weak. Facing some adversity in life and having to change as a person when coupled with the circumstance of new powers/abilities/technology/etc. makes it a much better story.

 

[The Morningstar]

Most people think that because his powers originate from a ring, it is silly, but they conveniently choose not to think that the ring is actually an miniaturized alien device like a small quantum computer having intelligence and the ability to make constructs according to ring wielders willpower.

It is not what it looks (a ring.) All the Sci Fi aspects of GL are as unknown to us as the ideas of Star Trek were to GA in 70's.

Why should the average person think that though? They judge based on what they see. They see a magic ring. That's it.

People compare it to lightsabers and what not, but really, you can't. A lightsaber is a sword. A laser sword, basically. The GL ring is... a piece of jewellery.

But again, I don't actually understand the vitrolic negativity surrounding the movie. Especially after this newest trailer. It does look awesome.

 

[The Sage]

I think that exists but much more than that it is that a guy just going along and then getting chosen to have superpowers/be a superhero is kind of weak, story-wise. It'd be like if you stripped the whole death of Uncle Ben part out of Spider-man and just had him go from getting bit to choosing to be a superhero. That would be very weak. Facing some adversity in life and having to change as a person when coupled with the circumstance of new powers/abilities/technology/etc. makes it a much better story.

I'm sure that's what will happen here.

 

[kedrell]

I hope so too.

 

[dnno1]

RottenTomatoes now has a Top Critics score for "Thor" and it's at 73%. The overall tomatometer is now at 83% with the same percentage of fans liking the film. Metacritics on the other hand has an overall score of 58 for "Thor" based on 32 critics.

EDIT: Relevancy please?

 

[The Sage]

Why is Thor's RT score being mentioned?

 

[S.A.A.D.]

I think that exists but much more than that it is that a guy just going along and then getting chosen to have superpowers/be a superhero is kind of weak, story-wise. It'd be like if you stripped the whole death of Uncle Ben part out of Spider-man and just had him go from getting bit to choosing to be a superhero. That would be very weak. Facing some adversity in life and having to change as a person when coupled with the circumstance of new powers/abilities/technology/etc. makes it a much better story.

Hal is facing a misfortune in the movie, his father's death. That is what stops him from being a superhero.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

Why is Thor's RT score being mentioned?

Because's it's relevant to the Green Lantern movie.

 

[jmc]

Yeah, I don't get the point of posting Thor's rating, it's got nothing to do with GL.

 

[dnno1]

Because "Thor" has been mentioned a lot in this thread and I just want to keep those folks who said that the critics were soft or that "Thor" might be better than GL abreast of what is going on. BTW: apparently "Thor" made $3.25 million in box office gross during its midnight screenings last night. Just to keep things in context, "Iron Man 2" made $7.5 million in its initial midnight screenings while "The Dark Knight" made $18.5 million in its midnight shows. Even "Watchmen" made $4.5 million in its midnight screenings (and that was a February release). Maybe we shouldn't be talking about "Thor" in this thread since it's beginning to look like it's not a good comparison.

 

[kedrell]

Hal is facing a misfortune in the movie, his father's death. That is what stops him from being a superhero.

I'm wracking my brain trying to understand this post. Stops him from being a superhero? And(correct me if I'm wrong GL fans) isn't Hal's father's death something that while tragic as any unexpected death is, happened years ago before the time of the film and thus before the whole becoming a superhero thing happens. So how are the two connected? It's the connection I was talking about. At best this sounds similar to what Kirk went through in the new Star Trek film. Only difference is in this case it was an accident rather than some bad guy who killed him.