Martin Campbell is Directing Green Lantern

[bunk]

More importantly, another director's success is little reason to actively support Berlanti. There may be reasons to do so, but that ain't one of them.

 

[Saint]

I don't belive this. You previously said that he (Berlanti) "seems to be an unknown quantity" and that you were not sure what would make someone actively support him. Now you are saing what does another unknown director have to do with it?

Correct. Another director finding success does not tell us anything about the ability of Berlanti--and, ergo, has nothing to do with it.

I am using Tarrantino as an example of how an unknown talent can sometimes be very good and some of Berlanti's supporters might see that in him.

If I say to you "I've never driven a Ford, so why should I," you would not answer "I'd never driven a Honda before--until I bought one, and it was fantastic!"

The reason you would not give me that answer is because a Honda being fantastic does not tell us anything about whether or not a Ford would also be fantastic. The information is irrelevant.

Accordingly, when I say "Why do people support Berlanti, an unknown quantity," answering "Tarrantino was unknown, and he turned out to be fantastic" is equally irrelevant.

 

[Chewy]

Quentin Tarantino may have once been an unknown quantity, but so was Uwe Boll.

 

[Lobo]

Saint, the reason Berlanti had support, is becuase it was his vision that got Green Lantern to come this far, and people were willing to give him the chance as he wrote a kick ass script, and everything he said regarding GL in interviews were all the right things, by someone who clearly understood the character.

 

[Brian Braddock]

Whenever I see a movie poster/DVD cover and the blurb says something like, 'from the guy who did the make-up for' or 'from the stunt co-ordinator of'.......

Well, it doesnt exactly instill confidence in me that what I'm about to see is going to be a quality product.

1st time directors who hit a film out of the park are a rarity, unfortunately.

 

[The Major]

Saint, the reason Berlanti had support, is becuase it was his vision that got Green Lantern to come this far, and people were willing to give him the chance as he wrote a kick ass script, and everything he said regarding GL in interviews were all the right things, by someone who clearly understood the character.

Understanding the character is a necessity but it wont mean anything if the director can't execute it well. Berlanti hasn't shown he can do this as a director yet IMO.

 

[dnno1]

Correct. Another director finding success does not tell us anything about the ability of Berlanti--and, ergo, has nothing to do with it.


If I say to you "I've never driven a Ford, so why should I," you would not answer "I'd never driven a Honda before--until I bought one, and it was fantastic!"

The reason you would not give me that answer is because a Honda being fantastic does not tell us anything about whether or not a Ford would also be fantastic. The information is irrelevant.

Accordingly, when I say "Why do people support Berlanti, an unknown quantity," answering "Tarrantino was unknown, and he turned out to be fantastic" is equally irrelevant.

That is the point. Although we do not know what the potential of an unknown director is there is still a good chance (based on certain factors) that he may be good, and Tarrantino is a good example of that as to why he would have something to do with the point.

 

[Saint]

That is the point.

...The point is to be irrelevant?

Although we do not know what the potential of an unknown director is there is still a good chance (based on certain factors)

There is? What factors? Again, other directors finding success is not relevant data, and has nothing to do with the "chances" of Berlanti's success. That Tarrantino found success is unrelated to the ability of Berlanti to find success, and unrelated to whether or not people support Berlanti. One cannot logically say that "Other unknowns found success, so this is a reason to support Berlanti." That doesn't follow. What is required is information suggesting that Berlanti will find success.

and Tarrantino is a good example of that as to why he would have something to do with the point.

Being an example doesn't make Tarrantino relevant. A bomb is an example of a machine that explodes. This does not mean we can reasonably expect your computer--which is also a machine--to explode. Tarrantino is an example of an unknown who found success. This does not mean we can reasonably expect Berlanti--who is also an unknown--to find success.

I'm going to make as simple as I can: what has Berlanti done, what has he said, or what demonstrable quality does he have that makes people support him for Green Lantern? So we are clear: "Other unknowns found success" does not answer this question. That you can conclude success is possible does not suggest success will occur, in the same way that the existence of unicorns being possible does not suggest that they actually exist.

 

[dnno1]

Tarantino's first film wasn't Reservoir Dogs, it was My Best Friend's Birthday.

Reservoir Dogs also was primarily a low budget drama and while it may have been an adaption it wasn't directly connected to to The Killing with the public IIRC. These make expectations much lower then GL. Director's rarely go from a low budget film to a franchise blockbuster in two films which is what Berlanti would have been doing with GL and something Taratino never did early in his career. This would be like an unknown director doing a low budget film then getting the next Terminator film to direct.

"My Best Friend's Birthday" was a short subject independent film and not a major motion picture funded by a big studio or production company (i.e. that doesn't count).

While expectations will be raised through the roof. Not to mention GL looks like its being groomed by WB to replace Superman if they lose those rights. It will have an enormous budget, as well. Breaking even will be hard and it will be much riskier with a director whose still a rookie directing itself and has no experience in the genre, as well. That's why Campbell makes sense since he's done more as a director with a resume that shows he can do [adaptations] well.

This is all speculation now but fair game. I was hoping that it would not necessarily be direct competition or a replacement for other franchises like Superman and Batman, but rather its own (multi-billion $) franchise with a different market. The vision that I had (as well as a few others) was that it would attract the Sci-fi/Fantasy market and would explode into its own series of conventions, TV series, and collectibles.

[Adaptations] look easier but in film and tv they are very hard to successfully execute IMO. Especially when the director has only directed very little and no experience in the movie's genre or a genre similar to it.

Actually Variety did a study on this and found that over the last 10 years about half of the films are made from non original material (ie. they are adaptations, remakes, or sequels). In addition, the top five sources for hit films were novels, comic books, remakes, stories based on TV-series, and spec-scripts. Comic book films on average make about $215 million verses $101 million for an original film. Not only do they take less time to develop they have a better payoff.

I have no problem with Berlanti producing GL.

Me either.

I've gone over this before in another thread. Lucas had lots of experience in film before making Star Wars a hit. Which he created from scratch, I might add. Spielberg is very similar to that.

How many of these directors went from their own low budget film they created to a blockbuster established franchise with success in their second film? That is what Berlanti would be doing if he directed GL.

Yeah, he did "THX 1138" and "American Graffiti" as his first two major films. Outside of his work on "American Graffiti" nobody outside of the studios were paying attention to this guy. He did a lot of short subjects when he was in film school. Spielberg was doing TV before he hit it big (it could be a similar fate for Berlanti).

 

[The Guard]

Saint, the reason Berlanti had support, is becuase it was his vision that got Green Lantern to come this far, and people were willing to give him the chance as he wrote a kick ass script, and everything he said regarding GL in interviews were all the right things, by someone who clearly understood the character.

Yeah, he got WB to pay attention, and he gets kudos for that.

People keep saying he has this amazing vision...and I say this is response: He understands the basics of the character. The very basics. His script proved that he thinks a couple elements of the GL mythology are cool, but did not show any brilliant understanding of the material, or anyone but Hal's character. Sinestro was portrayed somewhat incorrectly, ditto Tom Kalmaku, and Carol, while properly portrayed, was also relegated to "love interest".

 

[Lobo]

Understanding the character is a necessity but it wont mean anything if the director can't execute it well. Berlanti hasn't shown he can do this as a director yet IMO.

Are you still ragging on Berlanti? Campbell is directing now, you got your wish. Saint asked a question, I was simply replying.

 

[Webhead2006]

well we dont know if its official yet, though hopefully its confirmed soon and a start date revealed.

 

[Saint]

Saint, the reason Berlanti had support, is becuase it was his vision that got Green Lantern to come this far, and people were willing to give him the chance as he wrote a kick ass script, and everything he said regarding GL in interviews were all the right things, by someone who clearly understood the character.

But being able to put the concept to script does not necessarily indicate his ability to put the concept to film. I have no particular feelings about him either way, so I'm not trying to say he couldn't to it, I'm just curious as to what is informing the people who are upset that he is no longer attached.

 

[Lobo]

But being able to put the concept to script does not necessarily indicate his ability to put the concept to film. I have no particular feelings about him either way, so I'm not trying to say he couldn't to it, I'm just curious as to what is informing the people who are upset that he is no longer attached.

I supported him, but am not upset he's only producing now either. My guess would be they felt that perhaps the passion he seems to have for the character would have shone through on screen in his directing, and wanted to see what he would/could do with his baby so to speak.

 

[Kevin Smith]

"All DC films on hold" deez nuts, Mr. Goyer, deez nuts.

 

[GL's Light]

Berlanti would have been a complete unknown quantity so far as directing a blockbuster. He might have delivered a great film, a disaster, or anything in between. There's no way to know for sure.

Martin Campbell is of course a known quantity who has handled blockbusters before. If the deal is finalized and he's signed up then it's a choice I'll be happy with - it won't be the most spectacular choice imaginable, but it'll be a good, solid choice.

Campbell strikes me as the sort of director who isn't going to take a mediocre script and turn it into a great movie, but he isn't going to take a good script and screw it up either. As long as he's working from a strong script then he'd likely deliver a strong GL film.

Here's hoping we soon get the news that the film has the go-ahead for a summer 2010 release. :gl:

 

[ZIPBAGS]

Another thing. If they offered this to Campbell. It means that Warner is gung-ho to get this movie going.

 

[Webhead2006]

they been saying that for months that they want gl to happen and it and hex are the two dc films that would/are to be filming this yr for next yr releases where as batman is on hold to after nolan does his new film first, superman is still up in the air, and no solid movement on other characters.

 

[GL's Light]

A lot of sites have characterized the next Batman film as being "on hold". I think that's a mis-characterization. The next film was never going to be fast tracked for a 2010 release. A summer 2011 release is what they've talked about as the likely release target all along. Nolan doing another film in the meantime doesn't necessarily change that. He could follow basically the same timescale he had with The Prestige and The Dark Knight and have the next Batman film out in 2011.

The plans WB are said to have penciled in for DC superhero films is Green Lantern in 2010, the next Batman in 2011, and a Superman relaunch in 2012, although that's obviously tentative and subject to change and doesn't preclude other films possibly making the schedule instead or in addition to those ones.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea and its all about if everything can fall into place with the non batman characters, since supes we all know they havent got anything set in stone yet, gl/hex are the ones we are most likely going to see in 2010, and flash some new movement but still in hell with ww.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

So is Campbell official as the director of this or not yet?

 

[GL's Light]

So is Campbell official as the director of this or not yet?

Not yet. No news beyond "in negotiations" yet, although when the industry trades carry reports that a director is in talks to direct a film there's usually a finalized deal pretty soon after.

 

[Webhead2006]

yea they are probably in stages of finalization on campbell and maybe some leads or something so when they make it all official they can say campbell is in and film staring.... and production starts.......

 

[Octoberist]

when the trades get it, it probably means that the director has been contacted months ago (for example, maybe Martin was in talks since November, etc). So the negotiations are usually finalized by the time it hits the public.

 

[REDophile]

Hopefully some reports will soon surface that casting members are in talks. Ryan Gosling was just a rumor, an idea thrown out by some exec.