Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 10

[DCUmoviepage]

FYI : I dont know if anyone have post it yet, but here we go:Green Lantern The Movie International Trailer, aka Trailer #4, for the international markets when the movie arrive in August/September, with subtitles in Portuguese.Via site Omelete

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3n7yFDT1aY

 

[Karelia]

I still don't think it's as bad as people made it out to be. I was disappointed the first time I saw it, expecting a lot of scifi/space scenes. Second time I enjoyed it for what it was, I guess. It should have been better, but oh well. I'll still be picking up my blu ray copy of it. Maybe they'll make a cool special edition for it. Or load it up with special features.

 

[solidsnake86]

I still don't think it's as bad as people made it out to be. I was disappointed the first time I saw it, expecting a lot of scifi/space scenes. Second time I enjoyed it for what it was, I guess. It should have been better, but oh well. I'll still be picking up my blu ray copy of it. Maybe they'll make a cool special edition for it. Or load it up with special features.

Hopefully they really do make a good blu-ray because at this point I don't think they can be double dipping to much.

 

[cherokeesam]

They should reconsider a Deadpool movie altogether....Ryan or no Ryan. I mean...Deadpool...a whole movie...? Really? Maybe as a major villain in another X-men movie or something, but a whole movie just on him is stretching it, I feel. It'd be like doing a solo movie on Banshee or Silver Samurai.

um....what?

Deadpool is one of the most popular Marvel characters of the last two decades. He's on everybody's Top 100 most popular comic book characters list (IGN, Wizard, Empire, etc.). And he's not a villain....he's an anti-hero.

Deadpool, done right, can be an outstanding off-the-wall screwball comedy, with fourth walls crumbling like butter and satire zinging atcha every couple of seconds. Not sure that Ryan Reynolds is even remotely funny enough for this material --- RR is more straight-man comedy, and Deadpool requires batsh** crazy.

 

[KalMart]

um....what?

Deadpool is one of the most popular Marvel characters of the last two decades. He's on everybody's Top 100 most popular comic book characters list (IGN, Wizard, Empire, etc.). And he's not a villain....he's an anti-hero.

So?

Deadpool, done right, can be an outstanding off-the-wall screwball comedy, with fourth walls crumbling like butter and satire zinging atcha every couple of seconds. Not sure that Ryan Reynolds is even remotely funny enough for this material --- RR is more straight-man comedy, and Deadpool requires batsh** crazy.

Okay...then do it as a really surreal, zany thing, then. Maybe an R-rated, just on the edge of sick humor thing...with some pretty heavy graphic violence. Not going to be a big budget money-maker, but perhaps a modern cult classic down the road. The comic-based version of 'Man Bites Dog', perhaps.

 

[Mace Dolex]

Routh probably won't ever get a lead role in a movie because, from what I've heard, when he isn't playing Superman he's pretty wooden.

Yeah I saw that Dylan Dog movie and it was terrible mostly because Routh didn't show any emotion at all.

 

[Mace Dolex]

I don't think it's going to end his career at all, though....I don't think *any* CBM, no matter how abysmal, has ended anyone's career.

Alec Baldwin did fine after The Shadow, so did Sly Stallone after Judge Dredd and Seth Rogen doesn't seem affected by the junky Green Hornet.

Then there is Billy Zane who's had a moderate career in low tier movies after The Phantom, of course he was in Titanic but that was a hit because of Leo.

But then there's that guy from The Spirit who's now in some lawyer show or something.

 

[Octoberist]

The guy from The Spirit really didn't go anywhere.

 

[KalMart]

The guy from The Spirit really didn't go anywhere.

I heard that he's Greg Kinnear's stand-in now.

 

[HighFivingMF]

The guy from The Spirit really didn't go anywhere.

Not like he came from anywhere though.

 

[Octoberist]

But you can tell in his head he was thinking 'Boy oh boy..my first big break!'

 

[HighFivingMF]

But you can tell in his head he was thinking 'Boy oh boy..my first big break!'

But he still doubted it because of that little "first" in there.

 

[Octoberist]

"Im gonna make it big, like Clark Gable!!"

 

[cherokeesam]

Alec Baldwin did fine after The Shadow, so did Sly Stallone after Judge Dredd and Seth Rogen doesn't seem affected by the junky Green Hornet.

Then there is Billy Zane who's had a moderate career in low tier movies after The Phantom, of course he was in Titanic but that was a hit because of Leo.

But then there's that guy from The Spirit who's now in some lawyer show or something.

And Brandon Lee's career never went anywhere after The Crow.




OUCH.
(....too soon....? )

 

[GoblinWhirlwind]

I still don't think it's as bad as people made it out to be. I was disappointed the first time I saw it, expecting a lot of scifi/space scenes. Second time I enjoyed it for what it was, I guess. It should have been better, but oh well. I'll still be picking up my blu ray copy of it. Maybe they'll make a cool special edition for it. Or load it up with special features.

I didn't love it, but I liked it. I loved Sinestro though, I couldn't get enough of him. With me it's that whole "a hero is only as good as his villain" thing... and GL was lacking in awesome villains. Parallax was alright, but he was just a big monster and I couldn't stand Hammond.

 

[TheVileOne]

Reynolds was miscast. I gave him the benefit of the doubt but the movie confirmed my fears. Reynolds simply can't disappear into a role like Hal Jordan. He played it as Ryan Reynolds and not Hal Jordan.

 

[mace1]

I still don't think it's as bad as people made it out to be. I was disappointed the first time I saw it, expecting a lot of scifi/space scenes. Second time I enjoyed it for what it was, I guess. It should have been better, but oh well. I'll still be picking up my blu ray copy of it. Maybe they'll make a cool special edition for it. Or load it up with special features.

Here are some good points i have been reading elsewhere.

by - gmoney0505
quote-

I agree it was not as bad as the critics are saying but it is not as great as it could have been especially after reading some of the recent GL comics. Critics had it out for this move and 98% of them couldn't even explain why it was not good. Character development and time hindered this movie. Same problem with Thor but critics ate that movie up for some odd reason that I can't put a finger on or maybe I can.






http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1133985/board/flat/185189207?p=1

 

[Son of Coul]

That quote is amusingly absurd. All critics could say why it wasn't good. Bad script, bad editing, bad casting in some places, subpar effects/designs, bad score, inconsistent tone... At least one of those is brought up in just about any negative review. Thor was "eaten up" by critics because these issues were not present. If there WERE complaints about any of those factors, they were mostly considered minor missteps rather than tumbles down the stairs like they were with GL.

A lot of **** just didn't come together for this movie unfortunately, I'd say the script was definitely the most crushing element. Probably one of the worst offenders of the "show, don't tell" guideline I've seen, and I'm pretty lenient on that one.

 

[jmc]

Thor was 'eaten up' because it was put together in a proficient way. The story may have been overly easy to digest, but it was well made and those involved did a good job of disguising it's weakness. I don't even know if 'eating it up' is the right phrase, most reviews for Thor seemed not to over praise it. The short comings of GL are the reason the critics didn't like the film.

 

[Flemm]

**oups, double post**

 

[Flemm]

It's just frustrating, understandably, from GL fans' perspective, to see a movie like Thor succeed while GL flops. Neither character is necessarily easy to translate to the screen but, if anything, Thor is the more awkward and the lesser known of the two.

Thor was also not a great movie, and of course critics did not praise it to the skies. It wasn't a huge hit. But it was a well made, entertaining film with some really strong performances that found an audience. As a GL fan, you look at that and you say, damn... why couldn't things have gone down like that for my fav?

If anything, these two films show how delicate the formula for success can be.

 

[Venom'sDad]

This film was doomed the day Ryan was considered for the role of Hal. Not that Ryan is a poor actor; but, that Hal was miscast and Ryan was out of his element... that's not the type of role for him.

 

[Micromind]

I think Ryan Reynolds was okay as Hal Jordan, I never felt that he was miscast, If there had been internet fan boys back in 1989, their reaction to the news that Micheal Keaton was going to be Batman would have been that he is miscast and that the movie is doomed.

Green Lantern movie was unusually bashed by critics, I am aware of the movie's shortcomings with the script, musical score, editing but still it started with RT score of 19% and now is at 27%, that is just absurd, it should have got 55 to 65 % score (IMO.)

Many people complained about 100 mil marketing budget, but did anyone got the details about the marketing budget of Thor ? It was marketed just as much plus it had a Superbowl spot, that cost was not there in case of GL. I would say that Thor's marketing costs are comparable to GL's marketing costs.

 

[chiefchirpa]

They should reconsider a Deadpool movie altogether....Ryan or no Ryan. I mean...Deadpool...a whole movie...? Really? Maybe as a major villain in another X-men movie or something, but a whole movie just on him is stretching it, I feel. It'd be like doing a solo movie on Banshee or Silver Samurai.

Remember Blade? Iron Man? A character status in comic dom has no meaning whatsoever to movie watchers acceptance of that character. Silver Samurai might turn out to be a good Yakuza movie even if the character is a Z-lister in comics.



I dare say that Deadpool is a more movie-ready character than the Flash barring the character mythos and other backstory. Flash, whose power is running fast may look cool to a kid but might appear too "comicbooky" to the mainstream. To an adult or a movie director a grenade chucking, SMG toting teleporting costumed clown is more easily digestible like an Action movie than the conspicuously fantasy world of the Flash.

 

[DaveMoral]

I think Ryan Reynolds was okay as Hal Jordan, I never felt that he was miscast, If there had been internet fan boys back in 1989, their reaction to the news that Micheal Keaton was going to be Batman would have been that he is miscast and that the movie is doomed.

Green Lantern movie was unusually bashed by critics, I am aware of the movie's shortcomings with the script, musical score, editing but still it started with RT score of 19% and now is at 27%, that is just absurd, it should have got 55 to 65 % score (IMO.)

Many people complained about 100 mil marketing budget, but did anyone got the details about the marketing budget of Thor ? It was marketed just as much plus it had a Superbowl spot, that cost was not there in case of GL. I would say that Thor's marketing costs are comparable to GL's marketing costs.

I don't think Reynolds was miscast at all. I think the weakness was the script. The goofy parts were, to my best estimate, written as if they were for Reynolds. With the addition of those parts, it's as if they didn't give him the chance to really be Hal Jordan. The guy has done dramatic roles that are not "Ryan Reynolds" aka Van Wilder. If the GL script had been approached as such, I think people would put far less blame on Reynolds' shoulders.