Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 9

[KRIM]

Yea but Avatar had James Cameron and WETA. Unless WB get someone of his calibur for the sequel, and ILM or WETA, it's only going to cost more money.

Campbell just wasn't right for this movie. He's a novice to the comic book world, the sci-fi genre, and with grand visual effects. It was my biggest worry about him and sadly it proved to be valid.

George Lucas (ILM discounts notwithstanding) pulled off six times as much scale with 25% less money. As did Peter Jackson. Hell, Michael Bay gives you 300 million dollar looking blockbusters with half that amount.

It has everything to do with budget management. You need to know how to use your funds.

 

[Doctor Jones]

From what I've read....

It spent too much time/not enough time in space.

The aliens were over/under used.

There was too much/not enough humor.

The special effects were terrible/great.

It was too childish/too scary for kids.

The chemistry between Reynolds and Lively was non existant/very well done and believable.

I could go on with this/I could just stop now.

People who either liked or didn't like stated why. No one is bipolar here with opinions.

 

[moviedoors]

Wikipedia says that Dark of the Moon has a budget of 195 million dollars and it looks like its two times more expensive than GL, so i guess you re right.

Taking into account that Bay closed parts of Chicago, used real gliders to fly down from Trump tower, used all these milatary vehicles and planes, and all that top notch CGI, you really have to wonder how he did it.

Don't forget shooting (mostly) natively in 3-D on top of all of that.

I'm not surprised Bay can get those results. Hell, for that kind of money, I expect nothing less. I wonder how Campbell didn't get those kinds of results. I suppose his lack of large scale expertise in CG really was a detriment. But even then, it's not like he's a stranger to it either. He's built up a reputation as being technically adept. CG or not, making a Bond movie can't be a walk in the park. I just don't think they were ready to roll when they did.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Didn't they completely change the suit from its first reveal to the trailer? That had to eat up some amount.

 

[Showtime]

I wouldn't be trusting wikipedia for accurate budgets...

Transformers 2 was reported as costing anywhere between 225 million to 300 million when it was all said and done.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Didn't they completely change the suit from its first reveal to the trailer? That had to eat up some amount.

Nope. They just released a trailer with unfinished effects. For the life of me, I don't know how that made any sense.

A teaser trailer ala The dark Knight would have sufficed till January (when it was supposed to be released)

 

[dark_b]

I wouldn't be trusting wikipedia for accurate budgets...

Transformers 2 was reported as costing anywhere between 225 million to 300 million when it was all said and done.

and it makes sense. a lot more effects then in the previous movie and in 3D.

anyone watched the Bay and Cameron interview? they cut a lot of parts out. but its funn how Bay infront of everyone said that making a 3D movie is a lot more expensive. the guy was just honest hehehee

i hope noone belives that TF3 is 190 when TF2 was over 200. a sequel like TF3 can not be cheaper then TF2. even if they would make the same movie it would be mroe expensive. paychecks dont get smaller but higher with a franchsie like TF. muhahahahhahah

TF movies are dumb as they get. but almost the whole budget is on the screen. you get what you pay for.

 

[The Morningstar]

Isn't TF shot with the real 3D cameras?

 

[dark_b]

Nope. They just released a trailer with unfinished effects. For the life of me, I don't know how that made any sense.

A teaser trailer ala The dark Knight would have sufficed till January (when it was supposed to be released )

the trailer was with HP. i think it was a good move for a teaser trailer. the effects were not even bad for a movie that was in post for less then 6 monhts.

 

[dark_b]

Isn't TF shot with the real 3D cameras?

every face close up was filmed with normal 2D cameras and converted to 3D. but converting 8-15 % of your movie is not hard. the problem is when you need to convert 80% of the movie in less then 6 months.ok let me correct myself. in less then 3 months hehehehe

 

[Poni_Boy]

the trailer was with HP. i think it was a good move for a teaser trailer. the effects were not even bad for a movie that was in post for less then 6 monhts.

See, THIS is a major flaw. We look at these decisions from the perspective of people who spend day after day online hunting for news. How many general audience members do that? How many give trailers a "pass" because the movie "was in post production for less than 6 months"?

********. Trailers and all promotional materials should reflect the quality of the products they represent. If it's sub par, don't put it out there to millions and millions of people.

And that comedy-heavy promo wasn't a teaser trailer, it was a theatrical trailer. Teaser trailers don't show nearly that much film footage and are not two minutes long. Just because it was the first trailer don't make a teaser.

 

[dark_b]

i remember searching for negative comments about the GL teaser from the general public. i search for forums that are nto about movies and comcis. for example a social forum that has a movie section. or a car forum where they also talk about movies.

and i dont think anyone was complaining or hating.

if you compare the effects from teh teaser and the final shtos there isnt a big different. some things changed. but the general public doesnt care about those small changes. the suit is still bright green and glowing.

 

[Poni_Boy]

i remember searching for negative comments about the GL teaser from the general public. i search for forums that are nto about movies and comcis. for example a social forum that has a movie section. or a car forum where they also talk about movies.

That entire statement makes no sense. How many members of the general movie going audience do you think spend their time online talking about trailers? Why do you think Rotten Tomatoes is the top film site on the net, people go there to READ other peoples opinions and fill out a quick poll; not argue over every minute detail of the films the didn't like.

 

[JAK®]

That entire statement makes no sense. How many members of the general movie going audience do you think spend their time online talking about trailers? Why do you think Rotten Tomatoes is the top film site on the net, people go there to READ other peoples opinions and fill out a quick poll; not argue over every minute detail of the films the didn't like.

That's the point.

 

[moviedoors]

i remember searching for negative comments about the GL teaser from the general public. i search for forums that are nto about movies and comcis. for example a social forum that has a movie section. or a car forum where they also talk about movies.

and i dont think anyone was complaining or hating.

if you compare the effects from teh teaser and the final shtos there isnt a big different. some things changed. but the general public doesnt care about those small changes. the suit is still bright green and glowing.

Ok, this is just straight denial. The teaser was a disaster and the brass at WB even admitted as much ("Part of the reason the response to the first trailer was lukewarm was that the big-scale sequences weren't ready to show, and we suffered for it. We can't afford to do that again."- Sue Kroll, president of WB marketing)

 

[JAK®]

The teaser got a big "meh" from audiences which is why WB changed their marketing strategy but it had little to do with the effects which is the point being discussed.

 

[Poni_Boy]

The teaser got a big "meh" from audiences which is why WB changed their marketing strategy but it had little to do with the effects which is the point being discussed.

That's not true either. The effects in the trailer were not finalized and many people (fans especially) criticized the hell out of them. I don't understand how anyone can deny that

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Funny how the first trailer represented the flick better than the subsequent ones.

 

[dark_b]

That's not true either. The effects in the trailer were not finalized and many people (fans especially) criticized the hell out of them. I don't understand how anyone can deny that

i never said that fans didnt complaing. i dont think that teh general public cared about the effects in teh first GL trailer.

 

[moviedoors]

That's not true either. The effects in the trailer were not finalized and many people (fans especially) criticized the hell out of them. I don't understand how anyone can deny that

FX were certainly an issue, but tone was easily just as much of a sticking point as any CG.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Funny how the first trailer represented the flick better than the subsequent ones.

This makes me cry inside, it's so true. WB really tried making people forget about that trailer. This marketing strategy was **** up from the get go

 

[Poni_Boy]

FX were certainly an issue, but tone was easily just as much of a sticking point as any CG.

Of course. But when you get very bad marks from your first full length trailer (and first footage of the first ever shown to the public) for A) tone and B) effects... that's not very good at all.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

This makes me cry inside, it's so true. WB really tried making people forget about that trailer. This marketing strategy was **** up from the get go

Remember how people defended the trailer saying the negative reaction was exaggerated?

 

[The Morningstar]

Yea, like that Dark Knight guy. Wonder where he's disappeared to.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

To be fair, the trailer had to work with the footage available. Considering the state of the film itself, blaming marketing feels a tad bit off.