The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
I say again .... $300 million?

105bodg.jpg
 
I really want to not look at this page until I see the movie to form my own opinon. But man is this making me feel down on the movie.
 
I'm gonna take a shot in the dark and say this movie is going to need box office numbers similar to the original Iron Man movie to get a sequel, if not more.

it won't even get close to iron man money.

if it does close to batman begins money, i think they may consider a sequel.
 
I can't believe the script is bad. What happened to the script some people on these boards read, the one that was supposed to be solid?
 
With marketing Thor probably cost 250M. FC somewhere between 200M and 250M. It's not really that surprising. Budgets that you see reported generally never include marketing.
 
I'm pretty sure the general audience doesn't really differentiate between which are DC and which are Marvel superheroes.

That's why the news of GL's (apparent) failure with the critics is so depressing. If the GA can't differentiate between Marvel and DC, one $300 million dollar failure could send future movie producers running for the Batman and Spider-Man hills. We'll be getting Batman Beyond, Son of Batman Beyond before we'll get Wonder Woman.

No comics fan should be happy about the reviews so far.
 
300Million isn't that much. Most Hollywood blockbusters cost that much to make and promote.
 
When I go onto RT I keep feeling like there was some sort of mix-up and GL's and Mr. Popper's Penguins scores ought o be reversed. :csad:

I can't believe I just wrote that.
 
I can't believe the script is bad. What happened to the script some people on these boards read, the one that was supposed to be solid?
It really wasn't that solid. It was just sort of ok. And then it clearly got committeed to death.
 
With marketing Thor probably cost 250M. FC somewhere between 200M and 250M. It's not really that surprising. Budgets that you see reported generally never include marketing.

To be fair, none of us know the #'s for Thor.
 
Let's also not forget last year's "Clash of The Titans". It had bad reviews, and yet it did fine commercially and it's getting a sequel. So let's wait and see....
Yeah, but it sucked. Why does the gross seem more important to some of you than the actual quality of the movie?
 
I can't believe the script is bad. What happened to the script some people on these boards read, the one that was supposed to be solid?
I'm wondering the same thing. That was the first thing people assured me was rock-solid, when I asked about it months ago.
 
it won't even get close to iron man money.

if it does close to batman begins money, i think they may consider a sequel.
Batman Begins made 372 mil World Wide with 205 coming in domestic. You really think those return numbers on a 300 mil investment will prompt WB to greenlit a sequel? especially considering the Cirtical panning and bad taste that will be attached to the sequel in the general audiences mind.
 
I'll go see GL regardless of the reviews. If it sucks, it'll be a pity, but i'll at least give it a shot despite the critics. They are wrong sometimes, after all. :cwink:
 
I'm wondering the same thing. That was the first thing people assured me was rock-solid, when I asked about it months ago.
It wasn't rock solid. It had a ton of problems.
 
The Script was solid, and I'm pretty sure it still is. I'm convinced that how much you enjoy the movie relies on how you watch it. You just have to look at the critics. The same aspects are praised and panned by different critics.

... And as I said, surprise haters...
 
Batman Begins made 372 mil World Wide with 205 coming in domestic. You really think those return numbers on a 300 mil investment will prompt WB to greenlit a sequel? especially considering the Cirtical panning and bad taste that will be attached to the sequel in the general audiences mind.

yes, i do think it's very possible. it also will depend on dvd/blu ray sales. if the film makes begins money with strong dvd sales, despite the critical derision, it's very possible they may make a sequel. maybe even a good sequel...
 
I'm wondering the same thing. That was the first thing people assured me was rock-solid, when I asked about it months ago.
There were some good things about that script but also a lot of problems. I think people were assuming "rewrites = fixes", when instead it appears that they made it significantly worse.
 
It may very well get a sequel, but you can bet the farm that it won't have a $300 million budget, and that could be a disaster for a movie that depends so much on CGI.
 
There were some good things about that script but also a lot of problems. I think people were assuming "rewrites = fixes", when instead it appears that they made it significantly worse.

i never read the script, but from just an excerpt of an exchange i read from a review, the dialogue sounded anemic.
 
To be fair, I'm sure that the first thing they'll get rid of is the CGI suits, and that'll significantly reduce the movie's budget.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"