The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 1

Status
Not open for further replies.
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 don't know about that to be honest, Tron: Legacy made more than 400 mil WW and Disney still hasn't greenlit a sequel because in contrast with the budget the box office didn't deliver. I can see the same thing happening here to a higher degree.
 
This movie did not have a 300 million budget. Marketing is not included in films budget.
 
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.

it doesn't need a 300 million dollar budget to be good. say they cut it down 50 or so million dollars; it could still be great. it all depends on the script. we know sinestro is likely the main villain, so already there's a more interesting antagonist.
 
The first draft was ok.

It seems like the new draft sucked out everything unique about it and turned it into an iron man/spider-man ripoff.
 
This movie did not have a 300 million budget. Marketing is not included in films budget.
Fans include marketing costs in the discussion when they want a film to seem like a huge flop. They exclude them when they want a film to seem like a big hit. That's just one of those little quirks you have to get used to on the 'net.
 
This movie did not have a 300 million budget. Marketing is not included in films budget.

Yeah, it's not part of the production cost but you're fooling yourself if you don't think the studios need to recoup all the money they spent, including the marketing.
 
I don't know about that to be honest, Tron: Legacy made more than 400 mil WW and Disney still hasn't greenlit a sequel because in contrast with the budget the box office didn't deliver. I can see the same thing happening here to a higher degree.

the difference, i think, is that wb badly needs new franchises. i'm thinking they make a sequel with less of a financial investment.
 
The first draft was ok.

It seems like the new draft sucked out everything unique about it and turned it into an iron man/spider-man ripoff.
It was already pretty much Tony Stark Lite in the first draft. But they've apparently added monologues about responsibility so that now it's Peter Parker Lite, too.
 
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....

Y'know....if the 3D conversion is good enough on this film, it could save its bacon, being as effects-heavy as it is.

It's be kinda' funny if some of the people who are against 3D are suddenly thanking it for saving GL. :O
 
Fans include marketing costs in the discussion when they want a film to seem like a huge flop. They exclude them when they want a film to seem like a big hit. That's just one of those little quirks you have to get used to on the 'net.

Ah yes. Semantics.
 
To be fair, this movie will deliver Marketing-wise. Comics, Action Figures and other types of stuff will sell.
 
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.
Why get rid of the CG suits? The suits were fine.
 
Last edited:
I'll judge the quality of GL after I see it. :cwink:

Obviously. But can we knock it off with all the strained excuses for why we might get a sequel even if it sucks? The goal posts are being shifted all over the place.
 
After watching the trailers, does anyone really think this is a good movie?

I'm a huge Ryan Reynolds fan, but there's so much CGI...it could almost be a video game.

I hope it is successful on Reynolds' account.
 
Even though most of the reviews seem to be pretty negative, I'll be seeing the film with a open mind and render my verdict then.
 
I wonder where dnno1 is at. :woot:

We could use his unintentional humor.
 
I thought watchman was visually stunning (bought the blu ray) but the pacing, acting (rosharach aside) and score absolutely terrible. I will say that I thought the first 20 mins were pitch perfect but the movie decends into an absolute mess. each to their own but I hated watchmen.
I think the only truly decent movie snyder has made is dawn of the dead. I enjoyed 300 the first time I watched it found I couldn't watch it again when I bought the blu ray, no rewatch value.

the guy delivers great visuals and great action but has no idea how to tell a compelling, engaging story, he is like the anti-nolan.

Please, honestly u think that the acting was horrible in watcmen. That is total bs, crudup was amazing as dr. Manhatten, jeffrey dean morgan and
patrick wilson were also pretty damn good. Hell even matthew goode was ok. The only real weak link in that film was ackerman, now she was pretty god awful. But all this b.s. about Snyder not being able to get a decent performance out of an actor is way overplayed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"