The Official Green Lantern Review Thread - Part 2

[KangConquers]

edit: Never mind.

 

[Miranda Fox]

I think the point is Vaughn and Singer didn't care that Fassbender (or McAvoy and Lawrence for that matter) weren't big names to audiences. Those three were cast because they're great actors and really contributed to XFC's overall quality.

James McAvoy is recognisable to the general public, even if they might not actually know he's name.

Otherwise, spot on.

It is worth noting most people seem to think Ryan Renolds did well in GL, just that the script itself wasn't up to scratch. But as always, we should always judge for ourselves.

 

[Miranda Fox]

Seriously. It has flaws, but it was critically acclaimed and made money. No amount of bellyaching is going to change that now.

I don't understand people complaining about that - any comic book film doing well is a good thing (unless it is really awful, which certainly wasn't the case with Thor).

 

[KangConquers]

James McAvoy is recognisable to the general public, even if they might not actually know he's name.

Otherwise, spot on.

It is worth noting most people seem to think Ryan Renolds did well in GL, just that the script itself wasn't up to scratch. But as always, we should always judge for ourselves.

This brings up a good question: Why in the hell do DC and Marvel keep hiring mediocre writers? Why wouldn't you go after the best damn screenplay writers you could find?

Of all the things you can spend money on (Directors, Actors, SFX) the screenplay is perhaps the most important, and least expensive, to get right.

 

[DACrowe]

While Portman kind of hurt the film, I agree. The main tale of Odin, Loki and Thor comes across so well, it makes the film. That is down to the actors and Branagh. Those scenes work far better then the script deserved.

Also while the Warrior Three were kind of terrible, Alexander, Russo, Elba, Skarsgard, and Denning all added to the tale in their limited roles.

I don't think Portman hurt the film. Her part of a work-obsessed "brillaint" scientist turning into a 12-year-old school girl around big-muscled Thor was just a very cartoonish and thinly written part. She added a degree of charm, humor and fun to the role that if plain straight would have been terrible.

To put it another way, Marvel/Branagh could have cast a TV-starlet like Vanessa Hudgens or Blake Lively. They cast a very strong actress who helped elevate the material.

 

[dark_b]

i disagree with people saying that GL doesnt deserve this kind of reviews. it deserves this kind of reviews from critics. TF2 deserved its reviews.like Spiderman,batman,..... what is good and what is bad? my opinion or yours? i am not saying that GL is bad. i am trying to explain that critics think that its bad.

why? because when you realese the movie its out. and if someone wants to pay money its hes choice, hes taste. and that way a movie can bomb or brake records.


GL will make as much money as it can. the marketing was very big in the last 2 months. like with every blockbuster. they dont anymore promote movies full force for the whole year. general public also didnt complain about the november trailer because they dont care.

 

[KangConquers]

I don't think Portman hurt the film. Her part of a work-obsessed "brillaint" scientist turning into a 12-year-old school girl around big-muscled Thor was just a very cartoonish and thinly written part. She added a degree of charm, humor and fun to the role that if plain straight would have been terrible.

To put it another way, Marvel/Branagh could have cast a TV-starlet like Vanessa Hudgens or Blake Lively. They cast a very strong actress who helped elevate the material.

Really Thor would've been a masterpiece if it weren't for the script; think of it...same actors, same directors, same effects...but from the writers of Black Swan or the King's Speech instead of the writers of Agent Cody Banks.

 

[DACrowe]

James McAvoy is recognisable to the general public, even if they might not actually know he's name.

Otherwise, spot on.

It is worth noting most people seem to think Ryan Renolds did well in GL, just that the script itself wasn't up to scratch. But as always, we should always judge for ourselves.

People who like watching films such as Atonement, The Last King of Scotland and The Conspirator know him as a gifted Scottish actor. Everyone else might know him as Angelina Jolie's sidekick in that one movie Not exactly selling tickets with that.

 

[The Morningstar]

I just think WB/DC have looked to far ahead. They took it for granted that this movie would be a franchise starter. They marketed it to hell, which to me stank of desperation. (GL colostomy bags? REALLY?)

They took their eye off the ball.

 

[Miranda Fox]

This brings up a good question: Why in the hell do DC and Marvel keep hiring mediocre writers? Why wouldn't you go after the best damn screenplay writers you could find?

Of all the things you can spend money on (Directors, Actors, SFX) the screenplay is perhaps the most important, and least expensive, to get right.

Heh, one of the screenwriting books I have on my shelf tries to address that question more broadly ('why are so many badly written films made') and the simplest answer is: studios don't want to take risks. And GL seems to be a perfect example of playing it safe in terms of story - there's nothing we haven't seen before in there.

As a further example, there was a really good Wonder Woman script out there that was never made because it was considered too risky. It's approach was as a period piece (sort of like the upcoming Captain America film) and it was very different from any other superhero film.

It is worth noting that writers are often hampered by the studio as well. I don't always think they are entirely to blame on films like this.

Of course the irony here is that if WB HAD tried something riskier and less cookie-cutter, GL might have been much better received.

 

[KangConquers]

i disagree with people saying that GL doesnt deserve this kind of reviews. it deserves this kind of reviews from critics. TF2 deserved its reviews.like Spiderman,batman,..... what is good and what is bad? my opinion or yours? i am not saying that GL is bad. i am trying to explain that critics think that its bad.

why? because when you realese the movie its out. and if someone wants to pay money its hes choice, hes taste. and that way a movie can bomb or brake records.


GL will make as much money as it can. the marketing was very big in the last 2 months. like with every blockbuster. they dont anymore promote movies full force for the whole year. general public also didnt complain about the november trailer because they dont care.

I think this was going to make the same amount of money this weekend with great or terrible reviews. It's legs and word of mouth might change significantly though.

 

[Miranda Fox]

People who like watching films such as Atonement, The Last King of Scotland and The Conspirator know him as a gifted Scottish actor. Everyone else might know him as Angelina Jolie's sidekick in that one movie Not exactly selling tickets with that.

...I never said he was a ticket seller per se, I said he would be recognisable to the public.

 

[Bubonic]

I have a feeling that if the reviews for GL were overwhelmingly positive, some of the people who are claiming that reviews mean little would be lending a lot more credence to them.

Do you realize how absolutely useless a comment like this is given the current reality?

Hey guys you'd all like Hitler if he'd gotten into art school and hadn't ordered the murder of 6 million Jews.

 

[Miranda Fox]

Hey guys you'd all like Hitler if he'd gotten into art school and hadn't ordered the murder of 6 million Jews.

Wow, we have Godwin's in the Green Lantern review thread.

 

[The Morningstar]

Do you realize how absolutely useless a comment like this is given the current reality?

Hey guys you'd all like Hitler if he'd gotten into art school and hadn't ordered the murder of 6 million Jews.

What he said is very true.

If the reviews had been praising Green Lantern no one would be saying the reviews are poorly written or palming them off.

You know it, I know it.

 

[dark_b]

I think this was going to make the same amount of money this weekend with great or terrible reviews. It's legs and word of mouth might change significantly though.

bingo.

the only way GL will make more or less money is with WORD OF MOUTH. if the masses like GL they will make this a big movie. if they dont then it will underperform. the general public will brake or make this franchise. they pay the money .

 

[Marvin]

Na, he's Deadpool.

Besides, if Flash got a movie it wouldn't be Wally West, the wise cracking, charismatic guy who Reynolds would be great for. It'd be Barry Allen, the dull as dishwater nice guy.

Geoff Johns would decree it.

Johns grew up with him and thinks he's better.

I don't know, I honestly just didn't care for the books till wally and kyle. I just love how they get the wally personality and used the hal jordan name in order to get the best of all worlds.

 

[AMP]

Nice review, with everyone focusing on the bad, I've also loads of good ones too, personally I think it'll be more of a hit with the general public, think they'll lap it up especially kids, and for me that ain't a bad thing, I got into comics as a kid, films like this should be aimed at them.
Again just my opinion
http://digitista.blogspot.com/2011/06/green-lantern-movie-review-imagination.html

 

[Marvin]

Supposedly they're doing The Flash from a CSI angle, given Barry Allen's profession.

Granted who knows if that movie will even get made now.

please no berlanti
please

 

[KalMart]

Do you realize how absolutely useless a comment like this is given the current reality?

The reality is that reviews should either always count or always not count....be they good or bad. What's current is perception.

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

While i'll still be seeing this film, this is like the first film that got negative reviews that made me feel sad and down.

 

[Bubonic]

Yes I understand what you mean, that if the reviews were good the fanboys desperate for confirmation that the movie is good would obviously parade the reviews and say things like told you so, and see they get it, this is an amazing movie.

But the fact of the matter is that the reviews are bad and the movie most probably sucks, now people are making very shallow claims that somehow if this movie came out at such and such a time it would have 80%, that all these Marvel movies that got over 70% are just pieces of crap worse than GL and there is some active critic conspiracy trying to hold the movie down.

People are dwelling on how inacurate these review sites are but I doubt they can name me 5 movies off the top of their heads that had a rating in the mid-twenties and was actually any good.

 

[Bubonic]

computer problems, double post

 

[Doc Phosphorus]

I wouldn't be surprised if we see a Justice League film before Flash, WW, etc.

WB could pull a reverse-Avengers. Do a JL movie sold on the merits of Batman and Superman and then gleam reactions from it to decide which members deserve spin-offs.

 

[Tony Stark]

Funny that Roger Ebert's review actually sounded somewhat positive, albeit unenthusiastic, but it's counted as a splat on RT.