Green Lantern
Originally requested delete for this post since I basically repeated what I said in the previous...
Went back and re-edited it for new reply. (To nobody in particular, honestly.)
I added an image of a GL bust to bolster my point about the preview photos for the collectibles. I think the quote from Mad Magazine sums it up.
It's amazing what marketing and licensing will let a company release!
I know from experience that most statues and action figure tie-ins are mediocre but some of the stuff I've seen still takes the cake for just plain bad...
Went back and re-edited it for new reply. (To nobody in particular, honestly.)
I added an image of a GL bust to bolster my point about the preview photos for the collectibles. I think the quote from Mad Magazine sums it up.
It's amazing what marketing and licensing will let a company release!
I know from experience that most statues and action figure tie-ins are mediocre but some of the stuff I've seen still takes the cake for just plain bad...
First reviews are up for Green Lantern and overall it's not pretty. 23% rotten and I think the preponderance of reviews on the film sites are on the mark.
(Given how bad comics in general are now and how much of a pass comic book movies get from comic book sites, I tend not to trust their judgment on films like this. They'll tend to be more split. Again, those reviewers are a bit too forgiving in general...)
Usually, when reviews aren't in until the day before release it's a good sign that the production company knows the film isn't that great... Nada heard about this film until Thursday. Not a peep from sneak previews or test audiences if any previews were done ahead of Wednesday.
Gotta wonder about the legs on this film...
I'll watch it, yeah, but that might be months later on traditional flat DVD.
I have no desire to see this or any other film in 3-D for $11-$13 per ticket...
(Given how bad comics in general are now and how much of a pass comic book movies get from comic book sites, I tend not to trust their judgment on films like this. They'll tend to be more split. Again, those reviewers are a bit too forgiving in general...)
Usually, when reviews aren't in until the day before release it's a good sign that the production company knows the film isn't that great... Nada heard about this film until Thursday. Not a peep from sneak previews or test audiences if any previews were done ahead of Wednesday.
Gotta wonder about the legs on this film...
I'll watch it, yeah, but that might be months later on traditional flat DVD.
I have no desire to see this or any other film in 3-D for $11-$13 per ticket...
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 1928
- Joined: December 16th, 2004
- Location: Burbank, Calif.
Re: Green Lantern
My younger brother's official assessment of Green Lantern, after he'd seen it earlier tonight:
Ouch."The people who made this movie should be ashamed of themselves."
Your brother's probably right, Droo. He's probably right.
The problem is NOT the Hal Jordan character... or most comic book characters, period. There is so much fresh material to choose from saying that they couldn't come up with good ideas from the source material is flat out ridiculous. It's the writers and producers of these films. They don't understand the material and don't have the mindset and capacity to realize these characters and their histories as good films.
I don't know what's going on but so many of these films are disappointing on multiple levels that I can't recommend them. The typical failures are bad scripts, poor casting choices, bad directors, and an overall product that is barely made-for-TV level.
And I don't understand the people who give passes on these films, too. If it's a lousy film -- regardless of whether it's based on a comic or not -- BE HONEST! I don't want to waste money on a bad film even if it has my favorite actor in the world.
Money is real tight for most of us... make our movie-going experiences worth the ticket price or most of us will continue satisfying our entertainment dollars with Red Box and Netflix. It's too expensive to waste both time and money at the Multiplexes with the state our economy is in. I would have said that even BEFORE late 2008.
Red Box has been saving me quite a bit of money lately...
The problem is NOT the Hal Jordan character... or most comic book characters, period. There is so much fresh material to choose from saying that they couldn't come up with good ideas from the source material is flat out ridiculous. It's the writers and producers of these films. They don't understand the material and don't have the mindset and capacity to realize these characters and their histories as good films.
I don't know what's going on but so many of these films are disappointing on multiple levels that I can't recommend them. The typical failures are bad scripts, poor casting choices, bad directors, and an overall product that is barely made-for-TV level.
And I don't understand the people who give passes on these films, too. If it's a lousy film -- regardless of whether it's based on a comic or not -- BE HONEST! I don't want to waste money on a bad film even if it has my favorite actor in the world.
Money is real tight for most of us... make our movie-going experiences worth the ticket price or most of us will continue satisfying our entertainment dollars with Red Box and Netflix. It's too expensive to waste both time and money at the Multiplexes with the state our economy is in. I would have said that even BEFORE late 2008.
Red Box has been saving me quite a bit of money lately...
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25329
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
Ouch indeed! A friend of mine saw a screening around a week or two ago and said it was pretty lame. In his view, Green Lantern reuses too much of the comic book cliche we have seen in other superhero movies. He didn't know too much about GL, which he admitted, so was watching as a newbie to the origin and character, and he still felt that way (his words were that "it felt like they came up with this new hero to make a sub-standard copy of better super-films").droosan's younger brother wrote:"The people who made this movie should be ashamed of themselves."
Wow, George. Very dramatic!GeorgeC wrote:Your brother's probably right, Droo. He's probably right.
Green Lantern is a very good science fiction concept. There are plenty of good situations and characters there for good storytelling.
The problem is this film's script and set-up.
Listen, I don't like sitting through an hour-long origin story for most superhero films, either. Most of the set-ups were done in 1-2 pages tops for most characters in their early days and they served the characters well. Later writers and editors get these cute ideas that more unnecessary details and baggage has to be added to origin stories. Don't see why origins have to be so melodramatic and drawn-out in the films. For the life of me, I cannot understand WHY the Hulk's origin had to unravel over an hour instead of five minutes! He's got the simplest origin of all superheroes (!) but the filmmakers in that case decided they could do a better job and did an unnecessary rewrite there, too, and muddled the whole thing with psychobabble.
With this film, 7 years of re-establishment was blown through the door. A colossal opportunity may have been wasted. UNLESS the box office take is huge, don't bet on a sequel.
Sad thing is that there have been attempts to make this film for 30-odd years. I've seen the concept art created for a previous attempt in the late 1970s/early 1980s. It may be another 10-20 years before another chance is given for the character and it may be too late by then.
With all the headless officers running DC nowadays, do people honestly still think all these guys will be gainfully employed within the next two years if this record continues? The ball WILL drop on somebody for this mess...
It's sad to note that I have not heard a single person say that a creator's credit for Green Lantern was not given to Martin Nodell (the original concept), or Julius Schwartz, John Broome, and Gil Kane -- the creators of the Hal Jordan character.
Then again, I heard something about "miscredits" in Thor, too. Supposedly, Stan Lee's brother was second-credited for the creation of Thor and as far as I know he had nothing to do with that character in the beginning...! Jack Kirby's son sure wasn't happen to see/hear about that, either...
The problem is this film's script and set-up.
Listen, I don't like sitting through an hour-long origin story for most superhero films, either. Most of the set-ups were done in 1-2 pages tops for most characters in their early days and they served the characters well. Later writers and editors get these cute ideas that more unnecessary details and baggage has to be added to origin stories. Don't see why origins have to be so melodramatic and drawn-out in the films. For the life of me, I cannot understand WHY the Hulk's origin had to unravel over an hour instead of five minutes! He's got the simplest origin of all superheroes (!) but the filmmakers in that case decided they could do a better job and did an unnecessary rewrite there, too, and muddled the whole thing with psychobabble.
With this film, 7 years of re-establishment was blown through the door. A colossal opportunity may have been wasted. UNLESS the box office take is huge, don't bet on a sequel.
Sad thing is that there have been attempts to make this film for 30-odd years. I've seen the concept art created for a previous attempt in the late 1970s/early 1980s. It may be another 10-20 years before another chance is given for the character and it may be too late by then.
With all the headless officers running DC nowadays, do people honestly still think all these guys will be gainfully employed within the next two years if this record continues? The ball WILL drop on somebody for this mess...
It's sad to note that I have not heard a single person say that a creator's credit for Green Lantern was not given to Martin Nodell (the original concept), or Julius Schwartz, John Broome, and Gil Kane -- the creators of the Hal Jordan character.
Then again, I heard something about "miscredits" in Thor, too. Supposedly, Stan Lee's brother was second-credited for the creation of Thor and as far as I know he had nothing to do with that character in the beginning...! Jack Kirby's son sure wasn't happen to see/hear about that, either...
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 7270
- Joined: October 23rd, 2004
- Location: SaskaTOON, Canada
Having just read the first Thor Marvel Masterworks, I can verify that Stan's brother Larry Lieber wrote the first Thor stories. Kirby on art, of course, though he was not the only one on those early stories. Stan came in several issues later.
Comic Book Resources has a GL review that makes sense to me. It was negative, but with the notation that some fans may enjoy it. Sounds like they went for way too much story and not enough character stuff. However, critics generally agree that the cast is not at fault, with many even being kind to Reynolds. I think Geoff Johns may have insisted on too much emphasis on comic booky backstory, some of which could have been saved for sequels. I mean, Parallax is a villain here, yet he was the big surprise to Hal Jordan a decade into Hal being a GL in the comics (with Parallax turning Hal evil, etc., and only being revealed much later, allowing Hal to redeem himself; the movie brings in Parallax way too early, sacrificing the films other villain, Hector Hammond).
I may still see it this week, though, just to see Oa on the big screen.
Comic Book Resources has a GL review that makes sense to me. It was negative, but with the notation that some fans may enjoy it. Sounds like they went for way too much story and not enough character stuff. However, critics generally agree that the cast is not at fault, with many even being kind to Reynolds. I think Geoff Johns may have insisted on too much emphasis on comic booky backstory, some of which could have been saved for sequels. I mean, Parallax is a villain here, yet he was the big surprise to Hal Jordan a decade into Hal being a GL in the comics (with Parallax turning Hal evil, etc., and only being revealed much later, allowing Hal to redeem himself; the movie brings in Parallax way too early, sacrificing the films other villain, Hector Hammond).
I may still see it this week, though, just to see Oa on the big screen.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 5198
- Joined: September 27th, 2007
Re:
Wait, I thought X-Men:FC "flopped" with $55-60M...Ben wrote:It's looking to have around a $55-60m weekend, so if it has some legs we might yet see a second one, where hopefully the storytelling will be finer.
And that one at least got positive audience word of mouth--Here, we pretty much only got a GL movie because it'd gotten rolling before Warner shut down their plans for the Justice League movie that needed a GL and Wonder Woman, and if there's now no master plan, GL will have to sink or swim on its own merit.
And from the reaction that's been coming in so far, I think we can place bets.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25329
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
A hit or flop with the same grosses is open to all sorts of analysis.
XMFC is a big franchise picture, a film with a lot of buzz and expectations. Anything less than a $70m+ opening was going to be a disappointment, but it's not a bust: they're already talking about another prequel movie, and Wolverine 2 has just got a director. They're also taking about an X4.
On the other hand, WB know that GL is not a wide household name, so they're franchise building from the start. Plus they know they have a weird movie that's quite a concept to sell. AND they know that it hasn't been getting the best word of mouth. So for it to do anything other than Jonah Hex numbers (now there's a hero we won't see again soon) is going to be a "plus".
They'll see an opening like that to be that the audience has "interest" even if they're not sure about the movie. But that kind of opening combined with maybe making that amount again domestically, plus the worldwide tally means a $300m+ gross.
Not great, but encouraging enough to suggest that a second movie, possibly with a slimmer budget (after all, R&R is done) and a wider pull with more awareness to the character after video and TV showings, would be a good investment (see Austin Powers).
As long as GL isn't a total flop and shocks with under $30m this weekend, my bet would actually be on a second movie to be announced after video sales are taken into account. WB are not going to just hold up their hands and say, "well, we tried" if there's a half-decent opening and a potentially lucrative franchise to be mined.
XMFC is a big franchise picture, a film with a lot of buzz and expectations. Anything less than a $70m+ opening was going to be a disappointment, but it's not a bust: they're already talking about another prequel movie, and Wolverine 2 has just got a director. They're also taking about an X4.
On the other hand, WB know that GL is not a wide household name, so they're franchise building from the start. Plus they know they have a weird movie that's quite a concept to sell. AND they know that it hasn't been getting the best word of mouth. So for it to do anything other than Jonah Hex numbers (now there's a hero we won't see again soon) is going to be a "plus".
They'll see an opening like that to be that the audience has "interest" even if they're not sure about the movie. But that kind of opening combined with maybe making that amount again domestically, plus the worldwide tally means a $300m+ gross.
Not great, but encouraging enough to suggest that a second movie, possibly with a slimmer budget (after all, R&R is done) and a wider pull with more awareness to the character after video and TV showings, would be a good investment (see Austin Powers).
As long as GL isn't a total flop and shocks with under $30m this weekend, my bet would actually be on a second movie to be announced after video sales are taken into account. WB are not going to just hold up their hands and say, "well, we tried" if there's a half-decent opening and a potentially lucrative franchise to be mined.
-
- AV Forum Member
- Posts: 347
- Joined: May 25th, 2007
- Location: Silicon Valley
- Contact:
Well, it better make $300 million, with its $237 million budget.
http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/1556- ... that-means
X-Men: First Class may have been disappointing financially compared to its franchise predecessors (though it was personally my favorite X-Men movie--but I'm a Matthew Vaughn fan.) But unlike Green Lantern, it did not open in 3D and it did not cost more than The Dark Knight to make. Then again, maybe audiences are sick of 3D and decided to see Green Lantern in 2D. I myself haven't seen Green Lantern yet, but a friend who saw it opening night said it wasn't that great--and he liked Battle: Los Angeles! But who knows, I remember Transformers 2 getting a lot of poor word of mouth, and yet it still made bushels of cash. At any rate, this summer is very, very crowded with superhero/comic book blockbusters.
http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/1556- ... that-means
X-Men: First Class may have been disappointing financially compared to its franchise predecessors (though it was personally my favorite X-Men movie--but I'm a Matthew Vaughn fan.) But unlike Green Lantern, it did not open in 3D and it did not cost more than The Dark Knight to make. Then again, maybe audiences are sick of 3D and decided to see Green Lantern in 2D. I myself haven't seen Green Lantern yet, but a friend who saw it opening night said it wasn't that great--and he liked Battle: Los Angeles! But who knows, I remember Transformers 2 getting a lot of poor word of mouth, and yet it still made bushels of cash. At any rate, this summer is very, very crowded with superhero/comic book blockbusters.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25329
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
From what I hear, the studios are going to be watching Transformers 3 and Harry Potter 8 to see how the 3D does and decide where it's headed.
T3 was at least shot in 3D (not that this helped Pirates 4), but HP8 has been converted - seemingly just a commercial exercise by Warner chiefs in trying to make more money since the filmmakers actually decided against post-conversion for the last film.
T3 was at least shot in 3D (not that this helped Pirates 4), but HP8 has been converted - seemingly just a commercial exercise by Warner chiefs in trying to make more money since the filmmakers actually decided against post-conversion for the last film.
-
- AV Founder
- Posts: 25329
- Joined: October 22nd, 2004
- Location: London, UK
I don't think they will bother making it in 3D, but looks like my bet on a wider, more audience friendly Green Lantern II is right on the money:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/w ... ern-205703
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/w ... ern-205703