Variety is reporting that actor Ryan Reynolds (“X-Men Origins: Wolverine”) has landed the coveted role of Hal Jordan in the Warner Bros. live-action film based on the popular DC Comics series.
Martin Campbell is on board to direct and while the budget – which has been rumored to have swollen to as high as $200 million for the space epice – is still not finalized, production is expected to begin in January of 2010.
The film is written by Greg Berlanti with Marc Guggenheim and Michael Green, the latter two being names very familiar to comic fans. Donald DeLine will produce with Berlanti.
Earlier today CBR ran a poll asking our visitors which actor they thought should play the ring-bearer. Based on reports from Thursday, Bradley Cooper, Ryan Reynolds and Justin Timberlake were names being bandied about and you overwhelmingly voted for Bradley Cooper, who as of this writing was in the lead with a whopping 67% of the vote. Reynolds was second with 26%.
This of course isn’t Reynolds’ first foray into the comics silver screen. He was previously seen in this summer’s “X-Men Origins: Wolverine” as Wade Wilson and in 2004’s “Blade: Trinity” as Hannibal King.
Look for more on this story as it develops.
Out of the three candidates I thought he was the more unlikely one, since he's attached to Deadpool too. Well, huh. Not who I'd pick to play Jordan, but at least he's a capable actor and not Justin Timberlake.
If he has already signed to Deadpool, and being that its a Marvel movie, it would probably cost him far too much to get out of that contract. I cant see a Marvel film, where he has already played the character, be too willing to let him go off and do a DC film at the expense of theirs.
Of course, if the filming of one does not coincide with the other, he can still do both, as it wouldnt be the first time an actor has been in a movie for both companies (James Marsden and Halle Berry spring to mind).
but at least he's a capable actor and not Justin Timberlake.
Cant say I have seen him in lotsa roles, but have you seen Timberlake in the film Southland tales? He is actually a damn good actor if that role is anything to go by.
I dont think the argument that WBVC and Som are saying is whether he is a lead man or not, its whether he is suited to the role of Jordan. I mean, Clint Eastwood is a great lead actor, but would you cast him as Robin or Spiderman for instance.
Hal's character is too straight laced to be played by Reynolds. Kyle is a lot more lightweight, but I still dont think Reynolds would suit the role. Gardner I can see, especially as Guys personality has fluctuated so much over the years, that you could probably incorporate various traits that would match Reynolds style.
I dont think the argument that WBVC and Som are saying is whether he is a lead man or not, its whether he is suited to the role of Jordan. I mean, Clint Eastwood is a great lead actor, but would you cast him as Robin or Spiderman for instance.
Hal's character is too straight laced to be played by Reynolds.
My point was that I think the buzz on him now (post Bullock movie) is that he can play traditional "straight-laced leading man" roles.
Reynolds has been great in everything I've seen him as and its way past time for him to start being in bigger roles.
I don't see a problem with him being in two different comic book movies. They are whats hot now and there's a couple actors that are in multiple franchises.
Hal's character is too straight laced to be played by Reynolds.
i never liked the super straight laced portrayal of the character. he was just a green superman.
i prefer when they push the more daredevil (adjective, not character) persona of him being a risky pilot - mouthing off to superiors when he knows he's right, etc. more of a true WWII pilot type; ballsy and seemingly a bit crazy. much more unique characterization within the DCU, and one i can see reynolds pulling off.
more importantly, i think he's a good-enough actor and he resembles hal, and that's really all i need to know at this point to make this sound like a good fit. from this point on, it has little to do with reynolds and more to do with the story and aura of the film (lighthearted, sci-fi, dark, etc) that will determine how it plays out.
but at least he's a capable actor and not Justin Timberlake.
Cant say I have seen him in lotsa roles, but have you seen Timberlake in the film Southland tales? He is actually a damn good actor if that role is anything to go by.
That's actually the second time I've heard that today. I can't imagine that fuckface being a good anything, but I guess it's possible.
Donnie Wahlberg went from new kids on the block to a decent career in acting so I won't count timberlake out just yet but he's got a lot going against him, mainly the janet jackson superbowl incident.
i prefer when they push the more daredevil (adjective, not character) persona of him being a risky pilot - mouthing off to superiors when he knows he's right, etc. more of a true WWII pilot type; ballsy and seemingly a bit crazy.
Hal's character is too straight laced to be played by Reynolds.
i never liked the super straight laced portrayal of the character. he was just a green superman.
i prefer when they push the more daredevil (adjective, not character) persona of him being a risky pilot - mouthing off to superiors when he knows he's right, etc. more of a true WWII pilot type; ballsy and seemingly a bit crazy. much more unique characterization within the DCU, and one i can see reynolds pulling off.
more importantly, i think he's a good-enough actor and he resembles hal, and that's really all i need to know at this point to make this sound like a good fit. from this point on, it has little to do with reynolds and more to do with the story and aura of the film (lighthearted, sci-fi, dark, etc) that will determine how it plays out.
See this is what I have always said about Hal/GL. Hal wasnt straight laced but Hal as GL was. Hal was somewhat wild and unstable and to the point he drifted through both jobs and relationships, but once he put on the costume, he was a different person. I always saw Hal as using the costume and ring as a way of being the good, uptight military man that he could never be as himself. As GL he gained the respect of 3800 other GLs, and would often lead them into battle, something he would never have been able to do as plain old Hal Jordan.
Hal was seen as something of a flake, where as GL was solid. That was why the whole Parallax thing made sense, cause he was a man of conflicting personalities.
GL was a man of honour, respect and responsibility, but Hal was full of self doubt.
Ollie brought some of the rebeliousness out of him during their time together, which sort of died off later, but would occasionally come out when he questioned the Guardians or the time he quit.
Of course, when they did Emerald Dawn, they made him kinda cocky early in his career, but everything published after that, up til Emerald twilight, never really played on that cockyness.
but at least he's a capable actor and not Justin Timberlake.
Cant say I have seen him in lotsa roles, but have you seen Timberlake in the film Southland tales?
I was forced to sit through that and I have to agree he was actually pretty damn good in that, it could be the director but either way it was good acting.
but at least he's a capable actor and not Justin Timberlake.
Cant say I have seen him in lotsa roles, but have you seen Timberlake in the film Southland tales? He is actually a damn good actor if that role is anything to go by.
That's actually the second time I've heard that today. I can't imagine that fuckface being a good anything, but I guess it's possible.
i agreed till i saw that movie. if i had it to do over again i wouldnt watch it, i prefer to keep my stereotypes of actors. it makes me feel good.
Whoa!! After nine years, I finally get to hear Rob's voice!
Weird that most gays work to have more effeminate voices while Rob tries to sound more manly. Still, you can see in his eyes that he's ten pounds of queer in a five pound...purse.
Scarlett, there to discuss her new role as Black Widow in “Iron Man 2,” was set to appear on her panel with Robert Downey Jr. and other cast members. Ryan was just cast as the lead in “Green Lantern,” a Warner Brothers flick. An insider tells FOX411 “they got in a huge fight just before they were going to Comic Con. It caused such a rift between them that Ryan refused to attend the conference and he told Scarlett she could go alone. She got so angry she threatened to take off her wedding band.”
The conference continued as normal, with a notably absent Ryan missing from the Warner Brothers panel. The company had planned on debuting major plans for the new superhero movie, and now insider says Ryan has “angered the executives.” Apparently Scarlett began the fight but came out smelling like rose thanks to her appearance at the conference.
“Ryan pulled out at the last minute and word spread fast. He isn’t making a show of good faith to the Warner team after they battled over the decision making him ‘Green Lantern’,” says our snitch. “Scarlett ended up looking like the true professional and acted as if nothing was wrong, answering questions for fans and posing for pictures. It was not a good way for Ryan to begin his work as the star of the movie.”
A brief article at the Aussie website Inside Film pegs the production location for 'Green Lantern' as Mexico.
Fans will recall that the film was looking at Australia as it's location until the rise in the value of the currency there made location filming less of a bargain than it had seemed earlier in the year. Inside Film says the booming dollar raises the price tag on the production some $20 million, a pill too big for Warner Bros to swallow.
Louisiana quickly became the go-to choice for a new Lantern locale, as the tax-friendly state has been hosting several Hollywood productions of late. Michigan was also considered although the C2F home-state is currently suffering a shortage of qualified crews to keep up with the demand from the big studios.
Apparently a Mexican location is now favored, although the decision isn't yet final. 'Green Lantern' is supposed to begin filming early next year, pushed back from its planned November start.
Blake Lively has been cast as Carol Ferris, Green Lantern Hal Jordan's love interested in "Green Lantern." She will star along side Ryan Reynolds, who plays the test pilot turned super hero Hal Jordan. Vareity describes her role as "a pilot and administrator in civilian life."
The film will be directed by Martin Campbell, whose previous credits include the 007 films "GoldenEye" and "Casino Royale." He also helmed recent "Zorro" films with Antonio Banderas. Besides Reynolds and Lively, no other cast members have been announced.
Yesterday, reports surfaced that film had received a green light to proceed into production. The news came from the blog of visual effects supervisor Karen Goulekas, but a visit to the link cited in the reports yesterday return an error today and the most recent entry on the blog's main site is from October of 2009. Superhero Hype has the full text of the presumably deleted post, in which Goulekas writes, "Wow! Been a long time since I posted! But today is a day worth posting about! Green Lantern got the official green light today! And not a second too soon - only 10 weeks out from shooting!"
Previous reports also state the script -- written by Greg Berlanti with Marc Guggenheim and Michael Green, with a rewrite by Michael Goldenberg -- reveals how ace test pilot Hal Jordan came into contact with the Power Ring. The ring is the symbol and weapon of the Green Lantern Corps, an intergalactic police force spread over the universe. Jordan, reportedly, will find himself going to the Corps headquarters on planet Oa for training. DC Entertainment's Gregory Noveck previously described the film as a property that "allows you to start on Earth and end up in 'Star Wars.'"
RS:Those are definitely my kind of action films, though – the ones that have lots of car chases and gunfire, as opposed to CGI robots punching each other. Today’s superhero films have very little about them that’s visceral.
MC:Oh, I agree with you, and one of the things in The Green Lantern that we’re doing is that when people get hit -- and Green Lantern gets hit in this – it hurts. In most superhero movies, they never are hurt. What you see in those movies is someone getting blasted a hundred yards into a brick wall and then they turn and shake their head and just go right back into the action. None of them ever seem to suffer because of it. That’s something where, I hope with The Green Lantern we’ll be able to make it slightly more real than it’s possibly been in some of the other superhero movies.
Which movies would that be? Batman, where he gets hurt? Spiderman, where he gets hurt? Iron Man, where he gets hurt? Punisher, where he gets hurt? etc etc etc etc
I hope with The Green Lantern we’ll be able to make it slightly more real than it’s possibly been in some of the other superhero movies.
Yes, because a movie about a guy with a magic ring that creates force-fields and allows him to fly through space and hang with aliens is precisely the movie that demands gritty realism.
Heat Vision reports that the writing trio of Greg Berlanti, Michael Green and Marc Guggenheim, who penned the script for the first film have been tasked to write a treatment for Green Lantern 2. Apparently the studio likes what they're seeing on the current film, directed by Martin Campbell and starring Ryan Reynolds.
The trio have also been tapped to write a treatment for The Flash. That bit of news is somewhat surprising as the studio had invested some capital in a script from DC Entertainment Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns and screenwriter Dan Mazeau, and the rumor from late May was that the studio was going to be moving fast on a speedster pic. The fact that Berlanti, Green and Guggenheim are going back to the treatment stage suggests the Johns/Mazeau work will largely be discarded.
Past rumors have also indicated that Berlanti is being considered for the job directing the Flash.
If I were to characterize the WB's handling of the DCU in movies, I'd compare it to Thanos in Infinity Gauntlet. If Thanos were a mentally-retarded seven-year-old with a fetish for fingering his own asshole with a metal rake, that is...
I don't think they're trying to rip off DK. They're trying to rip off Iron Man... hence the sassy black person as a government liason who will probably show up in other shared universe movies.
If I were to characterize the WB's handling of the DCU in movies, I'd compare it to Thanos in Infinity Gauntlet. If Thanos were a mentally-retarded seven-year-old with a fetish for fingering his own asshole with a metal rake, that is...
Angela Bassett? They couldn't have hired a fat chick to actually LOOK like Waller? What about CCH Pounder, who did her voice in the JL cartoon?
Yes, they should have gotten Pounder but this is hardly the sort of thing (casting someone in a supporting role that doesn't look exactly like their comic book counterpart) that's going to ruin a franchise. For example, Michael Caine looks nothing like the comic book Alfred but no one seems to care.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
Is he going to be urban and gritty so that they can try and mimic DK?
(Director Martin Campbell:)In most superhero movies, they never are hurt. What you see in those movies is someone getting blasted a hundred yards into a brick wall and then they turn and shake their head and just go right back into the action. None of them ever seem to suffer because of it. That’s something where, I hope with The Green Lantern we’ll be able to make it slightly more real than it’s possibly been in some of the other superhero movies.
I'd compare it to Thanos in Infinity Gauntlet. If Thanos were a mentally-retarded seven-year-old with a fetish for fingering his own asshole with a metal rake, that is...
Angela Bassett? They couldn't have hired a fat chick to actually LOOK like Waller? What about CCH Pounder, who did her voice in the JL cartoon?
Yes, they should have gotten Pounder but this is hardly the sort of thing (casting someone in a supporting role that doesn't look exactly like their comic book counterpart) that's going to ruin a franchise. For example, Michael Caine looks nothing like the comic book Alfred but no one seems to care.
I'm also sure there are a lot of old school Iron Man fans asking why a black guy is playing Nick Fury as well. Doubt it stopped anyone enjoying the films.
There has been instances of main characters not looking anything like their comic book counterparts, just as there have been supporting characters or villains that look nothing like them, but its rarely down to that if a film fails or not.
Was the Catwoman film a failure cause they cast a black woman in the role? Was Daredevil less than successful because the Kingpin was black? Did Batman 1989 lose any viewers because Harvey Dent was Lando Calrission? Was X-Men weakened at all because they didnt pick a younger woman to play Jean Grey?
There has been instances of main characters not looking anything like their comic book counterparts, just as there have been supporting characters or villains that look nothing like them, but its rarely down to that if a film fails or not.
You misunderstood my jump in thought. I wasn't saying this movie was going to suck donkey balls because they didn't cast Amanda Waller with someone who looks like her. I was merely mentioning it, along with the horrible casting and the WB's corporate ignorance, as a symptom of what could possibly be another Jonah Hex (i.e. a flop). Now, realistically do I think it's going to super-bomb? No. It's the first time GL's been given living breath. There are fans that love GL because they think Geoff Johns is a good writer. So, right there the sheep are already accounted for. It will make a decent profit. And I agree with whoever said they are wanting to match Iron Man. However, the difference is...if this movie is anything like I predict...Iron Man took care in finding the balance between respecting the source material, and creating its own identity.
Quote:
Was the Catwoman film a failure cause they cast a black woman in the role?
Yes.
Quote:
Was Daredevil less than successful because the Kingpin was black?
Yes.
Quote:
Did Batman 1989 lose any viewers because Harvey Dent was Lando Calrission?
Yes.
Quote:
Was X-Men weakened at all because they didnt pick a younger woman to play Jean Grey?
From the bars of New Orleans, where Green Lantern is currently being filmed, comes this little gossipy nugget from certain bragging production staff. Do bear in mind that they may have been using their connection to the film to hit on people…
Nevertheless, the word is that shooting on Green Lantern 2 is scheduled to begin before the first movie is even released.
So confident of a smash are Warner Bros, that they already making big plans to use current shooting location New Orleans as a stand-in for DC’s Coast City in the sequel, which will be announced for either a Summer or Christmas 2012 release, depending on where the Flash movie fits in.
And if the first film does the megabucks they are expecting, then Warners will greenlight a third Green Lantern movie to be shot back to back with the second, for release in 2013.
Such a schedule may also put a damper onplans for a Ryan Reynolds’ Deadpool movie. Or maybe just push them back a year?
Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) does not don the suit until his first trip to the planet Oa; which takes place when his power ring acknowledges his need for training after he creates his first construct on Earth.
When the suit, which is created out of a “hard light” construct from the power ring, is in its solid form, the mask, boots, shoulders, chest, abdomen and back are a distinct, rich green, while the arms, legs and waist areas are a deep black.
The suit has definitive lines which segregate the green and black colors.
The glowing, green textured lines which encompass the suit fluctuate in intensity as Jordan gains more control over the power ring, which channels his willpower. The more focus he has, the less it "bleeds" energy.
The front, green section of the suit does not extend below and around Jordan’s crotch as depicted in many of the older comic books. Instead, it ends in a sharp point at the base of his abdomen in the modern fashion.
When flying, or traveling through space, the suit emits a faint green glow around the ring bearer. Jordan flies, of his own will, many times throughout the film.
The ring is comprised of a solid silver band. Over its front, a translucent green attachment is centered with a jewel which visibly “flows” with energy.
The individual power batteries each Lantern Corp member carries are much different from the comics’ versions. These are mostly comprised of the same green, translucent material which covers the power ring. The handle of the battery is squared off, and immobile. A large jewel rests at its center as well.
An inscription around the jewel appears to be the Green Lantern Oath, which each member of the Corps must recite to charge their rings.
Funny, but I never understood why people label Hal as bland.
Hal was the one who usually enjoyed having a little fun every once in a while, compared to Bruce whose millionaire playboy persona was only something he kept up for public consumption and Barry who was a bit of a science nerd.
Is it because he doesn't make lame quips while he's fighting some bad guy or break the fourth wall to make a stupidly quick pun?
Hal's a moderately conservative Irish Catholic with a sense for excitement and adventure, but also a sense of honor and duty (being a U.S.A.F/turned private test pilot and a member of an intergalactic peace keeping force)
It just depends on who is writing him (like every other character)
Agreed on most all points. Personally, I always see Hal Jordan as one of two ways. Either as the whiny bitch-boy during Neil Adams GA/GL era, or the fucking Maverick (TOP GUN) of the DCU. Depends on who writes him, I guess. The only time I find him truly bland is when Geoff Johns writes him. I'll be glad the day Johns becomes irrelevant to comics...
Funny, but I never understood why people label Hal as bland.
Hal was the one who usually enjoyed having a little fun every once in a while, compared to Bruce whose millionaire playboy persona was only something he kept up for public consumption and Barry who was a bit of a science nerd.
Is it because he doesn't make lame quips while he's fighting some bad guy or break the fourth wall to make a stupidly quick pun?
Hal's a moderately conservative Irish Catholic with a sense for excitement and adventure, but also a sense of honor and duty (being a U.S.A.F/turned private test pilot and a member of an intergalactic peace keeping force)
It just depends on who is writing him (like every other character)
it's because people had no idea how to write the character and would just tack on whatever persona they deemed relevant at the moment. honestly, it wasn't Hal that was bland, it was the stories being told about him for most of his run.
Cooke's New Frontier is probably the best story ever told about Hal and it's mainly just a leadup to his origin and him becoming GL.
When the likes of Wein/Conway/Wolfman came over from Marvel to DC to start the Bronze Age (you know, when superhero comics were really starting to get good and you create a new character) they gave all of these characters individual personalities and defined roles in the DCU mainly in JLoA (when shared continuity was kept only in the team-up books instead of all over the place connecting every book and every character in order to lead up to some event where all of them have to come together; which is the whole point of team-up books like Avengers and JLoA in the first place)
Superman was the guy everybody trusted, Batman was the guy who always had a plan, Hal was the guy who bent the rules but still respected his duty, Barry was the sort of square practical science expert, etc.
He was more like the Captain Kirk of the DCU.
Someone whose will/determination came from his training as a U.S.A.F. pilot/Starfleet Officer. The guy that was already trained to handle and maintain his calm and composure during unexpected high pressure and turbulent situations (like real pilots are trained for when something unexpected happens out of the blue, like sudden engine failure, etc,) before he got the ring and what made him worthy of it in the first place.
The guy who not only patrolled the universe, but had fun exploring it.
The guy who would bend the rules he was under if necessary (and sometimes for fun like sleeping with hot alien chicks)
The guy who sometimes struggled with all of his responsibilities, and whose responsibilities often affected his personal life.
The guy who wasn't perfect and made mistakes, but wasn't afraid to admit his mistakes and wasn't afraid to move on instead of constantly dwelling on them and whining about them.
Yeah. That's why I was hoping they were going to find someone who could do for the role of Hal what Chris Pine did for the role of Kirk (he would have made a great Hal if he didn't already play Kirk first).
When the likes of Wein/Conway/Wolfman came over from Marvel to DC to start the Bronze Age (you know, when superhero comics were really starting to get good and you create a new character) they gave all of these characters individual personalities and defined roles in the DCU mainly in JLoA (when shared continuity was kept only in the team-up books instead of all over the place connecting every book and every character in order to lead up to some event where all of them have to come together; which is the whole point of team-up books like Avengers and JLoA in the first place)
Superman was the guy everybody trusted, Batman was the guy who always had a plan, Hal was the guy who bent the rules but still respected his duty, Barry was the sort of square practical science expert, etc.
He was more like the Captain Kirk of the DCU.
Someone whose will/determination came from his training as a U.S.A.F. pilot/Starfleet Officer. The guy that was already trained to handle and maintain his calm and composure during unexpected high pressure and turbulent situations (like real pilots are trained for when something unexpected happens out of the blue, like sudden engine failure, etc,) before he got the ring and what made him worthy of it in the first place.
The guy who not only patrolled the universe, but had fun exploring it.
The guy who would bend the rules he was under if necessary (and sometimes for fun like sleeping with hot alien chicks)
The guy who sometimes struggled with all of his responsibilities, and whose responsibilities often affected his personal life.
The guy who wasn't perfect and made mistakes, but wasn't afraid to admit his mistakes and wasn't afraid to move on instead of constantly dwelling on them and whining about them.
It's not hard to build on those things.
yeah, and Wolfman particularly did some good stuff when they revived the book in the early 80's. but you'd also had the GL/GA stuff which somewhat reduced the character to a bland guy who didn't know what to do when confronted with "realistic" problems by the revamped Green Arrow, who came across as much more dynamic (totally planned by the creators).
I've got to feel the most damage was done by the Gerard Jones relaunch in the late 80's, which not only made Hal boring, but was also a really boring book overall. I always wondered where all these vocal Hal fans were when Jones was driving the book into the toilet in the early 90's. if they'd complained a few years earlier, we might've been spared the space bug debacle. . .
yeah, and Wolfman particularly did some good stuff when they revived the book in the early 80's. but you'd also had the GL/GA stuff which somewhat reduced the character to a bland guy who didn't know what to do when confronted with "realistic" problems by the revamped Green Arrow, who came across as much more dynamic (totally planned by the creators).
Totally. O'Neil's HTH was a completely one sided Hippy/Liberal story that was about making Liberal Ollie look good and Hal look like a fool just because he was a conservative.
Quote:
I've got to feel the most damage was done by the Gerard Jones relaunch in the late 80's, which not only made Hal boring, but was also a really boring book overall. I always wondered where all these vocal Hal fans were when Jones was driving the book into the toilet in the early 90's. if they'd complained a few years earlier, we might've been spared the space bug debacle. . .
Exactly. Rapidly aging Hal so quickly after his last appearance in GLC #224 without any explanation and turning Hal into an old Hippy/Hobo was a terrible idea.
Why anyone at DC thought that was a good idea is beyond me.
I'm just not feeling it. I guess the moment they cast Reynolds I was out. I've never liked him in anything I've ever seen him. I don't think he's funny, I don't think he's a good actor, and I don't think he's Hal Jordan. Maybe this movie will change that? Doubt it.
I'm just not feeling it. I guess the moment they DIDN'T CAST BEN BROWDER I was out. I've never liked Ryan Reynolds in anything I've ever seen him. I don't think he's funny, I don't think he's a good actor, and I don't think he's Hal Jordan. Maybe this movie will change that? Doubt it.
I'm just not feeling it. I guess the moment they DIDN'T CAST BEN BROWDER I was out. I've never liked Ryan Reynolds in anything I've ever seen him. I don't think he's funny, I don't think he's a good actor, and I don't think he's Hal Jordan. Maybe this movie will change that? Doubt it.
I concur....
There's more truth to that joke than you think...better than Ryan Reynolds...
Hmmmmm....seems like they're doing an Iron Man thing with Hal... the humor more than anything.....from the scenes it looks like they are going overboard on humor.
So, am I to assume since they put that lackluster-looking thing on Apple's trailer site that it is, in fact, finished CGI?
Horrible. This will only make money from girls that want to fuck Reynolds
Exactly
Quote:
and the most hardcore comic book geeks...
Actually, I think most hardcore comic geeks are going to hate this (like everything else) as this movie doesn't remain true to the source material (even in spirit)
This movie has Hollywood meddling written all over it (which we all knew once Reynolds was cast)
this movie doesn't remain true to the source material (even in spirit)
How so?
Yeah, there are attempts at Iron Man-style humor and the shitty performance by the female lead. And some effects don't really impress.
But those are different issues than whether it's "true to the source material," and the plot points and art direction: Abin Sur, Oa, Hal, Sinestro, the Corps, Hammond, etc., look like pretty much every silver, bronze and post-rebirth GL I've ever read.
If that's not enough, in the Green Lantern trailer, after Jordan leaves, we see his blonde looking dumbfounded, and wordlessly staring straight ahead wearing nothing but a sheet.
Nice. But where have I seen that before?
Oh, right, it happened in Iron Man after Tony's abrupt departure. Both movies use the same action to establish that their protagonists are bed-hopping man-boys, and they top it all off with the exact same image.
I'm just really surprised that Hal's sidekick in movie isn't John Stewart, a black military colonel, who sees the ring lying on the table in one scene and mutters, "next time baby"
Got me thinking how our society has been gaying up over the years. We went from "Ward, where's the Beaver?" to "Where's my Ward, Dick?" in just over a decade...
And now Green Lantern is a Lesbian woman in the movies...
Seems that the rumor mill in Hollywood about this movie being bad is so great that Blake Lively's manager is getting in front of this thing and talking up her acclaimed performance in The Town and how one bad superhero movie won't fuck her career up.
You have to give it to Warner Bros. Just when people are beginning to forget this movie and any doubts as to its quality, they hit you with a media blitz to remind you how crappy it is.
Yeah. I'm still not completely sold on Ben Stiller Ryan Reynolds, but the producers wisely chose to tone down the stuff from first trailer that made it look like Iron Man meets the Green Hornet.
No amount of improved CGI or Geoffrey Rush voice overs are going to make Ryan Reynolds look like a good actor.
Yep. Now it just looks like a huuuge waste of a budget. Too bad, it shows that....technically...they could do a GL movie now. Unfortunately, the monkeys in the suits just don't get it. Still, should be decent Netflix fodder to get stoned to.....kind of like the Green Hornet or the Ben Affleck Daredevil.
I'm sure it will get better once they reboot the series years from now...
Yep. Now it just looks like a huuuge waste of a budget.
so you hated the original future movie, and this second future movie for new future reasons?
Exactly! When I wrote that, I had decisive hatred in my heart. That cannot be more clear. However, it should be noted that, thanks to YOU Robert J. Kamphausen, the future was altered when I had to explain what the future was about...to you. Thus, you are inadvertently the cause of the second shit-reason. The first becomes more meaningless as I even type this. And, of course, now that I had to explain it to you....again...it will alter once more. Rob, please just accept your hypocrisy, inaccuracy, intolerance, and overall responsibility for altering the timeline.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
I'm sure it will get better once they reboot the series years from now...
well, at least the distant future movies are in good hands
but don't these two trailers illustrate why it's silly to make definitive judgements so early? i mean, they almost look like they're for different films. it took just 100 seconds for many fans to change their opinions.
i dunno. i'm with ya, the first one looked bad, and reynolds is today's dane cook. but, geebus, you know you're going to see it. you're already a fan of green lantern, which is this insanely ridiculous concept. your pariah space bug cant win out this easily - give peace a chance!
Honestly, I've never said I wouldn't see it. How I see it is up for question. It's an ethical dilemma for me. The CGI looks good, so do I support it for that? Do I catch a buzz and go see the pretty lights in the theater? If so, then I'm actually supporting their choice of mediocre casting. I'd be supporting with my dollar, and that's exactly the wrong thing to do in my opinion.
More than likely, I'll procrastinate seeing it when it comes out, and end up just downloading it like normal. If nothing else, I'd be satisfied that I'm not supporting a creative choice I don't agree with...
It's amazing. Just when they release a good trailer and start getting decent buzz, out comes the Schumacher booties. It's almost as if they're determined to sabotage their own film.
Warners is putting up another 9 mil. to 'touch up' the CGI. 9 mil. sounds more like an overhaul than touch up. Hopefully, they'll get him a proper pair of boots.
Goddamn you, Kilowog! You fuckin' asshole! Everything's a fuckin' travesty with you, man! And what was all that shit about Bolovax Vik? What the fuck has anything got to do with Bolovax Vik? What the fuck are you talking about?
Your power ring is being held by a kid named Kyle Rayner. He lives on Earth, in Los Angles, near the In-and-Out Burger. A real fucking brat; but I'm sure your goons'll be able to get it off him, mean he's only fifteen and he's flunking social studies.
my one nagging concern is the film always seems half-a-second away from reynolds cracking a joke of some kind. every time he appeared in the trailer (most notably when he first gets the ring) the music skips for a bit, as if he's about to deliver some terrible punch line. maybe that happens, and this was just clever editing. i dunno.
but barring that possibility, i honestly thought this trailer looked pretty damn good. OA looks awesome, parralax looks threatening (a comic book movie with an actual mighty villain??), it's got the dramaaaaatic music, equally impressive voice overs, they're clearly setting up a franchise with a still-good sinestro and teasing additional ring colors... they're taking a number of ridiculously silly concepts (ganthet, space police, humanoid animals in green, magic imagination jewelry, etc.) and making them seem neato.
as a GL fan, what, exactly, are you waiting for to be better?
This new trailer looks kind of awesome compared to the early ones where they were trying to ape Iron Man. Reynolds still looks off in the costume, though. He looks like Will Ferrell.
Pro no offense but clear the sand out of your damn vagina. It's a movie, nothing more nothing less. No it won't be the best movie ever but thats god damn high expectations from Warner Bros. If nothing more it will at least be entertaining to see once in theaters
my one nagging concern is the film always seems half-a-second away from reynolds cracking a joke of some kind. every time he appeared in the trailer (most notably when he first gets the ring) the music skips for a bit, as if he's about to deliver some terrible punch line. maybe that happens, and this was just clever editing. i dunno.
but barring that possibility, i honestly thought this trailer looked pretty damn good. OA looks awesome, parralax looks threatening (a comic book movie with an actual mighty villain??), it's got the dramaaaaatic music, equally impressive voice overs, they're clearly setting up a franchise with a still-good sinestro and teasing additional ring colors... they're taking a number of ridiculously silly concepts (ganthet, space police, humanoid animals in green, magic imagination jewelry, etc.) and making them seem neato.
as a GL fan, what, exactly, are you waiting for to be better?
As a GL fan the only thing that would make this better is G'Nort.
Pro no offense but clear the sand out of your damn vagina. It's a movie, nothing more nothing less. No it won't be the best movie ever but thats god damn high expectations from Warner Bros. If nothing more it will at least be entertaining to see once in theaters
And no offense in return, random poster, but pull the cock from your ass and stop pandering to the lowest demographic of whatever the corporations throw at you. You think this is quality material? Worthy of your money? Have at it. Go see it. Meanwhile if it looks like shit (which it does), smells like shit (which it does), and sounds like shit (which Reynolds does), then guess what? It's probably something Geoff Johns wrote.
The movie looks like shit. It may or may not be. But, whining and pedant-ing from the comic nerds who swallow anything given to them doesn't alter my informed opinion whatsoever. Thanks for your input, though...
my one nagging concern is the film always seems half-a-second away from reynolds cracking a joke of some kind. every time he appeared in the trailer (most notably when he first gets the ring) the music skips for a bit, as if he's about to deliver some terrible punch line. maybe that happens, and this was just clever editing. i dunno.
Agreed. I might be able to give this thing a slight chance, if it weren't for the horrible, horrible casting. Every moment I see him, it just kills the whole concept and film for me. And I'd bet all kinds of money that he does, in fact, try and Tony Stark it the whole fucking time.
Quote:
as a GL fan, what, exactly, are you waiting for to be better?
I'm not a GL fan. Never have been. I'm okay with the character, but would honestly prefer Kyle if had to have anyone at all. Meanwhile, it doesn't look like a good film to me. It looks exactly like the kind of glossy, spandex-laden over-CGI-ed silliness that I was hoping films like The Dark Knight would have moved us away from. But, hell, this is from the SAME company that gave us TDK.
I'm just not into the all-ages Happy Meal tie-in marketing animal they're trying to Frankenstein-together with this thing. It just looks....dumb.
Hope you enjoy the theater spectacle, sincerely. I'll just wait for the next train and hope it's worth my time...
Hal is the hero Coast City deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we’ll hunt him because he can take it. Because he’s not our hero, he is an emerald guardian, a watchful protector… a Green Lantern.
Hal is the hero Coast City deserves, but not the one it needs right now. So we’ll hunt him because he can take it. Because he’s not our hero, he is an emerald guardian, a watchful protector… a Green Lantern.
you just gave away his identity to your son!! you have no console security!! YOU'VE BEEN PARALLAXED!!
Whoa, Rob, WHOA! I don't mind you abusing the local Chinese like SoM. But, when you start using CAPS I'm have to put a stop to it. I'm calling Shenanigans Article IV. Please report to the Obama Liberal Indoctrination Camp. You'll be sitting next to Wonder Boy and Pariah....
I'm okay with the character, but would honestly prefer Kyle if had to have anyone at all.
It looks to me like they're basically using Kyle with Hal's job, exactly like in the 90's Superman cartoon. This was really the only option, though, since Hal has no personality.
i just saw this. i think it makes your "proaction" even stranger! i can see a fanboy flipping out over things they feel don't fit the character. but if that's not you, why are you so outspoken?
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
I'm okay with the character, but would honestly prefer Kyle if had to have anyone at all.
in that regard, as mxy pointed out, this is essentially kyle using hal's name. so, you're basically getting what you'd prefer
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
Meanwhile, it doesn't look like a good film to me. It looks exactly like the kind of glossy, spandex-laden over-CGI-ed silliness that I was hoping films like The Dark Knight would have moved us away from. But, hell, this is from the SAME company that gave us TDK.
i guess i just don't see the need for every film to be TDK. that was a heavy mother fucking film. it's a nearly exhausting 3 hours of dark opera. but batman's character is (or at least can be) a grim and gritty, dark and dirty type of persona, so that was a specific, catered fit. 99% of other characters (and i'd include GL in that pile) don't warrant that type. they're lighter, more "comic book"ish. for all the flack the fantastic four movies caught, i thought they were fine, because that's how silly the actual books are (most of the time). yes, there are the collection of us uber-nerds that have seen the 10 issues on record where comics are taken seriously - but in the great scheme of things, in the wide-spread history of the characters and their medium, they're not. just think about what got you into super heroes, and more than likely it was something like the super-friends.
green lantern, alone, is about all-powerful smurfs, imagination jewelry, animal humanoid space police, a 1920s magician villain, and dozens of other ridiculous concepts. in all of the comic book world, GL might be the best example of "glossy, spandex-laden ... silliness". i wouldn't think that a misappropriation in cinematic form. and even with that said, i think this most recent trailer shows an effort being made to address folks like you, looking for a less-silly film.
not that i'm trying to debate you into liking the movie... i guess i just don't understand why this seems to be such a ... well... a bug up your ass.
i just saw this. i think it makes your "proaction" even stranger! i can see a fanboy flipping out over things they feel don't fit the character. but if that's not you, why are you so outspoken?
Exactly why I said: it looks like a bad film. Not just a bad comic book movie, but a bad film overall. I rate this in the same dislike category as 'Fast & Furious'-type movies or country music. It doesn't appeal to me. At all.
As far as being "outspoken" about this, how so? The fact that I've taken the time to come into the thread and voice my dislike about how they've cast it, and the fashion in which it's presented? I give this thread no more attention or voice in negativity than I do any movie thread where I have nothing but passionately positive things to say. It just so happens I'm in the minority on this one. So be it. But, it doesn't mean I'm standing outside theaters picketing and boycotting. Just means I calls'em like I sees'em.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
I'm okay with the character, but would honestly prefer Kyle if had to have anyone at all.
in that regard, as mxy pointed out, this is essentially kyle using hal's name. so, you're basically getting what you'd prefer
No, I'm not. I'm getting Ryan Reynolds as he attempts to mimic Robert Downey Jr, and spout vapid one-liners (theoretically, as you point out, depending on how they edit the film). The Reynolds character and Kyle Rayner bear absolutely no resemblance to each other, except they're both young white guys who get a GL ring (although isn't Kyle Latino these days?)
So, really, you're not getting either Hal or Kyle. Thus, at least one of my points about the film.
Quote:
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
Meanwhile, it doesn't look like a good film to me. It looks exactly like the kind of glossy, spandex-laden over-CGI-ed silliness that I was hoping films like The Dark Knight would have moved us away from. But, hell, this is from the SAME company that gave us TDK.
i guess i just don't see the need for every film to be TDK. that was a heavy mother fucking film. it's a nearly exhausting 3 hours of dark opera. but batman's character is (or at least can be) a grim and gritty, dark and dirty type of persona, so that was a specific, catered fit. 99% of other characters (and i'd include GL in that pile) don't warrant that type. they're lighter, more "comic book"ish. for all the flack the fantastic four movies caught, i thought they were fine, because that's how silly the actual books are (most of the time). yes, there are the collection of us uber-nerds that have seen the 10 issues on record where comics are taken seriously - but in the great scheme of things, in the wide-spread history of the characters and their medium, they're not. just think about what got you into super heroes, and more than likely it was something like the super-friends.
And I suspected this would be the counter-argument against such a short inferential statement on my part. I, as always, support moderation of influence. In no way do I mean that GL should be as "dark" or "serious" as TDK. It shouldn't have the same themes, and should create its own identity, as it were. However, why not give the subject material the same attention to detail and dedication to realism? Why not at least attempt to give it a sincere eye for substance? Which leads to the next point...
Quote:
green lantern, alone, is about all-powerful smurfs, imagination jewelry, animal humanoid space police, a 1920s magician villain, and dozens of other ridiculous concepts. in all of the comic book world, GL might be the best example of "glossy, spandex-laden ... silliness". i wouldn't think that a misappropriation in cinematic form. and even with that said, i think this most recent trailer shows an effort being made to address folks like you, looking for a less-silly film.
Yes, yes, all superhero comics are "silly" in essence, if translated literally. And if this were twenty-years ago, I'd probably be excited about this level of comic book movie. But, it's 2011. We've had bigger, smarter, and better. If you're going to make something like Green Lantern into a movie, then the least they could do is not make it look like a Hollywood Conveyor Belt Marketing Cartoon.
Quote:
not that i'm trying to debate you into liking the movie... i guess i just don't understand why this seems to be such a ... well... a bug up your ass.
LOL@bug-up-ass reference, since it's about Green Lantern, and Parallax is a bug that crawled up Hal's ass. Also, you like Nintendo, Hulk Hogan, and Batman.
But, seriously, if anyone is reading any kind of more-than-normal hostility from me over this subject, you're simply reading me wrong. I'm down if people want to waste their time and money on this drivel. It's just too bad it will give Hollywood the impression they can churn out any level of comic book shit and the fans will lap it up...
if anyone is reading any kind of more-than-normal hostility from me over this subject, you're simply reading me wrong.
Originally Posted By: Prometheus
I'm down if people want to waste their time and money on this drivel. It's just too bad it will give Hollywood the impression they can churn out any level of comic book shit and the fans will lap it up...
if i were a fatter, blacker, sassier, femalier individual, you'd get SUCH an "mmHM" right now.
I just played the Wii movie tie-in game, and it sucked.
It's a 2d sidescroller using 3d models (2.5d?) and there's something with the controls that totally ruins the experience. I think it has to do with the fact that there's no such thing as a jump, you just press up and Hal automatically flies all over the place (he controls like a sluggish spaceship), and you walk when your feet touches the ground. You also get knocked around a lot, which makes you feel more like Ryan Reynolds than Green Lantern.
I have pretty low expectations with the mechanics involving their magic imagination rings, since I doubt it's workable in a video game right now, so I don't mind the very limited selection of constructs. I also don't mind the primitive graphics since it's the Wii we're talking about.
I may still go see it just because I decided to see every one of the big comic book movies this summer but I'm definitely starting to waiver on that vow.
What?? Shock! Gasp! Impossible!! I mean, I've been saying that for pretty much the ENTIRE time. I bet Rob is going to be really pissed at CNN, Rotten Tomatoes, etc.
The New York Observer said the film was "a dumb, pointless, ugly, moronic and incomprehensible jumble of botched effects, technical blunders and cluttered chaos."
I don't care what critics say.I saw Green Lantern last night and it was awesome...I do wish they had spent more on fleshing out the corps and some more action with them,but otherwise,I was happy with it.Bring on the sequel baby!!!
The New York Observer said the film was "a dumb, pointless, ugly, moronic and incomprehensible jumble of botched effects, technical blunders and cluttered chaos."
impossible!! pro can't be right!! we spent too much time trying to prove him wrong!! nooooo! zod!!!
the observer said it was poo. allan said it was good. their opinions, though opposing, are valid. because they've, you know, seen the movie. message boardily altering quotes and flagrant besmirching of zod will not change the fact that your "prospective" remains worthless.
SATURDAY PM/SUNDAY AM, 4TH UPDATE: Warner Bros' Green Lantern ($21.6M Friday, dropping -21% for $17.1M Saturday, and only a $53M weekend) underperforms, unable to meet even the studio's lowered expectation for North America.
I agree. I saw it shrooming at the midnight showing thursday and thought it was decent, entertaining at least. Honestly tho they could have made it a lot better. An extra half hour they could have shown a lot more of him getting the ring, time on Oa, training with Kilowog and the final fight with Parallax, and less of a romance. The final battle just ended way too quick. I liked how they did develop Hal as a character show his relationship with Carol, Tom, Hector, his family, and Dad. Not too many unnecessary Van Wilder-esqe jokes thrown in. Casting was good. Everyone pulled off their characters very convincingly. I was actually surprised how good Blake Lively did. Parallax could've been designed better or not done at all but it was legit. I just didn't like the whole floating fart cloud of skulls thing. CGI was pretty impressive. I felt like I was watching a Marvel movie and not a WB superhero movie the whole time. And they've definitely set up for a franchise. That final scene was sick.
I am writing as a concerned fan and parent, and not at all as some kind of smart ass satirist. I cannot tell you how thrilled I am to see Green Lantern finally hit the big screen, and with Ryan Reynolds portraying Hal Jordan I think we can all be assured of a faithful adaptation of one of the most influential comics of all time.
However, I was disturbed to hear that the film version has omitted the phrase "Under God" from the famous Green Lantern pledge, and as big a fan as I am, and how much I dearly want to share this experience with my daughter, I'm not sure I can support Green Lantern unless the phrase is rightfully restored. I do not think that such a noble hero's solemn oath should be subject to censorship just because of political correctness.
Some may pretend otherwise, but the Green Lantern pledge, as I learned it, should read:
In brightest day or blackest night
No evil shall escape my sight
Let all who worship evil's might
Beware my wrath... Under God... Green Lantern's light!
Now, I am well aware that the pledge that golden-age Lantern Alan Scott uttered was completely different to begin with, and that times do change. However, the pledge has been under attack from all sides by minority interests for decades.
First the pledge changed "blackest night" to "darkest night" under protest from African-Americans against a negative connotation to the word "black" (I am happy to see it restored to original form on the film's poster). Then, an entire new pledge was penned simply to accommodate Rot Lop Fan, whose alien species does not have the sense of sight. What will happen next?
Will ACLU lawyers representing imprisoned criminals demand the word "evil" be replaced with "those who suffer from malign hypercognitive disorder?" Will all but Satanists and Cthulhu Cultist be exempt from the justice meted out by the brave men and women of the Corp because they do not "worship evil?"
Green_Lantern_poster.jpg In 1954, the United States government voted that "Under God" be used in the Pledge of Allegiance. As the Green Lantern Oath is clearly a pledge of allegiance, I feel that there can be no debate on this subject. When Michael Newdow filed suit in Sacramento challenging that the phrase constituted a violation of church and state, America saw that its faith was under attack.
Because of Newdow, there are a handful of public schools in California whose children are forbidden to mention God in their morning affirmation of their love of America. Such children need their heroes now more than ever, but apparently Green Lantern, who has successfully defended earth against so many interstellar threats, has no defense against activist judges and rampant secularists.
In closing, I would like to thank DC Comics and Warner Brothers for many years of wonderful stories. I have as much faith in the excellence of the Green Lantern film as I do in God Almighty. I would like you to ask yourselves, though, what lesson will we teach out children by leaving God out of the plot?
I, for one, refuse to believe that the Central Power Battery on the Lantern Corps' homeworld of Oa that each Lantern uses to recharge their power rings while reciting the oath can possibly be powered by anything other than the will of God. And how else would a man be able to overcome the being of ultimate fear, Parallax? Through simple humanity and willpower? I doubt that.
Green Lantern's power ring makes the imagination of the wearer into reality in the form of solid light constructs. Such a power cannot remain in the hands of humanity without acknowledging the rule of God. Failing to do so within the Lantern's solemn oath risks our children forgetting God's place in comic books.
Thank you for your time. I have the honor to remain...
I am writing as a concerned fan and parent, and not at all as some kind of smart ass satirist. I cannot tell you how thrilled I am to see Green Lantern finally hit the big screen, and with Ryan Reynolds portraying Hal Jordan I think we can all be assured of a faithful adaptation of one of the most influential comics of all time.
However, I was disturbed to hear that the film version has omitted the phrase "Under God" from the famous Green Lantern pledge, and as big a fan as I am, and how much I dearly want to share this experience with my daughter, I'm not sure I can support Green Lantern unless the phrase is rightfully restored. I do not think that such a noble hero's solemn oath should be subject to censorship just because of political correctness.
Some may pretend otherwise, but the Green Lantern pledge, as I learned it, should read:
In brightest day or blackest night
No evil shall escape my sight
Let all who worship evil's might
Beware my wrath... Under God... Green Lantern's light!
Now, I am well aware that the pledge that golden-age Lantern Alan Scott uttered was completely different to begin with, and that times do change. However, the pledge has been under attack from all sides by minority interests for decades.
First the pledge changed "blackest night" to "darkest night" under protest from African-Americans against a negative connotation to the word "black" (I am happy to see it restored to original form on the film's poster). Then, an entire new pledge was penned simply to accommodate Rot Lop Fan, whose alien species does not have the sense of sight. What will happen next?
Will ACLU lawyers representing imprisoned criminals demand the word "evil" be replaced with "those who suffer from malign hypercognitive disorder?" Will all but Satanists and Cthulhu Cultist be exempt from the justice meted out by the brave men and women of the Corp because they do not "worship evil?"
Green_Lantern_poster.jpg In 1954, the United States government voted that "Under God" be used in the Pledge of Allegiance. As the Green Lantern Oath is clearly a pledge of allegiance, I feel that there can be no debate on this subject. When Michael Newdow filed suit in Sacramento challenging that the phrase constituted a violation of church and state, America saw that its faith was under attack.
Because of Newdow, there are a handful of public schools in California whose children are forbidden to mention God in their morning affirmation of their love of America. Such children need their heroes now more than ever, but apparently Green Lantern, who has successfully defended earth against so many interstellar threats, has no defense against activist judges and rampant secularists.
In closing, I would like to thank DC Comics and Warner Brothers for many years of wonderful stories. I have as much faith in the excellence of the Green Lantern film as I do in God Almighty. I would like you to ask yourselves, though, what lesson will we teach out children by leaving God out of the plot?
I, for one, refuse to believe that the Central Power Battery on the Lantern Corps' homeworld of Oa that each Lantern uses to recharge their power rings while reciting the oath can possibly be powered by anything other than the will of God. And how else would a man be able to overcome the being of ultimate fear, Parallax? Through simple humanity and willpower? I doubt that.
Green Lantern's power ring makes the imagination of the wearer into reality in the form of solid light constructs. Such a power cannot remain in the hands of humanity without acknowledging the rule of God. Failing to do so within the Lantern's solemn oath risks our children forgetting God's place in comic books.
Thank you for your time. I have the honor to remain...
Hate to break the chain of "surprised" questioning, but those who called this movie to be a bomb... ::cough:: Pro ::cough:: ...hit the nail on the head.
Hate to break the chain of "surprised" questioning, but those who called this movie to be a bomb... ::cough:: Pro ::cough:: ...hit the nail on the head.
Hey, I've been here for a decade. I was bound to be correct about something sooner or later....
Warner Bros. is already planning a sequel to Ryan Reynolds' superhero pic Green Lantern, despite the film’s soft performance at the box office.
Sources say Warners still believes in the franchise, even if the studio is “somewhat disappointed” with Green Lantern’s result.
Over the weekend, Green Lantern fell a steep 66% at the domestic box office, grossing $18.4 million for a cume of $89.3 million. That’s a big decline.
Warner Bros. president of domestic distribution Dan Fellman said the movie is settling in, pointing out that fanboy pics often see a significant drop-off in their second weekends.
Still, Green Lantern fell off more than recent superhero pics Thor and X-Men: First Class. Thor dropped 47% in its second weekend, while First Class dropped 56%.
Similar films that have seen the same sort of dip that Green Lantern did include Hulk, which dropped nearly 70% in its second outing.
Green Lantern cost $200 million to produce before a sizeable marketing spend (rival studios say it was one of the most expensive on record). Warners, preparing for the end of Harry Potter, needs new franchises, so was willing to invest big in Green Lantern.
A formidable obstacle standing in Green Lantern’s way now is Paramount’s Transformers: Dark of the Moon, which opens in theaters around the globe on Tuesday night.
Warner Bros. president of domestic distribution Dan Fellman said the movie is settling in, pointing out that fanboy pics often see a significant drop-off in their second weekends.
"Fanboy pics"? WTF is that?
Quote:
Similar films that have seen the same sort of dip that Green Lantern did include Hulk, which dropped nearly 70% in its second outing.
saw GL this weekend. and it was... meh. very shockingly, i hold ryan reynolds accountable for none of this reaction. in fact, i might even go so far as to say he wasn't bad as hal jordan. he wasn't overly jokey or ...y'know... ryan reynolds, at all.
getting the obvious critiques out of the way, the music was entirely unmemorable, and the 3D might have been the biggest waste of 3D in a film, yet.
my main problem with the film is that it was confused. it didn't know if it should follow the iron man path (focus on the character, not the hero), the spider-man path (focus on the mythology), the hulk path (you're a regular story that just happens to have a comic book guy in it), or the fantastic four path (you're a comic book, be fun!). the result was a jumble of each, where the pieces didn't belong. there was a lot of forced plot points, which is a major pet peeve of mine. like, when you're watching the first episode of a TV show, and they try to introduce stories and themes that the on-screen characters should have already known for years. "hi carol, remember we used to date? well we don't now, but i was just thinking about it" type.
oa was very cool. the action and fight scenes were fun. the oath moments were not the cringe-worthy events i (yellow)feared them to be, but were in fact very nerdly enjoyable. the suit was so much better in practice than it was in previews. honestly, the movie wasn't bad. but it very much wasn't good. no reason to see it on the big screen either: it'd be a fine HBO-at-home or netflix experience.
honestly, the movie wasn't bad. but it very much wasn't good. no reason to see it on the big screen either: it'd be a fine HBO-at-home or netflix experience.
Yeah, I was going to see this the other day but decided it would be better just to wait a couple of months.
I'll just wait for the next train and hope it's worth my time...
I'm still going with Bruce Timm's new GLC toon.
the BTAS/STAS/JLU animated world is gold.
the reason the animated stuff is so much better than the live action stuff is because they have people like Timm, Paul Dini, James Tucker, etc. who understand the characters and also know how to make them work in another medium. they know where to strike the balance between the geek stuff and easy access storytelling. this is something that the live action DC films are in desperate need of.
Was it perfect? Hell no. They needed to dump the Hector Hammond/Tim Robbins as Bill Clinton/skinny Amanda Waller plot in its entirety, cast someone who could act as Carol and beef up Sinestro's story to explain the inevitable heel turn.
However, it had some great action sequences, the special effects worked really well overall and there was something really fun about seeing Hal recite the oath and later conjure up the inevitable giant glowing boxing glove.
It really doesn't deserve the bad buzz, especially compared to some other genre movies that are hits.
This finally came out here. I liked it for the most part. I thought it was a good sci-fi/fantasy movie with some superhero moments awkwardly thrown in (I liked some of the superhero moments but they came in way too late and felt forced). I actually think Hector Hammond was great, and that was the part that bothered me the most about the trailers (along with Carol, whom I didn't mind either). The way Hammond was introduced felt organic and whathisface did a great job.
The stuff about Hal's dad and family could have easily been edited out. If anything the movie was too faithful to the comic.
Finally saw this today. They tried too hard with all the CGI. That money could have been spent on a better script or acting lessons. I know the extended version makes better sense, but it should have had a better story.
to proceed into production. The news came from the blog of visual effects supervisor Karen Goulekas, but a visit to the link cited in the reports yesterday return an error today and the most recent entry on the blog's main site is from October of 2009. Superhero Hype has the full text of the presumably deleted post, in which Goulekas writes, "Wow! Been a long time since I posted! But today is a day worth posting about! Green Lantern got the official green light today! And not a second too soon - only 10 weeks out from shooting!"
okay
