Green lantern getting Horrible reviews!

lol. That and I liked those movies.


Oh, me, too. But I think modern SF/superhero audiences either don't know or have forgotten what it was like living in a world where your big SF fix for the day was reruns of STAR TREK and WILD WILD WEST and Adam West's magnum opus.

We live in a world where there has been a faithful live-action WATCHMEN movie. I mean, think about that. There's been a live-action BATMAN movie an average of every three years for the last twenty. Not only have there been IRON MAN, THOR, and CAPTAIN AMERICA flicks, but they're all going to team up for THE AVENGERS. Modern audiences don't know how mind blowing that really is.

And I'll let you know what I think of GL in three or four hours, but I imagine I'll love it. Because, you know, I have lived so long to see a movie about a bunch of alien space cops with magic rings onscreen that doesn't look like Charles Emerson Winchester from M*A*S*H as J'Onn J'Onnz.
 
Well, in fairness to Mike, he didn't say that. He said "To not give it a chance in the theatre is just stupid" to which I took him to mean that folks should see it themselves before bashing it just from reading reviews that may or may not have agendas of their own.

I think the problem lies in the system itself, who rely on "one time viewers" and opening weekends.

That seems to be the way it is these days- Hollywood produces a film (that stinks) gambling they will make their profit on the opening weekend and those who despite bad reviews (even from friends who have seen the movie and say it stinks) will "give it a chance anyway". They no longer seem to care about repeat viewings and staying power.

Bashing a movie without having seen it is one thing and I totally agree that it is bad form.

But by refusing to see a film based on bad reviews, you are not giving Hollywood "one more ticket sale", which is completely legitimate to me.

Otherwise seeing it "just to give it a chance" helps their gamble pay off, ensuring that their "system" still works in their eyes. It ultimately sends the message that they can continue to produce crappy films, and we will continue to eat their garbage and say "Thank you Sir! May I have another?"

Do "I" want to see it for myself? Sure.

But I'll wait to rent it for $5 than pay $15 to see it in a theater.

EDIT- looks like you guys already said this. :lol

Kevin
 
Now ask me if I am still going to see this in the theater. (Pssst...the answer is "Yes, foo!")

Everybody gets one chance to blow it. If this does suck, I will not see a sequel, much like the newest Transformers. Burned me once, Bay.
 
I remember when the only super hero movie we had was Chris Reeve as superman lol. I agree i'd have seen Green Hornet if it wasn't for Seth Rogen I just can't get into his style of humor.
 
I thought GET HIM TO THE GREEK was just excellent. Elizabeth Moss a little miscast, but not exactly a sour note, there. Brand has much, much more chops than he gets credit for.
 
Oh, me, too. But I think modern SF/superhero audiences either don't know or have forgotten what it was like living in a world where your big SF fix for the day was reruns of STAR TREK and WILD WILD WEST and Adam West's magnum opus.

We live in a world where there has been a faithful live-action WATCHMEN movie. I mean, think about that. There's been a live-action BATMAN movie an average of every three years for the last twenty. Not only have there been IRON MAN, THOR, and CAPTAIN AMERICA flicks, but they're all going to team up for THE AVENGERS. Modern audiences don't know how mind blowing that really is.

And I'll let you know what I think of GL in three or four hours, but I imagine I'll love it. Because, you know, I have lived so long to see a movie about a bunch of alien space cops with magic rings onscreen that doesn't look like Charles Emerson Winchester from M*A*S*H as J'Onn J'Onnz.

Amen.

Yeah, i don't fault folks for not going if that's not their thing either... I just remember those days of not having anything beyond the original Superman movie (which I still love obviously.)

I think that's largely why I give most any superhero film the benefit of the doubt until i see it personally. I mean, Daredevil wasn't the greatest comic movie ever but I enjoyed it, have watched it several times on DVD and BluRay and even have an original pair of nunchucks from it. The Fantastic Four films weren't hi-brow entertainment either but I've rewatched those a couple of times too.

I even gave the Green Hornet a chance even though I've never liked the character and it's definitely one I will NOT be adding to my collection :sick

I just like superheroes and would rather rewatch a comic book superhero flick like Fantastic Four over rewatching some critically acclaimed award winning drama where I already know everything that's going to happen. Part of the novelty for me is just seeing these characters I grew up loving come to life.

I even plan on buying the '90s Captain America film they're going to be releasing next month. It's not great but I enjoyed it and they gave it a good effort even though they had a miniscule budget. Not much different than appreciating a well made fan-film IMHO. Now if they'd just release the old Spider-Man tv series starring Nicholas Hammond...
 
I used to read these comics when I was a kid. The whole ring thing was interesting to me at that age. The "old lantern" charge bit seemed odd. The oath that he had to quote also seemed to be missing a word in the last line. but it was interesting to read what new shape he would produce to thwart each new enemy. I had forgotten about it long ago. I never thought it would be a movie, so was pretty surprised to see poster of a comedy actor in a suit that looked like a watermellon with the words Green Lantern above it. I still can't get my head around all that money being spent on comic book stories. So many of them are being made into big budget films these days. The comic book was a lot less expensive to produce and gave about the same ammount of fun.
 
I went at midnight last night and thoroughly enjoyed the film!

I honestly don't see how the reviews have been SO negative about it...I get some people may not like it, but some of the reviews I've read its like they have some kind of vendetta against the people that made it, Ryan Reynolds, Blake Lively, etc.

Just talking this summer so far, I thought Thor and X-Men first class done much better than GL, but I enjoyed GL just as much.
 
poster of a comedy actor in a suit that looked like a watermellon

:lol

So many of them are being made into big budget films these days. The comic book was a lot less expensive to produce and gave about the same ammount of fun.

That's the part I don't get though... there aren't all that many superhero films being made.

Let's look at 2010 shall we?

The Numbers - Movie Market Summary for Year 2010

Market Share for Each CreativeType in 2010

ank CreativeType Movies 2010 Gross Tickets Share
1 Contemporary Fiction 226 $3,831,905,581 485,666,111 37.94%
2 Fantasy 31 $2,123,066,715 269,083,235 21.02%
3 Kids Fiction 22 $1,623,728,567 205,795,764 16.08%
4 Science Fiction 19 $1,099,288,640 139,326,825 10.89%
5 Historical Fiction 38 $469,148,122 59,461,107 4.65%
6 Dramatization 41 $432,949,014 54,873,130 4.29%
7 Super Hero 3 $312,724,064 39,635,497 3.10%
8 Factual 103 $204,960,198 25,977,215 2.03%
9 Multiple Creative Types 1 $1,018,169 129,046 .01%

Out of 258 movies listed, there are 3 that are classified as "Super Hero" films. 2011 isn't going to be that different... maybe there will be 5... Thor, Green Lantern, Captain America... the Green Hornet... what else is coming out this year that I'm forgetting? The only difference, if anything, is the amount of marketing and media attention. I wish people would stop saying there's this supposed glut of superhero films when there's simply not. The ONLY category with less is classified as "multiple creative types" whatever that is...
 
Didn't Ryan Renolds already play Deadpool in the Wolverine movie?

Are the DC movies to be made from a repitoire company of actors?
 
Didn't Ryan Renolds already play Deadpool in the Wolverine movie?

Are the DC movies to be made from a repitoire company of actors?

That's not all that big of a deal considering that the same actor that played the Human Torch in the F4 movies is now playing Capt. America. At least in the case of Ryan Reynolds he plays characters from two different publishers.
 
It doesn't compare to X-Men: First Class. I didn't like it as much as Thor. I did enjoy it more than Iron Man 2, which just left me cold. Of course, it's better than the bottom contenders... Ghost Rider, Jonah Hex, Cat Woman, Dare Devil, Elektra, Schumacher's Batman movies, the Fantastic Four movies.
 
Can't say that I'm surprised. It was clear from the very first trailer that it was just Ryan Reynolds playing himself in a green suit, he wasn't playing Hal Jordan.
 
Remember how bad the trailers to FIRST CLASS were, at being representative of the final movie? Same thing here; the trailer has nothing to do with the context of the narrative. I don't think they ever do, but that's sort of a different issue.

That movie was awesome; everything I wanted out of a GL movie. Honestly, the most disconcerting thing to me was Sinestro being a good guy, but the now-obligatory after credits scene fixed that.

Ryan Reynolds was awesome. Mark Strong was awesome. Peter Skarsgaard was acting like he was in another movie, which I love from villains. Even Blake Lively was awesome, in that the trailer makes you think she's just the eye candy/damsel in distress, but is the motive power in almost every scene she's in.

They had friggin' C'hp in the Corps scene!
 
Back
Top