Green Lantern box office thread (not for the faint of heart!)

[thecolorsblend]

HOLY SHIT!!!

'Green Lantern' Cost $300 Million, and You Know What That Means...

Big summer movies cost a lot to make and market. That's not news. In fact, the only time you hear much about a movie's price tag is if it flops. Last summer's "Robin Hood" raised eyebrows because of its $237 million budget, especially after the film was perceived as a box office underperformer with a domestic haul of $105 million. By comparison, "Avatar's" huge cost -- placed anywhere between $230 million and $500 million -- made folks at Fox nervous, but then James Cameron's movie became the biggest hit of all time, which took care of those worries. ("It is the most expensive film we've made," Fox Filmed Entertainment co-chairman and C.E.O. of James Gianopulos later admitted to CNN, "but now, having the luxury of hindsight, it is money well spent, so I'm not concerned about it.") So if you're Warner Bros, you have to be worried that the world now knows that, reportedly, "Green Lantern" cost $300 million. That's not meant to be impressive; the pre-release discussion of a number that big is meant to signal that your movie is probably in trouble.

The New York Times (via The Playlist) recently did a profile piece on "Green Lantern" star Ryan Reynolds, and the angle of the piece was pretty much, "Boy, the studio is taking a huge risk on an action movie starring a guy you probably know from 'The Proposal.'" In the piece, producers and studio executives assured the reader that the movie's gonna be awesome and it won't be your typical comic book movie. (Trying to be enticing, producer and co-writer Greg Berlanti called "Green Lantern" "a space opera in the vein of 'Star Wars' with an Earthbound 'Top Gun' vibe." Uh, thanks?)

But the piece also mentioned that the studio spent around $300 million to produce and promote the film. And while the article says that sum is in line with other major films' budgets, what's not said is that nobody cares if, say, "The Dark Knight" (reported production budget of $185 million) or 2013's "Iron Man 3" cost that much. People want to see those films from established franchises. Nobody knows if anybody will go see "Green Lantern," no matter how much it cost.

That seems to have been an anxiety for Warners for a while. They radically shifted from a jokey initial trailer to a more conventional action-and-more-action follow-up trailer. And there were also the stories about the studio hiring a bunch of extra effects companies to make sure the movie got done in time. Pre-release strategies are about instilling confidence in the product about ready to be sold to the public. By comparison, Warners seems to be rushing frantically with "Green Lantern" to clog up all the holes so that the ship doesn't sink. Even Warner Bros. Pictures president Jeff Robinov sounded somewhat worried when he talked to the Times. "We're trying very hard to deliver," he said. "Yes, there is a lot at stake. But I try and frame these things in terms of my own expectations. If you look at 'Batman Begins,' it did about $370 million worldwide and got us to a sequel."

Yes, it's all about expectations. If the Reynolds experiment pays off and "Green Lantern" is huge, nobody will remember how much it cost to make. But if it tanks, we'll be hearing that $300 million figure over and over again the rest of the summer. The studio is offering the film in both 2D and 3D. They're probably praying everybody picks the latter option.

URL- http://blog.movies.yahoo.com/blog/1556-green-lantern-cost-300-million-and-you-know-what-that-means

Unless I'm very wrong, GL basically has to do Titanic numbers just to be viewed as a success.

This could end up being a very long summer.

[Apologist Puncher]

And the reviews are not good so far....

WeMakeALotOfShitUp.com

Tidbit:

Packing so much exposition that some viewers may require maps and flow charts, a sonorous voiceover introduces the Green Lantern Corps, a federation of alien warriors who use their extraordinary abilities for good. But an evil, soul-sucking force called Parallax is spreading its tentacles across the 3,600 sectors of the universe, striking fear even in the intrepid Lanterns, who draw their energy from the power of the will, fear's very antithesis. One of their top fighters, Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), is mortally wounded by Parallax and realizes he must transfer his gifts to a new Lantern in the time that remains.

For all its industrial-strength visual wonders, "Green Lantern" is marked by a spirit of profound timidity, straitjacketed by its need to satiate its target audience without seeming too geeky for the mainstream.

Ouch.

[thecolorsblend]

If the movie is that expensive and that bad, we're fucked. DC superhero adaptations (apart from Batman and maybe Superman) will be oh-fficially fucked.

I don't want to see mediocrity rewarded but I don't want WB to officially bow out of the superhero craze (even though they unofficially did so the day after Singerman opened).

[Apologist Puncher]

If the movie is that expensive and that bad, we're fucked. DC superhero adaptations (apart from Batman and maybe Superman) will be oh-fficially fucked.

I don't want to see mediocrity rewarded but I don't want WB to officially bow out of the superhero craze (even though they unofficially did so the day after Singerman opened).

And if they do, they will once again be blaming the characters instead of their own stupid decisions.

[thecolorsblend]

If the movie is that expensive and that bad, we're fucked. DC superhero adaptations (apart from Batman and maybe Superman) will be oh-fficially fucked.

I don't want to see mediocrity rewarded but I don't want WB to officially bow out of the superhero craze (even though they unofficially did so the day after Singerman opened).

And if they do, they will once again be blaming the characters instead of their own stupid decisions.

...

Well, speaking as someone who would've preferred ANYBODY besides Hal Jordan in the movie, it'd be kind of hard for me to argue that point...

[BHoward]

This movie is getting blasted by the critics. Only 20% on RT. I've had my fears going in just because of Ryan Reynolds, (not even close to being a fan), but I'm still holding out hope. A lot of these reviews can be chalked up to snob critics who don't like any comic book genre movies, and fanboy critics who consider themselves too cool for school, though. Hoping that is all it is.

[webhead2006]

dam if that is the real figure for the production that is high. i do hope the film ends up being a success for wb/dc and its overall total run in the box office turns into a profit. If it bombs will be a major setback for wb/dc in any other 2nd/3rd tier characters. as for the reviews ya i seen alot have been mixed/negative. But personally i am not looking at those critics myself. Like above poster said could be film reviewers who dont care for actors in said film/ or for genre of the film. i rather wait to judge it myself and see more of the general public reviews/thoughts.

[Apologist Puncher]

This movie is getting blasted by the critics. Only 20% on RT. I've had my fears going in just because of Ryan Reynolds, (not even close to being a fan), but I'm still holding out hope. A lot of these reviews can be chalked up to snob critics who don't like any comic book genre movies, and fanboy critics who consider themselves too cool for school, though. Hoping that is all it is.

If the movie WAS good, it wouldn't be so massively negative across the board.

[Apologist Puncher]

dam if that is the real figure for the production that is high. i do hope the film ends up being a success for wb/dc and its overall total run in the box office turns into a profit. If it bombs will be a major setback for wb/dc in any other 2nd/3rd tier characters. as for the reviews ya i seen alot have been mixed/negative. But personally i am not looking at those critics myself. Like above poster said could be film reviewers who dont care for actors in said film/ or for genre of the film. i rather wait to judge it myself and see more of the general public reviews/thoughts.

[BHoward]

AP, good point. More than likely, you are correct. I'll use Rex Reed as an example. I don't think there has been a comic book movie that he has reviewed favorably. I'm sure there are several others that are the same way. On top of that, GL is THE blockbuster movie this summer, and lots of critics like to be the one who has "the best" negative review of THE so called top movie. Realistically, its as bad as they are saying. Unfortunately they will get my money this Friday.

[Apologist Puncher]

AP, good point. More than likely, you are correct. I'll use Rex Reed as an example. I don't think there has been a comic book movie that he has reviewed favorably. I'm sure there are several others that are the same way. On top of that, GL is THE blockbuster movie this summer, and lots of critics like to be the one who has "the best" negative review of THE so called top movie. Realistically, its as bad as they are saying. Unfortunately they will get my money this Friday.

I will either see this, or X-Men: Fist Ass, on Saturday.

I just don't think having the main villain be a "menacing cloud" is a very smart idea.

'Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer", anyone?

[BHoward]

I just don't think having the main villain be a "menacing cloud" is a very smart idea.

'Fantastic Four: Rise Of The Silver Surfer", anyone?

Thinking my night would have been a lot better without having to remember that crap.

As I remember, those preview clips of Parallax were cringe inducing and added to the fears I had from the time Ryan Reynolds was cast. The more negative reviews I read on this film, the more I'm thinking of resorting to piracy. Who the hell am I kidding, I'll probably be at a midnight showing tomorrow night.

[non_amos]

What gets me is that THOR is 'somewhat' of a 2nd tier character, like IRON MAN, but both characters have had successful films on a decent budget. I hate to quote the figures for the Iron Man films without looking it up but I know that the budget for Thor is 150 million. It's already made back its' budget domestically & has a pretty respectable international figure. It has great effects on a 150 million budget! So why then must GREEN LANTERN cost twice as much?! And you see, MARVEL takes gambles like this & it pays off. WB/DC, OTOH, may very well have 'shot themselves in the foot'! And the fears of the fans are probably correct too. If GL flops, or even somewhat flops, you can then forget a FLASH film for example, or AQUAMAN!

Maybe Marvel Studios should've made GL? Or at least 'tutor' WB/DC on the fine art of superhero film-making?!

[webhead2006]

I still want this film to be a success just so it helps flash/aquaman/etc.... dc character a better chance in happening. it just blows it doesnt seem wb is on the right page just yet for dc films. I am still going to go see the film myself and give it a fair judgement for me once i see the full film. But hey for all we know the critics could be bashing it right and left and the general public, who is one of the main draws for the studios will love the film and eat it up.

[thecolorsblend]

As I remember, those preview clips of Parallax were cringe inducing and added to the fears I had from the time Ryan Reynolds was cast. The more negative reviews I read on this film, the more I'm thinking of resorting to piracy. Who the hell am I kidding, I'll probably be at a midnight showing tomorrow night.

That's when me and my girl are going to see it. She's a burgeoning GL fan (I'm trying to get her acquainted with the awesomeness that was and is Kyle) and, if nothing else, has already volunteered to buy the tickets. So it looks like I'm in either way.

What gets me is that THOR is 'somewhat' of a 2nd tier character, like IRON MAN, but both characters have had successful films on a decent budget. I hate to quote the figures for the Iron Man films without looking it up but I know that the budget for Thor is 150 million. It's already made back its' budget domestically & has a pretty respectable international figure. It has great effects on a 150 million budget! So why then must GREEN LANTERN cost twice as much?! And you see, MARVEL takes gambles like this & it pays off. WB/DC, OTOH, may very well have 'shot themselves in the foot'! And the fears of the fans are probably correct too. If GL flops, or even somewhat flops, you can then forget a FLASH film for example, or AQUAMAN!

That's kinda what I'm thinking too. I realize that effects cost serious money and, of all characters, you can't do GL on the cheap. Dude, I TOTALLY get that. Okay? But is there ANY reason to spend $300 million on a non-JLA film? Hell, I'd argue it's inexcusable even for JLA but you can at least make that argument, you know? But GL? Shit, just how many CG animated characters are there in that movie anyway, cripes...

Maybe Marvel Studios should've made GL? Or at least 'tutor' WB/DC on the fine art of superhero film-making?!

If you're going to do that, would you mind sending a few of their comic book people over to DC's offices to teach 'em the value of strong, consistent continuity as well as how to do a decent fucking crossover event? I'd TOTALLY be your best friend if you could take care of that for me. Cuz hey, might as well do both WB and DC, and make a clean job of it, right?

[non_amos]

I still want this film to be a success just so it helps flash/aquaman/etc.... dc character a better chance in happening. it just blows it doesnt seem wb is on the right page just yet for dc films. I am still going to go see the film myself and give it a fair judgement for me once i see the full film. But hey for all we know the critics could be bashing it right and left and the general public, who is one of the main draws for the studios will love the film and eat it up.

Yeah, it wouldn't be the first time something like that happened, now would it?! There was some film a while back, I don't even remember right now what the film was, & it may not have even been a superhero film, but I remember it getting slammed by critics but then the film laughed all the way to the bank with its' box office! Maybe I'll eventually remember the name of the film & the genre. The thing is though, it doesn't seem like it was that long ago! Like in the past few years.

[BHoward]

I'm trying to get her acquainted with the awesomeness that was and is Kyle

Thing is, I can actually see RR more as Kyle. Probably, I don't know his character very well though. Just basing my opinion on the Superman: Animated Series version.

I remember back before Reynolds got the role and I believe Nathan Fillion was the fan favorite, I read an interview with Brian Austin Green, when The Terminator series had ended and he had just got the Metallo role on Smallville. He stated that he wanted the role of Hal, but was realistic and knew the baggage and typecasting that he brought with him. After his turn on SCC, I thought he could have handled the role.

[Apologist Puncher]

The Bros. Warner wanted to make their own 'Iron Man' franchise. What was a big part of it? RDJ's comedic timing. He was spot-on, especially in the first one. So what do they do? Hire Ryan Reynolds, a guy famous for his comedic roles.

What did they forget?

RDJ's ability to portray wisdom and experience.

Reynolds hasn't been an actor long enough to be able to do what RDJ did as 'Iron Man', and THAT is going to be a big part of it's downfall.

[webhead2006]

So personally for me i am not throwing in the towl yet for gl to this weekend. So we can see where the general audience stands and what first weekend figures it gets. Then of course see if it has legs and can keep it going well like thor did.

[thecolorsblend]

I'm trying to get her acquainted with the awesomeness that was and is Kyle

Thing is, I can actually see RR more as Kyle. Probably, I don't know his character very well though. Just basing my opinion on the Superman: Animated Series version.

I might've thought so at first myself until I saw, of all things, Waiting. He seemed kind of Guy Gardner-lite to me in that movie. People always wanted him to play the Flash (which, even if they meant Wally, doesn't make a fucking lick of sense to me) but had he been Guy... no, the hair color is off (although that's easy enough to fix) but the basic personality is already exemplified in so much of his other work.

As far as Kyle goes though, I think there's a lot of juice to be had in breaking away from the traditional superhero approach, skipping all the Hal/GL Corps stuff and starting the movie off with Kyle coming out of the club and being confronted by Ganthet. From there, he becomes a Green Lantern, we get only brief exposition about the history of the Green Lantern Corps and then you set up a battle royale between Kyle and Parallax in the sequel. And if you must go with the Geoff Johns character rehab that Hal went through, you could even do a quasi-Luke-redeeming-Vader bit where Kyle forces Hal out from under Parallax's influence and, together, they rebuild the GL Corps. Maybe save the third movie for a Blackest Night thing or something.

I say this because Hal is the second most boring and pointless character in all of comicdom.

I remember back before Reynolds got the role and I believe Nathan Fillion was the fan favorite,

Of course he was. Fanboys are fucking desperate to get him into SOME kind of comic book movie. Before he was Batman, Christian Bale popped up on everything motherfucking fanboy wishlist that was out there for some role or another. Superman, Batman, GL, Max Lord, SOMEone. First it was Bale and now it was Fillion.

Anywho, sorry to blow up like that.

I read an interview with Brian Austin Green, when The Terminator series had ended and he had just got the Metallo role on Smallville. He stated that he wanted the role of Hal, but was realistic and knew the baggage and typecasting that he brought with him. After his turn on SCC, I thought he could have handled the role.

I remember that. It'd probably been since the 90210 days since I'd last seen Green so I naturally thought of fresh-faced David Silver... and thus had obvious philosophical problems with him. But seeing how he'd aged and everything... yeah, I'd have been cool with it.

[BHoward]

Reynolds hasn't been an actor long enough to be able to do what RDJ did as 'Iron Man', and THAT is going to be a big part of it's downfall.

All I see is the same character that Reynold's has played in every movie he has ever been in. The guy has no depth as an actor. I'm surprised none of the critics have called his GL "Shallow Hal" as of yet.

[non_amos]

thecolorsblend wrote (if that is his real name):

I say this because Hal is the second most boring and pointless character in all of comicdom.

Who then is the first?

Actually I always liked the Hal Jordan version, probably because that's what I read growing up in the 70's. I also liked the ALAN SCOTT version, the Golden Age 'Earth-2' version. See previous sentence. Actually I really liked the original version because of his different origin & weakness, as well as his involvement with the Justice Society of America. Hal was probably my favorite but I really dug on this version too.

As for the others, I could almost care less. I do recall being exposed to Guy Gardner, I believe due to CRISIS ON INFINITE EARTHS. He was OK I guess but seemed like somewhat of a jerk. I had limited exposure to John Stewart. Then later, when picking up comics once again, I was shocked to see a version I'd not seen before, Kyle Raynor! Who I know next to nothing about.

I guess my point is that the original TWO GLs that I grew up with are what really matter to me even now. The rest? I could take 'em or leave 'em.

[thecolorsblend]

I say this because Hal is the second most boring and pointless character in all of comicdom.

Who then is the first?

Barry Allen.

[BHoward]

I wonder your thoughts on a Flash movie? Personally, I don't think there is enough there for a solo film, but part of a LOTR-like JL trilogy.

[non_amos]

Check out this scathing review from SingerHomoHype:

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/167577-review-green-lantern

Review: Green Lantern
by Edward Douglas
Jun 15th, 2011

GREEN LANTERN
Rating: 5.5 out of 10
Movie Details: View here

Cast:
Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan / Green Lantern
Blake Lively as Carol Ferris
Peter Sarsgaard as Hector Hammond
Mark Strong as Sinestro
Temuera Morrison as Abin Sur
Jenna Craig as Carol Ferris at 11
Jon Tenney as Martin Jordan
Mike Doyle as Jack Jordan
Gattlin Griffith as Young Hal
Nick Jandl as Jim Jordan
Dylan James as Jason Jordan
Leanne Cochran as Janice Jordan
Geoffrey Rush as the voice of Tomar-Re
Michael Clarke Duncan as the voice of Kilowog

Directed by Martin Campbell

Story:
An alien spaceship crashes on earth and test pilot Hal Jordan (Ryan Reynolds) encounters the alien Abin Sur (Temuera Morrison), who gives him a ring which gives tremendous power to whomever wields it inducting Hal into the Green Lantern Corps. Meanwhile, on earth, scientist Hector Hammond (Peter Sarsgaard) has come into contact with the residue of the world-invading being Parallax, giving him telekinetic powers that he's using to get revenge on those who have wronged him. After being trained by Tomar-Re and Kilowog (voiced by Geoffrey Rush and Michael Clarke Duncan), Hal has to face both Hammond and Parallax.

Analysis:
As a life-long comic book fanboy and a more recent Martin Campbell apologist, there was a strong chance my expectations and hope "Green Lantern" would do for DC Entertainment what Marvel Studios has done for Marvel Comics characters could very well have superseded my critical judgment.

Unfortunately, the idea that Geoff Johns' "Secret Origins" would be used as a template are dashed fairly early in favor of a blueprint that comes from previous comic book hits "Iron Man" and "Spider-Man." While the general story structure is the same, the movie fails to avoid some of the biggest pitfalls that comes with comic book movies, because often what works great when being read doesn't work when you have the same words recited by actors. And really, there is no caliber of actor that could make the big cheesy speeches that permeate this movie work.

While on paper, Ryan Reynolds should make a decent Hal Jordan, his limited range as an actor is painfully obvious as he's essentially playing the same character he's played in every other movie only this time wearing CG spandex. He gives it a fine college effort to bring his usual charms to the character, but he's no Robert Downey Jr. and the dialogue he's given does little to make Hal likeable. Even worse is Blake Lively, grossly miscast as Carol Ferris, making her come across like a Valley Girl than the tough woman who will one day run Ferris Aircraft. The romance scenes between the two of them that's constantly shoved down our throats is probably the worst part of the movie, partially because they're so mismatched.

Mark Strong is such a good actor and he seems wasted under a spectacularly terrible make-up job playing Sinestro; the erratic relationship between him and Hal bears very little resemblance to what has worked so well in the comics. Peter Sarsgaard gives an equally erratic performance as the sniveling scientist Dr. Hector Hammond, whose experiments on the corpse of Abin Sur give him telekinetic powers, but he falls short of the Willem Dafoe Green Goblin, even as he plays things just as over-the-top. There doesn't seem to be much logic to why his character has any sort of connection to Parallax, here depicted as something that looks like a cross between a Muppet and something out of Ghostbusters, and he takes a more active role in invading earth, a painful reminder of the way Galactus was transformed in the second "Fantastic Four" movie. Then there's the Green Lantern Corps themselves, who we see in a couple of big money shots on Oa. Other than the four main characters, they have no names, no lines and no personality, completely unlike the Corps in the comics. (No one is more wasted than Angela Bassett's Dr. Amanda Waller, who bears no resemblance to the weight and importance her character brings to the DC Universe in the comics.)

Otherwise, the CG world creation is generally solid even if it's hard to imagine those unfamiliar with the comics will be able to accept the world of Oa and the Guardians the way they are introduced. The computer-generated Corps members Tomar-Re and Kilowog look decent enough, but not even the voice of Geoffrey Rush reading the opening narration will make it sound any less silly to adults, whether they read comics or not. It's that bad dialogue and narration that often keeps the movie from delivering. For all the cool visual set pieces and cool CG constructs created by Green Lantern, and a few clever inventions for the movie like having Abin Sur's ring pull Hal to the crash site, there's some long-winded speech about how humans are worthy of the Guardians' attention that immediately sends it crashing back down to earth. And then back on earth, you have a choice between a stale romance or a weak villain.

Who knows what could have been done to improve "Green Lantern"? The outer space stuff doesn't work because it just comes across as silly and over-the-top, while the earth stuff doesn't work because it's boring and derivative of far better comic book romances. Needless to say, when a movie bounces between being boring and being cheesy, that's not a good combination.

Sure, there probably have been worse introductions to superheroes on screen--Ang Lee's "Hulk" is one and the first Tim Story "Fantastic Four" is another--but Campbell is a better filmmaker than the latter and working from far better source material than the former, so one wonders how this could have faltered so badly. Campbell also had such a great team including Oscar-winning cinematographer Dion Bebee, who helps the movie look great even with the converted 3D.

While DC Comics are constantly proving themselves ahead of the curve in the comic publishing business, "Green Lantern" shows they have a long way to go to catch up with Marvel in terms of bringing their characters to the screen in a way that can please both fan and novice alike. There's little about "Green Lantern" that will convince non-comic readers to care enough about the characters to want to see more of them even with an obvious after-credits scene that just adds insult to injury, not just because it should have been dealt with in the body of the movie but also because by then, we just don't care to see what happens next.

The Bottom Line:
There's sure to be someone out there in the cosmos who enjoys this take on Green Lantern--small children and those without overly-critical tastes in entertainment--but it just fails on so many levels, both as a movie and as a comics adaptation, that it's easily one of the bigger disappointments of the summer.

OUCH!!!!!

I intend to see this but I just can't get over these kind of reviews! At least THOR had mostly good reviews, I think. Even the new X-Men film seems to have some validity. But this?! Man..........

[Sponsored content]