ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 25865
Jun 19 11 7:59 PM
kosh62 wrote:kevin75 wrote: I know that the information was posted above, but it just blows my mind that this movie cost $300 million. Allow me to blow the fragments of your mind...That's a bigger cost than either James Cameron's Titanic (200m) or Avatar (237m). I wonder how many people at WB are losing their job this coming week....?
kevin75 wrote: I know that the information was posted above, but it just blows my mind that this movie cost $300 million.
My name is Oedi and I soar amidst the stars far from the planet of my birth. I guess this starship is the closest thing I've got to a home now, for I am a refugee and an outlaw. Vanth Dreadstar, Syzygy Darklock, Willow 327, Rainbow and Skeevo are my family. We are revolutionaries. Our goal? To bring an end to the 200 year old war between the Instrumentality and the Monarchy!
Jun 19 11 8:04 PM
kosh62 wrote:But just when we think things couldn't get any MORE dull, we're treated to awesome scenes of GL fighting....a pissed off cloud. Wow, that brings back pleasant memories of that classic FANTASTIC FOUR movie!
Posts: 13497
Jun 19 11 8:08 PM
Posts: 321
Jun 19 11 8:15 PM
Posts: 3142
Jun 19 11 8:31 PM
Registered Member
Posts: 873
Jun 19 11 8:39 PM
Sentry 459 wrote:kosh62 wrote:But just when we think things couldn't get any MORE dull, we're treated to awesome scenes of GL fighting....a pissed off cloud. Wow, that brings back pleasant memories of that classic FANTASTIC FOUR movie! The first thing I thought of when I saw the "cloud" in GL was the Galactus cloud in FF2: Rise of SS. But I still think the GL cloud is a lot more interesting.
Jun 19 11 8:49 PM
artteacher72 wrote:The Ryan Reynolds comedy you speak of is very minimal...in fact what you saw in the early trailers is pretty much the extent of it. From what I've read, Warners were predicting $55 million over the weekend, so it wasn't as far off as you think.
Jun 19 11 9:15 PM
fubarthepanda wrote:artteacher72 wrote:The Ryan Reynolds comedy you speak of is very minimal...in fact what you saw in the early trailers is pretty much the extent of it. From what I've read, Warners were predicting $55 million over the weekend, so it wasn't as far off as you think.Most of the published estimates I had read had been in the 59M to 62M range. If you discount the higher ticket prices, the actual attendance was lower then almost all of the Marvel movies, including the mid-range FF and Hulk, and the low-end Daredevil and Ghost Rider.
Posts: 3698
Jun 19 11 9:35 PM
Posts: 2582
Jun 19 11 9:56 PM
Sentry 459 wrote:If that's true, then I'm surprised the SFX weren't more spectacular in GL! In other words, I liked GL, but not nearly as much as the other Marvel/DC superhero movies I've seen. Furthermore, Avatar is stunningly gorgeous. I don't think GL comes anywhere as close to being cinematic eye candy as Avatar.
Jun 19 11 10:22 PM
psykomyko wrote:Wha?! I thought the effects work was fabulous! The amount of detail that went into every Corps member was jaw-dropping. It craps all over the creature effects in Star Wars (all of 'em)! The fact that there were entire scenes that were virtually entirely animated, but looked live-action, is insane. Go back and look at, say, the Spider-Man films. There are definitely rough/fake-looking FX shots in those. But GREEN LANTERN looked really smooth to me!And the Big Bad (I don't want to get too spoilery) would definitely have scared the pants off me as a little kid, even if it's less scary to us jaded adults.- Mike Hansen
Jun 19 11 10:39 PM
Sentry 459 wrote: psykomyko wrote: Wha?! I thought the effects work was fabulous! The amount of detail that went into every Corps member was jaw-dropping. It craps all over the creature effects in Star Wars (all of 'em)! The fact that there were entire scenes that were virtually entirely animated, but looked live-action, is insane. Go back and look at, say, the Spider-Man films. There are definitely rough/fake-looking FX shots in those. But GREEN LANTERN looked really smooth to me!And the Big Bad (I don't want to get too spoilery) would definitely have scared the pants off me as a little kid, even if it's less scary to us jaded adults.- Mike HansenMike,I might enjoy GL more once it comes out on BluRay and I watch it on my home theater. That said, if Avatar cost less to make, and GL cost more, I still feel that Avatar is the better of the two movies. Avatar is more epic in scale, longer, more intense and more lush visually (SFX). By comparison, although there are many cool effects in GL, much of the scenes are fairly dark, cramped visually and overall, compressed in time. GL seems rushed, whereas Avatar breathes. I was hoping for a sense of wonder watching GL (i.e. all the space scenes and the GL Corps). But I didn't get that in my first viewing. By contrast, Avatar gave me that sense of wonder. And note, I didn't go to GL planning on comparing it to Avatar. I'm just making these comparisons from memory after reading KOSH's comments above. Avatar left a bigger and longer impression on me. I gave it a 5/5 stars after I saw it the first time. GL only received 3.5/5.As I stated earlier up thread, I would have enjoyed GL more if had been a two stage movie featuring more of the Corps in character development and action/interaction. Although I enjoy the whole Jordan/Ferris history, I much prefer the more cosmic elements of GL to the earth bound elements. In fact, I would have preferred it if GL 1 had been all done in outer-space in such a way that the ending of my hypothetical movie would have had a teaser about Hal's origins back on earth for GL 2. I like to break tradition, and I'm not convinced that episode 1 of every superhero movie needs to start out with an origin. By analogy, thinking back to Doctor Strange's origins in Strange Tales, his origin wasn't done until after a few issues of his debut. That may have been an accident, and it may have been intentional. But the cool thing was, Doc was introduced as a man of mystery. Then later on we got his origin because the readers were so intrigued with who he was. I think a delayed origin movie for GL as a cosmic man of mystery would work better than the film we just saw. Maybe I'll get my wish when a Doctor Strange or Adam Warlock movie hits the silver screen someday!
psykomyko wrote: Wha?! I thought the effects work was fabulous! The amount of detail that went into every Corps member was jaw-dropping. It craps all over the creature effects in Star Wars (all of 'em)! The fact that there were entire scenes that were virtually entirely animated, but looked live-action, is insane. Go back and look at, say, the Spider-Man films. There are definitely rough/fake-looking FX shots in those. But GREEN LANTERN looked really smooth to me!And the Big Bad (I don't want to get too spoilery) would definitely have scared the pants off me as a little kid, even if it's less scary to us jaded adults.- Mike Hansen
Posts: 640
Jun 19 11 10:44 PM
Modern Age
Jun 19 11 11:18 PM
Sentry 459 wrote:And note, I didn't go to GL planning on comparing it to Avatar. I'm just making these comparisons from memory after reading KOSH's comments above. Avatar left a bigger and longer impression on me. I gave it a 5/5 stars after I saw it the first time. GL only received 3.5/5.Maybe I'll get my wish when a Doctor Strange or Adam Warlock movie hits the silver screen someday!
Jun 19 11 11:21 PM
psykomyko wrote:No, I'm right and you're wrong! - Mike Hansen
Posts: 327
Jun 20 11 12:08 AM
Posts: 8154
Jun 20 11 2:01 AM
Posts: 4703
Jun 20 11 3:37 AM
Golden Age
I haven't seen the Green Lantern movie, but as for comparisons with James Cameron's Titanic and Avatar, in my opinion those are two of the most ridiculously overrated films of all time - at least script and direction-wise - never mind all the special effects.
Posts: 3282
Jun 20 11 6:42 AM
Lee Semmens wrote: I haven't seen the Green Lantern movie, but as for comparisons with James Cameron's Titanic and Avatar, in my opinion those are two of the most ridiculously overrated films of all time - at least script and direction-wise - never mind all the special effects.
Jun 20 11 6:53 AM
MRCOMICBOOK wrote: Sentry 459 wrote: Maybe I'll get my wish when a Doctor Strange or Adam Warlock movie hits the silver screen someday! I doubt those will ever be made now because of Green Lantern bombing at the box office.Think about it,if your a Hollywood studio would you spend millions to make an Ant-man movie or a a similar b comic book hero movie now?Antman or Doctor Strange would do worst numbers than Green Lantern. I am afraid the bloom is off the rose for super hero movies. It should be interesting how the big two Spider-man and Batman fair box office wise next year. I have a funny feeling neither will come close to their box office predecessors.Green Lantern performing this badly at the box office just about puts a kibosh on similar heroes getting big time movies made now.
Sentry 459 wrote: Maybe I'll get my wish when a Doctor Strange or Adam Warlock movie hits the silver screen someday!
Maybe I'll get my wish when a Doctor Strange or Adam Warlock movie hits the silver screen someday!
Share This