Ryan Reynolds soon to be the Green Lantern

[Mike V 0]

After further inspection, I hate the look of the suit. It's pretty terrible, I mean the mask looks like it's painted on.

[Padre 0]

I'd need to see it in motion before I make up my mind about it, but I don't love the look so far.

[ReCoil 0]

I was hoping it would be closer to the comic. But I think it's probably going to look great in motion.

[Jarlath 0]

At least Ryan is into his role and knows his GL stuff.

 

@ Comic Con 2010, for a little boy he recited the GL oath from memory. Kudos for that.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaLQ9-e-TAA

[Aly 0]

He's an actor...that's his job to memorize lines...so that doesn't surprise me at all...but I did think it cute that he hooked that little boy up with an autographed book....

[justaguy1984 0]

http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles...ailer-is-online

 

Theatrical trailer. Personally, I'm not impressed. Looks like an expensive tv movie on sci-fi to me. The woman who scolds him sounds like she is reading lines from a script. I like Ryan, but I'd rather he did Deadpool instead. Some of it could be just bad editing. I`m cranky.

[Mike V 0]

I think it looks pretty good. It seems like it'll be pretty fun and epic. The CG, I'm not going judge as it's gonna be tweaked up until the release, but the suit seems less shitty than the previous photo seemed to indicate.

[relias33 0]

I'm not even remotely interested in seeing the movie after viewing the trailer. It looks cheesy to me. And no offense to all of the Green Lantern fans here but I hope the movie flops because then Reynolds can put all of his focus on the movie he's supposed to do more than any other, Deadpool.

[irish46 0]

I'm not even remotely interested in seeing the movie after viewing the trailer. It looks cheesy to me. And no offense to all of the Green Lantern fans here but I hope the movie flops because then Reynolds can put all of his focus on the movie he's supposed to do more than any other, Deadpool.

 

I agree that the trailer does nothing to make this film appealing...unless it opens to universal acclaim...I'm going to pass.

[Mike V 0]

The more footage I see of this, the more I'm looking forward to it.

[justaguy1984 0]

The more footage I see of this, the more I'm looking forward to it.

 

 

It actually does look better now. Not as cheesy as the first trailer they released. I'll go see it either way.

[relias33 0]

I just read that the Green Lantern budget was 300 million dollars.... also that a sequel has already been written (they got right to penning it as soon as GL went into production for the most part). With that being said, for a movie to be a box office success, it should make twice the amount of the budget (600 million in this case). I really don't feel like this film will have a chance of getting there and in all honesty, this makes me happy for the following reasons (in no particular order):

 

1. I don't like the Green Lantern

2. I don't care for DC (Batman is alright because he seems like the only character that would fit in the Marvel Universe)

3. Ryan Reynolds should have never taken this role

4. Reynolds can now focus on the comic role he was born to play: DEADPOOL!

 

Bring on the Wade Wilson and scrap the sequel to GL!!!

 

....sorry if I'm being a negative nancy on this one.

-Raf

[Mike V 0]

I wouldn't count it out yet, I mean who the fuck thought Avatar would make so much money? Chances are good it'll easily make $600 million, especially with the 3D bump in ticket prices. Still it could just as well bomb, but I am still looking forward to it, mostly because it looks pretty epic and seems like it will be fun.

[johnpweber 0]

It's looking better, I will admit that, but I have one question: after seeing some more pics from this film, is this staring Ryan or just his head? I knew they CG'd the mask (which looks terrible) but is the whole costume CG all the time?

[Rosella 0]

$300 million dollars!? Wow, I knew the budget was up there, but I didn't know it was that high. It may not earn back much profit from domestic box office sales, but worldwide would help. I can't imagine Green Lantern making $600 million, but stranger things have happend.

[Mike V 0]

It's looking better, I will admit that, but I have one question: after seeing some more pics from this film, is this staring Ryan or just his head? I knew they CG'd the mask (which looks terrible) but is the whole costume CG all the time?

 

Yeah, it is. The CGI suit was definitely the wrong way to go with it.

[relias33 0]

I wouldn't count it out yet, I mean who the fuck thought Avatar would make so much money? Chances are good it'll easily make $600 million, especially with the 3D bump in ticket prices. Still it could just as well bomb, but I am still looking forward to it, mostly because it looks pretty epic and seems like it will be fun.

 

 

Good point Mikey, but I think Avatar appealed to a bigger crowd than GL. Avatar was one of the most visually interesting films I have seen and you attach a name like James Cameron to the film and it sells itself to the world. Now Martin Campbell is a good and established director but he's a more critically acclaimed director as opposed to a box office director. His biggest grossers were Casino Royale and Goldeneye but I personally think they were a success at the box office because the character of James Bond is HUGE around the world.

 

We shall see, I love Ryan Reynolds and wish the best for him but I selfishly think that he should have just stuck to the one character I keep saying he's meant for: Deadpool!

 

-Raffi

[johnpweber 0]

Personal preferences aside, the year so far on blockbuster ticket sales have been a bit under what stuidos have been expecting. Everything big seems to be underferforming. Are tides changing? Who knows.

 

As for Avatar, I would have never have guessed it was going to be as big as it was, but it was. The 3D ticket boost didn't hurt any either. As for GL, I think it's going to be lucky to break even. If it would have followed Avatar, I'd sing a diffrent tune. 3D is really not a big selling point anymore thanks to crappy conversions. I would bet good money Drive Angry would have made more bank had it not been released only in 3D. People are sick of paying more for crappy 3D. Drive Angry suffered from this. DA had great 3D, yet a lot of folks assumed it was going to be another Clash of the Titans.

 

A lot of people thought Cameron was being an asshole when he lashed out at the 3D films that came after Avatar, but he was right. Forced conversions did nothing but hurt 3D film. People are just not educated enough on 3D to understand the diffence of being shot in 3D and haveing a film converted. I can't think of a good 3D film to come out after Avatar except Drive Angry.

 

 

Raffi, have you watched any of the Marvel/DC videos on youtube? Funny stuff. Especially the stuff with Deadpool.

[relias33 0]

As for Avatar, I would have never have guessed it was going to be as big as it was, but it was. The 3D ticket boost didn't hurt any either. As for GL, I think it's going to be lucky to break even. If it would have followed Avatar, I'd sing a diffrent tune. 3D is really not a big selling point anymore thanks to crappy conversions. I would bet good money Drive Angry would have made more bank had it not been released only in 3D. People are sick of paying more for crappy 3D. Drive Angry suffered from this. DA had great 3D, yet a lot of folks assumed it was going to be another Clash of the Titans.

 

A lot of people thought Cameron was being an asshole when he lashed out at the 3D films that came after Avatar, but he was right. Forced conversions did nothing but hurt 3D film. People are just not educated enough on 3D to understand the diffence of being shot in 3D and haveing a film converted. I can't think of a good 3D film to come out after Avatar except Drive Angry.

 

 

Raffi, have you watched any of the Marvel/DC videos on youtube? Funny stuff. Especially the stuff with Deadpool.

 

I payed 12.50 a ticket for my girlfriend and I to watch Thor in Imax 3D and the 3D fucking blew. It wasn't much different when I saw it regularly and payed FIVE FUCKING DOLLARS. I actually never wanted to see Avatar to begin with. Tim told me to see it in IMAX 3D but I still didn't get around to it (sorry Street!). I watched it a few months ago actually and thought it was just good. Just good though... The thing about me is that I'm not big on special effects. I don't care to see what computers can do to a movie. I grew up watching old school action flicks and prefer the "Raiders" style action film as opposed to the newer types of action films that are loaded with CGI. I will say though that the FX team for Avatar did a great job. Again though, not my type of film I would want to see. Story was pretty good, acting was good, FX were great.

 

As for the Marvel/DC videos on youtube - I have every one of those "favored" on my youtube account since "ItsJustSomeRandomGuy" created them...fucking priceless and the ones featuring Deadpool are hilarious.

[Mike V 0]

You should have known better regarding the "3D" in Thor. Unless it's advertising being shot in 3D, you need to skip it.

[relias33 0]

You should have known better regarding the "3D" in Thor. Unless it's advertising being shot in 3D, you need to skip it.

 

 

Only the second movie I ever saw in 3D.... it was all they had left for tickets at that hour by the way.... otherwise I never would have seen it that way. I'm not a Special FX kinda guy so I could care less for the films built on them.

 

Thor..... another film that underperformed. While it did well at the box office, I think it should have brought up bigger domestic numbers.

 

 

[relias33 0]

Green Lantern took in 3.35 million at midnight which is a similar number to that of X-Men: First Class' midnight opening numbers and slightly more than the 3.25 million that Thor opened up with at midnight. Fast Five is the number one midnight opening this summer so far at 3.8 million dollars but I'm not so concerned about that seeing as how that's not a comic book movie.

 

So I'm going to assume that the weekend numbers that Green Lantern pulls in this weekend will be similar or slightly more than Thor's opening weekend numbers which was 65-66 million. So I see GL going 65-70 million for its opening weekend which is a decent number but not a number big enough to double a 300 million dollar budget to garner sequels.

 

-Raf

[justaguy1984 0]

Green Lantern took in 3.35 million at midnight which is a similar number to that of X-Men: First Class' midnight opening numbers and slightly more than the 3.25 million that Thor opened up with at midnight. Fast Five is the number one midnight opening this summer so far at 3.8 million dollars but I'm not so concerned about that seeing as how that's not a comic book movie.

 

So I'm going to assume that the weekend numbers that Green Lantern pulls in this weekend will be similar or slightly more than Thor's opening weekend numbers which was 65-66 million. So I see GL going 65-70 million for its opening weekend which is a decent number but not a number big enough to double a 300 million dollar budget to garner sequels.

 

-Raf

 

 

$300 Million? What in the Fuck? That's insane! All these comic movies do is depend on ridiculous cgi these days, and they forget about the story. I heard this movie was a big letdown, which is too bad, but I can understand it. I really enjoyed first class though. I thought I would hate it, but it really felt like an x-men movie to me, more so than any of the other ones.

 

Everything else aside, I really like Reynolds, but he's not a very strong actor, although he does have some good points. I thought he was all gung ho about making Deadpool for the last 10 years, and he pushed that aside when GL came along? He must have been given a shit load of money.

[johnpweber 0]

My cousin really wants to see this, so we are going tomorrow. My question is what the hell did they spend the $300 million on? Avatar was a 5 year production that cost $400 million and they had to create a lot of the tech used on that film? Green Lantern, not so much. I know there's a lot of CG, but same goes for any Pixar film.

[Mike V 0]

I've seen the budget quoted at $200 million, so I don't know. I'm pretty sure a lot of it went to CGI, I know WB ad to hire a couple of FX houses to finish up the movie on time. Also, they put a lot into the marketing.

 

Also, I'd say there is a big difference between the CGI in a Pixar film and a live action one.