|
Post by Batlaw on Jun 19, 2011 20:11:41 GMT -5
I really enjoed it. I'm quite surprised by the bad fan reviews. The critic reviews I don't care about. I'm surprised and saddened by the poor box office. No sequel would be a crime. movie doesn't deserve the bashing its getting. Its better than plenty I've seen. Its a really movie and a good gl movie. Its not without flaws, but no more than any other movie IMO. Green lantern was bright fun and a straight forward superhero epic. It made me feel good similar to Superman the movie.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jun 19, 2011 20:25:16 GMT -5
If you ask me, alot of the bashing comes from people being spoiled by great superhero movies like Nolan's Batman films or the Marvel Studios movies. They probably expect something more on that level and just can't enjoy anything less for some reason. Green Lantern may not be epic, but it was still a fun movie, problems though it have. They can always improve in the sequel.
|
|
twistedlaugh
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
No more rules... I'm a vampire!
Posts: 246
|
Post by twistedlaugh on Jun 20, 2011 19:46:51 GMT -5
Well, I just back from the theatre. Here is my take on it!
- To say the was script was poor would be a massive understatement. The dialogue was ether childish, hooky, nonsensical, preachy, annoying or just plain cringe worthy.
+/- As for Martin Campbell, I really think he could have done a much better job. I really expected more, but I guess he didn't do too badly all things considered.
- Whoever did the Editing for this movie deserves to be run over by a steamroller! Seriously! You do NOT use a quick dissolve cut every two seconds in a 3-D movie! Do you want your audience to walk out with a huge headache?
+ Ryan Reynolds was perfect for Hal Jordan! While watching this movie I literally felt like I was watching the character I had grown up reading come to life on the big screen.
+ Another perfect casting was Mark Strong as Sinestro. He really pulls you in every time he is on screen: by the end of the movie, I was excited to see more of him!
- Congratulations Blake Lively! You are now an honourary member of the "I-was-terrible-leading-lady-in-a-comic-book-movie-club" with honorary members: Kristin Dunst, Katie Holmes, Megan Fox and January Jones. I am so proud of you; it must have been such hard work to completely drain Carol Ferris’s personality!
- While Lively under-acted, Peter Sarsgaard as Dr. Hector Hammond over-acted. While I did find his performance kind of fun in “cheesy and hammy” sort of way, it was very difficult to take him seriously as a threat. This made me feel like the character was wasted.
+/- The rest of the cast was a hit and miss. I enjoyed Rush as Tomar-Re, Robbins as the Senator and I know some people found Waititi as Kalmaku as annoying and pointless, but I actually enjoyed him. As for Duncan as Kilowag, I was actually pretty disappointed, but I feel that was the script’s fault , not Duncan.
-A serious problem for me (and most likely several critics) is that this movie lacks a really good and serious villain. Hammond’s actor is hamming it up and Parallax looks like a glowing pile of dung with a weird and demented octopus head. WTF?
+/- The effects vary from beautiful to syfy channel quality. Same with the creature effects.
-No romantic chemistry between Reynolds and Lively, there were times in the movie they felt more like a brother and sister rather than a couple.
-Way too many pointless scenes. They ended up making the movie feel longer than it actually was.
+ The 3-D is pretty good. Sadly the sloppy editing makes it difficult to enjoy.
-A small pet peeve of mine is when characters swear just to make the movie feel more adult. Not a big complaint, but still a complaint none the less.
Even though this movie has a list of problems, I don’t consider it a bad movie and I don’t regret paying the money I spent. I feel the main problem this movie has and the reason why it has been rejected by critics can be summed up in one thing: this movie could have amped up the superhero genre to the next level, instead Green Lantern sets the genre back by relying on tone and a way of storytelling that would have worked in the 1990’s, but is no longer relevant now. (Seriously, if this movie was released in the 1990’s with movies like Raimi’s Spider-Man, it would be right at home!) As a result the movie just comes up short, especially when you compare it to: Nolan’s Batman series (of course), Iron Man 1&2, The Incredible Hulk, and this year’s Thor and X-Men: First Class.
So to be nice, I give it a score of 58%.
On a side note, man did I get a little cared away.
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Jun 21, 2011 10:44:52 GMT -5
^ i actually thought Hammond was played well. he was a big time joke character until Johns got a hold of him anyway, so it makes sense that you cant take him seriously on screen.
and i have to disagree with you about GL falling short compared to X-Men: First Class. First Class was terrible. it could have been so much better and they could have done so much more with it. very poor casting, and to make it worse none of the cast had even a hint of knowledge about the characters they were portraying. the story was poor. and its one of the worst adaptions of source material that i have ever seen. its almost like they decided to do everything completely different and opposite of what occurs in the comics and made no attempts to hide it. the worst part is that even if this wasnt an X-Men movie is not entertaining. with the Nolan Batman films, if you think of them as an extreme elseworld or dont think of it as Batman they are very entertaining movies. First Class borders on unwatchable regardless of how you view it.
sorry for the rant, but the failings are too great, that i can just keep going on and on. but yeah, GL is definitely better than First Class. i saw it in 2D though, so i didnt see any of the headache inducing stuff you talked about. but First Class doesnt belong in the same sentence as GL. GL compares well with Spider-Man 2, First Class compares well with SM3.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jun 21, 2011 11:03:39 GMT -5
I'm sorry j, but really? First Class was awesome! It actually managed to get new life into a franchise that alot of people have given up on after X3 and Wolverine. It had a great story and acting, especially from MacAvoy and Fassbender. And IMO, First Class was better than GL. I dare say it may even be better than Thor. And please don't compare it to Spider-Man 3; that movie tried to do too much and didn't deliver while First Class had a focus and went at it. I feel you wanted to like GL too much because it doesn't compare to Spider-Man 2. It was a decent movie, but not great.
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Jun 21, 2011 15:55:29 GMT -5
^ i did like GL way more than most people, so i may be over rating it a bit, but First Class definitely did not deliver for me. now i understand that Matthew Vaughn has his favorite characters that he likes and he wanted to put them in a movie, but when it completely destroys the story and what the movie is supposed to be than it just shouldnt be done. having Angel in the film completely destroys the "first class" theme of the film. she is a good 30 years younger than Xavier and Magneto, yet through the magic of poor adaption she is able to encounter them in the 60s and be the same age as them. Vaughn could of fixed the main thing that destroyed the later X-Men movies and fixed William Stryker. instead he just adds to the nonsense that has come before. one of the greatest villains ever, who carries nothing but stories that deal with the exact message that Stan Lee put forth when he created the X-Men and the message that Chris Claremont re-enforced when he perfected the X-Men, reduced to being nothing but a government agent. they could have went and told a powerful story showcasing everything that makes X-Men awesome. they didnt deliver on that.
as for the acting being great, i generally like most of Kevin Bacon's work and think he's a good actor, but he was terrible as Sebastian Shaw. and do i even need to acknowledge the train wreck that was Emma Frost in that movie? or how about the terrible voicing of the characters, i was particularly fond of american Banshee? the voice of the character is a large part of the acting. if you fail the accent, you fail the role. if you cant sound like the character you are portraying then you didnt portray them well. thats just bad acting.
|
|
twistedlaugh
Legions of Gotham Police Officer
No more rules... I'm a vampire!
Posts: 246
|
Post by twistedlaugh on Jun 21, 2011 18:59:39 GMT -5
Well jlavaia, I respectfully disagree!
I felt that X-Men: First Class was a better movie then Green Lantern. Heck, the bar scene alone was better then anything I saw in Green Lantern. X-Men: First Class just had better acting, a better story line, better dialogue, no useless scenes, villains that you could actually take seriously, and at least one good female character. ( Yeah, I know Carol was supposed to be a good female character, but Lively's acting nipped that one in the butt.)
Secondly, while I do agree with you on Angel, (though, I manly disliked her for the acting) some of the points you bring up are pretty weak. You say that Emma Frost was a trainreck, but do you honestly think Carol Ferris was handled any better? You say that you where upset that Banshee didn't have his Scottish accent, but do you really think that's the actor's fault? On that note, even without the accent I felt the actor did a pretty good job at handling the character.
You also say X-men:First Class was a poor adaption. Frankly, it was obvious they were not going to be following X-men lore, the producers even made this very clear themselves. So to me, that is a mute point. Oh heck, the movie didn't even follow the continuity set by previous films. (I would also like to add that Raimi's Spider-Man didn't follow the comics at all ether, yet people for some reason still consider it to be very faithful) Lastly, you say the cast never read the comics. That is not entirely true. According to a few interviews I read, most of the cast did read the comics before starting the movie.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jun 21, 2011 20:46:48 GMT -5
You also say X-men:First Class was a poor adaption. Frankly, it was obvious they were not going to be following X-men lore, the producers even made this very clear themselves. So to me, that is a mute point. Oh heck, the movie didn't even follow the continuity set by previous films. (I would also like to add that Raimi's Spider-Man didn't follow the comics at all ether, yet people for some reason still consider it to be very faithful) Lastly, you say the cast never read the comics. That is not entirely true. According to a few interviews I read, most of the cast did read the comics before starting the movie. When it comes to continuity with the X-Men films, I agree it's a mess. To throw out an example, X3 shows Charles and Eric still working together in the 80's when they recruit Jean. On its own though, First Class is a great film. Speaking of following comic lore, alot of people were upset that it didn't follow it exactly, including that it wasn't the actual first class or that Charles had hair. My point is, is it that hard for people to understand that comic book movies don't always follow the comics word for word?
|
|
|
Post by doppelganger on Jun 21, 2011 22:33:54 GMT -5
Sorry jlavaia, I have to side with All-Star and Twisted on this one. While I did enjoy Green Lantern (minus Blake Lively and the cloud/turd monster) there is just no way that Green Lantern is a better movie the X-men: First Class.
While it didn't follow the comics at all, it just has a better story and better acting. And while January Jones was horrible as Emma Frost, her performance was Oscar worthy compared to Blake Lively!
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Jun 21, 2011 23:27:22 GMT -5
i was under the impression that First Class was meant as a reboot of the franchise and had nothing to do with the other X-Men movies. if this is actually supposed to fit in with the other films than it makes the film even worse as the little continuity that there was would now be in shambles.
Banshee having no accent is both the actor and the director's fault. Banshee without his accent is just very, very poor research. pick up any comic that has Banshee in it and you know he has a very strong accent. so the dude that played Banshee never read an X-Men comic with his character in it. Emma Frost was portrayed much worse than Carol Ferris. Blake Lively nailed the character as she would have been at that time. it was like a hybrid of Secret Origins Carol mixed with original 60s Carol and it worked just fine. the girl that played Emma did not nail her character. where's the english accent. where's the witty dialogue. where's the manipulative, secretive, totally awesome mind screwer that is Emma? as for GL lacking a serious villain, Parallax is a pretty serious villain. an entity that can pretty much render the entire corps useless is the real deal. Shaw and his merry band of mismatched characters that dont belong anywhere near the Hellfire Club are not a greater threat. i love how Riptide is in the film, but not his boss, which would make so much more sense seeing as Sinister would have fit perfect in that timeframe. Shaw and Emma werent even in the Hellfire Club in the 60s. heck, Emma wasnt even born yet. the concept is good, X-Men movie using the X-Men before they were X-Men. thats fine, but dont just throw in characters just to put them in a film. they have Mystique and Azazel in the same film and cant work in their early encounter. really? instead they opt to alter Mystique's age and in turn alter her powers which alters the character which adds to the killing of the film. its like they like Juggernaut's history, but not the character so they give his childhood living situation to Mystique. stuff like that is bad. no one expects to have things perfect, but you cant screw up the characters like that.
and if the cast read the comics, then either they cant read, have some comprehension problems, or have very bad memory problems. or they were reading current issues that dont even have their character in it. there is no way the dude that played Banshee read a comic with Banshee in it. same thing for the girl playing Emma, Kevin Bacon, the guy playing Magneto, the girl that played Moira, etc., etc.
now comic movies dont need to follow the comics exactly, but they have get some things right. completely changing a character because the character isnt how you like them to be is bad. if you dont like the character, dont use them. if you like their powers but not the character, then make up your own character, and put them in the film with those powers. i'd much rather see that then getting something very wrong. and Raimi's Spider-Man was terrible. the 2nd one is enjoyable and was the best of the trilogy by far. no comic movie gets everything right. thats a given, but you have to adapt enough of the source material accurately. poor adaption ruins a movie, regardless of anything else that is good. look at Jonah Hex as a perfect example of that. here's a character that is made to be translated to film. you could perfectly adapt those stories. that should have been an epic comic movie and one of the best westerns ever made. instead they decide to alter things and give him crazy abilities and it ruined the film completely to wear its one of the worst comic movies and not even considered a western. if you get some things right, and dont screw with characters too much, the shortcomings of the film become less obvious and the movie can still be enjoyed. Daredevil sets the bar in that regard. Kingpin is black, Bullseye is off the boat Irish. those 2 things alone should have killed the film, yet everything else was just about perfect that its easy to forgive those problems. X-Men's problems go beyond all of that. every character is wrong and poorly translated to film. everything is changed and the changes dont make for an entertaining story. you cant even view it as taking place outside of everything you know about the X-Men because its so off. not one thing or character was done right at all to make it an enjoyable X-Men film. its like Batman Begins. thats probaly the best example. nothing is right and the movie just shouldnt have been made, the only positive is that Begins at least sets up well for its sequel and your left thinking that the next one just cant be any worse than this. First Class leaves me thinking about how much worse they can make the next one if they keep this same cast.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jun 21, 2011 23:54:58 GMT -5
Dude, just look at it as an alternate take. Like Ultimate or Noir. It doesn't have to follow closely with the 616. So what if Banshee doesn't have an accent, some characters were around in the 60's, or that Havok isn't Cyclops's little brother. Just try to enjoy it for what it is.
And yeah, on a scale, Parallax is a bigger threat than the Hellfire Club. It's how they're used in the story is what we're talking about, and the Hellfire Club works better in that part. Parallax worked in some ways, but come on, he was a freakin' cloudtopus. It's Galactus all over again, but at least Parallax could talk and had a face.
And to be fair though, Mystique's powers affect her aging, just like Wolverine. That's been established in the comics and works for the film.
Seriously, you are too critical with these movies. I just don't get how you can say Green Lantern was better than First Class. The acting and script was just so much better. How can you also say that Batman Begins and Spider-Man were horrible; would they have gotten sequels if they truly were? And BTW, Jonah Hex is a bad movie altogether so it doesn't have real merit; like Catwoman.
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Jun 22, 2011 9:12:07 GMT -5
^ thats what i'm talking about with Mystique. they made her younger. why do that at all? it added absolutely nothing to the story to make her younger and a childhood friend of Xavier. plus she wouldnt have exhibited powers at that young of an age anyway. thats another thing they decided to alter.
its not that i'm critical of these films, its the disrespect to the people that created these characters and perfected these characters that i dont like. Matthew Vaughn was basically saying fu to Lee & Claremont. he decided that how the source material is doesnt work for him and since he's not creative enough to create his own film and his own characters he'll attempt to alter things to suit him. there are many comic movies and none make the drastic changes that Frist Class makes. only Begins comes close, and that movie at least created some of its own characters to help the story. and there are films i can view as an alternate world and take, but this just does everything so different and so wrong that it makes it impossible to view it like that for me.
and this is just my opinion, i liked Green Lantern more. and i'm a huge, huge X-Men fan. i like X-Men better than GL in comic form. but the GL movie was so much more entertaining. and i cant see how you can say that the acting in X-Men was better than the acting in GL. when the character you are playing has an accent and you fail the accent, you didnt do a good job of portraying the character, so you did a bad acting job. thats 90% of the cast of First Class. it'd be like if Josh Brolin spoke with an Australian accent when he portrayed George W. Bush. somehow i dont think Forest Whitaker would have gotten a Best Actor Award had he voiced Idi Amin with a southern drawl. how about if Colin Firth played King George without his accent. i dont think he'd even be nominated for the award, let alone won it. these arent original characters created for the film. these are established characters in a popular series of fiction. putting your own spin on a character is one thing, changing their accent because you cant do it is just bad acting and its even worse directing because Vaughn let it happen.
and movies get sequels based on box office intake not on how good the actual movie is. why do you think they've made so many Saw films?
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jun 22, 2011 9:51:06 GMT -5
When it comes to Mystique, did you even read what I wrote last? The comics have established her powers affect her aging. It works for the film. And if a lot of other mutants can get their powers as children, why can't Mystique? You think she wasn't born blue?
You seem to lay alot of this blame on Vaugn, when Singer had just as much to do with the story. And besides that, Fox had already made a list of mutants to use for the movie. Things had to be reworked to fit with the film series continuity, damaged as it may be. Vaugn just did what he could and did a good job. You think he did a straight-on adaptation of Kick-butt? No, he took some liberties on that as well.
What is it with you and accents? For some roles, yeah it's important to have one, especially when you're playing an actual person from real life. With Banshee, he had such a minimal role in the film compared to Charles or Erik. You're the only person I know complaining about him not having an accent, so really who cares? Besides that, do you really think X-Men: First Class can win any Academy Award, especially since there's so much bias towards comic book movies.
Look we're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this since we'll just keep going around in circles on this. Let's just get back to the actual topic of this thread: the Green Lantern movie.
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Jun 22, 2011 10:53:15 GMT -5
it doesnt work for the film. in the comics Mystique was born in the late 1800s. that makes her a good 50 years older than Xavier. making her younger just hurts the film and the character.
i lay the blame on Vaughn because he directed the film and cast the film. part of his job is to make sure the cast know things about their characters. and Banshee having no accent is a big deal. its a huge part of his character. make his role non-speaking. but since its a small role, lets talk about a larger role, Emma Frost. where was her accent?
but forget accents, how about the botched characterization. they completely destroyed Magneto in that film. having him hunt Shaw for killing his mother is just complete nonsense. how difficult would it have been to portray what really happened? then Shaw wouldnt have been altered so badly and you could have gotten him right, you'd have Magneto as he should have been and the film might have been halfway decent.
and there's no bias againts comic movies getting awards or getting nominated. didnt Road to Perdition win a bunch of awards? but yes, we should get back on topic. this was an enjoyable discussion, but what makes movies great is that everyone sees them differently and some movies some people like more than others and vice versa.
so on topic, i liked GL. i thought it was awesome. i was very entertained and i was glad that i went to see it.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jun 22, 2011 13:03:24 GMT -5
If you really wanted to get back on topic, you would have just agreed and not tried to get the last word in. Sorry, but it looks like we're continuing this.
Seriously, you are too critical! Who cares if Mystique is younger, or about accents (you don't even mention Moira not being Scottish BTW)? And Magneto going after Shaw is good motivation for his character. He killed his mother! These characters aren't exactly like their comic book counterparts. I've said that multiple times already. They didn't have to be to have a great film. Okay? And while on this same topic, what about Hal in Green Lantern? It didn't bother you they played to Ryan Reynolds' comedic strengths to make him a joker at the start of the movie?
Let me rephrase the award part. They are biased against comic book superhero movies then. The exception is Heath Ledger, and as great as he was as the Joker, you have to admit part of the reason he won was because he died.
Now, let's just get back on topic with the Green Lantern movie and JUST DROP THIS X-MEN CONVERSATION. We're not gonna agree on this, so what's the point?
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Jun 22, 2011 14:21:10 GMT -5
"these characters arent exactly like their comic counterparts", they're absolutely nothing like their comic counterparts. there is not one character at all in the film that is even remotely accurate to as they should be. that ruins the movie. if you make an X-Men movie and dont use the X-Men what's the point? Hal not being a complete douche before he's GL wasnt a problem for me as he was still the same character. he was still a headstrong, fearless pilot. things happened close to how they're supposed to and he was still Hal Jordan. its not like they made him a bus driver instead of a pilot. the movie was an origin story and it was done well. X-Men: First Class was supposed to be an origin story. did they get anything correct? nope. not occupations, not how the characters powers manifested, not the looks, nothing. its not like this was X-Men 4. they specifically called it First Class and said its an X-Men origin story. even if they didnt want to use the originally X-Men, they could have gotten the origins correct for the characters that they did use. the main thing that they should have gone out of there way to get right was Xavier and Magneto meeting though. how they botched that scene just boggles my mind. if they had at least gotten that scene right and gotten the characterization right i'd be able to tolerate the film and it wouldnt have been as bad as it was. the movie just failed on so many levels. if you want to make an origin film, you kind of have to stay fairly close to the source material. especially since this movie was set in the past. its not even like Iron Man where its set in the present so they modernized his origin to make it fit in with today's world. they set it in the past, they should have stayed close to the source material. if they wanted to completely change the characters and do things differently then they shouldnt have called it First Class and talked about how it was an origin movie for Xavier and Magneto.
and we actually are kind of on topic since we do keep mentioning GL. so we can keep this here. if you really think its that off topic feel free to continue this discussion in the summer movie thread, but its fine to continue this here. we are having a great debate/discussion on which film was better and why, X-Men: First Class or Green Lantern.
|
|
|
Post by doppelganger on Jun 22, 2011 20:48:46 GMT -5
Give me a break, Your not even looking at X-Men:First Class as a movie, your just looking at it through fanboy goggles! Yes, we freaking get it, X-men: First Class is nothing like the comics.
But unlike Green Lantern, X-men:first class can at least be viewed as good movie by the general movie going public! Which is allot more then what I can say for Green Lantern.
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Jun 23, 2011 21:15:32 GMT -5
Give me a break, Your not even looking at X-Men:First Class as a movie, your just looking at it through fanboy goggles! Yes, we freaking get it, X-men: First Class is nothing like the comics. But unlike Green Lantern, X-men:first class can at least be viewed as good movie by the general movie going public! Which is allot more then what I can say for Green Lantern. where are you getting your information from? and what do you consider the general movie going public? and perhaps you can enlighten us all on what makes a good movie for the general movie going public, and what doesnt? are you saying this solely because X-Men made alittle under $2 million more than GL on opening weekend worldwide? i hope that isnt the case as in the US, GL's opening weekend intake is nearly double to what X-Men made on its first weekend in the US. how about we compare how many general public movie goers chose to visit GL over X-Men last weekend when both films were in the same theatres. GL was definitely the favored choice. or here's my favorite stat about the general public and the movies, GL is being carried in 3,816 theatres. X-Men opened 3,641 theatres and is now only being shown in 3,375 theatres. if the general public truly thought that X-Men was the better film then more theatres would be carrying the film after it opened, not less. each week, less and less theatres are carrying X-Men. while i think its great that you loved First Class so much and its cool that you disliked Green Lantern and all, but thats your opinion on those movies. you in no way represent the general movie going public. neither do i. as i continue to state, in my opinion, i liked GL better than X-Men: FC. i've even stated why in a number of these posts. what you have done is just say that you liked X-men more and that you disliked GL and disliked Blake Lively's performance. which is understandable as she's the new hot thing right now and i guess its cool to dislike what's hot and in or something, but the point i'm making is that without research you really shouldnt post about what other people that you dont know (the general public for instance) are watching and going to see in the theatres. you arent them, you are you, you cant give opinions for others. and my info comes from The Numbers website, which is a cool site and i found it thanks to this discussion and mainly your latest post so i must thank you for that as it has some real cool data on like every movie ever put in theatres. so thats the source of my information.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jun 23, 2011 22:32:44 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but you're getting out of line here. You're putting words into doppleganger's mouth saying he disliked it because it's hot, when his previous posts said he enjoyed it sans Lively and Parallax as an octocloud. As for the general movie audience, we're talking about reviews. Let's look at Rotten Tomatoes. First Class in the 80's and Green Lantern in the 20's. That's how the general movie public feels, and apparently GL is not hot. Hell, bad reviews hurt it's predicted box office intake by 8 million. As for theaters, all movies eventually get pulled to make room for the newer ones. Thor is gone from my theater now, does that mean it sucked? Of course not. And besides, Green Lantern was more hyped than X-Men, which is why it got more screens. Besides that, you have to take into consideration that some theaters show movies on more than one screen for awhile, given the option of 2D or 3D, until newer movies come out.
If we're gonna talk about box intake, let's see how Green Lantern does in it's second week. X-Men made back its money already, partly thanks to good word of mouth. However, while reviews are mixed with Green Lantern, bad word of mouth could lead to it not breaking even with its $200 million. Plus, we got Cars 2 and Bad Teacher out that weekend.
While we're talking statistics, Box Office Mojo even predicts GL would only make $18 million this weekend. In it's second weekend X-Men made $24 million. See the difference?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Nightwing on Jun 23, 2011 23:00:48 GMT -5
This is a pretty funny discussion to view.
JLavia: "First Class changed things from the comics and that makes it bad."
Everyone else: "Even though things are different from the comics, it's a cool and interesting movie in its own right."
JLavia: "Nuh-uh. They changed stuff."
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jun 23, 2011 23:33:24 GMT -5
This is a pretty funny discussion to view. JLavia: "First Class changed things from the comics and that makes it bad." Everyone else: "Even though things are different from the comics, it's a cool and interesting movie in its own right." JLavia: "Nuh-uh. They changed stuff." Pointing it out, it does sound funny. We can say this pretty much about every comic book movie.
|
|
|
Post by doppelganger on Jun 23, 2011 23:38:19 GMT -5
Maybe you should actually read my past posts on this thread before you make a bunch fallacious accusations about me and just make false statements in general! where are you getting your information from? and what do you consider the general movie going public? and perhaps you can enlighten us all on what makes a good movie for the general movie going public, and what doesnt? are you saying this solely because X-Men made alittle under $2 million more than GL on opening weekend worldwide? i hope that isnt the case as in the US, GL's opening weekend intake is nearly double to what X-Men made on its first weekend in the US. how about we compare how many general public movie goers chose to visit GL over X-Men last weekend when both films were in the same theatres. GL was definitely the favored choice. Way to twist your info, whille GL did make more opening day, X-men made $55 million, whille GL made only $53 million in it's opening week. Plus GL was realesed in 3-D, which means higher ticket prices. Here is a video that will break this down for you. Currently, GL has risen to 26% on RT, while X-men still has allot more than that in both critic and user ratings. or here's my favorite stat about the general public and the movies, GL is being carried in 3,816 theatres. X-Men opened 3,641 theatres and is now only being shown in 3,375 theatres. if the general public truly thought that X-Men was the better film then more theatres would be carrying the film after it opened, not less. each week, less and less theatres are carrying X-Men. Funny thing about Hollywood, it releases new movies every week! Which means less and less theatres are going to start caring a movie. Take that into consideration, the fact that X-men still is 3,375 theatres after three or four weeks is actually a pretty good statistic. Furthermore the fact that GL was released in 3,816 theatres and in 3-D (which means higher ticket prices) and still managed to underperform in the weekend box office compared to X-men. while i think its great that you loved First Class so much and its cool that you disliked Green Lantern and all, but thats your opinion on those movies. you in no way represent the general movie going public. neither do i. as i continue to state, in my opinion, i liked GL better than X-Men: FC. i've even stated why in a number of these posts. what you have done is just say that you liked X-men more and that you disliked GL and disliked Blake Lively's performance. which is understandable as she's the new hot thing right now or something, You should really my past posts before you made this comment, becouse there are two things wrong with it. First of all, I said I liked GL minus Lively the turd/cloud monster. But I am willing to admit that X-men, is the better movie. Secondly, READ MY PAST POSTS! If you did, you would actually see that I orginaly supported Lively. To bad she sucked! The fact that willing to acussing me of disliking her just becouse "she's the new hot thing right now" is just immature and misinformed. but the point i'm making is that without research you really shouldnt post about what other people that you dont know (the general public for instance) are watching and going to see in the theatres. you arent them, you are you, you cant give opinions for others. Thanks for the advice, clearly you didn't use it! Instead you gave misinterpreted information and made fraudulent accusations against me! That's real low and immature considering your a forum surpervisor! and my info comes from The Numbers website, which is a cool site and i found it thanks to this discussion and mainly your latest post so i must thank you for that as it has some real cool data on like every movie ever put in theatres. so thats the source of my information. Clearly, you didn't read it properly! P.S: Thanks for the back-up All-Star!
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Jun 24, 2011 23:05:57 GMT -5
I'm sorry, but you're getting out of line here. You're putting words into doppleganger's mouth saying he disliked it because it's hot, when his previous posts said he enjoyed it sans Lively and Parallax as an octocloud. As for the general movie audience, we're talking about reviews. Let's look at Rotten Tomatoes. First Class in the 80's and Green Lantern in the 20's. That's how the general movie public feels, and apparently GL is not hot. Hell, bad reviews hurt it's predicted box office intake by 8 million. As for theaters, all movies eventually get pulled to make room for the newer ones. Thor is gone from my theater now, does that mean it sucked? Of course not. And besides, Green Lantern was more hyped than X-Men, which is why it got more screens. Besides that, you have to take into consideration that some theaters show movies on more than one screen for awhile, given the option of 2D or 3D, until newer movies come out. If we're gonna talk about box intake, let's see how Green Lantern does in it's second week. X-Men made back its money already, partly thanks to good word of mouth. However, while reviews are mixed with Green Lantern, bad word of mouth could lead to it not breaking even with its $200 million. Plus, we got Cars 2 and Bad Teacher out that weekend. While we're talking statistics, Box Office Mojo even predicts GL would only make $18 million this weekend. In it's second weekend X-Men made $24 million. See the difference? let's start here. perhaps you should read my post and then you can accuse me of stuff after you read it. i was speaking of Blake Lively, not the GL movie. not once did i refer to Green Lantern as being hot. and predictions arent fact. and Rotten Tomatoes is probaly the absolute worst place to go for a film review. it actually makes sense that they would highly rate the X-Men film. and 3D means absolutely nothing. 95% of movie theatres can carry a 3D movie. so please dont make excuses for them. This is a pretty funny discussion to view. JLavia: "First Class changed things from the comics and that makes it bad." Everyone else: "Even though things are different from the comics, it's a cool and interesting movie in its own right." JLavia: "Nuh-uh. They changed stuff." and now we'll go here, since we're talking about blatantly putting words into people's mouths. All-Star it would seem your initial post should have been directed at this gentlemen and not at me. first, read my username, then type it. if thats difficult for you, copy and paste works fantastic. second, altering the source material is not what made the film poor, and i never stated that as the reason, i believe my top complaints about the film have been the poor acting and poor story. please try to follow along with the discussion before chiming in with your fiction. thanks. and lastly to doppelganger, thats cool that you made a youtube video. unfortunately posting a video on youtube doesnt make it fact. it looks like a college made video, decently done. my buddy makes better stuff for BlazBlue though. i'll talk to him and see if he can give your vid more life. and before i get accused of any more falisies, no i did not watch the video past the :11 mark as i'm interested in facts from real sources, not some college chicks youtube vid. and since you clearly didnt read my post at all, i'll reiterate. i said GL made almost double opening weekend in the US. X-Men made 55 worldwide. X-Men has made more money internationally than it has made domestically. so yeah, clearly i did read it properly. again, 3D means nothing. stop making excuses. as for your feelings on Blake Lively's performance, here's what you had to say about it: And while January Jones was horrible as Emma Frost, her performance was Oscar worthy compared to Blake Lively! now to me that doesnt sound like support. the comparison you made is something you would say about a performance you strongly disliked. we all know that Lively wasnt close to as bad as you make her out to be. so my understanding of your dislike seems warranted. because if you, and all-star, had read my post you would see that i never said thats how you felt or what you said. all i said was that you said you disliked Blake's performance, which you did. all i did was point out that its understandable to not like her and why i understand it. i basically just said, i get it. my apologies if my understanding bothered you to the point that you feel the need to insult me by calling me "low and immature". guys, before accusing someone of making something up, or putting words in someone's mouth, or disrespecting/insulting a fellow forum visitor, i'm going to ask that you thoroughly read the posts that you are commenting on. this was a civil and fun discussion until some of you decided to peruse posts instead of reading them. i hate having to lock a good thread, so let's get back to having a fun, civil discussion so i dont have to lock it. thank you.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jun 24, 2011 23:49:42 GMT -5
I took your advice about throughly reading someone's post, and went back to both doppleganger's and your post. Observe. So, what did you guys think of Green Lantern? I thought it was pretty decent. Yes, it has flaws but I don't think it deserves some of the harsh reviews it's getting. while i think its great that you loved First Class so much and its cool that you disliked Green Lantern and all, but thats your opinion on those movies. what you have done is just say that you liked X-men more and that you disliked GL So, you did indeed put words in his mouth, meaning we're in the right on this situation. Would you like to defend yourself here? Nightwing was just parodying this situation, and it is kinda funny. Also, are really gonna get bent out of shape over the misspelling of your name? As for 3D, it does make a difference in terms of ticket prices, "3D fatigue" was another factor in GL's low box office intake. *sigh* This whole thing is getting exhausting. Why can't this just end? I feel the longer this goes on, the uglier it's gonna get. Maybe we should just the lock the thread. Nobody is gonna win this thing.
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Jun 25, 2011 0:51:27 GMT -5
if you had truly taken my advice you would have seen this post: But unlike Green Lantern, X-men:first class can at least be viewed as good movie by the general movie going public! Which is allot more then what I can say for Green Lantern. care to try again. see that statement above is that user stating that GL cannot be viewed as a good movie. but it's not your fault that doppelganger decided to change his opinion of the film 3 days later. it is his opinion. he can change it as much as he would like. perhaps some days he likes the movie, other days he doesnt. and sentences end with periods. so if you want to cut someone's quote, you cut at the period. see here's what i actually posted: while i think its great that you loved First Class so much and its cool that you disliked Green Lantern and all, but thats your opinion on those movies. you in no way represent the general movie going public. neither do i. as i continue to state, in my opinion, i liked GL better than X-Men: FC. i've even stated why in a number of these posts. what you have done is just say that you liked X-men more and that you disliked GL and disliked Blake Lively's performance. you clearly are having trouble reading what is being typed. so no, you are not reading posts before commenting. you are taking pieces of what i say in different sentences, then combining those pieces, and then commenting on that. now please refrain from future trolling and let's get back to discussing these films. thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Batlaw on Jun 25, 2011 19:29:14 GMT -5
Ok everyone. Were going to put an end to this pointless back and forth now. Everyone has taken their shots and said their piece. No other purpose is being served but breeding hostility, so only specific comments about the Green Lantern film itself from now on please.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jun 25, 2011 20:43:22 GMT -5
That would be nice.
So changing topics, I kind of have an idea of what they could do for a trilogy. For the second movie, they could adapt the Sinestro Corps War, and then for the third, Blackest Night. Of course they would have to change some things to make it more Green Lantern centric since they were large DC wide events, but if they got the right script and a long enough runtime, it could work.
I don't remember if I've said this here or not, but I think the second one should also focus more on the Corps and introduce more characters, like Laira and Arisia for example.
|
|
|
Post by Batlaw on Jun 25, 2011 21:17:15 GMT -5
If there were to be another movie I would like an original take on Sinestro's downfall to incorporate the Sinestro Corps. War and or the "Corps. / war" portion could be the third. Pretty clear the intended sequel was based around Sinestro. Sadly I dont see WB going forward now with anything unless overseas, DVD, and merch sales set records. Damn shame IMO. I dont see how Blackest Night could really be adapted to work? Perhaps just straight zombis attacking but I dont see that working or fitting personally.
|
|
|
Post by All Star Batman on Jun 25, 2011 21:36:52 GMT -5
I think as long as they make back all 200 million dollars, there could be a chance.
|
|
|
Post by jlavaia on Jun 25, 2011 22:20:03 GMT -5
Doppelganger is trolling? Little hypocritical coming from the guy who has posted false information. Seriously, did you misinterpret the information or did you just twist it to try and win the argument? and yet another person with a reading problem. i was unaware that doppelganger and All Star Batman were the same user. news to me, especially considering their differing connections. and there was no argument between anyone, just a friendly discussion. now on to the new topic (though why we even bother is beyond me when no one seems to read posts in full, but w/e): Sinestro Corps War would have to be used for a third film, as i agree with batlaw in that it needs a whole film to showcase Sinestro's fall from grace. and they may not even want to go that route in the film. they may keep Sinestro as a GL and never have him turn bad, especially if the rumors about the comics post-Flashpoint become true. Blackest Night might not work, but Nekron as the villain definitely could. they could loosely adapt TotC or GL annual 7 for the sotry, or just come up with an original story using him. Nekron has only been in a handful of stories, so he's wide open enough that they have some leway with how to use him. i'm actually hoping we see Star Sapphire. you'd have to think Sinestro and Star Sapphire as villains for a sequel. but then again they may want another corps wide threat, and we'll see something like Ranx or something that the Controllers unleash. hopefully they do a sequel.
|
|