QuoteReplyTopic: Forum DISCUSSION of GREEN LANTERN Posted: June 16 2011 at 4:45pm
Yikes! When the Muppets are mocking your movie, you KNOW you did something wrong!
Originally posted by Vheid
The Muppets are apparently mocking the Green Lantern-promotion . link
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Roger Ebert(2.5/4):"It doesn't intend to be plausible.It intends to be a sound-and-light show,assaulting the audience with sensational special effects.If that's what you want,that's what you get".
I think more people are interested in her leaked cell phone nude photos than her performance.
Originally posted by 27years
I wonder how Blake Lively is in this movie??
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Not to get too gossipy, but do you think those pictures have helped or hindered her quest to be a serious actress? Or do a lot of people just not care anymore as it has happened "accidentally" to so many others?
This has to be one of the biggest disappointments of the year thus far. I think its only real shots at Razzies are in the categories of Worst Actor and Worst Remake or Ripoff. Ryan Reynolds would be competing against Russell Brand, Nicolas Cage, and Alex Pettyfer for Worst Actor; while the film itself would be up against 'The Roommate', 'Red Riding Hood', and 'Just Go With It' in the contest for Worst Remake or Ripoff.
And by the way, IMDb says that the budget was $150M, not $200M.
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: In the L.A. Times article about likely grosses for LANTERN's opening weekend (LINK) they pegged the production budget as "more than $200 million" (and the ad/promo budget as about $125 million). And I'll take the word of the L.A. Times over that of the IMDb any day!
Miguel, What problem do you have with Ryan Reynolds? I personally think that he's a decent actor, So why are you so sure that he will not be any good in this movie (a movie you havn't even seen yet). Just asking out of curiosity...
I also don't think that you can predict at such an early stage which movies will get nominated and which movies will not...
Actually, it was $300 million, according to Yahoo Movies. There's no way in hell you can have that much CGI in your movie and it be under a $200 million budget (that's the one and only lesson we learned from "Skyline")!
Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu
And by the way, IMDb says that the budget was $150M, not $200M.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Depends on her acting choices. If she does more serious dramas, she can go far. If she plays the cheesecake roles, she's stay eye candy. But the moral of the story, don't send nude photos of yourself via your smartphone, because chances are someone will hack your phone or your boyfriend will release them online because you're famous. Why is that so hard for these young starlets to understand?
Originally posted by 27years
Not to get too gossipy, but do you think those pictures have helped or hindered her quest to be a serious actress? Or do a lot of people just not care anymore as it has happened "accidentally" to so many others?
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
Don't diss the facts: 82% percent from user score and lots of applauses from screenings. Plus every major Green Lantern says it disappointing or great -- screw the critics!
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I think you've misunderstood what that "82%" figure at RT means -- It's not a rating by users who've seen the film, it's a meter of how many users wanted to see the film before it was released...
Originally posted by BurnHollywoodBurn
Originally posted by whatsthepoint
The audience reaction from the screening was very positive. Looks like this is a movie that the critics hate but the audience will love. I am also appalled this on here. This looks great, f the critics.
Looking great doesn't mean you are great when it comes to storytelling. "Transformers 2" was ripped apart by critics and won 3 major Razzies, but that didn't stop it from becoming the 11th highest grossing movie of all time. Conclusion: audiences just like looking at pretty colors, critics actually know what they are talking about.
Yeah, it has 82% rating among audiences. So? That doesn't prove any of those people know what a good movie is if they were mauled by one. It just proves they like seeing metric-f*** tons of CGI. Critics know and audiences blow.
Originally posted by whatsthepoint
Don't diss the facts 82% percent from user score and lots of applauses from screenings. Plus every major Green Lantern says it disapointing or great, screw the critics.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
1. I doubt Reynolds' performance is on par with the likes of Nicolas Cage's many recent ... paydays.
2. Why Worst Remake or Ripoff? It's not a sequel or remake of any past movie. It MIGHT be on the voting ballot for Worst Picture, but I doubt it will make it into the final five nods.
Originally posted by MiguelAntilsu
Ryan Reynolds would be competing against Russell Brand, Nicolas Cage, and Alex Pettyfer for Worst Actor; while the film itself would be up against 'The Roommate', 'Red Riding Hood', and 'Just Go With It' in the contest for Worst Remake or Ripoff.
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
I never trust the critics. I've liked a lot of movies they've hated, and the audience is what matters anyway, not some snobby critics (well it's now down to 72% but I suspect those trolls on IMDB have voted).
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I think you've misunderstood what that "82%" figure at RT means -- It's not a rating by users who've seen the film, it's a meter of how many users wanted to see the film before it was released...
Actually that was 95% percent now 72% liked it, but when I first posted it 82% liked it.
Hey, you're free to like whatever you like ... but critics are not snobs, they just happen to know more about what makes a GOOD movie. And yes, audiences do matter ... for the business end of movie making. And critics DO matter, because right around Oscar time, audiences flock to the movies that are up for Oscar nods, and more often than not, those same movies were the highest rated by critics. Critics name the best movies, those same movies get Oscar nods, audiences see those said movies to see what the big deal is.
See, critics DO matter! But don't be bitter because they are bad-mouthing a movie you want to see.
Originally posted by whatsthepoint
I never trust the critics. I've liked a lot of movies they've hated, and the audience is what matters anyway, not some snobby critics (well it's now down to 72% but I suspect those trolls on IMDB have voted).
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Furl
Google Boomarks
Google Buzz
MySpace
Newsvine
reddit
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Post Options
Quote 
Topic: Forum DISCUSSION of GREEN LANTERN
