Haven't heard any buzz on how good this movie is yet, but I was amazed, amazed to hear it had a $300 million budget.  For Green friggin' Lantern.  And Ryan Reynolds.  I personally like the character, but he's not exactly the most well known of the Justice League.  Dark Knight I think had a budget of $185 mil.  

This movie needs to earn dumptrucks o' cash just to break even.

mod edit: This film is out in theaters, so I moved the thread to the Review section.

early reviews are saying this one sucks. some people are claiming that wolverine and x-men 3 are better. its really not surprising though.

what is surprising is that most critics are saying that the film's worst problem ISNT ryan reynolds. instead its the lackluster story that doesnt connect at all.

Are we tired of superhero films yet?

You know that superhero films are absolutely killing the mid-budget indie film, right? If you're not under $5MM, you need to be at $30MM with a high concept. Very few movies getting made in the middle.

Okay, okay, I get it - he has super powers and he saves the day. Can we move on already? I mean, Spiderman is done right, because it's a teenager with this gift that he doesn't quite know how to use, and he's got guilt over his Uncle's death. And though I'm not a fan of the Dark Knight movies, there's that Spidey type of back story with the main character. But the rest of them? Who cares.

Very tired of super hero movies.  Very shocked at how well they all seem to do.

Personally, I don't get it.

The best movies both entertain us, and at the same time give us a glimpse into ourselves and/or teach us something.

What does a superhero movie teach us? That if we get a green ring everything will be okey dokey?

Listen, pure escapism is cool, but 100% pure escapism, all the time? That's just passing the buck, man...

There's only so many good superheroes and at this point, they've made movies about them all. If it's not Spiderman, Batman, Superman or X-Men, nobody other than nerds cares. Built-in audience, I suppose.

BTW, the estimated budget on IMDB was $150 million. Makes a lot more sense than $300 million. I doubt anyone'd want to dish out more cash than Avatar and The Dark Knight for The Green Lantern.

Apparently the budgets they come out with aren't really real..they just use them as a way of marketing the movie.

I love Superhero stories by the way. Don't think it's fair to say that they are necessarily worse than any other story. You can tell any story you want within the parameters of them. Whether the Hollywood machine does or not is another story.

For instance:

Here's a list of the ten best Green Lantern stories:

http://geek-news.mtv.com/2011/06/15/the-10-best-green-lantern-comics-ever/

Just reading the small blurb of each story tells you the possibilities of story within that particular Universe.

You've got events that are analogous to the Cold War, examination into what it would mean to have a ring that is powered by your Will..etc.

The problem is that the Hollywood system doesn't often seem able to deliver the same standard of story that comic books and other literature seems able to deliver regularly. Everything gets dumbed down..whereas comic books have actually grown more mature due to an aging audience.

Rick, what do you mean, "the budgets aren't really real..."?  What info are you basing this comment on?

Quoted from Scar Tissue Films The problem is that the Hollywood system doesn't often seem able to deliver the same standard of story that comic books and other literature seems able to deliver regularly. Everything gets dumbed down..whereas comic books have actually grown more mature due to an aging audience.

So isn't that a great reason to leave them as literature or comics and not waste $300MM on them? You know how many homeless people can get helped by $300MM? Or how many indie films can be financed?

It's something Dov Simens said. (He runs the two day film school which numerous successful filmmakers have attended).

He mentioned it in a book called from Reel to Deal, which is a quick breakdown of how to make a film and break in.

Basically said they use these budgets as a marketing ploy (That movie cost $100M...I wonder what that looks like!) and the real money spent is much less. He reckoned Waterworld with a budget of $200M really cost no more than $20M.

They then use creative accounting to write off the money and apportion it through all their hundreds and hundreds of subsidiaries round the world to keep their profits and tax down.

Obviously I have no way of knowing if it's true.

Quoted from ajr So isn't that a great reason to leave them as literature or comics and not waste $300MM on them? You know how many homeless people can get helped by $300MM? Or how many indie films can be financed?

Well...from the Studioes point of view they are hardly a waste are they? They rake it in at the BO and that's not taking into account DVD, VOD, Cable and the long tail...these films last practically forever because the subject matter is nigh on a hundred years old and is still going strong. How many times is the original Superman still shown? X-Men is still on Sky over here, 11 years after its release.

The homeless part of the equation is somewhat outside the remit of the topic imo...that's an issue of Capitalism and is for the US public to decide on.

These films should, in theory, be able to allow studioes to take more risks on indie films because they provide a guaranteed long tail income. It works that way in the comic world anyway...they have big selling lines like Star Wars that allow them to take risks on more niche stuff that may or may not find an audience.

Perhaps that can't happen in practice because of the limited number of slots available on cinema screens.

I can understand your point of view and being in a similar position myself understand the frustration. However I'm not wholly convinced there are all these incredible titles ready to be made in their stead to be honest. The studioes can't even seem to be able to tell a decent story with subjects like the Green Lantern that already have hundreds of top, ready-developed story-lines and characters to choose from (see Judge Dredd)...I'm not sure what they'd do with smaller pics.

Besides that, if I'm brutally honest, a lot of Indie films are dire. They are equally banal, just slower, and don't have either the technical competence or the pyrotechincs to even disguise their weaknesses. The better ones are available to be seen...there's probably too many decent films to ever watch anyway. I've got a list of about 100 films I'd like to see on a piece of paper in front of me that's just quite recent films.

Very good points Rick - and yes, by waste, I was going off the assumption that Green Lantern was going to be a flop.

here's the article I was referring to:

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

and another:

http://blogs.indiewire.com/the.....bell_not_signed_for/

to counter your point Scar, here are the worst green lantern stories:

http://io9.com/5811647/totally-demented-green-lantern-storylines-that-wont-be-in-the-movie