Talk:Green Lantern (film)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

3-D only?

The article fails to make clear whether the film will be released on 3-D screens only or in 2-D as well. I have heard both stories from multiple sources. It would be nice if we could find some reliable sourcing for this. 74.243.188.205 (talk) 08:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Notablity for Green Lantern (film)

When the film enters principal photography this would be the correct name space to place the article. However until then the article fails notability guidlines and should be redirected to Green Lantern in other media#Film. -TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed

The citation caption for the plot summary seems kinda snarky. You may well say that an upcoming movie about Superman will need citation if the plot is decribed as "A movie about Superman". 71.97.59.52 (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Jay O. Sanders as Carl Ferris

Per discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Films/Archive 30#Using Examiner.com as a source, do not add this information without a source that does not cite The Examiner or other such unreliable sources. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The press release cited in the Premise also confirms Sanders, so I readded him to the cast. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The Current Pic

Is this even confirmed as the official GL poster? I went to the site listed at the bottom, and rather than giving me anything related to this film, it redirected me to WB's site for the animated Green Lantern: First Flight DTV. I'd say this poster is a fan manip, and until we can prove otherwise, we should delete it.

The picture in question: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4d/Green_Lantern_Teaser_by_joshwmc.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.146.79.0 (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's unofficial, but it has been released an official teaser poster. link: http://marketsaw.blogspot.com/2010/06/new-green-lantern-poster.html Someone should upload it.

the image is a teaser for the toyline [A] 20:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariel ALB (talk • contribs)

Maybe a more appropriate picture would be Ryan Reynolds in that God-awful uniform from Entertainment Weakly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.79.254.103 (talk) 13:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
The source seems to explain itself.


"Official Green Lantern Movie Logo Revealed" at /Film. Retrieved June 7, 2010.

Jhenderson777 (talk) 15:09, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Here 'go. http://i32.tinypic.com/2lu6utt.jpg —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.63.124 (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

As Jhenderson777 pointed out point the source for the current picture explains itself. It is the logo for the film that was revealed along with the annoucment of a liscensing agreement with Mattel for a toyline. It is not a logo for the toyline.

Also per Non-free use rationale guidelines the EW cover cannot be used in the article's infobox as magazine covers can only be used for critical commentary in the magazine's article. Besides the image is representative of only the character not the film.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:12, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be removed as its the official logo not the official Poster. A lot of films have official logos like G.I Joe or Transformers. Ghost07 (talk) 21:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Backlash

In regards to the amount of backlash the Green Lantern movie costume is getting, shouldn't there be a mention of this in the artcile? http://www.toplessrobot.com/2010/07/well_hello_ryan_reynolds_as_green_lantern.php There was an article on yahoo a couple of days ago about fans being less than thrilled with this horrid costume as well, though I'm not quite sure where it is now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.57.221 (talk) 01:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Critical reaction to film will be detailed in its own section once the film nears release.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Mark Strong quotation

Any idea where Mark Strong's comments that the Hal Jordan character was based on Errol Flynn came from? The USA Today article in the citation quotes him as saying (correctly) that Hal was based on Paul Newman. The article makes no mention of Flynn, nor of Flynn and David Niven having been roommates (which is true, though irrelevant). Was the USA Today article altered after it was cited here, or did this misinformation come from somewhere else? WaxTadpole (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems the article has since been altered. I did however find a number of articles with the same quote, all citing the same USA Today article as their source. [1] [2] [3] --TriiipleThreat (talk) 03:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we have a citation, but is it on point?

I've removed the bit about Carol Ferris' "ultimately" becoming the Star Sapphire from the article three times now. Yes, a citation has been provided for the info, but the larger question - and to my mind, the far ore important one - is if it is necessary to the article. As Ferris doesn't become the Star Sapphire during the course of the film (and if she did, there'd better be a big bucket of citations to back that up), we don't need it. If the readers want to know more about Ferris, they can follow the link to the article on her. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:11, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This isn't a comics related issue its a film issue. The citation says that the character WILL become Star Sapphire as a part of the film series, they are just unsure which film it is, this one or the planned sequels. The citation is enough to warrant its inclusion. --TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:12, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I completely disagree. This is the article for the film. When we know that Star Sapphire - or any mention thereof - is going to make an appearance in this film, then we can include it. We are not in the business of prognostication, nor are we rumor-mongers. We speak to the substance of the matter. Just because the citation gave us background on who the character is in other media doesn't translate into a green light for cruft here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:52, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I've undone your revert and also purged the second citation that doesn't address the content of this film. There seems to be a basic disconnect happening here; we do not add content outside the scope of the article, Carol Ferris doesn't turn evil in this film (if you have a cite that she does, please present it here), so therefore, the idea that she turns evil at some point is superfluous to this article about the film. If you have significant issues with this viewpoint, please feel free to express them, but you might want to talk to an admin and get their input first. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Its not rumor, WILL is pretty definitive. The only ambiguity is when and per WP:CRYSTAL, Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place, which citation uses the definitive terms WILL and ULTIMATELY. Same goes for Sinestro becoming GL's nemesis as well as remarks by Temuera Morrison about the inclusion of Abin Sur in the sequels.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
My apologies, but I feel you are deeply misapprehending both our guidelines as well as the spirit of what Wikipedia is supposed to be, instead relying on semantics. We do not Sherlock the text or sources - that is outside our wheelhouse. If the citation speaks to circumstances surrounding this film, we can include it. If they do not, we give it a pass. If there were absolute, concrete information about a sequel, then maybe it might fit in there. As it is, you have submitted nothing that states explicitly that Carol Ferris will be the Star Sapphire in this film, so therefore, it cannot be included in this article. If you are unsure of this matter, please feel free to bring it up at WP:FILM; just be sure to post a link so the rest of us can contribute. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:21, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 1

2¢ since it seems this has become what may become an edit war...
  • IIUC, this has been upgraded to a full fledged film article because the project in in post preduction. WP:FILM just requires that principle photography bhave begun.
  • An article on a film is limited to that film. If a source presents information about a potential sequel or spin-off, that source has to provide a concrete link to the current film. Information about "hopes" or "plans" that only rely on this film on the grounds of "If it does well" fall under "Crystal Ball".
  • There isn't enough, ATN, to justify Green Lantern 2, Green Lantern 2 film project, or Green Lantern film franchise.
  • There also isn't enough to include the information of the IOM sections of the related characters. There it would be yanked as unnecessary or non-notable rumor.
  • Which would also be the case with the bio of the actors...
If you must, hold on to the links, or their archives. If a sequel is green lit, and once there is enough solid information (an actor saying "I like the idea of.." isn't really solid) to justify Green Lantern 2 film project, adding the info might be good thing. Might be. But it's a case of "wait and see" of "Parrot the roumer sites".
- J Greb (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
And, just to be clear, I have no problem with the info staying hidden (as opposed to being removed) until such time as the sequel is announced, or there is some indication beyond scuttlebutt that Sapphire is going to be in the film as a villain. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:48, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Well to be clear, a sequel is already in active development. It should be noted that this film was developed from the beginning as being a part of a trilogy, and the screenplay for the fist sequel is currently being written. However in the interest of fairness I have removed other information from the Cast section.
that info in bold for the purpose of record keeping was:
  • Mark Strong as Sinestro; a Green Lantern and Hal Jordan's mentor who later becomes his nemesis.
  • Morrison also revealed that he will be involved in the planned sequels stating, "They want me to come back in the sequel. They want to show you my :::backend story for the next movie. They want to show you how I become part of Green Lantern Corps".--TriiipleThreat (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Resectfully, you need to critically evaluate those statements for what they are: an actor talking about a future gig that he has precisely zero input on making, but hopes to be involved in. What is needed for any sort of sequel section is the actual citations about the director, writers or producers saying 'hells yeah, we are planning a sequel'. You aren't going to find that yet, because the film is still in principal photography, and there isn't really enough buzz yet to warrant that sort of bean-counting effort.When a studio says it, then you are in business. Having actors talk about what they'd like to do with their roles is akin to asking Mr. and Mrs. Lincoln what they'd like to have for dessert after the play - it's just too far ahead to guess about it. We cannot write about it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:36, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
Respectfully, please read the sequel section before commenting.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:34, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
With equal parts respect, I did precisely that, TriiipleThreat. The IM2/Sequel bit you are pointing to as precedent says that there is another one in the works. As well, there is ample documentation about Disney/Marvel's intent to roll out like thunder sets of trilogies of all its flagship characters. When we look for the same thing from DC, we receive naught but wispy, clear skies undercut by people asking where the rain is, and what they will do if it decides to rain.
My flowery rhetoric aside, I'll point out again that the IM sequel quotes come from the studio people, not the actors themselves. I am dismissing Strong's comments because while they might prove to be accurate, if the studio shelves or cancels any future projects, there is little Strong is going to be able to do about it. We need cites from people who can be considered reliable (and not just in the Wiki sense of the word); a quote from a source that cannot really speak to the subject at hand can hijack the article, taking it in directions it quite simply shouldn't. The article is about this film. Until we know for sure there is going to be others, we cannot speak to any content about a sequel. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
No I am refering to Green Lantern (film)#Sequel, I have not said anything about Iron Man 2.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, I see now. I stand corrected somewhat. I had indeed missed that section, tucked 'way down at the bottom there. While citation #60 cannot be used (it's a non-industry blog, and therefore naught but Rumour Central), the other two are good, solid references. That solves the problem of the sequel.

What that doesn't cover is the content of the sequels, Triiiple. We don't know - apart from spitballing from Strong and Lively - that their characters are going to be in the sequels. They are in essence, showing that they would be excited about being involved in such a project (read: getting hired for such a gig). Any such comments about the ephemeral sequel shouldn't be in the cast stuff. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If someone who is directly involved in the film especially an actor such as Lively, Morrison or Strong claims to have knowledge of any aspect of this film or related films who are we to dispute them.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 13:06, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Right, precisely. Therein lies the problem; they aren't speaking in terms of this film, which is the only thing this article covers. And while they are involved in teh manufacture of the film, they aren't involved in the planning part, and that's what counts here. Nick Cage couldn't make Superman Lives! all by himself, no matter how much he yammered on and on about it. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
The scope of this article encompasses everything related to this film which includes its sequels which is why that section is here. And you have no idea what information the cast has access to so if they say that they have knowledge of something we can only take they're word for it, same goes for writers, producers or even studio representatives.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 17:55, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
I am sorry, but you are wrong, Triiiple. We do evaluate the references that we have on a topic for weight; that way, we don't provide undue weight to them - a prime example would be not giving a lot of weight to neo-nazis or white supremacists regarding the subject of the Holocaust (or pretty much anything else, for that matter). While I have no idea what access the cast members have about any future films, neither do any of the rest of us, and like the JGreb already pointed out, it's Sherlocking at best and wishful thinking at worst. There are numerous examples that teach us to protect the validity of the encyclopedia - many of which I've noted previously - and I think that this matter is concluded. Unless someone who can note info reliably about sequels is found, I think we're stuck. I am not inclined at this point to include any information at this point about any sequel, and certainly not about Sapphire's appearance in this or any other film. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Your logic is inherently flawed. A neo-nazi's relevance to the holocaust is not the same as actor to a film, because a neo-nazi by definition (Neo) had nothing to do with the holocaust and at best could only give a second-hand accounting of the event. An actor is directly involved with the film and can give first-hand testimony thus the weight of his/her words should be duly noted.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, there aren't any flaws in my argument (with the possible exception of proving Godwin's Law). Point of fact: not all neo-nazi's post-date the Holocaust (and yeah, we usually capitalize it here). I could go on, but that would tangent the conversation; I think you got my point, and digressing isn;t going to do anyone any good.
Your assumption is that the actors in question can speak to sequels not even written at this point. They cannot. Anything they say is therefore speculative, pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking (read: non-reliable and non-notable). Even presuming that they have three movie contracts is not an exemption allowing for speculative statements to be given weight. Now, you can disagree with this viewpoint, but it is the restrained, neutral encyclopedic viewpoint I am espousing. I am fairly certain I am right, and I have provided multiple to give you an opportunity to change your mind. If you find yourself unable to accept what I am saying, perhaps you should escalate the matter to the appropriate noticeboard (the Content one seems on target).
As stated earlier, if new information develops that details the substance of either this film or a sequel, the comments might come back retroactively. Until then, they have no place in this article, I see no reason to allow it in as anything other than hidden information. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 21:34, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
Again I say they can because they are authoritative on the subject. We have no idea what conversations they have had with developers, writers directors, etc. So if they say they have knowledge, we must as neutral editors accept it until proven otherwise. That said I see we have come to an impasse and my continuation of this debate with you is futile. So I will eagerly await other opinions on the matter.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 21:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Citations for use

  • First script review Second script review Third script review
  • Jenna Busch (2008-06-30). "Corey Reynolds and The Green Lantern". UGO Networks.
  • Staff (2009-05-28). "Corey Reynolds is a superstar on 'The Closer,' maybe a superhero as well?". USA Weekend.
  • Patrick Lee (2009-06-15). "Writer reveals Green Lantern movie's progress and a few hints". Sci Fi Wire.
  • Mike Scott (2009-10-19). "'Green Lantern,' Ryan Reynolds may be trading Australia shoot for New Orleans". The Times-Picayune.

- Wildroot (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Teaser posters

Here are some official teaser posters to replace the logo image in the infobox.173.88.129.35 (talk) 03:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Those are character posters which we do not typically use in infoboxes as they are not representative of the entire film only selected characters. The logo will be replaced when a theatrical poster is released.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 04:13, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Can you point to an MOS, guideline or policy that says as much? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
No just common practice that Ive seen around WP:FILM. However since I do think any poster is better than the current logo image, I went ahead and replaced it as long as there are no other objections.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 22:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
I see the value of what you are saying; I was just asking, so as to have a defense built-in versus reverts. I like the poster, too - but once we have a good film inane, we should use that. Agreed? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Reference for use

Constructing Green Lantern: From Page to Screen by Ozzy Inguanzo ISBN 0789322617 --TriiipleThreat (talk) 20:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Hal Jordan's occupation

in the character summary, the writer lists Hal Jordan as being a pilot for the U.S. Air Force. This is incorrect in both film and comic mythology. He is in fact a test pilot in the employ of Ferris Aircraft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonnyNemo (talk • contribs) 02:41, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Budget

I forgot a key word in my edit summery, I meant to say the $300 million figure includes marketing costs which we do not count as part of the film's production.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

This could probably be added into the article: "Word of mouth will be an important factor in the film's ultimate success both here and abroad as the studio is also spending more than $125 million to market it worldwide." from the Los Angeles Times. —Mike Allen 11:04, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
The marketing costs are already discussed in the marketing section, so it just needs to be updated with the new information. It's important to keep production and marketing costs separate though, especially in the infobox, or it would make the article inconsistent with other articles. Betty Logan (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Right. I wasn't suggesting the costs be combined. :) —Mike Allen 18:53, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Harfouc1, 16 June 2011

eum this movie was released in Asia on the 16th of June 2011.

Please stop centering these articles around US release dates.

I have personally already watched this in a theater in Singapore, Singapore.

Thank you.

-- June 16th 2011 Pierre


EDIT: (As a reply to your post) http://www.gv.com.sg/moviedetails/gv_moviedetails_8361.jsp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harfouc1 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC) EDIT : (reply to your reply) http://www.releasedatein.com/green-lantern-movie-release-date.html This website claims June 16th is the earliest. You should add June 16th regardless since I can find you a million and one adds here in the Singapore that have June 16th plastered all over Green lantern, + I watched it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.132.3.9 (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2011 (UTC)


Harfouc1 (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Please provide a reliable source for the date and it maybe added if it is the earliest release date. Also the US release date is still notable as this is an American film per WP:FILMRELEASE. Thank you.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:41, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
According to IMDB the earliest release was in New Zealand on June 14. If I can confirm this through another source I will add it. Anyone can assist in this process.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 Not done per lack of reliable sources. —James (Talk • Contribs) • 8:12pm • 10:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Redundancy?

In the plot summary, it describes Parallax's origin twice. I think once is enough, and shortening the second one so it seems a lot less repetitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.75.125 (talk) 16:19, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Reception

Acefarrukh, thank you for your contributions to this section however they did require a little clean-up. I added full cites and removed the repetitive wording, you do not have to add "gave a negative review" after every review. The paragraphs are structured between positive and negative and reviews themselves are clear if they are favorable or not.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:25, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I also added a second positive review and removed a less notable negative review. This does not change the article's neutral point of view. This section will continue to evolve as more reputable and recognizable reviews are added and expanded.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 14:33, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I recommend we add something about how well received the film has been by audiences, specifically Green Lantern fans. I post on many movie websites, and on some negative reviews, countless fans are showing their support for the film, disagreeing almost everytime with every negative review. Reactions on comingsoon.net, or particularly on Dave White's review on movies.com, show the fan support.JesusFreak89 (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not add fan reaction unless the it is notable and cited in reliable sources. Forums and comments are not reliable sources and do not belong in an encyclopedia. —Mike Allen 03:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
It is notable in how strong it is, but there is no likely place to find it outside of message boards. How about the higher approval rating on rottentomatoes from the audience?JesusFreak89 (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
No user submitted rating is permissable. As Mike says, you need a reliable source that covered audience reaction. Betty Logan (talk) 02:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
If fan reaction is so positive, and this is a large misreview by critics, it could be mentioned somehow. Every fan of the film I have talked to has said with nothing against critics in general that most critics do not understand the comics in the slightest, and therefore don't understand just what they are scoring so low. I just hope this page can tell what is really happening, because starting off the reaction section with the negative critic reaction tells half the story. It feels like fans do not count, that only critics are allowed to say if they enjoyed a film or not. I feel that honestly takes away from this page. Just sharing, thanks for reading my rambling.JesusFreak89 (talk) 22:42, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
We could use this? Erik (talk | contribs) 17:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
This mentions a better CinemaScore grade among young people (obviously). Erik (talk | contribs) 17:46, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Per WP:FILM consensus, we don't give audience-aggregate figures. The Variety article in the link above says, "'Green Lantern' scored a B+ CinemaScore rating among under 18 auds vs. its overall B." This is an audience-figure aggregate no different than those given at Rotten Tomatoes or IMDb.--Tenebrae (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
MOS:FILM#Critical response says, "Do not quote comments from members of the general public (e.g., user comments from Amazon.com, the Internet Movie Database or personal blogs), as they are self-published and have no proven expertise or credibility in the field. Polls of the public carried out by a reliable source in an accredited manner, such as CinemaScore, may be used. Do not include user ratings submitted to websites such as the Internet Movie Database or Rotten Tomatoes, as they are vulnerable to vote stacking and demographic skew." Erik (talk | contribs) 17:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Well, I was half-right!  :)  My apologies for misremembering; I should have checked, as you did. My question then becomes — especially given the movie's huge dropoff in its second week, which seems to indicate that audiences are not, in fact, responding — is what point the CinemaScore addition would make? I'm not dismissing — I'm genuinely asking. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I think that box office statistics are the most useful to include. I was not necessarily supporting JesusFreak89 but was instead pointing to independent commentary of how audiences received the film. (It's not conclusive to read comments online; after all, how many people saw it, kind of liked it, but didn't really spread the word?) I don't think a "B" grade is that exceptional, and it seems to make sense when looking at the second-weekend drop as well. No need to try to make a connection; we can report the grade and the drop separately. Readers can draw whatever conclusions they want. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:40, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
Also, to respond a point a few posts above, that the critics don't know comics, I've found one film critic for a major trade publication who has written about comic books and used to write for Marvel Comics, according to his Wikipedia page, and he hated the movie as well. Lovece, Frank, Film Journal International, here. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

IGN review

Well I agree that IGN is notable and reliable publication, the reviewer himself does not have the same credentials as the others listed, therefore his opinion doesn't carry the same weight and I don't think it should be included.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't really object to IGN being included, but the review for the most part doesn't really elaborate further on what has already been said. It might be worth retaining IGN's evaluation in relation to the source material i.e. it is a "huge letdown given the source material it had to draw from"; but by and large I don't think the IGN review needs to be included. Betty Logan (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
I would go along with you both on this. I was trying to reach a middle ground and not simply remove it, but my feeling was always that it wasn't needed. --Tenebrae (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Was Krona named?

I'm not entirely sure, but I don't think the Guardian who became Parallax was actually named 'Krona' in the film. Unless I'm mistaken? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.6.75.125 (talk) 17:24, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

I didn't think so but wasn't sure, can anyone confirm?--TriiipleThreat (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Shot in Louisiana? Maybe some - but surely not all.

In watching the film this evening, I could swear that some of the city-scenes were in San Diego. In particular when the Hal & Carol were on a rooftop overlooking the bay - that skyline sure looked like San Diego. I could even recognize the San Diego Convention center! Can anyone confirm this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.85.160.34 (talk) 06:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Box Office Flop

Is it too early to call this a box office flop/bomb? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.229.18.233 (talk) 05:02, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

For who to call it a flop? You? No. —Mike Allen 07:39, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there an agreed upon (in a policy statement somewhere), neutral Wiki definition of "flop?" I haven't heard anybody quote one yet. If there isn't one yet, let me submit this for your consideration: The various definitions at Dictionary.com say a flop is a film that is a "failure" or a "complete failure." Should not earning back the entire cost of production ($200 million in Green Lantern's case) be Wikipedia's standard for judging a film as a failure? Scott Bowles, movie critic at USA Today, points out, "None of the movies (i.e., X-Men, Thor, and Green Lantern) has taken in less than $100 million (often enough to justify a sequel), but none has made back its production budget, either."

Perhaps we should use the movie industry's standard and consider films earning less than $100 million a "flop." At any rate, I'd like to see a neutral, agreed definition for use in Wiki movie articles so it won't be just a subjective judgement call. Pleonic (talk) 01:35, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

For us to create a definition of what constitutes a flop is WP:Original research. There is no industry standard for what counts as a flop, it's a form of analysis, based on what the film cost, what it made back and how much it was expected to make i.e. it's a judgment call. Since studios don't put out a list of their flops at the end of the year, then its down to published writers in this area to appraise the film's success. If there are sources out there calling these films flops then they can be included in the box office analysis section as analysis. Similarly if there are sources out there calling the same films financial successes then we include those too, just like we include good and bad reviews. WP:NPOV says we must include all significant points of view; in other words we avoid subjective judgement calls and include it all. Betty Logan (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Scott Bowles' figures don't even make sense. Thor has made $450 million which should easily cover the production budget and the marketing costs even after you subtract the exhibition rental. I doubt Marvel expected Thor to crack 500 mil, so 400-500 is probably what they were hoping the film would do. In the case of Green Lantern, it is only halfway throughs its release schedule and I'd expect its current total to at least double once it hits Europe and Asia. Betty Logan (talk) 03:15, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

People continue to take it upon themselves to call Green Lantern a "box office bomb" or a "flop." However as of this date it is within $7 million of making back its production costs, has just opened in several foreign markets and has yet to come out on DVD. It is also currently the 16th biggest money maker in the US this year. The "flop" and "biggest bomb of the year" pejoratives are undeserved to say the least given these stats, and have been repeatedly removed by Wiki editors. Please see the earlier discussions. If someone feels strongly that this or any film is a bomb, please get a recognized source to say so for you. And, in the interests of the Neutral Point of View see if any opposing viewpoints are out there as well. Pleonic (talk) 02:19, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

People fail to realize what "gross" means. Just cause the movie cost 200 million dollars to make(not counting huge promotion budget that can go up to 100 million dollars for big movies) and it made 207 million dollar gross, doesn't mean that the studios just went 7 million dollars plus. Cinemas, foreign distributors etc take at least half the gross, they don't show movies for free. Here is a published authors article about it. http://www.scribd.com/doc/5885934/How-film-studios-make-money. CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 13:18, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Reaching consensus on budget vs. gross

I'm trying to reach a consensus on this series of editsand would appreciate some input. The statement, comparing gross to production budget is misleading, has no bearing on success on any level, and the statement uses box office mojo as a reference, which includes no analysis to back it up. --Williamsburgland (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Never heard of Kevin Smith writing a Green Lantern film

I've never heard anything about Kevin Smith being approached for a Green Lantern film; he did, however, once write a script for a Green Hornet film. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.195.235 (talk) 22:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

It is sourced in the body of the article.--TriiipleThreat (talk) 23:01, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that source clarifies things, however,There is a difference between the film being developed 'as a vehicle for writer/director Kevin Smith' and 'Kevin Smith was once approached to do a script'; in Smith's own words from the cited source "GREEN LANTERN only came up once in a discussion with Lorenzo DiBonaventura, I think I was just finished working on SUPERMAN and he thought maybe we could work on another DC comic. He said “How about Green Lantern? Do you think Green Lantern would make a good movie?” I said “I guess under somebody else, but I’m just not a huge Green Lantern fan, and I don’t think I’m the guy you want adapting it. I’m sure there are people out there who are massive fans and who really know a lot about the character. Maybe those are they guys you should be going after and not me." So, maybe the later stuff can stay, just take out the part about it 'being developed as a vehicle' for him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.15.195.235 (talk) 02:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

finally broke even kind of

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=greenlantern.htm

says it made 206 mill, som1 add it as its locked and i cannot — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.222.244.247 (talk) 05:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

It still hasn't broken even in it's theatrical run. Gross means gross. All of that money doesn't go to the studio, half of it goes to cinemas, foreign distributors etc. Rule of thumb is that it has to make TWICE the production budget to have earned back the money in the theatrical run.CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Even more than that actually. The marketing and distribution costs were $100 million, so in effect the film has to recoup 300 million before it breaks even, effectively meaning the film has to earn $600 million to make back its money. Betty Logan (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Rule of thumb: We are editors on Wikipedia, we are not box office analyst. We do not say if a film "broke even", only those qualified do and then we report that. —Mike Allen 23:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Does Hollywood Reporter count? http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/gallery/movie-report-card-10-biggest-205951#6
As of now, the Wikipedia article is very misleading saying "Although the film grossed more than its sizable budget of $200 million," when in fact the movie is one of the biggest failures of the year. Even if you are careful with using the word flop, there is no doubt about it that Green Lantern performed very badly. Even if we don't do any analyzing, common sense says that a movie that cost 200 million dollar(promotion budget excluded) and made 214 million dollars gross, it did not make back it's production budget. CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 13:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Thought the Hollywood Reporter quote was good & from reputable source, so I added it to Box Office section. Pleonic (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm against using the word "flop", "bomb" etc even when it can be sourced, because it's a pejorative term with no sound definition. Personally I'd rather just stick to the financial analysis, so I think including something like the fact it needs to generate $500 million of income to break even is ok, which will provide some useful context for the success/failure of the film. I mean, a film that makes half its money back theatrically will make that again over ten years of home video releases and TV broadcasts, as well as indirectly through revenue share from merchandise licensing. Betty Logan (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Saying that it "made more than its $200m budget" though is incredibly misleading. It's overall budget was far higher and it has come nowhere near to making its money back. I've reworded the box office section to reflect this. 88.104.27.179 (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Agreed, it's incredibly misleading since gross has nothing to do with how much money the studio actually got. The article could as well said "the film has earned 100 million dollars, which is more than it's sizable budget if you multiply it with 2...". I'm editing that part in the article since it makes no sense, and for some reason people keep removing my explanation in the article that gross DOES NOT mean the amount of money the studio got.CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 18:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with this point, but changed the wording because it sounded clumsy to say "it made $219 million" in 2 consecutive sentences. As it now stands $200 is clearly said to be just the production budget and this is embedded in the larger point that they'd need to make at least $500 million to be profitable. The information about a $100 million marketing budget is made in the Marketing section, where it belongs. Pleonic (talk) 01:37, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

It's still incredibly misleading. This movie is considered to be one of largest failures of the year(even if wikipedia don't want to touch the term "flop"). 219 million dollar gross is not even halfway into getting the movie out of the red. Yet now the article sounds like the movie just wasn't "financially succesful", when it in fact was a minor disaster financially. And now you change "gross" to "made" which is even worse. The article has a very positive slant on it making it very misleading.CassanovaFrankenstein (talk) 18:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
That's because the references say "failed to perform to expectations" and "needed to do a big number worldwide to be financially solid (think $500 million plus)." If you want the article to say it's a disaster and one of the year's largest failures, you should find a reference that uses those more negative terms. Since we're going for NPOV here it is better to let the numbers (which don't look good to anybody) do the talking. Pleonic (talk) 01:46, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be confusion over how much money the movie lost. The budget was $200 million not counting advertising and promotion. But some of that was offset by millions in product placement (the Man of Steel movie made about $160 million in product placement for example). And by a very large tax credit for filming the movie in the state of Louisiana (originally believed to be $34 million of the original $150 million dollar budget). Dvd sales also helped to offset the losses by millions more. If it had kept it's original budget, the movie would have most likely broke even. But instead lost tens of millions by going over budget and due to poor marketing. The Man of Steel movie didn't have those problems due to all the product placement and tax credits basically paying for over 80% of the production budget. So the brand could easily make it's money back without any difficulty at all.98.19.73.216 (talk) 21:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Sequel

I'm not sure how to write this in to the current text about a possible sequel but according to this source, Warner Brothers is considering abandoning the idea of the sequel. http://news.yahoo.com/hollywood-balks-big-budget-movies-dvds-drop-141507203.html --Mjrmtg (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

 Done --TriiipleThreat (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)


No production has yet to occur of Green Lantern 2, but they have some ideas and hope that maybe in the next 2 years it will get approved and they can start right away. Ryan Reynolds has yet to establish to the public if he is even interested in starring in a sequel since the original didn't do well in the box office. TheGoddessOfSequels (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC) TheGoddessOfSequels

Cult classic?

Following its release, Green Lantern seems to achieve some sort of cult following. Since then, I've seen people wearing shirts with the Green Lantern logo on it. Even one of the cast of The Big Bang Theory is wearing such a shirt. 173.55.97.103 (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 67 external links on Green Lantern (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:33, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Green Lantern (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Green Lantern (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:34, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Green_Lantern_(film)/Archive_1&oldid=1145999718"