Ryan Reynolds Didn't Read a Script Before Signing on to "Green Lantern"

[lancerman]

Green Lantern was bad for two reason. It suffered from the too many storylines being juggled act that plagued Spider-Man 3 and it didn't have compelling villains. Also hurt that they did a crappy heroes journey. You can't give the character all of Hal and Kyle's bad qualities and then none of their good ones. You can't make Hal devil may care, but then he runs away when the going gets tough.

[Jim Kelly]

I've seen enough bad movies that made tons of money to know that the two things are not related. All the Monday morning quarterbacking on GREEN LANTERN doesn't convince me that even if other choices had been made the movie would have been a greater success at the box office.

What we fans think is good in a comic book movie isn't always or even usually what the general public wants.

[simbob4000]

He was singed for the film already, the director he wanted dropped out, what lead to Goyer directing , he pushed that nightstalkers angle. which is messed up due to the fact the movie is called blade.

Blade already fought with a team in Blade 2, there's nothing messed up about him doing it again. And the Nightstalkers only became as big as they are in the finished movie because Snipes wasn't coming to set, he would only show up for close-ups. They had to make that movie around a star that wouldn't show up to film anything, and doing most thinks with his double.

[JaggedFel]

U really are dodging the point. Snipes was mad and did not want to show up because all the focus the Nightstalkers got not he just decided not to show up and therefore the studio was forced to boost Nightstalker time.


Also this about Reynolds being in a crap ton of flops and terrible movies especially as they relate to comics.

[Powerboy]

That is simply not true

I've seen enough times where professional critics go to opposite sides regarding whether a movie is good or bad to see it is not objective nor are human beings, by our very nature, capable of objectivity about things that cannot be measured in terms of facts and mathematics.

I'm not saying there are not movies way toward "good movie" or way toward "bad movie". But I've never seen an objective set of criteria that is really anything but vague generalities that come out good or bad based on the critic's personal preferences. Really, there's no way there could be anything but vague generalities.

A critic may, in one case, point out vast failures yet conclude that the movie [for him] had some intangible quality that he happened to think made it good while he may point out the same failures in another movie and pronounce it a bad movie because whatever intangible qualities it had didn't resonate with him.

[Crimson Knight]

I've seen enough times where professional critics go to opposite sides regarding whether a movie is good or bad to see it is not objective nor are human beings, by our very nature, capable of objectivity about things that cannot be measured in terms of facts and mathematics.

I'm not saying there are not movies way toward "good movie" or way toward "bad movie". But I've never seen an objective set of criteria that is really anything but vague generalities that come out good or bad based on the critic's personal preferences. Really, there's no way there could be anything but vague generalities.

A critic may, in one case, point out vast failures yet conclude that the movie [for him] had some intangible quality that he happened to think made it good while he may point out the same failures in another movie and pronounce it a bad movie because whatever intangible qualities it had didn't resonate with him.

Or her, but yes, I agree with that.

Except for Batman & Robin, in the bad.

[simbob4000]

U really are dodging the point. Snipes was mad and did not want to show up because all the focus the Nightstalkers got not he just decided not to show up and therefore the studio was forced to boost Nightstalker time.


Also this about Reynolds being in a crap ton of flops and terrible movies especially as they relate to comics.

I'm not dodging the point, I'm telling you the only reason their role in that movie was made as big as it was, was because Snipes was acting like a crazy person and wouldn't come to set. They got more lines because they had to work around shooting that movie with Snipes double and close-ups for reactions. The guy was acting like a nut from the sound of things.

No it isn't, it's about Reynolds saying he didn't read the script beforehand, and that Deadpool does have a script. Although someone not reading a script before signing onto a superhero movie isn't news, since they almost all never have scripts when actors sign on anyways.

[AJBopp]

I've seen enough times where professional critics go to opposite sides regarding whether a movie is good or bad to see it is not objective nor are human beings, by our very nature, capable of objectivity about things that cannot be measured in terms of facts and mathematics.

I'm not saying there are not movies way toward "good movie" or way toward "bad movie". But I've never seen an objective set of criteria that is really anything but vague generalities that come out good or bad based on the critic's personal preferences. Really, there's no way there could be anything but vague generalities.

A critic may, in one case, point out vast failures yet conclude that the movie [for him] had some intangible quality that he happened to think made it good while he may point out the same failures in another movie and pronounce it a bad movie because whatever intangible qualities it had didn't resonate with him.

Film school is all about teaching the objective set of criteria. There are established techniques in all facets of filmmaking that distinguish whether the facet was well done or poorly done, effective or ineffective. Certain techniques may be effective for one kind of story and ineffective for others. Genius in film making comes when new effective techniques are developed.

By the same token, a "good" reviewer may admit that a poorly done movie was enjoyable, but not that a poorly done movie was well done anyway. Enjoying a piece of art doesn't mean it was well done, and not enjoying it doesn't mean it was poorly done. I love Doc Savage, but it's horrible writing. I hate Terms of Endearment, but it was exquisitely made.

[MarvelMaster616]

I'm probably among the minority here, but I enjoyed the Green Lantern movie. I didn't think Reynolds was that bad as Hal Jordon. I thought he pulled off the part pretty well. This movie had its share of problems, but he wasn't one of them. I know this movie gets a lot of hate. I think most of that hate boils down to "It's not as good as the Dark Knight." I think that's a poor standard on which to judge the movie. On its own, it was good. In the context of other major comic book movies, it doesn't measure up. I just think this is one of those movies in which people go out of their way to bash for no logical reason.

[Punisher007]

No, people weren't expecting Dark Knight-levels of quality. I heard no one say that before it came out and I've heard no one say it since. Most don't like it because it had major problems. It had problems with structure, plot, acting, dialogue, villains, pacing, etc. And most fans didn't feel that it did justice to the source material. I judged it on movie making qualities myself, and found it wanting in most of them.

[Powerboy]

Film school is all about teaching the objective set of criteria. There are established techniques in all facets of filmmaking that distinguish whether the facet was well done or poorly done, effective or ineffective. Certain techniques may be effective for one kind of story and ineffective for others. Genius in film making comes when new effective techniques are developed.

By the same token, a "good" reviewer may admit that a poorly done movie was enjoyable, but not that a poorly done movie was well done anyway. Enjoying a piece of art doesn't mean it was well done, and not enjoying it doesn't mean it was poorly done. I love Doc Savage, but it's horrible writing. I hate Terms of Endearment, but it was exquisitely made.

I agree on there being a difference between liking something and its being good. One of my English professors once mentioned that, on Sunday nights, he was always in front of the television watching "The Six Millions Dollar Man" and that we all like stuff that is junk and there is nothing wrong with that as long as we don't elevate it to something it's not nor get high and mighty and condemn it beyond what it deserves.

To be sure, there are reviewers who don't have the qualifications you mentioned. But my greater point was that there are qualities that are intangible. If a professional critic knocks a movie on the majority of the by the numbers reasons to like or dislike a movie and then admits that, somehow, the movie transcended "the list" for him or her and he/ she liked it, then we are mincing words by debating "liked" versus "good". If he/ she liked it, then there were things about it that worked. Maybe the critic cannot define why or look it up on the official list of why a movie is good/ bad, but those reasons were there.

Now, I'm not talking about stuff like Baywatch or something that's wall to wall action. Those sorts of things, it's easy to see why someone might like them but they still lack quality. But there is an ineffable quality to why some things are good/ bad. Maybe something resonates with a critic due to personal background and he finds it very realistic while another critic, not having that background, finds it highly unrealistic, just to give an example.

On those occasions where I do a thread about what people liked more, I never title it, "What was the best...?" but rather, "What was your favorite...?" because that's really what it's going to be anyway.