Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 1

[Showtime]

This might sound crazy, but what if WB deliberately went crazy with the money and knew that the movie wouldn't end up making much money? What if they liked the mythology of GL so much that they were like screw it and were like well Nolan's next Batman can help out with covering the money that went into the GL movie.

That would be a sick plan. A guy can wish, right?

I think they knew they would lose some money during the theater run of course, but hoping they would recoup eventually.

[Rock Sexton]

I've seen this a lot and I disagree, this movie was made for fans. The studio was hoping the action and look of the film would bring the general public in.

How is that? By all indications the previous scripts were written for the fans, not this one that got made.

[Blackman]

This is the way I see it.

There's no problem with disliking or liking the movie.
However I do find it obnoxious to go into every single thread b*tching about the movie, even ones that are meant for positive reactions.

And I also see it as kinda sad when youre so blinding about your positive reaction to a movie, that you ignore facts like how GL underperformed

How is that? By all indications the previous scripts were written for the fans, not this one that got made.

I think at first it was marketed as for the public but when they started showing only Oa they started to cater more to fans

[S.A.A.D.]

I think they knew they would lose some money during the theater run of course, but hoping they would recoup eventually.

Do you got any idea how much dough GL would have to make in order to make WB happy?

[Rock Sexton]

I think at first it was marketed as for the public but when they started showing only Oa they started to cater more to fans

Well the marketing is one thing .... I just don't see how the movie was fan-centric.

[Showtime]

Well the marketing is one thing .... I just don't see how the movie was fan-centric.

Well it wasn't "general public centric", or it would have made more money.

[Showtime]

Do you got any idea how much dough GL would have to make in order to make WB happy?

Not a figure, but whatever it is, it unfortunately won't get there.

[Deaths Head II]

Well it wasn't "general public centric", or it would have made more money.

Not every film aimed at the general public grabs it's interest. The fact the actual film is more a bunch of typical super hero film cliches tells me it was just trying to go for what worked in the past with general audiences.

[dark_b]

This might sound crazy, but what if WB deliberately went crazy with the money and knew that the movie wouldn't end up making much money? What if they liked the mythology of GL so much that they were like screw it and were like well Nolan's next Batman can help out with covering the money that went into the GL movie.


http://i51.tinypic.com/34quwdt.jpg

[Spider-Fan]

Studios don't make a film they think will lose them money. At least, not for 200 million dollars.

[The Morningstar]

Dark B, expert use of the gif :funny:

[Excelsior.]

This might sound crazy, but what if WB deliberately went crazy with the money and knew that the movie wouldn't end up making much money? What if they liked the mythology of GL so much that they were like screw it and were like well Nolan's next Batman can help out with covering the money that went into the GL movie.

That would be a sick plan. A guy can wish, right?
Do yourself a favor, never get into business.

[Showtime]

Studios don't make a film they think will lose them money. At least, not for 200 million dollars.

Nobody sets out to lose money, but there is a point where a studio knows it will lose money and accepts it. Look at the marketing costs.

[S.A.A.D.]

Do yourself a favor, never get into business.

Chill out. It was nothing but wishful thinking. :whatever:

[Spider-Fan]

Nobody sets out to lose money, but there is a point where a studio knows it will lose money and accepts it. Look at the marketing costs.

Agreed. And this film had a very large marketing cost put into it. WB felt it had something with Green Lantern. I don't see anyway they will end up happy with it's BO performance.

[J.Howlett]

Nope. WB has some serious soul searching to do for the future of Lantern and the rest of the DC properties not named Batman or Superman.

The one saving grace, I see, is thing; Lucas privately funded three prequels with his own money for 115, 100, and 100 million respectively. Divorce oneself with your opinion of the Prequels and look at the scope at which Lucas was able to pull off with those budgets.

Now, I'm sure he got a hometown discount with ILM but my theory has some merit. An intergalactic Green Lantern film could be done on a budget of at least 130 million. It would just take very, very careful pre-production planning to make sure you hit all the right notes and visual cues without wasting money.

Could a Lantern sequel of even greater scope than this one be made for 130 million?

*I don't want to hear about the Prequels CG. Revenge of the Sith? Almost completely photoreal. No discussion on that issue.

[Blackman]

This might sound crazy, but what if WB deliberately went crazy with the money and knew that the movie wouldn't end up making much money? What if they liked the mythology of GL so much that they were like screw it and were like well Nolan's next Batman can help out with covering the money that went into the GL movie.

That would be a sick plan. A guy can wish, right?

http://i782.photobucket.com/albums/yy104/gurrilla55/Gifs/29-Camron-NP.gif

[Rock Sexton]

Well it wasn't "general public centric", or it would have made more money.

Not saying it was .... the movie really wasn't anything-centric other than to not live up to the marketing.

[dark_b]

Nope. WB has some serious soul searching to do for the future of Lantern and the rest of the DC properties not named Batman or Superman.

The one saving grace, I see, is thing; Lucas privately funded three prequels with his own money for 115, 100, and 100 million respectively. Divorce oneself with your opinion of the Prequels and look at the scope at which Lucas was able to pull off with those budgets.

Now, I'm sure he got a hometown discount with ILM but my theory has some merit. An intergalactic Green Lantern film could be done on a budget of at least 130 million. It would just take very, very careful pre-production planning to make sure you hit all the right notes and visual cues without wasting money.

Could a Lantern sequel of even greater scope than this one be made for 130 million?

*I don't want to hear about the Prequels CG. Revenge of the Sith? Almost completely photoreal. No discussion on that issue.Howlet there is no way that a modern blockbuster of this scope can be done on a 100 or 150 million budget.

ok JJ Abrams is now liked very much. does he look like a guy who is throwing money out of the window? no. and yet Star Trek cost around 200 if not over 200 millions. even Mojo has it at 150. there is just no way to make a superhero movie like GL on that low budget. no way.

[Rock Sexton]

http://i782.photobucket.com/albums/yy104/gurrilla55/gifs/29-camron-np.gif

lol


http://i51.tinypic.com/34quwdt.jpg

Seriously the humor on this site is always a cut above.

[Excelsior.]

*I don't want to hear about the Prequels CG. Revenge of the Sith? Almost completely photoreal. No discussion on that issue.

The only thing that looked photoreal was Hayden Christensen.

[Gold Samurai]

The dream is fading :(

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/2910/vneckjusticeleague.jpg




While in less than 5 years Marvel can crank out a Avengers movie


http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4663/kinopoiskruavengers2cth.jpg



I'm not trying to start a war but "Green Lantern's" failure has probably pushed a Justice League movie back.


We also have to wait for Nolan to finish his Batman so we can reboot with a "Justice League" approved Batman who will team up with Cavill's Superman

[Blackman]

Forget JL. I want WW, Aquaman, Flash, GA solos

[DarthSkywalker]

Forget JL. I want WW, Aquaman, Flash, GA solos

Who really thinks these would work?

[Blackman]

A lot of people. WB might not think so but I dont see how those are harder to make work than Thor or Iron Man

Also I dont see why Flash would work better than those ones. Especially GA.

[moviedoors]

I just can't see WB, or any studio doing a stand alone Green Arrow. Especially not after Hawkeye steals all his thunder next year. Aquaman has been punch line for how long now? And Wonder Woman just flamed out in spectacular fashion.

With Green Lantern underwhelming, DC is not in a hot spot right now.

[TheVileOne]

At this point after looking at GL, I don't.

[Blackman]

I just can't see WB, or any studio doing a stand alone Green Arrow. Especially not after Hawkeye steals all his thunder next year. Aquaman has been punch line for how long now? And Wonder Woman just flamed out in spectacular fashion.

With Green Lantern underwhelming, DC not in a hot spot right now.

Why not?

I mean I see some potential problems with it sure. But I dont see how it's that difficult or bad to adapt

Aquaman I think it could be great but yes the problem will be getting over his negative image

How did WW "flame out"? The TV show? C'mon just because a tv didnt work doesnt mean a movie wouldnt

[Tony Stark]

Howlet there is no way that a modern blockbuster of this scope can be done on a 100 or 150 million budget.

ok JJ Abrams is now liked very much. does he look like a guy who is throwing money out of the window? no. and yet Star Trek cost around 200 if not over 200 millions. even Mojo has it at 150. there is just no way to make a superhero movie like GL on that low budget. no way.

I agree that in terms of effects budget 150, isn't that much any more when adjusting to inflation.

The problem with GL wasn't the effects, it was the misuse of effects. How much did they pay for that hotwheels race track scene? That's the equivalent of Superman getting shot in the eye from Superman Returns.

There were some great FX shots from GL. I thought the opening scene was beautifully done. I enjoyed the scenes on Oa. The big problems were how rediculous Paralax looked. That's not an FX problem that's a design problem.

The other big problem were the earth scenes were boring and derivative. Literally every earth scene I was like "oh that's from Superman", "oh there's the Spider-man scene", etc., etc.

[Raiden]

The dream is fading :(

http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/2910/vneckjusticeleague.jpg




While in less than 5 years Marvel can crank out a Avengers movie


http://img97.imageshack.us/img97/4663/kinopoiskruavengers2cth.jpg



I'm not trying to start a war but "Green Lantern's" failure has probably pushed a Justice League movie back.


We also have to wait for Nolan to finish his Batman so we can reboot with a "Justice League" approved Batman who will team up with Cavill's Superman

I think GL's failure at the BO might actually increase the possibility of a JLA movie, but doom other solo movies based on Flash, WW, or any non-Superman & Batman movies. If the Avengers become a huge success, WB might take a look at it and figured that they can make a movie that features other superheroes without leaving out their two biggest characters, and the addition of Superman and Batman will be a safety net for them to fall back on. However, no matter what the Avengers movie (which features all the actors with the exception of Ed Norton as Banner in their respective movies) will be amazing, and a monumental milestone in the superhero genre.

[Poni_Boy]

Howlet there is no way that a modern blockbuster of this scope can be done on a 100 or 150 million budget.

ok JJ Abrams is now liked very much. does he look like a guy who is throwing money out of the window? no. and yet Star Trek cost around 200 if not over 200 millions. even Mojo has it at 150. there is just no way to make a superhero movie like GL on that low budget. no way.


Hate to bring it up, but District 9 had a budget of around $50 mil including marketing. It pulled in over $200 mil at the BO and stands at over 90% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Add $20 mil to that shooting budget for WETA and I can guarantee you epic space scenes. GL should have stayed with them instead of pulling out of New Zealand

[The Morningstar]

Why not?

I mean I see some potential problems with it sure. But I dont see how it's that difficult or bad to adapt

Aquaman I think it could be great but yes the problem will be getting over his negative image

How did WW "flame out"? The TV show? C'mon just because a tv didnt work doesnt mean a movie wouldnt

DC don't know how to make Wonder Woman work even in the comics. What makes you think WB would fare any better?

[J.Howlett]

When were they in New Zealand?

With either ILM or WETA, you could do Green Lantern at no higher than 130 million. I'd bet money on that.

[Blackman]

DC don't know how to make Wonder Woman work even in the comics. What makes you think WB would fare any better?
Comics arent the movies. It's all about getting the right film talent. I mean how much does Nolan's Batman draw from the current Batman run compared to older stories like Year One and The Long Halloween
The film crew could look at THe Circle, Gods and Mortals, DCAU, and the DTV movie as well as their own original idea to make a good movie

[Tony Stark]

At this point after looking at GL, I don't.

Yeah if it's done the same way.

Look if you take Thor and GL on face value, both some pretty rediculous characters if you think about it. One's a Viking running around in modern day talking in King James English, the other is a guy in a funny suit running around making giant basebal gloves to catch meteors heading for earth and whatnot.

So what's the difference? Thor had a kick ass script, a director who believed in the concept and had a vision, and great acting. GL had a piss poor script, a director who mailed it in, in the middle of production, and average acting (outside Strong who was given nothing to do).

[Poni_Boy]

When were they in New Zealand?

With either ILM or WETA, you could do Green Lantern at no higher than 130 million. I'd bet money on that.

GL was originally supposed to film in NZ and Australia. All the contract were already signed but WB chose to move to New Orleans to save an additional 10 - 15% on production costs with the city's tax incentive (now WB has to make it up to NZ by filming other properties there to honor the arrangement)

Also, WETA was on board to do the effects but after the left NZ the company pulled out since they were not going to pack all their **** and move to New Orleans

[DarthSkywalker]

Why not?

I mean I see some potential problems with it sure. But I dont see how it's that difficult or bad to adapt

Aquaman I think it could be great but yes the problem will be getting over his negative image

How did WW "flame out"? The TV show? C'mon just because a tv didnt work doesnt mean a movie wouldnt

It is simple really. If you are going to spend over a 150 million for a film, you need a tent-pole character.

Wonder Woman, Green Arrow, Aquaman aren't those outside of comics. They all have abilities that don't transfer well to the flesh. Their rogue gallery doesn't have a Zod or Ras, much less a Joker or a Luthor. Oh, and they all look ridiculous.

The reason why Flash could work imo is because his talent could work visually and he could have a connection to a younger generation.

Being a really fast high schooler/college student could work.

This the annoying thing about Green Lantern. We are talking about one of the very few Superheroes who could make the transition and they screwed it up royally.

[Hulk1968]

My prediction was off by $2.4 million ($55 million) - what a shame - looks like all the bad press is having an effect on it, and I actually liked it :)

[J.Howlett]

Poni,

That's interesting. I think Sony Pictures Imageworks did a hell of a job. I've never been big fans of theirs. I'm an ILM guy through and through.

But, that's interesting behind the scenes notes I hadn't heard. More than likely, WETA would've been able to do the effects budget cheaper than Sony...

[Poni_Boy]

Poni,

That's interesting. I think Sony Pictures Imageworks did a hell of a job. I've never been big fans of theirs. I'm an ILM guy through and through.

But, that's interesting behind the scenes notes I hadn't heard. More than likely, WETA would've been able to do the effects budget cheaper than Sony...

I praised Sony in my review, they did a fantastic job and I was very impressed. But they obviously needed far more money than expected; money that ILM or WETA probably wouldn't have.

[dark_b]

Howlet how would WETA do the effects cheaper? based on what?

[moviedoors]

Why not?

I mean I see some potential problems with it sure. But I dont see how it's that difficult or bad to adapt

To the general public, superheroes are defined by their gimmicks first. A guy who shoots arrows really well? Sorry, Marvel beat them to it. Add to the that that he's a way minor character in terms of general awareness. The character is just not even close to a draw. If Green Lantern was a huge hit and Wonder Woman hadn't fallen flat on its face before it even got out of the gate? Sure, it's a possibility. But in the wake of everything that's happened? I just can't see it happening anytime in the near future.

Aquaman I think it could be great but yes the problem will be getting over his negative image
I agree on that actually. I'm a whore for the under water fantastic, but culturally speaking, Aquaman is a joke.

Unless James Cameron decides he actually wants to make it, I can't see it happening either.

How did WW "flame out"? The TV show?
Exactly.

[J.Howlett]

ILM and WETA tend to be more efficient with their work.

[Blackman]

It is simple really. If you are going to spend over a 150 million for a film, you need a tent-pole character.

Wonder Woman, Green Arrow, Aquaman aren't those outside of comics. They all have abilities that don't transfer well to the flesh. Their rogue gallery doesn't have a Zod or Ras, much less a Joker or a Luthor. Oh, and they all look ridiculous.

The reason why Flash could work imo is because his talent could work visually and he could have a connection to a younger generation.

Being a really fast high schooler/college student could work.

This the annoying thing about Green Lantern. We are talking about one of the very few Superheroes who could make the transition and they screwed it up royally.
What do yo mean by tentpole characters. You mean big recognizable characters?
1) Thor or Iron Man werent big "tentpole charcters" either. But they got good talent attached to the movies, made what people generally think were well made movies, and they were successful. I mean WW, Aquaman, and the others are basically where Iron Man and Thor were before theyre movies.
2) I think GA actually works because you dont need $150 mill to make a good GA movie
3) I dont see how you could say theyre abilities dont work in flesh when it hasnt even really been attempted other than TV. Also WW's abilities: super strength, flight (if they go that route), etc. have all been used successfully in movies before
4) Well no the DC heroes I mentioned dont have Joker's or Luthor's but not every hero does. I mean does Iron Man have villains of that calliber? No, but Luthor and Joker are constantly named amond the best villains. Not every hero is going to have one. WW vs Ares could still be epic as well as battles with other heroes and villains
4) I dont see putting Flash in HS or college make it any better just would make him more like Spider-Man. I mean I dont think that it would connect it with younger audiences that much more

[moviedoors]

Howlet how would WETA do the effects cheaper? based on what?

The more bang-for-the-buck they've historically shown us capable of delivering? All 3 Lord of Rings movies production budgets cost a total of 285 million. Adjusted for inflation that's 350 million, or 115 million a movie.

[Tony Stark]

My prediction was off by $2.4 million ($55 million) - what a shame - looks like all the bad press is having an effect on it, and I actually liked it :)

I bet the actualls will be lower, and this thing could actually be under 50M. With father's day on Sunday don't be suprised if there was a huge drop off.

[Tony Stark]

The more bang-for-the-buck they've historically shown us capable of delivering? All 3 Lord of Rings movies production budgets cost a total of 285 million. Adjusted for inflation that's 350 million, or 115 million a movie.

115 million in 2001 is 150 million today, easily. The problem wasn't an overinflated CG budget. The out of control advertising costs were.

[Blackman]

To the general public, superheroes are defined by their gimmicks first. A guy who shoots arrows really well? Sorry, Marvel beat them to it. Add to the that that he's a way minor character in terms of general awareness. The character is just not even close to a draw. If Green Lantern was a huge hit and Wonder Woman hadn't fallen flat on its face before it even got out of the gate? Sure, it's a possibility. But in the wake of everything that's happened? I just can't see it happening anytime in the near future.


I agree on that actually. I'm a whore for the under water fantastic, but culturally speaking, Aquaman is a joke.

Unless James Cameron decides he actually wants to make it, I can't see it happening either.


Exactly.
Yeah Hawkeye coming out first on the silver screen kinda does make things worse for GA

Oh yeah there is no denying that Aquaman's public image is bad

WW's show wasnt aired. I bet most people dont even notice it or know it existed so it wont even affect a WW movie.

[dark_b]

The more bang-for-the-buck they've historically shown us capable of delivering? All 3 Lord of Rings movies production budgets cost a total of 285 million. Adjusted for inflation that's 350 million, or 115 million a movie.i asked how would they do movie cheaper. i dont remember any CGI suits in LOTR. come on. lets just admit that impossible ot know how much would it cost at WETA and ILM.

[Spider-Fan]

One way to make a cheaper sequel would be to get rid of the CGI suits. That was an unneccessary expense.

[Poni_Boy]

i asked how would they do movie cheaper. i dont remember any CGI suits in LOTR. come on. lets just admit that impossible ot know how much would it cost at WETA and ILM.

ILM takes pride in stating they have over 1,000,000 hours of stock CG footage for every imaginable alien, human, animal and landscape. That is a selling point to studios because they have a basis from which to build up effects (therefore, saving tons of money).

WETA is known for their practical effect/mo-cap combination that is used as a basis for computer enhancement.

Sony Imageworks is known for neither. They are still a "young" effects house and people forget that the majority of GL's effects budget went into simply helping Sony catch up with the big two.

Of course Sony ImageWorks needed more money to do this film that the other two, and they more than likely have a **** ton of new state-of-the art equipment in their studio thanks to GL's budget.

[S.A.A.D.]

Subjective (The CGI suits being unnecessary). :oldrazz:

[The Morningstar]

Yea, I think the CGI suit was nothing but an attention seeking gimmick really. I say that as someone who liked the suit.

[DarthSkywalker]

What do yo mean by tentpole characters. You mean big recognizable characters?
1) Thor or Iron Man werent big "tentpole charcters" either. But they got good talent attached to the movies, made what people generally think were well made movies, and they were successful. I mean WW, Aquaman, and the others are basically where Iron Man and Thor were before theyre movies.
2) I think GA actually works because you dont need $150 mill to make a good GA movie
3) I dont see how you could say theyre abilities dont work in flesh when it hasnt even really been attempted other than TV. Also WW's abilities: super strength, flight (if they go that route), etc. have all been used successfully in movies before
4) Well no the DC heroes I mentioned dont have Joker's or Luthor's but not every hero does. I mean is Iron Man have villains of that calliber no, but Luthor and Joker are constantly named amond the best villains. Not every hero is going to have one. WW vs Ares could still be epic as well as battles with other heroes
4) Why would putting Flash in HS or college make it any better

Remember, just because a character exist, does not mean they are good outside of their medium.

Not about being recognizable isn't the big deal, the big deal is being able to build the character up on film. Iron man and Thor work because they can be brought to life on film and look badass in the here and now without many tweaks. Aquaman isn't Batman with a suit of iron. Aquaman isn't the God of Thunder. These are visuals that work on the big screen. Green Arrow is built around a guy who uses a bow and arrow and dresses like a Renaissance Fair fan.

As to Wonder Woman. First, female lead. Second, Diana works best as Supes and Bats sidekick in the JL. I mean really look at the books. What part of that looks like it would work well on the big screen?

Also you then have to find someone that is as beautiful as Diana and is capable of not looking like a second rate Superman on screen. When you find a woman who is both that beautiful and capable from a physical end, you will have done something very impressive.

As to Flash. A young Wally growing up into the character works best imo. It will allow for the naivete such a story would be calling out for.

[moviedoors]

i asked how would they do movie cheaper. i dont remember any CGI suits in LOTR. come on. lets just admit that impossible ot know how much would it cost at WETA and ILM.

Oh, give me a break. There's thousands of FX shots in those movies and more CG characters with more screen time than in Green Lantern. You're just being disingenuous now.

[Spider-Fan]

Subjective (The CGI suits being unnecessary). :oldrazz:

It was cool, but cool enough to warrant how much it went towards the film's overall budget? Not really.

[dark_b]

ILM takes pride in stating they have over 1,000,000 hours of stock CG footage for every imaginable alien, human, animal and landscape. That is a selling point to studios because they have a basis from which to build up effects (therefore, saving tons of money).

i dont understand this part.

[moviedoors]

WW's show wasnt aired. I bet most people dont even notice it or know it existed so it wont even affect a WW movie.

Eh. Speaking personally, and as a geek, I've never cared about Wonder Woman. I always thought she was a silly character.

[Poni_Boy]

i dont understand this part.

Let's use a cow, for argument's sake. If you are making a movie about cows and you need hella CG effects about said cow, which studio would you pick:

Studio A has hundreds of hours of CG cow footage. Every three dimensional render you can think and they would only need to incorporate your unique take on the cow for the film's effects.

Studio B has nothing to use as a basis. They will need to create a variety of basic CG cow models before they event begin touching the unique characteristics you want for your film' cow. Also, they may need better equipment to create said effects; equipment that will come out of your budget.

Which studio do you think could utilize your budget more effectively?

[The Morningstar]

Yea i get ya. They already have established templates. They don't need to build things from scratch. Makes sense that it saves money.

[dark_b]

Let's use a cow, for argument's sake. If you are making a movie about cows and you need hella CG effects about said cow, which studio would you pick:

Studio A has hundreds of hours of CG cow footage. Every three dimensional render you can think and they would only need to incorporate your unique take on the cow for the film's effects.

Studio B has nothing to use as a basis. They will need to create a variety of basic CG cow models before they event begin touching the unique characteristics you want for your film' cow. Also, they may need better equipment to create said effects; equipment that will come out of your budget.

Which studio do you think could utilize your budget more effectively?yeah i disagree with this. almost every CGI model on movies is modeled from scratch. :cwink:

[dark_b]

Yea i get ya. They already have established templates. They don't need to build things from scratch. Makes sense that it saves money.this is not true. let me tell you a funny secret. even for sequels when the same CGI company is doing the effects they are 80% of the time doing everythign from scratch.
Gollum was a new model in LOTR 3. why? because they had new technology and the old model couldnt be used. why? more realism and faster rendertime. Optimus Prime was also a new model in TF2. and 100 other examples.

sets are also destroyed after filming.

let us a open a new thread how hollywood is spending money hehheheeh :awesome:

[moviedoors]

i dont understand this part.

It means they have a library to draw from, which drastically cuts back on having to develop new software and techniques to pull off effects.

[moviedoors]

this is not true. let me tell you a funny secret. even for sequels when the same CGI company is doing the effects they are 80% of the time doing everythign from scratch.
Gollum was a new model in LOTR 3. why? because they had new technology and the old model couldnt be used. why? more realism and faster rendertime. Optimus Prime was also a new model in TF2. and 100 other examples.

sets are also destroyed after filming.

let us a open a new thread how hollywood is spending money hehheheeh :awesome:
But they had a whole movie of experience and software to build off of. That's not exactly scratch.

[Poni_Boy]

yeah i disagree with this. almost every CGI model on movies is modeled from scratch. :cwink:

Yeah, sure lol

[dark_b]

But they had a whole movie of experience and software to build off of. That's not exactly scratch.experience?

you think that artist dont jump from one company to another company? some artist at Sony sometimes worked at WETA and some at ILM. some artist from ILM are now at Sony. and so on.

software? when building characters and objects they all use the same software.

[Blackman]

Remember, just because character exist, does not mean they are good outside of their medium.

Not about being recognizable isn't the big deal, the big deal is being able to build the character up on film. Iron man and Thor work because they can be brought to life on film. Aquaman isn't Batman with a suit of iron. Aquaman isn't the God of Thunder. These are visuals that work on the big screen. Green Arrow is built around a guy who uses a bow and arrow and dresses like a Renaissance Fair fan.

As to Wonder Woman. First, female lead. Second, Diana works best as Supes and Bats sidekick in the JL. I mean really look at the books. What part of that looks like it would work well on the big screen?

Also you then have to find someone that is as beautiful as Diana and is capable of not looking like a second rate Superman on screen. When you find a woman who is both that beautiful and capable from a physical end, you will have done something very impressive.

As to Flash. A young Wally growing up into the character works best imo. It will allow for the naivete such a story would be calling out for.

Im going to reply to you, but I dont wanna derail this thread so Im gonna post my response in this thread about DC Future Films: http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=356839&page=4

[Marvin]

ILM takes pride in stating they have over 1,000,000 hours of stock CG footage for every imaginable alien, human, animal and landscape. That is a selling point to studios because they have a basis from which to build up effects (therefore, saving tons of money).

WETA is known for their practical effect/mo-cap combination that is used as a basis for computer enhancement.

Sony Imageworks is known for neither. They are still a "young" effects house and people forget that the majority of GL's effects budget went into simply helping Sony catch up with the big two.

Of course Sony ImageWorks needed more money to do this film that the other two, and they more than likely have a **** ton of new state-of-the art equipment in their studio thanks to GL's budget.

which is why

A. I sighed when I found out they were commissioned on this.

B. The CGI (looks like) it has a lot of issues.

Hopefully they step their game up in the coming year so we have more than too big effects houses to look forward too.

[Octoberist]

yeah i disagree with this. almost every CGI model on movies is modeled from scratch. :cwink:

Those long limbed robots from A.I. were reused with new skins in Star Wars Episode II.

[CaptainCraig]

So I looked at the last few pages and couldn't find what I was looking for.

Is the consensus that GL is headed for doom after its below expectation opening?

Seems that way to me. Box Office Mojo did an analysis and GL sold fewer tickets than either Daredevil or Ghost Rider.

This is bad.

[The Morningstar]

Yea, GL is pretty much DOA.

[Octoberist]

GL was originally supposed to film in NZ and Australia. All the contract were already signed but WB chose to move to New Orleans to save an additional 10 - 15% on production costs with the city's tax incentive (now WB has to make it up to NZ by filming other properties there to honor the arrangement)

Also, WETA was on board to do the effects but after the left NZ the company pulled out since they were not going to pack all their **** and move to New Orleans

Stupid, WB. I remember reading about this.

[Tony Stark]

experience?

you think that artist dont jump from one company to another company? some artist at Sony sometimes worked at WETA and some at ILM. some artist from ILM are now at Sony. and so on.

software? when building characters and objects they all use the same software.

Not true, infact WETA was pioneering in developing some of the AI used in their CGI. The biggest example being MASSIVE (Multiple Agent Simulation System in Virtual Environment), which WETA created for Lord of the Rings. Because Jackson had to film these large battle scenes there had to be away to program the CGI characters to act in a certain way.

Compare the battle between the Gungan's and the Battle Droids in Episode 1 to the opening battle in the prologue of Lord of the rings. Pretty much the Gungans and Battle Droids stand in formation firing at each other. There's no intelligence to the characters. In Lord of the Rings you have characters persuing each other, some fleeing the battle field, etc. etc.

Other sutdios have used MASSIVE, but have to pay for the licensing fees to WETA.

[Tony Stark]

So I looked at the last few pages and couldn't find what I was looking for.

Is the consensus that GL is headed for doom after its below expectation opening?

Seems that way to me. Box Office Mojo did an analysis and GL sold fewer tickets than either Daredevil or Ghost Rider.

This is bad.

For as much as they promoted this turd, it's bad news all around for WB. This is a collosal failure. Even Fantastic Four as bad as it may have been, had commercial success (at least the first one).

This is what happens when you make a movie that looks like it was thrown together by a bunch of amatures. This is an unparalleled embarassment.

[Excelsior.]

"amateurs" is a little much. Most of the crew are talented, some even won Oscars. The problem is the lack of a proper vision.

[Poni_Boy]

Not true, infact WETA was pioneering in developing some of the AI used in their CGI. The biggest example being MASSIVE (Multiple Agent Simulation System in Virtual Environment), which WETA created for Lord of the Rings. Because Jackson had to film these large battle scenes there had to be away to program the CGI characters to act in a certain way.

Now compare that to the infinitely smaller scale Oa "group hug" scene. Sony ImageWorks used the 30 alien lanterns that Neville Page created and simply played Mr. Potato Head with them. Salaakk's arms on Boodikka's head, Stel's body on Kilowog's legs. Would WETA have done that? I think not

[moviedoors]

experience?

you think that artist dont jump from one company to another company? some artist at Sony sometimes worked at WETA and some at ILM. some artist from ILM are now at Sony. and so on.

software? when building characters and objects they all use the same software.

What? No they don't. When Avatar started out sourcing FX scenes to other companies, WETA did not share their character software with other companies because it's proprietary. You're just making things up now.

[Tony Stark]

"amateurs" is a little much. Most of the crew are talented, some even won Oscars. The problem is the lack of a proper vision.

I didn't say they were amateurs, Martin Campbell, and Stuart Baird certainly aren't amateurs. I'm saying the way the movie was thrown together made it look like it was done by amateurs.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I just think that Campbell was the wrong man for the job. He didn't know what to do with the material.

[KangConquers]

Eh. Speaking personally, and as a geek, I've never cared about Wonder Woman. I always thought she was a silly character.

One problem that Silver admitted about Wonderwoman was trying to find a good story for the movie; she doesn't have the dozens of good stories Batman and Superman have or even the 15-20 good stories GL has. I've yet to hear DC fans universally rally behind a single Wonderwoman Trade as a definitive story or a greatest graphic novel of all time.


That's what hurts so much about Green Lantern flopping; he may only be a top 5 or 6 DC character, but in terms of great story arcs that would translate well on screen, only Batman and Superman can hold a candle to him. The fact that they couldn't make Green Lantern work makes me think that Wonderwoman, Flash, and Aquaman would be laughing stocks.

[Octoberist]

I just think that Campbell was the wrong man for the job. He didn't know what to do with the material.

I've always felt there was a disconnection with him and the entire Green Lantern property in interviews.

[The Morningstar]

I've always felt there was a disconnection with him and the entire Green Lantern property in interviews.

Yea, him saying things like "we're trying to ground it" just made no sense what-so-ever for a property such as this.

[dark_b]

What? No they don't. When Avatar started out sourcing FX scenes to other companies, WETA did not share their character software with other companies because it's proprietary. You're just making things up now.i wrotte character and object building. you are writting about propriety software for animation .bug difference. for creating characters they use the same software.

and i dont see why WETA would share their their software for facial animation when WETA was doing the na'vi.

[dark_b]

I just think that Campbell was the wrong man for the job. He didn't know what to do with the material.i think he was right for the job. but like Phil from TMT said . he needs a strong script. i dont think you need experience with comicbook movies to make a comicbook movie. it looks like both Cambell and Reynolds signed for the paycheck. nothing wrong with that.

[S.A.A.D.]

Now compare that to the infinitely smaller scale Oa "group hug" scene. Sony ImageWorks used the 30 alien lanterns that Neville Page created and simply played Mr. Potato Head with them. Salaakk's arms on Boodikka's head, Stel's body on Kilowog's legs. Would WETA have done that? I think not

Ugh. I guess that this sticks out like a sore thumb once someone watches the movie.

[moviedoors]

i wrotte character and object building. you are writting about propriety software for animation .bug difference. for creating characters they use the same software.

and i dont see why WETA would share their their software for facial animation when WETA was doing the na'vi.

Uh, no it's the exact same thing. The character software was the propriety software. It's the software WETA pioneered on Lord of the Rings and King Kong. The character work is what made WETA the giant they are. All the outsourcing was for backgrounds, ships, and mechs. WETA did ALL of the Na'vi. They didn't share one line of code for characters.

You're just straight wrong. This is not a matter of opinion. Gracefully admit your mistake, and bow out of this argument.

[Raiden]

Now compare that to the infinitely smaller scale Oa "group hug" scene. Sony ImageWorks used the 30 alien lanterns that Neville Page created and simply played Mr. Potato Head with them. Salaakk's arms on Boodikka's head, Stel's body on Kilowog's legs. Would WETA have done that? I think not

Once DVD comes out with GL, I think we'll be able to freeze frame this scene and really see what Sony ImageWorks did with those GL Corps aliens.

[Tony Stark]

i think he was right for the job. but like Phil from TMT said . he needs a strong script. i dont think you need experience with comicbook movies to make a comicbook movie. it looks like both Cambell and Reynolds signed for the paycheck. nothing wrong with that.

Nothing wrong with that, but I expect that if a sequel is made they will both bail (Campbell already said he would), and so will Mark Strong, who was the only good thing about the movie.

[dark_b]

Nothing wrong with that, but I expect that if a sequel is made they will both bail (Campbell already said he would), and so will Mark Strong, who was the only good thing about the movie.Cambell said weeks ago that he would not do the sequel. Reynolds will be back if the paycheck is right. :)

[Poni_Boy]

Cambell said weeks ago that he would not do the sequel. Reynolds will be back if the paycheck is right. :)

No, he never said that. It was implied in the article that he did not want to return for a sequel but it was not a quote from him. Plus he has first option on it if it gets greenlit

[Tony Stark]

Well, it's all conjecture, because there's little chance of a sequel being "green"lit (how ironic lol!)

But the point I am making is when a film bombs like this actors have their reputations and they don't want them to be associated with failure. Bana left after Hulk, Affleck left after Daredevil, etc, etc,

Very unlikely any of those folks will be brought back, if it does get a sequel.

[TheVileOne]

There isn't going to be a sequel.

[Tony Stark]

There isn't going to be a sequel.

Yeah considering this will make less than G.I. Joe, I think we can probably discount it.

[TheVileOne]

I'm not saying the franchise is dead. We've seen WB go back to the well before. But this particular one is dead. This is pretty much worst case scenario. Even the WB distribution guy on BOM was saying, "If we make $5 million on Monday all is forgiven." Are you kidding me? Sounds like damage control to me.

The numbers aren't going to be pretty with Cars 2 coming out this week. Like Favreau says, this will be the bloodiest summer ever.

[jacobed]

yeah Favreau was definitely right there. Cars 2 doesn't even get time to breathe because Transformers will be out next Tuesday.

[Spider-Fan]

Subjective (The CGI suits being unnecessary). :oldrazz:

One problem that Silver admitted about Wonderwoman was trying to find a good story for the movie; she doesn't have the dozens of good stories Batman and Superman have or even the 15-20 good stories GL has. I've yet to hear DC fans universally rally behind a single Wonderwoman Trade as a definitive story or a greatest graphic novel of all time.


That's what hurts so much about Green Lantern flopping; he may only be a top 5 or 6 DC character, but in terms of great story arcs that would translate well on screen, only Batman and Superman can hold a candle to him. The fact that they couldn't make Green Lantern work makes me think that Wonderwoman, Flash, and Aquaman would be laughing stocks.

I think the Flash would be much more accessible than GL for the general public, personally. GL has a concept that requires lots of explanation and elements of Sci-Fi that have to be done right to be accessible for everyone. In this case, that connection with the audience didn't happen. Flash is a much more grounded character. He is simple to explain, has Spider-Man's charm and wit, and has the light-hearted tone of something like a Star Trek. I think Flash would have been a much safer movie for WB to make. Plus, the Flash has a great gallery of villains. GL's gallery has gotten better over time, but a character like Hector Hammond just doesn't translate as well as some of the villains someone like the Flash would have an easier time doing. Aquaman and Wonder Woman I agree are more problematic to approach and hard to get an audience behind them, but Flash I don't think would be all that hard.

[craigdbfan]

I just think that Campbell was the wrong man for the job. He didn't know what to do with the material.

I've always felt there was a disconnection with him and the entire Green Lantern property in interviews.

Yea, him saying things like "we're trying to ground it" just made no sense what-so-ever for a property such as this.

He was definitely not the man for this job. I keep saying that he is probably one of the main problems. Some people are giving major flak to WB which is understandable to a degree but they gave him all the resources to make this possible and he screwed up big time.

Then again WB ruined the movie by churning out a terrible script due to hiring subpar screenwriters for this project.

The people who should have been involved should of had a passion and a general know how in the sci fi genre in general.

So many things went wrong. I know the "concept" of Green Lantern isn't to farfetched or flawed because people have gone with even more fantastical ideas in films in the past its just that the execution was dirt poor.

[dnno1]

Looks like the final count for the weekend was over $53 million domestic and over $70 million world wide for Green Lantern (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=greenlantern.htm).

[mclay18]

Also, WETA was on board to do the effects but after the left NZ the company pulled out since they were not going to pack all their **** and move to New Orleans

It's like you're implying that every NZ-shot film could use WETA. You've apparently missed the fact that several film productions never shot a frame of footage in NZ/Australia, but got WETA to do CGI work. Productions like X-Men: The Last Stand, Eragon, Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and X-Men: First Class for example got WETA to do some key CGI scenes.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

[Poni_Boy]

It's like you're implying that every NZ-shot film could use WETA. You've apparently missed the fact that several film productions never shot a frame of footage in NZ/Australia, but got WETA to do CGI work. Productions like X-Men: The Last Stand, Eragon, Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and X-Men: First Class for example got WETA to do some key CGI scenes.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

Jesus Christ relax, especially since you don't have the facts. WETA was finalizing their deal with WB for GL when production was slated for New Zealand. The reason WETA was NOT going to follow GL across the world was because they are too busy utilizing their major resources for The Hobbit. Since the GL cast and crew were going to be in the company's backyard it facilitated their work on the film. Once production moved to New Orleans to save a couple of bucks, WETA pulled out.

Now you know

[Cain]

That said, the Green Lantern Mythos deserves several movies...At least 3, maybe more...just not like this...It's such a wasted opportunity for one of DC's greatest properties, and has caused me to lose faith in DC Entertainment. This was the big one for me.

I agree with this.

[craigdbfan]

It's like you're implying that every NZ-shot film could use WETA. You've apparently missed the fact that several film productions never shot a frame of footage in NZ/Australia, but got WETA to do CGI work. Productions like X-Men: The Last Stand, Eragon, Fantastic 4: Rise of the Silver Surfer, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and X-Men: First Class for example got WETA to do some key CGI scenes.

Your argument doesn't hold water.

True.

Jesus Christ relax, especially since you don't have the facts. WETA was finalizing their deal with WB for GL when production was slated for New Zealand. The reason WETA was NOT going to follow GL across the world was because they are too busy utilizing their major resources for The Hobbit. Since the GL cast and crew were going to be in the company's backyard it facilitated their work on the film. Once production moved to New Orleans to save a couple of bucks, WETA pulled out.

Now you know

False.

[Tony Stark]

He was definitely not the man for this job. I keep saying that he is probably one of the main problems. Some people are giving major flak to WB which is understandable to a degree but they gave him all the resources to make this possible and he screwed up big time.

Then again WB ruined the movie by churning out a terrible script due to hiring subpar screenwriters for this project.

The people who should have been involved should of had a passion and a general know how in the sci fi genre in general.

So many things went wrong. I know the "concept" of Green Lantern isn't to farfetched or flawed because people have gone with even more fantastical ideas in films in the past its just that the execution was dirt poor.


Martin Campbell is a great director, anyone who says otherwise is fooling themself. However, at some point on this project he went AWOL and said **** it, and cashed in. As I said on other threads, this tells me all I need to know about the guy.

WB does bear the brunt of the resposibility, because it's up to them and the producers to have fired him before this film went out.

He was not the only problem, the script writing was beyond horrible, and probably that led to Campbell's decision to cash in.

The problem is there is no one single element you can point to on why this film is such a monumental failure. It's an amalgamation of hundreds of bad decisions leading to one giant cluster you know what.

[Poni_Boy]

True.



False.

Ha! Keep telling yourself that

EDIT: I don't usually reveal sources but this information can be found on the net anyway. Here's an email from last year between one of WETA's PR handlers and myself:

Pietro,
Weta Workshop isn’t involved in Green Lantern at this point in time. Unfortunately our agreement never came to pass after it was decided production would stay across the pond. Still don't know the status of Avengers but will keep you posted.




Cheers

Magnus

Got your copy of The Art of District 9: Weta Workshop (http://www.wetanz.com/the-art-of-district-9-weta-workshop) yet?


Magnus Hjert
Website Marketing Manager | Weta
E:: magnus@wetanz.co.nz (magnus@wetanz.co.nz)| W:: www.wetaNZ.com (http://www.wetanz.com/)
T:: +64 (0)2 7488 7488
PO Box 15208, Miramar, Wellington, New Zealand

[craigdbfan]

Martin Campbell is a great director, anyone who says otherwise is fooling themself. However, at some point on this project he went AWOL and said **** it, and cashed in. As I said on other threads, this tells me all I need to know about the guy.

WB does bear the brunt of the resposibility, because it's up to them and the producers to have fired him before this film went out.

He was not the only problem, the script writing was beyond horrible, and probably that led to Campbell's decision to cash in.

The problem is there is no one single element you can point to on why this film is such a monumental failure. It's an amalgamation of hundreds of bad decisions leading to one giant cluster you know what.

I've said repeatedly that he's a great director just incredibly ill suited for this movie.

I also wrote in that post that he's just one of many problems with this entire production.

[Tony Stark]

53M for the actuals. A little higher than previously thought, still a bomb considering it tanked on Saturday. I have a feeling the monday dropoff will be even worse, probably in the 4M range.

I think this will end up in teh 110M range domestically and only 230 WW.

[Spider-Fan]

Martin Campbell is a great director, anyone who says otherwise is fooling themself. However, at some point on this project he went AWOL and said **** it, and cashed in. As I said on other threads, this tells me all I need to know about the guy.

WB does bear the brunt of the resposibility, because it's up to them and the producers to have fired him before this film went out.

He was not the only problem, the script writing was beyond horrible, and probably that led to Campbell's decision to cash in.

The problem is there is no one single element you can point to on why this film is such a monumental failure. It's an amalgamation of hundreds of bad decisions leading to one giant cluster you know what.

GL needed a Sci-Fi man on the project. I don't mean someone who has necessarily done 100mil Sci-Fi films. I mean someone who has passion for Sci-Fi and has a mind for what makes Sci-fi work. Martin Campbell, while talented, isn't a Sci-Fi guy. He does more grounded films.

[Gold Samurai]

Martin Campbell is a great director, anyone who says otherwise is fooling themself. However, at some point on this project he went AWOL and said **** it, and cashed in. As I said on other threads, this tells me all I need to know about the guy.

WB does bear the brunt of the resposibility, because it's up to them and the producers to have fired him before this film went out.

He was not the only problem, the script writing was beyond horrible, and probably that led to Campbell's decision to cash in.

The problem is there is no one single element you can point to on why this film is such a monumental failure. It's an amalgamation of hundreds of bad decisions leading to one giant cluster you know what.


We've seen him at his best

GoldenEye
Casino Royale

We've seen him at his worst

Legend of Zorro
Green Lantern

"Edge of Darkness" was partially Gibson backlash

[craigdbfan]

GL needed a Sci-Fi man on the project. I don't mean someone who has necessarily done 100mil Sci-Fi films. I mean someone who has passion for Sci-Fi and has a mind for what makes Sci-fi work. Martin Campbell, while talented, isn't a Sci-Fi guy. He does more grounded films.

Exactly.

[Tony Stark]

I've said repeatedly that he's a great director just incredibly ill suited for this movie.

I also wrote in that post that he's just one of many problems with this entire production.

Yeah, I was essentially agreeing with what you wrote. Sorry if it seemed like I was contradicting you. You're assesment is 100% spot on.

[craigdbfan]

Yeah, I was essentially agreeing with what you wrote. Sorry if it seemed like I was contradicting you. You're assesment is 100% spot on.

No problem. ;)

[Tony Stark]

GL needed a Sci-Fi man on the project. I don't mean someone who has necessarily done 100mil Sci-Fi films. I mean someone who has passion for Sci-Fi and has a mind for what makes Sci-fi work. Martin Campbell, while talented, isn't a Sci-Fi guy. He does more grounded films.

Agreed, there are several options they could have went with, and probably spent less money than they did on Campbell.

Sufice it to say, I don't think Campbell will have another directing job with WB for a long, long time because of this. The studio knows when they've been taken for a ride.

[Spider-Fan]

I think one thing that really hurt this film was the villain selection. Parallax (as a full villain and not a lurking force) was used way too early, and Hector Hammond wasn't a good choice. Someone like Attrocitus would have worked much better for the film. Parallax should have been a looming threat that got expanded upon in the 2nd film as he taints Sinestro into using a yellow ring. Hector Hammond as a mirror Hal was a good idea, but once again...poorly executed. I think if we were to have a villain tied to Abin Sur, Attrocitus would have worked better.

[Delete]

I think one thing that really hurt this film was the villain selection. Parallax (as a full villain and not a lurking force) was used way too early, and Hector Hammond wasn't a good choice. Someone like Attrocitus would have worked much better for the film. Parallax should have been a looming threat that got expanded upon in the 2nd film as he taints Sinestro into using a yellow ring. Hector Hammond as a mirror Hal was a good idea, but once again...poorly executed. I think if we were to have a villain tied to Abin Sur, Attrocitus would have worked better.

Making it a buddy cop film the veteran, Sinestro, and the rookie, Hal, looking for the killer of Abin, Attrocitus, would have worked so much better.

[TheVileOne]

So kind of like First Flight basically? ;) .

But yeah way too much time on Earth. Not enough time in outerspace or Oa. We should've seen other planets and other races. Sort of like MIB but set in space . . . with less comedy.

[craigdbfan]

First Flight >>> GL live action

[Marvin]

We've seen him at his best

GoldenEye
Casino Royale

We've seen him at his worst

Legend of Zorro
Green Lantern

"Edge of Darkness" was partially Gibson backlash

Mask of Zorro is my favorite of his.
one of my favorite of the superhero category, seeing a character you watched on TV as a kid get a movie while your still a kid and handled like that...
pure bliss

[Doctor Jones]

If Campbell is so good at grounding things and capable of creating great character moments as seen in his best films, then why the hell did the Earth scenes suck?

[CaptainCraig]

First Flight >>> GL live action
I've not seen it yet but according to Neflix it's going to be in my mailbox tonight.

[Spider-Fan]

If Campbell is so good at grounding things and capable of creating great character moments as seen in his best films, then why the hell did the Earth scenes suck?

Even the Earth scenes had to blend with the overall plot, which expanded passed the confines of Earth. This film struggled to find a medium between Earth and space. I felt there was a vast universe in the film, but the narrative never found a way to make both places work.

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Aww bummer... Green Lantern should have been DC's Iron Man.

But they did pretty much everything wrong. :csad:

Ah well... In Nolan WB/DC will now worship.

[Episode29]

Campbell is a highly competent journeyman. He gets the job done, but is only ever as good as the material he's given to work with. There's nothing wrong with that, but GL needed someone with vision. Campbell doesn't have that. He's a hired gun who works best under strong, hands-on producers. The Broccoli clan with the Bond films and Spielberg for Zorro.

Beyond those three titles, the man's filmography is spotty at best.

And, frankly, I'd place blame for GL more on the producers than Campbell.

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Very weird...

[Karelia]

Maybe it's Mark Millar. :awesome:

I sure hope this doesn't keep DC from trying other properties. Maybe they'll go for cheaper characters like Green Arrow/The Question. Or just not put so much into one film. I mean c'mon GL seemed like it should have taken almost all in space with the amount of money into it. I don't know. :dry:

[GreenKToo]

Stupid, WB. I remember reading about this.
Which is kinda ironic when you think about it..they moved to N.O. to save money, a new FX company had to be hired as a result, and it all may have cost them way more money now in the long run.

[Excelsior.]

People forget WB's annual cash cow, Harry Potter, is coming to an end. They need a new a new cow, and it seems DC Superhero flicks are mooing to the call.

[TheVileOne]

Green Lantern isn't.

[Poni_Boy]

Green Lantern isn't.

... "yeah, no **** "

http://www.accesshollywood.com/content/images/82/230x306/82315_jude-law-films-a-scene-as-dr-watson-for-sherlock-holmes-in-new-york.jpg

;)

[chiefchirpa]

Perhaps Aquaman will answer the call :-P

[FreeRadical]

Perhaps Aquaman will answer the call :-P

He talks to fish!

I like fish!

[Dreadstar]

SO can we all agree that GL was a disappointing failure at the box office and critically speaking (story, plot, character development, etc)

[jmc]

The numbers and reactions peaks for itself, I think it's safe to say WB cocked up big time.

[BigThor]

First Flight >>> GL live action
Yep, it's not even close.

[Gold Samurai]

When all is said and done we'll always have "First Flight" :(

[Dreadstar]

So why cant WB make anything successfully movie wise except Batman? LOL

[Nemesis Prime]

So why cant WB make anything successfully movie wise except Batman? LOL


Without Chris Nolan, none of WB's SH movies would've been a success. They should offer him lots of stocks of WB so he'll never leave. I am sure suits at the studio must be dreading life after Nolan with the BO failure of GL.

[Blackman]

So why cant WB make anything successfully movie wise except Batman? LOL

Because they dont get the right talent or IMO make some weird decisions.
I mean I know he is suggested for alot of things but Duncan Jones seems like a better choice for a sci fi movie than MArtin Campbell. Campbell on the other hand seems better for Green Arrow.

Without Chris Nolan, none of WB's SH movies would've been a success. They should offer him lots of stocks of WB so he'll never leave. I am sure suits at the studio must be dreading life after Nolan with the BO failure of GL.

I dont see why Nolan should be in charge of everything. Honestly, I dont want to see Nolan's influence on every DC movie

[Nemesis Prime]

Where can I find a reliable source for GL's total production budget? Some sites say $300 mil, while others report $200 mil. Thanks.

[Bruce_Begins]

Box Office Mojo puts GL Budget at 200 mil.

300 mil. according to New York Times is, Production Budget plus Marketing Costs, for big summer blockbusters, 75 mil to 100 mil marketing costs are the norm, so it is not something unusual.

[Son of Coul]

$200mil production budget. $300mil with marketing added. Most people/sites just use the latter number to add impact to its underwhelming BO return.

[Bruce_Begins]

I dont see why Nolan should be in charge of everything. Honestly, I dont want to see Nolan's influence on every DC movie

Nolan is not a type of director who would want to be associated with Comic Book movies, throughout his career, he just likes batman and Superman, even in case of Superman, he was not willing be anything more than a producer so that that movie project can get running back again.

[Episode29]

They've made it very clear that Man of Steel will be Zack Snyder film, not a Christopher Nolan one.

[KRIM]

I dont see why Nolan should be in charge of everything. Honestly, I dont want to see Nolan's influence on every DC movie
That really depends on what influences he brings to the films. Tonally, no his style is clearly not fit for more than a handful of the DC heroes. But in terms of how to handle the source material and bringing genuine artistic integrity into the genre and not treating it like fluff -- that is more than welcome.

Just look at how MOS is shaping up. I know it's Zack's film now, but Chris' involvement is evident. Snyder is switching up his style to approach the mythos from a hyper-realistic perspective. Instantly we could conceivably have a film that deals with real human interaction, emotions, and thought. That sense of tangibility is lost on most comic book films, which is why the drama in Nolan's films are so universally lauded. Contrary to fanboy overreaction, this approach does not at all translate to gritty and dark. Rather, a more intimate experience as the characters you are watching feel very 3-dimensional.

Also, MOS looks to have one of the most prestiged casts in a comic book film. Even before a single frame is shot, the production already carries heavy weight from the names attached.

[Tony Stark]

SO can we all agree that GL was a disappointing failure at the box office and critically speaking (story, plot, character development, etc)


Let's use this analogy to put it in perspective:

Dark Knight = grand slam home run.

Spider-man = home run with runners on 1st and 2nd

Iron Man = home run with runner on base.

X2: X-men United = inside the park home run

Thor = RBI double

X-men First Class = Base hit

Green Lantern = sacrifice bunt, runner stranded on 3rd.

[Rock Sexton]

$200mil production budget. $300mil with marketing added. Most people/sites just use the latter number to add impact to its underwhelming BO return.

Actually the numbers that were listed were $200 million for the film and $150 million for marketing, with talk that WB was underplaying another $50 million or so.

[KalMart]

Let's use this analogy to put it in perspective:

Dark Knight = grand slam home run.

Spider-man = home run with runners on 1st and 2nd

Iron Man = home run with runner on base.

X2: X-men United = inside the park home run

Thor = RBI double

X-men First Class = Base hit

Green Lantern = sacrifice bunt, runner stranded on 3rd.
Because it rolled foul with two strikes? :oldrazz:

[akfj]

After Green Lantern, it's fourth and fifteen and WB are looking at a full-court press.

[J.Howlett]

It's done. It barely made 5 million yesterday. I'll always champion this film, even with it's flaws but 5 million on your first Monday is not good. Look for, at minimum a 60% drop this weekend. It's barely going to make 130 million domestically.

On to Rises and Man of Steel, it is...

[J.Howlett]

The scenario for WB is very simple.

They have Rises and Man of Steel for 2012. Batman will get some kind of refresh where it's in continuity with the Nolan films or use it as a reference. How long that new Batman refresh will last, that's up in the air.

If Man of Steel takes will to audiences and critics, you can pretty much see them doing another two Man of Steel films that'll take them to 2017 to 2018 (depends on if you have two years or three years between films).

And that's pretty much it, unless they can get Wonder Woman and Flash off and running but I think this box office of Green Lantern will put a stop to at least Wonder Woman. Flash? Maybe.

WB's only other options are to look at their imprint properties, for which I think they've had great quality pictures. But, none of those were "event" films.

[dark_b]

i hope WB doesnt think that the problem was the scifi and space elemnts. i hope they dont think tha the aliens were the problem.

[Doctor Jones]

MOS needs to succeed. If that does, they will be set with sequels for a while.

Batman I feel will get fast tracked right after TDKR. When Nolan says he's done and TDKR makes a profit on home release, WB will announce the next Batman film and look quickly for a director.

They could still do a Flash film. Just use the money more wisley.

[Blackman]

MOS needs to succeed. If that does, they will be set with sequels for a while.

Batman I feel will get fast tracked right after TDKR. When Nolan says he's done and TDKR makes a profit on home release, WB will announce the next Batman film and look quickly for a director.

They could still do a Flash film. Just use the money more wisley.

ANd get damn good talent that actually fits the character

[J.Howlett]

Yeah, WB/DC will have Batman and Superman running side by side over this next decade IF Man of Steel is received very well.

The other properties are up in the air now.

It's a wait and see game for WB/DC.

[J.Howlett]

You say that as if WB doesn't try to. Snyder on Watchmen. The team for V for Vendetta. Nolan's Batman. I think Superman Returns but I'm in the smallest of minorities on that film.

Either way, it's not like WB has hired Brett Ratner, Tim Story, or Mark Steven Johnson to do their films.

Jimmy Hayward is really the only one.

[Silver Surfer]

As regards to Batman, there were some minor rumblings a while back that after Nolan walks away, DC might reboot Batman in a Batman Beyond kinda way.

Could work, considering it might be a little to soon for regular ol' Bats to have a complete new cast and creative team. Especially considering that it will underwhelm because it will be following Nolan's trilogy.

[Raiden]

You say that as if WB doesn't try to. Snyder on Watchmen. The team for V for Vendetta. Nolan's Batman. I think Superman Returns but I'm in the smallest of minorities on that film.

Either way, it's not like WB has hired Brett Ratner, Tim Story, or Mark Steven Johnson to do their films.

Jimmy Hayward is really the only one.

But WB did hire Joel Schumacher (for Batman Forever and Batman & Robin), so it's not like they always get the best talent for their movies. And who's the directors for Superman 3 & 4?

[Tony Stark]

You say that as if WB doesn't try to. Snyder on Watchmen. The team for V for Vendetta. Nolan's Batman. I think Superman Returns but I'm in the smallest of minorities on that film.

Either way, it's not like WB has hired Brett Ratner, Tim Story, or Mark Steven Johnson to do their films.

Jimmy Hayward is really the only one.

No they hired Martin Campbell and he did just as bad of a job as Brett Ratner, Tim Story, and Mark Steven Johnson.

FYI, WB did hire Brett Ratner, but he left the Superman project and Singer took over.

[Poni_Boy]

No they hired Martin Campbell and he did just as bad of a job as Brett Ratner, Tim Story, and Mark Steven Johnson.

FYI, WB did hire Brett Ratner, but he left the Superman project and Singer took over.

Ratner reminds me a lot of Zack Snyder. They will film anything put on paper and film it well, but when they have to incorporate their original ideas the projects start spiraling downhill.

[Spider-Fan]

But WB did hire Joel Schumacher (for Batman Forever and Batman & Robin), so it's not like they always get the best talent for their movies. And who's the directors for Superman 3 & 4?

Superman III was Richard Lester, the man who replaced Donner mid-filming on Superman II.

Sidney J Furie did Superman IV, but that was a Cannon film, so it had reason to be terrible. Plus, it had no budget essentially. Furie hasn't done much.

[JeetKuneDo]

The last 10 WB comic book movies:

Batman Forever
Batman & Robin
Steel
Catwoman
Batman Begins
Superman Returns
The Dark Knight
Watchmen
Jonah Hex
Green Lantern

Does this look like a company that knows what they are doing? If I were DC, I would be trying to get the heck away from WB.

[Marvin]

The last 10 WB comic book movies:

Batman Forever
Batman & Robin
Steel
Catwoman
Batman Begins
Superman Returns
The Dark Knight
Watchmen
Jonah Hex
Green Lantern

Does this look like a company that knows what they are doing? If I were DC, I would be trying to get the heck away from WB.

To be fair, if marvel or anyone were to make a superhero film in/for the early nineties it probably would have sucked.


If Man of Steel comes out and literally performs the way Green Lantern is(critically and $$wise), which honestly is possible. I think that would put the nail in the coffin.

[J.Howlett]

Does RED, V for Vendetta, and Constantine not count on that list of WB made comic book movies in the last 14 years?

[JeetKuneDo]

To be fair, if marvel or anyone were to make a superhero film in/for the early nineties it probably would have sucked.


If Man of Steel comes out and literally performs the way Green Lantern is(critically and $$wise), which honestly is possible. I think that would put the nail in the coffin.
I don't know that the early 90s forced anyone to make bad SH movies. WB certainly did it...and they are doing it now too. I know if Fox put out Catwoman, Jonah Hex, Superman Returns, and GL in a span of 5 years....they wouldn't get a pass, would they? I know Fox just rebounded with XMFC, but still don't trust them. WB is putting out movies that are at least as bad. This track record shouldn't be swept under the rug. It's looking like they just got lucky with Nolan. Surely someone at DC is sitting at a desk with their head in their hands thinking, "They did it again...ugh...how do we get out of this WB thing?"

[JeetKuneDo]

Does RED, V for Vendetta, and Constantine not count on that list of WB made comic book movies in the last 14 years?
We can count them if you want...but...

V for Vendetta-73% RT
Constantine-46% RT
The Losers-47% RT
Red-71% RT

No home runs there either. Two were "ok" and two were bad.

[Raiden]

Does RED, V for Vendetta, and Constantine not count on that list of WB made comic book movies in the last 14 years?

Personally, I would only count superhero movies if we are going to compare them with Marvel's, because Marvel only makes movies based on superheroes. I won't count Jonah Hex since he isn't considered a superhero either.

[chamber-music]

If you include RED, V for Vendetta, The Losers and Constantine ect at DC you may as well include Kick Ass and Men In Black as Marvel movies

[HighFivingMF]

If DC Marvel. Marvel Marvel DC DC. Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel. DC DC DC DC DC. Also, Marvel DC DC DC Marvel Marvel.

[super85]

Personally, I would only count superhero movies if we are going to compare them with Marvel's, because Marvel only makes movies based on superheroes. I won't count Jonah Hex since he isn't considered a superhero either.

Well Marvel did make (or had a studio make) Man-Thing a few years back ;).

If you include RED, V for Vendetta, The Losers and Constantine ect at DC you may as well include Kick Ass and Men In Black as Marvel movies

Well they are DC Properties, Kick Ass is creator owned my Millar and Romita and did not have the Marvel-logo in the movie, maybe Marvel didn't want it on it? ,but for example "The Losers" is an old DC Comics property, even if the movie was based on the Vertigo series, John Constantine debuted in an issue of Swamp Thing when it was set in the DCU amd, just recently Jonah Hex met Batman.

[terry78]

DC is much broader regarding their stable of franchises compared to Marvel though. They got Vertigo and all that other graphic novel serious **** going on to boot. Marvel is Marvel, extensive they may be.

[Marvin]

I don't know that the early 90s forced anyone to make bad SH movies. WB certainly did it...and they are doing it now too. I know if Fox put out Catwoman, Jonah Hex, Superman Returns, and GL in a span of 5 years....they wouldn't get a pass, would they? I know Fox just rebounded with XMFC, but still don't trust them. WB is putting out movies that are at least as bad. This track record shouldn't be swept under the rug. It's looking like they just got lucky with Nolan. Surely someone at DC is sitting at a desk with their head in their hands thinking, "They did it again...ugh...how do we get out of this WB thing?"

ever heard the saying that comic book films changed after so and so a film?
ie Xmen 2000
more appropriately blade 1998
And more recently TDK.

My point is early nineties it'd be hard for any studio to see profit in making a "less accessible" comic book film. Let alone any director to try it.

[Mysteryman]

ever heard the saying that comic book films changed after so and so a film?
ie Xmen 2000
more appropriately blade 1998
And more recently TDK.

My point is early nineties it'd be hard for any studio to see profit in making a "less accessible" comic book film. Let alone any director to try it.
Thank You!
Most credit X-Men but the Marvel Success Express started with Blade , even though it wasnt marketed as a Marvel film.

[Tony Stark]

Looks like 5.1M on monday. By comparison both Hulk movies did 5.9M on Monday.

[HaloCod27]

The last 10 WB comic book movies:

Batman Forever
Batman & Robin
Steel
Catwoman
Batman Begins
Superman Returns
The Dark Knight
Watchmen
Jonah Hex
Green Lantern

Does this look like a company that knows what they are doing? If I were DC, I would be trying to get the heck away from WB.


I spy 2 good movies in a list of 10...:csad:


If DC Marvel. Marvel Marvel DC DC. Marvel Marvel Marvel Marvel. DC DC DC DC DC. Also, Marvel DC DC DC Marvel Marvel.

What is this I don't even

[Weadazoid]

Looks like 5.1M on monday. By comparison both Hulk movies did 5.9M on Monday.




Well that doesn't bode well at all, this thing may be pulled from theaters in a matter of weeks not months.



Somebody at the WB is probably out on the streets looking for a job right now.

this may not get much past the 100 mil mark domesticly....

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

But WB did hire Joel Schumacher (for Batman Forever and Batman & Robin), so it's not like they always get the best talent for their movies. And who's the directors for Superman 3 & 4?

Based on his previous resume... it wasn't the silliest idea WB ever made at the time.

Well it was with the power of hindsight but you get my point.

[KalMart]

Based on his previous resume... it wasn't the silliest idea WB ever made at the time.
Neither was Singer for Superman, really. But it came down to what they decided to do with Bats/Supes.....and unfortunately, they both deiced to give them nipples.


:O

[CaptainCraig]

That Monday box office is only helping to toss more dirt on the casket and quicker. :(

If the daily drops continue at this horrid pace a 65% drop is going to be the minimum this coming weekend.

[KangConquers]

Green Lantern's 4th day was comparable to Thor's. I honestly never saw Lantern being a huge hit stateside; I figured like every comic book movie this summer it would stall below 200 M. The thing that's shocking me is how poorly it's doing internationally.

Basically the only reason Lantern's performance is considered "poor" is really based more on poor business decisions by WB (going significantly over budget) than based on a lack of people going to see this film; if they'd stuck with a 150 Million dollar production budget and a 50-75 million dollar advertising budget, then these numbers would be fine, and possibly lead to a sequel.

[Chewy]

Green Lantern's 4th day was comparable to Thor's.Which is terrible for it, as it has June weekdays.

It is almost a million below the 4th day of both Hulk movies and both Fantastic Four movies.

[mace1]

This is the voice of a Warner Bros. studio exec. But Dan Fellman, president of domestic distribution for the studio, insisted the film's opening was "not a big miss at all." "Nobody here is upset. It's within the range of where we were looking," he said. "The question is now where we go. Any dollars that we left on the table over the weekend can certainly be made up mid-week, as all schools are out." Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/06/19/1781483/green-lantern-is-no-1-at-the-box.html#ixzz1PsQYQdBu

[EML420]

Do people even go to the movies on week days. Week day numbers never seem to get has much attention has weekend number. I know people go I have a few times but weekends seem to be were the money is.

[The Sage]

This is the voice of a Warner Bros. studio exec. But Dan Fellman, president of domestic distribution for the studio, insisted the film's opening was "not a big miss at all." "Nobody here is upset. It's within the range of where we were looking," he said. "The question is now where we go. Any dollars that we left on the table over the weekend can certainly be made up mid-week, as all schools are out." Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/06/19/1781483/green-lantern-is-no-1-at-the-box.html#ixzz1PsQYQdBu

Hard to believe that unless they lowered their own expectations.

My big question is what happens next regarding their DC Comic properties.

[TheVileOne]

But Dan Fellman with WB said if it made $5 million on Monday, all is forgiven.

[terry78]

Do people even go to the movies on week days. Week day numbers never seem to get has much attention has weekend number. I know people go I have a few times but weekends seem to be were the money is.

During the summer, yeah.

[Karelia]

This is the voice of a Warner Bros. studio exec. But Dan Fellman, president of domestic distribution for the studio, insisted the film's opening was "not a big miss at all." "Nobody here is upset. It's within the range of where we were looking," he said. "The question is now where we go. Any dollars that we left on the table over the weekend can certainly be made up mid-week, as all schools are out." Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/06/19/1781483/green-lantern-is-no-1-at-the-box.html#ixzz1PsQYQdBu

Very interesting. Well, I guess if their not upset, a sequel is possible. Which I do hope it happens.

[Mysteryman]

They are not PUBLICLY upset.
With all the stories out there about how bad it tanked,
what else were they possibly going to say?

[Rock Sexton]

They are not PUBLICLY upset.
With all the stories out there about how bad it tanked,
what else were they possibly going to say?

I know ... LOL ... do some of these guys crossing fingers for a sequel think some WB exec is going to come out and blast this lackluster showing? Course not. That's bad for business. They're not going to be the ones to put the nail in their own coffin.

They compared it to Iron Man and Star Wars ..... they spent in the neighborhood of $350-$400 million on the production and marketing. Them thinking $53 million opening weekend was satisfactory is a bold-faced lie. They clearly needed close to $100 million to even have a chance. Especially with where it's situated this month among other movie releases.

[Deaths Head II]

When Dragonball Evolution came out and bombed in theaters, Fox claimed it met their expectations as well. Studios aren't going to admit a movie is doing poorly.

[craigdbfan]

Pretty much, yeah.

[herolee10]

When Dragonball Evolution came out and bombed in theaters, Fox claimed it met their expectations as well. Studios aren't going to admit a movie is doing poorly.

What's ironic is that both films opened up in such similar ways; where the film opens up with a crawl towards space with someone narrating the prologue while we see animations/pictures of the main protagonist dissolve onto our screen (In a somewhat sandstorm like effect)

[Tony Stark]

This is the voice of a Warner Bros. studio exec. But Dan Fellman, president of domestic distribution for the studio, insisted the film's opening was "not a big miss at all." "Nobody here is upset. It's within the range of where we were looking," he said. "The question is now where we go. Any dollars that we left on the table over the weekend can certainly be made up mid-week, as all schools are out." Read more: http://www.kentucky.com/2011/06/19/1781483/green-lantern-is-no-1-at-the-box.html#ixzz1PsQYQdBu

OH MY!!!! That's the worst freaking spin job I've ever heard. They are trying to save face. The movie fell flat on it's face and depending on the drops this film has a better chance of not making 100M domestically than it does any hopes of recovering production costs.

[misjuevos]

funny thing is saying the movie is bad might get people interested in seeing it. people like to slow down for crashes so who knows they might be so curious as to why this movie is being put down so much.

[dark_b]

Very interesting. Well, I guess if their not upset, a sequel is possible. Which I do hope it happens.are you joking or are you serious.

please tell me that you dont belive what a studio exec said about hes movie. :wow::huh:

[kedrell]

funny thing is saying the movie is bad might get people interested in seeing it. people like to slow down for crashes so who knows they might be so curious as to why this movie is being put down so much.

That only works for Pirates, Twilight & Transformers.

[dark_b]

even if everyone would watch the movie once it would not be enough. blockbusters need to have repeat viewings.

[craigdbfan]

Exactly.

[Doc Phosphorus]

Has a studio ever expressed their disappointment with a film while the movie was still in theatres? They need to keep the machine going.

They'll keep making vaguely positive and noncommittal remarks about the future of the franchise, then in a few months announce that they're looking into a sequel just to keep the buzz alive for the home video release, and then you won't hear anything again.

Interviews with Ryan Reynolds will include remarks along the lines of "I'd love to return to that universe. We'll have to see. It was an honor to be part of it."

[Marvin]

That only works for Pirates, Twilight & Transformers.

Both those films have fans(especially the former). They make as much as they do partially because of repeat viewings.

Whens the last time a so bad it's good film broke 200mill domestic?
honest question.

And GL is at neither side of the spectrum.

[Hotwire]

At first I was wondering why people were calling this a flop, I mean it only came in $2 million under X-Men. Then I saw it cost $200 million to make. With Cars 2 opening Friday, and Transformers on Tue/Wed, poor Hal is toast!

[Marvin]

actually ignoring that it cost about 40-50 million more than most films in it's category. It's kinda weird to see people jump on the "flop" wagon when it made about 10 million less than the films they're calling great successes.

I mean if IM or Spidey opened with their 100plus million this year it would be one thing, but so far all three superhero films have opened with pretty much the same amount of mulah.
I just think people need to be consistent, that being said GL's budget really doesn't help the situation. I do love how quickly it became public knowledge.

[Rock Sexton]

actually ignoring that it cost about 40-50 million more than most films in it's category. It's kinda weird to see people jump on the "flop" wagon when it made about 10 million less than the films they're calling great successes.

I mean if IM or Spidey opened with their 100plus million this year it would be one thing, but so far all three superhero films have opened with pretty much the same amount of mulah.
I just think people need to be consistent, that being said GL's budget really doesn't help the situation. I do love how quickly it became public knowledge.


$10 million is a lot of money. Secondly the drop off is what is really going to be the true indicator. We haven't even gotten the full results from this 2nd week.

[Mysteryman]

The wild card for this weekend is Bad Teacher .
If that film does not perform well,GL has a shot at second place.
Do we have any tracking for Bad Teacher?

[Poni_Boy]

At first I was wondering why people were calling this a flop, I mean it only came in $2 million under X-Men. Then I saw it cost $200 million to make. With Cars 2 opening Friday, and Transformers on Tue/Wed, poor Hal is toast!

GL also opened on more screens than XFC, which didn't have a 3D release. Plus, GL's $125+ mil marketing and tie-ins overshadow every other 2011 film's marketing cost.

[Poni_Boy]

The wild card for this weekend is Bad Teacher .
If that film does not perform well,GL has a shot at second place.
Do we have any tracking for Bad Teacher?

It's tracking well from what I've heard. Reviews are here and there but the GA loves Cameron Diaz

[J.Howlett]

Lantern made another 5 million yesterday according to boxofficemojo.com forums.

It barely dropped from Monday. Not going to save this film but I thought it'd at least drop to 4 million for Tuesday.

[Rock Sexton]

Lantern made another 5 million yesterday according to boxofficemojo.com forums.

It barely dropped from Monday. Not going to save this film but I thought it'd at least drop to 4 million for Tuesday.

Looks like 10 year olds home for the summer fom school maxing out them piggy banks. LOL

No seriously, why isn't it released on the main page if those are the numbers being discussed?

[Tony Stark]

Lantern made another 5 million yesterday according to boxofficemojo.com forums.

It barely dropped from Monday. Not going to save this film but I thought it'd at least drop to 4 million for Tuesday.

Tuesday is a big day for bargain shows. Not a big surprise.

[Poni_Boy]

Looks like 10 year olds home for the summer fom school maxing out them piggy banks. LOL

No seriously, why isn't it released on the main page if those are the numbers being discussed?

Because a $5 mil Monday-after-release take is still low for this kind of film. Reporting all these updates feels like throwing a dodgeball at the handicapped kid on the bleachers

[Tony Stark]

The film will be destroyed this weekend. I think you're looking at 19M or lower.

[Weadazoid]

actually ignoring that it cost about 40-50 million more than most films in it's category. It's kinda weird to see people jump on the "flop" wagon when it made about 10 million less than the films they're calling great successes.

I mean if IM or Spidey opened with their 100plus million this year it would be one thing, but so far all three superhero films have opened with pretty much the same amount of mulah.
I just think people need to be consistent, that being said GL's budget really doesn't help the situation. I do love how quickly it became public knowledge.

Thing is it had the biggest Midnight Thursday but had the smallest Friday numbers......so the senak preview didn't help WOM. The real nail in the coffin so to speak was the Saturday drop, something Thor and X men did not have to contend with.


Thor may not have been a huge hit, had some fire taken away from Fast and Furious mind you, but... it still clearly a success.

X men First class - the jury is still out IMO, Fox did a decent job and the opening probably suffered some because of the last X Men movie, still though good WOM.


With GL you have disfavor from critics and the general audience. THe might not hate it quite like the critics, but they clearly are not telling thier freinds it is a must see.

[Tony Stark]

Thor was a pretty big hit internationaly, just not as much at home. WW it's made more than the first Star Trek, and Batman Begins. Granted inflation and 3D account for some of that.

This film is doing bad domestically and downright awful internationally. It will end up just over 200M WW.

I don't care how much this movie cost to make, the fact that it won't make 300M WW is a disgrace.

[Raiden]

actually ignoring that it cost about 40-50 million more than most films in it's category. It's kinda weird to see people jump on the "flop" wagon when it made about 10 million less than the films they're calling great successes.

I mean if IM or Spidey opened with their 100plus million this year it would be one thing, but so far all three superhero films have opened with pretty much the same amount of mulah.
I just think people need to be consistent, that being said GL's budget really doesn't help the situation. I do love how quickly it became public knowledge.

You seemed not to think the budget for GL is a big deal, when in fact the budget of a movie is critical and it determines the difference between a hit or a flop. Superman Returns made $391 million WW, but how come WB decided to get rid of everybody, including Singer, and opt for a reboot? It is because SR's production budget is $270 mil. So it means that even if GL made the same amount as SR, it still won't be profitable for WB, and GL will make far less by comparison.

[CaptainCraig]

GL needs Bad Teacher to open less than $20m so it has some fighting chance at being #2 this weekend. That would help save some face, but it's going to be tough even given that scenario.

Essentially GL's last big hurrah is next Monday, after that when TF opens GL is all but an after thought. TF will dominate and absorb $$$ for the next 10 days till Potter and then that 1+2 punch will have everything else getting scraps.

Captain America opens next and then we'll see if audiences are over comic movies or just have a good nose to sniff out and ignore the mediocore/bad ones.

[Tony Stark]

Even if Cap dissapoints, I don't think audiences are over comic book films. I think they are over bad comic book films. I will say this movie isn't any worse than Fantastic Four (that's not saying much), however this film is doing worse because, 1) the economy, 2)rediculous 3D movie prices driving everyone away, and 3) it's the old fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me adage, at the time Fantastic Four came out, only Daredevil, Electra and to a lesser extent Hulk were truely horrible. They gave it a chance, it got a second shot in ROTSS and they swung and missed. People arent' going to put up with that seeing how movies like Iron Man, the Dark Knight, and Thor have raised the quality bar.

[Rev]

Because a $5 mil Monday-after-release take is still low for this kind of film. Reporting all these updates feels like throwing a dodgeball at the handicapped kid on the bleachers

I agree somewhat but Thor and XMFC also had steep drop offs from Sunday to Monday and grossed $5M plus on their initial Mondays. I understand that the production costs associated with GL colours this somewhat but the fact remains all three had significant 60% plus drops from Sunday to Monday. Thor - 68% ($5.4M) XMFC -61%($5.4M) and GL -66.1% ($5.1M).

[Poni_Boy]

GL needs Bad Teacher to open less than $20m so it has some fighting chance at being #2 this weekend. That would help save some face, but it's going to be tough even given that scenario.

Don't forget Super 8, which came it at #2 last weekend behind GL. That movie still has solid WoM and it has a good chance at staying in the top three next weekend.

That would make it: #1 Cars 2, #2 Bad Teacher, #3 Super 8, #4 Green Lantern, #5 X-Men: first Class

The only places I see GL swapping is for the #3 and #4 spots

[Poni_Boy]

I agree somewhat but Thor and XMFC also had steep drop offs from Sunday to Monday and grossed $5M plus on their initial Mondays. I understand that the production costs associated with GL colours this somewhat but the fact remains all three had significant 60% plus drops from Sunday to Monday. Thor - 68% ($5.4M) XMFC -61%($5.4M) and GL -66.1% ($5.1M).

It doesn't have to do with the production costs as much as the ticket sales drops over the weekend:

Friday to Saturday: 22%

Sat to Sun: 9.4%

Sun to Mon: 66.1%

Neither Thor nor XFC had such a steep drop from Fri-Sat. And don't forget that GL opened on more screens than both Thor (who had less 3D screens) and XFC (who had no 3D screens)

[J.Howlett]

It baffles me the word of mouth on Super 8. It's a pretty flick, but we saw it done way better in the early 80's by Spielberg.

Why watch the knock off?

And I like Abrams. I was so disappointed with Super 8. It was suppose to be my "Inception" this summer.

[Tony Stark]

I agree somewhat but Thor and XMFC also had steep drop offs from Sunday to Monday and grossed $5M plus on their initial Mondays. I understand that the production costs associated with GL colours this somewhat but the fact remains all three had significant 60% plus drops from Sunday to Monday. Thor - 68% ($5.4M) XMFC -61%($5.4M) and GL -66.1% ($5.1M).

Thor came out before kids were on Summer vacation. You have to look at films that were released in the same time frame, so we're talking both Hulk movies, Fantastic Four ROTSS, all of which had lower drops than GL.

The bigger issue for GL was the 20% drop from Friday to Saturday. Almost no summer blockbuster, even the bad ones have that kind of a drop.

[Tony Stark]

It baffles me the word of mouth on Super 8. It's a pretty flick, but we saw it done way better in the early 80's by Spielberg.

Why watch the knock off?

And I like Abrams. I was so disappointed with Super 8. It was suppose to be my "Inception" this summer.

I agree with this. I found Super 8 overrated, and for a film that was supposed to be the new ET, I couldn't take my kids to it because of the language.

I'm a huge Abrams fan as well.

[J.Howlett]

Tony,

The lone miracle of Super 8? The emergence of Elle Fanning.

She's extraordinary in the film. When the third act sidelines her, the film dies. You can just feel it.

[Rev]

It doesn't have to do with the production costs as much as the ticket sales drops over the weekend:

Friday to Saturday: 22%

Sat to Sun: 9.4%

Sun to Mon: 66.1%

Neither Thor nor XFC had such a steep drop from Fri-Sat. And don't forget that GL opened on more screens than both Thor (who had less 3D screens) and XFC (who had no 3D screens)


Yeah, I see what you are saying. I only meant that if the movie was $100 million cheaper and the same results were occuring it might not be looked at so badly.

[dnno1]

World wide gross (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=greenlantern.htm) is now over $80 million.

[Sith Scotti]

There will be a sequel with half its budget, and a a new director . I just don't think DC is willing to give up just yet on GL

[kedrell]

A sequel will be lucky to make Hellboy numbers.

[Sith Scotti]

A sequel will be lucky to make Hellboy numbers.
:whatever:

[Chewy]

I agree somewhat but Thor and XMFC also had steep drop offs from Sunday to Monday and grossed $5M plus on their initial Mondays. I understand that the production costs associated with GL colours this somewhat but the fact remains all three had significant 60% plus drops from Sunday to Monday. Thor - 68% ($5.4M) XMFC -61%($5.4M) and GL -66.1% ($5.1M).Thor had MAY WEEKDAYS. X-Men opened in very early June. GL, opening in mid-June, SHOULD have softer drops from weekend to weekdays, as kids are out of school. But its increases on the weekend will also be softer accordingly.

[Raiden]

There will be a sequel with half its budget, and a a new director . I just don't think DC is willing to give up just yet on GL

I don't think they can make a sequel with just half the budget of GL1. They can slash the marketing, but all those special effects are expensive and they can't cut too much from it, unless you want GL to be strayed on Earth for most of the movie. Actually, I think they did just that with this movie and look at the budget...it can't be made cheap.

[craigdbfan]

Star Trek had $150 mil and was able to do it quite nicely.

I think it's very much possible to make an expansive sci fi epic, it's just so many thing in this movie were approached in the wrong way. The budget was completely misallocated.

[Tony Stark]

I agree with the reviewer who said this is the cheapest looking expensive film ever made. The helicopter/hotwheels track scene is a perfect example of spending alot of money on something that looks cheap, silly and stupid. It's the equivalent of the "bullet in the eye" scene from Superman Returns.

The flying scenes were totally uninspired. Fantatic Four was an equally bad film, but even the most ardent haters will admit the Torch flying looked pretty cool. Very uninspired.

[JeetKuneDo]

Basically the only reason Lantern's performance is considered "poor" is really based more on poor business decisions by WB (going significantly over budget) than based on a lack of people going to see this film; if they'd stuck with a 150 Million dollar production budget and a 50-75 million dollar advertising budget, then these numbers would be fine, and possibly lead to a sequel.
Agreed. This could be a decent hit if only spending had been reasonable.

even if everyone would watch the movie once it would not be enough. blockbusters need to have repeat viewings.
I know what you mean....but if everyone in just the US bought one ticket to a movie it would be the highest grossing movie of all time.

The US population is 307,006,550. The average ticket price last year was $7.95. Using $8 as an average for this year would be a $2,456,052,400 gross in the US alone! Wow! That gives you some idea of how few people really buy tickets to these movies.

[Tony Stark]

Star Trek had $150 mil and was able to do it quite nicely.

I think it's very much possible to make an expansive sci fi epic, it's just so many thing in this movie were approached in the wrong way. The budget was completely misallocated.

...and JJ Abrams was so smart about how he did the effects. The scene where they're jumping onto the drill from the shuttle, was filmed by having the actors stand on a large mirror that reflected the sky. The camera was placed over head, a wind machine was used, and the camera was shaken to give the effect of turbulance.

No computers, no CGI, just good old fashioned practical effects.

[craigdbfan]

...and JJ Abrams was so smart about how he did the effects. The scene where they're jumping onto the drill from the shuttle, was filmed by having the actors stand on a large mirror that reflected the sky. The camera was placed over head, a wind machine was used, and the camera was shaken to give the effect of turbulance.

No computers, no CGI, just good old fashioned practical effects.

He's brilliant when it comes to stuff like that.

That's the type of director this movie needed. Not saying Campbell is bad but a movie of this scale needed a director who was experienced in the sci fi genre or had an affinity to it.

[terry78]

...and JJ Abrams was so smart about how he did the effects. The scene where they're jumping onto the drill from the shuttle, was filmed by having the actors stand on a large mirror that reflected the sky. The camera was placed over head, a wind machine was used, and the camera was shaken to give the effect of turbulance.

No computers, no CGI, just good old fashioned practical effects.

See, I assumed I was looking at total CG enhancement there.

[dark_b]

...and JJ Abrams was so smart about how he did the effects. The scene where they're jumping onto the drill from the shuttle, was filmed by having the actors stand on a large mirror that reflected the sky. The camera was placed over head, a wind machine was used, and the camera was shaken to give the effect of turbulance.

No computers, no CGI, just good old fashioned practical effects.10% of the flying footage was actors and mirror. everything else was CGI. yes i know what video they showed on the making of. but if you look at the movie and if you read the effects articles you wil lsee that there was a lot of CGI humans flying down.
thank you.

[craigdbfan]

There is some great CGI work there as well from the folks at ILM.

[dark_b]

He's brilliant when it comes to stuff like that.

That's the type of director this movie needed. Not saying Campbell is bad but a movie of this scale needed a director who was experienced in the sci fi genre or had an affinity to it.JJ used a CGI alien in super 8. he also used 100% CGI train for the whole scene. thank you.

[craigdbfan]

10% of the flying footage was actors and mirror. everything else was CGI. yes i know what vide they showed on the making of. but if you loko at the movie and if you read the effects articles you wil lsee that there was a lot of CGI humans flying down.
thank you.

This is correct.

[craigdbfan]

JJ used a CGI alien in super 8. he also used 100% CGI train for the whole scene. thank you.

Yeah, I'm aware.

But he's also great at blending both practical and CGI which is evident in Star Trek in several scenes. Never said otherwise. Thank you.

[Octoberist]

JJ used a CGI alien in super 8. he also used 100% CGI train for the whole scene. thank you.

But he made it work.

[dark_b]

There is some great CGI work there as well from the folks at ILM.they are one of the best. theyha ve 20 years of experiene working with prosthetics and real models. they know what looks real because they have eyes.Sony is blind

[dark_b]

But he made it work.the train looks obvios CGI.alien was alwys in the shadows. thank you :cwink:

i like JJ's movies. i dont hate him. but i dont agree that he always knows how to use CGI.

[Octoberist]

the train looks obvios CGI.alien was alwys in the shadows. thank you :cwink:

i like JJ's movies. i dont hate him. but i dont agree that he always knows how to use CGI.

Are you typing on a cell too?

[dark_b]

the battery on my keyboard is low. need to buy y new one. i hate wireless keyboards.

[BigThor]

actually ignoring that it cost about 40-50 million more than most films in it's category. It's kinda weird to see people jump on the "flop" wagon when it made about 10 million less than the films they're calling great successes.

I mean if IM or Spidey opened with their 100plus million this year it would be one thing, but so far all three superhero films have opened with pretty much the same amount of mulah.
I just think people need to be consistent, that being said GL's budget really doesn't help the situation. I do love how quickly it became public knowledge.

Both of those films did well internationally and have good word of mouth, so yeah, they are great successes compared to GL (it might not even reach 150 million stateside).

[Rock Sexton]

Thor had MAY WEEKDAYS. X-Men opened in very early June. GL, opening in mid-June, SHOULD have softer drops from weekend to weekdays, as kids are out of school. But its increases on the weekend will also be softer accordingly.

Stop talking facts, jeebus!

[kedrell]

Both of those films did well internationally and have good word of mouth, so yeah, they are great successes compared to GL (it might not even reach 150 million stateside).

It won't reach $150M stateside. Like, for sure.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Nobody except loony X-Men fans are calling First Class a huge success. It's a disappointment domestically. It's doing fine internationally but the numbers aren't groundbreaking or anything. It's no Pirates 4.

And Thor did fine but it's not some mega 300mil+ grossers like Iron Man 1 and 2 or TDK or Spider-man 1,2 and 3. Those numbers have been overstated because it's really doing something near Superman Returns worldwide gross without those 3D tickets plumping up it's grosses.

[Sith Scotti]

There is no differencee between May weeks and June weeken in spite of what some marvel fan boys state . Kids are still in school until ed of June and warmer weather is beach time , boy I have heard it all . If we are going to us May week s as an excuse Thor had less competetion so it balnces out . though its a dasmn ridiculous argument to begin with

[Donut]

I guess a sequel could be cheaper. Maybe have alot of it on Oa / space building up the Hal & Sinestro relationship. It probably would be to expensive & not yet worth it to do the whole Carol thing. The end credits of the sequel could be Carol becoming Star Sapphire