Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 2

[dark_b]

so is GL still an underperformer or a normal bomb?

[sethypants]

I don't think GL would be a bomb just underperform, box office mojo didn't factor in the 2nd week sales of many foreign countries, plus, there are many other countries which GL haven't aired yet. I'm prediting a close to $300,000 sales

[Gamma Burst]

It's a bomb.

[Silver Surfer]

It won't even get close to 300, it will top off domestically at 135 mil and around 120 mil overseas. No way it gets close to 300, no way.

[Mysteryman]

I think a gang of robots is getting in the way right now.

[merced]

I don't think GL would be a bomb just underperform, box office mojo didn't factor in the 2nd week sales of many foreign countries, plus, there are many other countries which GL haven't aired yet. I'm prediting a close to $300,000 sales

I don't se it making 300 million WW.

Box Office Guru is predicting 120 - 125 million domestic. The foreign numbers so far are so, so. Meaning it likely won't make muchmore overseas. I'm guessing then 150 million overseas.

My guess is it will end up with a total WW box of 275 million.

[KalMart]

It's a bomb.

Or a dud?

[merced]

A comic retailer friend wrote this:


Green Lantern was inaccessible to the non-comic audience and that’s why it’s not doing well. There was too much information presented too quickly on who the Corps and the enemy were, couple with the fact that the enemy was a non-human entity that had a 2 hour build up and a 7 minute tear down. Joe Average can’t relate or understand that the way we can. :doh:

Thor had empathy and romance. A father/son, passing of the torch legacy story is something men can relate to and the romance angle, big, confused beefcake shows up out of nowhere and is grounded through the compassion of a woman, is something women can relate to. Thor did well because it was a good movie told well, not because of a lack of competition. Green Lantern was an okay movie told poorly and had no competition in it’s opening weekend and fared worse than X-Men First Class did in it’s opening frame.

A lot has to do with marketing as well. GL’s marketing was unclear and lacking (esp the romance angle, that should have been played up WAY more to attract more women). Thor and X-Men’s marketing was far better and as such, brought in a wider audience.

The GL sequel is already a go and it will do better as it will be a man-against-a-man and not a cloud :doh: and will be more easily understood than the first movie.

I simply don't believe a sequel is a go.

IMO WB won't admit that a sequel is/may not happen until after the DVD release/run. That would hurt sales. It's what they did with SR - state a sequel was in the works a few weeks before the DVD release then in March the following year WB hinted there might not be a sequel. Though it was never officially announced. It's how studios oftern handle these things.

I think GL's poor performance has put all solo comic franchise efforts (Flash, WW and others) on hold for the immediate future. I think it's likely WB has no comic film in 2013.

2014? JL maybe, can they get the Batman reboot up by then or will that be 2015?

Right now all WB has looking past 2012 is the Batman film franchise. The question being how to leverage it to introduce other charactes.

[chiefchirpa]

I don't se it making 300 million WW.

Box Office Guru is predicting 120 - 125 million domestic. The foreign numbers so far are so, so. Meaning it likely won't make muchmore overseas. I'm guessing then 150 million overseas.

My guess is it will end up with a total WW box of 275 million.

Don't see why WW will be accepting mediocre movies readily when some developed countries have locally/regionally/culturally produced summer movies. Check on the list of movies in France, Germany, UK, South Korea, Japan, etc.

Sub 100 million overseas + 130 million domestic = 230 million max. I may be a bit generous on it.

[Lighthouse]

It's a bomb. Granted, it's more of a soft bomb, but it's doing just way too bad to be considered an underperformer.

[merced]

Wednesday's numbers 1,212,252 for a grand total so far of 94,422,253.

It should hit 100 million on Saturday.

[DaveMoral]

I think a gang of robots is getting in the way right now.

Manhunters?


http://www.bigbadtoystore.com/images/products/out/medium/MAT12324.jpg

[merced]

So do you think Marvel/Disney purposely announced Thor 2's release date (July 26 2013) at this time to dig it in to WB/DC?

Let's see - that means Marvel has 2 comic book films set for 2013 and will likely have a 3rd - introducing a new character. Wolverine 2 may slip to 2013 also so Marvel could have 4 releases that year.

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Nah... they wouldn't be that petty.

Thor deserved a sequel, they are just rightly letting people know its happening.

Still only Raimi and Nolan that stuck it out with their superhero franchises though.

[Raiden]

So do you think Marvel/Disney purposely announced Thor 2's release date (July 26 2013) at this time to dig it in to WB/DC?

Let's see - that means Marvel has 2 comic book films set for 2013 and will likely have a 3rd - introducing a new character. Wolverine 2 may slip to 2013 also so Marvel could have 4 releases that year.

What is the other Marvel movie announced for 2013 besides Thor 2? Btw, I don't think it is a dig at all; Marvel just wanted to secure that opening weekend, that's why they made the announcement as early as they did.

[merced]

What is the other Marvel movie announced for 2013 besides Thor 2? Btw, I don't think it is a dig at all; Marvel just wanted to secure that opening weekend, that's why they made the announcement as early as they did.

Iron Man 2 and Wolverine 2.

A 4th film is rumored - supposedly launching one of their other franchise characters.

If Cap is a hit maybe it too? Marvel is waiting just 2 years on Thor.

[chiefchirpa]

What is the other Marvel movie announced for 2013 besides Thor 2? Btw, I don't think it is a dig at all; Marvel just wanted to secure that opening weekend, that's why they made the announcement as early as they did.

Shellhead 2

Fox probably want to launch Deadpool too if RR is available.

[Showtime]

The reason you might call it a bomb is because of it's budget. If it had a tighter budget it wouldn't be a bomb, however this movie is going to disappear now that Transformers is dropping.

[HighFivingMF]

So do you think Marvel/Disney purposely announced Thor 2's release date (July 26 2013) at this time to dig it in to WB/DC?

No.

[jmc]

So do you think Marvel/Disney purposely announced Thor 2's release date (July 26 2013) at this time to dig it in to WB/DC?

Let's see - that means Marvel has 2 comic book films set for 2013 and will likely have a 3rd - introducing a new character. Wolverine 2 may slip to 2013 also so Marvel could have 4 releases that year.

If the superhero genre fades away Marvel's over saturation is going to be a big reason for it.

[chiefchirpa]

If the superhero genre fades away Marvel's over saturation is going to be a big reason for it.

At least they would have it good for some time. Sucks for DC who might not get better part of the cake.

[Deaths Head II]

Marvel's over saturation is what helped get the modern super hero genre started so if they kill it they only kill what they created.

[Raiden]

If the superhero genre fades away Marvel's over saturation is going to be a big reason for it.

Better than WB/DC's indecision over releasing superhero movies during the height of this genre's popularity except for Batman movies. Marvel makes the right decision to strike while the iron is hot. By the time WB finally do something about it, GA would already have their fill and who knows what will happen next.

[jmc]

The iron's been cooling since 2008, god help them when the superhero craze wears out, they've got nothing else to fall back on.

[Raiden]

The iron's been cooling since 2008, god help them when the superhero craze wears out, they've got nothing else to fall back on.

With Amazing Spider-man, The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel, and the Avengers all coming in 2012, I think you're too quick to write off the superhero genre. I think next year will be a great year for superhero movies. And even if one day the craze has died down, Marvel is now part of Disney so they'll have something else to do, just like DC does with WB.

[Mysteryman]

Manhunters?


http://www.bigbadtoystore.com/images/products/out/medium/MAT12324.jpg
Well if they used The Manhunters this time around they might be able to compete with the Transformers a little better .
Btw, Dave,
GOOD ONE!

[Webhead38]

I really liked the movie. It should have flourished at the Summer box office. What ultimately killed it was the marketing campaign. They took some of the oddest moments in the film to use in a trailer. And by doing this, a lot of the film (and those scenes) were taken completely out of context. People didn't know what to think, so they leaned on the critics to tell them, who knew even less. Hopefully, this film will find it's following on DVD. I for one thought it was a lot of fun and will get it on DVD.

[DaveMoral]

Well if they used The Manhunters this time around they might be able to compete with the Transformers a little better .
Btw, Dave,
GOOD ONE!

:woot: Thank you, sir!

[Iron_Stark]

The iron's been cooling since 2008, god help them when the superhero craze wears out, they've got nothing else to fall back on.

lol, so cbms were dying pre-2008, TDK comes and goes, and now they're dying again. :funny:


Sounds like someone's bitter.


What is the other Marvel movie announced for 2013 besides Thor 2? Btw, I don't think it is a dig at all; Marvel just wanted to secure that opening weekend, that's why they made the announcement as early as they did.


Iron Man 2 and Wolverine 2.

A 4th film is rumored - supposedly launching one of their other franchise characters.

If Cap is a hit maybe it too? Marvel is waiting just 2 years on Thor.

Shellhead 2

Fox probably want to launch Deadpool too if RR is available.


Umm, Iron Man 3.

[merced]

The iron's been cooling since 2008, god help them when the superhero craze wears out, they've got nothing else to fall back on.


I'm not so sure of that at all. Since then we've had 2 uber successful Iron Man films, a blockbuster Batman film, another cash cow franchise created out of Thor and it's looking like Captain America may be bigger than Thor so add that one too.

I thought the super-hero film craze was going to cool too but so far it hasn't.

Maybe it is a permanent feature of the film industry now with 3 or 4 such films a year each doing well for the studio and maybe a couple like GL that don't do so well.

Not only is 2013's dance card full look at 2014.

My bet:

Avengers 2

Captain America 2

Re-booted Spiderman 2

X-Men related film

Re-boot Hulk? Or Daredevil?

That's at a minimum.

I do think that 4 Marvel related superhero films a year is about the limit. In order to avoid saturation.

Releasing one in spring, 2 in the summer and 1 at Xmas seems like a winning formula for Marvel.

[CaptainCraig]

I thought the super-hero film craze was going to cool too but so far it hasn't.

Maybe it is a permanent feature of the film industry now with 3 or 4 such films a year each doing well for the studio and maybe a couple like GL that don't do so well.
I'm continually amazed that any would think the comic book film genre is going to "go away".

No one complains at there being 8-10 animated films a year.
No one complains at there being 10-12 R-rated comedies

The comic book film at most has had 6 movies a year, well below other genres.


Green Lantern is just this years bomb in the genre. All genre's have them. Love Guru didn't kill the comedy sector, The Dilemma's failure isn't going to sideline buddy comedy flicks so a few disappointments or bombs in the comic book genre isn't going to kill this one either.

[Silver Surfer]

Box Office Mojo:
1)TF3: $37,725,329

2)Cars2: $5,540,193

3) Bad Teacher: $2,979,609

4)Mr. Popper's Penguins: $1,340,791

5) Green Lantern: $1,212,252

6) Super 8: $1,192,725Ouch! GL fell behind Popper's Penguins? If you had told me this a few weeks ago, I would have called you crazy. With Larry Crowe and Monte Carlo opening this week GL will fall way way behind. If this movie reaches 125 mil domestic, it will be a miracle.

[Gamma Burst]

Never thought it would perform that bad!

[merced]

Thursday's numbers: 1,270,000 for a total of 95,692,000.

GL still should hit 100 million on Saturday thought there is a small chance it will be Sunday.

GL is still in 5th place just ahead of Super8. Wouldn't be surprised to see it fall to 6 this weekend just behind Super8.

[jmc]

lol, so cbms were dying pre-2008, TDK comes and goes, and now they're dying again. :funny:


Sounds like someone's bitter.


Ah, bitter of what exactly?

[jmc]

I'm not so sure of that at all. Since then we've had 2 uber successful Iron Man films, a blockbuster Batman film, another cash cow franchise created out of Thor and it's looking like Captain America may be bigger than Thor so add that one too.

I thought the super-hero film craze was going to cool too but so far it hasn't.

Maybe it is a permanent feature of the film industry now with 3 or 4 such films a year each doing well for the studio and maybe a couple like GL that don't do so well.

Not only is 2013's dance card full look at 2014.

My bet:

Avengers 2

Captain America 2

Re-booted Spiderman 2

X-Men related film

Re-boot Hulk? Or Daredevil?

That's at a minimum.

I do think that 4 Marvel related superhero films a year is about the limit. In order to avoid saturation.

Releasing one in spring, 2 in the summer and 1 at Xmas seems like a winning formula for Marvel.

Like I said, over saturation is not a good thing.

[jacobed]

There will be no Avengers 2. Avengers is a one and done thing.

[HighFivingMF]

There will be no Avengers 2. Avengers is a one and done thing.

Then why are the actors signed on for an Avengers trilogy?

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Like I said, over saturation is not a good thing.Yep, there are too many of these films being released.

[EML420]

People only seem to complain about the saturation thing when one of the films does bad but when it does good no such talk.

[Gamma Burst]

People only seem to complain about the saturation thing when one of the films does bad but when it does good no such talk.

So true.:cwink:

[HighFivingMF]

People only seem to complain about the saturation thing when one of the films does bad but when it does good no such talk.

... Yeah. :huh: You don't complain about leaky pipes when the floor isn't wet.

[Docker2.0]

Also it may just be the economy as well. I mean, Thor made ONLY $445M WW but it's like the 4th or 5th ranked film of the year. Just saying that may play a part but I think a main problem is 3D. That brought all of the comic films down this year.

[Mysteryman]

Yes, 3D might slow down a bit,I doubt it will die though.

[jmc]

People only seem to complain about the saturation thing when one of the films does bad but when it does good no such talk.

Ah, no they don't actually. Film audiences are fickle and to continually bombard them with 2-3 superhero movies a year is only going to lead to an inevitable rejection.

[Poni_Boy]

Heyo, so so anyone think GL will miss the $100 mil mark this weekend? I said awhile back my guess was $7 mil for 5th place. What are the latest estimates?

[Nemesis Prime]

GL is in the 5th place (behind Penguins for crying out loud) and falling fast. Still think WB will push through a sequel no matter how bad the box office numbers end up, but other SH like Flash and WW may not see their movie released in the forseeable future. This will definitely curtail WB's plans to rely on their stable of SH to succeed Harry Potter as movie franchises.

[bullets]

This is too sad to even read about. I hope this doesn't detriment WW, Flash, and others from getting films.

[Poni_Boy]

GL is in the 5th place (behind Penguins for crying out loud) and falling fast. Still think WB will push through a sequel no matter how bad the box office numbers end up, but other SH like Flash and WW may not see their movie released in the forseeable future. This will definitely curtail WB's plans to rely on their stable of SH to succeed Harry Potter as movie franchises.


I think you have that backwards. GL 2 is far from getting the go ahead, too much risk at this point

[EML420]

Ah, no they don't actually. Film audiences are fickle and to continually bombard them with 2-3 superhero movies a year is only going to lead to an inevitable rejection.
I dont think so if a super hero film is good it does good thats the way I look at it 2-3 superhero films thats nothing compared to the amount of terrible rom coms and kids film.

[chiefchirpa]

GL is in the 5th place (behind Penguins for crying out loud) and falling fast. Still think WB will push through a sequel no matter how bad the box office numbers end up, but other SH like Flash and WW may not see their movie released in the forseeable future. This will definitely curtail WB's plans to rely on their stable of SH to succeed Harry Potter as movie franchises.

Not a chance. Flash and WW are the next priority. GL had its chance and it blew it because the tech was still too expensive to hoist a proper film. The sequel is another proposition for another 200 million budget.

Flash and WW could carry a cheaper money load. It's a basic superhero film and sword & sandal film. Has to be cheaper than a space-themed superhero.

[Poni_Boy]

Not a chance. Flash and WW are the next priority. GL had its chance and it blew it because the tech was still too expensive to hoist a proper film. The sequel is another proposition for another 200 million budget.

Flash and WW could carry a cheaper money load. It's a basic superhero film and sword & sandal film. Has to be cheaper than a space-themed superhero.

I seriously doubt we'd get a swords and sandals type WW film. To the studio execs it just does not compute

[Saitou Hajime]

I dont think so if a super hero film is good it does good thats the way I look at it 2-3 superhero films thats nothing compared to the amount of terrible rom coms and kids film.

Pretty much. If anything, all Marvel's efforts are going to do IMO is make DD/FF/GR tier obsolete and make the Big Two, Marvel, and X-Men tiers the standard.

[Excelsior.]

Ah, bitter of what exactly?
He's making a judgment based on your avy. You should judge him back based on his avy.

[chiefchirpa]

This movie is more & more likely to be $115 million domestic and 80 million out of the US. Ergo around 200 million WW.

Blame is not solely on the movie quality, but the competitions for 3D screens and plain 2D screens are relentless.

[jmc]

I dont think so if a super hero film is good it does good thats the way I look at it 2-3 superhero films thats nothing compared to the amount of terrible rom coms and kids film.

Difference being superheroes are a far more fragile genre than rom coms or kids films, there's always a market for those type of movies, superheroes depend on bringing people from outside of the small market it has. 2-3 superheroes films every is too many, you need to give some breathing room, you can't afford to flood the market otherwise the novelty wears off. Rom coms will still be around in abundance 10-20 years from now, superheroes are less likely to survive.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Difference being superheroes are a far more fragile genre than rom coms or kids films, there's always a market for those type of movies, superheroes depend on bringing people from outside of the small market it has. 2-3 superheroes films every is too many, you need to give some breathing room, you can't afford to flood the market otherwise the novelty wears off. Rom coms will still be around in abundance 10-20 years from now, superheroes are less likely to survive.Agreed.

I don't know why it's so hard to admit that this glut of Superhero films aren't going to last forever? Nothing lasts forever in the movie biz. Superhero films will more likely than not always be made but there won't always be this mad rush to make them.

All of the A-listers have been used up, alot of the movies are samey and those facts will cause a downward trend. The studios will still make them but they aren't going to be greenlighting any and everything like they are now.

[Lighthouse]

I seriously doubt we'd get a swords and sandals type WW film. To the studio execs it just does not compute

I'd be surprised if we get any kind of WW film.

[EML420]

Difference being superheroes are a far more fragile genre than rom coms or kids films, there's always a market for those type of movies, superheroes depend on bringing people from outside of the small market it has. 2-3 superheroes films every is too many, you need to give some breathing room, you can't afford to flood the market otherwise the novelty wears off. Rom coms will still be around in abundance 10-20 years from now, superheroes are less likely to survive.
I get what your saying I guess a bit of bias on my part in a sense action movies have died off by that. I mean like the 80s and 90s type of action movies we still get them but there best days are gone I think next year is when were really gonna see if these movies last I belive they will but what ever.

[super85]

GL hasn't opened in Europe, well besides Great-Brittain, so its hard to guess how much it will make worldwide. But yes, if it doesn't do great in any market, its hard to think that it will do great here either.

[merced]

Pretty much. If anything, all Marvel's efforts are going to do IMO is make DD/FF/GR tier obsolete and make the Big Two, Marvel, and X-Men tiers the standard.

I see 4 tiers:

Top is Spiderman, Batman and Ironman - films making north of 600 million WW.

Second tier is X-Men, Thos, probably captain America - films making between 450 million and 650 million WW.

Third tier are films making 350 million - 450 million. Wolverine, Superman. If Wolverine is released in 12/12 this will be an interesting battle to watch as both franchises are 3rd tier.

Lowest tier - under 350 million WW. GL, Hulk, FF.

I dunno if the lowest tier will be made obsolete - just that this type of film will probably be getting 100 million budgets in he future.

Marvel clearly owns the top 2 tiers and I can't see Superman or any other DC characters breaking into the top 2. My guess is MOS will do about 450 million WW which would put it on the cusp of being a second tier franchise.

[Docker2.0]

I know this is old news but man is she right!

http://www.**************.com/fansites/MarvelFreshman/news/?a=39965&t=Angela_Bassett_Wants_Amanda_Waller_To_Be_DCs_Ans wer_To_Marvels_Nick_Fury

WB/DC is run by a bunch of chimps in suits! Noone is thinking. I've said this numerous times, if you tied GL with TDK or even MOS, there is no question it would have helped it's box office. For them to say that their characters are "to big" to be in a shared universe is closed minded and pathetic! I guess the JLA doesn't exist huh. Again, it's their plan but I don't see this working out for them in the long run. I'm a Marvel guy and I'm wearing a condom for when the Avengers come out(no pun intended)I'm going to have the biggest geekasm one can imagine but even I have to admit that a JLA would make more than an Avengers movie if done right. But with WB/DC track record I highly doubt that they could. Without tying the movies together, the WB has easily missed $30M off of GL's tally.

[Iron_Stark]

He's making a judgment based on your avy. You should judge him back based on his avy.

No, I was making a judgement based on all of his posts on this thread and others.

[Docker2.0]

No, I was making a judgement based on all of his posts on this thread and others.

C'mon man! You can't make any negative post about a DC movie with a Marvel avatar. You will then be labeled a fanboy or troll. Didn't you get the memo? Guess where that quote is from? :cwink:

[dark_b]

Then why are the actors signed on for an Avengers trilogy?they are signed IF they would do it.

[dark_b]

I know this is old news but man is she right!

http://www.**************.com/fansites/MarvelFreshman/news/?a=39965&t=Angela_Bassett_Wants_Amanda_Waller_To_Be_DCs_Ans wer_To_Marvels_Nick_Fury

WB/DC is run by a bunch of chimps in suits! Noone is thinking. I've said this numerous times, if you tied GL with TDK or even MOS, there is no question it would have helped it's box office. For them to say that their characters are "to big" to be in a shared universe is closed minded and pathetic! I guess the JLA doesn't exist huh. Again, it's their plan but I don't see this working out for them in the long run. I'm a Marvel guy and I'm wearing a condom for when the Avengers come out(no pun intended)I'm going to have the biggest geekasm one can imagine but even I have to admit that a JLA would make more than an Avengers movie if done right. But with WB/DC track record I highly doubt that they could. Without tying the movies together, the WB has easily missed $30M off of GL's tally.general public doesnt care about this stuff. if the trailers and word of mouth is good then they will pay money.

[HighFivingMF]

they are signed IF they would do it.

No ****. But they wouldn't include it if Avengers was supposed to be a one-off thing when they could sign them to appear in more solo movies or cameo appearances.

[merced]

they are signed IF they would do it.

They are signed is the bottom line so the intention is to do sequels. Especially if this is a top-tier megahit which is likely.

RR was signed for sequels too.

It's standard practice.

Though Cavill has not been reported on as being signed for a sequel. Usually this info comes out so it's a bit curious in Cavill's case.

[Docker2.0]

general public doesnt care about this stuff. if the trailers and word of mouth is good then they will pay money.

You'd be surprised! Honestly, I believe it helped Thor out big time. Co-workers of mine(who don't know the difference between Marvel and DC) knew about Thor because of the after credit scene of Ironman 2 and they are now stoked to see the Avengers next summer. I'm sure before Cap comes out you will see some scene on a commercial tying him to Thor and Ironman as well. It's tying the product together that will sell it. GL was a tough sell anyway(though not as tough as WB made it)so they should have tied it with Batman and Superman to give it a leg up.

[merced]

general public doesnt care about this stuff. if the trailers and word of mouth is good then they will pay money.

The refusal of WB to cross-pollinate it's franchises is baffling.

It's the same mentality that says if we do a JL the Batman film actor can't be in it.

WB can't afford another huge disappointment so I agree with those above that and Flash and WW aren't coming soon.

It seems inevitable they will have to do a JL. But if Avengers is massive next year that may scare them off.

My guess is there will be no super-hero flick from WB in 2013. In 2014 maybe a rebooted Batman. That seems to be the only WB franchise on the front-burner and being fast tracked right now.

[merced]

You'd be surprised! Honestly, I believe it helped Thor out big time. Co-workers of mine(who don't know the difference between Marvel and DC) knew about Thor because of the after credit scene of Ironman 2 and they are now stoked to see the Avengers next summer. I'm sure before Cap comes out you will see some scene on a commercial tying him to Thor and Ironman as well. It's tying the product together that will sell it. GL was a tough sell anyway(though not as tough as WB made it)so they should have tied it with Batman and Superman to give it a leg up.

Ye they should have tied it to Bats. Superman? No. After Returns and given the general ambivalence toards Supes that tie-in probably would have hurt more than helped.

[Docker2.0]

Ye they should have tied it to Bats. Superman? No. After Returns and given the general ambivalence toards Supes that tie-in probably would have hurt more than helped.

No I meant MOS. I wouldn't tie a dead roach to Superman Returns.

[TheVileOne]

I think Docker2.0 makes a good point actually. I mean, I'm not sure how much we can credit the extent but I don't see how it was going to hurt.

As I stated earlier, I was always put off the way DC Ent. acts like they can't do this but they won't actually come out and say no we aren't doing it this way because they are afraid of upsetting the fans. Lame.

[The Sage]

The refusal of WB to cross-pollinate it's franchises is baffling.

It's the same mentality that says if we do a JL the Batman film actor can't be in it.

WB can't afford another huge disappointment so I agree with those above that and Flash and WW aren't coming soon.

It seems inevitable they will have to do a JL. But if Avengers is massive next year that may scare them off.

My guess is there will be no super-hero flick from WB in 2013. In 2014 maybe a rebooted Batman. That seems to be the only WB franchise on the front-burner and being fast tracked right now.

It's better to keep the franchises separate as it allows for greater depth and exploration into each character's mythos without trying make sure they fit into the same world.

[Poni_Boy]

It's better to keep the franchises separate as it allows for greater depth and exploration into each character's mythos without trying make sure they fit into the same world.

If that was the reason for it I would understand. But it's not. It's a business move (and a smart one) so they don't have to put all their eggs into one cinematic basket. WB sees it as too much of a risk, since combining the franchises means each associated film has to succeed. One flop (Green Lantern) would tumble the entire house of cards.

If WB are still planning on moving ahead with this separate franchise idea then I personally think they should A) shelve a JLA movie till the other independent franchises are done or B) not include any heroes that already have screen presences in those franchises.

[merced]

Friday's estimates:

GL 1,900,000 for a total to date of 97,620,000. In 7th place on Friday.

GL should hit 100 million today.

[RachelDawes]

Difference being superheroes are a far more fragile genre than rom coms or kids films, there's always a market for those type of movies, superheroes depend on bringing people from outside of the small market it has. 2-3 superheroes films every is too many, you need to give some breathing room, you can't afford to flood the market otherwise the novelty wears off. Rom coms will still be around in abundance 10-20 years from now, superheroes are less likely to survive.

Not just that, look at how expensive it is to make a superhero movie. You can't make one on a shoestring budget the way you can a romcom. Problem is, the bigger the budget, the bigger the profit expected.

[Silver Surfer]

Just like I posted before, I knew Super 8 would overtake GL and that's exactly what happened. And thanks to this train wreck, my dream of ever seeing a Flash movie has crash and burned. Oh well at least Cap is coming out soon.

[silversurfur65]

I was just checking the numbers and it's sad Transformers has made in 3 days what Green Lantern has made in 3 weeks.
Also Thor's WW BO is $437,000,000.......Green Lantern $126,000,000.....Ouch !!

[biolumen]

Hard to believe that BOM's May 25th prediction that GL would top out at a weak $130 million domestic was an over-estimation rather than an under-estimation.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3156&p=.htm

[merced]

Hard to believe that BOM's May 25th prediction that GL would top out at a weak $130 million domestic was an over-estimation rather than an under-estimation.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3156&p=.htm

The most current projection I've seen is from Box Office Guru and it is saying 220 - 225 million domestic.

At least GL is coming in near predictions. Mojo and the like were projecting 275 - 300 millon for SR. Ouch!! GL and SR's similarities are many. The studio knew months before that SR was a dud and even rushed in folks to change to TV spots to try to salvage what they could. Kind of like they did with GL. Usually this kind of thing doesn't work - and it didn't for either GL or SR.

Cap looks like it amy beat the 200 million projection. There is a chance it could do 500 million WW - not easy but a chance.

If Cap does that it'll join the historic mega-superhero franchises of batman, Spiderman and Ironman.

Marvel is going to want a sequel ASAP so could we see Cap 2 and Thor 2 in 2013?

[merced]

I was just checking the numbers and it's sad Transformers has made in 3 days what Green Lantern has made in 3 weeks.
Also Thor's WW BO is $437,000,000.......Green Lantern $126,000,000.....Ouch !!

It gets worse, Thor cost 150 million to make whileGL cost 200 million.

GL is repeating the SR disaster - I wonder if anyone at WB or DCE will be held accountable?

[hame4479]

wow the biggest disappoint me about this film is that internationally it is doing far worse than it is domestically, which is a big problem in terms of getting a sequel.

[dark_b]

domestic is more importand then international for sequels. studios like and get more money from domestic. and it looks like comicbook movies in general make more money domestic. IMO

[merced]

Course the Transformer and Cars release are a factor in GL's poor performance.

With Marvel set to move Wolverine to December 2012 and Hobbit coming out that same month I suspect WB has got to be worried about MOS. Wolverine is a stronger franchise and it could steal away a portion of the audience that Hobbit doesn't take. To make it worse there is hardly any buzz about MOS compared to what you are seeing for Spidey, TDKR and Avengers.

I'm wondeing if the GL mess after the SR mess will get WB to move MOS to a November 2012 release? Already tere is a lot of skepticism out there about the viability of MOS and some of that is coming from it's almost impossible to overcome lousy scheduling/release.

If GL has been released over Labor Day it may have done somewhat better IMO.

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Wolverine is not a stronger franchise than Superman... With the rightt visuals and marketing (strip away the Donner/Reeve influence completely), then Superman could surprise us all.

The interest was there in 2006... there just wasn't the right movie to back it up.

[merced]

Wolverine is not a stronger franchise than Superman... With the rightt visuals and marketing (strip away the Donner/Reeve influence completely), then Superman could surprise us all.

The interest was there in 2006... there just wasn't the right movie to back it up.

I disagree. If interest had been there SR would have had a gangbusters opening weekend - then fallen of after that from bad WOM.

Same thing with GL, if interest was naturally there upfront it would have scored a better opening and then fallen off from the bad WOM and reviews.

X3 debuted a month before SR (over a 3 day not 4 day holiday weekend) to 120 million. It was a lously film however and had huge fall-off.

I'd say the interest was there for X3 but not GL or SR.

[superion]

Wolverine is not a stronger franchise than Superman... With the rightt visuals and marketing (strip away the Donner/Reeve influence completely), then Superman could surprise us all.

The interest was there in 2006... there just wasn't the right movie to back it up.

Superman Returns made more money than Wolverine:Origins both domestic and
foreign. It was only a bust because of the amount of money it cost to make.

[DaveMoral]

The refusal of WB to cross-pollinate it's franchises is baffling.

It's the same mentality that says if we do a JL the Batman film actor can't be in it.

WB can't afford another huge disappointment so I agree with those above that and Flash and WW aren't coming soon.

It seems inevitable they will have to do a JL. But if Avengers is massive next year that may scare them off.

My guess is there will be no super-hero flick from WB in 2013. In 2014 maybe a rebooted Batman. That seems to be the only WB franchise on the front-burner and being fast tracked right now.

Honestly, I have my doubts that WB really wants to keep their characters out of continuity with each other... it's just, with the success of Batman of late they have really tied their cart to the Nolan horse. He says Batman exists in his own world, and the Superman project he's chipped in on is also isolated. Which leaves GL out in the cold all by his lonesome.

They may have tied GL and the Flash and whoever else together, but it wouldn't have worked if their uber successful Batman trilogy wasn't tied in as well. And that's the hell of it. Nolan doesn't want to have Batman exist in a world where there are other heroes that blow him out of the water because he's not real keen on that stuff. I say, so what. WB's the bosses. They should at least have the clout, and the cojones, to tell Nolan "look, you don't have to say Superman but you do need to reference Metropolis. On TV or in the newspaper. Your choice." And then they do a similar thing with MOS and Snyder. Have a Gotham newspaper on a stand next to the latest edition of the Daily Planet. Mention Coast City somehow. Simple as that.

[Dwarf Slayer]

I say, so what. WB's the bosses. They should at least have the clout, and the cojones, to tell Nolan "look, you don't have to say Superman but you do need to reference Metropolis. On TV or in the newspaper. Your choice." And then they do a similar thing with MOS and Snyder. Have a Gotham newspaper on a stand next to the latest edition of the Daily Planet. Mention Coast City somehow. Simple as that.

You really think WB is going to push Nolan around to get some completely unnecessary easter eggs to the broader DC universe?

Warner Bros has proved time and time again that they are completely useless without Nolan.

Catwoman - sucked
Jonah Hex - sucked
Green Lantern - sucked
Superman Returns - sucked
Batman Begins - awesome
The Dark Knight - awesome

It's best WB leave Nolan alone so he can do what he does best, make great movies and make them a lot of money.

[MWF]

They may have tied GL and the Flash and whoever else together, but it wouldn't have worked if their uber successful Batman trilogy wasn't tied in as well. And that's the hell of it. Nolan doesn't want to have Batman exist in a world where there are other heroes that blow him out of the water because he's not real keen on that stuff. I say, so what. WB's the bosses. They should at least have the clout, and the cojones, to tell Nolan "look, you don't have to say Superman but you do need to reference Metropolis. On TV or in the newspaper. Your choice." And then they do a similar thing with MOS and Snyder. Have a Gotham newspaper on a stand next to the latest edition of the Daily Planet. Mention Coast City somehow. Simple as that.

I'm sorry, but why are people so obsessed with this interconnected movie-verse nonsense? What good would it really do in the long run? Do you honestly think Green Lantern would have done better at the box office if they had somehow mentioned Batman or Superman in the film? And if you reference the existence of Superman somehow in The Dark Knight Rises, then what? It's not like Christian Bale is suddenly going to be contractually obligated to star in a Justice League of America film because of that.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a good thing that Green Lantern didn't tie into any of the other existing Warner Brothers franchises (read, Batman), because I doubt it's going to be getting a sequel. If they had, the producers would potentially be left with the question of, "Do we really want this bomb connected to other franchises that may still have a shot at success? Do we risk tainting the audience's opinion going in to a Flash film if their mindset is, 'Oh, this is related to that mess? No thanks.'"

This interconnected movie-verse obsession is completely overrated and overblown by comic book fans. I've gotten absolutely nothing out of it from the so-called Avengers "tie-in" films so far other than a completely tacked on ending to The Incredible Hulk and a bunch of Nick Fury and Black Widow scenes in Iron Man 2 that, in my opinion, only dragged the film down. And while I haven't seen Thor yet, I hear Agent Coulson's cameo in that is more of the same.

If Warner Brothers goes out and makes an awesome Justice League of America film from the ground-up, that's perfectly fine by me. I want them to concentrate on making a good movie first and foremost. If they can tie it all together somehow beforehand, that's okay, but I don't at all consider it a prerequisite, nor would I imagine that doing such a thing would at all enhance the quality of the solo pictures themselves.

[Silver Surfer]

Superman Returns made more money than Wolverine Origins both domestic and
foreign. It was only a bust because of the amount of money it cost to make.
Not true, Wolverine actually made more money overseas than SR. I've read countless times that Superman for whatever reason is a hard sell outside North America.

[Zant]

domestic is more importand then international for sequels. studios like and get more money from domestic. and it looks like comicbook movies in general make more money domestic. IMO

Not anymore,things are a bit different now .X men seems more popular overseas.Thor made more overseas I'm sure Green Lantern and even Cap will make more overseas .It will be the same next year

[Dwarf Slayer]

Not anymore,things are a bit different now .X men seems more popular overseas.Thor made more overseas I'm sure Green Lantern and even Cap will make more overseas .It will be the same next year

I seriously doubt Captain AMERICA is going to make more overseas than its domestic total.

[Silver Surfer]

Not anymore,things are a bit different now .X men seems more popular overseas.Thor made more overseas I'm sure Green Lantern and even Cap will make more overseas .It will be the same next year
I agree with you on everything else but I think Cap will bring most of it's money domestically. With Harry Potter releasing a week before, it will eat all of it's competition.

[jmc]

I'm sorry, but why are people so obsessed with this interconnected movie-verse nonsense? What good would it really do in the long run? Do you honestly think Green Lantern would have done better at the box office if they had somehow mentioned Batman or Superman in the film? And if you reference the existence of Superman somehow in The Dark Knight Rises, then what? It's not like Christian Bale is suddenly going to be contractually obligated to star in a Justice League of America film because of that.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a good thing that Green Lantern didn't tie into any of the other existing Warner Brothers franchises (read, Batman), because I doubt it's going to be getting a sequel. If they had, the producers would potentially be left with the question of, "Do we really want this bomb connected to other franchises that may still have a shot at success? Do we risk tainting the audience's opinion going in to a Flash film if their mindset is, 'Oh, this is related to that mess? No thanks.'"

This interconnected movie-verse obsession is completely overrated and overblown by comic book fans. I've gotten absolutely nothing out of it from the so-called Avengers "tie-in" films so far other than a completely tacked on ending to The Incredible Hulk and a bunch of Nick Fury and Black Widow scenes in Iron Man 2 that, in my opinion, only dragged the film down. And while I haven't seen Thor yet, I hear Agent Coulson's cameo in that is more of the same.

If Warner Brothers goes out and makes an awesome Justice League of America film from the ground-up, that's perfectly fine by me. I want them to concentrate on making a good movie first and foremost. If they can tie it all together somehow beforehand, that's okay, but I don't at all consider it a prerequisite, nor would I imagine that doing such a thing would at all enhance the quality of the solo pictures themselves.

Yeah seriously Dc fans have to let go of this single universe pipe dream. It ain't happening and doesn't make the films any better. As was mentioned in the previous page, individual universes mean no restrictions and no relying on other characters.

[biolumen]

From Deadline

6. Green Lantern (Warner Bros) Week 3 [3,280 Theaters]
Friday $2.2M, Saturday, Sunday, Monday
Three-Day Weekend $7.5M, Four-Day Holiday $9M, Cume $105M

[Excelsior.]

And while I haven't seen Thor yet, I hear Agent Coulson's cameo in that is more of the same. Coulson had a sizable role.

[KalMart]

I know this is old news but man is she right!

http://www.**************.com/fansites/MarvelFreshman/news/?a=39965&t=Angela_Bassett_Wants_Amanda_Waller_To_Be_DCs_Ans wer_To_Marvels_Nick_Fury

WB/DC is run by a bunch of chimps in suits! Noone is thinking. I've said this numerous times, if you tied GL with TDK or even MOS, there is no question it would have helped it's box office. For them to say that their characters are "to big" to be in a shared universe is closed minded and pathetic! I guess the JLA doesn't exist huh. Again, it's their plan but I don't see this working out for them in the long run. I'm a Marvel guy and I'm wearing a condom for when the Avengers come out(no pun intended)I'm going to have the biggest geekasm one can imagine but even I have to admit that a JLA would make more than an Avengers movie if done right. But with WB/DC track record I highly doubt that they could. Without tying the movies together, the WB has easily missed $30M off of GL's tally.
If you tied GL to TDK/TDKR...it'd be an insult to TDK/TDKR. If one of these films exists in its own universe with no connection to others, and is actually good, then let it do its own thing. Leave it up to the filmmakers whether or not they want to tie it in with another one. If a marketing agenda supersedes the emphasis on making it a good film first and foremost...rarely will it achieve that agenda....because it can adversely affect the film's quality.

The success of DC's or anyone's superhero movies doesn't depend on whether they team up or not. It depends solely on how good they are as individual movies, whether they team up or not. So let those who make the films decide on that.

[Lighthouse]

I absolutely agree with keeping these universes separate. It's the best possible move they could make.

[MWF]

Coulson had a sizable role.

I'm not referring to his screen time, I'm referring to whether his time on screen feels organic to the film or not. Black Widow and Nick Fury's inclusion in Iron Man 2 is hardly small, but it came across as somewhat forced to me, which happened to drag down my overall opinion of that film (despite my love for the Black Widow and Scarlett Johansson both).

[Excelsior.]

I'm not referring to his screen time, I'm referring to whether his time on screen feels organic to the film or not. Black Widow and Nick Fury's inclusion in Iron Man 2 is hardly small, but it came across as somewhat forced to me, which happened to drag down my overall opinion of that film (despite my love for the Black Widow and Scarlett Johansson both).
It does. Thor meshes the SHIELD/Avengers stuff really well. Except the Hawkeye cameo.

[Docker2.0]

If you tied GL to TDK/TDKR...it's be an insult to TDK/TDKR. If one of these films exists in its own universe with no connection to others, and is actually good, then let it do its own thing. Leave it up to the filmmakers whether or not they want to tie it in with another one. If a marketing agenda supersedes the emphasis on making it a good film first and foremost...rarely will it achieve that agenda....because it can adversely affect the film's quality.

The success of DC's or anyone's superhero movies doesn't depend on whether they team up or not. It depends solely on how good they are as individual movies, whether they team up or not. So let those who make the films decide on that.

Keep telling yourself that. :o You may be right, they shouldn't depend on the success of others but it definetly helps, especially with a character like GL. If it was Supes or Bats, then I'd say let them stand alone but it's not. Again, I honestly believe Thor benefited from the Ironman cameo just like I think Cap will as well.

[jmc]

I think you're over estimating the cameos given the majority of people don't stick around for the credits.

[Red Mask]

You really think WB is going to push Nolan around to get some completely unnecessary easter eggs to the broader DC universe?

Warner Bros has proved time and time again that they are completely useless without Nolan.

Catwoman - sucked
Jonah Hex - sucked
Green Lantern - sucked
Superman Returns - sucked
Batman Begins - awesome
The Dark Knight - awesome

It's best WB leave Nolan alone so he can do what he does best, make great movies and make them a lot of money.

Why do people always forget the worst of the lot? Steel (1997), starring Shaq.

[MWF]

I think you're over estimating the cameos given the majority of people don't stick around for the credits.

And as I pointed out on another board several weeks ago, you would be assaulting the basic logic of a lot of movie-goers if you suggested that Superman existed in the same universe as Green Lantern. If such were indicated, the logical response from many viewers would have been, "Why isn't Superman helping defeat that giant blob thing that's trying to destroy the Earth?"

[akfj]

Why do people always forget the worst of the lot? Steel (1997), starring Shaq.

Because they choose to.

[KalMart]

Keep telling yourself that. :o You may be right, they shouldn't depend on the success of others but it definetly helps, especially with a character like GL. If it was Supes or Bats, then I'd say let them stand alone but it's not. Again, I honestly believe Thor benefited from the Ironman cameo just like I think Cap will as well.

If GL can't make a strong standing on his own, he doesn't deserve to even dream about hangin' with Bats. Sorry if WB's not offering to wipe GL's nose after a whoopin', but try actually being as good a movie as Thor first, then we'll see about the handouts. ;)

Iron Man wasn't exactly considered an A-lister of a superhero...but they had no problem establishing him as an A-list movie franchise with barely a whiff of anything Avengers that most moviegoers could really pick up on in the first movie. If he didn't need the help, why should GL? And if he really does need that help....maybe he doesn't deserve a solo film to begin with.

[jmc]

And as I pointed out on another board several weeks ago, you would be assaulting the basic logic of a lot of movie-goers if you suggested that Superman existed in the same universe as Green Lantern. If such were indicated, the logical response from many viewers would have been, "Why isn't Superman helping defeat that giant blob thing that's trying to destroy the Earth?"

That's going to be an interesting dilemma for Marvel to overcome post Avengers, after that comes out the solo films are going to have a tough time explaining why character-x doesn't just come in and help, Thor has a bit of an advantage given there's other realms in which his movies can take place. If GL can't make a strong standing on his own, he doesn't deserve to even dream about hangin' with Bats. Sorry if WB's not offering to wipe GL's nose after a whoopin', but try actually being as good a movie as Thor first, then we'll see about the handouts. ;)

Iron Man wasn't exactly considered an A-lister of a superhero...but they had no problem establishing him as an A-list movie franchise with barely a whiff of anything Avengers that most moviegoers could really pick up on in the first movie. If he didn't need the help, why should GL? And if he really does need that help....maybe he doesn't deserve a solo film to begin with.

Yeah, too many are relating the 'interconnected universe' with success. IM worked because it was a good film, contrary what some like to think there wasn't this big plan for a single universe series prior, that came about as a result of IM, at best they may have had the idea penciled in. Solo universe works just as well, if not better because of the freedom it gives you, but at the end of the day it's all in the execution.

[DarKush]

And as I pointed out on another board several weeks ago, you would be assaulting the basic logic of a lot of movie-goers if you suggested that Superman existed in the same universe as Green Lantern. If such were indicated, the logical response from many viewers would have been, "Why isn't Superman helping defeat that giant blob thing that's trying to destroy the Earth?"

Well, one could make similar arguments with the Marvel films. I mean, where was Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, or even Hawkeye, while the Destroyer was wreaking havoc in Thor? I don't think it's that much of a deal breaker. Just like in the individual comics, we can accept them having solo adventures and group adventures in the team comics. I think the benefits of a shared universe outweigh the negatives. And I think fans would be thrilled to see all these heroes interact and take on a really big threat.

[Metallo]

Why do people always forget the worst of the lot? Steel (1997), starring Shaq.

I think some people are only talking of the post 2000 DC based films. that seems to be the divide and after that its sort of a new era.

I just wonder why some people forget to rank Constantine.

[Metallo]

Well, one could make similar arguments with the Marvel films. I mean, where was Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, or even Hawkeye, while the Destroyer was wreaking havoc in Thor? I don't think it's that much of a deal breaker. Just like in the individual comics, we can accept them having solo adventures and group adventures in the team comics. I think the benefits of a shared universe outweigh the negatives. And I think fans would be thrilled to see all these heroes interact and take on a really big threat.

I think the foundation for a shared universe can be done without making it overcomplicated like what Marvel is doing with the Avengers related films. Sometimes it can just be a passing reference like the quick mention of Gotham in Superman Returns or Bruce Wayne talking about Metropolis in Batman Forever.

Not particular intrusive but it lays a foundation for something that COULD be done in the future. I didn't think those mentions ruined the particular movies myself.

Stuff like that doesn't mean seeing Green Lantern in a Superman movie or vice versa.

[chamber-music]

I think some people are only talking of the post 2000 DC based films. that seems to be the divide and after that its sort of a new era.

I just wonder why some people forget to rank Constantine.
Constantine was ok movie but its not like the comics very much. The fact he doesn't have as large a fanbase as say Batman meant they could change alot of stuff and not be too worried about a backlash.

[jmc]

Well, one could make similar arguments with the Marvel films. I mean, where was Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, or even Hawkeye, while the Destroyer was wreaking havoc in Thor? I don't think it's that much of a deal breaker. Just like in the individual comics, we can accept them having solo adventures and group adventures in the team comics. I think the benefits of a shared universe outweigh the negatives. And I think fans would be thrilled to see all these heroes interact and take on a really big threat.

Well to answer the Destroyer thing it lasted all of a few minutes which would be hardly enough time for Stark to do anything. The thing is post Avengers when all the character know each other the question is going to be 'Why don't they just get 'insert character' to help?' We give free passes to certain aspects in comics, film is a different beast, adding 3 dimensions changes everything.

[BlueLantern]

I think it's not down to Chris Nolan as much as down to the fact that besides Batman there's no hero that Warners seem adept at getting right. Primarily because they don't know how to tell the **** from the sugar.

[wobbly]

Well to answer the Destroyer thing it lasted all of a few minutes which would be hardly enough time for Stark to do anything. The thing is post Avengers when all the character know each other the question is going to be 'Why don't they just get 'insert character' to help?' We give free passes to certain aspects in comics, film is a different beast, adding 3 dimensions changes everything.

It's not problematic really. I mean 'Supergirl' got round Superman's absence there with just one line of dialogue (iirc it was something about him being on a diplomatic mission off planet).

With Marvels films locations for each character helps as well: Tony is based on the West Coast, Cap & Hulk will (presumably) be based around the East Coast/New York, Thor will be based wherever he wants, and Hawkeye & the Widow are agents based wherever Shield needs them at any given time.

Not a big ask of the audience to just assume the other guys are busy in their own locale for each respective solo film. It's not like the books where nearly all of them are based in NY.

[Docker2.0]

Agreed Wobbly. Also when Hulk goes on those rampages, why didn't IronMan intervene instead of going to the general about his "problem?" Linking the universies together is a good thing and a Superman and Batman link to GL would have helped it, it definetly wouldn't have hurt it.

Also one last argument about why they didn't help: they were probably busy at the time. Ironman2 took place around the same time as the Hulk and Thor took place so they were busy doing their own thing. Same thing could be said of TDK and MOS. I'm just saying a JLA movie is going to look pretty crazy introducing like 5 new characters. They should build up like Marvel is doing.

[merced]

From Deadline

Deadline update - little change from their update on Saturday. GL weekend estimate paired back by 500,000. Cum by Monday will be 104.5M instead of 105M

6 Green Lantern (Warner Bros) Week 3 [3,280 Theaters]
Friday $1.9M, Saturday $2.7M, Sunday, Monday
Three-Day Weekend $7M, Four-Day Holiday $8.7M, Cume $104.5M

I was hoping GL would hit 125 million domestic. It still can I guess but it looks like 120 million is a more realistic expectation.

[Docker2.0]

My local comic book guy says this movie is not a bomb. Dude is so in denial it's not even funny!

[DaveMoral]

And as I pointed out on another board several weeks ago, you would be assaulting the basic logic of a lot of movie-goers if you suggested that Superman existed in the same universe as Green Lantern. If such were indicated, the logical response from many viewers would have been, "Why isn't Superman helping defeat that giant blob thing that's trying to destroy the Earth?"

At the end of the day Superman would be powerless against Parallax. He's got limitations that a GL doesn't, and he's got his own things to take care of mostly likely concurrently with whatever any other hero is doing.

More over, if a shared universe can be sold to the general audience then there is a built in explanation... there's so much going on in this world that Superman is busy saving the day elsewhere while GL is taking down attackers from space, and Batman is beating up psychopaths in Gotham.

Why would the general audience ask questions comic readers don't? I'm not convinced that the average person's intrinsic response to such things is any different than a comic reader's. Most folks would tend to take for granted that there are enough villains and problems to go around that not any one single superhero needs to take on everything. Much less Superman, whose powers lay mostly in being really strong and fast... none of which are guaranteed to help him against the power of fear itself.

If a good GL film just had a mention of Metropolis within it that would not provoke people to think "why doesn't Superman fight the big blob monster" it would just be part of the overall equation and he's likely got something of his own going on. And as far as film goes, anyway, Superman has never been show to be in the league that GL is shown in this movie. He's either fighting people like himself, or thwarting land baron schemes and stopping missiles. Not giant monsters that threaten to consume the very souls of everyone on Earth.

[merced]

BOM's numbers are a little different from Deadline's.

According to Deadline GL hit 100 million on Saturday. BOM says it fell slightly short and will hit 100 million today.

[Ita-KalEl]

This is a terrible flop another +60% drop...

[wobbly]

Deadline update - little change from their update on Saturday. GL weekend estimate paired back by 500,000. Cum by Monday will be 104.5M instead of 105M

6 Green Lantern (Warner Bros) Week 3 [3,280 Theaters]
Friday $1.9M, Saturday $2.7M, Sunday, Monday
Three-Day Weekend $7M, Four-Day Holiday $8.7M, Cume $104.5M

I was hoping GL would hit 125 million domestic. It still can I guess but it looks like 120 million is a more realistic expectation.

Looks like 120m domestic is about the best they can hope for. It's performing a bit worse than FF2 with steeper drops so I can't see it getting past that really.

[The Sage]

Agreed Wobbly. Also when Hulk goes on those rampages, why didn't IronMan intervene instead of going to the general about his "problem?" Linking the universies together is a good thing and a Superman and Batman link to GL would have helped it, it definetly wouldn't have hurt it.

Also one last argument about why they didn't help: they were probably busy at the time. Ironman2 took place around the same time as the Hulk and Thor took place so they were busy doing their own thing. Same thing could be said of TDK and MOS. I'm just saying a JLA movie is going to look pretty crazy introducing like 5 new characters. They should build up like Marvel is doing.

Meh, forget that. I'd rather each character get their own story and continuity. Figure out how to unite them for a JLA movie when they decide to do it.

Nolan doesn't have to worry about adhering to a shared universe, and no one else should.

[merced]

Looks like 120m domestic is about the best they can hope for. It's performing a bit worse than FF2 with steeper drops so I can't see it getting past that really.

Yeah. I'm thinking 120 million domestic and fingers crossed 130 million foreign. 250 million total. WB scaled back their optimism and said they'd be happy with 350 million WW but it's not coming anywhere near that.

A tale of 2 studios and 2 franchises:

Disney's Pirates passed the 1 billion mark Saturday. One of only 7 films now to reach that number.

WB's GL hits the 100 million mark today and looks to make 250 million WW which won't even cover the production costs of the film. Add in the 100 million in marketing and yikes!

[Docker2.0]

Meh, forget that. I'd rather each character get their own story and continuity. Figure out how to unite them for a JLA movie when they decide to do it.

Nolan doesn't have to worry about adhering to a shared universe, and no one else should.

Well they should just have one scene alluding to it and that's it. You don't have to have the entire movie devoted to it, a la IronMan2. Angela Bassett via Amanda Waller would have been perfect but noooooooooooooooooooooo they had to kill her off or whatever the freak happened in GL.

[HighFivingMF]

What possible reason would you have to think she died?

[Cain]

Meh, forget that. I'd rather each character get their own story and continuity. Figure out how to unite them for a JLA movie when they decide to do it.

Nolan doesn't have to worry about adhering to a shared universe, and no one else should.

Exactly.

[Cain]

WB's GL hits the 100 million mark today and looks to make 250 million WW which won't even cover the production costs of the film. Add in the 100 million in marketing and yikes!

An extremely generous number. It's looking more like $150 million worldwide at most when it's all said and done. Maybe just maybe $160 million; but now I'm the one being generous.

[The Sage]

Well they should just have one scene alluding to it and that's it. You don't have to have the entire movie devoted to it, a la IronMan2. Angela Bassett via Amanda Waller would have been perfect but noooooooooooooooooooooo they had to kill her off or whatever the freak happened in GL.

She didn't die.

A scene alluding to it is cool.

[super85]

Worldwide: $135,262,000 at the moment.

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


While the numbers are most likely causing WB a headache, it still is important to point out to fans that the film still hasn't open pretty much anywhere in Europe, or places like Australia etc. In some markets it opens in August and September.

[Gamma Burst]

Weekend estimates (boxoffice.com):

7 Green Lantern $6,270,000 -65% 3,280 -536 $$101,962,253

[merced]

Worldwide: $135,262,000 at the moment.

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


While the numbers are most likely causing WB a headache, it still is important to point out to fans that the film still hasn't open pretty much anywhere in Europe, or places like Australia etc. In some markets it opens in August and September.

Yes. Usually these films make a bit more overseas.

If 120 million is the US take that could mean 120 million plus overseas.

So a potential for a 240 - 250 million WW total when it's all done.

Not saying it will do that well just that there is still hope.

[MWF]

Well, one could make similar arguments with the Marvel films. I mean, where was Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, or even Hawkeye, while the Destroyer was wreaking havoc in Thor? I don't think it's that much of a deal breaker. Just like in the individual comics, we can accept them having solo adventures and group adventures in the team comics. I think the benefits of a shared universe outweigh the negatives. And I think fans would be thrilled to see all these heroes interact and take on a really big threat.

Again, I haven't see Thor yet, but was the Destroyer portrayed as a world threat? Because Parallax certainly was. So when you take into consideration the level of the threat (world-destroyer) and level of power of the hero absent (able to speed across the continental United States in an instance), I think it is a justifiable question to ask where Superman was during Parallax's attack, supposing he were established as existing within the continuity of Green Lantern.

And as far as film goes, anyway, Superman has never been show to be in the league that GL is shown in this movie. He's either fighting people like himself, or thwarting land baron schemes and stopping missiles. Not giant monsters that threaten to consume the very souls of everyone on Earth.

He couldn't have helped out? Tried to evacuate people from the area, or perhaps even attempted to land a punch? Besides, Superman is different than Iron Man in the perception of most general audience's minds anyway, track record on film or not; comic book fans', too, for that matter. He's the biggest gun there is, who's capable of stopping world threats. Is there really a threat large enough to justify Superman's absence in Green Lantern while the fate of the entire Earth was at stake?

Meh, forget that. I'd rather each character get their own story and continuity. Figure out how to unite them for a JLA movie when they decide to do it.

Nolan doesn't have to worry about adhering to a shared universe, and no one else should.

Agreed. The shared universe concept in film is completely overrated. I want Warner Brothers to make good superhero films first and foremost. The rest is window dressing. Acknowledging Superman, Batman, Metropolis, Gotham, or freaking Central City in Green Lantern would not have changed my opinion of the film in the slightest. It still would have been an overcrowded, poorly scripted mess of a movie. It just would have happened to have featured someone saying the word "Gotham" in it. Big whoop.

[chiefchirpa]

Yes. Usually these films make a bit more overseas.

If 120 million is the US take that could mean 120 million plus overseas.

So a potential for a 240 - 250 million WW total when it's all done.

Not saying it will do that well just that there is still hope.

Most unlikely overseas number will not exceed the domestic number, not when TF3 and HP 7 part 2 running a muck soon.

And no, first time b-list superhero movie will not produce a big number overseas because of the "learning subject material" curve. This also what happens with 1st Iron Man. Thor is an exception perhaps because of the Marvel movie universe effect and one of first summer action movies out of the gate.

[chiefchirpa]

Weekend estimates (boxoffice.com):

7 Green Lantern $6,270,000 -65% 3,280 -536 $$101,962,253

So Deadline prediction is way off?

[Tony Stark]

Worldwide: $135,262,000 at the moment.

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


While the numbers are most likely causing WB a headache, it still is important to point out to fans that the film still hasn't open pretty much anywhere in Europe, or places like Australia etc. In some markets it opens in August and September.

The problem is, in alot of those markets it's going to open the same weekends as Captain America and Cowboys and Aliens.

I suspect the final tally will be somwhere in the 220-250M range WW.

WB looked so bad in this, they are out publically announcing a sequel, but if there were any weight to it, they'd be announcing schedules.

I almost feel bad for it, at this point, when a total piece of crap movie like Transformers 3 makes 162M in the first 6 days.

[DarKush]

MWF,

I can't say that the Destroyer was considered a world threat in the same way Parallax was. And the fight maybe wasn't as long as the one with Parallax. I don't want to give away too much more but Destroyer was playing on a much more scaled down field than Parallax. However he was enough of a threat to warrant the involvement of SHIELD and Hawkeye at least (who were both in the film and in the area) but neither showed up, and I didn't hear any grumblings from the moviegoers about them not showing up to help out or the other heroes not being on the scene. I didn't think about that either.

[HighFivingMF]

SHIELD did do battle with Destroyer... When he first showed up... Destroyer ****ed them up.

[merced]

The problem is, in alot of those markets it's going to open the same weekends as Captain America and Cowboys and Aliens.

I suspect the final tally will be somwhere in the 220-250M range WW.

WB looked so bad in this, they are out publically announcing a sequel, but if there were any weight to it, they'd be announcing schedules.

I almost feel bad for it, at this point, when a total piece of crap movie like Transformers 3 makes 162M in the first 6 days.

Box Office Guru is now saying 120 million domestic at best.

Normally it's 47/53 domestic/overseas in terms of the box office.

As an aside that advantage of the overseas market will only grow as new economic powers emerge in India, South America and China.

There are exceptions to this rule - SR and the first Ironman did better in the US.

However, assuming GL takes the normal 47/53 route, it would indicate a final WW total of 240 million or so.

BTW, Pirates numbers are 25% domestic and 75% overseas. It crossed 1 billion on Saturday thanks to the overseas market. It's numbers are not normal but over time the normal overseas box office share should grow to 60% plus. That will be a new factor the studios will have to factor in in the coming years as they develop their film projects.

[Ita-KalEl]

The problem is, in alot of those markets it's going to open the same weekends as Captain America and Cowboys and Aliens.

I suspect the final tally will be somwhere in the 220-250M range WW.

WB looked so bad in this, they are out publically announcing a sequel, but if there were any weight to it, they'd be announcing schedules.

I almost feel bad for it, at this point, when a total piece of crap movie like Transformers 3 makes 162M in the first 6 days.

At this point a sequel is simply impossible, and noone will be interested in a reboot. They'll bet on another "secondary" character (Flash, WW etc.).

[merced]

At this point a sequel is simply impossible, and noone will be interested in a reboot. They'll bet on another "secondary" character (Flash, WW etc.).

Dunno if we'll see another solo WB film in the next 5 years besides Batman.

I think WB and DCE have a lot to hash out.

One thing I am pretty sure of is that WW won't be the next solo film by WB. Female superheroes have no track record and there is a question as to whether they can draw blockbuster audiences in this particular genre. Sexist? Yes probably but I expect that will be a consideration at WB and DCE.

[Red Mask]

Commercials for GL have gone up over here in Australia. But It's still coming out in August. It's obvious they're trying very hard to get people to watch it. However Captain America and Harry Potter are still coming out this month of July. So I wonder how effective this campaign push will be. Kids will be back in school and the winter season is approaching the end. It seems the markets WB really depended on were the ones that have already shown their film. I don't know if they'll be counting on the Japanese audience to help win back their money.

[chiefchirpa]

Dunno if we'll see another solo WB film in the next 5 years besides Batman.

I think WB and DCE have a lot to hash out.

One thing I am pretty sure of is that WW won't be the next solo film by WB. Female superheroes have no track record and there is a question as to whether they can draw blockbuster audiences in this particular genre. Sexist? Yes probably but I expect that will be a consideration at WB and DCE.

After TDKR, maybe they can launch the Flash or WW.

If TDKR is a success, they should put "From the Studio which brought TDKR". TDKR is the bait.

But not GL. GL is persona non grata perhaps until 5 years.

[Dwarf Slayer]

Warner Bros definitely needs to proceed with a Justice League movie and forget about doing solo movies for now.

1. The general public only know about secondary DC characters through cartoons like Super Friends and Justice League.

2. People are tired of origin stories.

Start us off in the middle of a story. We don't need to know how the Justice League was formed and all of the characters' backgrounds. That stuff can be filled in later when it's essential to the plot. No secret identities. Don't worry about people being confused that Christian Bale isn't playing Batman. They can identify the character as Batman and that's enough. If certain characters prove popular, then give them a spin-off solo movie.

I don't know why people think it's so hard to do a JL movie. Forget that these characters are superheroes and just treat them like people. The super powers are only for the action scenes.

[merced]

Warner Bros definitely needs to proceed with a Justice League movie and forget about doing solo movies for now.

1. The general public only know about secondary DC characters through cartoons like Super Friends and Justice League.

2. People are tired of origin stories.

Start us off in the middle of a story. We don't need to know how the Justice League was formed and all of the characters' backgrounds. That stuff can be filled in later when it's essential to the plot. No secret identities. Don't worry about people being confused that Christian Bale isn't playing Batman. They can identify the character as Batman and that's enough. If certain characters prove popular, then give them a spin-off solo movie.

I don't know why people think it's so hard to do a JL movie. Forget that these characters are superheroes and just treat them like people. The super powers are only for the action scenes.

After TDKR Bale will be gone and there will be a new Batman. Nolan also will be gone.

Maybe the deal will be the new Batman actor is signed for 3 Batman films and a JL film. Who knows?

Really I don't think this is going to be an issue.

It's hard to do a JL in the sense that to do it right you need to spend a whole lot of money. WB may rightfully be gun-shy on that after GL.

You also need an incredible cast. Not just the new Batman but who do you cast as Flash, GL, WW and one or two others.

The chemistry among the actors has to be off the charts and that ain't easy to do.

[Dwarf Slayer]

After TDKR Bale will be gone and there will be a new Batman. Nolan also will be gone.

Maybe the deal will be the new Batman actor is signed for 3 Batman films and a JL film. Who knows?

Really I don't think this is going to be an issue.

It's hard to do a JL in the sense that to do it right you need to spend a whole lot of money. WB may rightfully be gun-shy on that after GL.

You also need an incredible cast. Not just the new Batman but who do you cast as Flash, GL, WW and one or two others.

The chemistry among the actors has to be off the charts and that ain't easy to do.

Nolan won't be gone after TDKR, he'll be producing the reboot.

It's not super expensive to do a JL movie. Not anymore than it would be to do any other modern blockbuster.

Green Lantern was complete failure BECAUSE of the Warner Bros. They approved the awful script, they hired a director who wasn't competent with both sci-fi and CGI, and they hired Sony Imageworks.

[merced]

Nolan won't be gone after TDKR, he'll be producing the reboot.

It's not super expensive to do a JL movie. Not anymore than it would be to do any other modern blockbuster.

Green Lantern was complete failure BECAUSE of the Warner Bros. They approved the awful script, they hired a director who wasn't competent with both sci-fi and CGI, and they hired Sony Imageworks.

It's rumored the Avengers budget is/will be huge.

WB basically has to match and more likely exceed that. We are talking north of 200 million. Lots more than GL.

Nolan's status is, to take your point, unsure at this point. But for WB to continue wit him he'd have to accept the demand that the new Batman actor be in at least one JL film.

It will take magic. A perfect cast of the new Batman and perfect casts for Flash, WW, GL and the one or two others who will be in the film.

Don't get me wrong. I think WB needs to leverage Batman through a JL film to launch these other characters.

It can be done. It will take time.

At the earliest I am seeing a JL in 2014. And that may be optimistic.

[MWF]

MWF,

I can't say that the Destroyer was considered a world threat in the same way Parallax was. And the fight maybe wasn't as long as the one with Parallax. I don't want to give away too much more but Destroyer was playing on a much more scaled down field than Parallax. However he was enough of a threat to warrant the involvement of SHIELD and Hawkeye at least (who were both in the film and in the area) but neither showed up, and I didn't hear any grumblings from the moviegoers about them not showing up to help out or the other heroes not being on the scene. I didn't think about that either.

Okay, thanks for that description (as well as going out of your way not to spoil anything).

To everyone I've been debating on this point, I hope I'm not coming off as argumentative. I'm just trying to give hypotheticals for why I feel a united movie-verse can be just as detrimental to a film as it can be beneficial.

Warner Bros definitely needs to proceed with a Justice League movie and forget about doing solo movies for now.

1. The general public only know about secondary DC characters through cartoons like Super Friends and Justice League.

2. People are tired of origin stories.

Start us off in the middle of a story. We don't need to know how the Justice League was formed and all of the characters' backgrounds. That stuff can be filled in later when it's essential to the plot. No secret identities. Don't worry about people being confused that Christian Bale isn't playing Batman. They can identify the character as Batman and that's enough. If certain characters prove popular, then give them a spin-off solo movie.

I don't know why people think it's so hard to do a JL movie. Forget that these characters are superheroes and just treat them like people. The super powers are only for the action scenes.

This is pretty much where I stand on the entire matter, too. And I see an added benefit to this, that being if solo pictures are actually spun out of a Justice League of America film, as opposed to the other way around, Warner Brothers won't be perceived by the general public as trying to copy what Marvel is doing/has done.

I personally believe this is definitely the way for them to go, especially after Green Lantern's lackluster performance.

[chiefchirpa]

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3200&p=.htm

Even 2 months old Thor beat GL in WW intake...

[Liam_H]

Warner Bros definitely needs to proceed with a Justice League movie and forget about doing solo movies for now.

1. The general public only know about secondary DC characters through cartoons like Super Friends and Justice League.

2. People are tired of origin stories.

Start us off in the middle of a story. We don't need to know how the Justice League was formed and all of the characters' backgrounds. That stuff can be filled in later when it's essential to the plot. No secret identities. Don't worry about people being confused that Christian Bale isn't playing Batman. They can identify the character as Batman and that's enough. If certain characters prove popular, then give them a spin-off solo movie.

I don't know why people think it's so hard to do a JL movie. Forget that these characters are superheroes and just treat them like people. The super powers are only for the action scenes.

I'm confused when you say we should just jump into a JL movie without giving any of the secondary heroes a background while at the same time saying just treat them as people.
The point of an origin story is to show why a hero is just like a regular person with powers. We learn who they are and why they do the things they do. Yes you can fill them in a JL movie as you go along but with that many people you'll barely know anybody when the movie is done. If we know these characters (wonder woman, flash, green lantern etc.) beforehand we'll be invested in all their actions when they do team up.

[Liam_H]

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3200&p=.htm

Even 2 months old Thor beat GL in WW intake...

Confused about what you just said, Thor has GL beat regardless because its been out a lot longer. You can certainly say TF3 has GL beat even though its only been out a few days, though that's not surprising either.

[Docker2.0]

Confused about what you just said, Thor has GL beat regardless because its been out a lot longer. You can certainly say TF3 has GL beat even though its only been out a few days, though that's not surprising either.

What he's saying is Thor has been out almost 2 months and GL like 3 weeks, yet Thor made more money on a weekend when GL should have made more.

[Liam_H]

^My mistake, I apologize.

[chiefchirpa]

Confused about what you just said, Thor has GL beat regardless because its been out a lot longer. You can certainly say TF3 has GL beat even though its only been out a few days, though that's not surprising either.

This weekend WW intake

[Dwarf Slayer]

I'm confused when you say we should just jump into a JL movie without giving any of the secondary heroes a background while at the same time saying just treat them as people.
The point of an origin story is to show why a hero is just like a regular person with powers. We learn who they are and why they do the things they do. Yes you can fill them in a JL movie as you go along but with that many people you'll barely know anybody when the movie is done. If we know these characters (wonder woman, flash, green lantern etc.) beforehand we'll be invested in all their actions when they do team up.

I know the point of an origin story and you don't need one for an audience to be invested in the characters. Most superhero films act as if the audience is retarded and need an autobiographical break down of the hero's life for you to care about them. It's completely unnecessary. We'll learn about the characters and grow to like them IN the JL movie.

For instance, Woman Woman could be introduced in the JL movie as a man hating rookie superhero who is in the United States as an ambassador for Themyscira. She grows a character when she sees Batman (a man) who is performing feats just as great as her without super powers. She gets past her prejudice because of this.

[DarKush]

SHIELD did do battle with Destroyer... When he first showed up... Destroyer ****ed them up.

My bad. I don't remember that. I think my memory is getting foggy the older I get.

[HighFivingMF]

My bad. I don't remember that. I think my memory is getting foggy the older I get.

It was quick, it's easiest to remember because of the "Is that one of Stark's?" line. :oldrazz:

[Metallo]

Constantine was ok movie but its not like the comics very much. The fact he doesn't have as large a fanbase as say Batman meant they could change alot of stuff and not be too worried about a backlash.

I don't disagree with that but comic book movies that have disregard their source material even more get mentioned...like Catwoman. What I mean is Constantine isn't mentioned with the bad OR the good when some people divide them up.

I think its (partly) because Constantine wasn't a "superhero" in the movie so its easy for some to overlook. That and maybe because HellBlazer was a Vertigo title...even though Vertigo is an imprint of DC comics

Constantine wasn't a huge smash success either. Wasn't a failure but I don't think it did the numbers WB wanted.

[Mysteryman]

I don't disagree with that but comic book movies that have disregard their source material even more get mentioned...like Catwoman. What I mean is Constantine isn't mentioned with the bad OR the good when some people divide them up.

I think its (partly) because Constantine wasn't a "superhero" in the movie so its easy for some to overlook. That and maybe because HellBlazer was a Vertigo title...even though Vertigo is an imprint of DC comics

Constantine wasn't a huge smash success either. Wasn't a failure but I don't think it did the numbers WB wanted.
well, they didnt greenlight a sequel.
That tells you a lot right there.

[CaptainStacy]

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3200&p=.htm

Even 2 months old Thor beat GL in WW intake...

How embarassing...

[Chewy]

It's having basically the same run Watchmen did.

[Nemesis Prime]

So if a GL sequel isn't happening, what should WB/DC do about its superhero properties given that Nolan's leaving after DKR and superman rights in a limbo after MOS, in your opinion? Should they continue on with B list superheroes while Batman is undergoing a reboot, or stop taking risk with the movie franchises and instead concentrate on cartoons to promote its lesser known characters to build awareness for GA?

[biolumen]

With each day, Deadline revises GL's weekend estimate downward. It's now expected to place 7th, just behind 'Monte Carlo' and two behind 'Super 8'. A mere 3 weeks into release and it's 4 day holiday weekend total couldn't even break double digits.

7. Green Lantern 3D (Warner Bros) Week 3 [3,280 Theaters]
Friday $1.9M, Saturday $2.3M, Sunday $2.3M, Monday
Three-Day Weekend $6.5M, Four-Day Holiday $8M, Cume $103.6M
Meanwhile, Transformers 3 is looking at $416 million WW thanks in large part to foreign markets.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/transformers-3-hosting-3000-midnights-and-2700-sneaks-for-exclusive-3d-tuesday/

[TheVileOne]

So if a GL sequel isn't happening, what should WB/DC do about its superhero properties given that Nolan's leaving after DKR and superman rights in a limbo after MOS, in your opinion? Should they continue on with B list superheroes while Batman is undergoing a reboot, or stop taking risk with the movie franchises and instead concentrate on cartoons to promote its lesser known characters to build awareness for GA?
They should replace the current DCE hierarchy. Their current model isn't working very well.

[Metallo]

How embarassing...

obviously. I don't think Constantine was terrible but they tried to homogenize it for American audiences and it still didn't give them a monster hit. I'm an American...but I had no problem with Constantin being British. I did have a problem with Keanu Reeves being cast. Even if you strip away his Britishness if you look at who that character was based on Keanu doesn't really fit. I felt the same way about Ryan Reynolds as Green Lantern. i don't get that same vibe from him as the man who served as the model for Hal Jordan. Always important to get the heart off he character right. With Reynolds i felt like i was watching Van Wilder, protector of sector 2804 sometimes.

They should replace the current DCE hierarchy. Their current model isn't working very well.

Not only does WB need to work on DC Entertainment but WB needs to work on the way IT makes decisions about these kinds of properties. The problems at the top and the way things are delegated.

For over 15 years I've looked at the decisions Warner Brothers have made concerning DC comics on tv and film and I just can't fathom how they still haven't learned from many mistakes. I mean yeah there's a lot off corporate turnover and changes in power but you'd tyhink some of the new guys could look at the errors of the past and adjust accordingly. But I see some of the same mistakes they were making 15 years ago.

[KalMart]

So if a GL sequel isn't happening, what should WB/DC do about its superhero properties given that Nolan's leaving after DKR and superman rights in a limbo after MOS, in your opinion? Should they continue on with B list superheroes while Batman is undergoing a reboot, or stop taking risk with the movie franchises and instead concentrate on cartoons to promote its lesser known characters to build awareness for GA?

WB should keep a door open for whichever superhero characters good filmmakers want to make a movie of, instead of trying to force them all out there to 'keep up with Marvel' or what have you. If two filmmakers want to make a Batman movie, and Batman is already taken and no-one is pitching a Flash or Plastic man or what have you, tough luck...no superhero movies for that year. Then they can concentrate on original films and projects with top filmmakers that have been working well for them thus far, and maybe find another novel series.

Let DCE concentrate more on comics/video games/animation...and perhaps help on the occasional superhero movie...but let it be the filmmakers' show. In general for WB, get back to the formula that's resulted in their best and most successful films...supporting the vision of a good filmmaker (excluding SR). Go ahead and let Marvel flood the market with their comic-based movies...WB may end up with fewer superhero movies, but they very well could be better movies. Obviously, it'll be hard to pass on what's perceived as a big market ripe for the picking, but it could already be passing its prime. Maybe try one more other character.

[Ita-KalEl]

So if a GL sequel isn't happening, what should WB/DC do about its superhero properties given that Nolan's leaving after DKR and superman rights in a limbo after MOS, in your opinion? Should they continue on with B list superheroes while Batman is undergoing a reboot, or stop taking risk with the movie franchises and instead concentrate on cartoons to promote its lesser known characters to build awareness for GA?

You continue to write that MOS is the final superman movie. I don't think so. If successful (+500m ww) they'll do a sequel in two years from the release date.

At WB they'll continue with Superman/Batman, trying periodically to introduce a new character. Exactly like Marvel has done since 2000.
For years they have done only X-Men-Spiderman movies with some "test": Hulk, Electra, Daredevil (all terrible flops)...the truth is that Iron-Man was their first successful "secondary" character.

They simply don't have to give up.

[merced]

So if a GL sequel isn't happening, what should WB/DC do about its superhero properties given that Nolan's leaving after DKR and superman rights in a limbo after MOS, in your opinion? Should they continue on with B list superheroes while Batman is undergoing a reboot, or stop taking risk with the movie franchises and instead concentrate on cartoons to promote its lesser known characters to build awareness for GA?

I think they need to get the Batman relaunch up as first priority.

Keep a JL film in the plans - and make sure the new Batman actor is contracted to make at least one JL film appearance.

With Superman no longer being made by WB, they need to find another solo hero that does well at the box office. Listen to all kinds of proposals and look for a talented director. Something will emerge. DC has a huge staple and mabe it won't be WW or Aqaman or Flash but aother character that catches on and pulls an Ironman.

WB shouldn't expect to put a live action superhero film out every year. That niche belongs to Marvel. Every other year is fine.

Let DCE concenrate on animated straight to DVD superhero films. They are good at this and making tons of money at far less risk than a live action film.

[KalMart]

You continue to write that MOS is the final superman movie. I don't think so. If successful (+500m ww) they'll do a sequel in two years from the release date.

Not if WB/DC and the S&S heirs (and their lawyer) are still fighting over revenue/royalty shares. And the kicker is that the more successful MOS is, the messier it will make that.

[merced]

Not if WB/DC and the S&S heirs (and their lawyer) are still fighting over revenue/royalty shares. And the kicker is that the mores successful MOS is, the messier it will make that.

Exactly. Lots on these boards are in denial of how serious this is and that the odds are there won't be sequel because of the lawsuit - given that neither side seems to want to negotiate seriously.

[KalMart]

Exactly. Lots on these boards are in denial of how serious this is and that the odds are there won't be sequel because of the lawsuit - given that neither side seems to want to negotiate seriously.

And that at certain lawyer has shareholding interest in Superman, as well as a production company that he's trying to get started.

[merced]

And that at certain lawyer has shareholding interest in Superman, as well as a production company that he's trying to get started.

Yes, Tobberoff as part of his fee from the heirs is going to get a big portion of their share of the rights.

So the rights are split between DC, the heirs and Tobberoff. Toberoff clearly wants to use his rights to make Superman films and start a film company.

However, WB and DC will sue anyone who tries to do anything Superman. Just as the heirs will sue WB if it tries to do anything Superman.

Bottom line, Supeman is dead as a franchise after mid-2013. The legal battle will probably go on for a decade. Ironically by the time it is settled andthe heirs can use their portion the the rights they will only have a few years to exploit those rights as all the rights go public in 2030. No one owns Superman at that point.

[KalMart]

Yes, Tobberoff as part of his fee from the heirs is going to get a big portion of their share of the rights.

So the rights are split between DC, the heirs and Tobberoff. Toberoff clearly wants to use his rights to make Superman films and start a film company.

However, WB and DC will sue anyone who tries to do anything Superman. Just as the heirs will sue WB if it tries to do anything Superman.

Bottom line, Supeman is dead as a franchise after mid-2013. The legal battle will probably go on for a decade. Ironically by the time it is settled andthe heirs can use their portion the the rights they will only have a few years to exploit those rights as all the rights go public in 2030. No one owns Superman at that point.
I think some figure that if MOS does really well, they'll want to reconcile even more because there's more money. Happy days for everyone, etc.

But generally, people will fight much more vigorously over a million dollars than they will over a quarter.

[WarBlade]

So if a GL sequel isn't happening, what should WB/DC do about its superhero properties given that Nolan's leaving after DKR and superman rights in a limbo after MOS, in your opinion?

They should get around to putting Frank Miller's Ronin (http://www.jdmfilmreviews.com/frank-miller-ronin/) on the screen. It's taking forever! :doh:

[merced]

I think some figure that if MOS does really well, they'll want to reconcile even more because there's more money. Happy days for everyone, etc.

But generally, people will fight much more vigorously over a million dollars than they will over a quarter.

That's true.

WB/DC will be fine w/o Superman. he's not a flagship character for them.

Batman, Flash, Green Lantern, JLA and Aquaman all outsell Superman now.

That tells me that the future for another solo DC franchise is not Supes anyway but one of these other more popular and relatable characters. IMO they could be far more lucrative than Superman if developed over time.

Easier said than done as we just saw with GL.

But the right actor, script and director and I think WB could find itself with it's own Ironman.

I'm sad for the heirs as this will be in the courts for a decade to come. Costing them a bundle. And when they finally get the OK to use their rights they'll have 5 or 6 years only to exploit them. When it's all said and done, the heirs are not going to make a lot from having recaptured the Superman rights.

[KalMart]

That's true.

WB/DC will be fine w/o Superman. he's not a flagship character for them.

Batman, Flash, Green Lantern, JLA and Aquaman all outsell Superman now.

That tells me that the future for another solo DC franchise is not Supes anyway but one of these other more popular and relatable characters. IMO they could be far more lucrative than Superman if developed over time.

Easier said than done as we just saw with GL.

But the right actor, script and director and I think WB could find itself with it's own Ironman.

I'm sad think for the heirs as this will be in the courts for a decade to come. Costing them a bundle. And when they finally get the OK to use their rights they'll have 5 or 6 years only to exploit them. When it's all said and done, the heirs are not going to make a lot from having recaptured the Superman rights.
They can't do anything with it anyway without WB. They're not publishers or a production company, and its not like Marvel or some other name will want to develop half a Superman and pay WB a fortune to use the other half. Toberoff really throws a big monkey wrench into everything. Just the fact that the heirs agreed to his 'take' tells you that they can't buy it back from him if they couldn't afford to just pay him as a lawyer...especially if nothing's being done with Superman while in legal limbo. So yeah, they're pretty-much screwed either way.

But anyway, it's not like WB will fold altogether if nothing happens with Superman...or even if no other DC characters make it big outside of Batman. They're still making money hand-over-fist in areas outside of comics/DC.

I wonder if the author of Harry Potter has any other books?

[merced]

They can't do anything with it anyway without WB. They're not publishers or a production company, and its not like Marvel or some other name will want to develop half a Superman and pay WB a fortune to use the other half. Toberoff really throws a big monkey wrench into everything. Just the fact that the heirs agreed to his 'take' tells you that they can't buy it back from him if they couldn't afford to just pay him as a lawyer...especially if nothing's being done with Superman while in legal limbo. So yeah, they're pretty-much screwed either way.

But anyway, it's not like WB will fold altogether if nothing happens with Superman...or even if no other DC characters make it big outside of Batman. They're still making money hand-over-fist in areas outside of comics/DC.

I wonder if the author of Harry Potter has any other books?

ITA. WB doesn't need Superman. They also don't need to try to put out a superhero film every year. That s not their forte. Their strength is more in adapting novels such as HP.

I noted not a word about Cavill being optioned for sequels. In prior times with Routh, RR and Bale and others when they were signed on shortly after the news would come out that they had options for 2 more films after the first.

Cavill's agent knows what going on with the legal stuff and that there is little chance for a sequel so I'd guess he's refused to tie himself into a contract that isn't going to come to pass and that will prevent him from taking substantial film roles in the years out from MOS.

[The Sage]

And I noted that this isn't the Superman thread. Carry the conversation to that section folks.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I wouldn't be surprised if GL missed that 120mil mark.

[chiefchirpa]

.. and certainly missed 100 million Overseas target.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

That wouldn't be suprising either.

[KangConquers]

It's pretty sad that DC has spent their last 4 or 5 years trying to develop Green Lantern into their franchise player and his movie isn't even going to beat Ghost Rider for attendance.

[herolee10]

Wow; in terms of quality, the stories for both GL and Transformers 3 were about the same for me, and yet Transformers 3 has made 399 million worldwide in about one week, whereas GL hasn't even passed the 200 million mark for their total gross throughout its entire time in the BO (at least, from the last time that I had checked).

[Mysteryman]

The story just didnt resonate for the general audience.
Sad but true.

[Nemesis Prime]

The story just didnt resonate for the general audience.
Sad but true.

Yeah.. Thor did a much better job of explaining the Asgard imo.

[CaptainCraig]

It's pretty sad that DC has spent their last 4 or 5 years trying to develop Green Lantern into their franchise player and his movie isn't even going to beat Ghost Rider for attendance.
Heck, at the rate it's going it may do well to make the same money ($115m) 4yrs later and with 3-D.

This is so bad.
I laugh at people who still are taking to heart that this has a shot at a sequel.
I've read numerous times something like, "Warners needs a franchise with Potter ending, may as well be GL."
Warners would be losing even more money on a GL sequel, how do they not comprehend that? Warners would be best concerned with better managing of funds, solid script and less suits entangled in production for a Flash, WW, Aquaman, Swamp Thing (this may be the sleeper franchise potential imo). Something, even a smaller character like Blue Beetle, Resurrection Man, Booster Gold, Manhunter....anything would be better than throwing more good money after bad in the form of a GL sequel.

[Saitou Hajime]

For over 15 years I've looked at the decisions Warner Brothers have made concerning DC comics on tv and film and I just can't fathom how they still haven't learned from many mistakes. I mean yeah there's a lot off corporate turnover and changes in power but you'd tyhink some of the new guys could look at the errors of the past and adjust accordingly. But I see some of the same mistakes they were making 15 years ago.

Something I can't shake off my perception of WB over the years is how I believe they see comic book movies in general, going back to the horror stories of the pre-Nolan/Singer development hells for the Batman/Superman sequels. More than any other major studio, they seem to view CBMs as nothing more than 2 hour commercials for toys and merchandise, or a linchpin for some new multimedia bonanza (for the lack of an appropriate term).

[Gamma Burst]

Wow; in terms of quality, the stories for both GL and Transformers 3 were about the same for me, and yet Transformers 3 has made 399 million worldwide in about one week, whereas GL hasn't even passed the 200 million mark for their total gross throughout its entire time in the BO (at least, from the last time that I had checked).

It hasn't even reached 150M, actually...

[CaptainCraig]

^^^^
True, out 3 weeks and still not over $150m worldwide!!!

Sad, so, so, so sad.

[CaptainStacy]

It's pretty sad that DC has spent their last 4 or 5 years trying to develop Green Lantern into their franchise player and his movie isn't even going to beat Ghost Rider for attendance.

At this point, im wondering if it's even going to beat Green HORNET...

[chiefchirpa]

At this point, im wondering if it's even going to beat Green HORNET...

Hornet got the better date in this case.

Mediocre films like Green Lantern and Green Hornet shouldn't ever dare to be sandwiched or worst like it is now, superseded by films like Cars 2, Transformers 3 and Harry Potter 7.2

[KalMart]

Heck, at the rate it's going it may do well to make the same money ($115m) 4yrs later and with 3-D.

This is so bad.
I laugh at people who still are taking to heart that this has a shot at a sequel.
I've read numerous times something like, "Warners needs a franchise with Potter ending, may as well be GL."
Warners would be losing even more money on a GL sequel, how do they not comprehend that? Warners would be best concerned with better managing of funds, solid script and less suits entangled in production for a Flash, WW, Aquaman, Swamp Thing (this may be the sleeper franchise potential imo). Something, even a smaller character like Blue Beetle, Resurrection Man, Booster Gold, Manhunter....anything would be better than throwing more good money after bad in the form of a GL sequel.

Or just stop with so many superhero movies and concentrate more on original film projects.

[Octoberist]

It's pretty sad that DC has spent their last 4 or 5 years trying to develop Green Lantern into their franchise player and his movie isn't even going to beat Ghost Rider for attendance.

It's very pitiful.

[herolee10]

SR had less action; a controversial kid, and a rehash villain, and yet I think it did much better than GL in a shorter amount of time as well if I'm not mistaken.

[HighFivingMF]

It's Superman after all.

[KalMart]

It's just Superman after all.

Fixed. :oldrazz::woot:

[Silver Surfer]

It's pretty sad that DC has spent their last 4 or 5 years trying to develop Green Lantern into their franchise player and his movie isn't even going to beat Ghost Rider for attendance.
Truth be told, DC made two big mistakes. One was making GL the first non Supes/Bats character to get a movie. It should have been Flash or WW, two characters who are not only popular in the GA but their concept is almost universally known and understood. GL falls short on both accounts.

Second mistake was making Hal Jordan the lead, it should have been John Stewart. I know that Hal is the most prolific Lantern in the comics and I will even agree that he "deserves" it BUT looking at it strictly from a business stand point, John was the safer bet. John was the most popular Lantern in the eyes of the GA thanks to JLU: The Animated series, I can't tell you how many times I have heard from friends or read online that: "Why is a white guy playing GL?" I remember when IM2 came out there was so much buzz around War Machine because people wanted to see a Black Superhero, even if he was a sidekick. If DC/WB heralded GL in as the first comic book Black superhero in the lead role, it would have drawn a lot of buzz.

Almost every review I have read says Hal is a cheap knockoff of Tony Stark or Peter Parker, John would have automatically distanced himself from the typical super hero build because of his military background and rough upbringing. John as a whole would have had an edge and a uniqueness to him, something Hal didn't, at least not in the eyes of the GA.

[jacobed]

Until this movie was announced I had no idea there was a white GL. I always thought John was the only GL and I loved him in the Justice League cartoon.

[Liam_H]

^Very true that the GA would have gravitated more towards John Stewart due to JL cartoon and that he has a different background compared to Hal that is very similar to other heroes. But I still think you can tell interesting stories with Hal (which they failed at miserably) and at the end of the trilogy probably have the ring pass on to Stewart when Hal retires from the Corps.

[herolee10]

Interestingly enough, I didn't even know that John Stewart existed as a character until JLU, and the only human Lanterns that I was aware of were only Hal Jordan and Kyle.lol

[MWF]

Something, even a smaller character like Blue Beetle, Resurrection Man, Booster Gold, Manhunter....anything would be better than throwing more good money after bad in the form of a GL sequel.

If we're talking about Kate Spencer here, then I wish. I've been saying for a while now that a Manhunter television series could be awesome, but a movie would be just as cool in my eyes.

Let's also not forget that Hawkman has supposedly been eyed by Warner Brothers for a while now as having film potential. Personally, I just don't see it. Never mind his lack of popularity amongst general audiences, the look itself would be kind of difficult to pull off in a convincing matter on screen. I know there was that angel movie that came out a few years ago (Legion, I think it was called), but it's one thing to have angels flying around clubbing people on the head and another to buy that a guy is willingly dressing up like that to club evil people on the head all in the supposed name of love and justice.

Second mistake was making Hal Jordan the lead, it should have been John Stewart. I know that Hal is the most prolific Lantern in the comics and I will even agree that he "deserves" it BUT looking at it strictly from a business stand point, John was the safer bet. John was the most popular Lantern in the eyes of the GA thanks to JLU: The Animated series, I can't tell you how many times I have heard from friends or read online that: "Why is a white guy playing GL?" I remember when IM2 came out there was so much buzz around War Machine because people wanted to see a Black Superhero, even if he was a sidekick. If DC/WB heralded GL in as the first comic book Black superhero in the lead role, it would have drawn a lot of buzz.

It really would have only made a difference if his origin story grossly affected the overarching plot of the film, which I don't believe it would have. Reviews likely still would have been bad, and thus so, too, would have been the word of mouth.

Plus, I don't know how much pull DC or Johns specifically really had in this thing in the end, but with Hal being "the" Green Lantern of the comic books, I can't see the brass at DC wanting it to be John Stewart who ultimately got the film deal in the end. Especially Johns, whose favorites seem completely untouchable to continuity changes (not orchestrated by Johns himself, anyway) and deaths in the books themselves, so why should the films be any different?

But regardless of playing personal favorites, I can imagine the thought process being that it would have been counterproductive to the supposed cross pollination of movie-goers into budding comic book readers (though I doubt this mythical consumer even really exists, to be perfectly honest).

[KalMart]

Truth be told, DC made two big mistakes. One was making GL the first non Supes/Bats character to get a movie. It should have been Flash or WW, two characters who are not only popular in the GA but their concept is almost universally known and understood. GL falls short on both accounts.
How so?

Batman, Superman, iron Man, Spidey, and Xmen are because there's been popular movies. But WW and Flash? the only real exposure has been the JL cartoons...but how much of this GA really followed that show like comic fans did? I don't see WW or Flash having any edge over GL in general popularity or even awareness as anything but a comic character. The only real difference is perhaps how interested a general viewer would be in their respective concepts...much of which would rely on how they are reinterpreted for motion pictures.

Put it this way...GL was no less known or understood than Iron Man was before Iron Man the movie opened....and that lack of familiarity didn't hurt it. Now....if one were proposing that a guy who makes glowing green shapes from his ring and recites a rhyming poem out loud is inherently harder to take seriously than a guy who builds a tactical weapon from a metallic suit...you might be on to something.

[Silver Surfer]

How so?

Batman, Superman, iron Man, Spidey, and Xmen are because there's been popular movies. But WW and Flash? the only real exposure has been the JL cartoons...but how much of this GA really followed that show like comic fans did? I don't see WW or Flash having any edge over GL in general popularity or even awareness as anything but a comic character. The only real difference is perhaps how interested a general viewer would be in their respective concepts...much of which would rely on how they are reinterpreted for motion pictures.
Before the movie came out WW and Flash were way way more popular than GL. Everyone knows about Wonder Woman, she is the female superhero and prolly the biggest feminist icon in fiction, her name recognition alone is light years ahead of GL. WW is also a huge part of pop culture, her costume is well known, she is often referenced in TV shows, movies. It's not even close, you can walk down the street and ask people about WW and they will know what you are talking about. Heck my Grandparents knows about Wonder Woman, ask them about Green Lantern and they'll think you're talking about a lamp.

Flash, although not as popular as WW is still more popular than GL. People know what his deal is, he is well known as the fastest man alive, red and gold uniform, he's no A-lister but he's certainly ahead of GL in awareness and popularity.

[CaptainStacy]

How so?

Batman, Superman, iron Man, Spidey, and Xmen are because there's been popular movies. But WW and Flash? the only real exposure has been the JL cartoons....


Both have also had live-action tv shows. GL has not.

[CaptainStacy]

Until this movie was announced I had no idea there was a white GL. I always thought John was the only GL and I loved him in the Justice League cartoon.

You're not alone. My daughter is in high school, and when the trailer first came out, many of her friends asked me why he wasnt black. (they know i read comics).

[dnno1]

Yes, Tobberoff as part of his fee from the heirs is going to get a big portion of their share of the rights.

So the rights are split between DC, the heirs and Tobberoff. Toberoff clearly wants to use his rights to make Superman films and start a film company.

However, WB and DC will sue anyone who tries to do anything Superman. Just as the heirs will sue WB if it tries to do anything Superman.

Bottom line, Supeman is dead as a franchise after mid-2013. The legal battle will probably go on for a decade. Ironically by the time it is settled andthe heirs can use their portion the the rights they will only have a few years to exploit those rights as all the rights go public in 2030. No one owns Superman at that point.

So no Superman film will be made the name goes into public domain, and Marvel will change the name of Sentry to Superman. The end.

[DaveMoral]

How so?

Batman, Superman, iron Man, Spidey, and Xmen are because there's been popular movies. But WW and Flash? the only real exposure has been the JL cartoons...but how much of this GA really followed that show like comic fans did? I don't see WW or Flash having any edge over GL in general popularity or even awareness as anything but a comic character. The only real difference is perhaps how interested a general viewer would be in their respective concepts...much of which would rely on how they are reinterpreted for motion pictures.

Put it this way...GL was no less known or understood than Iron Man was before Iron Man the movie opened....and that lack of familiarity didn't hurt it. Now....if one were proposing that a guy who makes glowing green shapes from his ring and recites a rhyming poem out loud is inherently harder to take seriously than a guy who builds a tactical weapon from a metallic suit...you might be on to something.

I find the idea that the Flash is any more popular than GL kind of funny, because I had a conversation at work with a couple guys that have fun at superhero films and read comics as kids. It consisted of this "the Flash sucks."

[CaptainCraig]

Something, even a smaller character like Blue Beetle, Resurrection Man, Booster Gold, Manhunter....anything would be better than throwing more good money after bad in the form of a GL sequel.
If we're talking about Kate Spencer here, then I wish. I've been saying for a while now that a Manhunter television series could be awesome, but a movie would be just as cool in my eyes.
We are. I specifically tossed in a female lead property in addition to WW and other than Birds of Prey(failed TV show).

Has everyone seen the Yahoo!Movies list of "Flops of 2011...so far"? That's right GL made the list.
For all those clinging to the smoke blown by Warners that a sequel was on track tell me again how many flops, heck dissapointments, get direct sequels???

[merced]

Before the movie came out WW and Flash were way way more popular than GL. Everyone knows about Wonder Woman, she is the female superhero and prolly the biggest feminist icon in fiction, her name recognition alone is light years ahead of GL. WW is also a huge part of pop culture, her costume is well known, she is often referenced in TV shows, movies. It's not even close, you can walk down the street and ask people about WW and they will know what you are talking about. Heck my Grandparents knows about Wonder Woman, ask them about Green Lantern and they'll think you're talking about a lamp.

Flash, although not as popular as WW is still more popular than GL. People know what his deal is, he is well known as the fastest man alive, red and gold uniform, he's no A-lister but he's certainly ahead of GL in awareness and popularity.

The top selling books at DC are Batman, GL, Flash and JL.

Superman is way back selling less than 30,000/month.

It's why the reboot will see Superman dropped to just 2 titles and Batman and GL increased to 5 or 6.

So DC sees where the popularity is based on sales of it's comic, toys and t-shirts.

Given this, I'd think there is a way for Flash and GL to be big film franchises. Bigger than Supes if not as big as Bats.

Hope someone is annalyzing the DC numbers and sales figures.

[Docker2.0]

Good thing you said that Merced because I've been saying for years that WW would not succeed in a film. Why? 1) Because they can't even get her right in the comics, how the f are they going to get her right on film? 2) Female superheroes normally don't do well, they just don't for whatever reason. 3) WW's popularity is way overblown. She is known but not popular which is two different things. Honestly as a comic book reader, her story is going to be difficult to tell which is why I understand how they changed her story on the tv show to be a business woman. Can you imagine that story being told about a island full of hot women made of clay with super powers and references to an invisible jet? :dry: yeah I thought not.

[DarKush]

How so?

Batman, Superman, iron Man, Spidey, and Xmen are because there's been popular movies. But WW and Flash? the only real exposure has been the JL cartoons...but how much of this GA really followed that show like comic fans did? I don't see WW or Flash having any edge over GL in general popularity or even awareness as anything but a comic character. The only real difference is perhaps how interested a general viewer would be in their respective concepts...much of which would rely on how they are reinterpreted for motion pictures.

Put it this way...GL was no less known or understood than Iron Man was before Iron Man the movie opened....and that lack of familiarity didn't hurt it. Now....if one were proposing that a guy who makes glowing green shapes from his ring and recites a rhyming poem out loud is inherently harder to take seriously than a guy who builds a tactical weapon from a metallic suit...you might be on to something.

Depsite his TV show, which only lasted a season, some 20 years ago, I agree that Flash is probably about on the same level as GL. But not Wonder Woman. She has nearly universal name recognition, she had a successful TV show, and she has factored in DC's marketing a whole lot longer than either GL or Flash IMO. Wonder Woman is a far more popular character, a more consequential character than GL or Flash.

Now that's not saying that her publishing history has been as good as GL's. I don't know if she has anything that can rival what Geoff Johns has done with GL over the last five years or so. But still, she has the name recognition that GL and even Flash don't have. Her look is also more iconic.

[Docker2.0]

double postilicious!

[HighFivingMF]

2) Female superheroes normally don't do well, they just don't for whatever reason.

You mean Supergirl, Elektra, and Catwoman? I don't think those did poorly because they starred women.

Tomb Raider, Charlie's Angels, Kill Bill, Resident Evil, and Salt were action movies that did good worldwide numbers starring just women. They all had sequels that did just as well or even better, Salt aside. If you make a good enough Wonder Woman movie on a not ridiculously huge budget with a likable lead and a strong supporting cast (especially the villain) there'll be a profit.

[Docker2.0]

Depsite his TV show, which only lasted a season, some 20 years ago, I agree that Flash is probably about on the same level as GL. But not Wonder Woman. She has nearly universal name recognition, she had a successful TV show, and she has factored in DC's marketing a whole lot longer than either GL or Flash IMO. Wonder Woman is a far more popular character, a more consequential character than GL or Flash.

Now that's not saying that her publishing history has been as good as GL's. I don't know if she has anything that can rival what Geoff Johns has done with GL over the last five years or so. But still, she has the name recognition that GL and even Flash don't have. Her look is also more iconic.

LOL if you think WW will sell. Her cartoon dvd is the lowest selling dvd out of the Marvel/DC rivalry at one point and that says a lot about a character that had her own tv show. It may have changed now but for a minute it was true. The tv show has failed but you have to look at the reason how it failed. 1) the costume. How many times did it change and they STILL couldn't get it right without her coming off corny or just odd? 2) the concept. A business woman? We heard a lot of fan backlash but let's be honest, what could they do. Honestly people were saying she deserves a movie not a tv show but she hasn't done anything noteworthy since the freakin 70's! Whether it be a tv show, movie or cartoon(other than JLA, and she wasn't even integral there). People say all the time at how popular she is but DC dropped the ball with her. After she had a tv show in the 70's, they should have followed up with a movie in the 80's or 90's. Now it's been over 30 years and now they want to re-introduce her to the public. I just don't see it going so well. WB did the right thing by going for either GL or Flash as their next property. They should have just lowered the budget or did something to get more involved with the script or something. Can't believe John's was involved in the movie and let it go down this route. :huh:

[KalMart]

Both have also had live-action tv shows. GL has not.

And how strongly do those shows still resonate with moviegoers these days?


Did Iron Man need a live-action TV show?

[Blackman]

You mean Supergirl, Elektra, and Catwoman? I don't think those did poorly because they starred women.

Tomb Raider, Charlie's Angels, Kill Bill, Resident Evil, and Salt were action movies that did good worldwide numbers starring just women. They all had sequels that did just as well or even better, Salt aside. If you make a good enough Wonder Woman movie on a not ridiculously huge budget with a likable lead and a strong supporting cast (especially the villain) there'll be a profit.

This what Ive been saying.

[Docker2.0]

You mean Supergirl, Elektra, and Catwoman? I don't think those did poorly because they starred women.

Tomb Raider, Charlie's Angels, Kill Bill, Resident Evil, and Salt were action movies that did good worldwide numbers starring just women. They all had sequels that did just as well or even better, Salt aside. If you make a good enough Wonder Woman movie on a not ridiculously huge budget with a likable lead and a strong supporting cast (especially the villain) there'll be a profit.

Resident Evil barely made it's money back. Charlie Angel's sucked, both of them. Kill Bill, Resident Evil and Salt were good so I'll give you them. But they all had good leading ladies with good directors with good to semi-good plots. I honestly have tried to look at WW and can't even think of any memorable comics that she has been in that can translate to film but I just can't. She's just a tough sell. And honestly for the movies you just named that did well, let's be honest you can name like 50 more that did bad.

[KalMart]

Before the movie came out WW and Flash were way way more popular than GL. Everyone knows about Wonder Woman, she is the female superhero and prolly the biggest feminist icon in fiction, her name recognition alone is light years ahead of GL. WW is also a huge part of pop culture, her costume is well known, she is often referenced in TV shows, movies. It's not even close, you can walk down the street and ask people about WW and they will know what you are talking about. Heck my Grandparents knows about Wonder Woman, ask them about Green Lantern and they'll think you're talking about a lamp.

Flash, although not as popular as WW is still more popular than GL. People know what his deal is, he is well known as the fastest man alive, red and gold uniform, he's no A-lister but he's certainly ahead of GL in awareness and popularity.
I think you're confusing popularity with familiarity outside of comics fans. They'll know the names and basic gist of what they are, but outside of Superman or Batman, everyone else is basically just the stuff of comics.

Just like Iron Man was before they made a popular film. So whether it's GL, WW, or Flash...any one of them would have come into theaters with the same lack of popularity outside of comics...GL didn't have more of a handicap than the others. It's up to the movie to take them out of the 'funny pages' and make them popular...some, like Xmen and Iron Man, do it well. Others, like GL, FF, and Ghost Rider, don't.

[The Sage]

I'd like chime in on Wonder Woman, but this isn't the thread or section for that. Redirect it to the DC Comics films, guys.

[HighFivingMF]

Resident Evil barely made it's money back. Charlie Angel's sucked, both of them. Kill Bill, Resident Evil and Salt were good so I'll give you them. But they all had good leading ladies with good directors with good to semi-good plots. I honestly have tried to look at WW and can't even think of any memorable comics that she has been in that can translate to film but I just can't. She's just a tough sell. And honestly for the movies you just named that did well, let's be honest you can name like 50 more that did bad.

Resident Evil cost 30 million or so and made 100 million worldwide.
Resident Evil 2 was 45 million and made 130 million worldwide.
Resident Evil 3 made almost 150 million worldwide.
Resident Evil 4 was 60 million and fell just shy of 300 million worldwide.

Regardless of Charlie's Angels' quality, it still made money. McG did something right.

You can't think of any good Wonder Woman comics? What are those things on movies that come up with stories? I forget their name.

" She's just a tough sell. And honestly for the movies you just named that did well, let's be honest you can name like 50 more that did bad."
You can do that with any type of movie.

[Docker2.0]

Resident Evil cost 30 million or so and made 100 million worldwide.
Resident Evil 2 was 45 million and made 130 million worldwide.
Resident Evil 3 made almost 150 million worldwide.
Resident Evil 4 was 60 million and fell just shy of 300 million worldwide.

Regardless of Charlie's Angels' quality, it still made money. McG did something right.

You can't think of any good Wonder Woman comics? What are those things on movies that come up with stories? I forget their name.

" She's just a tough sell. And honestly for the movies you just named that did well, let's be honest you can name like 50 more that did bad."
You can do that with any type of movie.
You are talking about worldwide numbers and those are not outstanding. They are basically average numbers. Domestically they barely made their budget back if they did. And that's what studios look at. I'd like chime in on Wonder Woman, but this isn't the thread or section for that. Redirect it to the DC Comics films, guys. Yes sir!! :awesome:

I hate that you outrank me on SHH! :argh:

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Because I liked him I do wish they would have used Stewart, provided the script was way better than what we ultimately got.

And it's a fact because of the cartoon that most normal people were more familar with Stewart than Jordan and as was said, from a business prospective it would have been smarter to use Jordan. But the studios think that the general public is racist so...

[EML420]

What did GL make this weekend? Any one got the numbers and I would have loved it if Stewart was used but it would have made just has many people angry that they didnt use Hal.

[CaptainCraig]

^^^
Actuals still weren't up last I checked about 15min ago but it's looking like just under $8m with a domestic total of about $103.6m aka craptacular still. I think it was another hard 66% weekend drop again.

[EML420]

Thanks for the numbers but thats brutal I can only wonder what this upcoming week box office will look like.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

What did GL make this weekend? Any one got the numbers and I would have loved it if Stewart was used but it would have made just has many people angry that they didnt use Hal.It only would have pissed off nerds and racists.

As for the boxoffice:

The movie has only made 103.6mil, it had a nearly a 64% drop for the 3day weekend and a 56% drop for the 4day hollyday weekend, it only did 6.6mil for the 3day and 7.9mil for the four day....Wow are those numbers awful. Transformers obviously hurt it but the word of mouth must be brutal.

[CaptainCraig]

Nothing changed from the 4-day estimates.
GL pulled in $7.9m for a current domestic take of $103.6m and worldwide of $136.9m. :csad:

I honestly think best case is that with two new openers this weekend that GL could be leap frogged by a current release and place #10 this upcoming weekend. I could see it out of the Top 10 altogether though, that wouldn't surprise me if it happened.

Being a short week GL may find itself at $105m by Thursday and if lucky pull in another $3m for the 7/8-7/10 weekend. Still short of $110m domestic.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^All of the explaining that all of us are doing just points to one fact, this movie is a disaster boxoffice wise. This couldn't have gone worse for WB.

[dark_b]

i am no BO expert but even i see that GL is a disaster at the BO. a 360 Reynolds naked dolly shot could make more money then GL

[Snare]

You are talking about worldwide numbers and those are not outstanding. They are basically average numbers. Domestically they barely made their budget back if they did. And that's what studios look at. Yes sir!! :awesome:

I hate that you outrank me on SHH! :argh:

Yeah, because American B.O is worth more than other countires..

:whatever:

[KalMart]

Yeah, because American B.O is worth more than other countires..

:whatever:

Jealous?







;)

[superion]

Yeah, because American B.O is worth more than other countires..

:whatever:

Actually it is. Movie studios get more of the money from the US box office than foreign. The theaters keep something like 60% of the gross overseas while in the US it is reversed and the split is 60-40 in favor of the studio.

[merced]

Yeah, because American B.O is worth more than other countires..

:whatever:

It's true the studio keeps a bigger percentage of the US BO. Around 55% - 60%. Overseas numbers are lower due to additional distribution and other costs.

GL will not make it's money back from the worldwide box. It's not alone - SR didn't makes it's money back either.

[MWF]

It only would have pissed off nerds and racists.

And we all know the large majority of the former group would have gone to see the movie anyway. Like that Simpsons episode with the new Galaxy Wars movie or whatever it was supposedly called: "Worst. Galaxy Wars. Ever. I will only see it four more times. Today."

The quote is something to that effect, anyway.:D

[I SEE SPIDEY]

i am no BO expert but even i see that GL is a disaster at the BO. a 360 Reynolds naked dolly shot could make more money then GLI'd go see that 3 times!:awesome:

And we all know the large majority of the former group would have gone to see the movie anyway. Like that Simpsons episode with the new Galaxy Wars movie or whatever it was supposedly called: "Worst. Galaxy Wars. Ever. I will only see it four more times. Today."

The quote is something to that effect, anyway.:Dlol I remember that episode being dead on about it's criticism of Lucus's films and the nerd community at large.


GL will not make it's money back from the worldwide box. It's not alone - SR didn't makes it's money back either.SR is not a valid comparasion though because it made 391mil worldwide and this film is not going to come anywhere near those numbers with 5 years of ticket price inflation and expensive 3D tickets.

I'm no SR defender (I disliked the film quite a bit) but it was far from a bomb like GL is. It was a big disappointment considering expectations and budget but it wasn't a bomb. And it made 200mil domestically (which shows how popular Superman is. Even with a bad movie he still got a movie to 200mil total) something that no comicbook movie this year has done.

Superman Returns main problem, sequel wise, was that half of it's audience didn't care for the film and it was expected to make something bordering on Spider-Man numbers because the character was sooo well known.

[Rock Sexton]

Actually it is. Movie studios get more of the money from the US box office than foreign. The theaters keep something like 60% of the gross overseas while in the US it is reversed and the split is 60-40 in favor of the studio.

Ya, but that 40% has to pay for foreign advertising, prints, taxes, insurance, translations, etc ..... so the total ends up more like 15%.

[Docker2.0]

Yeah, because American B.O is worth more than other countires..

:whatever:

Dude don't blame me because it's the sexy thing to do. Blame the machine. :o

[Spider-Fan]

Yeah, because American B.O is worth more than other countires..

:whatever:

Actually, it is. Theaters make more money off tickets in the US than WW, because the deal with theaters gives them a larger percentage of each ticket sold. So in effect...yes it does.

[Ita-KalEl]

The top selling books at DC are Batman, GL, Flash and JL.

Superman is way back selling less than 30,000/month.

It's why the reboot will see Superman dropped to just 2 titles and Batman and GL increased to 5 or 6.

So DC sees where the popularity is based on sales of it's comic, toys and t-shirts.

Given this, I'd think there is a way for Flash and GL to be big film franchises. Bigger than Supes if not as big as Bats.

Hope someone is annalyzing the DC numbers and sales figures.

I don't exclude that WB/DC is ready to jump out from Superman franchise, but IMO there are good chances that it will not happen.
Your and Kalmart's theory has a weak point: if Superman is a dead horse, a franchise without any future, and they are making a movie only because they have been forced by a judge, why they are putting in it all he resources to make it a blockbuster?

Because they want to leave their beloved franchise with a "bang"? Do they want to "make love" for the last time with their love before losing it?
Come on...it's clear that they hope/want that the success of MOS can be the reason to start a deal with Siegels. They'll have to do it, if they want a sequel.

If your theory of "Superman sucks","Nobody is interested in it anymore" were true, they would make a low budget movie with zero chance of being a success.

[The Sage]

One more time...move the Superman debate to the Superman section.

[KalMart]

I don't exclude that WB/DC is ready to jump out from Superman franchise, but IMO there are good chances that it will not happen.
Your and Kalmart's theory has a weak point: if Superman is a dead horse, a franchise without any future, and they are making a movie only because they have been forced by a judge, why they are putting in it all he resources to make it a blockbuster?

Because they want to leave their beloved franchise with a "bang"? Do they want to "make love" for the last time with their love before losing it?

Yes....to the tune of one last payday.


And just like WB in a few years...it's time to move on from Superman now.

[CaptainStacy]

And how strongly do those shows still resonate with moviegoers these days?


Did Iron Man need a live-action TV show?

They are both cult favorites, especially Wonder Woman...

No Iron Man didnt, but GL seems to need all the help it can get. :yay:

[KalMart]

They are both cult favorites, especially Wonder Woman...
So make a cult movie. ;)

No Iron Man didnt, but GL seems to need all the help it can get. :yay:
Might be too late.

[DaveMoral]

You know, I don't see the appeal of John Stewart over Hal Jordan other than a few people coming up on Justice League/Unlimited rather than Super Friends/Super Powers. I got into Batman from getting Super Powers toys and I remember specifically playing with Hal Jordan action figures back then because he was part of the Super Powers line. He was definitely on some episodes of Super Friends. In addition, most DC animated anything with a Green Lantern has had Hal Jordan. The Batman(those episodes were excellent too). Batman: The Brave and the Bold(though they favor Guy Gardner for some reason). Young Justice. The New Frontier. First Flight. Emerald Knights.

I don't think the weakness of this film was Hal Jordan in any way shape or form. It was the script and the marketing flubs. They had the potential for lightning in a bottle and the flubbed it up big time. And I really enjoyed the movie.

[mace1]

John stewart was in a young justice ep.

[mace1]

Originally Posted by EML420 http://forums.superherohype.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?p=20788909#post20788909)
What did GL make this weekend? Any one got the numbers and I would have loved it if Stewart was used but it would have made just has many people angry that they didnt use Hal.


It only would have pissed off nerds and racists.








True.

[Ita-KalEl]

One more time...move the Superman debate to the Superman section.

Sorry chief. :)

[mace1]

Because I liked him I do wish they would have used Stewart, provided the script was way better than what we ultimately got.

And it's a fact because of the cartoon that most normal people were more familar with Stewart than Jordan and as was said, from a business prospective it would have been smarter to use Jordan. But the studios think that the general public is racist so...

True.

[Showtime]

Yeah, because American B.O is worth more than other countires..

:whatever:


Well, it actually is in almost all cases. It's been discussed here before.

Say everything is equal, a movie makes 200 million domestic and 200 million overseas. The studio retains a higher percentage of the domestic than the overseas, thus you could say American box office is worth more.