Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 2

[DarKush]

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:

I think High Five and others have given some pretty good responses to your assertions, but let me ask you, have you read any of WW's adventures since the 70's? I'm not the biggest WW fan or reader, though I have checked out some of Gail Simone's and JMS's stories. I think WW has an underrated rogues' gallery and a lot of potential from what I've seen. It's unfortunate that her DVD is a low seller (personally the WW DVD was one of my favorites of all the DCAU films).

I do agree with you that DC has dropped the ball with her, but despite perhaps years of that, WW remains a well known character, a character that can get a greenlighted TV show, even if it failed. How many other comic heroes even get to that stage?

I also don't think her comic publishing history is a factor in whether she can have a successful movie. Blade has a much spottier record and they made gold with his movies. As others have said, with the right script, good casting, a reasonable budget, and a good marketing campaign, I think Wonder Woman could work. They might need to cast Milla Jovovich to make it all come together though:).

I would only agree with you about GL getting the nod for a film before Wonder Woman based on his recent revival in the comics and how Johns set up a cinematic vision for the comic-boggles my mind that they failed to really convey this on screen.

Wonder Woman's backstory and world is no less convulted and actually perhaps more easy to grasp than GL's. The Hercules and Xena shows, Clash of the Titans, Percy and the Olympians, all of this product travels similar waters. And even stuff like Spartacus: Blood and Sand and 300; there is an audience for Greek mythology/ancient Grecian themes. And Thor made it work, even though he is a less well known character from a perhaps less well known pantheon of gods.

[Blackman]

And WW's DVD isnt the lowest selling DVD. I dont know where you got that
If I remember correctly, when I looked up the numbers for another thread, WW was the highest selling one that didnt feature Batman or Supes

[HighFivingMF]

Wonder Woman is the best-selling one besides Doomsday, Gotham Knight, and Public Enemies dollars-wise. Copy-wise it outsold everything but Doomsday, Public Enemies and Red Hood. Just an FYI.

[BatmanInc]

It made 1 mill on Monday....it might dip under 1 million at this rate.

[Blackman]

I have to call bullsh** when people say WW wouldnt work because a) she's a female hero and b) because her comic book history isnt the greateast or most known

a) If it's a good movie I really dont think many will care about gender. Sure you can cite Catwoman and Elektra but those didnt do poorly because of female heroes they did poor because they sucked. I dont get what's hard to understand about that. It's like saying "Oh GL didnt do so well so I guess no more sci fi movies". Also, I know it's not an action movie, but Bridesmaids is generally thought to be a good movie and hasnt it made over 150 mill? Pretty damn good. People just want to see good movies

b) At the end of the day, the comics dont matter that that much. IF you asked general people who TOny Stark was in 2006, a lot of them wouldnt have known. Now because of the movie people know him.

I still think the problem WW would have is merchandising. I dont know what it's like now, but I remember when I was really little I didnt wanna play with many female action figures (at least the non Batman related ones) and I know alot of other kidsd my age at the time felt the same

I really think that next superhero projects WB/DC should do if they want to are Flash and Green Arrow.
With Flash, I hear alot of people saying superspeed hasnt been captured in live action in a spectacular way. But if they do it I REALLY think they should do Wally. I know Barry is the Flash in the comics now, but idk with alot of people complaining about how generic GL was with it's origin I think it would help the potential movie if they dont handle the origin the standard way
And I think Green Arrow is good because, Im no expert, but I cant imagine it needing a huge $150 million budget. BUt I could also see people saying GA is generic or kinda a IRon Man/Rip off

I hope the lack of success with GL doesnt stop more DC heroes being brought on screen

[merced]

It made 1 mill on Monday....it might dip under 1 million at this rate.


If so it's because Tuesday wasn't a holiday.

[dnno1]

I have to call bullsh** when people say WW wouldnt work because a) she's a female hero and b) because her comic book history isnt the greateast or most known

a) If it's a good movie I really dont think many will care about gender. Sure you can cite Catwoman and Elektra but those didnt do poorly because of female heroes they did poor because they sucked. I dont get what's hard to understand about that. It's like saying "Oh GL didnt do so well so I guess no more sci fi movies". Also, I know it's not an action movie, but Bridesmaids is generally thought to be a good movie and hasnt it made over 150 mill? Pretty damn good. People just want to see good movies

b) At the end of the day, the comics dont matter that that much. IF you asked general people who TOny Stark was in 2006, a lot of them wouldnt have known. Now because of the movie people know him.

I still think the problem WW would have is merchandising. I dont know what it's like now, but I remember when I was really little I didnt wanna play with many female action figures (at least the non Batman related ones) and I know alot of other kidsd my age at the time felt the same

I really think that next superhero projects WB/DC should do if they want to are Flash and Green Arrow.
With Flash, I hear alot of people saying superspeed hasnt been captured in live action in a spectacular way. But if they do it I REALLY think they should do Wally. I know Barry is the Flash in the comics now, but idk with alot of people complaining about how generic GL was with it's origin I think it would help the potential movie if they dont handle the origin the standard way
And I think Green Arrow is good because, Im no expert, but I cant imagine it needing a huge $150 million budget. BUt I could also see people saying GA is generic or kinda a IRon Man/Rip off

I hope the lack of success with GL doesnt stop more DC heroes being brought on screen

You're naive, guy. They can't even get a pilot of the character on a major television network. What makes you think that it's got a chance on the big screen? The track record of female superheroine films has not been good at all. That only adds to the risk factor associated with trying to make a WW picture.

[HighFivingMF]

They can't even get a pilot of the character on a major television network.

Yeah... That's not because it starred Wonder Woman. The network was clearly interested... Until they found out it was ****.

[dark_b]

http://i55.tinypic.com/2938xmq.gif

[CaptainCraig]

^^^^ LOL

Best thing that can be said today is that GL didn't have the worst % drop in the Top 10 like has been the case before.

GL made another $1m+ for a domestic total of $104.6m (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/)

[craigdbfan]

http://i55.tinypic.com/2938xmq.gif

:lmao:

[The Sage]

Glad we got back on topic in the last two posts.

[KalMart]

I would only agree with you about GL getting the nod for a film before Wonder Woman based on his recent revival in the comics and how Johns set up a cinematic vision for the comic-boggles my mind that they failed to really convey this on screen.
Maybe because Johns is not really a film visionary.

[herolee10]

Man, at the rate we're going, GL will be a BIGGER box office bomb than Batman and Robin was, and we know on how infamous that film is.lol

Who would have thought one year ago that GL would FAIL this badly at the box office.

[Chewy]

(and the real fans of the properties loved it)
lol oh you

[KalMart]

Man, at the rate we're going, GL will be a BIGGER box office bomb than Batman and Robin was, and we know on how infamous that film is.lol

Who would have thought one year ago that GL would FAIL this badly at the box office.

When I heard the film was going to be made, I felt that I'd be surprised if it was really successful...just because the concept was one of the more 'comic-booky' ones out there. I figured it'd be something on the level of FF, and I conservatively predicted about $145M domestic. But I didn't think it would do this badly AND be so badly accepted/reviewed. It's too bad for GL fans, but in a lot of ways, big-budget movies that fail are a good wakeup call as well. I still feel that studios should concentrate on fewer superhero movies with better quality, instead of trying to flood the market with them.

[Silver Surfer]

Man, at the rate we're going, GL will be a BIGGER box office bomb than Batman and Robin was, and we know on how infamous that film is.lol

Who would have thought one year ago that GL would FAIL this badly at the box office.
I'd say it already is. B&R made 240 mil at the box office, GL even with 14 years of ticket inflations and 3D probably won't reach that mark.

[Gamma Burst]

lol oh you

Only the real fans loved it, Chewy.:o:woot:

[DarKush]

Maybe because Johns is not really a film visionary.

I'm starting to wonder about that. Reading Johns epic over the last several years it just felt like such a Hollywood-ready franchise. But now I wonder if it was just too complicated and convoluted to translate to film.

I'm currently reading Emerald Dawn and I think there are aspects, especially regarding Hal's characterization, that might have worked better (though I think they overemphasis how much he is a screw up) and with Legion, you had a villain you could actually punch and make into a neat toy. While reading ED I was also wondering if maybe WB erred in not getting Del Toro for Green Lantern. He's real good at doing strange creatures and stuff. I keep thinking about the Golden Army soldiers when reading Legion.

[Flemm]

Sheesh. I never would have expected these type of results. Oh the humanity! :doh:

[jmc]

I see the capitulation continues for GL. Don't know about anyone else but the entire process of how this film came about and it's ultimate doom is kinda fascinating to think about retrospectively. There was great anticipation from the start because now seemed the perfect time for the character, sci-fi was having a bit of a golden period in the movie world with Iron Man showing what can be done with a B-list comic character. Martin Campbell comes on board, the guy who rebooted Bond twice, and on paper was a solid choice of director, Reynolds is cast amid much division at first but ultimately winning over most of the fan base, a reasonably solid supporting cast is announced, a draft script gets out and looks a decent story, what could possibly go wrong? Kinda down hill from there, the great CG suit debate, the first trailers lack of oomph, word leaking out by some actors manager that the film would flop, the last minute extra $9 million on CGI, the total mismanagement of the marketing, the review embargo set until the day before release, the pounding by the critics and even some fans, and finally failing at the box office.

[HighFivingMF]

Come on, guys, this is what you wanted and it basically got mixed reviews. Even though NBC wouldn't admit it, that is probably why the dropped the pilot.

You're wrong.

Now, enough with the Wondy talk. This is for Green Lantern.

[KalMart]

I'm starting to wonder about that. Reading Johns epic over the last several years it just felt like such a Hollywood-ready franchise. But now I wonder if it was just too complicated and convoluted to translate to film.
It's not so much whether his ideas would look/feel good on film...it's more about actually being involved with a big film on an authoritative/influential level. There are skillsets and disciplines unique to working in film that don't directly translate from other mediums....and a lot of times it comes down to whether you have a knack for it or not, regardless of how good you are/were in another art form...even in a supervising/producing role. That's why I'd still choose a Spielberg, Nolan, Bruckheimer, or Cameron as an actively-involved executive producer/producer on any comic-based film over even the most accomplished comic writer/supervisor/etc....if you want it to be the best film it can be.

[solidsnake86]

I see the capitulation continues for GL. Don't know about anyone else but the entire process of how this film came about and it's ultimate doom is kinda fascinating to think about retrospectively. There was great anticipation from the start because now seemed the perfect time for the character, sci-fi was having a bit of a golden period in the movie world with Iron Man showing what can be done with a B-list comic character. Martin Campbell comes on board, the guy who rebooted Bond twice, and on paper was a solid choice of director, Reynolds is cast amid much division at first but ultimately winning over most of the fan base, a reasonably solid supporting cast is announced, a draft script gets out and looks a decent story, what could possibly go wrong? Kinda down hill from there, the great CG suit debate, the first trailers lack of oomph, word leaking out by some actors manager that the film would flop, the last minute extra $9 million on CGI, the total mismanagement of the marketing, the review embargo set until the day before release, the pounding by the critics and even some fans, and finally failing at the box office.

Completely agree with this. In fact after reading the original script, coupled with the cast and director I don't think I could have imagined it doing this bad. That's why I don't really think there will be a reboot. The timing for the character was just right with the comics and people involved.

Everything in hindsight is 20/20. They changed the script so much from that first draft they would have been better off putting atrocitus in there and having it take place on earth to save money, they probably could have crafted a tighter story. Also, they seemed like they bit off more than they could chew in terms of effects, but I would imagine those things are all priced out from the beginning.

I think what sucks the most is that even a lot of fans hated it. With the people involved that shouldn't have happened. It will be interesting to see how DC moves forward in terms of secondary characters and if they will attempt the flash.

[MWF]

The problems with translating Johns' stories directly to silver screen are two-fold, and intimately connected, at that: 1.) He can't write dialogue very well. It very well might read perfectly fine in your mind, but try reading a Johns' comic book sometime out loud and see just how organic his dialogue sounds to the naked ear. This is an old trick I learned in college, and you'd be surprised at how bad what you thought sounded great in your head actually is when you can hear it spoken.

Compounding this is 2.) He constantly, constantly tells rather than shows, and he typically meanders on and on while doing so (again, see #1). "Hal Jordan? Why, aren't you the greatest Green Lantern of sector 2814? Didn't you do this awesome feat that I'll now go on about for half-a-paragraph now?" Or, "Barry, I know you. You wear your heart on your shoulder. You're going to stick to this case to the bitter end until you find that murderer, because that's just who you are, good buddy."

Johns very rarely shows the audience anything that he wants to get across about a character, and instead just tells them overtly so he can concentrate on something else he deems more important to his story. For a film, though (and I would argue for a comic book, too, but that's another discussion), an audience really needs to see character growth over the course of the picture. They needed to see that Hal was more of a screw up firsthand, instead of having Blake Lively tell everyone--and rather dryly, at that--that, "Today is important, and I can't have any more of those classic antics of yours, you little devil, you." They needed to see him go from goof-off to buttoned-down, no-holds-barred Green Lantern.

I'm not blaming Johns for the quality, or rather, lack thereof of this film, mind you. However, I think if the filmmakers had lifted the script page for page from a Johns-penned story, the finished product wouldn't have been any better than what we got, and it possibly could have been even worse.

[solidsnake86]

^Johns is one guy, and I agree with some of what you said because I watched his smallville episode and his dialogue was pretty terrible. Thing is though, this was a 200 million dollar production, with a competent director. They had the resources if they wanted to hire better writers.

To me the film looks like its a victim of not having enough money to pull off what they were going for from the beginning. And that should have been up to campbell to come up with creative ways to deal with that. Look at what del toro was able to accomplish with the budget in Hellboy 2 in terms of the creatures. I thought Campbell would have gone the prosethetics route but it looks like he got lost in the CGI.

[MWF]

To me the film looks like its a victim of not having enough money to pull off what they were going for from the beginning. And that should have been up to campbell to come up with creative ways to deal with that. Look at what del toro was able to accomplish with the budget in Hellboy 2 in terms of the creatures. I thought Campbell would have gone the prosethetics route but it looks like he got lost in the CGI.

You raise a good point. The CG was a big turnoff for me when I saw the trailers and commercials, but I hoped (and had even heard from some) that it would look better on the big screen. I really didn't feel it did, however.

But then, I have to admit that I deplore ridiculous amounts of CG, because even when it is done competently (like in Avatar), it still comes across to me as little more than a big budget cartoon, with the actual live-action sequences only drawing further attention to what is and isn't real. In the end, it's usually more of a distraction to me than anything else, and goes a long way in taking me right out of a picture.

I can take it in doses, of course, and more so when I feel the script and performances are already good. Lord of the Rings is probably the most saturated example of a CG-heavy film series that I thoroughly enjoyed, but Green Lantern overdid it for me, and the poor script didn't help me one bit to get past the overabundance of special effects. Not for things like the ring constructs, because I agree that those absolutely have to be CG. The suit, several of the aliens, and even a large amount of the backgrounds, however, I thought would have been better served were they done with traditional special effects as opposed to the use of computer generated models and blue screens.

[Octoberist]

You're naive, guy. They can't even get a pilot of the character on a major television network. What makes you think that it's got a chance on the big screen? The track record of female superheroine films has not been good at all. That only adds to the risk factor associated with trying to make a WW picture.

So if an American movie starring an Asian American actor bombs, it means that Hollywood should use the excuse of 'Asian actor can't carry a movie'?

[Octoberist]

And yes I agree that Corps aliens would have benefited from a 'del toro' approach with a practical/CG mix.

[jmc]

The thing with CG characters is that they still end up looking like CG characters, no matter how good the rendering is. What makes it worse is when there's a) no performance to base the characters off, b) weak story. The CG/Practical combo is the best solutions because you've got a physical person on set interacting with the surroundings which can then be enhanced later in the computer.

[dnno1]

The thing with CG characters is that they still end up looking like CG characters, no matter how good the rendering is...

That's not true.

http://craphound.com/images/cuboflash.jpg

The image above is a CGI model (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFC2bAR56m0&feature=related).

bLiX5d3rC6o

The face of the actor in this clip is CG up until the 1:30 mark.

[Lencho01]

The first example is a still photo. Once there's movement, it's easier to tell if it's CGI or not. The second example highlights why people can tell CGI from real stuff. When it comes to people, there will be something "off" about them. When it comes to animals and aliens, we can tell because they don't look real or don't exist in our world.

[Octoberist]

With the clip, it's filled with the uncanny valley.

And I think agree that CG/Practical is the way to go next time, if there is one.

[dark_b]

The thing with CG characters is that they still end up looking like CG characters, no matter how good the rendering is. What makes it worse is when there's a) no performance to base the characters off, b) weak story. The CG/Practical combo is the best solutions because you've got a physical person on set interacting with the surroundings which can then be enhanced later in the computer.and animatronics look like animatronics.

GL didnt bomb beause the CGI was not 100% realistic. if the budget was 150 it would still be a bomb. 50 millions is a lot of money.and practical effects wouldnt bring the budget that low. practical effects are alos expensive.

[Octoberist]

Animantronics looks great and at least they look tangible. Or use Weta instead of Sony who seemed way over their heads. I'm not against CG characters but it seems like only a few can impress and most are from the same companies, ILM and Weta.

But I don't see why pratical would be any more expensive than CG.

[dark_b]

Animantronics looks great and at least they look tangible. Or use Weta instead of Sony who seemed way over their heads. I'm not against CG characters but it seems like only a few can impress and most are from the same companies, ILM and Weta.

But I don't see why pratical would be any more expensive than CG.1. what if WETA and ILM have no time to do the effects? what to do then? :cwink:
2.i didnt writte that animatronics are mroe expensive. but that they are also expensive effects on the set with a lot of people working for small seconds of footage. and then on top you still need to pay all the CGI artist who would enchance .

plus del Toro didnt use practical monsters in close ups for complex dialoge. but if there is one director and one studio i would trust animatronic aliens it would be del Toro and Stan Winston studio.

[Octoberist]

1. what if WETA and ILM have no time to do the effects? what to do then? :cwink:
2.i didnt writte that animatronics are mroe expensive. but that they are also expensive effects on the set with a lot of people working for small seconds of footage. and then on top you still need to pay all the CGI artist who would enchance .

plus del Toro didnt use practical monsters in close ups for complex dialoge. but if there is one director and one studio i would trust animatronic alians it would be del Toro and Stan Winston studio.

1. Double Negative or Digital Domain.

2. What are you talking about? Pan's labyrinth had Doug Jobes blindly phonetically speaking Spanish in makeup.


If you smellll what I'm cooking???

[dnno1]

So if an American movie starring an Asian American actor bombs, it means that Hollywood should use the excuse of 'Asian actor can't carry a movie'?

There would have to me more than one example before you can draw that conclusion. Furthermore, Jackie Chan and Chow Yun-Fat have made their share of successful films.

[KalMart]

Animantronics looks great and at least they look tangible. Or use Weta instead of Sony who seemed way over their heads. I'm not against CG characters but it seems like only a few can impress and most are from the same companies, ILM and Weta.

But I don't see why pratical would be any more expensive than CG.

It could require more time if a lot of it is shot during principle...which is generally the most expensive stage per day of an entire production. And you don't get as much camera control/coverage as you would with a 3D model in virtual space.

I still believe it does come down to whoever's doing and supervising the work, though. ILM or WETA are better at it, no question...the effectiveness of CG can't just rely on the actual CG work. The rest of the shot/composition has to work just as hard to make it 'convincing'.

[Octoberist]

I think Sony is good only if the director knows what he's doing. Sony's Watchmen looked decent (though that lynx thing looked awful) due to Zack.

Otherwise, they are inconsistent and unreliable.

[dnno1]

The first example is a still photo. Once there's movement, it's easier to tell if it's CGI or not. The second example highlights why people can tell CGI from real stuff. When it comes to people, there will be something "off" about them. When it comes to animals and aliens, we can tell because they don't look real or don't exist in our world.

You would have only know if I told you.

[Blackman]

not true at all dnno

She loooks CG as LEncho said you can tell something is off. It's always in the eyes

[Octoberist]

You would have only know if I told you.

She looks distractingly weird. Like what Blackman said, it's the eyes and some of the movements of the face.

[Raiden]

I think Sony is good only if the director knows what he's doing. Sony's Watchmen looked decent (though that lynx thing looked awful) due to Zack.

Otherwise, they are inconsistent and unreliable.

I don't know why Zack still left in the lynx, since it tied to that alien monster unleashed to the hotspots around the world by Ozymandias and Zack changed that part of the story to make it more "believable". Lynx was supposed to show that Ozymandias experiments with genetic mutation but without that alien monster its existence was meaningless.

[dnno1]

not true at all dnno

She loooks CG as LEncho said you can tell something is off. It's always in the eyes

She looks real and you wouldn't have known or bothered to even comment if I hadn't told you that she wasn't.

[dnno1]

She looks distractingly weird. Like what Blackman said, it's the eyes and some of the movements of the face.

That's because she is distacted... by a mouse cursor.

[dark_b]

1. Double Negative or Digital Domain.

2. What are you talking about? Pan's labyrinth had Doug Jobes blindly phonetically speaking Spanish in makeup.


If you smellll what I'm cooking???
1. double negative doesnt have enough artist and computer power to make a movie like GL. Digital Domain could do it.
2. Tomar and Kilowog couldnt be done with human faces. their heads are so different from human heads that they would have to build robotic faces. makeup on human faces wouldnt work. the only way it would work is if they would change the face design. think about it- loko how Kilowog looks. every character from Doug JOnes looks in a way very human like. Tomar-er face ,eyes and nose doesnt. the same with Kilowog.

i know that i sound like a smartass and like a jackass. but think abou it very good. look at pictures. i did. it wouldnt work. try to understand it.

[dark_b]

not true at all dnno

She loooks CG as LEncho said you can tell something is off. It's always in the eyes
are you sure that if someone would post a video of this girl without talking or writting that its CGI that we would notice it?

the reason i am asking this is because they did it and the story is very funny. :cwink:

[Blackman]

She looks real and you wouldn't have known or bothered to even comment if I hadn't told you that she wasn't.
Yes I wouldve it's not that difficult.


I have a feeling this exhange is going to go into "No you couldnt" "Yes I could" back and forth territory and IM just gonna end it here

[Octoberist]

Yeah maybe it's for the best

[CaptainCraig]

And on Day 20 Green Lantern falls below the one million mark in dailies.
For Wed it pulled in $932K (http://www.boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/)for a new domestic total of $105.6m.

The saddest part is looking at theater count and it's ranking compared to other films. Even those that opened a week before or after GL. GL is in 3,300 screens on it's 20th day and places 8th in the dailies.

Mr.Poppers Penguins (Jim Carrey), 2600 screens, 20 days, 6th place
Super 8, 3100 screens, 27 days, 7th place

It should be doing better than Super 8 but the quality isn't there for that to be possible. Which is worse when you consider audiences think Penguins is more of a quality film (I haven't seen it), maybe it is.

[Lencho01]

You would have only know if I told you.

The pic at first glance fooled me. But, after some time the things that feel "off" about it start to set in. The video interview was a lot easier to tell that it was CGI and having them show the girl for real highlighted how fake it looked. And looking back your post, I noticed the link for the actual video of the Asian woman and I found it to even be worse.

It's just the nature of Uncanny Valley. We as humans naturally can tell if there's something funny when we're told something is real or to be percieved as such. Especially when it comes to humans.

Even as great as the CGI in Rise of the Planet of the Apes might seem, I can still tell something's up with Caesar because chimps don't normally look/act like that.

So, going back to GL, a better company would of course make the aliens look more "real" but they would still end up looking fake since they're well, aliens. CGI aliens to be more specific. People in masks are easier to be percieved as "real" since they're actually there.

[jmc]

That's not true.

http://craphound.com/images/cuboflash.jpg

The image above is a CGI model (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iFC2bAR56m0&feature=related).

bLiX5d3rC6o

The face of the actor in this clip is CG up until the 1:30 mark.

You are joking right? The eyes are a dead give away. Like i said no amount of rendering can make a character look 100% real because there are subtleties in human movement that our brains pick up that no computer can replicate.

[mace1]

The problems with translating Johns' stories directly to silver screen are two-fold, and intimately connected, at that: 1.) He can't write dialogue very well. It very well might read perfectly fine in your mind, but try reading a Johns' comic book sometime out loud and see just how organic his dialogue sounds to the naked ear. This is an old trick I learned in college, and you'd be surprised at how bad what you thought sounded great in your head actually is when you can hear it spoken.

Compounding this is 2.) He constantly, constantly tells rather than shows, and he typically meanders on and on while doing so (again, see #1). "Hal Jordan? Why, aren't you the greatest Green Lantern of sector 2814? Didn't you do this awesome feat that I'll now go on about for half-a-paragraph now?" Or, "Barry, I know you. You wear your heart on your shoulder. You're going to stick to this case to the bitter end until you find that murderer, because that's just who you are, good buddy."

Johns very rarely shows the audience anything that he wants to get across about a character, and instead just tells them overtly so he can concentrate on something else he deems more important to his story. For a film, though (and I would argue for a comic book, too, but that's another discussion), an audience really needs to see character growth over the course of the picture. They needed to see that Hal was more of a screw up firsthand, instead of having Blake Lively tell everyone--and rather dryly, at that--that, "Today is important, and I can't have any more of those classic antics of yours, you little devil, you." They needed to see him go from goof-off to buttoned-down, no-holds-barred Green Lantern.

I'm not blaming Johns for the quality, or rather, lack thereof of this film, mind you. However, I think if the filmmakers had lifted the script page for page from a Johns-penned story, the finished product wouldn't have been any better than what we got, and it possibly could have been even worse.

A lot of the bad reviews to me was just not understanding or care to understand the green lantern universe.Alot of the critics had a close mind before it they seen it,plus remember the film embargo.critics can't stand that.

This film was on the level has thor in terms of basic development of the story from my view point but got bash more.

Even ebert gave it a higher rating then thor,so overall it had to be at least on the same level if you take his view point into account.
That tells you something.

I really do not listen to ebert has much anymore when it come to sci-fi or superhero films,he has lost a long time ago,but i do take his views into account to some extent and compare it to other critics,and in the end i make up my own mind.

I agree with with other critics sometimes,or very few times now i agree with ebert,but in the end,it is up to me.
Anyway i like the film,and it was a good or very good film,i gave it 3 stars,but a weak 3 stars out of 5 stars,just like thor,of course i enjoy it more then thor.

Green lantern was at least a 2.5 star movie to a weak 3 star movie,but it was 3 stars to me,but a weak one.
I like the film.

[KalMart]

You would have only know if I told you.

I think most people wouldn't know how immensely wrong something was unless you told them it was right. :D

[BatmanInc]

GL made less than 1 mil yesterday.

This film is officially a bomb now.

[dnno1]

I think most people wouldn't know how immensely wrong something was unless you told them it was right. :D

You mean like all those folks who though the Earth was flat or the moon was made of cheese?

[dnno1]

You are joking right? The eyes are a dead give away. Like i said no amount of rendering can make a character look 100% real because there are subtleties in human movement that our brains pick up that no computer can replicate.

http://hairstyle.ptitpopotin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/asian-women-hairstyle-278x300.jpg



Like you are an expert. Just because a person is looking in a different direction doesn't means that person is not a real person.

[Snare]

No sequel then

[dnno1]

No sequel then

Still got to see what the rest of the foreign gross is.

[Silver Surfer]

When was the last time a big budget Superhero flick bombed this badly? Ang lee's Hulk was a failure but at least it made it's production budget back at the domestic box office and added more than 100 mil at the foreign. GL is going to fall short at least 75 mil of it's production budget domestically even with the boost of 7 years of ticket inflated prices and 3D.:doh:

[Showtime]

Still got to see what the rest of the foreign gross is.

Well. Unfortunately that isn't going to have an impact on a sequel either way.

[KalMart]

You mean like all those folks who though the Earth was flat or the moon was made of cheese?

Luckily, you told them that they were right...so that changed in a jiffy. ;)

[MWF]

I agree with with other critics sometimes,or very few times now i agree with ebert,but in the end,it is up to me.
Anyway i like the film,and it was a good or very good film,i gave it 3 stars,but a weak 3 stars out of 5 stars,just like thor,of course i enjoy it more then thor.

Green lantern was at least a 2.5 star movie to a weak 3 star movie,but it was 3 stars to me,but a weak one.
I like the film.

I'm glad you liked the movie. Personally, I don't really care what any of the critics have to say. For myself, though, I thought it was pretty mediocre. I'd put it in the same level as the theatrical cut of Daredevil, and felt it suffered from many of the same problems that film suffered from: some poor casting decisions, bad editing, bad dialogue, and too much crammed into too short of a running time.

I haven't seen Thor, so I can't compare it to that film, but Green Lantern was a rental for me at best (I saw it for free, though, so no skin off my nose). I'm really not surprised it's done as poorly as it has. And if I find Thor to be equally lacking when I finally get around to seeing it, then I'll be just as surprised by its relative box office and critical success.

[jmc]

http://hairstyle.ptitpopotin.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/asian-women-hairstyle-278x300.jpg



Like you are an expert. Just because a person is looking in a different direction doesn't means that person is not a real person.

Actually I studied 3D animation for a year so I kinda do know what I'm talking about. The computer cannot replicate the subtleties of human movement and our brains can detect it when something isn't moving right, that is a fact. Our brains are a far more powerful tool than any computer there is in existence and if there are errors, no matter how small, we will spot them.

[KalMart]

http://i53.tinypic.com/2gxi3y1.jpg

[CaptainCraig]

GL made less than 1 mil yesterday.

This film is officially a bomb now.
Yeah, we got that covered 3hrs earlier upthread (http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=20805831&postcount=551). :cwink:



No sequel thenStill got to see what the rest of the foreign gross is.
No the studio, and us, really don't.
You'll feel better if you skip to the next stage past denial.

[Gamma Burst]

Yeah, we got that covered 3hrs earlier upthread (http://forums.superherohype.com/showpost.php?p=20805831&postcount=551). :cwink:




No the studio, and us, really don't.
You'll feel better if you skip to the next stage past denial.

Which is...?:oldrazz:

[HighFivingMF]

http://i53.tinypic.com/2gxi3y1.jpg

I want a Jeff Bridges action figure!


...Oh.

[Red Mask]

GL made less than 1 mil yesterday.

This film is officially a bomb now.

Overseas it's only being achieving seven figure profits in each country. So in this case, America really is its biggest market.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Waiting for overseas numbers is pointless because it has been putting up crappy overseas numbers so far. It not going to suddenly reach 200mil internationally.

You don't have to wait for the rest of the numbers to know that the movie is done for.

[TheVileOne]

Do the idiot cheerleader writers and all their fluff pieces still believe that sequel is happening?

[Blackman]

FOrget the writers IM wondering about some of the posters on here.

They first thought nothing of the negative reception and said the film would still do well, then once the US numbers werent that good said that international numbers will be great, now that the international numbers arent that good what else can they say?

[Gamma Burst]

FOrget the writers IM wondering about some of the posters on here.

They first thought nothing of the negative reception and said the film would still do well, then once the US numbers werent that good said that international numbers will be great, now that the international numbers arent that good what else can they say?

The DVD/Blue-Ray numbers?:oldrazz:

[MWF]

The DVD/Blue-Ray numbers?:oldrazz:

Dammit! You beat me to it!

[Gamma Burst]

Dammit! You beat me to it!

I'll give you another opportunity.:yay:

What if the DVD/BR numbers are bad?What will they say?

[jmc]

Someone will point to merchandise. :hehe:

I seriously heard someone say they thought merchandising could help save this film, even comparing it to the merchandising revenue that Cars 2 will get. :doh: :lmao:

[solidsnake86]

^do people even care for half the figures they came out with when those characters appeared in a blink and you'll miss it scene. At this point the movie is a box office failure. They'll probably end up losing money on the merchandise as I can see more then half those figures on the shelves in years to come.

[Gamma Burst]

It has to be A LOT of merchandise.:)

[jmc]

If no-one is watching the film who's buying the effing merchandise? This films a dud, first I was depressed, then I got pissed, now I'm just laughing at it. It's a monumental failure the likes of which no-one anticipated. In many ways it's funny that IM was the main reason for this film being made yet the results couldn't be further from each other.

[solidsnake86]

Have you had a chance to watch it yet JMC? or has it not come out yet in australia

[EliteF50]

I liked it. :(

[jmc]

Have you had a chance to watch it yet JMC? or has it not come out yet in australia

It has not come out yet but I may or may not have seen it already. *walks away whistling innocently*

[KalMart]

Someone will point to merchandise. :hehe:

How's it (merchandise) doing now? The movie's been out for weeks...anyone seen a lot of kids with toy power rings and GL masks/figured?

I have a feeling that Spiderman merchadise is still outselling Gl stuff, and there hasn't been a movie in years.

[EML420]

Right after me and my little brother saw GL my mom bought him the mask and Ring toy set he loves it lol. But every time she goes to the store to buy him a GL shirt they are all sold out. But man box office for this movie is just so surreal.

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Everyone had a big... MEH... reaction to this character.

It'll be interesting to see how the DVD/Blu-ray and animated series do this fall.

WB put waaaay too much faith in Green Lantern. Everything about it reeks of ''please please like this movie... Harry Potter is ending, we need a money maker and were ****ed''

[DaveMoral]

The animated series will do well. Spectacular even. Of that I have no doubt. It's Bruce Timm. Has he ever really missed? The kiddies will love it, and the merch associated with it will do bonkers(if it ever hits the shelves, how long ago did Young Justice premiere? I have yet to see a YJ figure on the shelves).

[Donut]

I guess the WB is not the only studio out there to allow the people in charge to step in & ruin a movie like Green Lantern. They need to strip that right away from all of the people in charge & just leave all of the future directors alone

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

The animated series will do well. Spectacular even. Of that I have no doubt. It's Bruce Timm. Has he ever really missed? The kiddies will love it, and the merch associated with it will do bonkers(if it ever hits the shelves, how long ago did Young Justice premiere? I have yet to see a YJ figure on the shelves).

The response so far has been less than enthusiastic... and Bruce Timm isn't always a sure winner. Anything can happen.

It's 50/50 at the moment... be interesting to see how they market it post movie failure.

[DaveMoral]

The response so far has been less than enthusiastic... and Bruce Timm isn't always a sure winner. Anything can happen.

It's 50/50 at the moment... be interesting to see how they market it post movie failure.

The response from who though? A few posters on this website? A few adult commentators on a couple blogs?

That means pretty much nothing. I'm talking about kids. Kids are going to go bananas for that show provided Cartoon Network has their act together. The way they've been dealing with Young Justice has butchered that show. So much time between new episodes hasn't done it justice. My kid loved the show, but his interest didn't keep because there wasn't a consistent airing of new episodes.

GL:TAS needs to have an unhampered run of the first season. Probably on the same night as The Clone Wars. As a lead-in.

[Silver Surfer]

The response from who though? A few posters on this website? A few adult commentators on a couple blogs?

That means pretty much nothing. I'm talking about kids. Kids are going to go bananas for that show provided Cartoon Network has their act together. The way they've been dealing with Young Justice has butchered that show. So much time between new episodes hasn't done it justice. My kid loved the show, but his interest didn't keep because there wasn't a consistent airing of new episodes.

GL:TAS needs to have an unhampered run of the first season. Probably on the same night as The Clone Wars. As a lead-in.
I believe Thundercats already have that spot locked in.

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

The response from who though? A few posters on this website? A few adult commentators on a couple blogs?

That means pretty much nothing. I'm talking about kids. Kids are going to go bananas for that show provided Cartoon Network has their act together. The way they've been dealing with Young Justice has butchered that show. So much time between new episodes hasn't done it justice. My kid loved the show, but his interest didn't keep because there wasn't a consistent airing of new episodes.

GL:TAS needs to have an unhampered run of the first season. Probably on the same night as The Clone Wars. As a lead-in.

GL:TAS will be apart of the DC Nation block on Cartoon Network... with no doubt Young Justice as a lead in. Theres no hope in hell its will get Clone Wars attention...

Also the movies reaction is a HUGE indicator as to the publics response to the character... Green Lantern is a sad story fading fast.

We can throw excuses of kids and merchandise at the situation... but the fact still stands that it is 50/50.

So unless you can give me rock solid evidence that kids are ''going bananas'' for Green Lantern... never mind GL:TAS... then its a moot point.

[CaptainCraig]

Green Lantern is losing 1,200 screens this weekend, it's 4th in release. That is huge.

For comparison of 4th weekend screen lost:
Thor lost 600
XM:FC lost 750

Theaters are dumping this turkey as fast as they can.

Puts into question if the film will hit $115m domestic at this point. It'll keep having screens dumped in large amounts I predict.

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Who needs screens when we have merchandise and upcoming cartoons...? :cwink:

[merced]

Green Lantern is losing 1,200 screens this weekend, it's 4th in release. That is huge.

For comparison of 4th weekend screen lost:
Thor lost 600
XM:FC lost 750

Theaters are dumping this turkey as fast as they can.

Puts into question if the film will hit $115m domestic at this point. It'll keep having screens dumped in large amounts I predict.

I just saw this at MOJO. 38% drop. Above the expected drop for the 4th week.

It's sort of like SR. There is a small independent theatre near us and they dropped SR 3 weeks out. Fastest they'd ever dropped a film. I couldn't believe it. They brought Devil Wears Prada in it's place.

Hard to predict this weekend with such a drop. Maybe 3 or 4 million Friday through Sunday? Too high?

[Chewy]

Around 3M I'd say.

[MWF]

At this point, I think it would have been a decidedly more strategic move had Warner Brothers debuted the Green Lantern animated series about a year out ahead of the movie. If the animated series takes off with youngsters like some fans are predicting it will, then I think that would have certainly helped the film's performance at the box office, even if the quality remained exactly the same.

As it stands, however, the film could very well have the exact opposite effect on the animated series, and actually lose it some viewers at its offset.

[merced]

Thursday's GL numner: 958,000.

[samsnee]

This movie was doomed from the first Entertainment Weekly cover that showed the costume. Sometimes, when a turd looks like a turd, it turns out it really is a turd.

[The Sage]

First reveal of the costume looked pretty good.

[dnno1]

Green Lantern is losing 1,200 screens this weekend, it's 4th in release. That is huge.

For comparison of 4th weekend screen lost:
Thor lost 600
XM:FC lost 750

Theaters are dumping this turkey as fast as they can.

Puts into question if the film will hit $115m domestic at this point. It'll keep having screens dumped in large amounts I predict.

I don't know about that. A lot of those theaters are under agreement to keep a film in their theater for a certain period of time. After that they more than likely have another film lined up to come in. I don't think that them dropping a film has any thing to do with low attendance.

[KalMart]

At this point, I think it would have been a decidedly more strategic move had Warner Brothers debuted the Green Lantern animated series about a year out ahead of the movie. If the animated series takes off with youngsters like some fans are predicting it will, then I think that would have certainly helped the film's performance at the box office, even if the quality remained exactly the same.

As it stands, however, the film could very well have the exact opposite effect on the animated series, and actually lose it some viewers at its offset.
Maybe it's better that a film gets what it deserves as a film in this case. At the very least it's a shot in the arm to the makers to do better. Otherwise, you could just get a sequel with more of the same mediocrity if that's what seemingly sells.

[Flemm]

The problem with a little known property laying a giant rotten egg like this at the box office is that it can potentially taint the character for an extended period. Now any reboot will have this film's failure to contend with.

This is not like Batman or Spidey where the character is so well known and has such a proven record of success that a bad movie will not deeply affect the longterm perception of the character.

[Primal Slayer]

Either just give it a sequel and make sure its top notch or call a reboot. If we can get 2 Hulk films in such a short amount of time we can get GL.

[KalMart]

The problem with a little known property laying a giant rotten egg like this at the box office is that it can potentially taint the character for an extended period. Now any reboot will have this film's failure to contend with.

This is not like Batman or Spidey where the character is so well known and has such a proven record of success that a bad movie will not deeply affect the longterm perception of the character.

I think it's more like it'll be forgotten so quickly that it won't have time to be tainted....unless you remind people with another film. As far as moving ahead with more comics/animation, he should be fine. Not every superhero has to be in movies.

[Silver Surfer]

Either just give it a sequel and make sure its top notch or call a reboot. If we can get 2 Hulk films in such a short amount of time we can get GL.
Both Hulk films were much better received by critics and were a lot more successful financially. GL is a flat out bomb both critically and financially, it doesn't even come close as a comparison to TIH and Ang Lee's Hulk.

[KalMart]

If we can get six Police Academies and five Fast & Furiouses....

If OJ Simpson can get away with murder, what's so bad about a little a physical assault. :O

[The Morningstar]

I watched this again last week. Wasn't as bad as the first time. But it's still baaaaad. 1000X worse than both Hulk films, so let's not bring them up.

See the thing is, why would people want a sequel to this? If this film was financially successful the sequel wouldn't be any better. It'd just be more of the same.

[KalMart]

I watched this again last week. Wasn't as bad as the first time. But it's still baaaaad. 1000X worse than both Hulk films, so let's not bring them up.

See the thing is, why would people want a sequel to this? If this film was financially successful the sequel wouldn't be any better. It'd just be more of the same.

So GL fans could claim association with at least some sort of movie success? Never mind the accommodations or benefits, just get me in the club?


;)

[samsnee]

First reveal of the costume looked pretty good.


From what I remember, it was right before last year's Comic-con and the reaction was mixed at best. And then you had Campbell at Comic-con trying to do damage control and say that it wasn't the final costume. Granted there were tweaks here and there but the final costume pretty much looked the same. Here's the link:

http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2010/07/comic-con-martin-campbell-says-green.html

[CaptainCraig]

Green Lantern is losing 1,200 screens this weekend, it's 4th in release. That is huge.

For comparison of 4th weekend screen lost:
Thor lost 600
XM:FC lost 750

Theaters are dumping this turkey as fast as they can.

Puts into question if the film will hit $115m domestic at this point. It'll keep having screens dumped in large amounts I predict.
I don't know about that. A lot of those theaters are under agreement to keep a film in their theater for a certain period of time. After that they more than likely have another film lined up to come in. I don't think that them dropping a film has any thing to do with low attendance.
A summer film, or any "big" film typically does have some type of 2-3 guarantee clause. From there the theater can decide how it wants to allocate and maintain screens and for which films.

Green Lanterns low attendance/revenue is EXACTLY why it's losing such a large % of screens. The comparison is quite evident of that.

[The Sage]

From what I remember, it was right before last year's Comic-con and the reaction was mixed at best. And then you had Campbell at Comic-con trying to do damage control and say that it wasn't the final costume. Granted there were tweaks here and there but the final costume pretty much looked the same. Here's the link:

http://theplaylist.blogspot.com/2010/07/comic-con-martin-campbell-says-green.html

Well it was a work-in progress. Texture was added and the final rendering looked good. I never had a problem with the costume.

[Red Mask]

WB put waaaay too much faith in Green Lantern. Everything about it reeks of ''please please like this movie... Harry Potter is ending, we need a money maker and were ****ed''

Don't worry about their losses. Successes like Harry Potter will make up for any lost profit for the parent company of WB Pictures. That's how the business works. But I don't know how smaller groups like DCE and De Line Pictures will fare.

[Mysteryman]

Well it was a work-in progress. Texture was added and the final rendering looked good. I never had a problem with the costume.
Ditto.

[akfj]

But I don't know how smaller groups like DCE and De Line Pictures will fare.

I think DC Entertainment will be just fine, because they're not a film company.

[merced]

is kind Meanwhile Captain America gets a full segment on John Bachelor's 07/08 radio show. The biggest overnight in terms of ratings.

Marvel working with paramount here sure know how to push their product. I don't recall GL getting this kind of "mainstream" publicity. Or SR for that matter.

This kind of national radio segment (full 6 minutes) is a studio's delght.

[HighFivingMF]

Ra... di... o... ? :huh:

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Ra... di... o... ? :huh:

:awesome:

That'll really reel in the under 30's...

[merced]

Ra... di... o... ? :huh:

Bachelor has 10 million listeners. Not the normal superhero audience I am sure. But the point is Marvel/Paramount are promoting this film everywhere. I get e-mails from friends with Cap tags on them.

IMO Captain America will surge past Thor to become this year's biggest superhero film. IMO it could approach 500 million WW.

[merced]

:awesome:

That'll really reel in the under 30's...

To quote Lex from S:TM. They have eyes but do not see.

Cap is WW2/50s/60s stuff. That I am told is the core of Bachelor's audience. This is a shrewd move by Paramount and Marvel. They will take audience whereever they can get it.

It's that extra mile, that unexpcted step that Marvel and Paramount are taking to make this film huge.


WB could learn a lessonor two here.
Laugh if you will but it's not over till cap' opening weekend is in. I am thinking 90 million plus. In part because of this brilliant arketing strategy.

[TheVileOne]

I hope it does but we shall see. Green Lantern's performance makes me nervous.

Hey maybe merced is onto something. Jim Caviezel was going onto Sean Hannity's radio show to push Passion of The Christ. Just saying, that movie did huge business.

[Silver Surfer]

90 mil opening weekend for cap? no way, not with harry potter opening a week before.

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I can't really guess Captain America... everyone keeps talking about this red-hot marketing campaign but I simply don't feel it.

Things could turn south rapidly.

[merced]

I hope it does but we shall see. Green Lantern's performance makes me nervous.

Hey maybe merced is onto something. Jim Caviezel was going onto Sean Hannity's radio show to push Passion of The Christ. Just saying, that movie did huge business.

The point is marketing is an art. You need to identify and reach out to your audeince.

Folks in their 50, 60s and 70s are not normally wont to attend a superhero film.

But Captain America is from their generation.

The film has been updated and directed to the 30 something crowd.

But Marvel and Paramount realize there may be a huge market in the post W2 generation which would turn out for the film.

If they are right in their strategy Captain America is going to be huge.

Marketing is at it's heart an art - one that Marvel seems to get but that WB doesn't have a clue about. IMO.

[merced]

I can't really guess Captain America... everyone keeps talking about this red-hot marketing campaign but I simply don't feel it.

Things could turn south rapidly.

It's not easy to predict and I am going out on a limb. I have this gut feeling Cap will be the biggest superhero flm of 2011.

BTW, the reviewer on bachelor's show said the film is really, really good.

[MWF]

I'd guess $65M opening weekend for Captain America.

Back to Green Lantern, though: I don't think it did badly opening weekend nor in general because people have this supposed "fatigue" over superhero films now. It just didn't look very good, quite frankly. None of the trailers made it look particularly interesting to this comic book reader (though I'm not a Green Lantern fan, admittedly), so I can't imagine they did much for those who don't even follow the medium.

In light of this, this is why I wouldn't be surprised if Captain America does much better than Green Lantern, both right out of the gates and by the time its theatrical run is over. It simply looks like a good film. Green Lantern, from my perspective anyway, really didn't.

[craigdbfan]

This is sinking quicker than an anvil in water.

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

The point is marketing is an art. You need to identify and reach out to your audeince.

Folks in their 50, 60s and 70s are not normally wont to attend a superhero film.

But Captain America is from their generation.

The film has been updated and directed to the 30 something crowd.

But Marvel and Paramount realize there may be a huge market in the post W2 generation which would turn out for the film.

If they are right in their strategy Captain America is going to be huge.

Marketing is at it's heart an art - one that Marvel seems to get but that WB doesn't have a clue about. IMO.

Both Batman (1989) and The Dark Knight beg to differ...

Plus there was nothing artful about Thor or Captain America's marketing.

Its run of the mill stuff... lucky for the studios, Thor came out at the beginning of May when people needed an action fix and Captain America is looking good with a well-known character.

[jmc]

I think Thor's marketing was quite tame, in fact I'll go so far to say that it almost undersold the movie, there's was nothing remotely spectacular about it's campaign, the trailers were only marginally better than GL, what it came down to was the film itself, Thor was a better movie. GL's marketing became an over saturation of publicity trying to convince people that the film was awesome, and people didn't buy into it. The GL marketing smacked of desperation and WB got what it deserved by trying to sell people ****.

[merced]

I'd guess $65M opening weekend for Captain America.

Back to Green Lantern, though: I don't think it did badly opening weekend nor in general because people have this supposed "fatigue" over superhero films now. It just didn't look very good, quite frankly. None of the trailers made it look particularly interesting to this comic book reader (though I'm not a Green Lantern fan, admittedly), so I can't imagine they did much for those who don't even follow the medium.

In light of this, this is why I wouldn't be surprised if Captain America does much better than Green Lantern, both right out of the gates and by the time its theatrical run is over. It simply looks like a good film. Green Lantern, from my perspective anyway, really didn't.

If Cap does 65 million opening it won't only be way ahead of GL it will be way ahead of Superman Returns.

Cap looks like a very good film, Thor looked like a good film.

SR looked like a bad film and GL looked like a bad film.

Is it just me or am I sensing a pattern here?

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

It's not a **** measuring contest...

[merced]

It's not a **** measuring contest...

Actually it really is a measuring contest.

How much profit did the film make and, much more important to the studio, what was the ROI?

[HighFivingMF]

If Cap does 65 million opening it won't only be way ahead of GL it will be way ahead of Superman Returns.

Who gives a ****?

[merced]

Who gives a ****?

The studio maybe? Just sayin.

[HighFivingMF]

The studio maybe? Just sayin.

Nope, probably not even them. I'm pretty sure they're thinking "I hope this movie does great." and not "I hope this does better than a 5-year-old movie that has nothing to do with this one!"

[Red Mask]

The point is marketing is an art. You need to identify and reach out to your audeince.

Agreed. There's a Green Lantern display at my local cinema with the Corps standing around Hal. Except from a distance you'd almost confuse it with Ben 10. Hopefully parents don't make that mistake either.

[Red Mask]

This isn't a Captain America thread.

[Dreadstar]

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

:doh::pal::funny:

[dnno1]

Captain America is tracking at $55 million opening weekend according to Boxoffice.com

[chiefchirpa]

Agreed. There's a Green Lantern display at my local cinema with the Corps standing around Hal. Except from a distance you'd almost confuse it with Ben 10. Hopefully parents don't make that mistake either.

Mistaking it with Ben 10? Well that's advantageous to GL.

[HighFivingMF]

*Looks up Ben 10*

Yeah... I don't see it.

[The Morningstar]

I think Thor's marketing was quite tame, in fact I'll go so far to say that it almost undersold the movie, there's was nothing remotely spectacular about it's campaign, the trailers were only marginally better than GL, what it came down to was the film itself, Thor was a better movie. GL's marketing became an over saturation of publicity trying to convince people that the film was awesome, and people didn't buy into it. The GL marketing smacked of desperation and WB got what it deserved by trying to sell people ****.

Pretty much this. Exposure is good... over exposure not so much. GLs marketing campaign reeked of desperation.

[merced]

Friday's estimate: GL in 10th place with 945K.

[Gamma Burst]

Friday's estimate: GL in 10th place with 945K.

Wow. Is it that low?

[Chewy]

Friday's estimate: GL in 10th place with 945K.Whether or not it outgrosses Ghost Rider is the question at this point

[Spider-Fan]

Friday's estimate: GL in 10th place with 945K.

WOW! Not even a mil on a weekend day anymore :csad:

[Rock Sexton]

Captain America is tracking at $55 million opening weekend according to Boxoffice.com

It also didn't cost well over $200 million before even factoring in marketing.

[dark_b]

teh only reason it didnt cost so much is because Marvel is super cheap.i mean this as something negative hehe;)

[Rock Sexton]

teh only reason it didnt cost so much is because Marvel is super cheap.i mean this as something negative hehe;)

In some cases yet. Price controls are not a bad thing from a budgetary standpoint. Otherwise you end up with a turd like GL. I mean did you really think Marvel would spend $200 million on a character they're not even sure will go over well world-wide? C'mon bud. Common sense here. They had to make a movie at a price point that makes sense because it's likely the larger majority of their BO returns will come stateside.

[Silver Surfer]

Friday's estimate: GL in 10th place with 945K.
Geez over 2000 screens and it couldn't even crack a mil?

All things considered, GL has to be the biggest flop in the history of comic book movies, bar none.

[dark_b]

In some cases yet. Price controls are not a bad thing from a budgetary standpoint. Otherwise you end up with a turd like GL. I mean did you really think Marvel would spend $200 million on a character they're not even sure will go over well world-wide? C'mon bud. Common sense here. They had to make a movie at a price point that makes sense because it's likely the larger majority of their BO returns will come stateside.i will pay the same money for the ticket. if the movie is 100 or 200 millions. the difference is that sometimes you get more.
when i pay money to watch a movie i dont care about sequels. i am not a hardcore comcibook reader who only thinks about the next issue. or about the next sequel. if i like the movie and it bombs so what. at least i got a good first movie.
Marvel got lucky with IM and Thor. both movies are very small in scope in the finale. good for Marvel that they made money.

[KalMart]

I have a feeling the Jack Black version would have made more.

[Chewy]

Marvel got lucky with IM and Thor. both movies are very small in scope in the finale. good for Marvel that they made money.
Did they get lucky? Or did they make films that satisfied audiences?

Throwing more money at the filmmakers doesn't mean a better film. We have a case in point right here.

Nor does a larger scope mean a more satisfying conclusion. If you want to see Transformers you can always just go see Transformers. Different films have different aims. Those films were made with the intent of exploring Tony Stark and Thor as individuals. Not blowing up cities.

[Rock Sexton]

i will pay the same money for the ticket. if the movie is 100 or 200 millions. the difference is that sometimes you get more.
when i pay money to watch a movie i dont care about sequels. i am not a hardcore comcibook reader who only thinks about the next issue. or about the next sequel. if i like the movie and it bombs so what. at least i got a good first movie.
Marvel got lucky with IM and Thor. both movies are very small in scope in the finale. good for Marvel that they made money.

What does any of that have to do with my reply to you?

Marvel's success with their films have nothing to do with luck.

[Dwarf Slayer]

i will pay the same money for the ticket. if the movie is 100 or 200 millions. the difference is that sometimes you get more.
when i pay money to watch a movie i dont care about sequels. i am not a hardcore comcibook reader who only thinks about the next issue. or about the next sequel. if i like the movie and it bombs so what. at least i got a good first movie.
Marvel got lucky with IM and Thor. both movies are very small in scope in the finale. good for Marvel that they made money.

Marvel didn't get lucky with Iron Man and Thor. Those movies were successful because they relied on quality film making and storytelling. Something Warner Bros clearly didn't care about when they made Green Lantern.

Marvel isn't cheap with their properties. They just aren't stupid enough to invest 300+ million dollars into a relatively unknown property. If Marvel were cheap, they would have went with a cheaper special effects company like Sony Imageworks. If Marvel were cheap, they wouldn't have had TV spots for both Thor and Captain America during the Superbowl.

It isn't just about getting sequels. GL's huge budget and its subsequent failure has jeopardized the chances of seeing more characters from the DC universe on film. Had Warner Bros not mismanaged the budget and put all of their eggs in one basket, they wouldn't be in the embarrassing situation they find themselves in now.

[Gamma Burst]

Marvel didn't get lucky with Iron Man and Thor. Those movies were successful because they relied on quality film making and storytelling. Something Warner Bros clearly didn't care about when they made Green Lantern.

Marvel isn't cheap with their properties. They just aren't stupid enough to invest 300+ million dollars into a relatively unknown property. If Marvel were cheap, they would have went with a cheaper special effects company like Sony Imageworks. If Marvel were cheap, they wouldn't have had TV spots for both Thor and Captain America during the Superbowl.

It isn't just about getting sequels. GL's huge budget and its subsequent failure has jeopardized the chances of seeing more characters from the DC universe on film. Had Warner Bros not mismanaged the budget and put all of their eggs in one basket, they wouldn't be in the embarrassing situation they find themselves in now.

This.

[BatmanInc]

Hopefully this film won't get a sequel. It doesn't deserve one.

Then again, this is WB we're talking about. I know I wouldn't have let Snyder near any film project after the disaster that was Sucker Punch, let alone freaking Superman.

[jmc]

I will say that Marvel know how to get a lot out of a little because quite frankly they can't afford to have a flop, might be a bit different now they're part of Disney but still their very existence depends on them making at worst watchable superhero films, I've got issues with how they run things but for the most part they're doing well for now. WB like it or not can blow a $200 million film and not bat an eyelid because they've always got other options. If the superhero craze was to die tomorrow WB would be fine and Marvel wouldn't, maybe that's the difference in mentality, Marvel have to put the effort in because their survival depends on it, WB have been in the business long enough to know there's always opportunities eleswhere and don't need to depend on superheroes.

[Red Mask]

Then again, this is WB we're talking about. I know I wouldn't have let Snyder near any film project after the disaster that was Sucker Punch, let alone freaking Superman.

But it's happening anyway, so get ready for it. I didn't bother watching Sucker Punch myself, but that's no reason to stop Superman from coming back to the screen.




Off-topic: if you're not interested in a film like Sucker Punch, but don't mind troubled girls, I recommend the classic film "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden". If not, then check out the German film "4 Minutes".

[BatmanInc]

If the superhero craze was to die tomorrow WB would be fine and Marvel wouldn't

This is me being an *******, but if it died tomorrow, Thor still would have made 400 mil worldwide.

I get what you mean, though. :P

[hippie_hunter]

Marvel didn't get lucky with Iron Man and Thor. Those movies were successful because they relied on quality film making and storytelling. Something Warner Bros clearly didn't care about when they made Green Lantern.

Marvel isn't cheap with their properties. They just aren't stupid enough to invest 300+ million dollars into a relatively unknown property. If Marvel were cheap, they would have went with a cheaper special effects company like Sony Imageworks. If Marvel were cheap, they wouldn't have had TV spots for both Thor and Captain America during the Superbowl.

It isn't just about getting sequels. GL's huge budget and its subsequent failure has jeopardized the chances of seeing more characters from the DC universe on film. Had Warner Bros not mismanaged the budget and put all of their eggs in one basket, they wouldn't be in the embarrassing situation they find themselves in now.

Actually, even though I really like the movies Marvel has put out, they really are ****ing cheap. They have a reputation of lowballing their actors while demanding that they appear in a LOT of movies. It's why they almost lost Samuel L. Jackson, lost Terrance Howard, lost Emily Blunt, and why it took so long to cast Captain America.

Also, I think Paramount had a lot to do with the promotion of Marvel's movies (hence the Super Bowl ads).

[BatmanInc]

But it's happening anyway, so get ready for it. I didn't bother watching Sucker Punch myself

That is pretty much my reason for why letting Snyder onto Superman isn't a good idea, since pretty much everyone didn't see Sucker Punch.

but that's no reason to stop Superman from coming back to the screen.

A reason for a Superman film not to be made? No. A reason not to let a person who is the director, writer, and producer of a recent film that grossed less than the sequel to Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2 on it's opening day, made only 7 million more than it's pretty low budget, and was a critical bomb not allowed to be on a project of the most high-profile superhero ever? Yes. Yes it is.

[HighFivingMF]

You are aware that directors don't do the same thing every movie? The chances of Man of Steel being anything like Sucker Punch are absolute zero.

[BatmanInc]

and why it took so long to cast Captain America.


That and the fact that their candidates list pretty much sucked big time all around for the role.

[BatmanInc]

You are aware that directors don't do the same thing every movie? The chances of Man of Steel being anything like Sucker Punch are absolute zero.

By that logic, M. Night Shyamalan could direct Man of Steel.

[jmc]

Actually, even though I really like the movies Marvel has put out, they really are ****ing cheap. They have a reputation of lowballing their actors while demanding that they appear in a LOT of movies. It's why they almost lost Samuel L. Jackson, lost Terrance Howard, lost Emily Blunt, and why it took so long to cast Captain America.

Also, I think Paramount had a lot to do with the promotion of Marvel's movies (hence the Super Bowl ads).

Tried to lowball Rourke too. My biggest issue is that they seem to think the talent involved is expendable.

[HighFivingMF]

By that logic, M. Night Shyamalan could direct Man of Steel.

Mmhmm. And it would be nothing like Last Airbender or Lady in the Water.

[Chewy]

That's actually not at all why they lost Emily Blunt, or why it took so long to cast Captain America.

[Mysteryman]

[QUOTE=Chewy;20822949]That's actually not at all why they lost Emily Blunt, or why it took so long to cast Captain America.[/QUOTE
Can you elaborate on that ?

[BatmanInc]

Mmhmm. And it would be nothing like Last Airbender or Lady in the Water.

Plot wise, yes. Quality wise? That's a different story.

[Chewy]

Can you elaborate on that ?
Fox exercised an option on Blunt that forced her to do Gulliver's Travels, meaning her schedule wasn't open for IM2; it took them a while to cast Cap because they couldn't find the right actor.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Green Lantern actually went down ever so slightly on friday??? Jeez this movie's failure never ceases to amaze me.

[BatmanInc]

Green Lantern actually went down ever so slightly on friday??? Jeez this movie's failure never ceases to amaze me.

It went down from it's opening day to the day later.

This film keeps finding new ways to make itself look like a financial failure daily.

[Tony Stark]

Well it's been pulled from most theaters. That's the problem when you have that big of a drop in it's second week. There's new movies coming out, and people just aren't interested. Also the demand for 3D screens really killed it. I don't think that hurt Thor nearly as much because it had enough of a head start and Fast Five wasn't in 3D.

It will be interesting to see how this effects Cap as it will deal with Transformers and Potter still being in 3D. Luckily Cowboys and Aliens is only 2D.

[Red Mask]

That is pretty much my reason for why letting Snyder onto Superman isn't a good idea, since pretty much everyone didn't see Sucker Punch.

I'm pretty sure enough people saw it to help build Snyder's resume.


A reason for a Superman film not to be made? No. A reason not to let a person who is the director, writer, and producer of a recent film that grossed less than the sequel to Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2 on it's opening day, made only 7 million more than it's pretty low budget, and was a critical bomb not allowed to be on a project of the most high-profile superhero ever? Yes. Yes it is.

Sucker Punch did earn its budget back. That's better than what GL is achieving now. No, I wouldn't recommend the film, but it received mixed reviews. Hell, even lesbians couldn't agree if it was great or bad.

They say you're only as good as your last film. Except Snyder has proven his comicbook chops with Watchmen and 300. Unless he blows it during the production, he's doing this film. Snyder hasn't fallen as low as M. Night Shyamalan.

[Red Mask]

Green Lantern actually went down ever so slightly on friday??? Jeez this movie's failure never ceases to amaze me.

I guess a Green Lantern really can't fly. :woot:

[KalMart]

I'm pretty sure enough people saw it to help build Snyder's resume.



Sucker Punch did earn its budget back. That's better than what GL is achieving now. No, I wouldn't recommend the film, but it received mixed reviews. Hell, even lesbians couldn't agree if it was great or bad.

They say you're only as good as your last film. Except Snyder has proven his comicbook chops with Watchmen and 300. Unless he blows it during the production, he's doing this film. Snyder hasn't fallen as low as M. Night Shyamalan.

That makes it worth it.

[Dark Knight]

Captain America is tracking at $55 million opening weekend according to Boxoffice.com


Then it's squeezed between Potter 7 and Cowboys and Aliens. Plus people will still be seeing Transformers. Not looking good for Cap, especially internationally overseas.

Plus the general public are getting tired of superhero films this summer, hence the lack of a superhero film being a blockbuster this summer at the box office, despite Thor and First Class being allegedly considered "good" films.

GL was supposedly tracking at 58-60 million and look how that turned out? 53-55 million sounds about right for Cap it's opening weekend. Then I think it's all down hill from there for Cap at the box office.

[jmc]

To be fair though GL's reviews probably lessened the opening box office. I can not for the life of me imagine the reviews for CA (or the film for that matter) being as bad as GL so it's hard to see that being a factor in it's opening box office, Potter is the biggest factor for CA. I can seriously see Potter coming out ahead of CA in it's opening week, even if Potter drops like 60% the second week it'll still be making $50-60 million which is a big chunk of coin.

[Rock Sexton]

Actually, even though I really like the movies Marvel has put out, they really are ****ing cheap. They have a reputation of lowballing their actors while demanding that they appear in a LOT of movies. It's why they almost lost Samuel L. Jackson, lost Terrance Howard, lost Emily Blunt, and why it took so long to cast Captain America.

Also, I think Paramount had a lot to do with the promotion of Marvel's movies (hence the Super Bowl ads).

Shows how much you know. Paramount notoriously cheap on promotion.

[EliteF50]

Sucker Punch was awesome and I can't wait for Superman. Zack Snyder for life! :D

Just wanted to throw that out there...

[superion]

Green Lantern actually went down ever so slightly on friday??? Jeez this movie's failure never ceases to amaze me.

That's because two more movies (Horrible Bosses and Zoo Keeper) opened on Friday pushing Green Lantern further down and taking more screens from Green Lantern.

Sucker Punch did not make its budget back. Snyder's film was another money loser. Not as bad as Green Lantern but still a money loser. Snyder hasn't had a hit since 300. His last three films Sucker Punch, the Owl Movie and Watchmen all lost money.

[dnno1]

Then it's squeezed between Potter 7 and Cowboys and Aliens. Plus people will still be seeing Transformers. Not looking good for Cap, especially internationally overseas.

Plus the general public are getting tired of superhero films this summer, hence the lack of a superhero film being a blockbuster this summer at the box office, despite Thor and First Class being allegedly considered "good" films.

GL was supposedly tracking at 58-60 million and look how that turned out? 53-55 million sounds about right for Cap it's opening weekend. Then I think it's all down hill from there for Cap at the box office.

A week before my post Cap was tracking at $45 million opening weekend. I think the mistake that was made was that they over-saturated the market with comic book films this year (There were more than 4 this year) and they had to go up with some very popular franchises that were in sequels. Green Lantern could have been successful (but barely) if they had made the film for $150 million. Unfortunately they didn't.

[The Morningstar]

Cap will do well in the US. It's inevitable.

[DaveMoral]

^In the US? Definitely. Name recognition? Check. Red White n Blue? Check. Patriotism? Check. WWII? Check. A guy wrapped in an American flag beating the snot out of super Nazis? Check.

Not sure how great Cap will do overseas if we are simply judging by political opinions and the word "America" being in the movie's title. Are there any markets were Cap won't even be because of that?

[chamber-music]

Actually, even though I really like the movies Marvel has put out, they really are ****ing cheap. They have a reputation of lowballing their actors while demanding that they appear in a LOT of movies. It's why they almost lost Samuel L. Jackson, lost Terrance Howard, lost Emily Blunt, and why it took so long to cast Captain America.

Also, I think Paramount had a lot to do with the promotion of Marvel's movies (hence the Super Bowl ads).
Emily Blunt was undercontact with Fox to do the Jack Black Gullivers Travels movie thats why she couldn't play Black Widow.

[The Morningstar]

I don't think Marvel is cheap, I just think they are more cautious with their money and realise that throwing heaps of cash at a project will not inherently get results.

[Rock Sexton]

Then it's squeezed between Potter 7 and Cowboys and Aliens. Plus people will still be seeing Transformers. Not looking good for Cap, especially internationally overseas.

Plus the general public are getting tired of superhero films this summer, hence the lack of a superhero film being a blockbuster this summer at the box office, despite Thor and First Class being allegedly considered "good" films.

GL was supposedly tracking at 58-60 million and look how that turned out? 53-55 million sounds about right for Cap it's opening weekend. Then I think it's all down hill from there for Cap at the box office.

LOL .....

http://blogs.westword.com/showandtell/07%20cool%20story%20bro.jpeg

[chamber-music]

Marvel had to be tight on the purse strings before Disney brought them because effectively they were an independent film studio. They got loans and investments to fund Iron Man and Hulk.

When Disney took over they continued to allow Marvel Studios to act as a semi-independent film company like they do with Pixar. Marvel has a buinesss model and Disney has continued to allow them to follow it as its a profitable one for them.

DC have always had WB a major film studio behind it. The problem with that though is WB is much more hands on in the film side of things and that DC comics is not a priority for WB. With Marvel Studios all their focus is on the Comic book movie product its why the studio exists.

DC Entertainment doesn't exactly seem to be the same thing.

[TheVileOne]

Samuel L. Jackson is a big name but he's not exactly a top draw. Nor is Mickey Rourke.

I mean right after Iron Man 2, Rourke was back to doing DTV B-movie trash. You ever hear of a movie called Passion Play? I rest my case.

[biolumen]

According to Deadline's Sunday AM update, GL is out of the top 10. In fact, they have Woody Allen's 'Midnight In Paris' doing better than GL despite being in it's 9th week of release.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/transformers-3-top-grossing-2011-film-horrible-bosses-latest-raunchfest-to-hit-zookeeper-talks-to-target-audiences/

BoM still has GL in 9th place for the weekend, but I'm not sure if their studio estimate's are as up-to-date as Deadline's latest update.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2011&wknd=27&p=.htm

Whatever the case, GL will not even reach $120 million domestic.

[KalMart]

There's still merchandise.


:O

[Excelsior.]

We need Dnno to point out the ever present silver lining amidst the blackness.

[merced]

According to Deadline's Sunday AM update, GL is out of the top 10. In fact, they have Woody Allen's 'Midnight In Paris' doing better than GL despite being in it's 9th week of release.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/transformers-3-top-grossing-2011-film-horrible-bosses-latest-raunchfest-to-hit-zookeeper-talks-to-target-audiences/

BoM still has GL in 9th place for the weekend, but I'm not sure if their studio estimate's are as up-to-date as Deadline's latest update.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2011&wknd=27&p=.htm

Whatever the case, GL will not even reach $120 million domestic.

They could pull a Superman Returns.

When it became clear SR would stall out at 198 million or so, WB had the movie re-leased in a bunch of dollar theatres. The movie count went up almost 400 weeko week.

SR crawled to 200 million and once it hit that number it basically disappeared from theatres. ure the following week it was dropped from the dollar theatres. BTW, SR has the dubious distinction among 200 million dollar films to be the one that took the longest to reach the 200 million dollar mark.

Maybe WB will try to push GL to 120 million?

[Excelsior.]

By that logic, M. Night Shyamalan could direct Man of Steel.
Shyamalan directed Unbreakable. I haven't seen a finer superhero film.

[KalMart]

Shyamalan directed Unbreakable. I haven't seen a finer superhero film.

That wasn't that good (a superhero who can't even choke a guy to death within ten minutes, and whose weakness is...water? :oldrazz:), and he's been one-upping himself in the awful department with every successive film afterwards.

He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near ANY film from now on...comic-based or otherwise.

[Excelsior.]

That wasn't that good (a superhero who can't even choke a guy to death within ten minutes, and whose weakness is...water? :oldrazz:), and he's been one-upping himself in the awful department with every successive film afterwards.

He shouldn't be allowed anywhere near ANY film from now on...comic-based or otherwise.
It's a shame. He is like a once noble King turned tyrant. What happened to the man who was gonna be the true successor to Hitchcock?

[KalMart]

It's a shame. He is like a once noble King turned tyrant. What happened to the man who was gonna be the true successor to Hitchcock?

He blew his load with his first film, and didn't have any other tricks up his sleeve.

He's also an arrogant prick to work with. That works for a few people out there, somehow...but not for him.

[Docker2.0]

That's because two more movies (Horrible Bosses and Zoo Keeper) opened on Friday pushing Green Lantern further down and taking more screens from Green Lantern.

Sucker Punch did not make its budget back. Snyder's film was another money loser. Not as bad as Green Lantern but still a money loser. Snyder hasn't had a hit since 300. His last three films Sucker Punch, the Owl Movie and Watchmen all lost money.

You are correct sir! Movie cost $82M to make, only made $36M Dom and $53M in the foreign, in which half or possibly more than that goes to the theaters. WB only made possibly $62M of the money, if that. Why do I bring these numbers up you ask? Because I have complete faith in Zach Snider. I didn't like Watchmen nor have I seen Sucker Punch which looked like a movie gumbo(you know, just throw action and chicks in with no plot and Bam! you have Sucker Punch and Transformers 2!)but I liked 300 and Dawn of the Dead. I honestly believe he's going to knock MOS out of the park. I think Geoff was to involved with GL and that's what really messed it up. I'm really hoping Bruce Timm is given a chance to make a DC property, like a GL or Flash, because he gets the characters and the animated movies are great.

[Excelsior.]

Just because Timm does well with animation doesn't mean he can do live action.

[Docker2.0]

Just because Timm does well with animation doesn't mean he can do live action.

You're right but I say give him a chance. Michael Bay, Akiva Goldsmith, and Tyler Perry(yeah I said it!)continue to put out crap. At least give him a chance because you may have a diamond in the rough.

[Karelia]

I'd love to see what Bruce Timm could do with some live action DC properties. I think he said he wasn't as interested in live action because their's less freedom.

I bet J.J. Abrams could do a good GL film.

[KalMart]

Just because Timm does well with animation doesn't mean he can do live action.

Yeah, the most important ingredient for any movie to be good, regardless of what it's based on, is to have good MOVIE people involved. That's why I'd rather have a Spielberg or Bruckheimer as exec. producer on ANY comic-based movie than a Geoff Johns or other person coming out of comics.

Y'know...I'd rather see Timm do something with Pixar, like Brad Bird did, then maybe migrate towards live-action. I also wonder if Timm can do anything outside of DC/comic characters. Has he/can he come up with or develop original characters and stories like Bird? I mean, yo look at how much time Timm has spent with Batman, Superman, and the JL...but then Bird made what was arguably a better Superman(-ish) story with Iron Giant...and one of the best moving-format superhero representations with The Incredibles. I put both of those considerably above any feature-length efforts we've seen from Timm...but granted, he may have not had as much money/resources (strangely, with how big WB/DC are).

I mentioned years ago that WB could have developed their own 'in-house' version of Pixar like Dreamworks has tried to do...but anchor it with their DC characters and Timm. But they keep sticking with cartoon-like releases with more limited backing and release.

[Excelsior.]

Yeah, the most important ingredient for any movie to be good, regardless of what it's based on, is to have good MOVIE people involved. That's why I'd rather have a Spielberg or Bruckheimer as exec. producer on ANY comic-based movie than a Geoff Johns or other person coming out of comics.

Y'know...I'd rather see Timm do something with Pixar, like Brad Bird did, then maybe migrate towards live-action. I also wonder if Timm can do anything outside of DC/comic characters. Has he/can he come up with or develop original characters and stories like Bird? I mean, yo look at how much time Timm has spent with Batman, Superman, and the JL...but then Bird made what was arguably a better Superman(-ish) story with Iron Giant...and one of the best moving-format superhero representations with The Incredibles. I put both of those considerably above any feature-length efforts we've seen from Timm...but granted, he may have not had as much money/resources (strangely, with how big WB/DC are).

I mentioned years ago that WB could have developed their own 'in-house' version of Pixar like Dreamworks has tried to do...but anchor it with their DC characters and Timm. But they keep sticking with cartoon-like releases with more limited backing and release.
Maybe they will give that a try if Marvel joins hands with Pixar and does it first.

[KalMart]

Maybe they will give that a try if Marvel joins hands with Pixar and does it first.

Marvel has already made a clever move in producing anime versions of their characters....something I also pined for years back. I don't think Disney would force that on Pixar...especially since they can't, as Pixar basically IS Disney now with Lassiter being Disney's Chief Creative Officer and such. Pixar would want to do that themselves and I don't see them wanting to. Notice how Pixar hasn't even put out Mickey Mouse CG-animated movies?

The way Pixar works is developing their own original projects from the ground up over three years, and staggering multiple ones so that they can release one per year.....not motivating an adapted project by marketing/franchise to capitalize on a current trend like with comic-movies. They run their own independent show....part of the reason why they collectively put out what I believe to be the best films available today.

[biolumen]

Maybe WB will try to push GL to 120 million?

I'm sure they'll do what they can, but "pushing" a product usually requires an expenditure of funds, and I think WB might be better off just cutting their losses at this point, at least on the domestic front.

Unless, of course, they're looking at GL purely as a tax write-off for this fiscal year.

[TheVileOne]

Keeping a movie in theatres longer means the studio keeps less of the money. Exhibitors want to keep new movies coming in regularly and want to cycle out the old stuff.

It's not going to make much of a difference at this point. This is pretty much worst case scenario for DCE, WB, and Green Lantern.

[BatmanInc]

Yeah, the most important ingredient for any movie to be good, regardless of what it's based on, is to have good MOVIE people involved. That's why I'd rather have a Spielberg or Bruckheimer as exec. producer on ANY comic-based movie than a Geoff Johns or other person coming out of comics.

Y'know...I'd rather see Timm do something with Pixar, like Brad Bird did, then maybe migrate towards live-action. I also wonder if Timm can do anything outside of DC/comic characters. Has he/can he come up with or develop original characters and stories like Bird? I mean, yo look at how much time Timm has spent with Batman, Superman, and the JL...but then Bird made what was arguably a better Superman(-ish) story with Iron Giant...and one of the best moving-format superhero representations with The Incredibles. I put both of those considerably above any feature-length efforts we've seen from Timm...but granted, he may have not had as much money/resources (strangely, with how big WB/DC are).

I mentioned years ago that WB could have developed their own 'in-house' version of Pixar like Dreamworks has tried to do...but anchor it with their DC characters and Timm. But they keep sticking with cartoon-like releases with more limited backing and release.



True, but I could see them still working together in some form or another. For example, Pixar might have a few Marvel guys help out if they decide to do an Incredibles sequel.

[KalMart]

True, but I could see them still working together in some form or another. For example, Pixar might have a few Marvel guys help out if they decide to do an Incredibles sequel.

Why, though? They didn't need their help on the first one, and that one kicked ass. Just like they didn't need toy company consultants for Toy Story. :O heh...


I think it's best for both if they remain creatively independent. Pixar does what they do the way they do it...and they do it better than anyone. You don't want to mess with that.

[Marvin]

every week this is out it seems it get's lower and lower in the charts...
compared to films that came out before it that is.

[KalMart]

every week this is out it seems it get's lower and lower in the charts...
compared to films that came out before it that is.

Just turn the charts upside-down and you'll feel better. Soon, it'll be at the top! :D :oldrazz:

[CaptainCraig]

i will pay the same money for the ticket. if the movie is 100 or 200 millions. the difference is that sometimes you get more.
Which has become part of the problem, part, as I see it. It's why I will not pay $10.50 or even matinee $7.50 to see a comedy. A typical comedy costs $30-50m a typcial action f/x heavy film $100-200m. However, my pricepoint is the same.

I don't walk into a retailer and get to pay $25 for just any shirt in the store. A Hillfiger will be priced different than a Polo or Izod due to what went into the shirts manufacture. I don't walk onto a car lot and pay $10K for just any 4-dar car I want. The KIA is one price, Toyota another and BMW yet another.

I'm not saying I have the answer but I would go to more movies ie comedies and horror films in theaters if there were a sliding scale for films.

I the case of GL or say Prince of Persia from last year, it would seriously make a studio say "Are we really making a film audiences will pay for on the high end of the scale to see?"

[TheVileOne]

Umm they are charging you more to watch Green Lantern in 3D. You aren't going to pay extra money to see Horrible Bosses in 3D.

Also more people were supposed to see Green Lantern that is why more money is invested in studio tentpoles.

But why should I pay extra to see an inferior ****** 3D conversion of a movie?

[CaptainCraig]

^^^^
Dude, 2-D
You still have that choice. The upgrade is your choice.
My point still remains for 2-D. Can't believe I had to spell it out.

[dnno1]

According to Deadline's Sunday AM update, GL is out of the top 10. In fact, they have Woody Allen's 'Midnight In Paris' doing better than GL despite being in it's 9th week of release.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/transformers-3-top-grossing-2011-film-horrible-bosses-latest-raunchfest-to-hit-zookeeper-talks-to-target-audiences/

BoM still has GL in 9th place for the weekend, but I'm not sure if their studio estimate's are as up-to-date as Deadline's latest update.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2011&wknd=27&p=.htm

Whatever the case, GL will not even reach $120 million domestic.

I don't know why people as setting the bar so high for this film when it never had the publicity of the films ahead of it. According to Box Office Mojo, it is the 13th highest grossing film of the year (WorldWideBoxoffice.com has it at 16th). There are currently more than 80 films that made less than Green Lantern (and will never make any more than Green Lantern). That's not really that bad to tell you the truth if you look at the fact that there are. The only bad thing is that it is questionable if they will make their money back at the box office. Even then, that still doesn't mean that they won't get their money back from their other revenue streams.

[KalMart]

Which has become part of the problem, part, as I see it. It's why I will not pay $10.50 or even matinee $7.50 to see a comedy. A typical comedy costs $30-50m a typcial action f/x heavy film $100-200m. However, my pricepoint is the same.

I don't walk into a retailer and get to pay $25 for just any shirt in the store. A Hillfiger will be priced different than a Polo or Izod due to what went into the shirts manufacture. I don't walk onto a car lot and pay $10K for just any 4-dar car I want. The KIA is one price, Toyota another and BMW yet another.

I'm not saying I have the answer but I would go to more movies ie comedies and horror films in theaters if there were a sliding scale for films.

I the case of GL or say Prince of Persia from last year, it would seriously make a studio say "Are we really making a film audiences will pay for on the high end of the scale to see?"

I think that most moviegoers are looking to enjoy the two hours they spend in a movie theater...whether it's an action/adventure or a comedy....just like they're looking to enjoy a solo acoustic, five-piece band, or full orchestral recording for the same price per MP3. I'm not sure what guidelines theaters use to regulate ticket prices, but that probably comes into play as well.

And honestly...if you paid more for a horrible action movie than you would a comedy that you liked...would you be okay with that because the action movie cost more to make, or would you be pissed that you not only spent money, but lost that time?

[KalMart]

I don't know why people as setting the bar so high for this film. According to Box Office Mojo, it is the 13th highest grossing film of the year (WorldWideBoxoffice.com has it at 16th). There are currently more than 80 films that made less than Green Lantern (and will never make any more than Green Lantern). That's not really that bad to tell you the truth if you look at the fact that there are. The only bad thing is that it is questionable if they will make their money back at the box office. Even then, that still doesn't mean that they won't get their money back from their other revenue streams.

Why should people set the bar low for a movie whose purpose is to make a lot of money? If that's your standard, then you should be exalting the movies that did even better than GL....you should be giving mere credit to movies like Thor instead of trying to get sympathy for GL.

[Spider-Fan]

I don't know why people as setting the bar so high for this film when it never had the publicity of the films ahead of it. According to Box Office Mojo, it is the 13th highest grossing film of the year (WorldWideBoxoffice.com has it at 16th). There are currently more than 80 films that made less than Green Lantern (and will never make any more than Green Lantern). That's not really that bad to tell you the truth if you look at the fact that there are. The only bad thing is that it is questionable if they will make their money back at the box office. Even then, that still doesn't mean that they won't get their money back from their other revenue streams.

That's immaterial. Most of those movies didn't have GL's budget. There is a different BO grossing expectation the mroe money you spend on something. WB expected more from GL. This is very clear.

[Marvin]

3D is only worth it if it's an event and Cameron approved, anything else and I'm sure the 3
D ticket sales will but less then 45 percent.

[biolumen]

I don't know why people as setting the bar so high for this film when it never had the publicity of the films ahead of it.

The bar was set by WB when they decided to make this film in the first place. They expected Iron Man numbers. $300+ Million domestic, the same international. If they knew up front that they wouldn't turn a profit until the sale of network TV rights, something that's dubious at best, they would not have made GL to begin with. Certainly not at the cost this one was made at.

[Octoberist]

Yeah, the bar was obviously set high from the get-go, but it didnt work out. it's pretty black and white. And in it's aftermath, the Green Lantern film franchise and DC film properties are in jeopardy.

If it wasn't a failure, we wouldn't have this conversion dnno.

I mean, Box office money is fairly straight forward. Making excuses up for Green Lantern's box office ist doing anyone any favors. It's like getting an F on a test and I'll convince myself that it's an F for 'Fantastic'.

[dnno1]

The bar was set by WB when they decided to make this film in the first place. They expected Iron Man numbers. $300+ Million domestic, the same international. If they knew up front that they wouldn't turn a profit until the sale of network TV rights, something that's dubious at best, they would not have made GL to begin with. Certainly not at the cost this one was made at.

But when you think about it, it was over optimistic. The character was not as well known as Batman, Superman, or any of the other successful Marvel film franchises and they really did nothing to create brand awareness for the character until four years ago with a single DTV (that didn't sell very well). Furthermore they tried to target kids, but they unfortunately put enough adult subject matter in the film to get it an adult rating from the Catholic News Service (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv069.htm). That outfit basically said that the concept of a guy who has the power to create anything he can imagine is "a form of creativity reserved to God alone". Just imagine what other Christian organizations said about the film? I think this was their biggest mistake. They tried to make this film like some of the best modern day CBM's (and they actually did), but the concept was not what the mainstream was ready for.

[Red Mask]

Yeah, the bar was obviously set high from the get-go, but it didnt work out. it's pretty black and white. And in it's aftermath, the Green Lantern film franchise and DC film properties are in jeopardy.

If it wasn't a failure, we wouldn't have this conversion dnno.

I mean, Box office money is fairly straight forward. Making excuses up for Green Lantern's box office ist doing anyone any favors. It's like getting an F on a test and I'll convince myself that it's an F for 'Fantastic'.

LOL! That's pretty much sums it all up.

[jacobed]

But when you think about it, it was over optimistic. The character was not as well known as Batman, Superman, or any of the other successful Marvel film franchises and they really did nothing to create brand awareness for the character until four years ago with a single DTV (that didn't sell very well). Furthermore they tried to target kids, but they unfortunately put enough adult subject matter in the film to get it an adult rating from the Catholic News Service (http://www.catholicnews.com/data/movies/11mv069.htm). That outfit basically said that the concept of a guy who has the power to create anything he can imagine is "a form of creativity reserved to God alone". Just imagine what other Christian organizations said about the film? I think this was their biggest mistake. They tried to make this film like some of the best modern day CBM's (and they actually did), but the concept was not what the mainstream was ready for.

Iron Man wasn't known by anyone until that movie came out and now look it, everybody and their mom knows Iron Man. Why? because the movie was good and entertaining. Green Lantern eh not so much.

[jmc]

As hilarious as it is I've seriously gotta give dnno credit for trying to find new ways to blame everything but the film for it's own failure.

[dnno1]

Iron Man wasn't known by anyone until that movie came out and now look it, everybody and their mom knows Iron Man. Why? because the movie was good and entertaining. Green Lantern eh not so much.

That isn't true about the awareness of Iron Man. There were people who knew about the character since he had a TV series in the 1990's and there are a lot more Marvel fans than DC based on comic sales. Furthermore, it is easy to understand the concept of a guy in a powered suit of armor (exoskeleton) since there are countries prototyping their own versions right now. A guy who can create anything he can imagine? That's stupid, idiotic, dumb, and playing with God according to critics. They made Green Lantern very similar to Iron Man 2 (without a Rodey Rhoded character) in that there was light comedic scenes, serious moments between the lead characters (Hal and Carol, Tony and Pepper) and action scenes. It's just that people didn't understand the character enough to want to go out and see the movie (and the critics reviews didn't help persuade them either).

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

That isn't true about the awareness of Iron Man. There were people who knew about the character since he had a TV series in the 1990's and there are a lot more Marvel fans than DC based on comic sales. Furthermore, it is easy to understand the concept of a guy in a powered suit of armor (exoskeleton) since there are countries prototyping their own versions right now. A guy who can create anything he can imagine? That's stupid, idiotic, dumb, and playing with God according to critics.

And audiences so it would seem...

Look if people can accept a concept like ''The Force''... then they can accept the power of will.

WB just made a **** movie with desperate marketing and poor timing.

[Gamma Burst]

As hilarious as it is I've seriously gotta give dnno credit for trying to find new ways to blame everything but the film for it's own failure.

He's very creative, at least.:woot:

[Chewy]

That isn't true about the awareness of Iron Man. There were people who knew about the character since he had a TV series in the 1990's and there are a lot more Marvel fans than DC based on comic sales. Furthermore, it is easy to understand the concept of a guy in a powered suit of armor (exoskeleton) since there are countries prototyping their own versions right now. A guy who can create anything he can imagine? That's stupid, idiotic, dumb, and playing with God according to critics.It was not the concept that the critics critiqued. That argument holds no water as Thor has a concept that's equally out there. It was the movie that critics did not like.

[Gamma Burst]

It was not the concept that the critics critiqued. That argument holds no water as Thor has a concept that's equally out there. It was the movie that critics did not like.

Not to mention that, according to his logic, Thor, a God, should've been by critics and audience.

[Lencho01]

That isn't true about the awareness of Iron Man. There were people who knew about the character since he had a TV series in the 1990's and there are a lot more Marvel fans than DC based on comic sales. Furthermore, it is easy to understand the concept of a guy in a powered suit of armor (exoskeleton) since there are countries prototyping their own versions right now. A guy who can create anything he can imagine? That's stupid, idiotic, dumb, and playing with God according to critics. They made Green Lantern very similar to Iron Man 2 (without a Rodey Rhoded character) in that there was light comedic scenes, serious moments between the lead characters (Hal and Carol, Tony and Pepper) and action scenes. It's just that people didn't understand the character enough to want to go out and see the movie (and the critics reviews didn't help persuade them either).

The concept of GL then should be more popular than Iron Man was when his first film was made since GL was in JL/JLU, The Batman, Batman: Brave & the Bold, was in some DTVs, and Young Justice all before the live-action film was released. Comics sales are irrelevant.

The idea of using some ring (and will) and just as silly as using some laser-like sword (and something called "The Force").

People didn't see the film because it wasn't advertised as someting worth their time and money and initial reactions didn't help.

Simple as that. No need to make something more complicated than it really is.

[chiefchirpa]

The concept of GL then should be more popular than Iron Man was when his first film was made since GL was in JL/JLU, The Batman, Batman: Brave & the Bold, was in some DTVs, and Young Justice all before the live-action film was released. Comics sales are irrelevant.

The idea of using some ring (and will) and just as silly as using some laser-like sword (and something called "The Force").

People didn't see the film because it wasn't advertised as someting worth their time and money and initial reactions didn't help.

Simple as that. No need to make something more complicated than it really is.

A man in a military-like exosuit is taken to be more realistic than even a man in a bat suit, a man with flag costume, green monster, etc. The concept of technology infused guy is said to be more realistic & less cornier than many superheroes. That's what sell it to non comic reading audiences, never mind some have never heard of Iron Man before while they have seen GL in cartoons or another medium.

Between a sword and a ring, many people would see the sword to be the less incredulous.

[chiefchirpa]

That isn't true about the awareness of Iron Man. There were people who knew about the character since he had a TV series in the 1990's and there are a lot more Marvel fans than DC based on comic sales.

Correct me if I'm wrong, even if Marvel fans seem to be more numerous DC fans are just more fanatics to their stuff. Just check on comic cons who wear their costumes more Marvel or DC? Or rather in these forums, who frequented the comics & brand specific movie forum more, Marvel or DC? My own observation: DC.

Mainstream knows Marvel more though because of the barrage of 2000's movies and "Marvel" seems a bit easier to remember as a brand name than DC Comics <- one thing you can't leave the "comics" there or it would sound like the nation's capital, but "Marvel" sounds okay being just "Marvel".

[Lencho01]

A man in a military-like exosuit is taken to be more realistic than even a man in a bat suit, a man with flag costume, green monster, etc. The concept of technology infused guy is said to be more realistic & less cornier than many superheroes. That's what sell it to non comic reading audiences, never mind some have never heard of Iron Man before while they have seen GL in cartoons or another medium.

Between a sword and a ring, many people would see the sword to be the less incredulous.

How realistic any of these films are or how close we are to actually doing the same thing in the real world is not really an issue. If the film is not marketed well enough to get enough people interested to the point that how much critics may like/hate it has no effect, it will fail financially. It's not like people watch trailers and TV spots and say, "That is just way too silly for me! I'm never going to watch that!" Star Wars, Batman, and most recently Transformers are evidence of that.

[dnno1]

It was not the concept that the critics critiqued. That argument holds no water as Thor has a concept that's equally out there. It was the movie that critics did not like.

Richard Roper (http://www.richardroeper.com/reviews/greenlantern.aspx) said that "even the most ardent fan-boys out there have to admit that Green Lantern is one of the sillier superheroes, what with the emerald tights and the gaudy ring and the way he flits about. No to mention the Guardians of the Universe thing..." That means to me that it's the concept (even though he admitted that it took elements from franchises like Superman, Spider-Man, and Iron Man).

Brandon Fibbs (http://brandonfibbs.com/2011/06/17/the-green-lantern/) says: "Though I will doubtless upset some of the aforementioned fan-boys with what I say next, The Green Lantern is far too silly to interest the average, uninitiated moviegoer." This is after he implied that there was no way that all of the players involved (and they were great ones) could make it a great film. Why? because the concept itself to him was the problem.

There are more who say the same or something similar. I think these critics were expecting something unique and different but when they say the same or similar elements as other CBM's the passed it off as shoddy. What they don't understand is that this is comic book genre. You have a superhero who has a girlfriend. You have a villain or villains who endanger the girlfriend and/or the world. The hero saves the girlfriend and/or the world. End of story. This is mediocre at best to the critics, and when you have a mainstream audience that knows nothing of the character nor his history, the critics reviews do nothing to inspire them to come see the film.

[dark_b]

dnno1 you are doing a fantastic job at making up everything possible. yet your posts dont look like you are trolling. what you are doing is art. i respect that.

[Chewy]

Richard Roper (http://www.richardroeper.com/reviews/greenlantern.aspx) said that "even the most ardent fan-boys out there have to admit that Green Lantern is one of the sillier superheroes, what with the emerald tights and the gaudy ring and the way he flits about. No to mention the Guardians of the Universe thing..." That means to me that it's the concept (even though he admitted that it took elements from franchises like Superman, Spider-Man, and Iron Man).

Brandon Fibbs (http://brandonfibbs.com/2011/06/17/the-green-lantern/) says: "Though I will doubtless upset some of the aforementioned fan-boys with what I say next, The Green Lantern is far too silly to interest the average, uninitiated moviegoer." This is after he implied that there was no way that all of the players involved (and they were great ones) could make it a great film. Why? because the concept itself to him was the problem.

There are more who say the same or something similar. I think these critics were expecting something unique and different but when they say the same or similar elements as other CBM's the passed it off as shoddy. What they don't understand is that this is comic book genre. You have a superhero who has a girlfriend. You have a villain or villains who endanger the girlfriend and/or the world. The hero saves the girlfriend and/or the world. End of story. This is mediocre at best to the critics, and when you have a mainstream audience that knows nothing of the character nor his history, the critics reviews do nothing to inspire them to come see the film.And were the film good they would be singing a different tune. Nearly every Thor review included a comment about how the material was inherently silly in the reviewer's mind but the movie overcame that.

[dnno1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, even if Marvel fans seem to be more numerous DC fans are just more fanatics to their stuff. Just check on comic cons who wear their costumes more Marvel or DC? Or rather in these forums, who frequented the comics & brand specific movie forum more, Marvel or DC? My own observation: DC.

No, the thing about DC fans is that some of them only care about one hero and care less about the rest. I have seen many a comment from folks who say that the only reason the read DC comics is for the Batman and don't care about the other DC heroes. The same thing goes for some of the Superman fans as well.

Mainstream knows Marvel more though because of the barrage of 2000's movies and "Marvel" seems a bit easier to remember as a brand name than DC Comics <- one thing you can't leave the "comics" there or it would sound like the nation's capital, but "Marvel" sounds okay being just "Marvel".

The Mainstream knows more about Marvel because they were systematic about their brand awareness. Over the past 30 years they introduced their properties through animated TV series that was featured on network television. Being more suited for an adult audience, it was much easier to introduce those characters to an average moviegoer aged 12-24 some 30 years later. What did DC do to promote characters like Green Lantern, the Flash, or even Wonder Woman in the last 30 years? Granted, they appeared in the Super Friends and Justice League cartoon series, but their personalities, origins and gallery of villains were never really explained. People wanting to watch these characters in a feature film will have a lot of questions about these characters, but if they come off as silly and dumb or their concept is just a carbon copy of another superhero, why wouldn't you expect a similar result from critics and the mainstream audience?

[dnno1]

And were the film good they would be singing a different tune. Nearly every Thor review included a comment about how the material was inherently silly in the reviewer's mind but the movie overcame that.

According to these critics, it was doomed to fail, because it was a silly concept that wasn't truly original. Not every Thor review had comments like that of Green Lantern. That's because they understood the idea of a mythological Norse god. It's the fact that Green Lantern came afterward with nothing really new that bore their dislike.

[dnno1]

dnno1 you are doing a fantastic job at making up everything possible. yet your posts dont look like you are trolling. what you are doing is art. i respect that.


I cited where I got this from. I am not making this up.

[Gamma Burst]

I cited where I got this from. I am not making this up.

So..You're not making excuses for this movie's failure?

[dnno1]

So..You're not making excuses for this movie's failure?

I am telling you what critics are saying about the film and what might have changed that perception (held by both the mainstream and the critics). If you want to call that an excuse, then fine, but the fact still remains that characters like Superman, Batman, Spider-man, Iron Man, and the X-Men had better brand awareness than Green Lantern because then were exposed to generations of folks through television, and DC needs to do more of that with their other properties if they expect them to succeed on the big screen.

[chiefchirpa]

I am telling you what critics are saying about the film and what might have changed that perception (held by both the mainstream and the critics). If you want to call that an excuse, then fine, but the fact still remains that characters like Superman, Batman, Spider-man, Iron Man, and the X-Men had better brand awareness than Green Lantern because then were exposed to generations of folks through television, and DC needs to do more of that with their other properties if they expect them to succeed on the big screen.

Certainly not Iron Man. Iron Man is the exception to the rule.

[Stikmann]

I am telling you what critics are saying about the film and what might have changed that perception (held by both the mainstream and the critics). If you want to call that an excuse, then fine, but the fact still remains that characters like Superman, Batman, Spider-man, Iron Man, and the X-Men had better brand awareness than Green Lantern because then were exposed to generations of folks through television, and DC needs to do more of that with their other properties if they expect them to succeed on the big screen.

It seems that before the movie came out, you argued that GL had plenty of "brand awareness", saying things like...

"He was also part of the Super Friends, which is still the longest continuous running animated TV superhero franchise in history (about 10 seasons). Episodes from that franchise still air from time to time on Boomerang, so there should be a good number of folks who know about the character. He his also mentioned in the song "Sunshine Superman" by Donovan ("Superman or Green Lantern ain't got nothing one me..."). Green Lantern should be know by a folks of all ages. I think that when people say that he is not it is a farce."

So now, after the fact, you feel differently?

[dnno1]

Certainly not Iron Man. Iron Man is the exception to the rule.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/73/1994_Iron_Man_Cartoon_Season_1_Title.jpg/250px-1994_Iron_Man_Cartoon_Season_1_Title.jpg

Iron Man had a TV series in the 1990's that lasted 2 seasons. Although that was a short run, it still was in syndication. After the success of the first film, Marvel went ahead and produced "Iron Man: The Armored Adventures". This is far more than the exposure Green Lantern had.

[Chewy]

A terribly unsuccessful cartoon and a cartoon after the movie came out is certainly not more pre-movie exposure than Justice League was.

[Gamma Burst]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/73/1994_Iron_Man_Cartoon_Season_1_Title.jpg/250px-1994_Iron_Man_Cartoon_Season_1_Title.jpg

Iron Man had a TV series in the 1990's that lasted 2 seasons. Although that was a short run, it still was in syndication. After the success of the first film, Marvel went ahead and produced "Iron Man: The Armored Adventures". This is far more than the exposure Green Lantern had.

No, it isn't. The excuses are getting ridiculous.

[Jordanstine]

To say that Green Lantern should be known by folks of all ages is just naive.

Green Lantern, believe it or not, outside comic book fanboys is an unknown.

Try the girlfriend test.

Just ask your girlfriend if she knows the following:

- Superman? Yes.
- Batman? Yes.
- Wonder Woman? Yes.
- Spider-Man? Yes.
- Hulk? Yes.
- Captain America? Yes.
- Iron Man? Yes (albeit recently only).
- Flash? Yes (surprisingly).
- Wolverine? No, but she knows the X-Men.
- Thor? No, but she knows of the greek character.
- Green Lantern? Huh, a green what!?

Even some of my friends / co-workers who don't read comic books actually think the name alone of Green Lantern sounds lame. "Why the hell would a super hero be called Green Lantern?" - I've read people on twitter say that.

[chiefchirpa]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/73/1994_Iron_Man_Cartoon_Season_1_Title.jpg/250px-1994_Iron_Man_Cartoon_Season_1_Title.jpg

Iron Man had a TV series in the 1990's that lasted 2 seasons. Although that was a short run, it still was in syndication. After the success of the first film, Marvel went ahead and produced "Iron Man: The Armored Adventures". This is far more than the exposure Green Lantern had.

It only survived for 2 seasons and how long ago it was been? Most of the audiences have already grown up. Not so with the JLA generations. Iron Man: AA was made after the first movie so your point is irrelevant.

Fact is, comic cons have always been filled with people with Green Lantern shirts and cosplays. Not Iron Man.

[Gamma Burst]

To say that Green Lantern should be known by folks of all ages is just naive.

Green Lantern, believe it or not, outside comic book fanboys is an unknown.

Try the girlfriend test.

Just ask your girlfriend if she knows the following:

- Superman? Yes.
- Batman? Yes.
- Wonder Woman? Yes.
- Spider-Man? Yes.
- Hulk? Yes.
- Captain America? Yes.
- Iron Man? Yes (albeit recently only).
- Flash? Yes (surprisingly).
- Wolverine? No, but she knows the X-Men.
- Thor? No, but she knows of the greek character.
- Green Lantern? Huh, a green what!?

Even some of my friends / co-workers who don't read comic books actually think the name alone of Green Lantern sounds lame. "Why the hell would a super hero be called Green Lantern?" - I've read people on twitter say that.

Norse.:word: