Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 1

[Poni_Boy]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[S.A.A.D.]

Subjective (The CGI suits being unnecessary).

 

[The Morningstar]

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

 

[DarthSkywalker]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[moviedoors]

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

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

 

[Spider-Fan]

Subjective (The CGI suits being unnecessary).

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

 

[dark_b]

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

i dont understand this part.

 

[moviedoors]

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

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

 

[Poni_Boy]

i dont understand this part.

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

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

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

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

 

[The Morningstar]

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

 

[dark_b]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[dark_b]

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

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

sets are also destroyed after filming.

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

 

[moviedoors]

i dont understand this part.

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

 

[moviedoors]

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

sets are also destroyed after filming.

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

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

 

[Poni_Boy]

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

Yeah, sure lol

 

[dark_b]

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

experience?

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

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

 

[MadVillainy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Marvin]

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

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

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

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

which is why

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

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

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

 

[Octoberist]

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

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

 

[CaptainCraig]

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

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

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

This is bad.

 

[The Morningstar]

Yea, GL is pretty much DOA.

 

[Octoberist]

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

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

Stupid, WB. I remember reading about this.

 

[Tony Stark]

experience?

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Tony Stark]

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

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

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

This is bad.

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

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

 

[Tacit Ronin]

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