Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 1

[moviedoors]

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

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

 

[TheVileOne]

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

 

[MadVillainy]

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

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

Why not?

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

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

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

 

[Tony Stark]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Raiden]

The dream is fading

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

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


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

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

 

[Poni_Boy]

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

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

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

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

 

[The Morningstar]

Why not?

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

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

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

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

 

[J.Howlett]

When were they in New Zealand?

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

 

[MadVillainy]

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

Comics arent the movies. It's all about getting the right film talent. I mean how much does Nolan's Batman draw from the current Batman run compared to older stories like Year One and The Long Halloween
The film crew could look at THe Circle, Gods and Mortals, DCAU, and the DTV movie as well as their own original idea to make a good movie

 

[Tony Stark]

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

Yeah if it's done the same way.

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

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

 

[Poni_Boy]

When were they in New Zealand?

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

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

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

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Hulk1968]

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

 

[J.Howlett]

Poni,

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

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

 

[Poni_Boy]

Poni,

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

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

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

 

[dark_b]

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

 

[moviedoors]

Why not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exactly.

 

[J.Howlett]

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

 

[MadVillainy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[moviedoors]

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

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

 

[Tony Stark]

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

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

 

[Tony Stark]

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

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

 

[MadVillainy]

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


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

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


Exactly.

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

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

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

 

[dark_b]

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

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

 

[Spider-Fan]

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