Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 1

[Sith Scotti]

A sequel will be lucky to make Hellboy numbers.

 

[Chewy]

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

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

 

[Raiden]

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

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

 

[craigdbfan]

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

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

 

[Tony Stark]

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

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

 

[JeetKuneDo]

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

Agreed. This could be a decent hit if only spending had been reasonable.

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

I know what you mean....but if everyone in just the US bought one ticket to a movie it would be the highest grossing movie of all time.

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

 

[Tony Stark]

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

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

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

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

 

[craigdbfan]

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

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

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

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

 

[terry78]

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

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

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

 

[dark_b]

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

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

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

 

[craigdbfan]

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

 

[dark_b]

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

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

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

 

[craigdbfan]

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

This is correct.

 

[craigdbfan]

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

Yeah, I'm aware.

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

 

[Octoberist]

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

But he made it work.

 

[dark_b]

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

they are one of the best. theyha ve 20 years of experiene working with prosthetics and real models. they know what looks real because they have eyes.Sony is blind

 

[dark_b]

But he made it work.

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

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

 

[Octoberist]

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

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

Are you typing on a cell too?

 

[dark_b]

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

 

[BigThor]

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

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

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

 

[Rock Sexton]

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

Stop talking facts, jeebus!

 

[kedrell]

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

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

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

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

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

 

[Sith Scotti]

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

 

[Donut]

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