Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 1

[Poni_Boy]

lol

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-bros-pursue-green-lantern-205703

How silly

LOL I just posted that in the News section. It doesn't seem like any new info

 

[DaveMoral]

Doubtful. WB now has DCE to shift the blame to.

I do wonder if it will hit their hopeful benchmark of $325 mil WW. It looks like a slim to none chance, but you never really know with some of those international markets.

I'd personally like to see that, because the problem isn't really in the cast or the basic conception. It's in the execution and the script. I believe that can and should be ironed out, and I'm not convinced a reboot is the way to do that.

I love The Incredible Hulk, but it had a very hard time recovering from the badness that was Hulk... and it was bad enough that Marvel really wasn't as interested as I think they should have been to keep Ed Norton for the Avengers. Reboots aren't anymore a sure thing than a sequel is. And I'm deeply skeptical about The Amazing Spider-Man and frankly personally against it myself, because I still think Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2 were excellent movies. I can't help but wonder if audiences won't look at that and say "didn't we do this already?" and walk away without as much interest as could be there.

3 years is around the interval between sequels anyway. What's WB going to do? A reboot after 3-5 years? How are they going to sell that any better than they could a sequel? The logic behind that doesn't really wash, IMO. Reboot seems to only make sense to fanboys, not so much to GAs. If they were reach sequel numbers, and I would hope they factor in the success of GL:TAS as far as that goes, I'd rather end up with a sequel than a reboot attempt in a few years that would likely re-tread similar ground. I'm not entirely convinced "origin story" staples would be ignored for a reboot and I have my doubts they are doing that with The Amazing Spider-Man entirely.

The Incredible Hulk had 5 years to recover from Hulk and still only grossed just shy of 3 million more than Hulk domestically.

 

[merced]

lol

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/warner-bros-pursue-green-lantern-205703

How silly

Interesting as WB would not commit to a SR sequel for the 4 months after it debuted. Saying things like it has to make 200 million then maybe.

It may be PR or it may be the reality that with WB losing Superman after 2012 and only Batman being viable they desperately need a solid comic book franchise beyond Bats.

Still, I'm a bit dubious about a GL sequel at this point.

 

[Chewy]

That reeks of BS and studio spin. I don't buy that for second.

I know, that's why I said it was silly.

They will not acknowledge its failure for some time now. But do they think anyone will believe for a second while they act otherwise?

 

[KalMart]

Interesting as WB would not commit to a SR sequel for the 4 months after it debuted. Saying things like it has to make 200 million then maybe.

It may be PR or it may be the reality that with WB losing Superman after 2012 and only Batman being viable they desperately need a solid comic book franchise beyond Bats.

Still, I'm a bit dubious about a GL sequel at this point.

Didn't they apparently 'sign' the majors and director to a contract for a sequel as a protective measure?

 

[Poni_Boy]

LEAKED: WARNER BROTHER'S CBM RELEASE PLANS THROUGH 2020

2012: The Dark Knight Rises, Man of Steel
2013: Batman Begins/The Dark Knight/Dark Knight Rises in 3D
2014: The Dark Knight Falls
2015: Man of Tomorrow
2016: The Dark Knight Returns
2017: Last Son of Krypton
2018: The Dark Knight Triumphant
2019: Wrath of Zod
2020: The Dark Knight Beyond

Fixed

 

[moviedoors]

Didn't they apparently 'sign' the majors and director to a contract for a sequel as a protective measure?

I think Reynolds is signed on for 3, but I know Campbell has said he's not.

 

[moviedoors]

I like Nordling's comments regarding a possible Green Lantern sequel:

"A word to Warner Brothers, a piece of advice to take or leave - because of the box office, the studio may be tempted to go smaller with any sequel. Don't. The parts of the film that work the best are when the film blows up the scale and shows the Green Lantern Universe to its full potential. Hell, if the sequel barely takes place on Earth that would be fine with the audience. It's the Earth sequences that bring the film down. GREEN LANTERN wants to soar, not be bogged down with the common superhero tropes in almost every comic book film. No reluctant superheroes here - show us a world never seen before and just let the art department go completely nuts."

Yes.

 

[DaveMoral]

^That's a perfect piece of advice. Don't approach Green Lantern like a superhero movie at all. Approach it like a sci-fi/fantasy space opera and you'll strike gold. Go with the superhero thing, and it's going to get played out real quick.

GL is only a superhero in an earthly context anyway, and the thing that Geoff Johns did for GL was swiftly take him away from Earth. He brought Hal back from the dead, had a few issues on Earth, then exploded the scale into outer space and until recently hasn't stopped there.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I know, that's why I said it was silly.

They will not acknowledge its failure for some time now. But do they think anyone will believe for a second while they act otherwise?

Yeah, I'm convinced that GL2 report is irrelevant. It's not a 'Breaking' or 'Exclusive' piece, which THR plasters on ALL their legit, up to date scoops. It's merely a reiteration of info we've already known

 

[KalMart]

I like Nordling's comments regarding a possible Green Lantern sequel:

"A word to Warner Brothers, a piece of advice to take or leave - because of the box office, the studio may be tempted to go smaller with any sequel. Don't. The parts of the film that work the best are when the film blows up the scale and shows the Green Lantern Universe to its full potential. Hell, if the sequel barely takes place on Earth that would be fine with the audience. It's the Earth sequences that bring the film down. GREEN LANTERN wants to soar, not be bogged down with the common superhero tropes in almost every comic book film. No reluctant superheroes here - show us a world never seen before and just let the art department go completely nuts."

Yes.

We've been discussing this for a while...as in, how you can't really expect a 'bigger/better' sequel without putting even more money into it than the last one. Which unfortunately is what makes it such a hard sell to the money guys after this movie's performance.

 

[DaveMoral]

I think the only saving grace in that department will be a couple routes, one the unlikely event that GL does end up making the minimum that WB is looking for to go ahead with a sequel which according to Poni_Boy is $325 mil, and two, the success of Bruce Timm's GL:TAS. If the cartoon series can hit the right marks and knock it out of the park critically that could bode well for a sequel AND for WB getting the message.

 

[moviedoors]

We've been discussing this for a while...as in, how you can't really expect a 'bigger/better' sequel without putting even more money into it than the last one. Which unfortunately is what makes it such a hard sell to the money guys after this movie's performance.

But I don't agree that they'd have to put more money into it. 200 million should have bought way, way more than we got. They just need to spend more wisely and efficiently.

 

[DaveMoral]

I think practical set pieces would go a long way. Animatronics too, I would hope. I don't think they can step back on the GL uniforms at this point.

 

[SuperAl]

We've been discussing this for a while...as in, how you can't really expect a 'bigger/better' sequel without putting even more money into it than the last one. Which unfortunately is what makes it such a hard sell to the money guys after this movie's performance.

really? i dont think you need to put more money into it. The villain this time will be an actual person so that eliminates a ton of cgi needed. The cgi costume had already been created so if they decide to continue with that they dont have to rebuild the look of it. Though a new director may decide a physical costume is a better idea. I dont see why you have to put more money into it, the look of the movie was never the problem in my opinion, it was the poor editing and script in certain areas that made it an average movie. it looked fine imo.

 

[dark_b]

That's true.

And you never know about DVDs. Maybe it will sell well.

What killed the slim chance SR had at a sequel (which was announced in November 2006) were the dismal DVD sales. SR wasn't even in the top 20 in DVD rankings that year.

Who knows - maybe GL will do OK on DVD.

can you explain that?

a movie like Fight Club i can see doing good on DVD since it was not promoted to the whole world with huge marketing.

but GL is a comicbook movie . it was promoted to everyone. so if someone will not watch it in the theater why would they buy the DVD? i am not saying that noone will buy it. but i dont see how GL can make a lot of money on DVD and Blu Ray.

 

[dark_b]

Didn't they apparently 'sign' the majors and director to a contract for a sequel as a protective measure?

i think contracts mean nothing in hollywood. but then there was the Emily Blunt and the Iron Man 2 story. but i guess there had to be something more behind it. right?

 

[KalMart]

really? i dont think you need to put more money into it. The villain this time will be an actual person so that eliminates a ton of cgi needed. The cgi costume had already been created so if they decide to continue with that they dont have to rebuild the look of it. Though a new director may decide a physical costume is a better idea. I dont see why you have to put more money into it, the look of the movie was never the problem in my opinion, it was the poor editing and script in certain areas that made it an average movie. it looked fine imo.

Let's put it this way...you need to be ready and willing to put in whatever money it needs to work its best (with good management, hopefully)...instead of holding it back as some sort of retribution from the last one. With, likely, even more stuff on Oa and more alien/full CG work...it's not going to be cheap...especially if they do go with a better effects house like ILM or WETA. So all doors need to be open, even if the ultimate bill might somehow not be as much. It'd be nice if it wasn't, but they can't just force it to be that way from the outset if they really want to up the ante.

 

[DaveMoral]

^Fantastic Four has done pretty good on DVD. Rise of the Silver Surfer did like 63 million. The first film was only around 5.

GL could do well on DVD. Someone may have avoided the $10-15 price tag at the box office, plus concessions so as not to end up spending approximately 30/person because they heard the movie wasn't so good. They may still be curious, and so they get it on Netflix. Maybe the like it, decide to buy it. Or there are others that buy it anyway.

A percentage of those that liked the movie will buy it anyway. Heck, I saw Poni_Boy say he'd buy it just to watch certain scenes. And we know he didn't like the movie.

 

[Poni_Boy]

can you explain that?

a movie like Fight Club i can see doing good on DVD since it was not promoted to the whole world with huge marketing.

but GL is a comicbook movie . it was promoted to everyone. so if someone will not watch it in the theater why would they buy the DVD? i am not saying that noone will buy it. but i dont see how GL can make a lot of money on DVD and Blu Ray.

I think people also forget that a whole new marketing and distribution budget come into play for home releases. Home releases have to recoup those expenses before they start diminishing box office loss.

 

[KalMart]

I think practical set pieces would go a long way. Animatronics too, I would hope. I don't think they can step back on the GL uniforms at this point.

Yeah, but you might not be able to get as much range of shots/movement/settings/control with animatronics, and spend more expensive time dealing with them while shooting. Basically, you go with animatronics if the filmmaker feels he works better with them...like, say, a Del Toro...not because you need to save money.

Instead of pulling back on the money, it's better to get people who will get MORE OUT of that money....because there are some things that you just have to pay for if you want the best results and the best range of tools to get those results.

This is pretty much why sequels should be made based on merit, not as salvage missions.

 

[dark_b]

i think with blockbuster movies only the ones who make a lot of money in teh theater make a lot money with DVD and BR. i could be wrong.

 

[moviedoors]

a movie like Fight Club i can see doing good on DVD since it was not promoted to the whole world with huge marketing.

That's not exactly true. Yeah, it didn't get a Green Lantern style push, but let's not forget that the first trailer was attached to Episode I, and you couldn't get a higher profile advertising spot in 1999.

It's not so much that it wasn't promoted, but that it was an extremely difficult movie to promote.

 

[DaveMoral]

^How do you promote a movie where the hero is a schizoid terrorist cell leader?

 

[moviedoors]

^How do you promote a movie where the hero is a schizoid terrorist cell leader?

yeah, it's not exactly high concept.