Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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 ****.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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!"
 
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.
 
Captain America is tracking at $55 million opening weekend according to Boxoffice.com
 
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.
 
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.
 
teh only reason it didnt cost so much is because Marvel is super cheap.i mean this as something negative hehe;)
 
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.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Staff online

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,398
Messages
22,097,298
Members
45,893
Latest member
DooskiPack
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"