Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 2

[dark_b]

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.

i will pay the same money for the ticket. if the movie is 100 or 200 millions. the difference is that sometimes you get more.
when i pay money to watch a movie i dont care about sequels. i am not a hardcore comcibook reader who only thinks about the next issue. or about the next sequel. if i like the movie and it bombs so what. at least i got a good first movie.
Marvel got lucky with IM and Thor. both movies are very small in scope in the finale. good for Marvel that they made money.

 

[KalMart]

I have a feeling the Jack Black version would have made more.

 

[Chewy]

Marvel got lucky with IM and Thor. both movies are very small in scope in the finale. good for Marvel that they made money.

Did they get lucky? Or did they make films that satisfied audiences?

Throwing more money at the filmmakers doesn't mean a better film. We have a case in point right here.

Nor does a larger scope mean a more satisfying conclusion. If you want to see Transformers you can always just go see Transformers. Different films have different aims. Those films were made with the intent of exploring Tony Stark and Thor as individuals. Not blowing up cities.

 

[Rock Sexton]

i will pay the same money for the ticket. if the movie is 100 or 200 millions. the difference is that sometimes you get more.
when i pay money to watch a movie i dont care about sequels. i am not a hardcore comcibook reader who only thinks about the next issue. or about the next sequel. if i like the movie and it bombs so what. at least i got a good first movie.
Marvel got lucky with IM and Thor. both movies are very small in scope in the finale. good for Marvel that they made money.

What does any of that have to do with my reply to you?

Marvel's success with their films have nothing to do with luck.

 

[Dwarf Slayer]

i will pay the same money for the ticket. if the movie is 100 or 200 millions. the difference is that sometimes you get more.
when i pay money to watch a movie i dont care about sequels. i am not a hardcore comcibook reader who only thinks about the next issue. or about the next sequel. if i like the movie and it bombs so what. at least i got a good first movie.
Marvel got lucky with IM and Thor. both movies are very small in scope in the finale. good for Marvel that they made money.

Marvel didn't get lucky with Iron Man and Thor. Those movies were successful because they relied on quality film making and storytelling. Something Warner Bros clearly didn't care about when they made Green Lantern.

Marvel isn't cheap with their properties. They just aren't stupid enough to invest 300+ million dollars into a relatively unknown property. If Marvel were cheap, they would have went with a cheaper special effects company like Sony Imageworks. If Marvel were cheap, they wouldn't have had TV spots for both Thor and Captain America during the Superbowl.

It isn't just about getting sequels. GL's huge budget and its subsequent failure has jeopardized the chances of seeing more characters from the DC universe on film. Had Warner Bros not mismanaged the budget and put all of their eggs in one basket, they wouldn't be in the embarrassing situation they find themselves in now.

 

[Gamma Burst]

Marvel didn't get lucky with Iron Man and Thor. Those movies were successful because they relied on quality film making and storytelling. Something Warner Bros clearly didn't care about when they made Green Lantern.

Marvel isn't cheap with their properties. They just aren't stupid enough to invest 300+ million dollars into a relatively unknown property. If Marvel were cheap, they would have went with a cheaper special effects company like Sony Imageworks. If Marvel were cheap, they wouldn't have had TV spots for both Thor and Captain America during the Superbowl.

It isn't just about getting sequels. GL's huge budget and its subsequent failure has jeopardized the chances of seeing more characters from the DC universe on film. Had Warner Bros not mismanaged the budget and put all of their eggs in one basket, they wouldn't be in the embarrassing situation they find themselves in now.

This.

 

[BatmanInc]

Hopefully this film won't get a sequel. It doesn't deserve one.

Then again, this is WB we're talking about. I know I wouldn't have let Snyder near any film project after the disaster that was Sucker Punch, let alone freaking Superman.

 

[jmc]

I will say that Marvel know how to get a lot out of a little because quite frankly they can't afford to have a flop, might be a bit different now they're part of Disney but still their very existence depends on them making at worst watchable superhero films, I've got issues with how they run things but for the most part they're doing well for now. WB like it or not can blow a $200 million film and not bat an eyelid because they've always got other options. If the superhero craze was to die tomorrow WB would be fine and Marvel wouldn't, maybe that's the difference in mentality, Marvel have to put the effort in because their survival depends on it, WB have been in the business long enough to know there's always opportunities eleswhere and don't need to depend on superheroes.

 

[Red Mask]

Then again, this is WB we're talking about. I know I wouldn't have let Snyder near any film project after the disaster that was Sucker Punch, let alone freaking Superman.

But it's happening anyway, so get ready for it. I didn't bother watching Sucker Punch myself, but that's no reason to stop Superman from coming back to the screen.




Off-topic: if you're not interested in a film like Sucker Punch, but don't mind troubled girls, I recommend the classic film "I Never Promised You a Rose Garden". If not, then check out the German film "4 Minutes".

 

[BatmanInc]

If the superhero craze was to die tomorrow WB would be fine and Marvel wouldn't

This is me being an *******, but if it died tomorrow, Thor still would have made 400 mil worldwide.

I get what you mean, though. :P

 

[hippie_hunter]

Marvel didn't get lucky with Iron Man and Thor. Those movies were successful because they relied on quality film making and storytelling. Something Warner Bros clearly didn't care about when they made Green Lantern.

Marvel isn't cheap with their properties. They just aren't stupid enough to invest 300+ million dollars into a relatively unknown property. If Marvel were cheap, they would have went with a cheaper special effects company like Sony Imageworks. If Marvel were cheap, they wouldn't have had TV spots for both Thor and Captain America during the Superbowl.

It isn't just about getting sequels. GL's huge budget and its subsequent failure has jeopardized the chances of seeing more characters from the DC universe on film. Had Warner Bros not mismanaged the budget and put all of their eggs in one basket, they wouldn't be in the embarrassing situation they find themselves in now.

Actually, even though I really like the movies Marvel has put out, they really are ****ing cheap. They have a reputation of lowballing their actors while demanding that they appear in a LOT of movies. It's why they almost lost Samuel L. Jackson, lost Terrance Howard, lost Emily Blunt, and why it took so long to cast Captain America.

Also, I think Paramount had a lot to do with the promotion of Marvel's movies (hence the Super Bowl ads).

 

[BatmanInc]

But it's happening anyway, so get ready for it. I didn't bother watching Sucker Punch myself

That is pretty much my reason for why letting Snyder onto Superman isn't a good idea, since pretty much everyone didn't see Sucker Punch.

but that's no reason to stop Superman from coming back to the screen.

A reason for a Superman film not to be made? No. A reason not to let a person who is the director, writer, and producer of a recent film that grossed less than the sequel to Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2 on it's opening day, made only 7 million more than it's pretty low budget, and was a critical bomb not allowed to be on a project of the most high-profile superhero ever? Yes. Yes it is.

 

[HighFivingMF]

You are aware that directors don't do the same thing every movie? The chances of Man of Steel being anything like Sucker Punch are absolute zero.

 

[BatmanInc]

and why it took so long to cast Captain America.

That and the fact that their candidates list pretty much sucked big time all around for the role.

 

[BatmanInc]

You are aware that directors don't do the same thing every movie? The chances of Man of Steel being anything like Sucker Punch are absolute zero.

By that logic, M. Night Shyamalan could direct Man of Steel.

 

[jmc]

Actually, even though I really like the movies Marvel has put out, they really are ****ing cheap. They have a reputation of lowballing their actors while demanding that they appear in a LOT of movies. It's why they almost lost Samuel L. Jackson, lost Terrance Howard, lost Emily Blunt, and why it took so long to cast Captain America.

Also, I think Paramount had a lot to do with the promotion of Marvel's movies (hence the Super Bowl ads).

Tried to lowball Rourke too. My biggest issue is that they seem to think the talent involved is expendable.

 

[HighFivingMF]

By that logic, M. Night Shyamalan could direct Man of Steel.

Mmhmm. And it would be nothing like Last Airbender or Lady in the Water.

 

[Chewy]

That's actually not at all why they lost Emily Blunt, or why it took so long to cast Captain America.

 

[Mysteryman]

That's actually not at all why they lost Emily Blunt, or why it took so long to cast Captain America.[/QUOTE
Can you elaborate on that ?

 

[BatmanInc]

Mmhmm. And it would be nothing like Last Airbender or Lady in the Water.

Plot wise, yes. Quality wise? That's a different story.

 

[Chewy]

Can you elaborate on that ?

Fox exercised an option on Blunt that forced her to do Gulliver's Travels, meaning her schedule wasn't open for IM2; it took them a while to cast Cap because they couldn't find the right actor.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Green Lantern actually went down ever so slightly on friday??? Jeez this movie's failure never ceases to amaze me.

 

[BatmanInc]

Green Lantern actually went down ever so slightly on friday??? Jeez this movie's failure never ceases to amaze me.

It went down from it's opening day to the day later.

This film keeps finding new ways to make itself look like a financial failure daily.

 

[Tony Stark]

Well it's been pulled from most theaters. That's the problem when you have that big of a drop in it's second week. There's new movies coming out, and people just aren't interested. Also the demand for 3D screens really killed it. I don't think that hurt Thor nearly as much because it had enough of a head start and Fast Five wasn't in 3D.

It will be interesting to see how this effects Cap as it will deal with Transformers and Potter still being in 3D. Luckily Cowboys and Aliens is only 2D.

 

[Red Mask]

That is pretty much my reason for why letting Snyder onto Superman isn't a good idea, since pretty much everyone didn't see Sucker Punch.

I'm pretty sure enough people saw it to help build Snyder's resume.

A reason for a Superman film not to be made? No. A reason not to let a person who is the director, writer, and producer of a recent film that grossed less than the sequel to Diary of a Wimpy Kid 2 on it's opening day, made only 7 million more than it's pretty low budget, and was a critical bomb not allowed to be on a project of the most high-profile superhero ever? Yes. Yes it is.

Sucker Punch did earn its budget back. That's better than what GL is achieving now. No, I wouldn't recommend the film, but it received mixed reviews. Hell, even lesbians couldn't agree if it was great or bad.

They say you're only as good as your last film. Except Snyder has proven his comicbook chops with Watchmen and 300. Unless he blows it during the production, he's doing this film. Snyder hasn't fallen as low as M. Night Shyamalan.