Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 2

[Docker2.0]

Just because Timm does well with animation doesn't mean he can do live action.

You're right but I say give him a chance. Michael Bay, Akiva Goldsmith, and Tyler Perry(yeah I said it!)continue to put out crap. At least give him a chance because you may have a diamond in the rough.

 

[Karelia]

I'd love to see what Bruce Timm could do with some live action DC properties. I think he said he wasn't as interested in live action because their's less freedom.

I bet J.J. Abrams could do a good GL film.

 

[KalMart]

Just because Timm does well with animation doesn't mean he can do live action.

Yeah, the most important ingredient for any movie to be good, regardless of what it's based on, is to have good MOVIE people involved. That's why I'd rather have a Spielberg or Bruckheimer as exec. producer on ANY comic-based movie than a Geoff Johns or other person coming out of comics.

Y'know...I'd rather see Timm do something with Pixar, like Brad Bird did, then maybe migrate towards live-action. I also wonder if Timm can do anything outside of DC/comic characters. Has he/can he come up with or develop original characters and stories like Bird? I mean, yo look at how much time Timm has spent with Batman, Superman, and the JL...but then Bird made what was arguably a better Superman(-ish) story with Iron Giant...and one of the best moving-format superhero representations with The Incredibles. I put both of those considerably above any feature-length efforts we've seen from Timm...but granted, he may have not had as much money/resources (strangely, with how big WB/DC are).

I mentioned years ago that WB could have developed their own 'in-house' version of Pixar like Dreamworks has tried to do...but anchor it with their DC characters and Timm. But they keep sticking with cartoon-like releases with more limited backing and release.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Yeah, the most important ingredient for any movie to be good, regardless of what it's based on, is to have good MOVIE people involved. That's why I'd rather have a Spielberg or Bruckheimer as exec. producer on ANY comic-based movie than a Geoff Johns or other person coming out of comics.

Y'know...I'd rather see Timm do something with Pixar, like Brad Bird did, then maybe migrate towards live-action. I also wonder if Timm can do anything outside of DC/comic characters. Has he/can he come up with or develop original characters and stories like Bird? I mean, yo look at how much time Timm has spent with Batman, Superman, and the JL...but then Bird made what was arguably a better Superman(-ish) story with Iron Giant...and one of the best moving-format superhero representations with The Incredibles. I put both of those considerably above any feature-length efforts we've seen from Timm...but granted, he may have not had as much money/resources (strangely, with how big WB/DC are).

I mentioned years ago that WB could have developed their own 'in-house' version of Pixar like Dreamworks has tried to do...but anchor it with their DC characters and Timm. But they keep sticking with cartoon-like releases with more limited backing and release.

Maybe they will give that a try if Marvel joins hands with Pixar and does it first.

 

[KalMart]

Maybe they will give that a try if Marvel joins hands with Pixar and does it first.

Marvel has already made a clever move in producing anime versions of their characters....something I also pined for years back. I don't think Disney would force that on Pixar...especially since they can't, as Pixar basically IS Disney now with Lassiter being Disney's Chief Creative Officer and such. Pixar would want to do that themselves and I don't see them wanting to. Notice how Pixar hasn't even put out Mickey Mouse CG-animated movies?

The way Pixar works is developing their own original projects from the ground up over three years, and staggering multiple ones so that they can release one per year.....not motivating an adapted project by marketing/franchise to capitalize on a current trend like with comic-movies. They run their own independent show....part of the reason why they collectively put out what I believe to be the best films available today.

 

[biolumen]

Maybe WB will try to push GL to 120 million?

I'm sure they'll do what they can, but "pushing" a product usually requires an expenditure of funds, and I think WB might be better off just cutting their losses at this point, at least on the domestic front.

Unless, of course, they're looking at GL purely as a tax write-off for this fiscal year.

 

[TheVileOne]

Keeping a movie in theatres longer means the studio keeps less of the money. Exhibitors want to keep new movies coming in regularly and want to cycle out the old stuff.

It's not going to make much of a difference at this point. This is pretty much worst case scenario for DCE, WB, and Green Lantern.

 

[BatmanInc]

Yeah, the most important ingredient for any movie to be good, regardless of what it's based on, is to have good MOVIE people involved. That's why I'd rather have a Spielberg or Bruckheimer as exec. producer on ANY comic-based movie than a Geoff Johns or other person coming out of comics.

Y'know...I'd rather see Timm do something with Pixar, like Brad Bird did, then maybe migrate towards live-action. I also wonder if Timm can do anything outside of DC/comic characters. Has he/can he come up with or develop original characters and stories like Bird? I mean, yo look at how much time Timm has spent with Batman, Superman, and the JL...but then Bird made what was arguably a better Superman(-ish) story with Iron Giant...and one of the best moving-format superhero representations with The Incredibles. I put both of those considerably above any feature-length efforts we've seen from Timm...but granted, he may have not had as much money/resources (strangely, with how big WB/DC are).

I mentioned years ago that WB could have developed their own 'in-house' version of Pixar like Dreamworks has tried to do...but anchor it with their DC characters and Timm. But they keep sticking with cartoon-like releases with more limited backing and release.

True, but I could see them still working together in some form or another. For example, Pixar might have a few Marvel guys help out if they decide to do an Incredibles sequel.

 

[KalMart]

True, but I could see them still working together in some form or another. For example, Pixar might have a few Marvel guys help out if they decide to do an Incredibles sequel.

Why, though? They didn't need their help on the first one, and that one kicked ass. Just like they didn't need toy company consultants for Toy Story. heh...


I think it's best for both if they remain creatively independent. Pixar does what they do the way they do it...and they do it better than anyone. You don't want to mess with that.

 

[Marvin]

every week this is out it seems it get's lower and lower in the charts...
compared to films that came out before it that is.

 

[KalMart]

every week this is out it seems it get's lower and lower in the charts...
compared to films that came out before it that is.

Just turn the charts upside-down and you'll feel better. Soon, it'll be at the top!

 

[CaptainCraig]

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.

Which has become part of the problem, part, as I see it. It's why I will not pay $10.50 or even matinee $7.50 to see a comedy. A typical comedy costs $30-50m a typcial action f/x heavy film $100-200m. However, my pricepoint is the same.

I don't walk into a retailer and get to pay $25 for just any shirt in the store. A Hillfiger will be priced different than a Polo or Izod due to what went into the shirts manufacture. I don't walk onto a car lot and pay $10K for just any 4-dar car I want. The KIA is one price, Toyota another and BMW yet another.

I'm not saying I have the answer but I would go to more movies ie comedies and horror films in theaters if there were a sliding scale for films.

I the case of GL or say Prince of Persia from last year, it would seriously make a studio say "Are we really making a film audiences will pay for on the high end of the scale to see?"

 

[TheVileOne]

Umm they are charging you more to watch Green Lantern in 3D. You aren't going to pay extra money to see Horrible Bosses in 3D.

Also more people were supposed to see Green Lantern that is why more money is invested in studio tentpoles.

But why should I pay extra to see an inferior ****** 3D conversion of a movie?

 

[CaptainCraig]

^^^^
Dude, 2-D
You still have that choice. The upgrade is your choice.
My point still remains for 2-D. Can't believe I had to spell it out.

 

[dnno1]

According to Deadline's Sunday AM update, GL is out of the top 10. In fact, they have Woody Allen's 'Midnight In Paris' doing better than GL despite being in it's 9th week of release.

http://www.deadline.com/2011/07/tra...t-to-hit-zookeeper-talks-to-target-audiences/

BoM still has GL in 9th place for the weekend, but I'm not sure if their studio estimate's are as up-to-date as Deadline's latest update.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2011&wknd=27&p=.htm

Whatever the case, GL will not even reach $120 million domestic.

I don't know why people as setting the bar so high for this film when it never had the publicity of the films ahead of it. According to Box Office Mojo, it is the 13th highest grossing film of the year (WorldWideBoxoffice.com has it at 16th). There are currently more than 80 films that made less than Green Lantern (and will never make any more than Green Lantern). That's not really that bad to tell you the truth if you look at the fact that there are. The only bad thing is that it is questionable if they will make their money back at the box office. Even then, that still doesn't mean that they won't get their money back from their other revenue streams.

 

[KalMart]

Which has become part of the problem, part, as I see it. It's why I will not pay $10.50 or even matinee $7.50 to see a comedy. A typical comedy costs $30-50m a typcial action f/x heavy film $100-200m. However, my pricepoint is the same.

I don't walk into a retailer and get to pay $25 for just any shirt in the store. A Hillfiger will be priced different than a Polo or Izod due to what went into the shirts manufacture. I don't walk onto a car lot and pay $10K for just any 4-dar car I want. The KIA is one price, Toyota another and BMW yet another.

I'm not saying I have the answer but I would go to more movies ie comedies and horror films in theaters if there were a sliding scale for films.

I the case of GL or say Prince of Persia from last year, it would seriously make a studio say "Are we really making a film audiences will pay for on the high end of the scale to see?"

I think that most moviegoers are looking to enjoy the two hours they spend in a movie theater...whether it's an action/adventure or a comedy....just like they're looking to enjoy a solo acoustic, five-piece band, or full orchestral recording for the same price per MP3. I'm not sure what guidelines theaters use to regulate ticket prices, but that probably comes into play as well.

And honestly...if you paid more for a horrible action movie than you would a comedy that you liked...would you be okay with that because the action movie cost more to make, or would you be pissed that you not only spent money, but lost that time?

 

[KalMart]

I don't know why people as setting the bar so high for this film. According to Box Office Mojo, it is the 13th highest grossing film of the year (WorldWideBoxoffice.com has it at 16th). There are currently more than 80 films that made less than Green Lantern (and will never make any more than Green Lantern). That's not really that bad to tell you the truth if you look at the fact that there are. The only bad thing is that it is questionable if they will make their money back at the box office. Even then, that still doesn't mean that they won't get their money back from their other revenue streams.

Why should people set the bar low for a movie whose purpose is to make a lot of money? If that's your standard, then you should be exalting the movies that did even better than GL....you should be giving mere credit to movies like Thor instead of trying to get sympathy for GL.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I don't know why people as setting the bar so high for this film when it never had the publicity of the films ahead of it. According to Box Office Mojo, it is the 13th highest grossing film of the year (WorldWideBoxoffice.com has it at 16th). There are currently more than 80 films that made less than Green Lantern (and will never make any more than Green Lantern). That's not really that bad to tell you the truth if you look at the fact that there are. The only bad thing is that it is questionable if they will make their money back at the box office. Even then, that still doesn't mean that they won't get their money back from their other revenue streams.

That's immaterial. Most of those movies didn't have GL's budget. There is a different BO grossing expectation the mroe money you spend on something. WB expected more from GL. This is very clear.

 

[Marvin]

3D is only worth it if it's an event and Cameron approved, anything else and I'm sure the 3
D ticket sales will but less then 45 percent.

 

[biolumen]

I don't know why people as setting the bar so high for this film when it never had the publicity of the films ahead of it.

The bar was set by WB when they decided to make this film in the first place. They expected Iron Man numbers. $300+ Million domestic, the same international. If they knew up front that they wouldn't turn a profit until the sale of network TV rights, something that's dubious at best, they would not have made GL to begin with. Certainly not at the cost this one was made at.

 

[Octoberist]

Yeah, the bar was obviously set high from the get-go, but it didnt work out. it's pretty black and white. And in it's aftermath, the Green Lantern film franchise and DC film properties are in jeopardy.

If it wasn't a failure, we wouldn't have this conversion dnno.

I mean, Box office money is fairly straight forward. Making excuses up for Green Lantern's box office ist doing anyone any favors. It's like getting an F on a test and I'll convince myself that it's an F for 'Fantastic'.

 

[dnno1]

The bar was set by WB when they decided to make this film in the first place. They expected Iron Man numbers. $300+ Million domestic, the same international. If they knew up front that they wouldn't turn a profit until the sale of network TV rights, something that's dubious at best, they would not have made GL to begin with. Certainly not at the cost this one was made at.

But when you think about it, it was over optimistic. The character was not as well known as Batman, Superman, or any of the other successful Marvel film franchises and they really did nothing to create brand awareness for the character until four years ago with a single DTV (that didn't sell very well). Furthermore they tried to target kids, but they unfortunately put enough adult subject matter in the film to get it an adult rating from the Catholic News Service. That outfit basically said that the concept of a guy who has the power to create anything he can imagine is "a form of creativity reserved to God alone". Just imagine what other Christian organizations said about the film? I think this was their biggest mistake. They tried to make this film like some of the best modern day CBM's (and they actually did), but the concept was not what the mainstream was ready for.

 

[Red Mask]

Yeah, the bar was obviously set high from the get-go, but it didnt work out. it's pretty black and white. And in it's aftermath, the Green Lantern film franchise and DC film properties are in jeopardy.

If it wasn't a failure, we wouldn't have this conversion dnno.

I mean, Box office money is fairly straight forward. Making excuses up for Green Lantern's box office ist doing anyone any favors. It's like getting an F on a test and I'll convince myself that it's an F for 'Fantastic'.

LOL! That's pretty much sums it all up.

 

[jacobed]

But when you think about it, it was over optimistic. The character was not as well known as Batman, Superman, or any of the other successful Marvel film franchises and they really did nothing to create brand awareness for the character until four years ago with a single DTV (that didn't sell very well). Furthermore they tried to target kids, but they unfortunately put enough adult subject matter in the film to get it an adult rating from the Catholic News Service. That outfit basically said that the concept of a guy who has the power to create anything he can imagine is "a form of creativity reserved to God alone". Just imagine what other Christian organizations said about the film? I think this was their biggest mistake. They tried to make this film like some of the best modern day CBM's (and they actually did), but the concept was not what the mainstream was ready for.

Iron Man wasn't known by anyone until that movie came out and now look it, everybody and their mom knows Iron Man. Why? because the movie was good and entertaining. Green Lantern eh not so much.

 

[jmc]

As hilarious as it is I've seriously gotta give dnno credit for trying to find new ways to blame everything but the film for it's own failure.