Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 2

[dnno1]

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.

That isn't true about the awareness of Iron Man. There were people who knew about the character since he had a TV series in the 1990's and there are a lot more Marvel fans than DC based on comic sales. Furthermore, it is easy to understand the concept of a guy in a powered suit of armor (exoskeleton) since there are countries prototyping their own versions right now. A guy who can create anything he can imagine? That's stupid, idiotic, dumb, and playing with God according to critics. They made Green Lantern very similar to Iron Man 2 (without a Rodey Rhoded character) in that there was light comedic scenes, serious moments between the lead characters (Hal and Carol, Tony and Pepper) and action scenes. It's just that people didn't understand the character enough to want to go out and see the movie (and the critics reviews didn't help persuade them either).

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

That isn't true about the awareness of Iron Man. There were people who knew about the character since he had a TV series in the 1990's and there are a lot more Marvel fans than DC based on comic sales. Furthermore, it is easy to understand the concept of a guy in a powered suit of armor (exoskeleton) since there are countries prototyping their own versions right now. A guy who can create anything he can imagine? That's stupid, idiotic, dumb, and playing with God according to critics.

And audiences so it would seem...

Look if people can accept a concept like ''The Force''... then they can accept the power of will.

WB just made a **** movie with desperate marketing and poor timing.

 

[Gamma Burst]

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.

He's very creative, at least.t:

 

[Chewy]

That isn't true about the awareness of Iron Man. There were people who knew about the character since he had a TV series in the 1990's and there are a lot more Marvel fans than DC based on comic sales. Furthermore, it is easy to understand the concept of a guy in a powered suit of armor (exoskeleton) since there are countries prototyping their own versions right now. A guy who can create anything he can imagine? That's stupid, idiotic, dumb, and playing with God according to critics.

It was not the concept that the critics critiqued. That argument holds no water as Thor has a concept that's equally out there. It was the movie that critics did not like.

 

[Gamma Burst]

It was not the concept that the critics critiqued. That argument holds no water as Thor has a concept that's equally out there. It was the movie that critics did not like.

Not to mention that, according to his logic, Thor, a God, should've been by critics and audience.

 

[Lencho01]

That isn't true about the awareness of Iron Man. There were people who knew about the character since he had a TV series in the 1990's and there are a lot more Marvel fans than DC based on comic sales. Furthermore, it is easy to understand the concept of a guy in a powered suit of armor (exoskeleton) since there are countries prototyping their own versions right now. A guy who can create anything he can imagine? That's stupid, idiotic, dumb, and playing with God according to critics. They made Green Lantern very similar to Iron Man 2 (without a Rodey Rhoded character) in that there was light comedic scenes, serious moments between the lead characters (Hal and Carol, Tony and Pepper) and action scenes. It's just that people didn't understand the character enough to want to go out and see the movie (and the critics reviews didn't help persuade them either).

The concept of GL then should be more popular than Iron Man was when his first film was made since GL was in JL/JLU, The Batman, Batman: Brave & the Bold, was in some DTVs, and Young Justice all before the live-action film was released. Comics sales are irrelevant.

The idea of using some ring (and will) and just as silly as using some laser-like sword (and something called "The Force").

People didn't see the film because it wasn't advertised as someting worth their time and money and initial reactions didn't help.

Simple as that. No need to make something more complicated than it really is.

 

[chiefchirpa]

The concept of GL then should be more popular than Iron Man was when his first film was made since GL was in JL/JLU, The Batman, Batman: Brave & the Bold, was in some DTVs, and Young Justice all before the live-action film was released. Comics sales are irrelevant.

The idea of using some ring (and will) and just as silly as using some laser-like sword (and something called "The Force").

People didn't see the film because it wasn't advertised as someting worth their time and money and initial reactions didn't help.

Simple as that. No need to make something more complicated than it really is.

A man in a military-like exosuit is taken to be more realistic than even a man in a bat suit, a man with flag costume, green monster, etc. The concept of technology infused guy is said to be more realistic & less cornier than many superheroes. That's what sell it to non comic reading audiences, never mind some have never heard of Iron Man before while they have seen GL in cartoons or another medium.

Between a sword and a ring, many people would see the sword to be the less incredulous.

 

[chiefchirpa]

That isn't true about the awareness of Iron Man. There were people who knew about the character since he had a TV series in the 1990's and there are a lot more Marvel fans than DC based on comic sales.

Correct me if I'm wrong, even if Marvel fans seem to be more numerous DC fans are just more fanatics to their stuff. Just check on comic cons who wear their costumes more Marvel or DC? Or rather in these forums, who frequented the comics & brand specific movie forum more, Marvel or DC? My own observation: DC.

Mainstream knows Marvel more though because of the barrage of 2000's movies and "Marvel" seems a bit easier to remember as a brand name than DC Comics <- one thing you can't leave the "comics" there or it would sound like the nation's capital, but "Marvel" sounds okay being just "Marvel".

 

[Lencho01]

A man in a military-like exosuit is taken to be more realistic than even a man in a bat suit, a man with flag costume, green monster, etc. The concept of technology infused guy is said to be more realistic & less cornier than many superheroes. That's what sell it to non comic reading audiences, never mind some have never heard of Iron Man before while they have seen GL in cartoons or another medium.

Between a sword and a ring, many people would see the sword to be the less incredulous.

How realistic any of these films are or how close we are to actually doing the same thing in the real world is not really an issue. If the film is not marketed well enough to get enough people interested to the point that how much critics may like/hate it has no effect, it will fail financially. It's not like people watch trailers and TV spots and say, "That is just way too silly for me! I'm never going to watch that!" Star Wars, Batman, and most recently Transformers are evidence of that.

 

[dnno1]

It was not the concept that the critics critiqued. That argument holds no water as Thor has a concept that's equally out there. It was the movie that critics did not like.

Richard Roper said that "even the most ardent fan-boys out there have to admit that Green Lantern is one of the sillier superheroes, what with the emerald tights and the gaudy ring and the way he flits about. No to mention the Guardians of the Universe thing..." That means to me that it's the concept (even though he admitted that it took elements from franchises like Superman, Spider-Man, and Iron Man).

Brandon Fibbs says: "Though I will doubtless upset some of the aforementioned fan-boys with what I say next, The Green Lantern is far too silly to interest the average, uninitiated moviegoer." This is after he implied that there was no way that all of the players involved (and they were great ones) could make it a great film. Why? because the concept itself to him was the problem.

There are more who say the same or something similar. I think these critics were expecting something unique and different but when they say the same or similar elements as other CBM's the passed it off as shoddy. What they don't understand is that this is comic book genre. You have a superhero who has a girlfriend. You have a villain or villains who endanger the girlfriend and/or the world. The hero saves the girlfriend and/or the world. End of story. This is mediocre at best to the critics, and when you have a mainstream audience that knows nothing of the character nor his history, the critics reviews do nothing to inspire them to come see the film.

 

[dark_b]

dnno1 you are doing a fantastic job at making up everything possible. yet your posts dont look like you are trolling. what you are doing is art. i respect that.

 

[Chewy]

Richard Roper said that "even the most ardent fan-boys out there have to admit that Green Lantern is one of the sillier superheroes, what with the emerald tights and the gaudy ring and the way he flits about. No to mention the Guardians of the Universe thing..." That means to me that it's the concept (even though he admitted that it took elements from franchises like Superman, Spider-Man, and Iron Man).

Brandon Fibbs says: "Though I will doubtless upset some of the aforementioned fan-boys with what I say next, The Green Lantern is far too silly to interest the average, uninitiated moviegoer." This is after he implied that there was no way that all of the players involved (and they were great ones) could make it a great film. Why? because the concept itself to him was the problem.

There are more who say the same or something similar. I think these critics were expecting something unique and different but when they say the same or similar elements as other CBM's the passed it off as shoddy. What they don't understand is that this is comic book genre. You have a superhero who has a girlfriend. You have a villain or villains who endanger the girlfriend and/or the world. The hero saves the girlfriend and/or the world. End of story. This is mediocre at best to the critics, and when you have a mainstream audience that knows nothing of the character nor his history, the critics reviews do nothing to inspire them to come see the film.

And were the film good they would be singing a different tune. Nearly every Thor review included a comment about how the material was inherently silly in the reviewer's mind but the movie overcame that.

 

[dnno1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, even if Marvel fans seem to be more numerous DC fans are just more fanatics to their stuff. Just check on comic cons who wear their costumes more Marvel or DC? Or rather in these forums, who frequented the comics & brand specific movie forum more, Marvel or DC? My own observation: DC.

No, the thing about DC fans is that some of them only care about one hero and care less about the rest. I have seen many a comment from folks who say that the only reason the read DC comics is for the Batman and don't care about the other DC heroes. The same thing goes for some of the Superman fans as well.

Mainstream knows Marvel more though because of the barrage of 2000's movies and "Marvel" seems a bit easier to remember as a brand name than DC Comics <- one thing you can't leave the "comics" there or it would sound like the nation's capital, but "Marvel" sounds okay being just "Marvel".

The Mainstream knows more about Marvel because they were systematic about their brand awareness. Over the past 30 years they introduced their properties through animated TV series that was featured on network television. Being more suited for an adult audience, it was much easier to introduce those characters to an average moviegoer aged 12-24 some 30 years later. What did DC do to promote characters like Green Lantern, the Flash, or even Wonder Woman in the last 30 years? Granted, they appeared in the Super Friends and Justice League cartoon series, but their personalities, origins and gallery of villains were never really explained. People wanting to watch these characters in a feature film will have a lot of questions about these characters, but if they come off as silly and dumb or their concept is just a carbon copy of another superhero, why wouldn't you expect a similar result from critics and the mainstream audience?

 

[dnno1]

And were the film good they would be singing a different tune. Nearly every Thor review included a comment about how the material was inherently silly in the reviewer's mind but the movie overcame that.

According to these critics, it was doomed to fail, because it was a silly concept that wasn't truly original. Not every Thor review had comments like that of Green Lantern. That's because they understood the idea of a mythological Norse god. It's the fact that Green Lantern came afterward with nothing really new that bore their dislike.

 

[dnno1]

dnno1 you are doing a fantastic job at making up everything possible. yet your posts dont look like you are trolling. what you are doing is art. i respect that.

I cited where I got this from. I am not making this up.

 

[Gamma Burst]

I cited where I got this from. I am not making this up.

So..You're not making excuses for this movie's failure?

 

[dnno1]

So..You're not making excuses for this movie's failure?

I am telling you what critics are saying about the film and what might have changed that perception (held by both the mainstream and the critics). If you want to call that an excuse, then fine, but the fact still remains that characters like Superman, Batman, Spider-man, Iron Man, and the X-Men had better brand awareness than Green Lantern because then were exposed to generations of folks through television, and DC needs to do more of that with their other properties if they expect them to succeed on the big screen.

 

[chiefchirpa]

I am telling you what critics are saying about the film and what might have changed that perception (held by both the mainstream and the critics). If you want to call that an excuse, then fine, but the fact still remains that characters like Superman, Batman, Spider-man, Iron Man, and the X-Men had better brand awareness than Green Lantern because then were exposed to generations of folks through television, and DC needs to do more of that with their other properties if they expect them to succeed on the big screen.

Certainly not Iron Man. Iron Man is the exception to the rule.

 

[Stikmann]

I am telling you what critics are saying about the film and what might have changed that perception (held by both the mainstream and the critics). If you want to call that an excuse, then fine, but the fact still remains that characters like Superman, Batman, Spider-man, Iron Man, and the X-Men had better brand awareness than Green Lantern because then were exposed to generations of folks through television, and DC needs to do more of that with their other properties if they expect them to succeed on the big screen.

It seems that before the movie came out, you argued that GL had plenty of "brand awareness", saying things like...

"He was also part of the Super Friends, which is still the longest continuous running animated TV superhero franchise in history (about 10 seasons). Episodes from that franchise still air from time to time on Boomerang, so there should be a good number of folks who know about the character. He his also mentioned in the song "Sunshine Superman" by Donovan ("Superman or Green Lantern ain't got nothing one me..."). Green Lantern should be know by a folks of all ages. I think that when people say that he is not it is a farce."

So now, after the fact, you feel differently?

 

[dnno1]

Certainly not Iron Man. Iron Man is the exception to the rule.

Iron Man had a TV series in the 1990's that lasted 2 seasons. Although that was a short run, it still was in syndication. After the success of the first film, Marvel went ahead and produced "Iron Man: The Armored Adventures". This is far more than the exposure Green Lantern had.

 

[Chewy]

A terribly unsuccessful cartoon and a cartoon after the movie came out is certainly not more pre-movie exposure than Justice League was.

 

[Gamma Burst]

Iron Man had a TV series in the 1990's that lasted 2 seasons. Although that was a short run, it still was in syndication. After the success of the first film, Marvel went ahead and produced "Iron Man: The Armored Adventures". This is far more than the exposure Green Lantern had.

No, it isn't. The excuses are getting ridiculous.

 

[Jordanstine]

To say that Green Lantern should be known by folks of all ages is just naive.

Green Lantern, believe it or not, outside comic book fanboys is an unknown.

Try the girlfriend test.

Just ask your girlfriend if she knows the following:

- Superman? Yes.
- Batman? Yes.
- Wonder Woman? Yes.
- Spider-Man? Yes.
- Hulk? Yes.
- Captain America? Yes.
- Iron Man? Yes (albeit recently only).
- Flash? Yes (surprisingly).
- Wolverine? No, but she knows the X-Men.
- Thor? No, but she knows of the greek character.
- Green Lantern? Huh, a green what!?

Even some of my friends / co-workers who don't read comic books actually think the name alone of Green Lantern sounds lame. "Why the hell would a super hero be called Green Lantern?" - I've read people on twitter say that.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Iron Man had a TV series in the 1990's that lasted 2 seasons. Although that was a short run, it still was in syndication. After the success of the first film, Marvel went ahead and produced "Iron Man: The Armored Adventures". This is far more than the exposure Green Lantern had.

It only survived for 2 seasons and how long ago it was been? Most of the audiences have already grown up. Not so with the JLA generations. Iron Man: AA was made after the first movie so your point is irrelevant.

Fact is, comic cons have always been filled with people with Green Lantern shirts and cosplays. Not Iron Man.

 

[Gamma Burst]

To say that Green Lantern should be known by folks of all ages is just naive.

Green Lantern, believe it or not, outside comic book fanboys is an unknown.

Try the girlfriend test.

Just ask your girlfriend if she knows the following:

- Superman? Yes.
- Batman? Yes.
- Wonder Woman? Yes.
- Spider-Man? Yes.
- Hulk? Yes.
- Captain America? Yes.
- Iron Man? Yes (albeit recently only).
- Flash? Yes (surprisingly).
- Wolverine? No, but she knows the X-Men.
- Thor? No, but she knows of the greek character.
- Green Lantern? Huh, a green what!?

Even some of my friends / co-workers who don't read comic books actually think the name alone of Green Lantern sounds lame. "Why the hell would a super hero be called Green Lantern?" - I've read people on twitter say that.

Norse.