Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 2

[kedrell]

But my point still stands. The GA were convinced (eventually) that this Batman is not silly. MoS, if it can deliver an interesting Superman, can do the same.

I would definitely not count on MoS having a similar situation as BB did with regards to Theatrical Vs. DVD sales. The DVD market simply isn't what it was in 2005. Netflix has made sure of that. The days of big DVD sales saving otherwise underperforming movies is passing quickly.

 

[jmc]

I think Marvel, in general, has just done a better job with their overall brand name. "MARVEL" seems to have brand recognition that "DC" just doesn't.

I rarely hear people I know refer to DC in any way. Friends and family and other people not "in the know" will ask me things like "Is Batman with Marvel?" or "Is Green Lantern with Marvel?" but never the other way around.

A lot of it has to do with the ancillaries and the merchandising. I always see t-shirts at Walmart and Target that say ''Marvel'' on it, with pictures of Spider-Man, Cap, Iron Man, Wolverine, etc all standing together. Whenever I see a DC shirt, it's either one particular character or "The Justice League," not the DC Comics brand in general.

I can guarantee you the only people who give a damn about whether characters are DC or Marvel based are within these forums walls.

 

[DaveMoral]

I think the whole "relatable" thing has gotten out of hand. As Rev said, it's a matter of making the audience understand the character through a compelling story. The character doesn't have to be exactly like us for you be interested in him. If you do that, then people will get hooked on the character.

If the successful Marvel movies didn't have compelling stories, they wouldn't have made an impact as they have.

On paper, Thor should be about the least relatable comic book character in any stable of characters. He's a friggin Norse God. The only way we can be made to relate to him is by him being stripped of his powers and just being a dude, and even then he's a huge really buff dude that uses archaic language.

IMO, GL is the more relatable character between the two. And I include that on screen. There was just so many missteps in presenting this movie to people... marketing was a big problem from the get, and to be honest their choice of director was foolish. Sure, he's a proven action director that has made some awesome things... but GL is not that kind of action and never could have been. Much as a loathe his slo-mo fixation and odd soundtrack choices that don't seem to fit the actual film, Zack Snyder would have been a more fitting choice for GL. And while I expect him to deliver on MoS, I'm still not totally convinced he's the guy I would go to for Superman.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

GL's primise was fine people just didn't like the movie.

 

[Poni_Boy]

GL's primise was fine people just didn't like the movie.

People didn't like the movie because the premise presented was bad

 

[Gamma Burst]

I got news for you; Hulk is not a secondary character. Was always more popular than GL.

True that.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

People didn't like the movie because the premise presented was bad

That about sums it up. With better execution I don't think that the movie would have been gianormous or anything but I do think that it could have pulled in a solid 180 to 200mil and WB could have built off of the audience good will with a sequel.

 

[Poni_Boy]

That about sums it up. With better execution I don't think that the movie would have been gianormous or anything but I do think that it could have pulled in a solid 180 to 200mil and WB could have built off of the audience good will with a sequel.

Well said. My thoughts exactly

 

[BigThor]

I got news for you; Hulk is not a secondary character. Was always more popular than GL.

Yep, Thor is alot closer to be in the same ball park as GL in terms of popularity.

He might be a little below GL now that I think about it.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

DC heroes are ones you look up to; set up on a pedestal, if you will. With the mainstream exception of Batman, most heroes aren't believable in the "real world."

This isn't necessarily a bad thing. Look at Optimus Prime. You can make this quality look cool in the eyes of the GA, but WB are just too incompetent to do it.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

I would definitely not count on MoS having a similar situation as BB did with regards to Theatrical Vs. DVD sales. The DVD market simply isn't what it was in 2005. Netflix has made sure of that. The days of big DVD sales saving otherwise underperforming movies is passing quickly.

The original point of discussion was that the GA thinks Superman is boring and uninteresting. BB is an example of shifting damaged public consensus.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Superman needs an origin or semi origin film that is as well liked as Batman Begins, X-Men, Spider-Man and Iron Man to succeed.

I think that WB will be fine with The Man of Steel not exploding at the boxoffice provided it has better good will and sequel potential than Superman Returns. Like or love Superman Returns, half of the moviegoers were underwhelmed by it and the movie wrote itself into a corner when they included the kid (which was really the least of the movie's problems despite the hyperbole)

The fact is I don't think that Superman Returns is as hated as say, Hulk and GL are. I just think that alot of people were eh on it and thats not a good reaction to a blockbuster film either. MOS needs to get 70 to 80% of the average joe behind it if a sequel is to blow up and no I'm not talking about blowing up TDK style or New Moon or Shrek 2 style, I mean DeadMan's Chest style. A very comfortable bump domestically but not almost doubling or more than doubling the gross of the previous film.

Superman is only as outdated as whos writing him.

 

[merced]

I would definitely not count on MoS having a similar situation as BB did with regards to Theatrical Vs. DVD sales. The DVD market simply isn't what it was in 2005. Netflix has made sure of that. The days of big DVD sales saving otherwise underperforming movies is passing quickly.

It's true DVD sales have been sliding for several yeas and the industry is worried over that.

In the case of MOS though it's going to be all about the BO anyway. Seems like many in the industry are skeptical MOS can do well.

I'm amazed that some on the Supes board think MOS can do Ironman numbers. They are like those that said SR would do way north of 300 million domestic or that said GL would do 300 million. It ain't gonna happen and it never was gonna happen. IMO.

Others aren't even aware of it apparently. I've read several articles on coming comic book films for 2012 and 2013 that didn't even mention MOS.

My friends who aren't into comics are totally unaware of or uninterested in MOS. But they are hyped about the new Spiderman and the next Ironman.

Nolan and Snyder and WB have a huge PR probem on their hands and and I'm not sure they can oversome it.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Superman needs an origin or semi origin film that is as well liked as Batman Begins, X-Men, Spider-Man and Iron Man to succeed.

I think that WB will be fine will be okay with The Man of Steel not exploding at the boxoffice provided it has better good will and sequel potential than Superman Returns. Like or love Superman Returns, half of the moviegoers were underwhelmed by it and the movie wrote itself into a corner when they included the kid (which was really the least of the movie's problems despite the hyperbole)

The fact is I don't think that Superman Returns is as hated as say, Hulk and GL are. I just think that alot of people were eh on it and thats not a good reaction to a blockbuster film either. MOS needs to get 70 to 80% of the average joe behind it if a sequel is to blow up and no I'm not talking about blowing up TDK style or New Moon or Shrek 2 style, I mean DeadMan's Chest style. A very comfortable bump but not domestically but not almost doubling or more than doubling the gross of the previous film.

Superman is only as outdated as whos writing him.

Dead on.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Dead on.

With the exception of some of the bad grammar that I just corrected. lol Yuck, I hate how much I make simple mistakes. I guess that isn't the point though as everybody makes mistakes on these here boards.

Millar is a f**king tool as far as I'm concerned. I can't stand him.

 

[merced]

Superman needs an origin or semi origin film that is as well liked as Batman Begins, X-Men, Spider-Man and Iron Man to succeed.

I think that WB will be fine with The Man of Steel not exploding at the boxoffice provided it has better good will and sequel potential than Superman Returns. Like or love Superman Returns, half of the moviegoers were underwhelmed by it and the movie wrote itself into a corner when they included the kid (which was really the least of the movie's problems despite the hyperbole)

The fact is I don't think that Superman Returns is as hated as say, Hulk and GL are. I just think that alot of people were eh on it and thats not a good reaction to a blockbuster film either. MOS needs to get 70 to 80% of the average joe behind it if a sequel is to blow up and no I'm not talking about blowing up TDK style or New Moon or Shrek 2 style, I mean DeadMan's Chest style. A very comfortable bump domestically but not almost doubling or more than doubling the gross of the previous film.

Superman is only as outdated as whos writing him.

What do you mean by blow up?

I think MOS does 225 - 250 million. IMO that will be seen as a modest success but not worthy of a sequel.

Truth to tell, my fear is MOS does not do that well and is the final nail so to speak. A part of me wishes WB wasn't doing this movie cause I just don't see the interest in another Supes film out there with the regular Joe/Jill regular movie going type.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Besides from a few corrected errors and probably uncorrected ones I think that my post is perfectly clear.

In lamest terms:

If Man Of Steel is as well recieved as the first movies in the Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man and modern Batman series I think that WB will be willing to give a sequel a go even if the first movie only does 200 to 220mil domestically and something simular overseas in hopes of it having a bump in gross.

The first Pirates made 305mil in total and the second make 425mil. I think that WB would be willing to take the hit for MOS if it's extremely well received in hopes of the second movie being rewarded. First one 200mil, second one 275 or 300mil.

Ofcourse Iron Man 2 and Spider-Man 2 made less than the first one's domestically but those movies also made a good deal more than BB and X-Men so I'd compare it boxoffice wise to those films because I'm assuming it garners a simular gross.

 

[merced]

Besides from a few corrected errors and probably uncorrected ones I think that my post is perfectly clear.

In lamest terms:

If Man Of Steel is as well recieved as the first movies in the Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man and modern Batman series I think that WB will be willing to give a sequel a go even if the first movie only does 200 to 220mil domestically and something simular overseas in hopes of it having a bump in gross.

The first Pirates made 305mil in total and the second make 425mil. I think that WB would be willing to take the hit for MOS if it's extremely well received in hopes of the second movie being rewarded. First one 200mil, second one 275 or 300mil.

Ofcourse Iron Man 2 and Spider-Man 2 made less than the first one's domestically but those movies also made a good deal more than BB and X-Men so I'd compare it boxoffice wise to those films because I'm assuming it garners a simular gross.

I totally disagree.

200 million would be the same as SR. But with a much better cast and production team. That would be seen as an outright flop IMO.

220 million? Better than SR but given the cast of MOS still a disappointment.

IMO MOS must do north of 250 million to be seen as a success by WB.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

For the Big 3 (although it's really the Big 2, box office wise), anything less than 300+ million domestic would be a disappointment IMO, especially if significant resources are allotted to its production.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

If Man Of Steel is as well recieved as the first movies in the Spider-Man, X-Men, Iron Man and modern Batman series I think that WB will be willing to give a sequel a go even if the first movie only does 200 to 220mil domestically and something simular overseas in hopes of it having a bump in gross.

The first Pirates made 305mil in total and the second make 425mil. I think that WB would be willing to take the hit for MOS if it's extremely well received in hopes of the second movie being rewarded. First one 200mil, second one 275 or 300mil.

Ofcourse Iron Man 2 and Spider-Man 2 made less than the first one's domestically but those movies also made a good deal more than BB and X-Men so I'd compare it boxoffice wise to those films because I'm assuming it garners a simular gross.

Perception most certainly plays a factor.

Both Superman Returns and Star Trek were made for roughly the same amount of dough (around $220-$240 million - FYI never take the "official" budgets studios list to heart. Ever. Or anything off Box Office Mojo.) and both did roughly the same amount of business worldwide (around $400 million). But the latter was considered the huge, brawling success and the former was viewed as an under-performer.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You are obviously allowed to disagree Merced. Still doesn't change one bit of my post. If people actually love MOS, WB will make sequel regardless of it grossing just as much as or only a little more than SR which had decidedly mixed word of mouth.

Star Trek cost a s**t load to make and market (more than that 150mil budget report, try 200+mil and you know it cost alot to market like every big blockbuster) and only made 385mil worldwide and yet Paramount is practically busting down JJ. Abrams and his writers doors to get the sequel started. Why is that? Oh I know! The average moviegoer liked to loved the film, it had really good legs for a big opener and it got fantastic reviews. The franchise has potential for an at least Pirates 2 style growth domestically if they play their cards right and a good deal of growth overseas too.

The first movie isn't the be all end all boxoffice wise if people loved the first movie enough. IMHO if the SR sequel ever went through I think that it would have made slightly less than the first because a good chunk of people weren't clamoring for a sequel.

I do not think that MOS has to make 300mil domestic for them to greenlight a sequel, if that were the case then Paramount would want no part of a Star Trek sequel and they clearly do.

Perception most certainly plays a factor.

Both Superman Returns and Star Trek were made for roughly the same amount of dough (around $220-$240 million - FYI never take the "official" budgets studios list to heart. Ever. Or anything off Box Office Mojo.) and both did roughly the same amount of business worldwide (around $400 million). But the latter was considered the huge, brawling success and the former was viewed as an under-performer.

True, perception is one of the keys. And as you can see I brought up Trek but I'm a such a slow typer that you got out your post before I could get out mine.

 

[Scarlet Spider]

In Superman's case, I would imagine anything less than a 500 Million worldwide total for the reboot, would be viewed as a disappointment by the studio.

That was their expectations for SR (as publicly stated by the head of the studio at the time), and that will probably be their expectations for the new film as well. If not more so six years later than the last film.

Truthfully, I just don't think the the studio is that interested in making more Superman films to begin with. The reboot only went into production to prevent further litigation from the Siegel Estate. The lawsuit forced their hand.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

True, perception is one of the keys. And as you can see I brought up Trek but I'm a such a slow typer that you got out your post before I could get out mine.

Great minds think alike.

 

[solidsnake86]

Perception most certainly plays a factor.

Both Superman Returns and Star Trek were made for roughly the same amount of dough (around $220-$240 million - FYI never take the "official" budgets studios list to heart. Ever. Or anything off Box Office Mojo.) and both did roughly the same amount of business worldwide (around $400 million). But the latter was considered the huge, brawling success and the former was viewed as an under-performer.

Shocker they don't reveal the actual budget, some people should read your post because apparently avengers is being made for the same amount of money as captain america and thor.

 

[KalMart]

I think the whole "relatable" thing has gotten out of hand. As Rev said, it's a matter of making the audience understand the character through a compelling story. The character doesn't have to be exactly like us for you be interested in him. If you do that, then people will get hooked on the character.

If the successful Marvel movies didn't have compelling stories, they wouldn't have made an impact as they have.

It's the story that has to be engaging and immersive in a 'relatable' way...regardless of what character you portray, or whether it's realistic or fantastical. But I also think that with so many recent superhero movies, they need to push the envelope cinematically, with more creative filmmaking approaches that expand what movies..and only movies...can uniquely do, while finding those visceral elements within our realistic/relatable sensibilities to anchor their narrative logic. An unimaginative and contrived narrative is just that no matter what bright colors and eye-popping effects you wrap it in. So is bad pacing/flow, bad composition, etc.. When that happens...having it be a superhero is like putting a clown suit on it. But when it's good, it could feel like donning a cape and taking flight.