Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 2

[CaptainCraig]

And on Day 20 Green Lantern falls below the one million mark in dailies.
For Wed it pulled in $932K for a new domestic total of $105.6m.

The saddest part is looking at theater count and it's ranking compared to other films. Even those that opened a week before or after GL. GL is in 3,300 screens on it's 20th day and places 8th in the dailies.

Mr.Poppers Penguins (Jim Carrey), 2600 screens, 20 days, 6th place
Super 8, 3100 screens, 27 days, 7th place

It should be doing better than Super 8 but the quality isn't there for that to be possible. Which is worse when you consider audiences think Penguins is more of a quality film (I haven't seen it), maybe it is.

 

[Lencho01]

You would have only know if I told you.

The pic at first glance fooled me. But, after some time the things that feel "off" about it start to set in. The video interview was a lot easier to tell that it was CGI and having them show the girl for real highlighted how fake it looked. And looking back your post, I noticed the link for the actual video of the Asian woman and I found it to even be worse.

It's just the nature of Uncanny Valley. We as humans naturally can tell if there's something funny when we're told something is real or to be percieved as such. Especially when it comes to humans.

Even as great as the CGI in Rise of the Planet of the Apes might seem, I can still tell something's up with Caesar because chimps don't normally look/act like that.

So, going back to GL, a better company would of course make the aliens look more "real" but they would still end up looking fake since they're well, aliens. CGI aliens to be more specific. People in masks are easier to be percieved as "real" since they're actually there.

 

[jmc]

That's not true.

The image above is a CGI model.



The face of the actor in this clip is CG up until the 1:30 mark.

You are joking right? The eyes are a dead give away. Like i said no amount of rendering can make a character look 100% real because there are subtleties in human movement that our brains pick up that no computer can replicate.

 

[mace1]

The problems with translating Johns' stories directly to silver screen are two-fold, and intimately connected, at that: 1.) He can't write dialogue very well. It very well might read perfectly fine in your mind, but try reading a Johns' comic book sometime out loud and see just how organic his dialogue sounds to the naked ear. This is an old trick I learned in college, and you'd be surprised at how bad what you thought sounded great in your head actually is when you can hear it spoken.

Compounding this is 2.) He constantly, constantly tells rather than shows, and he typically meanders on and on while doing so (again, see #1). "Hal Jordan? Why, aren't you the greatest Green Lantern of sector 2814? Didn't you do this awesome feat that I'll now go on about for half-a-paragraph now?" Or, "Barry, I know you. You wear your heart on your shoulder. You're going to stick to this case to the bitter end until you find that murderer, because that's just who you are, good buddy."

Johns very rarely shows the audience anything that he wants to get across about a character, and instead just tells them overtly so he can concentrate on something else he deems more important to his story. For a film, though (and I would argue for a comic book, too, but that's another discussion), an audience really needs to see character growth over the course of the picture. They needed to see that Hal was more of a screw up firsthand, instead of having Blake Lively tell everyone--and rather dryly, at that--that, "Today is important, and I can't have any more of those classic antics of yours, you little devil, you." They needed to see him go from goof-off to buttoned-down, no-holds-barred Green Lantern.

I'm not blaming Johns for the quality, or rather, lack thereof of this film, mind you. However, I think if the filmmakers had lifted the script page for page from a Johns-penned story, the finished product wouldn't have been any better than what we got, and it possibly could have been even worse.

A lot of the bad reviews to me was just not understanding or care to understand the green lantern universe.Alot of the critics had a close mind before it they seen it,plus remember the film embargo.critics can't stand that.

This film was on the level has thor in terms of basic development of the story from my view point but got bash more.

Even ebert gave it a higher rating then thor,so overall it had to be at least on the same level if you take his view point into account.
That tells you something.

I really do not listen to ebert has much anymore when it come to sci-fi or superhero films,he has lost a long time ago,but i do take his views into account to some extent and compare it to other critics,and in the end i make up my own mind.

I agree with with other critics sometimes,or very few times now i agree with ebert,but in the end,it is up to me.
Anyway i like the film,and it was a good or very good film,i gave it 3 stars,but a weak 3 stars out of 5 stars,just like thor,of course i enjoy it more then thor.

Green lantern was at least a 2.5 star movie to a weak 3 star movie,but it was 3 stars to me,but a weak one.
I like the film.

 

[KalMart]

You would have only know if I told you.

I think most people wouldn't know how immensely wrong something was unless you told them it was right.

 

[BatmanInc]

GL made less than 1 mil yesterday.

This film is officially a bomb now.

 

[dnno1]

I think most people wouldn't know how immensely wrong something was unless you told them it was right.

You mean like all those folks who though the Earth was flat or the moon was made of cheese?

 

[dnno1]

You are joking right? The eyes are a dead give away. Like i said no amount of rendering can make a character look 100% real because there are subtleties in human movement that our brains pick up that no computer can replicate.

Like you are an expert. Just because a person is looking in a different direction doesn't means that person is not a real person.

 

[Snare]

No sequel then

 

[dnno1]

No sequel then

Still got to see what the rest of the foreign gross is.

 

[Silver Surfer]

When was the last time a big budget Superhero flick bombed this badly? Ang lee's Hulk was a failure but at least it made it's production budget back at the domestic box office and added more than 100 mil at the foreign. GL is going to fall short at least 75 mil of it's production budget domestically even with the boost of 7 years of ticket inflated prices and 3D.

 

[Showtime]

Still got to see what the rest of the foreign gross is.

Well. Unfortunately that isn't going to have an impact on a sequel either way.

 

[KalMart]

You mean like all those folks who though the Earth was flat or the moon was made of cheese?

Luckily, you told them that they were right...so that changed in a jiffy.

 

[Energist]

I agree with with other critics sometimes,or very few times now i agree with ebert,but in the end,it is up to me.
Anyway i like the film,and it was a good or very good film,i gave it 3 stars,but a weak 3 stars out of 5 stars,just like thor,of course i enjoy it more then thor.

Green lantern was at least a 2.5 star movie to a weak 3 star movie,but it was 3 stars to me,but a weak one.
I like the film.

I'm glad you liked the movie. Personally, I don't really care what any of the critics have to say. For myself, though, I thought it was pretty mediocre. I'd put it in the same level as the theatrical cut of Daredevil, and felt it suffered from many of the same problems that film suffered from: some poor casting decisions, bad editing, bad dialogue, and too much crammed into too short of a running time.

I haven't seen Thor, so I can't compare it to that film, but Green Lantern was a rental for me at best (I saw it for free, though, so no skin off my nose). I'm really not surprised it's done as poorly as it has. And if I find Thor to be equally lacking when I finally get around to seeing it, then I'll be just as surprised by its relative box office and critical success.

 

[jmc]

Like you are an expert. Just because a person is looking in a different direction doesn't means that person is not a real person.

Actually I studied 3D animation for a year so I kinda do know what I'm talking about. The computer cannot replicate the subtleties of human movement and our brains can detect it when something isn't moving right, that is a fact. Our brains are a far more powerful tool than any computer there is in existence and if there are errors, no matter how small, we will spot them.

 

[KalMart]

 

[CaptainCraig]

GL made less than 1 mil yesterday.

This film is officially a bomb now.

Yeah, we got that covered 3hrs earlier upthread.

No sequel then

Still got to see what the rest of the foreign gross is.

No the studio, and us, really don't.
You'll feel better if you skip to the next stage past denial.

 

[Gamma Burst]

Yeah, we got that covered 3hrs earlier upthread.




No the studio, and us, really don't.
You'll feel better if you skip to the next stage past denial.

Which is...?

 

[HighFivingMF]

I want a Jeff Bridges action figure!


...Oh.

 

[Red Mask]

GL made less than 1 mil yesterday.

This film is officially a bomb now.

Overseas it's only being achieving seven figure profits in each country. So in this case, America really is its biggest market.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Waiting for overseas numbers is pointless because it has been putting up crappy overseas numbers so far. It not going to suddenly reach 200mil internationally.

You don't have to wait for the rest of the numbers to know that the movie is done for.

 

[TheVileOne]

Do the idiot cheerleader writers and all their fluff pieces still believe that sequel is happening?

 

[MadVillainy]

FOrget the writers IM wondering about some of the posters on here.

They first thought nothing of the negative reception and said the film would still do well, then once the US numbers werent that good said that international numbers will be great, now that the international numbers arent that good what else can they say?

 

[Gamma Burst]

FOrget the writers IM wondering about some of the posters on here.

They first thought nothing of the negative reception and said the film would still do well, then once the US numbers werent that good said that international numbers will be great, now that the international numbers arent that good what else can they say?

The DVD/Blue-Ray numbers?

 

[Energist]

The DVD/Blue-Ray numbers?

Dammit! You beat me to it!