Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 2

[Nokio]

I think it's a given that GL is dead and won't being seeing the big screen again. He will turn up in a JL movie if the Avengers is a big hit. I think WB should've done a JL film first then solo films on the characters. I think it's different from Marvel.

 

[KalMart]

I think WB should not concern themselves with 'keeping up with the Marvels' and concentrate more on putting out better films....comcic-based or not. Maybe if they find another novel series to adapt, they'll have their box-office machines along with Batman, and hen they won;t have to look to comics so much. Let DCE handle comics/video games/animation, and let the movie division develop more original projects and continue nurturing relationships with filmmakers like Scorcese, Eastwood, and Nolan. They could be way below Marvel in terms of the number of comic-movies, but still be the most profitable studio altogether.

 

[EliteF50]

I think WB should not concern themselves with 'keeping up with the Marvels' and concentrate more on putting out better films....comcic-based or not.

Agreed. Though I would love to see a JL movie sometime this decade.

 

[Nokio]

I think WB should not concern themselves with 'keeping up with the Marvels' and concentrate more on putting out better films....comcic-based or not. Maybe if they find another novel series to adapt, they'll have their box-office machines along with Batman, and hen they won;t have to look to comics so much. Let DCE handle comics/video games/animation, and let the movie division develop more original projects and continue nurturing relationships with filmmakers like Scorcese, Eastwood, and Nolan. They could be way below Marvel in terms of the number of comic-movies, but still be the most profitable studio altogether.

I think they already do that. They are called non comic movies. Inception comes to mind as one well recently well done film. This is a message board about comics and superheroes. So I think it's fine for us to discuss comic films here. WB should focus on doing their properties correctly and put quality into them.

 

[KalMart]

I think they already do that. They are called non comic movies. Inception comes to mind as one well recently well done film. This is a message board about comics and superheroes. So I think it's fine for us to discuss comic films here. WB should focus on doing their properties correctly and put quality into them.

I think it's fine to discuss non-comic films and possibly doing less comic-films with better quality too...since the subject of WB's overall revenue strategy in light of HP ending has come up...in a message board about comics and superheroes. If that's okay with you.

Take your time with that one.

 

[jmc]

Problem for WB is that Potter has been such a cash cow they are going to see a huge drop in revenue in the coming years, if anything I'm starting to wonder if there's possibility in them rushing more superheroes to the screen in the hope of striking gold like was done with GL. Lets not kid ourselves, there was no care given to the movie, who says things will change.

 

[KalMart]

Problem for WB is that Potter has been such a cash cow they are going to see a huge drop in revenue in the coming years, if anything I'm starting to wonder if there's possibility in them rushing more superheroes to the screen in the hope of striking gold like was done with GL. Lets not kid ourselves, there was no care given to the movie, who says things will change.

That's the real problem. Comic movies are motivated, first and foremost, as money-making machines, rather than a select few that filmmakers come to THEM to make. How is Marvel doing it differently? Maybe in the end, they're really not. They really may be running it into the ground in the near future. Whereas if WB starts new non-comic franchises, you might be looking at a brighter and longer future...at least for the next decade. I think the mistake is in assuming that something can just slide into the space vacated by Potter and take over the success, not missing a step. I think they'll have to find something with its own unique story experience...not something in an already active genre like comic-movies. That's already taking away from itself through oversaturation.

Some have commented that GL at least works okay as a comic movie...and they wonder why people can't just appreciate it on that level...why they need more than that. It's because generally, moviegoers aren't looking to appreciate the comic-ness of these movies. They want a good movie, period....they are comparing it to the POTC's, the Transformers, and Harry Potters out there, and they're not looking to set their sights lower because of some alleged merit associated with adapting a comic for movies.

Novel adaptations, as an example, aren't really a genre...the movies that come out of them tend to be self-contained franchises that aren't grouped with others as a 'type'. Whereas something like POTC...yeah, you could say it was based on an 50-year-old ride, but it has so little to do with tat you might as well call it a ground-up motion-picture entity. Obviously, with something like comics, you do have an existing fan base that can generate its own buzz...but if you look at the biggest money-makers recently...you can't really attribute it to an existing fandom. It's more about how the films deliver as movies to wide audiences....like POTC, or Avatar, or even Batman. It wasn't Batman fans that made TDK such a success...or IM fans for Iron Man...or toy fans with Transformers...it was how well the movie was received by all moviegoers. Conversely, GL's failure was due to its failure as a movie, even with a lot of enthusiasm leading up to it on the part of GL fans. Core fan attention is nice and all, but it's not really where the money is.

So it may be a case of realizing that comic 'brand/character awareness', may not be as relevant as they thought it was...despite the devotion and passion of their core fans. Heck, novel series may ultimately still have an edge in terms of that. I'm sure that WB would be much more enthusiastic about finding the next Twilight or Potter series than starting, say, a Flash movie series. Who wouldn't...aside from a comic fan?

 

[jmc]

I think I know what the difference is. Marvel's very existence as a film studio depends on them making movies that are good, or at the very least movies that are watchable. They can't afford to screw up and thus they've put the effort into making sure they don't, the results may not always be perfect or bring anything new to the table but for the most part they're movies that are well made, well acted and treated with respect (except IM2 which was a blatant money grab). Now I've got my issues with how they operate in terms of thinking the talent is expendable, being cheap when it comes to paying people and not pushing the boundaries in terms of story but so far what they've done is paying reasonable dividends. A really bad movie on their part could seriously **** them up, even with Disney backing, they're not in the position to be able to write off a bad film as easily as bigger studios.

Warner Bros on the other hand, as has been mentioned a billion times before, is not reliant on superheroes to survive. Long after the superhero craze dies down they'll still be making movies about anything and everything. This is where complacency is able to creep in. Not being reliant on superheroes like GL means less care is required to ensure the finish product is actually any good, it's not essential, as long as something gets released and is half watchable maybe it can turn a profit, if not there's other film coming that they can rely on to make up any losses. That's where the different ideologies are, WB can shrug off a film like GL because there are always opportunities elsewhere to make money, always new franchises to purchase rights from, always old movies to remake, always original films to gamble on.

It's sad for us DC fans because it means we are less likely to get anything decent outside of the two big guns, Bats and Big Blue I think will always be held on a higher level for WB, especially after Chris Nolan arrived, those two characters will be treated like royalty from here on in. But for the lower tier characters the same level of treatment is unlikely as was shown to us a few weeks ago. There is little cause for optimism because ultimately it's business first and WB's business model is completely different to Marvel's. Retrospectively it's fairly evident as time went on that GL became less and less about making a good film, it became about trying to sell us what they managed to scrounge together in time. Are WB hurting over GL? Not after this weekend's Potter box office that's for sure, what bitterness that was left with GL is now well and truly gone and that's the point, GL isn't going to sting them as much as say Thor failing would sting Marvel, WB will simply move on to the next project.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

I don't buy that. How do you explain rival studios like Sony, Universal, or even Fox that can make comic book movies that are critically acclaimed and/or profitable? Warner Bros. is just incompetent IMO.

 

[The Sage]

They're not incompetent, they're having a hard time seeing the value in comic book films outside of Batman and Superman.

 

[jmc]

I don't buy that. How do you explain rival studios like Sony, Universal, or even Fox that can make comic book movies that are critically acclaimed and/or profitable? Warner Bros. is just incompetent IMO.

Critically acclaimed? With the exception of the first 2 Spiderman films and a couple X-men movies just about every superhero film by these companies and others has been ordinary at best. Studios like Fox, WB, Sony, whoever, they're all the same, they're not reliant on superheroes.

 

[theMan-Bat]

Green Lantern hasn't even been released yet in many countries around the world:
Green Lantern opens in Belgium July 27th.
Green Lantern opens in Germany July 28th.
Green Lantern opens in Spain July 29th.
Green Lantern opens in Sweden July 29th.
Green Lantern opens in Turkey July 29th.
Green Lantern opens in Poland July 29th.
Green Lantern opens in Holland August 4th.
Green Lantern opens in Australia August 4th.
Green Lantern opens in Puerto Rico August 4th.
Green Lantern opens in Israel August 4th.
Green Lantern opens in Netherlands August 4th.
Green Lantern opens in Norway August 5th.
Green Lantern opens in Finland August 5th.
Green Lantern opens in France August 10th.
Green Lantern opens in Hungary August 11th.
Green Lantern opens in Argentina August 11th.
Green Lantern opens in Chile August 11th.
Green Lantern opens in Peru August 11th.
Green Lantern opens in Mexico August 12th.
Green Lantern opens in Portugal August 18th.
Green Lantern opens in Bolivia August 18th.
Green Lantern opens in Brazil August 19th.
Green Lantern opens in Colombia August 19th.
Green Lantern opens in Panama August 19th.
Green Lantern opens in Paraguay August 19th.
Green Lantern opens in Uruguay August 19th.
Green Lantern opens in Greece August 25th.
Green Lantern opens in Italy August 31st.
Green Lantern opens in Venezuela September 2nd.
Green Lantern opens in Bulgaria September 2nd.
Green Lantern opens in Japan September 10th.

http://www.releasedatein.com/green-lantern-movie-release-date.html
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1133985/releaseinfo

 

[Saitou Hajime]

Critically acclaimed? With the exception of the first 2 Spiderman films and a couple X-men movies just about every superhero film by these companies and others has been ordinary at best. Studios like Fox, WB, Sony, whoever, they're all the same, they're not reliant on superheroes.

But that's my point. Fox, Sony, and Universal aren't reliant on comic book films like Marvel Studios, but unlike Warner Bros. can be relied on to produce films that can at least be profitable on the BO (and if they're really trying, attain a decent critical reception). I'm sure either of those three can come up with a great Batman or Superman film if they had them, too.

 

[jmc]

Can be relied upon to produce profitable films? Please, all studios have had their fair share of under performers and flops, to single WB out as the only ones who can't get their act together is absurd. You know what the deciding factor usually is for those crappy ones that are profitable? Marketing and a crap load of luck.

 

[The Sage]

But that's my point. Fox, Sony, and Universal aren't reliant on comic book films like Marvel Studios, but unlike Warner Bros. can be relied on to produce films that can at least be profitable on the BO (and if they're really trying, attain a decent critical reception). I'm sure either of those three can come up with a great Batman or Superman film if they had them, too.

So Warner Bros. can't produce a critically acclaimed and financially successful comic book film? Last I checked, The Dark Knight came out of their shop and is still the most financially successful comic book movie so far, most critically acclaimed, and is the only one to my knowledge where an actor won an academy award for his performance in a comic book film. I'm sure the common response would be that's because of Ledger's death and Nolan was at the helm, but you could almost apply the same response to those film in other movies that have been successful, saying something like Spider-Man did well because of Raimi, Iron Man did well because of Favreau, etc.

Warner Bros. is capable of it, it's just a matter of them treating the lower-tier heroes with as much care and respect as Batman and Superman. Hopefully they'll find their way, and find it quick. And now with Harry Potter finished, they'll be more motivated to get it right.

 

[DaveMoral]

I think they need to get someone in there that's passionate about GL and just go ahead with the sequel. That's just me wanting to see more GL, obviously, but why not find a director that can do it, wants to do it, and sees the full potential of the character? Campbell had a great track record, but he'd never done anything like this before and it shows. And I honestly don't get all the blame being heaped on Johns. Surely he came in and tried to do what he could to improve the thing, but at that point no doubt it was too late to turn their Legion cloud(and I don't doubt he would have been a cloud too) into anything other than a cloud named Parallax. Maybe they should have had more scenes of Krona/Fallen Guardian and it switching between those forms when fighting GLs. I think of Johns is there as a creative consultant to keep things on track with the spirit and the mythos of the comics and you've got a director that sees the potential of a GL space opera and treats it as such, and a good script behind it... they could really knock it out of the park. And I think the cast is just fight, especially Reynolds and Strong.

 

[merced]

Based on the article posted the other day on the SHH news section, it doesn't appear that WB has any super-hero films planned for the immediate future.

So it could be 5 or more years before they give it another shot. Aside from re-booting Batman after TDKR - I'm not sure how quickly WB wants to turn that one around. In any case, a re-booted Batman is probably the only superhero film WB puts out in less than 5 years.

As for GL, if the studio is put off by the franchise right now, why not license GL for a decade to another studio? WB would get a small income stream and might learn something from another studio doing one of their DC characters.

 

[Micromind]

^^ Not a bad idea.

WB should license out some of its properties to other studios to see how they develop them, some have the experience having made some of the Marvel properties.

I can think of Green Arrow, Black Canary, Jonah Hex, Hawkman and Capt. Marvel as potential candidates.

Maybe, Studios like Paramount and Fox may be willing to take some of the DC properties by licensing them for a period of time.

 

[merced]

^^ Not a bad idea.

WB should license out some of its properties to other studios to see how they develop them, some have the experience having made some of the Marvel properties.

I can think of Green Arrow, Black Canary, Jonah Hex, Hawkman and Capt. Marvel as potential candidates.

Maybe, Studios like Paramount and Fox may take be willing to take some of the DC properties by licensing them for a period of time.

Exactly.

Don't forget WB licensed Superman to Canon for a decade or so.

If WB isn't going to use the properties why not? If one of the studios creates a hit then WB can learn from that and maybe use the same folks involved with the hit film to launch another in-house WB super-hero project.

 

[solidsnake86]

^there was an article about the movie red and how WB may never license out another property again because it made a profit and they passed on it.

 

[Micromind]

That thinking was there when Red was a success but now, after GL's low performance at B.O. they may rethink their strategy.

 

[Donut]

They're not incompetent, they're having a hard time seeing the value in comic book films outside of Batman and Superman.

How can they not notice a difference with some things though ? Batman & Superman all gave the Directors free roam of their movies. But unlike with Green Lantern the WB Executives had control over that movie & they made a bad movie & everyone called them out on it. The WB needs to stop treating the audience like they are ******ed. They are not incompetent. They just want control over their movies & when the studios completely control a movie we get X3 & Green Lantern. The WB needs to learn. The WB has no one else to blame for Green Lanterns failure but the WB. Snyder has complete control with Superman. If that is a success where Green Lantern was not then the WB needs to admit that they suck when they control movies. I hope the WB loses the Superman rights. Because when they release nothing but Batman movies once a year (DC Wise) people will eventually get sick of Batman & then the WB has nothing DC Comics Movie wise. If the new Superman is a success & the WB still does nothing new then **** the WB & I will point & laugh at any future WB movie that ends up being a failure. DC Comics or not. They will have deserved those failures

 

[solidsnake86]

That thinking was there when Red was a success but now, after GL's low performance at B.O. they may rethink their strategy.

What benefit is it to WB to license out their characters and not make max profit from it. Besides I don't think any studio would want to, as the license fee would probably be so expensive the chance for making a profit would make it such a risk. Disneys going through all the trouble caused by marvel licensing their characters out to studios to get them back, WB isn't going to do the exact opposite.

 

[solidsnake86]

How can they not notice a difference with some things though ? Batman & Superman all gave the Directors free roam of their movies. But unlike with Green Lantern the WB Executives had control over that movie & they made a bad movie & everyone called them out on it. The WB needs to stop treating the audience like they are ******ed. They are not incompetent. They just want control over their movies & when the studios completely control a movie we get X3 & Green Lantern. The WB needs to learn. The WB has no one else to blame for Green Lanterns failure but the WB. Snyder has complete control with Superman. If that is a success where Green Lantern was not then the WB needs to admit that they suck when they control movies. I hope the WB loses the Superman rights. Because when they release nothing but Batman movies once a year (DC Wise) people will eventually get sick of Batman & then the WB has nothing DC Comics Movie wise. If the new Superman is a success & the WB still does nothing new then **** the WB & I will point & laugh at any future WB movie that ends up being a failure. DC Comics or not. They will have deserved those failures

I'm not so sure about that, I think its the easy way out to lay the blame at WBs feet when it seemed like a very collaborative production. If anything it sounds as if they just didn't have enough money to truly do what they wanted to. I think in this movies case the blame can be spread around very evenly.

 

[Donut]

I'm not so sure about that, I think its the easy way out to lay the blame at WBs feet when it seemed like a very collaborative production. If anything it sounds as if they just didn't have enough money to truly do what they wanted to. I think in this movies case the blame can be spread around very evenly.

Well if the new Superman is a success then that tells you the WB did something wrong with Green Lantern & I am not talking about not having enough money for it