Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread

[Tony Stark]

Thor played not to lose rather than to win. The whole movie was walking on eggs shells.

Thor was exactly what it should have been, i.e. the Kirby stuff mixed with the newer Straczynski stuff.

 

[Tony Stark]

removed by author

 

[Tony Stark]

Like I mentioned in the review thread, interesting discussion, but off topic...

Oops, sorry should have read this before adding to the fuel.

Anyway, I just hope GL can have a big opening because it needs to be front loaded with all the big films coming out in the following weeks. I'm going to be mad if we don't get a sequel and don't get to see Sinestro in the yellow suit.

 

[jmc]

Than I suggest you edit your post to prevent adding fuel to the fire.

 

[Tony Stark]

Done, let's talk GL box office.

Again, I get no read on this film. I'm hoping for the best here, but worried that WB may be enforcing the embargo.

As I said though the film may be critic proof. This could be a big popcorn flick. I've liked what I've seen in the previews anyway.

 

[KRIM]

My gut feeling is opening weekend will be critic-proof. The marketing has done its job and it has no competition in terms of scale. I've no clue as to how big it would be, but at the very least I foresee a solid opener.

How it does in subsequent weeks will be up to the film itself. It will have to be great if it expects to survive. Especially with TF3 looming around the corner.

 

[Weadazoid]

I really though the embargo was lifted on Sunday


bad news if they pushed it back til wednesday.

 

[Tony Stark]

Yeah, I think we can pretty much expect the reviews are going to be bad, which is dissapointing.

I am really hoping this thing is successful, it's taken over 20 years for Warner/DC to do something other than Superman/Batman (I'm talking major characters, not graphic novels), so with the WW pilot in limbo, and if this tanks, chances are we'll get the new Superman and that's it.

 

[04nbod]

Thor was exactly what it should have been, i.e. the Kirby stuff mixed with the newer Straczynski stuff.

Exactly. Everytime I hear that people thought the Earth stuff wasn't necessary or that it should have been as Asgardian epic I wonder if they know what the premise of Thor is. Strip it of the love of Earth vs duty to Asgard and you don't have Thor.

Its part of what worries me about the GL marketing. Too much alien spectacle and not enough of Hal as the everyman and Carol as the everywoman although I suspect we have so little Carol because Blake is dire.

 

[Tony Stark]

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not too worried about it. I think the emphasis on Oa in the marketing is to make it like it's a Star Wars/Star Trek type space odyssey with a large epic scope.

 

[rnewbz]

Seems to be tracking lower than what I would have expected

http://**************.com/fansites/Wolvie09/news/?a=39343

 

[KangConquers]

The New York Times is claiming that post-marketing, Warner Bros spent $300 M on Green Lantern. This is not good news for the film.

Movies only get about 55 cents on the dollar of each ticket sold. That would require GL to do nearly 550 million just to break even. Not particularly likely.

 

[Tony Stark]

The New York Times is claiming that post-marketing, Warner Bros spent $300 M on Green Lantern. This is not good news for the film.

Movies only get about 55 cents on the dollar of each ticket sold. That would require GL to do nearly 550 million just to break even. Not particularly likely.

If that's true, then they are screwed going out the door. This is like Superman Returns all over again. I understand this was an effects heavy film, and I wouldn't want them to compromise on that, but it's going to be very hard to recover those costs.

 

[Tony Stark]

Seems to be tracking lower than what I would have expected

http://**************.com/fansites/Wolvie09/news/?a=39343

60M is actually good. That's higher than what I've read on BOM forums.

 

[Sith Scotti]

No sequel for this film folks . b No one gives a damn about Green Lantern except some comic book nerds .

I expect Hulk type numbers .

 

[KangConquers]

If that's true, then they are screwed going out the door. This is like Superman Returns all over again. I understand this was an effects heavy film, and I wouldn't want them to compromise on that, but it's going to be very hard to recover those costs.

Basically, if this movie makes Thor money, it's still in the red.

I expect this to fall in the 330 Mil range Worldwide, which given a 150 Mil Budget + 35-50 Mil advertising would put it set to make a substantial profit in rental and home video sales.

However, when you drop millions into fixing bad cgi on a movie that's already 150 Mil and have commercials for it playing every six seconds on tv, the likelihood of this being a success goes down.

Granted, as it's been said, this could bne a chess move. Sacrificing a pawn to take a King. If GL still does relatively well ($350 Mil) it will raise awareness of the DC Universe, and sort of serve as free advertisement for the next movie. If they force a trilogy, the franchise could ultimately still turn a hefty profit.

We'll see how it plays out.

 

[kedrell]

Yeah, Thor money won't cut it with that budget.

 

[The Sage]

$300 million includes the marketing, the movie itself costs $175 million.

EDIT: Nevermind, someone already mentioned it.

 

[Sith Scotti]

Andf Thor had A Listers in who can act in their film like Hopkins & Portman .

 

[KangConquers]

People always ***** about Marvel Studios not giving films great marketing budgets, but honestly, they've turned profits on 3 of their 4 films, and one of those films was hampered by an uncooperative star, and the stigma of the Ang Lee movie.

It seems like Warner Bros forgets that for every dollar they spend on marketing, they have to make two dollars back.

 

[Steyin]

I have a feeling that GL will make a good amount on DVD/Blue-Ray ala Batman Begins.

 

[Karelia]

Welp, me and my buds got our tickets reserved for the midnight showing. Can't believe it's only 3 days away for me!

 

[Sith Scotti]

I also need to remind people to stop saying its a 50/50 split wioth theaters . The first couple of weeks the studios get most of the ticket sales . Front loaded film,s is what studios prefer because they get about 90 percent of ticket tales the first 2 weeks .

 

[KangConquers]

$300 million includes the marketing, the movie itself costs $175 million.

EDIT: Nevermind, someone already mentioned it.

The idea of starting off a franchise by dropping 300 Million dollars is insane.

There have been various arguments about Green Lantern's level of fame; some claim he's an icon, some claim he's a b-lister, but the fact is, this is a brand new, unproven franchise. Green Lantern has never had to fly on his own in a high risk venture before, and has had no solo cartoon, toyline, or live action tv line to justify such spending. If I were DC Entertainment, I'd want to be 100% certain I could recoup my money before spending it.

 

[kedrell]

People always ***** about Marvel Studios not giving films great marketing budgets, but honestly, they've turned profits on 3 of their 4 films, and one of those films was hampered by an uncooperative star, and the stigma of the Ang Lee movie.

It seems like Warner Bros forgets that for every dollar they spend on marketing, they have to make two dollars back.

Even TIH ended up making enough WW that it coasted to profitability once ancillary stuff like DVD and TV rights were taken into account. I don't think they've ever lost money on a movie yet.