Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread

[TheIncredibleSk]

The movie cost at least 200mil to make. I don't know where you are getting that 150mil number from. Also the movie looks like it cost 200+mil to make.

It was 200M but tax credits cut it down to 175 or 150.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You can believe whatever you want but this movie even with tax credits cost over 200+mil. Thats why WB spent a s**tload pushing it that hard. The studios always say that their movies didn't cost over 200mil to make and it's almost always bulls**t.

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

It's a 200M dollar picture but it came in under it do to Louisiana's tax laws. Their pushing it hard for a variety of reasons like Franchising, merchandise, bad reviews, etc.

 

[MadVillainy]

so is it opening at 55-60 mill good?

 

[Marvin]

There was absolutely nothing to fix in Batman Begins in terms of it being a great Batman adaptation. TDK was a great addition but calling BB "so so" and trying to create a comparison with GL is like trying to say 2 + 1 = 4. Quite simply put there is no comparison between the two.

Begins is a beautiful and intimate film that finally gave me the Batman I had always dreamed about seeing on screen, while GL is something that WB and most people and I'm sure some fans would rather soon forget about.

Dark Knight was more enjoyable than BB, it's a vastly shared opinion, and not fact.

the comparison lies in the fact that a GL sequel could be a lot more enjoyable than the pipe laying so so exercise that is GL1.

2+1 = 4 equals starwman

my personal opinion is that I find begins mostly unwatchable.
And the director needed to find his legs, but that's me.

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

so is it opening at 55-60 mill good?

If it opens at 60 with these reviews then yes. But it still has a ways to go in the long term.

 

[Marvin]

so is it opening at 55-60 mill good?

it's as good as any comic book film coming out this year.

 

[craigdbfan]

Dark Knight was more enjoyable than BB, it's a vastly shared opinion, and not fact.

the comparison lies in the fact that a GL sequel could be a lot more enjoyable than the pipe laying so so exercise that is GL1.

2+1 = 4 equals starwman

Except BB was still critically acclaimed whereas GL couldn't be further from that. Your missing the point.

Sure a potential (unlikely) sequel for GL could be better but there has never been a SH origin movie where it's been critically panned and then suddenly its sequel is incredibly amazing? Yeah sorry, but that's not going to happen.

The best turnout that could happen would be a FF to Rise of the Silver Surfer deal and I doubt thats what most GL fans, SH fans, and the GA want at all.

I don't consider that a success story at all. Why keep building on mediocrity?

The comparison is inherently flawed due to the fact that BB is still a far better movie. You can bring up the subjectivity point all you want but BB is plain and simple a much better structured, acted, and thought out film.

 

[MadVillainy]

why are people saying it's unlikely for GL to get a sequel. Isnt it a bit early?

 

[FreeRadical]

Get a clue Warners.

Yeah, I agree, WB could have attempted to produce some DC films of thier other properties during the past decade like Marvel has done, but they have taken so long to get started.

WB are not only like this with their DC properties, the animation division at Warner Bros have a huge back catalogue of animated characters such as the Looney Toons and Hanna-Barbera, but all they have done is make Scooby-Doo shows and movies over the last 10 years. It's only now they are planning to make a Flintstones show and they brought Looney Toons back to TV, as well as a Yogi Bear film.

I think the problem is that WB is trying to catch up with other film studios, because they have been too dependent on Harry Potter.

Fox seemed to have learned from their mistakes, which resulted in X-Men First Class, after the criticisms of the Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

I hope Warner Bros does as well.

 

[MadVillainy]

I think WB is doing pretty well in the animation department.

 

[Cain]

I think WB is doing pretty well in the animation department.

Only ironically as far as their DC properties are concerned. The same properties they can't seem to get rolling at all in live action. The thing is of course they have talented people like Greg Weisman, Bruce Timm, James Tucker etc. who are actually passionate about putting an effort into presenting the material they are adapting with integrity.

Maybe they should try giving some of these guys a shot at the live action stuff for once. They're the only ones who know how to properly adapt DC into media and make it accessible to fans and non fans alike. Can't be any worse than fully depending on guys who are known for writing crappy TV stuff.

 

[BestGirl]

why are people saying it's unlikely for GL to get a sequel. Isnt it a bit early?

Everyone must be assuming GL's legs will be too crappy to cover the massive budget.

 

[Marvin]

Except BB was still critically acclaimed whereas GL couldn't be further from that. Your missing the point.

Sure a potential (unlikely) sequel for GL could be better but there has never been a SH origin movie where it's been critically panned and then suddenly its sequel is incredibly amazing? Yeah sorry, but that's not going to happen.

The best turnout that could happen would be a FF to Rise of the Silver Surfer deal and I doubt thats what most GL fans, SH fans, and the GA want at all.

I don't consider that a success story at all. Why keep building on mediocrity?

The comparison is inherently flawed due to the fact that BB is still a far better movie. You can bring up the subjectivity point all you want but BB is plain and simple a much better structured, acted, and thought out film.

The comparison is grounded upon the concept of an increase in quality withing the WB frame work. You can huff and puff all you want about how great BB was or wasn't but the comparison is sound regardless of how low it scores on the tomato charts.

A calling card is left for a new yet familiar villain and the second films get's it right. Hell they may even recast the iffy love interest that was cast mainly on her relevance.

 

[FreeRadical]

I think WB is doing pretty well in the animation department.

They are doing okay (how dare they cancel Symbiotic Titan!) there's even a CGI Green Lantern show coming, but in terms of their classic characters like Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, etc and WB's acquisition of the Hanna Barbera library, they are only making shows with these characters now.

Bruce Timm said he prefers to stay in animation because of the amount of freedom the medium has. Too bad, imagine him as the head of creative affairs of DC instead of Geoff Jones who hasn't had much experience with films.

 

[Sith Scotti]

The fact that it opened strong bodes well for a sequel . At least they know that there is interest but the problem was quality not the brand . I think a good opening weekend is great news for future films regardless of whether this film makes or loses money

 

[AndrewGilkison]

Even if we don't get a sequel, at least a strong opening weekend would prove to WB that a character that isn't Batman/Superman can do better than outright bomb. That's better than what Jonah Hex and Catwoman were able to do.

 

[DarkKnight88]

why are people saying it's unlikely for GL to get a sequel. Isnt it a bit early?

Of course, but this is the internet where everyone jumps to conclusions and deems themselves experts. At THIS point, a sequel could go one way or the other. If it opens 60 M + then that would be a great start but it needs to have some kind of legs. I think the studio would greenlight a sequel with anything over 160 M+ domestic and clean up overseas (500 M Worldwide) ala Clash of the Titans.

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

If this film doesn't get a sequal but gets to 370M. Then I still think theirs hope for a Flash and Wonder Woman movie. WB will know a better film would have gotten more money.

 

[Timstuff]

They are doing okay (how dare they cancel Symbiotic Titan!) there's even a CGI Green Lantern show coming, but in terms of their classic characters like Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck, etc and WB's acquisition of the Hanna Barbera library, they are only making shows with these characters now.

Bruce Timm said he prefers to stay in animation because of the amount of freedom the medium has. Too bad, imagine him as the head of creative affairs of DC instead of Geoff Jones who hasn't had much experience with films.

I have liked pretty much everything that Bruce Timm has produced. Geoff Johns-- well, I like his Green Lantern comics. :\

The problem with Johns is that he got popular too fast. Before DC was even really sure what he was good at they hooked him up with a cushy high-up job in charge of pretty much everything that happens at DC. He was really good at revitalizing the Green Lantern franchise from the comics up, but that does not necessarily translate into him being the media mogul that DCE needs.

Hopefully a positive box office reception for this movie translates into Warner Bros. moving ahead with GL as a franchise, but they get a new creative team for the sequel. Everyone seems to say that the worst thing about this movie is the writing. Get writers who have experience in the sci-fi genre, and have them write the sequel as a space opera about intergalactic peacekeepers.

Green Lantern should have been WB's answer to Star Trek as much as it was to Iron Man, but they played it safe and made what is more or less a traditional superhero flick. With the right writers and directors, hopefully a sequel can give us what this movie did not. It's not like this movie is Batman and Robin bad-- but it's not Iron Man good, let alone The Dark Knight. Instead of throwing more money at it, they need to make bolder choices for who to put behind the camera and in the writing room.

 

[Showtime]

The movie cost at least 200mil to make. I don't know where you are getting that 150mil number from. Also the movie looks like it cost 200+mil to make.

The budget was over 200 million for Lantern.

A studio saying a movie cost 150 Million is kind of like an inside joke to studio execs now in Hollywood. It's like saying, "It's not you, it's me" during a break up.

Lets think about this logically. The "reported" budget for Dark Knight was 185 million. So most likely a bit more. What looks like it cost more? Green Lantern or Dark Knight?

 

[KRIM]

Not very comparable when their uses of money are clearly worlds apart.

 

[Showtime]

Not very comparable when their uses of money are clearly worlds apart.

So are their budgets.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The budget was over 200 million for Lantern.

A studio saying a movie cost 150 Million is kind of like an inside joke to studio execs now in Hollywood. It's like saying, "It's not you, it's me" during a break up.

Lets think about this logically. The "reported" budget for Dark Knight was 185 million. So most likely a bit more. What looks like it cost more? Green Lantern or Dark Knight?

*Raises hand* GL obviously. I mean the movie looks hella expensive! Try as they might WB can't even hide that fact because it's all up on screen.

So are their budgets.

Ha.

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

Green Lantern had a huge 200M budget but it was less than that due to Louisiana's generous film tax credits.