Here is Ryan Reynolds as Green Lantern!

[lixdexia]

No, before you rudely interrupted, Weadazoid insinuated that the next installment in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise may be badly hampered by a bad taste left by the last movie. Like I said before, the box office results of the last movie prove otherwise. That is the point.

oh **** you and your rudely interrupted, you don't want people adding to the discussion take it to pm. my point is that you insinuated that there was no bad taste left in the GA's mouth because it was profitable and that is not the case. to illustrate that i mentioned other similarly profitable movies which left a well documented bad taste

 

[mcallima]

No, before you rudely interrupted, Weadazoid insinuated that the next installment in the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise may be badly hampered by a bad taste left by the last movie. Like I said before, the box office results of the last movie prove otherwise. That is the point. Weather films like X3, Wolverine, or Spider-Man 3 made money is beside the point. This discussion is about "Pirates of the Caribbean" and whether the last installment left a bad taste for the current one being filmed.

I think his point is that the critical failure of these films will affect the box office of the NEXT film in the series. Using Pirates as an example, I was underwhelmed by the 2nd, so I never bothered to see the 3rd. It's not like the theatre gives you your money back if you dislike a movie. So while POTC3 may have had a high box office, there are likely a lot of people who paid to see it, disliked it, and won't pay to see the 4th. That's really the entire underpinning of the franchise movie system - trying to build box office momentum so that your flick isn't tied completely to reviews/word of mouth.

 

[Weadazoid]

Pirates 3 'only' got to 309 in the states after Pirates 2 popped up to 425 mill or so state side.


X3 made the most out of any X men movie, but Wolverine clearly suffered.

Spiderman 4 with Rami was axed partly because the studio heads... you know the ones that had made just as much as Pirates felt the audience would have negative feelings for Toby at this point.


Trust me Captain Jack... with not other big returning star power equals some trouble.... I belive On stranger tides opened huge and then fell like a rock....bad Word of Mouth stateside


BUT... the foreign box office should still be pretty good. I doubt it gets near 300 million in Domestic.

 

[Saint]

That's beside the point. It's hard to say that POTC:AWE left a bad taste in anyone's mouth when it made $960 million (on a $300 million budget).

Since you can't have a bad taste in your mouth until after you spend your money on the product, this doesn't really follow.

 

[dnno1]

I think his point is that the critical failure of these films will affect the box office of the NEXT film in the series. Using Pirates as an example, I was underwhelmed by the 2nd, so I never bothered to see the 3rd. It's not like the theatre gives you your money back if you dislike a movie. So while POTC3 may have had a high box office, there are likely a lot of people who paid to see it, disliked it, and won't pay to see the 4th. That's really the entire underpinning of the franchise movie system - trying to build box office momentum so that your flick isn't tied completely to reviews/word of mouth.

You are not understanding either. I initially used Pirates because it will go up against Green Lantern in this summer (I wasn't just randomly pulling a film out of the sky). Because of the revenue history of the franchise over the last three pictures, there is no reason to believe that the fourth installment won't have the same result, and it would be over optimistic to think that a picture like "Green Lantern" (or "Thor" and "Captain America" for that matter) would out perform that franchise. The other films that were mentioned have nothing to do with Pirates 3 giving a bad taste to Pirates 4 (which I don't see) and whether they made a profit or not are beside the point.

 

[dnno1]

Since you can't have a bad taste in your mouth until after you spend your money on the product, this doesn't really follow.

All I see is that POTC: AWE made $960 million. To me I find it hard to believe it left a bad taste in anyone's mouth if it made that much money. In fact, that is an indication that it was very popular and was a box office hit (if it were bad, people wouldn't have gone to see the film, frankly). The producers more than 3 times what the spent on the film in revenue, so there shouldn't be any complaints there either. There are not too many other places that you can legitimately get that type of return on your investment in less than 6 months. If you don't follow that, then you just don't want to.

 

[dnno1]

Pirates 3 'only' got to 309 in the states after Pirates 2 popped up to 425 mill or so state side.

And it made over $650 million overseas (more than it did with the second film). If you haven't noticed, that's been the trend over the last 3 years (the top films have made most of their money overseas than domestically), and it has nothing to do with whether the film was bad or not (it was still the highest grossing film that year and it outperformed films like "Shrek the Third", "Harry Potter", and SM3). Like I said before, it was a popular film and (with the fact that Johnny Depp is sill the lead actor) there is no reason to believe that it won't do well this summer (one of the top grossing films of the year).

X3 made the most out of any X men movie, but Wolverine clearly suffered.

Spiderman 4 with Rami was axed partly because the studio heads... you know the ones that had made just as much as Pirates felt the audience would have negative feelings for Toby at this point.

These films are not going up against Green Lantern this year, so I don't know why you are bringing them up.

Trust me Captain Jack... with not other big returning star power equals some trouble.... I belive On stranger tides opened huge and then fell like a rock....bad Word of Mouth stateside

BUT... the foreign box office should still be pretty good. I doubt it gets near 300 million in Domestic.

Trust me, it was the economy that made the third film under perform (by a little over $100 million) and as long as Johnny Depp is in the lead role, the other actors are expendable.

 

[PreK]

In fact, that is an indication that it was very popular and was a box office hit (if it were bad, people wouldn't have gone to see the film, frankly).

Doesn't apply to franchise sequels, especially if it's following up a hugely popular film. Public interest is certified and so is goodwill from prior installments, so crowds will gather no matter the reviews. They'll want to see for themselves if it's good or bad.

 

[Weadazoid]

Since you can't have a bad taste in your mouth until after you spend your money on the product, this doesn't really follow.

right....I agree & seriously I doubt Transformers 3 is going to come close to 300 million. The 2nd made more then the first, but not because it was better, because after the first people were enthused


If Transformers 3 fails, it won't surprise me at all.


The 2nd Matrix movie did very well, but it left that bad taste.... so the 3rd movie fell appart.

 

[dnno1]

Doesn't apply to franchise sequels, especially if it's following up a hugely popular film. Public interest is certified and so is goodwill from prior installments, so crowds will gather no matter the reviews. They'll want to see for themselves if it's good or bad.

Word of mouth counts a lot. If the sequel gets bad reviews or if it isn't marketed well it could still flop regardless, so yes, popularity does count in franchise sequels ("Superman IV" anyone?).

 

[HighFivingMF]

Word of mouth counts a lot. If the sequel gets bad reviews or if it isn't marketed well it could still flop regardless, so yes, popularity does count in franchise sequels ("Superman IV" anyone?).

Superman 4 had very little interest because nobody liked Superman 3 and Supergirl. Not to say the movie wasn't horrible, but 2 previous installments in a row will kill most of the interest.

 

[dnno1]

Superman 4 had very little interest because nobody liked Superman 3 and Supergirl. Not to say the movie wasn't horrible, but 2 previous installments in a row will kill most of the interest.

There is no proof of that and it wasn't true. The fact of the matter is that Warner Brothers sold the filming right to Superman IV to Cannon Films. In turn Cannon took $40 million from it's film budget and spent it on Silvester Stallone's picture, "Cobra". The lower budget, and the fact that the story was written by newcomer (to screenplays), Christopher reeve had more to do with it's poor performance than what happened in Superman 3 or Supergirl.

 

[HighFivingMF]

There is no proof of that and it wasn't true. The fact of the matter is that Warner Brothers sold the filming right to Superman IV to Cannon Films. In turn Cannon took $40 million from it's film budget and spent it on Silvester Stallone's picture, "Cobra". The lower budget, and the fact that the story was written by newcomer (to screenplays), Christopher reeve had more to do with it's poor performance than what happened in Superman 3 or Supergirl.

Nobody seeing the movie knew ANY of that. What they did know was that Superman 3 wasn't that great and neither was the spin-off. Nobody said "Christopher Reeve wrote the story? I think I'll pass." or "Most of the money went to the Stallone movie!? I'll see that instead."

 

[Weadazoid]

Superman 4 had very little interest because nobody liked Superman 3 and Supergirl. Not to say the movie wasn't horrible, but 2 previous installments in a row will kill most of the interest.

Seriously the Matrix Trillogy is the best example of this. The 2nd one had huge numbers for an R rated movie, but critics slammed it and many people were like..................

THis sucked.... this didn't make sense.... what in the world was Roy Jones doing in this movie?


so.... the huge plan to split a gigantic movie into two movies flopped badly when the 3rd came out just 6 months later.



and while yes the WW box office has become more of a factor these days, Domestic US box office is still what counts the most.


Trust me if GL only makes 120 million US but makes 400 million over seas even though it has a 520 WW..... the WB aint making a sequal.


Buena Vista dropped Narnia, even though the 2nd perfromed well overseas, and I don't think Fox is going to continue the series soley based on overseas figures.... that gamble did not pay off.

 

[greenlantern248]

How does this apply to this thread titled: Here is Ryan Reynolds as Green Lantern!

How about we talk about the new Jordan toy

 

[The Sage]

Probably if it makes at least 300 mill domestic, it'll get a sequel.

 

[The Sage]

Probably if it makes at least 300 mill domestic, it'll get a sequel.

 

[camp Blood]

And merchandising is a gold mine I am already sold on a replica ring as long as it's under $50

 

[dnno1]

Nobody seeing the movie knew ANY of that. What they did know was that Superman 3 wasn't that great and neither was the spin-off. Nobody said "Christopher Reeve wrote the story? I think I'll pass." or "Most of the money went to the Stallone movie!? I'll see that instead."

What they saw was the end result: a badly done movie that was poorly advertised. You get what you pay for. There is no hard clear evidence that people didn't go to see "Superman IV" because of "Superman III". Oh yeah, and if you search around you will find interviews where Christopher Reeve said that whe was writing for the picture before the film was released. His name was even shown in the credits as the writer in any of the trailers they aired. It even stared Margot Kidder and Gene Hackman, who were not present in "Superman III". Anyone that cared to go to see the film had ample time to know that he wrote the story and who would be in it.

 

[Syncos]

There is no proof of that and it wasn't true. The fact of the matter is that Warner Brothers sold the filming right to Superman IV to Cannon Films. In turn Cannon took $40 million from it's film budget and spent it on Silvester Stallone's picture, "Cobra". The lower budget, and the fact that the story was written by newcomer (to screenplays), Christopher reeve had more to do with it's poor performance than what happened in Superman 3 or Supergirl.

Nobody seeing the movie knew ANY of that. What they did know was that Superman 3 wasn't that great and neither was the spin-off. Nobody said "Christopher Reeve wrote the story? I think I'll pass." or "Most of the money went to the Stallone movie!? I'll see that instead."

Seriously. I don't think either mattered all that much. Even if a movie doesn't perform well, people will see it if it is marketed well and has a good trailer. But even then, you need to have a good movie and good word of mouth to propagate a movie farther after it's out.

Seriously the Matrix Trillogy is the best example of this. The 2nd one had huge numbers for an R rated movie, but critics slammed it and many people were like..................

THis sucked.... this didn't make sense.... what in the world was Roy Jones doing in this movie?


so.... the huge plan to split a gigantic movie into two movies flopped badly when the 3rd came out just 6 months later.



and while yes the WW box office has become more of a factor these days, Domestic US box office is still what counts the most.


Trust me if GL only makes 120 million US but makes 400 million over seas even though it has a 520 WW..... the WB aint making a sequal.


Buena Vista dropped Narnia, even though the 2nd perfromed well overseas, and I don't think Fox is going to continue the series soley based on overseas figures.... that gamble did not pay off.

Narnia still got a third. Which didn't perform all that well in either domestic or overseas. The fact of the matter was that the studio wanted another LOTR and didn't get it. If studio makes a billion dollars on a movie, they're going to make a sequel, it doesn't matter if 70% of that comes from worldwide.

 

[Weadazoid]

Seriously. I don't think either mattered all that much. Even if a movie doesn't perform well, people will see it if it is marketed well and has a good trailer. But even then, you need to have a good movie and good word of mouth to propagate a movie farther after it's out.



Narnia still got a third. Which didn't perform all that well in either domestic or overseas. The fact of the matter was that the studio wanted another LOTR and didn't get it. If studio makes a billion dollars on a movie, they're going to make a sequel, it doesn't matter if 70% of that comes from worldwide.

Narnia did get a 3rd, but Buena vista was smart and said no. In the end Fox probably will lose money on Narnia the franchise is done for now.

Iron Man 3 will have some issues to overcome IMO... cause the 2nd just wasn't as good as the first.

 

[Weadazoid]

How does this apply to this thread titled: Here is Ryan Reynolds as Green Lantern!

How about we talk about the new Jordan toy

I agree....dnno chose to bring up box office and say Thor wasn't going to do all that well, but GL could be as big as Pirates.

Thats what started this debate.

 

[dnno1]

Actually, it was GoblinWirlwind that made the comment that he thought Thor would be a better film than Green Lantern that started this.

 

[camp Blood]

I think both are going to be great

 

[HighFivingMF]

What they saw was the end result: a badly done movie that was poorly advertised. You get what you pay for. There is no hard clear evidence that people didn't go to see "Superman IV" because of "Superman III". Oh yeah, and if you search around you will find interviews where Christopher Reeve said that whe was writing for the picture before the film was released. His name was even shown in the credits as the writer in any of the trailers they aired. It even stared Margot Kidder and Gene Hackman, who were not present in "Superman III". Anyone that cared to go to see the film had ample time to know that he wrote the story and who would be in it.