Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 1

[dnno1]

Filiponi has given us many important information about the movie. You might don't like the guy, but his contribution to the fans and his reliability are undeniable.

Yes, I must admit that he has contributed some good stuff, but making stuff up to cover for your errors kind of ruins your reputation and integrity in my book. He needs to stop that he he would be alright.

 

[Dark Knight]

BTW. Henry Cavil got the part because Joe Mangielo tuned it down (due to scheduling conflicts with "True Blood"). As far as I am concerned he was the sloppy seconds. I am sure they considered him to attract the European market (just like Bale).

I hope your kidding dnno...because that absolutley was NOT the case.

Cavill was THE choice since the beginning. It was his to lose basically.

Joe M wasn't even the runner up. Matthew Goode was the runner up.

Now IF what you say is true about Joe M turning it down (which it isn't) then Joe M is an idiot for turning down Superman for True Blood?

Why would Joe M go through all that hassle in the first place to even go to the screentests and auditions if he knew he wouldn't be able to do Superman anyway due to True Blood?

It's called spin control by Joe M and his fans...period.

Come on now.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

But you haven't shown the domestic BO numbers for "Gone in 60 Seconds". How can you give a fair comparison without those numbers? Certainly outside of the expense for currency conversion (which is a fraction of the gross), there are similar expenses for the domestic budget that are the same or higher than the foreign market and we would have to see that to know for sure. The article is kind of misleading in that aspect.

It is indeed and it's already old. Marketing campaings from the big studios now are planned to have impact worldwide and they have thanks to the net. This reduces the amount of money spent on foreign national marketing.

 

[Showtime]

Filiponi has given us many important information about the movie. You might don't like the guy, but his contribution to the fans and his reliability are undeniable.

I don't know if you are referring to me or Dnno, but I don't know the guy, so I can't not like him.

Yes, I must admit that he has contributed some good stuff, but making stuff up to cover for your errors kind of ruins your reputation and integrity in my book. He needs to stop that he he would be alright.

That's what happens if you want to put info out there, it can be good, bad and ugly.

But you haven't shown the domestic BO numbers for "Gone in 60 Seconds". How can you give a fair comparison without those numbers? Certainly outside of the expense for currency conversion (which is a fraction of the gross), there are similar expenses for the domestic budget that are the same or higher than the foreign market and we would have to see that to know for sure. The article is kind of misleading in that aspect.

It is indeed and it's already old. Marketing campaings from the big studios now are planned to have impact worldwide and they have thanks to the net. This reduces the amount of money spent on foreign national marketing.

Again, I am not saying that studios don't need overseas box office. They do. Now more than ever. I am simply saying that it doesn't have as much impact and as much importance because of what they are shelling out. So to be clear, Domestic is more important and more lucrative against a studios costs.

If my information is so old why can it be found in a book that was published in 2010 by Jay Epstein and discussed on I09 in 2011...

So if a film does incredibly well overseas but flops in the U.S., does that make it a hit? As with everything else to do with box office, the answer is "it depends." But generally, domestic revenue seems to be be better for studios than overseas revenue, because the studios take a bigger cut of domestic revenue.

According to the book The Hollywood Economist by Edward Jay Epstein, studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number.

Domestic revenue just counts for a lot more than overseas revenue, says David Mumpower with Box Office Prophets:

The reason for this is simple. Collecting revenues abroad is a trickier proposition since the dollar fluctuates against foreign currencies. There are also tariffs from these governments in place in order to keep as much money as possible from leaving their countries and going abroad, which is an understandable practice. While the global conglomerates such as Fox, Disney and Time-Warner that run major Hollywood studios can secure sweetheart deals with various local governments, it doesn't happen for each film. As such, international box office revenue is much less reliable than in North America.

http://io9.com/#!5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

 

[dnno1]

He (and I) were referring to Filliponi.

 

[Showtime]

He (and I) were referring to Filliponi.

Yes. I know.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

The argument can be valid if you consider an average of all the productions, as smaller independent movies gets close to zero from foreign distributors save for their MG; but big studios make more or less the exact share of gross in the USA and the other big markets where they have branches.

 

[Dark Knight]

If international and overseas revenues and profits were not important, than why would studios even bother to release the films internationally in the first place?

Just like how it is now called a GLOBAL economy, I think studios more and more are focusing on GLOBAL overall profits.

However, the domestic gross does provide an indicator to studios as to whether or not sequels are worth developing.

 

[dnno1]

I hope your kidding dnno...because that absolutley was NOT the case.

Cavill was THE choice since the beginning. It was his to lose basically.

Joe M wasn't even the runner up. Matthew Goode was the runner up.

Now IF what you say is true about Joe M turning it down (which it isn't) then Joe M is an idiot for turning down Superman for True Blood?

Why would Joe M go through all that hassle in the first place to even go to the screentests and auditions if he knew he wouldn't be able to do Superman anyway due to True Blood?

It's called spin control by Joe M and his fans...period.

Come on now.

If you watched the video of the link that I had in my comment, you will actually see Mangielo admitting that they had asked him to do a screen test and measure him for a suit. It was because of scheduling conflicts that he couldn't fit in the screen test. I don't know if it was Cavil's to loose since there were other actors (and supposedly great ones) who had the opportunity to try out for the part.

 

[Showtime]

If international and overseas revenues and profits were not important, than why would studios even bother to release the films internationally in the first place?

Just like how it is now called a GLOBAL economy, I think studios more and more are focusing on GLOBAL overall profits.

However, the domestic gross does provide an indicator to studios as to whether or not sequels are worth developing.

I just said overseas box office was more important now than it ever has been...I'm saying domestic is more lucrative to the studios and thus more important. Of course they want profits globally, but I don't know what else I can do but provide actual links from books and articles pointing to the fact that overseas box office is not as profitable as domestic.

 

[dnno1]

If international and overseas revenues and profits were not important, than why would studios even bother to release the films internationally in the first place?

Just like how it is now called a GLOBAL economy, I think studios more and more are focusing on GLOBAL overall profits.

However, the domestic gross does provide an indicator to studios as to whether or not sequels are worth developing.

I asked the same question. There's money there. That's why the producers of "Green Lantern" shelled out the bucks to sponsor a comicon in London to promote (launch) their film and video game.

 

[Showtime]

I'm not sure where I said they make "NO" money overseas. I looked over my posts and it was pretty clear i was saying it domestic is more profitable than overseas, thus more important to a studio...

 

[DieSmiling]

Nobody ever argued that studios don't see profits from international grosses. Don't be silly, of course they do.

The point is simply being made that measuring "production budget" vs. "worldwide gross" is poor way of evaluating the profitability of a movie, since viewing the domestic gross and international gross of movies as being equivelent is wrong. They are not the same. Domestic grosses are more important, because studios see a larger percent of those profits.

If a movie grosses 390 million worldwide, for instance, but grosses 150 mil domestic and 240 mil internationally, that's not as profitable as if the movie grossed 225 domestic and 165 internationally.

You have to remember that the studios are only getting a cut of these grosses, and that the cut they get vary from market to market.

 

[dnno1]

I was searching the net during lunch and found this site that claims that "Sucker Punch" will be box office profitable with a score of +20. The expect the film budget to be more than $37 million and that there are at least 2 structural component or formulation errors in the script along with 1 archetype casting error and no sexual chemistry success. The also project the film to make a net box office of $28 million overseas. There are some other films that they have audited for 2011, but none of them have been for the big ones (Thor, Green Lantern, Captain America, POTC, X-Men).

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

Nobody ever argued that studios don't see profits from international grosses. Don't be silly, of course they do.

The point is simply being made that measuring "production budget" vs. "worldwide gross" is poor way of evaluating the profitability of a movie, since viewing the domestic gross and international gross of movies as being equivelent is wrong. They are not the same. Domestic grosses are more important, because studios see a larger percent of those profits.

If a movie grosses 390 million worldwide, for instance, but grosses 150 mil domestic and 240 mil internationally, that's not as profitable as if the movie grossed 225 domestic and 165 internationally.

You have to remember that the studios are only getting a cut of these grosses, and that the cut they get vary from market to market.

 

[DieSmiling]

I was searching the net during lunch and found this site that claims that "Sucker Punch" will be box office profitable with a score of +20. The expect the film budget to be more than $37 million and that there are at least 2 structural component or formulation errors in the script along with 1 archetype casting error and no sexual chemistry success. The also project the film to make a net box office of $28 million overseas. There are some other films that they have audited for 2011, but none of them have been for the big ones (Thor, Green Lantern, Captain America, POTC, X-Men).

Very interesting site, but I'm not sure you can quantify whether a movie is successful with a formula. They seem to think Limitless profitable (they're guesstimating on the budget) and I'll bet against that pretty hard.

I'd like to review the site more thoroughly when I have a chance, though.

 

[dnno1]

Very interesting site, but I'm not sure you can quantify whether a movie is successful with a formula. They seem to think Limitless profitable (they're guesstimating on the budget) and I'll bet against that pretty hard.

I'd like to review the site more thoroughly when I have a chance, though.

I should throw out that that site should be treated as entertainment only since I don't really know the validity of their work. Yes it is interesting, though that they are giving "Sucker Punch" positive marks (not that "Paul" according to them is not box office profitable domestically).
.

 

[dnno1]

Nobody ever argued that studios don't see profits from international grosses. Don't be silly, of course they do.

The point is simply being made that measuring "production budget" vs. "worldwide gross" is poor way of evaluating the profitability of a movie, since viewing the domestic gross and international gross of movies as being equivelent is wrong. They are not the same. Domestic grosses are more important, because studios see a larger percent of those profits.

If a movie grosses 390 million worldwide, for instance, but grosses 150 mil domestic and 240 mil internationally, that's not as profitable as if the movie grossed 225 domestic and 165 internationally.

You have to remember that the studios are only getting a cut of these grosses, and that the cut they get vary from market to market.

Yeah, it's just that Hollywood cooks the books so that they don't show a profit and they can screw certain folks out of their percentage of the gate. Take a look at this article.

 

[Lone]

So have they released any names regarding the voicing of the more alien Lanterns? I think Ving Rhames would be badass as Kilowog.

 

[Ahura Mazda]

Just FYI for all those making guesses regarding movie economics, having done a valuation of a studio for a buyout firm, I can safely say that most movies except for a very very few do not actually become profitable for the Studio until the DVD hits and sometimes even waits for syndication sales.

The budget you hear about does not take into account certain costs such as profit shares and gross cut shares which are often given to the biggest stars or directors. However, it also includes costs which are sometimes part of a larger agreement and may have already been amortized.

This is just to say that the gross figures made public are only part of the information and it is impossible to base a movie's true profitability on those figures.

In other news, here in Switzerland, if I did not know of this movie from here I would not learn anything about it marketing wise. I look forward to it in any case.

 

[dnno1]

Just FYI for all those making guesses regarding movie economics, having done a valuation of a studio for a buyout firm, I can safely say that most movies except for a very very few do not actually become profitable for the Studio until the DVD hits and sometimes even waits for syndication sales.

The budget you hear about does not take into account certain costs such as profit shares and gross cut shares which are often given to the biggest stars or directors. However, it also includes costs which are sometimes part of a larger agreement and may have already been amortized.

This is just to say that the gross figures made public are only part of the information and it is impossible to base a movie's true profitability on those figures.

In other news, here in Switzerland, if I did not know of this movie from here I would not learn anything about it marketing wise. I look forward to it in any case.

The thing is that for various reasons, we do not know the details of a film beyond the production budget published and the box office gross and for that reason, we can only measure the success/failure of a film based on those numbers. In a lot of cases, we do see some pictures turn into franchises based on the gross being larger than the published budget. I am in a way disappointed to hear that they are not maketing "Green Lantern" in Switzerland as heavily as they are here in America and in other countries (it seems that Latin America, the UK and France are being targeted). Let's hope that the marketing picks up there as we draw closer to the release date.

 

[Antonello Blueberry]

The budget you hear about does not take into account certain costs such as profit shares and gross cut shares which are often given to the biggest stars or directors. However, it also includes costs which are sometimes part of a larger agreement and may have already been amortized.

QFT
The gross cut share was the main reason why we haven't seen a Superman Returns sequel.

 

[Reel]

Here is all I know about the Green Lantern plot:

OPENING SCENE
3 alien astronauts are exploring space (specifically the "Lost Sector") and come across a stone citadel. Exploring the citadel they find a light in the pitch darkness and follow leading them to find Parallax who is held down inside a cave by Green chains of willpower. Parallax scares the astronauts but one approaches it out of curiosity. Parallax uses their fear and rips the soul out of the approaching astronaut gaining strength and breaks the green chains before ripping the souls from the other 2 astronauts and is finally free.

- MARTIN JORDAN DEATH SCENE

15 YEARS LATER

- HAL JORDAN WAKES UP (Opening scene of the trailer) LATE FOR AN IMPORTANT TEST FLIGHT

- HAL DRIVES TO FERRIS

- CAROL FINDS HIM IN THE LOCKER ROOM AND TELLS HIM OFF (Hal offers Carol a date at the tavern bar if they win the test flight)

- TEST FLIGHT (Hal and Carol are piloting jets against U-CAV's and Hal goes to maximum altitude to defeat the U-CAV stalling his plane but loses consciousness but eventually comes round and ejects losing his plane)

- TEST FLIGHT AFTERMOUTH (Carol bans Hal from flying after crashing his plane and being stupid)

- ABIN SUR IS FLYING TO THE PLANET VENTARA (Sinestro contacts him informing him of his location. Abin says "I'm flying at maximum velocity" but Sinestro tells him that Ventara has been consumed like the others before the transmission cuts. A dark shadow is cast of Abin's ship before a massive surge of yellow light comes flying at Abin sending him backwards. Parallax attacks Abin who tries to fight back before trying to escape but is caught by one of Parallax's tentacles before he gets into an escape pod and ejects before setting co-ordinates for Earth and telling his ring to find a worthy successor)

- JORDAN FAMILY BARBEQUE SCENE (Hal's mother tells him off for being stupid in the test flight)

- HAL MEETS ABIN SUR (Hal is at the old pier [as seen in the trailer] thinking over being a pilot when a green light zooms over head and crashses. He follows the light to find a crashes alien ship and an injured purple alien. He helps the alien out who speaks english to him and informs him that he has been chosen to be a member of the Green Lantern Corps. He tells him to go inside the ship and get the lantern and speak the oath before dying. Hal phones up Tom to come and see this as he buries Abin Sur)

- TOM AND DEO ARRIVE (Tom arrives and is overwhelmed by the alien ship and wants to take it home and study it. Hal hands him the lantern as helicopters arrive overhead with flashing lights so Hal and Tom run for it, get into his jeep and head back to Hal's apartment. The DEO arrive and excavate Abin Sur's body.)

- HAL'S APARTMENT (Hal and Tom arrive back at Hal's apartment when Carol calls asking where Hal is and she is waiting at the tavern for him. Hal says he is on his way.)

- TAVERN (Hal arrives to find Carol waiting for him at the bar and is pissed off. She tells him off again for being late for her again and wonders why he can't be serious for once in his life. Carol ends up leaving and the 3 U-CAV pilots who Hal pissed off for ruining their test flight earlier show up and tease Hal for Carol leaving him. Hal decides to leave and goes round back to get his car. The 3 pilots ambush him and beat him up. Hal remembers the ring and creates a giant fist and knocks the 3 pilots out.)

That is all I know for certain up to this point that occurs in the correct order. The rest of the scenes below are scenes I know happen but don't know where they fit into the film but are in the order I think they happen.

- HAL TEST THE RING (Hal begins testing out the powers of the ring and begins to accidentally fly)

- AMANDA WALLER FINDS HECTOR HAMMOND (Amanda Waller goes to his university and recruits Hammond who is showing students operating techniques and stuff for an alien autopsy)

- AUTOPSY SCENE (Hammond is looking over the body of Abin Sur documenting it before getting to his shoulder injury. As he examines the injury yellow light [from Parallax] ejects onto Hammond sending him flying backwards.

- OA TRAINING (Hal ends up on Oa [either after he flies for the first time and the ring takes him automatically or a reason I don't know of] and meets Tomar-Re, Kilowog, Sinestro and the Guardians. Tomar-Re gives him some training [shown in the trailer], Kilowog says he smells funny [shown in the trailer] and Sinestro thinks that he won't be good enough.

- HAMMOND TESTS HIS ABILITIES (Hector Hammond begins testing his abilities out on one his university colleagues)

- HAL RETURNS TO EARTH (This is the where he gets Tom round and shows him transforming into his GL attire [shown in trailer])

- FERRIS AIRCRAFT PARTY (Hammond tries to hook up with Carol but she rejects his advances. He makes a helicopter crash and Hal turns into Green Lantern and saves the day)

- GREEN LANTERN NEWS FLASH (Hal as Green Lantern begins popping up all over the Earth saving the day becoming a sensation)]

- SINESTRO CONFRONTS THE GUARDIANS (Sinestro confronts the Guardians about what they plan to do about Parallax as it looks like they are doing nothing. They tell him to be patient. He says he's sick of being patient. Ganthet relents and tells Sinestro of Parallax's origin [Krona, their brother left them billions of years ago to search for the Yellow Central Battery believing it a stronger power than Green Light and found it in the Vega System and Parallax was inside and took him over. He went on a killing spree conusming planets before they subdued Parallax. The Guardians reveal that they are constructing a Yellow Power Ring to confront Parallax with and will need somebody to wield the ring which isn't ready yet)

- SINESTRO ADDRESS (Sinsetro calls all available GL's to the Great Hall [the big GLC monument shown in trailers and posters] beneath the Central Battery and says that a war is coming and that he will lead the army of Green Lantern's to defeat Parallax)

- HAL CONVINCES THE GLC (Hal convinces the Guardians and Sinestro that they can defeat Parallax without the use of a Yellow Power Ring and that all they need to do is overcome their fear)

- HAL VS HAMMOND IN HANGAR (There is a scene almost shot for shot of Green Lantern vs Hector Hammond in a aircraft hangar)

- HAL VS HAMMOND IN DEO BUNKER (There is a fight between Green Lantern and Hammond here which is the final battle [shown in trailer]

- FINAL BATTLE VS PARALLAX (Occurs in Coast City Market and is Hal vs Parallax until Sinestro and hundreds of Green Lanterns arrive to join in the battle. Hal, Sinestro, Tomar-Re and Kilowog all fight Parallax until Hal stands and defeats Parallax himself [This was Martin Campbell's idea, Geoff Johns and Michael Goldenburg's revision had all 4 defeating Parallax].

- HAL REVEALS HIMSELF TO CAROL (Hal saves Carol from Parallax and reveals himself as Green Lantern and explains his powers)

- FINAL SCENE (The completed Yellow Power Ring remains on Oa)

 

[HighFivingMF]

So have they released any names regarding the voicing of the more alien Lanterns? I think Ving Rhames would be badass as Kilowog.

We're still pretty sure it's Dennis Haysbert. John Laroquette is Tomar. Paul Parducci is G'Hu. Rumor is that Michael Ironside is Krona as well.

Ryan Reynolds' introduction to the re-release of Green Lantern: Secret Origin

"I was never an expert on Hal Jordan. I’d always known the basic gist of the character: I knew he wore a lot of green. Had a ring possessed of infinite power bestowed upon him by a dying alien. And I knew he’s survived many successors and wildly diverse iterations over an astonishing multi-decade run. If you like sports analogies, he’s the New York Yankees. Lately though, I’ve gotten to know the guy pretty damn well. Like Hal Jordan, I too was given the gift of a ring. Mine was more symbolic in its power but no less auspicious. I was asked to put that ring on and bring Hal Jordan to life in a whole new form: Film. Not a job I take lightly.

About a year and a half ago, I first sat down with Martin Campbell, Donald DeLine, and a man whom I consider responsible for the resurgent interest in Green Lantern, Geoff Johns. They were all eager to build a big screen superhero who would both live up to his lengthy legacy, yet simultaneously find a foothold with a whole new audience--young and old alike. Hal Jordan was about to become a living, breathing person. And I was going to be the guy to do it. No pressure...

True fans of Hal Jordan know the caliber of hero we’re talking about. From the moment I came aboard, I saw the challenge and opportunity in creating a classic yet modern day hero who can throw a punch, tell a joke, and kiss the girl. I saw the guy as a cross between Chuck Yeager and Han Solo. The Green Lantern saga is so limitless in its scope, I’m sure it was a relief for the writers to know it was going to be an origin story of sorts. They need look no further than the starting point.

Green Lantern encompasses a seemingly limitless supply of adventure: fighter jets, space travel, action, aliens, betrayal, humor, tragedy, heroes, villains, and even a rather complicated little love story. These are just a few ingredients, which have been a part of this epic for over 50 years.

It’s a great time to be a superhero fan. Technology is such that bringing Green Lantern to life properly is finally possible. Creating energy constructs based upon infinite will and pure imagination can vividly appear before our very eyes. This technological leap also happened to coincide with a time period in which the world is fascinated by big screen comic book adaptations.

Preparing to get Hal up and running in living color was helped greatly by this book, Secret Origin, illustrated beautifully by Ivan Reis, who I had the pleasure of meeting on the set in New Orleans. This book basically gave me the introduction I was looking for in order to begin the incredible ascent to Oa. I hope you like it.

--Ryan Reynolds​

 

[Dark Knight]

Just FYI for all those making guesses regarding movie economics, having done a valuation of a studio for a buyout firm, I can safely say that most movies except for a very very few do not actually become profitable for the Studio until the DVD hits and sometimes even waits for syndication sales.

The budget you hear about does not take into account certain costs such as profit shares and gross cut shares which are often given to the biggest stars or directors. However, it also includes costs which are sometimes part of a larger agreement and may have already been amortized.

This is just to say that the gross figures made public are only part of the information and it is impossible to base a movie's true profitability on those figures.

In other news, here in Switzerland, if I did not know of this movie from here I would not learn anything about it marketing wise. I look forward to it in any case.

Umm....I think most of us knew that the Blue Ray and DVD sales are a big part of making a profit from films.