Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 10

[Raiden]

With the exception of Punisher, all of the films in your list are getting sequels mainly so studios can hang on to their rights, and were profitable domestically. None of which apply to GL.

Also, WB has always been very gun-shy when it comes to superhero movies with the exception of Superman & Batman movies. GL will more likely to reaffirm their skepticism toward all other superhero properties and make them more conservative than before, even with the new DC Entertainment division in place. I do think GL's failure makes a JL movie more likely, since it will feature the two bigwigs of DC in the team, and thus a less-risky proposition for WB.

 

[dark_b]

Wasn't he the one that said Batman Begins would never get a sequel?

maybe you need to go back to 2006 to find out all the backstory. Batman Begins didnt make enough money for a sure sequel. the only reason WB made a sequel was because of fantastic DVD's and fantastic word of mouth and fantastic reviews.
so yeah in 2006 it looked like they would not do the sequel only based on the BO.

thank you

 

[EliteF50]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jun/27/green-lantern-2-greenlit?CMP=twt_fd



Hopefully this is true.

 

[Micromind]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2011/jun/27/green-lantern-2-greenlit?CMP=twt_fd



Hopefully this is true.

I was a supporter of this movie from the beginning, and even now I think it is a decent enough movie, but it has many flaws, and it could have been much better.

But it is difficult to believe such announcements, the article mentions "sources" but never revels them.

Studios will keep saying that there will be a sequel, just to promote the movie and keep fans interested, because Green Lantern has yet to be released in many Countries across the world, acknowledging that the movie is performing badly and that there will be no sequel to it will affect the movie's chances worldwide (many countries are getting August release.)

I think that Studios will keep saying (through unnamed sources) that there will be a sequel to GL eventually, till DVDs / Blu Rays hit the market, in order to boost the sales, and then after calculating the profit from - world wide Box Office collections and DVD / Blu Ray sales and money from TV rights and profit earned from Merchandise sales take a decision whether to "Green Light" a sequel or go in a different direction.

 

[EliteF50]

That's true... I really hope WB isn't just saying this for the time being. I actually want to see a sequel.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I was a supporter of this movie from the beginning, and even now I think it is a decent enough movie, but it has many flaws, and it could have been much better.

But it is difficult to believe such announcements, the article mentions "sources" but never revels them.

Studios will keep saying that there will be a sequel, just to promote the movie and keep fans interested, because Green Lantern has yet to be released in many Countries across the world, acknowledging that the movie is performing badly and there will be no sequel to it will affect the movie's chances worldwide (many countries are getting August release.)

QFT

The main issues that keep coming to mind about the first film are what have me hesitant about even wanting a second: writing and misappropriation of budget. The same screenwriting teams of Berlanti and Guggenheim were already signed months ago to make a sequel script, which is already completed. And if WB DOES green light a sequel there's no way it will have close to the first film's budget; which more than likely means they will have to cut back on space activity. Neither of those dealings are appealing to me.

 

[Poni_Boy]

That's true... I really hope WB isn't just saying this for the time being. I actually want to see a sequel.

Well they did the exact same thing with Superman Returns (which is a much more marketable character worldwide). History does tend to repeat itself

 

[jmc]

I think we all know these sequel plans are nothing more than a way to generate buzz for other parts of the world, the issue is everyone around the world already knows how awful the reception to GL has been, both critically and financially so I'm not exactly sure what WB is hoping to achieve here, this isn't 1985. Do they assume people won't have access to the net or something for the next few weeks? In the 'old days' when word was much slower they could get away with some slight of hand in order keep the hype going, the world knew literally within hours that GL's reception was awful.

 

[Doctor Jones]

If people didn't dig this movie now, who thinks a new direction is going to win them over? I mean WW it's doing badly. It won't make much of a difference to them. If they move forward, it's about getting the hook to people who saw it and didn't like it and are doubtful and the people who didn't care to see this one. You obviously want to do it to make more money, but this isn't going to be easy.

 

[misjuevos]

you do remember they announced a sequel before this one came out. most say it's a curse they might be right, but they are going ahead, it was greenlit a while ago.

 

[Rock Sexton]

you do remember they announced a sequel before this one came out. most say it's a curse they might be right, but they are going ahead, it was greenlit a while ago.

Ya, it's greenlit even though this property is going to leave them in the negative by almost a couple hundred million dollars.

Common sense people.

 

[craigdbfan]

I have a feeling this instance of learning its been "greenlit" is one of those false alarm. I remember Dragonball: Evolution's sequel was greenlit as with TLA but with due time after they had their run in theaters it was shown to be a pure cover and distraction from the inevitable failure in BO returns for the first movie. Studio's do this all the time.

Very typical.

 

[cherokeesam]

With the exception of Punisher, all of the films in your list are getting sequels mainly so studios can hang on to their rights, and were profitable domestically. None of which apply to GL.

GL made more in its opening weekend ($53 mil) than Punisher ($13 mil), Daredevil ($40 mil), or Ghost Rider ($45 mil), and was almost on par with FF ($56 mil).

Of those films I listed, only one, FF, barely scraped together more than $100 mil domestically in the overall scheme of things, and GL is already sitting at $90 mil in Week 2. GL has all those films beat financially....easily.

 

[Silver Surfer]

GL made more in its opening weekend ($53 mil) than Punisher ($13 mil), Daredevil ($40 mil), or Ghost Rider ($45 mil), and was almost on par with FF ($56 mil).

Of those films I listed, only one, FF, barely scraped together more than $100 mil domestically in the overall scheme of things, and GL is already sitting at $90 mil in Week 2. GL has all those films beat financially....easily.

Not really. when you take into account ticket prices and that FF, DD and GR didn't have a 3d boost. In terms of attendance all three have GL beat....easily.

 

[Saitou Hajime]

Not to mention that GL has a more sizable production/marketing budget that it has no hope of recouping domestically, which all the listed films did with the exception of Punisher.

 

[Poni_Boy]

GL made more in its opening weekend ($53 mil) than Punisher ($13 mil), Daredevil ($40 mil), or Ghost Rider ($45 mil), and was almost on par with FF ($56 mil).

Of those films I listed, only one, FF, barely scraped together more than $100 mil domestically in the overall scheme of things, and GL is already sitting at $90 mil in Week 2. GL has all those films beat financially....easily.

Sorry, but I doubt that very much. Check any website that actually breaks down these figures in terms of inflation and 3D ticket prices (which only GL had in it's favor) and they all had more ticket sales I believe.

 

[J.Howlett]

How is this conversation still going?

As much as I want a sequel, the economics of it don't make sense. Even with TV rights and home video sales/rentals, this film is not going to make a profit.

On those terms alone, WB can't make a sequel unless they're so adamant that the DC properties take the place of Potter that they'll take a loss as big as this and still go forward.

I wish it were the simple. I mean, if WB couldn't go forward with a Singer sequel to Superman Returns that was a disappointment but it still made some change, how can they go forward with something that's not making anywhere near what they hoped?

Ain't. Happening.

 

[dnno1]

Sorry, but I doubt that very much. Check any website that actually breaks down these figures in terms of inflation and 3D ticket prices (which only GL had in it's favor) and they all had more ticket sales I believe.

Actually, "The Punisher" made more than $17 million on its opening weekend back in 2004. You don't need to correct for inflation if you are just looking at the number of people who went to see the film. Based on average ticket prices for that year ($6.21) roughly 3 million people went to see "The Punisher" in theaters opening weekend. Last year, the average ticket price was about $7.89 and based on the trending increase, You could say that it might be $8.21 this year. Using that number, Green Lantern had about 6.4 million views on its opening weekend. That's more than twice that of "The Punisher". Now as for "Ghost Rider" and "Daredevil", that's a different story. Both films had slightly more (but possibly within the margin of error).

 

[dnno1]

How is this conversation still going?

As much as I want a sequel, the economics of it don't make sense. Even with TV rights and home video sales/rentals, this film is not going to make a profit.

On those terms alone, WB can't make a sequel unless they're so adamant that the DC properties take the place of Potter that they'll take a loss as big as this and still go forward.

I wish it were the simple. I mean, if WB couldn't go forward with a Singer sequel to Superman Returns that was a disappointment but it still made some change, how can they go forward with something that's not making anywhere near what they hoped?

Ain't. Happening.

For goodness sakes. This is barely over one week and you are condemning this film. All of the figures are not in yet. Make a judgment after 5 months or so.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Actually, "The Punisher" made more than $17 million on its opening weekend back in 2004. You don't need to correct for inflation if you are just looking at the number of people who went to see the film. Based on average ticket prices for that year ($6.21) roughly 3 million people went to see "The Punisher" in theaters opening weekend. Last year, the average ticket price was about $7.89 and based on the trending increase, You could say that it might be $8.21 this year. Using that number, Green Lantern had about 6.4 million views on its opening weekend. That's more than twice that of "The Punisher".

Cool, thanks for the info!

Now what are the comparisons for GL/FF, GL/Daredevil and GL/Ghost Rider? I would do it myself but you can probably get the figures faster than me.

 

[Superfreak]

jsut a point: Predator, the original film took about 15 years to pay itself off before it started making profit. And its had two sequels. Source: 'If it bleeds, we can kill it'

 

[Raiden]

Ya, it's greenlit even though this property is going to leave them in the negative by almost a couple hundred million dollars.

Common sense people.

And it's not like Sony & Fox who would make a sequel or reboot just so they can keep the rights from being reverted back to Marvel. WB owns DC so if they want they can lock away GL in the attic if they want, because financially there's no incentive for them to make another GL if they don't want it.

 

[dark_b]

For goodness sakes. This is barely over one week and you are condemning this film. All of the figures are not in yet. Make a judgment after 5 months or so.

a lot of times studios know after 2 weeks if they will make a sequel or not. after you see the word of mouth from the public and after you see the drops you can calculate how much money it will make.

 

[J.Howlett]

And it's not like Sony & Fox who would make a sequel or reboot just so they can keep the rights from being reverted back to Marvel. WB owns DC so if they want they can lock away GL in the attic if they want, because financially there's no incentive for them to make another GL if they don't want it.

Bingo!

I want to see Lively and Reynolds playing these roles one more time, but it's dead. This is not a Batman Begins situation.

 

[dnno1]

Cool, thanks for the info!

Now what are the comparisons for GL/FF, GL/Daredevil and GL/Ghost Rider? I would do it myself but you can probably get the figures faster than me.

"Fantastic Four" is definitely more (over 8.7 million views), Daredevil and Ghost Rider are slightly higher (within 2 million) of GL. The thing is, if it was worth the merit to give these films another chance, then certainly, why not Green Lantern?