Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 10

[Silver Surfer]

"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?

It wasn't merit that got these films a second chance it was requirement in order to keep the rights. Something WB doesn't have to worry about.

Not to mention the vast cost difference between GL and the 3 others.

 

[Poni_Boy]

"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?

I won't get into merit because I never support what I consider to be poor quality films getting sequels.

As far as why it won't get a sequel, it's simple: money. GL seems to have cost more than Ghost Rider and Daredevil combined. If they beat this film at the BO and they only cost a fraction of it's budget to produce/market, where's the motivation to make another on the studio side?

Who cares if they made a bajillion toys, just look at Tron: Legacy. You don't see Disney chomping at the bit to get T3ON made

 

[dnno1]

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.

It's at over $118 million world wide after two weekends and we still have the rest of the summer and another opening in the EU, Australian, and Brazilian markets in August. Maybe they do have access to some projected estimate, I am not certain of that, but what I do know, is that the studio is still perusing a sequel to the film, and that has to mean something.

 

[Rock Sexton]

"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?

Read above. WB doesn't have to worry about the rights reverting back to DC, unlike those Marvel properties ..... that's essentially why those movies got sequels.

 

[Poni_Boy]

It's at over $118 million world wide after two weekends and we still have the rest of the summer and another opening in the EU, Australian, and Brazilian markets in August. Maybe they do have access to some projected estimate, I am not certain of that, but what I do know, is that the studio is still perusing a sequel to the film, and that has to mean something.

So basically all that article states is the same thing we knew three weeks before the film was released, right? Except they forgot to include that the same writers from the first film wrote the sequel (obviously they meant to put that in unless people have a problem with the first film's script).

Of course BO projections and current gross have meaning, now you're being silly. Just look at it's gross standing to other current films that it's being directly compared to:

http://boxofficemojo.com/

-

10-Day Total: - 10-Day Total:
$89,311,000 - $119,455,352

Factor in the exponential percentage drops and GL may not even break $200 mil worldwide

 

[dnno1]

I won't get into merit because I never support what I consider to be poor quality films getting sequels.

As far as why it won't get a sequel, it's simple: money. GL seems to have cost more than Ghost Rider and Daredevil combined. If they beat this film at the BO and they only cost a fraction of it's budget to produce/market, where's the motivation to make another on the studio side?

A lot of that money was spent on creating the "Green Lantern universe" so to speak, with it's characters and all. If they make a sequel and use all the models that were created from the first film, and not compress the schedule like they did with the first one it should cost less for a second film.

Who cares if they made a bajillion toys, just look at Tron: Legacy.

Tell that to the Star Wars franchise. Hasbro would have something to say about that too.

You don't see Disney chomping at the bit to get T3ON made

This article was from back in January of this year:

http://www.slashfilm.com/tron-legacy-sequel-imminent/

This article was from June 9th of this year (a little more than a couple of weeks ago):

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2011/06/tron-legacy-sequel-is-underway.html

The success or failure of the Tron franchise (or a T3ON sequel) rests on the success of the Disney cartoon that will be coming out next year.

 

[Superfreak]

A lot of that money was spent on creating the "Green Lantern universe" so to speak, with it's characters and all. If they make a sequel and use all the models that were created from the first film, and not compress the schedule like they did with the first one it should cost less for a second film.

economies of scale, the sunk cost has been made, making things in the future relatively cheaper.

 

[Rock Sexton]

economies of scale, the sunk cost has been made, making things in the future relatively cheaper.

Is that a serious response?

 

[dnno1]

So basically all that article states is the same thing we knew three weeks before the film was released, right? Except they forgot to include that the same writers from the first film wrote the sequel (obviously they meant to put that in unless people have a problem with the first film's script).

Of course BO projections and current gross have meaning, now you're being silly. Just look at it's gross standing to other current films that it's being directly compared to:

http://boxofficemojo.com/

-

10-Day Total: - 10-Day Total:
$89,311,000 - $119,455,352

Factor in the exponential percentage drops and GL may not even break $200 mil worldwide

But it does have another release in 8 countries within the next four weeks and in 14 more during the month of August. That should add to the box office numbers there. There should also be a premium VoD release coming in August. I am pretty sure that should account for something. Don't be surprised if this ends up making closer to $300 million or more. BTW, you 10 day total figure for GL does not include the foreign BO numbers for this weekend.

 

[Rock Sexton]

A lot of that money was spent on creating the "Green Lantern universe" so to speak, with it's characters and all. If they make a sequel and use all the models that were created from the first film, and not compress the schedule like they did with the first one it should cost less for a second film.

They barely even "created" the universe. It was mostly set on Earth ..... and it would be a complete disaster to set it there again in a potential sequel leaving the costs to render a more cosmic-focused GL still high.

 

[Rock Sexton]

But it does have another release in 8 countries within the next four weeks and in 14 more during the month of August. That should add to the box office numbers there. There should also be a premium VoD release coming in August. I am pretty sure that should account for something. Don't be surprised if this ends up making closer to $300 million or more.

What are the countries?

$300 million or more? Definitely fanboy projections.

 

[Poni_Boy]

A lot of that money was spent on creating the "Green Lantern universe" so to speak, with it's characters and all. If they make a sequel and use all the models that were created from the first film, and not compress the schedule like they did with the first one it should cost less for a second film.

If a Green Lantern sequel is made it wouldn't go into production until late mid 2012 at the earliest because of Ryan's current obligations.

Do you really think they would use dated effects for the sequel? No, they'd have to spend money on revitalizing the current ones or start from scratch if Sony ImageWorks isn't involved. Peter Jackson and George Lucas avoided this by owning the effects houses they use for their films.

Tell that to the Star Wars franchise. Hasbro would have something to say about that too.

You're right, I'm sorry. It's not like Star Wars had three massively popular films that came out before all the toys kept the franchise going... oh, wait.

That's right, you need an established fanbase to sell tie-in toys to. Shocking, I know.

This article was from back in January of this year:

http://www.slashfilm.com/tron-legacy-sequel-imminent/

This article was from June 9th of this year (a little more than a couple of weeks ago):

http://www.pastemagazine.com/articles/2011/06/tron-legacy-sequel-is-underway.html

The success or failure of the Tron franchise (or a T3ON sequel) rests on the success of the Disney cartoon that will be coming out next year.

If a studio has to base a big budget blockbuster sequel on the popularity of a cartoon series, that's the first sign you're in trouble. When can you say that has has successfully worked before?

Have you seen/heard any development on TRON 3? Any pre-production happenings? Anything besides viral videos that were made in conjunction with the last film?

 

[KalMart]

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.

The only incentive I can see for even considering a sequel/continuing the franchise is that Harry Potter is ending and maybe Superman as well...so they'll need some more tentpole money-trees out there. The question is if they should try to salvage GL, or cut their losses on it and try with another character with (hopefully) lessons learned from this misstep.

One would also think that they'd be on the lookout for the next Harry Potter or other book/non-comic property to turn into a blockbuster...and/or even original ground-up movie franchises...so that they wouldn't have to depend so heavily on comic characters and can concentrate on fewer of them.

 

[dnno1]

If a Green Lantern sequel is made it wouldn't go into production until late mid 2012 at the earliest because of Ryan's current obligations.

Do you really think they would use dated effects for the sequel? No, they'd have to spend money on revitalizing the current ones or start from scratch if Sony ImageWorks isn't involved. Peter Jackson and George Lucas avoided this by owning the effects houses they use for their films.

I said they could use the models (the stuff that Nevile Page and Co. made more than a year ago). The effects are just "painted" over the models. Certainly they will create some new characters and try to implement the state of the art effects, but I doubt that they would just throw away any of the 3D models they created (that's throwing away money). I remember when I was a kid I took a tour of the Universal Studios lot. Part of the tour took us through their props department. I was really surprised at how much stuff they actually re-use for other films. I have no doubt they are going to use the stuff they created (The Lanterns, the Scenery of Oa, et. al.) again.

You're right, I'm sorry. It's not like Star Wars had three massively popular films that came out before all the toys kept the franchise going... oh, wait.

That's right, you need an established fanbase to sell tie-in toys to. Shocking, I know.

Yeah, that's not to say that Green Lantern isn't part of a mulit-billion dollar industry that includes other DC heroes and has an already established fan-base. That franchise does OK for itself.

If a studio has to base a big budget blockbuster sequel on the popularity of a cartoon series, that's the first sign you're in trouble. When can you say that has has successfully worked before?

But yet, that's what "Spider-Man", "Iron Man", and the "X-Men" did. Pretty ironic that you said that.

Have you seen/heard any development on TRON 3? Any pre-production happenings? Anything besides viral videos that were made in conjunction with the last film?

Did you read the articles I posted? The last one said that Disney hired David DiGilio to pen the sequel. That's a pre-production happening.

 

[Poni_Boy]

I said they could use the models (the stuff that Nevile Page and Co. made more than a year ago). The effects are just "painted" over the models. Certainly they will create some new characters and try to implement the state of the art effects, but I doubt that they would just throw away any of the 3D models they created (that's throwing away money). I remember when I was a kid I took a tour of the Universal Studios lot. Part of the tour took us through their props department. I was really surprised at how much stuff they actually re-use for other films. I have no doubt they are going to use the stuff they created (The Lanterns, the Scenery of Oa, et. al.) again.



Yeah, that's not to say that Green Lantern isn't part of a mulit-billion dollar industry that includes other DC heroes and has an already established fan-base. That franchise does OK for itself.




But yet, that's what "Spider-Man", "Iron Man", and the "X-Men" did. Pretty ironic that you said that.



Did you read the articles I posted? The last one said that Disney hired David DiGilio to pen the sequel. That's a pre-production happening.

*Le sigh*

1) No effects house in their right MIND would use two year old models for a new film in this day and age. That's like saying you'll use a 3.2 megapixel camera when a 12 megapixel one is available.

2) The difference is the comics franchise and the film one. Big difference, different demographic. And don't forget, DC comics fans are getting tired of Green Lantern crossovers getting forced down their throats continuously for the past 6 years or so. But for arguments sake, let's add the comics fansbase into the equation. Guess what? DC is rebooting their entire comics universe. A move that many members of the avid fanbase are not fond on.

3) Nice try. "Spider-Man", "Iron Man", and the "X-Men" all had successful films that followed the cartoons. Hence, the popular merchandise. GL neither had a popular cartoon series, nor a popular film. But it sure does have a **** ton of toys; a lot for characters that didn't get any screentime or were killed off right away.

4) And still, where is any word from Disney about TRON now? They are waiting for a cartoon series to make or break a million dollar franchise. In a day when news of screenplays and film treatments make headlines, where did it go after hiring someone 6 months ago? Hell, the Green Lantern 2 script was done before the first film even came out.

 

[Tony Stark]

At most GL will make just over 200M WW. Thor has made 436M WW, and if I were Marvel when the cap advertising starts, I'd do some cross promotion of Thor, to maybe get people to see Thor again who are going to Cap, and help Thor cross 180M domestic.

In any case there's really no comparison to GL. Thor is a better movie all around, and the box office just reflects that. I don't think GL is nessisarily any worse than Fantastic Four or Ghost Rider, but it sure hasn't caught on with audiences, and even the first Fantastic Four did that.

 

[Poni_Boy]

At most GL will make just over 200M WW. Thor has made 436M WW, and if I were Marvel when the cap advertising starts, I'd do some cross promotion of Thor, to maybe get people to see Thor again who are going to Cap, and help Thor cross 180M domestic.

In any case there's really no comparison to GL. Thor is a better movie all around, and the box office just reflects that. I don't think GL is nessisarily any worse than Fantastic Four or Ghost Rider, but it sure hasn't caught on with audiences, and even the first Fantastic Four did that.

The thing is, it doesn't even have to do with being a "good" movie (especially since good/worth the cost of admission is completely subjective). It's about appealing to the general audience and offering a connection to the characters you put on screen.

 

[MadVillainy]

By the time Cap is out Thor will probably not be showing as much in as many places

 

[Poni_Boy]

By the time Cap is out Thor will probably not be showing as much in as many places

It won't be except for the few theaters that play older movies ($2 cinemas and such). Marvel did that on purpose to avoid an IM and TIH repeat

 

[TheVileOne]

It won't be except for the few theaters that play older movies ($2 cinemas and such). Marvel did that on purpose to avoid an IM and TIH repeat

Not really. Keep in mind that in 2008, Iron Man came out first weekend of May and TIH came out in June. This year, Thor came out first weekend of May and Cap comes out in July a full month+ after TIH came out in its release period.

Fans are fooling themselves about the sequel. This is simply damage control on the studios' part. Studios never really announce that a project is dead or a sequel is cancelled. It all happens behind closed doors and unofficially. Look at Superman Returns.

 

[Poni_Boy]

Not really. Keep in mind that in 2008, Iron Man came out first weekend of May and TIH came out in June. This year, Thor came out first weekend of May and Cap comes out in July a full month+ after TIH came out in its release period.

What are you talking about? My statement was in reference to one Marvel film not taking box office performance away from the other. Obviously marketing was a HUGE issue for TIH but competition with another Marvel film people were flocking to see didn't help it

Fans are fooling themselves about the sequel. This is simply damage control on the studios' part. Studios never really announce that a project is dead or a sequel is cancelled. It all happens behind closed doors and unofficially. Look at Superman Returns.

Seconded

 

[dnno1]

*Le sigh*

1) No effects house in their right MIND would use two year old models for a new film in this day and age. That's like saying you'll use a 3.2 megapixel camera when a 12 megapixel one is available.

You can't be serious. They used an digital F-35 model as a prop in the movie. The F-35 is a 10 year old design, so the model must be older than that. Certainly if they wanted to use a tank, they would just grab a 3D model of an M-1 Abrams (a 30-year-old design) from some online database for a few hundred dollars and just use it. Why should they reinvent the wheel?

2) The difference is the comics franchise and the film one. Big difference, different demographic. And don't forget, DC comics fans are getting tired of Green Lantern crossovers getting forced down their throats continuously for the past 6 years or so. But for arguments sake, let's add the comics fansbase into the equation. Guess what? DC is rebooting their entire comics universe. A move that many members of the avid fanbase are not fond on.

A lot of the folks that are going to see the film overlap into the comics and collectibles franchise.

3) Nice try. "Spider-Man", "Iron Man", and the "X-Men" all had successful films that followed the cartoons. Hence, the popular merchandise. GL neither had a popular cartoon series, nor a popular film. But it sure does have a **** ton of toys; a lot for characters that didn't get any screentime or were killed off right away.

But your point was that is was the first sign of trouble if a studio had to base a big budget block buster sequel on a cartoon series. The films I mentioned were based on cartoon series (as well as comics) to begin with. For that matter, "The Flintstones" did the same thing. I know you are talking about the basis of a sequel, but in truth, if nobody is at all interested in any of the follow-on projects it would basically spell doom for any sequel. If you would notice, a lot of these properties follow that pattern.

4) And still, where is any word from Disney about TRON now? They are waiting for a cartoon series to make or break a million dollar franchise. In a day when news of screenplays and film treatments make headlines, where did it go after hiring someone 6 months ago? Hell, the Green Lantern 2 script was done before the first film even came out.

They have somebody writing the screenplay for the sequel right now. That was announced a couple of weeks ago.

 

[Micromind]

What are the countries?

$300 million or more? Definitely fanboy projections.

Green Lantern is yet to open in many countries.

Armenia 30 June 2011
Azerbaijan 17 July 2011
Japan 22 July 2011
Belgium 27 July 2011
Germany 28 July 2011
Estonia 29 July 2011
Spain 29 July 2011
Sweden 29 July 2011
Australia 4 August 2011
Netherlands 4 August 2011
Finland 5 August 2011
Norway 5 August 2011
France 10 August 2011
Argentina 11 August 2011
Hungary 11 August 2011
Portugal 18 August 2011
Brazil 19 August 2011
Colombia 19 August 2011
Paraguay 19 August 2011
Turkey 26 August 2011
Italy 31 August 2011
Mexico 12 August 2011

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1133985/releaseinfo

 

[akfj]

But yet, that's what "Spider-Man", "Iron Man", and the "X-Men" did. Pretty ironic that you said that.

Iron Man actually didn't have a popular cartoon until after its movie came out. I'd hardly call that syndicated show from the 90s popular. In fact, I think the syndicated Fantastic Four show was more popular.

 

[Micromind]

After Nolan's Batman 3 (TDKR), every other DC movie is kind of gamble for WB, there is no sure way of success of WW, Flash or Superman, same for GL Sequel but in case of GL there is a star cast and many GL (Johan Stewart, Kyle Rayner and other GL Corps) so it can be successful.

I wouldn't be very surprised if they actually move ahead in that direction (GL Sequel.)