Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 10

Status
Not open for further replies.
90s Iron Man was the suck. Only 26 episodes and I don't think that was consistently aired anywhere. It was no where near as popular as Spider-Man and X-Men.

Poni_Boy, as I've brought up before WB is clearly looking to make a franchise out of GL so how, in your estimation, might GL:TAS's success(or lack there of, should it be the case) effect the studio's outlook for GL as a feature film franchise in the future?
 
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
Does that give them time to finish the incomplete effects, put the cut scenes back in, and rewrite the story through subtitles? If not, chances are, those countries who haven't gotten it released will be getting the same movie that has been released...and has been sinking at an alarming rate.

That's not to say that Hungarian and Estonian moviegoers are keeping day-by-day tabs on how this movie is performing and being reviewed i noter part of the world. But do we really think that they're going to be seeing something great in this that the rest of the world has somehow not gotten? If the US, Canada, and the UK audiences didn't really like this movie or buy a lot of tickets, will the Armenians somehow love it and keep buying enough tickets to make up for that? Seriously, has anything like that been known to happen...like with Ghost Rider or Daredevil, for example?

I think 3D will help a bit...but it also kinda' depends on the hope that 'foreign' audiences will just love the 3D aspect and look past the films issues.
 
Last edited:
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?



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



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.



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

Wow. You will argue to the death if when you're wrong. No wonder people ignore you. I'm done wasting my time, Enjoy your delusions
 
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.

There's enough stuff that was created that you could make another film for sure. Remember, There were what looked like thousands of characters on Oa, and all you would need to do is write a script for them and cast their voice actor. If they wanted to, they could make two or three films and never focus on the same character twice.
 
90s Iron Man was the suck. Only 26 episodes and I don't think that was consistently aired anywhere. It was no where near as popular as Spider-Man and X-Men.

Poni_Boy, as I've brought up before WB is clearly looking to make a franchise out of GL so how, in your estimation, might GL:TAS's success(or lack there of, should it be the case) effect the studio's outlook for GL as a feature film franchise in the future?

It was on for two seasons (and later on reruns). I remember catching episodes on Sunday mornings with the FF (that was in the Los Angeles market). That's far more than Green Lantern, which had no TV series at all.
 
There's enough stuff that was created that you could make another film for sure. Remember, There were what looked like thousands of characters on Oa, and all you would need to do is write a script for them and cast their voice actor. If they wanted to, they could make two or three films and never focus on the same character twice.
But if they were never intended to be featured/speaking characters and only background, it's highly likely they don't have the level of articulation/control as characters like, say, Tomar-Re and Kilowog had...which would have to be made over from scratch again. They really couldn't if you had to get 100+ of them into the film.

But again, if they go with another effects house, say ILM or WETA...all those places eventually have their own proprietary systems and even software...so you'd be looking at a lot of time and effort (i.e. money) just transferring whatever existing models/designs there are, and adapting or rebuilding them for the new EFX house's workflow. Basically, 'recycling' models et al isn't the answer to saving money to such an extent to motivate a sequel. Even if it saves them anything, it could be easily offset and surpassed by increasing the actual intended screentime by just 1.5X the previous film.

The whole 'they'll do it cheaper' isn't what they need to sell WB on for a sequel, if they want the best chance to actually make it good. Something has to convince them that even though it will ultimately cost more, the money will be put to better use and result in a much better extravaganza of a movie. If you do sell WB on doing it for cheaper...then they'll force you to do it cheaper. They'll cut you off instead of putting extra money into effects like they did the last time. They'll sit there and expect bigger and better effects even though they gave you less money to spend on them....and if they don't get it, they'll fire you. By promising or agreeing to 'cheaper', you put an ultimatum on the production. Just the kind of open and positive atmosphere that a sequel needs to be really good, no?
 
Last edited:
If they want more bang for their buck, then they probably should drop Sony and hit up ILM or WETA.
 
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.

If you look at the numbers, FF made $330 million, on a $100 million budget (it only had to make $183 million to show a profit). "Ghost Rider" made a little over $228 million on a $110 million budget (it only had to make a little over $200 million). "Daredevil" made a little over $179 million on a $79 million budget (that one only had to make a little over $144 million). These films met their goals and got sequels. On a $200 million budget, Green Lantern would only need to make $366 million to show a %22 profit. Keeping film rights or not, the studios are not stupid. If something is not going to pay off, they wouldn't do the project or sell the rights to someone else before they stick their necks out and lose money.
 
If you look at the numbers, FF made $330 million, on a $100 million budget (it only had to make $183 million to show a profit). "Ghost Rider" made a little over $228 million on a $110 million budget (it only had to make a little over $200 million). "Daredevil" made a little over $179 million on a $79 million budget (that one only had to make a little over $144 million). These films met their goals and got sequels. On a $200 million budget, Green Lantern would only need to make $366 million to show a %22 profit. Keeping film rights or not, the studios are not stupid. If something is not going to pay off, they wouldn't do the project or sell the rights to someone else before they stick their necks out and lose money.

At this rate is this flim even going to make that? It seems with TF3 coming out GL can only reach $125 million tops domestically. And it seems to be floundering in the international markets.
 
Anyone else dislike the satirical elements in the film? The whole mask bit, "doesn't the hero always get the girl" remark from his pet, ect. Then the next scene goes back to being deadly serious. Stick to one tone goddamnit. You are not making kick-ass.
 
Anyone else dislike the satirical elements in the film? The whole mask bit, "doesn't the hero always get the girl" remark from his pet, ect. Then the next scene goes back to being deadly serious. Stick to one tone goddamnit. You are not making kick-ass.

Anyone dislike the one-liners in "Batman Begins"?
 
Notice how it didn't matter in BB...yet it ellicits groans in GL? It's only when the meal is bad that you start questioning the ingredients. :O
 
Notice how it didn't matter in BB...yet it ellicits groans in GL? It's only when the meal is bad that you start questioning the ingredients. :O

And there were a lot of one-liners in BB too.
 
None of them were satirical or self depreciating, which was my initial point.
 
But if they were never intended to be featured/speaking characters and only background, it's highly likely they don't have the level of articulation/control as characters like, say, Tomar-Re and Kilowog had...which would have to be made over from scratch again. They really couldn't if you had to get 100+ of them into the film.

But again, if they go with another effects house, say ILM or WETA...all those places eventually have their own proprietary systems and even software...so you'd be looking at a lot of time and effort (i.e. money) just transferring whatever existing models/designs there are, and adapting or rebuilding them for the new EFX house's workflow. Basically, 'recycling' models et al isn't the answer to saving money to such an extent to motivate a sequel. Even if it saves them anything, it could be easily offset and surpassed by increasing the actual intended screentime by just 1.5X the previous film.

The whole 'they'll do it cheaper' isn't what they need to sell WB on for a sequel, if they want the best chance to actually make it good. Something has to convince them that even though it will ultimately cost more, the money will be put to better use and result in a much better extravaganza of a movie. If you do sell WB on doing it for cheaper...then they'll force you to do it cheaper. They'll cut you off instead of putting extra money into effects like they did the last time. They'll sit there and expect bigger and better effects even though they gave you less money to spend on them....and if they don't get it, they'll fire you. By promising or agreeing to 'cheaper', you put an ultimatum on the production. Just the kind of open and positive atmosphere that a sequel needs to be really good, no?


They might not have been intended to speak in the first film, but that does not mean that they are not supposed to speak in subsequent films. They could go with a different VFx house, but that doesn't mean that you wipe the slate clean. The CG models could carry over to the next group. I don't think they need to sell the suits on the they'll do it cheaper bit, since they more than likely already know that it is. It's common business sense that reusing previous work is a non-recurring cost and that taking advantage of that only serves to lower your overall cost for a second film.
 
The producers already said they created about only 30 or so alien Green Lantern characters. Hardly thousands. And they barely even did anything at all in the movie. We hardly saw them.

Once again all this is just damage control and smoke screening by the studio right now.
 
The producers already said they created about only 30 or so alien Green Lantern characters. Hardly thousands. And they barely even did anything at all in the movie. We hardly saw them.

Once again all this is just damage control and smoke screening by the studio right now.

Dnno1 has the blueprint to put together a low-cost blockbuster sequel. :awesome:
 
The producers already said they created about only 30 or so alien Green Lantern characters. Hardly thousands. And they barely even did anything at all in the movie. We hardly saw them.

Once again all this is just damage control and smoke screening by the studio right now.

GLT2-00105.jpg


I don't know what movie you saw, but I saw more than 30 green lanterns.
 
After taking in a lot about this movie (not just watching the movie itself) this is undoubtedly one of the, it not THE biggest debacle so far in superhero movies. Considering that:

1. Nolan's Batman is coming to an end.
2. Harry Potter is coming to an end.
3. Man of Steel will simply be one simple standalone (if it does get made).
4. WB needs a new flagship franchise.
5. They had to throw millions of extra dollars at the special EFX to try and get it done at the last minute.
6. They had what has been mentioned as one of the most expensive marketing campaigns in film.
7. The marketing lied about the movie being a space opera on the level of Star Wars.
9. They locked out critics from reviewing the movie prior to its release.
10. WB execs meddled in the final editing process.
11. The movie for all intensive purposes is bombing at the Box Office given the budget for production and marketing. Not to mention a VERY well known lead.
12. Critics tore it to shreds.
13. Audience reaction is so-so.

None of the other bombs like Daredevil, Ghoster Rider, Fantastic Four, etc. etc. ever really had anything riding on them like GL did and the kind of budget it was working with.
 
GLT2-00105.jpg


I don't know what movie you saw, but I saw more than 30 green lanterns.

That doesn't mean they had more than 30 models. LOTR had thousands of Orcs all standing in an army line, but they didn't have thousands of extras doing that. They had about 30-50 and just kept replicating them with CGI. GL likely did that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,269
Messages
22,077,591
Members
45,877
Latest member
dude9876
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"