Official Green Lantern News & Discussion Thread - Part 10

[KalMart]

Sony Imageworks digital effects look terrible sometimes and I thought they looked terrible in Spider-Man 3 AND Superman Returns sometimes.

But I think the work on Green Lantern was overall worse than the work in Superman Returns. I felt there were more cases where work in Superman Returns topped the best in Green Lantern.

If anything rendering The ring constructs should have made it easier to get away with CGI but even those special effects didn't always look up to snuff.

That's why it's hard to propose doing a sequel for 'cheaper', when they already tried to go cheap and still didn't get everything finished in time...even with extra money and overtime/wknd hours. It's not like ILM or WETA will suddenly be less costly than Sony years down the road. They'd have to spend more, but hopefully get more FOR their money by hiring a better VFX house and giving them more time. More money, but ultimately better spent.

Stop hating.

Michael Bay achieved far superior SFX with less money. Green Lantern's SFX will never be on that level. t:

And with a more expensive VFX house, too. Imagine that.

 

[Metallo]

That's why it's hard to propose doing a sequel for 'cheaper', when they already tried to go cheap and still didn't get everything finished in time...even with extra money and overtime/wknd hours. It's not like ILM or WETA will suddenly be less costly than Sony years down the road. They'd have to spend more, but hopefully get more FOR their money by hiring a better VFX house and giving them more time. More money, but ultimately better spent.

Well I never really thought a GL sequel could be done much more cheaply than the first especially if people want to expand its scope and take it out into more space. Thats going to cost more. Theres a few places I'm sure they could cut corners but if they want to expand the "world" of Green Lantern I not sure it could be done say...50 million dollars cheaper than the first film.

 

[KalMart]

Well I never really thought a GL sequel could be done much more cheaply than the first especially if people want to expand its scope and take it out into more space. Thats going to cost more. Theres a few places I'm sure they could cut corners but if they want to expand the "world" of Green Lantern I not sure it could be done say...50 million dollars cheaper than the first film.

'Cutting corners' to save costs is where you get into trouble. Go from the best from the outset and hire people that can insure that it delivers efficiently. Unfortunately...the whole mega-marketing approach is what really messes with things because there's such a rush to beat other competitors to the punch. They go for the soonest release date they can theoretically get, then when there are overages or extra time needed in production, the rest of post doesn't get that time made up for it, because of that deadline. And as movies push the envelope more, they need more time in all areas to get it done. It's like trying to design, build, and distribute a high-end performance/luxury car on the same schedule as a mid-priced family sedan.

Unfortunately...the hardest aspect to sell WB no for a sequel is more time and money...since the first GL did so badly. There's a propensity to punish it by taking support away from the followup, and wait with arms crossed. All this to make the whole franchise more successful? If that really was a key to success, then they should do that with every sequel to any film, good or bad. Looking to do it cheaper is a desperation move just to stay afloat....not forward-thinking and progression/growth like a real good sequel to a good film is supposed to be.

 

[wobbly]

Not that I think this directly applies for GL really, but the first Star Trek movie cost $35mil.
The second (Wrath of Khan), widely regarded as a far superior film, cost $11.2mil.

What made it a much better film was basically 3 simple things: The plot, the script, and the direction.

Now Star Trek II is often cited as one of the few the exceptions to the general rule that sequels are never better than the original. If GL does get a sequel (doubtful at this stage) let's hope he can join them. Improving the above 3 criteria would be the first place they should look at to acheive that goal. Money doesn't matter if you don't get them right, as WB are finding out now.

 

[The Sage]

Not that I think this directly applies for GL really, but the first Star Trek movie cost $35mil.
The second (Wrath of Khan), widely regarded as a far superior film, cost $11.2mil.

What made it a much better film was basically 3 simple things: The plot, the script, and the direction.

Now Star Trek II is often cited as one of the few the exceptions to the general rule that sequels are never better than the original. If GL does get a sequel (doubtful at this stage) let's hope he can join them. Improving the above 3 criteria would be the first place they should look at to acheive that goal. Money doesn't matter if you don't get them right, as WB are finding out now.

Right on.

 

[KalMart]

Not that I think this directly applies for GL really, but the first Star Trek movie cost $35mil.
The second (Wrath of Khan), widely regarded as a far superior film, cost $11.2mil.

What made it a much better film was basically 3 simple things: The plot, the script, and the direction.

Now Star Trek II is often cited as one of the few the exceptions to the general rule that sequels are never better than the original. If GL does get a sequel (doubtful at this stage) let's hope he can join them. Improving the above 3 criteria would be the first place they should look at to acheive that goal. Money doesn't matter if you don't get them right, as WB are finding out now.

That should go without saying, but if a major part of your new, better story will need the executives to step up to the plate...like, say, 50-60% of the movie now taking place in space with more Lanterns....it's be kinda' nice to know that they will.

 

[wobbly]

That should go without saying, but if a major part of your new, better story will need the executives to step up to the plate...like, say, 50-60% of the movie now taking place in space with more Lanterns....it's be kinda' nice to know that they will.

Well setting it more in Space doesn't automatically mean is has to cost more. Abrams Trek reboot cost less the GL and that was set mostly in space.
In theory, since they already have the CGI models done for OA and the main Lanterns, they should be able to make it more space-centric without it being as expensive. Though after watching GL (like with a lot of movies to be honest) I really don't see where all that money went (but that's another discussion, lol )

 

[dark_b]

people who know about movie budgets know that ST 2009 cost around 200 millions.

 

[wobbly]

Source?
Not saying your wrong, I'm just going by the production budget listed at BO Mojo ($150mil).

 

[jmc]

Not that I think this directly applies for GL really, but the first Star Trek movie cost $35mil.
The second (Wrath of Khan), widely regarded as a far superior film, cost $11.2mil.

What made it a much better film was basically 3 simple things: The plot, the script, and the direction.

Now Star Trek II is often cited as one of the few the exceptions to the general rule that sequels are never better than the original. If GL does get a sequel (doubtful at this stage) let's hope he can join them. Improving the above 3 criteria would be the first place they should look at to acheive that goal. Money doesn't matter if you don't get them right, as WB are finding out now.

What's the incentive to continue though? You've now got a tainted brand on your hands, instead of focusing on getting people excited for a GL2 WB would now have to once again try to convince people this character is worth their money. When a brand leaves a bad taste the taste sticks around for a while.

 

[DarKush]

^
Even though I would love for them to try again with GL, I think you're right. It's not like he has a successful cinematic history like Superman and Batman and can withstand an underperforming or critically panned film like Superman Returns or Batman & Robin.

I think DC should just move on to Flash, Wonder Woman, and Aquaman. GL should show back up in a Justice League film.

Take a page from Marvel and see how well a lackluster perceived roll out has affected the performance of the Hulk and Punisher films. Especially the Hulk since it is more of an FX laden type of pic than a Punisher film. IMO, they could just do a series of relatively cheap Punisher action flicks still and make a profit.

 

[wobbly]

What's the incentive to continue though? You've now got a tainted brand on your hands, instead of focusing on getting people excited for a GL2 WB would now have to once again try to convince people this character is worth their money. When a brand leaves a bad taste the taste sticks around for a while.

Oh I agree. It's up to WB if they think they can do a 'Khan' with GL, and even if they think they can, will they take that chance?
Unlike with the Trek example there isn't a huge existing fanbase to support any sequel, nor is GL as ingrained into the public conciousness as Kirk, Spock & Co have been since the late 60's & 70's when the old show was syndicated all over the world (most everyone has heard of Captain Kirk, only few people I know of here in the UK knew who Hal Jordan was at all).

Like I said before, a sequel at this stage looks doubtful. Maybe they will try again in another 5 -10 years, for but now it does look like GL will be benched by WB.

 

[KalMart]

Well setting it more in Space doesn't automatically mean is has to cost more. Abrams Trek reboot cost less the GL and that was set mostly in space.
In theory, since they already have the CGI models done for OA and the main Lanterns, they should be able to make it more space-centric without it being as expensive.

Yeah, but if they're going for 2-3 times (at least) the screentime in space, then whatever's saved by having models is pretty quickly countered and superseded. You still have to design, animate, composite, and render (and redo) a lot more shots...and the raw amount of screentime will make the time and cost involved increase much faster than what it took to make the models.

Though after watching GL (like with a lot of movies to be honest) I really don't see where all that money went (but that's another discussion, lol )

See...the whole problem here is bringing up the cost thing. If GL performed did POTC/TF, and/or was a critical/WOM hit, there really wouldn't be that much concern about how much a sequel would cost. It'd be an obviously wiser investment and so on. But since the last film's a flop, it's like moving ahead half-heartedly. If they really want to save money...don't do a sequel, and use those resources for something else that can start from the ground up with a better approach and without the stigma of coming off a failure.

The problem about saying you'll do it cheaper..is that you're now forced to do it cheaper, no matter what. Meaning that even if it has a chance to be really good if they could just put a little more in for a few more scenes, they won't. And if it's bad...hey, at least they did it for cheaper. You're acknowledging the shortcomings of the previous film, and holding them against the followup. This is why films that get sequels should earn them...either critically or financially or both. If a film did neither....then it shouldn't get a sequel. Sequels should be a continuation from an achievement, not a salvage mission.

 

[wobbly]

Yeah, but if they're going for 2-3 times (at least) the screentime in space, then whatever's saved by having models is pretty quickly countered and superseded. You still have to design, animate, composite, and render (and redo) a lot more shots...and the raw amount of screentime will make the time and cost involved increase much faster than what it took to make the models.

Thing is I've seen films with impressive effects come in well under GL (and others) budgets. District 9, the Hellboy movies, Sunshine, Skyline, etc, all made for far less money (Ok, Skyline was a crap film, but the effects were very good).
Seems to me the difference is some directors know how to make the most out of what money they have, than others who can plough through a crap load of cash for results that are not that much better (if at all in some cases).

See...the whole problem here is bringing up the cost thing. If GL performed did POTC/TF, and/or was a critical/WOM hit, there really wouldn't be that much concern about how much a sequel would cost. It'd be an obviously wiser investment and so on. But since the last film's a flop, it's like moving ahead half-heartedly. If they really want to save money...don't do a sequel, and use those resources for something else that can start from the ground up with a better approach and without the stigma of coming off a failure.

The problem about saying you'll do it cheaper..is that you're now forced to do it cheaper, no matter what. Meaning that even if it has a chance to be really good if they could just put a little more in for a few more scenes, they won't. And if it's bad...hey, at least they did it for cheaper. You're acknowledging the shortcomings of the previous film, and holding them against the followup. This is why films that get sequels should earn them...either critically or financially or both. If a film did neither....then it shouldn't get a sequel. Sequels should be a continuation from an achievement, not a salvage mission.

Agree with that: Sadly this GL film has not earned a sequel. A shame as the potential for a GL movie to do well was there, but obviously they have the make the film good first.
Hopefully if WB go ahead with another character they will have learned some important lessons from this one.

 

[jmc]

You've gotta wonder if WB anticipated this situation, I know they threw money at it and tried to spend their way out of trouble, but somewhere along the lines someone must have known this was a likely, if not inevitable outcome. Some serious soul searching is now required because the 'superhero cash cow' they thought they'd had to replace Potter has evaporated in front of their eyes in the space of a few weeks.

 

[cherokeesam]

Stop hating.

Michael Bay achieved far superior SFX with less money. Green Lantern's SFX will never be on that level. t:

By reusing characters and SFX from the initial launch movie four years ago. What, do you think they had to reboot Optimus and Megatron and Bumblebee et al from scratch.....?

Now Star Trek II is often cited as one of the few the exceptions to the general rule that sequels are never better than the original.

Does this "general rule" also apply to Superman II, Spider-Man 2, The Empire Strikes Back, Mad Max: The Road Warrior, The Godfather Part II, Terminator 2, Evil Dead 2, The Dark Knight, X2: X-Men United, and Aliens? Just wondering.

If/when a GL sequel comes out, then yes, the first lesson learned will be that the budget has to be trimmed by a huge margin. And, like I mentioned with Transformers above, it *will* be less, simply because the framework is already there --- you won't have to reinvent the CG from scratch.

I also hope to god that an important lesson learned from this is to STOP WITH THE GODDAM 3D ALREADY. Jeebuz. It was a fad in the 50s, it was a fad in the 60s, it was a fad in the 70s, it was a fad in the 80s....there is literally *nothing* to indicate that it will be anything more than a fad in the 21st century. Lucas, Spielberg, Bay, the Scotts, Cameron and plenty of others have created FAR better VFX in 2D than anything noteworthy in 3D, including the overhyped "Avatar."

 

[KalMart]

Thing is I've seen films with impressive effects come in well under GL (and others) budgets. District 9, the Hellboy movies, Sunshine, Skyline, etc, all made for far less money (Ok, Skyline was a crap film, but the effects were very good).
Seems to me the difference is some directors know how to make the most out of what money they have, than others who can plough through a crap load of cash for results that are not that much better (if at all in some cases).

That's not the point. The point is that 'cheaper' becomes a leading agenda. It very well may end up that they can do another one for less...good or bad. But that's gravy. The point is that if it turns out that the movie does need more money...even a little more...you don't want this ultimatum hanging over their heads he whole time. And you don't need that extra paranoia surrounding the production when it's hard enough just making any movie. That's what having a crappy first installment does to a sequel...the sequel's job is suddenly to 'get things right' and make up for the last one as well....instead of just building upon something good. And even then, try someone else.

If you want to make a big-time effects film for less than $200M, fine...but start from a clean slate with someone who can get more out of your money.
Don't do it as a punishment/salvage mission because you ***** the bed on the last one. Don't do it out of reaction. They should let this attempt at GL just fade out of memory...which will save them a lot of money. Then later, when they get their act together more with non-Batman franchises that start off on the right foot...then maybe they can try GL with more confidence, and not worry as much as to whether it's 'cheaper' than the last one. There's really no reason to try again with this current GL, unless they're desperate.

 

[KalMart]

You've gotta wonder if WB anticipated this situation, I know they threw money at it and tried to spend their way out of trouble, but somewhere along the lines someone must have known this was a likely, if not inevitable outcome. Some serious soul searching is now required because the 'superhero cash cow' they thought they'd had to replace Potter has evaporated in front of their eyes in the space of a few weeks.

Maybe they should find another young adult novel series and place their chips on that instead. If better superhero movies means making fewer of them, that's fine.

 

[moviedoors]

I also hope to god that an important lesson learned from this is to STOP WITH THE GODDAM 3D ALREADY. Jeebuz. It was a fad in the 50s, it was a fad in the 60s, it was a fad in the 70s, it was a fad in the 80s....there is literally *nothing* to indicate that it will be anything more than a fad in the 21st century. Lucas, Spielberg, Bay, the Scotts, Cameron and plenty of others have created FAR better VFX in 2D than anything noteworthy in 3D, including the overhyped "Avatar."

If it's been a fad for 60 years, is it really a fad? That's like half the life of cinema.

 

[wobbly]

Does this "general rule" also apply to Superman II, Spider-Man 2, The Empire Strikes Back, Mad Max: The Road Warrior, The Godfather Part II, Terminator 2, Evil Dead 2, The Dark Knight, X2: X-Men United, and Aliens? Just wondering.

You do know what 'exceptions to the rule' means, yes?
Consider the bulk of sequels that get made for films. The one's that do prove to be better (and not just as good as the first) are in the minority, therefore they are exemptions.

Interesting though how many Superhero films got better with the sequels. The third one is when a few have gone downhill.

 

[wobbly]

That's not the point. The point is that 'cheaper' becomes a leading agenda. It very well may end up that they can do another one for less...good or bad. But that's gravy. The point is that if it turns out that the movie does need more money...even a little more...you don't want this ultimatum hanging over their heads he whole time. And you don't need that extra paranoia surrounding the production when it's hard enough just making any movie. That's what having a crappy first installment does to a sequel...the sequel's job is suddenly to 'get things right' and make up for the last one as well....instead of just building upon something good. And even then, try someone else.

If you want to make a big-time effects film for less than $200M, fine...but start from a clean slate with someone who can get more out of your money.
Don't do it as a punishment/salvage mission because you ***** the bed on the last one. Don't do it out of reaction. They should let this attempt at GL just fade out of memory...which will save them a lot of money. Then later, when they get their act together more with non-Batman franchises that start off on the right foot...then maybe they can try GL with more confidence, and not worry as much as to whether it's 'cheaper' than the last one. There's really no reason to try again with this current GL, unless they're desperate.

Kalmart, I'm not arguing that they should press ahead with a sequel. For the reasons you, myself and others have noted it would not be a good idea at all for them.

I'm just saying I think a space-centric GL film could be done (and done very well) without costing silly buggers money.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Seems to me the difference is some directors know how to make the most out of what money they have, than others who can plough through a crap load of cash for results that are not that much better (if at all in some cases).

That is so true; and it's mostly based on the direction and angle the director choose to take. For example: if the film is story based/character development & conflict first, action/location second; a director would probably make better use of the film budget than the otherway around. Not saying it can't be done one way versus the other.

However, I think the tone is what would dictate the cost involve in making the film a mostly space base setting for GL. Look, if they continue, imo, to take a cartoonish, comical, kid-friendly, approach to the film, than yes the cost may be lower, but the film, I think, will suffer; as well as, the returns(Box Office #s and expectations). However, if the tone is more serious and more realistic or probable(like WB said they was going to take with their films), than I expect the cost to be much higher; and I don't expect that will happen given the first film results. Which I must say, I enjoyed; but left desiring much more.

That's not the point. The point is that 'cheaper' becomes a leading agenda. It very well may end up that they can do another one for less...good or bad. But that's gravy. The point is that if it turns out that the movie does need more money...even a little more...you don't want this ultimatum hanging over their heads he whole time. And you don't need that extra paranoia surrounding the production when it's hard enough just making any movie. That's what having a crappy first installment does to a sequel...the sequel's job is suddenly to 'get things right' and make up for the last one as well....instead of just building upon something good. And even then, try someone else.

Agree totally.

If you want to make a big-time effects film for less than $200M, fine...but start from a clean slate with someone who can get more out of your money. Don't do it as a punishment/salvage mission because you ***** the bed on the last one. Don't do it out of reaction. They should let this attempt at GL just fade out of memory...which will save them a lot of money. Then later, when they get their act together more with non-Batman franchises that start off on the right foot...then maybe they can try GL with more confidence, and not worry as much as to whether it's 'cheaper' than the last one. There's really no reason to try again with this current GL, unless they're desperate.

This is where I disagree, GL is not on the same level as Bats, Supes, or even Spidey, that can pull back after it's initial film, and start over from a clean slate... and even those characters didn't do that. Well, maybe SR, but hey, he on a different plain of existence.

Look, TIH tried that, and even though, in my opinion, it was a much better film, the receipts went no where. Punisher, simply bombed. They have struggle to restart DareDevil for years, to no avail. That's the level that GL is on. I think it would be more damaging to GL to restart from a clean slate; than to just do what you admit it would be.... a sequel trying to get things right and make up for the first installment. Personly, I know it would be night & day; but, the tone has to change away from the first one.

The fact of the matter, they ended with a major cliffhanger involving Sinestro.... you can't just restart with a clean slate and expect Comics fans and GA to take it serious. They can't turn back now, they have to roll the dice and live with the mess they have made(if they even recognize the mess) or cancel it all togther. GL can't survive with a layoff like Hulk & Punisher.... hell Punisher didn't survive, nor lay out long enough.

 

[Metallo]

'Cutting corners' to save costs is where you get into trouble. Go from the best from the outset and hire people that can insure that it delivers efficiently. U

Depends on where the corners are cut. People will have a higher expectation on the production side but they can save money on actors. Hire good ones instead of more expensive ones in supporting roles. Thats what I mean when I say cutting corners.

Take Tim Robbins for example. Because of his characters fate they don't need him back for the sequel. Besides Reynolds I wouldn't be surprised if he was one of the more expensive actors in the movie. Thats one corner cut that doesn't really affect the quality because his character is no longer needed.

Same is true for The guy playing Hector Hammond. The don't need him anymore and they already have mark Strongs Sinestro

I don't think saving money on replacing those two is going to have a negative affect on a sequel production.

But I don't think that in this instance WB can go incredibly cheaper with Green Lantern in many other areas if people want the scope of a sequel expanded.

 

[KalMart]

Depends on where the corners are cut. People will have a higher expectation on the production side but they can save money on actors. Hire good ones instead of more expensive ones in supporting roles. Thats what I mean when I say cutting corners.

Take Tim Robbins for example. Because of his characters fate they don't need him back for the sequel. Besides Reynolds I wouldn't be surprised if he was one of the more expensive actors in the movie. Thats one corner cut that doesn't really affect the quality because his character is no longer needed.

Same is true for The guy playing Hector Hammond. The don't need him anymore and they already have mark Strongs Sinestro

I don't think saving money on replacing those two is going to have a negative affect on a sequel production.

But I don't think that in this instance WB can go incredibly cheaper with Green Lantern in many other areas if people want the scope of a sequel expanded.

So....cut corners in the acting department by hiring lesser names that won't attract audiences as much. How is that going to have a positive affect, and how much do you really think that will save them?

Meanwhile, with a new Superman movie, they've got actors like Kevin Costner, Diane Lane, Russel Crowe....having names like that are ultimately worth a lot more on the marquis than what they cost. BB/TDK with their cast.....that's not a sign of overspending on those movies, why should it be for a GL movie? Specifically trying to do the film for 'cheaper' isn't the answer. Doing it better is, and if it saves a bit no costs here and there, then it's a bonus.

Kalmart, I'm not arguing that they should press ahead with a sequel. For the reasons you, myself and others have noted it would not be a good idea at all for them.

I'm just saying I think a space-centric GL film could be done (and done very well) without costing silly buggers money.

Just like a sub-$150M COULD gross over $600M domestic...we've seen it happen. But the point is that it wasn't made specifically to keep costs down after a flop of a previous film. GL can't point to those examples, because its baggage is doing the talking. For those examples...it happens to turn out that way...with GL, they'd be trying to MAKE it that way as compensation, which is bad news.

 

[KalMart]

This is where I disagree, GL is not on the same level as Bats, Supes, or even Spidey, that can pull back after it's initial film, and start over from a clean slate... and even those characters didn't do that. Well, maybe SR, but hey, he on a different plain of existence.

Look, TIH tried that, and even though, in my opinion, it was a much better film, the receipts went no where. Punisher, simply bombed. They have struggle to restart DareDevil for years, to no avail. That's the level that GL is on. I think it would be more damaging to GL to restart from a clean slate; than to just do what you admit it would be.... a sequel trying to get things right and make up for the first installment. Personly, I know it would be night & day; but, the tone has to change away from the first one.

The fact of the matter, they ended with a major cliffhanger involving Sinestro.... you can't just restart with a clean slate and expect Comics fans and GA to take it serious. They can't turn back now, they have to roll the dice and live with the mess they have made(if they even recognize the mess) or cancel it all togther. GL can't survive with a layoff like Hulk & Punisher.... hell Punisher didn't survive, nor lay out long enough.

Did the Comic fans and GA save this movie fro being an utter disappointment? No. So why should there be any concern as to what connection they'd be holding on to? The reception this film got is telling you, more than anything, that nothing will be missed. Yes, ending it altogether makes the most sense.....but if they do decide to reboot (for whatever reason) down the road...screw the cliffhangers and everything else from the last movie, regardless if he's less known. They don't have to live with this movie if they don't want to, and neither does the rest of the moviegoing public...especially since they hardly got to know it anyway.

If another version is good, that will be all that matters...it'll brush aside whatever 'confusion' that may be lingering from the last movie as easily as audiences brushed aside the entire movie. Still though, the better plan now is probably to drop it altogether and try someone else.