Ryan Reynolds unsure about returning as Green Lantern... (also talks Deadpool)

[CBMovie]

From CBR: http://screenrant.com/ryan-reynolds-deadpool-green-latnern-2-sandy-126637/

Ryan Reynolds uncertain about Green Lantern, but promises Deadpool still in the works

Comic book fans are likely more interested in hearing about two upcoming Ryan Reynolds-centric projects: Green Lantern 2 and Deadpool. According to the actor, he’s still hopeful about getting to play Wade Wilson onscreen (again), but doesn’t know yet whether he’ll be donning CGI green duds as Hal Jordan for a second time.

Next on the agenda for Reynolds is the Dark Horse comic book adaptation, R.I.P.D. Afterwards, he may be teaming up with visual effects artist-turned-director Tim Miller on Deadpool, which was a character Reynolds had read and been a fan of since the 90's. The upcoming film will be a “total reboot” of the title character, following his appearance in X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Reynolds told MTV that the Deadpool movie is still “in development,” but that he doesn’t expect to have to choose between starring in that or the R.I.P.D. adaptation. Even if that were the case, it’s pretty obvious which flick most fans would want Reynolds to move forward with (Hint: It’s not the one with undead cops and evil Kevin Bacon, as much fun as that sounds).

Zombieland duo Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick are scripting the Deadpool movie, which is expected to retain the same elements (4th wall-breaking humor, graphic violence, etc.) that have earned the anti-hero a strong following from comic book readers. Miller is an untested talent in the area of directing, but his technical expertise should ensure that Deadpool will at least look and sound up to scratch.

Despite recent word from Warner Bros. studio heads about a possible darker and edgier Green Lantern 2 in development, Reynolds isn’t so sure he’ll be reprising his turn as daredevil test pilot-turned-intergalactic defender of justice, Hal Jordan, in the followup.

“I have no idea, that’s not up to me. I don’t write those checks. And if I did I certainly wouldn’t be standing on a red carpet, I would be sunning myself somewhere."

Speaking to where we might find Reynolds' Green Lantern in future film installments, the actor didn't have quite as much to say now, as he did back before the film's release (read June 10 article here).

"There are infinite [possibilities for a sequel]," Reynolds said. "70 years of history there, you could go anywhere."

Arguably, though, the problems with the Hal Jordan character in Green Lantern had less to do with how Reynolds played him and more with how he was (poorly) written. So long as the screenplay for the sequel does a much-improved job of encompassing the Lantern mythology (among other things) there’s no reason why Reynolds shouldn’t be brought back.

A mid-credits scene in Green Lantern set the stage for a sequel that revolves around Sinestro (Mark Strong), but it’s possible the next Lantern pic will ignore that plot thread – and end up being a partial franchise reboot, along the lines of next year’s Ghost Rider 2. Heck, for all we know at this point, it could even end up featuring one of the other human Green Lanterns​ (like Alan Scott or Kyle Rayner&#8203 as its protagonist!

 

[The Sage]

I don't see the article in the link.

 

[CBMovie]

I don't see the article in the link.

Found it from the original poster. It was a link inside a link http://screenrant.com/ryan-reynolds-deadpool-green-latnern-2-sandy-126637/ Will update op.

 

[Kal-El.9859]

I didn't think Green Lantern was all that bad...just make a sequel more inline with the comics. I hate it when they reboot movie franchises after one or two movies and even worse, when they make a direct sequel to a movie and recast the main characters in the film...that gets on my nerves sooooo bad!!!

 

[Micromind]

I would not blame either Ryan Reynolds or Martin Campbell for the low box Office numbers, but poor writing and script problems plus the CGI look lot of time to get completed and even then they had to delete several key action scenes as they were not finished on time.

I would prefer Ryan Reynolds as Hal Jordan in the sequel instead of recasting Hal, and mark Strong as Sinestro is good.

I think there is still scope to make a better sequel.

 

[DCnightwing23]

Yeah i think it wasnt Reynolds fault, the guy can flat out act, watch Buried, that movie is so underrated and so good. I just think it was the writing, the story. Hopefully Reynolds returns, and bulked up (because he looking kinda scrawny in the movie) and he should be given more actually space cop scenes of him chasing down people on other planets.

 

[jmc]

Ultimately Ryan's gotta do what's best for him, GL failing might not be the career suicide that many thought would happen to him, but I dare say people close to him would be telling him to be wary of committing to a sequel.

 

[rayc1971]

he dont have to worry this bomb aint gettin a sequel thay will use john stewart in a justice league movie to make people forget about this turd then they might reboot after that with stewart or rayner

 

[Chris M]

The film didn't "bomb" or "fail". It broke even at the box office and Blu Ray/DVD sales are very strong.

 

[The Morningstar]

It didn't break even. Out of that 200 or so million WB see about 60% of it.

 

[Shadowlord X]

The film didn't "bomb" or "fail". It broke even at the box office and Blu Ray/DVD sales are very strong.

It was a total BOMB; a complete disaster.

It's total WW BO was $220 million, of that the studio only gets (~55%) $100 million. DVD sales have given about $50 million tops.

The production budget was $200 million and the marketing budget was ~ $150 million; TOTAL COST = $350

Income from BO and DVD = $150 million

Thus a $200 million LOSS!

That equates to BOMB!

 

[Chris M]

It was a total BOMB; a complete disaster.

It's total WW BO was $220 million, of that the studio only gets (~55%) $100 million. DVD sales have given about $50 million tops.

The production budget was $200 million and the marketing budget was ~ $150 million; TOTAL COST = $350

Income from BO and DVD = $150 million

Thus a $200 million LOSS!

That equates to BOMB!

Links to official sources to these figures including the 45% revenue discount for this film? Official sources please, I'm not interested in wasting my time reading guesswork from one of the thousands of armchair studio accountants on teh interwebz.

As far as I can see these "marketing budget estimates" have come from rival studios with a vested interest in running down the film, and the numbers are all over the place - and you also cherry picked the highest figure .

 

[KalMart]

Sequels should really go back to being something that's earned instead of an excuse or second chance....especially in these financial times. The only real reason to make a GL film to begin with was to hopefully find another popular franchise to take up the reigns after Harry Potter and Batman end. If it doesn't do well from the outset, then time to try something else...not put another 9-figure budget into something to salvage it.

Yeah, it's a shot to GL fan pride that he doesn't have a popular movie series like other characters...but so what? There'll always be comics and animation, and he's no less a comic character if he doesn't have movies, of all things.

 

[Chris M]

Sequels should really go back to being something that's earned instead of an excuse or second chance....especially in these financial times. The only real reason to make a GL film to begin with was to hopefully find another popular franchise to take up the reigns after Harry Potter and Batman end. If it doesn't do well from the outset, then time to try something else...not put another 9-figure budget into something to salvage it.

Yeah, it's a shot to GL fan pride that he doesn't have a popular movie series like other characters...but so what? There'll always be comics and animation, and he's no less a comic character if he doesn't have movies, of all things.

..and no matter how good the first one is, they all suck by the time they hit #3 anyway.

 

[KalMart]

..and no matter how good the first one is, they all suck by the time they hit #3 anyway.

Very difficult to avoid, and kinda' understandably so. Every movie is microcosm in which you pack so much, unlike episodic TV. So it's hard to have much to 'say' after a sequel that you didn't already try before.

 

[Chris M]

Very difficult to avoid, and kinda' understandably so. Every movie is microcosm in which you pack so much, unlike episodic TV. So it's hard to have much to 'say' after a sequel that you didn't already try before.

Thats a very good point.

You have to tell the hero's journey in the 1st film, knowing that it may be your one and only shot - so yeah it's hard to tell the hero's journey....again.

You can see the cracks already taking root in Iron Man 2 where they struggled to give Tony another personal mountain to climb and eventually came up with Daddy issues (ugh). I kinda understand why Favreau bailed before he found himself writing a story where Sandman killed Tony's parents.

 

[KangConquers]

It didn't break even. Out of that 200 or so million WB see about 60% of it.

Less than that. It's more like half. DVD sales they get a better percentage of, but nothing indicates that Green Lantern's dvd sales are strong enough to put this movie in the black.

The Hollywood reporter indicated that the movie needed to gross $500 Million worldwide to be considered a solid performer; the film did less than half of that. Frankly, I'm surprised anyone still believes there will be a sequel. A reboot in 5-10 years? Probably. But not a sequel.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Links to official sources to these figures including the 45% revenue discount for this film? Official sources please, I'm not interested in wasting my time reading guesswork from one of the thousands of armchair studio accountants on teh interwebz.

As far as I can see these "marketing budget estimates" have come from rival studios with a vested interest in running down the film, and the numbers are all over the place - and you also cherry picked the highest figure .

Blu-Ray and DVD as of late 2011:

DVD sales as of 2012:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2011/GLANT-DVD.php

How much WB made- Now this is always going to be near impossible to determine. But no matter how you slice it, even with WB keeping 100% of the revenue from cinemas. They still made a loss against production and marketing which equalled $300 Million.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=greenlantern.htm



Now, since Green Lantern is an untested property there's no chance there was ever a point WB got 100% of the returns. A more likely, and more frequent occurrence would be that WB made 75% opening weekend, 65% first week and second week and then less than 50% or less from the third and onwards as that is when it started to tank and it only goes downhill from there.

http://themovieblog.com/2007/10/eco...re-the-money-goes-and-why-it-costs-us-so-much


Odds are WB will have made around 50% of the total gross which would equal around $153 Million, which is a loss of $137 Million, including marketing.

 

[DaveMoral]

That sucks so hard. I'd really like to see where they'd go next and see them improve on the flaws of the first film.

WB did a piss poor job of selling GL frankly. The action figure line was a colossal failure as well. I think they really needed a push for GL before the film. GL TAS should have neen out first instead of following a movie like BTAS. But they haven't been doing so well getti g kids on board period for their properties of late anyway. Young Justice, for instance, is a great show but do kids watch it? They barely have any figures out for it and it's a primetime show. The most marketable characrers in the show dont even have figures on the shelves now, Superboy and Robin. I doubt they'll get that side together for GLTAS.

 

[dnno1]

Blu-Ray and DVD as of late 2011:

DVD sales as of 2012:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2011/GLANT-DVD.php

How much WB made- Now this is always going to be near impossible to determine. But no matter how you slice it, even with WB keeping 100% of the revenue from cinemas. They still made a loss against production and marketing which equalled $300 Million.

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=greenlantern.htm



Now, since Green Lantern is an untested property there's no chance there was ever a point WB got 100% of the returns. A more likely, and more frequent occurrence would be that WB made 75% opening weekend, 65% first week and second week and then less than 50% or less from the third and onwards as that is when it started to tank and it only goes downhill from there.

http://themovieblog.com/2007/10/eco...re-the-money-goes-and-why-it-costs-us-so-much


Odds are WB will have made around 50% of the total gross which would equal around $153 Million, which is a loss of $137 Million, including marketing.

Even though, this is data which is publicly available, there are other sources of revenue for this film that we are not really aware of or do not know. "Green Lantern" among other films is/was offered via streaming media through services like VUDU, Netflix, Amazon.com, YouTube, and others as well as PPV and on demand video. The could be either rented or purchased outright for the cost of a DVD. I am quite sure that this information is not listed and needs to be figured in to the equation. Also, you have to consider the fact that there were tax offsets for filming in New Orleans which would make the production costs seem less than advertised. I suspect that with the tax offset, they spent around $154 million on the picture, which would mean that they only needed to make around $275 million to break even.

Another thing to consider is the fact that the financing, production and distribution was all done by Warner Brothers, so they did not have to share any of the revenue with anyone else outside of the exhibitors (the theaters). The split between the distributor/exhibitor could be 90%/10% (after theater overhead is deducted) or 70%/30% (before theater overhead is deducted) during the first couple of weeks of release. Also, as far as marketing goes, a lot of those deals offered royalties to the studio since the licensed the brand with a retailer (the probably made $2.5 million on the toys that were sold by Mattel alone). It could very well be true that "Green Lantern" lost money (at least at the box office), but I don't believe that it lost $137 million. We really don't know all of the details as far as revenue is concerned.

 

[Micromind]

I know that GL was not a profitable movie and I will not present any argument to show that it has been doing well financially.

All that matters now is the perception of the Studio execs. - whether they think that a sequel has any potential or not, A sequel can be made for lot less budget than the first one, a different director can give the second GL movie a very different tone and feel to it, just like the sequel to GI Joe is different from the first one.

I think that many fans are interested in sequel to GL.

 

[KalMart]

Even though, this is data which is publicly available, there are other sources of revenue for this film that we are not really aware of or do not know. "Green Lantern" among other films is/was offered via streaming media through services like VUDU, Netflix, Amazon.com, YouTube, and others as well as PPV and on demand video. The could be either rented or purchased outright for the cost of a DVD. I am quite sure that this information is not listed and needs to be figured in to the equation. Also, you have to consider the fact that there were tax offsets for filming in New Orleans which would make the production costs seem less than advertised. I suspect that with the tax offset, they spent around $154 million on the picture, which would mean that they only needed to make around $275 million to break even.

Another thing to consider is the fact that the financing, production and distribution was all done by Warner Brothers, so they did not have to share any of the revenue with anyone else outside of the exhibitors (the theaters). The split between the distributor/exhibitor could be 90%/10% (after theater overhead is deducted) or 70%/30% (before theater overhead is deducted) during the first couple of weeks of release. Also, as far as marketing goes, a lot of those deals offered royalties to the studio since the licensed the brand with a retailer (the probably made $2.5 million on the toys that were sold by Mattel alone). It could very well be true that "Green Lantern" lost money (at least at the box office), but I don't believe that it lost $137 million. We really don't know all of the details as far as revenue is concerned.

Put it this way...there are movies where you know without looking that the studio made good money on...and the there are those like this where you have to search real hard to find out if they made anything. Generally, you don't raise a 9-figure investment for the latter.....and if you do, good luck on getting even half that for a sequel.

They're probably better off trying something else.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Even though, this is data which is publicly available, there are other sources of revenue for this film that we are not really aware of or do not know. "Green Lantern" among other films is/was offered via streaming media through services like VUDU, Netflix, Amazon.com, YouTube, and others as well as PPV and on demand video. The could be either rented or purchased outright for the cost of a DVD. I am quite sure that this information is not listed and needs to be figured in to the equation. Also, you have to consider the fact that there were tax offsets for filming in New Orleans which would make the production costs seem less than advertised. I suspect that with the tax offset, they spent around $154 million on the picture, which would mean that they only needed to make around $275 million to break even.

Another thing to consider is the fact that the financing, production and distribution was all done by Warner Brothers, so they did not have to share any of the revenue with anyone else outside of the exhibitors (the theaters). The split between the distributor/exhibitor could be 90%/10% (after theater overhead is deducted) or 70%/30% (before theater overhead is deducted) during the first couple of weeks of release. Also, as far as marketing goes, a lot of those deals offered royalties to the studio since the licensed the brand with a retailer (the probably made $2.5 million on the toys that were sold by Mattel alone). It could very well be true that "Green Lantern" lost money (at least at the box office), but I don't believe that it lost $137 million. We really don't know all of the details as far as revenue is concerned.

Actually, you're right, taking into account all public revenue and the tax credits from Louisiana roughly $30 million. Green Lantern's production loss is around $20 million, as $10 million was injected shortly before release, including the marketing budget, that's a loss of around $120 million. If there was anyway for WB to have made Green Lantern look better than it was, they would have, they know it flopped, very, very badly. There's no spin they can put on it to make it a success. The most conservative estimate is a loss of around $80-90 million.

 

[Dr.]

All that matters now is the perception of the Studio execs. - whether they think that a sequel has any potential or not, A sequel can be made for lot less budget than the first one, a different director can give the second GL movie a very different tone and feel to it, just like the sequel to GI Joe is different from the first one.

I think that many fans are interested in sequel to GL.

But these genre movies can’t be made for peanuts. Had GL been budgeted at $140M (the cost of Captain America – a bargain), it would still need to have earned $280M to break even. It didn’t even make that. So from WB’s perspective, there may not be an obvious, viable model for a sequel.

True, sometimes extenuating circumstances prevail. For example, Hellboy didn’t quite break even. But it was close; and the film earned good reviews and word-of-mouth. Apparently, the studio thought that – with a few tweaks – a successful sequel was possible.

But the case is very different for GL: big financial loss, abysmal reviews and little support from the fanbase. From any direction, it’s hard to rationalize a sequel.

 

[dnno1]

Actually, you're right, taking into account all public revenue and the tax credits from Louisiana roughly $30 million. Green Lantern's production loss is around $20 million, as $10 million was injected shortly before release, including the marketing budget, that's a loss of around $120 million. If there was anyway for WB to have made Green Lantern look better than it was, they would have, they know it flopped, very, very badly. There's no spin they can put on it to make it a success. The most conservative estimate is a loss of around $80-90 million.

I don't believe that the marketing budget was $135 million. Just in 2009 the average marketing costs were under $40 million for a film and we know that Green lantern was not marketed as well as say a films like "Thor", "Captain America: The First Avenger", and "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides", which all had Superbowl ads. The $120 million loss might be over inflated. Using the numbers that we know about, being 60 million short might be more realistic, although there is some unknown revenue that is not accounted for in new media.