Green Lantern Box Office Prediction Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
The only Green Lantern character Reynolds could've done justice is really Guy Gardner.

He ruined Hal Jordan. Hal Jordan is not a snarky smart-alec. He's not an immature man-child.

It felt like the studio tried to sell the whole, "it's not me thing" (but it is) and it failed to really work.
 
Geez, this could be a Brand new chapter in the Marvel vs DC war.

They said "rival studios", but it didn't say that they included Marvel Studio. I don't think it means there's a Marvel vs DC war at all.
 
Who's to blame really doesn't matter anymore, what's done is done, the film didn't hit the heights it needed to and the rest of DC's stable of second tier characters will suffer because of it. :(
 
It's a shame really. If the guys in charge had some actual vision to cast a real actor that could actually play Hal Jordan instead of the flavor of the month, we could've had a franchise here. I think the first weekend proves that. They figure, OMG Ryan Reynolds is a big hit with The Proposal so he's got to play Hal Jordan now.

Reynolds generally isn't that bankable of a star anyway. And he didn't try hard enough to not be Ryan Reynolds here.
 
Reynolds is pretty much the only thing that is consistantly praised about this movie VileOne. Although most of that praise is "it wasn't his fault" lol.

But it wasn't his fault. Reynolds didn't ruin this movie. Reynolds did his best with an appaling script. You could have put James Dean in this movie and it would have still been terrible.
 
The problem is the budget, as GL is way more expensive than either Thor or FC released this year. Therefore, naturally it is under more pressure to make money than these two. Superman Returns made tons of money, but due to its high budget it was perceived as a disappointment by WB, hence the reason for the reboot.
yeah WB wanted to make the sequel and i guess Singer hoped to do the sequel. but things got complicated. very complicated :awesome:
 
BB had to overcome that abortion that was B&R - probably too soon to re-launch, and we've seen that evidence from TIH doing it too soon (that was a good film). Spider-man and Ghost Rider could have similar fate being so soon, I can't wait for DD though...

Ghost Rider isn't really a relaunch, it's more of a requel (reboot/sequel).
 
Deadline says that GL was "unable to meet even the studio's lowered expectation for North America." Anyone know what WB predicted?

I know Marvel expected Thor at 55 mil so I'm guessing studios usually give the media a lower number in case of a film under performing.
 
I imagine WB expected, or hoped, that GL would get 70-80 million OW. It's budget is huge, and it has serious competition coming up.
 
Early predictions for next week are looking like Cars 2 at 80+ mil and GL at 25 mil. If that happens, which it would prolly will, it will be a back breaker for non batman/superman DC flicks.
 
Deadline says that GL was "unable to meet even the studio's lowered expectation for North America." Anyone know what WB predicted?

I know Marvel expected Thor at 55 mil so I'm guessing studios usually give the media a lower number in case of a film under performing.

I believe the official WB projection was 58.



We all know why this underpeformed. It was a coordinated attack by John Stewart and Kyle Rayner fans to undermind Hal Jordan!!!!:awesome:
 
This is what DC gets for opening a 300 mil$ movie on the 14th anniversary weekend of Batman & Robin.:grin:
 
:funny:

Na, this is what happens when you spend 300 million on a steaming pile of a movie.
 
wow a 53 million opening with 3D lol

X Men opened at 55 million with no 3D
 
I'll laugh if Super 8 with good legs ends up making more money than GL domestically, HARD.
 
How much are the negative reviews going to effect Green Lantern’s profits?


With Green Lantern’s release this week amongst mostly negative reviews, does it stand a chance at the box office? It would not bode well for future DC comic book movies if this movie bombs. But historically, does the quality of the comic book movies affect their ability to make money?
lantern2.jpg


With plans of a Justice League movie in the future, DC is banking on their first big non-Batman/Superman movie to make money at the box office. Early reviews for the film are overwhelmingly negative and this could potentially derail GL’s money making ability. However, it is not unheard of for bad comic book movies to make money. This got me thinking and I took a look back historically at the quality of comic book movies and their profits.


Before you crucify me for it, let me explain my ranking of ‘quality’. This might not be popular but I am going to use a movie’s rating on rotten tomatoes. These ratings have aggregated many different people’s views on a movie and put it into one quantifiable number. It may not be perfect, and I may not personally agree with all of the ratings, but overall I think that these provide a general ballpark of how good or bad a film was. For comparison’s sake, GL’s current rating on rotten tomatoes is 24%.
box%20office2.png


As you can see, as a general rule, the better your film is; the better chance it has of making money. The films that have been really good, The Dark Night, Spider-man 2, and Iron Man all have rating over 90% and have made a combined $1.8 million in profits. These movies get all of the comic book fans out for multiple viewings and draws in a huge amount of the general public.

There are some films that go against this grain though. Some films that are quite good don’t end up making money. Take Scott Pilgram for example. A very good movie that did not make any money. Or the Hellboy series, both good movies that did not make money at the proportionate quality-to-profits ratios at the other on this list. These movies, despite their quality, never quite make it onto the public radar and sometimes do not even bring in all of the comicbook fans out there. These characters are relatively unknown to the general public and were not able generate huge profits.

There are many movies that go against the trend the other way. Movies that are not very good, but for a number of reasons manage to still make a lot of money. The best example of these types of movies is X-Men Origins: Wolverine and Spider-man 3. Both of these movies were disliked by critics and fans but still managed to make a lot of money. They were recognisable characters with the general public and people were drawn to these movies regardless of the films quality.

With many of these films, most of the people on this site and others like it are going to go see them regardless of quality, because all of the characters are recognisable to us and we are fans of them. We are almost a guaranteed audience, and I am very okay with that. As long as they keep making movies based on these characters I am going to go see them. However, if they want to make a lot more money, they have to get the general public out, as this audience is going to differ based on the quality of the film and the recognition and fan base of the character.

How does Green Lantern fare under these circumstances? The film, (which I have not seen yet) does not appear to be very good based on the RT scale. So the chances of it making a huge amount of money are limited, as the general public will not be going in huge numbers due to negative word of mouth. GL has a limited built-in fanbase. Green Lantern has never been in a feature film before and has not been in any previous live-action form. He has many comic book fans who will be seeing the movie regardless of its quality due their regard for the character, however, I do not think he is very-well known to the general public. However, WB has done an excellent job of marketing this film all across multiple forms of media. This may have made him a familiar enough face across the world and built up enough anticipation to overcome the negative reviews.

As of Saturday morning, the film had made 21.6 million on Monday and was on pace to make $57 million over the weekend (as per boxofficemojo.com). So the marketing campaign may have been enough to make this film some profit, but I doubt we will see it making huge numbers.

Looking back, history has shown us that some movies that aren’t great still manage to make some money. But overall, the better you make your film, the more money it will make you. I hope Green Lantern does well enough to warrant a sequel and an expanded DC film universe. But I also hope its underwhelming success serves as a lesson to studios that you have an opportunity to make a lot more money if you make a higher quality movie, and then we all win; fans and studios alike.

Gandalf

Gandalf
6/18/2011


http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/gandalf/news/?a=39787
 
Looks like I'll be giving this a miss, times are tight and there are plenty of other films out there that aren't by all accounts a steaming pile of ****.
 
The only Green Lantern character Reynolds could've done justice is really Guy Gardner.

He ruined Hal Jordan. Hal Jordan is not a snarky smart-alec. He's not an immature man-child.

It felt like the studio tried to sell the whole, "it's not me thing" (but it is) and it failed to really work.

Who'd you have in mind?
 
What I want to know is where this Greg Berlanti guy even came from, and why he went from being a nobody to being entrusted with not only writing Green Lantern but Flash as well. What did some Warner Bros. exec see in this guy that made him suddenly say "This guy is the new talent of the century! I want him on ever big budget project we can put him in, ASAP!" It's like giving someone the keys to the Camaro before they've even brought back the Mustang, or betting everything on a horse that hasn't even run a race yet.

My skepticism towards Berlanti's description of Flash as "Silence of the Lambs meets The Matrix" now seems all the more justified. He took Green Lantern, which should have been serious, and made it too goofy, and he wants to take Flash, which should be at least a little goofy, and make it dead serious. The guy clearly is in over his head, and yet somewhere I bet a WB exec is patting him on the back and saying "Don't worry, you're doing just fine. You'll get the hang of it in no time!" It's like the Wachowski brothers all over again, but at least the Wachowski Bros. made a hit movie before Warner Bros. started bending over backwards to accommodate them. Berlanti is just some schmo they suddenly decided should be world class screenplay writer, and I haven't a clue as to what made them decide that.

I believe Martin Campbell was actually the last one to take pen to paper on the drafts.
 
"Silence of the Lambs meets The Matrix" is just about the dumbest premise I've ever heard of for a mainstream superhero movie. That's serious WTF territory there.
 
Of course Marvel is enjoing the negative buzz around GL and pumping out the bad reviews . I expect nothing less from the studio who fired Edward Norton
 
Sorry guys... it's already dying on day 2. Kiss the sequel goodbye.
 
Sorry guys... it's already dying on day 2. Kiss the sequel goodbye.

Last I heard (on Friday) WB is still planning on moving ahead with the sequel, they just aren't in a rush to do so.

What really surprised me is that they expected this predicament (at least over the past two weeks) and are still positive about the overall BO take from the film. Their projection must be a lot lower than anyone thinks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"