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

[MessiahDecoy123]

I always thought he was a piss poor choice for Hal Jordan. I wouldn't be sad if the role was recast, not even a little bit.

 

[ThanosOfTitans]

I always thought he was a piss poor choice for Hal Jordan. I wouldn't be sad if the role was recast, not even a little bit.

I agree. It seems Hollywood wants to make him the next "it" guy, but I don't see it happening. Nice body, cute face, but I really have 0 interest in this guy.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

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.

I never once to my recollection said the marketing budget was $135 million, if I did, I mistyped. It was $100 million:

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=653928&mpc=2

 

[SimbaRises]

Terrible film, corny character / mythology, you should've stayed away from the start Ryan ... at least you learned your lesson now.

 

[Chris M]

I never once to my recollection said the marketing budget was $135 million, if I did, I mistyped. It was $100 million:

http://movies.msn.com/movies/article.aspx?news=653928&mpc=2

Seen this link before - doesn't quote it's source.

Most marketing estimates are myths. This $100 Million figure has been attributed to "sources from rival studios".

Turth is that these days people follow cult films so closely that they make up their minds whether they like a film before it's realeased. Then some people need to prove that it failed so they just plain make up numbers to justify how much it sucked. The "marketing budget" gets used every time.

Unless there's an official source then it's just more interwebz speculation (or just plain BS)

 

[Project862006]

my problem with Ryan is when he does serious roles he still carries that comedic aura with him kind of hard to explain

for example watch chris evans in F4 then watch him in CA

completely different personas

ryan not so much

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

my problem with Ryan is when he does serious roles he still carries that comedic aura with him kind of hard to explain

for example watch chris evans in F4 then watch him in CA

completely different personas

ryan not so much

This I can totally agree with. Chris is also known as a comedy type actor after doing the likes of the FF movies, Push, Scott Pilgrim and The Losers, all serious movies, but with comedic elements, especially from Chris's characters. Ryan Reynolds is pretty much known for the same, but Chris lost himself in his role of Cap, Reynolds still seemed like Reynolds playing Hal.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Seen this link before - doesn't quote it's source.

Most marketing estimates are myths. This $100 Million figure has been attributed to "sources from rival studios".

Turth is that these days people follow cult films so closely that they make up their minds whether they like a film before it's realeased. Then some people need to prove that it failed so they just plain make up numbers to justify how much it sucked. The "marketing budget" gets used every time.

Unless there's an official source then it's just more interwebz speculation (or just plain BS)

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Green+lantern+100+million+on+marketing#seen

You know there isn't actually a single source on the web that states the production budget? But Boxoffice mojo still states it at $200 million. Doesn't make it wrong. Considering the ENTIRE Internet and news outlet knows about this, there's no need to correct them. Warner Brothers would put any spin on this to make it look like a success, hence they only ever list the production budget so it looks like it at least made what it cost. But it failed in every sense of the word. Monumentally and colossally.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

More to the point... does this movie even deserve a sequel? I'd argue NO.

I say let the character breathe for 4-5 years on the big screen and then try to bring him back. The character now has a stigma about him now that will be hard to shake.

I get the sense that both Campbell and Reynolds don't want to have much to do with the character now anyway. The only real loss from this movies failure is Mark Strong.

 

[Chris M]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Green+lantern+100+million+on+marketing#seen

Not sure what this is beyond a link to an Iphone app adverisement? If you were trying to be cute it failed.

Considering the ENTIRE Internet and news outlet knows about this, there's no need to correct them

Correction isn't warranted when a claim is unproven. The production budget figures are consistent. The marketing budget "estimates" on the other hand are all over the place. There's every need for someone to prove a claim if they want credibility. Just because lots of people choose to gossip about a rumour doen't make it true.

But it failed in every sense of the word. Monumentally and colossally.

Thats your opinion. And your bias.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Not sure what this is beyond a link to an Iphone adverisement?

Correction isn't warranted when a claim is unproven. There's every need for someone to prove a claim if they want credibility. Just because lots of people choose to gossip about a rumour doen't make it true.

LMGTFY has let me down. Google "Green Lantern $100 million on marketing". Along with Internet movie sites, more legitimate news media outlets, for example, the New York Times reported that. To report false news would require a retraction. You aren't allowed to report lies in the news, you're just not, you can make it as bias as possible, like Fox News. But you can't lie. No, retraction= no lie. Along with noretraction there is no statement from WB to state the production budget.


By the same token, I know a guy at DCE, Green Lantern had a budget of $10 million and was a huge success. The sequel is being made right now.

If what I just said was on a news outlet and reported, I'd be contacted about it, like Chris was from WB and others about The Dark Knight Rises.

Thats your opinion. And your bias.

Well, I am usually biased towards the truth.

 

[Dr.]

This LATimes article says that the average marketing cost of a film in 2007 was $37M. And in 2009, several big budget films had worldwide marketing costs in the $100M range (each).

So the reports and speculation that GL’s marketing (in 2011) was $100M sound entirely plausible (given its putative tentpole status and enormous production budget).

In any case, the point is somewhat moot. Even if it cost $0 to market, GL still bombed.

 

[dnno1]

LMGTFY has let me down. Google "Green Lantern $100 million on marketing". Along with Internet movie sites, more legitimate news media outlets, for example, the New York Times reported that. To report false news would require a retraction. You aren't allowed to report lies in the news, you're just not, you can make it as bias as possible, like Fox News. But you can't lie. No, retraction= no lie. Along with noretraction there is no statement from WB to state the production budget.


By the same token, I know a guy at DCE, Green Lantern had a budget of $10 million and was a huge success. The sequel is being made right now.

If what I just said was on a news outlet and reported, I'd be contacted about it, like Chris was from WB and others about The Dark Knight Rises.




Well, I am usually biased towards the truth.

Um. there was a court case that ruled that a news outlet could legitimately lie. Google Wison and Akre vs. Fox Television (or Akre vs. New World Communications of Tampa, Inc.). This so called "law" that a media outlet can not falsify information (or essentialy lie) is not a published law or regulation by the FCC, but rather a policy, which is not a law or a rule at all, so it is not really enforceable. Hence, media outlets can legitimately lie without recourse.

 

[Micromind]

Since Thor and Cap. America were heavily marketed movies, and Thor had a super bowl spot, I think that both movies had a marketing budget near 80 mil. or more.

Consider

Captain America.
Production Budget : $ 140 mil.


Cap. earned about: $368,608 mil. World wide, if we take 50 % as money earned by studios it is = $ 184.4.

Now subtract the marketing and: 184.4 mil. - 80 mil = $ 104.4 mil.



So, it was not as succesful as many would believe.

_____________________________________________________

Similarly for THOR:

Production Budget: $ 150 mil.

Worldwide Collection: $449,326 mil.

50 % earnings to Studio: $ 225 mil (approx.)

Marketing costs: $ 80 mil.

Subtracting Marketing Costs,

$ 225 mil - 80 mil. = $ 145 mil.

So, it probably just made back its production budget, that is not exactly sign of mega sucess either.

Now, I am not saying that GL was financially sucessful, it was not, but other movie are unfairly tagged as rather "Super Succesful" movies which they are not.

 

[The Morningstar]

No one has claimed Thor or Cap are super successful. And if they did, they're idiots. But they were successes. And the size of their marketing campaigns came nowhere near GLs, which was frankly, laughably desperate.

I mean, who can forget the Officially licensed Green Lantern Colostomy Bags! I will never ever forget that. It's just so hilariously awful.

 

[Llama_Shepherd]

Um. there was a court case that ruled that a news outlet could legitimately lie. Google Wison and Akre vs. Fox Television (or Akre vs. New World Communications of Tampa, Inc.). This so called "law" that a media outlet can not falsify information (or essentialy lie) is not a published law or regulation by the FCC, but rather a policy, which is not a law or a rule at all, so it is not really enforceable. Hence, media outlets can legitimately lie without recourse.

I never said there was legislation. It's a convention. Lying in the news is [url="http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Libel+and+Slander=] Libel or slander[/url] and Warner could take legal action and sue. They haven't, so there is no libel or slander.

 

[HighFivingMF]

I mean, who can forget the Officially licensed Green Lantern Colostomy Bags! I will never ever forget that. It's just so hilariously awful.

Those were drinking pouches that someone referred to as a colostomy bag to make a yellow pee joke.

 

[dnno1]

I never said there was legislation. It's a convention. Lying in the news is Libel or slander and Warner could take legal action and sue. They haven't, so there is no libel or slander.

You said that they would be required to give a retraction (as if there were a law mandating them to do so). The truth of the matter is that there is no law requiring any media outlet to put a retraction for a false claim. Good luck with a libel lawsuit since that would only stick if the printed material was defamatory to the plaintiff, and I don't see where giving the wrong figure about a marketing cost could defame a company right off. Suffice it to say that the facts are that up until 2007 the average marketing costs were about $30 to $40 million. Sure, the LA Times claims to have gotten from some unnamed source writhing 1.2 billion was spent on marketing on 12 major films, but when you see that the MPAA basically gave up on keeping those numbers due to their inaccuracy, that puts that statement into question. If libel were a really concrete threat, you would see more lawsuits against film critics. They seem to have done more damage to film studios than a false statement about a marketing cost.

 

[CLARKY]

I liked this movie pretty much. I do not see it as a "fail". Sure, if it has lost money it is a commercial "fail" but well, since a while now, I stopped taking this into consideration. The movie was good. That said, a lot of thingswere wrong or just not well done, or weird. I hope the next movie improves about this. But let's be fair,a lot of things were great in this movie.
I keep thinking Ryan Reynolds was not the guy for it. He absolutely wanted to play a comics hero, here it is.

 

[Vaibow]

If man of steel is a success, I can see in 2015 a justice league film! With Nolan at the helm or at least producing! Start off with green lantern out in space, a threat is revealed, headed to earth! Supes and green lantern come together, with batman behind the scenes helping, cameo of Martian manhunter, then the flash and wonder woman revealing themselves! To have an epic show down!

 

[The Morningstar]

Chris Nolan directing a movie like JLA is the worst idea imaginable.