Green Lantern: Grading, Review, Discuss, Tracking, Sequel?

[StarTrek1701]

T'Baio wrote:

---

I expect people will be dropping in on this and calling it a massive financial fail like they did with X-Men: First Class?

Calling a spade a spade? Absolutely.

[davejames]

Agent Richard07 wrote:

---

I thought it looked fantastic. It didn't look fake to me, it looked like another ring construct, which it was. I think they made the right decision in making it CGI. Actually, at times, I wondered if they were using a latex costume since parts of the outfit did look like real material in a few scenes.

Agreed. I had major doubts at first, but watching the suit in action I thought it looked great, and really helped sell the magic and wonder of this world. Plus it just felt unique.

Still don't like the design of the mask though. Of all the possible shapes they could have used, they somehow found the ugliest and most unflattering one.

[davejames]

BTW did anybody else get the teaser for the new Bruce Timm cartoon series before the movie? I thought it looked awesome. Character design was straight out of early BTAS.

[Agenda]

Given that there is more competition and fewer viewers these days, I think you need openings nearing $100M for these massive budget tent pole films to make a profit. Transformers will open soon and that'll be it for GL's chances.

[Professor Zoom]

I think this is interesting, from Box Office Mojo.

This weekend, Green Lantern's light was more red than green, but the comic book adaptation still drew an estimated $52.7 million on approximately 7,200 screens at 3,816 locations.

Green Lantern's start landed behind X-Men: First Class's $55.1 million and Thor's $65.7 million. It was also less than The Incredible Hulk and the two Fantastic Four movies, and the attendance disparity was even greater. Green Lantern's estimated attendance was even lower than Daredevil and Ghost Rider.

3D presentations at 2,711 locations accounted for 45 percent of Green Lantern's gross. The 3D share was close to Kung Fu Panda 2 and Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides but down from Thor's 60 percent. Distributor Warner Bros.' exit polling indicated that 64 percent of Green Lantern's audience was male and 63 percent was over 25 years old (19 percent was under 18).

3D was less that HALF of the box office. Which is interesting to me. Wasn't it filmed FOR 3D, unlike the upconverted Thor? Perhaps the upconversions--which aren't that great--are spoiling the well for those filmed in 3D. 3D is already an added expense, and if it's not worth it....

But, the attendance being lower than those other movies... that's not good. Especially with the amount of advertising. I'm getting a little sick of all the GL stuff I'm seeing.

[Captain Craig]

Samurai8472 wrote:

---

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/ente...-penguins.html

Even the expectation of 55 million was out of reach.

The 'light' of GL's diminishing potential has been unspooling over the last 50+ hrs.
After the Thur midnights did $100K better than Thor the hope was that GL might just pan out decent. Then the Fri estimates hit and it was less than XM:FC, but no panic just yet. Saturday tracking of Twitter showed a fairly high number of negative comments, then early this morning, early, the Sat estimates hit and showed the large drop. Now midday full estimates have been revised from $60m --> $55m ---> $52.7m

I will not be shocked if once Monday afternoon hits the weekend actuals indicate something like $51.8m

I knew it was mediocre and the comic fan in me is disappointed by this but not surprised. The movie just never recovered from the poor late November rushed trailer. ComicCon's reaction had nothing to this, the masses saw that November trailer and the marketing team was behind the 8-ball.

Professor Zoom wrote:

---

I think this is interesting, from Box Office Mojo.

But, the attendance being lower than those other movies... that's not good. Especially with the amount of advertising. I'm getting a little sick of all the GL stuff I'm seeing.

Lower attendance not only than THOR & X-Men:FC, which this summer sold nearly identical tickets but less than Daredevil and Ghost Rider. Which aside from being 5 yrs ago were late winter movies, not summer.

There is no good spin to this except that for the next 5 days the marketing team better push "Weekends #1 movie" hard.

[JoeZhang]

Yeah - the revenue figures are better because of higher 3d ticket prices - the attendance figures don't look good.

[Warped9]

I winder how many folks might be like me. I'm not interested in paying extra to see this in 3D. I'd rather see it in 2D. And since there is no 2d showing in my area I'll have to wait for dvd release.

[JoeZhang]

Warped9 wrote:

---

I winder how many folks might be like me. I'm not interested in paying extra to see this in 3D. I'd rather see it in 2D. And since there is no 2d showing in my area I'll have to wait for dvd release.

That seems to be cutting into box office as it appears that the novelty of 3D has worn off and people are being a lot more selective about what they will pay the extra brass for (I was reading an article about it earlier, I'll see if I can dig it out...)

[Professor Zoom]

Warped9 wrote:

---

I winder how many folks might be like me. I'm not interested in paying extra to see this in 3D. I'd rather see it in 2D. And since there is no 2d showing in my area I'll have to wait for dvd release.

there's 2D ion my area, I'll probably see a matinee this week.

[Samurai8472]

Beyond Antares wrote:

---

Transformers will open soon and that'll be it for GL's chances.

"Cars 2" will eat at it

"Transformers 3" will finish it off

In two weeks "Green Lantern" will probably be making 10 to 15 million or less

[Caretaker]

As far as I could determine, Green Lantern was upconverted. It showed - the only thing that stuck out as truly 3D were

Parallax in the warehouse

and

Hal and Tomar's flight on Oa

. I also saw Thor in 3D - I thought it's 3D was weak, but Green Lantern's was far weaker. Hollywood needs to make a decision with each film: film it in 3D or don't do 3D at all. No more half-assing (read: converting) it.

I think Blake Lively was miscast - I don't know, something about the way she played it, I didn't buy, at least in the first half of the film. I hope there's a sequel film - but they may need to pull a The Dark Knight and recast the role of Carol. The film also should have made some references to the DC universe (something like, "It was also easier for Ferris to win the contract now that Wayne Enterprises is out of the defense business," or "Maybe we should we working with Luthorcorp" - similar to the Metropolis reference in Batman Forever) - even if they won't be in the same "universe." I also would have loved to see references to the other human Lanterns (Stewart, Gardner, Rayner and Scott).

Regaring the secret identity issue:

That being said, I loved the way they pulled a Smallville with the "secret identity" situation. Lois is a smart woman; the glasses thing just don't make sense that she wouldn't see through it. The same with the very smart Carol regarding Hal's Mardi Gras mask.

I wish we had more time spent with some of the other GLs, other than Kilowag and Tomar-Re. Maybe in the sequels. I've also imagined Hal as slightly older and more mature, at least from all the other incarnations that I've seen. But that would come with time (and, again, sequels). And, I would have focused on Hammond with this story and let the Parallax thing be an impending threat that would arrive a film or two down the road.

Peter Sarsgaard was great in this movie.

Overall, despite my problems with the film, I enjoyed it. I will probably see it again at some point. It had more highs than lows. Maybe next time, less cooks (or writers) in the kitchen.

[Professor Zoom]

Caretaker wrote:

---

As far as I could determine, Green Lantern was upconverted.

I hate upconverted. Alice in Wonderland's 3D was shit, big waste of money. Didn't help the movie sucked too.

[Captain Craig]

JoeZhang wrote:

---

That seems to be cutting into box office as it appears that the novelty of 3D has worn off and people are being a lot more selective about what they will pay the extra brass for (I was reading an article about it earlier, I'll see if I can dig it out...)

Agreed.
The tracking of 3-D films with % of gross coming from 3-D has been on a downward decline for the last 9+months since Alice in Wonderland in 2010.

The peak being Avatar where some 80% of its gross came from 3-D showings. A few months later Alice was in the mid 70%...then the glut of 3-D over the past 2010 year. It's continued to slide. Green Hornet was something in the upper 50%, Thor about in the mid-50%.

Green Lantern's estimated $52.7m take had only 45% of it's gross from 3-D showings(3rd paragraph). People either opting out for 2-D or staying home if it's not an available option. So much so that analysis indicates Disney likely lost money by having too many 3-D showings cause 2-D showings of POTC:4 sold out when 3-D options in the same theater weren't at capacity.

[Trekker4747]

I find it interesting that The Green Lanterns think that lame little mask is so great at "protecting identity" when it's just a lame eye-covering mask.