|
|
Post by X on Jun 19, 2011 18:41:20 GMT -5
So the numbers from the box office sure look pretty lousy for GL's opening weekend... It pulled in an estimated $52.7 million. For comparisons sake, X-Men: First Class opened at around $55 million, while Thor debuted with $66 million. Early reports say that attendance numbers were lower than Daredevil and Ghost Rider... Let THAT sink in for a moment! Less people went to see Green Lantern than DAREDEVIL!!!
To be honest, I'm pretty pleased by this news. NOW maybe DC will stop with their obsession with Silver Age characters...
|
|
|
|
Post by JT on Jun 19, 2011 18:51:05 GMT -5
Damn... Daredevil and Ghost Rider?! Lmao. And sadly I bet they just move on the the Flash, with some blond d-bag playing Barry Allen.
|
|
|
|
Post by dief88 on Jun 19, 2011 19:00:27 GMT -5
$52 million is a pretty good number. It's not as good as Thor, obviously, but it's still solid and like you said, it's about the same as X-Men: First Class. The real question is whether it'll continue to make money, the way Thor has. If business drops off after this first week, GL will lose Warner Bros. a lot of money. But so far, it's safe to say it's succeeding financially.
|
|
|
|
Post by X on Jun 19, 2011 19:01:29 GMT -5
You KNOW they HAD to be planning a Saint Barry/Flash movie! Maybe this will change their minds... Anyway, for a Modern Age Dc fan like myself? This is a GOOD day. ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by X on Jun 19, 2011 19:04:24 GMT -5
IDK, Marc. That film cost an estimated $200 million. Getting about 1/4 of that on their opening weekend isn't very good, especially since business is going to drop off incrementally with every week. Add the poor reviews on top of a mild opening, and I'd think reaching that $200 million is going to be a real chore...
|
|
|
|
Post by X on Jun 19, 2011 19:10:58 GMT -5
Huh, I actually might be off, I've seen some reports say that the movie cost $300 million! That's a pretty deep hole to climb out of...
|
|
|
|
Post by JT on Jun 19, 2011 19:29:35 GMT -5
Lmao... damn. That's a LOT of cash, and if so they've only made back a sixth of that... if my math is correct, which it very well may not be.  |
|
|
|
Post by dief88 on Jun 19, 2011 19:58:38 GMT -5
I didn't realize it was so damn expensive. If it had been made for a normal superhero-movie budget ($130-150 million), it would have been fine. Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer and Incredible Hulk both opened on Father's Day Weekend (in 2007 and 2008, respectively), and they made about the same amount as Green Lantern in their opening weekends. Business for both fell off by about 70% in their second weeks, but they still managed to make back their cost in the US, with about $100-120 million more overseas.
So both of those movies made around $250 million total, and they were profitable because they were made for about $100 million less than that. They weren't runaway hits like Spider-Man 3 or anything, but they at least turned a profit. Green Lantern looks like it's on the same financial path as those movies, but yeah, since it cost so much more there's little chance of it even breaking even at this point.
|
|
|
|
Post by X on Jun 19, 2011 22:39:23 GMT -5
Yeah, I googled "Green Lantern cost" and $300 mil was the figure that seemed to keep coming up. There was an LA Times article saying over $200 mil to produce, throw in marketing and such and I'd think between $200 and $300 is a fair guess. But yeah, that's A LOT of green to make that movie! WB is hoping for a big middle of the week with school letting out and stuff, but with such poor reviews, idk...
|
|
|
|
Post by DemonHunterCole on Jun 20, 2011 1:35:02 GMT -5
Personally, I think this movie would have made way more money, except DC went and did something really stupid three weeks ago. They announced their reboot. That immediately stopped me from wanting to see it. WTF is the point of seeing a movie when in 3 months, Hal Jordan could be completely and utterly different. There is just no point. If it had not been for the announcement of the reboot, I think that the movie would have made way more money.
And speaking of Daredevil and Ghostrider, I personally loved both movies. They might not have fit the comics perfectly, but they both helped increase my love of comics.
|
|
|
|
Post by X on Jun 20, 2011 11:38:29 GMT -5
Hmm, I didn't even think about that... I mean I could see how that might dissuade comic fans who were on the fence about it from checking it out. Add the poor reviews and the fact that outside real comic fans(ie: us!), how many people really know or care about Green Lantern, and you're looking at recipe for disaster.
Personally(yep, here I go again!), I feel the wrong Green Lantern was put in the lead. Like many of DC's Silver Age heroes, Hal's not a very interesting character. He's a test pilot... And that's about all I can think of. I still say Kyle was the way to go. He has that Spider-Man-esque banter that he'll use, as well as the whole reluctant hero thing going on. Add the fact that he always seems to get his girlfriends killed, and you have a more dynamic character. But Hal Jordan is Green Lantern is Hal Jordan is Green Lantern, so yeah.
|
|
|
|
Post by DemonHunterCole on Jun 21, 2011 1:10:19 GMT -5
My opionion differs from you X. I had no qualms about Hal being the Green Lantern in the first movie as it's the introduction to the Green Lanterns. It would be like having a Captain America movie focusing on Bucky as Cap instead of Steve Rodgers. Granted, Kyle has been a GL longer than Bucky was Cap, but Steve and Hal were the first of their kind. I think a franchise should always start at the beginning and not the middle.
On another note, I was kinda annoyed that they used Ryan Reynolds as he was also Deadpool, but I was going to look past it. It just shocked me that they couldn't find someone else to use, but whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by X on Jun 26, 2011 23:33:02 GMT -5
So for weekend #2? Green Lantern pulled in a STAGGERING $18.5 million... That's only a drop of 65%... Hey, that's not TOO bad, right? And yes, if there was a sarcasm key I could press, I'd be pressing it like crazy right now! Jeez, a drop of 65%... That's really bad... Ouch. So that's a total of $89.3 million on a film that cost between $200 and $300 to make... With the money continuing to fall off as weeks progress... Heh heh heh... ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by X on Jul 3, 2011 22:48:41 GMT -5
I'm now mainly doing this simply to amuse myself... Anyway, for week #3, Green Lantern pulled in an astounding, spectacular, miraculous $6.3 million dollars!!! That means that GL dropped ANOTHER 65.2% from last week and has made a grand total of $102 million dollars in three weeks time... For a movie that took between $200 and $300 mil to make... Heh heh heh...
The thing that really amazes me is the fact the WB has apparently okayed work on a sequel! I mean jeez, there are WAY better ways to squander $200-$300 million dollars then continuing to pump out movies starring sucky characters that people don't care about! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by JT on Jul 3, 2011 23:44:35 GMT -5
Lol that's pretty sad, the only sucky thing is I actually like Ryan Reynolds but yeah, I can't say I'm surprised it isn't making money, but hell, DC will make that back during the first week of Batman 3..
|
|
