Marwood
Posts: 2615
Joined: 1/10/2005
From: Only The Shadow knows
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rob
quote:
ORIGINAL: Marwood
quote:
ORIGINAL: Rob
Even as a fan of the film there's no denying it disappointed at the box office and was savaged by critics.
However, I liked it and there are some glimmers of hope to be had. Firstly it has only just opened in some major foreign territories so that should push the final box office to nearer £200 million which is break even (less the marketing push). Obviously this is still nowhere near what WB would have wanted but they could see it as an investment required to get the character out there. Secondly the film was nowhere near as bad as the critics would have people believe and I think a lot of the fans know that meaning they would give the sequel a chance.
Still it would be a brave executive to order a sequel but I hope they do. And let's face it WB are hardly struggling for cash!
In your opinion. I don't think critics and audience/fan reviews say it sucks just for the hell of it.
It does seem like existing fans have given it more of a chance and are overall less savage or more forgiving but regardless the general audiences and critics seem to have given it a big thumbs down through attendance and reviews and that's really where it needs an actual thumbs up.
Also yes WB are hardly struggling for cash but unless the film actually does make them a profit then what incentive do they have for making a sequel? Like it or not the films are products and if they don't sell then the manufacturers will stop making them. If it had gained a strong positive critical reaction or becomes a cult hit then that goes some way to help a sequel but overall the film has been a failure critically and commercially so far.
I think you're right that the box office could get a boost from foreign territories and again I think maybe the film could do well on DVD/Blu - arguably in a crowded summer it may have suffered in cinemas because of the heavy hitters. While it opened before it I think Transformers 3 was always going to be a problem and swallow up potential GL business, that's probably one reason it faded away after a decent opening weekend.
While I think GL looked poor from the get go I'm still interested in how it plays out because the settings and concepts are genuinely different from what we've seen from superhero films so far and have a lot of potential. Just seems WB have fumbled it by making something more generic or played it too safe, it's the same criticism Marvel have been getting for Thor and Cap but both of them have managed to overcome it with more positive reviews/word of mouth and in Thor's case a worldwide haul just shy of half a billion. Cap probably won't do as well as Thor when all is said and done but is still set to outperform Lantern by a significant amount so it's swings and roundabouts at the moment.
I certainly don't want to turn this into another Superman Returns debate and I agree it underperformed, was savaged by the critics and the general attendance was poor. However, it had an OK opening meaning fans were keen to see it despite dismal reviews. It also has much better user scores / reviews on Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB than the critics scores / reviews meaning that perhaps it wasn't as bad as the critics would have you believe.I'm not saying it's a masterpiece - it's not. I'm not saying it's a great film - it's not but did I see enough to make me interested in a sequel - absolutely!
My comment about WB having enough money was actually tongue-in-cheek but it depends on how they view it. Firstly I'm aware that it's a product and it's about the bottom line but sometimes you have to invest in something before you see a profit. I know that very rarely happens in Hollywood but my argument is that perhaps that's how WB should see it. The first film should just about cover it's production costs and the second if done right could turn a profit and maybe even cover any losses from part 1.
However, that's the gamble. Do they take the £100+ million loss (mainly from marketing / distribution) and say we tried and failed or do they say actually we took a bit of a hit with the first one but given a few tweaks here and there we could see a profit on this portfolio. I strongly suspect however, the powers that be will ultimately decide that it lost money which means no sequel especially when you consider how successful Marvel's films have been.
I thought those included critics reviews/scores as well as reader/public opinion and reviews? Anyway, agree not to turn this into a debate because there's different measures of success and like you said you enjoyed the film, also obviously misread your comment about WB's cash 
I take your point about how WB see the film's final scores/tally as well, there've been sequels to low/under performing films before so Lantern wouldn't be an exception to the rule there. However given that it's a tentpole film with a massive production a breakeven or meagre return isn't going to convince them. I think it's fair to say reactions to the film have been mixed at the very best so again I don't think there's a huge incentive for them to make a sequel unless it has a slashed budget. That may not be a bad thing but given the type of film I think it could hurt it if it means sacrificing more fantastical/space elements - seeing as that's what a lot of fans are begging for I think it could garner a lot more disappointment.
_____________________________
Bilbo: What about the Ewoks? They were rubbish.
Tim: Yeah but Jar Jar Binks makes the Ewoks look like f***ing Shaft!
|
Printable Version
RE: Green Lantern - 
we can only hope.
IT'S NOT EVEN ON A PAR WITH IRON MAN2! 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread