'Green Lantern' The New Singerman 2

Robinov is saying the same things they were saying about a possible Singerman sequel, almost verbatim:

WeMakeALotOfShitUp.com

From The LA Times:

"I don't believe there is superhero fatigue," said Jeff Robinov, film group president for Warner Bros., the studio behind Green Lantern. "Every year there are half a dozen or more horror films and comedies. Superheroes have become a genre of their own and if you deliver, there's an audience."

Indeed, despite the weak box-office performance of Lantern in the U.S. and in a limited overseas launch, Warner Bros. has not scrapped the idea of a sequel. With an outline already in hand, studio executives are mulling over what changes would be needed to make a follow-up work. Robinov said he would like to see it be "a little darker and edgier with more emphasis on action."

Reason #5,000 why 'Green Lantern' AIN'T gettin' a sequel:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2011/GLANT.php

Domestic Gross $116,601,172
International Gross$105,400,000
Worldwide Gross $222,001,172

Domestic DVD Sales: $12,450,485

Apologist Puncher wrote:Reason #5,000 why 'Green Lantern' AIN'T gettin' a sequel:

http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2011/GLANT.php

Domestic Gross $116,601,172
International Gross$105,400,000
Worldwide Gross $222,001,172

Domestic DVD Sales: $12,450,485

...

Y'know, when even freaking SINGERMAN outsells you, you know you've got a problem.

Yeesh, the public really has spoken on this one. Can't defend the indefensible (I usually leave that to the Apolodicks) but I'd have figured it'd do a lot better than this pathetic showing. It can't even claim a BB effect of only truly finding an audience on DVD. It just doesn't even have an audience.

Even so, I heard a kind of interesting conspiracy theory about this a while back. Basically it goes that WB and DC spent years and years promoting Kyle in the comics and John in JLU as THE Green Lantern. To the extent any generation was exposed to a GL, odds are good that Hal is "the new guy" in their eyes. Kinda makes you wonder that adapting Hal straight off like that maybe wasn't such a good idea.

thecolorsblend wrote:Kinda makes you wonder that adapting Hal straight off like that maybe wasn't such a good idea.

Making a budget-bloated bore of a movie probably wasn't a good idea either.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

thecolorsblend wrote:Kinda makes you wonder that adapting Hal straight off like that maybe wasn't such a good idea.

Making a budget-bloated bore of a movie probably wasn't a good idea either.

My Internet connection is going way too slow right now for me to dig up numbers but apparently GL's budget is pretty much in line with average Hollywood blockbusters. The $300 million rumor that made the rounds apparently has no basis in fact.

Not that it makes much of a difference, the movie lost money either way you care to look at it. There's a sense in which it doesn't matter if it lost "just" $50 mill or as much as $100 mill. To paraphrase Vin Diesel "losing's losing".

How much was wasted on CGI'ing EVERYONE'S suit?

For what we got, the budget could EASILY have been $125 million. The first 'Transformers' movie had a budget of $150 million. If they hadn't wasted money like they did, we WOULD be talking about a 'Green Lantern' sequel right now.

And $300 million is probably LOW for what it really was. Production budget was $200 million, advertising costs in the US alone pushed it well over $300 million.

Apologist Puncher wrote:How much was wasted on CGI'ing EVERYONE'S suit?

For what we got, the budget could EASILY have been $125 million. The first 'Transformers' movie had a budget of $150 million. If they hadn't wasted money like they did, we WOULD be talking about a 'Green Lantern' sequel right now.

And $300 million is probably LOW for what it really was. Production budget was $200 million, advertising costs in the US alone pushed it well over $300 million.

Mmm, fair points all. After reading 90% of GL comics since Hal's reintroduction, I can understand why they went the mo-cap route with the GL suits. For better or worse, Johns ret-conned that idea into the comics. So it kind of makes sense in terms of the material you're adapting.

Doesn't necessarily make fiscal sense though.

thecolorsblend wrote:Mmm, fair points all. After reading 90% of GL comics since Hal's reintroduction, I can understand why they went the mo-cap route with the GL suits. For better or worse, Johns ret-conned that idea into the comics. So it kind of makes sense in terms of the material you're adapting.

And Johns was "producer" on this film too.

Hmmmmm.....

Doesn't necessarily make fiscal sense though.

Absolutely none.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

thecolorsblend wrote:Mmm, fair points all. After reading 90% of GL comics since Hal's reintroduction, I can understand why they went the mo-cap route with the GL suits. For better or worse, Johns ret-conned that idea into the comics. So it kind of makes sense in terms of the material you're adapting.

And Johns was "producer" on this film too.

Hmmmmm.....

I've come to a bit of a place of peace about that guy. His Superman sucks... because it's NOT "his" Superman, it's friggin Richard Donner's. But his GL stuff? JSA? The Flash? Not bad!

But as for being a producer... yeah, methinks he's a bit too close to the material to be objective about it. Even so, part of me would rather movie studios err in terms of being too faithful to the comics rather than follow the Nolan route of inventing their own shit and slapping a familiar name on it. So hmm.

thecolorsblend wrote:But as for being a producer... yeah, methinks he's a bit too close to the material to be objective about it. Even so, part of me would rather movie studios err in terms of being too faithful to the comics rather than follow the Nolan route of inventing their own shit and slapping a familiar name on it. So hmm.

But WAS Reynolds Green Lantern "faithful" to the character? I admit I'm not an expert on Green Lantern, but I don't remember him being a scared little boy hiding behind cockiness in a grown-up man's body?

Apologist Puncher wrote:

thecolorsblend wrote:But as for being a producer... yeah, methinks he's a bit too close to the material to be objective about it. Even so, part of me would rather movie studios err in terms of being too faithful to the comics rather than follow the Nolan route of inventing their own shit and slapping a familiar name on it. So hmm.

But WAS Reynolds Green Lantern "faithful" to the character? I admit I'm not an expert on Green Lantern, but I don't remember him being a scared little boy hiding behind cockiness in a grown-up man's body?

Before Johns started up? Not so much. But after he took hold of the character... well, that's a bit of an oversimplification but it ain't TOO far off from the Secret Origin thing Geoff Johns wrote. Basically, the Geoff Johns version is, after a fashion, a sort of Han Solo figure. A bit of a pussy-hound, a little too cocky and overconfident but ultimately homeboy does the right thing at the right time, and usually he does it better than any of his GL Corps peers.

thecolorsblend wrote:Before Johns started up? Not so much. But after he took hold of the character... well, that's a bit of an oversimplification but it ain't TOO far off from the Secret Origin thing Geoff Johns wrote. Basically, the Geoff Johns version is, after a fashion, a sort of Han Solo figure. A bit of a pussy-hound, a little too cocky and overconfident but ultimately homeboy does the right thing at the right time, and usually he does it better than any of his GL Corps peers.

The ending of that movie is STILL moronic in and of itself.

What exactly were the other Lanterns doing while Jordan was "fighting" Parallax? And after a dozen of them were wiped-out by him earlier, they send TWO to help Earth instead of an ARMY?

Really?

Dude, I totally cannot justify the movie on artistic or technical grounds. I came for the action scenes and more or less got what I wanted. I'm obviously in the minority on that count but there you have it.

Here's how boring it was to me:

I got a FREE copy over a month ago. Never watched it.

One other thing about Johns. If you start off with Green Lantern- Rebirth and go right on through to the end of Blackest Night... hey, there are very few modern writers that I would accuse of having written a full blown fucking EPIC but Geoff Johns is on that list now. Dude foreshadowed shit he wouldn't pay off for YEARS in several cases. Awesome sauce.

In fact, to give him the benefit of the doubt, I think he attempted something similar with Superman. I don't know this to be true but I think Superman- Sucky Origin was ridiculously delayed by Superboy-related legal matters. Had Johns been able to do it when he wanted to (circa the Infinite Crisis aftermath around 2006 or so), I truly think the Sucky Origin/Last Son/Brainiac/New Krypton stuff would've played out a lot better. It wouldn't change the fundamental crapitude of using Donner's Superman for all that stuff but at least the story would've flowed a lot better.

It still terrible wb mucked things up so much. Where this could have been there star wars/ironman.. plus would have been a nice gateway to getting to other space dc characters and possibly cameos/tieing films in. But at this rate dc will probably not do that.

webhead2006 wrote:It still terrible wb mucked things up so much.

I think you mean the director, producers and screenwriters mucked-up. THEY made the film, WB put it out.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

webhead2006 wrote:It still terrible wb mucked things up so much.

I think you mean the director, producers and screenwriters mucked-up. THEY made the film, WB put it out.

And WB had executive oversight at every point in the process. They greenlit the damn thing, it's as much their fault as anybody's.

thecolorsblend wrote:And WB had executive oversight at every point in the process. They greenlit the damn thing, it's as much their fault as anybody's.

Not even close to being true.

Apologist Puncher wrote:

thecolorsblend wrote:And WB had executive oversight at every point in the process. They greenlit the damn thing, it's as much their fault as anybody's.

Not even close to being true.

How so? I'm not excusing the cast and crew from anything, mind you, but nobody twisted WB's arm to make such an expensive failure. Hell, I could argue there are mitigating factors excusing them from SOME blame for the abortion that is Singerman (only until dailies started coming in, that is; after that, all bets are off). But GL? They had Singerman to show them the error of throwing too much money at a project, giving a director too much freedom before he's really earned it, etc.

I could go on & on bit to reiterate what I've already said, GREEN LANTERN should've been WB/DC's IRON MAN!

Iron Man was considered a '2nd-tier' character before the 1st film came out. Now he's like 'major guns'. But it's because Marvel did what was 'right' with the project, including casting. I think most people agree that Robert Downey, Jr. was perfect casting for this role. However, Ryan Reynolds was hardly perfect for GL. That doesn't mean he's a bad actor but think about it, what type of film are we used to seeing Reynolds in? The raunchy, sleazy teen-type comedies? And if you ask me, I think that's what the general public visualizes with Reynolds. He usually plays a douchebag & that's how he came across in GL. But remember, Brian Austin Green wanted to play the part & as far as I know, he wasn't even considered. Would Green have been any better? Unknown, but at least he had a passion for wanting to play the character.

I think I've said this before but if MARVEL STUDIOS had made GL then it would've been a hit. Why? Because they've got their act together! A less wellknown actor would possibly have been chosen for the role, like Chris Hemsworth in THOR. Or they might have gown the Downey route & picked someone wellknown but who also fit the character. Either way the casting would've been done right. Add to that a top-notch script & director & we would've had a much different film. The budget would also have been less & the effects would've been better. So on & so forth.

The point is, WB/DC could've done this too. Take Batman for example. After BATMAN AND ROBIN I think it was considered that the final nail had been nailed in the coffin. Fast-forward a few years & Joe Public is eating up Nolan's films left & right! And like Nolan or not, & I certainly don't agree with all his moves (Hardly Bane), but something must've 'clicked' between that franchise & Joe Public.

Back to GL. This was supposed to be the answer to Iron Man, so what happened? Bad casting, director, etc.? Hence my example that if the film had been handled properly we wouldn't even be having this discussion?

thecolorsblend wrote:How so? I'm not excusing the cast and crew from anything, mind you, but nobody twisted WB's arm to make such an expensive failure. Hell, I could argue there are mitigating factors excusing them from SOME blame for the abortion that is Singerman (only until dailies started coming in, that is; after that, all bets are off). But GL? They had Singerman to show them the error of throwing too much money at a project, giving a director too much freedom before he's really earned it, etc.

Having Geoff Johns in their ear, telling them how "amazing" it was, and how it was "YOUR 'Iron Man'" was something they never had with Singerman. They thought getting "One of those funnybook guys" to oversee it would help them out.

Clearly, they were wrong.

They needed someone else on hand, who i dont know myself.

thecolorsblend wrote:How so? I'm not excusing the cast and crew from anything, mind you, but nobody twisted WB's arm to make such an expensive failure. Hell, I could argue there are mitigating factors excusing them from SOME blame for the abortion that is Singerman (only until dailies started coming in, that is; after that, all bets are off). But GL? They had Singerman to show them the error of throwing too much money at a project, giving a director too much freedom before he's really earned it, etc.

Apologist Puncher wrote:Having Geoff Johns in their ear, telling them how "amazing" it was, and how it was "YOUR 'Iron Man'" was something they never had with Singerman.

Shit. Good point.

On the other hand, my understanding was that Johns primarily interfaced with the GL cast and crew. I just assumed that he didn't interact much with the execs. But I suppose he could've.

thecolorsblend wrote:Shit. Good point.

It's what I do.

On the other hand, my understanding was that Johns primarily interfaced with the GL cast and crew. I just assumed that he didn't interact much with the execs. But I suppose he could've.

Since he got a "Producer" credit on the film, there had to have been some studio interaction.

Remember, this guy started out in the movie biz, THEN moved to comics.