Monday Morning Quarterback Part I
By BOP Staff
June 20, 2011
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Kim Hollis: Green Lantern, the latest comic book adaptation from Warner Bros./DC Comics, opened to $53.2 million. What are your thoughts on this performance?
Brett Beach: I think Ryan Reynolds and 3D did what they were supposed to do and boosted this take significantly over what it could and should have been. To open in the top 20 all-time comic book weekends is nothing to sneeze at, particularly when the early trailers were underwhelming and the money shot heavy spots released in the last couple of weeks showcased a shade of green to the proceedings that reminded me of nothing so much as a certain scientology-subtexted sci-fi debacle from 11 yrs ago (and I don't mean my first wedding/marriage). I think subsequent weeks are needed to suggest just how close this comes to recouping its budget domestically - it probably won't - and with advertising thrown into the mix, this won't see a profit until home video, even with foreign grosses figured in. Reynolds is a hot hot man, but I guess I'll be holding out for the more quality-looking Crazy, Stupid, Love, and Ryan Gosling's abs, for summertime man crush action.
Edwin Davies: This is higher than I was expecting it to make, but viewed in a wider context it isn't a particularly great result. It fell well short of Thor's opening, which is probably its nearest comparison, both in terms of the number of 3D screens and in terms of general awareness of the two characters. Furthermore, it shot under the opening of X-Men: First Class, a film which is only being screened in 2D, so doesn't benefit from the 3D price hike. Both those suggest to me that attendance for the film, and therefore general interest in the property, were really pretty low in comparison to the other comic adaptations we've seen in the last month or so. Unlike Thor, which will probably finish just above $180 million when all is said and done, the reviews aren't good enough to entice large numbers of non-fans to check it out, and if the response that some of my geekier friends is anything to go by, fans of the comic probably won't be making lots of repeat viewings. Factor in the fact that it is probably going to lose lots of its 3D screens over the next two weekends, first to Cars 2 then to Transformers, and the one thing keeping this thing from being a complete disaster is going to vanish into thin air.
Basically, this result is the equivalent of trying to run a marathon by sprinting; you'll get ahead of the pack at the beginning, but you'll run out of steam after the first couple of hundred feet.
Tim Briody: I'm just hoping that the opening and subsequent 65% drop next weekend don't prevent the Deadpool, movie which Ryan Reynolds is attached to, from happening. I want to see that movie happen because it would be one of the strangest films ever made.
Bruce Hall: On the one hand, I think this is a terrific opening. Considering the thoroughly mediocre vibe the Green Lantern has been giving off leading up to release, I don't think anybody here would have been shocked if this result was $10 million less. Considering how thoroughly mediocre the movie actually IS, people should be swinging from the rafters over at Warner's. But let's be real. Depending on who you ask, this movie cost anywhere from $150-200 million just to make, let alone market. As Brett suggested it looks like a long shot to make that back unless lot of people ignore my advice and eventually buy this thing on DVD and Blu-Ray. This is a classic example of simply beating low expectations. Everyone's going to keep their job, but it's hard to imagine anyone being excited about a sequel.
Tom Houseman: The real question is who decided to green light (Ha! Green light! Cause that's what this movie is about!) this movie with a $200 million budget. Granted, it showed in the final project, as the special effects were grandiose and very impressive, but considering the limited public awareness of the character, all this movie has going for it is the draw of Ryan Reynolds and the gossip girl. Well, for me the main draw was Peter Sarsgaard, whom I love with a fiery passion. Green light... hilarious.
Shalimar Sahota: With the early negative backlash after that first trailer and then trickle of negative reviews, my estimates for opening weekend were lowered to under $40 million. To see it opening at over $50 million is a surprise. I also think that the good work done by Marvel's films Thor and X-Men: First Class may have rubbed off on audiences who wouldn't know any better. These high openings have also set a precedent for Captain America. Green Lantern's opening is good (the marketing blitz has been huge), and Warner Bros will be happy for the next seven days. I think Edwin is spot on about it losing those 3D screens over the coming weeks, and I imagine the subsequent drops are going to be huge.
Reagen Sulewski: I'd be curious to see the splits on 3D vs 2D for this, as even the terrible reviews said the 3D was decent (Editor’s note: 45% of Green Lantern’s opening weekend ticket sales were accrued in 3D distribution). If there was a huge proportion of the audience paying the 3D price, that could make the difference between $40 and $50 million. I'd call that cold comfort, though, since with $325 million laid out between budget and P&A, this is going to have a hell of a time making back even close to that.
I think DC and Warners overestimated the public's familiarity with Green Lantern, and after that made a terrible movie that's most enjoyable to 12-year-olds. They should have a "cat that ate the canary" grin after this weekend, despite the fact they're going to lose a bunch of money. It could have been much, much worse.
David Mumpower: I agree with Reagen's assessment that Warner Bros. and DC should be ecstatic over the opening weekend. We are almost exactly a year removed from the Jonah Hex disaster and Green Lantern's early trailers looked no better. A decision was made to build the brand through a massive marketing push with the end result being that Green Lantern has opened higher than - and I hope you're sitting down for this - Batman Begins or Superman Returns. Yes, ticket price inflation and particularly the spike in 3D ticket expense factors in. If we simply look at the opening weekend number, Green Lantern is still bigger, though. That is a win in the short term. Whatever happens next is irrelevant to the story of the moment. Despite having no awareness level among mainstream consumers and despite DC's spotty track record with regards to non-Batman characters, Green Lantern has opened quite well. Small scale victories are still victories.
Green Lantern 2: Now the Pink Dude Is Annoyed
Kim Hollis: What parameters do you believe Green Lantern would need to meet from this point forward to justify a sequel?
Brett Beach: With $150 million budget on this (and as the Weekend Wrap-Up noted, maybe that much in advertising costs), it suggests to me that WB is already committed to the sequel and anything outside of abject Jonah Hex failure was not going to stop them. I think if they come close to doubling the budget with the international take, they will proceed with a less expensive part two (maybe) and focus a lot more intently on the story (ha ha). The template I am looking at is the Fantastic Four films, the first one which performed decently, and the second one "failed" in that it only grossed 85% of the original (and cost more). The critical/audience reception of the first FF and TGL are about the same and my guess is the sequel will follow in two years, perform about as TGL is going to do, and there will be talk of a reboot going forth from there.
Edwin Davies: They'd need to get somewhere north of $300 million to recoup their investment, but the only thing that would guarantee a sequel would be if it actually made a profit, so $400 million or more would be the water mark. Personally, I think Green Lantern is going to top out in the $130-150 million range, so it might just about make its production budget back domestically. I think it might be able to get the remainder from international takings, but I don't think the character is well known enough for it overcome the pretty toxic response.
Tim Briody: Sequel? Nah, with a performance like this, just reboot it in a few years. I hear it's all the rage nowadays.
Bruce Hall: I have a hard time seeing enthusiasm for a sequel. Then again, they made two Hulk films that nobody cared about, and that character will return alongside The Avengers next year. Maybe these guys really DO have super powers and can't be killed. I think that after all is said and done, Green Lantern's box office will mean that a less expensive sequel is not out of the question. As for a reboot, I think it's good that computer terminology has become so ubiquitous. Because now there's a logical sounding word for the process of forcing the same movie down the public's throat over and over again until they just submit and like it.
You WILL love the Green Lantern. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. But someday.
David Mumpower: First of all, Daredevil got a spinoff, so that's not the best example here. Yes, Elektra was a disaster, but it did get made. With regards to Tim's comment, I do not believe this is a situation where a reboot would be preferred. This movie was made in anticipation of a second movie wherein Sinestro is the villain, presumably in a Sinestro Corps War. While the production team clearly misjudged this, the idea would be for this franchise to follow the Christopher Nolan playbook with an origin story for the first movie followed by the iconic villain in the sequel. I have every confidence that Warner Bros. and DC very much want to make that sequel. The question is whether there is enough justification.
Brett is absolutely correct when he notes the financial outlay here. Following the money clearly indicates a desire for a franchise and while this process worked nowhere near as well as the last such mega-marketing attempt, Despicable Me, the intention is still clear. I agree with Edwin's supposition that $300+ million is requisite to justify such an endeavor in theory. The one key here is that Green Lantern skews very, very, impossibly young. It reminds me of Speed Racer in this regard (and that's not a positive, I know). The movie is so childish in structure that the idea is clearly to engross kids in the Green Lantern mythology. Note that there is a perfect recent analog for this, the already mentioned Fantastic Four franchise. The first film featuring those comic book characters was not very good, but it still opened in roughly this range and it also had a character people liked in Chris Evans as Johnny Storm. If Ryan Reynolds is remembered fondly here and the movie's merchandising is solid, the box office becomes less of a requisite. If the same kids who saw Green Lantern on opening weekend make their parents buy them toys between now and Christmas, a disappointing $120 million box office finish (something I see as quite possible) still wouldn't be enough to derail plans for a sequel if Warner Bros. and DC want it bad enough.
Effectively, we have three key aspects of this to track. The first is post-opening weekend legs; the second is international box office (and it's off to a shaky start abroad); and the final one is whether Green Lantern becomes a strong merchandising license. I'm not exuberant about the odds of any of these. I am in wait and see mode. A 70% drop next weekend could put a quick and finite end to the possibility if Green Lantern ticket sales don't pick up overseas.