CBR: "Green Lantern" Shines On a $52.7 Million Weekend

[CBR News]

Warner Bros' "Green Lantern" opened to a soft $52.7 million at the box office this weekend. Weak reviews and the growing trend of "3D fatigue" may have contributed to the film's soft debut performance.


Full article here.

[4PointOh]

"It spends a great deal of time at the impossible task of explaining the logic and rules of its plot. I am amazed at how calmly humans absorb and accept the incredulities of these stories," writes film critic Roger Ebert.

So did INCEPTION, but for some reason, people didn't mind it then. So GREEN LANTERN must have other flaws that explain its soft performance.

[POWRSURG]

Obviously this means it should have starred Jack Black.

[lead sharp]

Here's an example of a great film that doesn't give a shit if the audience gets it: Highlander.

Here's a film that gives too much of a shit a misses the point entirely: Green Lantern.

[Janissa]

Well it looks like Green Lantern is going to have a Mediocre take like X-Men First Class. As Obama is wont to say: "Maybe this is the New Normal".

I don't think Summer "blockbusters" are going to do better than this level of revenue for a while.

The economy has been so bad that no one has the money to go see bad superhero movies.

The Transformers movie should tell us more.

[RonCat]

I just came from seeing Green Lantern and I have no idea what movie the critics went to see. My ONLY complaint was the "dad flashback" at the beginning could have been cut. The rest of the movie was damn good!

If I were to compare this movie to another superhero movie it would be the first Iron Man movie. Good pacing, cool special effects, a good story, and you get to see the character start off as a normal flawed human being and transition into something more ... a hero.

I recommend this movie without reservation!

[SpideyCzar]

I just came from seeing Green Lantern and I have no idea what movie the critics went to see. My ONLY complaint was the "dad flashback" at the beginning could have been cut. The rest of the movie was damn good!

If I were to compare this movie to another superhero movie it would be the first Iron Man movie. Good pacing, cool special effects, a good story, and you get to see the character start off as a normal flawed human being and transition into something more ... a hero.

I recommend this movie without reservation!

The pacing of the film and the acting is what detered me from enjoying the film.

Examples

-Hal Jordan goes to Oa begs for help, doesn't get it and just leaves. The scene felt empty to me, they couldve done better at expressing how much peril Earth was in.

-zero to know build up to Parralax's arrival on Earth. Then the quick defeat of the villain.

-Hector Hammond looked too goofy. People were actually laughing at him at the preview screening I went to.

-the two leads had no chemistry.

-when Hal gets to Oa he is learning to fly, goes to Sinestro's rally, then goes back to more training...WTF just bad pacing.

-even the bonus scene of Sinestro putting on the yellow ring didn't line up with how he was portrayed throughout the whole film

[Jordanstine]

It's an irony actually.

When was the last time you heard a film that was #1 in the box office, but considered to be a bomb at the same time?

Green Lantern's Superhero Fatigue in the Box Office

http://www.time.com/time/arts/articl...078577,00.html

Green Lantern, won the weekend with $52.7 million, but that was the lowest take for the summer season's preternatural dudes.

In early May, audiences bought into Thor, giving the Marvel thunder god $65.7 million in the film's first three days (including Mother's Day weekend) and a current worldwide gross of about $435 million.

Two weeks ago, Marvel's X-Men: First Class managed a three-day opening of $55.1 million, and has already bagged a quarter-billion dollars globally. With a traffic jam of megamuscular god-men at the multiplexes, viewers could be suffering from superhero fatigue. Sorry, they may say, I already gave at the box office. (See Richard Corliss's review of The Green Lantern, the no-so-super hero.)

Warner Bros. reportedly spent almost $300 million on producing and marketing Green Lantern and needs a more robust return on its investment. If there's to be a sequel, as is promised at the end of the film, Lantern will need to hold well in the coming weeks against Transformers 3 and other blockbusters.

That's not likely, considering that the Saturday gross was 22% below Friday's — suggesting negative word-of-mouth — and that the CinemaScore rating from exiting moviegoers was a mediocre B. Viewers' communal shrug was reflected in the film's sour reviews: Lantern pulled a dank 25% from the Rotten Tomatoes aggregate of critics, compared to 87% for X-Men: First Class and 77% for Thor. Bad news, too, for the industry's love of 3-D movies. Only 45% of the weekend's revenue came from theaters charging extra for 3-D.

It's also possible that Warners overestimated Reynolds' drawing power. An actor with a TV star's lightweight likability, not a movie star's sexy danger, he has appeared in only two movies that earned real money: the X-Men prequel Wolverine, in a small role in support of Hugh Jackman, and The Proposal, where he was the romantic foil to Sandra Bullock in her big comeback vehicle. Reynolds' last solo starring role, in the thrilled Buried, amassed just $1,044,143 in the U.S. and his native Canada.

According to BoxOfficeMojo.com, WB needed this film to do at least $70 million for the weekend.

[Alex]

The average person doesn't know who Green Lantern is, the first trailer was horrible, 53 mil is pretty good considered that and the negative reviews.

[Bsavini781]

could it be that the movie is just bad, and word of mouth got out and killed what little momentum it had on Friday?

[StoneGold]

It's an irony actually.

When was the last time you heard a film that was #1 in the box office, but considered to be a bomb at the same time?



According to BoxOfficeMojo.com, WB needed this film to do at least $70 million for the weekend.

It happens. Semi-frequently, actually. Problem being, movies cost too much to make, so the ROI doesn't equal out.

[titanfan]

The average person doesn't know who Green Lantern is, the first trailer was horrible, 53 mil is pretty good considered that and the negative reviews.

It's probably good enough that when all is said and done (international, DVD sales, licensing, etc.) they'll make money or break even. But probably won't be a sequel. (Unless it's a lot less lower budget)

[Rollo Tomassi]

Well, better than Speed Racer, worse than Dark Knight.

[Alex]

It's probably good enough that when all is said and done (international, DVD sales, licensing, etc.) they'll make money or break even. But probably won't be a sequel. (Unless it's a lot less lower budget)

If they keep pumping out movies, they don't all have to be franchises.
Have them all make a profit in the end, like you said, and the most popular ones get sequels.

[kalorama]

If they keep pumping out movies, they don't all have to be franchises.

That's not how the studios look at it.