5 Possible Reasons for Green Lantern´s Poor Box Office Performance

There may be more than one villain to point the finger to

Editorial Opinion
By ultimatefan1974 - Jul 01, 2011 03:07 PM EST
Filed Under: Green Lantern
Source: ComicBookMovie.com

Sadly, the Green Lantern movie has turned out to be one of the most underperforming superhero movies ever, considering its high budget, fan hype and the character´s current popularity in comics. When something like that happens, there always is the finger-pointing. Was it the director´s fault? The studio? In this case, it could well be a combination of factors. Let me point some potential suspects:

1. Bad marketing. One could understand why WB felt it was important to release a GL trailer along with the next-to-last Harry Potter film, but with very little FX ready, it was better to wait a little longer. They might have thought of reprising the success of Robert Downey Jr. in the Iron
an previews, except those weren´t nearly as goofy as the trailer came off, with “I know, right?!” and whatnot. It took a long time for us to see some much better trailers, with Oa and the GLs, and it might have been too little too late.

2. Way too many superhero movies. When even a comic book fanatic such as myself wonders if there are too many superhero movies being released, it´s time for the studios to wonder the same. GL was the third of five superhero movies this summer, not even counting The Green Hornet earlier this year. The subgenre is flexible, but not to infinity.

3. Crowded summer. GL also got sandwiched between a load of releases, many of them potentially major stuff such as the fourth Pirates, the third Transformers, the Dreamworks and Pixar animated sequels and the last Harry Potter. Remember when the first Batman had to compete with the third Indiana Jones and the second Lethal Weapon and that was considered a big brawl? Good times, huh?

4. Excessive negativity from critics. I think the movie has problems, but why critics gave it an even lower rate at RottenTomates than crap like Fantastic Four or X-Men Origins: Wolverine or Transformers is beyond me. Was it an effect of the oversaturation of superhero movies? Both Thor and X-Men: First Class had much better treatment. I suspect this one will be seen with better eyes years from now.

5. The CGI didn´t “wow” people enough. Audiences right now seem a little blasé about very CGI-oriented movies. Granted, Avatar was a very green screen-oriented film, but it managed to make Pandora look incredibly real and tangible, and once it gets there, never leaves. Although I enjoyed the movie´s FX, GL has not managed to reach such heights, or to show as much of Oa or the GLs as fans would have hoped.

MAD MEN Star Jon Hamm Reflects On Pitching Role To Marvel And Confirms He Turned Down GREEN LANTERN
Related:

MAD MEN Star Jon Hamm Reflects On Pitching Role To Marvel And Confirms He Turned Down GREEN LANTERN
THE FRANCHISE: Trailer For Max Series Starring Daniel Brühl Reveals Chaos Inside World Of Superhero Filmmaking
Recommended For You:

THE FRANCHISE: Trailer For Max Series Starring Daniel Brühl Reveals Chaos Inside World Of Superhero Filmmaking
DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

Do you have what it takes to write for us?
Want to contribute?
1 2
ultimatefan1974
ultimatefan1974 - 7/1/2011, 4:16 PM
I think it´s pretty safe to say this summer was a little too crowded with superhero movies. Five movies of any subgenre in the same summer is a lot.
golden123
golden123 - 7/1/2011, 4:18 PM
I agree strongly with TheGODDAMNSUPERGUY!
golden123
golden123 - 7/1/2011, 4:24 PM
It was actually marketed very well. It was just the nit picky fanboys that claimed it wasn't.

"2" doesn't work because all the superhero movies in 2008 did well.

Your theory for "3" is constantly being broken by other movies.

"4" probably did affect the Box office.

I'm not sure about "5", though.
ultimatefan1974
ultimatefan1974 - 7/1/2011, 4:37 PM
The superhero movies in 2008 were still less than in 2011. Even writer Grg Berlanti agreed that the first GL trailer wasn´t that good, and it was the one that played with HP.
golden123
golden123 - 7/1/2011, 4:58 PM
@ultimatefan1974: Let us see. There is Ironman, The Incredible Hulk, Hellboy 2, The Dark Knight, Punisher: Warzone, and The Spirit that all came out in 2008. Plus, you can't foreget the two original 2008 films that were Hancock and Superhero Movie. Let us now go over 2011. Green Hornet, Thor, Green Lantern, and Captain America: The First Avenger all had/have 2011 release dates. Then there is Transformers 3 which I don't even consider a superhero film. I guess it depends how you interpret the word. I think 2008 obviously had more superhero films.
superotherside
superotherside - 7/1/2011, 5:03 PM
I think you honestly hit the nail on the head... plus I think it was more of a golden age superhero film thus not working as well... like Spider-man 3 good film but people were expecting too much so it didn't live up to their expectations...

good article! ;)
ultimatefan1974
ultimatefan1974 - 7/1/2011, 5:10 PM
@golden

And some of these 2008 movies were successful, and most weren´t. Technically, Transformers can be considered a superhero movie, yes. I wouldn´t call it a comic book movie cuz they were created as a toy line and are best known as a cartoon, but superhero, yes.

@otherside,

thanks.
golden123
golden123 - 7/1/2011, 6:03 PM
@ultimatefan1974: What do you consider successful? The only 2008 superhero film not to make a profit was Punisher: Warzone although The Spirit might of not made a profit either. PWZ and The Spirit were both slaughtered by critics if you need to be reminded. I couldn't find it's production budget anywhere online. When it comes down to 2011 Green Lantern is the only of one of the four films that didn't make it's budget back yet. I didn't count Transformers because it hasn't been in theaters that long. Green Lantern might make it's profit back in the future, but my main point is I would like to know at what level do you qualify a film to be successful. Remember different films have different expectations. So, the rules you set should have something to do with profit.
ragmuon
ragmuon - 7/1/2011, 8:16 PM
i think the #4 nailed it, i am not into comics but i watched superhero movies, but after reading critics observation of GL, i kinda have a bad taste on it.

i may also add that the story has a part that i feel sleepy... there are also some scene that if you would delete it, you'll never notice tha gap...

the CGI dependent bores me

love story of carol and hal in the movie is not effective, i think thor and jane story is more effective.
YellowLantern
YellowLantern - 7/1/2011, 9:18 PM
Green Lantern movie was not dark enough and even serious to become a blockbuster hit. The MAIN ingredient for success in the modern superhero movie is a serious, dark story line to the movie with a somewhat realistic approach. Green Lantern was nowhere near The Dark Knight or Iron Man 1. Instead, the script had too many jokes and laughs, poorly written, and fake CGI or not up to today's standards for an ideal GL movie. I agree that Superman Returns was better (darker) than GL except for the lame Lex Luther kryptonite saga and Superman's son. Thor was a lot better than GL (minus the Frost Giants and their look). Until next year when Batman will save us in the Dark Knight Rises. I don't suppose that they will reboot Batman once Nolan's done now will they?
sonofsamadams
sonofsamadams - 7/1/2011, 9:27 PM
If DC wouldn't have meddled with Campbell's way of directing, this movie would be close to 240 by now.
stevepants
stevepants - 7/1/2011, 10:21 PM
Yellow Lantern, they've already said they want to reboot Batman after Nolan is through.

I disagree that a superhero movie needs to be dark..it just needs to be well written...GL suffered from too many cooks in the kitchen and bad editing. It's like it didn't know what movie it wanted to be.

This movie was just destroyed beyond what it deserved to be.

Here's something to think about...the fanboy community is creating an environment where something has to either be "BEST MOVIE EVER" or "BIGGEST PIECE OF TRASH EVER"...and if you try to argue the opposite or somewhere in between, you're torn apart. Example...that Intruder troll.
LP4
LP4 - 7/2/2011, 12:31 AM
All the Superman films have sucked thus far...
marvel72
marvel72 - 7/2/2011, 4:47 AM
1.bad cgi
2.bad editing
3.bad writing
4.bad directing
5.bad reveiws
CBMfan001
CBMfan001 - 7/2/2011, 5:29 AM
what ever the critics say GL was a good movie,granted it's not awesome but it was entertaining.like the article says why critics hated the movie more than FF or wolverine i have no idea,why it didn't gross as much as those movies also.

people watch FF,transformers 3,wolverine which are worse than GL,so like i said its a puzzle for me,but what to do
ultimatefan1974
ultimatefan1974 - 7/2/2011, 6:30 AM
@golden

Pretty much any Hollywood movie eventually turns a profit cuz of all the different sources of revenue- DVDs, downloading, cable, tie-ins, etc. The basic standard for a franchise film to be considered successful is if it makes enough to warrant a sequel. Neither PWZ, TIH, Spirit or Hellboy2 achieved that, By Hollywood standards, they weren´t successul. The Thor sequel already has a release date and a writer, that is being successful.

It´s easy to say the movie was bad - which I agree with,to a point-, but GL didn´t even open well,so something before people saw the movie turned them off. Also, one can argue non-comics fans don´t care about Iron Man or Thor either, but their movies performed well.
drykillogic22
drykillogic22 - 7/2/2011, 6:54 AM
That's easy..Ryan Reynolds.
Stick to romantic comedy. When did it become cool to not act?..just be yourself for every role..lame. Shoulda been Fillion.
SKOne
SKOne - 7/2/2011, 8:31 AM
The movie failed because the critics hated it, the corps were in there but didn't really do anything or have much personality, it was marketed as a 3d movie but the 3d was not very good,(like Thor, but Thor was a fantastic movie) and there were too many storylines going on in the movie(romance, maturity, father/son, overcoming fear).

Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively did a fantastic job considering the script they had to work with and I really think the movie would have done much better if: the whole father son storyline was cut, Hal's family scenes were cut, the college scenes were cut, more of Hal's training and intro to the corps was shown and the original ending where Tomar, Kilowog, and Sinestro helped Hal beat Parallax was kept in.

I also don't think the overly comic storyline was Ryan Reynolds idea even though he is getting blamed for it. I am pretty sure it was the studio's idea because they cast Reynolds who is famous for comedy.
golden123
golden123 - 7/2/2011, 9:39 AM
@ultimatefan1974: I wouldn't call The Spirit a franchise film. Not every successful film gets a sequel. I do want to point out that Hellboy 2 made about 60 million more than the original, and the production budget was only 19 million more than the original. Hellboy 2 didn't get a sequel, but I beleive that was something to do with the director's decision that a sequel didn't get made. The Incredible Hulk made about 113 million more than it's production budget it didn't get a sequel. Hancock is the tenth highest grossing superhero movie although it didn't get a sequel (it wasn't really a franchise film, though).

I'm talking about Box Office results. That only applys to movies when in theaters so DVD sales means nothing. Also, I don't get your statment about audiences not caring about Thor and Ironman.
ultimatefan1974
ultimatefan1974 - 7/2/2011, 10:40 AM
#golden

Spirit was a serialized character. If the movie was consiered a hit, the studio would want a sequel, you can bet your house on it. FM had never made a sequel or prequel to 300, but the movie was such a hit he came up with one. If the studio felt Hellboy was worth another sequel, they´d have had no problem hiring another director, no studio kills a lucrative franchise cuz the director doesn´t wanna make another movie. Don´t guide yourself just for production cost, a movie has a lot of costs between idealization and release that don´t go out to the public, and the studio doesn´t take all the gross, so making more than your production budget does not make a movie be considered a hit. If the studio felt TIH was successful, they´d have demanded a sequel. That´s the measure, period. Hancock is kind of an exception cuz it wasn´t based on an existing property, it was more of a Will Smith vehicle, so if he doesn´t wanna make a sequel, the studio may think it´s not worth it doing one.

The IM and Thor comments weren´t meant for you, its that some think the movie flopped cuz GL isn´t a very popular character.
Coldblood6
Coldblood6 - 7/2/2011, 4:01 PM
Intruder is actually correct. Reasons for GL's failure:

1: GL is a corny, cheesy, superhero that does not strike a chord with people outside of DC/general comicbook fans. It's also incredibly silly to the kind of people critics are.

2: Bad script. It sucked, plain and simple.

3: A director with no passion for any aspect of the material. The director does not have to be a hyper fan (in fact it's better if he is not) but there must be some aspect of the subject matter that stimulates some creative passion.

4: Terrible casting (by committee): I really like RR but he was never a good choice for Hal Jordan. It was a decision to get a popular Hollywood A/B lister and not search for someone who was right for the role. Blake Lively similarly was chosen to bring in the tween crowd and not for acting.

5: Mismanaged production: The whole post-production was underestimated in terms of time, cost, and manpower, and became a clusterf*ck of epic proportions.

6: Bad production/story decisions: There are many here but mainly not enough time in space and too much CGI which takes many people out of the movie.

7: Bad marketing: Those 2nd and 3rd trailers were so poorly made it was unbelievable. Everyone claims the first trailer was bad and the others good but NO it's the other way around. Those two latter trailers were designed in a way that really only appealed to fanboys and not to the GA. I mean seriously...little green rings flying through space??? Was that supposed to excite/interest the average moviegoer???

8: AN OVERALL BAD MOVIE!!!

A lot of people claim bad editing, but really this was just Front-ending-type editing to shorten running length for an already bad movie.
ultimatefan1974
ultimatefan1974 - 7/2/2011, 4:39 PM
All those criticisms against the movie don´t explain wjy it didn´t open well. Plus the Transformers franchise is the ultimate proof a movie being bad doesn´t necessarily prevent it from being a hit

There are lots of loyal, loving GL fans who disagree he´s a corny or cheesy superhero.

Even people who worked on the movie agree the first trailer was by far the weakest. Most reviews agree that the movie should have been more about the space stuff and less the Earth stuff.
Coldblood6
Coldblood6 - 7/2/2011, 4:52 PM
Exactly my point....GL fans don't think so, but to a lot of the GA it looks silly and cheesy.

The trailers were not designed well for the GA...they were designed to appease fanboys.

The trailers and the subject matter in them did not seem appealing to huge sections of the GA...the bad reviews simply confirmed to many what they already thought based on the trailers.
Coldblood6
Coldblood6 - 7/2/2011, 4:52 PM
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against GL. I'm just trying to show things from other points of view.
ultimatefan1974
ultimatefan1974 - 7/2/2011, 5:03 PM
A lot of people would say the same about Thor, or actually any other superhero, and yet many superhero movies succeed. There are tons of people out there who think the very concept of the superhero is cheesy and silly.

The trailers are meant to highlight the strengths of the character, the ones that most appeal to the fans are usually also the ones that appeal to the GA, which has been the case with Batman, Spidey, X-Men, etc.
CorndogBurglar
CorndogBurglar - 7/2/2011, 5:35 PM
it did poorly because it sucks, plain and simple.
CaptainDC
CaptainDC - 7/2/2011, 8:26 PM
Great article, I personally liked the movie. I'm not a dc fanboy or anything, discard my name. It will have a sequel because warner brothers is different, and especially with a big name like this, you can't let this franchise go by. They're going to look at all of its problems, and fix it, creating a more fun and ready to go sequel. I have faith in Warners Brothers, and especially the acting talents of Ryan Reynolds and Mark Strong. At least now we can see them go at it, with no set backs at all.
sonofsamadams
sonofsamadams - 7/2/2011, 10:08 PM
If there is a Director's Cut and it blows the theatrical out of the water,

DC might have to switch to Dreamworks.
Deschain
Deschain - 7/2/2011, 10:10 PM
Just watched this, I'm not a big GL fan but even I would conceed that its missing a lot, it seemed like it was rushed together, the acting from Lively was not so... I kept asking myself why she was there at all. It was disjoined and at times incoherent.

Lets call a spade a spade, the reason this is getting bad reviews is because its pretty bad, it lacks depth and hadnt provided (in my opinion) enough time to get emotionally connected to this superheroes journey.

I've seen a lot of Reynolds and believe that he was restricted by bad writing for the most part, he did have his moments but there was too much schick and not enough sensibility.

I think there was too much emphasis on pumping the CBMS out on the basis of others like Ironman sadly not to please fans but to simply profit from them, and this I feel is the main issue, CBMs have become more about money then pure entertainment, that to me is the sad reality.

Just look at how the sequels and prequels are letting you down. Movies are not made to be enjoyed in one sitting any more and the execs know this and use this as part of their manipulation to target your dollar.

As a consumer you are fooled into thinking the second and third installments or reboots might be better then the original. More often then not they're not and most are left wanting... and to the fat cats, Its just money for jam really.





SpiderFan35
SpiderFan35 - 7/3/2011, 2:26 AM
Yep, an epic fail is an epic fail. It did not struggle because of the summer movies and marketing etc, it failed despite them IMO. If your CBM tanks at the box office after lots of marketing and during an action packed CBM heavy summer that has us fanboys all whipped up into a frenzy, it must suck pretty hard.

@ Coldblood6: You got it. They should do a Blueprint for Disaster episode outlining all of the things that went wrong leading up to the release lol.
halvor311
halvor311 - 7/3/2011, 6:16 PM
I think 3-5 are the most reasonable ones. Maybe that's why WB has apparently "green"-lit a sequel already. This movie really did seem like it was setting up Sinestro. I think poor marketing and nitpicking from fans hurt this movie, plus of course everything it's sandwiched b/t, especially considering the fact that Green Lantern isn't as famous as Superman or Batman or Spider-Man. I just got back from seeing it again and loved it! I am seriously not feeling or even understanding any of the hate.
FutureCBMHero
FutureCBMHero - 7/4/2011, 1:10 AM
I want to bring up again that arguably the best movie of the summer, Super 8, which has been out a week longer than GL, only has about a 6million dollar lead on GL. And Pirates 4, which was corny, awful, and flat out not good, just surpassed the 1 billion dollar mark worldwide.

So what does that mean?

1. People go to see characters they know and love, regardless of the fact that those characters have given you 3 straight crap movies.

2. WB should push forward with GL 2, because franchises simply do better than standalone films. Right, wrong, or indifferent, that is the reality of the situation.

3. Only semirelated, but the biggest reason GL is a bust is because of cost. If they had figured out how to do it for 100mil, they would've been just fine for the most part, regardless of reviews.

4. The fact that GI Joe is getting a sequel supports this franchise wins mentality.

5. Once again, regardless of the names attached, Spielberg & Abrams!!!, people aren't as willing to see it if they aren't familiar with characters.

6. Further evidence, TF3 is raking it up!!! TF2 was awful, and action aside, I'm sure TF3 isn't going to be racking in nongraphics related Academy Awards. FRANCHISES WIN.


Push forward with Green Lantern 2. It will pay off in the end.
ThatGuyWithPerfectVision
ThatGuyWithPerfectVision - 7/5/2011, 7:32 PM
hey, if they're making a second Ghost Rider film, then we will surely see a Green Lantern sequel.

Just watched the movie today, and I enjoyed it. My main beef with the movie was the total lack of chemistry between Ryan Reynolds and Blake Lively, and it seemed like half of the movie was just them being awkward around each other.

Yellow Lantern said that the main ingredient for a successful superhero movie is to have a dark and serious storyline, which is just not true. The main ingredient for superhero movies is that they can be fun, lighthearted and for kids, but they can also take themselves seriously enough when they need to. Good examples of this would be Iron Man and Thor. I thought Green Lantern had that quality, but I guess I'm wrong.

I think that if this movie came out pre-"Dark Knight", it would have been better received. I have a feeling we'll be seeing a really good director's cut, or a really good sequel.
SugarYumYum
SugarYumYum - 7/6/2011, 11:41 PM
Agree with everything FutureCBMHero wrote.

It's unfortunate the first movie was an all around disappointment but the best thing they can really do is push forward with stronger and better sequels. They'll do better with a mildly profitable franchise than one over budgeted failed movie. The thing with franchises like Transformers and Pirates though is that critics aside, their first movies are usually loved by the GA. So no matter how crappy the sequels are, they'll keep coming back. GL's first movie was a fail with both the critics AND GA so it'll have a harder time getting people to come back for the sequel. Unlike those franchises, GL's sequel(s) will HAVE to be good. Like Spiderman 2 or Superman Returns good.

I don't buy that Green Lantern is simply an unmarketable concept. Not when movies about a perceptually drunken pirate, talking robots who turn into vehicles, a rich orphan dressing as a bat to fight crime and kids playing tennis on flying broomsticks are raking in the billion dollar category across the globe. You can sell any concept no matter how outlandish or silly it sounds on paper as long as it's presented well and taken seriously. I found GL's premise pretty interesting and so did my mom (I consider her even more a part of GA than myself) the problem was that the makers didn't believe they could sell it. The whole movie had this attitude of "okay, we know this is ridiculous 'guys using the power of will to fight intergalactic threats, like really?' but we already have your money so we're try to get you through this as quickly as possible". It showed in the editing, pacing, and the dialogue. They didn't take the movie seriously so how could the audience?

GL just needs a team that clicks with it's premise and believes others will too and of course, a better script and better editing (that goes without saying). A team that really cares about what it's doing will iron out the kinks.
1 2
Related Headlines
Latest Headlines

Hot Headlines Hot Headlines

Sci-Fi & Fantasy

Anime & Manga

Gaming

Horror

Cartoons & Animated Features

Action Movies & TV

Pro Wrestling & MMA News
View Recorder