The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[dairydead]

How does anyone see it as a viable franchise? There has been absolutely no talk of a sequel at all to my knowledge and normally when a sequel for a movie is planned you will hear about it sometime shortly after the movie comes out. Like I said I might be wrong but I just don't see WB/DC moving forward with a sequel to this movie or any others anytime soon.

Just type in Green Lantern sequel on Google and you'll get plenty. The movie under performed, i never said it did, but to call it a "massive failure" is hyperbole.

[Jubilee]

That budget also does not include any marketing (which was massive) and a sequel is not being worked upon.

It was a massive failure. It didn't make it's money back. Flop city.

[Victorian Squid]

5. Joss Whedon's Advice On Justice League Movie
In light of all the early skepticism and requisite message board razzing, it looks quite likely that Joss Whedon has pulled off a feat many believed could never be done. Over on the DC side of the comic world, a “Justice League” movie has been discussed now and again for years. Whedon was asked what advice he might offer to get that similarly ambitious project off the ground. “Call me,” jokes Whedon. "It's enormously difficult to take very disparate characters and make them work. DC has a harder time of it than Marvel because their characters are from an old, bygone era where characters were bigger than we were. Marvel really cracked the code in terms of ‘Oh, they're just like us.’ Marvel really started with ‘Iron Man.’ I think you need to use that as your base.”

[dairydead]

That budget also does not include any marketing (which was massive) and a sequel is not being worked upon.

It was a massive failure. It didn't make it's money back. Flop city.

it made its money back, and yes there is a sequel being discussed. And you're right, marketing isn't often included in the budget because its handled by different people, and the money is allocated from different places. The marketing is irrelevant to the movie box office receipts.

[Jubilee]

Domestic: $116,601,172
Worldwide: $219,851,172
Budget: $200,000,000 plus

Unless you think that the movie studios took less than 20 million dollars from this film, then it didn't make it's money back, even though somehow you rule out marketing.

[dairydead]

Domestic: $116,601,172
Worldwide: $219,851,172
Budget: $200,000,000 plus

Unless you think that the movie studios took less than 20 million dollars from this film, then it didn't make it's money back, even though somehow you rule out marketing.

Everyone rules out marketing, even the studios, thats why its not factored in.

[TROY]

I hate to do this but I actually agree with Twig, hell must be about to freeze over. As for the sequel news, I did a Google search and there has not been any concrete talk of green lighting a sequel for Green Lantern. There hasn't really been any talk about a sequel at all in almost a year now. Even if another Green Lantern movie ever gets made it is more than likely going to be a hard reboot of the franchise much like Hulk and Batman and not a sequel to the piece of shit that so how by the grace of the Gods above made it on to big screens everywhere.

[David Bird]

not true. Theaters don't generally gain much profit off of ticket sales. That's why concessions cost so much, they are the main source of income for a theater.

Accounting to this the studio's made 51.8 percent on films shown at Regal Entertainment cinemas--the largest chain in the US. Ebert begins the article by conceding that this isn't his area of expertise, but the numbers come directly from Regal. The company's ticket sales were 1.8 billion, they paid 953.7 million as film rentals, and made an additional 700 million at the concession stand.

GL made 336.4 million in sales, with 51.8 percent going back to the studio. That's 174 million, or 26 short of budget (not including marketing).

[dairydead]

Accounting to this the studio's made 51.8 percent on films shown at Regal Entertainment cinemas--the largest chain in the US. Ebert begins the article by conceding that this isn't his area of expertise, but the numbers come directly from Regal. The company's ticket sales were 1.8 billion, they paid 953.7 million as film rentals, and made an additional 700 million at the concession stand.

GL made 336.4 million in sales, with 51.8 percent going back to the studio. That's 174 million, or 26 short of budget (not including marketing).

it depends on the chain, but in the theaters that i have worked for and managed,we saw a little less than 25% on average, sometimes less depending on the studio.

[David Bird]

it depends on the chain, but in the theaters that i have worked for and managed,we saw a little less than 25% on average, sometimes less depending on the studio.

How much went to the chain, rather than the local theatre?

[Dragavon]

Accounting to this the studio's made 51.8 percent on films shown at Regal Entertainment cinemas--the largest chain in the US. Ebert begins the article by conceding that this isn't his area of expertise, but the numbers come directly from Regal. The company's ticket sales were 1.8 billion, they paid 953.7 million as film rentals, and made an additional 700 million at the concession stand.

GL made 336.4 million in sales, with 51.8 percent going back to the studio. That's 174 million, or 26 short of budget (not including marketing).

Not even 336.4 million in sales. Domestic was 116 million, foreign was 103 million. Total was 219 million. Even if they got 100% of the ticket money, they only made 19 million in profit, not counting any marketing.

It was a expensive flop with little chance of a sequel ever being made.

[dairydead]

How much went to the chain, rather than the local theatre?

Well the one im at currently ( i help manage an independent IMAX theater,amongst other attractions, in a museum) plays first run Hollywood movies, but we see very little of the money coming from most first-run movies. The only movies i can recall that have made us anything worthwhile were The Dark Knight, and any of the Harry Potter movies. As far as we are concerned the licencing fees and royalties on every single showing, every single day usually far outweigh any profit we see. Since we are independent, we pay to use the IMAX name. We have a 20 year contract to use that name, but after that we are heavily considering dropping the name IMAX and just marketing ourselves how we want. IMAX has crippling limitations on how we advertise anything. Aaanyways, i know most about our indy theater than the others i have worked at.

I used to work for National Amusements chain, and was told repeatedly that we saw less than 25 percent of profits from each movie. It was my understanding that we subtracted operating and personnel out of the budget, and sent most of the money back to corporate, where they more or less sent us money as they saw fit. What we made was irrelevant, as long as they saw our location as strategic, or beneficial in the long run. It seemed to me that we were a wholly corporate entity, and really had no control over money issues in any way shape or form.

The second National Amusements theater i worked for was a very slow and unpopular theater that made almost no money for the company. We didn't get much, and just squeaked by with a small staff and enough resources to maintain the place every month, but the company kept sending us money to keep open. Ultimately, they wanted to use us to test out a new dine-in theater experience, but the city council shot it down so corporate closed us within the month. To me, that shows how financially in control corporate really was.

[TROY]

Not even 336.4 million in sales. Domestic was 116 million, foreign was 103 million. Total was 219 million. Even if they got 100% of the ticket money, they only made 19 million in profit, not counting any marketing.

It was a expensive flop with little chance of a sequel ever being made.

Thank you!