The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[e_galston]

how in the holy hell was GL focused "too much" on space. They were there for maybe a quarter of the movie if that. The movie took place on earth, the final battle was on Earth. They were on OA for maybe like 20 minutes if that. The reason the movie bombed was NOT because it was "in space" it bombed because the movie was horribly cast and the writing sucked. The only person in the film cast right was Sinestro and he was in the movie for maybe a half hour.

[Jubilee]

The guy at WB agreeed with me. It was pretty much a space movie. Too much time in space and not dark enough. Pretty much his words not mine.

[Rockman]

Twigg seriously think about what you're saying.

WB was tops because of Harry Potter

If Green Lantern was a good movie and still bombed maybe your suggestion would make sense.

But Superman Returns was a much more grounded dark and gritty take on the character, it bombed because it wasn't a good movie.

Catwoman was dark and gritty, but it was horrible.

Every Punisher movie ever was dark and gritty, everyone of them bombed.

I can think of so many examples of dark and gritty films which failed, it's not a good way to look at improving a film.

Jonah Hex could have been a serious western, but for some reason WB added the ability to talk to the dead and dragon balls, you seriously think these same executives have any clue what to do with Superman, or Batman after Nolan leaves?

And again Avengers, the third highest grossing film of all time, was not dark and gritty, none of the Spider-man films were dark and gritty, the Fantastic Four films were not dark and gritty (they weren't very good either)........ But they all did well, and most of them because they were good films, not shoe horned into some genre.

[Chris]

The guy at WB agreeed with me. It was pretty much a space movie. Too much time in space and not dark enough. Pretty much his words not mine.

What part of they have no idea what they're doing is hard to understand?

You lose ground in your stance on this the more you take up with WB execs..

[alaska1125]

The guy at WB agreeed with me. It was pretty much a space movie. Too much time in space and not dark enough. Pretty much his words not mine.

"The guy at WB agreed with me"??? This strengthens your arguement how exactly?

[Doc Jon]

Andrew Stanton is actually to blame for the marketing.

He overruled the Disney marketing execs and wanted to do it his way - which is what we got.







This next part is actually pretty telling about why it didn't do well, beyond just the marketing..



http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-car ... ailer.html

Very enlightening. THanks.

[Doc Jon]

What could they have done with those properties? They've admitted they need to make superman darker and they should have made GL darker. They know what they need to do IMO.

Late to the party on this, but Avengers again blows your argument away.

Batman Begins didn't do crazy money. It did very well, but not as a reason to pattern everything else that comes after it. The Dark KNight was only a runaway hit because Ledger died (combined with a good movie). It's not the be-all and end-all pattern for comic movie-making as you seem to suggest.

[Doc Jon]

But they do get it. They've shown that by making Superman darker and admitting Green lantern was focussed too much on space.

Do you know where Wonder Woman and Doom Patrol is? On the scrap heap because they were shitty ideas.

Why do you keep sidestepping Avengers and its unbelievable success?

[Doc Jon]

The guy at WB agreeed with me. It was pretty much a space movie. Too much time in space and not dark enough. Pretty much his words not mine.

Just going to point out that the first trailer for GL (focused mainly on Earth) looked so terrible that the WB execs you're so big on comparing yourself to rushed out and had a new trailer made, with a brand new focus.

KNow what the focus was? The Corps and space. And that new preview actually got decent traction until people realized that it was only a small fraction of the film.

[e_galston]

Why do you keep sidestepping Avengers and its unbelievable success?

because pretty much every marvel pictures movie destroys his argument.. Not a one of the Marvel "movie-verse" movies were "dark and gritty" and they all did amazing at the box office.

[Doc Jon]

because pretty much every marvel pictures movie destroys his argument.. Not a one of the Marvel "movie-verse" movies were "dark and gritty" and they all did amazing at the box office.

Maybe not amazing, but they did well.

Other than the Dark KNight, WB has had no runaway success. While that's great for them, it hardly means that all superhero movies should follow the pattern.

There have been plenty of grim and gritty superhero films and very few of them have been box office monsters.

[alaska1125]

because pretty much every marvel pictures movie destroys his argument.. Not a one of the Marvel "movie-verse" movies were "dark and gritty" and they all did amazing at the box office.

You got there before I could. Hell, Incredible Hulk would be the biggest disappointment of the bunch and it still opened at $55 million.

[Doc Jon]

You got there before I could. Hell, Incredible Hulk would be the biggest disappointment of the bunch and it still opened at $55 million.

And the Punisher movies, which were definitely grim and gritty, Blade Trinity, and so on were box office disappointments.

[oherowrestyreaddock]

unh, hunh, hunh, hunh, hunh, hunh, hunh, hunh, hunh, hunh, hunh, hunh, hun

[Chris]