Announcement

**Surfsup** · Jul 1, '11, 1:48 PM

I think they're point about about 3D turning people off and a downturn of under 25s not attending the cinemas are valid. Piracy is playing a massive part as well, with movies being pretty easy to get hold of off the net.

That said, I have seen Thor and X-Men. I loved Thor and thought it worked really well, having Natalie Portman in it helped too

. X-Men was good but it felt like there was something missing for me. McAvoy and Fassbender were excellent, but a lot of the other characters were under-developed. January Jones just didn't work for me at all either.

I'm going to see Green Lantern next week hopefully, despite all the reviews. I still think it will be worth seeing just to see GA in action.

**MicromanZone** · Jul 1, '11, 2:00 PM

The other problem is they are pumping these films out so fast, it�s not special. It was thrilling to see �Star Wars� back in the day because it was so unique. Heck, when the first �Spider-Man� came out in 2002 it was equally awesome since nobody had made a decent super-hero film in years. Now, who cares? And there are so many other options nowadays to enter the world of fantasy: If I were 12 years-old and had $14 to spend why would I see a 90 minute movie when I can play a video-game that looks almost as good and I am in control?

The market is saturated, the stories stink and it�s clear that all of this stuff is being squeezed out to simply create a new platform to re-market the same crap over and over again.

Said it in another thread, but I am looking forward to �Captain America� because that looks different and unique. Past that, whatever. Wake me when �Ant-Man� is made into a film.

**kingdom warrior** · Jul 1, '11, 2:32 PM

I don't know about that article, Thor and X-men did healthy numbers, Green Lantern is lagging but it had a bigger budget.....

again these people are not taking into account that we are in a bad economy 14 million people are out of work and movie prices are ridiculous and there *****ing about the numbers? I think they've done well and should stop complaining......the Dvd's are not even out yet where you pick up the audience that didn't want to go to the movies.....

Thor as june 29
Domestically0 $177,441,877
Worldwide- $437,003,116

X-men as june 29
Domestically-$135,153,626
Worldwide-$321,812,269

Green Lantern as june 29
Domestically-94,422,253
Worldwide-$123,822,253

**MIB41** · Jul 1, '11, 10:48 PM

I could not disagree more with that article. I was looking at the schedule for this summer back in the spring and indicated there were way too many big budget films getting thrown together without any serious spacing. How could any of them make any serious money? And that concern has basically come to pass. While I certainly agree with Adam that plot plays a big role EVERY TIME with any genre piece, I believe for a summer as crowded as this, marketing became a more vital component to the overall likelihood of success. You either really got people interested or they decided to wait for DVD.

But when you look at the total gross of ALL FILMS released, there are very few that even eclipse the $200 million mark. Indeed, most films ended up making close to the same amount amongst themselves. And if your actually looking at films that are being profiled as a "success" against those that are not, it's not the box office that is getting weighed. It's the production and marketing costs. A perfect example is Super 8. The media says it's a popular film, while Lantern is being declared a movie nobody went to see. Just one problem with that. Super 8 has been out 21 days and has just grossed $100 million. Lantern has been out only 14 days and sits at $95 million. If you look at the average, Lantern is actually outperforming Super 8 in it's first 14 days. What makes one a bigger hit FINANCIALLY than the other? Production costs. Super 8 only cost a mere $50 million to make. Lantern cost $200 million. There's your difference. So even though more people are seeing Lantern, the production budgets are polar opposites, so the media deems one popular and the other unpopular based on who is in the red and who isn't. That's the "Kool-aid" this article is trying to falsely sell.

There's nothing wrong with the hero genre. Thor, X-Men and even Green Lantern are going to end up falling in with most films that got released this year. Look at the numbers:

Thor - $177 million (out 56 days) Average per day - 3.1

X-Men - $128 million (out 28 days) Avg - 4.5

Lantern - $95 million (out 14 days) Avg - 6.7

Super 8 - $100 million (out 21 days) Avg - 4.7

Pirates IV - $231 million (out 42 days) Avg - 5.5

Bridesmaids - $149 million (out 49 days) Avg - 3.0

Hangover II - $245 million ( out 36 days) Avg - 6.8

And only one other film, Fast Five, has even passed the $200 million mark this year. Everyone else has typically fallen somewhere between $100 and $200 million. So what does that really tell us? There have been a lot of films in popular genre's to see this year. And people are piling in to see them.... But then their moving on to the next one and the next one. Under a standard season many of these films would benefit from repeat viewings. But in this atmosphere, none of them can. So all of these grosses are symptomatic to only one thing - a crowded box office...and nothing more. The hero genre is just fine.

**Adam West** · Jul 2, '11, 1:08 AM

Problem is that Lantern gross vs. production is bad. It is losing money and there are some movies coming out that will crush Lantern (Harry Potter being one of them). Based on reviews and the price of taking a family of 5 to see it....I think I will pass and watch it on dvd. If members here saw it and said it was killer...I'd go see it but there are mixed reviews from those of us that have a biased view.

**BlackKnight** · Jul 2, '11, 1:22 AM

Green Lantern was More like the Comics, than Thor or A Made-up X-men Cast Thrown together Ever were and was. 90% of the Negative Comments on this Board with the Film, is people that Know Nothing about Green Lantern. I personally Hate Harry Potter, and am so Sick and Tired of Warner Brothers Focusing in on That Crap rather than Trying to make A Vast Collection of SuperHero Movies with "Thier" DC Property. If DC Only could ***** thier characters out like Marvel Did ..., that would be something.

**Hector** · Jul 2, '11, 1:31 AM

1. X-Men First Class...A-
2. Thor...B
3. Green Lantern...C-

**BlackKnight** · Jul 2, '11, 1:41 AM

Originally posted by Hector

1. X-Men First Class...A-
2. Thor...B
3. Green Lantern...C-

Point Proven.

**Hector** · Jul 2, '11, 1:57 AM

Green Lantern is a HORRIBLE movie...worse than Catwoman...at least that one has Halle Berry...lol.

**Hector** · Jul 2, '11, 1:59 AM

I was too kind with the C- grade...it's more like a D-...

**VintageMike** · Jul 2, '11, 10:30 AM

Originally posted by Hector

Green Lantern is a HORRIBLE movie...worse than Catwoman...at least that one has Halle Berry...lol.

That's just a ridiculous thing to say. Green Lantern was solid movie, Catwoman was unwatchable. Making that comparison makes it hard to make your criticism of the GL movie seriously.

**kingdom warrior** · Jul 2, '11, 10:48 AM

Originally posted by Hector

Green Lantern is a HORRIBLE movie...worse than Catwoman...at least that one has Halle Berry...lol.

Que hodon tu eres guey.....lol

**The Bat** · Jul 2, '11, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by Hector

Green Lantern is a HORRIBLE movie...worse than Catwoman...at least that one has Halle Berry...lol.

I now believe you to be completely insane Hector.

And another thing....Halle Berry is a HORRIBLE actress!

**Brazoo** · Jul 2, '11, 1:10 PM

At this point I've seen neither film, but if you're watching Berry for her acting ability I'm going to have automatically to side with Hector.

Announcement

Article on Thor, Green Lantern, X-Men

Article on Thor, Green Lantern, X-Men

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment