Ryan Reynolds' Deadpool Cost Less To Make Than Green Lantern's Marketing Budget

Warner Bros.

Ryan Reynolds' infamous "Green Lantern" seemed doomed from the beginning. In the aftermath of its  legendary failure, the star told Empire (via Vanity Fair) "You really need a visionary behind a movie like that, but it was the classic studio story: 'We have a poster, but we don't have a script or know what we want; let's start shooting!'" Given the shaky ground upon which this misstep started production, you'd think Warner Bros. would be careful about how much it was spending. But the studio ultimately shelled out $200 million on production alone, which was almost four times what 20th Century Fox (as it was then known) spent on Reynolds' vastly more successful "Deadpool" in 2016. In fact, Wade Wilson's inaugural theatrical outing cost a lot less than the marketing budget for "Green Lantern."

Reynolds himself has claimed to know why "Green Lantern" bombed at the box office: special effects. According to the star, everyone involved with the movie was too focused on spending more money on effects shots when they should have been fixing the film's problems — of which there were many. A 25% Rotten Tomatoes critical score speaks for itself, but "Green Lantern" even had Leah Rozen of TheWrap wondering, "How many more of these superheroes can we take?" Bear in mind, this was a time when the Marvel Cinematic Universe was just heating up and Christopher Nolan's Dark Knight trilogy had reinvigorated the genre for a new generation. Today, superhero movies' appeal is on the wane. But in 2011, they hadn't even reached their apex. "Green Lantern" had to be uniquely terrible to have critics questioning whether it was time to give it a rest back then. It was. It's a shame, then, that Warners spent so much money on it.

20 Century Studios

"Green Lantern" lost Warner Bros. a huge amount of money — an estimated $75 million, to be precise. Things weren't looking good when the movie opened to $52.7 million, which was significantly lower than the $60 million projections. As Warner distribution president Dan Fellman told MSN at the time, "I would have been happier at $55 million [...] If we hit $5 million on Monday, all will be forgiven." "Green Lantern" actually did hit $5 million that Monday. In fact, it hit $5.1 million. But considering Warner's huge marketing spend, it simply wasn't going to make much difference.

The studio spent an inordinate amount on the film's special effects and marketing, with The Hollywood Reporter citing industry sources who claimed Warners dropped $100 million on domestic promotion and $75 million overseas (though not all of that would have come out of the Warners coffers, as cross-promotional deals ensured other companies were drawn into the financial maelstrom). THR even cited one source as claiming that Warner likely spent more than $400 million on "Green Lantern" overall. To say a total worldwide box office take of $219.5 million didn't cut it, then, is an understatement.

With the marketing budget of "Green Lantern" estimated to have been well over $100 million, that makes it more than double the entire filming budget of "Deadpool." Ryan Reynolds' debut as the Merc with a Mouth in 2016 was an unmitigated success, especially in comparison to "Green Lantern." Not only did it cost just $58 million to make, "Deadpool" also broke box office records, bringing in $781.9 million in theaters worldwide. Even if 20th Century Fox had decided to drop as much as Warners did on promotion, the studio still would have seen impressive profits.

Warner Bros.

15 years after "Green Lantern" debuted, studios are still relying on big franchises and irresponsible budgets, only now it actually is time for superhero movies to take a nice long break. Even with examples like "Deadpool," studios have continued to spend inordinate amounts of money on comic book films (and franchises generally) long after the superhero boom of the 2010s has subsided. Just take a look at how "Supergirl" flopped at the box office, opening to just $37.1 million domestically (far less than the projected $50 million) and $25.5 million worldwide.

Many have concluded that the age of superhero dominance at the box office is well and truly over, and it's clear why. But there's no doubt the upcoming "Spider-Man: Brand New Day" and "Avengers" films will score big when they debut. The real take away is that the age where creators could take lesser-known heroes and turn them into cultural icons is gone. Instead, if they're going to make more movies involving characters other than Spider-Man, the Avengers, or Batman, they should budget accordingly — say, the way Fox did with "Deadpool," which would have been a success even if it had only made $200 million.

How much did Warner Bros. spend on "Supergirl?" $170 million — almost as much as "Green Lantern." According to Variety, the marketing budget was an additional $120 million — again, not far off the "Green Lantern" spend. The studio is now expected to lose more than $100 million on "Supergirl." Amazingly, these budgets are now the norm. But if Warners had produced a smaller-scale film with a budget to match, the "Supergirl" box office wouldn't have caused quite as much consternation. Evidently, the example set by Ryan Reynolds' Merc with a Mouth has been long forgotten.