The Iron Man 2 Box Office Prediction Thread

[danoyse]

with all due respect, I don't really see how I am trolling. I am discussing things and engaging with those who disagree with my takes. Trolls make their attacks and then fly away to avoid those who challenge their ridiculous points. I think my points have made sense and are relevant to this thread. This movie isn't going to make any more real money anyway so I see no harm in me pointing out how silly people act sometimes.

It's a box office thread, not an 'attack people for discussing the box office' thread. If you can't stick to the subject, you won't be posting on this thread.

[Iron_Stark]

You can laugh if you want but I'll come out and say right now it will not only hit $300 million but will possibly match or surpass Iron Man 2. Here's an example of how from the BOM messageboard:


No way to know for certain until we see the numbers for this weekend but it's already looking as if the legs on this film are better than anything we've seen this summer. Also to compare expectations for a sequel to a popular film that made over $300 million to expectations for an unknown property is ridiculous. A $300 million domestic take from Inception is not the same as a $300 million domestic take from Iron Man. Like it or not the expectations for both are completely different.

You can't be serious.


You can't compare the films - one is an original science fiction film and the other is a highly anticipated sequel coming off a huge first film. Marvel/Disney shouldn't panic, but not making as much domestically as the first film has to be somewhat of a surprise and a little disappointing.

Sure I can probably see it that way, but the way people are talking about IM's BO, you'd think it barely made over 100 million.

That's the point I'm trying to make, if there's no panic from WB then there shouldn't be any from Marvel/Disney.

[souvlaki]

You can't be serious.

Completely. Is it a certainty? No, but it's more likely than your projected $210 million ceiling. Right now I'd argue the absolute floor is $205 million. The best comparison I can think of is Batman Begins, another film that started off slowly but had tremendous legs, and obviously it's easily comparable because of the director and fanbase. While not a perfect comparison due to it's opening on a Wednesday, on it's first Tuesday it had grossed $84.9 million. Despite opening on a Friday, Inception is currently at $82.7 million and will probably pass it within the next few days, possibly even tomorrow. As for how it will get to $300 million and higher, I gave an example on the previous page of how it could get there. I don't think anyone is going to have an idea of where this movie is going until we see the numbers for this weekend but if it's above $35 million I think it would be a fair assessment that it's legs are longer than you are giving it credit for. I think your problem with seeing this movie perform well is that you are looking at Inception as if it will perform like a normal summer blockbuster which all signs indicate it will not. The day to day drops have been outstanding, and the WOM grows stronger with every passing day. It's one of the top trending topics on Twitter, and there were even reports of IMAX showings selling out across the country as recently as last night.

Maybe I came off as too cocky in my previous post, but I really don't think Inception making $310 million given how it's performed the last few days is any crazier than saying it will get $210 million.

[Tony Stark]

You can laugh if you want but I'll come out and say right now it will not only hit $300 million but will possibly match or surpass Iron Man 2. Here's an example of how from the BOM messageboard:



No way to know for certain until we see the numbers for this weekend but it's already looking as if the legs on this film are better than anything we've seen this summer. Also to compare expectations for a sequel to a popular film that made over $300 million to expectations for an unknown property is ridiculous. A $300 million domestic take from Inception is not the same as a $300 million domestic take from Iron Man. Like it or not the expectations for both are completely different.

Not going to happen. I think Inception will probably have a 3.5 multiplier which is VERY GOOD, but that only puts it at 217. This is giving it a higher multiplier than any other Nolan film including TDK.

If the film only has a 3.0 multiplier, which is still way above average for a summer flick which is usally 2.5, it will not even make it to 200 million.

The only way Inception makes it to 300 million is if it has Avatar like response at the Box office, and as good as it was, I think that is unlikely. This is the type of film that alot of people may just wait for DVD/Blue Ray. There are alot of effects in the film but alot of it is practical effects. Most of the CGI scenes were what people saw in the trailer.

The movie will probably get nominated for best picture, and possibly best actor with DiCaprio so why do you care if it gets 300 million or beats Iron Man. This is the type of Nolanite behavior that is just sickening.

[souvlaki]

Not going to happen. I think Inception will probably have a 3.5 multiplier which is VERY GOOD, but that only puts it at 217. This is giving it a higher multiplier than any other Nolan film including TDK.

If the film only has a 3.0 multiplier, which is still way above average for a summer flick which is usally 2.5, it will not even make it to 200 million.

The only way Inception makes it to 300 million is if it has Avatar like response at the Box office, and as good as it was, I think that is unlikely. This is the type of film that alot of people may just wait for DVD/Blue Ray. There are alot of effects in the film but alot of it is practical effects. Most of the CGI scenes were what people saw in the trailer.

The movie will probably get nominated for best picture, and possibly best actor with DiCaprio so why do you care if it gets 300 million or beats Iron Man. This is the type of Nolanite behavior that is just sickening.

I don't care honestly. I just think it's way too early to dismiss. And where exactly are you getting an Avatar type response is necessary to get Inception to $300 million? A response similar to the Hangover would probably push it over $300 million.

[Anita18]

Not going to happen. I think Inception will probably have a 3.5 multiplier which is VERY GOOD, but that only puts it at 217. This is giving it a higher multiplier than any other Nolan film including TDK.

If the film only has a 3.0 multiplier, which is still way above average for a summer flick which is usally 2.5, it will not even make it to 200 million.

The movie will probably get nominated for best picture, and possibly best actor with DiCaprio so why do you care if it gets 300 million or beats Iron Man. This is the type of Nolanite behavior that is just sickening.
And your behavior is pretty anti-Nolan as well. :funny:

3.5 multiplier is definitely above average for a summer film, you're right. But you're also using TDK as a comparison, which is ridiculous in itself because it's still the opening weekend record holder. You can't expect to have a huge multiplier after burning off that much demand. TDK had an awesome multiplier considering that.

There isn't really a good comparison for Inception if you're looking at just Nolan films. TDK has the OW record. BB opened on a Wednesday. All his other movies weren't released in the summer.

But yeah, I wouldn't start expecting $300 million, but it would be great if it got there. :yay:

[Tony Stark]

And your behavior is pretty anti-Nolan as well. :funny:

3.5 multiplier is definitely above average for a summer film, you're right. But you're also using TDK as a comparison, which is ridiculous in itself because it's still the opening weekend record holder. You can't expect to have a huge multiplier after burning off that much demand. TDK had an awesome multiplier considering that.

There isn't really a good comparison for Inception if you're looking at just Nolan films. TDK has the OW record. BB opened on a Wednesday. All his other movies weren't released in the summer.

But yeah, I wouldn't start expecting $300 million, but it would be great if it got there. :yay:


The multiplier really doesn't have anything to do with TDK and comparing it to record holders. I think the Prestiege had a 3.3 or 3.4 multiplier and it was financially a success due to smart budget control, but really not a BO smash by any measure. only like 54 million domestic.

Inception just seems like the type of movie that will get good wom reccomendations, and the dailies are a good indication of that. So I expect it will be a 3.2 to 3.5 multiplier. Like I said that's only going to put it's top around 210-217. This film could easily not reach 200 million. That doesn't make it a bad film, it's probably the best film of the summer overall quality wise.

I'm sure it will get a best picture/actor nod, although DiCaprio may get nominated for Shudder Island instead of this. If he doesn't then Ken Wantanabe will get a supporting actor bid, I'm sure of it.

I'm not anti-Nolan, he's a great film maker. I'm anti-Nolanite.

[danoyse]

I'm not anti-Nolan, he's a great film maker. I'm anti-Nolanite.

Discussing Inception's box office in a positive way to does not deem someone a "Nolanite."

[Tony Stark]

Discussing Inception's box office in a positive way to does not deem someone a "Nolanite."

Someone dropping in the middle of a discussin about Iron Man, saying "Inception is going to beat or surpass Iron Man" when it only had a 62 million dollar start, does make them a Nolanite.

I'm a fan on Christopher Nolan, but the Truth is the Batman movies are not even close to his best efforts. If someone was unaware of Nolan and got turned onto his movies after seeing the Batman films great. But the fact is most of the Nolanites would not even bother watching a Nolan film it it weren't for BB and TDK, and that's what bothers me, and I bet it would bother Christopher Nolan as well.

Anyway Inception is a great film, I don't have any qualms about it, and should by some miracle it makes 300 million good for Nolan/WB.

I find it laughable that people think I'm somehow anti-Nolan. Momento is one of my favorite films, and I liked it before I ever knew there was going to be a Batman film directed by Nolan. But because I look at a film and think it's going to have a 3.5 multiplier, but say that it's quite possible it could only have a 3x multiplier (which is still way above average) that I somehow hate Christopher Nolan.

This is fanboyism at it's worse and shows exactly who the "Nolanites" are. Apparently it's not allowed on SHH to like Inception and give it a 9.5/10 rating, and to say it should get a best picture/best actor nomination. Apparently I must bow down before Christopher Nolan and sacrifice my first born at the alter of the Dark Knight, and that Christopher Nolan should direct every superhero movie from here on out.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a bit.

[Tony Stark]

I don't care honestly. I just think it's way too early to dismiss. And where exactly are you getting an Avatar type response is necessary to get Inception to $300 million? A response similar to the Hangover would probably push it over $300 million.

If Inception makes 45 this weekend, then we'll talk. Most predictions show mid 30's which is a good drop, but no where near where it would need to be to make it to 300 million.

Hangover is a different animal. Popular comedies often have high multipliers because they don't get frontloaded, because there's not a rush of people to see them opening weekend, as a standard Summer blockbuster.

The Curse of the Black Pearl was also a special exception where people didn't know what to make of it, until it came out and there was a rush to see what was the one big blockbuster in an otherwise ordinary summer (with the exception of X2).

I just don't see that with Inception, although who knows. I just find it hillarious that giving it a 3.5 multiplier is somehow dissing the movie.

You will know by tomorow night if it's going to make 300.

[Crook]

Someone dropping in the middle of a discussin about Iron Man, saying "Inception is going to beat or surpass Iron Man" when it only had a 62 million dollar start, does make them a Nolanite.

I'm a fan on Christopher Nolan, but the Truth is the Batman movies are not even close to his best efforts. If someone was unaware of Nolan and got turned onto his movies after seeing the Batman films great. But the fact is most of the Nolanites would not even bother watching a Nolan film it it weren't for BB and TDK, and that's what bothers me, and I bet it would bother Christopher Nolan as well.

Anyway Inception is a great film, I don't have any qualms about it, and should by some miracle it makes 300 million good for Nolan/WB.

I find it laughable that people think I'm somehow anti-Nolan. Momento is one of my favorite films, and I liked it before I ever knew there was going to be a Batman film directed by Nolan. But because I look at a film and think it's going to have a 3.5 multiplier, but say that it's quite possible it could only have a 3x multiplier (which is still way above average) that I somehow hate Christopher Nolan.

This is fanboyism at it's worse and shows exactly who the "Nolanites" are. Apparently it's not allowed on SHH to like Inception and give it a 9.5/10 rating, and to say it should get a best picture/best actor nomination. Apparently I must bow down before Christopher Nolan and sacrifice my first born at the alter of the Dark Knight, and that Christopher Nolan should direct every superhero movie from here on out.

I think I just threw up in my mouth a bit.
This rant sounds oddly familiar. Doesn't feel great now that the shoe is on the other foot, eh? :hehe:

[souvlaki]

The Curse of the Black Pearl was also a special exception where people didn't know what to make of it, until it came out and there was a rush to see what was the one big blockbuster in an otherwise ordinary summer (with the exception of X2).

And this doesn't apply to Inception how exactly? This pretty much sums up Inception to a "T". You are using similar multipliers to past Nolan films but that really doesn't apply in this case. Dark Knight As Anita pointed out Dark Knight was more front loaded due to it's huge opening weekend. While Batman Begins had amazing legs it didn't have nearly as large of weekday numbers. In fact, on Begins' first Wednesday (not counting it's opening day) it had made $90 million which puts Inception out in front of Begins after less than a week. And trying to compare the legs on the Prestige to the legs on Inception seems pointless as well as the Prestige had nowhere near the critical acclaim or WOM of Inception.

Saw someone figure out the take if it were to follow a similar path as past movies with similar drops to this point and this was the result:

Pirates: $385 million.
Star Trek: $347 million
Signs: $323 million
Bourne 3: $300 million
Bourne 2: $300 million
I, Robot: $268 million
Sixth Sense: $623 million

I'm not saying it's going to happen but it's not completely out of the realm of possibilities. If it ends up somewhere around $40 million this weekend then I think it might happen.

[ElMariachi]

It's a box office thread, not an 'attack people for discussing the box office' thread. If you can't stick to the subject, you won't be posting on this thread.

I am not attacking anybody. I have been trying to discuss the box office numbers but it's all specualation. We don't have any information or statistics to go by aside from the box office numbers. I don't see why your getting on me when all I was doing is saying that Iron Man 2 made good enough money.

[Tony Stark]

And this doesn't apply to Inception how exactly? This pretty much sums up Inception to a "T". You are using similar multipliers to past Nolan films but that really doesn't apply in this case. Dark Knight As Anita pointed out Dark Knight was more front loaded due to it's huge opening weekend. While Batman Begins had amazing legs it didn't have nearly as large of weekday numbers. In fact, on Begins' first Wednesday (not counting it's opening day) it had made $90 million which puts Inception out in front of Begins after less than a week. And trying to compare the legs on the Prestige to the legs on Inception seems pointless as well as the Prestige had nowhere near the critical acclaim or WOM of Inception.

Saw someone figure out the take if it were to follow a similar path as past movies with similar drops to this point and this was the result:

Pirates: $385 million.
Star Trek: $347 million
Signs: $323 million
Bourne 3: $300 million
Bourne 2: $300 million
I, Robot: $268 million
Sixth Sense: $623 million

I'm not saying it's going to happen but it's not completely out of the realm of possibilities. If it ends up somewhere around $40 million this weekend then I think it might happen.

I don't know where you got those numbers but hardly any of them are correct.

Star Trek did not make 347 million it made 257 million. WW it made 385, but we are talking domestic. Star Trek had a 3.4 multiplier and opened to 75 million.

Curse of the Black Pearl: 305M
Signs: 227M
Bourne Identity: 121M
Bourne Supremacy: 176M
Bourne Ultimatum: 227M
I Robot: 144M
Sixth Sense: 293M

[Crook]

Please read again, he clearly states the numbers reflect what INCEPTION would make, if it follows the same trajectory of the aforementioned titles.

[souvlaki]

^Yeah, what Crook said.

[Tony Stark]

Please read again, he clearly states the numbers reflect what INCEPTION would make, if it follows the same trajectory of the aforementioned titles.

That can't be right either. I'd have to figure out the day numbers as Inception is higher due to being released in the summer vs. May for Star Trek, but Star Trek had a 42% drop in wk. 2. If that holds for Inception then it would make about 35M this weekend, so those projections can't possibly be right, as the daily numbers wouldn't account for over 100M difference.

This is getting rediculous 623M based on 6th Sense? A 10x multiplier. Seriously WTF? Avatar has been the only thing close to a 10x and even it was just shy of that.

For this film to make 300M it would need a 4.8x multiplier, which again is way above the norm.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

You can't compare the films - one is an original science fiction film and the other is a highly anticipated sequel coming off a huge first film. Marvel/Disney shouldn't panic, but not making as much domestically as the first film has to be somewhat of a surprise and a little disappointing.

Thats the point people have been trying to make throughout, including myself, and its an absolute certainty that Marvel wont be entirely happy with IM2 making less domestic than IM1, but pointing this out gets you accused of being a Nolanite or Batfan despite the fact I have followed Nolan since Memento and have been a huge Marvel fan for years.

And yet they accuse others of bias, its laughable.

[hatebox]

Inception has broken $100m in 7 days, according to estimates.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Inception's weekdays have been fantastic. It's going to have a great weekend. It might make over 40mil. I'm thinking a 35% drop right now but I wouldn't be surprised at all if it did even better than that. I just don't see how it ends under 250mil domestically.

[Milkman95]

Yup, over $100 Million for Inception - you're right, it just might hit $40m this weekend........it has a cover story also on Entertainment Weekly as well.

[Tony Stark]

Thats the point people have been trying to make throughout, including myself, and its an absolute certainty that Marvel wont be entirely happy with IM2 making less domestic than IM1, but pointing this out gets you accused of being a Nolanite or Batfan despite the fact I have followed Nolan since Memento and have been a huge Marvel fan for years.

And yet they accuse others of bias, its laughable.

Well I can't speak for others, but for myself, and I know you're a Marvel fan and not a Nolanite.

To me a Nolanite is the people who come on here and out of the blue say "Inception is going to make 600M dollars WW"

I too have been a fan of Nolan's since Momento, and quite honestly the Batman film aren't even close to his best work. But don't say that on a Batman thread.

[Milkman95]

^Why not, you can say that, I would hope the craziest Batfan should be able to admit that.

Memento and Inception are better than both Batman films.

[hatebox]

Deadline is reporting that Inception is on course to have a $43m weekend, though last friday they lowballed its OW take by over $5m so it might be even higher. Either way an amazing hold. If the drops continue at this rate (especially as Salt was, demographically, quite stiff competition) then it would hit $300m, but I'm assuming nothing yet. Box office is a funny thing.

[Iron_Stark]

Really good hold by Inception. I still doubt it gets to 300, but it's going to end up with a lot of money.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

300mil is looking more and more likely but I'm not ready to say it's a lock until I see next weekends numbers. We can now say that it is having great word of mouth because the numbers prove that. Jolie is a good actress and I wish her well but Salt was tripe, I'm glad Inception is going to be number one again.

[Milkman95]

Estimates are in - $43.5 Million for Inception.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Great numbers.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well I can't speak for others, but for myself, and I know you're a Marvel fan and not a Nolanite.

To me a Nolanite is the people who come on here and out of the blue say "Inception is going to make 600M dollars WW"

I too have been a fan of Nolan's since Momento, and quite honestly the Batman film aren't even close to his best work. But don't say that on a Batman thread.

Well, I have been accused of being a Nolan fan more than once in this thread for daring to suggest that Marvel werent expecting IM2 to make less domestic than IM1, which they werent.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm far from a crazed Nolan fan and I still believe that Iron Man 2's domestic numbers and reception are disappointing to the studio. They won't say it ofcourse but that doesn't make it any less true. Very resonable boxoffice predictors expected the movie to do atleast 350mil and with good reason.

Transformers was a well received movie that made 319mil and the sequel two years later came out and made 402mil.

Parates 1 was a well received movie that made 305mil and 3 years later the sequel came out and made 425mil.

Iron Man was a well received movie and made 318mil and 2 years later Iron Man 2 comes out and will probably end with 312 or 313mil.

People weren't just talking out of there ass and overpredicting Iron Man 2, there was a reason that alot of people saw the movie grossing atleast 350mil. Nobody expects that result with most sequels but Iron Man 2 was in a great postion so it wasn't unfair to expect more from it.

This is hindsight but one thing that messed up Iron Man 2 was that opening weekend, obviously the marketing wasn't as good as it could have been, couple that with people not liking the film as much and you have this result. Alot of money and success internationally but the domestic numbers leave alot to be desired. Still I can't argue with 300mil being 300mil. It's a big hit but a big hit that has tainted the franchise. As I said over and over again it's not just about the dollars, you have to keep the excitement going and IM2 just did not do that.

I've said this all before but I just thought I'd say it again.

[Iron_Stark]

I'm far from a crazed Nolan fan and I still believe that Iron Man 2's domestic numbers and reception are disappointing to the studio. They won't say it ofcourse but that doesn't make it any less true. Very resonable boxoffice predictors expected the movie to do atleast 350mil and with good reason.

Transformers was a well received movie that made 319mil and the sequel two years later came out and made 402mil.

Parates 1 was a well received movie that made 305mil and 3 years later the sequel came out and made 425mil.

Iron Man was a well received movie and made 318mil and 2 years later Iron Man 2 comes out and will probably end with 312 or 313mil.

People weren't just talking out of there ass and overpredicting Iron Man 2, there was a reason that alot of people saw the movie grossing atleast 350mil. Nobody expects that result with most sequels but Iron Man 2 was in a great postion so it wasn't unfair to expect more from it.

This is hindsight but one thing that messed up Iron Man 2 was that opening weekend, obviously the marketing wasn't as good as it could have been, couple that with people not liking the film as much and you have this result. Alot of money and success internationally but the domestic numbers leave alot to be desired. Still I can't argue with 300mil being 300mil. It's a big hit but a big hit that has tainted the franchise. As I said over and over again it's not just about the dollars, you have to keep the excitement going and IM2 just did not do that.

I've said this all before but I just thought I'd say it again.


No it hasn't. And how has it tainted it? Just because you personally didn't like it doesn't mean all those people that bought tickets for it didn't also. You don't speak for all those people.

Also you said "Very resonable boxoffice predictors expected the movie to do atleast 350mil and with good reason."

It's going to end 40 million shy of that and now it's become some huge disappointment for Marvel and a tainted franchise???

What now Marvel should just scrap it's plans for Iron Man 3 and give RDJ a small cameo in the Avengers because a few people on this message board think Iron Man 2 was some sort of failure? riiiiiiiight. :whatever:

[hatebox]

According to posters on BOM Inception should comfortably pass $300m IF its drops do not surpass 35% from here on out. So it's certainly possible now, much to my surprise.

[Spider-Vader]

Marvel shouldn't be disappointed. The same thing happened with the Spider-Man series. First one was a surprise hit (did anyone seeing Spidey making over 400 million?) & then the second did good, but not AS good.

[FaT_tONle]

I think the difference between **** like IM and Spidey versus POTC and TF, there is a steady fanbase with the former two. If you were a casual movie goer that liked IM and Spidey, you probably saw the second one in theaters. But maybe you were busy that weekend and something else came up, and next weekend rolled around, three weekends later and you just never got around to watching it in cinemas. Blue-ray will be just around the corner, it's nothing I haven't seen before anyway... that's what most people in that boat are thinking. I was shocked when someone I know who enjoyed IM just never got around to see IM2, albeit there was a darn good reason why he wasn't there OW, but he just never got around to it. Albeit he is an openly converted Nolanite who is losing interest in the CB movie rush spare BB3. The difference with POTC and TF, those fanbases are almost non-existent before the first movie. Yeah there were those cult of TF fans from the 80's that vividly remember the toons but that's not nearly on the same level as Marvel's fans. Those films were phenomenons that grew exponentially over a short period of time. Of course that probably means they die out sooner than anticipated. Matrix Reloaded also made major bank. That's the mold of these modern franchises. You come onto the scenes from nowhere and quickly fizzle out, or you have slightly more sustainable success. If TF3 and POTC4 bomb, we will know where they fit in.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

No it hasn't. And how has it tainted it? Just because you personally didn't like it doesn't mean all those people that bought tickets for it didn't also. You don't speak for all those people.

Also you said "Very resonable boxoffice predictors expected the movie to do atleast 350mil and with good reason."

It's going to end 40 million shy of that and now it's become some huge disappointment for Marvel and a tainted franchise???

What now Marvel should just scrap it's plans for Iron Man 3 and give RDJ a small cameo in the Avengers because a few people on this message board think Iron Man 2 was some sort of failure? riiiiiiiight. :whatever:

What she was pointing out was that Marvel wont be happy with the domestic take, not completely happy, in fact i guarantee they are dissapointed that this sequel didnt make more domestic than IM1, this is a fact, Marvel didnt put an extra $50 million + into the movie to be happy that it made either less or around the same profit as the 1st movie.

Anyone who denies this is delluding themselves in my humble opinion.

[FaT_tONle]

I agree, this domestic take is not something to be happy about. They can be content with it, but it's not what the expectations were. I think it is a blessing... the minute they get the idea that a movie about the red and gold is easy money is the minute they make a crappy movie. It keeps Marvel in check... don't get too sloppy and have another TIH on your hands, because that can easily happen.

[Iron_Stark]

What she was pointing out was that Marvel wont be happy with the domestic take, not completely happy, in fact i guarantee they are dissapointed that this sequel didnt make more domestic than IM1, this is a fact, Marvel didnt put an extra $50 million + into the movie to be happy that it made either less or around the same profit as the 1st movie.

Anyone who denies this is delluding themselves in my humble opinion.

Again, show me where they're not happy and I'm not looking for an interview or something, show me where Fiege or another Marvel person is avoiding questions about a sequel or Iron Man's inclusion in the Avengers.

I guess I was looking at the wrong comic con where they didn't even want to introduce RDJ on stage at the Avengers panel because they were sooooo disappointed with him and his movie.

And even if they are disappointed what the hell does it matter?? Are they going to scrap plans for a sequel or keep from Iron Man appearing in the Avengers?

[Crook]

If there will be any official statements coming from Marvel's way, it'd be years. Die Another Day was a great success for MGM, which at the time was the highest-grossing Bond movie. Years later when CR came up as a reboot, they very quickly dismissed that film as not being the ideal Bond movie. After SR came out, Jeff Robinov stated he was pleased with the film establishing the character, and now we can move on to really unleashing him. Years later after TDKs success, he goes on to say:
“Super*man [Returns] didn’t quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to,” said Robinov. “It didn’t position the character the way he needed to be positioned. Had Superman worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009. But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Ba*man and Superman movie at all.”:funny:

So yeah, studio execs aren't exactly the right people to take their words on. They wouldn't be doing their jobs if every word coming out of their mouths wasn't carefully prepared for to protect assets.

[ElMariachi]

As I said over and over again it's not just about the dollars, you have to keep the excitement going and IM2 just did not do that.

I've said this all before but I just thought I'd say it again.


What do you mean that they didn't keep the excitement going? The movie made more money (30+ million) in total then did Iron Man 1. In a weak economy without 3D, no less. And not including DVD/Bluray sales and rental or any of the other merchandise sales (video games, toys, comics, etc.).

Many of you act like Iron Man 2 was received in a similar fashion as Catwoman or Batman Forever by the general audience. Iron Man 2 was a good movie. It was a great movie in the context of it being superhero themed in my opinion. Everybody I have talked to enjoyed the movie, many even over the first film. You can even look at popular sites like IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes and see that it is considered a good movie. A 7.4 out of 10 is considered a good or an above average score. Some may feel the first was a better movie, but that doesn't mean IM2 was mediocre/bad or killed the excitment. Quite the contrary. Outside established heroes like Batman and Spiderman, Iron Man is third biggest name on the superhero movie totempole. I don't see how one can complain about this in regards to recognition or excitement. Iron Man isn't a recognizable or cherished character like Harry Potter, so I don't see why some of you have such unrealistic expectations at the box office.

Also, the problem here is that many on this board have been so spoiled by TDK (and IM1 to an extent) that you aren't happy unless a movie is Oscar quality or is highly regarded by the critics.

[Iron_Stark]

If there will be any official statements coming from Marvel's way, it'd be years. Die Another Day was a great success for MGM, which at the time was the highest-grossing Bond movie. Years later when CR came up as a reboot, they very quickly dismissed that film as not being the ideal Bond movie. After SR came out, Jeff Robinov stated he was pleased with the film establishing the character, and now we can move on to really unleashing him. Years later after TDKs success, he goes on to say:
:funny:

So yeah, studio execs aren't exactly the right people to take their words on. They wouldn't be doing their jobs if every word coming out of their mouths wasn't carefully prepared for to protect assets.


And again, even if they are disappointed is this going to alter plans for future Iron Man films?

Have they came out and answered questions about part 3 with Hulk type answers?

Is Iron Man going to have a limited role in the Avengers because he's "tainted" in the box office?

[Iron_Stark]

What do you mean that they didn't keep the excitement going? The movie made more money (30+ million) in total then did Iron Man 1. In a weak economy without 3D, no less. And not including DVD/Bluray sales and rental or any of the other merchandise sales (video games, toys, comics, etc.).

Many of you act like Iron Man 2 was received in a similar fashion as Catwoman or Batman Forever by the general audience. Iron Man 2 was a good movie. It was a great movie in the context of it being superhero themed in my opinion. Everybody I have talked to enjoyed the movie, many even over the first film. You can even look at popular sites like IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes and see that it is considered a good movie. A 7.4 out of 10 is considered a good or an above average score. Some may feel the first was a better movie, but that doesn't mean IM2 was mediocre/bad or killed the excitment. Quite the contrary. Outside established heroes like Batman and Spiderman, Iron Man is third biggest name on the superhero movie totempole. I don't see how one can complain about this in regards to recognition or excitement. Iron Man isn't a recognizable or cherished character like Harry Potter, so I don't see why some of you have such unrealistic expectations at the box office.

Also, the problem here is that many on this board have been so spoiled by TDK (and IM1 to an extent) that you aren't happy unless a movie is Oscar quality or is highly regarded by the critics.

This. :up:

[Crook]

And again, even if they are disappointed is this going to alter plans for future Iron Man films?

Have they came out and answered questions about part 3 with Hulk type answers?

Is Iron Man going to have a limited role in the Avengers because he's "tainted" in the box office?
Perhaps you should slow it down a bit because none of those have really anything to do with what I said.

But since we're on the topic, if anything I think IM3 will be more informed of what the fans want from another sequel. Whereas with IM2, they were pretty confident based on the established audience of the first that they could do what they wanted.

[Daredevil]

I really enjoyed Iron Man 2. I am hoping that a sequel is made.

[Tony Stark]

Anyone who saw or went to the comicon panel with Marvel and thinks that IM2 somehow stalled the franchise is smoking crack. RDJ received the loudest applause of anyone at the Avengers promo.

The franchise hasn't stepped back at all, if anything it's in high gear with Avengers and then with IM3. IM2 also was a great promo for Thor, and because of the end credit scene, it created alot of buzz for Thor, to where it got a ET promo nearly a year before the release.

The big thing IM3 has going for it, is they saved IM's no. 1 villian for the final movie. This is something no other superhero movie has done. Most of them get the baddie out in the first movie. In the X-men films he was there throughout, and perhaps in the Spidey movies, wheather Green Goblin or Doc Ock is the no. 1 arch-nemesis is debateable. But having Madarin in the third film is going to be huge.

But we all know Avengers is yet another chance for Iron Man to shine, as he will definitely be the prominate player.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I love how the people who don't know what they are talking about twist my words. Where in my post did I say that an Iron Man 3 wouldn't be made? I never wrote anything of the sort. And the comparsion to the Spider-Man movies is ridiculous because the first Iron Man movie did not make 400mil. I compared it to the right films. There was room for growth and it just didn't happen for the reasons I mentioned. And I never said that a sequel that makes less than the first always spells trouble but in Iron Man 2's case it does.

The movie only faced two 100million dollar movies in May. Shrek 4 was helped by the 3D prices so it didn't even sell as many tickets as the other 235million dollar movies and Robin Hood only did 105mil. With virtually no competition it only had a 2.4 multpiler. Thats bad for a film that appeals largely to both genders, children and old people. Nobody expected the same legs as the first but this movie had very little competition and still couldn't manage a non bad multipiler? This isn't Twilight we are talking about, this means that word of mouth was not great.

Cinema Score for Iron Man 2: A

Cinema Score for Inception: B

Inception is headed for at the very least a 4.3multiplier. And thats really me lowballing it because I think that a 4.8 might be in order. Thats an pretty ridiculously amazing multipler for this day and age.

Also the movie's reviews were worse with most of the good reviews saying tepid things and trying there darnest to not acknowledge the large step down in quality.

Worst audience recpetion judging by the multipler and worse reviews does not a fully successful sequel make.

[Tony Stark]

According to your logic everyone is going to be exiced for TF3 because it made 400 million. The fact is most people probably wish none of the TF movies have ever been made, other than kids with ADHD, who think it's funny to see a CGI scrotum on a robot.

Also Twilight Saga: New Moon pretty much tanked after week 2, but the 3rd one will probably make it close to 300 million.

Also you can't have it both ways, you can't count reviews as a positive and not money, and then count money and not reviews. People compred it to Spider-man because it was the 2nd biggest opening for a non-sequel film, but it was also higher rated than the first Spider-man. In fact RT just ranked IM1 as the no. 2 highest reveiwed comic or graphic novel to film translation, ahead of the Dark Knight and Spider-man 1 and 2.

WTF does Inception have to do with IM3 doing well. Inception is going to have no sequel, so WTF are you talking about?

multipliers only guage if the movie will be front loaded or if it will have longevity. If IM2 had only opened to 80 million and made the numbers it did now would you be jumping in your seat? No because the same amout of tickets would have been sold.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Again, show me where they're not happy and I'm not looking for an interview or something, show me where Fiege or another Marvel person is avoiding questions about a sequel or Iron Man's inclusion in the Avengers.

I guess I was looking at the wrong comic con where they didn't even want to introduce RDJ on stage at the Avengers panel because they were sooooo disappointed with him and his movie.

And even if they are disappointed what the hell does it matter?? Are they going to scrap plans for a sequel or keep from Iron Man appearing in the Avengers?

Marvel didnt even come out and say TIH was dissapointing, you expect them to do it for IM?

Get real, Marvel WILL NOT be pleased that IM2 failed to outgross IM1 domestically after putting in $50 million + extra for the sequel, but this doesnt mean they will abandon plans for more movies, they will be content with the take but the fact the movie itself has probably made less profit than IM1 is not something to be pleased about for a studio exec, no matter how you spin it.

Again, it wont derail anything, but Marvel wont be happy it has failed to outgross IM1 domestically.

According to your logic everyone is going to be exiced for TF3 because it made 400 million. The fact is most people probably wish none of the TF movies have ever been made, other than kids with ADHD, who think it's funny to see a CGI scrotum on a robot.

Also Twilight Saga: New Moon pretty much tanked after week 2, but the 3rd one will probably make it close to 300 million.

Also you can't have it both ways, you can't count reviews as a positive and not money, and then count money and not reviews. People compred it to Spider-man because it was the 2nd biggest opening for a non-sequel film, but it was also higher rated than the first Spider-man. In fact RT just ranked IM1 as the no. 2 highest reveiwed comic or graphic novel to film translation, ahead of the Dark Knight and Spider-man 1 and 2.

WTF does Inception have to do with IM3 doing well. Inception is going to have no sequel, so WTF are you talking about?

multipliers only guage if the movie will be front loaded or if it will have longevity. If IM2 had only opened to 80 million and made the numbers it did now would you be jumping in your seat? No because the same amout of tickets would have been sold.

She brings up Inception because people on here keep using all kinds of excuses for why IM2 didnt outgross IM1 domestically, economy being the main one. But Inception puts that theory to **** and shows if you make a genuinly good movie then people will go and see it, bad economy or not. IM2 didnt have good legs because havent been going to see it again like they did with IM1, this is because, in many people's opinions, Marvel rushed the movie out and this had a detrimental effect on its quality, which was good enough in many peoples eyes.

[Iron_Stark]

Marvel didnt even come out and say TIH was dissapointing, you expect them to do it for IM?

Get real, Marvel WILL NOT be pleased that IM2 failed to outgross IM1 domestically after putting in $50 million + extra for the sequel, but this doesnt mean they will abandon plans for more movies, they will be content with the take but the fact the movie itself has probably made less profit than IM1 is not something to be pleased about for a studio exec, no matter how you spin it.

Again, it wont derail anything, but Marvel wont be happy it has failed to outgross IM1 domestically.

She brings up Inception because people on here keep using all kinds of excuses for why IM2 didnt outgross IM1 domestically, economy being the main one. But Inception puts that theory to **** and shows if you make a genuinly good movie then people will go and see it, bad economy or not. IM2 didnt have good legs because havent been going to see it again like they did with IM1, this is because, in many people's opinions, Marvel rushed the movie out and this had a detrimental effect on its quality, which was good enough in many peoples eyes.


Ok you keep saying Marvel isn't going to be pleased and it's not going to derail anything, so what the hell is your point of saying IM2 disappointed in every other post?

If they felt it disappointed, then they'll rectify their mistakes for part three simple as that. IM2 isn't going to kill the franchise nor has it tainted a goddamn thing.

Inception's only at 160.5 mill, quit acting like it's at 260.5, it'll top off at around 220-230 dom.

[Tony Stark]

Marvel didnt even come out and say TIH was dissapointing, you expect them to do it for IM?

Get real, Marvel WILL NOT be pleased that IM2 failed to outgross IM1 domestically after putting in $50 million + extra for the sequel, but this doesnt mean they will abandon plans for more movies, they will be content with the take but the fact the movie itself has probably made less profit than IM1 is not something to be pleased about for a studio exec, no matter how you spin it.

Again, it wont derail anything, but Marvel wont be happy it has failed to outgross IM1 domestically.



She brings up Inception because people on here keep using all kinds of excuses for why IM2 didnt outgross IM1 domestically, economy being the main one. But Inception puts that theory to **** and shows if you make a genuinly good movie then people will go and see it, bad economy or not. IM2 didnt have good legs because havent been going to see it again like they did with IM1, this is because, in many people's opinions, Marvel rushed the movie out and this had a detrimental effect on its quality, which was good enough in many peoples eyes.


You guys need to learn the difference between money, multipliers and tickets sold.

[ElMariachi]

She brings up Inception because people on here keep using all kinds of excuses for why IM2 didnt outgross IM1 domestically, economy being the main one. But Inception puts that theory to **** and shows if you make a genuinly good movie then people will go and see it, bad economy or not. IM2 didnt have good legs because havent been going to see it again like they did with IM1, this is because, in many people's opinions, Marvel rushed the movie out and this had a detrimental effect on its quality, which was good enough in many peoples eyes.

Inception isn't a box office smash at this point. It has only made $251 million worldwide so far. What are you guys talking about even bringing up this movie? Inception doesn't make this much money to begin with had it not been for TDK for starters----it was almost completley sold on the buzz of that movie.

You guys are simply hating at this point. Iron Man 2 felt rushed? Where? When? It was a great movie. The miniscule flaws you see don't make that much of a difference at the box office.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Ok you keep saying Marvel isn't going to be pleased and it's not going to derail anything, so what the hell is your point of saying IM2 disappointed in every other post?

For the 1000th time, this is the box office thread, I am discussing the box office!

If they felt it disappointed, then they'll rectify their mistakes for part three simple as that. IM2 isn't going to kill the franchise nor has it tainted a goddamn thing.

This has been my point all along, Marvel rushing the movie out meant that the movie wasnt as good as it could've and should've been and this is why it didnt make more than the first movie domestically, this has been my point all along but it somehow gets lost in all the 'its the nolanites!' comments.

I never said it tainted anything, but many thought the movie was dissapointing so it may have tainted the franchise for them.

Inception's only at 160.5 mill, quit acting like it's at 260.5, it'll top off at around 220-230 dom.

:huh: I'm not acting like anything, all i'm saying is that people are going to see it again and again and thats why its having good legs. Whatever it ends up making its done well for a sci-fi movie with no built in fan base.

Calm down its nothing personal.

Inception isn't a box office smash at this point. It has only made $251 million worldwide so far. What are you guys talking about even bringing up this movie? Inception doesn't make this much money to begin with had it not been for TDK for starters----it was almost completley sold on the buzz of that movie.

It cant have had that much buzz of TDK as the opening weekend wasnt huge, it has shown great legs since though and thats because people loved it, IM2 hasnt had good legs because it dissapointed many, and who said Inception is a BO smash?

You guys are simply hating at this point. Iron Man 2 felt rushed? Where? When? It was a great movie. The miniscule flaws you see don't make that much of a difference at the box office.

Hating? I found the movie a bit dissapointing as an Iron Man fan, can we not discuss what we didnt like about it just as you discuss what you did?

The whole movie felt rushed, the plot was hardly coherent, and the movie almost totally lacked any emotion or power.

[JeetKuneDo]

I just saw that IM2 outgrossed IM1 on it's 84th day. (both were weekdays) Cracked me up so I thought I would post it.

I wonder if all the people bringing up Inception so often in a IM2 BO thread see how obvious that makes them look? Probably not. Odd how they picked that one movie out of the bunch.

Is Marvel disappointed in IM2? That seems to be the one thing some here are insisting is true. I dunno, was Warner Brothers disappointed with Batman Begins domestic gross? They spent 150 million making it and only got back 205 million domestic. They must have been twice as "disappointed" as Marvel is since IM2 returned more than twice as much profit to Marvel. That obviously killed the franchise.

You Inception folks better hope it makes way more profit than IM2 so you don't have to admit how "disappointing" it is. They spent 160 million on it so obviously they were "expecting" more profit than IM2 made. Not sure how much that is, but it's some magic number above the 111 million profit IM2 made. So does that mean it has to make over 271 million? Is that the threshold for "studio happiness"? Surely Inception will sail past 400 million since it supposedly has better WoM than any other movie. That's not asking much after what Avatar did. Surely Inception has similar WoM, right?

I'm sure the rules are different for Inception since I see the rules are somehow different for the Spider-Man franchise. The fact that SM2 made less is ok somehow. Not a "disappointment" even though Sony spent more on SM2. (200 million to 139 million....almost the same increase between IM1 and IM2) Also the second Batman movie had a massive drop (I thought it was better myself). ...And the second Superman movie grossed 20% less than the first (again I liked it better). But they don't count. This mysterious rule only applies to the Iron Man franchise somehow. :) All this is based on those incredibly important "expectations" that someone, somewhere comes up with using the aforementioned "rules" that only apply when they want them to apply.

We are just certain that Marvel is disappointed. Never mind that their movie is one of the very rare movies that break the 300 million domestic mark. (Usually only 2 or 3 movies a year do that) And that their movie is the only one that did it without the 3D boost.

If you want to talk "disappointed" talk about The Incredible Hulk. 150 million budget, 134 million domestic gross. I'll buy that one...ouch. And I'm thinking both Marvel movies and the DC movie next year won't break the 200 million barrier. (I hope they are all breakout hits though) Maybe that will bring people down to earth a little and help them see exactly what 300 million means.

Anyone who saw or went to the comicon panel with Marvel and thinks that IM2 somehow stalled the franchise is smoking crack. RDJ received the loudest applause of anyone at the Avengers promo.

That was odd for a guy that just starred in a movie that "tainted the franchise", wasn't it? ;)


She brings up Inception because people on here keep using all kinds of excuses for why IM2 didnt outgross IM1 domestically, economy being the main one. But Inception puts that theory to **** and shows if you make a genuinly good movie then people will go and see it, bad economy or not. IM2 didnt have good legs because havent been going to see it again like they did with IM1, this is because, in many people's opinions, Marvel rushed the movie out and this had a detrimental effect on its quality, which was good enough in many peoples eyes.

Let's see if Inception manages to overcome the economy. It certainly won't prove it if less people go to see it than saw IM2.

edit: I love you guys. Gotta love a bunch of people that like to talk about friggin' comic book movies. :)

[ElMariachi]

It cant have had that much buzz of TDK as the opening weekend wasnt huge, it has shown great legs since though and thats because people loved it, IM2 hasnt had good legs because it dissapointed many, and who said Inception is a BO smash?

It had buzz and it's opening weekend was good for a movie that wasn't based on anything and had a story that isn't really summer box office material. You don't see that this often unless it's some computer animated kids movie. The movie doesn't hit that many screens and have that sort of buzz to begin with if there isn't the TDK factor. Nolan is a great director, but he is a virtual unknown to the masses had it not been for Batman.

And yes, you people are basically saying that Inception is a box office smash by praising it's box office take. Iron Man 2 has made $616 million dollars at the box office and is being derided. That is a huge number and puts it as the 5th highest grossing live action superhero movie of all time and higher then the original. This high number also shows that the movie was well received in both the U.S./Canada and abroad. You people are trying make the argument the quality of the movie has something to to do with the box office and I think that's completely wrong. You and others on this website are on the TDK mentality where a movie blows past the original by $600 million + dollars and you think this should happen for other films. I said it earlier--TDK was a phenomenon and should never be compared to other superhero movies.



Hating? I found the movie a bit dissapointing as an Iron Man fan, can we not discuss what we didnt like about it just as you discuss what you did?

The whole movie felt rushed, the plot was hardly coherent, and the movie almost totally lacked any emotion or power.


With all due respect, how can you possibly say that the movie felt rushed? The quality of everything in the movie was praiseworthy---whether it's the acting, the CGI, fight scenes, the script (particulary dialouge), and especially the smaller details. The Stark Expo for instance was incredible and the attention to detail greatly impressed me going so far as to make a Carosel of Progress-esque theme song. Has any plot angle/setting (the Stark Expo) been put to screen in a superhero movie that has been more unique, bold, and fun? The fighting and action scenes were also top notch. The brawl on the Monoco racetrack with the racecars speeding by is truly up there with the Spiderman 2 train fight in my opinion. I don't see how you can call any of this rushed or mediocre. The film had a great soundtrack/score to boot. If you want to see a rushed or mediocre film in this genre---look no further then X-Men Orgins:Wolverine. Just look at some of the Who Framed Roger Rabbit-esque CGI work in some scenes regarding Wolvie's claws.


As for the script---no, it's not perfect but its hardly as bad as you say. What wasn't coherent about the plot? I have been hearing this from people (only on here, of course) and I am not understanding the confusion. Tony Stark has conquered the world and now deal with the negative aspects of that. Whether it's the suit killing him, creating enemies who want a piece of him, drawing government attention to himself, basically ruining his company, and alienating all of his closest friends. I don't see what's confusing about any of this.

And in regards to emotion/powerful scenes---there isn't that many because Stark isn't a sympathetic character. He is a egomaniac and a billionaire. Unlike other heroes, Stark fights for himself, his ego, his family legacy, and really his own interests---at least to this point the films. As we saw in the beginning of IM2, he has basically created world peace and this has only inflated his ego to epic proportions. The Stark Expo (as noted by Pepper) increased it tenfold. His ego was basically going to be the downfall of him until he saw the message from his father giving him new inspiration. I thought this was a powerful scene. Granted, there was alot of comedy in the movie----but again, Iron Man is a different sort of movie and hero. You all expected Batman, once again. Iron Man is supposed to be fun and light. He is a cocky hero, not an angry brooding man. Nobody wants to see a depressed billionaire blubbering into his suit that cost him millions to build in a house that probally cost him tens of millions to live in. If there is one hero that I don't want to see too much heart and emotion---it's Iron Man. He is a self-proclaimed futurist and he is always moving onto the next thing. This is true for his business and his personality. I would compare Stark more to James Bond then I would Spiderman or Batman.

[souvlaki]

Inception's only at 160.5 mill, quit acting like it's at 260.5, it'll top off at around 220-230 dom.

:huh: It'll probably be at $230m after two more weekends. Even without knowing the weekend estimates when you posted this I'm confused how you could possibly see it topping out at $230m.

[J.Howlett]

With all due respect, how can you possibly say that the movie felt rushed? The quality of everything in the movie was praiseworthy---whether it's the acting, the CGI, fight scenes, the script (particulary dialouge), and especially the smaller details.

With all due respect, just from a script perspective alone, you can feel how rushed Iron Man 2 was. The whole 2nd act of the film is the prime example of that...

...and the reason Inception is perceived as a hit is because nobody expected this film to do what it's doing....or have any idea what this film was going to do considering it wasn't a sequel, remake, reboot, or based on an existing property...or the fact that WB spent close to 200 million on it without marketing. It was a gamble. Iron Man 2 wasn't. Iron Man 2, had Favreau been given an extra year on it, would've wiped the floor with the first film and it would've easily got to 400 domestically. Easily.

[chiefchirpa]

Hating? I found the movie a bit dissapointing as an Iron Man fan, can we not discuss what we didnt like about it just as you discuss what you did?

The whole movie felt rushed, the plot was hardly coherent, and the movie almost totally lacked any emotion or power.

Look at it this way: IM3 is almost a certainty after the Avengers, TIH 2 is not.

Between RDJ and 1/2 Ruffalo (because the other 1/2 is gonna be acted by CGI) who do you think Marvel want to bet their money on? If you want to talk disappointment & precariousness of the future, look no further at the Hulk franchise. Sorry with the Marvel on Marvel "fratricide" but your misguided pessimist view give me no choice.

Yes IM2 was rushed, but that's because the other Marvel movies ain't ready yet with script job assigned since the early 2000's. Thor is supposed to be leading 2010, or heck Cap it is because Thor has to be on by 2009. IM2 buys time for Thor & Cap. So for a rushed film, IM2 did okay and Favreau should be commended.

[Iron_Stark]

:huh: It'll probably be at $230m after two more weekends. Even without knowing the weekend estimates when you posted this I'm confused how you could possibly see it topping out at $230m.

I saw the early Friday estimates Deadline Hollywood had when they thought Schmucks was going to take the weekend.

Either way, no way does this make past 300 mill.

[ElMariachi]

With all due respect, just from a script perspective alone, you can feel how rushed Iron Man 2 was. The whole 2nd act of the film is the prime example of that...

...and the reason Inception is perceived as a hit is because nobody expected this film to do what it's doing....or have any idea what this film was going to do considering it wasn't a sequel, remake, reboot, or based on an existing property...or the fact that WB spent close to 200 million on it without marketing. It was a gamble. Iron Man 2 wasn't. Iron Man 2, had Favreau been given an extra year on it, would've wiped the floor with the first film and it would've easily got to 400 domestically. Easily.


Which scenes or plotpoints of the movie in the 2nd act of the film feel rushed? People continue to say this, but do not point out specific flaws in scenes of the movie. And I will ask again, why is this movie being put on such a high pedestal where minor flaws are exaggerated? How many summer blockbusters or superhero movies to be more specific are held to such standards where the plot is judged as if it should be an Oscar quality film? This was a minor flaw in an otherwise perfect superhero film and it's being exaggerated to throw dirt on this movie. Critics don't get this movie. Nobody did their job in truly critiquing it as a film and what it was about. Not to mention the critiques have been so varied and different from each other that it's not even worth bothering using them as a judge.

And in regards to Inception, don't try to argue that this is some small movie that nobody heard of---expected to make a paltry amount. I saw trailers for that movie for quite some time in the theater and plenty of advertisements for it. Almost all of them noting "The Dark Knight". This movie arugubly had more hype then Iron Man 2 did because of Batman. Not expecting this movie to make money would be like not expecting a James Cameron movie to not make money right after Avatar (or Titanic for that matter).

There is no way you can argue that IM2 makes 400 million domestically if it comes out next year. Thats like $90 million more and because of what? Slight tweaking of the script? C'mon. How smart do you really think the general audience is? You all are looking at box office like fanboys if you think minor changes like that can change box office drastically. Most people thought that movie was good as is. The reason it didn't make more is because of other factors. No 3D, a weak economy, it wasn't kid friendly, Iron Man is still a second tier hero/character in the grand scheme of things, and it had some tough competition in the following weeks. Are you guys forgetting what IM2 went up against in it's following weeks?

Robin Hood--$100 million domestic/$200 foreign
Shrek 4--$235 million domestic/$400 foreign
Prince of Persia--$90 million domestic/$237 foreign
Sex and the City 2--$95 million domestic/$185 foreign
Karate Kid-$172 domestic/$65 foreign
Toy Story 3-$389 domestic/$436 foreign

where is all this extra money to go around to propel Iron Man 2 to such heights? I don't see it. There is only so much money to go around.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I just saw that IM2 outgrossed IM1 on it's 84th day. (both were weekdays) Cracked me up so I thought I would post it.

It hasnt passed it domestically though, and thats were the studio's earn most of their money.

I wonder if all the people bringing up Inception so often in a IM2 BO thread see how obvious that makes them look? Probably not. Odd how they picked that one movie out of the bunch.

:whatever: Here we go again, go on, accuse me of being a Nolanite when I have been an Iron Man fan since I was a kid/

Is Marvel disappointed in IM2? That seems to be the one thing some here are insisting is true. I dunno, was Warner Brothers disappointed with Batman Begins domestic gross? They spent 150 million making it and only got back 205 million domestic. They must have been twice as "disappointed" as Marvel is since IM2 returned more than twice as much profit to Marvel. That obviously killed the franchise.

WB actually was dissapointed with BB to an extent, if it hadnt done so well on DVD, we mightnt have even got TDK. But you cant really compare that to IM2, BB wasnt a sequel, was a re-launch of a franchise after it previously produced possibly the worst movie ever and had no bankable stars in it, hardly the same as a sequel to a much loved movie is it?

You Inception folks better hope it makes way more profit than IM2 so you don't have to admit how "disappointing" it is. They spent 160 million on it so obviously they were "expecting" more profit than IM2 made. Not sure how much that is, but it's some magic number above the 111 million profit IM2 made. So does that mean it has to make over 271 million? Is that the threshold for "studio happiness"? Surely Inception will sail past 400 million since it supposedly has better WoM than any other movie. That's not asking much after what Avatar did. Surely Inception has similar WoM, right?

Inception wont make more than IM2, but Inception wasnt a sequel to a smash hit movie, it was an original piece of fiction.

I'm sure the rules are different for Inception since I see the rules are somehow different for the Spider-Man franchise. The fact that SM2 made less is ok somehow. Not a "disappointment" even though Sony spent more on SM2. (200 million to 139 million....almost the same increase between IM1 and IM2) Also the second Batman movie had a massive drop (I thought it was better myself). ...And the second Superman movie grossed 20% less than the first (again I liked it better). But they don't count. This mysterious rule only applies to the Iron Man franchise somehow. :) All this is based on those incredibly important "expectations" that someone, somewhere comes up with using the aforementioned "rules" that only apply when they want them to apply.

But the difference is 95% of people thought Spiderman was an improvement over Spidey 1, many were dissapointed by IM2, I was my self in some regards.

We are just certain that Marvel is disappointed. Never mind that their movie is one of the very rare movies that break the 300 million domestic mark. (Usually only 2 or 3 movies a year do that) And that their movie is the only one that did it without the 3D boost.

If you want to talk "disappointed" talk about The Incredible Hulk. 150 million budget, 134 million domestic gross. I'll buy that one...ouch. And I'm thinking both Marvel movies and the DC movie next year won't break the 200 million barrier. (I hope they are all breakout hits though) Maybe that will bring people down to earth a little and help them see exactly what 300 million means.

$300 million is a good return no doubt, but I state this again Marvel didnt put $50 million + into this sequel expecting it not to make more domestically than its predecessor.



That was odd for a guy that just starred in a movie that "tainted the franchise", wasn't it? ;)



Let's see if Inception manages to overcome the economy. It certainly won't prove it if less people go to see it than saw IM2.

edit: I love you guys. Gotta love a bunch of people that like to talk about friggin' comic book movies. :)

If you ask me Inception has beaten the economy, for an original movie that didnt have an amazing opening weekend, its doing very well.

It had buzz and it's opening weekend was good for a movie that wasn't based on anything and had a story that isn't really summer box office material. You don't see that this often unless it's some computer animated kids movie. The movie doesn't hit that many screens and have that sort of buzz to begin with if there isn't the TDK factor. Nolan is a great director, but he is a virtual unknown to the masses had it not been for Batman.

And yes, you people are basically saying that Inception is a box office smash by praising it's box office take. Iron Man 2 has made $616 million dollars at the box office and is being derided. That is a huge number and puts it as the 5th highest grossing live action superhero movie of all time and higher then the original. This high number also shows that the movie was well received in both the U.S./Canada and abroad. You people are trying make the argument the quality of the movie has something to to do with the box office and I think that's completely wrong. You and others on this website are on the TDK mentality where a movie blows past the original by $600 million + dollars and you think this should happen for other films. I said it earlier--TDK was a phenomenon and should never be compared to other superhero movies.

Not once have I ever mentioned TDK in terms of IM2's box office take, I have compared it to IM1 box office, you know the movie it was a sequel too?




With all due respect, how can you possibly say that the movie felt rushed? The quality of everything in the movie was praiseworthy---whether it's the acting, the CGI, fight scenes, the script (particulary dialouge), and especially the smaller details. The Stark Expo for instance was incredible and the attention to detail greatly impressed me going so far as to make a Carosel of Progress-esque theme song. Has any plot angle/setting (the Stark Expo) been put to screen in a superhero movie that has been more unique, bold, and fun? The fighting and action scenes were also top notch. The brawl on the Monoco racetrack with the racecars speeding by is truly up there with the Spiderman 2 train fight in my opinion. I don't see how you can call any of this rushed or mediocre. The film had a great soundtrack/score to boot. If you want to see a rushed or mediocre film in this genre---look no further then X-Men Orgins:Wolverine. Just look at some of the Who Framed Roger Rabbit-esque CGI work in some scenes regarding Wolvie's claws.

The whole movie was rushed, especially the 2nd half, thinks just got presented in the movie to Tony rather than him working it out himself, Shield or someone else would just give it to him.

Tony kissing Pepper at the end was a total WTF moment as it seemed to come out of no were, and too many things were left unexplained for me like Rhodey knowing not only how to work the suit, but knowing how to get it off without the aid of Starks tech, there were plenty more than this as well.

As for the bolded statement, no, just no, the action in this movie was no were near as good as the action in Spidey 2, let alone the train fight, the action in IM2 was extremely poor IMO.


As for the script---no, it's not perfect but its hardly as bad as you say. What wasn't coherent about the plot? I have been hearing this from people (only on here, of course) and I am not understanding the confusion. Tony Stark has conquered the world and now deal with the negative aspects of that. Whether it's the suit killing him, creating enemies who want a piece of him, drawing government attention to himself, basically ruining his company, and alienating all of his closest friends. I don't see what's confusing about any of this.

And in regards to emotion/powerful scenes---there isn't that many because Stark isn't a sympathetic character. He is a egomaniac and a billionaire. Unlike other heroes, Stark fights for himself, his ego, his family legacy, and really his own interests---at least to this point the films. As we saw in the beginning of IM2, he has basically created world peace and this has only inflated his ego to epic proportions. The Stark Expo (as noted by Pepper) increased it tenfold. His ego was basically going to be the downfall of him until he saw the message from his father giving him new inspiration. I thought this was a powerful scene. Granted, there was alot of comedy in the movie----but again, Iron Man is a different sort of movie and hero. You all expected Batman, once again. Iron Man is supposed to be fun and light. He is a cocky hero, not an angry brooding man. Nobody wants to see a depressed billionaire blubbering into his suit that cost him millions to build in a house that probally cost him tens of millions to live in. If there is one hero that I don't want to see too much heart and emotion---it's Iron Man. He is a self-proclaimed futurist and he is always moving onto the next thing. This is true for his business and his personality. I would compare Stark more to James Bond then I would Spiderman or Batman.

The first movie had plenty of emotional and powerful scene's this movie barely had non, I know what Stark is like, I have read Iron Man comics and used to watch the cartoon as a kid, but this doesnt mean the movie should emotionless, Tony is DYING for crying out loud and not once do we get a sense of urgency or desperation. Sorry but this is poor, the main character is dying and we feel nothing at all because it all just gets turned into jokes and smart remarks, hell, when Pepper found out he had been dying it gets turned into a funny argument. The film is actually shocking at points.

With all due respect, how can you possibly say that the movie felt rushed? The quality of everything in the movie was praiseworthy---whether it's the acting, the CGI, fight scenes, the script (particulary dialouge), and especially the smaller details.

With all due respect, just from a script perspective alone, you can feel how rushed Iron Man 2 was. The whole 2nd act of the film is the prime example of that...

...and the reason Inception is perceived as a hit is because nobody expected this film to do what it's doing....or have any idea what this film was going to do considering it wasn't a sequel, remake, reboot, or based on an existing property...or the fact that WB spent close to 200 million on it without marketing. It was a gamble. Iron Man 2 wasn't. Iron Man 2, had Favreau been given an extra year on it, would've wiped the floor with the first film and it would've easily got to 400 domestically. Easily.

Couldnt have said it better myself, Favreau is blameless in all of this for me, because I know that if he had been given an extra year we would be sitting here now discussing it alongside the likes of TDK, X2 and Spidey 2, but what we got wasnt.

Which scenes or plotpoints of the movie in the 2nd act of the film feel rushed? People continue to say this, but do not point out specific flaws in scenes of the movie. And I will ask again, why is this movie being put on such a high pedestal where minor flaws are exaggerated? How many summer blockbusters or superhero movies to be more specific are held to such standards where the plot is judged as if it should be an Oscar quality film? This was a minor flaw in an otherwise perfect superhero film and it's being exaggerated to throw dirt on this movie. Critics don't get this movie. Nobody did their job in truly critiquing it as a film and what it was about. Not to mention the critiques have been so varied and different from each other that it's not even worth bothering using them as a judge.


The whole 'new element' thing seemed completely rushed to me, as did his relationship with Pepper.

And in regards to Inception, don't try to argue that this is some small movie that nobody heard of---expected to make a paltry amount. I saw trailers for that movie for quite some time in the theater and plenty of advertisements for it. Almost all of them noting "The Dark Knight". This movie arugubly had more hype then Iron Man 2 did because of Batman. Not expecting this movie to make money would be like not expecting a James Cameron movie to not make money right after Avatar (or Titanic for that matter).

The general audience dont know who Nolan is, so there was no built in fanbase except on the internet, were most of the movies buzz was generated, amoung casual movie fans it wasnt even heard of, hell, last week someone in work said to me whats this Inception film all about and it had been out 2 weeks.

There is no way you can argue that IM2 makes 400 million domestically if it comes out next year. Thats like $90 million more and because of what? Slight tweaking of the script? C'mon. How smart do you really think the general audience is? You all are looking at box office like fanboys if you think minor changes like that can change box office drastically. Most people thought that movie was good as is. The reason it didn't make more is because of other factors. No 3D, a weak economy, it wasn't kid friendly, Iron Man is still a second tier hero/character in the grand scheme of things, and it had some tough competition in the following weeks. Are you guys forgetting what IM2 went up against in it's following weeks?

Robin Hood--$100 million domestic/$200 foreign
Shrek 4--$235 million domestic/$400 foreign
Prince of Persia--$90 million domestic/$237 foreign
Sex and the City 2--$95 million domestic/$185 foreign
Karate Kid-$172 domestic/$65 foreign
Toy Story 3-$389 domestic/$436 foreign

where is all this extra money to go around to propel Iron Man 2 to such heights? I don't see it. There is only so much money to go around.

Sorry, but that competition is pretty paltry, ESPECIALLY when compared to the competition IM1 went up against. The 2 movies in that list that most directly would have effected IM2 barely made $100 domestic (RH and POP), hardly stern competition is it? IM1 went up against freaking Indianna Jones and still made more domestic.

[ElMariachi]

Not once have I ever mentioned TDK in terms of IM2's box office take, I have compared it to IM1 box office, you know the movie it was a sequel too?

If you are comparing it with the box office of Iron Man 1, then what is the complaint? Iron Man 2 has made $30 million more in total, proving that the character is growing in popularity overseas. It has only made $7 million less so far domestically and in my opinion, that's not a huge difference in the grand scheme of things considering the economy. Spider-Man 2 made $30 million less domestically than the first and was considered a better film by many people. This cause for concern for Iron Man 2 is a bit silly in my opinion looking at other franchises like Spider-Man, Harry Potter, Star Wars (both trilogies), Jurassic Park, and the first Batman/Superman movies.


The whole movie was rushed, especially the 2nd half, thinks just got presented in the movie to Tony rather than him working it out himself, Shield or someone else would just give it to him.

I don't understand why he should have to work it out completely by himself? This is one of those common complaints (again, only on here) that people had with the plot, yet it occurs in alot of movies. Who solved some of Batman's problems in both movies? Lucius Fox. It would be a boring movie if the main character was so intelligent that he can solve any problem and not need allies.

And for the record, Nick Fury didn't solve his problem. He gave him a medicine that would temporarily alleviate some of the health problems he had. It's like giving a cancer patient medicines that make them feel better or help some of the symptoms---not cure the actual cancer. Tony Stark solved the problems on how to permanantly fix the palladium problem by himself and I think they way they did it was clever.



Tony kissing Pepper at the end was a total WTF moment as it seemed to come out of no were, and too many things were left unexplained for me like Rhodey knowing not only how to work the suit, but knowing how to get it off without the aid of Starks tech, there were plenty more than this as well.

Why? There was a romantic connection throughout the first two movies. I didn't think it really came out of nowhere.

As for Rhodey and the suit (another complaint), it should just be assumed that Stark let him play with the suit between the two movies. They were good friends and not letting an aviator like Rhodey not inspect or test the suit would be a d-bag move as a friend. To bring up TDK again, we never saw Batman jumping off another skyscraper to test out gliding like he performed in Hong Kong. He just did it and we must assume that he practiced it beforehand.

As for the bolded statement, no, just no, the action in this movie was no were near as good as the action in Spidey 2, let alone the train fight, the action in IM2 was extremely poor IMO.

I completely disagree. Spidey 2 was cool because it was straight up comic book action between two superpowered heroes. The Monaco fight had the same epic feel because it was on an active racetrack. The speed and noise of that scene was incredible. The IM/WM drone fight was also top notch and exciting. The only complaint here is that the Whiplash battle could have went on for a few minutes longer. They were amazing while they lasted though.





The first movie had plenty of emotional and powerful scene's this movie barely had non, I know what Stark is like, I have read Iron Man comics and used to watch the cartoon as a kid, but this doesnt mean the movie should emotionless, Tony is DYING for crying out loud and not once do we get a sense of urgency or desperation. Sorry but this is poor, the main character is dying and we feel nothing at all because it all just gets turned into jokes and smart remarks, hell, when Pepper found out he had been dying it gets turned into a funny argument. The film is actually shocking at points.


Where in the first movie was there all these emotional scenes? Some of the Yinsen scenes and one or two with Pepper---but aside from that? I though there were powerful scenes in this movie that you are overlooking. Alot of them were played for laughs, yes, but again--this isn't a drama. I was fine with how the film played out. You saw him hit rock bottom and then build himself back up after watching a dated video of his dead father. I am not understanding how that is without heart.


Couldnt have said it better myself, Favreau is blameless in all of this for me, because I know that if he had been given an extra year we would be sitting here now discussing it alongside the likes of TDK, X2 and Spidey 2, but what we got wasnt.

Oh cmon. This movie isn't ever going to be TDK unless they turn the series into a drama. X2? A good movie, but it wasn't better then IM2. As for Spidey-2, another good movie but way too much drama/angst for my liking. At least when insinuating it's better than IM2. For every touching/good scene in that movie, we had to wait for the annoying MJ/Harry/Aunt May and the pointless skinny neighor with cake nonsense to pass.



The whole 'new element' thing seemed completely rushed to me, as did his relationship with Pepper.

The element creation was clever and very sci-fi to me. The Stark Expo model being the structure of a new element (that Howard didn't have the technology to produce) was brilliant. That whole angle isn't rushed in any way because it was a beautiful scene and was scored perfectly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7bhXAL-xKg



The general audience dont know who Nolan is, so there was no built in fanbase except on the internet, were most of the movies buzz was generated, amoung casual movie fans it wasnt even heard of, hell, last week someone in work said to me whats this Inception film all about and it had been out 2 weeks.

Sure they do. Dark Knight was one of the most popular and beloved movies of our generation. People saw the connection and it helped Inception greatly. If Nolan is an unknown, he doesn't get that budget to make such a cool looking movie (based on his own idea, no less) in the first place in my opinion.



Sorry, but that competition is pretty paltry, ESPECIALLY when compared to the competition IM1 went up against. The 2 movies in that list that most directly would have effected IM2 barely made $100 domestic (RH and POP), hardly stern competition is it? IM1 went up against freaking Indianna Jones and still made more domestic.

How is it paltry? All of these movies made decent enough money as to take money away from IM2. In a bad economy, no less. POP and RH aren't the only movies that are direct competition for starters. The movie only made 7 million less in the U.S. and over 30+ more internationally. Relax. People liked the movie. $616 million is a large number for what was a second tier hero in my opinion. Maybe if you were talking about Harry Potter or Superman, but nobody even knew anything about Iron Man 2-3 years ago.

[Crook]

I don't understand why he should have to work it out completely by himself? This is one of those common complaints (again, only on here) that people had with the plot, yet it occurs in alot of movies. Who solved some of Batman's problems in both movies? Lucius Fox.
And that is a legitimately common complain for Nolan's films. The character is renowned for his intelligence. He's barely above-average. A consistent issue in a great majority of films does not make it passable.

It would be a boring movie if the main character was so intelligent that he can solve any problem and not need allies.
Tell that to Guy Ritchie and RDJ. :hehe:

[RachelDawes]

I don't understand why he should have to work it out completely by himself? This is one of those common complaints (again, only on here) that people had with the plot, yet it occurs in alot of movies. Who solved some of Batman's problems in both movies? Lucius Fox. It would be a boring movie if the main character was so intelligent that he can solve any problem and not need allies.

And for the record, Nick Fury didn't solve his problem. He gave him a medicine that would temporarily alleviate some of the health problems he had. It's like giving a cancer patient medicines that make them feel better or help some of the symptoms---not cure the actual cancer. Tony Stark solved the problems on how to permanantly fix the palladium problem by himself and I think they way they did it was clever.

I didn't object to SHIELD helping Tony out; I objected to Fury alleviating Tony's symptoms. It really sucked all the drama out of his search for a cure.

Why? There was a romantic connection throughout the first two movies. I didn't think it really came out of nowhere.

It did seem to come out of nowhere because there was very little in the way of romance going on between them during IM2. I wasn't even sure they were in love anymore until the final kiss.

Where in the first movie was there all these emotional scenes? Some of the Yinsen scenes and one or two with Pepper---but aside from that? I though there were powerful scenes in this movie that you are overlooking. Alot of them were played for laughs, yes, but again--this isn't a drama. I was fine with how the film played out. You saw him hit rock bottom and then build himself back up after watching a dated video of his dead father. I am not understanding how that is without heart.

I thought the whole father subplot was rushed too. First Stark says that his dad didn't like him, and then suddenly we see that he did. It was intended to have heart but it didn't move me.

[JeetKuneDo]

It hasnt passed it domestically though, and thats were the studio's earn most of their money.
Here is where I get more suspicious of motives. You are very interesting in a factor that effects the profit a studio makes in this case.

Ok...do you acknowledge that studios get a higher cut of the profits in the early weeks of a film's release? (They love "front-loaded") Thus, since IM2 made more out of the gate than IM1 it returned more of a domestic profit with 311, than IM1 did with 318. Are you happy for the studio now? Or will you discount this as it is a positive for IM2?

Combine this with the increased worldwide gross (which the studio does get a piece of) and IM2 has made more profit for Marvel than IM1. How many hundreds of millions in profit does a movie have to make before the studio is not "disappointed"?

:whatever: Here we go again, go on, accuse me of being a Nolanite when I have been an Iron Man fan since I was a kid/

You don't see how coincidental it is to have Inception brought up in this particular thread so often? This thread? That movie? What are the odds I wonder? Is there some motivation behind that or is it a huge synchronism?

I wasn't actually directing my comment at you...so perhaps you protest too much? ;) (jest messing with ya)

WB actually was dissapointed with BB to an extent, if it hadnt done so well on DVD, we mightnt have even got TDK. But you cant really compare that to IM2, BB wasnt a sequel, was a re-launch of a franchise after it previously produced possibly the worst movie ever and had no bankable stars in it, hardly the same as a sequel to a much loved movie is it?

Ahh...the rules change again. Now DVD sales are counted. (Do DVD sales count for IM2 as well?) These "Iron Man only rules" are tough to pin down. BB was the 5th Batman movie...but we aren't allowed to call it a sequel I see.


Inception wont make more than IM2, but Inception wasnt a sequel to a smash hit movie, it was an original piece of fiction.

..Like Avatar. So that means we'll have to compare those two films. ;) Two original pieces of fiction. Supposedly Inception has this fantastic WoM like Avatar did...I guess we'll find out if that's true.

I also love how 318 million domestic is a "smash hit movie" and 311 million is "disappointing". Man...that line is a drastic one!

But the difference is 95% of people thought Spiderman was an improvement over Spidey 1, many were dissapointed by IM2, I was my self in some regards.

Are we talking BO or quality? If you seek to use IM2's box office against it from a quality standpoint you have to admit SM2 was weaker than SM1. (See how these rules fall apart?) Obviously 95% of people didn't think SM2 was better or it would have made more money...not less. Right?

$300 million is a good return no doubt, but I state this again Marvel didnt put $50 million + into this sequel expecting it not to make more domestically than its predecessor.

Or is it not equally logical to say that IM1 made way more than they expected so they thought it was worth spending more since a 300 milllion return (100+ million in profit) was likely? That's quite a cushion. Sony did the same thing with Spidey 2. Warner Bros did the same thing with Batman 1 and 2. All spent more and all the second movies made less. IM2 actually did the best out of all these. It made almost the same as the first while Spidey 2, Batman 2, and Superman 2 made a lot less.

If you ask me Inception has beaten the economy, for an original movie that didnt have an amazing opening weekend, its doing very well.

I don't get how one butt in a seat for Inception should count more than one butt in a seat for other movies. Is this how you are planning to claim the studio is not disappointed with a profit that could turn out to be about the same as IM2? ;)

The general audience dont know who Nolan is, so there was no built in fanbase except on the internet, were most of the movies buzz was generated, amoung casual movie fans it wasnt even heard of, hell, last week someone in work said to me whats this Inception film all about and it had been out 2 weeks.

After being bombarded with Nolan fanboys talking about Inception for the past year and seeing all the ads on TV, I find it a little dishonest to now pretend this was some indie flick.

[hatebox]

Inception definitely wasn't an indie flick, not with that kind of budget. But, as I've said before, a big reason Warners put that much money into it was simply to get Nolan back for a third Batman film. That Inception now looks to make a very tidy profit makes it win-win for them. In fact it's on course to do so well internationally that it could compete with IM2's WW box office given it'll finish in at least the high 200s domestically.

I would weigh in on the whole IM2 talk, but what else is there to say? It is disappointing it didn't beat its predecessor's domestic figure, but on the other hand $600m+ is still a hit. Were it not for the Avengers movie I'd imagine Marvel would have a few meetings asking what they could do to make the third movie better received than the second, but now they'll just wait to see how the Avengers plays out, which is looking more and more like Iron Man 3 in spirit anyway.

[Iron_Stark]

For the 1000th time, this is the box office thread, I am discussing the box office!

Really?

This has been my point all along, Marvel rushing the movie out meant that the movie wasnt as good as it could've and should've been and this is why it didnt make more than the first movie domestically, this has been my point all along but it somehow gets lost in all the 'its the nolanites!' comments.

I never said it tainted anything, but many thought the movie was dissapointing so it may have tainted the franchise for them.


Hating? I found the movie a bit dissapointing as an Iron Man fan, can we not discuss what we didnt like about it just as you discuss what you did?

The whole movie felt rushed, the plot was hardly coherent, and the movie almost totally lacked any emotion or power.

The whole movie was rushed, especially the 2nd half, thinks just got presented in the movie to Tony rather than him working it out himself, Shield or someone else would just give it to him.

Tony kissing Pepper at the end was a total WTF moment as it seemed to come out of no were, and too many things were left unexplained for me like Rhodey knowing not only how to work the suit, but knowing how to get it off without the aid of Starks tech, there were plenty more than this as well.

As for the bolded statement, no, just no, the action in this movie was no were near as good as the action in Spidey 2, let alone the train fight, the action in IM2 was extremely poor IMO.


Are you still talking box office here or just trying to give us your opinions and trying to pass them off as facts.

Fact is there are more people that liked this movie than the few keyboard warriors that come on here and try to berate this movie just make theirs look better.

[Tony Stark]

:huh: It'll probably be at $230m after two more weekends. Even without knowing the weekend estimates when you posted this I'm confused how you could possibly see it topping out at $230m.

It will be more than 230, but I don't think it's got enough for 300. It really needed a 30 million dollar weekend for that. We'll know better when the Monday numbers come out. I expect Inception can hold no. 1 for another week as there's no big draw this week, and then when Expendables come out it will drop.

Inception had the same benefit that TDK did in that there was a month gap until there was any real competition. I wondered about this weekend, because DFS, seemed like it could be the smash comedy of the summer that we never really got this year. Also Charlie St. Cloud was an excellent book, but it looks like they screwed up the movie which was sad. I thought that was a good roll for Efron, but I'll have to rent that one out some time to see where they went wrong. That movie should have been one of those three hanky movies like the Color Purple, not sure what went wrong.

Anyway it will have a 4x multiplier. It would need a 4.9 to get to 300 million, I don't think it's quite there.

[Evil Twin]

It will be more than 230, but I don't think it's got enough for 300. It really needed a 30 million dollar weekend for that. We'll know better when the Monday numbers come out. I expect Inception can hold no. 1 for another week as there's no big draw this week, and then when Expendables come out it will drop.

Inception had the same benefit that TDK did in that there was a month gap until there was any real competition. I wondered about this weekend, because DFS, seemed like it could be the smash comedy of the summer that we never really got this year.

We can probably make an argument for GROWN UPS being a smash hit comedy. Especially considering the reviews.

INCEPTION is doing very well for itself. Yeah, probably not going to do $300 million, but it looks like it's going to finish around STAR TREK domestically and it's already ahead of STAR TREK internationally. WB really handled it well. Hopefully, along with DISTRICT 9, it means more smart science fiction in the future.

Big winners this year are probably AVATAR, ALICE IN WONDERLAND, and TS3. Then the next tier includes TWILIGHT: ECLIPSE, IM2, INCEPTION, HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON, DESPICABLE ME, and THE KARATE KID.Maybe flip IM2 and INCEPTION considering expectations and how well INCEPTION is performing overseas. And then possibly GROWN UPS, SHUTTER ISLAND, DATE NIGHT, VALENTINE'S DAY, BOOK OF ELI, and DEAR JOHN. SHREK 4 is a success, but also signals the end of the franchise. HARRY POTTER will, of course, join the group of winners. Probably TRON LEGACY as well.

Steve Carrell is having a good year.

Big flops have to include PRINCE OF PERSIA, SORCERER'S APPRENTICE, GREEN ZONE, THE WOLFMAN, and JONAH HEX.

[ElMariachi]

And that is a legitimately common complain for Nolan's films. The character is renowned for his intelligence. He's barely above-average. A consistent issue in a great majority of films does not make it passable.


Tell that to Guy Ritchie and RDJ. :hehe:

yeah, I can see why people would complain about that but it really didn't bother me. It would be unrealistic that Bruce Wayne becomes this master detective and that experience overnight!

As for Sherlock, he did solve almost all the problems but Watson did assist in the beatdowns. :hehe:

[ElMariachi]

I didn't object to SHIELD helping Tony out; I objected to Fury alleviating Tony's symptoms. It really sucked all the drama out of his search for a cure.

It wasn't really an issue for me. I think some of you are reaching or going out of your way to find problems if this is really a problem in the movie. Like I was referencing in the previous post, I had no problems with Lucius Fox giving Batman an antidote for the toxin. Neither Batman nor Iron Man are doctors or scientists capable of creating medicines, so I don't think we should expect that in either movies. For the record, the serum didn't cure Tony, it only extended him and gave him more time to find answers. If anything, this whole angle in the story showed Stark's ego. He blew off Vanko in the cell when the subject was brought up and never went to any of his friends for help. It also set up a relationship with Nick Fury that will carry over to The Avengers where his ego is going to need to take a backseat to teamwork.




It did seem to come out of nowhere because there was very little in the way of romance going on between them during IM2. I wasn't even sure they were in love anymore until the final kiss.

I wouldn't say it came out of nowhere. Sure, if you didn't see the first movie I can maybe understand but it's not like he kissed Black Widow (which would have made no sense). You saw alot of signs of the romance in the first movie and in this movie they were almost a bickering couple (well, mainly Pepper). After they kissed Stark asked if it was awkward or something (I forget the actual quote) and that made it fine for me. I do remember it was soon followed by an hilarious quote by Rhodey saying they looked like "two seals fighting over a grape". :hehe:




I thought the whole father subplot was rushed too. First Stark says that his dad didn't like him, and then suddenly we see that he did. It was intended to have heart but it didn't move me

I also don't see how this was rushed. Stark said that his dad didn't like him, but that was only what he remembered as a child. Howard being somewhat cold doesn't mean he never loved Tony. Alot of fathers are like that and have difficulties expressing this to their children. Can you imagine Tony Stark having kids, being one of those fathers who hugs his kid all the time and telling them he loves them? That video inspires Tony and it was slightly moving. But like I said earlier, I am not going these movies demanding drama and moving, emotional scenes. I made the comparision of Tony Stark and James Bond. How many Bond movies have you watched where you felt a gush of emotion? I can't picture one and thats cool with me.

[souvlaki]

It will be more than 230, but I don't think it's got enough for 300. It really needed a 30 million dollar weekend for that. We'll know better when the Monday numbers come out. I expect Inception can hold no. 1 for another week as there's no big draw this week, and then when Expendables come out it will drop.

Inception had the same benefit that TDK did in that there was a month gap until there was any real competition. I wondered about this weekend, because DFS, seemed like it could be the smash comedy of the summer that we never really got this year. Also Charlie St. Cloud was an excellent book, but it looks like they screwed up the movie which was sad. I thought that was a good roll for Efron, but I'll have to rent that one out some time to see where they went wrong. That movie should have been one of those three hanky movies like the Color Purple, not sure what went wrong.

Anyway it will have a 4x multiplier. It would need a 4.9 to get to 300 million, I don't think it's quite there.

You are probably right, but it depends on how it holds up for the rest of it's run. Right now it's about $16m north of Pirates at the same point in it's run so it still has a chance. My guess is it will probably end up somewhere around $280m which is still pretty fantastic considering it's an original story being sold primarily on a director and actor's name. Regardless of anyone's opinion about this film I hope everyone can agree that Inception doing well is good for Hollywood. Hopefully this, along with Avatar and District 9 will open up the doors to higher budget original films.

[ElMariachi]

^everybody loved Inception and basically anything that Nolan has done. It's good for movies if this makes money because it shows that the audience is open to original ideas. The only thing that bothers some people are those who constantly and obnoxiously n-thug Nolan, Batman, and Inception. An army of trolls and haters were immediatly created after TDK and it's gotten rather annoying to be quite honest. The same thing was done to Johnny Depp and it got played out real fast.

The only thing I would disagree with you on is Avatar. I thought that movie was massively overrated. It was original/beautiful looking, sure, but it wasn't alot of fun and it should have been. The movie could have been alot greater if Cameron didn't make the movie about his own personal politics and force it upon us---in a completely ridiculous manner no less.

[JeetKuneDo]

^everybody loved Inception and basically anything that Nolan has done. It's good for movies if this makes money because it shows that the audience is open to original ideas.

Not that original actually. ;) Here (http://disneycomics.free.fr/Ducks/Rosa/show.php?num=1&loc=D2002-033&s=date)

The only thing I would disagree with you on is Avatar. I thought that movie was massively overrated. It was original/beautiful looking, sure, but it wasn't alot of fun and it should have been. The movie could have been alot greater if Cameron didn't make the movie about his own personal politics and force it upon us---in a completely ridiculous manner no less.

I'm totally mystified at the movies that are making insane money lately. Avatar, TDK, Transformers, Shrek.....really? I mean they are good movies...but not that good. The public has weird taste.

[hatebox]

^ I may not like those movies much (TDK aside) but I can hardly be surprised they made a lot of money, they had very populist sensibilities. The whole time I was watching Avatar I smiled at every moment Cameron conspiculously did something that was aimed at giving the movie as wide an appeal as possible. Redlettermedia's review sums it up nicely.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

If you are comparing it with the box office of Iron Man 1, then what is the complaint? Iron Man 2 has made $30 million more in total, proving that the character is growing in popularity overseas. It has only made $7 million less so far domestically and in my opinion, that's not a huge difference in the grand scheme of things considering the economy. Spider-Man 2 made $30 million less domestically than the first and was considered a better film by many people. This cause for concern for Iron Man 2 is a bit silly in my opinion looking at other franchises like Spider-Man, Harry Potter, Star Wars (both trilogies), Jurassic Park, and the first Batman/Superman movies.

The complaint is it has probably made less profit than IM1, I am not complaining about this, I am pointing out that Marvel wont be best pleased about this, overseas doesnt count for much in my eyes (and this is coming from an English person) as studio's only get 15% of foreign gross.




I don't understand why he should have to work it out completely by himself? This is one of those common complaints (again, only on here) that people had with the plot, yet it occurs in alot of movies. Who solved some of Batman's problems in both movies? Lucius Fox. It would be a boring movie if the main character was so intelligent that he can solve any problem and not need allies.

As someone else pointed out, this is one of the biggest complaints of th Batman movies, I was complaining about this aspect of BB before even someone told me that LF didnt do all this in the comics, I am not steeped in Batman history and thought this was a faithful aspect but still didnt like it, just as I didnt like it in IM2. Tony is a genius and yet couldnt figure something out for himself, he needed Shield to give his fathers stuff and he still needed help from his father. Not only did it feel rushed, it felt very deus ex machina.

And for the record, Nick Fury didn't solve his problem. He gave him a medicine that would temporarily alleviate some of the health problems he had. It's like giving a cancer patient medicines that make them feel better or help some of the symptoms---not cure the actual cancer. Tony Stark solved the problems on how to permanantly fix the palladium problem by himself and I think they way they did it was clever.

Without his fathers stuff, Stark wouldnt have solved the problem, so Fury had a MASSIVE hand in helping him, and the little smirk on Fury's face when he gave him it suggested he knew what was in there.





Why? There was a romantic connection throughout the first two movies. I didn't think it really came out of nowhere.

The romantic element was basically forgotten for the whole 2nd half of the movie, hence why the kiss came out of no were for me.

As for Rhodey and the suit (another complaint), it should just be assumed that Stark let him play with the suit between the two movies. They were good friends and not letting an aviator like Rhodey not inspect or test the suit would be a d-bag move as a friend. To bring up TDK again, we never saw Batman jumping off another skyscraper to test out gliding like he performed in Hong Kong. He just did it and we must assume that he practiced it beforehand.

Are you kidding? He jumped off multiple buildings in BB and glided, he had done it loads of times. With Rhodey we didnt even get a hint that he had tried it before, yet he managed to fight Tony to a standstill, now admittedly Tony was drunk, but he would have known the ins and outs of the suit much more than Rhodey. All it needed was a line of dialogue earlier in the movie to suggest he had had training in it.



I completely disagree. Spidey 2 was cool because it was straight up comic book action between two superpowered heroes. The Monaco fight had the same epic feel because it was on an active racetrack. The speed and noise of that scene was incredible. The IM/WM drone fight was also top notch and exciting. The only complaint here is that the Whiplash battle could have went on for a few minutes longer. They were amazing while they lasted though.

Sorry, but for a $200 million dollar movie, the action in IM2 was average, AT BEST, Spiderman 2's fight scenes are easily some of the best, NON of the ones in IM2 compare to it IMO, and I think you'll find more people agree with me about that as well.






Where in the first movie was there all these emotional scenes? Some of the Yinsen scenes and one or two with Pepper---but aside from that? I though there were powerful scenes in this movie that you are overlooking. Alot of them were played for laughs, yes, but again--this isn't a drama. I was fine with how the film played out. You saw him hit rock bottom and then build himself back up after watching a dated video of his dead father. I am not understanding how that is without heart.

Were in the first movie were all these scene's? Yinsens death, the army finding Tony in the desert with Rhodey hugging Tony like he hadnt seen him in years, Tony arriving home to find Pepper crying with happiness, seeing kids crying at the vision of their father about to be executed in front of their eyes only for Iron Man to rescue them, Pepper quiting on the spot only to do what Tony asked after he explains he knows in his heart what he is doing is right, Tony being at the mercy of Stane and imploring Pepper to blow the roof despite the risk of him dying. All very powerful and emotional moments compared to the one moment in IM2 when we see his fathers video, sorry, but that is a big difference.


Oh cmon. This movie isn't ever going to be TDK unless they turn the series into a drama. X2? A good movie, but it wasn't better then IM2. As for Spidey-2, another good movie but way too much drama/angst for my liking. At least when insinuating it's better than IM2. For every touching/good scene in that movie, we had to wait for the annoying MJ/Harry/Aunt May and the pointless skinny neighor with cake nonsense to pass.

X2 is definately a better movie than IM2, it had MUCH more critical and fan acclaim and still does. At the end of the day I love a good action scene, but drama is what drives the story forward and the drama in X2, Spidey and TDK were leaps and bounds what we got in IM2, I would also say the action in X2 and Spidey 2 was leaps and bounds what we got in IM2. Those 3 movies are regularly voted the best of the genre by various fan-site's and publications, I have never once seen IM2 even come close to being voted the best, does this not tell you something?





The element creation was clever and very sci-fi to me. The Stark Expo model being the structure of a new element (that Howard didn't have the technology to produce) was brilliant. That whole angle isn't rushed in any way because it was a beautiful scene and was scored perfectly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7bhXAL-xKg

I personally found it very rushed, and since there had previously been no drama regarding Tony's fate, I didnt much care either.





Sure they do. Dark Knight was one of the most popular and beloved movies of our generation. People saw the connection and it helped Inception greatly. If Nolan is an unknown, he doesn't get that budget to make such a cool looking movie (based on his own idea, no less) in the first place in my opinion.

The Terminator, Terminator 2, Aliens, True Lies and Titanic all are extremely popular movies of multiple generations, yet they still had to quote everyone of them in the advertising for Avatar, and it still didnt have a spectacular opening weekend, WOM is what made Avatar its money, the GA dont take as much notice as a director's previous movie as we do. The amount of times I have said to someone how good Christopher Nolan is and they stare at me blankly is telling.





How is it paltry? All of these movies made decent enough money as to take money away from IM2. In a bad economy, no less. POP and RH aren't the only movies that are direct competition for starters. The movie only made 7 million less in the U.S. and over 30+ more internationally. Relax. People liked the movie. $616 million is a large number for what was a second tier hero in my opinion. Maybe if you were talking about Harry Potter or Superman, but nobody even knew anything about Iron Man 2-3 years ago.

IM1 came out in a recession too you know, and it went up against MUCH bigger competition and still managed to make nearly as much despite not being a sequel. The only movies to directly effect IM2 were RH and POP, neither of which were anything NEAR being smash hits, in fact, you could say both flopped, and you call this good competition?

IM1 went up againt Narnia 2 (over $400 million WW) and Indiana Jones 4 (over $700 million world wide), THATS strong competition.

Really?


Are you still talking box office here or just trying to give us your opinions and trying to pass them off as facts.

Fact is there are more people that liked this movie than the few keyboard warriors that come on here and try to berate this movie just make theirs look better.

If you want to like the movie, fine, I did myself but found it very flawed, many people didnt like the movie though, and I am just talking about on here. I am not trying to pass of my opinion as fact at all, what I AM trying to pass of as fact is that Marvel wont be best pleased with the movies take, how anyone can deny this is beyond me, could it be that bias people on here are so quick to mention? I keep having to mention my feelings on the movie because Ironites in here keep trying to say i'm a Batman fan, which I find just as ridiculous as the people they are accusing.

And more people liking the movie than not isnt a fact at all, there is no way you can gauge that, however, with the domestic numbers being not as good as IM1, this SUGGESTS that people didnt enjoy it as much as the first movie as WOM wasnt good enough to encourage multiple viewings.

[Iron_Stark]

Are you kidding? He jumped off multiple buildings in BB and glided, he had done it loads of times. With Rhodey we didnt even get a hint that he had tried it before, yet he managed to fight Tony to a standstill, now admittedly Tony was drunk, but he would have known the ins and outs of the suit much more than Rhodey. All it needed was a line of dialogue earlier in the movie to suggest he had had training in it.

Now you just want to complain just to complain.

Where was the hint that Jean and Storm could fly the jet in X2? All we saw was Cyclops in the first one flying it. Where were there any hints that a bat pod was inside the Tumbler? We never saw anything in the first one, much less Batman knowing how to operate one. Were there any hints that Harry knew how to fly a glider or use his fathers machines? All we saw at the end of part 2 was him finding the stuff and in the beginning of part 3 already being an expert at flying it. Where did Harvey Dent come from and why was he already a DA?? I didn't see an election. And why was he already in love with Rachel? I didn't see any build up to it.

See I can complain just to complain also. And before you retort with "well they owned that stuff and Rhodey didn't" just remember Rhodey had his own pin to come into Tony's lab whenever he wanted.



X2 is definately a better movie than IM2, it had MUCH more critical and fan acclaim and still does. At the end of the day I love a good action scene, but drama is what drives the story forward and the drama in X2, Spidey and TDK were leaps and bounds what we got in IM2, I would also say the action in X2 and Spidey 2 was leaps and bounds what we got in IM2. Those 3 movies are regularly voted the best of the genre by various fan-site's and publications, I have never once seen IM2 even come close to being voted the best, does this not tell you something?

No it's not. X2 just had one good action scene and that was the Nightcrawler scene.

The reason why X2 seems really good is because the first one was just average, take away the first movie and X2 would be almost forgettable.

And it's BO didn't even come close to sniffing IM2s, so the GA obviously liked it and at the end of the day that's all that matters.



If you want to like the movie, fine, I did myself but found it very flawed, many people didnt like the movie though, and I am just talking about on here. I am not trying to pass of my opinion as fact at all, what I AM trying to pass of as fact is that Marvel wont be best pleased with the movies take, how anyone can deny this is beyond me, could it be that bias people on here are so quick to mention? I keep having to mention my feelings on the movie because Ironites in here keep trying to say i'm a Batman fan, which I find just as ridiculous as the people they are accusing.

And more people liking the movie than not isnt a fact at all, there is no way you can gauge that, however, with the domestic numbers being not as good as IM1, this SUGGESTS that people didnt enjoy it as much as the first movie as WOM wasnt good enough to encourage multiple viewings.


Yes you are. You come on here talking about how disappointing Marvel is going to feel, that want to give us your thoughts on the movie.

The only difference between the two is 7 million dollars, and both went north of 300 million! How the hell can you say people didn't enjoy it as much as the first.

[JeetKuneDo]

^ I may not like those movies much (TDK aside) but I can hardly be surprised they made a lot of money, they had very populist sensibilities. The whole time I was watching Avatar I smiled at every moment Cameron conspiculously did something that was aimed at giving the movie as wide an appeal as possible. Redlettermedia's review sums it up nicely.

I agree it was very good. But I've seen a lot of movies that are very good. Was Avatar $2,731,051,588 good? That's just baffling.

But like I said, I don't get the others that are making a lot of money lately either. Sure they are good...but nothing special. I'll put things like American Idol in this conversation too. I just don't see how "good" turns into "massive insane public adoration". These things remind me of a herd of cattle...once a few start running, the rest join in because they think "it's the thing to do". This goes all the way back to things like E.T. I saw that and thought "Really?". I can see all these major "event" movies in the last few years being talked about in 20 years just as much as we talk about E.T. today ....not at all. The stampede is exciting while it is going on, but once it's over you realize it wasn't that great.

The complaint is it has probably made less profit than IM1, I am not complaining about this, I am pointing out that Marvel wont be best pleased about this, overseas doesnt count for much in my eyes (and this is coming from an English person) as studio's only get 15% of foreign gross.
Don't forget to point out how pleased Marvel will be that IM2 made more of its money early in the run when they got more of the profit....thus meaning that IM2 made them more profit than IM1. ;) We've got to look out for those poor studios here. Aren't you pleased for them? ;)

Are you kidding? He jumped off multiple buildings in BB and glided, he had done it loads of times. With Rhodey we didnt even get a hint that he had tried it before, yet he managed to fight Tony to a standstill, now admittedly Tony was drunk, but he would have known the ins and outs of the suit much more than Rhodey. All it needed was a line of dialogue earlier in the movie to suggest he had had training in it.

I assumed that since Rhodey had the pass-code that means Tony had trusted him with the suit before. Rhodey did express interest in it during IM1 after all.

And no flaw in IM2 can compare to the laugh-out-loud scene in TDK when Gordon is explaining in detail to the Mayor how they can't figure out the Joker's identity....while he sits there in front of them still wearing his makeup! :hehe: (most unintentionally funny scene in a movie in the last decade)

Gordon: "Nothing...no matches on prints...DNA..dental...clothing is custom, no labels...nothing in his pockets but knives and lint....no name...no other alias." :hehe::hehe::hehe:

This would have worked better:

Cop1: "I hear that makeup is hard to remove Gordon"
Gordon: "Yeah...we'd better just leave it alone"
Cop2: "Hey...it's kinda coming off on it's own...shouldn't we at least try?"
Gordon: "No...that would ruin his cool look....it would be a shame to do that."
Cop1: "Is that why we checked all his clothes for labels but didn't put him into that goofy orange jump suit like we normally do?"
Gordon: "Yes...it's very important in this movie that he look as cool as possible"

Sorry, but for a $200 million dollar movie, the action in IM2 was average, AT BEST, Spiderman 2's fight scenes are easily some of the best, NON of the ones in IM2 compare to it IMO, and I think you'll find more people agree with me about that as well.

True, but SM2 features the greatest action scene in any super hero movie to date, so that's a given for all of them.

I don't think action is the reason people like the IM movies since the first one didn't have great action either. It's all about the best leading man in SH movie history (apologies to Chris Reeve).

X2 is definately a better movie than IM2, it had MUCH more critical and fan acclaim and still does. At the end of the day I love a good action scene, but drama is what drives the story forward and the drama in X2, Spidey and TDK were leaps and bounds what we got in IM2, I would also say the action in X2 and Spidey 2 was leaps and bounds what we got in IM2. Those 3 movies are regularly voted the best of the genre by various fan-site's and publications, I have never once seen IM2 even come close to being voted the best, does this not tell you something?

Glad to see acknowledgment of how little action really matters in making a great movie.

Since you are using box office number to gauge how good movies are against IM2, X2 being better is not possible.

X2 grossed $214,949,694 domestic (apparently domestic is the only one that matters)...that's almost 100 million less than IM2. Fox spent 110 million making it, so it returned 104 million profit...less than IM2's 111 million profit.

So that means, using what you have been using here, that Fox was more disappointed in the performance of X2 and that it was an inferior movie to IM2. (Live by the sword, die by the sword :word:)

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Don't forget to point out how pleased Marvel will be that IM2 made more of its money early in the run when they got more of the profit....thus meaning that IM2 made them more profit than IM1. ;) We've got to look out for those poor studios here. Aren't you pleased for them? ;)

Of course they will be happy with this aspect, but at the same, the opening weekend was expected to be bigger, many web-site's reported that IM2 was tracking better than TDK the week before it opened.



I assumed that since Rhodey had the pass-code that means Tony had trusted him with the suit before. Rhodey did express interest in it during IM1 after all.

Rhodey expressed interest in the suit AFTER Tony had left, the fact that you have to 'assume' Tony gave him flight time is a bad aspect of the story-telling in the movie for me.

And no flaw in IM2 can compare to the laugh-out-loud scene in TDK when Gordon is explaining in detail to the Mayor how they can't figure out the Joker's identity....while he sits there in front of them still wearing his makeup! :hehe: (most unintentionally funny scene in a movie in the last decade)

Gordon: "Nothing...no matches on prints...DNA..dental...clothing is custom, no labels...nothing in his pockets but knives and lint....no name...no other alias." :hehe::hehe::hehe:

This would have worked better:

Cop1: "I hear that makeup is hard to remove Gordon"
Gordon: "Yeah...we'd better just leave it alone"
Cop2: "Hey...it's kinda coming off on it's own...shouldn't we at least try?"
Gordon: "No...that would ruin his cool look....it would be a shame to do that."
Cop1: "Is that why we checked all his clothes for labels but didn't put him into that goofy orange jump suit like we normally do?"
Gordon: "Yes...it's very important in this movie that he look as cool as possible"

To be honest, of all the flaws in TDK, which there are many, I didnt find this to be one of them, if the guy has no recorded finger prints I doubt they can tell anything by his face.



True, but SM2 features the greatest action scene in any super hero movie to date, so that's a given for all of them.

And it was made 6 years ago, dont you think Marvel should have bettered it by now? Especially with $200 million today being a lot more than it was then.

I don't think action is the reason people like the IM movies since the first one didn't have great action either. It's all about the best leading man in SH movie history (apologies to Chris Reeve).

And this is another complaint of mine, you have a great actor like RDJ, and all you let him do in the movie is spout jokes. And action isnt as important as other aspects, but the action in IM2 was a serious let down.



Glad to see acknowledgment of how little action really matters in making a great movie.

[QUOTE=JeetKuneDo;18678961]Since you are using box office number to gauge how good movies are against IM2, X2 being better is not possible.

X2 grossed $214,949,694 domestic (apparently domestic is the only one that matters)...that's almost 100 million less than IM2. Fox spent 110 million making it, so it returned 104 million profit...less than IM2's 111 million profit.

So that means, using what you have been using here, that Fox was more disappointed in the performance of X2 and that it was an inferior movie to IM2. (Live by the sword, die by the sword :word:)

This shows how little you have actually been listening to my posts, try reading them instead of being 'suspicious' that I am a Bat-fan (which I have to say is extremely ridiculous in itself, also made me laugh you mentioning BB's DVD sales in regards to IM's, again if you had read what I said it was that BB wouldnt have gotten a sequel if it wasnt for the dvd sales). The amount a movie makes doesnt indicate quality. What I have been saying is that the WOM on IM2 wasnt very good so this suggests people didnt go back for repeat viewings as much as they did with IM1 and didnt tell their friends to go and watch it like they did with IM1, poor WOM indicates people didnt think it was up to par, which many people have expressed. Factor in that IM2 made A LOT more than IM1 on opening weekend and this shows that WOM wasnt very good at all.

X2 made nearly double what X1 did, because many acknowledged and felt it was a big improvement on X1.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Now you just want to complain just to complain.

Where was the hint that Jean and Storm could fly the jet in X2? All we saw was Cyclops in the first one flying it. Where were there any hints that a bat pod was inside the Tumbler? We never saw anything in the first one, much less Batman knowing how to operate one. Were there any hints that Harry knew how to fly a glider or use his fathers machines? All we saw at the end of part 2 was him finding the stuff and in the beginning of part 3 already being an expert at flying it. Where did Harvey Dent come from and why was he already a DA?? I didn't see an election. And why was he already in love with Rachel? I didn't see any build up to it.

Maybe the fact that they had trained at the mansion all their lives and were Xaviers first students? That one is obvious, and below you answered the others yourself.

See I can complain just to complain also. And before you retort with "well they owned that stuff and Rhodey didn't" just remember Rhodey had his own pin to come into Tony's lab whenever he wanted.

Having a pin to go into the lab and using an iron suit like he was an expert arent the same thing.


No it's not. X2 just had one good action scene and that was the Nightcrawler scene.

The reason why X2 seems really good is because the first one was just average, take away the first movie and X2 would be almost forgettable.

And it's BO didn't even come close to sniffing IM2s, so the GA obviously liked it and at the end of the day that's all that matters.


X2 was more critically acclaimed than IM2, a lot more in fact, and is regularly voted one of the best of the genre, IM2 isnt, enough said. Also, X1 wasnt average, it was the game changer and the reason we have CB movies, and it was also critically acclaimed more than IM2.


Yes you are. You come on here talking about how disappointing Marvel is going to feel, that want to give us your thoughts on the movie.

And you arent doing anything of the sort are you? You keep trying to convince people who dont like the movie that you are right to like it and they are wrong.

I dont want to turn this into an argument, but you liked IM2, I liked IM2 but found it very flawed, many didnt like it though and that will have been a factor in the dissapointing WOM

The only difference between the two is 7 million dollars, and both went north of 300 million! How the hell can you say people didn't enjoy it as much as the first.

Because it made A LOT more on its opening weekend than IM1 did and yet still made less, if this doesnt indicate to you that the WOM wasnt good I dont know what will.

[Tony Stark]

I agree it was very good. But I've seen a lot of movies that are very good. Was Avatar $2,731,051,588 good? That's just baffling.

It was 2 billion good because it was something like no one had ever seen before, and probably won't for some time. As far as the plot Avatar was rather immature and simplistic, as most Cameron films are, but for the visual appeal it was a must see.

I personally thought the design of the aliens was rather stupid, and cartoonish. What drew me in was the land scapes and the broad scenery of the planet. That's what made it real for me, not for the story or the look of the aliens.

[Iron_Stark]

Maybe the fact that they had trained at the mansion all their lives and were Xaviers first students? That one is obvious, and below you answered the others yourself.

Having a pin to go into the lab and using an iron suit like he was an expert arent the same thing.

Where in the first two movies does it show them training for anything? I didn't see anyone get their pilots license. Again where did they show Harry training on the glider? When did Parker find the money to make that suit and become an expert seamstress? Wolverine was shown in the first movie driving an automatic pickup, and then Cyclop's manual car, when did he have time to learn how to drive a stick? I never even saw him get a drivers license to operate any of those vehicles. How did Gordon learn to drive the tumbler so well and operate it's missle launchers? How did Dent get his clothes when he went to the hospital? When you get taken into a hospital with severe burns that Dent had, they rip your clothes off and not have time to unbutton them an hang them neatly.

I could keep going and keep picking apart most every movie, but I don't because I don't want to sound like a prick.



X2 was more critically acclaimed than IM2, a lot more in fact, and is regularly voted one of the best of the genre, IM2 isnt, enough said. Also, X1 wasnt average, it was the game changer and the reason we have CB movies, and it was also critically acclaimed more than IM2.

So now we're talking about critical success? I thought this was a BOX OFFICE THREAD.

And X1s and X2s critical success wasn't that far off from IM2.

Bottom line, Iron Mans two movie are far more successful than all three X-Men movies combined. Now that's "enough said"


And you arent doing anything of the sort are you? You keep trying to convince people who dont like the movie that you are right to like it and they are wrong.

I dont want to turn this into an argument, but you liked IM2, I liked IM2 but found it very flawed, many didnt like it though and that will have been a factor in the dissapointing WOM

Because it made A LOT more on its opening weekend than IM1 did and yet still made less, if this doesnt indicate to you that the WOM wasnt good I dont know what will.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to like it, I could give a damn if they don't like it.

And if it had as bad WOM as you say why didn't it have a huge drop the second weekend? This didn't even crack the top 350 movies with the biggest drop in the second weekend.

[ElMariachi]

Not that original actually. ;) Here (http://disneycomics.free.fr/Ducks/Rosa/show.php?num=1&loc=D2002-033&s=date)



I'm totally mystified at the movies that are making insane money lately. Avatar, TDK, Transformers, Shrek.....really? I mean they are good movies...but not that good. The public has weird taste.

Nice Scrooge McDuck find. :hehe:

Yeah, some of these movies (TDK being the exception there) really aren't all that good, but they sell for some odd reason. Even the Harry Potter movies have become increasingly dull and boring in comparison to the earlier films. It shows me that people don't care about minor plot flaws (such as the ones people argue are in IM2) and only get into hype/CGI/3D.

[RachelDawes]

It wasn't really an issue for me. I think some of you are reaching or going out of your way to find problems if this is really a problem in the movie. Like I was referencing in the previous post, I had no problems with Lucius Fox giving Batman an antidote for the toxin. Neither Batman nor Iron Man are doctors or scientists capable of creating medicines, so I don't think we should expect that in either movies.

I agree completely. I've never had any problems with superheroes getting outside help. That wasn't my issue with IM2.

For the record, the serum didn't cure Tony, it only extended him and gave him more time to find answers.

Here's my problem. Alleviating Tony's symptoms removed a lot of the drama from finding a cure.

I wouldn't say it came out of nowhere. Sure, if you didn't see the first movie I can maybe understand but it's not like he kissed Black Widow (which would have made no sense). You saw alot of signs of the romance in the first movie and in this movie they were almost a bickering couple (well, mainly Pepper). After they kissed Stark asked if it was awkward or something (I forget the actual quote) and that made it fine for me. I do remember it was soon followed by an hilarious quote by Rhodey saying they looked like "two seals fighting over a grape". :hehe:

I hadn't remembered the "awkward" comment. That actually almost confirms that there wasn't enough romance and the kiss between them came out of nowhere.

I also don't see how this was rushed. Stark said that his dad didn't like him, but that was only what he remembered as a child. Howard being somewhat cold doesn't mean he never loved Tony. Alot of fathers are like that and have difficulties expressing this to their children. Can you imagine Tony Stark having kids, being one of those fathers who hugs his kid all the time and telling them he loves them? That video inspires Tony and it was slightly moving.

Yeah, it was slightly moving, though it had potential to be more than that. I think there was more said about his dad in the cut footage and that's why that whole relationship feels underdeveloped.

[ElMariachi]

The complaint is it has probably made less profit than IM1, I am not complaining about this, I am pointing out that Marvel wont be best pleased about this, overseas doesnt count for much in my eyes (and this is coming from an English person) as studio's only get 15% of foreign gross.

are you sure that it made less profit? I have seen some real simple numbers thrown around here in regards to box office take and I think it's a bit more complex then that. We don't have access to the financial records of these movie studios, so I see no point in debating about it. Plus, it hasn't even come out on Bluray or DVD. The first Iron Man movie made huge money there. That brought in $136 million dollars. They made a ton more just on toys and merchandise. I expect it to be the same for this movie, therefore am not worried about making $7 million less than the first film. Especially with how well it did overseas.





As someone else pointed out, this is one of the biggest complaints of th Batman movies, I was complaining about this aspect of BB before even someone told me that LF didnt do all this in the comics, I am not steeped in Batman history and thought this was a faithful aspect but still didnt like it, just as I didnt like it in IM2. Tony is a genius and yet couldnt figure something out for himself, he needed Shield to give his fathers stuff and he still needed help from his father. Not only did it feel rushed, it felt very deus ex machina.

Thats the problem with Batman fans though. Alot of them think that Bruce Wayne is a god and should be able to do anything. I liked how he was portrayed in the film. It would have been completely ridiculous having Nolan's Batman be able to create medicines and antidotes considering he has no backround as a pharmacist or doctor.

I did not have any problem whatesoever with Fury/SHIELD helping out Tony. He is an engineering genius, not a doctor or a physicist. The whole angle was interesting to me how they connected the past with the future. Didn't feel rushed to me at all. The science fiction (partially) aspect of Stark buying and building a particle accelerator was really well done and clever.



Without his fathers stuff, Stark wouldnt have solved the problem, so Fury had a MASSIVE hand in helping him, and the little smirk on Fury's face when he gave him it suggested he knew what was in there.

Is this really such an issue that it ruined that part of the movie for you? Indiana Jones needed help from his Sean Connery in Last Crusade and that wasn't a big deal to me either. This is common in alot of movies. Like I said earlier, how fun is it to watch somebody who can solve any problem and never need help from anybody?




The romantic element was basically forgotten for the whole 2nd half of the movie, hence why the kiss came out of no were for me.

No, I didn't come out of nowhere. Batman kissing Ramirez in TDK would have been "out of nowhere". We already knew of the relationship between Pepper and Tony. She was a nagging b---h to him in the second half of the movie, but that doesn't mean they don't love each other.



Are you kidding? He jumped off multiple buildings in BB and glided, he had done it loads of times. With Rhodey we didnt even get a hint that he had tried it before, yet he managed to fight Tony to a standstill, now admittedly Tony was drunk, but he would have known the ins and outs of the suit much more than Rhodey. All it needed was a line of dialogue earlier in the movie to suggest he had had training in it.

It would be completely different to what he did in TDK in Hong Kong. He jumped off one of the worlds tallest buildings and somehow perfectly glided into a desired window in another skyscraper. That is probally impossible to begin with, but he did it with perfection in the movie. If this was real, you would have to assume he had to practice this run numerous times considering the danger. And that's not even bringing up 'Skyhook' or his Enemy At the Gates-esque sniper skills. They didn't show us his trial run or practicing and they didn't need to.

It is the same with Rhodey. They were friends and some time passed between this and the first movie. It's believeable that Stark showed him the suit and maybe even let him test it. It's one thing if Pepper or Happy get in the suit and another having an decorated fighter pilot like Rhodey using it. Did you notice that he had access to Tony's basement/workshop? That showed me that there was trust between Tony and Rhodey.





Sorry, but for a $200 million dollar movie, the action in IM2 was average, AT BEST, Spiderman 2's fight scenes are easily some of the best, NON of the ones in IM2 compare to it IMO, and I think you'll find more people agree with me about that as well.

Well thats your opinion. I thought Iron Man 2 had excellent action scenes and all of them were very well done. Iron Man/War Machine vs. the drones was epic in my opinion.






Were in the first movie were all these scene's? Yinsens death, the army finding Tony in the desert with Rhodey hugging Tony like he hadnt seen him in years, Tony arriving home to find Pepper crying with happiness, seeing kids crying at the vision of their father about to be executed in front of their eyes only for Iron Man to rescue them, Pepper quiting on the spot only to do what Tony asked after he explains he knows in his heart what he is doing is right, Tony being at the mercy of Stane and imploring Pepper to blow the roof despite the risk of him dying. All very powerful and emotional moments compared to the one moment in IM2 when we see his fathers video, sorry, but that is a big difference.

I will agree that things were played for laughs more in this movie but it didn't detract from my enjoyment. This was simply a James Bond type movie with a charismatic hero, jokes, some action, and sleek storytelling. The 'heart' in the first one was a welcome suprise, but there is only so many "awwww" scenes that should be involved with a character like Stark.


X2 is definately a better movie than IM2, it had MUCH more critical and fan acclaim and still does. At the end of the day I love a good action scene, but drama is what drives the story forward and the drama in X2, Spidey and TDK were leaps and bounds what we got in IM2, I would also say the action in X2 and Spidey 2 was leaps and bounds what we got in IM2. Those 3 movies are regularly voted the best of the genre by various fan-site's and publications, I have never once seen IM2 even come close to being voted the best, does this not tell you something?

It got better reviews, sure, but the movie has largely been forgotten by the general public. Why? Because it was simply a good story with some quality action scenes. Nothing really stood out in the X-Men series.

I liked Iron Man 2 more then either movie (not saying I don't like both movies) because of the main character. Peter Parker and his story gradually became more annoying as the series went on. Robert Downey Jr. easily makes the movie more watchable, as does the absence of the soap opera drama that you seem to have forgotten in SM2. It is sort of the same thing with the Batman series. I loved Begins because Bruce Wayne was such a likeable character. His relationship with Alfred and Lucius was fresh to me. In TDK, he was overshadowed by the Joker and even by Harvey Dent to a lesser degree. Not saying that IM2 is a greater movie than TDK, but the movie is more appealing in ways because of the main character.






The Terminator, Terminator 2, Aliens, True Lies and Titanic all are extremely popular movies of multiple generations, yet they still had to quote everyone of them in the advertising for Avatar, and it still didnt have a spectacular opening weekend, WOM is what made Avatar its money, the GA dont take as much notice as a director's previous movie as we do. The amount of times I have said to someone how good Christopher Nolan is and they stare at me blankly is telling.

All of those movies are adult oriented and none of them had huge existing fanbases like Harry Potter, Batman, or Twlight. These movies have huge box office openings because of these huge fanbases and the hype that went along with them. Avatar didn't have a fanbase either, but still made $242 million worldwide opening weekend.







IM1 came out in a recession too you know, and it went up against MUCH bigger competition and still managed to make nearly as much despite not being a sequel. The only movies to directly effect IM2 were RH and POP, neither of which were anything NEAR being smash hits, in fact, you could say both flopped, and you call this good competition?

IM1 went up againt Narnia 2 (over $400 million WW) and Indiana Jones 4 (over $700 million world wide), THATS strong competition.


yeah, but times are rougher now then two years ago. $7 million dollars isn't alot of money in regards to box office and that could easily have played a role. It's not like the movie took a major dive like some of the franchises I listed earlier. The movies that I brought up in regards to IM2 all made decent money. They took money away, even if some of them were flops. Kids aren't going to see Iron Man 2 if Shrek is out. Women aren't going to see Iron Man 2 if Sex in the City 2 is in theaters.





And more people liking the movie than not isnt a fact at all, there is no way you can gauge that, however, with the domestic numbers being not as good as IM1, this SUGGESTS that people didnt enjoy it as much as the first movie as WOM wasnt good enough to encourage multiple viewings

there you go again with this "Dark Knight mentality". You talk about how great Spider-Man 2 was but it made $30 million less domestically. WOM and quality of movie has nothing to do with box office take.

[ElMariachi]

Now you just want to complain just to complain.

Where was the hint that Jean and Storm could fly the jet in X2? All we saw was Cyclops in the first one flying it. Where were there any hints that a bat pod was inside the Tumbler? We never saw anything in the first one, much less Batman knowing how to operate one. Were there any hints that Harry knew how to fly a glider or use his fathers machines? All we saw at the end of part 2 was him finding the stuff and in the beginning of part 3 already being an expert at flying it. Where did Harvey Dent come from and why was he already a DA?? I didn't see an election. And why was he already in love with Rachel? I didn't see any build up to it.


Or look at Star Wars for that matter. Since when was Luke Skywalker capable or experienced enough to fly an X-Wing? I don't recall him piloting anything other than a land speeder. At the end of A New Hope, he is basically an ace. This would be like somebody flying a crop duster and then going on to fly the Space Shuttle or an F-22.

These things aren't noticeable unless people are looking to find flaws. You can basically do it for ANY movie. :hehe:

[ElMariachi]

Maybe the fact that they had trained at the mansion all their lives and were Xaviers first students? That one is obvious, and below you answered the others yourself.


it's still silly. Who at the Xaviers mansion would believeably be able to teach kids how to fly what basically was a SR-71 Blackbird.

"Hey, kid! Wanna learn how to fly THIS?!"

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/7240/sr71a04.jpg (http://img201.imageshack.us/i/sr71a04.jpg/)

[JeetKuneDo]

Of course they will be happy with this aspect, but at the same, the opening weekend was expected to be bigger, many web-site's reported that IM2 was tracking better than TDK the week before it opened.
Which indicates the "expectations" were wrong...not the movie. The expectations have been off from the very beginning of this film's run...yet those same expectations continue to be used against it as if they were accurate or something.

And it should be pointed out that opening weekend has nothing to do with the quality of the film. There was clearly a flaw with the expectations for this film. Continuing to use those expectations as the basis for your argument is just building on a flaw.

Rhodey expressed interest in the suit AFTER Tony had left, the fact that you have to 'assume' Tony gave him flight time is a bad aspect of the story-telling in the movie for me.To be honest, of all the flaws in TDK, which there are many, I didnt find this to be one of them, if the guy has no recorded finger prints I doubt they can tell anything by his face.
So I can't assume Tony let Rhodey fly the armor but you can assume there is a reason to justify this? Wow! :wow:

You were bugged by the flaw in IM2 but saw no problem with cops assuming that removing makeup from a prisoner would not help them identify him? They couldn't even spare 10 seconds to wipe a towel across his face to find out for sure...they just assumed it?

Not to mention the fact they were dealing with a guy that had large facial scars...maybe. Any cop on the planet that was not a member of the keystone cops would remove the makeup to examine those scars. (it's called "police work") Once you verify the scars, that gives you information about the prisoner. It stands to reason a person can not move around in this world without being noticed with a face like that. Not to mention possible hospital records for unique scars like that. You have to at least try it....unless you are the dumbest cops in the world...which they kinda were in TDK. (No wonder the Joker was able to do all that stuff at will...the cops and the mob were all idiots)

And it was made 6 years ago, dont you think Marvel should have bettered it by now? Especially with $200 million today being a lot more than it was then.
Well...no one else has either. Expecting a movie to top "best evers" is asking a lot.

And I think I would say $200 million is less today than it was then.

And this is another complaint of mine, you have a great actor like RDJ, and all you let him do in the movie is spout jokes. And action isnt as important as other aspects, but the action in IM2 was a serious let down.
I don't see the connection between RDJ and action to be honest. He's been incredible his entire career and it's always been because of the force of his personality.

The amount a movie makes doesnt indicate quality. What I have been saying is that the WOM on IM2 wasnt very good so this suggests people didnt go back for repeat viewings as much as they did with IM1 and didnt tell their friends to go and watch it like they did with IM1, poor WOM indicates people didnt think it was up to par, which many people have expressed. Factor in that IM2 made A LOT more than IM1 on opening weekend and this shows that WOM wasnt very good at all.Where does this idea come from that IM2 had bad WoM? People actually liked it very much.

X2 made nearly double what X1 did, because many acknowledged and felt it was a big improvement on X1.And Spider-Man 2 made much less than Spider-Man 1....even though it was better. You can't say "because" due to the fact that box office behavior does not indicate quality. We see this time and time again. There is almost no connection. Was Transformers 2 over twice as good as Inglorious Basterds, District 9, and Watchmen in 2009? Not hardly. If you have to make a movie that bad to qualify as "successful"...then no thanks.

It was 2 billion good because it was something like no one had ever seen before, and probably won't for some time. As far as the plot Avatar was rather immature and simplistic, as most Cameron films are, but for the visual appeal it was a must see.

I personally thought the design of the aliens was rather stupid, and cartoonish. What drew me in was the land scapes and the broad scenery of the planet. That's what made it real for me, not for the story or the look of the aliens.

I guess I should stress that I liked Avatar quite a bit. I'm almost a Cameron fanboy too. But Avatar is not close to being his best film....and it made over 2 billion at the box office. Still more proof (as if we need it) that box office performance does not tell us anything about how good a movie is. Is Avatar really the 14th best movie of all time? (on the adjusted chart)

So those trying hard in this thread to somehow connect box office and quality are doomed to fail. It just doesn't match up.

[JeetKuneDo]

Or look at Star Wars for that matter. Since when was Luke Skywalker capable or experienced enough to fly an X-Wing? I don't recall him piloting anything other than a land speeder. At the end of A New Hope, he is basically an ace. This would be like somebody flying a crop duster and then going on to fly the Space Shuttle or an F-22.

These things aren't noticeable unless people are looking to find flaws. You can basically do it for ANY movie. :hehe:

I've done it for fun myself. You can tear anything apart if you are looking for flaws. I did it to X2 once just to see how bad I could make it look.

[Ipodman]

Not to mention the fact they were dealing with a guy that had large facial scars...maybe. Any cop on the planet that was not a member of the keystone cops would remove the makeup to examine those scars. (it's called "police work") Once you verify the scars, that gives you information about the prisoner. It stands to reason a person can not move around in this world without being noticed with a face like that. Not to mention possible hospital records for unique scars like that. You have to at least try it....unless you are the dumbest cops in the world...which they kinda were in TDK. (No wonder the Joker was able to do all that stuff at will...the cops and the mob were all idiots)



I believe that's a reasonable explanation... the Gotham police in some Batman comics were described as corrupted and could not function with much police skills.

Also, maybe TDK's Joker didnt have make-up. The skin tone on his face was that colour since birth. Or maybe he had an accident with chemicals like 89's Joker. When it comes down to it, the origin of the Joker and why his personality is so inhuman will never be known.

[hatebox]

Isn't it pretty much an unwritten rule in comic book universes that the cops and authorities are generally useless, hence the need for a superhero?

Though I think to Nolan's credit he went out of his way to convey that in fact with Gotham it's even worse - the cops are uselss because they're corrupt.

[J.Howlett]

Marachi,

How can you be pleased with the main character of Iron Man 2 when he doesn't even take his own advice at the beginning of the film...about creating a new legacy to share to the world?

He creates basically a new energy source that would be very beneficial to the world and basically keeps it for himself, for selfish reasons...that's totally contradictory to his speech at the Stark Expo.

Again, another year on the script and production, and I'd bet a million bucks that Favreau would've rectified that problem. It's a glaring problem with the film. The "legacy" storyline is the absolute appropriate storyline as a sequel to Iron Man, considering he'd dying and the fact that he's changed himself after the experiences in the first film.

He was suppose to be a changed man. He was suppose to be better for the world, his company, and humanity. At the end of Iron Man 2, he's back to his old ways. He didn't progress as a character one bit. The film started out that way but didn't go all the way with it.

That's a lot of the problems with Iron Man 2. He doesn't finish the character arc it started in Iron Man 1 and the first half of Iron Man 2. And the reason it's so disappointing is because of what Stark was. He was an arms dealer. That's serious stuff that's played very loosey goosey in this sequel when it shouldn't. Him dying is apart of that but it shouldn't take him that far into ******* territory.

[Tony Stark]

I guess I should stress that I liked Avatar quite a bit. I'm almost a Cameron fanboy too. But Avatar is not close to being his best film....and it made over 2 billion at the box office. Still more proof (as if we need it) that box office performance does not tell us anything about how good a movie is. Is Avatar really the 14th best movie of all time? (on the adjusted chart)

So those trying hard in this thread to somehow connect box office and quality are doomed to fail. It just doesn't match up.

I will agree with you on that. I'm not sure what's my favorite of his, but Terminator 1 and 2, and the Abyss would be toward the top of my list.

Alot of people here want to put financial success with quality, and if that were true then Transformers 2 would be one of the best films out there, it's not.

The closest comparison to Avatar I can make, would be Jurrasic Park. Neither of those films are their creators best work, but they are both landmark films from a technological stand point. This is why the original King Kong is such a huge film. It really was the first "blockbuster" in terms of scope with the visual effects and all, for the time it was made. The acting in that movie was B-grade at best.

[Tony Stark]

Marachi,

How can you be pleased with the main character of Iron Man 2 when he doesn't even take his own advice at the beginning of the film...about creating a new legacy to share to the world?

He creates basically a new energy source that would be very beneficial to the world and basically keeps it for himself, for selfish reasons...that's totally contradictory to his speech at the Stark Expo.

Again, another year on the script and production, and I'd bet a million bucks that Favreau would've rectified that problem. It's a glaring problem with the film. The "legacy" storyline is the absolute appropriate storyline as a sequel to Iron Man, considering he'd dying and the fact that he's changed himself after the experiences in the first film.

He was suppose to be a changed man. He was suppose to be better for the world, his company, and humanity. At the end of Iron Man 2, he's back to his old ways. He didn't progress as a character one bit. The film started out that way but didn't go all the way with it.

That's a lot of the problems with Iron Man 2. He doesn't finish the character arc it started in Iron Man 1 and the first half of Iron Man 2. And the reason it's so disappointing is because of what Stark was. He was an arms dealer. That's serious stuff that's played very loosey goosey in this sequel when it shouldn't. Him dying is apart of that but it shouldn't take him that far into ******* territory.

Clearly you don't know anything about Iron Man as a character, he has always kept the Iron Man technology to himself for fear of what someone would do with it in the wrong hands.

If you're going to criticize the movie fine, but that theme was played in IM1 and in IM2 so your criticism is fairly hypocritical.

[J.Howlett]

No it isn't...considering the speech he made at the Stark Expo. So basically, Tony Stark's a liar? That's what you're saying.

You can't have Tony make a speech to thousands of people talking about "legacy", giving back to the world and then have Tony actually invent something that would technically do what his speech called for and then have him not give back.

Basically, all that supposed growth/reawakening he had during the events of the first film, that made the first film what it was, was Tony Stark lying to the characters in the film and the audience?

By that conclusion, Tony Stark isn't a character we should root for in Iron Man 3 or the Avenger films...because he's basically a jackass.

Which, ironically, is how close RDJ is playing him.

[Iron_Stark]

Marachi,

How can you be pleased with the main character of Iron Man 2 when he doesn't even take his own advice at the beginning of the film...about creating a new legacy to share to the world?

He creates basically a new energy source that would be very beneficial to the world and basically keeps it for himself, for selfish reasons...that's totally contradictory to his speech at the Stark Expo.

Again, another year on the script and production, and I'd bet a million bucks that Favreau would've rectified that problem. It's a glaring problem with the film. The "legacy" storyline is the absolute appropriate storyline as a sequel to Iron Man, considering he'd dying and the fact that he's changed himself after the experiences in the first film.

He was suppose to be a changed man. He was suppose to be better for the world, his company, and humanity. At the end of Iron Man 2, he's back to his old ways. He didn't progress as a character one bit. The film started out that way but didn't go all the way with it.

That's a lot of the problems with Iron Man 2. He doesn't finish the character arc it started in Iron Man 1 and the first half of Iron Man 2. And the reason it's so disappointing is because of what Stark was. He was an arms dealer. That's serious stuff that's played very loosey goosey in this sequel when it shouldn't. Him dying is apart of that but it shouldn't take him that far into ******* territory.


WTF are you talking about? He created it to save his life and immediately goes on to fight Vanko and the drones and then the movie's over.

Where the hell was it ever said he was going to keep it for himself and not share?

And what does any of that have to do in this BOX OFFICE THREAD?

[Tony Stark]

No it isn't...considering the speech he made at the Stark Expo. So basically, Tony Stark's a liar? That's what you're saying.

You can't have Tony make a speech to thousands of people talking about "legacy", giving back to the world and then have Tony actually invent something that would technically do what his speech called for and then have him not give back.

Basically, all that supposed growth/reawakening he had during the events of the first film, that made the first film what it was, was Tony Stark lying to the characters in the film and the audience?

By that conclusion, Tony Stark isn't a character we should root for in Iron Man 3 or the Avenger films...because he's basically a jackass.

Which, ironically, is how close RDJ is playing him.

Well now you're pretty much trolling for a reaction. It's patently clear from the comics and from the first movie and the second, that he will not give up the Iron Man tech, that's what the armor wars story line was all about.

The so-called "growth, reawakening" he had durring the first film was to build a kick ass weapon unline anything he'd made before and not share the technology with the military which put him at odds with Rhodey and his own company.

Everything else you said is pretty much hyperbole, just to get a rise out of others. Sorry not falling for it.

[Iron_Stark]

No it isn't...considering the speech he made at the Stark Expo. So basically, Tony Stark's a liar? That's what you're saying.

You can't have Tony make a speech to thousands of people talking about "legacy", giving back to the world and then have Tony actually invent something that would technically do what his speech called for and then have him not give back.

Basically, all that supposed growth/reawakening he had during the events of the first film, that made the first film what it was, was Tony Stark lying to the characters in the film and the audience?

By that conclusion, Tony Stark isn't a character we should root for in Iron Man 3 or the Avenger films...because he's basically a jackass.

Which, ironically, is how close RDJ is playing him.


Again, at what point in time in the movie did Tony say "I'm not going to share the new element with the people"

iirc, the novel said the new element was Vibranium, well take a wild guess who's weapon is going to be made out of Vibranium if SHIELD or Howard Stark don't crack the code to making the element in their movie. Yeah Tony's such the selfish ingrate. :whatever:

And if you go to the StarkExpo2010 website you'll see all the inventions Stark Industries is "giving back" to the world. (But I guess since it wasn't in the movie it doesn't count because people need to be spoon fed every little detail)

lol, I swear people just want to b**** and moan about any little thing.

If you want to cry about something, at least find something better to cry about and not ridiculous crap like this.

[Iron_Stark]

Well now you're pretty much trolling for a reaction. It's patently clear from the comics and from the first movie and the second, that he will not give up the Iron Man tech, that's what the armor wars story line was all about.

The so-called "growth, reawakening" he had durring the first film was to build a kick ass weapon unline anything he'd made before and not share the technology with the military which put him at odds with Rhodey and his own company.

Everything else you said is pretty much hyperbole, just to get a rise out of others. Sorry not falling for it.


Exactly! :up:

Like in the comics, Stark Industries will be creating things to better people's lives, the armor and anything else that can be used as a weapon is off limits.

I thought it was pretty clear throughout both movies.

[Tony Stark]

lol, I swear people just want to b**** and moan about any little thing.

True but Howlett is also the worst kind of TDK fanboy there is out there. Any chance he has to derride the success of a Marvel property, he'll take it.

[Iron_Stark]

True but Howlett is also the worst kind of TDK fanboy there is out there. Any chance he has to derride the success of a Marvel property, he'll take it.

lol, he should change his name, unless that's his real name.

And no wonder he threw that little jab at RDJ, yeah too bad every actor out there can't be stand up guys like Bale.

"F-SAKE MAN YOUR AMATEUR!" :hehe:

[ElMariachi]

Marachi,

How can you be pleased with the main character of Iron Man 2 when he doesn't even take his own advice at the beginning of the film...about creating a new legacy to share to the world?

He creates basically a new energy source that would be very beneficial to the world and basically keeps it for himself, for selfish reasons...that's totally contradictory to his speech at the Stark Expo.

Again, another year on the script and production, and I'd bet a million bucks that Favreau would've rectified that problem. It's a glaring problem with the film. The "legacy" storyline is the absolute appropriate storyline as a sequel to Iron Man, considering he'd dying and the fact that he's changed himself after the experiences in the first film.

He was suppose to be a changed man. He was suppose to be better for the world, his company, and humanity. At the end of Iron Man 2, he's back to his old ways. He didn't progress as a character one bit. The film started out that way but didn't go all the way with it.

That's a lot of the problems with Iron Man 2. He doesn't finish the character arc it started in Iron Man 1 and the first half of Iron Man 2. And the reason it's so disappointing is because of what Stark was. He was an arms dealer. That's serious stuff that's played very loosey goosey in this sequel when it shouldn't. Him dying is apart of that but it shouldn't take him that far into ******* territory.

So creating a legacy means giving away his technology to competitors and for free, no less? We don't know anything in regards to the miniture arc reactor and if it was displayed at the Stark Expo to begin with. Or whatever marvels his company came up with and offered for the betterment of humanity. It could have been displayed for all we know (or was planned to before Vanko destroyed everything), but it wasn't elaborated on. This was brand new technology if we are going off of the movie timeline. It would take time to make the technology useful to society as a whole.

And it's tech that had already been used against Tony by the 'military industrial complex' (Stane) and he had legit worries about it's usage. In regards to the Iron Man armor, why should he have to give any information regarding it to the U.S. government? I don't see this as being greedy or going against his principles. Stark had a change of heart in the first movie, but it didn't make him naive and stupid. He is still a businessman and has to look out for his interests.

Also, where or when did he become a changed man? He still is an egotistical character and you saw that in the very last scene in Iron Man. Tony didn't need to tell the world that he was Iron Man, but did so to stroke his own ego. You are under the assumption that all superheroes should be selfless figures and I think that's wrong when discussing this particular hero.

[J.Howlett]

TDK fanboy, I am. Considering I think Hulk and X2 are in the top 5 all time in comic book adaptations. I'm most definitely a TDK fanboy.

I have a general disappointment with how Iron Man 2 was developed from a script perspective and I'm considered a troll.

Wonderful...

I didn't say Tony's a selfless figure but Christ, dude realizes what his legacy is in the first film, wants to change things... you'd at least think that the guy would figure out another way besides inventing another weapon to contribute to the world and change his legacy. I understand that you can't have a story about Iron Man without Iron Man showing up but at least ask the damn question. That's all I'm asking.

The speech at the beginning of the film pointed towards Tony at least thinking about something other than the Iron Man weapon. At least end the film with him contributing something back, instead of going with "I saved my own ass...that's pretty much all I wanted to do anyway."

But, because I'm this "supposed troll', I'll leave you guys to the box office of Iron Man 2...(people can't have a difference of opinion without being called a troll...Christ sakes!)

[ElMariachi]

Wonderful...

I didn't say Tony's a selfless figure but Christ, dude realizes what his legacy is in the first film, wants to change things... you'd at least think that the guy would figure out another way besides inventing another weapon to contribute to the world and change his legacy. I understand that you can't have a story about Iron Man without Iron Man showing up but at least ask the damn question. That's all I'm asking.

The speech at the beginning of the film pointed towards Tony at least thinking about something other than the Iron Man weapon. At least end the film with him contributing something back, instead of going with "I saved my own ass...that's pretty much all I wanted to do anyway."

But, because I'm this "supposed troll', I'll leave you guys to the box office of Iron Man 2...(people can't have a difference of opinion without being called a troll...Christ sakes!)

I am not understanding what you were looking for in this movie. Tony Stark did change in that he is no longer a naive weapons developer. This hasn't changed in Iron Man 2. Just because we didn't see his individual contributions to the world doesn't mean they aren't there. The whole idea of the Stark Expo is to give corporations (even rivals) and inventors a platform to show off their ideas and new technologies. The old Stark wouldn't have poured what looked like billions into a grand festival with the theme of better living through technology. He would simply be happy making a dime off of some Jericho missles, f--k skanks in Vegas, and not showing up to prestigious award ceremonies where he is the guest of honor. The Stark Expo was the greatest part of this movie and you are overlooking it's importance.

[J.Howlett]

For me, the Stark Expo would've been a great start had they done a proper conclusion to the whole idea. I have no idea what that conclusion is...but it's not the one we got.

As for Stark changing, I just wish the film(s) would've at least explored the idea of Tony not developing weapons at all. I mean, with the Iron Man weapon, he's a walking contradiction.

I understand that he feels this is the only way he could do what he's doing by creating this new weapon but I at least wanted the question asked...

Iron Man Extremis explores this idea. The two films don't address it, except for the beginning of the film with the Stark Expo. Not asking for it to be the whole story but a least a scene or two...like how Iron Man 2 should've had more scenes with Tony trying to figure out his solution to his problem, instead of it being handed to him in a very deus ex machina way...

[JeetKuneDo]

I believe that's a reasonable explanation... the Gotham police in some Batman comics were described as corrupted and could not function with much police skills.

Also, maybe TDK's Joker didnt have make-up. The skin tone on his face was that colour since birth. Or maybe he had an accident with chemicals like 89's Joker. When it comes down to it, the origin of the Joker and why his personality is so inhuman will never be known.

Check out TDK again and you'll see The Joker's makeup coming off on it's own. (it's part of his look) One swipe with a towel may have taken the rest of it off. (and ruined his look...which was obviously why Nolan didn't allow them to remove it)

Corrupt, no doubt. But also very stupid. Like when the Joker is standing in the truck in the tunnel in plain view firing weapons at the cops and they, unlike every other cop on the planet, do not think to fire back at him. He even pauses to reload and change weapons with no resistance from them.

Stupid cops may actually work in this city though...because the mob is just as dumb. The Joker is able to walk into a room full of them, threaten them, insult them, and even assault them. He shows them some explosives and walks out.

Real life mobsters grin and send about 40 guys after him to gun him down at the earliest opportunity. In TDK, the mob must think that once a person leaves a room they are gone forever. The Joker had it right when he said the city needed a better class of criminal.

Gotham City...truly a dumb place. It's not that The Joker was really smart...he's just not a moron. It's like winning the special olympics.

I will agree with you on that. I'm not sure what's my favorite of his, but Terminator 1 and 2, and the Abyss would be toward the top of my list.

Alot of people here want to put financial success with quality, and if that were true then Transformers 2 would be one of the best films out there, it's not.

I put Aliens firmly at the top of my "Cameron list". :) ("Game over!") T2 is right up there with it. The Abyss is pretty darn good too. It gets lost in the shuffle at times.

No it isn't...considering the speech he made at the Stark Expo. So basically, Tony Stark's a liar? That's what you're saying.

You can't have Tony make a speech to thousands of people talking about "legacy", giving back to the world and then have Tony actually invent something that would technically do what his speech called for and then have him not give back.

Basically, all that supposed growth/reawakening he had during the events of the first film, that made the first film what it was, was Tony Stark lying to the characters in the film and the audience?

By that conclusion, Tony Stark isn't a character we should root for in Iron Man 3 or the Avenger films...because he's basically a jackass.

Which, ironically, is how close RDJ is playing him.

I think you got a different idea from Stark's "conversion" than I did. I got that he decided to do good things for the world...not invent stuff and give it away. (Especially stuff that could cause harm in other people's hands.) He decided to become a hero instead of just a playboy.

[danoyse]

True but Howlett is also the worst kind of TDK fanboy there is out there. Any chance he has to derride the success of a Marvel property, he'll take it.

lol, he should change his name, unless that's his real name.

And no wonder he threw that little jab at RDJ, yeah too bad every actor out there can't be stand up guys like Bale.

"F-SAKE MAN YOUR AMATEUR!" :hehe:

And both of you are acting like the worst kind of immature fanboys who can't handle a dissenting opinion. I'm through warning you to behave in here. If you can't knock it off, you won't be posting on this thread anymore.

If this thread can't stay on the topic box office, then maybe it's time to close it.

[J.Howlett]

The Joker's actions in Knight don't make much logistical sense because they' re really not suppose to. He's the physical embodiment of the theme Nolan's pushing through the film. That's why his actions have a "supernatural" feel to them. And no, I'm not the first person to float that idea around.

[ElMariachi]

For me, the Stark Expo would've been a great start had they done a proper conclusion to the whole idea. I have no idea what that conclusion is...but it's not the one we got.

As for Stark changing, I just wish the film(s) would've at least explored the idea of Tony not developing weapons at all. I mean, with the Iron Man weapon, he's a walking contradiction.

I understand that he feels this is the only way he could do what he's doing by creating this new weapon but I at least wanted the question asked...

Iron Man Extremis explores this idea. The two films don't address it, except for the beginning of the film with the Stark Expo. Not asking for it to be the whole story but a least a scene or two...like how Iron Man 2 should've had more scenes with Tony trying to figure out his solution to his problem, instead of it being handed to him in a very deus ex machina way...

Well, I am not really sure what kind of conclusion you were looking for. I was happy with the movie, despite a few minor flaws. The Stark Expo, to me, was one of the most creative and unique things to ever grace a superhero film.

I suppose I can understand some complaints about them not showing his work on other projects (which would have been interesting), but it really wasn't a big deal to me. I think you are digging for things to complain about. Nobody questions these small details for TDK or Spider-Man (excluding the third), but every aspect of Iron Man 2 and it's plot are put under the microscope.

The only things I would have changed would probally be this.

-A bit less humor in some places.
-Longer fights with Whiplash
and
-Scenes added to the opening montage (which was great as is) showing Iron Man accomplishing all the feats that were shown in the newsclippings. A mix of like the Rocky IV training montage or the opening to Watchmen--which told the audience alot about the backrounds of the story. It would have been cool to see stuff like Iron Man at the White House with the President, Stark getting a Nobel Peace Prize, getting his handprints on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, or showing him developing new technologies. Little things like that do alot for me.

[ElMariachi]

The Joker's actions in Knight don't make much logistical sense because they' re really not suppose to. He's the physical embodiment of the theme Nolan's pushing through the film. That's why his actions have a "supernatural" feel to them. And no, I'm not the first person to float that idea around.

This is something that sort of bothers me in the context of this discussion. Iron Man 2 was expected to have this unreal character development (even for minor characters like Black Widow), yet excuses are constantly made for every character in the Batman series. Harvey Dent, a reasonable person, just becomes this madman because his girlfriend gets blown up. Joker exists as this evil freak with no character development or backround. Batman/Bruce Wayne exists as a sentinel of justice and was sort of mindless in his devotion to it in TDK. Contrast the character in BB and you will see what I mean. I am not saying that this is a bad thing, but Batman gets alot of leeway by the fanboys in this department. The imposing music, tone, Nolan's direction, and awesome cinematography distract the viewer from these things.

[Iron_Stark]

This is something that sort of bothers me in the context of this discussion. Iron Man 2 was expected to have this unreal character development (even for minor characters like Black Widow), yet excuses are constantly made for every character in the Batman series. Harvey Dent, a reasonable person, just becomes this madman because his girlfriend gets blown up. Joker exists as this evil freak with no character development or backround. Batman/Bruce Wayne exists as a sentinel of justice and was sort of mindless in his devotion to it in TDK. Contrast the character in BB and you will see what I mean. I am not saying that this is a bad thing, but Batman gets alot of leeway by the fanboys in this department. The imposing music, tone, Nolan's direction, and awesome cinematography distract the viewer from these things.


Yep, people act as though TDK was this flawless piece of work, but in reality anyone could pick it apart bad with all the mistakes it had.

[Anita18]

This is something that sort of bothers me in the context of this discussion. Iron Man 2 was expected to have this unreal character development (even for minor characters like Black Widow), yet excuses are constantly made for every character in the Batman series. Harvey Dent, a reasonable person, just becomes this madman because his girlfriend gets blown up. Joker exists as this evil freak with no character development or backround. Batman/Bruce Wayne exists as a sentinel of justice and was sort of mindless in his devotion to it in TDK. Contrast the character in BB and you will see what I mean. I am not saying that this is a bad thing, but Batman gets alot of leeway by the fanboys in this department. The imposing music, tone, Nolan's direction, and awesome cinematography distract the viewer from these things.
I didn't think Black Widow in particular had any motivations of her own, besides her work for SHIELD. Every character in TDK (even most of the minor ones) had their own motivations and made their own decisions.

I did like the way Stark was painted against Justin Hammer, but Hammer didn't really feel dangerous in the end at all. Vanko played him like a fiddle and just used his money, that was all.

[hatebox]

The Joker shouldn't have character development. He's an absolute. That's the entire point of him.

[J.Howlett]

Mariachi,

It's not really leeway though. The best Joker stories don't tell his origin. In his best stories, he's this "entity" that just exists to be the complete opposite of the Bat. That's why there back and forth is always so fascinating.

With Dent in TDK, his obession with justice like Batman's is the reason for his madness. Losing Rachel and not having Gordon or Batman listen to him, understand his philosophy, is why we understand his madness.

And I wasn't asking for unreal character development for Iron Man 2. The film starts out strong with pure development of Stark...but Stark doesn't solve his problems or learns anything from them in Iron Man 2. It's handed to him and basically he's cured...gotta go save Pepper. That's it.

Had Tony solved his own problems and come to an understanding with his father on his own, I honestly wouldn't complain about the film.

The whole problem with Iron Man 2 is the entire second act. The threat of the film don't test Stark...when they know his weakness(Ivan). And when you add how lazy S.H.I.E.L.D. was added to the storyline, you can see how it went from a really strong opening act to a really "what the hell were they thinking" second act to finishing off strong with a great, action packed third act, way better than the first film.

The elements were there. They just don't gel at all because of how Avengers is pushed down our throats. I understand that Avengers is an important component of Tony Stark but why force it down our throats in the middle of the film when just having SLJ show up at the end as he does and then have the reveal of Natasha at the end would've been just as good?

My argument against Iron Man 2 is born out of frustration because I think Favreau could've easily delivered the "TDK" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The first film set that up beautifully. Marvel's interventions killed what I thought was going to be a truly great sequel.

[J.Howlett]

Thank you, hatebox...

[Iron_Stark]

Mariachi,

It's not really leeway though. The best Joker stories don't tell his origin. In his best stories, he's this "entity" that just exists to be the complete opposite of the Bat. That's why there back and forth is always so fascinating.

With Dent in TDK, his obession with justice like Batman's is the reason for his madness. Losing Rachel and not having Gordon or Batman listen to him, understand his philosophy, is why we understand his madness.

And I wasn't asking for unreal character development for Iron Man 2. The film starts out strong with pure development of Stark...but Stark doesn't solve his problems or learns anything from them in Iron Man 2. It's handed to him and basically he's cured...gotta go save Pepper. That's it.

Had Tony solved his own problems and come to an understanding with his father on his own, I honestly wouldn't complain about the film.

The whole problem with Iron Man 2 is the entire second act. The threat of the film don't test Stark...when they know his weakness(Ivan). And when you add how lazy S.H.I.E.L.D. was added to the storyline, you can see how it went from a really strong opening act to a really "what the hell were they thinking" second act to finishing off strong with a great, action packed third act, way better than the first film.

The elements were there. They just don't gel at all because of how Avengers is pushed down our throats. I understand that Avengers is an important component of Tony Stark but why force it down our throats in the middle of the film when just having SLJ show up at the end as he does and then have the reveal of Natasha at the end would've been just as good?

Good grief, here we go again.

How exactly was Avengers pushed down our throats?

[Crook]

This is something that sort of bothers me in the context of this discussion. Iron Man 2 was expected to have this unreal character development (even for minor characters like Black Widow), yet excuses are constantly made for every character in the Batman series. Harvey Dent, a reasonable person, just becomes this madman because his girlfriend gets blown up. Joker exists as this evil freak with no character development or backround. Batman/Bruce Wayne exists as a sentinel of justice and was sort of mindless in his devotion to it in TDK. Contrast the character in BB and you will see what I mean. I am not saying that this is a bad thing, but Batman gets alot of leeway by the fanboys in this department. The imposing music, tone, Nolan's direction, and awesome cinematography distract the viewer from these things.
This topic is for a different thread, but I don't think these are quite valid criticisms.

1) Harvey's entire foundations crumbled right in front of him. His belief in a legitimate political system failed. His trust in friends failed. His "you make your own luck" mantra failed. The cost of his fiancee's life as a result of these major turning points made him snap. It's not remotely as simple as "his gf blew up and now he's bad". C'mon.

2) Joker NEVER was one for deep character development. Sorry. We all know his claim to fame, even Nolan from the very beginning made it clear this was pretty much going to be a character who wrecked havoc. The development and sense of purpose is there, but in much more subtle form.

3) Bruce is firmly devoted to his own brand of morals and ethics. He's bound to it. Even many batfans realize that it's a flaw. But it's a flaw that makes the character.

I will agree that the production having hitting homeruns in every aspect makes it a lot easier to mask its deficiencies. But this is with any product. Your imperfections are bright as day as a result of not having anything in comparison to hide behind. I don't really think IM2 did that much to excel above its predecessor, and yet IM1 is the one that's almost universally praised. And that's simply because it was the film whose pros severely, severely, outweighed any of its cons. Fans are always willing to accept that so as long as the benefit is greater.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

What I found funny about this thread is that all the people moaning about others trying to turn this into a TDK vs Iron Man 2 thread have actually managed to turn it into one :cwink:.

Personally I dont think they are comparable, in terms of quality, TDK is the better movie by quite a bit, but IM2 should be more compared with Spiderman 2, but its no were near as good as that either.

Also, I will say that J.Howlett is one of the most level headed and sensible people on this entire forum, and is in no way a TDK fanboy, I have seen him on loads of Marvel threads both before and after TDK came out.

[Iron_Stark]

What I found funny about this thread is that all the people moaning about others trying to turn this into a TDK vs Iron Man 2 thread have actually managed to turn it into one :cwink:.

Personally I dont think they are comparable, in terms of quality, TDK is the better movie by quite a bit, but IM2 should be more compared with Spiderman 2, but its no were near as good as that either.

Yes, there's no comparison, The Gospel of Nolan is above everything else.

[ElMariachi]

Yep, people act as though TDK was this flawless piece of work, but in reality anyone could pick it apart bad with all the mistakes it had.

exactly. We don't do it because most of us understand that it was a comic book film, even though it was masked as a crime drama. The vast majority of moviegoers probally didn't notice any of these complaints. They probally only wanted more action and maybe Scarlett to go topless.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Yes, there's no comparison, The Gospel of Nolan is above everything else.

So wait, are you calling me a TDK fanboy now?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, sorry Is but you are just as bad as any of the Nolanites, anyone who has anything remotely bad to say about IM2 is a TDK fanboy in your eyes.

I've been a Nolan fan since Memento, long before TDK came, almost ten years in fact.

TDK is the best comic book movie to date, but is it impossible to top? Not a chance, and it will be topped, I felt IM2 should have been the one to top it, but it was rushed too much.

[Iron_Stark]

So wait, are you calling me a TDK fanboy now?

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha, sorry Is but you are just as bad as any of the Nolanites, anyone who has anything remotely bad to say about IM2 is a TDK fanboy in your eyes.

I've been a Nolan fan since Memento, long before TDK came, almost ten years in fact.

TDK is the best comic book movie to date, but is it impossible to top? Not a chance, and it will be topped, I felt IM2 should have been the one to top it, but it was rushed too much.

I'm not calling you anything, I'm just saying The Gospel of Nolan was a flawless perfect movie, that should be worshiped in every thread and we should say a little prayer every night to our lord and savior Christopher Nolan.

[ElMariachi]

I didn't think Black Widow in particular had any motivations of her own, besides her work for SHIELD. Every character in TDK (even most of the minor ones) had their own motivations and made their own decisions.

I did like the way Stark was painted against Justin Hammer, but Hammer didn't really feel dangerous in the end at all. Vanko played him like a fiddle and just used his money, that was all.

Well, that's all she needed to be. A sexy right-hand of Fury that could lay the smackdown. She was a minor character yet I can recall some of the clowns on IMDB complaining that she didn't have enough depth. For christsake, that would be like requring a backstory on Jabba the Hutt. We just don't need it.

The characters in TDK had motivations, but you could admit that they could be open to criticism. Especially the three that I brought up. Harvey went a bit nuts and turned into a homicidal goon because his girl got blown up. It's a bit unbelieveable, but I didn't mind because it's not supposed to be realistic.

As for Hammer, yeah, he was kind of a goof. I thought he was initally going to be a Stane-like villain. He was played so well that it didn't bother me. The only thing that sort of did was the "ex wife". Don't get me wrong, the bit was funny, but that made Hammer look like a complete joke and he shouldn't be THAT bad. :hehe:

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I'm not calling you anything, I'm just saying The Gospel of Nolan was a flawless perfect movie, that should be worshiped in every thread and we should say a little prayer every night to our lord and savior Christopher Nolan.

Sorry, but you sound just as ridiculous as these Nolanites you keep accusing. Iron Man 2 simply wasnt as good as it could and should have, it wasnt even as good as IM1 and many movies worse than it, it should have up there with TDK, Watchmen, X2, Spiderman 2 and all the other awesome CB but its not, its unfortunately somewere in the middle and IMO the legs of the BO show this is how many felt.

[ElMariachi]

The Joker shouldn't have character development. He's an absolute. That's the entire point of him.

Then isn't he basically Jason, the Aliens, Jaws, or Mike Myers? Just a killing machine that must be stopped?

[Iron_Stark]

Sorry, but you sound just as ridiculous as these Nolanites you keep accusing. Iron Man 2 simply wasnt as good as it could and should have, it wasnt even as good as IM1 and many movies worse than it, it should have up there with TDK, Watchmen, X2, Spiderman 2 and all the other awesome CB but its not, its unfortunately somewere in the middle and IMO the legs of the BO show this is how many felt.


lol, You can't be serious.

Bottom line it had better legs than than most CB movies out there and the franchise will continue.

edit: I can't stop laughing, yeah ok what Iron Man 2 needed was redundant slow motion fight scenes, nipples on costumes, 2 or 3 15 minute gratuitous sex scenes, over the top violence, and bad cgi backgrounds. gotcha (yes I'm talking about Watchmen)

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

lol, You can't be serious.

I am dead serious, X2 had much better critical and fan acclaim than IM2 did, and still does, as it is regularly voted one of, if not the best of the genre, Empire voted it best comic book movie ever, even AFTER TDK came out.

And Watchmen was loved by fans pretty much universally, especially the DC, IM2 isnt.

Bottom line it had better legs than than most CB movies out there and the franchise will continue.

Because it was a sequel to a very successful and popular first entry, but does the fact that IM2 opened with $30 million more against much less stern competition yet still made less than IM1 not say something about the legs of the sequel? And legs indicate WOM. Not to mention that RDJ is now a household name again when he wasnt anything of the sort when IM1 came out.

[ElMariachi]

It's not really leeway though. The best Joker stories don't tell his origin. In his best stories, he's this "entity" that just exists to be the complete opposite of the Bat. That's why there back and forth is always so fascinating.

With Dent in TDK, his obession with justice like Batman's is the reason for his madness. Losing Rachel and not having Gordon or Batman listen to him, understand his philosophy, is why we understand his madness.


I get the Joker/Batman relationship and think it's great---but don't you see how it could be open to criticism? It's simple and always the same, like Spy vs. Spy from Mad Magazine.

As for Dent, I think he went a bit too nuts in too short of a timespan. He was a reasonable, intelligent person. I could understand him being angry with Gordon and the GPD, but not Batman. Him flying off the handle killing mobsters and goons was cool, but it got a bit too unrealistic when he is about to kill a kid. Like I said earlier, don't get me wrong---love the movie and that scene, but we could pick it apart like any other movie.


And I wasn't asking for unreal character development for Iron Man 2. The film starts out strong with pure development of Stark...but Stark doesn't solve his problems or learns anything from them in Iron Man 2. It's handed to him and basically he's cured...gotta go save Pepper. That's it.

Had Tony solved his own problems and come to an understanding with his father on his own, I honestly wouldn't complain about the film.


Well it's a valid criticism, but it really is making a mountain out of a molehill. I brought up Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade before and it's the same thing. Indy got all the info from his dad and it guided him to getting the Grail. Not an issue for me though and I think only you guys are the ones who noticed these things.


The whole problem with Iron Man 2 is the entire second act. The threat of the film don't test Stark...when they know his weakness(Ivan). And when you add how lazy S.H.I.E.L.D. was added to the storyline, you can see how it went from a really strong opening act to a really "what the hell were they thinking" second act to finishing off strong with a great, action packed third act, way better than the first film.

The elements were there. They just don't gel at all because of how Avengers is pushed down our throats. I understand that Avengers is an important component of Tony Stark but why force it down our throats in the middle of the film when just having SLJ show up at the end as he does and then have the reveal of Natasha at the end would've been just as good


I am just not getting this Avengers stuff. Nick Fury is not simply an Avengers tie in, he is apart of Tony Starks story. As a superhero, he is the guy Stark deals with in regards to a national agency. Other then that scene with Fury at the end, there wasn't any real Avengers talk.



My argument against Iron Man 2 is born out of frustration because I think Favreau could've easily delivered the "TDK" of the Marvel Cinematic Universe. The first film set that up beautifully. Marvel's interventions killed what I thought was going to be a truly great sequel.

It's getting old hearing "Marvel did it". It's a copout and none of you really know what went on. Just like this whole Ed Norton stuff. People like to make heroes of the small guy and hate on the big corporation/people with money. You can't say that Marvel told them what to say and how the plot should be.

[Iron_Stark]

I am dead serious, X2 had much better critical and fan acclaim than IM2 did, and still does, as it is regularly voted one of, if not the best of the genre, Empire voted it best comic book movie ever, even AFTER TDK came out.

And Watchmen was loved by fans pretty much universally, especially the DC, IM2 isnt.



wtf is an Empire? Some foreign magazine? pfff

And Watchmen was loathe by pretty much everyone else, yeah, I'll take IM2's reception over something that completely bombed at the BO. 55 OW with a 67.7% drop it's second weekend, making it into the top 100 biggest drops in movie history? Yeah, dammit, I sure wish IM2 could've been like the Watchmen.

[ElMariachi]

This topic is for a different thread, but I don't think these are quite valid criticisms.

1) Harvey's entire foundations crumbled right in front of him. His belief in a legitimate political system failed. His trust in friends failed. His "you make your own luck" mantra failed. The cost of his fiancee's life as a result of these major turning points made him snap. It's not remotely as simple as "his gf blew up and now he's bad". C'mon.

2) Joker NEVER was one for deep character development. Sorry. We all know his claim to fame, even Nolan from the very beginning made it clear this was pretty much going to be a character who wrecked havoc. The development and sense of purpose is there, but in much more subtle form.

3) Bruce is firmly devoted to his own brand of morals and ethics. He's bound to it. Even many batfans realize that it's a flaw. But it's a flaw that makes the character.

I will agree that the production having hitting homeruns in every aspect makes it a lot easier to mask its deficiencies. But this is with any product. Your imperfections are bright as day as a result of not having anything in comparison to hide behind. I don't really think IM2 did that much to excel above its predecessor, and yet IM1 is the one that's almost universally praised. And that's simply because it was the film whose pros severely, severely, outweighed any of its cons. Fans are always willing to accept that so as long as the benefit is greater.

I just think that Harvey was a bit much. I hear what your saying with the reasons why he snapped, but it was too quick of a turn. Killing mobsters I could get down with, threatening Gordon's kids and shooting Batman was a little farfetched. In my opinion, I would have set up Harvey in TDK and used him in the next movie. He was killed off a bit too quick and that has been really my only major complaint with TDK (aside from small stuff like the Bale Bat-voice, too much Chicago, etc.).

Also get you on The Joker, but you know if he wasn't such a famous character he would be open to criticisms of character development. He is basically a slasher villian with acting ability and some philosophical points! The thing about Batman though is that he was overshadowed by Ledger. TDK felt like Heat or something of that nature where the bad guy almost gets as much play as the hero. The thing I loved about Begins is that he had personality and fun relationships with other characters. TDK was a bit too serious (no Joker pun intended) in comparison with BB. Nolan can make anything good though and am interested in who could possibly take up the mantle after he moves on.

[ElMariachi]

What I found funny about this thread is that all the people moaning about others trying to turn this into a TDK vs Iron Man 2 thread have actually managed to turn it into one :cwink:.

Personally I dont think they are comparable, in terms of quality, TDK is the better movie by quite a bit, but IM2 should be more compared with Spiderman 2, but its no were near as good as that either.

Also, I will say that J.Howlett is one of the most level headed and sensible people on this entire forum, and is in no way a TDK fanboy, I have seen him on loads of Marvel threads both before and after TDK came out.

not really trying to turn into into a vs. thread because I love all of these movies. But TDK is the gold standard in regards to comic films and am using it as a reference. I have done the same with SM2. I don't remember much from X2 aside from the Nightcrawler scene, so I can't really reference it. :word:

[Iron_Stark]

not really trying to turn into into a vs. thread because I love all of these movies. But TDK is the gold standard in regards to comic films and am using it as a reference. I have done the same with SM2. I don't remember much from X2 aside from the Nightcrawler scene, so I can't really reference it. :word:

Just go back and watch part one, it's basically the same.

Wolverine and his somewhat amazing friends. check
Wolverine vs a woman. check
Cyclops not leading and not doing anything. check
Storm being non existent. check
Jean not really doing anything except for the end. check
Wolverine, Jean and Cyke love triangle. check
Prof. X incapacitated. check
Bobby not freezing his whole body and doing "Iceman" stuff. check

I can keep going, but I'll stop there.

[Crook]

I just think that Harvey was a bit much. I hear what your saying with the reasons why he snapped, but it was too quick of a turn. Killing mobsters I could get down with, threatening Gordon's kids and shooting Batman was a little farfetched. In my opinion, I would have set up Harvey in TDK and used him in the next movie. He was killed off a bit too quick and that has been really my only major complaint with TDK (aside from small stuff like the Bale Bat-voice, too much Chicago, etc.).
I can agree with that. Simultaneously though, the fact that Harvey the-good-guy was set up so well that even though his descent and turn spanned only a couple of minutes, it was justified. I could pinpoint specific scenes and dialog as valleys and peaks in the character's development.

Also get you on The Joker, but you know if he wasn't such a famous character he would be open to criticisms of character development. He is basically a slasher villian with acting ability and some philosophical points!
Well I'd have to challenge this with Hannibal, Chigurh, and Landa. All Oscar-winning performances (two of which are recent), and also roles that had little to no development at all. The great performances played a part in the acclaim, sure, but the magnetic nature of these villains is how absolute and relentless they are at their cores. Dare I say it, giving too much depth ironically takes away from what makes them so appealing. At the end of the day these are supporting roles, so they don't necessarily have to go through several arcs that the main character does.

[Anita18]

Well, that's all she needed to be. A sexy right-hand of Fury that could lay the smackdown. She was a minor character yet I can recall some of the clowns on IMDB complaining that she didn't have enough depth. For christsake, that would be like requring a backstory on Jabba the Hutt. We just don't need it.

The characters in TDK had motivations, but you could admit that they could be open to criticism. Especially the three that I brought up. Harvey went a bit nuts and turned into a homicidal goon because his girl got blown up. It's a bit unbelieveable, but I didn't mind because it's not supposed to be realistic.

As for Hammer, yeah, he was kind of a goof. I thought he was initally going to be a Stane-like villain. He was played so well that it didn't bother me. The only thing that sort of did was the "ex wife". Don't get me wrong, the bit was funny, but that made Hammer look like a complete joke and he shouldn't be THAT bad. :hehe:
But what I'm saying is that the characters in TDK at least HAD motivations you could criticize. :funny:

Oh, the ex-wife bit was HILARIOUS. Made Hammer look like a total dolt, but it was hilarious.

Well I'd have to challenge this with Hannibal, Chigurh, and Landa. All Oscar-winning performances (two of which are recent), and also roles that had little to no development at all. The great performances played a part in the acclaim, sure, but the magnetic nature of these villains is how absolute and relentless they are at their cores. Dare I say it, giving too much depth ironically takes away from what makes them so appealing. At the end of the day these are supporting roles, so they don't necessarily have to go through several arcs that the main character does.
I think also what made them so compelling was that despite the lack of screentime or what we could pinpoint directly in the plot as "character development," you could get a sense of what made those villain tick. It's no small feat.

[ElMariachi]

Just go back and watch part one, it's basically the same.

Wolverine and his somewhat amazing friends. check
Wolverine vs a woman. check
Cyclops not leading and not doing anything. check
Storm being non existent. check
Jean not really doing anything except for the end. check
Wolverine, Jean and Cyke love triangle. check
Prof. X incapacitated. check
Bobby not freezing his whole body and doing "Iceman" stuff. check

I can keep going, but I'll stop there.

:hehe:

It's so true. If anything was raped, it was the X-Men. I liked Ian McKellan as Magneto, but geez. Was it too much to ask for some variety with the villains? I'm glad Mystique lost her powers in the last movie so we don't have to see her again. Knowing that franchise though, Scarlett Witch will be brought in just to give her powers back or something.

[ElMariachi]

I can agree with that. Simultaneously though, the fact that Harvey the-good-guy was set up so well that even though his descent and turn spanned only a couple of minutes, it was justified. I could pinpoint specific scenes and dialog as valleys and peaks in the character's development.


Well I'd have to challenge this with Hannibal, Chigurh, and Landa. All Oscar-winning performances (two of which are recent), and also roles that had little to no development at all. The great performances played a part in the acclaim, sure, but the magnetic nature of these villains is how absolute and relentless they are at their cores. Dare I say it, giving too much depth ironically takes away from what makes them so appealing. At the end of the day these are supporting roles, so they don't necessarily have to go through several arcs that the main character does.

That's true I suppose. Hannibal and Chigurh were pretty one dimensional as killing machines and were great. Landa at least had some variety in his story though.

As for Harvey, I know what your saying about his dialouge. Just felt a bit rushed how he became Two Face, rampaged, and then got iced. I really like the idea of him not playing such a major role in the finale of TDK, living, and then being one of the major villains for Batman 3. The idea of Catwoman and the Riddler sort of worries me. Not that I don't think Nolan will make them good, but the Riddler had some of his thunder stolen by the Joker. And Catwoman sucks. Harvey Dent and Riddler/Penguin could have been cool. Speaking of cool, still holding out hope that Nolan goes out of left field and picks Mr. Freeze. Without the silly ice, cold, frost, freeze, chill, etc. jokes that I busted out in that last sentence. :hehe:

[ElMariachi]

But what I'm saying is that the characters in TDK at least HAD motivations you could criticize. :funny:

Oh, the ex-wife bit was HILARIOUS. Made Hammer look like a total dolt, but it was hilarious.

.

Hopefully we get to see a real missile in the next Iron Man movie!

Oh, and maybe a return of Whiplash. :word:

[danoyse]

I'm not calling you anything, I'm just saying The Gospel of Nolan was a flawless perfect movie, that should be worshiped in every thread and we should say a little prayer every night to our lord and savior Christopher Nolan.

OK, now you're just trolling. Take a few days off and learn how to behave.

I'm about to kill this thread unless it goes back to being a box office discussion. Take the critiques of the movie over to the review thread or it's going to close.

[lespaul59]

So do you guys think Inception will still be #1 after this weekend? If it is do you think it will be after next weekend? This weekend I'm not sure but I do think it will get passed next weekend. I'm hoping to go see the Other Guys this weekend but I'm not sure it can take the #1 spot.

[hatebox]

The Other Guys will almost certainly be no.1.

It'd be nice if Inception got over $20m this weekend but that might be too big an ask. I'm guessing it'll finish around $275m.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

wtf is an Empire? Some foreign magazine? pfff

Its one of the biggest movie magazines in the world, hence why its a 'top critic' on rotten tomatoes.

And Watchmen was loathe by pretty much everyone else, yeah, I'll take IM2's reception over something that completely bombed at the BO. 55 OW with a 67.7% drop it's second weekend, making it into the top 100 biggest drops in movie history? Yeah, dammit, I sure wish IM2 could've been like the Watchmen.

So now you are saying that BO=quality?

Anyway, Watchmen isnt any were near as accessable as Iron Man, it is a dark, violent and depressing world which makes it not very accessable by the GA, were as IM is, despite that, Watchmen has found an audience on DVD. But IM2's DVD sales will probably be a lot more because it caters to all audiences unlike Watchmen.

not really trying to turn into into a vs. thread because I love all of these movies. But TDK is the gold standard in regards to comic films and am using it as a reference. I have done the same with SM2. I don't remember much from X2 aside from the Nightcrawler scene, so I can't really reference it. :word:

TDK is the gold standard, and thats my whole problem with IM2, it should have been the gold standard, at the very least of Marvel movies, but its no were near because it was rushed into production. And I personally believe that had the movie reached its potential, we wouldnt be discussing how Marvel may be dissapointed in the domestic take, I believe it would have made a lot more.

I think what people are forgetting about the X-Men movies as well is that they were made in an era when comic-book movies were very taboo, so, especially with X1, Singer had to cut a lot of the wilder elements out and make something totally serious and not too OTT. Having said that, I still think the first 2 X-Movies were great, the last 2? Not so much.

[J.Howlett]

I think what people are forgetting about the X-Men movies as well is that they were made in an era when comic-book movies were very taboo, so, especially with X1, Singer had to cut a lot of the wilder elements out and make something totally serious and not too OTT. Having said that, I still think the first 2 X-Movies were great, the last 2? Not so much.

Not to mention, Fox at the last minute shaved off 25 million from Singer's budget and upped the release date a whole year than when it was suppose to...and yet, he still made that first X-Men film work.

And I agree with you about Watchmen. Loathed it in the theatres. Liked it a little better after the director's cut. Fully support it as a daring and ambition film on the same lines as The Dark Knight after watching the ultimate cut.

[S.A.A.D.]

Its one of the biggest movie magazines in the world, hence why its a 'top critic' on rotten tomatoes.



So now you are saying that BO=quality?

Anyway, Watchmen isnt any were near as accessable as Iron Man, it is a dark, violent and depressing world which makes it not very accessable by the GA, were as IM is, despite that, Watchmen has found an audience on DVD. But IM2's DVD sales will probably be a lot more because it caters to all audiences unlike Watchmen.


TDK is the gold standard, and thats my whole problem with IM2, it should have been the gold standard, at the very least of Marvel movies, but its no were near because it was rushed into production. And I personally believe that had the movie reached its potential, we wouldnt be discussing how Marvel may be dissapointed in the domestic take, I believe it would have made a lot more.

I think what people are forgetting about the X-Men movies as well is that they were made in an era when comic-book movies were very taboo, so, especially with X1, Singer had to cut a lot of the wilder elements out and make something totally serious and not too OTT. Having said that, I still think the first 2 X-Movies were great, the last 2? Not so much.

Why? It wasn't suppose to be on the level of TDK,at all. TDK was suppose to be a crime/drama movie with comic book characters in them,while Ironman 2 wasn't,I don't know why anyone would be upset over it when it wasn't trying to follow that route.

[souvlaki]

Why? It wasn't suppose to be on the level of TDK,at all. TDK was suppose to be a crime/drama movie with comic book characters in them,while Ironman 2 wasn't,I don't know why anyone would be upset over it when it wasn't trying to follow that route.

I kind of get what they are saying with this. When Batman Begins and Iron Man came out, while they were both different types of superhero films I thought they were both more or less equals. Batman Begins for me was the perfect serious superhero movie, and Iron Man was the perfect fun superhero movie. With Dark Knight stepping it up a notch I really expected Iron Man to do the same. Iron Man 2 should have been the gold standard for that type of superhero film and it wasn't. It wasn't bad just underwhelming after what the first movie had set up. I still maintain that if it had a been a better movie it would have easily out grossed the first film and quite possibly could have been the biggest film of this year, especially considering how much buzz surrounded the first film.

[rashad]

The Other Guys will almost certainly be no.1.

It'd be nice if Inception got over $20m this weekend but that might be too big an ask. I'm guessing it'll finish around $275m.

I'm thinking $19m+. But anywhere between $18-20m is a solid hold.

[JeetKuneDo]

I didn't think Black Widow in particular had any motivations of her own, besides her work for SHIELD. Every character in TDK (even most of the minor ones) had their own motivations and made their own decisions.

I did like the way Stark was painted against Justin Hammer, but Hammer didn't really feel dangerous in the end at all. Vanko played him like a fiddle and just used his money, that was all.

Hammer isn't supposed to feel dangerous. (copying what TDK fans say about the Joker)

The Joker shouldn't have character development. He's an absolute. That's the entire point of him.

Like that.

It's not really leeway though. The best Joker stories don't tell his origin. In his best stories, he's this "entity" that just exists to be the complete opposite of the Bat. That's why there back and forth is always so fascinating.

With Dent in TDK, his obession with justice like Batman's is the reason for his madness. Losing Rachel and not having Gordon or Batman listen to him, understand his philosophy, is why we understand his madness.

And that.

Dent was pretty hilarious in TDK too. I can understand his anger for sure. But then The Joker walks up to him while he is in bed, hands him a gun, and puts it to his own head.

So...Dent decides to flip a coin to see if he should take revenge on the guy that did all this to him. Naturally, Dent ends up joining The Joker's cause. Yeah...that works.

2) Joker NEVER was one for deep character development. Sorry. We all know his claim to fame, even Nolan from the very beginning made it clear this was pretty much going to be a character who wrecked havoc. The development and sense of purpose is there, but in much more subtle form.

And that.

Sorry, but you sound just as ridiculous as these Nolanites you keep accusing. Iron Man 2 simply wasnt as good as it could and should have, it wasnt even as good as IM1 and many movies worse than it, it should have up there with TDK, Watchmen, X2, Spiderman 2 and all the other awesome CB but its not, its unfortunately somewere in the middle and IMO the legs of the BO show this is how many felt.

Awesome. You discount box office as an indicator of quality and use it as an indicator of quality in the same sentence! :)

Just to show how little I think box office performance indicates quality, I'll put my money where my mouth is. Watchmen is the best CB movie I've ever seen. It does what TDK thought it was doing but does it better. You can spend hours locked into a philosophical discussion after seeing it.

The Iron Man movies are a different style than TDK and Watchmen and are at the top of that particular style, but I'll still put Watchmen above both of them.

Box office and quality are two different things. Again, those who try to use box office performance to prove quality will fail. You can't do it.

And Watchmen was loathe by pretty much everyone else, yeah, I'll take IM2's reception over something that completely bombed at the BO. 55 OW with a 67.7% drop it's second weekend, making it into the top 100 biggest drops in movie history? Yeah, dammit, I sure wish IM2 could've been like the Watchmen.

But...I thought box office proved quality? How can that be? ;)

What you just listed proved the opposite. Transformers and Shrek prove the opposite.

Just go back and watch part one, it's basically the same.

Wolverine and his somewhat amazing friends. check
Wolverine vs a woman. check
Cyclops not leading and not doing anything. check
Storm being non existent. check
Jean not really doing anything except for the end. check
Wolverine, Jean and Cyke love triangle. check
Prof. X incapacitated. check
Bobby not freezing his whole body and doing "Iceman" stuff. check

I can keep going, but I'll stop there.

The X-movies were flawed. I loved them, but they did treat the characters not named Wolverine like crap. Singer even took a dump on the Magneto character in X2 ....."I love what you've done with your hair". WTF was that? Since when would Magneto ever say anything that petty?

[ElMariachi]

TDK is the gold standard, and thats my whole problem with IM2, it should have been the gold standard, at the very least of Marvel movies, but its no were near because it was rushed into production. And I personally believe that had the movie reached its potential, we wouldnt be discussing how Marvel may be dissapointed in the domestic take, I believe it would have made a lot more.

I think what people are forgetting about the X-Men movies as well is that they were made in an era when comic-book movies were very taboo, so, especially with X1, Singer had to cut a lot of the wilder elements out and make something totally serious and not too OTT. Having said that, I still think the first 2 X-Movies were great, the last 2? Not so much.

Why should it be the "gold standard" of comic book movies. This is what I am talking about with your ridiculous expectations, which basically set the movie up to fail in your opinions.

As for rushing it, the first movie started filming in March of 07' and came out in May of 08'. Iron Man 2 started filming in April of 09' and came out in May of 2010. Theroux was signed on as writer while the first movie was still in theaters and had plenty of time to write a script. Jeff Bridges said the first movie basically had no script and said the movie had a release date before the movie had a script. He compared it to a student film for christsakes. And you are saying Iron Man 2 was rushed? C'mon.

[hatebox]

I won't use terms like 'gold standard' because that can mean different things to different people, but the least I expected of IM2 was that it'd be a step-up from its predecessor, that everyone would be talking about it like it was obviously better than IM1, a la TDK, SM2 and X2 agains their respective predecessors. That isn't the case by a long shot for IM2. Again, were it not for the Avengers being released, I'm sure Marvel would have had some serious meetings wondering how they can make IM3 better. But they'll see how the Avengers does now.

[lespaul59]

The Other Guys will almost certainly be no.1.

It'd be nice if Inception got over $20m this weekend but that might be too big an ask. I'm guessing it'll finish around $275m.

I had actually been thinking that people wheren't that interrested in the Other Guys but after what little I've read today it seems like people are actually liking the movie. I haven't been following the Other Guys at all and seem to be way out of the loop on this one. And as for the Watchmen I actually like it better than either IM and think it was missunderstood more than anything. Before watching the movie I had never read the comic and really didn't know anything about the Watchmen. So after watch the movie and watching the motion comic I think the previews made it seem more like a regular superhero movie while it might be the exact oposite. I would also argue that X1 isn't as strong of a movie as SP1 or IM1. So I think compairing the improvements of SP and IM2 to X2 is apples to oranges if you get what I'm saying.

[ElMariachi]

I won't use terms like 'gold standard' because that can mean different things to different people, but the least I expected of IM2 was that it'd be a step-up from its predecessor, that everyone would be talking about it like it was obviously better than IM1, a la TDK, SM2 and X2 agains their respective predecessors. That isn't the case by a long shot for IM2. Again, were it not for the Avengers being released, I'm sure Marvel would have had some serious meetings wondering how they can make IM3 better. But they'll see how the Avengers does now.

I think it was a step up in some ways. Maybe not critically, but it was alot more ambitious in my opinion. Some of you are forgetting how incredible alot of this movie was. The Stark Expo, Monaco Racetrack, the process of creating a new element, past meets present, government/military intrusion, rival businesses, and the comicbook like battle scenes with the drones. And on top of that, an underlying Avengers story which is prompting D.C. to kick off Justice League. Maybe without Batman/Superman. Sure, this movie wasn't for everybody, but as a fan of the character----I loved it. It was a very bold movie in my opinion and was good as the first.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Why? It wasn't suppose to be on the level of TDK,at all. TDK was suppose to be a crime/drama movie with comic book characters in them,while Ironman 2 wasn't,I don't know why anyone would be upset over it when it wasn't trying to follow that route.

I'm talking about in terms of quality, not the content of the movies, Iron Man isnt Batman so I wouldnt expect IM2 to be like a Batman movie, but IMO, IM2 could have and should have been as GOOD a movie as TDK.

I kind of get what they are saying with this. When Batman Begins and Iron Man came out, while they were both different types of superhero films I thought they were both more or less equals. Batman Begins for me was the perfect serious superhero movie, and Iron Man was the perfect fun superhero movie. With Dark Knight stepping it up a notch I really expected Iron Man to do the same. Iron Man 2 should have been the gold standard for that type of superhero film and it wasn't. It wasn't bad just underwhelming after what the first movie had set up. I still maintain that if it had a been a better movie it would have easily out grossed the first film and quite possibly could have been the biggest film of this year, especially considering how much buzz surrounded the first film.

:up: Spot on, this sums up my feelings perfectly

Awesome. You discount box office as an indicator of quality and use it as an indicator of quality in the same sentence! :)

Erm, no I didnt, I am talking about legs, many people finding IM2 dissapointing may have been the reason for the poor legs the movie had.

Just to show how little I think box office performance indicates quality, I'll put my money where my mouth is. Watchmen is the best CB movie I've ever seen. It does what TDK thought it was doing but does it better. You can spend hours locked into a philosophical discussion after seeing it.

Personally, I think the DC of Watchmen is just as good as TDK, I think X2, Spiderman 2 and even to an extent Hellboy 2 are all not that far off in terms of quality either.

The Iron Man movies are a different style than TDK and Watchmen and are at the top of that particular style, but I'll still put Watchmen above both of them.

Box office and quality are two different things. Again, those who try to use box office performance to prove quality will fail. You can't do it.

And you never will see me doing it, all I have talked about in regards to IM2 have been the poor legs.

The X-movies were flawed. I loved them, but they did treat the characters not named Wolverine like crap. Singer even took a dump on the Magneto character in X2 ....."I love what you've done with your hair". WTF was that? Since when would Magneto ever say anything that petty?

I thought that scene was great

Why should it be the "gold standard" of comic book movies. This is what I am talking about with your ridiculous expectations, which basically set the movie up to fail in your opinions.

As for rushing it, the first movie started filming in March of 07' and came out in May of 08'. Iron Man 2 started filming in April of 09' and came out in May of 2010. Theroux was signed on as writer while the first movie was still in theaters and had plenty of time to write a script. Jeff Bridges said the first movie basically had no script and said the movie had a release date before the movie had a script. He compared it to a student film for christsakes. And you are saying Iron Man 2 was rushed? C'mon.

Is it ridiculous expectations to expect IM2 to be better than the first movie like all comic book movie sequels have been before it?

Sorry, that isnt ridiculous at all. And Theroux wasnt signed on to write IM2 until after IM1 had been out a little while, neither was Favreau.

I won't use terms like 'gold standard' because that can mean different things to different people, but the least I expected of IM2 was that it'd be a step-up from its predecessor, that everyone would be talking about it like it was obviously better than IM1, a la TDK, SM2 and X2 agains their respective predecessors. That isn't the case by a long shot for IM2. Again, were it not for the Avengers being released, I'm sure Marvel would have had some serious meetings wondering how they can make IM3 better. But they'll see how the Avengers does now.

:up: Spot on again, everyone pretty much expected this, but they dropped the ball.

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I think what people are forgetting about the X-Men movies as well is that they were made in an era when comic-book movies were very taboo, so, especially with X1, Singer had to cut a lot of the wilder elements out and make something totally serious and not too OTT. Having said that, I still think the first 2 X-Movies were great, the last 2? Not so much.

Not to mention, Fox at the last minute shaved off 25 million from Singer's budget and upped the release date a whole year than when it was suppose to...and yet, he still made that first X-Men film work.

And I agree with you about Watchmen. Loathed it in the theatres. Liked it a little better after the director's cut. Fully support it as a daring and ambition film on the same lines as The Dark Knight after watching the ultimate cut.

Exactly, he had a lot more planned for the movie but couldnt do it because Fox brought the release forward a year. Also, the budget he had for X1 and X2 were pittances compared to what many directors get to work with now.

[topdog1]

I won't use terms like 'gold standard' because that can mean different things to different people, but the least I expected of IM2 was that it'd be a step-up from its predecessor, that everyone would be talking about it like it was obviously better than IM1, a la TDK, SM2 and X2 agains their respective predecessors. That isn't the case by a long shot for IM2. Again, were it not for the Avengers being released, I'm sure Marvel would have had some serious meetings wondering how they can make IM3 better. But they'll see how the Avengers does now.

Then again, Iron Man was vastly better than X-Men, Spider-Man and Batman Begins.

I also happen to think (and I'm not alone) that IM1/IM2 are a greater film combination than BB/TDK. So, like you said, gold standard can mean different things to different people.

[rashad]

Then again, Iron Man was vastly better than X-Men, Spider-Man and Batman Begins.

I also happen to think (and I'm not alone) that IM1/IM2 are a greater film combination than BB/TDK. So, like you said, gold standard can mean different things to different people.

The part in bold I agree with.

[hatebox]

I thought Iron Man was decent, but its sheer novelty factor carried it a long way. It's not like it left no room for improvement. And I think that's why I was disappointed with its follow-up. I didn't see a TDK, SM2 style jump in quality as too much to ask. But this isn't the thread to talk about it, I suppose.

[JeetKuneDo]

Erm, no I didnt, I am talking about legs, many people finding IM2 dissapointing may have been the reason for the poor legs the movie had.

Most sequels are front-loaded. That really only proves that the fans of the first movie can't wait to go see it. If you say IM2's legs prove it wasn't good, that means you also have to say X2's legs proved it wasn't good. Their legs were almost the same. X2 was also way more front-loaded than X1. And X2 was better than X1, right?

See? Any rule you come up with related to box office to prove a movie wasn't good can be disproved by another movie that didn't follow that rule. There are no set rules.

Personally, I think the DC of Watchmen is just as good as TDK, I think X2, Spiderman 2 and even to an extent Hellboy 2 are all not that far off in terms of quality either.

I put Watchmen on a level alone. I loved Spider-Man 2, X2, IM2, IM, BB, Superman 2, and Hellboy a lot too...but wow...Watchmen.

And you never will see me doing it, all I have talked about in regards to IM2 have been the poor legs.
...And according to your "legs" theory...Watchmen was a horrible movie. (It was way more front-loaded than IM2 or X2) ;)

I thought that scene was great

The acting was great on McKellen's part (poor on Paquin's part). But the writing/directing was horrid. They may as well have Magneto stand on his head and make balloon animals...it was that out of character for him. Magneto, petty and cruel? Since when?

[Spider-Fan]

Why are we all talking Watchmen? The movie sucked anyway and has little to do with IM's box office.

[hatebox]

[In the spirit of this now being a general box office thread] Inception is doing surprisingly well overseas. With the drops its having, and China still to open, its international take should go well over $400m.

[JeetKuneDo]

Why are we all talking Watchmen? The movie sucked anyway and has little to do with IM's box office.

Because Watchmen was awesome! ;) (I'm not making this up...I have a Watchmen poster about one foot from my head as I type this)

Just noticed another movie in theaters that must be amazing due to having incredible legs. Knight and Day. It opened to 20 million and is now at about 75 million. Clearly word of mouth must have been off the charts for it. That's the least front-loaded movie of any we've been talking about. :)

[Evil Twin]

Unless I'm reading the following link wrong, IM2 ended its theatrical run on the 19th, finishing at a little over $312 million domestic.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/counts/chart/?yr=2010&wk=35&p=.htm

[rashad]

Unless I'm reading the following link wrong, IM2 ended its theatrical run on the 19th, finishing at a little over $312 million domestic.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/counts/chart/?yr=2010&wk=35&p=.htm

You're not reading it wrong.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ironman2.htm

[hatebox]

The real story for Inception has been its international performance. Some posters on boxofficemojo are making conservative prediction of $500m given its great performance in China.

[Catman]

Unless I'm reading the following link wrong, IM2 ended its theatrical run on the 19th, finishing at a little over $312 million domestic.

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/counts/chart/?yr=2010&wk=35&p=.htm

You're not reading it wrong.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=ironman2.htm

Paramount dropped the ball. Iron Man was in theaters till October 2:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekly&id=ironman.htm

Did Iron Man 2 even play in the $1 theaters?

[FaT_tONle]

I think Paramount mailed this in. Just wait until 2011. All their resources will go to TF3, and they'll do the bare minimum for Cap. The fact that they couldn't even accommodate Cap into the July 4th slot tells you that they could care less about it, and they'll be happy with whatever slice of the pie they can get.

[Anita18]

Paramount dropped the ball. Iron Man was in theaters till October 2:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekly&id=ironman.htm

Did Iron Man 2 even play in the $1 theaters?
I think I remember seeing it in the local $1 theater here. If you look in mid-July, it got a mysteriously huge jump in the middle of the drops, which usually points to a move to $1 theaters.

I think Paramount mailed this in. Just wait until 2011. All their resources will go to TF3, and they'll do the bare minimum for Cap. The fact that they couldn't even accommodate Cap into the July 4th slot tells you that they could care less about it, and they'll be happy with whatever slice of the pie they can get.
That's sad. :csad:

[Evil Twin]

Paramount dropped the ball. Iron Man was in theaters till October 2:
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekly&id=ironman.htm

Did Iron Man 2 even play in the $1 theaters?

Yes, IM2 was in budget theaters. And performed about the same as IM1 there. Maybe they left a few hundred thousand on the table, but IM2 was about $5 million behind IM1 when it entered budget theaters and ended up about $5 million behind IM1 when it left budget theaters.

Simply put, IM2 was more frontloaded than IM1. Which is no surprise for a sequel. Paramount didn't drop the ball.

[Catman]

Simply put, IM2 was more frontloaded than IM1. Which is no surprise for a sequel. Paramount didn't drop the ball.

IM1 was in theaters for two extra months. It has an unfair advantage to IM2.

[Bruce Malone]

There was nothing unfair about it. Theaters keep playing movies as long as their demanded. The demand for the first iron man simply outlasted the second.

[Catman]

So, people at the $1 theaters weren't too crazy for Iron Man 2.

[Evil Twin]

IM2 was more front loaded in regular theaters. It was more front loaded in budget theaters. Yeah, Paramount could have stuck it out for awhile possibly, but we're talking maybe another $500K in gross. Frankly, for a blockbuster of that size, it's an insignificant amount and wouldn't have made a difference in the final analysis.

Heck, getting IM2 to DVD at this point means more to Marvel/Paramount than an extra $500K.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

^Exactly. It wasn't some grand evil plan. Iron Man 2 just simply had a shorter run because it was more frontloaded and keeping it in theaters till October would not have given it an extra 5mil.

[S.A.A.D.]

I think Paramount mailed this in. Just wait until 2011. All their resources will go to TF3, and they'll do the bare minimum for Cap. The fact that they couldn't even accommodate Cap into the July 4th slot tells you that they could care less about it, and they'll be happy with whatever slice of the pie they can get.

Why would you want Paramount to release TFA:CA 3 days after Transformers 3 comes out? It would be too close and would be box office suicide. I think that TFA:CA would fair better financially if it was given a release date for the month of August next year,from the looks of it,that month from what I understand has no high profile movies that will come out during it's run.

[S.A.A.D.]

Something tells me that when Ironman 3 comes out that it's going to have the HP thingy going on,Ironman's cinematic fanbase won't get bigger,or bigger by much.

[FaT_tONle]

Movies like TDK and TF2 for an opposite end of the spectrum comparison proved that the numbers do not necessarily have to plateau after the second movie. I thought we'd see similar results for IM2, but it didn't deliver anything new. Not gonna get into that argument again though. I realize that TF3 has more precedence over Cap for Paramount. But to just shove it into the back end of the season is setting it up to fail. Obviously the summer was packed as it is, but I am still angry about it. Cap should feel like an event. Now it's going to be another Marvel movie that will be overlooked by TF and Potter. TF3 should have never been in 2011 anyway. They must have paid Bay a **** load to fast track it. Pure greed move, and everyone is basically hoping it flops.

[Chris B]

Something tells me that when Ironman 3 comes out that it's going to have the HP thingy going on,Ironman's cinematic fanbase won't get bigger,or bigger by much.

Yeah, that's been mentioned before, and I'm inclined to agree.

[chiefchirpa]

Something tells me that when Ironman 3 comes out that it's going to have the HP thingy going on,Ironman's cinematic fanbase won't get bigger,or bigger by much.

Ironman comic fanbase is not that big too, and Civil War/Hulk War/Skrull Invasion ain't helping Tony Stark reputation either. The character is just not as respected as Thor, Captain America, Hulk in comicdom. Ironman is purely driven by RDJ acting and the novelty that a superpowered character can live seamlessly in today's world. By IM2 that novelty wore off or Marvel didn't take advantage of the Randian philosophical play in the movie. TDK has that easy to get chaos/order stuff going on, while IM2 is less clear on what the hero & villains represent. Although Ironman itself is among comic's best representation of self sustaining mortal, Marvel dropped the ball there.

Actually it's good to have a "good enough" IM2 as opposed to an excellent one. That way Marvel is not going to feel so invincible when preparing their next movies from Thor to IM3. They need a good cohesive script and a lot of preparation before production. Mandarin is a heavy character to put in cinema and easy to fail if they don't do it right. But if they do it right, the character can be as memorable as Khan of Star Trek 2. IM3 has to have that philosophy war (Mandarin - tyrannical chaos, Ironman - liberal order) going on and become more of a thinking comic movie than its predecessors.

[S.A.A.D.]

Movies like TDK and TF2 for an opposite end of the spectrum comparison proved that the numbers do not necessarily have to plateau after the second movie. I thought we'd see similar results for IM2, but it didn't deliver anything new. Not gonna get into that argument again though. I realize that TF3 has more precedence over Cap for Paramount. But to just shove it into the back end of the season is setting it up to fail. Obviously the summer was packed as it is, but I am still angry about it. Cap should feel like an event. Now it's going to be another Marvel movie that will be overlooked by TF and Potter. TF3 should have never been in 2011 anyway. They must have paid Bay a **** load to fast track it. Pure greed move, and everyone is basically hoping it flops.

And here we go,AGAIN...how do you know that TFA:CA is going to be overlooked? Nvm,you shouldn't get worked up about it just yet. It's too early for that,you should at least wait until the trailers and marketing begin for TFA:CA,After,before the movie is out. And after the movie is released. All of it will be the final test. :o

Oh and by the way,Bay only did it for 2011 because he didn't want certain people at Paramount to get fired,he said so himself months ago.

[FaT_tONle]

And here we go,AGAIN...how do you know that TFA:CA is going to be overlooked? Nvm,you shouldn't get worked up about it just yet. It's too early for that,you should at least wait until the trailers and marketing begin for TFA:CA,After,before the movie is out. And after the movie is released. All of it will be the final test. :oSaid the same thing about TIH... and now IM2... look at the way it was marketed. It was supposed to be the runaway hit of the year. Why was it marketed as a typical 1st week of May popcorn movie? Maybe the movie just wasn't that good; that's a distinct possibility. But there wasn't anything there to say you were totally missing out on something special. Outside of the December teaser I didn't see anything until April tbh... with that said, I don't know what else we can expect them to do. They are losing this distribution thing after Avengers, or maybe IM3. They are not going to go out of their way to get the word out. With all the movies out in 2011/2012, doing the bare minimum will be an epic fail, that's all there is to it.

Oh and by the way,Bay only did it for 2011 because he didn't want certain people at Paramount to get fired,he said so himself months ago.Awesome... now Bay is a philanthropist that cares about other people's jobs... :whatever:

[Anita18]

Awesome... now Bay is a philanthropist that cares about other people's jobs... :whatever:
Hey give him SOME credit now. He likes puppies...

http://www.cinematical.com/2010/09/02/michael-bay-puppies-river/

[JeetKuneDo]

The real story for Inception has been its international performance. Some posters on boxofficemojo are making conservative prediction of $500m given its great performance in China.

Gotta give thanks to Inception for forcing some people to acknowledge the worldwide gross that was being aggressively ignored for IM2. :word:

Cap should feel like an event. Now it's going to be another Marvel movie that will be overlooked by TF and Potter. TF3 should have never been in 2011 anyway. They must have paid Bay a **** load to fast track it. Pure greed move, and everyone is basically hoping it flops.

Hope you are wrong about that. I'll admit that I'm not anxiously awaiting the Cap movie myself in comparison to Thor and GL...it needs some sort of boost.

As for hoping the next TF movie flops due to poor quality...that hasn't made a dent in the TF franchise so far. Hard to imagine how Bay could make them any worse than he already has. ;)

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I never ignored the international numbers. The international numbers were the only interesting numbers that the movie put up.

I predict that the 3rd movie will probably do better than the second internationally but domestically, atleast a 30mil drop.

[JeetKuneDo]

I never ignored the international numbers. The international numbers were the only interesting numbers that the movie put up.

I predict that the 3rd movie will probably do better than the second internationally but domestically, atleast a 30mil drop.

It was certainly hard to get anyone around here to admit IM2 made more money than IM1, I can tell you that! :) There was an almost pathological focus on the domestic number (which I noticed you returned to quite quickly yourself). Inception doesn't seem to having the same problem getting people to notice the worldwide numbers. You probably wouldn't catch anyone describing its international numbers like you just did with IM2 either. ("the only interesting numbers the movie put up") I'm sure you didn't mean that to sound like you were taking a swipe at the movie with a back-handed compliment, right? ;)

If IM3 fell domestically that would mirror what happened to the Spider-Man franchise so that's not a bad prediction. Although IM2 did hold domestically better than Spider-Man 2 did so you can never tell. (SM2 fell 7%, IM2 fell 0.1%)

[Bruce Malone]

Well spider-man 3 has the best international numbers of any super-hero movie. So i suppose some are hesitant to gauge good international numbers as a victory for a comic film.

[El Payaso]

Well spider-man 3 has the best international numbers of any super-hero movie. So i suppose some are hesitant to gauge good international numbers as a victory for a comic film.

:up:

[marcvader]

Good to see that this thread is back to the IM2 BO take.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

It was certainly hard to get anyone around here to admit IM2 made more money than IM1, I can tell you that! :) There was an almost pathological focus on the domestic number (which I noticed you returned to quite quickly yourself). Inception doesn't seem to having the same problem getting people to notice the worldwide numbers. You probably wouldn't catch anyone describing its international numbers like you just did with IM2 either. ("the only interesting numbers the movie put up") I'm sure you didn't mean that to sound like you were taking a swipe at the movie with a back-handed compliment, right? ;)

If IM3 fell domestically that would mirror what happened to the Spider-Man franchise so that's not a bad prediction. Although IM2 did hold domestically better than Spider-Man 2 did so you can never tell. (SM2 fell 7%, IM2 fell 0.1%)I never ignored the international numbers, the domestic numbers are more important to the studios thus I talked about them more. And you can't compare a franchise in which the first movie made 400mil to a franchise in which the first one made 300mil. I've said that before and I'd just thought I'd say it again. The apt comparasion for Iron Man is the Pirates and Transformers franchise. Spidey was a franchise with no room for growth to because the first movie was so huge. The 3rd one would have obviously made more than the second if it wasn't for it sucking, the opening showed as much. Iron Man 2 had no competition and it still fell off the face of the earth after it's opening weekend because of blah word of mouth. I see no reason to change that opinion. Call me when Iron Man 3 doesn't open to record numbers like Spider-Man 3 did. I don't know why you are angry about that because, all and all, despite the lukewarm word of mouth the movie opened so huge that it still got 620mil worldwide and a sequel is coming. I just hope that it isn't as bad as Spider-Man 3 was.

[JeetKuneDo]

Hee hee...I knew that worldwide numbers would again become less important when the subject was IM2.

It's fun to watch it change back and forth...

"Inception!" ...."WW box office!!"
"Iron Man 2!" ..."Domestic box office!"

Well spider-man 3 has the best international numbers of any super-hero movie. So i suppose some are hesitant to gauge good international numbers as a victory for a comic film.

Don't see why. Good numbers are good numbers. That's what this thread is supposed to be about, no?

I never ignored the international numbers, the domestic numbers are more important to the studios thus I talked about them more. And you can't compare a franchise in which the first movie made 400mil to a franchise in which the first one made 300mil. I've said that before and I'd just thought I'd say it again. The apt comparasion for Iron Man is the Pirates and Transformers franchise. Spidey was a franchise with no room for growth to because the first movie was so huge. The 3rd one would have obviously made more than the second if it wasn't for it sucking, the opening showed as much. Iron Man 2 had no competition and it still fell off the face of the earth after it's opening weekend because of blah word of mouth. I see no reason to change that opinion. Call me when Iron Man 3 doesn't open to record numbers like Spider-Man 3 did. I don't know why you are angry about that because, all and all, despite the lukewarm word of mouth the movie opened so huge that it still got 620mil worldwide and a sequel is coming. I just hope that it isn't as bad as Spider-Man 3 was.

Oh let's not play the lame forum game "you're angry". Come on...

Did you notice how quickly you got back to ignoring the worldwide numbers here? ;)

The flawed comparisons to Pirates and Transformers is why the predictions for opening weekend and every other prediction on this movie was wrong. Comparing it to other super hero movies would have avoided some of those embarrassingly mistaken predictions.

For some odd reason, a few are still using those erroneous predictions as a basis to criticize this movie...one would think predictions that bad would not be held up as proof of anything. The fact that the 2nd Pirates and Transformers movies weren't as good as the first ones and still made way more money would be a clue what a poor indicator those are of anything. The exact opposite of what has happened with super hero movies.

You say 400 million was the top end for Spider-Man. That has some merit.

Now let's look at another hero that was acknowledged to be less popular than Spider-Man both before and after his breakout hit movie.....Iron Man.

In what way is it fair to say that Iron Man...a character that is widely known to be on a lower tier than Spider-Man...should equal Spidey's box office? The truth is, 300 million is probably the top for the Iron Man character. That's completely logical and fair. If you'll remember...no one thought the Iron Man character could touch 300 million when it came out. Our memories are too short sometimes. I'm still not sure we appreciate what a rare feat 300 million is. To act like that is not a spectacular success is not correct. Go ahead and check out how many movies break 300 million each year.

So it's also logical to assume the second Iron Man movie would not equal the top end that the first one did. The same thing happened to Superman 2, Batman 2, and Spider-Man 2. That's where you look for comparisons if you don't want your predictions to look foolish. But even that's not 100% since IM2 almost equaled the first. It got closer than any of the other #2's.

We should know by now that opening weekend totals prove almost nothing. It could be that marketing was good or bad...it could be that the fan base for the movie is incapable of waiting to see it and most of them rush out immediately.

[hatebox]

This has been discussed to death, but what the hell - I haven't read anyone who didn't think IM2 could quite comfortably beat its predecessor domestically before it opened. And I still think it should have. The only reason it doesn't really matter is that it passed $300m, which still a pretty decent milestone. As for the intl. numbers, I again think it could have done a little better. A $40m increase is not particularly good for what is now a known and liked product, and a big chunk of that 15% jump is 2 years worth of inflation anyway.

But what else is there to be said? It made easily enough money to garner one more sequel should Avengers go ok. If anything the numbers might force Marvel to spend a little more time on the script as it proves the numbers won't drastically increase unless the film is significantly better. That's not me being a hater - it's just a statement of fact.

As for Inception, the only reason people are talking about the intl numbers is because they're huge for that kind of film. At this rate it could pass $800m WW, which no-one saw coming. Even its eventual $290m dom. total is impressive after a good but not great opening...

[Iron_Stark]

Our memories are too short sometimes. I'm still not sure we appreciate what a rare feat 300 million is. To act like that is not a spectacular success is not correct. Go ahead and check out how many movies break 300 million each year.


I'll take the Pepsi challenge

Going back this decade, lets see how many made more than 300 million

2010 - 3 - 300, 1 - 400
2009 - 1 - 300, 1 - 400, 1 - 700
2008 - 2 - 300, 1 - 500
2007 - 4 - 300, ZERO 400 or more
2006 - ZERO 300, 1 - 400
2005 - 1 - 300, ZERO - 400 or more
2004 - 2 -300, 1 - 400
2003 - 3 - 300, ZERO 400 or more
2002 - 2 - 300, 1 - 400
2001 - 2 - 300, ZERO - 400 or more
2000 - ZERO, no movie that year made more than 300, the highest was 260 million.

So this past decade 20 made 300 million(a huge feat onto itself) or more and only 7 made more than 400 million.

And people want to act like hitting 400 is a common occurrence and that IM2 was a disappointment and a tainted franchise because of it? :doh::facepalm:

edit:

I'd also like to add, out of all of those that broke 300, 6 were superhero films, 3 were Spider-Man, 1 Batman and the other 2, you guessed it, Iron Man. Not the X-Men, not Superman, not Hulk, not Fantastic Four, not Wolverine by himself, but Iron Man.

[Tony Stark]

I'll take the Pepsi challenge

Going back this decade, lets see how many made more than 300 million

2010 - 3 - 300, 1 - 400
2009 - 1 - 300, 1 - 400, 1 - 700
2008 - 2 - 300, 1 - 500
2007 - 4 - 300, ZERO 400 or more
2006 - ZERO 300, 1 - 400
2005 - 1 - 300, ZERO - 400 or more
2004 - 2 -300, 1 - 400
2003 - 3 - 300, ZERO 400 or more
2002 - 2 - 300, 1 - 400
2001 - 2 - 300, ZERO - 400 or more
2000 - ZERO, no movie that year made more than 300, the highest was 260 million.

So this past decade 20 made 300 million(a huge feat onto itself) or more and only 7 made more than 400 million.

And people want to act like hitting 400 is a common occurrence and that IM2 was a disappointment and a tainted franchise because of it? :doh::facepalm:

edit:

I'd also like to add, out of all of those that broke 300, 6 were superhero films, 3 were Spider-Man, 1 Batman and the other 2, you guessed it, Iron Man. Not the X-Men, not Superman, not Hulk, not Fantastic Four, not Wolverine by himself, but Iron Man.

Yeah the really interesting thing is how Iron Man has really propelled himself to being Marvel's no. 2, or darn near close to Spider-man. You can even see that in this new Avengers:Earth's mightiest Heroes animated series, the leader is Iron Man not Cap. And in other animated productions like "Next Avengers" all of the staple Avengers are dead, except for Iron Man.

I don't think any other characters in comics have propelled themselves so much in such a short amount of time. I remember people predicting an OW of 55 million for IM1.

While some may have overpredicted IM2 domestically, that's not near as much as they underpredicted (by 200% in some instances) the performance of IM1. And now you have people running around saying IM1 wasn't all that good.

I try to put aside the fanboyism that goes on here sometimes, but it's pretty sad how some people on here decided to make it their personal past time to run down IM2.

[Iron_Stark]

Yeah the really interesting thing is how Iron Man has really propelled himself to being Marvel's no. 2, or darn near close to Spider-man. You can even see that in this new Avengers:Earth's mightiest Heroes animated series, the leader is Iron Man not Cap. And in other animated productions like "Next Avengers" all of the staple Avengers are dead, except for Iron Man.

I don't think any other characters in comics have propelled themselves so much in such a short amount of time. I remember people predicting an OW of 55 million for IM1.

While some may have overpredicted IM2 domestically, that's not near as much as they underpredicted (by 200% in some instances) the performance of IM1. And now you have people running around saying IM1 wasn't all that good.

I try to put aside the fanboyism that goes on here sometimes, but it's pretty sad how some people on here decided to make it their personal past time to run down IM2.

I didn't think IM1 was going to make as much as it did, chalk me down as those that though it was going to make about 55 OW and 130-150 domestically. I was praying that it would get just over 180 so we could at least get one more sequel.

What also is amazing is Iron Man did it pretty much by himself, he didn't have A-list villains to help sell the movie.

Of the three villains that have been in the movies, lets see, one is dead and hasn't been seen in a comic in more than two decades, one is frozen in outer space and hasn't been seen in a comic in more than 10 years, and the last one, the true D-lister, he's been dead and hasn't been seen in more 12 years, they just now rebooted the character and based on the numbers from Diamondcomics.com no one bought the comics.

Two movies that got past 300 based on an unknown character fighting D-list villains? Yeah I'll gladly take that over the dozens of comic characters that don't even sniff that amount. The closest one to IM2 is X-Men 3 and that's at 230.

[JeetKuneDo]

I'd also like to add, out of all of those that broke 300, 6 were superhero films, 3 were Spider-Man, 1 Batman and the other 2, you guessed it, Iron Man. Not the X-Men, not Superman, not Hulk, not Fantastic Four, not Wolverine by himself, but Iron Man.

I keep bringing this up in relation to the other SH movies coming out next year. There are some crazy predictions out there. It's very possible that none of them will break 200 million and I'll be shocked if any of them break 300 million. (shocked but very happy) I've been saying the whole time that 200 million is going to have me celebrating for any of them. I really do hope they all make that...but I doubt it. The IM2 number is going to be appreciated for what it is too late for some.

I didn't think IM1 was going to make as much as it did, chalk me down as those that though it was going to make about 55 OW and 130-150 domestically. I was praying that it would get just over 180 so we could at least get one more sequel.

What also is amazing is Iron Man did it pretty much by himself, he didn't have A-list villains to help sell the movie.

Of the three villains that have been in the movies, lets see, one is dead and hasn't been seen in a comic in more than two decades, one is frozen in outer space and hasn't been seen in a comic in more than 10 years, and the last one, the true D-lister, he's been dead and hasn't been seen in more 12 years, they just now rebooted the character and based on the numbers from Diamondcomics.com no one bought the comics.

Two movies that got past 300 based on an unknown character fighting D-list villains? Yeah I'll gladly take that over the dozens of comic characters that don't even sniff that amount. The closest one to IM2 is X-Men 3 and that's at 230.

I'll admit up front that I'm not much of an Iron Man fan. I bought a few of the comics...but I believe his title was one of the last ones I started buying. (You know how they suck you in with cross-over stories...they got me) So I'm still not sure how they pulled this off.

I have a "Marvel universe" type poster from a few years ago and Iron Man is relegated to standing behind Wolverine with his head poking around. (Spider-Man is front/center of course)

Wait...here it is:

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s2/HarpoSpoke/800px-Marvel-character-composit.jpg

Difficult to believe how many continue to think that character should do Spider-Man numbers.

[Iron_Stark]

I keep bringing this up in relation to the other SH movies coming out next year. There are some crazy predictions out there. It's very possible that none of them will break 200 million and I'll be shocked if any of them break 300 million. (shocked but very happy) I've been saying the whole time that 200 million is going to have me celebrating for any of them. I really do hope they all make that...but I doubt it. The IM2 number is going to be appreciated for what it is too late for some.

I too hope they make more than 200 million. After the ones that I listed, only four made it past 200 million, Batman Begins, Superman Returns, X2 and X3. None even made it to 235.

Comicbook movies making a ton of money isn't as easy as people would have you believe.


I'll admit up front that I'm not much of an Iron Man fan. I bought a few of the comics...but I believe his title was one of the last ones I started buying. (You know how they suck you in with cross-over stories...they got me) So I'm still not sure how they pulled this off.

I have a "Marvel universe" type poster from a few years ago and Iron Man is relegated to standing behind Wolverine with his head poking around. (Spider-Man is front/center of course)

Wait...here it is:

http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s2/HarpoSpoke/800px-Marvel-character-composit.jpg

Difficult to believe how many continue to think that character should do Spider-Man numbers.


I've been an Iron Man fan since the dark times, when he would play third or fourth fiddle to everyone else. When his book would come out bi-monthly because sales sucked. When he was just regulated to cameos in major cross overs like DC vs Marvel, Infinity Gauntlet and others or had someone else filling in during others like Secret Wars.

So yeah, no one can tell me this movie is a disappointment or it was expected to do Spider-Man numbers.

[Jon Hex]

Multiple ^^^^^. Finally sensible comments. Amazing how crazy unrealistic some expectations were. Crunching numbers but forgetting reality.
Both Iron-man movies had great numbers. 300 million is no joke, under ANY circumstance.

[hatebox]

No, but (for the 10,000th time) expecting it to exceed its predecessor domestically was not an 'unrealistic expectation'.

I think by now there's nothing left to say on this matter. Over and out.

[Iron_Stark]

No, but (for the 10,000th time) expecting it to exceed its predecessor domestically was not an 'unrealistic expectation'.

I think by now there's nothing left to say on this matter. Over and out.

But expecting this to do Spider-Man numbers IS an unrealistic expectation, plain and simple.

But you're right there's nothing left to say, it made more than 300 million, 6 million less than it's predecessor, 36.6 million more WW than it's predecessor.

Call it what you want but we know it's no failure or disappointment.

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The movie did disappoint, just like Spider-Man 3 did. It doesn't matter than both got over 300mil. The boxoffice is relative and the fact is Iron Man 2 made less than even the lowest predictions. It was not ridiculous to expect 350 to 400mil because the movie was in the exact same position that simular movie sequels were in. It's lower than expected opening can be blamed on marketing but it's legs were all word of mouth...which wasn't very good.

I'm not going to treat Iron Man special because it's a comicbook franchise. Also it would have been ridiculous for us to expect it to sell as many tickets as Spider-Man but it's not ridiculous for us to think that it would make 400mil.

I'm not going to look at Iron Man 2's disappointing boxoffice any differently after Thor and Captain America don't make 300mil next year because well Iron Man 2's boxoffice performance has nothing to do with those two films.

[Iron_Stark]

The movie did disappoint, just like Spider-Man 3 did. It doesn't matter than both got over 300mil. The boxoffice is relative and the fact is Iron Man 2 made less than even the lowest predictions. It was not ridiculous to expect 350 to 400mil because the movie was in the exact same position that simular movie sequels were in. It's lower than expected opening can be blamed on marketing but it's legs were all word of mouth...which wasn't very good.

I'm not going to treat Iron Man special because it's a comicbook franchise. Also it would have been ridiculous for us to expect it to sell as many tickets as Spider-Man but it's not ridiculous for us to think that it would make 400mil.

I'm not going to look at Iron Man 2's disappointing boxoffice any differently after Thor and Captain America don't make 300mil next year because well Iron Man 2's boxoffice performance has nothing to do with those two films.

Not ridiculous expecting this to get to 350? Point me to a superhero sequel that got to 350 not named Spider-Man or Batman. And it took Batman how many movies to crack 300? And this got to 312, quit trying to act like this got to the lower 200s. So it made 38 million less than YOUR lowest expectation, pfft, Disney can find that amount under their sofa cushions in their lobby. They're not going to lose any sleep over that amount.

Yap all you want about dissapointment, but at the end of the day it's just you're opinion which really amounts to nothing. I'm throwing out facts, you're just throwing opinions. Again, direct me to a FACT where the studio, Fiege, the director or the actors said they're disappointed.

If this was a disappointment, it would get the Fantastic Four, Daredevil, Punisher, Superman Returns, Hulk ('03) treatment. Meaning they'd get shelved only to get rebooted in the future.

SM3 disappointed because it the end product turned out bad, not because of how much money it made. Noone wanted to see a P-whipped dancing emo that cried half the movie. And the only reason SM is getting a reboot is because the studio didn't agree with Raimi's direction anymore, not because of SM3.

We'll see when Thor, Cap and Green Lantern make the money they make.

[ElMariachi]

There is no reason trying to reason with her bro. They have glaring biases against this movie and were clearly hoping it would fail. Now after it's been clear that Iron Man 2 was a success, they are trying to find reasons to minimize it. Not even Inception with all it's hype, TDK piggybacking, and word of mouth could top $300 million domestically (286 million). Toy Story 3 was only able to pull in $400 million with 3D and Alice in Wonderland (also in 3D) made only a bit more than Iron Man 2 did domestically. And yet, these people expected Iron Man 2 to easily make $400 million dollars plus? Why and based on what exactly? As if that sort of money for an adult movie (Avatar, TDK, Titanic) in a down economy grows on trees. This just goes to show the fanboy delusion that exists on this site.

And the fact that she is comparing SM3 to IM2 is sort of a joke. Spider Man 3 sucked. It was panned by the critics and the fans who treat the movie as a punchline. Iron Man 2, despite it's criticisms, is still viewed as a good movie. The harshest criticisms of Iron Man 2 is that it wasn't as good as IM1. Really not even close in regards to being considered a disapointment. Not to mention that SM3 forced a reboot of the entire franchise (despite huge box office take), wheras Iron Man 2 created excitment for the Marvel film universe with Thor, Cap, Avengers, and an Iron Man 3 that will be less rushed. Iron Man and Iron Man 2 created the buzz we saw at Comic Con this summer.

[Iron_Stark]

Yeah no kidding they have it engraved in their heads that a superhero movie making north of 300 million is a disappointment based on the many MANY movies that make that amount. :whatever:

I'd like to see their definition of disappointment if none of next years superhero movies crack 200 million which is a high probability.

[ElMariachi]

No, but (for the 10,000th time) expecting it to exceed its predecessor domestically was not an 'unrealistic expectation'.

I think by now there's nothing left to say on this matter. Over and out.

Yes, it is . Both Spider-Man movies made less domestically than Spider-Man 1---$30 million each movie. Batman Returns was a huge dropoff after the success of the first movie. Same goes with Batman Forever to Batman and Robin. Fantastic Four 2 made less than the first movie, as did Men in Black II. Both trilogies of Star Wars failed to top the success of the first movie and by quite a bit! Same goes there too with the Harry Potter movies, Indiana Jones, The Godfather, and Back to the Future.

Compared to some of these movies, the $6-7 million dropoff is a paltry amount of money. Especially considering the recession we are in. The expectations were based on TDK making $300 million more than Begins.

[ElMariachi]

Yeah no kidding they have it engraved in their heads that a superhero movie making north of 300 million is a disappointment based on the many MANY movies that make that amount. :whatever:

I'd like to see their definition of disappointment if none of next years superhero movies crack 200 million which is a high probability.

Exactly.

What I will never understand is their concern for how much money a studio makes. Unless the box office completely bombs and prohibits a sequel, money shouldn't even be an issue. Moviegoing trends are complex and difficult to judge/understand. At least for us. My Big Fat Greek Wedding made more than Batman Begins. The Hangover made more money than a few of the Harry Potter movies. That defies logic doesn't it? Iron Man 2 making studio pocket change less than the first isn't really even a big deal!

[Iron_Stark]

Thinking getting to or crossing 350 - 400 million is an easy feat, I'll post up some more facts.

2010 - ZERO 350, 1 - 400
2009 - ZERO 350, 1 - 400, 1 - 700
2008 - ZERO 350, 1 -500
2007 - ZERO 350, ZERO 400
2006 - ZERO 350, 1 - 400
2005 - 1 - 350, ZERO 400
2004 - 2 - 350, 1 - 400
2003 - 1 - 350, ZERO 400
2002 - ZERO 350, 1 - 400
2001 - ZERO 350, ZERO 400
2000 - ZERO 350, ZERO 400

So apart from the 7 that got to and passed 400, only 4, FOUR were able to cross that easy mark of 350. SIXTEEN out of the TWENTY movies that got to 300 million, couldn't get to 350.

[Jon Hex]

The movie did disappoint, just like Spider-Man 3 did. It doesn't matter than both got over 300mil. The boxoffice is relative and the fact is Iron Man 2 made less than even the lowest predictions. It was not ridiculous to expect 350 to 400mil because the movie was in the exact same position that simular movie sequels were in. It's lower than expected opening can be blamed on marketing but it's legs were all word of mouth...which wasn't very good.

I'm not going to treat Iron Man special because it's a comicbook franchise. Also it would have been ridiculous for us to expect it to sell as many tickets as Spider-Man but it's not ridiculous for us to think that it would make 400mil.

I'm not going to look at Iron Man 2's disappointing boxoffice any differently after Thor and Captain America don't make 300mil next year because well Iron Man 2's boxoffice performance has nothing to do with those two films.


Wow. Iron-Man 2 should be BLAMED for it's huge opening because of unrealistic predictions.
So success is purely about exceeding predictions not actual numbers.

[JeetKuneDo]

The movie did disappoint, just like Spider-Man 3 did. It doesn't matter than both got over 300mil. The boxoffice is relative and the fact is Iron Man 2 made less than even the lowest predictions. It was not ridiculous to expect 350 to 400mil because the movie was in the exact same position that simular movie sequels were in. It's lower than expected opening can be blamed on marketing but it's legs were all word of mouth...which wasn't very good.

I'm not going to treat Iron Man special because it's a comicbook franchise. Also it would have been ridiculous for us to expect it to sell as many tickets as Spider-Man but it's not ridiculous for us to think that it would make 400mil.

You used the wrong Spider-Man sequel as a comparison. You have to use 2nd movie to 2nd movie. That's what you look at if you want "similar movie sequels".

Spider-Man 2 made 7% less than Spidey 1. FF2 made 15% less than FF1. Superman 2 made 20% less than Supes 1. Batman 2 made 35% less than Batman 1. IM2 made 0.1% less than IM1 best of the bunch.

The predictions were off from day one on IM2. Because someone was using the wrong comparisons.

[JeetKuneDo]

Wow. Iron-Man 2 should be BLAMED for it's huge opening because of unrealistic predictions.
So success is purely about exceeding predictions not actual numbers.

That one is weird. So somehow this twists The Karate Kid into a "more successful" movie than IM2. :awesome:

So just predict your favorite movie will make $1 at the box office and you'll be able to brag for years. :woot:

[Iron_Stark]

You used the wrong Spider-Man sequel as a comparison. You have to use 2nd movie to 2nd movie. That's what you look at if you want "similar movie sequels".

Spider-Man 2 made 7% less than Spidey 1. FF2 made 15% less than FF1. Superman 2 made 20% less than Supes 1. Batman 2 made 35% less than Batman 1. IM2 made 0.1% less than IM1 best of the bunch.

The predictions were off from day one on IM2. Because someone was using the wrong comparisons.

Using facts, logic and common sense is no use with them.

Remember, it's ok for Spider-Man 2 not making or surpassing Spider-Man 1 (for some odd reason) but unless Iron Man 2 made Spider-Man 1 numbers, it's considered a disappointment.


That one is weird. So somehow this twists The Karate Kid into a "more successful" movie than IM2. :awesome:

So just predict your favorite movie will make $1 at the box office and you'll be able to brag for years. :woot:

haha, that's true.

[ironman_rick]

With HP7 making only $16.7 Million, it looks increasingly that IM2 will be the top grossing (domesic) non 3D film this year. :wow:


http://movies.yahoo.com/mv/boxoffice/

Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows - Part 1 (http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1810004780/info)Warner Bros. Pictures$16,735,000$244,236,00034125


If this film was released in 3D, it would have easily passed TS3 to become the top grossing film this year. Not that bad ... isn't it

[ddddeeee]

It wouldn't have passed TS3.

But after so many disappointments this year, and considering the typical drop off from origin films. IM2's gross is very impressive in hindsight.

[Excelsior.]

If this film was released in 3D, it would have easily passed TS3 to become the top grossing film this year.

Only if you don't know basic math.

[JeetKuneDo]

Just thought about IM2 today as I was pondering how Thor, XmFC, and GL will all fail to even reach $200 milllion...let alone $300 million. Still waiting to see how Capt America does, but won't be surprised if it joins the others in the sub-$200 million club.

This is certainly putting IM2 into perspective.

1-The acknowledged box office slump is still ongoing. IM2 overcame that.
2-$300 million is a big deal. Other SH movies aren't getting near it.

[Thread Manager]

This thread is now closed it has a continuation thread 357093