X-Men 3 may break Spidey's 3 day total...?

[Visionary]

44.5M in one freakin' day...bigger than any Spidey one day cume. The Spider may fall to the X. We're looking at a 110 to 120M weekend in X3.

[GoldGoblin]

Just wait until S-M3 comes out and beats that.

[dr venture]

Yeah S-M3 will make a ****load of money

[Visionary]

Originally Posted by GoldGoblin

Just wait until S-M3 comes out and beats that.

Oh, I know that's gonna be a huge one. I'm actually predicting 100M in two days for SM3, now that I see the power in X3.

But I'm surprised, it seems no matter how much you people ****** about these films...you keep going to see them in record numbers. And there was and still is, a lot of ******in' going on about X-Men 3. Just look at those numbers. Maybe ******in-N-Moaning is a good sign.

[FaT_tONle]

I Give SM3 45 million atleast... 150 million easily within a week... I'm gonna say 401 million domestic, little over 900 world wide... very solid for a Spiderman film and a comic film...

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by Visionary

But I'm surprised, it seems no matter how much you people ****** about these films...you keep going to see them in record numbers. And there was and still is, a lot of ******in' going on about X-Men 3. Just look at those numbers. Maybe ******in-N-Moaning is a good sign.

I'm so pleased X-3 is doing so well.There are certain others around here who ridicule people here who dislike the changes from the comics made in Spidey movies.Yet those same people are b*tching and whining over in the X-3 forum about the changes made in that.

X-3 was a damn good movie I thought.Loved it.And I hope it cleans up at the box office.

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by Visionary

Oh, I know that's gonna be a huge one. I'm actually predicting 100M in two days for SM3, now that I see the power in X3.

But I'm surprised, it seems no matter how much you people ****** about these films...you keep going to see them in record numbers. And there was and still is, a lot of ******in' going on about X-Men 3. Just look at those numbers. Maybe ******in-N-Moaning is a good sign.

Vis, i see what you've been talking bout all these years:

"Scotts gonna die??? This movie will suck"....and they all went to see it.

The writers deceived the fans, the fans knew of the dirty politics, and the dark phoenix saga was ruined....and they turned out in record numbers.

Honestly, i didnt think the X-Men had the power to overthrow spidey. After reading these results, i'm obviously wrong.

If only the batflicks can do these numbers

[Cmill216]

Originally Posted by The Batman

Vis, i see what you've been talking bout all these years:

"Scotts gonna die??? This movie will suck"....and they all went to see it.

The writers deceived the fans, the fans knew of the dirty politics, and the dark phoenix saga was ruined....and they turned out in record numbers.

Honestly, i didnt think the X-Men had the power to overthrow spidey. After reading these results, i'm obviously wrong.

If only the batflicks can do these numbers

The problem with Batman is that he lacks the spectacle of these Marvel flicks (or even Superman, as we'll see in a month ). Big, explosive battles make a difference at the BO.

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by cmill216

The problem with Batman is that he lacks the spectacle of these Marvel flicks (or even Superman, as we'll see in a month ). Big, explosive battles make a difference at the BO.

But the thing is, Batman used to be the man back in the day. Batman's 251 mill in 89' was comparable to Spidey's 400 mill in 2002. Batman Forever was one of the biggest flicks in 1995. Bats can be a summer blockbuster if it wants to be.

As for Supes....I'm starting to think a supervillain wouldve made the movie more accessible. Supes can pull of more stuff than both X-Men and Spidey if it wanted. too bad most superman villains suck.....

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by cmill216

The problem with Batman is that he lacks the spectacle of these Marvel flicks (or even Superman, as we'll see in a month ). Big, explosive battles make a difference at the BO.

Then how the heck do you explain Shrek 2's huge box office take?? It's number 3 on the highest grossing movies of all time.That has no big explosive battles or dazzling special fx.Batman is WAY more iconic than Shrek.

[Cmill216]

Originally Posted by Doc Ock

Then how the heck do you explain Shrek 2's huge box office take?? It's number 3 on the highest grossing movies of all time.That has no big explosive battles or dazzling special fx.Batman is WAY more iconic than Shrek.

....I'm talking about comic book films.

Shrek 2? Kids, kids, families, families.

[Cmill216]

Originally Posted by The Batman

As for Supes....I'm starting to think a supervillain wouldve made the movie more accessible. Supes can pull of more stuff than both X-Men and Spidey if it wanted. too bad most superman villains suck.....

Braniac, Zod, Metallo. He's only got a few decent ones.

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by cmill216

....I'm talking about comic book films.

So?? You said large spectacle movies rake in the cash.

Shrek 2? Kids, kids, families, families.

And the Batman movies are not aimed at kids and families??

[Cmill216]

Originally Posted by Doc Ock

So?? You said large spectacle movies rake in the cash.

What are you getting at? I said, the Batman films don't have the wam-bang explosive action of the X or Spidey flicks, and that draws a lot of people on its own. This discussion has nothing to do with other blockbusters (such as Shrek).

And the Batman movies are not aimed at kids and families??

Doc, come on. Batman Begins? That was aimed directly at kids? And as far as the $ amount of previous Bat flicks, Batman and Batman Returns were WAY too dark for most children (especially the latter).

Shrek 2 was the sequel to a VERY successful first film, was marketed EVERYWHERE, and was released at a time when there were no other family oriented films (for two weeks anyway). Add in the perfect release date (the week before Memorial Day) and there you have it.

[ultimatefan]

First of all, did Spider-Man have midnight showings? Cuz XMTLS did and they´re counting it along with the friday numbers. Second, it appears TLS is relatively short, which may have granted it more screenings. Third, I´m not sure the word of mouth will hold these huge numbers through all the weekend, and most of all through the full run of the movie at theaters. Last, but not least, Spider-Man 3 is coming...

[The Batman]

Originally Posted by cmill216

Braniac, Zod, Metallo. He's only got a few decent ones.

pretty much. and they're all pretty much just brutes withj different personas

wheras spidey can fight a guy with tentacles, a goblin, a sandman, or venom

[The Joker]

Originally Posted by cmill216

What are you getting at? I said, the Batman films don't have the wam-bang explosive action of the X or Spidey flicks, and that draws a lot of people on its own. This discussion has nothing to do with other blockbusters (such as Shrek).

My point is that movies like Shrek don't have that wam-bang explosive action that X-Men and Spidey have either.But they still make more numbers than the Batman movies.

And Batman is way more iconic than Shrek will ever be.Every kid knows Batman.

Doc, come on. Batman Begins? That was aimed directly at kids?

It was aimed at everyone.

And as far as the $ amount of previous Bat flicks, Batman and Batman Returns were WAY too dark for most children (especially the latter).

I'll grant you the first two were dark,but that's Batman.He is dark.Not a neon city with bat nipples,bat credit cards,and campy villains trying to out ham eachother.

And a dark Batman is no reason not to make big box office numbers.

[The Batman]

Docs right. The first Batman was the spider-man of its day. The hype was huge. The merchandise was even huger

[ultimatefan]

Originally Posted by Doc Ock

My point is that movies like Shrek don't have that wam-bang explosive action that X-Men and Spidey have either.But they still make more numbers than the Batman movies.

And Batman is way more iconic than Shrek will ever be.Every kid knows Batman.



It was aimed at everyone.



I'll grant you the first two were dark,but that's Batman.He is dark.Not a neon city with bat nipples,bat credit cards,and campy villains trying to out ham eachother.

And a dark Batman is no reason not to make big box office numbers.

But Shrek is a PG-rated movie for the whole family, while Batman Begins is a lot darker and more adult, some parents even complained about the dark tone. The filmmakers clearly stated they weren´t going to sugarcoat it for little kids.

The first Batman, if you adjust for inflation, made Spider-Man-like numbers. Returns made less exactly cuz it was considered too dark and grotesque, soccer moms complained a lot back then. Batman Begins came as the fifth movie in a franchise that was burned out by the terrible Batman & Robin, it had to restore its reputation.

So yes, the tone makes a difference at the box office, even for an iconic character. And the history of the franchise. The Batman one was a pretty crazy one, lots of ups and downs.

[Cmill216]

Originally Posted by Doc Ock

My point is that movies like Shrek don't have that wam-bang explosive action that X-Men and Spidey have either.But they still make more numbers than the Batman movies.

Shrek: PG, CG animation, cutesy, funny, silly jokes, yet smart enough for adults? Sounds like the recipe for A LOT of success.

I really don't know what I can say for the Batman films not having massive explosive BOs. They are a part of the superhero genre (like Spidey and the X-Kids), but they just don't have the same "WOW" factor, no matter how iconic the character is.

(Ironically, I only went to see Batman Begins because it was "Batman". Honestly, the trailer was really "meh" for me. The film turned out to be great, though).

And Batman is way more iconic than Shrek will ever be.Every kid knows Batman.

And nowadays, every kid knows Shrek. HE'S become an icon as well.

It was aimed at everyone.

Again, Shrek: a direct-for-the-family & kids film.

My guess for Batman Begins? Parents saw it and just thought it looked to be a bit too dark and "dramatic" for kids. *shrugs shoulders* I don't f***in' know.

And a dark Batman is no reason not to make big box office numbers.

Actually, it is, in a way.

Darker, slower. Less repeat viewings for kids, less families.

Yes, Harry Potter went darker and got a PG-13 rating, but it's Harry Potter, primarily a kids franchise.

Yes, Revenge of the Sith went darker, but it was Revenge of the Sith: big, loud, and ridiculously hyped.

[ultimatefan]

Originally Posted by cmill216

Shrek: PG, CG animation, cutesy, funny, silly jokes, yet smart enough for adults? Sounds like the recipe for A LOT of success.

I really don't know what I can say for the Batman films not having massive explosive BOs. They are a part of the superhero genre (like Spidey and the X-Kids), but they just don't have the same "WOW" factor, no matter how iconic the character is.

(Ironically, I only went to see Batman Begins because it was "Batman". Honestly, the trailer was really "meh" for me. The film turned out to be great, though).




And nowadays, every kid knows Shrek. HE'S become an icon as well.




Again, Shrek: a direct-for-the-family & kids film.

My guess for Batman Begins? Parents saw it and just thought it looked to be a bit too dark and "dramatic" for kids. *shrugs shoulders* I don't f***in' know.



Actually, it is, in a way.

Darker, slower. Less repeat viewings for kids, less families.

Yes, Harry Potter went darker and got a PG-13 rating, but it's Harry Potter, primarily a kids franchise.

Yes, Revenge of the Sith went darker, but it was Revenge of the Sith: big, loud, and ridiculously hyped.

The Batman franchise was huge in its day, if you adjust the numbers for inflation. It had a lot of problems, but they had nothing to do with the iconic value of the character - constant changes in tone and style from a movie to the other, etc.

[Cmill216]

Originally Posted by ultimatefan

The Batman franchise was huge in its day, if you adjust the numbers for inflation. It had a lot of problems, but they had nothing to do with the iconic value of the character - constant changes in tone and style from a movie to the other, etc.

Oh, yes. The first one? Massive. (broke the opening weekend record, no?)

But it slid with the uber-dark Returns.

It popped back up a bit with the lighter, more family friendly Forever. But the reviews killed the fanboy interest for B & R.

[ultimatefan]

Originally Posted by cmill216

Oh, yes. The first one? Massive. (broke the opening weekend record, no?)

But it slid with the uber-dark Returns.

It popped back up a bit with the lighter, more family friendly Forever. But the reviews killed the fanboy interest for B & R.

Even Returns and Forever made pretty big numbers if you adjust it. They were just not as massive as the first.

[Visionary]

I think Superman Returns is going to be another mega-huge one, have you words to say?

[The Joker]

Yes,but my ORIGINAL point was that you cmill said that the reason Batman doesn't make big numbers is because it lacks huge spectacle like action.

That is not the case.Big action does not automatically equal big box office take.Heck even a crappy storyline in a movie can still make the movie millions.

The reason the Bat franchises have slipped is because of Schumacher.He is like a cancer on the Bat movies,and they're still trying to recover from the damage he did.

As ultimatefan mentioned,the Burton Batman movies made a killing in their day.Spidey type cash figures they made.