2012: A Monster Year? (box office predictions) - Part 2

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie

I remember saying the exact same thing last year with X-Men: First Class and The Incredible Hulk a few years back (Watchmen too) to a barrage of "NO WAY! You don't know what you're talking about!"

Just saying... some of you are wearing fanboy shades to see the reality of the situation.

Very few people were predicting much more than 150 m for X-men First Class or Incredible Hulk so I don't see how that compares to ASM.

and even First Class didn't drop 50% in ticket sales from X-men Origins. I doubt ASM drops that much from SM3.

[Project862006]

x men never was a juggernaut of a franchise tho

it's most successful film - x men 3 only made 10 million more than thor and that's a 3rd film of a franchsie compared to the first film of a franchise

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by Marvin

Batman's the most popular on the planet?

It's debatable, but both Batman and Superman are the two most iconic comic book characters on the planet, in my opinion.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie

Because the last film, Spider-Man 3, was hated across the board and this decision to reboot and retell the origin all over again (since the Sam Raimi tenure and that cast still fresh in everyone's minds) hasn't set well with anyone. That will hurt The Amazing Spider-Man if even its great.

I wouldn't be so quick to say it hasn't sat well with anyone, given your very rhetoric, I'm sure there are plenty of individuals eager for a fresh take on the character. The series was met with ongoing criticism when I was younger and this looks to have addressed some of that.

Hurt it, perhaps. Perhaps the property that was once considered reigning king of the box office(and not just of superheros either) won't make 500 domestic(those crazy fanboys), perhaps it won't even make what it's predecessors made at their peak or even at their lowest point. But to suggest it won't even make half... I conceded that you have been right in the past, not this time.

Batman Begins was great. Yet it struggled to $205 million. X-Men: First Class was awesome too. Yet it's the lowest grossing X-Men installment.

And when was the last time a property went from making Spiderman money to Captain America money? And within 5 years? That's the angle you've skipped consistently. All these dead in the water sequels/prequels and reboots that were supposed to be huge successes. They may have had names but when were they ever mega money makers in this league?

Xmen at it's prime made what? $230, $240? So XFC is a reboot with no names coming off 2 crap shoots and makes more than half of that. All that tells me is just how far the X brand can carry itself on name alone(not very far).

Batman? The first Batman(the biggest made like $260(inflation confuses things). Begins, which was decent imo, made almost that same amount.

Superman Returns is the biggest Superman film to date(some wonder too cause it sucks big time).

The glim forecast, using this rhetoric is that ASM could stand to make at least half of what it's seen at it's best. But I'm feeling optimistic, no superhero fatigue this year.

Only shades I wear are the reality ones. Maybe one day you'll find a pair.

Do they come Dolce?

[Iceman]

Box Office Mojo predicts $172.5m for Avengers opening weekend, Box Office Guru $155m & Box Office Prophets are too lazy to get theirs up yet. I mean if they wait any longer it's kinda cheating lol.

[Kahran Ramsus]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

It's debatable, but both Batman and Superman are the two most iconic comic book characters on the planet, in my opinion.

Superman is just as well known as Batman if not more so, but he doesn't bring in the bucks that the bat does. Hasn't in thirty years.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by Iceman

Box Office Mojo predicts $172.5m for Avengers opening weekend, Box Office Guru $155m & Box Office Prophets are too lazy to get theirs up yet. I mean if they wait any longer it's kinda cheating lol.

we'll finally see which of these sites have their heads on straight.
ONCE AND FOR ALL

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus

Superman is just as well known as Batman if not more so, but he doesn't bring in the bucks that the bat does. Hasn't in thirty years.

Hasn't had a good film in 30 years.
(except for All Star)

[Iceman]

Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus

Superman is just as well known as Batman if not more so, but he doesn't bring in the bucks that the bat does. Hasn't in thirty years.

I think he would if he had a comparable standard film to TDK.

[FilmNerdJamie]

Originally Posted by Marvin

I wouldn't be so quick to say it hasn't sat well with anyone, given your very rhetoric, I'm sure there are plenty of individuals eager for a fresh take on the character. The series was met with ongoing criticism when I was younger and this looks to have addressed some of that.

Spider-Man 3 broke the 3-day opening weekend record. Yet its the lowest grossing installment domestically with no competition for its first two weeks in business. Why? Because it had the biggest second weekend drop-off in that franchise's history (The first two films had great holds). And that's because the awful word of mouth. AKA: a lot of people hated it. Not "rhetoric," but fact.

And The Amazing Spider-Man still hasn't addressed its #1 problem with people. Justifying rebooting a franchise and retelling the origin everyone knows so soon. Still remains overwhelming indifference.

Originally Posted by Marvin

And when was the last time a property went from making Spiderman money to Captain America money? And within 5 years? That's the angle you've skipped consistently. All these dead in the water sequels/prequels and reboots that were supposed to be huge successes. They may have had names but when were they ever mega money makers in this league?

Xmen at it's prime made what? $230, $240? So XFC is a reboot with no names coming off 2 crap shoots and makes more than half of that. All that tells me is just how far the X brand can carry itself on name alone(not very far).

Batman? The first Batman(the biggest made like $260(inflation confuses things). Begins, which was decent imo, made almost that same amount.

Superman Returns is the biggest Superman film to date(some wonder too cause it sucks big time).

The glim forecast, using this rhetoric is that ASM could stand to make at least half of what it's seen at it's best. But I'm feeling optimistic, no superhero fatigue this year.

Your entire argument was "If it is a decent Spider-Man movie, it won't have a problem getting to $200 million." I pointed to genre flicks that were well received and yet either struggled to that barrier or didn't hit it at all. Hi.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie

Spider-Man 3 broke the 3-day opening weekend record. Yet its the lowest grossing installment domestically with no competition for its first two weeks in business. Why? Because it had the biggest second weekend drop-off in that franchise's history (The first two films had great holds). And that's because the awful word of mouth. AKA: a lot of people hated it. Not "rhetoric," but fact.

No one's denying that a lot of people didn't like Raimi's film. That didn't stop the brand from going on to achieve box office glory. Granted this picture probably won't have a dancing spiderman...one can dream though.

And The Amazing Spider-Man still hasn't addressed its #1 problem with people. Justifying rebooting a franchise and retelling the origin everyone knows so soon. Still remains overwhelming indifference.

Simple, it's a different take. For example, either MJ is now blonde or it's a new love interest. Could you imagine this trailer had a scene with Parker in the news room being grilled by a Simmons knock off? I see web shooters, I see a villain I've never seen before. I see a different take on the character. I even hear rumors that they've drastically changed the origin(argh I'm so upset). Lastly, I see a very different photography, that some might argue is more appealing.

It's a start.
So soon? Better now than in another 30years when the genre might be dead.

Your entire argument was "If it is a decent Spider-Man movie, it won't have a problem getting to $200 million." I pointed to genre flicks that were well received and yet either struggled to that barrier or didn't hit it at all. Hi.

No, my argument actually hinges on the mechanism that cause a franchise this big, all of a sudden losing more than half it's audience. It's never happened is my point. I simply added that it definitely wouldn't happen even if the film was just decent.

What exactly would it take for the next Avatar film to not even make half of what it's made? I suppose a reboot and new director right.

[MessiahDecoy123]

Originally Posted by FilmNerdJamie

Your entire argument was "If it is a decent Spider-Man movie, it won't have a problem getting to $200 million." I pointed to genre flicks that were well received and yet either struggled to that barrier or didn't hit it at all. Hi.

How many of those movies followed a film that made 336 million?

[Kahran Ramsus]

No, my argument actually hinges on the mechanism that cause a franchise this big, all of a sudden losing more than half it's audience. It's never happened is my point. I simply added that it definitely wouldn't happen even if the film was just decent.

It happened to the James Bond franchise with On Her Majesty's Secret Service after Sean Connery left the role. Bond was bigger than Spider-Man at its peak in the 60s when adjusted for inflation.

The biggest dropoff that I can think of is the Jaws franchise. Jaws 2 did about a third as well as Jaws 1.

[Iceman]

http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/aven...hina-openings/

[mclay18]

Originally Posted by Marvin

No, my argument actually hinges on the mechanism that cause a franchise this big, all of a sudden losing more than half it's audience. It's never happened is my point. I simply added that it definitely wouldn't happen even if the film was just decent.

There's always a first. And even though TASM has brand name recognition, that alone won't bring people in. You gotta understand that. Not to mention Sony's marketing for the film has been... crap, to put it nicely. The last couple of trailers have had an identity crisis... and that's not good. The last trailer plays like a "best of" reel from the Raimi films, remade by a director trying to ape Chris Nolan's style. (And Sony is usually great when it comes to marketing their bread-and-butter franchise, like Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3.)

That's not a clear marketing campaign, and one where it doesn't justify the cost or effort rebooting a property that had at least 1-2 viable movies left with the previous director and cast.

[DoomsdayApex]

@ the 200-225 million OW predictions. That's insanely too high. The Avengers is going break records (no doubt) but it won't beat out Potter... and then some.

[mclay18]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

@ the 200-225 million OW predictions. That's insanely too high. The Avengers is going break records (no doubt) but it won't beat out Potter... and then some.

The Avengers will clear $150M-$160M easily. That's no chump change. And the movie will likely hold better in the following weeks, thanks the stellar RT score and almost universal acclaim.

$170M is a bit out-of-reach, but stranger things have happened.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus

It happened to the James Bond franchise with On Her Majesty's Secret Service after Sean Connery left the role. Bond was bigger than Spider-Man at its peak in the 60s when adjusted for inflation.

The biggest dropoff that I can think of is the Jaws franchise. Jaws 2 did about a third as well as Jaws 1.

Jaws, I've been told is the progenitor to the "blockbuster" I would expect it to behave strangely. But that would be one I suppose. And the loss of the Berg no doubt played a factor. So much easier to theorize things from my time.

After Majestry's Secret Service, wasn't Diamonds are forever next up? That made more if I recall, it also starred Sean. You must mean Live and Let die, starring Roger Moore which was after that...
Yes, there was a dip but not as drastic as you are implying here.

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by mclay18

The Avengers will clear $150M-$160M easily. That's no chump change. And the movie will likely hold better in the following weeks, thanks the stellar RT score and almost universal acclaim.

$170M is a bit out-of-reach, but stranger things have happened.

I see The Avengers making 155-160 million OW, but 170 million is a bit more difficult considering Potter couldn't even cross it. I honestly thought Deathly Hallows made 172 million but apparently it only made 168 million.

I don't see it happening.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by mclay18

There's always a first. And even though TASM has brand name recognition, that alone won't bring people in. You gotta understand that. Not to mention Sony's marketing for the film has been... crap, to put it nicely. The last couple of trailers have had an identity crisis... and that's not good. The last trailer plays like a "best of" reel from the Raimi films, remade by a director trying to ape Chris Nolan's style. (And Sony is usually great when it comes to marketing their bread-and-butter franchise, like Spider-Man 2 and Spider-Man 3.)

That's not a clear marketing campaign, and one where it doesn't justify the cost or effort rebooting a property that had at least 1-2 viable movies left with the previous director and cast.

If there is a mix up in marketing it's no doubt due to weather they want to sell what's similar(smart move) or what's different(smart move). Seems to fall in between with each new trailer from what I've seen.

As for your observation on how the trailers play, that's simply unfair and seemingly biased. One could easily derive something positive from the style they are seeing. Such as: a visual style that isn't trying to look ugly whilst imbuing each frame with ten times more colour than any thing nolan has in Bats(with good reason). Marc Webb, like Fincher comes from music videos. His visuals sell themselves. Raimi(I love the man personally) seemingly shoots every film like Darkman meets Evil Dead.

Every time I see the "pink elephant" scene from Dark Man I'm reminded of what bugs me about the look of the previous Spiderman films.

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by Kahran Ramsus

It happened to the James Bond franchise with On Her Majesty's Secret Service after Sean Connery left the role. Bond was bigger than Spider-Man at its peak in the 60s when adjusted for inflation.

The biggest dropoff that I can think of is the Jaws franchise. Jaws 2 did about a third as well as Jaws 1.

Yep, and with Bond, On Her Majesty's Secret Service made nearly 200 million less than The previous Bond movie, You Only live twice.

However after Connery life again after Diamonds Are Forever, Roger Moore's first movie, Live and Let Die, made more than all three of the aforementioned movies when adjusted for inflation.

[Marvin]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

I see The Avengers making 155-160 million OW, but 170 million is a bit more difficult considering Potter couldn't even cross it. I honestly thought Deathly Hallows made 172 million but apparently it only made 168 million.

I don't see it happening.

Check screen counts and the percentage of which are inflated 3D venues and the possibilities are endless. I'm just not sure Avengers has as many people camping out as Potter did. We'll know when we find out if Avengers breaks the midnight number Potter set.

Did that report say there are numerous locations adding show times between 12am and when they usually open?

[DoomsdayApex]

Originally Posted by Marvin

Check screen counts and the percentage of which are inflated 3D venues and the possibilities are endless. I'm just not sure Avengers has as many people camping out as Potter did. We'll know when we find out if Avengers breaks the midnight number Potter set.

Dude, Potter was established franchise with hundreds of millions of fans long before the films were released. Inflated 3D prices may help but it's still a long shot.

[DACrowe]

Originally Posted by DoomsdayApex

It's debatable, but both Batman and Superman are the two most iconic comic book characters on the planet, in my opinion.

Superman may be one of the most well known, but popularity wise it's been Spider-Man vs. Batman for decades. I say both are about equal with each having their ups and downs which unsurprisingly correspond with how their last movie was received.

[DACrowe]

Also, one other thing to consider. The hype on the Internet when the TDKR dropped was huge. Even more importantly, when you talk to friends or co-workers or whoever, there was an awareness of the movie. Only fan-sites like this seem to be responding to the trailer and even now it's kind of minimal.