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

[Mrs. Sawyer]

How does WW feel about horror sci fi? How big is the Alien franchise overseas? I don't think that big. I really can't see it being that big WW.

People outside Film and sci-fi circles don't even now that it is related to the Alien franchise. They've been pretty hush hush about it.

Also, 3D should carry it to past $50 million if your original prediction is $38 million.

It isn't just nostalgia. T2 was very well thought of in its time, and both Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark received Best Picture nominations back when they only nominated five films.

That was back when the academy was more accepting of genre films being nominated for best picture.

 

[EML420]

Im really curious about MIB 3 because I was never a fan of the movies to be honest and the movie to me looks meh but Will Smith has a lot of star power I hate the term bankable star but he is.

 

[Spideyfan93]

I have friends who are suddenly interested in Prometheus...friends who I didn't think would be interested. So if that speaks slightly for the masses of America, safe to say Prometheus will do well at the Box Office. Despite the R Rating, it has that mystery and intrigue pulling audiences in.

And the Snow White movie will do alright too but I don't see it having much of an impact. I say between 35 and 45 million opening weekend. Could be a great blockbuster but who knows.

 

[The Morningstar]

I think with Prometheus, the trailers have been so good it might pull in people who would otherwise have no interest in sci-fi. I mean, it's obviously all high concept and stuff, but the trailers really focus on the thriller and horror aspects too. I think it will please both sci-fi and horror fans. It looks intense as hell.

The amazing viral campaign doesn't hurt.

 

[Doctor Jones]

People outside Film and sci-fi circles don't even now that it is related to the Alien franchise. They've been pretty hush hush about it.

Also, 3D should carry it to past $50 million if your original prediction is $38 million.



That was back when the academy was more accepting of genre films being nominated for best picture.

I'd have to put my 2D prediction lower then, because I can't see Prometheus making more than that OW. Near it maybe, but not past it.

 

[DACrowe]

I despise the fact that people think they can literally compare TDK/TDKR to Avengers. Just because a film is DEEPER symbolically and thematically doesn't mean it is better than other blockbusters.

Was Raiders deep? Was Star Wars deep? Was Terminator 2 deep? Are they still deep today?

I love Whedon and enjoyed Avengers, but SW and Raiders were flawlesly executed. I tend to think The Avengers will not be held in that pantheon of popcorn perfection.

All that said, comparing TDK and TA is no different than comparing Spider-Man and Tim Burton's Batman. They're all of the same genre and it's allowed to prefer one over another.

Avengers has all the great qualities of a memorable fun summer blockbuster and it WILL be talked about like the greats of the 20th century are today. It proved that movies don't have to be DARK, GRITTY, GLOOMY, and MIND BLOWINGLY DEEP to be successful with audiences and critics alike. Both types of blockbusters can coexist and make for amazing cinematic films.

Um, TA didn't prove that. It's got the same praise and zeitgeist attention as Raimi's first two Spider-Mans, the first Pirates of the Caribbean, Iron Man, etc. I like The Avengers, but fans thinking it's reinvented the Hollywood blockbuster....no, it's just a really good one. I don't think Whedon thinks his film is comparable to Raiders of the Lost Ark or Star Wars either.

 

[The Morningstar]

SW and Raiders were no more flawlessly executed than Avengers. No film... ever... is flawlessly executed.

Star Wars for example has some atrocious dialogue and acting. Raiders has some one note Nazi archetypes. Still, people don't hold those things against them because they're awesome. But that's the point, people are more forgiving of those films. These days people think it's fashionable to pick films apart.

 

[Raiden]

I think with Prometheus, the trailers have been so good it might pull in people who would otherwise have no interest in sci-fi. I mean, it's obviously all high concept and stuff, but the trailers really focus on the thriller and horror aspects too. I think it will please both sci-fi and horror fans. It looks intense as hell.

The amazing viral campaign doesn't hurt.

Yeah, both videos for the viral campaign are amazing. I hope Theron will get one later on as well.

 

[DACrowe]

Of course there is going to be a big backlash to the movie. There's been a huge backlash to every hit comic book movie. There's even been one for TDK.

Yep. Fanboys are finnicky.

I think you're right to say that the Avengers will go the way of Raimi's Spidey in terms of popularity. Spider-man was a breath of fresh air to the Superhero genre that made the genre a big deal again. Same with Iron Man and TDK in 2008. I say that The Avengers will once again breath life into the Superhero genre, along with TDKR. Both will once again show that the Superhero genre is more vast than it looks.

And I disagree about it being less rewarding, when there are more things about the movie, like TDK, that you pick up after repeat viewings, like Easter Eggs, and the subtext of The Avengers, as Raiden said, is being overlooked and downplayed as just another fun action movie. So I would have to say that you're wrong about it being popcorn movie that doesn't hold up after repeat viewings. Without necessarily comparing The Avengers to the series of movies, what would be your opinion on other genre popcorn movies like Star Wars, Raiders, Jurassic Park, Terminator 2?

I think Star Wars, Raiders and Jurassic Park are pretty much flawless films that changed the way people saw those kind of movies and the way they're made. I think The Avengers is a very fun movie, but I think it narratively is very clunky in its first act and when people are watching at home, they're going to not find it as endlessly entertaining as those movies. Also, a trick with those movies is the stakes are big. The raptors are scary. Darth Vader is awesome and menacing. The T-Rex getting out is freaky. The ark is very ominous throughout the movie. Loki and his aliens feel about as threatening as a villain from the Avengers cartoon series. Tom Hiddleston is great, but the menace isn't there.

I like The Avengers and it works because of Joss Whedon's amazing knack for writing characters and dialogue. He really makes the scenes of them bouncing off each other fun. But other than some questioning of government abuse of power without oversight at SHIELD with the cube that is glossed over, he doesn't really explore larger themes with his story like he has in Firefly, Serenity, Buffy, etc. Hopefully he can in the sequel. Because even in those other popcorn films you listed, you can see the question of scientific ethics in a very Frankenstein-context of man playing God in Jurassic Park, a question of religious belief and the fear of things beyond man's knowledge in Raiders and even the primordial conflict of a son grappling with both his father and the sins of the father in Star Wars.

Hopefully, Joss will be able to broaden the scope and raise the stakes in the sequel.

 

[DACrowe]

SW and Raiders were no more flawlessly executed than Avengers. No film... ever... is flawlessly executed.

Star Wars for example has some atrocious dialogue and acting. Raiders has some one note Nazi archetypes. Still, people don't hold those things against them because they're awesome. But that's the point, people are more forgiving of those films. These days people think it's fashionable to pick films apart.

Not to get into the weeds, but the Nazi archetypal characterization is because it is a popcorn movie. It's not meant to be a historical account, but Spielberg/Lucas using them in serial format (like Captain America or The Rocketeer). As for Star Wars, I don't recall any bad acting. The dialogue was light, but the acting, editing and tone of the film made it all seem to work.

 

[The Morningstar]

So it's ok for Raiders to be a popcorn movie, to have nameless Nazi fodder. But Avengers should be criticised because it is a popcorn movie, that has nameless alien fodder?

 

[DACrowe]

Opinions are different. I like the Avengers. But I'd say there's a whole lot more menace to the Nazis in Raiders than Loki or the aliens. The scene where the ark is opened, beyond the dated special effects, can still be unnerving and ominous. The aliens were not that. The scene with Indiana Jones and Marian trapped in a chamber full of snakes I found a lot more intense than Iron Man trying to fix the hellicarrier. The giant boulder opening is more iconic and exhilarating for me than Cobie Smoulders chasing Loki.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

[The Morningstar]

I'd agree with you there though. I'm not trying to say Avengers is as good as Raiders, but then, I consider Raiders probably the definitive summer blockbuster. I'm saying Avengers is in the same mold and i find it strange that people criticise Avengers for being "unsubstantial" and all this nonsense. A film doesn't have to be "substantial" whatever the **** that means, to be great. And it's not as though Avengers isn't "substantial" anyway.

 

[CConn]

It's just kind of a hard thing to explain sadly.

Is Avengers great? Undoubtedly.

Is it a Star Wars or Raiders of the Lost Ark? No, it isn't.

 

[The Morningstar]

It's impossible to say at this point. We need to wait another 20 years! haha.

But then, you look at Star Wars and Raiders, they have an advantage in that they were truly "brand new" you know what i mean? No one had ever seen films like those before, specifically Star Wars. But if they were released today, with years and years and years of big SFX laden blockbusters that have become the norm, would they have the same impact as they did in the 70s and 80s? It's hard to say, but i'd guess, no.

Not saying Avengers is as good as those two, of course. Just saying I think that intangible factor of cultural impact is heavily dependant on the time of the films release.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I think Star Wars, Raiders and Jurassic Park are pretty much flawless films that changed the way people saw those kind of movies and the way they're made. I think The Avengers is a very fun movie, but I think it narratively is very clunky in its first act and when people are watching at home, they're going to not find it as endlessly entertaining as those movies. Also, a trick with those movies is the stakes are big. The raptors are scary. Darth Vader is awesome and menacing. The T-Rex getting out is freaky. The ark is very ominous throughout the movie. Loki and his aliens feel about as threatening as a villain from the Avengers cartoon series. Tom Hiddleston is great, but the menace isn't there.

I like The Avengers and it works because of Joss Whedon's amazing knack for writing characters and dialogue. He really makes the scenes of them bouncing off each other fun. But other than some questioning of government abuse of power without oversight at SHIELD with the cube that is glossed over, he doesn't really explore larger themes with his story like he has in Firefly, Serenity, Buffy, etc. Hopefully he can in the sequel. Because even in those other popcorn films you listed, you can see the question of scientific ethics in a very Frankenstein-context of man playing God in Jurassic Park, a question of religious belief and the fear of things beyond man's knowledge in Raiders and even the primordial conflict of a son grappling with both his father and the sins of the father in Star Wars.

Hopefully, Joss will be able to broaden the scope and raise the stakes in the sequel.

I don't wanna demean other movies, and as I said before, I'm not necessarily comparing it to Star Wars, but I was saying that it was in the same vein and using those as comparisons.

Also to simply pass them off as comparing Batman and Spider-man I find to be more of an oversight as you have to admit that the genre has evolved into more than that since TDK. I'm not saying you guys can't compare them, but I'm just saying that I won't, since find both of them immensely enjoyable for different reasons and I'm not a fan of comparing movies with such drastically different tones.

If you guys want to compare them, fine. What I don't like when comparing them is demeaning the other movie in order to do it.

Also, I think this should be done in its correct thread.

 

[CConn]

The way it makes sense in my head - and I don't expect anyone else to really understand this - is that both Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark and other such films had a certain indelible artistic quality about them that was immediately apparent. I don't think it really has anything to do with special effects or how old they are, nor how original a production they are.

I think of a movie like Alien or Blade Runner...I saw they 20 years after they were made, and they just have something about them, that makes them seem legendary. Definitive.

As good as Avengers is, I didn't get that same feeling from it. Don't me wrong, it was a tremendous accomplishment for superhero movies, and it was expertly crafted, or else it could have easily turned into just a loud mess instead of the great movie we ended up with...but it just lacks that artistic quality that really drives it into you. Makes you feel like you've witnessed something great.

Like I said, it's really hard to explain. But it just...clicks in your head when a movie is truly one of the greats. That didn't happen for me with Avengers. I think as award season and time goes on, it'll show it didn't click for a lot of people in that way. That it is what it is; a really fun, entertaining movie, and that's about it.

 

[The Morningstar]

I get ya. Like some kind of intangible quality that you can't put your finger on. I think i kinda agree, but i reserve true judgement until i see it on blu-ray at home, see if it holds up.

How do people think Skyfall will do?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I'm gonna be bold say $70-80 million OW. I think that people are craving Bond, and the GA likes Daniel Craig as Bond. I think the marketing's gonna be good for it, especially considering that it's the 50th Anniversary of the movies, and some of the more recent popular Bond movies usually open in that area.

The only reason I don't see it opening as much is if Quantum of Solace left a more negative effect than originally thought.

 

[Roose Bolton]

With Skyfall I think it's hard to say, in terms of quality I'm expecting something roughly on the same scale as Goldeneye, in terms of impact? That's a tough call, how many Bond films have really made that big of an impact in the last 30 years? Goldeneye and Casino Royale are the only ones that come to mind.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Yep, those are pretty much the only ones in the last 30 years that were great, memorable Bond movies.

There were a few okay and good ones, but Casino Royale and Goldeneye were the only two Bond movies I'd call great. The last one that I would say was great before those movies is The Spy Who Loved Me in '77.

Casino Royale made $49 million adjusted OW

Goldeneye made $47 million adjusted OW. Tomorrow Never Dies made in the same area OW

Quatun of Solace made $74 million adjusted OW, however.

I think it can open huge, but I'll lower my prediction $60-70 million OW.

 

[Liam_H]

I think its been enough time that people have forgotten the mediocrity of QoS.

 

[CConn]

Ironically, Tomorrow Never Dies made like 20 million more in the US than Goldeneye.

The major thing to remember about Bond is that it does the vast majority of its profits oversees. So while it could be a moderate hit here, the total WW gross should still be very impressive.

 

[The Morningstar]

CR was like 600 mill ww right?

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

When adjusted for inflation, with the exception of Tomorrow Never Dies, all of the Bond movies made $500 million or more (I'm rounding up with Goldeneye since it's at $499.9 million adjusted).