2012: A Monster Year? (box office predictions) - Part 5

[MessiahDecoy123]

How many 4th and 5th movie in a franchise makes over 800 m after a 3rd crappy movie?

and the prequels don't count.

I don't think SM4 and SM5 were a sure thing. Far from it. Especially SM5.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Pirates comes to mind. AWE wasn't received nearly as well as the 1st or even the 2nd to an extant and the 4th one still did great almost entirely due to its super strong International pull.

I think a spider-man 4 would have made more than TASM only due to what an established familiar face that tobey maguire would bring you. I don't think it would have had enough for a billion however. I think domestically it would have made about the same as TASM maybe a little more but spider-man is not on the level of pirates for international numbers to bring it up all the way to a billion.

 

[CConn]

Honestly, I don't think another Raimi Spider-Man movie would've been well received at all. Either critically or financially.

Superhero movies have moved beyond his style of filmmaking, and a Spider-Man 4 would seem horribly dated compared to today's current superhero offerings.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I think that ASM failing to meet the financial success of the Raimi films has more to do with poor creative decisions with ASM than the lack of Raimi. In short, a good Spider-Man movie with 3D would have had no problem making a billion dollars even without Raimi. ASM wasn't, so it didn't.

 

[CConn]

I disagree. I think it's fairly obvious both the critics and the general audience felt as though ASM was a good movie.

The problem was it wasn't a great movie; it didn't do anything new or explosive to expand the genre like The Avengers or TDKR did.

 

[terry78]

With Spider-Man, you can't really reinvent the wheel when rebooting him in media, because everyone already knows the story, and the whimsy wore off after the first time seeing him in action in 2002. Now if you get into clones, mutations and other dimensions and ****....that is where it starts to veer into new territory.

 

[Marvin]

I disagree. I think it's fairly obvious both the critics and the general audience felt as though ASM was a good movie.

The problem was it wasn't a great movie; it didn't do anything new or explosive to expand the genre like The Avengers or TDKR did.

If only it had come out in a year competing with these two franchises in earlier states. Like in a year with both Cap and Thor got mixed reception or before batman met joker.

With time Spidey can really deliver. They def need to use the Gwen Stacy material, and they need to top off their series with a mega villain team up. I can only imagine how explosive a trailer like that would be. Especially with a character designed to be the underdog. This incarnation of Spidey has so much character. Rhino and Scorpion should make appearances soon, electro, shocker even.

When that day comes, then I'll personally start with the Avengers and Batman finale comparisons.

 

[CConn]

With Spider-Man, you can't really reinvent the wheel when rebooting him in media, because everyone already knows the story, and the whimsy wore off after the first time seeing him in action in 2002. Now if you get into clones, mutations and other dimensions and ****....that is where it starts to veer into new territory.

Nah, it's not about what's in the movie, it's about how it's presented.

Yeah, Spider-Man's been done a lot before, but I have some ideas in my head that - supposing my name was Steven Spielberg or JJ Abrhams - I could turn out a Spider-Man movie that was both very definitively true to the early comics yet thoroughly different than anything we've really seen from a superhero movie.

Honestly, I kind of thought Webb would be the one to achieve that after how he deftly deconstructed the modern love story with (500) Days of Summer...unfortunately, he apparently walked onto a project with an already-pedestrian and simplistic script.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I don't think the problem lies with Webb's take on Spider-Man. I just think reboots always have an uphill battle but 750 m is good starting point. At this pace the ASM movies could be the 3rd or 4th biggest superhero trilogy behind Avengers, TDK and maybe Raimi.

 

[marvelman2006]

They should have just gone with the continuation idea but with a new cast and set it some in a different timeline sort of like how they do with james bond. I just fear in the future if sony reboots it again then theyll do the origin again.

 

[Marvin]

They should have just gone with the continuation idea but with a new cast and set it some in a different timeline sort of like how they do with james bond. I just fear in the future if sony reboots it again then theyll do the origin again.

I partially agree with the benefits of this. I mean if they wanted to re-imagine Doc ock for example( a wonderfully cinematic villain) they could simply recast him and we'd be left with a mixture of newness and familiarity(ignoring that the character has already been killed in that universe).

The problem comes with the damage to the story Raimi verse already did. Especially with the SM3 retcons. I don't even know what to believe when it comes to uncle bens death. And venom...

When going with recasting it's a lot more natural a process to start from the beginning. The last 5 well received reboots of the decade, weather fans want to admit it or not, have rebooted to the origins. Batman, StarTrek, Planet Of the Apes, Casino Royale, Xmen. While it's true that they mostly treaded new ground and gave the audience mostly unseen stories. One can't be completely blind to the logistics here. It's just more organic a sell to have a new younger cast(younger, always younger), starting from the beginning. It's going to happen with superman, hell, it's happening with Lord of the Rings too.(I'm excluding prometheus)

ASM made some funky choices here and there, but they also made some great ones. I'm personally waiting for the sequel to see if any of this really paid off. Financially, they've already won the argument.

 

[marvelman2006]

I partially agree with the benefits of this. I mean if they wanted to re-imagine Doc ock for example( a wonderfully cinematic villain) they could simply recast him and we'd be left with a mixture of newness and familiarity(ignoring that the character has already been killed in that universe).

The problem comes with the damage to the story Raimi verse already did. Especially with the SM3 retcons. I don't even know what to believe when it comes to uncle bens death. And venom...

When going with recasting it's a lot more natural a process to start from the beginning. The last 5 well received reboots of the decade, weather fans want to admit it or not, have rebooted to the origins. Batman, StarTrek, Planet Of the Apes, Casino Royale, Xmen. While it's true that they mostly treaded new ground and gave the audience mostly unseen stories. One can't be completely blind to the logistics here. It's just more organic a sell to have a new younger cast(younger, always younger), starting from the beginning. It's going to happen with superman, hell, it's happening with Lord of the Rings too.(I'm excluding prometheus)

ASM made some funky choices here and there, but they also made some great ones. I'm personally waiting for the sequel to see if any of this really paid off. Financially, they've already won the argument.

Agreed on all acounts except x-men they set in the 70's and had mostly new mutants except the obvious 2. The thing about ASM is they did the exact same thing for the most part with the origin story and it dragged the story because we have already seen that and it wasnt really new or had a different approach like begins did in 2005. Im not saying ya know make spiderman 35 years old and fighting the insidious six (which would be cool) or have him come out of retirement TDK style but they could do a continuation of the story in a way that makes sense or wouldnt confuse the general public.

 

[rashad]

Weekend Estimates
http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

 

[terry78]

Yeah, I casually walked into a Dredd showing yesterday, it was completely empty. At 9 at night.

 

[jacobed]

Wow embarassing opening for Dredd. Thats a shame since its a very enjoyable movie

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Sucks for Dredd but maybe this should have been a March/April movie, and it could have been marketed much better.

I disagree. I think it's fairly obvious both the critics and the general audience felt as though ASM was a good movie.

The problem was it wasn't a great movie; it didn't do anything new or explosive to expand the genre like The Avengers or TDKR did.

100% agreed. ASM's numbers are fine, and the movie did well. As I've said before, I don't think anyone believe that this movie was going to set the world on fire or beat Avengers/TDKR at the box office. The goal of the movie was to reestablish a franchise in a direction that's different from Raimi's take and it succeeded without getting slaughtered at the box office and becoming a movie that people liked. That's why they took the parents stuff out of the first movie. They want to save more of the elements instead of putting it all in one basket.

ASM2 is going to be huge though. ASM1 was merely setup for sequels.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I mentioned this on the dredd thread but should it be that surprising? I mean everyone here is a comic fan to some extant but to 99% of the general movie going audience "judge dredd" only and i mean only equals to them a failed 90's stallone movie.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Sucks for Dredd but maybe this should have been a March/April movie, and it could have been marketed much better.



100% agreed. ASM's numbers are fine, and the movie did well. As I've said before, I don't think anyone believe that this movie was going to set the world on fire or beat Avengers/TDKR at the box office. The goal of the movie was to reestablish a franchise in a direction that's different from Raimi's take and it succeeded without getting slaughtered at the box office and becoming a movie that people liked. That's why they took the parents stuff out of the first movie. They want to save more of the elements instead of putting it all in one basket.

ASM2 is going to be huge though. ASM1 was merely setup for sequels.

When did it become acceptable to waste a film to "set things up"? The Marvel Studio and Nolan shown you don't have to do that.

 

[Gianakin_]

Well, it's not like Iron Man 2 didn't totally do that. And, to a lesser extent, Cap.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Well, it's not like Iron Man 2 didn't totally do that. And, to a lesser extent, Cap.

Iron Man 2's problem is that it just wasn't a very good movie. Sure they wasted a great potential storyline, but that is a writing problem more then anything else. Also they killed it with all three of their origin films and The Avengers.

Having just watched Cap again, I can't agree. Every time I watch it I am surprised by how well rounded of a film it was. Coming out of the theater I remembered having a problem with the mid-film montage and pacing, but on subsequent viewings it just gets better.

 

[Gianakin_]

But IM2 wasn't a very good movie partially because the script didn't dwell on the important parts of the main story and lingered on the Avengers setups.

As for Cap, I did say it did the setups to a lesser extent. ALthough I must disagree with you in that I find the movie right after the mid-film montage downright unwatchable.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

But IM2 wasn't a very good movie partially because the script didn't dwell on the important parts of the main story and lingered on the Avengers setups.

IM2 problem isn't that it didn't dwell on the "important stuff", it was that it just wasn't very well written and bad decisions were made in during filming and post. They basically removed Pepper and Pepper/Widow romantic rivalry for no real reason. The time spent specifically with Tony and his personal journey is ample, it is what they did with it that was the problem. Tony sitting about being boring just doesn't work.

All the Avengers stuff is probably the best stuff in the movie, but it isn't because it gets more time. It is because it is fun, makes use of its time and is somewhat well written.

As for Cap, I did say it did the setups to a lesser extent. ALthough I must disagree with you in that I find the movie right after the mid-film montage downright unwatchable.

Well will agree to disagree.

 

[Gianakin_]

IM2 problem isn't that it didn't dwell on the "important stuff", it was that it just wasn't very well written and bad decisions were made in during filming and post. They basically removed Pepper and Pepper/Widow romantic rivalry for no real reason. The time spent specifically with Tony and his personal journey is ample, it is what they did with it that was the problem. Tony sitting about being boring just doesn't work.

Indeed, it's also the way they handled the "important stuff", however those decisions (even from the script stage) are directly related to Marvel's insistence on tying IM2 to the Avengers in a less than subtle way. As a result, you had a different approach on how Stark dealt with his problem and the villain, who was supposed to be a dark mirror of Tony and crap like that was a glorified Rourke cameo, removing a big part of the movie's theme.

All the Avengers stuff is probably the best stuff in the movie, but it isn't because it gets more time. It is because it is fun, makes use of its time and is somewhat well written.

It's fun stuff, but they take away from the movie. They're unnecessary. They had an amazing story and general idea in their hands, one that featured parts and themes from Demon in a Bottle and other storylines from the comics, a la TDK and TDKR, but they botched it by making bad decisions, one of which being making it an Avengers-heavy movie.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Indeed, it's also the way they handled the "important stuff", however those decisions (even from the script stage) are directly related to Marvel's insistence on tying IM2 to the Avengers in a less than subtle way. As a result, you had a different approach on how Stark dealt with his problem and the villain, who was supposed to be a dark mirror of Tony and crap like that was a glorified Rourke cameo, removing a big part of the movie's theme.

Thor is every bit as tied into the Avengers as IM2, and yet it was by all considerations a much better film.

It is how you use the material there. A bad script had nothing to do with being tied to the Avengers, it was trying to make the movie oddly safe considering the components and material. Widow's presence is a gift, a perfect to explore Tony and Pepper's relationship, and Tony's reckless behavior.

The villain problem is one that was also prevalent in the first film. Only Loki has shown to be something other then generic in these films so far and it is one of the major weaknesses in the Marvel films. Sam Rockwell was pretty great though not really a villain.

It's fun stuff, but they take away from the movie. They're unnecessary. They had an amazing story and general idea in their hands, one that featured parts and themes from Demon in a Bottle and other storylines from the comics, a la TDK and TDKR, but they botched it by making bad decisions, one of which being making it an Avengers-heavy movie.

Don't agree. For them to have taken away from the film, they'd have to actually be bad. They enhanced the film, taking it from below average, to somewhat enjoyable.

Am I too believe if completely exercised Shield from the film that they would of figured out how to do something with Stark and Vanko other then looking sad for even longer?

 

[Gianakin_]

Thor is every bit as tied into the Avengers as IM2, and yet it was by all considerations a much better film.

I don't agree with that. SHIELD and Coulson were in it a lot, yes, but they weren't prepping the stage for a movie coming out next year. For all intents and purposes you could've changed the name SHIELD in Thor and it would've been FBI coming in to investigate this abnormality. In IM2 that wasn't the case. The Vankos, Howard Stark and Fury were all much more tied together to what the film was dealing with than in Thor.

It is how you use the material there. A bad script had nothing to do with being tied to the Avengers, it was trying to make the movie oddly safe considering the components and material. Widow's presence is a gift, a perfect to explore Tony and Pepper's relationship, and Tony's reckless behavior.

Or a tired cliche love triangle that was a pretty run-of-the-mill way to handle it. But that's another matter. Even so, let's say the love triangle was a good idea, why did it have to be with a SHIELD agent? It would have an tiny bit of interest if her loyalty was really tested because she got to grow genuinely fond of Tony, but the movie didn't even do that (for the better, 'cause that's also Scarlett in the Prestige). Right now it was just to get key characters from SHIELD in the spotlight.

The villain problem is one that was also prevalent in the first film. Only Loki has shown to be something other then generic in these films so far and it is one of the major weaknesses in the Marvel films. Sam Rockwell was pretty great though not really a villain.

I found Stane to be a fun and serviceable villain for what the movie was trying to do. Vanko was another beast altogether, with the potential (and, according to the filmmakers, intension) to become someone far deeper and impactful to Tony and his perception of Iron Man. Instead he was half-assed. Stane was a relatively shallow and standard villain, but he was complete in context of IM1.

Don't agree. For them to have taken away from the film, they'd have to actually be bad. They enhanced the film, taking it from below average, to somewhat enjoyable.

No, to me something doesn't have to be bad to take away from a film. It can be fun while it lasts (in that one scene or shot etc), but in the long run it can be pretty hurtful to my experience of the movie. See Loki's demise in the Avengers. Always laugh my ass off when I see it, but it hurts the movie big time. Another similar example would be [BLACKOUT]Coulson's death[/BLACKOUT]. Really well done, acted and written scene, but ultimately spoils the movie for me, 'cause its role in the motivations from there on is essential and it just doesn't work (to me).

Am I too believe if completely exercised Shield from the film that they would of figured out how to do something with Stark and Vanko other then looking sad for even longer?

Yes. Definitely yes. Had Marvel not pressured them I strongly believe the focus would've shifted and we would've gotten a fairly different film of the same premise and exploring the same themes.