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

[Shifty]

Really?
Who's the one responsible for this bad business?
They've given their strong assets to their direct competition.

Yeah it happened a couple of weeks ago.

Brad Grey is head of Paramount.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/08/exclusive-dreamworks-animation-to-fox/

 

[Marvin]

wow.
well I expect bold moves from Paramount in these coming years.
They already did their one for one to get Bay back after a second sequel. It's amazing seeing them seemingly go from the top of the property heap to the not so top in the span of a year. People usually loose their jobs when that happens.

I do know they still get some back end from their former properties though.

 

[Micromind]

And the failure of SR is being factored into MOS. If MOS flops, WB will never again make a Superman movie. They'll just look at Smallville and say, "well... I guess this is where the character belongs: television."

SR was a moderate success not a financial flop, so no losses are being carried over to MOS movie.

The lawsuit by Siegel and Shuster's heirs forced them to make a Superman movie, to retain the Superman rights they would have to make a movie or pay the heirs after every few years (to be decided in the final outcome of the court ruling.)

Even if WB decides not to make any Superman movie in future and just pay a fixed amount just to retain their rights to the character, Superman will be a part of Justice League movie. If he becomes more popular there then he could get a solo movie again.

lot of possibilities.

 

[Zant]

Looking at this list, Paramount and Disney would have had such different summers had that deal not gone down. It also shows how reliant Paramount is on their Hasbro property(and mr. Bay). If they can get TMNT/GJjoe/TF/Heman working like a well oiled machine they will be back. It also shows how moving JOE this quarter hurt them.

As for Universal, they got aggressive this summer...
They need that Fast and Furious franchise to deliver.

WB needs to get more of their Superhero's working, next summer will be very significant for them post Batman.

Sony will die before giving spidey back to marvel

and Fox...

Lionsgate has hunger games and they love it.

Looking at these trends it's clear where the audience is going.

I think at the moment Fox has more ongoing and alive movie franchise than the other studios.They still have Ice age, Aliens, Simpsons, Die hard, X men, Rio, Alvin, Planet of apes, and James Cameron. Disney only have the mcu, Pirates, and Pixar which is not too bad also

 

[Marvin]

I think at the moment Fox has more ongoing and alive movie franchise than the other studios.They still have Ice age, Aliens, Simpsons, Die hard, X men, Rio, Alvin, Planet of apes, and James Cameron. Disney only have the mcu, Pirates, and Pixar which is not too bad also

Yea I suppose I was looking at fox within this year for some reason. The reality being they've been the most property hungry studio out.

Disney has a way of mishandling their live action properties. The likes of John Carter/Tron could have been great for them but they just keep failing. Pirates was their go to but I suppose now they have that Marvel brand. I feel Pixar is in a transition. One more critical under performer and they will be seen as on par with Dreamworks.

 

[Octoberist]

Yeah it happened a couple of weeks ago.

Brad Grey is head of Paramount.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/08/exclusive-dreamworks-animation-to-fox/

What I don't understand is how Disney got rid of their president after the bombing of John Carter and previous underwhelming BO of Tron Legacy (among others), but yet Brad Grey gets to keep his job?

Under his reign, he screwed up their 2012 lineup, pushing World War Z, Hanzel and Gretel, and GI Joe 2 to 2013, all with production problems. Then he lost Dreamworks to Fox. Wow.

 

[Marvin]

I think Disney has always been more aggressive about this sort of thing, probably because of larger amount of crap that goes on over there(theme parks and what not)

 

[Shifty]

What I don't understand is how Disney got rid of their president after the bombing of John Carter and previous underwhelming BO of Tron Legacy (among others), but yet Brad Grey gets to keep his job?

Under his reign, he screwed up their 2012 lineup, pushing World War Z, Hanzel and Gretel, and GI Joe 2 to 2013, all with production problems. Then he lost Dreamworks to Fox. Wow.

He did have Paramount 1st in domestic market share in 2007 and 2011, 2nd in 2008, 2009 and 2010 domestically and 1st in 2011 globally!

I guess the benefits will come long term so Paramount was patient considering his success from the past five years. If Paramount finishes 1st or 2nd in market share next year he'll be okay.

The studio is starting up their own in house animation plus they have Nickelodeon Movies to distribute SpongeBob 2 and Mighty Mouse.

The studio keeps the rights for the films they did produce already, maybe they thought for the short term Dreamworks Animation wouldn't produce anything huge and whatever deal they had to make wouldn't be worth it, they would just lose money. Disney owns Pixar and Marvel so they can collect on merchandise while Paramount didn't get any of that with DWA.

 

[mclay18]

The studio keeps the rights for the films they did produce already, maybe they thought for the short term Dreamworks Animation wouldn't produce anything huge and whatever deal they had to make wouldn't be worth it, they would just lose money.

Paramount keeps the distribution rights to the DWA movies they've already released (as well as the final DWA film in the deal, Rise of the Guardians), but they don't own the rights to commission sequels. Their deal was similar to their Marvel Studios one... they get a percentage of the box office plus a flat fee on distributing on DVD/Blu-ray.

The deal is more iffy when it comes to their TV animation unit. I guess Paramount will keep the rights to release Dragons and Penguins of Madagascar on home video...

 

[KangConquers]

SR was a moderate success not a financial flop, so no losses are being carried over to MOS movie.

The lawsuit by Siegel and Shuster's heirs forced them to make a Superman movie, to retain the Superman rights they would have to make a movie or pay the heirs after every few years (to be decided in the final outcome of the court ruling.)

Even if WB decides not to make any Superman movie in future and just pay a fixed amount just to retain their rights to the character, Superman will be a part of Justice League movie. If he becomes more popular there then he could get a solo movie again.

lot of possibilities.

SMR was more of a moderate disappointment. One Warner executive admitted that $500 M had been their benchmark for "success."

If it had a budget more on par with the X-Films, Captain America, Thor, and Batman Begins, it would've been a moderate success, but it's budget far exceeded those films. Relative to it's budget, it performed roughly the same as The Incredible Hulk.

 

[The Sage]

The Dark Knight Rises has made more money worldwide than The Dark Knight.

 

[rashad]

The Dark Knight Rises has made more money worldwide than The Dark Knight.

Welcome to a week ago. lol t:

 

[DoomsdayApex]

It's an amazing accomplishment and feat for the title/character. Back-to-back billion dollar installments on the 2D format. Keep in mind, no other solo superhero film has ever crossed the billion dollar barrier. So for Nolan & Batman to not only do it once but twice is truly remarkable.

 

[Bruce Malone]

Batman is pretty much the only solo superhero that imo can pull off a billion dollar film. Not to start a whole thing but with the avengers we can see how the film really is stronger than its individual parts.

As in the BO takes of the avengers solo films. I think Spider-man in the raimi day had the potential to come to a billion perhaps if the foreign markets at the time were as strong as they are today, at least with the 1st two films by the 3rd foreign markets were the only thing that helped it get beyond the 1st 2 in ww totals.

Frankly without Nolan though they need to put the batman franchise on ice a bit if they want to avoid burnout or fatigue in hopes of ever reaching those numbers again.

 

[Marvin]

If an installment in a franchise does it once than something went wrong if it doesn't do it with the next installment. It's it a good feat for a non 2D picture though. Not as big a feat as Titanic.

I happen to think with the Total's ASM has and with the new franchise firmly established, ASM has a good shot at having sequels in the billions. Especially if the concepts are strong in the next trailer. (Gwen Stacy, A re imagined villain that will pique audience interest and curiosity).

 

[Bruce Malone]

Spider-man will never be able to get into the billion dollar club unless it reverses the domestic decline trend it's had since the 2nd film essentially.

It's going on 3 films in a row now where there's been a decline from the last. TASM felt very unnecessary so i don't know if there's going to be this big up-swing in spidey-mania for the sequel.

 

[Jick]

I'm sure many, at least a decade ago, would think it was impossible for Batman to hit 1 billion. It has happened.

Spider-Man can get there. It'll need more to its production, but it certainly can get there.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Batman is pretty much the only solo superhero that imo can pull off a billion dollar film. Not to start a whole thing but with the avengers we can see how the film really is stronger than its individual parts.

As in the BO takes of the avengers solo films. I think Spider-man in the raimi day had the potential to come to a billion perhaps if the foreign markets at the time were as strong as they are today, at least with the 1st two films by the 3rd foreign markets were the only thing that helped it get beyond the 1st 2 in ww totals.

Frankly without Nolan though they need to put the batman franchise on ice a bit if they want to avoid burnout or fatigue in hopes of ever reaching those numbers again.

Any superhero with the right script, direction and marketing can pull off a billion. Who's to say that none of the superheroes next year won't pull off a billion. Not saying they will, but it's not like TDK was predicted to make a billion.

 

[Bruce Malone]

No it wasn't, because it was and still is a rare feat for a comic book film to do so. Of course i can't 100% guarantee no superhero film next year won't gross a billion but based on predictions and trends i'm quite sure i'm about 95% right.

Out of the superhero films next year only Iron Man 3 has the edge and thats just coming off of its connection to the avengers. However based on the history of its own franchise i don't see it making a billion.

As well unless Man Of Steel somehow ignites a dormant passion for superman that hasn't been around for 30 years i also don't see it coming close.

 

[chaseter]

Superman will not break a billion even if it gets raving reviews.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I heavily doubt that notionm though it also involves selling the movie right.

 

[marvelman2006]

Yeah as good as ironman was in avengers and avengers in general Its coming off a dud in ironman 2 that recieved an overall shalacking from critics and GA. I think MOS will do similar to what BB dids in 2005. Going back to Ironman 3, I still dont know how the avengers mad that much money. I mean the solo films outside of ironman 1 all were right aound 300 million Domestic but yet they team up and everyone flocks to see it.

 

[metaphysician]

Its a rare feat for *any* film to do. There's only been thirteen movies to break a billion dollars ever.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

Yeah as good as ironman was in avengers and avengers in general Its coming off a dud in ironman 2 that recieved an overall shalacking from critics and GA. I think MOS will do similar to what BB dids in 2005. Going back to Ironman 3, I still dont know how the avengers mad that much money. I mean the solo films outside of ironman 1 all were right aound 300 million Domestic but yet they team up and everyone flocks to see it.

Raving reviews, A bigger international audience, and a much more ambitious marketing campaign is why Avengers was bigger than Iron Man, in addition to the obvious crossover concept, not only with the superheroes but also it became one of the first modern superhero movies to combine the superhero genre with the alien invasion genre.

Also, Iron Man 2 actually was well liked by the GA and audience. Just not as much as Iron Man 1. I don't know why I always have to repeat that. It was actually pretty well received outside of comic book movie circles.

 

[marvelman2006]

Raving reviews! A bigger international audience, and a much more ambitious marketing campaign is why Avengers was bigger than Iron Man, in addition to the obvious crossover concept, not only with the superheroes but also it became one of the first modern superhero movies to combine the superhero genre with the alien invasion genre.

True and Its wierd yet because I didnt like the alien invasion for the team to go against. IMHO I just didnt think the avengers deserved the money it made but If there are peeps on here who dug it then thats awesome because I enjoyed the heck out of TDK, TDKR so its fair everyone gets a turn and its even better for the movie business in general when now you have comic book movies reaching a billion dollars in the same year.