2012: A Monster Year? (box office predictions)

[Zant]

Batman movies ALWAYS do worse overseas than domestic.

People used to say that about the x men movie.The overseas market has grown a lot .You just need to look at this years numbers

 

[TX85]

The four juggernauts will clearly be:

The Dark Knight Rises
The Avengers
The Amazing Spider-Man
The Hobbit: Part I

There's no need to even include a #5.
These four movies will define the year, and the order of their box office success is impossible to determine.

...But if I had to guess:

1. The Hobbit: Part I
2. The Dark Knight Rises
3. The Avengers
4. The Amazing Spider-Man

2012 will come down to Batman vs. Hobbit.

Agreed on everything,Bingo!!

GIFSoup

 

[Marvin]

what's stopping star trek from pulling a TDK, after it's solid first entry?

 

[Chewy]

what's stopping star trek from pulling a TDK, after it's solid first entry?

Mostly how packed the winter is. I think ST2 could pull a TDK if it was released summer 2013.

 

[Zant]

Don't know why people are overestimating Star Trek so much .Its overseas numbers were terrible .A new Star Trek will make more overseas in todays overseas market but not by much

 

[Sentinel X]

what's stopping star trek from pulling a TDK, after it's solid first entry?

It has potential. It just needs a good release date. If its on June 29th it won't even pass the first. I don't think they're going to make that date anyways.

I think the top three are going to be:

1. The Dark Knight Rises (easy winner)
2. The Hobbit part 1
3. The Amazing Spider-man

As far as worldwide it will probably be:

1. The Hobbit part 1 (it will easily make a billion)
2. The Dark Knight Rises
3. Ice Age 4 ...unfortunately.

Basically 2012 belongs to Batman and LOTRs. I think Superman and John Carter might be a wildcards that surprise everyone.

 

[Chewy]

Don't know why people are overestimating Star Trek so much .Its overseas numbers were terrible .A new Star Trek will make more overseas in todays overseas market but not by much

Star Trek 2 will triple the first's overseas numbers.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

what's stopping star trek from pulling a TDK, after it's solid first entry?

Will Chris Pine die? After giving an oscar worthy performance?

 

[jacobed]

That doesn't make sense. It would be whoever plays the villain would die. If you're going to make a sarcastic ass statement at least make it right. Oh yeah also The Hobbit is going to destroy every film next year with Batman being second.

 

[Marvin]

Hobbit in 3D at 48fps.
the numbers should be interesting.

 

[TX85]

Anybody else think Superman may have a chance to be#5 of the year or even beating TDKR(I think that one will be#2 or 3)??

Very strong cast so far/Nolan is involved/Snyder has a fan-base/Visuals is almost guaranteed to be great-amazing/Superman is as popular as Batman and the GA&Fans eat it up/And so it all depends on story&movie execution plus word of mouth!

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

I love Superman but he isn't going to make TDKR money. Maybe ASM but not any where close to Batman or The Hobbit or The Avengers.

 

[Marvin]

If the superman movie the comes out next year is everything the perfect superman movie could be. And the visuals are that of a visualist and not Bryan Singer. It has one of the most popular characters ever created and it has an all star cast.

I think it could be number 3 next year.
all things being right.

 

[Donut]

For Superman we have to wait & see if the WB decides to meddle in & mess everything up like they did with Green Lantern

 

[Sentinel X]

The Avengers is going to make 300 million AT MOST and possibly less. I think fanboys are just crazy for it

 

[Rocketman]

For Superman we have to wait & see if the WB decides to meddle in & mess everything up like they did with Green Lantern

In this particular case, I'm okay with WB's meddling, since Zack Snyder isn't a very specifically-visualistic director, whereas Martin Campbell is his own director. Snyder seems more like a "studio director" to me who welcomes interference. Nobody should've laid a finger on Campbell's production.

I think Green Lantern's concern was that the concept was too big and wild and "out there" for its own good. WB probably got scared and thought it was all too "abstract" for the mainstream and decided to step in.

Superman, on the other hand... Everybody knows Superman and his universe. I'm not worried about this movie at all.

 

[Chewy]

The Avengers is going to make 300 million AT MOST and possibly less. I think fanboys are just crazy for it

lol

 

[Marvin]

The Avengers is going to make 300 million AT MOST and possibly less. I think fanboys are just crazy for it

I think if each of the character movies were mega hits that film would be on it's way to 450 domestic.

but thor?
cap?
Ironman2

maybe you're right.

They need to pull a bendis and make a team out of Marvel's real flagship characters lol.
Wolverine, Spiderman, DD...

 

[TheIncredibleSk]

The Avengers will at least make Iron Man money. That is for sure.

 

[Chewy]

He is in no way right.

Iron Man is obviously massive. Thor was a hugely well received movie by audience members. Cap is tracking bigger than GL and Thor were.

I understand that some of you believe your own opinions as to what will hit supersede buzz and hype among average moviegoers but that is simply not the case.

Daredevil as one of Marvel's flagship characters? C'mon.

 

[Rocketman]

Marvel is basically defined by Spider-Man and Wolverine. Without those two characters, Marvel wouldn't be Marvel by just having Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, or the Hulk. Those four aren't the mainstream juggernauts that Spidey and Wolverine are. It's the sum of Marvel's parts that make them big, while Spidey and Wolverine are the two singular characters that keep the company going.

Marvel is equal to DC when it comes to popular, mainstream characters. DC is defined by Batman and Superman. Like Marvel, DC wouldn't survive with just Green Lantern or Wonder Woman. Both companies are tied for 2 and 2. Before 2008 and 2011, Iron Man and Thor were not popular, and I'd even put forth the brass and say that Iron Man was virtually unknown to the average joe. And I'll also go ahead and claim that Robert Downey Jr. is the Iron Man franchise.

Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, and Wolverine are simply the four most recognized, popular, mainstream superheroes in comics. Nobody tops them. Both companies are tied. So I don't understand the claim that Marvel has more characters or "better" characters. Marvel survives on two characters just like DC does.

The only major difference I see is that DC is more ambitious when it comes to adult-oriented material such as Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and basically everything in the Vertigo line, like Y: The Last Man and Sandman.

 

[Chewy]

I will agree to that.

Pre-movies

Spider-Man = Batman
Wolverine = Superman
Captain America = Wonder Woman
Iron Man = Green Lantern
Thor = Aquaman
Hulk = Flash

The difference is that Marvel has been able to successfully turn Iron Man and Thor into brands that can stand on their own whereas very recently WB failed spectacularly at doing the same for Lantern.

But there is a genuine buzz for Avengers no matter how much some seem to want to ignore it. I knew people who wanted to see Green Lantern simply because they thought he was going to be one of the Avengers. The movie will be an event.

 

[Sentinel X]

Marvel is basically defined by Spider-Man and Wolverine. Without those two characters, Marvel wouldn't be Marvel by just having Thor, Captain America, Iron Man, or the Hulk. Those four aren't the mainstream juggernauts that Spidey and Wolverine are. It's the sum of Marvel's parts that make them big, while Spidey and Wolverine are the two singular characters that keep the company going.

Marvel is equal to DC when it comes to popular, mainstream characters. DC is defined by Batman and Superman. Like Marvel, DC wouldn't survive with just Green Lantern or Wonder Woman. Both companies are tied for 2 and 2. Before 2008 and 2011, Iron Man and Thor were not popular, and I'd even put forth the brass and say that Iron Man was virtually unknown to the average joe. And I'll also go ahead and claim that Robert Downey Jr. is the Iron Man franchise.

Batman, Superman, Spider-Man, and Wolverine are simply the four most recognized, popular, mainstream superheroes in comics. Nobody tops them. Both companies are tied. So I don't understand the claim that Marvel has more characters or "better" characters. Marvel survives on two characters just like DC does.

The only major difference I see is that DC is more ambitious when it comes to adult-oriented material such as Watchmen, V for Vendetta, and basically everything in the Vertigo line, like Y: The Last Man and Sandman.

Exactly. I have no more need to explain myself.
Captain America, Hulk, Iron Man, etc all appeal to the same demographic. In other words, the same people that went to watch Thor are the same people who watched Iron Man who are the same people who watched Hulk,etc. Therefore its safe to say that avengers will be as successful as the most successful spinoff movie (in this case the Iron Man series where each made around 300 million). So the 400+million predictions are absolutely ridiculous in all honest and quite frankly I don't even think it will hit 300 million (but of course this is just an early prediction without a trailer or even synopsis). 200+ is guaranteed though

 

[Chewy]

Why did TDK gain new audience members? Surely Batman and Joker appeal to the same demographic.

Was it because it was a sequel that brought something new, something fresh, something interesting to the table? Was it because they took something that audiences loved and spun it in a new way that audiences loved? Was it because they took the existing pieces and made an even greater whole?

I am not implying Avengers will increase as significantly as TDK did. Obviously there were extenuating circumstances (Heath Ledger). I am very much so saying that it will increase, though.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

In this particular case, I'm okay with WB's meddling, since Zack Snyder isn't a very specifically-visualistic director, whereas Martin Campbell is his own director. Snyder seems more like a "studio director" to me who welcomes interference. Nobody should've laid a finger on Campbell's production.

I think Green Lantern's concern was that the concept was too big and wild and "out there" for its own good. WB probably got scared and thought it was all too "abstract" for the mainstream and decided to step in.

Superman, on the other hand... Everybody knows Superman and his universe. I'm not worried about this movie at all.

.....what?

Martin Campbell is definitely a studio for hire director. Both GE and Casino Royale were the Broccoli's vision. He helped bring that to the screen. GL definitely wasn't his vision.

Watchmen and Sucker Punch alone makes Snyder a director who is his own.