The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Box office for Amazing Spider-Man 2

[spider-neil]

I bought 5 movies from 2012 and Dredd was one of those movies. Brilliant movie.

 

[Anno_Domini]

of course every movie has it`s flaws , but as much as you like TDKR it still has it`s major flaws but you saw the pros overweight the cons, and it has the same critic raiting as TASM, and i think TASM deserved a higher rating

You're looking at RT though. Look everywhere else and you won't see a similarity between TDKR and TAS-M as you do on RT. And also look at any Top Ten lists as well. Not saying this as a biased fan, but as a realist. I get where you're coming from with this, but that's only one similarity you can make as well between the two that they have the same Top Critics rating only on RT. Even the audience rating is different.

Dredd wasn't really underrated, it just didn't get any attention. The Amazing Spider-Man has a lot of hate just because it was a quick reboot. If it came out 5 years from now, I think it wouldn't have been rated so harshly.

When being overshadowed by the supposed Big 3(Avengers, TDKR, TAS-M), yes, Dredd was definitely overlooked and underrated by many movie goers and sadly, by a lot of CB fans as well. Now, one still can't say TAS-M is underrated when it made enough money, when it was considered one of the big CBMs of the year(and in no way was actually going to be better on paper than Avengers or TDKR). You're only saying it's underrated just because it has hate being a quick reboot, and I don't believe that.

Coming out at the wrong doesn't make a film underrated, but it effects it's performance. If Dredd came out the day TC3D came out it probably could of made more money.

Indeed it did effect its performance, but as I mentioned earlier, it just wasn't on the radar as other CBMs or other films in genre which sucks. Dredd was my third favorite CBM this year.

I want a sequel.

I doubt we ever will with the money it made unless Dredd becomes a cult hit that would further a sequel.

i havn`t seen Dread

Rent it. It's out now.

 

[Picard Sisko]

When being overshadowed by the supposed Big 3(Avengers, TDKR, TAS-M), yes, Dredd was definitely overlooked and underrated by many move goers and sadly, by a lot of CB fans as well. Now, one still can't say TAS-M is underrated when it made enough money, when it was considered one of the big CBMs(and in no way was actually going to be better on paper than Avengers or TDKR). You're only saying it's underrated just because it has hate being a quick reboot, and I don't believe that.

TASM was still the underdog comic book movie of Summer 2012 (among Avengers and TDKR). A lot of people still resent the cancellation of SM4, and getting another reboot... which was ANOTHER origin story. If it was the first Spider-Man movie, or if it was released maybe 5-10 years later than it did, I think there would have been more excitement for it, and it would have higher ratings. IMO it deserves an 80-85% on RT. I think its underrated, and I'm sticking to that.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Even being an underdog doesn't make it underrated. Of course it was going to be the underdog in the running with Avengers and TDKR but that still doesn't make it underrated.

I bet a lot of fans of TAS-M see it as the way you do with thinking it's underrated or deserving a higher score, but once again, it going over the origin again wasn't the biggest problem the film had.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Once again, the fact that the movie was somewhat unwanted really hurt the critical rating. With so many reviews calling it "the same movie as SM1," it seems like that was the biggest issue for most critics and audience members.

 

[Anno_Domini]

It may have hurt, but it didn't hurt that much when it still got around the 70s....to say it should get in the 80s, though, is saying TAS-M's mistakes should just be overlooked when even Spider-Man has a 89% on RT and TAS-M wasn't that good, imo.

 

[Picard Sisko]

It may have hurt, but it didn't hurt that much when it still got around the 70s....to say it should get in the 80s, though, is saying TAS-M's mistakes should just be overlooked when even Spider-Man has a 89% on RT and TAS-M wasn't that good, imo.

I like SM1 more, but more for nostalgic reasons. I think TASM is better in many aspects. And if we had SM1 with 89%, and TASM at 80%, that would sound reasonable. I mean, it seems like many mistakes/flaws were overlooked in TDKR since it had an 87%...

 

[Anno_Domini]

Like the mistakes/flaws that were overlooked in TDK as well...but, there are just mistakes that gets right in your face more than others, as I saw in TAS-M.

Personally, I like S-M 1 much more than for nostalgic reason. Once again, the biggest reason why I don't like TAS-M is Connors is given no justice.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Well Connors is the only thing keeping me from giving TASM a 9.5/10... everything else was amazing IMO.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Connors is my biggest reason when he's my second favorite Spidey villain. If he's ****ed up, I can't enjoy anything when he shows up. As I said, the best part of the film is the first hour, imo.

 

[AF3619]

i really wanted lizard not to talk, beeing more like a beast but not beeing fully inconsious,he knows what he is doing but he can`t stop it i wanted to see the good side of Connors inside the lizard like after he de-transforms, he seems fully mad scientist, there was never conflict between him and the lizard persona but well ...what`s done it`s done, let`s see how they write Max Dillon

 

[Spiderdevil]

This risk factor is high with any movie with a big budget. If they don't do it right, it can fail. You're trying to apply a logic that doesn't make sense. You say that they should try with Hulk again even though it failed twice at the box office. THAT is risky, because the audience is now aware. The same way they were with the previous Hulk. They thought they would get another unsatisfying movie, as I already showed in my previous reply. Have their mind changed? Who knows? Maybe we'll know with the upcoming TV series (if that really comes to happen). The risk here is to know if they are ready to accept another Hulk and pay to see it. The Avengers movie most likely isn't the right ''thermometer'' to analyse that. Now Daredevil. Who is asking for Daredevil? Who besides fans of Daredevil? The first movie is hated by many fans, the audience barely attended to it and it couldn't survive with the international market. It was a chore. Even in North America it only made a profit (or it seems it did) because the budget was low. How much would this movie cost nowadays? Would Marvel invest so little in it? How big is the audience's interest in this kind of movie? The audience didn't really care the first time. Would they now? Maybe. Maybe is the right word. Would it get good reviews? Would it have a good marketing campaign? How could we possibly know, right? It is risky. Risky like any other. The investment on Daredevil was little. So was its gross. You keep talking 'what if' GoTG is terrible. Well, what if TIH2 is terrible? What if Daredevil is terrible? Hulk will suffer a bigger loss because it will be the third time it'll be bad at the BO. But then you might think - what if they actually succeed? Will they span TIH3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and so on and many other Daredevil movies withouth trying with lesser known heroes? Because you think Hulk and Daredevil are safer to do (which we have seen twice with Hulk and one with Daredevil that this isn't exactly the case)? When are they going to try GoTG, Heroes for Hire, Doctor Strange, Black Panther and so many others? Because they're certainly risky. Would they never get a chance in your ideal world? Now what if GoTG actually succeeds? I WANT it to succeed, because I want NEW and interesting ideas being explored on the big screen. The audience certainly does to because, well, who doesn't like a good movie? Do you want them to stuck with the more popular heroes forever? I don't. They certainly don't either. Every new hero getting adapted to the big screen will be risky and we will get them wheter you want or not, even popular heroes. After all, who is more popular on planet Earth than Superman? Now look at how much his last movie did and how much it cost. He's big. Thor certainly wasn't as big and he brought a bigger profit than Supes. Thor was also risky...like every other. They tried and they hit the jackpot. It's GoTG's time now. The others popular heroes had their chance and some failed. Is it more risky than the others? Maybe, because the audience is unaware of them. Maybe not, because they don't have a bad reputations and it is a movie that will preceed the Avengers. It left a good taste in people's mouth. In my opinion, it has all of the ingredients to be worth of Marve's fame and to attract the audience. They just need a good story and a good marketing campaign to tell the people about the movie and to grow their interest on this project.

All very valid points
Yes the first two Hulk movies were terrible but they did a good job with him in TA,yes it isnt the best comparison but the audience are once more interested in him,if they work hard enough,they can make him a success once more imo
As with Daredevil,it may be the fan in me that wants a movie,but com'on,people hardly remember the previous movie and that will imo work in its favour,it will have lesser reboot bias,And you cant deny the great potential this Superhero has which is imo only beaten by Spidey as far as Marvel is concerned,his story is really interesting.When Marvel has made sore characters like Thor and CapAm so interesting,I definitely would like to see what they would come up with the blind lawyer

Every big budget movie is risky,that goes without saying but the reason why I saw that GoTG is riskier is because of different factors,apart from the fact that they are unknown,they are set in space which makes less relatable,each have bizarre set of powers and them being introduced together in a single movie at once will give very little time for being developed,its also difficult to see how they will be connected to the MCU.
I also dont like how Marvel are radically changing the tone,from what started out as realistic and plausible stories like IM1 is now going up to totally fantastical characters and movies.
Its not just because they arent famous that I am saying it isnt a good idea,Antman isnt famous either but I think it can work out well if they make a good movie
No doubt I would like GotG to be success but you cant deny that it is hard work to make such a movie work,and if it turns out to be a bad,it will be a John Carter like failure because the name wont guarante audience like it did with TIH and Daredevil

To you? No. To the movie? No. What kind of question is that? If you don't have something substantial to post, then don't.

I am saying that telling that TIH was better than Hulk isnt a great compliment,just like saying TASM was better than SM3

Again, YOU think that TIH was a terrible movie. Don't bring your opinion to a discussion and get it across as fact. I'm not simply comparing it to a 2003 movie, I'm comparing it to the previous Hulk movie, which was badly received.

Please read again,I am saying the 2003 one was a terrible movie

I'm not keeping standards of anything. What are you even talking about? You're just ignoring everything I'm posting and playing ignorant. I showed exactly to you why and how the word of mouth was better with TIH. It had a better reception than the 2003 movie. You assumed that the WOM had been nad and I showed you that it wasn't. It's all in the previous post. Please, read and pay attention.

I read everything you said
I said WOM was bad/average and you are saying it was better than the 2003 movie
No doubt it was better but not a great improvement either,and the 2003 movie was bad to start with so being better wasnt a tough job
67% isnt too much better than 63%,is it?
When I sawy WOM was bad/average I am comaring it with IM1

This makes zero sense. You're the only one bringing this terrible comparison.

No,its a fair comparison
Both of them were a reboot of a famous character after a terrible film

But is it a progress. Why don't you also take the USERS scores? People who actually watched and rewatched the movie, paid the ticket and brought friends and family? There is an improvement of 34% from Hulk to 75% from TIH. That is really noticeable. I won't even mention the Metacritics, which you didn't bother to post.

I rarely consult metacritics

And how much did Hulk cost in 2008? Did you take that into account, too? Did you take into account that Hulk wasn't following a poorly received predecessor? Did you take into account the movies that were going against Hulk in 2008 for the box-office? Adjusted to 2008 is just an statistic. They didn't get 2008's money. They got 2003's money

Not much diffence in the budget(162M compared to 150M),and may I meation,we could see where the money was spent in the 2003 movie,the CGI and set pieces were excellent for that time while in TIH,we hardly got a clear view of hulk,and when we did,he looked cartoonish and unrealistic.I am confused to where they spend their money in TIH

As for the factors you mention,I didnt take into consideration the increasing popularity of the genre from 2003 to 2008,increase in ticket prices,much more markets in the foreign territory,the fact that technology was better in 2008 or that TIH was running on the momentum of IM1's success

How can you compare media sales between on Hulk and the other if in your OWN post you tell me that home media sales are declining? You're taking down your own argument. I didn't compare it in my last post because I'm aware of that, so I compared to a more successful movie that even used the 3D to show you that the home media brought more money, but that wasn't the point of the post. It was to state that people were looking out for the movie. How much would it be in 2003? 58 to 62 isn't a big difference.

There is 5 years difference between TA's release and TIH so that isnt a apt comparison either,plus TA's been released for what,just 6 months(Compared to 5 years),SM3 in 2007 made 170M+ in DVD sales,now compare this with TA's sales?

And the 62M I meantioned was just for the year 2003,couldnt find any recent statistics

It was apparent in pictures and trailers that we had a clearly younger Peter Parker and a different love interest. A different team. Besides, they went around the world commenting that this was a reboot and answering countless questions of ''why doing the origin story again''. I don't remember this much attention with TIH. People understood way earlier that this was a reboot because they started to divulge the information way earlier. That's why they did a better job than TIH's team.

Thats all correct but they made it clear in the movie aswell,cannot say the same for TIH.
Even if they didnt advertise it properly,had they retold the origin,people would have understood

People are not like that anymore? Are you reading what you post? I guess The Avengers aren't fantasy enough? Isn't Iron Man?

I meant outer space fantasy

The last Star Wars came in 2005 and it made 848.7 million worldwide. A huge success both domestic and international wise. Do you think people simply changed from then to now? Because the fantasy movies we have nowadays don't let me believe that.

Because Star Wars is a known name now

Terrible examples. John Carter was panned by critics and Green Lantern was destroyed by the same. Why don't you pick actually successful movies that were good with critics and box office at the same time? Like Avatar, for example. A movie with space tech, different world, exotic characters and all the stuff that you already know. This kind of movie is the champion at the box-office and will be for quite some time. Am I saying the movie is good? No. I'm saying that the audience paid to see it enough times to make it king at the charts.

So its John Carter and Avatar at the extremes
Which is why I say that the risk factor is high

Of course it is comparable. They're around the same time, why wouldn't they be? Spider-Man is huge. Much more than the X-Men. That's why it made as much as it did. Once again, was the X-Men franchise as successful as some others, like Spider-Man or Batman? As Successful? It seems it wasn't, but was it successful? Certainly. It brought too much money to Fox. I already stated that.

I expect they to milk more from a property like X men
FFS Marvel milked out 450M out of Thor on their first try,Fox reached their just once from their 5 movies

You said ''Marvel made more off B grade characters than Fox made out of Marvel's most celebrated team''.
Either you're talking about the Avengers in the ''off B'' characters or the ''celebrated team''. It seems right now that The Avengers are the most celebreated team. I won't dare to say who it was in the past. Whoever sold more comics.

Although I didnt mention it then,I meant just the solo movies
X men is a huge property,They were a critical and box office success but I expected them to make more

Genetically altered spider, painted face Joker, Ra's as Ducard, Banner having Hulk since little...there are always changes. The important is to keep the essence there and Marvel did it with Iron Man. He was still kidnapped and sent to a cave. Still had help from a scientist. Still escaped and built armors to help the people, still had Pepper as the most trusty person, still had Rhodes as a friend and so on. The essence was there.

It was even closer to the source material in Thor an CapAm,yet they werent as good as IM1

 

[Jick]

All very valid points
Yes the first two Hulk movies were terrible but they did a good job with him in TA,yes it isnt the best comparison but the audience are once more interested in him,if they work hard enough,they can make him a success once more imo
As with Daredevil,it may be the fan in me that wants a movie,but com'on,people hardly remember the previous movie and that will imo work in its favour,it will have lesser reboot bias,And you cant deny the great potential this Superhero has which is imo only beaten by Spidey as far as Marvel is concerned,his story is really interesting.When Marvel has made sore characters like Thor and CapAm so interesting,I definitely would like to see what they would come up with the blind lawyer

So would I. I like Daredevil. The Director's Cut is among my favorite CBM movies. Actually, I believe the movie would have fared better with critics and box office had they released that version on theaters. But that's only a maybe. For a long time I wanted a sequel, but does the general audience? That's another maybe. Does he have as much potential as GoTG? In my opinion...no. Consider me among the general audience because I've read too little of Daredevil to know about his stories AND nothing about GoTG either. So fans of the second can school me on their adventures. But, the case with GoTG is that the movie will go beyond the restraints of Earth. There is a lot more fantasy involved than with a guy like Daredevil, who is much more grounded. A street hero. What we use to see is people going with the first. They like fantasy. They like these kind of adventures with strange and weird characters. While I believe a DD movie would be cheaper, I also believe that GoTG will bring a bigger profit to Marvel. I'm almost certain that I saw recently a rumor that Marvel was planning to do a tv series with Daredevil. I think that is more called at the moment. And I will repeat my question: if not now, then when? When are they gonna do Guardians of The Galaxy? Never? It will always be a big risk, but, thanks to The Avengers, they have tons of money to blow. Now is the perfect time to do this movie. Apparently, Thanos will be present, so he most likely will be our link with the MCU. Perhaps there will be a contact between the human and SHIELD by the end of the movie. Who knows? That isn't a big concern.

Every big budget movie is risky,that goes without saying but the reason why I saw that GoTG is riskier is because of different factors,apart from the fact that they are unknown,they are set in space which makes less relatable,each have bizarre set of powers and them being introduced together in a single movie at once will give very little time for being developed,its also difficult to see how they will be connected to the MCU.
I also dont like how Marvel are radically changing the tone,from what started out as realistic and plausible stories like IM1 is now going up to totally fantastical characters and movies.
Its not just because they arent famous that I am saying it isnt a good idea,Antman isnt famous either but I think it can work out well if they make a good movie
No doubt I would like GotG to be success but you cant deny that it is hard work to make such a movie work,and if it turns out to be a bad,it will be a John Carter like failure because the name wont guarante audience like it did with TIH and Daredevil

Let's not walk in circles here. I've addressed all of that before. ''Every big budget movie is risky'', yes, I've been saying that for a while. ''GoTG is riskier'', yes, I stressed that, too, which is why I mentioned that it NEEDS a good marketing campaign. They have to drag the interest of the audience. They need to win them before and after the movie. ''Being set in space'' is not a problem to the audience. If the movie looks interesting, they will be there. ''Them being introduced together in a movie'' is the same as the X-Men. That isn't a problem if the director gives to each of them the proper time and the same level of importance like Whedon did. They are always a team. But, unlike the X-Men, there are less members. If the poster of the movie is any indication, there will be four members already in the group and the human will be the last one to enter. I don't really have any worries about this issue. The director just needs to handle it well. It's his job.
You keep bringing up John Carters, and this is the best example that you are giving me where I can say that the marketing was a piece of crap. They simply handled it poorly. They did it all wrong and the movie wasn't well received. If GoTG is the opposite of that, it'll be a success. Starting with the name? Who the hell is John Carter? Doesn't Guardians of The Galaxy sound much better? Ooooh. I want to see this movie.
Here are some reasons why JC may have failed miserably:
http://io9.com/5892594/some-random-theories-about-why-john-carter-flopped
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/03/disneys-john-carter
http://theweek.com/article/index/225458/why-john-carter-flopped-6-theories
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/13/entertainment/la-et-john-carter-flop-20120313
http://thejohncarterfiles.com/2012/...that-wasnt-a-turkey-how-did-it-happen-part-1/

ALL of those stress the problems with marketing and there are many more, but I'll stop here. You can see there why it is so important, which is what I have been saying all this time.

Please read again,I am saying the 2003 one was a terrible movie

I think you could have been more specific. But nonetheless, what I posted then is only your opinion. I, along with many others may agree or disagree. But it's just our opinion.

I read everything you said
I said WOM was bad/average and you are saying it was better than the 2003 movie
No doubt it was better but not a great improvement either,and the 2003 movie was bad to start with so being better wasnt a tough job
67% isnt too much better than 63%,is it?
When I sawy WOM was bad/average I am comaring it with IM1

It was a hell of a tough job, because the previous movie wasn't successful and they wanted to set this one apart from the other one, which is what they should've done with good marketing, but failed to.
67% to 63% might not seem much looking at it superficially, but less critics reviewed TIH. I'd say a 4% increase in this case is good enough. But you're looking at the small margin. Look at the general audience's reception. They are the ones paying the movie and bringing people with them. I'll repeat what I posted earlier:

Why don't you also take the USERS scores? People who actually watched and rewatched the movie, paid the ticket and brought friends and family? There is an improvement of 34% from Hulk to 75% from TIH.

There is an increase of 41%!
4% might not look like much, but 41% certainly is.

No,its a fair comparison
Both of them were a reboot of a famous character after a terrible film

B&R was destroyed with the critics. It was a total shift with the character and with the tone of the previous movies, specially the first two. The material was disrespected. Hulk wasn't like that. The critics were mixed, but the movie wasn't well received by the audience. Maybe it was too depressing or lacked fun, but, besides the usual changes from the comics, they didn't treat it as a joke, like B&R was. They took it seriously. That's why it wasn't a fair comparison.

I rarely consult metacritics

So? The numbers are still there.

Not much diffence in the budget(162M compared to 150M),and may I meation,we could see where the money was spent in the 2003 movie,the CGI and set pieces were excellent for that time while in TIH,we hardly got a clear view of hulk,and when we did,he looked cartoonish and unrealistic.I am confused to where they spend their money in TIH

Hulk didn't cost 162, but 137. Maybe because most of what was used before is more expensive now? Like the sets where they film it? We hardly see big budget movies costing what Daredeil and the first Hulk costed. Even Spider-Man.

As for the factors you mention,I didnt take into consideration the increasing popularity of the genre from 2003 to 2008,increase in ticket prices,much more markets in the foreign territory,the fact that technology was better in 2008 or that TIH was running on the momentum of IM1's success

TIH had nothing to do with IM. They're different beasts. If anything, Hulk was running on the momentum of its first movie and I already stressed it before. People still had a bitter sweat taste in their mouths. They didn't forget. What Iron Man did was to bring profit to Marvel and, since it was substancial, TIH didn't hinder their plans.

There is 5 years difference between TA's release and TIH so that isnt a apt comparison either,plus TA's been released for what,just 6 months(Compared to 5 years),SM3 in 2007 made 170M+ in DVD sales,now compare this with TA's sales?

It is a valid comparison. You said yourself that the video market had a decline, didn't you? Not only that, but we can buy digital copies now and there is, of course, the piracy, which is way bigger than before. TIH's nearl 60M, when compared to the Avenger's 100+M five years later, with those factors in mind, is a good number.

Thats all correct but they made it clear in the movie aswell,cannot say the same for TIH.
Even if they didnt advertise it properly,had they retold the origin,people would have understood

But the problem wasn't just in the movie, it was before the movie. People weren't convinced that this was a new movie. A new take and not related to the other one.

I meant outer space fantasy

Like Avatar? Star Trek? The audience went to see those outer space fantasy movies.
Even Prometheus was a success.

Because Star Wars is a known name now

So? It's still a ''outer space fantasy'' movie. And Marvel is known name now too. Let's remember that Disney is with Marvel now, so there's that, too.

So its John Carter and Avatar at the extremes
Which is why I say that the risk factor is high

All of this was addressed before. Move on.

I expect they to milk more from a property like X men
FFS Marvel milked out 450M out of Thor on their first try,Fox reached their just once from their 5 movies

Thor also had 3D. And tickets are more expensive now, aren't they?

It was even closer to the source material in Thor an CapAm,yet they werent as good as IM1

I'm sure there are fans of IM, Thor and CA that will tell you otherwise. But more faithful or less faithful isn't the point. The point is that they were faithful and that counts.

 

[Spiderdevil]

So would I. I like Daredevil. The Director's Cut is among my favorite CBM movies. Actually, I believe the movie would have fared better with critics and box office had they released that version on theaters. But that's only a maybe. For a long time I wanted a sequel, but does the general audience? That's another maybe. Does he have as much potential as GoTG? In my opinion...no. Consider me among the general audience because I've read too little of Daredevil to know about his stories AND nothing about GoTG either. So fans of the second can school me on their adventures. But, the case with GoTG is that the movie will go beyond the restraints of Earth. There is a lot more fantasy involved than with a guy like Daredevil, who is much more grounded

That is one of the reason why I dont like the route Marvel is taking
Thor is obviously total fantasy and they used a large element of space fantasy in TA and it was fine
But the reason IM movie is one of my favouraite CB movies,is because it is plausible,realistic.CapAm and TIH were fine aswell as far as realistic and grounded tone was concerned.I was hoping to see them apply a similar tone to other characters and make them a hit,was never a fan of space fantasy and imo its unrelatable but thats just my opinion

About your opinion that a lot of General audience is unaware of DD,lets face it,prior to 2002 most of them werent aware of Spider-man origins aswell.Less that 0.1% of the audience are CB readers or ones who have watched cartoons etc.The reason why SM1 was such a big hit was because his story was very interesting and had a lot of heart,IM1 made Iron Man an interesting character and his story great which is why it was so good,I see the same potential in Daredevil

A street hero. What we use to see is people going with the first. They like fantasy. They like these kind of adventures with strange and weird characters. While I believe a DD movie would be cheaper, I also believe that GoTG will bring a bigger profit to Marvel. I'm almost certain that I saw recently a rumor that Marvel was planning to do a tv series with Daredevil. I think that is more called at the moment. And I will repeat my question: if not now, then when? When are they gonna do Guardians of The Galaxy? Never? It will always be a big risk, but, thanks to The Avengers, they have tons of money to blow. Now is the perfect time to do this movie. Apparently, Thanos will be present, so he most likely will be our link with the MCU. Perhaps there will be a contact between the human and SHIELD by the end of the movie. Who knows? That isn't a big concern.

Its a bold move,lets see if it works out
I've been wrong with TA,so I can be wrong here aswell

Let's not walk in circles here. I've addressed all of that before. ''Every big budget movie is risky'', yes, I've been saying that for a while. ''GoTG is riskier'', yes, I stressed that, too, which is why I mentioned that it NEEDS a good marketing campaign. They have to drag the interest of the audience. They need to win them before and after the movie. ''Being set in space'' is not a problem to the audience. If the movie looks interesting, they will be there. ''Them being introduced together in a movie'' is the same as the X-Men. That isn't a problem if the director gives to each of them the proper time and the same level of importance like Whedon did. They are always a team. But, unlike the X-Men, there are less members. If the poster of the movie is any indication, there will be four members already in the group and the human will be the last one to enter. I don't really have any worries about this issue. The director just needs to handle it well. It's his job.
You keep bringing up John Carters, and this is the best example that you are giving me where I can say that the marketing was a piece of crap. They simply handled it poorly. They did it all wrong and the movie wasn't well received. If GoTG is the opposite of that, it'll be a success. Starting with the name? Who the hell is John Carter? Doesn't Guardians of The Galaxy sound much better? Ooooh. I want to see this movie.
Here are some reasons why JC may have failed miserably:
http://io9.com/5892594/some-random-theories-about-why-john-carter-flopped
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/03/disneys-john-carter
http://theweek.com/article/index/225458/why-john-carter-flopped-6-theories
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar/13/entertainment/la-et-john-carter-flop-20120313
http://thejohncarterfiles.com/2012/...that-wasnt-a-turkey-how-did-it-happen-part-1/

ALL of those stress the problems with marketing and there are many more, but I'll stop here. You can see there why it is so important, which is what I have been saying all this time.

The reason in my opinion why X-men failed to make large amount of money(Compared to other CB movies) is precisely because it has a lot of characters and audience fail to relate to anyone because none of them have adequate development.GotG could suffer from the same
Avengers didnt because they already developed the characters over 5 movies,I am not saying that GotG needs to be like that but I am pointing out that team movies are always a risk due to that
Origins was the only solo-ish movie in the X-men Franchise and its no surprise it made near 400M despite being a terrible movie.Had it been decent,it was 650-700M easy.
Its clear to me,audience look up to and relate to a single hero and they are more interesting than a team
But its all my opinion

It was a hell of a tough job, because the previous movie wasn't successful and they wanted to set this one apart from the other one, which is what they should've done with good marketing, but failed to.
67% to 63% might not seem much looking at it superficially, but less critics reviewed TIH.

Just 9 lesser,hardly makes a difference

I'd say a 4% increase in this case is good enough. But you're looking at the small margin. Look at the general audience's reception. They are the ones paying the movie and bringing people with them. I'll repeat what I posted earlier: There is an increase of 41%!
4% might not look like much, but 41% certainly is.

Fair enough,But I may point out that The Hulk has a lot lesser votes

B&R was destroyed with the critics. It was a total shift with the character and with the tone of the previous movies, specially the first two. The material was disrespected. Hulk wasn't like that. The critics were mixed, but the movie wasn't well received by the audience. Maybe it was too depressing or lacked fun, but, besides the usual changes from the comics, they didn't treat it as a joke, like B&R was. They took it seriously. That's why it wasn't a fair comparison.

Hulk was disrespectful to the source material too,the way they treated the actual origin and father angle was nothing less that a joke
I had no problems with his father experimenting on himself and them passing it genetically to his son,I think that was a great touch,sort of put Bruce Banner as a special being and points out that not any person exposed to Gamma radiation can become the Hulk,But making the Father a hobo/psychotic/homocidal maniac was a Joke

So? The numbers are still there.
Hulk didn't cost 162, but 137. Maybe because most of what was used before is more expensive now? Like the sets where they film it? We hardly see big budget movies costing what Daredeil and the first Hulk costed. Even Spider-Man.

Thats after I adjusted for inflation
Whatever the reason,TIH was a whole lot more successful financially than Hulk to be worth mentioning

TIH had nothing to do with IM. They're different beasts. If anything, Hulk was running on the momentum of its first movie and I already stressed it before. People still had a bitter sweat taste in their mouths. They didn't forget. What Iron Man did was to bring profit to Marvel and, since it was substancial, TIH didn't hinder their plans.

In my opinion its a lot easier to beat a terrible origin movie than an excellent one
TASM is a prime example,standing alone it is Grade A origin movie no doubt,but it immediately gets compared to SM1 and looks bad because of that
A IM or Batman reboot will also have a very tough time

It is a valid comparison. You said yourself that the video market had a decline, didn't you? Not only that, but we can buy digital copies now and there is, of course, the piracy, which is way bigger than before. TIH's nearl 60M, when compared to the Avenger's 100+M five years later, with those factors in mind, is a good number.

And I mentioned SM3's 170+ M plus compared to TA's 100M
Does that make SM3 comparable to TA in terms of quality?

But the problem wasn't just in the movie, it was before the movie. People weren't convinced that this was a new movie. A new take and not related to the other one.

Because they made the movie in that way.
As I said,the continuity was the same,all it did was clear up the father angle in the origin,it was more of a loose sequel with a new cast than a reboot
You blame the marketting for that but I would give 95% of the blame to the guy who wrote the script and the guy who's idea it was to cram the origin in the opening credits

Like Avatar? Star Trek? The audience went to see those outer space fantasy movies.
Even Prometheus was a success.

As I said before,Star Trek is a known name
As for Avatar,how that piece of Sctick made the amount did will always remain a mystery to me,but it had a lot to do with the brilliant and ground breaking 3D it had

Thor also had 3D. And tickets are more expensive now, aren't they?

First class released just a couple of years before Thor

I'm sure there are fans of IM, Thor and CA that will tell you otherwise. But more faithful or less faithful isn't the point. The point is that they were faithful and that counts.

You are sidetracking
You said the reason why IM was so good was because it was respectful to the source material and I said that was not the main reason since Thor and CapAm were even more respectful and yet their movies werent as good

 

[Jick]

Hulk was disrespectful to the source material too,the way they treated the actual origin and father angle was nothing less that a joke
I had no problems with his father experimenting on himself and them passing it genetically to his son,I think that was a great touch,sort of put Bruce Banner as a special being and points out that not any person exposed to Gamma radiation can become the Hulk,But making the Father a hobo/psychotic/homocidal maniac was a Joke

If you look at it like that than every movie would be disrespectful to the source material. But they're not. When you're making a transition of a comic created in the 40's, 50's, 60's 70's and so on, to our period of time, there will be changes. I remember many also criticizing the spider in the first SM not being affected by radiation, but being genetically altered in a lab. This didn't change what was most needed for the character to become Spider-Man.
Bruce's father, in the comics, overloads some machinery, causing an explosion that costs him his job. The doctors thought that the explosion caused him no harm, but Brian becomes convinced it affected him on the genetic level. This is a parallel to what happened in the movie, when he destroys his laboratory to prevent the military using his research, but after experimenting on himself. See the similarities? In both, his father goes to a mental institution and is later released, turning on Bruce. I can go on with comparisons. It is told with different words in the movie, but is still there. Just adapted. Some things are lost in transition but what is essential is still there. This isn't a joke, it's just details that many didn't like. How can you compare it with Batman & Robin, which is an actual joke? A bad joke. It doesn't take itself seriously. It goes completely against what was done in the other movies. Batman has a BAT-CREDIT CARD! Mr. Freeze is ''AAAARGH KNOW WHAT KILLED THA DINOSSAURSSS? THA ICE AGEEE!''. Ivy comes out of nowhere and Bane has a button on his chest! He is just a dumb pawn! The essence of the characters aren't there! They just did this movie as they wanted. It's like they didn't even bother to look at the comics. There's no comparison.

And I mentioned SM3's 170+ M plus compared to TA's 100M
Does that make SM3 comparable to TA in terms of quality?

Of course not. Whoever talked about quality?

Because they made the movie in that way.
As I said,the continuity was the same,all it did was clear up the father angle in the origin,it was more of a loose sequel with a new cast than a reboot
You blame the marketting for that but I would give 95% of the blame to the guy who wrote the script and the guy who's idea it was to cram the origin in the opening credits

It is a combination of all of those factors. To begin with, and I am repeating myself now, Marvel didn't want the previous movie to be part of the canon, but even then, what they did could pass as a sequel. But how would the audience know about it before seeing the movie? That's where lies the problem. They didn't do a good job at putting the people on the seats. Even though this could pass as a sequel, this isn't related to the 2003 movie and THAT is what Marvel should have convinced everyone, who was skeptical about the flick because of the previous experience. By convincing them that this movie wasn't related to the other one, they would get more people to watch the movie. But they did a poor job at that. That was the problem.

As I said before,Star Trek is a known name
As for Avatar,how that piece of Sctick made the amount did will always remain a mystery to me,but it had a lot to do with the brilliant and ground breaking 3D it had

3D and a ''known name'' only go so far. Look at how bad the previous Star Trek movie was at the box office. People went to see this one because it looked good, interesting, attractive, had good reviews, compelling characters and whatever is necessary to bring the audience. That's why people went to see this one and I believe more will be seeing the next one, me included and I couldn't care less about the universe before the 2009 movie.

First class released just a couple of years before Thor

Years? A couple of months, you mean?
Thor didn't have a predecessor that wasn't well received. First Class had Wolverine and X-Men 3 before that. The audience probably wasn't completely ready to give another chance, hence why it also had an average opening weekend.

You are sidetracking
You said the reason why IM was so good was because it was respectful to the source material and I said that was not the main reason since Thor and CapAm were even more respectful and yet their movies werent as good

Who are you to tell me one was more respectful than the other? How is the HYDRA army in place of the nazis and Hitler in Captain America? Where is Dr. Donald Blake in Thor?
This is just your opinion. Like I said before, you will find fans out there who will tell you that CA is the more faithful of the bunch. You'll find some that says the same thing about Thor and others who will tell you the same about IM. This is not the point I am making. What I am saying is that being respectful to the source will lead you into making a good movie:

Yes it was. It was one of the reasons. They didn't spit in the fan's face or the audience's face. They researched the source material and build a good movie around that. They took the project seriously and treated it with respect. That's why it was good.

That's what I said. See the difference? I'm not saying the sole reason why Iron-Man was good is because it was faithful, I said it was one of the reasons. Treating it with respect, care, and taking it seriously was the basis for success. It's not about being more faithful or less faithful. It's about being faithful.

 

[Spiderdevil]

If you look at it like that than every movie would be disrespectful to the source material. But they're not. When you're making a transition of a comic created in the 40's, 50's, 60's 70's and so on, to our period of time, there will be changes. I remember many also criticizing the spider in the first SM not being affected by radiation, but being genetically altered in a lab. This didn't change what was most needed for the character to become Spider-Man.
Bruce's father, in the comics, overloads some machinery, causing an explosion that costs him his job. The doctors thought that the explosion caused him no harm, but Brian becomes convinced it affected him on the genetic level. This is a parallel to what happened in the movie, when he destroys his laboratory to prevent the military using his research, but after experimenting on himself. See the similarities? In both, his father goes to a mental institution and is later released, turning on Bruce. I can go on with comparisons. It is told with different words in the movie, but is still there. Just adapted. Some things are lost in transition but what is essential is still there.

Thats news to me

This isn't a joke, it's just details that many didn't like. How can you compare it with Batman & Robin, which is an actual joke? A bad joke. It doesn't take itself seriously. It goes completely against what was done in the other movies. Batman has a BAT-CREDIT CARD! Mr. Freeze is ''AAAARGH KNOW WHAT KILLED THA DINOSSAURSSS? THA ICE AGEEE!''. Ivy comes out of nowhere and Bane has a button on his chest! He is just a dumb pawn! The essence of the characters aren't there! They just did this movie as they wanted. It's like they didn't even bother to look at the comics. There's no comparison.

I am not comparing Hulk(2003) to B&R
I am comparing the comeback TIH and BB had to do and take the character back into popularity

Of course not. Whoever talked about quality?

Well,I was stating that the movie was terrible
And you put a point that it wasnt,since it earned about half of what TA did on DVD sales
I was just stating how DVD sales arent an adequate barometer,especially when the difference is 3+ years

It is a combination of all of those factors. To begin with, and I am repeating myself now, Marvel didn't want the previous movie to be part of the canon, but even then, what they did could pass as a sequel. But how would the audience know about it before seeing the movie? That's where lies the problem. They didn't do a good job at putting the people on the seats. Even though this could pass as a sequel, this isn't related to the 2003 movie and THAT is what Marvel should have convinced everyone, who was skeptical about the flick because of the previous experience. By convincing them that this movie wasn't related to the other one, they would get more people to watch the movie. But they did a poor job at that. That was the problem.

Imagine this
Guy 1: Just saw TIH,meh movie
Guy 2: Is it a sequel?
Guy 1: I am not quite sure,it seemed continuous
Guy 2: I am not watching it then,the first one was terrible

Second Instance:
Guy 1 : Just saw TIH
Guy 2: Is it a sequel?
Guy 1: Oh no,It retells the origin and is completely different story wise
Guy 2: I will check it out then

That Word of mouth
You seem to blame marketing more but I think the script writers/Directors are way more blameworthy

3D and a ''known name'' only go so far. Look at how bad the previous Star Trek movie was at the box office. People went to see this one because it looked good, interesting, attractive, had good reviews, compelling characters and whatever is necessary to bring the audience. That's why people went to see this one and I believe more will be seeing the next one, me included and I couldn't care less about the universe before the 2009 movie.

People went to see it because it was frecken Star Trek
GotG is an unknown name,while Marvel is indeed a known name and a good marketing can go a long way,it isnt comparable to Star Trek and Star Wars

Years? A couple of months, you mean?
Thor didn't have a predecessor that wasn't well received. First Class had Wolverine and X-Men 3 before that. The audience probably wasn't completely ready to give another chance, hence why it also had an average opening weekend.

Despite that,X men is a well known name,plus First class was a great movie
While Thor is an almost completely unknown name to the GA,and the movie wasnt so great or anything
SM3 was badly recieved,despite that I would always expect TASM to make more than a new name like say Dredd
Its my opinion that Fox hasnt managed to tap the potential a name like 'X-men' caries despite making decent movies,where the mistake lies is hard to say

Who are you to tell me one was more respectful than the other? How is the HYDRA army in place of the nazis and Hitler in Captain America? Where is Dr. Donald Blake in Thor?

Those words have sensitive reaction in today's world,it would have been disastrous had they used them,we would have seen the movie getting banned in several countries
You can count it as my opinion but I think most will agree that IM1 takes the most liberties from the source material and yet it is the best of the lot

Treating it with respect, care, and taking it seriously was the basis for success. It's not about being more faithful or less faithful. It's about being faithful.

You are giving too much credit to being faithful
Nolan's trilogy was not too much faithful to the source material yet most will consider it the best superhero trilogy to date

And mind you there is a difference between being less faithful and taking liberties to being disrespectful('spitting in the face',like you said)

 

[Jick]

After six days? Couldn't you have quoted earlier?

Thats news to me

It's what happens.

I am not comparing Hulk(2003) to B&R
I am comparing the comeback TIH and BB had to do and take the character back into popularity

I'm aware of that. I was stating that B&R was in another level of "terrible". B&R changed the essence of the franchise that it had built. Hulk didn't lose its personality. BB had to do right for the franchise. TIH had to do it differently from the last time.

Well,I was stating that the movie was terrible
And you put a point that it wasnt,since it earned about half of what TA did on DVD sales
I was just stating how DVD sales arent an adequate barometer,especially when the difference is 3+ years

I never linked the sales to quality, but to the WOM. I was stating that TIH still generated interest after it was in teathers.

Imagine this
Guy 1: Just saw TIH,meh movie
Guy 2: Is it a sequel?
Guy 1: I am not quite sure,it seemed continuous
Guy 2: I am not watching it then,the first one was terrible

Second Instance:
Guy 1 : Just saw TIH
Guy 2: Is it a sequel?
Guy 1: Oh no,It retells the origin and is completely different story wise
Guy 2: I will check it out then

Ok. But it's just that, imagination. You're assuming that in your head. People have different reactions. All of the details we talked about lead me to believe that the problem wasn't really with that.
And that little chat would happen after the movie. The problem was that they didn't bring enough people to the theaters before the movie. The people they brought provided good word of mouth, as I already showed some posts ago, but simply there wasn't enough people.

That Word of mouth
You seem to blame marketing more but I think the script writers/Directors are way more blameworthy

What I blame the marketing is for not being able to bring enough people to the opening weekend.

People went to see it because it was frecken Star Trek

More than just the name, they went to see it because it looked interesting and had a good reception.
If the name of the series was so important the previous movies wouldn't have been so bad at the box office. From what I'm seeing, Star Trek isn't nearly as big as Star Wars is.

GotG is an unknown name,while Marvel is indeed a known name and a good marketing can go a long way,it isnt comparable to Star Trek and Star Wars

It has potential to be big, but different at the same time. GoTG isn't just space fantasy, it is a space fantasy with superheroes. It is unknown at the moment, like Star Wars was some day in the past, but, also like SW, it can grow to be much bigger.

Despite that,X men is a well known name,plus First class was a great movie
While Thor is an almost completely unknown name to the GA,and the movie wasnt so great or anything
SM3 was badly recieved,despite that I would always expect TASM to make more than a new name like say Dredd
Its my opinion that Fox hasnt managed to tap the potential a name like 'X-men' caries despite making decent movies,where the mistake lies is hard to say

Maybe you're overestimating X-Men? Honestly, I don't think of the franchise going past the 500M worldwide. I think it is as successful at the box office as it is supposed to be.

Those words have sensitive reaction in today's world,it would have been disastrous had they used them,we would have seen the movie getting banned in several countries
You can count it as my opinion but I think most will agree that IM1 takes the most liberties from the source material and yet it is the best of the lot

Those words were just an example of things being changed when a movie is brought to the big screen. It always is. Liberties will always be taken. They won't literally take details from the past decades to our decade and simply replicate. They'll adequate so it doesn't seem out of place, unrelatable or simply weird. Unless you're doing a picture by picture adaptation of a graphic novel, like Watchmen.

You are giving too much credit to being faithful
Nolan's trilogy was not too much faithful to the source material yet most will consider it the best superhero trilogy to date

How wasn't it faithful? Not only the essence of the characters was there but it even took some entire arcs as inspiration. Here is a nice list of how much his Batman was faithful to the source (from the comicbookmovie.com website):

Spoiler

-A young Bruce Wayne falling down a hole on the grounds of Wayne Manor. Bats begin to swarm towards him and out the hole. Bruce's father, Dr. Thomas Wayne, rescues Bruce (Batman: The Man Who Falls)

-Bruce is haunted by images of bats (Batman: Year One, Batman: The Man Who Falls)

-Bruce leaves Gotham City to explore and obtain skills in martial arts and forensics (Batman: Year One, Batman: The Man Who Falls)

-Bruce's parent's are killed by a random mugger after a night @ the theater (all of the comics mentioned above)

- Bruce trains at a monastery, hidden in a mountainous region and after nearly a year of training his master tells Bruce he has exceptional intelligence and physique, but he has a fatal flaw that will prove his demise (Batman: The Man Who Falls)

- Bruce trains with a man named Henri Ducard, who shows him "the uses of brutality, deception and cunning." But when Ducard kills a fugitive he had been tracking one night, Bruce abandons his training, disgusted (Batman: The Man Who Falls)

-Bruce has to find a symbol and realizes he is going to need special tools and gadgets to help in his war on crime (Batman: Year One, Batman: The Man Who Falls)

-Bruce returns to Gotham to promote justice in his way and, modeling himself after the recurring images of bats, creates his costumed identity: the Batman (Batman: Year One,Batman: The Man Who Falls)

-At his initial appearance he contacts Lt. James Gordon and the two form an uneasy relationship (Batman: Year One)

-Gordon has an illogical trust in Batman, while others view him as a menace and threat (Batman: Year One, Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

-Batman starts out with an array of gadgets and, while they are limited, he is constantly adding to his arsenal (Batman: Year One, Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

-There is a slight focus on Gordon and his family (Batman: Year One)

-Falcone and Carmine are prominent in the film (Batman: Year One, Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

-Gordon is fighting against corruption, in the city as well as in the police department (Batman: Year One, Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

-Gordon is not yet Commissioner, but is an active Lt. (Batman: Year One, Long Halloween)

-Batman gets his @$$ handed to him a few times, both pre-costume and post (Batman: Year One)

-Dect. Flass is a corrupt cop both Batman and Gordon have dealings with (Batman: Year One)

-Scarecrow makes various appearances and is an antagonist in sub-plots (Long Halloween, Dark Victory, KnightFall)

-Batman has a tank-like Batmobile (TDKReturns)

-Batman takes down The Roman and ties him to something (a bed in the comics, a searchlight in Batman Begins) as a message to Gotham's underbelly (Batman: Year One)

-Batman has to save Gordon's family (Batman: Year One)

-While being cornered by the GCPD at Arkham Asylum, Batman uses a high-frequency device to attract his bats from the cave, allowing him to escape (Long Halloween)

-The concluding scene where Batman and Gordon are on top of the police headquarters continues, to an extent, the final page of the graphic novel where newly promoted Jim Gordon uses the Bat-Signal to summon Batman. When he arrives, Gordon announces the coming of a new threat: The Joker (Batman: Year One)

-Batman, Gordon, and Harvey Dent talking on the roof of the Gotham City Police Department (Long Halloween)

-The three enter a pact to end Falcone's reign by bending the rules if necessary, but never breaking them (Long Halloween)

-Gordon's line "he does that" to Dent when Batman disappears from the conversation in the middle of Dent's sentence (Long Halloween)

-Harvey Dent has a witness draws a gun on him (reminiscent of the acid thrown on his face in the comics) and later becomes Two-Face (Long Halloween)

-Batman considers Dent Gotham's true hope, but is depressed when circumstances lead to his fall from grace ( Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

-In the comic Dent and Batman discover mountains of cash and destroy it, while in the film it is the Joker who destroys a pile of the mob's cash (Long Halloween)

-Dent and his lover are threatened by Joker to be blown asunder, with Dent surviving and his lover perishing in the explosions, though his wife survives in the comic (Long Halloween)

-Harvey Dent is a fierce threat to Gotham's underworld and the corruption in the city's political field (Long Halloween)

-As Two-Face, Dent has an obsession with taking down the mob anyway possible

-Joker plays Dent and others to create chaos in Gotham (Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

-Joker, more or less, takes the role of Holiday (Long Halloween)

-Batman is forced to put his war on the mob on hold to stop the Joker's reign of terror in Gotham (Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

-Unlike the book, Sal Maroni is not "directly" responsible for Harvey's facial scars, but Maroni is also considered the culprit as he 'unleashed' the Joker. This is the version Dent chooses to believe, as he is later seen confronting Maroni, holding him responsible for the Joker's actions (Dark Victory)

-Two-Face goes on a mission to take down anyone connected to his current plight and lets fate decide if they are to live or die (Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

-Batman disguises himself as a helmeted bodyguard to ambush Holiday is mirrored in The Dark Knight, with the decoy bodyguard being Gordon, the 'transfer' being Harvey instead of Maroni, and the target being the Joker instead of Holiday (Dark Victory)

-Batman pursuing Two-Face being stands a sort of mock trial (TDKReturns)

-Joker is responsible, more or less, for Dent's presumed death (Dark Victory)

-Batman is now Public Enemy #1 (Batman: Year One, Dark Victory)

-Bruce blames himself for letting Harvey go beyond saving and become a villain (Dark Victory)

-Batman becomes even more of a loner (Dark Victory, TDKReturns)

-Catwoman may have a personal vendetta towards the mob and may even be related to one of the heads (Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

- Bruce Wayne has voluntarily retired from crime fighting (TDKReturns)

-It has been years (close to a decade) since the last sighting of the Bat (TDKReturns)

-The return of an old enemy/new threat prompts a now older Wayne to don the Batman costume once again (TDKReturns)

-Catwoman will play a vital role in the 3rd film, possibly filling both her role and that of Carrey Kelly/Girl-Robin/Catgirl (all comics mentioned above)

-The international, master criminal Bane frees all of the maximum-security inmates of Arkham Asylum, a notorious psychiatric facility in Gotham City. Aware that he would lose in a direct assault against Batman, Bane's plan consists of weakening Batman by forcing him to deal with the deadly villains simultaneously (KnightFall)

-Bane has possible connections with the League of Shadows (In Batman: Legacy Bane is allies with al Ghul) and means to carry out the Demon Head's mission of total destruction of Gotham and subsequently Batman.

-Bane had deduced the secret identity of Batman (Knightfall)

-Bane beats Batman mercilessly before "breaking" Batman, saying, "When Gotham falls, then you have my permission to die"(Knightfall; quote from The Dark Knight Rises trailer)

-To rehabilitate his skills, Bruce asks the famed assassin Lady Shiva (possibly Talia as Ghul in The Dark Knight Rises film) to retrain him. Instead, Shiva pits Bruce against several vengeful expert martial artists. Shiva's caveat is that these attacks will continue indefinitely until Bruce Wayne breaks his vow to never kill. If Talia fills this role her motive could be that when he does kill, he will have no reason NOT to join up with the League of Shadows and fulfill the mission of the Demon's Head, Ra's al Ghul (Knightfall and following story arcs)

-During Batman's absence a new "Batman"/Batmen has appeared to confront the vile Gotham underbelly (KnighFall and following arcs, TDKReturns, and Batman Beyond)

-After the events of KnightFall, Batman begins to rely on others in his war, including the possible future where Terry Dawes becomes the futuristic Batman. In the film, John Blake could be a cross between Robin/Nightwing and Terry's Batman, having the film ending with him as Batman and Wayne his guide. Reminiscent of Wayne's statement that "Gotham will ALWAYS need a Batman."

-As in the comics, it is possible Harvey "Two-Face" Dent will seemingly return (TDKReturns)

For some reason I can't post the link here: http://www.**************.com/fansites/ImNoSuperManHomePage/news/?a=62281#fPgpV3tq6r1DudWK.99
If you want, I can send you through PM. Let's not make this more off-topic than it already is.

And mind you there is a difference between being less faithful and taking liberties to being disrespectful('spitting in the face',like you said)

Of course there is. I never stated the opposite.

 

[Spiderdevil]

I'm aware of that. I was stating that B&R was in another level of "terrible". B&R changed the essence of the franchise that it had built. Hulk didn't lose its personality. BB had to do right for the franchise. TIH had to do it differently from the last time.

So its fair to say BB had to do a much harder job than TIH?
And yet BB suceeded well TIH didnt really do a lot better

I never linked the sales to quality, but to the WOM. I was stating that TIH still generated interest after it was in teathers.

I dont think its a accurate indicator of WOM either
As I said,SM3 had terrible WOM and yet it sold worth 170M+

Ok. But it's just that, imagination. You're assuming that in your head. People have different reactions. All of the details we talked about lead me to believe that the problem wasn't really with that.
And that little chat would happen after the movie. The problem was that they didn't bring enough people to the theaters before the movie. The people they brought provided good word of mouth, as I already showed some posts ago, but simply there wasn't enough people.

I for one think the marketing was fine,at the same level as IM1

What I blame the marketing is for not being able to bring enough people to the opening weekend.

The earnings of IM1 and TIH for the opening 2 days is almost the same,its after that IM1 picked due to great WOM and TIH went down due to bad WOM

More than just the name, they went to see it because it looked interesting and had a good reception.
If the name of the series was so important the previous movies wouldn't have been so bad at the box office. From what I'm seeing, Star Trek isn't nearly as big as Star Wars is.

Definitely
Star Trek isnt as big as Star Wars and GotG is even way down the order,a new name
And even known name like Star Trek and being a good movie made 385M,it really tough for GotG

Maybe you're overestimating X-Men? Honestly, I don't think of the franchise going past the 500M worldwide. I think it is as successful at the box office as it is supposed to be.

I dont think I am overestimating
X men is supposed to be Marvel's biggest prize property after Spider-man

Those words were just an example of things being changed when a movie is brought to the big screen. It always is. Liberties will always be taken. They won't literally take details from the past decades to our decade and simply replicate. They'll adequate so it doesn't seem out of place, unrelatable or simply weird. Unless you're doing a picture by picture adaptation of a graphic novel, like Watchmen.

And I think IM1 took a lot more liberities
They basically changed the whole personality of Tony Stark.Thor and CapAm had the character depicted a lot similar to the original(Im not saying IM did anything wrong)

How wasn't it faithful? Not only the essence of the characters was there but it even took some entire arcs as inspiration. Here is a nice list of how much his Batman was faithful to the source (from the comicbookmovie.com website):

Spoiler

-A young Bruce Wayne falling down a hole on the grounds of Wayne Manor. Bats begin to swarm towards him and out the hole. Bruce's father, Dr. Thomas Wayne, rescues Bruce (Batman: The Man Who Falls)

-Bruce is haunted by images of bats (Batman: Year One, Batman: The Man Who Falls)

-Bruce leaves Gotham City to explore and obtain skills in martial arts and forensics (Batman: Year One, Batman: The Man Who Falls)

-Bruce's parent's are killed by a random mugger after a night @ the theater (all of the comics mentioned above)

- Bruce trains at a monastery, hidden in a mountainous region and after nearly a year of training his master tells Bruce he has exceptional intelligence and physique, but he has a fatal flaw that will prove his demise (Batman: The Man Who Falls)

- Bruce trains with a man named Henri Ducard, who shows him "the uses of brutality, deception and cunning." But when Ducard kills a fugitive he had been tracking one night, Bruce abandons his training, disgusted (Batman: The Man Who Falls)

-Bruce has to find a symbol and realizes he is going to need special tools and gadgets to help in his war on crime (Batman: Year One, Batman: The Man Who Falls)

-Bruce returns to Gotham to promote justice in his way and, modeling himself after the recurring images of bats, creates his costumed identity: the Batman (Batman: Year One,Batman: The Man Who Falls)

-At his initial appearance he contacts Lt. James Gordon and the two form an uneasy relationship (Batman: Year One)

-Gordon has an illogical trust in Batman, while others view him as a menace and threat (Batman: Year One, Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

-Batman starts out with an array of gadgets and, while they are limited, he is constantly adding to his arsenal (Batman: Year One, Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

-There is a slight focus on Gordon and his family (Batman: Year One)

-Falcone and Carmine are prominent in the film (Batman: Year One, Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

-Gordon is fighting against corruption, in the city as well as in the police department (Batman: Year One, Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

-Gordon is not yet Commissioner, but is an active Lt. (Batman: Year One, Long Halloween)

-Batman gets his @$$ handed to him a few times, both pre-costume and post (Batman: Year One)

-Dect. Flass is a corrupt cop both Batman and Gordon have dealings with (Batman: Year One)

-Scarecrow makes various appearances and is an antagonist in sub-plots (Long Halloween, Dark Victory, KnightFall)

-Batman has a tank-like Batmobile (TDKReturns)

-Batman takes down The Roman and ties him to something (a bed in the comics, a searchlight in Batman Begins) as a message to Gotham's underbelly (Batman: Year One)

-Batman has to save Gordon's family (Batman: Year One)

-While being cornered by the GCPD at Arkham Asylum, Batman uses a high-frequency device to attract his bats from the cave, allowing him to escape (Long Halloween)

-The concluding scene where Batman and Gordon are on top of the police headquarters continues, to an extent, the final page of the graphic novel where newly promoted Jim Gordon uses the Bat-Signal to summon Batman. When he arrives, Gordon announces the coming of a new threat: The Joker (Batman: Year One)

-Batman, Gordon, and Harvey Dent talking on the roof of the Gotham City Police Department (Long Halloween)

-The three enter a pact to end Falcone's reign by bending the rules if necessary, but never breaking them (Long Halloween)

-Gordon's line "he does that" to Dent when Batman disappears from the conversation in the middle of Dent's sentence (Long Halloween)

-Harvey Dent has a witness draws a gun on him (reminiscent of the acid thrown on his face in the comics) and later becomes Two-Face (Long Halloween)

-Batman considers Dent Gotham's true hope, but is depressed when circumstances lead to his fall from grace ( Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

-In the comic Dent and Batman discover mountains of cash and destroy it, while in the film it is the Joker who destroys a pile of the mob's cash (Long Halloween)

-Dent and his lover are threatened by Joker to be blown asunder, with Dent surviving and his lover perishing in the explosions, though his wife survives in the comic (Long Halloween)

-Harvey Dent is a fierce threat to Gotham's underworld and the corruption in the city's political field (Long Halloween)

-As Two-Face, Dent has an obsession with taking down the mob anyway possible

-Joker plays Dent and others to create chaos in Gotham (Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

-Joker, more or less, takes the role of Holiday (Long Halloween)

-Batman is forced to put his war on the mob on hold to stop the Joker's reign of terror in Gotham (Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

-Unlike the book, Sal Maroni is not "directly" responsible for Harvey's facial scars, but Maroni is also considered the culprit as he 'unleashed' the Joker. This is the version Dent chooses to believe, as he is later seen confronting Maroni, holding him responsible for the Joker's actions (Dark Victory)

-Two-Face goes on a mission to take down anyone connected to his current plight and lets fate decide if they are to live or die (Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

-Batman disguises himself as a helmeted bodyguard to ambush Holiday is mirrored in The Dark Knight, with the decoy bodyguard being Gordon, the 'transfer' being Harvey instead of Maroni, and the target being the Joker instead of Holiday (Dark Victory)

-Batman pursuing Two-Face being stands a sort of mock trial (TDKReturns)

-Joker is responsible, more or less, for Dent's presumed death (Dark Victory)

-Batman is now Public Enemy #1 (Batman: Year One, Dark Victory)

-Bruce blames himself for letting Harvey go beyond saving and become a villain (Dark Victory)

-Batman becomes even more of a loner (Dark Victory, TDKReturns)

-Catwoman may have a personal vendetta towards the mob and may even be related to one of the heads (Long Halloween, Dark Victory)

- Bruce Wayne has voluntarily retired from crime fighting (TDKReturns)

-It has been years (close to a decade) since the last sighting of the Bat (TDKReturns)

-The return of an old enemy/new threat prompts a now older Wayne to don the Batman costume once again (TDKReturns)

-Catwoman will play a vital role in the 3rd film, possibly filling both her role and that of Carrey Kelly/Girl-Robin/Catgirl (all comics mentioned above)

-The international, master criminal Bane frees all of the maximum-security inmates of Arkham Asylum, a notorious psychiatric facility in Gotham City. Aware that he would lose in a direct assault against Batman, Bane's plan consists of weakening Batman by forcing him to deal with the deadly villains simultaneously (KnightFall)

-Bane has possible connections with the League of Shadows (In Batman: Legacy Bane is allies with al Ghul) and means to carry out the Demon Head's mission of total destruction of Gotham and subsequently Batman.

-Bane had deduced the secret identity of Batman (Knightfall)

-Bane beats Batman mercilessly before "breaking" Batman, saying, "When Gotham falls, then you have my permission to die"(Knightfall; quote from The Dark Knight Rises trailer)

-To rehabilitate his skills, Bruce asks the famed assassin Lady Shiva (possibly Talia as Ghul in The Dark Knight Rises film) to retrain him. Instead, Shiva pits Bruce against several vengeful expert martial artists. Shiva's caveat is that these attacks will continue indefinitely until Bruce Wayne breaks his vow to never kill. If Talia fills this role her motive could be that when he does kill, he will have no reason NOT to join up with the League of Shadows and fulfill the mission of the Demon's Head, Ra's al Ghul (Knightfall and following story arcs)

-During Batman's absence a new "Batman"/Batmen has appeared to confront the vile Gotham underbelly (KnighFall and following arcs, TDKReturns, and Batman Beyond)

-After the events of KnightFall, Batman begins to rely on others in his war, including the possible future where Terry Dawes becomes the futuristic Batman. In the film, John Blake could be a cross between Robin/Nightwing and Terry's Batman, having the film ending with him as Batman and Wayne his guide. Reminiscent of Wayne's statement that "Gotham will ALWAYS need a Batman."

-As in the comics, it is possible Harvey "Two-Face" Dent will seemingly return (TDKReturns)

For some reason I can't post the link here: http://www.**************.com/fansites/ImNoSuperManHomePage/news/?a=62281#fPgpV3tq6r1DudWK.99
If you want, I can send you through PM. Let's not make this more off-topic than it already is.
Of course there is. I never stated the opposite.

Those are inspiration no doubt
He did take a lot of liberties.I could mention them all but there is enough hoo-hah about every thread turning into a Batman thread

 

[Jick]

So its fair to say BB had to do a much harder job than TIH?
And yet BB suceeded well TIH didnt really do a lot better

Maybe. The way I see it, Batman's job was to have a movie done right. TIH's job was to have the movie done differently. I believe TIH had a tougher time because the difference between this movie in the 2003 one wasn't so discrepant and they wanted to set it apart. Hulk wasn't totally deconstructed in his previous movie like Batman was. We could see from trailers that this Batman had nothing to do with the cartoony version of the past decade and the audience was convinced of that after they watched the movie.

I dont think its a accurate indicator of WOM either
As I said,SM3 had terrible WOM and yet it sold worth 170M+

You're comparing Spider-Man to Hulk. Kids are way crazier about Spider-Man than they are for Hulk. Look how many tv shows we have for Spidey and how many we have for Hulk.
Also, Spidey didn't sell ''worth 170M+''. After 9 weeks, it sold nearly 115M and failed to meet industry expectations.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2007/SPID3-DVD.php

I for one think the marketing was fine,at the same level as IM1

''Fine'' is a matter of opinion, but ''at the same level as IM1'' it was not. While focusing on IM, they took too long to promote TIH.

The earnings of IM1 and TIH for the opening 2 days is almost the same,its after that IM1 picked due to great WOM and TIH went down due to bad WOM

Opening weeked is Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The opening weekend for IM was of 98.6M. TIH's was 55.4M. Much smaller. If TIH had that it certainly would have crossed its budget, since the WOM was favorable, in contrast to the 2003 movie.

Definitely
Star Trek isnt as big as Star Wars and GotG is even way down the order,a new name
And even known name like Star Trek and being a good movie made 385M,it really tough for GotG

And Star Trek's previous movie failed miserably at the box office, which also goes to show that the name, although it can help, isn't the most important thing. Being a good movie like the last Star Trek was and having a good marketing campaign, GoTG will have its good numbers.

I dont think I am overestimating
X men is supposed to be Marvel's biggest prize property after Spider-man

Based on what? Thinking that it is supposed to be that big is overestimating it. The box-office isn't showing me that it is as big as you're thinking. Neither is its lack of spotlight in the gaming world or its canceled seasons of promising good tv shows.

And I think IM1 took a lot more liberities
They basically changed the whole personality of Tony Stark.Thor and CapAm had the character depicted a lot similar to the original(Im not saying IM did anything wrong)

You still didn't answer where is Dr. Donald Blake in Thor. That was a huge part of the story in the comics, but it isn't in the movie. Did it stop Thor from feeling like Thor? No. We didn't really have the most wisecracking Spidey from the comics in his first movies either. Aside from a few quips, he was mostly mute. Every movie will take liberties with somethings. Not disrespecting the source material, like transforming Bane in a mute dumb brute, is the first step in the right direction.

Those are inspiration no doubt
He did take a lot of liberties.I could mention them all but there is enough hoo-hah about every thread turning into a Batman thread

It isn't simply inspiration. It's an adaptation. Nolan took plots directly from the comics and adapted those to the stories that he was telling. Comics to movies.
Inspiration is what he had when he read The Tale of Two Cities, for example, and took the experience he gained from the book to mold his ideas on details of the story.

 

[Anno_Domini]

 

[Oscorp]

Another verbal fight? I just see walls of text so that's probably the case.

 

[Jexx]

ooh a spiderdevil wall of text fight that doesn't include anno.

 

[Anno_Domini]

^ Hahahaha, it's funny...because Spiderdevil is usually arguing with me and no one else.

 

[Spiderdevil]

^ Hahahaha, it's funny...because Spiderdevil is usually arguing with me and no one else.

You've yourself too blame

First guy I've seen who hates a movie so much and still hangs around its forums

 

[Spiderdevil]

You're comparing Spider-Man to Hulk. Kids are way crazier about Spider-Man than they are for Hulk. Look how many tv shows we have for Spidey and how many we have for Hulk.
Also, Spidey didn't sell ''worth 170M+''. After 9 weeks, it sold nearly 115M and failed to meet industry expectations.
http://www.the-numbers.com/movies/2007/SPID3-DVD.php

I am also adding on the DVD rentals
And your comparison made no sense
For one TA's DVD's hasnt been out for long,plus DVD sales have diminished a LOT in the past few years with pirating and torrents and all that stuff
Its isnt the right barometer to compare WOM or quality or whatever when the difference in 3+ years

Opening weeked is Friday, Saturday and Sunday. The opening weekend for IM was of 98.6M. TIH's was 55.4M. Much smaller. If TIH had that it certainly would have crossed its budget, since the WOM was favorable, in contrast to the 2003 movie.

There is a difference between an excellent WOM and a 'fine' or just 'good' WOM
TIH's was just 'good' while IM1's was excellent

Based on what? Thinking that it is supposed to be that big is overestimating it. The box-office isn't showing me that it is as big as you're thinking. Neither is its lack of spotlight in the gaming world or its canceled seasons of promising good tv shows.

I am not making wild assumptions
I was a kid in the 2000's and CB related games/cartoons/movies was a huge part of my life

Mavel's biggest property was Spidey followed by X men and Fantastic Four.Characters like Iron Man and Thor werent even properly known(As far as I remember,these characters didnt have any medium apart from the comics)
Its no surprise that Fox bought the rights of X men and F4 and started making movies,though they did make profit,I think they failed to tap its real potential
Maybe because the movies werent exactly kid friendly or they failed to develop the character properly
IMO they also failed to harness the potential of a individual Wolverine movies.A disastrous movie(Origins) movie made 400M(More than 3/4 of the team movies)Had they paid attention to it and made it a better film it could have reached spidey like popularity

You still didn't answer where is Dr. Donald Blake in Thor. That was a huge part of the story in the comics, but it isn't in the movie. Did it stop Thor from feeling like Thor? No. We didn't really have the most wisecracking Spidey from the comics in his first movies either. Aside from a few quips, he was mostly mute. Every movie will take liberties with somethings. Not disrespecting the source material, like transforming Bane in a mute dumb brute, is the first step in the right direction.

Thats just one aspect of the character:
Dr Blake for Thor,Wisecracking Spidey,or Detective Bruce Wayne
While those characteristics werent elaborated enough in the movies,they were touched upon
In case of Tony Stark,the whole personality is completely changed to make him more interesting.Stark is supposed to be a serious dude,not a wise cracking womanizer.There is a difference between removing a trait or just simply touching upon them and completely reversing the personality

I think IM took the most liberties(and did well with them no doubt)