Fox vs. Sony - who is worse?

[NealKenneth]

Your box office analysis could potentially be damning if it was coupled with other factors that showed the movie was indeed a "failure", but we are talking about a film that made over a billion dollars and has, by all measurable standards, largely been well received by critics and audiences alike.

The problem with this perspective is that you're ignoring the measurement I already gave you because you assume it is the only evidence of failure...it's not. It also wasn't that well-received by critics in the context of the MCU. Iron Man 3 is in the bottom half of MCU films when ranked by either Metacritic or RottenTomatos scores. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films#Critical_response

Here's evidence that it failed with MCU fans as well, our community's very own "best of MCU" poll: http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=489053 103 voters with the option to vote for all ten if you wanted to. How many votes did Iron Man 3 get? 9. Less than 10% of voters considered Iron Man 3 among the best films in MCU. That doesn't surprise me! The reaction of Marvel fans seemed to be split at release and has only soured since then as hype died down and Winter Soldier and GotG raised the bar.

So there, I've given you three different ways by which you could surmise that Iron Man 3 was a failure.

1) A large percentage of total gross was earned on opening weekend (evidence of failure with general audiences)
2) In bottom half when MCU films are ranked by Metacritic or RT scores (evidence of failure with critics)
3) Less than 10% of our community considers it among the best of MCU (evidence of failure with MCU fans)

So far, you've only cited total box office gross as the reason why we should consider it a success. I've already conceded that yes, by that metric, Iron Man 3 was a huge success. My argument is that it failed because it was a bad film and wasted opportunity.

It's really a matter of opinion which of these things matters to you. You consider it a success because it made a lot of money. To me, the low quality of the film and the impact that has on the MCU is more important than how much money it made. That is why I consider the film a failure.

Neither of us is "right" because what we consider the definition of success is a matter of opinion.

 

[NealKenneth]

A film doesn't make over a billion dollars if it isn't liked by the audience.

Did you know that Spider-Man 3 is the third highest-grossing Marvel film ever? It made almost a billion dollars at the box office. Here's another example of the two going hand-in-hand: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm They take #102 and #103 on that list, with nearly matching estimates for number of tickets sold.

i don't understand why some are still confused by the ending of IM3. Tony Stark doesn't quit as Iron Man. He doesn't "get over" being Iron Man. He finally realizes that HE is Iron Man... with or without the suit.

This is what the film addresses. Tony is insecure after the events of Avengers (and i'd imagine Steve Rogers scathing words about him being nothing but a man an iron suit). The film then SHOWS Tony as an action hero without his armour for 80% of the movie. It was very deliberate by Black to show Tony getting his ass kicked most of the time. He's portraying him like John McClane in a way. He is only human. He will get his ass kicked. But his ingenuity and sometimes blind luck will get him through.

It's a fantastic character arc in my view. And the plot is structured in a totally different way to any superhero movie ever. It's all tangents that seem irreverent but eventually form a story, instead of deliberate formulas and A to B to C to D structures. And the twist isn't just a cheap trick that made no sense or came out of nowhere. All great twists have things littered throughout the film that you can catch on repeat viewings. IM3 did the same.

I enjoyed Tony doing things without his armor. It showed off the "man" side of "Iron Man" and those scenes were certainly better than the house destruction scene or the end battle. I would say this is one of the ideas in the film that succeeded.

However, I disagree that the film is about Tony realizing he is Iron Man with or without the suit. If he realized that, why would he destroy his suits? That's a pretty dumb thing to do when you're the type of guy who has had his house blown up in the past...and why would the final scene of the film be him throwing his arc reactor into the ocean? It really, really seems like he's trying to put the idea of Iron Man behind him.

Do you have a friend who drinks too much? Suppose one day he told you "Whether or not I'm drinking right now, I am an alcoholic." He then blows up all his bottles of brandy, beer and whiskey and then tosses his last bottle of vodka into the ocean. Would you say that he was embracing the fact that he is an alcoholic or trying to move on from that?

What plot holes? I literally can't think of one moment that can be deemed a plot hole.

How about the fact that Tony can apparently call in a fleet of Iron Men at any time but decides not call in even one when his suit loses power? How about the fact that he was able to find The Mandarin but decides to confront him alone (without armor!) instead of trying getting help? Even Captain America got help when Fury went down, and he doesn't need a suit and it was a situation where he couldn't be sure who to trust.

Tone? The film is consistent in it's inconsistency. It doesn't have a set tone and it doesn't intend to. There is an unpredictability throughout the whole film and that is very refreshing for modern blockbusters. IM3 takes the superhero/blockbuster formula and takes a giant dump on it. Yet the people complaining about these films feeling "samey" are the first ones to complain? Strange.

I disagree that the film was irregular among super-hero films for having inconsistency of tone. It reminded me of Spider-Man 3 in that respect.

 

[Tg11]

Either way Fox and Sony both suck as far as superhero franchises go because they always end up killing a franchise either before it even begins or if the franchise is doing well they always find a way to kill it anyway unlike Disney/Paramount whose movies have been thriving

 

[The Endless]

Did you know that Spider-Man 3 is the third highest-grossing Marvel film ever? It made almost a billion dollars at the box office. Here's another example of the two going hand-in-hand: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm They take #102 and #103 on that list, with nearly matching estimates for number of tickets sold.

Spider-Man 3 might be hated by comic book fans but frankly, who gives a **** about us? We make up abbout 1% of the cinema going public. The cinema going public obviously like Spider-Man 3 to some degree.

I enjoyed Tony doing things without his armor. It showed off the "man" side of "Iron Man" and those scenes were certainly better than the house destruction scene or the end battle. I would say this is one of the ideas in the film that succeeded.

However, I disagree that the film is about Tony realizing he is Iron Man with or without the suit. If he realized that, why would he destroy his suits? That's a pretty dumb thing to do when you're the type of guy who has had his house blown up in the past...and why would the final scene of the film be him throwing his arc reactor into the ocean? It really, really seems like he's trying to put the idea of Iron Man behind him.

I believe he perfected Extremis and used it on himself. Hence him not needing the arc reactor anymore. We won't find out for sure until Age of Ultron, but there is enough hints that he did in fact use Extremis on himself. After all, he was the one who held the key to perfecting and stabilizing it, that is why Killian tried to force him to work with him.

Then there is dialogue at the end

"So as promised i got Pepper sorted out, took some tinkering. But then i thought to myself, why stop there? Of course there are people who say progress is dangerous... but then they don't have to live with a piece of shrapnel in their heart".

To me that's alluding to Stark using Extremis on himself. It goes with the theme of the film too. He is making himself Iron Man. With or without the armour, Extremis makes him superhuman.

How about the fact that Tony can apparently call in a fleet of Iron Men at any time but decides not call in even one when his suit loses power? How about the fact that he was able to find The Mandarin but decides to confront him alone (without armor!) instead of trying getting help? Even Captain America got help when Fury went down, and he doesn't need a suit and it was a situation where he couldn't be sure who to trust.I disagree that the film was irregular among super-hero films for having inconsistency of tone. It reminded me of Spider-Man 3 in that respect.

I wouldn't call them plot holes. I don't think the "house party" program as he calls it is ready straight away. Sure it's convenient that it's ready for the finale. As for why he confronts Mandarin? Because he has to. He has no real choice. Armour or no armour he has to do something.

 

[SuperT]

Yeah and Fox had to erase most of their continuity to be relevant which says a lot.

Fox also has a continuity that goes back all the way to the year 2000 when building a connected movie universe wasn't even heard of or even close to being on the radar. I don't think anyone here is going to blame them for that, no matter how well we like the older X-movies.

 

[starscream22]

Fox also has a continuity that goes back all the way to the year 2000 when building a connected movie universe wasn't even heard of or even close to being on the radar. I don't think anyone here is going to blame them for that, no matter how well we like the older X-movies.

What connected universe? In X-men's case we're only talking about a couple sequels 1 prequel and 2 crappy spin offs. All of which are under the X-men umbrella.

It's not like FOX has to connect 4 different franchises together it's just ONE, so why exactly do you feel the need to make up excuses for them?

 

[Flint Marko]

The problem with this perspective is that you're ignoring the measurement I already gave you because you assume it is the only evidence of failure...it's not. It also wasn't that well-received by critics in the context of the MCU. Iron Man 3 is in the bottom half of MCU films when ranked by either Metacritic or RottenTomatos scores. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Marvel_Cinematic_Universe_films#Critical_response

I love how you have to shift the goal posts from "well-received" to "well-recieved within the context of the MCU". That says a lot right there.
Wanna know the MCU average between metacritic and Rotten tomatoes? 81% and 65, respectively. Want to know Iron Man 3's scores? 78% and 62.
You're really going to look at a 3 point (out of one hundred) difference and render that a failure ("within context of the MCU")?

Here's evidence that it failed with MCU fans as well, our community's very own "best of MCU" poll: http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=489053 103 voters with the option to vote for all ten if you wanted to. How many votes did Iron Man 3 get? 9. Less than 10% of voters considered Iron Man 3 among the best films in MCU. That doesn't surprise me! The reaction of Marvel fans seemed to be split at release and has only soured since then as hype died down and Winter Soldier and GotG raised the bar.

So let me get this straight: Iron man 3 comes out, grosses over a billion dollars and is warmly received by critics and audiences alike (try as you may, you cannot dispute that), but because a poll on a superhero website frequented only by the most extreme of fans didn't mark it as one of the best in the franchise, it can be deemed a failure? That is laughable.

So there, I've given you three different ways by which you could surmise that Iron Man 3 was a failure.

Not a single one of these is even remotely convincing:

1) A large percentage of total gross was earned on opening weekend (evidence of failure with general audiences)

It clearly did not fail with the general audience because it's the highest grossing movie of 2013. That means more people saw it than almost any other movie. You literally cannot argue this. I don't like the Transformers movies but it's tough to argue that those are "failing" with the general audience.

2) In bottom half when MCU films are ranked by Metacritic or RT scores (evidence of failure with critics)

It may be in the "bottom half" of the MCU films but it still received a warm response from critics because the MCU is largely well reviewed. So once again, no, terrible argument.

3) Less than 10% of our community considers it among the best of MCU (evidence of failure with MCU fans)

You are vastly overestimating the value of that poll. A poll with ten different options of which movie is "the best", and yet IM3 received less than 10%? Stop the presses! Despite all evidence to the contrary, SHH has now deemed IM3 a failure!

So far, you've only cited total box office gross as the reason why we should consider it a success. I've already conceded that yes, by that metric, Iron Man 3 was a huge success. My argument is that it failed because it was a bad film and wasted opportunity.

No, I've cited not only box office grosses but critical and audience response. You've done nothing but point out minor technicalities at best and a poll on a superhero website that didn't mark it as "one of the best".
You can call it a bad film and a wasted opportunity, but that is what we call an opinion my friend. You can't project that onto other people just because you did not like the movie.

It's really a matter of opinion which of these things matters to you. You consider it a success because it made a lot of money. To me, the low quality of the film and the impact that has on the MCU is more important than how much money it made. That is why I consider the film a failure.

Neither of us is "right" because what we consider the definition of success is a matter of opinion.

No, I'm definitely "right" because all measurable standards point to this film being one of the most successful Marvel has ever made. The mandarin twist divided hardcore fans, but a crappy movie that is a "failure" does not please the critics and then go on to make over a billion dollars. We don't live in a world where that's possible, yet you are trying to argue that we do.
Once again, understand there is a difference between your opinion and facts. A low quality movie does not perform like Iron Man 3 did, there's almost no arguing that.

I wouldn't call them plot holes. I don't think the "house party" program as he calls it is ready straight away. Sure it's convenient that it's ready for the finale. As for why he confronts Mandarin? Because he has to. He has no real choice. Armour or no armour he has to do something.

Before Tony deploys the house party protocol, Jarvis first alerts him that the cranes have cleared the rubble from the destruction. This clearly shows it was not available for him up until that point. That could be called "convenient" but hundreds of other movies do things similar to, or far worse, than that.

Fox also has a continuity that goes back all the way to the year 2000 when building a connected movie universe wasn't even heard of or even close to being on the radar. I don't think anyone here is going to blame them for that, no matter how well we like the older X-movies.

They only make X-men movies, that's just one continuity to keep track off. Clearly they weren't very forward-thinking at all, they took it movie by movie. I'm not going to really condemn them all that much for it but it does make them look a little worse now that we have Marvel keeping track of such an ambitious universe continuity.

 

[DA_Champion]

Spider-Man 3 might be hated by comic book fans but frankly, who gives a **** about us? We make up abbout 1% of the cinema going public. The cinema going public obviously like Spider-Man 3 to some degree.



I believe he perfected Extremis and used it on himself. Hence him not needing the arc reactor anymore. We won't find out for sure until Age of Ultron, but there is enough hints that he did in fact use Extremis on himself. After all, he was the one who held the key to perfecting and stabilizing it, that is why Killian tried to force him to work with him.

Then there is dialogue at the end

"So as promised i got Pepper sorted out, took some tinkering. But then i thought to myself, why stop there? Of course there are people who say progress is dangerous... but then they don't have to live with a piece of shrapnel in their heart".

To me that's alluding to Stark using Extremis on himself. It goes with the theme of the film too. He is making himself Iron Man. With or without the armour, Extremis makes him superhuman.



I wouldn't call them plot holes. I don't think the "house party" program as he calls it is ready straight away. Sure it's convenient that it's ready for the finale. As for why he confronts Mandarin? Because he has to. He has no real choice. Armour or no armour he has to do something.

If Tony is really able to perfect extremis and use it on himself that quickly then that's a plot hole, though most of the public won't notice.

I work in science, astronomy, did some engineering before, half my friends are in various physical sciences, math, etc. Real progress takes time and effort. Somebody who spends most of his days fighting crime and on the other run and has very little time for research won't be able to simply perfect extremis willy nilly. Within the movie Maya Hansen is portrayed as extremely intelligent, and she spent 14+ years developing and perfecting extremis to the point where it seems most of it was worked out. For Tony Stark to come in, spend 2 or 3 or 30 hours on it, and not only catch up on everything Hansen has done but fix it all and improve her formula is extremely problematic. Keep in mind we've never seen Tony Stark work on biology/physiology before, only engineering issues.

However, this is not a big issue because most of the public has no idea how creative development happens. They think invention is a process whereby a true genius comes in and spends five minutes thinking about something, has a eureka moment, and then fixes everything easily. That is what Marvel does with Iron Man, and that is what JJ Abrams, Roberto Orci, and Khan Noonien Singh in Star Trek into Darknesss... Khan came out of 300 years frozen isolation, and we learn that in a single year he caught up on all those developments in math, science, computers, he built new starships that can fire phasers while being at warp, that don't need a large crew, that have stronger shields and faster warp, he built the ability to personally warp across the galaxy in seconds, and he founded and built-up a terrorist movement that can strike starfleet headquarters at any time and get away with it. In other words, Khan Noonien Singh = Tony Stark, but it's not a real problem because the viewing public has no awareness as to how creation and invention happens, so they don't see the contradiction.

Another character like this was Robert Parker in Amazing Spider Man 2. He apparently designed the spider man virus, the tech for all of spider man's villains, an underground subway station, and in his spare time he learned martial arts, which is in why in the opening scenes in the movie he takes down an assassin twice his size and 20 years younger than him. Robert Parker = Tony Stark.

 

[DA_Champion]

The X-Men don't need an integrated universe with other franchises, they are a very large universe all on their own. It's a far larger universe than could ever be done justice to with a film franchise, with that said Fox isn't really trying.

There is a way forward for them however: They can fire Bryan Singer, and bring back Matthew Vaughn. Vaughn, imo, has the creative aptitude to compete with the likes of WB/DC and Marvel... Singer does not. He used to compare favourably back when movies like Elektra, Blade 3, etc were being made, but the creative level has since risen. In an era of Guardians of the Galaxy, Man of Steel, Dredd, and The Winter Soldier, Singer is a director who simply won't be able to keep up.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Did anyone become more excited for Avengers 2 because of Iron Man 3?

I did! I absolutely want to see where the character goes after the events of IM3.

Did anyone care when Iron Man 4 wasn't announced for Phase 3?

Nobody cared because he is in Civil War instead, along with two Infinity War films. There will be plenty of Iron Man in Phase 3.

Did Iron Man 3 complete the trilogy in such a way that fans will want to watch all three together?

No, but that's because IM3 wasn't really the third Iron Man movie, it was the fourth. It doesn't make much sense unless you watch Avengers first.

It isn't just the box office that made Iron Man 3 a success, that was just part of it. It also was mostly well-received (78% at Rotten Tomatoes). Just because it wasn't as good as IM1, Avengers, TWS, and GotG doesn't make it a failure. It is still highly regarded. Even IM2 is, although less so. IM3 was a definite step up from IM2.

 

[kedrell]

Marvel is doing the right thing putting Iron Man on the shelf for a while. He is their most popular character, he's had three good movies, but now for an extended while he's only going to be a supporting character in other movies, same With Batman for WB/DC.

Will Fox get the same idea about putting Wolverine on the shelf for a while and tell movies about Rogue, Dazzler, and Cyclops?

No, they won't.

That's because they don't have the level of faith in the properties that Marvel does. They have faith in Wolverine and with him, the X-Men since they've had success there before. But at this point that's not really even faith anymore. They KNOW these IP's work. They also have a slight amount of faith in the FF franchise because they had a small bit of success there once, box office-wise. But that's pretty much it.

 

[DA_Champion]

It clearly did not fail with the general audience because it's the highest grossing movie of 2013. That means more people saw it than almost any other movie. You literally cannot argue this.

Nope.

Frozen is the highest-grossing 2013 movie worldwide, whereas Hunger Games: Catching Fire is the highest-grossing 2013 movie in the USA. Iron Man 3 is second place in both categories. However, second place is still extremely good and more than sufficient to support your point.

A far less impressive result is that Iron Man 3 came in 28th place for domestic DVD+BluRay sales in 2013 with 2.6 million units sold, behind both Man of Steel (8th place, 4.6 million units sold) and Wolverine (15th place, 3.4 million units sold):
http://www.the-numbers.com/home-market/packaged-media-sales/2013

For 2014, Man of Steel is in 46th place with 1 million units sold, Wolverine in 48th place with 1 million units sold, and Iron Man 3 out of the top-100. Thor: The Dark World was in 5th place with 3.5 million units sold, Winter Soldier in 13th place with 2.7 million units sold. The box office comparable to Iron Man 3, Frozen and Hunger Games: Catching Fire, came in 1st and 2nd place for 2014 domestic disk sales, the year their disks were released in, with 16.8 million and 6.1 million disks sold respectively. Alternatively, The Avengers was 2nd in 2012 with 9.5 million disks sold, and The Dark Knight Rises was 4th with 7.7 million units sold.

Having thought about it too much here and previously, I think DVD+BluRay sales are the only genuinely useful indicator of a lack of popular enthusiasm for Iron Man 3. The people who saw it in theatres are for whatever reason not interested in seeing it again.

 

[Shinizokonai]

^I would say that Days of Future Past was fine competition for the other Marvel-based movies of 2014. Objectively speaking, it had an excellent balance between the emotional arcs of the characters on one hand, and the action scenes and special effects on the other. It juggled a lot of characters, both in main roles as well as supporting roles, yet somehow didn't feel crowded like the Ratner-directed X3.

Of course, I do think one of the movie's flaws was that it got rid of Havok (except for a bit part) and Banshee. It would have been boss had they been rounded up by Xavier, Wolvie, and Beast, and could have joined the battle against the Sentinels, thereby somewhat reuniting the team from First Class.

But DoFP put Singer back on the map in terms of superhero movie directors.

 

[kedrell]

No, but that's because IM3 wasn't really the third Iron Man movie, it was the fourth. It doesn't make much sense unless you watch Avengers first.

Plus I don't think Marvel are doing trilogies in the old way, if they are doing them at all...which I seriously doubt. They look at Iron Man, Captain America, Thor, Hulk, Avengers, Dr. Strange, GotG, Ant-Man, Black Panther, Captain Marvel, Inhumans, etc. each as long running film series ala' James Bond. You wouldn't call the first three Bond movies the 007 Trilogy, would you? It's the same way. They've referenced the Bond franchise many times in regards to it being a model for the serialized Marvel characters whenever they've done press conferences about casting and recasting.

 

[Flint Marko]

Nope.

Frozen is the highest-grossing 2013 movie worldwide, whereas Hunger Games: Catching Fire is the highest-grossing 2013 movie in the USA. Iron Man 3 is second place in both categories. However, second place is still extremely good and more than sufficient to support your point.

Thanks for the correction, I had not noticed my mistake. But as you said, my point still stands.

A far less impressive result is that Iron Man 3 came in 28th place for domestic DVD+BluRay sales in 2013 with 2.6 million units sold, behind both Man of Steel (8th place, 4.6 million units sold) and Wolverine (15th place, 3.4 million units sold):
http://www.the-numbers.com/home-market/packaged-media-sales/2013

For 2014, Man of Steel is in 46th place with 1 million units sold, Wolverine in 48th place with 1 million units sold, and Iron Man 3 out of the top-100. Thor: The Dark World was in 5th place with 3.5 million units sold, Winter Soldier in 13th place with 2.7 million units sold. The box office comparable to Iron Man 3, Frozen and Hunger Games: Catching Fire, came in 1st and 2nd place for 2014 domestic disk sales, the year their disks were released in, with 16.8 million and 6.1 million disks sold respectively. Alternatively, The Avengers was 2nd in 2012 with 9.5 million disks sold, and The Dark Knight Rises was 4th with 7.7 million units sold.

Having thought about it too much here and previously, I think DVD+BluRay sales are the only genuinely useful indicator of a lack of popular enthusiasm for Iron Man 3. The people who saw it in theatres are for whatever reason not interested in seeing it again.

This is interesting, and something I don't think I had heard of before until now. However I don't think it really does anything to prove that IM3 "failed" as the poster I was responding to originally claimed. As you said, this is the only useful indicator of there being a somewhat tepid response to the movie, but it isn't enough to condemn it as a whole.
It's also worth mentioning that IM3 is in the top-selling iTunes movie of all time list.

 

[NealKenneth]

No, I'm definitely "right" because all measurable standards point to this film being one of the most successful Marvel has ever made. The mandarin twist divided hardcore fans, but a crappy movie that is a "failure" does not please the critics and then go on to make over a billion dollars. We don't live in a world where that's possible, yet you are trying to argue that we do.
Once again, understand there is a difference between your opinion and facts. A low quality movie does not perform like Iron Man 3 did, there's almost no arguing that.

It is possible for a movie to please critics (by your own standards of success) and make a billion dollars, yet still be a failure. Let's keep comparing Iron Man 3 to a well-known failure (even by it's director): Spider-Man 3.

Spider-Man 3 got a score of 59/100 on Metacritic based on 40 reviews.
Iron Man 3 got a score of 62/100 on Metacritic based on 44 reviews, a 3 point victory over Spider-Man 3 but it would be silly "to look at a 3 point (out of one hundred) difference", right?

I've already pointed out to you that Spider-Man 3 and Iron Man 3 had comparable opening weekend as percentages of total gross but, in case you missed it, I have also now proven that they had near-matching total ticket sales. But, again, it would just silly to mention that Iron Man 3 had a more successful percentage than Spider-Man 3 because the difference was within 3 points. Therefore, in both critical review and audience attendance, Spider-Man 3 and Iron Man 3 had the same level of success, by your own definition. I have proven this using only facts, no opinions.

To continue, here is evidence of both director Shane Black and lead actor Robert Downey Jr. being excited to do further Iron Man films in late March 2013, a little more than a month before the release of Iron Man 3. This indicates that a fourth and fifth film were possible. So why weren't they announced as part of Phase 3? I'll tell you why. Because Iron Man 3 was a failure!

If Iron Man 3 was a success, Marvel would have signed RDJ on for Iron Man 4 and Iron Man 5. Instead, they are using his contract to put him in Avengers 2 and Civil War. They will give it five years or so and reboot the brand with a different actor, just like Sony did with The Amazing Spider-Man. Why? Because both Spider-Man 3 and Iron Man 3 were failures.

Again, I have proved this using only facts. The only way you can claim IM3 was a success is by claiming Spider-Man 3 was also a success which, again, even the director denies, and then you'll need to explain why Marvel decided to not to do Iron Man 4 and 5 even though IM3 made a billion dollars, the director was interested in further films, and the lead actor might be too old to do the part by 2020. The debate continues, and the ball is in your court.

 

[DA_Champion]

Actually, since I have the information at my fingertips.

2014 DVD+BluRay sales for CBMs and CBM-related films
Rank --- Name --- Units Sold in millions
3, The Lego Movie, 4.55
5, Thor: The Dark World, 3.49
6, Transformers: Age of Extinction, 3.42
13, Captain America: The Winter Soldier, 2.66
14, X-Men: Days of Future Past, 2.63
16, The Amazing Spider Man 2, 2.61
22, 300: Rise of an Empire, 1.71
43, The Edge of Tomorrow, 1.07
46, Man of Steel, 1.02
48, The Wolverine, 1.00
62, Robocop, 0.85
82, Red 2, 0.66

2013 DVD+BluRay sales for CBMs and CBM-related films
Rank --- Name --- Units Sold in millions
8, Man of Steel, 4.61
15, The Wolverine, 3.40
28, Iron Man 3, 2.64
32, GI Joe: Retaliation, 2.09
34, Red 2, 2.05
35, The Dark Knight Rises, 2.04
44, Oblivion, 1.53
76, Dredd, 0.98
78, The Avengers, 0.96

2012 DVD+BluRay sales for CBMs and CBM-related films
Rank --- Name --- Units Sold in millions
2, The Avengers, 9.46
4, The Dark Knight Rises, 7.66
11, The Amazing Spider Man, 3.11
20, Men in Black 3, 2.25
23, Prometheus, 2.17
38, The Dark Knight, 1.63
48, Batman Begins, 1.44
50, The Dark Knight Trilogy, 1.41
62, Captain America 1, 1.17
68, Thor, 1.13
88, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, 0.87

2011 DVD+BluRay sales for CBMs and CBM-related films
Rank --- Name --- Units Sold in millions
5, Transformers: Dark of the Moon, 4.77
13, Red, 3.36
17, Captain America: The First Avenger, 2.81
18, X-Men: First Class, 2.67
25, Thor, 2.27
32, Green Lantern, 2.13
51, The Green Hornet, 1.45
80, The Dark Knight, 1.03
95, Sucker Punch, 0.90

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Spider-Man 3 was a success too.

 

[Flint Marko]

It is possible for a movie to please critics (by your own standards of success) and make a billion dollars, yet still be a failure. Let's keep comparing Iron Man 3 to a well-known failure (even by it's director): Spider-Man 3.

Spider-Man 3 got a score of 59/100 on Metacritic based on 40 reviews.
Iron Man 3 got a score of 62/100 on Metacritic based on 44 reviews, a 3 point victory over Spider-Man 3 but it would be silly "to look at a 3 point (out of one hundred) difference", right?

I've already pointed out to you that Spider-Man 3 and Iron Man 3 had comparable opening weekend as percentages of total gross but, in case you missed it, I have also now proven that they had near-matching total ticket sales. But, again, it would just silly to mention that Iron Man 3 had a more successful percentage than Spider-Man 3 because the difference was within 3 points. Therefore, in both critical review and audience attendance, Spider-Man 3 and Iron Man 3 had the same level of success, by your own definition. I have proven this using only facts, no opinions.

Wait... Spider-man 3 was a failure? Grossing almost a billion dollars, garnering critical approval, and still being the highest-grossing installment in that franchise even after 8 years.... I wasn't aware that film had failed!
We as fans all clearly disliked the movie, but it isn't a failure. The director called it "awful", because as a movie? Yeah, it was clearly not his best effort and studio interference clearly had a huge hand in disrupting his vision. It was not a movie he wanted to make, so him being less than pleased with the final product is more than understandable. But once again, a failure? Nope. Try again.
Also it's worth mentioning Spider-man 3 was well on it's way to getting a sequel because, as I previously noted, it was a successful movie (and note that it made less money than Iron Man 3). All the stars were signed, scripts were written, other people were cast, the ball was rolling, but Raimi dropped out because he once again realized it was not a movie he wanted to make, and everyone else followed suit. If it was a failure, why was it immediately greenlit for a sequel?

To continue, here is evidence of both director Shane Black and lead actor Robert Downey Jr. being excited to do further Iron Man films in late March 2013, a little more than a month before the release of Iron Man 3. This indicates that a fourth and fifth film were possible. So why weren't they announced as part of Phase 3? I'll tell you why. Because Iron Man 3 was a failure!
If Iron Man 3 was a success, Marvel would have signed RDJ on for Iron Man 4 and Iron Man 5. Instead, they are using his contract to put him in Avengers 2 and Civil War. They will give it five years or so and reboot the brand with a different actor, just like Sony did with The Amazing Spider-Man. Why? Because both Spider-Man 3 and Iron Man 3 were failures.

Again, I have proved this using only facts. The only way you can claim IM3 was a success is by claiming Spider-Man 3 was also a success which, again, even the director denies, and then you'll need to explain why Marvel decided to not to do Iron Man 4 and 5 even though IM3 made a billion dollars, the director was interested in further films, and the lead actor might be too old to do the part by 2020. The debate continues, and the ball is in your court.

Dude, do I really have to explain to you why Iron Man 4 is not happening?
Marvel has made it clear as day that their plan for phase 3 is to build up to the Infinity Wars while at the same time exploiting lesser-known characters and adapting more properties. It's clear as day if you'd actually look.
Captain America and Thor are getting sequels. Know why? Because they need to get a third movie. And I guarantee you they will be successful, and they will be the end of those character's run for the time being. You won't see a Cap 4 or a Thor 4 before a fourth Iron Man. Three is the number they are capping off on.
The fact that Iron man is going to continue making appearances, sometimes in other characters movies, shows that there is still a huge market for Iron Man and that Marvel knows audiences want to see the character. The third installment did nothing but prove that.
At this point you are being disingenuous, we know now an Iron man 4 was never in the cards. Just because the director and star are game for it (proving that they believed in the product) does not mean the studio ever had it in their plans and from what we can tell right now, it never was to begin with.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Marvel wouldn't be paying RDJ the GNP of some African nations to come back for Civil War if Iron Man 3 was a failure.

 

[DA_Champion]

Marvel wouldn't be paying RDJ the GNP of some African nations to come back for Civil War if Iron Man 3 was a failure.

Has it been released how much he's getting paid?

 

[DA_Champion]

Dude, do I really have to explain to you why Iron Man 4 is not happening?
Marvel has made it clear as day that their plan for phase 3 is to build up to the Infinity Wars while at the same time exploiting lesser-known characters and adapting more properties.

Though it seems like the obvious thing to be doing, that is building up auxiliary properties in order to expand and safeguard the vitality and longevity of the intellectual property empire, for the most part other studios are not doing this. When Marvel Studios started they only had B-list and C-list characters and Z-list characters, only Captain America was A-list. As they move forward they are building up an array of A-list characters, from Thor to StarLord and eventually to Black Panther and Captain Marvel.

Sony is making more Spider Man movies. They have no interest in obvious properties like Miles Morales or Black Cat. Sinister Six is in Development Hell.

Fox is doing same old same old. More X-Men and more Wolverine movies, and finally with people begging they might be making deadpool.

WB/DC is at least making Suicide Squad and Wonder Woman. They'll get more points for Suicide Squad if they don't overly rely on the Joker. I don't know if they are I'm not paying attention.

 

[Victarion]

Sony's worse. The last few X-Men movies have gotten pretty good reception compared to Sony's Spider-Man.

 

[starscream22]

Spider-Man 3 might be hated by comic book fans but frankly, who gives a **** about us? We make up abbout 1% of the cinema going public. The cinema going public obviously like Spider-Man 3 to some degree.

Where do people come up with these random numbers???

And here it is even the DIRECTOR of SM3 just came out and said the film was awful... This has to be the only group where people count themselves short even when they're right!

If you're going to sit here and let that masses dictate what's relevant then why even speak at all? Just because we all ran out to see it doesn't mean we all liked and the fact is we're all usually on the same page more so than not so it's crazy how quick someone is to distinguish us from the rest of civilization. Outlets like Comic Con are proof that comics are more mainstream and relevant than some give credit.

It starts with us!

 

[starscream22]

Sony's worse. The last few X-Men movies have gotten pretty good reception

Which they're apparently willing to let crumble again in order to keep the rights to F4 by releasing this crappy reboot.