How would things be if Iron Man 3 and Thor: The Dark World swapped release dates?

[smallville fan]

What the title says.

I'm just wondering this as let's face it, a part of Iron Man 3's success was due in part to the momentum of The Avengers, one of the biggest comic book movies of all time and that audiences(both general and others) were, at that point still very much on an Avengers' high. How would things be if it was Thor: TDW getting that momentum instead of Iron Man 3?

Let's assume all the necessary production(e.g. reshoots etc) happened as normal except for both movies it happened later/earlier.

How would things be for both movies?

Would Iron Man 3 still get the 1.2 Billion or not?

IMO, I think the critical reception might be the same except Thor would be the one making it close to a Billion or slightly over.

Thoughts?

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

How would things be for both movies?

Would Iron Man 3 still get the 1.2 Billion or not?

IMO, I think the critical reception might be the same except Thor would be the one making it close to a Billion or slightly over.

I doubt it. I definitely think TDW would have made more in IM3's spot, but not a billion, more like 700 m. I think IM3 would have hit a billion (or very close to it) in November, but not $1.2. Iron Man has been the bigger of the 2 characters (and bigger crowd pleaser) from the start, that wouldn't change because of a swap in release dates.

 

[smallville fan]

I doubt it. I definitely think TDW would have made more in IM3's spot, but not a billion, more like 700 m. I think IM3 would have hit a billion, but not $1.2. Iron Man has been the bigger of the 2 characters (and crowd pleasers) from the start, that wouldn't change because of a swap in release dates.

but what about:

You'd think he'd be a decent box office draw even if Thor isn't as popular as Iron Man and since the Iron was very hot back then more money would've been made no?

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

but what about:

You'd think he'd be a decent box office draw even if Thor isn't as popular as Iron Man and since the Iron was very hot back then more money would've been made no?

True, but again the time of year combined with the fact that Stark/Downey gets much get more screen time in his film then Loki in support and it's not really the same. He can only help so much.

I've always been a bigger fan of Thor and his world more then Iron Man, so I certainly expected the films to be closer in terms of fan appeal.

 

[metaphysician]

The grosses would shift, but my guess is that it'd largely be a wash. Whatever Thor 2 gained from a stronger release position, Iron Man 3 would lose.

 

[KangConquers]

Thor would've maybe gained $100 M, and Iron Man would've barely broken $1 B.

 

[cph9fa]

On another note, Agents of SHIELD wouldn't have been able to use Extremis as their main plot arc.

 

[Steamteck]

My stress time would have been far longer as I wondered if marvel had lost it completely after Iron man 3 as the next Marvel movie isn't due until next year.

 

[smallville fan]

Thor would've maybe gained $100 M, and Iron Man would've barely broken $1 B.

Maybe, but aren't we forgetting that Iron Man 3 was released right when the summer season started as opposed to Thor? So more people would've went to see it as opposed to the other released much much later out of the summer holiday season. I feel it would've made somewhat of a bigger difference?

 

[cherokeesam]

Maybe, but aren't we forgetting that Iron Man 3 was released right when the summer season started as opposed to Thor? So more people would've went to see it as opposed to the other released much much later out of the summer holiday season. I feel it would've made somewhat of a bigger difference?

I don't think so. I think Thor, albeit Marvel Studios' third biggest franchise behind Avengers and Iron Man solo, is still a niche. It appeals to the fantasy/Tolkien crowd, but that audience isn't nearly as big as Iron Man's, regardless of what release date you're looking at.

Along that train of thought, I think Marvel is missing out by not capitalizing on that audience, either. Rather than going full-on JMS/Coipel Thor, they're still trying to "ground" him in the superhero and sci-fi genres, rather than blowing it up to actual swords-n-sorcery (or, more appropriately, hammers-n-hexery) high fantasy. The box office would be much bigger had Taylor been given free rein to GOT this movie, even if he had to stick within the confines of PG-13.

 

[bubbadoom]

My stress time would have been far longer as I wondered if marvel had lost it completely after Iron man 3 as the next Marvel movie isn't due until next year.

Actually, your stress time would have been diminished by one month as ThorW opened 6 months after Iron Man 3 and Cap:WS is opening only 5 months after Thor...

I do agree with most that Thor would have done a little better in May and I am sure Iron Man would have suffered having Hunger Games and Hobbit so close on it's heals - but we'll never know for sure...

 

[Victarion]

I don't think so. I think Thor, albeit Marvel Studios' third biggest franchise behind Avengers and Iron Man solo, is still a niche. It appeals to the fantasy/Tolkien crowd, but that audience isn't nearly as big as Iron Man's, regardless of what release date you're looking at.

Along that train of thought, I think Marvel is missing out by not capitalizing on that audience, either. Rather than going full-on JMS/Coipel Thor, they're still trying to "ground" him in the superhero and sci-fi genres, rather than blowing it up to actual swords-n-sorcery (or, more appropriately, hammers-n-hexery) high fantasy. The box office would be much bigger had Taylor been given free rein to GOT this movie, even if he had to stick within the confines of PG-13.

This was what drew me to into wanting to see TDW. Characters that are as flawed as those in GOT. After seeing the trailers and reading reviews, I'm waiting to see it on dvd.

Marvel did give Black free reign with IM3. Perhaps the response to Black's decisions affected what Taylor could do with TDW?

 

[bubbadoom]

Why would Marvel give "free reign" to any director with these projects? They all have to fit within a certain frame work, and there is no guarantee that these directors would adhere to that.

 

[smallville fan]

I don't think so. I think Thor, albeit Marvel Studios' third biggest franchise behind Avengers and Iron Man solo, is still a niche. It appeals to the fantasy/Tolkien crowd, but that audience isn't nearly as big as Iron Man's, regardless of what release date you're looking at.

As I was saying earlier, Avengers would've still been fresh on everybody's minds and all audiences were still very much on an Avengers high and fervently drinking The Marvel Kool-Aid so surely you'd think after having a movie which returned over 2 Billion, that same audience(at least most of it) which gave that 2 Billion would still stick around for the next follow-up movie and would be excited to see what comes next? Surely not everyone came for Iron Man...

Why would Marvel give "free reign" to any director with these projects?

I remember reading Robert Downey Jr. vouched for Shane Black seeing as they're buddies from Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

 

[cherokeesam]

As I was saying earlier, Avengers would've still been fresh on everybody's minds and all audiences were still very much on an Avengers high and fervently drinking The Marvel Kool-Aid so surely you'd think after having a movie which returned over 2 Billion, that same audience(at least most of it) which gave that 2 Billion would still stick around for the next follow-up movie and would be excited to see what comes next? Surely not everyone came for Iron Man...



I remember reading Robert Downey Jr. vouched for Shane Black seeing as they're buddies from Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.

The audiences for Avengers came to watch the spectacle of what had never been done before. They wanted to see a whole *team* of superheroes instead of just one. The "Avengers bounce" is still an unproven myth --- it worked for IM3, which almost doubled its worldwide gross from IM2, and allowed the film to join the prestigious billion-dollar club; the same can't be said for Thor 2, which saw only a very modest $80 million increase in WW from the first film of the franchise. The jury's still out on an Avenger bounce for Cap, but one thing's for sure: the Avengers certainly didn't generate a new or larger audience for the Thor franchise.

It wasn't the release date that made IM3 a monster and saw the Thor franchise make only modest gains.

 

[KangConquers]

Where are you getting $80 Million? Thor grossed $449 M. The Dark World currently sits at $630 M, a $180 M increase over it's predecessor. If it's performance in Japan is decent, we will see The Dark World beat it's predecessor y $200 M.

I think in the case of BOTH Iron Man and Thor, the primary gains were in the international market. Ticket sales of Iron Man 3 barely increased from Iron Man 1 (Iron Man's previous high domestically), and the same can be said for Thor. I'm expecting similar results for Captain America, with maybe a 10-20% increase domestically, and anywhere from a 50% increase to a doubling in foreign markets.

 

[metaphysician]

Was about to say. Thor 2 is already 40% higher grossing than the first movie. Sure, it didn't double like Iron Man 3 did, but that's still a big boost. . . especially since the first Thor movie had a better release date and far less competition.

 

[KangConquers]

Was about to say. Thor 2 is already 40% higher grossing than the first movie. Sure, it didn't double like Iron Man 3 did, but that's still a big boost. . . especially since the first Thor movie had a better release date and far less competition.

I believe in a May 3rd release date, Thor would've done $750 M worldwide, or a 67% increase over the first film.

 

[Steamteck]

Actually, your stress time would have been diminished by one month as ThorW opened 6 months after Iron Man 3 and Cap:WS is opening only 5 months after Thor...

I do agree with most that Thor would have done a little better in May and I am sure Iron Man would have suffered having Hunger Games and Hobbit so close on it's heals - but we'll never know for sure...

You're right. Curse you IM3 being released first!

 

[insideguy]

I honestly dont think there would have been that much of a difference. Both films released about two week out of any major film going against it. Thor literally had nothing. IM3 had star trek two weeks out, and fast and furious three weeks out, then a bunch of stuff came in and IM3 hit a wall pretty quickly. Thor had nothing for two weeks then HG two weeks out and Frozen three weeks out. I suppose Thor could have capitalized on the fact that it was the first cb movie of the year and got some cash from that. I do think there was a little cb movie burnout toward the end of the year.