Summer 2011 box office predictions - Part 2

[Marvin]

And that's still not what I told him.

Hell, I told him about it because I figured he'd be excited about it. I wasn't expecting that response. And I wasn't going to get into some detailed explanation that would have gone over his head anyway. Have I mentioned that he's only 7?

a few times yes.

"They're doing it over but different...it's not even that boring actor anymore"
would have sufficed, I'm just not getting that you sold it as any different is all, even I'd be pissed if I was told I was going to have to literally watch the same movie twice

when I was seven, things were a bit more literal than they are now.
(mostly)

 

[flickchick85]

I don't care who was unhappy with Raimi's Spider-Man movies because I got what I wanted.

That's cool. I DIDN'T get I wanted from Raimi's trilogy, so I'm psyched about it.

Feel free to love and adore The Amazing Spider-Man but I'm not going to pretend that I'm interested in Spider-Man turnning into Nolan's Batman. I'm just not.

And based on the sound of the Comic-Con descriptions, that doesn't sound like that's what they're doing at all. It sounds to me like they're finally making a faithful Spider-man.

The only connection I can see making to Nolan's Batman is that this new movie COULD be to Raimi's trilogy what Nolan's was to Burton's - Dumping the "camp" factor, creating a new, more recognizable universe for the hero to exist in, while remaining truer than ever to the essence of the character. And I am all for that.

 

[DACrowe]

If it's the word remake that scares you so much, why not apply it to the likes of Startrek, and Batman...perhaps even Lord of the Rings...parhaps even Xmen First Class.

Remake can mean a lot of things, I wouldn't be so quick to write it off.

I'm not scared of remakes. Two of my favorite films of last year (Let Me In and True Grit) were both indeed remakes. And unlike Batman Begins or XFC, ASM is remaking a certain story--how Peter Parker became Spider-Man. His journey from average high school geek to a web-slinging superhero who learns that with great power comes blah blah blah.

It may be a great movie. It is very different in tone and is putting more emphasis on Peter's loneliness, his absent parents, etc. but at the end of the day it is still remaking a very specific story.

I think it's a big enough deal when she's a science geek and not a model or whatever the hell she was in Raimi's world. I think it's different when she knows his secret. When he and her dad are pretty much at high level odds.

And how do you know it's a childhood crush next door?

MJ was an actress in Raimi's movies--as she usually is in the comics (the model stuff never worked, imo). But in any case, Gwen is his high school crush (he has a picture of her on his computer) who likes him even though he is geeky, awkward, etc. Other than the science thing, that sounds a lot like MJ in SM1. And she learns he's Spider-Man (which is a huge departure from the comics for all the purists? That's kind of like MJ in SM2. I don't think the GA is going to notice much difference. If they introduce MJ in a sequel who is closer to the comics, then the audience will see something different.

 

[BestGirl]

I actually agree with this. So many Marvel fans are happy with the MS films but I've felt they're more products and part of a marketing plan/business model than individual films. They all are consistently average. None are bad movies. But other than IM1, none have attempted to reach for the quality and scope of the Raimi Spideys, the Nolan Batmans, even the Burton Batmans, IMO. And IM1 was probably only so great because of Downey, Paltrow and Bridges chemistry and energy in that movie.

I have to agree. It blows my mind when fanboys say they won't watch any more X-Men movies in hope that the rights can revert back to Marvel. I can't understand how anyone could watch XFC, Thor, and CA and say that the Marvel Studios movies were the better ones. I've become soured on Marvel movies here lately and can't even bring myself to get excited for the Avengers.

Though I have to say that I prefer Thor to CA. Thor is almost a comedy and not a grande epic, so I can see why some dislike it. But it was very entertaining and Branagh brought a level of fun and slyness to the proceedings as well as earnest Shakespearian angst that I found it throughly enjoyable, if disposable. CA had a much better first 2/3, but really dropped the ball and did not feel nearly as organic.

I think CA was good but would've been better if they hadn't rushed to get to the part where he crashes into the ice. He needed to spend way more time in WWII. I blame the need to set up the Avengers for this.

I think the trailer's biggest problem is other than a much darker tone, it really didn't look narratively any different from Raimi's SM1. Showing the Lizard and a more differentiated plot in the next trailer is an absolute. As well as better money shots, as you have said.

Heh, I must be the only person who liked the Spider-man teaser.

 

[Marvin]

I'm not scared of remakes. Two of my favorite films of last year (Let Me In and True Grit) were both indeed remakes. And unlike Batman Begins or XFC, ASM is remaking a certain story--how Peter Parker became Spider-Man. His journey from average high school geek to a web-slinging superhero who learns that with great power comes blah blah blah.


It may be a great movie. It is very different in tone and is putting more emphasis on Peter's loneliness, his absent parents, etc. but at the end of the day it is still remaking a very specific story.

I see
I do think unlike the beat for beat one overs that were True Grit and Let Me In, Amazing will not be a literal retelling.

MJ was an actress in Raimi's movies--as she usually is in the comics (the model stuff never worked, imo). But in any case, Gwen is his high school crush (he has a picture of her on his computer) who likes him even though he is geeky, awkward, etc. Other than the science thing, that sounds a lot like MJ in SM1. And she learns he's Spider-Man (which is a huge departure from the comics for all the purists? That's kind of like MJ in SM2. I don't think the GA is going to notice much difference. If they introduce MJ in a sequel who is closer to the comics, then the audience will see something different.

Apparently there is a scene where Ben forces a conversation between the then not on speaking terms duo. The fact that Ben refers to her as some girl on his computer tells me that she is far removed from the girl next door childhood crush aunt May spoke of in the Raimi Saga. I assume [BLACKOUT]she won't make it in the end[/BLACKOUT] and thus they will have their dark take solidified by curtains down.

I think if they had gone with another MJ incarnation I'd be right there with you.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I can easily until why people think the Marvel Studios movies are better. Just compare the source material to Thor and Captain America in comparison to the X-men. I believe that Marvel has done an excellent job at translating these movies to film. Neither Thor or Captain America are easy to translate, or at least as easy to translate as Iron Man or X-men.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

All I'm saying is that the production deserves more than excited kids being told it's that Raimi movie all over again.

How does it "deserve" anything since A) nobody's been said film yet and B) most people are reasonably questioning the logic of restarting things all over again when the first film is still cemented in their minds and wasn't that long ago?

And based on the sound of the Comic-Con descriptions, that doesn't sound like that's what they're doing at all. It sounds to me like they're finally making a faithful Spider-man.

Raimi's films weren't faithful? Just because he made decisions like dropping the wise-cracks, the organic web-shooters and losing Flash Thompson as a comic-foil for Spidey doesn't mean his run wasn't faithful.

 

[dark_b]

yes Marvel Studio movies are faithful. but faithful doesnt automatic mean good. and i think thats the prbolem and why fanbyos are happy. they like them because they are faithful.
i have a feeling that Avengers will fail and that it will underperform.

 

[Spider-Fan]

yes Marvel Studio movies are faithful. but faithful doesnt automatic mean good. and i think thats the prbolem and why fanbyos are happy. they like them because they are faithful.
i have a feeling that Avengers will fail and that it will underperform.

But, going by all exit polling and websites for movie rating, Cap is doing well with audiences. So did Thor. So, not just fanboys like them.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

I think CA was good but would've been better if they hadn't rushed to get to the part where he crashes into the ice. He needed to spend way more time in WWII. I blame the need to set up the Avengers for this.

What do you mean by more time, another movie? That'd be a bad idea because people would be whining like they did with Iron Man 2 about it being too similar to the first movie. The movie was two hours long and went through the whole progression of Cap's WW2 storyline, there was/is nothing left to tell in that time period.

 

[DACrowe]

I see
I do think unlike the beat for beat one overs that were True Grit and Let Me In, Amazing will not be a literal retelling.

I know, so I kind of compared it more to the 2010 remake of The Wolfman. Same characters and basic concept and plot....but very different in the details. Still counts as a remake though. I suppose same could be said for the 1976 remake of King Kong for example. Though, I truly hope Webb's Amazing Spider-Man turns out better than those films.

Apparently there is a scene where Ben forces a conversation between the then not on speaking terms duo. The fact that Ben refers to her as some girl on his computer tells me that she is far removed from the girl next door childhood crush aunt May spoke of in the Raimi Saga. I assume [BLACKOUT]she won't make it in the end[/BLACKOUT] and thus they will have their dark take solidified by curtains down.

I think if they had gone with another MJ incarnation I'd be right there with you.

I would love to see the comic version of MJ on the big screen. Very different from the usual love interest archetype in these movies and if she and Gwen were in the same movie, their playing off each other would make it unique to the formula of other superhero movies. Alas, Sony went with the same formula and the new Gwen doesn't seem all that different from Dunst's MJ, if only Stone is a better actress.

I too have wondered given the tone of the movie, the fact that there is a bridge action set piece in ASM and thinking of how redundant it may be to do the same climax of SM1 (Bridge+Kidnapped Girlfriend+Green Goblin+Goblin getting impaled by his own glider) except with the gf dying in ASM2.....perhaps Lizzy is taking Gwen to the top of the world? Only problem I really have with that--besides making doing GG again pointless, which is perhaps the intended point--is I don't know if audiences can like Peter saving Doc Connors after that.

Anway, I'd like to respond to one of your posts earlier about cartoons that I forgot to mention. Raimi's movies felt similar to the '90s show, moreso than this dark version will. But that's because the Raimi movies and TAS were trying to recreate the '60s comics for much of both their run (and both tried to adapt the darker '80s stories later on to mixed results). ASM seems to be moving far away from the Lee/Ditko/Romita era with this film.

 

[DACrowe]

yes Marvel Studio movies are faithful. but faithful doesnt automatic mean good. and i think thats the prbolem and why fanbyos are happy. they like them because they are faithful.
i have a feeling that Avengers will fail and that it will underperform.

I don't have a problem with faithfulness, I just want quality films that distill the essence of a character. Marvel Studios hasn't made a bad movie. But they've made only one really good one (IM1) and have yet to reach the heights of Nolan or SM2, IMO.

With that said, I wouldn't bet against The Avengers. That movie is the first of the summer and is going to do BOFFO. I expect it to make well over $300 million in the US alone and perform like an Iron Man picture, just because he is in it. I think there is a saturation now of superhero origin stories, hence why of the three this summer, not one will top $200 million domestic. But The Avengers is something new and never seen before. People will lap the movie up. And with Joss Whedon at the helm, I hope it is the best Marvel movie yet.

What do you mean by more time, another movie? That'd be a bad idea because people would be whining like they did with Iron Man 2 about it being too similar to the first movie. The movie was two hours long and went through the whole progression of Cap's WW2 storyline, there was/is nothing left to tell in that time period.

Perhaps, but I think it should have been either 10-15 minutes longer to develop the third act and build up both Bucky's death and Cap's revenge by going guns blazing against Red Skull....or they should have ditched the montage and made it one big action set piece of them knocking over a factory and Bucky getting killed. The end of the movie felt rushed and it did feel that once he got the official costume it became a sprint to the plane crash and the set up for the next movie.

 

[Marvin]

How does it "deserve" anything since A) nobody's been said film yet and B) most people are reasonably questioning the logic of restarting things all over again when the first film is still cemented in their minds and wasn't that long ago?

In an interview, marc webb is asked how his film is different from what's been done before, he answers:

"Well... there is no difference, we're doing the exact same thing you saw not but 10 years ago. Everyone on the crew wants to see the same film and is working to that end. The producers want the same film. I know the audience wants the same film...We put no thought into simply things like the costume changes or the photography and atmosphere, hell, organic webs seem to work just fine, why not."

I personally think the people working on this production deserve more. People can question all they want, there are no rules to such things. If there were I'm sure Brendan Routh and Erick Bana would will be in their respective roles sans reboot. It may suck it may not, but the one thing I'm certain of is that they most likely are not trying to make the same film.

Personally I think the inclusion of the Lizard story line in the origin is a master stroke. Spider man is an occurrence of animal genetics, Of all spiderman's villians Lizard is most like a kindred happening. Right off the bat this premise is working for me.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

By redoing the origin (that wasn't that long ago), they're openly welcoming the comparisons to the Raimi/Maguire films. Considering all those rumblings of rewrites to nuke the origin and just have him already Spidey on page one for them to go in that direction anyway isn't particularly smart.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I agree. I don't think it was a particularly good idea to do the origin again, and it's a very risky move.

 

[Marvin]

I know, so I kind of compared it more to the 2010 remake of The Wolfman. Same characters and basic concept and plot....but very different in the details. Still counts as a remake though. I suppose same could be said for the 1976 remake of King Kong for example. Though, I truly hope Webb's Amazing Spider-Man turns out better than those films.

Wolfman's one film series I've stayed away from so I really don't have anything to add. Same with Kong. I just don't think this will be a remake in the vain of Dragon Tattoo(this year), but rather a reboot.

Anway, I'd like to respond to one of your posts earlier about cartoons that I forgot to mention. Raimi's movies felt similar to the '90s show, moreso than this dark version will. But that's because the Raimi movies and TAS were trying to recreate the '60s comics for much of both their run (and both tried to adapt the darker '80s stories later on to mixed results). ASM seems to be moving far away from the Lee/Ditko/Romita era with this film.

The darkness in Raimi's movies always seemed kinda odd to me. Like Doc ock's birth or Harry's "fall." However when I referenced the 90' show I was more coming from the angle of faithfulness in concepts. Web shooters and quips and Parker himself.

 

[Marvin]

By redoing the origin (that wasn't that long ago), they're openly welcoming the comparisons to the Raimi/Maguire films. Considering all those rumblings of rewrites to nuke the origin and just have him already Spidey on page one for them to go in that direction anyway isn't particularly smart.

I agree that it didn't have to be done sure. But at the same time it allows for more narrative control. Nolan didn't have to start over either but look as what he can don to tie his story together now because of it.

 

[flickchick85]

How does it "deserve" anything since A) nobody's been said film yet and B) most people are reasonably questioning the logic of restarting things all over again when the first film is still cemented in their minds and wasn't that long ago?



Raimi's films weren't faithful? Just because he made decisions like dropping the wise-cracks, the organic web-shooters and losing Flash Thompson as a comic-foil for Spidey doesn't mean his run wasn't faithful.

Sorry, I should rephrase - A more faithful version. I'm a big fan of the whole Gwen Stacy storyline, so I felt like turning MJ into a glorified Gwen in the Raimi versions was just too far a deviation (Obviously, plenty of people disagreed). The tone was a big part of it, though. A lot of that has to do with Peter's characterization, but it just never felt like Spider-man should to me.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

No, Nolan had to start over. You can't come back after Batman & Robin (that took the character and franchise way the Hell out there to the point of no return) and act like everything was hunky-dory with Batman 5 by just upping the darkness.

But Spider-Man 3 didn't cause the franchise to "have" to reboot. They could (and were, in fact, going to) continue on with Raimi, Maguire and Dunst for another one; no harm, no foul. I've always thought they could have kept going with the continuity even w/o them and just keep the supporting players like Simmons, Harris and Baker.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

They definitely could've continued with the Spider-man series.

 

[kedrell]

Sorry, I should rephrase - A more faithful version. I'm a big fan of the whole Gwen Stacy storyline, so I felt like turning MJ into a glorified Gwen in the Raimi versions was just too far a deviation (Obviously, plenty of people disagreed). The tone was a big part of it, though. A lot of that has to do with Peter's characterization, but it just never felt like Spider-man should to me.

Considering that SM1 for me was about as close as a film can get to me giving it a fail yet just barely managing to pull itself up enough to squeak by as 'good enough to pass', part of me is glad they're redoing it. Spidey deserved a better origin movie like Superman, Batman(i.e. Begins), Cap, Thor & Iron Man got. And that movie was an example of extreme contrasts because the 1st half of that movie was the best the Raimi series ever got, IMO. Then they had the abysmal 2nd half with Macy Gray & Green Goblin singing the itsy bitsy spider(I nearly just shouted F&%#$ THIS MOVIE! and left at that point in the film).

 

[DACrowe]

How can you hate Dafoe?

I really cannot understand how anyone would think Cap or Thor had better origins than Spider-Man. SM1 was very well told as a narrative, unlike 1/3 of Cap. I'd say the only better origin movie is BB and that came out several years later.

 

[kedrell]

How can you hate Dafoe?

I really cannot understand how anyone would think Cap or Thor had better origins than Spider-Man. SM1 was very well told as a narrative, unlike 1/3 of Cap. I'd say the only better origin movie is BB and that came out several years later.

He was good(most of the time)as Norman Osborn. But as soon as he put that dumb-ass costume on and started hamming it up I was ready to check out completely.

To me, SM1 is a 6/10.It just barely passes on the strength of the first half(which was still only just good but not great).

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I say Spider-man is on par with Captain America and Thor. I felt all of them were good and well done. Spider-man's could've been more faithful, but it was well done as movie.

If I really think about it, I'd put Captain America and maybe Thor over Spider-man 1 because of Green Goblin, who could have been more menacing.

 

[amazingfantasy15]

Perhaps, but I think it should have been either 10-15 minutes longer to develop the third act and build up both Bucky's death and Cap's revenge by going guns blazing against Red Skull....or they should have ditched the montage and made it one big action set piece of them knocking over a factory and Bucky getting killed. The end of the movie felt rushed and it did feel that once he got the official costume it became a sprint to the plane crash and the set up for the next movie.

I think you need the montage, it shows Captain America becoming the soldier/hero we know. The factory scene was his first try at playing the hero. I thought Bucky's death was done well especially with the scene of him drinking. The very end with him unthawed felt a little rushed, it needed some explanation.

Sorry, I should rephrase - A more faithful version. I'm a big fan of the whole Gwen Stacy storyline, so I felt like turning MJ into a glorified Gwen in the Raimi versions was just too far a deviation (Obviously, plenty of people disagreed). The tone was a big part of it, though. A lot of that has to do with Peter's characterization, but it just never felt like Spider-man should to me.

Oh so you're looking forward to the more faithful version Webb is introducing where Gwen Stacey, who seems to be a science nerd, is his first crush/girlfriend that he meets in high school. Nice try, but read some more comics, that's not faithful