Summer 2011 box office predictions - Part 2

[lime]

LOL.

Anyways, Transformers: Dark of the Moon is ahead of the latest Harry Potter movie at the box office from a worldwide stand point and marginally.

Transformers: 914 millions in 28 days
Harry Potter: 881 millions in 12 days

wait till HP hits day 28.

 

[Marvin]

Raimi was attached to direct Spider-Man in January of 2000, 6 months before X-Men was released, and Tobey Maguire was auditioning in July of 2000. To say that Spider-Man would never have been made and that its a direct result of X-Men's success seems a bit far fetched.

Actually Avi Arad produced all 3 films. I doubt he would have produced the latter two if Blade was a failure.

Transformers: 914 millions in 28 days
Harry Potter: 881 millions in 12 days

wait till HP hits day 28.

Potter opened up in more markets and screens, only makes sense it had a faster start then TF3.

Funny enough, Avatar is at 2.7 billion after 2 years, Potter is at 881miillion in 12days...just wait

Domestically speaking, Potter just fell behind TF2, should be interesting to see how the storm settles.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

My Predictions for the weekend:

1. Cowboys and Aliens--39mil
2. Captain America--28.3mil-56.5%
3. Harry Potter 8--23.7mil-50%
4. The Smurfs--21mil
5. Crazy Stupid Love--15.1mil

 

[chaseter]

Anyways, Transformers: Dark of the Moon is ahead of the latest Harry Potter movie at the box office from a worldwide stand point and marginally.

I wonder if it's because Transformers opened 16 days before Harry Potter. In related news, Thor is ahead of Captain America

 

[dark_b]

hahah will TF3 get to 1 billion? if you look at the how much the second movie made and how this one is in 3D its funny.

ok its also funny how rich Shia and Bay are.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I wonder if it's because Transformers opened 16 days before Harry Potter. In related news, Thor is ahead of Captain America

 

[Marvin]

suddenly dark knights 1 billion doesn't feel the same.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

LOL. t:

LOL.

You're at 7 infractions, 1 warning and had a 2 month probation. Any more attitude like that to your fellow posters and you can yourself goodbye.

 

[dark_b]

suddenly dark knights 1 billion doesn't feel the same.

for 2008 i think its still a lot money.

 

[chaseter]

2008 is so 2000-late.


boom boom boom.

 

[JP]

Oh Chase.

 

[chaseter]

I am also sad to admit that I know most of that song.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I wonder if it's because Transformers opened 16 days before Harry Potter. In related news, Thor is ahead of Captain America

LOL! For now

 

[Marvin]

for 2008 i think its still a lot money.

I just read an article that posted 89 batman 400mill being an astronomical amount for the 90's. To think inflation is such a prominent factor over a 2.5 year gap.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

I wonder if it's because Transformers opened 16 days before Harry Potter. In related news, Thor is ahead of Captain America

Potter is also on course to topple it domestically. Probably wind up around $375 million versus Transformers' $360 million. Neither number is anything to sneeze at.

 

[rashad]

suddenly dark knights 1 billion doesn't feel the same.

It was the last film in 2D to make a billion. It's crazy but not surprising at the rate films are crossing that threshold.

 

[chaseter]

Potter would have crossed a billion without 3D easily. Part 1 made $955 million.

 

[DACrowe]

Spider-Man would never have been made if X Men wasn't a success. Its green light was a direct reaction to X Men. Hence X Men is the film credited with the Super-hero resurgence. Blade is a little different in that he wasn't an obvious spandexed super-hero.

I was under the impression that SM1 was greenlit in 1999 by Sony and that Raimi was on board and it was in pre-production when X1 came out. X-Men's success did lead to Daredevil and Hulk getting greenlit by the same studio in the former's case. Not to mention X2. However, the tidal wave happened after SM1's success which was a combination of character, quality, release date, WOM and capturing the immediately post-9/11 zeitgeist (before the War on Terror turned it into something much more cynical which The Dark Knight I believed tapped into).

Anyway, I think C&A will make $50 million this weekend. More or less.

 

[Marvin]

Potter would have crossed a billion without 3D easily. Part 1 made $955 million.

well it would have been the first.

 

[04nbod]

Raimi was attached to direct Spider-Man in January of 2000, 6 months before X-Men was released, and Tobey Maguire was auditioning in July of 2000. To say that Spider-Man would never have been made and that its a direct result of X-Men's success seems a bit far fetched.

And there were plenty of attempts before that to get the property moving. Isn't it telling that they started realistically casting just after X Men did great numbers with massive critical success? If X Men had bombed do you think Spidey would have moved forward? Raimi's Spider-Man could have been just another project abandoned for another take like the development before it.

I was under the impression that SM1 was greenlit in 1999 by Sony and that Raimi was on board and it was in pre-production when X1 came out. X-Men's success did lead to Daredevil and Hulk getting greenlit by the same studio in the former's case. Not to mention X2. However, the tidal wave happened after SM1's success which was a combination of character, quality, release date, WOM and capturing the immediately post-9/11 zeitgeist (before the War on Terror turned it into something much more cynical which The Dark Knight I believed tapped into).

Anyway, I think C&A will make $50 million this weekend. More or less.

It was licensed by Sony, not greenlit in 1999, with a completely different script by James Cameron. It would have been greenlit at the end of 2000.

 

[chaseter]

I will guess that C&A will get $40 million this weekend.

 

[chaseter]

It was licensed by Sony, not greenlit in 1999 with a completely different script by James Cameron. It would have been greenlit at the end of 2000.

Although Sony Pictures acquired the "Cameron material" from MGM/UA, in April 1999 the studio announced they were not hiring James Cameron himself to direct the film.[18] The studio lined up Roland Emmerich, Tim Burton, Chris Columbus, and David Fincher as potential directors. Fincher did not want to depict the origin story, pitching the film as being based on The Night Gwen Stacy Died storyline, but the studio disagreed.[8] Sam Raimi was attached to direct in January 2000,[19] for a summer 2001 release.[20] He had been a big fan of the comic book during his youth, and his passion for Spider-Man earned him the job.[21]

They were planning to release Spider-Man before X-Men even was released in theaters. You also can't say that X-Men caused Spider-Man to be made as comic book movies have been around for a while. Spider-Man 1 really hit home how big superhero movies can be and how much money they can make. I would agree with the position Spider-Man 1 redefined the genre and started a new generation of films. X-Men and Blade didn't really do that good at the box office and they weren't giant massive hits with the general audience like Spider-Man was.

 

[Zant]

X men came after Batman and Robin the movie that almost killed the genre.It was never going to be a big hit

 

[amazingfantasy15]

And there were plenty of attempts before that to get the property moving. Isn't it telling that they started realistically casting just after X Men did great numbers with massive critical success? If X Men had bombed do you think Spidey would have moved forward? Raimi's Spider-Man could have been just another project abandoned for another take like the development before it.

It was licensed by Sony, not greenlit in 1999, with a completely different script by James Cameron. It would have been greenlit at the end of 2000.

The biggest factor keeping Spider-man off the big screen was in sorting out the rights to the character. It took a very long time to sort that out, once it was though, things started moving quickly. X-Men gave Sony more confidence, but a Spider-man movie was going to move forward whether X-Men was a hit or not.

They were planning to release Spider-Man before X-Men even was released in theaters. You also can't say that X-Men caused Spider-Man to be made as comic book movies have been around for a while. Spider-Man 1 really hit home how big superhero movies can be and how much money they can make. I would agree with the position Spider-Man 1 redefined the genre and started a new generation of films. X-Men and Blade didn't really do that good at the box office and they weren't giant massive hits with the general audience like Spider-Man was.

Both Blade and X-Men were hits, just not by today's standards. Blade most likely had a pretty low budget, I couldn't find a number, but it definitely didn't disappoint. X-Men's opening was the biggest non-sequel opening ever at the time and domestically grossed double it's budget.

 

[chaseter]

X-Men made $157 million in 2000. Spider-Man made $403 million less than 24 months later. I would say that Spider-Man had more of an affect on the superhero genre than X-Men did and X-Men certainly did not affect Spider-Man.

Yes X-Men did good. I didn't say it didn't. But, it wasn't a game changer like Spider-Man. For a superhero movie to make that much money, you know all the studio exec's eyes lit up. TDK was the next game changer in 2008. Now that is the movie everybody looks to emulate.