The Avengers The Avengers Box-Office Prediction Thread - Part 1

[cherokeesam]

If movies like LOTR and HP&TDH weren't split, they would be insanely long. I don't think a lot of people would want to sit through those movies for hours on end, I know I wouldn't. It's not always "money-grubbing", sometimes it makes sense.

The Hobbit wasn't even half as long as any book in the Trilogy. Why is it getting the split-screening treatment?

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

The Hobbit wasn't even half as long as any book in the Trilogy. Why is it getting the split-screening treatment?

I don't know but it's nice that we're getting two long movies. That way they won't have to rush anything, plus they'll be adding to the story as well. Things like Smaug's big reveal will probably come in 2013. Maybe they'll tease him in the first movie like they did with Gollum and get people really wanting to see what he looks like. Splitting the movie is going to make them a heap of money but I actually prefer it this way because it has a lot of advantages.

Twilight doesn't really deserve to be split into two parts but oh well.

 

[Spade]

It's been a while since I read The Hobbit, but I don't remember it being so involved as to require two parts. Weird decision, if true.

 

[Nokio]

This is the part of the article that seems most relevant to me:




The analysts are saying that the movie's take will be phenomenal, and even more if the theaters showing it can add more showtimes in order to accommodate demand for tickets. That in and of itself tells us how high the public's interest in The Avengers is, three weeks ahead of its North American opening. Disney's hype machine has only begun to flex its marketing might. This thing is massive.

Well the Regal theater at the Mall of GA last showing is a 1:30 am Imax spot I didn't even check the regular showings. I'm not gonna get to far ahead with the box office take. It'll do good

 

[Mysteryman]

It's been a while since I read The Hobbit, but I don't remember it being so involved as to require two parts. Weird decision, if true.

I think the second film is to act , at least in part as a bridge for the LOTR trilogy .

 

[BigThor]

Seeing Chris Nolan's floating, talking giant head shooting lasers would be worth at least $300 million at the box office.

LMAO! Indeed.

*nods head in agreement*

ATLEAST 300 MILLION!!!

 

[Shadowlord X]

Folks, there is nothing in the Hobbit that requires 2 movies. WB tried this with HP7 and it worked brilliantly; they literally doubled the amount of money they would have made with a single film. Do you guys remember the ultimate boredom camping trip from hell in HP7pt1??? With a little talent they could have made one movie. Twilight saw that and went "Double the money! Wow! let's do that too!" And now it's happening with The Hobbit. Hollywood has found a new way to increase income. Expect it to happen with THGpt3.

 

[The Morningstar]

The final part of Harry Potter could never have been in one movie, unless it was like, 5 hours long, which would be horrible.

Jackson is Jackson, if there is one criticism to aim at him, it's that he gets a little self indulgent and meanders a bit too much. Each Hobbit film will be over 2 and a half hours. I don't know about you guys, but **** sitting in a cinema for 5-6 hours non stop.

 

[BigThor]

The final part of Harry Potter could never have been in one movie, unless it was like, 5 hours long, which would be horrible.

Jackson is Jackson, if there is one criticism to aim at him, it's that he gets a little self indulgent and meanders a bit too much. Each Hobbit film will be over 2 and a half hours. I don't know about you guys, but **** sitting in a cinema for 5-6 hours non stop.

I'm with you on that brother, I love going to the movies but I also have a life as well.

 

[Mjölnir]

The Hobbit wasn't even half as long as any book in the Trilogy. Why is it getting the split-screening treatment?

It's written in a very different way, where significant events come and go much quicker. Since Jackson will tell the story in the LotR manner (Tolkien also thought about rewriting the Hobbit after he found out where LotR went, but he only rewrote the chapter "Riddles in the Dark") it makes sense to do it with two movies.

The point being that page count isn't the relevant factor, the story is. Also remember that there are some hugely significant events to the overall story that happens "off page" in the book.

And LotR was supposed to be (and still is as far as I'm concerned) one single book. It was just that the publisher didn't want to release one huge volume back then, especially since Tolkien wasn't a famous writer.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

For someone who has read the hobbit a million times. Splitting it into two movies is a great idea. In fact, anything other than 2 movies WON'T work... period. The way it's written is very simplistic and doesn't allow for much development of a LOT of aspects. If Jackson were to flesh out all of those aspects in one film it would end up being 4 hours long... or we could go the better route and have it be 2 films. Either that or just leave everything un-fleshed out and have it not measure up to the LOTR films.

 

[cherokeesam]

For someone who has read the hobbit a million times. Splitting it into two movies is a great idea. In fact, anything other than 2 movies WON'T work... period. The way it's written is very simplistic and doesn't allow for much development of a LOT of aspects. If Jackson were to flesh out all of those aspects in one film it would end up being 4 hours long... or we could go the better route and have it be 2 films. Either that or just leave everything un-fleshed out and have it not measure up to the LOTR films.

In tone and scope, The Hobbit definitely *shouldn't* measure up to the LOTR films. The Trilogy is a mature, deep epic war for the very existence of Middle Earth, the culmination of Three Ages. The Hobbit was always a kids' story about a band of Little People traipsing through the dark woods in search of dragon treasure.

 

[Mjölnir]

In tone and scope, The Hobbit definitely *shouldn't* measure up to the LOTR films. The Trilogy is a mature, deep epic war for the very existence of Middle Earth, the culmination of Three Ages. The Hobbit was always a kids' story about a band of Little People traipsing through the dark woods in search of dragon treasure.

But that's what LotR was supposed to be as well when Tolkien started writing it. As he famously said, the story grew in the telling, and it ended up something very different.

As I said Tolkien thought of rewriting the Hobbit to match LotR, but settled for just rewriting one chapter.

And as for scope, the events that are "off page" in The Hobbit are very LotR-esque.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

In tone and scope, The Hobbit definitely *shouldn't* measure up to the LOTR films. The Trilogy is a mature, deep epic war for the very existence of Middle Earth, the culmination of Three Ages. The Hobbit was always a kids' story about a band of Little People traipsing through the dark woods in search of dragon treasure.

Even if the tone and scope doesn't exactly "measure" up to the trilogy, it should come pretty close. There's just no way you're going to have a hobbit, 13 dwarves, a bunch of elves, a man who turns into a bear, goblins, spiders, wargs, an evil dragon, a random man who kills the dragon, other men who live in the same area as that random man who killed the dragon, a battle of 5 different armies all fully fleshed out and all in a 2-3 hour movie.

 

[jmc]

Are they not delving into other books and appendices for the 2 Hobbit films?

 

[J.Howlett]

Are they not delving into other books and appendices for the 2 Hobbit films?

They are.

 

[musterd]

Are they not delving into other books and appendices for the 2 Hobbit films?

Yes they are. Del Toro originally conceived The Hobbit as a two-parter without the appendices but PJ & Co have rewritten the script to include the events mentioned in LOTR appendices that happened at the same times as those in The Hobbit.

I think The Hobbit may top the box office due to takings from the overseas market but Avengers and TDKR may fair better in the US market.

 

[ThePowerCosmic]

Even if the tone and scope doesn't exactly "measure" up to the trilogy, it should come pretty close. There's just no way you're going to have a hobbit, 13 dwarves, a bunch of elves, a man who turns into a bear, goblins, spiders, wargs, an evil dragon, a random man who kills the dragon, other men who live in the same area as that random man who killed the dragon, a battle of 5 different armies all fully fleshed out and all in a 2-3 hour movie.

For someone who has read the hobbit a million times. Splitting it into two movies is a great idea. In fact, anything other than 2 movies WON'T work... period. The way it's written is very simplistic and doesn't allow for much development of a LOT of aspects. If Jackson were to flesh out all of those aspects in one film it would end up being 4 hours long... or we could go the better route and have it be 2 films. Either that or just leave everything un-fleshed out and have it not measure up to the LOTR films.

This works.

 

[Iceman]

And LotR was supposed to be (and still is as far as I'm concerned) one single book. It was just that the publisher didn't want to release one huge volume back then, especially since Tolkien wasn't a famous writer.

Yes and imagine trying to do that in one film! It's more about how content measures upagainst necessary film time.

 

[Godzilla2000]

I'm going to predict that this movie isn't being released in American theaters fast enough!!!! Grrr!!!

 

[BigThor]

I'm going to predict that this movie isn't being released in American theaters fast enough!!!! Grrr!!!

I know and I'm getting pretty impatient because of it so dear May 4th. HURRY UP DAMN YOU!

 

[cherokeesam]

I'm going to predict that this movie isn't being released in American theaters fast enough!!!! Grrr!!!

darn tootin'

 

[Iceman]

If it's going to break the record it probably needs to also be near the record for widest release. I don't know what's planned on that front.

 

[Tony Stark]

I think it's been proven that that doesn't stop it. Theaters could always devote more screens to it, if the demand was that high.

I'm sure it will get plenty of screens, because seeing the other summer releases around that time, there won't be anything else worth seeing that's for sure.

 

[Tony Stark]

If it's going to break the record it probably needs to also be near the record for widest release. I don't know what's planned on that front.

That's a very good point. I imagine it will be close to getting maximum screen presentation, because the pre orders have already been taking off.