The Avengers The Avengers Box-Office Prediction Thread - Part 2

[Oruku Saki]

And alot of us think you are underestimating the GA's interest in the film. I originally thought It would make 900mil...I'm leaning closer to 1bil now that I have seen it, believe that it is highly re-watchable and after seeing the Foreign totals especially considering China/Japan/Russia weren't on the list. It's a lot more re-watchable than Avatar, and I loved that movie. Hope it surprises alot of people when they see it.

 

[BrollySupersj]

If TA breaks 200 mil OW it's gonna change Hollywood. I hope it does but I doubt it. 200 mil is a tall order.

In all probability, it won't break 200 million. But hey, this is 2012.

 

[04nbod]

Finally, someone with some logical reasoning about BO numbers. I too is hoping or being optimistic that Avengers opens with a record 200 million but I'm a realist and as much as the fanboy in me want this, it more then likely isn't gonna happen. I'm thinking between 140-160 maybe 170 mil with a final gross domestically of between 350-400 mil, maybe 420 mil tops. I think it will take between 700mil to maybe 850 mil for total WW gross. A billion? Maybe but doubtful. I think a lot of fans are really overestimating the general audience's interest in this film.

Get a calculator count those receipts. In the list of the best overseas OW ever its surrounded by movies that made 600M.

 

[Vulklin]

when do they update the weekend box office on IMDB or MOJO?

week ending 29 april was 2 days ago now

 

[yads]

I can't be the only one who's noticed that for months the biggest online argument about TA was that it was shot in 1.85:1, and now the opening weekend is $185.1 million.

Crazy coincidence.

 

[Iceman]

Finally, someone with some logical reasoning about BO numbers. I too is hoping or being optimistic that Avengers opens with a record 200 million but I'm a realist and as much as the fanboy in me want this, it more then likely isn't gonna happen. I'm thinking between 140-160 maybe 170 mil with a final gross domestically of between 350-400 mil, maybe 420 mil tops. I think it will take between 700mil to maybe 850 mil for total WW gross. A billion? Maybe but doubtful. I think a lot of fans are really overestimating the general audience's interest in this film.

Don't know why you're writing off other people's logical reasoning when nearly everyone is saying the same thing as you about opening weekend (140-170m expected.. 200m of course wanted but admittedly wishful thinking). Your 700-850m worldwide gross doesn't have much room if you think the domestic is going to be 350-400. That's saying a max overseas of 500m (850-350) and minimum of 300m (700-400). Remember it's already made $185m opening weekend without opening in China, Russia or Japan.

 

[Pond]

And, here in Spain, the hollyday wasnt las week, its this: from last friday trough wednesday. So the box office here might get a boost.

 

[Shadowlord X]

I can't be the only one who's noticed that for months the biggest online argument about TA was that it was shot in 1.85:1, and now the opening weekend is $185.1 million.

Crazy coincidence.

I did not notice that! Waaaayyy cool! Thanx!

 

[spider-neil]

so the movie IS shot full screen? that really annoying, I hate full screen on my TV.

 

[yads]

Looked great on the big screen to me.

 

[spider-neil]

Looked great on the big screen to me.

it's fine at the cinema but at home I want the black bars top and bottom of the screen.

whedon and his tv roots.

 

[Suzanne78]

it's fine at the cinema but at home I want the black bars top and bottom of the screen.

whedon and his tv roots.

Actually, more like Whedon filming in a format that could better handle the 3D conversion. If some of the posters on here who had some prior cinematography experience can attest to this accurately....

Also, Whedon shot the post-credit scene in Thor with a 3D camera. Not only did he not like the experience, but there was some talk that SLJ and Tom Hiddleston hated it as well.

ETA: I like full screen on my big plasma television. But that maybe me beign paranoid about black bar burn in...

 

[yads]

Also because of how much horizontal action there is, especially in act 3.

 

[Tony Stark]

Actually, more like Whedon filming in a format that could better handle the 3D conversion. If some of the posters on here who had some prior cinematography experience can attest to this accurately....

Also, Whedon shot the post-credit scene in Thor with a 3D camera. Not only did he not like the experience, but there was some talk that SLJ and Tom Hiddleston hated it as well.

ETA: I like full screen on my big plasma television. But that maybe me beign paranoid about black bar burn in...

Yeah it's a pain for the actors and the director because the way 3D cameras work there are two different lenses on the front of the camera, so for the actor, he doesn't know if he should perform to one or the other or the space in-between the two.

For the director, he has no idea how to "frame" the shot because it's coming off two different lenses.

It's some thing that needs a lot of work, and the current technology just isn't there.

 

[Mjölnir]

it's fine at the cinema but at home I want the black bars top and bottom of the screen.

whedon and his tv roots.

I have no set preference since it's all about the aesthetic choices of the director. One format does not suit all kinds of movies and ideas (I can't stand when people pull out 1.33:1 ratios to 1.85:1 either).

But if you do prefer 2.35:1 and wider it must be smarter to buy a TV with that aspect ratio. To have black borders on your screen is never anything but wasted space, and therefor wasted money.

 

[sgaana]

Also because of how much horizontal action there is, especially in act 3.

You mean, vertical action. That was one of the arguments in favor of this aspect ratio, that it handles vertical action better, and this movie has lots of it.

 

[bonzob2000]

it's fine at the cinema but at home I want the black bars top and bottom of the screen.

whedon and his tv roots.

Yeah, what everyone else said. Aspect ratio has nothing to do with TV roots. Serenity and Cabin in the Woods were both 2.35:1. Whedon and his DP chose 1.85 for a bunch of valid reasons. They didn't just say "hmm, how can we make this look like TV? I know!"

 

[Oruku Saki]

there aren't any 2.35:1 TV's....And I absolutely HATE those damn black bars! It's a total rip off. In fact, I constantly stretch the screen to get rid of them on my blu-rays. I didn't buy a 55" tv to see 42 inches of movie! Cinescope needs to get over itself; seriously. Sorry, but it really doesn't make a movie look less movie-like to be 1.85:1; it's a whole lot worse to have more than 24fps (NO PETER JACKSON DON"T DO 48fps, we don't want to watch a home video)

 

[Tony Stark]

Finally, someone with some logical reasoning about BO numbers. I too is hoping or being optimistic that Avengers opens with a record 200 million but I'm a realist and as much as the fanboy in me want this, it more then likely isn't gonna happen. I'm thinking between 140-160 maybe 170 mil with a final gross domestically of between 350-400 mil, maybe 420 mil tops. I think it will take between 700mil to maybe 850 mil for total WW gross. A billion? Maybe but doubtful. I think a lot of fans are really overestimating the general audience's interest in this film.

Um before you go around insulting people, you might want to do a little math. The film is going to already make 600M WW (look at 2012 and HP and the SS) Avengers is right between those.

I don't think anyone thinks that Avengers will make less than 300 M domestic, and likely more. The floor right now is 900M WW

 

[Shadowlord X]

Sorry but what's the big deal with 48fps vs 24fps???

 

[warriorking]

I look for the weekend totals to be 184 Million, the tickets just became available at my local theatre..will be going down after work to get tickets for me and several friends....

 

[Tony Stark]

Sorry but what's the big deal with 48fps vs 24fps???

film projectors and film cameras can only do 24fps. Obviously the more fps the smoother the look but the one advantage of 48fps since it's double 24fps it makes for a good transition from film to digital.

I remember the big problem when Lucas was the first to film in digital with Attack of the Clones, there was a huge conversion process because the digital cameras at the time could only do 30 fps.

 

[Anita18]

3:15 AM showings? Wow, I have never heard of that before. That's pretty impressive to have 7 midnight showings at a single theater.

Really, you've never heard of 3am showings? TDK had 3am and 6am showings for its record-breaking midnight screenings back in 2008. 14 out of 16 screens at my local theater were devoted to it.

I'm absolutely sure Harry Potter had them too, to post that monstrous midnight record. There just isn't enough screens otherwise. Although, it's unclear whether the 3am and 6am showings are counted in "midnight."

Sorry but what's the big deal with 48fps vs 24fps???

Many people think a higher frame rate would make it look more like TV than cinema. The "soap-opera look," it's called. Film cinema has always been 24fps, so people are used to 24fps looking cinematic and having that sheen of unreality. For some, a higher frame rate is a little too real, and looks like TV and shot on a closed set. TV usually uses 30fps, IIRC.

 

[Shadowlord X]

Ahh. Thanx guys.

 

[Gamma Burst]

From ERCboxoffice:

THE AVENGERS captured $33.1M on Monday. Total for the earth's mightiest heroes is now $218.2M.