The Avengers The Avengers Box-Office Prediction Thread - Part 6

[Paladin-Hoss]

^^ what's the status of MOS anyway...is it going to be a one-off because of the lawsuits etc?

 

[J.Howlett]

^^ what's the status of MOS anyway...is it going to be a one-off because of the lawsuits etc?

Nobody knows. From how I see it, it seems to be the replacement of Nolan's trilogy.

But, with the legal issues and whatnot, I honestly don't know.

In a lot of ways, Man of Steel needs to fail if DC decides to go the Marvel route. Snyder has already stated that Man of Steel is in its own universe.

The only saving grace that could have happened already is if the suits at WB changed Snyder and Nolan's mind about the character being in its own contained universe. Convince them to use this modern take on Superman as the launch pad for the entire DC Universe.

I mean, who better than Superman to introduce a shared DC Universe?

 

[Xeno]

Well, for those that said Avengers wasn't a game changer, I guess you can just look to the fact that barely a month after release Warner shot their wad by trying to build up anticipation for Justice League again.

Amazing how inspirational a billion dollar-grossing film can be, isn't it? Despite WB's noises about JLA and WW, I won't believe that either project will get off the ground until the scripts are written, directors and casts hired, filming wraps and they premiere. The last attempt at JLA went as far as having sets built, actors sent to Australia for training and everything ready to go before WB pulled the plug days before filming was to start. WB execs either greenlight crap and then have second thoughts about it or they simply aren't committed to their comic book properties.


The production costs of the aborted JLA project will be tacked on to the next film, which will make it much harder for it to turn a profit. The same thing happened with Superman Returns, although WB never fully revealed the cost of developing and then scrapping several scripts for that franchise over the years. Whatever the production budget, tens of millions of dollars from the George Miller-helmed failure will be on its ledger. That will add more pressure to an already high stakes situation.

 

[Tony Stark]

Nobody knows. From how I see it, it seems to be the replacement of Nolan's trilogy.

But, with the legal issues and whatnot, I honestly don't know.

In a lot of ways, Man of Steel needs to fail if DC decides to go the Marvel route. Snyder has already stated that Man of Steel is in its own universe.

The only saving grace that could have happened already is if the suits at WB changed Snyder and Nolan's mind about the character being in its own contained universe. Convince them to use this modern take on Superman as the launch pad for the entire DC Universe.

I mean, who better than Superman to introduce a shared DC Universe?

Nolan and Snyder don't control that or the character. I think WB is pissed at Nolan right now for refusing 3D, and Nolan was a large force behind WB scrapping JLA back in 2007, because he was pissed it was undercutting TDK.

To me if they do the "shared universe" people will definitely see it as copycat syndrome, so I hope it doesn't happen, but ultimately the suits at WB will make the decision.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

Well...Nolan can't be in charge forever, right? i thought his active involvement would end with TDKR.

It is possible that MOS is a one-off, and the'll start the brand new DC movie verse with the rebooted Batman...which most likely will be fast tracked .

...Or start it all with JL movie, which then goes to spin-offs movies...

I personally hope that they dont go that route. While it's true batman and Superman doesn't really needs an origin movies again, character such as Wonder Woman definitely does.

 

[Flemm]

The FF need to be in the Marvel Cinema Universe. Their presence makes a universe starting to run out of two dimensional characters even richer. In the 616 they are a key role. An outside force other than the Avengers that are probably more popular and more feared throughout the Multiverse. They are the ones the Avengers call when things get really effed up. Funny thing is... it's not even their job. They are of course a family of explorers. But are lynchpins to how the 616 works.

That may be true, but it's still not really clear to me how they would fit in the MCU, tbh. Their niche is not going to be "more popular and more feared than the Avengers" in the MCU. And they can't be the ones the Avengers call on when things really get effed up either, at least not at first (maybe down the line), since it would make no sense for the established team to suddenly need to call on a newbie team.

The characters are all potentially really great, no doubt about that. Sue Storm is awesome. Johnny and Ben are both cool characters who worked reasonably well even in the FF movies we have already seen.

Reed is a potential problem, I think, though. He could easily come across as Tony Stark without the jokes and the armor, and with a relatively lame superpower. I guess what you'd do with Reed is make him "more Tony than Tony," a super genius on an even higher level.

I think making the FF the young, up and coming, inexperienced, but also independant and somewhat rebellious super team might be the route they would take. The FF's Mac versus the Avengers' IBM, I guess, in a sense. That's not how it works in 616, but it does a bit sometimes in Ultimate FF.

Anyway, I'd love to see it. Just curious about how it would be done.

 

[J.Howlett]

Amazing how inspirational a billion dollar-grossing film can be, isn't it? Despite WB's noises about JLA and WW, I won't believe that either project will get off the ground until the scripts are written, directors and casts hired, filming wraps and they premiere. The last attempt at JLA went as far as having sets built, actors sent to Australia for training and everything ready to go before WB pulled the plug days before filming was to start. WB execs either greenlight crap and then have second thoughts about it or they simply aren't committed to their comic book properties.


The production costs of the aborted JLA project will be tacked on to the next film, which will make it much harder for it to turn a profit. The same thing happened with Superman Returns, although WB never fully revealed the cost of developing and then scrapping several scripts for that franchise over the years. Whatever the production budget, tens of millions of dollars from the George Miller-helmed failure will be on its ledger. That will add more pressure to an already high stakes situation.

That abandoned JLA movie being pulled had nothing to do with it being bad. We all know why it got scrapped.

The Govenor put his foot down.

 

[J.Howlett]

Nolan and Snyder don't control that or the character. I think WB is pissed at Nolan right now for refusing 3D, and Nolan was a large force behind WB scrapping JLA back in 2007, because he was pissed it was undercutting TDK.

To me if they do the "shared universe" people will definitely see it as copycat syndrome, so I hope it doesn't happen, but ultimately the suits at WB will make the decision.

How can WB be pissed at Nolan when his last four films for them is probably grossing over 3 billion worldwide, with one of them being an original idea?

I'd be pissed if the suits were trying to undercut all the work I put into one of their flagships.

 

[Tony Stark]

Amazing how inspirational a billion dollar-grossing film can be, isn't it? Despite WB's noises about JLA and WW, I won't believe that either project will get off the ground until the scripts are written, directors and casts hired, filming wraps and they premiere. The last attempt at JLA went as far as having sets built, actors sent to Australia for training and everything ready to go before WB pulled the plug days before filming was to start. WB execs either greenlight crap and then have second thoughts about it or they simply aren't committed to their comic book properties.


The production costs of the aborted JLA project will be tacked on to the next film, which will make it much harder for it to turn a profit. The same thing happened with Superman Returns, although WB never fully revealed the cost of developing and then scrapping several scripts for that franchise over the years. Whatever the production budget, tens of millions of dollars from the George Miller-helmed failure will be on its ledger. That will add more pressure to an already high stakes situation.

WB has a history of being wishy washy like that. The first Superman movie was made as a negative pickup. That means that basically the father and son producers Salkind who funded the entire project themselves and WB only picked it up after it was complete.

I honestly feel that this film is almost a megaflop already without anyone lifting a pen to paper or shooting a single film cell for exactly the reason you state. Justice League right now just seems like a bad knock off of Avengers until they start getting some real talent behind this project.

 

[Tony Stark]

How can WB be pissed at Nolan when his last four films for them is probably grossing over 3 billion worldwide, with one of them being an original idea?

I'd be pissed if the suits were trying to undercut all the work I put into one of their flagships.

They're suits, that's why. All they care about is profit margins they don't give a crap about artistic integrity. They care about stock holder value.

Avengers had about 50% of the ticket sales toward 3D prices, which is about a 25-30% boost in revenue overall. If you're a board member on Time Warner of course they are pissed it wasn't in 3D.

Look, I think Nolan should have a say in how his films are presented, but from a business perspective, they could have made a killing.

FYI Time Warner stock is about half of what it was worth when TDK was out.

 

[J.Howlett]

So the possibility of 3 billion plus off of this director's last four films isn't enough? Just because he didn't do 3D but IMAX instead?

Wow.

 

[Tony Stark]

So the possibility of 3 billion plus off of this director's last four films isn't enough? Just because he didn't do 3D but IMAX instead?

Wow.

It's the stock market, they don't care about what you did back in 2010, 2008, 2006 and 2005. They care about how you will end fiscal year 2012.

 

[Paladin-Hoss]

It's the stock market, they don't care about what you did back in 2010, 2008, 2006 and 2005. They care about how you will end fiscal year 2012.

This

It's 'what have you done for me lately'attitude

 

[J.Howlett]

892 million worldwide is what he's done for them lately. That's not peanuts.

No matter. The Justice League film won't make what Avengers makes because it'll be the first one. The warm up.

 

[marcvader]

Tony Stark, you're treading awfully close to AB territory with the assumptions and assertions. Lol

 

[Tony Stark]

892 million worldwide is what he's done for them lately. That's not peanuts.

No matter. The Justice League film won't make what Avengers makes because it'll be the first one. The warm up.

They don't get to count revenue earned in years past to fiscal year 2012. Sure TDKR is going to make a killing, but if your a stock holder and you see that whatever you made, you could have made more with 3D, that's not going to make you happy. It's also about market share and Disney and Warner are competitors and by years end Warner will have lost market share to Disney.

 

[kedrell]

Avengers had about 50% of the ticket sales toward 3D prices, which is about a 25-30% boost in revenue overall.

Actually that 52% was just on opening weekend. It'd be wrong to expect that it held that percentage all throughout it's run. I suspect when the final numbers of ticket sales are tabulated that it probably comes in under 20% of it's tickets being for 3-D showings. At least domestically. 3-D will probably have inflated TA's gross between $50-75M in domestic sales. Now overseas is a different story since we all know how 3-D hungry foreign audiences seem to be compared to those in North America.

 

[Tony Stark]

Tony Stark, you're treading awfully close to AB territory with the assumptions and assertions. Lol

How is what I said anywhere close to the realm of insanity of what AB says?

If your a stock holder and you see that 3D is a popular film format and you know the film is going to make a billion dollars WW and between 400-500M domestically and you know that with 3D the film could make 30% more, and the only reason you are not releasing the film in 3D is the director doesn't want to?

As a stock holder why wouldn't you be pissed about that? Take the film artistry perspective out of this, think of this purely from a business perspective.

FYI, I was not the first one to say this.

 

[kedrell]

I think 30% seems like too a high figure for how much 3-D adds, to be honest. Unless you're talking about Avatar.

 

[Tony Stark]

Actually that 52% was just on opening weekend. It'd be wrong to expect that it held that percentage all throughout it's run. I suspect when the final numbers of ticket sales are tabulated that it probably comes in under 20% of it's tickets being for 3-D showings. At least domestically. 3-D will probably have inflated TA's gross between $50-75M in domestic sales. Now overseas is a different story since we all know how 3-D hungry foreign audiences seem to be compared to those in North America.

I realize it didn't hold that though the run, all the more to my point. Go tell a stockholder you're leaving $75M on the table for "artistic integrity".

 

[J.Howlett]

I understand what you're saying but film is still an art form. You can't make a director shoot a film in a format he doesn't believe in.

I think 3D is a money gimmick, pure and simple. It doesn't add anything to these films being released in 3D. But, I do understand it from a stock holder's perspective.

The last time I saw Avengers was in 3D and I regretted it because it added absolutely nothing but money in their pockets. It's a pure scam. I don't particularly care what James Cameron thinks on this subject. It's a scam.

 

[kedrell]

I agree from a business perspective.

 

[Tony Stark]

I understand what you're saying but film is still an art form. You can't make a direct shoot a film in a format he doesn't believe in.

I think 3D is a money gimmick, pure and simple. It doesn't add anything to these films being released in 3D. But, I do understand it from a stock holder's perspective.

The last time I saw Avengers was in 3D and I regretted it because it added absolutely nothing but money in their pockets. It's a pure scam. I don't particularly care what James Cameron thinks on this subject. It's a scam.

I agree with you here, and I think he should be able to make it the way he wants. What I said was the execs are probably pissed at him for not making it in 3D, that's all.

Also it was well documented at the time that he was pissed at Warner moving forward with JL, when he was trying to make TDK. He felt (rightly so) they were trying to undercut his film, especially after they'd cast Armie Hammer as Batman.

 

[kedrell]

I'm very curious to see the figures when all is said and done whether TA will have sold more tickets(both domestic and overseas) than TDK. I know it did on opening weekend(even taking into account inflation & 3-D surcharges) domestic but when it's run is over completely I'd like to know which one won that battle.

 

[J.Howlett]

I'm very curious to see the figures when all is said and done whether TA will have sold more tickets(both domestic and overseas) than TDK. I know it did on opening weekend(even taking into account inflation & 3-D surcharges) domestic but when it's run is over completely I'd like to know which one won that battle.

Probably Avengers but it'll be very close.