The Avengers The Avengers: News and Speculation - Part 27A sub-se - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Part 29

[antsman41]

I don't see it beating TDK's record.

Even if it did, TDKRises will reclaim the record back...

Just like it will take back it's other record from the darn Harry Potter kid.

 

[cherokeesam]

Rourke is justified, but he's being a dick about it.

Say your company has a presentation to give to the board of directors. Your boss tasks you and a few others to create presentations, and he will pick and choose bits from each presentation and form it into one big, super presentation. You work hour and hours, and he uses maybe a fifth of what you put into it.

Did you get paid for it? yeah. Are you still pissed he didn't use more? of course. You worked hard and want all of your hard work to be appreciated, not just some of it.

But it doesn't mean you can ***** and moan about it to everybody you can find for 3 years after the fact.

The whole "but he got paid for it, so ****" argument only works in a business setting, *not* in a creative setting. Actors, like directors, writers, singers, musicians and poets, are creative talent. So money isn't the final determinant of success. Instead, what creators are looking for is validation of their talent.

Look at the b.s. a screenwriter has to go through. If I write a spec script I really love and believe in, and I sell it to Studio X for a set advance, and then they wipe their collective asses with it and turn it into a laughingstock, you think I don't deserve to get pissed? One, they've taken the vision I had and completely twisted it, and two, they've sullied my name to the point that *I* get the reputation of being a crappy writer.

So yes, Rourke has a right to complain if he feels that the studio made his role into a laughingstock (they did) and hurt his chances of getting meatier roles (that, however, remains unproven).

 

[TheDragonator]

The reason TDK grossed so much was because of Ledger's great performance. Without Ledger, I highly doubt it'll gross 1.3 billion.

 

[TheDragonator]

edit: other post finally showed up

 

[Spider-Fan]

No debates about Ledger's death and why TDK made its money! I am putting a stop to that right now!

 

[TheDragonator]

I never mentioned Ledger's death as a reason TDK made money.

 

[BigThor]

I think people are forgetting that TDK only crossed the billion mark because it was re-released in theaters later that year, so films like TF3 and Harry Potter reaching a billion in their original run is more impressive.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch for The Avengers to reach TDK type numbers since TF3 reached and surpassed them, not to mention it's pretty much the sequel to 4 successful films and 1 moderately successful film.

 

[Quasimod0]

It has the potential to be big. thats for sure

 

[ladyloki]

It has the potential to be big. thats for sure

I agree 100 percent with this.. I also have faith that it will be, little over six months to go

 

[kedrell]

It's always about the variables. One, such as competition TA will face, looks extremely promising(moreso than any of the other MCU films ever had).

 

[rashad]

I think people are forgetting that TDK only crossed the billion mark because it was re-released in theaters later that year, so films like TF3 and Harry Potter reaching a billion in their original run is more impressive.

I don't think it's too much of a stretch for The Avengers to reach TDK type numbers since TF3 reached and surpassed them, not to mention it's pretty much the sequel to 4 successful films and 1 moderately successful film.

Wrong. TDK was not re-released. It never left theaters during it's boxoffice run. It was a re-expansion. Meaning it crossed the mark on it's original run.
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=daily&id=darkknight.htm

The last 2D film to do so. 3D and the growth of foreign markets have allowed that mark to be crossed a lot easier thus making it not as special. Though still an amazing accomplishment nonetheless.

All Time Worldwide BO Grosses. Movies with a ^ next to them were true re-released films.
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/world/

I'm sorry for going off topic but I had to correct that statement.

 

[Shadowlord X]

I have to say that breaking the i-tunes download record gives me hope that THE AVENGERS has the potential to be a great success. It will cement the MCU as a valid and viable project and a step forward in cinematic storytelling.

The only reason I would like THE AVENGERS to be the top grossing CBM is so that it can rescue the genre from nolanisation. I really want to see real CBSM's that embrace their comicbook elements and don't strip away the fantasy in favor of mundane realism.

 

[kedrell]

So they gave it the same treatment they gave SR. WB has a habit of doing that.

 

[Ramsay Snow]

As long as it makes enough money to drive Marvel to do even better things, that's what matters IMO. I'm personally expecting the movie to be totally fantastic in all aspects and that's what matters to us first and foremost.

 

[kedrell]

I have to say that breaking the i-tunes download record gives me hope that THE AVENGERS has the potential to be a great success. It will cement the MCU as a valid and viable project and a step forward in cinematic storytelling.

The only reason I would like THE AVENGERS to be the top grossing CBM is so that it can rescue the genre from nolanisation. I really want to see real CBSM's that embrace their comicbook elements and don't strip away the fantasy in favor of mundane realism.

For all the fear of "Nolanisation" that fans have talked about in the last three years, maybe one superhero film(Kick-Ass) has actually run with it. Most have soundly rejected that way of doing CBM's and gone the other way. Even the Singerverse's X-Men took a step back from that in XM:FC(I mean, we got costumes for once).

 

[Godzilla2000]

Even if it did, TDKRises will reclaim the record back...

Just like it will take back it's other record from the darn Harry Potter kid.

Which is a conversation that should be in the Batman boards. If I'm not mistaken this forum is for Avengers talk only. Please, if you want to talk about things other than the Avengers directly go to the appropriate forum because I see the developing of a Flame War here.

 

[T"Challa]

For all the fear of "Nolanisation" that fans have talked about in the last three years, maybe one superhero film(Kick-Ass) has actually run with it. Most have soundly rejected that way of doing CBM's and gone the other way. Even the Singerverse's X-Men took a step back from that in XM:FC(I mean, we got costumes for once).

+1..i'm not even sure i'll put Kick- Ass in that category..Nolan is awesome and i love that he brought respect back to the Batman franchise. However his way of doing things is not for all superheroes. This is the main reason i get frustrated by people (mostly Nolan fans) who say MCU movies like Thor and Cap are 'popcorn' , 'eye candy' , mediocre, and should aim to be more like TDK. Cap was never written as some dark brooding anti hero type, nether is Thor or IM. If we were talking about Frank Castle or Wolvie, i would understand. I'm not saying the films are perfect but when i see TDK being held as some kind of holy grail that should be followed in order to be considered great, i just sigh.

 

[Shadowlord X]

as long as it makes enough money to drive marvel to do even better things, that's what matters imo. I'm personally expecting the movie to be totally fantastic in all aspects and that's what matters to us first and foremost.

agree 100%

 

[Shadowlord X]

For all the fear of "Nolanisation" that fans have talked about in the last three years, maybe one superhero film(Kick-Ass) has actually run with it. Most have soundly rejected that way of doing CBM's and gone the other way. Even the Singerverse's X-Men took a step back from that in XM:FC(I mean, we got costumes for once).

Agreed but if you look at the BO success of the films that have embraced their comicbook nature it's been on average moderate.

It think nolanisation may have made it more difficult for real comicbook superhero movies to accepted by the non-fan GA and hindered their ability to be successful. I could be totally wrong and I truly hope that I am, but I would like THE AVENGERS to confirm that.

 

[Shadowlord X]

Which is a conversation that should be in the Batman boards. If I'm not mistaken this forum is for Avengers talk only. Please, if you want to talk about things other than the Avengers directly go to the appropriate forum because I see the developing of a Flame War here.

Well said, but as you see we all ignored him.

 

[JKM]

Apologies if i missed it, but has the recent news of Disney requiring Spidey's merchandising rights in exchange for total film rights been discussed yet?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/307...sses-q4-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript

As you might of heard, Sony aren't doing too well financially atm, and i'm not that surprised by the news. Though the fact they now have total control over the Spider-man film rights, kinda puts a stop to any chance of them being brought back to Marvel Studios, unless TASM bombs (which it most likely won't).

How do you guys feel about this? I'd actually prefer if the character stuck with Sony, Marvel already have enough on their plate, and there's only so many films you can release over time.

 

[BobbyCorwin88]

Rourke is justified, but he's being a dick about it.

Say your company has a presentation to give to the board of directors. Your boss tasks you and a few others to create presentations, and he will pick and choose bits from each presentation and form it into one big, super presentation. You work hour and hours, and he uses maybe a fifth of what you put into it.

Did you get paid for it? yeah. Are you still pissed he didn't use more? of course. You worked hard and want all of your hard work to be appreciated, not just some of it.

But it doesn't mean you can ***** and moan about it to everybody you can find for 3 years after the fact.

You make a good point, but a creative process like film making is a little different than the business world. One single role can determine what kind of roles an actor will play for almost the entirety of his/her career, whether that's for better or for worse. I'll site Robert Pattinson again. The guy hates Twilight. It's been paying his bills, sure. But at the terrible expense of having to play a ridiculous role for 5 or 6 movies, dealing with lunatic tweenagers and even weirder middle aged women swooning over him, and probably being type casted into most roles for the rest of his career; the good paying ones anyway. He's making money, but that's the least Summit Entertainment can give the guy. I'd say this guy has some room to complain if he wants to.

It's just not the same as a business presentation scenario. You usually know going in what's going to happen in that instance, but film making is a huge gamble for those involved. Your income and your pride are on the line.

The whole "but he got paid for it, so ****" argument only works in a business setting, *not* in a creative setting. Actors, like directors, writers, singers, musicians and poets, are creative talent. So money isn't the final determinant of success. Instead, what creators are looking for is validation of their talent.

Look at the b.s. a screenwriter has to go through. If I write a spec script I really love and believe in, and I sell it to Studio X for a set advance, and then they wipe their collective asses with it and turn it into a laughingstock, you think I don't deserve to get pissed? One, they've taken the vision I had and completely twisted it, and two, they've sullied my name to the point that *I* get the reputation of being a crappy writer.

So yes, Rourke has a right to complain if he feels that the studio made his role into a laughingstock (they did) and hurt his chances of getting meatier roles (that, however, remains unproven).

Pretty much this.

Let's not forget that Chris Evans has already come out and said very similar things about Cap. It's clearly not the kind of role he wants to be playing, but he knows he has to do that role before he can get to the stuff he actually wants to do. And even then there's no guarantee.

 

[Shadowlord X]

Apologies if i missed it, but has the recent news of Disney requiring Spidey's merchandising rights in exchange for total film rights been discussed yet?
http://seekingalpha.com/article/307...sses-q4-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript

As you might of heard, Sony aren't doing too well financially atm, and i'm not that surprised by the news. Though the fact they now have total control over the Spider-man film rights, kinda puts a stop to any chance of them being brought back to Marvel Studios, unless TASM bombs (which it most likely won't).

How do you guys feel about this? I'd actually prefer if the character stuck with Sony, Marvel already have enough on their plate, and there's only so many films you can release over time.

I have to say that I want MARVEL STUDIOS to get SPIDERMAN back. The inclusion of their premier chracter and A+ lister in the MCU can only boost it's overall popularity. Having a cameo of Spiderman in THE AVENGERS sequel would be insane; people would go just to see that.

With Disney's backing MARVEL STUDIOS can grow to accomodate him.

I'm also firmly behind their re-acquisition of the FANTASTIC FOUR franchise from Fox.

 

[Shadowlord X]

You make a good point, but a creative process like film making is a little different than the business world. One single role can determine what kind of roles an actor will play for almost the entirety of his/her career, whether that's for better or for worse. I'll site Robert Pattinson again. The guy hates Twilight. It's been paying his bills, sure. But at the terrible expense of having to play a ridiculous role for 5 or 6 movies, dealing with lunatic tweenagers and even weirder middle aged women swooning over him, and probably being type casted into most roles for the rest of his career; the good paying ones anyway. He's making money, but that's the least Summit Entertainment can give the guy. I'd say this guy has some room to complain if he wants to.

It's just not the same as a business presentation scenario. You usually know going in what's going to happen in that instance, but film making is a huge gamble for those involved. Your income and your pride are on the line.


Pretty much this.

Let's not forget that Chris Evans has already come out and said very similar things about Cap. It's clearly not the kind of role he wants to be playing, but he knows he has to do that role before he can get to the stuff he actually wants to do. And even then there's no guarantee.

Sorry but I really cannot buy that the career of an established actor like Rourke can be derailed by the portrayal of his character in IM2. That's absurd. A multi-picture scenario like Twilight for Pattinson, ok, but not this.

 

[JKM]

I have to say that I want MARVEL STUDIOS to get SPIDERMAN back. The inclusion of their premier chracter and A+ lister in the MCU can only boost it's overall popularity. Having a cameo of Spiderman in THE AVENGERS sequel would be insane; people would go just to see that.

With Disney's backing MARVEL STUDIOS can grow to accomodate him.

I'm also firmly behind their re-acquisition of the FANTASTIC FOUR franchise from Fox.

He is by far Marvel's most well-known character at least, and it would be daft to assume that Disney would let another company such as Fox or even worse Warner Brothers get to him first if the opportunity ever does arise. Although i'm not sure everyone would be happy about Spidey being including in an Avengers film.

Sure, i'd love to see him pop up in Avengers sequel, but, for his own films, Spidey doesn't need any side stories with SHIELD/Avengers etc. There's plenty of material to feast on already from the mythos, and I just hope, if Marvel/Disney do potentially require his film rights, they don't decide to shoe horn these side-plots in.