Iron Man 2 The Iron Man 2 Box Office Prediction Thread

[Tony Stark]

maybe it would have done better if they hadn't fired the real Rhodey.

I like what Howard did in the first film, but Cheadle is a better actor, and he was better in this. I think the vast majority prefer him over Howard.

 

[Tony Stark]

If you're implying that because the first movie was so good that it had a distinct disadvantage with the sequels than the other franchises, I'm not particularly buying it. One of the biggest complaints is that IM2 was worse than the first, not that it didn't exceed it by a great amount.

Plus, BB is widely considered to be one of the greatest comic book films of all time. It was topping many lists, that is up until TDK came along and snatched the throne. So it's absolutely possible to surpass a great movie. Not saying it's easy, but it's doable.

IM1 was a much more critically acclaimed movie than Batman Begins, in fact among the top critics on RT Begins was barely fresh, so that argument doesn't wash.

Not much of a barometer in the general reception of the film. This is Superman Returns:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/superman_returns/?critic=creamcrop

Beat both IM2 and BB. Where does that film fall amongst the fanboy community's ladder of superhero films, again?

Again look at the top critic reviews which filter out alot of the crap on RT. Superman Returns had a tepid response, both in the media and with the fans.

It's fallen on deaf ears because it's been proven time and time again that Hollywood is bulletproof from recessions. Remember that little thing called the Great Depression? It actually helped Hollywood and spawned a golden age of films.

But hey, that was a long time ago. So let's look at 2009. It topped 2008, and was Hollywood's biggest year since 2002:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/21/business/21hollywood.html?_r=1
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B901X20091210

Let's stop making excuses here. This isn't even remotely a credible argument.

Nice strawman there. First off the Great Depression was 10 year period, and alot of what happened in hollywood was fuled by the war effort. How do you think Ronald Regan got his start in film.

Second for what you say to be true, it must be true every time there's a recession, in 90/91 Box office was way down, also the current recession started in Dec 2007 so 2008 being down is actually durring the recession. The sub-prime stuff didn't start until Oct 2008, but actually people getting out of their mortgages may have freed up income for them to go to the movies, who knows. 2009 is mainly up because of two factors, the first being the writers strike which pushed many of the holiday 2008 releases into January 2009, the second being Avatar, which is one of those films no one can predict will be that big, just like Titanic.

 

[Crook]

IM1 was a much more critically acclaimed /movie than Batman Begins, in fact among the top critics on RT Begins was barely fresh, so that argument doesn't wash.

I'm not seeing your point here. What does having a slightly lower critical score affect the fact that BB was widely praised and topped many film lists at the time?

Again look at the top critic reviews which filter out alot of the crap on RT. Superman Returns had a tepid response, both in the media and with the fans.

That's exactly where I'm looking at. For the Top Critics:

SR - 74% Avg: 6.9/10
IM2 - 66% Avg: 5.9/10
BB - 60% Avg: 6.6/10

Nice strawman there. First off the Great Depression was 10 year period, and alot of what happened in hollywood was fuled by the war effort. How do you think Ronald Regan got his start in film.

It's a strawman argument to draw glaring relations between recessions, inflation, war, and movie attendance? I'll show you a strawman argument...

Second for what you say to be true, it must be true every time there's a recession, in 90/91 Box office was way down, also the current recession started in Dec 2007 so 2008 being down is actually durring the recession. The sub-prime stuff didn't start until Oct 2008, but actually people getting out of their mortgages may have freed up income for them to go to the movies, who knows.

This is textbook flip-flopping. These were your words one post ago:

What's funny is that some are expressing that the box office performance is somehow tied to how good the movie is. Well I've said this before and it's fallen on deaf ears, but Summer 2008 was pre-recession.

So which is it? When did the recession specifically start, and when did it specifically affect moviegoing attendance? Did it stop when TDK came along, started again, and conveniently stopped when Avatar rolled around? And now that IM2s out, we're back in that recession so it's not making as much money? Is that it? I want you to clearly mark this path out for me. Because as of now, you can't even stick with your own position. You're proving to me you're weaving in and out of this topic so you can meet a desired conclusion. C'mon.

2009 is mainly up because of two factors, the first being the writers strike which pushed many of the holiday 2008 releases into January 2009, the second being Avatar, which is one of those films no one can predict will be that big, just like Titanic.

I don't really give a damn why 2009 was bigger. You went on an entire paragraph saying why it was down from 2008...it wasn't. Now you're saying the biggest grossing movie of that year practically doesn't count because it's success was unpredictable. It's success proves this entire "no one has money, they're not going to the movies!" argument completely out the water.

 

[Figs]

I'm sorry, but these people saying IM1 being so much better than X1, Spidey 1 and BB (which it WASNT BTW, It was slightly better than X1 and Spidey 1, and not as good as BB if you ask me) are the reason for the poorer reviews are just full of it.

At the end of the day, the movie didnt improve on the 1st one when it should have, it had all the correct ingredients, but just didnt integrate them together well enough, its a good sequel, but in general its just not as good as X2, Spidey 2 and TDK.

I'm a huge IM fan and loved both movies but I agree that it wasn't as good as BB(although it was a lot more fun)and personally I think I did like it a bit more than the first Spider-Man but that's probably because I like IM comics more than Spider-Man comics.

One thing I don't agree on is X1 being better than IM. I remember in the past I See Spidey had posted that watching the first X-men movie after all these years, it felt and looked almost like a TV movie. I have to agree with that, the movie hasn't exactly aged all that well but X2 is still great.

 

[Tony Stark]

@Crook,

IM1 had a 93% RT general rating and 92% among top critics, where BB had an 85% general rating and a barely fresh 60% rating among top critics. Hardly "slightly lower".

Regarding SR, I must have been looking at the wrong movie or somthing, I had thought SR's top critic rating was 57%. I can't explain that one, but I agree it's not good.

I should have said pre sub-prime, not pre recession. I'm not saying it's the only factor, and I'm not making excuses. What I am saying is that summer 2008 was bigger than summer 2009, and summer 2008 was down from summer 2007 where there were 3 movies in May alone that were over 300 mil.

The trending was down, so you're saying it has no effect, I'm saying it has some effect, especially when there was 1000 point drop in the dow the week before release and the Euro is tanking due to the collapse in Greece.

I'm not saying it's the only factor, so don't put words in my mouth.

 

[Evil Twin]

If you have to resort to small sample sizes, month, seasons, # of $300+ million films, over yearlong trends, then of course there's going to be variations and no clear trend. From what I can tell, see http://www.boxoffice.com/statistics/yearly, ticket sales have basically been flat the last 5 years, which pretty much makes the argument that box office hasn't been affected by the recession. And, really, people want entertainment and movies are one heck of a value. Especially compared to live entertainment.

Heck, there are 3 huge blockbusters in 2009 already and we're not even to Memorial Day. Avatar, Alice in Wonderland, and, yes, IM2. You can also toss How to Train Your Dragon, Clash of the Titans, and Shutter Island into the success category.

The ideas that IM2 is not a success or needs justification because it's not going to do $400 million both seem off base to me. IM2 is behaving like a sequel to a popular film. Heck, of successful sequels, very few blow up to significantly greater grosses, TDK, Transformers 2, and POTC, basically. Harry Potter, LOTR, James Bond, Bourne, Star Wars, and Spider-Man were all essentially flat compared to their first films in their current incarnations. That didn't make the latter films failures of any sort.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

IM1 was a much more critically acclaimed movie than Batman Begins, in fact among the top critics on RT Begins was barely fresh, so that argument doesn't wash.

But TDK has a higher critical acclaim than Ironman, yet you think TDK is not as good. You can't cherry pick when to use RT as a gauge.

Besides, look at the average: BB 7.7/10, IM 7.6/10. Not much of a difference.

 

[redfirebird2008]

But TDK has a higher critical acclaim than Ironman, yet you think TDK is not as good. You can't cherry pick when to use RT as a gauge.

Besides, look at the average: BB 7.7/10, IM 7.6/10. Not much of a difference.

The fresh rating thing is only a sign of how many people liked something, not how much each one liked it. That's why BB actually ended up with a higher average rating than IM1. It might be a more polarizing movie for a variety of reasons.

And since when are critics the only thing to be taken into account in these matters? BB is respected by comic book fans pretty much equally with the likes of X2, IM1, SM1/SM2, and the first two Superman movies. Don't believe me? Take a look at its user rating at RT, its rating at IMDB, its rating at Yahoo, and on and on. Plus it sold more on home video than IM1 despite much lower box office. Heck, it sold more DVD's than Revenge of the Sith, a movie that came out the same year and made $175m more at the domestic box office. The movie struck a chord with a lot of people.

 

[Tony Stark]

But TDK has a higher critical acclaim than Ironman, yet you think TDK is not as good. You can't cherry pick when to use RT as a gauge.

Besides, look at the average: BB 7.7/10, IM 7.6/10. Not much of a difference.

And among the top critics BB 6.6/10, IM 7.6/10, so what I'm saying is overall IM1 was had more positive reviews, and among the top critics it wasn't even close.

 

[rashad]

Weekend Actuals
$52,041,005 -59.4%

Domestic: $211,200,876
+ Foreign: $216,000,000
= Worldwide: $427,200,876

 

[Crook]

@Crook,

IM1 had a 93% RT general rating and 92% among top critics, where BB had an 85% general rating and a barely fresh 60% rating among top critics. Hardly "slightly lower".

Regarding SR, I must have been looking at the wrong movie or somthing, I had thought SR's top critic rating was 57%. I can't explain that one, but I agree it's not good.

I can tell you where SR fits into this. It basically means that crunching numbers and relegating a movie's reception down to a statistician's game does not reflect the real world. Time is the biggest contributor to how a film has been received, because it takes away the hype factor and the freshness of just coming out of a screening. SR exemplifies this greatly, having technically beating out BB in some areas of critical reception, but carries nowhere near the same amount of prestige overall. This goes the other way as well for poorly reviewed films who later turn out to be classics.

I should have said pre sub-prime, not pre recession. I'm not saying it's the only factor, and I'm not making excuses. What I am saying is that summer 2008 was bigger than summer 2009, and summer 2008 was down from summer 2007 where there were 3 movies in May alone that were over 300 mil.

The trending was down, so you're saying it has no effect, I'm saying it has some effect, especially when there was 1000 point drop in the dow the week before release and the Euro is tanking due to the collapse in Greece.

You're looking at minute factors instead of looking at the bigger picture. Who cares which season did better in the year? What should be looked at is what year did better overall. Whatever "trends" have appeared in the past decade for Hollywood, it sure as hell has not been our economic status. As several people have pointed out in the past 2 pages, the recession hasn't done s**t to movie tickets. But you are free to provide sources that indicate otherwise, I would be curious to see them.

I'm not saying it's the only factor, so don't put words in my mouth.

Well praise the gods that I didn't do that, eh?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

And among the top critics BB 6.6/10, IM 7.6/10, so what I'm saying is overall IM1 was had more positive reviews, and among the top critics it wasn't even close.

You know what scored even less among "top" critics ? The Matrix (a 6.2). Are you seriously gonna tell me Begins and Ironman are better than that pop masterpiece ?

 

[ultimatefan]

A 59% drop is steep, but not really alarming for a movie that had such a big opening. I think domestically IM2 may make less than 1, but the overseas market may make up for it.

At this point, over 600m worldwide is a lock, how much above that is what remains to be seen.

 

[redfirebird2008]

At this point, over 600m worldwide is a lock, how much above that is what remains to be seen.

Yep. Looks like the overseas number will be a lot closer to the domestic number this time around. Both will be over $300m. I'm thinking the total will be in the $640m area: $325m domestic and $315m overseas.

 

[ElMariachi]

You know what scored even less among "top" critics ? The Matrix (a 6.2). Are you seriously gonna tell me Begins and Ironman are better than that pop masterpiece ?

yes, The Matrix trilogy is completely overrated. Give me RDJ over Keanu's wooden acting and some flashy gunfights.

 

[Tony Stark]

I liked the first Matix film, they got progressively worse after that one. I didn't like the Matrix better than Begins or Iron Man though.

 

[redfirebird2008]

yes, The Matrix trilogy is completely overrated. Give me RDJ over Keanu's wooden acting and some flashy gunfights.

I can't stand Keanu Reeves, but he and the gunfights are irrelevant. The philosophical ideas are the core of that movie.

 

[hatebox]

The Matrix sequels lessened the mystique of the mythology of the first Matrix, but taken as a single movie its cultural impact is leagues ahead of IM and BB. That's not even debatable as far as I'm concerned, although BB was sort of influencial in terms of the back to basics reboot.

 

[ElMariachi]

I can't stand Keanu Reeves, but he and the gunfights are irrelevant. The philosophical ideas are the core of that movie.

I am not saying it's a bad movie by any means, but I do think its pretty overrated by many. For him to scoff that some may prefer IM/BB as superior films is kind of silly in my book---but to each his own I guess.

 

[Tony Stark]

Getting back to the subject, I'm real curious why Paramount pulled all their advertising after opening. Did anyone see any "go see the no.1 movie in the country" type advertising? Cause I sure didn't.

I honestly wonder if there's some bad blood between Paramount and Marvel with the Disney aquisition, and I thought that since before the film. The whole advertising scheme was very subdued for Iron Man 2, pretty much banking on the success of the first movie. Paramount really wasn't going to see alot of the profits, compared to Marvel.

Now I didn't think the advertising for the first movie was great either, but I chalked that up to a new studio trying to cut costs.

 

[TheVileOne]

People just expect a proportional rise. Since the budget is around 200 and since its a sequel to a widely popular movie, it's got to make like 200 million more than its predecessor overall. If it returns the same profit (maybe the overseas will be a bit better but still) as the first, for a character that was supposedly on the rise in popularity, it indicates that you are leveling off and plateauing already, which is never a good sign. If this ends up grossing 750 then it's fine, but if it finishes in the 650 range, that's a bit short.

This logic is nonsense and ********. Spider-man 2 says hello.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I am not saying it's a bad movie by any means, but I do think its pretty overrated by many. For him to scoff that some may prefer IM/BB as superior films is kind of silly in my book---but to each his own I guess.

It is overrated to me as well, but that's because I can't stand the "birth" scene. The idea of that just seems to be as weird and "grossout" as possible for the heck of it. The movie is at its best when it is merely presenting ideas. The first time I saw it was actually in a Philosophy of Film class in 2007, so the ideas were the main stuff we focused on. The themes are great, and looking back it is pretty surprising that a major studio funded it because the philosophical ideas presented are very much against the big conglomerates that run the world (including Time Warner).

 

[hatebox]

Getting back to the subject, I'm real curious why Paramount pulled all their advertising after opening. Did anyone see any "go see the no.1 movie in the country" type advertising? Cause I sure didn't.

I live in the UK so have no idea what it was like in the States but over here advertising was fairly minimal. Quite a few posters but not that much on TV, not that I watch a lot. I sometimes wonder if comic book movies don't fare that well in Europe because they get so much less exposure than America.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Getting back to the subject, I'm real curious why Paramount pulled all their advertising after opening. Did anyone see any "go see the no.1 movie in the country" type advertising? Cause I sure didn't.

I honestly wonder if there's some bad blood between Paramount and Marvel with the Disney aquisition, and I thought that since before the film. The whole advertising scheme was very subdued for Iron Man 2, pretty much banking on the success of the first movie. Paramount really wasn't going to see alot of the profits, compared to Marvel.

Now I didn't think the advertising for the first movie was great either, but I chalked that up to a new studio trying to cut costs.

Good point about possible bad blood between Paramount and Marvel. Disney is laughing all the way to the bank while Paramount gets left holding the bag.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Getting back to the subject, I'm real curious why Paramount pulled all their advertising after opening. Did anyone see any "go see the no.1 movie in the country" type advertising? Cause I sure didn't.

I honestly wonder if there's some bad blood between Paramount and Marvel with the Disney aquisition, and I thought that since before the film. The whole advertising scheme was very subdued for Iron Man 2, pretty much banking on the success of the first movie. Paramount really wasn't going to see alot of the profits, compared to Marvel.

Now I didn't think the advertising for the first movie was great either, but I chalked that up to a new studio trying to cut costs.

I have seen TV spots post release. I don't think that's the issue. People just haven't responded as well to it. Paramount did enough with it. Yeah you can always do more, but it was more than the minimum IMO.