Iron Man 2 The Iron Man 2 Box Office Prediction Thread

[Tony Stark]

Box Office Mojo has Batman at $500.4 million. Don't forget that AMC, Regal, and Cinemark have been raising ticket prices lately. And, no, it's not JUST for 3D. 2D has increased as well. It's already $11 at many places. Also, Batman Returns has probably passed the $300 million mark by now. There was only a $22 million difference between Batman Returns and Batman Forever.

You're right Batman '89 was a huge success, no way to spin it otherwise. That movie came out after my senior year in High School and Batman was frickin everywhere. That was probably one of the best marketing campaigns for a movie I've ever seen.

Now after that film the quality of the Batman movies went drastically downhill until Begins.

Now it's hard to compare a 300 million dollar movie now to one back in 89. Yeah Batman '89 sold more tickets than most modern superhero movies that made equal or more money, but it was just a totally different deal back then.

The fact that you can have a better quality viewing experience in a home theater system than you would have had at the best movie theater back in '89 is a big factor in all of this.

VHS was not a huge market except for rentals. People didn't go out of their way to buy movies on VHS when they came out, the way they do DVD and Blue Ray, and even now that's changing with services like Vudu where you can download hi-def 1080p movies in 5.1 surround.

The no. 1 box office success of all time adjusted for inflation is Gone with the Wind, and that should tell you something. You just can't compare different era's in film that way.

 

[hatebox]

IM2 has been an interesting film to discuss box-office wise. It's performed just well enough to avoid being labelled a disappointment, but not well enough (in many peoples' eyes) to be thought of as a smash hit after the momentum the first one provided.

Incidentally, does anyone think this'll reach $320m now? Seems unlikely to me. While its drops have been quite good the last few weeks, the numbers are so small now that another $15m is probably out of reach.

 

[Tony Stark]

Sorry, but this statement is complete and utter ********, I am more of an Iron Man fan than I will ever be a Batman fan, but the fact of the matter is IM2 underperformed, you think Marvel are happy that at this point the first Iron Man movie is more profitable than the second?

They are happy that they have a bankable franchise other than Spider-man or X-men.

As far as being more profitable, that's a crock. It's about shareholder value. Someone else was saying "it's all about profit", sorry it's not. The company I work for last quarter beat our earnings estimate by 5 cents per share, but our stock went down. Why? Because we missed our revenue goals.

Yes profit is important but revenue is far, far more important, which is why they spent 200 million on this thing. And actually 200 million is not bad for a picture of this calibur. Inflation works both ways and 200 million dollar budget now is like a 150 million dollar budget 7 years ago.

If you don't think the popularity of Iron Man increases Marvel/Disney's share holder value then you must be living under a rock. It doesn't matter what you think of the movie.

 

[Marvin]

That's perception fooling you. IM2 got to 300 million 8 days faster than IM1. See how it works? The "expectation" stuff actually made you think it "crawled" to 300.

i stand corrected.

however I do think the competition plays a large part in the numbers.
if this was summer 2007 I'm sure things would be a little "steeper"

good for marvel.
i look forward to more heroes on the big screen

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

That's perception fooling you. IM2 got to 300 million 8 days faster than IM1. See how it works? The "expectation" stuff actually made you think it "crawled" to 300.



Well...we are allowed to like it of course. But we are supposed to believe it was a disappointment at the box office even though it actually brought in more money than the original (which was a smashing success). We are apparently required to pretend we work for the studio and are motivated by a spreadsheet instead of enjoying the fact that this movie has a higher gross than the first.

It's worth posting the BoM article again I think:

So it does seem unlikely that Marvel would somehow classify this movie as a disappointment...you're right about that.

Its barely passed the original after 2 years of building anticipation, and the original made more profit because it was made for less and made more domestically than IM2 (you do know studios only get 15% of foreign gross dont you?), so, again, tell me, you think they are happy with that?

They are happy that they have a bankable franchise other than Spider-man or X-men.

As far as being more profitable, that's a crock. It's about shareholder value. Someone else was saying "it's all about profit", sorry it's not. The company I work for last quarter beat our earnings estimate by 5 cents per share, but our stock went down. Why? Because we missed our revenue goals.

Yes profit is important but revenue is far, far more important, which is why they spent 200 million on this thing. And actually 200 million is not bad for a picture of this calibur. Inflation works both ways and 200 million dollar budget now is like a 150 million dollar budget 7 years ago.

If you don't think the popularity of Iron Man increases Marvel/Disney's share holder value then you must be living under a rock. It doesn't matter what you think of the movie.

We arent talking about shareholder value, we are talking about profit, which is what make the movie business go around, this has made less profit than IM1, and this is a fact, so I pose this question to you, do you honestly think Marvel is please with that?

And for the 1000th time, I LIKED THE MOVIE!

 

[Tony Stark]

We arent talking about shareholder value, we are talking about profit, which is what make the movie business go around, this has made less profit than IM1, and this is a fact, so I pose this question to you, do you honestly think Marvel is please with that?

LOL! It's all about shareholder value. That's what being a publically traded company is all about. Yes you need to be profitable, but you also need to grow your business. Sure they were probably hoping for more but when it comes to the end of the year Disney will probably have the 3 of the 5 top money earners of 2010.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

You're right Batman '89 was a huge success, no way to spin it otherwise. That movie came out after my senior year in High School and Batman was frickin everywhere. That was probably one of the best marketing campaigns for a movie I've ever seen.

Now after that film the quality of the Batman movies went drastically downhill until Begins.

Now it's hard to compare a 300 million dollar movie now to one back in 89. Yeah Batman '89 sold more tickets than most modern superhero movies that made equal or more money, but it was just a totally different deal back then.

The fact that you can have a better quality viewing experience in a home theater system than you would have had at the best movie theater back in '89 is a big factor in all of this.

VHS was not a huge market except for rentals. People didn't go out of their way to buy movies on VHS when they came out, the way they do DVD and Blue Ray, and even now that's changing with services like Vudu where you can download hi-def 1080p movies in 5.1 surround.

The no. 1 box office success of all time adjusted for inflation is Gone with the Wind, and that should tell you something. You just can't compare different era's in film that way.

I've always liked the 2nd Batman more than than the first. Jack's Joker frankly was too "over-the top" for me. I much preferred DeVito's Penguin and Pfeiffer's Catwoman.

Today we also have a glut of super hero movies. You don't get to be a novelty like Batman 1. Many keep expecting super hero fatigue to set in any time now. That's a real worry for next year....4 in one summer...yeesh.

Its barely passed the original after 2 years of building anticipation, and the original made more profit because it was made for less and made more domestically than IM2 (you do know studios only get 15% of foreign gross dont you?), so, again, tell me, you think they are happy with that?

We arent talking about shareholder value, we are talking about profit, which is what make the movie business go around, this has made less profit than IM1, and this is a fact, so I pose this question to you, do you honestly think Marvel is please with that?

And for the 1000th time, I LIKED THE MOVIE!

LOL...noted. (Did I say you didn't? I don't recall)

I figure it's a fair relationship between me and the studios. They don't worry about my concerns and I don't worry about theirs. My interest is just how many people went to see IM2. I'm very pleased. It wasn't that long ago that Spider-Man 2 failed to reach the heights of Spider-Man 1...that's what I wanted to avoid.

My only concern with the profit stuff is that IM2 make enough for this whole deal to go forward. Mission accomplished.

Now if I were to worry about profit I would take into account the fact that IM2 made its money faster...much better for the studio...and that they were able to get a lot more out of the Burger King type stuff this time around.

I wish them luck, but like I said....they don't spend a lot of time worrying about my books...so I'm not going to fret over their books. If they suddenly start worrying about me I might consider it (probably not).

 

[danoyse]

There need not be any explanations, that'd be akin to hypocrisy. TS3 has the critics on their side, and from the audience reviews, they have that too. It being a sequel to two of the most beloved animated films gives it no excuse if it fails money-wise. TS3 failing would be the first indication that something is up, purely because it has all the advantages on its side. I couldn't do that with IM2 simply because it's clearly divided the fanbase. Not so much in a "it's amazing/it sucks" type of way, but it's been lukewarm.

Toy Story 3 made another $15 million yesterday.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

LOL! It's all about shareholder value. That's what being a publically traded company is all about. Yes you need to be profitable, but you also need to grow your business. Sure they were probably hoping for more but when it comes to the end of the year Disney will probably have the 3 of the 5 top money earners of 2010.

But, I AM TALKING ABOUT PROFITS, not shareholder value, and I see by the bolded statement that you have finally admitted Marvel were expecting more, thats been my whole argument all along.

Plus, you bring up Disney, but with this movie being made without any of their funding and involvement, will they still get a share of the profits?

LOL...noted. (Did I say you didn't? I don't recall)

You mentioned something about my feelings towards the movie in your last post, no biggie, but thought i'd mention it again .

I figure it's a fair relationship between me and the studios. They don't worry about my concerns and I don't worry about theirs. My interest is just how many people went to see IM2. I'm very pleased. It wasn't that long ago that Spider-Man 2 failed to reach the heights of Spider-Man 1...that's what I wanted to avoid.

My only concern with the profit stuff is that IM2 make enough for this whole deal to go forward. Mission accomplished.

Now if I were to worry about profit I would take into account the fact that IM2 made its money faster...much better for the studio...and that they were able to get a lot more out of the Burger King type stuff this time around.

I wish them luck, but like I said....they don't spend a lot of time worrying about my books...so I'm not going to fret over their books. If they suddenly start worrying about me I might consider it (probably not).

But this is a box office discussion thread, and thats why i'm discussing it.

Also, IM2 making its money faster means nothing if it hasnt made as much profit, I cant see them caring about that, I see them caring that IM2 isnt showing the legs that IM1 did and that it wont make as much domestically.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Toy Story 3 made another $15 million yesterday.

I pretty much expected this, it will over-take IM2 in a matter of weeks domestically IMO, and will spend ages in cinemas.

 

[danoyse]

Agreed. First of all, Toy Story 3 was amazing, and it blew away everything else I've seen this summer so far (and I loved IM2)...but that's a family movie and they'll be going in droves to see it over the next few weeks. Plus adults are loving it as much as the kids are, so WOM is as good as the reviews.

 

[Iron_Stark]

I just got home from seeing Toy Story 3 and it was simply amazing. And those really aren't my kind of movies.

I've no doubt it will pass Iron Man 2 and deservingly so.

 

[Spider-Vader]

As long as IM2 has enough juice in it to pass 'Alice in Wonderland', then I'm good. That movie looks completely ******ed.

 

[Abraham]

As long as IM2 has enough juice in it to pass 'Alice in Wonderland', then I'm good. That movie looks completely ******ed.

I dont think that is possible for IM2, Alice is the 6th movie to ever cross the billion dollar mark, unless you're one of those weirdos that only count domestic (cause you-know America is the only place that counts for anything)

 

[Tony Stark]

But, I AM TALKING ABOUT PROFITS, not shareholder value, and I see by the bolded statement that you have finally admitted Marvel were expecting more, thats been my whole argument all along.

Plus, you bring up Disney, but with this movie being made without any of their funding and involvement, will they still get a share of the profits?

Quit putting words in my mouth, you read what I said. Shareholder value is more important than any immediate profit off one film. Profit for the company as a whole is important, but it's much more important to increase shareholder value. These are the folks that are risking their money so the company can do business.

Secondly this movie made more world wide than the first, now I realize overseas they get a smaller percentage of the BO take but you are making an assumption that this was not as profitable, and I don't know that for sure. There was advertising revenue from Burger King, 7-11, Dr. Pepper. Those revenue streams all count toward the profitability of the film. Then there will be DVD/BlueRay sales.

Marvel is a wholy owned subsidiary, Marvel's bottom line counts against theirs when they show their quarterly earnings, but there is no "splitting the profits" per say.

 

[Tony Stark]

Toy Story 3 made another $15 million yesterday.

At that rate TS3 will be the highest grossing domestic film for sure. I'm still waiting to take my kids to this. I'm excited to go see it, but I've been so busy with some home improvement projects, I haven't had time to go.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Quit putting words in my mouth, you read what I said. Shareholder value is more important than any immediate profit off one film. Profit for the company as a whole is important, but it's much more important to increase shareholder value. These are the folks that are risking their money so the company can do business.

I wasnt putting words on your mouth, you said Marvel probably expected more, which has been my point all along, this is the Iron Man 2 box office thread, not the Disney shareholder thread.

But my point has been made, Marvel were expecting the movie to make more.

Secondly this movie made more world wide than the first, now I realize overseas they get a smaller percentage of the BO take but you are making an assumption that this was not as profitable, and I don't know that for sure. There was advertising revenue from Burger King, 7-11, Dr. Pepper. Those revenue streams all count toward the profitability of the film. Then there will be DVD/BlueRay sales.

Marvel has to pay for those promotions, its part of marketing after all, they have to pay something towards and wont get all the profits either.

Marvel is a wholy owned subsidiary, Marvel's bottom line counts against theirs when they show their quarterly earnings, but there is no "splitting the profits" per say.

Fair enough.

 

[rashad]

As long as IM2 has enough juice in it to pass 'Alice in Wonderland', then I'm good. That movie looks completely ******ed.

At this point it may not have the juice to surpass the domestic gross of IM1. It's nowhere near out grossing the $334M of AIW. IM2 is going to be losing a massive amount of theaters in the coming weeks.

 

[bubbadoom]

IM1 was in theaters till October in order to gross it's $318 million.
I hope IM2 is given the same chance.

As of Monday, IM2 has been out 46 days and is at $304.5 million / $342,907 for the day.
IM1 on day 46 was at $298.6 million / $720,888 for the day.

IM2 is making under half what IM1 was making at this time. It's going to be tight, but I hope they do it!

 

[Evil Twin]

IM1 was in theaters till October in order to gross it's $318 million.
I hope IM2 is given the same chance.

As of Monday, IM2 has been out 46 days and is at $304.5 million / $342,907 for the day.
IM1 on day 46 was at $298.6 million / $720,888 for the day.

IM2 is making under half what IM1 was making at this time. It's going to be tight, but I hope they do it!

IM1 didn't stay in theaters that long out of charity, but because it was making enough money for theater owners to keep it in theaters. At this rate, it's possible that IM2 could fall behind the pace of IM1 in the next 2 weeks. If IM2 passes IM1 at all, domestically, it's going to be just barely. There's no hope of it getting to $330 million at this point, or $325 million, for that matter.

It's still a successful and profitable movie and a sequel is guaranteed. You don't have to grow the audience to have a successful franchise when the audience is this large in the first place.

 

[OtherwiseKnownAs]

Toy Story 3 made another $15 million yesterday.

It made another $15 million on Tuesday.

 

[danoyse]

It made another $15 million on Tuesday.

I want to see it again.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Plus, you bring up Disney, but with this movie being made without any of their funding and involvement, will they still get a share of the profits?

Yeah of course. Marvel/Marvel Studios is a part of Disney now. Any Marvel win is a Disney win now.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

But this is a box office discussion thread, and thats why i'm discussing it.

Also, IM2 making its money faster means nothing if it hasnt made as much profit, I cant see them caring about that, I see them caring that IM2 isnt showing the legs that IM1 did and that it wont make as much domestically.

If one is concerned about profit then you would want your movie to be as "front-loaded" as possible since the studio gets a bigger cut in the early weeks. I have to admit I don't really care about that.

Agreed. First of all, Toy Story 3 was amazing, and it blew away everything else I've seen this summer so far (and I loved IM2)...but that's a family movie and they'll be going in droves to see it over the next few weeks. Plus adults are loving it as much as the kids are, so WOM is as good as the reviews.

I'll be going tomorrow for my 3rd viewing. (I keep finding friends that haven't seen it and they insist I go with them. )

I have to agree....as much as I loved IM2, TS3 is the best of the summer so far.

As long as IM2 has enough juice in it to pass 'Alice in Wonderland', then I'm good. That movie looks completely ******ed.

Alice ain't bad IMO. I liked it a lot. I may be a minority opinion though. Many seem to hate it. I grew up with the book (read it over 20-30 times as a child) so I'm probably biased.

 

[S.A.A.D.]

For those who still care about Iron man 2's box office numbers.

Worldwide: $605,185,164