Iron Man 2 The Iron Man 2 Box Office Prediction Thread

[I SEE SPIDEY]

300mil is looking more and more likely but I'm not ready to say it's a lock until I see next weekends numbers. We can now say that it is having great word of mouth because the numbers prove that. Jolie is a good actress and I wish her well but Salt was tripe, I'm glad Inception is going to be number one again.

 

[Milkman95]

Estimates are in - $43.5 Million for Inception.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Great numbers.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Well I can't speak for others, but for myself, and I know you're a Marvel fan and not a Nolanite.

To me a Nolanite is the people who come on here and out of the blue say "Inception is going to make 600M dollars WW"

I too have been a fan of Nolan's since Momento, and quite honestly the Batman film aren't even close to his best work. But don't say that on a Batman thread.

Well, I have been accused of being a Nolan fan more than once in this thread for daring to suggest that Marvel werent expecting IM2 to make less domestic than IM1, which they werent.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I'm far from a crazed Nolan fan and I still believe that Iron Man 2's domestic numbers and reception are disappointing to the studio. They won't say it ofcourse but that doesn't make it any less true. Very resonable boxoffice predictors expected the movie to do atleast 350mil and with good reason.

Transformers was a well received movie that made 319mil and the sequel two years later came out and made 402mil.

Parates 1 was a well received movie that made 305mil and 3 years later the sequel came out and made 425mil.

Iron Man was a well received movie and made 318mil and 2 years later Iron Man 2 comes out and will probably end with 312 or 313mil.

People weren't just talking out of there ass and overpredicting Iron Man 2, there was a reason that alot of people saw the movie grossing atleast 350mil. Nobody expects that result with most sequels but Iron Man 2 was in a great postion so it wasn't unfair to expect more from it.

This is hindsight but one thing that messed up Iron Man 2 was that opening weekend, obviously the marketing wasn't as good as it could have been, couple that with people not liking the film as much and you have this result. Alot of money and success internationally but the domestic numbers leave alot to be desired. Still I can't argue with 300mil being 300mil. It's a big hit but a big hit that has tainted the franchise. As I said over and over again it's not just about the dollars, you have to keep the excitement going and IM2 just did not do that.

I've said this all before but I just thought I'd say it again.

 

[Iron_Stark]

I'm far from a crazed Nolan fan and I still believe that Iron Man 2's domestic numbers and reception are disappointing to the studio. They won't say it ofcourse but that doesn't make it any less true. Very resonable boxoffice predictors expected the movie to do atleast 350mil and with good reason.

Transformers was a well received movie that made 319mil and the sequel two years later came out and made 402mil.

Parates 1 was a well received movie that made 305mil and 3 years later the sequel came out and made 425mil.

Iron Man was a well received movie and made 318mil and 2 years later Iron Man 2 comes out and will probably end with 312 or 313mil.

People weren't just talking out of there ass and overpredicting Iron Man 2, there was a reason that alot of people saw the movie grossing atleast 350mil. Nobody expects that result with most sequels but Iron Man 2 was in a great postion so it wasn't unfair to expect more from it.

This is hindsight but one thing that messed up Iron Man 2 was that opening weekend, obviously the marketing wasn't as good as it could have been, couple that with people not liking the film as much and you have this result. Alot of money and success internationally but the domestic numbers leave alot to be desired. Still I can't argue with 300mil being 300mil. It's a big hit but a big hit that has tainted the franchise. As I said over and over again it's not just about the dollars, you have to keep the excitement going and IM2 just did not do that.

I've said this all before but I just thought I'd say it again.

No it hasn't. And how has it tainted it? Just because you personally didn't like it doesn't mean all those people that bought tickets for it didn't also. You don't speak for all those people.

Also you said "Very resonable boxoffice predictors expected the movie to do atleast 350mil and with good reason."

It's going to end 40 million shy of that and now it's become some huge disappointment for Marvel and a tainted franchise???

What now Marvel should just scrap it's plans for Iron Man 3 and give RDJ a small cameo in the Avengers because a few people on this message board think Iron Man 2 was some sort of failure? riiiiiiiight.

 

[hatebox]

According to posters on BOM Inception should comfortably pass $300m IF its drops do not surpass 35% from here on out. So it's certainly possible now, much to my surprise.

 

[Spider-Vader]

Marvel shouldn't be disappointed. The same thing happened with the Spider-Man series. First one was a surprise hit (did anyone seeing Spidey making over 400 million?) & then the second did good, but not AS good.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I think the difference between **** like IM and Spidey versus POTC and TF, there is a steady fanbase with the former two. If you were a casual movie goer that liked IM and Spidey, you probably saw the second one in theaters. But maybe you were busy that weekend and something else came up, and next weekend rolled around, three weekends later and you just never got around to watching it in cinemas. Blue-ray will be just around the corner, it's nothing I haven't seen before anyway... that's what most people in that boat are thinking. I was shocked when someone I know who enjoyed IM just never got around to see IM2, albeit there was a darn good reason why he wasn't there OW, but he just never got around to it. Albeit he is an openly converted Nolanite who is losing interest in the CB movie rush spare BB3. The difference with POTC and TF, those fanbases are almost non-existent before the first movie. Yeah there were those cult of TF fans from the 80's that vividly remember the toons but that's not nearly on the same level as Marvel's fans. Those films were phenomenons that grew exponentially over a short period of time. Of course that probably means they die out sooner than anticipated. Matrix Reloaded also made major bank. That's the mold of these modern franchises. You come onto the scenes from nowhere and quickly fizzle out, or you have slightly more sustainable success. If TF3 and POTC4 bomb, we will know where they fit in.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

No it hasn't. And how has it tainted it? Just because you personally didn't like it doesn't mean all those people that bought tickets for it didn't also. You don't speak for all those people.

Also you said "Very resonable boxoffice predictors expected the movie to do atleast 350mil and with good reason."

It's going to end 40 million shy of that and now it's become some huge disappointment for Marvel and a tainted franchise???

What now Marvel should just scrap it's plans for Iron Man 3 and give RDJ a small cameo in the Avengers because a few people on this message board think Iron Man 2 was some sort of failure? riiiiiiiight.

What she was pointing out was that Marvel wont be happy with the domestic take, not completely happy, in fact i guarantee they are dissapointed that this sequel didnt make more domestic than IM1, this is a fact, Marvel didnt put an extra $50 million + into the movie to be happy that it made either less or around the same profit as the 1st movie.

Anyone who denies this is delluding themselves in my humble opinion.

 

[FaT_tONle]

I agree, this domestic take is not something to be happy about. They can be content with it, but it's not what the expectations were. I think it is a blessing... the minute they get the idea that a movie about the red and gold is easy money is the minute they make a crappy movie. It keeps Marvel in check... don't get too sloppy and have another TIH on your hands, because that can easily happen.

 

[Iron_Stark]

What she was pointing out was that Marvel wont be happy with the domestic take, not completely happy, in fact i guarantee they are dissapointed that this sequel didnt make more domestic than IM1, this is a fact, Marvel didnt put an extra $50 million + into the movie to be happy that it made either less or around the same profit as the 1st movie.

Anyone who denies this is delluding themselves in my humble opinion.

Again, show me where they're not happy and I'm not looking for an interview or something, show me where Fiege or another Marvel person is avoiding questions about a sequel or Iron Man's inclusion in the Avengers.

I guess I was looking at the wrong comic con where they didn't even want to introduce RDJ on stage at the Avengers panel because they were sooooo disappointed with him and his movie.

And even if they are disappointed what the hell does it matter?? Are they going to scrap plans for a sequel or keep from Iron Man appearing in the Avengers?

 

[Crook]

If there will be any official statements coming from Marvel's way, it'd be years. Die Another Day was a great success for MGM, which at the time was the highest-grossing Bond movie. Years later when CR came up as a reboot, they very quickly dismissed that film as not being the ideal Bond movie. After SR came out, Jeff Robinov stated he was pleased with the film establishing the character, and now we can move on to really unleashing him. Years later after TDKs success, he goes on to say:

“Super*man [Returns] didn’t quite work as a film in the way that we wanted it to,” said Robinov. “It didn’t position the character the way he needed to be positioned. Had Superman worked in 2006, we would have had a movie for Christmas of this year or 2009. But now the plan is just to reintroduce Superman without regard to a Ba*man and Superman movie at all.”

So yeah, studio execs aren't exactly the right people to take their words on. They wouldn't be doing their jobs if every word coming out of their mouths wasn't carefully prepared for to protect assets.

 

[ElMariachi]

As I said over and over again it's not just about the dollars, you have to keep the excitement going and IM2 just did not do that.

I've said this all before but I just thought I'd say it again.

What do you mean that they didn't keep the excitement going? The movie made more money (30+ million) in total then did Iron Man 1. In a weak economy without 3D, no less. And not including DVD/Bluray sales and rental or any of the other merchandise sales (video games, toys, comics, etc.).

Many of you act like Iron Man 2 was received in a similar fashion as Catwoman or Batman Forever by the general audience. Iron Man 2 was a good movie. It was a great movie in the context of it being superhero themed in my opinion. Everybody I have talked to enjoyed the movie, many even over the first film. You can even look at popular sites like IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes and see that it is considered a good movie. A 7.4 out of 10 is considered a good or an above average score. Some may feel the first was a better movie, but that doesn't mean IM2 was mediocre/bad or killed the excitment. Quite the contrary. Outside established heroes like Batman and Spiderman, Iron Man is third biggest name on the superhero movie totempole. I don't see how one can complain about this in regards to recognition or excitement. Iron Man isn't a recognizable or cherished character like Harry Potter, so I don't see why some of you have such unrealistic expectations at the box office.

Also, the problem here is that many on this board have been so spoiled by TDK (and IM1 to an extent) that you aren't happy unless a movie is Oscar quality or is highly regarded by the critics.

 

[Iron_Stark]

If there will be any official statements coming from Marvel's way, it'd be years. Die Another Day was a great success for MGM, which at the time was the highest-grossing Bond movie. Years later when CR came up as a reboot, they very quickly dismissed that film as not being the ideal Bond movie. After SR came out, Jeff Robinov stated he was pleased with the film establishing the character, and now we can move on to really unleashing him. Years later after TDKs success, he goes on to say:


So yeah, studio execs aren't exactly the right people to take their words on. They wouldn't be doing their jobs if every word coming out of their mouths wasn't carefully prepared for to protect assets.

And again, even if they are disappointed is this going to alter plans for future Iron Man films?

Have they came out and answered questions about part 3 with Hulk type answers?

Is Iron Man going to have a limited role in the Avengers because he's "tainted" in the box office?

 

[Iron_Stark]

What do you mean that they didn't keep the excitement going? The movie made more money (30+ million) in total then did Iron Man 1. In a weak economy without 3D, no less. And not including DVD/Bluray sales and rental or any of the other merchandise sales (video games, toys, comics, etc.).

Many of you act like Iron Man 2 was received in a similar fashion as Catwoman or Batman Forever by the general audience. Iron Man 2 was a good movie. It was a great movie in the context of it being superhero themed in my opinion. Everybody I have talked to enjoyed the movie, many even over the first film. You can even look at popular sites like IMDB or Rotten Tomatoes and see that it is considered a good movie. A 7.4 out of 10 is considered a good or an above average score. Some may feel the first was a better movie, but that doesn't mean IM2 was mediocre/bad or killed the excitment. Quite the contrary. Outside established heroes like Batman and Spiderman, Iron Man is third biggest name on the superhero movie totempole. I don't see how one can complain about this in regards to recognition or excitement. Iron Man isn't a recognizable or cherished character like Harry Potter, so I don't see why some of you have such unrealistic expectations at the box office.

Also, the problem here is that many on this board have been so spoiled by TDK (and IM1 to an extent) that you aren't happy unless a movie is Oscar quality or is highly regarded by the critics.

This.

 

[Crook]

And again, even if they are disappointed is this going to alter plans for future Iron Man films?

Have they came out and answered questions about part 3 with Hulk type answers?

Is Iron Man going to have a limited role in the Avengers because he's "tainted" in the box office?

Perhaps you should slow it down a bit because none of those have really anything to do with what I said.

But since we're on the topic, if anything I think IM3 will be more informed of what the fans want from another sequel. Whereas with IM2, they were pretty confident based on the established audience of the first that they could do what they wanted.

 

[Daredevil]

I really enjoyed Iron Man 2. I am hoping that a sequel is made.

 

[Tony Stark]

Anyone who saw or went to the comicon panel with Marvel and thinks that IM2 somehow stalled the franchise is smoking crack. RDJ received the loudest applause of anyone at the Avengers promo.

The franchise hasn't stepped back at all, if anything it's in high gear with Avengers and then with IM3. IM2 also was a great promo for Thor, and because of the end credit scene, it created alot of buzz for Thor, to where it got a ET promo nearly a year before the release.

The big thing IM3 has going for it, is they saved IM's no. 1 villian for the final movie. This is something no other superhero movie has done. Most of them get the baddie out in the first movie. In the X-men films he was there throughout, and perhaps in the Spidey movies, wheather Green Goblin or Doc Ock is the no. 1 arch-nemesis is debateable. But having Madarin in the third film is going to be huge.

But we all know Avengers is yet another chance for Iron Man to shine, as he will definitely be the prominate player.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I love how the people who don't know what they are talking about twist my words. Where in my post did I say that an Iron Man 3 wouldn't be made? I never wrote anything of the sort. And the comparsion to the Spider-Man movies is ridiculous because the first Iron Man movie did not make 400mil. I compared it to the right films. There was room for growth and it just didn't happen for the reasons I mentioned. And I never said that a sequel that makes less than the first always spells trouble but in Iron Man 2's case it does.

The movie only faced two 100million dollar movies in May. Shrek 4 was helped by the 3D prices so it didn't even sell as many tickets as the other 235million dollar movies and Robin Hood only did 105mil. With virtually no competition it only had a 2.4 multpiler. Thats bad for a film that appeals largely to both genders, children and old people. Nobody expected the same legs as the first but this movie had very little competition and still couldn't manage a non bad multipiler? This isn't Twilight we are talking about, this means that word of mouth was not great.

Cinema Score for Iron Man 2: A

Cinema Score for Inception: B

Inception is headed for at the very least a 4.3multiplier. And thats really me lowballing it because I think that a 4.8 might be in order. Thats an pretty ridiculously amazing multipler for this day and age.

Also the movie's reviews were worse with most of the good reviews saying tepid things and trying there darnest to not acknowledge the large step down in quality.

Worst audience recpetion judging by the multipler and worse reviews does not a fully successful sequel make.

 

[Tony Stark]

According to your logic everyone is going to be exiced for TF3 because it made 400 million. The fact is most people probably wish none of the TF movies have ever been made, other than kids with ADHD, who think it's funny to see a CGI scrotum on a robot.

Also Twilight Saga: New Moon pretty much tanked after week 2, but the 3rd one will probably make it close to 300 million.

Also you can't have it both ways, you can't count reviews as a positive and not money, and then count money and not reviews. People compred it to Spider-man because it was the 2nd biggest opening for a non-sequel film, but it was also higher rated than the first Spider-man. In fact RT just ranked IM1 as the no. 2 highest reveiwed comic or graphic novel to film translation, ahead of the Dark Knight and Spider-man 1 and 2.

WTF does Inception have to do with IM3 doing well. Inception is going to have no sequel, so WTF are you talking about?

multipliers only guage if the movie will be front loaded or if it will have longevity. If IM2 had only opened to 80 million and made the numbers it did now would you be jumping in your seat? No because the same amout of tickets would have been sold.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

Again, show me where they're not happy and I'm not looking for an interview or something, show me where Fiege or another Marvel person is avoiding questions about a sequel or Iron Man's inclusion in the Avengers.

I guess I was looking at the wrong comic con where they didn't even want to introduce RDJ on stage at the Avengers panel because they were sooooo disappointed with him and his movie.

And even if they are disappointed what the hell does it matter?? Are they going to scrap plans for a sequel or keep from Iron Man appearing in the Avengers?

Marvel didnt even come out and say TIH was dissapointing, you expect them to do it for IM?

Get real, Marvel WILL NOT be pleased that IM2 failed to outgross IM1 domestically after putting in $50 million + extra for the sequel, but this doesnt mean they will abandon plans for more movies, they will be content with the take but the fact the movie itself has probably made less profit than IM1 is not something to be pleased about for a studio exec, no matter how you spin it.

Again, it wont derail anything, but Marvel wont be happy it has failed to outgross IM1 domestically.

According to your logic everyone is going to be exiced for TF3 because it made 400 million. The fact is most people probably wish none of the TF movies have ever been made, other than kids with ADHD, who think it's funny to see a CGI scrotum on a robot.

Also Twilight Saga: New Moon pretty much tanked after week 2, but the 3rd one will probably make it close to 300 million.

Also you can't have it both ways, you can't count reviews as a positive and not money, and then count money and not reviews. People compred it to Spider-man because it was the 2nd biggest opening for a non-sequel film, but it was also higher rated than the first Spider-man. In fact RT just ranked IM1 as the no. 2 highest reveiwed comic or graphic novel to film translation, ahead of the Dark Knight and Spider-man 1 and 2.

WTF does Inception have to do with IM3 doing well. Inception is going to have no sequel, so WTF are you talking about?

multipliers only guage if the movie will be front loaded or if it will have longevity. If IM2 had only opened to 80 million and made the numbers it did now would you be jumping in your seat? No because the same amout of tickets would have been sold.

She brings up Inception because people on here keep using all kinds of excuses for why IM2 didnt outgross IM1 domestically, economy being the main one. But Inception puts that theory to **** and shows if you make a genuinly good movie then people will go and see it, bad economy or not. IM2 didnt have good legs because havent been going to see it again like they did with IM1, this is because, in many people's opinions, Marvel rushed the movie out and this had a detrimental effect on its quality, which was good enough in many peoples eyes.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Marvel didnt even come out and say TIH was dissapointing, you expect them to do it for IM?

Get real, Marvel WILL NOT be pleased that IM2 failed to outgross IM1 domestically after putting in $50 million + extra for the sequel, but this doesnt mean they will abandon plans for more movies, they will be content with the take but the fact the movie itself has probably made less profit than IM1 is not something to be pleased about for a studio exec, no matter how you spin it.

Again, it wont derail anything, but Marvel wont be happy it has failed to outgross IM1 domestically.

She brings up Inception because people on here keep using all kinds of excuses for why IM2 didnt outgross IM1 domestically, economy being the main one. But Inception puts that theory to **** and shows if you make a genuinly good movie then people will go and see it, bad economy or not. IM2 didnt have good legs because havent been going to see it again like they did with IM1, this is because, in many people's opinions, Marvel rushed the movie out and this had a detrimental effect on its quality, which was good enough in many peoples eyes.

Ok you keep saying Marvel isn't going to be pleased and it's not going to derail anything, so what the hell is your point of saying IM2 disappointed in every other post?

If they felt it disappointed, then they'll rectify their mistakes for part three simple as that. IM2 isn't going to kill the franchise nor has it tainted a goddamn thing.

Inception's only at 160.5 mill, quit acting like it's at 260.5, it'll top off at around 220-230 dom.

 

[Tony Stark]

Marvel didnt even come out and say TIH was dissapointing, you expect them to do it for IM?

Get real, Marvel WILL NOT be pleased that IM2 failed to outgross IM1 domestically after putting in $50 million + extra for the sequel, but this doesnt mean they will abandon plans for more movies, they will be content with the take but the fact the movie itself has probably made less profit than IM1 is not something to be pleased about for a studio exec, no matter how you spin it.

Again, it wont derail anything, but Marvel wont be happy it has failed to outgross IM1 domestically.



She brings up Inception because people on here keep using all kinds of excuses for why IM2 didnt outgross IM1 domestically, economy being the main one. But Inception puts that theory to **** and shows if you make a genuinly good movie then people will go and see it, bad economy or not. IM2 didnt have good legs because havent been going to see it again like they did with IM1, this is because, in many people's opinions, Marvel rushed the movie out and this had a detrimental effect on its quality, which was good enough in many peoples eyes.

You guys need to learn the difference between money, multipliers and tickets sold.

 

[ElMariachi]

She brings up Inception because people on here keep using all kinds of excuses for why IM2 didnt outgross IM1 domestically, economy being the main one. But Inception puts that theory to **** and shows if you make a genuinly good movie then people will go and see it, bad economy or not. IM2 didnt have good legs because havent been going to see it again like they did with IM1, this is because, in many people's opinions, Marvel rushed the movie out and this had a detrimental effect on its quality, which was good enough in many peoples eyes.

Inception isn't a box office smash at this point. It has only made $251 million worldwide so far. What are you guys talking about even bringing up this movie? Inception doesn't make this much money to begin with had it not been for TDK for starters----it was almost completley sold on the buzz of that movie.

You guys are simply hating at this point. Iron Man 2 felt rushed? Where? When? It was a great movie. The miniscule flaws you see don't make that much of a difference at the box office.