Iron Man 2 The Iron Man 2 Box Office Prediction Thread

[Tony Stark]

The sad thing is they are even cheaping out on IMAX technology too. A few years ago the IMAX company started a contract with AMC and Regal to remodel regular movie theaters and give them bigger screens with better sound. This isn't IMAX though. It's LieMAX, yet it is being marketed as IMAX with the same prices. The screen size is significantly smaller than real IMAX. There are only around 100 true IMAX screens in North America that play Hollywood films. There are a bunch of others that are used only for museum/educational purposes. Because of the LieMAX deal, the IMAX company has not built any new true IMAX screens lately. It's sad to see IMHO.

I did not realize that. That is truely sad, because I'd much rather see more IMAX than more 3D.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I did not realize that. That is truely sad, because I'd much rather see more IMAX than more 3D.

Here is some perspective on a true IMAX screen vs. LieMAX:

http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/shared-blogs/dayton/cinema/upload/2009/06/my_take_on_the/imax.JPG


They've built a bunch of those LieMAXes over the last couple years and they are going to continue it for who knows how long.

 

[Crook]

The big thing is for the studio, is this wouldn't be a big deal other than sequels always increase the production budgets and they expect more back in return. However, it's not the first time a sequel has not outdone the original. I'm curious what the SM2 box office threads were like, I honestly don't remember.

There wasn't a huge ruckus. Its legs were above-average and the word-of-mouth from fans to critics was overwhelmingly positive. Making a couple million less, when your film is in the high 300s is like pushing pennies for them.

The huge opening weekend SM3 had proved SM2s lower gross did not negatively affect the franchise in any way. As I've noted before, it is not about playing statistics. With the fan community (which generally coincides with mainstream's interests), a blockbuster's success is usually determined within 2 weeks after the film's released. The active discussions in the forums and blogs lets you know what the general consensus on the film has been.

 

[marcvader]

Yeah, when I saw Avatar at AMC in "IMAX" and walked into the theater I was like WTF. The screen was nowhere as large as the true IMAX I had experienced years ago when i saw one of the Star Wars rereleases. I really felt bamboozled.

 

[Anita18]

Even though I dislike the movie immensely, the sad part is that this will convince studios even more to plaster 3D on major movies to boost final gross.

Inception's box office will seal the deal one way or another, since it isn't in 3-D either.

Yeah, when I saw Avatar at AMC in "IMAX" and walked into the theater I was like WTF. The screen was nowhere as large as the true IMAX I had experienced years ago when i saw one of the Star Wars rereleases. I really felt bamboozled.

Yeah, you really have to read the theater's website - if it says "digital IMAX" (especially if it's new) then that's a new LieMAX screen for sure.

I went into my local theater's "IMAX" screen for the 15-minute Avatar screening. Half of the reason was to see the footage, the other half was to see just how big that screen was without having to pay for it. I'm glad I didn't pay for it. Regular screens at the Arclight were about that size.

 

[hatebox]

Comingsoon's 'weekend warrior' predicts a steadier 52% drop for IM2 this weekend giving it $25m.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/weekendwarriornews.php?id=66075

 

[Tony Stark]

Comingsoon's 'weekend warrior' predicts a steadier 52% drop for IM2 this weekend giving it $25m.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/weekendwarriornews.php?id=66075

Yeah but he has a pretty low number for Shrek. Most of the estimates I've seen on the BOM forums have it around 110 average.

If it follows a SM3 pattern it would be at 26-27. The dailies since last week have all been higher than SM3, and the weekend drop was 2.5% less than SM3, so it might happen.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

There wasn't a huge ruckus. Its legs were above-average and the word-of-mouth from fans to critics was overwhelmingly positive. Making a couple million less, when your film is in the high 300s is like pushing pennies for them.

The huge opening weekend SM3 had proved SM2s lower gross did not negatively affect the franchise in any way. As I've noted before, it is not about playing statistics. With the fan community (which generally coincides with mainstream's interests), a blockbuster's success is usually determined within 2 weeks after the film's released. The active discussions in the forums and blogs lets you know what the general consensus on the film has been.

This is my response to the thoughts about SM2's lower gross. If SM3 was as great as the second one it would have easily grossed over 385mil. A lower gross isn't deadly when your first movie made 404mil, Iron Man didn't make anywhere near that amount. Maybe most of us were being overzealous (I predicted 455mil) but I still don't think that expecting 400mil was ridiculous especially considering the fact that Transformers 2 grossed that same amount last year.

Anyway, I think that it's second weekend drop was lame and is a reason for the studio to worry about the future of the franchise...a little. I mean the movie has/is going to make alot of money for the studio so it's not some disaster or anything and a sequel will be made but the numbers are still disappointing.

I find it interesting that Iron Man 2's second monday is actually behind Iron Man's. It's only by a hundred thousand but it still has me wondering if the movie will outgross the first. We will see.

I'm predicting a 48 to 50% drop for IM2's third weekend right now but it could be higher if Shrek opens as well as the 3rd one and with those 3D ticket prices it just might. I'm predicting 105mil for it.

 

[danoyse]

Yeah, you really have to read the theater's website - if it says "digital IMAX" (especially if it's new) then that's a new LieMAX screen for sure.

I went into my local theater's "IMAX" screen for the 15-minute Avatar screening. Half of the reason was to see the footage, the other half was to see just how big that screen was without having to pay for it. I'm glad I didn't pay for it. Regular screens at the Arclight were about that size.

I've seen IM2 twice: once at a "LieMAX" and once at a real IMAX, and it was actually much better at the LieMax. The picture at the real IMAX was so washed out compared to the LieMax screen, which was so clear it was like watching a big-screen blu-ray.

I'll take the smaller IMAX screen for the better picture. Even Avatar was better at that theater than at the regular IMAX.

 

[Anita18]

I've seen IM2 twice: once at a "LieMAX" and once at a real IMAX, and it was actually much better at the LieMax. The picture at the real IMAX was so washed out compared to the LieMax screen, which was so clear it was like watching a big-screen blu-ray.

I'll take the smaller IMAX screen for the better picture. Even Avatar was better at that theater than at the regular IMAX.

Your theater probably had a bad projectionist. TDK at The Bridge was AMAZING. :droooools:

Or well, TDK was also natively shot in IMAX, whereas films like IM2 (and even Avatar) have to be resized for it. So the resolution isn't as good to begin with.

 

[TheVileOne]

The Iron Man 2 advance screening was a LieMax at AMC Century City.

AMC Burbank 16 also has a lieMax.

However, AMC at Universal City Walk does have a genuine IMAX.

 

[redfirebird2008]

TDK was also natively shot in IMAX

30 minutes. Crossing fingers for the whole enchilada IMAX for Batman 3.

 

[danoyse]

Your theater probably had a bad projectionist. TDK at The Bridge was AMAZING. :droooools:

Or well, TDK was also natively shot in IMAX, whereas films like IM2 (and even Avatar) have to be resized for it. So the resolution isn't as good to begin with.

It's just an old IMAX theater. Avatar didn't look good there either.

Both of those movies at my local LieMax were sooo much better than at the old IMAX at Palisades. I was totally anti-LieMax before I saw Avatar there, but after seeing IM2 at the old theater last week, I don't see any reason to take the longer trip back there for the IMAX shows.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I have never been to a LieMax. The only IMAX I went to back when I lived in NY was a genuine IMAX. It truly is the way to watch a movie if you can.

 

[danoyse]

I haven't been to the IMAX in NYC (the one on 68th St) since Fantasia 2000. And that looked amazing in that theater.

 

[Crook]

Regular films will always look better at LIEMAX because there's less upscaling to do. And the slightly bigger screen always helps. But I definitely think the pricing should be charged accordingly to the screen size. More expensive than regular, cheaper than the real IMAX.

 

[Tony Stark]

I've seen lots of movies at the museum in IMAX but never a feature film. On a regular IMAX screen do they have to letterbox the picuture to get the aspect ratio correct? I thought IMAX had a more square type screen, as opposed to the Panovision type cell that regular screens have.

 

[Anita18]

I've seen lots of movies at the museum in IMAX but never a feature film. On a regular IMAX screen do they have to letterbox the picuture to get the aspect ratio correct? I thought IMAX had a more square type screen, as opposed to the Panovision type cell that regular screens have.

Yeah, the screen is more square than a regular screen. There are just black bars on the top and bottom if the picture doesn't fill the space.

For TDK, the picture would expand to fill the entire screen when it was one of the sequences filmed in IMAX, and then be cropped to the regular aspect ratio. It actually wasn't that jarring.

 

[TheVileOne]

People need to let go and stop nitpicking the numbers.

People had high expectations for Spider-man 2 which was a very acclaimed movie but did not outdo the first one. Spider-man 3 was shunned by many but it still made more than any other Spidey movie worldwide so its all relative.

The fact of the matter is Iron Man is doing very well and its on tap to outform the first movie. Business wise I guess people felt it would be in the league of your Dark Knights and Spider-man's after the first movie. Oh well.

The way I see it this still puts Iron Man above most every other comic book franchise except Spider-man and Batman at this point. X-men movies couldn't do these numbers. Fantastic Four movies couldn't. Freaking Superman couldn't. Even new Star Trek couldn't .

Generally here's how I feel. The audience did not think the movie was as "good" as Iron Man. Audiences like the movie but think Iron Man was better. And I understand that because Iron Man for it's time even as an origin film was some new and different stuff we haven't seen before. A mecha/robotic suit superhero that looked really good on film. The main hero was incredibly charismatic and likable when usually the most interesting character in these types of movies is the villain.

My other thought is a disservice was made by continuing to avoid the Mandarin. Mandarin is the #1 archvillain rogue for Iron Man. Mandarin is Iron Man's joker. I think if they really tried to nail the Mandarin it would've worked a lot more.

All that said I didn't dislike Rourke or Rockwell at all either. Rockwell did some good stuff. Rourke did some good stuff too.

 

[dark_b]

30 minutes. Crossing fingers for the whole enchilada IMAX for Batman 3.

IMAX cameras are not production friendy.

you can not in a small room film a dialoge scene with IMAX cameras.

 

[redfirebird2008]

IMAX cameras are not production friendy.

you can not in a small room film a dialoge scene with IMAX cameras.

I know, that's why I'm crossing my fingers that they can pull a miracle.

 

[Tony Stark]

People need to let go and stop nitpicking the numbers.

People had high expectations for Spider-man 2 which was a very acclaimed movie but did not outdo the first one. Spider-man 3 was shunned by many but it still made more than any other Spidey movie worldwide so its all relative.

The fact of the matter is Iron Man is doing very well and its on tap to outform the first movie. Business wise I guess people felt it would be in the league of your Dark Knights and Spider-man's after the first movie. Oh well.

The way I see it this still puts Iron Man above most every other comic book franchise except Spider-man and Batman at this point. X-men movies couldn't do these numbers. Fantastic Four movies couldn't. Freaking Superman couldn't. Even new Star Trek couldn't .

Generally here's how I feel. The audience did not think the movie was as "good" as Iron Man. Audiences like the movie but think Iron Man was better. And I understand that because Iron Man for it's time even as an origin film was some new and different stuff we haven't seen before. A mecha/robotic suit superhero that looked really good on film. The main hero was incredibly charismatic and likable when usually the most interesting character in these types of movies is the villain.

My other thought is a disservice was made by continuing to avoid the Mandarin. Mandarin is the #1 archvillain rogue for Iron Man. Mandarin is Iron Man's joker. I think if they really tried to nail the Mandarin it would've worked a lot more.

All that said I didn't dislike Rourke or Rockwell at all either. Rockwell did some good stuff. Rourke did some good stuff too.

Overall I agree with you, and you brought up something that I've been harping on. I thought Star Trek was the best movie of the summer last year, and it only made 257 domestic and the WW numbers were pathetic. That was a movie that alot of people said was possibly going to get a best picture nomination, but then Avatar came out, and the Academy only wanted to have one Sci-Fi movie in there.

You are right that Iron Man has progressed himself to a tentpole character in just a few years, and Marvel is banking on that. And he's no. 3 behind Batman and Spider-man BO wise.

 

[Anita18]

Overall I agree with you, and you brought up something that I've been harping on. I thought Star Trek was the best movie of the summer last year, and it only made 257 domestic and the WW numbers were pathetic. That was a movie that alot of people said was possibly going to get a best picture nomination, but then Avatar came out, and the Academy only wanted to have one Sci-Fi movie in there.

You are right that Iron Man has progressed himself to a tentpole character in just a few years, and Marvel is banking on that. And he's no. 3 behind Batman and Spider-man BO wise.

I think what most people are concerned about is the progression. Star Trek, while not as popular as IM1 or TF1, is definitely on the way up. Audiences felt that with BB, and we saw what happened with TDK because of that.

Even though X3 made the most money, the overall feeling was that it was progressing downwards. Judging from IM2's box office so far, it's good overall but it's not doing gangbusters compared to the first one. So people are nervous about that progression, especially since Marvel is banking on IM to get audiences interested in Avengers.

It's not exactly stuff that Marvel can help, though. Hopefully for the upcoming movies, they can make something that makes audiences super-excited about. That's really the only thing they can do.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The Vile One, you are usually pretty levelheaded about boxoffice numbers regardless of your like or dislike of the film but I think that this is one of those times where you are letting your love of the film get in the way.

Nobody is calling the movie a disaster or a flop but it's numbers and overall reception are worrisome for the future of the franchise. Just like Spider-Man 3's reception would have hurt a real 4th Spider-Man movie, I think that the "meh/it was pretty good but not as good as the first one" reception will hurt a sequel to Iron Man 2.


The discussion about this flick's boxoffice numbers reminds me of the Superman Returns arguements.

For the record, I don't dislike Iron Man 2 because of it's boxoffice numbers I dislike it for all the reasons that I've already stated.

Anyway I'm not going to compare Spider-Man and Iron Man's boxoffice numbers anymore because the first Iron Man movie made nowhere near as much as the first Spider-Man movie. I'm going to compare it to Transformers because Transformers had a simular total gross and legs.

 

[Crook]

I think what most people are concerned about is the progression. Star Trek, while not as popular as IM1 or TF1, is definitely on the way up. Audiences felt that with BB, and we saw what happened with TDK because of that.

Even though X3 made the most money, the overall feeling was that it was progressing downwards. Judging from IM2's box office so far, it's good overall but it's not doing gangbusters compared to the first one. So people are nervous about that progression, especially since Marvel is banking on IM to get audiences interested in Avengers.

It's not exactly stuff that Marvel can help, though. Hopefully for the upcoming movies, they can make something that makes audiences super-excited about. That's really the only thing they can do.

Yes, exactly. It's not so much how it's doing right now as much as where the hype train and word of mouth is going to take the franchise. Trek is a good example of something on the come-up, and I've no doubt if the sequel doesn't change the formula too much it'll be huge. But it's not on IM-level yet, so it's only fair to get two close examples.

Cue in BB and SR. Both released a year apart, and had similar grosses. SR actually outdid BB worldwide by about 30 million. For the "Top Critics" and average ratings on RT, it also did slightly better. Brownie points for someone who can tell me where each franchise went?

TheVileOne is correct in that it's not about the numbers. But I also don't think he's taking into account how little IM2 has done for the franchise's future. It's neither good hype, nor bad hype. It just...came and went. The momentum is key for all sequels, and currently IM2 isn't showing signs anywhere of that.