Iron Man 2 The Iron Man 2 Box Office Prediction Thread

[FaT_tONle]

I don't know how anyone at Marvel is thrilled with this box office. I don't think anyone on here, spare haters and trolls, were predicting that this thing would be limping over its predecessor. I am a little shocked since I found the movie to be pretty decent. Obviously not everyone else did and its business is getting cut short. No one is going to be up in arms about a 330/600 finish, but it's still well below expectations. I don't know if it's over saturation of the genre, or the typically front loaded May release, or the economy, but people are staying home for some reason.

Edit: I just saw the Shrek/McGruber estimates, and they were putrid. 70 million for Shrek with a 3-D release? That's atrocious. Franchise on the decline, or whatever the case is, looks like it will indeed be the final chapter. McGruber bombed in case you didn't know. We'll see how PoP pans out, but I expect underwhelming numbers for some reason. If the year holds to form, I can't expect anywhere near a 100 million dollar weekend for that.

That said, there has to be at least one runaway hit this year. I think we can put away all the "June release dates suck" if we get another strong showing that month. Hangover and TF2 dominated in June. Keep an eye out on the A-Team and Airbender. I can see 200/300 grosses for those respectively. I think Inception will be huge... if it's good. Seems to have the most intrigue outside of Airbender.

Here is the weekend wrap at a website I found:

Spoiler

It was a down weekend at the box office with both new openings coming in way under industry expectations. Though the Shrek brand had been tarnished by the last release it was still thought to be strong enough especially considering a lack of competition and the opportunity to be buoyed by 3D ticket prices. Industry projections were were mostly in the $100 million range though some believed it could reach $130 million. It ended up taking in only $71.3 million.
It almost sounds unreasonable to say a movie that opens to $71 million is a huge disappointment but in the case of Shrek Forever After it is absolutely the case. The opening weekend ended up being $50 million less than Shrek The Third. The movie had a budget of $200 million and domestically it is unlikely that it will make that all back, though its prospects are still solid for when it hits DVD.
It is just shocking that even with the boost of higher ticket sales, most of which come from 3D screens and IMAX, it didn’t do better. Accounting for those higher ticket costs basically only half the number of people that went to the third Shrek went to this one. It was also the broadest animated release in history playing on 4359 screens with over 2300 of them being 3D. The franchise was already dead after this release anyway but it could be a sign of trouble for the spin-offs that are planned such as Puss in Boots (November 2011).
MacGruber is a certified bomb after opening to just $4.1 million. Most expectations were in the $10-15 million range. Despite this it isn’t a catastrophe as the movie was made on a modest $10 million budget. It might not even hit $10 million while in theaters and will see a quick shift to DVD where it may be able to pick up a cult-like following.
For the holdovers it was Iron Man 2 finishing in second place in its third weekend falling 48% to $26.6 million. The movie has totaled $251 million domestically. In its second weekend Robin Hood fell 48% to $18.7 million to total $66 million. It doesn’t appear it will even make back half of its $200 million budget.

 

[Blade X]

IM2 had PLENTY of action.....PLENTY

No it didn't. There was only 3 fight scenes involving Iron Man, and 2 of them were very short.

christ, what did you expect, **** blowing up every 5 freaking seconds?

No, about 5 or 6 long fight scenes involving Iron Man scattered throughout the movie. As bad as TRANSFORMERS 2:ROTF was, at least the movie had ore then 3 fight scenes showing Autobots fighting Decepticans, and lasted more then 4 minutes.

it's true, some people you just can't make happy, regardless what you do.

True, but in the case of IM2, they didn't do that much to make people (like myself) who likes and expects lots of action from these type of movies, happy at all.

 

[hatebox]

PoP's still a hard one to call. I don't know what the budget was but I think if it gets anything over $60m OW the studio will probably be happy. It is a new movie franchise after all.

Whatever it gets, it's the first serious threat to IM2's takings and is aimed squarely at its demographic.

Incidentally I do think Marvel will be re-evaluating their expectations for the Avengers movie given Iron Man was always going to be its centerpiece. At this point there's absolutely nothing to suggest Thor or Cap Am will be monster hits, as much as I'm rooting for the former.

 

[FaT_tONle]

PoP's still a hard one to call. I don't know what the budget was but I think if it gets anything over $60m OW the studio will probably be happy. It is a new movie franchise after all.

Whatever it gets, it's the first serious threat to IM2's takings and is aimed squarely at its demographic.

Incidentally I do think Marvel will be re-evaluating their expectations for the Avengers movie given Iron Man was always going to be its centerpiece. At this point there's absolutely nothing to suggest Thor or Cap Am will be monster hits, as much as I'm rooting for the former.

You can't re-think at this point. You can be more humbled and reserved, but if it doesn't break records, at least for Marvel movies, it's a serious issue. Now Avengers can't make that much more than IM because Thor and Cap aren't as popular? Being the first major 'crossover' movie, it's an event in of itself. Obviously it depends on what happens in 2011, but this is supposed to be Marvel's crowning achievement. If it just a little more than IM, that's terrible.

 

[Superhero 101]

so is there a chance that this will make atleast 600 million worldwide?

 

[Tacit Ronin]

Why do people have to take everything to the extreme. Suggesting IM2 needed more action does not equal wanting explosions every five minutes.

 

[Figs]

Apparently IM2 is going to make plenty of money, so they did well. All I need personally is enough money to be made to go forward with Thor, IM3, Capt America, and the Avengers movie. Mission accomplished so far.

That's all I care about. As long as each film makes enough money for Avengers and IM3 to be made(Thor and Cap are a lock obviously since Thor is almost finished and Cap is going to start filming very soon)as well as any other possible cool films like Namor and Black Panther that's fine by me. So far i've liked IM, IM2 and TIH. If I really like Thor, Captain American, The Avengers and the possible IM3 then i'll be one incredibly happy Marvel fan. That's all I care about is for these films to do well enough and not bomb. I enjoyed IM2 so despite what it does BO wise at the end of it's run doesn't bother me, especially when it's a lock to beat the first one with WW gross.

From BO mojo the first film made $585,174,222 WW
IM2 is currently at $506,265,000 WW

 

[Blade X]

Now Avengers can't make that much more than IM because Thor and Cap aren't as popular?

Remember, before the first movie, Iron Man wasn't that popular either. So just because Thor and Cap aren't currently as popular (or known) as Iron Man in the eyes of the general non comic book reading public, does not mean that this will still be the case after the release of their movies.

The only way that the AVENGERS movie would make less then either of the IRON MAN movies, is if Marvel makes the same bone headed mistake that they did with IM2 and skimp on the action/fight scenes. Again, most people who pay to see these type of movies (especially kids) want and expect lots of cool and long action/fight scenes. This is why TF:ROTF was such a huge hit at the box office last year. Marvel needs to stop trying to appeal to and win accolades from those non comic book reading adults who enjoy the "character and personality" of Tony Stark, and to try and appeal more to those kids and adults who want to see more Iron Man action/fight scenes.

 

[Superhero 101]

Why do people have to take everything to the extreme. Suggesting IM2 needed more action does not equal wanting explosions every five minutes.

totally agree with you look at Transformers 2 and X3 and XO: Wolverine all those movies suffered because it was all out action and no developement of the characters and this is exactly what IM2 did which i believe it did so well it developed the characters in the movie.

 

[Tony Stark]

No it didn't. There was only 3 fight scenes involving Iron Man, and 2 of them were very short.

Do you have ADD? The fight scenes weren't any longer/shorter than the first film and in the case of the final fight it was much longer.

No, about 5 or 6 long fight scenes involving Iron Man scattered throughout the movie. As bad as TRANSFORMERS 2:ROTF was, at least the movie had ore then 3 fight scenes showing Autobots fighting Decepticans, and lasted more then 4 minutes.

You should have stopped at "as bad as Transformers 2 was".

True, but in the case of IM2, they didn't do that much to make people (like myself) who likes and expects lots of action from these type of movies, happy at all.

If you wanted it to be like TF2 and are not happy, then I'm glad.

 

[Tony Stark]

I don't know how anyone at Marvel is thrilled with this box office. I don't think anyone on here, spare haters and trolls, were predicting that this thing would be limping over its predecessor. I am a little shocked since I found the movie to be pretty decent. Obviously not everyone else did and its business is getting cut short. No one is going to be up in arms about a 330/600 finish, but it's still well below expectations. I don't know if it's over saturation of the genre, or the typically front loaded May release, or the economy, but people are staying home for some reason.

Edit: I just saw the Shrek/McGruber estimates, and they were putrid. 70 million for Shrek with a 3-D release? That's atrocious. Franchise on the decline, or whatever the case is, looks like it will indeed be the final chapter. McGruber bombed in case you didn't know. We'll see how PoP pans out, but I expect underwhelming numbers for some reason. If the year holds to form, I can't expect anywhere near a 100 million dollar weekend for that.

That said, there has to be at least one runaway hit this year. I think we can put away all the "June release dates suck" if we get another strong showing that month. Hangover and TF2 dominated in June. Keep an eye out on the A-Team and Airbender. I can see 200/300 grosses for those respectively. I think Inception will be huge... if it's good. Seems to have the most intrigue outside of Airbender.

Here is the weekend wrap at a website I found:

I think people are staying home, and it's hurting IM2 a little which probably in any other year would have been a 400 mil picuture. I just thing with ticket prices on the rise compounded with the stock market being off in May, people are being more frugal with their dollars, which meant IM2 was front loaded and not as many repeat vewings as the last.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Remember, before the first movie, Iron Man wasn't that popular either. So just because Thor and Cap aren't currently as popular (or known) as Iron Man in the eyes of the general non comic book reading public, does not mean that this will still be the case after the release of their movies.

The only way that the AVENGERS movie would make less then either of the IRON MAN movies, is if Marvel makes the same bone headed mistake that they did with IM2 and skimp on the action/fight scenes. Again, most people who pay to see these type of movies (especially kids) want and expect lots of cool and long action/fight scenes. This is why TF:ROTF was such a huge hit at the box office last year. Marvel needs to stop trying to appeal to and win accolades from those non comic book reading adults who enjoy the "character and personality" of Tony Stark, and to try and appeal more to those kids and adults who want to see more Iron Man action/fight scenes.

I don't disagree with anything here, but TIH was non stop action and it didn't do anything financially. Obviously if it was the first Hulk movie to come out, I think it would have done at least 200 domestic, but it still would have been the same movie critically. It's cliched to say that we need to find the right balance, but it's never been more important. Those IM trailers were pretty action packed. Yeah they could have done another set piece, but are parents really watching the movies, then deciding if is appropriate for their kids to watch again next Saturday afternoon? Are they reading reviews beforehand to make sure it is kid friendly enough? Maybe it's the marketing, which also doomed TIH. Maybe they should have attached more kid friendly TV spots on Nick or Disney. The TV spot with the kid was pretty kid friendly. Maybe IM2 didn't garner a repeat viewing with the kids, but I am not sure how many parents are willing to see a movie a second time anyway, one with the spouse, another with the nieces/nephews or kids. Maybe I am dead wrong, but a lot of movies have made a heck of a lot more without necessarily being kid friendly.

 

[Ace of Knaves]

What was it's OW then? And what is it at WW now? Thanks.

 

[danoyse]

Do you have ADD? The fight scenes weren't any longer/shorter than the first film and in the case of the final fight it was much longer.

Can you post something without the name-calling?

Reminder everyone - this is the box office thread, not the compare how many action scenes there were thread. Start another thread for that discussion if you would like it to continue.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Kind of defeats the purpose when the discussion is was there enough action for a summer blockbuster, which is the current debate. I don't think it is unrelated... at all.

 

[Anita18]

I don't disagree with anything here, but TIH was non stop action and it didn't do anything financially. Obviously if it was the first Hulk movie to come out, I think it would have done at least 200 domestic, but it still would have been the same movie critically. It's cliched to say that we need to find the right balance, but it's never been more important. Those IM trailers were pretty action packed. Yeah they could have done another set piece, but are parents really watching the movies, then deciding if is appropriate for their kids to watch again next Saturday afternoon? Are they reading reviews beforehand to make sure it is kid friendly enough? Maybe it's the marketing, which also doomed TIH. Maybe they should have attached more kid friendly TV spots on Nick or Disney. The TV spot with the kid was pretty kid friendly. Maybe IM2 didn't garner a repeat viewing with the kids, but I am not sure how many parents are willing to see a movie a second time anyway, one with the spouse, another with the nieces/nephews or kids. Maybe I am dead wrong, but a lot of movies have made a heck of a lot more without necessarily being kid friendly.

Mmm, yeah. Avatar, Titanic, and TDK were TOTALLY kid friendly. Everybody put down their guns, talked through their differences, held hands and sang kumbayah together at the end. Bring on the Happy Meals!

Kids are a good reliable demographic, but they won't make a blockbuster, since they don't bring in a ton of repeat business. Their parents have to take them, so the parents have to want to watch it again too.

The marketing for IM2 didn't make it out to be an event, and unlike Avatar, the WOM didn't make it out to be an event either.

 

[FaT_tONle]

Mmm, yeah. Avatar, Titanic, and TDK were TOTALLY kid friendly. Everybody put down their guns, talked through their differences, held hands and sang kumbayah together at the end. Bring on the Happy Meals!

Kids are a good reliable demographic, but they won't make a blockbuster, since they don't bring in a ton of repeat business. Their parents have to take them, so the parents have to want to watch it again too.

The marketing for IM2 didn't make it out to be an event, and unlike Avatar, the WOM didn't make it out to be an event either.

Yeah... it's as if IM ended with a to be continued... and IM2 picks up with, "previously, on IM..." They even started with the Stark dialogue from the end of film one. Basically if you didn't see season 1, you missed season 2. As much as Favreau stated he wanted to avoid it feeling like a TV show, it sort of was just that.

 

[Tony Stark]

Yeah... it's as if IM ended with a to be continued... and IM2 picks up with, "previously, on IM..." They even started with the Stark dialogue from the end of film one. Basically if you didn't see season 1, you missed season 2. As much as Favreau stated he wanted to avoid it feeling like a TV show, it sort of was just that.

I don't think it's unrealistic to expect in a sequel that the audience has seen the first movie. Jeez on the very first Star Wars movie (episode IV) starts out just like you're saying, and it didn't make a bit of difference.

It wasn't a TV series, but it very much was issue 2 of a comic book.

 

[dark_b]

the sequel needs to work as a seperate movie.

 

[jmc]

^ And that's where most sequels get it wrong, they basically just do a copy and paste job from the last movie. Really, every sequel should be treated as if it's the first film in a series.

 

[danoyse]

I don't think it's unrealistic to expect in a sequel that the audience has seen the first movie. Jeez on the very first Star Wars movie (episode IV) starts out just like you're saying, and it didn't make a bit of difference.

Episode IV wasn't there when Star Wars was first released in 1977. It was added in when it was re-released in 1978, and by then audiences knew there was a sequel underway and fans knew it was part of a much bigger story.

I didn't see an issue with IM2 opening with the end of IM1, plenty of sequels do that.

I've also read at least a half-dozen box office wrapups for this weekend and have yet to find the kind of naysaying regarding IM2 that I see around here. It seems to be doing very well, even though it's below where IM1 was at this point.

 

[hatebox]

It seems to be doing very well, even though it's below where IM1 was at this point.

Some might say that's a contradiction in terms though. Box office is always about expectations rather than viewing the figures in a vacuum. But again, no-one's saying IM2 is doing badly because, of course, it isn't.

 

[danoyse]

Some might say that's a contradiction in terms though. Box office is always about expectations rather than viewing the figures in a vacuum. But again, no-one's saying IM2 is doing badly because, of course, it isn't.

Maybe everyone sets their expectations too high.

 

[jmc]

In terms of this film I don't think expectation where ridiculously fantastical. If someone were to have said to me a month ago IM2 would fail to out gross IM1 I would have called them nuts.

 

[Tony Stark]

Episode IV wasn't there when Star Wars was first released in 1977. It was added in when it was re-released in 1978, and by then audiences knew there was a sequel underway and fans knew it was part of a much bigger story.

I didn't see an issue with IM2 opening with the end of IM1, plenty of sequels do that.

I've also read at least a half-dozen box office wrapups for this weekend and have yet to find the kind of naysaying regarding IM2 that I see around here. It seems to be doing very well, even though it's below where IM1 was at this point.

You're right the "episode IV" title wasn't there until a re-relase just before Empire came out.

What I was getting at is Star Wars opened with the scrollng Flash Gordon style summary of what's going on, as if you're coming in the middle of a story.