Iron Man 2 The Iron Man 2 Box Office Prediction Thread

[Iron_Stark]

Moderate success. I'm referring to successes that meet or exceed expectations. I'm referring to movies who won't have discussions such as these existing, because the gross profit is far too great to even consider such factors an issue.

There are a s*** load, A S*** LOAD of movies that would kill for Iron Man 2's "moderate success".

 

[FaT_tONle]

I wonder if IM2 would have made more if it were released in mid summer. The marketing and hype could have built up a lot moreso than the lackluster spring hype. If Airbender came out in May with IM2 in late June or early July, I think that could have helped.

 

[Crook]

There are a s*** load, A S*** LOAD of movies that would kill for Iron Man 2's "moderate success".

Are you so ******** that you actually took a compliment to the film as an insult?

This film neither got universal praise nor tremendous box office that it's merits of success are to be undisputed. This very forum is exemplary of the film's divisiveness over certain issues. But for the most part, it is satisfactorily positive. Hence a moderate, not massive, success.

I'm sorry that pains you.

 

[ElMariachi]

The movie is a success. Thats all there is to it. They are making another Iron Man movie, an Avengers movie, and probally more after that. Why you people care about how much extra Marvel/Disney/Paramount lines their pockets is beyond me.

Box office has nothing to do with the quality of the movie either. Incredible Hulk was one of the best comic book movies ever and it didn't make all that much. Same goes with Watchmen or Kick Ass. Or even Batman Begins for that matter. It's not a kids movie, doesn't appeal to teenage girls/women (unlike Pirates of the Caribbean, TDK, Avatar, Twilight etc.), doesn't have a huge existing fanbase, no star director, (ie. James Cameron), limited hype, the economy isn't all that great, and there isn't any 3D. Despite all this, it still made good money and is currently 30 million below Alice in Wonderland domestically.

 

[Iron_Stark]

Are you so ******** that you actually took a compliment to the film as an insult?

This film neither got universal praise nor tremendous box office that it's merits of success are to be undisputed. This very forum is exemplary of the film's divisiveness over certain issues. But for the most part, it is satisfactorily positive. Hence a moderate, not massive, success.

I'm sorry that pains you.

I'm not butt hurt about anything. I'm happy with the success of this movie.

 

[danoyse]

I'm not butt hurt about anything. I'm happy with the success of this movie.

Then quit with the attitude towards anyone you disagree with. You've been borderline trolling the last two pages.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Madonna was a big star. Like a Virgin sold 21 million worldwide. True Blue 24 million.

Michael Jackson sold 75 million for Thriller and 30 million for Bad.

Bon Jovi sold 28 million for Slippery When Wet, 15 million for New Jersey.

Van Halen sold 10 million for 1984 in the US alone.

Bruce Springsteen sold 30 million of Born in the USA.

Prince sold 24 million of Purple Rain (I love that album!)

Hysteria by Def Leppard sold 19 million worldwide.

Janet Jackson sold 14 million ww.

U2 sold 25 million of The Joshua Tree.

Guns and Roses sold 38 million copies of Appetite for Destruction ww.

Phil Collins sold over 10 million of No Jacket Required in the US alone.

I love Heart (Ann Wilson...best female rock vocalist ever!)...but they were minor compared to this.

Needless to say, we won't be seeing these types of numbers again.

No one is denying the numbers. But it's absolutely foolish to deny expectations as well. That is entirely how a film's success is gauged; relative to how one (be it an individual or a studio) expects the film to make. This "talk" even taking place speaks for itself. Why does it exist? Do you think people picked IM2 out of a hat, so they could pick on something?

The very fact that the second movie is being derided after making more than the first movie...which was viewed as a big success... illustrates perfectly how foolish the "talk" is.

Another way is to listen to praise for The Karate Kid...which will make much less than IM2.

It's wacky-land.

"Expectations"...what a load. This is the very first Iron Man franchise. We have nothing to base anything on....

...So...some feel they simply must make predictions or frame "expectations" based on completely different franchises. It all depends on which franchise you pick too. If you pick a completely unrelated franchise like Transformers, IM2 "disappointed"...if you pick a superhero franchise like Spider-Man, IM2 bucked the trend and over-performed.

One can almost smell the agenda on some of this. How some can type so well while sweating in Batman costumes is impressive.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

The movie is a success. Thats all there is to it. They are making another Iron Man movie, an Avengers movie, and probally more after that. Why you people care about how much extra Marvel/Disney/Paramount lines their pockets is beyond me.

Box office has nothing to do with the quality of the movie either. Incredible Hulk was one of the best comic book movies ever and it didn't make all that much. Same goes with Watchmen or Kick Ass. Or even Batman Begins for that matter. It's not a kids movie, doesn't appeal to teenage girls/women (unlike Pirates of the Caribbean, TDK, Avatar, Twilight etc.), doesn't have a huge existing fanbase, no star director, (ie. James Cameron), limited hype, the economy isn't all that great, and there isn't any 3D. Despite all this, it still made good money and is currently 30 million below Alice in Wonderland domestically.

Not to mention the horrible Spider-Man 3...which made much more than those other quality movies you listed. And how about X3...it made more than the first two X-Men movies...so that must mean it was better. (I do actually kinda like X3...but many don't)

The "expectation" bug even bit IM2 before any "quality" argument could enter into it. Someone...somewhere...predicted a 150 million + opening weekend...based on "tracking". That right there turned a OW which improved on the first movie by 30 million into a "disappointment".

Just insanity.

 

[Crook]

Madonna was a big star. Like a Virgin sold 21 million worldwide. True Blue 24 million.

Michael Jackson sold 75 million for Thriller and 30 million for Bad.

Bon Jovi sold 28 million for Slippery When Wet, 15 million for New Jersey.

Van Halen sold 10 million for 1984 in the US alone.

Bruce Springsteen sold 30 million of Born in the USA.

Prince sold 24 million of Purple Rain (I love that album!)

Hysteria by Def Leppard sold 19 million worldwide.

Janet Jackson sold 14 million ww.

U2 sold 25 million of The Joshua Tree.

Guns and Roses sold 38 million copies of Appetite for Destruction ww.

Phil Collins sold over 10 million of No Jacket Required in the US alone.

I love Heart (Ann Wilson...best female rock vocalist ever!)...but they were minor compared to this.

Needless to say, we won't be seeing these types of numbers again.

Cool little tidbit, the top 50 movies of all-time, adjusted for inflation, all did 500 million domestic. Kinda puts today's movies to shame. Compared to the top grossers that did 1 billion in the US alone, practically every movie now is a drop in the bucket. Yet somehow I doubt the likes of Michael Bay is sweating bullets because his movies don't even make half of that. Never-mind the ludicrous point of comparing numbers in an industry that has remarkably altered between eras. What is the purpose of your numbers? Is it to accentuate the greater success of past artists? Do your numbers take into account the variables involved in that success? Concerts, studio tours, digital sales, clothing deals, brand-association? Do you think Eminem and Jay-Z are contemplating their careers like "Goddamit, why didn't I do Thriller numbers? "

The very fact that the second movie is being derided after making more than the first movie...which was viewed as a big success... illustrates perfectly how foolish the "talk" is.

Another way is to listen to praise for The Karate Kid...which will make much less than IM2.

It's wacky-land.

Karate Kid isn't a 200-million dollar movie who is a sequel to a smashing box office success. It's all relative according to the standards set by the individual properties. Blair Witch Project made much less than Avatar, but is actually the most profitable movie ever made because of its low budget and marketing costs.

"Expectations"...what a load. This is the very first Iron Man franchise. We have nothing to base anything on....

...So...some feel they simply must make predictions or frame "expectations" based on completely different franchises. It all depends on which franchise you pick too. If you pick a completely unrelated franchise like Transformers, IM2 "disappointed"...if you pick a superhero franchise like Spider-Man, IM2 bucked the trend and over-performed.

There are expectations because it's a sequel, and is part of a franchise. It's nothing hard to comprehend. The first IM had nothing to base its success on, IM2 did...it's called IM1. After that movie hit it big it had become an established property. The bar was raised lifting Iron Man from a B-lister to the A-list. People are comparing its numbers according to the first, as well as the general reception.

We will have to wait a long while before this proves to be true or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if IM3 suffers a bit in its opening weekend because of IM2. SM2 may have done less than its predecessor, but no one considered it a disappointment because of how off-the-wall the first did anyway. Plus the fact that everyone came out raving about the film assuaged any worries about the franchise. SM3s opening numbers prove how SM2 kept that momentum going. It's not always about numbers. In spite of SM3 being the top grossing of the three, its still considered to be the worst.

One can almost smell the agenda on some of this. How some can type so well while sweating in Batman costumes is impressive.

Ah, the insecurity comes out. This is what's so wrong with fandom, we're so busy preoccupied with what team we're siding on that objective discussions fall to wayside. I have not once brought up Batman in our discussion, but as I am a Batman poster, I must have an agenda, eh? I've been in practically every box office thread here for every major movie. Some of my favorites have bombed (Kick-Ass), while those that I've hated have flourished (Alice). I'm not afraid to admit how much each did. It's a subject of box office, not personal reviews. But what do I know...I'm here sweating in bat-pajamas and your metal helmet has clearly blocked proper vision to see clearly.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Cool little tidbit, the top 50 movies of all-time, adjusted for inflation, all did 500 million domestic. Kinda puts today's movies to shame. Compared to the top grossers that did 1 billion in the US alone, practically every movie now is a drop in the bucket. Yet somehow I doubt the likes of Michael Bay is sweating bullets because his movies don't even make half of that. Never-mind the ludicrous point of comparing numbers in an industry that has remarkably altered between eras. What is the purpose of your numbers? Is it to accentuate the greater success of past artists? Do your numbers take into account the variables involved in that success? Concerts, studio tours, digital sales, clothing deals, brand-association? Do you think Eminem and Jay-Z are contemplating their careers like "Goddamit, why didn't I do Thriller numbers? "

Glad you are finally seeing that different circumstances alter numbers. So we apparently agree on that.

Karate Kid isn't a 200-million dollar movie who is a sequel to a smashing box office success. It's all relative according to the standards set by the individual properties. Blair Witch Project made much less than Avatar, but is actually the most profitable movie ever made because of its low budget and marketing costs.

It's not all relative. A butt in a seat is a butt in a seat. None of us work for the studio that releases the movies. How much profit a movie makes is not our concern. We only care how popular the movies are. Blair Witch is clearly less popular than Avatar....and IM2. ...Another gaping hole in this "expectations" thing. It is a great example of the difference between the studio boss and us. A studio boss would think Blair Witch is more successful than Avatar, Titanic, or TDK. That's obviously nonsense.

There are expectations because it's a sequel, and is part of a franchise. It's nothing hard to comprehend. The first IM had nothing to base its success on, IM2 did...it's called IM1. After that movie hit it big it had become an established property. The bar was raised lifting Iron Man from a B-lister to the A-list. People are comparing its numbers according to the first, as well as the general reception.

Again putting out expectations based on a different franchise. You expect the second Iron Man to perform like second movies from other franchises. (Transformers maybe?) You aren't basing anything on IM1. Spider-Man 1 also raised the bar for Spider-Man movies...doing everything you said IM1 did...and the second one failed to match the first. IM2 has exceeded the first movie...outperforming the path the Spider-Man movies took.

Clearly there is no hard and fast rule for these franchises. You can find one to break any rule you invent. SM2 was better than SM1 and grossed less. X2 was better than X1 and grossed more.

We will have to wait a long while before this proves to be true or not, but I wouldn't be surprised if IM3 suffers a bit in its opening weekend because of IM2. SM2 may have done less than its predecessor, but no one considered it a disappointment because of how off-the-wall the first did anyway. Plus the fact that everyone came out raving about the film assuaged any worries about the franchise. SM3s opening numbers prove how SM2 kept that momentum going. It's not always about numbers. In spite of SM3 being the top grossing of the three, its still considered to be the worst.

IM1 wasn't "off the wall"? Since you value your "expectations" so much...who expected IM1 to come near to what it did at the box office? So based on that logic, IM2 should have grossed less than IM1....but it didn't.

I won't argue about SM3 because I wholeheartedly agree with that. But that point reinforces what I'm saying. There is no rule. SM3 sucked...and was the highest grossing of the three. There is no rule. SM2 was "raved about" and grossed the least. Go ahead and try to make sense of it.

That's what happens when you start putting expectations on movies based on what others do. The Shrek and Transformers movies were horrible...and look at the money they made! The Iron Man movies are supposed to follow that template? (shudder...no thanks)

SM2 has a 7.7 on IMDB while IM2 has a 7.5....looks like they both did ok. And I should remind you that IM2 got an "A" cinemascore. So it is obviously well liked. ....Not that this fact will help us predict what will happen next....it never does. I see you are trying to make a prediction without actually making one. Deep down you know what I'm talking about.

Ah, the insecurity comes out. This is what's so wrong with fandom, we're so busy preoccupied with what team we're siding on that objective discussions fall to wayside. I have not once brought up Batman in our discussion, but as I am a Batman poster, I must have an agenda, eh? I've been in practically every box office thread here for every major movie. Some of my favorites have bombed (Kick-Ass), while those that I've hated have flourished (Alice). I'm not afraid to admit how much each did. It's a subject of box office, not personal reviews. But what do I know...I'm here sweating in bat-pajamas and your metal helmet has clearly blocked proper vision to see clearly.

I didn't actually know you were a Batman poster. (I don't know who hangs out where here) But am I surprised?

Aside...I kinda like Alice too...it gets a lot of hate...but I enjoyed it so much I (re)bought the book. (And yes...the book is way better)

 

[Tony Stark]

Just as I expected, with the new movies coming out this weekend most theater chains in my area dropped Marmaduke, SATC2 and in some cases PoP, Yet IM2 is still at least has 1 screen at all the major theater chains in town.

I'm pretty sure now that IM2 will find a way to surpass the original, with with this kind of a hold.

 

[JKKS085]

$6,576,893 for it's 6th week according to BoM.
The current tracking after it's 10th week is $308,426,226.
I personally don't think it'll gross above 310 millions.

On an other hand, the worldwide gross will probably cross the 600 millions line after the week-end.

 

[Crook]

It's not all relative. A butt in a seat is a butt in a seat. None of us work for the studio that releases the movies. How much profit a movie makes is not our concern. We only care how popular the movies are. Blair Witch is clearly less popular than Avatar....and IM2. ...Another gaping hole in this "expectations" thing. It is a great example of the difference between the studio boss and us. A studio boss would think Blair Witch is more successful than Avatar, Titanic, or TDK. That's obviously nonsense.

Dude, no offense but you would have failed Business/Economics 101 with this line of thinking. If you're my boss and I tell you I got our company 1.5 billion dollars revenue, what would you say? "Great, you're an awesome worker"? Nope. Correct answer is "I don't care about revenue. What was our net income?". If company expenses exceed that 1.5 billion, guess what, no matter how large of a sum that money is, I just put us in the red. Relativity is crucial with money, I shouldn't have to tell you that.

Again putting out expectations based on a different franchise. You expect the second Iron Man to perform like second movies from other franchises. (Transformers maybe?) You aren't basing anything on IM1. Spider-Man 1 also raised the bar for Spider-Man movies...doing everything you said IM1 did...and the second one failed to match the first. IM2 has exceeded the first movie...outperforming the path the Spider-Man movies took.

Please read my paragraph again because I clearly state that I'm only comparing IM2 to its predecessor and no one else.

IM1 wasn't "off the wall"? Since you value your "expectations" so much...who expected IM1 to come near to what it did at the box office? So based on that logic, IM2 should have grossed less than IM1....but it didn't.

IM2 should have crushed IM1, is all I'm saying. IM1 was fantastic, I loved it and had great hopes for the sequel. IM2 failed me in every regard, but thanks to the goodwill of the first, people are coming to the sequel. But it's nowhere near as big as it could have been, had IM2 been as well received as the first.

I won't argue about SM3 because I wholeheartedly agree with that. But that point reinforces what I'm saying. There is no rule. SM3 sucked...and was the highest grossing of the three. There is no rule. SM2 was "raved about" and grossed the least. Go ahead and try to make sense of it.

The "rule" has been brought up several times in this thread. Sequels feed off their predecessors. SM3 made as much as it did because of SM2. X3 made as much as it did because of X2. I will take that to the bank any day of the week. The Matrix franchise is a perfect look at it. M1 broke cinematic grounds, M2s opening weekend broke records. But because of the film's quality, it had very steep drops. It's opening weeks were so big however that it was still a great box office success. Third film rolls around and practically failed in comparison because no one was interested in the franchise anymore. That was all thanks to M2.

SM2 has a 7.7 on IMDB while IM2 has a 7.5....looks like they both did ok. And I should remind you that IM2 got an "A" cinemascore. So it is obviously well liked. ....Not that this fact will help us predict what will happen next....it never does. I see you are trying to make a prediction without actually making one. Deep down you know what I'm talking about.

No, I'm making that prediction: if IM3 doesn't set the bar significantly high, it will suffer greatly for it. I'm just not confident IM2 cushioned it's future sequel enough. IM2 wasn't bad enough to crush a franchise, but to me it was so lukewarm that its distinguished the spark this franchise started off with.

I didn't actually know you were a Batman poster. (I don't know who hangs out where here) But am I surprised?

Didn't really matter if you knew. Batman and its fanbase are on your mind in a discussion that has nothing to do with it. That alone speaks volumes. I don't have to speak on it further.

I must stress that since so many are discussing this vehemently, people aren't even looking at why they're doing it. As much as I've disagreed with ElMariachi and TheVileOne in this thread, I respect their candid and blunt opinions. They clearly view this movie as a success and aren't making any excuses/justifications for it. They see anyone saying otherwise as being overly pessimistic. Oddly enough, it's refreshing and I must applaud them for straying true to that conviction.

You've got a person here who predicted this film to hit nearly a BILLION (seriously look it up) and proclaiming, "what are you guys talking about? this didn't perform under expectations!". And then people who want to argue the film's "tremendous" success, but are quick to bring up factors like the recession. As per my original point, if you've viewed this film as such a raving hit there would be no need for referencing such negative contingencies. A hit overcomes that, thus making them null in any conversation. Try to go into the Avatar thread and state how it underperformed because the budget was so high, the studio spent so much money on the marketing, and how we're in a economic crisis. You would get laughed at. No one would even bother to argue with you. For the simple fact that those factors didn't effect the film.

If IM2 exceeded or met your expectations, GREAT. That's fine, because numbers don't lie, it more than made back it's budget and exceeded the original. But please don't make excuses for why it couldn't make more. It's such a poorly attempted veil at covering personal disappointment and apprehension. If they're not willing to do that, I plainly do not believe they trust their own statements.

 

[JeetKuneDo]

Dude, no offense but you would have failed Business/Economics 101 with this line of thinking. If you're my boss and I tell you I got our company 1.5 billion dollars revenue, what would you say? "Great, you're an awesome worker"? Nope. Correct answer is "I don't care about revenue. What was our net income?". If company expenses exceed that 1.5 billion, guess what, no matter how large of a sum that money is, I just put us in the red. Relativity is crucial with money, I shouldn't have to tell you that.

I think you've just put me to work at the studio when I was very careful to point out that we don't work for the studio.

Sure...if I worked for the studio I would worry more about things that have nothing to do with how popular a movie is.

Please read my paragraph again because I clearly state that I'm only comparing IM2 to its predecessor and no one else.

I know you stated that...but then you somehow come to the conclusion that IM2 should have done even better than making more money than the original did. How do you come to that conclusion without using some other franchise?

IM2 should have crushed IM1, is all I'm saying. IM1 was fantastic, I loved it and had great hopes for the sequel. IM2 failed me in every regard, but thanks to the goodwill of the first, people are coming to the sequel. But it's nowhere near as big as it could have been, had IM2 been as well received as the first.

Not sure what you are basing all this on. You do remember that the OW was "disappointing" compared to the "expectations", right? That has nothing to do with how well received it is.

Now at least we get to the real subject. You wish to prove IM2 was not well liked...it's isn't about "profit" at all.

Truth: The "expectations" were out of line from the beginning...and were based on other franchises...which is going to result in bad predictions many times because all franchises act differently. Bad "expectations" result in erroneous labels like "disappointing" for a 600+ million grossing movie.

The "rule" has been brought up several times in this thread. Sequels feed off their predecessors. SM3 made as much as it did because of SM2. X3 made as much as it did because of X2. I will take that to the bank any day of the week. The Matrix franchise is a perfect look at it. M1 broke cinematic grounds, M2s opening weekend broke records. But because of the film's quality, it had very steep drops. It's opening weeks were so big however that it was still a great box office success. Third film rolls around and practically failed in comparison because no one was interested in the franchise anymore. That was all thanks to M2.

I thought you weren't using other franchises to base your "expectations" on?

I notice you left out that SM2 made less than it's predecessor despite how well liked SM1 was. SM2 was supposedly even more well liked and still made less. And how about Batman 2? Much less than the well received first movie. There is no rule. (And just wait to see how Batman 7 performs following the "well received" Dark Knight...will the rule be broken again?)

No, I'm making that prediction: if IM3 doesn't set the bar significantly high, it will suffer greatly for it. I'm just not confident IM2 cushioned it's future sequel enough. IM2 wasn't bad enough to crush a franchise, but to me it was so lukewarm that its distinguished the spark this franchise started off with.

Good luck making predictions on franchises. I certainly don't know what's going to happen. It looks like every franchise acts different to me.

Didn't really matter if you knew. Batman and its fanbase are on your mind in a discussion that has nothing to do with it. That alone speaks volumes. I don't have to speak on it further.

Where do you suppose the Batman connection came from? Experience on the internet. Batman fans are the most rabid I've encountered. I've seen pages of Batman fans claiming Batman can beat up Superman. (Batman can't beat any other hero I can think of other than Hawkman and Robin) They are merciless on Marvel movies in particular.

You've got a person here who predicted this film to hit nearly a BILLION (seriously look it up) and proclaiming, "what are you guys talking about? this didn't perform under expectations!". And then people who want to argue the film's "tremendous" success, but are quick to bring up factors like the recession. As per my original point, if you've viewed this film as such a raving hit there would be no need for referencing such negative contingencies. A hit overcomes that, thus making them null in any conversation. Try to go into the Avatar thread and state how it underperformed because the budget was so high, the studio spent so much money on the marketing, and how we're in a economic crisis. You would get laughed at. No one would even bother to argue with you. For the simple fact that those factors didn't effect the film.

If IM2 exceeded or met your expectations, GREAT. That's fine, because numbers don't lie, it more than made back it's budget and exceeded the original. But please don't make excuses for why it couldn't make more. It's such a poorly attempted veil at covering personal disappointment and apprehension. If they're not willing to do that, I plainly do not believe they trust their own statements.

I didn't make a prediction so IM2 is just as successful as the first (more successful actually). And you've missed my point I think. I'm pointing out that IM2 managed to overcome the economy while others have not. It's been a lousy summer all around for movies not named Iron Man 2 (and soon...Toy Story 3!). IM2 did what Spider-Man 2 and Batman 2 could not.

Just saw Toy Story 3 today btw...and it just knocked IM2 down to my #2 spot for the year. I highly recommend it....bring tissue though. (Or see it in 3D so the glasses will hide your tears)

 

[JKKS085]

I can't believe you guys are still arguing about whether or not a movie wich made almost three times it's production budget is a sucess or not.
Sounds insane. Really.

[...] Still, Iron Man 2 has already passed Iron Man's foreign total as well as its worldwide (domestic plus foreign) sum, so one cannot objectively classify it as a box office disappointment in relation to its predecessor.

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2822&p=.htm

 

[JKKS085]

- double post -
http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2822&p=.htm

 

[topdog1]

I can't believe you guys are still arguing about whether or not a movie wich made almost three times it's production budget is a sucess or not.
Sounds insane. Really.



http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=2822&p=.htm

No kidding. That is a definition of HUGE success especially given the current economic climate. In a normal year it would be great. In this mess, that's PHENOMINAL.

Anyone else laugh at the fact that Iron Man 2 will make more on it's midnight showing than Jonah Hex will in it's entire opening weekend?!?

 

[Catman]

This film neither got universal praise nor tremendous box office

$302 million domestically and $598 million worldwide isn't exactly a moderate success. Just because it didn't outgross the original (or meet expectations) doesn't mean its success was moderate. By that logic, Spider-Man 2 was a moderate success.

Cool little tidbit, the top 50 movies of all-time, adjusted for inflation, all did 500 million domestic. Kinda puts today's movies to shame.

Time has changed, Crook. When Gone with the Wind was released there was no TV, video games, and Internet.

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

^What Crook is saying though, is that IM2 was expected to make a lot more and be a lot more successful than it has been.

I havent heard anyone say its a failure, but at the time, EVERYONE expected the movie to make A LOT more than the 1st, but at this point, its struggling to make $50 million more than the first movie did. I dont care what anyone says, Marvel were expecting more, the fact that they rushed this sequel is coming back to bite them, not hard, but there will be a few teeth marks.

Oh, and I cant believe I will actually have to say this in this thread but thought I would mention it seeing as some believe there is an agenda in saying IM2 didnt make what it was expected too, but I am more of an Iron Man fan than a Batman fan.

 

[Leenie]

Oh, darn. Iron Man 2 has ONLY made $300 million domestically. What a shame.

Seriously, though? Here's what I think about these box office numbers: Are we still getting the Avengers movie? Yup. Are we still getting an Iron Man 3? Yup.

I'm good.

 

[Franklin Richards]

I don't mind a movie consistently knocking it out of the park. It's alot better for a series in the long run. Just imagine trying to live up to the hype if the movie had made 1 billion dollars. The expectations for the sequel would be unreal and never live up to them.

 

[chiefchirpa]

^What Crook is saying though, is that IM2 was expected to make a lot more and be a lot more successful than it has been.

I havent heard anyone say its a failure, but at the time, EVERYONE expected the movie to make A LOT more than the 1st, but at this point, its struggling to make $50 million more than the first movie did. I dont care what anyone says, Marvel were expecting more, the fact that they rushed this sequel is coming back to bite them, not hard, but there will be a few teeth marks.

Oh, and I cant believe I will actually have to say this in this thread but thought I would mention it seeing as some believe there is an agenda in saying IM2 didnt make what it was expected too, but I am more of an Iron Man fan than a Batman fan.

Well Marvel didn't have anything ready other than Iron Man after Hulk. According to the original plan they tried to put Thor or Cap next after Hulk, but that plan didn't seem to work either they didn't have confidence in both riskier franchises after Hulk or the scripts were never ready. So IM2 was rushed. Like TF2 rushed.

It's actually more a good thing Marvel learn one or two from IM2 for IM3. They have a chance to make a superb IM3 out of the filming flaws they learned from IM2. After all IM3 is supposed to be the pinnacle of IM series - it's where Iron Man meets Mandarin. And what about upcoming projects like Thor, Cap, and Avengers - Marvel sure get some lessons for them too while still avoiding another The Incredible Hulk mini-disaster.

 

[chiefchirpa]

Oh, darn. Iron Man 2 has ONLY made $300 million domestically. What a shame.

Seriously, though? Here's what I think about these box office numbers: Are we still getting the Avengers movie? Yup. Are we still getting an Iron Man 3? Yup.

I'm good.

Yeah people seem forgetting that IM2 is not the last appearance Tony Stark appearance before IM3. It's the Avengers and that movie will be certainly made (barring any box office catastrophes of the other 2 Marvel films). I'm sure they put RDJ in plenty of spotlights during the film, so by IM3 people will anticipate more of the armored genius.

Oh Iron Man 3 will be made - it's by far the most surefire movie project Marvel Studios have right now.

 

[Crook]

I think you've just put me to work at the studio when I was very careful to point out that we don't work for the studio.

Sure...if I worked for the studio I would worry more about things that have nothing to do with how popular a movie is.

Oh, come on. It is absolutely ridiculous to take part in a box office discussion and not take into account the factors that play into the money game. What is the point of that if all you're going to do is look at the bottom-dollar? It looks foolish.

I know you stated that...but then you somehow come to the conclusion that IM2 should have done even better than making more money than the original did. How do you come to that conclusion without using some other franchise?

How about common sense? The first IM was universally loved. A sequel to that type of film is set up to be propelled at higher heights in almost every sense of the word.

Not sure what you are basing all this on. You do remember that the OW was "disappointing" compared to the "expectations", right? That has nothing to do with how well received it is.

Now at least we get to the real subject. You wish to prove IM2 was not well liked...it's isn't about "profit" at all.

Truth: The "expectations" were out of line from the beginning...and were based on other franchises...which is going to result in bad predictions many times because all franchises act differently. Bad "expectations" result in erroneous labels like "disappointing" for a 600+ million grossing movie.

Expecting something north of 800 million is probably too optimistic. Expecting it to unequivocally surpass its predecessor at everything, isn't. That is one the biggest incentives for creating a sequel after all.

I thought you weren't using other franchises to base your "expectations" on?

I'm still not. I'm giving you a rule that exists in spite of the successes and failures of movies, not as a result of it. The entire foundation of a franchise relies on a loyal audience. Subsequent sequels should keep the momentum going for the series, if not in hard numbers, then in vocal interest, to benefit the following sequel.

I notice you left out that SM2 made less than it's predecessor despite how well liked SM1 was. SM2 was supposedly even more well liked and still made less. And how about Batman 2? Much less than the well received first movie. There is no rule. (And just wait to see how Batman 7 performs following the "well received" Dark Knight...will the rule be broken again?)

I believe I've already addressed this point. Mammoth blockbusters are the only exception to the rule, because their success encompasses a demographic that extends past the target audience. Non-fans rushed to the film despite having no past (or future) interest in the series as a whole, because it was a must-see event movie. You can add Avatar to this list, I've no doubt the sequel will make less because there will be tons of people who went to see the first out of pure curiosity that won't be enticed this time around.

Where do you suppose the Batman connection came from? Experience on the internet. Batman fans are the most rabid I've encountered. I've seen pages of Batman fans claiming Batman can beat up Superman. (Batman can't beat any other hero I can think of other than Hawkman and Robin) They are merciless on Marvel movies in particular.

Excuse me if I'm not convinced. Unless you're about to make some brilliant points that connect me to any of the fanatic traits you just described, I don't see how you expect me to believe that is how you came to your snide remark. You are on home-turf, so don't worry, I'm sure some IM fans won't persecute you for upholding the stupid belief that any remark that disparages a Marvel property in any way, must be "one of those (insert DC character) fanboys". It's a typical line of thought: they're the enemy, they're all crazy, we're the level-headed ones with no faults, bias, or agenda at all!

I didn't make a prediction so IM2 is just as successful as the first (more successful actually). And you've missed my point I think. I'm pointing out that IM2 managed to overcome the economy while others have not. It's been a lousy summer all around for movies not named Iron Man 2 (and soon...Toy Story 3!). IM2 did what Spider-Man 2 and Batman 2 could not.

1) I wasn't directing that at you, it was more of a general point against many of the posts I've seen here
2) IM2 was a sequel to a certified blockbuster and beloved hit, but by no means did it have the hard task of following up event movies.

$302 million domestically and $598 million worldwide isn't exactly a moderate success. Just because it didn't outgross the original (or meet expectations) doesn't mean its success was moderate. By that logic, Spider-Man 2 was a moderate success.

What did you want me to say, IM2 is a massive success? Because I refuse to do that with a property that isn't as well supported compared to its predecessor. Were you guys even here during IM1? Champagne bottles were being popped and techno music was blasting for days. That's what the aura felt like, it was a celebration for Marvel. This time around? A small room with no AC, full of frustrated geeks arguing with each other.

Time has changed, Crook. When Gone with the Wind was released there was no TV, video games, and Internet.

Yes, that was my point. It was in response to a skewed view in comparing today's music industry with that of a long-gone era. Thanks for catching up.

Yeah people seem forgetting that IM2 is not the last appearance Tony Stark appearance before IM3. It's the Avengers and that movie will be certainly made (barring any box office catastrophes of the other 2 Marvel films). I'm sure they put RDJ in plenty of spotlights during the film, so by IM3 people will anticipate more of the armored genius.

Oh Iron Man 3 will be made - it's by far the most surefire movie project Marvel Studios have right now.

This is a very good point. If Tony takes the center-stage during Avengers, much like Wolverine, and the film is a hit, that'll offset the somewhat lukewarm response many have expressed for this film.

 

[bubbadoom]

I was surprised that TOY STORY 3 is projected to have a smaller opening weekend that IRON MAN 2. Looks like Marvel is still the champ of this summer, thus far...