Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Thor' started by Thread Manager, May 11, 2011.
Friday Estimate - $1,175,000
Not suprising that it's a little lower than the $1.3M DHD was guessing. XMFC is direct competition in the same sub-genre. I'll be happy if it does $4M this weekend.
I think $170 domestic, which Thor will hit on Monday, along with the respectable foreign take, pretty much secures a sequel for us.
I'm sure a sequel is in the bag.
No need to worry anymore. Thor was not another Incredible Hulk.
We should celebrate!
I thought it would really topped out at $170m.
^It's got a bit more gas in the tank than that. $10-15M more.
this movie is a hit already thor is a secondary hero and on a 150 mil budget this movie gonna do 180 domestic and 275 overseas thats awsome!
Hopefully he won't be considered a secondary character anymore. The comics have already rectified that by making him front-and-center with the Avengers and in various events. Hopefully we'll get at least one sequel and it'll only improve on the groundwork from the first movie, making Thor's prominence in the movieverse match his prominence in the comics universe.
With the film's WW gross tripling the production budget, I think we'll get at least 2 more Thor films.
maybe your audience is like that
although i wanted to see piranha 3d for the hot chicks on the beach and people getting their asses bitten by fishes etc...
i still haven't took the time to even rent it at a video club yet.
i'm not too fond of that too
they use it against Avatar
Gone with the wind is still no1 according to some old bags out there .
Paramount’s Thor, director Kenneth Branagh’s screen treatment of the mythic comic book character, has generated total foreign box office of $258 million thanks to a $1.6 million weekend at 2,990 locations in 60 markets.
Nobody is arguing budgets or profitability. They're arguing grosses and how "big" the movies are.
X3 was bigger than Thor. Arguing otherwise is ridiculous.
Eh, that's pretty depressing because X3 was s***, but it doesn't really mean anything otherwise.
Obviously the most important thing is that the movie was good and successful, and we should get a sequel.
I just think it's silly for giddy Thor fans to claim the movie is bigger than X3 or Batman Forever when it wasn't (even though most can agree it was better than both of those movies).
Really, when it comes to sequels quality is less important than the reception of the original and the ability to build hype.
For people still talking about ifs and buts regarding a sequel; hasn't that already been confirmed to be happening about 2 weeks ago when Marvel saw what Thor was doing and had done up to that point?
They said it was being persued and script writing would begin at the end of this year but as always in Hollywood don't put your hopes on anything until the filming wraps.
Foreign gross is grinding down. I'd say it only makes it to 270 foreign.
Domestic however, is still impressing me. I see it sailing past 180 million, and maybe making it to 190.
It's still a lock for $ 450 M.
Thor was still playing in 2D and 3D in the theater that I went to see XMFC in last night. I was surprised it still had a screen for both.
I didn't think Thor would have the strong legs its shown. I kinda assumed FC would have put it out to pasture. It still may, but I didn't expect to see it on two screens still at my theater.
But it's profitability that truly decides whether a sequel is made or not. Superman Returns made more $ than Batman Begins world wide, but due to the differences in their budgets, BB was profitable enough to get a sequel while SR was not.
But getting back to my original point, it just irks me when people bring up the inflation aspect but only where grosses are concerned. They all too often forget that they need to adjust the budgets as well.
X3 was big because of the setup. It's really the same thing with Spider-man 3, it broke records, because it rested on the laurels of the first two, when people saw X3 and Spider-man 3 as letdowns, there was a huge fall.
I'm sorry guys but Thor would have to be doing more than it is to get the same boost that the Iron Man character got after it's nearly 600mil 3D absent boxoffice. Thor did well but the character didn't break out like Iron Man did, if it did it would be having better legs.
Iron Man went up against other films to and still managed an over 3.0 multiplier off of a much larger opening weekend.
Internationally Thor has done just as well, domestically it will end up with a 2.75-2.8 multiplier. That's pretty damn good.
As I said before, aside from the Big Three (Iron Man, Thor, and Capt. America), Marvel Studio doesn't have that many marquee names that it can use to make movies of. The Avengers is one, but after the first one I think it'll be hard to make another considering the fact that it is tough to gather all the actors together again, esp. for actors like RDJ and ScarJo. Thor was a relatively unknown before this, and it will become a household name like IM has become. IMO all three superheroes will received a trilogy from Marvel, and other lesser superheroes like BW, Black Panther, Ant-Man, etc. might get a standalone to see how good they will be. If Avengers 2 ever comes along it'll likely to feature more secondary superheroes than the Big Three on the screen at once.
I don't think anyone's saying it's gonna get the same boost Iron Man has, but no doubt it's going to get a boost. I'd compare Thor more to the first X-men than X3, which is a sequel.
Thor is a good start to the character but if I had to make a bold prediction I say Thor 2 (or possibly the Avengers but Iron Man and Captain America will probably be the main spotlight) will be the big movie for Thor.
^Your sig is ridiculously funny. DJ is such a character.
As for your post:
I'm not going to be even slightly predicting a Thor sequel until I see some DVD sales.