The Avengers What sort of MARKETING does THE AVENGERS need to bring in the GA that are not fans?

[Adamantium Man]

I don't think that general knowledge is the obstacle to getting non-fans/new fans into the theater: as you say, the Avengers in comics/toons and the movie project itself is fairly common knowledge by now.

The biggest problem Marvel faces is simply in convincing people they should see a movie featuring an ensemble of characters they didn't care about enough to see the first four/five movies. It's just going to be too hard a sell beyond the audiences that have already bought into the project, and that audience hovers roughly around Iron Man numbers.

This is the part where I really, really wish Marvel coulda-woulda-shoulda gone with some marquee players instead of Hemsworth, Evans, and Ruffalo. A team-up featuring a big-name cast would've sold itself as a "cast of thousands all-star event." As it stands now, the biggest celeb names in the MCU so far are support characters/ lesser villains (Sam Jackson, Scarlett Johanson, Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman, Rene Russo, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, Tim Roth, Liv Tyler, William Hurt, Terrence Howard, Don Cheadle, Jeff Bridges, Mickey Rourke, Gwyneth Paltrow).

*cough*Robert Downey Jr.*cough*

 

[Adamantium Man]

I still stand by the usage of implied nudity, but not for the female cast members.

Hear, hear!

 

[cherokeesam]

*cough*Robert Downey Jr.*cough*

Yeah, but I was talking about the supporting cast and villains.
In a way, I'd say that even RDJ wasn't a huge star until IM *made* him one....before that, the general consensus was that he was just a washed-up 80s junkie.

Also, just saying: it sure wouldn't have hurt the Avengers' box office if Edward Norton or Eric Bana's name was up there instead of Mark Ruffalo.

 

[Vartha]

I still stand by the usage of implied nudity, but not for the female cast members.

Yeah I've heard that news, makes me personally a bit miffed that Scarlet has to go through that crap, yet I'm torn on looking for the pic.

 

[Adamantium Man]

Yeah, but I was talking about the supporting cast and villains.
In a way, I'd say that even RDJ wasn't a huge star until IM *made* him one....before that, the general consensus was that he was just a washed-up 80s junkie.

Also, just saying: it sure wouldn't have hurt the Avengers' box office if Edward Norton or Eric Bana's name was up there instead of Mark Ruffalo.

You'd say, and what general consensus? The man has received an Oscar nod literally decades before IM.

Besides, what difference does it make? He's huge now. He'll draw in the masses on his name alone. People flocked to see Sherlock Holmes despite the controversity among fans about this re-invention. They'll flock to see the sequel. Even Due Date was a reasonable success, despite the movie itself being a re-make of a much better original.

Also, we can't know about any actor's name hurting the Avenger's box office, because there isn't any box office yet that has been hurt. Norton may be bigger than Ruffalo, but then, so is Johnny Depp. Doesn't mean than he has to be in this movie.

Also also, the Norton train has departed. Just saying.

 

[Shadowlord X]

I'm of the belief that big name stars really don't guarantee big success anymore, it's franchises with built in fanbases, and specific characters.

POTC movies - it's Depp as CJS, not really Depp
TF - it's not Shia, it's big robot VFX
HP - it's not the actors it's the franchise
Twilight - same

Look at the number of movies with big name stars like Depp, Cruise, Pitt, etc., in recent years that have outright bombed or produced mediocre BO results.

Keep in mind that you still have to pay these guys huge salaries, irrespective of BO performance.

 

[Raiden]

I don't think that general knowledge is the obstacle to getting non-fans/new fans into the theater: as you say, the Avengers in comics/toons and the movie project itself is fairly common knowledge by now.

The biggest problem Marvel faces is simply in convincing people they should see a movie featuring an ensemble of characters they didn't care about enough to see the first four/five movies. It's just going to be too hard a sell beyond the audiences that have already bought into the project, and that audience hovers roughly around Iron Man numbers.

This is the part where I really, really wish Marvel coulda-woulda-shoulda gone with some marquee players instead of Hemsworth, Evans, and Ruffalo. A team-up featuring a big-name cast would've sold itself as a "cast of thousands all-star event." As it stands now, the biggest celeb names in the MCU so far are support characters/ lesser villains (Sam Jackson, Scarlett Johanson, Anthony Hopkins, Natalie Portman, Rene Russo, Hugo Weaving, Tommy Lee Jones, Tim Roth, Liv Tyler, William Hurt, Terrence Howard, Don Cheadle, Jeff Bridges, Mickey Rourke, Gwyneth Paltrow).

With big names come big paychecks, and you cannot keep the budget within reasonable range if you load it up with A-list actors. Ocean's Eleven was able to do it because Clooney, Pitt, and Damon (along with director Soderberg) wanted to get it done, and were willing to take smaller paychecks to make it happen. Marvel won't have been able to do it likewise, and since it's a big budget movie with special effects, most of the money will be allocated to make Hulk's CGI believable, make Thor & IM fly, have realistic pyrotechnics, etc. What Marvel did was the right way, and A-list actors do not guarantee box office gold nowadays anyway.

 

[warcam]

Also, regarding Norton and Bana: what viewers would they bring in that aren't already going to see it? I think pretty much anyone who enjoys those guys and some of the movies they've been in will probably plan on seeing The Avengers regardless. If anything, Ruffalo may draw in some of those romcom/indie moviegoers that may not normally go to a movie like this.
I remember watching an episode of PARENTHOOD last year (don't ask), and there was a scene where the women were sitting around drinking wine and one of them brought up Mark Ruffalo, and the others just started swooning and saying how much they loved him. It's a TV show, I know, but don't underestimate Ruffalo's female following.

 

[Lady Marion]

With big names come big paychecks, and you cannot keep the budget within reasonable range if you load it up with A-list actors. Ocean's Eleven was able to do it because Clooney, Pitt, and Damon (along with director Soderberg) wanted to get it done, and were willing to take smaller paychecks to make it happen. Marvel won't have been able to do it likewise, and since it's a big budget movie with special effects, most of the money will be allocated to make Hulk's CGI believable, make Thor & IM fly, have realistic pyrotechnics, etc. What Marvel did was the right way, and A-list actors do not guarantee box office gold nowadays anyway.

I second this. Why did the people watch "Lord of the rings"? I don't remember a huge star, except Cate Blanchett, maybe Liv Tyler. It was the story, the book it' based on. It wasn't an name of an actor. The same goes for "Star Wars".

We have at least RDJ and Scarlett Johansson. I think that's good.

 

[Chewy]

Yeah, but I was talking about the supporting cast and villains.
In a way, I'd say that even RDJ wasn't a huge star until IM *made* him one....before that, the general consensus was that he was just a washed-up 80s junkie.

Also, just saying: it sure wouldn't have hurt the Avengers' box office if Edward Norton or Eric Bana's name was up there instead of Mark Ruffalo.

You think Eric Bana is a bigger name actor than Mark Ruffalo?

 

[Spider-Vader]

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[cherokeesam]

You think Eric Bana is a bigger name actor than Mark Ruffalo?

On the HSX:

Eric Bana market value: currently $88.38 a share
Mark Ruffalo: $45.50 a share

Yeah, I'd say Bana is a *lot* bigger name actor than Ruffalo.

(Incidentally, Ed Norton is "trading" at $37.42, so I guess the earlier comment about the Norton train already leaving the station is accurate.)

 

[Chewy]

HSX? That's your measuring stick? Are you kidding me

http://www.hsx.com/security/view/CPOES

Please don't tell me you think HSX price is a legitimate measure of actors' recognizability/popularity/bankability

 

[Liam_H]

^lol

 

[cherokeesam]

HSX? That's your measuring stick? Are you kidding me

http://www.hsx.com/security/view/CPOES

Please don't tell me you think HSX price is a legitimate measure of actors' recognizability/popularity/bankability

Nope.

But it's an accurate measure of a star's/movie's internet fanclub. And it sure seems pretty popular in these forums.

 

[Liam_H]

^Can't tell if your joking with HSX or not but I doubt a majority of GA play the game so that would make it a pretty poor measurement.

 

[cherokeesam]

Okay, jeebuz, didn't realize this would turn into a "my dad's better'n your dad...oh yeah? prove it" pissin' match.

But hey, if you guys are looking for a fairly *objective* rating of who makes bigger bank, consider the boxofficemojo pages for Bana and Ruffalo, that measures their average domestic draw:

Bana:


Lifetime Gross Total (12): $867,671,324
Average: $72,305,944
Opening Gross Average (8): $31,095,391 (Wide Releases Only)


Ruffalo:

Lifetime Gross Total (24): $571,462,311
Average: $23,810,930
Opening Gross Average (12): $13,542,636 (Wide Releases Only)




http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=ericbana.htm
http://boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?id=markruffalo.htm

Do I now have the forum's gracious permission to state objectively that Eric Bana is a bigger name than Mark Ruffalo?

 

[R_Hythlodeus]

If you delete TROY and STAR TREK off Banas list, how big would the difference between Ruff and him be?

 

[cherokeesam]

If you delete TROY and STAR TREK off Banas list, how big would the difference between Ruff and him be?

(Answer to my previous question: apparently not. )

Why does it even matter if you take Troy and Trek off the list? Why not take The Kids Are Alright and Shutter Island off Ruffalo's list, too?

Popularity is subjective; bank is not. Mojo has given you the numbers. Why belabor the point when the numbers *show* Bana as the bigger box office? Why is that so hard for some people to believe, or accept?

 

[Liam_H]

Those numbers can be very misleading since most people don't even know Bana is in Star Trek due to him being in makeup. Its hard to accept when just accept them at face value.

 

[cherokeesam]

Those numbers can be very misleading since most people don't even know Bana is in Star Trek due to him being in makeup. Its hard to accept when just accept them at face value.

oh for the love of....


*sigh*

Bana is an established Hollywood *star.* He plays quite often in genuine blockbuster material.

Ruffalo is an indie darling, who opts out of big money like Avengers in favor of smaller movies that have big critical acclaim.

Does anyone here seriously think that Bana *isn't* used to making big-budget Hollywood actioners, or that Ruffalo *is?*

Face it: Ruffalo is out of his element here. I wish him the best, and he's a great actor, but he's *never* done Hollywood big-ticket popcorn before. Bana and Norton are veterans of this kind of movie.

 

[Liam_H]

I just can't agree since the action done by Ruffalo during the movie is by a giant CGI creature.

 

[Chewy]

You cannot be serious with the "facts" you are presenting

Bana having supporting roles in Troy and Star Trek does *not* make him a big name/draw. No more that John Rhys-Davies is an established draw and box office bait for having major supporting roles in Indy or LotR.

No one is talking about how "used to" making this type of movie Bana is. That does not make him a draw.

You started off arguing that Norton/Bana were bigger stars than Ruffalo and ended up arguing that they're veterans in big movies. Who cares? What big movie did RDJ make before IM? What big movies did ScarJo make before IM2? What big movies did Hemsworth make before Thor? That's not what makes someone a draw.

 

[cherokeesam]

You cannot be serious with the "facts" you are presenting

Bana having supporting roles in Troy and Star Trek does *not* make him a big name/draw. No more that John Rhys-Davies is an established draw and box office bait for having major supporting roles in Indy or LotR.

No one is talking about how "used to" making this type of movie Bana is. That does not make him a draw.

You started off arguing that Norton/Bana were bigger stars than Ruffalo and ended up arguing that they're veterans in big movies. Who cares? What big movie did RDJ make before IM? What big movies did ScarJo make before IM2? What big movies did Hemsworth make before Thor? That's not what makes someone a draw.

Being the *main antagonist* in both Troy and Trek in no way, shape or form equates to being an Indy sidekick with a few scenes.

I argued that Bana was a bigger box office draw on the strength of major roles in major action flicks like Hulk, Troy, Trek, Munich and Black Hawk Down; and that Ruffalo has far less box office clout, with a reputation for rom-coms and artsy awards-season fodder. You proceeded to question that notion; I proceeded to back it up with numbers; yet you *still* question the premise.

I don't know how else to prove to you that Bana would have been a bigger box office draw than Ruffalo. Maybe I should counter by asking *you* to prove that Ruffalo will be a bigger draw than Bana.

 

[Chewy]

The *main antagonist* in Star Trek was largely considered the film's weakest part and Bana didn't even look like himself under that makeup. Troy was a Brad Pitt vehicle, it's silly to pretend any other actor mattered to that film's success. The draw in Hulk was not Bana but green pixels and that movie tanked after its opening weekend. BHD was an ensemble piece and Ridley Scott's first post-Gladiator action film while Munich was a little awards fodder movie sold on Spielberg's name.

Ruffalo was the main sidekick in a recent, popular Leo DiCaprio movie, was the *main antagonist* in a quasi-popular Tom Cruise movie, is the male lead in a half dozen or so popular rom coms, and has sizable roles in a bunch of highly regarded films (You Can Count on Me, The Kids Are All Right, Zodiac, Eternal Sunshine, etc)

Obviously this conversation isn't going anywhere since you don't seem to recognize that costarring in films with other popular actors doesn't necessarily make someone a draw themself. This is probably my last post on the matter