Wolverine's Box Office Opponents: 2009 Summer Movies

[Theweepeople]

Did you hear about the budget for Transformers 2? Reports have said 500 million!!! I think it will win the box office big but it won't make that much money to make Paramount happy. So I expect the trailer for Transformers 2 to blow us out of the water. The movie will hopefully be good but if I was Paramount I would be worried about how much the sequel makes if they plan on making a third.

Hopefully Iron Man 2 kicks off the demon in the bottle darker side, I like to see Tony struggle with himself.

Back to the Box Office, I don't think Wolverine will end up winning the BO of the summer at all, maybe 3rd probably 4th.

I don't believe this rumour about Transformer's 2 budget for one second. The movie rumoured to be the most expensive next year is Avatar(250-300million without marketing costs).

Megan Fox said a couple of months ago that the budget for Transformers 2 was 302million but, this was never confirmed by Paramount. This could be true but, I could only see Paramount realistically pumping another 50 to 80million more than the first film into the sequel. It only cost 147million to do the groundbreaking special effects of Transformers 1. Since Paramount got started developing the sequel quickly they should have saved money by using many of the same sets over again.

 

[FaT_tONle]

That is way too high for a Transformers film... it will make the numbers back but I don't think it will do as well as the first. If 300 million is true I just don't see a third installment happening in a while because I think they'll have a difficult time recouping those numbers up, at least a more difficult time than they had with the first film.

 

[SNIKT1950]

I am just worried bc we have barely seen Beast do anything, Rogue hasn't flown or gotten her powers from Ms. Marvel, Angel flew and wasn't used and Iceman iced up once. They haven't been used but if they were that would be sweet. Ofcourse I'd be excited and we would too but I know movie goers would say, "Where's Wolverine?"

I am worried about how they could put a 40 year old Gambit in the movie too.

Don't get me wrong I'd love to see this with or without Wolverine but we have been tricked in the past by trailers. I mean X3's trailer shows Storm fly and Angel fly and other things but that was rarely in the movie.

I was pretty happy with the way Storm's powers were portrayed in X3.

For the first time in the Trilogy, I was actually enjoying her presence.

No accent, sexy hair, kicking ass, flying from the moment she's first seen on-screen (Danger Room)...

That same thought goes to Beast who really got nasty in the final battle.

Kelsey Grammer is just perfect for the role.

Iceman and Angel will have their moment to shine in X4.

I can wait.

*I honestly have no idea where Angels and Demons is gonna end up Box Office-wise.

In 2006, DaVinci Code was a surprise hit in my eyes.

It made ALOT of money ---> $217.5 Million Domestic.

Lookin back at the numbers for the previous installments to all these films, The Autobots are at the top of the mountain...

Transformers (2007) ---> $319

Harry Potter and The Order of The Phoenix (2007) ---> $292

X-Men The Last Stand (2006) ---> $234

The DaVinci Code (2006) ---> $217.5

Terminator 3: Rise of The Machines (2003) ---> $150

The Fast and The Furious: Tokyo Drift (2006) ---> $62.5

Star Trek: Insurrection (2002) ---> $43

 

[BETArayBill]

hmm... none of this movies seem really that good espically after all the great movies this summer but i would have with transformers or potter those two franchies are both juggernauts but who knows star trek could creep in there i dont think wolverine has a chance at being the #1 movie just from past x-men numbers.

 

[Theweepeople]

hmm... none of this movies seem really that good espically after all the great movies this summer but i would have with transformers or potter those two franchies are both juggernauts but who knows star trek could creep in there i dont think wolverine has a chance at being the #1 movie just from past x-men numbers.

I think Star Trek will be the wild card of next summer. It could do fantastic or do mediocre financially.

Also, Star Trek: Insurrection came out in 1998. Nemesis came out in 2002.

 

[SNIKT1950]

Star Trek: Insurrection came out in 1998. Nemesis came out in 2002.

Yeah, my mistake.

I was lookin at the numbers for Nemesis but wrote Insurrection for some reason.

 

[Spider-Vader]

I'm with you on 2012.

2011 has TWO Avengers movies + the third Batman movie.

Has BM 3 been confirmed for 2011? If so it's going to be very crowded because Spidey 4 has been confirmed for 2011.

 

[SNIKT1950]

Has BM 3 been confirmed for 2011? If so it's going to be very crowded because Spidey 4 has been confirmed for 2011.

Batman 3 IS happening that year, with or without Chris Nolan.

Warner Bros. knocked both of MARVEL's movies this year and they're going for seconds.

I think its a stupid move to go up against SONY, specially without Heath Ledger - which is the source of The Dark Knight's success.

2011 will be a Summer of titans.

 

[BMM]

Batman 3 IS happening that year, with or without Chris Nolan.

Warner Bros. knocked both of MARVEL's movies this year and they're going for seconds.

I think its a stupid move to go up against SONY, specially without Heath Ledger - which is the source of The Dark Knight's success.

2011 will be a Summer of titans.

Not necessarily. The Spider-Man franchise took a hit with Spider-Man 3, while the fervor for the Batman franchise only continues to build.

 

[Angamb]

I think Batman "3" will be released later, not in 2011.... and less with that competition.

 

[SNIKT1950]

I think Batman "3" will be released later, not in 2011.... and less with that competition.

Warner Bros. is just being predictable with that date.

Predictable because their Nolan/Batman franchise has almost reached the numbers achieved by 3 Spider Man movies with just two.

Without Heath Ledger, Batman 3 is a sitting duck up against Spider Man.

 

[Angamb]

Heath Ledger wasn't God, the movie had success too because the quality of the previous movie, that's for sure.

and BAtman 3 will have success too, maybe not the same, but more than Ironman and X-men definetly.

 

[SNIKT1950]

Heath Ledger wasn't God, the movie had success too because the quality of the previous movie, that's for sure.

and BAtman 3 will have success too, maybe not the same, but more than Ironman and X-men definetly.

The last movie made a very forgettable $200 Million.

Heath's movie made $525 Million and counting.

Hell of a difference ain't it?

 

[BMM]

The last movie had to overcome the stigma of Batman and Robin and prove itself to audiences. Have you ever thought that maybe, in addition to Heath Ledger, the sequel did well in part because of how well the first movie was received (nevermind the fact that it is a good movie)?

And how is $200 million dollars suddenly forgettable when you think Wolverine is going to squash the competition with a strong chance of making… $200 million???

 

[SNIKT1950]

The last movie had to overcome the stigma of Batman and Robin and prove itself to audiences. Have you ever thought that maybe, in addition to Heath Ledger, the sequel did well in part because of how well the first movie was received?

And how is $200 million dollars suddenly forgettable when you think Wolverine is going to squash the competition with a strong chance of making… $200 million???

Heath Ledger IS The Dark Knight and there's really no point in denying that, specially when the 2009 Oscar Nominations are announced.

He changed things, forever. There's no going back.

*My prediction for X-Men Origins: Wolverine is no less than $250 Million and no more than $325 Million.

A $200 Million Domestic Box Office Gross this day in age is just too achievable.

Batman Begins is #84 in the all time Domestic Box Office Grossers list.

X3 is #57 and X2 is #76.

 

[BMM]

Heath Ledger IS The Dark Knight and there's really no point in denying that, specially when the 2009 Oscar Nominations are announced.

I don’t think anyone is denying that Heath Ledger is responsible for playing a part in The Dark Knight’s success. The problem is that you act like the Batman franchise is incapable of achieving success beyond that of Batman Begins without Heath Ledger… and that’s just ridiculous. The same people who are responsible for casting Heath Ledger, directing Heath Ledger, and writing Heath Ledger’s dialogue will all most likely be involved with the third Batman film. There are plenty of other characters who could be played by any number of stars that would allow Batman 3 to compete with the next Spider-Man movie.

 

[BMM]

I don't believe this rumour about Transformer's 2 budget for one second. The movie rumoured to be the most expensive next year is Avatar(250-300million without marketing costs).

Speaking of potential blockbusters, I forgot about Avatar. Granted, the movie isn't released during the summer, but if it lives up to the hype, it has the potential to knock a few summer blockbusters out of the top spots of 2009.

 

[Theweepeople]

The last movie made a very forgettable $200 Million.

Heath's movie made $525 Million and counting.

Hell of a difference ain't it?

If making 205million(Batman Begins) in 2005 is so forgettable than why did the WB almost immediately greenlight the sequel? Making 205million with a 150million budget is profitable. Is 300's(210mil) boxoffice gross forgettable too? I went to wikipedia and looked up a list of all the comic book films of films since Batman 89 and all the way up until now. Batman Begins outgrossed over 70% of these films.

The success of movies in general depends on how much a film makes in comparison to their budget. It's the reason why 300 is considered to be one of the most profitable comic book films ever because it cost 60million to make. It's also the reason why X3 is considered to be the least profitable of that series because it cost 100million more to make than X2(95% domestic profit percentage) and made only 20million more(11.5% domestic profit percentage).


There are a couple of reasons why Batman Begins didn't make more money. One reason is because many people hadn't forgotten how bad the last two movies were. I had many die hard Batman comic book friends who refused to see the movie in the theater because of this. The other reason was villians weren't as well known. The general public never saw Ra's Al Ghul or The Scarecrow in the Adam West series and the 90s Batman films. Only the die hard Batman fans knew of these characters from the comic books and cartoons.

It's no coincidence that Batman 89 made the most money out of all the original films. It had one of the most iconic villians of all time. Someone else could have played the role and it may have made the same amount of money. The Dark knight was destined to be a colossal hit once the Joker was added to the script.


The Dark knight proved it's not necessary for well known actors to play the villian roles in these films(Heath Ledger, Aaron Eckhart). Eckhart and Ledger were not well known actors nor boxoffice draws before this. Johnny Depp is a more well known and marketable(Pirates1,2,3, Charlie and the Cholate Fractory, Edward Scissor Hands) actor. If he played the Joker I guarantee it would have made around the same amount as The Dark Knight if not more.

If Batman 3 has some more iconic villians(The Riddler and Penguin) then it will also be a huge hit like The Dark Knight. However, it won't make as much unless the Joker makes an appearance.

 

[Sentinel X]

Warner Bros. is just being predictable with that date.

Predictable because their Nolan/Batman franchise has almost reached the numbers achieved by 3 Spider Man movies with just two.

Without Heath Ledger, Batman 3 is a sitting duck up against Spider Man.

Umm....

SM1: 821 million ww
SM2: 783 million ww
SM3: 890 million ww
Total: approx 2.5 billion ww

BB: 370
TDK: 970
Total approx: 1.3 billion

Not even close....but when BB3 comes out it'll do better than the SM franchise. Just imagine...SM2 was concidered amazing and thats why people anticipated SM3 so much. SM3 pulls in 890 MILLION worldwide and the film sucked!!!...so imagine what BB3 will do if it is actually good! (and TDK has already thrusted Batman 3 into a similar position as SM3, hopefully the movie rocks)

Heath Ledger wasn't God, the movie had success too because the quality of the previous movie, that's for sure.

and BAtman 3 will have success too, maybe not the same, but more than Ironman and X-men definetly.

Yeah, seriously. Im sorry but Heath Ledger wasn't THAT popular prior to his role in Joker...he wouldn't draw that many people. TDK has made nearly 1 billion dollars world wide, I'd say Ledgers death brought AT MOST 75 million (and thats even a stretch)...I think people really flocked to see it because:

1. The Joker was in it. He is the most loved comic book villain of all time.
2. The first one was awesome!!
3. Great WOM

If Heath Ledger is such a draw, then his final role in The immaginarium of Dr.Pecurnipus (or whatever that movie is called ) will make the film draw in at least 250 million.

 

[Theweepeople]

And how is $200 million dollars suddenly forgettable when you think Wolverine is going to squash the competition with a strong chance of making… $200 million???

I agree. If your going to call Batman Begins gross forgettable you might as well say the same about X2. It came out only 2 years before Batman 2005 and made only 10million more domestically. What's really interesting is before 2006 there were only 3 comic book films since 2000 that had made more than Batman Begins(X2, Spiderman 1 and 2). So based on these facts Batman Begins was was one of the most successful comic book films of it's time.

 

[Spider-Vader]

Batman 3 IS happening that year, with or without Chris Nolan.

Warner Bros. knocked both of MARVEL's movies this year and they're going for seconds.

I think its a stupid move to go up against SONY, specially without Heath Ledger - which is the source of The Dark Knight's success.

2011 will be a Summer of titans.

I see Captain America having the same success as IM in the US. While The Avengers sucess will depend on these 2 things:
1.) Good WOM
2.) Captain America & Thor having good financial &/or critical success

If The Avengers has though it will be huge. By huge I mean TDK huge, it could zip past Titanic. BM3 & The Avengers are gonna have a fight to the death.

If Wolverine has good WOM I think it could be the first X-Men related movie to get to 300 mil.

 

[SNIKT1950]

The problem is that you act like the Batman franchise is incapable of achieving success beyond that of Batman Begins without Heath Ledger… and that’s just ridiculous. The same people who are responsible for casting Heath Ledger, directing Heath Ledger, and writing Heath Ledger’s dialogue will all most likely be involved with the third Batman film. There are plenty of other characters who could be played by any number of stars that would allow Batman 3 to compete with the next Spider-Man movie.

If that were true, those "same people" would be potential Oscar Nominees this year too.

They are not.

*Heath Ledger may not have had the star power of Robert DeNiro, but in the eyes of true film enthusiasts - he was high up there.

I don't expect comic book movie fans to know much about Heath before The Dark Knight.

I agree. If your going to call Batman Begins gross forgettable you might as well say the same about X2. It came out only 2 years before Batman 2005 and made only 10million more domestically. What's really interesting is before 2006 there were only 3 comic book films since 2000 that had made more than Batman Begins(X2, Spiderman 1 and 2). So based on these facts Batman Begins was was one of the most successful comic book films of it's time.

Once again, a $200 Million Domestic Box Office Gross this day in age is just too achievable.

Batman Begins is #84 in the all time Domestic Box Office Grossers list.

X3 (2006) is #57 and X2 (2003) is #76.

The comic book genre entered the $300 Million+ zone when Spider Man grossed $400 Million in 2002. Spider Man 2 played ball with $373 in 2004 and Spider Man 3 continued to stay above the line with $336.5 in 2007. IRON MAN joined the ranks with $318.

Batman Begins and the entire X-Men trilogy all had forgettable grosses in today's dollars.

I believe Wolverine has a 50/50 chance (because of the May 1/Summer opener spot) to break the $300 Million mark.

 

[BMM]

If that were true, those "same people" would be potential Oscar Nominees this year too.

That doesn't even make sense regarding what I said.

They are not.

How do you know?

*Heath Ledger may not have had the star power of Robert DeNiro, but in the eyes of true film enthusiasts - he was high up there.

I don't expect comic book movie fans to know much about Heath before The Dark Knight.

What are you talking about?

 

[SNIKT1950]

That doesn't even make sense regarding what I said.

You're saying the people behind Ledger's Joker (writers, director, etc.) are as capable as he was of making an equally impressive Batman film without him.

I dissagree and brought up the Oscar talk to further support my point.

How do you know?

I've been following the works of the A.M.P.A.S. for years and have predicted way too many Nominations/Wins for me not to acknowledge the fact that Heath was the one thing about The Dark Knight that was clearly Oscar caliber.

The story is great, but without Ledger's Joker it would be like a chicken without a head.

I still believe the film coulda worked without Batman and coulda been called something else.

Its a crime epic about a terrorist's plan to overthrow a major city through methods of anarchy and deception.

Its not a Batman movie.

 

[BMM]

You're saying the people behind Ledger's Joker (writers, director, etc.) are as capable as he was of making an equally impressive Batman film without him.

No, I said the people behind Batman Begins and The Dark Knight are capable of making a film better or more successful than that of Batman Begins, without Ledger's involvement.

I've been following the works of the A.M.P.A.S. for years and have predicted way too many Nominations/Wins for me not to acknowledge the fact that Heath was the one thing about The Dark Knight that was clearly Oscar caliber.

The story is great, but without Ledger's Joker it would be like a chicken without a head.

I still believe the film coulda worked without Batman and coulda been called something else.

Its a crime epic about a terrorist's plan to overthrow a major city through methods of anarchy and deception.

Its not a Batman movie.

Great. They may not receive nominations, but you still don't know.