X:FC Opening Theatres - How important it is?

Discussion in 'X-Men: Days of Future Past' started by Angamb, Jul 1, 2011.

  1. Angamb

    Angamb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    13,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    Here is the list of the Marvel movies, with their domestic gross and the total theatres in their opening:

    http://www.boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=marvelcomics.htm

    And here is the list of the movies with more theatres, in order:

    Spider-Man 3Sony 4,324
    Iron Man 2Par. 4,390
    Spider-Man 2Sony 4,166
    Iron ManPar. 4,154
    X-Men Origins: WolverineFox 4,102
    ThorPar. 3,963
    X2: X-Men UnitedFox 3,749
    X-Men: The Last StandFox 3,714
    X-Men: First ClassFox 3,692
    Fantastic FourFox 3,619
    X-MenFox 3,112

    And if you look at the domestic gross of these movies, the ones with more theatres ended with a better gross.


    * So the questions are:

    - Why First Class had less theatres than X2, X3 and Wolverine?

    - If it would have had 200-400 theatres more, could it have a bigger domestic gross?
     
    #1
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2011
  2. Avalanche

    Avalanche Tremor

    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2005
    Messages:
    6,942
    Likes Received:
    0
    I don't think it's that simple.

    Yes the movies above grossed higher, but X-Men, which is below by 500 theatres, also grossed higher.

    I don't think the movie's only moderate success was down to people wanting to attend but not being able to find a showing. Chances are, even with slightly less theatres than other movies, there were still a lot of spare seats to be had.
     
    #2
  3. Angamb

    Angamb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2005
    Messages:
    13,348
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know that the audience had the chance to see it.

    But isnt it curious how the movies with more theatres had bigger gross??

    I dont think its just a coincidence....
     
    #3
  4. Nell2ThaIzzay

    Nell2ThaIzzay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    16,633
    Likes Received:
    0
    Maybe they had more theatres cuz there was more demand.
     
    #4
  5. X-Maniac

    X-Maniac High Evolutionary

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2003
    Messages:
    14,856
    Likes Received:
    164
    I think there were fewer screens available for First Class due to the massive number of other films still playing. In particular, Hangover 2 was getting the most screens at the cinemas in my area, even when First Class was released, and Pirates of the Caribbean had tons of screens too (some 2D, some 3D).

    The success of stuff like Transformers, Pirates and Fast Five prove audiences want rollicking, explosive, vehicle-chasing, building-smashing spectacle, no matter the complaints from critics. The X-Men films ought to be able to deliver some of that, especially with the various superpowers these mutants have.

    It wouldn't be a bad idea to get Spielberg or even (dare I say) Michael Bay exec-producing the next X-Men movie, as they know how to get maximum scale and spectacle from the budget. As long as Bay didn't have anything to do with story or dialogue (which doesn't seem to be his thing anyway!), he's now a master of epic spectacle and the next X-Men needs MORE of that...
     
    #5
  6. Nell2ThaIzzay

    Nell2ThaIzzay Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2005
    Messages:
    16,633
    Likes Received:
    0
    Look, I love Transformers... at least the first one, haven't seen Revenge of the Fallen. I don't hate Bay's other movies like The Rock, Armageddon, or Bad Boys.

    I don't really want his style for X-Men. We got that with X-Men: The Last Stand, and look how that turned out.

    I mean, I love that movie, and defend it to death. I think it did more right than wrong, and refuse to let the things that it did do wrong ruin the rest of the movie for me.

    But one of the things that it did do wrong was sacrifice character moments in favor of a fast pace and big spectacle. The big spectacle was great, and I agree, Singer's films lacked that. But outside of a few moments, the movie lacked the heart and character of Singer's films, and even Hood's Wolverine film. Oh it had it's moments, don't get me wrong. And the moments it had I thought were great. But they were just that - moments - and sometimes didn't even have a payoff.

    As much as I dislike Vaughn for a lot of things that he's said, done, and feels with the X-Men films, I think his film was the one movie that gave us the perfect balance of heart and character, as well as action and spectacle. If I felt confident that Vaughn wouldn't try to turn future X-Men films he made into his own little personal Vaughn projects, and if I felt confident that he'd respect the films that came before his (even X-Men: The Last Stand and X-Men Origins: Wolverine) then I'd want him back in a heartbeat. When he let the movie be an X-Men movie, and wasn't worried about making it some gritty 60's spy flick, it was quite possibly the best movie in the X-Men series.

    For all the things that Ratner got wrong, I will always respect him for at least coming in with the mindset of being less worried about "leaving his mark" and more worried about making a chapter that fit neatly into the overall series. For whatever complaints people have about the creative direction it took, it does fit nicely into the X-Men trilogy.
     
    #6
  7. psylockolussus

    psylockolussus Well-Known Mutant

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2004
    Messages:
    36,319
    Likes Received:
    106
    I don't get why X3 didn't get more theaters than X2. X3 had bigger buzz and budget than X2.
     
    #7

Share This Page

monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"