[Escape Goat]

I thought I saw one of the space eels eye pop at the very end when they all died. Will have to analyze further on a second viewing.

[Brera]

Over the years, it's been repeated that the most well-known and marketable of superheroes are Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man. After the record-setting pace of The Avengers, and the relative disappointment of Superman Returns, I think it's time to reassess the rankings. Superhero Worldwide Marketability Character/Franchise (WW Gross in Last Starring Role - Title Year Tomatometer) Tier I Batman ($1001.9M - The Dark Knight 2008 94%) Spider-Man ($890.8M - Spider-Man 3 2007 63%) The Avengers ($654.8M+ - The Avengers 2012 93%) Tier II Iron Man ($623.9M - Iron Man 2 2010 74%) Superman ($391.0M - Superman Returns 2006 76%) Tier III X-Men ($353.6M - X-Men: First Class 2011 87%) (X-Men: The Last Stand made $459.3M) Thor ($449.3M - Thor 2011 77%) Wolverine ($373.0M - X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2009 37%) Captain America ($368.6M - Captain America: The First Avenger 2011 79%) Fantastic 4 ($289.0M - Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer 2007 37%) (First movie made $330.5M) Hulk ($263.4M - The Incredible Hulk 2008 67%) Tier IV Green Lantern ($219.8M - Green Lantern 2011 27%) Daredevil ($179.1M - Daredevil 2003 45%) Hellboy ($160.3M - Hellboy II: The Golden Army 2008 87%) Ghost Rider ($132.5M - Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance 2012 18%) (First movie made $228.7M) Blade ($128.9M - Blade: Trinity 2004 26%) (Blade II made $155.0M) Tier V Spawn ($87.8M - Spawn 1997 20%) Catwoman ($82.1M - Catwoman 2004 10%) Elektra ($56.6M - Elektra 2005 10%) The Punisher ($10.1M - Punisher: War Zone 2008 26%) (2004 movie made $54.7M) Some thoughts: - I'm giving Supes the benefit of the doubt by not putting him in Tier III. He does have an awesome theme song. - I suspect Wonder Woman would be Tier III. Perhaps the grosses of Catwoman and Elektra scared off WB. If so, it's a shame. - X-Men would have made it to Tier II if the franchise hadn't been Rothman'ed. - Will The Avengers box office add some juice to all of the characters in it? - Even with the MCU tiw-in, I have a hard time seeing Ant-Man landing anywhere above Tier IV, and I expect that movie to be budgeted that way. - I was surprised at the gross of Daredevil. Fox screwed up that franchise as badly as WB did Green Lantern. - Do people even still remember Spawn? The only thing I've heard about that character since the 90s has been about the McFarlane-Gaiman lawsuit.

You need to get rid of the current tier 2. Ironman is clearly tier 1 in the hearts and minds of the public. He's sassy and modern and nearly 700mil ain't to be sniffed at!

Superman needs to be in tier 3 (in your tiers). He's old fashioned and not of this world, not until next year at least. The only thing that makes him modern is that he's a creepy stalker now but these new powers are accessible to anyone with a pc and a Facebook account!

[Ashhong]

I think anybody denying that the creatures from the 2 movies have design similarities is just intentionally being ignorant. Sure there are differences, but there are just as many similarities, especially from a pure design point of view, ie. what you can see.

[Speedymanic]

But why does that really matter? 3D isn't free either, even for a conversion they have to pay for it to be done and it adds production cost. It's an attraction because something was invested into it. For the same reason, I would expect TDKR to have -more- people watching it in IMAX specifically, and possibly multiple times as well, simply because there are scenes filmed in IMAX and that adds value to the cinema experience.

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. I just don't feel it's fair to compare it to the movies that are coming out that won't have the 3d tax. Also, I hate to see PP 3d supported.

It may not have broken 200m, but there's still a very good chance it would still have broken the record without the 3D surcharge, which you had also claimed in your statement which is what some of the posters here were refuting.

Yeah, I should have been clearer. I was specifically talking about the OW total, not attendance. I don't doubt it would have been big without 3d, but there's no denying that 3d is the reason it was able to push past the 200m barrier.

And is that split between 3d/2d accurate? I ask because the theater I usually go to had no 2d showings, had to travel a few miles further to one that was showing it in 2d but even there the split was 80/20 in favor of 3d.

[duckroll]

Ultimately, it doesn't matter. I just don't feel it's fair to compare it to the movies that are coming out that won't have the 3d tax. Also, I hate to see PP 3d supported.

Well then we might as well stop comparing any movie ever. It's never "fair" in an absolute way. Movies get wider or more limited openings, some are in IMAX, some aren't, some are in 3D, some aren't, some have more marketing, some less marketing. Sounds like you have a personal problem with something, and want to attempt to make some justified logical argument instead.

[Speedymanic]

Well then we might as well stop comparing any movie ever. It's never "fair" in an absolute way. Movies get wider or more limited openings, some are in IMAX, some aren't, some are in 3D, some aren't, some have more marketing, some less marketing. Sounds like you have a personal problem with something, and want to attempt to make some justified logical argument instead.

Well, of course there's that, I'm talking in terms of summer blockbusters, well one specifically. This is now seen as the litmus test, the one to beat otherwise your movie can't be considered a success (hyperbole, but when has this forum ever toned it down?). This is what the forum is going to be like come July when Rises fails to reach the same OW.

Better to get the argument out of the way now or lay the groundwork so the first few weeks after Rises comes out, the threads aren't a complete clusterfuck. (which they will be, but maybe less so)

[duckroll]

Well, of course there's that, I'm talking in terms of summer blockbusters, well one specifically. This is now seen as the litmus test, the one to beat otherwise your movie can't be considered a success (hyperbole, but when has this forum ever toned it down?). This is what the forum is going to be like come July when Rises fails to reach the same OW. Better to get the argument out of the way now or lay the groundwork so the first few weeks after Rises comes out, the threads aren't a complete clusterfuck. (which they will be, but maybe less so)

That reads like if you don't get your way = thread is a clusterfuck. Hilarious.

[Speedymanic]

That reads like if you don't get your way = thread is a clusterfuck. Hilarious.

Not sure how you reached that conclusion.

[duckroll]

Not sure how you reached that conclusion.

Seems like you're concerned that if TDKR doesn't make as much money, it needs some sort of pre-emptive defense. It doesn't. If it doesn't make as much money, then it just didn't make enough money. It's going to be THE IMAX movie of the Summer, so there's IMAX tax too. I don't hear you complaining about that. Avengers doesn't even have IMAX screens all to itself due to various deals made with other studios.

[syllogism]

I was reading an article about disney analysts raising their forecasts, and noticed this

With a more modest $1.1 billion box-office take, it would return as much as $250 million in profit, including television rights to show the movie, home-video sales and consumer products, he wrote in a note yesterday.

I'm well aware that studios generally get less than 50% of the total BO revenue, but that still seems a really low figure. I suppose it is in part explained by paramount and some other entities taking their share of the cake.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...avengers-debut

[Log4Girlz]

Seems like you're concerned that if TDKR doesn't make as much money, it needs some sort of pre-emptive defense. It doesn't. If it doesn't make as much money, then it just didn't make enough money. It's going to be THE IMAX movie of the Summer, so there's IMAX tax too. I don't hear you complaining about that. Avengers doesn't even have IMAX screens all to itself due to various deals made with other studios.

Next week we're getting Dark Shadows in IMAX lol, we have no choice.

[duckroll]

I was reading an article about disney analysts raising their forecasts, and noticed this I'm well aware that studios generally get less than 50% of the total BO revenue, but that still seems a really low figure. I suppose it is in part explained by paramount and some other entities taking their share of the cake. http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...avengers-debut

If it's 250 million in profit, they would be counting about 470 million in total for Disney right? That's based on Boxofficemojo listing the production budget at 220 million. That seems more or less about right.

[syllogism]

The estimate includes "television rights, home-video sales and consumers products" though

[duckroll]

The estimate includes "television rights, home-video sales and consumers products" though

Yeah, you're right, that does sound kinda low. I wonder what sort of calculations they're using, and what Paramount's cut is. Weird. The rights alone should be worth a fortune considering how big the movie is now.

[Speedymanic]

Seems like you're concerned that if TDKR doesn't make as much money, it needs some sort of pre-emptive defense. It doesn't. If it doesn't make as much money, then it just didn't make enough money. It's going to be THE IMAX movie of the Summer, so there's IMAX tax too. I don't hear you complaining about that. Avengers doesn't even have IMAX screens all to itself due to various deals made with other studios.

It won't make as much, the lack of a 3d tax pretty much guarantees it. Which is kind of my point. The inevitable comparisons won't really be fair.

It will make for boring reading, post after post of lol rises didn't beat avengers, etc.

[Joni]

Over the years, it's been repeated that the most well-known and marketable of superheroes are Batman, Superman, and Spider-Man. After the record-setting pace of The Avengers, and the relative disappointment of Superman Returns, I think it's time to reassess the rankings. Superhero Worldwide Marketability .

I presume this would also be dependant on the actors: Bale is Batman, Jackman is Wolverine, Downey is Iron Man, Downey and L. Jackson in The Avengers. These guys just draw crowds to the cinema. Make Bale Hellboy and he is gonna draw more people, regardless of the popularity of Hellboy.

[syllogism]

Accoridng to Nikki paramount gets 8%

http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/para...-avengers-too/

e:

Paramount also kept the pay rights as part of the existing pay TV arrangement so Avengers will debut on Epix that joint venture among parent company Viacom, MGM and Lionsgate

the $115 million was to be paid in two installments – half when The Avengers was released, and the other half when Iron Man 3 screens on May 3, 2013.

I guess it's possible he is also deducting some of the $115m Disney paid for the rights

[Angry Puppy]

Well the last few pages just got me excited for Pacific Rim.

[duckroll]

It won't make as much, the lack of a 3d tax pretty much guarantees it. Which is kind of my point. The inevitable comparisons won't really be fair. It will make for boring reading, post after post of lol rises didn't beat avengers, etc.

So it wasn't fair to compare TDK with any other blockbuster at the time because if IMAX tax? Were you making the same argument back then? Just making sure you're consistent.

[Rice-Eater]

Well the last few pages just got me excited for Pacific Rim.

I enjoyed Avengers like everybody else, but I grew up on Japanese anime, especially the kind with giant robots. So I'm very interested in learning more about Pacific Rim. Can't wait to see the first teaser for this one. Does anybody know when that will be?

[pottuvoi]

Yeah, you're right, that does sound kinda low. I wonder what sort of calculations they're using, and what Paramount's cut is. Weird. The rights alone should be worth a fortune considering how big the movie is now.

This sort..?
http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/stud...ey-accounting/

[MIMIC]

Box office sales should be reported by tickets sold (like with CDs and, to a lesser extent, video games).

Breaking (or approaching) the opening-week record every 6 months is starting to get a little stale.

[duckroll]

This sort..? http://www.deadline.com/2010/07/stud...ey-accounting/

Wow. Lol.

[GraveRobberX]

Now that Avengers has done this amazing feat

Anyone trying to guess what can overtake it?

I was thinking about Avatar 2, but the way Cameron is sitting on it, taking time, I think he will lose audience for it being LTTP no?

I mean they way it's looking now, Avenger 2 maybe even 3 will be out before Avatar 2, maybe Cameron waiting on Holodecks or some crazy new thing to get us to the $20 Movie Theater Ticket Price... that being the minimum price, any other features start adding extra $$$$

[Ninja Scooter]

Box office sales should be reported by tickets sold (like with CDs and, to a lesser extent, video games). Breaking (or approaching) the opening-week record every 6 months is starting to get a little stale.

If they did this nothing would ever top Gone with the Wind and Star Wars, and that wouldn't be any fun.

[Kusagari]

Now that Avengers has done this amazing feat Anyone trying to guess what can overtake it? I was thinking about Avatar 2, but the way Cameron is sitting on it, taking time, I think he will lose audience for it being LTTP no? I mean they way it's looking now, Avenger 2 maybe even 3 will be out before Avatar 2, maybe Cameron waiting on Holodecks or some crazy new thing to get us to the $20 Movie Theater Ticket Price... that being the minimum price, any other features start adding extra $$$$

Catching Fire with IMAX/3D next year is the best shot

[shagg_187]

Tier I Batman ($1001.9M - The Dark Knight 2008 94%) Spider-Man ($890.8M - Spider-Man 3 2007 63%) The Avengers ($654.8M+ - The Avengers 2012 93%) Iron Man ($623.9M - Iron Man 2 2010 74%) Tier II X-Men ($353.6M - X-Men: First Class 2011 87%) (X-Men: The Last Stand made $459.3M) Superman ($391.0M - Superman Returns 2006 76%) Thor ($449.3M - Thor 2011 77%) Wolverine ($373.0M - X-Men Origins: Wolverine 2009 37%) Captain America ($368.6M - Captain America: The First Avenger 2011 79%) Hulk ($263.4M - The Incredible Hulk 2008 67%) Tier III Fantastic 4 ($289.0M - Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer 2007 37%) (First movie made $330.5M) Green Lantern ($219.8M - Green Lantern 2011 27%) Daredevil ($179.1M - Daredevil 2003 45%) Hellboy ($160.3M - Hellboy II: The Golden Army 2008 87%) Ghost Rider ($132.5M - Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance 2012 18%) (First movie made $228.7M) Blade ($128.9M - Blade: Trinity 2004 26%) (Blade II made $155.0M) Tier IV Spawn ($87.8M - Spawn 1997 20%) Catwoman ($82.1M - Catwoman 2004 10%) Elektra ($56.6M - Elektra 2005 10%) The Punisher ($10.1M - Punisher: War Zone 2008 26%) (2004 movie made $54.7M)

Fixed.

[DarkFlow]

Accoridng to Nikki paramount gets 8% http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/para...-avengers-too/ e: I guess it's possible he is also deducting some of the $115m Disney paid for the rights

Well It's good that epix gets it at least. That means it will be on netflix very quickly because of the deal they have. Epix gets it for 60 days I think then on to netflix it goes.

[shagg_187]

Well It's good that epix gets it at least. That means it will be on netflix very quickly because of the deal they have. Epix gets it for 60 days I think then on to netflix it goes.

I'm surprised Captain America is playing on Canadian Netflix but not US...

[br0ken_shad0w]

It doesn't replace losing At The Mountains of Madness, but is my second-most hyped movie. (first being Prometheus) Still a year away....

[Messofanego]

Final sequences might have been similar, and the giant worm things were similar, but never in the Avengers finale did it feel like the boring action sequence that was far too long. The list of shortcomings in the Avengers final act is short, the list of shortcomings for Transformers finale is short only because you can just say "everything". There was no emotional investment in theTransformers finale, but in Avengers, we care about all the characters.

Felt more like a videogame to me in the way Transformers was, barely anyone getting hurt, no real stakes. Even Black Widow and Hawkeye didn't have much trouble, loads of ships pass by and Hawkeye freely sniping them with no Chitori noticing. Iron Man gets smushed down flat like a cartoon at one point and gets out scott-free. No hero was brought down to death's door, even with Iron Man which was done in previous Iron Man films. I knew every hero was going to make it out ok, all that developed was the amount of dust on them.

EDIT: And the Chitori were very boring cannon fodder. When a dragon ship came up I was like, oh shit how will the Avengers get out of this, but then Hulk kills it in one hit, and it's just routine work from there on out.

[Hawkian]

It doesn't replace losing At The Mountains of Madness, but is my second-most hyped movie. (first being Prometheus) Still a year away....

WHAT NO

[marrec]

Felt more like a videogame to me in the way Transformers was, barely anyone getting hurt, no real stakes. Even Black Widow and Hawkeye didn't have much trouble, loads of ships pass by and Hawkeye freely sniping them with no Chitori noticing. Iron Man gets smushed down flat like a cartoon at one point and gets out scott-free. No hero was brought down to death's door, even with Iron Man which was done in previous Iron Man films. I knew every hero was going to make it out ok, all that developed was the amount of dust on them. EDIT: And the Chitori were very boring cannon fodder. When a dragon ship came up I was like, oh shit how will the Avengers get out of this, but then Hulk kills it in one hit, and it's just routine work from there on out.

I feel like you and I watched entirely different movies. It was obvious that the Heroes were outmatched and were about to get overwhelmed if something didn't happen fast. Also the Hulk one hit kill was amazing and they only killed two other of the big wormy thingys after that (Iron Man did one in, Hulk+Thor the other).

That said, it was the exact same ending as Transformers 3, just done better in every conceivable way to the point of action perfection. (Except Hawkeye, fuck him.)

[PhoncipleBone]

WHAT NO

Yup. And Del Toro said that Prometheus is the reason he may be fully stopping At the Mountains of Madness as well. Why? Well, it is rather spoilery according to the article.

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/55528

READ AT YOUR OWN RISK IF YOU WANT TO REMAIN UNSPOILED ABOUT PROMETHEUS

[duckroll]

Here's the thing about Mountains of Madness. Del Toro was just going use the Lovecraft story as an outline to make another one of his monster movies. The script leaked some time back iirc, and it's really nothing like the tone of the original story at all. So really, what's the point? There's really no loss there. Unless you really want to have a "Lovecraft movie by Del Toro" for the sake of it. As a fan of Lovecraft, no thanks. Pacific Rim though? OH YES THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

[Manmademan]

WHAT NO

yeah, that movie is done. Del Toro is doing Pacific Rim instead, and is on the record as saying he won't do it now because Prometheus is really, really similar.

[Hawkian]

Here's the thing about Mountains of Madness. Del Toro was just going use the Lovecraft story as an outline to make another one of his monster movies. The script leaked some time back iirc, and it's really nothing like the tone of the original story at all. So really, what's the point? There's really no loss there. Unless you really want to have a "Lovecraft movie by Del Toro" for the sake of it. As a fan of Lovecraft, no thanks. Pacific Rim though? OH YES THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED

[duckroll]

THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I WANTED

Why? Then it's no longer a Lovecraft movie. It's just something in name. It could be any other Del Toro movie. Do you even know what you want?

[PhoncipleBone]

Why? Then it's no longer a Lovecraft movie. It's just something in name. It could be any other Del Toro movie. Do you even know what you want?

He wants to keep caps lock on. :)

[duckroll]

He wants to keep caps lock on. :)

Oh I see. That makes sense... I think.

[FairyD]

I'm finally going to see Avengers tonight. Hopefully the theatre isn't too packed.

[Hawkian]

Why? Then it's no longer a Lovecraft movie. It's just something in name. It could be any other Del Toro movie. Do you even know what you want?

I didn't mean to actually engage here, I'm disappointed because a director whose style I love was going to tackle a story I love. A story in particular which relies immensely on the reader's imagination to fill in the many, many blanks not given to you in the prose, and a director whose unbridled imagination could make whatever choices he used to fill in the blanks quite compelling. It would be a new and unique way to experience the same tale even if it did share blood with "his monster movies." That's what I wanted... out of curiosity, who is the ideal director to make "a Lovecraft movie" as you use the phrase in the quote above? Scott? ;)

He wants to keep caps lock on. :)

Oh I see. That makes sense... I think.

:(

[Tobor]

I'm finally going to see Avengers tonight. Hopefully the theatre isn't too packed.

I went to a 7pm showing last night, the theater was 3/4 full. You should be fine.

[Manmademan]

I didn't mean to actually engage here, I'm disappointed because a director whose style I love was going to tackle a story I love. A story in particular which relies immensely on the reader's imagination to fill in the many, many blanks not given to you in the prose, and a director whose unbridled imagination could make whatever choices he used to fill in the blanks quite compelling. It would be a new and unique way to experience the same tale even if it did share blood with "his monster movies." That's what I wanted... out of curiosity, who is the ideal director to make "a Lovecraft movie" as you use the phrase in the quote above? Scott? ;)

Zack Snyder

[duckroll]

I didn't mean to actually engage here, I'm disappointed because a director whose style I love was going to tackle a story I love. A story in particular which relies immensely on the reader's imagination to fill in the many, many blanks not given to you in the prose, and a director whose unbridled imagination could make whatever choices he used to fill in the blanks quite compelling. It would be a new and unique way to experience the same tale even if it did share blood with "his monster movies." That's what I wanted... out of curiosity, who is the ideal director to make "a Lovecraft movie" as you use the phrase in the quote above? Scott? ;)

Darren Aronofsky or David Cronenberg would be much better candidates to make a faithful Lovecraft adaptation if they cared to imo. I think the minimalist style that Lovecraft stories require to create the sense of grounded dread and tension is something that makes big budget directors poorly suited. That's not to say Del Toro is really a "big budget director", but he's more of a monster man rather than an atmosphere man. His talents are better suited for something big and in-your-face to get the full benefit of his love for crafting monsters with both practical and CG effects.

Zack Snyder

I think I just threw up twice at the thought of that horror. I guess in that sense, Snyder directing a Lovecraftian movie would be one of my worst nightmares, so that fits. :P

[milanbaros]

Box office sales should be reported by tickets sold (like with CDs and, to a lesser extent, video games). Breaking (or approaching) the opening-week record every 6 months is starting to get a little stale.

Here you go. http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/wee...st_yr=1&p=.htm

Doesn't seem to make much difference because films are so much more front loaded these days. If you mean total BO then sure, they wouldn't break the older films because they ran in cinemas for months, whereas now there is more money to be made in home video after 4 months.

[Hawkian]

Zack Snyder

Darren Aronofsky or David Cronenberg would be much better candidates to make a faithful Lovecraft adaptation if they cared to imo. I think the minimalist style that Lovecraft stories require to create the sense of grounded dread and tension is something that makes big budget directors poorly suited. That's not to say Del Toro is really a "big budget director", but he's more of a monster man rather than an atmosphere man. His talents are better suited for something big and in-your-face to get the full benefit of his love for crafting monsters with both practical and CG effects.

Aronofsky's a great choice in terms of likely faithfulness, there can be no doubt. It would also be minimalist heavily stylized and probably pretty great. For some reason I imagine a Cronenberg take to be reasonably similar to what Del Toro would come up with, and certainly contain a lot more visceral imagery than Aronofsky's.

You're certainly right about what his talents are best suited for and the implication that he'd be adapting a Lovecraftian premise into that kind of big-budget spectacle. That just sounded to me like a lot of fun. I guess now I'm spared the potential of being wrong.

I think I just threw up twice at the thought of that horror.

I guess in that sense, Snyder directing a Lovecraftian movie would be one of my worst nightmares, so that fits. :P

Holy shit inception.

[Count Dookkake]

John Carpenter's IN THE MOUTH OF MADNESS will be the best "Lovecraftian" flick for a long while.

[jett]

Avengers drops 66% Sunday to Monday, dem legs.

[Hot Coldman]

I'd be there day one for a Zack Snyder Lovecraft film. You can't miss shit like that.