MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Friday Estimates by Len Klady (of Mars)

So what to make of Mars? It ain’t The Lorax.

Whether the weekend number on John Carter sinks to $27m or rises to $31 million, the macro view of the film’s finances are the same. No more than $120m domestic. So you’re looking at a need to for at least 3.5x the domestic internationally (before anticipated post-theatrical revenues) to get to breakeven, by the least harsh estimates of the price tag on this one.

And as I have said for a looooong, time, opening weekend is NOT about the movie itself. It’s about the marketing. Trying to shove this one over to Dick Cook’s column is a hack move… but if that’s what they want to do, they should also put Alice and Pirates 4 in his column and he’s still way up over the current regime. And the move of pushing the Avengers trailer onto the front of JC and promoting it… very 2004 of them. I was one of those who went to theaters to see trailers in the past… in the era of 1080p trailers, available 24/7, that gambit is over.

Truth is, an opening at double the number probably still wouldn’t be enough for this film to be profitable. But the size of the loss would have been that much less.

Open Road, which just had it’s first real hit with The Grey, though that film’s box office hit a wall quickly (something to watch for this AMC-owned distributor) is launching the “one-shot” Lizzie Olsen thriller Silent House. With a light TV spend and a very modest purchase price, a $7m opening will probably make the company very happy, albeit popping beer cans and not champagne bottles.

And the Eddie Murphy vehicle, A Thousand Words, was thrown out into the cold after being scheduled 4 or 5 times for release by Paramount. The studio spent a few bucks releasing it. It’s not like there was no push. Let’s just say, they are pushing the 3-year-old unreleased thriller that is going to SXSW for Insurge harder than Eddie’s latest.

Decent hold for The Lorax as that film crosses the $100m threshold today. Safe House will become Denzel’s #2 domestic grosser, passing Remember The Titans sometime this next week. Tyler Perry’s dragless, selling TP as a star, Good Deeds, will be his lowest grossing film ever.

Reasonable drops for Project X and Act of Valor, both films heading to the low 50s. These are programmers – albeit hoping for a breakout – and they are hitting the 50s. Can’t really paint this kind of thing as anything less than success and the signs of a healthy industry… whether media wants to sell that story or not.

107 Responses to “Friday Estimates by Len Klady (of Mars)”

  1. Joe Leydon says:

    Does Thousand Words qualify as the first real dump of Eddie Murphy’s career? As I recall, even Pluto Nash got more advance hype.

  2. David Poland says:

    Pluto was worse. Imagine That was similar.

    Meet Dave and Vampire in Brooklyn were different level dumps.

  3. Joe Leydon says:

    I don’t know if I would qualify Vampire as a dump of any sort. They had a junket for that one, and Eddie Murphy did TV press.

    http://www.movingpictureblog.com/2009/04/blast-from-past-eddie-murphy-talks.html

  4. Che sucks says:

    Even with Wander-bust, Universal’s kicking ass in 2012. I’m curious to see how 5 Year Engagement does for them next month.

    Oh, and The Greatest Show on Earth..er..I mean..The Artist is really burning up the box office in the wake of its Best Picture win.

  5. Krillian says:

    Wow, Eddie has a depressing filmography, and all he has in IMDB for his next project is providing the voice of Hong Kong Phooey in a live-action hybrid a la Alvin & the Chipmunks.

    He turns 51 next month.

  6. bulldog68 says:

    Think Act of Valor might be more high 60s or low 70s. By this weekend it will already be beyond 55m Dave.

    I cant help but think 1000words felt like a dump Joe. And I actually thought the premise could have been a good follow up to Liar Liar, accepting the fact that Jim Carrey vehicles without Jim Carrey bomb spectacularly as well.

    Lorax is a guaranteed $200m grosser I think. Boy, John Carter can’t get past Dr.Seuss, and has to be suffering from the unexpected size of the Lorax that is grabbing the family audience that Carter so desperately needs. Between this and Hunger Games, I think it will be difficult to get those legs. I hope Danny Devito gets a career lift from this and starts doing some more movies again. I generally like his stuff.

  7. chris says:

    “Imagine That,” “Vampire” and “Meet Dave” all press-screened, too, unlike “Thousand Words.”

  8. bulldog68 says:

    Eddie’s people need to call Todd Phillip’s people real quick.

  9. Joshua/CaptainZahn says:

    I’ve only started to see ads on tv for Silent House in the past 3 days. If the ad budget was bigger, it probably could have had an opening more akin to something like The Strangers. Not that 7 million would be at all bad for a low budget film of this sort.

  10. Asfast says:

    Question, who is this piece written for exactly? Do people who write such stories derive some sort of a perverse pleasure from counting other people’s money?

  11. jesse says:

    Weirdly, Thousand Words was definitely screened for at least a few critics in a few cities. I heard no word about screenings, but Ebert saw and reviewed it, as did a few NYC critics. There were maybe ten or twelve reviews online by Thursday afternoon. But I did hear from multiple editors that it was opening cold; seems like they were batting that around but did a few screenings to avoid an all-out blackout.

    Murphy doesn’t need to call Phillips… I mean, a movie like that would do well, but it’s not as if he can ONLY do well if he goes to the biggest-grossing (and least consistent in terms of actual well-made movies) comedy directors. Maybe if he worked with ANY decent directors, period. When the most marquee guy he’s worked with post-Dreamgirls has been Brett Ratner, that’s a problem.

    I feel there’s been something of an evolution in comedy stars from the likes of Murphy, who expects to carry all of his movies and basically be the whole show, to someone like Will Ferrell, who is releasing a Spanish-language film in a couple hundred (if that?) theaters next weekend. Guys like Ferrell and Rogen, and even Stiller to some degree, show less arrogance in terms of making VEHICLES all about THEM; they actually seem to like and seek out talented filmmakers. Carrey will hopefully continue to move in this direction after I Love You Philip Morris (excellent movie even if it didn’t do well), but he was a victim of that mentality for a long time, which accounts for his weird track record of doing great work in often-great non-comedies (or at least comedy-dramas) and not having many all-out classic comedies to his name (Dumb and Dumber is probably his best broad comedy if we’re not counting Morris, right? Anything else that moves beyond “some inspired moments from Carrey in the midst of a sloppy and/or dull movie”?).

    Murphy hasn’t given a GREAT performance since Bowfinger. He also hasn’t worked with a really competent comedy director since Bowfinger. Even being part of an ensemble in Tower Heist upped his game (where he was actually a supporting part that could’ve improved the movie if Ratner better knew what to do with him); imagine if he jumped into a comedy with OTHER talented comedians and a decent director.

  12. bulldog68 says:

    My Todd Phillips shout out was my hope that he would get back to some r rated stuff again. I actually think Tower Heist was a step in the right direction for Eddie. Like you said, more of an ensemble than an Eddie vehicle, so totally agree that he needs to get work some competent directors, even a Bruckheimer action/com could work for him at this point.

  13. movieman says:

    Che- Don’t forget.
    Uni has “American Reunion” between now and “Engagement.”
    Not sure whether the bloom is off that particular rose (it’s been what? 9 years since the last “Pie” movie?), but it should do respectably on a no doubt circumspect budget.
    Seriously.
    How expensive could a movie starring Jason Biggs, Chris Klein and Mena Suvari really be?
    Hell, they should have payed to be in the movie.
    Any movie.
    “Engagement” looks terrific (love me some Chris Pratt!), but I’m expecting more “Sarah Marshall” than “Bridesmaids” numbers.
    Yet, if there’s one thing 2012 has taught us it’s that you never really know.
    I guess we shall see.

  14. Joe Leydon says:

    “Murphy hasn’t given a GREAT performance since Bowfinger.”

    What about Dreamgirls?

  15. cadavra says:

    I think he meant great comedy performance.

  16. David Poland says:

    Not sure why you’re asking, Proman/Asfast… you’ve been away for a while, but you’ve been here before.

    Should we all stop reporting on box office?

  17. Lane Myer says:

    “And the move of pushing the Avengers trailer onto the front of JC and promoting it…very 2004 of them.”

    DP I think you missed the boat on this. I have to assume Disney was always going to have an Avengers trailer in front of a JC — don’t you? So promoting it would have very little to do with trying to get more people to see JC simply for the opportunity to see the Avengers trailer. (for the reasons you listed) and much more to do with be able to remind everybody (the public, the press, shareholders, etc) that Disney, after what looks to be a box office failure, has a GIANT hit coming this summer.

    The irony is you slammed on the move, and yet in doing so you mentioned the Avengers, which is exactly what they wanted. (Admittedly I’m a little surprised you didn’t recognize their obvious motivation)

    As for Eddie Muphy, I’ve never quite understood how/why someone’s schtick seems to suddenly stop working. Watch Beverly Hills Cop 3 — Eddie is doing his thing, but he is not funny AT ALL. Chevy Chase is another example — people like to rag on him, but apart from the music in Fletch, that movie holds up and Chase is Hilaious. Maybe it’s like a great meal or a fantastic vacation destination — the more you sample it over the years, the novelty starts to wear off, and it eventually just doesn’t do it for you anymore…

  18. David Poland says:

    Interesting, Lane. But I don’t think Avengers is making up for this loss much either. It will certainly do some big numbers… but it’s also expensive. So… we’ll see.

    The irony at Disney right now is that their anti-Dick Cook’s “keep to the core brand” attitude is, with just two DreamWorks releases, is the 2 DWA films, Avengers, Pixar, and Disney family stuff the rest of 2012. So it’s looking an awful lot like the slate Dick would have wanted… perhaps a bit thinner, actually.

    I think Brave will be one of the surprise – though Pixar should never be a surprise – hits of the summer while Avengers will pale in comparison to Spidey, The Bat, and a couple of others to be exploding later.

    After that, they have a long, quiet wait for next summer’s monster overload. 2 Disney animated films, Lincoln, and Oz (dear God, let’s hope that the overruns were worth it).

    And 5 big summer titles for a company in hibernation is very, very dangerous, even for the best marketing departments. Something tends to get lost in that mix.

    And on Eddie… he needs to be challenged. He has been in his bubble (hill) for so long that no one pushes him out of his comfort zone anymore. He needs, in my opinion, to step back and work with some real directors, and act his ass off for a while before doing any more “Eddie Murphy” movies. He is capable of doing the work. Guy is a comedy genius. One of the greats of all time. But it’s a lot like Harrison Ford, when he was passing on movies like Traffic… or Costner… you have to give up some of that hard earned control if you want to stay relevant. You need to work with great directors, not just people who make you comfy. Safe is not safe as young, once-hip movie stars head into their 50s.

  19. Ray Pride says:

    Was shown in Chicago on Wednesday night.

  20. JS Partisan says:

    Hopefully, Eddie Murphy will hopefully wake up one day like Chevy Chase did, and realize he needs to rectify his legacy. This will probably lead to him doing some TV show, but that’s better than A Thousand Words.

    Dave, you think a Spidey reboot out does the Avengers? I will take that bet.

  21. Maybe attaching that Avengers trailer to John Carter might have helped just a little bit if Disney hadn’t released that trailer online 1.5 weeks prior to John Carter opening. Kudos to Lionsgate for actually keeping the Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part II trailer OFF THE INTERNET for the opening weekend of The Hunger Games. It may not add much to the opening weekend, but it can’t hurt and it’s a telling sign of Disney’s current clueless-ness that they are touting the theatrical attachment of a trailer that’s been available online for 8 days and has been downloaded/watched about a billion times.

    As for Eddie Murphy, and I say this as someone who likes some of his less ‘edgy’ stuff, but we’ve been asking ‘when will Eddie Murphy be funny/edgy again?’ longer than he actually was funny/edgy. Again, whatever makes him happy, and I admired Brett Ratner for *not* letting Murphy completely take over Tower Heist and think Murphy’s work in The Nutty Professor, the first Dr. Doolittle (which is a sweet little family comedy), and the first two Shrek films are every bit as relevant to his comic reputation as 48Hrs, Coming to America, Trading Places, etc.

    If Murphy wants to reinvent himself (presuming he cares), I’d love to see him play in Tyler Perry’s playground. We all know what ‘the return of edgy/funny’ Murphy would probably look like, but I’d love seeing Murphy play around in that dramatic melodrama sandbox (what would that be like?). Besides, getting back to what others have said, it would be healthy for Murphy to be in a film with a writer/director currently more powerful than himself (which is why I’m hoping the clash of two mega-egos like M. Night Shyamalan and Will Smith will bring them both renewed artistic life).

  22. David Poland says:

    Uh, yes, JSP. The only advantage Avengers has is being out first and not having Batman two weeks behind it. They will be closer domestically for that reason, but I’d be surprised if Spidey doesn’t double Avengers in the international haul.

    The biggest Marvel-made film’s ww haul was $165m less than the lowest Spider-Man gross.

    Unlike Batman Begins, Amazing Spiderman doesn’t face a franchise that’s had a crash and burn with the last film.

    No reason to think ASM doesn’t do $700m worldwide at a minimum and no reason to think Avengers does more than $600m worldwide. And I would expect the divide to be wider than that.

  23. Matt P. says:

    I would disagree that Spider-Man 3 wasn’t a bit of a crash and burn. It had a huge opening weekend based off outstanding predecessors and tremendous marketing. It made its cash, but its the one movie that in that franchise that played a little Matrix Reloaded or Phantom Menace. They were huge, but not well received.
    People I know who do talk about that movie wave it off as boring and just a bad movie. Had another Raimi movie been made with that cast, it likely would have meant fan fatigue and major box office drop off. The affection wore off. It wouldn’t have been given a chance and I think there’s a small part of that happening with this new unrelated
    film. I’m not seeing the trailers resonate in theater crowds the way Dark Knight and Avengers are with regular moviegoers.

  24. anghus says:

    Spiderman 3 was such a baffling thing. There are few examples of a movie that is powered on fumes. Absences of logic and storytelling that make no sense. Pieces that would have fit together perfectly but were abandoned for no good reason.

    I always go back to Venom, which has been well documented that Raimi didn’t want to use.

    So you have this space goo that turns into a villain, kidnaps MJ, becomes his nemesis and all, and you have to introduce an entire new character and have the goo drop down randomly in central park?

    In the previous movie you have MJ’s fiancee, J Jonah Jamesons son, who’s an astronaut i.e. has a reason to be exposed to space goo. Who i imagine would be pretty pissed off about his fiancee running off Peter Parker. Wouldn’t that have made Venom a thousand times more interesting and tied into the previous movies. Couldn’t Raimi and his brother written a script that ties those obviously dangling loose ends together?

    Spiderman 3 has many flaws, but the writing has to be at the top of the list. Lazy, lazy writing.

  25. bulldog68 says:

    Spidey 3 was released in a trifecta of three really poorly received threequels, the other two being Shrek 3 and Pirates 3. They all crossed $300m, with Transformers 1 upsetting the apple cart a bit, but by and large, as has already been stated, they were all viewed as the worst in their respective franchises.

    Spider 4 stands as the only one thus far that has not faced the fire after low public sentiment. Shrek and Pirates each lost about 25% of their audience, with the new installments, so Spidey 4 is in a bit of danger. The difference being however, that it’s very obvious that this new Spidey wants you to forget that Spidey 3 ever existed. Will it work? Especially with the addition of Avengers and Batman, and a Transformers clone in the form of Battleship, that has played spoiler before?

    Avengers has some breathing room as far as similar comic book movies go, but Spidey battles Batman two weeks later. Either way, I still the eventual box office order will be Batman, Spidey, Avengers, with Spidey4 doing almost Spidey3 numbers, and Avengers high mark being about $275m.

  26. indiemarketer says:

    The ad budget on “Silent House” was bigger than you think and bi-polar…who’s the audience, the WWE that they were all over USA and SyFy or women who read “Life & Style” weekly magazine where they advertised?

  27. Joe Leydon says:

    Indiemarketer: They obviously wanted both audiences, and designed ads for both. Not uncommon: As far back at Rapid Fire, I noted TV spots that were slightly different — one included a fleeting glimpse of couple preparing to make love — to indicate Fox wanted to make at least a token appeal to the ladies. I’m sure others who post here can point to more recent examples of this dual approach.

  28. christian says:

    I think Murphy shifted when he went from the guy laughing at the guy in the red leather suit in BEVERLY HILLS COP to the guy wearing one.

    I still think he’s a genius and wish he would get a gig with Tarantino.

  29. David Poland says:

    bulldog… you are still thinking domestic only. Both Pirates and Transformers had their biggest worldwide grosses on the films after those crappy #3 and #2 efforts.

    Shrek 4 did “only” $750m worldwide. But remember, Shrek 3 was already falling off of Shrek 2. The franchise was aging badly.

    Unless Amazing Spider-Man is bad – and it looks, for me, from what I’ve seen, better than the Raimi – $300m domestic likely means at least $800m worldwide. And if it’s great and fun and surprising, being the biggest of the franchise is far from impossible.

    What I don’t see is a Batman scenario where we see a perceived drop-off. Of course, in the Batman case, Batman Begins was the #2 Batman movie of all-time when it happened, both domestic and worldwide. The difference in perception was that by 2005, there was a regular stream of $500m-plus worldwide grossers and so $375m seemed like chump change for a Batman movie. Dark Knight made up for that.

    So so guess what I am saying is that I don’t see a scenario in which Amazing Spiderman does less than $650m worldwide, staying ahead of all Marvel franchise films aside from Spider-Man films.

  30. David Poland says:

    True, Christian… and then he became the guy who made faces for kids.

    I think he’d be too broad to work in Tarantino. Different rhythms. But he should get together with Soderbergh and do Man from U.N.C.L.E. or even try a dead-dry variation on I Spy.

    He needs to cut some throats without making the audience laugh… they can laugh when he’s not doing the wet work.

  31. Burroughs says:

    DP, Oz: The Great and Powerful isn’t a summer movie for Disney. In fact, it opens on this exact weekend next year.

  32. David Poland says:

    I know… and it better be special. It’s been a brutal shoot, but fingers crossed for everyone involved. Amazing cast. And Raimi can step to another level if it works.

    OR… somebody WILL be fired.

  33. Burroughs says:

    Also, you’re vastly over-estimating the Amazing Spiderman’s domestic take. Ask someone at Sony how they feel about it sometime.

  34. Burroughs says:

    If “you know” that Oz isn’t a summer movie, then your writing needs to be clearer. That seems to be what you’re saying in an earlier post in this thread.

  35. David Poland says:

    Sony doesn’t expect Amazing Spiderman to do better than $250m domestic, Burroughs? Wow. That would be pathetic. Thor does $180m and someone at Sony sees Spider-Man as a similar domestic grosser?

    And… “they have a long, quiet wait for next summer’s monster overload. 2 Disney animated films, Lincoln, and Oz”

    Did you think I thought Lincoln was a summer film too?

    Did I mention any of the films in the “summer monster overload?” Those would be Iron Man 3, Monsters Inc 2, The Lone Ranger, Spielberg’s Robopocalypse, and a TV spin-off feature.

  36. Burroughs says:

    It’s fine if you don’t believe me, David. Just ask people at Sony, assuming you know anyone who will speak to you honestly.

    As for the Disney thing, I wasn’t sure what you meant, since it’s not very clear what you’re talking about. Disney has more movies than you listed between Brave and next summer.

  37. JS Partisan says:

    Yeah Dave, you are overselling Spidey’s earning potential. It’s going to get the Hellboy 2 treatment from TDK-R. While the Avengers is the most hyped and looked forward to Marvel movie, ever.

    It should easily outpace all previous Marvel films and dismissing it’s earning potential in comparison to films that BUILT TO IT. Ignores that what it is alone in a TEAM MOVIE, should be enough of a bump to take to the next level.

  38. bulldog68 says:

    Yes Dave, I was talking domestically, because I think studios still (for the most part) base franchise decisions on domestic performance. Pirates, Shrek, Spidey, still put up decent domestic numbers that others would kill for, and while with the exception of Shrek, they were uber expensive, they still performed.

    Golden Compass made over $300m international, more than any Xmen movie, more than Iron Man 1 and slightly less than Iron Man2, and still best almost all Marvel movies save Iron Man and Spiderman. Even when you add in its low $70m domestic gross it still plays in the Xmen ballpark. So why no sequel?

    Narnia is another example. I don’t if any more will be made, but internationally, the low figure for the series is $278m.

    I don’t know much about the American studios’ profit sharing for international grosses, but to me it still seems weighted toward domestic success first before counting international numbers. I often ask myself if these numbers were switched and Compass had made $300M stateside and $70m international, would we not have seen a sequel already?

  39. JS Partisan says:

    BD, Golden Compass showed up a bit too early. If it had come out a year or two later. There would have been a sequel because the emphasis on INTERNATIONAL BOX OFFICE is greater than it was just 5 years ago.

    If it’s not for the emphasis on International now. There’s no ICE AGE 4 or Kung Fu Panda 3, so TGC just showed up two years early to the INTERNATIONAL BOX OFFICE Party, and that’s a shame really. TGC is a sweet film that should have a sequel.

  40. jesse says:

    This is way upthread at this point, but per Joe’s question about the last great Eddie Murphy performance: I wouldn’t consider Murphy’s Dreamgirls performance a GREAT one regardless of considering only comedy or his career as a whole. It’s very high-energy and promising and a lot of fun to watch, but there’s not really much to it. Like Tower Heist, it’s more the direction he should be going than the destination.

  41. bulldog68 says:

    Fair point JS. I bitch because I wanted a sequel to that also, and with $372M in the coffers, I thought that was enough, no matter what region the money came from. Maybe Kidman is box poison. Especially paired with Daniel Craig.

    Which brings me to another point, why wasn’t Trespass, a movie with two academy award winning actors, and a director of past critical and commercial successes in Joel Schumacher not given a wider release than 10 screens? Was it deemed to be that bad? What went so horribly wrong?

  42. cadavra says:

    Most of the SNL-style stand-up and sketch comics who turn movie stars eventually hit the wall. Murphy, Chase, Carrey, even Crystal. And now Sandler’s last two films underperformed his norm. The smart ones go indie and/or drama (Murray) or play it smart and remain on TV (Curtin, Spade). And going further back, such ground-breaking comedy filmmakers as Blake Edwards, Mel Brooks and Billy Wilder found themselves on the outs when the audiences they once outpaced moved on. It happens to almost everyone–even Chaplin, Keaton and Laurel & Hardy–so we shouldn’t be surprised.

  43. storymark says:

    As to Avengers V Spidey – Im not going to make any bold declarations as to which will perform better – but at this stage, I hear genuine enthusiasm from people about Avengers, and I hear a lot of “Eh, a remake already” for Spidey.

  44. jesse says:

    Yeah, I think what David overlooks in analyzing Spidey vs. Avengers, and extolling the (admittedly VERY impressive) Spider-Man box office so far is that Avengers is coming off of a series of generally pretty well-liked Marvel movies that started in 2008, while Spider-Man is restarting following a series of well-liked movies that flamed out abruptly in 2007 (though I like a lot of SM3 and would be quick to note it only dropped off a little more from SM2 than SM2 did from one). It may be that awkward period of time where it’s not close enough to capitalize on love for that series but not far enough to really distance itself as an exciting restart. In fact, it may not bode well that the five-year gap is not akin to Batman&Robin/Begins but rather Hulk/Incredible Hulk. (Of course, if Amazing Spidey “only” makes as much as Spider-Man 3′s $340 million, I imagine Sony will be deliriously happy.)

    But I can see Avengers doing better for several reasons:

    -It’s the summer kickoff movie, which helped Thor outgross Captain America (albeit not by a done, but still) and Iron Man 2 match its predecessor even though no one seems to like it as much (except possibly me becuase I didn’t hold the first one in SUCH high esteem).

    -It’s basically an Iron Man movie with a bunch of other characters as added value (or can be sold that way). Iron Man movies seem to make $300 million. It’s hard to picture an Iron Man movie that also has Hulk and Captain America making WAY less than that… though of course it is possible.

    -Spidey doesn’t have the clear aesthetic difference that Batman Begins had going for it following the flashy/neon years. I mean, sure, us film geeks say can “ooh, this looks like a darker palette and a more pronounced romance”… but your average moviegoer may well say: uh, so it’s the story of the teenager who gets bit by the spider and becomes Spider-Man again? And frankly, even I don’t think it looks THAT different.

    -Spidey has two weekends before Dark Knight Rises comes along. Granted, you can make a shit-ton of money in two-to-three weeks (as it’s opening before Friday 7/6). And it’s a pretty open field. But those circumstances don’t dictate $350 million; they will help in getting it to $200 million.

  45. Desslar says:

    “Chevy Chase is another example — people like to rag on him, but apart from the music in Fletch, that movie holds up and Chase is Hilaious.”

    What’s wrong with the music? Harold Faltermeyer in his prime. :)

  46. The Big Perm says:

    80s cheese.

    Speaking of comic book movies, I’m certain IO will be horrified to learn that The Avengers is confirmed to be 2:15. There was a three hour cut that Whedon says will never see the light of day.

  47. bulldog68 says:

    Cue JS’s rant in 3…2…1…

  48. anghus says:

    John Carter did 100 million in its forst weekend worldwide + north american box office. It hasnt opened in China or Japan.

    So im thinking Prince of Persia numbers at 334 million worldwide are still on the table even if the hold is less than average. it wont be enough, but i dont think you could call it a bomb. Dissapointing, overpriced, poorly marketed, but not as big a thud as a Green Lantern.

  49. storymark says:

    2:15 for Avengers? Sounds about right. I believe that was the run-time I predicted, as well. Groovy.

  50. Krillian says:

    I’m holding out for Topher Grace’s edit.

  51. anghus says:

    2:15 sounds like just enough. Any more than that would be brutal to the little kids.

    I do wonder why the 3 hour cut would never see the light of day. Deleted scenes? Extended Director’s cut? Aren’t these the cornerstones of the DVD/Blu Ray sales pitch?

  52. storymark says:

    Whedon declined doing an extended cut of Serenity – maybe he just thinks done is done?

  53. JS Partisan says:

    Why would I rant? Joss did have a longer cut but he went with 2h 15m. His choice but reading what he said about it, that has me worried about this movie. This movie without what makes a WHEDON movie/show a WHEDON movie/show, is a really off-putting.

    Hopefully he made an awesome movie even with cutting out what would make it whedon-y, but the fact that he cut that stuff out is rather disappointing. If they wanted some guy to do this, then hire some guy. Don’t hire Whedon and then have the Whedon taken out of the movie.

  54. leahnz says:

    i might regret asking this j f sebastian, but because i have no idea what you’re talking about, what stuff did whedon cut out that makes a whedon movie/show a wedon show that will be missing in the avengers without such whedon-y show stuff? (genuinely curious)

  55. anghus says:

    he cut out a scene where steve rogers asks tony stark how he’s doing and tony replies “five by five”.

  56. JS Partisan says:

    Leah, it’s over at Collinder. Here’s a link because apparently knowing this information unlike you, makes me weird. http://collider.com/joss-whedon-the-avengers-avengers-2-interview/151487/

  57. bulldog68 says:

    At the risk of restarting something, here we go.
    Just for the record JS, this is why we say you overact and lose all sense of reasoning:

    bulldog68 says:
    February 22, 2012 at 7:08 am

    JS, you honestly believe that Avengers will clock in at three hours in length? Which is what all the LotR were? I think not.

    jesse says:
    February 23, 2012 at 10:59 am

    JS, there’s no way this Avengers movie runs longer than 150 minutes (which is how long it would have to be to get in spitting distance of Lord of the Rings, running time wise). And that’s on the way outside.

    I’d be happy if it did because I love Whedon and the actors and the characters are cool. But the idea of them going over 2:15 or so seems pretty unlikely. Long compared to Iron Man, sure. Compared to LOTR or even Dark Knight, probably not.

    storymark says:
    February 23, 2012 at 11:08 am

    Yeah, I agree that 2:15 seems like the high end.
    JS Partisan says:
    February 23, 2012 at 12:06 pm

    SM, as if you are in touch with anything outside of what’s in front of your face but you can be snarky online, OH MY GOD, aren’t you so fucking clever. CLAP CLAP CLAP! Get on the boat.

    2h15m is too short. This film has to be epic. Anything under 2h30m is too short.

    JS Partisan says:
    February 22, 2012 at 11:39 am

    Let’s do what Sean Salisbury did before DEADSPIN RUINED HIS LIFE!

    “JS, you honestly believe that Avengers will clock in at three hours in length? Which is what all the LotR were? I think not.”

    Yeah the reports are already out there. The Avengers is a very long movie, so what you think absolutely DOESN’T MATTER.

    JS Partisan says:
    February 23, 2012 at 10:08 am

    Jesse, I’d put money down there’s a long tracking shot in The Avengers. Also, seriously LOTR IN TERMS OF LENGTH! What part of that is hard for you to understand? Goodness.

  58. JS Partisan says:

    BD, THAT CUT EXIST! He stated it EXISTED but they went in another direction. The film is too short. It’s too short, TDK-R will be long, and no one will care. It appears to be the longest Marvel movie, which is something, but that’s still not long enough for a SUPERHERO TEAM-UP MOVIE!

    Also, seriously, lose all sense of reasoning? The Artist is easily go to rack up 50m domestic! That’s not from my overreacting or me losing my sense of reasoning. You want to throw that shit on me, BD? Really?

  59. The Big Perm says:

    I couldn’t IMAGINE watching a three hour Avengers. I would have guessed around 2:15 as well, and that seems to be just the right length to get everyone in and give them stuff to do, but not be punishment.

    anghus, I’d bet they’ll put the deleted scenes on Blu-Ray, but Whedon said the cut going out in theaters is the director’s cut so there won’t be another version. That won;t stop some nerd from making their own three hour cut from all of those scenes and putting it on torrent, but more power to ‘em, I says.

  60. bulldog68 says:

    Whether it existed was never the argument. Every movie could potentially be three hours long with the amount that is left on the cutting room floor. The argument was about what we thought would be it;s eventual released running time, and we were right, and Storymark hit it on the bullseye. So I’m not throwing shit on you, I’m just reminding you of what you said, ya know, Meet The Press style.

    And you state these things as if they are rules and procedures that need to be followed “The film is too short. It’s too short, TDK-R will be long, and no one will care. It appears to be the longest Marvel movie, which is something, but that’s still not long enough for a SUPERHERO TEAM-UP MOVIE!”

    If Xmen falls into that category then longest one clocks out at 2:15. Seems like that’s the benchmark.

    Also, no one argued about whether people will actually care about TDK-R’s length, because if it’s any good, the length will be irrelevant, same goes for Avengers, same goes every movie in the history of time. Hold on to a good movie, and the time flies by, hold on to a crappy one, and the end credits are your get our of jail card.

    Just stop inserting your opinion as some sort of fact, that’s all.

  61. leahnz says:

    j f s: thanks man. having said that, i read all that and still have no idea what whedon took out apart from ‘himself’ so… clear as mud. but i am glad ‘the avengers’ isn’t going to be 3 hours long, bloody hell

  62. JS Partisan says:

    BD, don’t tell me what to do. I can state something because I am not alone in wanting a longer team movie. Visit some comic book sites and realize that some people can handle 3 hours of superheroes, even if you can’t be bothered to realize I was responding to ang and not you with that comment.

    Does that stop you from trying to discipline me No, you think you are being clever, even when you are wrong. The longer cut exist, that’s what I was referring to, and nothing changes that at all.

    Seriously, you wanted to start some shit, and then tell me what to fuck to do. What the fuck ever.

  63. bulldog68 says:

    JS, mellow to fuck out. I’m not attacking you. For those who said they can;t handle a three hour Avengers movie, I was not one of them. Once the movie is going great, I hope it never ends. This debate was solely about how long we all “thought” it would be, and your progonsticating like Moses handing down the ten fucking commandments that it HAD to be three hours long, LotR style. That is all. Once again, you go all postal for no fucking reason. And as for bring my wife into it, FUCK YOU. Can’t you have a civil discourse about something we all love without descending to that level.

    Oh yeah, one more thing “but keep that shit out of my space”, this is not your fucking space. This is Dave’s, and we all just play here.

  64. The Big Perm says:

    Isn’t going into a movie wishing it were longer because of how awesome it will be, going into it with preconceived notions about said awesomeness? I thought you didn’t roll that way, IO.

    I’m sure the stuff that Whedon took out was fun character stuff, dialogue and maybe more of a pace where things are set up more. But that kind of stuff can take away from the narrative drive. Actually I’m involved with a movie right now and the first cut was almost three hours, which is insane for an indie, but it played at that length. Now it’s like 2:20. And we’re still figuring out if we should cut it down some more.

  65. JS Partisan says:

    BP, awesome for the stuff you are listing that can be taken out for the narrative. That stuff, from Whedon, is usually awesome. I love the guy’s dialogue and that there could be less in there, is disappointing as hell to me.

    Wanting those bits of Whedon business (hopefully that explains stuff for Leah) is what I want in anything Whedon does. That has nothing to do with a preconceived notion. T here is a difference.

    BD, you wanted to start some shit, be Mr. BIG SWINGING DICK, and you get what you get. I had to hold back countless times to not level your condescending ass because you giving me shit for not being wrong, but for things changing is ridiculous but par for the fucking course for a blog, that wants to keep me down because of your own prejudices.

  66. bulldog68 says:

    I used your words to show you that you were wrong. I did not attack you, you attacked yourself. As for that last paragraph, the word that comes to mind is incomprehensible. You must have had some serious neurosis as a child when you believe that anyone who has a differing opinion is treating you like a child. I thought I was conversing with another adult, but it has now dawned on me, with the pattern and frequency of emotional outbursts you have had on this blog, you leave me no choice but to opine that you ARE a child, A very well read, well plugged in, highly functional, yet emotionally retarded child. I get it now. I’ll be more careful with your eggshell psyche from now on.

  67. JS Partisan says:

    The fact that you used the word “retarded” demonstrates how much of a pure asshole you are. You don’t attack people with that, man. What are you? A member of LULZSEC? Seriously, if you think insulting people who have to deal with those with real disabilities, as my step-brother had to deal with in his life, then you are a real big man that your wife you should be so proud of in every single way.

    You went online and insulted people who have lives that you wouldn’t wish on your worst enemy, yet have more life in then than anything you have ever shown on this blog.

    Seriously, your rebuttal to me is disgusting, and I hope you show it to all your friends and co-workers. Let them know how awesome you are at insulting people that have life hard enough when people like you aren’t using their disability as an insult on the internet.

    ETA: Oh yeah, I am not wrong, idjit. Seriously, things changed, and you not getting that things change is not my problem.

    I do find it funny that you refer to emotional outbursts when if it were not for me and G, there wouldn’t be a hint of any excitement or love for anything on this blog.

  68. Joe Leydon says:

    “[I]f it were not for me and G, there wouldn’t be a hint of any excitement or love for anything on this blog.”

    Oh, yeah?

  69. JS Partisan says:

    Joe, yeah, but humor me. Do you get still excited for movies all these years later? I didn’t throw you in there because you have more of a scholarly take on film, then a mere fanatical one. If I were indeed wrong to leave you out , then that’s still only THREE PEOPLE! THAT’S NOT ENOUGH ENTHUSIASM! THAT’S AN ENTHUSIASM GAP!

  70. Joe Leydon says:

    After all these years? Hell, yeah. I got all teary-eyed during Hugo as I realized just what that robot was drawing. I walked out of Young Adult wondering just why the hell everyone else who gives a flip about movies wasn’t lining up to see it and rave about it. And consider this: Thanks to my work for Variety, I’m able to catch at various film festivals every year the first movies by promising filmmakers that, yes indeed, get me very excited and optimistic. Vive le cinema.

  71. JS Partisan says:

    Ok Joe, I owe you an apology. Sorry for assuming you weren’t still in love with film.

  72. scooterzz says:

    it’s kinda like going to see a tribute band…kinda….

  73. scooterzz says:

    and, by that, i mean ‘sad’…just ‘sad’…

  74. MoretzRules says:

    Hey Scooterzz long as you’re on, since you claim to be a big junket guy or whatever…

    Is Byron Allen actually a pretty cool dude? Been fascinated by this dude for ages, his weird arc from REAL PEOPLE to TERRIBLE COMIC to those COMING UP NEXT shows to… that COMICS UNLEASHED thing he does now… I GOTTA figure that guy is worth 40 BILLION DOLLARS, despite not having any real discernible talent…

    Do other junket dudes like him or think he sucks? Roeper disses him pretty bad in one of his books, but he always seems like a likeable dude.

  75. scooterzz says:

    y’know, lex…us ‘junket dudes’ just do what we have to do to pay the rent and really don’t judge each other’s product…i first met allen when i was doing tv for a national syndicate and was kinda star-struck becauce i loved his tv stuff when he first started out…he’s well liked and richer than me (that’s all i know)…

  76. Geoff says:

    I think Dave is underestimating one aspect of The Avengers’ appeal – Thor is probably going to help this sell overseas as much as Iron Man, remember Thor did about the same last years overseas as the first Iron Man movie.

    But I’m really mixed as to whether The Avengers will build on the box office of the lead-up movies – in my opinion, they hurt some of those lead-up movies in their efforts to set it up.

    On paper, Iron Man was probably not going to break out anyway: there wasn’t enough action and the Rockwell and Rourke characters were pretty under-written. However, none of that Avengers stuff really helped, either…..just made the film feel more like a plotless lark.

    And I’ll say this again and I know some disagree: Captain America was pretty much KILLED for me with that ending –

    SPOILER ALERT

    I could literally see the audience deflated with the last five minutes……to completely fuck over the character just to set up the Avengers??? He doesn’t get to see his family again or go on his “date” and you’re pretty much taking a proud, super-optimistic guy who’s just recently manned up and making him into yet another BROODING superhero who feels cheated! I mean hell, why even cast Chris Evans then? I like the guy and he can always bring a nice light touch – having play the kid earnest makes sense, but just as he’s finding his footing…..make him brooding.

    Seriously, Captain America could have been a $300 million domestic movie if they let it breathe a little….that could have helped bring more of a clamor to The Avengers.

  77. The Big Perm says:

    The Avengers bullshit has been KILLING the Marvel movies. I liked Iron Man well enough, but the second one was like half an hour of extraneous garbage. Boring, horrible stuff. I love how they had that Avengers panel at Comic Con and were like, and here’s AGENT COULSON! Wow, Agent Coulson in the flesh! His superpower is being able to get through stacks of paperwork with only one bathroom break!

  78. JS Partisan says:

    Someone has to get through that fucking paperwork!

  79. bulldog68 says:

    Just for the record JS:

    Emotionally retarded: Adj. used to describe someone who is incapable of understanding or communicating their true feelings or emotions.
    1. Emotionally ignorant to the various levels of emotion. Only expresses emotion in black or white – angry or happy. Doesn’t know how to differentiate the emotional shades of gray in between.
    2. Often afraid that people will look down on them for expressing their true emotions.
    3. Tend to convince themselves that they are feeling a certain way to cover up their true feelings.

    I never said you were retarded. Gosh you’re such a Republican.

    And nothing “changed.” Changed would imply that there was a three hour version that was going to be released and they decided it should be 2:15. That was never the case. So sayeth Joss Whedon.

    http://screenrant.com/the-avengers-runtime-length-rob-158901/

  80. storymark says:

    Props bulldog – you are a patient man. Its futile, but the effort is not unrecognized.

  81. JS Partisan says:

    Such a republican? Seriously? Oh my god idjit, you sited the URBAN DICTIONARY as if it were THE DICTIONARY? Good lord. That’s hilarious. Here’s the one that describes you idjit: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=idjit Nevertheless, there are people in this world that are emotionally stunted and using that as a slam, is fucking lame. That’s what good white boys do though: ignore the significance and meaning of terms in order to hurt or rip someone online. How typical.

    SM, whatever. I am the easiest person in the world to have a discussion with about anything. It’s not my fault you guys come at me with shit most of the time, based around my excitement for film (Case in point: PAUL). Seriously, read idjit’s condescending shit above and understand it’s futile to have a discussion with someone who gives someone shit for being excited about this stuff. Hell, didn’t you give me shit for believing TDK could gross as much as it did? Probably so, but you also gave me shit for box office predictions for no other reason than you being a dick to me, but I am acting like the victim apparently ladifreakinda.

    Oh yeah Geoff, the ending of Captain American isn’t great, but you have to remember that it’s supposed to tie into The Avengers. It’s not the best explanation for that ending, but they are supposed to be tied together.

  82. The Big Perm says:

    But that’s the problem…Marvel is crippling their movies for this Avengers horse-hockey.

  83. anghus says:

    Yeah bulldog. logic and reason are useless with an armchair know it all. The probem with JS is that he is unflinchingly wrong and never even entertains the idea that his poorly formed opinions could be incorrect. Hes a know nothing know it all who believes reading things online somehow makes him an expert on every topic.

    Theres no fun to be had debating someone who refuses to admit they are ever wrong. Every word spent on JS is a wasted one. And wed all be better off ignoring him. Like all fanboy trolls, engaging them only encourages them.

    I have nothing against JS. Hes no different than a hundred thousand other online talkbackers on a thousand different websites. But he brings nothing to elevate the level of conversation and engaging him just devolves the conversation into personal nonsense. “Youre old” “Youre a Republican”.

    Trying to have a conversation with JS is a pointless task. Practically Sisyphean. Maybe some of you find meaning in this useless task, but i think wed be better off letting him rant and just ignoring him.

  84. storymark says:

    So, the talk of all the Averngers set-up in the other films harming the individual stories is hardly a new complaint at this point. I was only personally bothered by it in Iron Man 2 (I thought it worked just fine in the others – I even like the Capt. America ending), but certainly Marvel has heard these complaints.

    So, Im wondering, do they change their approach for the next wave of flicks? Do you think they’ll pull back a bit on those elements, maintain the current level, or push harder? I suppose we’ll have an idea fairly soon, when we see if they put some sort of Iron Man 3 teaser on the end of Avengers.

  85. JS Partisan says:

    Seriously Ang, how much of an asshole do you have to be to write something like that? Comparing me to a troll is funny but not as funny as your own comprehension. See, unlike you, I can read and discern facts from the countless things that I read, and extrapolate them in coherent sentences that make valid points. You dismissing this and stating that I never state when I am wrong, ignores that I have admitted when I am wrong, but it also ignores that you can never give me credit when I am right.

    This also means that you lack the ability to read idjit’s post to notice that he referred to me as a REPUBLICAN, and thus negating your entire simplistic dissertation. It’s not my fault that you lack the ability to put two and two together. It’s also not my fault you are not as smart or as pretty as me [bats eyelashes] either :D .

    Seriously, your rant about being an armchair know it all, makes me think of Bill James and how utterly backwards it is to feel that way about learning and knowledge. Good forbid someone reads about something they want to know more about and to learn about it! THAT FREAKIN BOOK LEARNIN!

  86. anghus says:

    I think theylll pull back.

    And i may be the only person that liked the ending to Captain America. It was sad. He lost everything. I actually wished they had given him a few minutes to mourn. Maybe something at a grave site. I understand the apprehension some had for the ending, but if you took out the modern day epilogue and eluded that he survived would people have been happier? Does that give people the melancholly of Caps sacrifice and doesnt feel so tied in to the Avengers?

  87. JS Partisan says:

    If they pull back, then that ignores the focus of all of these films is the Marvel Universe. It’s not about any one character as much as it’s about the world they inhabit, and pulling back from that would ignore the drive of the five movies that have led up to the Avengers.

    If IM3 is about extremis and how it may be inspired from something Cap tells Tony in The Avengers. This seems like a possibility to make these characters more interdependent on one another and thus making the universe they inhabit all that more important.

  88. The Big Perm says:

    I didn’t really mind the Captain America ending either. The movie that The Avengers setup screwed was Iron Man 2, which was an amazing mess. Can’t speak for Thor or Hulk, never saw them.

  89. The Big Perm says:

    They need to pull back, IO…because if I pay for Iron Man 3, then I really don’t care about the groundwork they might want to lay for three other movies down the line. They integrated that stuff well in Captain America, there’s probably stuff in there I didn’t catch since I’m not a comic guy. Iron Man 2 was hamfisted and awful.

  90. cadavra says:

    What? I don’t love film? NOBODY TELLS ME I DON’T LOVE FILM! I even sat through JACK AND JILL, f’chrissakes!

  91. anghus says:

    Big Perm, it didnt really help or hurt Thor. You get a Hawkeye cameo and a post credits sequence about the cosmic cube. But as a movie Thor is far more removed from The Avengers story than iron man 2 or Captain America.

  92. storymark says:

    Except for setting up the villain and his motivation….

    Anyway, to address the question I posed – I think they’ll not so much pull back, as shift focus. I’d expect there to be some sort of IM3 set up at the end of Avengers – I pretty much assume we’ll be hearing about the casting of the villain a week or two before Avengers opens, to coincide with that character’s cameo post-credits.

    But from there, I think they’ll focus more on using those moments to start of new characters. Like, we’ll get a Dr. Strange tease at the end of IM3, and maybe an Ant-Man set-up at the end of Thor 2 or something. I think they’ll lay off a bit on The Avengers stuff until Cap 2, where they’ll get the ball rolling again.

    We’ll see.

  93. Yancy Skancy says:

    No one would’ve loved another WWII-era Captain American adventure more than me, but obviously they weren’t gonna delay his modern-era origin story just to make that happen. And the thawed-out Cap is directly from the comics, of course.

  94. Martin S says:

    I’d say Story is probably closest to the reality, but it really depends on Avengers overall haul.

    The opening is Alpha and Omega for this movie, moreso than any other. How many screens are we looking at? What’s the max? Won’t they need to open as wide as possible since the 150 running time will eat one showing per screen?

    If WOM is like Cap and Thor – “better than expected” – it’s going to make above the Marvel ceiling, but not much. If it’s huge WOM, then it’s an inverted franchise where the spinoffs propel the core.

    Think of it this way. They’ve visually made Hawkeye as bland and GI Joe generic as possible. The character could not carry a movie now unless it’s a Hawkeye/SHIELD spinoff, and that appears to be the goal. What Renner decides to do, since he would be competing with himself, is another story.

    I don’t see an Ant-Man project being made without the character first appearing in another movie. If IM3 is about nanotech, then it’s a perfect intro for the character. Black Panther needs the same bounce.

    Keep in mind that one of the tricks with the Avengers comic was to replace the top shelf with second-tier characters about a year after release. I could see that same approach for a sequel, considering the big three are going to be harder to lock in.

  95. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Admit it Cad, you hate movies. Your career until now has just been a Machiavellian plot to lure us Hotbloggers into a false sense of security before you unleash your master plan.

    The major issue that I have with these crossover events (and this applies moreso to the comics, since we haven’t had that event in film yet to see how they handle it) is that it begs the question “Where the hell was everyone during the last event?”

    It kinda makes sense so far – Hulk was hiding, Thor didn’t care about Earth, Cap was frozen etc. But once you have this crossover and still continue with their individual movies… when the next Iron Man 3 threat rolls around, why doesn’t Tony Stark just pick up the phone and go “Hey guys, want to help me beat up this new bad guy?”

    Having read the Dini/Timms interviews following JCU, their biggest storywriting problem was trying to contrive reasons why Superman couldn’t just bust on in and resolve the issue, or how to keep it varied so that Batman could contribute in addition to people who could literally level cities. I can definitely see that being an issue for post-Avengers films – they’d have to focus more on character films, which isn’t a bad thing but certainly doesn’t lend itself to hauling in the cash in the way explosion-fests do.

    (Holy run-on sentences Batman!)

  96. JS Partisan says:

    Foamy, that’s why if they don’t shift focus as SM pointed out, they are going to need to have characters crossover in all of these movies. Black Widow and Fury seem to make the most sense for Iron Man but when it comes to Thor and Cap, that would probably mean Hawkeye, Widow, and maybe Fury or Tony. Hulk seems like the most likely crossover character because it would save money to use him in other Marvel films, then give him another film.

    It’s all up in the air til IM3 with this of course, but if Tony gets in trouble in that film and no one helps him. We should have our answer even though I’d put money down on one of the Avengers helping him in a final boss battle. Hulk being the most likely one to do so.

  97. bulldog68 says:

    But Foamy, can’t they treat the movies just like the comics? There’s the Avengers Comics, and then there is Hulk and Thor and Iron Man and Capt America with their individual story lines. So why can’t they run concurrently? I guess in the individual movies they just pretend that the others don’t exist.

    The problem I see however is how earth shattering can the crisis be for a one-hero movie? Like you said, what’s to prevent one from calling up his buddy for a little help. It will be difficult to sell a localized crisis after a having already dealt with a world threatening crisis.

    That has always been the beauty and simplicity of Batman. The movies have always been about Gotham. He’s never trying the save the world.

    Also, if they want to always have some sort of Avengers thread going in all the individual movies, will there be any type of timeline issues. I know when events are taking place has not been a major consideration in comic book movies, but something I always said I would do is at least watch Wolverine one more time, for the record, I did not like it, but just for academics sake, to see if there were any clues. I know my memory is faulty on this movie, but the finale takes place on 3 mile island which dates back to the late 70′s, but the movie itself did not seem dated in the 70s. Judging by the helicopters and cars and so forth. I know I could be absolutely wrong on this.

  98. Foamy Squirrel says:

    BD – with the comics it’s an issue, but not as big. There’s usually some 20-odd issues (which can include guest appearances) between the big “team up” events. So for the most part, for those 20 or so issues they treat the character as the only superhero on the planet. You get used to the character being pretty much solo, and the crossover is is the “special event”.

    But the films don’t have that luxury. If every 2nd or 3rd film for a Marvel character has them being on some kind of team, then the contrast becomes too much – the writers almost have to provide a reason why they’re not working together this time, and after a while it just gets silly.

    As JS (and SM) say, at this point they’re almost obliged to have crossovers from now on. That creates problems – not huge problems for film, but its one that has downed many a sci-fi series where the inconsistencies have caused fans to give up.

  99. leahnz says:

    may i just say, this may be the biggest comic book/film nerd thread in the history of the hotblog

  100. cadavra says:

    Foamy: And I’d've gotten away with it, too, if it weren’t for you meddling kids!

  101. David Poland says:

    All I care about with a movie like The Avengers is, “Was it a blast?”. I don’t care about the geek subtext at all and 95% of the audience – assuming a big audience – is with me.

    I don’t even care about the other films. Of this group is fun together, great. If it feels forced and wooden and like each character taking a turn, it will be shit.

    The reason Iron Man hit so big was a great, cool suit and Downey breaking the mold and turning an asshole into a really enjoyable character. The was not the comic book Stark… but better for the sake of the audience.

    To be great, this one needs a great script… more than others.

  102. JS Partisan says:

    Wolverine happened in the 70s. While the new Wolvie in Japan movie should take place in the 80s, if they do indeed follow the Japanese ending scene from that first horrible Wolvie movie. That’s a guess but a Wolverine in the 80s movie, would be awesome.

    FS, what franchises have these kinds of crossover outside of TV shows, where they were usually awesome. They already did a bit of a daring crossover with Tony in the Incredible Hulk, because that scene takes place after the events of Iron Man 2.

    If they can pull that sort of thing off. I have faith in them introducing the Hulk in an Iron Man film, and not having it sink MARVEL FILM CONTINUITY. The continuity between the films being what I love more than the films. Having a COMIC UNIVERSE put on FILM, is awesome. It’s not for many of you but the more they do it. The better the films are.

    One last thing, the comics exist in a bigger world, where everyone is connected. You can have self contained stories but these stories do not act as if other characters do not exist. Seeing as the Avengers exist now, they have to include other characters in every upcoming PHASE 2 Marvel movie.

    ETA: Poland, the draw is the team. Even if the script sucks, we have seen that if you give people enough whiz-bang like with that shit Transformers 3, then that can help you out at the box office.

  103. Martin S says:

    Hulk movies…yeah, no.

    For over a year, Jeph Loeb and Del Toro have been working a new Hulk TV show for ABC.

  104. Triple Option says:

    I’m having a hard time believing that Avengers can live up to expectations. I’m not sure that Dark Knight Rises can either. Although I could see Nolan getting a pass. Well, that’s probably the wrong word. I think if even a hair above so-so there’ll be plenty of defenders calling anyone who doesn’t praise it as haters or not getting the genre. Not that I think it’ll be bad, it just might miss.

    Avengers seems like it has to be really appeasing to a lotta people and it seems like it could be the most susceptible to wonder bread filmmaking. Like bloodless gunshot battles. I don’t believe the FX are going to be to the level of the trannies films. I’d say that might not be necessary but if they try to stuff too much action in there, the pointless battles that don’t advance plot kind, then it could get really old with a quickness.

    Probably the biggest difference between the two is that Marvel has been feeding their own hype while, yes WB is pushing, the bulk of the hype on DK-R I think is fan generated.

    I do hope I get a full movie experience on both. I’m actually looking forward to Spidey and I hated the last one. I agree the timing is a bit odd. If it doesn’t do that well, I doubt anyone on the inside is going to say “too soon,” but I think Let the Buyer Beware could have some linger apprehension.

  105. JS Partisan says:

    Martin, yeah I forgot all about that show, but that’s why he seems like the best choice for a CROSSOVER character.

    Triple, how is Marvel feeding it’s own hype? People seem generally excited for this film outside of this blog. Here read this and see what it makes you think about the opening FX at least: http://www.starburstmagazine.com/news/1954-movie-news-the-avengers-have-been-roughly-assembled

  106. Triple Option says:

    @JS Par – For one, by putting clips after credits and Where’s Waldo type Avenger signs in the lead up movies. I agree, a lot of people are really excited about this film but it was being hyped as fact not rumor for a few years now. Not from the geekside but plenty of articles released. At this point I’m surprised the movie’s tag line isn’t “The Chosen Film.”

    I hope the FX are mind blowing. When I think about some of the past films like Thor, Iron Man, Fan Four, they had cool moments but it wasn’t like seeing Matrix or T2 for the first time.

  107. Foamy Squirrel says:

    I have to say the most impressive “had a blast” set pieces I’ve seen recently are from TF3 when the Decepticons invade… I want to say Chicago? Everything from there on was pretty spectacular.

    If the Avengers invasion can match that, I’ll be pretty happy. I just don’t want it getting bogged down in the future like Xmen, Spidey and (old) Star Trek film series.

Leave a Reply

The Hot Blog

Quote Unquotesee all »

“The effect of the avalanche, and Tomas’ refusal to acknowledge his terror, seem to have devastating effects. But the interesting thing about Force Majeure is the sly suggestion that maybe this event could have a liberating effect on the family.”
~ Robert Horton 

 “Teaching how to make a film is like trying to teach someone how to fuck. You can’t. You have to fuck to learn how to fuck. It’s just how it is. The filmmaker has to protect the adventurous side of their self. I’m an explorer, I’m an inventor. Doc Brown is the character I relate to the most and he’s a madman. He’s a madman alone, locked up with his ideas but he does whatever he wants. He makes what he makes because he wants to make it. Yes, the DeLorean has to work in order for him to be a madman with a purpose—the DeLorean should work—but the point is I think everyone should try and find their own DeLorean. When Zemeckis was trying to get Back To The Future made, which he was for seven years, he was trying to get a film made where basically a teenager gets in a time machine, goes back to 1954 and almost —-s his mother. That pitch is extremely subversive and twisted in a way. My point is, he had a fascinating idea that no one had done before, but was clearly special to him and he stuck to it and made it what it was. When you do that you can create culture, but I think a lot of movies are just echoing culture and there’s a difference.”
~ A Girl Walks Home Alone At Night Filmmaker Ana Lily Amirpour