MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland

Weekend Estimates by Klady 3HG

Katniss & Co hit $300m in 17 days, not only the 6th fastest to that domestic mark all-time, but pushing aside Twilight’s best in the process.

The fourth incarnation of the core American Pie troupe did good, not great business. The last film opened to $33m after the first sequel opened to $45m. Still, the payroll couldn’t have been overwhelming on this one, so if the overseas numbers are at the normal levels for this franchise, it will be slightly profitable.

Titanic 3D isn’t killing at the box office. But it’s nice to go back and to see a better print than the first time around. Though as Mr. Ebert would say, “Too bad about the 3D.” Still, the project will likely be profitable on the domestic alone, which, should be dwarfed by the international.

I’d like to clarify my comment from yesterday about the top 3 films being star driven. I’ll stick by it, but in two of the three cases, the stars in question have not shown the ability to open much of anything else. That wasn’t what I was suggesting. In the case of American Reunion, you could – and they surely will – reboot the whole thing with a new cast and do fine. But you really couldn’t do this movie with any other cast. Likewise the lead of The Hunger Games, Jennifer Lawrence, who has never opened anything (including The Hunger Games), but whose presence is undeniably critical to the film’s success. She is the straw that stirs the drink… even in the marketing. And Leo & Kate are Leo & Kate.

There are also some notables coming to their domestic end games. Safe House is Denzel Washington’s #2 film all-time domestically, just under $125m, and is likely to get their internationally as well. Journey 2: Mysterious Island will crawl to the $100m mark. The Vow, already the Screen Gems champ, is coming up on $125m domestic and $175m worldwide. The Artist is pushing to get to $45m domestic and is already over $120m worldwide.

And A Separation continues to push along, chasing down Sarah’s Key for the honor of being the top foreign-language film in the US released in 2011… or, if you think Dec 30 releases shouldn’t count, it’s building a lead as top 2012 foreign-language release.

116 Responses to “Weekend Estimates by Klady 3HG”

  1. Gus says:

    Anyone know how much the T3D conversion cost to do?

    Also – I am truly impressed that THG has already, ahem, eclipsed the highest grossing Twilight movie while still doing $30M+ weekends.

  2. movieman says:

    …it was apparently in the $18-million ballpark, Gus.

  3. Bitplayer says:

    Dave if you’d like to do a takedown a deserving target would be all the hollywood moguls who claimed movies with female leads wouldn’t/don’t work. This proves it’s about the material and execution.

  4. movieman says:

    “The Five-Year Engagement” has a good shot at banking more bucks in its opening day than its stars’ March releases (“Jeff/Home” and “Salmon Fishing”) did in their entire theatrical run(s).
    I haven’t seen “Five-Year” yet–and chances are it’ll be pretty good–
    but that’s still damn sad.

  5. SamLowry says:

    It’s good to see the Twilight films and their fans get a cold bucket of reality tossed on them.

    I only saw the first minutes of the last one (my daughter insisted I rent it) but the scene where Bella picked out a wedding outfit was ridiculous. When I saw the spike heels she and her bud agreed on I couldn’t help but think “Is she going to a wedding or the AVN Awards?”

  6. David Poland says:

    Bitplayer… I don’t think that’s a real comparison, to be honest.

    For one thing, Twilight, Resident Evil, and Underworld already exist. For another, anomalies don’t prove a norm.

    Hollywood is aware of the female market. But what we haven’t seen is a lot of the action crossover… and that is what we see in all of these franchises. (Blame Sarah Conner.)

    I don’t think the execution of Hunger Games means bupkiss. The opening was what it was without the base seeing the film and spreading word of mouth. The difference is that that word of mouth is now better than Twilight and the audience is not as narrow… in other words, this is not a romance posing as an action movie.

    But the execution of this film being “okay” vs some of them being utter crap is not really the lynchpin. But Dennis Dugan has how many big hits on his resume?

    Movies with female leads that are focused on “women’s issues” are a harder sell and you’re cutting off a big part of the market before you even start. Good or bad, it’s a bit like the Black movie market, where Blacks will come out for White action heroes, but Whites rarely come out for “Black” movies of any kind. Women go to “boy movies” more readily that guys got to “chick flicks.”

    Still, I believe there is a strong market in films targeted for women specifically. I believe there is a crossover market with the right material. And I believe that The Hunger Games is a very unique piece of material on a lot of levels.

  7. JS Partisan says:

    Sam, what cold water? Twilight is a bigger INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISE than Hunger games. Hunger Games may increase their international box office over the next two movies but every single Twilight movie has made more money overseas. That’s pretty impressive given that what really matters now is combined box office.

    This is also why Avengers has a shot of out grossing Hunger Games because it’s combined total is probably going to be either 700 to 800m, and Hunger Games has a lot of work to do internationally to make that make that much. It’s also why Twilight Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 is going probably going to outgross it as well.

    Also, don’t you fucking DARE insult Bella’s wedding outfit. She looked like an angel on her special day! You hateful hateful man XD!

  8. SamLowry says:

    Angel Dark, maybe.

    The films have taken self-seriousness to the point where they can’t even recognize the campiness they’ve descended into.

  9. JS Partisan says:

    They aren’t that serious though. The only people who take them overly serious are men, who get pissy when women enjoy something :D!

  10. SamLowry says:

    I just love the unintentional irony of the whole Twilight project, a series written by a Mormon to promote abstinence that seems to be about nothing but sex. Maybe the right hasn’t tried to embrace it because even they can see it.

    The Twilight message actually seems to be “If kids got some every now and then, maybe they wouldn’t go so loco.”

  11. LexG says:

    Kristen Stewart is the greatest actress and BOX OFFICE DRAW of the last 15 years. Wait till SNOW WHITE opens to 200 mil in its first three days because she is the Queen of All Acting and Hotness.


  12. djk813 says:

    American Pie can always go back to the cheap direct to video spin offs now.

  13. Lane Myers says:

    DP, I’m still super confused by your “star driven” comment. Clearly JLa is not a “star” (unless when you wrote JLa you were referring to TV star Joey Lawerence). HG may be a star making vehicle for her (I thought the casting of a talented actress, rather than a more recognizable “star” face, was the single best thing Ross did with th movie). But to call her a star is simply bizarre and something you would slam on someone else from the media for writing.

    As for Leo and Kate…I don’t feel Leo was a “star” when Titanic was first released. But he is a star now, and I would argue that Leo IS what one would call “their”/old media star. The actor who played Howard Hughes, J. Edgar, Gangs of New York, etc, I’ll buy that he started out as a young hearthrob, and I will agree with you that anyone who doesn’t consider him to be a movie star now, is indeed out of touch

    All in all tho, I found your whole position on the subject muddled: a movie based on a book that probably would’ve been at least a big hit regardless of which young actress had the lead role, a 4th sequel, and a rerelease of a giant hit movie over a decade old — I think you picked the wrong three movies to make your “star ” argument.

  14. actionman says:

    LexG is back?! Did I miss something…?

  15. cadavra says:

    Instead of spending $18 million on the 3-D conversion, Cameron should have spent an eighth of that to hire Aaron Sorkin or David E. Kelley to rewrite all that gawd-awful dialogue, and then reloop the entire thing into something watchable.

  16. movieman says:

    (Throat-clearing response to Lex’s K-Stew drooling.)
    And I alone in thinking the Stewart is the major weak link in the (otherwise pretty darn good) “Huntsman” trailers?
    She seems to pretty much suck the life out of every scene she’s in by virtue of her Novocaine-style thesping.
    Maybe it’s the curse of “Twilight” because I always considered her a “promising” young actress in stuff like “Into the Wild;” even as far back (to the beginning) with “Panic Room.”
    Except for possibly “The Runaways,” has Stewart been anything less than wan/insipid in recent years?
    Good thing they’ve got a solid Huntsman and Evil Queen ’cause their Snow ain’t impressing me a whit.

  17. David Poland says:

    Lane –

    1. Wasn’t suggesting a trend or a major shift… just that simple arguments are always too simple.

    2. The nature of “stardom” is not black and white. Lionsgate would have a real problem going into the sequel without Jen Lawrence. That doesn’t mean she can open anything else. But in this role, she is a powerful star. And I believe that started before the release. Her presence in the trailers and ads were a big part of what made the pitch work, in my view.

    Leo and Kate were a big part of the long legs of Titanic.

    Eddie Murphy was not nearly as big a star as the Beverly Hills Cop opening. But his evolution led to that opening and vice versa.

    And American Reunion is… a reunion. Hangover 2 could have been called Hangover Reunion. The returning talent meant everything… even without H Graham.

  18. bulldog68 says:

    So based on your 2nd paragraph DP, are we talking about stardom or box office power? Because I thought that was the initial conversation. If she is a ‘star’ only when she is Katniss, then is she really a star?

    It’s way too early to tell, and the Twilight cast are finding out how hard it is too transfer that initial success into boffo box office for their other projects. The projects they have been in have gotten some press ink because they were in them, but have they lifted any of these vehicles beyond their relative box office boundaries because they were in them. And don’t get me wrong, no one should have expected The Runaways, Adventureland, Water for Elephants, Remember Me, and Abduction to be blockbusters, but IMO, you could have plugged any other actor in those roles and got similiar results.

    That being said, Jennifer Lawrence has a few advantages going for her, namely, she is also Mystique, and as we speak I think the writers of the new Xmen franchise are tweaking her role to give a bit more oomph to it to capitalize on her new popularity. And that one/two combo will be hard for any Twilight alum to beat. Plus she is way more talented than they are, and I think she will have the longest career.

    Interestingly, I liked Daniel Radcliffe’s role in The Woman in Black, and I think he does have some star power moving forward. I look forward to his future roles. I also can’t wait to see the very talented and beautiful Emma Watson in a post Potter role. I still have not seen My Week with Marilyn yet.

  19. SamLowry says:

    Novocaine? Maybe…just take a look at all the Twilight posters and try to deny the rumors that KStew is a pothead. So wasted is she it’s hard to imagine her even attempting an action movie like THG. If it was a horror flick, she’d be the one sitting at the bottom of the stairs, giggling, while Jason is chopping everyone else up.

  20. movieman says:

    Yeah, Sam.
    Stewart always seems “comfortably numb” these days.
    Like I get in the dentist’s office after a generous dosage of Novocaine.

  21. storymark says:

    “Twilight is a bigger INTERNATIONAL FRANCHISE than Hunger games. ”

    Wait…. how is $392,616,625 (Twilight’s worldwide take) bigger than $459,939,000 (Hunger Games’ take)?

    Sure, if you look at ONLY the foreign grosses, Twilight is still just barely ahead – but that’ll likely change within a week or so.

  22. Triple Option says:

    New SAT question for 2012:

    Which of the following is a star?
    A) The Moon
    B) Cumulus Nimbus
    C) Ursa Major
    D) Jennifer Lawrence
    E) None of the above

  23. Desslar says:

    Having not seen The Hunger Games yet, I am curious why is is characterized as a female-targeted film. To me the trailer makes the film look like a mix of Narnia and The Running Man, which to me adds up to mature-ish family film, not chick flick. Is the film full of sappy romance not covered in the trailer?

  24. JS Partisan says:

    Story, the Twilight Saga is often referred to as just “Twilight”, and this is how I used it above. The Twilight films, even the first one, have all been bigger films internationally and this will trend will most likely continue with Breaking Dawn pt. 2 in November.

    It’s not like it’s bad to be a large domestic franchise. The thing of it is though, these tent pole films are judged internationally now as well in terms of box office, and when you have a franchise like the Hunger Games that’s this front loaded domestically compared to franchises that have never ever been this front loaded domestically like Twilight and Harry Potter. It’s rather interesting and makes me wonder if Hunger Games will ever break out as big internationally as well.

  25. storymark says:

    So, you’re comparing all 4 films to just the one….?

    So far, movie to movie – Hunger Games is winning. I expect that to continue through the sequels.

    And how is Hunger Games MORE front-loaded than Twilight…. when its had a much smaller drop-off. Twilight is like, the king of the front-load. And maybe you should check the numbers – Hunger games has ALREADY gotten big internationally. It is $40 mill short of passing Twilight, and its only in its 2nd week.

  26. JS Partisan says:

    Story, even if it’s doing better than TWILIGHT, do you see Hunger Games making 700 million dollars or the ridiculous amount Breaking Dawn Pt. 2 is going to make? You see that happening? Wrath of the Titans was number one internationally this weekend, which could mean that Hunger Games has maxed out abroad.

    I am also comparing it to Twilight SAGA due to Sam’s statement above, and stating how interesting it is that it’s made this much domestically compared to the Twilight SAGA, which has done more business internationally. Which, the first Twilight film did even if it were not by all that much.

    Seriously, go to Box Office Mojo, look at the break downs between domestic and international box office. Hunger Games is 68 percent front loaded (you can be front loaded in more then one way, Story) with domestic grosses. That’s crazy in 2012 given how important international has become and it’s really impressive, but is that a good thing for any franchise to be in the 21st century? That’s all I am asking, no need to get fan defensive about it.

  27. storymark says:

    Yes, the first film – I have never been talking about the franchise as a whole – I thought that was clear when I specified the first film….

    Do I see a movie that’s already a huge hit, and beating the other franchise it’s compared to, continue to do so? It’s a possibility, yes. You get that word, right…. possibility – Im not fool enough to make claim to know how much future installments will make.

    Even with Wrath as #1 internationally – its not like people in other countries have stopped going full stop – and $40 million isn’t that much more.

    And I went to Boxofficemojo, WTF do you think I was getting the numbers I posted in the first place? You love Twilight, and you’re angry its not king of the hill anymore – I get that.

    I would save this and revisit it later, when we know more – but that’d just lead to a fit from you over being pick-on or some shit.

    Nevermind – Is there anyone who has tried to have a conversation with this over-reacting bundle of tantrum and come away not regretting it?

  28. Paul D/Stella says:

    I always regret it, which is why I’m pretending he doesn’t exist. Life is so much better that way. I am happier already. Life’s too short to waste on the likes of IO.

  29. JS Partisan says:

    I have not cursed or anything, but you are stating that I am throwing a fit, when you just threw a fit?

    While you are not discussing the franchise. I am because that’s how the conversation started with Sam and not with you. You showed up like you are prone to do with discussions involving me, and wanted to interject. Which is fine but this started with Sam and I.

    Also, this has nothing to do with me being upset about the Twilight Saga. A saga that has made over a billion dollars already and has the potential with the last film to make that much. Potential being the operative word there.

    My question and I think it’s valid: is it a good thing to be this front loaded domestically? If you want to yell at me about referring to box office mojo (Seriously man, what makes you believe you can get all offended at me not immediately believing you would use box office mojo?) then go look at the break downs as stated above. Twilight has always made more abroad, Harry Potter made more abroad, and it’s fascinating that the Hunger Games has made so much here. When other franchises depend on international more so than domestic, and I find it fascinating in 2012 Hunger Games does not.

    Finally, if you cannot tell that you are trying to bully me above with that post, then that’s pretty funny. I know you have you’re own take on this but guess what? You gave me crap for not being HC and not buying into Titanic 3D doing tremendous box office. Who turned out to be correct about that even after you lost your shit on me about it?

    Folks like you and Paul can get all sensitive or defensive about my posts to you, but it’s not like I am looking for a fight. I am just discussing two franchises that seem to be taking two different paths to financial glory and if that gets you so infuriated, that’s not my problem.

    ETA: Stella, you are just like Story. You have both flipped your shit on me over the most innocuous statements even after I apologized… APOLOGIZED… to you if I offended you.

    Seriously Stella, if you find Story’s ridiculous fit up there about me to be some sense of maturity, then that’s rather fascinating because the guy in his OWN POST, jumped ahead to a few years, and decided on his OWN… HIS OWN.. that I would flip out on him, when I am have not even flipped out on him in this thread. After he interjected into a discussion not involving him, made conclusions about that discussion that had nothing to do with the statements already made, and then got offended at me for whatever reason Story gets offended at me about anything.

    If you two want to hold onto the past this badly then goodness, that’s weird. Really weird. Especially when it’s a blog, where only like 15 people posts on, and we all have heat with one another. Seriously, I can get along with Leah and Christian, and both of those people have slammed me worse on here than either one of you, but you still are harboring something against me that I don’t even have towards either one of you.

  30. bulldog68 says:

    At the risk of injecting some facts into the conversation JS, lets look at what Mojo said on December 10th, 2008, about Twilight’s international performance.

    “Twilight rose to third, though it has not ignited overseas with the same enthusiasm as it has domestically. Still, the vampire romance has been a big hit in nearly all its markets especially in Spain ($5.1 million opening). The country, famous for its love of horror, could be one of Twilight’s biggest. The picture has also been impressive in Italy ($12.3 million total), where it led for a third consecutive week despite stiff competition, as well as Mexico ($6.9 million). In Russia ($2.7 million) and Sweden ($1 million), though, it’s been moderate at best.”

    The first Twilight topped out at $200m foreign.

    So JS, Twilight was not viewed as an international powerhouse when it first came out. The ratio was almost 50/50. It’s from the second installment that the ratio changed, and only slightly with a 42/58 domestic to foreign b/o.

    Over the course of 4 movies, the Twilight franchise averages at 56.5%. That’s not a huge comparative percentage. Pirates is at 64.6%. Transformers at 58.5%. And the daddy of them all Harry Potter at 68.9%.

    Those are the facts JS, and they are indisputable. If THG makes 350M domestic, and 250M foreign, the ratio would be heavier domestic yes, but it’s still faster out of the foreign gate than Twilight was in 2008.

  31. JS Partisan says:

    BD, the fact remains that I was not referring to TWILIGHT but the TWILIGHT SAGA. Those are facts for the conversation associated with a conversation you are having with Storymark and not me. Also if you look from New Moon on, the average is closer to 60/40. The first film drags the average down but the point remains that when something is over fifty percent, it’s a fact that it’s making more abroad.

    The conversation that I started out having with Sam involves the TWILIGHT SAGA and as a SAGA, a WHOLE, Twilight is a stronger international franchise than domestic. While Hunger Games at this moment is front loaded with domestic box office and that’s the crux of my question that none of you have answered in your attempts to do what you folks try to do to me and I am so past it but still, my question is this: Should any franchise in the 21st century depend on 68 percent of it’s gross domestically? Is that that crazy of a question?

    It’s still money, they are still getting paid, but the focus has been pulled to the whole world with box office. If it’s all about grossing every dollar abroad and here, isn’t it better to lean more internationally? Isn’t that why Battleship and Avengers are opening overseas first?

    Again, these are just questions that I am asking because I like the Hunger Games and Twilight, not taking a side, but it hit me this morning after reading something on Total Film how much Hunger Games has made here compared to abroad. This will probably be more glaring when Avengers makes as much as it has here over there in same amount of time and why it will probably make more than Hunger Games combined the same with Breaking Dawn Pt. 2.

  32. LexG says:

    K-Stew Elle Fanning Birthdays today!

    And there was much rejoicing…

  33. JPK says:

    “This will probably be more glaring when Avengers makes as much as it has here over there in same amount of time and why it will probably make more than Hunger Games combined the same with Breaking Dawn Pt. 2″

    I love Marvel properties and I am very stoked to see The Avengers. I’ll go see it twice on opening weekend – something I rarely do these days – and last time that happened was with the first Iron Man. But, realistically, I don’t know how anyone can think this will open to more 65M. Maybe – if all the stars align and Jesus comes down from heaven to give it a ringing endorsement – it will crack 80M. I doubt it hits 200M domestic. Geeks will love it but I don’t think too many other people will give a shit. It sure as hell won’t hold the top spot for 3 weekends in a row like HG.

  34. JS Partisan says:

    You are really underselling the Avengers earning potential but you are posting on the Hot Blog, so that happens a lot with this movie.

  35. john says:

    Seriously, JPK, how do you think it will have an opening gross almost half of what IRON MAN 2 did? Even if IM2 were DESPISED, I would still expect 100m for the weekend.

  36. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Story & Bull I am referring to the cinema presentations known as films. Fact. The Avengers will make $10,000,000,000 opening day thursday. And then the same on supeday. I check boxblowjo and found that 2.5% of the numbers that fall between the 2nd and 3rd films of a leap year recoup their international in 28 days. Twilight was the fastest grossing billion for a duesday release.The Twilight saga has eclipsed the GDP of the known universe. These are the facts. Vampires are real.

  37. JS Partisan says:

    Ladies and gentlemen, the funniest lady on the blog has returned!

  38. anghus says:

    100 million opening weekend for Avengers seems like the floor.

  39. hcat says:

    I am not frothing at the mouth for the Avengers but I still think its foolish to imagine it will open anywhere south of $100 million.

    Not sure if it will end up outgrossing Hunger Games though, if only because it will face much tougher competetion in its following weeks.

  40. anghus says:

    i don’t know if there’s a more frontloaded film that Avengers. It’s been frontloading for 4 years. It’s all frontloaded. It’s a tease that’s been going on since Iron Man and Avengers is the climax money shot. Will audiences want to stick around for repeat viewings of said money shot is anyone’s guess. But to undersell the opening weekend on this one means you’re either not very bright or you want it to fail. Either way, bad call.

  41. bulldog68 says:

    Avengers basically has two weeks of breathing room until Battleship hits on May 18th, even though Dark Shadows and The Dictator will steal a few dollars on the 11th and 16th respectively.

    Ditto what Anghus said about the opening weekend, it’ll be huge. I still see this topping out between $250-$300m just a bit better than Star Trek numbers.

    Having said that, the only movie not to gross more than $300m while opening to more than $100m in May, was Xmen Last Stand, (holy similarities Batman), which topped out at $234m. I don’t think Avengers will flame out like that. The high endgame for Avengers is Ironman 2, open passed $100m, top out at under $320m, and that`s not anything to sneeze at.

  42. JS Partisan says:

    I still don’t get the love for Battleship. Sure, could be very wrong with that, but a Transformers movie without the Transformers seems like a bit of a stretch to be profitable. We will soon know when it opens in a week or two abroad.

    Now, with the Avengers, everything about this film feels more like an EVENT. It has a uniqueness to it, that makes me want to believe it will open pretty high over that weekend and that it will crush it abroad. Again, that’s speculation, but it should be the biggest Marvel movie by a country mile.

  43. KrazyEyes says:

    Avengers is unique?

    This is a film featuring a bunch of superheroes from a bunch of recent films fighting a villain (or villains) also from those earlier films. The trailers I’ve seen so far have had the worst case of seen-that, done-that of any of the summer movies.

    I don’t have a hate-on for this movie like some do but I’m totally unenthusiastic for it mostly because I’ve become burnt out on these characters and types of films from the barrage of similar movies leading up to it. This film should feel like the climax tof everything but instead it’s got the vibe of a direct-to-DVD sequel.

  44. JS Partisan says:

    You don’t have a hate on but you write that post? Really? Really? Really?

    Yes, we have seen the Technovore, the Beta Ray Bill aliens, and these heroes team up before. Yep, this happens every Wednesday at the Kiwanis Club over on Fourth Street.

  45. KrazyEyes says:

    I have no idea what you’re referring to since I’m not a comics guy — but then again neither is the general moviegoing public. What I know about Marvel characters I know from the recent movies I’ve seen — and I feel like I’ve seen enough. Maybe Marvel shot their wad too early?

    Same reason I no longer feel the need to see zombie films.

  46. storymark says:

    Teaming up characters from various films is unique – but that’s about it – and I say that as someone frothing at the mouth to see it. Otherwise, we’ve seen it. Not that species of alien, or whatever *specific* technobeastie – but those are details that only matter to the hard-core – the general audience doesn’t give a flip. We’ve all seen alien hordes and city-killing machines now. Nothing new there.

    Really, this being a Whedon flick – I am far less interested in the action beats than I am the characters and story.

  47. JS Partisan says:

    Outside of the THOR, HULK, AND DAREDEVIL TV movies, heroes uniting on screen is a really unique thing. Downplaying it in any context ignores how absolutely staggering it is that an AVENGERS MOVIE exist and that it’s a LIVE ACTION SUPERHERO TEAM MOVIE.

    That’s in caps because downplaying it, or comparing it to the other Marvel movies is weak sauce. It’s absolutely weak sauce and if they don’t appeal to you (Not you Story), fine, but you’re basically treating something that’s Zonda like a Fiat. Which is just silly.

    Now onto the general public, none of us here are the general public and assuming what they do or do not care about, ignores we are all on a movie blog. Something only the hardest of the hardcore use.

    It also assumes that the general public are all surface and don’t give a shit about details. This is put to bed by LOST, Game of Thrones, and countless other movies and TV shows where people seem to give a shit about the details. People usually know, mostly kids know what this is all about, and the kids will probably be the largest quadrant to see this film. You get the kids, they drag their parents, and there’s your money.

  48. anghus says:

    The avengers transcend the comics because the characters have been out therr for so many years in other mediums. Television, video games, action figures, etc.

    Green Lantern tanked because it only had the comic component. There hasnt been four decades of Green Lantern existing outside the printed page. Plus the movie was shit.

    The main marvel characters are so interwoven into the fabric of pop culture that they are far more than just comic book characters. Every prognosticator wants to take the Iron Man movies, Captain America, and Thor movies add the box office and divide by three to compose the projected domestic total. But this movie is the first to weave together properties for an event film other than horror stuff like AvP and FreddyvJason.

    Lets just say 100 million opening 300 million domestic is the floor.

    Even the most conservative prognisticator should be smart enough to see that

  49. storymark says:

    There was some incarnation of Green Lantern on TV for the majority of the last couple decades, in animated form, at least. Really, the character had at least as much media exposure as Iron Man did before the first movie.

  50. anghus says:

    Id disagree. Green Lantern never had his own show. He was regularly featured in the JLA cartoon but he was black and not even the same character the movie was based on. Iron Man had his own cartoon show in the 90s and a toy line.

    The toy line thing cant be overlooked because Marvel in the 90s came out of bankruptcy thanks to the toy division which spent the 90s and 2000s pumping out marvel heroes in the marketplace for kids to buy. dc got to the game much later.

    Those little articulated pieces of plastic are the kind of intangible that makes iron man far more recognizable than Green Lantern.

  51. JS Partisan says:

    Anghus making those arguments is trippy as hell. Also, this may be splitting hairs Story, but the Green Lantern Logo has probably had more recognition over the years than The Green Lantern or Lanterns themselves.

  52. anghus says:

    Js, ive been a comic book reader for thirty years. Ive been attending conventions for twenty. Ive been working in the industry for ten.

    Just because i dont have a massive orgasm over every comic to film adaptation doesnt mean i lack an inherent understanding of the properties.

    And in truth Marvel has done a far better job merchandising their brand over the years. DC has never been able to get anything going other than Batman and to a lesser extent Superman. Except for some Vertigo properties which are rarely successful due to the popularity of the source material.

  53. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Avengers looks like Fantastic Four to me and I’m wagering that’s the same feeling the majority of people seeing the trailers feel.
    It’s either your thing or not.
    It’ll do well but people like JS will be crying in their milk come monday.

    $300m the floor! LOL

  54. JS Partisan says:

    Anghus, I did not intend to cast any aspersions your way. Why you and others like to give me shit for being excited by film. This is one of the few times you’ve done this, so I do find it very trippy.

    Lady, you thinking you can speak for the vast amount of people is pretty fucking hilarious, and if you think this looks like either Fantastic Four movie, then you’re really not paying attention. Now, if you are going on about crying into milk, did you forget I WON? That’s right. I WON. You and others doubted the shit out of the Avengers even being made and guess fucking what? THEY FILMED IT, THEY DID POST ON IT, AND IT EVEN HAS A FUCKING SOUNDTRACK!

    Again, I (and any other Marvel fan who got very excited when they saw Nick Fury at the end of Iron Man) win. Not you. Not on this one.

  55. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    I never doubted the greed of Hollywood JSP. What are you talking about? They’ll keep making this junk til everyone regresses to toddlers. We’re halfway there already.

    I get a kick that you love this stuff with a passion that borders on a disability and I would never try to rob you of your simple pleasures in life. It’s not for me, I can’t watch men in tights unless it’s interesting fare like “Super”. You love the film before its released. You’ll love it when its released. Then you’ll love the sequel.

    Unfortunately it is my belief when films like this rule the boxoffice there are no winners.

    We are all losers.

  56. anghus says:

    Im not saying the ceilings going to be significantly higher than 300, but i dont see it making less than that.

    If it does then the entire marvel plan will be considered a monumental failure.

  57. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    The Avengers is no TDK.
    Most people with pubic hair aren’t that interested by it.
    It’s just another generic superhero film. TDK had cross over appeal. It looked like a Sidney Lumet film. Whereas Avengers looks like Fantastic Four no matter what JSP says.
    Marvel should be happy if it gets to 300.
    It would be loopy to call it a monumental failure if it does 299 dom and 700 WW.

  58. Don R. Lewis says:

    I’m really excited for CABIN IN THE WOODS and have even managed to avoid spoilers which is difficult to say the least. But is there anyway this film does well? The trailers aren’t good at insinuating the films anything more than people in a cabin in the woods and the target audience is well, well aware of the film but I don’t think they account for much financially.

  59. Triple Option says:

    I saw a sign up at the theater over the weekend announcing that they were already pre-selling Avengers. I’d actually happily see a Thurs/Fri midnight showing. I’m not buying a movie ticket one month before airing. Sorry, even for the atmosphere of it all, there’s no way I’m doing that out of principle.

    What Marvel et al has been pushing is that Avengers is the end all/be all (until the sequel) for years now. If they don’t clear $100M opening w/e, it’ll be the most over analyzed film since the FBI released the Zeputer footage. Still, it’s not too hard for me to see why people could be skeptical of its performance. There’s burn out, doubt of seeing anything really new. You’ve already seen origins on all these guys, so that’s out. It lends itself to a sort of “we’ve got to make the stakes super high,” like they did in the latest Supes, and then you got some dude flying around lugging a gigantic land mass and it’s such a yawn inducer you wonder if they didn’t strap a hose to tailpipe of a ’63 Buick and feed it into the theater.

    I know it’s highly front loaded but I’m really more curious for what the week to week holds will be and where it tops out domestically. I’m sure the spin will be that $280M in North Am will be just fine and in line w/expectations but I’d think you’d have to question the overall effort if it doesn’t clear $320M. I think they’ve done a sufficient job getting the message that this is the superhero movie one needs to see in order to feel complete, like they do in selling watches or handbags or sport shoes. This isn’t like shooting Denzel or Streep where all you have to do is mount up the camera and you’re pretty much guaranteed a 3 out of 5 star movie. Quality compared to expectation is on the LeBron rookie year level. I don’t know if Meh will be good enough. Maybe for $275M but I think people will call that failure. Personally, as I’ve stated before, I don’t think Marvel has anyone to blame for an unreasonably high bar but themselves.

  60. Ray Pride says:

    There’s a commercial that started running a couple weeks back that indicates something more than the cabin is afoot… I was startled at first, but then realized it was a canny cut: implying lots but telling nothing. Other commercials may be different…

  61. Jeffrey Boam's Doctor says:

    Just found out I’m seeing Avengers in a few days so will report back.

    Triple.. Zeputer footage? Please tell me that was auto-correct or has our education system really failed us.

  62. JS Partisan says:

    You can get behind ludicrous stuff like Super but the Avengers, you know modern myths that have basis all the way back to BEOWULF, do nothing for you? Wow. That’s goofy. Super is crap by the way. Well made crap but crap.

    That aside, really with giving me crap about my taste in movies? I enjoy these stories because they are the stories humans constantly have told through our existence. If you are too good for them then wow, you are a woman whose not into geek stuff. Shocking.

    The point remains that you folks in here do not get excited for anything as excited as I do. My demonstrative take on things gets me shit on but lady, unlike you, I CAN LIKE ALMOST ANY KIND OF MOVIE! I have a large and extensive DVD/BD collection and that doesn’t come from only liking one kind of film. I love film, I live for film, and it’s something that moves my soul and you, some absolutely bitchy asshole is giving me shit about my taste of film and being excited about it? Get the fuck out of here with that nonsense.

    Now, you getting a kick out of me as if I am a simpleton, is pretty fucking insulting. Luckily this sort of simplistic insight is coming from you. A woman who either works in or around the industry and decides to post on a blog as a man, with a nick that goofs on a guy who died. If someone of your high and moral character finds me to be an idiot, then I really don’t give a shit. You are more of a character on her than Lex but at least he comes across as being human being. A sad, drunk, and pissy human being but a human being nonethesless. You come across as a woman trying too hard to fit in.

    ETA: When films like Super win, who are the winners? The folks who like to watch an uneven movie with an absolutely stupid ending? Is that winning for you?

  63. Triple Option says:

    MS Word, and the darn site isn’t letting me go back to fix it! I am to blame though for just typing, copying and hitting submit comment w/out checking.

  64. Don R. Lewis says:

    To be fair, I’ve been physically looking away or turning the channel when new CABIN IN THE WOODS trailers come on so it’s totally possible they’ve stepped up the ad game. But probably not.

  65. Ray Pride says:

    DRL: I wrote up an interview with Whedon where I went to the edge of what’s shown in the commercials. But in general, yes, look away. Look away!

  66. christian says:

    “I love film, I live for film”

    Except for horror films, which are all shit! Sorry Lang, Murnau, Hitchcock, Lewton, Wise, Bava, Fellini, Romero, Carpenter, Demme, etc. al.

  67. JS Partisan says:

    Yeah I have never written that Christian and why don’t you put Eli Roth on that list? You know you wanna. YOU KNOW YOU DO :P! Yeah those are some all-time great directors and you really jumped to the assumption, the asinine fucking assumption, that I don’t like them? Do you need everything spelled out for you? Here let me spell it out for you: 21st C-E-N-T-U-R-Y-H-O-R-R-O-R-S-U-C-K-S!

    You horror fans will probably eat up Cabin in the Woods. Whedon and Drew have seemingly take shit up a notch, so hopefully horror fans embrace it. Why do I care? Anything that makes Joss money makes me as a fan of Joss happy.

  68. anghus says:

    When i say 300 million, im not talking about some contractually obliogated benchmark. They’d be fine with 299, 298, probably down to 285. As long as the international is in the 400 – 500 million range. Here’s some numbers.

    Iron Man Par. $318,412,101
    Iron Man 2 Par. $312,433,331
    Thor Par. $181,030,624
    Captain America: The First Avenger Par. $176,654,505

    So to project less than 300 million would be to assume it will do less than the first two Iron Man films. I think marketing to Tony Stak/Iron Man is the safe bet because then the 300 million seems very attainable.

    What are the reasons it wouldn’t hit 300?

    1. Too many characters.

    Maybe. There really aren’t any precedents for this. Someone mentioned Fantastic Four. There were no stars in FF. I could see that if we didn’t have RDJ anchoring the whole thing.

    2. Too geeky for mainstream audiences

    Maybe. It does look very spandexy in the ads. Tht didn’t hurt Captain America, however Cap didn’t break 200 million, so point taken.

    3. The film is terrible

    It didn’t hurt Iron Man 2.

    4. The absence of a big villain

    Here’s where i see the decay and could forsee a scenario where The Avengers falls flat. Right now you have all the ads pointing to Loki as the villain. Thor was a hit but it wasn’t a massive huge out of the ball park hit. There’s a reliance in the marketing to focus on the alien armada attacking earth. Though without a central villain that gets people excited it may be a tough sell. The first Iron Man was marketed all on RDJ. The second had Mickey Rourke which stoked all sorts of interest from a tabloid obsessed media. Thor didn’t really market heavily on the heavy. Captain America gave us a lot of The Red Skull ahead of time.

    It always feels like these movies do better when you have a notable villain with some kind of face value. Obviously i’m going to go with Ledger in DKR. But even something as simple as Green Goblin in Spiderman being played by Dafoe. This only helps the movie and the marketing. Maybe because Avengers has so many recognizable faces in the hero camp they felt like the villain thing was less important. I don’t know. I can see people unfamiliar with the properties watching the commercials and wondering “Who’s the British fop RDJ is talking to about The Hulk”

    I think they’ve done a good job in the marketing of focusing on the heroes joining forces, but they haven’t done a great job of selling the villains. THey keep going back to shots of Hulk smacking ships in mid air and a giant serpent chasing Iron Man. It’s not very different from Battleship’s generic alien robots blowing shit up.

    But i know that the villain is as important to a comic property as the hero. That could be the one thing the Avengers is lacking, unless there’s a mystery second villain that they roll out in the advertising after the first weekend…

    So i still say 300 is a lock. If i’m wrong i will readily admit it.

    Since we don’t have a film like Avengers to compare it with, this is kind of a precident setting movie with no modern comparisons. I’m betting high. I think betting low is a mistake.

    Then again, when i said Cars wouldn’t pass $200 million last year i was told i was insane.

  69. JS Partisan says:

    Two things:

    1) Yeah sorry for thinking you were insane with Cars 2. You were right.

    2) I am not sure a team movie like this needs a strong villain. What they need and appear to have tapped into, is the natural antagonism that comes when different people become a team. The future films will probably need a strong villain with a bad ass pimp glove hand. Right now, the antagonism can come from within instead of without.

  70. Oddvark says:

    Just a quick comment on the chart re the studio that released THG — I read somewhere that it’s been one word for over 5 years already.

  71. anghus says:

    The villain theory isn’t perfect by any means. Though Spiderman w/ Green Goblin/Dafoe and Dark Knight with Ledger/Joker were far bigger than lesser known villains like Scarecrow/Ras Al Ghul and Doc Ock/Sandman/Venom.

    THe first Sherlock Holmes lacked a strong notworthy villain. The second had Moriarty and it did less than the original. Not much, but less.

    The first Star Trek had a throwaway villain. It was always assumed that the sequel would bring us a heavier heavy, though that doesn’t seem to be the case either.

    I suppose when it comes to geek properties, does the villain factor into the equation? Does a better villain make for a more successful movie?

  72. JS Partisan says:

    When it comes to Batman, obviously having a villain like the Joker helps the movie. When it comes to a team movie, the villain really doesn’t matter at least in the first film. Sure they have to have a reason to rally, but they are rallying to SAVE THE EARTH more then defeating Loki (which is hint by the Moira Hill scene shown on Letterman the other night). This is why if there is an Avengers 2. They have to have a stronger villain even if it’s a smaller movie, because the conflict of BECOMING A TEAM should be over.

  73. hcat says:

    I would say while almost all superhero and regular action franchises rely on the hero for interest the Batman films are somewhat unique when it comes to selling the villian. They have lived and died, well none have died but some have stumbled, on being able to sell the star (always a bigger name than the guy in the suit) who will be tormenting Bats. The franchise has been sold on ‘Wait till they get a load of me’ ‘MEOW’ ‘Who’s afraid of the big black bat’ and ‘why so serious’. The two lower performers didn’t really have those type of hooks to draw the people in.

  74. Triple Option says:

    I was thinking about the too many characters thing but then I don’t think any of the X-Men films suffered from being too busy. With the Avengers, I’m not sure what people’s expectations are. I’d imagine a heavy female skew to Iron Man/Stark but I’m not sure what the 17 yr old male wants to see of if they really care. Just the enormity of the prospect. I hope they made a movie that’s at least worthy of the label Oscar snub but in wanting to just entertain and draw numbers, it might not be that kind of film.

  75. JS Partisan says:

    Triple, why would you assume that 17 year doesn’t want to see a superhero movie? Just a question.

  76. Triple Option says:

    No, I was saying I don’t know what aspect of Avengers would a 17 yr old find most appealing. Is it The Hulk, Cap America, I somehow doubt Iron Man but maybe. Maybe they like Stark the smartass. Maybe it’s the whole world? Maybe the action or cg? I don’t know the buzz of the geeks of that age vs those who just want to see a good movie.

  77. Windy City says:

    Not to catch JS Partisan’s ire or get into a heated debate, but The Avengers looks like your typical run-of-the-mill sequel. I only say that half-disparagingly because I will be there opening weekend and curious to see what Whedon does with the property. So far it visually looks meh, and the clip of Moira Hill they showed on Letterman the other night was perhaps the dullest, talkiest bit they could’ve found. If you’re going to get the fetching Cobie Smulders out there to sell, don’t showcase her as a walking exposition machine in a unitard.)

    That said, with the exception of three of the main characters (Jackson, Scarlett and Renner) all of these heroes have had their own films. Two of them have already had a sequel under their belts. For most of the non-comic fan audience, this is going to play like a sequel, not some epic Knights of the Round Table gathering decades in the making that’s going to break new cinematic ground. It may do Dark Knight numbers, but it’ll probably do the original Iron Man’s gross plus $30 million domestic. The producers should be pleased with that — a huge opening weekend, a typical sequel drop off and strong international numbers.

    Again, I’m curious to see how it all turns out, but I just don’t see this being a box office phenomenon.

  78. JS Partisan says:

    Windy, that’s your opinion. No need to get pissy at you because of that. I simply disagree with the sentiment that it looks “blah” and that we have seen this before. Having these heroes in there own movies, does not mean we have seen this before and implying that we have is simply not true. We have not seen Tony interact with Steve, Thor interact with Hulk, or Natasha interact with Clint. It’s a completely new thing and treating it as if it’s some rinky dinky sequel to those films, when it’s a unique first time ever SUPERHERO TEAM UP MOVIE!

  79. Wilder says:

    It’d be nice if these directors used the comics as their visual guide -“The Avengers” looks like a lot of spinning CGI that you’ve seen a million times. But I’ll wait and see if they can pull off a superhero team epic.

  80. JS Partisan says:

    BD, if they do what they are doing in the comic right now. It won’t be too bad. Seeing as he’s wearing the new 52 Superman suit in this film. I would imagine we’d get snarky GOLD ERA Superman that’s currently in the comic, whose not for everybody, but he might work a bit more for this era.

    Also, if you don’t like CGI, then you need to build yourself a Time Machine. That way, you can head back 50 years and enjoy that glorious age of practical fx!

  81. Wilder says:

    “Also, if you don’t like CGI, then you need to build yourself a Time Machine. That way, you can head back 50 years and enjoy that glorious age of practical fx!”

    That’s what CGI from two years ago looks like now. Mostly crap.

  82. JS Partisan says:

    Yeah… no. CGI isn’t going anywhere. Why people like you don’t accept this after it’s been the dominate form of FX probably your entire life, is a mystery like how many licks it takes to get to the center of a tootsie roll pop.

  83. Wilder says:

    And that you have no concept of subtlety is not lost on the many. CG auguments fine unless it’s slopped over every frame like G.I. JOE or VAN HELSING or pretty much everything…pick the crap of your choice.

  84. JS Partisan says:

    Oh I have subtlety but when it comes to having proper eyesight, I have you there. Seriously, people who complain about CGI are waging a battle that they have already lost. If you dislike the FX in Van Helsing, dislike the FX. It’s not CGIs fault that the people who made Van Helsing went the wrong way with their FX but no, blame the medium that makes flying cars photo real, makes it look dinosaurs have come back to life, and gives countless TV shows more scope than ever before. It’s so horrible [eye roll].

  85. scooterzz says:

    well, since ‘the avengers’ is screening for the first time in just a few hours i trust we’ll be hearing how bad the cgi is from people who’ve actually seen it by tomorrow….

  86. Wilder says:

    You’re an infant, JS. I see why bad eye candy moves you.

  87. Martin S says:

    Avengers – 125m range opening

    Interest among the YA/teens/tweens/8-12 has ballooned.

    I don’t know the quad appeal, but we’re entering animated territory, with kids+1 parent on the lower demo.

    To kill WOM at this point, flick would have to be real letdown, which we’re going to find out in a few hours, is not the case. While not living up to “what could have been”, it’s nothing Marvel hasn’t heard before.

  88. bulldog68 says:

    I’ll say this about CGI: It’s not the horses under the hood responsible for stupid driving. It’s the ass behind the wheel.

  89. JS Partisan says:

    Wilder, that’s all you got? Why you folks assume that I only like one kind of movie is sort of goofy. Also BD is completely and utterly right: don’t hate the tool. Have a problem with the artists use it wrong. Why people like you cannot separate the tool from the people who use it wrong, is a serious problem in any argument that’s against CGI.

    Oh yeah I love Game of Thrones and Boardwalk Empire and they both use INCREDIBLE amounts of CGI. Do you consider both of those shows bad eye candy? Really?

  90. If I may merely paste what I wrote about The Avengers BO potential on my own site. I know it’s lazy, but it’s relevant to this conversation and it’s easier than just rewording everything…

    The biggest Marvel Comics production opening weekends were both for Iron Man films, with the first debuting with $100 million and the second debuting with $128 million on this very weekend in 2008 and 2010. That was a jump of 28% between sequels, which is actually a bit low in the era of X-Men/Austin Powers/Twilight-style bumps. But even if The Avengers plays like Iron Man 3 *and* bucks the current trend of slightly lower openings for sequels (and three-quels), a 28% bump still ends up with a $163 million debut, which is the best-case scenario. But other than Iron Man, the three other Marvel productions have all opened in the $55-65 million range. Thor and Captain America both debuted with $65 million while The Incredible Hulk opened with $54 million. And while we nerds may enjoy the idea of all of our ‘favorite’ Marvel superheroes together in one film (well, except for Spider-Man, Wolverine, Daredevil, The Thing, Dr. Strange, etc), will the same general moviegoers who thrilled to Tony Stark’s relatively plausible real-world geopolitical adventures flock to a movie where several costumed superheroes fight off an alien invasion?

    Remember, this isn’t Transformers, with Michael Bay’s ‘movies for regular guys and jocks!’ mentality or even Jon Favreau’s first Iron Man, which sold ‘respectable’ adult movie stars Robert Downey Jr., Jeff Bridges, and Gwyneth Paltrow in a somewhat politically-relevant, adult-skewing action drama that happened to involve a metal suit. This is Joss Whedon, beloved patron saint of the geeks, delivering a relatively small-scale (lots of bickering, one massive third-act set piece) Comic-Con porn movie of (we hope) the highest-order. This one is strictly for the hardcore fans, but if we look at the box office grosses of the likes of Thor, X-Men: First Class, The Incredible Hulk, and Fantastic Four, the ‘fans’ constitute a box office gross of around $165-185 million. And the ‘regular moviegoers’ who flocked to Transformers 3 but not Thor will have their movie two weeks later with the debut of Peter Berg’s Battleship. That doesn’t mean I honestly think that The Avengers is going to open with $70 million and top out at $190 million. But it does mean that I think the ceiling is capped somewhere along the lines of Iron Man+, so a massively-front-loaded $150 million debut with a finish along the lines of $325 million is both not out of the question and shouldn’t be considered by anyone to be anything resembling a disappointment.

    If I may add to that diatribe…
    And yes, the lack of a audience-pleasing villain played by a known actor may be the thing that stops this from being a true out-of-the-park sensation. But truth be told, Batman is really the only major superhero who has villains that regular audiences know or care about. So yes, there was a ‘gee that’s neat!’ appeal of seeing Danny Devito The Penguin or Jim Carrey as The Riddler. And yes, I think that may hurt The Dark Knight Rises, if only in comparison to The Dark Knight. Anne Hathaway looks gorgeous as Kyle and Catwoman, but it’s not nearly the sell as ‘see Heath Ledger AS The Joker!’ (again, Catwoman is a draw, just not a ‘Joker-sized’ draw). For the record, Sherlock Holmes 2 eventually did out-gross Sherlock Holmes worldwide, although I was genuinely shocked that the addition of Moriarty didn’t goose the numbers initially right out of the gate (although they shot themselves in the foot commercially by not casting a marketable star).

  91. JS Partisan says:

    Scott, Battleship is already sunk. The reviews have already killed it. It will now have to deal with 5 weeks of getting shit on before it opens up in the US and that alone, if Avengers does indeed take off, could have Avengers holding the #1 spot for 3 weeks.

    Also, Martin is on it with the kids. Those Avenger toys have been selling like crazy. You get the little kids to take their parents and that’s a strong opening.

  92. bulldog68 says:

    Is it weird that there are already review for Battleship which opens on the 18th, but none for Avengers which opens on the 4th? Honest question.

    But reviews are a moot point for event films JS. You know that. Transformers 3, which you loathe, sits at 35%. Transformers 2, the highest grossing in the series, sits at 20%. So the fact that Battleship currently sits at 47%, which I’m sure will dip lower, does not tell you anything about its box office prospects.

    In fact I would argue that reviews may be more important to Avengers than Battleship, as reviewers have more direct comparisons for this movie. Ironically, the bar is set higher for Avengers, as in my belief, comic book movies have gotten better, and Thor and Captain America, was for the most part well received. Nobody I know expects great things from Battleship, so if it’s not as bad as people think it might be, it wins. And if Avengers is not the box office behemoth you expect it to be, it wins, and if people keep saying the reason they hated Transformers was because of all the disgusting attempts at comedy, but the action was way cool, and this looks like Transformers without the parts they didn’t like, Battleship wins.

    To make a long story short, review..shmeviews.

  93. Martin S says:

    so a massively-front-loaded $150 million debut with a finish along the lines of $325 million is both not out of the question and shouldn’t be considered by anyone to be anything resembling a disappointment.


    I won’t declare 150 range for another week after WOM starts. There’s potential for some backlash with a property like this, if Whedon & Feige really did play it small scope and all the goodies are in the trailer.

  94. JS Partisan says:

    BD, you are putting your faith in Battleship because of what Trannys 3 did. Referring to Battleship as an event film ignores that it’s not Trannys 3, doesn’t have the caveat of two previously large sequels, and it’s not a Bay film.

    Also, please explain to me where I’ve stated anything definitive about Avengers box office expectations? I’ve been on both ends of the spectrum with it. It could be huge or moderately successful. I’m leaning towards huge because unlike Battleship, it’s a real event film, and it’s also unique. Which could push it over the top. We shall see.

  95. SamLowry says:

    Does John Q. Public actually give a damn about Michael Bay, or do they just go like lemmings to heavily promoted action movies?

    Hell, Fox managed to squeeze $460 mil out of Mr. Public’s pockets over X3 yet I’d be willing to bet that 99% of ticket-buyers have never heard of Brett Ratner.

  96. bulldog68 says:

    I’m not putting any faith in Battleship JS. And lets not have a redux of your Avengers expectations. All I’m saying is Battleship could surprise. Berg with Will Smith invented a superhero to the tune of $227m, with no fanbase or backstory that compares with the Marvel Universe. Numbers that Captain America, Thor, and Hulk did not do.

    The trailers have gotten better. It’s getting that Independence Day type vibe now, and hey, Rihanna is frickin hot. :-)

    I do think Avengers will perform beyond the $180m of the 2010 Marvel movies, but just beyond $300m might be ceiling. Battleship I think might do $250. Surprisingly, here in Vancouver, the chain of theatres called Silvercity had a survey of the most anticipated blockbuster in May/June, and the #1 answer was MIB3. No kidding.

  97. SamLowry says:

    Rihanna, oh my. Does that mean all the damaged girls with no self-esteem will be showing up for this one?

    Pickup opportunities galore!

  98. bulldog68 says:

    It now dawned on me what the connection between Independence Day and Battleship is, African American music artists.

  99. JS Partisan says:

    BD, go use your search function and you will discover that I have been all over the place with the box office for the Avengers. Seriously it’s right there in the weekend box office reports or byobs before and after Hunger Games. Why I can’t change my mind on here is still making me wonder if I am running for political office? If so, how much does it pay and what are the hours?

    Now onto you and Battleship: you’ve been putting faith into Battleship for weeks now. You even defended Trannys 3 :D. Seriously man, those trailers are getting worse, it looks god awful, and the reviews pretty much explain the level of stupid it has going on.

    ETA: Avengers reviews are in… JOSS WHEDON WINS… KICKASSALITY!

  100. Martin S says:

    I don’t understand why they’ve been so coy about admitting this was a remix of Ultimate Avengers. That’s been common knowledge for years.

    Also, we knew the 3D was going to be junk.

    Sounds like the investment in adding to the third act was smart. I’m picking up a vibe from some comments that, if I’m right, will fit what a few people hear have said about Joss.

  101. bulldog68 says:

    There is a nuanced difference in what I defend JS. Part 1 was totally awesome. Part 2 descended into improved effects but the shittiest of scripts. Part 3 had some redemptive qualities and was a step above 2. But it’s talking robots beating the shit out of each other. What do you expect, Shakespeare?

    Most of my defense has been about its box office. Despite the absolute hatred for Part 2, Part 3 still had legs, with its opening weekend making up 27.8% of its total gross. That’s legs. The worst legs of the series but legs that any other blockbuster would kill for.

    At the end of the day JS, I like the spectacle movies, and I know I’ll be lining up for both Avengers and Battleship, and I hope I like em both.

  102. JS Partisan says:

    Hey BD, that’s cool that you like spectacle movies. Different strokes and all, sir :D.

  103. JS Partisan says:

    Oh yeah Martin S: RLD.

  104. storymark says:

    I hate that “what do you expect – Shakespeare” defense of shit scripts.

    No – I don’t expect Shakespeare – I do expect basic compentency, and a story that makes a whit of sense and doesn’t insult my intellegence on several fronts.

  105. cadavra says:

    Story, let’s keep Adam Sandler out of this.

  106. storymark says:

    I try to keep Sandler out of all of my discussions.

  107. anghus says:

    Why do we refer to rihanna, who i believe is from barbados, african american?

    She is neither African nor American.


  108. Triple Option says:

    While I’m a bit afraid of where this discussion may go, I’d put forth that African can refer to the African Diaspora. Probably not the most serious reason but no accent means no one’s thinking origin of birth outside the US.

  109. SamLowry says:

    Should I tell the story about my brother’s blond-haired, blue-eyed fratbro who won a scholarship for “African-American” students?

    And as to the running commentary about old CGI, today a roomful of middle-schoolers had no problems with the practical FX in Disney’s ’03 “A Wrinkle in Time”, but the moment a horribly-rendered griffin-like creature appeared the entire room erupted with laughter. It looked awful, like it was rendered on a home PC assembled twenty years ago, and they knew it looked like crap.

  110. Martin S says:

    JS – If the Hulk tv show wasn’t in the pipe, I’d swear they were looking to set up Planet Hulk/WWHulk

  111. bulldog68 says:

    I actually forgot Rihanna is from the Caribbean. My bad. By the way, you know who I think is one of the sexiest Arican Americans out there, CharlIze Theron.

  112. JS Partisan says:

    Martin S, according to Ruffalo, he’s up for a movie and if they can’t put AKA JESSICA JONES on air. I doubt they are going to get a HULK show on the air. Also, HULK is apparently super awesome in Avengers, so Ruffalo better get ready for some motion capture!

  113. SamLowry says:

    …and for those who were wondering, the dude who didn’t have a drop of black blood in his veins was legally able to keep the “African-American” scholarship because his mom was American and his dad was…an Afrikaner.

    So no, Rihanna doesn’t qualify as “African” or “American” yet this guy who looked like a poster-boy for the Hitler Youth does, which is why I’ve always ridiculed the attempt to replace a racial designation with a political one. It only encourages foolishness like the “Cleopatra was black!” meme, spread by those who assume that everyone who ever lived in Africa was black, even those who share a closer kinship to Nikola Tesla than Chris Rock.

  114. SamLowry says:

    (Cleo was Macedonian, Tesla Serbian–kissin’ cousins, in other words–for those who thought I was going insane.)

  115. cadavra says:

    I’ll never forget when STAR TREK: VOYAGER was about to debut, and ENTERTAINMENT TONIGHT actually described his character as the series’ first “African-American Vulcan.”

The Hot Blog

Leonard Klady's Friday Estimates
Friday Screens % Chg Cume
Incredibles 2* 71.4 4410 NEW 71.4
Ocean's 8 5.9 4145 -62% 65.5
Tag 5.4 3382 NEW 5.4
Solo: A Star Wars Story 2.3 3182 -44% 186.1
Deadpool 2 2.3 3212 -40% 288.2
Hereditary 2.2 2998 -57% 22.3
Superfly 1.8 2220 NEW 4
Avengers: Infinity War 1.4 2164 -24% 660.3
Adrift 0.65 1929 -57% 25.4
Gotti 0.6 503 NEW 0.6
* includes Thursday opening
Also Debuting
Race 3 0.59 313
Sammohanam 0.1 121
Naa Nuvve 15,100 118
Eating Animals 12,200 2
7 Din Mohabbat In 8,900 31
Outez-moi d'un doute 2,900 11
Five Seasons: Gardens of Piet Oudolf 2,200 4
The Yellow Birds 2,000 14
The Year of Spectacular Men 1,800 11
Straight Into a Storm 1,800 1
Gabriel and the Mountain 1,500 2
3-Day Estimates Weekend % Chg Cume
No Good Dead 24.4 (11,230) NEW 24.4
Dolphin Tale 2 16.6 (4,540) NEW 16.6
Guardians of the Galaxy 7.9 (2,550) -23% 305.8
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 4.8 (1,630) -26% 181.1
The Drop 4.4 (5,480) NEW 4.4
Let's Be Cops 4.3 (1,570) -22% 73
If I Stay 4.0 (1,320) -28% 44.9
The November Man 2.8 (1,030) -36% 22.5
The Giver 2.5 (1,120) -26% 41.2
The Hundred-Foot Journey 2.5 (1,270) -21% 49.4