Good Job Bob
Member
Avatar had more competition, less screens and it was an original IP without 5 other films that essentially served as marketing pieces for the film.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Wkd Box Office Est. 0511-13 12 - Depp/Burton bask in shadow of Whedon's Avengers
- Thread starter xaosslug
- Start date
- Status
Speedymanic
Banned
And? It was still facing competition from SH and Alvin. factor in the holiday week/weekend, and the fact that Avvy still held the top spot against Alvin especially, is pretty damn amazing.
TA hasn't had to prove its 'legs' or appeal as there's been zero real competition since it released.
And yet with all these amazing advantages, the people with Joss Whedon avatars thought it was going to perform like shit! Interesting!
Good Job Bob
Member
What can I say, I was foolish and didn't take those in account. I let my distaste for Whedon overcome me and I'm so sorry for it.
Speedymanic
Banned
Excuses? Nah, it's pretty obvious there is a perfect storm of sorts. Three weekend of no real competition, for example. Just let that sink in. Three long weeks/weekend of zero real competition.
Pretty much.
As for thinking it would perform poorly, that's understandable considering the hack that was in charge. There's also the little fact that Thor and Cap Am didn't do all that well at the BO, it wasn't that big of a leap to think it wouldn't be a success.
So which is it? Either the movie is surpassing expectations by performing completely opposite to what was expected, or it is performing as expected because the conditions were always there for it to do really well. You can't have it both ways. It seems that you want to be justified for downplaying potential success before it opened, and now you want to be justified in downplaying the actual success it is getting as well.
Avengers doesn't do well -> HAHAHAHA WHEDON SUCKS I KNEW IT WOULD FLOP!
Avengers does really well -> MEH IT'S NOT SO IMPRESSIVE. LOOK AT ALL THESE FACTS!
Seems to me that in this situation, you've crafted enough conditions such that you cannot be "wrong" here, and the movie can never ever be performing far beyond expectation. There will always be an angle to play it down. Is that fair?
BronsonLee
Member
Speedy and Bob teaming up is a nightmare. it's like a Whedon Av Army! 
I hope both of you have the same thoughts about The Dark Knight's box office performance, because it had even less competition than the Avengers, and (despite a crappy Batman and Robin ruining things for a bit) 4 of the 6 Batman films have broken the opening weekend record.
Speedymanic
Banned
I was justified in downplaying its potential success before it released. I was proven wrong and accepted as much. A non issue.
Actual success. I've conceded it's doing well, I'm commenting on the easons for that success. Opened in more screens, retaining most of those screens for nearly 3 weeks after release, 3d tax, no competition.
Bringing these up isn't downplaying its success, it's commenting on why it's doing so well.
sonycowboy
Member
Nope. They're ready for that one... Dat 3D tax
So basically haters going to hate?
The Anti-Monitor
Banned
It really is incredible that so many people refuse to see why, with superheroes being kind of a big deal in movie-dom lately, a movie with so many of them would do gangbusters. Especially after it turned out it was so fucking fun.
Good Job Bob
Member
Lets put it this way: Nolan is more responsible for the success of his series of Batman films than Whedon is for Avengers.
Nolan has shown to be a box office drawer with Inception, an original Sci-Fi IP that grossed over 800+ M WW; Whedon has had several flops.
I think at this point, "doing well" is a huge understatement for a film which has a RT score of 93%, and audience score of 96%, and is going to end up being the #3 film of all time domestic and worldwide. Regardless of your personal thoughts on the film, the fact is that it attained HUGE mainstream appeal internationally, and is well-liked by critics and movie-goers alike.
Whedon has owned every single doubter there is.
Whedon has owned every single doubter there is.
sonycowboy
Member
You're leaving out one of the other most important factor in a movie's performance. Do ANY of those matter if it wasn't a great movie? This was a fantastic movie, so bringing up every reason why it's succeeding but that is coming off as sour grapes...
It's almost like in your guys' minds that you simply can't process it doing that well, so you search for any reason that gels with your (months in advance predetermined) view of this movie as being meh.
Plus the secondary gift of watching people craft crazy reasons why it isn't a success for him.
They're basically rewriting Avatar's cakewalk run in the theaters to suit their agenda, so yeah, haters going to hate.
Only reason Avenger's is doing so well is because people like it and are telling their friends. Take away that and Whedon wouldn't have shit.
Good Job Bob
Member
Ring me when an original IP from Whedon makes even a quarter of Inceptions WW gross, I'll be impressed then.
Except he has only had 2 movies directed, 1 being avengers. But it wont matter, youll just come up with another reason to hate.
Shitty comparison and you know it.
Inception came after Nolan hit it big. I doubt he gets the budget to pull of Inception and the fame to have it succeed (from the creator of the Dark Knight!) without his breakthrough hit.
Let's wait till Whedon gets his own vehicle after the success of the Avengers. If he falls on his ass, then you can peddle this talking point.
Phoenician_Viking
Banned
Seriously. These kind of excuses get old. If the movie was not good, 3D or no 3D, The Avengers would have flopped. The Avengers is legitimately good movie and people should stop making excuses for its success.
Speedymanic
Banned
My saying it's 'Doing well' isn't an understatement. I apologize I didn't use more hyperbolic language to describe its success but my intention wasn't to understate its success.
As for owning all the doubters, have to disagree. He's owned people who thought TA wouldn't do well, but he hasn't owned those who think he's a hack. Let's see how well he does when he's not a leash or working on a very controlled property.
One success doesn't overwrite all the shite he's done over the years.
But I don't even like Whedon's original stuff. Why would I care about that. I always believed that Avengers would turn out well though, because of the power of Marvel Studios. That is where you and I differ. I love Avengers and everything Marvel Studios stands for, while you just hated Whedon.
Let's stop all this fussing and fighting and join forces against out common enemy. Battleship.
Battleship's midnight numbers are not only lower than John Carter's numbers from March but even lower than Dark Shadow's from a week ago!
The desperation coming from the studio has already begun. It's been said before but Battleship is Universal's most expensive film EVER. And Comcast are going to be so ready to shoulder the kind of write off that Disney did with John Carter.
Deadline is reporting....
http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/dic...art-international-box-office-begins-stronger/
Anti geek? Anti midnight? If I didn't know better I'd swear that Universal were hoping that rednecks make this a hit. A sound business strategy if ever there was one.
Battleship's midnight numbers are not only lower than John Carter's numbers from March but even lower than Dark Shadow's from a week ago!
The desperation coming from the studio has already begun. It's been said before but Battleship is Universal's most expensive film EVER. And Comcast are going to be so ready to shoulder the kind of write off that Disney did with John Carter.
Deadline is reporting....
http://www.deadline.com/2012/05/dic...art-international-box-office-begins-stronger/
Anti geek? Anti midnight? If I didn't know better I'd swear that Universal were hoping that rednecks make this a hit. A sound business strategy if ever there was one.
Good Job Bob
Member
I doubt Whedon directing 'The Avengers' is going to be a pull-in for people; Nolan's bat films are the work of someone with a vision, Avengers is the work of a studio's vision.
I agree that Marvel Studios orchestrated the success of Avengers masterfully and they should be applauded for such brilliance.But I don't even like Whedon's original stuff. Why would I care about that. I always believed that Avengers would turn out well though, because of the power of Marvel Studios. That is where you and I differ. I love Avengers and everything Marvel Studios stands for, while you just hated Whedon.
Speedymanic
Banned
Are we really? I don't think so.
sonycowboy
Member
Don't even need to go there. Avatar blew away records and had such incredible legs that from a box office perspective, you can't have anything but the utmost respect for it's performance... It's so far and away ahead of Titanic it's not funny and Titanic is even farther ahead of everything else...
Avatar did $760M freaking dollars 3 years ago... It did $2B overseas, that's with a B.
You can't downplay Avatar, Titanic, or now the Avengers (domestically) or any movies that blow away records at the scale with which these movies have done so. You just can't fabricate enough justification in the world when dozens/hundreds of other movies over time have had similar advantages.
Lol. No kidding.
All I keep seeing is "Nolan, Nolan, TDK, fap fap fap, TDK, Nolan, fap fap, Avengers sucks, Whedon sucks, fap fap, Nolan is god."
Good Job Bob
Member
My very first post in the last BO thread stated something along those lines.
The goalpost hasn't been moved.
Well, honestly, who would have thunk it? I wouldn't blame Universal for not believing and going with more typical military vs aliens blockbusters.
Scott Pilgram vs the World was only two years ago, got raves from critics, had a built in audience, and bob-ombed at the box office.
The Anti-Monitor
Banned
I think the Whedon haers are thinking way more about Whedon than anyone else. People just went to see The Avengers because they wanted to see The Avengers. Not Whedon's vision. For most of us, this movie owes most of it to Marvel Studios. Whedon simply did a good job but nobody will think about him when thinking of the movie.
Good Job Bob
Member
Exactly what I've been trying to say.
Busty, I hate to break it to you, but no one gives a fuck about Battleship.
That's why it's going to sink. It's not even interesting enough to talk about or discuss.
Bless you Sir. Bless you.
*hugs latop*
My work here is done.
sonycowboy
Member
Busty, I hate to break it to you, but no one gives a fuck about Battleship.
That's why it's going to sink. It's not even interesting enough to talk about or discuss.
I'd be careful there. It did pretty solid overseas and has HUGE marketing behind it. It's midnight numbers were horrible, but that's no guarantee it won't do significant money this weekend. It's probably got as good a chance to go over 40-45M as it does to perform under that.
Never discount the ability for bad movies to do well because of marketing/eye candy, and folks who just like to see "shit get blown up" (aka Bay'ers)
The Anti-Monitor
Banned
Then what's up with all the excuses? I really don't get it.
The Avengers made a fuckton of money because a big superhero crossover event is something that has never happened on the big screen before, Marvel has known how to set it up, and as such people have reasonably and understandably wanted to see this. The fact the movie is actually good and enjoyable has just helped.
Good Job Bob
Member
Dude, yes; you're hitting the nail on the head here.
John Carter also made 200 million overseas.
Battleship opened last month when there was literally nothing else to watch. I really don't consider the 215 million it has made so far to be solid at all, considering the budget of the film and the amount of marketing they've done for it.
Jesus christ, did you know what you just re-ignited? Good job bob is gonna pounce on it. Edit: NVM. I see that he jumped on it like fly on shit.
Exactly where he deserves credit for. The first good Marvel movie. Its the only one I didn't walk out of thinking about how limp dick the backhalf of the flick was. Instead it got better!
But Marvel spent the last 4-5 years building up for this event and it was the first time ever something like this happened on screen. This isn't like Cameron busting in with a new IP(Yes, We know the story is a reharsh), and crushing everything worldwide. With an impressive line up of hit after hit. Its definitely a studio event, but he made it as good as it was. Without a doubt. Which is why its going to continue to have solid legs.
I think this is still interesting that Disney did a 200mil write off the flick. Even though it made something like 275mil Worldwide. It shows how much studios need to make for their flicks to even hit the blackJohn Carter also made 200 million overseas.
The Avengers was all about how the characters interact with each other, and what makes each of them work. I think you are glossing over that point because the Avengers didn't try to be high concept or thought provoking like a Nolan film. Joss understands how these characters work and why they work. If that was such an easy feat, why has reaction to the hollywood version of the Hulk been so luke warm until this film? Before any of these comic movies debuted, the Hulk was probably the fourth most popular mainstream superhero after Superman, Batman and Spider-man, yet two directors couldn't make him work in a way that connected with audiences.
Also, as an aside, it's funny to see everyone downplaying the Avengers' success when 3N16MA's joke prediction that the domestic totals of Iron Man 2 + Captain America + Thor + Incredible hulk = the domestic total of The Avengers will end up being closer to reality than any of the people who were predicting a $250M finish.
Good Job Bob
Member
Yes, Joss made everything work great --- which is awesome, but audiences don't get attached to directors just because they make a studios vision work, they get attached when that director has a unique vision.
The Anti-Monitor
Banned
Must be because I usually skip MovieGAF threads due to how hard to argue with a good chunk of them and their Nolan fap obsession (already tried, gave up on it), but I don't see why. The Avengers is both a good and succesful movie, one is owed mostly to Whedon and the other mostly to the fact it's the fucking Avengers on screen.
Directors don't have the enormous audience pull so much people seem to believe. The Avengers made those crazy opening numbers because fucking Avengers man, and if it's still going strong is because the movie is good, which is credit to both Marvel for providing a good source material and Whedon for doing something good with it.
And I'm not a dude.
What?! If you're not a dude what could you possibly be?!
sonycowboy
Member
In one day, Avengers passed 3 Disney movies on the all-time worldwide charts to now land at #6
It also passed PotC:On Stranger Tides yesterday.
It will be #4 on Monday:
1) Avatar $2,782.3M
2) Titanic $2,183.5M
3) HP 7.5 $1,328.1M
4) Avengers ??? (currently $1,071M)
5) Transformers: DotM $1,123.7
6) LOTR: RotK $1,119.9
Gitesh said:
ERC said:
It also passed PotC:On Stranger Tides yesterday.
It will be #4 on Monday:
1) Avatar $2,782.3M
2) Titanic $2,183.5M
3) HP 7.5 $1,328.1M
4) Avengers ??? (currently $1,071M)
5) Transformers: DotM $1,123.7
6) LOTR: RotK $1,119.9
My "he jumped on it like fly on shit" was referring to how Good Job Bob pounced on your inferring to how the avengers was successful mostly due to it being avengers and not joss whedon's workmanship. He has been parading that notion like a crusade. No offense was meant towards you.
vicissitudes
Banned
I get it! Either Whedon is a total hack and has nothing to do with the success of the Avengers, or Whedon is a visionary in the company of Cameron, Nolan, and Spielberg who single-handedly carried this film to box office records! There is no in-between! Absolutely no way that both Marvel and Whedon contributed to the film's success!
- Status