MCN Blogs
David Poland

By David Poland poland@moviecitynews.com

Meaningless Stat Of The Day

Iron Man 2‘s “actual” is $128.1m.
About a 4% variation from the studio estimate on Sunday morning.
Not enough for competing studios to complain about. A little less thrilling for Disney and Paramount… but still the same kind of okay-against-expectations start.

Be Sociable, Share!

104 Responses to “Meaningless Stat Of The Day”

  1. Telemachos says:

    That’s a pretty major overestimation, no matter how you slice it. (Off the top of my head, ATTACK OF THE CLONES was over-estimated by $6-7 million or so, and SCREAM 2 (3?) was over-estimated by $9 million). Most of the time the studios get it pretty right, or if they’re off by more than a couple million, it’s often because they under-estimated. I guess Paramount really wanted that $130m+ headline. Remember, they’re also the studio that hilariously had the mysterious “Puerto Rico” grosses to retro-actively push TRANSFORMERS 2 over the $200m/5-day mark.
    Not that it really means that much, this time around… except to show that IM2 is even weaker than estimates (which were a bit soft to begin with).

  2. I read somewhere else someone (H-E?)lamenting the fact IM2 wasn’t more of a cliffhanger type of film like “Empire Strikes Back” and I kind of felt the same. But what bugged me more is that it’s a pretty obvious attempt to pimp the “Avengers” movie and the 2 new “Avengers” films that’ll hit next summer. I don’t like it.
    It feels like synergy directed towards ONE tentpole film and reminds me of the WWE in the way they’re taking these characters and revving them up for a big PPV. but in the case of “Iron Man” and “The Avengers,” I don’t think it’ll work.
    “The Avengers” will do the same money as “Iron Man” if it’s lucky and I expect the other “Avengers” movies to not do nearly as well as “Iron Man.” So, what’s the point of building towards this big team film? It’s ONE film that’ll hit summer after next and then that’s it. I don’t see it being as popular as the “X-Men” movies either.

  3. LexG says:

    LESLIE BIBB. HOTTTT.
    If anyone likes hot chicks, such a good variety of flavors in IM2: Johansson, Paltrow, Kate Mara, BIBB POWER, Olivia Munn (More like Olivia YUMM.)
    GOOD MOVIE.

  4. IOv2 says:

    Don, your ppv analogy if it were not for the fact that they are building a universe. They are not pimping the other two films as much as stating they are connected to this film in the same way the Incredible Hulk is connected to it.
    I also find it a bit incredulous that some people enjoy the cross promotion in the first film then rail against it in this film. Seriously, how does that even work? This film is a part of the Marvel Universe. If that does not work for you then it does not work for you, but I doubt it does not work for everyone.
    Leaving me with the impression that Thor and Cap will do alright next year. If they do as well as Iron Man and Iron Man 2, that’s doing pretty damn well. If you assume they do as well as those two films then it’s not too far of a leap to assume that the Avengers should do slightly a bit more money. Why? Think about it.

  5. jeffmcm says:

    IOI, what would the Avengers movie (or Thor, or Captain America) have to do to make you not completely love them unquestioningly?

  6. Hopscotch says:

    Being $6M off the Sunday prediction to actual isn’t nothing, with all due respect.
    And why did you put the word actual in quotes?? $128M is how much it grossed. That would be like..
    It’s a “fact” that Twilight: New Moon grossed more opening weekend than Iron Man 2.
    Or
    President Obama “vetoed” a bill.
    Iron Man 2 will make less than Iron Man. I’m calling that today, and be happy to point out if I’m proven wrong.

  7. Hopscotch says:

    Clarify – will gross less domestic, or less than $318M.

  8. Geoff says:

    BANKSY POWER!
    Saw Exit Through the Gift Shop, today, and it is the movie of the year, so far – most purely entertaining doc I have seen Touching the Void.
    Just a kick-ass, funny movie that makes the wittiest use of silhouetted, voice-box talking head that I have ever seen. So glad I did not know much about it in advance, because the last 20 minutes are a fantastic punchline to a joke that I did not see coming. Fantastic movie!

  9. IOv2 says:

    What does that even mean Jeff? You have no idea what I feel or think about this or any film. Please look into your own neuroses and stop worrying or wondering about me. It would be appreciated.
    I will answer your question any way because it’s so condescending that it requires a ridiculous answer. What would they have to do? Have Cap make weird racial statements, turn Valkyrie into an under-age teenage nympho, and have Hulk wear a tutu.

  10. David Poland says:

    Hopscotch… a 4% variation on the ESTIMATE is not a problem on any level. The media treating these estimates as facts on Sunday afternoon, is the problem. It’s almost as stupid as projecting the whole weekend based on Friday’s east coast matinees.
    I have pointed out for many years, anything less than 10% off on the weekend estimate doesn’t draw fire from the other studios… unless there is a hard fight for #1 going on.
    As for the final domestic total on IM2, if it goes down the Spider-Man 3 road, it won’t even it $300m domestic. But in that same scenario, foreign was up by a full third, making Spidey 3 the biggest grosser of the series worldwide. So extending the notion, IM2 could gross under $300m at home and still gross $640m worldwide, beating the first film by over $50 million.
    And “actuals” have a little give… less now than in the past… but they are what goes in the books.

  11. jeffmcm says:

    IOI, what my comment meant is that I believe you are prone to irrational exuberance on the subject of superhero/similar type movies – and more importantly, that you don’t do a good job at all of dealing with people who don’t share your beliefs.

  12. IOv2 says:

    You really need to start looking the mirror before you cast aspersions, Jeff. You also have some fixation on me that would make me a bit nervous, if I were prone to being nervous of such rather odd ginger people.

  13. NickF says:

    With the much lower than expected estimates, this kind of news must be very disappointing for Paramount.
    The cross-promotion in the first one was very light and rather inconsequential. The Sam Jackson cameo was after the credits, most people didn’t see it, wouldn’t know about it and didn’t change the flow of the movie, so I can’t fault it.
    What happened with The Incredible Hulk is a whole other story. The ending which could have been one good thing about the movie had Bruce Banner seemingly been able to control the Hulk rage. The movie should have ended with the closeup on his eyes and the credits begin to roll. Instead because of this Avengers universe BS, we get that scene fading into and Downey showing up and telling us about the Avenger initiative. It was such bullshit to tack that on to the ending. I’m still pissed about it and I don’t even like the movie.

  14. jeffmcm says:

    IOI, I don’t know why you think I’m ‘ginger’. My hair is dark brown with an increasing amount of grey.

  15. EthanG says:

    David-Absurd post, absurd discussion, way to get caught up in a Finke-like spin cycle. Im going to start calling you DF if posts like this crap become regular.
    As said before, this weekend (because last Friday was April 30) properly matches up against the SECOND weekend of May…Star Trek exceeded expectations in the frame at just 79 million last year.. and the second weekend in May destroyed Speed Racer, 28 Weeks Later, Lindsay Lohan and Larry the Cable Guys’ careers, and Poseidon in just the last few years. Because this weekend=college finals. Did anyone notice the stat that 60% of Iron Man 2’s audience is over 25 years old? Yes, it’s an older skewing superhero franchise…but not that old skewing. Anyone who has kids in college knows they have finals right now…and also knows most college kids on the East Coast had finals on Saturday due to the snow storms earlier this year. This is why studios always try to avoid the 2nd weekend of May and the weekend before Christmas in December.
    Last time the first weekend in May matched up against college Finals? “Van Helsing” was the release….it came out to ABYSMAL reviews by critics and audiences alike and debuted with mediocre results…but fell a smidge less than 60% the next weekend…and it wasn’t due to word of mouth for the genre flick.
    If Iron Man 2 falls over 52% next weekend I will pull a Werner Herzog and eat my shoe. 47% seems about right.

  16. Telemachos says:

    Ethan, it’s going to be more frontloaded — it’s a sequel. IM1 didn’t even drop 47% its second weekend.
    Plus WOM, while good, is not great. There’s no great rush to see it. If it manages less than a 55% drop, that would be amazing.

  17. bulldog68 says:

    There’s just no way to tell where IM2 will end up right now. Tran2 wasn’t as beloved, was hated by more people and showed some insane legs. Spidey 3 was hated by its core audience, opened big and got its legs kicked out. Wait till week 2, we’ll see where IM2 is going.
    As for my prediction, I’ll wager Hopscotch a beer that this goes past $318M. People love RDJ as Iron man and I just don`t see this imploding a la Twilight New Moon. The lower than estimated weekend figures mean nothing to the bigger picture. I think it`ll squeak past Alice as well.
    Of all the openers above $100M only Twilight, Spidey3 and Xmen3 did not do better than 40% times opening weekend gross. I think IM2 has enough fan and critical goodwill to avoid that kind of drop.

  18. LexG says:

    EthanG, sorry, but that “it’s off because college kids are taking their final” stat is THE “meaningless stat of the day.” At least the weirdest qualifier since whoever posted “don’t release movies opposite the WORLD CUP” two days ago.
    Like ANYONE in America gives a right FUCK about the World Cup or gay-ass SOCCER.
    And as for the college kids? Not buying that AT ALL. Fuck, they release blockbusters on CHRISTMAS DAY not to mention every Friday of the year when you’d THINK school should be in session, and everything STILL always does better on Fridays than it does on Saturday and Sunday.
    Plus college sucks and anyone who goes to one is an idiot.
    COLLEGE: Where hot high school chicks go to get fat.

  19. EthanG says:

    @Telemachos Iron Man 1 didn’t fall on a comparable date. This is an A Cinemascore movie opening on college finals weekend.
    @LexG Yes 10 million college kids taking Saturday finals had NO effect on the box office. Are you joking??? Are you dumb enough to believe the over 25 Iron Man opening weekend exploded from 47% to 62% in two years???? Riggghhttt keep believin

  20. LexG says:

    Ethan, something HUGE opens this past weekend EVERY SUMMER.
    Did FINALS hurt STAR TREK last year?

  21. Joe Leydon says:

    I can state with absolute certainty that at least 35 college kids took a final last Saturday. Of course, I gave that final, and still managed to see Iron Man 2 — in IMAX, with my wife and son — that evening. But still…

  22. LexG says:

    Did I mention here I’m thinking of going for a teaching credential?
    YEP YEP Mr. G. coming this fall. ALL-GIRLS SCHOOL 12TH GRADE AP ENGLISH BABY!

  23. Joe Leydon says:

    Maybe we need a few more “adjustments” such as this to make us as skeptical about Sunday morning “estimates” as we should be.

  24. Telemachos says:

    I find it hard to believe that IM2 was hurt by college kids, proms (heard that on another board) or any other school-related issue. Maybe that affected the Thurs/Fri midnight numbers a bit. But with IM2 opening in a record number of theaters, and basically playing every 20-30 minutes from 10am to midnight for the entire weekend, I can’t imagine anyone who was interested in seeing it wouldn’t be able to because of school (whether high school or college).

  25. EthanG says:

    We’ll see…no matter your opinion it does not make sense that 62% of the people who saw I2 this weekend are over 25 without some mitigating circumstance….can anyone here come up with a plausible one? Did everyone just decide to up their age illegally since summer 2008? Or did all those people under 25 who said they loved the first movie secretly hate it and refuse to see the sequel? This is the statistical logic of the people trying to explain this opening as a failure.
    @LexG yes opening on the 2nd weekend of May hurt Star Trek…you can argue all you want that the reviews made the massive multiplier but the weekend contributed. The highest May summer multiplies always come from the second weekend..period.

  26. IOv2 says:

    Thank you Ethan G for the above.

  27. LexG says:

    EG, Star Trek opened May 8. Iron Man 2 opened May 7.
    You’re REALLY splitting hairs by considering IM2 a “second weekend of May” release a la Speed Racer and Poseidon. You’re nuts, man.

  28. David Poland says:

    EthanG –
    1. Did you actually read the complimentary post… that this should not be made a big deal?
    2. What is absurd? Big, tough words, but what the hell are you on about?
    3. Your theory about comparing a big summer launching sequel to the second weekend in May… huh? So was the opening going to open to $200 million if finals were next week?
    4. You do realize that those stats come from surveys done at a few theaters, right? They aren’t the Ten Commandments, carried down the mountain.
    5. Who said this opening was a failure? A $128 million opening is NOT a failure. But it’s not what Paramount was hoping for either.
    Also… Star Trek was the biggest “2nd weekend of May” opening in history… by 50%. The 2nd weekend hold was completely consistent with the entire run. If people hated the film, yes, 2nd weekend might have hurt. But they got every dime of gross out of that movie that they were ever going to get. If you think that opening was soft… well, good luck with that…
    “did all those people under 25 who said they loved the first movie secretly hate it and refuse to see the sequel?”
    HUH? The opening was 20% higher than the first film. Who are you fighting on this, because it clearly isn’t me?
    Even using your stupid stats, 40% of this opening is $51 million… or 52% of the opening of the first film. So even with your misuse of exit polling, the number for Under 25s would be off maybe 15%, max. And if every single one of you alleged Missing Under 25s turns up this next weekend, it still doesn’t assure the film 40something percent hold.
    No one cares if you eat your shoe. And it’s possible – especially at this lower number – that IM2 drops less than 50%.
    Of the 14 prior $100m openers in history, 5 had 2nd weekend drops of under 50%, and 9 were over. 3 of the 5 had their second weekends on holiday… so even without counting Day 4, they had a big advantage. The other two were Spider-Man and Alice in Wonderland. Not Dark Knight or any of the other films with openings bigger than IM2.
    This second weekend is very soft this year. That works in IM2’s favor. So I’m not saying (and never said) that a decent hold is impossible. But if you are wrong, it will be no shock at all, because history disagrees with you.
    Slow down, son… the numbers are eating your perspective.

  29. Tofu says:

    The $5 million difference signaled one thing to Hollywood, which was sleeping on hopes of IM2 at least beating DMC’s unadjusted opening.
    Now the rallying cry is complete. There is no going back. From the hills you can hear “UNLEASH THE 3D CONVERSIONS.”
    No more money to be left on the road there anymore.

  30. Eric says:

    Even if this past weekend could be considered the second in May– for whatever that’s worth– doesn’t Iron Man 2 benefit from being the first major summer movie of the year? The first blockbuster always opens big. I seem to recall The Mummy (or was it Mummy 2?), Spider-Man, Spider-Man 3, X-Men 2, the first Iron Man… weren’t these all the “start of summer” movies, and didn’t they all get surprisingly big numbers?

  31. The Pope says:

    Speaking of numbers… (weak segue I know)…
    Robin Hood cost $237m.
    Well, so says Sharon Waxman
    http://www.thewrap.com/ind-column/revealed-true-cost-robin-hood-237-million-17202
    She claims to back it up with the neates budget breakdown I have seen since Gulf War One.
    $237m. Yup, that’s what the gal wrote.

  32. Stella's Boy says:

    Even if Robin Hood didn’t cost $237 million, it definitely cost a whole lot of money, more than the original $155 million. The marketing budget has to be huge, too. Does it feel to anyone else like a bomb waiting to happen? Not only is it going up against Iron Man 2’s second weekend, but isn’t it fair to assume that at least some women (either solo or with a significant other dragged along) will see either Letters to Juliet or Just Wright instead?

  33. EthanG says:

    David, posting this feeds into the idea that I2 is somehow disappointing financially whether you agree with it or not, and that you are somehow going against the consensus by disagreeing.
    Yes I realize exit polling isn’t monolithic but it’s clear that this film is skewing MUCH older than the first, and there’s a great explanation.
    And yes LexG that one day does make a difference in scheduling.

  34. When people (like myself) talk about the whole ‘second-weekend of May’ curse, we’re referring to being the second big film of the summer season. Unless you count A Nightmare On Elm Street, then Iron Man 2 was the summer kick-off film and should be judged against other such curtain-raisers. The dreaded number two slot goes to Robin Hood this year, and it should perform accordingly. Star Trek was the exception that proves the rule. For the longest time, I personally thought Paramount was nuts to leave it in that release date, but the reviews and buzz were strong enough to negate the ‘second-movie curse’ (it also helped that everyone hated Wolverine). It’s not the weekend per se, but the idea of having to follow the mega-movie that kicked off the summer. Just like most summers past, Iron Man 2 will fall big but still keep the number one slot, while the second-biggie (Robin Hood) will open well-under what it needs to do to recoup its budget. Iron Man 2 = Spider-Man 3 = X2: X-Men United = Twister. Robin Hood = Poseidon = Speed Racer.

  35. Triple Option says:

    EthanG wrote: no matter your opinion it does not make sense that 62% of the people who saw I2 this weekend are over 25 without some mitigating circumstance….can anyone here come up with a plausible one?

  36. IO-
    I get they’re building a Marvel universe and as an old skool Marvel fan (I never dug DC as a kid) I’m excited…marginally. But IM2 didn’t really do much to move the IRON MAN story forward. It had some trite character development moves but as I said above, it seemed to me like it’s sole purpose was top sell “The Avengers” as well as “Thor” next summer. They even axed the Pepper Potts/Tony Stark moment from the trailer (“you complete me!!”) which would have at least shown some sort of important relationship.
    I liked IM2, don’t get me wrong. But it didn’t move the story forward per se and Nick Fury is a bore. A frigging bore.

  37. Joe Leydon says:

    Yeah, what DID happen to that “You complete me” bit?

  38. jeffmcm says:

    Can anyone explain to me what the appeal of an Avengers movie is beyond spectacle? Do the characters have interesting relationships with each other that are going to make it more than the sum of its parts? Are Ant-Man and the Wasp that interesting?

  39. David Poland says:

    Ethan… seriously… a bunch of people start making a big deal out of a 4% variation in the weekend estimate, I say it’s not a big deal, and that is me contributing to making it a big deal?
    I guess I need to vet what I write about with you from mow on, because even if we agree, you will attack me if you would prefer no one write about it… based on this logic.
    And again… throwing around exit polling like it matters is a lot like throwing around tracking as though it was designed to predict box office. Bad idea. And in this case, the variation is so small, it doesn’t need explaining.

  40. Jeremy B says:

    In the comics, Steve Rogers and Tony Stark have an interesting relationship (that was the basis for a lot of the tension in Civil War). But that’s after 50 years of stories.
    In the origin? Nada. Steve Rogers/Clint Barton is about the only interesting combo, and there’s no sign Hawkeye is showing up anytime soon.

  41. The Big Perm says:

    I think Robert Downey Jr. interacting with The Hulk will be pretty funny.

  42. LexG says:

    Disagree. It’s all so stupid; Some of these heroes are supernatural, others are fairly realistic. Yes, I know the concept of a glowing generator thing powering Tony Stark isn’t exactly NYPD Blue-level street grittiness, but that aside it’s a pretty terrestrial series based in his personality and banter with others. Throwing him in with THE HULK, who is a GIANT GREEN CGI MONSTER, is a little like doing a cinematic mashup where Jason Bourne and James Bond suddenly fight crime alongside Admiral Akbar, Predator, and the laser creature from THE KEEP.

  43. I’m with jeff…it just seems like a money grab piggybacking on the X-Men franchise. But as Jeremy points out, The Avengers are no X-Men. I was also thinking of the Cap/Stark relationship in Civil War because Stark becomes very much the Bush/Cheney while Cap remains a democratic progressive to the core, etc. I was thinking of it because of that link Lex posted about how right-wing the “Iron Man” movies kind of are. Not sure I totally agree, but it’s there a little. Anyway…
    I’ll be at “The Avengers” on the first day it opens but the next 2 Marvel movies are based on terrific iconic COMIC BOOK characters that I just don’t see translating to live action (see; 4, Fantastic). I also am getting the feeling Cap will be the butt of the jokes in “The Avengers” film(s) based on how his shield is being treated in the “Iron Man” films.

  44. LexG says:

    FANTASTIC FOUR 1 AND 2 are two of the best comic book movies EVER.
    I think we all know why.

  45. The Big Perm says:

    I definitely don’t think The Avengers movie will be good mind you…at best I imagine it will be an entertaining stupid movie and ruins Marvel’s other franchises…they’re already fucking up all of their movies just for this Avengers shit that no one cares about.
    But I still think Downey talking to The Hulk will be funny.

  46. Tim DeGroot says:

    The Avengers movie will be genre clash. Iron Man is science fiction. Thor is fantasy. They get away with it in the comics because the team is just a handful of hundreds of Marvel characters from various planets and dimensions and shit. Nevermind The Hulk, how is Tony Stark supposed to interact with a guy who’s all about mythical kingdoms and rainbow bridges and magic powers?

  47. palmtree says:

    Can I just say how proud I am of our boys and girls dutifully going to their final exams on a Saturday? Just warms my heart with hope.

  48. Joe Leydon says:

    Palmtree: And in the case of my students — they got to see Raging Bull before they took the final.

  49. a_loco says:

    It does seem like it’ll be a bit of a genre clash. Favreau was already talking about the problems with making The Mandarin the villain for IM3 because he wasn’t “tech-based” enough.

  50. IOv2 says:

    Fucking up all of their movies for this Avengers shit? Really? The lack of imagination on this board never ceases to amaze me. They are building a universe not fucking up their universe.
    We also know that Stark is in Thor because Downey shaved his beard earlier this year back to Stark proportions and this will probably begin the set-up as to how Iron Man and Thor exist in the same universe.
    Also, if you think Cap is going to be referred to as a joke because of one bit in IM2, you really may want to stay in the art houses a bit more, because you’ve lost the ability to judge what may or may not go down in the multiplexes. Cap is Cap and Tony has a whole trunk of his dad’s stuff now. If you really believe Downey Jr. will not sell reverence for that character, then please point out to me why. Outside of your own myopia of course.
    The Avengers movie will be awesome, you lot probably will not like it, but some of you liked Avatar, and I will leave it at that.

  51. Yeah, Tony Stark and a guy frozen since WW2 and reanimated in order to make “The Avengers” movie will be a match made in heaven, IO. Watch out…here comes a flying shield!
    I 100% agree with Tim re; genre clash. Not only that, but Whedon is going to do the film and all the other films have distinctive voices directing them. I was actually paying attention to Favreau’s eye and skillz when I saw IM2 and he’s really got some good chops.
    Joe Johnston does the kind of golden age formalism thing and lets be honest, Branaugh must have been brought in for some kind of classy look to one of them lamest iconic figures in the Marvel universe. (BY THE POWER OF ODdddddddINNnnnnnn!!. If Wright does “Ant-Man”: we have a bunch of distinctive visions brought to life individually only to be crammed together in a movie I have doubts about.

  52. EthanG says:

    Sheesh Poland you don’t need to vet anything, this is such a particularly silly post in what has become a great output from you lately.

  53. Joe Leydon says:

    EthanG: Cut the guy some slack. He’s probably cranky due to exhaustion. I remember when my son was an infant, crying at all hours. His mom and I felt like we were taking part in a sleep-deprivation experiment.

  54. Telemachos says:

    “Throwing him in with THE HULK, who is a GIANT GREEN CGI MONSTER, is a little like doing a cinematic mashup where Jason Bourne and James Bond suddenly fight crime alongside Admiral Akbar, Predator, and the laser creature from THE KEEP.”
    Bwahaha! LexG FTW.
    (That would be the MOST AWESOME MOVIE EVAR, btw).

  55. storymark says:

    You guys just don’t understand that Avengers will be awesome because it will be AWESOME! Story, conflict, character, QUALITY??? What the fuck do you guys expect? It has superheros – in PLURAL! Awesomeness defined!!!!

  56. movielocke says:

    Regarding the article saying that Americans wont’ watch foreign films anymore:
    It should be obvious to anyone why foreign film box office has declined so precipitously in the past ten years.
    It’s a trifecta of Technology:
    1. DVD went mainstream and every title was profitable
    2. Buying online went mainstream and made every title accessible (not just what your WalMart in Missouri stocks).
    3. Netflix made every single title ever on DVD in Region 1 (more or less) available for rent.
    And basically ALL THREE of these elements ate into the same audience. If your only option for seeing Malena was catching the one time run in Philly during its theatrical release you had to make the effort to go out and see it. If you lived in the suburbs and it was playing downtown it’s such a damn hassle to go see it, but still worth it, if you’re a dedicated film fan.
    By 2005, you could be assured Malena would also get a DVD release (in the nineties, a foreign film getting a release became more common, but was still rare, and go ahead and try to find all the best foreign film oscar winners and nominees on home video from the seventies and eighties). You could be assured you could rent it at no risk from netflix and have the movie sent right to your house at no hassle other than a day or two wait. and you could be assured that if Suncoast didn’t carry the title in stock you would be able to buy it at a BIG discount online, versus paying full list at one of the stores like Suncoast/Tower Records that might keep an active smallish foreign film section of stock. And you could probably get it for free shipping too.
    Foreign film has become MORE accessible in the last ten years than ever before. Before this decade all DEMAND for foreign film was forcibly concentrated to a single source of SUPPLY–those theatres that screened foreign films (and perhaps a few video stores as well). What the internet did was provide an unlimited supply of foreign films which reduced the demand at the old-media outlet for the product. So people stopped showing up to foreign films because demand no longer required their presence at theatrical, unless they had a see it in theatrical fetish. And the conclusion of the understandably upset old-media art house exhibitors was that americans got dumb and stopped liking foreign films. When in fact America is watching more foreign films than ever before.
    America just changed dealers to get their fix, because it was cheaper, easier, more reliable, and accommodated their scheduling needs.

  57. The Big Perm says:

    Yeah IO, Marvel is fucking up their movies…because when I go to see an Iron Man, I want to see an Iron Man…not how he fits into a larger world that no one cares about. Leave that shit to a long form tv show or something.

  58. IOv2 says:

    Storymark, that’s how they will sell it to the kids and there will be some adults that feel the same way. Why this blog is filled with people that lack the whimsy of Glee has to start with the top but I am here, so I will carry the whimsy for all of you.
    Don you have doubts just to have doubts. We are Americans. If the History Channel has taught us anything, it has taught us that Americans can do just about anything, and that includes making a super hero action film featuring more than one super hero.
    Oh yeah, Favreau’s questioning of bring the Mandarin into IM3, is rather short sighted. If there can be incredibly advanced tech in that world, there can be magic in the world.

  59. The Big Perm says:

    Two different levels of reality, IO. Advanced tech is sci-fi, magic is fantasy Harry Potter/elf shit.

  60. IOv2 says:

    Perm, you are in the minority, and if you are in the majority with this opinion, then tough luck to all of you. Iron Man is a part of the 616. One is not exclusive from the other.

  61. IOv2 says:

    Harry Potter features all sorts of devices that are essentially magic enhanced technology. If it works in one of the biggest franchises in the history of franchises, it can work in a comic book film. Again, this is a comic book film, and Tony Stark having his world view shaken by the fact that magic exist, is just good storytelling.

  62. David Poland says:

    I don’t think any of us really know whether The Avengers is a good idea or a bad idea. It will depend on the execution.
    If Thor and Captain America do Incredible Hulk level business, The Avengers is going to look awfully iffy. But if they do better than that, it will look like a mega-movie.
    And still… it will all come down to whether that trailer is really cool or not.
    And indeed, it may well come down to whether there is a 10 second clip of Downey interacting with The Hulk that makes people go, “WOW” or “That was kinda embarrassing.”
    I don’t think we can predetermine it, for positive or negative.
    So far, Marvel has had one real hit under their control. Iron Man. We’ll find out next summer whether Thor and Captain America are for real.

  63. The Big Perm says:

    If a Harry Potter movie was playing and all of a sudden alien spaceships came down and robots started shooting lasers, people would laugh. This is what Favreau was talking about. Sure you COULD do it, but there are differing levels of reality in movies. Kill Bill is not realistic at all, but Tarantino wouldn’t have thrown robots in that movie either.

  64. jeffmcm says:

    “Iron Man is a part of the 616.”
    IOI, do you ever care if anyone has any idea what you’re talking about?

  65. Hallick says:

    “FANTASTIC FOUR 1 AND 2 are two of the best comic book movies EVER.
    I think we all know why.”
    Alliteration?
    (Nah…that’s probably not the labiodental thought you had in mind…)

  66. IOv2 says:

    Jeff, use the google if you cannot figure something out on this blog. Lord knows that I have but since you were so nice in that response. The 616 is the identification of the Earth the Marvel Universe is located on.
    Perm, yes, you have a point but I am still of the opinion that a guy in a super advanced Iron Man suit fits in a world where a guy with a really big hammer hits other stuff for Asgard. I may be in the minority but I think it can work.

  67. PastePotPete says:

    Why are people assuming The Avengers movie is going to be bad? Joss Whedon is writing and directing, and though I’m not his biggest fan he’s fairly good at this sort of thing, and gets the characters.
    As for “genre clash”, well, we’ll see. The clash between how Iron Man gets his powers (pseudo-scientific claptrap) and how Thor gets his (pseudo-mystical hogwash) isn’t an insurmountable cognitive leap, even for the mass audience. I think some of you are assuming audiences give a crap what mumbo-jumbo explanation is given for the superpowers. Thor isn’t going to be Lord of the Rings, it’s still going to be a superhero movie.
    And if Thor and Captain America underperform(and you really think middle america will not go see a movie called Captain America when the Republican 2012 Presidential nominees are running around stirring “Real Americans” up?)`then they’ll likely sell Avengers as Iron Man 2.5.

  68. The Big Perm says:

    PPP, current events don’t get audiences into theaters…if they did, maybe one single movie about Iraq would have been a hit.
    I don’t necessarily think there’s a problem having Iron Man and Thor together per se…except that it’s funny that Favreau is being so particular about setting up his Iron Man world and said that he plans to use The Mandarin for the third…but he needs to update the guy to take out his magic powers so he fits into the Iron Man universe. But if Iron Man 3 comes after they shot The Avengers where Iorn Man has been hanging out with a Greek God, then why not just let The Mandarin use magic? At that point they’ve completely changed that universe…or maybe just like comics, facts and continuity will be conveniently ignored in the service of tie-ins.

  69. Foamy Squirrel says:

    There’s room to be made by playing to patriotism – GI Joe specifically targeted middle America when bad buzz started coming in from the Geekerati. They did okay in the end.

  70. a_loco says:

    “And if Thor and Captain America underperform(and you really think middle america will not go see a movie called Captain America when the Republican 2012 Presidential nominees are running around stirring “Real Americans” up?)”
    Perhaps, but Marvel might want to worry about Captain America’s profitability outside of the US.
    It’s like the anti-soccer.

  71. The Big Perm says:

    G.I. Joe was never going to be hurt by geeks hating it. Patriotism had nothing to do with that movie doing okay, it was a big summer action movie it was always going to do well. If the geeks had power, then Shaun of the Dead would have made 50 million.

  72. Joe Leydon says:

    @PPP: Actually, Captain America might wind up placing tricky demands on filmmakers. Specifically: How jokey can you be without seeming unpatriotic? Laugh all you want at that, but remember how some people got their panties in a twist about the “Truth, justice and the American way” gag in Superman Returns.

  73. storymark says:

    “G.I. Joe was never going to be hurt by geeks hating it. Patriotism had nothing to do with that movie doing okay, it was a big summer action movie it was always going to do well.”
    Well then, by that logic,Captain America has nothing to worry about either.

  74. The Big Perm says:

    I’m sure Captain America will do at least okay business…almost any big summer comic book movie can do okay business. More depends on if it looks exciting and interesting than if it’s patriotic so all good Americans line up to see it. If he looks silly in the suit and shield, I don’t care what patriotism is on display, the movie’s done.
    Besides, what’s the last big hit movie that featured politics? Farenheit 9-11, maybe, I don’t know. That movie didn’t seem like something “the heartland” would enjoy. I think if anything, America has shown more of an avoidance of politics when it comes to movies.

  75. Big Perm wrote “or maybe just like comics, facts and continuity will be conveniently ignored in the service of tie-ins.”
    That reminds me of why I checked out of comics years ago. Every comic had a spin off and a parallel universe and a teen storyline…on and on, cash, hand over fist. I always just wanted to hear great superhero stories told well with great artwork. Not deal with 5 separate freeking books per character designed to sell more and make more money. I agree the Marvel films are doing this as well.

  76. storymark says:

    Same here, though I bailed on the monthly comics and super-crossovers over a decade ago, now. I just more or less ignore all the crap, untill I hear about a particularly good story, then I’ll check it out in a trade collection.
    And I WANT Avengers to be good. I was interested in it as a comics fan, and just curious to see how the endeavor would turn out. Then Whedon entered the equation, and I became super-psyched (I’d still kick the ass of whoever pulled the plug on Firefly if pointed in the right direction).
    I also don’t think the magic/technology thing is that big a deal. Star Wars had both, and no one got confused, and as a matter of fact….seemed to do okay having that little juxtaposition. They’ve been writing comics that blended the two for longer than most in this conversation have been alive. It’s not that big a deal.
    But, even though I’m a fan of the (assumed) director, and many of the characters involved – I certainly don’t think it’s automatically going to be excellent merely for existing.

  77. The Big Perm says:

    Star Wars mixed magic and tech from the beginning though. That’s a big difference.
    I personally don’t care…I think the potential of this movie is that it could be pretty decent at worst. I like Whedon will do a good job as well as he doesn’t let it be too smart-ass (except for Downey of course).
    But I don’t know, IO is making it like it’s such a huge deal that they’re doing this as if this kind of thing had never happened before…but I think it basically did when Frankenstein met the Wolf Man, working with the mythologies of both stories. And then later, Abbot and Costello met both of them PLUS Dracula.
    The only difference is, think how shitty Bride of Frankenstein would have been if it took a 15 minute detour to go into Wolf Man details to tie it all in years later.

  78. storymark says:

    Yup. Unnecessary to use one movie as an ad for another. The occasional nod is nice, but leave it at that.

  79. IOv2 says:

    I understand a cynical way of looking at things would be to refer to each reference as an ad, but it’s not an ad as much as it’s connective tissue. They are making a cinematic universe. If it’s not your thing then it’s not your thing, but this has never happened before and it happening is pretty incredible on it’s own merit.
    Perm, there’s a difference between Universal Monsters and five to seven super heroes that come together in one film and having one of them not even be from the same studio. Again, that sort of thing does not happy every day.

  80. storymark says:

    Perhaps we are cynical. And perhaps you are a bit over-eager to swallow anything that they feed you, as long as it has a superhero.

  81. Sam says:

    After “Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man” came “House of Frankenstein” in 1944 and “House of Dracula” in 1945. Both of those movies had Dracula, the Frankenstein monster, and the Wolf Man in it. They’re fun in a pulpy kind of way, but they’re a far cry from the originals for all three monsters, which can be taken seriously, both as films and as scary (in an older-fashioned sense) experiences.
    I could never figure out why The Mummy never joined the fray, but The Invisible Man makes a cameo in the Abbott and Costello movie.
    I suppose the Japanese equivalent to all this is “Destroy All Monsters!” which had Godzilla, Mothra, Ghidorah, Rodan, and seven others. Once again, fun in sort of a cheesy, ironic way: but virtually a parody of the original Godzilla, which despite being about a guy in a rubber suit was pretty serious stuff.
    If The Avengers follows the pattern, it’ll be disposably entertaining but ultimately just a big joke.

  82. LexG says:

    Isn’t it also kind of unfair to Downey, in the thespian sense?
    I’m sure he’s going to be well imbursed for the Avengers shlock-fest, but talk about carrying the heavy lifting: No offense to Chris Evans, who RULES, but the star wattage is awfully out of whack in this lineup. Is Norton even going to BE the Hulk, or is it just going to be a guy in a green suit the whole time?
    Because the idea of a team consisting of a FAKE HULK, Chris Evans, whichever Hemsworth brother is playing THOR, ANT-MAN, a handful of other D-list fifth-stringers… AND world-class Oscar-nominated MEGASTAR Robert Downey Jr. seems clunky and uneven from the jump.
    It’s like having Daniel Day-Lewis recreate Daniel Plainview in some mash-up movie where the rest of the cast is guys from The Hills and the Road Rules Challenge. Another IRON MAN movie with a bunch of lame secondary heroes that no one really likes.

  83. palmtree says:

    “Again, that sort of thing does not happy every day.”
    Freudian slip!

  84. hcat says:

    Not since “The Flinstones meets the Jetsons” has the screen seen such power!!!!!!!!!!!

  85. Pete Grisham says:

    There is a reason why for decades Downey was not considered to be a major star and probably still doesn’t have enough “wattage” to make something like “Singing Detective” bigger than what it had been.
    He absolutely stank in “Sherlock Holmes” and the movie still made money. That’s because it was the role that was the real star, not the actor. Also, the movie was presold. And it many ways, the same is true of “Iron Man” – i.e. the less controversial version “Captain America”. A superhero we all can feel good about liking.
    Downey is basically like a glorified John Cusack. Which would be fine as they both have moments (and not just moments) of briliance, if he also didn’t have something from Cusack’s sister Joan – the annoying factor.

  86. The Big Perm says:

    Well, I wouldn’t agree about that…Downey is a major talent. The role of Tony Stark IS DOwney…if they cast a guy like, let’s say Russel Crowe, he would have been really serious and sort of dull. Downey made it fun. And Downey has been amazing in too many movies to discount him.

  87. Joe Leydon says:

    He absolutely stank in “Sherlock Holmes” and the movie still made money. That’s because it was the role that was the real star, not the actor.
    Er, Pete: If that’s the case, why wasn’t The Seven Per Cent Solution and Murder By Decree box-office blockbusters?

  88. Actually, I’m feeling what Grisham is saying…to a point. Downey Jr. MADE the original IRON MAN click. Iron Man was in no way a top 5 Marvel hero before RDJ stepped into the suit (OI? Agree?) Sherlocks success was based off IRON MAN’s. And I also agree that SHERLOCK HOLMES, aside from RDJ and Law’s chemistry, was just awful.

  89. IOv2 says:

    Storymark, I’d rather be me than overly cynical, and you also do not know a thing about me. The whole divergence in this thread comes from me stating the Avengers movie could be good, while the rest of you believe it’s going to be shit out of some weird fear it’s going to suck.
    Seriously, that’s so weak I am just going to leave it at that… except Kevin Feige is responsible for the Marvel Cinematic continuity and Joss Whedon is directing the film, so what’s the problem again?

  90. Foamy Squirrel says:

    I enjoy Joss’ sense of tone but his track record of trying to expand beyond his core fans is… well, pretty horrible.

  91. IOv2 says:

    Foamy, his core audience will go and see the Avengers anyway. It’s not his core audience that you have to worry about with that film, it’s everyone else, but it’s a multiple superhero film. While that does not appeal to anyone but me in this entire forum, it will hold an appeal because of what it is and whose in it.

  92. storymark says:

    “Storymark, I’d rather be me than overly cynical, and you also do not know a thing about me. The whole divergence in this thread comes from me stating the Avengers movie could be good, while the rest of you believe it’s going to be shit out of some weird fear it’s going to suck. ”
    Uh, you seem to have a faulty memory. You didn’t say it might be good, you implying it absolutely WILL BE, because they’re building a universe.
    I, and a few others actually said it might be good, and it might not.
    And while I don’t know everything about you – your many posts on this board have painted a picture. Most around here have a pretty decent idea of how you are going to respond to certain topics.

  93. storymark says:

    “While that does not appeal to anyone but me in this entire ”
    Again with the shoddy memory – or simply poor reading skills. How does my saying I’m “super-psyched” to see it imply that it does not appeal to me? Others have said they’re interested.
    Is everything totally binary to you? If we’re not wetting ourselves in anticipation – we’re disinterested? It’s AWESOME or it SUCKS? Not everything needs to be an AICN talkback.

  94. hcat says:

    I thought Serenity was alright but not that strong of a film. Don’t see while everyone is so Gonzo about Whedon. He seems like the weakest pick for one of the Marvel films yet, let alone the flagship.

  95. storymark says:

    Speaking for myself (though I think most of the Whedon fanatics would agree) that it’s his way with characters (particularly in an ensemble, which will be an important factor here), plus his ability/tendency to combine light comedy and heavy drama – often at the same time. And snappy banter.
    For me, he’s the first director Marvel has hired (presumably, it’s still not official) the has interested me. Favs turned out to be a good pick, but didn’t have me excited from the outset. Johnston is almost too obvious a choice for Cap. Hamlet’s Thor has me curious, but Whedon’s Avengers has me actually jazzed.

  96. The Big Perm says:

    I like Whedon a lot but his snappy banter can drag his stuff down. I think he’s great at coming up with stories and really messing with expectations, but his writing can get real cutesy. I think he’s a good choice among everyone they can get…it’s not like Spielberg is going to do it. And I’d rather have Whedon than Ratner, I guess. At least Whedon will most likely give a shit about the story he’s telling and he’ll probably tie things together pretty well, he’s good at that.

  97. storymark says:

    On the snappy banter, I agree he can over-do it a bit (not every single person in the world will be/need to be masters of the clever quip), but when he tries to tone that element down, his dialog tends to fall flat (see: Dollhouse).

  98. Foamy Squirrel says:

    Eh… Whedon’s strength has always been his ability to balance tone. His dialogue is snappy, but all his characters quickly adopt the same turns of phrase – you could chop the script up with scissors and get the actors to pick their lines out of a hat and you’d never know the difference 90% of the time.
    He’s also got problems with the final act. There rarely seems to be enough dramatic setup which makes the obligatory “We draw the line HERE!” speech more corny than inspiring – it just feels like the middle section gets stuck on cruise control so the climax comes off rushed. Both Buffy and Angel also had serious issues with power escalation, but those are more issues with the tv series though so it might be different this time around.

  99. IOv2 says:

    Story, if you just want to be mean to me then be mean to me, but let’s not dress it up any other way. You are simply being a jerk and ignoring what’s going on in this thread. Go read it and excuse me for ignoring your post but your responses to me have painted a picture about you, and I care very little about having a discussion with someone whose just going to be a jerk to me no matter what I post.

  100. Pete Grisham says:

    “Er, Pete: If that’s the case, why wasn’t The Seven Per Cent Solution and Murder By Decree box-office blockbusters? ”
    Joe, you are trying to catch me but are doing so incredibly lazily. I bet you don’t even believe that what you said makes a good point.
    There is an obvious difference between a movie called Sherlock Holmes and Murder by Decrees and those difference are not just limited to their resepctive titles. You don’t just have to be called a duck to be a duck. I don’t want to insult your intelligence by saying any more.
    By the way, I always thought Seven Per Cent Solution actually did rather well (and the book was a bestseller, of course).
    Now, I will not deny that Downey contributed to both film’s success but I stand by the notion that the movies were largely presold.
    As much as I rag on the guy, Downey really does have a talent but I think that his current image will not get him very far. People are already a little tired of it by the first sequel.

  101. The Big Perm says:

    I personally don’t think Sherlock Holmes starring Ryan Reynolds or Ed Norton makes nearly the same money.

  102. storymark says:

    IO – I’m sorry you feel trying to have a discussion is being mean to you. In the future I shall try to be oh so sensitive to your fragile feelings.

  103. storymark says:

    Grow a set, Lex.

  104. christian says:

    LexG: Thread Killer.

Quote Unquotesee all »

It shows how out of it I was in trying to be in it, acknowledging that I was out of it to myself, and then thinking, “Okay, how do I stop being out of it? Well, I get some legitimate illogical narrative ideas” — some novel, you know?

So I decided on three writers that I might be able to option their material and get some producer, or myself as producer, and then get some writer to do a screenplay on it, and maybe make a movie.

And so the three projects were “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep,” “Naked Lunch” and a collection of Bukowski. Which, in 1975, forget it — I mean, that was nuts. Hollywood would not touch any of that, but I was looking for something commercial, and I thought that all of these things were coming.

There would be no Blade Runner if there was no Ray Bradbury. I couldn’t find Philip K. Dick. His agent didn’t even know where he was. And so I gave up.

I was walking down the street and I ran into Bradbury — he directed a play that I was going to do as an actor, so we know each other, but he yelled “hi” — and I’d forgot who he was.

So at my girlfriend Barbara Hershey’s urging — I was with her at that moment — she said, “Talk to him! That guy really wants to talk to you,” and I said “No, fuck him,” and keep walking.

But then I did, and then I realized who it was, and I thought, “Wait, he’s in that realm, maybe he knows Philip K. Dick.” I said, “You know a guy named—” “Yeah, sure — you want his phone number?”

My friend paid my rent for a year while I wrote, because it turned out we couldn’t get a writer. My friends kept on me about, well, if you can’t get a writer, then you write.”
~ Hampton Fancher

“That was the most disappointing thing to me in how this thing was played. Is that I’m on the phone with you now, after all that’s been said, and the fundamental distinction between what James is dealing with in these other cases is not actually brought to the fore. The fundamental difference is that James Franco didn’t seek to use his position to have sex with anyone. There’s not a case of that. He wasn’t using his position or status to try to solicit a sexual favor from anyone. If he had — if that were what the accusation involved — the show would not have gone on. We would have folded up shop and we would have not completed the show. Because then it would have been the same as Harvey Weinstein, or Les Moonves, or any of these cases that are fundamental to this new paradigm. Did you not notice that? Why did you not notice that? Is that not something notable to say, journalistically? Because nobody could find the voice to say it. I’m not just being rhetorical. Why is it that you and the other critics, none of you could find the voice to say, “You know, it’s not this, it’s that”? Because — let me go on and speak further to this. If you go back to the L.A. Times piece, that’s what it lacked. That’s what they were not able to deliver. The one example in the five that involved an issue of a sexual act was between James and a woman he was dating, who he was not working with. There was no professional dynamic in any capacity.

~ David Simon