$103 Million second weekend for Avengers!

[Ohioguy]

Wow, I sure didn't expect this - I just read that Avengers held on
for just a 50% drop in its second weekend.

With $103 million, this means it is the very first movie to ever make
over 100 million dollars in its second weekend.

Do you think this increases the likelihood that we will get more
Marvel Superhero movies coming out in the next few years?

[Kenneth M. Lin]

Do you even have to ask? Spider-Man is coming out in less than two months
and they have already announced all Avengers-related films for the next five
years. Even if all of them are trilogies and coming out every three years,
Cap and Thor still have two more movies to go.

"Ohioguy" wrote in message news:4faffdd7$0$7936$882e...@usenet-news.net...

[William George Ferguson]

I'm not sure how you're planning to increase the likelihood past its
current 'certainty'.

Iron Man III, Thor II and Captain America II were all already greenlit and
in pre-production, before the Avengers. Disney has announced Avengers II
to a shocking lack of surprise. The original financin structure for Marvel
Studios was for 10 films. Some of the original titles on the list (such as
Power Pack) have been non-starters, but as of now, the studio has produced
6, and now has 4 more green-lit, which will complete the original
financing.

Primarily Avengers related superheroes who might be considered (and whose
rights aren't currently otherwise optioned)

Ant-Man
Wasp (probably the most obvious potential additions)

Swordsman (unlikely, i think)

Black Panther (he was one of the characters specifically listed for
development by Marvel Studios)

Vison (probably 2nd most likely after Hank and Janet, likely without the
Ultron baggage)

Black Knight (slightly more likely than Swordsman, but not much)

Wonder Man (down the line maybe)

Hellcat (much as I'd like to see her, not likely)

Moondragon (with the personality without the baggage)

Ms. Marvel (not sure without the Kree stuff)

Falcon (could work well)

Tigra (could work)

Shulkie (I don't see her introed directly in Avengers)

Captain Marvel (Monica Rambeau) probably not as CM, but couild work under
one of her other aliases

Starfox (makes sense if they go with Thanos, still, not likely)

Doctor Druid (if they go that way, they have the rights to Dr. Strange)

Mockingbird (has a tv pilot in development at ABC Family)

Firebird (a Catholic based superhero?)

D-Man (no, except as a one-off)

U.S. Agent (no)

Quasar (hmmm,)

Stingray (could work, but primarily water-based)

Eternals (various Eternals, including Gilgamesh and Sersi have served, I
don't consider any of them likely to appear in the movies)

Lionheart (is the Captain Britain stuff too X-ish)

Luke Cage (it would make Bendis happy, but Cage is supposed to have a role
in the AKA Jessica Jones tv series in development at ABC)

Echo (I could see her working well, but are her rights tied to the
Daredevil franchise?)

There are a few others (Deathcry, Silverclaw, etc) that could be
consisdered.


--
I have a theory, it could be bunnies

[Lilith]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:15:36 -0700, William George Ferguson
<wmgf...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>Ant-Man
>Wasp (probably the most obvious potential additions)

But why would Pym be restricted to the Ant-Man role? Considering the
necessary power levels that the movie trailers imply is necessary he'd
be more viable as Giant-Man.

As for any of the possibilities of characters for Avengers II, intro
them in Iron Man III or Captain America II. Maybe not in costume but
giving a bit of a hint of origin in a SHIELD scenario.

--
Lilith

[Madlove]

Avengers Marketing...
http://www.oddee.com/item_98188.aspx

[Duggy]

On May 16, 1:11 pm, <adel...@inbox.com> wrote:
> Madlove <madl...@arkham.dc> wrote:
> > Avengers Marketing...
> >http://www.oddee.com/item_98188.aspx
>
> That is not awesome at all.  Here is why Disney is leaving money at the
> table.
>
> We have quite a number of Disney properties in the Avengers: Black Widow,
> Captain America, Hawkeye, the Hulk, Iron Man, Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D.,
> as well as Thor, many of whom had helmed blockbuster movies on their own.
> That is  at least seven IPs tied up and sold for the price of a martinee
> ticket...
>
> Ergo, the film actually made only a measly $14.7 million per IP or Disney
> lost $618 million on that second weekend alone.

Seven films cost more to make than one.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On May 14, 12:25 pm, Lilith <lilith...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 17:15:36 -0700, William George Ferguson
>

> <wmgfr...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >Ant-Man
> >Wasp (probably the most obvious potential additions)

> But why would Pym be restricted to the Ant-Man role?  Considering the
> necessary power levels that the movie trailers imply is necessary he'd
> be more viable as Giant-Man.

> As for any of the possibilities of characters for Avengers II, intro
> them in Iron Man III or Captain America II.  Maybe not in costume but
> giving a bit of a hint of origin in a SHIELD scenario.

Apparently a Ant-man hint was removed from... Thor or CA or Incredible
Hulk.

And the Ant-Man film Pym is going to be the old, replaced Ant-Man.

===
= DUG.
===

[Ohioguy]

> Would seven films cost more than $618 million to produce, because that
> amount was lost in just one weekend of takings...

That's only in "theoretical math world", not in the real world.
Technically, you can probably use math to back up almost any position.

In the long run, this movie is going to be tremendously profitable
for Marvel/Disney. It will probably lead to 1 or 2 more franchises, and
it has already been announced that Avengers themed rides will now be
popping up at the Disney theme parks.

Not to mention that the movie itself will be earning them $$ from
DVD, TV showings, etc. for decades. You have to take a long term view
of things, not just the short term.

[FSogol]

Exactly. Look for an explosion of Marvel toys too.
--
FSogol

[Duggy]

On May 17, 11:03 pm, FSogol <NoSpamPle...@FSogol.com> wrote:
> Exactly.  Look for an explosion of Marvel toys too.

Won't that kill or injure children?

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

On May 17, 7:46 pm, <adel...@inbox.com> wrote:

> Would seven films cost more than $618 million to produce, because that
> amount was lost in just one weekend of takings...

Iron Man 1 ($140 million)
Iron Man 2 ($200 million)
The Incredible Hulk ($150 million)
Thor ($150 million)
Captain America: The First Avenger ($140 million)
The Avengers ($220 million)

The 6 films that they've already made cost $1,000 million, so yes,
that is more then $618 million for 7 films.

Even if you capped them all at the lowest amount ($140 million) that's
still 6 films for more the $618 million.

===
= DUG.
===

[Duggy]

> B...but that is $618 million in takings in a weekend.  So even if
> production cost $1 billion, that would just be a fortnight's takings.  The
> overall takings s...should be higher. :)

An individual character film would not make $618 million in one
weekend.

===
= DUG.
===

[Syd_maniac]

What about Doctor Strange himself?

PDW

[Madlove]

Toys, Halloween costumes, books, games, candy, food tie-ins, etc. etc. etc.
Hmmm... Wonder if ol' Stanley gets any of that bread... :-D

[Duggy]

> > === DUG.
> > ==
>
> Why not?  In all seriousness, the typical conversation goes, dude let's go
> catch the latest Marvel superhero movie this weekend.  They aren't going to
> hold off just because there are fewer heroes compared to the Avengers'
> ensemble cast.

If that was true Thor, Incredible Hulk and Captain America should have
done as well as The Avengers.

Let's look at budget, first week gross and worldwide gross of the
first Marvel Cinematic Universe Films leading up to The Avengers vs
The Avengers itself.

Iron Man $140million budget, $123million first week, $585million
worldwide.
Iron Man 2 $200million budget, $159million first week, $624million
worldwide.
Thor $150million budget, $84million first week, $449million worldwide.
Captain America $140million budget, $91million first week, $368million
worldwide.
Incredible Hulk $140million budget, $74million first week, $263million
worldwide.
Total Budget for 5 solo films: $770million, first week for 5 solo
films: $531million, Worldwide total $2,289.

vs

The Avengers $220million budget, $270million first week.

The Avengers made $50million or 20% in the first week.
The solo films lost $239million or 30% in the first week.

So far The Avengers has made $1,191million worldwide. Less, obviously
than the totals of all the others but if just a few weeks. The final
total will be much more.

So, yes, The Avengers made more money than 5 solo films did or 7
would.

> By that theory, Watchmen, X-Men and the Fantastic Four should outsell
> Spiderman and Batman.

Miss the point much?

===
= DUG.
===

[iarwain]

> An individual character film would not make $618 million in one weekend.

The Dark Knight did pretty well.

[Duggy]

On May 25, 7:19 am, iarwain <iarwai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > An individual character film would not make $618 million in one weekend.
>
> The Dark Knight did pretty well.

Marvel Studio can't make that.

===
= DUG.
===

[Madlove]

iarwain wrote:
>> An individual character film would not make $618 million in one weekend.

> The Dark Knight did pretty well.

Success depends upon (among other things):

1. The character's popularity.

2. The actor's popularity AND talent.

3. Size of the fan base.

4. The film's budget.

5. How anxious the public wants to see a movie.

6. How good is the story!

The Batman is a *very* popular character with a *huge* fan base.
The movies had a large budget and they hired good actors.

Spider-Man has a large fan base (Marvel's most popular character)
and the movie had a good budget but a lesser known actor.

The X-Men have a large fan base but they aren't as well known or as
popular with the *mainstream* public as the Batman is.

The Grn.Lnt movie was a mess from the get-go and never should have
been made.

[iarwain]

> The Grn.Lnt movie was a mess from the get-go and never should have been made

I'm a big Green Lantern fan. But the movie was just no fun at all.
I think they could have been a Green Lantern movie that was a big hit.
But it was poorly executed on practically every level.
They even had Fantastic Four: Rise of the Surfer to learn from, yet
they still made the same mistake of making the major villain a cloud.
Hector Hammond was an unpleasant option also. They should have
started with Sinestro.

Really, it didn't even draw that badly, except for the fact that they
spent way to much money making it.
If it had been a romantic comedy that made $116 million, it would have
been considered a huge hit.