Man Stumbles
“Iron Man 2 isn’t as much fun as its predecessor, but by the time the smoke clears, it’ll do,” writes Variety‘s Brian Lowry. Wait — didn’t Edmond O’Brien say that to Robert Ryan at the end of The Wild Bunch? “It ain’t like it used to be but…it’ll do.” Life tends to degrade or disappoint rather than improve. But you have to laugh about it.
“Much like The Dark Knight, this Paramount release brings an enormous stash of goodwill to the party, thanks to a well-crafted origin tale whose popularity fueled anticipation for a follow-up. Yet while the first go-round for this lesser-known Marvel hero benefited from its freshness and visual flair, the beats here are more familiar, the pacing more uneven. Given the demand, though, that will hardly matter, and this armored adventure promises to be a money-making machine that clicks on all cylinders.”
An HE commenter named “t.w.” says the following: “Iron Man 2 is a bit of a mess. Too much squeezed in. Definitely not as enjoyable as the first. I found Downey fairly irritating in this, and Don Cheadle (who replaces Terrence Howard) looked like he would rather be anywhere else. The movie it reminded me of most is Spiderman 3. It will make a fortune at the box office as the masses will eat it up, etc., but it’s a major disappointment to add to this year’s already long list of failures. At least it isn’t in 3D.”
“The movie it reminded me of most is Spiderman 3.”
Oh dear god.
All the new characters are the most obvious nod to Spidey 3 (which I still liked, while acknowledging the flaws). It’s obviously too crammed.
Also I think the first movie was overrated. It followed too much the standard formula, and Downey Jr. really was great and the atmosphere was good but the story was too unimaginative. Good thing it ain’t in 3D.
Come on, we’re overthinking it already. its a hit people, more of the same but bigger louder, sassier, plus mickey! its like a 10$ box of popcorn with extra butta!! get in, see it an get out.
im looking forward to Predators…
Funny how all these movie series eventually devolve into “more is better!” and it always leads to the same thing. These movies are a mess because super hero comics are a mess. They don’t tell coherent stories, so much as engage in soap-opera-like story lines that last decades. Characters come, characters go. But when you try to do that with a movie, you end up with Spider-Man 3, X-Men 3, Batman and Robin, etc. etc.
I think the guy might be reading too much into it, like with the Don Cheadle remark, saying he “looks like he would rather be anywhere else”. That’s interesting considering no one held a gun to his head and made him take the role. I think the reveiwer would have rather been anywhere else and just projected that onto Don. If it is true though, that sucks. I hate it when actors…people who’s whole job it is to make believe and pretend to be someone else…take a job, cash the check and then act like that particular job of pretending is beneath them. That really sucks. That being said, i’m not ready to go all snarky yet. I am still looking forward to this movie.
I think the guy might be reading too much into it, like with the Don Cheadle remark, saying he “looks like he would rather be anywhere else”. That’s interesting considering no one held a gun to his head and made him take the role. I think the reveiwer would have rather been anywhere else and just projected that onto Don. If it is true though, that sucks. I hate it when actors…people who’s whole job it is to make believe and pretend to be someone else…take a job, cash the check and then act like that particular job of pretending is beneath them. That really sucks. That being said, i’m not ready to go all snarky yet. I am still looking forward to this movie.
This is a shame. Iron Man 1 was fun, but definitely overrated, but this had the potential to be an X2/Dark Knight-style improvement.
But it’s not just the Variety review that’s lukewarm. A wide range of sources are all expressing disappointment. A couple saying it’s an outright disaster. I’ll still see it, and so will everybody else, but enthusiasm has definitely been lowered.
What’s also bad news is that Iron Man 3 will have to incorporate all the other Avengers characters/storylines from the Avengers film, so there’s a chance it’ll be even more overstuffed than this one. Marvel are determined to fuck with their successful characters because of greed and the absurd fast-tracking of every single superhero into development.
I notice the Hollywood Reporter’s Kirk Honeycutt says everything fun about “Iron Man”, a mere two years ago, has vanished with its sequel. The intro to his review is tagged:” Bottom Line: Now he’s the Tin Man.” But of course most sequels are all about making money and good will left over from the first film should be enough to do the trick once again.
It sounds like a Transformers 2 situation. Well-received original film, overstuffed, overlong sequel with relentless action.
” Yet while the first go-round for this lesser-known Marvel hero benefited from its freshness and visual flair…”
Visual flair? Iron Man is one of the most visually pedestrian blockbusters in recent memory.
These things are really all about Downey.
>These movies are a mess because super hero comics are a mess. They don’t tell coherent stories, so much as engage in soap-opera-like story lines that last decades.
Good screenwriters can take messy source material and condense it into a solid two hours. That’s what they’re paid to do, after all.
You know what, I kind of like my blockbusters overstuffed, if it’s stuff I like.
But you know what I would like to see in a superhero movie one day? A real plot based story. These things are all character arcs, and “How will Mega-Man learn and grow from this new situation that challenges his preconceptions?”—I’d just like to see a superhero Die Hard, where we take Batman or whoever as a given and plop him into the middle of a simple danger scenario and see how he gets out of it. A straight suspense-action picture with super-powers. I don’t think that’s ever actually been done. They mostly tend to be sprawling tapestries, like they’d rather be Nashville than The Taking Of Pelham 1-2-3.
Jeffmc2000: Wasn’t The Dark Knight essentially what you’re asking for? It had broader themes than ran throughout, but as a crime story it was all fairly tight.
Dark Knight was nothing if not a sprawling tapestry. If you cut out half the movie and just left in the Joker stuff you might have something closer to what I was thinking. Something lean and mean.
Just one movie that isn’t 75% exploration of the hero’s character would be nice. Maybe a real-time thriller, like Passenger 57 or Sudden Death or that thing with Bruce Willis in the office building, Die-something.
Color me cautious.
Much as I like the first one, it DOES have problems – the third act being basically a formality (“alright, alright, we’ve all had fun watching him play with the suit, now hurry up with the bad guy and the big fight, it’s time to go home”) having been the main one.
It’s a solid B+, but I think it was external factors that drove the HUGE reception: mainstream critics always liked Downey, plus here was a superhero origin that most of them had never heard of before. The fans, on the other hand… the “Avengers” stinger at the end would’ve turned ANY comic movie into the “best thing EVER!” for a week. They’ve been aching for inter-movie continuity and team-ups their entire filmgoing lives – GHOST RIDER would’ve been lauded if we saw him sign up for Avengers at the end.
I’m wondering if the opposite is going to go down here: Will “regular” critics be let down now that this “new guy” settles into his fairly-traditional superhero existence (sidekicks, personal issues, heavy-of-the-week), and will fans be watching less for the actual movie and more for teases about Thor and Captain America?
I mean, just personally: Normally, the “main” plot being set up by the trailers would look fairly ho-hum to me… it’s the suspicions about how all this “skeletons in the closet” stuff with Stark might lead-in to Avengers that has me pumped; and I doubt I’m the only one: If Downey gets surprised in his house again, only this time Jackson has a 7’7 hammer-wielding viking and a guy dressed like an American flag with him, the internet will explode and NO ONE will be talking about ANYTHING that happened for he other 118 minutes of the film.
Wasn’t there a Green Arrow movie in development called Supermax going down the road you’re describing?
I’m reminded of how I was looking forward to Pirates OTC 2 after I enjoyed the original only to be massively disappointed. Same thing happened but to some extent with Transformers. Success spoils them so quickly. I guess the fact that they reportedly kept tinkering with the IM2 script an a daily basis while shooting foretold some of this.
I wish they would have followed the story line from Iron Man Comics Series 27 Issue 12 where he’s forced to fight his best friend Transistor Boy in a battle to the death where only one can….
It’s a fucking comic book, people. Time to grow up.
Wasn’t there a Green Arrow movie in development called Supermax going down the road you’re describing?
That rings a bell. Let me go check that out—-
And I’m back. Yeah, that’s sort of what I’m talking about. Sounds like one of those movies that will never actually happen though.
The original was ok, but hardly a great movie. It seems expectations are so low for blockbusters these days whenever something of a reasonable quality comes out the critics go ga-ga over it.
I was just about to bring up Supermax!
I want that movie now.
If this pre-release rumbling about IM2 is correct, it does make you appreciate what a gutsy sequel “Empire Strikes Back” was.
Character development. The best action sequence (the battle on Hoth) front-loaded to the first third of the film. A cliffhanger ending.
And Lucas still thinks it’s the weakest of the series. Sigh.
Let’s not get Lucas snarky, now. Wait. No, you won’t get banned for that. Continue.
@markj – BINGO! EXACTLY! We’re parking cars in the same garage and shit.
And it’s not just the critics and it’s not just the tentpole/popcorn movies. It seems that cineastes are so desperate for something even a little different or competently shot that they will give it a gold star for effort.
This year a film with banal story line, beyond cliche characters and witless dialogue became the highest grossing film of all time – I don’t think IM2 has anything to worry about when it comes to making bank for Par.
Jeffmc2000, you know what else would be nifty? If superhero movies would adopt the James Bond/Indiana Jones model of leading off the movie with a whiz-bang action sequence that has little or nothing to do with the rest of the movie. That way, you could work in some of these lesser known villains without wasting time on set-up or origins or whatever.
For example, lead an Iron Man movie off with him apprehending Blizzard or the Melter. Lots of potential there for one decent sequence without building the whole movie around them.
Whatever his other flaws are, Cameron knows how to structure and pace a movie, something that the vast majority of big-budget genre directors these days can’t (or don’t) do.
Jeff’s idea @12 FTW.
Jeffmc2000: what you’re talking about sounds a lot like a video game — specifically, the latest Batman video game, “Arkham Asylum.” Batman dropped into Arkham Asylum with all the bad guys he’s put away locked in with him, and he has to fight (and think) his way out.
It’s a GREAT game… but as such, wouldn’t make for a very involving movie.
Is there really going to be some bullshit where Tony Stark ISN’T banging Johansson out of some allegiance to Paltrow’s blue-balling, asexual character?
I don’t know how REALISM would play to the popcorn-munchers, but what would make this THE BEST MOVIE EVER is if Johansson comes into the office first day and Paltrow’s like “Don’t even think it” like the previews.
Then of course once she’s out of sight, RDJ starts laying down his Tobackian Pick-Up Artist lines on her and DTBs Paltrow to the curb and spends ONE FULL HOUR OF SCREEN TIME setting up secret rendezvous with The Goddess to bang her, in and out of the suit.
Then when Paltrow’s icy, older than Scarlett ass catches them on the conference room table, Stark can look up, smirking and go, “Well, no one’s stopping you from joining in.” And GP runs out of the room crying, and Tony Stark looks RIGHT INTO THE CAMERA and goes, “Another satisfied customer. What are you doing with YOUR life?” And lights up a cigarette and flips the audience right the fuck off as he keeps banging Johansson.
Then the screen goes to black and a TITLE comes up that reads: YOUR LIFE IS WORTHLESS. YOU ARE INFERIOR.
And then POD’s BOOM cranks up as the credits roll and not a single superhero feat occurred in the 77 minute runtime, nor did a single villain appear.
BETTER MOVIE.
LexG: Sounds like you put a lot of thought into that. That would make a pretty good flick though.
Love that Idea Rich S. I can’t believe no one has thought of it before. You get your stupid cameo’s out of the way without having to work them in the story. Should make the stories much tighter and easier to watch the whole thing.
Everyone should go see Kick-Ass instead of Iron Man 2. I’ll be seeing IM2 tonight, but I doubt it comes close to Kick-Ass.
Kick-Ass was just okay. It had its moments, but tonally it was a mess and couldn’t make its mind up about what it wanted to be. A comedy? Satire? Spoof? Straight-up actioner? It didn’t balance each of these elements skillfully enough to be considered a fully-rounded and satisfying whole.
What’s more, it didn’t seem interested in exploring its premise. The dude gets hit by a car and suddenly has metal plates grafted to his bones and loses the ability to feel (much) pain? What’s the point of the real-world ‘what if?’ premise if you’re going to turn the guy who happened to decide to be a superhero into a superhuman anyway?
Entertaining enough, but it’s bound to be forgotten within the year.
I need a new username.
I think Arkham Asylum adapted for a movie could work. The basic premise anyway.
I’d also like to see Marvel take the Dick Tracy approach and just throw every weird character a hero ever fought into one movie. Why are they so stingy with the supervillains? Most of these mooks don’t deserve a movie of their own but it would be fun to see them show up in a scene to get their asses kicked. I mean, instead of showing Spider-Man stopping a bank robbery in every one of the Raimi flicks, couldn’t he have had a quick fracas with The Shocker or something?
People always complain about too many villains in superhero flicks—it’s not the villains, it’s too many story threads that can be the problem if enough time isn’t given to each one to explore it properly. But having some disposable goon villains show up to get the beats laid on them could be a lot of fun.
Jeffmc2000: Batman Begins had a few disposable villains. Mr. Zsasz showed up for about twenty seconds, and Carmine Falcone and The Scarecrow were somewhat secondary villains after Ra’s Al Ghul. You could even say they got rid of Two-Face pretty quickly in The Dark Knight, with him only turning into the villain for the last ten minutes or so.
It’s the likes of Spider-Man 3, with unnecessary origin sequences for shitty villains like Sandman, that are a waste of time.
I’ll agree that the “metal plated-bones” thing in Kick-Ass was dropped and forgotten all too quickly…but the rest of it was pure joy.
Well-written narration, too. “If you think I’m not in real danger here because I’m doing the voiceover, you must not have seen Sunset Boulevard or American Beauty.”
I’m getting Spider-Man 3/X-Men 3 vibes from the negative criticism…. not good.
It’ll still make an obscene amount of money like the two aforementioned flicks though.
twicks: It was witty and fun. I actually think it’ll play better on DVD. It could be a late-night cable staple for years to come. But its wildly uneven tone just made some moments drag for me. The mafia never felt threatening – too jokey. Cage’s (SPOILER!) motivations for avenging his wife’s death were dashed off too quickly in a comic-book style (which, to me, is the filmmaker’s way of saying “We couldn’t be bothered to shoot this stuff, so we’ll animate it cheaply as an ‘homage’ to the comic book format) and his death scene didn’t register emotionally at all. Plus Moretz is still the most cringe-inducing screen presence of all time.
Aaron Johnson was good, though. And Mark Strong was excellent as ever.
You’re right, Anglo-Saxon Party Gazelle, Batman Begins did throw us a few bones there. Missed opportunity with the Chris Nolan Scarecrow though—that character should have been in Batman Returns instead of the Penguin. If ever there was a villain made for a Tim Burton film it’s him.
Spider-Man 3 isn’t THAT bad. It’s not appreciably better or worse than 1 or 2; They’re all one equal bland, pink-tinted, generic, NBC-looking family-friendly dorkfest.
Spider-Man 2 is a 2.5 star generic movie, and Spider-Man 3 is a 2.5 star generic movie. I sensed zero dropoff in quality from one to the next in any way, nor do I understand why anyone thinks the second entry is “the best comic book movie ever made!”
I didn’t enjoy it half as much as I enjoyed either Nolan Batman, the first two Reeve Supermen, the second X-Men, either Lionsgate PUNISHER movie, Wanted, either Fantastic Four, or, hell, JUMPER, Daredevil, etc. All three are roughly on par with Elektra.
Other than Dunst looking cute in all three and Dafoe smarming it up amusingly in the first one, they’re genteel to a fault and straightforward visually. They’re just too fucking… square. And Alfred Molina is a great actor but even his villain in the second one is pretty bland. I’ll take Thomas Haden Church over Dock Ock.
The only awesome thing about Spider-Man 2 is that bony Russian chick making him pie. THAT’S a good scene. I wish I had a neighbor like her. I’d totally bang her.
i liked spiderman 3
SPOILERS…See, Cage’s final scene felt real to me. I liked that he didn’t make a heroic sacrifice or receive a typical “superhero demise.” They poured gas on him and burned him while Kick-Ass sat there helpless, freaking out. I thought it registered emotionally.
The comic-book sequence to fill in backstory was a little too reminiscent of the anime’ sequence in Kill Bill. But it worked.
The movie has heart. But then, so did Speed Racer…
twicks: You’re probably right about the Cage death scene. I suppose I didn’t see it that way. I was thinking how I didn’t really buy the bond between father and daughter because it was so absurd, and therefore the emotional goodbye fell flat. But thinking about it the way you saw it, the scene feels more successful.
The original was ok, but hardly a great movie. It seems expectations are so low for blockbusters these days whenever something of a reasonable quality comes out the critics go ga-ga over it.
Jonathan: I liked the first one, up until the Nick Fury bonus ending. Should’ve been tighter.
Rich: Batman and Robin was all Schumacher.
“If superhero movies would adopt the James Bond/Indiana Jones model of leading off the movie with a whiz-bang action sequence that has little or nothing to do with the rest of the movie.”
Um, they did that with Blade.
Anglo: Um, no one liked Transformers 1. They just accepted it, because they knew Bay couldn’t do any better.
Jeffmc:
“I’d just like to see a superhero Die Hard, where we take Batman or whoever as a given and plop him into the middle of a simple danger scenario and see how he gets out of it. A straight suspense-action picture with super-powers. I don’t think that’s ever actually been done. ”
They sort of went that route on the Adam West show.
DTG: You mean sixteenth highest grossing film.
Telemachos: “Cameron knows how to structure and pace a movie, ”
Yeah, I totally needed half an hour of montages to “get” that Jake fits in with the other Na’vi.
Lex: The first Spidey was the most overrated of the bunch, to be honest.
As for the Spidey 3 analogy, it’s not gonna be that big, because the genre as a whole seems to have peaked with TDK. Plus, Downey’s milked his image a lot more than Maguire, so there’s probably gonna be blow-back.
DeeZee, I’ve heard the Adam West Batman called a lot of things, but never a superhero Die Hard. That’s a new one.
And I kind of like Spider-Man 3 too, even though they don’t stick the landing. At least you don’t have to wait an hour for him to put the costume on like the first one. It’s kind of a train wreck, but at least it’s a circus train.
Of course, the “Batman” series with Adam West is as much “a superhero Die Hard” as it is a superhero “9 1/2 Weeks,” a superhero “Waiting For Guffman” and a superhero “Sound of Music.”
Makes you think…
Occasionally I feel bad about panning a film. I’ll think I went too hard on it. WIth Spiderman 3, I panned it and wasn’t hard enough on it.
There’s a myth that Iron Man was a good film. It wasn’t it. It was a bad film with a great central performance that lifted it into watchability. WIth another lead, it would have been a dud.
On a related note, it looks like, once again, I was right that the cast change would hurt the movie.
And yet, here you are, still a jobless twat babbling ceaselessly on the talkbalk pages of an obscure Hollywood blog.
Put the gun in your mouth. Bullet might go through your ear and not kill you. Don’t nibble on the barrel, pull the trigger.
Is there really going to be some bullshit where Tony Stark ISN’T banging Johansson out of some allegiance to Paltrow’s blue-balling, asexual character?
I don’t know how REALISM would play to the popcorn-munchers, but what would make this THE BEST MOVIE EVER is if Johansson comes into the office first day and Paltrow’s like “Don’t even think it” like the previews.
Then of course once she’s out of sight, RDJ starts laying down his Tobackian Pick-Up Artist lines on her and DTBs Paltrow to the curb and spends ONE FULL HOUR OF SCREEN TIME setting up secret rendezvous with The Goddess to bang her, in and out of the suit.
Then when Paltrow’s icy, older than Scarlett ass catches them on the conference room table, Stark can look up, smirking and go, “Well, no one’s stopping you from joining in.” And GP runs out of the room crying, and Tony Stark looks RIGHT INTO THE CAMERA and goes, “Another satisfied customer. What are you doing with YOUR life?” And lights up a cigarette and flips the audience right the fuck off as he keeps banging Johansson.
Then the screen goes to black and a TITLE comes up that reads: YOUR LIFE IS WORTHLESS. YOU ARE INFERIOR.
And then POD’s BOOM cranks up as the credits roll and not a single superhero feat occurred in the 77 minute runtime, nor did a single villain appear.
BETTER MOVIE.
I know I pick on you sometimes, Lex, but jesus if this didn’t make me laugh pretty damn hard. Reposted out of RESPECT.
Sorry, I fucked up the italics.
“On a related note, it looks like, once again, I was right that the cast change would hurt the movie.”
From a box-office perspective, or an actual movie perspective? I ask because it seems like you’re forever obsessed with drawing parallels — when it’s never been conclusively proven that there are any — between how much a movie makes and its critical reception.
If from an actual-movie perspective, are you really implying that Howard is that much better of an actor than Cheadle?
If from a box-office perspective, are you really implying that IM2 won’t make an absurd amount of cash? If so, make your (inevitably absurd) prediction right now, bitch.
Kane: “are you really implying that Howard is that much better of an actor than Cheadle?”
For that role, yes.
“If so, make your (inevitably absurd) prediction right now, bitch.”
I already made my prediction. Somewhere between X3 WW and the last film’s WW take. Though that’s only gonna be considered a hit if it didn’t go over-budget.
And remind me what the budget of IM2 is again?
“Somewhere between X3 WW and the last film’s WW take.”
You’re giving yourself almost a $150 million cushion right there (and I’m sure if it ends up being close, you’ll expand that out on both sides to about $200 million). But fair enough, prediction noted. We shall see.
“Come on, we’re overthinking it already. its a hit people, more of the same but bigger louder, sassier, plus mickey! its like a 10$ box of popcorn with extra butta!! get in, see it an get out.”
Just checking in: this is sarcasm, yes?
Iron Man 2 has no competition either going into May, or coming out of it. Shrek 43D or whatever it’s called will get the kiddie crowd, but for grown-ups and older kids, IM2 is it for awhile. I think it’ll do fine.
And I think the British critics are still holding Sherlock Holmes against Downey Jr. They get a little pissy about having their icons appropriated, and they seem to hold grudges.
“I already made my prediction. Somewhere between X3 WW and the last film’s WW take.”
Just for the record, the actual prediction he made was less than X3.
Kane: If they’re smart, the budget is $150 million or less. If Downey asked for more money, then $200 million or more, not counting P+A.
Jeffmc: Much as everyone’s trashing Robin Hood, you really think that’s no competition? And Seyfried is on a role right now, so Letters to Juliet could undercut the female audience for IM2. Then, of course, there’s SATC 2. Don’t care much for ‘Persia, but there is a possibility of it at least racking up some dough.
Gordon: I said not much more than that take. And it looks like Jeffmc agrees with me that Shrek 4 won’t make the dough you claim it will.
It’s ALL about ROBIN HOOD and LETTERS TO JULIET over here. Sure, I’ll dutifully clock in to Iron Man 2, but it feels more like an obligation, whereas I AM STOKED for Robin Hood (best director ever) and Juliet (5th Hottest Chick in the World.)
“And it looks like Jeffmc agrees with me that Shrek 4 won’t make the dough you claim it will. ”
That’s not at all what he said, so I’m not at all surprised you leapt to that conclusion. He said it’s going for a completely different audience. Which is obviously true.
What’s also awesome is when you look to other people to prove me wrong and then immediately argue with them about how wrong they are when they disagree with you. That’s always amusing (though it’s funnier when you do it in the opposite order than you did above).
“I said not much more than that take. ”
Well, you didn’t, but even if you did, you’re now saying “it’ll either barely make its money back in theaters or definitely no question about it make its money back it theaters”; you’re clearly building a much bigger window in after realizing that all the tracking is indicating this will be bigger than X3.
DeeZee, I’m going to put on my Carnak hat and predict that just about everything in May is going to under-perform, with the exception of Iron Man 2 and Shrek.
Robin Hood is dead in the water. If Crowe and Scott had actually done the alternate Nottingham take it might have had a shot, being something different, but this is a past-his-prime movie star in a burned out genre doing a movie people have already seen, either when it was called Gladiator, or when it was actually called Robin Hood.
Prince Of Persia—It looks like Scorpion King redux. Women like Jake Gyllenhall, but they don’t like video game movies (who does?), so I see the two things cancelling each other out. Can’t wait for the Fox News editorials decrying the movie as “Iranian propoganda”.
Sex And The City 2— A sequel to a movie that even women who liked the show admit wasn’t any good. And the novelty of seeing your favorite tv characters on a larger canvas is gone this time as well. The name value and relatively low budget guarantee it won’t bomb, but it’s not going to make what the first one did. Two-thirds maybe.
Shrek 4evah! —All the actually good cgi kids movies that have come out since the last Shrek might have finally taken the shine off this property, and I think the general perception about the Shrek movies now is that they kind of stink. So I predict this will be the lowest grossing of the franchise domestically(it’ll still be big), but it’ll make huge bank internationally where people are slower to catch on. Also, am I the only one who finds the design work in the Shrek movies incredibly ugly and inconsistent? I don’t think there’s two characters in the whole series that look like they were created by the same person, and everything moves like it’s in a Gerry Anderson show.
Letters To Juliet—I don’t even know what this is. Is Amanda Seyfried a movie star for anyone older than 20 yet?
Macgruber—This could actually make some money. There’s not much comedy competition in May, and early reviews say this is really, really funny. Could surprise people.
Robin Hood and Prince of Persia are the two big ones that I think are really going to stumble, letting Iron Man 2 roll straight through the month.
I’m hoping Prince of Persia “works.” I’m a sucker for Arabian Nights stuff, and it’s about time for ONE good movie to be made from a game… maybe get me one step closer to a GOOD Mario Bros. adaptation.
Jeffmc2000′s box office prognostication almost approaches DZ levels of insanity.
Also: SEYFRIED POWER. If you are doubting or not BOWING, you can’t possibly like vag.
How bad does Shrek 4: 3-D whatever have to be to not make a billion worldwide? Mind you, I do believe it could be that bad, but it’d have to be pretty bad.
Possibly LexG, but at least I’ll admit I’m probably wrong (and usually am).
Not about Robin Hood and Prince Of Persia though. Those’re gonna tank. Maybe tank’s too strong. Perform below expectations, let’s say.
Jeffmc: Yeah, it’s a dead year in general. Expendables is my only must-see. [Though I might give in and check out the Earthsea thing from Miyazaki's kid, if the rumoured theatrical release story is true.] But Hood should at least open better than Crowe’s other recent stuff. And if women liked Gylenhall, he’d have more hits than BBM under his belt. SATC 2 will probably open big, but may die out really fast. Probably for the best, because it looks like something that should be DTV.
And yeah, Shrek 4′s gonna disappoint, partly because of the CG glut, but also because DWA’s done a horrible job of making its movies stand apart from one another lately. [See Monsters vs. Aliens and 'Dragon disappointing.] Internationally, Iron Man 2 and ‘Persia will probably p0wn it. Normally, I’d have doubted Juliet, too, but Seyfried’s on a role since Dear John. Macgruber will either be another Kick-Ass [A bomb shot cheap enough that they can spin it as a hit.] or another Hot Tub. [An underperformer which should have connected with its audience better.]
Gordon: Doesn’t matter whether or not it’s bad. It’s tired.
“Tired” usually sells these days. You obviously haven’t been paying attention.
How do you figure ‘Dragon’s been “disappointing,” exactly? I’m not going to argue that it’s been an absolute blockbuster, but it’s got solid w.o.m., and another week to make a little bank before the IM2 firecracker explodes everything else in its wake. It will almost certainly end up creeping over $400 million. It opened a month ago, and it was #1 last weekend. Come on, now!
Just to specify, that’s $400 WW and $200 domestic. But I don’t think Dreamworks is going to be particularly unhappy at that take.
Kane: “”Tired” usually sells these days. You obviously haven’t been paying attention.”
If that were true, then Monsters vs. Aliens would’ve made money.
“How do you figure ‘Dragon’s been “disappointing,” exactly?”
DWA was obviously expecting ‘Dragon to be huge, and not just moderately successful.
“But I don’t think Dreamworks is going to be particularly unhappy at that take.”
They’re not gonna be unhappy until Shrek 4 and Megamind turn out to be duds.
“Doesn’t matter whether or not it’s bad.”
Yeah, that’s pretty much your argument for everything. That’s why your predictions are so horrible, dude. Because you don’t bother to wait to hear how word of mouth is among the people who want to see it. You wait until somebody has posted something dismissive about the script on AICN and then say “See? This proves it’s going to be terrible.” And then, five months later, the movie comes out and you’re wrong, and you start to say “Well, how could anybody predict that?”
Simple fact about ‘Shrek’: It’s been tired since Shrek 2 (at least), and each one has made more money than the last. Shrek is — as sad a fact as this is — the Bugs Bunny of an entire generation of kids. Your problem is, 100% of your feedback is gotten from on-line people, and generally only the ones as bitter towards life (et al) as you are. These aren’t the target audience for Shrek.
“That’s why your predictions are so horrible, dude.”
Theyr’e better than yours right now.
“Because you don’t bother to wait to hear how word of mouth is among the people who want to see it.”
If DWA needs WOM for its movies to make a profit at this point, then that company’s toast.
“Simple fact about ‘Shrek’: It’s been tired since Shrek 2 (at least), and each one has made more money than the last.”
Actually, Shrek 2 made more money than 3. And
the only reason Shrek 3 made the money it did was because it was pay-back for Spidey 3. Otherwise, that was a pretty crappy year for DWA, and the only big non-Shrek hits they’ve had since then were Kung Fu Panda and Madagascar 2. And the latter film had to cede its holiday-friendly turf to Twilight, while the former film only grossed a slightly higher WW total, in spite of being more popular. So I think DWA’s gradually losing its position as a power player, and, as a result, Shrek might take a hit in the form of a lower box office.
“Theyr’e better than yours right now.”
Yeah, I don’t see it. You’ve already blown your “being right about Kick-Ass” on “Dragon”, and you’ve got ‘Clash’ and “Alice’ making huge bank overseas to show you’re wrong on those too.
“the only reason Shrek 3 made the money it did was because it was pay-back for Spidey 3.”
I have no idea what that means, but it does seem like ‘Spider-Man 3′ is the movie that advance reviews are comparing ‘Iron Man 2′ to.
I do think there’s a slight chance that the critical mass on the Shrek franchise (i.e. that they suck) might have reached the point where even your more clueless parent might feel a little unhip and stupid taking their kids to another one. But I’m probably wrong. The last Ice Age was a huge hit, and that’s just 80 minutes of basic-cable-level celebrities mildly insulting each other while their CGI avatars walk across a barren landscape.
I’m just figuring the 3-D boost should kick it over.
Gordon: “and you’ve got ‘Clash’ and “Alice’ making huge bank overseas to show you’re wrong on those too.”
Clash is a disappointment, and Alice would’ve made most of that money, anyway.
“I have no idea what that means,”
It opened higher than it normally would just because people were fleeing from Spidey 3.
“I’m just figuring the 3-D boost should kick it over.”
That’s what Katzenberg said about ‘Dragon.
Jeff: Ice Age 3 probably made money because of how much people hated TF2.
“That’s what Katzenberg said about ‘Dragon.”
That isn’t what Katzenberg said about ‘Dragon’ and, beyond that, comparing the 4th film in a wildly popular series to a new one is inherently stupid and misleading.
“Clash is a disappointment”
So, you’re saying that the studio expected to make more than $400 million in the first month of release? That’s ridiculous. It’s a shitty movie, but it’s doing fairly well.
Gordon: “So, you’re saying that the studio expected to make more than $400 million in the first month of release? That’s ridiculous.”
Why do you think they jumped on the 3-d bandwagon?
They jumped on the 3-D bandwagon to make the movie profitable, which they accomplished, unfortunately.
It was going to be “profitable”, anyway. They were clearly hoping it was going to be a big pay-off, though, not an above-average pay-off.
well, yeah, every studio is *hoping* that a movie will randomly fluke its way into being a big hit. I’m talking about their expectations. They were clearly wary of how profitable the movie would be, so they upgraded it to 3-D to get more money on the short-term, since it’s a higher ticket price and it’s all the rage right now, and it clearly worked, especially overseas. If they had expected it to be a big pay-off, it would be a summer movie, not an April movie. It’s now the biggest April release of all time. I have a funny feeling that they know a little bit more about this business than you do, and understand that there’s no way they could possibly expect it to do much better than the biggest April release of all time.
Gordon: “If they had expected it to be a big pay-off, it would be a summer movie, not an April movie. ”
It had the jarhead from Avatar. Sure, he signed up earlier, but I think they were really hoping that Worthington and 3-d would be enough to make Titans huge by association.
So your argument is that a studio foolishly thought that there was a huge heretofore untapped April market and they gambled with a surefire hit like ‘Titans’ by releasing it in April instead of May?
Seems unlikely. I have to think that they’re plenty happy with the highest grossing April release of all time.
Also, it out-grossed T4.
Also also, why would it be huge because the guy from ‘Avatar’ was in it? Haven’t you consistently argued that ‘Avatar’ wasn’t huge?
Gordon: “Also, it out-grossed T4.”
That’s only because Arnie wasn’t in T4 and T4 was over-budget.
“Also also, why would it be huge because the guy from ‘Avatar’ was in it? Haven’t you consistently argued that ‘Avatar’ wasn’t huge?”
Well, yeah, but the suits think it is, which is why they also failed to cash in on Saldana.
“the suits think it is”
Seriously: Why on earth would you think that you know better than the people whose job it is to understand these things?
And, also, Arnie isn’t in ‘TItans’ either, and neither is Batman, but it out-grossed it. As for “over-budget”, I’m not sure how you’re attributing the low gross to the “over budget” thing, even if it did go over budget (and I don’t know whether it did or not).
Gordon: “Seriously: Why on earth would you think that you know better than the people whose job it is to understand these things?”
Says the guy who bet Kick-Ass would win on a tracking sample…
“And, also, Arnie isn’t in ‘TItans’ either, and neither is Batman, but it out-grossed it.”
Only because of the 3-d sales.
“As for “over-budget”, I’m not sure how you’re attributing the low gross to the “over budget” thing,”
Should’ve been cheaper, given that Bale had yet to prove himself outside of Batman.
“Should’ve been cheaper”
You know that “over-budget” has an actual meaning, right? And it isn’t just that you think it’s too expensive.
“Says the guy who bet Kick-Ass would win on a tracking sample…”
I never made an actual prediction on ‘Kick-Ass’. And, in point of fact, ‘Kick-Ass’ was #1 at the box office the first weekend, and has already exceeded your maximum prediction for its gross. So I have no idea what you’re gloating about.
“Only because of the 3-d sales. ”
So now you’re agreeing with me? Because I already said that and you disagreed.
Here’s something you could do to actually try to make your point: Prove that ‘Clash of the Titans’ isn’t the highest-grossing April release of all time.
“And, in point of fact, ‘Kick-Ass’ was #1 at the box office the first weekend, and has already exceeded your maximum prediction for its gross.”
You said it’d be a hit, and that it would open higher than $20 million opening weekend. It was neither. And it’s barely beating my prediction.
“Here’s something you could do to actually try to make your point: Prove that ‘Clash of the Titans’ isn’t the highest-grossing April release of all time.”
Oh, that’s fucking easy, especially when you take into account inflation. And yes, I’m aware it came out March 31, but that’s still an April weekend in the end.
“You said it’d be a hit”
I made fun of you, that’s true enough.
“and that it would open higher than $20 million opening weekend”
I never predicted that. I said that I probably would’ve predicted it, but I didn’t, because I didn’t care one way or another about ‘Kick-Ass’ and didn’t feel like getting trapped in one of your stupid games.
“And yes, I’m aware it came out March 31″
So, then, why are you citing it as a movie that was released in April? It was released in March.
“And it’s barely beating my prediction. ”
It’s barely been out for two weeks.
“So, then, why are you citing it as a movie that was released in April?”
Because it only came out during the last day of March, so it’s not really a March release, in that sense? Though if you want it to be literally April,
It only barely beats Fast and the Furious 4, but only ‘cus of ticket prices.
So, you’re trying to prove that it isn’t the highest-grossing April release ever by citing a March release and an April movie that grossed less than it. Interesting approach.
Keep in mind that ‘Fast and Furious’ had its entire release already, whereas ‘Clash’ is still accumulating money and is already $40 million ahead.
It’s only ahead, because of the 3-d ticket sales. It’d actually be significantly behind otherwise. And the Matrix is barely a March release. It’s more of an April release positioned in March to sell a few more tickets.
“It’s only ahead, because of the 3-d ticket sales”
Yes, which is exactly what I said. The studio upgraded it to 3-D in order to make it profitable. And even though you argued against me before, you now agree that, because of the upgrade to 3-D, it is now the highest grossing April movie of all time.
You, on the other hand, are arguing that the studio expected it to be a huge hit, and you’re basing that on nothing, and now you’ve conceded the point entirely. And you’re too dumb to realize it.
“And the Matrix is barely a March release.”
Hell, why not claim ‘Wolverine’ as an April release? May 1st is pretty much part of April, right?
“And even though you argued against me before, you now agree that, because of the upgrade to 3-D, it is now the highest grossing April movie of all time.”
Only barely, and thus not a real hit. Plus, it still underperformed, in regards to its budget and P+A, which can’t be said about F+F 4.
“You, on the other hand, are arguing that the studio expected it to be a huge hit, and you’re basing that on nothing,”
What, you think they’d fuck up the print as an artistic choice? And who the hell would put out a mid-to-late summer release in April otherwise?
“Hell, why not claim ‘Wolverine’ as an April release? May 1st is pretty much part of April, right?
Wolverine was clearly positioned as a May release. Matrix was positioned as an April release.
“And who the hell would put out a mid-to-late summer release in April otherwise?”
That’s circular logic; your argument is that it should’ve been a huge summer release and, thus, the fact that it wasn’t a huge summer release proves that they did expect it to be a big hit?
Wrong. They knew it would never be a huge hit, that’s why it was an April release.
“What, you think they’d fuck up the print as an artistic choice?”
No, I think — and have proven — that they did it purely for financial reasons. You’re the one arguing that they did it for no reason at all, not me.
“your argument is that it should’ve been a huge summer release and, thus, the fact that it wasn’t a huge summer release proves that they did expect it to be a big hit?”
They didn’t think it’d be a hit if they released it in summer. So they put it out in April and tried to cash in on the 3-d gimmick.
“You’re the one arguing that they did it for no reason at all, not me.”
No I said they were expecting to hit it big.
“They didn’t think it’d be a hit if they released it in summer.”
None of what you’re saying makes any sense, even by your standard. You’re the one who just called it a mid-to-late summer release. This, despite the fact that it was never announced as anything other than what it was.
“No I said they were expecting to hit it big.”
Yes, and what I’m asking is, where is your evidence that they expected, or even had any reason to expect, that it would be significantly more than the biggest grossing April release of all time? (Now by $80 million; figure $120 million more than F&F easily by the time it’s out of theaters, maybe as much as $150 depending on how up-to-date the foreign numbers actually are.)
“Yes, and what I’m asking is, where is your evidence that they expected, or even had any reason to expect, that it would be significantly more than the biggest grossing April release of all time?”
Well, they cast big talent, when they could’ve had no-names like they did with 300. They advertised it a lot earlier than they needed to. And they chose a remake which had a following among older movie-goers.
Big talent – all the big April releases have big talent, arguably generally bigger stars than Sam Worthington (I see Vin Diesel, The Rock, Adam Sandler & Jack Nicholson, and Hannah Montana as bigger than him, yes).
300 wasn’t an April release.
“They advertised it a lot earlier than they needed to.”
I love when you throw in something that’s not only subjective, but something nobody else would ever think of. Brilliant!
“And they chose a remake which had a following among older movie-goers.”
And it did better than ‘Amityville Horror’ or ‘Nightmare on Elm Street’, two other April remakes of movies which have a following among older moviegoers,