Discussion in 'Movies & TV' started by LiddyRules, Apr 23, 2013.
Surprisingly, there wasn't a thread on this. At least none I could find.
However, there is a trailer
Looks good. Just can't stand that Kat Dennings cunt.
Maybe there was a good reason there was no thread for this. I didn't even see the first movie in the theater, but it turned out to be surprisingly good. Maybe this one will surprise, too. Cap 2 seems a bit more promising, though.
What do you think of Loki? Is he kind of overused at this point? Or can he carry three movies like Darth Vader?
This looks good...but you just never fucking know.
And I'm a fan of Kat Dennings.
It's a true teaser. I really didn't like the first one but I'll watch this at home eventually.
I just like to see her huge Jewish tits
Looks good. Just can't stand that Natalie Portman cunt.
The off-Earth stuff was the best in the first one. However with a bigger budget that might not be the case this time around.
First poster. I like it. Thor at least has an excuse to have clouds and rain and shit around him.
I have a feeling these phase 2 sequels (IM3, Thor 2, Cap 2) will all outperform their phase 1 counterparts, proving once again that this Avengers shit was an amazingly good idea. I'm so happy I was wrong about this because I was expecting this to be a giant disaster and instead I got a bunch of movies I actually want to watch.
Yeah, I think they learned a lot from both the previous near-failures and The Avengers itself. Not to mention Joss getting more involved in every aspect.
An IM3 review I read had a good quote. Something like "In Phase I Marvel built their world. In Phase II they get to play in it."
As the direct follow up to Avengers, and according to every review I've read, a movie that delivers the goods, IM3 should see the biggest boost to something in the low to mid 400's and with the focus they've put on the international side, should reach 1 Billion worldwide pretty easily.
I think Cap 2 is in much better shape because he's got a far more personal story to tell, and a much more interesting supporting cast. That's kind of odd to say because Loki was the villain in Avengers, but after him the rest of the supporting cast is kind of meh. Obviously they're going to try to make it personal by putting Natalie Portman in harm's way, but there's only so much the Damsel in Distress angle can do for you. I hope they've got more than that. I could be wrong when it comes to box office, though. The studio seems to have a little more faith in Thor than Cap. I just think that Cap will be the better movie. Either way, I would expect both of them to get nice boosts to over $200 million, which should set the stage for Avengers 2 to take a serious run at Avatar. What will be funny is if they make it, the victory may only last a couple of weeks.
Why? Is it being released close to Avatar 2?
The rumor is that Avatar 2 is coming out in December 2015, but there's been no actual information other than "how can we film people underwater?" Unless Piggy's talking about the box office take of The Lone Ranger 2.
I was referring to Episode VII. With the original cast and Abrams directing it, I think you've got a contender. Look what he did for Star Trek's box office, and that was with only one returning cast member.
Good point. I couldn't think of what you were talking about. I still think Episode VII will need some very good buzz to do Avatar numbers. You only get that kind of bread with a movie that has massive hype but is also something lots and lots of people love (not like - love). Although Alice in Wonderland did shatter that reality a little, because I honestly don't know anyone who liked it, let alone loved it, and it made a billion dollars.
I think it needs to be insanely good for it to have a chance. People have followed The Avengers for over five years at this point, and people might be bit hesitant about Star Wars because of the prequels. The name alone won't carry it to highest grossing movie of all time. I'm not saying it won't do exceedingly well or that it won't break $1 billion worldwide, but as for defeating Avatar? That's with the Gods. I still don't know how Avatar pulled it off. I still don't know how Titanic pulled it off. I also think The Avengers and Dark Knight being 3 and 4 respectively were a bit surprising.
I'm going to help you out with that one - think of Alice in Wonderland as a sequel to Avatar, before everyone got Avatar on DVD and realized the movie kind of stinks when you're not in the theater. Both movies have what I would describe as a "reverse cult following", where they get less popular the further you get from their release date. I actually think the residual hatred from Alice in Wonderland is what has plagued Johnny Depp at the box office, and is one of the many reasons I have no faith whatsoever in the Lone Ranger.
I agree with all your points. I just think (and hope) that it will be insanely good. Hype alone won't carry a movie anymore. The point I was kind of trying to make above is that Avatar and Alice may have been the last of the movies to do huge box office on hype alone. How many bad movies since Alice in Wonderland have done HUGE box office? (Twilight doesn't count.)
Meanwhile, I can name a few movies that could have and should have done more, but suffered a bit from a "Wait and See" approach: Mission Impossible IV, X-Men First Class, Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and Inception all come to mind.
Not sure why surprising. What did you expect to be the top 4 grossing movies? I'd maybe expect a Lord of the Rings up there, but those are 3 different ones. Put together they are absolutely way up there.
Why did Avatar do so well? The hype machine for that movie deserves its own award. Everything about it seemed brand new and exciting - from the movie itself to the technology being used to make it. And it made for a good theater experience as well (as Piggy mentions below).
God I hope you're right. I would love to see Avatar 2 do average numbers now that the novelty has worn off. Unless it's actually good. In that case I'd be happy to see it make monster profits.
The hype associated with the movie will be bigger than the Star Wars reboot.
It's more about - what sends them into the upper stratosphere? Why are those movies that the audiences, despite having so many things to choose from, decided to return to over and over again. I'm not saying I'm surprised they're successes, but anytime anything can turn success into something more than success it's curious. That nothing except for Avatar has beaten Titanic is curious to me.
I don't think Avatar 2 will do average numbers, but I find it hard to believe that it'll surpass it's original total. But I wouldn't have put Avatar as the highest grossing movie of all time either in 2009. Keep in mind, most of the people who'd probably talk about Avatar aren't the general audience who made it #1.
I think we all understand why The Dark Knight had stratospheric numbers. I think Avatar's success is also closely tied to Titanic's success. Something about coming off of the biggest grossing movie ever contributed to the hype. Here was Titanic's James Cameron doing Terminator 2/Aliens/The Abyss James Cameron. Like the dream project you always wanted from the guy, and in many ways it really worked, at least for general audiences.
Certainly not average but I would love for it to not turn a profit, which won't be that shocking because I'm sure it'll cost half a billion to make as well or whatever.
I'm going to say something really out there, even for me - I'll be surprised if Avatar 2 ever sees the light of day.
Not that far out there. The fact that it isn't already being aggressively made is very strange in itself. Chris Columbus was on O&A saying that once the first weekend box office for the first Harry Potter came in, they started work on the second one the first Monday after it opened. A sequel that opens at least 6 full years after the original is risky. Unless they figure the profits enable them to wait this long and rebuild hype for the sequel. I'm not exactly sure what their thought process is.
I too doubt Avatar 2, but I like that Cameron wasn't just like "it's successful, SEQUEL IMMEDIATELY." He's taking his time, trying new things with technology (the primary reason for Avatar 1), and going under the sea. I like that we're not dealing with a "every two years, another Avatar" timeframe. He's doing it at his own pace, and I kind of appreciate that. It also plays into his crazy mad man filmmaker persona, which I think is kind of neat.
And because it's always funny