Weekend Estimates: GotG 17.6m | TMNT 16.8m | If I Stay 16.4m | WGST 9.0m | Sin City 6.5m

[baumer]

So now it's time to chop down Shaileen?  I don't get it.

[Mango]

Against all odds, Marvel Studios releases what are arguably their two finest films this year. After releasing 8 blockbusters (ok, 7), the expectation would be that they might run out of steam or not have the creative fuel to push forward, but the complete opposite has happened. The MCU was already unprecedented, but this is unprecedented for any franchise as well. Let alone one that is 10 films deep. Comparing Marvel to Pixar, Marvel has just been consistently getting better at their game. Pixar is fantastic, but their last films are not their best (imo). 

 

I was pondering one of those "alternate universe" thoughts the other day. I was thinking; what would the Post-Avengers MCU be like had they stuck with Paramount instead of being bought by Disney? Would we have even gotten GOTG? Would they have had the balls to release CA2 in April over a normal blockbuster month like May or November? Hell, would they have branched out to the Holiday season for Thor? 

[TServo2049]

Considering that Paramount is the studio that "rewarded" TMNT's August overperformance by slotting the sequel right in the middle of the summer 2016 logjam...I doubt it.

Edited August 24, 2014 by TServo2049

[Orestes]

I was pondering one of those "alternate universe" thoughts the other day. I was thinking; what would the Post-Avengers MCU be like had they stuck with Paramount instead of being bought by Disney? Would we have even gotten GOTG? Would they have had the balls to release CA2 in April over a normal blockbuster month like May or November? Hell, would they have branched out to the Holiday season for Thor? 

 

At least Paramount would've fudged Cap2 over 260.

[Moviedweeb]

I was pondering one of those "alternate universe" thoughts the other day. I was thinking; what would the Post-Avengers MCU be like had they stuck with Paramount instead of being bought by Disney? Would we have even gotten GOTG? Would they have had the balls to release CA2 in April over a normal blockbuster month like May or November? Hell, would they have branched out to the Holiday season for Thor? 

 

I think it would have been a very different ball game. Disney has marketing prowess and resources that Paramount can't come close to. Not a bad thing for Paramount (obviously one of the big six), it just isn't Disney. 

[RichWS]

It was also 14 years after Toy Story. Not to slight Pixar AT ALL - the fact that it took 16 years for a film of theirs to disappoint both critically and at the (domestic) BO is absolutely astounding - but Marvel Studios' rise has been over a period of only SIX years. Candle that burns twice as bright, etc., etc., and yet Marvel Studios hasn't burned out yet.

What does the amount of years have to do with anything? You do know animated films are far harder to produce than live-action, right? I'm not interested in getting into a pissing match about Pixar vs. Marvel but I can't stand when people make it about Pixar vs. Marvel just because Disney owns both.

[Mango]

I think it would have been a very different ball game. Disney has marketing prowess and resources that Paramount can't come close to. Not a bad thing for Paramount (obviously one of the big six), it just isn't Disney. 

 

Yeah, nothing against Paramount, but Disney is definitely a completely different beast as far as the marketing game goes. Would Avengers have made $600 million domestic with Paramount marketing/distribution? Maybe not.

[TServo2049]

Mango beat me to it - Disney distributed and marketed Avengers, not Paramount. They were bought out of the remainder of their Marvel contract with a percentage of the grosses of Avengers and IM3, and their logo at the beginning of both movies.

Edited August 24, 2014 by TServo2049

[tawasal]

I don't like her fat face, but she is fine actress. JLAW btw is a beauty and great actress. 

[RichWS]

So now it's time to chop down Shaileen?  I don't get it.

Lighten up.

[James]

I think it would have been a very different ball game. Disney has marketing prowess and resources that Paramount can't come close to. Not a bad thing for Paramount (obviously one of the big six), it just isn't Disney. 

You're confusing brand to studio power. Till recently, Paramount was much bigger than Disney. Take a look at the BOM yearly chart. In fact, movie making wise, Disney was never that big till 2 years ago.

 

That said, Disney's future looks bright

Edited August 24, 2014 by James

[The Panda]

Shailene is a fantastic actress,

 

1.She was the saving grace of Divergent

2.She brought the emotional weight to the Fault in Our Stars, almost any other actress could have failed easily in that role and without an extremely strong Hazel there was no way TFiOS would have been a good movie.

3.She was possibly the best part of the Spectacular Now and that says a lot considering Miles Teller slayed his role and the movie itself was phenomenal.

[4815162342]

Lighten up.

 

But if women are allowed to become consistent draws at the box office they'll expect the right to write and direct movies next.

[TServo2049]

What does the amount of years have to do with anything? You do know animated films are far harder to produce than live-action, right? I'm not interested in getting into a pissing match about Pixar vs. Marvel but I can't stand when people make it about Pixar vs. Marvel just because Disney owns both.

I was trying to make it clear that I was NOT making this Pixar vs. Marvel. I am not of the "there can be only one" mindset. I was just saying it's just as amazing in a DIFFERENT way. Pixar's streak is amazing due to how LONG they kept it up, Marvel's is amazing due to how much product they've put out in such a short period of time without burning out audience demand. A studio can just as easily burn out by saturating the market like that if they don't build up a standard of quality, and the resulting loyalty and trust, among the general audience *coughDreamWorks*I will support everything Pixar does (that doesn't involve Cars), I have been a Pixar fan since Toy Story, and I already loved their commercials (though I didn't find out they were done by Pixar until years later). I liked Brave, I liked Monsters University, I have faith in The Good Dinosaur, I never boarded the post-Cars 2 "Pixar = has-beens" bandwagon. So I did not intend that to be a "Marvel > Pixar" comparison, just an interesting contrast. Edited August 24, 2014 by TServo2049

[Mango]

You're confusing brand to studio power. Till recently, Paramount was much bigger than Disney. Take a look at the BOM yearly chart. In fact, movie making wise, Disney was never that big till 2 years ago.

 

I actually think you got it kind of backwards. Paramount definitely had some awesome years not too long ago, so yeah their studio power is impressive and arguably one of the things that makes them one of "the big six" but Disney is a brand name on its own, and with all of their franchises and recognition along with countless other money making machines, Disney is definitely "bigger".

[The Panda]

At least Paramount would've fudged Cap2 over 260.

 

No, because Disney's marketing is essential to what got Cap 2 that high in the first place.

 

A Paramount MCU would have still been successful, but I doubt even the Avengers could have been as big as it was without Disney.  Disney is the marketing god, and Paramount owned MCU was simply untapped potential (as we see now).

[RichWS]

But if women are allowed to become consistent draws at the box office they'll expect the right to write and direct movies next.

GASP

[James]

I actually think you got it kind of backwards. Paramount definitely had some awesome years not too long ago, so yeah their studio power is impressive and arguably one of the things that makes them one of "the big six" but Disney is a brand name on its own, and with all of their franchises and recognition along with countless other money making machines, Disney is definitely "bigger".

That's my point And I was talking only movie wise. I don't think there's anything competing with Disney when we're talking the company as a whole.

[Orestes]

But if women are allowed to become consistent draws at the box office they'll expect the right to write and direct movies next.

 

Wonder if its possible for cooties to be transmitted via watching a movie screen, because those things happening would probably do it.

Edited August 24, 2014 by Orestes

[miketheavenger]

No, because Disney's marketing is essential to what got Cap 2 that high in the first place.

 

A Paramount MCU would have still been successful, but I doubt even the Avengers could have been as big as it was without Disney.  Disney is the marketing god, and Paramount owned MCU was simply untapped potential (as we see now).

Yeah, I think without Disney marketing The Avengers would have probably made around TDK numbers domestically at best. Will be very interesting how huge the marketing push for Star Wars Episode VII will be.