Harpospoke Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 No. That's Loki. Pierce. I see what you guys are saying about F7 vs AoU, but how is 191mil OW not connecting with the zeitgeist. That's a lot of fucking people no matter how you spin it. It was "only" a mass panic to see AoU. With TA it was mass insanity to see it. So clearly AoU was a failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acetabulum7 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I'll restate this, adjust the drops to these movies and the drop makes perfect sense. All of the following were phenomenon movies with highly successful sequels that still had massive drop offs. (170m drop off looks very nice in comparison to a lot of these) Jaws to Jaws 2 - 770m drop adjusted The Exorcist to The Exorcist 2 - 726m drop adjusted Star Wars to Empire Strikes Back - 519m drop adjusted The Godfather to The Godfather Part 2 - 433m drop adjusted Jurassic Park to Lost World - 294m drop adjusted Phantom Menace to Attack of the Clones - 267m drop adjusted Back to the Future to Back to the Future Part 2 - 241m drop adjusted Beverly Hills Cop to Beverly Hills Cop 2 - 226m drop adjusted Home Alone to Home Alone 2 - 210m drop adjusted Shrek 2 to Shrek 3 - 197m drop adjusted Batman to Batman Returns - 193m drop adjusted Raiders of the Lost Ark to Temple of Doom - 193m drop adjusted Men in Black to Men in Black 2 - 177m drop adjusted Rocky to Rock 2 - 170m drop adjusted Pirates 2 to Pirates 3 - 160m drop adjusted Superman to Superman 2 - 149m drop adjusted The Dark Knight to The Dark Knight Rises - 135m drop adjusted Sorceror's Stone to Chamber of Secrets - 89m drop adjusted Transformers 2 to Transformers 3 - 79m drop adjusted Spider-Man to Spider-Man 2 - 76m drop adjusted Only 3 didn't drop at least 100m and out of those only Spider-Man adjusts to over 500m You need to eliminate all the part 2 to part 3 movies. Next, you need to take their original grosses, not with all the re-releases (Star Wars). Also, most of these part 2 movies didn't have the same hype going in. There are plenty of other movies had had increases: Shrek 1 to Shrek 2 Pirates 1 to Pirates 2 CA 1 to CA 2 Thor 1 to Thor 2 Transformers 1 to Transformers 2 Just off the top of my head. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hatebox Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Loki was fun, but to call him 'interesting' is pushing it. He had very basic Daddy Issues in Thor and his motives were nothing more than power in TA. Marvel's most interesting villain so far is probably Trevor from IM3 simply because he subverted the archetype. Although the film tried to have its cake and ate it with Guy Pearce's cliched villain straight afterwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Goffe Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 You need to eliminate all the part 2 to part 3 movies. Next, you need to take their original grosses, not with all the re-releases (Star Wars). Also, most of these part 2 movies didn't have the same hype going in. There are plenty of other movies had had increases: Shrek 1 to Shrek 2 Pirates 1 to Pirates 2 CA 1 to CA 2 Thor 1 to Thor 2 Transformers 1 to Transformers 2 Just off the top of my head. no first movie in your list grossed 400m, even if you adjust numbers (let alone TA 600m) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orestes Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) Loki and Fisk are pretty much the top so far for Marvel villains. Trevor was good, but in the end he wasn't really a villain, just a puppet. Stane and Pierce were pretty decent as well. The rest range from meh to bad. Looking forward to Bruhl and Tennant's turns in the bad guy department. Tennant probably has a better chance of being good, though, just because he'll have 13 hours of show vs 2.5 hours of movie to develop. Edited May 10, 2015 by Orestes 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonytr87 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Pierce. It was "only" a mass panic to see AoU. With TA it was mass insanity to see it. So clearly AoU was a failure. I actually think many of the Marvel villains are underrated. The Winter Soldier felt like a real threat. Pierce wasn't the most original bad guy but Redford sold it. Jeff Bridges added a lot of menace to generic corporate evil. Hammer wasn't threatening but he was pretty well developed and entertaining. Rourke did what he could with an underwritten character. Vanko was more interesting in the quieter scenes. And then Loki and Ultron are the cream. Red Skull Malekith Ronan Killian Abomination Those are bleh. The rest are good or have their redeeming aspects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddddeeee Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Loki was fun, but to call him 'interesting' is pushing it. He had very basic Daddy Issues in Thor and his motives were nothing more than power in TA. Is there a single comic book villain we can't dismantle like that though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonytr87 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Loki and Fisk are pretty much the top so far for Marvel villains. Trevor was good, but in the end he wasn't really a villain, just a puppet. Obadiah Stane was pretty decent as well. The rest range from meh to bad. Forgot about Fisk. He might be #1, although that might be unfair since they had 13 hours to develop him. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Marston Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Good Marvel Villains: Loki Pierce Winter Soldier Ultron Meh: Obidiah Stane Abomination Ronan Red Skull Bad: Whiplash Aldrich Killian Malekith Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddddeeee Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Ronan and Malekith are pretty much the exact same. Except one gets a pass for being in a better movie. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CJohn Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) Ronan was a nothing villain. Same for Red Skull. Winter Soldier is actually considered a villain? I liked Jeff Bridges in the first Iron Man. If Sam Rockwell counts as a villain, I liked that one as well Edited May 10, 2015 by CJohn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonytr87 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Whiplash gets too much flak. Rourke at least quirked it up a bit. There was literally nothing remotely original or interesting about Ronan or Red Skull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Panda Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 You need to eliminate all the part 2 to part 3 movies. Next, you need to take their original grosses, not with all the re-releases (Star Wars). Also, most of these part 2 movies didn't have the same hype going in. There are plenty of other movies had had increases: Shrek 1 to Shrek 2 Pirates 1 to Pirates 2 CA 1 to CA 2 Thor 1 to Thor 2 Transformers 1 to Transformers 2 Just off the top of my head. The Avengers is technically a sequel to all of the previous Marvel movies though. And im not talking sequels I am talking phenomenon's that had massive drops, even if you take out the long runs they still dropped off massively adjusted. TA2 is not a disappointment for grossing in the mid 450m range when you look at it compared to other sequels to phenomenon's. I can use Shrek 2 to 3 and Pirates 2 to 3 as well because those were phenomenon sequels (just like The Avengers is a sequel, just to multiple movies). Even then you still have your Jurassic Park's, Indiana Jones, The Dark Knight, Batman, Men in Black, Star Wars Prequels, Rockys, The Godfather, etc. Plus even Star Wars' gross without continued runs has a massive adjusted drop to Empire Strikes back, well over what The Avengers 2 will have, and Empire Strikes back was still massive, just like TA2 is still massive. Nothing went wrong for The Avengers 2, the only thing wrong was the expectations placed upon it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Paul Blart still getting that money Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rthmessiah Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 Fri (+147.7%) $21,338,000 Sat (+58.7%) $33,862,000 Sun (-35%) $22,003,000 In order for Sat not to be over 34, fri will have to decrease, so either your going to with actuals Fri decrease or Sat increase if Fri stays at 21.338 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harpospoke Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) Next, you need to take their original grosses, not with all the re-releases (Star Wars). I don't see why rereleases shouldn't count for Star Wars or any other movie. It's still about demand for a movie. ...Which is what we are talking about. If a movie has enough demand to make a release worthwhile, that's a big deal. Titanic is in front of Avengers because of a rerelease. People spent money on it and kept it in 2nd place. Even if it's the same people buying tickets again...that's no different than the original run. Empire Strikes Back had its own rereleases (plural) to get closer if it had that capability...and it couldn't do it. The final grosses of those two movies absolutely reflect the difference in demand for them. One could say it's a more accurate measure since it is grosses for both movies played out over a long period of time when "buzz" and marketing isn't as big a factor. ESB landed where it is meant to land. There are plenty of other movies had had increases: Shrek 1 to Shrek 2 Pirates 1 to Pirates 2 CA 1 to CA 2 Thor 1 to Thor 2 Transformers 1 to Transformers 2 Just off the top of my head. The problem would be assuming that because some movies increased that means all movies will. Especially if you use movies that weren't massive hits as a comparison. That's going to result in a bad prediction....as we are seeing now. Winter Soldier is actually considered a villain? He spent almost all the movie trying to kill the good guys. He kinda backed off at the end. Like Darth Vader....still considered one of the all time great villains even though he became good at the end. Nothing went wrong for The Avengers 2, the only thing wrong was the expectations placed upon it. Yep. The predictions failed....the movie is doing great. Edited May 10, 2015 by Harpospoke 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Nevada Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 I cant wait for the Why Pitch Perfect 2 Is Actually Bad For Feminism thinkpieces next week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TServo2049 Posted May 10, 2015 Share Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) BOM does lump in undocumented re-releases for a lot of the pre-1982 stuff. Cinema Treasures' anniversary retrospective articles for some films sometimes have first-run grosses - for example, I was able to get Empire's first-run total, excluding the undocumented 1981 reissue. Star Wars' first run was $221.3m. Empire's first run was $181.4m. Those numbers respectively adjust to $806m and $548m. So the drop from first run to first run would actually be $258m. Actually less of a drop than from Menace to Clones or JP to TLW. Cinema Treasures listed Jaws' first run gross as $192m. That adjusts to $761m. The $77.7m first-run total for Jaws 2 listed on BOM adjusts to $270m. So its drop would be $491m. Still absolutely massive. Exorcist and Godfather, not sure. Exorcist II was a dud, so even if the adjusted drop without re-releases isn't $726m, it could well be bigger than Jaws. I just can't find first-run info for anything older than Jaws. (Generally, grosses weren't even reported prior to Jaws, only rentals, i.e. the amount of money paid back to the studio by the theaters.) And if you do count re-releases, each re-release has to be adjusted to its year. That makes it even more difficult. Comparing the pre-Special Edition adjusted figures of Star Wars and Empire, with each release adjusted by its year, gives us $1.14b for SW and $666m for ESB, or a drop of $474m. Adding the SEs gives us $1.384b for SW and $785m for ESB, for a drop of $599m - basically $600m total between the cumulative admissions of the two. I can't find the individual re-release figures for Jaws, so I will just take the $802.9m adjusted figure Cinema Treasures had in 2010, and adjust it to the current 2015 price from the average of 2009-10 (since the article was published in summer 2010) which will bring it to about $847m. BOM's cumulative for Jaws 2, so it adjusts to $292m. That gives it a drop of $565m when all is said and done. Again, can't figure out anything about Exorcist or Godfather. But either way, these were all huge drops, and yet most of them were still big successes and moneymakers (Exorcist II was the only one that was a dud). Jaws 2 fell from its mega blockbuster predecessor to just a big hit (though it was one of those rare occurrences at the time of a movie being a bigger hit OS than it was domestically). But Empire's first-run to first-run admissions drop, by my calculation, comes to 32%. And it wasn't considered a disappointment, because it was a mega hit, and a mega moneymaker (oh, and sequels did not ever increase from the original back then, or even come anywhere close, so there was no such expectation for it to fall short of). I'm rambling, but these stats are fun! Edited May 11, 2015 by TServo2049 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cochofles Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 (edited) I think Ulton s biggest crime is the cannon fodder army done twice. I always said Ultron s trailers had a more of the same feel to it. I loved the movie but I don t know , I would have liked Ultron to have other powers than clone army. And the funny thing is that the army-of-clone-Ultrons conceit has always been one of Ultron's comic book tropes; had the first film not had the whole army-of-indistinct-henchmen thing, the sequel's trailers wouldn't have felt so deja vu-ish. Honestly, I always expected Ultron to be the villain for the first Avengers film, not Loki. As a long-time comic book reader, I always saw either Ultron or Kang the Conqueror (not Loki) as the Avengers' arch-nemesis. Edited May 11, 2015 by cochofles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orestes Posted May 11, 2015 Share Posted May 11, 2015 Loki was the impetus for the Avengers initially forming, wasn't he? And Loki had build up in a previous movie, which helped a lot when there was as much going on as Avengers had; they didn't need to build up a brand new character. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
