Webslinger Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Let's see:- Great ad campaign by Disney that started early (summer 2009) and kept revving up prior to the March 2010 release.- First 3D event movie after Avatar.- Very well-known source material.- Took advantage of a void of big family movies, and had a director and star with wide enough followings that it appealed to non-family audiences as well.I think Alice in Wonderland could be summed up as a rare box office case in which everything that could go right did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accursed Arachnid!™ Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 What everyone else has said about AIW coming hot on the heels of Avatar. Released now it would make 2/3 what it made(Maybe even less). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lordmandeep Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Yeah Clash benefited as well...With the 3D and Release the Kraken!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Homer Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 While I don't like the fact that Burton's worst movie is his most successful, the success of the movie wasn't surprising at all. 3D+Depp+Family Audience pretty much guarantees a billion or close to it. And honestly, while the film wasn't made for older Burton fans like me, my three year old daughter loves it so I give it a pass for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
druv10 Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 I'm more perplexed by the Avengers' success to be honest. Yes, it had 5 movies, but none of them made over 300M internationally and none of them were memorable. From this to go to almost 900M OS is just mindboggling.Alice at least had Tim Burton, who is a real director, and Johnny Depp doing what he does best.Because TA has had the best WOM since Avatar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Because TA has had the best WOM since Avatar.WOM explains legs, not opening weekend. The Avengers opened bigger than what every Marvel movie except Iron Man's made in their entire runs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rb02 Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 It helped that the real world liked the movie about 10,000 times more than the Internet liked it. That helped its legs, which were very good. No matter how much the Internet hates this movie, the fact is it sold lots of tickets, and not all were sold on OW. In fact, only around a third of them were. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) I think legs ended up being solid because there wasn't a whole lot else for its target audience to watch, and it wasn't bad enough to actively put potential customers off the movie. I bet a lot of people came out saying "Eh, it was ok, you might enjoy it". A lot of bad comedies and kids movies end up having decent legs too like pretty much everything Adam Sandler's been in. Edited June 21, 2012 by tribefan695 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTX Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Because TA has had the best WOM since Avatar.The most hillarious post I've read on this forum in a week. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagnetMan Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) The most hillarious post I've read on this forum in a week. I get that you don't like the movie... but I think there are things about it that you can't dispute. You can't deny that it stars Robert Downey, Jr. You can't deny that it features characters from Marvel Comics. You can't deny the actual numbers it's putting up. And you can't deny that it has considerable WOM.Things you CAN dispute: your own personal reaction to the film (whether you like it or not), whether or not it contained enough of a plot (once again, a subjective topic based upon personal opinion), etc.But you can't seriously allow your personal opinion of the film to color the facts of the film's performance.I personally hate the Twilight films. I feel they are flimsy, over-wrought, over-dramatic borefests. But I can't dispute how popular they are, or how much money they make.Based on TA's numbers... it HAS to have great WOM. Edited June 21, 2012 by MagnetMan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Homer Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 The most hillarious post I've read on this forum in a week. I agree. TA had better WOM than Avatar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasterDodsen Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 Alice wasn't that bad of a film, people. It had a lot to do with the success Avatar had on 3D and Disney does what it does so well, market a film to the max. People saw it, llked it enough for Domestic to be 334M and enough people thought the same to get 690M Internationally. It happens: bad movies make all kinds of bank (Shrek 2), it just is what the market is at the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AniNate Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) Shrek 2 isn't the best example seeing as it's a good movie. Hancock would be a pretty good comparison, though. It succeeded on its starpower, visuals and not being Razzie-worthy. Edited June 21, 2012 by tribefan695 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
