Originally Posted By DDMAN26 <a href="http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/the-avengers-dark-knight-rises-box-office-312398" target="_blank">http://www.hollywoodreporter.c...e-312398</a> Granted tracking can be off but this is very good news for Disney.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I don't think the tracking is off on this one, it's going to be huge. The hype on this one is astronomical. Disney's marketing has done a hell of a job. But the key is the followup, the next few years are going to be crucial if Disney is going to be able to pull a huge profit from their investment.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 It's definitely going to be huge. The lowest I could see for opening weekend would be 135, the highest I think would be 175.
Originally Posted By brotherdave It will be big, but will it be "big enough" to make a profit for them?
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Based on merchandising and the carryover effect where this hype will help boost the box office of Iron Man 3 and Thor 2 next year,I'd say yes... Avengers toys are flying off the shelf right now.
Originally Posted By brotherdave Which is probably one of the biggest reasons why Disney bought Marvel in the first place! It sells!
Originally Posted By oc_dean I'm predicting it will be huge. Most "Marvel" movies usually are. What I don't want to "predict" ... is Disney forcing Marvel into Disneyland, once they start to see the profits roll in. (Have no problem Disney creating a separate park for them, or using DCA. But Disneyland? One ugly "clash" like water to oil)
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 OC_Dean if they re-themed Innovations to be "Stark Expo" how would it clash? They could still keep the sponsors, but add a Marvel theme that would fit into the area.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >"Stark Expo" how would it clash?< Especially since it is based off of what Walt did.
Originally Posted By tonyanton I can see Marvel providing the basis for the third park at some point, depending on real and perceived longevity of the properties...something futuristic for Iron Man, Thor's Nordic world, NYC/Spiderman, 1940s US for Captain America, etc.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 It got it's overseas start: <a href="http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/04/26/avengers-box-office-overseas-opening-weekend-record/" target="_blank">http://insidemovies.ew.com/201...-record/</a>
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 I am guessing it will open to 175 million for its North American debut next weekend... Hunger Games was tracking at 75 million and nearly doubled it, so I have no doubt Avengers will surpass it's tracking number. Especially since it has been reported that pre-sales for Avengers tickets in North America are beating pre-sales for Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Incredible Hulk, Thor and Captain America......COMBINED....
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Here is a link for my above comments. <a href="http://www.superherohype.com/news/articles/170397-avengers-pre-sale-bigger-than-all-previous-marvel-movies-combined" target="_blank">http://www.superherohype.com/n...combined</a>
Originally Posted By oc_dean I saw the film yesterday. (Australia) It will no doubt make Disney a lot of money. But having seen the film .... I still don't see how it relates to Tomorrowland, and some sort of "Stark EXPO." We've heard of the phrase "Product Placement" ... well ... I can't see how they can turn Innoventions into a "Stark Expo" without it being a place for "MARVEL Placement". FURTHER devolving Tomorrowland into a land with no cohesive theme .. with Star Wars, and Pixar branding going on. I read a very good post from someone elsewhere. Something everyone interested in this subject ought to read: >>>>>> "Disney" is not a theme, it is a condition of ownership. To reduce it to a theme is to commit the very same missteps that have typically prevented other themed experiences from attaining the same level of emotional response as those created by Disney. Ornamentation and expense do not create this response, it is the thoughtful process of choosing what to include and exclude, authentic and anachronistic, that build up to create a specific environment that resonates with the audience. That the fans of Disneyland do not see its own merits is the biggest shame. Would there be a similar embrace if the characters of Sky High, another set of Disney superheroes, were to enter into the Marvel Cinematic Universe? Or why not include Agent P as an Avenger? Maybe Rapunzel should go help Merida in her quest for independence? Even in the multifaceted world of comic books there are different lines and universes that recognize each other's differences and how it would not make sense for them to all just ignore these "rules" that are built up as part of the fiction. Marvel created the contemporary superhero film, genre and its popularity not by treating superheroes as silly or campy, but by respecting their true identity and taking them seriously. That Disney has not just plopped down Marvel meet and greets should be celebrated. Unfortunately it is probably a result of political infighting, but it would also show a respect not only to the fiction and integrity of Disneyland, but also the fiction and integrity of the Marvel characters. It is okay if the two do not have natural overlaps. It means they are their own things. If there is a way in which they do naturally overlap, then allow for that narrative to be explored, but do not force it because ownership has changed. Disney could sell off or spin off Marvel (if maintaining all of Walt's 47 square miles of central Florida is not sacred, why should Marvel be?). Only further removing Innovention's connection to Tomorrowland helps neither. It only further removes the identity of a place which has been lacking a solid identity since the 1970s. It also just furthers the identity crisis of Tomorrowland at large. It breaks down the atmosphere that creates a sense of place and further devolves the land into the confusion of brands and imagery that befuddles so many, and continually raises the question of "What is wrong?" That should not a question asked of a cohesive themed environment. Universal is also a serious element in the matter of Marvel. Not for the legal issues regarding the three existing licensing agreements, but because what was done with the first of those. It was with the Amazing Adventures of Spider-Man that Universal truly and clearly bested Disney, finally ending Disney's position as the unchallenged supreme in the world of themed experiences. Since then, this challenge has only been furthered, especially with the Wizarding World of Harry Potter. Achievements that Disney has still not seriously contended. A slapped together, out-of-theme Marvel experience at the Disneyland Resort would hardly be an example of the "Disney difference" when Universal did so much more over a decade ago. If Disney is going to build a Marvel experience it should be one that truly wows, respectful of the integrity of the existing Disney parks and the integrity of the Marvel multiverse while also reestablishing Disney as the premier name in themed entertainment, not some second-rate experience living in the shadow of Universal's work. <<<<<< But back on the new film ...... Once it hits U.S. theaters .... See it in 3D ... and whatever row you tend to pick ... go a row or 2 closer in ... This time ... it's shot 1.85:1. A big budget flick like this ... I have no clue why they would not film it in the more "cinematic" wider 2.35:1 frame. Don't walk away the second the end credits start rolling .. Or you WILL miss a teaser which is probably a lead for future sequels. ( I read that Chris Hemsworth has signed on for 2 more Thor films .. and --TWO-- more Avengers films) And what I'd like to know is .... If Disney owns Marvel ... I'm still confused why it's a "Paramount" film .. not a single reference to Disney Pictures at all, at the beginning. Is Paramount Studios JUST the distributor? Just how much input does Disney have in this?
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "But having seen the film .... I still don't see how it relates to Tomorrowland, and some sort of "Stark EXPO." " << Have you seen "Iron Man 2"? >> "And what I'd like to know is .... If Disney owns Marvel ... I'm still confused why it's a "Paramount" film .. not a single reference to Disney Pictures at all, at the beginning. Is Paramount Studios JUST the distributor? Just how much input does Disney have in this?" << Before they were purchased by Disney, Marvel Studios made a multi-film distribution deal with Paramount. The deal basically had Marvel financing the films themselves (and retaining copyright) and paying Paramount a distribution fee. I think I read the distribution fee was around 10% of the gross or something similar. The deal was, I believe, for 6 films and the first four were "Iron Man", "Iron Man 2", "Thor" and "Captain America". The other two in the deal were expected to be "The Avengers" and probably "Iron Man 3". About a year or so ago, Disney decided to buy out the rest of the Paramount deal. Basically, the arrangement was to still pay Paramount the expected distribution fee and Paramount's logo still appears on the films in addition to the Marvel logo, but Paramount would be relieved of the distribution and marketing tasks. Disney's plan is for the "Marvel Studios" brand to be another label for them. In other words, the Marvel films generally will not have the "Walt Disney Pictures" or "Touchstone Pictures" logos, although they are still distributed by Disney. Did you look at the very end of the credits on "The Avengers" to see if there was a text credit showing it as "Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Distribution" or something similar? More than likely that was there. As for Disney's involvement (through Marvel), it was pretty much complete. They financed the film, own the copyright, and will handle theatrical and home video distribution and marketing. Paramount's logo is really only there as kind of an acknowledgement of their early involvement. -Jeff
Originally Posted By oc_dean Thanks Jeff for all that - much appreciated. Yes .. I saw Iron Man 2. 3 times. The 1974 Stark Expo bit ... interesting .. and ... BY THE WAY ... all very VAGUE. There were no specifics that would directly translate to a solid theme park attraction. That would be up to the imaginations of Imagineering to FILL IN THE GAPS, the film left out. It seems imagineering has plenty of creativity within them ... But are constantly over-ruled to synergize whatever film properties the studio has cooked up (animated or live-action). So .. it remains to be seen what could be cooked up. My fear though .... No matter how original imagineers can be ... Disney marketing will push brightly lit names like "Marvel" ... "Iron Man" .... "Stark Enterprise" and "Tony Stark" all over Innovention's 2 stories. And like I said .. further devolving Tomorrowland into a land of confusing "branding messages". We live in a world with plenty of marketing ads (both subtle & OUT there: <a href="http://www.inflexwetrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/tsifwt.png" target="_blank">http://www.inflexwetrust.com/w...ifwt.png</a> ) Disney Imagineers know how to project centuries into the future ..... But Disney marketing wants to keep Tomorrowland into the present real world! When you look at Tomorrowland through the ages .. Seems whatever Tomorrowland was like .. from one decade to the next .. seems to "mirror" the real times of whatever decade it was in. For instance ... the 1960s were a progressive, "Space Race" times .. and Tomorrowland ~mirrored~ those feelings ... And Tomorrowland today seems to be indicative of who's pulling the reigns today - Corporate world. Out to stamp a brand ANYWHERE they can, even if it tends to cement the land, into roots tied to "Today". A true Tomorrowland should break away from the drudges of "today" thinking. But I don't think top Disney executives with the power to push buttons .. are capable of that kind of thinking anymore. The Tomorrowland conundrum can be summed up like this: Tomorrowland is "Art" And real-life today is - "Life" In this case .... Art is imitating Life BUT.... in the cohesive vision Tomorrowland of 1967, it achieved the opposite of 'imitation.' Original A little word we crave for new attractions. Some of the antonyms to the word 'imitate' are:
Originally Posted By oc_dean ^^^ forget that little bit ... (in my re-edits, meant to be dropped out)
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Wow, 179 million overseas on it's opening weekend... This movie may make the execs forget about John Carter...
Originally Posted By brotherdave Didn't John Carter do somewhat well overseas? I thought I read that somewhere...
