Box Office numbers

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Shinigami

Spider Man 3 and X-men 3 are best examples because they made a lot of money. The studio should have fast-tracked a direct sequel to each. The studio should have tried to extend each franchise with a fourth movie. Instead, they chose to reboot each franchise. .

I do not agree with this. If they come out with a 4th and it does a Shrek 4, it will make less and take longer to reboot. Look how long it took to reboot Batman. Easier to reboot off less success than a bomb of failure. Something I think Darth touched on was for long term success, it is better to reboot.

I did not see Spiderman yet, but from the word of mouth this movie is not going to jump start the series the way Star Trek will.

[Darth Kenshin]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

LOL OK man. You win. The Sony executives conducting the shareholders meeting are all idiots. Multi billion dollar company run by idiots. You must be right. Afterall, you have much more experience than they do.

I can't say it, but there is a Tommy Boy quote that would fit in right here.

lol

Has nothing to do with experience. It's common sense. Whoever tries to compare Amazing Spiderman to those other movies doesn't have a clue about box office trends or know anything about the financials of the movie business. Plain and simple.

You're right, though, and I shouldn't generalize. I don't know if the guy who said that is in fact stupid. But that comment he made was incredibly stupid. Avengers and Pirates of the Caribbean... it's laughable.

Anyway, moving on, with TDKR coming out soon, a huge dent is going to be put into Spiderman's gross. I'm curious, though, why the new Batman series doesn't seem to be as huge overseas as it is in the states. The Dark Knight made $468 million overseas. That's a big number (37th all time overseas), but of the 30 highest grossing movies of all time world wide, Dark Knight is the only one where foreign gross accounts for less than half. Batman Begins only pulled in $167 million, which is small compared to similar movies that came out at the same time. I wonder if the darker-toned comic book movies just aren't as interesting to the foreign audience as they are here? Maybe major foreign markets just prefer the mindless fun of Transformers flicks and things like Avengers? Or maybe TDKR rakes in $1.5 billion worldwide and this is all moot.

[DaveyJoeG]

Perhaps to foreign language audiences, mindless spectacle films are much more interesting than the dialogue-driven Nolan films. Plus Batman is a very American icon that is deeply rooted in capitalism whereas giant fucking robots are universal. Batman hasn't been able to get a release in China, either, which is a huge overseas market.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Darth Kenshin

Anyway, moving on, with TDKR coming out soon, a huge dent is going to be put into Spiderman's gross. I'm curious, though, why the new Batman series doesn't seem to be as huge overseas as it is in the states. The Dark Knight made $468 million overseas. That's a big number (37th all time overseas), but of the 30 highest grossing movies of all time world wide, Dark Knight is the only one where foreign gross accounts for less than half. Batman Begins only pulled in $167 million, which is small compared to similar movies that came out at the same time. I wonder if the darker-toned comic book movies just aren't as interesting to the foreign audience as they are here? Maybe major foreign markets just prefer the mindless fun of Transformers flicks and things like Avengers? Or maybe TDKR rakes in $1.5 billion worldwide and this is all moot.

Foreign has expanded a lot in recent years.
China is a huge market now and TDK has not there. $84 mil for Avengers
Russia has grown a lot too as well as Mexico and South Korea $43 and $57 and $50 for Avengers respectively.
Brazil has grown a ton too! $63 for Avengers.
If you compare Avenger to Dark Knight in those countries, Avengers has a another $219 mil.

I had read somewhere that WB is expecting (or hoping for) $800 in foreign and $500 in domestic, but really want to beat Avengers.

[Erroneous]

Where the hell is Bourne on this. He is the expert!

[Bourne101]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

Perhaps to foreign language audiences, mindless spectacle films are much more interesting than the dialogue-driven Nolan films. Plus Batman is a very American icon that is deeply rooted in capitalism whereas giant fucking robots are universal. Batman hasn't been able to get a release in China, either, which is a huge overseas market.

I pretty much agree with this. I'm not sure whether most foreign theatres show films dubbed or subtitled, but either way, dialogue heavy films that explore American issues probably aren't going to be as appealing as films that are non-stop action and simply deal with good vs. evil.

Still though, even with that factor and the China factor, TDK still made a billion worldwide, which is only $400 million less than The Avengers. TDKR is going to do better domestically and internationally than TDK (unless the movie sucks, which I doubt), so it could very well make the same as, or more than The Avengers.

[Darth Kenshin]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Dark Knight only made a billion worldwide because of a January re-release. Still though, I'm inclined to agree with the consensus here. TDKR, barring it being awful, should make some serious bank. I don't know if it'll beat Avengers because, again, I'm still inclined to believe the more fun movies do better overseas (I can't imagine any other reason why Transformers does such huge business), but it should be right up there.

Part of me says it'll beat Avengers because there is less competition and basically will have IMAX to itself for a long time (I tried to see Avengers in IMAX 2 weeks after its release and couldn't because of MIB 3). But another part of me doubts it'll have the rewatch value of Avengers and doesn't want to de-value the impact Ledger had on the Dark Knight's gross. Certainly will be fun to follow.

[rustysyringe]

Originally Posted by Bourne101

TDKR is going to do better domestically and internationally than TDK (unless the movie sucks, which I doubt), so it could very well make the same as, or more than The Avengers.

That's a BOLD statement.

Also, it is probably wrong. A very big reason TDK made so much was because of Ledger. He got HUGE buzz for two reasons a) he did an excellent Joker and b) he died and there was huge sympathy for him. And then came the oscar buzz. Remember that, oscar buzz for an actor in a comic book movie?

Now I agree he did a great job, he was by far the best thing about that movie and without him it would be average at best. However, I don't think he deserved the award. But I digress. Point is, all of this accounted for a LARGE percentage of TDK box office. And I don't see any Heath Ledger Jokers in any of the TDKR trailers or clips yet. Tom Hardy's no Heath Ledger and Bane is no Joker.

It'll do what Batman Begins did, 350-400 mill.

[SpikeDurden]

Originally Posted by rustysyringe

That's a BOLD statement.

Also, it is probably wrong. A very big reason TDK made so much was because of Ledger. He got HUGE buzz for two reasons a) he did an excellent Joker and b) he died and there was huge sympathy for him. And then came the oscar buzz. Remember that, oscar buzz for an actor in a comic book movie?

Now I agree he did a great job, he was by far the best thing about that movie and without him it would be average at best. However, I don't think he deserved the award. But I digress. Point is, all of this accounted for a LARGE percentage of TDK box office. And I don't see any Heath Ledger Jokers in any of the TDKR trailers or clips yet. Tom Hardy's no Heath Ledger and Bane is no Joker.

It'll do what Batman Begins did, 350-400 mill.

I hear this argument a lot, and while I think Heath and the quality of his performance and his untimely death added to the mystery and excitement over TDK, I think the series is now at a point where people are on board for the finale regardless of his presence. Tracking for TDKR speaks to an over $200 million opening weekend, and while it may not top The Avengers, I think it will do at least as well as TDK, but probably better.

Batman Begins only made $205 million domestic. The Dark Knight Rises will likely make that in 3 days.

[Darth Kenshin]

Originally Posted by SpikeDurden

I hear this argument a lot, and while I think Heath and the quality of his performance and his untimely death added to the mystery and excitement over TDK, I think the series is now at a point where people are on board for the finale regardless of his presence. Tracking for TDKR speaks to an over $200 million opening weekend, and while it may not top The Avengers, I think it will do at least as well as TDK, but probably better.

Batman Begins only made $205 million domestic. The Dark Knight Rises will likely make that in 3 days.

Agreed.

Ledger's performance and death definitely added to the intrigue of the movie, but ultimately the movie was good enough to stand on its own. I expect this movie to be right up there with Avengers domestically. Still not sure about the foreign gross, though, but we'll see.

[dellamorte dellamore]

I got a bit excited with my 2.1 bil WW prediction for Batman and in light of my bonkers SM prediction ( overshot many a film, even Speed Racer ) i'll scale it back because that's totally insane , it was always odd that B boy was always more popular in North America than it was in the rest of the world , even an obvious cosmopolitan director with Euro appeal couldn't make more over there than BB or TDK made over here , i think the only Batman film to make more overseas than it did here was , Holy Hannah, Batman and Robin , according to BOMJ.

I still think this has some serious momentum but the runtime has me wondering, then again, that was one of the concerns regarding Avatar and you see what that did . That also had the 3d premium which TDKR does not .


My final prediction, 645 mil domestic, 700 mil foreign . Should be the second B boy film to make more money overseas than it does here .

[DaveyJoeG]

Why is it that the Dark Knight made a billion dollars because of Heath Ledger's death, but The Avengers made a billion dollars because it was awesome? Titanic and Avatar made a billion dollars because people loved them? Is it so hard to believe that people loved The Dark Knight, it had great WOM and they went to see it again and again because of that? Why can't TDKR be a great film with good WOM and make a billion dollars? Other films have done it.

[Bourne101]

Originally Posted by rustysyringe

That's a BOLD statement.

Not really. It may not beat The Avengers, but I guarantee it makes as much or more than TDK. The Ledger argument is nonsense. Even if he attracted people to go see TDK, the fact remains that people loved TDK. What are they going to say? "Nah, TDK was one of, if not the best comic book movie of all-time, but I think I'll skip the final entry where we find out what happens to these characters." This would be like going to see the first two LOTR movies and enjoying them, and then deciding not to see the third.

Originally Posted by rustysyringe

It'll do what Batman Begins did, 350-400 mill.

It will make that in under 3 weeks domestically. It's on track for a $200 million opening weekend, will have bigger weekday numbers than The Avengers because it's July/August, has IMAX theatres all to itself for its entire theatrical run, has no serious competition, and is a sequel to what many consider the best comic book/superhero movie ever made. You are out of your mind if you think this is only going to make $350-400 million.

Also, by saying $350-400 million, that is implying that you are referring to worldwide numbers (since it only made $200 million domestically). If so, that is even more hilarious.

[rustysyringe]

Originally Posted by Bourne101

Also, by saying $350-400 million, that is implying that you are referring to worldwide numbers (since it only made $200 million domestically). If so, that is even more hilarious.

Yes I was speaking of domestic. I always thought it would be the biggest grossing movie of the year (domestic). But now that Avengers did 600, I no longer think that. I think it ends up under that and maybe by quite a bit.

And to everyone discounting the Ledger factor, you are mistaken. Everyone I know who went to see TDK only went because of that buzz. It was all about "Ledger is an oscar contender, Ledger gives the performance of a lifetime right before passing away". That was huge and to discount its effect is somewhat revisionist.

My crowd maybe different than yours. No one I know reads comic books or plays video games. Another thing, no one I know even knows who Bane is, never heard of him until now. And if you think this segment of people didn't make up a large chunk of TDK business, you are wrong.

A lot is going to depend on how its reviewed of course. It will do monster numbers opening weekend. But if there aren't any phrases like "greatest action movie ever" or WOM about another great character on par with Ledgers Joker, it won't make it to 500 mill.

So far, from all the trailers, I see no one anywhere near what Ledger delivered. So to me I see another Batman movie without a great character and scene stealing actor. Just like Begins was and just like TDK without Ledger would have been, an average movie.

It will all ride on those reviews and WOM. We will see.

[Bourne101]

Originally Posted by rustysyringe

And to everyone discounting the Ledger factor, you are mistaken. Everyone I know who went to see TDK only went because of that buzz. It was all about "Ledger is an oscar contender, Ledger gives the performance of a lifetime right before passing away". That was huge and to discount its effect is somewhat revisionist.

Even if a certain percentage of people went to see the movie solely because an actor whose previous biggest hit was Brokeback Mountain at $83 million died, those people still enjoyed the film. If you really enjoy a film, isn't it plausible that maybe, just maybe, you will see the sequel?

Originally Posted by rustysyringe

A lot is going to depend on how its reviewed of course. It will do monster numbers opening weekend. But if there aren't any phrases like "greatest action movie ever" or WOM about another great character on par with Ledgers Joker, it won't make it to 500 mill.

If it opens to $200 million (which it probably will, or will at least come close to) it's making $500 million.

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by rustysyringe

And to everyone discounting the Ledger factor, you are mistaken. Everyone I know who went to see TDK only went because of that buzz. It was all about "Ledger is an oscar contender, Ledger gives the performance of a lifetime right before passing away". That was huge and to discount its effect is somewhat revisionist.

It sounds to me like you're using personal anecdotes to make assumptions about everybody else that purchased a ticket for the Dark Knight. "Everyone I know who went to see TDK..." exactly what percentage of the billion dollars of revenue do you think that constitutes? Nobody here is saying Heath Ledger's performance wasn't a factor, but I think it's silly to assume it was THE factor for success of that movie. The film got extremely good reviews. It sits at 94% critic approval and 96% audience approval at Rotten Tomatoes. For a two and a half movie, do you think Ledger is the only reason people liked it? He only had about 30 minutes of screen time.

Again, I ask why The Avengers made so much money. Were there any standout performances that matched the hype Ledger got? No. Did any actors die before the film's release? No. Was it hyped up because it's part of a successful franchise? Yes. How is that any different from The Dark Knight Rises?

[rustysyringe]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

For a two and a half movie, do you think Ledger is the only reason people liked it?

Where did I say this?

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by rustysyringe

Where did I say this?

Not in so many words, but your entire post is about how Ledger is the only reason TDK made so much money, as if the film couldn't stand on its own merit. If one epic performance can make a billion dollars, why wasn't There Will Be Blood more successful? The truth is that there are a multitude of reasons that TDK was successful, the biggest being that it was a great goddamn movie. Typically, sequels to hugely successful and well-received movies make more money than the original, there's no reason to think TDKR won't follow this pattern, I don't understand the contingent of people who insist that Ledger is the reason TDK made so much. It really doesn't make much sense.

Please come up with a substantive argument as to why TDKR will make less than TDK. Saying your friends only saw the movie because of Ledger doesn't count.

Originally Posted by rustysyringe

My crowd maybe different than yours. No one I know reads comic books or plays video games. Another thing, no one I know even knows who Bane is, never heard of him until now. And if you think this segment of people didn't make up a large chunk of TDK business, you are wrong.

Nobody here has said that TDK's crowd was made up of comic book fans, but this argument still doesn't make sense. The Avengers made a billion dollars and none of those characters are even remotely as well known to the mainstream as Batman.

[rustysyringe]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

Not in so many words, but your entire post is about how Ledger is the only reason TDK made so much money, as if the film couldn't stand on its own merit. If one epic performance can make a billion dollars, why wasn't There Will Be Blood more successful?

Please come up with a substantive argument as to why TDKR will make less than TDK. Saying your friends only saw the movie because of Ledger doesn't count.

I said Ledger was a big reason you said that I said he was the only reason. Big difference there and not just "so many words" as you say. Entirely different meaning.

Like I said, I think the fact that this film lacks that will hurt it in the long run. I stated it as opinion, not fact. So therefore it is a hunch not requiring a "substantive argument" because at this point it is just a prognostication. It could be proven wrong in a few weeks it could be proven right. No argument right now is going to alter that. It is my hunch.

Isn't that was this thread is for, box office PREDICTIONS?

[Darth Kenshin]

One thing I agree with Rusty on is the impact of the Joker character. Not Ledger's performance, but the fact that every one you pass in the street knows who the Joker is. He's among the most iconic fictional villains in any medium. Bane is a bit more under the radar and might not have the same appeal to an average movie goer.

That said, Bourne is right: it's the conclusion. Even if people saw it previously because of the Joker (or Ledger, whatever) chances are, they enjoyed it, judging by the reviews. So why wouldn't they check out this one?

Final prediction: $610 million domestic (and it will probably beat Avengers opening weekend), $650 million overseas.

I've heard people going more thatn $610, which I think is already on the high side simply because of it's slightly less than a 15% increase on the massive domestic total of Dark Knight. 15% is a pretty big increase when going from a 2nd installment to a 3rd in a trilogy.

[Erroneous]

I think some people came out to see TDK, because of the performance of Ledger, but I don't think we are talking about the type of numbers that add up to tens of millions of dollars. Bourne is THE expert. Time over time, he is right more often than not. One of the few people on this site that I tend to believe in what he types. Except sports. The man is a blind man in a mine field. Just Kidding Bourne.

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by rustysyringe

I said Ledger was a big reason you said that I said he was the only reason. Big difference there and not just "so many words" as you say. Entirely different meaning.

Like I said, I think the fact that this film lacks that will hurt it in the long run. I stated it as opinion, not fact. So therefore it is a hunch not requiring a "substantive argument" because at this point it is just a prognostication. It could be proven wrong in a few weeks it could be proven right. No argument right now is going to alter that. It is my hunch.

Isn't that was this thread is for, box office PREDICTIONS?

Well I don't mean to put words in your mouth, so forgive me if that's how it came across as. However, that doesn't change any of the things I disagreed with you about. I agree with Kenshin that the Joker character is what can pull in a big audience as opposed to Ledger's death. People were hyped to see the Joker and raving about potential Oscar nominations long before he passed away. I remember people going apeshit during filming when Caine said he was so terrified by Ledger that he forgot his lines.

I'm going to quote so we're sure I'm not putting words into your mouth:

Originally Posted by rustysyringe

That's a BOLD statement.

Also, it is probably wrong. A very big reason TDK made so much was because of Ledger. He got HUGE buzz for two reasons a) he did an excellent Joker and b) he died and there was huge sympathy for him. And then came the oscar buzz. Remember that, oscar buzz for an actor in a comic book movie?

It'll do what Batman Begins did, 350-400 mill.

That was in reference to Bourne saying TDKR will make more than TDK. First of all, your numbers for Batman Begins are wrong, it didn't make that much domestically. Second, it's not unreasonable to think that TDKR will make more than its predecessor. It's the finale of a very popular and successful trilogy, early buzz from screenings is very good, to the point of saying it's the best of the series. Sequels that are well received typically make more money than the film that came before it. The hype is there and there are no dead actors to pin it on.

Originally Posted by rustysyringe

My crowd maybe different than yours. No one I know reads comic books or plays video games. Another thing, no one I know even knows who Bane is, never heard of him until now. And if you think this segment of people didn't make up a large chunk of TDK business, you are wrong.

Again, this argument falls apart when you realize The Avengers made a billion dollars without an immensly popular character like the Joker, or any standout performances. Comic book movies have entered the mainstream and can make a shitload of money without a hyped performance or dead actor.

When you look at the trends, the concept of Ledger making up such a large chunk of TDK business is something that exists in your head. Just because Ledger is one of the most talked about aspects of the movie, doesn't mean people are just going to abandon the franchise due to his absence in the sequel.

[SpikeDurden]

Look. As I said above, we all know that TDK's buzz was (unfortunately) helped by Heath's early passing and the quality of his performance, but the film continued to play well for weeks on end and is still to this day widely regarded as a quality film. It got great reviews outside of just complimenting his performance, and it is those reviews and the film's overall quality that has brought up the buzz for TDKR.

It doesn't matter who Bane is or if anyone is aware of that character. What matters it that everyone knows who BATMAN is and this is a sequel to The Dark Knight, one of the most successful movies of all time. A ton of people saw that movie, a good portion of them liked it, and thus they will mostly want to go see how this story concludes. Chris Nolan has also achieved a big name and a lot of clout thanks to the reception of Inception, and Bale is bigger than ever thanks to his Oscar win. Even if Heath was the sole reason TDK did well (which I don't believe), TDKR has so many other factors going for it that it's going to be huge. The tracking and buzz are overwhelming.

There will be no right or wrong answer to this argument until we see what kind of numbers TDKR produces, but I strongly think it will at least match, and likely top TDK.

As for The Avengers? The fact of the matter is that TDKR is not in 3D so that could stop it from reaching The Avengers, but who gives a shit at the end of the day? All that matters is if it is good.

[DaveyJoeG]

That's a good point. Inception made $800 million and that was pretty much on Nolan's name alone, following the acclaim of The Dark Knight.

[Darth Kenshin]

On another note that has been somewhat bothering me: can any one explain to me why the heck Ice Age is so popular overseas? I mean, the last Ice Age movie is the highest grossing animated movie of all time internationally by a fairly comfortable margin and is even ahead of entries in monster franchises like Harry Potter (only the last Harry Potter movie is ahead of it) and LOTR.

Am I missing something about the appeal of these movies? I mean seriously, $690 million overseas? Any one expect this new one to make that kind of bank, or was Dawn of the Dinosaurs an aberration?

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by Darth Kenshin

On another note that has been somewhat bothering me: can any one explain to me why the heck Ice Age is so popular overseas? I mean, the last Ice Age movie is the highest grossing animated movie of all time internationally by a fairly comfortable margin and is even ahead of entries in monster franchises like Harry Potter (only the last Harry Potter movie is ahead of it) and LOTR.

Am I missing something about the appeal of these movies? I mean seriously, $690 million overseas? Any one expect this new one to make that kind of bank, or was Dawn of the Dinosaurs an aberration?

lol good question

[Silverload]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

Inception made $800 million and that was pretty much on Nolan's name alone, following the acclaim of The Dark Knight.

I'm sure having a superstar like Leonardo DiCaprio, epic trailers, media buzz that it was "a mind bending masterpiece", critics overly praising it, and very strong word of mouth played a part in its success far more than Nolan's name.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Who's predicting 350 mil domestic box office total for TDKR, i needed that laugh.

[dellamorte dellamore]

Originally Posted by Silverload

I'm sure having a superstar like Leonardo DiCaprio, epic trailers, media buzz that it was "a mind bending masterpiece", critics overly praising it, and very strong word of mouth played a part in its success far more than Nolan's name.

That may be right, i know people that want to see the latest Batman because of the quality of the last two but they still have no idea who the director is , nor do they care, most of them don't even know it's the same director .

That's not to say that his name doesn't affect the box office i just think it's slightly overstated how much it does .

[SpikeDurden]

Originally Posted by dellamorte dellamore

That may be right, i know people that want to see the latest Batman because of the quality of the last two but they still have no idea who the director is , nor do they care, most of them don't even know it's the same director .

That's not to say that his name doesn't affect the box office i just think it's slightly overstated how much it does .

I think the conclusion we can draw from all of this is that there is no right or wrong answer as to the reason why people choose to see the movies they do. What I mean by that, is everyone has a different reason... some it may be because of an actor, some a director, some because they love the material. Unless we were to survey every single person who went to see a given movie, there would be no real way to determine the biggest reasons.

[SpikeDurden]

Friday January 13, 2012 Estimates

1. Ice Age: Continental Drift - $16,500,000
2. The Amazing Spider-Man - $10,300,000
3. Ted - $6,900,000
4. Magic Mike - $3,415,000
5. Brave - $3,257,000
6. Savages - $2,700,000
7. Tyler Perry's Madea's Witness Protection - $1,790,000
8. Katy Perry: Part of Me - $1,318,000
9. Madagascar: Europe's Most Wanted - $1,043,000
10. Marvel's The Avengers - $385,000


Ice Age 4 should hit the mid-high 40s for the weekend. The Amazing Spider-Man will likely just hit $30 million, which is a drop of approximately 50% from last weekend, and we must remember the film opened last Tuesday, not Friday. That being said, the film will likely end its run under $250 million, significantly lower than any of Raimi's films. With TDKR opening next weekend, it could end even lower than that.

Not a disaster, but perhaps not what Sony hoped for. Overseas it is doing quite well.

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by Silverload

I'm sure having a superstar like Leonardo DiCaprio, epic trailers, media buzz that it was "a mind bending masterpiece", critics overly praising it, and very strong word of mouth played a part in its success far more than Nolan's name.

Maybe not Nolan's name, but one of the biggest focal points of the marketing was that it was from the director of the Dark Knight.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by DaveyJoeG

Maybe not Nolan's name, but one of the biggest focal points of the marketing was that it was from the director of the Dark Knight.

I do not agree with this. His name was there, but they do that for a lot of movies and do not enjoy the same success (Eastwood or Peter Jackson). I think it was that Matrix like marketing that you knew it looked cool (upside down room), but you did not know anything after you saw the trailer. I think that was the biggest reason for success at first. Then it was the great word of mouth. Leo is not the draw people say he is. Nolan alone is not a draw. A director has to come out with good or interesting looking work, so it is more based on the movie than the director. No one listens to critics anymore or Transformers movies would not be mega hits, so their praise did not account for much.

[DaveyJoeG]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

I do not agree with this. His name was there, but they do that for a lot of movies and do not enjoy the same success (Eastwood or Peter Jackson). I think it was that Matrix like marketing that you knew it looked cool (upside down room), but you did not know anything after you saw the trailer. I think that was the biggest reason for success at first. Then it was the great word of mouth. Leo is not the draw people say he is. Nolan alone is not a draw. A director has to come out with good or interesting looking work, so it is more based on the movie than the director. No one listens to critics anymore or Transformers movies would not be mega hits, so their praise did not account for much.

I agree with you on all accounts, especially Leo not being a big draw and the fact that average moviegoers don't listen to critics that much. I can't say for sure what led so many people to see Inception. I think we were all surprised to see it make as much money as it did. I just remember the first thing in all of the previews was "From the director of The Dark Knight" and I thought that could have been a big part of the appeal... but I do agree with you about the mystique surrounding the project. That aspect of the marketing was very well done.

Actually I think I can say for sure what the best part of the marketing was, the thing that made people lose their shit and want to see the movie:


BOOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGG!!


BOOOOOOOONNNNNNGGGGG!!

[psycheoutsteve]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

I do not agree with this. His name was there, but they do that for a lot of movies and do not enjoy the same success (Eastwood or Peter Jackson). I think it was that Matrix like marketing that you knew it looked cool (upside down room), but you did not know anything after you saw the trailer. I think that was the biggest reason for success at first. Then it was the great word of mouth. Leo is not the draw people say he is. Nolan alone is not a draw. A director has to come out with good or interesting looking work, so it is more based on the movie than the director. No one listens to critics anymore or Transformers movies would not be mega hits, so their praise did not account for much.

While I partly agree with you about visuals being a draw for movies, I disagree that Nolan is not one by himself. I went to a midnight imax showing of inception when it first came out and all anyone in the sold out crowd could talk about was how great a writer/director Nolan was. They were all sold on the movie being awesome because of him. Having a great actor like Leo in the lead doesn't hurt either. Of course, I do agree that a director has to come out with interesting looking work to garner an audience for it, but Nolan has become such a draw that a common movie goer can look at a preview for a movie of his that they had no prior knowledge of and recognize his signature. Right now, he's the biggest director working today and it's because he's earned a reputation for creating interesting and engaging films.

In the case of Transformers there was a pre-existing franchise that the film was based off of. Visuals are not enough. If they were, then films like Wanted would guarantee huge profits every time.

[Erroneous]

Originally Posted by psycheoutsteve

While I partly agree with you about visuals being a draw for movies, I disagree that Nolan is not one by himself. I went to a midnight imax showing of inception when it first came out and all anyone in the sold out crowd could talk about was how great a writer/director Nolan was. They were all sold on the movie being awesome because of him. Having a great actor like Leo in the lead doesn't hurt either. Of course, I do agree that a director has to come out with interesting looking work to garner an audience for it, but Nolan has become such a draw that a common movie goer can look at a preview for a movie of his that they had no prior knowledge of and recognize his signature. Right now, he's the biggest director working today and it's because he's earned a reputation for creating interesting and engaging films.

In the case of Transformers there was a pre-existing franchise that the film was based off of. Visuals are not enough. If they were, then films like Wanted would guarantee huge profits every time.

You have to understand that the sample size you are talking about. Midnight Imax showing???? Those are not your average movie goers. You can't count their opinion in why a movie made as much as it did. Nor can you count people like use (movie lovers). Normal movie going people are not showing up at midnight just because they love the director.

What you did was like going to Green Bay and ask them why they are Packers fans.

[psycheoutsteve]

Originally Posted by Erroneous

You have to understand that the sample size you are talking about. Midnight Imax showing???? Those are not your average movie goers. You can't count their opinion in why a movie made as much as it did. Nor can you count people like use (movie lovers). Normal movie going people are not showing up at midnight just because they love the director.

What you did was like going to Green Bay and ask them why they are Packers fans.

You have to realize, there are plenty of people who don't hang out on movie forums, or follow a film from its very beginning on the internet that attend midnight showings. This is especially true with Inception; a film that didn't have a cult following behind it. In this case it was as you said, people simply see the preview, get interested, and decide to go to have fun. Midnight showings are so common now that practically every major chain shows one for every new movie released. It's not just something for obsessive fans anymore, the audience has broadened.

[Darth Kenshin]

In all seriousness, I don't think any one is a draw by himself any more. No director. No actor. There are so many variables now that the internet creates buzz for movies months before they actually come out.

So Nolan might be part of the appeal, but at the end of the day, if the movie wasn't marketed well and didn't receive good reviews, it wouldn't have done as well. Same with Leo. I'm sure people were more interested in the movie since it starred Leonardo DiCaprio as opposed to someone like Michael Fassbender who wouldn't reduce the quality of the film, but again, that's only a small part of the formula.

The only exception to this might be Johnny Depp because of his foreign appeal, as even his crappy movies do well overseas (The Tourist banked over $200 million overseas? Honestly, who knew?) but then you can always counter with The Rum Diary (not marketed as a blockbuster, but still a relative failure).

[dellamorte dellamore]

There's no doubt Nolan's name attached to a project will garner more interest than a relative unknown will but that mainly influences people who follow these things and will most likely only affect the opening weekend. The geeks always try to see a film opening weekend if one of their favorite directors has something to do with a certain film.

Then it's the post buzz that keeps the momentum going and the aforementioned geeks that will see it multiple times, not just because of a director in question but because of the quality.

Look what happened with Dark Shadows, the combo of Depp and Burton didn't amount to much, not like their collaboration on Alice in Wonderland , although it did decent overseas.

Then you have a film such as Hunger Games that did terrific without a big name director or cast . Of course part of that was the popularity of the book but still it's the post buzz that kept it going .


Allright , rambled enough , it's true you can't exactly quantify how much of an impact a director has on the box office but it's certain their name alone is no guarantee of success, although in Nolan's case, his fanbase is so ferverent now his films come with a level of built in buzz that his contemporaries don't enjoy . Even the next Supe film is elevated to must see because he's the producer . If Nolan said he was making a 3 hour film about a guy opening an envelope, it would still be a hit

[psycheoutsteve]

Originally Posted by dellamorte dellamore

If Nolan said he was making a 3 hour film about a guy opening an envelope, it would still be a hit

As crazy as this sounds, it's probably true. If you're a big name director with a level of consistency in your work like Nolan, then you're probably going to influence unflinching loyalty from geeks and common folk alike. You're even allowed one or two mulligans, as this was the case with M. Night after he delivered his mega hit The Sixth Sense and the decent Unbreakable. He didn't exactly have a long running track record of quality attached to his name, but he created a movie that became such a phenomenon with every movie goer that audiences were ready to see whatever he made next. He could of made a suspense thriller about a guy that was making a sandwich and ran out of peanut butter. People still would have seen it.

Although, I have to admit, even if people want to see something because of the director attached, the marketing still has to be up to par. Preview and marketing structure probably make up the largest portion of a movie's success 95 percent of the time. However, I'm still open to the idea that there can be exceptions to that rule. Nolan could definitely be such an exception, as there is no one else in Hollywood making big budget films with his level of consistency and quality at the moment. The lines, "From the director of The Dark Knight" or "From the director of Inception" have a huge resonance with an audience, IMO.