The 2012 superhero epic about Batman's struggle to overcome the terrorist leader Bane, as well as his own inner demons.
neomaul wrote:
remember
Avengers was only tracking around 150 million a week before it blew up with 207m weekend.
will the same thing happen with this? I sure hope so :batface: :batface: :batface: :batface: :batface:
Very good point. They usually track very conservatively. TDKR is tracking at 200 million or above right now.... so imagine how it will actually perform on opening weekend. :modesty:
This is looking to shatter opening weekend records!
Avengers was 175 at this point.
Just because it's tracking high doesn't mean it'll actually be 50 million or so more just because they weren't completely accurate before.
SilverHeart wrote:Avengers was 175 at this point.
Just because it's tracking high doesn't mean it'll actually be 50 million or so more just because they weren't completely accurate before.
You have to also take into account that the average moviegoer will know much more about Batman than Avengers. People in general know Batman. Avengers, on the other hand, was something new for the general audience. The magnetism of an icon like Batman is undeniable and there are so many people that are just going to see it because it is, well, Batman.
I'd be surprised if TDKR beats The Avengers at the box office. Not because The Avengers is a superior film, but because it's more family friendly and was released in 3D. I expect there to be fewer families with their crying babies in the theater.
Or at least I hope there are fewer crying babies... At least for the midnight showing.
DesertTurtle wrote:I'd be surprised if TDKR beats The Avengers at the box office. Not because The Avengers is a superior film, but because it's more family friendly and was released in 3D. I expect there to be fewer families with their crying babies in the theater.
Or at least I hope there are fewer crying babies... At least for the midnight showing.
You're right. TDKR has a lot going against it. No 3D. Not for kids. Not family friendly. It's 20 minutes longer than Avengers.
But I believe the greatness and importance this film has will trump all that and it will end up doing some amazing things.
Which somehow means it will do immensely over predictions instead of matching the massive predictions...how?
Avengers overperformed
because it didn't have the recognition Batman had. That's why the predictions were lower than the actuals, nobody expected a relatively new franchise to do that well. Batman's estimates will likely be far closer to the actuals than Avengers were, since it's easier to predict a well-known franchise than a newer one.
The difference between Avengers record and HP8's records is almost 50 million. Avengers is a massive box office anomaly, one which nobody predicted correctly. Hell, even my 201 million estimate was only after the huge first day numbers came out, and even that was still off a bit.
If Batman had 3D, then it beating the record wouldn't even be a question. But with only IMAX, the most likely outcome is highest OW for a non-3D film.
But I believe the greatness and importance this film has will trump all that and it will end up doing some amazing things.
Being a great film doesn't mean it'll break the record. By this logic Begins should have made more than just 372 million.
Is The Avengers even a "new" franchise? It's an ensemble of a bunch of characters from movies that had already performed well. Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor all had movies. I think the brand recognition of Iron Man and the presence of Downey Jr. alone made a significant impact. It's not like it was an Aquaman movie or something (or Kick-Ass, which was a new franchise for theaters and didn't do extremely well).
DesertTurtle wrote:Is The Avengers even a "new" franchise? It's an ensemble of a bunch of characters from movies that had already performed well. Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor all had movies. I think the brand recognition of Iron Man and the presence of Downey Jr. alone made a significant impact. It's not like it was an Aquaman movie or something (or Kick-Ass, which was a new franchise for theaters and didn't do extremely well).
Compared to the Batman film franchise which is over TWENTY YEARS OLD, yes, a four year old franchise is new.
SilverHeart wrote:DesertTurtle wrote:Is The Avengers even a "new" franchise? It's an ensemble of a bunch of characters from movies that had already performed well. Iron Man, Captain America, and Thor all had movies. I think the brand recognition of Iron Man and the presence of Downey Jr. alone made a significant impact. It's not like it was an Aquaman movie or something (or Kick-Ass, which was a new franchise for theaters and didn't do extremely well).
Compared to the Batman film franchise which is over TWENTY YEARS OLD, yes, a four year old franchise is new.
No, I mean the average moviegoer will likely recognize Iron Man and a few of the stars and decide to see the movie based on that. I don't think anyone takes into account how long something has been around. I mean, when I heard of Batman Begins I didn't think "gosh, Batman's been around for like 100 years, I should go see that!" -- I thought "HOLY SHIT CHRISTOPHER NOLAN BATMAN BALE BATMAN BATMAN FUCK YES"
No, I mean the franchise is more recongizable than Avengers is.
