?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Wow, 200plus million opening weekend for Avengers? Biggest opening weekend ever?

Last week, I read a couple of disgruntled comments in the the vein of "why do they release a movie like this worldwide before the US release? Now video piracy is going to destroy it *wails*. "

Um...yes.

I can see how it just got BUTCHERED. I mean, before the internet a movie would have probably made ten trillion dollars. In the midnight screenings. Oh wait, without the internet, you also don't get the buzz and the free publicity. Damn!!!

Maybe the point is, Hollyweird, to just make good movies that people will WANT to go see in the cinema. Often. And yes, I realize that a big effects blockbuster like that has that going for it more than some rom-com but on the other hand, the former are much more easily and faster, shall we say, distributed than the later so my point still stands.

Tags:

Comments

( 17 have dazzled me — Dazzle me )
xkatjafx
May. 7th, 2012 04:15 pm (UTC)
Last week, I read a couple of disgruntled comments in the the vein of "why do they release a movie like this worldwide before the US release?

I thought it was a pretty smart move. This way they pretty much had a whole country literally pining to see what others had already seen *g*


Edited at 2012-05-07 04:15 pm (UTC)
astri13
May. 7th, 2012 04:40 pm (UTC)
I thought it was a pretty smart move. This way they pretty much had a whole country literally pining to see what others had already seen *g*

I agree. Sure, if it had been a horrible movie and word of (virtual) mouth had gotten around, different story. But I have read nothing but good things about it for the last week so win/win.

Besides, in the past Europe (and other markets) had to wait weeks, months even to see a film after the US release. Here, it was one measly week.

Of course to the "it's a movie about American heroes, why don't we get it first", someone had the awesome retort "you got Harry Potter first and Britains didn't flip their shit". *g*
xkatjafx
May. 7th, 2012 04:54 pm (UTC)
I agree. Sure, if it had been a horrible movie and word of (virtual) mouth had gotten around, different story.

It's pretty much perfect for an ensemble superhero movie, they must have been blind not to realize it. And even if they hadn't, it still wouldn't have tanked, because let's face it: Thor, Iron Man 2, Captain America - not really *that* great and they still made tons of money.

But I have read nothing but good things about it for the last week so win/win.

*g* I think I saw somebody complaining that Loki was not a good villain because he wasn't scary enough. People are just amazingly stupid sometimes...

Of course to the "it's a movie about American heroes, why don't we get it first", someone had the awesome retort "you got Harry Potter first and Britains didn't flip their shit". *g*

rofl.
astri13
May. 7th, 2012 05:01 pm (UTC)
it still wouldn't have tanked, because let's face it: Thor, Iron Man 2, Captain America - not really *that* great and they still made tons of money.

True, the initial movies build up enough goodwill for the characters.

If they had announced a team-up movie between Green Lantern, John Carter and Hulk (before Avengers redeemed the characters movie-wise), it probably would have elicited a different pre-reaction.

*g* I think I saw somebody complaining that Loki was not a good villain because he wasn't scary enough. People are just amazingly stupid sometimes...

I saw someone commenting on how Loki was a "weak" villain, and someone defending Loki by saying that he might not be as strong as Thor but is still stronger than the average human. Teehee. I wasn't sure which comment amused me more.
xkatjafx
May. 7th, 2012 05:16 pm (UTC)
If they had announced a team-up movie between Green Lantern, John Carter and Hulk (before Avengers redeemed the characters movie-wise), it probably would have elicited a different pre-reaction.

One could argue that people still went and saw that second Hulk movie ; ) And if Whedon would have wrote it, who knows *g*

(btw, John Carter - not as bad as everyone said it would be. I pretty much think that was a lesson in how not to do marketing.)

I saw someone commenting on how Loki was a "weak" villain, and someone defending Loki by saying that he might not be as strong as Thor but is still stronger than the average human. Teehee. I wasn't sure which comment amused me more.

I bet they loved those two Hulk movies ; )

astri13
May. 7th, 2012 05:30 pm (UTC)
btw, John Carter - not as bad as everyone said it would be. I pretty much think that was a lesson in how not to do marketing

I admit I haven't seen it because the trailers looked stupid. And then pretty much the only thing I heard was that it sucked.

So, not knowing the movie, I don't know if there was a better way to market it. I mean, could they have done better trailers? The entire concept of "on mars" already made me roll my eyes and that seems hard to leave out. :D

I bet they loved those two Hulk movies ; )

Well, was the villain strong in the Hulk movies? :-p I can barely remember the first one with Bana. I found it disjointed and weird but wasn't it mostly the military shooting at him? Tanks, helicopters and soldiers mainly?




Edited at 2012-05-07 05:32 pm (UTC)
xkatjafx
May. 7th, 2012 06:18 pm (UTC)
I admit I haven't seen it because the trailers looked stupid.

I've never seen the trailers, but I heard they were pretty much horrible.

The entire concept of "on mars" already made me roll my eyes and that seems hard to leave out. :D

Well, it's an old school sci-fi/fantasy mix. So you have to buy into that or it's a lost cause. It's a popcorn movie - nothing more and nothing less. And considering they wanted it to be Avatar... It was a lot less stupid than that one. The characters were a bit plain. (I mean, my favorite character was the "dog". That says something, doesn't it? *g*)

Well, was the villain strong in the Hulk movies? :-p I can barely remember the first one with Bana. I found it disjointed and weird but wasn't it mostly the military shooting at him? Tanks, helicopters and soldiers mainly?

I don't know!!! All I remember are two hours of never-ending monologue torture and Hulk poodles *g*

Btw, have you read any good Avengers fic?
astri13
May. 7th, 2012 06:35 pm (UTC)
I've never seen the trailers, but I heard they were pretty much horrible.

Apart from the admittedly better visuals, they reminded me of old Sci-Fi C-movies like Flash Gordon.

And considering they wanted it to be Avatar... It was a lot less stupid than that one.

Maybe it was because everyone talking about how fantastic it was but somehow Avatar left me cold. It was basically "Pocahontas meets the Smurfs" in space. I was honestly more engaged back in Titanic.

The characters were a bit plain. (I mean, my favorite character was the "dog". That says something, doesn't it? *g*)

Hee. Yeah.

I don't know!!! All I remember are two hours of never-ending monologue torture and Hulk poodles *g*

The only thing I remember clearly about this movie is feeling like I was on a bad drug trip while watching it. Otherwise, my memory is fuzzy. Hm... *g*

Btw, have you read any good Avengers fic?

I haven't really looked yet so nope, sorry. Are you searching for a specific pairing or just diverse hero-on-hero interaction?
xkatjafx
May. 7th, 2012 06:49 pm (UTC)
Are you searching for a specific pairing or just diverse hero-on-hero interaction?

Mostly Loki/Thor (surprise!), maybe Loki/Tony... and maayyybe something else entirely, if it's worth the time contains Loki.
astri13
May. 7th, 2012 06:56 pm (UTC)
and maayyybe something else entirely, if it('s worth the time) contains Loki.

Hm, I sense a theme. *g*

Btw, even Loki/Hulk? :-p After all, they had a memorable scene together.
xkatjafx
May. 7th, 2012 07:39 pm (UTC)
Btw, even Loki/Hulk? After all, they had a memorable scene together./i>

rofl. Probably not.
embroiderama
May. 7th, 2012 04:26 pm (UTC)
I agree. Plus, I think piracy is certainly a much bigger threat to DVD/download sales than to theatrical releases. Because cam videos are IMO absolute torture to watch.
astri13
May. 7th, 2012 04:44 pm (UTC)
Plus, I think piracy is certainly a much bigger threat to DVD/download sales than to theatrical releases. Because cam videos are IMO absolute torture to watch.

That's true. I mean, if I really, really love a movie (and with a big effects spectacle like this, I'll try to see it on the big screen as often as I can), the cam version is only supposed to tide me over till the DVD comes out.

Besides, the entertainment industry needs to get real. With ticket prices what they are (and figure in probably dinner first or at least popcorn and a drink), people will go as much as they can afford. And that is without little things such as time contraints (work, family etc).

So even if someone would theoretically LIKE to see a movie three times a week for five weeks straight, they most likely won't do it for the above reasons, if they have a dl copy of the film or not.
legoline
May. 7th, 2012 05:35 pm (UTC)
*buttsin*

I would certainly have gone to see THE HUNGER GAMES a third/fourth/fifth time, but I just couldn't afford to...
astri13
May. 7th, 2012 07:01 pm (UTC)
*nod nod*

I drive by a cinema every day on my way home from work but I'd never dream of seeing a movie every single day even though technically I could afford a ticket Mo-Fr and not go broke if I cut down all my other expenses to survival necessities. But I simply don't have the time OR the interest to "go out" the entire week.



Edited at 2012-05-07 07:11 pm (UTC)
leelust
May. 7th, 2012 07:00 pm (UTC)
When hollywood finally admits that internet brings more people in theaters and those who watch at home won't go in movie anyway the world'll become a better place.
astri13
May. 7th, 2012 07:10 pm (UTC)
Maybe in 50 years or so. Or a hundred.

They love the free advertising the internet offers but only want it on their terms. Like, hello, without the internet, these days you would need 250 million dollar marketing instead of 80-100.
( 17 have dazzled me — Dazzle me )