[The Fozzmeister]

Originally Posted by PaulM1983

Well first of all, I'm not a "butthurt Batman fanboy" thanks all the same. While I do love the new Batman films, I personally think The Dark Knight was hideously overrated.

It remains a fact that the 3D inflated that opening weekend figure though, and it's completely nonsensical to argue that. 3D screenings accounted for 52% of the weekend gross, which is a huge premium. Take that extra ticket cost away and it does reduce that figure dramatically (8% of the total figure was IMAX 3D too).

The thing to remember is that Harry Potter was released in 3D too, and although it's percentage share was much less, that would put it's first weekend down too. I can't possibly work that out in my head, because I only know how much 3D costs in the UK, but I'm 100% positive The Avengers must surely have still been a record, just a much, much lower one.

And I said it in my previous post, but I loved the movie, and I would happily go to see it again.

EDIT: Someone has worked it out in a ridiculously lengthy calculation. Taking away the 3D premium it would have made $171.13 million so still a mammoth total, and absolutely miles ahead of Potter when you deduct that movie's 3D premium. Amazing achievement.

I just want to clarify that I am in no way saying that every Batman fan has taken a swipe at the Avengers. I have seen a lot of batman fans saying "well it's only because 3d is so expensive, batman will do better in 2d" etc and that was in my mind when I wrote that post.

As Wulfster said, undermining success seems to be 'in' at the moment, it's just sad to see that's all.

As for the 3d argument, you can't deny that the more expensive prices have helped, but like I said, people actively went to see the 3d showing because they wanted to, not because they were forced to. 3d is now a staple of the summer blockbuster (and I personally hate it) so to use it as a reason to somehow claim that the takings aren't worthy of praise is a little much.

It's not like The Avengers is the one and only film in the world in 3D. Harry Potter was released in 3D and the Avengers has eanred more money than that, so the excuse is null and void.

EDIT: Also, I love the whole 'inflation as a reason for films taking loads of money' argument. I read somewhere that the most expensive film ever made, some historical epic from the 60s or something, in todays money, would have cost something like over a billion dollars to make. I just find that interesting.

[RebelScum]

Ever since Thor it's been bugging me where, specifically, I remembered the Hawkeye actor from. Today my eureka moment finally arrived, and recalled he was in the Angel episode Somnambulist.

[grimtales1]

My thoughts:

I really enjopyed it! Even though it was perhaps slightly longer than it needed to be - some of the set pieces were great and the wisecracks and deadpan humour in the script were hilarious
I loved the Iron Man v Thor and Hulk v Loki stand-off, and the bit where the team started playing Galaga

4.25/5

[EVILSPEAK]

It's all pretty much academic but the official figures for it's opening weekend has been calculated and it's an improvement............$207,438,708.

[Stansfield]

Originally Posted by EVILSPEAK

It's all pretty much academic but the official figures for it's opening weekend has been calculated and it's an improvement............$207,438,708.

Why did the YANKS get this a week later?.....

[2shy2007]

Originally Posted by RebelScum

Ever since Thor it's been bugging me where, specifically, I remembered the Hawkeye actor from. Today my eureka moment finally arrived, and recalled he was in the Angel episode Somnambulist.

He was also in 28 weeks later, thats what I remember him in the most.

[Matt D]

MI4 and The Hurt Locker are more recent things Renner has been in.

[EVILSPEAK]

Originally Posted by Stansfield

Why did the YANKS get this a week later?.....

Because in America May 4th is the day the Summer Box Office season kicks off. It used to be May 31st, but it's changed over the years.

[Helbore]

Originally Posted by PhoenixRises

Is that true? Has it been confirmed or have you just said that? I only ask because almost everyone I know who has gone to see this film have seen this film in 2D.

I mean even on this thread it would be the majority of people who saw it in 2D not 3D. So with such hate for 3D and the general disinterest that most have for the concept it just seems strange it would still account for 52% of the gross.

Seems it is true, according to Box Office Mojo.

The audience was split evenly between those above and below 25 years-of-age, and it was 60 percent male. 3D screenings accounted for 52 percent of the opening weekend gross, which is an improvement from Captain America's 40 percent but below Thor's 60 percent. That 3D share breaks down to 40 percent traditional 3D, 8 percent IMAX, and 4 percent premium large format. The estimated $15.3 million the movie earned at 275 IMAX theaters set a new record for the format.

http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3438&p=.htm

[cheeks]

Originally Posted by Matt D

MI4 and The Hurt Locker are more recent things Renner has been in.

He was also in The Town....

[PhoenixRises]

Originally Posted by cheeks

He was also in The Town....

And SWAT first time I saw him personally.

[PaulM1983]

Originally Posted by The Fozzmeister

I just want to clarify that I am in no way saying that every Batman fan has taken a swipe at the Avengers. I have seen a lot of batman fans saying "well it's only because 3d is so expensive, batman will do better in 2d" etc and that was in my mind when I wrote that post.

As Wulfster said, undermining success seems to be 'in' at the moment, it's just sad to see that's all.

As for the 3d argument, you can't deny that the more expensive prices have helped, but like I said, people actively went to see the 3d showing because they wanted to, not because they were forced to. 3d is now a staple of the summer blockbuster (and I personally hate it) so to use it as a reason to somehow claim that the takings aren't worthy of praise is a little much.

It's not like The Avengers is the one and only film in the world in 3D. Harry Potter was released in 3D and the Avengers has eanred more money than that, so the excuse is null and void.

EDIT: Also, I love the whole 'inflation as a reason for films taking loads of money' argument. I read somewhere that the most expensive film ever made, some historical epic from the 60s or something, in todays money, would have cost something like over a billion dollars to make. I just find that interesting.

I get the impression from the tone of your post that your directing those points directly at me, even though we're actually saying the same thing. Strange.

I agree with this whole argument, which is why I made a point of saying that The Avenger's total is still miles ahead of Harry Potter when both films' 2D only totals are taken into account.

What's also worth mentioning is that The Avengers allegedly sold about 3 million more tickets than The Dark Knight, so in terms of footfall, it wins again. For a while I actually thought that the new Batman would have a chance, but I'm seriously doubting that now. The Avengers has just pretty much cleaned up all round.

[pocatello]

Only 800k in greece, guess they have become too poor to go to the movies... ouch!

[Muttley76]

Originally Posted by pocatello

Only 800k in greece, guess they have become too poor to go to the movies... ouch!

$868,941 is actually quite a high figure for Greece (which has a population of only 11 million) , tbh. The film in 2nd was Battleship with $94,655.


http://boxofficemojo.com/intl/greece/

[The Fozzmeister]

Originally Posted by PaulM1983

I get the impression from the tone of your post that your directing those points directly at me, even though we're actually saying the same thing. Strange.

I agree with this whole argument, which is why I made a point of saying that The Avenger's total is still miles ahead of Harry Potter when both films' 2D only totals are taken into account.

What's also worth mentioning is that The Avengers allegedly sold about 3 million more tickets than The Dark Knight, so in terms of footfall, it wins again. For a while I actually thought that the new Batman would have a chance, but I'm seriously doubting that now. The Avengers has just pretty much cleaned up all round.

to be completely honest the quickness of people replying on this forum often means I generally have no idea who has said what, so it wasn't aimed at you directly, and if it seemed that way then I apologise. It was more just my general musings on the argument of high 3d ticket prices being the sole reason for generating Avengers' revenue.

I hate 3d and wish it would go away, but it looks like it's here to stay.

[PaulM1983]

I'm not a big fan of cinema 3D, as I find it blurry at times, and quite often the ghosting around figures is appalling. Avengers is one of the better efforts I've seen to be fair.

I much prefer watching 3D at home on my tv, as the effect is generally so much stronger and sharper. I cannot wait to get this film at home. I can see this one getting multiple views very quickly to be honest.

[whedon247]

Originally Posted by Matt D

Spoiler

Natasha was saying she had "red in her ledger", as she owed Barton a debt because he spared her and brought her into SHIELD.

Loki said her ledger was overflowing with red (as in blood not debt), due to all the horrible things she did before SHIELD.

He then told her that he was going to get Barton to kill her in the most intimate way possible, and wake him up from his mind control just at the last minute so he could see what he did to her and see her die.

She turned around and fake-cried, saying "you're a monster!"

Loki then said "No, you've brought the monster here <evil laugh>!".

Natasha realised from this that Loki was going to use Hulk in some way.

As for writers...

Zak Penn (The Incredible Hulk, 2008) wrote the original story.

Joss Whedon (director of The Avengers) then re-wrote the story, and wrote the actual screenplay.

you could see the whedon lines a mill off,i really like penn too,hes a good amrvel writer,hope they helm the next film

[Lisa1989]

I saw it in 2D. Not a fan of 3D, I don't havethe best vision lol

[2shy2007]

Originally Posted by Lisa1989

I saw it in 2D. Not a fan of 3D, I don't havethe best vision lol

I saw it in 2D as well, in our local small town cinema which is straight out of the ark, the sound system has seen better days, its all muffled and the screen leaves a lot to be desired, but it still could not detract from the fact that I was watching such a good film that it didnt matter how tatty it all was.

[Syntax Error]

Originally Posted by 2shy2007

I saw it in 2D as well, in our local small town cinema which is straight out of the ark, the sound system has seen better days, its all muffled and the screen leaves a lot to be desired, but it still could not detract from the fact that I was watching such a good film that it didnt matter how tatty it all was.

Out of interest, which small town cinema is it that you are talking about?

[2shy2007]

Originally Posted by Syntax Error

Out of interest, which small town cinema is it that you are talking about?

This one. http://www.westwaycinema.co.uk/

Its like stepping back in time and even has a bar where you can buy a pint or a glass of wine !

[PhoenixRises]

Originally Posted by Helbore

Seems it is true, according to Box Office Mojo.



http://boxofficemojo.com/news/?id=3438&p=.htm

Cool, It still seems strange to me, just because of the hatred for 3D that seems to exist every where. I personally have no problem with thing, if done well and is not converted I will happily sit through a 3D showing of a film.

But I seem to be in the minority when I state this opinion so it seems weird that 3D takings are still so high.

But thanks for the confirmation information

[2shy2007]

I have never seen a 3D film at the cinema, but I usually buy the 3D bluray as you get all the choices in one package, so if the 3D is not all that good at least you have the bluray or digi copy to fall back on.

[Helbore]

Originally Posted by PhoenixRises

Cool, It still seems strange to me, just because of the hatred for 3D that seems to exist every where. I personally have no problem with thing, if done well and is not converted I will happily sit through a 3D showing of a film.

But I seem to be in the minority when I state this opinion so it seems weird that 3D takings are still so high.

But thanks for the confirmation information

'Tis the way of the internet, I think. There's lots of things that you'd think were vastly unpopular based on the responses people give on DS and other forums. But in reality, those complaints are often in the minority.

However, there is also another possibility. I went to see it in 3D, but would have rather seen it in 2D. The reason I went to the 3D screening was because the 2D showings were 7pm and 11.35pm. That was it. Whilst the 3D showings were practically every hour. 8-9pm was my preferred time slot, so 3D it had to be.

From what I saw, a lot of other cinemas were similar. So its possible a lot of people may have gone to 3D screenings because it was the only realistic option if they wanted to see the film at all.

[Matt D]

Originally Posted by whedon247

you could see the whedon lines a mill off,i really like penn too,hes a good amrvel writer,hope they helm the next film

I do wonder though how much of Penn's original story is left. Whedon wrote the screenplay, which you can tell from the character stuff and the humour, but he also re-wrote Penn's original story.