For some reason a lot of the people who watch the movie business are convinced there will be no hits this summer (for example there hasn’t yet been movie to make over $300 million domestic yet). I am convinced they are wrong and Guardians of the Galaxy is going to open huge. I am confused by the bearishness I have read. It’s possible enthusiasm of Comic con may have changed some minds but last week and earlier I have read many have given up on the Summer of 2014 (which admittedly has been somewhat weak). I am convinced this one will be big.
I’m not going to predict a figure but I agree in thinking Guardians will be big despite a weak summer. In fact, I think it will be helped by the overall weakness of the summer movie season - people have been waiting for a big movie and this one has the best shot to fill those expectations.
That seems like a tall order for a movie with no stars and no pop culture legacy to draw upon. I know it’s getting crazy hype in the core Internet demographic, but I don’t think that means much as an indicator.
No stars? You mean, apart from Vin Diesel, Bradley Cooper, Glenn Close, Benicio del toro, Zoe Saldana, and John C Reilly?
The early reviews are really positive – I think 120 mil is a bit high, but I think it will be a big hit.
Two words. Im possible.
The big Marvel sequels - Captian America, Spider-Man, and X-Men - did $90-95 million. So did Godzilla. The Transformers sequel hit $100 million. Planet of the Apes went only to $72 million. Maleficent and the LEGO Movie, the top original films, had $69 million.
That last is a possibility. It’s not a sequel or part of a known franchise. It will not set any records. If it does half of $120 million it’s doing very good.
We’re going to the IMAX 3D opening because it’s been a shitty summer and life owes us two hours of air conditioned mindless fun with cold Dead Guy Ale on the side.
I think it will do as well as the Avengers did - and for much of the same reasons - its big, got explosions, snappy dialogue
AND A RACOON WITH A GRENADE LAUNCHER!
I think you’re being too generous with how in the movie most of those people are. A person isn’t exactly overwhelmed with starpower from a promo or trailer.
Just a quibble, but I wouldn’t necessarily call films based upon a line of toys and fairy tales “original.” Maybe the scripts were “original”, in that they weren’t an adaptation or continuation of a previous story, but they’re still part of the same pre-packaged mindset that has gripped Hollywood.
OTOH, you’re completely right - $120 million is fantasy land.
Yeah, well…I am Groot.
Does that matter though? If you are the sort of person who only goes to see a film because of who is in it, you will look at the poster, see all those names, then go see it. If you prefer to know a bit more about a film, then you will read the reviews, then go see it.
Either way, I don’t think lack of star names is going to be a problem.
On the one hand, I do think this is going to do really well, especially if the early reviews are accurate as to the (high) quality of the movie.
On the other hand, realistic expectations. The first Cap’n America did 65m on its way to 176m domestic. The first Thor did 66m on its way to 181m domestic. Now, those were a few years ago, the reviews on each were more “good” than “excellent”, and the marketing campaign for Guardians has been significantly better than either of them. Marvel has built a lot of trust, and the fact that the big comic book and sci fi movies this summer have largely been of high quality without doing huge box office could even be twisted to a good thing: viewer trust is building up, but there could also be pent up demand.
I’ll guess 75m on its way to something in the 230m range, domestic, and generally huge numbers overseas. Which would be an unqualified success for a property with near-zero name recognition before the marketing push started.
(If you want to argue “best case”, you’re shooting for the first Iron Man numbers - something close to 100m on the opening weekend, pushing over 300m with strong word of mouth. I don’t know if the tail can run that long on something releasing in August instead of May, but that’s your best precedent on something similar coming out of relative nowhere and doing that well.)
Doesn’t “released in August” bother any of you? We all know what kind of movies generally get released in August.
<coughs>
Ahem…
CHRIS PRATT!!!
I know it’s cool for all the wimmens to love Benedict Cumberbatch and Ryan Reynolds in their secret love scrapbooks they won’t show anyone.
But he’s in mine. With Paul Rudd. And Seth Rogen. And some Jason Segel.
I’m going the first showing this Friday.
(Oh, it’s a nerdy comic thing? Yeah, yeah. That’s why I’m there. Yep. Keeping it cool with the nerds. Yep. )
I’m thinking more like $75 - $78 million, but we shall see.
I don’t mean to be too much of a troll cause other than Batman & Superman I’m not a fan of any comic book movies, but I think it will not succeed precisely because of the above reason. IOW no live-action, non-kids movie can have a talking anthropomorphic non-humanoid (i.e. animal) character and be successful. Adult audiences just can’t take them seriously…
hello - Ents? Apes?
Comedies can have a difficult time in translation. The largest selling point for the film, here, might screw it abroad.
Uh, I don’t know what you mean by ‘Ents’ but for Planet of the Apes (the original) the apes (IMO) were humanoid-looking enough. Darwin had been generally accepted for over a century, plus the make-up was extremely good.
Which is kind of interesting because when the original was first pitched the studio felt (like me) that people would laugh at the make-up. They made a short pitch filmstarring Heston and Edward G. Robinson as Dr. Zaious and when they showed it to test audiences they didn’t laugh at it. And the ape make-up in it is not nearly as good as in the actual film.