backtop


Print 86 comment(s) - last by newcastlenelli.. on May 7 at 4:34 PM

Iron Man had no trouble with its targeted audience this past weekend.

The phrase uttered by Iron Man executives this past weekend to each other was likely "crisis averted". Some executives responsible for the movie Iron Man -- which stars Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow -- expressed concerns that Grand Theft Auto IV would seriously erode the movie's opening weekend.

It appears that the Iron Man executives had little to fear when the final box office tallies came in yesterday. The movie brought in $100.7M over the weekend -- the heady tally makes it the second highest gross for a non-sequel behind Spider-Man and the tenth highest grossing movie of all time. Iron Man' returns were boosted by it showing in an impressive 4,105 theaters.

"We could not have hoped for a better way for Marvel Studios to blast off," said Marvel Studios Chairman David Maisel.

The strong showing by Iron Man in theaters reinforces the fact that big-budget Hollywood movies can still draw in an audience despite high ticket prices and a weakened economy. The results also echoed Marvel Studios president of marketing Geoff Ammer's comments last week. "The two properties can co-exist in the marketplace," said Ammer on April 27. "We believe that moviegoers will make going to see Iron Man part of their weekend plans."

For its part, Grand Theft Auto IV has pulled in record numbers of its own. Although final U.S. figures have yet to be released, estimates peg that the game will have an opening week of roughly $400M -- this would surpass the $300M high watermark set by Halo 3 in 2007.

In the UK alone, ChartTrak says that combined first-day sales for the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of Grand Theft Auto totaled 609,000 making it the fastest selling game in the UK.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Here's the thing....
By therealnickdanger on 5/5/2008 9:18:36 AM , Rating: 5
Exactly.

Iron Man is just a straight up rad movie. None of it was disappointing or poorly executed. It was actually exciting and entertaining from beginning to end. Downey was everything that the role demanded and more. I didn't even know that Gwyneth Paltrow OR Jeff Bridges were in it, but they were great too! After the credits, Samuel L. Jackson appears as Nick Fury.

Now I hear that Downey is making a cameo in the upcoming Hulk movie to help pave the way for an upcoming Avengers movie!?!?

Yeah, Iron Man is probably the best comic-to-movie adaptation I've seen.


RE: Here's the thing....
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/5/2008 9:23:44 AM , Rating: 5
People still use the word "rad"? ;)

That being said, the Spider-Man franchise is becoming entirely boring and lethargic (IMHO), so it's nice to see a new superhero taking flight now. I never got into Iron Man and really know nothing about the back story/comics. My only tie to Iron Man was in an old Marvell superheros arcade game I used to play at the YMCA after swim practice.

I probably won't be going to see Iron Man in theaters, but I'll definitely pick it up on Blu-ray.


RE: Here's the thing....
By JDub02 on 5/5/2008 9:51:03 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
I probably won't be going to see Iron Man in theaters, but I'll definitely pick it up on Blu-ray.


Well worth seeing on the big screen. My wife and I saw it and we both really liked it. The FX were amazing. The best thing about them was that you never think that you're watching computer effects.


RE: Here's the thing....
By zshift on 5/5/2008 12:10:43 PM , Rating: 5
yeah, these were the best special effects i've ever seen in a movie. absolutely amazing.


RE: Here's the thing....
By Kishkumen on 5/5/08, Rating: -1
RE: Here's the thing....
By yacoub on 5/5/2008 10:15:04 AM , Rating: 5
"probably won't be going to see [it] in theaters"

You should.
A: support a good movie.
B: it works really well on the big screen, like all superhero movies tend to.

Andit certainly gives the theatre subwoofers quite a workout. :)


RE: Here's the thing....
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/5/2008 10:39:47 AM , Rating: 5
The only thing is, the way prices are nowadays, it's costs me around $25 to go to the theater and watch a movie with my GF after drinks/popcorn. And I have to deal with idiots, cell phones, people cheering/laughing, etc.

I normally get my Blu-ray movies for less than that amount and I can watch them at my on leisure on my HDTV with 5.1 surround system. It's not exactly the same thing as watching it on the big screen, but it's more enjoyable for us.

And considering that the movies are released on DVD/Blu-ray just a few months after the big screen debut is also a big plus.

Another thing is, if I am inclined enough to go and see a movie, there's a 99% chance that I will buy it on DVD/Blu-ray. I'd rather just make the outlay ONCE.


RE: Here's the thing....
By noxipoo on 5/5/2008 10:52:23 AM , Rating: 5
big shot editor at this cash cow of a website can't afford to take the ladies out to a $25 movie? it's cheaper than dinner!


RE: Here's the thing....
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/5/2008 10:55:01 AM , Rating: 2
I'm just a cheapskate... and it also plays in my favor that my GF doesn't like movie theaters that much anyway :)


RE: Here's the thing....
By JoshuaBuss on 5/5/2008 8:05:29 PM , Rating: 2
I'm with you Brandon.. my gf and I have only seen 2 movies in the theater since we started dating over a year and a half ago..

we've probably seen at least 75 movies and just as many TV shows at home on the 120" diagonal projector setup..

ever since I got a projector I've found it a complete waste to go out to see a movie.. in downtown Chicago it's about $10 just for one adult ticket at most theaters. I'm sorry, but I think that's ridiculous... not even counting refreshments which we'd never buy anyway.. and that gets even worse when you consider watching at home has all the benefits, really:

-the movie starts whenever you want it to start, not a pre-defined time (this is the biggest reason, really.. showtimes are a bitch to schedule around sometimes)
-don't have to deal with any kind of traffic or transportation/costs
-sit in the best location to watch, everytime, in a comfortable couch
-pause for refreshments or interruptions
-go back if you missed something
-get the right lighting
-nothing annoying going on around you
-sound at a volume you like
-etc etc..

and with my setup, the total amount of my field of vision the screen is taking up is equivalent to sitting in the 10th row of the theater, right where I'd prefer to be if I went out anyway. We just don't think there's a single advantage to going out to watch a movie and I'm surprised more people still haven't realized this....

a decent projector is less than a typical 32" flatscreen TV these days..

I hear people say things like "Oh, this is one that you have to watch in the theater!" all the time and just shake my head.. what exactly makes it better????


RE: Here's the thing....
By jnn4v on 5/5/2008 11:09:59 AM , Rating: 5
For some reason, my wife insists on eating dinner every night, regardless of whether or not we attend a movie...


RE: Here's the thing....
By SiN on 5/5/2008 11:38:09 AM , Rating: 2
Whipkish!


RE: Here's the thing....
By FITCamaro on 5/5/2008 12:16:12 PM , Rating: 4
I like to eat dinner every night too. But if my ass can get in the kitchen, then put hers there too!

(For those of you without a sense of humor, this was a joke)


RE: Here's the thing....
By SiN on 5/5/2008 12:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
No it wasn't SEXIST!!!


RE: Here's the thing....
By othercents on 5/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Here's the thing....
By Brandon Hill (blog) on 5/5/2008 11:04:33 AM , Rating: 2
"IF" I go to the theater, it's usually the matinée (again, cheapskate). So the tickets are usually $5-7 bucks a piece (at a nice theater) + cost of food/drinks.

But again, it's still more enjoyable to watch a movie at home IMHO on my comfortable couch.


RE: Here's the thing....
By therealnickdanger on 5/5/2008 12:12:21 PM , Rating: 5
Not to mention the other "benefits" of being alone with your woman at home.


RE: Here's the thing....
By FITCamaro on 5/5/2008 12:19:08 PM , Rating: 5
After movie sex is always fun. Or during movie. Before movie. Hell, anytime.


RE: Here's the thing....
By jRaskell on 5/5/2008 1:17:49 PM , Rating: 3
I find it borderline incomprehensible that people voluntarily pay $4+ for a small bag of popcorn and $4+ for a 16-20oz drink. Is it seriously THAT hard to go a couple hours without consuming something?

Besides which, why don't you actually test your theaters policies. I have two local theaters that I can walk in with snack and beverage in hand without any problem at all. For other theaters I just put stuff in a baggy windbreaker or the GFs oversized handbag. There's absolutely nothing wrong with bringing your own stuff, regardless what the theaters try to claim. I haven't purchased anything from the theater counters in over a decade.


RE: Here's the thing....
By maverick85wd on 5/5/2008 3:00:58 PM , Rating: 2
I do the same. I haven't bought snacks at the theater pretty much ever.

drug store candy FTW!


RE: Here's the thing....
By omnicronx on 5/5/2008 3:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
I like theatre popcorn, what can I say.. my GF actually chooses the theatre (when we do go) by how good their popcorn is...

as for bringing in food.. I would like to see you try in my area, they are full blown food nazis. They even hire security dressed in plain clothes whose job it to point out people they think are bringing in food, and those trying to sneak in without paying.

Keep in my these are not even security, they merely tell security when they see something so they are around, so its more effective than you would think, I see people getting caught all the time. It really all depends where you live and what theatre you go to though..


RE: Here's the thing....
By masher2 (blog) on 5/5/2008 3:31:21 PM , Rating: 1
> "There's absolutely nothing wrong with bringing your own stuff, regardless what the theaters try to claim."

You realize the theatre itself only receives ~10% of the ticket price? No theatre can survive without the profits from concessions sales.

There's certainly nothing wrong with foregoing the concessions stand entirely, but trying to claim moral high ground by "bringing in your own stuff" is rationalization at its finest.


RE: Here's the thing....
By xsilver on 5/5/2008 8:03:34 PM , Rating: 1
AFAIK, its considerably more than 10%

It works on a 2 tier system
Opening week = more for studio
Rest of run = standard share


RE: Here's the thing....
By omnicronx on 5/5/2008 11:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
I think you proved his point, for a movie and popcorn with drinks its going to cost you $30 plus at most places. Regardless if there are annoying people there or not, you can still buy the BD for less than it costs you to go to the theatre, all while being able to enjoy it in the comfort of your own home.


RE: Here's the thing....
By Locutus465 on 5/5/2008 11:16:16 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed on BD vs. the real theater. Additional advantages to BD is you don't have to deal with poorly set up theathers, i.e. the theater over powering the speakers, poor focus etc... I've heard more than one person comment that HD is better than the theater (even at 720P). In reality HD is just way more consistant than the theater. You calibrate your screen, run Adussya on your AVR, perhaps use an SPL to fine tune your sound levels and there you go. Every time you put in a bluray you get the same experience.

Hard to match that with theaters at large.


RE: Here's the thing....
By SiN on 5/5/2008 12:05:36 PM , Rating: 2
BD vs Cinema... The new media format war!

Most people will just hook everything up though and play the disk.
We have a really good cinema close by with fantastic sound, and its just generally a really exceptional cinema experiance. Except for the kids, show offs, and mobile shout boxs'.

"YEAH!!! CAN YA HEAR ME??? NO??? IN IN THE CINEMA!!! YEAH... IRON MAN. ITS CLASS"


RE: Here's the thing....
By Ashrac on 5/5/2008 12:37:13 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what exactly the resolution they use for it is, But I know when I saw Iron Man at my local theatre, I went to the digital projection version, and it looked as good as any 1080p blu-ray I watch at home.


RE: Here's the thing....
By omnicronx on 5/5/2008 12:47:48 PM , Rating: 2
Better hope so, if its digital projection it should be either 2k or 4k.. much higher resolution than 1080p which is only the equivalent of around 2 megapixels.. 4k is higher than 10...
not sure what version you saw..


RE: Here's the thing....
By Locutus465 on 5/5/2008 1:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
Well hopefully your local digital projection theater is a cut above your average film based amc movie house. Typically the digital theaters are more conserened with quality than the run of the mill theater.


RE: Here's the thing....
By omnicronx on 5/5/2008 12:39:33 PM , Rating: 2
Good points, most of which are bang on to why I would rather my Home Theatre setup. Personally I can not stand the movies at the theatre anymore, I still go to multiple movies a month, but it is mostly at the drive in where I can usually see up to 3 movies to 10 bucks, while getting to talk and do what I want in my car. I know there are not many drive-in's anymore, but if you can find one, there is nothing that beats the value.


RE: Here's the thing....
By Reclaimer77 on 5/5/2008 7:06:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You have got to be kidding me. $25 for two people including popcorn and drinks. You must be going to the cheap theatre especially since you have idiots with cell phones. Go to a nicer theatre.


I agree. After having three or four movie experiences ruined by minoriti-errr I mean 'urban' people at my local theater, I now drive about 5 extra miles to a theater in a much nicer neighborhood. What a difference ! And its not like I pay more either.

Watching movies at home is nice. But for movies like this life is just too short to wait for it to come out on DVD.


RE: Here's the thing....
By StormEffect on 5/5/2008 7:52:41 PM , Rating: 2
In my hometown (Las Vegas) it is the rich white loud kids, in their 20 person groups, that ruin movies. Boston, where I go to University, it is more the minority group... (I don't know why), but it is always them in the back screaming obscenities during the movie. The theater I usually go to also happens to be the most famous, high-end theatre in the city, so it isn't a crappy theater issue. I remember this one dude a few rows down who told the loud *minority* kids in the back to shutup during the sad scenes in No Country for Old Men, and they proceded to get in his face and knock him around DURING THE MOVIE. Way to go guys, enforce those negative stereotypes.


RE: Here's the thing....
By jvillaro on 5/5/2008 7:24:42 PM , Rating: 2
Sh!t i just went to see it and this a$$h0le talked on his phone for about 5 min.
I was going to politely ask him if we should turn the movies sound down or even pause it cause I bet it was so veeeeery important. But I didn't i was afraid I was going to shove the phone down his throat and then I'd miss the rest of the movie that was suprisingly good.
At the end it reminded me why I prefer to watch movies at home.


RE: Here's the thing....
By sc3252 on 5/5/08, Rating: 0
RE: Here's the thing....
By jlips6 on 5/5/2008 11:31:13 AM , Rating: 2
Iron man was amazing. My favorite character was the lead visual effects designer. I think his name was Jack Nelson.


RE: Here's the thing....
By afkrotch on 5/5/2008 11:52:45 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
That being said, the Spider-Man franchise is becoming entirely boring and lethargic (IMHO), so it's nice to see a new superhero taking flight now.


IMHO. Hate that acryonm.

Because that post made by you, written by you, could have been someone else's opinion.


RE: Here's the thing....
By AlphaVirus on 5/5/2008 12:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
IMHO I totally agree! (jk)

Its like geeze, not only do you have your own personal comments box with your name attached, you have to type the IMHO to get your point across?
I try to overlook it when people type it, its just a waste of keystroke.

Its like back in grade school when you had to write an essay about
"What do you think about the..."
the teacher would give you a failing grade if you started off with
"I think that...."
Duh "you think that", its YOUR paper!


RE: Here's the thing....
By SiN on 5/5/2008 12:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
well i think that, uh, the american uh, in iraq, because without proper education...

"thank you Miss South Carolina"


RE: Here's the thing....
By pillagenburn on 5/5/2008 2:02:34 PM , Rating: 2
definitely worth seeing on the big screen, man, unless you have a monster of a home theater system, then you're really missing out.


RE: Here's the thing....
By Kromis on 5/5/2008 9:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
Hell yes!

I'm going to go watch it a second time with my second set of friends. It was that cool. :)


RE: Here's the thing....
By bighairycamel on 5/5/2008 9:45:19 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Yeah, Iron Man is probably the best comic-to-movie adaptation I've seen.


Exactly what I was thinking (although Batman Begins was a close 2nd), but by FAR the best for a Marvel character.

~~~ Some small spoilers below~~~
There are a lot of little tidbits thrown in for the comic book fan, which I thought was really cool. The appearance of S.H.I.E.L.D, the fact that he doesn't keep his identity a secret, Jarvis (although he was an A/I in the movie), and the hint at a possible War Machine, among others.

Seems like they actually did their research on this one.


RE: Here's the thing....
By masher2 (blog) on 5/5/2008 10:05:55 AM , Rating: 2
> "Exactly what I was thinking (although Batman Begins was a close 2nd)"

I'd put Batman Begins first myself, as the only comic adaptation that doesn't insult the viewer's intelligence. Admittedly, Downey was highly entertaining in the role of Stark, though.


RE: Here's the thing....
By bighairycamel on 5/5/2008 10:29:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd put Batman Begins first myself, as the only comic adaptation that doesn't insult the viewer's intelligence.


What does that mean exactly. One thing I really loved about this movie is that they didnt try to scientifically explain anything while not dumbing it down at the same time. The thing about comic-based movies is that they're fantasy movies. Characters like Tony Stark,Reed Richards and Victor Von Doom could basically make any fantastic little invention they wanted to. I don't want a comic based movie to try and follow laws of science.


RE: Here's the thing....
By masher2 (blog) on 5/5/2008 10:43:49 AM , Rating: 2
> "I don't want a comic based movie to try and follow laws of science. "

That's a valid viewpoint. However, I enjoyed BB specifically because it did follow the 'laws of science' relatively closely, didn't strain credulity or the suspension of disbelief, and included a set of psychologically complex characters, rather than stock heroes and supervillains.


By therealnickdanger on 5/5/2008 12:19:27 PM , Rating: 2
Good Lord, mash, how do you survive sitting through movies like Star Wars? :P

I definitely agree about Batman Begins though, it was much deeper than Iron Man, but then that's the fundamental difference between Stark and Wayne's characters.


RE: Here's the thing....
By StormEffect on 5/5/2008 7:58:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, no offence dude, but you must have a hard time enjoying ANY media. It's hard not to be when you have the ability to disseminate the failings and inconsistencies around you in such vivid detail.

Either that or you "dumb yourself down" for entertainment's sake, but that is unlikely.


RE: Here's the thing....
By Locutus465 on 5/5/2008 10:15:06 AM , Rating: 3
Something I've been wondering about... I only dabbled in Iron man when I was a kid but, wasn't stark wheelchair bound in the comics? I thought that was a huge part of the draw for him to be in the suite so much, the added mobility.


RE: Here's the thing....
By bighairycamel on 5/5/2008 10:23:02 AM , Rating: 2
All Marvel movies are adapted from the Ultimate universe, not 414. Some more loosely than others... (i'm looking at you Spider-man)


RE: Here's the thing....
By masher2 (blog) on 5/5/2008 11:19:30 AM , Rating: 2
Just curious, but what's the difference between the two? Chronological age?


RE: Here's the thing....
By bighairycamel on 5/5/2008 11:33:14 AM , Rating: 3
Ultimate was basically a modernization of all the popular heroes. Not too many differences but some of the back story had been rewritten. Example - The venom symbiote was a result of a failed cancer experiment, not an alien like in the original story. Other than that it's basically just the same people with seperate story arcs going on.

The universe was created to try and revive an interest in comics among young people in the 90s during very slumping (if that's a word) sales. It's success is the reason why they chose to use the Ultimate universe for the movie adaptations.

I personally don't like the Ultimate universe as it confuses old timers like me who grew up on the 414 universe. The two universes are completely separate and it's very annoying to have multiple story arcs for the same teams/heroes going on at the same time. And then you have to try and remember when reading whether events happened in this or that universe.


RE: Here's the thing....
By rdeegvainl on 5/5/2008 11:42:09 AM , Rating: 2
Not even close. The main continuity line in marvel is earth 616. Also the movies are not adapted from the ultimate universe either. Do a search for pics and enter "iron man ultimate" and you can instantly tell the difference.
Spider-man movies weren't based on ultimate universe any more than the other universes. They took the basic concept of his character and villains and ran with it.


RE: Here's the thing....
By bighairycamel on 5/5/2008 11:46:16 AM , Rating: 2
Dont know why I said 414, lol. 616 is what I meant anyway

Anyway, yes they are. Go back and read some old Wizards where the producers specifically say they are adapted from the Ultimate universe. The key word is "adapted". If you want obvious proof from Iron Man check out Nick Fury at the end. He's BLACK. 616 Nick Fury is white.


RE: Here's the thing....
By rdeegvainl on 5/5/2008 11:54:39 AM , Rating: 2
if all it takes is a the color of something to show adaptation, take a look at the iron man suit in both. Did you ever read the Ultimates where they were talking about who would play them in movies. I liked the tie in.

Anyways I haven't read the wizards your talking about. I'm going by the events of the movies themselves. Which producers was it though. I am interested in reading their take on it.


RE: Here's the thing....
By bighairycamel on 5/5/2008 12:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
Ultimate Iron Man was still red/yellow with a few silver spots. And if you want to go by costumes, compare classic X-men with Ultimate and look at the movie. The lower-profile leather costume look WAS NOT from the 616.

The Wizard was from waaay back, and IIRC was from an interview about the upcoming Spider-man movie. They mentioned that the Marvel movies (X-men was done the year before) were based on the Ultimate universe.


RE: Here's the thing....
By rdeegvainl on 5/5/2008 12:37:35 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it was mostly gray with a couple yellow/red spots. except the knees. But not to argue semantics it looked like a cheap plastic toy. No doubt to appeal to the younger crowd. Iron man though follows the premise of 616 and not ultimate at all. The black nick fury is about the only connection.


RE: Here's the thing....
By rdeegvainl on 5/5/2008 12:43:03 PM , Rating: 2
Ummm don't know why the knees comment is in there. Bad editing on my part.


RE: Here's the thing....
By Gastrian on 5/5/2008 6:30:10 PM , Rating: 2
The Ultimate X-men came out in 2001 a year after the first X-Men movie in 2000 and the Iron Man movie has less in common with the Ultimate Iron Man story than batman and Robin had in common with any DC comic.

In the Ultimates stroyline Stark is a genetic freak who is hyper intelligent because his entire body is essentially a brain and he is also continously regenerating at a celular level at such a high speed it is killing him so needs to wear an organic membrane armour that eats away at his skin tissue to keep it in check.

Rhodes was involved in the building of the ironman suit when Tony Stark was still a teenager.

Tony Stark does not have a heart problem he has a brain tumour.

But of course because Nick Fury is black in the Ultimates and the movie thats the link ;-)


RE: Here's the thing....
By Sleazell on 5/5/2008 10:56:50 AM , Rating: 3
My wife read that Marvel actually produced the movie and will be doing all the other Marvel movies themselves instead of having others get all the money. I think that had to be the reason it was done so well. So I guess they are behind the new Hulk. If so I will probably go see it seeing how well they did with Iron Man.


RE: Here's the thing....
By zshift on 5/5/2008 12:09:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, Iron Man is probably the best comic-to-movie adaptation I've seen.


I second that. I used to watch the cartoons as a kid and read the comics, and I have to say this is one of the best super hero movies out there (sorry, batman begins was too good, and dark knight looks even better). This was way better than spiderman mostly because of the acting. Spiderman seemed way too cheesy, while ironman kept to roots and still had good acting.


RE: Here's the thing....
By FITCamaro on 5/5/2008 12:13:44 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know if I'd call it the best adaptation, but I definitely loved it. They weren't too subtle on the advertising though (Audi, Burger King, Dell).


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki