Weekend Box Office Wrap Up: May 27th 2012

Published 3 years ago by

MIB 3 tops the box office 570x307 Weekend Box Office Wrap Up: May 27th 2012

Will Smith got jiggy with the box office over the weekend and knocked The Avengers off the top spot after three record breaking weeks. Men In Black 3 (read our review) should see the weekend out with about $55 million (or $70 million for the four day weekend). It’s an okay-ish number, but Sony was hoping that the film would bank $90 million over the long weekend. Men In Black 3 comes with a steep production budget (somewhere between $220 million and $300 million) and most of those involved in the film get a large chunk of the first dollar gross, so it’s going to have to make a lot of green to turn a profit.

The first Men In Black film debuted with $51 million in 1997, and it went on to make $250 million domestically and $589 million worldwide. Its sequel arrived five years later with a $52 million launch, topping out at $190 million and scoring $441 million at the global box office. The last installment didn’t receive as much love as its predecessor, and the decade long wait may not have helped matters for this third film. Expect Men In Black 3 to gross a similar number to the first sequel and a little more globally-with the added 3D bump.

Men In Black 3 marks the Fresh Prince’s first movie in four years, he has been absent from screens since the release of Seven Pounds, which grossed a disappointing $69 million ($168 million worldwide) in 2008. His last blockbuster was Hancock (also in 2008) and that debuted with $62 million, on its way to a total of $227 million. The star has had an astonishing twelve $100 million+ grossing films – his highest earner being Independence Day, which grossed $306 million at the US and over $816 million globally in 1996. The average box office gross for a Will Smith movie is $126 million, a figure MIB3 should top.

The Avengers dropped to second place but still scored a mighty $36.9 million for the weekend (about $48 million for the four days). That would give the Marvel adventure a massive $513 million by Monday morning and over $1.2 billion globally. It’s the fastest film ever to hit $500 million and by next week, the film will have surpassed the domestic gross of The Dark Knight to become the third highest grossing film of all-time (un-adjusted) at the US box office. However, on the adjusted chart it’s way down the list, behind the likes of Gone With The Wind, Doctor Zhivago and about forty other films.

Battleship sinks at the box office Weekend Box Office Wrap Up: May 27th 2012

Battleship continues to sink. The Taylor Kitsch action film should sail away with just $10.8 million for the three day weekend for a $44 million total. That would give the $209 million film a global gross of $277 million. That number may be nautical, but it is not nice.

The Dictator isn’t having a very successful reign at the box office. The comedy should take home $9.6 million for the weekend, a number which would bring its total to $41 million.

Chernobyl Diaries had a disappointing start, garnering just $8 million on its opening three days.  Poor reviews haven’t helped the Oren Peli produced film (read ours), but it was produced on a budget, so it should turn a decent profit.

Tim Burton’s Dark Shadows will bank an additional $7.5 million come Monday, a number which will see its gross swell to $62.9 million ($144 million globally). It’s not a total disaster, but it has to be a disappointment for all involved.

What To Expect When You’re Expecting will take home around $7.1 million for the three days-upping its cume to flaccid $22 million. Don’t expect to find this on screens for much longer.

The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel invited another $6.3 million from paying guests, raising its total to $16.5 million. The British comedy is fast approaching $100 million globally.

Another $2.7 million sees The Hunger Games raise its cume to $395 million; it’s almost at the $400 million mark. The Jennifer Lawrence film has now grossed almost $640 million worldwide.

Think Like A Man rounded out the top ten. The romantic comedy banked $1.4 million and raised its total to just over $88 million.

That’s it for now. See you at the movies.

Source: Box Office Mojo

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. Movie studios really need to take a step back and look at what theyre making I think people are getting immune to garbage.

    • I find it very encouraging, maybe people will start making good movies instead of just throwing money and stars on the screen and hoping for the best.

    • Garbage plus gimmicky 3D.

    • Are you slamming Avengers? I mean really? So if it is, as you say, “garbage” then I guess that the 96% that liked it AND the overwhelmingly favorable critic reviews would be wrong then?

      • That’s what I call an ssumption he never staed the avengers… he could very well mean MIB3, or the vast amount of other 3d movies we have had this year.

      • I’m sick of this “critics loved The Avengers” crap. It’s BS. The Avengers has 69/100 on Metacritic. For comparison, that’s only 3 points higher than Captain America, and even lower than Ghost Protocol.

        Rotten Tomatoes isn’t reliable because the Tomatometer:
        1) depends on how many reviews there are, so a movie with 200 reviews has a better chance than a movie with 300 reviews (whereas Metacritic only considers the same critics to be consistent)
        2) only shows how many critics gave a score of 60/100 or higher–so theoretically if a movie got 61/100 on every single review, that movie would have a 100% score…which is b*******.

        • Avengers has an overall score of 4 out of 5 with most reviewers – FACT ;)

          And according to your logic (more reviews = more reliable results), Metacritic is an unreliable source since they only have about 40 reviews (and IMO, they’re reviewers aren’t even that great… which is why I hardly ever rely on their stats to decide which movies I watch)
          Whereas RT has over 200 reviews (the usual number for big blockbuster movies) from top critics all over the world.
          Personally, I think RT is a great site to determine a movie’s critical success. And seeing as how 90% of the reviews I’ve read for ‘The Avengers’ have been overly positive, I’d say it is in fact a critical success – by definition.

          In the end, the only review that really counts is one’s own review/view of the movie (and ScreenRant’s review of course :D)…
          And while you might not love the praise TA is getting, you’d better start dealing with it because it isn’t going away anytime soon.

      • How do you get that from the post? Seriously? The article talks about two movies, Avengers and MIB 3 that did well. Then they talk about a slew that stunk, Chernoble, Dark Shadows, Battleship…etc. I would agree with him. There are movies that are made with effort and there are those that stink from the moment they are made. I too wonder what the directors are thinking with regards to the target audience????

        • wait what? I was talking about battle ship. Avengers is flawless.

          • You should be more clear in the future ;)
            There were like 10 movies mentioned in this article.

    • I agree dude.

  2. Could you image what would happen if the avengers had the hunger games release date? The hunger games lead for like 6 weeks… if the avengers lead for 6 weeks wow

  3. Well done to The Avengers – almost a month at the top & smashing box office records all along the way – great fun which has really kicked off 2012′s Summer of Blockbusters !!

  4. I predict when Avengers 2 date is set, other movies will run away from that date as fast as they can.

    • more like, from that month

  5. Any predictions for how Snow White and the Huntsman will do a the box office next weekend?

    And, how will it do on the review front?

    I don’t know what to think right now. The trailers make it look good, but as I’m sure most of us know, trailers can be deceiving.

    While the movie looks good in a Lord-of-the-Rings fashion, I’m concerned that with Kristen Stewart in the lead role, it’s going to be like Twilight in the Medieval Fantasy Forest and target tween girl audiences.

    What does everyone here think?

    • Kristen Stewart did some pretty good work before twilight, so i expect her to continue with that good work now that twilight’s done (almost).

      and i’ve heard that her and pattinson didn’t even like twilight but of course, they’d be stupid not to make as much as they could off the craze.

      • I’ve only seen Kristen Stewart in the Runaways and she was fine in that.

        But I wasn’t referring to her acting ability but rather the targeted audience for this movie. Will it be a good fantasy-action movie for males and females? Or will it try be more like Twilight and Red Riding Hood?

        That’s my concern. It looks like it could be solid, fantasy-based entertainment or shallow, weak teeny-bopper fare.

        • Runaways was TERRIBLE! I couldn’t even finish watching it because it was so bad. Kristen Stewart is one of the WORST actresses out there. She’s wooden and unconvincing. If she was a guy, she’d be Hayden Christensen. Porn stars are more convincing actresses. Her being in the Huntsmen is what is keeping me from wanting to see it.

          • The movie was mediocre, but I didn’t have a problem with her acting there. Yes, she’s not much of an actress, but she was better than what I’ve seen from Hayden Christensen.

    • As for kristen stewart she has never impressed me in the slightest so I don’t expect much. And chris hemsworth to me Ptoential to be very average.Part of me thinks it could be one of the best movies of the summer…. the other half thinks it has potential to be average. Charlize theron to me looks like she is gonna eat this movie alive with no remorse. She will be far suppior to everyone in the movie.

      • As for kristen stewart she has never impressed me in the slightest bit. And to me chris hemsworth has not proven to me he is a versitle actor… he plays thor.. now he is playing a huntsman with the same sort of attitue and demener as thor. I need to see something siffrent from him. Don’t get me wrong he is a great thor I wouldn’t have anyone else do it.

        • cabin in the woods?

          • He was completely one dimensional in that movie… as was most of the actors. As much as I love cabin of the woods it wasn’t because the characters at all. It was the extremely original story

        • Dude, first 5 minutes of Star Trek (2010). I know it was short but that was some powerful stuff there.

          • I think that 5 minutes got him the Thor role. Heck, I almost wish that they had HIM as James T. Kirk instead of Chris Pine!

            • whedon got him the role of thore from cabin in the woods

      • I have mixed feelings as well. I’d rather it be a good movie and be as of much interest to males as well as females, but I also worry that it will pander too much to girls.

    • I think it’ll get solid reviews (3.5 average).
      As for box office… I have no idea — too many variables like MIB3 getting good word of mouth, Prometheus being released a week after SWATH, Avengers still in the picture, etc.

      I’m actually excited to see it though (despite the average looking/bad acting Kristin Stewart).
      P.S. I saw a clip for SWATH where Hemsworth yelled out “TROOOLLLLL!!!” – he never did that in either of the movies where he portrayed Thor :(

  6. Its great to see Avengers sustain its massive level of success. Reports say that it could have $523 million in the US by Monday. On that basis i think the maximum tally it can hope for is about $600 million which is a fantastic achievement for any movie regardless of 3D or inflated ticket prices. Long may it’s huge numbers continue.

    I;m not really surprised by MIB3′s underwhelming box office take. Let’s be honest it’s a sequel no -one was really clamouring for.I see it more as a safe bet return to the big screem for Will Smith. I’m just shocked at that rumoured $200 – 300 production budget.

    It;s kind of strange all the negative buzz around Kirsten Stewart’s lead for Snow White and the Huntsman. I’m sure the producers thought she would caryy her Twlight fanbase with her, but he involvement just seems to be giving the film a bad rep even before the reviews come out.

    I think Hemsworth’s casting was an obvious move in the wake of Thor and The Avengers. I think he will help draw a larger audience , but he must be wary of not being typecasted – when considering any future film choices.

    I’m always for the fantasy genre and it looks great. Yes there are echoes of Lord of the Rings – but as those films were the greatest films ever – it’s no bad thing at all. I will be seeing this movie, bar truly bad reviews.

    • I agree completely with you about hemsworth… he is a great thor no doubt but eventually id like to see him break his shell and show some versitility much like bale, gosling, and the veterans

      • Christian Bale =/= versatility. Every film he’s in he’s Christian Bale. He’s like Jack Nicholson, Samuel L. Jackson, Nicholas Cage, Will Smith, and so many other one-note actors.

        I think Chris Hemsworth has already shown considerably more versatility than Bale with the few films he’s already done. Hell, he showed more versatility in ONE single role (in the film Thor) than Bale has shown in his entire career.

        • Umm, no. Every time I see his face I think “comedy”. Just the tone and everything feels ‘lightweight’. So it’s not very versatile when you can only play fun roles.

        • Did you see “the fighter?”

          • Are you people crazy? He can change his voice with ease going from his natural extrmeely sloppy britsh accent to a perfect american acccent. His performance in the fighter is one of the ebst I’ve ever seen. Not to mention his extreme dedication to lose and gain weight at will. He is as versitile of an actor as anyone in the business. Watch the machinist he owns that movie, not to mention he plays an incredible phsycho in american psycho. And he is the best Bruce Wayne ever… (notice I didn’t say batman) just bruce.

            • He is one of the few actors I think that actually emmerses himself in every role no matter how bad the movie mite be.

              • Let’s put it this way would any actor besides bale drop down to 110 pounds way lower than his doctor suggested for a movie? Absolutely not that’s dedication and all of his roles are completely diffrent. He is versitile and id argue that nobody is as versitile.

                • if losing weight were a sign of “good acting”, there are a BUNCH of soap opera actresses who should get Oscars.

                  Bale lost weight, like an idiot, endangering his life. And he was STILL “Christian Bale”. At no point does he ever cease being “Christian Bale” in any movie he plays.

                  He’s one trick pony. Totally 1-dimensional.

                  • One deminsion? I think your way way off base. He has played an anorexic insomniac, a psycho killer, a superhero, a coke head former boxer and plenty of other roles… where hemsworth has played thor, 4 minutes of a ship captian, a one dimensional jock and that’s about it… and what’s his next grrat choice in a role? A huntsman with the same attitude as thor. Calling bale one dimensional is one thing but calling hemsworth more versitile is rediculous. In 10 years when hemsworth establishes himself doing something ebsides 5 avengers fulms then ill consider it. But right now its a no brainer.

                    • I think Bale’s a jerk in real life and he’s able to channel that aspect of himself in every role he’s played. You can just see it in his eyes that he doesn’t give a damn about anybody but himself. (I just saw the Prestige, good movie, but his bad boy attitude was definitely showing there.)

                      Whereas Hemsworth, you can tell he’s a good guy in general. But as far as versatility, I don’t really think either actor has shown it much yet.

                • Robert de Niro

                • Gary Oldman

        • Each to their own opinion and all that, but please Jack Nicholson – a ‘one note’ actor. So much could be said about that guy’s performances and career – but ‘one note ‘ is definitely not one of them.

          I actually think that Bale is one of the most committed and versatile actors around today. From really serious roles in American Psycho, Harsh Times, The Machinist, The Fighter to more blockbuster action from the Batman films, Terminator Salvation (less daid , the better) to Reign of Fire.

          Apart from the Batman movies, he doesn’t tend to do do countless sequels, which is refreshing. And he puts 100% into every role, and yes he immerses himself deep into character.

          Hemsworth has just broken through, so he can’t really compare to Bale at the moment. He’s making the smart choices at the moment, in terms of staying and his profile will continue to be active withe the likes of Expendables 2 , Thor 2 and the Avengers 2. The question mark will arrive when he has to carry a movie completely on his own performance ( a bit like Orlando Bloom had to do with Kingdom of Heaven). That’s why there’s the worry of taking similar roles and being typecasted.

          • I agree with you completely. But from the actors who are just now breaking threw I can’t really consider him near the top. I find tom hardy much more impressive and after 50/50 joseph gordan levitt has caught my attention. As for most versitile actor its hard for me to picture anyone besides bale, gosling and decaprio. They to me are the best of the bunch in that catigory. Then there is other actors who always tend to impress me like michael fassbender and james mcavoy

          • He’s not n Expendables 2; that’s his brother.

  7. I can’t believe it. How the hell is a movie like the avengers make more money the dark knight. It’s a sad day for cinema.

    • Same question I have for Avatar.

      • Avatar was a visual effects extravaganza.

    • Because some people like to be happy at the theater. Some others see movies as an escape from a rough life. Some see movies to have fun. And then there are the ones who watch Dark Knight.

      *Addendum* Before your post the hate you are feeling, I loved and still love Batman Begins. I just don’t “enjoy” watching Dark Knight.

    • Cause more people are open to comic book movies than they were in 2008.

      If you wanna talk tragic, here in the UK, the biggest movie in 2008 based on ticket sales was Mamma Mia! (the ABBA based musical turned movie) and that was purely because the movie ran from May 2008 until February 2009 I think while The Dark Knight only ran from late July until late August 2008 at most.

      Besides, as much as I loved The Dark Knight, the movie started to drag and get boring from the third time you watch it onwards while The Avengers was fun from start to finish and probably won’t get as boring so quickly.

      Add to that the dark, gritty tone of TDK compared to The Avengers so more parents are likely to take kids to see the Marvel movie.

      • I also think that Heath Ledger dying really added to the overall desire of audiences to see Dark Knight the first weekend. Not saying that it wasn’t worth going though – Heath Ledger definitely put on a Oscar-worthy performance as the Joker, which I think made people WANT to come back to see the movie again.

        Dark Knight was a very well-made movie though, I won’t deny that, I happily own the blu-ray. But a lot of factors contributed to its blockbuster status.

    • maybe it’s a better movie in the general movie-going people’s eyes? Maybe it’s the xtra bump from 3D tix? Who really cares (other than the studios)? it’s all about whatever movie YOU, or ME, or JOE THE PLUMBER likes. the fact that the avengers makes more than TDK shouldn’t take away from your enjoyment of it.

    • If you don’t know the answer to your question, then I’m guessing you don’t really know much about the movie business and the audiences – but I’ll assume you were stating a rhetorical question? ;)

      People watch movies that get good word of mouth and good reviews (The Avengers: check). They watch movies that had an excellent marketing campaign (The Avengers: check). They watch movies that offer them fun and an escape from the rest of the world (The Avengers: guess what… CHECK).

      Plus, if you consider 3D prices, inflation and “re-watchability” then it shouldn’t be so “unbelievable” to understand why The Avengers made more money…

      • 3-D prices were not a factor. I saw a breakdown, on this website I believe, that showed even minus the extra money 3-D prices brought, it beat TDK.

  8. i cant believe this. come on people the avengers is nothing special. its just a bunch of super heroes put together which most of them cant act and it had a cartoon CGI,its a sad day for film making. i just hope that TDKR makes more money to prove that people can still see the difference between a great film and movie thats just about exploseions with story line that doesnt go anywhere.

    • I didn’t enjoy the avengers as much as everyone else but I do think your wrong. Whedon just wanted to make a movie that would be fun. 2 and a half hours of fighting and comedy and he succeeded in that regard.

      • yes it was fighting and comedy for two and a half hours but it’s been done before. i mean come on buddy it sounds like we are talking about transformers. and thats my point to all those avengers fans. nothing fresh. in fact i enjoyed transformers alot more because when it came out it was different and new it had better action not including transformers 2.

    • How do you know TDKR will be a “great movie” if it hasn’t been released yet?
      I’m starting to think you’re just another Nolanite.

      • Wait me or milan? Lol

        • Both kinda ;) (but my comment was in reply to milan’s though)
          I mean, you’re a Nolanite as well (I think you’ve said so yourself), but at least you’re sensible… and even though you didn’t like The Avengers that much, it seems like you can understand and respect the praise it’s getting (at least, that’s hopw your comments come across).
          Whereas Milan just seems to be trolling/on a bash-fest at this point…

          • yeah he is trolling lol people need to get it even if you dont like the avengers it had all the makings of a massive hit! comedy, action and great special affects… and thats something people will rewatch and that is why its doing so well. Its not the 3d prices that are making the avengers a hit. Its a hit because its a movie for all ages thats why i dont see the dark knight rises or any movie this year getting near it.

            and yes i am a nolanite but i know when to admit defeat lol

            • You don’t remind me of a Nolanite at all, just a fan of Nolans work on the batman series maybe?

              • I think i am considered a nolonite cause i do like almost all of his films and he is one of my favorite directors. Insomnia and following to me are just average films. With the dark knight being my favorite movie of all time and memento being in the top 10 as is the prestige. but if someone says scorcese or spielberg is better than nolan i dont feel the need to argue. They are incredibly talented directors and veterens where nolan is not a veteran. I have my opinions and ill express them when needed but i dont see a reason to bash other worth directors/movies in the process.

                Like the avengers i may not of loved it but if someone says ohh man thats my favorite movie i will nod and say i can see why. ITs just an enjoyable movie and you cant take away the entertainment factor that it possese. It has rewatchability and its just fun much like cabin in the woods which is my favorite movie this year (so far)

                I am a huge fan of nolan but im just a fan of movies in general.

                • I guess I’m a Denzelite, an Eastwoodite and Willisite. :-)

      • im guessing by ur name, you think the avengers is a great movie. so i know TDKR is gaoing to b great because TDK,Incepcion even Batman begins was better that playstation game u call the avengers.

        • milan…

          See, I was trying to defend your ranting a bit further down this thread, because I have hated the bashing going on both sides of the NON-ISSUE. People like rod22 and cheshire cat (among many others) have already proven themselves (among others) to be low-class, obnoxious trolls on the side of Marvel. I was so hoping you would not show yourself to be the same on the Nolan side…oh, well. C’est la vie.

          I happen to agree with your love of the Nolan Batman trilogy, but there is no need to cut down “The Avengers” just to elevate TDK or TDKR. The Nolan Batman trilogy will stand just fine on its own, when all is said and done. If the Avengers trilogy (quadrilogy? quintology?) is as respected when it finally reaches its conclusion, then, hey, more power to it.

          “The Avengers” was a great, fun film, and I enjoyed my viewing in 3D very much. Soon TDKR will release, and since it is my most anticipated film of the year (followed closely by “The Hobbit”, “Prometheus”, and “The Amazing Spider-Man”), I am growing increasingly excited as the days crawl by. The fact is that noone knows for certain that TDKR will be a smashing success (given the quality and popularity of its predecessors and the gearing-up of the current marketing push, however, it IS a perfectly fair assumption), but “The Avengers” HAS succeeded already, and that’s great.

          While I did not find it to be the end-all-be-all comic book film many others think it is, I DID enjoy “The Avengers”. Will TDKR beat any or all of its newly-minted box-office records? I would be ecstatic if Nolan’s final foray into Gotham did reach that level of success, but do I honestly think it will? Probably not…BUT I DO think TDKR will achieve great success as both a film AND a closer to a fantastic comic book film trilogy…and THAT is one thing no film will ever be able to take from it.

          If I and the millions who will see TDKR are as satisfied and happy with it as I think we will be, THAT, in and of itself, will also make me happy.



        • Judging by my name huh? ;)
          No, you’re completely right, I thought Avengers was a fantastic movie – I also think BB, TDK and Inception were fantastic movies too (all three totally different from The Avengers though… anybody who tries to compare them doesn’t know that much about movies IMO).

          I just don’t see why you have to bash The Avengers the whole time…
          And the same goes to ‘rod22′ BTW… bashing the movie continuously won’t get you anywhere. It just makes you seem petty. (‘Archaeon’ said it best: “there is no need to cut down “The Avengers” just to elevate TDK or TDKR.” – and vica versa).

          You’ve expressed that YOU feel the Avengers’ success is “a sad day for cinema”, that it’s “nothing special”, but the fact of the matter is (whether you want to accept it or not), it’s actually a very, very good movie according to most regular viewers, film critics, movie fans and comic book fans.

          As for your PlayStation comment: I don’t really know what to make of that because some PS games are actually much better than most films in recent years – the ‘Uncharted’ series is one of the best audio/video items I’ve ever come across (and much more cinematic than some movies even)… so that slur(?) doesn’t really hold much ground in my mind.

          In short… all I’m saying is that it wouldn’t be a bad idea to hold back on the bashing and to not judge a film before it comes out (unless you want to become like ‘rod22′, whose main commenting purpose, it seems, is to bash a movie that was clearly very good)

  9. There are so many reasons why Avengers massive success.

    - The success of the Marvel movies that pre-ceded it.
    - Downey Jnr’s continued appeal as Tony Stark, plus Jackson’s involvement which will always raise interest.
    - Scarlett Johannson in a skin tight, leather costume.
    - The lighter, more colourful tone, reflecting in trailer which promised wall to wall spectacle.
    - It’s the first crossover, superhero team up of it’s kind, so there’s the unique quality and novelty right there.
    - The marketing and promotion which were both carried out to perfection.
    - Yes, the 3D and IMAX which are so important to a films box office , particularly in overseas markets.

    There’s probably so many more that I’ve missed.

    But the biggest reason is just that there is an actual live action Avengers movie. This is a film that comic book readers have been wanting to happen for decades without truly believing that it would. This is simply a dream come true for them, particularly the way that the characters literally appear as they do in the comics. The X-Men films were scaled down a lot for more credibility , but the Avengers are shown in their true form in terms of both their look and nature.

    That 360 swirling shot of the heroes gearing up for battle, just encapsulates what Marvel have achieved and to be honest sold the movie for everyone concerned. Like Avatar – Avengers feels more like a cinematic ‘event’ that at the very least you have to see just to find out what the fuss is all about.

    • I didn’t like The Avengers that much, but your comment pretty much nails it. :)

  10. I think MIB3 will do very well internationally.
    The Avengers has been out a lot longer internationally, so most people overseas have already seen it (as opposed to the US where there are still a lot of viewers going to see it).
    Plus, MIB3 is getting good word of mouth and a few good reviews, so I don’t think people should count it out of the competition completely.

  11. Yeah its going to do well internationally…As for the US- i think it will struggle a bit(there is a lot of competition this year its crazy).I now hope they make a third Bad Boy’s film.

  12. Battleship wasnt bad. I liked it. Men in Black was okay but not great. Was pretty disappointed in Dark Shadows.

  13. marvel and disney is about to give the darknight a 12 gun salute farewell to the darknight domestically. so loving it because iam so sick of nolan follwers overrating and analyzing that movie. HASTA VISTA BABY!

    • Seriously, is there something wrong with you mentally, or do you just naturally radiate a vibe of extreme obnoxiousness?

      Milan, above, was doing the same thing earlier, but at least (whether intentionally or as a circumstance of infrequent visitation to the site) he has only shown his displeasure in his one comment and one response, unlike you with your seemingly endless trolling. Move on…SHEESH.

      Oh, btw, there have been at least just as many “Marvelites”/”Avengerites” (etc.) as “Nolanites”…including YOU.

    • Please don’t butcher another culture’s language in your snide, inane, childish remarks. Hasta LA vista.

      • i was reading this comment and i was like uhhh what does he mean… then i realized he did say HASTA VISTA haha it made me chuckle

  14. fact is the avengers sold more tickets than the tdk, even minus the 3D it still would’ve outgrossed it. Nolan worshippers were bragging how tdk had grossed $1 billion, and how the avengers wouldn’t come close, but after avengers surpassed it “box office success dosen’t determine a films quality” LMFAO losers

    • LOL butthurt much?

      Copy & pasted from elsewhere:

      + 1 billion marketing budget (aside from Iron Man, the prequels = just really expensive ads)
      + regular+3D+IMAX+IMAX3D+4D+etc. tickets
      + bright & fun, appeals to families & internationally
      - none
      + Nolan & Batman = free advertising
      - could’ve recast Joker for profit, but didn’t, out of respect
      - only regular + IMAX (by which he risked the anger of the studio execs)
      - dark, scary to kids

      Fact is, if Nolan had wanted, he could have made TDK & TDKR family-friendly and they both could have crossed 1.5 billion. But he chose quality over $$$, which is why we respect him.

      • wtf is 4d? and where are you copying and pasting these silly “facts” from? marvel/disney didn’t have a 1 billion ad budget. i believe it was 100 mil. i guess it was all exaggerated by other “butt-hurt” people. how does nolan + batman= free advertising? they pay for their ads like everyone else. as for the family friendly claim, i’d say that nolan’s batman DID go for the family friendly route. if you read frank millers graphic novels, they are defiantly a rated R type book, but nolan & co chose to tone it down to get the pg-13 rating. there is nothing to scary for kids in any of those movies, imo, so to claim it could have gone 1.5 bil is a pretty bold, albeit fact-less claim, but feel free to disagree. these are only my opinions.
        let me axe you this… what if YOU think the movie is awesome, but its critically blasted, say it’s compared to green-lantern badness, and only grosses 300 mil, does that make it any less great to you? does YOU’RE liking a movie totally depend on others opinion’s of it?

        • The 1 billion budget comes from the budgets of all Avengers-prequel movies. The only good one was Iron Man 1. You have to admit that the rest of them were just average, and just “1-and-a-half hour long ads”.

          Nolan & Batman = free advertising because Christopher Nolan is practically a household name now. And so is Batman. Put the two together, and everyone will be wanting to watch it.

          • i don’t “have to admit” any such thing. i happen to like all of marvels movies so far, even iron man 2 that alot of people dont care much for.
            as for nolan being “practically a household name”, i’d be willing to bet my paycheck that if you went to any downtown area in any city usa during lunch, and asked 100 people ” do you know who Christopher Nolan is?” less than 40 would know. same question, but with Stephen speilberg? 70+. that is a household name. when Nolan has been doing this for over 30 years, maybe he will be more well known. i am not bashing nolan, he is a good director, and has made some good movies, but he has a long way to go before he reaches iconic status like scorsese, kubric, and the above mentioned speilberg. just my opinion

            • @ jeffro

              I salute you and your comments which are 100% spot on.

              I just wish other devotees of Nolan would understand , that while he is a an accomplished director – he is still nowhere near the stature of Spielberg, Scorsese, Kubrick. Even the likes of De Palma have made a variety of more substantial movies than Nolan has.

              Just good to hear someone speak some common sense about Nolan for sure. Makes a nice change on this site.

              • I do so love to see silly statements when I visit this site. You really think that the posters on ScreenRant are biased in favor of Nolan? I mean SERIOUSLY?!?! The opposite is actually true; there are so many bashes against Nolan, “Nolanites”, TDK/TDKR, and most related subjects that I actually wonder sometimes if there is some kind of secret club set up for just such a purpose.

                This is not to say that some of the comments are NOT overboard, worshipful, friggin’ nuts, or just plain rude…ON BOTH SIDES OF THE ARGUMENT, THEATER, WHATEVER. Yes, believe it or not, there have been plenty of loons spouting off about Marvel, Whedon, “The Avengers”, etc., too…

                If people are going to continue to respond to posts (or, more specifically, their posters), they need to realize those who oppose their OBVIOUSLY correct positions (ahem) might not ALWAYS be crazy or wrong.


              • thank you sir.

      • cool story bro, lol copy paste. The Avengers first two weeks ticket sales 50 million tdk first two weeks ticket sales 48 million, lol at nolanites making up excuses to try and down play the Avengers success, people want to see the film in 2d or 3d. the avengers 1 month 1.3 billion tdk 6 months 1.001 billion lmfao keep trying pumpkin :)

        • Yeah, because grossing a lot of $$$ always = good movie, right?

          So the Transformers series must be masterpieces?

          No. You got it backwards. People don’t love TDK because it made 1 billion. People love it because it’s a great movie, and ON TOP OF THAT it made 1 billion, so they love it more.

          The Avengers, on the other hand, is just an average movie. It has 69/100 on Metacritic. That’s only 3 points higher than Captain America, and even lower than MI4 Ghost Protocol.

          • lol typical generic response, grossing alot of money dosen’t mean the film the film will be good true. But since TA got good critical response + $, that’s just a added bonus. So your logic is invalid THE AVENGERS box office success and critical success :) bye :)

            • Are you retarded?

              “Avengers made a billion”
              Completely irrelevant to how good the movie is. Transformers made 1 billion.

              “Critics loved Avengers”
              No they didn’t. It got 69/100 on Metacritic. That’s really really average.

              You are truly a fanboy, seeing only what you want to see.

              • @okungnyo: Metacritic isn’t the only review site in the world mate! If you want to make a valid argument try to use something other than metacritic to prove your point.
                I’ve already written a response to your original comment about The Avengers’ critical success, so I won’t repeat myself…

                @cheshire cat: as okungnyo said, a lot of money doesn’t equal a great movie (Transformers 3 and Avatar are proof of that), but since Avengers did receive critical praise and it is HUGELY popular with the every day moviegoer, it does prove that the movie is good… BUT!! don’t forget that TDK also made over a billion dollars and more importantly, it also received critical praise and it was also embraced by the general audience – i.e. BOTH were very, very good.

                • You say that Metacritic isn’t the only review site out there. Might I ask you to name a better one? Say, a website that centralizes review scores from the world’s most renowned film critics?

                  Oh wait, there isn’t a better one. Because you are talking out of your ass, like most fanatics. I wonder how it feels like to be one? You know, denying the evidence that is staring at you in the face?

                  • ‘Rotten Tomatoes’ has hundreds of reviews from top film critics all over the world (not just a few pretentious American reviewers)… RT gives a “fresh rating” that judges the film’s overall appeal but more importantly, they also give the average score (out of 5) that was received from said reviews (in The Avengers’ case, 4 out of 5).
                    It also has an audience feature where millions of movie fans can say what they thought and post their own reviews.

                    And with Metacritic, since they only have about 40 reviews, it only takes a few negative reviews to hugely influence a movie’s overall “rating” that you like to bring up so much. Whereas with RT, there are usually about 150-200 reviews on there which gives a MUCH better inkling to the overall score than Metacritic’s.

                    And before you respond to my comment, I’d just like to ask you to calm down… you’re starting to get abrasive and quite frankly, a bit rude and it really isn’t necessary (we’re not talking about serious issues – it’s just a movie)
                    It shouldn’t be too much to ask for us all to just act civil when engaged in an argument…

                    • I knew you were going to post about Metacritic. And before you spout any more of that nonsense, please READ EVERYTHING I WRITE CAREFULLY AND SLOWLY.

                      1. The Tomatometer is just a percentage of critics that gave a score of 61/100 or higher. So it’s basically a [thumbs up/thumbs down] system. Theoretically if a movie got 61/100 from all the critics, it would have a 100% Tomatometer. That’s a horrible system, isn’t it?

                      1. Metacritic, on the other hand, takes the EXACT score the critic gave the movie (ex: 75/100).

                      2. Metacritic always only takes the reviews by the same critics (30~40). This is hugely important because we have a consistent basis on which to judge the score.

                      2. On Rotten Tomatoes, on the other hand, based on how big the movie is, the number of reviews varies greatly. For example, Winter’s Bone has 159 reviews, while Avatar has 283. That’s a ONE HUNDRED reviews that might have raised/lowered Winter’s Bone’s score and thus cannot be compared to Avatar.

                      And I cannot believe what I am hearing in your second paragraph:
                      “Metacritic is bad because it gave Avengers bad reviews!! RT is better because it gave Avengers good reviews!!”
                      Never have I seen a more blatant display of fanboyism.

                      If you do not reply, I will assume that you have nothing to say because I am right.

                    • Correction:

                      The first sentence should be:

                      I knew you were going to post about Rotten Tomatoes


                      I knew you were going to post about Metacritic

                    • @okungnyo:
                      1. If you read MY comment “carefully and slowly”, you’ll see I wasn’t really talking about the “tomato-meter”. Rotten Tomatoes has an accurate score system as well: RIGHT under the tomato-meter it clearly says “average rating: ____”, and under that “Reviews counted: ____”, etc.

                      2. You’re right there… Metacritic does have more consistency, BUT! when dealing with so few reviewers you have to take into account the other movies that they’ve reviewed and what they had to say about those (taste differs). There’s a guy on Metacritic who gave Avengers 30 out of 100 – obviously I don’t agree with him and a lot of his other reviews aren’t to my liking either – so that right there pretty much messes up Metacritics “score” for me since they have a very pretentious guy that mostly reviews small independent dramas and only on occasion does he review an action movie or a comedy (he usually gives most action movies and comedies bad reviews BTW)
                      Plus, most of the reviews on metacritic are in fact included into RT’s consensus anyway! – so it’s not like their opinions have been discarded (they willingly submit their reviews to Rotten Tomatoes…)
                      And really, who on earth would ever try to compare Winter’s Bone with Avatar?… people “compare” movies that are alike: an action/sci-fi blockbuster will be compared to another action/sci-fi blockbuster (and on RT almost all blockbusters have over 200 reviews) and a drama or biopic will be compared to another drama or biopic. Even if Winter’s Bone had 250 reviews, you still wouldn’t have gotten a fair comparison because both movies are very, very different in almost every aspect.

                      “And I cannot believe what I am hearing in your second paragraph”
                      I can’t believe it either since I NEVER said anything REMOTELY like that… at all (it’s ironic how you’re calling other people “delusional” when you quote something that I never even said and claim it to be my exact words)

                      But yeah I’m done here. You’re starting to act really rude IMO and I don’t want to engage any further. If you reply to this comment and say something like “If you do not reply, I will assume that you have nothing to say because I am right.” again, then by all means, assume whatever the hell you want.

                    • @ The Avenger

                      I’m sorry for being rude. The Internet you know? It gets to people…

                      But you completely missed the forest for the trees. The point is not that I’m comparing Winter’s Bone and Avatar, which are vastly different movies. The point is that on Rotten Tomatoes, even huge movies have varying number of reviews, which results in a biased score.

                      For example: TDK has 283 reviews. Avengers has 270 reviews. Maybe those 13 missing reviews could have boosted up Avenger’s score or lowered it. Who knows?

                      This problem also has an impact on the Average Rating, not just the Tomatometer. So either way, Rotten Tomatoes is messed up.

                      Conclusion: it doesn’t matter whether critics on Metacritic are ‘prententious’ or not. Because Metacritic is the only website on the web that provides a consistent and reliable reviewing system.

                  • wow. here i was, making up my OWN mind about what films i like, when i should have had metacritic making up my mind for me. i didn’t realize i’m not allowed to like the avengers because some anonymous person gave it a 50 or whatever. thank you for showing me how wrong i’ve been all this time. from now on i will consult with you and metacritic on which films to like/watch.

                    • You got a point there… the only review that REALLY matters is one’s own review…

                    • Have some context. This guy was boasting that critics loved The Avengers and I simply put him in his place.

                      I never said you weren’t allowed to have your own opinion.

  15. On the one hand you have to comment that fact that Dark Knight achieved it’s billion without the used of 3D – something that i don’t think will happen again for a long time. However to say that Dark Knight only had one ‘advantage’ in pulling its box office isn’t quite right as it had several

    - It’s been said probably a billion times now, but Heath Ledger’s death gave the film a huge boost in interest and curiousity. People were willing to see his last performance, regardless of whether they’d seen Batman Begins or not.
    - the fact that it was released late July meant that it had far less competition than what the Avengers faces in the next couple of weeks. Had DK been sandwiched in between Iron Man and Indy IV, it would’ve affected it’s box office.
    - It had to be on release for months on end to achieve its total. Most films are only release for about 3-4 months before coming out on blu-ray. This is what makes Avengers’ achievement all the more impressive.

    Now yes Avengers had a lot going for it , but also certain ‘disadvantages’

    -Expectation level were way above that for the Dark Knight. People has been waiting for this film for decades so the pressure to deliver was great.
    -DK had one sole protagonist, Avengers had to juggle with multiple characters having to make sure each was as pivotal as each other to the storyline.

    • How the hell is “People has been waiting for this film for decades” a disadvantage? To the contrary, it’s BECAUSE people have wanted this movie for so long that it made so much $$$.

      Again, how the hell is “multiple characters” a disadvantage? To the contrary, it’s a HUGE advantage, because kids & teenage girls want to see hot superheroes with six packs fight each other.

      You are the paragon of fanboyism at its worst.

      • @okungyo

        First , I had already explained the added pressure of making a film that people have been waiting around for decades. Especially when you’ve been backed with a $200 million budget.

        It would’ve been simple to make a 90mins action flick , make Downey Jnr take the dominant lead and just fill the movie with non stop special effects. Audiences’ expectations were a lot greater than that end result, so Wheldon aimed higher by giving the characters equal involvement and actual injecting lots of humour but at the same time making sure there was a serious tone throughout the movie.

        This leads to the 2nd point. DK had one hero against one villian. Yes Harvey Dent was a strong character, but when he became Two-Face the impact wasn’t fully realised. The plot was then easy and formulaic – Joker causes chaos and Batman has to try and stop him. It’s been successfully done before and using the Joker was a major advantage, something proven by the uncertain reaction to Bane for TDKR.

        Dealing with multiple characters is a lot harder because you have to make each character as important as the other. Otherwise it just becomes one character and ‘his friends’ which is not what the Avengers is about. You see I’m talking from a storytelling & characterization point of view , not just on the simplistic basis of the desires of teenage boys and girls.

        And just to add, my opinion was in no way a paragon of fanboyism. That was a very defensive reaction on your part. (I assume you are another Nolanite upset at the fact that despite TDKR being prohesised as the greatest film ever – it just will not outgross Avengers) If you read my comments properly you will see that I actually commended Dark Knight’s success. I enjoy both sets for films and have no fanboy bias towards either.

        Face it, the biggest advantage of Avengers’ success was that it was asuperb comic book movie. End of argument.

        • Dude we are talking about $$$. Six hot superheroes fighting each other and lots of things exploding ARE NOT disadvantages. To the contrary, it makes little kids beg their parents to watch it.

          Yes, they are disadvantages when you are talking about making a good movie. But we are NOT talking about that. We are talking about $$$.

          Transformers is one of the worst action movies ever, yet it grossed 1 billion. Why? Because people wanted to see giant robots fight each other and lots of things exploding.

          In the same way, like you said, even if Mr. Whedon had played it safe and “make Downey Jnr take the dominant lead and just fill the movie with non stop special effects” the movie would have still made a lot of $$$.

    • Those “disadvantages” sound more like advantages to me…

      • You gotta hand it to them…delusional to a level not from this world…

  16. come on people arent we getting a bit too sensative about the avaengers issue. yes i call it an issue because i get the sense that a lot of people take it personally and some even get offended if i might add when someone critses the movie.

    last time i checked it was screenrant.com not the iloveavengers.com so please allow us to give our opinion because we are entitled to it.

    • Milan…

      Check out my more recent response above to lebsta and jeffro (aside from my response directly to you even earlier, of course). Both sides really DO need to stop going at each other. It’s irritating and takes away from the enjoyment of the site.



      Simply put, you will never convince each other of your relative positions.

      • Nothing rude or obnoxious in my comments.

        I agree with you – that at times arguments do stray off the point and get petty when people get defensive. But also it’s good to debate points when people have good, clear points of view and there’s nothing wrong with that.

        People are passionate about their views and the subject of movies in general.It’s good to have a different opinion which is what makes this site more interesting.

        And to reiterate – I’m on neither ‘side’ as I enjoyed both Avengers and Dark Knight and i’m pretty sure I’ll enjoy TDKR as well,

  17. nothing wrong with an opinion, it’s when veiled insults are mixed within that opinion that starts the arguments, i.e. “…because kids & teenage girls want to see hot superheroes with six packs fight each other.”, or how about “im guessing by ur name, you think the avengers is a great movie. so i know TDKR is gaoing to b great because TDK,Incepcion even Batman begins was better that playstation game u call the avengers.”

    btw, when you type a word, and it’s underlined in red, that means it’s spelled wrong. just sayin’.

  18. To Jeffro and whoever is like him
    U just proved my point. Whatever i said to the guy who’s called the avengers was directed at the movie and not him personally. And there is nothing wrong with saying he must think the movie is great guessing by his name. U see that’s not a “veiled insult” ,it’s an assumption.

    Probably i should not have said TDKR is going to be great because that’s an assumption too but still it’s not an insult nor the avengers is a playstation game. 
    No my friend u have to understand the difference between a veiled insult and criticizing the avengers are completely separate things before u jump to conclusion.

    And the comment about the red line under a word means it’s spelled wrong. We are not In an English literature class are we? Come on that was unnecessary