Monday Morning Quarterback Part II
By BOP Staff
May 1, 2013
BoxOfficeProphets.com
Brett Ballard-Beach: Yes, until I consider what some have noted - that it's almost like a de facto sequel to The Avengers and opening only a year later to boot. Domestically, I think it stands to gain the second highest opening weekend of all time and come in with about $175-180 million.
Jay Barney: I am a bit surprised that it is doing so well overseas, but then again the way these films are released in so many different countries alters the numbers a bit. The release outside the U.S. is substantial, there is no doubt about that.
It is hard to peg a number to where Iron Man will open domestically. I think it is a safe bet to say it opens larger than Iron Man 2, which was just short of $130 million. If it opens north of $135 million it earns a spot in the top 10 openings of all time, which is probably pretty likely. These are all huge numbers compared to the openings a decade ago, so this is a mark of how much the box office has changed. As we have discussed in a couple of MMQB columns, the box office has been depressed this year, so I think it is possible that Iron Man 3 opens well below Avengers' $207 million. Records are hard to beat, especially when they were just established a year ago. We can't forget about the buzz going into the Dark Knight rises, and for various reasons, that still had a huge opening - but even that wasn't close to Avengers.
My guess is that it manages to do very impressive business this weekend, potentially rivaling any of the films that have opened to more than $150 million. The openings of Spiderman 3, The Hunger Games, The Dark Knight Rises, and the last of the Harry Potters are all in play. There is a lot of energy behind this product, and the news from overseas is great press.
Iron Man 3 will probably open in the $175 million dollar range.
Edwin Davies: I'm a little surprised, but far less so than I would have been if Iron Man 3 was coming out directly after Iron Man 2. That sequel was pretty indifferently received in comparison to its predecessor, and although it wound up earning a very similar amount worldwide, there seemed to be a lot less enthusiasm for it. In normal circumstances, I would expect the buzz around a sequel to a disappointing predecessor to lead to diminishing returns.
Of course, things aren't entirely normal here, since between Iron Man 2 and 3 we have The Avengers, which I think did a huge amount to remind people why they like Tony Stark so much in the first place. I know that The Avengers was an ensemble piece, but Iron Man was kind of the central figure for the most part, and it's very apparent that the success of Whedon's entry in the Marvel universe has revitalized the series that started the whole process to begin with. It's also why we should probably see significant upticks for the Thor and Captain America sequels, though not to the extent that we will see for Iron Man 3.
Viewed as a sequel to The Avengers, released at the right time to capitalize on the warm buzz still left from that film, the results so far overseas are pretty much in line with what might be expected. That, coupled with the addition of 3D, will probably see a pretty big jump from the $125 million opening weekend of the second film. I'm leaning towards a 50% increase, so it will probably open in the $170-190 million range. With the reviews and general excitement, I would rule out it getting very close to what The Avengers managed last year, either.
Kim Hollis: I'm not particularly surprised by the international numbers so far at all, because as Brett noted, Iron Man 3 plays out like a sequel to The Avengers. It takes the most popular character from that ensemble, one that already propelled two films to tidy sums, and dials it up a notch thanks to the goodwill coming from the awesomeness provided in The Avengers.
I think this film looks likely to beat its predecessor domestically, which is rare for sequels. From what I'm reading it's enjoyable (if not quite as good as the first Iron Man) and Robert Downey Jr. is just...well, he's the best thing ever.
One other factor we have to consider is that often times when we see lulls in the box office like we have so far in 2013, when an "event" film hits theaters, it explodes even more than expected. There's a real possibility that this happens, purely because movie audiences are so starved for product right now.
David Mumpower: One of the aspects of The Avengers that we chronicled meticulously last year comes into play now. The belief back then was that each character included in the film effectively leveled up, becoming a more iconic movie (and comic book) protagonist. Iron Man 3 provides the first test of that theory, which is exactly why I agree with Edwin about the importance of chronological order. I personally loved Iron Man 2, yet I accept that I possess the minority opinion on the subject. Since the prior film directly impacts the opening weekend of its sequel, that would have been a problem. Then, The Avengers came out and if we consider that the prior movie, which we as a group apparently do, Iron Man 3 should have blown up in its global debut. It already appears likely to earn a billion dollars worldwide. For reference, Iron Man and Iron Man 2 grossed $267 million and $312 million overseas. Iron Man 3 will beat that in its first 10 days. We are witnessing the genesis of a juggernaut right now.
Kim Hollis: Mud, a limited release drama featuring Matthew McConaughey, debuted with $2.2 million amidst fantastic reviews. How has McConaughey recently been able to reinvent himself as a critically lauded actor?
Brett Ballard-Beach: Easy, he gets older and the high school girls stay the same age (Sorry, had to use that quote. It's been 20 years since that film opened!) For an intriguing comparison, consider that he and Brad Pitt both played stoners in small supporting roles in the fall of '93 and I would argue those performances still rank among their best. I think both of them are character actors cursed with hunky leading man bodies and that rom-coms and typical action films are not to their strengths. McConaughey has either realized that or been given the chance to go down that road in recent years. Post-Ghosts of Girlfriend Past (possibly the height of his rom-com lows), he has a great streak going with The Lincoln Lawyer (kind of his Primal Fear-esque reinvention), The Paperboy (his character arc left me flabbergasted), Magic Mike, Killer Joe, and now Mud, which I am humbled to say I was not aware of until Thursday evening (but a Huck Finn-type saga as reimagined by the director of Take Shelter intrigues me). He isn't afraid to go dark and unlikable or play shades of grey. It fits him well.
Jim Van Nest: I think the potential has always been there for McConaughey, but like Brett said, he has that leading man look that, I think, pigeon-holed him into certain roles. Someone that looks that good can't possibly be a good actor, right? Now that he's older and the days of being a rom-com leading man are behind him, he's getting meatier roles where he can showcase that he's always been more than just another pretty face.
Matthew McConaughy has been making films for years, and like any actor, he is going to have ups and downs in his career. He is on a bit of a hot streak right now, and that is great. Magic Mike is his most noteworthy recent work, in that it was made for only $7 million. That film made $167 million worldwide, so you can see the buzz and excitement around that sort of success. He got some great attention from the Lincoln Lawyer. He was impressive in Bernie.
However, we should not forget that one of his first major roles was Contact, and that was way back in 1997. There are people who aren't even science fiction fans who love that movie, and he was a major part of that film's success.
My point is this....people forget that actors have a wide range of roles and characters they take on during the course of their careers. Some of the films they make are smaller, receive less attention at the box office, but stand a better chance for critical attention. Guys like Gene Hackman and Nicholas Cage have actually won best actor nods before....and guys like Sylvester Stallone, Roy Schieder, Clint Eastwood, and Travolta have been nominated. When making films over the course of decades, these guys have highs and lows.
McConaughey is doing real well right now. Hopefully it continues for him.
Edwin Davies: I think that he had the self-awareness to realize that he was reaching the point in his career where people wouldn't want to see him in rom-coms anymore, both because a lot of the films he appeared in were terrible, and because actors will eventually reach a point where they are too old to be romantic leads, but also too old to effectively transition into doing other things. He was also fortunate in that he has been successful for long enough that he can say no to jobs that he doesn't think will be good, or say yes to ones that pay very little without having to worry.
Beginning with The Lincoln Lawyer, you can see a conscious effort on his part to take on roles that break from his traditional type - most notably Killer Joe, a deeply unpleasant film which takes his Southern charm to their very limit - and working with interesting directors (Richard Linklater, Steven Soderbergh, Lee Daniels, William Friedkin) who push him.
I think his reinvention is the result, ultimately, of a series of very shrewd choices on his part, but that none of those would be as effective if he wasn't a very good actor to begin with. It was easy to write him off when he was appearing in really bad films, but if you look at the early films of his career like Dazed and Confused and Lone Star, it's clear that he's a talented actor who fell into roles that paid well but didn't require much other than that he look good shirtless. Now he's appearing in films that require him to act while shirtless, which seems to be the perfect combination.
Kim Hollis: I'm actually at a loss to explain this, but then again I haven't seen any of McConaughey's recent renaissance performances, mainly because I don't like him much. He was good in Frailty, though, so I don't think he's ever been a "bad" actor. He just took some paycheck roles and now that he's aged out of it a bit, he can go back to more quality projects. He seems to be devoting himself to a bigger quantity of small, good films rather than a few crappy ones.