They only made the Spider-man deal very recently; the Thanos stinger would've been planned out before that. But apparently he's getting some integration to Civil War, most likely as the stinger for that movie.
[Movies] The Avengers 2
- Thread starter Cheesy1
- Start date
I was so glad Interstellar was released in non-3D IMAX. If more movies did that, I'd probably shell out for IMAX more often.
GasBandit
Staff member
And some people are saying it has "fallen short of expectations" because it only pulled in $187 million domestic its first weekend, less than the $207 million the first one made.
Mayweather beat the Avengers Too (Two).
I wonder what the first one made worldwide by this point?
Welcome to The Market, where you're considered a failure because you only made 80% of forecast, even though it's still the #2 highest-grossing movie over opening weekend of all time.
I thought 625m was the total for the first Avengers movie?
--Patrick
That's domestic, try the Worldwide tab on the left column
Your attachment is only for 5/1/2015, not the entire weekend.
Box Office Mojo says:
Domestic:
$187,656,000
29.9%
+ Foreign:29.9%
$439,000,000
70.1%
= Worldwide:70.1%
$626,656,000
Domestic Summary$187,656,000
(#1 rank, 4,276 theaters, $43,886 average)
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=avengers2.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=avengers2.htm
We're getting two movies a year; I don't see a cause for fatigue, especially with the more recent culture of people who eat through 10 h0urs of Netflix content in a day. If you look at these as one long TV show (one continuity), it makes sense. That said, they're about to have a bunch of movies introducing new characters, and they need to make sure those origin movies don't all feel samey. The point of GotG was to start developing a space side to these movies, shake them up a bit, but only GotG2 looks to have much to do with that.
Really though, it's nonsense to expect each movie to do more, and also stupid to make a big deal over $20 million when dealing in the hundreds of millions.
http://www.avclub.com/article/28-hour-marvel-marathon-nearly-cost-our-writer-his-218852
One guy attends a 28-hour marathon of ALL the Avengers movies, ending in Age of Ultron.
It's hilarious as he slowly goes insane. It's long, but it's a great read.
One guy attends a 28-hour marathon of ALL the Avengers movies, ending in Age of Ultron.
It's hilarious as he slowly goes insane. It's long, but it's a great read.
GasBandit
Staff member
Yep. If every movie doesn't break the record set by the last movie, then pack it up, it's not worth doing any more.
Reminds me of how MMOs quit trying when they couldn't be the next World of Warcraft.
Except this time it's the punditry saying it instead of the creators.
Here's another "Avengers 2 vs. Man of Steel" piece: http://thedissolve.com/features/exposition/1011-the-avengers-age-of-ultrons-unseen-antagonist-is-m/http://t.co/vAyCe7GWZn
You also had the "BIG FIGHT" and the Derby this weekend, which would have sucked off a few bucks.
ScarJo was also very pregnant during the filming of this movie, which might have something to do with her diminished role in it.
I think it's more that if you're trying to include any romance in a movie when the large majority of your characters are men, you don't have many romance options on the female side of things. Which tends to make it look like that trope.
But really, they didn't pair off the Scarlet Witch, Hill, or Dr. Cho (despite her gushing over Thor a bit).
Last edited:
Scarlet Witch was not a main hero long enough. By next movie she'll be banging someone. Also, let's not compare Black Widow to characters who had almost no camera time.
Also, why did there need to be a romance at all? Does there need to be a romance in order for a female character to talk about backstory?
Also, why did there need to be a romance at all? Does there need to be a romance in order for a female character to talk about backstory?
Last edited:
Maybe in the next one she will, but regardless, it wasn't done in this one.
And Hill at least is a significant character in the series, albeit a secondary one. As for why have a romance at all? *Shrugs* It's not my call, clearly they decided to have one though.
I'll also point out that if we're restricting this to major heroes as you suggest, virtually all the men are paired off as well. Tony and Thor were done in past movies, Banner as the other half from the romance subplot in this one, and Hawkeye being given a surprise wife and 2 kids (with one more on the way) out of nowhere. The only single guy is Cap, who's still pining over his true love that he lost the chance of being with due to being frozen in ice for 70 years. So it's more that every major character ends up being given a relationship rather than just the women.
I'll also point out that if we're restricting this to major heroes as you suggest, virtually all the men are paired off as well. Tony and Thor were done in past movies, Banner as the other half from the romance subplot in this one, and Hawkeye being given a surprise wife and 2 kids (with one more on the way) out of nowhere. The only single guy is Cap, who's still pining over his true love that he lost the chance of being with due to being frozen in ice for 70 years. So it's more that every major character ends up being given a relationship rather than just the women.
Last edited:
Damn, this is not the spoiler thread.
...Whelp.
I apologize for my part in messing that up.only if the characters are all straight men
I'm now sincerely curious if you think Avengers 2 would've been improved by adding a gay romance. Say, Quicksilver and Hawkeye encounter each other for the first time, there's that spark between them when their eyes meet...
No.
If there's any homoerotica to be had between Avengers, it has to be between Tony Stark and Nick Fury.
"You know what else only has one eye? Lemme show you."
...and it all just spirals from there.
--Patrick
I don't think it would have been improved by a gay romance, just that it could happen, would be just as valid as any other romance. Also it's not THAT unlikely since there are about 14 avengers by now
Are these comments not fairly similar in their tone and yet only one sparked major furor? So from what I've gathered it's ok for women to publicly state their attraction to men but the opposite is unacceptable? I don't care one way or the other, just seemed interesting.
What about the ... other guy?[DOUBLEPOST=1430796743,1430796629][/DOUBLEPOST]
I think Charlie forgot that "in my bunk" is supposed to be a statement of attraction and not a literal "I am heading to bed to masturbate."
But you do make a good point; I doubt there would've been a Charlie response if Squid had said "Thor ... I'll be in my bunk."
I had no idea what the context of the Thor comment was since I haven't seen the movie.
and I've seen Firefly, that doesn't make it any less crass
Also if you don't understand why objectifying Thor is completely different than Black Widow, please come back when you have more than a small child's understanding of gender inequality and the patriarchy, plz
and I've seen Firefly, that doesn't make it any less crass
Also if you don't understand why objectifying Thor is completely different than Black Widow, please come back when you have more than a small child's understanding of gender inequality and the patriarchy, plz