Why ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ May Be Marvel’s Most Important Movie

Guardians of the Galaxy

Guardians of the Galaxy” may be the most important film in Marvel Studios’ history.

Its $94 million domestic debut this weekend astounded box office prognosticators who were predicting an opening in the $65 million to $70 million range, and demonstrated that the company has figured out a way to push second-tier superheroes to perform like A-list brands. Prior to last Friday, most moviegoers would have struggled to pick Drax the Destroyer out of a lineup.

With all due respect to leading man Chris Pratt and director James Gunn, who are being justifiably hailed for injecting a dose of irreverence and energy into a summer blockbuster season that was ponderous and inert, Marvel is the star of this particular big-screen adventure.

“It underlines the fact that people trust their entire product line,” said Shawn Robbins, assistant editor of BoxOffice.com. “It’s becoming what Pixar became for Disney a few years back. Five years ago, I don’t think ‘Guardians’ would have opened anywhere near this.”

After “The Avengers” scored $1.5 billion at the worldwide box office, Marvel has been the most reliable hit-maker in Hollywood and the standalone superhero films it produces have seen a substantial bump in their grosses. “Iron Man 3” and “Captain America: The Winter Soldier” nearly doubled the takes of the first films in their series and “Thor: The Dark World” saw a nearly 50% jump in its earnings after all three title characters appeared in the super team film.

“Guardians of the Galaxy’s” sterling box office performance paves the way for Marvel to begin broadening beyond those core “Avengers” characters.

“Marvel just has as a magic touch,” said Greg Foster, chairman and president of Imax Entertainment. “To introduce five new characters, each of whom are now able to carry their own movie, is a master stroke.”

The film’s success bodes well for the stars of upcoming Marvel movies such as “Ant-Man” and “Doctor Strange,” who, like the space outlaws who populate “Guardians,” lack the household recognition of a Wolverine. In turn, that makes the company less dependent on backing a Brink’s truck into Robert Downey Jr.’s compound to convince him to make “Iron Man 9.”

“‘Guardians’ is the perfect test case to tell Marvel executives we can branch out in big ways and we can create tangential universes that audiences respond to,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Rentrak.

The results justify Walt Disney’s $4 billion purchase of the comicbook company – a pact that caused one short-sighted observer to scoff, “all it may get for its investment is a collection of second- and third-tier superheroes” (Full disclosure: this author was that dim bulb).

But a funny thing happened after Disney’s big deal. Success begat success, and as Marvel consistently produced meticulously crafted, well-reviewed popular entertainments, crowds began to see the brand itself as synonymous with quality. They might be unfamiliar with the heroes in one film or another, as was the case with “Guardians,” but they knew and respected the Marvel name.

“We would never have contemplated a film as risky as this unless we’d established that consistency,” said Dave Hollis, Walt Disney Studios’ executive vice president of theatrical distribution. “Ever since ‘Iron Man’ came out, there’s been this brand momentum.”

Had Marvel somehow emerged as a stand-alone studio, it would be one of the two or three most important in the movie business. The company’s in-house efforts have now generated north of $6.4 billion, to say nothing of the hundreds of millions of dollars racked up by the heroes its licensed to outside studios such as the X-Men, the Fantastic Four and Spider-Man.

Being part of the Mouse House has helped elevate Marvel’s marketing. It’s no mistake that “The Avengers,” the first Marvel film distributed by Disney, was also the first of the studio’s productions to cross $1 billion at the box office.

“It was about unlocking the total company support for the product,” said Hollis. “It’s the power of having the theme parks and the Disney Channel and everything on the retail side of things. It allows for this event creation that’s especially important with new characters. It allows us to make new [intellectual property] seem as big as Captain America.”

Marvel is so confident in the strength of its offerings that it made the bold decision last month to plant a flag in most of the prime release dates through 2019. In its announcement, Disney didn’t even bother to reveal which superhero would be saving the world or universe on a particular date. It simply stated it was a Marvel release. Competition, consider yourself warned.

Disney’s future looks especially bright, even though securing its position in the industry was a costly proposition. In addition to Marvel, the company spent $7.4 billion to buy Pixar and $4 billion to snap up LucasFilm. The studio won’t see a “Star Wars” film from Lucasfilm until 2015 and was deprived a Pixar release when production delays pushed “The Good Dinosaur” into next year. Imagine what its slate will look like when it’s operating at full capacity and Disney has each of its major brands fielding between one and three films annually.

“No one is catching Disney in the next 20 years,” said Jeff Bock, a box office analyst for Exhibitor Relations. “They are the flagship empire.”


Filed Under:

Want to read more articles like this one? SUBSCRIBE TO VARIETY TODAY.
Post A Comment 43

Leave a Reply


Comments are moderated. They may be edited for clarity and reprinting in whole or in part in Variety publications.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  1. I was worried that Marvel would only care with the Avengers heroes, but this movie was a big step. With the huge success, Marvel can now introduce more characters from time to time in their epic way.

    MCU will last a long time!

  2. john says:

    The Village Voice review speaks accurately about being winked at early and often by the film-makers, until by the end you’ve been winked into submission rather like a stroboscope.
    If you’re in a good mood when you see it, you’ll enjoy yourself.
    If you’re not, there’s plenty to pick at.

  3. john says:

    Not many people are familiar with the Guardians of the Galaxy, so a lot of people thought Marvel was taking a very big risk making a movie for these characters. The trailers looked great in every way, yet people were still skeptical. I’m here to confirm it people, along with many others-Guardians of the Galaxy is the movie you wanted, and delivers so much more. Peter Quill, Gamora, Rocket, Groot, and Drax come on screen to deliver possibly the funnest time you will have at the theatre this year. Funny, heartwarming, clever, and action packed can all be words to describe this awesome movie. So since the movie is named after this group of characters, let’s talk about these characters. Chris Pratt plays the leader, Star Lord, and I’ve never seen him better. He was just the perfect choice for this role. While Pratt is amazing, there’s one character that truly steals the show: Rocket. How did you not expect this raccoon that spits out hilarious lines with big guns to be the star of the show? Bradley Cooper’s voice for him was also amazing. Then there’s Gamora. Zoe Saldana is known for being a great sci-fi movie actress, and she’s well known for her very, very, very good performances in Avatar and the new Star Trek flicks. She’s just as good here, and even though there’s not a lot of it, her chemistry with Pratt is great. There’s not much to say about Groot since he only says “I am Groot” for the movie, but I loved his abilities and watching him in action. One of the less noteworthy ones is Drax. Marvel made a bit of a mistake here by hiring a former wrestler. While Drax does have very good lines and funny sarcasm, the guy that plays him is not a great actor. The main villain, Ronan, wasn’t very good, either. Overall, he was serviceable, but I just felt he was generic. His main motivations come from his generic story about how his father was killed and now he wants revenge. However, seeing the 5 guardians come together and interact on screen was a constant delight. The story isn’t overly complex starting out, and it doesn’t get to that later on, either. 85% of the time I was fine with that, though. Almost 100% of the time this movie is simply hilarious. I can’t tell you how many times I was laughing out loud hysterically. This movie also has an awesome soundtrack. Me being a 70’s and 80’s rock lover, I loved every track. The movie also has great action sequences. The most memorable parts are all-out dogfights, but the guardians can also kick ass gloriously without aircraft. Great visuals compliment the action, too, but at small times it looked like live-action. Despite flaws with Ronan and Drax, a very slight amount of complexity, and not-always-perfect visuals, Guardians of the Galaxy is a complete blast. Marvel took a risk with this flick-but what’s the pay off here? You should know after all the stuff I’ve said so far: BIG TIME!

  4. Juston Gaughan says:

    I just have to throw my three pennies in here. After reading this article, it’s a little concerning to see that people would downgrade the performances, amazing direction of the movie, damn near the perfect CG character ever on screen, and all the hard work of the production staff to attribute its success to one simple thought “because it is Disney”.

    This movie was incredibly good for so many reasons, the last because of Disney. People who flaunt their shallow, uninformed acidic views of this industry, BRENT LANG, do more damage than good. Whether you enjoyed the comic, the movie itself is a different entity. The marketing money spent on this title was nowhere near any of the other productions. The brand was not the driving force behind this success, but a director and supporting staff well known for producing high quality projects with less than blockbuster actors and actresses. Do you think the avengers or any of the other super, according to this person, brand IP’s would have been as good as the Gaurdians of the Galaxy without triple A stars. No they would not have been. This movie is unique and the production people should be proud. This back stage rhetoric should be saved for the Pennie papers. Oh wait, it was.

  5. eishucool says:

    Guardians Of The Galaxy Is SPACERIFIC. I truly enjoyed it. moviezonline.net/2014/08/guardians-of-galaxy-2014-english-online.html

  6. Angela Brister says:

    I knew nothing of a “Guardians of the Galaxy”. However, my husband remembers reading the comics, and he enjoyed them. I do have to say, I too trusted the brand, and the movie was SPACERIFIC. I truly enjoyed it, and I can’t wait for the sequel.

  7. nonsenseyousay says:

    “To introduce five new characters, each of whom are now able to carry their own movie, is a master stroke.”
    Whoa, careful with the hyperbole there.

  8. Isaac van der Grimnebulin says:

    No usually in the habit of leaving comments—but the author may want to remember the mistake made in finding the mistake of perceiving that Disney may have been investing in “second and third tier superheroes”—-and realize that there is not much substance to the claims made in this article either. People have Marvel “brand recognition” now?
    Here’s the real reason why they’re doing well—the only thing “second and third tier” about characters like Star-Lord and Doctor Strange s their “mainstream” recognition. A plethora, especially in recent years, of extremely talented writers and artists have crafted these characters in comic-book form into personalities that are in many cases quite literary in their own context, and these same creators have definitely places those characters in stories that in most cases were, pardon the pun, stellar. Creators like Dan Abnett. Brian Michael Bendis and Mark Millar, to name a very few, literally set the stage for the character, plot and story elements that are increasingly making the Marvel/Disney movies so successful.
    What Marvel needs credit for, in terms of folks like Kevin Feige, is not “creating brand recognition”, or any other hollow corporate phraseology—-but is instead having faith in the source material for the movies, and having faith that the popularity of the elements, characterizations and themes of the comics will inevitably find “mainstream” appeal if they are allowed a wide and grand enough stage. “Guardians” is getting the buzz it has not because of some magic on the part of Marvel that cannot be better described than a shadowy ability to make “second tier” characters work—it is because “Guardians” may be the first Marvel movie which has stuck the closest to the atmosphere of the source material, and has taken the biggest chance to let it all hang out. The Infinity Gauntlet series by Jim Starlin was one of Marvel’s most critically acclaimed and successful storylines in the comic world. So why not take a chance and try it out in a wider form of entertainment? They have, and “mainstream: audiences are now becoming interested, and willing to learn the backstories that they weren’t previously familiar with—because the STORY is good, and has been since the 1990’s when the series first ran.
    Anyway—a little long–but I felt it needed to be said. Marvel movies have been improving as time goes on—because the more leverage they get—the more they are having faith in and taking risks on the already provable popularity of many of their characters and stories in the comics world. Comic readers n 2008 loved the new iteration of “Guardians”. All Marvel did was allow it, without watering it down much, to come out on the big screen. That’s the reason for people’s trust in the movies—it’s because Marvel is trusting itself as a comic company before being a movie company.

  9. Daryle says:

    I guess I shouldn’t expect depth for stories based on comic books, but with the exception of Thor, I just haven’t enjoyed these Marvel movies. And Thor was saved, for me, by what I thought was Kenneth Branagh’s unique theatrical direction and the gorgeous art direction, as well as a story with a villain that was more than one-dimensional. And all the talk of box office. With the possible exception of “Iron Man”, did any of these films really rival what “Pirates of the Caribbean” did at the box office years ago? Although based on the thinnest of premises, It was far more entertaining on many levels than many of these Marvel movies. It certainly wasn’t deep, but it was funnier, had far better dialogue, and had good acting across the board. CGI is great, but can it, alone, substitute for all the other things it takes to make a really good movie? I saw “Guardians” – it was ok, had a few moments, but it just didn’t hold a candle to something like “Pirates.” Everybody is complaining about the box office being down this summer – and there really hasn’t been a blockbuster like “Pirates” – not even close. Hollywood needs better stories, stories that give actors something to do that makes them essential and provides the emotional tie that makes movies truly memorable to audiences of any age. Great action sequences and special effects, with a few laughs, are not enough to bring some of us to the theatre.

    • jedi77 says:

      I hope you are talking about the first Pirates, and not the sequels. Sequels which drowned in CGI and bad writing.
      If that is what you mean, I agree wholeheartedly. Guardians doesn’t hold a candle to the first Pirates film.

      • Mattrick says:

        The first Pirates film is trash. I thought it was good but I rewatched it to get the taste of the sequels out of my mouth…it was no different than it’s sequels and I shut it off halfway through, I couldn’t even finish it it was so bad.

      • Daryle says:

        Definitely the FIRST Pirates movie.

  10. Droppo says:

    It’s about story and character. That’s all there is to it. Marvel could create a huge flop if it puts out a movie that has no story appeal. This movie was going to be obvious fun from the first sneak peek.

  11. Mattrick says:

    Marvel synonymous with quality? If generic, CGI laden films that end up complete average is quality then the definiton for the word has changed. Everyone raved about The Avengers and it was overlong, had a boring plot and the only worthwhile part of the entire film was Ruffalo as Hulk…even people that loved the film came away about how awesome Hulk was…because that was all that was great in the film. The culimating battle was the most stagnant 45 minutes of CGI battles I have ever seen, again, with only Hulk providing the much needed energy.

    The Winter Soldier was a step up and easily the best Marvel film since Disney purchased the rights. I have not seen Guardians yet but I will. But the rest of them? Incredible Hulk? Iron Man films? Thor films? All really bad to average and really were simply perfunctory films just so they can make The Avengers, which wasn’t worth the five movies made to build hype for it.

    These films could be so much more than they are and The Winter Soldier proved it. I think the biggest problem is the directors making these films. People love Joss Whedon (for some reason) but he’s not a great filmmaker by any means. Jon Favreau? Please. Zack Snyder (DC I know but come on, he’s a hack). Whenever you think of the best comic book films of the past the names who helmed them surpass those who seem to make them today: Richard Donner, Sam Raimi, Tim Burton, Christopher Nolan, Bryan Singer…heck, even as hated as Joel Schumacher is for his Batman films he’s made some solid films aside from that. James Gunn is a relative unknown but his debut feature ‘Slither’ shows more craftsmanship than anything Favreau or Snyder are capable of. Marvel needs to be more selective when it comes to their helmers. They chose the Russo brothers (again, relative unknowns) and they delivered a fantastic Captain America follow up. The two best Marvel films since Disney bought them are from the lesser known filmmakers. You don’t need the cache of Whedon’s name to sell The Avengers…it sells itself, so give the project to a small name director from now on, it’s obviously paying dividends both critically and financially.

    • jedi77 says:

      Just a short shout of disagreement here.
      What Avengers had was a Bruce Banner/Hulk that worked, and they had the best villain in any comic book film except for The Joker.
      Loke is Hans Gruber and Darth Vader rolled into one, and that is what made the movie so popular. You could root for the bad guy.

      I agree about some of the other Marvel films though. Thor 2 was pretty bad on all points, and Guardians didn’t have an interesting villain. Iron Man 2: bad.
      But to say they’re all CGI ladden crap, etc., is missing a very important point. Differentiation.
      Take Transformers for example. Now they truly are CGI ladden crap. But come on, even you must admit that the first Iron Man and Captain America films are infinitely better than Transformers 1-4?

      Just because someting is the same genre, doesn’t mean it’s all the same.

      • Jerry says:

        The first Transformers was a fine film, similar to Pirates 1 though it also became a CGI mess during its sequel and thereafter.

        Some films just aren’t meant for certain people, but clearly they resonate with a lot of people, considering their box office performance (not that box office #’s always means a movie works, but sometimes it does)

        Also, his name is Loki. I do agree that he was a strong point in The Avengers, but it wasn’t nearly the film people seem to think it was. The first Iron Man was 10x the movie Avengers was, it’s just Avengers included Downey Jr., Johansson and Ruffalo, who are miles above any of the other actors. Chris Evans might be the most one dimensional actor ever (as Captain America at least, Snowpiercer is a different story).

        I think Guardians was more interesting than The Avengers (although I wouldn’t call it better per se), just because we were learning new stories. The Avengers was just a mashup of all the previous films with an overly long final battle sequence which was color by numbers if not worse.

        Marvel needs new blood, Guardians was a step in the right direction, but it wasn’t enough. Cap 2 was also a step in the right direction, but it’s third act resulted in the same fate as all of their other awful third acts.

        I don’t know what they need to do specifically, but Iron Man 2, especially 3 were terrible, Thor 2 might be one of the worst movies I’ve ever seen. They have their work cut out for them, but sadly their success is keeping them from changing their ways for the better.

      • Mattrick says:

        Hulk may have worked (though it makes no sense he can change form at will) but that just made me wish it was just a Hulk film instead of a convoluted mess where he only stood out because we’ve seen him adapted not nearly as well twice in the past decade. What differentiation are you talking about? The CGI in one marvel film to the next is completely interchangable. And while Loki is a good villain he has the worst evil plans of all time: the worst. Having such terrible plans kind of takes his solid portrayal away from everything. Good character; stupid villain.

  12. “film’s success bodes well for the stars of upcoming Marvel movies such as ‘Ant-Man’ and ‘Doctor Strange,’ who, like the space outlaws who populate ‘Guardians,’ lack the household recognition of a Wolverine”

    The author seems to have forgotten, while the X-Men comics were the hottest books in the ’80s and even the ’90s, the X-Men and Wolverine were FAR from household names when the first X-Men movie came out. Which I think is a very relevant point when comparing Wolverine notoriety to GOTG.

  13. PadawanLerner says:

    I totally enjoyed Guardians of the Galaxy. I saw it this past Friday and it was as fun and action packed as anything I have seen in the 1980s heyday of action sci-fi/comedies I grew up with,like Back to the Future and The Last Starfighter. If this movie is any indication of what Disney has in store with it’s other company Lucasfilm,next year when Star Wars Episode VII releases,please believe eyes WILL pop and minds WILL be blown.

    • jedi77 says:

      Ahem, humour and Star Wars – that is a very fine balancing act. So no, if this is any indication of next years Star Wars VII, the only thing that will blown are hate boards on the internet.

  14. CNU says:

    I hope seeing this result Marvel is now realizes what a mistake it was to part with Edgar Wright on Ant Man, his version would also have been an irreverent take, and would have been just as awesome.

  15. Marvel gets the credit for making this movie but people didn’t show up just because it’s Marvel brand. The movie looked totally different from usual roster of gloomy super heroes (TWS, DOFP, TASM2), world in peril from some giant menace on 2 legs (Godzilla, Transformers), another alien invasion (Edge of Tomorrow), Apes that start taking themselves way too seriously. Also, out of mentioned, only 1 isn’t a sequel/prequel/reboot/remake. You bet that 8 X men movies, 4 Transformers and second in Spiderman reboot series (5th overall) will result in fatigue and some people will simply stop keeping up with series that won’t end. At some point, everyone likes to see conclusion to something they’ve followed for awhile. Hence why Maleficent had the best legs this summer – it wasn’t a sequel and it looked different from same-y offerings. GOTG is space opera. There’s no saturation with this genre. It also positioned itself as fun movie and it delivered the goods. Add to that that marketing was brilliant and managed to show the appeal of individual characters. I cared for them from 2 minute trailer which is something that overlong Hobbit movies failed to do with their flat, interchangeable characters. GOTG ones had personality and heart and that shone through in adds. The movie was all that times 1000.

    So I wouldn’t say GOTG success bodes well for yet another super hero movie in their line-up (Ant Man, Dr Strange are white male superheroes, been there done that). It’s a success in its own right. I for one have no desire to see either of these 2 new SH movies and I won’t follow Thor and IM ones anymore cause I didn’t like Thor 2 and last 2 IM.

  16. jon.m'shulla says:

    Guardians of The Galaxy is the funniest,most entertaining film in a long time. I loved it.

    Disney gambled and won.

  17. jhs39 says:

    The one problem with the Marvel brand is that most people don’t distinguish between movies Marvel makes itself and properties that they have no control over like Spider Man and Fantastic Four. The latest Spider Man was a dud (although not a flop) that most people didn’t like much, and most people consider it a Marvel Film. Fantastic Four has the potential to be a disaster and most people consider it a Marvel film as well. As long a Columbia Pictures and Twentieth Century Fox own the rights to major Marvel characters they are going to try to ride the Marvel gravy train and blur the line as much as possible between Marvel produced movies and their products. If the movies are bad that’s a problem for the Marvel brand. even if Marvel had nothing to do with the movies.

  18. ap indy says:

    I disagree with your assertion that Marvel “magic” is behind the box office success of Guardians. Marvel deserves heaps of credit for hiring James Gunn and Nicole Perlman to develop the group of Marvel characters in this film and write an incredibly good screenplay for them. Gunn then went on to do a fantastic job of directing the picture from casting through cutting, setting the campy production design and hysterical irreverent tone that makes this picture such a perfect summer movie. I usually stay away from the mainstream comic book “fanboy” stuff that Marvel is known for. I went to to see Guardians on opening night because of advance reviews, word-of-mouth along and some damn funny trailers. Gunn and his team have managed to bring back the kind of summer fun and excitement that the early Star Wars and Indiana Jones pictures brought us when we were kids. Let’s make sure we give credit where credit is due.

  19. “To introduce five new characters, each of whom are now able to carry their own movie, is a master stroke.” “Carry their own movie”????? I am a big fan and saw GOTG in 3-D Friday afternoon; but I will not pay to see the “I am Groot” movie. I will see the next movie with all five of them together.

  20. Lisa T says:

    One of the best marketing campaigns I’ve seen in years. Incredible result.

  21. Fre says:

    “astounded box office prognosticators who were predicting an opening in the $65 million to $70 million range”

    Uh, what were you reading? I’d read many stating a $100 million weekend projection.

    And though it ranking very well and did a very good weekend ‘and’ overseas was impressive, look at the slightly odd drop of from Friday thru the weekend.
    Maybe friday was it’s ‘biggest’ bounty and will drop off more than average after this weekend as it did saturday and sunday. It’s saturday drop was 18% when saturdays usually have an ‘increase’.

    I believe it will fair very well, yet the ‘praise’ given here may be a bit too soon.
    Just as the prediction that the purchase of Marvel would be, “second and third tier superheros”

    Factor in as well, ‘Super Hero Fatigue’
    With so many ‘Supers’ saturating the landscape, they tend not to be so ‘Super’ with time.

    • jedi77 says:

      You really should learn to think before you post.

      Did some sites say $100 M on friday? Yes, but that was after thursday shows went through the roof. We are talking about predictions before the fact, not after. And no-one, before the fact, said anything like $100M.

      Secondly, the fall from friday to saturday – perfectly normal for an opening night. Transformes dropped 22%, Captain America dropped 6% (low drop because it didn’t have thursday night shows), X-men dropped 17%.

      These numbers are all easily avaliable, and you should really look shit like this up before posting stupid things.

    • Jenovo says:

      You’re completely lost. No major, reliable prediction source was predicting $100M this week.

      Additionally, you have no concept of how the box office works when it comes to event films such as this: A Saturday drop is NORMAL. The fact that this film only dropped 15% is fantastic.

      Footnote: Stop using single quotes and learn to spell the word “fare.”

      Move on. You’re wrong.

      • Fre says:

        Jenovo and jhs39…….

        No Major reliable source predicted 100 million?
        Uh… check ‘Variety’ for one for Friday before the receipts came in. There were a couple others who thought 70 mill was short yet….. from what ‘you say’, they’re ”unreliable” and if not a ‘major’ your not interested so, no need.
        Yet, not so unreliable after all.

        Also… I posted the saturday drop for Galaxy being 18%.
        You stated it was 15% inaccurately,

        However, 15 of the top films for this weekend ‘ALL’ posted saturday ‘Increases’ while Galaxay was the ONLY one that had a ‘Decrease’. And again, not by 15% yet by 18%
        Then, you interject with opening weekends. Still, a different slant on the overall box office temp.

        My overall statement is basically that I don’t believe it’s going to live to the new hype box office wise that’s being put to it. That was and is my thought, no matter how you want to try and rephrase it.

        I hope it does very well, just a thought shared. Yet responded to immaturely.
        Time will tell.

        The snotty uppity comments weren’t necessary and shows, well shows enough.
        You can go play now.

    • jhs39 says:

      Saturday normally doesn’t see an increase in box office unless it’s a children’s film. Movies aimed at teens and younger adults usually see a drop-off from Friday to the rest of the weekend.

      • Jenovo says:

        Oh and for the record, we’re talking about OPENING WEEKENDS – make sure you’re clear on that. Once a film reaches it’s second/third week, then the pattern changes. Just wanted to pre-empt any ridiculous comments.

      • Jenovo says:

        Don’t bother explaining it to him. Front-loaded EVENT films don’t follow the pattern he’s talking about.

        Transformers 4 dropped 22% Saturday.
        Captain America 2 dropped 6% Saturday.
        Dawn of Apes dropped 7.8% Saturday.
        Godzilla dropped 16% Saturday.

        He’s out of his depth and doesn’t know how the box office works. Not worth it.

      • Fre says:

        Actually it does see an increase on saturday from friday.
        In fact this weekend, all releases had an increase on saturday, Guardians being the only one that had a decrease in saturday.
        Lucy was up 32.7%, Get On Up 6.1%, Hercules 38.7% Apes 45.4% and so on.

  22. Maybe it because it Marvel`s last film of the year?:) Not sure:) But I am on my way to see this film:)

    • H16H_C0MM4ND3R says:

      The last Spider-man wasn’t a Marvel film… it was Sony…. just like X-Men and Fantastic Four is Fox… yes Marvel owns the characters, but they “leased” them to other studios for movies because they weren’t able to make them themselves…

      • H16H_C0MM4ND3R says:

        That may be part of why you didn’t care for it, they aren’t part of the Marvel “Master Plan”. Marvel has done some great things by following their plan… the unfortunate side is that they micro manage to the extreme, part of why Edgar Wright left “Ant Man”. But I think that’s mainly because they don’t want to struggle with their properties like Fox and Sony are doing with their franchises, constantly having to reboot… Amazing Spider-Man 2 underperformed so poorly that they have put part 3 and 4 on hold, and that’s a huge contrast considering they had given a green light to the sequels and the Sinister Six spin off while they were in mid production of part 2. They were very confident in that franchise, and now they’re extremely nervous.
        I think that DC is heading in the right direction by following Marvel’s example and having a bible for the movies to follow…

      • Thank you for clarification

    • As if most people know that, or would care about it even if they did.

More Film News from Variety