I think there needs to be at least one more to round out a trilogy, but yeah I think after that that's it for solo Thor movies. Hell to be fair I see solo superhero movies in general dying eventually

I think three will become the standard number for solo-films (until re-casting the characters obviously). Three Thor films sounds right. I mean, honestly, why would you give much thught to the film's domestic performance? Thor 2 is on track to $425-450 million overseas. That's huge. Even of the third does $150 million domestically, it'll still top $500 million worldwide...

but would a movie like Thor continue to increase overseas? I mean it already has been in 3D and had extra exposure thanks to being part of the Avengers

Not all the same solo films, no, but it is obvious (and has been obvious since the first film) that Thor is a beloved hero overseas. I think they will run into more "problems" (as in, it won't be that HUGE overseas) with Captain America. Unless the filom is brilliant, I don't see more than $300-320 million overseas for the second. Cap is just not that beloved overseas. But, yeah, Thor is. I think even if they make another three Thor-flicks after the second, none will gross less than $450-500 million worldwide.

Yes Thor 3 will overall make equal to or a little more WW than Thor 2 WW. Its not going to be a HUGE increase but it will still be VERY profitable. Captain America is where the problem lies, the interest outside is not HUGE but I do believe that the Avengers movies will be SO big WW they can churn on 3-4 more movies out of that if not more.

VERY justifiable. These Marvel-flicks will all likely have long lives on home video too (including several box-sets, I suppose and different editions). And, yes, the merchandise. They will be very profitable and you know, Dr. Strange and Ant-Man are risks and it is good for Marvel to take them, but Thor and Iron Man (at least with RDJ) are there for them to fall back on and make easy money.

I cannot say much of the merchandise but it would be famous now. From BO perspective if the next Thor increases OS (doubtful) then it makes sense to make another one but then they would have to get Hemsworth back again. I believe Iron Man can do another movie or two but it won't happen without RDJ.

congratulations to the unders. No way it beats X2 now

Yeah it will probably finish around 205.

What are it's chances to beat Man of Steel now, its about 52 million away. Another 10-15 in the states. It'll be close.

Not gonna happen. Its overseas run is almost done with onkly Japan to come (where the first film made $5.7 million). The absolute highest it can get to is $650 million worldwide (but even that probably won't happen).

2.4 is fine for a CB movie in November.

I disagree though, most seem to like it. It's 2nd weekend was a solid 57% drop. Like predicted, it got killed by HG, without that 62% third weekend drop, I'd have it's projected gross at 215 million by this weekend with a more likely 48% drop for third weekend (22 3rd weekend, 17 4th, 7 this weekend) I'd put it's final gross around 230 with that and a 2.7 multiplier without CF.

Without CF the schedule would have looked different. It's not like it would have been empty.

Even if CF's opening with stronger than average, it sort of evens out with the lack of competition the week before.

Thor 2 did well but this shows that whether people want to admit it or not RDJ/Iron Man is the primary attraction of the Marvel movies and not necessarily the Marvel "world". Despite Thor and Loki both appearing in the 1.5 billion grossing Avengers along with IM, less than half of the people that turned up for Iron Man will turn up for Thor. They are fucked when RDJ decides to leave LOL

The fact that a Thor movie is going to make $200m is amazing enough as it is. Pre-2008, would anyone have guessed that a Thor movie, let alone a Thor sequel, would have been successful?

While the "Avengers bump" was overhyped in domestic terms, domestic attendance for the non-Iron-Man-related Marvel films is still trending up. And with all the merchandise, all the tie-ins, and a real "Avengers bump" overseas, there's no reason to cry for Thor 2. Disney/Marvel are still going to make a profit.

1924: I think Marvel knows how much of an asset RDJ is. Remember the contract dispute stories back in May, followed by RDJ signing on for two more Avengers movies in June? Obviously, that whole mess was worked out, and I would guess that they will give RDJ whatever the hell he wants to keep him in the fold.

[quote="TServo2049"]The fact that a Thor movie is going to make $200m is amazing enough as it is. Pre-2008, would anyone have guessed that a Thor movie, let alone a Thor sequel, would have been successful?

While the "Avengers bump" was overhyped in domestic terms, domestic attendance for the non-Iron-Man-related Marvel films is still trending up. And with all the merchandise, all the tie-ins, and a real "Avengers bump" overseas, there's no reason to cry for Thor 2. Disney/Marvel are still going to make a profit.[/quote]



If this was just Thor, then they would be right. But this was Thor 2 following the Avengers. I wonder how long that "Lesser heroes" excuse can be used. I mean the fact is people said this being more of a follow up to The Avengers instead of Thor would drive it to higher grosses. You can't just pretend people weren't saying that now

I'm not pretending people weren't saying that there was going to be some big "Avengers bump" for Thor 2. I acknowledge that people said that, and I acknowledge that when it comes to domestic performance of non-Iron Man films, those people were wrong.

Relevant quote: the "Avengers bump" was overhyped in domestic terms

I never said anything one way or the other about if this film was going to have an Avengers bump or not. I never predicted anything about its performance, to be honest.

And I'm not using a "lesser heroes" excuse. I just remember a time when people who didn't read comic books had never heard of Thor, and when even the first Iron Man movie was considered a risky proposition. The fact that a sequel film of a second-tier superhero increased, however little, is a good thing - have we forgotten what happened to Rise of the Silver Surfer?

Based on average drops 2.4 isn't bad.

QOS was a week closer to thanksgiving which probably helped it by 0.04 or so.

I think QOS's WOM among general audiences was fine, but that it was disliked by moviefans. That would explain why it has a weaker rating at IMDB and RT, but better at Netflix.

It certainly didn't hurt Skyfall.

It can also be argued IM3 used all the post-Avengers "effect". While part of the same universe I don't feel like all the movies should profit from the success of TA. Sure, when put together these heroes earned a shitload, but obviously general audience still prefer certain heroes and maybe Thor just can't go higher than ~200m domestically?


How was Thor 2 more of a sequel to TA than Thor? The whole plot with the Elves could be done the same if TA never existed. The movie also went back to Thor characters that TA completely ignored Portman's Jane Foster was completely missing in TA and "explained" by a dumb sentence. Sure they revisit that plot point here, but it's not something crucial to the story in any way.

You couls also see it this way: without The Avengers, Thor 2 probably would have made around $170 million...

I think with or without TA, Thor 2 would do $200m.

In domestic terms, I would actually agree with you. Thor 3 isn't going to tank (unless it really truly sucks - I refer back to Rise of the Silver Surfer), but I would be absolutely unsurprised if it dips back down to $180m.

I believe we're entering a period where comic book movies will gross more in aggregate, but often less per film, at least in North America - think the domestic attendance figures for Pixar/Dreamworks films today, versus 10 years ago.

(And eventually, we're going to get one which performs like a Pirates 4 or Ice Age 4, underperforming domestically but overperforming overseas. Thinking about it, I could actually see such a scenario for Thor 3...)

It probably wouldn't have done $200 million without The Avengers. Thor was well enough liked, but not beloved.

$200m is only like an 10% bump over the first one though and falls exactly in the sequel to a "well enough liked" movie zone bump IMHO. I really don't believe TA had much effect on Thor 2.