I’m a teacher by profession for a post-high school institution I would prefer not to name. I generally teach most weekday mornings from 7:45 to 10:30 or so. Imagine my surprise after coming back from classes yesterday to check my phone and see a whopping 103 unchecked messages from the Gabbing Geek virtual office, of which all but 19 were related to a long, dull, pointless conversation on the continued success of Wonder Woman at the box office.
There isn’t a whole hell of a lot scheduled for today, so here’s that conversation, starting with Jimmy posting something about the news and finishing with me showing up and congratulating them for somehow having an 80+ message conversation based on how much money superhero movies make. Maybe you might like to see it. Maybe not. Here it is anyway, complete with my own commentary on the conversation.
Oh, Ryan might have some more…sober thoughts on the subject later, but in the meantime…
watson: So proud for Gadot and team! That’s a BIG TIME milestone! [editor’s note: Watson had nothing to do with this movie.]
Should also pass Iron Man 3 to make it ahead of any MCU solo picture.
ryan: Impressive that it’s still in theaters despite being in iTunes.
watson: Still in its first run.
jenny: THIS IS THE POWER OF WONDER WOMAN!
jimmy: Be interesting to see how the sequel does. It will undoubtedly open much higher. Not sure about having the same staying power. Time will tell. [editor’s note: That isn’t interesting.]
jenny: It could be the “new Empire Strikes Back” – there’s always that potential too.
ryan: The only way WW2 does worse numbers is if it’s Batman vs. Superman vs. Wonder Woman: Martha.
jenny: ha [editor’s note: Jenny skips the rest of this chat until the end. She doesn’t care about this stuff that much as it is.]
jimmy: Opening, yes, but higher final box office?
ryan: Yes. We’ll see a more typical multiplier for WW2, but it will have a higher total. Look at Guardians 2–Guardians 1 came in and defied expectations (unfamiliar characters, August opening). Guardians 2 came in and just built on G1 success–very few people prefer G2 to G1 but G2 made more money. I think we’ll see the same for WW2. [editor’s note: This all looks like the English language, but it seems wrong somehow.]
jimmy: Fair enough. I knew they opened bigger, but often crash and burn after opening weekend. Depends on quality after that I guess.
ryan: Interesting that Wonder Woman is getting close to crossing the 4x multiplier for total box office. It’s at 3.97. I can only find one superhero movie with a higher multiplier at 4.24. Anyone want to guess that movie? Watson : numbers!! [editor’s note: Do I want to guess? Hard pass.]
jimmy: Can’t be Avengers; that opened too high.
watson: Iron Man?
Original. [editor’s note: What about extra crispy?]
ryan: Guess I spoke to soon. I also found a 4.23 and a 6.20! [editor’s note: That might mean something to the accounting department.]
No, Iron Man was none of them.
jimmy: Kick-Ass I guess.
ryan: 3.23 for Iron Man.
watson: Dark Knight has to be fairly decent [editor’s note: Given Watson’s esteem for this movie, I didn’t think he could refer to it in any way as merely “fairly decent”.]
It made 500+m
ryan: Dark Knight opened to almost 160. [editor’s note: Is that a lot?]
watson: Wow. Did it?
Heath Ledger did have a big impact.
ryan: Kick-Ass was sub 3.0
watson: How far back does this go? [editor’s note: Watson asking this question makes me nervous for some reason.]
Pre X-Men is a tricky thing.
ryan: I go all the way back, baby. [editor’s note: That’s what she said.]
Oh, I found another at 4.21.
And a 6.89!!
The 6+s are pre-X-Men.
watson: Eh. Modifiers back in the day are not apples to apples. What the hell would the original Star Wars have? It opened at like $10m and made over 400….
ryan: Yeah, but they’re still interesting. The other 4s are modern era though, although we’re certainly seeing a decline in modifier thanks to front loading and int’l. [editor’s note: No, they are not still interesting. Repeating that idea does not make it more true.]
watson: The original Batman opened at 50 and made 300 right?
ryan: So the 6.20 was Batman. About that yeah.
Want to guess on the 6.89?
watson: Original Superman?
ryan: Oh I didn’t even include that.
That was 17.98. All the Superman films are insane because that was a totally different market. [editor’s note: We were still on the gold standard back then.]
watson: For modifiers on Superhero movies, anything before 2000 is hard to even consider. Like you said, the business changed so dramatically.
What was the 6.8? Not a Superman movie and not original Batman.
ryan: Nice thinking. No, this movie saved every one of us.
watson: Is he a superhero?
ryan: Of course! [editor’s note: No.]
watson: Pulp Heroes are the grandfathers of the superhero, but I’m not sure I buy that definition. [editor’s note: Here’s something I don’t say very often: Watson is right.]
ryan: Box Office Mojo says he is. 🙂 [editor’s note: So that site is not only boring, it is also wrong?]
watson: Boo. Boo I say!
jimmy: Hero? Yes. Superhero? No.
watson: Mojo still hasn’t recovered from the Interstellar shade you threw their way a couple of years back.
I think Hero + Science Fiction or Fantasy setting is sufficient for superhero status.
jimmy: Shouldn’t a super hero have powers? [editor’s note: No, but an alternate identity can trump superpowers. Probably needs a costume too. Flash Gordon is always Flash Gordon.]
watson: I’ll allow it…but mostly as a tribute to Freddy Mercury.
Ryan take this chat and turn it into and article. This was good content.
ryan: Ahem Batman.
Oh but the 4 modifiers!
jimmy: Batman’s not a super hero. :p [editor’s note: Try telling him that.]
ryan: 4.24 was Spider-Man 2.
4.23 was Amazing Spider-Man 1.
Insert legs joke here.
watson: What was SM2‘s opener?
jimmy: Now do the worst multipliers!
ryan: Oh…the WORST modifiers. [editor’s note: This whole conversation is The Worst.]
watson: Wow. With S-M1‘s success that seems so low. Especially with the S-M2‘s reviews.
ryan: rubs hands together
Oh, The Crow was also over 4.
And Darkman had the 4.21.
Batsoup may take it. 1.99.
[editor’s note: Movies not mentioned: Mystery Men, Swamp Thing, The Shadow, The Phantom, Toxic Avenger, John Carter because if Flash Gordon counts, so does he…]
What about Punisher: War Zone?
ryan: Wow, original TMNT in 1990 had a 5.33.
Rocketeer also had 4.86. Also early 90s though.
OH!!! I found a 1.91!!! [editor’s note: Ryan is far too excited about this discovery. It’s bad ticket sales, not penicillin.]
Punisher War Zone is not listed.
jimmy: Opening weekend: 4.3 mil. Final total 8 mil.
ryan: 1.88. That is the lowest!! Weird that Mojo doesn’t flag it as a superhero movie but the other Punisher movie is on the list. [editor’s note: Also weird that Flash Gordon does get flagged.]
The 1.91 was Elektra. [editor’s note: Apparently, it did better than Catwoman. Halle Berry must be so proud.]
jimmy: I think PWZ is the lowest grossing Marvel movie property ever. [editor’s note: Can’t be. Man-Thing never got much beyond a Sci-Fi TV movie after no one wanted to do the planned theatrical release. Plus: Inhumans.]
ryan: Oh wait my bad there was a second screen. Yeah there it is.
Even Steel managed to have a multiplier over 2.
Oh wait, only 1.97. 🙂
tomk: Wow. I go to class, do my teaching for the day, come back to 103 messages, and aside from 19 posts on clowns in general chat, it was all box office trivia here. You guys are truly living la vida loca.
watson: I love discussing numbers AND annoying Tom. Like two of my hobbies that have a high degree of overlap.
tomk: Among Watson’s other top hobbies: [editor’s note: Heavily censored for decency’s sake.]
watson: <Please edit the last post if we make this an article…>
jenny: Add this at the end!! — Yaaaaay #JennyMath! Aaaaand I’m out. [editor’s note: Added.]