Some initial much lower estimates claimed that Iron Man was not the household name that Spider-Man or Batman were and are and couldn't therefore gross in their level. But what people rarely considered in opening weekend monetary terms is that Iron Man is super accessible. You don't need that familiarity. Think about it: It's not magic. It's not a mutation. No radioactive arachnid required, no fake science like cosmic or gamma rays to be explained. His story needs little of the conventional suspension of disbelief required for superhero movies... just the amount you need for big action movies. It's the story of a guy building a weapon. Iron Man is a machine. It's almost like hearing about a movie starring a robot. .. and robots have been hugely popular in the movies since the days of the silents. Hello Metropolis.
The box office success should lift second tier Iron Man up in the overall ranks of comic heroes though still below the top 4 that are unarguably and instantly recognizable to all generations: Marvel's Spider-Man and DCs big 3: Batman, Wonder Woman and Superman. I'm glad he'll be getting a sequel (currently expected in 2010) because I liked the movie but it was longer on origin story than it needed to be which makes the urge to rewatch less intense. But all told, a fun night at the movies as you already know. (I'm late to this one since I was unavailable over the weekend)
On the plus side: superb casting of the principles (especially our man Tony Stark), Robert Downey Jr knows to play this like he aint even trying... though obviously he's doing a lot for the film, terrific visual effects, the "cameo" by S.H.I.E.L.D. and highly enjoyable chemistry --more Tony & Pepper please! On the down side: muddled politics, a complete waste of Terrence Howard, a so-so climactic battle (Iron Monger's bark was way worse than his bite) and that tease of a coda.All in all a solid superhero film but nothing that won't be supplanted as "the best ever" by collective short term memory as soon as the next solid and entertaining superhero film opens. For what it's worth: Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2, X2 and Superman 2 (and whichever Batman installment you're in the mood for today) remain the seemingly unbreakable top five of "best" as this genre goes.
Regarding that post-credit Iron Man coda: Seriously, you naughty naughty corporations. Don't bait me with movies you're not ever going to deliver! There's not going to be an Avengers film (already announced for 2011) or a Justice League film (already on indefinite hold). I don't believe it. I know you hear differently elsewhere. But as ever I must ask: What is the financial upside for the studios? You think more people would go just because two superheroes were in a movie rather than one? Why pay 5 to 7 A list salaries when you can pay 1 or 2 and sometimes you don't even need to pay that (Superman Returns)? Show me an instance in any superhero franchise where adding characters also added to the revenue. Didn't the Batman and Spider-Man films get more and more crowded as they went? Did their profits also increase? No. The box office is still going to be in the $200 range... $300 to $400 if you make pure mainstream magic (like Spider-Man). Five heroes won't quintuple your profit but it sure will triple your budget.
Here's a chart of the box office performance of superhero movies (not adjusted for inflation). Spider-Man is on top. Right where he should be given that his films (#3 excepted) are the best. And if you're really a bean counter here is Marvel's current financial report.
index of reviews or back to the main blog for fresh postings or peek at any of the labels belows for more on these actors and topics...
*
