1. Brand name. Star Trek and Wolverine are both sequels in a way. They're known commodities. So they're gonna get more right out the gate.

2. Rating. PG-13 movies ALWAYS make more than R. Always.

3. Hot guy factor. Hear me out: the hot dudes WILL make girls more willing to see a flick. And there was no hot guy in Kick Ass. Meanwhile, I hear girls on a daily basis pine for Chris Pine and Hugh Jackman. If an action flick can get girls there in any way possible, it doubles the amount of bank it can make, and makes women far more likely to recommend it, or at the very least not despite it. Although my GF at the time loved Star Trek and hated Wolverine, she straight up refused to see Kick Ass. She thought it looked dumb, which I've learned is girl code for bloody action with no hot guys in it.

4. Effects. The latter two obviously have more CGI and spectacle, which really does put asses in seats.

Other bloody or gross niche flicks like Ninja Assassin and Drag Me To Hell made a little less overall than Kick Ass. Movies with subversive or grossout humor like Bruno and Hot Tub Time Machine only made a little bit more than Kick Ass, with bigger names attached.


>I can definitely see how it appealed to a niche market, but
>considering how much $$ a (if you ask me) considerably less
>interesting Wolverine film did, I still thought Kick-Ass
>performed poorly. I mean, no way did I see it really topping
>$150M, but last I checked it was petering out around $40M for
>a film that I figured was a safe $60M with big growth
>potential (honestly, I thought $100M after a good open and
>good legs was very reasonably in play).

I mean, $100 million is what Watchmen made, with way more hype, way more effects, and a way bigger name. Kick Ass would have had to have received universal critical acclaim to get those kind of legs under it.