2012: A Monster Year? (box office predictions) - Part 2

[Evil Twin]

Popularity of the character only means so much. Batman is even more popular than Spider-Man is and it didn't save Batman & Robin from flopping or Batman Begins from underperforming.

Now I don't think anybody is predicting that ASM will be a flop, but is it likely to do worse than both the previous Spider-Man films and the other two big superhero films coming out this summer? Sure looks like it right now.

There's a pretty good argument that Batman and Robin wasn't a flop. At least not financially. Which goes to the point that brand does matter.

Spider-Man is a recognizable brand, so at the very least it's a safe choice for parents to drop their kids off at the mall and pick them up 2 hours later. Like Ice Age and Madagascar. But for TASM to reclaim the peaks of the Raimi franchise, it has to sell itself a lot better than it's doing to date. Right now it looks like it's going to be a distant third to the other two superhero franchises, at least in America, it has none of the critical buzz of Prometheus, and nobody in the general public seems excited. There's more wrong than just SM3 wasn't well received. TASM might do as badly as a competently made Spider-Man film can do.

 

[Evil Twin]

Again, the bottom line is the name: Spider-Man. When all is said and done, true fans are a fan of the character, not the actor or the director.

"True fans" aren't enough to propel a movie to $900 million at the worldwide box office. I agree that the brand matters, but that only gets you so far. Coke found that out the hard way at one point.

 

[chaseter]

The people saying 'crow will be ate,' and 'Spider-Man sells itself,'...I would like to see their domestic guesses.

 

[Marvin]

I said crow will be ate. I never said who will be doing the eating. I mention this only because it's one of the films this year creating a very large division and people are standing their ground. So, someone will be eating, and I'm looking forward to it.

As for my guess, it was about 295.
given the series track record and release dates, I think that's fair.
403mill
373mill
336mill
Respectively.

The only reason I feel it might under perform is because how badly the Marvel brand performs as of late and how the general audience can't differentiate between it and Sony. They may very well think this is the incredible hulk equivalent to the Raimi films.

I also think that if the original Spidey film was released this summer is would no doubt do about half as well. The audience has changed Nolan and co have seen to that. Dafoe's silly monologues under Raimi's frozen in time lighting/colour palette just wouldn't fly. It was a different time 10 yeas ago. And That may also contribute to the new spidey numbers. That said Web's vision looks very adaptive and he's presenting a different spiderman characterization.

btw Spidey 2 is my favorite comic adaptation to date.

 

[DACrowe]

I think that this Stars argument is kinda pointless because the stars of these films is Spider-Man. I don't think that the stars are going to have anything to do with how this film performs at the box office one way or the other.

True. Though I actually think the fact that Tobey Maguire isn't the star may hurt the movie. Not because Garfield can't be better than Tobey (he may be), but because audiences already have Tobey in their heads as the character.

Also, for Garfield this is still a big deal. If it hits, he's a star. If it fails, Hollywood will (probably unfairly) blame him. So, it is important in that way.

 

[terry78]

Right now Garfield is known as that guy from the Facebook movie. That's it. Overseas and in indie film realms he has more clout in a sense, but that is what they will press when marketing this thing regarding this new Peter Parker. Fortunately he's out there promoting it and having fun in interviews and what not giving people the chance to get to know him.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Right now Garfield is known as that guy from the Facebook movie. That's it. Overseas and in indie film realms he has more clout in a sense, but that is what they will press when marketing this thing regarding this new Peter Parker. Fortunately he's out there promoting it and having fun in interviews and what not giving people the chance to get to know him.

Among comic fans, won me over from his introduction in comic-con in costume.

As to the whole taking over the reigns, always happens, and due to his love for the character - as an original Spidey fan - no doubt Garfield will rise above (pun not intended). Those comparisons always happen. And, surprisingly or not, most of the actors are deemed as a step up afterwards.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

True. Though I actually think the fact that Tobey Maguire isn't the star may hurt the movie. Not because Garfield can't be better than Tobey (he may be), but because audiences already have Tobey in their heads as the character.

Also, for Garfield this is still a big deal. If it hits, he's a star. If it fails, Hollywood will (probably unfairly) blame him. So, it is important in that way.

I agree with you. I never wanted Garfield to play in this film because it's a huge risk. The early word is mixed and the marketing has been piss poor and people have not be responding to the trailers.

They still have time to turn things around and the movie might be better than the early word suggests. We will all just have to wait and see.

 

[Marvin]

I always hear hear about early word and such things, where exactly can I find this stuff?

Also, 3D will be a factor here. For better or worse.

 

[Raiden]

The only reason I feel it might under perform is because how badly the Marvel brand performs as of late and how the general audience can't differentiate between it and Sony. They may very well think this is the incredible hulk equivalent to the Raimi films.

I don't see why you think the Marvel brand performs terribly recently, especially with The Avengers coming up that has amazing feedbacks from just about anyone who has seen the movie already.

 

[danoyse]

Among comic fans, won me over from his introduction in comic-con in costume.

As to the whole taking over the reigns, always happens, and due to his love for the character - as an original Spidey fan - no doubt Garfield will rise above (pun not intended). Those comparisons always happen. And, surprisingly or not, most of the actors are deemed as a step up afterwards.

He won me over with that too. I think he'll be fine taking over the role.

As far as this movie, I doubt it will do as well as the Raimi films since, but it will probably do all right just on the character. That god-awful Broadway show is still virtually selling out every week, so there's definitely enough of an audience still interested in the character.

But I do think there's a general sense of "Already?!" when they realize it's a re-boot. Even my friend's 8-year-old son didn't understand why it wasn't Spiderman 4.

 

[Marvin]

I don't see why you think the Marvel brand performs terribly recently, especially with The Avengers coming up that has amazing feedbacks from just about anyone who has seen the movie already.

Thor =$181,030,624
Captain America = $176,654,505
Hulk = $134,806,913
IronMan 2 being their last big success.

If the marvel brand was a string of Avengers caliber success that would be one thing, but these films consistently perform as well as many are predicting ASM will.

 

[DACrowe]

Right now Garfield is known as that guy from the Facebook movie. That's it. Overseas and in indie film realms he has more clout in a sense, but that is what they will press when marketing this thing regarding this new Peter Parker. Fortunately he's out there promoting it and having fun in interviews and what not giving people the chance to get to know him.

Yeah. But I don't see them talking about Never Let Me Go or Red Riding 1973 in interviews. Too bad too.

But look at it this way, Ryan Reynolds is a much more well known celebrity than Garfield is. He's Van Wilder and the guy in The Proposal, and a few other things. He was also the best thing about Green Lantern. Still, that movie was his vehicle to superstardom and it sucked. Worse, it flat out flopped at the box office. His name is very damaged and he is going to have more trouble getting the leading role in a blockbuster in the future.

Garfield is in a similar position with TASM this year.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I'm still amazed that George Clooney managed to recover from Batman & Robin. Not everyone gets that chance.

 

[DACrowe]

George Clooney says things that pisses off half the country, but he gets away with it because he is the living embodiment of "cool" and "suave." The closest thing we've had to Cary Grant in the last 30 years. He is almost bulletproof in that regard.

 

[terry78]

Yeah, Clooney has basically earned the right to be flippant and take ****** roles and bit parts and self-deprecate himself.

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

I always hear hear about early word and such things, where exactly can I find this stuff?

On places like this usually lol. Poor marketing seems to make some people think the film will be. I don't get it, nor do I care to. Most places I see online rave about the footage shown.

It won't perform to the level of the Raimi films being a reboot, but neither did X1 or X2, Batman Begins, IM or FC. All are considered excellent films for the most part and I doubt when people watch them on TV or DVD they even think about the box office reciepts.

I'm convinced TASM will be a critical hit because of the pedigree involved. We'll see financially, I've given my predictions on that already.

 

[Mrs. Sawyer]

I agree with you. I never wanted Garfield to play in this film because it's a huge risk. The early word is mixed and the marketing has been piss poor and people have not be responding to the trailers.

They still have time to turn things around and the movie might be better than the early word suggests. We will all just have to wait and see.

It's still early in terms of marketing for the movie so I still think the Jury's still out on the marketing.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Yeah, Clooney has basically earned the right to be flippant and take ****** roles and bit parts and self-deprecate himself.

Now, but he hadn't in 1997.

 

[Marvin]

On places like this usually lol. Poor marketing seems to make some people think the film will be. I don't get it, nor do I care to. Most places I see online rave about the footage shown.

I wasn't hoping this wasn't the case. I actually thought there was some sort of tracking web site or something. Forums such as these are crawling with opinions steeped in investment and to a degree, agenda. Plus we hardly represent the masses.

I recall around this point last year many championed the idea that the second Transformers sequel would all but bomb...etc.

I find some of the more popular youtube video reactions give some insight.

 

[Ultimatehero]

For me it's NOT here it's going to theaters 2 to 3 times a week. It's actually really easy to gauge reaction. I do it naturally since I'm in the biz and have to pay attention to where their mindset is. But yeah, just listen to them. They all talk, laugh in some way, or grunt afterwards in some fashion. That's the gauge.

 

[Marvin]

I see, I haven't seen it in the theaters at all yet.

 

[Ultimatehero]

I see, I haven't seen it in the theaters at all yet.

Meant the crowd reactions to trailers. Not seeing the film itself. Crowd reactions to trailers gives everybody, who can read signals, the information they need - and especially so if it's repeated consistently. I apparently have the 'studio eye' though so I just pick up on it like a second sense just from auditory within a theater alone. It's like Matt Murdock's Shadow World almost. Just listening to their noises and knowing what those mean.

 

[FilmNerdJamie]

George Clooney isn't loved by the public like the media thinks he is. Can't "charm" em like he did during the ER salad days. Jeff Katz said it best: he's the most overrated box-office draw this side of Nicole Kidman.

If he was making the same glib, Hollywood ******* remarks he does while headlining a big studio blockbuster, no way he'd last long. Alienated too many people and that's why he does low-budget fare. Doesn't cost much and when it returns $30-$40 million, it's not a loss. There isn't a jump to see his latest unless the reviews are that good. Just compare the box-office of Idles of March to The Descendants last year.

Closest thing to Cary Grant is Will Smith. A movie star whose very imagine consensus on and offscreen and will change whatever movie he's starring in to accommodate to his persona. That's why Django Unchained didn't happen. Tarantino wouldn't let Smith and his writers anywhere near the script.

 

[Marvin]

Meant the crowd reactions to trailers. Not seeing the film itself. Crowd reactions to trailers gives everybody, who can read signals, the information they need - and especially so if it's repeated consistently. I apparently have the 'studio eye' though so I just pick up on it like a second sense just from auditory within a theater alone. It's like Matt Murdock's Shadow World almost. Just listening to their noises and knowing what those mean.

Sorry, that's what I meant too.
I haven't seen the trailer in the cinema as of yet.