First off, XFC had more going against it than just lack of Hugh and Halle. Every name involved in xfc in front or behind the camera screamed non a list studio sequel. Look at Lawrence for example, her name before this year and after. But that's another discussion. The comparison to spiderman falls very flat for the simple fact that the very same audience made the original spiderman an all time high grosser with even weaker names. imo.
The spidey brand was what pushed that film. Was Toby any more a draw than Garfield at this point in time? Sure he probably is now but not when comparing the same time frame. The only thing this film has going against it(other then the buzzy summer) is that it's an obvious reboot. The fact is that was literally what sold Begins. Sure the bat film was untouched material but this film has been promising untouched material as well. From his parents to his girl friend to the villian and jj and so fourth.
I loved raimi's films(especially the second) but objectively speaking this film looks just as good if not better in ways. For starters I'll take this villain over a crouching, growling, defoe goblin any day of the week. Any day....any day.
I'm not basing my opinion on how the film looks with how it will do. For the record, I think it could be really good or really bad (and they ruined the Lizard much more profoundly for me than the GG), though I've heard of reports saying the latter. But that is irrelevant when talking about the success of summer blockbusters.
As you pointed out, XFC didn't do nearly as well because it didn't have Hugh, Halle and I'll just add Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellan and Anna Paquin to that list. Those are the well-known and well-identified faces with the franchise. All of them were or are now currently stars. The film that made Jackman and Paquin stars and put Halle over the top?
X-Men. They're stars in 2011 when XFC opened because they were in the original 2000 film. Audiences didn't see one of them in the trailer and ads for XFC. So they stayed away even though Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence were stars on the make and the actual film was quite good.
Tobey Maguire was an indie darling (
Pleasentville, The Ice Storm, Ride with the Devil, Wonder Boys, Cider House Rules) pre-Spidey, Dunst was an "It" girl in a few teen movies (
Bring It On) and a few indies (
Virgin Suicides) and Franco was best known for playing James Dean in a TV movie. But now? They're all considered "the stars of Spider-Man." So, a new Spider-Man flick opening in 2012, only five years after SM3 made $900 million WW, with none of them. Is that going to appeal to audiences more than a franchise star-less XFC? Not to mention the first trailer revealed it is also essentially a
remake of the first Raimi movie from 2002?
That's why there is so little hype. The only people who are really looking forward to this film I find are the hardcore fanbase and children. It isn't catching on with teenagers and young adults like the last three movies did. So, it's going to need to be very good to catch their attention. You mention BB being a successful reboot, but most of its wild success was on DVD. It opened small and had an underwhelming box office take when you adjust for inflation the original Burton movie. But because it was good (like really good), it found its audience in the home market and the sequel was a mega-hit.
I think if TASM is actually good, it will follow the same trajectory in the next few years.
The buzz on this thing is really bad right now. Spidey will still make a lot of money (around $200 million is a hit), but look at how much lower XFC was than all the other X-films. Why? It didn't star Hugh Jackman and felt like a semi-reboot. This one doesn't star the actors audiences have accepted for ten years and is also on top of that retelling much of the first Spidey film. It may be better, but it will not make nearly as much.
