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

[chaseter]

Dafoe was bigger then than Ifans is now. I would say Stone is a bit bigger/loved than Kirsten was. Tobey and Garfield are about the same. ASM doesn't have a more recognizeable cast. Dennis Leary isn't a huge movie star. Sally Field and Martin Sheen are stars of an era past like the previous Ben and May. It really is about the same.

Actor names didn't make SM1 huge. It was lightning in a bottle as others have mentioned.

 

[EML420]

Sm1 really had the advantage of being the first huge Spider man movie I remember being in third grade and how thats all that got talked about amongst the kids.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

There are two big advantages for ASM over XFC from a box office standpoint that I see, and this is why I think it will end up doing better than XFC even though I don't think it will do nearly as well as the Raimi/Maguire films. First, XFC was following two horrible films that audiences hated. ASM is following one mediocre film. XFC had a far tougher sell after people were badly burned not once, but twice. Second, the core audience for X-Men tends to skew higher than it does for Spider-Man and thus they are more fickle. It couldn't rely on the kid crowd the same way that Spider-Man can.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Dafoe was bigger then than Ifans is now. I would say Stone is a bit bigger/loved than Kirsten was. Tobey and Garfield are about the same. ASM doesn't have a more recognizeable cast. Dennis Leary isn't a huge movie star. Sally Field and Martin Sheen are stars of an era past like the previous Ben and May. It really is about the same.

Actor names didn't make SM1 huge. It was lightning in a bottle as others have mentioned.

I would definitely say Tobey Maguire was more well known than Andrew Garfield. Maguire was the lead in a handful of critically acclaimed films prior to Spider-Man. As DACrowe said, he was somewhat of an indy darling at the time.

Andrew Garfield gave a good performance in The Social Network, but he was really overshadowed by Jesse Eisenberg. Eisenberg had the juicier and more memorable role.

The supporting characters don't matter at all. Nobody goes to a Spider-Man film based on who's playing Uncle Ben and Aunt May. All that matters is Peter, the girl (and one could make the case that she doesn't matter either), and the villain(s). It is a credit to James Franco that he got as much out of the best friend role that he did. Overall, I would definitely say that the Maguire/Dunst/Dafoe trio was more well known in 2002 than the Garfield/Stone/Ifans trio is now.

But like I said earlier, for the first Spider-Man film it didn't really matter who was cast anyways.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Dafoe was bigger then than Ifans is now. I would say Stone is a bit bigger/loved than Kirsten was. Tobey and Garfield are about the same. ASM doesn't have a more recognizeable cast. Dennis Leary isn't a huge movie star. Sally Field and Martin Sheen are stars of an era past like the previous Ben and May. It really is about the same.

Actor names didn't make SM1 huge. It was lightning in a bottle as others have mentioned.

This is to all:

You're still not saying how SM1 has a more recognizable cast. Alright, you see Field and Sheen as not big stars - but come on! Then what about the actors who played the previous Ben and May? They were very very less stars. And come on, JK Simmons > Leary. For real? I mean that's the only one to really compare Leary too and he's a bigger name there too.

Also for those saying main three seem to be only those reaching for something to say it has a bigger cast. If you look at the WHOLE ENSEMBLE - ASM has more.

And if you don't really agree with this, you're saying this in public's eye:

JK Simmons is more recognizable than Dennis Leary.

Rosemary Harris is more recognizable than Sally Field.

The guy who played uncle Ben is more recognizable than Martin Sheen.

So, once again, seriously?

To me saying that is like saying the guy playing Alfred is more recognizable than Michael Caine. And it truly applies here. Caine brings the recognition, but who can forget the Alfred that came before? Character power - NOT star power.

We may know them as the character, but outside of that in terms of star-power? ASM has the most. The only comparison that doesn't match up is Dafeo. That's all. Tobey has two movies more - that's why I said a little higher than Garfield - not indie darling... PLEASANTVILLE & CIDER HOUSE RULES. The other ones in general public eye? Don't stand out - critics yes, audience no. Just Garfield has THE SOCIAL NETWORK, and indies thus not as high. Stone is arguably over Dunst though.

ASM has a bigger more recognizable ensemble than Spider-Man 1 did overall. I'd say casting-wise their decisions remind me of those Nolan made with Batman Begins. It doesn't have the strikingly new territory. But the one thing it does have is it's ensemble. Granted, this won't bring in big bucks like any other reboot. It'll do about the same. But it will be one of the things working in it's favor especially in the sequels where the names are likely to increase.

 

[DACrowe]

Nobody sees a SM movie for who plays Aunt May, Uncle Ben or the public antagonist (be it JJJ or Cap. Stacy). BTW though Cliff Robertson, while not as famous as Sheen, is a great actor with an Oscar and played Uncle Ben amazingly. So I wouldn't say Martin Sheen is an automatic upgrade.

Anyway, the thing is whether the stars of TASM are more famous in 2012 than the stars of SM1 were in 2002 (it's honestly about even, save for the villain) is missing the point. The stars weren't the star of SM1. Spidey was. However, in 2012, when people think "Spider-Man" they think Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst and James Franco. So now audiences have a point of reference. TASM needs to prove that it can exist without those people, even though the novelty of seeing Spidey in a movie has long worn off.

That is the uphill battle facing the movie.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I don't think it is reaching to focus on the lead roles. Who plays James Bond is a thousand times more important than who plays Moneypenny.

 

[Ultimatehero]

Nobody sees a SM movie for who plays Aunt May, Uncle Ben or the public antagonist (be it JJJ or Cap. Stacy). BTW though Cliff Robertson, while not as famous as Sheen, is a great actor with an Oscar and played Uncle Ben amazingly. So I wouldn't say Martin Sheen is an automatic upgrade.

Anyway, the thing is whether the stars of TASM are more famous in 2012 than the stars of SM1 were in 2002 (it's honestly about even, save for the villain) is missing the point. The stars weren't the star of SM1. Spidey was. However, in 2012, when people think "Spider-Man" they think Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst and James Franco. So now audiences have a point of reference. TASM needs to prove that it can exist without those people, even though the novelty of seeing Spidey in a movie has long worn off.

That is the uphill battle facing the movie.

Hey, I'm the guy who put Cliff Robertson up with Alfred. That's saying something. But, in terms of name? Sheen does have the bigger name.

And I'm not saying stars will make or break it. What I'm saying is if you use a time machine to combine this time with the original Spidey time. THIS film would have the most star power. I have absolutely no idea how anyone could think otherwise.

PLUS I never said they didn't have a challenge. It was twenty years later and it's still Heath vs. Jack. That's saying something.

Plus if I thought star-power was it, I wouldn't be predicting it to do the same as BATMAN BEGINS and all other reboots which haven't done that great. But who's sequels are likely to similarly do great. I'm pretty sure I was even the one guy who first discovered all the reboot patterns going on.

All this is about is me asking how on earth, just looking at the names SM! has more than ASM. Only major thing there is Dafeo who is bigger. Tobey just a tad over Garfield, Stone just a tad over Dunst. And everyone else more of a name in ASM. So this isn't about box office - just those claiming SM1 had star-power while ASM does not because that doesn't make the least of sense. SM1 had character power - not star power.

I don't think it is reaching to focus on the lead roles. Who plays James Bond is a thousand times more important than who plays Moneypenny.

This would be the case -- IF focus wasn't ever brought on Caine being Alfred and Freeman being Lucius and it just was and was shrugged off.... BUT? It wasn't. They were promoted just as much and talked about just as much. This? Is what happens when you bring in known actors for even the smaller roles. Batman Begins started it. Iron Man continued it. Big names thereon out. Begins set that trend, that I remember. James Bond is the one franchise that hasn't really seemed to ever gotten into the name game - only Bond, sometimes the villain and sometimes the babes but not often on both counts. So that's a horrible example. Look at a lot of other superhero films and then say attention isn't paid to those in supporting roles... you'd see the power of ensemble. Promotions are aimed towards them just a tad less than others.

 

[Evil Twin]

McCavoy and Fassbender were no names last year?

McAvoy is a no name this year. Fassbender is a star on the rise, but hardly a household name yet.

 

[Ultimatehero]

McAvoy is a no name this year. Fassbender is a star on the rise, but hardly a household name yet.

True, true. Fassbender will probably be a name after this summer. Or maybe... X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, HAYWIRE, PROMETHEUS. Something'll happen maybe.

McAvoy doesn't seem to have really a name. However, what is his status like over seas? UK precisely? Just wondering. Maybe a name, just not a US name.

 

[Evil Twin]

I think it's worth pointing out the Bond example that even though Connery was an unknown when given the part, they had more success with actors that were at least semi-known in Moore and Brosnan than with the unknown Lazenby and the much lesser known Dalton. In the long run, I think it helped Craig that he was a controversial choice rather than a bland, "acceptable" choice.

 

[Iceman]

True, true. Fassbender will probably be a name after this summer. Or maybe... X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, HAYWIRE, PROMETHEUS. Something'll happen maybe.

McAvoy doesn't seem to have really a name. However, what is his status like over seas? UK precisely? Just wondering. Maybe a name, just not a US name.

Talented actor but not really a 'name'.

And Fassbender will just get bigger and bigger every year.

 

[DACrowe]

True, true. Fassbender will probably be a name after this summer. Or maybe... X-MEN: FIRST CLASS, HAYWIRE, PROMETHEUS. Something'll happen maybe.

McAvoy doesn't seem to have really a name. However, what is his status like over seas? UK precisely? Just wondering. Maybe a name, just not a US name.

He's well known for doing a number of smaller, but powerful films like Atonement. But to the GA at best he is that guy in Wanted. He's a bigger star now than when Hugh Jackman was cast as Wolverine. However, Jackman rode that role to super-stardom and is the face of that franchise. Tobey is still the face of Spider-Man on screen to most people. TASM has to change that to be accepted.

 

[EML420]

lol Hugh Jackman will ride Wolverine till the wheels fall off but hes also like a super star on Broadway.

I think One Shot with Tom Cruise will suprise people I really do in terms of box office.

 

[cherokeesam]

Nobody sees a SM movie for who plays Aunt May, Uncle Ben or the public antagonist (be it JJJ or Cap. Stacy). BTW though Cliff Robertson, while not as famous as Sheen, is a great actor with an Oscar and played Uncle Ben amazingly. So I wouldn't say Martin Sheen is an automatic upgrade.

Anyway, the thing is whether the stars of TASM are more famous in 2012 than the stars of SM1 were in 2002 (it's honestly about even, save for the villain) is missing the point. The stars weren't the star of SM1. Spidey was. However, in 2012, when people think "Spider-Man" they think Tobey Maguire, Kirsten Dunst and James Franco. So now audiences have a point of reference. TASM needs to prove that it can exist without those people, even though the novelty of seeing Spidey in a movie has long worn off.

That is the uphill battle facing the movie.

It's Spider-Man.
Spider. Frickin'. Man.
You could cast Carrot Top as Spidey and the box office would still be so huge it could blow the roof off this joint.

In the end, the character is far more popular than the actor who plays him. Garfield will prove that.

 

[chaseter]

$200-$299 million domestic ain't blowin' the roof off this joint for a big budget summer movie. I would say anything over $300 million domestic is a hit and anything over $400 million is a mega hit. I know it won't reach one of those and I doubt it reaches the other.

 

[rayc1971]

$200-$299 million domestic ain't blowin' the roof off this joint for a big budget summer movie. I would say anything over $300 million domestic is a hit and anything over $400 million is a mega hit. I know it won't reach one of those and I doubt it reaches the other.

your right its budget is 220mill it has to do 300mill domestic to be a hit.i dont know if it will hit that mark.remember when it was being made they said it had a 80mill budget thought that was funny!

 

[Marvin]

ASM has an uphill battle like First Class had. Like Batman Begins had. Like Superman Returns had.

All your comparison proves is that a reboot of a dead in the water(zero interest) franchise is a very different thing a reboot of a still hot one. It's so easy to say Returns did poorly because of whatever fan awareness reason you want to imply, whilst ignoring simple ideas such as that the film sucked. Hey, maybe Peter Parker will walk around for the entire film using his powers to lift things and stalk his former yet miscast lover and child, whilst his zany arch nemesis schemes with crystals contemplates heading to white castle with his "hench men?" (seriously hench men). Is that why some of you are predicting Returns like numbers?

Begins(and this is my opinion) performed as "poorly" as it did because it just wasn't that good. Imagine for 2 seconds replacing begins with TDK, Heath dying and all that good stuff...throw in ninja that actually do stuff ala the new Joe movie, hell throw in batman single handedly dismantling their mountain side HQ ala the new joe film and not simply presenting the concept like almost everything else in Begins and I swear on my chiny chin chin that begins wouldn't have had such humble numbers. But I digress. As far as I can see this Spiderman film looks to deliver. A hell of a lot more than Returns anyways.

Same with ASM...which means it won't do as good as any of the previous films. ASM has no draws actor wise as compared to the previous movies. Plus it's a reboot of a still fresh franchise. Plus the tone looks different than what everyone was expecting. Plus, not many people like the design choices.

Emma Stone is all but A list. I have no recollection of Dunst being a list prior to the Spiderman effect but I was perhaps too young. I recall she was in the board game movie and Bring it on was hardly a mega hit by today's standards(I honestly haven't a clue who else was in that picture). Emma Stone(who I'm no fan of), seems to be everywhere these days. If it's not RDJ winking at her, Or Jim Carry doing that thing he did(why her?). Then it's her streak of solid performing films. From The Help to her teen stuff. Her recent Ellen appearance proved very successful. I don't see how anyone can say Dunst was a bigger name than Stone is now. As for Toby, the Spiderman audience didn't watch cider house or probably even Seabiscut. Garfield is coming off of the super audience relevant Social Network and I'm not even going to hint at the idea that he's not an unknown. I champion the idea. It's a petty notion to think stars sell these brands. It's a Spiderman movie, if people know who Spiderman is, then they won't care who plays him.(SEE SPIDERMAN ONE) And guess what? Thanks to Raimi, everyone knows who Spiderman is.
(there's some dynamite for you)

Sure it won't make as much money as the first ever Spiderman movie. But it will not make b list money either. What's more, if it's solid(and it looks that way to me), there is nothing stopping it from making Iron Man money.

You mention First Class had non a-list in front and behind the camera players. First off, Matt Vaughn has more experience than Marc Webb by a mile. So there goes that. Who were the leads in First Class? Fassbender, McCavoy, and Lawrence. Who are the leads in ASM? Garfield, Stone, and Ifans. How is First Class non a-list but somehow ASM is? Sally Field and Sheen are out of the a-list as much as Bacon is. Garfield isn't a-list. Stone is getting there and so is Lawrence. They are pretty much exactly the same though I posture that First Class had one huge thing going for it as compared to ASM... Vaughn and Singer had control of the script. Sony has control of the ASM script...not Marc Webb.

That's nice that Vaughn has "more experience" than Webb(I love Vaughn). That doesn't change the fact that XFC had less "names in front and behind the camera!" I mentioned names, not experience. You're mixing points. Now sure I suppose this same deal can be applied to ASM so what do I know. I personally think that Vaughn is better than Singer, and I also believe that Web is better(in many ways) than Raimi. Time will tell.

As for A list, it's a tricky subject. Let's just say my pop culture loving brother knows show Garfield and Stone are where as he had no clue about any of the cast in XFC prior to that film. Thank you SNL right.

I foresee that just like XFC, ASM will be considered as good if not better then the first sequel. As for the money, there are a tone of factors to consider, including that tuesday opening. All I know is there is going to be some Crow to be ate.

 

[Bruce Malone]

The MAIN difference between 2002 and 2012 for spider-man is that in 2002 people were dying to finally see a spider-man film, in 2012 there have been 3 spider-man filmsover the previous 10 years and the last one had not left a great taste.

There is no demand for a new spidey flick among the public. They had their fill of the raimi franchise which ended only 5 years ago. I know sony has to release films to keep the rights but there hasn't been a hunger forming yet.

Even for begins there was 8 years to the previous franchise and people only around that time were starting like the idea of a new batman series.

 

[Marvin]

batman had 8 years and a freakishly bad taste

spider man has 5 years and a somewhat bad taste(made too much money to not have some fans)

 

[Bruce Malone]

^^^

What I'm saying is that it's not so much about the bad taste of the last spidey film it's just that there have been 3 spider-man films the last decade and 5 years since the last the audience is not clamoring for another one.

Even when they were planning on an actual spider-man 4 the public reaction was muted. For batman in the 8 year wait there was enough time to for the public to actually start getting excited about another batman film.

 

[Evil Twin]

Emma Stone is all but A list. I have no recollection of Dunst being a list prior to the Spiderman effect but I was perhaps too young. I recall she was in the board game movie and Bring it on was hardly a mega hit by today's standards(I honestly haven't a clue who else was in that picture). Emma Stone(who I'm no fan of), seems to be everywhere these days. If it's not RDJ winking at her, Or Jim Carry doing that thing he did(why her?). Then it's her streak of solid performing films. From The Help to her teen stuff. Her recent Ellen appearance proved very successful. I don't see how anyone can say Dunst was a bigger name than Stone is now.

Does everyone forget that Dunst made a name for herself in Interview With a Vampire where she got better notices than Pitt and Cruise? That, btw, was a big hit. Jumanji, Wag the Dog, The Virgin Suicides, and Bring it On didn't hurt Dunst's career either. She wasn't A-list, but she certainly wasn't someone looking for her big break either when she was hired for Spider-Man.

I like Emma Stone, but I think there's a bit of overstatement calling her "all but A-list". Easy A was no Bridesmaids at the box office. The Help was a big hit, but people came out of that movie talking about Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, and Jessica Chastain. Stone has had something like two lead roles, Easy A and The Help, of significance on her resume and one was a moderate hit and in the other she was overshadowed by the supporting cast. Obviously she's been a supporting character in a number of movies with good notices and box office (Zombieland, Superbad, and Crazy Stupid Love for instance), and she looks like she'll become a star, but I don't see how she's somehow a significantly bigger name than Dunst was in 2002. Both are/were known with some hits and critical successes on their resume, but neither is/was a household name.

I think we also should remember that calling people "stars" implies that they stood out in a movie, not that they were in a big hit. Lots of actors are in big hits. The Social Network was a good hit, but how many people came out of the movie talking about Andrew Garfield rather than Jesse Eisenberg, Fincher's direction, Sorkin's dialogue, and, heck, Armie Hammer's Winklevii? I think the case can be made that Tobey Maguire coming off lead performances in The Cider House Rules and Pleasantville was a bigger name than Garfield is now. TASM will be Garfield's first lead role in a movie of significance while Maguire had a couple at that point. I don't think there's much of an argument that Maguire was much more established as a leading actor at the point Spider-Man came out, since he'd actually been a leading actor in significant films.

Which isn't to imply that either Maguire or Dunst were "A-list" when Spider-Man came out, but there's some rationalizing going on here and cherrypicking of points that are convenient and ignoring of data that's inconvenient. To me, there's no question that Dafoe, Maguire, and Dunst were a bigger collection of stars than Rhys-Ifans, Garfield, and Stone. There might be a point that Leary, Sheen, and Field make up some of the gap over Simmons, Robertson, and Harris, but I'm not sure how much the supporting cast matters to the general audience.

Heck, why does it even matter? In 2002, Spider-Man had as good a cast as any superhero film that it was competing against. In 2012, Spider-Man's cast has virtually no star power compared to the likes of The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises. As for recent superhero films, I'd certainly put the cast of TASM in terms of star power behind any of the Iron Man films, Thor (solely due to Natalie Portman who's actually an arguable A-list actress), and the Batman films. Maybe even behind Captain America which had Hugo Weaving. There's no novelty to Spider-Man being on the big screen and there's plenty of superhero competition in 2012. What's TASM doing to sell itself in this field that's making the general audience take notice?

Ultimately I think Spider-Man will do fine, especially worldwide, because it's Spider-Man, but there's very little buzz about the film other than on superhero movie boards. Something is missing from the marketing.

 

[cherokeesam]

Does everyone forget that Dunst made a name for herself in Interview With a Vampire where she got better notices than Pitt and Cruise? That, btw, was a big hit. Jumanji, Wag the Dog, The Virgin Suicides, and Bring it On didn't hurt Dunst's career either. She wasn't A-list, but she certainly wasn't someone looking for her big break either when she was hired for Spider-Man.

I like Emma Stone, but I think there's a bit of overstatement calling her "all but A-list". Easy A was no Bridesmaids at the box office. The Help was a big hit, but people came out of that movie talking about Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, and Jessica Chastain. Stone has had something like two lead roles, Easy A and The Help, of significance on her resume and one was a moderate hit and in the other she was overshadowed by the supporting cast. Obviously she's been a supporting character in a number of movies with good notices and box office (Zombieland, Superbad, and Crazy Stupid Love for instance), and she looks like she'll become a star, but I don't see how she's somehow a significantly bigger name than Dunst was in 2002. Both are/were known with some hits and critical successes on their resume, but neither is/was a household name.

I think we also should remember that calling people "stars" implies that they stood out in a movie, not that they were in a big hit. Lots of actors are in big hits. The Social Network was a good hit, but how many people came out of the movie talking about Andrew Garfield rather than Jesse Eisenberg, Fincher's direction, Sorkin's dialogue, and, heck, Armie Hammer's Winklevii? I think the case can be made that Tobey Maguire coming off lead performances in The Cider House Rules and Pleasantville was a bigger name than Garfield is now. TASM will be Garfield's first lead role in a movie of significance while Maguire had a couple at that point. I don't think there's much of an argument that Maguire was much more established as a leading actor at the point Spider-Man came out, since he'd actually been a leading actor in significant films.

Which isn't to imply that either Maguire or Dunst were "A-list" when Spider-Man came out, but there's some rationalizing going on here and cherrypicking of points that are convenient and ignoring of data that's inconvenient. To me, there's no question that Dafoe, Maguire, and Dunst were a bigger collection of stars than Rhys-Ifans, Garfield, and Stone. There might be a point that Leary, Sheen, and Field make up some of the gap over Simmons, Robertson, and Harris, but I'm not sure how much the supporting cast matters to the general audience.

Heck, why does it even matter? In 2002, Spider-Man had as good a cast as any superhero film that it was competing against. In 2012, Spider-Man's cast has virtually no star power compared to the likes of The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises. As for recent superhero films, I'd certainly put the cast of TASM in terms of star power behind any of the Iron Man films, Thor (solely due to Natalie Portman who's actually an arguable A-list actress), and the Batman films. Maybe even behind Captain America which had Hugo Weaving. There's no novelty to Spider-Man being on the big screen and there's plenty of superhero competition in 2012. What's TASM doing to sell itself in this field that's making the general audience take notice?

Ultimately I think Spider-Man will do fine, especially worldwide, because it's Spider-Man, but there's very little buzz about the film other than on superhero movie boards. Something is missing from the marketing.

You answered your own question there.
TASM is going to succeed or fail based on the popularity of the character, not the actor who's portraying him. (Didn't I already say that....?) Spider-Man is THE biggest name in the Marvel bullpen....always has been, always will be. Yes, the case can be made that there's no star power here; yes, the case can be made (always a matter of personal opinion) that Maguire was better than Garfield, Raimi was better than Webb; Gobby is better than Lizard, or whatever. And yes, the case can be made that there's a lot of superhero films out there, but no one has been able to prove the myth going around in some circles that superhero films are just a passing fad instead of a full-fledged genre with plenty of staying power.

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.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

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.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

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.