The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Rotten Tomatoes score? - Part 1

[DarthSkywalker]

In this case, sports makes my point easily, LOL! It sometimes pays to be a sports guy too

Yes, yes it does.

In ANY line of business, spending more money to make less is bad. Whether that be filmmaking or selling shoes. If you WERE making a billion dollars annually, and then you lost 200mil in business annually, then you're not happy you made 800 mil. You're wondering why you're not making the other 200 million. That is basic business 101. You want the business to GROW. This is why that 700-800 million range isn't great. It isn't breaking you, sure, but it is nothing to be excited about. Especially when you're Sony, and you have no other major franchises outside of Bond right now. And in the case of Bond, they split profit with MGM!

And at the very least split the merch profits with Marvel for Spidey.

 

[venom892]

I'm pretty sure they gave away both the merch and tv rights to extend the film rights. They make nothing off the merchandise for this, which makes the BO all the more important.

 

[Mr. Dent]

Dude who cares if it doesnt beat Cap its a great year for marvel movies regardless of the studio
who cares what the score is go in to enjoy

If you don't care to discuss the ramifications of these things why are you in this thread in the first place? To lecture us on how we should conduct our film going to be like your's? :/

 

[Spider-Fan]

Yes, yes it does.


And at the very least split the merch profits with Marvel for Spidey.

All the articles I see on it say they sold them. Not that they sold a % of them. That leads me to indicate that if they have any % left, it is less than 50%. So, if TASM2 sells more action figures than TASM did, Marvel is very happy. Doesn't help Sony outside of maybe that kid forces his parents to take him to the movie.

 

[spiderman2]

The thing is if you look at spider man 1-3 with infalashion and with 3d they would have made like 1.3 billion compared to the amazing spider man's 762 million that is a good 500 million or more difference and even if this movie makes a billion that is still a good 300 million difference. It would be great if we could get a new spider man movie with great reviews and that makes around 1.5 billion.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

The thing is if you look at spider man 1-3 with infalashion and with 3d they would have made like 1.3 billion compared to the amazing spider man's 762 million that is a good 500 million or more difference and even if this movie makes a billion that is still a good 300 million difference. It would be great if we could get a new spider man movie with great reviews and that makes around 1.5 billion.

Exactly.

Spider-Man is fully capable of making a billion worldwide but this particular Spider-Man franchise still hasn't garnered the kind of buzz and reviews to get it there.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

I'm pretty sure they gave away both the merch and tv rights to extend the film rights. They make nothing off the merchandise for this, which makes the BO all the more important.

All the articles I see on it say they sold them. Not that they sold a % of them. That leads me to indicate that if they have any % left, it is less than 50%. So, if TASM2 sells more action figures than TASM did, Marvel is very happy. Doesn't help Sony outside of maybe that kid forces his parents to take him to the movie.

I wasn't sure, so I didn't want to speak out of turn. Thanks for the info guys.

 

[Spider-Fan]

"Studios use box office for marketing the best they can, but they don’t want us chewing up their numbers, for all kinds of reasons. And even though I am interested, I respect their right to privacy on this. I just wish journos wouldn’t claim they knew "The Truth". There is gamesmanship in both profit & loss and studios prefer it that way. Journos should be more honest about what we don’t know." - David Poland about box office receipts earlier this Saturday.

And? Yes, Hollywood puts out misinformation all the time. They want you to think a cheap movie was more expensive than it was (example, guy who has 20,000 bucks t make his indie feature hires a free cast/crew and takes all the help he can get in order to make his what we call No Budget movie look like a Low Budget movie for when he sells it) and blockbusters always undersell how much the movie cost to make so people looking at these BO receipts think the movie needs to make less than it does to be a hit. Also, Hollywood gets creative with sponsorhips and tax incentives on films. Hollywood lies. We all know this. But, the fact that a gross of 700-800 means a 200mil decline from the previous series isn't exactly up for debate. That is pure fact, regardless of how the back end is distributed, how much it actually cost to make, etc. Diminshing returns are diminishing returns.

 

[spiderman2]

yeah 700 million for a lot of movies is not bad but with spider man when it has the protectial for some much more it is. It is like the lakers if they have a 50-32 and lose in the second round even though it is not really that bad for them it is.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Exactly.

Spider-Man is fully capable of making a billion worldwide but this particular Spider-Man franchise still hasn't garnered the kind of buzz and reviews to get it there.

In the time of 3D and IMAX, it almost seems unfathomable that it might not happen this time.

 

[Avenging Spidey]

And? Yes, Hollywood puts out misinformation all the time. They want you to think a cheap movie was more expensive than it was (example, guy who has 20,000 bucks t make his indie feature hires a free cast/crew and takes all the help he can get in order to make his what we call No Budget movie look like a Low Budget movie for when he sells it) and blockbusters always undersell how much the movie cost to make so people looking at these BO receipts think the movie needs to make less than it does to be a hit. Also, Hollywood gets creative with sponsorhips and tax incentives on films. Hollywood lies. We all know this. But, the fact that a gross of 700-800 means a 200mil decline from the previous series isn't exactly up for debate. That is pure fact, regardless of how the back end is distributed, how much it actually cost to make, etc. Diminshing returns are diminishing returns.

Of course, not saying it isn't. But you are talking like you already know how much The Amazing Spider-Man 2 will make and how much you didn't like and how much nobody likes. If you want to see that the reception has been overall positive from the US critics, I'll simply link you reviews and impressions that outweigh by a LOT the number of negative reviews that we've got so far.

The score on RT right now doesn't tell the whole story. And even if all the positive reviews that haven't been added yet was already there, it still wouldn't tell the whole story. Same goes for the box office. It seems to me - once again - that you are over thinking the RT reception and leaning to negative, when there is no indication that it'll go down, it's more likely to go up or stay flat on the seventies than saying it's going down.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

In the time of 3D and IMAX, it almost seems unfathomable that it might not happen this time.

"It's unfathomable."

Sorry that word always reminds me of the Space Dad from Megamind.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Of course, not saying it isn't. But you are talking like you already know how much The Amazing Spider-Man 2 will make and how much you didn't like and how much nobody likes. If you want to see that the reception has been overall positive from the US critics, I'll simply link you reviews and impressions that outweigh by a LOT the number of negative reviews that we've got so far.

The score on RT right now doesn't tell the whole story. And even if all the positive reviews that haven't been added yet was already there, it still wouldn't tell the whole story. Same goes for the box office. It seems to me - once again - that you are over thinking the RT reception and leaning to negative, when there is no indication that it'll go down, it's more likely to go up or stay flat on the seventies than saying it's going down.

No one but you is doing this. That is why this conversation feels so warped. The only thing Spider-Fan, I and others are talking about are the numbers already in, tracking and reviews that are actually in. We are projecting using what is actually there.

You are the one pulling RT and BO numbers out of the air because you "believe" in this film.

"It's unfathomable."

Sorry that word always reminds me of the Space Dad from Megamind.

 

[spiderman2]

yeah I think I heard that iron man 3 witch made 1.2 billion would have been like 900 million with out the 3d so it made like 33% more because of that. So that means a movie that has 3d with out 3d would have to make around 750 million to make a billion. All of the first 3 spider man movies made at least 750 million so even with out inflation with just 3d they would have been a billion or a little more. So really these movies should be a lock for a billion now days. Other thing if I am not mistaken spider man 1-3 all where number 3 in world box office the years the came out where the amazing spider man was 7th has 6 movies made more and heck with out the 3d if may have been worse then 7th.

 

[Spider-Fan]

SM1 - 140 mil budget, 821 WW gross
SM2 - 200 mil budget, 783 WW gross
SM3 - 260 mil budget, 890 WW gross
TASM - 230 mil budget, 752 WW gross

Now let's adjust those grosses for inflation:

SM1 - $1,066,969,598
SM2 - $969,214,834
SM3 - $1,003,675,320
TASM - $765,328,270

I was wondering how much they made based off inflation the thing is to that Tasm and tasm 2 has 3d to and the first 3 didnt. I have heard some people say the movie has to make 700 to come out even how does that work? I don't get that 700 million thing. The movie has a 230 budget and the 190 marketing so that would be 420 million. Form what I have heard a theater only gets about 12% of the tickets money and the rest goes to the studio. So if the movie made 500 that would mean about 60 would stay with the theater and the other 440 would go to the studio. 440- the 420 for budget and marketing= 20 million in profit so wouldn't the movie only need to make around 500 to come out even where is the other 200 million? Dose it cost 200 million to get the movie into the theaters or something?

It's hard to figure 3D boost since you don't know what that ratio of 3D vs 2D tickets would be. For example, Thor made about 100 mil more than TFA did, but Thor also had a much higer percentage of 3D tickets sold than TFA did (TFA mostly had 2D sales and it had no IMAX). But, yes, that would increase these figures, as well.

Of course, not saying it isn't. But you are talking like you already know how much The Amazing Spider-Man 2 will make and how much you didn't like and how much nobody likes. If you want to see that the reception has been overall positive from the US critics, I'll simply link you reviews and impressions that outweigh by a LOT the number of negative reviews that we've got so far.

The score on RT right now doesn't tell the whole story. And even if all the positive reviews that haven't been added yet was already there, it still wouldn't tell the whole story. Same goes for the box office. It seems to me - once again - that you are over thinking the RT reception and leaning to negative, when there is no indication that it'll go down, it's more likely to go up or stay flat on the seventies than saying it's going down.

I'm not leaning negative. Leaning negative would be saying it will make like low 700s or far below projections. I am basing my views on the projections we're seeing and the numbers we currently have. If it was showing more growth in the foreign territories, I'd be the first to agree with you that this is a potential billion dollar film. But, I can't forsee that based on the numbers we have, especially when we have positive buzz for movies that can hurt it's legs in the latter stages of the BO, so it won't squeek out that extra 50 mil or whatever like Cap was more easily able to do due to weak competition. Godzilla and X-Men are bigger threats to Spidey (largely due to targetting the same demographics) than Heaven is Real, The Other Women, etc were for Cap.

 

[spiderman2]

I am heaing all this talk that the box-office numbers down form the first one. I thought when the first reports came out that it was up ever where and doing quit while? I thought that was when it was said that sony wants a billion and that it could be on there way there or something like that?

 

[DarthSkywalker]

yeah I think I heard that iron man 3 witch made 1.2 billion would have been like 900 million with out the 3d so it made like 33% more because of that. So that means a movie that has 3d with out 3d would have to make around 750 million to make a billion. All of the first 3 spider man movies made at least 750 million so even with out inflation with just 3d they would have been a billion or a little more. So really these movies should be a lock for a billion now days. Other thing if I am not mistaken spider man 1-3 all where number 3 in world box office the years the came out where the amazing spider man was 7th has 6 movies made more and heck with out the 3d if may have been worse then 7th.

The ticket sale disparity is quite something when you consider inflation and 3D. That is why I agree with Spider-Fan that it doesn't feel like the age of Spidey has returned with this film.

 

[spiderman2]

while form what I have heard about 3d bosst I have heard that movies that have 3d that normaly half of the ticket sales are 3d and half are 2d. I alrease say that I don't really think you can compare a movie to a older movie in box office because there are to many factors such has the compation that eatch movie faced, inflation, 3d, the enconime, and in the old days I think people went to the movies more has there wasn't has much to do has you have things like internet ect. I think the best way is to compare movies that came out the same year witch is why I mitched that the first 3 spider man movies where 3erd in box office the year they came out compared to the amazing spider man's 7th.

 

[spiderman2]

Yeah dark knight rises made 1.1 billion that is a good 400 million or so more then the amazing spider man made and with out 3d. If you think about how much the first 3 made with out 3d and inflation and I guess imax to has I don't know what imax was like then really anything below a billion is kind of pathetic.

 

[spiderman2]

If you think about it in tearms of ticket sale the first 3 on average probly sold twice has many has the amazing spider man did.

 

[Mr. Dent]

Let's see about that.

There is nothing to see, from the initial numbers what you posted is already impossible. How about you take some time and learn how this stuff works instead of blindly following David Polland's word like he's a prophet.

I am still rooting for you Mr. Dent!!!! t:

It's not looking too good right now mang

 

[Mr. Dent]

I didn't know you have a degree in film. With that said - and with all due respect - I somehow doubt that in the light of the way you were talking about the box office of these films that you actually have more understanding of how this works than an industry insider like David Poland.

"Because your assessment of the situation doesn't agree with what I want to believe you clearly know less than this other guy who validates what I want to believe".

You're completely ridiculous.

 

[Avenging Spidey]

Positive reactions and reviews for The Amazing Spider-Man2 from RT critics that haven't been added to Rotten Tomatoes yet:

https://twitter.com/firstshowing/status/459504136447614977

Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Actually enjoyed it as a summer movie. Few odd choices but it's an entertaining Peter Parker/Spidey story about hope.

Think @marcw really stepped up his game this time giving us more nuanced character dynamics balanced with spectacular Spidey action. #TASM2

https://twitter.com/erickohn

#AmazingSpiderman2 suffers from Hollywood's Too Much Movie Syndrome, but it's still leaps and bounds better than all previous SM movies.

https://twitter.com/azalben

Amazing Spider-Man 2 may not be the best Spider-Man movie ever, but it may be the best Spider-Man in a movie ever.

https://twitter.com/azalben

Amazing Spider-Man 2 may not be the best Spider-Man movie ever, but it may be the best Spider-Man in a movie ever.

https://mobile.twitter.com/RaminSetoodeh/status/459518940935630849

'Amazing Spider-Man 2' is much better than the first one.

https://mobile.twitter.com/misterpatches/status/459505006719545344

Whoa, Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a ball. Silly, slick bombast.

Joe Neumaier rates the film 4 stars out of 5 via New York Daily News:

There are two types of superhero movies: the ones that brood and the ones that swing.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” is proudly the latter, filled with high-energy action. But this fleshed-out sequel also tackles an iconic grown-up moment in comic-book history with nary a hitch.

It helps that star Andrew Garfield is possibly the best actor to ever star in any Marvel Comics-based flick. As anyone who saw him on Broadway in “Death of a Salesman” can attest, the young British actor can effortlessly turn a cocky smirk to a queasy grimace. His great depth hoisted 2012’s “The Amazing Spider-Man” to levels it almost didn’t deserve.

This time, Garfield has some serious plot to chew on — and, with Emma Stone and Dane DeHaan, creates a web of a strong performance in a spectacularly entertaining adventure.

I don't know if I need to tell you this, but this are all from RT reviewers, an d I sincerely don't think this impressions and the review can be called "good but not great" reviews like you insist that's what we are getting.

And if we are talking about those that have already been added after the US screening, I'd say that the reception is very similar to the one Iron Man 3 got, and if this film is as good as Iron Man 3, the chances of getting at least in my top 3 superhero films lists are strong. Let's see some of the reviews that we got after the film was released here:

Eric Davis, via Movies.com:

Guts, charisma and inventiveness. In my opinion, that's what The Amazing Spider-Man 2 does better than other superhero movies. It may not get everything right, but at the end of the day it's the hero that makes the movie worthwhile.

And Spider-Man is a hero I love watching.

And last but no less important, here is David Poland's rave for The Amazing Spider-Man2, via Movie City News:

The Amazing Spider-Man 2 will not be my favorite film of the year. It probably won’t be my favorite film in May (as Cannes will no doubt offer some true delights.) But as these kinds of films go, there is so much that I like, above and beyond others, that it stands above. The wrinkles in the back of the suit, man. That is what separates this film from all the rest. The wrinkles in the back of the suit.

As Roger Ebert said, no good movie is too long… no bad movie is short enough. I connect to the flavor, the artistry, and the detail of Marc Webb’s vision of Spider-Man. I’ll be happy to go again… and again. Hell, even the Stan Lee cameo didn’t irritate me. And special thanks for not tagging the film with a sneak peek of the next film. It’s a superhero movie that feels and thinks. Excelsior.

So yeah, it's not getting TDK or even TDKR or TWS kind of praise, but it's getting praise, unlike something like Thor: The Dark World or Man of Steel. I'd say it's getting as much praise and divideness as Iron Man 3, and I firmly believe that those who truly love the webhead will be head over heels for this film. t:

 

[Avenging Spidey]

"Because your assessment of the situation doesn't agree with what I want to believe you clearly know less than this other guy who validates what I want to believe".

You're completely ridiculous.

I'm reporting all the personal attacks. Just so you know.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

You should only report people when they actually deserve it.

And again you think that there aren't bad reviews that Rotten Tomatoes haven't added?