The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 2

[slimshady247]

After seeing it...I can believe it. Restores some semblance of faith in humanity.

Haha yeah, basically.

I don't think this film will hold up at all in the years to come.

 

[Visualiza]

Haha yeah, basically.

I don't think this film will hold up at all in the years to come.

If it does, it will likely be as an example of what not to do.

 

[InJustice]

He was basically the main reason that Venom was pushed into Spider-Man 3. He's been ****ing with the franchise since the beginning. It's not a bandwagon so much as the simple truth that he's at least part of the problem.

I get that he ****ed up Spider-Man 3 by forcing Raimi to add Venom, but do we really have proof that he's responsible for the messes in ASM1 and 2? I ask that because I'm not sure of the behind the scenes with ASM1 and 2.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Rothman's at Sony, but he is not in the position he was at Fox. He's running TriStar Productions, which specializes in mid- to low-budget fare for Sony -- but he's not involved with the main operations or input on big budget fare.

If anything, we need to place blame on Avi Arad for this.

Why?

Frankly this is getting stupid, why should he get the blame? And don't go SM3 blah blah..because thats an entirely different scenario and I don't want to open a can of worms

Webb and the writers should share majority of the blame for what went wrong with this movie, I am not a fan of Arad but blaming him seems the cool thing to do in these forums for some reason

 

[Spiderdevil]

He was basically the main reason that Venom was pushed into Spider-Man 3. He's been ****ing with the franchise since the beginning. It's not a bandwagon so much as the simple truth that he's at least part of the problem.

You are right
Lets blame him for this movie and the other spider-man movies down the years because he had part in ruining SM3

 

[Heretic]

The problem is with the fact that no one cared to think things through. For the studio, they see a superhero and the only thing that comes to mind is money. They can't be bothered with a long-term plan because they really don't think the properties are anything but "origin, then keep adding bad guys to make each movie seem cooler." Before the FIRST Spider-Man film was shot, they should have had a rough idea for Spider-Man 10. It isn't like the character is a fad that will go away in 5 years. Had they cared to properly develop the story, we'd have a Spider-Man 5 right now that makes sense.

 

[samsnee]

As fans, it's easy to say that there should be a 5 year plan. But a lot can happen in those 5 years that as a director, you want to make the best movie now, not later.

That being said, I still wouldn't have put MJ on screen before Gwen in the original series.

 

[Heretic]

As fans, it's easy to say that there should be a 5 year plan. But a lot can happen in those 5 years that as a director, you want to make the best movie now, not later.

That being said, I still wouldn't have put MJ on screen before Gwen in the original series.

By "best movie" they generally mean "cram as much into one film as possible, because there probably isn't a sustainable audience for crap like this."

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

As fans, it's easy to say that there should be a 5 year plan. But a lot can happen in those 5 years that as a director, you want to make the best movie now, not later.

That being said, I still wouldn't have put MJ on screen before Gwen in the original series.

That doesn't bother non-comic fans one bit... heck, at age 12 (2002), I didn't even know who Gwen was.

 

[Heretic]

At 12, you didn't know who Gwen was...but you do now because they flat out ran out of ideas after 3 movies and decided to tell the origin again. Lucky us! Can't wait to see Peter get bit by a spider again in 5 years!

Personally, I'd rather they get it right once...and then continue the franchise indefinitely (because a character like Spider-Man should be able to sustain that). You don't have to start over just because you changed directors or lead actors.

 

[Tacit Ronin]

True. And there is already a great precedent for indefinitely continuing a story with several actors in James Bond. I wonder why comic book movies cannot follow in Bond's footstep.

 

[Golgo-13]

I'm surprised this movie opened to only 95 million. This is pretty low for a Spider-Man movie.

 

[Donut]

A big part of it is that two week difference no doubt

 

[Golgo-13]

A big part of it is that two week difference no doubt

 

[Donut]

It opened two weeks Internationally first & then bootlegg copies got online a week before that all plays a part & then not to mention the early negative critic reviews

 

[Donut]

Two weeks is plenty of time for either bad word of mouth to spread early or for people to download bootleggs or both

 

[Bullseye1]

Domestic: $92,000,000 24.9%
+ Foreign: $277,000,000 75.1%
= Worldwide: $369,000,000

Looks like it made $122m on the foreign box office this week.

 

[XtremelyBaneful]

which means that it has recuperated its budget but it is quite clear that spidey's popularity has dropped drastically and i'm going to say it is entirely due to the fact that he's not part of mcu.

 

[Bullseye1]

I think it's more down to francise fatigue and CBM fatigue which will only get worse. Could probably do with a break.

 

[Donut]

CMB fatigue is a myth. Especially if Guardians Of The Galaxy makes more then this movie

 

[Bullseye1]

CMB fatigue is a myth. Especially if Guardians Of The Galaxy makes more then this movie

Will never happen. I'm a reader of GoTG I'd say I'm a rare breed. t:

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

True. And there is already a great precedent for indefinitely continuing a story with several actors in James Bond. I wonder why comic book movies cannot follow in Bond's footstep.

I actually think that's why people have had a hard time adjusting to the new re-booted Spider-Man.

I mean, look at the other on-screen superheroes (or at least the ones that worked):

- Superman: From 1978-2006, we pretty much had the same cinematic Superman and even other media ventures (minus S:TAS) was heavily influenced by the Christopher Reeve stamp. 19 years after the franchise crashed and burned, they tried to revive it rather than reboot it. When it didn't work, the penny dropped that we had to let go.

- Batman: The Burton/Schumacher universe pretty much stayed intact from 1989-2003. Despite changing chins under the cowl and standalone tales, it was a Batman we had become accustomed to. Only when WB (or Schumacher) ran it into the ground... and after an 8 year hiatus... did the character find rejuvenation. The character was allowed to rest and people developed an appetite. And it's worth noting, Nolan was the one who ended the era. I don't think most people would have objected to a 4th Bale Bat-pic.

- X-Men: It's been almost 15 years and 7 movies. We are still dealing with the same cast and continuity. The franchise may have taken tagents but it's remarkable how long FOX has managed to maintain interest. Now we have Bryan Singer, Ian Mac Kellan and Halle Berry, et al back. People will respond to it.

- Marvel Cinematic Universe: Well, no need to go into detail here. They've been building a continuity and getting people involved since 2008.

Even Blade has been rested since the trilogy came to an end. The Fantastic Four will see release 8 years after two underwhelming films.

Sony had no need to reboot a successful Spider-Man franchise after three films. It was a solid trilogy that stumbled in it's third outing... but the general public seemed attached to it and there is no reason they wouldn't have invested in a fourth Maguire-led Spider-Man sequel (Even without Raimi). In the space of five years, they threw everything out the window and lost a good portion of the audience in the process.

I kind of rambled there... But I do think Sony made some serious mis-calculations with this reboot.

 

[weezerspider]

I actually think that's why people have had a hard time adjusting to the new re-booted Spider-Man.

I mean, look at the other on-screen superheroes (or at least the ones that worked):

- Superman: From 1978-2006, we pretty much had the same cinematic Superman and even other media ventures (minus S:TAS) was heavily influenced by the Christopher Reeve stamp. 19 years after the franchise crashed and burned, they tried to revive it rather than reboot it. When it didn't work, the penny dropped that we has to let go.

- Batman: The Burton/Schumacher universe pretty much stayed intact from 1989-2003. Despite changing chins under the cowl and standalone tales, it was a Batman we had become accustomed to. Only when WB (or Schumacher) ran it into the ground... and after an 8 year hiatus... did the character find rejuvenation. The character was allowed to rest and people developed an appetite. And it's worth noting, Nolan was the one who ended the era. I don't think most people would have objected to a 4th Bale Bat-pic.

- X-Men: It's been almost 15 years and 7 movies. We are still dealing with the same cast and continuity. The franchise may have taken tagents but it's remarkable how long FOX has managed to maintain interest. Now we have Bryan Singer, Ian Mac Kellan and Halle Berry, et al back. People will respond to it.

- Marvel Cinematic Universe: Well, no need to go into detail here. They've been building a continnuity and getting people involved since 2008.

Even Blade has been rested since the trilogy came to an end. The Fantastic Four will see release 8 years after two underwhelming films.

Sony had no need to reboot a successful Spider-Man franchise after three films. It was a solid trilogy that stumbled in it's third outing... but the general public seemed attached to it and there is no reason they wouldn't have invested in a fourth Maguire-led Spider-Man sequel (Even without Raimi). In the space of five years, they threw everything out the window and lose a good portion of the audience in the process.

I kind of rambled there... But I do think Sony made some serious mis-calculations with this reboot.

This. This. This. I agree with it all.

 

[Bullseye1]

I actually think that's why people have had a hard time adjusting to the new re-booted Spider-Man.

I mean, look at the other on-screen superheroes (or at least the ones that worked):

- Superman: From 1978-2006, we pretty much had the same cinematic Superman and even other media ventures (minus S:TAS) was heavily influenced by the Christopher Reeve stamp. 19 years after the franchise crashed and burned, they tried to revive it rather than reboot it. When it didn't work, the penny dropped that we has to let go.

- Batman: The Burton/Schumacher universe pretty much stayed intact from 1989-2003. Despite changing chins under the cowl and standalone tales, it was a Batman we had become accustomed to. Only when WB (or Schumacher) ran it into the ground... and after an 8 year hiatus... did the character find rejuvenation. The character was allowed to rest and people developed an appetite. And it's worth noting, Nolan was the one who ended the era. I don't think most people would have objected to a 4th Bale Bat-pic.

- X-Men: It's been almost 15 years and 7 movies. We are still dealing with the same cast and continuity. The franchise may have taken tagents but it's remarkable how long FOX has managed to maintain interest. Now we have Bryan Singer, Ian Mac Kellan and Halle Berry, et al back. People will respond to it.

- Marvel Cinematic Universe: Well, no need to go into detail here. They've been building a continnuity and getting people involved since 2008.

Even Blade has been rested since the trilogy came to an end. The Fantastic Four will see release 8 years after two underwhelming films.

Sony had no need to reboot a successful Spider-Man franchise after three films. It was a solid trilogy that stumbled in it's third outing... but the general public seemed attached to it and there is no reason they wouldn't have invested in a fourth Maguire-led Spider-Man sequel (Even without Raimi). In the space of five years, they threw everything out the window and lose a good portion of the audience in the process.

I kind of rambled there... But I do think Sony made some serious mis-calculations with this reboot.

I'm not really a fan of reboots myself but if the franchise had not been rebooted we wouldn't have gotten the Gwen Stacy arc. Not sure why the studio and Raimi as director ignored this important part of Spideys history. And then to throw her in as a bit part in the third movie was unforgivable.

 

[samsnee]

True. And there is already a great precedent for indefinitely continuing a story with several actors in James Bond. I wonder why comic book movies cannot follow in Bond's footstep.

I think it has to do with the villain factor. Most heroes outside of Batman, Spider-man, and maybe Superman don't have a great rogues gallery that would work on screen. Bond is always fighting the same egomaniac that wants to take over the world, but the writers don't feel tied to the books anymore.