The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 3

[warhorse78]

you mean I'm not the only one who feels that way??!!

I didn't like him either. I saw the first ASM, and he just completely turned me off of the franchise. I saw his smug face in the trailer for this movie, and I just knew, this is a movie I know I can skip with glee. And honestly, I'm not a fan of Stone either.

 

[Raiden]

Well Sony can not let Spider-Man take any time off. If they even took a year or two off. Im sure Disney would start having their lawyers look for any loop holes to get the rights back in the contract. It might be best to can the spin off movie ideas. Fire everyone involved crew wise with these movies. Start fresh with a completely new behind the scenes crew & they got to fix their release date strategy as well. That two week wait played a part in this mess

Can spin-off movies extend Spider-Man's rights? I know that Eletra helped Fox extended DD's rights, and I'm wondering if that is the same for Sony as well. Personally, I think Marvel should've included a clause that prevented spin-offs from being eligible for rights extension, but I guess back then Marvel was far more interested in self-preservation than any clause on the contracts.

 

[Iceman]

The question is though how can a Spider-Man movie with the bad guys he faces work without Spider-Man ? If the General Audience did not see a movie with Spider-Man in it. Why would they see a movie without him in it ?

They wouldn't. This is the problem with being forced to churn a property with one hero character.

If they are low budget affairs though they wouldn't carry too much risk and let Sony hang onto the rights while giving Spidey a much needed breather. That said I don't know how you make Sinister 6 a low budget affair. Really the problems of running the franchise are a fixed element now and the main thing they needed to do was make TASM2 as good as possible.

 

[Donut]

They wouldn't. This is the problem with being forced to churn a property with one hero character.

I guess Sony could give this one more try with TASM3 & finish Andrews contract & get a whole new crew. But if TASM 3 is also a failure. That is when Sony should start thinking should they give the rights back or not

 

[Iceman]

I guess Sony could give this one more try with TASM3 & finish Andrews contract & get a whole new crew. But if TASM 3 is also a failure. That is when Sony should be thinking should they give the rights back or not

They surely can't reboot again! MJ could be a boost to the franchise and TASM2 being bad doesn't necessarily mean 3 needs to be as the things that will carry forward like Garfield himself are fine while Electro can be forgotten. I don't know the contract situation with the actors but if Garfield's ends with 3, it might be hard to keep the costs down with 4 at exactly the time they need to keep costs down.

 

[Uncle Radiation]

This is an interesting situation...I wonder what changes Sony will make.

Surely they will do something, change something, to improve the box office of their crown jewel franchise.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I believe Garfield is only attached for one more film... He's said numerous times that he doesn't know what will happen with a fourth film.

He clearly has a strong passion for the character, but it's dominated his life now for (almost non-stop) 4 years. I wonder how long he will willingly stick around.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I believe Garfield is only attached for one more film... He's said numerous times that he doesn't know what will happen with a fourth film.

He clearly has a strong passion for the character, but it's dominated his life now for (almost non-stop) 4 years. I wonder how long he will willingly stick around.

I think ASM3 would have to be far more successful than the first two for him to even think about sticking around.

Of course, that didn't stop Hugh Jackman. So who knows?

 

[samsnee]

As soon as Marvel gets the rights back, all they need to do is introduce him in Avengers movie. That will be how they will relaunch the character under their banner. They're smart enough not to do another straight origin story. They didn't even do it with Hulk when they relaunched it.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

I think ASM3 would have to be far more successful than the first two for him to even think about sticking around.

Of course, that didn't stop Hugh Jackman. So who knows?

I think Hugh Jackman has stuck with the character because he desperately wants to get him right (or improve on his best) before bowing out and it's easy exposure for him. But he's also done other interesting things around Wolverine and the X-Men.

Plus he's now sitting with an Oscar nomination... so it all didn't turn out too bad for him.

Since 2010, Garfield has been in Spider-Man mode and has only just started to do other movies again. That's never a good thing and certainly won't help should he want to re-negotiate a contract.

 

[Iceman]

I believe Garfield is only attached for one more film... He's said numerous times that he doesn't know what will happen with a fourth film.

He clearly has a strong passion for the character, but it's dominated his life now for (almost non-stop) 4 years. I wonder how long he will willingly stick around.

Yeah, a massive part of the life of a young actor. Even though I think he really loves the character and loves being the current Spider-man, his willingness to stay would be affected if 2 films in a row were panned.

I think ASM3 would have to be far more successful than the first two for him to even think about sticking around.

Of course, that didn't stop Hugh Jackman. So who knows?

With Jackman though being in a team film meant not all the weight was on him, although due to getting the spotlight much of it was anyway t:. I don't think he'd have stuck around for 6/7 solo Wolverine films in other words. I also think the team films are more fun to shoot catching up with all the team members old and new. He really seems to love it.

 

[samsnee]

Plus Wolverine is more of an "adult" character since he's immortal. Spider-man is usually a younger man, so after a certain age, an actor just looks too old for the role.

 

[Tobias]

Garfield is very talented and any actor who is still young would, I imagine, not want to tie themselves down to an open-ended superhero franchise.

This is why I can't see Affleck staying around for 3 Batman and 3 JL films. He is in his prime at 41 and already has had to push work off because of his Batman film.

Has the studio optioned Garfield for a 4th film? I thought they had, but if not its better for him right now in light of where things stand. Puts the choice in his hands.

 

[Uncle Radiation]

Garfield is very talented and any actor who is still young would, I imagine, not want to tie themselves down to an open-ended superhero franchise.

This is why I can't see Affleck staying around for 3 Batman and 3 JL films. He is in his prime at 41 and already has had to push work off because of his Batman film.

Exactly.

Garfield is a top actor - like Christopher Reeve was. We're lucky we got him to play Spidey, but let's also hope he has plenty of opportunities to play other great roles afterwards, rather than be typecast like Reeve.

I love that Zack Snyder has gone for a veteran, older Batman. Yet I find it a bit weird Warner Bros would agree to a 41-year old playing Batman at the start of a huge franchise (Keaton was a similar age for his first Batman movie, but it wasn't all about sequels back then). Presumably Affleck won't be in solo Batman movies. Although I think a fifty-year old, Dark Knight Returns-esque Batman would be fantastic.

 

[Marvin]

As soon as Marvel gets the rights back, all they need to do is introduce him in Avengers movie. That will be how they will relaunch the character under their banner. They're smart enough not to do another straight origin story. They didn't even do it with Hulk when they relaunched it.

Expecting Marvel Studios to have something succeed on it's own is definitely out of place. Of course they would link it to their other characters. It's a huge element of why they have their brands competing with other true solo's these days.

What's odd is how much other studios get called out on even flirting with such approaches.

 

[Marvin]

I love that Zack Snyder has gone for a veteran, older Batman. Yet I find it a bit weird Warner Bros would agree to a 41-year old playing Batman at the start of a huge franchise (Keaton was a similar age for his first Batman movie, but it wasn't all about sequels back then). Presumably Affleck won't be in solo Batman movies. Although I think a fifty-year old, Dark Knight Returns-esque Batman would be fantastic.

RDJ was around Affleck's age when he started no?

I personally think WB is setting up to do their big jla film then true spinoff solo's after that. As for how that pertains to batman, I'm thinking they are going to have someone younger play the new batman staged as the prequel to the Batfleck universe. Seeing as how Batfleck is sort of the DKR bats with equally aged villains and such.

 

[Donut]

RDJ was around Affleck's age when he started no?

I personally think WB is setting up to do their big jla film then true spinoff solo's after that. As for how that pertains to batman, I'm thinking they are going to have someone younger play the new batman staged as the prequel to the Batfleck universe. Seeing as how Batfleck is sort of the DKR bats with equally aged villains and such.

The problem with that is they would have three different Batman universes going on at the same time. Ben Afflecks aged Batman. The Gotham show pre Batman. Then another Batman with Batman just starting up. Unless of course everything is tied together & canon & over exposure lol

 

[Marvin]

The problem with that is they would have three different Batman universes going on at the same time. Ben Afflecks aged Batman. The Gotham show pre Batman. Then another Batman with Batman just starting up. Unless of course everything is tied together & canon & over exposure lol

Not if it's different time periods imo.
With comics you have like 4 different lines running together(see action comics and the various other superman ilk) and it works there, where it might not work with film. However if you had them all running vastly different timelines...it's different.

Days of future past's future in one thing. First class in another. And the middle ground in the third medium.

 

[Uncle Radiation]

RDJ was around Affleck's age when he started no?

True, but Iron Man is a guy in a suit of armour that does everything for him - which he doesn't even have to wear in the movies now. Tony Stark is not supposed to be honed to physical perfection and a king of all forms of combat, ala Batman. He can just fire missiles at people. In addition, Downey doesn't even really wear the suit in the movies unless his face needs to be shown.

 

[Uncle Radiation]

Not if it's different time periods imo.
With comics you have like 4 different lines running together(see action comics and the various other superman ilk) and it works there, where it might not work with film. However if you had them all running vastly different timelines...it's different.

Days of future past's future in one thing. First class in another. And the middle ground in the third medium.

But it's easier with the X-Men films, as all audiences have to do is watch three films in the order they came out, with years inbetween each one. To follow it, all you need to do is watch the movies as they are released.

With a TV show,a prequel and an older Batman in the JLA movies all running consecutively...you're just asking for viewers to get confused.

 

[Serpico Jones]

There is no reason why these movies need to cost $250m. Sony needs to bring the budget back down a little and concentrate on making one movie at a time.

 

[Serpico Jones]

As soon as Marvel gets the rights back, all they need to do is introduce him in Avengers movie. That will be how they will relaunch the character under their banner. They're smart enough not to do another straight origin story. They didn't even do it with Hulk when they relaunched it.

Marvel isn't getting the rights back.

 

[Marvin]

True, but Iron Man is a guy in a suit of armour that does everything for him - which he doesn't even have to wear in the movies now. Tony Stark is not supposed to be honed to physical perfection and a king of all forms of combat, ala Batman. He can just fire missiles at people. In addition, Downey doesn't even really wear the suit in the movies unless his face needs to be shown.

I was actually talking about RDJ being credible at his age. RDJ being in a young stark movie isn't credible for example. But the character is infused by the age, same as this new batman angle.

As for if the actor can pull of the physically grueling work. This isn't some live action florida boat show. Ignoring that the actor in question is physically fit(and avid sport player) and not in his 70's. Ignoring that much of this masked work can be handled by a stuntman(ala TDKT and hopkins in the zorro outfit), and ignoring snyders all out love for cgi replacement. Ignoring all that, filming a action scenes on a movie set isn't as demanding as one might think. It's not like trying out for an nfl draft.

Just for reference. Daniel Craig was in Casino Royale(playing a young bond mind you) at the age of 38. He recently did skyfall at the age of 45 I believe. Safe to say his work in those and the physique requirements are as demanding as any of these comic books. Then we have jason statham who I believe is about 46 right now...Dwayne Johnson 42..etc Affleck is 41 and filming now, with the follow up about a year after that.
These are what needs to be in the conversation, not the fact that rdj is in a digital suit and a green room.

Starting to forget why we are talking about this particular thing here though.

But it's easier with the X-Men films, as all audiences have to do is watch three films in the order they came out, with years inbetween each one. To follow it, all you need to do is watch the movies as they are released.

With a TV show,a prequel and an older Batman in the JLA movies all running consecutively...you're just asking for viewers to get confused.

I didn't cite xmen as an example of them doing what I'm talking about. Clearly xmen doesn't run all continuities at the same time, the films are spread out. I referenced xmen in an attempt to highlight an example of 3 different points in the same continuity.

Could they run them all at the same time? Maybe, but it's alot easier to do that than to do ASM and Spderman at the same time. That's my point.

Running future bats in the films and prequel to gotham on tv makes alot of sense imo.

 

[Marvin]

There is no reason why these movies need to cost $250m. Sony needs to bring the budget back down a little and concentrate on making one movie at a time.

Getting rid of Toby and Raimi and Dunst, was supposed to address this.
Kinda silly where they find themselves. It will only get worse when Garfield hits that option clause after the 3rd.

 

[kbrooksgohan]

Lol i barely like coming into this thread because of the negativity that brews here. I loved the movie and tbh i think people are jumping the gun. Webb made a solid film in 1. 2 while it had its flaws was good but im sure they are working even harder to please the audience for 3. They didnt set out to dissapoint people. The domestic for Cap 2 was around the 200's too. Now a days it seems like the domestic is lower. And the international is higher. I will admit that it is a slightly bigger drop but at the same most comic films are front loaded. The movie is already hitting 500 million.....

I dont think they need to sell the rights back to Marvel and I dont they need to reboot anything. They just need to find a good middle ground and balance the tone between the first movie and certain elements of this film. Im happy that they are expanding the Spiderman universe. I just think it all depends on how they go from here. Its all in the execution.