The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
2017 looks ok now. Lets see how 2017 looks next year. Could be just as bad. 2012, 2013, and 2014 have all been packed. 2015 and 2016 look loaded as well.
 
Is that what they said they were doing this time? Isn't that what this board and Sony were hyping? Utter comic book perfection? :huh:

I wouldn't know as I joined in april, but I don't see why lessons can't be learnt. I don't see why people are already giving up hope on TASM3, when it has a lot of potential to be special, it's not like Sony are incapable of producing a good film, if they put the franchise before dollars in order to make more dollars down the line, then yes, I can see a reverse in the fortunes that this film recieved.
 
I don't accept that a critically acclaimed spider-man film would not be a hit, and I would contend that TASM was not a dissapointing film, as it's RT scores would indicate. 750M on a reboot against the most succesful CBM of all time is nothing to be dissapointed about.

Next film has to be good to save the franchise, and the brand. Sony knows that, and will be doing everything they can to make the next film one of the best things to come out of this CBM golden age. They simply have to do it to maintain the value of the brand, and it just makes sense business wise to do so.

I some what agree but after 3 in a row of bad to slighy good I think it would take 2 good movies in a row to really get people back but yeah I think the fate that asm1 made 750 million with what you said shows that people still love him. If in a few years they did a reboot batman that did the orgin over again that made the movie to much like batman begins like how asm1 was to much like sm1 I think the batman movie would do much worse then asm1 did.
 
Who they need to get rid of is Avi.

I can imagine him getting fired and getting a job selling hot dogs since he's not qualified for anything else

a customer orders a hotdog that's already gonna have kethup, mustard and relish, but he pushes to include mayonaise since it's popular
 
2017 looks ok now. Lets see how 2017 looks next year. Could be just as bad. 2012, 2013, and 2014 have all been packed. 2015 and 2016 look loaded as well.

2016 looks more loaded then 2012,2013 or 14 looked though way more. But yeah 2017 is still a ways away so it could change.
 
I wouldn't know as I joined in april, but I don't see why lessons can't be learnt. I don't see why people are already giving up hope on TASM3, when it has a lot of potential to be special, it's not like Sony are incapable of producing a good film, if they put the franchise before dollars in order to make more dollars down the line, then yes, I can see a reverse in the fortunes that this film recieved.
I think it is pretty simple. Spider-Man 3 saw massive interference, they ruined it. TASM, massive interference, they hurt it. TASM 2 massive interference, that went completely against TASM, and they ruined it. They have done this three times in a row, and what you expect them to change?

What lessons are to be learned here by Sony? The more Sony gets involved, the worse it gets. Their hope is finding a Chris Nolan type who "fixes it" for them. I don't see that happening, as they seem obsessed with interfering and making their ridiculous Spider-Man World of films.
 
Last edited:
Delaying the movie the movie for a 2017 release would be Sony's smartest move yet regarding this franchise. There is no scenario where this ends well for TASM3 in 2016 against 3 juggernauts in the genre (and another Marvel Studios release in July). And given that they need to build some anticipation for the next film a longer delay between TASM2 and its sequel would only help.

It could also give them a little more time to work on the script and change a few thing if need be.
 
2016 looks more loaded then 2012,2013 or 14 looked though way more. But yeah 2017 is still a ways away so it could change.
No it doesn't. How quickly we forget what has happened the last three years. Right now we are living through a huge 5 month stretch, where blockbuster, big comedies and family films are going to be fighting tooth and nail for box office.
 
2016 I belive has cap3, xmen, batman vs superman, other ice age they make a lot of money to, avatar, pirats 5 and I think there are sever other big movies I cant think of so yeah it is looking bigger then this year or the last few.
 
2016 I belive has cap3, xmen, batman vs superman, other ice age they make a lot of money to, avatar, pirats 5 and I think there are sever other big movies I cant think of so yeah it is looking bigger then this year or the last few.
This year has The Lego Movie, Cap 2, TASM 2, Godzilla, DoFP, 22 Jump Street, How to Train Your Dragon 2, Maleficent, Mockingjay Part 1, The Battle of Five Armies, Transformers 4, GotG, Interstellar, Big Hero 6, Into the Woods, and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.
 
This year has The Lego Movie, Cap 2, TASM 2, Godzilla, DoFP, 22 Jump Street, How to Train Your Dragon 2, Maleficent, Mockingjay Part 1, The Battle of Five Armies, Transformers 4, GotG, Interstellar, Big Hero 6, Into the Woods, and Dawn of the Planet of the Apes.

You forgot about Blended! A.k.a. 51 first dates.
 
I don't know what avi job is but they really do need to get someone else onboard to, it won't happen because Sony probably don't see him as the problem but ah well
 
I wouldn't know as I joined in april, but I don't see why lessons can't be learnt. I don't see why people are already giving up hope on TASM3, when it has a lot of potential to be special, it's not like Sony are incapable of producing a good film, if they put the franchise before dollars in order to make more dollars down the line, then yes, I can see a reverse in the fortunes that this film recieved.

I was high on X-Men after 1 and 2. Saw X-3 and Wolverine: Origins and was extremely turned off. I almost didn't see First Class in the theater if it wasn't for it's good reviews and WOM. The Wolverine, is my own personal bias of Wolverine constantly being the central character. If DOTFP got TASM2 type reviews, I wouldn't see it either. So technically X-Men is almost on a conditional basis with me.

Spider-Man is in the same place for me but for different reasons. I understood Sony's need for a reboot to milk their cash cow and keep the rights. I use to read Spider-Man all the time. For me, TASM and TASM 2 didn't create that excitement for me.

Marvel has that with me. I'll try and see any one of those movies in the theater right now.
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't know as I joined in april, but I don't see why lessons can't be learnt. I don't see why people are already giving up hope on TASM3, when it has a lot of potential to be special, it's not like Sony are incapable of producing a good film, if they put the franchise before dollars in order to make more dollars down the line, then yes, I can see a reverse in the fortunes that this film recieved.

I don't see this happening. You can't divorce the future of the franchise from the studio's current financial situation.

Sony announced last November that it would make $250 million in cuts in its entertainment division over the next few years. Now, the amount appears to be rising.
On Thursday, Sony Corp CEO Kazuo Hirai said it would trim down the Culver City based Sony Pictures Entertainment by $300 million.
http://www.scpr.org/blogs/economy/2...ill-make-deeper-cuts-in-film-unit-than-previ/

They don't have the luxury of putting the franchise before dollars.


from the same article:
Last year, activist investor Daniel Loeb pressured Sony to spin off its entertainment division, but the company has resisted the pressure. According to the New York Times, Loeb had a polite meeting with Sony senior management in Tokyo last week.
 
I don't see this happening. You can't divorce the future of the franchise from the studio's current financial situation.

http://www.scpr.org/blogs/economy/2...ill-make-deeper-cuts-in-film-unit-than-previ/

They don't have the luxury of putting the franchise before dollars.


from the same article:

Seriously, I've been watching this over the years with great interest. I thought something would happen last year, but I'll be surprised if nothing happens this year. Something's gotta give.
 
So I've been thinking and I'm sure others have made similar points before but I'm going to write this post anyway because I like saying things in my own way. I've assumed Sony was happy with the international numbers but if the were expecting or hoping for a billion surely they can't be too happy with them. They would have had to be expecting 650-700mil if they were expecting a billion or close to it to be made. Okay lets axe that billion stuff because it's a bit ridiculous but lets say they expected 850-900mil at worst. I'm assuming they were expecting 300mil in the states and 550-600mil internationally. As crazy as this is because 500mil is a great gross and a crapload of money how is it not slightly disappointing that this film is going to make less than 3Dless 2007's Spider-Man 3 in a more expanded market after the first film made 490mil? Are the international numbers really a "win" when you sit down and just inspect them?

TASM 2 may have grossed more overseas than Winter Soldier but Winter Soldier more than doubled it's predecessor overseas and Thor: The Dark World saw really good growth as well as did Catching Fire and many other sequels. If Spidey hadn't battled TDKR's in 2012 would this film have had any increase overseas?
 
So I've been thinking and I'm sure others have made similar points before but I'm going to write this post anyway because I like saying things in my own way. I've assumed Sony was happy with the international numbers but if the were expecting or hoping for a billion surely they can't be too happy with them. They would have had to be expecting 650-700mil if they were expecting a billion or close to it to be made. Okay lets axe that billion stuff because it's a bit ridiculous but lets say they expected 850-900mil at worst. I'm assuming they were expecting 300mil in the states and 550-600mil internationally. As crazy as this is because 500mil is a great gross and a crapload of money how is it not slightly disappointing that this film is going to make less than 3Dless 2007's Spider-Man 3 in a more expanded market after the first film made 490mil? Are the international numbers really a "win" when you sit down and just inspect them?

TASM 2 may have grossed more overseas than Winter Soldier but Winter Soldier more than doubled it's predecessor overseas and Thor: The Dark World saw really good growth as well as did Catching Fire and many other sequels. If Spidey hadn't battled TDKR's in 2012 would this film have had any increase overseas?

The increase in the overseas gross is a mirage solely dependent on the growth of the chinese market. The franchise isn't growing or even stabilizing overseas. It's declining everywhere just like in the US save for a couple of places. The meager growth (4% or less) it's going to show in the end comes from China where the movie is about to gross twice as much as its predecessor (which was released on the same day as The Dark Knight Rises). And this growth is mostly mechanical and due to the lack of direct competition and to the rapid increase in the numbers of screens in the country (+9,000 screen last year only).

I know I already said it more than I care to count but the lower dollar (compared to 2012) should have also helped hidding the declining attendance overseas (and especially in Europe where the euro/dollar exchange rate is far more favorable than it was when ASM was released). Let's take France as an exemple. TASM made 22M back in 2012 at the current exchange rate the movie would have made 25M. That is with a similar attendance. TASM2 should make about the same but with an attendance 10% lower. Roughly if we were accounting in euros TASM2 will make 2 millions less than than TASM but the exchange rate make the difference dissapear once the gross is converted in dollars.

There is a set of favourable circumstances that would have allowed for a growth somewhat akin to the market's (above 10%). But the franchise is plumetting even outside of the US and that is a fact if you look at international numbers closely.

So no these numbers are definitely not a win. At best Sony will use them to save face while most of us know that they will only get a fraction of the overseas money and that they needed much more than what they got to just break even.
 
Last edited:
So I've been thinking and I'm sure others have made similar points before but I'm going to write this post anyway because I like saying things in my own way. I've assumed Sony was happy with the international numbers but if the were expecting or hoping for a billion surely they can't be too happy with them. They would have had to be expecting 650-700mil if they were expecting a billion or close to it to be made. Okay lets axe that billion stuff because it's a bit ridiculous but lets say they expected 850-900mil at worst. I'm assuming they were expecting 300mil in the states and 550-600mil internationally. As crazy as this is because 500mil is a great gross and a crapload of money how is it not slightly disappointing that this film is going to make less than 3Dless 2007's Spider-Man 3 in a more expanded market after the first film made 490mil? Are the international numbers really a "win" when you sit down and just inspect them?

TASM 2 may have grossed more overseas than Winter Soldier but Winter Soldier more than doubled it's predecessor overseas and Thor: The Dark World saw really good growth as well as did Catching Fire and many other sequels. If Spidey hadn't battled TDKR's in 2012 would this film have had any increase overseas?

I was touching upon this yesterday, and I totally agree. Even if you look further at the numbers, SM3 made more internationally than TASM or TASM2 without 3D and NOT factoring in inflation. So, all that money is in 2007 dollars. Same can be said for SM1 and SM2, who granted made less unadjusted as TASM or TASM2, but when you make that inflation adjustment, they make more. So, the franchise continues to lose ticket sales across the board.
 
Fascinating article about how much money does a movie need to make to be profitable.

http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

They brought up Harry Potter and the Goublet of Fire.

18ls6ou2vy8nkjpg.jpg


Goublet of Fire made $967 million worldwide but still lost $167 million.

So generally, how much of the domestic box office revenue goes to the studios?

The percentage of revenues that the exhibitor takes in depends on the individual contract for that film — which in turn depends on how much muscle the distributor has, according to Stone.

These deals often protect the theaters from movies that bomb at the box office by giving the theaters a bigger cut of those films. So if a film only makes $10 million at the box office, the distributor will get only 45 percent of that money. But if a film makes $300 million at the box office, then the distributor gets up to 60 percent of that money.

You can actually look at the securities filings for the big theater chains, to look at how much of their ticket revenues go back to the studios, points out Stone. So for example, the latest quarterly filing by Cinemark Holdings, shows that 54.5 percent of its ticket revenues went to the distributors. So as a ballpark figure, studios generally take in around 50-55 percent of U.S. box office money.

Is it better if a movie makes more of its revenue in the U.S.?

The highest profile example of a film that bombed in the U.S. but made tons of money overseas was The Chronicles of Narnia: Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which made only about $100 million domestically but made about $270 million overseas. And a similar thing happened with the previous Narnia movie, Prince Caspian. Another big film that made way more money overseas than domestically was Terminator Salvation.

So if a film does incredibly well overseas but flops in the U.S., does that make it a hit? As with everything else to do with box office, the answer is "it depends." But generally, domestic revenue seems to be be better for studios than overseas revenue, because the studios take a bigger cut of domestic revenue.

According to the book The Hollywood Economist by Edward Jay Epstein, studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number.

Domestic revenue just counts for a lot more than overseas revenue, says David Mumpower with Box Office Prophets:
The reason for this is simple. Collecting revenues abroad is a trickier proposition since the dollar fluctuates against foreign currencies. There are also tariffs from these governments in place in order to keep as much money as possible from leaving their countries and going abroad, which is an understandable practice. While the global conglomerates such as Fox, Disney and Time-Warner that run major Hollywood studios can secure sweetheart deals with various local governments, it doesn't happen for each film. As such, international box office revenue is much less reliable than in North America.
But still, overseas box office does matter, more and more. And stars who have a huge global following are more likely to open a movie than ones who are only famous in the U.S. — just look at the fact that the world-famous Tom Cruise is still starring in movies, despite his ongoing backlash in North America. Mumpower points out that Cruise's Knight and Day only made about $76 million in the U.S., against a production budget of $117 million. But since Knight and Day made $262 million overseas, chances are it will end up being profitable once home-video revenues are factored in.

Adds Mumpower:
A shocking number of 2010 releases did better abroad than in North America, which makes sense when we consider population numbers. It's just a relatively new phenomenon for the industry. Avatar's performance is a great demonstration of global expansion. It earned $760.5 million domestically, which is (almost) a drop in the bucket compared to the $2.02 billion it accrued in international box office. Only 27% (i.e. roughly a quarter) of Avatar's box office was earned in North America. That's how important the global picture has become to Hollywood studios.
 
I think we all agree JKK and Spider-Fan, the overseas numbers are actually not as good as they appear in comparison with past Spider-Man films and they do not indicate growth but declining interest in the franchise. And it's not that I expect every franchise to grow but there has to be some stability and this franchise has very little. The excuse of re-introducing the character can't work anymore, it's put up or shut up time.

The costs are rising and interest is declining how exactly does Sony expect to make money off of this so called expanded universe again?
 
Well according to the article I just posted studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number while domestically they can take 40 to 60%.
 
When you remember that Sony gets zero of the merchandising profits, it really hits you how bad it is.
 
And that's why Lions Gate are so damn happy that both Hunger Games movies made over 400mil domestically. They'd take that any day of the week over Hunger Games making 300mil domestically and 560mil overseas.
 
Say your goodbyes and sell it to Disney/Marvel. We haven't had a great Spider-Man movie in 10 years, enough is enough.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
202,387
Messages
22,095,547
Members
45,890
Latest member
amadeuscho55
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"