The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 5

[SpideyK]

Not a flop.

Just dissapointing as hell.

 

[Angryfantasyfan]

I'm giving you a round of applauds right now. That article is a poorly researched travesty written by a pathetic fanboy.

I do not take kindly to people making up their own facts because they enjoyed or didn't enjoy a film.

You've got to give him credit for fancasting Jennifer Lawrence as MJ.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I See Spidey, what is your prediction for Asm2's final gross. Your estimates have been pretty bang on so far so I would really appreciate your opinion.

203.5mil domestic and 507mil internationally. Remember I suck at international projections.

You've got to give him credit for fancasting Jennifer Lawrence as MJ.

So Sony is replacing Marc Webb with David O. Russell?

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Thing is many talk as if it's a doomed franchise and that's just not true. It was disappointing not to make a billion but it's not a flop either.
All they have to do is spend less on advertising and make a more focused movie with less world building.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhug...ience-fatigue-isnt-really-hurting-spider-man/

Sony doesn't make any money from merchandising. I won't even bother reading the rest of this article when it obviously is a biased, misinformed demonstration constructed on flawed hypotheses.

The franchise hasn't lost 10 or 12 or even 20% of its domestic attendance but 64% 2002 . Internationally if it wasn't for China, ticket price inflation, 3D premiums and the lower dollar, that meager growth the film is showing from TASM would be a steep decline as well.

If that isn't enough to claim that the franchise's audience has shrunk enough to raise any alarm bells then what is exactly ?

In 2002 Spider-Man was pretty much the only solo superhero movie franchise. Now he's competing with several others that are more fresh to audiences, of course there'll be a drop. It's like splitting the vote.

I think they make something from Merchandising, it's their movie so even though they sold the rights they should be entitled to something like 5%-10%, even just from the logos used on the packaging.

Oh man, ASM2 still hasn't hit $700M.

Wtf.

It's shy by about $400.000.

Also Cap2 is the second movie out the gate (not the 5th) AND has an Avengers boost. People want to make out that makes no difference, we'll see how well the 5th Cap movie does at the box office.

X-Men is a mega cross over with the original cast teaming up with the FC cast. Plus Wolverine coming off one of the most successful X-Men universe movies.

Spidey's box office was disappointing but there was no Avengers boost, no major crossover, it's coming off a mixed reception for ASM and a even more mixed reception for ASM2. The movie is still going to cross the 700m mark. This could have turned out a lot lot worse.

Exactly.

For a fifth movie in a franchise spanning 12 years it's done brilliantly considering the level of the market

 

[SpideyK]

It's shy by about $400.000.

Yup.

To me, $700M looks better than $699,605M, so I will definitely feel some relieve, even it's just ~$400 thousand more.

 

[JKKS085]

There a ton of reasons, many of which are listed in the article you couldn't be bothered to read. Including the Raimi franchise being the first out of the gate, far more superhero movies to choose from, greater influences outside the cinema now than 2002 like pirating and home theatre. None of that matter though, right?

And you know what, despite all those excuses the domestic box office as grown 16% from 2002 (the year Spider-Man was released). The worldwide BO was up 4% in 2013 from 2012. The genre is now more popular than ever, with a far bigger audience than back in 2002, domestically and overseas alike. 4 cbms made 1B+ at the box office in the past 7 years (and all 4 outgrossed Spider-Man at the domestic BO too). Historical franchises like X-Men (which is older than Spider-Man mind you) are setting new box office records this year and last year, despite an hypothetical "reboot bias" (but hey that was excuse to explain why TASM was down from Raimis films right ?) a Superman film made 290M+ DOM and became the highest grossing film in the franchise and the most successful reboot in history (domestically at least) despite competition and "greater influences outside the cinema" (and mixed reviews).

These are not "reasons" they are mere excuses.
Thank you for the summary buddy even though I'm surprised that the rest of the article is actually even worse than its premises. You guys are really grasping at straws here.

 

[JKKS085]

In 2002 Spider-Man was pretty much the only solo superhero movie franchise. Now he's competing with several others that are more fresh to audiences, of course there'll be a drop. It's like splitting the vote.

I think they make something from Merchandising, it's their movie so even though they sold the rights they should be entitled to something like 5%-10%, even just from the logos used on the packaging.

In 2002 the genre was much smaller than it is today. There are definitely more slices but you cannot deny that the pie got much much bigger. Which means that your slice getting smaller and smaller, film after film is not a foregone conclusion at all.

2012 had two cbms making 1B+ WW and 440M+ DOM and yet TASM managed to get to 750M+ WW (and 250M+ DOM). TASM2 with far less competition will make 50M less. And in a similar context the X-Men franchise is setting a new record both OS and WW. Spider-Man is litteraly the only franchise unable to capitalize on a globally growing genre. It is quite litteraly the only cbm franchise going down at the moment too.

As for merchandise, they get nothing per the agreement the make with Marvel/Disney. They gave up their share on merchandise sales and TV/animation rights fot the character in exchange of an extension of the movie rights and they can keep all the profits from the movies and home video sales. Disney keeps all profits from merchandise. If you are really keen on the details of the agreement, you can browse this thread it has been discussed already numerous times.

And no, using a logo doesn't entitle you to any direct on indirect revenues when you agreed otherwise. It would be like saying that Marvel is entitled to a share of the BO revenues because Sony is using the Spider-Man character. Sure they are, theoretically, but they agreed otherwise with Sony. So they don't.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

X-Men reversed it's downward trend but Spider-Man can't because? Is it some sort of special snowflake or something?

And can somebody explain to me why with 3D and IMAX and an expanded overseas market why these "Amazing" movies can't outgross Spider-Man 3 overseas?

 

[JKKS085]

X-Men reversed it's downward trend but Spider-Man can't because? Is it some sort of special snowflake or something?

And can somebody explain to me why with 3D and IMAX and an expanded overseas market why these "Amazing" movies can't outgross Spider-Man 3 overseas?

Because piracy, video games, other movies in the genre and stuff of course.

I am pretty sure someone will soon come up with a "Spider-Man bias" idea that spread amongst critics and viewers alike and is the reason why the franchise is declining. The Mark Hughes article already started something like that so yeah I think it's going to trend, sooner than later.

I seriously never expected this level of bs excuses, especially when it was quite clear that the movie would be a box office dissapointment. I naively thought that even the most persistent, relentless fanboy* would have coped with reality by now.

* SPECIAL DISCLAIMER: spider-neil, this generic term, which I do not use as something derogatory, is not directed at you.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

Because piracy, video games, other movies in the genre and stuff of course.

I am pretty sure someone will soon come up with a "Spider-Man bias" idea that spread amongst critics and viewers alike and is the reason why the franchise is declining. The Mark Hughes article already started something like that so yeah I think it's going to trend, sooner than later.

I seriously never expected this level of bs excuses, especially when it was quite clear that the movie would be a box office dissapointment. I naively thought that even the most persistent, relentless fanboy* would have coped with reality by now.

* SPECIAL DISCLAIMER: spider-neil, this generic term, which I do not use as something derogatory, is not directed at you.

What are going to be the excuses when TASM 3 drops another 22% domestically and actually starts dropping overseas, I wonder?

Yep the critics were so against Marc Webb's Spider-Man that most of them gave his first Spider-Man movie a recommendation. Even Spider-Man 3's reviews weren't dismal.

TASM 2 had the best release date of the summer and 190mil worth of advertising, the least it should have done was match it's predecessor.

 

[Iceman]

For a fifth movie in a franchise spanning 12 years it's done brilliantly considering the level of the market

Would you have thought these numbers were brilliant before release though? I think most (including me) expected more from TASM2.

 

[XSpidercideX]

TASM2 passes $700 million WW:

http://www.thewrap.com/amazing-spider-man-2-crosses-700-million-at-worldwide-box-office/

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” crossed the $700 million mark at the global box office Friday.

Sony's Marvel superhero sequel is about to top $200 million domestically — it's over $198 million — and has taken in more than $502 million internationally since opening in early May.

The year's leading movie at the worldwide box office is another Marvel superhero sequel, Disney's “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” which has brought in $710 million globally. And Fox's Marvel mutant mashup “X-Men: Days of Future Past” is No. 3 at $624 million.

“The Amazing Spider-Man 2” will be the lowest-grossing of the five films in the $3.9 billion franchise domestically, but its foreign total is the second-largest, behind only the $554 million overseas haul of “Spider-Man 3.”

Andrew Garfield and Emma Stone star in “The Amazing Spider-Man 2,” which was directed by Marc Webb and written by Roberto Orci and Alex Kurtzman.

Jamie Foxx, Dane DeHaan, Sally Field, Paul Giamatti and Chris Cooper co-star in the film, which was produced by Matt Tolmach and Avi Arad, along with Kurtzman and Orci.

 

[XSpidercideX]

If Sinister Six is well received, then it could turn around the franchise and boost interest for TASM3. However, if it is received on the level of TASM2, it will not stop the decline.

I have my fingers crossed for Sinister Six in 2016. I hope it is a hit.

 

[SpideyK]

Yaaaay, 700M.

 

[lukebrodyg]

If Sinister Six is well received, then it could turn around the franchise and boost interest for TASM3. However, if it is received on the level of TASM2, it will not stop the decline.

I have my fingers crossed for Sinister Six in 2016. I hope it is a hit.

I don't see this working. Of those who've seen the film of which I'm familair, NOT ONE person has said to me, "and oh yea, they set up the S6" or "they set up a bunch of villains to come after Spidey next!"

Most of them simply weren't pleased or overly won over by the film. It's just mediocre. Nothing more. Nothing less. Again, that's what I've gotten by way of feedback. And I'm with them (although I think it was an improvement over the overly dark and drab rehash ASM1).

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

In 2002 the genre was much smaller than it is today. There are definitely more slices but you cannot deny that the pie got much much bigger. Which means that your slice getting smaller and smaller, film after film is not a foregone conclusion at all.

Like you said the genre was smaller, so the box office made by the originals was more because there wasn't as much competition.

The box office made now is lesser partly because their is more superhero choice for audiences. The fact that it's maintained as well as it has given the growth of the genre and the competition on offer shows that the franchise is still incredibly viable

 

[Donut]

So if they do TS6 before TASM 3 & that bombs. I guess that would be when they reboot it

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Would you have thought these numbers were brilliant before release though? I think most (including me) expected more from TASM2.

Yeah. I'm not one for hoping for the moon. As long as it does okay to get sequels I'm happy. Sure I'd like it to make billions, but $700 is nothing to turn my nose at.

Imo all Sony needs to do is not over-market the movies, they are burning money with that.

The year's leading movie at the worldwide box office is another Marvel superhero sequel, Disney's “Captain America: The Winter Soldier,” which has brought in $710 million globally. And Fox's Marvel mutant mashup “X-Men: Days of Future Past” is No. 3 at $624 million.

Only $10 million shy of being the highest grossing CBM and movie of the year. How disapointing.

 

[spider-neil]

A lot is riding on S6, not in terms of BO but critical response. The Spidey universe needs a shot in the arm to get people excited for future projects.

 

[JKKS085]

Like you said the genre was smaller, so the box office made by the originals was more because there wasn't as much competition.

The box office made now is lesser partly because their is more superhero choice for audiences. The fact that it's maintained as well as it has given the growth of the genre and the competition on offer shows that the franchise is still incredibly viable

Did you miss the part where I said that the Spider-Man franchise is the only cbm franchise currently declining ? Other franchises are not stabilizing (and Spidey is not maintaining it is DECLINING) they are growing and that´s true even for franchise older than Spider-Man such as X-Men.

The competition is nothing but a poor excuse. Then again, TASM made more in 2012 with 2 billion dollars cbm films released on the same year. What is the excuse for TASM2 making less without as much competition ?

DOFP is about to be the highest growing cbm film this year and has already set a record for the franchise. If competition is the problem then how comes X-Men is hitting an all time high while Spider-Man is hitting an all time low ? It doesn't make sense.

Either competition is a problem for every franchise or it isn't and given recent performances in the genre ( with 3 billion dollar films in the past 2 years only) i'd be willing to say it isn't.

 

[Erzengel]

If Sinister Six is well received, then it could turn around the franchise and boost interest for TASM3. However, if it is received on the level of TASM2, it will not stop the decline.

I have my fingers crossed for Sinister Six in 2016. I hope it is a hit.

When was S6 given the go ahead to come out before TASM3?

 

[CyclopsWasRight]

Either competition is a problem for every franchise or it isn't and given recent performances in the genre ( with 3 billion dollar films in the past 2 years only) i'd be willing to say it isn't.

I think there's been a mis-communication.

I was referring to the comparison of numbers between Spider-Man movies when there wasn't as much competition to the numbers of Spider-Man when there is a lot of competition.

Not comparison to other franchises.

If you just compare this movie to the other comic book movies in the current market then Spider-Man is mostly doing as well as them, it makes less than some and more than others and sometimes the difference is only a few million (not counting budget, advertising and so on just box office gross).

Amazing Spider-Man 2 made less than Amazing Spider-Man amongst almost the same competition, there is no denying that but Spider-Man (2002) opened to one other CBM (Blade II) while Amazing Spider-Man 2 opened along with SIX other CBMs (GOTG, TWS, DOFP, Sin City 2, TNMT, 300). So in that regard I think it was inevitable that the franchise would go into decline over the years.

Most current franchises didn't have the luxury of being one of two CBMs and having 50% of the market, Spider-Man did so the numbers of the franchise were bound to go down once more and more CBMs opened each year diluting the market.

This franchise has gone from having 50% of the market in 2002 to 14% in 2014.

Amazing Spider-Man has set the number to be matched or exceeded as the competition is usually the same now as it was then. So all Spider-Man movies Box Office from now on should be in comparison to that movies gross rather than the Raimi trilogy which existed in a different market.

ASM2 has declined in comparison to ASM by about $50 Million or so.

It hasn't disappointed in comparison to other CBMs gross this year as it is second only by $10 million.

So the series is in decline by $50 Mil or so but the franchise is healthy and viable as its the second highest grossing of the year.

What Sony will be wanting to do it with ASM3 is to make it earn that $50 Million (ideally more) to exceed ASM gross and go from 2nd place to 1st place.p of that year

 

[lukebrodyg]

Yeah. I'm not one for hoping for the moon. As long as it does okay to get sequels I'm happy. Sure I'd like it to make billions, but $700 is nothing to turn my nose at.

Imo all Sony needs to do is not over-market the movies, they are burning money with that.



Only $10 million shy of being the highest grossing CBM and movie of the year. How disapointing.

It is when you consider the budget (which you absolutely should) and that it's the lowest grossing Spider-man film by a considerable margin AND that it was trying to set up what would no doubt be even MORE COSTLY films.

 

[Angryfantasyfan]

Only $10 million shy of being the highest grossing CBM and movie of the year. How disapointing.

When you spent quite a bit more than that other movie and had a goal of a billion dollars, yep.

 

[LizardMan07]

Yeah, the SM2 thing is similar to the "waffle shop" arguement from this X3 article

http://screenrant.com/brett-ratner-vs-fanboys-pauly-25552/3/