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

[Alt-Josh]

I don't think that's very much true. A part of the GA does go to see CBMs because of their story. If that wasn't the case, Green Lantern would've been a blockbuster.



What if the trailer doesn't knock socks off? Lol.

Well then I will just have to take them off myself.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Maybe. But TDKR grossed as much as did based off of TDK hype, no one can deny that. That's why I didn't include it, it wouldn't really be fair to say it stood on its own. Same with the other films I mentioned.

I wouldn't argue that, but you're talking about reception and how good the films are...TDKR was good by any standard, but it obviously received the hype that S-M 3 received from its predecessor.

 

[VenomSpawn]

I would think advertisement/marketing would have a lot more to do with how much money the movie makes, not how good the story is. I mean, it's not like you know much of the story before you go into a movie anyway unless you've been following it religiously like we do here.

 

[Anno_Domini]

People would get the idea of what the story can be from the trailers and TV spots.

 

[VenomSpawn]

A pretty basic idea of what the story is. There could be a really ****** story element in the movie that could ruin the whole thing like, from what I've read and heard, Iron Man 3.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I was gonna say IM3....damn you for taking my idea and running with it!

 

[Mr. Dent]

I would think advertisement/marketing would have a lot more to do with how much money the movie makes, not how good the story is. I mean, it's not like you know much of the story before you go into a movie anyway unless you've been following it religiously like we do here.

You're right that marketing and yada yada play a big role but you're not understanding that the actual quality of the does a lot more in terms of the total gross and performance of the film that comes after it. John Carter and Green Lantern were super marketed but they flopped. Superman Returns was also super marketed and, while it wasn't a flop, it underperformed. The Incredible Hulk as well. BO gross is about way more than marketing. I think you're just thinking about the OW and not taking into account anything else.

 

[Juicy J]

But after the reception of the first movie, I don't think this will perform better at the box-office. Though my prediction could always change especially when I see the trailer.

'The reception of the first movie'? It grossed close to 800 million world wide and got good reviews despite being almost a complete rehash of a movie made ten years before.
I had my problems with the film but to say there was an overt negative reaction to it is just flat out wrong.
You make a Spider-man movie, people will show up. ASM proved that, since it was, as I said, more or less the same movie repackaged. With this sequel they have an opportunity to tell a whole different story and build off of the first film, so I think it's a safe bet that this new one, with the right story and the right marketing, will get a bigger world wide number than ASM.

Spider-Man 3's case was because people were so enthralled with Spider-Man 2.

Can we say people will watch the sequel, without a story being a factor, because of the first film? It wasn't a big of a deal as S-M 2 was.

This isn't really true. SM2 made less money than the first one and is the lowest grossing of the first trilogy. Critics and comic fans loved it, but it didn't have as much an impact as the first one. So you can't really say that Spider-man 3's giant box office was from that movie, since it was the least impactful of the three.
Spider-man 3 made bank because it was marketed out of the butthole and it's trailer's were promising. You had the black suit/Venom, which got a lot of the GA interested, along with two other villains. It looked like a big budget spectacle, so people were interested in seeing that. Yes the second film being a great movie didn't hurt it, but I don't think it helped the third one a significant amount at all.

 

[Repulsor Blast]

spider-man 2 made less than spider-man 1, i wonder if the same pattern will occur here. hrmmm...

 

[SoNicRaDiATioN]

I can see anything from 850 m to a billion. But I went the conservative route on the poll and voted 850 m.

The ingredients are there. We have a great cast (as good as any in this genre) and a director who works well with actors. Expected amped up action with multiple villians entering the fray. And I expect the film (and the trailers for marketing) to look great based on Mindel's recent work.

But what is essential is a great script to anchor it all. This is what will potentially give the film great legs. A story and characters that resonate with the GA in an exciting way. Without that it's all pointless. Just a cynical money grab.

 

[Juicy J]

spider-man 2 made less than spider-man 1, i wonder if the same pattern will occur here. hrmmm...

I think that pattern won't carry over, simply because I feel like a lot of people were hesitant to see ASM because it was a reboot of a ten year old movie. Now that this is obviously a brand new story and it's going in a completely different direction people will be warmed up to it.
As sonicradiation said, it really does depend on how good the movie and script is. If you make a great Spider-man movie people will show up in droves, so there's no reason this can't make 850-900 million.

 

[Mr. Dent]

This isn't really true. SM2 made less money than the first one and is the lowest grossing of the first trilogy. Critics and comic fans loved it, but it didn't have as much an impact as the first one. So you can't really say that Spider-man 3's giant box office was from that movie, since it was the least impactful of the three.
Spider-man 3 made bank because it was marketed out of the butthole and it's trailer's were promising. You had the black suit/Venom, which got a lot of the GA interested, along with two other villains. It looked like a big budget spectacle, so people were interested in seeing that. Yes the second film being a great movie didn't hurt it, but I don't think it helped the third one a significant amount at all.

Disagree. SM3 had a lot of hype because of how good SM2 was, the same way TDKR had a lot of hype because of how good TDK was.

 

[psylockolussus]

spider-man 2 made less than spider-man 1, i wonder if the same pattern will occur here. hrmmm...

I do think it will have the same pattern. I feel like Spider-Man films are less in demand now compare to the Spider-Man films of Sam Raimi. Especially with the release of Avengers/MCU/The Dark Knight in the last few years, Spider-Man is not at the top anymore.

 

[Juicy J]

Disagree. SM3 had a lot of hype because of how good SM2 was, the same way TDKR had a lot of hype because of how good TDK was.

Spider-man 1 made 821 million dollars world wide; Spider-man 2 only made 780 million. If SM2 was so good and helped out the third film why did it make less than it's predecessor and the next movie? It helped out the next film, but couldn't match up with the other two? That doesn't make sense. It garnered immense critical acclaim, but I'm sorry, that doesn't really mean anything if it can't match the hype of the movie that came before it. Which, obviously, it didn't. Numbers don't lie.
Batman Begins made decent numbers; the Dark Knight made over a billion dollars and is widely regarded as the greatest superhero film of all time. Of course that was going to carry over into the third film. So you can't really compare the two franchises here; Batman's gross continually went up and Spider-mans took a dip in the middle, which is the film that you think garnered all the hype for the third movie. Once again, doesn't make sense.
I vividly remember 2007 and the months leading up to SM3. The marketing was extensive, you couldn't go a day without hearing about it. And the hype didn't have anything to do with the second film, it was due to the trailers and marketing surrounding the movie. People were stoked to see the black suit and all the villains.

 

[Mr. Dent]

I do think it will have the same pattern. I feel like Spider-Man films are less in demand now compare to the Spider-Man films of Sam Raimi. Especially with the release of Avengers/MCU/The Dark Knight in the last few years, Spider-Man is not at the top anymore.

But X-Men films are still in tip-top shape.

I've said it before, but TASM should have made it clear that just being a Spider-Man movie will get people in the theatre, especially overseas, given everything that was working against it. If TASM2 is acclaimed it should easily outgross the first film.

 

[Juicy J]

But X-Men films are still in tip-top shape.

I've said it before, but TASM should have made it clear that just being a Spider-Man movie will get people in the theatre, especially overseas, given everything that was working against it. If TASM2 is acclaimed it should easily outgross the first film.

Agreed.
Considering Spider-mans immense popularity overseas, I doubt a Spider-man movie will ever flop unless it's just straight up Batman and Robin terrible.
This movie is shaping up to be amazing, and like I said, I'm predicting 800 million minimum.

 

[psylockolussus]

But X-Men films are still in tip-top shape.

LOL did I ever say that? If are you reading my posts in the X-Men section, you would know that I've been telling people that FOX shouldn't make more spin-off movies because they wouldn't perform very well at the box-office.

Knowing you, of course you will bring up my precious X-Men, because I have them on my sig.

 

[Mr. Dent]

Spider-man 1 made 821 million dollars world wide; Spider-man 2 only made 780 million. If SM2 was so good and helped out the third film why did it make less than it's predecessor and the next movie? It helped out the next film, but couldn't match up with the other two? That doesn't make sense. It garnered immense critical acclaim, but I'm sorry, that doesn't really mean anything if it can't match the hype of the movie that came before it. Which, obviously, it didn't. Numbers don't lie.
Batman Begins made decent numbers; the Dark Knight made over a billion dollars and is widely regarded as the greatest superhero film of all time. Of course that was going to carry over into the third film. So you can't really compare the two franchises here; Batman's gross continually went up and Spider-mans took a dip in the middle, which is the film that you think garnered all the hype for the third movie. Once again, doesn't make sense.
I vividly remember 2007 and the months leading up to SM3. The marketing was extensive, you couldn't go a day without hearing about it. And the hype didn't have anything to do with the second film, it was due to the trailers and marketing surrounding the movie. People were stoked to see the black suit and all the villains.

I think you're just putting all the credit on the marketing and not giving SM2 its due. I'm not saying the marketing had no effect, but the goodwill from the second film also had a lot do with the hype since people were expecting another quality film. Yes, it grossed less than the first film, but that was because the first film was a bonafide event, had a better release, etc. SM2 was released at the end of June, which is just not as good a spot as the May opener, and was never going to have the same hype as the first ever Spider-Man movie. After SM2 was so good, Spider-Man goodwill was at an all time high and SM3 benefitted from that quite a bit. It wasn't all about the marketing.

 

[Juicy J]

I think you're just putting all the credit on the marketing and not giving SM2 its due. I'm not saying the marketing had no effect, but the goodwill from the second film also had a lot do with the hype since people were expecting another quality film. Yes, it grossed less than the first film, but that was because the first film was a bonafide event, had a better release, etc. SM2 was released at the end of June, which is just not as good a spot as the May opener, and was never going to have the same hype as the first ever Spider-Man movie. After SM2 was so good, Spider-Man goodwill was at an all time high and SM3 benefitted from that quite a bit. It wasn't all about the marketing.

I can agree with this; goodwill from the second film definitely helped it out. People showed up expecting a quality film because thats what they've been getting, I see your point.

 

[Mr. Dent]

LOL did I ever say that? If are you reading my posts in the X-Men section, you would know that I've been telling people that FOX shouldn't make more spin-off movies because they wouldn't perform very well at the box-office.

Knowing you, of course you will bring up my precious X-Men, because I have them on my sig.

All I remember is you saying that basically every Marvel Studios film will underperform (or even flop) besides Iron Man, which you also lowballed, while Wolverine will somehow gross $400m+ and DOFP $700m+ and win the 2014 superhero summer.

I can agree with this; goodwill from the second film definitely helped it out. People showed up expecting a quality film because thats what they've been getting, I see your point.

Yeah, basically.

 

[psylockolussus]

All I remember is you saying that basically every Marvel Studios film will underperform (or even flop) besides Iron Man, which you also lowballed, while Wolverine will somehow gross $400m+ and DOFP $700m+ and win the 2014 superhero summer.

You're wrong because I also said Thor: the Dark World will gross more than $700 million and you could go back to that thread that you were talking about and see that I posted that.

I think X-Men: Days of Future Past and The Wolverine will better perform than First Class because of 3D. If First Class was able to get $350 million worldwide w/o 3D, The Wolverine can definitely get $400 million with 3D, plus it has Hugh Jackman and Wolverine. And as for X-Men: Days of Future Past, the hype for the film is bigger than the hype for Amazing Spider-Man 2. So I have no doubt that it will gross more than $700 million.

 

[Mr. Dent]

You're wrong because I also said Thor: the Dark World will gross more than $700 million and you could go back to that thread that you were talking about and see that I posted that.

V

Here's my predictions

2013
Iron Man 3 - 800 million worldwide
Man of Steel - 450 million worldwide
The Wolverine - 475 million worldwide
Thor: The Dark World - 550 million worldwide

2014
Captain America: The Winter Soldier - 400 million worldwide
The Amazing Spider-Man 2 - 650 million worldwide
X-Men: Days of Future Past - 700 million worldwide $UCCE$$
Guardians of the Galaxy - 250 million worldwide

Unless you were just high or something. :/

I think X-Men: Days of Future Past and The Wolverine will better perform than First Class because of 3D. If First Class was able to get $350 million worldwide w/o 3D, The Wolverine can definitely get $400 million with 3D, plus it has Hugh Jackman and Wolverine.

I happen to agree with this. So okay.

And as for X-Men: Days of Future Past, the hype for the film is bigger than the hype for Amazing Spider-Man 2. So I have no doubt that it will gross more than $700 million.

Don't agree with this but whatever.

 

[Mr. Dent]

Double post

 

[psylockolussus]

Unless you were just high or something. :/

Umm that was a long time ago and if you check the box-office thread of Thor, you could see that I already changed my prediction.

Anyway, this is my updated prediction

MCU
Iron Man 3 - 800 million to 1 billion
Thor 2 - 550 million to 700 million
Captain America - 400 million to 500 million
Guardians of the Galaxy - 250 million to 275 million

FOX
The Wolverine - 400 million to 475 million
X-Men: Days of Future Past 700 million to 775 million

Sony
The Amazing Spider-Man - 650 million to 750 million

DC
Man of Steel - 450 million to 500 million

 

[Mr. Dent]

I think you have horrible BO prediction skills. No offense. For starters, IM3 is more or less a lock for $1b already and $1.1-$1.2b is in play. It would have to have Kevin Ware-tier legs to only hit $800m. And that's about the least egregious thing on that list. But that's getting off topic.