The Amazing Spider-Man The Amazing Spider-Man: Box Office Thread - Part 1

[AvengeME]

You people are so spoiled.

A superhero movie doesn't cross 1 billion and you're like ”omg itz teh bomb”.

Get real. Most studios would kill for a movie that makes around 800 m WW.

By the time they get around to dvd sales and tv rights Sony would've made 250 million. If the sequel is good Sony can expect much more since ASM2 will likely make more globally.

And guess where that 250 million goes? Into ASM2. And if the profits stagnate even harder after that? Does it pay for ASM3?

No doubt they are going to make a nice chunk of change. But what happened to that long term investment that was supposed to pay for itself? Going into more Spidey movies until one is unprofitable?

I don't think you can scale down budgets significantly for sequels either. You actually do need to bring in a good 300-400 million with this movie when all is said and done. Box office wise, it appears they will fall well short of that figure.

 

[solidsnake86]

This movie shouldn't have cost more than $200 million. I think $170 would've been ideal. Maybe going with The Lizard was a bad move.

I don't think anyone on this thread is really qualified to say how much these movies should have been made for. No one has a clue how much movies cost.

TDKR has a reported budget of over 230 million if I'm not mistaken, for a hero with no super powers.

This isnt directed at you Knight but when people add in money for marketing costs I don't think they realize that certain advertising costs are tax deductible. So sure it may have cost 100 million, but know one knows how much of that sony can deduct when they report gross income at the end of the year.

If everyone is going by these rules of thumb, very few movies would make a profit and frankly movie studios would go bankrupt, but year after year they have movies that bomb bigtime and they are still standing. Logic would tell you that they somehow manage to turn a profit on every film and creative accounting makes this happen.

 

[AvengeME]

I don't think anyone on this thread is really qualified to say how much these movies should have been made for. No one has a clue how much movies cost.

TDKR has a reported budget of over 230 million if I'm not mistaken, for a hero with no super powers.

This isnt directed at you Knight but when people add in money for marketing costs I don't think they realize that certain advertising costs are tax deductible. So sure it may have cost 100 million, but know one knows how much of that sony can deduct when they report gross income at the end of the year.

If everyone is going by these rules of thumb, very few movies would make a profit and frankly movie studios would go bankrupt, but year after year they have movies that bomb bigtime and they are still standing. Logic would tell you that they somehow manage to turn a profit on every film and creative accounting makes this happen.

Until we get an unbiased financial guy from Hollywood to comment on these issues, all we can do is speculate. We are just throwing numbers out there trying to skew them to whatever our perception is of what is happening in reality. To truth is there, but we will never get a straight answer. Besides, why does Sony have to show their hand? They meet their quarterly quotas and that's all people will care about. If they don't then critics of ASM will have a field day, even if their losses may be attributed to something else entirely.

 

[solidsnake86]

Its great to speculate, its just funny when you hear numbers being thrown out of how much it should cost to make the film.

The argument that this film probably cost as much as spider-man 4 is just as ridiculous. Did anyone ever think that maybe the actors salaries for spider-man 4 would have increased the budget drastically. Especially if they had to renegotiate all of the actors pays. Also those backend paydays may have cut into sony's profit, and you can be pretty sure maguire's agent would have been looking for a good one.

Look at RDJ and how much money he made because avengers was massive. You think had marvel known that they would have given him that, they would have rather paid him up front.

 

[Jexx]

RDJ is excellent as Tony Stark/Iron Man though.

 

[AvengeME]

SM4 was just not viable at the time. The best stories had been told and it was only going to get pricier with the cast. It would have made ASM money at the very least, but at what cost?

In hindsight, I probably would have killed off MJ in SM3. Would have thrown a complete monkey wrench into the series. But I guess it made for a decent trilogy regardless.

 

[Jexx]

MJ being killed off...

let me guess, Pete would of got together with Gwen? :P

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

MJ being killed off...

let me guess, Pete would of got together with Gwen? :P

Black Cat

 

[Spider-Fan]

We get it man , you don't like this movie ,you've been talking bad about this movie in (almost)every thread , can't you just shut up?

Sorry if i'm come off as a jerk but that just pisses me off and sorry for my bad english.

I have 100% every right to discuss the movie as I please, so no. I will not stop voicing my opinion. If you don't like it, ignore my posts. Too many of you can't handle negativity, and this is a DISCUSSION forum. Not a cheerleading squad.

 

[JKKS085]

TDKR has a reported budget of over 230 million if I'm not mistaken, for a hero with no super powers.

Yup but it has massive set pieces, expensive shots on location in N.Y.C., Pittsburgh and L.A. and on 2 other continents (Europe and Asia), lots of practical effects that are often more pricey than CGI. It just doesn't seem to be on the same scale as TASM.

As for TASM's budget it does seem a bit high for that kind of production (especially when you see the final result) but Sony has a track record of movies going over-budget (lately MIB3) and is known for having repeated issues when it comes to decision-making. Anyways regardless of the the box-office results, 230 millions (+ marketing) is most definitely too much money considering the risks inherent in a reboot. You don't start a new franchise to make it face such a major challenge on its first attempt. WB lost at this game with Green Lantern and even though TASM is nowhere near the financial disaster GL was, I'm afraid it's box-office numbers will hurt the franchise in the medium term.

BTW, according to industry experts Sony spent no less than 130 millions to promote the movie in both North American market and foreign markets (says Reuters).

 

[Tony Stark]

I think alot of TDKR's budget was to use the IMAX cameras. It's very expensive to film in IMAX and there's over an hours worth of footage shot in IMAX. There's some CGI, but it's not going to be near was Avengers or Spider-man were FX wise.

 

[JKKS085]

An yes there's indeed the IMax. Thanks for the reminder.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I don't think anyone on this thread is really qualified to say how much these movies should have been made for. No one has a clue how much movies cost.

TDKR has a reported budget of over 230 million if I'm not mistaken, for a hero with no super powers.

This isnt directed at you Knight but when people add in money for marketing costs I don't think they realize that certain advertising costs are tax deductible. So sure it may have cost 100 million, but know one knows how much of that sony can deduct when they report gross income at the end of the year.

If everyone is going by these rules of thumb, very few movies would make a profit and frankly movie studios would go bankrupt, but year after year they have movies that bomb bigtime and they are still standing. Logic would tell you that they somehow manage to turn a profit on every film and creative accounting makes this happen.

Fine. Maybe it's "wrong" for us to "dictate" what movies should cost, but you get these bloated numbers...And the money just doesn't show on the screen. It also seems excessive to spend that kind of money on a reboot movie, which is already a gamble, Spider-Man or not. I'm starting to think that production costs from SM4 were rolled into this one, which is the reason for the excessive budget. I mean, it's not my money, but it could potentially affect a franchise I hold dear to my heart....

 

[S. Grundy]

I'd say the movie did under perform, but it honestly doesn't matter. They were always going to do sequels, it's just Sony is most likely going to approach the next ones in a different way creatively; new director, writers, smaller budget. But this is just conjecture on my part.

 

[I Am The Knight]

I definitely don't think Webb is coming back. I think he feels that maybe he wasn't allowed too much freedom...What with the cuts and all. But, maybe it's not that terrible thay Sony might've mandated to cut some of the stuff with Peter's parents though, as I wasn't a fan of the Ang Lee-ish stuff, but a director wants freedom, and production on ASM2 would have to move fast to meet that May 2014 release date.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

It certainly appeared that Sony execs and Webb were at odds. Regardless of who was right, it doesn't bode well for a future relationship. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he's gone for the sequel.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

And guess where that 250 million goes? Into ASM2. And if the profits stagnate even harder after that? Does it pay for ASM3?

No doubt they are going to make a nice chunk of change. But what happened to that long term investment that was supposed to pay for itself? Going into more Spidey movies until one is unprofitable?

I don't think you can scale down budgets significantly for sequels either. You actually do need to bring in a good 300-400 million with this movie when all is said and done. Box office wise, it appears they will fall well short of that figure.

Excuse me?

Did Batman Begins make over 300 m in pure profit?

Did Star Trek?

Did Casino Royale?

Face it...ASM will be one of the most successful reboots in history. It should help reverse the steady decline of the Spider-man franchise in the domestic market. ASM2's prospects are far better than SM5's would've ever been.

 

[spider-neil]

Sometimes a fresh director can help rather than hinder a project. John Favaro didn't exactly knock IM2 out of the park but with that said I definatly want Webb to return. A smaller budget but more creative freedom may persuade him to stay.

 

[spider-neil]

Excuse me?

Did Batman Begins male over 300 m in pure profit?

Did Star Trek?

Did Casino Royale?

Face it...ASM will be one of the most successful reboots in history. It should help reverse the steady decline of the Spider-man franchise in the domestic market. ASM2's prospects are far better than SM5's would've ever been.

When compared to previous Spider-Man movies it has under performed, when compared to other reboots (rather than prequels) it's a success. Sony must have taken the fact Spidey was a reboot into consideration with regards profit to estimates.

 

[S. Grundy]

I definitely don't think Webb is coming back. I think he feels that maybe he wasn't allowed too much freedom...What with the cuts and all. But, maybe it's not that terrible thay Sony might've mandated to cut some of the stuff with Peter's parents though, as I wasn't a fan of the Ang Lee-ish stuff, but a director wants freedom, and production on ASM2 would have to move fast to meet that May 2014 release date.

Rumor was Webb's original cut with the "untold story" aspects just had terrible test screening scores.

 

[S. Grundy]

Face it...ASM will be one of the most successful reboots in history. It should help reverse the steady decline of the Spider-man franchise in the domestic market. ASM2's prospects are far better than SM5's would've ever been.

But there was no decline in the previous Spider-Man films, each one made more than the last.

 

[spider-neil]

Rumor was Webb's original cut with the "untold story" aspects just had terrible test screening scores.

Hopefully they make an 'untold story' cut.

 

[Jexx]

Why do people talk as if the genetic alteration thing is actually a thing that actually happened?

Marc Webb said that that was never shot in the movie. Yes, yes, I've seen the picture with Ratha in the Sewers with The Lizard. But we aren't completely sure that even had anything to do with his parents. -_- (not to mention Marc Webb denied that even being part of the original cut. I'd rather believe the words that come from him than a blog)

Also, the untold story is spanning across more than this first movie..

 

[S. Grundy]

Hopefully they make an 'untold story' cut.

He's already said he doesn't want to do a director's cut.

 

[S. Grundy]

Why do people talk as if the genetic alteration thing is actually a thing that actually happened?

Marc Webb said that that was never shot in the movie. Yes, yes, I've seen the picture with Ratha in the Sewers with The Lizard. But we aren't completely sure that even had anything to do with his parents. -_- (not to mention Marc Webb denied that even being part of the original cut. I'd rather believe the words that come from him than a blog)

Also, the untold story is spanning across more than this first movie..

That was a question about whether the spider-bite was ever in the movie or was re-shot.

Also, I'm not really sure was 'untold' about the story, it was fairly by the numbers Spider-Man stuff.