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

[Jexx]

Er.. the untold story is about his parents. We don't know why they were chased out of their home.

And Marc Webb was asked about both things in different interviews. Yes, he denied the spider-bite scene being reshot, and he denied that the genetic alteration thing was in the original cut.

 

[S. Grundy]

That's not really worth sticking the moniker of "the untold story", he uses Bing to find out they died in a plane crash.

Where's the genetic alteration denial interview? I'd like to see that, as I've only read the Huffington Post one.

 

[Jexx]

..That IS the genetic alteration denial interview. It denies that the genetic alteration plot line was in the movie.

And I would say it's worth the moniker, there's still more going on involving Richard's research and why they were attacked.

 

[S. Grundy]

I have heard rumors that you wanted Peter's parents to be the source of his powers, not the traditional accidental radioactive spider bite. There are rumors of a reshoot to incorporate the more traditional spider bite.
I think there was something on the internet.
I want to clear that up.
It's completely false.
So what we see is the way it was always shot?
Yes.

He's talking about the bite.

It's like maybe 5 minutes of the movie, if that.

 

[Jexx]

Yea, I feel as if 'the completely false line' was directed to the rumors about his parents being involved.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Batman Begins received better reviews than TASM and outgrossed 3 out of the 4 previous Batman movies

So now your argument has changed from Earnings to reviews?? WOW
The 1989 movie made 420M of a 35M budget,WB increased the budget by 5 times and still earned 50M less despite being released 16 years later with increased ticket prices and all,thats much more of a reason of panic by your logic
Your comparison is very stupid,BB was up against 4 pathetic movies,hardly a competition,still it could not outgross all of them.TASM was up against the best comic book trilogy to date

(TASM will outgross none of the Raimi's movies, you know that 3 is better than none right ?).

Not for me,I love S3,I have good memories associiated with that movie

And it also opened bigger than any of them (wich means more income for the studios), then again TASM has the lower opening of all the Spider-Man movies.

According to sony's statements,the earnings have more than exceeded their expectations.There you go

They couldn't think that it was a poor business decision because Batman Begins IMPROVED over Batman Returns, Batman Forever and Batman & Robin (financially et critically, at least for the last two).

TASM improved over SM3 reviews wise

Now with TASM the situation is different you have a character that is at the peak of its popularity

Nope,kids are going gaga over the avengers and batman a lot more

ended up being quite huge financially and yet the movie is grossing significantly lower than any of its predecessors despite that excellent reputation.

BB earned lower than 1989 movie despite earning better reviews,same is happening with TASM and SM3

I've never said that Sony should give up but they'd better be concerned because it might as well be all downhill from here. And given the financial situation of the studio, they surely can't afford to spoil a highly profitable property such à Spider-Man.

All I worry about is Spiderman,
Sony,with whatever their financial situation may be,have no problem throwing 200M+ at reboots with a much lower fan base(Total Recall)

Thus I am sure they will give a decent budget to TASM2 and thats all I care about

1. Popularity is more than enough, especially with ticket price inflation, to garantee 300 millions domestic if you have an interesting movie to show.Spider-Man is still, by far, the most revered Marvel solo character. You try to make it sound like it suddenly became a B-List character. BTW none of the Marvel solo films outgrossed the Raimi's Spider-Man.

Point but Batman and Avenger's(The team) popularity is more than him,it was different 5 years ago,which was the reason SM3 earned truckloads despite earning poor reviews

Finally (and I've pretty much said everything I had to say, this thing starts to sound a little too repetitive for my tastes), when you spend around 300 millions for a movie (marketing included), 300 millions domestic is the very least you expect. That's basic maths.

''Sony pictures is proud of the film's opening results stating, "In the world of relaunched franchises, this is a spectacular success by any measure". For example, both Batman Begins ($79.5 million) and X-Men: First Class ($66.5 million) had a six-day opening that were significantly lower than that of The Amazing Spider-Man.[23''

Please dont equate your expectations to Sony's expectations

 

[Spiderdevil]

Batman Begins received better reviews than TASM and outgrossed 3 out of the 4 previous Batman movies (TASM will outgross none of the Raimi's movies, you know that 3 is better than none right ?). And it also opened bigger than any of them (wich means more income for the studios), then again TASM has the lower opening of all the Spider-Man movies.

SM2 made 30M less than SM1 domestically despite increasing the budget by 70M,increased ticket prises and being better received critically
Why didnt sony panic then? By your logic they should

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

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

Every Spider-man sequel has declined in the domestic market.

which is why I said this:

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.

 

[Spiderdevil]

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.

Spider-bite has been in there since the First teaser trailer,it was definitely not shot later

 

[Spiderdevil]

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. .

Which is almost the same thing Sony has been saying

 

[flickchick85]

So now I'm seeing predictions that this will end up with $800m worldwide when all is said and done. Even if it's closer to $700m, there's no way that should be viewed as anything other than a success, imo.

And is there a source for this "$700m worldwide to break even" business? Because traditionally, a film just needs to double its budget worldwide to break even as long as a decent portion of that is domestic - and yes, that general rule DOES take marketing costs into account already. They are not something to add on to that.

 

[grieven]

So now I'm seeing predictions that this will end up with $800m worldwide when all is said and done. Even if it's closer to $700m, there's no way that should be viewed as anything other than a success, imo.

Exactly. Naysayers will continue to call this a bitter disappointment and failure even with $700-$800 million worldwide, which is why I continue to defend its success (both financially and in setting up a viable franchise and future sequels).

And is there a source for this "$700m worldwide to break even" business? Because traditionally, a film just needs to double its budget worldwide to break even as long as a decent portion of that is domestic - and yes, that general rule DOES take marketing costs into account already. They are not something to add on to that.

No credible source, just rampant, sometimes wild speculation. Nobody knows for sure, but some seem to act like they do.

 

[S. Grundy]

For the studios it tends to be more about the domestic total than worldwide when talking about under performing. Of course they are happy with any amount of money they can get, but typically if a movie doesn't even break even domestically it tends to be considered an under performance. And if you look at the previous Spider-Man releases, they broke even in either their first or second week.

And again, like I've said before, it ultimately doesn't even matter, because sequels are still happening, it's just a new creative team is most likely going to be brought in.

 

[spider-neil]

I can see S. Grundy watching the ASM movie arms crossed saying 'GRUNDY NOT LIKE!' in a Solomon Grundy accent.

t:

 

[S. Grundy]

Spider-bite has been in there since the First teaser trailer,it was definitely not shot later

I know, the interviewer was asking a question about the bite whether it was originally in the movie or added later in reshoots. Webb was saying that yes, the spider bite was always a part of the origin. And not saying he never shot any of the genetic destiny stuff.

 

[spider-neil]

I think Webb made it so Richard Parker made experiements on himself which gets passed down to Peter, the combination of the spider bite and passed down genetics creates Spider-Man. No way can you have hundreds of spiders in a room and NO ONE got bit before Peter did.

 

[grieven]

I think Webb made it so Richard Parker made experiements on himself which gets passed down to Peter, the combination of the spider bite and passed down genetics creates Spider-Man. No way can you have hundreds of spiders in a room and NO ONE got bit before Peter did.

Hmm, I never considered this possibility. Like it much better than him experimenting on or putting some type of serum in Peter as a young child. I can go for your version!

 

[spider-neil]

Hmm, I never considered this possibility. Like it much better than him experimenting on or putting some type of serum in Peter as a young child. I can go for your version!

The deleted scenes allude to this as well.

'Do you know what you are?'

'Do you think what happened was an accident?'

 

[Spiderdevil]

I think Webb made it so Richard Parker made experiements on himself which gets passed down to Peter, the combination of the spider bite and passed down genetics creates Spider-Man.

I thought of this possibility,dont know about others but it was a good twist for me

No way can you have hundreds of spiders in a room and NO ONE got bit before Peter did.

Dont know about that but Connors did say that no body survived the experiments before

 

[Gianakin_]

Again, that's Ang Lee's Hulk.

 

[spider-neil]

Dont know about that but Connors did say that no body survived the experiments before

Yes, I caught that as well.

 

[Spider-Fan]

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.

But evens out by the fact it had less BO potential than SM4 did.

 

[moviefan!]

6.1 on thursday, if it follows the typical movie pattern, it will earn less than 30 million over the weekend, and less than 250 million overall at the end. Sony said it needs TASM to make 700 million WW to break even, right now its at 400 million WW. it needs to make 300 million more to make a profit...very very tough, this might be a bitter pill for Sony. If it doesnt make 700 million Sony has the following options

1. bite the bitter pill and hope the sequel makes more money and profit
2. Reboot the Reboot
3. Sell off Spider-Man assets to Marvel
4. Share the Spider-Man assets with Marvel 50/50 share so they can use Spider=Man in Avengers.

 

[spider-neil]

The people that skipped this movie because it is a reboot will more than likely check it out on DVD/Blu ray, then it is a case of whether they like the movie.

Loads of people skipped Batman Begins, saw the dvd and was willing to give TDK a chance at theatres. With a bit of luck this will happen with ASM. I guarantee X-Men: First Class 2 (second class ) will make way more money than the first movie.

 

[hatebox]

The people that skipped this movie because it is a reboot will more than likely check it out on DVD/Blu ray, then it is a case of whether they like the movie.

Loads of people skipped Batman Begins, saw the dvd and was willing to give TDK a chance at theatres. With a bit of luck this will happen with ASM. I guarantee X-Men: First Class 2 (second class ) will make way more money than the first movie.

That's certainly TASM2's best hope, though it's debatable how well TASM will do on home video. Although it made far more money than BB thanks to the Spider-Man brand, I daresay word of mouth was generally stronger for BB. We'll see.

TASM2 needs a much better villain and a much stronger marketing campaign. If it doesn't have a big increase from TASM then the reboot was a waste of time (maintaining the rights notwithstanding).