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

[Bruce Malone]

Those factors do affect the fans though. How profitable a film is to a studio creates a direct correlation to how potential sequels and the franchise itself is handled.

If sony was not happy with the profits for TASM that could mean they might want to go after another director (which is looking likely), they may want to limit the sequels budget (also likely) perhaps limiting the creative pool of which villain can be used due to that. So there are indeed a number of factors that a films studio profits affect the fans of that franchise.

 

[I Am The Knight]

He should've used that in the movie.

 

[©KAW]

Those factors do affect the fans though. How profitable a film is to a studio creates a direct correlation to how potential sequels and the franchise itself is handled.

If sony was not happy with the profits for TASM that could mean they might want to go after another director (which is looking likely), they may want to limit the sequels budget (also likely) perhaps limiting the creative pool of which villain can be used due to that. So there are indeed a number of factors that a films studio profits affect the fans of that franchise.

Another director or smaller budget, doesn't equal a movie that makes more money, it's still a gamble either way. And let's face it, the big directors frown upon comic book movies--who can blame them?

 

[Bruce Malone]

Well chris nolan has done a lot of for the genre. However i think if big directors are going to get into the comic book film game they're going to want to have more discretion and creative control given to them that what sony gave to marc webb.

 

[©KAW]

Chris Nolan was a small-time director, Batman made him a big director, like Spider-Man made Raimi. Big directors DON'T find comic book films challenging enough nor do they like directing other people's heroes.

Sometimes a director who actually have complete creative control produces a crap film. This is still yet another gamble.

 

[Anno_Domini]

This is true. Nolan decided to not make Inception(he had the story since 2002) because he wanted to work on bigger projects first, which is why he then started work on Batman Begins.

 

[hatebox]

Tuesday is always a great indicator of a movie's short term viability and there is some good news for TAS fans. It had the best climb in the top 10, ticking up 31.4%. In contrast TDKR tumbled -8% (Tuesday is the biggest weekeday). Now this could simply be an abberation, and TAS is still going to lose serious screens because of the per screen average, but it if TDKR drops more than the normal 20-25% on Wednesday, it could breath some wind into Spiderman.

TDKR just had a 160m opening weekend. Its fall on Tuesday is expected and can't be compared to movies that have been out for weeks.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Which is not TDKR's fault. The expectations were high, but we all know what happened.

I wouldnt put the Shooting as an excuse,yes they had an effect but how much?
I would say about 15M,20M at the very most
TDKR is about 50M behind TA's earnings

You really think some bashing is going to keep the studio from working on a reboot? Harry Potter is gone and Man of Steel may still be a hit or miss(which I doubt it'll be awful, but still), WB will start work on a reboot soon.

They can but every second rotten review will be rotten because we didnt need a reboot 'so soon'
Its better to concentrate of MOS to make it as good as Nolan's Batman

Besides, be thankful it will be 2015, because if everything goes to plan for Sony, TAS-M 3 will probably be released in 2016 and then if Avengers 2 is released in that year again, then that will definitely cut TAS-M 3's legs that year.

Not if TASM2 turns out to be awesome

 

[Spiderdevil]

Let's take Iron Man instead. The movie made 351 domestically (adjusted) for an (adjusted) production budget of 154 millions.
Then again my point was, no matter how much TASM will gross overseas, both Iron Man movie will still be, and by far more profitable (even if you take side revenues in account, since Sony gets almost nothing back from Spidey merchandise).

Was Iron man a reboot? No
Compare IM to the 2002 spider-man

Spider man 1 earned more than a billion adjusted,that simply blows IM's numbers out of the water

I don't take them out of the equation I just appear to think that if the studio spent extra money to shoot or convert a movie in 3D it's because they expect some return on their investment. That means extra money, improved domestic gross and so on and so forth.

What more do you want do understand they didnt expect more than Raimi's movie when the producer is saying that himself?

And I'm not even talking marketing costs (While Star Trek had a campaign around 80 millions, TASM's marketing was around 120).

TASM's total budget is 305,which means an 85M marketing budget

I was just hoping for something different for the future of this new franchise. And now Sony has basically no reason whatsoever to give more freedom to the creative crew in charge of the sequel.

So you have friends at sony who told you all that?

 

[Spiderdevil]

If sony was not happy with the profits for TASM that could mean they might want to go after another director (which is looking likely),

And that new director could make a better sequel than Marc Webb
It could be a blessing in disguise

they may want to limit the sequels budget (also likely)

Nope,SM2 wasnt such a huge success compared to SM1 despite having a lot bigger budget,but still sony gave SM3 a budget of 250M,the largest at that time

perhaps limiting the creative pool of which villain can be used due to that.

The villian was always going to be Norman Osborn,irrespective of what money TASM made

 

[JKKS085]

Was Iron man a reboot? No
Compare IM to the 2002 spider-man

Spider man 1 earned more than a billion adjusted,that simply blows IM's numbers out of the water

Was IM an A list character ?
Was IM a reboot with an already built incredibly huge fanbase ?
Spider-Man is by far the most popular Marvel character all medium aside. There is no valid reason (except for the quality/direction of the movie itself), reboot or not, for a Spider-Man movie to gross less domestically than an Iron Man movie. Really it's not that hard to understand.

What more do you want do understand they didnt expect more than Raimi's movie when the producer is saying that himself?

That's PR talk. What you don't understand is that considering the money they spent they expected a return on their investement out of the theatrical run. And they won't get it. Making movies (especially 200 millions and more blockbusters) is a BUSINESS. You don't expect to lose money out of it. Or to delay your profits too much.

TASM's total budget is 305,which means an 85M marketing budget

What's your source ? BOM reports a production budget of 230 millions and the NYT a marketing budget above a 100 millions (the LA Times goes for the same number as MIB3's campaign wich is above 125 millions). That makes an overall budget around 350 millions.
And just so you know back in 2002, Minority Report had a reported promotionnal budget of 80 millions that would make 110 millions today. And it was nowhere near the unbelievably long and huge campaign TASM had.

So you have friends at sony who told you all that?

That how that BUSINESS works man and that's how Sony did it with Raimi after Spider-Man 2. Money (and even more some perspective of growth when it comes to franchises )is the only thing that ensures a director some creative control over his movie. But if you actually need words from an insider, Sony expected 300 millions out of the TASM's domestic theatrical run. Or so I've been told.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Was IM an A list character ?

What does an A list character mean?

Was IM a reboot with an already built incredibly huge fanbase ?
Spider-Man is by far the most popular Marvel character all medium aside.

And we can thank Raimi and Sony for that

There is no valid reason (except for the quality/direction of the movie itself), reboot or not, for a Spider-Man movie to gross less domestically than an Iron Man movie. Really it's not that hard to understand.

What is the valid reason for SM2 grossing less than SM1?

That's PR talk. What you don't understand is that considering the money they spent they expected a return on their investement out of the theatrical run. And they won't get it. Making movies (especially 200 millions and more blockbusters) is a BUSINESS. You don't expect to lose money out of it. Or to delay your profits too much.

What I understand is that they are investing that kind of money into movie like Total Recall and Men in Black 3 and TASM is their best bet on making profit,which makes it a certainity for me that they will keep investing the money into the character,thats all I want.
And even if it doesnt make a huge profit,it can be looked as an investment

BB didnt make huge money,it probably didnt even break even based on Box office earnings but WB didnt lose heart and look how much TDK grossed.Sony will go the same way.

Thats not how you think in business,you dont go 'Hey the spider-man movie has not made huge profit,lets dump the franchise and keep investing 200M in other movies like Total Recall which hardly have any hope of breaking even'
The way you think is 'Not a huge profit but still well done for a reboot,lets invest more on a sequel,get a good script and work hard so it gives us the profit we deserve'

What's your source ? BOM reports a production budget of 230 millions and the NYT a marketing budget above a 100 millions (the LA Times goes for the same number as MIB3's campaign wich is above 125 millions). That makes an overall budget around 350 millions.

Look it up a page or 2 behind,someone posted it

And just so you know back in 2002, Minority Report had a reported promotionnal budget of 80 millions that would make 110 millions today. And it was nowhere near the unbelievably long and huge campaign TASM had.

As long as I dont see sony reporting it themselves,I wont beleive anything based on comparison

That how that BUSINESS works man and that's how Sony did it with Raimi after Spider-Man 2. Money (and even more some perspective of growth when it comes to franchises )is the only thing that ensures a director some creative control over his movie.

As someone said it earlier on,TDKR is deeper **** than TASM
500 domestic and 550 Oversees is their best bet and based on the Hollywood economist that would give them an earning of about 350M when the total budget of the movie is 400M (marketing+production)

But if you actually need words from an insider, Sony expected 300 millions out of the TASM's domestic theatrical run. Or so I've been told.

Link?
And if you are gonna quote someone like Devin Faraci,then I would rather not have it

 

[AvengeME]

Why are people comparing WW numbers to movies 5-6 years ago with ASM? Each year, the WW market gets larger. No dur ASM is going to have a bigger WW tally than Iron Man.

I think IM3 will be a monster WW next year. 400-500 million at least. Domestic will depend on the reception, as we started seeing a decline in IM2 as is. Even the TF's series has grown almost exponentially overseas.

 

[Spider-Fan]

So you have friends at sony who told you all that?

No, but it stands to reason. If Raimi, who made 2 near billion dollar movies, got micromanaged on Spider-Man 3, what makes you think a director who's debut made LESS money even if you don't adjust for inflation will get more creative control?

Webb will never get total creative control in this franchise. Sony has shown the trend in recent years to micromanage, and that is not likely to stop anytime soon.

 

[milesalpha]

Well Monday it made $19 million or so, and then on Tuesday it made $17 million or so...if anything, Wednesday might only make $15 million or such, but I don't see a huge drop whatsoever. It's been pretty consistent the past two days; don't see how Wednesday would get such a drop.

And, I'm one of the people that is not a fan of the JL universe Warner Brothers is trying to get. I'm so hoping Man of Steel isn't WB's version of Iron Man, but it probably will be which sucks. I really want my favorite three superheroes in their own universe (Spider-Man, Batman, Superman).

Well it dropped 22% to 13 million, but I still see a possibility of the running time having an effect during the weekdays. If they drop by 60% this weekend, well that's definitely a bad sign.

I understand your feelings about the universe, I would give a lot to have the JLA vs The Avengers made into a movie (come to think of it, the Batman/Spiderman and Superman/Spiderman books would suit me too).. You could very well live long enough to see it, I have but a faint hope.

 

[milesalpha]

TDKR just had a 160m opening weekend. Its fall on Tuesday is expected and can't be compared to movies that have been out for weeks.

I didn't compare them to movies that had been out weeks, I compared them to first week releases. I stand by my thought that the running time limits the number of shows that can be run on weekdays, and explains the hiccup as well as anything.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I wouldnt put the Shooting as an excuse,yes they had an effect but how much?
I would say about 15M,20M at the very most
TDKR is about 50M behind TA's earnings

Are you kidding me? The shooting brought down huge expectations for TDKR and kept some people away from the theatre. It's not an excuse; it's a sad tragedy and it hurt TDKR.

Plus, that $50 million....30 of that is from 3D which TDKR couldn't do.

They can but every second rotten review will be rotten because we didnt need a reboot 'so soon'
Its better to concentrate of MOS to make it as good as Nolan's Batman

No, that's not true. Just because it happened to TAS-M doesn't mean it'll happen to every review. Plus, not if the reboot stays away from any kind of origin which was perfectly done in BB.

Not if TASM2 turns out to be awesome

I'm talking about TAS-M 3, as TAS-M 2 will probably be out in 2014.

 

[bapi]

No, but it stands to reason. If Raimi, who made 2 near billion dollar movies, got micromanaged on Spider-Man 3, what makes you think a director who's debut made LESS money even if you don't adjust for inflation will get more creative control?

Webb will never get total creative control in this franchise. Sony has shown the trend in recent years to micromanage, and that is not likely to stop anytime soon.

Yeah and that's why it's extremely hard to make a great Spider-man movie with Sony. And if they'll use Alvin Sargent again...

 

[milesalpha]

Maybe this article will help, he puts the marketing costs for the film at 100 million, and pegs the break even point for the WW gross at 650 million.

http://artsbeat.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/strong-start-at-box-office-for-new-spider-man-movie/

 

[JKKS085]

What does an A list character mean?

Let's say pop culture icon.

What is the valid reason for SM2 grossing less than SM1?

I was comparing TASM to Iron Man, not Spider-Man 2 to Spider-Man. And I don't see your point at all. Spider-Man is a better known character than Iron Man, with like I said, a huge and already built fanbase, if the movie was indeed satisfying, it would have grossed more than Iron Man. Simple actually.

BB didnt make huge money,it probably didnt even break even based on Box office earnings but WB didnt lose heart and look how much TDK grossed.Sony will go the same way.

Sony is no WB. One of the reasons TDK grossed so much because Nolan had free hands to make his movie, to share his artistic vision, and not the studio's. And he earned that freedom because he brought back (financially and qualitatively) a dying franchise. Therefore Batman Begins follow up was logically seen as a potential perspective of growth.
Now Sony has in hands a movie that will make much less than any of its predecessors despite having one of the highest budget. Business wise that's called a risk of decay (but I've already said that, you might just have overlooked it). That's crying for even more micromanagment.

Thats not how you think in business,you dont go 'Hey the spider-man movie has not made huge profit,lets dump the franchise and keep investing 200M in other movies like Total Recall which hardly have any hope of breaking even'
The way you think is 'Not a huge profit but still well done for a reboot,lets invest more on a sequel,get a good script and work hard so it gives us the profit we deserve'

Thank you to remind me how I should think in business. After all I called it a job it might as well be a hobby right ?
I'm not telling that Sony will or should stop to produce Spider-Man movies (and even with a 1 millions profit out of a 350 millions investement they will), just that they will take action to make sure they will get as much money out of the next installement as they used to. That means more studio interferences, less creative control left to the director and logically a bigger risk to get a film that is a poor "committee product" (not with a better script but with a script technically made to please everyone) just like SM3 or TASM to a lesser extent. So that's not exactly the right context to make a TDK-quality movie.

As long as I dont see sony reporting it themselves,I wont beleive anything based on comparison

Yes you do. You were blantly underestimating TASM's marketing cost in your previous posts just to make its numbers look better. Tell you what, I worked for several years as a business analyst over at Warner Bros. France and I can assure you based on my experience that there's absolutely no way TASM's costed less than 100 millions to promote. You don't have to take my work on that but you won't find any serious article estimating the budget for under this mark.
Then again both the New York Times and the L.A. Times reported a budget between 100 and 125 millions.

As someone said it earlier on,TDKR is deeper **** than TASM
500 domestic and 550 Oversees is their best bet and based on the Hollywood economist that would give them an earning of about 350M when the total budget of the movie is 400M (marketing+production)

We're talking about TASM's number right ? Seriously if it was to talk about TDKR's B.O., I would be on the appropriate thread on the right boards.
Big difference between TDKR and TASM being that Warner got money back from merchandise even before the movie was out. So counting side revenues, TDKR will undoubtly be highly profitable before the end of the financial year (and it's always better to report a profit than a loss, even if it's a temporary loss, in front of your shareholders) that won't be TASM's case (because it'll have to wait for home video revenues).

Link?
And if you are gonna quote someone like Devin Faraci,then I would rather not have it

Like I said, that's what I've been told from someone close to Sony. Then again you don't have to take my word on that. Though it's just accounting logic after all.

 

[grieven]

Sounds like TAS releases in China on August 30, due to the country's blackout of imported films til then. Also looks like TAS and TDKR will release in very close proximity to one another, which sucks.

http://www.screendaily.com/news/asi...dark-knight-still-unconfirmed/5044582.article

 

[Spiderdevil]

No, but it stands to reason. If Raimi, who made 2 near billion dollar movies, got micromanaged on Spider-Man 3, what makes you think a director who's debut made LESS money even if you don't adjust for inflation will get more creative control?

Webb will never get total creative control in this franchise. Sony has shown the trend in recent years to micromanage, and that is not likely to stop anytime soon.

I dont see why we cant have a good film even if sony interferes

 

[Spider-Fan]

I dont see why we cant have a good film even if sony interferes

It's not that a GOOD movie can't be made with heavy studio interference, but it is hard to make a GREAT movie with heavy studio interference because they'll try overtly hard to make the movie marketable, and when you worry more about the marketing than the movie itself, the story suffers and the films itself is of lesser quality. If Sony wants TASM2 to be great, they need to step back a bit like they did with Spidey 2. If they don't, it will be just another decent outing that easily could have been better with more polishing (like TASM was).

 

[Spiderdevil]

Are you kidding me? The shooting brought down huge expectations for TDKR and kept some people away from the theatre. It's not an excuse; it's a sad tragedy and it hurt TDKR.

Tragedy Yes but a loss of how much?
20M at the very most and ofcourse the Human Lives which are priceless

Plus, that $50 million....30 of that is from 3D which TDKR couldn't do.

Why couldnt they do it in 3D?
I seriously hate it when people bring in 3D to prove their point,Marvel spent money to film in 3D and even after that their budget is 30M lower than TDKR
They fully deserve the money from 3D
Had WB gone with 3D,the budget would have been even more bloated

No, that's not true. Just because it happened to TAS-M doesn't mean it'll happen to every review. Plus, not if the reboot stays away from any kind of origin which was perfectly done in BB.

It wont be rebooted so soon,take my word for that
It will take Atleast more than 6 years

I'm talking about TAS-M 3, as TAS-M 2 will probably be out in 2014.

If TASM 2 turns out to be awesome,TASM3 will have as much hype as TA2
Thats was my point

 

[Spiderdevil]

Let's say pop culture icon.

And Spider-man certainly wasnt an icon before SM1

I was comparing TASM to Iron Man, not Spider-Man 2 to Spider-Man. And I don't see your point at all. Spider-Man is a better known character than Iron Man, with like I said, a huge and already built fanbase, if the movie was indeed satisfying, it would have grossed more than Iron Man. Simple actually.

In today's world Batman and MCU has taken a lot of the fan-base which was previously spider-man's.
So no,the fan-base is not as huge as it was in 2007

Sony is no WB. One of the reasons TDK grossed so much because Nolan had free hands to make his movie

Not in BB,No
WB shoved in the Rachel Dawes character

to share his artistic vision, and not the studio's. And he earned that freedom because he brought back (financially and qualitatively) a dying franchise.

So according to you the Batman franchise can be seen as dying but the Spider man franchise had a 'Huge and already built fanbase' when both of them were coming of from disappointing movies.Ironic

Therefore Batman Begins follow up was logically seen as a potential perspective of growth.

Apart from Batman & Robin,each of the Batman movie before BB did better than it and earned more with a lesser budget
Dont see where was the 'Potential prespective for growth'

Now Sony has in hands a movie that will make much less than any of its predecessors despite having one of the highest budget. Business wise that's called a risk of decay (but I've already said that, you might just have overlooked it). That's crying for even more micromanagment.

You are really overrating sony's involvement in the directing
Arad wanted venom in SM3,Raimi was convinced that he would be a better choice that Vulture.And 'Convincing' isnt the same as 'Forcing'
The reason the movie didnt do well was because of Glaring Plot holes and Bad acting which was a result of Bad directing on Raimi's part rather than Sony's involvement

As for TASM,Sony cut out the untold part because it apparently had bad backlash from fan-boys and negative reaction from test audience,they might have done a good job cutting it

I'm not telling that Sony will or should stop to produce Spider-Man movies (and even with a 1 millions profit out of a 350 millions investement they will), just that they will take action to make sure they will get as much money out of the next installement as they used to. That means more studio interferences, less creative control left to the director and logically a bigger risk to get a film that is a poor "committee product" (not with a better script but with a script technically made to please everyone) just like SM3 or TASM to a lesser extent. So that's not exactly the right context to make a TDK-quality movie.

So by your logic Sony will stick their hands into the next movie aswell because they want as much money from it as possible??
Please tell me how will interfering with the movie earn them more money? Thats stupid logic to start with

Big difference between TDKR and TASM being that Warner got money back from merchandise even before the movie was out.

So they earned 400M from Mechandise?

So counting side revenues, TDKR will undoubtly be highly profitable before the end of the financial year (and it's always better to report a profit than a loss, even if it's a temporary loss, in front of your shareholders) that won't be TASM's case (because it'll have to wait for home video revenues).

Breaking point is 650M dollars,TASM as probably earned more than that as it is so where is the loss you are talking about?

Like I said, that's what I've been told from someone close to Sony. Then again you don't have to take my word on that. Though it's just accounting logic after all.

The higher up officials of sony wont go blurting out marketing budgets to every single person on their pay roll

My final point is TASM will surely make a lot more profit that BB(And no,I wont beleive the sob story of Batman being a dying franchise,the fanbase was always huge) and this movie is the best ever start to a rebooted franchise(Barring Star Trek)

WB didnt panic back in 2005 despite the movie not breaking even,so there is no reason why sony would panic(and there is no reason to beleive that sony will interfere with the movie making again since they are intelligent enough to know that interferring wont earn them more money)