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

Status
Not open for further replies.
There were ways to handle the reboot without literally reshowing every single moment of Spider-man 1. TIH and Batman Begins are good examples of how you can reboot a franchise and cover new territory.

To me they should have started the movie with Peter trying to hunt for Uncle Ben's killer and told the origin in exposition.
 
Sony was in an impossible position though. There is no way they reboot in 2012 if they indefinitely own the rights. They clearly don't, hence a 5 year turn around.

If you made SM4, you would need to spend way more than 220 million. The cast alone would drive the budget north of 275 million, considering SM3's price tag even had they scaled it down. More so, the movie was shaping up to be a disaster to my knowledge with the turmoil between Raimi's and the producers' vision for the franchise.

If you recast everybody for SM4, it would have felt like a completely different franchise. I realize audiences weren't happy with SM3 and the actors were probably passed their prime Spidey years (that's more of a fact), but recasting is definitely a killer when you replace basically the entire core cast. Tobey and Dunst were willing to come back though as long as Raimi was involved.

With that said, I probably would have recasted. But I would have tried to bring back some supporting actors and work them in to give it the same feel. It would not have been easy though because they forwarded the story too fast in SM3 by killing Brock and Harry along with a wedding proposal. It was another X-3 situation.

Sony did not have an easy decision by any stretch. You can't go back in hindsight and say they shouldn't have rebooted. Yeah they knew the risks. They made a tough choice to let go of Raimi and start anew. Maybe it will still pay off for them down the line.


Well you just made the argument that Movie Bob did about this film. It was basically made as a corporate bean counter decision, not one to make a good Spider-man film.
 
Agreed completely. But where would you have taken Raimi's story?

You know i'm a fan of the 1st 2 especially SM2 but S3 was terrible. So i was not totally dead set against a reboot but when i discovered the reboot was another origin with high school peter parker i felt insulted.

I mean that's what the last franchise did! Give me something new, i always felt it was a shame we haven't gotten the adult peter parker in a film yet.

So when it turned out they were just doing a retread i was like:

1238584287_seinfeld_had_enough.gif



I mean where can they go with this franchise? I mean garfield will be 30 by the next film will they still have him in HS? So we get college peter again oh and with the gg too so that is really new.
 
Yeah, it's going nowhere if you had to ask me. We will get the same end game with Goblin, but the girlfriend will die this time. With any luck, Venom will get shoe-horned in part 3.

They should have taken a Harry Potter approach. Lock down young actors, like 18-19 year olds, for 5-6 movies. You don't go Twilight with every movie, and the franchise gradually maturates for audiences of all ages. Potter did this perfectly, not only maintaining but growing business without alienating the built in fan base at any point.

With that said, I don't think second tier villains like Electro and Mysterio do it for audiences either. You want to see the iconic villains, not an episode of the animated series. Voldermort was the villain people wanted to see. Not the bozos and side players. Now TDKR faces the same problem. Bane is solid, but not in the same class as the first three villains. At least Catwoman is in. Plus I don't believe Riddler or Penguin would have added anymore to the hype, which is still amazing. It's the Joker and then there is everybody else.

Spiderman has depth in the rogue gallery, but Goblin, Ock, and Venom blow the rest of the field out of the water. These are the villains people expect in a 200 million dollar film.
 
Last edited:
I wonder if they'll have a lower budget for the second movie if this movie doesn't make that much domestically. Or maybe they'll film the second and third one back to back to cut costs. What do you guys think?
 
2014 is too quick a turn around for a back to back production. The third film would need to finish filming before the second one is even out and with a two year window or much less (May 2014 release) that would be insane.

At this point, considering a Lizard solo movie cost as much (yes he is organic but still), a Goblin movie is going to cost way more. How can they go south of the budget from the first film and expect to maintain the "event" feel a Spidey movie is supposed to have?
 
You know i'm a fan of the 1st 2 especially SM2 but S3 was terrible. So i was not totally dead set against a reboot but when i discovered the reboot was another origin with high school peter parker i felt insulted.

I mean that's what the last franchise did! Give me something new, i always felt it was a shame we haven't gotten the adult peter parker in a film yet.

So when it turned out they were just doing a retread i was like:

1238584287_seinfeld_had_enough.gif



I mean where can they go with this franchise? I mean garfield will be 30 by the next film will they still have him in HS? So we get college peter again oh and with the gg too so that is really new.

Peter was only a high schooler for like the first 20-30 minutes of Raimi's movies. You only saw the high school once, for 5 minutes. Then he graduated.
That's a difference right there. None of the aspects of the origin story in TASM happen the same way as Raimi's movies. There are new characters. New villain. New locations. We only saw Oscorp for 2 minutes in SM1. And yeah Garfield will be 30, but that's only a number. It's not like he's going to start sporting grey hair and have droopy wrinkly skin in the space of 2 years. How is it having the origin story again an insult? It's a new franchise that's starting all over again, so it might as well go back to the very beginning, so that it can potentially go to the very end with the final movie.
 
There were ways to handle the reboot without literally reshowing every single moment of Spider-man 1. TIH and Batman Begins are good examples of how you can reboot a franchise and cover new territory.

To me they should have started the movie with Peter trying to hunt for Uncle Ben's killer and told the origin in exposition.

What difference does that make? And the BB comparison is BS because the full blown origin story of Batman had been told in a movie before.
People don't seem to understand either that there's more to Spider-Man's origin then just how he got his powers. It couldn't be covered in a flashback sequence like TIH. There's more to Spider-Man's origin. The whole point of this movie was to rebuild Peter as a character, and in order to do that you have to lay down the groundwork and go to the very beginning. Could that hurt THR movie to some people? Yeah. But it'll pay off in the long run, especially when you watch this entire new series from beginning to end when it's over.
You'll see all the way from when he's a young boy to whatever winds up happening in the final movie. You'll seem him evolve.
 
I don't think the choice of villain was an issue here. The Lizard was done poorly in the film, but that doesn't mean he was a bad choice originally. Done properly, Lizard is one of Spider-Man's best villains and the audience has been vocal about their number one problem being that TASM was a rehash of SM1. Redoing one of the villains from Raimi's trilogy was just going to make it worse.
 
I'm not the only one who considered having another origin sort of insulting. High school or not it was too early for a whole new origin story when the old one was still fresh in most people minds.

Also many people/critics have commented on how garfield looks too old to be playing a hs student. He was older playing parker in spider-man than toby was in spider-man 2 and tobey was pretty old himself at casting. They will be pushing it if they still have him as a HS student in the next film
 
Yeah, it's going nowhere if you had to ask me. We will get the same end game with Goblin, but the girlfriend will die this time. With any luck, Venom will get shoe-horned in part 3.

They should have taken a Harry Potter approach. Lock down young actors, like 18-19 year olds, for 5-6 movies. You don't go Twilight with every movie, and the franchise gradually maturates for audiences of all ages. Potter did this perfectly, not only maintaining but growing business without alienating the built in fan base at any point.

With that said, I don't think second tier villains like Electro and Mysterio do it for audiences either. You want to see the iconic villains, not an episode of the animated series. Voldermort was the villain people wanted to see. Not the bozos and side players. Now TDKR faces the same problem. Bane is solid, but not in the same class as the first three villains. At least Catwoman is in. Plus I don't believe Riddler or Penguin would have added anymore to the hype, which is still amazing. It's the Joker and then there is everybody else.

Spiderman has depth in the rogue gallery, but Goblin, Ock, and Venom blow the rest of the field out of the water. These are the villains people expect in a 200 million dollar film.

I actually think Lizard is a better villain than Venom. And there are a number of other villains who I'd rank above Venom...

but the problem is many of them are redundant or don't bring anything cinematically unique. There's Harry's Green Goblin (which actually like how he was handled in SM3, one of the few things they got right, even if they didn't call him GG) and there's Hobgoblin. The problem there is they're both retreads of Green Goblin as they were great characters who initially were created to fill the void of the (apparently) dead Norman Osborn. There is is also Kingpin, but to moviegoers he's a run-of-the-mill gangster/crimelord, who besides is owned by Fox in terms of movie rights. Then there's Kraven the Hunter, but unfortunately Kraven would not look amazing on screen like a Doc Ock, Lizard or Sandman. He's just a guy in animal skins and furs who hunts Spidey. He'd couple well with Lizard, but this series has already used him.

And there lies the rub. The only villains who I think fit all the requirements for being both cinematic and having the ability to carry it are either Goblins (like 3 of 'em), Doc Ock, Lizard and Venom. Unfortunately for Sony, they already used the non-Lizard archetypes in the last series.

Still, I think they can do GG again and differently enough that it can stand out as its own thing. And while I love Harry's tragic arc, they may just choose to leave Harry out as Raimi did that so well. I will bet even money they won't try Doc Ock again, but we'll see GG in TASM2 with possibly another villain. I also personally think they could split the third story into two movies with unseen lesser villains in TASM3 along with the USM origin of the black suit and a focus on MJ and then a whole Venom film for TASM4.

My thoughts on how it can play out.
 
What difference does that make? And the BB comparison is BS because the full blown origin story of Batman had been told in a movie before.
People don't seem to understand either that there's more to Spider-Man's origin then just how he got his powers. It couldn't be covered in a flashback sequence like TIH. There's more to Spider-Man's origin. The whole point of this movie was to rebuild Peter as a character, and in order to do that you have to lay down the groundwork and go to the very beginning. Could that hurt THR movie to some people? Yeah. But it'll pay off in the long run, especially when you watch this entire new series from beginning to end when it's over.
You'll see all the way from when he's a young boy to whatever winds up happening in the final movie. You'll seem him evolve.

No, it wasn't. We never saw how he became Batman. Just the death of his parents and the immediate aftermath. Two scenes.
 
I think a loose sequel or requel would have been better options. Doing another origin film maye have rebooted the series, but it wasn't necessary. Look at Batman Forever. Yes, that movie sucked, but audiences liked it (at the time at least) and it was very successful. Do a decent movie just based around the character of Spider-Man, without being a slave to continuity, and people would have been fine with it. Rehashing the origin I do feel turned some people off.

I think SM4 would have made more money as a solo film, but TASM's advantage is sequels to it probably make more money than the first Spidey film after Raimi's SM4 (had it happened). But having said that, this movie is doing low for a Spider-Man film. Clearly not enough people gave it a chance, given all the other Spidey films grossed more in the same time frame without the 3D boost TASM got.
 
I'm not the only one who considered having another origin sort of insulting. High school or not it was too early for a whole new origin story when the old one was still fresh in most people minds.

Also many people/critics have commented on how garfield looks too old to be playing a hs student. He was older playing parker in spider-man than toby was in spider-man 2 and tobey was pretty old himself at casting. They will be pushing it if they still have him as a HS student in the next film

I've seen people say they thought Andrew Garfield was 19.
 
If Iron Monger and Whiplash can be the villains for two very successful films, I don't think we need to worry about guys like Electro and Mysterio being able to carry a Spider-Man film.
 
2014 is too quick a turn around for a back to back production. The third film would need to finish filming before the second one is even out and with a two year window or much less (May 2014 release) that would be insane.

At this point, considering a Lizard solo movie cost as much (yes he is organic but still), a Goblin movie is going to cost way more. How can they go south of the budget from the first film and expect to maintain the "event" feel a Spidey movie is supposed to have?

Maybe a villain like Kraven would give them a lower budget. And I think it depends when Orci and Kurtzman finish writing Amazing Spider-Man 2 and when they actually start filming. Maybe they could announce filming the two sequels back to back, who knows. It would be awesome! :)
 
I'm also surprised they went with a much older actor if this is supposed to be about Peter in high school. They cast older than Maguire than when he got the role.

This needed to be a soft reboot without doing the origin over again.

Just imagine in the 1990's Spider-Man animated series, it started with Peter already having been Spider-Man for quite some time. All the peripheral characters were there. Spidey was part of a bigger animated universe and the basic story worked.

Everyone knows Spider-Man's origin and that story has already basically been told. We didn't need it told to us again.

Batman Begins I think it worked because Batman in 1989 didn't go that route. Begins at least went to some uncharted territory. Showed us how he became and trained to be Batman.
 
About the only thing similar in Batman Begins compared to Batman 1989 was that both featured the population of Gotham suffering from a mass gas attack in the third act. The rest of the plot is entirely different.
 
I think a loose sequel or requel would have been better options. Doing another origin film maye have rebooted the series, but it wasn't necessary. Look at Batman Forever. Yes, that movie sucked, but audiences liked it (at the time at least) and it was very successful. Do a decent movie just based around the character of Spider-Man, without being a slave to continuity, and people would have been fine with it. Rehashing the origin I do feel turned some people off.

I think SM4 would have made more money as a solo film, but TASM's advantage is sequels to it probably make more money than the first Spidey film after Raimi's SM4 (had it happened). But having said that, this movie is doing low for a Spider-Man film. Clearly not enough people gave it a chance, given all the other Spidey films grossed more in the same time frame without the 3D boost TASM got.
Yes, just like Batman Forever SM4 might've been financially successful but where do you go after that?

By then the franchise is running on fumes because the continuity doesn't gel properly with emerging comic book canon. Batman and Robin was the natural progression from Batman Forever. You always have to outdo your last movie by making things more extreme and interesting. For a cheesy toned franchise that means stuff like a dancing Peter Parker with eye liner.
 
250m domestic is respectable considering this is a reboot origin story for a franchise that just started only ten years ago. Overseas business will be strong and with a finishing worldwide gross over 700m that actually makes TASM a decent success considering everything it had going against it. It will make a nice profit and I think restores some desire to see the franchise continue.
 
Yes, just like Batman Forever SM4 might've been financially successful but where do you go after that?

By then the franchise is running on fumes because the continuity doesn't gel properly with emerging comic book canon. Batman and Robin was the natural progression from Batman Forever. You always have to outdo your last movie by making things more extreme and interesting. For a cheesy toned franchise that means stuff like a dancing Peter Parker with eye liner.

That is only how people who want to over-exaggerate view properly continuing. Seriously, some of the limited ways people seem to think SM4 would have played out in actuality is far more charaicature than based on anything else, and using that method doesn't make your point valid. Only shows your bias.

And my loose SM4 idea (like BF) would have had an entirely different feel. Thus, making that point even more invalid to my comment.
 
You think more people would pay to see the vulture and vultress/felicia hardy and more cringeworthy crying and *****ing from Tobey and Kristen? Hahaha give me some of what you're smoking!

What would have ended up in SM4...I cannot say. But yes, if SM4 wasn't a terrible movie, it would have made more than this movie. If they did a loose sequel/reboot with no origin, it would have made more than this movie. Redoing the origin was dumb for this movie. They had to make a better movie than SM1 and they didn't. If they couldn't, then they should have done something new/fresh and redoing the origin is not new/fresh.
 
Also, even after we got word that they were rebooting, people on here were calling for JK Simmons to come back...even Rosemary Harris. People were wanting a Bond esque reboot as they still have Judy Dench. People would be more receptive to a soft reboot or a loose sequel...idk what you call it. You have to ease people into change when something they love is still fresh. You don't just rip it away and give them something new so soon. It was a bad financial move on Sony's part. They had a successful universe setup and they have all the time in the world to do reboots. We can't keep getting a Spider-Man reboot every 10 years. Sooner or later, it will lose money.
 
250m domestic is respectable considering this is a reboot origin story for a franchise that just started only ten years ago. Overseas business will be strong and with a finishing worldwide gross over 700m that actually makes TASM a decent success considering everything it had going against it. It will make a nice profit and I think restores some desire to see the franchise continue.

The bar set for films with budgets over 220m (230m in the case with TASM) is very high. That is also not counting marketing costs which for this film i estimate were quite high. Green Lanters had a marketing budget of 100 million and i'd estimate TASM is pretty close to that.

Domestic totals are always seen as more important by studios than foreign box office so for a film to only make slightly more than it's budget domestically is not a great sign.
 
Speaking of a soft reboot, I'd still love for JK Simmons to play Jonah in the sequel. They can change who plays Betty (Elizabeth Banks is way too big of a star since 2003 and only came back because she enjoyed working with Sam on the first one) and everyone else, but why not have Jonah back? They can even "gritty" him up as JK's a great and versatile actor? :awesome:

I know it will never happen and that is a shame, in my opinion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"