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

[JP]

So what is the Box office comparison of this film to the Raimi series?

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=spidermanvs.htm


It's always been amusing to me that, at least domestically, every Spider-Man has made less than the one before.

 

[metaphysician]

I think most of the major film studios have their own foreign distribution channels these days ( Disney and Sony certainly do ), so I don't think they take the traditional huge middleman cut, at least for a lot of the bigger markets. Beyond that, its anybodies guess whose not in the industry.

I use as my rule of thumb "take the worldwide gross, divide by two", and figure that the places and times wherein the studio gets way more than half balance those where it gets way less than half.

 

[Bruce Malone]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=spidermanvs.htm


It's always been amusing to me that, at least domestically, every Spider-Man has made less than the one before.

Spider-man 2 for all purposes should have made more but spider-man 1 was such a novelty/cultural phenomena being the 1st really big budget super-hero flick and the culmination of decades of people finally waiting for a spider-man film.

Not to mention the 9/11 factor of the movie sort of reflected in terms of people wanting escapism and a people seeing a hero for new york. Adjusted for inflation the 1st spider-man made 550m.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I think most of the major film studios have their own foreign distribution channels these days ( Disney and Sony certainly do ), so I don't think they take the traditional huge middleman cut, at least for a lot of the bigger markets. Beyond that, its anybodies guess whose not in the industry.

I use as my rule of thumb "take the worldwide gross, divide by two", and figure that the places and times wherein the studio gets way more than half balance those where it gets way less than half.

This site has a good explanation:

According to the book The Hollywood Economist by Edward Jay Epstein, studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number.

Domestic revenue just counts for a lot more than overseas revenue, says David Mumpower with Box Office Prophets:

The reason for this is simple. Collecting revenues abroad is a trickier proposition since the dollar fluctuates against foreign currencies. There are also tariffs from these governments in place in order to keep as much money as possible from leaving their countries and going abroad, which is an understandable practice. While the global conglomerates such as Fox, Disney and Time-Warner that run major Hollywood studios can secure sweetheart deals with various local governments, it doesn't happen for each film. As such, international box office revenue is much less reliable than in North America.

http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

 

[JKKS085]

Thanks for the link bruce.

 

[TLH]

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.

Generally the rule of thumb to find the ballpark profitability of a film is to double the budget. By doubling the budget you account for theatre cuts + marketing costs. If we take this and apply it to TASM, the break even point is 460m. Even if we are generous and say the break even is 500m, it's still well on its way to making at least a 200m profit for Sony.

The bar is set high for films with these kinds of budgets, but TASM is a reboot origin story of a film that only came out 10 years ago. That it is going to be profitable and quite comfortably so is a testament to the franchise's longevity and popularity.

 

[roach]

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?id=spidermanvs.htm


It's always been amusing to me that, at least domestically, every Spider-Man has made less than the one before.

thanks

 

[chaseter]

Generally the rule of thumb to find the ballpark profitability of a film is to double the budget. By doubling the budget you account for theatre cuts + marketing costs. If we take this and apply it to TASM, the break even point is 460m. Even if we are generous and say the break even is 500m, it's still well on its way to making at least a 200m profit for Sony.

The bar is set high for films with these kinds of budgets, but TASM is a reboot origin story of a film that only came out 10 years ago. That it is going to be profitable and quite comfortably so is a testament to the franchise's longevity and popularity.

$230 million is without marketing. Marketing usually is around $100 million for big budget films. So about $330 million went into making this movie. The general rule of thumb IMO is the movie has to make double to come close to breaking even...even though it's actually about 2.5-3x in the life of the film since studios get less of a percentage as the weeks go on. But 2x is the general rule of thumb so this movie has to make about $700 million worldwide to break even.

 

[Bruce Malone]

I think you guys are also ignoring how much money is made domestically compared to how much is made internationally as in the link i provided a few posts up.

As we can see not every dollar is equal and the dollars coming domestically count a good deal more.

 

[SpaceWay2009]

The movie is hardly a failure but it is underperforming.

SpaceWay2009, the actual box office numbers were lower than what you posted. More like $62 million and $137 million for six days. Well beneath what the first Spider-man did in a similar timeframe TEN years ago without 3D and IMAX.



The way the numbers are trending down, I don't think that will be the case.

I see. It's kind of disappointing. Hopefully the box office will continue to improve.

 

[grieven]

How does the sale of rights to show on a cable channel (FX just purchased those rights) and home video & rentals affect the profitability of a movie?

 

[TLH]

$230 million is without marketing. Marketing usually is around $100 million for big budget films. So about $330 million went into making this movie. The general rule of thumb IMO is the movie has to make double to come close to breaking even...even though it's actually about 2.5-3x in the life of the film since studios get less of a percentage as the weeks go on. But 2x is the general rule of thumb so this movie has to make about $700 million worldwide to break even.

I know 230m is without marketing. Double that number (or even go 2.5x that number) to account for marketing and theatre cuts and you get the break even point, which is closer to 500m, not 700m. You don't double the budget + marketing. You just simply double the budget. You've overestimated.

 

[roach]

well its got one weekend to do what it needs and then The Dark Knight Rises comes out

 

[Superhero 101]

yep

 

[AF3619]

well its got one weekend to do what it needs and then The Dark Knight Rises comes out

what movie comes out this weekend?

 

[terry78]

what movie comes out this weekend?

Ice Age so......yeah.

 

[roach]

what movie comes out this weekend?

Ice Age: Continental Drift.....oh snap

who the hell picked this release date for Spider-man...they are gonna get massacred over the next few weekends

 

[AF3619]

Ice Age: Continental Drift.....oh snap

who the hell picked this release date for Spider-man...they are gonna get massacred over the next few weekends

OK but still kids are seeing it sooo.....

 

[roach]

The last Ice Age killed at the box office

 

[JKKS085]

I know 230m is without marketing. Double that number (or even go 2.5x that number) to account for marketing and theatre cuts and you get the break even point, which is closer to 500m, not 700m. You don't double the budget + marketing. You just simply double the budget. You've overestimated.

http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable

So as a ballpark figure, studios generally take in around 50-55 percent of U.S. box office money.

According to the book The Hollywood Economist by Edward Jay Epstein, studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number.

If TASM makes 275 millions domestic and 425 overseas for a total of 700 millions, the studio will roughly take 215 millions.

If the budget is indeed 330 millions (230 for production and 100 for marketing) they won't even break even with a 700 millions theatrical run.

 

[spider-neil]

'Meh' as long as the movie makes enough money for a sequel I'm fine.
The downside is with this reduced tke Sony will more thn likely spend less on the movie. Not a big deal, it will force the them to be more creative with the effects and do more stuff in camera.

 

[roach]

http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable





If TASM makes 275 millions domestic and 425 overseas for a total of 700 millions, the studio will roughly take 215 millions.

If the budget is indeed 330 millions (230 for production and 100 for marketing) they won't even break even with a 700 millions theatrical run.

and with Ice Age coming out this weekend and TDKR coming out next that might be difficult

 

[spider-neil]

http://io9.com/5747305/how-much-money-does-a-movie-need-to-make-to-be-profitable





If TASM makes 275 millions domestic and 425 overseas for a total of 700 millions, the studio will roughly take 215 millions.

If the budget is indeed 330 millions (230 for production and 100 for marketing) they won't even break even with a 700 millions theatrical run.

Where has the 230m budget figure come from?

 

[JKKS085]

Where has the 230m budget figure come from?

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=spiderman4.htm

 

[spider-neil]

Hopefully the Blu ray sales will convince Sony to make a sequel.