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

[chaseter]

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.

No I haven't...you still have to account for marketing which they don't include in the budget. If you think this has to make $500 million worldwide to break even you be smokin' some Mary Jane.

If you make a movie for $10 and it costs you $5 to market and you get about 50% of the box office totals...what do you have to make at the box office to break even? Hint...it's not $20.

 

[rayc1971]

No I haven't...you still have to account for marketing which they don't include in the budget. If you think this has to make $500 million worldwide to break even you be smokin' some Mary Jane.

If you make a movie for $10 and it costs you $5 to market and you get about 50% of the box office totals...what do you have to make at the box office to break even? Hint...it's not $20.

yeah people were trying to say the same thing about green lantern.the marketing was probably 100mill easy so thay would put us at 230 plus 100 equals 330mill double that 660mill so 500mill to break even noway.

 

[grieven]

yeah that might be a good move they dont have webb signed yet.to make that 2014 date is going to be a rush job they would hve to be shooting by jan 2013.i dont why they are rushing with 2yr s between films i mean i know raimi did it but he had a plan and was already in production during spiderman 1.i read webb is not signed and neither is garfield but they have the sequel slated for may 2014.

I thought Garfield and Stone were each signed for 3 films. But apparently not Webb?

 

[grieven]

No I haven't...you still have to account for marketing which they don't include in the budget. If you think this has to make $500 million worldwide to break even you be smokin' some Mary Jane.

If you make a movie for $10 and it costs you $5 to market and you get about 50% of the box office totals...what do you have to make at the box office to break even? Hint...it's not $20.

Marketing needs to be accounted for but it's not tripled in the formula. Also, marketing tie-ins like Carl's Jr. and other products often pay for much of the marketing bill from my understanding.

In any event, the contention that $600 to $700 million worldwide will just barely break even for the studio sounds ridiculous, and doesn't factor in other money making avenues such as video on demand, dvds and blurays, selling airing rights to tv and cable channels, etc. It's not a matter of IF Sony will make money with TAS, but how much.

 

[spider-neil]

its a little more than that....they still used digital stuntmen for Spiderman

Hopefully they will try to do more practicle Spidey effects because let's be honest here, they (real swinging) were the best thing in the movie.

 

[rayc1971]

I thought Garfield and Stone were each signed for 3 films. But apparently not Webb?

i read on 3 different websites that garfield didnt sign a 3 pic deal and webb is for sure not signed.

 

[spider-neil]

Marketing needs to be accounted for but it's not tripled in the formula. Also, marketing tie-ins like Carl's Jr. and other products often pay for much of the marketing bill from my understanding.

In any event, the contention that $600 to $700 million worldwide will just barely break even for the studio sounds ridiculous, and doesn't factor in other money making avenues such as video on demand, dvds and blurays, selling airing rights to tv and cable channels, etc. It's not a matter of IF Sony will make money with TAS, but how much.

I agree, 700m to break even sounds ridiculous.

 

[J.Howlett]

I agree, 700m to break even sounds ridiculous.

To break even THEATRICALLY, 700 million is not ridiculous. Maybe a tad high, but not ridiculous. But, considering other avenues now and later, it doesn't need 700 million worldwide.

No matter what, it'll break even somehow. It just might take some time.

 

[spider-neil]

I'm worried about a sequel now. DVD/Blu ray sales will be telling.

Rotten Tomatoes generanl audience score rather than critic score;
Superman Returns - (general audience) 67% liked it - ave rating 3.3/5
Green Lantern - (general audience) 47% liked it - ave rating 3.2/5
------
Amzing Spider-Man - (general audience) 84% liked it - ave rating 4.2/5

So the above two movies that were slated for a sequel never happened and it could be argued the general audience just weren't interested in seeing more but the general audience score for ASM is very high which leaves me hope for the sequel.

 

[Bruce Malone]

There's breaking even and making a profit. Nobody spend's 230m on a movie and all extended marketing costs afterwards etc. just to break even. It makes no financial sense.

So while breaking even may lie somewhere between 500-600m the studio for sure wants to go well beyond that figure.

Any movie with a budget of 230m the goal is to get near a billion period or at least above 800m. The studios are not in the business to just break even.

 

[grieven]

i read on 3 different websites that garfield didnt sign a 3 pic deal and webb is for sure not signed.

Not authoritative, but from googling, there are reports around that Garfield and Stone are signed for 3, and I remember back when the reboot was announced that both were signed for 3 films, but you never know:

...If the film is a success this summer, Garfield may be on this ride for a while. He's already signed up for two sequels.

http://www.npr.org/2012/06/01/154088013/andrew-garfield-disappearing-into-spideys-suit

Emma Stone:
Emma Stone has already revealed that she’s contracted for multiple Amazing Spider-Man sequels, so it doesn’t seem all that likely that Gwen Stacy will be kicking the bucket in the first film ...

http://screenrant.com/amazing-spider-man-plot-details-lizard-sandy-145410/

Andrew Garfield, who plays Peter Parker (aka Spider-Man) and Emma Stone, who plays Gwen Stacey, are both already contracted for multiple films. And while still unconfirmed, it is also assumed that Marc Webb will be back to direct as well.

http://www.tumblr.com/tagged/the-amazing-spiderman?before=1312590083

 

[spider-neil]

There's breaking even and making a profit. Nobody spend's 230m on a movie and all extended marketing costs afterwards etc. just to break even. It makes no financial sense.

So while breaking even may lie somewhere between 500-600m the studio for sure wants to go well beyond that figure.

Any movie with a budget of 230m the goal is to get near a billion period or at least above 800m. The studios are not in the business to just break even.

Sony were mad to expect such high figures for a beloved franchise that is retelling the origin. 230m? The bugdet for SM3 was 258m and that was with Maguire, Dunst and Raimi on massive wages. It blows my mind how ASM cost so much.
Avengers cost 220m, that's with a huge cast and ILM (the most expensive effects house in Hollywood) doing the effects.

 

[flickchick85]

I'm sure there are many talented artists working there, but Sony Imageworks as a whole really is a s****y VFX studio, imo. Their budgets always seem inflated and their results are always sub-par. There's no reason this OR MIB 3 should have cost more than The Avengers, yet both did, and both had inferior VFX.

 

[spider-neil]

I'm sure there are many talented artists working there, but Sony Imageworks as a whole really is a s****y VFX studio, imo. Their budgets always seem inflated and their results are always sub-par. There's no reason this OR MIB 3 should have cost more than The Avengers, yet both did, and both had inferior VFX.

What is the point of Sony using Imageworks if Imageworks are going to charge as much as ILM or Weta?

 

[AVEITWITHJAMON]

I really cant believe this movie cost $230 million, sorry but I just didnt see that on screen, especially during the action sequences. Its not like the cast was full of stars either, very surprising to hear that.

 

[Spider-Fan]

I'm sure there are many talented artists working there, but Sony Imageworks as a whole really is a s****y VFX studio, imo. Their budgets always seem inflated and their results are always sub-par. There's no reason this OR MIB 3 should have cost more than The Avengers, yet both did, and both had inferior VFX.

Agreed. Avengers cost around the same, yet looked SOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better than this movie did.

 

[chaseter]

Maybe Marc Webb went over budget????

 

[Spider-Dude23]

Agreed. Avengers cost around the same, yet looked SOOOOOOOOOOOOO much better than this movie did.

I have to disagree. The aliens looked like ****.

 

[spider-neil]

Maybe Marc Webb went over budget????

1. They went with a CG intensive villian.

2. Does the likes of Martin Sheen and Sally Field come cheap?

3. It's shot in New York and the is majorly expensive.

Tips for keeping the cost down.

1. Use a 'human' villian.

2. Shot the movie somewhere other than New York and change the sky line in post.

3. Have more interior shots.

 

[spider-neil]

I have to disagree. The aliens looked like ****.

Totally. Everything else though looked fantastic with the jewel in the crown being The Hulk.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Maybe Marc Webb went over budget????

Maybe, but its been a pattern for the studio. It isn't like TASM is the exception.

 

[roach]

Sony were mad to expect such high figures for a beloved franchise that is retelling the origin. 230m? The bugdet for SM3 was 258m and that was with Maguire, Dunst and Raimi on massive wages. It blows my mind how ASM cost so much.
Avengers cost 220m, that's with a huge cast and ILM (the most expensive effects house in Hollywood) doing the effects.

actually Tobey took 17.5M for Spiderman 2 plus 5% of the backend
for Spiderman 3 he took 15M plus 7.5% of the backend

now Sony had planned to shoot 4 & 5 back to back and offered him 50M for the two films

Sources:
http://www.filmjunk.com/2008/09/16/...ion-to-shoot-spider-man-4-and-5-back-to-back/

http://www.the-numbers.com/people/TMAGU.php

 

[ALP]

This movie basically has the exact same effect in the box office as X-Men: First Class and Batman Begins. They fared poorer in the box office due to audience reluctance compared to the others.

 

[Iceman]

actually Tobey took 17.5M for Spiderman 2 plus 5% of the backend
for Spiderman 3 he took 15M plus 7.5% of the backend

now Sony had planned to shoot 4 & 5 back to back and offered him 50M for the two films

Sources:
http://www.filmjunk.com/2008/09/16/...ion-to-shoot-spider-man-4-and-5-back-to-back/

http://www.the-numbers.com/people/TMAGU.php

Wow, do you know what Garfield is getting?

 

[Iceman]

I'm sure there are many talented artists working there, but Sony Imageworks as a whole really is a s****y VFX studio, imo. Their budgets always seem inflated and their results are always sub-par. There's no reason this OR MIB 3 should have cost more than The Avengers, yet both did, and both had inferior VFX.

That is crazy, didn't think about that.