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

[Tony Stark]

You can look at it as a ridiculous comparison but i look at it in the opposite way. Which is easier following a film with a massive built in audience or starting from the ground up coming from bombs or near dead franchises to work your way to very good numbers as begins and Star Trek did?

My point still remains nobody makes a reboot to do worst than the last time regardless of how much the previous films made. Sony for sure wanted to recapture the spider-man gold of the raimi series.

ps. I don't consider first class a reboot even, it's pretty much a direct prequel to the 1st 2 x-mens continuity errors aside (but that's for another thread).

It's an apples an oranges comparison. Batman, Star Trek, Bond all rebooted because their franchises were previously stagnant.

Spider-man rebooted because Sony was in danger to lose the rights to the character if they didn't. Ideally they wanted to make Spider-man 4, but when Raimi and Sony had creative disagreements, it was back to the drawing board.

 

[JKKS085]

IM2 had a budget of 200M,which would be around the same as TASM's budget adjusted for inflation,TASM will probably end up earning more than that but the main point is that IM2 was a sequel,I expect TASM2 to earn lot more than IM2 did

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).

And Sony spent money to record in 3D which added to its Budget,I dont see why you consider 3D earnings out of the equation

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.

The shooting incident has something to do with that,It would probably end as 250M domestic which is 7M short of StarTrek's domestic,and it has earned more than 3 times Star Trek's overseas as it is.
Plus TASM's budget is just about 50M more than Star Trek's(After considering inflation)

Strange that you adjust ST's production budget and not its grosses.
TASM's PB is 230 millions, if you adjust Star Trek's that's 159 millions (a 71 millions difference). And 272 millions in domestic grosses.
And I'm not even talking marketing costs (While Star Trek had a campaign around 80 millions, TASM's marketing was around 120). So even with strong coming weeks TASM has no chance to be more profitable than ST. Even with it's huge international BO.

Dont state your opinion like its a fact.
SM2 delivered the goods,there is no reason to think why TASM2 cant

Sure because you don't, ever, at all (even when you're flat out wrong on technical things).
Webb has nowhere near the influence Raimi had over Sony and isn't even yet confirmed for the sequel. The other difference is that Raimi won his freedom on Spider-Man 2 after the huge sucess Spider-Man was. And he lost it because SM2 grossed less than the first installement hence the mediocre, full of studio interferences, Spider-Man 3.

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.

 

[TheLastBlade]

I still can't understand why there are people here trying to bring people down by saying amazing spiderman didn't do good. Sure it just made back it's budget domestically, but Sony seems to be happy about the movie in total. Especially when it did 616 mil (for the last time, it may be spiderman, but no at Sony seems expect it to be cheesy Sam Raimis [well, except for thier bold statement of 800 mil]) And so what if iron man made more domestically.... In total it got destroyed by Amazing Spiderman. Yes it had a higher budget, but it also is still making money... Slowly. All that's left is to destroy iron man 2.

 

[American_Hobo]

The thing is, big blockbuster movies need to do good domestically.
Worldwide numbers don't mean anything because big movies always make so much money WW, regardless of how good or how bad they are.
Just like Spiderman 3, this movie will make tons of money WW because of its name "Spiderman".
As for this movie, I'd say domestic gross is pretty disappointing. (232M so far)

 

[©KAW]

It's an apples an oranges comparison. Batman, Star Trek, Bond all rebooted because their franchises were previously stagnant.

Spider-man rebooted because Sony was in danger to lose the rights to the character if they didn't. Ideally they wanted to make Spider-man 4, but when Raimi and Sony had creative disagreements, it was back to the drawing board.

Thank God for that disagreement, box office or not, I don't want Sam Raimi back, or those boring and goofy ass over-the-top actors.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Thank God for that disagreement, box office or not, I don't want Sam Raimi back, or those boring and goofy ass over-the-top actors.

 

[Jexx]

Did James and the actor for Otto dye their hair black?

 

[chaseter]

Thank God for that disagreement, box office or not, I don't want Sam Raimi back, or those boring and goofy ass over-the-top actors.

 

[©KAW]

Okay, obviously you two like to post pictures...

 

[chaseter]

We have a penchant for posting pictures and you have one for posting ridiculously dumb things.

 

[TheLastBlade]

Yeah, at least we won't get bad movies from Sam Raimi anymore.

 

[Mike]

I'm glad we have a reboot. Sm2 was raimis best. But it could've been something more without the cheesy dialogue, gwemj, and the raindrops keep falling on my head scene with that corny mentos freeze shot at the end.

 

[chaseter]

Yeah, at least we won't get bad movies from Sam Raimi anymore.

Or Marc Webb apparently.

 

[TheLastBlade]

Or Marc Webb apparently.

Now all we need is a good director.

 

[Nathan]

Spoiler

While I'm not the biggest fan of the Raimi Movies, I'll always admit that the villain actors were great. And it's a damn shame that JK Simmons was so hilarious in the Movies and Spider-Man was simply meh.

 

[milesalpha]

I still can't understand why there are people here trying to bring people down by saying amazing spiderman didn't do good. Sure it just made back it's budget domestically, but Sony seems to be happy about the movie in total. Especially when it did 616 mil (for the last time, it may be spiderman, but no at Sony seems expect it to be cheesy Sam Raimis [well, except for thier bold statement of 800 mil]) And so what if iron man made more domestically.... In total it got destroyed by Amazing Spiderman. Yes it had a higher budget, but it also is still making money... Slowly. All that's left is to destroy iron man 2.

I don't understand why you are in the box-office thread. I expected to be able to discuss the hard numbers here and what they mean. These kinds of discussions are held every day in the offices of theatre chains, bookers, studios, and marketing/advertising companies, among others. What would be the reaction if you stated that paragraph in any of those situations? You would not have a job long. Your opinion of the Raimi films means nothing. Your opinion of TAS means nothing. My opinion of those movies means the exact same thing, nothing. Being able to properly analyze the numbers does not mean you have to love it or hate it, it means you can look at it dispassionately

I was a buyer for a video chain for over 20 years. The first thing I tossed out the window every morning was my opinion, along with the critic's opinions. I had a pretty good track record along the way. I gritted my teeth and brought in Stephen Seagal movies in the 80s because they sold, not because I wanted to feel warm and fuzzy about them.

 

[milesalpha]

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.

 

[TheLastBlade]

I don't understand why you are in the box-office thread. I expected to be able to discuss the hard numbers here and what they mean. These kinds of discussions are held every day in the offices of theatre chains, bookers, studios, and marketing/advertising companies, among others. What would be the reaction if you stated that paragraph in any of those situations? You would not have a job long. Your opinion of the Raimi films means nothing. Your opinion of TAS means nothing. My opinion of those movies means the exact same thing, nothing. Being able to properly analyze the numbers does not mean you have to love it or hate it, it means you can look at it dispassionately

I was a buyer for a video chain for over 20 years. The first thing I tossed out the window every morning was my opinion, along with the critic's opinions. I had a pretty good track record along the way. I gritted my teeth and brought in Stephen Seagal movies in the 80s because they sold, not because I wanted to feel warm and fuzzy about them.

Well then your statement means nothing to me. And stop trying to make your opinion a big deal to me; I don't care if you watch and buy movies... GOD. And what do mean by "hate"? I never said I hated the films. I stated that spiderman made more money than they did. If its something else, then whatever.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Did James and the actor for Otto dye their hair black?

I believe Alfred Molina always dyed his hair black. I've always seen it as black whenever he shows up on Craig Ferguson. Not sure about James though; it could've been lighting as it's usually brown-ish.

We have a penchant for posting pictures and you have one for posting ridiculously dumb things.

While I'm not the biggest fan of the Raimi Movies, I'll always admit that the villain actors were great. And it's a damn shame that JK Simmons was so hilarious in the Movies and Spider-Man was simply meh.

Definitely all of them have been great, acting-wise...except for Topher Grace. It's just the writing that made most of the villains "meh".

 

[Anno_Domini]

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.

And do you think it will?

 

[milesalpha]

Well then your statement means nothing to me. And stop trying to make your opinion a big deal to me; I don't care if you watch and buy movies... GOD. And what do mean by "hate"? I never said I hated the films. I stated that spiderman made more money than they did. If its something else, then whatever.

Sigh, remember I mentioned that emotion thing? I let it pass last time but it is getting boring. Go back through your posts and list the adjectives you use to describe the Raimi movies, it couldn't be more obvious that your ego is somehow tied up in this,

Several have taken time to try and explain what the box office numbers mean and yet you keep on with the same drivel. You continue to make the same mistakes (TAS has made its budget back, wildly overrating the importance of WW numbers, comparing it to other movies only on terms most favorable to TAS). It is pure fanboy stuff, and surely there is another thread for those who just want to gush about the movie.

I never said your opinion in general didn't matter, I said that when it come to analyzing box office numbers, your like or dislike means nothing. I didn't just buy movies kid, I did it for a living. There's a big difference between buying your favorite little movie at the grocery store and figuring out copy depth, shelf duration, pricing formats, sell-thru possibilites, co et al.o-op advertising et al.

Now I really am tired of this, I shall be hitting the old ignore button for you after this. Have your say, but at least stop whining that other people know more than you do and don't agree with your superficial reading of the numbers. They are not trying to bring anyone down, they are simply trying to get an accurate perspective.

Bye

 

[milesalpha]

And do you think it will?

Ah nothing like putting me on the hit spot. And this is a nasty spot, it being so early in its run. Let see, eenie, meeny, minie, mo.

Ok, I believe it will drop more than 20% off the Tuesday total but the mid week weakness is due in greater part to the length of the movie, which limits the number of showings during that period, and acts to discourage the old movie goer (bladders can't handle that long a movie easily). With no strong competition coming this weekend, DKR will easily dominate the weekend box office.
On the longer term, DKR is no DK, it will peter out shy of the 400 million mark.

But I still have no interest in seeing it. I just want them to get the whole thing over with so they can start working toward the JLA movie which must have Batman (note Batman and not the Dark Knight). I am hoping the Superman movie does well to help push things along, but my initial impressions have made me nervous.

Wordy little bugger, ain't I?

 

[rayc1971]

The thing is, big blockbuster movies need to do good domestically.
Worldwide numbers don't mean anything because big movies always make so much money WW, regardless of how good or how bad they are.
Just like Spiderman 3, this movie will make tons of money WW because of its name "Spiderman".
As for this movie, I'd say domestic gross is pretty disappointing. (232M so far)

people dont understand the numbers.the studio gets 55% of the domestic gross and only 15% of the overseas gross.i like how people throw the worldwide numbers out there to say a movie is a sucess.so the domestic gross is more important to the studios pockets.iron man had a 150mill budget and grossed 318mill that is more profitable than a movie that cost 230mill and probably will only gross 250mill.

 

[Anno_Domini]

Ah nothing like putting me on the hit spot. And this is a nasty spot, it being so early in its run. Let see, eenie, meeny, minie, mo.

Ok, I believe it will drop more than 20% off the Tuesday total but the mid week weakness is due in greater part to the length of the movie, which limits the number of showings during that period, and acts to discourage the old movie goer (bladders can't handle that long a movie easily). With no strong competition coming this weekend, DKR will easily dominate the weekend box office.
On the longer term, DKR is no DK, it will peter out shy of the 400 million mark.

But I still have no interest in seeing it. I just want them to get the whole thing over with so they can start working toward the JLA movie which must have Batman (note Batman and not the Dark Knight). I am hoping the Superman movie does well to help push things along, but my initial impressions have made me nervous.

Wordy little bugger, ain't I?

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).

 

[grieven]

people dont understand the numbers.the studio gets 55% of the domestic gross and only 15% of the overseas gross.i like how people throw the worldwide numbers out there to say a movie is a sucess.so the domestic gross is more important to the studios pockets.iron man had a 150mill budget and grossed 318mill that is more profitable than a movie that cost 230mill and probably will only gross 250mill.

It may be true that the studio takes in a much smaller percentage of the overseas boxoffice, but unless you are the studio head or a company bean counter, why must so many fixate on what percentage the studio takes in? The fact that TAS has banked $618 million wordwide en route to over $700+ million is an accomplishment. It is a film that people around the world paid that much to see in theaters and it may finish 3rd worldwide this year behind Avengers and TDKR. If the studio takes in far less a cut in the international boxoffice, it doesn't change the fact that this movie will have sold $700 to $750 million in tickets worldwide. Yet people keep harping on technicalities in an apparent attempt to diminish the accomplishment.

Unless you're a stockholder, you needn't lay awake at night worrying about how much the studio's cut is. They have home video, rights to tv exhibition, video on demand, etc after the theatrical run. No one will ever know how much actual profit is made.

But at the end of the film's run, the worldwide *** will be the worldwide ***, and the split of domestic to international won't change that it earned that much around the world. Despite constant reminders here that the studio takes in less if it's overseas. Honestly, to you and me, so what?