The Amazing Spider-Man The Amazing Spider-Man: Box Office Thread - Part 2

[JKKS085]

Is there more than one source for this 15% made on the overseas BO take?

The only one I can think of is the Hollywood Economist: The Hidden Financial Reality Behind the Movies but I'm pretty sure that I read this somewhere else. But then again this book is a reference on the subject and I can't recall reading Epstein's being contradicted.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Hellboy of recent memories got a sequel after a very dissapointing first movie (BO wise).
And despite several dissapointing movies at the BO Fincher keeps making movies (with very few interferences from studios) only because he is critically acclaimed.

Hellboy was not a huge disappointment at the box office.

It pretty much broke even then had strong dvd sales.

It did not get a sequel due to critical acclaim.

 

[spider-neil]

Batman Begins sold around half the amount of tickets as the top performing Batman movies.

ASM will do the same: half the ticket sales of the top performing Spider-man movies.

What do these two have in common? They both launched reboots.

To hugely disappointing movies...

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

"Big movies" make most of their money on side revenues (home video, merchandising, TV rights).
Actually theaters worldwide provide less than 18% of the overall revenue a blockbuster generates.

But that 18% is crucial. It's a good predictor of how much revenue the dvd sales and tv rights will produce.

 

[JKKS085]

Hellboy was not a huge disappointment at the box office.

It pretty much broke even then had strong dvd sales.

It did not get a sequel due to critical acclaim.

99 millions WW on a 109 million budget (66+43) that's far from breaking even. In my book that's a financial dissapointment.

DVD sales were satisfying though but nothing impressive either.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

It's not MY calculation method but Epstein's. But here you go.

Spider-Man 3 made 336 million domestically and 554 overseas on a 258 million production budget. Lets keep marketing aside since we rarely get precise numbers on this matter.

Out of the 336 million in north america sony gets roughly 55% back (but it could've been a bit higher than that due to its record breaking opening week-end) wich makes 184,8 million back.

Out of the 554 million the movie grossed overseas, Sony gets 15% back wich makes 83,1 million back to the studio.

So a total of 267,9 million out of the movie's theatrical run. Meaning Sony got 1,03$ for every dollar they spent on the production of the movie. Considering the insanely high production budget it's kind of an achievement.

It's funny how people picture studios as easy billion dollar making companies. If it was indeed the case Columbia wouldn't have been on the verge of bankrupcy recently.

So where did you take out the marketing cost?

 

[JKKS085]

But that 18% is crucial. It's a good predictor of how much revenue the dvd sales and tv rights will produce.

It is, and it's better for a movie to break even in theaters but that also means theater numbers don't make or break a movie's success anymore.
For instance while Batman Forever made less than 200 million domestically back in 1995, merchandise from the movie went through the roof (even though we never got definitive figures on this matter, word has been that the movie's merchandising generated a revenue above 600 million worldwide).

 

[spider-neil]

So is the general point some people are making? ASM is failure?

 

[JKKS085]

So where did you take out the marketing cost?

I only kept the 258 million reported production budget. If I recall correctly the marketing was an additional 130 to 140 million.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

99 millions WW on a 109 million budget (66+43) that's far from breaking even. In my book that's a financial dissapointment.

DVD sales were satisfying though but nothing impressive either.

Okay lets say Hellboy 2 was made only because Hellboy received "universal" critical acclaim (81% on Rottentomatoes?).

Are there a couple more examples were a box office bomb got a sequel only because critics liked it?

Let's exclude Blade Runner because there was a 30+ year gap.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I only kept the 258 million reported production budget. If I recall correctly the marketing was an additional 130 to 140 million.

Okay so don't you have to re-calculate SM3's profits based on 130 m marketing?

 

[JKKS085]

So is the general point some people are making? ASM is failure?

Certainly not. BO numbers are average regarding the production budget (though I consider them dissapointing for the franchise). Yet the movie had tons of handicaps to overcome (being a reboot so soon after the ending of the previous serie, rehashing most of the plot point of the first Spider-Man and a release date between The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises) so all in all we can say the movie performed fine.

Though if it was a better movie overall, I'm confident that it would've reached the 300 million mark easily putting the franchise on a better track.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Not after the boxoffice run of Begins.

What do you mean?

You can do the same with Raimi's Spider-Man. TASM would not even do half the business of Spider-Man 1 - 10 years later with 3D!

Same with BB and B89-420M compared to 730M (B89 earned 1.73 times more)
TASM and SM1-700M compared to 1Billion (SM1 earned 1.42 times more)

TASM ratio is better and also it had a much stronger competitor compared to BB
Add the fact that BB came 16 years after compared to 10 years and B89 budget's was one-third of begins while the budget of SM1 and TASM is more comparable(SM1-190M TASM-230M)|

Bazinga!

Batman Forever stands around $335 Millions and Begins $26x Millions today.

Eh? Didnt get your point
336M is 430M in 2005 money
430M compared to 370M made by BB
BB couldnt even break Batman Forever's record which wasnt too much to start with
It could only break Batman and Robin's record out of all Batman movies(adjusting for inflation)
Dont know about you but I dont consider that an achievement

TASM will do $285 Millions less and without the 3D effect $321 Millions than Spider-Man 1.

Why do you keep mentioning 3D,it spent money to film in 3D and its deserves the earnings,dont make it seem like its black money or something
Removing 3D its budget would go down to less than 190M

Until TDK the Batman Franchise was never huge except Batman'89. All three Raimi Spider-Man movies did more than $750 Millions worldwide and over $300 Millions domestic.

Nice try but no,Batman franchise was always huge,its just that they didnt release the good quality in the 90s to make the desired money

 

[JKKS085]

Okay so don't you have to re-calculate SM3's profits based on 130 m marketing?

I would if I had definitive numbers on how much Sony spent to promote Spider-Man 3. Unfortunately you rarely get actuals on the subject but only rough estimates. So unless estimates are unusually high for the genre (by that I mean more than 60% of the pb) I think it's fair to keep them aside considering that they're anyways covered by side revenues.

 

[spider-neil]

ASM has about month for its threatrical run, then you DVD/Blu ray sales, then you TV network buying the rights. Even if the movie was a BO flop (which it isn't) Sony would make its money back.

If I were to give Sony a word of advice though, I would definately tell them to allow Marvel to use Spidey in his entirity (I.e. More than just a cameo) in the Avengers sequel, even though A2 comes out AFTER ASM2 the hype generated in the lead up to Avengers 2 would no question help Spidey.

 

[Spiderdevil]

They get 15% of the overseas gross at best after expenses. Period. There's no point debating it. It may not suit your obviously biased views on the film's performance but that's how it works.

I wont believe that figure unless I see an adequate amount of sources saying that

I agree it's too bad though since you deeply want TASM to be the most successful reboot in history.

LolWut
Nope,I aint getting a dime from what its earning
All I want is a sequel and we are getting that

E.J Epstein, The Hollywood Economist

And another quote was posted a few pages back which said it ranges from 40-45% in different countries and is 15% in China

Adjusted BB domestic BO is 256,25M not 234. Adjusted PB is 187,5 not 190.

55% of 256M + 45% of 208M Do the math
Similar for TASM

Without marketing going by the correct calculation, WB got out of Batman Begins" theatrical run $0,91 for every dollar spent.
As for TASM, if I take you figures Sony will get $0,89 out of it's theatrical run for every doller they spent on the production budget

My numbers dont say that
BB-234M profit of a 187M Budget
TASM-341M profit of a 230M Budget

 

[JKKS085]

Okay lets say Hellboy 2 was made only because Hellboy received "universal" critical acclaim (81% on Rottentomatoes?).

Are there a couple more examples were a box office bomb got a sequel only because critics liked it?

Let's exclude Blade Runner because there was a 30+ year gap.

I never said Hellboy 2 happened only because critics overall liked the first movie. But it's reception definitely played a pro-active role.

I've no other example in mind but I think the Fincher's carrier is enlightening on that topic.

 

[Picard Sisko]

Point is that TASM is not a box office failure. It isn't a HUGE success, but it did pretty well considering the circumstances.

 

[Spiderdevil]

No, Begins was the second highest grossing Batman movie after the run.
TASM will be the lowest grossing movie and needs 3D to get over $600 Millions worldwide.

We are not talking 'After the run'
We are talking about the present

And BTW it makes no sense to compare pre-reboot Batman movies to pre-reboot spider man movie since Spider man always made more than double the money.It isnt fair to compare the reboots like that when BB is pitted against a mole hill compared to a mountain for TASM

 

[Spiderdevil]

And your point is...? I am comparing the three CBMs of this summer, not any of Raimi's trilogy.

My point is box office earnings is not always directly proportional to the movie's quality

My question was that would it have topped any of Raimi's trilogy or Nolan's if they were released at the same time

If it was released along side BB?
Definitely yes,BB's earnings,whatever little they were,would have taken a bashing

It's not small praise because of so many third installment failures for CBMs. Nolan found a way to get out of that "curse". That's VERY high praise that TDKR didn't end up becoming just like any other third act.

The curse is overrated to say the least
How would the 3rd part of 2-3 series failing would have an effect on TDKR's chances?
Stupid superstitious beliefs

 

[JKKS085]

I wont believe that figure unless I see an adequate amount of sources saying that

The WSJ uses Epstein's method to make their projections but YOU need other sources even though you strongly believe an out of the blue 45% share getting back to studios while there's NO SOURCE AT ALL to support your theorie. You're a pretty funny dude.

 

[Spiderdevil]

TASM will do around $300 Millions less than Spider-Man 1 and 3 and $280 Millions less than Spider-Man 2.

And without 3D we are talking about $400+ Millions over Raimi's movies.

Without 3-D its budget also goes down to SM1's level and 50M less than SM2 and almost a 100M less than SM3

 

[spider-neil]

Point is that TASM is not a box office failure. It isn't a HUGE success, but it did pretty well considering the circumstances.

Reboot to a beloved franchise still fresh in the GA's minds.
Retreading the origin, again.
Two weeks before the conclusion to arguably the most anticipated movie of the year.
One week before a huge animated franchise.

To be perfectly frank, it's a amazing the movie has done as well as it has.

 

[Spiderdevil]

It's not MY calculation method but Epstein's. But here you go.

Spider-Man 3 made 336 million domestically and 554 overseas on a 258 million production budget. Lets keep marketing aside since we rarely get precise numbers on this matter.

Out of the 336 million in north america sony gets roughly 55% back (but it could've been a bit higher than that due to its record breaking opening week-end) wich makes 184,8 million back.

Out of the 554 million the movie grossed overseas, Sony gets 15% back wich makes 83,1 million back to the studio.

So a total of 267,9 million out of the movie's theatrical run. Meaning Sony got 1,03$ for every dollar they spent on the production of the movie. Considering the insanely high production budget it's kind of an achievement.

It's funny how people picture studios as easy billion dollar making companies. If it was indeed the case Columbia wouldn't have been on the verge of bankrupcy recently.

So they put in 3 years worth of work and an 260M investment to get a profit of 7 million?

*Applaudes*

 

[Spiderdevil]

The only one I can think of is the Hollywood Economist: The Hidden Financial Reality Behind the Movies but I'm pretty sure that I read this somewhere else. But then again this book is a reference on the subject and I can't recall reading Epstein's being contradicted.

Someone posted another link which say 40-45%