I know a lot of people who were big fans of Raimi's movies but started liking Nolan's Batman and Avengers after that
My point being Spider-man is now the 3rd most liked character now after Batman and Avengers(not exactly a 'character') when he was the undisputed 1st in 2007.
Big Difference
Yes 3rd like character but when you compare it with 500 millions and more earning movies. I've never said that Spider-Man should have beaten the Avengers or TDK but considering the character's popularity and the reputation of the Raimi trilogy (except for the last movie, wich still was a huge public success), the help of 3D (wich mean it had to sell less tickets), it should have grossed above 300 millions (domestically). Unless there's a problem with the movie or the direction of the franchise.
I remember having the same exact discussion after Spider-Man 3 and Iron Man 2. Explaining during endless debates that the fact their last installements were less successfull (domestically) than their predecessors will hurt both franchises. The result is Raimi left Spider-Man 4 over some creative differences with the studio (wich means they probably interfered too much during pre-production for his tastes) and Shane Black replaced Jon Favreau in the director chair for Iron Man 3 (things were different but he blamed Marvel for being too insistant with the Avengers set up that, in his opinion, hurted the movie).
Compare TASM to BB not TDK
And if Nolan 'earned' the freedom through BB,why do you think Webb hasnt despite TASM being more successful box-office wise?
Because Sony is not WB (the studio is known for heavily interfering during productions), and because Webb doesn't have Nolan's experience nor is as critically acclaimed as Nolan was after Batman Begins (and that's really important when it comes to freedom. Fincher makes movies free of studio interferences, despite poor box office figures, just because he often receives tremendous reviews).
Indeed TASM will get better numbers but it'll end up being just as profitable as BB (0.9$ earned for every dollar spent, marketing costs aside).
The money earned was due to SM1 and 2's reputation.The movie is still disliked almost as much as B&R,and it is more fresher in people's mind than B&R was in 2005.
Spider-Man 3 received a fresh rating on rottentomatoes (with 72% of the audience liking the movie, on imdb the average rating is 6.3/10). I personnaly think that it was a mediocre movie but its public and critical reception is nowhere near the disaster B&R was for the Batman franchise (12% on the tomatoemeter, and 3.6 over at imdb).
(To see how TASM and BB's earnings are compared to the highest grossing in their respective franchise)
BB/Batman(1989) = 410/646 = 0.63
TASM/SM3 = 700/1118 = 0.62
Wich is more interesting to see (because your calculation includes raw international numbers) is that TASM will be the first SM movie not to break even over the course of it's theatrical run. So far, here's how the SM franchise looks like in term of profit figures, not accounting for marketing costs.
Spider-Man: 139 million PB / 284,3 million back to Sony
$2,04 profit for every dollar they spent
Spider-Man 2: 200 million PB / 266,65 million back to Sony
$1,33 profit for every dollar they spent
Spider-Man 3: 258 millions PB / 267,9 million back to Sony
$1,33 profit for every dollar they spent
(If TASM makes 255 millions domestically and 450 millions overseas)
TASM: 230 millions PB / 207,75 millions back to sony
$0,10 loss for every dollar spent.
Batman Begins (that has around the same profitability profil as TASM's still not accounting marketing cost) came after a movie that lost 50 million dollars and it managed to almost restore the profitability of the franchise. TASM on the other hand came after a profitable movie but will fail, for the first time in the franchise, to break even. That makes for a totally different context.
Please explain to me your logic,How can interfering with the movie guarantee them more income?
Because they'll micromanage the movie, making sure it'll please every target they can possibly think of, not letting the creative team in charge the opportunity to make the movie they want. Maybe that works for shampoos but when I go see movie I expect watching something else other than just a marketing product.
Untill it does that,its in loss here.
I can also state than TASM's DVDs are gonna sell like hot cakes but thats not the point,The thing we are talking about now are box office earnings
Indeed, and from that stand point TDKR will report lower loses than TASM.
I am only quoting the hollywood economist because its the only site which gives the percentage of Box office earnings
I still have a hard time believing that the studios spend dozens of millions promoting the film overseas and in the end they get some 15% of the ticket sales
Those 15% are after expenses (that includes marketing cost).
Did Arad said it himself to your 'source'?
'Hey you know we are expecting 300M in ticket sales domestically'
Sorry but I will believe what Arad has himself said in an interview and Sony's statement afterwards stating that they are pleased with the numbers
My "source" is an excutive over at Sony Pictures Releasing France so while I doubt he got it from Arad himself (who isn't on Sony's payroll BTW) I fully trust his word. Then again, aftewards, every studio is publicly pleased with their movies' numbers. That's PR 101.
And you CLEARLY NEED to learn some manners
Probably and for that I apologize. English is not my first language and when I'm irritated I may sound too harsh. Hope there's no hurt feelings.