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

Status
Not open for further replies.
TAS-M had trouble brewing before both of those.
All the movies had
So even if Ice Age 4 wasn't release...TAS-M's numbers would've still been pretty bad in its second week?
91M is bad?
Just to put things into prespective
BB earned 70M in its second week
Casino Royale earned 37M
Star trek had 100M
Icredible Hulk had 31M
(Note:The numbers are unadjusted)
That's not you agreeing.
Okay, let's try one more time.
Go.
It wasnt
Focusing more on the emotional depth - Batman Begins(which really helped Iron Man in that area as well as even Favreau mentioned this and TAS-M took guidelines from Iron Man also)
Daredevil did it before BB
Focusing on the origin in general(Uncle Ben's murder) - copying the '02 film when the origin didn't even have to be retold
Thats copying '02 movie not BB
That didn't really force Raimi into using the police more.
Because he didnt use Gwen Stacy in the first movie..he had Jameson to do the antagonistic role
Jameson used his newspaper and Stacy used his police force
Because if they had used Captain Stacy the correct way, it would have felt more like the relationship between Batman and Gordon, haha.
And you would still count it as 'inspiration' Its a lose-lose situation
Plus, let's face it...Spider-Man is someone that doesn't need to have any kind of relationship with the police. I'm looking forward to a less police use in the sequel.
Depends on the script
Still gas whichever way you want to look at it.
A chemical in...GAS form.
Do we expect for the climax to be EXACTLY the same? Nope. And no one said this.
Still not 'inspiration' in my opinion
Both are being used, or at least one's main purpose, for clean energy while in TDKR it's only fronted as being a clean energy supply.
Still nuclear weapon whichever way you want to look at it.
So we got that cleared..TDKR took inspiration from SM2
Because Joker easily took down one police officer(Stephens)...you think he couldn't with the others?
Yes
What is this competition you speak of then? Hrm?
TDKR
Yes. Green Goblin was :down
Better than all of Nolan's villians except the Joker
Because TAS-M didn't do a very good job of it. It was decent, but nothing incredible.
Please read the reviews..they bashed it for taking too much time to get the costumed guy in(Not because 'it didnt do a very good job of it' which is strictly your opinion)
Can't read?
So how is he gonna have influence on the movie when he isnt involved except paying the bills?
Still, Zack Snyder is and he's done a great job with CBMs in the form of 300 and Watchmen.
300 was actually pretty bad
Havent watched Watchmen but RT doesnt have a good opinion of it
Exactly, there is no example except for Ice Age 4 vs The Amazing Spider-Man and we saw that outcome.
So how exactly did you get to the conclusion that its unexpected for an animated movie to top a superhero movie?
Plus, topping was beating TAS-M for the #1 spot btw.
And thats important in the long run because?
What did I just say about comparing TAS-M to something elseAnd your reply better not be "because it's not a CBM!"
Since you believe BB to be the best thing since sliced bread..I try to bring it up to show the comparison
No...because they're not childish that would bring up BB's numbers just because they bring up the fact that TAS-M should've been doing better only for someone else to just bring up another film to make themselves feel better in some self-righteous way.
Because they are actually childish to say TASM's numbers are disappointing when lower numbers for another movie are actually mindblowing in their opinion
 
Last edited:

Yep and while it's quite interesting, this article concentrates its analysis on $1 Million budget indie films. A 230M flick from a major studio is built on an entirely different business model. However, it also shows with it's 3 scenarios chart on page 6 that the higher the production, the lower the 3D increase is. As well as most of the extra-cost of shooting in 3D coming from the increase in camera rental cost for a 3D camera system, wich means in this case Sony paying itself.
If the increase for 3D is 23% on a $600,000 film and only 15% on a $1,3M film I think it's pretty safe to assume that it's significantly lower than that on a $230M film.

Majority of the budget is sony paying itself..it still adds to the budget though

This is a shortsighted shortcut. It happens for some expenses (like for internalized marketing, most of the visual effects in this case) but doesn't account for the majority of the production budget of a blockbuster movie in general.

Agreed
Batman begins for example..sold less tickets than any other previous Batman movie(Except Batman and Robin) but that doesnt stop people from claiming that it was a success financially and improved viewership
People always do it in the modern era

Because Batman Begins came after 2 terribly received movies, 1 BO disaster, 7 years of developpement hell and resurected the Batman franchise in cinemas. TASM had none of these handicaps to overcome. Spider-Man 3 while it got mixed reviews is a generally liked movie with amazing numbers at the BO wich accounts for a strong fanbase domestically and overseas (while Batman was NEVER huge overseas even when the movies were successful in North America). The Spider-Man franchise was never in the same kind of critical situation that the Batman franchise was 10 years ago. Batman Begins managed to put the character back on track from a dying and generally unliked franchise that's why its considered a success. TASM had no hurdle of this kind to overcome but it'll end up selling 30% less tickets WW than the worst received Spider-Man movie despite being showcased on exponentially growing markets and while the genre is now more popular (domestically and overseas) than ever. Go figure.
It's comparing apple and oranges.

No..thats because I dont live in the United States and I dont think its fair to stack up 1 country's numbers against 2 dozen countries(where it has exceeded expectations)

And neither do I but I do not mind admitting that United States still accounts for the majority of the profit generated by a movie during it's theatrical run, especially when it comes to comic book movies.


???
 
Last edited:
All the movies had

We're talking about TAS-M, correct? Awesome...so TAS-M was having trouble beforehand. Period.

91M is bad?
Just to put things into prespective
BB earned 70M in its second week
Casino Royale earned 37M
Star trek had 100M
Icredible Hulk had 31M
(Note:The numbers are unadjusted)

It's bad when it made that and still lost to Ice Age 4 that weekend and if it still just made that amount without IA4, then that's not too great if you ask me.


One more time. Go. And this time, don't act like a biased fan that would never associate a movie with Nolan's trilogy :up:

Daredevil did it before BB

No...no it didn't. It was a rushed attempt in trying to get some emotional depth, and failed drastically. So you want to say TAS-M used elements from Daredevil? A movie that was a failure?

Thats copying '02 movie not BB

What the hell are you talking about now? Oh my god you're a riot. Of COURSE it copied the way the '02 film portrayed the origin because that's SPIDER-MAN'S ORIGIN. Christ.

Because he didnt use Gwen Stacy in the first movie..he had Jameson to do the antagonistic role
Jameson used his newspaper and Stacy used his police force

You didn't get my point. Of course you didn't.

And you would still count it as 'inspiration' Its a lose-lose situation

Using the police force is taking notes on Nolan's trilogy period.

Depends on the script

And the script better diverse itself differently from the mistakes of the first film.

Still not 'inspiration' in my opinion

Well in mine...it was.

Still nuclear weapon whichever way you want to look at it.
So we got that cleared..TDKR took inspiration from SM2

You're a moron sometimes. I hope you know this.

TDKR - nuclear weapon

S-M 2 - fusion power like the sun


:doh:


TDKR was TAS-M's competition the week when it wasn't even released? That's strange.

Better than all of Nolan's villians except the Joker

:lmao:

Wait...that deserved another

:lmao:

Let's see...who else thought Green Goblin was better than all of Nolan's villains except for Joker?

Please read the reviews..they bashed it for taking too much time to get the costumed guy in(Not because 'it didnt do a very good job of it' which is strictly your opinion)

Taking too much time for not giving a worthwhile enough story about the boy before he put on the suit and feeling like the '02 film still during that time.

So how is he gonna have influence on the movie when he isnt involved except paying the bills?

Again...know what you're talking about before you make your reply.

“He basically told me, ‘I have this thought about how you would approach Superman.’ I immediately got it, loved it and thought: That is a way of approaching the story I’ve never seen before that makes it incredibly exciting. I wanted to get Emma and I involved in shepherding the project right away and getting it to the studio and getting it going in an exciting way.”

He's part of all the creative decisions.

300 was actually pretty bad

Actually, it was pretty good.

Havent watched Watchmen but RT doesnt have a good opinion of it

Putting faith in RT again :funny:

So how exactly did you get to the conclusion that its unexpected for an animated movie to top a superhero movie?

When Ice Age 4 topped a supposedly "most anticipated movie of the year" :funny:

And thats important in the long run because?

It should be known how a movie does in the box office. Both Avengers and TDKR stayed on top for three weeks.

Since you believe BB to be the best thing since sliced bread..I try to bring it up to show the comparison

"Best thing since sliced bread"? Oh man. It's nice to know that since I like Batman Begins, it's now my favorite thing since bread. Lovely.

Because they are actually childish to say TASM's numbers are disappointing when lower numbers for another movie are actually mindblowing in their opinion

They are disappointing though in the domestic field and we have the right to mention this without fanboys trying to bring up other films :up:
 
Showing adjusted numbers also easily proves my point

No it just shows the contrary. TASM has no chance to become the most successful reboot domestically (Star Trek is out of reach) or internationally (same thing with Casino Royale's overseas numbers) and has yet to reach Casino Royale's 727M WW total (yes my mistake as well, I had to redo the calculation).
And that's not even taking production budgets or final profits in account.

722M is not out of reach
That's not what I'm talking about.

I was estimating numbers at the end of its run..and 40M from China will easily make it break that number

No you were stating that TASM already broke Casino Royale's WW totals:

Still TASM has beaten then both [NDLR: Star Trek & Casino Royale] on WW gross

Wich is flat out wrong.

And how exactly did you get to that conclusion?
You looked into the silver globe of yours?

I don't know, maybe I know how to read numbers and you don't ? Just my 2 cents.
 
Yep and while it's quite interesting, this article concentrates its analysis on $1 Million budget indie films. A 230M flick is built on an entirely different business model. However, it also shows with it's 3 scenarios chart on page 6 that the higher the production, the lower the 3D increase is. As well as most of the extra-cost of shooting in 3D coming from the increase in camera rental cost for a 3D camera system, wich means in this case Sony paying itself.
If the increase for 3D is 23% on a $600,000 film and only 15% on a $1,3M film I think it's pretty safe to assume that it's significantly lower than that on a $230M film.
There is a difference betwen the quality of a low budget movie 3D and the 3D of a 230M movie..which is also supposed to be shown on Imax..not to mention the red epic camera
But even we assume it to be 15%..the budget goes down to 200M substracting 3D cost..which is 60M less than SM2's budget and and 110M less than SM3's budget

This is a shortsighted shortcut. It happens for some expenses (like for internalized marketing, most of the visual effects in this case) but doesn't account for the majority of the production budget of a blockbuster movie.
The cost of the cameras and stuff is still added to the production budget..even if sony provides it

Because Batman Begins came after 2 terribly received movies, 1 BO disaster
Actually that played out in their favour..people werent expecting a lot and it seemed very good when compared to the previous franchise..there was no reboot bias
7 years of developpement hell and resurected the Batman franchise in cinemas.
Spider-man was stuck in development hell for 25 years before SM1 came out..no excuse
TASM had none of these handicaps to overcome.
It had to deal with being compared to a previously very successful franchise and reboot bias not to mention compete with TDKR and the tragedy also happened
So the factors more or less even out

while Batman was NEVER huge overseas even when the movies were successful in North America
Actually SM3 wasnt a huge success in the domestic market

Batman Begins managed to put the character back on track from a dying and generally unliked franchise that's why its considered a success.
Thats overkill..the franchise was always huge..there were way way more Batman fans in school when I was a kid

TASM had no hurdle of this kind to overcome
Not the same kind but it had plenty of hurdles to overcome..please stop being biased
but it'll end up selling 30% less tickets WW than the worst received Spider-Man movie
Reception and box office money arent always proportional..refine your logic
Worst making spider man move was SM2 and it had the best reception of all 4 movies
If Sony used your mentality..they would've shut down the franchise after SM2 because the movie earned 125M less than SM1 despite an almost 80M increase in budget...thats 205M loss just like that

As I have said before
SM2 made 3.83 times its budget
SM3 made 3.3 times its budget
TASM will make 3.16 times its budget(If we assume 725M at the end of its run)
Its very much comparable

despite being showcased on exponentially growing markets and while the genre is now more popular (domestically and overseas) than ever. Go figure.
Batman Begins made less money than Batman forever..sold less tickets despite being released 10 years later(During which the movie market boomed)..with a 25M increase in budget and when Batman forever was actually a very very bad movie
And TASM making comparable money to SM3 (3.3 to 3.16 ratio) when it didnt have half as much hype as SM3 and SM3 wasnt even half bad as Batman Forever

I know which is worse
Bottom line..TASM will end up making double the money BB made.Go figure
 
We're talking about TAS-M, correct? Awesome...so TAS-M was having trouble beforehand. Period.
Eh?
All.the.movies.had.trouble.dealing.with.TDKR.and.the.tragedy
Where does the question of 'beforehand' come in?

It's bad when it made that and still lost to Ice Age 4 that weekend and if it still just made that amount without IA4, then that's not too great if you ask me.
It still ended up making double of IC4's money domestically so I dont care whether it came second for that weekend or 10th
Go figure
And IC4 came out at the start of TASM's 3rd week

One more time. Go. And this time, don't act like a biased fan that would never associate a movie with Nolan's trilogy
It wasnt

No...no it didn't. It was a rushed attempt in trying to get some emotional depth, and failed drastically. So you want to say TAS-M used elements from Daredevil? A movie that was a failure?
It used the emotional element before BB and TASM took inspiration from Daredevil and made a much better product..it took inspiration from Iron Man movie aswell

What the hell are you talking about now? Oh my god you're a riot. Of COURSE it copied the way the '02 film portrayed the origin because that's SPIDER-MAN'S ORIGIN. Christ.
So how does it copying the basic spider man origin equate to it copying Batman begins?? Sheesh
The revenge plot was always there in Spider-man's origin..from 1960
It wasnt copied from BB

Using the police force is taking notes on Nolan's trilogy period.
It isnt
Its replacing JJ Jameson
Jameson used his newspaper and Stacy used his police force.Period

TDKR - nuclear weapon
S-M 2 - fusion power like the sun
Fusion reaction is still a nuclear reaction
Nuclear reactions are of two types-Fission and Fusion
Sun's energy itself is based on nuclear reactions
Basic Physics
Its clear who's the moron here

And in TDKR it wasnt supposed to be a nuclear weapon..it was supposed to provide energy based on Fusion just like DocOck's experiment
Wayne Enterprises is nearly bankrupt after he invested in board member Miranda Tate's clean energy project, designed to harness fusion power, and then shut it down after learning that the core could be modified into a nuclear weapon
The concept behind both the experiments was to provide clean energy to the whole city based on fusion reaction..it was used as a weapon in both.Knowingly by Talia and unknowingly by DocOck

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dark_knight_rises
Go pick up a high school physics book

TDKR was TAS-M's competition the week when it wasn't even released? That's strange.
Competition after 17 days..and it made 225M in those 17 days
If there would be no TDKR..it would have easily crossed 275M by now

Let's see...who else thought Green Goblin was better than all of Nolan's villains except for Joker?
You are someone who gives a top 5 spot to a crybaby,love struck bodyguard sidekick of a Villian so I know your credibilty when it comes to Villians

Taking too much time for not giving a worthwhile enough story about the boy before he put on the suit and feeling like the '02 film still during that time.
So you put words in the mouth of reviewers aswell
There point was..nobody wants to see Peter Parker..they want to see Spider man hence it wasnt wise to spend an hour narrating his story(in their opinion) when it was already done earlier on
While Bruce Wayne's origin was never shown in a proper way before(Neither was Tony Stark's) which is why they appreciated it then

Again...know what you're talking about before you make your reply.
He's part of all the creative decisions.
So Zach Synder is just a dummy
Nice

Actually, it was pretty good.
No it wasnt

Putting faith in RT again
Because I havent watched it

When Ice Age 4 topped a supposedly "most anticipated movie of the year"
It wasnt even among the top 2 most anticipated movies
Sony said it because it wont be wise saying 'The 3rd most anticipated superhero movie of the year' in their trailer

Both Avengers and TDKR stayed on top for three weeks.
Both Avengers and TDKR had multiple movies behind them

They are disappointing though in the domestic field and we have the right to mention this without fanboys trying to bring up other films :up:
As I said before..world wide man
 
No it just shows the contrary. TASM has no chance to become the most successful reboot domestically (Star Trek is out of reach) or internationally (same thing with Casino Royale's overseas numbers)
Either chose Domestic or World wide as your barometer..dont be like Anno and change as it suits the argument
and has yet to reach Casino Royale's 727M WW total (yes my mistake as well, I had to redo the calculation).
725.2M*
It will probably get there

And that's not even taking production budgets or final profits in account.
As I said before..Second best reboot after Casino Royale


That's not what I'm talking about.
No you were stating that TASM already broke Casino Royale's WW totals:
Wich is flat out wrong.
I adjusted wrongly then

I don't know, maybe I know how to read numbers and you don't ? Just my 2 cents.
And the numbers say it has earned more than BB,Star Trek, and will probably reach Casino Royale's total

And before you say it..neither of the 3 became the highest earning movie of their franchise
 
Last edited:
Lol the only reason ice age 4 made a lot of money is because of foreign viewers.... I guess they like to watch a lot of CRAP. Seriously? It made over 596 mil overseas....
 
Lol the only reason ice age 4 made a lot of money is because of foreign viewers.... I guess they like to watch a lot of CRAP. Seriously? It made over 596 mil overseas....

Indeed. And it's got a huge kids market. Regardless, I think I'd go as far as to say that TASM being beaten by Ice Age 4... is not really that much of a big deal. I mean, it was pretty much inevitable if you think about it. I don't see the problem. Ice Age is a beloved ongoing franchise, much like Shrek.

TASM isn't a failure just because it lost to the fourth instalment of one of the most profitable animated franchises to ever exist. :)

At the end of the day, for a reboot that nobody really wanted, or were that bothered about in comparison to DKR or TA, it's done pretty damn well. Second most successful reboot of all time is nothing to be ashamed of, though that might be hard to believe.
 
Indeed. And it's got a huge kids market. Regardless, I think I'd go as far as to say that TASM being beaten by Ice Age 4... is not really that much of a big deal. I mean, it was pretty much inevitable if you think about it. I don't see the problem. Ice Age is a beloved ongoing franchise, much like Shrek.

TASM isn't a failure just because it lost to the fourth instalment of one of the most profitable animated franchises to ever exist. :)

At the end of the day, for a reboot that nobody really wanted, or were that bothered about in comparison to DKR or TA, it's done pretty damn well. Second most successful reboot of all time is nothing to be ashamed of, though that might be hard to believe.

Not much people are watching it domestically. Especially considering its becoming a love story... For some reason. Yeah it's cute and all, but is the next movie gonna be about a baby saber tooth? Just sayin.

On the subject of box office, I think it's impressive. Plus, it destroyed every single marvel movies (solo) that isn't spiderman.
 
There is a difference betwen the quality of a low budget movie 3D and the 3D of a 230M movie..which is also supposed to be shown on Imax..not to mention the red epic camera
But even we assume it to be 15%..the budget goes down to 200M substracting 3D cost..which is 60M less than SM2's budget and and 110M less than SM3's budget

By the logic shown in your article, it should be much less than 15%.

The cost of the cameras and stuff is still added to the production budget..even if sony provides it

Knowing what Sony did with Total Recall manipulating production budgets trying to prove against all evidences that the movie performed quite fine, I wouldn't suprise if the cost of cameras was actually taken out of the pb just to make TASM's number look better than they actually are. That's just an educated guess though.

Actually that played out in their favour..people werent expecting a lot and it seemed very good when compared to the previous franchise..there was no reboot bias

Sure a terribly received movie and a box office disaster is the best spring board to success. We all know that.

Spider-man was stuck in development hell for 25 years before SM1 came out..no excuse

And that was the first film featuring the character. Still comparing apple and oranges.

It had to deal with being compared to a previously very successful franchise and reboot bias not to mention compete with TDKR and the tragedy also happened
So the factors more or less even out

If you say so.
The movie wasn't going to be huge even before TDKR or Aurora happened. Its first six days were fairly low compared to other installments in the franchise

Actually SM3 wasnt a huge success in the domestic market

Great. SM3 domestic numbers are 392,2 adjusted. TASM will end at best 127 million under that mark wich was the lowest in the series. That's a 30% drop (slightly more than that). So how would you qualify such a significant drop from a "not so huge success" ?

Thats overkill..the franchise was always huge..there were way way more Batman fans in school when I was a kid

Glad to know there were bat fans at your school.
392 WW or 176 domestically (B&R) isn't huge especially when you compare it to a billion dollar making movie (like any other film in the Raimi trilogy, SM3's adjusted number are above the billion mark). So saying the Batman fanbase prior to Batman Begins was huge coming from a 392M movie what does that say of the Spider-Man fanbase prior to TASM coming from a 1,039M millions movie ?

Not the same kind but it had plenty of hurdles to overcome..please stop being biased

The retelling of the origins was its biggest hurdle but not an impossible one to overcome with the right angle.
Otherwise it just had to capitalize on SM3's numbers. Wich it didn't.

As I have said before
SM2 made 3.83 times its budget
SM3 made 3.3 times its budget
TASM will make 3.16 times its budget(If we assume 725M at the end of its run)
Its very much comparable

That's far from beign comparable (and its 3.15 for TASM not 3.16).
On the average production budget of the franchise, 244,9M, that makes for a 36,7M difference between TASM & SM3 and a 166,5M between TASM & SM3. So no those are certainly not comparable profit ratios.

Batman Begins made less money than Batman forever..sold less tickets despite being released 10 years later(During which the movie market boomed)..with a 25M increase in budget and when Batman forever was actually a very very bad movie
And TASM making comparable money to SM3 (3.3 to 3.16 ratio) when it didnt have half as much hype as SM3 and SM3 wasnt even half bad as Batman Forever

You really like comparing apple and oranges do you ?
The Batman movie prior to Batman Begins is Batman & Robin, not Batman Forever. And no, like stated above TASM isn't making comparable money to SM3.

Bottom line..TASM will end up making double the money BB made.

Bottom line ... TASM will be by a 30% margin the lowest-grossing movie in the Spider-Man franchise. BB isn't.
 
Last edited:
Indeed. And it's got a huge kids market. Regardless, I think I'd go as far as to say that TASM being beaten by Ice Age 4... is not really that much of a big deal. I mean, it was pretty much inevitable if you think about it. I don't see the problem. Ice Age is a beloved ongoing franchise, much like Shrek.

TASM isn't a failure just because it lost to the fourth instalment of one of the most profitable animated franchises to ever exist. :)

At the end of the day, for a reboot that nobody really wanted, or were that bothered about in comparison to DKR or TA, it's done pretty damn well. Second most successful reboot of all time is nothing to be ashamed of, though that might be hard to believe.

:up:
 
300 was actually pretty bad
.

300 was not "pretty bad"... it was quite ****ing good... though no surprise that you can call a movie like 300 bad, and defend TASM like it's the best CBM ever made...

:whatever: :whatever: :whatever:

:yay:
 
By the logic shown in your article, it should be much less than 15%.
As I said..the quality comes into play..the red epic camera

Knowing what Sony did with Total Recall manipulating production budgets trying too prove against all evidences that the movie performed quite fine, I wouldn't suprise if the cost of cameras was actually taken out of the pb just to make TASM's number look better than they actually are.
230M is very much believable..it anything people consider it bloated

Sure a terribly received movie and a box office disaster is the best spring board to success. We all know that.
As I said,it worked in their favour
Difference between 'Hey its a LOT better than the last Batman movie'
And 'Nope it isnt the same as the Raimi movies'

If you say so.
The movie wasn't going to be huge even before TDKR or Aurora happened. Its first six days were fairly low compared to other installments in the franchise
As I said,Reboot bias

So how would you qualify such a significant drop from a "not so huge success" ?
Compared to SM1's 560M adjusted

392 WW or 176 domestically (B&R) isn't huge especially when you compare it to a billion dollar making movie (SM3 is close to that mark). So saying tha Batman fanbase prior to Batman Begins was huge coming from a 392 what does that say of the Spider-Man fanbase prior to TASM coming from a 990 millions movie ?
Because the superhero fanbase at the time of TASM's release belongs to Batman and the MCU..Without any doubt

The retelling of the origins was its biggest hurdle but not an impossible one to overcome with the right angle.
TDKR? Shooting?

That's far from beign comparable (and its 3.15 for TASM not 3.16).
On the average production budget of the franchise, 244,9M, that makes for a 36,7M difference between TASM & SM3 and a 166,5M between TASM & SM3. So no those are certainly not comparable profit ratios.
I dont get your point.Why should the budget be averaged when TASM is 80M behind SM3 in terms of budget?
SM3 made 3.3 times its budget
TASM made 3.15 times its budget..while it was a huge underdog in the superhero releases for the year..terrible release time..retelling origin and reboot bias..no star power..no over the top hype(which came along with SM3)
Good enough for me

And no, like stated above TASM isn't making comparable money to SM3.
I gave you the ratio..what more do you want?
Is it too hard to understand that more investment means more earnings?
Did you really expect it to make more than SM3 with a rebooted franchise and a 80M lower budget?

Bottom line ... TASM will be by a 30% margin the lowest-grossing movie in the Spider-Man franchise. BB isn't.
And its budget is also 35% lesser than the previous movie in the franchise

And you didnt answer my question..Shouldnt have sony used your logic and closed down the franchise after SM2 since there was a 205M loss straight up compared to SM1?
 
Last edited:
300 was not "pretty bad"... it was quite ****ing good... though no surprise that you can call a movie like 300 bad, and defend TASM like it's the best CBM ever made...

:whatever: :whatever: :whatever:

:yay:

Its not the best comic book movie ever made..its not even in my top 5.
Stop putting words in my mouth

I am defending its numbers which are there for everybody to see
 
Either chose Domestic or World wide as your barometer..dont be like Anno and change as it suits the argument

I used every possible barometers. You called it on numerous times the most successful reboot in history while it won't reach Star Trek's domestic figures or Casino Royale's international numbers and has yet to beat CR's WW total. That's quite simple actually.

725.2M*
It will probably get there

$1 (2006) = $1.224 (2012)
594.2*1,224 = 727.3

Anyways, it's far from being a given

And the numbers say it has earned more than BB,Star Trek, and will probably reach Casino Royale's total

And before you say it..neither of the 3 became the highest earning movie of their franchise

Though it's quite tricky to track movie from the 80's and even more so earlier than that with no or very few overseas gross reported I think it's safe to say that:

Star Trek 2009 is indeed the highest-grossing movie of the series (even with adjusted numbers):

http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=startrek.htm

And Casino Royale is the highest grossing James Bond movie since 1967 You Only Live Twice.

http://boxofficemojo.com/franchises/chart/?id=jamesbond.htm
 
As I said..the quality comes into play..the red epic camera

And as your article says the bigger the budget the lower the extra cost for 3D is. So unless you have any other serious information in hand, I'm gonna go with this theory.

As I said,it worked in their favour
Difference between 'Hey its a LOT better than the last Batman movie'
And 'Nope it isnt the same as the Raimi movies'

You're talking about some reboot bias (wich neither Casino Royale nor Star Trek seems to suffer from, or not that much) but you can't imagine Batman Begins suffering from bias because the last Batman movie released was a complete disaster critically and financially that was ridiculed in every media you can think of for years? I said it before but you're a pretty funny guy.
Point is prior to Batman Begins, Batman was seen as a campy, over the top character associated with bad, flashy and corny movies.
While not praised by critics Spider-Man 3 was nowhere near that kind of terrible advertising for the franchise.
And yet Batman Begins was compared to Burton installments.

Compared to SM1's 560M adjusted

You didn't answer my question. If SM3's domestic numbers aren't a huge success, what does it say about TASM's numbers wich are 30% lower?

Because the superhero fanbase at the time of TASM's release belongs to Batman and the MCU..Without any doubt

There was plenty of room for any cbm movie this year to perform quite well. The Avengers and TDKR are definitely no excuses for TASM to gross under 300 million domestically with very little competition during it's 2 first weeks and under 775 million WW with new markets and 3D.

TDKR? Shooting?

Like I said TASM's number were fairly low compared to any other movie in the franchise before any of those happened.

I dont get your point.Why should the budget be averaged when TASM is 80M behind SM3 in terms of budget?
SM3 made 3.3 times its budget

I was just trying to show how the difference you shown in profit ratios translates in actual income within a fixed budget even if it's just a decimal in your numbers. Difference in income is even bigger if you take actual numbers anyways.

TASM made 3.15 times its budget..while it was a huge underdog in the superhero releases for the year..terrible release time..retelling origin and reboot bias..no star power..no over the top hype(which came along with SM3)

What's your point, your trying to turn Spider-Man into some Daredevil or Ghost Rider like C-List character. It's still freak*** Spider-Man, you might like it or not but it's one of the best selling characters in history all media aside. It should have done better. Period.

Did you really expect it to make more than SM3 with a rebooted franchise and a 80M lower budget?

With ticket price inflation and 3D, considering its budget it should have made 300M domestically and 475 overseas at the very least. Still far away from SM3's number but that would've putted both movies around the same profit ratio.

And you didnt answer my question..Shouldnt have sony used your logic and closed down the franchise after SM2 since there was a 205M loss straight up compared to SM1?

They used their own logic. They took creative control over SM3, shoved Venom down a storyline it didn't belong to, ruined their relationship with Raimi and Spider-Man 3 happened.
 
Last edited:
Because Batman Begins came after 2 terribly received movies, 1 BO disaster, 7 years of developpement hell and resurected the Batman franchise in cinemas. TASM had none of these handicaps to overcome. Spider-Man 3 while it got mixed reviews is a generally liked movie with amazing numbers at the BO wich accounts for a strong fanbase domestically and overseas (while Batman was NEVER huge overseas even when the movies were successful in North America). The Spider-Man franchise was never in the same kind of critical situation that the Batman franchise was 10 years ago. Batman Begins managed to put the character back on track from a dying and generally unliked franchise that's why its considered a success. TASM had no hurdle of this kind to overcome but it'll end up selling 30% less tickets WW than the worst received Spider-Man movie despite being showcased on exponentially growing markets and while the genre is now more popular (domestically and overseas) than ever. Go figure.
It's comparing apple and oranges.

Except that you couldn't be more wrong, but maybe a walk through memory lane will help you with that. Let's see what Batman-On-Film Jett had to say about Batman Begins on June, 19th, 2005:

While researching and writing my book THE BATMAN FILMOGRAPHY: Live-action Features, 1943 - 1997, I watched each live-action Batman motion picture made between 1943 and 1997 repeatedly. And I really do mean “repeatedly.” I spent hour after hour poring over every little detail of the character’s live-action cinematic adventures. I studied his low-budget serials, his campy 1960’s movie romp, and his series of Warner Brothers “summer blockbuster” action films to the point where all of these movies were indelibly burned into my memory.

Most all of them contained at least a few moments that I really liked, moments that to me gave a glimpse of the comic character that I had been a fan of since childhood. But sitting through an entire Batman film just to enjoy a moment or two was by no means a satisfying fan experience – when was a filmmaker finally going to make a live-action Batman movie that contained more than just “moments?” Like most longtime Batman fans, I longed for a Batman live-action film that would stay true to the time-honored traditions of the character from fade in to fade out, one that would capture the spirit of Batman’s best comic book adventures.

I am thrilled to report that Warner’s restart of their Batman franchise, Batman Begins, is the Batman film I have been waiting for for so long. First and foremost, the movie is truly about what a Batman film should be – namely, Batman himself. The 1960’s screen Batman and the previous Warner Bat films Batman (1989), Batman Returns (1992), Batman Forever (1995), and Batman and Robin (1997) were all more interested in the gaudily costumed villains they featured than they were in their title character. Batman Begins places Bruce Wayne’s quest for justice and his decision to transform himself into Batman squarely at the center of the film’s plot.

And not only is Batman Begins the first modern Batman live-action film to truly be about Batman, it also is the first to cast an actor in the role that truly measures up to the Batman of the comic books. In my opinion, Christian Bale makes the perfect Bruce Wayne/Batman. He is the right height, the right build, and most importantly, he brings an psychological intensity to the role that no previous actor has even come close to matching. Simply put, Bale IS Batman to me in Batman Begins, not just an emotionally and physically underwhelming actor who is unsuccessfully trying to let the cape and cowl do most of the acting for him. If it sounds like I am being a little rough on Keaton, Kilmer and Clooney, I apologize – but the fact remains that Bale makes their turns as Batman look very hollow indeed.

Bale’s almost all black, armored Batman costume is equally as impressive as his acting. It is perhaps more similar to the Batman costumes used in Warner’s previous Bat films than one might have expected in a franchise restart, but it looks great on film. The costume’s cape is noticeably darker than its cowl and bodysuit – this color variation adds some visual interest to the costume as a whole. My favorite costume scenes in Begins were those that were lighted in bluish tones, making the costume appear blue/black in color like Batman’s traditional comic book costume.

What incredible material writer/director Christopher Nolan and writer David Goyer have given Bale to work with, both in and out of the Batman costume! Batman Begins is by turns savage, sensitive, tragic, and funny, and it never loses sight of the fact that Batman’s real strength as a character lies in his close ties to reality. As I wrote in The Batman Filmography, one of the things that has made Batman such an enduring character is that he is a regular human being that could theoretically exist in real life. Batman Begins understands this concept more than any other Batman film ever produced – everything about it, its dialogue, its action sequences, its costuming, its set design, captures a feeling of reality that no other Batman live-action film has ever captured.

Batman Begins’s supporting cast is absurdly good. Michael Caine as Alfred, Gary Oldman as James Gordon, Morgan Freeman as Lucius Fox, Katie Holmes as Rachel Dawes, Liam Neeson as Henri Ducard, and Cillian Murphy as Dr. Jonathan Crane all give performances that are every bit as strong as Bale’s. Caine’s and Oldman’s are particularly rewarding – Alfred and Gordon are such an integral part of the Batman mythos that seeing them brought to life in such stellar fashion is almost as exciting as watching Bale’s Batman.

And of course, every Batman film needs a “non-human” supporting cast – Batman Begins features all-new interpretations of the Batmobile, the Batcave, the Bat Signal and Gotham City. The Batmobile is definitely the standout of this bunch – it has been brilliantly re-imagined as an military-style urban tank, capable of both high speeds and all-terrain travel. This new Batmobile might not sell as many toys as its sports car-style predecessors, but it works perfectly within the framework of realism the film has constructed. I also particularly enjoyed the fact that the movie’s Bat Signal did not cast an impossibly detailed image when it was lighted – again, this speaks to Begin’s desire to be as close to the real world as possible. Finally, the movie’s Gotham City is a brilliantly realized variation of major Eastern U.S. cities such as New York, New York and Chicago, Illinois. Yet again, reality is the major inspiration for this aspect of the film -- in fact, much of Begins’s Gotham was created not by filming on cramped soundstages or by pasting together computer imagery, but by shooting on location in Chicago.

The only major problem that I think Batman Begins has is one that is not its fault at all – namely, its perceived connection to Warner’s previous Bat films. After all, in just the past sixteen years there have been four very high-profile Bat releases, the last of which (1997’s Batman and Robin) did not fare well with either the public or the critics. Obviously, us Batman fans know that Begins is a complete (not to mention brilliant) restart of the franchise, but the general public still seems to have a bit of a “been there, done that” attitude toward the idea of a new Bat film, especially after the bad taste that Batman and Robin left.

And it must be said that Batman Begins covers a lot of the same ground tread in previous Warner Bat releases, especially the 1989 Batman. In fact, it would almost be fair for someone to say that Begins could be considered a remake of the ‘89 Batman. Just consider the following plot summary, and decide for yourself which movie I am talking about --

“The film follows the first exploits if Batman, as he saves Gotham City from a deranged criminal who is determined to unleash a chemical menace on the city. Along the way, he employs an impressive arsenal of crimefighting equipment, including his futuristic car the Batmobile. In the end, Batman starts to gain the trust of the Gotham City Police, in particular the city’s most honest cop, James Gordon.”


Obviously, I’ve set you up – the plot summary works equally well for both movies! Now, I don’t personally view Begins as a remake of the ’89 Batman, I think the term “franchise restart” is a much more accurate description of the film. I am only pointing out this fact out because the similarities between the two films might lead the general public to be less intrigued by Begins than all of us Batman fans had hoped they would be.

My hope is that the general public will lose whatever “been there, done that” feelings they might harbor toward Batman Begins in the next few weeks, as the film receives more and more favorable critical reviews and positive word-of-mouth. After all, Begins is not just a great Batman film, it is simply a great FILM – and people do like to go to the movies to see great films. (I promise to do MY part to make this film a financial success – I assure you I will see it at least ten or fifteen times in first run!)

In the end, no matter how Begins ends up faring at the box office, there is no doubt that the film will inspire decades of debate amongst Batman fans as to whether or not it is the “definitive” live-action Batman film. I guess I’ll go ahead and weigh in on this debate while it is still young. I suppose my answer would have to be “no,” simply because it is not my “definitive” Batman live-action film. My film would likely be a very literal cinematic translation of one of the character’s greatest print works (“The Joker” from Batman #1, The Killing Joke, Batman: War on Crime are the first things to come into my mind) and would feature Batman in a more traditional “comic style” costume.

That said, however, Begins comes far closer to the mark of “definitive” for me than any previous Batman live-action film. On a scale of 1 to 100, I personally would give it a grade of 95. (That is certainly a lot better than my former favorite Batman live-action film, the 1989 Batman, which I would give a grade of 60) So my opinion of Begins boils down to this – unless I miraculously get the chance to make the Batman movie that resides in my own imagination, the film is very likely as close to “definitive” for me as any Batman live-action film can get. Mr. Nolan, thanks for making this Batman fan’s long-held dream of seeing a great live-action Batman film, one that is great from fade in to fade out, finally come true.

Source: Batman-On-Film

I believe that a lot of Spider-Man fans out there will be able to identify the similarities of how people felt with Batman Begins back then and The Amazing Spider-Man right now. And if that's not enough for you to understand, allow me to present you with this article:

Why Spider-Man Absolutely Needed A Reboot


Why are they rebooting Spider-Man?

It was one of the first questions heard ‘round the Internet when it was revealed that Sony planned to go back to the drawing board and restart Marvel’s wall-crawling hero for The Amazing Spider-Man. Do audiences need to see the origin again? Do they want to? Only five years have passed since Sam Raimi and Tobey Maguire swung through multiplexes with Spider-Man 3. Is a reboot even necessary?

Yes. A reboot was absolutely necessary. But there’s a short explanation and a long explanation as to why.

The short answer is this: A reboot of the Spider-Man franchise is necessary is because Raimi so thoroughly ****ed the franchise with his third and (thankfully) final chapter that Sony had nowhere to go but back to the beginning. Any storyteller trying to build on the cracked foundation Raimi left behind could see he’d painted Spider-Man into too many corners.

Most of the major characters in Spider-Man’s universe were too badly damaged by Raimi’s poor plotting. Mary Jane Watson had played herself out as a viable love interest. You couldn’t use Gwen Stacey, for the director completely wasted her as a throwaway supporting character introduced as a love interest for Eddie Brock. (Seriously, WTF?) From an adversary perspective, the most noteworthy villains – from Green Goblin to Doctor Octopus – had been used up. Venom, Spidey’s most ferocious contemporary nemesis, had been reduced to Topher Grace in bad dentures. And Raimi so haphazardly altered Spidey’s mythology – Sandman killed Uncle Ben! Harry Osborn rides a snowboard, and is Spider-Man’s ally! – that nothing made sense anymore.

A fourth Spider-Man building on the material left in Raimi’s wake would have been worse than Spider-Man 3, if you could even imagine such a thing. A reboot was completely necessary.

Here’s the longer explanation: Webb, his screenwriters (led by James Vanderbilt’s initial plot structure) and Sony as a whole have a new universe in mind, a different Spider-Man “sandbox” in which fans are asked to play, and in order to make this new story work, the origin had to be retold … with subtle differences.

All of this that you are saying happened to Batman Begins seven years ago too. Batman Begins is the best Batman film IMHO. The Amazing Spider-Man is the best Spider-Man film IMHO. The pay off for reboots always truly comes with the sequels, and I feel that TASM is a fantastic restart for Spider-Man's franchise, as good as Batman Begins was back in 2005.



I used every possible barometers. You called it on numerous times the most successful reboot in history while it won't reach Star Trek's domestic figures or Casino Royale's international numbers and has yet to beat CR's WW total. That's quite simple actually.



$1 (2006) = $1.224 (2012)
594.2*1,224 = 727.3


No it just shows the contrary. TASM has no chance to become the most successful reboot domestically (Star Trek is out of reach) or internationally (same thing with Casino Royale's overseas numbers) and has yet to reach Casino Royale's 727M WW total (yes my mistake as well, I had to redo the calculation).
And that's not even taking production budgets or final profits in account.


And that's what happens when someone tries to pretend that knows anything about how box office works. That's not how you do it, buddy. You can't possibly adjust overseas numbers like you do with domestic numbers, simply because the exchange rates would make that task impossible. Have you ever seen any serious box office analyst adjusting overseas numbers? No? And you know why that doesn't happen? Because it is not possible. You can only adjust domestic numbers.

Also, Spiderdevil is not wrong for claiming that The Amazing Spider-Man is the most successful reboot of all time. It's not making more than Star Trek adjusted domestically, true, but Star Trek made $127,9m overseas, and this silly uninformed attempt to "adjust" Casino Royale numbers in order to make The Amazing Spider-Man overseas numbers look less impressive is something that you won't find any box office analyst out there agreeing with you.
 
Except that you couldn't be more wrong, but maybe a walk through memory lane will help you with that. Let's see what Batman-On-Film Jett had to say about Batman Begins on June, 19th, 2005:

Source: Batman-On-Film

How does Jett's opinion on how Batman Begins was perceived by the general audience has anything to do with me comparing Spider-Man 3 and Batman & Robin's impact on their respective franchise ?

All of this that you are saying happened to Batman Begins seven years ago too. Batman Begins is the best Batman film IMHO. The Amazing Spider-Man is the best Spider-Man film IMHO. The pay off for reboots always truly comes with the sequels, and I feel that TASM is a fantastic restart for Spider-Man's franchise, as good as Batman Begins was back in 2005.

We're not talking about how good or bad we think the movie is but about numbers. Good for you of you liked both Batman Begins and The Amazing Spider-Man. But while TASM is probably the movie I like the most in the franchise (although I still think that it's inferior to the first 2 Raimi movies, quality wise, but Webb's vision is just more appealing to me) it's also the one with the most dissapointing figures so far.

An yes maybe the pay off will come with the sequel but the only thing TASM's numbers are showing for now is that the franchise keeps on decaying domestically while barely stabilizing on generally exponentially growing foreign markets. Wich is not exactly a good sign. Partly because Sony cannot count on the same income from Home Video supports as WB did back in 2006 to make up for an underwhelming theater run.

And that's what happens when someone tries to pretend that knows anything about how box office works. That's not how you do it, buddy. You can't possibly adjust overseas numbers like you do with domestic numbers, simply because the exchange rates would make that task impossible. Have you ever seen any serious box office analyst adjusting overseas numbers? No? And you know why that doesn't happen? Because it is not possible. You can only adjust domestic numbers.

That indeed only gives a broad estimate for lack of better (more accurate) tools. And taking the US inflation rate as a template is pretty much the lower estimate we can make since inflation is generally lower in the US than overseas (and especially on emerging markets). Actual figures taking in account yearly inflation rate per country & fluctuation of exchange rates would be much higher than that.
Not fully satisfying but still more relevant than comparing raw numbers IMO.
 
Last edited:
Its not the best comic book movie ever made..its not even in my top 5.
Stop putting words in my mouth

I am defending its numbers which are there for everybody to see

You said that 300 was pretty bad... and while you are entitled to feel this way, it certainly questions your credibility as to what is considered a "good and/or bad" CBM...

I certainly did not put those words in your mouth... it`s there in my quote for all to see...

:yay:
 
Except that you couldn't be more wrong, but maybe a walk through memory lane will help you with that. Let's see what Batman-On-Film Jett had to say about Batman Begins on June, 19th, 2005:



Source: Batman-On-Film

I believe that a lot of Spider-Man fans out there will be able to identify the similarities of how people felt with Batman Begins back then and The Amazing Spider-Man right now. And if that's not enough for you to understand, allow me to present you with this article:

Why Spider-Man Absolutely Needed A Reboot




All of this that you are saying happened to Batman Begins seven years ago too. Batman Begins is the best Batman film IMHO. The Amazing Spider-Man is the best Spider-Man film IMHO. The pay off for reboots always truly comes with the sequels, and I feel that TASM is a fantastic restart for Spider-Man's franchise, as good as Batman Begins was back in 2005.









And that's what happens when someone tries to pretend that knows anything about how box office works. That's not how you do it, buddy. You can't possibly adjust overseas numbers like you do with domestic numbers, simply because the exchange rates would make that task impossible. Have you ever seen any serious box office analyst adjusting overseas numbers? No? And you know why that doesn't happen? Because it is not possible. You can only adjust domestic numbers.

Also, Spiderdevil is not wrong for claiming that The Amazing Spider-Man is the most successful reboot of all time. It's not making more than Star Trek adjusted domestically, true, but Star Trek made $127,9m overseas, and this silly uninformed attempt to "adjust" Casino Royale numbers in order to make The Amazing Spider-Man overseas numbers look less impressive is something that you won't find any box office analyst out there agreeing with you.

A reboot was not required because Raimi ****ed up the franchise with SM3... if that was the case, then they wouldn`t have bothered getting him back with the original cast to work on SM4... it was only because of yet more Sony interference that caused delays to getting SM4 for May, 2011 that Sony decided to scrap SM4, save about 100 million in salaries, and opt for the reboot that needed to be out in 2012 so that they wouldn`t lose the Spider-Man rights back to Disney...

Facts usually take precedence over internet opinions... :whatever: :whatever:

Thanks for listening...

:yay:
 
How does Jett's opinion on how Batman Begins was perceived by the general audience has anything to do with me comparing Spider-Man 3 and Batman & Robin's impact on their respective franchise ?

As I've been saying here since I've joined, that's not just Jett's opinion. That was the overall feel to Batman Begins at time, and that's something that was clearly translated into the box office numbers that Batman Begins did at time, just like it translated domestically to The Amazing Spider-Man, but not overseas. The Amazing Spider-Man is the biggest reboot of all time because it's behaving as what you'd expect from a reboot domestically, it's close to top Batman Begins adjusted and while it won't top Star Trek adjusted, it's behaving as a full fledged blockbuster overseas, and that's the unprecedented aspect around The Amazing Spider-Man.

And if you haven't realized, just like The Dark Knight Rises placed the Batman franchise into a corner and in the need of a reboot, Spider-Man 3 butchered its own trilogy when the Raimi brothers - and not Sony suits, people that like Raimi's take usually give him an easy pass on that - when they made a revisionist history, placing Sandman as the true Uncle Ben's killer. The trilogy died there, there wasn't other place to go but down with Raimi's take. Spider-Man 3 isn't Spider-Man's Batman & Robin, but it is Spider-Man's Batman Forever. Putting it simply, The Amazing Spider-Man avoided a Batman & Robin scenario by jumping to the reboot, and I firmly believe that the sequels will prove how much of a home run The Amazing Spider-Man is, just like Batman Begins was proved to be that looking from a distance.


We're not talking about how good or bad we think the movie is but about numbers. Good for you of you liked both Batman Begins and The Amazing Spider-Man. But while TASM is probably the movie I like the most in the franchise (although I still think that it's inferior to the first 2 Raimi movies, quality wise, but Webb's vision is just more appealing to me) it's also the one with the most dissapointing figures so far.

An yes maybe the pay off will come with the sequel but the only thing TASM's numbers are showing for now is that the franchise keeps on decaying domestically while barely stabilizing on generally exponentially growing foreign markets. Wich is not exactly a good sign. Partly because Sony cannot count on the same income from Home Video supports as WB did back in 2006 to make up for an underwhelming theater run.

Sony can count with DVD, Blu Ray sales, videostores, Netflix, people that will download the film ilegally and fall in love with the film. Talking about how much good a film is clearly is linked with numbers, and you seem to have a very limited understanding of how box office can be measured as I've explained above.

Trying to spin a bad vibe to TASM is easy, but trust me, people will come out to see this film again and again through the years, and the sequels are coming to guarantee how much of the debbie downers like yourself are wrong when it comes to this film. The Amazing Spider-Man is a superior film to the Raimi's franchise IMHO, and that perception will only grow through time, if the sequels pay off, and I firmly believe they will. If you don't understand that there is nothing "underwhelming" about The Amazing Spider-Man's box office run, it's hopeless. Not one single reboot did what The Amazing Spider-Man is doing, regardless the way you try to spin it.


That indeed only to gives a broad estimate for lack of better (more accurate) tools. And it's the lower estimate we can make since inflation is generally lower in the US than overseas (and especially on emerging markets). Actual figures taking in account yearly inflation rate per country & fluctuation of exchange rates would be much higher than that.
Not fully satisfying but still more relevant than comparing raw numbers IMO.

That doesn't give a broad estimate. It gives a wrong estimate that no one would use, not one single box office analyst would try to adjust foreign market numbers in order to compare with new foreign incomes, simply because it isn't possible. If you can't understand how much of a win The Amazing Spider-Man is as a reboot, it's useless to argue with you, even when I've easily proved you wrong before.

The least you could do is to admit that you don't know what you are talking about and apologize for trying to pull off a stunt that simply isn't true. Ask around if someone will adjust foreign numbers. Seriously, go around and do it. Nobody tries to pull off the kind of spin that you're trying to make, buddy. Just drop it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"