The Amazing Spider-Man The Amazing Spider-Man: Box Office Thread - Part 3

[©KAW]

No. It's not

You win...but only by a little bit. t:

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Following Spider-Man 3 isn't nearly as bad as Batman Begins having to follow Batman & Robin though.

The memory of SM3 was much fresher.

Less than a 5 year difference.

 

[Anno_Domini]

The memory of SM3 was much fresher.

Less than a 5 year difference.

I'm not talking about the memory or anything. B&R simply left a bad taste for pretty much everyone while fans did enjoy Spider-Man 3. I'm not one of them, but I know that there are fans and a portion of the general audience that still enjoyed Spider-Man 3 unlike B&R.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

TDKR and Avengers had more competition against each other than TAS-M and the other two CBMs. That's no excuse for TAS-M. Ice Age 4 is a better excuse.
:

Um it was harder to build up hype for ASM with Avengers and TDKR coming out the same summer.

SM2 was the only major superhero movie released in summer 2004. It had 100% of the limelight.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I'm not talking about the memory or anything. B&R simply left a bad taste for pretty much everyone while fans did enjoy Spider-Man 3. I'm not one of them, but I know that there are fans and a portion of the general audience that still enjoyed Spider-Man 3 unlike B&R.

and Batman Begins made much less than ASM.

What's your point?

 

[Anno_Domini]

Um it was harder to build up hype for ASM with Avengers and TDKR coming out the same summer.

SM2 was the only major superhero movie released in summer 2004. It had 100% of the limelight.

Well yes, but we're also not saying one film shouldn't received 100% of the spotlight for this year, but at least make it somewhat of a challenge rather than making it feel like TDKR had 50% and Avengers had 50%.

TAS-M wasn't nowhere near Catwoman, so one would suspect that TAS-M would have had a better chance to get its name out there.

and Batman Begins made much less than ASM.

What's your point?

And Batman Begins made a better impact critically than TAS-M as well. As well as the fact that BB came off from a way worse film(Batman & Robin). And as well with the fact that reboots weren't welcomed in 2005 as it is now.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

And Batman Begins made a better impact critically than TAS-M as well. As well as the fact that BB came off from a way worse film(Batman & Robin). And as well with the fact that reboots weren't welcomed in 2005 as it is now.

The only reason ASM has a RT rating in the 70's instead of the 80's is because it retold the origin. Most negative reviews list this as their biggest complaint.

Batman Begins came out almost a decade after Batman and Robin. Most non-fanboys weren't even thinking about Schumacher by 2005.

and I think you got your last "fact" especially backwards. Movie goers have complained about reboots and remakes more and more as time goes by. That means a reboot made recently has alot more stigma to overcome.

 

[Anno_Domini]

The only reason ASM has a RT rating in the 70's instead of the 80's is because it retold the origin. Most negative reviews list this as their biggest complaint.

Batman Begins came out almost a decade after Batman and Robin. Most non-fanboys weren't even thinking about Schumacher by 2005.

and I think you got your last "fact" especially backwards. Movie goers have complained about reboots and remakes more and more as time goes by. That means a reboot made recently has alot more stigma to overcome.

When a reboot actually tells the same story, that "stigma" is bound to happen. And aside from TAS-M, I don't recall much problems for films like Rise of the Planet of the Apes or Star Trek or Casino Royale. It only gets bad word of mouth when the film isn't that promising such as The Incredible Hulk, Punisher: War Zone or any of those Michael Bay produced reboots.

 

[AF3619]

When a reboot actually tells the same story, that "stigma" is bound to happen. And aside from TAS-M, I don't recall much problems for films like Rise of the Planet of the Apes or Star Trek or Casino Royale. It only gets bad word of mouth when the film isn't that promising such as The Incredible Hulk, Punisher: War Zone or any of those Michael Bay produced reboots.

Racist Alien Big boobied Explotions?

 

[LegendAssemble]

and one was only a reboot which had to follow Spider-man 3, compete for attention with Avengers/TDKR, and deal with a divided fanbase.

Yeah one had to follow the most commercially successful film in the franchize and happened to be the first time in five years a character infinitely more popular than any of the avengers combined came onto the big screen.

 

[LegendAssemble]

The only reason ASM has a RT rating in the 70's instead of the 80's is because it retold the origin. Most negative reviews list this as their biggest complaint.

Batman Begins came out almost a decade after Batman and Robin. Most non-fanboys weren't even thinking about Schumacher by 2005.

and I think you got your last "fact" especially backwards. Movie goers have complained about reboots and remakes more and more as time goes by. That means a reboot made recently has alot more stigma to overcome.

No the complaint isn't it retold the origin, its actually that it was the same movie we saw ten years ago, which beyond the origin, it hits almost all the same plot points at the same time, that had nothing to do with being faithful to the comic. If anything SM1 and SM3s ratings shot down when the first trailer were released.

 

[grieven]

No the complaint isn't it retold the origin, its actually that it was the same movie we saw ten years ago, which beyond the origin, it hits almost all the same plot points at the same time, that had nothing to do with being faithful to the comic. If anything SM1 and SM3s ratings shot down when the first trailer were released.

Whatever, dude. To me the story was told very differently in ASM, and way better. If you watch those 2 origin films back to back and prefer Raimi's, that's your business.

 

[Anno_Domini]

TAS-M also, imo, had a way more boring villain. With Green Goblin, there wasn't enough development to justify Spidey's greatest enemy while TAS-M had a dreadful and boring story for a villain that became dreadful and boring. I don't see how the RT score would've been any higher because there are many faults with TAS-M then just people being critical over an origin story being re-told.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Whatever, dude. To me the story was told very differently in ASM, and way better. If you watch those 2 origin films back to back and prefer Raimi's, that's your business.

Co-signed

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

TAS-M also, imo, had a way more boring villain. With Green Goblin, there wasn't enough development to justify Spidey's greatest enemy while TAS-M had a dreadful and boring story for a villain that became dreadful and boring. I don't see how the RT score would've been any higher because there are many faults with TAS-M then just people being critical over an origin story being re-told.

Most negative reviews concede ASM is not a bad movie but felt the retold origin story was some kind of unfair burden and they lashed out with negative ratings.

Most of their other complaints were mostly nit picks and not enough to give the movie a rotten.

 

[JKKS085]

In your humble opinion of course

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Actually I think a minor criticism can be scientifically proven to be a nitpick.

 

[JKKS085]

Actually I think a minor criticism can be scientifically proven to be a nitpick.

You shouldn't try too hard though or you're gonna find yourself using the same wobbly arguments you used to "scientifically" prove that TASM was better received than SM1. t:

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

What wobbly arguments? That hundreds of thousands of people (RT and IMDB users) rated ASM more favorably than SM1?

The real wobbly argument is SM1 made more money so it must be a better movie. SM3 says "hi". t:

 

[JKKS085]

Wobbly because your were comparing samples that are not comparable. SM1 had more than 2 times more voters than TASM over at imdb. "Scientifically" that makes for results that cannot be compared properly. Unless you can narrow the field and use comparable hence my suggestion to take a look at the "top voters" average rating.

On another hand, if we're talking money you keep on focusing on raw numbers because it suits your views but if you look past the evidence, if you think just a little bit, you'll see that SM1 displayed far better legs during its theatrical run than both SM3 and TASM wich the direct consequence of a better word of mouth hence the better appreciation from the audience you can deduce from the numbers.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Wobbly because your were comparing samples that are not comparable. SM1 had more than 2 times more voters than TASM over at imdb. "Scientifically" that makes for results that cannot be compared properly. Unless you can narrow the field and use comparable hence my suggestion to take a look at the "top voters" average rating.

It's a not perfect method but the sample size is large enough for both movies to give an idea where the public stood.

There's a reason exit polling comes close to the actual results of elections despite using a relatively small sampling size.

On another hand, if we're talking money you keep on focusing on raw numbers because it suits your views but if you look past the evidence, if you think just a little bit, you'll see that SM1 displayed far better legs during its theatrical run than both SM3 and TASM wich the direct consequence of a better word of mouth hence the better appreciation from the audience you can deduce from the numbers.

Titanic had better legs than any movie in the last couple of decades. So by your criteria Titanic would be the best movie of the last 20 years.

C'mon man, "think just a little bit".

lmao.

 

[JKKS085]

It's a not perfect method but the sample size is large enough for both movies to give an idea where the public stood.

There's a reason exit polling comes close to the actual results of elections despite using a relatively small sampling size.

We're talking about votes that were registered during a 10 years timeframe for SM1 and from barely 3 months in TASM's case. And we're talking about a 0.2 difference between the two movies' average ratings wich can be explained by both the timeframe and the different sample sizes. Strangely it's the kind of difference you can actually find in exit pollings wich models are generally reliable but within a margin of error of 5% despite the fact that they are conducted on samples that are scientifically designed to be representative, contrary to imdb's rating system.

If you want to compare numbers, just use comparable samples, at least in size, IMDB offers that tool on purpose.

Titanic had better legs than any movie in the last couple of decades. So by your criteria Titanic would be the best movie of the last 20 years.

C'mon man, "think just a little bit".

lmao.

Indeed, by my criteria Titanic is one of the most beloved if not the most beloved film by the general audience over the past 20 years. Wich is hardly debatable.

The point is not wich movie is the best but wich one is/was the moste beloved by the GA. Glad it makes you laugh though.

 

[Troy_Parker]

TAS-M also, imo, had a way more boring villain. With Green Goblin, there wasn't enough development to justify Spidey's greatest enemy while TAS-M had a dreadful and boring story for a villain that became dreadful and boring. I don't see how the RT score would've been any higher because there are many faults with TAS-M then just people being critical over an origin story being re-told.

While I wouldn't say the Lizard was a boring villain, I do think that they might have been better off using another villain for the first movie.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

We're talking about votes that were registered during a 10 years timeframe for SM1 and from barely 3 months in TASM's case. And we're talking about a 0.2 difference between the two movies' average ratings wich can be explained by both the timeframe and the different sample sizes. Strangely it's the kind of difference you can actually find in exit pollings wich models are generally reliable but within a margin of error of 5% despite the fact that they are conducted on samples that are scientifically designed to be representative, contrary to imdb's rating system.

If you want to compare numbers, just use comparable samples, at least in size, IMDB offers that tool on purpose.

I don't know about that tool since it rates Shawshank Redemption as the greatest film of all time.

It's good, but c'mon.

Raiders of the Ark isn't even in the top 25.

Indeed, by my criteria Titanic is one of the most beloved if not the most beloved film by the general audience over the past 20 years. Wich is hardly debatable.

The point is not wich movie is the best but wich one is/was the moste beloved by the GA. Glad it makes you laugh though.

Titanic is one of the most beloved if you ask middle aged women who were in their teens during the 90's. For most guys, modern teens, and older people Titanic wouldn't make their top 40. Legs is a rather silly way to judge if a movie is the most beloved. Avatar has better legs than any LOTR movie. Are you suggesting most people love Avatar over the entire LOTR trilogy?

BTW - You're judging SM2's legs on it's opening weekend which is lower only because it opened on a Wednesday. If it opened of a Friday like SM1 it's OW would be higher and multiplier would be lower.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Following Spider-Man 3 isn't nearly as bad as Batman Begins having to follow Batman & Robin though.

And 760M is not as bad as 370M