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

[MessiahDecoy123]

What you surely can't do is pick one at your convenience.
You're shocked than ROTLA doesn't make imdb's top 25 (no matter what calculation method you pick) but you agree that TASM being rated above SM1 is totally normal ? Right.

What I say is that if you want to accurately compare how both films are ranked over at imdb you have to pick comparable samples. Or you're basing your point on wobbly arguments. Period.

There's nothing wobbly about using a ranking system that puts Raiders of the Lost Ark inside the top 13 instead of outside the top 25.

Nothing at all.

lolz ??? Really ??? Am I arguing with a thirteen year old here ?
For the rest, just try to pay a little attention to what I wrote. You're kind of an exhausting fellow. I've never said I'm disregarding anything just that picking movies that defied all statistics is not the best way to set a comparision. Avatar and Titanic had impressive legs but so does movies from the LOTR trilogy. Anyways you're disregarding something crucial from the very beginning of this argument. Strong legs means good word of mouth. Low legs means means mediocre word of mouth. That's one indication as to how much a film was loved or not by the GA. I don't know how much easier I can make this sound.

Dude settle down. We're not debating global politics at Oxford.

A movie can have legs for all kinds of reasons but Avatar's RT and IMDB rating are more in tune how the film is perceived by the general audience then how many small drops it had at the theater weekend to weekend.

I don't know where you get a condescending tone with a such a weak argument.

It's irrelevant. TDKR was released on a friday. Meaning its three day week end (and moreso its opening day) is bound to be a large chunk of its 6 days totals. No one, if a bit aware of how the BO works, would ever think about measuring an internal multiplier on a 6 days period for a film released on a friday.

I don't see the problem with comparing a 6 day starting on a Friday with a 6 day that started on a Tuesday/Wednesday. Yes one will have an inflated weekend and deflated weekdays but the other will have the opposite so they should balance out.

 

[©KAW]

Because it was a much harder feet 10 years ago, and considering it was a massive success it lived up to the build up?

Oh, now you're you using excuses, the old "IT'S HARDER TO" excuse, eh? But when someone says it's harder for a fourth film, a reboot, an origin story and a different cast, to make the exact amount as first film or The Avengers or Dark Knight, you don't want any excuses. You just think it should, without any of these "It's HARDER To" attachments...???

 

[LegendAssemble]

Oh, now you're you using excuses, the old "IT'S HARDER TO" excuse, eh? But when someone says it's harder for a fourth film, a reboot, an origin story and a different cast, to make the exact amount as first film or The Avengers or Dark Knight, you don't want any excuses. You just think it should, without any of these "It's HARDER To" attachments...???

It's not an excuse, it's just the way things are. Movie tickets were cheaper, and it didn't happen as often. If I recall theres only 12 movies that have made over a billion dollars and at least 5 of them were in the past 6 years.

EDIT: Theres 13, 9 of which came out in 06 or later and one of the remaining 4 was pushed over a billion early in the year. So, not "making excuses".

 

[JKKS085]

There's nothing wobbly about using a ranking system that puts Raiders of the Lost Ark inside the top 13 instead of outside the top 25.

Nothing at all.

It puts ROTLA in the top 13 only if you keep the top 1000's voter rating for all the 25 movies and use the general rating for Indy.

Either way, that you choose the top 1000 voter's rating or the general rating, ROTLA's ranking will still be 25th.

I don't see what the fuss is all about. I'll personnaly rank Raiders of The Lost Ark first on my all time's list but I have no issues to see a all lot of people disagreeing with my views on the movie.

Dude settle down. We're not debating global politics at Oxford.

A movie can have legs for all kinds of reasons

Such as ? Wich criterion is more important for good legs than a strong word of mouth that drives people to go see the movie and therefore limits its theater drop ? I mean studios pay companies such as Cinemascore to know what the word of mouth is and wether or not its worthwhile to keep the pressure on theater owners to limit the screen count drop from one week to another. But maybe they should exclusively rely on imdb's ratings.

I don't know where you get a condescending tone with a such a weak argument.

I don't get where you see any kind of condescension, and how it's OK to tell me how to behave with no arguments at all ?

And if you're talking about my comment on the "13 year old", lets say that it's bound to happen when you use words such as "lolz" in your messages.

I don't see the problem with comparing a 6 day starting on a Friday with a 6 day that started on a Tuesday/Wednesday. Yes one will have an inflated weekend and deflated weekdays but the other will have the opposite so they should balance out.

No they don't balance out. In case of a friday opening you have deflated week days compared to really strong first 3 days (and an even bigger od wich heavily impacts the internal multiplier). In case of a tuesday opening you have higher week days (but not as high as a "traditionnal "opening week end of course wich on the other hand helps getting a higher internal multiplier since the impact of the od is then significantly lower on the 6 day timeframe) and a slightly deflated week end, slightly because the movie's out for a few days already, but still strong because it's, well, a week end wich is the period of the week in wich most people can actually go to the movies.

Anyways the internal multiplier answers to a very specific definition. It's a film's weekend box office divided by its Friday number in case of a traditionnal friday opening. And in case of a week days opening its the total gross between the opening day of the film and the end of its first week end divided by its opening day number. But that the doesn't make the numbers you'll get comparable though since the timeframe studied is different. But that may give you clues as to how the movie compares to other movies released on the same day.

You'll never see any BO analyst calculating a 6 day internal multiplier for a film released on a friday because that just doesn't fit with the definition of the internal multiplier.

 

[©KAW]

It's not an excuse, it's just the way things are. Movie tickets were cheaper, and it didn't happen as often. If I recall theres only 12 movies that have made over a billion dollars and at least 5 of them were in the past 6 years.

Sounds like a bunch of excuse to me. Ticket prices were even cheaper back then when Titanic came out. Spider-Man should have been one of those few films you speak of. It's funny how you don't give ASM any leg room at the box office, but you have astronomical excuses why Spider-Man couldn't hit that billion dollar mark.

EDIT: Theres 13, 9 of which came out in 06 or later and one of the remaining 4 was pushed over a billion early in the year. So, not "making excuses".

The fact is 4 did do it, so why not Spider-Man, that's my point. Spider-Man had every thing going for it to make a billion worldwide and couldn't do it.

 

[LegendAssemble]

Sounds like a bunch of excuse to me. Ticket prices were even cheaper back then when Titanic came out. Spider-Man should have been one of those few films you speak of. It's funny how you don't give ASM any leg room at the box office, but you have astronomical excuses why Spider-Man couldn't hit that billion dollar mark.

The fact is 4 did do it, so why not Spider-Man, that's my point. Spider-Man had every thing going for it to make a billion worldwide and couldn't do it.

Actually I miss read, on the list, Return of the King, Titanic, and the Phantom Menace are the only films released before 06 to do this. The Phantom Menace actually hit the billion dollar mark in it's 3D rerelease this year so that one doesn't count, and given that Return of the King came out in 2003, at the time of Spider-Mans release only Titanic had done this.

Given the fact it was the most successful superhero movie at the time of it's release and it then ushered in the Marvel dominated era of CBMs we saw in the 00s, it obviously wasn't a minor success.

No, whats funny is you think Michael Bay and Joss Whedon are directors cut from the same cloth.

 

[©KAW]

Actually I miss read, on the list, Return of the King, Titanic, and the Phantom Menace are the only films released before 06 to do this. The Phantom Menace actually hit the billion dollar mark in it's 3D rerelease this year so that one doesn't count, and given that Return of the King came out in 2003, at the time of Spider-Mans release only Titanic had done this.

Given the fact it was the most successful superhero movie at the time of it's release and it then ushered in the Marvel dominated era of CBMs we saw in the 00s, it obviously wasn't a minor success.

Still didn't hit the billion dollar mark, any way you slice it. It should have, but didn't. The movie had a 20+ year build up of hype.

No, whats funny is you think Michael Bay and Joss Whedon are directors cut from the same cloth.

Geez, I wonder why, hokey ass acting, action scenes that go on forever. Characters that feel like hollow vessels, just waiting for the next action scene start. Perhaps so we don't have watch the actors interact like cartoon characters. And when they do interact with one another it's played for sh--s and giggles. This ain't Buffy, but it sure as hell felt like it. But hey, it made a fortune so who cares, right.

I stand by The Buffy director being cut from the same cloth as Michael Bay. Never did I think that multiple classic Marvel characters in one film, would feel so void of their meat and bones, even with some of them having separate films.

 

[LegendAssemble]

Still didn't hit the billion dollar mark, any way you slice it. It should have, but didn't. The movie had a 20+ year build up of hype.

By that logic Superman and Batman should have broken a billion too.

Geez, I wonder why, hokey ass acting, action scenes that go on forever. Characters that feel like hollow vessels, just waiting for the next action scene start. Perhaps so we don't have watch the actors interact like cartoon characters. And when they do interact with one another it's played for sh--s and giggles. This ain't Buffy, but it sure as hell felt like it. But hey, it made a fortune so who cares, right.

I stand by The Buffy director being cut from the same cloth as Michael Bay. Never did I think that multiple classic Marvel characters in one film, would feel so void of their meat and bones, even with some of them having separate films.

This pretty much sums up how you have no idea what you're talking about. Avengers was a brilliant movie, that had a quick whit and a heart. A comic book movie doesn't have to be gritty and real to be good.

 

[©KAW]

By that logic Superman and Batman should have broken a billion too.

Should have, but at least Batman fans can brag about it doing just that, twice. So what was Spider-Man 2 and 3's excuse?

This pretty much sums up how you have no idea what you're talking about. Avengers was a brilliant movie, that had a quick whit and a heart. A comic book movie doesn't have to be gritty and real to be good.

LMAO, this just proves how much you all are in love with these directors (more than the actual characters), brilliant movie--I hope you're kidding? You serious need to get out more and see some really good films. The Avengers was nothing more than a giant popcorn action flick on Speed. Pretty much like Michael Bay's entire career of film making summed up in one flick.

 

[grieven]

LMAO, this just proves how much you all are in love with these directors (more than the actual characters), brilliant movie--I hope you're kidding? You serious need to get out more and see some really good films. The Avengers was nothing more than a giant popcorn action flick on Speed. Pretty much like Michael Bay's entire career of film making summed up in one flick.

While I put Avengers above Bay's usual insipid fare, I also feel that it was just one big action fest. Well executed but lacking in emotional investment (for me anyway), which is why I appreciate what Webb did with ASM so much. His indie film-making background and focus on characters and matters of the heart is extremely refreshing.

 

[Spiderdevil]

Because money matters?

Let alone, we're not talking about money. We're talking about the criticism/rating/et cetera.

For studios,it does
And arent we in the Box Office thread?

 

[Spiderdevil]

Leaving an opening with Uncle Ben's killer, anything about Peter's parents, the Man in the Shadows, why Peter survived when Connors made it sound like such a big deal that no other experiment survived....even if meant to spread through other films, leaving anything open when a sequel could not be made or Webb may not return(or even the writers) leaves it all as plot holes.

All of those plot points are meant to be completed in the sequels
This is what Webb's trilogy will have over Raimi's.
Raimi's 3 movies didnt really connect to one another

 

[Spiderdevil]

As I've said I prefer this films origin, but this film would have been an absolute disaster if not for Marc Webb and the actors.

Every movie has its strong points and weak points
Its even fair to say that had they not employed Webb and went for an experienced director,the action and the direction would be a lot better
Stop overrating Marc Webb

Shoehorning Venom into 3 was bad, but cutting the climax out of the movie was a far worse offense.

Do you have any credible source that say Sony messed with TASM?
If not then stop saying that

 

[Spiderdevil]

Now fast forward to 2012, we have the great debate of what will be better and bigger, Avengers or Dark Knight? No one is betting on Spider-Man, not even the mainstream media. Not to mention after AMS, came out, its not like the conversation changed at all, it was still Avengers or Dark Knight. Granted most outlets still gave AMS favorable reviews, but none of them that I heard said story wise it was better than Avengers or looked to be better than Dark Knight. It was by all means, the forgotten middle child of the summer box office.

Times change.Did you expect Spider man to continue his reign forever?
Superman ruled the cinemas once upon a time,then same Batman in the 80s and early 90s and then Spider-man in the 2000s and not its Batman/Avengers
Nothing lasts forever

Batman was in a lot worse phase 10 years ago
Spider-man will have his day in the sun once more and maybe even Superman with MOS coming up

 

[Spiderdevil]

Should have, but at least Batman fans can brag about it doing just that, twice. So what was Spider-Man 2 and 3's excuse?

Accounting for inflation,Both SM1 and SM3 grossed a billion and SM2 came close

 

[Anno_Domini]

For studios,it does
And arent we in the Box Office thread?

And that was a conversation that wasn't referring to the money it made, only how the film is rated by critics and others. You're just trying to stick your head into a conversation where you had no idea what it was about.

All of those plot points are meant to be completed in the sequels

Like I said, those plot points may not even come to a conclusion if Webb doesn't return or any of the writers from the first film. They could be lost in transition and to say they will just be completed in sequels is only guessing.

This is what Webb's trilogy will have over Raimi's.
Raimi's 3 movies didnt really connect to one another

The Green Goblin legacy was fine enough to connect all three of Raimi's films together.

 

[Anno_Domini]

batman was in a lot worse phase 10 years ago

2002?

 

[Donald Thomas]

Times change.Did you expect Spider man to continue his reign forever?
Superman ruled the cinemas once upon a time,then same Batman in the 80s and early 90s and then Spider-man in the 2000s and not its Batman/Avengers
Nothing lasts forever

Batman was in a lot worse phase 10 years ago
Spider-man will have his day in the sun once more and maybe even Superman with MOS coming up

Aloha,
Only those with very unrealistic expectations thought that the Spidey reboot was going to be the number one super hero movie this year. I certainly didn't.But I also didn't think that a fourth Raimi Spider-Man was going to be bigger than Avengers or Batman either. When you look at what the fans on this thread predicted would be the domestic take for this movie, the fans had a very reasonable expectation.

As of Sept 22, 2012
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $261,102,260 34.9%
+ Foreign: $487,503,570 65.1%
= Worldwide: $748,605,830

Spidey rules

 

[JKKS085]

I think that "realistically", a clear minority of people people, including BO analysts and fans (as displayed in the poll attached to this thread) expected the movie to gross under 300 millions domestically.

Having said that, even though I think that the domestic underperformance is worrisome to an extent, coming close to 750M WW is certainly an achievement and a solid start for the new series. Hoping now that Webb will return and will possibly have as much freedom as he needs to make the Spider-Man movie he wants.

 

[LegendAssemble]

LMAO, this just proves how much you all are in love with these directors (more than the actual characters), brilliant movie--I hope you're kidding? You serious need to get out more and see some really good films. The Avengers was nothing more than a giant popcorn action flick on Speed. Pretty much like Michael Bay's entire career of film making summed up in one flick.

Because it did the characters justice. Rather than screwing over the rest of the cast for cap as they intended we got a movie that gave each character a small arc, and as a group had a much larger one. The movie did what X-Men failed to do time and time again which do justice to all of it's various characters. Even Hawkeye, they managed to work out of the movie by making him a secondary villain, also serving as a nod to his original role in the comics. The acting wasn't hokey, the director just acknowledged that it's absolutely ridiculous that the a giant Gamma monster, a man with a super futuristic suit of armor, a guy WHO THEY THAWED OUT OF ICE from WWII, and norse god are all being told to work together. None of them really take it seriously and thats the point, in the end they learn that they have to.

It's just very clear you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Anno_Domini]

LMAO, this just proves how much you all are in love with these directors (more than the actual characters), brilliant movie--I hope you're kidding? You serious need to get out more and see some really good films. The Avengers was nothing more than a giant popcorn action flick on Speed. Pretty much like Michael Bay's entire career of film making summed up in one flick.

Once in a while you read someone's opinions and think, "I'm pleased they're not an actual critic".

 

[Bruce Malone]

Accounting for inflation,Both SM1 and SM3 grossed a billion and SM2 came close

I'd take those numbers with a grain of salt. It is very hard to account for foreign inflation you literally have to take into account how strong each individual nations dollars was at the time compared to the us dollar compared to now.

For a while TDKR had sold more tickets or so in the UK than TDK but it's converted revenues were actually lower due to the fact that the UK pound was weaker now than it was in 2008.

So accounting for WW total inflation takes more than just converting a sub total of 800m or so into whatever that amount is worth today. So it is really impossible/hard to say what the spider-man's foreign take would convert to today.

 

[Spiderdevil]

And that was a conversation that wasn't referring to the money it made, only how the film is rated by critics and others. You're just trying to stick your head into a conversation where you had no idea what it was about.

No,they were discussing money,go read again
The topic was on how TASM will not be able to cross 800M and it made that money selling lesser tickets than other Spidey movies and with 3D etc
http://forums.superherohype.com/showthread.php?t=391587&page=24

It's a pity this movie wont make 800m to join the other three Spider-Man movies that made 800m WW
Only 2 Spider-man movies made over 800 m.
Earning $ 700+ mil. is not an easy task. Iron Man was the most successful Marvel Studios movie, that provided Iron Man 2 a perfect opportunity to earn more than $ 700 mil but it could manage only 624 mil.
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.
Following Spider-Man 3 isn't nearly as bad as Batman Begins having to follow Batman & Robin though.

Like I said, those plot points may not even come to a conclusion if Webb doesn't return or any of the writers from the first film. They could be lost in transition and to say they will just be completed in sequels is only guessing.

To say they wont be covered is guessing aswell
Irrespective of Marc Returning or not,the initial script for TASM 2 was written by Vanderbilt who also wrote it for TASM
Also there wouldnt have been the whole 'Did you tell the boy about his father' thingy in the end if his parents werent meant to be explored further

The Green Goblin legacy was fine enough to connect all three of Raimi's films together.

Just the Legacy and Harry's persona.Nothing else

 

[Spiderdevil]

I think that "realistically", a clear minority of people people, including BO analysts and fans (as displayed in the poll attached to this thread) expected the movie to gross under 300 millions domestically.

Having said that, even though I think that the domestic underperformance is worrisome to an extent, coming close to 750M WW is certainly an achievement and a solid start for the new series. Hoping now that Webb will return and will possibly have as much freedom as he needs to make the Spider-Man movie he wants.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

Bottom line is... the foundation is there to make an amazing sequel.

Critically and commercially.