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

[LegendAssemble]

Because its not a fair comparison
It would be fair to compare TASM to movies like BB,IM,TIH,Thor,CapAm etc

It's fair comparison, do you not realize sequels DON'T usually outgross the original film? Saying its a sequel means nothing.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

It's fair comparison, do you not realize sequels DON'T usually outgross the original film? Saying its a sequel means nothing.

SM3 says hi. So does ESB, TDK, TDKR....

 

[Spiderdevil]

2014 is full of other cbms (Captain America 2, GoG, X-Men Days of Future Past, possibly Ant-Man) that may not be direct competition but I don't think that the market saturation resulting from so many release will necessarely put the film in the best situation imaginable.

With all due respect they dont compare to Spidey,May X-men will compete well but that depends on the time difference between the release
Anyway its still a hundred times better than competing with TDKR and TA

Meaning that Sony's first priority is to release a film that'll be able to stand out among the crowd. They can't afford to release another average movie that won't get to the 300M mark domestically.

I think they need to be careful here.
Dont use a CGI villian and needlessly bloat the budget,not interfere anymore and give Webb the freedom and release it a suitable time

It's a bit more complicated than that given that most foreign currencies (like the Pound Sterling or the Euro) are now much weaker against the US dollar than they were back in 2008. I'll take France as an example because I know the market and because we do track ticket sales. TDKR roughly sold 1.3 million more tickets than TDK as of september 25. In terms of gross TDKR grossed 8.2M more than TDK, but at the 2008 change rate it would have grossed 12.5M more. That's a 4.3M loss on this market only. And the same reasonning can be made for any other country in the euro-zone. The average ticket price was actually much higher in 2008 given the fluctuations of the change rates. Accounting for inflation actually plays the other way around in this case.

So I think its pretty safe to say that overall TDKR sold more tickets than TDK already.

I agree its complicated
So lets the domestic market into account shall we
After Inflation TDK earned 596M
And TDKR will end up at 450M,almost 150M behind
I would easily call it underperforming especially when even the budget is higher and the hype is higher

As for the predictions, given how many people never expected another Batman movie to gross over a billion dollar,

Everybody expected it gross above a Billion,every single estimate
Com'on that was a given

TDKR outgrossed TDK wich is already against most of the predictions.

Nobody predicted it would gross lesser than TDK
It should have atleast grossed 1.2B imo
Despite the complicated math,I still say its a failure to not beat TDK by a good margin

As for SM2, roughly accounting for inflation, at fixed changed rates, the movie grossed higher than SM3 actually.

No it didnt
867M in 2007's money compared to SM3's 890M gross(Check BOM)
Despite that I would say SM3 underperforemed just like IM2 underperformed,And I'm saying that after they indeed beat they previous movie
So its clear here why I say TDKR underperformed because it didnt beat TDK(after accounting for Inflation) and falling 150M behind it in the domestic market

 

[Spiderdevil]

I would say popularity wise it is
Batman,Spider-man,Iron man,Superman,X-Men and then other Marvel Heroes

 

[Spiderdevil]

Movies

A-level:

1) Avengers
2) Batman
3) Spider-man

B-level:

1) Iron Man
2) Superman
3) Thor
4) X-men
5) Captain America

C-level:

1) Fantastic Four
2) Incredible Hulk
3) Green Lantern
4) Ghost Rider
5) Daredevil

D-level:

1) Blade
2) Punisher

Bottom of the Barrel:

Female superheroes

Very nice list
Though I would say X-Men should be higher and maybe DD above Green Lantern

 

[Spiderdevil]

It's fair comparison, do you not realize sequels DON'T usually outgross the original film? Saying its a sequel means nothing.

Hmmm
And how did you get to that conclusion?

 

[TheWallCrawler]

Superman is very common in pop culture though. You can find superman references in tons of songs, speeches, lines in films, he's the iconic superhero. Batman and Spider-Man have had more popular TV shows, toy lines, video games, and movies, anyone can point out a picture of Superman.

in conclusion Superman is the best known, Spider-Man or Batman is the most popular

 

[LegendAssemble]

SM3 says hi. So does ESB, TDK, TDKR....

Empire Strikes Back made less money than Star Wars, Spider-Man 2 made less money than Spider-Man, TDKR made less money than TDK. When a movie is huge and it gets a big buz, everyone goes to see it and when theres a sequel, a lot of people don't feel the need to go see it because they didn't like the original enough.

EDIT: Here's a good website that shows most sequels only make about as much as the original, not significantly more.

http://www.tableausoftware.com/public/blog/2011/08/are-movie-sequels-profitable-1279

 

[LegendAssemble]

in conclusion Superman is the best known, Spider-Man or Batman is the most popular

thats a good way to put it

 

[The Joker]

Empire Strikes Back made less money than Star Wars, Spider-Man 2 made less money than Spider-Man, TDKR made less money than TDK.

You have seen the latest box office takings for TDKR haven't you?

 

[Anno_Domini]

Movies

A-level:

1) Avengers
2) Batman
3) Spider-man

B-level:

1) Iron Man
2) Superman
3) Thor
4) X-men
5) Captain America

C-level:

1) Fantastic Four
2) Incredible Hulk
3) Green Lantern
4) Ghost Rider
5) Daredevil

D-level:

1) Blade
2) Punisher

Bottom of the Barrel:

Female superheroes

Placing Superman I and II and Iron Man in the 'B' list is atrocious.

I only made my account in May
I used to read posts way before that

And yet you still find it hard to believe that TAS-M was mentioned by many on what could be a three-way race this summer with CBMs. Or you weren't reading the right posts.

Yeah but comparing the 3 of them
TDKR=TA >> TASM

As I said, NOW it's viewed as that. But even with bad marketing and what have you, a lot of fans were still excited for a reboot that only felt like a remake instead.

No it was always like that,TDKR and TA always had major hype and it was expected since they had multiple successful movies before them unlike TASM

Multiple successful movies? Iron Man 1 and 2 and The Dark Knight. That was it really. That doesn't automatically justify on TA and TDKR being successful. The Avengers could've been a mess and The Dark Knight Rises could've been delivered that fatal blow that many third CBMs face.

No one ever predicted TASM would do better or even do equal to TDKR or TA,it was out of the question from the very beginning
Even if the movie had been like Iron Man quality good,it would have earned about 900M imo,still about 200M behind TDKR

Would've still been more successful than what it's made so far though.

It didnt
It was supposed to earn at the very least more than TDK which it didnt(after accounting for inflation)

All of those predictions were made BEFORE the shooting.

I am not saying that it didnt have any chance to be good quality movie,it had all the chance in the world to be a better critical success
I was talking money wise,and money wise it didnt have any chance whatsoever of beating or equalling TDKR and TA

It couldn't try to match TA's numbers when it had the same budget as TA? If you're making it seem like such a big deal with a film having a lesser budget than another making more money...why can't we assume that TAS-M should've made close to the same amount as well?

You are free to show me

And you are free to pay attention

When I quote a post I do that after reading the post and the topic of discussion before it
Alright drop it

Doesn't seem like it.

It doesnt matter that TDKR was the 3rd movie of a successful series and TASM was the first?
Seriously why dont you think logically
And as I said before,even TDKR underperform

The success of any previous films shouldn't matter at all. If we go by the previous films of Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor, it would seem that The Avengers wouldn't have even touched $1.5 billion, but yet it did.

And...TDKR didn't underperform when it reached a billion without being re-released as in TDK's case

The amount of money the Bayformers earn says otherwise

So the minority of idiots saw Bayformers countless of times. You sure showed me.

You seem to think the population is filled with morons who want to watch CGI and explosions and not almost three hours of a thinking man's story.

Just like they didnt do for another movie in 2005

They didn't care for the first of its kind -- a reboot.

Now we've seen countless of reboots that started with that little old film from 2005 that's loved even more considering it created one of the greatest trilogies ever made.

The 3D point was a financial blunder by WB so they dont have the right to talk about it
And we have already taken the budget into account,why do you keep talking the 3D in account? Thats all there is Money spent and Money earned,that the factor we take into account
It doesnt matter from where the money is made or where the budget is spent.Marvel chose to invest the money in 3D filming and WB did it on the massive star cast,its clear which payed off better
As for the Tragedy,how much did it affect the sales? 20M,,50M at the most,still TDKR is some 450M behind TA

Taking into account of the shooting and no 3D, TDKR definitely missed its shot of reaching TA's numbers, but to say TA payed off more...no it didn't, because it didn't have a tragedy happen during its midnight showing and used a gimmick to make up for a chunk, even if small, part of its gross. That's not saying TA destroyed TDKR at all. BEFORE the shooting, predictions were made that TDKR could have very well been far more close to TA's numbers, but alas, that still wouldn't be enough because of the dreadful 3D.

So why do you keep bringing it up as an excuse?

Not saying it is an excuse, but the trend of 3D DID help TA. There's nothing wrong in stating what actually happened.

And TDKR really bombed falling 450M behind TA despite exceeding it budget by 10M

So TAS-M REALLY bombed for having the same amount as TA and not even making as much as TDKR which had more AND TAS-M had 3D

Because its not a fair comparison
It would be fair to compare TASM to movies like BB,IM,TIH,Thor,CapAm etc

A movie is a movie.

It's when you get into different territories when you want to compare a first film to only another first film, or a sequel to only another sequel.

If we were to compare the three CBMs way back when, why can't we do it now?

Example for those different territories: The Avengers is the first of what could be its own trilogy, so one could make a definite argument on how we can compare TA to TAS-M.

Superman is very common in pop culture though. You can find superman references in tons of songs, speeches, lines in films, he's the iconic superhero. Batman and Spider-Man have had more popular TV shows, toy lines, video games, and movies, anyone can point out a picture of Superman.

in conclusion Superman is the best known, Spider-Man or Batman is the most popular

Definitely. As LegendAssemble said, Superman trumps them all for being a cultural icon and thus is quickly brought up as the more popular superhero. They all have fine lines on what makes them popular, but overall it's basically Superman, Spider-Man, Batman.

It's when you pass those three that makes it unbearable to think who'd come in fourth, fifth, et cetera.

 

[©KAW]

Domestically TDKR's competition was less than marginal actually. Do I have to remind you that TASM had 2 full week ends and 17 days to perform before TDKR's release ? TASM made 83% of its final income before TDKR's release (wich you can compare to TDKR's 79% during the same 17 days time frame).

Even with good legs, given its 6 days opening the movie wasn't going to make much more than what it did. If you take TDKR's 79% ratio, wich also implies that the movie should have displayed far better legs early in its run, especially with a stronger first week end, that would mean an extra 13 millions or so domestically. Wich is still far from satisfying, for a Spider-Man movie.


Pretty much EXACTLY what I wrote. It's one of the rare examples of direct competition you'll find though. Otherwise TASM had around 3 weeks almost everywhere else to perform before TDKR's release. Wich is plenty of time to perform without worrying about competition.

Translation: it would have made more without TDKR, any way you cut it, which was my point. A lot more than just 13M when you're talking worldwide. Especially overseas which can take months to build up to the final tally, not a few weeks.

Raimi lost creative control over the franchise, Sony shoved Venom in the sequel's storyline, preventing Raimi from using The Lizard as the main vilain and Spider-Man 3 happened.

I'm talking about SM2 (not SM3) which cost more and made less than SM1. Yet, no says it under-performed, which it did according to your own logic.

I'm still baffled to realize that most of you guys completely forgot what SM2's lower BO implied for the rest of the franchise.

When it comes to Spider-Man/Sony it implies absolutely nothing, especially when the studio has no choice but to continue to make sequels. It's moot.

 

[UltimateWebhead]

Empire Strikes Back made less money than Star Wars, Spider-Man 2 made less money than Spider-Man, TDKR made less money than TDK.

TDKR is a sequel that made more than the original (BB). TDK is not the original.

 

[AF3619]

TDKR is a sequel that made more than the original (BB). TDK is not the original.

The Dark knight made more than Batman Begins
so TASM2 can make more than TASM because
is not an origin story anymore and blah blah it was remade blah blah came out 10 year ago...

 

[UltimateWebhead]

The Dark knight made more than Batman Begins
so TASM2 can make more than TASM because
is not an origin story anymore and blah blah it was remade blah blah came out 10 year ago...

Can you explain what you're trying to say here please? ASM is an origin story. I'm not sure what you mean by this post.

 

[Just one more]

I think he meant that ASM2 won't be an origin story again.

IMO though, if they even touch GG, Dock Ock, Venom or Sandman in this franchise they will be facing the same been there done that that they were facing with the re-told origin.

 

[A Necessary Evil]

Placing Superman I and II and Iron Man in the 'B' list is atrocious.



And yet you still find it hard to believe that TAS-M was mentioned by many on what could be a three-way race this summer with CBMs. Or you weren't reading the right posts.



As I said, NOW it's viewed as that. But even with bad marketing and what have you, a lot of fans were still excited for a reboot that only felt like a remake instead.



Multiple successful movies? Iron Man 1 and 2 and The Dark Knight. That was it really. That doesn't automatically justify on TA and TDKR being successful. The Avengers could've been a mess and The Dark Knight Rises could've been delivered that fatal blow that many third CBMs face.



Would've still been more successful than what it's made so far though.



All of those predictions were made BEFORE the shooting.



It couldn't try to match TA's numbers when it had the same budget as TA? If you're making it seem like such a big deal with a film having a lesser budget than another making more money...why can't we assume that TAS-M should've made close to the same amount as well?



And you are free to pay attention



Doesn't seem like it.



The success of any previous films shouldn't matter at all. If we go by the previous films of Captain America: The First Avenger and Thor, it would seem that The Avengers wouldn't have even touched $1.5 billion, but yet it did.

And...TDKR didn't underperform when it reached a billion without being re-released as in TDK's case



So the minority of idiots saw Bayformers countless of times. You sure showed me.

You seem to think the population is filled with morons who want to watch CGI and explosions and not almost three hours of a thinking man's story.





They didn't care for the first of its kind -- a reboot.

Now we've seen countless of reboots that started with that little old film from 2005 that's loved even more considering it created one of the greatest trilogies ever made.



Taking into account of the shooting and no 3D, TDKR definitely missed its shot of reaching TA's numbers, but to say TA payed off more...no it didn't, because it didn't have a tragedy happen during its midnight showing and used a gimmick to make up for a chunk, even if small, part of its gross. That's not saying TA destroyed TDKR at all. BEFORE the shooting, predictions were made that TDKR could have very well been far more close to TA's numbers, but alas, that still wouldn't be enough because of the dreadful 3D.



Not saying it is an excuse, but the trend of 3D DID help TA. There's nothing wrong in stating what actually happened.



So TAS-M REALLY bombed for having the same amount as TA and not even making as much as TDKR which had more AND TAS-M had 3D



A movie is a movie.

It's when you get into different territories when you want to compare a first film to only another first film, or a sequel to only another sequel.

If we were to compare the three CBMs way back when, why can't we do it now?

Example for those different territories: The Avengers is the first of what could be its own trilogy, so one could make a definite argument on how we can compare TA to TAS-M.





Definitely. As LegendAssemble said, Superman trumps them all for being a cultural icon and thus is quickly brought up as the more popular superhero. They all have fine lines on what makes them popular, but overall it's basically Superman, Spider-Man, Batman.

It's when you pass those three that makes it unbearable to think who'd come in fourth, fifth, et cetera.

 

[AF3619]

Can you explain what you're trying to say here please? ASM is an origin story. I'm not sure what you mean by this post.

no , i meant TASM 2 WON´T be an origin story and people giving negative reviews just because "is the same as 10 years ago" sorry for the confusion

 

[LegendAssemble]

TDKR is a sequel that made more than the original (BB). TDK is not the original.

it might as well have been Batman Begins wasn't huge, but the Dark Knight was an event movie and it really didn't feel much like a sequel. You could go into that movie with no knowledge of the first movie and understand it its entirety. Plus it was the event movie of the the trilogy, judging by the figures alone it's obvious many people have seen TDK and not BB. Not to mention TDKR is still a sequel to TDK, so it follows the same trend. Like I said look at that website, most sequels do not make more than the original.

 

[LegendAssemble]

I think he meant that ASM2 won't be an origin story again.

IMO though, if they even touch GG, Dock Ock, Venom or Sandman in this franchise they will be facing the same been there done that that they were facing with the re-told origin.

no it won't because, that wasn't the complaint! if you actually compare the movies, just blankly describe what happens, scene for scene, it's basically the same movie that hits the same plot points at the same time. It was just directed differently and replace a few characters.

 

[AF3619]

it might as well have been Batman Begins wasn't huge,

but it is the FIRST one! and some plot points of TDKR are from Batman Begins

so if TASM wasn´t as huge as Avengers or TDKR maybe can get a sequel like The Dark Knight

Not to mention TDKR is still a sequel to TDK

Spiderman 3 made more than Spiderman 2(worldwide)

no it won't because, that wasn't the complaint! if you actually compare the movies, just blankly describe what happens, scene for scene, it's basically the same movie that hits the same plot points at the same time. It was just directed differently and replace a few characters.

ok if you want to see it in that way....

 

[©KAW]

TDK made about 750M more than Batman Begins, not gonna happen. Even if it's a better film SM1/SM2 (by fanboys standards) SM2 made less than the first. So there's just no way of knowing.

 

[LegendAssemble]

but it is the FIRST one! and some plot points of TDKR are from Batman Begins

so if TASM wasn´t as huge as Avengers or TDKR maybe can get a sequel like The Dark Knight

Yeah of coarse it can, the point I was making was that it isn't unfair to compare TDKR and TA to AMS because they were sequels, when sequels making that much money is NOT the norm.

ok if you want to see it in that way....

Its true try it, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that's more of what the critics are going by when they say its the same story. The origin of Spider-Man isn't limited to fanboy knowledge, most reviewers understand theres going to be a certain amount of repetition by nature. Using the same villain, as long as it's done differently, won't garner the same criticism.

 

[AF3619]

Yeah of coarse it can, the point I was making was that it isn't unfair to compare TDKR and TA to AMS because they were sequels, when sequels making that much money is NOT the norm.

but you said sequels to Superhero movies can´t make more than the original

Empire Strikes Back made less money than Star Wars, Spider-Man 2 made less money than Spider-Man, TDKR made less money than TDK.

case 1: Original to sequel TDK made more than BB
case 2: Sequel to sequel SM3 made more than SM2

Its true try it, I'm not saying it's a bad thing, I'm just saying that's more of what the critics are going by when they say its the same story. The origin of Spider-Man isn't limited to fanboy knowledge, most reviewers understand theres going to be a certain amount of repetition by nature. Using the same villain, as long as it's done differently, won't garner the same criticism.

Just take the first part ,similar but not the exact same
SM1:Intro,Monolgue,Peter´s introduction in the bus, meets Osborn Spider-bite
ASM:Introto Parent´s mystery,intro to Peter´s life,Aunt May and Uncle Ben with the Briefcase scene,Peter goes to Oscorp,meets Connors,Spider-bite
they are similar because of the source material but not exact same , i think people complain because it took its time but the audience already knew what was going to happen and felt like they were just waiting for spideystuff

 

[LegendAssemble]

but you said sequels to Superhero movies can´t make more than the original
case 1: Original to sequel TDK made more than BB
case 2: Sequel to sequel SM3 made more than SM2

no i didn't, the whole argument originated in the context of comparing TDKR and TA to AMS, X2 made more than X-Men also. I am well aware, I'm just saying that you can't say that the TDKR and TA were definately going to make more money than AMS because they were sequels.