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

[TheVileOne]

That guy is making the most silly argument ever. Sure, look at how much money sm3 made at the box office. The majority of the people who've seen that film thinks it's rubbish. He's talking out of his ass.

Or maybe the fans of this movie are in denial.

 

[Eddie Brock]

Never said it was bogus, just pointing out the facts of the numbers.

Where's my evidence? Look at the weekend performance. People were not as enthused about a reboot origin movie for Spider-Man.

That is true. However, saying that audiences find it inferior is not.

 

[Spider-Dude23]

Or maybe the fans of this movie are in denial.

Or maybe you're just a troll trying to cause a fight.

 

[DW4]

700 m WW is enough to cover the budget and marketing.

Any further box office gross, dvd revenue, and tv rights revenue is pure profit.

I think ASM will make over 775 m.

Also can't forget, all the money made from action figures, other merch etc etc. 500-550 million WW will be enough to cover the budget of the movie and the marketing. Movies don't have to necessarily make double their budget to make a profit. If that was the case, big expensive movies wouldn't be made. Like you said, the rest will be profit for Sony.

I was gonna respond to TheVileOne's posts but I have no interest in wasting anymore of my time.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I don't trust any score or poll on the Internet in which just anybody can vote in. Too many trolls and kids.

That's why things like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are valuable. Since they are proper critics, they are (mostly) credible.

Metacritic
Amazing Spider-Man 66 vs. Spider-Man 73

Rotten Tomatoes Tomato Score
Amazing Spider-Man 73% vs. Spider-Man 89%

Rotten Tomatoes Average Score
Amazing Spider-Man 6.7/10 vs. Spider-Man 7.6/10


Then there is the box office which paints a similar picture. I have to agree with VileOne.

 

[TheVileOne]

Not trying to cause a fight. This is an open forum and I'm expressing a viewpoint.

The fact is this, this is the lowest ever domestic opening for a Spider-Man movie. Every Spider-Man movie previously had a bigger opening weekend and did comparatively better over a five day release. Spider-Man 2 which opened up on a similar weekend did much better.

To do a new Spider-Man movie and reboot the whole franchise from scratch with new actors, IMHO this should NOT have been a $220 million movie. More like $150 million.

 

[Spider-Dude23]

Okay whatever you say

 

[Eddie Brock]

Not trying to cause a fight. This is an open forum and I'm expressing a viewpoint.

The fact is this, this is the lowest ever domestic opening for a Spider-Man movie. Every Spider-Man movie previously had a bigger opening weekend and did comparatively better over a five day release. Spider-Man 2 which opened up on a similar weekend did much better.

To do a new Spider-Man movie and reboot the whole franchise from scratch with new actors, IMHO this should NOT have been a $220 million movie. More like $150 million.

Absolutely, man. I knew what you were saying, but the way you worded it gave a different implication. And I agree, they went a little too big on the budget.

 

[TheVileOne]

I don't trust any score or poll on the Internet in which just anybody can vote in. Too many trolls and kids.

That's why things like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are valuable. Since they are proper critics, they are (mostly) credible.

Metacritic
Amazing Spider-Man 66 vs. Spider-Man 73

Rotten Tomatoes Tomato Score
Amazing Spider-Man 73% vs. Spider-Man 89%

Rotten Tomatoes Average Score
Amazing Spider-Man 6.7/10 vs. Spider-Man 7.6/10


Then there is the box office which paints a similar picture. I have to agree with VileOne.

Yes I mean honestly, they are internet polls. I don't know how they are even calculated or if its multiple people doing them or people just trolling with the votes. But either way the numbers aren't comparable at this point anyway for the polling data.

Either way it's pretty obvious to me which movies are more beloved at this point.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Not trying to cause a fight. This is an open forum and I'm expressing a viewpoint.

The fact is this, this is the lowest ever domestic opening for a Spider-Man movie. Every Spider-Man movie previously had a bigger opening weekend and did comparatively better over a five day release. Spider-Man 2 which opened up on a similar weekend did much better.

To do a new Spider-Man movie and reboot the whole franchise from scratch with new actors, IMHO this should NOT have been a $220 million movie. More like $150 million.

I don't think the cost is really an issue. Rebooting was a dumb idea to begin with. There is interest in the character, as we've seen from the previous three Spider-Man films and I really think there would have been interest in a new Spider-Man story had it not been similar to one that audiences had seen just ten years ago. Spending less on the film does nothing to solve the real problem.

Redoing the origin was a bad idea, period.

 

[Eddie Brock]

Critics don't represent the opinion of the masses.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I don't trust any score or poll on the Internet in which just anybody can vote in. Too many trolls and kids.

That's why things like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic are valuable. Since they are proper critics, they are (mostly) credible.

Metacritic
Amazing Spider-Man 66 vs. Spider-Man 73

Rotten Tomatoes Tomato Score
Amazing Spider-Man 73% vs. Spider-Man 89%

Rotten Tomatoes Average Score
Amazing Spider-Man 6.7/10 vs. Spider-Man 7.6/10


Then there is the box office which paints a similar picture. I have to agree with VileOne.

He was speaking from the audience's perspective.

Sorry but critics don't speak for the audience. User scores may not be 100% accurate but they give a better idea of the average movie goers opinion than snobby critics.

Also ASM critics' ratings were driven down by critics who openly opposed an early reboot or a re-done origin. For many of them the those were the deal-breaker, not a lack of quality. Without those negative reviews, ASM would be in the mid to high 80's.

 

[Anno_Domini]

I still like the 2002 movie more, but I never complained about the origin for TAS-M. It takes different turns to make itself feel new and different. The only thing I hated with TAS-M's take on the origin is Peter's "Not my policy." which was so lame and unoriginal when they could've had him say at least something that wasn't like Raimi's "Not my problem."

 

[TheVileOne]

I don't think the cost is really an issue. Rebooting was a dumb idea to begin with. There is interest in the character, as we've seen from the previous three Spider-Man films and I really think there would have been interest in a new Spider-Man story had it not been similar to one that audiences had seen just ten years ago. Spending less on the film does nothing to solve the real problem.

Redoing the origin was a bad idea, period.

Well that's my main theory. People didn't want to see the same basic story told again and IMHO done in an inferior fashion.

Here's the thing. Often times hardcore fans and comic purists are in a bubble about these movies. Moviegoers that are outside of this bubble, more than a reboot, moviegoers see this as a remake of the original Spider-Man movie. They've already seen this movie before and it was better 10 years ago.

Here's my other problem. The thing with the parents. There's precedence for all that, but what put me off is that they made his daddy issues the whole driving force of the character in the story and I just don't get that. To me that was never really the driving force of Spider-Man, the truth of his father etc. Yes Spider-man is an orphan but that's only just one part of Spider-Man.

 

[TheVileOne]

He was speaking from the audience's perspective.

Sorry but critics don't speak for the audience. User scores may not be 100% accurate but they give a better idea of the average movie goers opinion than snobby critics.

Also ASM critics' ratings were driven down by critics who openly opposed an early reboot or a re-done origin. For many of them the those were the deal-breaker, not a lack of quality. Without those negative reviews, ASM would be in the mid to high 80's.

Maybe just maybe American moviegoers are feeling this way as well hence the lower numbers.

 

[terry78]

Well that's my main theory. People didn't want to see the same basic story told again and IMHO done in an inferior fashion.

Here's the thing. Often times hardcore fans and comic purists are in a bubble about these movies. Moviegoers that are outside of this bubble, more than a reboot, moviegoers see this as a remake of the original Spider-Man movie. They've already seen this movie before and it was better 10 years ago.

Here's my other problem. The thing with the parents. There's precedence for all that, but what put me off is that they made his daddy issues the whole driving force of the character in the story and I just don't get that. To me that was never really the driving force of Spider-Man, the truth of his father etc. Yes Spider-man is an orphan but that's only just one part of Spider-Man.

Daddy issues are the default plot point in most tv shows, movies and video games if you need to drive your angsty male lead.

 

[TheVileOne]

In other words you are calling this movie derivative .

 

[Donald Thomas]

He was speaking from the audience's perspective.

Sorry but critics don't speak for the audience. User scores may not be 100% accurate but they give a better idea of the average movie goers opinion than snobby critics.

Also ASM critics' ratings were driven down by critics who openly opposed an early reboot or a re-done origin. For many of them the those were the deal-breaker, not a lack of quality. Without those negative reviews, ASM would be in the mid to high 80's.

Aloha,
Very true and it shows you what egotistical jerks they were. Very few critics didn't think that the performances were great and that the quality of the film wasn't as good if not better than it's predecessors. They simply couldn't get over the fact that it was a reboot.
BTW-not to flame any other movie but for those intending to see the Amazing Spider-Man more than once-make sure you go to see it during the three day opening of the other super hero movie. We want to give Spider-Man as much legs for the summer as possible.
Spidey rules

 

[Blade X]

Doing a reboot with a whole new cast wasn't what kept some moviegoers away from this movie. Doing a reboot with another long dragged out origin story and Spidey running around unmasked (again) MIGHT be the reasons why some moviegoers stayed away from this movie. Also, trying to make this movie like THE DARK KNIGHT MIGHT have also kept some moviegoers away. IMO, this movie MIGHT have done a little better if the origin was told very quickly as a flashback and we then jumped to the present with Peter having been Spidey for a few months.

 

[Eddie Brock]

Spidey running around unmasked (again)

You do know that only fanboys care about that, right?

 

[Prison Mike]

I never understood the criticism of Spider-Man being unmasked during some of the fight scenes. It always seemed so trivial like people are making up things just to complain about them.

 

[Supa]

I don't mind Spidey fighting unmasked. But considering he did it in all 3 movies while saving Mary Jane it started to feel redundant.
The only unmasked scene I think it's really stupid is the alley fight in SM1, where he puts on everything except the mask. It makes no sense. The mask was the most important part and it's quicker to put on than the rest of his suit.
You can't say it's to show emotion, you can barely see his face because it's dark and he's flipping.

 

[<borkis>]

Sooooo, 341,600,000~ so far. I know that covers the budget, but do you think that covers the money spent on marketing too?

It actually doesn't cover the budget. Studios take somewhere between 50-60% of ticket sales, with the rest going to theater owners.

At 60% that would give Sony $204 million dollars. For a movie of this size they generally pen $150-200 million on advertising (crazy, I know!). I don't know how much they spent, but let's say for the sake of argument it's around $400 million for move production and marketing. That would mean that thy are only halfway to breaking even. They should do it, but you can quickly see why getting these movies made is as big a deal as it is, since it's quite hard to turn a profit.

 

[Resistance61513]

I don't mind Spidey fighting unmasked. But considering he did it in all 3 movies while saving Mary Jane it started to feel redundant.
The only unmasked scene I think it's really stupid is the alley fight in SM1, where he puts on everything except the mask. It makes no sense. The mask was the most important part and it's quicker to put on than the rest of his suit.
You can't say it's to show emotion, you can barely see his face because it's dark and he's flipping.

The film novelization actually addresses this scene. I think it was hard for Raimi to convey what Peter was thinking but, if I remember correctly, in the book that was the scene where he wanted to reveal to Mary Jane he was Spider-Man.

He didn't want to keep the secret from her. He wanted to wow her. But then after the fight he regrets not putting on the mask and chickens out. That's why he slings up puts on the mask and then comes back down to talk to her.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

Maybe just maybe American moviegoers are feeling this way as well hence the lower numbers.

Every Spider-man movie sequel has dropped from the last movie.

A drop was expected and considering ASM was a divisive reboot a bigger drop than usual was inevitable.

But all thing considered ASM is doing great. It could still become the second highest grossing Spider-man movie worldwide.

Not bad for an unnecessary reboot.