The Amazing Spider-Man The Box Office Thread

[Spider-Boy]

BB came off a franchise. So why didn't people remember Batman 89 and Batman Returns? Batman 89 made $250 million domestic...in 1989.

Like I stated previously, tell me that the Spider-Man FRANCHISE/TRILOGY was terrible. Then you could continue with your dumb theory.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

Edit

 

[A Necessary Evil]

*turns back around and looks, but figures it ain't worth it, but instead, turn back and walks on, then dance, then walk*

Like I stated previously, tell me that the Spider-Man FRANCHISE/TRILOGY was terrible. Then you could continue with your dumb theory.

As far as I can tell, chase loves the spider-man movies.

Well. SM1 and SM2.

 

[Infinity9999x]

So according to you, TDK shouldn't have made money in the box office. Since you said people didn't like Begins, despite their attempt of advertising the crap out of it.


Contrary to popular belief, The Amazing Spider-Man isn't coming off one movie. It's coming off a franchise, as a whole. People are going to remember SM3 as much as they remember SM2 along with SM. If you can tell me that, as a whole, it was a terrible franchise/trilogy... Then you could continue to argue that the reboot will fail.

I think you need to re-read his post. He never said people didn't like BB, he said it didn't make much money. It's important to know that there is a difference.

The B.O. for BB suffered because of the negative connotation of Batman and Robin. However, the people who did see it enjoyed it. It got great reviews, but many people simply waited for the DVD because they were more willing to wait and see the movie for cheaper, instead of going to the theatre, because of how the last movie was.

And Spider-man is not remembered as a whole. People remember the last movie, because it's the freshest in their minds. SM1 is nearly ten years old. SM3 is only 6. What's newest is what's remembered.

 

[Spider-Boy]

And Spider-man is not remembered as a whole. People remember the last movie, because it's the freshest in their minds. SM1 is nearly ten years old. SM3 is only 6. What's newest is what's remembered.

I love how people state opinions as fact for the intention of sounding persuasive and intelligent. It's amusing really.

It's important to know that there is a difference.

 

[chaseter]

Like I stated previously, tell me that the Spider-Man FRANCHISE/TRILOGY was terrible. Then you could continue with your dumb theory.

After you tell me that Batman 89 and Batman Returns were terrible so that my dumb theory won't continue.

 

[chaseter]

People didn't go see Begins, like you said it didn't do well in the box office.

Exactly...so why is that? It did well with critics. It did well with fans. Why didn't the GA flock to see it? It wasn't the advertising, it wasn't the quality of the movie, it wasn't the release date...so what was it?

 

[Spider-Boy]

Now it seems everyone loves Batman Begins but it barely made a profit domestic.

Oh, so not everyone liked it before The Dark Knight came out?

Point proven.

 

[Spider-Boy]

After you tell me that Batman 89 and Batman Returns were terrible so that my dumb theory won't continue.

If I told you they were terrible it would prove your theory. Your confusing yourself chaseter.

 

[TheSlag]

Well, all I can say is that I'm sorry if it came off that way. It's just I'm so used to people doing that, now I just assume alot.

NP. Thanks for the apology (big of you) but it wasn't necessary. And it was not ripping you or Raimi, it was just trying to understand what you posted. Later.

 

[TheSlag]

And Spider-man is not remembered as a whole. People remember the last movie, because it's the freshest in their minds. SM1 is nearly ten years old. SM3 is only 6. What's newest is what's remembered.

I disagree here. I think it works both ways. Yes, SM3 was a letdown compared to the Hype and SM1/2, but by that token, people could (not saying all do, but some, and I think the majority) overlook (basically forget or deemphasize) SM3 and look back more fondly on SM1 and SM2.

And again, not saying all, but again.. I think it swings both ways. Some will ONLY (or emphasize SM3 shortcomings) while others will deemphasize and remember the better (SM1/SM2).

 

[chaseter]

Oh, so not everyone liked it before The Dark Knight came out?

Point proven.

It made $200 domestic...

You really aren't getting this. Why did it only make 200 million domestic? What is the reason?

 

[DieSmiling]

You guys are all oversimplifying why various movies were successful/unsuccessful. There are a ton of different factors involved.

Frankly, I think the stink of Batman and Robin is overstated in why Batman Begins wasn't overly successful at the box office. Obviously it was a big part of it, but there were many other things at play. I think there wasn't a whole lot of excitement about ANOTHER Batman movie at the time, the general perception was that the movie was a prequel (the idea of a reboot was pretty uncommon at the time), and the marketing didn't emphasize flashy CGI set-pieces that were becoming increasingly common at the time.

There wasn't a ton of flash or sizzle to it. It kind of had the perception of "oh, they're making another Batman movie." Then, people saw it, and realized that it was a great movie, and completely unlike what they had previously experienced as a Batman movie, which obviously contributed (among many other factor's such as Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker and untimely death) to The Dark Knight's Massive success.... It's also important to remember that $205 million domestic is nothing to sneeze at. Underwhelming for a Batman movie? Sure. But it's not like the movie was a bomb, and most superheroes would give their left nut to have one of their weaker movies gross that huge.

The difference between Spider-Man and other "reboot" scenarios is that they didn't stop making the series the first time around because it wasn't successful. They were just afraid that ballooning costs making the movies less profitable in the future, and the original talent were becoming disinterested. It was a pre-emptive strike, really.

Anyone who thinks that Spider-Man carries with it a Batman and Robin like stigma is grasping at straws. Look at the Box-Office numbers and Rotten Tomatoes reviews for Spider-Man 3 vs. Batman and Robin or Superman IV. Those movies were crushed critically, and massive failures at the box office. Spider-Man 3, despite what some fanboys will try to tell you, was neither.

I'm very interested to see what kind of numbers The Amazing Spider-Man does, because frankly, it's in a unique situation.

 

[Ajendo]

It made $200 domestic...

You really aren't getting this. Why did it only make 200 million domestic? What is the reason?

Wait BB made $200million domestic coming off the back of the abysmal B and R and you think ASM wont make anywhere near $300million because it's coming off of what most fans of the series regard as the dissapointment that is sm3????

SM3 wasn't anywhere near as horrific as B and R, ASM is going to be marketed extremely well just like every other spidey film before it and given the lovable cast and presuming the trailers kick enough ass, I think your underestimation of the domestic BO is well off the mark. How much did IM and IM2 make?? Because honestly, I dont see this movie realistically making anything less than what the IM movies made domestically. At the very least taking into account various factors. I'm expecting at the very least for this movie to make roughly SM2 domestic number.

 

[Ajendo]

You guys are all oversimplifying why various movies were successful/unsuccessful. There are a ton of different factors involved.

Frankly, I think the stink of Batman and Robin is overstated in why Batman Begins wasn't overly successful at the box office. Obviously it was a big part of it, but there were many other things at play. I think there wasn't a whole lot of excitement about ANOTHER Batman movie at the time, the general perception was that the movie was a prequel (the idea of a reboot was pretty uncommon at the time), and the marketing didn't emphasize flashy CGI set-pieces that were becoming increasingly common at the time.

There wasn't a ton of flash or sizzle to it. It kind of had the perception of "oh, they're making another Batman movie." Then, people saw it, and realized that it was a great movie, and completely unlike what they had previously experienced as a Batman movie, which obviously contributed (among many other factor's such as Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker and untimely death) to The Dark Knight's Massive success.... It's also important to remember that $205 million domestic is nothing to sneeze at. Underwhelming for a Batman movie? Sure. But it's not like the movie was a bomb, and most superheroes would give their left nut to have one of their weaker movies gross that huge.

The difference between Spider-Man and other "reboot" scenarios is that they didn't stop making the series the first time around because it wasn't successful. They were just afraid that ballooning costs making the movies less profitable in the future, and the original talent were becoming disinterested. It was a pre-emptive strike, really.

Anyone who thinks that Spider-Man carries with it a Batman and Robin like stigma is grasping at straws. Look at the Box-Office numbers and Rotten Tomatoes reviews for Spider-Man 3 vs. Batman and Robin or Superman IV. Those movies were crushed critically, and massive failures at the box office. Spider-Man 3, despite what some fanboys will try to tell you, was neither.

I'm very interested to see what kind of numbers The Amazing Spider-Man does, because frankly, it's in a unique situation.

In the midst of whacky, nutty and frequent bull crap, this is a rare quality post that should be acknowledged!

 

[spider-neil]

Was indeed a quality post. It has to be said many people have raised many points that appear in the post but no one as elequently.

 

[Spider-ManHero12]

^^ I second that.

 

[Spider-Boy]

It made $200 domestic...

You really aren't getting this. Why did it only make 200 million domestic? What is the reason?

"Now it seems everyone loves Batman Begins"

Did you not say that people didn't like it before TDK came out? Again, point proven.

 

[chaseter]

Answer my questions.

If everyone loves Batman Begins why didn't they go see it? Why didn't it make 300 million? Why didn't it make 400 million? I never said people didn't like it before TDK came out. Show me that post. You can't. People watched it on dvd before TDK came out obviously. So more people liked Batman Begins after it was already in theaters. You can't answer my questions.

 

[Alchemyst]

You guys are all oversimplifying why various movies were successful/unsuccessful. There are a ton of different factors involved.

Frankly, I think the stink of Batman and Robin is overstated in why Batman Begins wasn't overly successful at the box office. Obviously it was a big part of it, but there were many other things at play. I think there wasn't a whole lot of excitement about ANOTHER Batman movie at the time, the general perception was that the movie was a prequel (the idea of a reboot was pretty uncommon at the time), and the marketing didn't emphasize flashy CGI set-pieces that were becoming increasingly common at the time.

There wasn't a ton of flash or sizzle to it. It kind of had the perception of "oh, they're making another Batman movie." Then, people saw it, and realized that it was a great movie, and completely unlike what they had previously experienced as a Batman movie, which obviously contributed (among many other factor's such as Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker and untimely death) to The Dark Knight's Massive success.... It's also important to remember that $205 million domestic is nothing to sneeze at. Underwhelming for a Batman movie? Sure. But it's not like the movie was a bomb, and most superheroes would give their left nut to have one of their weaker movies gross that huge.

The difference between Spider-Man and other "reboot" scenarios is that they didn't stop making the series the first time around because it wasn't successful. They were just afraid that ballooning costs making the movies less profitable in the future, and the original talent were becoming disinterested. It was a pre-emptive strike, really.

Anyone who thinks that Spider-Man carries with it a Batman and Robin like stigma is grasping at straws. Look at the Box-Office numbers and Rotten Tomatoes reviews for Spider-Man 3 vs. Batman and Robin or Superman IV. Those movies were crushed critically, and massive failures at the box office. Spider-Man 3, despite what some fanboys will try to tell you, was neither.

I'm very interested to see what kind of numbers The Amazing Spider-Man does, because frankly, it's in a unique situation.

Great Post

 

[craigdbfan]

You guys are all oversimplifying why various movies were successful/unsuccessful. There are a ton of different factors involved.

Frankly, I think the stink of Batman and Robin is overstated in why Batman Begins wasn't overly successful at the box office. Obviously it was a big part of it, but there were many other things at play. I think there wasn't a whole lot of excitement about ANOTHER Batman movie at the time, the general perception was that the movie was a prequel (the idea of a reboot was pretty uncommon at the time), and the marketing didn't emphasize flashy CGI set-pieces that were becoming increasingly common at the time.

There wasn't a ton of flash or sizzle to it. It kind of had the perception of "oh, they're making another Batman movie." Then, people saw it, and realized that it was a great movie, and completely unlike what they had previously experienced as a Batman movie, which obviously contributed (among many other factor's such as Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker and untimely death) to The Dark Knight's Massive success.... It's also important to remember that $205 million domestic is nothing to sneeze at. Underwhelming for a Batman movie? Sure. But it's not like the movie was a bomb, and most superheroes would give their left nut to have one of their weaker movies gross that huge.

The difference between Spider-Man and other "reboot" scenarios is that they didn't stop making the series the first time around because it wasn't successful. They were just afraid that ballooning costs making the movies less profitable in the future, and the original talent were becoming disinterested. It was a pre-emptive strike, really.

Anyone who thinks that Spider-Man carries with it a Batman and Robin like stigma is grasping at straws. Look at the Box-Office numbers and Rotten Tomatoes reviews for Spider-Man 3 vs. Batman and Robin or Superman IV. Those movies were crushed critically, and massive failures at the box office. Spider-Man 3, despite what some fanboys will try to tell you, was neither.

I'm very interested to see what kind of numbers The Amazing Spider-Man does, because frankly, it's in a unique situation.

****ing brilliant post.

I love Batman Begins by the way and to this day is my favorite Batman movie as great of a movie TDK is it resonates differently than Begins did. I guess I'm a sucker for good origin stories.

In the midst of whacky, nutty and frequent bull crap, this is a rare quality post that should be acknowledged!

Was indeed a quality post. It has to be said many people have raised many points that appear in the post but no one as elequently.

^^ I second that.

Great Post

Agreed. So true also.

 

[Doctor Jones]

Excellent post, DieSmiling. BB made a good enough profit, for what it was trying to do. It's just yeah, it came off of the stink of B&R and people didn't realize it was great until they saw it. It wasn't a smash or anything, but it was an adequate enough to get a sequel.

 

[chaseter]

That is exactly what I have been saying...it didn't do as good because it came off of the stink of B&R.

It made a slight profit and did what it was meant to do, lay the frame work for another franchise. However, just looking at all the massive fans of the new Batman and how TDK smashed records, it makes you wonder where all those people were 3 years earlier. They were hesitant to go to the theater and rightfully so. Same will happen with this movie. Yes it will still make a profit but it won't pull in anything massive. Hopefully it does what BB did and lay the framework for an amazing new franchise.

 

[spider-neil]

That is exactly what I have been saying...it didn't do as good because it came off of the stink of B&R.

It made a slight profit and did what it was meant to do, lay the frame work for another franchise. However, just looking at all the massive fans of the new Batman and how TDK smashed records, it makes you wonder where all those people were 3 years earlier. They were hesitant to go to the theater and rightfully so. Same will happen with this movie. Yes it will still make a profit but it won't pull in anything massive. Hopefully it does what BB did and lay the framework for an amazing new franchise.

I think a lot of the success of TDK was down TDK (iconic joker performance, ledger's death) rather than people watching the dvd and thinking 'darn, wish I'd watched this at the movies, I'll make sure I catch the sequel' afterall there have been bigger hits on dvd (than BB) whose sequel didn't go on to be bigger hits than TDK.

as for the spidey reboot as diesmiling says it's difficult to predict because the franchise was rebooted on the back of a movie that made nearly a billion from a franchise that has made 2.5 billion, difficult to guess how the general audience will embrace the movie. I will say though that a kick arse trailer plus excellent movie could send spidey through the roof (WOM + 3D ticket prices).

 

[A Necessary Evil]

I didn't go see batman begins.

I'll never forgive myself