Thread Drift: Was The Amazing Spider-Man (financially) successful?

[AJBopp]

Having now seen the movie, I would guess that if the series doesn't improve dramatically in quality, there won't be enough movies made for her to die in, unless it's the next one. The sales, if not lackluster, have certainly been disappointing, and they had better step up the game considerably if they want the second movie to warrant a third.

[President Kang]

Having now seen the movie, I would guess that if the series doesn't improve dramatically in quality, there won't be enough movies made for her to die in, unless it's the next one. The sales, if not lackluster, have certainly been disappointing, and they had better step up the game considerably if they want the second movie to warrant a third.

If over 600 million dollars worldwide is considered disappointing you certainly have a skewed perspective on what is disappointing. Yeah, the other Spidey flicks made 800 million but it's still 600 million dollars! Take out marketing and distribution and production that's still hundreds of millions for Sony! I think they're fine with how much cash it's made.

[AJBopp]

If over 600 million dollars worldwide is considered disappointing you certainly have a skewed perspective on what is disappointing.

By disappointing I don't mean bad. Just not up to expectations. I expect Sony is not terribly pleased by a film that cost 240 million to make, not including promotions which are significant, and returns only 625 million. 3-4 hundred millions sounds like a lot to you and me, but the return on investment is nothing Sony would do cartwheels over.

[Kevinroc]

He only went crazy because he remembered one life and was living another. Also, they lived happily in the end.

Except for the part where that reality was completely destroyed and everything went back to "normal" (minus a whole bunch of mutants.)

By disappointing I don't mean bad. Just not up to expectations. I expect Sony is not terribly pleased by a film that cost 240 million to make, not including promotions which are significant, and returns only 625 million. 3-4 hundred millions sounds like a lot to you and me, but the return on investment is nothing Sony would do cartwheels over.

Let's put some perspective. This will be the lowest grossing of all the Spider-Man movies. Movies that came out 5-10 years ago will have made more money (and Amazing has increased ticket prices and the 3D gimmick going for it and it still didn't outgross a Spider-Man movie that came out 10 years ago).

In terms of pop-culture osmosis, Amazing has pretty much disappeared.

This movie isn't a flop by any stretch. But it also seemed to leave no impact and was forgotten pretty much after everyone saw it. And in Hollywood, this is seen as disappointing. (Always remember that Hollywood is weird.)

[spideybr]

Also, something to consider. Amazing Spider-Man has pretty much dropped off the pop-culture osmosis. It's a bit odd since it made a bunch of money but its top gross will also fall far below any of the Raimi films.
I think you're going to see some major changes for Amazing 2.

How and where did you get this acurate report from ? just becouse batman premiered ? well look at all those nolan purist, turns out batman SUCKED and ruined the character even more then the whole "i wont kill you but i wont save you even though i planed and am directly responsible for your current predicament k,buh byes."

Also i made almost as much money as the first raimi movie in a time where LESS people go to the theathers, and lots were on the fence about a reboot.

[Kevinroc]

How and where did you get this acurate report from ? just becouse batman premiered ? well look at all those nolan purist, turns out batman SUCKED and ruined the character even more then the whole "i wont kill you but i wont save you even though i planed and am directly responsible for your current predicament k,buh byes."

Also i made almost as much money as the first raimi movie in a time where LESS people go to the theathers, and lots were on the fence about a reboot.

The numbers are available for all to see.

http://boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/c...pidermanvs.htm

You're just incorrect. Amazing did not make as much as Spider-Man 1 did a decade ago. "Almost" as much may seem relative but almost $200 million less (that number should grow closer by the time Amazing leaves theaters) does not seem like "almost as much."

I want to reiterate that Amazing is not a failure or a flop. But don't be surprised if Sony is disappointed that it didn't do as well as a movie released a decade ago in an era with increased ticket prices and 3D.

[AJBopp]

How and where did you get this acurate report from ? just becouse batman premiered ?

The numbers are available for all to see.

http://boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/c...pidermanvs.htm

You're just incorrect. Amazing did not make as much as Spider-Man 1 did a decade ago. "Almost" as much may seem relative but almost $200 million less (that number should grow closer by the time Amazing leaves theaters) does not seem like "almost as much."

I want to reiterate that Amazing is not a failure or a flop. But don't be surprised if Sony is disappointed that it didn't do as well as a movie released a decade ago in an era with increased ticket prices and 3D.

ASM sales were plummeting its second week of release, a week before TDKR opened.

Average US ticket prices are 30% higher today than in 2002, and the US sales of ASM are likely to end up more than 30% lower than 2002 Spider-man. Worldwide figures maybe 20% lower. The budget for 2002 Spiderman was 50% of ASM. You would have to be really, really optimistic to look at those numbers and be pleased with the results.

[Mister Mets]

ASM sales were plummeting its second week of release, a week before TDKR opened.

Average US ticket prices are 30% higher today than in 2002, and the US sales of ASM are likely to end up more than 30% lower than 2002 Spider-man. Worldwide figures maybe 20% lower. The budget for 2002 Spiderman was 50% of ASM. You would have to be really, really optimistic to look at those numbers and be pleased with the results.

The film made money, revived the franchise after Sam Raimi killed the top Spider-Man villains and it didn't hurt the brand. So Sony's happy with the results, even if they were probably happier with the 2002 Spider-Man's results.

[Ballard Blues]

The film made money, revived the franchise after Sam Raimi killed the top Spider-Man villains...

Eh, say, what? It's one thing to disagree with how a certain character is portrayed in an entirely different canon, but to proclaim he "killed" the "top" Spider-Man villains (let alone the franchise), either by doing something other than one's liking or canon? Yeah, no. I could agree with the majority about Venom and Sandman, maybe Goblin's costume (if it really bothered me), but Octopus and Green Goblin were fine in the department of consistent characterization as far I as concerned. I don't think Webb and co. did all that better with Kurt Connors, arguably the easiet "villain" in Spider-Man's gallery to FUBAR because of his situation as a man who peruses stuff "BECAUSE SCIENCE!" and dealing with the fact that he turned himself into a monstrosity with a completely different mindset than his own.

[capuga]

Eh, say, what? It's one thing to disagree with how a certain character is portrayed in an entirely different canon, but to proclaim he "killed" the "top" Spider-Man villains (let alone the franchise), either by doing something other than one's liking or canon? Yeah, no. I could agree with the majority about Venom and Sandman, maybe Goblin's costume (if it really bothered me), but Octopus and Green Goblin were fine in the department of consistent characterization as far I as concerned. I don't think Webb and co. did all that better with Kurt Connors, arguably the easiet "villain" in Spider-Man's gallery to FUBAR because of his situation as a man who peruses stuff "BECAUSE SCIENCE!" and dealing with the fact that he turned himself into a monstrosity with a completely different mindset than his own.

Pretty sure he meant killed literally. The Osbornes were dead, Dr Ock was dead, and Venom was apparently dead.

[Ballard Blues]

^Is, that right? Then I retract my earlier statement.

[Mister Mets]

Eh, say, what? It's one thing to disagree with how a certain character is portrayed in an entirely different canon, but to proclaim he "killed" the "top" Spider-Man villains (let alone the franchise), either by doing something other than one's liking or canon? Yeah, no. I could agree with the majority about Venom and Sandman, maybe Goblin's costume (if it really bothered me), but Octopus and Green Goblin were fine in the department of consistent characterization as far I as concerned. I don't think Webb and co. did all that better with Kurt Connors, arguably the easiet "villain" in Spider-Man's gallery to FUBAR because of his situation as a man who peruses stuff "BECAUSE SCIENCE!" and dealing with the fact that he turned himself into a monstrosity with a completely different mindset than his own.

Sam Raimi literally killed off several of the best Spider-Man villains. Doctor Octopus, Venom, Sandman and both Green Goblins were finished by the time Spider-Man 3 ended. Venom was especially problematic, but Sony's trying to figure out how to launch that into a separate franchise.

There were plenty of villains left, but that limited what could be done in Spider-Man 4 and beyond.

Raimi's take on Mary Jane as Peter's one true love also didn't quite fit a never-ending franchise.

[spideybr]

The numbers are available for all to see.

http://boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/c...pidermanvs.htm

You're just incorrect. Amazing did not make as much as Spider-Man 1 did a decade ago. "Almost" as much may seem relative but almost $200 million less (that number should grow closer by the time Amazing leaves theaters) does not seem like "almost as much."

I want to reiterate that Amazing is not a failure or a flop. But don't be surprised if Sony is disappointed that it didn't do as well as a movie released a decade ago in an era with increased ticket prices and 3D.

Did you see those numbers ? the movie did well aboard, only the domestic was below the original release, i can blame it on a serious of factors like people being on the fence or waiting for home release,cable, etc. Now you see why the industry is focusing on releasing movies foreign before domestic release, american audience has become too apathetic and confortable with netflix and the like.

[spideybr]

Pretty sure he meant killed literally. The Osbornes were dead, Dr Ock was dead, and Venom was apparently dead.

aparently ? LMAO there are still people who believe venom survived after the skeleton flash ? MUAHUHAAhuhaahah

[AJBopp]

The film made money, revived the franchise after Sam Raimi killed the top Spider-Man villains and it didn't hurt the brand. So Sony's happy with the results, even if they were probably happier with the 2002 Spider-Man's results.

Again, I think it would take some serious optimism to be happy with the film's results from a return on investment standpoint. Making money and making enough money are entirely different things. For a franchise that was consistently upwardly mobile to suddenly drop this much is at best disconcerting. It did well enough to warrant another movie, but if the next one drops as this one did it's unlikely there will be a third. Sony will be looking at this franchise with a very critical eye going forward I think.