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

[MrV]

I honestly think that the Amazing Spider-Man 2 will see more profit than any other Spidey movie and (perhaps) any other individual superhero film starring, well, only one superhero. All we need, is a recognizable villain. Sure, we had Lizard in this one but I think it might be time to introduce a big player. Now, we obviously can't have, say, the Big Man, because of the story not being close to OsCorp. However, I wouldn't mind there being some odd connection between a major crime regime and OsCorp, causing Spider-Man to check it out. You could throw in Electro like in the comics. And, hell, introduce the black suit for good measure for that Venom spin-off. After all, in the UU, the black suit's only weakness (or so I think) is electricity, so it'd be an interesting fight with Electro and Black-Suit Spidey. Plus, they can use this oppurtunity to develop Peter's intelligence. He understands that electricity hurts the suit so he decides to fight defensivly with Electro. Then, Spider-Man finds out where his uncle's killer is and hunts him down. He nearly kills his uncle's killer but realizes that he shouldn't because "With Great Power Comes Great Responsiblity". Peter figures out the suit is changing his morals and thus gets rid of it using electricity. With the suit disposed of, Peter goes back home and to school. However, Eddie Brock, his father's partner's son, is outraged at Spider-Man for the suit issue and finds the black suit not entirely disposed of. He picks it up in his own hands, becomes Venom and finds Peter at his college. Peter sees it and is forced to ditch class. Gwen and Peter are still broken up and not talking. Peter goes and fights Venom and then eventually the fight ends with Venom getting shocked and disappearing. I'll give a full summary later, maybe.

I liked the sound of that. Combining elements from Ultimate Venom and Learning Curve story arcs from Ultimate Spidey sounds reasonable. The thing is, shouldn't they also have some character development for Gwen? The first movie ended with both reaching a silent understanding, implying they will remain friends at least.

[Kevinroc]

I think they have things all set up for Gwen meeting the same fate her 616-comics counterpart met.

[Zauri]

I want Kingpin or Venom for the sequel. I understand why Venom would be interesting to Sony in order to introduce the solo Venom film, and it could lead to some literally insane action scenes, but what I truly want is Sony to get back the rights of Kingpin and make Spider-Man take down the biggest crimelord of New York City, that somehow is involved with all that is going on in Oscorp.

[Kevinroc]

Sony never had the rights to the Kingpin in the first place. So they couldn't "get him back." If Fox loses the Daredevil rights, Marvel is not going to sublicense Kingpin to Sony for a Spidey film.

[Zauri]

I think they have things all set up for Gwen meeting the same fate her 616-comics counterpart met.

Agreed, I just don't think that the second film is the right place to do it that. This is how I'd like to go down:

The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Kingpin, introduction of Norman Osborn (and his "miraculous" recover) as a villain linked to him, introduction of MJ, Harry and developing the relationship of Peter and Gwen even further. Electro should play a part here as the bodyguard of Kingpin, linked to Oscorp.
The Amazing Spider-Man 3: Goblin, The Night Gwen Stacy Died, ending the film similar to "Ending A" that Mister Mets thought.
The Amazing Spider-Man 4: Venom. Dealing with the guilt that the death of Gwen will provoke, we see Peter failing at connecting to anyone in his Peter Parker life, but falling in love with Black Cat, while MJ is trying to make him understand that he can't let the guilt consume him.
The Amazing Spider-Man 5: Dr. Octopus needs to be a secondary character in the previous films, and rise to become the main villain next to someone else, maybe
Scorpion
The Amazing Spider-Man 6: Sinister Six. Film is divided in two parts.

Wishful thinking, yes, but I want more than a trilogy this time around.

[Zauri]

Sony never had the rights to the Kingpin in the first place. So they couldn't "get him back." If Fox loses the Daredevil rights, Marvel is not going to sublicense Kingpin to Sony for a Spidey film.

You are completely WRONG on your assumption, mate. It's okay because I'd never guess if Avi Arad didn't reveal that recently:

SHH: Does Sony have the rights to Kingpin? That was a great Spider-Man villain until Frank Miller took him for his run on Daredevil and he became known more as a Daredevil villain, appearing in that movie.
Arad: Believe it or not, Kingpin was on loan to Daredevil, so again, anything that is part of the Spider-Man Universe or introduced in the Spider-Man Universe--without getting too legal beagle here--is an opportunity, and if we have a story that Kingpin is important, I'm sure we can handle that.

[Kevinroc]

You are completely WRONG on your assumption, mate. It's okay because I'd never guess if Avi Arad didn't reveal that recently:

They say similar things about the usage of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in X-Men and Avengers. We still haven't seen them in either franchise.

[Zauri]

They say similar things about the usage of Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch in X-Men and Avengers. We still haven't seen them in either franchise.

Arad doesn't have a single reason to lie about that. Since Kingpin was created in the Spider-Man universe, it makes sense that they can use the character. It's just how these deals work. If Sony truly wants, they will be able to use Kingpin.

[Kevinroc]

Arad doesn't have a single reason to lie about that. Since Kingpin was created in the Spider-Man universe, it makes sense that they can use the character. It's just how these deals work. If Sony truly wants, they will be able to use Kingpin.

Except this deals are incredibly complicated. Hence why Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are claimed to be usable by both the X-Men franchise AND Avengers franchise. Or why the Skrulls are also in a similar boat with the Fantastic Four AND Avengers.

And yet we haven't seen Skrulls or Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch anywhere.

Translation: I'll believe it when I see it.

[Zauri]

Except this deals are incredibly complicated. Hence why Scarlet Witch and Quicksilver are claimed to be usable by both the X-Men franchise AND Avengers franchise. Or why the Skrulls are also in a similar boat with the Fantastic Four AND Avengers.

And yet we haven't seen Skrulls or Quicksilver and Scarlet Witch anywhere.

Translation: I'll believe it when I see it.

What will you say if Kingpin shows up on The Amazing Spider-Man?

[Kevinroc]

What will you say if Kingpin shows up on The Amazing Spider-Man?

They shoulda brought Michael Clarke Duncan back.

[ProcessedMeatMan]

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.

Does perspective count for anything? You're comparing the fourth in a series of Spider-Man movies to the first one, which was released only 10 years ago. A movie that opened to huge fanfare because, up until that point, there had been no Spider-Man movies. Of course it's going to gross higher than the fourth. Hell, the last sequel only came out five years ago. It doesn't matter if this current film is a "reboot." The plan fact is: It's just another Spider-Man movie.
Provide an example of any other film franchise where the fourth in a series came close to or out-grossed the original. You'll find that it's the exception, by far.

If this had been the first Spider-Man movie, it's gross would be freaking astronomical.

[Zauri]

Does perspective count for anything? You're comparing the fourth in a series of Spider-Man movies to the first one, which was released only 10 years ago. A movie that opened to huge fanfare because, up until that point, there had been no Spider-Man movies. Of course it's going to gross higher than the fourth. Hell, the last sequel only came out five years ago. It doesn't matter if this current film is a "reboot." The plan fact is: It's just another Spider-Man movie.
Provide an example of any other film franchise where the fourth in a series came close to or out-grossed the original. You'll find that it's the exception, by far.

If this had been the first Spider-Man movie, it's gross would be freaking astronomical.

I applaud this post. I think that The Amazing Spider-Man 2 has the potential to become the highest grossing Spider-Man film of all time if it's done right. Also, I want Marc Webb back, it seems they are working out for him to come back, best news I had all week.

[MrV]

Does perspective count for anything? You're comparing the fourth in a series of Spider-Man movies to the first one, which was released only 10 years ago. A movie that opened to huge fanfare because, up until that point, there had been no Spider-Man movies. Of course it's going to gross higher than the fourth. Hell, the last sequel only came out five years ago. It doesn't matter if this current film is a "reboot." The plan fact is: It's just another Spider-Man movie.
Provide an example of any other film franchise where the fourth in a series came close to or out-grossed the original. You'll find that it's the exception, by far.

If this had been the first Spider-Man movie, it's gross would be freaking astronomical.

I work at a movie theater and part of what movie goers disliked was having to sit through the origins again. A reboot is nothing but a remake with ranch dressing to improve taste. But like ranch, after so much of it you realize what is underneath is not what you were expecting (in a bittersweet way).

[Kevinroc]

Does perspective count for anything? You're comparing the fourth in a series of Spider-Man movies to the first one, which was released only 10 years ago. A movie that opened to huge fanfare because, up until that point, there had been no Spider-Man movies. Of course it's going to gross higher than the fourth. Hell, the last sequel only came out five years ago. It doesn't matter if this current film is a "reboot." The plan fact is: It's just another Spider-Man movie.
Provide an example of any other film franchise where the fourth in a series came close to or out-grossed the original. You'll find that it's the exception, by far.

If this had been the first Spider-Man movie, it's gross would be freaking astronomical.

But it isn't the first Spider-Man movie. So this argument that it would have done better if there weren't these other Spider-Man films is totally irrelevant and gets into major hypotheticals that nobody can know or answer with any sort of definitiveness.

Hollywood only cares about results. And this movie made money. But did it make enough money? (Yes, there's going to be a sequel. Sony doesn't want to lose the Spider-Man license since they're hard up for genuine money-makers.)