The Amazing Spider-Man 2 The Amazing Spider-Man 2 Box Office Prediction Thread - Part 2

[Tobias]

It might not, but of the actors I think he's the most at risk. I think Webb takes the heat first.

Plus its doing gangbusters OS and that may well more than make up for the decrease in the US so it won't look so bad in the end when the WW totals are in. It should pass TASM 1 WW. Not by a lot but at least moving in the right direction.

 

[Green Goblin]

Skyfall also had the big Bond anniversary to play off. And then of course the great reviews and word of mouth to top it off.

I think it should also be noted though that while QoS was tepidly received, Casino Royal was met with critical & audience acclaim. Something that can't be said for TASM.

Counting Spider-man 3, TASM3 will be coming off the back of 3 tepidly received films.

As you say, it'll have a mountain to climb.


As for the point made that a franchise can turn itself around (like Fast & Furious), agreed. The question is, can the same creative team that put Spidey in this position also turn it around, and in a two year time frame to boot?

Sony will be asking themselves if they go ahead with the S6 film or fold it into TASM3. Do they use the Orci/Kurtzman TASM3 script or find new writers?

I wouldn't be surprised if TASM3 ends up being pushed back a year.

I think that's quite an exaggeration. ASM2 is hard to guage it's quality, it's just out. We know it's not TDK or TWS level but still we do know it is considered some degree of good.

Something interesting I read on an article before release. ASM had the highest
user score on User RT. Yes, higher than Spider-Man 2. The problem seems to go back to 2004 as there has been a decline in American Box Office since then.

Why is America sick of Spidey?

 

[spider-neil]

Plus its doing gangbusters OS and that may well more than make up for the decrease in the US so it won't look so bad in the end when the WW totals are in. It should pass TASM 1 WW. Not by a lot but at least moving in the right direction.

I live in the UK and there was a decent amount of people for 5.30 PM Tuesday showing of ASM2.

 

[Perry9]

I think that's quite an exaggeration. ASM2 is hard to guage it's quality, it's just out. We know it's not TDK or TWS level but still we do know it is considered some degree of good.

Something interesting I read on an article before release. ASM had the highest
user score on User RT. Yes, higher than Spider-Man 2. The problem seems to go back to 2004 as there has been a decline in American Box Office since then.

Why is America sick of Spidey?

I'm no expert in this kind of stuff, but isn't America only a small piece of the pie compared to the rest of the world? I think that the money that it will make outside of the U.S. are going to make up to the money that it didn't make in the U.S.. But that's my being optimistic.

 

[Liam_H]

^Shouldn't really compare daily drops with MoS.

Steep drop for Monday, I guess there were a few factors to consider but still. Even Origins didn't drop this bad.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

SM2, I think was something of a fluke. SM1 did so well in the US that catching it would be hard, and SM2 didn't have a very good release date. It might have come close (or even exceeded SM1) had it gotten the first week in May slot.

SM3, TASM, & TASM2 all had mixed receptions, so the franchise has just been continually bleeding consumers. It needs to have this great, must see film like a SM2 to start winning people back. Americans aren't sick of Spider-Man, they are just sick of mediocre Spider-Man films.

 

[spider-neil]

SM2, I think was something of a fluke. SM1 did so well in the US that catching it would be hard, and SM2 didn't have a very good release date. It might have come close (or even exceeded SM1) had it gotten the first week in May slot.

SM3, TASM, & TASM2 all had mixed receptions, so the franchise has just been continually bleeding consumers. It needs to have this great, must see film like a SM2 to start winning people back. Americans aren't sick of Spider-Man, they are just sick of mediocre Spider-Man films.

They aren't turning out to see if the movie is mediocre or otherwise.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

I'm no expert in this kind of stuff, but isn't America only a small piece of the pie compared to the rest of the world? I think that the money that it will make outside of the U.S. are going to make up to the money that it didn't make in the U.S.. But that's my being optimistic.

Studios get to keep a larger percentage of the domestic gross, so the US (and Canadian) market is still the most important one, even today. It isn't the way it used to be where studios really only paid attention to the US, since the overseas market is expanding. But make no mistake, the American market is still numero uno.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

They aren't turning out to see if the movie is mediocre or otherwise.

It has been four films now since the last pretty well universally agreed upon great Spider-Man film, so we don't know that. All we know is they aren't turning out for the mediocre ones we have had since then.

And reviews and word of mouth make a difference. They did turn out for SM3's opening weekend, saw it was mediocre and as a result the legs were terrible.

 

[Pfeiffer-Pfan]

If they keep releasing mediocre Spider-Man movies every two years... the GP will tire and the numbers will only keep slipping.

I mean, the ball will start rolling now for The Amazing Spider-Man 3. It'll no doubt start shooting next spring. Throw unnecessary spin-offs into the mix and Sony really needs to give this character some breathing space.

 

[Green Goblin]

SM2, I think was something of a fluke. SM1 did so well in the US that catching it would be hard, and SM2 didn't have a very good release date. It might have come close (or even exceeded SM1) had it gotten the first week in May slot.

SM3, TASM, & TASM2 all had mixed receptions, so the franchise has just been continually bleeding consumers. It needs to have this great, must see film like a SM2 to start winning people back. Americans aren't sick of Spider-Man, they are just sick of mediocre Spider-Man films.

ASM has a higher user rating on RT. That's rated by the GA.

The rest of the world is increasing or the same. It's an American exclusive problem.

 

[Perry9]

I think critics reviews do more harm to a film than we think, some movies anyways, Transformers is bulletproof. People felt it was too soon for more Spider Man movies and I think the a lot of people truly didn't like the casting of Garfield. ASM had some flaws people didnt like and it didnt get any better in ASM2. They made it all about the relationship in the 2nd and the character development was poor for the villains. Giamatti made me want to cringe with his terrible Russian accent and poor acting. He is so much better than that but he was reduced to a cartoon character on screen.

That's your opinion which i don't see how it is relevant in the BO thread, but...okaaay.

Studios get to keep a larger percentage of the domestic gross, so the US (and Canadian) market is still the most important one, even today. It isn't the way it used to be where studios really only paid attention to the US, since the overseas market is expanding. But make no mistake, the American market is still numero uno.

Thanks for clarifying. I didn't know that.

 

[spider-neil]

Sony know their market is overseas hence why they release overseas first and foremost.

 

[I SEE SPIDEY]

I think all of the actors will be just fine and the director as well because the film is still going to make a lot of cash, no matter how much some of us dislike it.

The only issue I see is that this version of the series obviously can't keep up with the last one ticket sales and money wise. This film has one shot at a decent drop and if it doesn't have one this weekend it is completely ****ed.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

ASM has a higher user rating on RT. That's rated by the GA.

The rest of the world is increasing or the same. It's an American exclusive problem.

The rest of the world is increasing for practically every big international release. It is largely just a change in the industry. The American theater industry hasn't experienced such growth since the development of the huge multi-plexes in the 90s. So quality plays a bigger role in the US as of right now. Eventually it will happen overseas too.

Audience ratings aren't reliable. The only ones voting are already fans, so it is biased. The critic reviews tell us far more as they are just regular film journalists that collectively don't have any particular bias towards the comic book genre or certain characters that the fans do.

 

[Green Goblin]

The rest of the world is increasing for practically every big international release. It is largely just a change in the industry. The American theater industry hasn't experienced such growth since the development of the huge multi-plexes in the 90s. So quality plays a bigger role in the US as of right now. Eventually it will happen overseas too.

Audience ratings aren't reliable. The only ones voting are already fans, so it is biased. The critic reviews tell us far more as they are just regular film journalists that collectively don't have any particular bias towards the comic book genre or certain characters that the fans do.

Critics are much more biased. I highly doubt a million people are all bias. 200 or so could because a much smaller sample are voting. It is those fans and audience who make up the GA. 99.99999999999999999999999% of the GA are not film critics. If critics opinions were the majority and had more influence then Superman Returns would get a sequel.

Ok though, lets pretend your statement about ASM being precieved as mediocre is true. Why then would Sony bring back Marc Webb? That has never happened before. Even movies precieved as "good" like TFA or Thor didn't get their first director back. Why would they also sign Webb for a third? The only two who got that luxuary were Nolan and Raimi, people really liked or at the very least in Raimi case really liked them at the time. Also on top of all this, Webb's situation was difficult. They had to negotiate a deal with FOX to get him out of that contract. Not only that but the contact requested they actually promote Days Of Future Past, a rival film in the competition.

It is far too much effort for Sony to bring back a director who only made 2 films, one of which you claim is precieved as mediocre.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Critics are much more biased. I highly doubt a million people are all bias. 200 or so could because a much smaller sample are voting. It is those fans and audience who make up the GA. 99.99999999999999999999999% of the GA are not film critics. If critics opinions were the majority and had more influence then Superman Returns would get a sequel.

Ok though, lets pretend your statement about ASM being precieved as mediocre is true. Why then would Sony bring back Marc Webb? That has never happened before. Even movies precieved as "good" like TFA or Thor didn't get their first director back. Why would they also sign Webb for a third? The only two who got that luxuary were Nolan and Raimi, people really liked or at the very least in Raimi case really liked them at the time. Also on top of all this, Webb's situation was difficult. They had to negotiate a deal with FOX to get him out of that contract. Not only that but the contact requested they actually promote Days Of Future Past, a rival film in the competition.

It is far too much effort for Sony to bring back a director who only made 2 films, one of which you claim is precieved as mediocre.

Yeah but CBMs above 80% are usually considered among the best in the genre and CBMs below 30% are usually considered among the worst. So reviews aren't totally worthless. I'm pretty sure the top 10 beloved Superhero movies have high RT scores and vice versa.

 

[The Shape]

I trust RT user ratings as much as I trust IMDB user ratings -- aka I don't. You have as many people voting AGAINST a high-profile movie like this as you do voting FOR it. Basically, a whole lot of people who care enough to make a point of giving a film the lowest or highest possible scores willy-nilly, and truth be told, many of these people likely had their minds made up before the movie was even released. We all know that very few people (mainly fans) vote honestly based on the true quality of the film, so I'm not sure why we pay much attention to these ratings at all.

A rating that I do trust more is the Cinemascore system, which polls audience members as they exist the theater. TASM's Cinemascore was a B+ after this weekend (based on the USA polls I believe), and I think that's a much more accurate representation of how the general audience felt about their film experience overall.

 

[Liam_H]

But isn't Cinemascore based on only a handful of theaters? If so, that's not really much more reliable.

 

[daddydivine]

I trust RT user ratings as much as I trust IMDB user ratings -- aka I don't. You have as many people voting AGAINST a high-profile movie like this as you do voting FOR it. Basically, a whole lot of people who care enough to make a point of giving a film the lowest or highest possible scores willy-nilly, and truth be told, many of these people likely had their minds made up before the movie was even released. We all know that very few people (mainly fans) vote honestly based on the true quality of the film, so I'm not sure why we pay much attention to these ratings at all.

A rating that I do trust more is the Cinemascore system, which polls audience members as they exist the theater. TASM's Cinemascore was a B+ after this weekend (based on the USA polls I believe), and I think that's a much more accurate representation of how the general audience felt about their film experience overall.

I think opening night score will be sort of funky. Green Lantern had a B...
Tyler Perry's Single Moms Club has an A...

In fact there rarely seems to be low scores with cinemascore.

Just because the initial audience on opening night like a movie, that they are already predisposed to like, doesn't mean the GA will like the movie as well.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

But isn't Cinemascore based on only a handful of theaters? If so, that's not really much more reliable.

Practically every big blockbuster gets an A in Cinemascore. If it doesn't, you know something is wrong with the film.

So no, it isn't reliable either.

 

[daddydivine]

Dear God. Justin Biebers believe got an A on Cinemascore. There is no way hollywood takes that site seriously.

 

[Kahran Ramsus]

Critics are much more biased. I highly doubt a million people are all bias. 200 or so could because a much smaller sample are voting. It is those fans and audience who make up the GA. 99.99999999999999999999999% of the GA are not film critics. If critics opinions were the majority and had more influence then Superman Returns would get a sequel.

Ok though, lets pretend your statement about ASM being precieved as mediocre is true. Why then would Sony bring back Marc Webb? That has never happened before. Even movies precieved as "good" like TFA or Thor didn't get their first director back. Why would they also sign Webb for a third? The only two who got that luxuary were Nolan and Raimi, people really liked or at the very least in Raimi case really liked them at the time. Also on top of all this, Webb's situation was difficult. They had to negotiate a deal with FOX to get him out of that contract. Not only that but the contact requested they actually promote Days Of Future Past, a rival film in the competition.

It is far too much effort for Sony to bring back a director who only made 2 films, one of which you claim is precieved as mediocre.

If I recall correctly, it came down to the last minute whether Webb was being brought back or not. That's what I remember anyways. Can somebody confirm this?

ASM1 was received decently enough, in spite of the bad decision to redo the origin, that there was something to build off of. It didn't get great reviews, but it had good ones and of the three films (SM3, ASM1, ASM2), ASM1 is generally considered to be the best so maybe Sony just saw it as a step in the right direction.

Also some times studios just make questionable decisions, like WB bringing back Snyder after MoS got a similar reception to ASM2.

 

[Leenie]

Looks like my original comments about a good portion of this audience being kids and families has been accurate so far.

No matter how the final box office is for TASM2, I still maintain that Spider-Man remains to be highly popular among kids.

 

[Angryfantasyfan]

Anyone read the L.A. Times article on ASM2's box office results? They have a point-counterpoint on the international numbers.

For:

Yes, but it’s about international. Overseas box office has climbed stratospherically since the about $400 million for the first two films, with a whopping $550 million for “Spider-Man 3” and a still-strong $490 million for “The Amazing Spider-Man.” This film has already taken in $277 million abroad and is on pace to exceed $500 million. Movies of this size are increasingly about the overseas market, and that’s where the effort and money is spent. Sony is more than meeting expectations there.

Against:


Foreign box office is obviously a bigger part of the pie for everyone these days. But first, it’s not clear that this could reach $500 million overseas, and thus $750 million in total. And even if it does, that may not be as great a feat as it sounds. Sequels tend to do more internationally just as a matter of course due to expanding awareness and territories (and growing movie-theater and Hollywood penetration) — just look at how “The Hunger Games: Catching Fire” saw a more than 50% jump abroad over the original. Plus, as much as Hollywood is becoming an export business, you still can’t have too much of a trade deficit. Look at the last “Die Hard” movie, which made nearly 80% of its global $300 million abroad and just a paltry $67 million in the U.S. You don’t see a rush to make a lot of new “Die Hard” movies.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...ng-spiderman-2-box-office-20140505-story.html