Amazing Spider-Man 2 - Enemies Unite Sizzle - Awesome stuff !

[Bosco685]

It will make a billion dollars and every kid leaving the theater will have a smile on his/her face. I'm glad movie studios don't cater to cynical fanboys over the age of 40.

 

I guess you're no older than 12 or have that same IQ then?

 

Stand down, soldier! It could make a billion dollars and leave every kid that watches it with a smile on their face - and still not be an incredible movie per the critics or boardies. IM 3 made a billion and the overall consensus on these boards is it was the weakest IM movie of the three.

 

 

I thought the consensus on that was a toss up, but it can be hard to say.

The big thing is domestic gross for most of these movies, IM3 did $409 million US on a $200 million budget and ASM did $262 million US with a $230 million budget.

Thats considered a disappointment.

 

I don't know where this opinion comes from (see bold) but you are not the first person on the boards to say "domestic gross is more important than foreign". Searching the web, I can find nothing that supports that statement. In fact, what I find is just the opposite. Articles in financial papers like Forbes, Daily Finance and reviews by the Motley Fool writers state that the foreign box office is more important that ever to the studios and that's one of the reasons you see so many films released first in foreign territories. They also mention that the superhero genre - special effects/action heavy and plot thin - export very well

 

All evidence indicates the movie studios are actively courting these overseas $$$. IM 3's take was damn near double overseas - $807 million. Movies considered domestic flops like Pacific Rim and Wolverine actually end up being profitable with the overseas take.

I'm in the same boat, as with everything I read about superhero movies over the past two years, there was a much heavier push to grow the international market. Even IM3 catering to the China market with extra scenes.

 

The Motion Picture Association of America did a study of the worldwide cinema market back in 2012.

 

2012 Theatrical Statistics Summary

 

INTERNATIONAL BOX OFFICE: $23.9 Billion USD

U.S./CANADA BOX OFFICE: $10.8 Billion USD

------------------------------------

TOTAL MARKET VALUE: $34.7 Billion USD

 

And of course, the largest international market is China ($2.7 Billion USD and growing). So for a concentrated market area, naturally there is a big focus in this region.

[Bosco685]

The charts in that study definitely tell the tale why the greater focus on the international market compared to the slow-growth domestic market.

 

 

And no surprise on your heavy-hitter markets.

 

[Buzzetta]

Didn't see ASM1 in the theater - waited for it on Netflix

This looks better than the first one and Garfield looks like he understands Peter Parker better than the first. With that said, I will still wait for it on Netflix. The turn around from theatrical run to availability on disc is about two months.

 

With the price of movies compared to a mail a disc program that is cheaper on a monthly basis than the cost of a ticket I can wait.

 

 

 

[nmtg9]

It will make a billion dollars and every kid leaving the theater will have a smile on his/her face. I'm glad movie studios don't cater to cynical fanboys over the age of 40.

 

I guess you're no older than 12 or have that same IQ then?

 

Stand down, soldier! It could make a billion dollars and leave every kid that watches it with a smile on their face - and still not be an incredible movie per the critics or boardies. IM 3 made a billion and the overall consensus on these boards is it was the weakest IM movie of the three.

 

 

I thought the consensus on that was a toss up, but it can be hard to say.

The big thing is domestic gross for most of these movies, IM3 did $409 million US on a $200 million budget and ASM did $262 million US with a $230 million budget.

Thats considered a disappointment.

 

I don't know where this opinion comes from (see bold) but you are not the first person on the boards to say "domestic gross is more important than foreign". Searching the web, I can find nothing that supports that statement. In fact, what I find is just the opposite. Articles in financial papers like Forbes, Daily Finance and reviews by the Motley Fool writers state that the foreign box office is more important that ever to the studios and that's one of the reasons you see so many films released first in foreign territories. They also mention that the superhero genre - special effects/action heavy and plot thin - export very well

 

All evidence indicates the movie studios are actively courting these overseas $$$. IM 3's take was damn near double overseas - $807 million. Movies considered domestic flops like Pacific Rim and Wolverine actually end up being profitable with the overseas take.

I'm in the same boat, as with everything I read about superhero movies over the past two years, there was a much heavier push to grow the international market. Even IM3 catering to the China market with extra scenes.

 

The Motion Picture Association of America did a study of the worldwide cinema market back in 2012.

 

2012 Theatrical Statistics Summary

 

INTERNATIONAL BOX OFFICE: $23.9 Billion USD

U.S./CANADA BOX OFFICE: $10.8 Billion USD

------------------------------------

TOTAL MARKET VALUE: $34.7 Billion USD

 

And of course, the largest international market is China ($2.7 Billion USD and growing). So for a concentrated market area, naturally there is a big focus in this region.

 

And fanboys wonder why nobody listens when they complain Wolvie is too tall!

[Ebel 1911]

Trailer looked pretty good to me. Different take on Electro but seems good and at least gives a nod toward "this could happen", at least for a movie experience. Looks like Rhino has an iron suit, so thats different. Jamie Foxx & Paul Giamatti at least suggest that the acting should be good.

 

 

 

[Comicopolis]

I'm going to see this movie before I start saying how bad it sucks/is going to suck or whatever else. The only thing this thread is missing is the guy who nearly ends his life because the role of Nick Fury in the first Avengers movie was cast to an African American actor.

 

[ShawnDeath]

Rhino is a machine? Ugh.

 

Rhino is an armored suit? Looks like a bad arse logical implentation.

[joe_collector]

All evidence indicates the movie studios are actively courting these overseas $$$.

 

Of course they are, and that's the major reason why studio movies just get dumber, and dumber and dumber. They don't want complicated plots and dialogue interfering with their ability to fill seats worldwide, so the lowest common denominator rules.

 

One major studio exec was quoted as saying he wanted to get back to the "silent movie" design, where it's all action and virtually no plot, so that it could be understood without dialogue.

[JAM_NYC]

Rhino is a machine? Ugh.

 

Rhino is an armored suit? Looks like a bad arse logical implentation.

I disagree. Having the bald, doughy face of Paul Giamatti poking through an oversized rubber or CG grey rhino suit would have been the better choice.

[Darkowl]

I'm really looking forward to this film. I actually enjoyed the first one quite a bit, but this sequel looks even better!

[NewWorldOrder]

Love the costume and the Spidey humor. There was a really funny scene at the end of the last trailer with Spidey and Gwen as well.

 

Designs for Electro and Rhino ... not so much.

 

The you must not like Ultimate Spider-man then.

 

Not particularly. I bought them and they were ok but 616 is what i love.

 

Right so if you enjoyed Ultimate Spider-man than you wouldn't have any complaints about the design for Rhino and Electro.

 

These are the Ultimate Spider-man movies.

 

Venom will be here soon, and his origin will be the same as the Ultimate comic book.

 

I thought the Lizard in the last movie was fine, not seeing any issues with the CGI.

 

Having a couple B level villains mixed together is easy to do, it was just Sam Raimi was a m oron in ASM 3 by putting Venom in the movie where he is clearly a stand alone A+ villain. All the villains in ASM 2 not so much so it will easily work.

[Doc McCoy]

Having a couple B level villains mixed together is easy to do, it was just Sam Raimi was a m oron in ASM 3 by putting Venom in the movie where he is clearly a stand alone A+ villain. All the villains in ASM 2 not so much so it will easily work.

 

IIRC Raimi never wanted Venom in SM3, the character was pushed on him by Avi Arad and Sony.

[Tony S]

It will make a billion dollars and every kid leaving the theater will have a smile on his/her face. I'm glad movie studios don't cater to cynical fanboys over the age of 40.

 

I guess you're no older than 12 or have that same IQ then?

 

Stand down, soldier! It could make a billion dollars and leave every kid that watches it with a smile on their face - and still not be an incredible movie per the critics or boardies. IM 3 made a billion and the overall consensus on these boards is it was the weakest IM movie of the three.

 

 

I thought the consensus on that was a toss up, but it can be hard to say.

The big thing is domestic gross for most of these movies, IM3 did $409 million US on a $200 million budget and ASM did $262 million US with a $230 million budget.

Thats considered a disappointment.

 

I don't know where this opinion comes from (see bold) but you are not the first person on the boards to say "domestic gross is more important than foreign". Searching the web, I can find nothing that supports that statement. In fact, what I find is just the opposite. Articles in financial papers like Forbes, Daily Finance and reviews by the Motley Fool writers state that the foreign box office is more important that ever to the studios and that's one of the reasons you see so many films released first in foreign territories. They also mention that the superhero genre - special effects/action heavy and plot thin - export very well

 

All evidence indicates the movie studios are actively courting these overseas $$$. IM 3's take was damn near double overseas - $807 million. Movies considered domestic flops like Pacific Rim and Wolverine actually end up being profitable with the overseas take.

 

So if a film does incredibly well overseas but flops in the U.S., does that make it a hit? As with everything else to do with box office, the answer is "it depends." But generally, domestic revenue seems to be be better for studios than overseas revenue, because the studios take a bigger cut of domestic revenue.

 

According to the book The Hollywood Economist by Edward Jay Epstein, studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number.

 

Domestic revenue just counts for a lot more than overseas revenue, says David Mumpower with Box Office Prophets:

 

I'm glad you directed us to Epstein. While I haven't read the book you speak of, I have read his blogs on the entertainment industry and the reviews of the book you mention say it draws heavily from the blogs he has written. In fact many a review said it read like a blog and more than a few people said they weren't buying the book because you could read it for free on his website in the form of blogs he had written over the years.

 

When Epstein blogged on "Hollywood's Money Machine"- which was written for the Wall Street Journal about the same time the aforementioned book was published (2010), he speaks specifically of "The Hurt Locker". When he speaks of the box office receipts for this movie, he only speaks of worldwide (18.5 million) He doesn't differentiate.

 

What one can really take away from Epstein's writings is that box office receipts are now only a small part of a studio's income (around 21% in 2007 - no doubt less now) They make most of their money on the back end; Sales of DVD's, licensing to places streaming services like Netflix and the biggest - licensing to television. Even more interesting is that the Big six studios are all part of mult-media giants that between them own virtually all the major broadcast networks, 64 cable channels and quite a few foreign broadcast channels as well. This arrangement ensures nice profits - across the globe.

 

Perhaps studios do indeed get a bigger share of domestic ticket sales than foreign. Even if it is less, 40% of 800 million is a lot of money - just as much as 80% of 400 million - if 80% (unlikely but if) - that were what they get from domestic ticket sales. Regardless - per Epstein - It matters not. That's 21% of their revenue. They make 79% of their $$$ from DVD sales, digital downloads, streaming and most importantly licensing to TV stations. And they own most of that infrastructure too. Around the world.

 

Foreign money - including ticket sales - matters a LOT. Ticket sales here in the USA matter less now than they ever have.

 

And all of this is why Wall Street is bullish on Disney, on Fox, on Time Warner etc... Even a lot of perceived "dudes" make good money.

 

 

 

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

It will make a billion dollars and every kid leaving the theater will have a smile on his/her face. I'm glad movie studios don't cater to cynical fanboys over the age of 40.

 

I guess you're no older than 12 or have that same IQ then?

 

Stand down, soldier! It could make a billion dollars and leave every kid that watches it with a smile on their face - and still not be an incredible movie per the critics or boardies. IM 3 made a billion and the overall consensus on these boards is it was the weakest IM movie of the three.

 

 

I thought the consensus on that was a toss up, but it can be hard to say.

The big thing is domestic gross for most of these movies, IM3 did $409 million US on a $200 million budget and ASM did $262 million US with a $230 million budget.

Thats considered a disappointment.

 

I don't know where this opinion comes from (see bold) but you are not the first person on the boards to say "domestic gross is more important than foreign". Searching the web, I can find nothing that supports that statement. In fact, what I find is just the opposite. Articles in financial papers like Forbes, Daily Finance and reviews by the Motley Fool writers state that the foreign box office is more important that ever to the studios and that's one of the reasons you see so many films released first in foreign territories. They also mention that the superhero genre - special effects/action heavy and plot thin - export very well

 

All evidence indicates the movie studios are actively courting these overseas $$$. IM 3's take was damn near double overseas - $807 million. Movies considered domestic flops like Pacific Rim and Wolverine actually end up being profitable with the overseas take.

 

So if a film does incredibly well overseas but flops in the U.S., does that make it a hit? As with everything else to do with box office, the answer is "it depends." But generally, domestic revenue seems to be be better for studios than overseas revenue, because the studios take a bigger cut of domestic revenue.

 

According to the book The Hollywood Economist by Edward Jay Epstein, studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number.

 

Domestic revenue just counts for a lot more than overseas revenue, says David Mumpower with Box Office Prophets:

 

I'm glad you directed us to Epstein. While I haven't read the book you speak of, I have read his blogs on the entertainment industry and the reviews of the book you mention say it draws heavily from the blogs he has written. In fact many a review said it read like a blog and more than a few people said they weren't buying the book because you could read it for free on his website in the form of blogs he had written over the years.

 

When Epstein blogged on "Hollywood's Money Machine"- which was written for the Wall Street Journal about the same time the aforementioned book was published (2010), he speaks specifically of "The Hurt Locker". When he speaks of the box office receipts for this movie, he only speaks of worldwide (18.5 million) He doesn't differentiate.

 

What one can really take away from Epstein's writings is that box office receipts are now only a small part of a studio's income (around 21% in 2007 - no doubt less now) They make most of their money on the back end; Sales of DVD's, licensing to places streaming services like Netflix and the biggest - licensing to television. Even more interesting is that the Big six studios are all part of mult-media giants that between them own virtually all the major broadcast networks, 64 cable channels and quite a few foreign broadcast channels as well. This arrangement ensures nice profits - across the globe.

 

Perhaps studios do indeed get a bigger share of domestic ticket sales than foreign. Even if it is less, 40% of 800 million is a lot of money - just as much as 80% of 400 million - if 80% (unlikely but if) - that were what they get from domestic ticket sales. Regardless - per Epstein - It matters not. That's 21% of their revenue. They make 79% of their $$$ from DVD sales, digital downloads, streaming and most importantly licensing to TV stations. And they own most of that infrastructure too. Around the world.

Foreign money - including ticket sales - matters a LOT. Ticket sales here in the USA matter less now than they ever have.

 

And all of this is why Wall Street is bullish on Disney, on Fox, on Time Warner etc... Even a lot of perceived "dudes" make good money.

 

 

 

You don't say. Sounds familiar.

[NewWorldOrder]

Having a couple B level villains mixed together is easy to do, it was just Sam Raimi was a m oron in ASM 3 by putting Venom in the movie where he is clearly a stand alone A+ villain. All the villains in ASM 2 not so much so it will easily work.

 

IIRC Raimi never wanted Venom in SM3, the character was pushed on him by Avi Arad and Sony.

 

Then in that case he just shouldn't have directed the film, and walked away.

 

If your name is on the film then you are justas guilty.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

As a hater of the last film, I'm honestly excited for this film. The trailers I've seen show a lot of promise. I do worry about the Spider-Man 3 effect, but I get it'll be good.

[Prince Namor]

It will make a billion dollars and every kid leaving the theater will have a smile on his/her face. I'm glad movie studios don't cater to cynical fanboys over the age of 40.

 

I guess you're no older than 12 or have that same IQ then?

 

Stand down, soldier! It could make a billion dollars and leave every kid that watches it with a smile on their face - and still not be an incredible movie per the critics or boardies. IM 3 made a billion and the overall consensus on these boards is it was the weakest IM movie of the three.

 

 

I thought the consensus on that was a toss up, but it can be hard to say.

The big thing is domestic gross for most of these movies, IM3 did $409 million US on a $200 million budget and ASM did $262 million US with a $230 million budget.

Thats considered a disappointment.

 

I don't know where this opinion comes from (see bold) but you are not the first person on the boards to say "domestic gross is more important than foreign". Searching the web, I can find nothing that supports that statement. In fact, what I find is just the opposite. Articles in financial papers like Forbes, Daily Finance and reviews by the Motley Fool writers state that the foreign box office is more important that ever to the studios and that's one of the reasons you see so many films released first in foreign territories. They also mention that the superhero genre - special effects/action heavy and plot thin - export very well

 

All evidence indicates the movie studios are actively courting these overseas $$$. IM 3's take was damn near double overseas - $807 million. Movies considered domestic flops like Pacific Rim and Wolverine actually end up being profitable with the overseas take.

 

So if a film does incredibly well overseas but flops in the U.S., does that make it a hit? As with everything else to do with box office, the answer is "it depends." But generally, domestic revenue seems to be be better for studios than overseas revenue, because the studios take a bigger cut of domestic revenue.

 

According to the book The Hollywood Economist by Edward Jay Epstein, studios take in about 40 percent of the revenue from overseas release — and after expenses, they're lucky if they take in 15 percent of that number.

 

Domestic revenue just counts for a lot more than overseas revenue, says David Mumpower with Box Office Prophets:

 

I'm glad you directed us to Epstein. While I haven't read the book you speak of, I have read his blogs on the entertainment industry and the reviews of the book you mention say it draws heavily from the blogs he has written. In fact many a review said it read like a blog and more than a few people said they weren't buying the book because you could read it for free on his website in the form of blogs he had written over the years.

 

When Epstein blogged on "Hollywood's Money Machine"- which was written for the Wall Street Journal about the same time the aforementioned book was published (2010), he speaks specifically of "The Hurt Locker". When he speaks of the box office receipts for this movie, he only speaks of worldwide (18.5 million) He doesn't differentiate.

 

What one can really take away from Epstein's writings is that box office receipts are now only a small part of a studio's income (around 21% in 2007 - no doubt less now) They make most of their money on the back end; Sales of DVD's, licensing to places streaming services like Netflix and the biggest - licensing to television. Even more interesting is that the Big six studios are all part of mult-media giants that between them own virtually all the major broadcast networks, 64 cable channels and quite a few foreign broadcast channels as well. This arrangement ensures nice profits - across the globe.

 

Perhaps studios do indeed get a bigger share of domestic ticket sales than foreign. Even if it is less, 40% of 800 million is a lot of money - just as much as 80% of 400 million - if 80% (unlikely but if) - that were what they get from domestic ticket sales. Regardless - per Epstein - It matters not. That's 21% of their revenue. They make 79% of their $$$ from DVD sales, digital downloads, streaming and most importantly licensing to TV stations. And they own most of that infrastructure too. Around the world.

 

Foreign money - including ticket sales - matters a LOT. Ticket sales here in the USA matter less now than they ever have.

 

And all of this is why Wall Street is bullish on Disney, on Fox, on Time Warner etc... Even a lot of perceived "dudes" make good money.

 

 

 

Ok, maybe you'll understand it from this perspective.

 

When 2 or 3 people put up $200 million of their own money to produce a film, it's VERY, VERY important for them to see the more PROFITABLE money come in as quickly as possible. And even if it's not their actual money, it's their name that finances it, and they stand to lose if it fails.

 

Which is why, opening weekend, which they use as a barometer of how successful a movie is going to be, and domestic gross, which is the highest percentage of returnthey get back the quickest is such a big deal.

Studios want to make sure the primary investors get theirs back FIRST.

 

Why?

 

Because really, there aren't all that many guys walking around who can casually invest $200 million dollars in something, that is just as likely to lose them money as a game of craps.

 

At any given moment, those guys have multiple people coming at them with deals asking for multiple millions of dollars. The faster they know one of those deals is a success, the easier it is to make another deal.

 

ASM was by no means a failure, but it worried some people. They considered it a restart, which means they feel it SHOULD be the most successful of however many films they want to do.

If this sequel doesn't match or exceed the first movie, it'll be interesting to see what route they go from here.

 

 

[Bosco685]

The charts in that study definitely tell the tale why the greater focus on the international market compared to the slow-growth domestic market.

 

 

And no surprise on your heavy-hitter markets.

 

 

Man, those are some big numbers. No wonder why the studios try to determine how not to run into each other when they can.

[mystrymachine]

Yeah, I'm sorry if I offend anyone who wants to see this. But this movie looks like carp. No way will I ever watch this movie. I won't watch the last one either.

The only thing Marvel related in these movies are the names and spider-mans suit. Everything else had to be changed to conform to the Hollywoods recipe of an action/blockbuster. In the end its probably just as good as the Brendan Fraser Mummy movies.

[Hawkman]

wow. trailers can be misleading, but that looks amazingly awesome, and i haven't seen a spiderman movie since the last spiderman 2.