Amazing Spider-Man 2 is a winner. The Rotten Tomatoes reviews were off. 0

[jaybuck43]

In comparison, the first ASM opened to $62M (starting on a Tuesday) and grossed a total of $262M in the domestic marketplace. In terms of previous Spider-Man performances, it did better than Spider-Man 2 (2004) which grossed $88.1M in its opening weekend and ended up at $373M domestically.

 

As a sample why it is dangerous to just take a given point in time's sales and compare it to a modern movie like was done here, look at Spider-Man 2's opening day on June 30th, 2004 ($40,442,604).

 

If you were to account for inflation to see what this would be worth in 2014, that same amount would now be an additional $10,146,619.01 ($50,589,223.01).

 

That's why using something like a profit indicator is a better way to go as then they are being compared on the same playing field.

 

Bosco, don't forget to factor in higher average ticket price ($6.19 in 2004 vs $8.13 in 2013) + 3d/Imax inflation (things that didn't exist in 2004). If we just factor in the average ticket price and then take that number and adjust for inflation, Spidey 2 actually made $647,083,880.47 (domestically) There is not a chance in hell that ASM 2 will make even half of that.

[TheLiamSturgess]

As a closing thought, I loved the main theme. It was reminiscent of the Avengers, while not being too inspired.

 

Will you be buying it on Blu-Ray after seeing it?

 

Maybe eventually, but I'm not really a Bluray guy. In the long-term though, it is a movie that bears repeat watching, so I can see myself acquiring a copy down the line. (thumbs u

[The Kaptain]

Saw it today in IMAX 3d. The 3d was the best I have seen in a while! You really get the sense of flying/falling when Spidey is swinging between buildings.

 

The story was OK to good. However, it seemed like they tried to mash three movies into one. There was the Electro movie, the Green Goblin / Hobgoblin movie (which was he?) and the preview for the Rhino movie. As a result, it felt like there were three endings to the movie.

 

Also, the mid-credits scene was completely out of place.... and there was no after-credits scene.

 

I would give it a B-.

 

And, yes, I will get it on Blu-Ray 3d.

Edited May 5, 2014 by Kaptain Kollektor

[Chaseman210]

Saw it today in IMAX 3d. The 3d was the best I have seen in a while! You really get the sense of flying/falling when Spidey is swinging between buildings.

 

The story was OK to good. However, it seemed like they tried to mash three movies into one. There was the Electro movie, the Green Goblin / Hobgoblin movie (which was he?) and the preview for the Rhino movie. As a result, it felt like there were three endings to the movie.

 

Also, the mid-credits scene was completely out of place.... and there was no after-credits scene.

 

I would give it a B-.

 

And, yes, I will get it on Blu-Ray 3d.

 

There was an after credits scene when I saw it

[Prince Namor]

Monetarily it didn't do so good. Estimates are coming in at between 90-92 million for the weekend. Weaker than Cap 2's opening weekend of 95+. If we expect a 50% loss on second weekend and an even bigger drop the following weekends (Godzilla and X-Men are going to destroy) then the movie will be lucky to break $250 million, if that. Not a strong sign, given the budget + Marketing costs.

 

correct. given the $425MM+ production and marketing costs, will not break even on BO receipts even if it does $550MM Int'l.

 

Where is that $425 MM production and marketing cost coming from?

 

UPDATED BOX OFFICE: ‘Amazing Spider-Man 2′ Casts $92M Web; ‘The Other Woman’ Holding Strong; ‘Rio2′ Passes $100M

 

The production budget is said to be around $255M, with about $185M-$190M spent on marketing. That means all in it needs to make well over $752.2M worldwide (which is what the first installment grossed). About 65% of that came internationally.

 

Does that mean in addition to the $255 MM + $185-190 MM?

 

yes

 

OMG!

 

Financially, this may be Sony's lesson learned for not focusing more on a stronger story.

 

Who cares if this movie makes it's money back? :shrug:

 

It's a licensed property that will make a billion dollars in merchandising until the next one. Think t-shirts, Halloween costumes (multiple villian choices), video games, dvd/blu ray sales, back to school stuff (binders, portofolios, pens, etc), soundtracks, cable rights sale (which could be upwards $120 million), birthday party favors, it's a really endless amount of Amazing Spidey 2 junk we will see in the next two-three years.

The problem for Sony is that they gave the merchandising rights back to Disney/Marvel, so Sony has to make all of their money on the movie itself. Disney makes all profit from the merchandising.

 

Interesting point in this article though:

In comparison, the first ASM opened to $62M (starting on a Tuesday) and grossed a total of $262M in the domestic marketplace. In terms of previous Spider-Man performances, it did better than Spider-Man 2 (2004) which grossed $88.1M in its opening weekend and ended up at $373M domestically.

 

Sort of curious that the majority of people don't think it was as good as Spider-Man 2, but it is trending better.

 

88.1M in 2004 dollars is 101 Million in 2014 dollars, and that's without IMAX and 3D that inflate the numbers for a 2014 release.

[jsilverjanet]

Aren't box office numbers down overall from 10 years ago?

 

I think when presenting numbers like this, it's a little unfair to compare as there are a lot of factors not being accounted for.

 

While the adjustment for inflation is taken into account, I can imagine that $6 ticket prices were more manageable for middle income families than $10-$12 tickets prices today, especially in this economy.

 

Furthermore the amount of choices to spend that money on were far more limited 10 years ago. Today blockbusters need to deal with a public that has a wider range of choices, some of which is not longer limited to just what's in theaters. And today's big premiere rarely holds the top spot 2 weeks in a row.

 

The ability to download movies illegally, or wait for blu rays (quality) has impacted the movie industry in the past 10 years, where some movies like Spiderman 2 the viewer couldn't wait for the DVD release. You needed to see it now or wait 5 months.

 

If you look at the top 10 grossing films from 2004, of which Shrek 2 beat out Spiderman 2, I can almost guarantee that none of those films would perform as well in today's market.

 

Half of those films, many of us would wait for the DVD release or the cable rerun, especially if the internet review sites, blogs and boards were as accessible today with reviews confirming that we could sit a movie out.

 

 

 

[jsilverjanet]

There are exceptions to what I said, as an example the avengers was clearly a movie that succeeded despite all the factors I mentioned above.

[Prince Namor]

There are exceptions to what I said, as an example the avengers was clearly a movie that succeeded despite all the factors I mentioned above.

 

Yes, the Avengers became the biggest superhero blockbuster ever...

 

And Thor: Dark World topped it's first movie by 25 million...

 

And Captain America: Winter Soldier topped it's first movie by 60 million...

 

The foreign market more than DOUBLED for both of those movies...

 

Despite all of those reasons....

 

While this Spider-man film will almost certainly end up the least successful of the series.

 

Even with the higher priced IMAX tickets and the higher priced 3D tickets, something Spidey #1 and #2 DIDN'T have the benefit of... Even with as aggressive an advertising push as it's had... This movie will be lucky to match Captain America: Winter Soldier numbers when it's all said and done.

 

Spider-man should be doing Batman numbers (it'll do half of what DKR did), not just trying to keep up with Captain America numbers.

[Bosco685]

88.1M in 2004 dollars is 101 Million in 2014 dollars, and that's without IMAX and 3D that inflate the numbers for a 2014 release.

 

Exactly! Referencing movie results from ten years ago to now leads to an inaccurate comparison. The author of that article missed this.

 

Interesting point in this article though:

In comparison, the first ASM opened to $62M (starting on a Tuesday) and grossed a total of $262M in the domestic marketplace. In terms of previous Spider-Man performances, it did better than Spider-Man 2 (2004) which grossed $88.1M in its opening weekend and ended up at $373M domestically.

 

Sort of curious that the majority of people don't think it was as good as Spider-Man 2, but it is trending better.

 

Although I am excited to hear enough positive about ASM 2, that last statement is not completely accurate.

 

 

If you adjust for 2014 dollars so you are comparing evenly, then Spider-Man 2 earned $502.3 MM domestically compared to ASM1 which earned $281.3 MM.

 

The inflation rate is quite substantial enough it does make a difference when comparing a 2004 movie to a 2012 movie.

 

In comparison, the first ASM opened to $62M (starting on a Tuesday) and grossed a total of $262M in the domestic marketplace. In terms of previous Spider-Man performances, it did better than Spider-Man 2 (2004) which grossed $88.1M in its opening weekend and ended up at $373M domestically.

 

As a sample why it is dangerous to just take a given point in time's sales and compare it to a modern movie like was done here, look at Spider-Man 2's opening day on June 30th, 2004 ($40,442,604).

 

If you were to account for inflation to see what this would be worth in 2014, that same amount would now be an additional $10,146,619.01 ($50,589,223.01).

 

That's why using something like a profit indicator is a better way to go as then they are being compared on the same playing field.

[Straw-Man]

i follow rotten tomatoes pretty closely [not just for "our" movies], and lowered my expectations accordingly. was very happy to find i liked it alot, not as much as asm 1 [which i love], but still thought it very good. i'll see it again at the theater, and then proudly add it to my s/h dvd collection.

[Larryw7]

Monetarily it didn't do so good. Estimates are coming in at between 90-92 million for the weekend. Weaker than Cap 2's opening weekend of 95+. If we expect a 50% loss on second weekend and an even bigger drop the following weekends (Godzilla and X-Men are going to destroy) then the movie will be lucky to break $250 million, if that. Not a strong sign, given the budget + Marketing costs.

 

correct. given the $425MM+ production and marketing costs, will not break even on BO receipts even if it does $550MM Int'l.

 

Where is that $425 MM production and marketing cost coming from?

 

UPDATED BOX OFFICE: ‘Amazing Spider-Man 2′ Casts $92M Web; ‘The Other Woman’ Holding Strong; ‘Rio2′ Passes $100M

 

The production budget is said to be around $255M, with about $185M-$190M spent on marketing. That means all in it needs to make well over $752.2M worldwide (which is what the first installment grossed). About 65% of that came internationally.

 

Does that mean in addition to the $255 MM + $185-190 MM?

 

yes

 

OMG!

 

Financially, this may be Sony's lesson learned for not focusing more on a stronger story.

 

Who cares if this movie makes it's money back? :shrug:

 

It's a licensed property that will make a billion dollars in merchandising until the next one. Think t-shirts, Halloween costumes (multiple villian choices), video games, dvd/blu ray sales, back to school stuff (binders, portofolios, pens, etc), soundtracks, cable rights sale (which could be upwards $120 million), birthday party favors, it's a really endless amount of Amazing Spidey 2 junk we will see in the next two-three years.

The problem for Sony is that they gave the merchandising rights back to Disney/Marvel, so Sony has to make all of their money on the movie itself. Disney makes all profit from the merchandising.

 

Interesting point in this article though:

In comparison, the first ASM opened to $62M (starting on a Tuesday) and grossed a total of $262M in the domestic marketplace. In terms of previous Spider-Man performances, it did better than Spider-Man 2 (2004) which grossed $88.1M in its opening weekend and ended up at $373M domestically.

 

Sort of curious that the majority of people don't think it was as good as Spider-Man 2, but it is trending better.

 

Spider-Man 2 also opened on a Wednesday(June 30), so it already had quite a bit of money in the till before it's 88 million dollar weekend. Opening day alone was 40 million, a record for a Wednesday opening.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spider-Man_2#Box_office

 

 

Edited May 5, 2014 by Larryw7

[jjonahjameson1]

I don't give a damn about box office receipts. I care about being entertained.

 

Saw the movie yesterday and I enjoyed it immensly and I can honestly say its more entertaining than the vast majority of movies being shoved in our faces by the major studios.

 

 

[Mephisto]

ASM 14 may possibly see a short term bump but long term probably not so good. It already saw a movie bump back in 2002 and came back down plus the book is already well known and somewhat plentiful. Most movie books are not good long term investments many however are good short term. Since Spider-Man has been done already I'm finding the first appearances to be hit or miss in terms of movie spikes with this reboot and over all on the weaker side of most movie comic book bumps.

[joe_collector]

One got the feeling this "adult" actually thinks there is a difference between the target audience for Spider-Man and Dora The Explorer.

 

So you are actually admitting that ASM 2 was written specifically for the mentality of a pre-schooler?

 

I totally agree, but I'm surprised to see such a dateless fanboy as yourself freely admit this.

[joe_collector]

Who cares if this movie makes it's money back? :shrug:

 

Sony. The executive producers. The director. The writers. Among others

 

Exactly, and pretty well anyone involved in the movie, especially those with revenue points.

 

That's the *only* reason A-list talent accepts these idiotic duties/roles on PG-13 funny book tripe like this, to make a huge amount of coin on billion-dollar returns.

[oakman29]

Who cares if this movie makes it's money back? :shrug:

 

Sony. The executive producers. The director. The writers. Among others

 

Exactly, and pretty well anyone involved in the movie, especially those with revenue points.

 

That's the *only* reason A-list talent accepts these idiotic duties/roles on PG-13 funny book tripe like this, to make a huge amount of coin on billion-dollar returns.

Do you just wake up a mean cynical person,or does it grow during the course of the day?

[joe_collector]

Who cares if this movie makes it's money back? :shrug:

 

Sony. The executive producers. The director. The writers. Among others

 

Exactly, and pretty well anyone involved in the movie, especially those with revenue points.

 

That's the *only* reason A-list talent accepts these idiotic duties/roles on PG-13 funny book tripe like this, to make a huge amount of coin on billion-dollar returns.

Do you just wake up a mean cynical person,or does it grow during the course of the day?

 

Do you honestly think serious writers, directors, actors and other "artistes" actually like working on big budget tripe like ASM 2?

 

Sure, and I guess that's why they all take huge pay cuts to work on quality movies.

[oakman29]

Who cares if this movie makes it's money back? :shrug:

 

Sony. The executive producers. The director. The writers. Among others

 

Exactly, and pretty well anyone involved in the movie, especially those with revenue points.

 

That's the *only* reason A-list talent accepts these idiotic duties/roles on PG-13 funny book tripe like this, to make a huge amount of coin on billion-dollar returns.

Do you just wake up a mean cynical person,or does it grow during the course of the day?

 

Do you honestly think serious writers, directors, actors and other "artistes" actually like working on big budget tripe like ASM 2?

 

Sure, and I guess that's why they all take huge pay cuts to work on quality movies.

 

So..............You DO wake up like that?

 

 

Just pulling your chain JC.

[Boba]

I might try to to go see it tonight. Looking forward to it.

[joe_collector]

Who cares if this movie makes it's money back? :shrug:

 

Sony. The executive producers. The director. The writers. Among others

 

Exactly, and pretty well anyone involved in the movie, especially those with revenue points.

 

That's the *only* reason A-list talent accepts these idiotic duties/roles on PG-13 funny book tripe like this, to make a huge amount of coin on billion-dollar returns.

Do you just wake up a mean cynical person,or does it grow during the course of the day?

 

Do you honestly think serious writers, directors, actors and other "artistes" actually like working on big budget tripe like ASM 2?

 

Sure, and I guess that's why they all take huge pay cuts to work on quality movies.

 

So..............You DO wake up like that?

 

Just pulling your chain JC.

 

I know, and I just dislike that society seems to be getting dumber by the minute, with "hit shows" like Duck Dynasty, Housewives of XXXX and Honey Boo Boo, and tripe like ASM 2 being held up like it's some filmic masterpiece.

 

Just, wow.