Amazing Spider-Man 2 passes Man of Steel at Box Office 0

[InvstmntComcSuply]

Not relevant to the 225M MOS budget and 425M ASM budget posted in the chart provided. Those numbers are simply apples and apples + oranges.

 

There has not been a 425M production budget since Avatar. Production budgets are what are thrown around everywhere, because everyone wants to know how much the director was given to actually make the movie and marketing costs are highly variable. The ASM movie had an estimated production budget of somewhere between 200M-255M.

 

....let's adjust that budget to reflect a figure that probably does not include marketing spent ($255 MM).

 

That was my point. It is not a valid comparison to include marketing expenses in the ASM2 budget and then compare it with other film budgets that do NOT include marketing expenses

 

 

[sonicyouth]

all the sweaty bunched up underoos in this thread is gross...

 

 

sell your disney stock...get over it.. way to obvious...

[sonicyouth]

OP,

 

you will have a hard time dealing with a few of the folks on here.

 

ALWAYS pushing some strange mickey mouse agenda..

 

 

truly sad..

its totally degenerate how the OP is getting politely flamed..

 

 

but anyway, yea Superman cant survive in the 21st century.. been all kinds of studies on it at fancy colleges..

 

dont rub it in..

 

 

 

[rjrjr]

All this talk about Sony making a kids movie is spot on. This franchise reboot does seem like one of those Saturday morning cartoon series. You know, like the cartoon where all the Avengers are wearing armor supplied by Iron Man, every opponent faced by the Teen Titans are directed by Deathstroke, or every opponent faced by Iron Man are directed by the Mandarin. In this Spider-Man cartoon, Oscorp is responsible for our hero and every villain Peter Parker will face.

 

I also don't understand this need to keep changing the hero's origin. This never works well in the comics and it surely doesn't work well in the movies. Now, instead of Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man by being bitten by a radioactive spider, the spider was genetically engineered by his dad at Oscorp and only Peter Parker could have been changed by that spider. It just convolutes what was already a clean origin. There was absolutely no reason for the new Spider-Man movies to even retell the origin, as the first Spider-Man movie had that covered. By retelling the origin, they begged the audience to compare the movies and once you do that, you are inviting trouble. It was a huge misstep IMHO.

Edited May 26, 2014 by rjrjr

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

OP,

 

you will have a hard time dealing with a few of the folks on here.

 

ALWAYS pushing some strange mickey mouse agenda..

 

 

truly sad..

its totally degenerate how the OP is getting politely flamed..

 

 

but anyway, yea Superman cant survive in the 21st century.. been all kinds of studies on it at fancy colleges..

 

dont rub it in..

 

 

 

Take a chill pill. It's all in good fun. At the very least it keeps people taking about these comic book characters. And generating interest is great as I'd like to see more and more superhero movies brought to the big screen. This is the golden age of superhero movies, and I for one, am glad I'm alive to be along for the ride.

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

All this talk about Sony making a kids movie is spot on. This franchise reboot does seem like one of those Saturday morning cartoon series. You know, like the cartoon where all the Avengers are wearing armor supplied by Iron Man, every opponent faced by the Teen Titans are directed by Deathstroke, or every opponent faced by Iron Man are directed by the Mandarin. In this Spider-Man cartoon, Oscorp is responsible for our hero and every villain Peter Parker will face.

 

I also don't understand this need to keep changing the hero's origin. This never works well in the comics and it surely doesn't work well in the movies. Now, instead of Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man by being bitten by a radioactive spider, the spider was genetically engineered by his dad at Oscorp and only Peter Parker could have been changed by the spider. It just convolutes what was already a clean origin. There was absolutely no reason for the new Spider-Man movies to even retell the origin, as the first 3 movies had that covered. By retelling the origin, they begged the audience to compare the movies and once you do that, you are inviting trouble. It was a huge misstep IMHO.

 

 

You nailed it. These movies are for those toddlers dressed up as Spider-Man, knocking on your door on Halloween. They have a great time watching these movies. I feel sorry for the sad souls that wish to deprive them of this joy. If you don't have kids to take to these movies, then don't go. They're not for you.

[NewEnglandGothic]

You nailed it. These movies are for those toddlers dressed up as Spider-Man, knocking on your door on Halloween. They have a great time watching these movies. I feel sorry for the sad souls that wish to deprive them of this joy. If you don't have kids to take to these movies, then don't go. They're not for you.

I get somewhat of what you are saying.

I was Spidey (age 3) for Halloween in '78.

But, they do make excellent funnybook children's movies that can grow up with you, Superman: The Movie, The Incredibles...

[NewEnglandGothic]

And didn't Sony sell the merchandising rights to this franchise?

Why make a $300M budgeted kids movie when you have no merchandise money from it?

 

That's what surprised me when someone pointed this out with the launch of ASM 2, as I had never heard this before.

 

Disney Acquires Sony's Merchandising Participation For The Amazing Spider-Man

 

Sony got itself in a financial bind, and needed the cash fast. Enter - DISNEY!

 

Disney got the better end of this deal. From what I read, Sony gets a larger return of the Spider-Man movie money and Disney gets the merchandise money. Since the movies are costing more and the returns are dropping, Disney saw more potential with the merchandise money than the movie money.

 

That's what I was thinking. Kids will buy Spider-Man toys from Disney whether a movie succeeds or not. Disney made out like a bandit due to Sony's poor financials. Oddly enough, isn't that why Marvel has all these movie rights issues in the first place is how they had to sell off such rights to deal with bankruptcy?

 

Reading that summary from Iger is interesting. He must have wanted to scream out 'INSTANT MONEY' with this news.

 

Then in July, Sony Pictures will release The Amazing Spiderman. We're excited about the film and expect it will drive significant benefits for Spiderman consumer products.

 

To that end, we recently completed a transaction with Sony Pictures to simplify our relationship. And then in the deal, we purchased Sony Pictures' participation in Spiderman merchandising, while at the same time, Sony Pictures purchased from us our participation in Spiderman films. This transaction will allow us to control and fully benefit from all Spiderman merchandising activity, while Sony will continue to produce and distribute Spiderman films. We won't be specific about the economics of this 2-way transaction, but we expect it will drive attractive returns for Disney.

 

All those birthday party kits, Halloween costumes, bed sheets, toys, branded radios/clocks/lamps, etc. - all Disney. And no movie budget risk for them.

 

This Disney you speak of sounds like they got it goin' on!

Not always. I'm thinking pre-Little Mermaid in the eighties. I'm also talking financially (not creatively). I think they were surviving on their live action movie division at Touchstone (maybe Hollywood Pictures too). Even Disney's live action TV movies I-Man and Mr. Boogedy.

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

You nailed it. These movies are for those toddlers dressed up as Spider-Man, knocking on your door on Halloween. They have a great time watching these movies. I feel sorry for the sad souls that wish to deprive them of this joy. If you don't have kids to take to these movies, then don't go. They're not for you.

I get somewhat of what you are saying.

I was Spidey (age 3) for Halloween in '78.

But, they do make excellent funnybook children's movies that can grow up with you, Superman: The Movie, The Incredibles...

 

I hear ya. But those movies are the first of the franchise. Did not the Superman movies get overly cheesy as they went on? Did not the Batman franchise? I love the first two Superman movies with Reeve. The first two Batman movies with Keaton. The first two Spider-Man movies with Tobey. Hmmmm. I'm sensing a pattern here. After the first movie or two, it seems every franchise turns to cheese for the easy $$.

 

Look at IM3 and TDKR and Spidey 3, Superman 3, even Godfather 3

 

Like I said, if you don't have kids to take, don't go. They are not for you. Sony should completely run this into the ground after another 3-4 films. This is Spidey after all, and garners the most interest among children than any other superhero.

[Jiminy_Cricket-migration]

And didn't Sony sell the merchandising rights to this franchise?

Why make a $300M budgeted kids movie when you have no merchandise money from it?

 

That's what surprised me when someone pointed this out with the launch of ASM 2, as I had never heard this before.

 

Disney Acquires Sony's Merchandising Participation For The Amazing Spider-Man

 

Sony got itself in a financial bind, and needed the cash fast. Enter - DISNEY!

 

Disney got the better end of this deal. From what I read, Sony gets a larger return of the Spider-Man movie money and Disney gets the merchandise money. Since the movies are costing more and the returns are dropping, Disney saw more potential with the merchandise money than the movie money.

 

That's what I was thinking. Kids will buy Spider-Man toys from Disney whether a movie succeeds or not. Disney made out like a bandit due to Sony's poor financials. Oddly enough, isn't that why Marvel has all these movie rights issues in the first place is how they had to sell off such rights to deal with bankruptcy?

 

Reading that summary from Iger is interesting. He must have wanted to scream out 'INSTANT MONEY' with this news.

 

Then in July, Sony Pictures will release The Amazing Spiderman. We're excited about the film and expect it will drive significant benefits for Spiderman consumer products.

 

To that end, we recently completed a transaction with Sony Pictures to simplify our relationship. And then in the deal, we purchased Sony Pictures' participation in Spiderman merchandising, while at the same time, Sony Pictures purchased from us our participation in Spiderman films. This transaction will allow us to control and fully benefit from all Spiderman merchandising activity, while Sony will continue to produce and distribute Spiderman films. We won't be specific about the economics of this 2-way transaction, but we expect it will drive attractive returns for Disney.

 

All those birthday party kits, Halloween costumes, bed sheets, toys, branded radios/clocks/lamps, etc. - all Disney. And no movie budget risk for them.

 

This Disney you speak of sounds like they got it goin' on!

Not always. I'm thinking pre-Little Mermaid in the eighties. I'm also talking financially (not creatively). I think they were surviving on their live action movie division at Touchstone (maybe Hollywood Pictures too). Even Disney's live action TV movies I-Man and Mr. Boogedy.

 

Disney of the eighties is now...

 

Disney/Pixar/Marvel/Star Wars/soon to be announced yet another?

 

You've come a long way, baby!

[thunsicker]

Wow, 7 pages. I had no idea there were so many people who didn't have hulksmash/jiminy_cricket on ignore!

[paperheart]

Wow, 7 pages. I had no idea there were so many people who didn't have hulksmash/jiminy_cricket on ignore!

 

sometimes you can't help yourself but look anyway

[Prince Namor]

All this talk about Sony making a kids movie is spot on. This franchise reboot does seem like one of those Saturday morning cartoon series. You know, like the cartoon where all the Avengers are wearing armor supplied by Iron Man, every opponent faced by the Teen Titans are directed by Deathstroke, or every opponent faced by Iron Man are directed by the Mandarin. In this Spider-Man cartoon, Oscorp is responsible for our hero and every villain Peter Parker will face.

 

I also don't understand this need to keep changing the hero's origin. This never works well in the comics and it surely doesn't work well in the movies. Now, instead of Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man by being bitten by a radioactive spider, the spider was genetically engineered by his dad at Oscorp and only Peter Parker could have been changed by the spider. It just convolutes what was already a clean origin. There was absolutely no reason for the new Spider-Man movies to even retell the origin, as the first 3 movies had that covered. By retelling the origin, they begged the audience to compare the movies and once you do that, you are inviting trouble. It was a huge misstep IMHO.

 

 

You nailed it. These movies are for those toddlers dressed up as Spider-Man, knocking on your door on Halloween. They have a great time watching these movies. I feel sorry for the sad souls that wish to deprive them of this joy. If you don't have kids to take to these movies, then don't go. They're not for you.

 

Nobody spends 300-500 million dollars to make a kids movie when you don't own the merchandising rights. Nobody.

 

[Mr 9.8]

All this talk about Sony making a kids movie is spot on. This franchise reboot does seem like one of those Saturday morning cartoon series. You know, like the cartoon where all the Avengers are wearing armor supplied by Iron Man, every opponent faced by the Teen Titans are directed by Deathstroke, or every opponent faced by Iron Man are directed by the Mandarin. In this Spider-Man cartoon, Oscorp is responsible for our hero and every villain Peter Parker will face.

 

I also don't understand this need to keep changing the hero's origin. This never works well in the comics and it surely doesn't work well in the movies. Now, instead of Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man by being bitten by a radioactive spider, the spider was genetically engineered by his dad at Oscorp and only Peter Parker could have been changed by the spider. It just convolutes what was already a clean origin. There was absolutely no reason for the new Spider-Man movies to even retell the origin, as the first 3 movies had that covered. By retelling the origin, they begged the audience to compare the movies and once you do that, you are inviting trouble. It was a huge misstep IMHO.

 

 

You nailed it. These movies are for those toddlers dressed up as Spider-Man, knocking on your door on Halloween. They have a great time watching these movies. I feel sorry for the sad souls that wish to deprive them of this joy. If you don't have kids to take to these movies, then don't go. They're not for you.

 

Nobody spends 300-500 million dollars to make a kids movie when you don't own the merchandising rights. Nobody.

SONY did.

[ChrisInBaltimore]

Have you seen how many endorsements X-Men DoFP has?

 

 

 

 

-slym (remember, this is the guy who has the X-logo tattooed on his shoulder)

 

What?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That looks delicious! I wish Carl Jr and Hardees were closer.

[Buzzetta]

All this talk about Sony making a kids movie is spot on. This franchise reboot does seem like one of those Saturday morning cartoon series. You know, like the cartoon where all the Avengers are wearing armor supplied by Iron Man, every opponent faced by the Teen Titans are directed by Deathstroke, or every opponent faced by Iron Man are directed by the Mandarin. In this Spider-Man cartoon, Oscorp is responsible for our hero and every villain Peter Parker will face.

 

I also don't understand this need to keep changing the hero's origin. This never works well in the comics and it surely doesn't work well in the movies. Now, instead of Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man by being bitten by a radioactive spider, the spider was genetically engineered by his dad at Oscorp and only Peter Parker could have been changed by the spider. It just convolutes what was already a clean origin. There was absolutely no reason for the new Spider-Man movies to even retell the origin, as the first 3 movies had that covered. By retelling the origin, they begged the audience to compare the movies and once you do that, you are inviting trouble. It was a huge misstep IMHO.

 

 

You nailed it. These movies are for those toddlers dressed up as Spider-Man, knocking on your door on Halloween. They have a great time watching these movies. I feel sorry for the sad souls that wish to deprive them of this joy. If you don't have kids to take to these movies, then don't go. They're not for you.

 

Nobody spends 300-500 million dollars to make a kids movie when you don't own the merchandising rights. Nobody.

 

Not completely true. I know that from the toy end that Sony receives a piece of the merchandising from the Hasbro figures. People go into stores and question how a Spider-man figure with limited articulation costs $10 a pop. The reason is that Sony, Hasbro AND Marvel all get a piece of the action if the figure is based off of the Spider-man movie. That may be true with many other merchandising rights that cover figures to party favors. When a licensee wants something to do with Spider-man that ties into the Spider-man movie, they are not just licensing a Marvel character, they are licensing Sony's version of a Marvel character.

 

In fact, when Hasbro did the last two GI Joe movies they had to raise the price of the figures to allow Paramount a piece of the action since those figure lines were based on Paramount's interpretation of the GI Joe universe. Keep in mind that GI Joe is a Hasbro in-house property.

 

 

[slym2none]

truly sad..

its totally degenerate how the OP is getting politely flamed..

 

::

 

don't rub it in

 

Rub it... rub it hard...

 

 

 

 

-slym

[rjrjr]

All this talk about Sony making a kids movie is spot on. This franchise reboot does seem like one of those Saturday morning cartoon series. You know, like the cartoon where all the Avengers are wearing armor supplied by Iron Man, every opponent faced by the Teen Titans are directed by Deathstroke, or every opponent faced by Iron Man are directed by the Mandarin. In this Spider-Man cartoon, Oscorp is responsible for our hero and every villain Peter Parker will face.

 

I also don't understand this need to keep changing the hero's origin. This never works well in the comics and it surely doesn't work well in the movies. Now, instead of Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man by being bitten by a radioactive spider, the spider was genetically engineered by his dad at Oscorp and only Peter Parker could have been changed by the spider. It just convolutes what was already a clean origin. There was absolutely no reason for the new Spider-Man movies to even retell the origin, as the first 3 movies had that covered. By retelling the origin, they begged the audience to compare the movies and once you do that, you are inviting trouble. It was a huge misstep IMHO.

 

 

You nailed it. These movies are for those toddlers dressed up as Spider-Man, knocking on your door on Halloween. They have a great time watching these movies. I feel sorry for the sad souls that wish to deprive them of this joy. If you don't have kids to take to these movies, then don't go. They're not for you.

 

Nobody spends 300-500 million dollars to make a kids movie when you don't own the merchandising rights. Nobody.

 

Not completely true. I know that from the toy end that Sony receives a piece of the merchandising from the Hasbro figures. People go into stores and question how a Spider-man figure with limited articulation costs $10 a pop. The reason is that Sony, Hasbro AND Marvel all get a piece of the action if the figure is based off of the Spider-man movie. That may be true with many other merchandising rights that cover figures to party favors. When a licensee wants something to do with Spider-man that ties into the Spider-man movie, they are not just licensing a Marvel character, they are licensing Sony's version of a Marvel character.

 

In fact, when Hasbro did the last two GI Joe movies they had to raise the price of the figures to allow Paramount a piece of the action since those figure lines were based on Paramount's interpretation of the GI Joe universe. Keep in mind that GI Joe is a Hasbro in-house property.

 

 

Did you not read the other posts? Sony gave up the merchandising rights to Spider-Man for all the movie rights. The way I read it is, Sony gets all the profits from the movies without having to share with Disney and Disney gets all the profits from the merchandise without having to share with Sony. Hence the "simplified" agreement between Sony and Disney.

Edited May 27, 2014 by rjrjr

[Buzzetta]

All this talk about Sony making a kids movie is spot on. This franchise reboot does seem like one of those Saturday morning cartoon series. You know, like the cartoon where all the Avengers are wearing armor supplied by Iron Man, every opponent faced by the Teen Titans are directed by Deathstroke, or every opponent faced by Iron Man are directed by the Mandarin. In this Spider-Man cartoon, Oscorp is responsible for our hero and every villain Peter Parker will face.

 

I also don't understand this need to keep changing the hero's origin. This never works well in the comics and it surely doesn't work well in the movies. Now, instead of Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man by being bitten by a radioactive spider, the spider was genetically engineered by his dad at Oscorp and only Peter Parker could have been changed by the spider. It just convolutes what was already a clean origin. There was absolutely no reason for the new Spider-Man movies to even retell the origin, as the first 3 movies had that covered. By retelling the origin, they begged the audience to compare the movies and once you do that, you are inviting trouble. It was a huge misstep IMHO.

 

 

You nailed it. These movies are for those toddlers dressed up as Spider-Man, knocking on your door on Halloween. They have a great time watching these movies. I feel sorry for the sad souls that wish to deprive them of this joy. If you don't have kids to take to these movies, then don't go. They're not for you.

 

Nobody spends 300-500 million dollars to make a kids movie when you don't own the merchandising rights. Nobody.

 

Not completely true. I know that from the toy end that Sony receives a piece of the merchandising from the Hasbro figures. People go into stores and question how a Spider-man figure with limited articulation costs $10 a pop. The reason is that Sony, Hasbro AND Marvel all get a piece of the action if the figure is based off of the Spider-man movie. That may be true with many other merchandising rights that cover figures to party favors. When a licensee wants something to do with Spider-man that ties into the Spider-man movie, they are not just licensing a Marvel character, they are licensing Sony's version of a Marvel character.

 

In fact, when Hasbro did the last two GI Joe movies they had to raise the price of the figures to allow Paramount a piece of the action since those figure lines were based on Paramount's interpretation of the GI Joe universe. Keep in mind that GI Joe is a Hasbro in-house property.

 

 

Did you not read the other posts? Sony gave up the merchandising rights to Spider-Man for all the movie rights. The way I read it is, Sony gets all the profits from the movies without having to share with Disney and Disney gets all the profits from the merchandise without having to share with Sony. Hence the "simplified" agreement between Sony and Disney.

 

I missed that amid the squabbling. Thanks.

 

Then Sony... made a huge financial blunder.

[ComicConnoisseur]

All this talk about Sony making a kids movie is spot on. This franchise reboot does seem like one of those Saturday morning cartoon series. You know, like the cartoon where all the Avengers are wearing armor supplied by Iron Man, every opponent faced by the Teen Titans are directed by Deathstroke, or every opponent faced by Iron Man are directed by the Mandarin. In this Spider-Man cartoon, Oscorp is responsible for our hero and every villain Peter Parker will face.

 

I also don't understand this need to keep changing the hero's origin. This never works well in the comics and it surely doesn't work well in the movies. Now, instead of Peter Parker becoming Spider-Man by being bitten by a radioactive spider, the spider was genetically engineered by his dad at Oscorp and only Peter Parker could have been changed by the spider. It just convolutes what was already a clean origin. There was absolutely no reason for the new Spider-Man movies to even retell the origin, as the first 3 movies had that covered. By retelling the origin, they begged the audience to compare the movies and once you do that, you are inviting trouble. It was a huge misstep IMHO.

 

 

You nailed it. These movies are for those toddlers dressed up as Spider-Man, knocking on your door on Halloween. They have a great time watching these movies. I feel sorry for the sad souls that wish to deprive them of this joy. If you don't have kids to take to these movies, then don't go. They're not for you.

 

Nobody spends 300-500 million dollars to make a kids movie when you don't own the merchandising rights. Nobody.

 

Not completely true. I know that from the toy end that Sony receives a piece of the merchandising from the Hasbro figures. People go into stores and question how a Spider-man figure with limited articulation costs $10 a pop. The reason is that Sony, Hasbro AND Marvel all get a piece of the action if the figure is based off of the Spider-man movie. That may be true with many other merchandising rights that cover figures to party favors. When a licensee wants something to do with Spider-man that ties into the Spider-man movie, they are not just licensing a Marvel character, they are licensing Sony's version of a Marvel character.

 

In fact, when Hasbro did the last two GI Joe movies they had to raise the price of the figures to allow Paramount a piece of the action since those figure lines were based on Paramount's interpretation of the GI Joe universe. Keep in mind that GI Joe is a Hasbro in-house property.

 

 

Did you not read the other posts? Sony gave up the merchandising rights to Spider-Man for all the movie rights. The way I read it is, Sony gets all the profits from the movies without having to share with Disney and Disney gets all the profits from the merchandise without having to share with Sony. Hence the "simplified" agreement between Sony and Disney.

 

I missed that amid the squabbling. Thanks.

 

Then Sony... made a huge financial blunder.

Making over 700 worldwide is not a huge financial blunder.

We haven`t even gotten to the money it will make on demand, red box, Netflix, Blu-ray, Dvd and cable TV reruns. (thumbs u