Will "The Amazing Spiderman" Flop?

So this entire thread is moot because we can't get good info anyway.

Whatever.

Or is it just that you can't admit that I'm right when I say that Spider-Man needs to make more than double its budget in order to turn a profit?

__________________

A decent start?

I don't think it has to do that to turn a profit at the BO if you're looking at all the revenue streams.

It may be disappointing to the studio if it does less than that, but if they hit close to double gross with a well known propertly like Spiderman, as long as the reviews are decent, they will turn a fair profit when they count up all the other non box office receipts including licensing, DVDs, and televison showings.

WB probably would have gone ahead with a Superman sequel instead of a reboot if the movie wasn't so strongly disliked including the star, despite the dissapointing but not awful box office.

If BO is so-so, but the star is well received, they will make a sequel but replace the director, re-tool but not re-boot.

If it completely tanks, they will retire it again, but will be reluctant to give it up completely because then Disney will have the rights and they will re-boot.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

I've seen a few more bits on the film, various interviews and TV Spots, still looks like a pile of tosh to me.

Will definitely wait for rental and save my Cinema Tokens for TDKR.

__________________

aka The Ghost Rider effect.

__________________
"The greatest danger for most of us is not that our aim is too high and we miss it, but that it is too low and we reach it." - Michelangelo.

What are you basing this on?

The real reason I'm even having this debate with you is because everything you have said has been speculation. I showed you actual numbers and you act as if the opinion you've shared has the same weight.

Also, at the end of the day, we're talking about box office. Despite all you've said about ancillary income sources and DVD sales, that is easily the biggest factor of a franchises strength.

It is the biggest factor in a non franchise movie or one that hasn't been established as one.

The first Star Trek movie didn't do that well, but the studio knew they had a potential gold mine so they tried again, but took it away from Roddenberry as first line producer; they re-tooled. If it is not a total flop, if it is mildly well received, they will make a sequel. They are not going to give up on SM easily.

Also they have the star locked in at a bargain price so that will keep the budget from going insane.

One movie based on one of the most popular TV shows of all time?!?!?

I'm just about done with this conversation.

This entire "debate" has been a joke, anyway. I proved you wrong on something and you change the subject. No offense, but it's like debating with a 5-year-old.

Star Trek was not that popular at the time.

The original series was a cult phenomena, but its mass appeal was still questionable.
The ratings when it first aired were borderline.

Spiderman is along with X Men Marvel's most popular comic book.

You didn't prove anything becuse you vastly overestimated the marketing costs on John Carter, placing it at 200 million. It was closer to half that.

Still changing the subject instead of admitting you were wrong?

John Carter had a budget of $300 million. It grossed $254 million and change. Difference of $45,560,900. They took a loss of $172,780,450. Difference there of $127,219,550. Make of that what you will. I threw out the $200 million figure because that's what Disney initially said they would lose on the film.

Now, since you ignored the actual point I made, I will reiterate.

Big budget films must make more than double their budget to turn a profit. Avatar had to make $1.6 billion to turn a profit. Titanic had to pull $1.1 billion to turn a profit (in 1997 dollars). Harry Potter had to earn $789 million to turn a profit. Lord of the Rings: ROTK had to pull in $664 million to turn a profit. Transformer 3 had to pull $756 million to turn a profit. All of those are far more than 3X their budget.

You said:

I told you that's not true because in order to recoup the cost on a big budget film they have to advertise the hell out of it. With a smaller film, The Transporter, for example, they can advertise on niche TV channels like Spike TV and SyFy where they hit their core market and where costs are lower. With a big release, like Spider-Man, they have to hit the major networks as well as the cable channels to ensure maximum audience turn-out. This costs far more in advertising budget. To which you said:


This point doesn't matter because they are following the marketing trend that works, regardless of the property. The tactic is flood the market with ads and ensure maximum audience turn-out. Even with a well-known property. Which means that this statement is false:

If you look at the numbers I posted, it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a ton of money goes elsewhere before the studios turn a profit. That includes advertising costs.

Bottom line; Spider-Man must make at least $550-$600 million (a number I've said repeatedly) to even look fair for the studios. It needs to approach $1 billion to look good on the bottom line. It may pull this off. I don't know. But my numbers stand.

Your opinion doesn't.

@ Gandolph Even if those are "rough estimates", you'd have to round literally by the hundreds of millions to change the percentages. With a large release film the studios need to make at least 3X the budget to come out ahead at the box office. That's the real reason that DVD/ancillary income matters. A film can make less than 3X its budget and still come out on top because of DVD/etc., however, at the box office 3X is the real goal for tent pole releases. Even with "rough estimates".

They aren't going to make a billion dollars on it and they know they won't.

You said they spent two million on John Carteron marketing.

The real break even point at the box office is twice gross plus marketing costs, which on big budget movies may or may not be the usual estimate of two and a half times gross, but...

This Spiderman is much cheaper than the other ones even if the budget is not much lower because the talent came cheaper; they are not paying the actor and probably not the director points that come off the top instead of the non existant net as it exists on the studio's books. That really kills the bottom line.

Way to ignore literally everything I said. You are an expert at completely avoiding the debate.

Drop John Carter, its barely relevant to this topic.

Of Titanic, Transformers, Jurassic Park, The Lion King, The Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter 1 and 2, Toy Story 3, and Independence Day, how much do you think they had to pay to the actors in back end? Probably not much. That is yet another moot point that you've brought to this debate.

Since I can't get a straight debate with you, at least answer me a question: What number does Spider-Man need to make, in your opinion, to be worth the studio investment?

Well, that was a big reason Sony dumped the Spiderman series. The budget was going to keep skyrocketing and too much money was going out because of profit participation. They felt they needed a star to make the first movie, but now they figure Spiderman is what matters, not the star, so this guy is locked in for three films at a basement rate, and the director is not a big name. That was done deliberate, to keeps costs down. Profit participation doesn't change the estimated budget, but the reality is they need a lot more revenue because of it.

I predict, assuming the word of mouth so far is accurate, that it is a competent but not exciting reboot, there will be a sequel.

I don't know how much it going to make except it will be enough for them to make a sequel. And I think they could greenlight a sequel at less than 550 million, but it would be less likely at less than half a mill, but not impossible. Because the actor's modest salary is locked in, they could make a sequel for less money, which would have been impossible to do with the first series.

I'm sorry, but there is no way that any studio would be in a situation where a film needs to make over a billion dollars to turn a profit.

__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews

Unless its Avatar? Or Harry Potter? Or Titanic? Or Lord of the Rings: Return of the King?

Did you read any of my posts?

Probably not. Your insane need to be right is amusing though brick.

this.

Avatar needing to make $1.6 billion before it makes a profit is one of the funniest things I ve read in a while.

What are you sources for these wild claims.

There's a major difference between needing to be right and being right.

I've already posted the link, but if you look at the top four of the Most Profitable Movies, Based on Absolute Profit on Worldwide Gross all of them had to make $1 billion in order to make a profit. I know you claimed they were "rough estimates", but in order for those numbers to be wrong you would have to estimate in the hundreds of millions. I'm pretty sure the IRS would take an interest if the movie companies were fudging the numbers in the hundreds of millions per film.

Yes but my argument was that the higher the profit, the higher everyones share.

For example lets assume that James Cameron has 20% Gross Profit + Salary.

So $2.6 Billion takings = $520 Million payday + Salary for James Cameron.

If Avatar only took say $500 Million then James Cameron's payday would be $100 Million + Salary.

(Of course the above would probably take the Budget away before calculating Gross % to be paid out).

Take into account others that are recieving a Gross share then the more the film makes, the more the production team earnings will be.

The profit in that list will most likely be Net profit after Gross profit agreements have been honoured.

So basically whatever a film makes after Budget and Promotion there will be a profit for the studio, however small in relation to box office takings.

So what? The numbers are still there. Those films may have made a profit if they hadn't done $1 billion, but it would have been substantially less. I can assure you that they anticipated $1 billion or very close on at least Harry Potter and LOTR (and I'm sure Cameron's giant ego expected it with Avatar). These are the days of $200 million+ budgets. Here's an interesting article on this very subject. $1 billion is a number that a lot of films will actually find it easy to reach. We live in a time where the vast majority of high budget films are a part of a franchise. It is a new era where $1 billion is not only a goal for a lot of these films, but it's one that can easily be reached.