Will "The Amazing Spiderman" Flop?

You havent understood what I said or you just won't admit that you are wrong.

You said some films needed to make $1billion or more to register a profit, my above post cleary stated why I believe that is not the case at all, far from it.

Not going to debate with a moron.

I understand back end percentages. I understand name calling.

I also understand math.

I also no longer give a f***.

__________________

Classic debate at Mofo.

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

Suspect's Reviews

Get off your high horse and say; "I was incorrect, I now see that some of the aforementioned movies did not in fact need to gross over $1 billion to make a profit".

houdini couldnt hold his breath that long. I wouldnt advise you tryen.

__________________
"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.

As soon as Will admits that:

A) John Carter spent more than $100 million on marketing

B) bigger films do indeed spend more on marketing than little films

C) gives me an actual number that Spider-Man needs to make to be worthwhile in the grand scheme of things.

As soon as you admit that I had a point when I posted the link to the article about the new benchmark of $400 million domestic takes. Even if a film doesn't need to pop $1 billion, we are at a point where $500 million world wide can be seen as under performing (though it will be a few years before that number is considered a flop).

But, I'd like to point out that anything made by Cameron these days does indeed need to break $1 billion. Or at least Avatar did. I don't think that is up for debate at all considering rumors of the films budget before marketing going near $500 million.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

I keep capitalizing, but when I hit done I wind up with all small case letters. I am seeing that with BB's comments as well.

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

liar liar pants on fire.

Yes, yes, for craps sake, yes. But not in the way you seem to think that I do. A bigger film needs to spend significantly more on marketing than a smaller one. Period. Why is that a hard fact for you to swallow?

This is not entirely correct. They were on the way to making a fourth film with all of the original cast and crew but Raimi dropped out. From wiki:

Nothing to do with money!

Someone had to greenlight Avatar.

@ Gandolph Here's the beauty of math that you seem to be skipping. It's math and therefore cannot change. Even the films that make $1 billion that didn't need to make that amount to turn a profit remain consistent in their ratios. Almost all the films on that list needed to make 3X their budgets to make money for the studios. That was the point that Will has ignored this entire thread. This was the direct quote that he made that is factually incorrect:

The advertising costs do not go down for large films and being a well-known property has nothing to do with the ad campaign. If that were true, there'd be no need to promote sequels. The costs for larger films to market is much higher than lower budget films, even though that's not proportional to the budget (but, as you said, the back end is proportional to the gross!).

However, as I said, the ratios do not change. Bigger budget films have a trend of needing to gross 3X their budget to really turn out well for the studios. No matter what the back end numbers may be. Also, remember that the studios have to budget for those back end numbers as well. So, yes, they can and will budget films out with anticipation of turning $1 billion.

How much do you think the bean counters at Warner Brothers expect The Dark Knight Rises to make?

EDIT: That reminds me. Will, how much do you think they've spent on marketing TDKR? They've released a teaser and three different trailers and more TV commercials (including a Nokia tie-in) than I can count which are running constantly on every network. Do you think it's more or less than they spend on a film with 1/4 the budget of a Nolan Batman film?

^^^

yep clearly Brick no longer gives a F+ck.

Credibility. How does it work.

At least you're contributing to the conversation.

Ironically i am what you desparately want to be.

Right.

Sony Pictures announced in January 2010 that plans for Spider-Man 4 had been cancelled due to Raimi's withdrawal from the project. Raimi reportedly ended his participation due to his doubt that he could meet the planned May 6, 2011 release date while at the same time upholding the film creatively. Raimi purportedly went through four iterations of the script with different screenwriters and still "hated it".

Well, now, that is not actually what was reported exactly at the time or what is generally accepted, that Sony cancelled Spiderman 4, not Raimi. The announcement at the time with Raimi's official comments is the usual diplomatic speak for "I was canned." Raimi's conflict with the script from all accounts had more to do with wrestling with Sony what it should be like, in other words creative control. By canning Raimi and Toby, they saved a bunch of money and maintained creative control of the property and the budget. Because they are only paying their new SM around a million versus 25 million for TM and by getting rid of Raimi, they have much more budget flexibility for the sequel if they need it if AS is not a huge hit. But they will make it. They don't want Disney to get it, not yet.

__________________
Going 18600 miles per second.

I was hating on this movie for a long time when I heard about but I have to eat my words. It was actually a good movie and closer to what I wanted from the original SM movies, though I still like them also. I don't think it is going to make as much as the old ones but it still did pretty well.

Selfishly i was hoping it would tank, which would make sony think twice about doing a followup, and then relinquishing rights to Marvel films, which would be wicked cool, cuz after seeing the Avengers, im hankerin for a Fantastic Four/Spidey/Daredevil combo flick.

nerdgasm

For those wanting to know how well this film is doing compared to the others...

SPIDERMAN VS SPIDERMAN

That's interesting, especially when you look at The Amazing Spider-man's foreign take. It's nowhere near as well received here in the US as it is around the world. I guess we're far more jaded than the rest of the world.

I understand now that brick - indeed - does not give a damn.

It is not a flop, but it isn't a huge hit either.

I suspect there might be a different director for the sequel, possibly a bigger name, as they try to give the series more sizzle. It won't be a reboot, but they might make some adjustments.