But you say, the reboot was rebuilding the brand from the ground up and it had to deal with the general dissatisfaction from Spider-Man 3. You might even say that this film was playing the same kind of long-ball that Warner Bros. played with Chris Nolan's Batman Begins seven years ago. That would be true, which accounts for the alleged $220 million budget for The Amazing Spider-Man, an allegedly cheaper reboot that nonetheless cost as much as Spider-Man 2, $100 million more than Spider-Man in 2002, and only about $50 million less than Spider-Man 3. Batman Begins cost $150 million back in 2005, or far more than Batman ($45 million), Batman Returns ($80 million), Batman Forever ($100 million), and possibly Batman and Robin (officially $110 million, but allegedly as high as $200 million). But Batman Begins did three things that The Amazing Spider-Man did not. First, it did not so explicitly differentiate itself from the prior Burton/Schumacher series so as to bring about a desire to see a whole new batch of Spider-Man stories told in this specific universe (Star Trek and Casino Royale pulled this off as well, to a lesser degree). Second, it did not fully whet the appetite for an inevitable sequel while in turn telling a closed-ended story that stood on its own (the film is full of dropped plots and loose ends that were either cut during post-production or intentionally left open for the next chapter). In short, it was nowhere near as good as Batman Begins and Casino Royale nor as crowd-pleasing as Star Trek. I'd argue that Sony is in no better position now then if they had just let Sam Raimi make his Spider-Man 4 (or conversely, let Marc Webb make whatever Spider-Man movie he wanted instead of forcing an origin and/or cutting the film to ribbons in post-production).
Third, and even if you disagree with the above two points (I'm aware there are moviegoers who preferred The Amazing Spider-Man over Spider-Man and/or Spider-Man 2), this one is objective: It failed to come even close to the opening weekend/week totals of its predecessors. Batman Begins may not have exploded over opening weekend in the vein of Spider-Man or The Matrix Reloaded, but it earned $72 million over its first five days (it opened on a Wednesday). That was actually a record for the Batman series at that point, ahead of Batman ($57 million), Batman Returns ($60 million), Batman Forever ($66 million), and Batman and Robin ($52 million). Even Batman Begins's unadjusted Fri-Sun total ($48 million) was ahead of Batman ($42 million), Batman Returns ($46 million), and Batman and Robin ($43 million), coming just below Batman Forever ($52 million). Star Trek plowed past the prior Star Trek films over its debut weekend, out-grossing all but the top two entries (Star Trek: First Contact at $90 million and Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home at $109 million) in just the first 3.5 days ($79 million). The Amazing Spider-Man didn't cost any less than the average Spider-Man film while grossing significantly less over its debut weekend even with 3D-inflated ticket prices. If it were a traditional sequel, it would be a most troubling debut. Since it's being treated as a 'part one', slack should perhaps be cut, especially considering how much the overseas market has grown even in the last few years, partially thanks to the foreign popularity of 3D. This could be a case like the far inferior Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides, which grossed below the series norm ($240 million) in America only to do huge 3D-inflated business overseas and cross $1 billion worldwide. At the end of this weekend, after about a week-and-a-half of international play, the film has earned $338 million worldwide, which points to a $650-$750 million worldwide total offhand. So yeah, come what may, it's a hit.
So what does this performance mean in the long run, for this film, for the would-be Spider-Man series, and for franchise reboots as a whole? Since 2001, the big July 4th openers (Scary Movie 2, Men In Black 2, Terminator 3, Spider-Man 2, War of the Worlds, Superman Returns, Transformers, Hancock, and Transformers 3) have generally made between 1.9x and 2.1x their six-day totals (Cats and Dogs, The Devil Wears Prada, and Ice Age 3 did better while The Twilight Saga: Eclipse and The Last Airbender couldn't even reach 1.8x). So presuming The Amazing Spider-Man doesn't end up having significantly better or worse legs, that puts its domestic total between $260 million and $287 million. The film should hold up pretty well over the next weekend, since there is only one new wide release, Ice Age: Continental Drift. But The Amazing Spider-Man officially becomes past-tense come July 20th, when The Dark Knight Rises debuts. If the third Nolan Batman film is anywhere near as good as the buzz is suggesting (it screened to a handful of lucky bastards on Friday, and I won't see it until a few days prior to opening), I can't imagine anyone giving two bits about Marc Webb's loose remake of Sam Raimi's Spider-Man. So whatever money it's going to make must be made in the next two weeks. Also, with a $35 million on opening day, it's actually a lower multiple (3.9x) than pretty every major July 4th long weekend multiplier save The Twilight Saga: Eclipse. Now if it does $270 million domestic and $400-$500 million overseas, it's still a pretty big hit. But the question is whether or not Sony successfully restarted their crown jewel comic book franchise.
Come May 2014, will fans and general audiences line up for The Spectacular Spider-Man (or whatever it's called) with the same relative fervor that they lined up for even The Bourne Supremacy (a $52 million opening coming off the $29 million debut of The Bourne Identity) or Iron Man 2 ($128 million debut off of the original's $100 million opening weekend)? One cannot presume a Batman Begins-to-Dark Knight level upsurge in respective opening weekends, although Paramount is probably expecting one for Star Trek 2 next summer. Other than fans who desperately want to see (SPOILER…) Emma Stone fall off a bridge and get her neck snapped (or the pie-in-the-sky fantasy of a Sinister Six team-up film), are there a huge number of Spidey fans who are exceptionally gung-ho about seeing this universe’s version of The Green Goblin or Dr. Octopus or even Venom? And the other untapped villains aren’t exactly the stuff of general audience fandom (Rhino! Electro! Mysterio!), unless they team up in part three. The inevitable sequel won’t explode out of the gate ala Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest or The Dark Knight (unless they cast Johnny Depp as Dr. Octopus) and that's a problem unless Sony can keep costs down. I’d argue that Sony may have won the battle with The Amazing Spider-Man (it’s not a flop by any means), but they may have lost the war.
Scott Mendelson
For the rest of the July 4th box office, go HERE. For prior July 4th weekends, go 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011.
How the hell do you come up with these box office analysis? Just bravo work, Scott.
ReplyDeleteIn all seriousness, as much as I like this film and as much as I want to see where they take it, it's about keeping the rights to this character. Box office, be damned. Yes, it's a remake, no question but because of the tonal shift they've created with this iteration and the fact that it seems to be playing okay to the masses, I think the franchise will be fine.
Because this is the second version of the franchise so soon after the first, I don't know if the box office will ever be as high as what Raimi's trilogy achieved. Who knows?
Still, I'm lining up for Spectacular...Amazing being a loose remake be damned.
I have no memory of this, but I'd be interested to know whether or not the studio was actively working on Superman Returns sequels when that film was released like they are in this case.
ReplyDeleteI DO think they will make a sequel to this. Even if there seems to be a general sense that the film is just not all there (which I agree with), the one thing ASM has that Superman Returns didn't is a general consensus that the casting of the actors who would carry on in a franchise is pretty good. I think Sony will recognize that at least the actors they have in place in the roles that count are worth hanging on to, even if they need to get a new creative team to work on bringing the film in with a tighter story and a lower budget (220 million seems insane to have spent and it is not on the screen.)
This was a hurdle. A big hurdle. There was no way they could reinvent the SPIDERMAN story without showing the origin story again. Once its done, and its garnered enough positivity, the film can co whatever way it wants to go. They jumped the hurdle. They can do whatever they want now - but with new (id say better) actors, the entire back catalogue of villains is opened up, the timeline can be stretched to keep peter parker in school/college/whatever for longer. The problem with Raimi's - box-office aside - is that it cut off lots of routes. Peter Parker was in a job in spiderman 3, he had met the infamous MJ and gone through multiple issues with her (how much more can you do?) and 2x goblins, Dr Ock AND Eddie Brock/Venom had been irreversibly killed off. It was limited where thye could go. Im sure sony have learned from the open-ended-ness of Avengers and the SAW films that the franchise will go for longer than 3 films. I'm sure it'll be around for many years with such a strong cast.
ReplyDelete......."or far more than Batman ($45 million)"
ReplyDeleteDoes that figure in Jack Nicholson's profit participation, though?