The Amazing Spider-Man 2

[Margalis]

Spiderman doesn't really qualify as human anymore.  He's a humanoid spider.  It should look wrong.

He's a spideroid human!

[Tannhauser]

"He's more spider than man now, twisted and evil."

[jgsugden]

Sony thinks ASM 2 will rival the Avengers in total box office: http://variety.com/2014/film/news/spider-man-2-facing-formidable-foes-at-foreign-box-office-1201157653/#

At first blush it seems ridiculous, but if you look at the movies based upon Marvel products and look at their box office adjusted for inflation, You get Avengers, Spider--Man I, Iron Man, Spidey 3, Spidey 2, Men in Black, and then Amazing Spiderman...4 of the top 7 are Spidey.  Adjusted up to present value dollars, all of those films exceeded about $800,000,000 in today's dollars - and Avengers would be about $1.63 billion in today dollars.  Personally, I hope it 'flops' and ends up at global $500,000,000 or so -  or about 60% of ASM I.  Considering they spent $400,000 on the movie and marketing... I'm betting if it did, Marvel and Sony would start talking numbers to figure out how to get Spidey into the main Marvel continuity.

[Lakov_Sanite]

There is no way in hell this beats the avengers in world wide sales.  To think otherwise is either blatant lying or woeful stupidity.

[Trippy]

The article just says they have a goal of $1 billion which is quite a bit short of The Avengers ($1.5b) but certainly not outside the realm of possibility. That would be better than all the earlier Spider-Man movies, though (non-adjusted dollars).

[Lakov_Sanite]

Not on that chart is the last movie The Amazing Spider-Man

Worldwide:     $752,216,557    

according to http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=spiderman4.htm

Which puts it below the Spiderman from 2002.  So the estimates of beating The Avengers or even coming close  is still ludicrous.

[Trippy]

It is on the chart -- it's between The Avengers and Iron Man 3 (you have to look at the table below the bars).

[Lakov_Sanite]

My bad it does seem to be there and I am terrible at reading charts.

[Trippy]

It's not a very well done chart.

[jgsugden]

Look at the Iron Man films... they grow in sequels. What they expect is to grow like IM 3 did. I do not see it taking place, but they're betting a lot on the idea Spidey can support an Avengers level of attention.

[Tannhauser]

Wow look at im3.  Avenger s bump?

[Margalis]

These WW numbers are heavily influenced by where and how these movies are released internationally.

IM had different scenes for certain regions, was heavily promoted in places like China, has a 4D version, etc.

[Velorath]

Wow look at im3.  Avenger s bump?

Partly due to the Avengers. It's also the first Iron Man movie in 3D, as well as the fact that the World Wide market has grown by leaps and bounds in recent years. If you look back, IM1 made $318mil domestic and $266mil foreign. IM2 was roughly equal domestic and foreign with $312/$311 respectively. IM3's foreign gross was twice that of the domestic with $409mil domestic, $806mil foreign.

[eldaec]

I'd really like to see how much of the gain over time is down to the industry screwing more money out of people for shit like 3d, how much is growth/shrinkage of theatre attendance, and how much is left as attributable to rise in popularity of the subject and to Marvel's marketing.

Those numbers should all be available, but lazy journalism is easier ofc.

[Maven]

You're kidding, right? Lazy journalism?

It sounds like it would take a team of statisticians and industry analysts obtaining hard-to-acquire metrics and outputting something like what you're asking for.

How could these numbers be determined?
1. What percentage of ticket sales can be attributed to the expenditure of this film's marketing?
2. What is the estimated potential audience in each regional market along an axis of time? (And how many causal factors influence *this* metric?)
3. What is the estimated population of human beings interested in Marvel entertainment products? (Broken down by age group most significantly?)

Now, some numbers could be readily available, such as:
1. What percentage of gross was attributed to special format presentations?
2. What was the amount spent on marketing?
3. How did the marketing budget compare to ticket sales gross? (Is there any observable correlation between a film's gross and the amount spent on its marketing?)

What the chart tells me is that there is a clear increase in the gross revenue of Marvel entertainment products as they are introduced and invested in (for many reasons including quality of product), films that don't build on previous iterations won't generate as much revenue as arc-based films, the start of an arc won't generate as much revenue as the end of one, and, most importantly, Punisher films should be avoided at all costs.

[jgsugden]

To be honest, I don't put much faith in statistics as a journalistic tool.  People choose the numbers that best support their message rather than selecting the message based upon the numbers.

Regardless, we'll have to wait and see.  I expect ASM 2 to end up ~$900 Worldwide.  I hope for less, because I do not like the ASM universe and I'd much rather see Sony move closer to a position where they are willing to return the character to Marvel.  Even though there are some really good things about the ASM Spidey, I think Marvel would do it better while being truer to the character - and I think the entire Marvel Cinematic Universe would benefit from having the rogues gallery from Spider-man available to them.

[Cyrrex]

So none of you have seen this yet?  Is it not out in the US yet?  I saw it over here a few days ago with the kids.  We liked it overall.  There are a couple of things about it that kind of bug me.  I won't got into details yet, even with spoilers.  Still, it's a reasonably good entry in the spiderman ledger of films.

[eldaec]

I'll be waiting till it shows up on tv.

Apart from not being very inspired by the trailers, there is such a thing as too many comic book films.

Also interested to know what people who've actually seen it think though.

[Merusk]

Doesn't come out in the US until this Friday

Apart from not being very inspired by the trailers, there is such a thing as too many comic book films.

This.  We didn't bother with Thor 2 or Captain America 2 and won't bother with this in the theater.  When it's on streaming I'll see it.  I'm tired of Comics movies.

[jgsugden]

I think the beauty of modern comic action movies are that they are not all so similar that we need to treat them like one fills the void of the other.  Cap II and Thor II are very different action films...  I would not brush them aside unless you just don't like action movies.

[Merusk]

You're the resident comic fanboy so your word is suspect in the first place. However, the problem is we're tired of costumed super people dealing with costumed super people problems. Guess what, they fit that bill.

If there had been as many giant monster and evil fairy witch movies in the last 14 years as costumed men, I'd be saying the same thing about them.  That's not the case so we'll be going to see Godzilla and Maleficent instead of Marvel property movie #24.

[Nevermore]

I didn't like Cap 1 but I got talked into seeing Cap 2 and ended up really liking it.  I won't touch Spider-Man 2 with a 10 foot pole, though.

[Evildrider]

If I go to see a superhero movie nowadays, depends on who is making them.  At this point I at least know I haven't been disappointed with the MCU.  The DC stuff and the other Marvel movies are basically wait to watch at home.  I didn't like the last Spider-Man too much and this one hasn't given me a reason to see this sequel.  No matter how much I want to do naughty things to Emma Stone.

[Hoax]

Yeah I can def understand comic book movie fatigue. My for sure big summer movies in theater are Gaurdians, Edge of Tomorrow and Godzilla.

[Margalis]

I think the beauty of modern comic action movies are that they are not all so similar that we need to treat them like one fills the void of the other. 

They are all pretty much the same movie, especially tonally. They all have the Joss Whedon style of drama, by which I mean a patina of drama that isn't actually dramatic or interesting.

I look forward to the movies that are straight up comedies. I would look forward to movies that are about real human drama, but I doubt we'll get any of those.

The Marvel movies are pretty good for what they are, but what they are exists in a pretty narrow range. They are all light adventure romps with quips and comedic elements and no real stakes. I liked Thor 2 well enough but it's not like I give a shit that his mother dies or care about the Thor / Jane relationship, I like it because a hammer flies for 10,000 miles then Thor catches it and slams it into a dude's face.

Stylistically these movies could diverge a lot more than they do. A lot of the tonal similarity is that they all look pretty similar, with some parts of Captain America 1 being the only exception I can think of. Even just a more diverse color palette across movies would help a lot.

[Cyrrex]

Well, it is hard to get into the Thor/Jane relationship when Sif is like RIGHT THERE.  I love me some Natalie Portman, but god damn.  And then the nerdy scientist girl played by what's-her-face.  There simply isn't enough boner to go around.

The Marvel stuff is all generally really good, as far as I am concerned.  But we are probably getting spoiled with way too much of it.

[SurfD]

Yeah I can def understand comic book movie fatigue. My for sure big summer movies in theater are Gaurdians, Edge of Tomorrow and Godzilla.

I am a bit iffy on Edge.   Having read the first 8 or so chapters of the scanlated manga / graphic novel that was made based on the book, I just really cant picture the movie as a Tom Cruise vehicle.  The main character really should have been someone much younger and less well known.   It still has potential to be good, but I really get the feeling that the movie is essentially only takeing the bare bones premise of the Book / Manga and doing its own story with it.

[jgsugden]

You're the resident comic fanboy ...

What?  I like the movies, and read comics as a kid, but have limited comic reading since 1991 or so...

...so your word is suspect in the first place. However, the problem is we're tired of costumed super people dealing with costumed super people problems. Guess what, they fit that bill.

If there had been as many giant monster and evil fairy witch movies in the last 14 years as costumed men, I'd be saying the same thing about them.  That's not the case so we'll be going to see Godzilla and Maleficent instead of Marvel property movie #24.

There is only so much variation in Big Monster movies... but there is far more variation in comic hero movies. If you're going to tell me Dark Knight was as similar to Captain America I or Spider-Man I as any two giant monster movies, I'll have to laugh.

[Lakov_Sanite]

Whole lot of variation too.  One guy dresses like  bat, one guy dresses like a spider and another dresses like a flag.   

[Ghambit]

Just got out.  Bulletpoints:

• Better than the 1st ASM overall.
• I actually liked it better than Cap 2, which I thought was the 2nd best Marvel movie after Avengers.
• This is the best "filmed" of the supers movies.  Concurrently, the Hans Zimmer score (with some Pharell in there) was amazing in its own right.
• The casting is only second to Avengers.  Stone, Garfield, Foxx, Field, Giamatti (kind of a joke casting but still), and the new guy DeHaan.  They killed it (in a good way).  Stone especially, she continues to impress me and will likely raise her celebrity after this performance, easily.  I wasnt really a huge fan of hers before, but now?  Yah, sign me up.
• Better 3D and sound effects then the 1st one (moreso a made for 3D movie).  Actually, the sound overall (as said) was very creatively executed and a very important part of the film.
• No matter what anyone says, ASM1/2 are way better than MacGuire's Spidey.  In a vacuum ASM2 would do better at the box office than the prior spideys in the long haul.

Qualifier:  I saw it in a brand new RPX theatre.  Soooo, that helps.  Also, I do agree about comic burnout.  Had this movie came out before Cap2 I'd say it'd do very very well, but as good as I thought it was it's still a bit of the same ol' same ol'.  Kinda funny how that works.

Anyways, great movie to see especially with the kids, even though it is by far the most heavy-hearted Marvel movie of them all.  They dont pull a lot of punches in this one, similar to the 1st but amped up even more.
I'm sure most of you will hate it, but whatevs.  I liked it much like I liked the 1st ASM - dunno what it is....  just a personal thing I guess.  They just resonate with me more.

[Cyrrex]

I liked it for many of the same reasons you listed.  I should also add that the list of movies I dislike in which Emma Stone has a part is totally empty.  It's strange, because she isn't super good looking in the traditional sense, but she has a stupid amount of charisma.  I also agree that this version of Spiderman is better than the Toby version.

Now that it has had it's release, I will spoiler the things the bugged me:


The effects in the movie were top notch. 

[Velorath]

I disagree with just about everything you guys said.

Edit: To elaborate since I'm home now and not just posting on a phone:

- The stuff about Peter's parents in this movie and the last one is just unnecessary. It needlessly complicates his origin and I feel like even appearing only in flashbacks and video footage, his dad got more screen time than Aunt May which seems odd.
- Speaking of Aunt May not getting much screen time, this movie wastes most of the fairly talented cast such as the aforementioned Sally Field, Felicity Jones, and Paul Giamatti who is given very little to work with. Dane DeHaan does a good Harry Osborn, but good God is his Green Goblin horrible.
- And on the subject of characters that start off interesting before going insane and turning into villains, that brings us to Electro. Jamie Foxx is mildly amusing as Max Dillon, but after he goes bad he stops being an actual character anymore.
- Also there's a moment when the switch in his head finally flips to villain and his inner monologue in that scene becomes part of the background music because Marc Webb just can't keep his music video directing career separate and it comes off really fucking cheesy. It was cute when he did that sequence with the Hall & Oates song in (500) Days of Summer but he doesn't need to integrate a music video into every movie he directs.
- Some of the CG in the movie is even worse than what was shown in the trailers. The last fight between Spider-man and Electro has a number of horribly fake looking parts to it.
- Peter is unreasonably a dick when it comes to helping out Harry.

Garfield is ok, and Stone is good, and their relationship is generally well done although I would think that most women would get a bit creeped out when their on again, off again boyfriend admits to frequently stalking them. Raimi's Spider-man movies struggled with the ralationship stuff so in that respect the ASM movies are better. As a whole though, I still think Raimi's Spider-man 2 was the best out of any of the Spider-man movies, and if I could edit his first Spider-man down by 20 minutes or so for pacing, and in particular delete Peter's monologue to MJ about what he "told Spider-man about her", it would be far and away better than both ASM's also. As it is I'd still rather watch it than either ASM movie.

So overall if this was a romantic movie staring Garfield and Stone it might have been pretty good. As a Spider-man movie, it's a bit crap.

[jgsugden]

I'm with Velorath here.  I just got out of seeing the full thing and was very disappointed.  I'd already seen about 20 minutes of the second act... and ugh.

I thought all of the villains were eye-rollingly annoying.  They didn't use the comic book stories to inform the work - they tried to taunft the audience with them.  They west Fields and make bad use of her... they make her into a student nurse that is running the ER, apparently?  What?

Electro was a marginally acceptable representation of the villain visually, but the character was awful.  There was nothing redeeming about the implementation of the Green Goblin or the Rhino. 

If I were to rank the 5 SM movies of the recent past, they'd all be on a downward decline with the exception of SM III, which is still the worst of the 5 movies.  The only thing they have very, very right in this version is the Spider-man persona and dialogue - but it is diminished by the horrible and inconsistent motivations and direction. 

And that confusing 30 seconds of the next X-men movie with no explanation is just misleading and rude. 

[SurfD]

Yeah, that whole X-Men teaser scene thrown in the middle of the credits made me do a big WTF double take.  I mean, how much do you think that Fox payed Sony for the rights to stick that in there?   Hell, we didnt even get any kind of teaser bit for ASM 3 like we did at the end of ASM 1, instead we get a random 1 minute X-men snippet.  How the hell does that even make sense.....

[Velorath]

Yeah, that whole X-Men teaser scene thrown in the middle of the credits made me do a big WTF double take.  I mean, how much do you think that Fox payed Sony for the rights to stick that in there?   Hell, we didnt even get any kind of teaser bit for ASM 3 like we did at the end of ASM 1, instead we get a random 1 minute X-men snippet.  How the hell does that even make sense.....

Fox didn't pay Sony. It was part of a deal for free advertising put together when Sony hired Marc Webb who was under contract for Fox at the time.