Every other site that reports weekend box office numbers is selling the opening of ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’ short. Most of today’s box office headlines read something like, “Spider-Man Reboot Opens Very Well, But Not as Strongly as Predecessors.” No duh. I don’t think anyone expected this reboot of a ten-year-old trilogy to make as much as the Raimi flicks. Despite being a reboot with new faces, a new story and new tone, ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’ has done amazingly well over the last six days.
If you’re going to compare ‘The Amazing Spider-Man‘ to anything, compare it to other franchise reboots. Over the last six days, ‘Spider-Man’ has brought in $140 million. That’s $75 million from weekdays Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and $65 million from Friday, Saturday and Sunday. Box Office Mojo compares ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’ to ‘Batman Begins‘ and ‘X-Men: First Class‘. Neither of those movies’ six-day totals came anywhere close to the $140 million that ‘Spider-Man’ just made. ‘Batman Begins’ brought in $79.5 million in its first six days, while ‘First Class’ brought in $69.9 million. Both of those films were very successful, so imagine where ‘Spider-Man’ will land. The only downside is that Spidey has only another 12 days before ‘The Dark Knight Rises’ swoops in and steals its thunder.
Seth MacFarlane’s ‘Ted‘ also performed well in its second weekend, winning the #2 spot and dropping only 40% in attendance with $32.5 million. In its third weekend, Pixar’s ‘Brave‘ also fared well, sliding into third place with $20.1 million, which brings it to a collective $174.5 million domestic total. Box Office Mojo points out that even if ‘Brave’ loses its steam when ‘Ice Age 4’ opens this coming weekend, it’s still on track to cross the $200 million milestone.
The two big surprises this weekend are the flip-flop openings of Oliver Stone’s ‘Savages‘ and the 3D concert documentary ‘Katy Perry: Part of Me‘. Thursday opener ‘Part of Me’ was predicted to have a $13.5 million, fourth-place weekend; however, it only pulled in $7.1 million, enough to land its debut in the #8 spot. Its predicted four-day total is now off by $9 million. The bright side for Paramount is that ‘Part of Me’ was made on a small $12 million budget that shouldn’t be hard to recoup when all is said and done.
‘Savages’ was expected to open outside the Top 5 with $11.1 million, but actually finished in the fourth-place slot where ‘Part of Me’ was expected. Its $16.1 million marks the third-highest opening for an Oliver Stone movie behind the $19 million debut for ‘Wall Street 2‘ and the $18.7 million for ‘World Trade Center‘.
Rounding out the Top 5 was last week’s #2 title, ‘Magic Mike‘. Even with its 60% decline, Steven Soderbergh’s male stripper drama managed to earn $15.6 million. Its 10-day total is now at $72.7 million.
As of now, there are no weekend estimates listed for the the Duplass brothers’ independent opener ‘The Do-Deca-Pentathlon‘. We’ll have to wait until the actuals are announced this afternoon to see how it performed.
Top 10:
1. ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’ (Sony) – $65,000,000
2. ‘Ted’ (Universal) – $32,593,000
3. ‘Brave’ (Buena Vista) – $20,162,000
4. ‘Savages’ (Universal) – $16,162,000
5. ‘Magic Mike’ (Warner Bros.) – $15,610,000
6. ‘Tyler Perry’s Madea’s Witness Protection’ (Lionsgate) – $10,200,000
7. ‘Madagascar 3: Europe’s Most Wanted’ (Paramount/DreamWorks) – $7,700,000
8. ‘Katy Perry: Part of Me’ (Paramount) – $7,150,000
9. ‘Moonrise Kingdom’ (Focus) – $4,642,000
10. ‘To Rome With Love’ (Sony Pictures Classics) – $3,502,000
Drew
You’re dead wrong, Luke. It should be compared to the other ‘Spider-Man’ films. 140 million in 6 days, with the benefit of much higher ticket prices, IMAX, and 3D premiums is not a very good opening at all. If this new film couldn’t match the attendance of the prior films, the major advantages that it held, should have allowed it to match the revenue of the previous installments, at the very least. As a matter of fact, this opening is very revealing. It’s proof positive that they shouldn’t have rebooted so soon.
Josh Zyber
The only reason the movie exists at all is that Sony had to produce a new Spider-Man entry this year in order to extend its license with Marvel, or else the rights to the franchise would revert to Marvel. From that perspective, the fact that it has already pulled in over $340 million worldwide is a major success. The movie will easily turn a profit shortly. As far as the studio is concerned, any money it makes at all over the break-even point is pure gravy.
Julian
$14 million would have been “not a very good opening at all”. $140 million is a major success, compared to past films or not.
William Henley
I saw Ted with my free movie ticket from Amazon. It was one of the larger auditoriums at that theater (although not the largest, that was showing Spiderman), and the show was sold out.
If I can remember, I got a Twitvid to share with you guys. One of the local radio personalities took her daughter to see Katy Perry, and her young daughter came back from the show singing a song from it. I am going to see if I can find it – Facebook and Twitvid are blocked at work, so I will see if I can find it on my phone and post the link. I am sure that its going to mean that my comment will have to be approved.
William Henley
http://www.telly.com/RNYU4?fromtwitvid=1
So its telly not twitvid. Note for parents – don’t take young kids to see katy perry
Ben
The Amazing Spider-Man is going to sell less tickets than Batman Begins and Superman Returns when it’s all said and done, considering the 5-6 years of inflation and 3D. That’s a bit disconcerting. The 6 day openins of Batman Begins and First Class don’t compare because it wasn’t the 4th of July week for one, and neither of these films had 3D to bolster grosses. Also, Spider-Man is one of the most successful film franchises in terms of grosses per film of all time…it should be doing better than Batman Begins and First Class in raw gross. The key difference that is saving TASM obviously is the 500-600 million dollars overseas Spider-Man will bring in.
Sure this movie will be profitable, but Sony and co. need to really knock it out of the park with the next one because TASM is proving to be a success based off brand name and brute force marketing rather than for being a quality film. The numbers are good in Asia, but they aren’t spectacular anywhere else.
TASM isn’t doing much more than 275m here in the US.
William Henley
The Amazing Spider-Man is going to sell less tickets than Batman Begins and Superman Returns when it’s all said and done, considering the 5-6 years of inflation and 3D
Just wondering, what do you consider a fair adjustment for inflation over the past 5-6 years to be? Ticekt prices here are exactly the same that they were 5 years ago.
Drew
You’re exactly right, Josh. The only reason why this film was made was to keep licensing rights. This is –hopefully –one of the major reasons it’s underperforming like it is. Perhaps American film going audiences are smarter than we give them credit for.
The bottom line is, love it or hate it, this film didn’t need to be made, and probably never should have been. Sony needs to come to terms with Marvel Studios, and let them use Spider-Man in the Marvel universe they have created which culminated with ‘The Avengers’. Disney and Marvel will use Spider-Man properly, and tie the character into the next ‘Avengers’ film. They will also give the character it’s proper due with stronger ‘Spider-Man’ movies — without rebooting once every ten years.
Drew
There’s no way that ticket prices haven’t risen in 5 years in any geographic location in the United States. It might seem like they are the same price, but they are certainly at least a dollar or two more. You probably don’t notice, because they sneak the raises, and creep them up a quarter at a time.
Ben is right on the money. ‘Batman Begins’ made a little over 200 million, with no IMAX, no 3D, and regular ticket prices about 20-25% lower. ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’ is projected to make between 260 and 280 million with those advantages. There’s no way it will sell as many tickets as ‘Batman Begins’, or have the kind of legs that ‘BB’ did.
William Henley
I wasn’t arguing that Spiderman was going to make more than Batman, I was asking how do you judge inflation. 5 years ago, I paid $8.50 for a movie, or $4.50 for a matinee. Nowdays, I pay $9 for a movie or $5 for a matinee. 50 cents is not the same as 20%-25%.
However, if you are going to factor in 3D and Imax, okay, that is another thing. $15 for the 3D Imax upgrade versus $9 for a regular movie (or $10 versus $5 for the matinee) is a completely different situation. That is not a product of inflation.
My point was, adjusting for inflation is not going to make that big of a differentce – at least not in the range that you are refering to. Adjusting for big screen and 3D DOES make a difference, and in that case, yeah, Spiderman won’t hold a candle to Batman.
Ben
Each year, the MPAA or some other company will estimate the average ticket price for the year. According to Box Office Mojo, it was 6.41 in 2005. This year, it’s approximately 7.92. Of course, part of that includes 3D and IMAX, but some movies obviously don’t have that so it’s theoretically supposed to even out. By no means is it a perfect estimator though.
Also, Batman Begins did have limited engagements in IMAX, but I would assume effect was fairly minimal.
Josh Zyber
Batman Begins did play in IMAX theaters with the associated IMAX upcharge. The movie didn’t have any footage that was natively shot in IMAX like The Dark Knight did, but the film was given a DMR upconversion. I saw it in an IMAX theater.
I’m not refuting the rest of your argument, just pointing out that IMAX prices did contribute to Batman Begins’ grosses.
William Henley
I was thinking that I saw BB at the Imax, but it has been so long, I couldn’t remember. However, 5-6 years ago, those were Imax FILM theaters, not the digital Imax they have now, there were not nearly as many as there is now, and I think they are also now counting XD and Xtream screens in the ticket prices. 5-6 years ago, I seem to remember movies only taking in about half a million to a million in Imax sales. I am sure that number is much higher now. Does anyone have any actual numbers on that?
Anyways, once again, I am not arguing the fact that inflation hasn’t occured, and I am not arguing that Spiderman will make more than Batman. I am saying that adjusting for inflation may not be as dramatic as you guys are pointing out.
Now, if those numbers you mentioned does include 3D and Imax upcharges, then you do have something you can work with to compare with, but those numbers will be approximations, not accurate. I mean, the little theater out in the boonies that has the same ticket price now as they did 5 years ago isn’t going to have the theater attendance as the megaplex in big metropolitan area that has raised their prices from $6.50 to $10 a show. As such, its really going to be hard to judge accurate numbers on this.
In any case, its not that important (to me). I think that the inflation numbers may be a LITTLE inflated (no pun intended)…
I am sorry, I just lost my complete train of thought. I was going somewhere, but then stuff started happening here at work, and actually had to start working. Maybe I will finish this thought later.
Drew
If ticket prices really only have risen by .50 cents where you live — which I highly doubt, because the nationwide average over the last 5 years is 20-25% — than you are incredibly lucky. I wish they had only risen by that much where I live! We’ve had them increase by $2.50 for matinee, and $3.00 for night shows.
Drew
Matinee screenings are $6.75 for me. Matinee 3D – $8.75. Night shows are $10.25. Nighttime 3D $12.50. Matinee IMAX – $9.50. Matinee IMAX 3D $13.00. Standard IMAX – $13.75. IMAX 3D – $16.50.
William Henley
Matinee – $5. 3d Matinee – $8. Night shows – $9, Nighttime 3D, $12, Matinee Xtream 3d – $10, Nighttime Xtream 3D $15.
I think the Imax (real Imax) is still $12 and $15 for night showings (2D versus 3D), but the closest is 40 miles from me.
Drew
Ben, those figures don’t factor in 3D or IMAX. The inflation for 3D and IMAX ticket prices are tracked separately.
Ben
Didn’t know that, good to know though.
Drew
IMAX grosses were negligible for ‘Batman Begins’. Jane can probably find the exact figure, but I believe I remember reading that IMAX accounted for less than 5 million of it’s overall domestic gross.
JM
If you’re going to compare ‘The Amazing Spider-Man‘ to anything, use the worldwide box office of the superhero genre.
$1450M – The Avengers
$1002M – The Dark Knight
$890M – Spider-Man 3
$821M – Spider-Man 1
$783M – Spider-Man 2
$623M – Iron Man 2
$585M – Iron Man 1
$460M – X-Men 3
$449M – Thor
$411M – Batman
$407M – X-Men 2
$391M – Superman Returns
$373M – Wolverine
$372M – Batman Begins
$368M – Captain America
$353M – X-Men First Class
$341M – Amazing Spider-Man
$336M – Batman Forever
$330M – Fantastic Four
$300M – Superman
$296M – X-Men 1
$263M – Incredible Hulk
$219M – Green Lantern
‘The Dark Knight Rises’ is forecasted to open at $186M.
Ben
Well since the original blog post was purely domestic numbers, I went with that.
But worldwide, yes, Spider-Man has always been one of the most popular superheroes, especially because it made bank in Asian territories. I think TASM will finish at #5 (assuming TDKR sails past a billion with ease). That puts it ahead of Spider-Man 1, but behind Spider-Man 3. Profitable, but with a 230 million budget and 200 million spent on Marketing (not all paid by Sony though), this is really going to keep their cash cow going, rather than provide huge sums of cash.
Overseas, it’s not doing so great in Europe, perhaps due to Ice Age 4 really making a dent in sales, or perhaps they’re not interested in Spider-Man as much anymore. Can’t really tell. It’s doing well in Asia, which isn’t too surprising since those markets aside from Japan have exploded in growth since 2007. They also seem to really like 3D as well, compared to the U.S. so that helps as well.
TASM2 has a more favorable date right now in early May 2014, but if a downward slope continues, Columbia will be in a tough situation
JM
If ‘Amazing’ underperforms, 2 & 3 will simply have their budgets reduced.
And worldwide box office only represents 40% of a film’s total gross.
Ben
Sony’s ability to keep budgets down lately hasn’t been great, first with MIB3, now this, followed by Total Recall. And it’s not just a matter of budget issues either, but diluting the power of the franchise, which is the key pillar of their studio.
JM
I like how ‘Amazing 2’ has a release date in 22 months with no director and no script.
That’s so money.
Drew
The final numbers came in even lower than the estimates. It only made 137 mil over the 6 day holiday period.
Drew
Yes, let’s throw together a vital franchise tentpole in about 18 months, from scratch, no script, no director, just a character to base it off and 3 cast members signed on.
It goes hand in hand with what Ben is saying about diluting the franchises. ‘The Amazing Spider-Man’ already watered down the franchise by making the exact same movie we saw 10 years ago. Now let’s dilute it even further by scraping together a director, screen-writers, and everything else that goes into making a film of this ilk in about a year and a half. Sony is really struggling these days!
William Henley
You know, though, despite inflation, and the addition of IMAX and 3D showings, I am willing to bet that Hollywood won’t look at it that way. Hollywood is an industry, and a successful business model (depsite the fact that the quality has gone down in the last few years). Studio execs are going to look at the cost versus what it makes. Apparently they are counting on making a nice profit if sequels are already planned.
Inflation schemlation, they will say. They are making money, their bottom line looks good, investors are happy, why change a working format? Even if they COULD make better movies, why bother? The money is rolling in, studio execs are driving their solid-gold Ferraris and swimming in their diamond-studded swimming pools, and people are crowding into theaters regardless of how crappy stuff is that they are putting out (Not saying if this is crap or not – haven’t seen it yet). Let the lawyers worry about piracy, let the public relations department worry about crap movies, let marketing worry about how its marketed, the people at the top still have more money than they know what to do with. Why change?
Drew
Julian, you’re wrong. 137 million in 6 days is not a “major success”, in any measure, for a film such as this. ‘The Avengers’ made that much in less than 2 days. If it would have made that much in a weekend, it would have still fell short of what ‘Spider-Man 3’ did. Speaking of that, it only made 62 million in it’s traditional opening weekend, which is not much more than ‘Snow White and the Huntsman’ did.
William Henley
I think you are failing to see what a “major success” actually is. The film had a budget of $230 million – and I am sure Jane can tell us how much they spent on marketing. According to IMDB, The Amazing Spiderman has already made $215 million, and Wikipedia is reporting that, worldwide, it has already made $341.6 million. To make back its budget, and a $110 million dollar profit, in a week sounds like a success story to me.
Then you have merchandising, probably another month or two of theater runs, and home video releases still to come in the future. While it may not reach the box office numbers of other super-hero movies, I fail to see how this movie is not a success.
Julian
Indeed. It may not be the biggest hit of all time, but it’s still a success.
Drew
It hasn’t already made 215 million. If IMDB really is stating that, it would be a major error. It made 137 mil domestically, and 129 mil worldwide over it’s first 6 days. That’s 266 mil, which pales in comparison to other comparable films. It’s a success, but certainly not the type of success possible or expected for a film like this. If you factor in marketing expenses, the cost of this film is between 450 and 500 million. I doubt it will go much higher than that worldwide. It will probably top out around 700 million. Again, it’s a success, just not the kind of success expected with a film of this pedigree.
Josh Zyber
According to Box Office Mojo, the numbers are:
Domestic: $137,022,258 40.5%
+ Foreign: $201,600,000 59.5%
= Worldwide: $338,622,258
Drew
Yep, I saw that after I commented. I was overzealous, and looked at the worldwide headline, rather than the actual figures.
William Henley
BTW, thanks for the great discussion over the past couple of days. It’s kept me sane in all the craziness at work the past couple of days.
JM
Since ‘Spider-Man’ is a solid brand, it’s possible Sony got 70% of week 1 worldwide grosses and already broke even.
Most of the marketing was cross-promotion, paid by other companies.
And they likely sold all the TV rights in advance.
Best guess, ‘Amazing’ is $100M in the black.
Sony will collect another $200M from theater owners in the next 6 weeks, and probably $400M in home video profit.
It’s a middling success.
But in this economy, ‘Amazing’ turned out to be a 27% mutual fund.
William Henley
Great explanation. Thanks.
Drew
Thank you, Jane. That was the perfect and most eloquent way of saying what I have been trying to for two days.
A 27% mutual fund is not a major success, by any stretch.
William Henley
I’ll accept that. It’s still a return on investment, just not as considerable as the studio may have hoped.
Drew
I feel the same way, William. Thank you, as well.
JM
In comparison, ‘Spider-Man 1’ was a 69% mutual fund.
JM
27% mutual fund = a film investor doubles their $$$ in 3 years.
Obviously ‘Spider-Man’ was the lead of a slate of 15 films.
The rest of Sony’s 2012 portfolio is mostly junk.
The total package will probably end up at 9%.
(Instead of the usual 15% return on investment for a Hollywood slate.)
This is why studio executives hated the film when they saw it.
Marc Webb fucked the golden goose.
Julian
It’s still funny that a guy called “Webb” has made a Spider-Man film. What’s next? Wayne Knight making “Bruce Wayne: Dark Knight”? Clark Gregg rebooting “Smallville”?
EM
I suppose he could now be called “Webb of Spider-Man”, which is homophonous with the title of two different Spider-Man series published over the years.