The Amazing Spider-Man 2

In this case, I don't think they're wrong. Amazing 2 not only did worst than the first movie, but actually lost Sony money. I can't see them pushing forward with the franchise as is if the audience is rejecting it.

How did it lose them money? It made 700 million on a budget of 230 million. While that's not a runaway success compared to the other films I don't understand how it could possibly lose them money unless the marketing budget was 300 to 400 million.

It didn't beat Days of Future Past or Godzilla. Therefore, it lost. Somehow.

Audience reactions?

The official word from Sony right now is that while it didn't make as much as they would've liked, it still made money. Sinister Six is confirmed for November 2016 while Spider-Man 3 is pushed back to 2018.

Going by the stats on Box Office Mojo, it did do better than Godzilla (domestically by a little, worldwide by a lot). But $202 million domestic on a budget of $230 million isn't very good, and could conceivably make the studio take a loss depending on what deals they made with their international distributors.

I'm guessing it's to stretch out the contract. since they have a certain amount of time in which to release a film before they lose it back to marvel. seems like they are buying time to decide what they want to do next.

I say this as a guy who doesn't care if Marvel gets the rights back.

They're probably also buying time to see what is going to be out that year. I've seen people argue that releasing it the same month as X-Men really hurt Spidey's potential repeat viewing audience and the next few years are likely gonna be filled to the brim with superhero movies that could undercut Spidey 3.

It's probably why Sinister Six is in November. Sony doesn't wanna compete with Batman vs. Superman, X-Men: Apocalypse, or the third Captain America movie.

It had around a 200 million production budget plus a 180-190 million marketing budget. If you go by the "a movie needs to gross twice it's budget" rule of thumb it's still like 60 million short of actually breaking even.

edited 24th Jul '14 10:38:21 AM by Lionheart0

Sony was also hoping that the movie would gross a billion dollars. So even if it did break even(and as the post above illustrates, just because things might look good doesn't mean they are), it's still a disappointment.

It's also scary from a studio standpoint to see diminishing returns, putting more money into a movie and grossing less. So while it makes money, you worry if the next installment continues the decline.

Budgets for these big blockbusters are also continuing to rise as different aspects of the industry are charging more, while it isn't matching the box office ticket prices.

That rule of thumb is "a movie has to gross twice its /production/ budget to break even". Yes, that ignores the marketing budget, but the marketing budget is so riddled with hollywood accounting that you kind of have to ignore it. Its composed of a lot less "real" costs, and a lot more "I'm claiming contractual trades of IP usage rights as a cost".

Even so, TASM 2 was definitely a disappointment. Even if it didn't lose money, it made them a lot less than they intended.

( *checks* Huh. According to wikipedia, TASM 2 actually only cost 200M to make, less than the 230M the first movie cost. I'm not sure I believe that. . . )

Sony will be doing a female spin-off.

Black Cat? That could be an interesting movie I guess.

Black Cat's the only one that makes sense. We saw Felicia in Amazing Spider-Man 2.

edited 4th Aug '14 11:33:11 AM by VeryMelon

If they're seriously making a Black Cat movie, I will forgive them a few of the missteps from Amazing 2.

Here's hoping it ends up being better than Catwoman. I hate it when interesting characters get really shitty movies.

edited 4th Aug '14 11:32:23 AM by KnownUnknown

So the Amazing Universe is going to get a female lead before Marvel and DC? That's kind of embarrassing.

Especially considering this announcement has come out shortly after it's become apparent MARVEL has killed off The Wasp before her first appearance.

It's also funny because just this morning I read yet ANOTHER article bemoaning the lack of racial and gender diversity among Marvel's heroes. I loved Guardians but if they were able to make people see a movie about Groot and his buddies, there's really no excuse about obscurity left to explain why they aren't making more diverse movies.

Marvel needs to do more than have non-white and/or female characters in their movies, they need to start pushing headliners as well. DC too, but I'd settle for them actually doing a good job setting a universe first.

Does anyone think that this female-led movie be the "big roles" Katee Sackhoff's been tweeting about? Her "hints" so far have been:

- "I'm wearing red leather to my meeting with Stan Lee today...sorta just seemed appropriate"

- A photo of her with green goop all over her face

- A photo of something red

- A photo of her with a black lacy veil

- The statement that this isn't a Marvel Studios project

https://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/notyetamovie/news/?a=105092

http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/notyetamovie/news/?a=105191

If it's related to Stan Lee, and it's not with Marvel, it has to be with either Sony or Fox. Sony announcing a female-led movie seems to fit with that.

Do the "hints" ring any bells with anyone here?

edited 4th Aug '14 5:17:53 PM by WarriorEowyn

Skrull Spider-Woman?

So Sackoff wasn't teasing a Captain marvel appearance after all? Fine by me.

It's not Captain Marvel if the veil is any indication. The "I've been meeting with Stan Lee" thing sounds like it's wholly independent of the costume fitting. You don't go in for a meeting and then get cast and go in for a costume fitting the very next day.

edited 4th Aug '14 5:09:13 PM by comicwriter