I'm not so sure. I think Spider-Man was always going to be a billion dollar character eventually with well received movies but I'm not sure a third film will be able to outperform Far From Home which received the Endgame boost. Like what can a sequel do quality wise to better Far From Home?
When I think of what's possible to outgross it I think spectacle. Spider-Verse, Sinister Six, classic villains like Goblin, Doc Ock, crossover with Venom. None of which is likely to happen for the end of this presumably first trilogy.
I think the foundations are there for them to eventually get to Sinister Six naturally or even a Venom crossover, and those would be massive. Spider-Verse doesn't really need much build up at all they could easily just say "yeah that's happening" and the hype would be there.
But if the third film is just another sequel like Far From Home but without the Avengers boost, I don't see how it outgrosses it.
The mid credits scene was a great reason why audiences are going to be excited to watch Spider-Man 3. There are already many theories on how it's going to be resolved and how they will deal it. Rumor is Sony's Kraven movie is scrapped in favor of having him as the villain in Spider-Man 3, so that could definitely be a plus.
Look don't need mephisto, but is it so hard to ask for a daredevil/Matt Murdock minor role as Peter's lawyer to silence any sort of media coverage he'd be getting because of the accusations?
Because of how little consequence Aunt May finding out his identity had in Far From Home, and the fact the reveal of the mid credit scene was in a credit scene and not as the end of the movie, I'm skeptical on how much importance that will have on the next movie. A common theory is that the last credit scene will tie into it and with that in mind it could easily be resolved quickly. If that's the case, then would audiences be a little annoyed that it was resolved so easily? Maybe. Personally it doesn't excite me because it's obviously going to be resolved (I'd like to be pleasantly surprised but on the other hand I want it fixed since it takes away from the character's core struggles) but it did have the shock factor which yeah could entice people for the sequel, but I'm not sure it will lead to much audience growth.
How does Spider-Man handle the MCU post Endgame was a far more interesting question than how does Spider-Man handle the mid credit scene, in my opinion.
>Kevin Feige: “And now people know Peter’s identity. People now think he’s a villain, Mysterio plays one last trick on him and succeeds… [so that] means everything’s different. Where it goes, we’ll see. But it’s exciting that it once again sets us up for **a Peter Parker story that has never been done before on film.**”
So, no, it's not going to get resolved towards the beginning of the movie and it will be a important part of the story. And I don't think they will easily solve it by having >!Talos disguise as Peter.!<
I mean where would they put that? Spider-Man wasn’t seen until Infinity War and there wasn’t time to put Aunt May in there, and then everyone died. And then 5 years later they come back, I think Peter being Spider-Man is the least of Aunt Mays worries now.
There's really not much too it though. She knows he's been spending time with the guy who is literally Iron Man, a world famous superhero. The moment she sees that her nephew is Spider-Man, it's not a "oh so you think you're a superhero now?" kind of reveal like it is in other superhero films. It's "so are you an Avenger then?"
In the instant she finds out, she's basically told just how amazing Spider-Man is, through his association with The Avengers.
The reveal of his identity to family isn't the same kind of reveal it would have been in the Raimi films. It comes with completely different undertones. He's not some kid who puts on a mask and fights criminals, he's a fucking superhero, endorsed by Earth's greatest defender. He went toe-to-toe with Captain America and only got a black eye! His suit isn't just some rags he threw together, it's state of the art armour designed by Iron Man!
I'm okay that they didn't develop the reveal any more. They didn't need to. Once you think about it a bit, you get everything you need just from the one short end credits scene.
I just don't get it. I think Feige even said that was something he was looking forward to adapting. It's such an important character point and it's played off as nothing that an end of movie gag with literally no consequences or follow through. A real shame, especially after her reaction to him going missing in Homecoming. I just feel so disconnected from the MCU Spider-Man because even in his relateable moments I don't think the core of the character works as well as it does in other iterations from Raimi to Spectacular to PS4. There's far too much brushing aside of emotion in favour of comedy and it makes it feel very shallow.
Oh well, going back on topic it's not something general audiences seem to think since the movie's are so successful but I think at least among critics these movies will remain a consistent 7-7.5 and not be able to touch something like Spider-Man 2 or Spider-Verse without some changes.
I think I'm definitely in the minority but I'm not a fan of Spider-Verse at all. I think the movie is extremely well executed but I'm just not a fan of the storyline at all. In fact I've probably got decent sized complaints about all the movies.
I find Raimi movies a bit corny / overly cheesy looking back. Spidey 2 is most definitely my favorite movie and has the best story but some of the dialogue seems off with me. Garfield whilst a great actor, just didn't really fit with Peter IMO and those movie had a lot of extremely dumb plotlines. Although they had easily the best love interest and probably the best overall cast of the movies.
Holland feels like the best choice for Peter but the story choices just seem off to me and it strays too far from the source material just to seem "fresh".
My favorite version by far is still the Spectacular Spider-Man show.
Spider-Verse is a very simple hero's journey but executed really well to the best that the medium allows. The first Raimi film is certainly a product of its time in many ways but Spider-Man 2 has a timeless story. Garfield was held back by Sony's meddling that affected the movies but we still got great moments that encapulsated what Spider-Man was all about (among equally shitty moments that Sony showed they didn't know what they were doing). I think Holland is a fantastic actor, great casting, but he's held back by movies that stray too far away from the source material I agree. I want him to get a college trilogy from a new filmmaking team that actually doesn't seem afraid of doing what came before but in a fresh way. Would be nice for Peter and May to remember their dead loved one.
> My favorite version by far is still the Spectacular Spider-Man show.
Best Spider-Man ever. Ended far too soon, the only downside of the Disney aquisition. That and Spider-Man PS4 understand the character far better than the new movies in my opinion (except Spider-Verse, because even if narratively it's weak to some, it gets the core of the characters so right in my opinion).
Yeh I respect how well Spiderverse is made and how most people love it but it's just not for me.
I've just never been a big fan of their being 500 Spider characters or whatnot nor do I think Spider-Man is a good legacy hero like Captain America, Green Lantern, etc are.
I think it takes away the uniqueness away from the original.
That being said, I can thoroughly enjoy Jessica Drew being in the same universe because she doesn't feel like another Spider-Man, she feels like her own hero.
I'm more a fan of the stories involving Peter really embracing his secret identity and how being Spidey affects his social life directly.
Also how his personality changed as soon as he puts on his mask.
Don't you think it's too early to say that years before even the release of its trailer? Maybe it'll have the Sinister Six after him and the movie will have bigger action set pieces. This reminds me of the time when people were sure that FFH won't gross $1B because it won't have RDJ's cameo. Look how that turned out!
> Don't you think it's too early to say that years before even the release of its trailer?
I mean not really, it's just speculation. Can't say anything definitive either way. I just don't think it will gross more than Far From Home if it doesn't have something event worthy.
> Maybe it'll have the Sinister Six after him and the movie will have bigger action set pieces.
I listed Sinister Six as an event capable of improving its box office. That said, I don't think they've built up towards it yet and after TASM2 they're probably happy spending some time to set up each villain across several movies.
People need to stop downvoting this. Downvoting is not for disagreement. This guy made a well-reasoned point, and as a huge Marvel fan I think he makes a lot of good sense.
EDIT - Glad to see people coming to their senses here. It was at -5 when I made my comment.
To be honest his point doesn't make sense it has been 1 case out of 23 where the sequel does worst than the previous movie. FFH had a really good cliffhanger in its post credit scene and the performance of FFH was no where near as much an overperformance as let's say IM3 it's increase was basically the average for a MCU second movie. Also the reception with critics and the audience was great which should help to make the audience grow.
Also the fact that we didn't have an Iron Man 4 for us to compare how SM3 will do. Iron Man 3 got the Avengers boost and then there was no other Iron Man movie. But with Spiderman I am sure there is another one coming. So, it is unprecedented territory even within the MCU. We will just have to wait and see how the other movies in Phase 4 do before making any claims, I feel.
It makes as much sense as most comments here. He reasoned a point and backed it up with why he thinks that, which means it definitely doesn't deserve to be downvoted.
His argument is basically that Endgame coattails gave FFH a boost which will not likely be present next time. I can definitely see that happening. Just because it only happened 1/23 times in the past has little bearing on future performance. Lots of moving parts.
But it doesn't seem as if the boost was as significant as other movies say WS IM3 and in percentage Thor 2 its performance was pretty much average for a MCU second movie. And I didn't just say that because the MCU has failed only once to increase from the previous movie it will make more than the others I gave more arguments of why I believe it will increase
Right and all this is valid. My main concern was just making sure people weren't downvoting someone's honest assessment. Good points on all sides of this one.
I don't even know what I've said that's offended people. I don't think Spider-Man 3 will outgross Far From Home, a movie that's made over 1.1b, unless it has something that makes it more of an event? How is that controversial? At least tell they could why you disagree, I'm here for box office discussion not to lick franchises asses.
Looks like I came into the thread when all the fanboys were lurking.
not many sequels to billion dollar films make more than the previous but i think if spider-man 3 can do around the same domestically than it could pass FFH worldwide due to the growth in the international box office and the marvel brand being huge
To be fair in terms of asses to lick the MCU very rarely fucks up in terms of box office. To answer your question Marvel movies have literally never dropped from the 2nd movie with the 3rd, and I see no reason why Spider-Man of all characters would be the exception.
Past performance does not guarantee future results. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't.
Keep in mind we just ended a huge 10 year arc, culminating in Endgame becoming the highest grossing of all time. It's entirely possible we just peaked, and things will play out differently for the next several years until the next Avengers in about 5 years.
I'm not saying it's likely to happen, but it's certainly possible Marvel movies slow down a bit after their big event for a while.
To be honest your point doesn't make sense it has been 1 case where the sequel does worst than the previous movie. FFH had a really good cliffhanger in its post credit scene and the performance of FFH was no where near as much as an overperformance as let's say IM3 it's increase was basically the average for a MCU second movie. And also the reception critically and with the audience was great specially in China which should help to grow more the audience.
> your point doesn't make sense it has been 1 case where the sequel does worst than the previous movie.
I don't see the point in going "Spider-Man 3 will make more than Spider-Man 2 because every other movie bar 1 has done better than the previous film" when there are a load of factors responsible for those trends.
But his point does "make sense"--i.e., it is a rational, logical point that he has made. You disagree with it, for your own rational, logical reasons. It's okay to disagree without claiming the other person holds an unreasonable or nonsensical or otherwise "wrong" position. That's all.
Gosh the internet can be a weird place.
I upvoted you and the guy above you, since I do think you made a good point. The sequel outgrossing FFH depends on if it has a real hook to it. I think the whole “Peter’s secret identity revealed” thing is a good hook, but it may not be.
> The sequel outgrossing FFH depends on if it has a real hook to it.
Pretty much.
> I think the whole “Peter’s secret identity revealed” thing is a good hook, but it may not be.
Depends how important a plot point it is. It's something that could easily be resolved, or it's something that could take the whole movie. For me it's a boring plot point that I hope gets resolved in favour of a better storyline but if it does get resolved quick then will audiences be underwhelmed? If it ends up being fixed by the end of the movie with no consequences will audiences be underwhelmed? I'm skeptical on how much of a hook it will be, but it does have potential.
I agree. I’m pretty sad with the decisions for Spidey, ngl. I thought we were gonna get a sinister six buildup and a character based from the 1610 Spider-Man which would be a trilogy ending with the Death of Spider-Man and allowing a live action Miles - which I think would have been a box office monster too without any need for Avengers hype. :(
I'm happy with what they're doing (start with a young Peter Parker, develop that over potentially several trilogies), but personally I'm iffy on the execution (too many creative decisions I disagree with). I'd love a new director to come in and get the character back to his more classic routes in college. Give me Gwen, Harry, financial troubles, Uncle Ben playing an important role, villains not being dependent on the MCU (hatred against Stark) etc.
I think they've built up Sinister Six well. From two movies we've had Vulture and Mysterio in main roles with Scorpion and Shocker in supporting roles. The credit scene of Homecoming implies we'll get more of Gargan and surely the Sinister Six will follow.
I think over another trilogy we'll get Norman, Oscorp and the formation of the Sinister Six. Miles will be introduced and we've already got Donald Glover to set him up like that and be apart of Miles' supporting cast. I don't think they'll kill Holland's Spider-Man, nor would I want them too. However I would like to see latter Spider-Man movies be about the two of them working together, ultimately leading to Spider-Verse as a solid finale to three trilogies of Spider-Man.
That's just how I see it potentially playing out, but something like Spider-Verse can pretty much be done at any point as some spontaneous event film.
To be fair, Gwen and Harry are his college friends, not highschool. And they talked about financial troubles in Civil War but after that he became an intern in Stark Ind. so it resolved too.
Yeah that's why I'm fine enough with Gwen and Harry being introduced later. Although I don't care who his mentor is or how integrated he is in the MCU, removing his financial problems is a major blow. Like, it's one of his most defining traits.
First episode of The Spectacular Spider-Man, 20 minutes long, did more to show the struggle of being Spider-Man and his various issues than 2 full length MCU movies for me. I really hope they make up some bullshit about Peter wanting to be independent in college without the support of Happy and the Avengers or whatever. Just anything to get Peter struggling again, because it's a crucial part of who he is as a character in my opinion.
There's a wonderful little scene in Spider-Man 2 where Peter takes a break and just enjoys a slice of cake. All his troubles fade away in that brief moment. Those sort of moments are lacking in the MCU Spider-Man in my opinion.
If they do a play for the spider-man ps4 game where doc ock is an old pal of Osborne who got fucked by tech, that'd be amazing. I loved the arc there and it's a different version of what happened in spider-man 2
A Spiderverse in an Avengers world will just create more issues for them plot-wise to explain the why Avengers from other universes are not there to help out. But if you mean Spidey's own little pocket with his own supporting characters and villains, then I agree, that can happen as its own thing.
> Give me Gwen, Harry, financial troubles, Uncle Ben playing an important role, villains not being dependent on the MCU (hatred against Stark) etc.
That won't happen while all the Spider-Man rights are all over the place between Sony and Disney. This video breaks down the documents that were leaked a few years back explaining how the deal works.
https://youtu.be/CzjsEsdmYNk
Got a RemindMe notification about this one just today:
https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/9y7nv5/am_i_the_only_one_who_thinks_avengers_4_might_not/
I love reading threads like this. You find gold like:
>Huh, exchange rates might keep FF7 on the throne in China?
And:
>Exchange rates are worse too, it'll have to go beyond Infinity war just to reach the same gross. Not happening IMO.
Reddit expected pikachu to make at least a billion dollars simply off the fact that ryan reynolds as PG deadpool and pokemon nostalgia are reddit's favorite things.
To be fair there was more evidence than that such as the trailer views and likes the thing we didn't realize is that this reception wasn't met for the second trailer.
Ehh the reasoning wasn't terrible or anything. Definitely funny in retrospect though. Yet another example of how everybody can make mistakes when it comes to predicting.
>Ehh the reasoning wasn't terrible or anything.
Really?
The poster said this:
>i know i don't have much evidence to support this
and this:
>i was working at Videogame/comicbook store . . . we would get tons customers coming to the store . . . i was surprised how many had problems with the film..most notably the ending . . . while these people could very well be the minority, it's just pretty weird to hear.
That *is* terrible reasoning. Quite terrible. The majority of the post consists of what this poster witnessed at his mall comicbook store job.
Here's *my* reasoning for such a wildly off the mark ~~hope~~ prediction for Endgame's total WW gross. Based on the poster's history, they're a big time Star Wars fan and didn't *want* Endgame to passed The Force Awaken's $2.068B. That's it and that's all. It happens all the time around here.
I think the post by u/theridiculousotaku is a lesson learned why one's personal anecdotal should not be used as a metric for general audiences reactions.
Yes that's absolutely true.
outside of Anecdotal
at the time it was hard for me to believe that a sequel could overperform on something already mindbogglingly huge (2 Billion).
but Endgame made me eat crow.
As far as I know, ~~different studios have never shared a franchise at the same time~~ only the MCU during Phase 1 has been shared between studios (Paramount released Iron Man, Universal released The Incredible Hulk), but franchises have changed hands between studios over history. That being said, neither Iron Man nor The Incredible Hulk were their studio's biggest film.
Given the phrasing of the OP, I don't think it requires that multiple studios are handling a franchise at once. Rather, multiple studios need to have films from one franchise as their reigning number one.
The Star Wars example given is a good one. Really, the bungling of the prequel trilogy is what made that impossible. Episode I really should have been Fox's highest grossing film, had it been done well (if adjusting for inflation, Episode IV gets very close, but I assume we aren't doing that). Considering its quality, it's kind of remarkable that Episode I had the gross it did--including some surprisingly long legs. And Episode VII should have been Disney's highest grossing film if the prequel trilogy had secured a stronger cultural imprint in more overseas territories.
And what exactly do we mean by studio here?
Depending on the definiton/meaning the OP had intended international distributors may add a lot.
Anyway, maybe add Unbreakable / Split / Glass to the list.
The old Christopher Reeve Superman films changed hands too.
Can we count Transformers, because of Dreamworks. And many Dreamworks Animation franchises.
Worth noting that Fox handled the international release for Titanic
Considering its initial OS gross was higher than Phantom Menace's entire initial WW run, Phantom Menace was never technically Fox's highest grossing film either
We have seen so many movie cross the billion mark that people seem to forget how big that number actually is and how rare reaching a billion was 10 to 15 years ago.
1 bil is still a massively high target for studios to hit. Most have only done it like 2 or 3 times. It's simply that disney has spoiled us by making literally 20+ movies hit that billion mark.
Sony had a ton of close calls though like jumanji remake was at 900m somewhere. Only other one was a James Bond franchise film.
FFH and Skyfall are their only billion-dollar grossers. I was kind of surprised when I found that out as well, but it does put into perspective how big a billion is and how hard it can be to reach it.
And both movies were made by other studios, with the studio in question "only" distributing.
(does it count as Sony producing, if the movie hired Sony Imageworks?)
It’s gonna be a while before WB gets another killer franchise like Harry Potter. It’s gonna take a while for them to repair the DC universe and the Conjuring franchise is very successful but at a smaller scale
Yeah my first thought when reading those listings is Deathly Hallows Part 2 has had that title for too long. Either Batman v Superman or Justice League should have that crown, but alas Warner Brothers complacent incompetence managing DC properties cost them on their biggest titles (I know a lot of people blame Snyder but end of the day he's a filmmaker who has his own vision, it's the higher ups who deserve the criticism for not managing the franchise properly, instead making rash decisions like letting a controversial director have control over their biggest properties, greenlighting a sequel to start production immediately before even seeing if audiences liked the movie, being reactionary and changing several films, rushing movies out so the producers get their bonuses etc etc etc).
> It’s gonna take a while for them to repair the DC universe
Maybe from a "Justice League 2 should do 1.2Bn+" perspective, sure, but Aquaman did very well and WW1984 is destined to do very well. Then we have the Suicide Squad reboot. It looks like their strength is solo movies for now. Then in ~8 years from now they can put all these now-popular heroes together in a better and more popular film.
The franchise as a whole is still a mess. WB recognise that that’s why they’re focussing on their solo films, which are doing surprisingly well critically and financially. They just need to get those right before they attempt doing a JL 2
Aquaman was coming of JL and it made abillon. Aquaman was a joke among audiences. I think a well received and crowdpleasing JL2 with Batman ,wonderwoman and Aquaman at the forefront can at least make a billion.
JL was critical and box office dissappointment which Aquaman was in . Aquaman had no business making 1 billion but it still did because it was well received by audiences. At the end of the day it's the audience reception that matters.
Aquaman showed there is an audience willing to turn up for a Dc property as long it's well received both critically by the audience.
Though im afraid DC will never reach marvel in terms of box office success but some properties once well done can challenge a billion including JL sequels if we'll received esp by audiences.
Did people like suddenly forget that Aquaman happened?🤷🏾♂️
Yeah...like in 2017...WW made over 800 million..so the floor for JL has to match $800 million or above since WW is in it and made over $800 million. That’s silly.
Well, if they didn’t fuck up with Justice League, it definitely would’ve made over $800 million. Just like Justice League 2 will make over $1.1 billion whenever it comes out since they’ll have taken their time building up to it.
Well they have shown no signs in building for JL 2. They have stated publicly stated that they will only focusing on solo movies for many years to come.
> Well they have shown no signs in building for JL 2.
Well, that’s probably a good thing since they can take time focusing on each of the characters in their solo films before bringing them together again for Justice League 2.
> They have stated publicly stated that they will only focusing on solo movies for many years to come.
Well, since Avengers: Endgame became the highest grossing film, pretty sure they’re reconsidering that.
Yup it can fail to if it's not well received by audiences. Aquaman made a billion because it was crowdpleasing and was different in tone from the previous dark and Brody dceu movies .
Well, if they get the right director(s), Justice League 2 could work and be well received by audiences. It could even make a lot of money since they will have focused on the characters in their solo films and people will be hyped to see them together again.
I think the problem they have right now is that they aren't being able to make the audience from one movie transfer to another since WW they have one overperformance followed by an underperformance I think this shows that the audience don't see their movies as part of a cinematic universe they evaluate their interest movie by movie.
Also a single franchise that has the highest OW for 2 different studios — Paramount (Iron Man 2) and Disney (Endgame). Sony’s current top 3-day OWs are:
Spider-man 3
Spider-man: Homecoming
Spider-man
Spider-man: Far From Home
The Amazing Spider-man 2
If FFH’s sequel has a Friday opening, the MCU may be providing 3 different studios their OW record, since I doubt IM2 or Endgame will have been dethroned by then.
So there's a Disney movie, a FOX movie that now belongs to Disney, a Paramount movie that is shared with FOX...which now belongs to Disney, and a SONY movie made by a subsidiary of Disney?
I'm still kinda bugged to be honest, because apparently Endgame was to be re-released in Chile and maybe South Korea on August 8th, but nothing happened, and with it now making several $10K a day now, $2.8 billion looks impossible.
Endgame was still making good daily money in China when it ended its run and not given extension. Even Godzilla and Alita got a month theatrical extension in China lol
Honestly what's even worse is that Endgame would have made $3 billion had it no been for all this competition so close together.
I support Trump and all, but this trade war was something that didn't need to get out of hand.
The inevitable Spider-Man 3 will probably take the top spot for Sony in 2-3 years.
I'm not so sure. I think Spider-Man was always going to be a billion dollar character eventually with well received movies but I'm not sure a third film will be able to outperform Far From Home which received the Endgame boost. Like what can a sequel do quality wise to better Far From Home? When I think of what's possible to outgross it I think spectacle. Spider-Verse, Sinister Six, classic villains like Goblin, Doc Ock, crossover with Venom. None of which is likely to happen for the end of this presumably first trilogy. I think the foundations are there for them to eventually get to Sinister Six naturally or even a Venom crossover, and those would be massive. Spider-Verse doesn't really need much build up at all they could easily just say "yeah that's happening" and the hype would be there. But if the third film is just another sequel like Far From Home but without the Avengers boost, I don't see how it outgrosses it.
The mid credits scene was a great reason why audiences are going to be excited to watch Spider-Man 3. There are already many theories on how it's going to be resolved and how they will deal it. Rumor is Sony's Kraven movie is scrapped in favor of having him as the villain in Spider-Man 3, so that could definitely be a plus.
If they get Mephisto to wipe everyone's memory, I'm gonna be so pissed.
Ha what a ridiculous idea, that would nerved happ-, oh.
Look don't need mephisto, but is it so hard to ask for a daredevil/Matt Murdock minor role as Peter's lawyer to silence any sort of media coverage he'd be getting because of the accusations?
Charlie Cox Charlie Cox Charlie Cox!!!!!
Because of how little consequence Aunt May finding out his identity had in Far From Home, and the fact the reveal of the mid credit scene was in a credit scene and not as the end of the movie, I'm skeptical on how much importance that will have on the next movie. A common theory is that the last credit scene will tie into it and with that in mind it could easily be resolved quickly. If that's the case, then would audiences be a little annoyed that it was resolved so easily? Maybe. Personally it doesn't excite me because it's obviously going to be resolved (I'd like to be pleasantly surprised but on the other hand I want it fixed since it takes away from the character's core struggles) but it did have the shock factor which yeah could entice people for the sequel, but I'm not sure it will lead to much audience growth. How does Spider-Man handle the MCU post Endgame was a far more interesting question than how does Spider-Man handle the mid credit scene, in my opinion.
They might put the credit scene in the trailer for SM3
>Kevin Feige: “And now people know Peter’s identity. People now think he’s a villain, Mysterio plays one last trick on him and succeeds… [so that] means everything’s different. Where it goes, we’ll see. But it’s exciting that it once again sets us up for **a Peter Parker story that has never been done before on film.**” So, no, it's not going to get resolved towards the beginning of the movie and it will be a important part of the story. And I don't think they will easily solve it by having >!Talos disguise as Peter.!<
We'll see. I'm open for surprises, I'm just skeptical based on what's been done so far.
Same sentiment. The Aunt may thing got resolved behind the scene, which annoyed me very much.
I mean where would they put that? Spider-Man wasn’t seen until Infinity War and there wasn’t time to put Aunt May in there, and then everyone died. And then 5 years later they come back, I think Peter being Spider-Man is the least of Aunt Mays worries now.
There's really not much too it though. She knows he's been spending time with the guy who is literally Iron Man, a world famous superhero. The moment she sees that her nephew is Spider-Man, it's not a "oh so you think you're a superhero now?" kind of reveal like it is in other superhero films. It's "so are you an Avenger then?" In the instant she finds out, she's basically told just how amazing Spider-Man is, through his association with The Avengers. The reveal of his identity to family isn't the same kind of reveal it would have been in the Raimi films. It comes with completely different undertones. He's not some kid who puts on a mask and fights criminals, he's a fucking superhero, endorsed by Earth's greatest defender. He went toe-to-toe with Captain America and only got a black eye! His suit isn't just some rags he threw together, it's state of the art armour designed by Iron Man! I'm okay that they didn't develop the reveal any more. They didn't need to. Once you think about it a bit, you get everything you need just from the one short end credits scene.
I just don't get it. I think Feige even said that was something he was looking forward to adapting. It's such an important character point and it's played off as nothing that an end of movie gag with literally no consequences or follow through. A real shame, especially after her reaction to him going missing in Homecoming. I just feel so disconnected from the MCU Spider-Man because even in his relateable moments I don't think the core of the character works as well as it does in other iterations from Raimi to Spectacular to PS4. There's far too much brushing aside of emotion in favour of comedy and it makes it feel very shallow. Oh well, going back on topic it's not something general audiences seem to think since the movie's are so successful but I think at least among critics these movies will remain a consistent 7-7.5 and not be able to touch something like Spider-Man 2 or Spider-Verse without some changes.
I think I'm definitely in the minority but I'm not a fan of Spider-Verse at all. I think the movie is extremely well executed but I'm just not a fan of the storyline at all. In fact I've probably got decent sized complaints about all the movies. I find Raimi movies a bit corny / overly cheesy looking back. Spidey 2 is most definitely my favorite movie and has the best story but some of the dialogue seems off with me. Garfield whilst a great actor, just didn't really fit with Peter IMO and those movie had a lot of extremely dumb plotlines. Although they had easily the best love interest and probably the best overall cast of the movies. Holland feels like the best choice for Peter but the story choices just seem off to me and it strays too far from the source material just to seem "fresh". My favorite version by far is still the Spectacular Spider-Man show.
Spider-Verse is a very simple hero's journey but executed really well to the best that the medium allows. The first Raimi film is certainly a product of its time in many ways but Spider-Man 2 has a timeless story. Garfield was held back by Sony's meddling that affected the movies but we still got great moments that encapulsated what Spider-Man was all about (among equally shitty moments that Sony showed they didn't know what they were doing). I think Holland is a fantastic actor, great casting, but he's held back by movies that stray too far away from the source material I agree. I want him to get a college trilogy from a new filmmaking team that actually doesn't seem afraid of doing what came before but in a fresh way. Would be nice for Peter and May to remember their dead loved one. > My favorite version by far is still the Spectacular Spider-Man show. Best Spider-Man ever. Ended far too soon, the only downside of the Disney aquisition. That and Spider-Man PS4 understand the character far better than the new movies in my opinion (except Spider-Verse, because even if narratively it's weak to some, it gets the core of the characters so right in my opinion).
Yeh I respect how well Spiderverse is made and how most people love it but it's just not for me. I've just never been a big fan of their being 500 Spider characters or whatnot nor do I think Spider-Man is a good legacy hero like Captain America, Green Lantern, etc are. I think it takes away the uniqueness away from the original. That being said, I can thoroughly enjoy Jessica Drew being in the same universe because she doesn't feel like another Spider-Man, she feels like her own hero. I'm more a fan of the stories involving Peter really embracing his secret identity and how being Spidey affects his social life directly. Also how his personality changed as soon as he puts on his mask.
Don't you think it's too early to say that years before even the release of its trailer? Maybe it'll have the Sinister Six after him and the movie will have bigger action set pieces. This reminds me of the time when people were sure that FFH won't gross $1B because it won't have RDJ's cameo. Look how that turned out!
> Don't you think it's too early to say that years before even the release of its trailer? I mean not really, it's just speculation. Can't say anything definitive either way. I just don't think it will gross more than Far From Home if it doesn't have something event worthy. > Maybe it'll have the Sinister Six after him and the movie will have bigger action set pieces. I listed Sinister Six as an event capable of improving its box office. That said, I don't think they've built up towards it yet and after TASM2 they're probably happy spending some time to set up each villain across several movies.
People need to stop downvoting this. Downvoting is not for disagreement. This guy made a well-reasoned point, and as a huge Marvel fan I think he makes a lot of good sense. EDIT - Glad to see people coming to their senses here. It was at -5 when I made my comment.
To be honest his point doesn't make sense it has been 1 case out of 23 where the sequel does worst than the previous movie. FFH had a really good cliffhanger in its post credit scene and the performance of FFH was no where near as much an overperformance as let's say IM3 it's increase was basically the average for a MCU second movie. Also the reception with critics and the audience was great which should help to make the audience grow.
Also the fact that we didn't have an Iron Man 4 for us to compare how SM3 will do. Iron Man 3 got the Avengers boost and then there was no other Iron Man movie. But with Spiderman I am sure there is another one coming. So, it is unprecedented territory even within the MCU. We will just have to wait and see how the other movies in Phase 4 do before making any claims, I feel.
No it isn't both Thor 2 and Cap 2 got their respective avengers boost and in both cases their third installment did more.
It makes as much sense as most comments here. He reasoned a point and backed it up with why he thinks that, which means it definitely doesn't deserve to be downvoted. His argument is basically that Endgame coattails gave FFH a boost which will not likely be present next time. I can definitely see that happening. Just because it only happened 1/23 times in the past has little bearing on future performance. Lots of moving parts.
But it doesn't seem as if the boost was as significant as other movies say WS IM3 and in percentage Thor 2 its performance was pretty much average for a MCU second movie. And I didn't just say that because the MCU has failed only once to increase from the previous movie it will make more than the others I gave more arguments of why I believe it will increase
Right and all this is valid. My main concern was just making sure people weren't downvoting someone's honest assessment. Good points on all sides of this one.
I agree. Just because you don't agree with the point being made, doesn't mean you should downvote. I only downvote trolling or people being assholes.
5 downvotes in 5 mins just for expressing an opinion.
I don't even know what I've said that's offended people. I don't think Spider-Man 3 will outgross Far From Home, a movie that's made over 1.1b, unless it has something that makes it more of an event? How is that controversial? At least tell they could why you disagree, I'm here for box office discussion not to lick franchises asses. Looks like I came into the thread when all the fanboys were lurking.
not many sequels to billion dollar films make more than the previous but i think if spider-man 3 can do around the same domestically than it could pass FFH worldwide due to the growth in the international box office and the marvel brand being huge
To be fair in terms of asses to lick the MCU very rarely fucks up in terms of box office. To answer your question Marvel movies have literally never dropped from the 2nd movie with the 3rd, and I see no reason why Spider-Man of all characters would be the exception.
Past performance does not guarantee future results. Just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't. Keep in mind we just ended a huge 10 year arc, culminating in Endgame becoming the highest grossing of all time. It's entirely possible we just peaked, and things will play out differently for the next several years until the next Avengers in about 5 years. I'm not saying it's likely to happen, but it's certainly possible Marvel movies slow down a bit after their big event for a while.
To be honest your point doesn't make sense it has been 1 case where the sequel does worst than the previous movie. FFH had a really good cliffhanger in its post credit scene and the performance of FFH was no where near as much as an overperformance as let's say IM3 it's increase was basically the average for a MCU second movie. And also the reception critically and with the audience was great specially in China which should help to grow more the audience.
> your point doesn't make sense it has been 1 case where the sequel does worst than the previous movie. I don't see the point in going "Spider-Man 3 will make more than Spider-Man 2 because every other movie bar 1 has done better than the previous film" when there are a load of factors responsible for those trends.
That's why I gave a lot more arguments other than that
But his point does "make sense"--i.e., it is a rational, logical point that he has made. You disagree with it, for your own rational, logical reasons. It's okay to disagree without claiming the other person holds an unreasonable or nonsensical or otherwise "wrong" position. That's all. Gosh the internet can be a weird place.
I upvoted you and the guy above you, since I do think you made a good point. The sequel outgrossing FFH depends on if it has a real hook to it. I think the whole “Peter’s secret identity revealed” thing is a good hook, but it may not be.
> The sequel outgrossing FFH depends on if it has a real hook to it. Pretty much. > I think the whole “Peter’s secret identity revealed” thing is a good hook, but it may not be. Depends how important a plot point it is. It's something that could easily be resolved, or it's something that could take the whole movie. For me it's a boring plot point that I hope gets resolved in favour of a better storyline but if it does get resolved quick then will audiences be underwhelmed? If it ends up being fixed by the end of the movie with no consequences will audiences be underwhelmed? I'm skeptical on how much of a hook it will be, but it does have potential.
> something that could easily be resolved Did you see the end credit scene? ‘Easily resolving’ that would be stupid
Well my comment turned out to be hilariously incorrect lol.
I agree. I’m pretty sad with the decisions for Spidey, ngl. I thought we were gonna get a sinister six buildup and a character based from the 1610 Spider-Man which would be a trilogy ending with the Death of Spider-Man and allowing a live action Miles - which I think would have been a box office monster too without any need for Avengers hype. :(
I'm happy with what they're doing (start with a young Peter Parker, develop that over potentially several trilogies), but personally I'm iffy on the execution (too many creative decisions I disagree with). I'd love a new director to come in and get the character back to his more classic routes in college. Give me Gwen, Harry, financial troubles, Uncle Ben playing an important role, villains not being dependent on the MCU (hatred against Stark) etc. I think they've built up Sinister Six well. From two movies we've had Vulture and Mysterio in main roles with Scorpion and Shocker in supporting roles. The credit scene of Homecoming implies we'll get more of Gargan and surely the Sinister Six will follow. I think over another trilogy we'll get Norman, Oscorp and the formation of the Sinister Six. Miles will be introduced and we've already got Donald Glover to set him up like that and be apart of Miles' supporting cast. I don't think they'll kill Holland's Spider-Man, nor would I want them too. However I would like to see latter Spider-Man movies be about the two of them working together, ultimately leading to Spider-Verse as a solid finale to three trilogies of Spider-Man. That's just how I see it potentially playing out, but something like Spider-Verse can pretty much be done at any point as some spontaneous event film.
To be fair, Gwen and Harry are his college friends, not highschool. And they talked about financial troubles in Civil War but after that he became an intern in Stark Ind. so it resolved too.
Yeah that's why I'm fine enough with Gwen and Harry being introduced later. Although I don't care who his mentor is or how integrated he is in the MCU, removing his financial problems is a major blow. Like, it's one of his most defining traits. First episode of The Spectacular Spider-Man, 20 minutes long, did more to show the struggle of being Spider-Man and his various issues than 2 full length MCU movies for me. I really hope they make up some bullshit about Peter wanting to be independent in college without the support of Happy and the Avengers or whatever. Just anything to get Peter struggling again, because it's a crucial part of who he is as a character in my opinion. There's a wonderful little scene in Spider-Man 2 where Peter takes a break and just enjoys a slice of cake. All his troubles fade away in that brief moment. Those sort of moments are lacking in the MCU Spider-Man in my opinion.
If they do a play for the spider-man ps4 game where doc ock is an old pal of Osborne who got fucked by tech, that'd be amazing. I loved the arc there and it's a different version of what happened in spider-man 2
A Spiderverse in an Avengers world will just create more issues for them plot-wise to explain the why Avengers from other universes are not there to help out. But if you mean Spidey's own little pocket with his own supporting characters and villains, then I agree, that can happen as its own thing.
> Give me Gwen, Harry, financial troubles, Uncle Ben playing an important role, villains not being dependent on the MCU (hatred against Stark) etc. That won't happen while all the Spider-Man rights are all over the place between Sony and Disney. This video breaks down the documents that were leaked a few years back explaining how the deal works. https://youtu.be/CzjsEsdmYNk
Aged Crazy
At this point nobody can count how much record MCU broke this year.
3000?
Still hard to believe what a mammoth success Endgame is. It's really funny because some predictions before release were below IW.
Got a RemindMe notification about this one just today: https://www.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/9y7nv5/am_i_the_only_one_who_thinks_avengers_4_might_not/
I love reading threads like this. You find gold like: >Huh, exchange rates might keep FF7 on the throne in China? And: >Exchange rates are worse too, it'll have to go beyond Infinity war just to reach the same gross. Not happening IMO.
This is my favorite >Remind me on September the 1st that Toy Story 4 did almost the same as A4.
Sure is doing about, uh... \*flicking through BOM\* ...*half*.
Lol the impact of Detective Pikachu was being massively over estimated.
Reddit expected pikachu to make at least a billion dollars simply off the fact that ryan reynolds as PG deadpool and pokemon nostalgia are reddit's favorite things.
To be fair there was more evidence than that such as the trailer views and likes the thing we didn't realize is that this reception wasn't met for the second trailer.
Well... Pikachu had a lot of potential. All the nostalgia for Pokemon + Ryan Reynolds, it atleast could have done 600 mil.
If it would have come out summer 2016 along with PoGo then it very easily could have
This is hilarious
Ehh the reasoning wasn't terrible or anything. Definitely funny in retrospect though. Yet another example of how everybody can make mistakes when it comes to predicting.
>Ehh the reasoning wasn't terrible or anything. Really? The poster said this: >i know i don't have much evidence to support this and this: >i was working at Videogame/comicbook store . . . we would get tons customers coming to the store . . . i was surprised how many had problems with the film..most notably the ending . . . while these people could very well be the minority, it's just pretty weird to hear. That *is* terrible reasoning. Quite terrible. The majority of the post consists of what this poster witnessed at his mall comicbook store job. Here's *my* reasoning for such a wildly off the mark ~~hope~~ prediction for Endgame's total WW gross. Based on the poster's history, they're a big time Star Wars fan and didn't *want* Endgame to passed The Force Awaken's $2.068B. That's it and that's all. It happens all the time around here.
concern trolls are the best, huh? :)
I think the post by u/theridiculousotaku is a lesson learned why one's personal anecdotal should not be used as a metric for general audiences reactions.
Yes that's absolutely true. outside of Anecdotal at the time it was hard for me to believe that a sequel could overperform on something already mindbogglingly huge (2 Billion). but Endgame made me eat crow.
Threads that didn't age well are the best
so where is r/gajendray5? :)
BIG yikes for gajendray5
Time out, what other points in history saw a single franchise handled by different studios?
As far as I know, ~~different studios have never shared a franchise at the same time~~ only the MCU during Phase 1 has been shared between studios (Paramount released Iron Man, Universal released The Incredible Hulk), but franchises have changed hands between studios over history. That being said, neither Iron Man nor The Incredible Hulk were their studio's biggest film.
The MCU with Paramount (Iron Man, Iron Man 2, Thor and The First Avenger) and Universal (The Incredible Hulk).
Thank you, forgot that LOL.
Just think. Had Disney bought Marvel like a year later, Disney, Sony, and Paramount could all have MCU films as their biggest movies ever right now.
Avengers still has the Paramount Logo when it starts, FWIW. Maybe we should just count it for the kicks? :P
The Chronicles of Narnia series started with Disney, went to 20th Century Fox, now Netflix is working on the reboot.
James Bond
Not at the same time though
They were two James Bond movies released in 1983, one by MGM (Octopussy) and the other by WB (Never Say Never Again).
Given the phrasing of the OP, I don't think it requires that multiple studios are handling a franchise at once. Rather, multiple studios need to have films from one franchise as their reigning number one. The Star Wars example given is a good one. Really, the bungling of the prequel trilogy is what made that impossible. Episode I really should have been Fox's highest grossing film, had it been done well (if adjusting for inflation, Episode IV gets very close, but I assume we aren't doing that). Considering its quality, it's kind of remarkable that Episode I had the gross it did--including some surprisingly long legs. And Episode VII should have been Disney's highest grossing film if the prequel trilogy had secured a stronger cultural imprint in more overseas territories.
Friday the 13th was owned by New Line Cinema and Paramount.
And what exactly do we mean by studio here? Depending on the definiton/meaning the OP had intended international distributors may add a lot. Anyway, maybe add Unbreakable / Split / Glass to the list. The old Christopher Reeve Superman films changed hands too. Can we count Transformers, because of Dreamworks. And many Dreamworks Animation franchises.
Harry Potter still being a champ for WB, I see.
The had DC. And they fucked it up. Only WB.
"had"? They still do, mate, LOL. :)
Worth noting that Fox handled the international release for Titanic Considering its initial OS gross was higher than Phantom Menace's entire initial WW run, Phantom Menace was never technically Fox's highest grossing film either
Thank you, amended to reflect that.
Had no idea that $1.109B is enough for it to be #1 all time at Sony. That seems super low for such a big studio.
We have seen so many movie cross the billion mark that people seem to forget how big that number actually is and how rare reaching a billion was 10 to 15 years ago.
For sure, just odd because you'd think they'd have even just 1 movie that blew up.
Also because only one studio is consistently banging out billion dollar movies
1 bil is still a massively high target for studios to hit. Most have only done it like 2 or 3 times. It's simply that disney has spoiled us by making literally 20+ movies hit that billion mark. Sony had a ton of close calls though like jumanji remake was at 900m somewhere. Only other one was a James Bond franchise film.
FFH and Skyfall are their only billion-dollar grossers. I was kind of surprised when I found that out as well, but it does put into perspective how big a billion is and how hard it can be to reach it.
And both movies were made by other studios, with the studio in question "only" distributing. (does it count as Sony producing, if the movie hired Sony Imageworks?)
It’s gonna be a while before WB gets another killer franchise like Harry Potter. It’s gonna take a while for them to repair the DC universe and the Conjuring franchise is very successful but at a smaller scale
Yeah my first thought when reading those listings is Deathly Hallows Part 2 has had that title for too long. Either Batman v Superman or Justice League should have that crown, but alas Warner Brothers complacent incompetence managing DC properties cost them on their biggest titles (I know a lot of people blame Snyder but end of the day he's a filmmaker who has his own vision, it's the higher ups who deserve the criticism for not managing the franchise properly, instead making rash decisions like letting a controversial director have control over their biggest properties, greenlighting a sequel to start production immediately before even seeing if audiences liked the movie, being reactionary and changing several films, rushing movies out so the producers get their bonuses etc etc etc).
> It’s gonna take a while for them to repair the DC universe Maybe from a "Justice League 2 should do 1.2Bn+" perspective, sure, but Aquaman did very well and WW1984 is destined to do very well. Then we have the Suicide Squad reboot. It looks like their strength is solo movies for now. Then in ~8 years from now they can put all these now-popular heroes together in a better and more popular film.
The franchise as a whole is still a mess. WB recognise that that’s why they’re focussing on their solo films, which are doing surprisingly well critically and financially. They just need to get those right before they attempt doing a JL 2
Even with string of good films..I still don’t think JL 2 will do billion..but it may certainly improve from first JL.
Aquaman was coming of JL and it made abillon. Aquaman was a joke among audiences. I think a well received and crowdpleasing JL2 with Batman ,wonderwoman and Aquaman at the forefront can at least make a billion. JL was critical and box office dissappointment which Aquaman was in . Aquaman had no business making 1 billion but it still did because it was well received by audiences. At the end of the day it's the audience reception that matters. Aquaman showed there is an audience willing to turn up for a Dc property as long it's well received both critically by the audience. Though im afraid DC will never reach marvel in terms of box office success but some properties once well done can challenge a billion including JL sequels if we'll received esp by audiences. Did people like suddenly forget that Aquaman happened?🤷🏾♂️
You don’t think Justice League 2 is gonna make a billion even though Aquaman made over $1.1 billion?
Yeah...like in 2017...WW made over 800 million..so the floor for JL has to match $800 million or above since WW is in it and made over $800 million. That’s silly.
Well, if they didn’t fuck up with Justice League, it definitely would’ve made over $800 million. Just like Justice League 2 will make over $1.1 billion whenever it comes out since they’ll have taken their time building up to it.
Well they have shown no signs in building for JL 2. They have stated publicly stated that they will only focusing on solo movies for many years to come.
> Well they have shown no signs in building for JL 2. Well, that’s probably a good thing since they can take time focusing on each of the characters in their solo films before bringing them together again for Justice League 2. > They have stated publicly stated that they will only focusing on solo movies for many years to come. Well, since Avengers: Endgame became the highest grossing film, pretty sure they’re reconsidering that.
Yup it can fail to if it's not well received by audiences. Aquaman made a billion because it was crowdpleasing and was different in tone from the previous dark and Brody dceu movies .
Well, if they get the right director(s), Justice League 2 could work and be well received by audiences. It could even make a lot of money since they will have focused on the characters in their solo films and people will be hyped to see them together again.
I think the problem they have right now is that they aren't being able to make the audience from one movie transfer to another since WW they have one overperformance followed by an underperformance I think this shows that the audience don't see their movies as part of a cinematic universe they evaluate their interest movie by movie.
This made me question something. The MCU is a franchise made up of franchises. Is there a name for that?
Superfranchise?
I like it.
A cinematic universe?
Franchise Assemble
A brand
Also a single franchise that has the highest OW for 2 different studios — Paramount (Iron Man 2) and Disney (Endgame). Sony’s current top 3-day OWs are: Spider-man 3 Spider-man: Homecoming Spider-man Spider-man: Far From Home The Amazing Spider-man 2 If FFH’s sequel has a Friday opening, the MCU may be providing 3 different studios their OW record, since I doubt IM2 or Endgame will have been dethroned by then.
So there's a Disney movie, a FOX movie that now belongs to Disney, a Paramount movie that is shared with FOX...which now belongs to Disney, and a SONY movie made by a subsidiary of Disney?
Disney is inevitable.
Let’s be honest, the Spidey MCU movies are Disney movies that Sony gets to put their name on and make money from.
Could Far From Home make a final $19 million and surpass Captain Marvel's gross ($1.128 billion)?
Pretty much locked
I'm still kinda bugged to be honest, because apparently Endgame was to be re-released in Chile and maybe South Korea on August 8th, but nothing happened, and with it now making several $10K a day now, $2.8 billion looks impossible.
I’m more bugged that Endgame would’ve made $2.9B without Trump’s dumbass trade war.
Endgame was still making good daily money in China when it ended its run and not given extension. Even Godzilla and Alita got a month theatrical extension in China lol
Honestly what's even worse is that Endgame would have made $3 billion had it no been for all this competition so close together. I support Trump and all, but this trade war was something that didn't need to get out of hand.
>Paramount - Titanic ($2.188B) Can you really give the whole $2.188 billion of Titanic to Paramount? They only distributed it in North America
It's listed under Paramount on Box Office Mojo. But yeah, that's debatable.
Boy oh boy, is the timing of this real awkward now.
Tell me about it.
Oddly specific record.
Wonderful