massive 62.2% 2nd weekend drop
ouch
shareBigger than all previous Spider-Mans, all MCU movies and Halle's Catwoman.
share
MovieChat Forums > Spider-Man: Homecoming (2017) Discussion > massive 62.2% 2nd weekend drop
Surprising (those that wished it to fail will claim otherwise *looks around to see the usual suspects on here*), but the movie is already a big enough of a success. It'll be fine in the long run.
shareIt's just enough of a success to not be abandoned and rebooted again, yet. So was Amazing Spider-Man. But as we saw, Amazing Spider-Man was disliked enough that the sequel was less attended and barely profitable. Sony is now yet again in "repair mode" on the next Spider-Man movie. They can't follow this formula again since it vastly underperformed expectations. Are they going to load it up desperately with more MCU guest stars? Are they going to go further away from the source material with crazy new costumes and more changes to well-known characters? Or will they go back to basics and try to do a faithful Spider-Man story where he acts like himself and M.J. is a Caucasian redhead in the Ann-Margret mold?
More than anything else, if they actually continue with the idea that M.J. is a non-white, non-redhead, the sequel will be an absolutely doomed disaster a la Amy Pascal's other movie, Girlbusters.
Considering the addition of Iron Man and the shameless pandering to white kids that like to think of themselves as "enlightened" the historic drop is very bad news for the MCU.
shareThis shows that the crossover gimmick is wearing out its welcome with the public. A movie with Spider-Man and Iron Man is earning less money than a proper Iron Man 4 would've. Yet they seem to no longer know how to do a sequel that isn't a crossover. Any comic fan will tell you that every issue of a series wasn't always a crossover back when comics were at their best. It was "special" when a crossover happened. And they usually weren't the most interesting issues. They were more surface, while a story that focused solely on the title character had much more development.
share"As of Sunday morning, the latest cinematic depiction of the webbed-hero, “Spider-Man: Homecoming,” is looking at a $117 million opening from 4,348 locations. $10.6 million of the domestic total came from 392 Imax screens. That’s a huge win for Sony, Columbia Pictures, and Marvel Studios for the film, which cost roughly $175 million to produce. The anticipated opening weekend is higher than industry estimates, which were in the $90 million to $110 million range, while the studio cautiously pegged it at $80 million."
http://variety.com/2017/film/box-office/spider-man-homecoming-box-office-opening-weekend-2-1202490552/
What does that have to do with the record setting collapse in the second week of release?
shareIt's made a ton of money. A 62% drop doesn't mean anything. Most movies drop 50-60% in their second weeks. If the movie started off making enough money, it won't matter. Spider-Man Homecoming has been a financial success.
shareNot even one marvelite is defending this horrific movie.
shareThe movie isn't performing THAT much better than the ASM films. A bit better, but so far, not a huge justification for starting the entire series over. For what? $30 million more domestic dollars?
shareAnd ESPECIALLY not a huge justification for cutting the deal with the MCU. Remember, Sony's Spider-Man films will be diluted by having Spider-Man appear in MCU films. People will get sick of seeing the character faster. And they risk Marvel doing something wrong with the character that makes people even less interested in him. So they gave something up by cutting the MCU deal. IN EXCHANGE, they got to use Iron Man and other MCU characters...BUT, as we found out, it didn't help them sell any more tickets than Amazing Spider-Man 1! So the whole deal looks like an unjustifiable mess now. GREAT for Marvel as they have so many characters it doesn't matter if popularity in one wanes, but bad for Sony who has EVERYTHING hinging on Spidey.
It's even worse because they were ALL teed up to change course on Amazing Spider-Man 3 and not have the films be as dark as they were. They didn't have to have any more good guys die in them. They had the chance to introduce a new Mary Jane which would've boosted audience interest greatly if they cast her well (My guess is the real reason MJ's scenes were cut out of Amazing 3 was because they decided that actress wasn't good enough and were going to recast with a bigger star). And Spidey has an incredible cast of villains. Their modernized Electro didn't bring butts in the seats in Amazing 2, but another Spidey villain could've. I don't even remember seeing Green Goblin in the Amazing 2 ads and was actually surprised he was in the movie, so they flubbed the marketing on that too. For part 3, they still had Venom, Carnage, Hobgoblin, Black Cat, Kraven, Mysterio, Chameleon, Spider-Slayers, JJJ, Hydro-Man, Beetle, Tombstone, Puma, Swarm, Tarantula, Molten Man, Prowler, Ock (but too soon) in addition to Vulture and Shocker. Why do you need to borrow the MCU's characters when you have so many saleable ones of your own? They COULD'VE recasted Spidey on their own too if they lacked confidence in Garfield and could've done it without a reboot.
This movie was a total failure, it will bomb at the box office.
shareThis weekend's drop was -50.2%. Spider-Man 3's was -50.1%. So it's still doing worse than the movie that people claim was so disliked that it destroyed the franchise.
shareYeah...total failure. Let's compare it to Wonder Woman.
Rotten Tomatoes
WW = 92%
Spiderman - 92%
Box Office -
WW = 103 mill(domestic)
Spiderman = 117 mill(domestic)
Box Office Fall Off
WW = 43 percent
Spidey = 62 percent
You could say...there was some dropoff the second weekend because more people saw it the first weekend. Furthermore....Apes came out after Spider-man....a much bigger threat than the Mummy was to Wonder Woman...seeing how those two films were reviewed and performed at the box office.
So...why exactly was spiderman a colossal failure? Not every Marvel outing is going to contend for the highest grossing movie of all time. This movie is also further weighed down by the fact it's the second reboot in a span of 10 years and the 3rd first outing in a span of 20 years...so...those things considered...the movie did fine.
Homecoming's drop is continuing to be much bigger than WW's. WW is far from a fair comparison since she has some of the best holds ever in modern times, but this weekend's hold is worse than Guardians 2 and only .2% better than Spidey 3. And that's in the face of a weekend where its only new direct competition, Valerian, bombed hard.
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?view=weekend&id=2017superhero.htm
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/showdowns/chart/?view=weekend&id=spidermanvs.htm
Sony gave away the keys to the kingdom to Marvel just to rebound from ONE movie that performed mediocre domestically, Amazing 2, but still profited. This is selling the same amount of tickets as Amazing 1, and only outgrossing it due to inflation. As of now, it looks like this could sell less tickets internationally than Amazing 2. Its opening weekend was only half of Amazing 2s in many major European markets like France, Germany, Turkey, and also Russia. And in most Asian countries, it also opened lower than Amazing 2.
Will you people EVER stop making excuses for it? First you say Sony didn't do Amazing 3 because Amazing 1 and 2 would drag it down. Yet now you're claiming the mere fact it was a reboot dragged it down. If this was the first Spider-Man movie ever made, you'd claim the fact that it was an unknown property to most of the public dragged it down. There is nothing they could've done that you won't interpret as an excuse.
The fact is Spider-Man is the BIGGEST superhero in the world and one of the top characters in the world. ANY Spider-Man movie has the ability to gross 1 billion if done right. It's as easy to make a rebound movie for him as it is for James Bond. This is doing average to below-average business for the Spidey franchise because of mistakes made by all parties involved that need to be called out. Sony gave up rights needlessly and MCU put their C-team on it, e.g. a producer from Thor 2 who bragged at their "brilliance" in reimagining Aunt May.
This isn't even worth responding to but I will out of boredom.
"The fact is Spider-Man is the BIGGEST superhero in the world and one of the top characters in the world. ANY Spider-Man movie has the ability to gross 1 billion if done right."
It's the 6th spiderman movie in 15 years. The movies in a franchise that make the major bank are typically the first or second outting...not the 6th...and especially not the 3rd origin story and second reboot in 15 years.
"And that's in the face of a weekend where its only new direct competition, Valerian, bombed hard."
False! Apes...the final, well reviewed and much anticipated movie in a solid trilogy came out the following weekend!
And citing exhaustion with the character and genre isn't making an excuse...it's stating a fact.
Who exactly said this movie is trash en masse? Critics? No. 92 percent on rotten tomatoes and certified fresh...and a 73 on metacritic. Similar to wonderwoman...don't even bother looking at how it compares to other movies in the DCU.
IDK if you are a DC fanboy are just a general hater of comic book movies but your reasoning is flawed.
Well reviewed...check. Made it's money back over the course of two weekends not even including international gross....check. Somehow that equates to it being a flop in your mind.
LOL. Right.
Did I call it a flop? I called it a FAILURE. A major failure to reach its audience and profit potential. You're not setting the right goalposts for an extremely popular character who got to join the extremely popular MCU for the first time. This was supposed to be an earth-shattering event and DEFINITELY the biggest superhero movie of the year. But, instead, it's falling behind a film by the struggling DCEU and a sequel to a film about obscure alien superheroes. This was a layup, but these people were so incompetent that they took the previous movie's biggest flaw, the unusual, unfaithful designs for the villains, and applied it to all of Spidey's supporting cast as well as his costume. And THAT was quite unexpected coming from the MCU, who has almost always stuck close to the accurate appearance for all the well-known Marvel characters. THAT made many people doubt that this really was an MCU takeover, thinking it was just Sony doing another reimagined Andrew-Garfieldy Spidey movie.
Dark Knight had no trouble outgrossing tons of previous Batman movies. Skyfall and Spectre had no problem heavily outgrossing tons of previous Bond movies. Look at Captain America, Thor and Iron Man...most of their sequels outgrossed the original films. Batman V Superman outgrossed Man of Steel, so why couldn't Homecoming outgross ANY Iron Man film domestically?
Again you guys contradict yourselves trying to defend this mess. We're repeatedly told that Sony was failing with the Spider-Man franchise because each film kept grossing less than the last one domestically. Yet now we're told that it's "normal" for later films in a franchise to gross less than the earlier ones, so Homecoming is doing just fine. Which is it?
You didn't know Valerian came out in Homecoming's 3rd weekend? Do your homework before you reply next time. If you read my post, you could obviously see I'm talking about Homecoming's 3rd weekend drop, which was as bad as Spider-Man 3's despite Valerian flopping.
You do know that Apes didn't just disappear from the theaters after its opening weekend correct? So yes it will have to compete with Apes and now Valerian and now the fact that over the past 2 weekends many of those who wanted to see spiderman...saw spiderman.
Perhaps you can't see the gray and nuance in situations. Spiderman was depreciating under Sony. The things they did with the character to differentiate it from the Raimi Spidey were what fans liked the least....having the back story on his parents. Amazing Spiderman 2 was not well recieved...which sets a bad omen for all movies coming after. Sony knew they'd do better leasing the character to marvel and letting him join their MCU.
You talk Dark Knight....Begins was the first batman movie in 8 years after Schumacher destroyed it. Nolan made a great batman film with Batman Begins on a limited budget that re-energized the character....and warner gave him a blank check for Dark Knight and it became arguable the greatest super hero movie ever.
Dark Knight was the 3rd batman movie in 15 years...had enormous hype for all the right reasons...and met expectations. Note that it wasnt' the 6th movie in 15 years...also note that this movie came out when comic movies were still a bit fresh...also note that that trilogy was the first to show you could truly ground a character....all that stuff makes a difference. FACT.
We could argue this until cow comes home. Box Office Gross isn't always the indicator of how good a movie is anyway. People say spiderman 3 sucked because the movie sucked. Not because it had big 3rd weekend drop. Besides trolls...no one is saying Spiderman the movie was bad. I did expect it to better financially but the baggage this movie had from exhaustion had more to do with it than anything.
Even Scott Mendehlson at Forbes said he didn't like the movie. So nice try at an insult there about trolls, but it isn't true. Critics have NO credibility on the MCU ever since Thor Dark World got a fresh rating. There are lots of people saying this movie is bad or has major script problems. This board is filled with them. Check out Facebook for Box Office Mojo too.
I can see lots of gray and nuance that you can't. You can't see the gray in between making Amazing 3 and handing the keys to Marvel, e.g. rebooting the character yourself. My main point is that Sony didn't get what was expected from Marvel. They didn't get a very faithful origin story with very accurate costumes and mostly look-alike casting like we did in ALL the major character Marvel origin movies. They even gave Wasp her original haircut in Ant-Man for crying out loud. Something went terribly wrong and them using the producer of Thor Dark World on this one probably had a lot to do with it. MCU might be stretched too thin and is now losing their touch on some films. Sony got stuck with their C-team and the movie underperformed because of it.
Bottom line, I FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREE with you that "baggage" had ANYTHING to do with this movie not grossing more. It was 100% teed up to beat all the previous Spider-Mans IF the trailers hadn't looked so limp and unappealing to adults especially, if the sense of unfaithfulness to the mythos hadn't permeated all the promotion, and if the movie had gotten enough good word-of-mouth. You have failed to prove that premise time and time again. You have never been able to explain why a James Bond or Batman film can rebound massively from a previous weak entry but why this movie, with HUGE advantages, none moreso than this version of the character getting a big introduction in the biggest of movie of 2016, couldn't.
I don't pay to much attention to the numbers, but I did expect this much. This was one of those movies you watch once and you are done pretty much. People trying to defend it say, it's summer too many good movies out there bla bla bla. But if it was so amazing eff all that. The best is the best.
Anyways it was better than Andrew's spm. Tobey will always be the best spm imo.